The Clay Shaw preliminary hearing testimony of Perry Raymond Russo
PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO, after being recalled to the witness stand, testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Did you hear the recording played in the Court just a few minutes ago?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you listen to it carefully?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it your testimony that that is a true and faithful recording of a television interview between one John Kerbell of Channel 12, WVUE, and you here, in the front entrance of the Criminal District Court Building on Tulane Avenue, on March 1st, 1967?
A. Well, I do not, I cannot attest who talked to me. It was in front of the Court Building and there are some exceptions I have to the transcription, one exception I saw.
Q. Where is the interview, where did the interview take place?
A. On Broad Street, the Broad Street entrance.
Q. Of the Criminal Court Building?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in view of the request of counsel of the State, I will not get into the discrepancy at this time which you made reference to; you say that you don't know the name of the representative of the television station by whom you were introduced, is that right?
A. I was never introduced.
Q. Is it not a fact that only one such interview was conducted with you at, at the Broad Street entrance or near the Broad Street entrance of this building; the television interview?
A. I did not consider it an interview. I was walking out of the building, and he tried to question me, and you know, was doing his job.
Q. Have you ever conducted any other conversation over television at the Broad Street entrance of this building on or about March 1st of this year?
A. Not that I remember. No, sir.
Q. How about on any other date; have you had any television interview at that location?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, the conversation to which you refer with the television station representative, would you say that that did take place on March 1st of this year?
A. I would probably agree with that, yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, you had just come out of the District Attorney's office, had you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Russo, did you ever attend Colton Junior High School?
A. Colton Junior High -- yes, sir.
Q. During what year was that approximately?
A. I would say around 1955.
Q. Did you ever attempt to jump out a window at Colton High School?
MR. ALCOCK:
Your Honors, I object at this time. It is irrelevant. This whole area of his life has been covered. I don't see the relevancy.
MR. DYMOND:
If the Court please, the relevancy is just this; if we can show somebody jumping out of a window at a high school in an apparent attempted suicide, that certainly has a reflection on the mental stability on that person. I think the mental stability is a vital issue here.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Objection overruled.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Did you or did you not attempt to jump out a window at Colton High School?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Absolutely not, is that your testimony?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Have you at any other time attempted suicide or attempted to take your own life?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Yesterday afternoon before Court adjourned you testified that when you were shown a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald, that you could not identify that photograph as the Leon Oswald you knew, whom you have testified you knew in New Orleans --
MR. WARD:
Which photograph, the one on the left, or which one?
MR. DYMOND:
I will mark it.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q -- until the photographs had been touched up by placing a beard on the photograph and causing the hair on the photograph to appear to be in a disheveled condition, is that correct?
A. Not exactly.
Q. Please see fit to make whatever corrections you see fit to make?
A. Could I have the photograph, please?
MR. DYMOND:
Yes. I would like the record to show that I am exhibiting the witness two photographs, one marked for identification as D-24, and the other one as D-23.
THE WITNESS:
D-23 --
MR. DYMOND:
Letting the record show that D-23 is the untouched-up photograph.
THE WITNESS:
-- was shown to me, among maybe fifteen or twenty others, in Baton Rouge. I recognized him at that time. I said that it looks like Ferrie's roommate because that is what the members of the District Attorney's office had been questioning about. I did not recognize that as Lee Harvey, and I said, "Oh, that is the roommate," and then I looked at it and said that that looks like Oswald, is it? He said, "Yes, why do you say it was his roommate." I said that except for the fact that this picture, D-23, does not have a light growth of, maybe four, five days, or a week, or three days, beard, hair messed up, this would be his roommate. Mr. Sciambra of the District Attorney's office asked me if I would be willing to come to New Orleans and allowing an artist or a member of their staff to help and see if this was the roommate, that they could draw a picture in, and by adding to the picture in this instance. As soon as they got this picture, D-24, and added light whiskers here, and they messed up his hair here, it is unmistakably the same man to me in this picture, but I said that this is positively my idea this was the roommate, and that is all.
Q. Is it your testimony you were shown other photographs in Baton Rouge?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Other photographs purporting to be photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald?
A. No, sir, it was other people.
Q. Were you shown any photographs purporting to be photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald?
A. I don't recall, unless there may have been others in there.
Q. You do testify, however, that in Baton Rouge you were shown an unaltered photograph, D-23?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Upon looking at this photograph, you were not able to state that this was Leon Oswald, as you knew him here in New Orleans?
A. I asked the man after. First I recognized him as the roommate, he was clean. The roommate was dirty.
Q. You say when you saw D-23 in Baton Rouge that you did recognize this as a photograph of the roommate?
A. That is the way Ferrie had introduced me. I considered him a vagabond that dropped in, but that is the way Ferrie had introduced him.
Q. But you did recognize D-23 as the roommate of Ferrie, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did that interview to which you made that recognition take place in Baton Rouge?
A. It was Saturday after -- the same Saturday following my interview on television. I think the interview on television was on the 24th. I am not sure of that, and it was the day after that, and Mr. Sciambra knocked at the house, and he came in and he asked me questions.
Q. Prior to the time that you recognized this photograph, D-23, the photograph of the roommate, meaning Leon Oswald, had you not seen either identical or similar pictures in the newspapers, labeled Lee Harvey Oswald?
A. Never.
Q. Had you not seen pictures on television or any other news media similar to this, labeled Lee Harvey Oswald?
A. I had seen maybe three or four different pictures of Oswald in my life, and maybe one hundred times or maybe more than that. It was not many different photographs, but the same photographs over and over. That was not one of them that I ever saw.
Q. Russo, is it not a fact that after the assassination of President Kennedy, and after the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, that photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald were extremely widely circulated in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and any place that you might have been, by television, newspaper, and other media?
A. I am sure they were.
Q. Now, is it your testimony that the photographs which you saw prior to having identified D-23 differed so materially from D-23 that you were not able to recognize them as the roommate?
A. Can I have a clarification of the question, please?
Q. Is it your testimony that the publicized photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald which you saw after the assassination of President Kennedy differed so materially from D-23 as to render you unable to recognize them as photographs of the roommate, meaning Leon Oswald?
A. Can I elaborate on this. It is very important. I can recall the photographs I saw of Oswald, perhaps, three or four, I know, and I, at that time, I was not willing to say that was the same man, because these photographs, and you be the judge of this, I saw one in the paper or TV, I don't remember where, standing up holding some gun, pistol, something in the center, and somebody had taken it. I saw that picture. I saw one of him being a child, not a child, it was a baby picture of
[Page 229 is missing.]
A. I made remarks to my friends that I think I might have known that guy. The guy I knew was a beatnik.
Q. Were you telling your friends the truth when you said that?
A. I think I might know that man.
Q. It was during that period of time, when you were telling your friends that you think you might know that man, were you referring to having known him, in your own mind, as Leon Oswald?
A. I did not think about the name, but I was thinking about the face at the time, because they had different names to me.
Q. If you thought maybe you knew that man, could you tell us why in the television interview in Baton Rouge on February 24th, you made the dogmatic statement, "No, I never heard of Oswald until the television of the assassination"?
A. Yes, sir, for several reasons; one is, I knew the District Attorney's office was at that time in the process of trying to contact me or coming up with something. They were working out the arrangements on that. Two is, I did not want just to say that someone, that was not sort of legal, that that was the same man, and three is, I knew different names. So, I got off the hook by saying I did not know Lee Harvey Oswald. Before this discussion, and which I am sure Mr. Kemp will agree, we discussed some idea so he would have some areas he could talk about. He said he could not go cold turkey, and I guess, last, and maybe a big factor, maybe I was scared because this thing was blown out of proportion when I made one remark. All of a sudden everybody was knocking my house down to get in. I did not want to be harassed. I was worried of my job and things like that.
Q. Russo, you are an intelligent man; you knew how to get in touch with the Secret Service, you knew how to get in touch with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Warren Commission, if you wanted to, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir. I do not know about the Warren Commission, but the other two I could have probably gotten hold of.
Q. Would you mind explaining to me why has that doubt in your mind, and that suggestion in your mind, that these were one and the same man, why between 1963, November of 1963 and March 24th or later, March 1st, 1967, you did not see fit to divulge the fact that there was a possibility that this was one and the same man?
A. Well, very frankly, I was trying to get through school. I was no authority on anything, and I am still not. The FBI and people on television said that was the man, he did it, and he was all alone, and at that time I was not, I was twenty-two, twenty-three, I don't know, at that time just to sit down and going to fight the Federal Government about anything. I was just not going to do it. I was just a voice in the wilderness, I thought.
Q. Do you know how long it took the Warren Commission to arrive at its conclusion?
A. No, sir.
Q. You are aware of the fact that that didn't take place in a couple of days or a week, don't you?
A. Yes, sir, I am aware of that.
Q. How can you consider it fighting the Federal Government, give them information before they even arrived at their conclusion, if that information was available to you?
A. Because on television and radio, I guess, and maybe in the papers, FBI agents or someone had arrested Oswald, and he was the only man. I cannot make it any clearer than that. That is the way I felt at that time. If they said it, then it is true. I had no reason to disagree with these people. They are professionals.
Q. What made you change your mind about this?
A. When it got a little closer to home. I knew Dave Ferrie.
Q. The fact you knew Dave Ferrie made you change your mind, is that right?
A. If Garrison was saying that Ferrie was involved, I might be able to help him and just say I knew Ferrie and many of his friends.
Q. Mr. Russo, were you aware of the fact that Dave Ferrie was arrested very shortly after the assassination, and that a newspaper article was published to that effect?
A. No, sir.
Q. You did not know that?
A. No, sir.
Q. When did you move away from New Orleans?
A. September of 1965.
Q. So, you lived here in New Orleans between the date of the assassination and September of 1965, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever have an occasion to see David Ferrie after the assassination of President Kennedy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you talk to him about it?
A. Nothing.
Q. No mention whatsoever was made about it?
A. No, sir.
Q. After the assassination of President Kennedy, for approximately how long did your acquaintance with David Ferrie continue?
A. Well, after the assassination there was a blank space. I did not see him for a while.
Q. About how long?
A. I saw him maybe four or five other times after that, maybe seven or eight months later, and he saw me.
Q. It is your testimony that about seven or eight months after the assassination, you did not have an occasion to see David Ferrie, is that right?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is that your testimony or not?
A. Sir?
Q. You say, "No, sir"; is that your testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do I understand correctly that he contacted you after seven or eight months?
A. No, sir. It was by accident. I drove into a service station, and I saw this man, the same man I had seen before with Dave. Dave said hello to me, and I never said anything to him. We were in different cars. I talked to Dave, maybe two minutes, three minutes.
Q. Now, after the filling station incident on Veterans Highway, did you have an occasion any further time to see him again?
A. I don't recall, but I am sure I did.
Q. Were you and he still visiting back and forth?
A. Generally when I had vacation.
Q. Would you visit his apartment, or would he visit your home?
A. After that, I don't recall if I went up there. I am sure I possibly did.
Q. Could you tell us approximately how many times you saw Dave Ferrie between the time of the assassination and the time of his death?
A. I have already stated that. I just told you.
Q. The total number of times, the best you can testify?
A. Maybe four or five, six times.
Q. Do you remember any other specific incidents?
A. No, sir.
Q. You could not tell us why or approximately when, is that right?
A. It would have been during the summer months. But now where -- he seemed to me broken after that. I don't know why. I cannot say why. He seemed to me to be broken. Now, he talked about the District Attorney's office a couple of times.
Q. He did talk about the District Attorney's office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did he say about the District Attorney's office?
A. Just general remarks.
Q. Like what?
A. Well, he did not like what was going on, and he did not like -- he was starting to build up an antagonism that seemed to me a resentment to authority or to police or something. He never got more specific than that. He had been broken. That is the way I looked at it. He was a broken man. Why, I don't know. He was no longer a party-goer, so to speak, a spectacular, so to speak.
Q. This resentment he voiced towards the District Attorney's office, would you be more specific about that?
A. He was not specific, no, sir.
Q. What gave you the impression he had that resentment towards the District Attorney's office?
A. Because I had asked him on a couple of occasions what was wrong, Dave, and some profanity he would use, he would say something about the FBI or Garrison's office or the New Orleans Police or authority. To me, I always felt he was an anarchist.
Q. As a matter of fact, didn't he tell you he was being haunted by the District Attorney's office?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or harassed by them, or words to that effect?
A. No, sir. Not that I recall.
Q. And in spite of this resentment that he voiced to you personally, it is your testimony you did not even know he had been picked up by the District Attorney's office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were not curious enough to find out why he was antagonistic towards the District Attorney's office?
A. No, and I would like to amplify on that, please. Dave Ferrie was the type that talked about so many things. He cited chapter and verse to me on so many occasions, because in the very beginning, when I first met him, I would argue and say I knew something different, what I know it is different, and he would say to go down to the library and pick up the 1947 edition of Rositer's Human Relations. I don't remember the name, I am just making it up. For example, Rositer's Human Relations, second edition, make sure it is the second edition, and he would say to turn to page 365 and read that. He said that if you don't believe that, you can look into an earlier edition or I can get some other people, and when a man does that, you don't challenge him. I didn't.
Q. When a man does that, would that keep you from being intellectual, curious, or otherwise curious as to why he was antagonistic towards the District Attorney's office?
A. That to me was a small matter, in my eyes, and he talked all during the summer months, last year, of the assassination. He talked before that of curing --
MR. DYMOND:
I cannot hear you, Mr. Russo.
THE WITNESS:
He talked in the summer months of the assassination, which I told you about. He talked about curing cancer. He talked about, you name it, he talked about it. He knew what there was to know. I felt, I tried in the beginning to argue with him, and I was not successful. So I said, well, he was probably right.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. You name it, he talked about it?
A. I said you name it, he talked about it.
Q. Still he did not talk about why he was antagonistic towards the District Attorney's office?
A. No, sir. Could I elaborate one other remark? The other remark is, which I am sure people would say, you know, other people would say this, it was typical Dave. That to me he was a walking encyclopedia and he strangled the conversation. You did not need to ask questions because he filled in all the details. You did not need to say things. He knew it all. And although he was willing to help and interested in other people's affairs, he knew all the answers, so why question him, and that was the attitude I took. And getting back a little bit, back to even some of the other meetings I had or had seen Dave, or dropped in, he would do all the talking and that was the way he was.
Q. Would you say Dave Ferrie was inclined to brag?
A. At first I thought that, but I subsequently changed my mind.
Q. To what opinion did you change your mind?
A. Because he cited chapter and verse, and most things he could support, most of his contentions.
Q. I am talking about personal deeds and accomplishments as such; was he inclined to brag?
A. Never did put it in that context. No, sir.
Q. Did David Ferrie ever make any statement to you to the effect that his plan to kill President Kennedy had succeeded?
A. Had succeeded?
Q. That is right?
A. No, sir.
Q. After the assassination of President Kennedy, did David Ferrie ever at any time mention to you his plan, if one existed, to kill President Kennedy?
A. No. Never did.
Q. Did you ever ask him any questions about that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Could you tell us why?
A. I think I explained it in my last question. Because of the fact that after being around Dave sometime you knew never to ask questions. He knew the answers. He had already given you the answers once before.
Q. He did not give you an answer to whether or not his plan had succeeded, did he?
A. I did not ask him the question.
Q. Are you telling me it was impossible to ask him questions.
A. No, sir. But you got out of the habit of doing it.
Q. By way of summation, Russo, is it your testimony that you were present when Dave Ferrie entered into a plan to kill Kennedy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That Kennedy was subsequently killed by one of the people who was a party to that plan, that you saw Dave Ferrie after the assassination, and never saw fit to even mention it to him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in the March 1st, 1967, television interview here on Broad Street, you were asked by the reporters, or reporter I should say, whether you had submitted to any tests in the District Attorney's office, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had you submitted to any tests?
A. At that time?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had you been hypnotized?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By whom?
A. Dr. Fatter.
Q. Were you hypnotized on March 1st, 1967?
A. I don't recall the dates.
Q. Were you hypnotized on the same date as you had the television interview on Broad Street?
A. I am sure I wasn't, but perhaps he could tell you. I don't remember the exact dates.
Q. Are you telling us now, Russo, that you cannot remember the date you were first hypnotized in the District Attorney's office here in New Orleans?
MR. OSER:
I object. There is no evidence in this Court where he was hypnotized.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Objection is sustained.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Where were you first hypnotized?
A. In Dr. Nicholas Chetta's office.
Q. Was that hypnotism by Dr. Fatter?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you don't remember the date of that?
A. It would be sometime after the 24th, the next week, during the next week, or week after that. He could verify that.
Q. When did you come here to New Orleans from Baton Rouge?
A. I came here the Monday after the interview, the Monday after I talked to a member of the District Attorney's staff.
Q. Russo, I am showing you a 1967 calendar indicating March, the present month on it, and with the help of this calendar, tell us when you came down to New Orleans from Baton Rouge?
A. Is the 24th the interview?
Q. Yes.
A. The District Attorney's office contacted me on the 25th, and I came down Monday morning, which would have been the 27th.
Q. When you came down here on Monday morning, the 27th, were you interviewed by the District Attorney here in New Orleans or by any of his representatives?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At that time were you hypnotized?
A. I don't recall if it was the first day, no, sir. No, the first time I do, I remember what happened. The composite photograph was made up the first day.
Q. Now, it is your testimony that you were not hypnotized that first day, is that right?
A. Yes, sir. I remember that composite photograph.
Q. Did you come back to this building on the 28th of March [sic]?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you go in the building on the 28th?
A. Into the District Attorney's office.
Q. Did you have an occasion on the 28th to go into the Coroner's office?
A. I am not willing to specifically say what date. Dr. Fatter could tell you. Dr. Chetta could tell you.
Q. I want to know whether you can tell me; can you tell me whether you went to the Coroner's office on the 28th of February?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you go into the Coroner's office on the 28th of February, 1967?
A. I may have and I might not have.
Q. Were you hypnotized on the 28th of February?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you come here to the District Attorney's office in this building on March 1st, 1967?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you hypnotized on March 1st, 1967?
A. I cannot say.
Q. Now, perhaps you may relate March 1st, 1967, to the television interview --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the time you gave that television interview on March 1st, had you been hypnotized?
A. The reason I am trying to shy away from the exact date, because I do not know because I've been climbing out of fire escapes, things like that, to avoid publicity, and I don't want that much publicity. Everything is a long trend of confusion.
Q. You say you don't want any publicity?
A. No, sir.
MR. OSER:
I object to the question and the smirk on Mr. Dymond's face, Your Honor.
MR. DYMOND:
I don't know how you are going to remove that from the record.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Order in the Court.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Particularly, what fire escapes have you been climbing out of?
MR. ALCOCK:
I object. Completely and totally irrelevant,
JUDGE BAGERT:
Objection is sustained.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Are you telling us now that you don't know yet whether you had been hypnotized when you gave the television interview?
A. I do not want to be -- the exact date, I don't know. If I would say one thing it might be wrong.
Q. How many times have you been hypnotized by the, by Dr. Fatter?
A. My recollection is three times.
Q. When was the last time that you were hypnotized?
A. I am not sure of the exact date.
Q. Were you hypnotized before you came into Court here on March 14th?
A. The same day?
Q. That is right.
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Were you hypnotized yesterday?
A. The day before?
Q. Yesterday I said.
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Are you under hypnosis right now or not?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Referring to March 13th, which is the day before this preliminary hearing commenced, were you hypnotized on that day?
A. I don't think I was.
Q. Now, you say you have been hypnotized three times by Dr. Fatter, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you cannot tell us when any of this hypnosis took place?
A. It occurred between the 24th [of February] and between the 13th [of March].
Q. Between the 24th and the 13th?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, you were in Baton Rouge on the 24th, is that right?
A. You are absolutely right.
Q. Were you ever hypnotized in Baton Rouge?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. On what day did you arrive in New Orleans?
A. From the 24th to the 13th has been a trying ordeal to me, and I am not willing to say what date it was.
Q. What date did you arrive in New Orleans?
A. I arrived on a Monday.
Q. That would be the 27th, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then why did you say the hypnosis took place between the 24th and the 13th if you did not get here to New Orleans until the 27th?
A. From the 24th, I considered that when I got involved. That is the only time I ever talked to anyone from the District Attorney's -- the day after the interview was the 25th, is that right? Would someone check a calendar, please?
Q. If you know that you weren't hypnotized in Baton Rouge, why couldn't you state positively this took place between the 27th and the 13th, if you did not arrive in New Orleans until the 27th?
MR. ALCOCK:
He is arguing with this witness. He has shown him a calendar as to the date he came to New Orleans.
JUDGE BAGERT:
The question is good.
THE WITNESS:
Could I amplify on that; I try and connect things with events going on, and that is the way I try to remember things, and since I been down in New Orleans, I haven't been at work and I haven't tried to -- since the 24th was my first involvement, and I consider that the beginning. And I was hoping it would end Tuesday, at least for a while, until the trial or what, and then it went to Wednesday, and then now it is Thursday, and I have lost track of numbers, days. I am extremely tired.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. You have not lost track of the fact that you were in Baton Rouge the 24th, 25th, 26th of February, have you?
A. I have been reminded of that. Yes, sir.
Q. And still you are not willing to pinpoint the dates of this hypnosis any closer to the present date than February 24th, 1967, when you were in Baton Rouge?
A. I am not willing to say any dates because I might be wrong about it. I am only telling what I am absolutely sure about.
Q. So, in view of the dates given by you, you would say that you may have been hypnotized as late as the 13th of March, is that correct?
A. Highly improbable, but possibly right.
Q. That would be by Dr. Fatter?
A. In the presence of Dr. Chetta, yes, sir.
Q. In the presence of who?
A. Dr. Chetta.
Q. Did all three of these instances of hypnosis take place in the office of the Coroner for the Parish of Orleans?
A. As I recollect, they did.
Q. Do you have any doubt about that?
A. No, but I am trying to remember exactly.
Q. What did Dr. Fatter do to hypnotize you, what was the procedure?
A. I would prefer you ask him. It is his procedure and I just could not say what exactly.
Q. You don't remember what he did at all?
A. I remember a lot of things that was done, but what procedure --
Q. The question is, what do you remember he did?
A. He asked me questions.
Q. What else?
A. He asked me to try to remember things, try and recall, try and visualize things, things like that.
Q. That is how he hypnotized you?
A. No, sir. His technique I am not qualified to even talk about. I would prefer he talk about that.
Q. I want to know what you saw Dr. Fatter do in the process of hypnotizing you, what you saw with your own eyes?
A. I relaxed. I relaxed. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you standing up, sitting down, lying down?
A. Sitting down.
Q. You say you relaxed, what did Dr. Fatter do?
A. He questioned me, he talked to me.
Q. About what?
A. About just general idea things, things I had done in the past, and he relaxed me first, and then he talked some more and he asked me -- evidently he had --
Q. Not evidently, just what do you remember?
A. All I remember is being asked questions.
Q. Now, what instructions did Dr. Fatter give you, if any, in connection with this hypnotism?
A. What do you mean, by instructions?
Q. You said he told you to relax; did he give you any other instructions?
A. He talked. No specific instructions that I can recall.
Q. None at all?
A. No specific instructions that I can recall.
Q. How about general instructions?
A. He talked.
Q. What did he say?
A. It is not an instruction thing. He did not order me. That is what I am trying to clear up. He did not order me.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. He talked. Can I be any clearer than that. I don't understand.
Q. Do you remember what he said?
A. He questioned me.
Q. In order to make myself clear, do you mean he questioned you after you were under hypnosis, or in the process of putting you under hypnosis?
A. I had been questioned by the District Attorney's office over and over and over, and then this came about, and evidently he asked me the same questions.
Q. While under hypnosis or in the process of putting you under hypnosis?
A. While under hypnosis.
Q. Now, what did he tell you and ask you in the process of putting you under hypnosis?
A. We talked. He talked.
Q. What did he say?
A. Nice, soothing, relaxing things.
Q. Like what?
A. I don't recall. I just felt relaxed. I felt like relaxing.
Q. When is the last time that you saw Dr. Fatter, other than just seeing him walk into the Courtroom, if you did?
A. Perhaps four or five or six days ago. I don't recall exactly.
Q. It could not have been more recently than that?
A. I saw him in Court.
Q. Other than in the Courtroom?
A. No, I don't think.
Q. And is it still your testimony you might have been hypnotized by him as late as March 13th?
A. My testimony is that I consider the 24th to the 13th one long stream.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Answer the question.
THE WITNESS:
May I have a calendar, please?
MR. DYMOND:
Yes.
THE WITNESS:
I said before the probability that I wasn't. I don't think so now. I feel that I was hypnotized perhaps in the middle of the week. I am not sure, not willing to say.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. How did Dr. Fatter bring you out of this hypnosis?
A. When I hit a number I opened my eyes.
Q. Did he tell you that while under hypnosis or while putting you under hypnosis?
A. Evidently while under hypnosis.
Q. Do you recall, do you presently recall his telling you that?
A. No, not really.
Q. How do you know he told you that?
A. I woke up to the number five.
Q. Did you hear number one, number two, three and four?
A. I heard number five. That is all. I did not hear the first four numbers.
Q. Have you ever heard of post-hypnotic suggestion?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did Dr. Fatter tell you to do after you came out from under the spell of hypnosis?
A. He told me to be very relaxed and to feel, not to feel tired, and to come out with a smile on my face.
Q. Did he tell you that before hypnosis or while under hypnosis?
A. While under hypnosis.
Q. You remember him telling you that?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you account for your remembering that and not remembering any numbers before?
A. No, I cannot.
Q. When you first came down here to New Orleans from Baton Rouge, which according to your testimony was on the 27th of February, 1967, what time did you arrive here?
A. I recall nine o'clock in the morning.
Q. About nine in the morning?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have a prearranged appointment with the District Attorney or any of his representatives?
A. They asked me if I would be willing to come down, and I said yes.
Q. Did you call them or did they call you?
A. This was arranged in Baton Rouge.
Q. Did they tell you what time to be in the District Attorney's office?
A. He asked me what time I could. I asked what time they wanted me. I said would nine o'clock be all right. I remember nine.
Q. To whom did you speak?
A. I talked to Mr. Sciambra, who is on the staff.
Q. So you came down to New Orleans in accordance with this agreement, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, when you got to New Orleans, did you go directly to the District Attorney's office, or any place else?
A. I don't recall the first day. I think I came directly to the office.
Q. You can't be sure of that?
A. I think I came directly to the office, but not sure.
Q. Did you come by yourself to the District Attorney's office, or with somebody else?
A. By myself.
Q. When you came here to the District Attorney's office, to whom did you report and where?
A. I reported to Mr. Sciambra, in his office.
Q. In his private office?
A. Well, in all the offices. I was in Mr. Sciambra's office at first.
Q. After you went in and reported to Mr. Sciambra, what happened then?
A. He asked me more questions and --
Q. Was anyone else present in the office at that time?
A. Some of his assistants were.
Q. Do you know who they are?
A. Specifically, that particular time, no.
Q. How about now?
A. Most of the men in the office questioned me.
Q. How many men were there?
A. I have been questioned by at least six or seven.
Q. I am talking about on the occasion of your first visit?
A. Two at times, sometimes three.
Q. Can you name any of the other gentlemen who were there in the office and questioning you?
A. Mr. Oser.
Q. Was there a man by the name of Lynn Loisel, an investigator for the District Attorney's office, present?
A. At the first meeting?
Q. Right.
A. I don't recall him being there.
Q. Was he present at any subsequent meeting?
A. I had met him in the office.
Q. Now, after you went into Mr. Sciambra's office on the occasion of this first meeting, did the interrogation of you continue there in Mr. Sciambra's office, or did you go to another office for the purpose of interrogation?
A. We went to all the offices. I think it began in Mr. Sciambra's office, and we ended in several offices.
Q. Were you shown any photographs at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many?
A. Maybe fifty.
Q. At that time were you shown a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald?
A. I am sure I was.
JUDGE BAGERT:
I think we will take a recess at this time for about five minutes. Step down, Russo.
(Court in recess.)
(Court in session.)
PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO, after being recalled to the witness stand, testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Russo, these questions are pertaining to your visit to the District Attorney's office on the day you got here from Baton Rouge, which is February 27th, 1967; now, you have testified you were shown some forty or fifty photographs, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I show you a photograph which has been marked for identification, D-23, purporting to be a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald, and I ask you whether, to the best of your recollection, that was one of the photographs shown to you on February 27th?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you also shown a photograph of Dave Ferrie?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you identify that photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they tell you whose photograph it was or not?
A. They never told me any names. They just showed me pictures.
Q. Do you recall any of the other photographs which were shown to you on that date?
A. The defendant.
Q. Didn't they tell you who that was, did they?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you identify the photograph at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. After you identified the photograph, did they tell you who it was?
A. No, sir.
Q. Russo, as I understand it, you have lived here in New Orleans just about all your life, with the exception of about two years, is that correct?
A. Also I lived for a month on vacation in Mississippi, where my grandmother lives.
Q. I mean that this has been your home and you have spent a great majority of your life here, haven't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I understand you majored in political science in school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So, you are a fairly, reasonably regular reader of the newspapers here in town?
A. I run cycles on that.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. In other words, if I have a bunch of tests, I don't read the newspapers because I am studying for the tests, and maybe for two weeks I just glance at it.
Q. In other words, you did not let the newspapers interfere with your studies, is that right?
A. No, sir, never.
Q. But other than letting the newspapers interfere with your studies, would you say you read them with reasonable regularity?
A. I read the paper. I look, I can tell you how I read the paper. I don't know if you consider that reasonable regularity.
Q. Being a political science major, weren't you interested in international affairs?
A. I would read the front page and the editorial page, and then the sports page.
Q. Is that all?
A. That was my routine with some exceptions.
Q. During the time that you read the newspapers, which I would assume would be most of your adult life, have you ever seen Clay Shaw's picture in the newspapers?
A. No, sir.
Q. You never have?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever seen him on television before his arrest?
A. Not to my recollection, no.
Q. You never have?
A. No, sir.
Q. As I recall your testimony, it was to the effect that the first time that you ever saw Clay Shaw was when President Kennedy visited here in New Orleans, which I believe was back in 1962, is that right?
A. I recall '61, but I am not sure.
Q. You may be correct, '61?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you see him at that time?
A. At the warehouse of the Nashville Wharf, the shed.
Q. Approximately how many people were there at the time?
A. There were a lot.
Q. It was a terrifically large crowd, wasn't it?
A. Not terrifically. There was room for more.
Q. Over a thousand people?
A. I am not willing to estimate.
Q. Had you ever seen Clay Shaw or a picture of him before the event of the President's visit in New Orleans in 1961 or 1962?
A. Possibly once before, but I am not sure of that.
Q. You say possibly once before; when would that have been?
A. It might not have been the same man, because I was very young and it was the Republican Headquarters and a local election, and it was around Camp Street on a corner, and he was just there, and I noticed him, but I don't know if it was the same man.
Q. Now, who else did you see when President Kennedy visited here?
A. I saw President Kennedy.
Q. Who else?
A. I saw some other, what I considered Secret Service men at that time. I saw people, everybody in the crowd.
Q. Do you remember anybody by name that you saw there?
A. No, sir, except President Kennedy.
Q. Would you say that the reason you remember having seen Clay Shaw there at that time is that he was not looking at the President, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was the first time that you ever explained that or related that to anyone, that is, having seen him upon the occasion of President Kennedy's visit?
A. In Baton Rouge, to a member of the District Attorney's staff.
Q. That would be some six years after you saw him, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you remember or remembered at that time having seen one man out of that throng of people who you remember as not looking at the President, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many years did you go to Loyola?
A. Three and then one in Law School. So, four.
Q. Did you ever attend any of the functions at Loyola wherein they had people speak to the student body or to portions of the student body?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever attend any function at which Clay Shaw spoke to the student body or portions of the student body?
A. Not to my recollection, no, sir.
Q. Do you remember any appearance by him being advertised on the Loyola campus?
A. Not to my recollection, no.
Q. Were you aware of the fact that Mr. Shaw was the managing director of the Trade Mart here in New Orleans?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you know that the Trade Mart had a managing director?
A. I never did think about it.
Q. Had you ever heard his name mentioned prior to his being investigated in this case?
A. To my recollection I never heard the name of Clay Shaw in my life until just recently.
Q. Is it not a fact that you testified that when you saw Mr. Shaw upon the occasion of the President's visit here that you thought he was a United States Secret Service agent?
A. I don't recall the specific words I used, no.
Q. Well, did you think that or not?
A. At that time?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why?
A. Well, could I describe the circumstances?
Q. Sure, go ahead.
A. Well, the Nashville Wharf shed is long and I figured I was late. But President Kennedy got there late. Well, he might have got there late, I don't know, and I got there and he drove up with the sirens and all of that and with some introductions he made a speech and he had a nice tan. That is the first time I ever seen him except on television, and then because I got there late and I ran to an exit to see the President drive up in a car, and I ended up in the back of a group and I moved around a couple of times, but basically I ended up in the back of the group, and there was some room back for more people. And so, the President was up on a rostrum or podium or a speaker's platform over this way, and there was a group of people in between the man and the President, and I was at a sort of the tail end of the group. Then in between me and the group in the back was the person I subsequently knew as Mr. Bertrand, and he, at that time, as I recollect, he was with a friend or maybe someone, maybe someone he had met there, I don't know, and the man he was with or had talked to, was looking at the President and he was looking around to the back. He was looking, I guess even saw me, he probably did. He looked at the exit and the people around and I made a remark to someone I was standing next to, I said that that has got to be a Secret Service man. He was the only man not looking at the President, and whoever I was talking to at that time said, "Well, it has got to be." It is just one of those things. You don't get to see the President every day.
Q. Now, did you later do any investigation to find out whether this had been a Secret Service man?
A. I made that remark to the District Attorney's office.
Q. Did anything occur between the occasion of President Kennedy's visit to New Orleans and mid-September of 1963 which would have changed your belief that the man you saw there was a Secret Service man?
A. Well, I had a conversation with Mr. Bertrand when I walked in the first time I was ever introduced to him, just small words, it was just a little talk, but it was just conversation.
Q. When was this?
A. At Dave's house. I had walked in that party night and could I amplify a little bit further?
Q. Go ahead.
A. It was not a party as such. It was the way I termed it. Whenever three or four or five people get together and drink and talk and maybe listen to records, that to me was a party, because all of my friends from school, we never had any money, and you know, you had to just drink a Coke, share a beer, and listen to records. So, my house was sort of an open house to everybody that came over. And so, we had been sitting down, maybe seven or eight of us, and we would go off, let's go to the lake and go swimming, let's go up to Dave's house or something to that effect, and everybody would do it, or the ones that couldn't wouldn't, you know. They say, I have to be home, I have to study, one thing or another, and they would cancel out, but that was our custom. It was not really a party as such. Just walked in and there was a bunch of people and Ferrie introduced me, you know, everybody in there, and when I was introduced to him, I said, "I know you, weren't you at the Nashville Wharf," and he looked at me like that, and I don't remember what he answered me to that. I said, "I thought you were a Secret Service man," and I knew a Secret Service man wouldn't be there, you know, because Dave's house was in a shambles. Mr. Bertrand was well-dressed, in my opinion, in contrast to these other people. I said, "I know you, don't I." I looked at him and said, "You were at the Nashville Wharf, weren't you," and I don't know what was said to that, and I sort of laughed, and I think I told him that I thought he was a Secret Service man, but I am not sure if I said that then.
A. If he had been a Secret Service man, would you have expected him to admit it when you asked him that at such a function as you described?
Q. I don't know if I asked him that. He might admit it and he might not admit it. It would depend on his business.
A. Had there been any occurrence or anything that came to your knowledge which would have dispelled your feeling that this man was a Secret Service man?
Q. I had never seen him in between. When I saw him at the Wharf, I did not think about it afterwards because I had read in the papers that the Mayor of New Orleans had ordered St. Charles -- some dips in the street, and he had ordered it paved so that when the Presidential motorcade came and the President was riding, the car would not bounce. So, I figured if they were going through all the precaution, all the policemen around, and there was another car following the President, I think, about six or seven Secret Service men in it, so, I figured everybody was all over the place.
Q. Wouldn't you have felt awfully uneasy being present in a group of four men while the assassination of the President was being planned if you felt or suspected that one of those four men was an agent of the United States Secret Service?
A. No, sir.
Q. That wouldn't affect you, is that right?
A. Yes, sir. He seemed to dispel to me at that meeting, you know, I don't recall this conversation, I don't know his words. He seemed to dispel to me that relationship. This was early in the night when we first got there, the beginning of the party, or at least when we first began. I just either forgot it or something.
Q. You don't think the Secret Service operators operate secretly then, do you?
A. I am sure they do.
Q. And you say it would not have worried you, being uneasy, being in the presence of a suspected Secret Service agent?
A. No, it would not.
Q. Now, it is your testimony that after you identified a picture of the person known to you as Clay Bertrand in the District Attorney's office on February 27th that you were not told who the name of the man was who you had identified?
A. No, sir.
Q. When was the first time that the photograph which you have identified was related to this defendant, Clay Shaw?
A. I don't recall. I was -- suppose after he was arrested. Then I knew who he was then. Everybody said it on television, but to me, that would be an alias, and I knew another man's name.
Q. So, prior to February 27th, 1967, in your opinion, you had been seeing a man whom you knew as Clay Bertrand --
MR. OSER:
Your Honor, I am going to object. The witness has never said Clay Bertrand. Mr. Dymond keeps using the person of Clay Bertrand. The witness has referred to the defendant as having known him as Clem Bertrand.
MR. DYMOND:
That is all right.
MR. OSER:
It is not all right. I am objecting to it.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. -- several times and sufficiently frequently for you to recognize him without question, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you again in the District Attorney's office on March 1st of this year?
A. I was in there. Yes, sir.
Q. While in the District Attorney's office on March 1st, did you have an occasion to see the man to whom you refer as Clem Bertrand?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you see him?
A. In one of the offices.
Q. Were you and he sitting in the same office?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you have an occasion to speak to him?
A. No, sir.
Q. From approximately what distance did you see him?
A. Maybe eight or ten feet.
Q. Was that through a doorway or were you in the same room or what?
A. I was in the next room.
Q. Could you see him through a doorway, or how could you see him?
A. Well, there was a door, yes.
Q. Was the door open?
A. The door was not open.
Q. How could you see him?
A. There was a dual mirror, a one-way mirror.
Q. In other words, you were put in an office where you could see Clem Bertrand without his seeing you, is that correct?
A. Well, I was put in the other room to make another identification.
Q. You were put in another room in what?
A. To make another identification of the same man.
Q. When you refer to a one-way mirror, what do you mean by that?
A. Well, I don't know from the other side, but I guess I could see through it and no one else could see back. I don't know if they couldn't, but I am sure they couldn't.
Q. If you could see through it, how do you know it was a mirror?
A. I was told that or heard that or something.
Q. Who told you that?
A. Probably one of the members of the staff. I don't recall.
Q. Do you remember whether anybody told you that?
A. I am sure they did.
Q. Could you hear what Clem Bertrand, as you call him, was saying?
A. No, sir.
Q. Could you hear any conversation which was going on in the room where he was?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did they tell you who was in there in the room?
A. No, sir.
Q. So, you were never told who was in that room behind the one-way mirror, right?
A. No, sir. They asked me to stand in there and should I see anybody familiar that walks into this room, then I would tell them. And even, well, of course, I would tell them too, and about five or six men walked in at different times.
Q. Tell us where this room is located, the room you make reference to?
A. I can show you. I could not tell you.
Q. Is it in the DA's office or not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you sitting in the office of one of the Assistant District Attorneys?
A. It is not an office of an Assistant. No, sir.
Q. Describe the room you were sitting?
A. Maybe ten feet by ten feet. They have a machine in there and some boxes. I don't know if those were full or not, and there was a bench, a table, but higher than the normal table, and that would be about all I remember of it right now.
Q. Do you know where the switchboard is, to the left as you walk into the main entrance of the District Attorney's office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In relation to the location of this switchboard, where is the office in which you were sitting?
A. To the left. Let me make my directions and then see if you understand me. You walk into the DA's office, the front door right over there, and to the left is the switchboard. Now, this office that I am talking about is to the left. In other words, as soon as I walk into the door I have to go to the left.
Q. And do you have to go down a hallway to get to it, a hallway within the DA's office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Approximately how many doors on the right do you pass before you turn into this room?
A. I am not sure of that. I would feel one, but I am not sure.
Q. Now, Russo, you have made certain statements in your testimony about knowing that David Ferrie was able to hypnotize people, is that corrects?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Upon what did you base those statements?
A. His demonstration and his subsequent talk, you know, his explanation of it to me.
Q. Did you ever see him hypnotize anybody?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who?
A. Al Landry.
Q. Al Landry?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did that take place?
A. In his Kenner home, in Dave's Kenner home?
Q. Anybody else besides Al Landry?
A. That I have ever been present before?
MR. ALCOCK:
I am making an objection as to redundancy. We have already been over this. He testified about sticking of the arm, about the needle-type instrument. Mr. Dymond is going right back over the same thing he was on yesterday.
MR. DYMOND:
No, I'm not.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Objection overruled.
THE WITNESS:
No, sir.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Did he ever hypnotize you?
A. We differed about it. He tried once.
Q. In whose opinion was it successful, yours or his?
A. Well, he had reservations about it himself.
Q. What was your feelings about it?
A. I was negative about it.
Q. Was there any differences between the procedures he used and the procedure Dr. Fatter used in hypnotizing you?
A. Many differences.
Q. Primarily what?
A. Well, Dave attempted to use a coin or some type of flashy object, and Dr. Fatter talked to me a lot.
Q. Russo, I show you a photograph which has been marked for identification, D-27, and I ask you whether you recognize the person depicted in that photograph?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it your testimony you have never seen that person before, to the best of your knowledge?
MR. OSER:
I object to that type of question. I think it could be put in a better phrase.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Have you ever seen this man before, to the best of your knowledge?
A. Not to my recollection. I don't recognize the photograph.
Q. I show you another similar photograph, marked for identification, D-28, and I ask you whether you recognize that photograph, and whether, to the best of your knowledge, you have ever seen that person before?
A. No, sir. The photograph is not clear. That photograph does not ring a bell. I don't know who that is.
Q. Now, getting to the meeting which you have testified took place at the apartment of David Ferrie on Louisiana Avenue Parkway in mid-September of 1963, I want to ask you whether, either at that meeting or at the party preceding the meeting, there were any Spanish-speaking men there, one of whom had a beard?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were they dressed in fatigue uniforms, that is, khaki uniforms, or are they of similar material to khaki?
A. Yes, sir, some were.
Q. Do you know the names of either one of these men?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are those names?
A. They were introduced to me as Julian, or something like that, and Manual.
Q. Do you know the last names?
A. I was supposed, I was told that, but I don't recall.
Q. Which one had the beard, Julian or Manual?
A. I don't think either one of those had the beard. Maybe one of them did. I don't recall. They were just new people to me.
Q. Did anyone there have a beard or not?
A. The roommate.
Q. By the roommate, who do you mean, Oswald?
A. Oswald, yes.
Q. Let's get that clarified; do you mean he had what appeared, a deliberately grown beard, or was he merely unshaven for a few days?
A. He was unshaven.
Q. Would you say he was sloppily dressed or not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever see Oswald when he was not sloppily dressed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When?
A. When he was leaving.
Q. Leaving for where?
A. He was going to Houston.
Q. When was that?
A. Sometime the first week or so of October.
Q. You say just before he left for Houston he was neatly dressed, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he cleanly shaven?
A. Yes.
Q. So, just before he left for Houston, the end of September or early October of 1963, you saw Oswald -- Leon Oswald, as you knew him -- cleanly dressed, neatly dressed, and cleanly shaven, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, will you tell me why, after having seen him cleanly shaven, you could not identify the photograph, D-23, until it had had whiskers put on it?
A. Because I was only there for maybe eight or ten minutes at the most, and Ferrie and he were discussing this. I knew it was the same man because they just talked the same. He looked the same except I did not take great notice of him.
Q. But you had seen Oswald cleanly shaven before the publicity pictures, before the television shows and such after the assassination?
A. Maybe six or eight, ten minutes.
Q. Still, it is your testimony you did not recognize the television pictures, the newspaper pictures that you saw of Lee Harvey Oswald as the same Leon Oswald whom you had seen clean-shaven and without a beard for approximately ten minutes, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And those ten minutes constitute the only time you ever saw him cleanly shaven, is that right?
A. That I can recall, yes, sir.
Q. The only time you saw him neatly dressed too, is that right?
A. Well, he wasn't dressed sloppily. He wasn't dirty.
Q. He wasn't dirty but he was sloppy, is that correct?
A. No. I am not saying sloppy. He wasn't sloppy, but he wasn't dressed as Mr. Bertrand was.
Q. Now, would you describe his dress other than on the one occasion just before you saw him leave for Houston?
A. Other than that?
Q. Yes.
A. He had dirty tennis shoes or like low, you know, cut tennis shoes, and some type of pullover shirt, but not a T-shirt, just a pullover shirt, and he had dirty pants on, and he looked, you know, his hair was messed up and this just gave of a sirty appearance, like a beatnik.
Q. Like a beatnik, you say?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say he had usually dirty pants on?
A. Well, he was dirty. I took it for granted the pants was dirty.
Q. You say he was dirty?
A. Yes, he looked that way.
Q. Would you say the only time he did not look dirty was the time he left for Houston when he was clean-shaven?
A. That is the only time I saw him.
Q. Approximately how many times did you see him other than that one occasion when he was clean-shaven?
A. Three or four, including that one occasion, excuse me, the most.
Q. What part were you to play in the assassination planned on Louisiana Avenue Parkway?
A. I had no part.
Q. That is right.
A. No, sir.
Q. To your knowledge, did he know you or know anything of your background?
A. Of my background, no, sir.
Q. Were you given any instructions by anyone present at that meeting to the effect that you were not to tell anybody about it?
A. There was a -- Oswald and Bertrand disputed, you know, they did not like me there. And there was a hesitation about the whole thing until there was some words by Ferrie, Mr. Bertrand, and Oswald.
Q. What were these words?
A. Well, I don't recall the exact conversation, but it went something to the effect, you know, a lot of profanity was used, what is he doing here by Oswald, and Mr. Bertrand said not to make no profanity.
Q. Did anybody ever tell you not to say anything about this meeting, about this plan?
A. Nobody ever told me anything about that.
Q. Just what were Oswald and Bertrand talking about, what were the words when this profanity went on?
A. I don't really understand the question.
Q. What was the basis of the argument, if one existed?
A. Well, they told, Oswald looked up at me or looked over to me and looked over at Dave and said, "What in the hell is he doing here," or something to that effect, and at the same time, or maybe a few seconds later, Bertrand chimed in and said that it is risky or you shouldn't have anyone here, that kind of stuff. Now, I was sitting at an anterior part of this -- in other words, I was at one section in this living room, and they were just seated and Dave was walking up and down, and he said, "Forget him, he is all right, he don't know anything, and it don't make any difference with him."
A. Approximately how big was that living room?
Q. I could not estimate. I could point out, take you there.
A. I show you a photograph which has been previously marked for identification, D-14, and I ask you whether or not that is the living room to which you make reference, where this meeting took place?
Q. This looks like it from this furniture and general layout, yes.
A. Taking this photograph, will you place an "F" on that photograph at the spot where David Ferrie was located within that living room depicted by that photograph?
A. Well, he did not stay in one place.
Q. Did he ever sit down or not?
A. I recall him mostly moving around, but I am sure he sat down.
Q. Where did he sit down?
A. I don't recall exactly where he sat, no, sir.
Q. Did Clem Bertrand sit down or not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did he sit, and I ask you to put a "B" on the photograph at the location where he sat?
A. He sat on the sofa in this area.
Q. I take it then that the sofa to which you make reference does not show up on the exhibit offered for identification, D-14?
A. This looks a little bit like it, but I am not sure. I cannot see the whole thing.
Q. I notice that you have put a "B" in the lower right-hand portion of that paragraph?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would that be approximately where the sofa was?
A. It was somewhere here. I don't know where the wall is.
Q. Now, how about Leon Oswald, did he walk around or did he sit down?
A. Well, during the party he was over in this area a lot. There was a piano there when I was there. He was in this area a lot, and he talked to some Spanish guys and he did not say much during the party.
Q. You say he talked to some Spanish guys; I am referring now to the time after the party boiled down to four men; were any Spanish men present then?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, the indication you have placed on the photograph as to where Clem Bertrand was sitting, does that still hold good as the four-man gathering is concerned?
A. Yes.
Q. With reference to the four-man gathering, where was Oswald; put an "O"?
A. I would recognize this as the piano chair. I am not sure it is, but he was seated here, and sometimes he would move to the sofa. He was fidgety under the circumstances and sort of detached. He would move from here. He stayed around this area. It wasn't a tremendous amount of movement except for Dave.
Q. Where were you?
A. Over here. They had a --
Q. I will ask you to put an "R" --
MR. ALCOCK:
I object. Mr. Dymond is asking a question before the witness is finishing his answer.
JUDGE O'HARA:
All of this is doing the Court no good. We cannot see. I can see what he is marking and they cannot. All of the testimony in the last couple of minutes I could see it [sic].
JUDGE BAGERT:
Is that photograph D-14?
MR. DYMOND:
Yes, sir.
JUDGE BAGERT:
I will look at it afterwards. Go ahead.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. You say that this photograph, D-14, represents a faithful reproduction of the living room at the premises 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, is that right?
A. No, sir.
Q. What is inaccurate about it?
A. Well, there were a lot more chairs from the dining room; it was more papers on the floor, more, and it was not clean, you know, but not clean, but it does not have papers on the floor, except this, and this is not cluttered up. But if that is the same one, it was always cluttered.
MR. DYMOND:
In connection with this witness' testimony we would like to offer, file, and produce this photograph in evidence.
MR. ALCOCK:
No objections.
JUDGE BAGERT:
All right.
MR. DYMOND:
At this time, by agreement of counsel for the State and the defense, we would like to offer, file, and produce in evidence the photographs marked for identification as D-2, D-7, D-10, D-11 and D-12, with the stipulations that these are photographs which were taken by Mr. Ralph Sneed, on the 11th day of March, in the year of 1967.
MR. OSER:
And also they represent the scene as it was depicted on March 11th, 1967.
MR. DYMOND:
That is correct.
MR. OSER:
Also, in conjunction with the stipulation between the State and the defense, the State offers, introduces, and files into evidence that which has been previously marked for the purpose of identification, S-4, S-5, S-6, S-7, the photographs of the apartment of Dave Ferrie, taken on February 22nd, 1967, at 12:50 PM, by Peter Schuster, photographer for the Orleans Parish Coroner, and depicts the scene as it was displayed on February 22nd, 1967.
MR. DYMOND:
No objections.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Mr. Russo, I show you the photograph marked for identification as D-6 --
JUDGE BAGERT:
For the purpose of the record, let it be recorded that in view of the stipulations, all of these documents are admitted into evidence.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. I show you a photograph marked for identification, D-6, purporting to be a photograph of the hallway of the residence of 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; can you identify that?
A. From this angle I am not sure.
Q. Do you recognize that as the hallway of 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, do you, sir?
A. From that angle I don't want to say yes or no. I am not sure from that angle.
Q. I show you a photograph purporting to be a photograph of the kitchen of that residence, the same being marked for identification as D-9, and I ask you whether you recognize that as such?
A. No, sir. I have never been in the kitchen.
JUDGE BAGERT:
We will take a recess now, a lunch recess, until two o'clock.
(Court is adjourned until two o'clock.)
(Court is now in session.)
MR. DYMOND:
If the Court please, just during the noon recess we have learned of the existence of another tape recording of an interview with the witness, Russo, and would like to ask the Court whether it will accept from us a verbal motion for a subpoena duces tecum dictated into the record. The man is present in this building who has custody of the tape.
JUDGE BAGERT:
I see no purpose with the subpoena if he is here.
MR. DYMOND:
That is right. I want to know if you will excuse us of the necessity of a written motion for a subpoena duces tecum.
JUDGE BAGERT:
We will accept an oral subpoena if he is here. Of course, to expedite the matter, it was my opinion to expedite matters, and we have been letting you take these things out of context and out of sequence, because of the people returning to their respective studios. Now, who do you want?
MR. DYMOND:
A Mr. Charles E. Ray, from WTIX, news director of WTIX.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Tell him to stand by.
MR. DYMOND:
If the Court will permit, we would like to have this tape in while we still have the opportunity to cross examine the witness, Russo, with respect to the contents of that tape.
JUDGE BAGERT:
We have been departing from the usual rules of procedure of the presentation of evidence. Now, this is your witness, this is your evidence. If the State acquiesces in it, it is one thing, but this is your testimony, this is your witness, this is your evidence. Now to expedite things and facilitate the news media, we have been permitting these things to come out of sequence.
MR. DYMOND:
Yes. We appreciate that.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Is that right?
MR. DYMOND:
Right.
JUDGE BAGERT:
And in other words, we have been, we, and of the course the State has acquiesced, we have been extending you the courtesy on that regard. I don't think as of a right you have any reason to interfere or inject this individual right now. There's nothing to preclude you from interrogating him about this script.
MR. DYMOND:
It can be handled in that way, if the Court would prefer.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Mr. Ray, as of this moment on, even though you have not been served with a written subpoena, I don't want you to discuss your testimony with anybody, and stay outside until the further orders of the Court. Any questions?
MR. RAY:
No, sir.
JUDGE BAGERT:
If you have any tape, preserve the tape, too.
Proceed, Mr. Dymond.
PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO, after being recalled to the witness stand, testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Mr. Russo, other than the three times that you have told us you were hypnotized by Dr. Fatter, have you ever been hypnotized other than that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know much about hypnotism?
A. I have read a little about it.
Q. Have you ever hypnotized anybody yourself?
A. I have tried. It is a matter of degree. I am not sure.
Q. How long ago was that, sir?
A. After I seen Dave Ferrie do it. Sometimes afterwards.
Q. You had never tried it until you saw Dave Ferrie do it, is that right?
A. Well, I may have before that, but I don't really recall. I may have.
Q. Have you ever taken any courses in it or received any special instructions in hypnotism?
A. No, sir.
Q. Would that cover correspondence courses or anything of that nature?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So, you would say then you have no special knowledge or learning in the field of hypnotism?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, getting back to the four-man meeting which you have described in the apartment of David Ferrie in mid-September of 1963, did you say that triangulation was stressed in the discussion that took place there?
A. It was discussed, yes, sir.
Q. Now, just what was your understanding of what was meant by triangulation?
A. Well, I have to back up a little bit to explain how Dave once mentioned, not that, but something like that before. He told me during the summer months that he made a point of reference about the President of Mexico and President Eisenhower. I think he was in New Orleans at the sesquicentennial or something, and he said that a woman, I think it was a woman, had gotten as close [sic] to the automobile of President Eisenhower before she was stopped. She was able to open her purse. She ran up to the automobile and was able to open her purse, and he said that if the person did not have any respect for his own life, it would be very easy to kill the President. In other words, if he did not care what happened to him afterwards, if a woman could get that close, and then he went on later on and he said, suppose there was a group of people listening to the President of Mexico, I think he used, I don't recall the name, but suppose there were a group of people sitting, watching the President speak, and he said, and you had two people to shoot the President or shoot the speaker, he said then under the circumstances, he said that the first, in the back of the group, would be a man who would just fire a shot and then the impact of the firing of a shot would cause everyone to look around. In that split second, either a split second or a fraction of a second later, the front man, unguarded, because everyone is looking in the back, then would make the necessary shot to do the job. Now, he did not talk about anything at all about exits or anything like that. And then at the meeting, Ferrie walked and paced a little bit and he had a tendency to throw his hands up, making the point of the necessity for triangulation fire.
MR. WARD:
Show the Court what you mean by that.
THE WITNESS:
This is the way he said. He said necessity to have triangulation fire [sic]. He said that although, and perhaps it was not clear yesterday or the other day, although all three would be firing at the President, then this man, now, it could have been any of these three, but I pulled this one, this man would have of necessity, have to be sacrificed to allow these two to go free, or he said, that these two would have to be sacrificed to allow this one to go free. Now, there was a cross fire, so to speak, and I call it a triangulation cross fire, and he called it a triangulation of fire or something to that effect, or maybe he said triangular cross fire. And he went on further saying that, which I don't think I cleared up yesterday or the day before, that all three would be firing at the President. In other words, the first time I mentioned this man just firing in the air and this one in the front of the auditorium firing at the President. Well, it was not the case here. All three men were going to fire at the President, but this man was going to be sacrificed, or these two were going to be sacrificed. Now, he never did say three of them would be, but he said this one or these two, and that is about it.
Q. If all three would be firing at the President, what was going to determine which two of the three would be sacrificed?
A. He did not really cover that. He said someone would have to be the scapegoat.
Q. He did not say who?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it discussed which of the three would be the scapegoat?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you were not supposed to take any part in this, is that right?
A. No, sir.
Q. According to the plan you heard formulated, who was to take part of it?
A. They never did name names. Just that these three people were discussing that, and they did not place anyone in any individual roles or whether he would be here, or here, or here. They did not do that.
Q. Was it understood that these three men would actively participate in the assassination?
A. I did not get that impression, no.
Q. What, to the best of your recollection, was said by Oswald during the formation of this plan?
A. Well, the only thing I can recall was that he had an argument with Bertrand about something Ferrie had said. There was a little bit of a dispute. Ferrie did most of the talking. About what Ferrie said, it was not about this triangulation. It was sometime later, they were discussing leaving the country, exit of country, availability of exit. That was the way it was, and they were discussing that.
Q. You don't remember anything Oswald said then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, what?
A. Ferrie said that after the shots were fired, he said that the diversionary man, the man that was going to be sacrificed, would take all the brunt of the police and everybody, would give the others enough time to leave the country, and then they would fly, he said that you could either fly to Mexico and then refuel and then fly on to Brazil, or you could fly directly to Cuba, but if you fly directly to Cuba, the people down there, although they knew or had heard about an assassination, might not know who this plan was [sic] and in that instance they might get shot then. And at that point Bertrand got up and said -- I don't know if he actually got up, but he did get into an argument with Ferrie about this, saying that no way in the world could they go down to Mexico and stop. He said that was impossible because the Mexican authorities would not, under any circumstances, let a plane leave or anything coming in [sic] that had no flight plans, or that no one knew was coming, would not let that plane leave.
Q. Now, was it understood in this discussion that Ferrie was to leave the country?
A. They didn't say one thing or another about that.
Q. Was it understood that Oswald was to leave the country?
A. They didn't say anything about that.
Q. And I understand, Russo, that you stood there during this entire three-way conversation, and you uttered not one word?
A. No, sir.
Q. Well, what did you say?
A. Well, every once in a while I got up and walked on the porch to see if my ride was there. I said, "Excuse me." I am not sure what I said, but I said something like that.
Q. Now, who were you expecting to come pick you up?
A. Well, there was a friend of mine at that time, either him or Dave would give me a ride, and I had missed him earlier.
Q. What friend of yours?
A. Lefty Peterson.
Q. You looked to see if Lefty was coming back, is that right?
A. Well, I was becoming irritable, you know, I wasn't in a part of the conversation. It was their business, and I wasn't particularly interested.
Q. Didn't you testify yesterday that some of the people with whom you had a ride at that party left, and you decided to stay there, hoping that Ferrie would give you a ride home?
A. Not to my recollection. No, I can tell you what I did.
Q. What did you say?
A. The conversation is, the questions asked yesterday went along these lines. This is my interpretation of them. They were there and everyone was leaving at one time or another. Now, if I was to get a ride, I was going to get a ride with one of them, or Dave was going to give me a ride home, one or the other, and there was no decision made -- you say, eleven o'clock or ten o'clock, or whenever it was as concerns that. Subsequently I just took it for granted after everybody was gone I was left alone. I took it for granted that Dave was going to give me a ride home.
Q. Had Peterson told you he would come back and give you a ride home?
A. I cannot recall the conversation, but that was our custom.
Q. Why didn't you mention yesterday about you thought that Peterson would come back and give you a ride?
A. I am sure it was covered.
Q. Are you as sure of that as you are sure of everything else you have testified to?
A. I am sure it was covered.
Q. Are you as sure of that as you are sure of everything else that you testified to?
A. I don't understand the question.
JUDGE BAGERT:
I think it is an improper question. Rephrase it.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. How did you finally get home?
A. I think I caught a bus. I am not sure.
Q. You don't remember how you got home from Ferrie's apartment after the meeting?
A. I cannot recall, no, sir.
Q. Where were you living at that time?
A. Elysian Fields.
Q. Did you ever live at 2812 St. Charles Avenue here in New Orleans?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that?
A. Last summer.
Q. The summer of '66?
A. Summer of '66, yes, sir.
Q. Is that the only time?
A. That is the only time I know of.
Q. What is Lefty Peterson's actual first name?
A. Pete, I think. He has a bunch of nicknames. We call him a bunch of things.
Q. What other nicknames does he have besides Lefty and Pete?
A. Stinky.
Q. What else?
A. Squirrel. Maybe some others, you know --
Q. Would you give us a description of Pete Peterson?
A. He has brown eyes, brown hair, and he is not big.
Q. Approximately how tall would you say that he is?
A. Maybe he is five-eight or nine.
Q. Approximately what weight?
A. 165, 170.
Q. Are there any distinctive marks or scars about his face?
A. No, sir.
Q. Does he wear glasses?
A. He needs glasses. He has worn them, but not in the last while. No, I don't think.
Q. I take it he is left-handed, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did I understand you to say that prior to this meeting in mid-September that Pete Peterson had been with you at Tulane playing basketball?
A. It was our occasion to go up there, Loyola, you know, go up there for basketball or baseball or anything.
Q. Where were you this particular night, Loyola or Tulane?
A. I don't recall. It was one or the other, it was up in that neighborhood.
Q. Did Pete Peterson attend either one of these schools?
MR. WARD:
I object to this line of questioning. It is going far afield. It is the same thing we went over yesterday. We will be here for months, not days, if we continue rehashing one thing and the other.
JUDGE BAGERT:
What is the materiality of this?
MR. DYMOND:
I cannot tell you what the materiality is without testifying myself, and I don't want to do that. There is one other person I want to ask him along these lines and that is all.
JUDGE BAGERT:
All right, ask him the question.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Did Peter Peterson attend either Loyola or Tulane at that time?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it not a fact that he is a cab driver?
A. Yes, sir, or he was. He is now.
Q. Now, you have told of having seen Clem Bertrand, as you refer to him, at a filling station on Veterans Highway?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that David Ferrie was there at that time, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, who else did you say was there at that time?
A. The service station attendants, the young boys.
Q. You testified that Al was there at that time?
A. Landry?
Q. Right.
A. No.
Q. Was anyone else by the name of Al there at that time?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. You knew Ferrie pretty well at that time, did you not?
A. It has been several months since I had seen him, but I knew him.
Q. Did you know whether he was a part owner of that filling station?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have testified that you don't know what role Oswald was to play in the planned assassination, is that right?
MR. WARD:
I make an objection. We have been through that before. It is repetitious.
JUDGE BAGERT:
It is the understanding of the three of us that we have permitted you a great latitude. We feel it is getting a little too redundant.
MR. DYMOND:
All right.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Did you not testify on direct examination that according to the plan that you related, Clem Bertrand was to go to the West Coast at the time of the assassination?
MR. WARD:
The same objection. It was covered previously.
MR. DYMOND:
I did not ask him about going to the West Coast.
JUDGE BAGERT:
All right, answer the question.
THE WITNESS:
Not in the direct plan, no, sir.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. What did you testify to with respect to that?
A. I said that Dave Ferrie offered an alternate when they got into this dispute about Mexico and refueling that I just mentioned. Dave Ferrie said, well, he says, "We can always be in the public eye, we have to be in the public eye on that day." And it was in reference to me as an alternative. This was an alternative.
Q. What reference was made about the possibility of Clem Bertrand going to the West Coast?
A. Well, Dave Ferrie said, "I could go to Southeastern and make a speech." Something like that. And Bertrand said that he could go out on business for his company out on the West Coast.
Q. Was Dallas ever mentioned in that conversation, Dallas, Texas?
A. I never heard the City of Dallas mentioned in that conversation.
Q. Do you know whether or not the plan was for Clem Bertrand and Ferrie and Oswald to abandon any holdings that they might have in this country and leave the country permanently?
A. No, sir, I don't know.
Q. You don't know?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever have an occasion to meet Oswald's wife?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know whether or not he had a wife?
A. I was under the impression that he had.
Q. What gave you that impression?
A. Dave.
Q. How?
A. He mentioned it one time. Off the cuff he just mentioned it.
Q. Now, referring to the rifle which was shown to you by the State on direct examination, and by your testimony, were you meaning to identify that as the rifle which you say you saw Oswald cleaning or not?
A. No, sir.
Q. You did not mean to do that; the time you saw Oswald polishing this rifle or cleaning it, where did that take place?
A. At Dave Ferrie's apartment.
Q. In what part of the apartment?
A. The same room that I pointed out where the big sofa is, the little sofa, what I call the living room.
Q. How had you gotten into the apartment on that occasion?
A, I remember Dave, I think, brought me up that night for one reason or another. I don't recall.
Q. What was Oswald doing when you walked in on that occasion?
A. He just stayed seated. He may have gotten up.
Q. Approximately when was that?
A. It was right before I went up for the party, right before I went up there and barged in on the party, a few days before, maybe.
Q. That was before the party, right?
A. Yes.
Q. When you walked in, did Oswald make an attempt to hide the rifle or disguise the fact he was polishing or cleaning it?
A. No, sir.
Q. How was Oswald dressed at that time?
A. Sloppily. He just had some kind of pullover white shirt.
Q. Would you terms his appearance as dirty at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, after you had made contact with Mr. Garrison's office, you were taken to the vicinity of Mr. Clay Shaw's apartment, were you not?
A. The same day?
Q. No, I said after you had made contact with Garrison's office?
A. Yes, sir, one time.
Q. Now, who went with you on that visit?
A. There were many members of the District Attorney's staff.
Q. Can you name any of them?
A. Andy Sciambra, Lynn Loisel, and Mr. Neidemeyer. I don't know his first name, and there was others. I never got introduced. I may have been introduced, but I don't recall their names.
Q. To the best of your knowledge, was Mr. Sciambra the only Assistant District Attorney present?
A. Probably, yes.
Q. With relation to Mr. Shaw's residence, where was the automobile parked?
A. In a no-parking zone on the right-hand side of the street going toward Canal Street.
Q. Would that have been across the street from the apartment?
A. It was on the same side.
Q. Approximately how long did you remain parked there before you saw Mr. Shaw?
A. Well, a colored lady came out once or twice, I remember, and a colored boy went in and he came out, and some friends --
Q. When you say he came out --
A. The colored boy came out, and then a friend of his had gone in sometime. I mean, I don't know if it is a friend of Mr. Bertrand, but someone had gone in, and subsequently came out maybe an hour and a half, two hours.
Q. About what time of the day or night was this?
A. This was from perhaps twelve o'clock on.
Q. Daytime or nighttime?
A. Daytime, afternoon.
Q. And you stayed there approximately how long before seeing Mr. Shaw?
A. Perhaps an hour and a half the first time.
Q. When you saw him for the first time, for approximately what period of time did you see him?
A. Perhaps thirty seconds.
Q. As a result of seeing him roughly thirty seconds, did you tell the gentlemen in the automobile you were able to identify him or not?
A. I said that from what I saw, I said it was the same man.
Q. The same man?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What would be your approximation of the distance from where the car was parked and the place you saw Mr. Shaw at that time?
A. Perhaps fifteen to twenty feet.
Q. And you told these gentlemen it was the same man, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What happened then within the automobile?
A. Nothing. Mr. Sciambra said, "That will not do, we want you to make a positive identification, we will have to wait until he comes out and let the man come out on the street."
Q. Would you tell us what day this was that this identification took place?
A. I don't know. It was in February. I think the latter end of February.
Q. Can you tell us how many days after you came down here from Baton Rouge this transpired?
A. No, sir. Maybe four, five, six.
Q. Was this before the day that Mr. Shaw was arrested?
A. It could have been, yes, sir.
Q. All right; when Mr. Sciambra told you that would not be sufficient, what was decided upon then?
A. To continue waiting.
Q. And did you continue waiting?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long?
A. Perhaps another two hours.
Q. And then what happened?
A. Well, everyone was getting fidgety and tired, and I had to stretch my legs, and we got out and moved to another car.
Q. Whose car?
A. A member of their staff. I don't know their name, and we stayed in that car for a while.
Q. About how long?
A. Maybe another -- this was all a total of two hours, two and a half hours. Maybe thirty minutes in that car.
Q. All right; what happened then?
A. And the suggestion was made, either I made it, me, or someone else made it, that we just go knock on the door and whoever comes out, just if it happened to be the man, then good, and if it is not, well, just wait another time.
Q. And you say you don't know whether you made that suggestion or somebody else did?
A. Well, they had been discussing in one fashion or another for a couple of hours. Perhaps I initiated it at that time. I don't know.
Q. At what time, was it your belief that the occupant of that residence was named Clem Bertrand or Clay Shaw?
A. At that time I didn't know a Clay Shaw. It was my belief from that first time I saw him that it was the same man as Clem Bertrand.
Q. Now, whose idea was it for you to go out there and pose as an insurance salesman; was that yours or Mr. Sciambra or one of the investigators?
A. It came as a consensus. It was all of ours. Perhaps I initiated it sometime earlier and was subsequently dropped.
Q. You said perhaps you initiated it; did you or didn't you?
A. I don't really recall the exact beginning of that particular subject.
Q. So, after it was dropped, who decided it might be a good idea you should go ahead with the plan?
MR. ALCOCK:
I object.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Overruled.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. After the plan had been dropped for you to pose as an insurance salesman, who decided that it was a good plan and should be followed?
A. Specifically I don't know. It could have been any of us because it was getting late in the afternoon, and some of the men had been there since, I think, eleven o'clock. I had been in the office for some hours and I was tired, and everyone was tired.
Q. So, you don't remember, is that right?
A. That is right.
Q. Tell us what that plan was; how were you to go about posing as an insurance agent?
MR. ALCOCK:
I object. It has no relevancy. What relevancy would that have before this Court in determining whether or not the State has probable cause to bind this man over for trial?
JUDGE BAGERT:
It seems to us to be a recollection that it was gone into many, many times, but if you feel it will help your case, I am going to ask my colleagues to be even more tolerant.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Would you answer the question?
A. I was just to walk up and, accompanied by another person, just knock on the door, and if a colored lady answered, or someone else answered it, I was to ask for the head of the household, and if I couldn't, if no one of the head of the household [sic] did not come, well, there was nothing I could do. But it so happened he did.
Q. So happened what did?
A. Mr. Bertrand answered the door. No, a maid did.
Q. Was your saying you were a Mutual of Omaha salesman discussed in the automobile?
A. In the automobile?
Q. That is right.
A. No. At that time we were probably standing out on the street corner.
Q. What discussion was there on that particular phase of your visit to the apartment?
A. I don't know if there was any discussion about it. It was just something made that I could represent Mutual of Omaha.
Q. Well, who suggested Mutual of Omaha as distinguished from other insurance companies?
A. I don't know. There was a reason not for the Equitable [sic] because my face had been on the newspapers maybe five days before.
Q. Because what?
A. Because my name had been in the paper or my face had been in the paper five days before, and I had a personal card from a friend of mine who was a member of Mutual of Omaha.
Q. Well, what would your face having been in the newspaper have to do with it?
A. That would perhaps do -- Bertrand or whoever was in there, they might think it was a farce, you know, or might think something fishy about this, or might try and hurt me.
Q. You were afraid he might have seen your picture in the newspaper and realize it was a farce, is that right?
A. I was afraid that I might get hurt.
Q. So, did you suggest Mutual of Omaha as the insurance company name to be used?
A. I looked through my wallet, and that was one of the cards. I had some several agents [sic], several people, personal friends of mine.
Q. Did you suggest that?
A. The actual Mutual of Omaha, I don't know. Yes, probably I did. I am not sure.
Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Shaw that you were a representative of Mutual of Omaha?
A. I gave him the name on the card, I am sure, as soon as he answered the door, and I began talking, trying to request for an interview [sic], and I probably did. I am not sure of that, but I probably did, because I handed him a card; no, I showed him a card, and he took it from me after a few seconds, and he held it and he looked at the card and looked at me twice, and I am sure he recognized me.
Q. What did he say?
A. He said that at that time he was covered by, I think, it was Blue Cross, and he was with a friend of his; no, he had company. He said, "I have company," and he broke in the middle of his conversation and he said, "What did you say your name was," and so, I told it over.
Q. Did you give him your right name or not?
A. No, sir.
Q. What name did you use?
A. Addon Williams. And he looked at me twice, as if to say, I remember you, and he told me he was with a friend and that he could not talk right now, but he would be willing to discuss it later.
Q. Is that the only time you have ever used an alias, or have there been other occasions?
A. I have many nicknames.
Q. Like what?
A. Moose. I used to weigh 225 pounds.
Q. What else?
A. Beast. I used to play football, and I played line and it gets rough, you know, when you are hitting somebody, and you are a beast. And so, I got that name and probably others.
Q. Why were you concerned about your face having appeared in the newspaper and being detected because of that, when according to your testimony, you were going in to see a man with whom you had sat down at a meeting where an assassination was planned, and whom you had later seen in a filling station, where he had plenty of opportunity to see you; why would you have just thought of a newspaper picture?
MR. OSER:
I object.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Rephrase the question.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. What made you think that Mr. Shaw would recognize you by a newspaper picture, and why was that your only concern if you knew that you had sat with this man at a meeting where an assassination was planned, and seen him at a filling station on Veterans Highway?
A. Perhaps there were some other factors. One factor is I remembered him, and would he remember me. My face was familiar, and if I said my name was Russo, and would he remember Dave introducing me. And it was a risky thing. If he did -- in other words, I did not want anything to happen to me. Just to identify somebody, and I did not want to get shot.
Q. You did not know very well that you would be recognized the moment you were seen?
A. I didn't understand the question.
Q. I said, weren't you aware you would be recognized the moment you were seen?
A. I have possibly -- yes, and possibly no. It just depends on how much a recollection of Mr. Bertrand had about people who were at that party or other people that came walking in and left and stuff like that.
Q. You did not have any trouble having identifying [sic] this defendant after seeing him the same number of times, did you?
A. Absolutely not.
MR. DYMOND:
That is all.