Mr.Sorrels. Yes; I have the notes here.
Mr.Hubert. Do you have notes also of the first interview?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes; I read some of the stuff awhile ago from those notes.
Mr.Hubert. Is there any reason of security or otherwise why we could not get photostats of them for the record?
Mr.Sorrels. Not that I know of.
They may not mean much to anyone else, because it is just something jotted down to refresh my memory. They are not in very good order, or anything like that. And I don’t know whether it would mean too much to anyone else.
As far as Iknow——
Mr.Hubert. You have no objections?
Mr.Sorrels. No.
Mr.Hubert. I take it those notes were made contemporaneously with the interviews, as they went on?
Mr.Sorrels. The ones of Ruby were; yes. Now, there is other stuff in here that had nothing to do with that.
Mr.Hubert. Well, we are interested of course only in the Ruby ones. But you testified a little while ago, and you seemed to be referring to notes, about what Ruby said, and what happened and so forth in the first interview, and then also in the second interview.
The notes that you referred to on both occasions were made contemporaneously with the interview. That is, they were not made at a later date?
Mr.Sorrels. That is correct. Now, there is other stuff in this notebook. Like I went up to the identification bureau to check on his record and so forth, and got his detailed description, and his fingerprint classification—that had nothing to do with the interview.
Mr.Griffin. I think we ought to take that to show what the practice was.
Mr.Hubert. If you do not mind, we will have them photostated, and after we get the photostats, we will get them an identification number.
Suppose you tell us, then, what occurred at the second interview?
Mr.Sorrels. Continuing with what I started out with a moment ago there, he—incidentally, I have noted here on this page where I made these notations “3:15 p.m.,†I assume that is possibly the time this interrogation took place.
I do have the date, “11-24-63.â€
Mr.Hubert. The beginning of the notes relating to the interview in Captain Fritz’ office?
Mr.Sorrels. That is right.
Mr.Hubert. It is your testimony now it would be your custom, as I understand it, to put the time at the beginning of the notes.
Mr.Sorrels. Ordinarily we do. In this other one, I did not put the time.
Mr.Hubert. All right.
Mr.Sorrels. He gave his name as Jack Leon Ruby. He was asked about who his attorneys were, and he said that he was going to get Tom Howard and possibly Fred Brunner, and Stanley Kaufman, a civil attorney, and Jim Arnton. In other words, he was going to consider those and C. A. Droby.
He said that his name was changed in Dallas.
Now, I might put in here as an explanation that these are in response to questions that Captain Fritz was asking him. That he had this gun for 2 or 3 years. That George Senator was a roommate. That he came in the basement—the word “basement†is not shown here—he came in off Main Street, off of the ramp. That he felt that Oswald was a Red, and that he was alone on this assassination. That he saw Oswald in the showup room, or a similar room. That he knew who he was going for. That he did not want to be a martyr. That he had built up—was a buildup of grievance. That he had closed both clubs.
And I have the notation here “Vegas, Oaklawn, 3508, Carousel, 1312½ Commerce.†That he never saw the man before this thing took place, referring to the time that he was down at the police station, or city hall, rather. That he had been in the mail-order business. That he had been a labor organizer. That he was fond of the police department.
And when Police Officer Slick had been killed—that is all I have in the notes, but he said that he grieved about that.
That he had been around Saturday night, that people were laughing, no one was in mourning. That he had seen a eulogy on TV. That he saw the President’s brother, Bobby, on TV. That he guessed that there was created a moment of insanity. That he read about the letter that someone sent to little Caroline. That he knows the police department is wonderful. That his heart was with the police department. That he had hoped that if ever there was an opportunity—that he had hoped there was an opportunity for him to participate in a police battle, and he could be a part of it, meaning on the side of the police.
That his mother and dad were separated for 25 years. That he owes Uncle Sam a big piece of money. That he has love for the city of Dallas—for the city—he did not say Dallas. That his sister was operated on recently, she was hysterical about the President. That he went to the synagogue Friday night, heard a eulogy. And he had been grieving from that time on. That he went over to where the President was shot.
He wanted Captain Fritz to not hate him for what he had done. That when he was with the union, that one of his dear friends was killed, he came to the place where it happened. Leon Cook was the man. That Ruby’s mother told him to leave. That he was in the union Scrap Iron and Junk Dealers Association. That a man by the name of Jim Martin killed Cook. That Martin was political and had affiliations and got out of it.
That his roommate sold postcards. That his politics were Democratic, but he voted for the man.
That Sammy Ruby, a brother, who services washaterias. Another brother, Earl Ruby, in Detroit, who operated a cleaning plant. Another brother, Hyman Rubenstein, in Chicago, a salesman.
That he had also sold twist boards. That he would not think of committing a felony. That Tom O’Grady, a Catholic, formerly with the police department, had called him, that he had called Sims, who is one of the members of the police department, and wanted to bring sandwiches for them, because he knew they were having a tough time, and that Sims said that it wasn’t needed.
That he tried to locate—anyway, it was some of the TV people to give them to. And that is when he went to the showup room. And that is the first time that he had even seen anyone like that, referring to Oswald.
That he had seen Henry, meaning Henry Wade, the district attorney, talking to someone. That KLIF, the radio station there, had been good to him. No one else was involved.
That is my notes—“no one else involvedâ€â€”meaning there was no one else involved with him, Ruby, in connection with the shooting.
Mr.Hubert. Now, was this a sort of monologue on his part, or response to questions?
Mr.Sorrels. No; as I said a moment ago, that was in response to questions.
Mr.Hubert. Now, thus far have you covered only the part of the interview which was conducted by Fritz, or was some of that the result of your questioning?
Mr.Sorrels. About the only thing that I recall questioning him about was possibly the correct address on the night club.
Mr.Hubert. Do you know if anyone asked him how he got in?
I think perhaps you have testified to that already.
Mr.Sorrels. Yes, Captain Fritz asked him that.
Mr.Hubert. And he said he came in through the ramp, I believe you said.
Mr.Sorrels. That is right.
Mr.Hubert. Did he state at any time during that interview about any intent to kill Oswald, to shoot him three times, and he is glad he was dead?
Mr.Sorrels. I do not recall that.
Mr.Hubert. Now, I am going to show you a document which is actually a photostatic copy, or Xerox copy, of Commission Document 354, consisting of four pages. I am going to mark that document for identification as follows, to wit, “Deposition of Forrest Sorrels, Washington, D.C., May 6, 1964,†and I am signing my name to that, all of which is on the right margin of the first page. I am placing my initials in the lower right-hand corner of the second, third, and fourth pages. I ask you if you can identify this document, or rather, the photostatic copy? Would you state what it is?
Mr.Sorrels. This is a photocopy of a memorandum report titled “Assassination of President Kennedy,†the second line of that caption, “Jack Leon Ruby—slayer of Lee Harvey Oswald, charged with murder of President Kennedy.†Submitted by me, Forrest V. Sorrels, on February 3, 1964. And it consists of three full pages and a portion of—about a fifth of the fourth page.
Mr.Hubert. I think your signature, or, rather, a photostatic copy of your signature is on the front.
Mr.Sorrels. That is correct—on the front.
Mr.Hubert. That is the report that you submitted to your superiors?
Mr.Sorrels. In Washington.
Mr.Hubert. Which ultimately, of course, they sent. The report covers the events of November 24, is that right?
Mr.Sorrels. That is right.
Mr.Hubert. Do you know why it was filed on February 3?
Mr.Sorrels. Why it was written on February 3? I was instructed by Inspector Kelley to write up a memorandum on the interview that I had with Jack Ruby, shortly after Oswald was shot by Ruby, and also the interview that was had with Captain Fritz and Ruby at which I was present on the same date.
Mr.Hubert. When did you receive those instructions?
Mr.Sorrels. I cannot say exactly when I received them—probably within a day or two, or it could have been longer, because due to the press of other work and things arising out of the assassination, and its duties, the other duties, it was not written as soon as it should have been. And I may have been instructed some time before that to—as quick as I could to get the memorandum prepared.
Mr.Hubert. What I mean is that normally you would write such a report as this in any case?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes, that is true.
Mr.Hubert. And normally it would be writtensooner——
Mr.Sorrels. Sooner, that is right.
Mr.Hubert. Than 2 months or so afterwards?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes, sir.
Mr.Hubert. That is what I am asking—if you can tell us what was the cause of the delay.
Mr.Sorrels. Well, it is just the fact that we were burdened with all the additional work and things brought about by this assassination and investigation and so forth. I guess you could term it, possibly, negligence on my part for not just taking time off and doing it. That is about the only explanation I can give for that. It was not any willful intent to not write it or anything to that effect.
Mr.Hubert. There is no suggestion as to that.
Mr.Sorrels. I know. But that is just as a matter of explanation.
Mr.Hubert. Do you think it was written on that date because Mr. Kelley told you shortly before that date, to wit, February 3, that you should write it, or is it your impression that Mr. Kelley had told you long before it was written to write it?
Mr.Sorrels. There is a possibility that he may have told me before. I don’t recall it specifically. But I do know that Inspector Kelley had instructed me to write up the report.
Mr.Hubert. Do you recall having a conversation with Mr. Burt Griffin, the gentleman who is in the office now, concerning what you knew about what Ruby had said in your interviews with him?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes; I do. And that refreshed my memory a bit, because I recall that Inspector Kelley, after I had talked to Mr. Griffin on the telephone—Inspector Kelley told me to get it written up, get it in writing, about the interview, and get it in. I remember that now, since you mention it.
Mr.Hubert. So that actually the report was written because Inspector Kelley instructed you to do so, and as you recall it he did so because of the conversation with Mr. Griffin?
Mr.Sorrels. I would surmise that, because, as I recall it now, either right after I got through talking to Mr. Griffin or shortly thereafter, Mr. Kelley did instruct me to get the interview, as I recall it, in a report, and get it in to him.
Mr.Hubert. But normally I think you said this report would have been written anyhow, without any suggestion by Mr. Kelley or anybody else?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes; that is right.
Mr.Hubert. And it was your intent to write it, you say, but you didn’t get around to it?
Mr.Sorrels. That is about the best explanation I know to make on it.
Mr.Hubert. Now, do you recall a conversation with Chief Curry with respect to what you knew that Ruby had said?
Perhaps I can identify the conversation a bit more by saying to you that ithad to do with a suggestion by you as to what the witnesses who were members of the police department might be called in the prosecution.
Mr.Sorrels. Oh, yes; I remember that.
Mr.Hubert. Can you tell us, first of all, when it was?
Mr.Sorrels. As I recall, it was after the trial of Ruby had started, or along about the time it was beginning to start. I contacted Chief Curry and toldhim——
Mr.Hubert. Is this by phone, or was it by personal interview?
Mr.Sorrels. No; as I recall it was by phone—that there were two uniformed police officers that were present when I talked to Ruby on the fifth floor of the city jail on the morning of November 24, and that I had not warned Ruby of his constitutional rights and did not know whether or not the statement that he had made to me would be admissible in a trial in the event that the district attorney wanted to use it.
But——
Mr.Hubert. Had you been at that time consulted by the district attorney with reference to your being a possible witness?
Mr.Sorrels. I do not recall that I had.
Now, here is something that will establish that. The district attorney, Henry Wade, came to Washington—I don’t know whether it was in connection with talking to the Commission or what—but I saw him out at the airport, and he said tome——
Mr.Hubert. What airport?
Mr.Sorrels. This was before the trial—Love Field, in Dallas.
He was coming to Washington. And he said to me, “I want to talk to you when I get back about this case.â€
And I said, “All right.â€
And I did not hear anything more from Mr. Wade until the trial was actually in progress. He asked me to come to his office, which I did.
Mr.Hubert. That is Wade?
Mr.Sorrels. That is Henry Wade; yes, sir, the State district attorney that prosecuted Ruby for the murder of Oswald.
And, at that time, I related to him the conversation I had had with Ruby.
Mr.Hubert. Did you relate to him in that interview approximately what you have told us today about your interviews with Ruby?
Mr.Sorrels. Only the one up in the jail—I was talking about that. I didn’t go into detail about this one where Captain Fritz was interviewing him. That was only there at the jail.
Mr.Hubert. Is there any reason why one was talked about and not the other?
Mr.Sorrels. No; no particular reason, excepting that I just assumed that Captain Fritz would be the one if there was any testimony as to the second interview—would be the one to testify in that case.
Mr.Hubert. Did Wade know that you were present at both?
Mr.Sorrels. I would not say positive, but it seems to me that it was mentioned that I was present when we talked, but I am not positive on that.
Mr.Hubert. Did this interview with Wade occur before or after the telephone conversation with Curry?
Mr.Sorrels. No; that was afterwards. That was after the trial started.
Mr.Hubert. Well, now, which was afterwards?
Mr.Sorrels. The interview with Mr. Wade.
Mr.Hubert. That came after the telephone conversation with Curry?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes, sir.
Mr.Hubert. Did Mr. Wade consider using you as a witness?
Mr.Sorrels. He said if he needed me, he would let me know—in other words, would get in touch with me.
He said, “Now, the defense may subpoena you on this thing.â€
And defense attorney—one of them was in on that case—did call me on the telephone. They wanted me to meet with either Tonahill or Belli, or maybe both of them. And I told them I was extremely busy.
He said, “How about having dinner with us?â€
I said, “No; I don’t even have time to eat big dinners, I just grab a sandwich,†because I didn’t want to have dinner with them.
They called me a second time, because there had been a delay from the time they thought they were going to call me—they called me the second time and that is when they said something about having dinner with them later, and I said, no; I didn’t have time.
And at that time I told them I didn’t think I could do them any good. I said I can tell you in a short time what I could testify to.
He said, “Over the phone?â€
I said, “Yes.â€
So I told them about the interview with Ruby in the jail up in the jailhouse. I did not go into detail about the other, because I did not consider that my interview.
Mr.Hubert. You are talking there about the second interview?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes.
Mr.Hubert. Did you mention you had been present?
Mr.Sorrels. I do not recall that I did.
Mr.Hubert. Coming back to the Curry matter, what was your motivation in calling Curry?
Mr.Sorrels. I felt that the testimony or the statements, rather, made by Ruby right after he had shot Oswald would be of benefit to the district attorney in the prosecution of this case, the statements that he made as to the fact that he had worked himself into a state of insanity, also the statement that he guessed he had to show the world that a Jew had guts. And I also recall that during the questioning by Captain Fritz during the interview there that Ruby had made the remark, “Well, I would make a good actor, wouldn’t I?†to Captain Fritz. And I felt that possibly I could not testify, because of the fact that I had not warned Ruby of his constitutional rights.
I thought of that before I talked to him, but the part that I was interested in, that is, determining whether or not anyone else was involved with him, or whether or not he knew Oswald, I didn’t consider—I mean I considered that if I warned him of his constitutional rights on that particular angle, that he might not even tell me that, and that is the reason I did not warn him of his constitutional rights, because I felt it was of paramount interest to our Service to determine whether or not others were involved in this thing besides Ruby, and of paramount interest to determine whether or not Oswald and Ruby knew each other, or had any connection.
Mr.Hubert. Is it a custom, rule, or regulation of your Service that you must warn a person of his constitutional rights before you can question him?
Mr.Sorrels. On our investigations; yes, sir.
Mr.Hubert. And is that a custom, or is it actually a published regulation?
Mr.Sorrels. Well, we know that we are going to get in serious trouble in court if we don’t do it, because that is always—the question is always asked, especially by a defense attorney, and so forth.
And we know that we are supposed to do it.
I try to adhere to it as much as I possibly can.
Mr.Hubert. What I am trying to determine is whether that is your onlypersonal——
Mr.Sorrels. Oh, no.
Mr.Hubert. Way of doing things, or if it is an established policy of the Service, and if so, how is it established?
Mr.Sorrels. I think it is possibly a bit of both, because it is always my practice to tell these people that we cannot promise them anything—I am talking about the people we handle for prosecution in our investigations. And that, of course, they don’t have to tell us anything if they don’t want to. We make that known—because if we do not we know if there is a trial in a case, that that question is going to be asked, and we know that under our laws that a person is supposed to be warned of his constitutional rights before he is questioned.
Mr.Hubert. Is that your version of what the law is?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes.
Mr.Hubert. Coming back to the policy matter, I don’t expect you to be ableto quote it to me now, but you have the impression there is something in writing in some manual of standard operations, instructions, that requires that you warn a person of his constitutional rights?
Mr.Sorrels. I just cannot answer that question, because I just can’t recall if there is a specific instruction of that particular thing or not.
But I do know that if we do not warn them of their constitutional rights, that we are—we will be in serious trouble in the trial of a case because if the question is asked, “Did you warn this man of his constitutional rights?†we have to tell the truth, and if we say “No, it wasn’t,†we would be jeopardizing our case.
Mr.Hubert. Now, at the time you called Curry, you had not spoken to Wade?
Mr.Sorrels. Not about the actual interview with Ruby at that time.
Mr.Hubert. At the time you talked to Curry, was that before or after you saw Wade at Love Field?
Mr.Sorrels. I can’t say for sure, but I think it was probably afterwards.
Mr.Hubert. What I am trying to get at is what motivated your call to him.
Mr.Sorrels. I probably didn’t make myself plain.
What motivated my call to him was that I figured that if I was called to Mr. Wade’s office to explain this thing to him, that the fact that I had not warned Ruby when I approached him to get this information—that I had not warned him of his constitutional rights, that I would not—it would not be good testimony. And my thought is that the two men who were—the two uniformed officers there, who were just standing by and had nothing to do with the questions and so forth, who heard what was said, they might be able to testify to that effect.
Mr.Hubert. So you wanted to get that information to someone in authority?
Mr.Sorrels. That is right.
Mr.Hubert. And the information was twofold—that you knew there was someone who could testify as to what Ruby had said, because you had heard Ruby say it in the presence of other people?
Mr.Sorrels. That is right.
Mr.Hubert. And, secondly, you were doubtful as to whether your testimony as such would be valuable?
Mr.Sorrels. That is right.
Mr.Hubert. Do you know why you conveyed that information to Curry instead of Wade?
Mr.Sorrels. Because I did not know the names of the two police officers that were there. Two uniformed men.
Mr.Hubert. Well, was it your thought, then, if you advised Curry he would get the names of the men, and then convey it to Wade? I am trying to get what your motivation was.
Mr.Sorrels. Well, that is all I can recall as to the motivation. In other words, I don’t know that I thought that he would convey the information to Wade or not. I just cannot recall whether I had that in mind or not. But I did have in mind that possibly these two fellows, these two uniformed police officers, might be able to testify as to what Ruby said there when I would not be able to do so, because of the fact I had not warned him.
Mr.Hubert. And this conversation with Curry was in between the time you saw Wade at Love Field and the time you had the interview with him when he came back from Washington?
Mr.Sorrels. As I recall it, it was. I won’t be positive about that.
Mr.Hubert. Now, you told Wade, I think you said, the same thing, about your doubts as to your qualifications.
Mr.Sorrels. I believe that I did, if I recall it correctly, because I think when I was talking to Wade in his office, that that was mentioned.
Mr.Hubert. Did you make any memo of the conversation you had with Curry?
Mr.Sorrels. No, sir; I did not.
Mr.Hubert. Did you make any memo of the interview you had with Wade?
Mr.Sorrels. No, sir.
Mr.Hubert. What did Curry say to you when you told him this information?
Mr.Sorrels. As I recall it, I think he said that he could possibly find out. Itseemed to me like I talked to Chief Batchelor about that, also. I am not positive. But, anyway, I figured they would have a way of knowing who it was that was there, and so forth, at that time.
Mr.Hubert. Is there anyway you could fix for us more definitely the dates of these three occurrences—your meeting with Wade at Love Field, your telephone conversation with Curry, and your interview with Wade?
Mr.Sorrels. I think that I can on the one at Love Field, because, as I recall it, Miss Lynda Johnson was en route to Washington, D.C., and I went to Love Field to be there at the time they arrived in the event that they might need a car or something. I can establish that—February 16, 1964.
Mr.Hubert. You mean you don’t know it now, but you could establish it?
Mr.Sorrels. No; I could establish it.
Mr.Hubert. I wonder if you would undertake to establish that for us.
Mr.Sorrels. Yes; I would.
Mr.Hubert. Now, you think there is no other collateral way to establish the dates of the other matters?
Mr.Sorrels. I can—I think I can pretty well establish it. I will tell you why. At the time that I was in Wade’s office, and during the course of the time that I talked to him, this officer Dean came into Mr. Wade’s office and Mr. Wade asked me about if I was present when Ruby said such and such things—I don’t recall what it was now—I think about that he had been thinking for 2 or 3 days about killing this fellow, or words to that effect, and I told him I was not. And it was right after that that Dean testified in that case. And I think I can establish about pretty close to what day it was. He either testified that day or the following day, as I recall it.
Mr.Hubert. What interval of time would have elapsed between your meeting Wade at the airport and the date of the interview?
Mr.Sorrels. Oh, I think that would have been probably—it is just hard to estimate the time, but it was before the trial of Ruby had ever even begun. It would just be a guess on my part, but I would say it was probably maybe 2 or 3 weeks, or maybe even more.
Mr.Hubert. Well, can you fix for us—put it this way: Can you fix for us whether the Curry conversation was closer to the time you met Wade at Love Field than it was to the time you interviewed Wade, or Wade interviewed you?
Mr.Sorrels. I just don’t believe I can. It seems to me like it was shortly after I had seen Mr. Wade. I may be wrong about that. But I know the thought occurred to me, well, if I am going to be called down on that thing, I don’t think they are going to be able to accept my testimony, because of the fact that Ruby wasn’t warned. And so it was that time that I thought about maybe getting the names of these other two officers who could possibly remember the conversation, and they were standbys and were not the ones actually in the questioning.
Mr.Hubert. Do you remember telling Mr. Griffin here that you would call the Dallas Police Department—I think that was in a telephone conversation he had with you—to find out the names of the people?
Mr.Sorrels. It seems that I did mention to Mr. Griffin, when he was talking to me on the phone, that there were others present, and that I could possibly find out their names, and it seems to me that Mr. Griffin said something about, “Well, no; don’t do that,†or “It is not necessary.â€
Mr.Hubert. Well, let me ask you this: Would that have been before you called Curry, or afterwards?
Mr.Sorrels. Let me see now. I think that would have been before.
Mr.Hubert. Well, perhaps it is this. Perhaps it was that when you had a personal conversation with Mr. Griffin in Dallas that you told him that you had made a call to ascertain the names of these people.
Mr.Sorrels. It could have been.
Mr.Hubert. Did you make such a call?
Mr.Sorrels. Did I?
Mr.Hubert. Yes.
Mr.Sorrels. I made a call. I am not sure it was to Chief Curry. It seems to me I remember talking to Chief Batchelor on that. Now, I may have mentionedit to Chief Curry, too. But it seems to me like I remember talking to Chief Batchelor.
Mr.Hubert. About the existence of some officers?
Mr.Sorrels. To find out who the uniformed officers were who were there.
Mr.Hubert. Well, now, would that conversation with Chief Batchelor be before the Curry conversation or afterwards?
Mr.Sorrels. I don’t recall that I made that conversation to both of them or not. Now, I am just not positive about that. But I do recall having made that call for the specific purpose of getting somebody that was there, those two uniformed officers, that could have heard that conversation, that could have testified in the case down there.
Mr.Hubert. Is it possible that that aspect of the matter was part of the call to Curry?
Mr.Sorrels. I just don’t remember—I just don’t remember. But I know that I did talk to either Curry or Chief Batchelor, and I am inclined to think it was Chief Batchelor. Now, when you mentioned awhile ago about the call to Curry, I, of course, said “yes†on that, because I was thinking about the call. But since thinking about it, I am not sure that it was Chief Curry that I talked to at all about that particular angle. But I do know that I talked to Chief Batchelor about it. I know that.
Mr.Hubert. Well, let’s see if we can clarify it. There is no doubt about it that there was one telephone call made to a high police official.
Mr.Sorrels. That is what I recall.
Mr.Hubert. You are definite that one call was made to Batchelor.
Mr.Sorrels. If my memory serves me right, it seems that I did talk to Batchelor.
Now, whether I talked to Chief Curry on that particular thing or not, I am not too positive.
Mr.Hubert. So that the matter stands that you are not certain that there was the second telephone call with Curry at all?
Mr.Sorrels. No; Idon’t——
Mr.Hubert. Well, would you have covered with Batchelor the material that we have talked about that you say you did cover with Curry?
Mr.Sorrels. Now, what material is that?
Mr.Hubert. Well, such as that you were doubtful about your ability to testify, and so forth.
Mr.Sorrels. Not necessarily. In other words, if it was Batchelor that I called, then I would have, I think, have explained it to him. If it had been Curry I called, I would explain it to him—as to why I was wanting these names, or given that information to them.
Mr.Hubert. What I am trying to get at, you see, is whether or not there were two calls.
Mr.Sorrels. I don’t recall that there were two calls. I don’t.
Mr.Hubert. And you are positive you spoke to Batchelor?
Mr.Sorrels. It seems that I remember talking to Chief Batchelor about it, because it seems that I can remember that he said, “I am sure that we can find out that information,†or words to that effect.
Mr.Hubert. Well, if there was only one call—that is to say, if you are doubtful about two, and you do remember definitely Batchelor, then the one call would have to be Batchelor, would it not?
Mr.Sorrels. That is correct; yes.
Mr.Smith. I think there is a lack of meeting of the minds here.
Mr.Hubert. Would you try to help me out? I would appreciate it.
Mr.Smith. Let me see if I can clarify this. Was there definitely a conversation with Curry about whether you would be able to testify because of your failure to warn Ruby of his constitutional rights?
Mr.Sorrels. I just cannot say positively that there was. I do know that I made a phone call for the specific purpose of informing them of the fact that these two uniformed police officers were there and could have heard the conversation that I had with Ruby, and as my memory serves me it seems that was Chief Batchelor. Now, I may have had conversations with Chief Curry. We have talked about this thing from many, many different angles from time to time.
Mr.Smith. Let me ask it a different way.
Was there one call to obtain the names of the men, uniformed policemen, who were in the room when you interrogated Ruby, and a second call concerning the question of whether you could testify, or were these two subjects covered in one telephone conversation?
Mr.Sorrels. No; as I recall it, there was only one conversation on it at that time.
Mr.Smith. All right. And you don’t know, then, for sure, whether it was to Chief Batchelor or to Chief Curry?
Mr.Sorrels. I would say that, if my memory serves me right, it seems to me like it was Chief Batchelor. There were many, many conversations about this case from many angles. But I know I was concerned when Henry Wade indicated I was going to be called as a witness down there, because I felt that they should know that, and I think as I recall it when he talked to me I told him about those two uniformed officers being there.
Mr.Hubert. Well, whoever you talked to, did that person, whether it was Curry or Batchelor, indicate that he was not aware of the information you were giving him?
Mr.Sorrels. Now, what information?
Mr.Hubert. About the statements made by Ruby. And that you had been present.
Mr.Sorrels. No; I don’t think so.
Mr.Hubert. You have already adverted to the telephone call that you had from Mr. Griffin.
Mr.Sorrels. Yes, sir.
Mr.Hubert. Did you make the telephone call to Curry or Batchelor as a result of the conversation you had with Mr. Griffin?
Mr.Sorrels. No.
Mr.Hubert. That was independent? You think it was before?
Mr.Sorrels. No; I don’t think it was before, because as I recall it, this conversation with Mr. Griffin was quite some time before.
Mr.Hubert. Mr. Sorrels, I call your attention to the fact that on the exhibit which has been identified as Commission Document 354, as to which you have already testified, there is no mention of the names of the officers who were present, and that is dated February 3, 1964. Does that help you to recollect whether you then got interested in who those people were and called Batchelor or Curry, or both?
Mr.Sorrels. It probably brought it to my mind that there were other people present there, and I think I so informed Mr. Griffin on the telephone. But that is not what prompted me to make the call about the two uniformed officers, because that had no bearing on what I told Mr. Griffin. What he was asking me over the telephone is what I had heard Ruby say. And I told him what I had heard Ruby say. And he had asked me about certain things that I did not recall hearing Ruby say, and I told him so at the time. And when I was in District Attorney Wade’s office, the question was asked of me by Mr. Wade as to whether or not certain statements alleged to have been made by Ruby were made to Officer Dean in my presence, and I told him I did not hear anything like that.
Mr.Hubert. Well, perhaps another approach would be this: You were interested or became interested sometime in finding out the names of these people. Isn’t that a fact?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes; but only for that particular purpose.
Mr.Hubert. And you also wanted to convey the information that you were doubtful whether you would qualify, as you put it, as a witness, because you had failed to warn. And that that thought came into your mind after Wade indicated that you might be a witness.
Mr.Sorrels. That is as I recall it.
Mr.Hubert. And that, therefore, you called someone. Now, were those two things in the same conversation?
Mr.Sorrels. You meanabout——
Mr.Hubert. The inquiry as to the names, who these people were, and toconvey the information that you were worried about your own qualifications if you should be considered.
Mr.Sorrels. That is right.
Mr.Hubert. You think there were two conversations?
Mr.Sorrels. No.
Mr.Hubert. Just one?
Mr.Sorrels. As far as I know there would be one. Because that is the only interest I had. As I recall it, I told Mr. Griffin over the telephone that there were others present, and I could possibly find out who they were, and for that purpose that he was trying to bring out on the telephone conversation, and as I recall it he told me, “No; don’t do that.â€
Mr.Hubert. Did you find out who the two people were?
Mr.Sorrels. No; I could not tell you to this day who they are.
Mr.Hubert. In other words, whoever you spoke to, Batchelor or Curry, who said they would let youknow——
Mr.Sorrels. No; I don’t think it was my purpose in finding out who they were for my own benefit. That wasn’t the point at all. It was my thought that they should have information for the district attorney—period.
Mr.Hubert. In other words, you were not interested in knowing who they were yourself? You wanted them to know of the fact that there were two officers there?
Mr.Sorrels. That is right.
Mr.Hubert. And that you were worried about your own qualifications?
Mr.Sorrels. That is right.
Mr.Hubert. Can you tell us approximately the lapse of time, if you can remember it, between your conversation with Mr. Griffin and your conversation with either Chief Batchelor or Chief Curry that you have been speaking of?
Mr.Sorrels. Well, I would say it was quite some time afterwards, because this conversation—I don’t remember the date I had it with Mr. Griffin, but it was prior to the writing of this memorandum. And it was quite some time after that that the trial ever started. And when Mr. Wade saw me at the airport and said, “I want to see you and talk to you about this case,†the trial, of course, had not started at that time. So it was quite some time afterwards.
Mr.Hubert. Well, what did Curry or Batchelor, whoever it was, tell you when you told him of this?
Mr.Sorrels. As I recall it, they said they could get the information. That is all that I recall that they said.
Mr.Hubert. Do you remember when speaking to Wade at the interview whether you adverted to the conversation you had had over the telephone with either Batchelor or Wade, or possibly both?
Mr.Sorrels. No; I don’t recall that that was mentioned.
Mr.Hubert. Did you have any other conversation with any officers in the police department? I mean about this aspect that we are talking about now?
Mr.Sorrels. I saw Captain Fritz at the district attorney’s office the day that I was down there and talked to him, and I cannot recall about whether or not there was a conversation with him about who was present at that time or not, because I remember discussing with Captain Fritz at that time that I didn’t think my testimony would be much benefit to the prosecution on that, or if it would be admissible because of the fact I had not warned Ruby of his constitutional rights.
Mr.Hubert. When was that conversation?
Mr.Sorrels. That was the same time I was talking to Mr. Wade at his office. This is when the trial of Ruby was actually in progress.
Mr.Hubert. Was Fritz in the office?
Mr.Sorrels. He was in and out of there. He had walked in and walked out. And I may have mentioned to him that—the fact that there was other officers there besides Dean and myself. And I told Mr. Wade in Dean’s presence that certain things that Mr. Wade had asked me about, about Ruby saying that he had been—I think somebody had been thinking 3 days about shooting this fellow—that I heard no such statement, that I had left when I got the information I wanted. In other words, when I was questioning Ruby, as I recall it, nobody was asking him any questions except me, and when I got through I left.
Mr.Hubert. When did you find out that Dean and Archer had said or were going to say that they heard Ruby say that he had intended to kill him 3 days before?
Mr.Sorrels. I don’t know that Archer said that—I don’t remember his name.
Mr.Hubert. Dean—when did you learn that?
Mr.Sorrels. When Mr. Griffin asked me over the telephone if certain statements were made, and I told him, in conversation with him, the statements that Ruby had made to me, and he asked me if certain other statements were made, and I said not to my knowledge, “I don’t remember anything like that,†and one of them was about whether or not Ruby came down the ramp, and I told him at that time I didn’t recall that statement having been made, and I didn’t believe that statement was made in my presence.
Mr.Hubert. I thought you said in the interview with Wade you told him you did not hear Ruby say that he had formed the intent to kill Oswald on Friday.
Mr.Sorrels. No, no.
Mr.Hubert. I am sorry.
Mr.Sorrels. No; I didn’t hear that. Ruby didn’t say that. I told Wade that.
Mr.Hubert. You did tell Wade that? Did Wade ask you that?
Mr.Sorrels. He asked me if certain statements were made, and I told him no, not in my presence.
Mr.Hubert. In other words, you had not heard of that even until Wade brought it to your attention?
Mr.Sorrels. No—not that part. The thing that Mr. Griffin was asking me, I think, as I recall it, was about the ramp.
Mr.Hubert. Wade asked you did you hear Ruby say, “I intended to kill him since Friday night,†and your answer was “No; I didn’t.â€
Mr.Sorrels. No; I didn’t hear it.
Mr.Hubert. Did Mr. Griffin mention in the telephone conversation he had with you statements allegedly made, or knowledge allegedly in the possession of Dean in regard to what Ruby had said?
Mr.Sorrels. I remember specifically there was a statement about him coming down the ramp. I remember that. And it seems that—I wouldn’t be positive about that, but it seemed like there was something else that Dean was supposed to have said in my presence, and I told him no I didn’t hear anything like that.
Mr.Hubert. I had thought you said that you told Wade that you had not heard Dean say any such thing. But he asked you?
Mr.Sorrels. He asked me. No—you see, he had talked to Dean beforehand, you see, about this. And I never had talked to Dean. As a matter of fact, I had not seen him.
Mr.Smith. I might say it was my impression at one time that Mr. Sorrels said or indicated that in his conversation with Mr. Griffin, this question about Ruby having premeditated this for 3 days came out in this conversation with Griffin. At least I got that impression. But do I understand it now to be clarified that that particular point did not come out in your conversation with Griffin?
Mr.Sorrels. I don’t think on the telephone conversation at that time.
Mr.Smith. It came out in your conversationwith——
Mr.Sorrels. With Wade.
Mr.Smith. With Wade?
Mr.Sorrels. That is right. But I think—can this be off the record?
Mr.Hubert. I would rather it go on.
Mr.Sorrels. All right. We will have it on the record. I have had other conversations with Mr. Griffin subsequent to that time, and personally when he was there at Dallas, in which I believe that there was some question about that statement. But as I recall it now, the first conversation over the telephone was specifically about the ramp incident. And I remember him emphasizing that. And I recall if such a statement was said I don’t remember it, and I just don’t believe it was said in my presence.
Mr.Hubert. In regard to the conversation with Mr. Griffin in Dallas, do you recall a conversation which I think I can specifically state would have been on the morning of Wednesday, March 25—that is to say the morning after Dean had been deposed. And let it be noted that Dean was deposed on the night ofMarch 24. Do you remember a conversation with Mr. Griffin about what Dean had said then, and that you then told Mr. Griffin what your version of it was, and had in fact—he asked you to prepare a memorandum or something for him, so that there would be a record of what he had told him?
Mr.Sorrels. Along about this same thing?
Mr.Hubert. Yes, about this same matter, revolving around Dean and Dean’s testimony about what Ruby had said.
Mr.Sorrels. I remember that there was a conversation. It seems like I do have a recollection. It slipped my mind. But since you mention something about a memo—and you left rather suddenly, Mr. Griffin, as I recall it, right after that.
Mr.Hubert. That is on the 27th? The question is—you have not written a memo?
Mr.Sorrels. No.
Mr.Hubert. Was there any reason why?
Mr.Sorrels. No. As a matter of fact, it just slipped my mind, I guess, because I cannot recall now just exactly what the memo was. But since he mentioned that, it seems I do recall something about something I told him, and he said, “Write me a memo about it.â€
Mr.Hubert. Was Inspector Kelley present during your interrogation of Oswald on Sunday morning for about 15 or 20 minutes, I think you said?
Mr.Sorrels. I don’t believe so. He might have been. But I don’t recall that he was there.
Mr.Hubert. Now, you have already testified that you and Mr. Kelley went to Mr. Batchelor’s office after Oswald left on Sunday morning.
Mr.Sorrels. It is my recollection that we did go there together.
Mr.Hubert. Was anybody else there?
Mr.Sorrels. If we didn’t, I met him up there.
Mr.Hubert. Was anybody else there?
Mr.Sorrels. At the interview?
Mr.Hubert. No, when you left, when Oswald left to go down to the basement, you testified that you went with somebody, I think it was Tom Kelley—went into Batchelor’s office and looked out to watch the scene.
Mr.Sorrels. Yes.
Mr.Hubert. I think that was Tom Kelley there. Was anyone else there?
Mr.Sorrels. There was a number of officers around there.
I don’t recall who all was there. I just don’t recall who all was there.
Mr.Hubert. Do you know how many officers or detectives were in Fritz’ office after Ruby had shot Oswald and had been brought up to Fritz’ office?
Mr.Sorrels. No, I don’t. There was a number of them around there.
Mr.Hubert. Do you have any recollection that Dean was taken to escort you up to Captain Fritz’ office?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes, I remember Dean went up the elevator with me.
Mr.Hubert. Do you remember any comment that Dean made in Wade’s office?
Mr.Sorrels. The only comment that I can remember that he made is when Mr. Wade asked me if certain things were said by Ruby when I was talking to him in the jail on the morning of November 24, when Dean was there, and I told him no, that that statement was not made in my presence, I did not recall any statement like that. And Dean said, “Well, maybe it was, after you left.†And I said, “Well, if it was—if the statement was made, it would have had to be after I left, because I don’t recall any statement like that.â€
Mr.Hubert. Did you ever find out how Wade or Curry or the police found out about what Dean ultimately said?
Mr.Sorrels. Will you read that question again?
Mr.Hubert. I said, did you ever find out how Wade and/or the police found out themselves what Dean ultimately testified to?
Mr.Sorrels. No, I don’t know anything about that—unless it is in the court records down there in his testimony at the trial. Now, whether or not they had talked to him before what his testimony would be, I could not say about that, I don’t know.
Mr.Hubert. Did Wade or anyone else ever ask you to identify the two uniformed officers?
Mr.Sorrels. No.
Mr.Hubert. Did you ever consult with any of your superior officers in your own service in regard to Wade’s request that you testify?
Mr.Sorrels. I told Inspector Kelley that I might get involved in this thing, and he said, “Well, if you are subpenaed you will just have to testify what you know about it.â€
Mr.Hubert. You didn’t make a written report?
Mr.Sorrels. No, sir; not that I recall.
Mr.Hubert. Was FBI Agent Hall present during the Fritz’ interview?
Mr.Sorrels. I couldn’t say. I don’t think I know Agent Hall if he walked in the door. I don’t recall ever having met him.
Mr.Hubert. Did you ever hear Ruby say, “You all won’t believe this, but I didn’t have this planned, and I couldn’t have done it better if I had planned it,†or something to that effect?
Mr.Sorrels. No.
Mr.Hubert.Now——
Mr.Sorrels. I don’t recall any statement like that.
Mr.Hubert. Now, Mr. Stern is going to take over, and I am going to ask him to handle the identification of your notes.
(Mr. Hubert left. Mr. Stern requested Mr. Griffin to handle the identification of documents.)
Mr.Griffin. Let me state that for the limited purpose of having Agent Sorrels identify three sets of documents I am going to ask a series of questions of Agent Sorrels.
Mr. Sorrels, I want to hand you a Xerox copy of a document which is a part of our files, and numbered Commission No. 354, and is your Secret Service serial 1,007, consisting of four pages, which you have previously identified, and Mr. Hubert has marked “Deposition of Forrest Sorrels, Washington, D.C., May 6, 1964,†and signed Leon D. Hubert.
I have added the additional designation “Exhibit 1,†on the first page of this four page exhibit. I want you to look at that and tell me if that is in fact the same exhibit you identified previously as I have described it.
Mr.Sorrels. Yes, sir; it is.
Mr.Griffin. Now, let me hand you what I have marked for the purpose of identification as deposition of Forrest Sorrels, May 6, 1964, Washington, D.C. This exhibit consists of four different pages which I have numbered consecutively Exhibits 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, and 2-D, and purports to be a Xerox copy of notes that you made of the interview that took place with Jack Ruby in Captain Fritz’ office at 3:15 on November 24, 1963.
Would you examine Exhibits 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, and 2-D and compare them with the pages of your notebook which you have referred to previously in the deposition, and tell us if that is a true and exact copy of all of the notes that you have that pertain to the 3:15 interview with Jack Ruby?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes, that is correct.
Mr.Griffin. Let me hand you what I have marked for the purpose of identification deposition of Forrest Sorrels, May 6, 1964, Washington, D.C., which is a document consisting of three pages, which I have numbered consecutively Exhibit 3-A, Exhibit 3-B, Exhibit 3-C. This exhibit purports to be a Xerox copy of notes that you took at an interview with Jack Ruby in the fifth floor jail cell shortly after Ruby shot Lee Oswald on November 24. I want you to compare these exhibits to pages which you have testified to previously are in your notebook, and tell me if Exhibits 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C are true and exact copies of those pages which appear in your notebook?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes, they are. But there is portions that do not pertain to the interview with Ruby in the Dallas City Jail on the morning of November 24, 1963—but certain portions happen to be on the same page as the notes made at that time were made.
Mr.Griffin. Now, directing your attention to Exhibit 3-A, would you tell us if that portion which pertains to Ruby—the Ruby interview in the jail cell, and appears on that page, follows consecutively from some point on that page?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes, from about the center of the page, below a wavy line drawnacross it, continuing on the second page, marked Exhibit 3-B, and the third page marked Exhibit 3-C, down to the lower portion ending with “deceased mother.â€
Mr.Griffin. All right. Now, directing your attention to Exhibit 3-A, would you read the first two lines on Exhibit 3-A that consist of the notes taken at your interview with Ruby in the fifth floor jail cell?
Mr.Sorrels. “Chicago, 3-25-1911, Jack Ruby (Rubenstein), Entertainment, Carousel Club. Had business closed for 3 days.â€
Mr.Griffin. Now, let me hand you again Exhibit No. 1, and ask you if that is a true and accurate copy, to sign your name on the first page of that exhibit.
Mr.Sorrels. Yes, it is.
Mr.Griffin. Would you sign your name, then, on the first page of the exhibit?
Mr.Sorrels. Yes, sir.
Mr.Griffin. Let me hand you what has been marked as Exhibit 2-A, B and C, and D, and ask you if that is a true and accurate copy to sign your name on the first page of Exhibit 2-A.
Mr.Sorrels. Yes.
Mr.Griffin. Let me hand you, Mr. Sorrels, Exhibit 3-A, B, and C, and ask you the same question with respect to that, and ask you to do the same thing.
Mr.Sorrels. Yes, sir.
Mr.Griffin. Now, let the record reflect that I am putting my initials, BWG, on pages 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, and 2-D. Let the record reflect I have done the same thing with pages 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C.
Mr.Stern. Mr. Smith, are there any questions you would like to ask Mr. Sorrels at this stage of his deposition, to clarify any points on the record?
Mr.Smith. Yes, just with respect to one point.
Mr.Stern. Please go ahead.
Mr.Smith. Mr. Sorrels, you testified that in your interview with Jack Ruby in the jail, you did not warn him of his constitutional rights. Was this due to oversight on your part?
Mr.Sorrels. No, it was not.
Mr.Smith. Will you state, then, the reason why you did not do so?
Mr.Sorrels. My purpose in getting to Jack Ruby and talking to him as quickly as I did was to determine whether or not he was involved with anyone else in connection with the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald, and also to determine whether or not Jack Ruby had any connection or association with Lee Harvey Oswald. I did not warn him of his constitutional rights, because insofar as I was concerned at this particular interview, my conversation with him was not—strike was not—had no bearing insofar as the murder case against Jack Ruby was concerned.
My purpose was trying to obtain information for my service to determine whether or not there were others involved in this case that would be of concern to the Secret Service in connection with their protective duties of the President of the United States and the Vice President.
Mr.Stern. Is there anything else, Mr. Smith, you would like to cover?
Mr.Smith. No. Thank you.
Mr.Stern. Mr. Sorrels, you have had a lengthy session here today. If it is convenient for you, I would prefer to carry on that part of it that I am interested in tomorrow morning, rather than to try to finish late today. Would that be convenient for you?
Mr.Sorrels. That is satisfactory for me, yes.
Mr.Stern. Fine. Why don’t we suspend now and resume in the morning.