The Clay Shaw trial testimony of Perry Raymond Russo

PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO, a witness called by and on behalf of the State, having been sworn and having testified previously, resumed the stand for a continuation of the CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, on direct examination yesterday did you tell the entire story as you recollected it in connection with the meeting which you say took place on Louisiana Avenue Parkway in September of 1963?
A: To Sciambra in Baton Rouge?
Q: No, on your direct testimony yesterday, when questioned by Mr. Alcock.
A: Well, what -- I don't know the -- exactly what information you want.
Q: I want to know whether you gave a complete account of this party and what has been termed a conspiratorial meeting when you testified on this direct examination under questioning by Mr. Alcock.
A: Well, I don't know, I answered the questions, I tried to answer the questions he asked. I don't know if there were any omissions in there, though.
Q: To your knowledge, in his questioning did he leave out anything?
A: Not apparently.
Q: In other words, you are not able to name anything that he did not cover in his questioning of you concerning this meeting and party. Is that right?
A: No, not immediately.
Q: I see. Now, Mr. Russo, during the meeting which you say took place after the other guests left, did you contribute anything at all to the conversation?
A: No, I was mot of the time going in and going back out down the street, down to the street a lot of times. I didn't hear the entire conversation.
Q: So you were in and out then during this time when you say these people were talking. Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: And of course you would not know what went on when you were out of the room, would you?
A: Right, no.
Q: Would I be correct then in saying, Mr. Russo, that you only heard portions or fragments of the conversation which took place there in view of the fact that you were in and out of the room?
A: Yes.
Q: And then you would not purport to have heard the entire conversation as a matter of continuity, would you?
A: No.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, referring to what you did hear of this conversation between the parties whom you say were Leon Oswald, Clem Bertrand and David Ferrie, was there ever any actual agreement to kill John F. Kennedy?
MR. ALCOCK: I object to the question.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection. That is a question for the Jury to decide.
MR. ALCOCK: My objection is based upon the fact that agreement can be reached between persons using different words, it is a meeting of the minds, and as the Court points out, this is something for the Jury to determine. This man can't state whether or not there had been agreement between these men, and additionally --
MR. DYMOND: I will break the question down, if the Court, please.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: In your presence, did David Ferrie ever agree to kill the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy?
A: He said, "We will kill him."
Q: He had said that many times before, had he not?
A: Right.
Q: As a matter of fact, he had made that direct statement to you alone, had he not?
A: Right.
Q: Did Leon Oswald ever, in your presence, agree to kill the President of the United States?
A: No.
Q: Did Clem Bertrand ever agree to kill the President of the United States?
A: No.
Q: Would I be correct in saying then that you never hear anyone actually agree to kill the President of the United States?
A: Well, when you say "agree," it is the problem, that is the word "agree," you know, I mean, all I do is hear people talking about it, I don't know if they agreed or not. It would seem to me they were in agreement as far as certain things were concerned, I don't know if they actually -- I can't remember either any of the three ever saying yes, this is how we will do it, let's do it this way.
Q: Did you ever hear anybody say, "We will do it"?
A: Dave Ferrie, "We will get him."
Q: "I will get him" or "We will get him," the same he had said many times before?
A: "We will get him," he didn't say, "We will do it."
Q: When was the first time you ever heard Dave Ferrie say that?
A: Oh, sometime in the Summer.
Q: Several months before this meeting that you have reference to. Is that correct?
A: Well, it was between, you know, June and July or August.
Q: When Ferrie told you this individually, as you have testified, did you ever agree with Ferrie that it was a good idea, tacitly go along with him?
A: I told him that it would be extremely difficult to do something like that, and that he didn't have much hope of success.
Q: Did you ever verbally indicate disagreement with the idea, Mr. Russo, when Ferrie told you this privately?
A: Well, I told him it would not be possible.
Q: But you never did say that it was not a good idea or affirmatively state that you would not help him, did you?
A: Well, all he was doing was lecturing, and he would state this -- there are two things, the front and the back of the auditorium, this idea of his, where the back man fires a shot just to attract attention, a real quick shot, and almost instantly a man in front fires a dead-end shot for the speaker, that would be in the front of the auditorium, and it was not much of a conversation, he just stated the facts. I said, "Well, that is impossible."
Q: And it was quite common for Ferrie to lecture in this way as you have put it, was it not?
A: Right.
Q: In all fairness, would you say he may have been just lecturing at this meeting?
A: I can't really say he was lecturing or not. He seemed to be talking with the Defendant and also with Oswald, with some exchange from him.
Q: Just as he had talked to you on previous occasions. Is that right?
A: On one occasion, yes.
Q: And actually there was some exchange on that occasion and you told him that you didn't think it would be possible and so forth, was there not?
A: Right.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, Dave Ferrie was what you would term an emotional man, was he not?
A: No.
Q: He didn't get excited and talk about things and repeat himself upon many occasions?
A: Well, he repeated himself on quite a few occasions, but he had a very good analytic brain, and, no, he did not get very emotional about things, he would talk at great length, at times he would get a little -- where he would be trying to prove a point and use his hands to get over the subject, whether it be about -- well, whatever he wanted to talk about.
Q: You would term him an opiniated man, would you not?
A: Opiniated, yes.
Q: Was he vociferous about his opinions, did he speak about them a great deal, he expressed his opinions a great deal, tried to convert people to his opinions a great deal?
A: In certain areas.
Q: What do you mean when you say "In certain areas," any particular --
A: He had a peculiar philosophy where his interests were. He had a peculiar philosophy in politics, he had, to me, a strange philosophy as far as the rationale of religious convictions, he talked a great deal about scientific things, but, I don't know what he talked about most of the time, he talked a little bit about cancer, he talked a little bit about -- quite a bit about hypnosis, things of this sort, those are the things that interested him and he did talk about them at some length, but at that time he was trying to prove a point, not really trying to convert someone, but he did know quite a bit about the subject that he talked about.
Q: Being the opiniated man that you say that Ferrie was and with this tendency to ex- press his opinions as you have described, is it not a fact that he would not be out of character at a party of this kind saying that the President should be killed and "We will get him," as he said many times before?
A: Are you asking me was he out of character for that?
Q: That is correct, yes.
A: No, I don't think so.
Q: In other words, that was something that you, knowing David Ferrie, would have more or less expected, isn't that right?
A: More or less.
Q: What you heard that night came as no great shock to you, did it?
A: No, I agree.
Q: As a matter of fact, Mr. Russo, if you had really taken this as a serious threat upon the life of President Kennedy, wouldn't you have gone and reported it to the FBI or the Secret Service, if you had really thought the President was going to be killed as a result of this?
A: Probably if it was the first time I ever met Dave Ferrie I would have, but this was preceded by 18 or 20 months.
Q: But in view of the fact that you knew Dave Ferrie, you didn't take it seriously, isn't that right?
A: Well, Dave Ferrie was the type of person you really didn't know whether you could take him seriously or not. In many instances he backed up what he would claim. If I could reflect back to Kenner, on that discussion on politics, where I was a Freshman or a Sophomore in college, I felt that I knew quite a bit about everything there was to know about political theory, and he just put me in my seat, he quoted book, chapter and verse, and later I found out he was right, I didn't look at the book and turn to Page 368, Paragraph 2, but in several ways he did back up what he said, and his hypnosis, he backed that up, I am sure it was not fake, I don't think it was fake or anything, and you couldn't really tell because some of the fantastic things that he said at the same time you could not -- I just sat there, I didn't have any real opinion whether he would back anything he said up, but I would not be surprised if he did because he had backed things up before.
Q: Actually, though, it was your knowledge or intimate knowledge of Dave Ferrie that kept you from taking this seriously enough to report it. Isn't that correct?
A: Let me just explain my position with Dave Ferrie. In other words --
MR. ALCOCK: I don't think that connects with the evidence in this case, he did report it to us.
MR. DYMOND: The witness is under cross-examination, I will get to the date of reporting, I full well realize he reported it to the District Attorney's office.
THE COURT: You may proceed. Mr. Russo was about to explain his answer, and you can go ahead.
A: In other words, Dave Ferrie was a character, not indifferent to it, but almost, out of -- somewhat I avoided the man mentally because he had a brilliant mind and he could sort of envelop and strangle a conversation or influence direction of thought because he might be able to prove it was wrong, and he did claim quite a few things that I didn't know if he backed up or not, he claimed he was in the Bay of Pigs to me, and I heard somewhere that he claimed that he was not. I don't know if he was in the Bay of Pigs, he claimed he flew down to Mexico and Cuba, these things I don't know, I could not test, but the problem with Ferrie was that along with the claims he had this appearance, he had no -- it looked to me no apparent purpose but on the other side of the coin he did back up the things, things that just -- when I came into contact with him, he did back these things up, he was well read in religious matters, he could quote book, chapter and verse on political stuff and things that I was interested in, and he did back himself up in this area, and he also had a medical lab. Now, I couldn't understand a man having a medical lab and not really knowing what he is doing down there, but he said he was a doctor or he had extensive knowledge in surgery and things of that sort, and what could he back up and what couldn't he, and I just pretended to be indifferent to his claims and talks and things like that, it just went in one ear and out the other, as far as validity I didn't know which way to take it.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: And for approximately four years you were indifferent to what you heard going on at this meeting, weren't you?
A: Approximately.
Q: And would you say it would be accurate to say this went in one ear and out the other?
A: Well, no, I am using that in the sense that what he was saying, whether or not to accept it, whether to accept it literally as to what he was claiming to do or what he had claimed to have done before, but between those, that period of time, Oswald died a couple of days right after Kennedy got shot, and when the FBI got on the television and said it was all over with, they had solved the crime or the Dallas police or whoever it was said that, quite a few people said that, I considered it a closed case, no one else was involved, interested, and I couldn't really point to Ferrie and say he was, I did not -- the FBI said everybody is cleared except Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby was not a fried of his or was not involved, and I --
Q: Mr. Russo, knowing yourself that you do, would you have remained indifferent for four years to what you considered a serious formulated plan to kill the President?
A: The plan, you know, as I told you, I was walking in and out, and the reason that I initially got into the thing was because of the D.A.'s office, which was mentioned in Baton Rouge, well, mentioned the name of Dave Ferrie, or his picture came in the paper, one of them, and the day before, I think it was the day before he died I wrote a letter, but I never mailed it until a couple of days later, and that is when it appeared to me that other people, Dave Ferrie for one, might be involved in the killing of President Kennedy.
Q: And you had been indifferent toward this thing for about four years up until that time, had you not, sir?
A: No one, right, no one contacted me.
Q: Actually, you had not really worried about it, had you?
A: No, I didn't worry about it.
Q: Actually you didn't really worry about it right after you heard it, did you?
A: When Oswald was arrested, I told a couple of friends that I knew him, or ir looked like I knew him, I thought it was the same guy, or when he was shot, one or the other, and then of course all the hurrah on the news and television and newspapers that he was the only man, I was finding out what the Warren Commission was saying -- that was next year.
Q: I am talking about the period between mid-September and November 22, 1963, you did not worry about this, did you?
A: Oh, between that period of time?
Q: Right.
A: No.
Q: As an American citizen, wouldn't you have worried, wouldn't you have been concerned if you had thought there was brewing a plot to kill your President?
A: Well, if I could answer it this way, Mr. Dymond, Judge Perez recently said something about, a year or so ago, that he felt there was a plot to kill him, and unless someone were to name a person, unless Judge Perez were to name a person that was involved, this man looked like -- I am going to arrest him and charge him with so and so, and if he were connected, I have heard people say that Judge Perez would be better dead than alive, better under the swamp than on top of it, I heard that on several occasions and quite often back in '63 and the prior years there was quite a few things that the schools were being -- the schools were being desegregated, there was a lot of hurrah about that and quite often I heard the remark, "If I had a gun I would shoot President Kennedy," or the no good so-and-so should be dead, so between September and November of 1963, again I put the remark on the shelf.
Q: Now, although you were a Republican, Russo, and I don't know whether you agreed or disagreed with President Kennedy's policy, but you certainly did not want to see him dead, did you?
A: No, sir.
Q: And as an American citizen, wouldn't you have worried between mid-September of '63 and November of '63 if you had actually thought that there was in existence a plan to kill your President?
A: Well, in mid-September, if I had thought again, again if I had met Dave Ferrie for the first time then I would probably have called the New Orleans Police or somebody and told them this is what I heard, take it for what it is worth, but I had known Dave Ferrie for a little while before.
Q: And because of your knowledge of Dave Ferrie, you didn't do that, you didn't see fit to do it, you didn't think it was necessary. Is that right?
A: That is one of the reasons.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, you say that there were ten or 12 people at this party before the crowd started to disintegrate.
A: About eight or ten.
Q: About eight or ten. Can you give me the names of any of those people other than Clem Bertrand, David Ferrie, Leon Oswald, and yourself?
A: Oh, there was this -- well, there were two Spanish-looking guys who I remember.
Q: You can't say who they were?
A: The were introduced, one name that I remember and the other name I am not sure, there was Julian, a Manuel.
Q: Of course you realize both of those are very common Latin names.
A: Yes.
Q: And you can't give us the names of any other people there?
A: No.
Q: Weren't you mingling in this crowd, wouldn't you associate with these people?
A: Not really.
Q: Were you standing off to yourself, or what?
A: No, essentially I would be talking or probably watching Dave Ferrie walk up and down when I was inside. Of course at that time that you are talking about I was inside.
Q: Were you fascinated about what you heard going on, why would that attract your attention?
A: Well, Dave Ferrie monopolized the conversation, he gave it impetus and direction, so to speak, and, for example, one night I was standing on the corner of Canal and Decatur and along comes Ferrie and some others, and I later on get the impression from talking to Allen Landry that they were going out to find something to do or something, and you could not exactly know what you could expect from Ferrie the next time, so he paces up and down the floor and talks about Kennedy.
Q: Hearing Ferrie talk is nothing new for you, you heard this on many occasions, had you not?
A: Well, I might answer that question a little bit better, he did have a fascinating way of talking or a mind, anyway.
Q: In other words, would it be a fair statement for me to say that there is no one alive and available to testify about this party that you can name except yourself and the man whom you have termed Clem Bertrand --
MR. ALCOCK: That is difficult for this man to answer.
MR. DYMOND: That he can name, Your Honor.
MR. ALCOCK: He named two, he does not know if they are alive or dead.
THE COURT: I think the objection is well taken, I can't repeat his testimony, Mr. Dymond, he just gave you the names of two persons.
MR. DYMOND: He gave me two very common Latin names, and if the Court please, there are probably millions of Julians and Manuels.
THE COURT: Just like John and Robert.
MR. ALCOCK: He named some other persons, Your Honor, I don't want to go into.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: So you don't know of anybody else you can name who could be called here to confirm that party or meeting, do you, Mr. Russo?
A: No.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, in the Sciambra memorandum, I take it you know what I am talking about when I refer to it like that?
A: Yes.
Q: In the Sciambra memorandum, you refer to this Leon Oswald as having dirty-blond hair. Do you say that that was an error when that was placed in there?
A: I had made a correction on that yesterday.
Q: Is it your testimony that you never mentioned the description "dirty-blond hair"?
MR. ALCOCK: I object, I am objecting to the question, Mr. Russo from the stand corrected that yesterday.
MR. DYMOND: Certainly I am not deprived of the right to cross-examine.
MR. ALCOCK: Not over and over the same subject.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it your testimony that in your conversation with Mr. Sciambra on the 25th of February in Baton Rouge, 1967, that you never gave the description "dirty-blond hair"?
A: Well, yesterday when I was correcting the memorandum, I think I said that the impression I gave to Sciambra in Baton Rouge, said he was a dirty beatnik style, I don't think I mentioned hair color, though I might have, it was probably toward the brown side, I don't think I could have said dirty-blond, although that would make it brown.
Q: You are saying you did not mention hair color at all or the dirty blond is incorrect, an incorrect relation of what you said with respect to hair?
A: I am saying probably both, but if it -- his hair was messed up, probably was not the color, but I don't think we did, I don't recall that we did go into the color, but if we did it would have been a brownish, of course dirty blond would be synonymous with brown.
Q: If you were asked to describe Leon Oswald's hair at this time, how would you describe it?
A: Brown.
Q: Brown, light brown or dark brown?
A: Oh, just brown.
Q: Just brown. Did you ever tell Mr. Sciambra that the man had a husky beard?
A: I made a correction on that, we talked about the beard, and as far as that word may have come up in trying to pull a word out of the air, trying to get a word to fit it, we never did to this day -- don't have a word because it was not a beard and not whiskers, it was something else, and we had a photo, I had to pull a word out to describe it.
Q: Are you still unable to give us a word to describe the beard?
A: No, but I would be open to suggestion about that.
Q: Would you say it was a bushy beard?
A: No, it was not a bushy beard.
Q: Would you say it was a neat beard?
A: No, it was not a neat beard because it had spots.
MR. ALCOCK: The witness testified, one, it was not a beard, it was something between a beard and a growth of whiskers, he never termed it a beard.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, the witness has not testified that there was no beard. I am trying to get him to describe now what kind of beard it was, and by his very testimony he cannot find the adjective for it, he said he is open to suggestion and I am suggesting a few.
MR. ALCOCK: This man testified yesterday, I remember it quite distinctly, he said it appeared to be a growth of whiskers two or three days.
MR. DYMOND: The man is on the stand now, and if the man wants to say that, let him say it.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: You would not deny that you described this man as having had a beard, would you, Mr. Russo?
A: On some occasions I have, although that is not the best word for it.
Q: And you still don't know what the best word is?
A: No, but, in other words, probably, and you have seen probably some people in town that have just long beards, that to me is a full beard, and they have this beard that Mr. Plotkin has which would not be it again, and that is not it either, it is just a growth, it could be called a beard and there were spots on it where it just -- he didn't grow hair.
Q: Would it be incorrect in terming that an unkept beard?
A: That would be it.
Q: That would be about as close as you could get?
A: Three or four days' growth.
Q: Now, you feel fairly confident in saying that this was at least a three or four-day growth of beard. Is that correct?
A: Oh, well, I mean, I can't really tell how long it was, that would be a good statement that I probably would stand by.
Q: Now, was the beard the same color as the hair that the man had, or was it darker?
A: It seems to be a little bit, just didn't seem to be the same as the hair.
Q: Now, just what difference would you describe as between the two, which one was darker and which one lighter?
A: I am not sure, I am not real sure on that, but it didn't appear to be the same as the hair.
Q: The beard?
A: It was not, in other words, it was not a fake beard, I didn't think, it could have been -- I mean, it just did not appear to be the same color.
Q: The beard, did it have any traces of white in it?
A: Of white, gray hair? Maybe, I don't think so, there were spots of white.
Q: Did the sideburns extend into the beard?
A: Well, it was a messed-up appearance, I don't really recall whether the sideburns did or not, or whether it was just messed up.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, with regard to your testimony that you saw Mr. Shaw at the filling station on Veterans Highway, and with particular reference to the Sciambra memorandum, and more particularly at the top of Page 3 of this memorandum --
A: Page 3?
Q: Right, you are going to have to go back to the previous page.
A: Page 2.
Q: Where the memorandum reflects that you saw Mr. Shaw in the Veterans Highway filling station some six months after a date in 1962, which would place it well before the mid-September meeting that you have described --
A: On Page 1 or Page 2 now?
Q: Page 2, running into Page 3, if you would read Page 2 you will get the continuity of it, six months from 1962, do you see what I am referring to now?
A: Yes, I have about what you are talking about, yes.
Q: I take it that you agree that this memorandum indicates that your seeing Shaw at the Veterans Highway filling station occurred well before mid-September of '63?
A: Yes, I said that I was wrong, I thought -- my initial recollection was that it was in 1962.
Q: In other words, the error you attribute to yourself rather than to the author of the memorandum?
A: The date, the date of it.
Q: Now, referring to the testimony in the preliminary hearing wherein you state that your seeing Mr. Shaw in the Veterans Highway filling station occurred after President Kennedy was assassinated.
A: Right.
Q: Is that the statement to which you subscribe at this time?
A: My initial recollection in Baton Rouge with Sciambra was that it was '62, and then I thought about it later on and then I told him it was '64, I think the early part of '64 or the middle of '64.
Q: So then on that event you have roughly a two-year error in your judgment as to when you saw Mr. Shaw on Veterans Highway. Is that correct?
A: On Veterans Highway, approximately.
Q: When did you discover that you were wrong about that?
A: When did I discover that I was wrong?
Q: Yes.
A: I am not real sure of when.
Q: Had you ever seen the Sciambra memorandum before coming to Court as a witness in the present trial of this case?
A: James Phelan showed it to me in Baton Rouge.
Q: Did you note that in the Sciambra memorandum when Phelan showed it to you?
A: '62, yes, -- I am not sure whether he had asked the question or not, but it was an error at that time because that was after the preliminary hearing, and after the preliminary hearing, you know, he came up the 18th or 20th of March, and he did point out some errors in it, or apparent contradictions, and I don't know if he pointed that out or not, but if he would have, I would have cleared that up for him.
Q: In other words, you are testifying now that you do not know whether in reviewing this memorandum with Mr. Phelan you pointed that out as an error. Is that correct?
A: If he asked me about it, I am sure I did, but it had been corrected by my testimony under the preliminary hearing which was a week before, or four or five days before.
Q: Mr. Russo, isn't it a fact that in your conversation with Mr. Sciambra wherein this memorandum was reviewed by the two of you, that you pointed out only a couple of minor, practical typographical errors and had a slight discussion with him on the question of how many times you had seen Mr. Shaw?
A: What are you talking about?
Q: When Sciambra reviewed the memorandum with you in Baton Rouge --
MR. ALCOCK: Objection.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Phelan, not Mr. Sciambra.
A: That was the -- he only pointed out a couple of things that he felt were apparent contradictions, and the major one was this twice as opposed to three times, if he would have gone down and -- word for word, we would have found by your count 26 notations.
Q: Isn't it a fact that he let you read the memorandum at that time and asked you to point out every error you claimed existed in it?
A: It is a fact we talked about three hours with the exception of a half hour in there, and during that period of time we talked quite a bit about the preliminary hearing, we talked about several other odds and ends of things that I knew and that are not important to the case, and then finally he said, "I want to show you this memorandum," and this was Sciambra's, and there are some errors, and I did not read it from start to finish, we had been there for two and a half or three hours, the District Attorney's Office had notified me he was coming up, and he did have this one word "twice" underlined or circled and underlined, and an arrow drawn to the side, and that is what I thumbed through and looked at it and he said, "Does everything seem correct," and I said, "Well, with some exceptions," I said essentially it seems some of these things we talked about in Baton Rouge, I said there were a few errors, and he said what about this, and he pointed out a couple of things like that, the big thing to him was that "twice." He said, "What about this," and I said, "Well, that was an error on Sciambra's part," I said, "He kept very few notes in Baton Rouge."
Q: It's your testimony then when you met with Mr. Phelan in Baton Rouge, that you did not read the entire Sciambra memorandum?
A: Word for word, absolutely not.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, to your knowledge, when did you first call to anyone's attention that there was a two-year error on your estimate as to when you said you had seen Mr. Shaw on Veterans Highway in the Sciambra memorandum?
A: I am not sure when I first saw this memorandum. Now, this is Sciambra's memorandum, and you could probably ask him when this -- he first showed it to me, but I am not real sure because I really didn't -- this was something that was in the background.
Q: Do you remember having called that two-year error to anyone's attention prior to yesterday?
A: Prior to yesterday, oh, sure.
Q: When?
A: Well, I called it to Phelan's attention back in '67, for one, I am sure that I had discussions with the District Attorney's Office, but I could not say exactly when, because that was just an error, initially when Sciambra came up he sat down with his briefcase and we talked for two hours, and after we finished he wanted to rush back and talk to Garrison, and we didn't have the greatest amount of time, so I don't know exactly when this memorandum was drawn up, on Monday, I think, the 27th, I don't even know when I saw it first, I know Phelan had a copy of it.
Q: Now, you testified just a moment ago that you were sure you called this to Mr. Phelan's attention.
A: Absolutely.
Q: Now, would that be during this meeting with you in Baton Rouge or during one of several other meetings that he had with you?
A: This was in Baton Rouge, I am sure we perhaps brought it up again in Baton Rouge, but he was up there for one night and that was it, and in New Orleans it was for several nights.
Q: It is your positive testimony that you did call that two-year discrepancy to the attention of James Phelan in Baton Rouge?
A: I didn't say it was a two-year discrepancy, I told him it was an error. Now, 1962, if he asked me about '62, yes, I told him, I might definitely -- I told him twice versus the three times, twice was the error on Sciambra's part for reasons I don't know, I made that clear to Sciambra, that was one of the reasons he asked me if I could come to New Orleans the following Monday, on the 27th. As far as the 1962, was concerned, if he asked me about it, because we didn't go over this word for word, I picked it up, he said, "Here, are you familiar with it," and I think I was familiar with it at that time, I had probably seen it before, and so I went down the line on it, not every page and not every word.
Q: When was it that you had a discussion with David Ferrie on Bourbon Street concerning his seeing Al Landry?
A: I will say 1961 or 1962.
Q: 1961 or 1962?
A: Yes.
Q: Would I be fair in saying late '61 or early '62?
A: Well, yes, you asked that yesterday, and I am not sure, you could probably ask Policeman Jano because he was the one that was involved with that particular case.
Q: Now, in this Sciambra memorandum, you relate the seeing of Mr. Shaw on Veterans Highway to the incident on Bourbon Street with David Ferrie, saying it was about six months after that that you saw Mr. Shaw on Veterans Highway. Is this entire relationship invalid, or what?
A: No, I don't relate anything, that is Sciambra's relationship there. I don't have anything to do with relating that together, and, secondly, as I was attempting to give some sort of continuity to him in Baton Rouge, when I said 1962, that was a flat error on my part, and which later on was corrected, and I am willing to admit it was an error, but as far as the words, I did not write those down.
Q: But when you say 1962 now, in connection with your dispute with Ferrie on Bourbon Street, that is not an error, is it, 1961 or 1962?
A: 1962?
Q: Yes.
A: Now, Landry went into the Air Force in '62, I think, and it was probably -- I don't, I have a tendency to say it was '61 more than '62, but I am not real sure.
Q: The statement that the seeing of Mr. Shaw on Veterans Highway was six months after the Bourbon Street incident with Ferrie, is that the part that is in error?
A: On the Veterans Highway, yes.
Q: Do you have any way of explaining that error, I mean, was it your error, Sciambra's error, or how did it come about?
A: Well, I was trying to give him some sort of continuity or understanding as to people he wanted names of, friends of mine, where did I know these people and these photographs, things of that sort, and I was attempting to give him some sort of a continuity on this thing, and when he wrote this memorandum, Monday, I think, and of course that is his concern there, he did not keep a great amount of notes, that is probably where the error came from, but he did keep just a legal pad, and he kept some scribbling on that.
Q: As a matter of fact, he took quite a few notes on the legal pad, didn't he, Mr. Russo?
A: I would not say so, no, I would not say quite a few.
Q: He had addresses and phone numbers and names which were rather difficult to spell, is that correct?
A: Well, Kershenstine is a name that is difficult to spell, but how many pages of notes do you have on that top pad, on your handwritten pad, please?
Q: Oh, I have quite --
A: You have a bunch of them, eight or ten, he did not kept eight or ten, he did not.
Q: How many did he keep?
A: Maybe a couple of pages, maybe a page, maybe two or three pages.
Q: You don't know how many pages he kept?
A: I do know that he did take notes or just very rarely scribbled on a piece of paper, on the yellow legal pad, but how much that eventually was, I could not see more than a page, two and a half or maybe three at the most.
Q: Did you ever see these notes Mr. Sciambra took?
A: No.
Q: But you are able to tell approximately how many notes or what quantity of notes he took. Is that right?
A: If I could use a pen and pencil, I will show you something. In other words, this is what he did, he sat there with his briefcase on his knees like this, he had a yellow pad of paper there and 20 or 30 photographs or how many photographs he had here, a couple of books underneath that, and, well, this is what he did, I mean, Sergio Acacha, and it was big handwriting, and he would take up this line and Tim Kershenstine, 943849, stuff like that, and he probably went on the second page, but I was not even watching, he did not stand there and copy about ten or 12 pages, and every word I said he didn't copy down.
Q: In other words, Mr. Russo, the notes that you saw Mr. Sciambra take would not have revealed the content of what you told him. Is that right, they were not sufficient?
A: That is what I would say.
Q: Therefore, there would have been no necessity to burn these notes to keep somebody from telling what you had told Mr. Sciambra?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor, this matter is not in evidence.
THE COURT: I believe you are assuming an answer that has not as yet been given.
MR. DYMOND: We withdraw the question. We are asking that the gun be brought in. Do you want to take a 10:00 o'clock break now?
THE COURT: Yes, now is a good time for a break.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

AFTER THE RECESS:
THE COURT: Is the State and Defense ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. ALCOCK: Yes.
THE COURT: Please check the bolt action.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: I show you a rifle which was exhibited to you yesterday by the State, and I ask you whether you are able to testify that that is the same type rifle that you saw Leon Oswald cleaning upon one occasion in the apartment on Louisiana Avenue Parkway.
A: That it is exactly the same?
Q: Yes.
A: No, I don't know if it would be exactly the same or not.
Q: Are you able to point out any difference between this rifle and the one which you saw him cleaning?
A: I did not look at the rifle very closely, I couldn't point out any difference.
Q: Now, in the course of cleaning it, did he have the rifle dismantled or was it all in one piece?
A: Oh, he was just polishing it or wiping it, it was all in one piece at that time.
Q: Was he polishing or wiping the wooden portion of the rifle or the metal portion, or both?
A: I don't know, I don't know which he was just -- he was just wiping all over, really, could have been polishing or just wiping, probably all over.
Q: And it's your testimony then that all that you can say is a similar rifle. Is that correct?
A: Right, and the bolt action of course, this right here, this sight is more like it, and this kind of a grain to it or plastic, something along this line.
Q: Now, do you recall the rifle that was exhibited to you during the preliminary hearing in this matter?
A: A little bit.
Q: Could you say that rifle was more or less similar to the one which you saw Leon Oswald with than this rifle?
A: No, this was more like it.
Q: Would you point out the points of greater similarity.
MR. ALCOCK: I object unless he is exhibited the rifle he was asking him to compare.
MR. DYMOND: I have asked him whether he remembers the rifle and he said yes.
THE COURT: If the witness has a distinct memory for it, he can answer the question; if he does not, that is something else.
THE WITNESS: As I said in the preliminary hearing, I said the scope on the rifle that I was shown in the preliminary hearing, the barrel was too big and also the end of the stock was indented, and the Oswald rifle was not.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Was not indented. Is this the portion of the stock to which you refer?
A: This part of it. In other words, had an indent on the one that I was shown, a groove, I guess, for the arm or shoulder and it was not that way with Oswald's rifle.
Q: I show you now the rifle which I am informed is the one which was exhibited to you in the preliminary hearing, and I ask you to show us on this rifle the indentation to which you referred.
A: Right here (indicating).
Q: I see, so you would say then that this rifle is less similar?
A: Right.
Q: However, you would not say either one of these rifles is the rifle that you saw Leon Oswald polishing. Is that right?
A: Right.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, at this meeting of mid-September, 1963, did you see any rifle at that time?
A: At that time, no.
Q: You did not?
A: No.
Q: So the only time that you actually saw a rifle was on a previous occasion when you visited the apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway and saw the man whom you say is Leon Oswald polishing a rifle. Is that correct?
A: Well, I saw what appeared to be a rifle bag when I was leaving, but the only time I saw the rifle was the first time you are referring to, yes.
Q: Would you describe the rifle bag to which you have made reference.
A: Well, I am not sure it was a rifle bag or not, and if it would have been, the gun had to have been dismantled.
Q: Approximately how long was this thing that you suspected of being a rifle bag?
A: I guess about three feet.
Q: About three feet long?
A: About three feet.
Q: You said it was not long enough to hold either one of the rifles?
A: No, unless it was taken apart. It may not have been, I am not sure.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, yesterday the State said that it would make every effort to locate the original of the letter written by Mr. Russo to the District Attorney. I would like to now be informed whether that letter has been located.
MR. ALCOCK: We have not been able to locate it, Your Honor. I don't know anyone who ever saw the letter.
MR. DYMOND: I take it then we can assume it cannot be located?
THE COURT: Find out from the witness to whom it was addressed and you said to whom it may concern, but how was the letter addressed?
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: To whom did you address the letter which you wrote on the 21st of February?
A: The inside letter was just "To Whom it may Concern," but the outside envelope was either to the District Attorney's Office or to the District Attorney Jim Garrison, 2700 Tulane Avenue.
Q: 2700 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana?
A: Right, 70119.
Q: 70119. You even had the Zip Code on it?
A: I don't know if I put the Zip Code on it or not, but I know for this area.
Q: You did have the correct address, 2700 Tulane Avenue?
A: Yes.
Q: You have confirmed that is the proper address of this building. Is that correct?
A: Well, I called Information from Baton Rouge to get the address, and that is the address they gave me, I called from Baton Rouge, called Information in New Orleans and that is the address they gave me.
Q: You say the letter was never returned to you. Is that correct?
A: No.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, I think you testified yesterday that Sandra Moffett was practically a constant companion of yours back in 1963. Is that right?
A: Well, you know, I will say the same thing I said yesterday, in other words, I did essentially the same thing every week, you know, and approximately with the same people, but sometimes, for example, I might not see someone for three weeks, but then I might see them for five days in a row, and at that time and under those circumstances I would consider it a constant thing more or less because no one, to my knowledge, except at certain times, left town, no one -- if I knew they left town, then of course it would not have been a constant thing, but no one, to my knowledge, had left town that I associated with.
Q: Was Sandra the only girl that you were going with at that time?
A: There was another girl, Marilyn Perer, that was on and off for a period of time up to '65.
Q: But you would say that Sandra was your primary or your main female companion at that time. Is that correct?
A: Well, I don't know, maybe. I am not sure of that. That is hard to say, you know, she thought so.
Q: Did Sandra think that you were not going out with any other girls at that time or not?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you lead Sandra to believe that you were not going out with other girls at that time?
A: She knew about Marilyn, she did not know that much about Adele.
Q: Adele Marquer?
A: Now, Adele Laporte then.
Q: But you did testify yesterday that Sandra was almost a constant companion.
A: I would consider it that.
Q: How long had this relationship gone on, Mr. Russo?
A: Until 1965.
Q: In other words, you went with Sandra very often then between 1963 and 1965?
A: Oh, no, before that, about 1960.
Q: About 1960 to 1965?
A: Right.
Q: So that would be four or five years?
A: Right.
Q: Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Now, where did Sandra live at that time during 1963, Mr. Russo?
A: She lived at several places, she lived around Canal and Broad, she lived uptown, she lived different places.
Q: Now, around Canal and Broad, would you be a little bit more specific?
A: You asked me that in the preliminary hearing and I really didn't know the name of the street. I think it was Cleveland Street, which runs parallel with Canal.
Q: Cleveland Avenue?
A: I think it is that broad Street, I think it is called Cleveland Street, it is one block or two blocks over Canal towards Tulane Avenue.
Q: You went with her for four or five years and did not know what street she lived on, Mr. Russo?
A: Again, well, she did come to my house most of the time.
Q: Well, when you would go up to Tulane, say, to play basketball or go to Loyola to play basketball and Sandra would go with you, wouldn't you go by her house and pick her up?
A: Sometimes, but, you see, she wanted to go over all of the time, from early in the morning or whenever I got home from school, she wanted to go over and sometimes we would pick her up, and I would say maybe two or three times we picked her up at that time.
Q: You only picked her up two or three times. How long did she live there?
A: I don't know how long she lived there.
Q: Approximately, I don't expect you to be exact.
A: I don't know.
Q: Would it be a year?
A: Well, probably a year.
Q: And in the space of --
A: Well, a relative of hers lived there, a relative of hers lived there.
Q: And with her living there almost a year, and she being almost your constant companion, you only picked her up two or three times, you say?
A: Understand, now, that the apartment on Elysian Fields where I lived, that is where all of the time people came over, they always came over there, we would have a small party or have a couple of drinks or something like that, or basketball, after a basketball game, everybody came over to that apartment, and it was just -- that was my routine, I didn't do it any differently.
Q: Now, as I recall your testimony on the preliminary hearing, you could not tell us what street Sandra lived on. How have you since found out it was Cleveland Street?
A: Well, I just went over there and I think it is Cleveland, I am not sure, but I know it is right off of Canal and Broad, and it would probably be the first or second street, and my recollection was that it was a one-way going towards the Lake, which would be Cleveland.
Q: You say you went over there and looked for the house, or what?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you find the house?
A: No, not so I could say it was the house.
Q: When was it approximately that Sandra moved away from that house, Mr. Russo?
A: I don't know.
Q: But your constant, practically constant companion lived in the same house for approximately a year and you could not go back there now and find that house?
A: Well, I went over there two or three times and I am not sure she lived there for a year, I suppose she lived there for a year. She didn't have a phone, she called me.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, you testified that you saw Ferrie approximately three times in the month of September, 1963. Is that correct?
A: I saw Ferrie?
Q: Right.
A: Oh, a couple more times that that.
Q: How many would you say now?
A: Oh, I don't know, about a little bit more than that, I don't think I testified to three times I saw Ferrie.
Q: Well, if you were asked now how many times did you see Ferrie in September of 1963 --
A: I would say four or five.
Q: Four or five times?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you tell us the first time that you saw Ferrie in September of '63?
A: Probably he came over to my house, I am not real sure, nothing is very distinct about it. It was the same, probably he came over to the house.
Q: You say probably, What are you basing that probability on?
A: Because I don't really recall, it was either, you know, just the same old stuff with baseball, because right around the time, the tail end of September we were playing for Parish Finance baseball team up at the Audubon League, and the League ended in August, I think, and we went on to play additional baseball or exhibition games, and it would probably have been the early part of September, I don't know the exact date or why he came over, just dropped in.
Q: As a matter of fact, Ferrie had free access to your house at any time of the night or day, did he not?
A: He would come over, no one had any keys or could get in without my being there.
Q: But he had an open invitation?
A: Yes.
Q: And you had an open invitation to his house, didn't you?
A: Right.
Q: Were you ever Ferrie's roommate, Mr. Russo?
A: No.
Q: You never were?
A: No.
Q: Now, before mid-September, 1963, do you remember any other specific occasions on which you saw David Ferrie?
A: Before mid-September?
Q: During the month of September.
A: He came to a couple of baseball games, he just stopped for five minutes, did not come to watch the ball game.
Q: Baseball games where?
A: We played at Rhome Park, Pontchartrain Park, Audubon, I don't know which park he came at, just walked up and looked, stayed a few minutes, said hello and left, he came over to my apartment several occasions during the summer.
Q: You are talking about during the month of September now?
A: Oh, no, I thought you were talking about before September.
Q: During the month of September.
A: I don't know if he came to any baseball games during the month of September
Q: Do you remember any other specific occasion upon which you saw him?
A: Definitely I the month of September?
Q: Right.
A: I would be deducting, but I probably saw him a couple more times, but nothing very distinctive about it.
Q: You can't remember any other specific occasions?
A: Except up at his apartment the four times, except those four times you are talking about, right?
Q: Well, when was the first of those four times?
A: Somewhere around the middle of the month.
Q: Around the middle of the month?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that the first time you had seen him in September at his apartment?
A: Oh, no, I don't think that was the first time, that was the first time he had any mention of a roommate, that struck me funny because I never heard him say he had a roommate.
Q: Now, to the best of your recollection, when was the first time during the month of September, 1963, that you saw Ferrie at his apartment?
A: Well, I would say, I mean, give you an approximate, early part of September, I don't know why I would say that, I couldn't associate anything with it, except that I was probably up there in the early part of September.
Q: You can just say you were probably up there, but you cannot say specifically. Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Now, prior to the middle of September, can you name any other specific occasions upon which you were at Ferrie's apartment and saw him?
A: Well, nothing specifically, I don't associate it with anything.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, in an attempt to pinpoint the date of this party and meeting, are you able to relate that to your registering for the September, '63 term of school?
A: No, it is in between a couple of things, the baseball season officially was over in August, and we continued to play and we played in through the first week of September, and then after that it was just practice, no teams were played, everybody was going over to school and between that and registration of the first week of school, that occurred up at Ferrie's apartment.
Q: You remember having registered for school in September of 1963?
A: Not specifically, no.
Q: For your information, registration actually was on September 14, 1963, and does that assist you in trying to pinpoint the date?
A: No, that would be all right.
Q: Can you still not tell us whether the party and meeting which you have described was before or after you registered at Loyola for 1963, the 1963 term in September?
A: No, it was before we got into -- as I just said, the first week of school, whenever we got past the preliminary stuff, registration is just, you know, just several hours you put in up there, sign up for your classes.
Q: Are you able to tell us what day of the week that this was, a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, this party and meeting that you have described took place?
A: No.
Q: Are you able to tell us whether it was on a weekend?
A: No, the weekend and the week days were about the same at that time, you know what I mean.
Q: Are you able to tell us whether it was the first, the second, the third, or the fourth week in September?
A: No.
Q: Are you able to tell us what time of night you got there and what time of night you left?
A: Well, I know it was late in the evening when I got there, I am sure it was after 12:00 o'clock when I left.
Q: Are you certain this was in September, or could it have been in October, Mr. Russo?
A: Could it have been in October?
Q: That is correct.
A: No, we would have been fully in class then, you know, classes would have been --
Q: Well, you still had time off when you were in classes, I mean, you didn't spend every --
A: Really, if someone wanted to pass over, it had to be a quick shot, except under rare circumstances. Again, in April, we would start all over, again playing for the baseball team next April, but not very often, just a five-minute session. If someone wanted to come over -- I did not go too much, except sometimes to basketball games, Tulane basketball games or football games.
Q: Now, it's your testimony that when you left this meeting, Leon Oswald was till there. Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Clem Bertrand was still there?
A: Right.
Q: David Ferrie was still there?
A: Right, he lived there.
Q: And you don't know how you got home from this meeting. Is that right?
A: I think I caught a bus.
Q: You don't remember?
A: No.
Q: Could somebody have given you a ride?
A: Probably.
Q: Had all of the other guests left?
A: They had left sometime before.
Q: They had left before you left?
A: Right.
Q: Could Ferrie had given you a ride home?
A: That is possible. But I just don't think so, he was not the type to walk out with people he had around him.
Q: You would not say that Clem Bertrand gave you a ride home, would you?
A: No.
Q: Could Leon Oswald have given you a ride home?
A: Oh, no.
Q: Well, then, would not it be a certainty that nobody gave you a ride home if everybody but those three had left?
A: Well, it is possible that one or the other gave me a ride home, but I am inclined to say I don't think so, I don't remember that. I am not sure how I got home. I could have hitchhiked home.
Q: Mr. Russo, do I understand you correctly that you say these three men, Leon Oswald, Clem Bertrand, and Dave Ferrie were the only ones left at that party when all of the other guests had left except you, and that you are not certain whether one of those men gave you a ride home?
A: If I could explain it this way, a few weeks ago --
Q: Would you please answer it and then explain it.
A: No, I am not certain who gave me a ride home. Last year Art Heyman of -- a basketball player for Pittsburgh, I think he plays for, he jumped into the stands and punched a guy for riding him, you know. I have a habit of riding basketball players just out of general practice, this is right now, I go essentially to the basketball games with the same people, and all of those people that I go with, that particular night they were asking me who I went with and how I got there, but I could not be altogether sure, but I can say Art Heyman jumped in the stands and punched the guy and he hit the wrong guy at that, but probably Joe Jackson was there and probably Philip Hatose was there and probably Niles Peterson was there and probably Cathy Walden and a couple of others, but which one of those I was with, I know I went home that night in my own car, but who said what, I am not sure, these people I associated with every day.
Q: And you would say that that situation is similar to your not remembering whether or not one of the three conspirators to kill the President of the United States rode you home form the conspiratorial meeting. Is that correct?
A: I don't call them conspirators, no, I don't know who rode me home, I may have caught a bus or hitchhiked or not.
Q: You do not call them conspirators?
A: I have never used that word.
Q: You would be reluctant to call them conspirators?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, did you say that you have or you have not seen David Ferrie since the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963, in Dallas?
A: Well, you are asking me from Sciambra's memorandum?
Q: I am asking you now --
A: That is absolutely incorrect, I gave the same answer I gave yesterday, I don't know where that came from.
Q: Do you have your copy of the memorandum, Mr. Russo? Now, Mr. Russo, I refer you to the statement contained in the last sentence of the top part on Page 6, to this effect:
"Russo says that he has not spoken with Ferrie since the assassination." Now, you say that is absolutely not true. Is that correct?
A: Yesterday I said that I didn't even know where this came from except in the mass confusion in Baton Rouge. I mean, I have seen Ferrie several times after the assassination.
Q: To your knowledge, did you tell Mr. Sciambra anything that could have been confused or mistaken so as to make him make a definite dogmatic statement like that in this memorandum?
A: No, not to my knowledge. I mean, perhaps it was just confusion.
Q: So you would not know where that statement came from at all, would you?
A: Right.
Q: But it is your testimony now that you did see and you did speak to Dave Ferrie after the President was assassinated?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Did you discuss the assassination with him?
A: I didn't discuss anything with him, no.
Q: You spoke to him, didn't you?
A: Well, again I am saying the same thing I said before, I listened to him, and that is what most of the conversations were about, his conversations.
Q: These meetings that you had with him there, these meetings were the same as many other ones have been. Is that correct?
A: Well, when I saw him afterwards?
Q: Yes.
A: Right. I mean, if he dropped in over at the house on Elysian Fields or something, yes, he would come in, he might be talking about -- well, he could be talking about anything.

;
Q: Where did you see Dave Ferrie after the assassination?
A: Probably -- I am almost sure it was over at my house several times.
Q: Over at your house. Where were you living then?
A: On Elysian Fields.
Q: Was it in keeping with the open invitation that he had that he came there at that time?
A: Well, everybody had an open invitation to come over, I guess their -- it was in line with that.
Q: So he did come into your house at that time?
A: Well, the side apartment.
Q: I beg your pardon?
A: The side apartment is attached to the house.
Q: Into your apartment?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he sit down?
A: I am sure he did.
Q: In other words, you had a visit with him. Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Now, upon that occasion, which was after President Kennedy had been killed, after what you had heard up on Louisiana Avenue Parkway did you have any occasion to discuss with Dave Ferrie at that time the killing of President Kennedy?
A: No, at that time he was very bitter, you know, or he seemed to be changed quite a bit than he was before. Of course before he had a good mind, but he apparently lacked purpose, that was my idea. Again in '64 or late '64, whenever he came over, he was just a different person, he was not the same like he was before.
Q: You didn't see fit to ask him whether he had killed President Kennedy or whether he knew who killed him or anything like that?
A: I didn't see fit to ask him anything, he talked and grumbled about the D.A., grumbled about the Police Department in general, grumbled about the FBI.
Q: What was he grumbling about with respect to the District Attorney?
MR. ALCOCK: I object to hearsay.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Was this the only time that you saw Dave Ferrie after the assassination?
A: I saw him a few times, I am not sure how many.
Q: Can you give us an approximation?
A: I saw him at the service station, you already know that and perhaps five, six, or seven times after that, not too many.
Q: Now, in all of these five, six, seven or eight times that you saw Dave Ferrie after the assassination, was there ever any discussion of the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: No. The times that we met were for very short periods, and he was a broken person in '64 and '65, I thought. When we met I was generally on the run most of the time because Charlton Lyons, this thing was coming up, of course that was, I think in March, and then they had the national elections and all that kind of stuff, Goldwater election in '64, and also this other thing I was involved in during the summer months, in '64 it was baseball, the baseball team, again in '65, and '63 and '64 was my graduating year, and whenever he came over it would not be more than three or four or five minutes at the most, maybe a little
[text missing?]
A: I saw him a few times, I am not sure how many.
Q: Can you give us an approximation?
A: I saw him at the service station, you already know that and perhaps five, six, or seven times after that, not too many.
Q: Now, in all of these five, six, seven or eight times that you saw Dave Ferrie after the assassination, was there ever any discussion of the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: No. The times that we met were for very short periods, and he was a broken person in '64 and '65, I thought. When we met I was generally on the run most of the time because Charlton Lyons, this thing was coming up, of course that was, I think in March, and then they had the national elections and all that kind of stuff, Goldwater election in '64, and also this other thing I was involved in during the summer months, in '64 it was baseball, the baseball team, again in '65, and '63 and '64 was my graduating year, and whenever he came over it would not be more than three or four or five minutes at the most, maybe a little bit longer.
Q: And to the best of your recollection, the assassination was never discussed. Is that correct?
A: No.
Q: Did he ever ask you, "For goodness sake, keep quiet about what you heard up on Louisiana Avenue Parkway"?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor, Mr. Dymond knows that is hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DYMOND: I don't think that is hearsay on Your Honor's previous ruling on a point of similarity yesterday.
THE COURT: The acts and declarations of each co-conspirator, a conspiracy, if one did actually exist, it was at an end after the commission of the intended crime.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling, if the Court please, Counsel for the Defense reserves a bill of exception, making the question, the objection, the ruling of the Court a part of the bill. Now, if the Court please, in order for me to perfect this bill, I am going to have to get an answer from the witness, which of course would have to be done out of the presence of the Jury.
MR. ALCOCK: There is no provision in the law for such a procedure.
MR. DYMOND: Unless we do that, the Supreme Court has no way of knowing in the event of appeal what testimony we were deprived of.
MR. ALCOCK: The question is quite obvious, what did this man say in 1964, and the objection is to hearsay, the Court has sustained it, and what he is going to say is totally immaterial. The Court can determine, I am sure, the Supreme Court can determine whether or not as a matter of law that was hearsay, whatever the response was.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, as you well know, whether it is hearsay or not would be completely immaterial to an appellate court unless the appellate court found it was harmful, prejudicial, to keep that out of evidence.
THE COURT: You are asking to have the Jury go upstairs so you can perfect your bill?
MR. DYMOND: They can go back in the anteroom, I can get this in a matter of 30 seconds.
THE COURT: Let me make one statement for the record so that the record will show what happened. The Court sustained an objection by the State on the grounds that the evidence sought to be elicited was hearsay, primarily because the conspiracy, if one actually existed, it was at an end after the commission of the intended crime; however, Defense Counsel requested the Court to remove the Jury so he could ask certain questions of the witness to perfect his bill of exception, and that is the status of the case as of this moment.
MR. DYMOND: I might say out of the presence of the Jury, and I would like to refer Your Honor to the Enganic (?) case with which you are familiar.
THE COURT: I prosecuted the case.
MR. DYMOND: Co-conspirators were held for the actions of co-conspirators after the actual commission of the crime.
THE COURT: The Code states specifically they are liable for the actions up until the time the conspiracy comes to a conclusion.
MR. DYMOND: Right up until the time of arrest, Your Honor.
MR. ALCOCK: Referring to the Code, Article 844 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Pro- cedure, I think that article is quite clear in where it states in Paragraph (b) a form of bill of exception shall contain only the evidence necessary to form the basis for the bill, and the only evidence necessary to form the basis for this bill is the pro- pounded questioning, my objection, and the Court's ruling. There is no provision in this law to have counsel have this question answered for the benefit of an appellate court, should it be necessary. If that is the case, Your Honor, any time Defense Counsel wanted to reserve a bill, knowing the testimony would not be proper, although the Jury might be removed, he could still get in what he wanted to get into the record.
MR. DYMOND: It's on the basis of that very article that we contend we do have a right to do this, this is testimony that is necessary to make up the bill of exception.
THE COURT: I will permit you to proceed in this matter for this reason: You feel that the answer to be sought from the witness may have a great bearing on your bill to be considered by the Court. I will permit you to proceed.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: At any of these meetings, wherein you saw David Ferrie and spoke with him, after the assassination of President Kennedy, did he ever caution you to keep quiet about what you had heard on Louisiana Avenue Parkway?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: That's all.
Q: THE COURT:
Bring the Jury back in.
MR. DYMOND: We will ask that that answer be made part of the bill too. Now, if the Court please, in the presence of the Jury, I would like to reserve my bill of exception, making the Defense question, the State's objection, the reasons for their objection, the answer of the witness which was taken outside of the presence of the Jury, and the Court's ruling and the entire record up until this point, parts of the bill.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, how many times in total did you see the man whom you termed Leon Oswald?
A: Four.
Q: Four times?
A: Four times.
Q: Let's go back to the first time that you ever saw him. Would you relate the circumstance surrounding that incident.
MR. ALCOCK: I object to this at this time. I realize that Counsel has wide latitude on cross-examination, but I feel that we have been down this path before, and that this is highly repetitious. We went into this yesterday, we went into this today, how many times are we going to go over this ground?
MR. DYMOND: This series of questions does have a purpose and will be connected up.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Would you give us the circumstances surrounding your first meeting with Leon Oswald.
A: Well, I went up to Ferrie's apartment, I think I was in Ferrie's automobile, and Oswald, or at least the guy I had never met was on the front porch rocking or sitting, and we went up the staircase into the house and he introduced me, and at that time he was polishing or wiping a rifle, and he didn't stay there long, he left after a little bit.
Q: You say you were introduced to him at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, had you arrived at the house with David Ferrie?
A: I am not sure, I think I did that night, but I remember he said something about the guy up on the porch, you know, at nighttime.
Q: You say this was nighttime. Is that right?
A: Oh, yes.
Q: Could you approximate the time of night?
A: No.
Q: Could you tell us approximately what date this was?
A: No, it was in September, right before the party, that was the first time I had ever seen the guy.
Q: You said it was in September of 1963?
A: Right.
Q: At that time did you have any conversation with Leon Oswald?
A: Well, there was antagonism, he just didn't seem to take towards being very social.
Q: Now, when was the next occasion on which you saw him?
A: A few nights later.
Q: About how many?
A: Two or three nights, three nights.
Q: Two or three nights later?
A: Yes.
Q: What were the circumstances surrounding that?
A: Well, I was coming back from uptown, I think playing basketball and we came in and everybody was, you know, the night of that meeting, with everybody --
Q: So the night of the meeting was the second time that you had seen him. Is that right?
A: Right.
Q: On the night of this meeting and the party, did you hear Oswald introduced to anyone?
A: The night of the meeting and the preceding night he was introduced to me.
Q: The night of the meeting and the party which preceded it?
A: The night of the meeting is the same as the party, right, and the previous time that I went up there.
Q: On the night of the party and meeting, did you hear Leon Oswald introduced to any of the other guests?
A: No, they were there already, I am sure he was, Dave Ferrie took pains to introduce him.
Q: Did you hear him referred to by name that night?
A: No, I don't think so.
Q: Did you know his name that night?
A: I had been introduced to him a couple of nights before.
Q: So you remembered his name?
A: It was the same guy, yes.
Q: Now, after the night of the party and meeting, when was the next time you saw Leon Oswald?
A: Several days later.
Q: Several days later. What were the circumstances surrounding that?
A: Well, I just dropped in, and he evidently was having trouble with his wife or something to that effect and I left.
Q: Who else was there?
A: Ferrie.
Q: Just Ferrie and Leon Oswald?
A: Right.
Q: Did you know his name at that time?
A: Well, it was the same guy that had been introduced to me.
Q: Then the last time that you saw Leon Oswald, when was that?
A: Just a day or so after that, a few days after that.
Q: What were the circumstances surrounding that?
A: Again I just dropped in, that was probably -- I was probably uptown, might have been the first week of class or would have been the registration time period or anything right along there, because I was going uptown for the last time, I think it was during the day.
Q: You heard his name mentioned that time?
A: No.
Q: Did you have any conversations with him?
A: No.
Q: It is your testimony thta he was about to leave for Houston at that time?
A: I heard the name Houston mentioned, I am not sure whether he was going, but he was leaving.
Q: Who mentioned the name Houston?
A: Dave Ferrie.
Q: Of course you knew that Leon Oswald's name was at that time, didn't you?
A: Right.
Q: Now, right after President Kennedy was assassinated, would I be correct in saying that you heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald on television many times, on radio and saw it in the newspapers?
A: Right, Well, that is in line with what I was asked on WAFB Television, the transcript you read to the Jury, about Lee Harvey Oswald. It is true that I did not know a Lee Harvey Oswald and I have stuck to that since. The guy that I knew was Leon Oswald, and when Sciambra showed me the photograph, essentially it was the same guy, but that was Lee Harvey's photograph there.
Q: Had you connected the two names at all, the identify, the fact that the two last names were identical before that?
A: I told a couple of friends of mine that I knew him or I had known him.
Q: Oh, you did?
A: Right.
Q: What friends did you tell this to?
A: My cousin recalled it, and probably I told several people that, but probably I am almost sure I told my cousin, because he mentioned it to me, and probably I told some people at school, but I am not sure who they were.
Q: Now, you have testified that Leon Oswald was Ferrie's roommate at that time.
A: That is the way Ferrie introduced him.
Q: And that is what you have termed Leon Oswald in your previous statements concerning this case, haven't you?
A: Oh, on the stand, yes.
Q: Now, I refer you to the second paragraph on Page 4 of the Sciambra memorandum.
A: Second paragraph, yes.
Q: Composing, on the fifth line of this second paragraph, I will read the statements made, "He said that Ferrie introduced him to someone he called his roommate. He said Ferrie mentioned his name but he can't remember it right now." Now, did you correct that statement when you went through the Sciambra memorandum making corrections yesterday?
A: I corrected the essence of the paragraph, although I don't have my copy here, but I corrected the essence of the paragraph, that this is some -- some of this essentially was previously what we were talking about and some of it was not, it did not clearly bring into focus what we talked about.
Q: Your testimony now, Mr. Russo, is that you did not tell Mr. Sciambra in Baton Rouge that you could not remember the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Is it my testimony that I did not?
Q: Is it your testimony that you did not tell Mr. Sciambra that you were unable to remember the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Are you asking two negatives now? I don't understand.
Q: I will try to rephrase it.
A: Would you put it in the affirmative, an affirmative question.
Q: Is it your testimony at this time that the statement contained in this memorandum to the effect that you were unable to remember the name of Ferrie's roommate is incorrect?
A: That statement is incorrect.
Q: Is that statement contrary to the statement concerning this that you made to Mr. Sciambra?
A: This is, well, part of it is right, part of it of it was not, it did not clearly bring into focus what we talked about.
Q: Your testimony now, Mr. Russo, is that you did not tell Mr. Sciambra in Baton Rouge that you could not remember the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Is it my testimony that I did not?
Q: Is it your testimony that you did not tell Mr. Sciambra that you were unable to remember the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Are you asking two negatives now? I don't understand.
Q: I will try to rephrase it.
A: Would you put it in the affirmative, an affirmative question.
Q: Is it your testimony at this time that the statement contained in this memorandum to the effect that you were unable to remember the name of Ferrie's roommate is incorrect?
A: That statement is incorrect.
Q: Is that statement contrary to the statement concerning this that you made to Mr. Sciambra?
A: This is, well, part of it is right, part of it is not. I picked the whole paragraph and said the essence of this paragraph is incorrect, some of it is right and some of it is not.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Sciambra that you knew the name?
A: Right, I did.
Q: Of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Right.
Q: Did you give Mr. Sciambra the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Yes.
Q: And still you do admit in his memorandum Mr. Sciambra says that you were unable to remember that name?
A: Well, I am not going to hold by that memorandum, that is for Mr. Sciambra to answer about that.
Q: I will ask you, you have read this memorandum over, you read it yesterday?
A: Right.
Q: Is there any statement in this memorandum identifying Ferrie's roommate as Leon Oswald?
A: Well, towards the back of the statement, as I recall it in there, I am not looking at the statement now --
Q: I ask that you look at the statement now and tell me where you can find any place in there where it does.
A: Leon is mentioned right in the back, but that is not when we mentioned it, the last page. Page 7, and that is the only place it is mentioned.
Q: Would you read the portion that you claim clarifies that.
A: Well, I am not saying it verifies it, but it is the only place he says that the name Leon really rings a bell, you see that on the third line, that is the only place it was mentioned in here.
Q: Now, is it your testimony that you told Mr. Sciambra that the roommate's name was Leon Oswald?
A: I told him, right.
Q: And of course you don't know why it would not be in his memorandum, do you?
A: No.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, I would like to ask you whether you were acquainted with certain people in connection with your acquaintance with David Ferrie. Did you ever know a man or boy by the name of Tommy Compton?
A: I knew one by the name of Tommy, but I don't know the last name.
Q: Do you know whether or not Tommy Compton ever roomed with David Ferrie?
A: Ever rolled what?
Q: Roomed, was a roommate of David Ferrie?
A: The only roommate that I know was Oswald.
Q: Did you ever know a man or boy by the name of Layton Martens?
A: I know him now, I did not know him then, no.
Q: When did you first make his acquaintance?
A: I guess about a year ago, a year and a half ago.
Q: Now, since your meeting Layton Martens about a year or a year and a half ago, did you ever have any conversations with him?
A: We have.
Q: In your meetings or your acquaintance with Layton Martens, your conversations with him, have you ever discussed this case, Mr. Russo?
A: Oh, a little bit.
Q: Mr. Russo, do you recall on August 15, 1968, picking up Layton Martens in your automobile as he was walking in the French Quarter?
A: Probably, you know, if I saw him on the street I would have stopped, I am sure.
Q: I take it you are not sure of the date?
A: Of the date, no.
Q: I am going to ask you whether you made certain statements to Layton Martens upon that occasion. First, referring to this case, "This is the most blown-up and confused situation I have ever seen." Do you recall having made such a statement?
A: Something similar to that, not exactly those words, yes.
Q: But you did say something similar to that. Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Did you also make this statement, "I don't think any of these people involved excepting Sheridan and Townley should be convicted of anything because they didn't do anything"?
A: No, what we were talking about --
Q: I am asking you whether you made that statement.
THE COURT: You --
MR. DYMOND: I will ask the answer to the question and then an explanation.
THE COURT: I was about to tell him that, answer the question, answer the question either yes or no and then you are able to explain.
A: Yes.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, if you care to explain, go ahead.
A: The explanation is this: During the period of '67 all the way up to the summer, there were three phonies that used to come over to the house, one was James Phelan, he had the pretense of being a newspaper reporter, he was attempting to interfere with the investigation, he was followed on his heels by Rick Townley of WDSU and Walter Sheridan, I guess he is of NBC and not WDSU, and right in quick succession these people came along, not attempting to report any news at all, attempting to create news or change testimony or to force a change in testimony or asking me to change it, things like that, and that is essentially what I was stating then, three people, of course, others too, but these three were serious, they told me they would cut Garrison down and he couldn't get elected dogcatcher, the only thing they were after was busting Garrison down to his knees. I told Layton Martens on several occasions essentially the same thing, I said that of course Phelan initially was trying to report the news, but where he went bad I don't know, and Walter Sheridan didn't report anything and Rick Townley didn't have any serious attempts to report either, they were trying to make the news, being like the midget that slayed the dragon or whatever it was. I don't know what role they were playing, but I told him, I said, "Rick Townley and Walter Sheridan, both of them are scum, and I would like to see both of these two in jail."
Q: But you did make the statement, "I don't think any of the people involved excepting Sheridan and Townley should be convicted of anything because they didn't do anything"?
A: Absolutely.
Q: You said that? I ask you whether you made this statement on that occasion: "I really didn't know Ferrie very well, but I did meet him, he was with Emilio Santana and another blond-haired man named Lauren."
A: Named what?
Q: Lauren, L-a-u-r-e-n.
A: I don't remember that name at all, I do remember, and in our discussions - I will skip Emilio Santana for a minute, no, that statement I did not make.
Q: You did not make?
A: No, I just wanted to answer your question. Layton Martens told me essentially, "This is the way I knew Dave Ferrie," and I said, "Well, I didn't know him like that at all, this is the way I knew Dave Ferrie," and he said he didn't know him like that, and his summation was that Dave Ferrie had these multi-aspects to his personality and having that, and I said, "Well, that is true, I probably didn't know him real well," because I didn't know any of the things he told me and they were alien, as far as my knowledge of Dave Ferrie, they were alien to his personality.
Q: I ask you whether you made this statement on that occasion: "I met Ferrie through Allen Landry's parents, his mother in particular, she insisted that Ferrie was a homosexual and was trying to take Al away from home, she hated him."
A: The Landrys?
Q: Yes.
A: Essentially that, yes.
Q: I now ask you whether you recall having seen Layton Martens approximately two days after the first incident which I have recalled to you.
A: Well, I am not sure of the date.
Q: More particularly on August 17, 1968, at approximately 11:30 p.m.
A: I am not sure of the date, no.
Q: But you did see him shortly after that?
A: I saw him on several occasions, yes.
Q: On your next meeting with Layton Martens, I want to ask you whether you made these statements: "I have made most identifications on the basis of photographs alone."
A: Well, absolutely right.
Q: The next one, "I am sure of the identification I made of Shaw but not 100 per cent. I want to meet with him to make absolutely sure, but I am afraid to. It could have been Banister and Lewallen."
A: No, that is absolutely false.
Q: You say you did not say that. Is that right?
A: Yes, I will give you what I said in line with that.
Q: All right.
A: James Phelan made it a big point that he felt it was Banister. Now, Lewallen's name did not come up until Walter Sheridan, Rick Townley showed a picture of Lewallen to me, but Phelan made a big point of this, and I was talking to Martens about it and I told him essentially that I said I was sure 100 per cent, but I said in a case like this you have to be sure 1,000 percent, and I said that Phelan went as far as setting up not an appointment, but over in Biloxi, which the D.A.'s Office knew about because they bugged the house, they had it watched and they had tape-recorded the conversations, but they knew, and Mr. Phelan was going to set up in the Town of Biloxi or Gulfport of Bay St. Louis where the Defendant would be there and I would happen to drop into the same motel or something along that line, and I told Layton Martens in a case as serious as this, you would have to be 1,000 per cent sure although it was impossible to be that, but I was 100 per cent sure. Does that make sense?
Q: Isn't it true that you asked this meeting with Shaw be set up?
A: You are talking about with Phelan?
Q: I am talking about the meeting with Phelan.
A: I am not real sure of who initiated that. I added it probably in a general sense, and he said, "Well, -- the best way and the impossible way of course would be for me and Shaw to get together, I said if that is possible, and I said it is not, and he let it drop, and Phelan came the next day and said, "Well, I have it set up for this weekend, I can get Shaw to go over to Biloxi or be in Biloxi," and he said, "You can just drop in," and I said, "Well, that won't work because Shaw would have a wall that thick in front of him, it would serve no apparent purpose, the only way you could know a person is to have it unmolested and unharassed, and in the particular position he is in, it just would not be a free conversation.
Q: Shaw agreed to meet with you on that occasion didn't he?
A: I don't know if Shaw did or he didn't. I am just telling you what Phelan said.
Q: But you did want, you did want to meet with Shaw to get 1,000 per cent sure as you have said. Is that correct?
A: No, I said I was 100 per cent sure, but I say in a case of this magnitude, I was talking about from my own aspects, so much pressure being applied from people, from WDSU and from NBC and of course James Phelan, just a tremendous amount of pressure to alter your testimony, because they were sure they were right, they were sure that Shaw was not there and it was probably Banister or Lewallen or somebody else, maybe, and that I said in a case of this magnitude, you should be 1,000 per cent sure, but in a criminal court you can't be, you can only be 100 per cent.
Q: Would it be fair for me to say you wanted to be surer than you were?
A: Would it be fair to say? No, it would not be fair to say that, no.
Q: Well, 1,000 per cent would be more sure than 100 per cent?
A: In a different way, it is this way: I went into great explanation with Phelan, I don't know if I talked to Layton Martens about this, but I went into a long explanation with Phelan from the period of February 25th on, when I saw him it was late -- well, May, and of course Townley and Sheridan were in June, but I went into a long explanation of black versus color about what I thought of the whole situation, I said this had been a personal turmoil for many people of course as well as for the Defendant too, but as many people that were calling, I didn't mind Ken Elliot or Alec Gifford or Jim Kemp, they would just ask questions and let it go at that, but these people from WDSU didn't, they tried to alter the news and gt down to making the news, and I was not only 100 per cent sure because I said that instantly upon seeing Mr. Shaw stick his head out of the door on 1313 Dauphine Street, but I said it would probably be -- this is theoretical, and of course this is just theoretical, it is a good thing if you could be 1,000 per cent sure.
Q: Well, 1,000 per cent in your way of putting it would be surer than 100 per cent?
A: Well, 100 per cent is completely sure.
Q: What do you mean by 1,000 per cent?
A: 1,000 per cent is something that you can never reach, if you really want to know. Let's suppose there is a man that is walking around in the City of New Orleans 54 or 55 and has white hair and the same structure, the same physical structure, let's suppose there is a man, I haven't seen him, I have seen the Defendant. Now, that I am sure of, and I saw him at Dave Ferrie's apartment and I saw him with Oswald and Ferrie and they shot the breeze about killing the President. No, if there is a man and he would walk into this door right now and he would look similar to the Defendant, then I would have to think it over, but at this point I am absolutely sure 100 per cent that the Defendant is the man that was there.
Q: You say the Defendant is the man who was there shooting the breeze about killing the President. Is that right?
A: Right, in September you are talking about?
Q: Now, to use your words, Mr. Russo, didn't you say that you would like to get in a room with Shaw and hear him talk and --
A: Again I want to get to the theoretical concept of justice that I have, yes. The best thing to do would be to get into a man's mind and think what he thinks, but that is not possible either, and I was trying to give an example of this to -- if you are referring to Layton Martens, I am referring to James Phelan because I told him the same thing essentially, the thing in you can never be too sure.
(A pause in the trial while the Reporter added a new pad of Stenographic paper.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, did I understand you to say that this last statement here, "It could have been Banister and Lewallen" was impossible because you didn't know of Lewallen at that time?
A: No, Rick Townley showed me a picture of Lewallen, and I think the District Attorney's Office showed me a picture of Lewallen, but they didn't name anybody, they just showed me pictures.
Q: Did the picture that you were shown have a beard on the face of Lewallen or not?
A: Rick Townley's picture, yes.
Q: Do you recall the picture of Lewallen having been shown to you by me during the preliminary hearing in this case?
A: Oh, yes, you showed it also, right, correct.
Q: So, as a matter of fact, you did know about Lewallen, you did?
A: You did show it to me.
Q: At the time you were talking with Layton Martens?
A: This is '68, right, you are giving me a '68 date, August?
Q: August 17, 1968.
A: You are right.
Q: Now, you say the District Attorney also showed you a picture of Lewallen. Is that right?
A: The District Attorney?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, I guess. Now, I am not sure.
Q: Did that picture have a beard on it or not?
A: Well, I have seen so many pictures, I suppose one of those, and there were several with beards on them, several people.
Q: Did the District Attorney ever put a beard on the picture of Lewallen, that is, draw it in and in either ink or pencil?
A: No beards were put on any pictures, and I don't know, no one was identified in the pictures.
Q: The only picture that you saw a beard put on was the picture of Lee Harvey Oswald. Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Now, I am referring to the same occasion of your talking with Layton Martens now, Mr. Russo, and I will ask you if you made this statement: "I am afraid to make any move because no matter what move I make, one side or the other will come after me resulting in criminal actions against me."
A: What do you want to know?
Q: Did you make that statement to Layton Martens?
A: No.
Q: You deny that?
A: Yes.
Q: I ask you whether you made this statement: "I was supposed to be given $25,000.00 by Garrison."
THE COURT: When you bring up prior contradictory statements, you have to acquaint the witness of when it was said, to whom it was said, and under what circumstances.
MR. DYMOND: We have done that, Judge.
THE COURT: You haven't been as to who --
MR. DYMOND: All of this is to Layton Martens.
THE WITNESS: I do.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: "I was supposed to be given $25,000.00 by Garrison for helping him out, but thus far I have only received $300.00."
A: All right, now, yes, I said that.
Q: You did say that?
A: Yes, and there needs to be a long explanation of that one. Phelan asked me about that, WDSU asked me about that, and Walter Sheridan told me, you know, I was getting money, and I in 1968, when I talked to Layton Martens, I said, "These characters said that, they felt I was getting paid paid off," two rumors, one I was going to get $25,000.00 and the other I had gotten $5,000.00 before and I would get $5,000.00 after the Defendant was convicted, those were the two rumors, but, you know that guy from WDSU had the gall to ask me that, and so if I said that, he just was cutting off the first part of the sentence, I said they said I was getting $25,000.00.
Q: You deny that you told him that you were supposed to be given $25,000.00 by Garrison for helping him out, but that thus far you had received only $300.00?
A: Absolutely. With the understanding that, you know, like I told you I said it.
Q: Now, as a matter of fact, as of that date, had you received $300.00?
A: In August of 1968?
Q: That is correct.
A: During the preliminary hearing I was down here for about -- before the preliminary hearing a little while, right afterwards I was here for about three weeks with no -- doing no work at all, and the District Attorney covered expenses up to $300.00, and twice after that, once with the Dean Andrews trial, while I was on subpoena, and I think the District Attorney's Office, some kind of check for about $45.00 or $50.00.
Q: How long were you here for that time?
A: Four days, I think, four days, and there was only one other time, similar amount.
Q: When was the other occasion?
A: I can't -- a hearing that you were having.
Q: And what was the total amount you received on those occasions?
A: Approximately the same amount, $50.00 or $60.00 or $70.00.
Q: On each occasion?
A: No, two, one was about $50.00 the other was $60.00 or $70.00, and the other before the preliminary hearing for three or four weeks, I missed work, they paid $300.00.
Q: Now, I ask you whether on that same occasion you made this statement to Layton Martens "I am going to California very soon to get away from this."
A: Absolutely, I made that statement. Do you want to know why? I had been planning to go to California since Mr. -- before Mr. Shaw was indicted, I planned to go to California that summer, and there were several hearings of course, and the trial was delayed and I put it off until the next summer, and there were more hearings and the trial was again delayed and I put it off to this coming summer, "to get away from it all," absolutely, but I had every intention of returning.
Q: I want to ask you whether you made that statement to Layton Martens on the same occasion "I am not real sure if they were plotting against Castro or Kennedy."
A: A qualified yes, very qualified.
Q: Did you, first of all, did you make that statement, Mr. Russo, and then you may explain it.
A: Well, all right, yes, let me put it yes and I am going to say no afterwards, and I want to say yes, but it depends, in other words, Ferrie talked about Castro too, you see, and he thought Castro was a good thing in Cuba, but he wanted to replace him, he thought Che Guevera was better and actually what he wanted, he had a long philosophy about that too, and I told Layton Martens, I said they were plotting both to get Castro and Kennedy, and I said of course with these broad generalizations they were talking about, no specifics at all as to when and where, and they were plotting to get Castro too as well as Kennedy.
Q: So actually you told him, you were referring to the night in question on Louisiana Avenue Parkway, weren't you?
A: No, referring to the whole year.
Q: The whole year?
A: The time I knew -- that year intensively during the summer.
Q: Referring to the summer of 1963?
A: '63, right, I mean, Castro was mentioned probably up there at the meeting where the Defendant was, but not a great -- I don't remember anything specifically being said about Castro, but I know days before Ferrie talked about Castro, sometimes he talked about the Gueverian Reform was a good thing, sometimes he talked about the economics of Cuba and sometimes he talked about Castro had to go.
Q: So when you told Layton Martens that you were not sure whether they were plotting to get Kennedy or Castro, you were referring to the summer of 1963 in general?
A: It would probably be the whole thing.
Q: Were you referring to any other time that more than one person got together and planned to kill somebody, and if so, what specific time?
A: No, nobody much talked around Ferrie. He came over and said quite a few things about killing people or killing Presidents.
Q: Now, during the summer of 1963, did you attend any other parties or meetings where there would have been anything that went on that could have been interpreted as a plot to kill anyone?
A: No, except broad generalized remarks that Ferrie made. It was not at a meeting or party or anything else, sometimes he would pass over, and if I happened to be reading or studying or working with the basketball team or anything like that, he might get on the subject.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, in your statement that you made to Layton Martens, you said you were not sure whether they were plotting to kill Castro or Kennedy, and in using the word "they," you would be referring to more than one person, would you not?
A: Right.
Q: Therefore, you would not have made that reference had you been referring to only David Ferrie having made the statement, would you?
A: Oh, well, I mean if I am including the whole year, surely I would say "they," because we did not break it down.
Q: And your statement referring to the entire summer of 1963 and not knowing whether they were plotting to kill Castro or Kennedy would have included the party up at David Ferrie's house and the meeting that you described which took place after. Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, is it your testimony that you did not know James Lewallen at all?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Mr. Russo, I show you a photograph which I have marked for identification "D-10," purporting to be a photograph of James Lewallen, and I will ask you whether or not that looks familiar to you.
A: No, I have seen a similar photograph.
Q: To your knowledge, have you ever seen the person depicted by that photograph?
A: No.
Q: I take it you never talked to him either then. Is that right?
A: No, I don't think so.
Q: Now, I show you another photograph which I have marked for identification "D-11," purporting to be a photograph of the same person and ask you whether you recognize the person depicted by that photograph.
A: This, the smaller photograph, D-11, looks like that I could have possibly seen this man, but not "D-10."
Q: Referring to the photograph which I have marked for identification as "D-11," would you say that the hair shown on the individual in that photograph was just about as thick or thicker or not as thick as the hair of the person whom you have described as Leon Oswald?
A: No, I'm not real sure of the differences, it seems that the other hair was messed up -- I couldn't say if it was lighter or heavier.
Q: I am not referring to color, now.
A: No, well, thicker or lighter?
Q: I will ask you the same question concerning the photograph marked for identification, "D-10."
A: This looks a little heavier.
Q: That would be heavier than the hair of Leon Oswald?
A: Right.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, in connection with the testimony of this witness, we would like to offer, file, and produce in evidence the two photographs which we have marked for identification "D-10" and "D-11."
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. ALCOCK: No objection.
THE COURT: Let them be received in evidence.
(Whereupon, the photographs offered by Counsel were duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-10" and "Exhibit D-11" and received in evidence.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you ever know a man or a boy by the name of Alvin Beauboeuf?
A: No, sir.
Q: Have you been introduced to a person at David Ferrie's house by the name of Alvin Beauboeuf?
A: No, not that I know of, I have only seen one picture of Beauboeuf in the newspaper, and from that picture I don't know.
Q: Would you be willing to state that during the year 1961, the year 1962 and the year 1963, that Alvin Beauboeuf never lived with David Ferrie?
A: Would I be willing to state that?
Q: Yes.
A: I don't even know him.
Q: During those years, were you in a position concerning your association with Ferrie, to be aware of the fact that a particular individual was living with him?
A: No, I would not be aware of that, no.
Q: During which of those years do you feel that you would have been aware of --
A: Only when he told me. You see, always he had people around him, sometimes he had Spanish people, sometimes younger people, he always had people around, and if you wanted to pick out one of them, this guy is his roommate for six months and this guy is the roommate for the next six months, the only time I ever knew he had a roommate was this guy Oswald.
Q: During the year 1963, considering the frequency of your visiting at David Ferrie's home, do you fell that a person could have been living there with him without your knowing about him, living there for a period of six months or more?
A: Conceivably.
Q: Did you ever know a man by the name of Melvin Coffey?
A: I never seen a picture of him, I have been asked that before.
Q: I take it you never met Coffey in person?
A: Not by name, I haven't seen a photograph that I could really tell you that anyone ever told me this is a photograph of Melvin Coffey. I never heard that name.
Q: Did you know Maurice Brundy?
A: I do now.
Q: Did you know him back in 1963?
A: No.
Q: Did you know any of Dave Ferrie's friends?
A: Well, they had many worlds, even Layton Martens said that, many worlds they belonged in.
Q: Well, I will be more specific and ask you whether you knew of the friends who frequented David Ferrie's home during the year 1963.
A: Some, not by name, I didn't see them, you know, I would just see people.
Q: Did David Ferrie introduce you to people at his home?
A: Yes.
Q: And you don't remember any names?
A: Nobody stuck out, it was just the same crew, if he was over at the house he just was with one or two people most of the time, none of these people ever amounted to anything.
Q: Is it your testimony that you cannot now name one friend of David Ferrie's whom you met at his home other than Leon Oswald and Clem Bertrand and the two Mexicans?
A: There was a young guy named Tommy, it might have been the Tommy that you were referring to, I don't know, that would be about all of the names that I would want to say definitely.
Q: You can't name any others?
A: No.
Q: You had an open invitation to David Ferrie's house and he had an open invitation to yours?
A: As I stated in the preliminary hearing and what I said to you, of the 20 or 30 times that I was over there, I might have not stayed over five minutes on half of them or two-thirds of them and the other few times I did stay for some period of time.
Q: Have you ever known a man by the name of Guy Banister?
A: I have seen him somewhere, I have seen photographs of the man. I have seen him some- where.
Q: Did you say that you have met Guy Banister, or have you just seen pictures of him?
A: I have seen him but just where I am not familiar it may have been with Ferrie, I don't know.
Q: You can't tell us where you saw him with Ferrie?
A: Well, I am not sure it was with Ferrie, I have seen him somewhere, though.
Q: Mr. Russo, I show you a photograph which I have previously marked for identification "D-1," and ask you whether this is the person you remember having seen as Guy Banister.
A: Well, I mean, I never saw anyone as Guy Banister, but I think I have seen this man, yes.
Q: I show you another photograph of the same individual which I have marked for identification as "Defense 2," purporting to be a photograph of Guy Banister, and ask you whether you have seen that man.
A: Right, I think I have.
Q: I ask you to search your memory and tell us whether it is possible that you can tell us where you saw Guy Banister and under what circumstances.
A: Well, I thought about this for a long time, and I just can't place him, I was thinking politically, perhaps, and I said no, I didn't see him anywhere there, and I thought about Ferrie, and it is possible that I could have seen him with Ferrie, but I am just not sure where I had seen this man before.
Q: Would your memory be able to tell us if you saw him with Ferrie, possibly where he was?
A: If I could remember I saw him with Ferrie, probably I could think of where, I am sure.
Q: Are you unable to do that?
A: I thought about this for sometime, I know I was never formally introduced to him.
Q: Do you recall whether or not this man had a hat or when you saw him?
A: No, I don't recall.
Q: Do you recall whether he had white hair --
A: Whether he had white hair?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: He did have white hair. Do you recall approximately how tall a man he was?
A: Oh, no.
Q: Do you recall his approximate build and weight?
A: No, I don't, but I have a feeling, though, I don't want to stand by this, I have a feeling he was in -- might have been in an automobile that I saw him in around the house, I am not going to say that.
Q: Would you be able to recollect as to whether he was a fat man, a skinny man, or a normally-built man?
A: No.
Q: You would not?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please at this time, we would like to offer, file, and introduce into evidence the two photographs which have been previously marked "Defense 1" and "Defense 2," but have not previously been introduced.
MR. ALCOCK: They haven't been identified, have they?
MR. DYMOND: They have been identified as photographs of Guy Banister and the witness said he may have seen him with Ferrie.
THE COURT: I will receive them in evidence.
(Whereupon, the documents referred to by Counsel as "Exhibit D-1" and "Exhibit D-2" were received in evidence.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, have you ever known an attorney by the name of G. Wray Gill?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever known an attorney by the name of Jack Wasserman, W-a-s-s-e-r-m-a-n?
A: No, I don't think.
Q: Never had?
A: No.
Q: Now, getting back to you testimony of yesterday, did you state that you very frequently played basketball up at Tulane and Loyola in the evening?
A: Well, once or twice a week.
Q: And I think you named a group of people with whom you usually played. Is that right?
A: Well, this was over a period of several years, yes.
Q: Would you mind naming these people again?
A: That I played basketball with? Well, Kenny Carter, Joe Cook, Butch Larone was there, King, Louie Gremillion, David Evelyn, my cousin, Lefty Peterson, O.J. Lecour from Tulane.
Q: How about Mike Ogden?
A: Oh, no.
Q: You didn't name him yesterday.
A: That, I was trying to -- let me clear that up so I might be able to explain that. He was in relation to the political stuff, he was a Republican, I knew Mike, that is the only way I knew him. That was about getting involved with the Republicans in late '63 and early '64 when I started getting involved with the Republicans.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, if you had thought that this was a serious threat on the life of President Kennedy which was hatched up on Louisiana Avenue Parkway, would your loyalty to David Ferrie have prevented your reporting it to the local authorities?
A: Well, I had no loyalty to David Ferrie.
Q: So I take it it would not have prevented your doing so. Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Would there have been anything to prevent your reporting it to the local authorities at that time in order to possibly prevent a tragedy, if you had considered this a serious threat, it a serious threat?
A: Right about September, before November?
Q: That is correct.
A: For a while, no.
Q: Would I be fair in explaining your reason for not reporting it by saying that you did not consider this a serious threat to the life of President Kennedy?
A: Well, you don't know how to -- in other words, you could not tell how to take Ferrie, you know, whether it was an academic discussion or whether it was something serious, there was always the key to his personality. Quite a few things he did back up and quite a few things I don't know if he did or didn't, but some of them were so fantastic such as invading Cuba, I couldn't tell if he was going to invade Cuba or not, and my tendency would be to say that he would not, and so, I mean, when it gets down to sitting down and talking with a man and saying if he is serious or not, it's hard to say. I mean, it is just hard to say.
Q: As a matter of fact, I believe Ferrie even made a one-man submarine propelled by paddles which were operated with your hands. Is that correct?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, that is not in evidence.
THE WITNESS: I don't know if it is, I heard --
MR. ALCOCK: It is assuming something that is not in evidence.
MR. DYMOND: I withdraw that.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, I take it then that you didn't know whether they were just shooting the breeze, whether this was a bull session or what it was?
A: Correct.
Q: And you just didn't consider it important enough to report. Is that right?
A: Right.
Q: Mr. Russo, referring now again to the Sciambra memorandum, and more specifically to the third paragraph --
A: Page what?
Q: On Page 1, on Page 1, yes, this statement, "Russo said that he and Landry and a small group of other boys used to always pal around together, and that it was common knowledge to everyone that Ferrie was a homosexual, and that Russo and his buddies were trying to alienate Landry from Ferrie." I think you corrected that yesterday by saying that you had never said that Ferrie was a homosexual.
A: I said that Ferrie had never said that, Ferrie --
THE COURT: You said Ferrie never admitted to you --
THE WITNESS: He never stated anything near along those lines, although I didn't go into this, this is not exactly the situation either.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Yesterday you said that you had not said that Ferrie was a homosexual. Isn't that right?
A: I said that Ferrie had not said that.
Q: And are you saying now that Ferrie never admitted to you he was a homosexual?
A: Oh, no.
Q: Never. I refer you to the same Sciambra memorandum on Page 4, approximately 15 lines from the bottom of the page, wherein you have given an account of Ferrie having told you he used an aphrodisiac on his roommate that aroused the roommate sexually and he had intercourse with his roommate. Is that correct?
A: No. The only -- he said it worked like a -- that is the nearest he ever came to saying it, I made a point of this down in New Orleans, probably, the nearest he ever came to saying that, but he didn't say anything about intercourse at all.
Q: Is that another correction?
A: Right down on Page 2, this is the same thing essentially, I figured I corrected that here on Page 2 at the bottom sentence, "He also said that Ferrie essentially confessed to him he used hypnosis for sexual purposes," I said that is not correct, and another thing, on Page 3, "He also admitted to Russo for the first time that he was a homosexual and he wanted to know if Russo would be willing to take a drug," and I said that is incorrect.
Q: That is absolutely not correct?
A: Right, and, you know, I just say that --
Q: Now, this statement which I shall read to you right now, "Ferrie told Russo that he had been trying the aphrodisiac drug on his roommate and it worked perfectly, he said that he and his roommate laid in bed naked and he gave the drug to his roommate and the roommate became very passionate and aggressive and had intercourse with Ferrie." Are you now saying that is an incorrect statement?
A: I covered it essentially with the first two, this is what -- "Ferrie told Russo that he had tried the aphrodisiac drug on his roommate and it worked perfectly," that is about it. I essentially covered it with the other corrections, covered that, Ferrie never ever said that.
Q: Are you saying now that Ferrie did not tell you that he had intercourse with his roommate?
A: He said the roommate tried, that is the nearest he came. Now, he never said he did.
Q: So then this memorandum is in error once again in saying that you told Mr. Sciambra that Ferrie had told you that he had intercourse with his roommate. Is that right?
A: Probably, that is probably just deduction up there in Baton Rouge, because I don't remember that.
Q: Is there anything right about this memorandum, Mr. Russo?
A: Well, do you want to go down it page by page.
Q: Now, getting to the portion of the memorandum which relates the incident concerning pornographic film you have located that?
A: Right, Page 3.
Q: Is it your testimony now that you did not sell this film as related in this memorandum?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: You did sell it?
A: Correct.
Q: To whom did you sell it?
A: To a man in Baton Rouge who was a seaman. You see, the correction I made essentially here, if you look right toward the middle, I made two corrections on the page, "He said that he would --" Ferrie said, "He said that he would have to get $150.00 a roll for the film because it was pretty risking going in and out of Cuba," and that $150.00, I don't know where that came from, and a little on further, about "Russo said he took the film and sold it to someone whom he said -- "sold it to a seaman, and, as I recall it, I sold it to a seaman.
Q: You sold it directly to a seaman?
A: Yes, or a guy that had been on a ship.
Q: You sold it for $150.00?
A: No.
Q: How much did you sell it for?
A: $40.00, $30.00.
Q: Did you split the money with Ferrie?
A: No, I was in Baton Rouge at the time, this is in Baton Rouge.
Q: Well, Ferrie was not to get any money out of the sale of this film?
A: Well, I forgot about it after he brought it over, he never did bring the subject up again, he left the film there and forgot about it.
Q: And Ferrie told you he had to get $150.00 for the film because of the risk involved in getting it out of Cuba?
A: Not that particular time, he said he could get as many as needed out of Cuba, and he said, you know, there has to be a pretty good price, but $150.00, I don't know about that, and that is the only one he ever brought over.
Q: He expected to be compensated for the trouble that he went to and the risk he went to in getting the film. Is that right?
A: Well, I guess so.
Q: And he never did get any part of the money that you sold the film for?
A: That was, gee, 19 -- whatever it was when he brought it over, I didn't sell it until '67, '68, '67.
Q: Did you and Ferrie or you by yourself sell any other film of this nature?
A: Movies?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: How about still pictures?
A: Sell any still pictures?
Q: Yes.
A: Never.
Q: Never did?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, the next subject that I am going to get on will take a little while. I see we are right before 12:00 o'clock.
THE COURT: That is a good time to stop. Would you take charge of the Jury.
Gentlemen, we are going to recess in a moment for the noon lunch. Again I must admonish you and instruct you not to discuss the case amongst yourselves or with anyone else.
You can take them out, Sheriff, the bus is ready, take charge of the Jury.
You are released under your bond, Mr. Shaw, the witness is excused until 1:30.
(Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

THE COURT: Let the record show that the Jury is back, Defendant is present, both counsel are present. Are the State and Defense ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: Yes, sir.
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Let it be noted that I have advised the witness that his previous oath is still binding.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, referring again to the Sciambra memorandum, the bottom of page 4 --
A: Bottom of what page?
Q: Page 4.
A: Thank you.
Q: Wherein appears this statement and it is about six lines from the bottom, "Russo said that he believes that Kershenstine, Kenny Carter, and maybe Niles Peterson, and Landry would know more about the roommate and be able to recognize him." Did you state that to Mr. Sciambra in Baton Rouge?
A: Essentially, yes.
Q: Now why did you believe or would you believe that these parties would know more about this roommate?
A: I didn't say no more than I did, they would know more about the roommate and be able to recognize him.
Q: Why would they know about the roommate?
A: What Andy said, Sciambra had asked me in Baton Rouge who I associated with and similar questions, whom I associated with, the names of the people that he might contact, things of that sort, and I told him that Kershenstine, Carter and for sure Al and Peterson.
Q: Did Niles Peterson ever go with you to Dave Ferrie's apartment when this roommate was there?
A: I think he did.
Q: You don't know?
A: I am not sure.
Q: What makes you think he did?
A: I, 'cause he was around me about that period of time.
Q: Was that the only reason you have, you have no specific recollection of his going there with you on the occasion when you saw this roommate?
A: No, but it is possible he was with me.
Q: That is just a possibility?
A: Right.
Q: And so on the preliminary hearing when you testified he definitely went inside the party with you --
A: I testified to that after the badgering. You forced me in that position and I said the people I associated with probably were Peterson and probably Moffett.
Q: By badgering you, you mean by asking you quite a number of times the same --
MR. ALCOCK: I object --
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, he used the terminology, "badgering."
MR. ALCOCK: I am objecting to this area because we have been over and over this and it is highly repetitious.
MR. DYMOND; If the Court please, this is only the second time this is touched on.
THE COURT: I can't comment on it at all but you have covered the subject matter either yesterday afternoon and this morning and I see no reason to repeat it.
MR. DYMOND: This is the first time I have been accused of badgering a witness.
MR. ALCOCK: You used the word.
MR. DYMOND: He used it first.
THE COURT: Read the question and answer.
THE REPORTER: Question: "And so on the preliminary hearing when you testified he defi- nitely went inside the party with you --"
Answer: "I testified to that after the badgering. You forced me in that position and I said the people I associated with probably were Peterson and probably Moffett."
MR. ALCOCK: My objection is not badgering but repetitious. I can remember this is exactly where we ended yesterday's session where Mr. Russo was read back those portions of the preliminary hearing where he felt that Counsel had forced him to make a statement.
MR. DYMOND: At this time I am objecting to the word "badgering". I have been accused of badgering and I want to know what it means.
THE COURT: I think we all know what the word badgering means.
MR. DYMOND: What does it mean?
THE COURT: We can get the dictionary out. (To the witness) What do you mean by badgering?
THE WITNESS: I attempted to answer the question he had asked on two or three prior occasions when he had asked me who was there and I had said I didn't know, what do you mean and he said what do you mean you don't know and he said, rather I said I was with a bunch of friends again without trying to say who it was and finally he said was one of those friends Peterson and I said yes it was Peterson.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Come on, Mr. Russo, didn't you state at the preliminary hearing "I can definitely say "Sandra Moffett was there and definitely Niles Peterson"?
A: Only after those questions, the questions I pointed out to you were asked.
Q: Then if somebody will ask you something enough times you will give them the answer they want?
MR. ALCOCK: I object as that is arguing with the witness.
THE COURT: That is arguing with the witness.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now do you remember then at any time when Kenny Carter went to David Ferrie's apartment with you when the roommate was there?
A: Not definitely, no.
Q: Do you remember at any time when Kershenstine went to the apartment with you when the roommate was there?
A: Not definitely, no.
Q: Do you remember at any time when Al Landry went to the apartment with you when the roommate was there?
A: No.
Q: So therefore there would be no material basis for that statement read to you that you gave to Mr. Sciambra?
A: Except these people were people I associated with and these people were - would probably remember so and so or such and such and might have run into one of the people. Sciambra asked me this in Baton Rouge.
Q: Would you tell us why you didn't give him Sandra Moffett's name whom you termed her as almost a constant companion?
MR. ALCOCK: I object as there is no evidence that he mentioned that about Sandra Moffett, or that he mentioned that to Andrew Sciambra --
MR. DYMOND: I will ask him that.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you mention Sandra Moffett's name as a person who would know about the roommate?
A: During the conversation I termed Sandra Moffett as somebody who would probably know.
Q: That would be another error in the memorandum if that wasn't included in the wording.
A: Not essentially because this might be an omission and to this point it might not be there.
Q: What other names did you mention who might recognize the roommate?
A: I don't recall, I might have mentioned some others but I don't recall offhand.
Q: Did you testify that after President Kennedy was assassinated you remarked to several of your friends that you recognized the guy that did it?
A: Yes, I said -- I said I think I know that man or knew that man.
Q: Still after that you had to go through the routine of putting a beard on Lee Harvey Oswald before you identified the picture?
MR. ALCOCK: That is not the testimony in this record and Mr. Dymond knows it.
THE COURT: I can't comment as to what is or is not.
MR. DYMOND: I think it is the testimony.
MR. ALCOCK: It is not Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I --
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it not a fact that they had to put a beard on --
THE COURT: Rephrase your question.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it not a fact the police or Mr. Sciambra had to put a beard on the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald before you identified it as being the roommate?
A: In Baton Rouge I identified the photograph he pulled out, the one he had with him and except for the fact that the photograph he showed me in Baton Rouge did not have whiskers.
Q: Then he came back to New Orleans and had the beard drawn in on another photograph before you identified it?
A: Yes. It may have been the same photograph enlarged, I'm not sure.
Q: As a matter of fact you had seen Leon Oswald without a beard?
A: Only under the circumstances when he turned to the left or right, one or the other turned and I knew it was the same man.
Q: You said you were in his presence for five minutes then?
A: Yes, sir at the approximate most.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Sciambra you had never been hypnotized, Mr. Russo, actually?
A: Did I tell I had never been hypnotized?
Q: Yes.
A: You're talking about in Baton Rouge?
Q: That is right.
A: I don't know if we covered the subject except what is stated here and I made a correction to that extent. On page 7 he said, "He said that he had been hypnotized like this before and it had helped him to recall and that he would be glad to do it for us," and he was talking about me and I said no, that was not right that a couple of people had tried to hypnotize me, Dave Ferrie for one and another being Irwin Moreau.
Q: When other people tried did it make you remember things more vividly than before?
A: I don't think they hypnotized me.
Q: What made you remember things more vividly if you had not been hypnotized?
A: With the Moreau and Ferrie --
Q: Right.
A: I don't think they hypnotized me.
Q: I am reading to you from the first paragraph on the top of page 7, "He also said that if he were hypnotized he may have total recall on names and places and dates. He said that he had been hypnotized like this before and it had helped him to recall and that he would be glad to do it for us."
Do you deny telling Mr. Sciambra that?
A: I made a correction on that yesterday.
Q: You deny that?
A: I denied it yesterday.
Q: You deny that you suggested to Mr. Sciambra that you be hypnotized?
A: Do I deny what?
Q: That you suggested to Mr. Sciambra that you be hypnotized.
A: I suggested that was an avenue of approach, yes.
Q: Why did you say you wanted to be?
A: I didn't say I wanted to be.
Q: Why did you suggest it?
A: He was asking me for more names and dates and most of it was names, dates, where, the people and what conversation went on and things of that sort and I told him what I understood about hypnosis and that it induced recall and if they could get a professional in New Orleans or up there I would be glad to submit to it.
Q: How did you know that it produced recall?
A: I read on it and heard Ferrie talk about it.
Q: And as a matter of fact you were subsequently hypnotized by a representative of the District Attorney's office?
A: Right.
Q: How many times were you hypnotized, Mr. Russo?
A: I think three.
Q: Three times, when was the last time?
A: I don't recall.
Q: You don't remember the date?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: May I have that Kemp transcript, the Kemp television transcript, it is the thicker of the two transcripts.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, you have described this roommate as being a person not very talkative and who didn't have much to say to anybody, is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: As a matter of fact you told Mr. Sciambra the roommate never talked to anybody, is that right?
A: In Baton Rouge?
Q: Yes.
A: No, I don't think I told him that.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, if Mr. Dymond is going to ask this witness a question or read portions of the interview, I would like to be given an opportunity to see that.
MR. DYMOND: I am about to read from the Kemp transcript.
MR. ALCOCK: We don't have a copy of it.
(Document exhibited to Counsel for the State.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: I am reading a question and an answer from the transcript of your television interview with Mr. Jim Kemp, transcript of which has been introduced in evidence:
"Did you ever talk to any of the associates of Ferrie other than the fellow you knew, did you meet anybody else? Answer: He had a roommate on the street parallel with Louisiana Avenue and I don't know the name of the street, which one it is, it may be Louisiana Avenue Parkway, but anyway he had a roommate and I talked to him on several occasions but he was just stale as regards to politics it seemed to me. He talked about everything else." Would you explain to us why in one instance you said he never talked to any- body and another you said he talked about everything else but politics?
A: Essentially I talked about not much else than politics, that is true, that is he'd talk about everything else and wouldn't join in about politics and that was my particular interest at the time.
Q: And that is your explanation as to why you say on one instance he didn't talk to anybody and the other he talked about everything else?
A: He talked to people.
Q: And it was about everything else?
A: But I didn't consider him very talkative, no.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, when did you first see this Sciambra memorandum?
A: Uh, I'm not real sure of that, I knew it was between, the latest was March 20 when Jim Phelan came up to Baton Rouge, but I probably seen it earlier.
Q: You had seen it before that?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever tell Mr. Sciambra that Ferrie used hypnosis for sexual purposes?
A: Did I?
Q: Or that Ferrie told you that.
A: No, Landry had told me that.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I am objecting to this line as repetitious.
MR. DYMOND: That particular question is answered already and it wasn't repetitious anyway.
MR. ALCOCK: I'm quite sure it was.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, did you testify this morning that the color of the beard and the hair on this roommate were about the same?
A: Well --
THE COURT: Let me call attention to Article 369 of the Code of Procedure which states: "In the discipline of his court, the trial judge is vested with a sound discretion to stop the prolonged, unnecessary and irrelevant examination of a witness, whether such examination be Direct or Cross and even though no objection be urged by Counsel."
One of the footnotes states: "The Judge may stop Counsel from indefinitely prolonging a cross-examination by repeatedly going over the same matter." State v. Kuntz (Spelled phonetically.) The Trial Judge may rule out the useless repetition of evidence, and the State's objection is covered by this matter.
MR. DYMOND: I haven't covered this particular point.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you testify this morning that the beard and the hair on this roommate were approximately of the same color?
A: No.
Q: What was your testimony in that respect?
A: I stated there was a difference.
Q: Which was darker?
A: I'm not sure.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, if this isn't repetitious, Mr. Dymond is asking him what his testimony was this morning and obviously we have gone over that and it is obviously repetitious.
THE COURT: I agree with you if he said he testified to this morning.
MR. DYMOND: The last question was never testified to this morning and the last one has been answered already anyway.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Do you deny that you told Mr. Sciambra in Baton Rouge that the beard was a little darker than his hair?
A: I don't deny or affirm it. I'm not sure exactly what I told him in Baton Rouge about the difference except there was a difference.
Q: Would there be any reason for you to have known then and not now?
A: I have a feeling the, it was darker, rather the beard was lighter but I'm not sure right now.
Q: You say you have a feeling the beard was lighter?
A: Yes.
Q: What I'm asking you is whether you told Mr. Sciambra in Baton Rouge that the beard was darker?
A: That the beard was darker?
Q: That is correct.
A: I don't know.
Q: Oh, there is one other point I want to clarify and that is with respect to the clothing, and particularly the jacket, which you stated that Mr. Shaw had worn at the National Street Wharf. Would you be a little more explicit in your description of that?
A: Well, I think the jacket was some sort of striped jacket or something to that effect, I'm not real sure of the pants except they were dark.
Q: Could you tell us what color the jacket was?
A: No, I saw a stripe or line in it.
Q: Could you tell us whether it was light or dark in color?
A: No, I am not sure.
Q: Mr. Russo, did you say that this roommate was present in David Ferrie's apartment in the month of October 1963?
A: Did I say he was present?
Q: Right.
A: I am not sure exactly when -- You mean the last time I saw him?
Q: That is correct.
A: I'm not sure exactly when I first, I am first inclined to think October and in fact I think I testified to that fact in the preliminary hearing -- I'm not sure whether it was October or late September but my original recollection was I thought I saw him in September and then I thought possibly I saw him in October.
Q: I am reading to you from page 196 and 197 of the transcript of the preliminary hearing: "Question -- I am talking about the one at the end of September or October as you stated in the month before the Kennedy assassination.
"Answer I don't really recall.
"Question -- When would you say was the last time before the assassination that you saw Oswald?
"Answer -- Somewhere around the beginning of October, maybe late September, beginning of October.
"Question -- The beginning of October?
"Answer -- Yes, sir.
"Question -- You are sure about that?
"Answer -- I am putting it in context with other things, yes."
Now would you tell me why on the preliminary hearing you stated that Oswald was here in Ferrie's apartment in October and you say now you cannot say?
A: I am saying late September, early October, the initial recollection was that it was September. I felt a little different about it because of classes and I felt it was October when I last saw him and it was one or the other. I am inclined to say just exactly when the last time was. As I said I stated at the preliminary hearing I thought it was October or late September.
Q: Mr. Russo, since the preliminary hearing haven't you learned that Oswald left New Orleans never to return on September 25 and that is the reason you are not saying October now?
A: During the preliminary hearing you mentioned it was September 25.
MR. ALCOCK: I object because it is assuming a fact not in evidence.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I can ask him whether something is a reason for his having changed his testimony.
[page missing]
Q. . . . now that he was here in October?
A: No.
Q: That isn't it? Is that right?
A: That's right.
Q: I am reading to you from your preliminary hearing testimony on page 202 of the transcript: "Question -- You still say it was in October that you heard this second threat from Ferrie?
"Answer -- I heard, yes, sir.
"Question -- And that Oswald was present, is that right?
"Answer -- At one of the times, yes.
"Question -- In October, is that right?
"Answer -- I would say in October, yes, sir."
MR. ALCOCK: I object, Your Honor, as I think the witness has already answered that question.
MR. DYMOND: It is on a different portion of the testimony and I was going to ask him whether his explanation to this discrepancy would be the same as to the previous one.
THE COURT: I will permit it.
Q: In you explanation for this discrepancy the same as the other?
A: If you will phrase the question.
Q: Phrase what question?
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
THE WITNESS: Rephrase it as you did before and I will answer that.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Do you deny having testified as I read to you from page 202 of the transcript in the preliminary hearing?
A: Do I deny having testified to that?
Q: Yes, that is correct.
A: No.
Q: And you say now you cannot say that Oswald was here in October?
A: That is not the same question you had asked. I am saying it was either late September of early October.
Q: What I'm asking you is why you are changing your testimony?
A: I said late September or early October.
Q: Why are you changing your testimony now from that which you gave at the preliminary hearing?
A: I don't think I am essentially.
Q: You care for me to read it again?
A: No, I understand exactly what you read and I say the same thing now, late September or early October.
Q: Permit me -- "You still say it was in October you heard this second threat from Ferrie?
"Answer -- I heard, yes, sir.
"Question -- And that Oswald was present, is that right?
"Answer -- At one of the times, yes.
"Question -- In October, is that right?
"Answer -- I would say in October, yes, sir."
Does that say that Oswald was here in October?
A: Late September, early October, essentially the same, yes.
Q: What just says late September?
A: What you just read said late September or early October and if that says October, I'm not arguing with you.
Q: I exhibit to you page 202 of your testimony at the preliminary hearing pointing out to you where -- I'm pointing from there and ask you to read that page.
A: Can I read a little bit before?
Q: I read you from page 202.
A: Not here, late September.
Q: You did say it was in October?
A: Before and after I said late September and early October which is essentially the same thing as I am saying right now.
Q: Mr. Russo, were you living here in New Orleans when David Ferrie was arrested right after the assassination?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you see it in the paper?
A: The assassination or the arrest?
Q: The arrest of David Ferrie?
A: No.
Q: Did you know he was arrested?
A: No, I didn't know it.
Q: When did you first find out about that?
A: Probably right around the first week I was down here in New Orleans from Baton Rouge, '67, 1967.
Q: In other words Dave Ferrie was arrested right after the assassination and you didn't find out about it until 1967?
A: Right.
Q: And that is the same Dave Ferrie that was a close friend of yours and he had an open invitation to your home and you had an open invitation to his?
A: Yes.
MR. ALCOCK: That was a question?
MR. DYMOND: Yes.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, you have testified previously that you do know Mr. Jim Phelan, is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: When was the first time that you saw Mr. Phelan?
A: It was right after the preliminary hearing, Sunday evening, I think.
Q: Would March 21, 1967 at your home in Baton Rouge refresh your memory to that?
A: If that be approximately right.
Q: Would it be approximately right, is that correct? About what time of day did Mr. Phelan come to your house?
A: In the evening.
Q: Is that the occasion upon which you say Mr. Matt Herron was present?
A: Yes, sir, the photographer.
Q: On that occasion did you tell Mr. Phelan that in the letter that you wrote to Garrison you said merely, "I had occasion to meet Ferrie and some of his friends and I am willing to tell you what I know about them"?
A: Not exactly but that is one of the things I said.
Q: Did you tell them there was more to the content of the letter than you mentioned?
A: I don't know exactly what was asked about the letter that I wrote Garrison, and I knew Ferrie and was willing to cooperate and would they have somebody out of the DA's office contact me.
Q: Did you admit to Mr. Phelan that in that letter you didn't mention Shaw, Bertrand, or Oswald?
A: I didn't know who Shaw was?
Q: Did you admit to Mr. Phelan at that time the letter did not mention Shaw, Bertrand, Oswald or an assassination plot at Ferrie's apartment?
A: Right.
Q: You admitted that to Mr. Phelan?
A: Yes.
Q: At that time?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you also have a discussion on that same occasion with Mr. Phelan concerning the interview that you had given to Mr. Bill Bankston a reporter for the Baton Rouge State Times?
A: Several things were covered and he probably mentioned that, I have a recollection he brought Bankston's name in the conversation in May, not March.
Q: At that time did you give to Mr. Phelan as an explanation for your granting of an interview to Bankston the fact that you wanted to get the whole story down with somebody?
A: You're emphasizing the word "whole," no.
Q: Forget the emphasis.
A: I told him I had called the Baton Rouge Detective Bureau on that Friday or sometime around 11:00 o'clock in the morning when I decided against coming to New Orleans, it wouldn't be April it'd be May and I talked to someone at the Baton Rouge Detective's Bureau and I asked them could I make a statement and they said to me when are you going to New Orleans and I said I am going again in a couple of weeks, and Mr. Phelan at that time, I had talked with a couple of friends of mine and told them a little bit and I then said I will call up the newspapers and tell them about it, and I didn't know Mr. Bankston and all I know is he answered the phone and I said to him "Will you come down" and he said we will send somebody.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Phelan you wanted to get the whole story down with somebody --
A: I said I wanted to give a statement to somebody so it would get to Garrison, I don't know about the whole story.
Q: Up to that time had you telephoned Garrison and talked to him?
A: The New Orleans Office I don't think, I may have tried Friday, I'm not sure.
Q: So in other words before you telephoned Garrison you telephoned the television station?
A: I telephoned the Baton Rouge Detective Bureau.
Q: And also the Baton Rouge States-Times and how about the television station?
A: I didn't call the television station.
Q: No. How about the Baton Rouge States-Times?
A: I called them.
Q: Before you talked to Garrison, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it during this same visit by Mr. Phelan that he showed to you the copy of the Sciambra memorandum?
A: He had a copy, yes, sir.
Q: Did he hand that to you and show it to you and permit you to read it?
A: He did.
Q: Is it your testimony you did not read that complete memorandum?
A: Not word for word, no.
Q: At that time what did you say?
A: Not word for word, no.
Q: Did you thumb through it or what did you do?
A: Just took it and looked through it quickly and he had asked me before that if I would look through it and see if any of the contents were not correct and then on the back page one part caught my eye where he had circled something and had a line under it and an arrow to the left or right side with notes on it and when I came to that I told him that was not so.
Q: Did Mr. Phelan tell you he was in the process of writing an article for the Saturday Evening Post?
MR. ALCOCK: I'm going to object to anything that Mr. Phelan might have said.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, Mr. Phelan is going to be available to testify.
THE COURT: You can then ask the question when he takes the stand.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Then you deny that you made only four minor corrections in the Sciambra memorandum when Mr. Phelan handed it to you?
A: Most of the time centered around other things and not around the memorandum and most of the time around the part that was circled, the words "twice" I think on page 5 or 6.
Q: Weren't you checking that memorandum for accuracy?
A: For accuracy, I was told to look it over and see if there were any glaring mistakes, some omissions, some corrections and essentially a lot of stuff was correct.
Q: Didn't you point out four inaccuracies?
A: I may have pointed out four but the one he was interested in was the one "twice."
Q: And you say that the statement contained in that memorandum to the effect that you had seen this defendant only twice was circled by him in pencil?
A: I don't think pencil, I think it was ink.
Q: It was ink?
A: It was.
Q: But you -- had you spoken to any representative of the District Attorney's Office prior to Mr. Phelan coming to Baton Rouge?
A: I had.
Q: And you had been informed he was coming and informed of the purposes of his visit?
A: I had.
Q: To whom had you spoke?
A: Well, perhaps a couple of people, I know I talked to Andrew Sciambra and another too but at that time I didn't know everybody in the office.
Q: That is the Mr. Sciambra that wrote the memorandum?
A: Correct.
Q: Is it not a fact that when you noticed the statement that you had seen this Defendant only twice you should have said that, you should have said that I should have said three times?
A: I should have said to him?
Q: To Mr. Phelan.
A: What do you mean, when he was up there and he asked me that?
Q: Yes.
A: I said definitely it was an error twice was wrong and I should have said three times.
Q: Is it not a fact you admitted to him that you had told Mr. Sciambra of only seeing him twice?
A: That is an error.
Q: You deny that?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Did you receive a phone call from Mr. Phelan while he was in New York subsequent to this interview?
A: I received several phone calls from him, it was probably subsequent to the interview, yes it was.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I am going to object to anything along this line unless he received a sufficient amount of phone calls to recognize the voice of Jim Phelan but somebody who identifies himself as Jim Phelan, he wouldn't know whether it was.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it not a fact that you invited the person on the other end of that telephone, whom you believed to be James Phelan, to drop down and see you when he got back to New Orleans?
A: When I was on North St. Patrick Street, you're talking about later on?
Q: I am talking about after the March 21 visit, yes.
A: Yes.
Q: You did invite him to drop by?
A: I told Matt Herron or somebody that knew him to tell him to call me and he returned my phone call and said, I said when you're in New Orleans why don't you check me out.
Q: When Mr. Phelan got back to New Orleans in late April of 1967 as a matter of fact did you not see him on five or six visits?
A: Not long visits, four of them were long visits and two, if I saw him two other times they were probably for a few minutes, yes.
Q: Where were most of the visits?
A: 619 North St. Patrick.
Q: Do you remember on one occasion upon which Mr. Phelan took you to dinner out at Fitzgerald's?
A: Fitzgerald's yes.
Q: Yes. Do you remember another occasion upon which you and Mr. Phelan went down to the corner poolroom and played a few games of pool?
A: Right, yes.
Q: On the night after you played pool with Mr. Phelan do you deny that you made this statement to him: "If Garrison knew what I told my priest in Baton Rouge after the Shaw hearing he would go through the ceiling"?
A: No, I don't deny making that statement but it needs somewhat of an explanation in context. I had told quite frankly many people this, and let me give you a little backup also. I told Phelan a great deal about colored versus, black and white, something I mentioned today as to how I felt of the period of time from February 24 wherein I got involved all the way up until the time he was there and also past that time actually. If you were at a basketball game or the fights you have a light of vague memories and recollections that you have of that occasion, but from February 24 until that time my whole association in this case as the accuser of the Defendant, or witness against the Defendant, had been what I called a blank grey area and I would rather have if I could pull myself out of it and I went into a long explanation of that to him. Now, if you will repeat just exactly the statement I made --
Q: "If Garrison knew what I told my priest in Baton Rouge after the Shaw hearing he would go through the ceiling."
A: Essentially what I told the priest was that, and I'd like to be out of it, such a personal turmoil and upheaval in my own personal world and that it would not be the same whether Mr. Shaw was found guilty or not, that had no bearing, that my life would never be the same because there were so many news people, some with other motives such as DSU and NBC that not only reported the news incorrectly but quite often attempted to make news, things of this sort.
Q: Why did you think that would make Mr. Garrison go through the ceiling?
A: It seemed like they had got me in a crossfire and I didn't want to name names and that if I could have avoided the whole thing I'd rather not remember anything.
Q: You deny in that same conversation you went on and volunteered to Mr. Phelan that you told the priest that you wanted to sit down alone with Shaw in a room and listen to him breathe and talk to him and ask him some questions so you could resolve doubts about your identification of him?
A: Pardon?
Q: You deny having told that to Mr. Phelan?
A: That I told that to the priest?
Q: Right.
A: Right, sure I probably did tell him that as well as the priest but for the same reason I told you this morning the 1,000 percent against 100 percent -- sure it was the, the man on Louisiana Avenue Parkway, although if justice could be had, absolutely -- absolute justice, if I could be present and smell and talk to him about things you could jointly talk about so that I could come to an understanding of the Defendant. I told that to Phelan.
Q: You say you told the priest you wanted to resolve doubts about your identification of Shaw?
A: I never told him that, I told him I would like to be out of it, I would like to get my life back in order, business and my job, I had to get that back in order.
Q: Now you are denying you told Phelan that you told the priest you wanted to resolve doubts about your identification?
A: Wanted to resolve doubts?
Q: That is right.
A: Again I probably said that but in relation to what I just told you about 1,000 percent versus 100 percent and I used that 100 percent to -- 1,000 percent versus 100 percent to many people I talked to.
Q: Then you are not denying you told the priest you had doubts about your identification?
A: Doubts is a negative and positive is -- I'd rather be more sure than just sure if that makes sense.
Q: Not much, no.
THE COURT: Don't pursue the area.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it not a fact that it was shortly after this conversation with Mr. Phelan that a tentative appointment was set up where you were to meet with Mr. Shaw outside the presence of attorneys?
MR. ALCOCK: Object, Your Honor, as repetitious.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please there is another question following.
THE COURT: Read this question back.
THE REPORTER: Question: "Is it not a fact that it was shortly after this conversation with Mr. Phelan that a tentative appointment was set up where you were to meet with Mr. Shaw outside the presence of attorneys?"
MR. ALCOCK: That was gone into at length this morning.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I intend to tie it up and show the relevancy.
THE COURT: Is that statement correct or not? Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: You're asking me if an appointment was set up?
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: A tentative appointment set up.
A: Not to my knowledge, it was definitely set up.
Q: It was set up?
A: That is the way Phelan expressed it to me, it was definitely set up for somewhere on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
Q: At whose request?
A: That again I made no specific request but it was the kind of thing for this 100 percent versus a hundred to eliminate all barriers between myself and the Defendant, and all of a sudden Phelan comes up the next day, or a couple of days later and said "It has been set up for that night or tomorrow," and I said "Don't take me serious, it's not possible and it would put me in, it would be impossible because Garrison's office knew exactly well that Phelan was talking to me about it and they were tape recording the conversations.
Q: How did they get to tape record the conversations?
A: What?
Q: How did Garrison's representative get tape recordings of these conversations?
A: I told them he had called me and had said he will check in and they said let us know when he does come to the house because we want to find out how far he will go and they would set up bugging devices in the house.
Q: You had bugging devices on your phone?
A: No, they set up the tape recorder in the hall closet and spike mikes and --
Q: And every time Phelan called you you turned it on, this bugging device?
A: And every time he would come over also.
Q: And you bugged the conversations when he took you to dinner or when you were shooting pool?
A: Most of the conversations we had were in the house, any lengthy conversations, although we did go down to the poolroom and Fitzgerald's Restaurant.
Q: All these conversations in the house with Phelan were bugged?
A: They were taped.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please at this time we would like to move for the production of the tapes of these telephone conversations.
MR. ALCOCK: For what purposes, Your Honor?
MR. DYMOND: I think we can find out precisely what went on these conversations.
MR. ALCOCK: It seems to me we are dabbling in a lot of hearsay.
MR. DYMOND: I waive our objection to any hearsay.
THE COURT: That is going to be a very peculiar situation.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor --
THE COURT: You waive when you wish to waive and when you don't wish to you don't waive.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we don't know what is in those recordings but we will take our chances.
THE COURT: What is the State's position?
MR. ALCOCK: The State just doesn't see a legal purpose for the introduction of these tapes and no real reason to offer them to the Court. Frankly, I haven't heard the tapes but it seems to me we are going into a lot of hearsay. If Mr. Phelan wants to testify, Mr. Dymond stated he will be here and will testify.
MR. DYMOND: Mr. Phelan's testimony is hearsay?
MR. ALCOCK: The best evidence is for Mr. Russo to give his half and Mr. Phelan his half and then the Court is then given the full contents of the conversation.
THE COURT: It could be fraught with hearsay.
MR. DYMOND: My objection is merely I think the Jury would like to hear precisely what went on.
THE COURT: Let me read Article 493 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is under evidence, 493, "Whenever the credibility of a witness is to be impeached by proof of any statement made by him contradictory to his testimony, first he must be asked whether he has made such a statement and his attention must be called to the time, place, and circumstances and to the person to whom the alleged statement was made in order that the witness may have an opportunity of explaining that which is prima facie contradictory. If the witness does not distinctly admit making such statement, evidence that he did make it is admissible." You are going far afield from this article because you are asking me to force the State to present to you exhibits that you don't know at this moment what they contain, furnish you with ammunition to show that Mr. Russo is making a contradictory statement today from what he told Mr. Phelan. In other words you are on a hunting or fishing expedition hoping that something will develop aside from the notes you have after speaking with this witness Mr. Phelan. Apparently he told you his side of the conversation and you have used part of it to impeach the credibility of the witness by proving he made contradictory statements and Mr. Alcock stated that Mr. Russo can give his side and Mr. Phelan can give his side. If on the other hand you have written before you certain ideas or thoughts or exact words Mr. Russo said to Mr. Phelan you can use them now but I'm not going to grant your request that you can go on a hunting expedition. I sustain the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling we respectfully object and reserve a Bill of Exception making the motion by the Defense, the State's objection to it and the Court's ruling and all the testimony up to this time parts of the bill.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it not a fact that when you decided not to go through with this scheduled meeting that you told Mr. Phelan you didn't want to go through with it because news might leak through to Garrison?
A: Garrison knew exactly that it was being set up.
Q: I'm asking you whether you told Mr. Phelan that was your reason for not going through with it.
A: That may have been part of it.
Q: Did you tell him that?
A: I am not sure that is exactly the reason I gave, no.
Q: To your knowledge did Mr. Phelan know that his conversations were being tapped or taped?
A: No.
Q: How about phone calls?
A: No.
Q: Calling your attention now, Mr. Russo, to the particular evening you had dinner at Fitzgerald's, and to further refresh your memory, Steve Derby went to dinner with you at Fitzgerald's?
A: Yes, sir, right.
Q: Later on in the evening after dinner do you deny you made this statement to Mr. Phelan: "I lied to you about why I didn't want to meet with Shaw. I was afraid if I talked to him I would know he wasn't the man. What could I do then? I could go on the run to Mexico or California and become a beatnik but I couldn't run from myself"?
A: I deny that.
Q: You deny that?
A: Yes.
Q: You deny having said that?
A: Right.
Q: The incident which I am about to relate occurred towards the end of the frequent visits made to you by Mr. Phelan. Is it not a fact that you and he had a conversation about your testimony concerning Mr. Shaw's trip to the West Coast?
A: That we, that Phelan and I had a conversation about his trip to the West Coast?
Q: Yes, about Mr. Shaw's trip.
A: Phelan argued with me to some extent.
Q: He argued with you?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you deny that in answer to his argument you said that you had picked up a lot of information from Garrison's people just from the way they asked questions?
A: That I picked up information from Garrison's people?
Q: That is correct.
A: I don't think that would be an accurate description of what was said.
Q: You are denying having said that?
A: Correct and I deny -- what he meant, it could have been something similar to that.
Q: Just what did you say?
A: Phelan always prefaced things with this statement that District Attorney Jim Garrison, that the District Attorney had a peculiar habit of after using a person extensively that he would turn on that person and he said that once Shaw gets found innocent, once he ever gets to trial and Shaw is acquitted by the Jury there, then Garrison will turn on you and ride you and file charges so that he could get off the hook and frequently he prefaced his statements with that and if you'll get down to this particular time --
Q: I have picked up a lot of information from Garrison's people just from the way they asked questions.
A: We talked quite a bit, well, at different times and I don't know if this was after Fitzgerald's --
Q: After leaving Fitzgerald's.
A: We talked several times and quite frequently and about how much did I tell Sciambra and how much initially and how much later on and I told him essentially the things I told you, or told you that I had told him, and I told him some of the things were not hard to pick up or hard to follow and I don't know if I worded that correctly or not.
Q: Do you deny that very shortly after that you made this statement to Jim Phelan, this is on the same occasion, same business, "I am a pretty sensitive guy and besides when they got through asking me questions I asked them a lot of questions like "Why is this man important" and so on and I also read every scrap the papers printed about the case before the Shaw hearing"?
A: Some of that is accurate and some not.
Q: What isn't?
A: I asked a lot of questions after the initial questioning and reading the papers. A lot of, most of the people I associate with now know I don't read the papers mostly concerning the trial.
Q: I am referring now to the last visit made by Mr. Phelan.
A: Somehow or another you seem to have skipped about three at the house. You haven't covered the house yet.
Q: The last one on May 28, 1967, do you deny you told Mr. Phelan these words: "I do not know the difference between reality and fantasy and I have told my roommate Steve about it and brooded about it"?
A: That is accurate with some explanation.
Q: First of all, did you tell Phelan you didn't know the difference between fantasy and reality?
A: You are taking that out of context.
Q: Go ahead.
A: And this, this is at the time that DSU's Rick Townley was beginning to come around and other newsmen always trying to split hairs and Jim Phelan and a few others were telling me about how Garrison was going to get me when Shaw was found innocent. I told him that it was hard to distinguish fact and fantasy and I went on a little further and I told him that with this -- from that initial barrage of newsmen, that it was hard to distinguish fact and fantasy and I went on a little further and told him it would probably help me out if I could get away from all of this, get away from it all for a a couple of weeks and relax and stay away from the newspapers and again he pulled that out of context.
Q: Mr. Russo, if you wanted to stay away from reporters, why did you even suggest to Phelan that he come by?
A: The District Attorney's Office was interested in how much and how far he would go.
Q: You were just acting as an agent for the District Attorney's Office collecting information on Phelan?
A: Initially Phelan had come up to Baton Rouge and at that time they weren't interested in how far he would go but after that I met Phelan and I didn't tell him not to come down, he seemed reasonable enough and I thought he was responsible.
Q: You actually told him to come down?
A: I told, I think it was Matt Herron, you have to ask him, if he saw him to tell him to call me.
Q: It was your testimony that because you were being set upon by reporters that you didn't know the difference between fantasy and reality and still you were able to tell him to call you?
A: It is sometimes heard when persons are on you to split hairs and everybody was saying I was lying and that it was Guy Banister or James Lewallen at Dave Ferrie's and that didn't you say this or that and it was a constant barrage and they told me not to talk to anybody but that Phelan was okayed on the 20th or 21st and it was all right to talk to him and after that, after he called me when I was in New Orleans and said he was coming over I called them and they said to stall him a little bit and we are going to go to your place and we will tape the conversation.
Q: Were you stalling him a little bit?
A: I was stalling him the first day.
Q: Did you further tell Phelan on this same occasion, "Everything you have commented on about my testimony has been bouncing inside my head and I am much more critical of myself than you are"?
A: That was a leading statement I told them, yes, sir.
Q: What was?
A: If that, every day that he was over the night before someone from the District Attorney's Office would come over and pick up the tape and that statement was to make him think he was starting to get somewhere in breaking me down and my testimony and to get at Garrison and that was supposed to be when it was done under sodium pentothal or hypnosis and that was the statement that some makes sense and some doesn't.
Q: It is your testimony that you were just baiting Phelan along?
A: Not baiting, no. They were interested in how far he'd go and I was interested in that too.
Q: Did you also tell him at that time that if you changed your story on the positive identification of Shaw, or even eased up on it, that Garrison would clobber you?
A: He said this, I want to preface just a little bit of that --
Q: Just answer yes or no and then you can explain.
A: Not exactly, no.
Q: All right, you can explain.
A: He said this, if you will, first of all he tried to ask me and would say I understand it is possible you have been led under drugs and hypnosis and he showed me the papers of big people, certain doctors who would testify for the Defense against the State's case, and those names were just halfway scratched out and he said they were highly reputable and educated people and so on and he played it that way -- that didn't throw me at all and then he changed his tactics and said if you were to say it was possible, one step removed, if you were to say it is possible then you come to me in New York, talk to a lawyer, just talk to a lawyer and I will cover your expenses coming to New York and then of course we would have to deny it from there. I said if I did, if I did do anything like that Garrison would clobber me over the head. That way, yes.
Q: You didn't say it the way I read it to you, right?
A: No.
... At the hour of 2:45 o'clock p.m. the Court recessed until 3:10 o'clock p.m. ...
 

 
THE COURT: I would like to make on announcement before pulling the Jury down, that it has been brought to my attention that one of the news media people have seen fit to violate my guidelines. When Mr. Russo, before he came back to take the stand he approached him and made some comment about his testimony. I am not going to do anything about it at this moment but if it comes to my attention again that my guidelines have been violated I am going to have that reporter's credentials, his admission credentials taken up so he cannot enter this courtroom. I hope it will not happen again. All right, is the State and Defense ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: Yes.
MR. ALCOCK: Yes.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, do you recall having had an interview with Mr. George Lardner, a reporter for the Washington Post?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: More particularly on or about June 20, 1967?
A: I am not real sure, there were so many of them.
Q: An interview of which we have information that it took place, it was in June in New Orleans at your home?
A: Yes, on North St. Patrick.
Q: Would you tell me whether the interview with Mr. Lardner was taped?
A: The taping machine was still there and I'm not sure whether it was taped or not. I am under the impression it was but I'm not real sure of that.
Q: You say you think it was taped?
A: I think, I'm not sure of that.
Q: How often did you deliver tapes to the District Attorney's Office?
A: Most of the time someone would come pick them up whenever I got a full tape.
Q: How frequently did that come about?
A: I was in touch with someone every day.
Q: Who usually?
A: Sal Scaccia, Andrew Sciambra, I can't think of some of the other people.
Q: Who did you usually get in touch with at the District Attorney's Office?
A: Either Scaccia or Sciambra.
Q: I am referring to the interview with Mr. Lardner, you do recollect that interview?
A: Right.
Q: Do you deny that during the course of this interview that you told Mr. Lardner that you were willing to disclose weaknesses in your testimony for a price?
A: I absolutely deny that.
Q: You deny that flatly?
A: Absolutely.
Q: You deny making this statement to Mr. Lardner, "I am looking for guarantees, I am interested in me, my job and me"?
A: I didn't use looking for guarantees, I said I was looking for the job but it was in jeopardy.
Q: But you deny making the statement I just read to you?
A: In essence, yes, but I was interested in my job. In essence that statement is incorrect.
Q: I'm not talking about in essence but whether you deny making the statement "I am looking for guarantees, I am interested in me, my position and me."?
A: Part of it is right and part of it is incorrect.
Q: In other words you deny having made that entire statement?
A: I deny having made the entire statement, yes.
Q: Do you deny making the statement to Mr. Lardner on this occasion that there were certain weaknesses or holes surrounding your testimony?
A: I'm not sure if I said that to Mr. Lardner or Phelan at that time because Phelan was before that a little bit. At that -- no, I didn't say that, nor, not to Mr. Lardner.
Q: You did not say that to Mr. Lardner?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever say that to anybody?
A: No, I discussed the approach to the cross-examining of me and what I would think would be weaknesses in my testimony.
Q: What reporter, with what reporter did you discuss that?
A: I think in general I may have mentioned it, but not that particular phraseology, but I may have mentioned that to some degree with Mr. Lardner.
Q: Did you make this statement, "Garrison doesn't know what they are. I know what they are"?
A: That is absolutely incorrect. The District Attorney's Office does know.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Lardner that you had no intention of disclosing the weaknesses to any newsmen without getting something in return and you were dissatisfied with the $3,000.00 Garrison's office gave you for expenses?
A: Mr. Lardner asked me about rumors --
Q: Do you deny making that statement?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Now you can explain.
A: Mr. Lardner said he had heard rumors of a great deal of money and he didn't know them from fact and he had heard a rumor about my being paid $5,000.00, I don't remember 3,000.00, he said about $5,000.00 before and $5,000.00 after and another was heard about $25,000.00.
Q: You deny having said this to Mr. Lardner at the end of the interview, "If you say anything about this I am going to have to call you a liar"?
A: If I say anything about this to Lardner?
Q: I asked you whether you made this statement to Mr. Lardner, "If you say anything about this I'm going to have to call you a liar"?
A: That is wrong.
Q: You deny having said that?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you trying to gather any material on Mr. Lardner for the District Attorney, the District Attorney's Office?
A: If Lardner's interview was in June, the District Attorney's Office instructed me they prefer I tape all conversations with newsmen and I was playing along their lines to see how far these people would go.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Lardner you were taping them?
A: No -- did I tell him I was taping him -- I'm not sure.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Phelan?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Now, did you have any reason to gather information for the District Attorney's Office or to be taping your conversation with Sergeant Edward O'Donnell of the New Orleans Police Department?
A: No, sir, I saw Mr. O'Donnell at his office.
Q: You weren't gathering information against him for the District Attorney's Office?
A: No.
Q: Is it not a fact that in mid-June 1967 arrangements were made for Mr. O'Donnell to administer a polygraph or lie detector test to you?
A: Well --
MR. ALCOCK: I object. Mr Dymond knows better than to refer to that.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I have no intention of trying to get in evidence any product or result of a polygraph test because I know that is inadmissible. The only purpose is to identify the occasion to which I am going to refer to in this question.
THE COURT: It was obvious that was his intention because I know Mr. Dymond knows full well, and he mentioned that he knows full well.
MR. ALCOCK: That is not a proper reference to a lie detector test or the results 'cause he knows they are not admissible in any court throughout the United States and for this reason he could have called the witness' attention to this by some other means, because the only reason is the affect this would have on the Jury.
THE COURT: I don't know what affect it's supposed to have. You are trying to set up a time, place and circumstance?
MR. DYMOND: That is correct.
THE COURT: As to when it occurred?
MR. DYMOND: Yes.
THE COURT: All right, but don't refer to it again.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is that not a fact, Mr. Russo?
A: Yes, sir, I am not sure of the date.
Q: Is it not also a fact that you expressed a desire to meet with Sergeant O'Donnell beforehand?
A: To the District Attorney's Office?
Q: Yes.
A: Right.
Q: Is it not also a fact that such a meeting was arranged between you and Sergeant O'Donnell?
A: In other words just to talk to the man?
Q: Correct.
A: Yes.
Q: And you had this meeting with Sergeant O'Donnell and it lasted for approximately one hour, is that correct?
A: About that.
Q: And this is -- was on or about June 16, 1967, would you agree with that?
A: Approximately.
Q: Is it not a fact that on Monday, June 19, 1967 you again went to Sergeant O'Donnell with keeping with the original plan or arrangement that had been made?
A: A few days later. I would accept your dates on that.
Q: Is it not also a fact that Sergeant O'Donnell conducted an interview with you from approximately 1:45 to 3:45 that afternoon?
A: I didn't think it was that long but I would say it was about one hour or one hour and a half.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, I am not asking you any questions about what transpired during any alleged tests, but I am talking about the latter part now of your visit with Sergeant O'Donnell on this same day. Have I made that clear?
A: All right.
Q: Is it not a fact that you stated to Sergeant O'Donnell in the course of this interview that you were under a great deal of pressure and you wish you had never gotten involved in this mess?
A: That is correct.
Q: That is correct?
A: And I went into great lengths to talk about the pressures.
Q: Is it not a fact that in response to a question by Sergeant O'Donnell as to whether Clay Chaw was at the party which you have described, you replied "Do you want to know the truth?" and when he said "Yes," you said "I don't know if he was there or not"?
A: Uh, with some explanation the statement is accurate.
Q: Did you say that?
A: With some explanation, yes.
Q: All right.
A: We had talked about the pressures and in essence I remember telling him about Phelan and some of the other people around, I think Sheridan had been around by the time I saw O'Donnell and I went through a great explanation about this, and at that particular time in June, whatever it was, that it was hard to distinguish, I said all these people are pressing me and saying I am wrong and inaccurate and other things, that it was hard to tell whether he was there or not.
Q: You did tell him you didn't know whether Mr. Shaw was there or not?
A: After explaining the pressures, yes.
Q: Is it not also a fact that you stated to him that if you had to give a yes or no answer as to whether Mr. Shaw was at the party you would have to say no?
A: Again with the same explanation that I have given you.
Q: First of all did you say that?
A: Probably, maybe not those exact words you are quoting there but in essence the same thing. In line with, in line with what I said essentially about the pressures, this was at the time of Sheridan and Townley and right at the end of Phelan, of the Phelan thing, there wasn't much they didn't do to muddy my testimony and accordingly I told him that.
Q: Is it not a fact that when he asked you why you had come to court and positively identified Shaw at the preliminary hearing that you stated that it was because Dymond, meaning me, turned you on, as you put it, by asking you whether you believed in God?
A: I told him something along that line.
Q: Did you tell him that?
A: Yes. I said, and I might paraphrase it and it might be a lot quicker, and I said you had gone for the juggler vein and that I didn't care to discus that, and you asked me several questions I thought were out of line or out of bounds and you went into the examination of that area. The actual question of splitting hairs, you never did split hairs, the argument was the truth versus untruthfulness, whatever you care to call it. At that time when I talked to him I told him essentially something along those lines. Q: Is it not a fact that when he asked you whether the conversations that you heard at Dave Ferrie's apartment sounded like a legitimate plot to assassinate President Kennedy, you stated "no it did not"?
A: I stated -- you wanted me to answer that question?
Q: Yes.
A: Can I have it repeated?
Q: Yes. Is it not a fact that when Sergeant O'Donnell of the New Orleans Police Department asked you whether the conversation you ... that you had heard at Dave Ferrie's apartment sounded like a legitimate plot to assassinate President Kennedy you stated, "No, it did not."
A: Yes, with an explanation of this sort. We discussed at great length, for a great length of time about Dave Ferrie himself and his leaning towards the sensationism and toward the spectacular and we were splitting hairs about that, did or didn't I and said maybe, maybe not, and could it have been serious, and that Dave Ferrie would pick up on some things and I said probably it wasn't a serious thing.
Q: Is it not a fact in, rather on that same occasion you volunteered the statement that it appeared to you to be another bull session like they were always having? A: The word "bull session"?
Q: Right.
A: I used the word "shooting the bull." I don't use the word "bull session" that much.
Q: Then you deny you said that?
A: In essence it is correct. I am not sure of that terminology. Again the same explanation you really didn't know Ferrie -- I had asked O'Donnell if he knew Ferrie and you couldn't really know Ferrie, and did he know Ferrie, his fantastic appearance, he had little hair and was bald with a spotted scalp and at one time was a pretty good pilot people said and again some of the things he claimed he had done he backed up and some, some he didn't.
Q: Am I to understand that you statement you just made as an admission you did say it sounded like another bull session like they always had?
A: Not always had. The same thing I explained to you, this is essentially what was said and essentially what was said and Ferrie was, I don't know how to explain the type of human being he was.
Q: You would deny making the statement this appeared to you, it appeared to be a bull session to you?
A: That is acceptable.
Q: That is acceptable and that is what you said?
A: Not the exact words. It is acceptable.
Q: I am using it as a quote.
A: No, I don't know if I used those words, no.
Q: Is it not a fact when you were asked to describe the conversation you heard at Dave Ferrie's apartment that you stated that this was very vague in your mind and you could not at this time say what who was saying?
A: In June 1967, is that right?
Q: That is correct.
A: That at this time I could not say who was saying what?
Q: You admit saying that?
A: With the explanation, with the pressures of Rick Townley and Phalen and the rest of them, yes, sir.
Q: Do you deny that at this same meeting with Sergeant O'Donnell with the New Orleans Police Department you expressed to him a desire to meet Clay Shaw?
A: I told him about the thing I discussed with Phelan about it. You quote me what he says and I will answer.
Q: I don't have a quote but did you tell him you wanted to meet Shaw?
A: I told him about Phelan, the Phelan thing and what actually transpired with Phelan.
Q: Then you would deny you told him you wanted to meet with Clay Shaw?
A: Again the 1,000 percent versus the 100 percent. I don't think I could deny that and I told that to Phelan that that would be the best thing possible if I could.
Q: You were not -- you were trying to bait Phelan though?
A: Not initially.
Q: Not initially?
A: When I met him on March 21 he just came up and I was told by the District Attorney's Office he was okay.
Q: You had no reason to bait or get Sergeant O'Donnell?
A: Not Sergeant O'Donnell, no.
Q: Was it not a fact that when Sergeant O'Donnell asked you why you wanted to meet with Clay Shaw you told him you would like to talk with Clay Shaw to size him up to determine whether he was the kind of person that would take part in such a plot.
A: Essentially yes, sir. I was making a judgment play, not judge or jury and if that were possible that it would be a good thing but it is not possible and that's the same thing I told Phelan.
Q: It was not possible to meet with Shaw?
A: Not possible because there would be a 10 foot barrier of concrete between us. What could we discuss except the assassination?
Q: Is it not also a fact that you told Sergeant O'Donnell you would like to know Mr. Garrison's complete case against Clay Shaw?
A: I am not sure and I may have said that.
Q: Would you deny saying that?
A: No, I don't deny it.
Q: Would you admit it?
A: If I don't remember that part I don't admit it either.
Q: You don't admit it?
A: I don't either deny or admit it but I have said this to some people.
Q: Would you deny that Sergeant O'Donnell asked you why you wanted to know this and you stated it would help you come to a decision?
A: Would you read me his quote on that, his statement on that?
Q: Do you deny that when Sergeant O'Donnell asked you why you wanted to know Garrison's complete case against Shaw you said it would help you to come to a decision?
A: I am not sure exactly at that point how far we discussed that. I do remember making remarks to him or him to me concerning Shaw and I stated that I would like to know the case against Shaw from a curious view and at that time I was under a lot of pressure about people splitting hairs, everybody that had said that I was wrong and I'd better straighten up and that Garrison was going to turn around and grab me --
Q: I still don't know whether you told him you wanted to know the rest of the case.
A: Yes, I did probably say it but I'm not real sure.
Q: You would not admit it then?
A: Not admitting or denying it either.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, the date on which you came down here from Baton Rouge on which you came down here from Baton Rouge, was that the 27th of February?
A: That was a Monday, the 27th.
Q: Were you hypnotized after you came down here from Baton Rouge?
A: Well, not that day, not that I remember that day, no.
Q: You say not that you remember that day?
A: In other words, I don't think it was that day, no, but I was hypnotized after I came to New Orleans.
Q: Do you remember when was the first time that you were hypnotized after you came to New Orleans?
A: No. It wasn't but a few days later.
Q: Would the date March 1, 1967 refresh your recollection on it?
A: As the first time?
Q: Right.
A: I thought it would have been earlier than that, but perhaps it was.
Q: By whom were you hypnotized?
A: Dr. Esmond Fatter.
Q: For whom was Dr. Fatter working and hypnotizing you?
A: Well, I guess the -- well, I don't know, I just supposed it was the District Attorney's Office.
Q: Well, were not the arrangements made with you through the District Attorney's Office?
A: Yes. I supposed they worked for him (sic).
Q: Where did this hypnotic session take place?
A: Mr. Ward's office, Dr. Chetta's office.
Q: I am talking about the first one.
A: I think it was Dr. Chetta's office.
Q: In Dr. Chetta's office?
A: The Coroner's office.
Q: Who was present?
A: Sciambra was, I think Al Oser was, there was a stenographer, Dr. Fatter, Dr. Chetta, a couple of others -- a couple of others.
Q: What was that?
A: A few other people.
Q: You say a stenographer was present during that hypnotic session?
A: I am almost sure there was a stenographer there.
Q: Do you know whether a transcript was made at that session?
A: I have seen a transcript of it purporting to be that.
Q: Who represented the document that you saw to be a transcript of the session?
A: Well, I can't really say, it was just -- I had gotten it from either somebody in the DA's Office or one of the newsmen gave it to me.
Q: Would you recognize a transcript of that session if I showed it to you?
A: Would I recognize it as a copy of the copy that I had?
Q: Right.
A: I could -- oh, I could probably take a guess at it, I am not sure exactly word for word. No, I couldn't do that.
(Document produced by Mr. Alcock and handed to Mr. Dymond.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) Mr. Russo, I show you what purports to be a copy of a transcript of the first hypnotic session of 3/1/67, having marked it for identification "D-12," and I ask you to review that and tell me whether you recognize it.
A: Well, I have seen something similar to this. I am not sure it is exactly the same, no.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-12.")
THE COURT: Gentlemen, will you two step up here a moment.
(Messrs. Alcock and Dymond stepped forward for a bench conference off the record.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, did you get a copy of the transcript of that hypnotic session?
A: At one time I had a copy, yes, sir.
Q: By whom was it given to you?
A: I think it was the District Attorney's Office, although I have seen some of the newsmen have a copy, or part of it, anyway.
Q: Do you still have that copy?
A: Oh, no, I don't think so; I have some papers but I don't think it was that.
Q: Now, during this hypnotic session were you in such a deep trance as to be unable at this time to tell us whether these are the questions propounded and the answers given during that session?
A: Well, the transcript that I saw, you see -- I am put in a peculiar position -- from the memory of what the questions were and the answers I gave, no, but having seen a transcript I will probably remember some of the stuff.
Q: From the copy which you say was given to you by a member of the District Attorney's Office, that is, from having read that copy, would you be able to identify this copy which I have exhibited to you, as a proper copy?
A: As a proper copy, it looks all right. I couldn't word for word, no. I mean it is a proper copy, looks all right.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, in connection with the witness's testimony I would like to offer, file and produce in evidence this copy of the transcript of the first hypnotic session.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, to which offer the State objects on the grounds that it is not in any manner, shape or form properly identified at this time. This man testified that he was probably in too deep a trance at the time to recall the questions propounded to him or his answers. This might be introduceable later on, and I can assure Mr. Dymond that Dr. Fatter will be a witness. Perhaps at that time it might be admissible, but not at this time.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we would have no objection to Mr. Alcock examining this document to determine its authenticity.
MR. ALCOCK: Mr. Alcock wasn't present.
MR. DYMOND: Well, you undoubtedly have a copy of the transcript.
MR. ALCOCK: That doesn't make any difference.
THE COURT: Let me say there is no question the primary purpose of the offer, Mr. Dymond, is to show to the witness proof of a contradictory statement made at another time. Now his attention has been called to the time, place and circumstance.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, may I point out --
THE COURT: The question is was he compos mentis.
MR. DYMOND: That isn't the purpose of this offer at all, Your Honor, and I would not feel free to state the purpose of it in the presence of the Jury.
THE COURT: The witness stated he was under hypnosis at the time. He cannot state whether he would remember making that statement or not. Isn't that what he stated a moment ago?
MR. DYMOND: That is correct. If the Court please, as I understand it, the Court's ob- jection to the admissibility of this is that it has not been identified as a true copy of the transcript?
THE COURT: Well, I went further than the State went, I went further and said that the man is not in a position to be able to say whether he made those statements or not if he was under hypnosis.
MR. DYMOND: I understand that completely, Your Honor, and, as I say, I can answer the Court's objection but I don't think I should do it in the Jury's presence. However, with respect to the objection that this is not proven to be a true copy, I think that that objection can be answered.
THE COURT: I think so, too.
MR. DYMOND: -- by my furnishing to the State for the State's perusal, and if they are satisfied it is a true copy, there should be no objection on that basis.
THE COURT: We can do it on an easier basis than that. We can have the stenographer from the District Attorney's Office who took it, to certify it correct. That would be one way, but I am interested in the basis --
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, perhaps to clarify this we should excuse the Jury and find out why he is trying to introduce it.
MR. DYMOND: I will be happy to do that.
THE COURT: Very well, we will excuse the Jury.
(Whereupon, the Jury retired from the courtroom.)
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, Your Honor, before --
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, before Mr. Dymond begins I would like the Sheriff to stand back there by the door and see if he can hear this, stand with the Jury and see if he can hear this and let us know.
THE COURT: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, the purpose of our offering this transcript in evidence is not as a prior contradictory statement, our purpose in putting it in evidence is to have it as an exhibit to lay the foundation for further expert testimony. We have exhibited these transcripts to a competent psychiatrist and hypnotist of national repute, and we intend to show by his testimony that the type of suggestive questions put to Russo while under a hypnotic trance, medically would have the effect of completely destroying his credibility as a witness, his value as a witness, and would have the effect of implanting in his mind what the questioner wanted him to testify to and what was suggested to him by the questioning. The only way that we can do that is to get these transcripts in evidence.
THE COURT: I will hear from you, Mr. Alcock.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, the State's position on that would be this: I don't think Dr. Fatter is on trial nor are we attempting to impeach Dr. Fatter. What would that have to do with this particular witness? That is what I don't understand. Why should they get it in while this witness is testifying? If they want to bring this up to Dr. Fatter, fine, let them bring it up to Dr. Fatter -- Dr. Fatter is going to take the witness stand -- but this is no time to present this document to the witness.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, as to what purpose and what connection there is between this document and this witness, this document together with the expert testimony which we will furnish will show the source of this witness's testimony, and for that reason I think that if it is very relevant, at a time when this witness is testifying, I don't think it makes a great deal of difference whether it is offered today, tomorrow, or the next day.
MR. ALCOCK: The source of this witness's testimony -- this witness has already testified that essentially what he has told this Jury is what he told Sciambra on February 25, 1967. We are talking about March 1 now.
MR. DYMOND: Of course, Your Honor, we are prepared to sow differently on that.
THE COURT: To bring it to a head, I suggest you mark it "D-12" for identification purposes only, and I will not permit the document to be filed at this time, but you can use it when Dr. Fatter takes the stand and maybe reoffer it so it will be in evidence when you psychiatrist takes the stand.
MR. DYMOND: Mr. Alcock, may I ask whether Dr. Fatter is going to be placed on the stand?
MR. ALCOCK: Yes.
MR. DYMOND: As long as we know Dr. Fatter is going to be placed on the stand, we don't mind waiting, it doesn't matter when it is offered, we want it in evidence.
THE COURT: Mark it "D-12" for identification purposes only, and bring the Jury in.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by the Court was duly marked by the Clerk as "Exhibit D-12' For Identification Only," and the Jury was recalled.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, I ask you whether again on March 12, 1967 you were subjected to hypnosis.
A: I am not sure of the date, but I was subjected again, right, a couple of days later.
Q: Would you say that March 12 would be a likely date or a close date?
A: Well, it was before the preliminary hearings, you know; I am not sure of the date though, no.
Q: Now, where did this hypnotic session take place?
A: Well, I am not sure which one you are referring to. One was in --
Q: The second one.
A: One was in Mr. Ward's office, and I think two were in Dr. Chetta's office.
Q: Now, where did you say the first one was, Mr. Russo?
A: In Dr. Chetta's office.
Q: And where would the second one have been?
A: I am not sure on the chronology of it. I think the second one may have been in Dr. Chetta's office also.
Q: Do you remember who was present during this second session?
A: I am sure Dr. Chetta was, Dr. Fatter, a stenographer; I am not sure which Assistant was there at that time.
Q: Do you know whether or not a transcript was made of that meeting?
A: Well, there was a stenographer there, I am sure that there was.
Q: Were you also given a transcript of the second hypnotic session?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you still have that?
A: I think they were bound together. No, I don't have it. I think they were bound together though, in other words, this is one, this is two (indicating).
Q: I see. Now, were you in such a deep hypnotic trance upon the second occasion that you would be unable to review a transcript of that session and identify it as a true and correct transcript?
A: Yes.
Q: If I were to show you what purports to be a transcript of that session, would you be able to identify it as a result of having reviewed the copy of that transcript which was delivered to you by a representative of the DA's office?
A: I could approximately identify it.
MR. DYMOND: I show you this, Mr. Alcock (exhibiting document to Counsel).
MR. ALCOCK: All right.
MR. DYMOND: We will mark this "D-13."
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-13.")
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you a document which has been marked for identification "D-13," Mr. Russo, and I ask you to examine it and tell me whether that appears to be a true copy of the transcript of the second hypnotic session.
A: (The witness nodded affirmatively.)
Q: Would you say that appears to be a correct copy, Mr. Russo?
A: Yes, sir.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I will hold off on the actual introduction of this one.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, there was a third hypnotic session, was there not?
A: Right.
Q: Now, where did this last one take place?
A: In Charles -- in Mr. Ward's office?
Q: In Mr. Ward's office?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who was present then?
A: Dr. Fatter, Mr. Ward was in and out, and just about -- you know, I am sure Sciambra was there, some others, and a stenographer initially.
Q: You say there was a stenographer in the room at that time, too?
A: Well, there was when we began.
Q: Were you furnished with a transcript of that third session?
A: No transcript was ever taken so I was told.
Q: I see.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, at this time I would like to ask of the State whether such a transcript was made and whether it will be furnished
MR. ALCOCK: Well, of course, Your Honor, Mr. Dymond knows if we did have a transcript I wouldn't necessarily deny him access to it -- he knows as a matter of law he is not entitled to it -- but, as I recall, there was no transcript made because it was terminated in the very beginning. Perhaps -- although I wasn't there, Mr. Sciambra was, perhaps he could clarify it. I don't think there was a transcript made.
MR. SCIAMBRA: Your Honor, there wasn't a transcript made of that particular session. I don't know the exact details about it, but Dr. Fatter had some problem in getting Perry to undergo hypnosis for some reason.
THE COURT: The main thing, there was not a transcript made?
MR. SCIAMBRA: No, Your Honor, there was no transcript made.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, have you ever been under psychiatric treatment?
A: Have I ever been under -- yes, sir.
Q: When did that treatment commence?
A: The first year of college, in October.
Q: The first year of college?
A: In October.
Q: What year was that?
A: '59.
Q: '59. And under whose treatment were you?
A: Dr. Max E. Johnson.
Q: Dr. Max E. Johnson?
A: Max, M-a-x.
Q: I see. Does he still practice here in New Orleans?
A: I am sure he does.
Q: And how long did you remain under psychiatric treatment?
A: Twelve to 18 months.
Q: Twelve to 18 months?
A: It was on a consultation basis.
Q: I see. How often would you consult with your psychiatrist?
A: Well, initially on a consultation basis probably about two times a week.
Q: About twice a week?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, after your active consultation period ended with the psychiatrist, is it not a fact that you had telephone consultations with him for quite a lengthy time?
A: Well, not for a lengthy time, only when I had something that I wanted to discuss with him.
Q: And how long did that go on, sir?
A: It was kind of spotty, I mean it was once in '63 and once in '65, I am sure of that.
Q: Do you remember when in '63 that was that you consulted with him?
A: Right after January 31.
Q: After January 31?
A: Right after.
Q: When was it in '65?
A: I am not really sure of that, sir.
Q: Have you consulted with him since 1965 at all?
A: No, I met him on the street, just talked to him.
Q: Have you ever telephoned him?
A: Since '65?
Q: Right.
A: I don't think so, no.
Q: Have you talked to any other psychiatrist since 1965?
A: Only as far as someone up at LSU, just discussing psychiatry. I have always been interested in psychology and psychiatry and psychoanalysis.
Q: But you were not under actual treatment?
A: No. I discussed it for academic reasons.
MR. DYMOND: Would Your Honor bear with us just one moment, please?
(There was a brief pause in the proceedings.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, have you ever attempted to commit suicide?
A: Never.
Q: Do you know a man by the name of Mike Fitzpatrick?
A: Mike Fitzpatrick? Yes, sir.
Q: You knew him in 1962, didn't you?
A: Oh, yes, sir.
Q: Do you deny that in 1962 Mike Fitzpatrick came to your house, and when he got there your wrist had been cut and there was about a half inch of blood and a spot on the floor?
A: (Exhibiting wrists) Mr. Dymond, I don't have any scars on my wrist.
Q: Do you deny that?
A: I deny that.
MR. DYMOND: That is all.
MR. ALCOCK: You have no further questions, Mr. Dymond?
MR. DYMOND: No further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Alcock, before you start, it is about three minutes after 4:00 and I think the news media would like a break before you start on redirect. I don't know whether they would like to have a five-minute break now or wait until 4:30. I think some of them, of course, requested a break a half hour or so ago, so unless somebody puts up a hand to the contrary, we will go along.
(Whereupon, several hands were raised in the courtroom.)
THE COURT: All right. We will take a five-minute recess. Let the Jury remain in the box here.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

AFTER THE RECESS:
THE COURT: Are the State and the Defense ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: Yes, sir.
MR. ALCOCK: The State is ready.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Perry, I think that I recall on cross-examination that you mentioned the fact that David Ferrie had exhibited considerable knowledge in the field of medicine. Is that correct? Am I correct when I say that?
A: Yes, he had a laboratory and he talked a great deal about medical things.
Q: (Exhibiting photographs to witness) Perry, I am going to show you three pictures, which I have marked for purposes of identification as "State 21, 22" and "State 23," and I ask you to view these pictures, and I ask you if you recognize any of the objects exhibited in the pictures.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object to this on the ground that it is completely irrelevant to the issues in this case. I think if Your Honor will examine the photographs you will see what I mean.
(Photographs exhibited to the Court.)
THE COURT: I would like to ask Mr. Alcock, do you intend to link this up with the --
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I think that these will demonstrate to the Court and the Jury that when Perry Russo said thathe exhibited great knowledge in medicine and in the field of medicine and dabbled I it, that these pictures will corroborate that testimony.
THE COURT: I will overrule the objection and permit it as corroborative evidence.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel objects and reserves a bill, making the State's offerings, S-21, S-22, and S-23, the Defense objection, the Court's ruling and the entire record up to now part of the bill.
(Whereupon, the photographs referred to by Counsel were duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-21, S-22," and "Exhibit S-23.")
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Do you recognize the objects depicted in those pictures?
A: The microscope and --
MR. DYMOND: Now, if Your Honor please, we object here on the ground that this witness is not a medical expert by any means and here we have him trying to identify alleged medical equipment.
MR. ALCOCK: He is merely identifying the physical objects.
THE COURT: Overrule the objection. I feel it is not necessary to have an expert to answer the particular question.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel objects and reserves a bill, making the State's question, the Defense objection, reasons therefor, the Court's ruling, and the entire testimony and the same three exhibits and the record to date, part of the bill.
THE COURT:
He is not asking the witness for a medical reply, he is asking for the reply of an average ordinary citizen. He is not asking an expert question which needs an expert answer. All right, you may proceed.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Go ahead.
A: The microscope looks familiar, and the black box and these test tubes -- I am not sure about the container, the porcelain container I am not sure about, but the frame container for the tubes is familiar.
Q: Where if anywhere did you see the objects that you have just identified?
A: In Dave Ferrie's apartment.
Q: Would that be on Louisiana Avenue Parkway?
A: I think some medical things -- I think this microscope (indicating) might have been out at Kenner, too, but I think these were at Louisiana Avenue.
Q: All right. Now you were referring at that time to State's Exhibit 22?
A: Well, I mean this microscope in all three of them.
Q: You recognize the microscope to be the microscope that was in Dave Ferrie's apart- ment or --
MR. DYMOND: Object to leading the witness.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Do you recognize this to be the microscope or a similar one?
A: It appears to be the one or a similar one -- I am not sure exactly the same one, but it looks like the one he had there.
Q: Thank you. Now, Perry, at that time did you know Clay Shaw?
A: Was this on March 1?
Q: March 1.
A: I knew a man that I knew as Clem Bertrand.
Q: Did you know Clay Shaw as Clay Shaw, or Clay Shaw as Clem Bertrand?
A: I had been told in the previous week that --
MR. DYMOND: Object to what he had been told.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
A: I had learned the man's real name was --
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I object. He is putting it in just a different way.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did you know Clay Shaw as Clay Shaw, or Clay Shaw as Clem Bertrand?
A: I never knew anyone named Clay Shaw.
Q: So when you responded to the question, do you know Clay Shaw, and you responded no, why did you respond no to that question?
A: Because I didn't know Clay Shaw. I was introduced to a man named Clem Bertrand.
Q: Perry, in Baton Rouge on February 24, and more specifically your interview with Jim Kemp, during the course of that interview with Jim Kemp did he exhibit any photographs to you?
A: In Baton Rouge.
Q: Yes.
A: No, sir.
Q: Did he ask you to identify any photographs?
A: No photographs were shown to me and he didn't ask me to identify photographs.
Q: Now referring to your interview with Mr. Bankston, were you shown any photographs and asked to identify any photographs?
A: No. We talked in general about Dave Ferrie.
Q: At that time, which would have been February 24, 1967, did you know anyone by the name of Clay Shaw?
A: On February 24?
Q: Yes.
A: I had never heard the name Clay Shaw before in my life.
Q: Perry, can you recall when you learned the correct name of the Defendant before the Bar?
A: Would you repeat that?
Q: Do you recall when you first learned the correct name of the Defendant?
A: It was sometime after the 27th, I would just say about the middle of the week.
Q: Did you learn it in Baton Rouge or in New Orleans?
A: I learned it in New Orleans.
Q: Now, Perry, did you identify the person depicted in State's Exhibit No. 1 to Andrew Sciambra on February 25, 1967?
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I again object to leading the witness.
MR. ALCOCK: That is not leading, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did you identify any pictures for Mr. Sciambra on February 25, 1967?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Is S-1 one of those pictures?
A: I am not sure if it is the exact picture, I think it was only the right half, it was an enlargement of the right half.
Q: And how did you identify the picture?
A: Well, he had the picture, several pictures with him, or quite a few, and I pulled this one out when he showed it to me, and I said that I had known this man.
Q: And did you say where you had known this man?
A: I said that he was a roommate of Ferrie's.
Q: Now, was this before or after any attempt was made to draw any whiskers on the picture?
A: This was in Baton Rouge, this was before, although we did attempt to draw whiskers at that time.
Q: Was the identification made before the attempt or after the attempt?
A: Identification was made before the attempt.
Q: Perry, can you tell us why in the interview with James or Jim Kemp on February 24, 1967, you did not go into detail or into the degree of detail that you have gone into in this courtroom today?
A: Well, this was at Channel 2 at Baton Rouge -- Channel 9 -- one or the other, one of the two stations -- there are only two stations up there -- and he had no photographs, it was just a general interview, he had no photographs that he showed me. He mentioned no names except Harvey Lee Oswald's name. Of course, Dave Ferrie's name, he mentioned that. He didn't go into -- well, he had no photographs to say, well, is this guy involved or that guy involved, he didn't show me anything, all he did was set it up and turn on a camera and we started talking, or he started asking questions.
Q: Would that be the same reason why you did not go into this detail with Mr. Bankston?
A: Well, Mr. Bankston was interested in Dave Ferrie. He indicated an interest in Lee Harvey Oswald, which I was not going to tell him I knew Lee Harvey Oswald. I had known a Leon Oswald, and I maintain that to this point right now, and he didn't have any photographs either, none of them had any photographs, all they did was just talk.
Q: Perry, do you realize the seriousness of this change?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
MR. ALCOCK: On what ground, Your Honor? I would like to know the ground for the objection.
THE COURT: It makes no difference what he thinks. There is law on it, and the law is serious, the law makes it out to be a crime.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Perry, are you today identifying the Defendant Clay Shaw as the same man that you saw in Ferrie's apartment in mid-September, 1963, who was identified to you as Clem Bertrand?
MR. DYMOND: Object as a leading question.
THE COURT: Overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the State's question, the Defense objection, the Court's ruling, the reason for the objection, and the entire record up until this point part of the bill.
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Answer the question.
A: The question is whether Clay Shaw and Clem Bertrand are one and the same? They are.
MR. ALCOCK: No further questions.
THE COURT: All right. You may step down.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I have a few questions.
THE COURT: Very well, you may recross.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Russo, were you not permitted to look at Clay Shaw through a one-way glass in the District Attorney's Office?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor. This was not brought out on redirect. He can only go on recross on what was brought out on redirect.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, this was brought out on redirect and has to do with his not knowing who Clay Shaw was on March 1.
THE COURT: I will permit the question.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Do you remember the question?
A: Did I identify Clay Shaw through a one-way mirror?
Q: Yes.
A: Is that correct, or similar to that?
Q: On March 1, 1967 in the District Attorney's Office.
A: I am not sure of the date -- I am almost sure it was March 1 -- but yes, I did.
Q: Is it not a fact that Clay Shaw was sitting in one of the office that you were in another portion of the District Attorney's Office in general, and were able to see through what from the inside of the office where Clay Shaw was appeared to be a mirror?
A: Right.
Q: Is it not a fact that you were told who this subject was who was sitting in there at that time?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection.
THE COURT: I will permit the question. On what grounds?
MR. ALCOCK: Hearsay.
THE COURT: I will permit it.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat that?
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Is it not a fact that when you were permitted to look at Clay Shaw through this one- way glass, you were told who he was?
A: I had been told that before, probably was told, or I heard the name at that same time also.
Q: That was on March 1? Right?
A: I had been told -- I think if I came down to New Orleans on the 27th, I was probably told the next day or the day after.
Q: What you were told was what Clay Shaw's real name was, one day or two days after you got down there?
A: The middle of that week it would probably be.
Q: But you did know his real name when you looked at him?
A: His name to me is Clem Bertrand, I am not going to claim him as Clay Shaw right now.
Q: Were you not informed by a representative of the DA's Office that you were looking at Clay Shaw through a one-way glass?
A: No District Attorney walked in there and said you are looking at Clay Shaw through a one-way glass, I am sure of that.
Q: Did anyone inform you of the actual name of the man you were looking at?
A: I said that they did, someone did.
Q: Now, is it not a fact that the interview which was conducted by Korbel and the other reporter on the steps of the courthouse, was taken as you were leaving the courthouse that day?
A: Right.
Q: Is it not a fact then that you did know the correct name of Clay Shaw when you --
A: No, I didn't know Clay Shaw and I don't know Clay Shaw right now.
Q: Let me ask the question before you answer it.
THE COURT: Cut the screaming down. We can do better talking low. Let him finish the question and then you can answer it.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: If you had been told this man's correct name when you were looking through the one- way glass in the DA's Office, and this interview was taken when you were leaving the building, why didn't you know his correct name then?
A: Because I never was introduced to a man named Clay Shaw, I was introduced to Clem Bertrand and that is still the name that he goes under to me right now.
Q: You wouldn't be splitting hairs on this, would you?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That is argument.
THE BAILIFF: Order, order, please!
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Do you still say you weren't told that was Clay Shaw you were looking at?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection. He has answered the question.
THE COURT: He has answered the question. I sustain the objection. Cool it down, please, Gentlemen. We can do just as well by keeping our voices down.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, when somebody tries to talk when you are still asking a question, you have to raise your voice to be heard.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, in talking about your interview with Jim Kemp up in Baton Rouge, you say you didn't mention the name Lee Harvey Oswald because you had known a Leon Oswald? Is that right?
A: Right.
Q: Isn't it a fact that you also did not mention anything about a plot meeting or a conspiracy meeting?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection. He has answered the question.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, the State went into this on redirect.
MR. ALCOCK: And he answered the question.
MR. DYMOND: I would like to go into it now.
MR. ALCOCK: He has answered the question.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Isn't it a fact --
MR. ALCOCK: Objection.
MR. DYMOND: You have been overruled.
MR. ALCOCK: I have not been overruled.
THE COURT: If it has been brought out on redirect -- and I think it has been -- what questions were put by the reporters, without pictures -- I believe Mr. Dymond is referring to the same interview on recross, and he should be permitted to go into it. Therefore I overrule the State's objection.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Would you answer the question, please.
A: Would you read the question?
(Whereupon, the pending question was read back by the Reporter.)
A: To Jim Kemp?
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Right.
A: Jim Kemp never asked me anything along those lines.
Q: I see. But in spite of that you told your friends after the assassination that Leon Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald were the same person, is that right?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor. That wasn't brought out on redirect.
MR. DYMOND: It is in relation to the question I just finished asking.
THE COURT: Overrule the objection.
A: I told some friends of mine I think I knew that man.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Still you didn't mention anything about this to Jim Kemp? Right?
A: Right.
THE COURT: Now I am going to intercede. He only answered the questions that were put to him, he didn't volunteer anything. That is what I understand.
MR. DYMOND: If Your Honor please, we object to the Court commenting on the evidence, we do, and we move for a mistrial.
THE COURT: Well, it is denied.
MR. DYMOND: -- on the ground that the Court commented on evidence, and reserve a bill of exception to the Court's ruling, making the Court's comment and the entire record up to this time part of the bill.
THE COURT: Very well.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, say that you made the identification of the Oswald photograph in New York as being the same as Leon Oswald, before the whiskers were put on? Is that right?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor. New York is not involved in this.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: In Baton Rouge?
A: Yes, sir, in Baton Rouge, yes.
Q: Is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You say that, and do you also say that when you saw Lee Harvey Oswald's picture on television and in the newspapers after the assassination, you did not identify it as being Leon Oswald?
A: I told some of my friends that I think I had known that man.
Q: And is it your testimony that you sat in, or listened in, on a conspiratorial meeting with a man whom you saw represented in the paper and on television as the killer of President Kennedy, and didn't report it at that time to any law enforcement agent? Is that right?
A: No, I never said anything about a conspiracy; I didn't sit in on any conspiracies.
Q: Now with respect to your interview with Mr. Bankston up in Baton Rouge, is it your testimony that you didn't mention anything about this party or this meeting because he seemed to be interested only in Ferrie?
A: No, it wasn't totally interested in Ferrie, but he wasn't even interested in me initially until something came over the teletype about Dave Ferrie, and he was interested at that time, said, "Well, we will take a statement," and so for the next 30 or 40 minutes we sat there and talked.
Q: As a matter of fact, you called Bankston, he didn't call you?
A: I called the State Times; I don't know if I talked to him on the phone or not.
Q: You called his newspaper, is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: And you had your story to tell and you told it? Isn't that right?
A: That I knew Dave Ferrie, yes.
MR. DYMOND: That is all.

MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, in connection with the testimony of this witness, the State would like to offer and file and introduce into evidence the following exhibits --
MR. DYMOND: I don't know these by number, Mr. Alcock.
MR. ALCOCK: I will bring them up.
MR. DYMOND: All right.
MR. ALCOCK: I may not have them in exact order. "S-23" which purports to be a picture of --
THE COURT: What is the number of it?
MR. ALCOCK: "S-23," which purports to be a picture of the microscope identified by the witness on the stand.
THE COURT: Let's take them one at a time. Is there any objection?
MR. DYMOND: Yes, Your Honor. We object to the pictures of the medical equipment, we make the same objection of lack of relevancy.
THE COURT: I will overrule the objection, so you can offer "S-21," "S-22," and "S-23" over the objection. They will be permitted to be offered.
MR. DYMOND: Very well. We would like to reserve a bill of exception of their introduction, making the photographs, the objection, the reason for the objection, the Court's ruling, and the entire record up until now part of the bill, also making the exhibits part of it.
THE COURT: Are you taking three separate bills?
MR. DYMOND: I think we can make that one bill.
THE COURT: All right. One bill.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-19" purports to be a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald with certain altera- tions to the face.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-15-Trial" purports to be a picture of the dining room of the apartment of David Ferrie.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-13-Trial" which purports to be a picture of the living room of the apartment of David Ferrie.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-11," which purports to be a picture of the outside front of the apartment of David Ferrie.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-12-Trial," which purports to be a picture of the hallway in David Ferrie's apartment.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-24-Trial," which purports to be a picture of the hallway of David Ferrie's apartment.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: "S-16-Trial," which purports to be a picture of David Ferrie.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: And "S-17-Trial," which purports to be a picture of two detectives leading Lee Harvey Oswald out of the jail in Dallas, Texas.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
MR. ALCOCK: The State would like also to offer, file and introduce into evidence, having marked same for purposes of identification, "S-18," which purports to be a Mannlicker-Carcano rifle with a telescopic sight.
MR. DYMOND: To which we object, Your Honor. This rifle does not purport to have any direct connection with the case. It is our contention that it is completely irrelevant to the issues in the case.
THE COURT: Overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel objects and reserves a bill of exception, making the objection, the Court's ruling together with the reasons therefor, and the Exhibit S-18, together with the entire record up until this point, part of the record.
THE COURT: I understand, Mr. Alcock, that the exhibit is being offered as being similar to?
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, yes.
THE COURT: All right. You didn't say that. It is similar to but not the original?
MR. ALCOCK: It is a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle but it is similar.
THE COURT: Yes, similar.
MR. DYMOND: If Your Honor please, I would like to point out that there is nothing in the record to identify this as a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
MR. ALCOCK: All right. Just put it as a rifle Your Honor, I think Mr. Russo is excused, isn't he?
THE COURT: I am waiting for you to tell me. You have no further questions?
MR. ALCOCK: No, I have no further questions.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: Mr. Alcock, I am checking on your Exhibit S-20. What exhibit is that, Mr. Sullivan?
THE CLERK: It went in on S- and D-20.
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, in connection with the testimony of the witness Perry Russo, and in consideration of the fact that Dr. Chetta is now deceased, the State would at this time ask permission of the Court to have Mr. Alvin Oser, Assistant District Attor- ney, the man who examined Dr. Chetta in the preliminary hearing, read into the record his testimony then given.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we object.
THE COURT: State your reasons why.
MR. DYMOND: Well, I think the Jury should be removed for this objection, if the Court please.
THE COURT: All right. Take the Jury in my office.
(Whereupon, the Jury was excused from the courtroom.)
THE COURT: I am faced with Article 295. I guess you are aware of it.
MR. DYMOND: I am aware of it.
THE COURT: I will be glad to hear your objection.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, this objection is not based upon Article 295, which deals with preliminary hearings, at all. We realize that ordinarily the testimony of a deceased witness which has been previously taken at a preliminary hearing, is admissible on the trial of the case, but we object to this on the basic admissibility of this testimony because of its very nature, that is, were the same testimony to be offered from the lips of Dr. Chetta, we do not feel that it would be admissible here. This testimony purports to be in large part statements of the witness Perry Raymond Russo while he was under the influence of the drug sodium pentothal which had been administered by Dr. Chetta, and that actually the Court would have to read the entire testimony of Dr. Chetta from the transcript of this preliminary hearing in order to properly pass upon this objection. We objected to this testimony at the preliminary hearing, but, of course, being a preliminary hearing, the testimony was permitted, but this is a trial before a Jury here now.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, will the Court hear the State?
THE COURT: The Court would like to hear the State, certainly.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, the State's position in the matter is that what is in the preliminary hearings -- Mr. Dymond has opened the door on the question of sanity or insanity of the witness Perry Russo, so the State would like to quote the case of People vs. Esposito, 287 N.Y. 189, 39 N.E. 2, 1925, decided in 1942, and in this particular case the testimony was admitted by a psychiatrist based on the reactions and information received from the defendant while under the influence of drugs and sodium pentothal, which is truth serum, and in this particular case the doctor used this as one of the aids and means by which he tested and determined whether or not the defendant was sane or insane, and this is the reason that the testimony of Dr. Chetta is being offered. This is further covered, if Your Honor please, in the Temple Law Review, Volume 35, Page 401.
THE COURT: Can I get a copy of the Temple Law Review article?
MR. OSER: I believe Judge Bagert still has a copy.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: I have a copy of it and I have no objection to submitting it to the Court, because I think --
THE COURT: A copy of what?
MR. WEGMANN: Of the Law Review article he is talking about -- because I think it proves exactly the opposite.
THE COURT: I will hear Mr. Dymond.
MR. DYMOND: I don't think, if the Court please, that the Esposito case is applicable here at all. In the first place, Counsel is contending by asking a witness whether he has had psychiatric treatment, that I have opened the door as to his sanity. You will probably get resentment from a lot of people in this courtroom if you questioned the sanity of each one who has consulted with a psychiatrist.
THE COURT: Well, to the layman, whether you believe it or not, to the layman a person who goes to a psychiatrist, they do think something is wrong with them; whether he is nuts or not, that is something else.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, further the sodium pentothal --
THE COURT: I know what sodium pentothal is.
MR. DYMOND: -- test has nothing whatsoever to do with sanity or insanity. This is testimony concerning material which was obtained from this witness in the form of testimony while under the influence of this drug. I know of no case in the history of our jurisprudence where such testimony has been admitted in evidence. We don't know what effect the administration of this drug has on a witness, the Jury doesn't, the Court doesn't, and I don't think that you will find a case in the annals of our country where a court has said yes, put a man under sodium pentothal, or a drug, and get him to talk and then that testimony is admissible in evidence.
THE COURT: Let me read to you, irrespective of your saying you are not alluding to Article 295, it seems like that article covers it very nicely. I am going to read.
MR. DYMOND; We have no argument with 295.
THE COURT: I am going to read it for the record. Take this down.
"295. Admission of Transcripts and Other Proceedings. The transcript of the testimony of a defendant who has testified at a preliminary examination is admissible against him upon the trial of his case, or, if relevant, in any subsequent judicial proceedings.
"The transcript of the testimony of any other witness who testified at the preliminary examination is admissible for any purpose in any subsequent proceedings in the case on behalf of either party. If the Court finds that the witness is dead, too ill to testify, absent from the state, or cannot be found, and that the absence of the witness was not procurred by the party offering the testimony --"
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Let me finish reading.
"-- the transcript of testimony given by a person at a preliminary examination may be used by any party in a subsequent judicial proceedings for the purpose of impeaching or corroborating the testimony of such person as a witness."
(Reporter's Note: The above quotation transcribed from the notes as they lie; the reader is referred to the source.)
THE COURT: Now, you have used the transcript of that hearing in attacking or impeaching the testimony of Perry Russo. You were also present at this preliminary examination and hearing, and you offered whatever objections you had to Dr. Chetta's testimony -- I am sure you must have.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, in answer to that I would like to say this: Yes, we did offer objections and we were met with the answer that "This is a preliminary hearing."
THE COURT: The same rules of evidence apply.
MR. DYMOND: I beg your pardon.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: No, they were not applied.
MR. DYMOND: They were not applied. If Your Honor will examine this transcript, you will see that upon numerous occasions we objected to hearsay evidence on this preliminary hearing. We were met with argument by the State that this is a preliminary hearing that hearsay evidence can be introduced at a preliminary hearing, and the three-judge panel so ruled. If Your Honor will examine this transcript, it will bear me out. And we have another situation here where evidence was admitted on the preliminary hearing because it was a preliminary hearing. We are confronted here with exactly the situation that we feared we would be confronted with.
THE COURT: Well, was the argument advanced to the three-judge court of the possibili- ty of that testimony being read at subsequent trial?
MR. DYMOND: Absolutely, absolutely it was, and the record reflects it.
THE COURT: In its entirety?
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: And you will find a very detailed argument at the very beginning of Russo's testimony, as to what was going to be done.
THE COURT: I am ready to rule. I will overrule your objection, I will permit the reading of this under Article 295.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, may we ask that before you make such a ruling as this --
THE COURT: I have already made it.
MR. DYMOND: I will ask you to retract it then and permit us to research this point and furnish you with authorities tomorrow morning. I mean this ruling is absolutely contrary to anything that was anticipated in this preliminary hearing.
THE COURT: From a purely legal situation, you made the objection anticipating that the transcript could be read at a subsequent judicial proceeding, and you tell me the reason it was permitted is because they agreed it was hearsay but although it was hearsay that it was permitted because it was a preliminary examination?
MR. DYMOND: That is correct, and we said, "Yes, but suppose a witness dies and they try to introduce this as evidence on trial of the case?" They said, "Oh, no, you will be able to object on whatever legal ground you have."
THE COURT: Is that in the transcript?
MR. DYMOND: That is in the transcript, yes.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: I think you have got to read the transcript.
THE COURT: I will have to read it.
MR. DYMOND: There is no other way out.
THE COURT. Can you pinpoint the section? I don't have a transcript.
MR. DYMOND: We can find that section without any trouble, yes.
THE COURT: Does the State have an extra copy, or is the transcript in the Clerk's Office?
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, I would like to point out to the Court perhaps my appreciation of what transpired at the preliminary hearing is different from Defense Counsel's -- perhaps it is -- but I remember I had long and strenuously argued the point that hearsay was admissible in a preliminary hearing because there we were only deciding whether or not there was probably cause --
MR. DYMOND: That is correct.
MR. ALCOCK: -- and I analogized this to be probable cause on a search warrant and a motion to suppress. However, I was overruled, hearsay was excluded. The only conversations that were admitted was after the Court deemed that we had prima-faciely proved a conspiracy, and I can point that out to the Court in the transcript, because I know I argued that point long and loud and lost it.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I don't think there is any point in Mr. Alcock and me standing here arguing what is in the transcript when we can look at it and see what is in it.
THE COURT: I will get a copy somewhere, perhaps from the Clerk's Office. I would like for you, if you can, to cite me the particular pages.
MR. DYMOND: Given a few minutes I am sure we can.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: I believe if you will read Dr. Chetta's testimony you will find the citation of the Court's authorities and everything else in there.
THE COURT: What is this evidence --
MR. WEGMANN: I have a copy of the Law Review article which is underlined.
MR. OSER: My questions to Dr. Chetta were based on hypothetical questions and not what Russo told Dr. Chetta. There is no testimony in there by Dr. Chetta as to what Russo told him. His answers were to my hypothetical questions to the expert, Dr. Chetta, at the time, not what Mr. Dymond said.
THE COURT: I understood you wanted to read the entire testimony of Dr. Chetta to the Jury?
MR. DYMOND: Correct.
THE COURT: I understand the State wishes to read the entire --
MR. OSER: But all my questions were propounded on the basis of hypothetical questions.
THE COURT: I will tell you what I think. The suggestion by Mr. Dymond probably is a solution to the problem we have now, I would think. I will take the testimony and also this exhibit you have. Do you have anything? You submitted me two citations, Mr. Oser. Do you have a brief on them or a memorandum on them?
MR. OSER: The Esposito case, Your Honor, is covered in the Temple Law Quarterly.
THE COURT: Which is what you have?
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: If we are going to argue it tomorrow morning, I would like to have a copy of it so we can review it.
MR. DYMOND: Do you want to make a copy for the Court?
THE COURT: We will make a couple of copies. Have a couple of copies made. We will get it in the next ten minutes. Do you have any other witnesses you want to put on now?
MR. ALCOCK: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I will recess until tomorrow morning, and I will read the transcript plus the authorities and when we get here tomorrow morning, I will permit both sides to be heard in argument on it. Now, we are only contending about the testimony of Dr. Chetta?
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: Well, the argument about the hearsay that Mr. Alcock points out was originally made -- if you wait a second I can tell you where, because there is a long colloquy that went on. I believe, Judge, if you will read the very beginning of Perry Raymond Russo's testimony, which begins at Page 20, you will find the colloquy between Alcock --
MR. ALCOCK: You will find the answer on Page 41.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: You will find eventually what was done, but you will find what took place in the comments of the three-judge court.
THE COURT: To Page 41?
MR. WEGMANN: I don't say it ends there, Judge. I am afraid it is a long night of reading.
THE COURT: Where is Dr. Chetta's testimony?
MR. DYMOND: It is indexed.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have more than one copy of it, Mr. Oser?
MR. OSER: No, sir.
THE COURT: It would be in Judge Bagert's Court. Could you let me have your copy overnight? I will let you have it back tomorrow morning.
MR. OSER: Yes, sir (handing document to the Court).
THE COURT: All right. Bring the Jury down. I am going to have to tell them we are adjourning for the night.
(Whereupon, the Jury returned to the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Gentlemen of the Jury, a legal point has come up that has to be researched by myself tonight, I have to refer to the transcript that was made of a preliminary hearing in the matter. Rather than keep you gentlemen up there, it is 5:00 o'clock now and we are sending for the agents to take you back to the motel. Do not discuss the case among yourselves or with any other person.
Mr. Shaw, you will be released on your same bond, and Court will be adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock.
. . . . Thereupon, at 5:00 o'clock, p.m., the proceedings herein were adjourned to Wednesday, February 12, 1969 at 9:00 o'clock a.m. . . . .

CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ORLEANS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW
198-059
1426 (30)
SECTION "C"
PROCEEDINGS IN OPEN COURT
Morning, February 12, 1969
Paul Williams, Reporter
(See page 38, typed instructions on blue sheet - document to be obtained and verified.)
B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: Are we going to argue this in the presence of the Jury, or what? We are not going to argue this in the presence of the Jury?
THE COURT: Tell them to stay upstairs. I notice in the Clerk's records they did not have a copy of the transcript, they searched for it yesterday and this morning, no copy of it in the record itself. The offer, the offer has been made, as I understand it, by the State to which the Defense has opposed. I will listen to the opposition and I will listen to you, Mr. Alcock.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: We gave the Court last night the Law Review article which is the basis upon which the State believe it is permissible under the Esposito case, and as the Court observed is a New York City case. We rely on the case of Lindsey vs. The United States of America which is cited in 237 F. 2d 893, it is an opinion out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, May 7, 1956.
In this particular case, there are very pertinent observations with relevance to the use of sodium-pentothal and with relation to the admissibility of the results of the sodium pentothal tests into evidence, and in this particular case the Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge who had admitted the results into evidence.
Now, at the very outset, and I won't be long, but at the outset I think we ought to point out what the State is trying to do by putting into evidence the testimony of Dr. Chetta which is some seventy-five or eighty pages in all, is to put into evidence, in the record, indirectly what this case definitely says it cannot do and for which there is no authority in law.
What the State in effect attempting to do is to rehabilitate Perry Russo, this is the sole purpose that I can see upon which they can even state that Dr. Chetta's testimony is admissible, and what Dr. Chetta's testimony consists of is a series of hypothetical questions asking whether if certain facts existed, whether that individual was sane, and it also goes into the fact that he had administered sodium pentothal to Russo and that he had been present at the Russo hypnotic session with Dr. Fatter, so the only conclusion I can draw is they are trying to show the man is not insane and he is sane.
Now, without reading the whole case to the Court, I would like to read just sections which I think set forth the situation which existed in the case. I quote, "Here the Government's witness was subjected to psychiatric examination for the avowed purpose of determining whether the story originally told the authorities was the truth. Obvious motive existed then to repeat that story. So if the original story were indeed a fabrication, it would be unreasonable to hold that motive did not exist to fabricate during the test insofar as will could assert itself."
It goes on to say, "In order to accept the Government's view, we must be able to say affirmatively that the sodium pentothal interview is a test of truthfulness that is not only trustworthy, but reliably so in all cases."
It goes on, "Although Narco analysis in in general, and the sodium pentothal interview in particular, may be a useful tool in the psychiatric examination of an individual, the Courts have not generally recognized the trustworthiness and reliability of such tests as being sufficiently well established to accord the results the status of competent evidence."
Then it goes on to say that, "The expected effect of the drug is to dispel inhibitions so the subject will talk freely, but it seems scientific tests reveal that people thus prompted to speak freely do not always tell the truth."
They cite a series of medical journals in support of this opinion that people who undergo this test do not always tell the truth.
It then states rather extensively from a Yale Medical School article which appeared in the Yale Law Review, and it says, "In summary, experimental and clinical findings indicate that only individuals who have conscious and unconscious reasons for doing so are inclined to confess and yield to interrogation under drug influence. On the other hand, some are able to withhold information and some, especially character neurotics, are able to lie. Others are so suggestible they will describe, in response to suggestive questioning, behavior which never in fact occurred."
Now, this is one of our objections, every time that we have asked to review anything the State has said as they have, for instance, in the case of the VIP book, they want their agent present, and this is something they insist on, and our point is that they have rehabilitated the witness when nobody from the Defense was present, despite the fact the Defendant at this time had been arrested, the Defendant was arrested March 1, the tests took place after March 1, and they knew who Clay Shaw was, the Defense was not given an opportunity to be present at the rehabilitation tests.
The only one who submitted questions, the only one who did the suggesting to these people were representatives of the District Attorney's office, and I think it is significant to this Court that the District Attorney's office saw fit within a week after they first met this witness to attempt to rehabilitate him.
In other words, they were rehabilitating him before they even put him on the witness stand, and it goes on to say, "but drugs are not truth sera, they lessen inhibitions to verbalization and stimulate un- repressed expression not only of fact but of fancy and suggestion as well. Thus, the material produced is not truth in the sense that it conforms to empirical fact."
They cite various Law Review articles again.
Then it cites in Article -- in the 46th J. Crim. L., page 259, it says, "The intravenous injection of a drug by a physician in a hospital may appear more scientific than the drinking of large amounts of bourbon in a tavern, but the end result displayed in the subject's speech may be no more reliable. It goes on to say, "Hence it was error to admit the recording of the sodium pentothal interview, even as a prior consistent statement for the limited purpose of rehabilitating the impeached witness."
"Authorities who recommended use of the sodium pentothal interview as an auxiliary procedure to full psychiatric examination, nevertheless caution that a transcript of the interview should definitely not be admissible in evidence, because of the difficulty that a lay jury would have in properly evaluating this evidence." This is the problem that we have there.
Now, one of the things that is continually before us in the preliminary hearing, and once again the Court has not had the benefit of reading the transcript, but one of the things before us in the preliminary hearing was the three-judge court telling us all the time "We are three judges who are hearing this," and we argued that they were making a record that might eventually be used before a Jury. The took the opinion they were judges and they were able to make the distinction, and the Court sitting here day in and day out is much more qualified to make a hairline decision or distinction between certain facts and fantasies than is the lay jury that we have in this case.
THE COURT: In my opinion, the only exception for hearsay is in a motion to suppress. That is the Agular case out of the Supreme Court. I do not believe the rules of hearsay are waived in a preliminary hearing.
MR. WEGMANN: I believe that is true, while at one time when you read the preliminary hearing, at one stage it appears that they sustained us on this motion, if you read it throughout you will find that they did not. Judge Braniff, during Dr. Chetta's testimony the question of hearsay came up, Dr. Chetta says what Perry Russo told him on occasion, and this is what we objected to in the testimony.
As I say, I see no other argument, and I would like a chance to reply to the State. I see no other argument that they have but that they intend to prove that Dr. Chetta said that he found Mr. Russo sane at the time of his examination.
I lay the additional predicate that the question now before the Court is not whether Russo was sane in March of 1967, but the question before the Court is now whether he is sane on February 11, 1969, when he is testifying, a period of more than two years later. Certainly the Court on any kind of a psychiatric hearing would not accept a psychiatric record of two years past to determine a man's sanity at the present time. They are not trying to rehabilitate Russo in 1967, they are trying to rehabilitate him today in 1969.
THE COURT: I will be glad to hear from the State.
MR. OSER: It is the State's contention that the jurisprudence on the point is that the use of drugs such as sodium antothal and sodium pentothal cannot be used and introduced into a court of law in order to show the truthfulness of the statement made by a person, or to establish the credibility of the person making the statement; however, the State's contention under the case of People vs. Esposito, Mr. Wegmann referred to, which is cited in 287 New York 389, 39 N.E. 2d, 925, the Court in this particular case allowed the testimony of the psychiatrist which was based on reactions and information received by the psychiatrist while the subject was under sodium anthothal to determine the question of sanity, also covered in the case was the fact that the only purpose that the testimony of the psychiatrist was given in the case was to determine the question of insanity, and not to determine the truthfulness of the statements made by the subject under the influence of the drug.
Furthermore, the State wishes to rely on the case of People vs. Cartier, 35 Pac. 2d, 114, wherein this particular case there was a question of insanity and the testimony of the psychiatrist was allowed regarding his sodium antothal treatment or administration of the drug as a diagnostic aid.
Now, in these particular matters before the Court today, the State is not attempting to introduce the testimony of Dr. Chetta to show the truthfulness of the statements made by the witness under sodium pentothal, nor to establish the credibility of the witness. The State is attempting to use Dr. Chetta's testimony to show that Dr. Chetta made a determination of the question on sanity of the individual Perry Russo and that one of the diagnostic aids used by the doctor was that of sodium pentothal, and based on the jurisprudence, Your Honor, the State feels it should be allowed to introduce this testimony only for that purpose, as it was the only purpose introduced in the preliminary hearing, and this is the State's position.
MR. WEGMANN: The cases cited by Mr. Oser, or the case which was cited in that Law Review article, both of which are State cases, the case that we cite to you is a Federal Court of Appeal case, which we submit has more binding effect upon this Court than would a New York decision or a California decision.
Now, once again, Mr. Oser says exactly what I predicted he would say, it is a question of sanity. Now, we now raise the objection of relevancy as to the relevance of Russo's sanity in 1967 as opposed to today. The State has continuously maintained that this trial is going to go on for several days. Dr. Chetta made his examination based upon an hour, less than an hour's examination of Russo despite the fact that he said one of the true tests of sodium pentothal was to know the patient whom you were treating, and he admitted, and this is a weakness in my humble opinion to Dr. Chetta's, to the validity of Dr. Chetta's testimony, and we questioned him on that face, he knew him only for less than an hour or forty-five minutes, but if they really want to know the sanity of Russo as of today, now is the time to have him psychiatrically examined and have that doctor brought in here and have him subject to cross-examination.
If Dr. Chetta were alive today, the testimony that is contained in this preliminary report, namely the sanity of Russo as of March 1, 1967, would not be admissible at this time because it would not be relevant, whether he was sane or insane when he made that statement. It is not relevant, the condition of Russo in '67 is not relevant on February 12, 1969.
MR. ALCOCK: If I might just be heard on that point. I agree to some extent with Defense Counsel that we are now talking about the Russo testimony in 1969; however, during the course of argument and during the course of presentation in this case, Mr. Dymond announced that he will put a witness on the stand, an expert witness in the area of hypnosis, who will allegedly show that Russo's testimony was the result of suggestions during hypnosis, that sodium pentothal testimony is inadmissible, and the whole question here is that at the time the tests were administered to Perry Russo, that is the critical area and the critical time we are concerned about, and that is the critical time that Dr. Chetta addressed himself at that time.
It is not Perry Russo's testimony today, but it is during the course of these tests which Defense Counsel have announced that they will attack strongly during the course of this trial, so this is the area and the time that we are concerned about, and the fact that Mr. Dymond brought out that Perry Russo had allegedly attempted t commit suicide, he asked him whether or not he had been under psychiatric care, and additionally, if you will recall, at this same time or within this same period Mr. Dymond asked Mr. Russo whether or not he had made a statement whether or not he knew the difference between fact and fantasy, and again these things are critical, and we wish to show by this testimony of Dr. Chetta, who saw him often during that period, the stability of this witness, which would in effect negate the arguments of Defense Counsel that he was unstable and the tests were used merely to buttress him up, which is not the case at all.
MR. WEGMANN: First of all, it would appear to me that what we say in argument before the Court is not evidence before the Jury, what was stated by Mr. Dymond was stated specifically out of the presence of the Jury as it should have been.
THE COURT: You offered two exhibits and they were marked for identification and he has not reoffered them.
MR. WEGMANN: And the State refused to join in the offer, which means they are not in evidence, and if everything that you offered was considered evidence, it would be a wild affair.
THE COURT: It has been marked for identification only.
MR. WEGMANN: Is the Court saying at this time it is going to admit it into evidence?
THE COURT: I don't know if --
MR. WEGMANN: What is offered by the State at this time is premature, the Court may never admit it into evidence. I would like to have a lot of things for the Court to put into evidence, but what is offered and what is admitted is two different things, and once again it gets back to whether or not this Jury is going to know the nicety of the fact that the testimony of Dr. Chetta refers to this man's condition on a specific date in 1967 as opposed to his condition in 1969.
THE COURT: We have no transcript except the transcript of 1967.
MR. WEGMANN: Going back to my argument, and not to be repetitious, if Dr. Chetta were here today, I would make the same objection to Dr. Chetta's testimony that I am now making. Dr. Chetta's examination of 1967 is not admissible at this time. If they want to rehabilitate the witness, they have to rehabilitate him with a 1969 psychiatric examination.
THE COURT: If you say this transcript has no legal effect today, then the criticism of the Defense as to what Dr. Fatter or Dr. Chetta did is not relevant either. That is two years ago.
Mr. WEGMANN: That is not true either, Judge, that is not true at all, because one of the things we were trying to show with Russo which the Court would not let us go into was a prior inconsistent statement made under hypnosis which was different from what he was testifying to, and this is entirely different, a prior inconsistent statement as opposed to a man's psychiatric examination, these are two different things.
MR. ALCOCK: That is contrary, he announced he was not trying to impeach him with his hypnotic testimony, he was trying to show the testimony that he gave in Court was the result of suggestions during hypnosis, and I think I am correct --
THE COURT: On the part of the State, do you intend to oppose the introduction of those documents?
MR. ALCOCK: I announced Dr. Fatter was going to take the witness stand and he would have an opportunity then to cross-examine him relative to the document and put their expert on the stand.
THE COURT: You will not object to those documents being introduced?
MR. ALCOCK: Not at all, but under the proper predicate, not with Perry Russo testifying.
THE COURT: There is a question of much hearsay being in the record. There is no question about it, it did get into the record, and of course that was ruled on by a three-judge court.
MR. DYMOND: Who admitted it was hearsay but admitted it because it was a preliminary hearing.
THE COURT: Well, the ball game has been played already.
MR. WEGMANN: Just so that we understand the legal situation which exists, we challenged the validity of the three-judge court at the time that it was heard. We said there was no authority for it under law for three judges. The rule out here for generations in the whole history of Criminal Court has been one judge runs his section, and we admit it is all one big court, but unheard of for two, three, or four judges to get together and say "We are hearing this case;" and we challenged the validity of it, we still do. This Court on more than one occasion has stated this preliminary hearing did not form part of this record and the Court has refused us permission to attach the bills of exception that we have taken at one time or another because it did not form part of this record, and what the Court is now getting ready to do, if it is going to rule with the State, reverse its position and say yes, this preliminary hearing is part of the record. Now, I admit I am on the horns of a dilemma.
THE COURT: Because Dr. Chetta is deceased, that is the reason.
MR. WEGMANN: If it was not part of the proceedings last week, I don't see how it could be part of the proceedings overnight by osmosis this week.
THE COURT: I consider it to be admissible.
MR. WEGMANN: If you give me time, I can find it in here where the State makes the statement that the preliminary hearing was not for the purpose of perpetuating testimony, it is like a deposition, a civil deposition, you either take if for perpetuation or discovery, and when they did it by the strange proceedings before the three judges, they were in effect in a discovery proceeding as opposed to perpetuation of testimony.
MR. ALCOCK: The State is not the Louisiana Legislature, the Louisiana Legislature passed that Act, not the State. The State's personal appreciation of a particular legal procedures is irrelevant. I think that is quite properly being done by this Court.
MR. WEGMANN: The fact remains when you make a representation before a Court, you are making a judicial admission by which you are bound, and this statement that I read in here is a statement by the State, a judicial position which is taken by the State.
THE COURT: The Court --
MR. WEGMANN: Did the Court read the part that I am talking about, about the perpetuation? There is no need for me to find it in the transcript.
THE COURT: That point is covered in the Criminal Code, to cover any bill of discovery, pre-trial discovery.
MR. WEGMANN: It is our position, Your Honor, that the State has taken a position at the preliminary hearing, they made a representation to these three judges it was not for the purpose of perpetuating testimony. They are doing now a flip-flop and coming before this Court and saying yes, that is whey we did it. It is for the reason of perpetuating testimony, and I don't see how they in good faith can appear before this Court and say it was for the purpose of perpetuating testimony.
MR. ALCOCK: I have one small point and I won't perpetuate this argument. I think it is quite obvious on its face and rather the statements, the rather ludicrous statements that the State is using the preliminary hearing as a fishing expedition. We put our own witnesses on, and what were we doing, fishing from our own witnesses? Obviously it was not a fishing expedition.
MR. WEGMANN: This is Judge Bagert, Page 30, "Suppose this was taken by deposition in a civil matter, for instance. Let's remove it from this type of procedure. If there wan an objection made and the attorney propounding the question says I insist that my question be answered, who rules on that -- nobody, certainly the Reporter doesn't. Certainly this is a matter being taken extra judicially. Now, isn't that handled when the matter is presented to the Court who has to try the case before a Jury that they then rule on the admissibility of the questions and the testimony." Judge Bagert at one time was a civil lawyer, why the State asks for it I don't know, and we were under no obligation to put any witnesses on and we can't be criticized or we can't be penalized for not putting any witnesses on. They are the ones that put the witnesses on the stand, they put the witnesses on in their admosphere. We had nothing to do with the control of the proceeding.
THE COURT: The whole preliminary examination was a useless effort because the Grand Jury indicted Mr. Shaw, the Grand Jury indicted the Defendant.
MR. WEGMANN: I submit --
THE COURT: I have heard enough argument, Gentlemen. Under Article 295, "The transcript of the testimony of a defendant who testified at the preliminary examination is admissible against him upon the trial of the case, or, if relevant, in any subsequent judicial proceeding. The transcript of the testimony of any other witness who testified at the preliminary examination is admissible for any purpose in any subsequent proceeding in the case, on behalf of either party, if the Court finds that the witness is dead, too ill to testify, absent from the State, or cannot be found, and that the absence of the witness was not procured by the party offering the testimony."
I understand that the State is offering these pages of the transcript concerning Dr. Chetta's testimony -- let's see, Pages 314 to 361, then 361 to 381. That is roughly, that is roughly sixty-seven pages of transcript of Dr. Chetta. Now, the purpose, as I understand it as stated, is that they are trying to rebut the inferences that Perry Russo was undergoing psychiatric examination consultation care for some twelve to eighteen months, that he attempted to commit suicide, and from the way he answered the questions, they were trying to give the impression publicly that he was not -- he was not completely sane. I understand from Mr. Oser and Mr. Alcock that they are offering this for a specific purpose, they are offering this not to buttress the credibility of Mr. Russo, they are not offering it to show that the statements made were truthful or not, but the total substance of Dr. Chetta's testimony is whether or not he thought with the aid of diagnostic psychiatric aid that Mr. Russo was a sane person. I think that is the purpose of their offering, and for that limited purpose I am going to permit it, so I will permit it, and you can take a bill, and let's get the Jury down. Now, one other thing while I have the floor, just a second, if there is no objection on the part of the State or Defense, and this is going to be read verbatim, I would make a request that we do not impose another hardship on the Court Reporter if it is read verbatim and you follow it, would you permit it to be Xeroxed and put into the record.
MR. WEGMANN: I think the easiest way would be to furnish the Reporter with a copy and let him re-copy it.
THE COURT: You have a copy to follow it, do you not?
MR. WEGMANN: May I ask the Court one question? So that the record is clear, Your Honor, I would now like to ask the Court to include in its ruling whether or not -- what I understand to be the Court's ruling, the Court is now ruling that this transcript, preliminary hearing, is part of this proceeding?
THE COURT: No, I am not.
MR. WEGMANN: The Court is standing by --
THE COURT: I am only admitting that part of Dr. Chetta because he is deceased. the whole transcript is not a part of this record, no indeed.
MR. WEGMANN: Is the Court going to rule on the admissibility of each question and the objections we made at the time, or is the --
THE COURT: I will let him read the whole thing in toto. I suggest we read the whole thing. I am going to let it all go in and see what you object to. I am going to give them both sides of the picture.
MR. WEGMANN: You are still ruling the transcript is not part of the proceeding?
THE COURT: If he was here, I would not let that in, we would let him testify.
MR. DYMOND: We would like to object on the grounds, first, proper predicate has not been laid for the introduction of this transcript of the testimony of the preliminary hearing.
THE COURT: Dr. Chetta is now deceased, that was the predicate, Dr. Chetta is deceased.
MR. WEGMANN: It is not in the record that he is deceased, Judge.
THE COURT: I will ask you this, Gentlemen: Can you tell me that you will supply me with a copy of the death certificate?
MR. OSER: I will send down and get it.
THE COURT: Contingent upon you presenting that to me, I will proceed with the case and I will permit you to make that offer from the Bureau of Vital Statistics of the death of Dr. Nicholas J. Chetta, Coroner.
MR. DYMOND: Further on the grounds that the preliminary hearing was not conducted according to the rules of evidence as set forth in our law, and it was so held by the three-judge panel, and that this Court has in the course of its ruling on the admissibility of this material, affirmatively stated that objections to particular questions contained in the transcript of Dr. Chetta's testimony will not be permitted, and on the further ground that it is the contention of the Defense that the said three-judge court was illegally constituted and had no basis in law, and the further reason that the testimony of Dr. Chetta which is approximately two years old is not at this time relevant for the purpose of trying to refute alleged testimony or alleged questions to the effect that there was doubt or question as to the sanity of Perry Raymond Russo at the present time in view of the fact that the testimony of Dr. Chetta relates to a period some two years ago.
We will reserve the bill making the entire testimony up to this point, the Defense objection, the State's offering, the transcript of Dr. Chetta's preliminary hearing testimony, parts of the bill.
THE COURT: Bring the Jury down. Let the record show the Jury is present, the Defendant is present, both Counsel are present.
Now, let me get the status of the case as it is, as of this moment. There has been an offer made by the State to read from the transcript of testimony of Dr. Nicholas J. Chetta, based on Article 295 wherein he alleged and will prove by the offer of the death certificate from the Bureau of Vital Statistics, and the offer is made by the State not to buttress or improve the credibility of Mr. Russo, it is not to buttress or prove the truthfulness of the statements he may or may not have said, but it is merely for the purpose of contradicting the implication that Perry Raymond Russo was not of sound mind. With that limited purpose, I will permit the reading of the transcript from pages 314 to 381 inclusive from the transcript, and you may take your bill of exception.
MR. DYMOND: At this time we would like in the presence of the Jury to renew our objection to the Court's ruling on the grounds of relevancy and on the grounds previously stated.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DYMOND: Including in the bill of exception the Court's ruling, the Counsel for the State's offering, the transcript of Dr. Chetta's testimony, the Defense objection and the reasons given by the Court.
THE COURT: Now, take this down, Mr. Reporter. There has been no objection, and in fact there is agreement in the request by the Court that the Court Reporter need not take down the reading of the transcript of Pages 314 to 381, but that Mr. Oser will let me have his copy and we will Xerox those pages and give it to the Court.