23 _ 24 Se ©e as Docld:32266786 BP dk 74 I would like to have the corroborative strength .. of our at least raising a question of Mr. Lehner and Mr. Tannenbaum, you know, whether this Committee report weare going with now is either accurate or whether that tells all the unclassified part of the story, or-in other words, I think there should be some dialogue. I think it would look a little artificial ff we were just, I am not sure, just thinking out: loud,it would look a little artificia if: just: discussing it-among ourself-- | Mr. Edgar. Will the gentleman yield. The Chairman. Mr. Ragar.. Mr. Edgar. One way to-handle that, I think the directio to go would be to lave the two task force Chairmen, Mr. Faunt- roy and Mr. Preyer, make the actual prepared report statement, ‘but I think that we ought to highlight the fact that we do have two investigators who are working full time on these two assassinations and perhaps as a result of their giving the statements, we then could turn to Mr. ‘Tannen- baum, Mr. Lehner and you know, clarify any questions ‘we have of the recpors that are made. I have no feeling that that ceould be part of the choreography of the meeting. I feel very strongly that we need the public direction. Mr. Fithian. "I like the idea. I like the idea and would support it. 76
heal Gee DoclId: 322766736 PF 75 The Chairman. Why don't we then, with this in mind, have the staff work on the report, to see what we can come up with in a few days. How long do you think you would - need to work that up? Mr. Sprague. Well, how about by Monday afternoon? The Chairman. Is that agreeable to the Committee? Mr. dodd. Yes, I would suggest that we be prepared for like noon on Monday, if the thing with the Rules Committe workout out, I would assume at that session-- Mr. Prier. Well, you could da that with the memorandum ‘you have got right now, couldn't you, that is a confidential memorandum. Mr. Dodd. Yes.. The Chairman. Yes we really want to give them the Executive material. We have that. Mr. Edgar. Mr. Chairman, could we move on if that is agreed that Monday they:'would:becthererandizeceiverthert report from the Staff on some. of those other issues. The Chairman. Fine. We need the resolution. _ Mr Sprague. Mr. Wolf. “Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. . Yes, Mr. Dodd.-_ Mr. Dodd. Have we finished our briefing? We have — still got a little more to do on that,. have we not? TT
Ge ©e DoclId: 322766736 FP 76 Mr. Sprague. That is right. The Chairman. Yes, we do but I thought we would get Mr. Wolfe. This is preparedin the form, I guess, we spoke of, Mr.’ Stokes, as a new resolution as opposed to eithe restating HR 222 in hoc verba or amendin gHR 222. This is in essence a. short resolution that extends it for ‘the durationof the Congress and we have spokento the Parlia- . mentarian, Bill Brown about this. It was his view that tht would be better to have a new resolution rather than amend the old one. | He reviewed this this morning. That is why there ‘is that penned in on page two, he suggested that as a lead into that introductory sentence and just Section 2 still basically of the resolution will require the Committee .to submit a final report because that would not be in H Res. 222 just by extending it as it current ly is drafted. i Section. 3 makes H Res. 222 as an alternative. provision » “and. applies to the: Committee giving us 5 subpoena power to hold hearings and so on. NOw, the last sentence has been amended because under HR 222 the Committee does not have authority ‘to ‘bring lawsuits in. its own name, it . can. require by subpoena or otherwise testimony but that has been narrowly construed by Courts and for a variety Ta
20 21 23 24 Oe O@ a5 “77 of reasons, I think it is a good idea to include this languag although it certainly may add some controversy that you know we could delete if it was being deemed politically necessary. tie reasons I think it should be included are for example on Litigation against the Executive Branch for access to classified documents or whatever--technically if we issue a subpoena, the Committee does,the Executive Branch determine to not comply with that subpoena. The Committee, the Staff of the Committee can then not take any action aszancemmit- tee against the Executive Branch, it must go to the U.S. Attorney's office to procure a' contempt of Congress. Again there may be a problem involved a the lititation against the Executive if it involved either the Justice Department or one of the intelligence agencies. Other examples of the type where this would be neces- sary are, for example, the suit that sealed the King © tapes that were made by the FBI, the District Court ordered those tapes sealed for 50 years in the archives, I believe, about a month ago. Now the Last provision of that order says the only ‘exception is if there is a valid order of the Court ordering access to those tapes. “Well, the Committee does not have standing in the current Resolution to go “to Court and get a resolution to the Court and get those tapes. ‘The same would be true-- the statute ‘restricts acéess to Grand Jury minutes if you apply for order of the Court, you can have access DoclId: 322766736 Plage 79
19 rE 21 22 23 24 G@ ©e 2s DoclId: 322766766 FP —_ 78 and again the Committee would not have standing just by the words to require by subpoena or otherwise. Another important possible advantage to this is: realistic ally, it gives the Commitee a procedure that could procure contempt of an order without going to the entire House. This procedurally would arise, for example, by the issuance of a subpoena ifa motion to quash that subpoena was then filed, the Committee in that court could get a Court order directing that it was a valid subpoena and directing | the parties to comply with that subpoena. If the™ party then failed to comply with | that subpoena, they then could be found in contempt of that Court order whic held that it was a valid subpoena. / So, it would avoid the necessity, if it were desired, of going to the Congress or the House for resolution of the House to find someone in contempt for not complying with a- subpoena. and. the Watergate, the Senate Watergate Committee had these: provisions, analogous provisions, not - this verbatin language. . Now, the other types of insta:.c: 3S vhere,— you know, this ‘type of Language’ I think would be desirable is if you wanted injunctive relief: For example, the rooming house in Memphis is boarded up ‘and there was some question a mongh or two ago whether that was not going to be torn down for Urban Renewal or other purposes. The Committee has no authority 60
‘¢ PS 12 & 1 G 14 “18 16 qW7 ‘1 19 20 21 22 23 26 - 2 25 79 to prevent that for evenone month or two months or just youknow, to have a view of the scene or things of that nature. And again this just gives the authority of the Committee to go to Court to bring lawsuits, defend lawsuits or maké applications to secure other information. . Mr. Fithian. Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Mr. Fithian. Mr. Fithian. Is this unprecedented in the House? Mr. Wolf. I do not know if it is unprecedented, if . it is, it. would be my answer, I do nt know of another Committe that had it. It arose. because as I said, the Senate Watergate resolution I think that the most recent instance of where the issue was focused and then Judge Sirica,after they found that the Committee had authority to sue, then there is a separate’ question which may or may not come down -the_Line- further which would be the jurisdiction of a | District Court to entertain these types of lawsuits. Now, in the Senate Case, there is a jurisdictional statute passed that is on the books, providing that for Senate Committees but not House Committees the District Courts now have jurisdiction and that was passed as a direct outgrowth ‘of the Senate Watergate Committee case. But _we would not need jurisdiction in all instances in the District Court, because this languge basically gives you DoclId: 322766736 Page 61°
Ju 12 14 “1S 16 7 18 19 a 23 24 Oe e Docld: 32266736 authority to sue so it would be applicable to state courts sometimes. of District Court suits perhaps not all -- ' Mr. Pithiaa.t would be interested in:either the Chairman or. Judge Preyer’ s reaction to this. I find that it is. wholly. new. terrain to me. but it may be that I am too new around here. : | , Mr. Preyer. Yes, it is new to me, too,. Did the Parliamentarian bring on this or did he? Mr..Wolf.. Yes he read it this morning. He said he understands that certainly is..a valid reason the Resolution as drafted is questionable at best, whether it would have . that authority and it is a political decision wheather you want to in clude it. He -understands the legal reasons for including it and, as I say, he was the one that suggested that kind of language just introducing that sentence to. make it clear that it relates back to HR 222 for purposes of carrying out H REsolution 222. _ Mr. Preyer. Most. people around here, when you ask them what. they think about a resolution! technical aspects, they. just say what does the Parliamentarian say, and if he gives it.his blessing,.I.would not think it - would: cause. any. trouble. But I ani not: familiar with that, are you? The Chairman.- No, the only problem I see here, Judge, is. the: interjection of anything new here gives-- ge 82
Bauman 12 & 3 GP. og -18 16 7 18 19 21 23 24 Ge e 25 Docld: 32266766 Page #3 81. Mr. Preyer. I hate to raise a new House issue for the House or Brown. to quarrel about. | The Chairman. You recall before they raised phraseolo- gy there-- | Mr. Preyer. New powers and all. The Chairman. The new powers, right. ‘Did Bill Brown seem to feel that--I assumed: you talked to Bill. | | Mr. Wolf. Yes. The Chairman. That, in the absence-of this . provision that you have real serious legal difficulties in terms of injunction relief. Mr. Wolf. Yes. The Chairman. And in other court procedures. . | Mr. Wolf, He thought it would be doubtful, that is right. | | Inpther words, it is not conclusive but the language, - specific language in our Resolution was construed by the Supreme Court in 1928 in the Reed Case and they specifically found that there was no authority to bring lawsuits just by the language to require ‘by subpoena or otherwise ,evidence. “he ‘Chairman. What was the analogous language in the Watergate ‘xesolution? | Mr. Wolf. The Watergate resolution, I dort have the specific language here, provides that they could require by subpoena or order, and then they specifically made . *
14 15 aT W 18 19 82 extensive reference to the Executive Branch because that: is specifically what they were concerned with in the Water- gate Resolution; orders detemrining that the Executive Branch shall do the following. | The Chairman. Is there reason why we chose different language? Mr. Wolf. I just thought it was more concise. That went on for almost a page, just about Executive Branch Departments and then -repeated the language, saying "or any other person or persons." . Mr. Fithian. -Mr.: Chaixman. The Chairman. Mr? Fithian. Mr. Fithian. I wonder if we might not be able to incorporate iff that sentence something the House is a . little more familiar with which is already in H. Res. 222 and that is the subpoena power and just by language and grammati cal construction could not we workiin,you know, to state in addition to the subpoena power or as an extension of the subpoena Power the comméttee shall, in other words, somehow tie it to. “something the House is very used to with subpoenas. Mr. “Wolf. - It is a teifle difficult because this reall does not relate per se to the ‘subpoena power because it is an extension. * | | | Mr. Fithian. . As Franklin Roosevelt once said, can't you just weave it in? ; Mr. Wolf. Yes, we can try to make that clear but want DoclId: 322766736 Page 64
20 21 22 23 24 25 oe . 83 to make clear that it is not a part of the Subpoena power. Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dodd. Did the parliamentarian refer you to any other instance-- you mentioned Watergate Committee, how ‘about the House Impeachment Panel. Mr. Wolf. I do not believe they had this in but I am not sure. — Mr. Dodd. Anyother precedent at all that you are aware of. Mr. Wolf. No. Like I said, in 1928 the Supreme Court case just found, did not have authority absent something like this and I do not believe the Committee went back to get a further grant of authority. Mr. Fithian. What kind of difficulties do we get into if we do not have this in there and you get on mee the way six months “and decide that for whatever reason you need this? Mr. Wolt. THeconly cussioulty is you have to 9° back to the House. Mr. Fithian. But r feel so much safer, once we get beyond the reconstitution resolution. Mr. Wolfe. Sure there is no problem just amending that could always be done just amending the resolution down the road to give you this power. DoclId: 322766736 Page 65
Ge ©e Docld: 32266786 FP 84 . The Chairman. Judge Preyer.was just mentioning to me that that it might be well for us to consider talking | to the Rules Committee counsel regarding this because he shares with me my apprehension that once we open up a new area for then, . it just adds to our present problems. Mr. Wolf. Certainly, we can paws this without that and in the event we needed that, you know, four or five months down the road, just introduce that as an amendment and perhaps you would have a specific purpose as well. | | The Chairman. Then why don't we, as unanimouc consent, strike this provision so.we do not encounter this additional difficulty? | : Mr Doda. I would,if you do not need a second unanimous consent request but follow along your rule as well, and check the Riles Committee counsel to find out what you know, what the status would be in ‘terms of a new resolution coming up and what we have to do to handle £ ‘but I agree with you, Mr. chairman. ‘The Chairman. All’ right. Why don't you do that and . then give your report back to us ‘at the next meeting? Mr. Wolf: OR. and the last section 4 just makes: ite ‘elear: interim funding in.HR 1l.which by its own terms, does expire. March 31 makes it clear no limitation either express or implied in that would apply to the Committee after the 3lst of March. ‘The Chairman. Did he feel that was necessary, too? 66
‘oe ©@ 23 24 Ce ©e as DoclId: 322766736 PF 85 Mr. Wolf. He thought it was not absolutely necessary but because H. Res. 11 expires by its own terms, on the other hand, he said without that the last sentence _ of H.Res. 222 states that the provisions of H. Res. 11 shall apply so there may be an implication even though H. Res. ll doesnot apply, the restrictions detailed in there might by implication, and he thought it was a good idea just to make it explicitly clear he did not think any controversy-— but to make it clear after the 3lst,is off the books and | any implication regarding 1" is cff£ the books. The Chairman. Any further questions? All right, then you will report back at our next meeting regarding this other aspect of it. Mr. Sprague. Mr.Chairman. | The Chairman. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Sprague. If I may request some guidance from the Committee going back to the report a moment, how does the Committee: want: the matter of the problems that .were created after commencement as a result of thenimpediments andthe financial -limitations and the:prbbiem of the previous Chatman, treated in this report? "he: Chairman: Ignored, I would say, completely. Mr. dod. Benign neglect. whe chairman. Yes. That ‘deplorable expression. oT
14 AS 16 W 20 21 (23 24 25 ©@ | Mrs Lehner, right. - 88 Suggesting. that we. have that behind us now and that we | are. proceeding. in an orderly way. Maybe we can be a little sublte about why it is behind us now but I think we should give some sense that things are > changed. . The Chairman. In the report. Mr. Preyer. Doing it diplomatically, that is all. Mr. Dodd. If the gentleman would yield. I would be interested in seeing language, I would just be concerned that in trying to be: subtle--some members of the House are very sensitive to this chairmanship role and-~ ' Myr. Preyer. I am afraid I am going to have to leave, Mr. Chairman. | The Chairman. All right. There is nothing further then on Mr. Sprague's question “ so we will turn to the matter of--well, there are two ‘things, one Mr. Sprague would be further briefing by you regarding yesterday’ s. hearing. Secondly, I understand ‘you have some - additional data to bring to our attention -Fagarding both investigations through Mr. Tanenbaum and _Mrs°Sprague. - That is correct. - The- Chairman... And- ‘since one of the: matters is only presented «by you: in the- absence 6 the Staff, I suppose we DoclId: 322766736 Page 90
om & a 24 89 will proceed then with the Lehner-Tannenbaum presentations. _ Mr. Sprague. Fine. | The Chairman. Is that 0.K? Fine, you may: proceed. Docld: 32727667536 Page 91
allegedly Oswald was and fired the shots. She has indicated to us that approximately two weeks prior to the assassination, while she was working in another club, not, Jack Ruby' s club but another club, she. went to Jack Ruby! s Club and: there she was intvodiced by’ Ruby to one "Lee Harvey Oswald" of. the CIAY using Ruby's words. She didn't know what the letters "CIA" meant, and the next she saw Oswald was when he was arrested on television. She has indicated that there were other people present, ‘one of whom spoke about this event’ shortly after the investi- gation, after. Qswald became a well-known, notorious figure. This woman suddenly disappeared. Accordingiy, our | witness: decided it would be in her best interests not to say anything. She, in a very. real sense, has found religion; she is married to an evangelist now and she is willing to come forward. She also will state, as’ she has stated to our people who were out in Dallas, that approximately two days after the | assassination two men came to her; one identified himself as a Fer person; the other as a CIA person, and asked for her filn. She gave ‘these two men her . film, and she has never pseen: that film. since. - oa | “Her film, of va “ama ys crucial, in. that she was taking photographs of the President's car at the time the shots: were: fired, and it would show possibly, if indeed the Ge ©e film were developed, portions of the Grassy Knoll and possibly DoclId: 322766736 Pée@ge 99
srs ‘13 1023 some of the depository. So that is an area that we really have to get involved in and further investigate. We have also been able to develop some information from a woman who is the head nurse at Parkland Hospital who was present when Governor Cofnally was being operated on, and had indicated that approximately four to five pieces of fragments were removed from the governor's body. — If indeed that is the | ease, and we are able to track down those frag- ments, we would, of course, have to conduct scientific 10. analysis on them, possibly neutronic relation tests, and others, WY to determine whether or not, first, the fragments came from 12 j| the same bullet; secondly, and most importantly, whether or _ "13 || not these fragments weigh more than that.one bullet that — , oo . 14 allegedly went through the President's body from has back, -15 according to the Warren Commission, and then went through and 16 | wounded the governor in five different places, that is, from 17 the right rear shoulder, entry out the right armpit into the 18 left side, right side of his body, and out the right breast 19 and lodging ,according to the Warren Commission's finding, in ; his left thigh. So that. bullet, as.I am sure you know, as was “indicated . previously, in what as been referred to as in a "pristine condition", that is, it is virtually unscathed. If the four or five fragments. in fact were taken out and if we can show - G@ ©e if we can locate them -- that they weigh: more than that DoclId: 32266766 P
srs 14 103 portion that is missing from that bullet, then the very corner stone and basis of the entire Warren Commission Report is no longer valid. So these two areas are very significant. We have just come up with them from people whom we-have in Dallas. They hav just returned last night. We have also had a gentleman come to us, whom I have been in contact with, a member of the media from Holland. His name is Wilhelm Altman. He will be assigned to cover the assassination by The Netherlands media, and he ‘..* | befriended a fellow who looms in the shadows of this whole investigation. His name is George De Mohrenschild. Mr. Fauntroy. George? Mr. Tanenbaum. De Mohrenschild, D-e M-o-h-r-e-n-s-c- h-i~i-d. This fellow recently contacted Altman and they have ' been in communication for years, approximately 11 years. Then there is correspondence between the two gentlemen ' to support this. In any. event, Mr. DeMohrenschild was visited=by+: :: Mr, Altman several weeks ago and he went with Mr. Altman to The Netherlands. The purpose of his trip was to divulge for the first time his knowledge of the assassination of the - President, and he indicated that he was responsible for Oswald's activity, and that there were others involved who wer involved in the actual shooting of the President. DoclId: 322766736 Page 94 *
10 ma 12 1 -1§ 16 AT . 18 DoclId: 322766736 PF 9 20 21 23 24 “L04 This fellow, Mr. De Mohrenschild, in The Netherlands, | was negotiating for book rights as well as TV presentation, and I imagine any other way he could possibly cash in on this kind of sensational information. What is significant, of course, other than the fact that there is a confession here, is that George De Mohrenschild ~ -is one person, as I have said -- I really have to underscore this -- who is involved with Lee Harvey Oswald as a part of history; that is, he befriended Oswald and had his daughter carelfépr0swald's wife and child while Oswald was living at a YMCA in Texas; so he is a person that is not a John Doe, who _is coming forward, giving a confession to someone in the media He is someone who has been looked at by researchers for the last 13 years, and people have pointed a finger at ‘him all the time.’ 7 Unfortunately for us, at this stage he presently is mis- sing. He left The Netherlands during the negotiations and has not been heard of since. I just wanted you to know that, ' because the media in Europe is carrying the story that has | been given out by Mr. Altman. We have indicated to him that his information indeed was new, sensitive and unique and required further investi- gation, which, in fact, it does. Lastly, let me. comment just on Mr. Trafficante and ’ others of his ilk. The other areas that are associated with e 95
Mr. Trafficante, as far as the organized crime aspect of this investigation is concerned, go into New Orleans with a fellow “Il by the name of Carlos Marcello who is the alleged leader in > ‘that city. There. is one significant tie as far as that is concerned, and that is “that there was a ‘person taken into “eustody into custody in the DalTex Building, which is right / next to the Texas Schoolbook Depository - -- and, paréntheticall 3 let me note, as to that building, that a shot fired from that ‘building is consistent with the bullet impact mark that was found on the sidewalk on Elm Street. There was a fellow taken into custody in that building by the name of Jim Brady, whesé:real name is Eugene Hale Brdde He has: a criminal record. THe was taken into custody in that building immediately after the assassination. He was wandering around on the second and third floors, and he indicated he was - trying to call his wife and tell her about the assassination. "He was taken into custody and let go. . Braden worked for. Marcello ina building in New Orleans, | in Suite No. 1708 eastI-vecalts and in Suite No. 1701, and whether or not. 1706 -- 1706 where David was or 1701 -- David Ferry was working out of -= they are adj acent to ech ‘other. I mention this because of the tie-ins that have been made between Ferry and Shaw and Oswald. - We are in the process of getting the trial transcript -- portions of the trial transcript because of economies. We Docld: 322766736 Page 96
srs 17 10 Ju 12 “13 14 1§ 16 17 | 13 Wy av ar. 4 Docld: 32727667586 Page 9 these people allctogether with anti-Castro Cuban groups. number. seeing the President's body by certain security people, which | by his experience he deemed to be. quite unusual, I am sure. - of the governor's bodys it was his impression that there were 1n6 would like to, and hopefully will, get the entire transcript of the Shaw trial. - There are individuals in an area in Clinton, Louisiana, from all walks of life, who put Oswald and Shaw and Ferry and ' Now, there is a whole area here, obviously, and witnesse who have to be called, namely, Marcello and Mr. Braden and others, concerning this investigation. So that is really where we are right now. We have just begun. | Lastly,.- assfar as the autopsy is concerned, we have information that a person who is now a doctor, who was a resident at the time in Parkland Hospital, noticed wounds on the governor's body that appeared to be somewhat inconsistent with the official reporting of what happened. We have not heard from him, but his friend has come forward and told us - about this; a and we have this person’ S name and: telephone He, also, according to his. friend, who is a lawyer, indicates-sthat. is, ‘this resident -= that he was barred from There is-just one other question. On his observation entry wounds on the governor! 8 body; therecwas an entry wound
srs 18 107; on the governor's body, and this, again, is someone we have to dispatch people to speak with, so that we could really pun this down properly. . . I also just want to correct the record. For purposes of the record, we spoke with Mr. McBee whom I mentioned at our “last briefing. He, I am glad to report to you all, does not have cancer, which I mentioned. That was a piece of misinfor- || mation we had. So, fortunately for him, he is not suffering from any terminal disease; however, I report to you that our people who spoke with Mr. McBee indicated that he is wavering on his identification of Oswald. | We are still pursuing that. We will be pursuing the othe | people who were at the meeting between this woman, Jack Ruby ® end srs ef fols and Lee Harvey Oswald. Docld: 32727667536 Page 96
ef/fols sre 1 N 10 nn 12 ) 1 “ M4 -15 16 VW 13 19 20 a1 108 Mr. Fauntroy: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Preyer.: Mr. Fauntroy? Mr. Fauntroy. I just have two questions. With respect to the whereabouts of Mr. DeMohren Schildt, you say? Mr. Tanenbaum. Yes, sir. -Mr. Fawntroy. Given our projected staff capability, do we have any capacity to try to find him? Mr. Tanenbaum. | Presently? — Mr. Fauntroy. Yes, given the 115 figure. Mr. Tanenbaum. ‘The answer to your question is simply yes. I think, given that figure, it will be very difficult; I think we have a chance of finding him. Mr. Fauntroy. Second, Mr. Chairman, with respect to both this report and the King report, can you give us an idea of what a work program in both cases over the next two months might consist of, in terms of specific investigative activity? | Mr. Tanenbaum. I think, as Mr. Sprague has indicated, what we have to do now -- | | Mr. Fauntroy. Have you gone over this for the record? Mr. Sprague. .1 think only to restate my basic premise, we have got to start from the beginning, fina out what occur- red, what led up to that, and what occurred since. Mr. Tanenbaum.” I can just give you the specifics, very briefly. . Mr. Fauntroy. ‘Okay. Docld:32266786 Page 99
10 JW my) AB 14 715 16 7 . 18 19 Docld:32266786 Page 100 / present whereabouts, any and all previous statements made agencies as well as . the State of Texas, any law enforcement -agencies who conducted any investigation with regard to this ‘self evident that what we have to be involved with are the 109. Mr. Tanenbaum. And that would be really to identify all the people who were present at Dealy Plaza, all those indi-~ viduals who were in the motorcade, those people who we can: deem as specators, all official personnel, then determine the by all of these people, as well as those in officialdom and those who went into the book depository, and. move ‘chronologi- cally. | We then in conjunction with that have to go over all of the documents that are available to us, both in a declassified | Manner and classified, that are presently in the possession of the Secret Service, FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency, and I would add the + Department of State and all _ intelligence case. | That would be what we would be doing, and I dare say that might be taking longer than two months. Mr. Fauntroy. In the » meantime, would you have people _ | working on the! Brady and Marcello and other matters? ; “Mr. Tanenbaum. Yes, absolutely. In that regard, Mr. Fauntroy, I keep neglecting to mention but it is so very beginnings of the investigation. Of course it is what happened in Dallas, and then the