w= 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 79 Gj However, in the situation in Michigan, he uncovered evidence against a justice in the Supreme Court in Michigan, for which he then tried that justice. The justice was acquitted, but convicted of perjury charges arising from testimony before the investigating grand jury. I had been advised that Mr. Ozer had made statements to the news media, particularly Newsweek Magazine, which subjected him to admonition from the Department of Justice for having spoken to that magazine. I had also been advised that there had been allegations made that his use of the investigating grand jury had been in a heavy-handed fashion. I guess I must insert here, having been a prosecutor, that I am very used to the concept that when you proceed against certain individuals who were placed ina fairly strong position with a political organization, counter- charges against the prosecutor many times are made. As a matter of fact I think I even do a disservice there. Many times part of really what occurs in prosecution, it need not be someone in a high level in a political organization, the defense becomes a counterattack against the prosecutor, so that for allegations to occur is not something that moves me one way or the other. What. I did do, I sought information from the Department of Justice today, and they have submitted a letter, which I have, which I would be glad to make available, that while the Department of Justice thought that Mr. Ozer ought not to Docld: 322764096 Page 63
80 1 have made his statement to the news media, they did investigate @ 2 his use of the grand jury, and found that there was no | 3 improper use or nothing high-handed or improper in that. ® 4 G] in addition, I have here a letter, which is from 5 Judge Ralph Guy, Jr., the District Judge of the United States 6 District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, which 7 I would be glad to just make a part of the record, unless 8 you would like to have it read. 9 Mr. Guy was the Ypaeod syutes attorney at the very 10 time that Mr. Ozer was heading a strike force in Michigan, 11 giving rise to the allegations. In this letter Judge Guy 12 relates fully the thoroughness, the total integrity of the © 13 process by which Mr. Ozer did handle that very matter which 14 Mr. Guy, then the Yproeed Seaton attorney, was fully knowledgeable 15 16 that really in response to the question that you have raised. of, and he endorses him and backs him up completely. I say I might say that in addition, and again I cannot say this 17 18 too strongly, to do a thorough job here, the integrity of 19 the personnel and the way in which they are viewed is 20 all important, and I have spoken to Mr. Ozer, because I have 21 been aware, even from Judge Guy's letter, that Mr. Ozer 22 sometimes is not the most diplomatic individual in going 23 on his investigations, and at this point he is representing oA the Congress of the United States, and that is really a high tone of what one must do. 25 DocId:32264096 PHge 64
10 1 12 @ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 y ) 22 23 eo #£ £«4. 25 81 4] Suffice to say that from my conversations with hin, and looking into these matters, I was and am satisfied as to his integrity and ability, and his intent in not doing anything that would be a disservice to the staff or this committee. With regard to the statement that he made to the news media, what he said was a statement after the defense counsel had made a statement. The defense counsel, after the conviction of the Michigan justice, made the statement to the news media that well, the justice was acquitted of the ‘substantive charges, and it was a technicality, that he was convicted in his perjury charge. Mr. Ozer's response, which he then gave, which he perhaps ought not to have done, but it was in response to that that Mr. Ozer said "Well, it is not an acquittal. A justice of the Supreme Court has been convicted of a perjury case," and that is part of what led to that news comment. I feel confident of Mr. Ozer's integrity and ability. Be. Fauntroy. Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied with Mr. Sprague's answer. I did not intend to get into a specific justification of this particular employee, but to make the point that perhaps a happy medium between our desire each to have someone on staff and on the other hand not having any role in at least looking at staff, that your formulation of DoclId: 322764096 Page 65
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 25 82 the proposal is acceptable to me, that is that we have a ' small committee to which you could refer, because there might be things that the members of the Congress would see and perceive immediately that might not occur to you. q ghairman Downing. Thank you, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. Anderson? Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sprague, as you have noted this committee will launch an investigation or a probe which is unprecedented in the history of the Congress, and being without any precedents therefore to guide us, it is difficult to make an assessment and evaluation of the staffing requirements, as indicated in the proposed table of organization that is before me. I am wondering with respect to the Kennedy and the King task force, where apparently about 35 percent of the personnel would be lawyers and 65 percent investigators, that seems to be about the ratio, is there in fact some precedent for that in the manner that the Senate Watergate Committee was organized or the House Impeachment Committee? How did you arrive at those ratios? Is there some rationale? | Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Anderson, I do not have a rationale with regard to another committee. It was just my own thinking process here of about one lawyer with each two to three investigators working as a team, and I was Docld:32264096 PHge 66
10 11 12 14 . 15 16 ‘17 18 20 21 23 25 83 trying to figure the number of teams that I thought would be necessary. The investigative talent, the lawyer talent that I am talking about here, is not just legal. They are to take part in the investigaton as well, and from previous working with lawyer-investigator teams, I have tried to use _ approximately one lawyer with two to three investigators. | ur. Anderson. Very briefly, you have already had a colloguy with Mr. Stokes on the question of the efforts which you have made with respect to minority hiring. More generally I am wondering, and not in a great deal of detail, that wouldn't be necessary, how do you go about recruiting personnel for an assignment of this kind? Do they largely come to you, or do you go to them, and if so, to whom do you go? Do you have recourse to certain professional organizations that put you in touch with people? _I would just be interested in a very broad, general description of the process. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, we have had hundreds of applications sent in to, which we are in the process of reviewing. What I wanted to do and have done, to some extent, is the people that I thought would be in the senior positions, I wanted those to be people that I have gone out and recruited, who were not just people who had submitted applications. What I did do here, I have contacted lawyers, I have contacted judges, I have contacted prosecutors around DoclId: 322764096 PHge of
10 11 12 14 15 . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 S 25 84 the country, and asked them, and I put to them, that we are trying to get a totally dedicated professional staff. Would they think about it and submit names to me of people in the upper echelon. What I wanted to do, when I got the people in the upper echelons, I wanted them to go through _ these applications that we now have, and cull from them and set up interviews then of those people, but in the upper echelons it was my initiation of inquiries. When I was given names, I then made other inquiries of people that had had contact, worked with them, and as a result of that, then arranged interviews, and from those interviews that I did personally, I culled out those in the upper echelons. q] now of those people, I have turned over to them at this point the applications that have come in, and have asked them to go over these applications with me, after they have weeded out those that they think ought to be weeded out, and our thought is to then arrange for interviews with those people. der. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Downing. Mrs. Burke? Mrs. Burke. Thank you. I also certainly want to commend you, Mr. Sprague, on your statement to this committee. One question has been bothering me. You indicated that one of the reasons we had to have independent investigators was because those traditional DoctId: 322764096 Pige 63
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 85 ‘agencies that we would draw investigators from would possibly be a source of a great deal of the investigation and review. . | ; q Do you see any problem very specifically in the FBI conducting the investigation of the staff, if those staff members may ultimately have to review the FBI? The thing that bothers me is the possibility that something might be in the profile of a potential staff member that would not be disclosed, but could be disclosed at some future time if it became necessary to discredit this committee. Mr. Sprague. To answer your question, yes, that is an area of concern to me. I have I guess two thoughts in response. One is that whether the FBI or any other agency is asked to do a backgrond check, in fact they can do it whether we ask for our purposes or not, and if in fact they do it, and obtain any information that they subsequently want to use for whatever purposes to discredit, they are free to do it. There is going to be nothing secret about who is employed on this staff, and there is full reign for anybody to check their background, so that the problem of anyone releasing information, that is going to be whether we utilize them to do a background for us or not. —~ Seconds#, I have considered whether we ought to ask the ’ Defense Intelligence Agency to do a background check in lieu of the FBI, but I really thought that there is no reason to DoclId: 322764096 ge 69
10 11 12 14 “15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 87 it doesn't mean that much but they are going to think that that is of some significance. Why avoid it? I see no reason to do that, and so my feeling is yes, let's have that check. . Y] urs. Burke. That answers my question. I suppose one of the reasons some of us were very concerned about particular members of the staff is the possibility of it being used in a political context, and I personally am very concerned that we do have staff people who have been checked, and who will not leak a lot of things to the press or to agencies. As I see it, our credibility is going to depend upon the level of the staff, and also the security of the staff. Mr. Sprague. I couldn't agree with you more, and this gets into the area of staffing. You know people ask how do you make judgments? Well, it is difficult, and I assure this committee that I feel very deeply the burden that is on my shoulders in terms of not letting you down, not letting really the public down. I do feel it. I feel this obligation to do a thorough job, and that includes a staff that isn't going to let any of us down, and it is looking into their background. It is evaluating them, sizing them up. | I hope I end up being right in that task. Mrs. Burke. Just one further question. qe Fl
ows 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 @ 24 25 88 FG is it still our posture that all staff people that are hired will be on a temporary basis, or are we now saying that all staff people from this point forward are permanent people? ghairman Downing. There has been no decision, but I just assumed that they would be permanent, unless they didn't prove to be qualified or for some reason had to be dismissed. Mrs. Burke. I see. Thank you very much. Chairman Downing. Mr. Dodd? Mr. Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sprague, I also join my colleagues in commending you for your statement this morning, for your outlining of how you envision the role of this committee and the problems. you are going to have in tackling these two assassinations, _the investigations of them. I have a couple of questions that have been raised at least in part, but I wasn't really satisfied with the response. One was raised by Mr. McKinney regarding our individual staff people that we have as members. I am sure you are aware that all of us on this committee serve on at least one or two other committees in addition to our obligations in our district_and so forth. Aside from the financial problems, what will be the relationship as you see it between our individual staff people and the committee staff? Docld: 322764096 PHge 72
a 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 © 22 DoclId: 322764096 89 gq) Mr. Sprague. I think I ought to. make clear the role that I see of the committee itself and the subcommittees, because it may help really explain the way in which the investigation proceeds. I do not see the committee or subcommittees just sitting and being given transcript after transcript to read, witnesses just being brought forth here to testify. There is going to be a need here for members of the committee, two members at a time from each of the subcommittees, to have to go, for example, to Dallas, to have to go to wherever for purposes of at times taking testimony, when witnesses are not otherwise taking testimony. There is going to be more of an investigative role by the committee and the members of the committee themselves in all parts of the country. That is not going to of necessity mean a committee having a staff member just read things. The only way that can operate, for this committee to be successful as I envision it, you are part of the investigative team really, and we have to deal with you on a direct one by one basis, and we can't deal through intermediaries. Mr. Dodd. There are obviously going to be occasions when material is coming in where each one of us are going to want to designate our own staff member to be responsible for this legislative area, and there are guing to be numerous. occasions that will arise where because of our other qe 73
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 Y ) 22 23 24 25 90 obligations we will want that staff person to be in contact with the committee, to determine exactly what is going on, what is coming in and so forth as a conduit. . ] we. Sprague. Fine. I would be happy for any individual that any member of this committee designated, instead of dealing directly with us, if you want someone else in touch with us to be the intermediary, fine, as long as it is someone that you have designated. That is no problem whatsoever. Chairman Downing. Let me intercede a minute. I think you have got a good point, but it ought to be Limited to one person. He ought to be known to the committee. Mr. Dodd. You are anticipating my next question, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Downing. Go ahead. Mr. Dodd. You then run into the potential problem that Mrs. Burke has raised, and that is of course by designating someone on our own staff you have got 12 additional people who may not have had checks done on them, and you increase or open up the possibility of leaks and so forth, and I am wondering what you are thinking about in terms of that relationship, more than just what the daily tasks will be, and so forth. Mr. Sprague. I guess my response to that would be that the information that we would be conveying to the intermediary would be information that in my opinion, if Docld:32264096 P| ge T4
10 11 12 @ 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 23 24 25 91 that person had not been himself cleared, it was proper to let's say clear and something of a more sensitive nature occurred, I would want to take it up directly with members of the committee, unless you arranged that that intermediary was himself cleared. ms G It would have to be an area of a certain balancing of what it is we are talking about. | Chairman Downing. The gentleman or any member of the committee for that matter could designate a name now or whenever he can, and we could have that man or woman cleared. Mr. McKinney. Mr. Chairman, could I interject? My whole reason for questioning was that I am being perfectly selfish. I see one staff member on my staff spending all his time with me, staying on top of this, and - quite frankly representing Fairfield County, Cony gciinee®), I can't stretch over 700 letters a week with the staff that I have now. I guess it is being selfish with money. I don't know whether Chris was aiming that direction. I don't know if we should designate one person having one person take the whole bit but to be honest I don't know how I am going to take one person out of the staff now. | Mr. Dodd. If the gentleman will yield back I wasn't talking about the finjncial problem. We are talking potentially of 170 staff people to this committee. We add in effect 12 more staff people in terms of the request of DoclId: 322764096 PRge 745
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 TJ 22 23 25 92 the House Administration Committee. We then are going to jeopardize the effectiveness of the committee staff in terms of from a financial standpoint. I understood that as being one of your real concerns. You may want to respond to that. Gq Mr. Sprague. Could I say this, because there may be some area of confusion here with regard to what detail do you want to have information. Let me give as an example here, if I may use the Yablonski murders, at'one point in that investigation, for example, I had people in Kentucky interviewing coal miners for a certain purpose. Well, 1 , did not need to know the specific questions asked of each coal miner and the specific responses. The summary that I needed to know, just to let me know, are they proceeding on this thing, are they asking the questions about certain funding, and what is developing took ffye minutes of my time to learn things of that nature. Now if this committee wants to know every little point, then you are going to be having your time and your intermediary's time just taken up on detail that I think is going to be a waste of your time. Mr. Doda. So I don't drag this out any longer, I might ask Mr. Sprague if he might consider this and give it some thought as to the ghairman's suggestion that if we do designate someone, should it be someone who will be with Docld: 32264096 PHge 76
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 DoclId: 322764096 93 this all the way through, what relationship you would want to have with him through our office and so forth. I think it would be helpful to us to have some clear idea, because this is something we are all going to do. I guarantee we are all going to have a staff person assigned to this. I would like: to know how we deal with that, so that we don't infringe upon your efforts or the committee's efforts, and at the same time we will be kept fully abreast of what is going on. Fc. Spraque- Fine. I shall do so, though again let | me repeat that hopefully this is going to be a team effort, and I know for my part the importance of the task. I really do intend to see that each member here is kept advised and matters are discussed with them, and frankly to the extent that it can be done without going through intermediaries, I prefer to try to do it. Mr. McKinney. If I could interrupt without killing this whole subject, I would agree with you. I would want to be at every meeting, but the mere fact of the matter is that you are trying to be ranking member of the District of Columbia Committee. I just picked up the Washington Post today and saw that one of my agencies is in terrible trouble. All hell is going to break loose. We need something * really if you understand the way we live, which is tough 'to understand because I still don't understand it after fx ge TT?
10 | 12 @ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 32264096 94 years, someone who sits next to us who says " Hey, boss, remember," becasue we are going to be a team, and we are going to put our final stamp on your decision, and I know what we are going to do. We are going to run to greet the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, from committee meeting to committee meeting, we are going to go to your briefings and we need one guy like Hank: "If you are going to let me forget one thing on this committee, we are dead, we need you." Y I think this is what we need, not replacing us so much as to remind us that we are not meeting with the American Legion and the Boy Scouts. We are talking about the assassination of Martin Luther King. We want someone who keeps track of it. It is a stupid way to live but that is the way it is. We go to many areas. I don't have to tell you that. Chairman Downing. Counsel will take this under consi- deration. Mr. Sprague. One last thought on that if I may. When you say attending these meetings, I really think our obligation is to keep you advised without even meetings. I think we have an obligation to keep you advised on an independent basis. We have to make it our business to get to you, not with the formality of a meeting. That to me is part of our function here. ge 75
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 @ 22 23 25 95 ° G] ur. Dodd. Mr. Chairman, if I may indulge, Mr. Sprague, one other small question and then I will stop. I think it is important. It has to do with the media and the press. I might point out that in the last week or so I called Mr. Sprague prior to a radio interview, to talk with him about what I should be talking about and what I shouldn't be talking about. I got a letter today from someone else, what has some hidden information allegedly, and I am sure all of us are going to be inundated with this kind of thing, and I would like to see some of either unwritten rule, gentleman's agreement or something, wherein those of us on the committee don't want to unwittingly be the cause of this team effort suffering. as a result of a media play, not in an effort to in any way sabotage the committee's work, but we may be the source of information that shouldn't be made public. | I think you understand what I am talking about. I am sure all the members do on the committee, and I wonder if you might be a little more clear as to how we should handle that. What should be done, so that we don't sabotage this effort? Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, responding to the question, it is really repeating what I said before, that I would hope that it would be agreed that it is only the ghairman and the press aide to whom inquiries from the press should come, DoclId:322764096 Phoe 79
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 96 who would speak on behalf of the committee and the staff, or of course anyone that the fhairman would designate to make any speech. Fas the investigation proceeds, even with the inquiries by the press out there when we recessed for lunch, I really would like to see as a policy that there not be any discussion even by the ¢hairman or anyone with regard to what the evidence is as we are proceeding. I think that that is just the wrong thing to do. The scope of what I think is desirable at the moment, which I would hope that the fhaizman would perhaps concur in, I think there is a matter of public education involved right now, having nothing to do with where the investigation is proceeding, but I think there is a need to let the. public know, if my figure of 170 is a figure accepted by this committee, as to that kind of educational process to the public, so they understand that that is really not a big figure. | Now that has nothing to do with what we are going to look into, for example, on the questions asked, are we going to examine this alleged report by J. Edgar Hoover, and follow through on whether it went to the Warren Commission, what the CIA allegedly did. I do not think there should be any responses of that A nature. That is what we are investigating. ge 60
wh 10 iB 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 DoclId: 322764096 97 qd Now hopefully from time to time when things are determined on some definitve basis, then the committee, the ghairman, might decide to have a public hearing, and present some testimony, but beyond doing it in that manner, and beyond just an educational process for the public as to what the financial needs are and the size of the staff, I think it detracts from the dignity of this investigation to be saying "No, we do not know of the FBI memo" or "We are going to go into this or that CIA file." I think those things ought not to be. Mr. Dodd. I thank you, Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to ask that second question. . ~ Chairman Downing. You are welcome. Mr. Ford? Mr. Ford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions of Mr. Sprague. One as Mr. Dodd mentioned earlier, I would like to know if it is possible since we are talking about approximately 170 staff people, each member of this committee, is it _ possible that one member of the staff could be assigned to each member of the committee? Mr. Sprague. In my opinion that is impossible really, one reason being I am not misstating it when I say that my 170 figure is a bare bone figure. Even to come down ge 61
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 eo x 23 FLWS “ x 98-109 from that 170 by 12, is putting it in a most difficult situation, but, secondé, in terms of the staff, this is a staff that is doing an investigative job for you, for the public. I can't run an investigation where 12 people on that staff are just sitting in on every meeting that we are having, determining, when I get a report from somebody today, that something is occurring in Dallas, and I want to sit with my top people to review that and find out what is to be done. Ought I to be calling 12 aides of 12 Congressmen to sit in, before I then review that and decide what to do, and then when I get that underway, I am getting a report over on the King matter? Do I do that? It is an unworkable thing to do it that way. G What is workable, and I repeat again, is the obligation on me to keep this entire {ofmmittee advised as to what is going on. I repeat what I said earlier. Try it my way. If it doesn't work, fine. Then we will do it some other way. Mr. Ford. One other question. I missed the discussion, but how will you divide the staff with regards to the King-Kennedy matter, or will you divide the staff at all? Mr. Sprague. There is an organizational chart in the back of that book that I have there, and in brief it is 15 attorenys and 25 investigators on each. DoctId:322764096 Phage 62
11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 111 question. How does this organization anticipate we would proceed? "q Would we be holding hear ings in the subcommittees and this information brought before individual subcommittees and then, at the end, the full committee would meet, or could we have a bit of clarification? I think the organization seems excellent except I am not sure I understand how we plan to proceed. Ghairman Downing. All right. Mr. Sprague, I turn that one over to you. I have an answer, but I think he can tell you more succinctly. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, as I see it, with each of the two subcommittees, the investigation which is under way continues in greater measure. Of course, I must say there cannot be much investigative effort with the limitations in staff that we have now. It would really only be at the first of the year. It is, as the investigation proceeds we would be advising each of the subcommittees as to exactly wha_twe are doing with people out in the field and discussing with that subcommittee whether or not at this juncture there is any problem occurring where we need to use the subpgena power of that subcommittee and bring people before the subcommittee for purposes of obtaining their testimony and, in addition, discussing whether or not we have developed certain material, ge G4
10 11 12 13 soot, @ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Docld: 32264096 jj 112 even though we have developed it out in the field and we got it willingly and there was no use to the subpgena power, but where, as a result of what we have developed, we ought to have a committee hearing to get that fully on the record and under oath in front of that subcomni ttee Seeeping in mind that.at some point there would also be a decision whether it ought to be a public hearing. But that is why I say, and repeat what I said earlier, the function is to keep the subcommittee constantly up on what is going on. Pit is not just a matter of a subcommittee sitting and people being hauled in to testify. Does that answer your question? Ma Burke. Yes. As you see it, then, as the subcommittee is informed, it is ina private, not a public meeting, as we go through? | Mr. Sprague. Yes, with a determination then made, taking it up with the chairman, really, of the entire committee, ‘I guess, whether or not certain information which has been obtained ought now to be put forth on the record publicly. Let me illustrate again what I mean here. Maybe this would help explain at least’ my view of it. .I related earlier about the information about this Lovelady. It would not be appropriate just to convene a hearing of a subcommittee in the Kennedy assassination just oN to subpgena Lovelady from Denver and have him testify. The Page 35
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 DoclId: 322764096 113 first step is to go out there and interview him and find out what does he know? What does he say about this other photo- graph? F Now we have gotten that information, But that does not negate what. is in the original Associated Press photo. We ought not to be just wasting your time and this gets back to how busy the committee members are in other things. We now have to examine this original AP photo, get it blown up, get it looked at, find out wha t is there. It may turn out that that in fact is still a picture of Lovelady. That ends that area and we will make a report of that to the subcommittee, but there is no need to have taken the time up in the hearing. | Let's take the converse of that. Let's suppose, as we proceed here and then make that blow-up of the AP photo, it turns out, absolutely, that the person in the photograph just has no beard whatsoever, that he is wearing a different shirt than what Lovelady is wearing minutes later on a photo that is established; at that..point I think that the subcom- mittee might well want to consider, with that kind of informa tion, bringing Lovelady in, bringing in the experts and the blow-up of the photographs, and having a hearing. ‘Upon getting that on the record, they then might determine ‘this is of sufficient interest in the public areay, it does not interfere with the ongoing investigation; there might age 36
14 15 16 17 18 19. 20 21 23 25 DoclId: 322764096 114 then be an obligation to present that at a public hearing. F that is my view as to the way in which these matters would proceed. Mr Burke. I see. Chairman Downing. Do you understand? Mr. Burke. Thank you very much. Chairman Downing. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sprague. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, before you proceed, may I request, however, because I could not help notice that it was stated that some material had come in, as I said earlier, the document unit is an important unit in this investigation and I would request, Mr. Chairman, that each member of the committee, if they should get any information or any material sent in to them, that they forward that or a copy of it to me because then that will go into our document unit, for that cross-reference thing of which I have spoken. Chairman Downing. That is a good suggestion, Mr. Sprague. I hope the committee members will do that. | Mr. Devine. Mr. Chairman? ' Chairman Downing. Yes, Mr. Devine. Mr. Devine. In order that we proceed in order and properly, I notice in the minutes of our meeting on September 29 it was agreed that the chairman be given the authority to employ a person or persons to head the overall administration age 87 aa
@- 10 11 12 18 19 20 21 23 DoclId: 322764096 115 and/or legal investigative staffs of the committees so long as the actual title of a permanent position not be given, and that the word "acting" be used in “whatever title is selected. | F now, in response to a question raised down there, it says any such employment could be made permanent only upon confir- mation by the committee at its next meeting. I am merely raising the question whether formal action is necessitated by these minutes today as it relates to people that Mr. Sprague mentioned. | Chairman Downing. We have already taken formal action on Mr. Sprague. Mr. Devine. Individually, yes. I am wondering about the other persons whose resumes have been submitted, or do we want to reserve on that until a later meeting? | | Chairman Downing. Let's reserve on that. It was my thought that should be limited to chief counsel and/or staff director, top-flight positions; we would not have to do it right down to clerical help. Let's reserve on that, if you will. | Mr. Thone. You did not vote formally. Chairman Downing. The motion made by Mr. Gonzalez and it has been seconded, that we accept the presentation as offered by the chief counsel; all in favor signify by saying Page 3&5
10 12 14 15 16 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 116 aye; opposed, no. the ayes have it. Thank you.. Now, the next item on the agenda is the showing of the Zapruder film. A little background on this filn. Mr. Zapruder was a dress manufacturer located in Dallas, Texay. The morning that President Kennedy was to visit Dallas and take this route, Mr. Zapruder and his secretary went by and picked up his 8 millimeter Brownie movie camera and was fortunate enough to get a position of prominence, where he could view the entire scene. I believe he was standing on a pedestal supported by his secretary. In any event, this is one of the few films of the entire event. Now there were many cameras around that day, but appar- ently when the shooting stopped, they very wisely fell to the ground or for other reasons did not keep a continuous filming of the event. This film has quite a history. Mr. Zapruder sold it to Time-Life, who kept it gfx or sgjfen years and subsequently, for reasons of their own, sold it back to Mr, Zapruder's son for the sum of $1. It has been shown in television, I think, .and maybe some of you have already seen it, but it is, I believe, a starting point, which everybody must see and make their own judgment as to what they do see. The film will be shown by Mr. Robert Groden. I do not see him in the room. qe 89
10 11 12 eo 13 Cantor fls 15 4:00 ‘cont.of 16 7ilm) ‘artaro 17 ?ls Cantor 4:30 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 117 FT] ur. Sprague. May we send for him? Chairman Downing. Mr. Groden is known as a film expert, an expert in photography. In addition, he has been a student of this matter for the last eidfen to topive years. So if Mr. Groden and his assistant will come in, we will dim the lights and see the film. We also ask Mr. Groden to narrate as he goes along what we are seeing. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, one correction. It is more than the Zapruder film. He has put together a number of films and slides and single shots taken at that time. Chairman. Downing. Thank you. ka film was shown. Chairman Downing. On behalf of the committee, we want to thank you, Mr. Groden, for a very good presentation. Mr. Groden. Thank you. Mr. Gonzalez. There is one question I have. The policeman who had drawn his gun and ended up on top, was he ever identified in the testimony? | Mr. Groden. Yes, sir, he testified to the Warren Commission. I am unclear as to his name. It may have been Baker or Smith, but I am unclear as to which one it was. I do not know. His testimony is in the volumes of the Warren Committee. Chairman Downing. Mr. Groden, will you please stick qe 90
118 @ otoivak. around to see if the committee has questions? ; FD ve. Thone, Who is the gentleman and what is his interest ® . here? I do not know that I got that. | ‘ Chairman Downing. Suppose you tell him, Mr. Groden, 5 your background. . Mr. Groden. All right, my name is Robert Groden; I 7 reside in New York City. I have been researching the photo- 6 graphic evidence in the Kennedy assassination case for the 9 last elffen years. I brought and presented this evidence to 10 the House of Representatives on several occasions for the " purpose of trying to raise interest in some of the unanswered , 2 questions contained in the photographic evidence. e 13 Much of the evidence that you just saw was never viewed 14 by the Warren Commission. All. of it was available to them. 1s The Warren Commission as a body never viewed the films that 16 you just saw. 17 The Zapruder film, perhaps the single most important 18 piece of evidence, was never viewed at all by the entire | 19 Commission; indeed, there is only evidence that three or four 20 |! of the members actually saw it. They did deal with sections 21 of the film in slide form, but in all the millions of words 22 || in the Warren Commission report, there is not one mention, 23 |! not one word as to the backward motion of the President's 24 body, a very peculiar point. 25 I was asked to appear here and present to you the DoclId: 322764096 ge 91
10 11 12 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 DoclId: 322764096 119 photographic evidence as I have been able to compile it. There is more evidence available. I know where a lot of it is, but it has not been available for study before. And that i who I am and that is why I am here. | . F we. Devine. What has motivated you during these elfen years, who:finances your study? Mr. Groden. Nobody is financing. I have rever received one penny in assistance for finding the films, making the copies, or any of the work. I have done it purely out of a desire to know what has happened, a driving curiosity and perhaps the mystery. What happened to our President? I wanted to know. I happened to be in the right place at. the right time to obtain prints of the films that you just saw. The original films are available, I know where they are. If there is any question in your minds at all as to the validity of these films, the originals can easily be checked. Copies of some of these, the most important ones, do exist in the National Archives. The prints can be verified for authenticity very easily. Mr. Devine. Are you employed otherwise? Mr. Groden. I was up until a few weeks ago. There was a conflict between my job and doing this work. I am now unemployed. I am trying to go into business for myself. But ‘after eleffn years, it seemed to me this was far more important than a job that would not allow me to follow through on this age 92?
16 17 18 19. 20 21 23 r 24 DoclId: 322764096 120 type of work. I felt this appearance was more important and we had somewhat of a disagreement among other things, and I am now unemployed. T we. Devine. How did you sustain yourself during these elgfen years? Mr. Groden. I have done photo-optical work as my profession since 1969. I developed the techniques which you saw here dealing with 8 millimeter blow-up, liquid-gating. I am proficient in step-framing and other photo-optical techniques. I made my living at that for several years. I was fortu- nate in having the type of machinery available to me, because there is no way I could have afforded to do this work. Bench time for this type of work runs to about $50 an hour. The single rotoscope version that you saw of just a close-up of | the President's head took about sie hours. to shoot, one frame at a time, refocusing every frame, repositioning the exact point. These are in some cases done from the original film and in some cases done with a first-generation copy of the film, even. in the blow-up cases where zooming in, in that type of area, would have been physically impossible. But the techniques are known and verified and they have in some cases been recreated. I believe last year an attempt was done to recreate it Page 933
10 11 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 121 by the CBS television network show on the assassination. Again, the time consumption here would not allow the same type of work to be done, and this has been my specialty over the years, 8 millimeter blow-up. 7 ghaixman Downing. Let me ask a very important question. Have you done anything to alter these films so as to give a wrong impression of what you see? | Mr. Groden. Absolutely not. The film that you saw at the beginning was requested to show the authenticity of the film and the frame sequence. All I have done to the film is liquid-gated it to clean it up. I will describe that process very briefly. As the film is photographed in an optical printer from the original film to the raw stock or the unexposed film for the duplicater, light passes through the film. If there are any inconsistencies or imperfections in the film, such as scratches or dirt, they will be amplified by the light passing through the film. If you take a low-oxygen content liquid and coat the film as it is being photographed, it tends to make the light go in a straight line toward the dupli- cating lens. This is liquid-gating. | The other technique + two other techniaues I used; one is step-framing, whereby you photograph each frame more ‘than once to slow it down so that, as it is viewed, you com- prehend what you are seeing better. age 94