10 " 12 @ 13 14 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 iE 122 Y/ the third technique I used was rotoscoping, which is taking a point of reference and in the aperture, as you photograph the film, you reposition each frame so that the same point of reference falls on the same spot. This way you eliminate the shakiness of that hand-held camera and telephoto lens. Other than these three techniques, there has been absolutely nothing done to this film. The order of frames as you saw them is exactly as they appeared in the camera originally. Nothing has been added, nothing has been sub- tracted. Chairman Downing. Thank you very much. Any further questions of. this witness? Mr. Stokes. In your presentation you made reference to some filmed interviews that. you have had with witnesses and then you further: elaborate upon what happened to the witnesses, et cetera. Are those film interviews available to us? | Mr. Groden. Yes, sir. I did not mean to give the impression that I had done those interviews. Those interviews were done by Mark Lane and a professional film-maker, I believe his name is Emile D'Antonio. But I am not sure of the exact name, The film, when edited down, was released as rush to judgment, in which many of these interviews do exist. There are age 95
18 19 20 21 22 23 25 DoclId: 322764096 123 also numerous outtakes or sections of those interviews which were not included in the film, which I have not seen. But the film itself is perhaps the single most important document of now-deceased witnesses and what they had to say. W i had thought that perhaps if the film and the outtakes were subject to a psychological stress evaluation, it might aid in establishing the validity of the stories that appear in the film. Mr. Stokes. Thank you very much. Chairman Downing Further questions? Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman? Chairman Downing. Yes, Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dodd. A couple of things. . The letter, letter or document, I guess affidavit regarding Agent Hosty in his statements regarding Oswald, 5 Mr. Groden. Yes, sir. | Mr. Dodd. 7 was that not eventually shown to have been a misstatement by Mr. Hosty, and in fact the Dallas Police Department, there was some speculation as to whether or not they should be shifting blame from them to the FBI, and therefore that affidavit was questioned to have been different from the officer who overheard Mr. Hosty make that statement? Mr. Groden. In this particular case, and where it deals with that particular document, I am not sure. The document ge 96
10 11 12 14 - 15 16 17 18 20 21 23 25 Docld: 322764096 124 itself is one of the few exceptions that I went into, away from the photographic evidence and into documentary evidence. I do not know of such a history of that particular document. But what you say may indeed be true. G suse as that document appears in the report, that is the way I dealt with it. What you said may be true and I do not claim to know one way or the other. yr. Dodd. How about with regard to the dent on the chroming on the inside of the limousine, in which President Kennedy was traveling, was that dent ever determined to have been caused by a bullet or were there statements or any sort of testimony tha} later surfaced which indicated that that had been caused by something entirely different? Mr. Groden. As far as I know, it was never established that that bullet 4 that that damge was caused by a bullet. I believe there has been testimony to the contrary, but it has never been established to a certainty how that dent got there. And certainly no evidence has ever come forward as to the damage to the window itself. | Mr. Dodd. Lastly, with regard to the movement of Presi- dent Kennedy, being forced back and forced forward, did you happen to speak to any pathologist or ballistic experts or people who would be experts in the movement of a human body upon the impact of a bullet? Mr. Groden. Yes, sir, I have. I have spoken to several qe OF
1 12 @ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 /@ , 22 @ | 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 125 doctors. I have heard the testimony of pathologists, forensic pathologists, and a great many other people, hunters, people who are familiar with reactions to bodies as they are struck by bullets, both human and animal. And the only particular instance that has ever come to light whereby an opposite effect would hold true, as to the transition of momentum from the bullet, would be in something called decerebrate rigidity, whereby there is immediate stiffening of the body and a violent reaction going in any possible given way. It would.not have to go backward or forward, it can go in any particular direction. Fi But the one characteristic of this particular phenomenon, I have been told, is a stiffening of the body. What we are seeing in the film is not a stiffening at all but, rather, a rag doll effect. The visual thing, and that is the only way I can deal with it, visual reaction is that the President was struck and forced or physically pushed backward away from the source or whatever it is that caused him to react. Given the other evidence, including the fact which I did not mention during my presentation, that approximately 23 feet, as I recall, behind and to the left of the point of impact on the President's head, a large piece of skull fragment was found and-it.has been pushed backwards from the point of impact and away from the the grassy knoll, exactly in accordance with the movement of the President's body. Page 936
47 18 19 20 21 © . 22 23 25 126 Ironically enough, the exact motion of the President's body from moment of impact until he hits the seat behind hin, it is in an exact direct line with the grassy knoll, both the end of the stockade fence and the end of the retaining wall, on an exactly straight line. . UW Again, there is no absolute proof that the shot came from that point. But the President responds, or seems to respond, on such a way that it seems quite strange. Certainly you have all seen the reaction of the President's body, it seems quite strange that there was never a formal mention of the travel of his body in the Warren Commission report. I do not claim to know the answer why there was not, but visually, photographically, and according to the prdonderance of eye and ear witnesses, at least one shot did come from the right front and that is the only way I have been able to deal with it, that and the photographic evidence. Ghairman Downing. Thank you, Mr. Dodd. Mr, Fauntroy? Mr. Fauntroy. Mr.Groden, in the body of literature developed over the past 13 years by people who have been looking into this matter, there have been alleged a number of photographs have either been ignored or suppressed or in some instances destroyed. I noticed in the course of your presentation a number of films which apparently were not the Zapruder films. DoctId: 322764096 Pige 99
12 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 127 W vc. Groden. Yes, sir. Mr. fauntroy. Were any of these films, say, the famed “babushka lady's" £ilm? | Mr. Groden. No, sir, none of those were the famed “babushka lady's" film. | I believe you described that film quite correctly. The “babushka lady" was a young lady who appears on the opposite side of the street from Zapruder. For years the critics noticed she was. there in many photographs and films and that she does appear to be panning the President with a motion picture camera. From where she was standing at the point of the impact on the President's head, she would have filmed the entire grassy knoll area... I have an unconfirmed correspondence with several people in Texas who claim to know who this young lady is and that she is in fear of her life, but she described in exact detail where the "babushka lady" was, what she was wearing, and every single aspect of what had happened. This lady makes the charge, which is as yet unverified, that she was approached the day after the assassination and that she had unprocessed film, it had not been processed yet; that two people had approached her, one of which she later tentatively identified as someone else, and I would like to not go into that at ‘this exact point, pending further investigation. She claims that this film was taken from her by two men DocId: 32264096 age 100
18 19 20 21 ®@ 22 128 who represented themselves as being FBI agents. The film was then to have been processed and then returned to her. She never saw either of the nan or the film again, and the film has not surfaced. Y The story may be true, it may be a fabrication; clearly there was somebody there taking a film, from the action that we see on the film. We have never seen that particular film or several others. Mr. Fauntroy. Do I take it that the film that you showed, the photograph that you showed of the figures behind the fence, was that the Mary Moorman photograph? Mr. Groden. Yes. The rather grainy black and white Polaroid photograph was the Mary Moorman photograph, the second of a series of two. The first one, as oes by Mrs. Moorman or Miss Moorman, I am not clear which “4 Mr. Fauntroy. Ms. Mr. Groden. Ms., okay, Ms. Moorman. W to have shown the depository window that Oswald was alleged to have been in. This picture was taken from her along with the second one by the Dallas police, and later handed over to the FBI, and had never been returned to her, at least for years it had not. Everyone who originally saw that photograph said it did indeed show the. depository window at the exact moment, or around the exact moment that the shot was fired. Since we have not seen the photograph, there is no way to determine whether Docld: 322764096 ff] Page 101
Cantor 12 fls :00 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 25 DoclId: 322764096 129 anyone, Lee Oswald or anybody else, was in that photograph. But she did take a photograph which she turned over to. the Dallas police, and we have never been able to see it. q Mr. Fauntroy. Thank you. Chairman Downing. Again on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you, Mr. Groden. I think this is a proper place to start this investigation and you have contributed greatly I think to the committee, both you and your assistant. So the committee thanks you. Off the record. [Biscussion off the record.p ge 102
BOB CANTOR ty 5 yom. 1 AT og e 4 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 Y chairman Downing. Restate your caveat as to film for the purposes of the record. . Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I think I ought to make it absolutely clear that the presentation of the wiitfess that we just had here was only to acquaint the committee at the threshold with photographs of the scene. In no way are we presenting that witness for any conclusion, inference, his interpretation of shadows, things of that nature. That is why we are commencing the investigation. It was felt that it would be helpful to have some picture at the beginning of the scene of the crime, which we are going to present in the case of Dr. King as well. Obviously we intend to get all of the photographic evidence that is available, the originals, and have them examined for subsequent presentation, but this is not, and was not thought to be taken in any way as presenting anything in terms of any interprtation or conclusion. The only thing I do want to say, that where there was pointing out of a Mr. Lovelady who appeared to have a noticeable kind of beard and a striking red and black shirt, that our investigators did fly out to Denver and presented that picture to Mr. Lovelady, merely to ascertain from him is he the person with that apparent beard and black and white shirt, and he has indicated that yes, that is so. That in no way indicates that that person that appears to be similar to DoclId: 322764096 Page 103
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 131 Oswald is not yet Lovelady as we. are going to have to ‘investigate flat photograph and blow it up into a larger thing and have it examined. 5) x do want to repeat that what has been presented is only just the preliminary informational picture, so to speak, taking us back to the scene, and I for one do not accept any conclusion or interpretation. p- Dodd. Mr. Chairman, I don't understand then. I recoginze we are not reaching conclusions by seeing these ~ films but I don't understand why we have a closed session when viewing them. It is not a conclusion. No one here is stating in fact this is exactly what happened based on this particular witness’ testimony. I don't see what we are jeopardizing by having the meetings open. I am willing to listen to a reasonable reason why. I am not trying to be difficult. I just don't understand why it should be closed. Chairman Downing. The great problem here is that if it is open, the witness is going to have to omit references which he might have made if it was not open. In other words, I don't think it would be proper in open to talk of Lovelady. He has a right to some privacy until we are ready to get some basic evidence from him, or several of the other things which counsel mentioned this morning. He would probably have to withhold those, and that I guess is the basis DoclId: 322764096 Pape 104
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 “19 20 21 23 25 DoclId: 322764096 132 for the closed session. G] now tomorrow we have the King assassination slides, the authorization for sub genas. I don't see anything that would come up from here on in that would really warrant a closed session, unless counsel disagrees with me. Do you see anything on thy remaining agenda? Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask a question on the authorization for subpgenas. Are you talking about the names of people whose testimony we want to preserve? Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, not quite at this point. There are a number of agencies such as in Tennessee who have said that they will supply all of Bern material to us. They just want to be protected and have a subpgena served on them, so what I am requesting is the authorization of the committee to be able to serve those subpfenas. I am told, for instance, that the Associated Press on that one photograph that you have seen here of this one person who appears to be Oswald in the doorway is glad to turn that over for examination, but they want a subpgéna served on them. That is the category that I am talking about. Mr. Thone. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to start where M. ' I left off this morning, but I think Mee, Dodd is absolutely correct. Mr. Sprague, you said before that what we really ge 105
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 133 need now is an educational forum here to acquaint the public. and yembers of Congress with what you are going to need and wherewithal to conduct a thorough investigation. I think we all agree with that. I thought we had a brilliant opportunity to do that this morning and we closed the doors on the press at that’ time. YW r appreciate that occasionally you may have some real sensitive material, and at that time hopefully at the end of the morning or into the afternoon why you can have a vote and go into executive session, but it would still seem to me that we are missing a tremendous opportunity here to evolve or to consummate this educational process that you were talking about, because I thought you did a very, very skillful job this morning of dramatizing to the 12-member committee hereon why you really needed this 170-man staff, most of which of course would be lost to the public. Mr. Spraque. Mr. Chairman, in response to that, I do think that the presentation as to the need of the staff, the size of the staff, is a different area, however, from the actual nitty-gritty of the investigation, and I frankly wonder to what extent it appears as though talking about the areas of investigation and the gathering of evidence publicly is conducive, as we start an investigation. I ‘think there are two different areas. Mr. Gonzalez. May I say something in that respect? DoclId: 322764096 PHge 106
= 10 11 12 @ 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 23 25 DoclId: 322764096 134 Yr believe every member here of the committee has a similar feeling if you want to have everything out in the open and all. Nevertheless I will point out one thing that happened this morning that might have been inhibited, had you had the press present, and I think that would have been the thing that they would have hung their hat on, and that is the inference that the leaking out of that memorandum supposedly from J. Edgar Hoover came only after a request had been made by you and the staff from the FBI. Now that is what they would hang their hat on, and then we would find ourselves pitted against the FBI from the very outset. Why go into that? The press isn't going to accuse us of hiding anything at this point. There is nothing to hide and they know it, but it is essential that we distinguish between the proper area of free and open discussion, without giving a field day to some distorted reporting of segments of that discussion. Chairman Downing. I think that is well stated, Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Stokes? Mr. Stokes. I have some further discussion on this point. I have some real problems with shrouding everything in secrecy when you are constituted in order to make an investigation by the Congress. For instance, this afternoon in the movie that was shown here, I failed to see anything ge 107
~10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 135 about that movie that was of a sensitive nature that should have been withheld from the press or from the American public. I don't see any difference in that film and this book entitled or gr this other "Cover-Up,", this book here entitled "Betrayai,", amedizen book here entitled "The Umbrella Man," in which all types of theories are advanced with reference to the murder and how it occurred and who might have done it, et ceterag emt Te just seems to me that unless someone can show me what was sensitive about it, in terms of the investigation, that this was an. unnecessary portion of executive session, and I would further question, wate the constraints of an " executive sessions What am I to do this afternoon if the press happens to call me and ask me about this movie. What constraints are upon us with reference to a movie of this type? Q chairman Downing. There are no constraints. You were shown the movie, and, you are free to make any comments you want on it. Mr. Stokes. Then tell me why it should have been shown in executive session? Chairman Downing. Because at the time we didn't know exactly, I didn't know what was going to be shown. Looking back on it perhaps it could have been. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to that? { Chairman Downing. Please do. Mr. Sprague. If I may, and I apologize if I appear to Docld: 322764096 Page 103
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 @ 24 25 136 be a little too abrupt with the committee. I do not mean to be. I thought that part of what we had at least suggested this morning was that statements to the news media would only come from the fhairman or the press aide for the committee or someone designated by the ghairman, and it would seem to me that that is the answer to what Mr. Stokes just raised. Ofer hope we do not get into the situation frankly, where everybody here comes out of a meeting and gives his interpretation of one item and somebody else gives a different interpretation. Mr. Thone. Mr. Sprague, let me interrupt if I may right there. | You have 12 members here. We have got seven or eight members of our staffs here. Mr. Sprague, you have been in the prosecution business quite a while in Philadelphia. There is no way that statements are only going to come from Chairman Downing or from yourself on an investigation like this. We are just kidding ourselves if we think that that is going to happen. 1¢ just won't happen that way. That is another reinforcement for having your open hearing, because then you stay away from the rumor and the twisting and the turning and everything else that will inevitably follow. Mr. Sprague. May I get to the second part of my comment there? There again with all due respect, when it is pointed DoclId: 322764096 Pye 109
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 137 out let's say a book here "The Umbrella Man,\Betrayal," these different books, they may be written by individual authors for whatever their purpose, but I do think when something appears before the Congress of the United States, that is what you are, there is a greater significance to it. | Gt think that if you think that just to present something and let the public in, it impedes our ability just to hear and review things, some of which may not be of much value, some may be, but if everything that you are going to have here is going to be subject to just the public looking at it, and you are going to be trotting the news media in here, I frankly think you are going to do yourselves a disservice here. | You have got the imprint of the Congress of the United States on what you do, and the presentation of matters nonetheless on a public basis gets a certain greater acceptability just from the fact that you have reviewed it and looked at it here. It almost comes across as though you have seen fit to give this a certain higher level of importance by the presentation before you. Now I am not saying that there doesn't come a time when you have seen certain matters, that you may not make a decision let's have a public hearing. Let us present that in the public forum, but I don't think that you are going to age 110
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 24 25 138 help an investigation by just starting out and saying let's have everything really public here. f ue. Stokes. Mr. Chairman, may I respond further to that? I think it is going to be necessary then for this committee to try and adopt some type of guidelines with reference to when we go into executive session and when we open it to the public. | ‘I would disagree with Mr. Sprague in the sense that the presentation made here this afternoon, when presented to 12 members of Congress, is being presented to Congress, and the public has a very real vested interest in hearings and inquiries of this type when we were constituted for the purpose of making an investigation on behalf of the American people. I would be the first to say tha we ought to go in executive session when there is something sensitive to the , 7 total investigation that might in some manner be disruptive or have some adverse bearing upon any witnesses to appear befor , XN a gongressional committee, but obviously the majority of that ' which we have received in executive session today, there nothing has® been tamaawy sensitive, nothing of an adverse nature in terms of the public or witnesses, and it would seem to me that we have spent a great deal of the American public's time in executive session which they ought to have been a party to. DoclId: 322764096 Page 111
= 10 "1 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 DoclId: 322764096 139 W uc. Devine. . Mr. Chairman? Chairman Downing. Mr. Devine. Mr. Devine. Mr. Chairman, I generally almost without exception favor open sessions, open hearings, and I didn't vote to close this one. | I might say, however, that the atmosphere in which we took the basic information from Mr. Sprague and viewed the films and so forth was in a very orderly business-like manner. I think if the press had been permitted here, we would have had a carnival-like atmosphere. I don't think that Mr. Sprague could have been as candid as he has. I think we are in a posture today of building our foundation, the basis from which we will launch the investigation. I think it is perfectly proper to do this in executive session. You know they have waited 13 years after one, 8 years after the other. I think we need a few more days to get our feet on the ground before we open to the public. I think it is in the public interest and then I think a more respectful image of the Congress to have our hearing tomorrow as we did today and if you want to open up at the conclusion of the basics, then let Mr. Sprague and you or whoever wants to make any statements necessary, but we are building a foundation here today as I see it. Chairman Downing. There is merit on both sides as there always is. I tend to go slow in closing up. ge 112
140 ed | Do you see anything tomorrow that possibly should be © 2 discussed in a closed session? 3 Mr. Spraque. Mr. Chairman, of course I echo what Mr. e 4 Devine just said. I think that the presentation has been 5 on a more professional level just because we have been in 6 executive session, and I would hope that we would continue 7 in that vein. When I notice on here authorization for “rs 8 subpgenas, I do not think it ought to be a public discussion oN in terms of the issuance of subpgenas. I note that one of 9 10 the areas yet to be discussed is taking up with the leadership iW in the Congress ahead of time now getting, making sure that 2 there is the appropriate funding. @ 13 I am nota member of Congress , but I question how much 14 of a discussion of that nature would be really helped by 15 doing it publicly. 16 Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion? 7 I think Mr. Stokes hit on a point that I intended to 18 mention. I see here some question in all of our minds about 19 exactly whgn we should or should not be is closed session. 20 I think maybe the first thing we ought to do would be to 21 have some sort of criteria laid out. I think more specifically, @ 22 Mr. Sprague, in terms of when you believe we should and 93 ‘should not be in closed session. There may be a different oA ‘set of guidelines we ought to be following than what we traditionally follow in the Congress in terms of having 25 DoclId: 322764096 P@ge 115
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 @ 24 1416173 closed sessions. Traditionally, and my more senior colleagues here will be in a far better position to talk about this than I, but it has generally been when it has been national security or sensitive data involving the personal lives of people | that that has been invoked, and I think you are talking about something that is entirely different than what we have traditionally followed in the Congress in terms of closed session rules. Wf x think before proceeding maybe we ought to have those criteria laid out, discuss them and then make a decision about whether or not we ought to proceed in this manner. ghairman Downing. Chris, suppose we do this: Let Mr. Sprague and I get together and try to come up tomorrow morning with some criteria that would be acceptable. Mr. Dodd. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Downing. But anyway we will try to come up with it by tomorrow morning. If it is ruled closed and you want to make a motion to overrule the Chair, you are perfectly able to do so. One other thing. Please leave your folders on your desks and they will be picked up by members of the staff, the booklets. They will be brought tomorrow if you want them. If there is no objection a Mr. Fauntroy? Mr. Fauntroy. I am concerned that we have a little DoclId: 322764096 Page 114
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 DoclId: 322764096 144 better grasp of what we are going to Look at than we have had today coming to the meeting. I am anxious to feast upon what you have in mind in terms of what we look at. I just wonder if it is that big a risk for us to look through this material. Gf chairman Downing. It is, Walter, because you have got witnesses by name to be subpgenaed, and you have got the line and mode of questioning of certain witnesses. Don't you agree? Mr. Fauntroy. No; I didn't even know that that was involved « Chairman Downing. You can see it any time you want to, but I think we ought not let it get out, because those witnesses will not cooperate. The staff has informed me that this room is not open tomorrow but we will find a place and will notify you. The committee is adjourned to meet again tomorrow at 10 o'clock in a room to be designated. [tmereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, November 16, 1976.] age 115