JFK Assassination System 7 - Date. - 10/7/201 Identification Form . Agency Information AGENCY: HSCA RECORD NUMBER: = 180-10111-10191 RECORD SERIES: NUMBERED FILES AGENCY FILENUMBER: 014624 ‘ _ Document Information ORIGINATOR: HSCA | FROM: TO: TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION-BUSINESS MEETING DATE: LI/15/1976 . - ae PAGES: 146 SUBJECTS : : HSCA, ADMINISTRATION, STAFF wc . — - SPRAGUE, RICHARD A. __ PHOTOGRAPHS AND FILMS. DOCUMENT TYPE: TRANSCRIPT CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified RESTRICTIONS: Open in Full CURRENT STATUS: Redact DATE OF LASTREVIEW: 08/17/1993 OPENING CRITERIA : COMMENTS: Hearings 3 successive folders (2-2), Ist hearing marked "Dupolicate Corrections", also Dodd's opening statement. MLK materials withdrawn pp. 31-35. Box #:263._ v1 , . 4 Docld: 322764096 Page 1
Mondey, November 15, 1976 Washington, By Gy | Official Reporters fo Committees Pe 16 -TEIN-A ,, DoclId: 322764096 Page 2?
BOB CANTOR ty e . e.. N 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 @ 2 25 DoclId: 322764096 ge 3 on (Commitfe none BUSTNESS MEETING Cie ont, nv November 15, 1976 ey; ye — Washington, D.C. att G whe committee proceeded into executive session at 10:35 a.m, in jloom 2310, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honguenioke Thomas N. Downing (¢hairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Downing, (presiding), Devine, Gonzalez, McKinney, Preyer, Thone, Stokes, Fauntroy, Burke, Dodd, Ford, and Anderson. Also present: Richard A. Sprague, ghief Gounsel and Pirector; Kenneth Brooten, founsel; Donovan Le Gay, phiet fesearcher;, Richard Feeney, Billie Ga Perot erecea Martin, dommittee gdtaft 3/ Gus Edwards’ ristine Groden, Robert Groden, PAgsultants; Gail Beagle, Bruce Gwinn, Percy Harvey, Joe Peter D. McGee, Vicki Peckham faministrative pssistants; Lennon, Robert H. Maloney, Henry Spring, fie and William Briggs, Quentin L. Burgess, pratt ssistant; frat £ Member.
10 i 12 | © 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 © - 22 23 © 4 25 2 Fi chairman Downing. For the purposes of the record, I -_ would like each person in the room to identify themselves with their title. Mr. office. Mr. office. Ms. Mrs, Burgess. Quentin Burgess. I am with Mrs. Burke's Maloney. Robert Maloney. Congressman Stokes' Beagle. Gail Beagle, Congressman Gonzalez's office. Me. Martin. Rebecca Martin, with the committee staff. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Gay. Donovan L. Gay, committee staff. Sprague. Richard A. Sprague, chief counsel. — Feeney. Richard Feeney, committee staff. Peckham. . Vicki Peckham, Mr. Thone's office. Larson. Billie Gay Larson, committee staff. Lennon. Peter Lennon, Mr. Dodd's staff. McGee. Joe McGee, Mr. McKinney' staff. Spring. Henry Spring, Mr. McKinney's office. Groden. Christine Groden, consultant. Groden. Robert Groden, consultant. Briggs. William Briggs, Congressman Fauntroy's staff. Chairman Downing. The first item on the executive session will be a presentation by Mr. Sprague. Sprague. Mr. Chairman and members of the felect gommittee: I would like to take up what has been done up to this DoctId: 322764096 Page 4
10 11 12 14 15 “16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 3 point, what analysis has been made by the staff with regard to what the needs are of staff in the direction of the investigation. Suffice to say that in being asked to become chief counsel and director of this investigation, I have entered upon those duties with a number of assumptions. The first assumption is that it is the intent of the Congress in passing the resolution on the investigation of the two assassinations of Dr. King and President Kennedy, to see that the investigations are done in a thorough professional | manner, the kind of manner that can withstand, as it ought to, any searching analysis as to what has been done ona day-by-day basis. 7q) With that in mind, I have also accepted the basic assumption that since one of the reasons that these investigations have come to pass is that 3 ghairman Downing - Let me interrupt, Mr. Sprague. John Anderson has been appointed to fill in the vacancy i +%€ Resrmria \ in {formerly occupied by Congresg" Talcott, and he is on his way here now, so if you will just desist for the moment, and we will wait for Mr. Anderson. | [short recess J Chairman Downing. The committee will again come to order. I have a letter here from Mr. John J. Rhodes, minority leader, addressed to the Speaker: "As a result of the ge 5
10 F 12 @ | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 resignation of the Hongsebte Burt L. Talcott for the Select Committee on Assassinations, I now make the appointment of the Honorable John B. Anderson." Hur. Anderson, welcome aboard. This committee is very grateful to have your talents. Mr. Anderson, Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Harvey. Percy Harvey from Mr. Harold Ford's staff. Chairman Downing. John, Mr. Sprague is just beginning | his presentation. ‘All right, Mr. Sprague. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I will just start from the beginning. As I was stating, upon taking this position as chief counsel and director, I have taken it with a number of assumptions which I think I ought to state preliminarily. One is that the Congress of the United States, in passing the resolution for the Select Committee on Assassinations, intends that there be a thorough, hopefully definitive investigation with regard to each of the assassinations, Martin Luther King and President Kennedy. Second ®y, I have made an assumption that one of the reasons that these investigations have come into being is that questions have arisen, criticism has arisen, with regard to prior investigations, the extent to which other agencies of government, particularly the Axecutive pranch of government, participated in those previous investigations, DoclId: 322764096 Page 6
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and the extent to which those other agencies withheld. information, or did certain acts that perhaps indicate destruction of documents affecting the results of the investigation. GI I am not :stating, saying whether those things are so or not. I want to say to this committee that I have no conclusions, I have not the slightest opinion, with regard to either death, with regard to any wrongdoing by > any agencies of government, with regard to any inaccuracies, with regard to what has been developed in the past. I take the function now to be to thoroughly investigate and ascertain what is the evidence, indicating who in fact were the participants in either of the assassinations. Is there any additional evidence that was not known earlier? In addition, is there any evidence indicating that there may have been participation ineach of the assassinations by more than one person, and whether or not any agencies of government have impeded attempts to ascertain the answers to those questions before? With that again being an assumption on my part, I take . it that this Congress would not, in authorizing this investigation, have as its investigators the agencies of the Federal Government that perhaps might be part of the area to be investigated. By that, to be specific, it seems DoclId: 322764096 PHge 7
10 4 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 12 authorities to work out a plea bargain for James Earl Ray to plead guilty. The State of Tennessee had been seeking the death penalty against James Earl Ray. They worked out a plea bargain. The State of Tennessee agreed that in return for the plea of guilty, they would agree to a sentence of 99 years in prison for James Earl Ray, and that they would forego asking for the death penalty. | Now Mr. Devine is a former member of the FBI, and I would say to him without any question, I am sure had he been | a participant at this time in these proceedings, that when James Earl Ray wanted to plea bargain and was going to plead guilty and get a term of years, the first thing that the prosecution team.in my experience normally does, particularly in a case of this magnitude is say "Fine, give us a confession. We will work out a plea bargain if it is appropriate, but tell us what you did. Tell us whether or not there was anybody else who participated in this assassination with you. Let's subject you, Mr. Ray, toa lie detector test, and find out whether or not what you are saying is the truth. Let's use that as an investigative aid. Let's also make sure, if there is to be a plea bargain, and we ascertain that there is somebody else involved, that you are going to be a witness against that other person." This is just to me the most natural flow of what happens when someone is plea bargaining in a first degree Docld:32264096 PHye 14
10 1 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 23 24 25 13 murder case, and certainly a case that had at least the threshold questions as to whether or not there was a conspiracy, but what did we ascertain? qj We have ascertained that no one from the prosecution team asked, as part of that deal, that they be able to interrogate Mr. Ray, James Earl Ray, and get from hima statement at least as to his participation. There wasn't even a request made. As a matter of fact, when I heard this I couldn't believe it, and I sent as I say some investigators immediately to Tennessee to find out, and we were told, . one, that that is true and, seconday, that they just did not think that that was the thing to do. But what else do we find in an examination of just the notes of testimony - of the plea of guilty? At that time Ramsey Clark, whoY was then the Attorney General of the United States, had made a public statement that there was no conspiracy involved in the assassination of Dr. King. Mr. Hoover had made the same statement. At this plea of guilty by Ray, the State prosecutor made the statement there in open court that they have investigated far and wide, inter- viewed thousands, examined thousands of documents, and that they find no evidence of a conspiracy. The State prosecutor did not_say to the judge "But the man who is pleading guilty here, that we are working a plea bargain, we are not bothering to even question about his participation." DoclId: 322764096 Page 15
‘10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 DoclId: 322764096 14 Gf after the State prosecutor made the statement in open court, it is right there and as a matter of fact it is in an excerpt that we have got in the report to this committee here, Mr. Percy Foreman, who was the lawyer for James Earl Ray, got up and he also made a similar statement saying that since he has been in the case, investigating it, the defense lawyer for Ray, for a month, he has checked and he is satisfied himself that the statement by Ramsey Clark, by Mr. Hoover, by the State prosecutor, that there was no conspiracy, is correct, and that there is no conspiracy. Now this is said in open court. Fine, but what then happens right in that open court proceeding? A little later in the very proceeding, James Earl Ray says, and I am paraphrasing: "Judge, can I say something?" The judge says "What would you like to say?" -Mr. Ray says "Judge, I don't want to upset the deal that I have got, and I don't want to add anything, but I do not agree with the statement by Ramsey Clark, Mr. Hoover, Mr. Foreman and the State prosecutor about this conspiracy business." Now that is said, believe it or not, right on the record. Your point here isn't whether Mr. Ray is telling the truth or is a liar. That is not the point. The point of it is that having made that statement at that point, what would you * expect? Wouldn't you normally expect at least the judge there or the prosecutor to say "Mr. Ray, what are you talking qe 16
10 11 12 @ 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 Y 22 24 25 45 about? _ Tell us what you know." Y We find from an examination of just that transcript all the judge said is "Are your answers any different, Mr. Ray, about the plea bargain?" of course what did Ray say? "No, I am not changing any of my answers." Now just this area alone raises many, many questions in terms of threshold areas of inquiry. Let me present another, if I may. May I say to the committee, in going into this kind of detail, this is really the reason why I thought it ought to be in executive session, because I do not think that it would be really advantageous in proceeding with the investigation to be discussing areas that we are going to be looking into. I think that that could be ‘harmful, but let me point out what else is found in the Ray case, and then I will switch over to President Kennedy. Just from that very same transcript, the guilty plea alone, we find the following sequence of events, and mind you, these are not laid out on the basis of questions being asked. They are just a narration of events, but look what questions they do raise. James Earl kay was in a Missouri prison. Who was Ray? He was really a two-bit kind of thug, nothing sophisticated in the crimes he had committed in the past, holdups. He is visited one day by his brother in the Missouri prison. Ray escapes the next day, makes. his way through Illinois and up into Canada, goes to DoctId: 322764096 PRoe 17
10 1 12 @ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . eo FLWS 4, | 23 @ 24 25 16-29 Montreal. What does Ray do when he is in Montreal? He now assumes and takes an alias, the name of Galt. It is obviously an area to develop in the investigation. This Ray while in Canada, for the first time in his life is now getting tailor-made clothes, not ready-made suits in stores, but doing things with an indication at least of more money than he has been used to in the past. He uses this alias, the name Galt, and bear with me because it develops and it is in this same transcript, that in not Montreal, the city he was in, but in Toronto, there lives a person by the name of Galt, who has a cemarrat similar resemblance physically to Ray, and is approximately the same age group. I am not saying at this point that when Ray took the name Galt in Montreal that meant that he is necessarily referring "to that Galt that is in Toronto, but bear with me as we complete the circle here. I Ray, after using this name of Galt’. in Montreal, comes back to the United States, and I find that an area of inquiry, whether a person who is a two-bit thug, who is wanted in the States, who is successful in getting out of this country, would just be coming back to the States unless there was something that is motivating it or making it worth his while. Docld: 32264096 Pye 16
1 Tartaro Cantor 92 12:10 > 21 22 23 24 25 30 @ And there are lots of details in terms of what he does when he is back in the States, such as, for example, out “A the West Coast, thege weeks before the assassination he goes to a plastic surgeon, not one of the sleazy plastic surgeons, to get a nose bob, but he goes to someone who is highly reputable, a plastic surgeon for the Hollywood movie stars, again a question whether someone of Ray's background + has J. m going to a plastic surgeon who is operating on the level of nothing sophisticated in his background would end up dealing with the movie stars and having the cash to pay. We find that just thitpe weeks prior to the assassination when Ray goes to that plastic surgeon for this nose job, the plastic surgeon has a photograph, he always does of his patients before the plastic surgery and afterwards. Ray did not return after the surgery, and again the suture, there were stitches that had to be removed. Question: Where was the expertise to have done that? After the assassination of Dr. King, that plastic surgeon, in examining his files, finds the only picture that was removed of any of his patients is the picture that was taken of Ray beforehand, who is using the name Galtz. Could Ray have done it? Is it perhaps some indication that the person that arranged for Ray to see this plastic surgeon may have removed it Maybe. a In any event, what I am pointing out is really threshold, DoclId: 322764096 Pa@ge 19
RG: 233 TAB #: ENTRY: / / COPIES/ PPS. /CLASS.. BOX: ACCESS RESTRICTED The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file: File Designation Date From To In the review of this file this item was removed because access to it is restricted. Restrictions on records in the National Archives are stated in general and specific record group restriction statements which are available for examination. The item identified above has been withdrawn because it contains: [ Security- Classified Information [x]. Otherwise Restricted Information 08/22/93 Authority , Date Withdrawn by NSCA John F, Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-526) ‘NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION NA FORM 14000 (1.86) Doold: $22 6409iicSiainre 30 Vil old . f4 na, Olt 624 pre 3s JIILON TVNVUGHIIN
10 11 12 14 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 even begin to guess. qj We have the additional problem Wf and I do not look upon this investigation as merely critiquing what has been done before. It seems to me that the mandate is to find out what is the evidence and where it leads. But obviously we have to look into whd>t has been done, and we have it in our report here. In the Warren Commission investigation they had a staff, direct staff of their own, of 83 people. They had, in addition " and it is the "in addition" that counts + 150 full-time FBI agents assigned to that Warren. Commission with all of the secretarial and supporting personnel necessary for those 150 full-time agents to operate. In addition, they had 12 full-time and part-time professionals from the CIA who gave, again, all of the clerical and supporting personnel necessary for those additional people. | They had, in addition, 60, six-zero, full-time professional from the Secret Service assigned to work with the Warren Commission, again with all of the filing, clerical, back-up personnel that they needed. The Justice Department has told us that they put four full-time people and would not have figures for us as to what they had in addition, or the clerical and back-up data. The State Department advised us that they gave certain full-time support, but did not tell us of the number. DoctId: 322764096 PRge 21
10 1 12 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 25 DoclId: 322764096 37 gi The Internal Revenue Service stated that their Intelligence Division provided six staff years of support. I do not know what that figure means. But what I am pointing out is, this is what was involved in the Warren Commission investigation. We are talking here of an investigation that is not covering just that one assassination, but covering two. So that when I talk, as I am going to talk to you about a staff need of 170, one-seven-zero, while that may sound to the experienced people around Capitol Hill and the people in the Congress of the United States as a big staff, the determi- nation of big staff is only made on the basis: Well, it is- larger than what staffs other congressional committees have. - But I urge this committee not to evaluate it on that basis, but to evaluate it in terms of the job to be done, the /need that exists. Let me say again, I do not want to keep repeating myself, you do not know me. I am not giving a figure that is a padded figure. I am not playing the game of saying, "Here is half again what I need," going on the assumption that it will be cut somewhat and then I am ending up with what I really need. Now I consider, again, my function to effectively be your counsel, not to play that kind of game, but to lay out precisely what is the need. And I will, as I say, get into a breakdown of what one-seven-zero means. But compare 170 with what existed with just the Warren Commission and we have age 22
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 38 the task not only of reviewing the work that they did, but it has come to the fore, and again we have threshold areas of inquiry in the book that we have for you here, in the investigation and assassination of President Kennedy. But it has come to the fore, for example, that there was a destruction of a document, at least, by an FBI agent, and let me say, even there, I am advised that the Department of Justice may shortly be prosecuting that FBI agent for perjury, although it is interesting to note what that FBI agent said was that his destruction of a particular document relevant in the Kennedy assassination was based upon orders that he got from his superior. 9] The question in my mind is the investigator here, I do not want to be locked in by someone who. is charged with perjury before we have had even an opportunity to be inter- viewing him. It has also come to the fore at this time that the whole area of our government's attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, particularly Castro, was an area that was not made knowable to the Warren Commission. So again we are talking not only of an investigation that goes into what had been done, but into many, many areas in terms of area that has come to the public attention since, which I daresay represents some of the reasons that there is a public disquiet. It is interesting, and we have it in our report to you, age 323
10 8 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 39 “when Patty Hearst disappeared, was kidnapped, with all due respect to the Hearsts, as compared with the magnitude of an investigation as to whether or not other people are involved in the assassination of a president, where that was a civil rights thing, but in thrge months' investigation by the FBI in the kidnapping of Patty Hearst, the FBI alone, not talking about state agencies, spent $2.6 million. That is a figure we got from the FBI. q) Now when we are talking about what is necessary in an investigation, I get back, you do not just compare it: What does the v7 I am sorry I am not that familiar with congressional committees q what does the Agriculture Committee have on its staff? That cannot be the approach here. It has to be on the job to be done and the need. We have other documentation in our reports such as just the House Impeachment Committee, it had a staff of 174 members. There was not the need, not investigating the complexities and the mass of material and the areas involved and the travel involved which is called for here in that committee. That exceeds what I am asking this committee to give its support for in terms of a staff. As I say to you, frankly each time I have said this I end up really feeling when I am talking about a staff of 170 ‘it is being such a minimal figure that when somebody reacts and thinks,"Oh, that is too much",you cannot do this job. age 74
11 12 20 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 40 And I would say to you, and I mean it, every bone of sincerity, do not tarnish this House of Representatives or yourself by commencing an investigation with not the facilities to do a thorough job and you are not going to be able to do it with less then the minimum figure I am talking. about. q Let me sive you how that breaks down and, again keeping in mind what I have been talking about here, just think how minimal it is. In each of these two investigations I am talking about + and we have a chart on the last page of the booklet that is before you a of the two investigative teams, basically Kennedy and King. I am talking about 15 investigators on each, attorneys that is, and 25 investigators. That is 40 people on each. If anyone is going to think that that:is too mammoth a size investigative force, they just, you know, are not realistic. Forty people, getting into the complexities of each of these, is as minimal a squad as you can hope to have. | Right there then, between 40 and 40, that is 80 people, right there. Would you really think you can do it on less? Do not attempt it.. I am not talking about clerical. Let me also say this, from the investigative standpoint, to do a thorough job does not mean merely going to some witness and saying to him "Come before our subcommittee or age 25
N 18 19° 20 21 @ # 23 @ 24 25 Docld: 32264096 42 hate to see its use in court speaking as a prosecutor. But as an investigative tool, and also with the stress evaluator, because some people will not agree to go on the polygraph but you can be recording what they are telling you and you can run it through the stress evalua tor. These are very, very helpful investigative tools. | 4) If you will permit me to digress here a moment, in the | Yablonski murder case, with the FBI, we had a woman who was a conduit, she was not the initiator of the murders, she was not down with the trigger people; we got her to go on a lie detector test; with an experienced polygraph operator the responses that the subject gives are unimportant. As a matter of fact, the subject can remain mute, because what you get is the emotional response. The answer is meaningless. With the expert polygraph people we not only, by the } use of a polygraph with that young lady, were able to get out of her information 7 not that she was saying it at first blush, it was finding out really what she was withholding “f and a good operator is not confined merely to just the answer, he can ferret into what it is you are withholding from us if he asks his questions well. We were able to ascertain that this young lady's own father was the one who recruited her in the assassination of Lick Yablonskj. We were able to ascertain that she in turn recruited then her husband. We were able to ascertain locations that the conspirators met. Page 27
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 We were able even to ascertain the dates, the motels, not on the basis of what she was volunteering, but pinpointing it in questions. F so what I am saying to you is, to do a thorough investi- gation, this area, a polygraph-stress evaluator unit again is necessary as is on my original chart, to be available to each of the investigative teams when they have a need, when they can put someone on the polygraph or run them through the | stress evaluator to be able to call them there. Again, you are not talking about clerical people. I must address myself now to one other major area on an organizational chart here. | Speaking as a prosecutor and as a lawyer, I have found that when I have two secretaries, items get filed for me in about 22 different fashions, and the way in which one secre- tary, the heading she files something under, we never remember later when we want the documents and I end up finding there is something in one file that is relevant to something in another file and we, unfortunately, find it out after the fact. It is necessary in an operation of this magnitude, with the documents that we are talking about + and I will use, for example, just the King plea of guilty - that any document that we obtain, wé are being inundated by people sending us | information now, but there is a need to get, for example in the Kennedy case, access to files, information; in the ‘DoclId: 322764096 Page 23
14 15 . 16 | 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 ! 44 King case the investigation, the court records; these should not come to individuals on the staff, they will get lost. It is necessary to have a document control unit so anything that comes in, addressed to me, addressed to anyone else on the staff, it does not come to us; if it does it will never be correlated or used. It is necessary to have an operation here that these items that come in must come to a central document unit, which must note, obviously, the date of receipt, they must separate out in its initial evaluation, Kennedy on the one hand, King on the other. G) there has to be a research group to analyze that document , not only for purposes of a master filing of the document, but for purposes of cross-references, knowing where that is to be listed for filing purposes. . Again, that is a small part of it. This document may refer to six different people. We have to be able to cross- reference that to what we already have in. That guilty plea of Ray's must be cross-referenced to what we already have in so that the use of the name Bridgman, the use of the name Sneed, the use of the name Galt, so that when we have a file on those it is cross-referenced to everything else that exists. This is a mammoth task for it to be handled properly. Not only cross-referencing things as it now appears, but the documents that we already have in have to now be recross- age 279
20 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 45 referenced so that they show the later documents that come in. Gl when you realize that we are talking just in the Kennedy case of tens and tens and tens of thousands of documents, | literally, the size of this area just bespeaks itself withou further elaboration. _ As a matter of fact, I submit that what. we do need here, not only is this research staff, the document control unit, but we will need, as I think they used in either the impeachment staff or the Watergate investigation, we ought to use in combination here, not intead of because I do not like to give up thinking power by people, but in addition I think we ought to have and use a computer to aid us in this recross- referencing problen. What does this unit do when they finish? That document that came in,let's say addressed to me, is not.going to go right into that file and sit there; it has to get t it will not do any good if it came in today and it geht) to me a month from now. It has to be a unit that can operate and has a sufficient staff so if it comes in today, this cross-referencing documenting is fast enough so that document gets to me that same day. I mean you need that for this investigation. You are going to do this with three file clerks, you are going to do it with six people? To say it is to point out that you need to have an adequate staff. What else do I envision here? Make no mistake about it, qe 30°
15 16 17 19 20 21 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 46 at least in my own view, there #& going to be many legal hurdles thrown at this investigation, raising broad, in my opinion, constitutional questions, going into the power of subpoena, contempt power of the Congress. There is going to be a constitutional question raised as to the power of Congress to be investigating here at all, particularly in the case of Dr. King. . 9 We need a legal staff to aid + you know, when we need subpgenas issued, for example, I do not want the investigative staff, some investigator there preparing a subppena and he> will do it in some, perhaps, poor fashion. We want one legal unit, so when the investigators need a subpgena prepared, it is not done on a hit-or-miss basis, we have some legal experts who are preparing them for each one of our needs. They just say prepare a subpgéna and it is done uniformly on a basis that we know will withstand attack, I submit one of the things we need now is research by staff so that the resolution recreating this committee in the forthcoming Congress is appropriately bottomed to with- stand constitutional attack in the court. What kind of staff am I talking about? Again, do not get any idea that I am just trying to pad a big thing. I am talking about a staff of four lawyers and a chief deputy, five people. age 31
eo Se DoclId: 32276409 “18 47 -G) another area, because it cannot be ignored; security is a problem, from a twofold standpoint: One, my own concepts as to what is done when we are professionals trying to do job, not having leaks. Our own investigative effort must have adequate security. It will not do me any good, for example, if, as I just happened to 7 in a matter I will raise with you shortly x we sent some- body out to Denver to interview somebody; it would not do the investigation any good if there are leaks of that information 10 or, when we get reports back, all of a sudden they are " appearing in the Washington Post or any other news media. 12 They have to be on the basis of our own security. 13 In addition, we obviously are going to be going into 14 areas with branches of the Yuecutive Sranch of government 15 that are security problems. I have taken up, as I say, with the CIA and representatives of the Department of Justice my views in terms of our right to have access and their response has been pretty much along the same line, of a willingness 19 I to grant access, stating that there may be some individual 20 || situations which they would like * they do not want to say 21 if that they refuse to turn those matters over, but they would 22 || rather take them up on a case-by-case basis, whether they 23 || feel that the disclosure of the identity or the disclosure 24 of the means of securing the information may present a danger 25 || in terms of an ongoing matter. - Page 32
10 11 12 19. 20 21 22 23 r 24 25 Docld: 322764096 48 Fweil, suffice it to say, I have no desire just to make a big point, md I am perfectly happy that we proceed on a professional basis and take those matters up on a case-by- case basis, Obviously, for example, if there is a document that they have a name blanked out, or the means by which the information was secured and it says in that document that it was sunshiny in Houston or in Dallas on a certain day, I have no desire to get into a demand that, "Oh, I have to know who that is and the means by which you got it." But, on the other hand, let's suppose there should be a document where there is a statement, the name is omitted and the means by which the information is obtained, in which someone is saying that they were present at a meeting and they heard, let's say, an assassination plan of President Kennedy being discussed; then that would be the other side of the line. Yes; ona case-by-case basis I think there would have to be a demand and a fight to get that information. So we need to have our own security operation. Again being perfectly blunt with this committee, I think that a previ- ous committee of the Congress of the United States, by virtue of what appeared to be leaks of information, not only harmed the area of. inquiry but, from my own point of view, harmed just the standing and the stature of the Congress of Page 33
= N we 10 11 12 14 20 21 22 | 23 @ 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 49 ‘the United States. "q I think that everything that this committee and this staff does is going to be subject, in years to come, to searching inquiry, and it ought to be. And I repeat, I want this staff and I urge this staff to think of it in that sense, and to have it done in that dedicated professional manner, We need, therefore, a security unit to assure the agencies of the Pxecutive Axanch that, yes, we have proper security and control for our own area as well. I have in that document that is before you further layouts, because up to this point I have not yet talked about secretaries. I have not talked about just some of the other supportive things. So that this figure of 170 is 4 as a matter of fact, I really do believe ag you listen to me the question really ought’ to be in your mind: Can you do this kind of a job with even 170? I am stating that, yes, we can attempt to do it, but do not cut it below that because, if you cut it below that, you are just making it impossible, We have felt a desire to present to you 4 because in my view, when we talk about these investigations we ought to start with what we are talking about, the two murders. It was | raised earlier: Why have two subcommittees? I hope I have at least made my presentation in any manner of some effectivenes Page 34 3
N 20 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 50 that there is a recognition that we ought to proceed on both and it would facilitate the investigation if there was a subcommittee that was really staying on top of Kennedy, if there is another subcommittee staying on top of King. Gi Now, what I also urge, md I have it in our report, I think it important, however, that the entire committee be kept advised. I do not think j the question was raised being on the subcommittee as to what one does that. limit in terms of the other? It ought not to. What I would urge is that there should bea meeting of the full committee, I would Say, at least a minimum of once a month, where we can be brought up to date so that the subcommittee in one is brought up to date as to what is happening in the other. _I think it important that it be a team concept; nothing political about this. It is an attempt to find out whether or not there were other participants, who are the participants in two murders. What else do I urge on you? I have sent to each of you, and I thank Mr. Devine who initiated the request, and I really think it was a failing on my part not getting it through even before the initiation of the request + but I have sent, of those that have presently been employed or those to whom commitments have been made to bring on the staff, resumes and the positions of the people so far employed. Obviously, within the budget that presently exists, I Page 35
10 tt 12 Docld: 32264096 jf 51 cannot be recruiting the kind of staff to be doing this job. What T have been seeking to do is to recruit the people at the top who are going to help guide these investigations, the deputy chief counsel for example, in Kennedy and in King. Y the reason in my mind i I happen to be very much inter- ested in a team effort to get a good job done. I do not: want to just recruit a staff and then bring in a deputy chief counsel, I would rather, with the wealth of talent that is available, have those people on board and have them participate with me in picking the team thir is going to work with them. Now it may not appear to you gentlemen from reading those resumes, but let me assure each one of you, again in terms of getting to know me, of the people employed, not one represents anybody that I knew before I took this position. . I have been in homicide work but + I have had contacts in Philadelphia. I have not looked upon this as just getting friends or people that I knew on board. I have actively sought to recruit on a national base people that I thought could be the cream-of-the-crop talent to do a thorough professional job. That is what I am seeking to do here. As you look at these resumes, I do want to say, I do not know one of them. They are people that I have interviewed that not only, upon interviewing them did I make the decision, but I made requests, I suppose to prosecutors, other people Page 36
DocId: 32264094) 52 around the country to get evaluations of them. That is what I am seeking to do. Hopefully, if this committee will accept my recommendation as to what I say is a minimal kind of staff, what I will then do is go on with the planning, the filling in of the detail of the actual number of people, in documents, in research, and be able to come back to you at your next meeting with what that total budget requirement is. GI vou know, salaries is just a small part of this thing. We are not dealing with a matter that is just here in Washington. As I say, I sent out a team to Denver in a ‘Matter I will take up in a moment; just to do that cost us $1,000, to be going out interviewing, interrogating. If this committee through its subcommittees must have hearings in various parts of the country, just the travel expenses, the investigative expenses, are a tremendous part of the budget which have to be included in a request for appropriation. What I would hope is that if this committee approves in concept what I have said, that I be directed to submit to you by the time of the next meeting the detailed, really, appropriation request that is required to do this job. Let me, ending it here, really, point out again the detail that is necessary, ~ I Start from scratch in both of these homicides. I assure you, you are not dealing with someone who has Page 37
19. 20 21 @ 22 23 @ 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 53 preconceptions or opinions. I probably know less, or knew less about both of these assassinations than just about anybody else in the country when I first took this position. ‘I found out in looking over the film you are about to see 4 something that I had not even known, for example, in the past - that at the time a photograph was taken by the Associated Press of President Kennedy being shot, the photograph taken from the front of his car going back, that that photograph shows the doorway of the book depository in Dallas, and standing in that doorway there is a person that, when you look at him, appears or looks like Oswald. And this x and I am not saying anything that is new + this was brought to the attention of the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission determined that that, in fact, was not Oswald. flopviously, if it was Oswald and he is standing in the doorway at the moment President Kennedy is assassinated, you can imagine what questions that raised. They determined, and it is in their report, no, that was not Oswald, it was another individual named Lovelady, who also worked at the Dallas book depository, who did bear an amazing resemblance to Oswald. And Lovelady looked at that photograph for the Warren Commission and said yes, that is him. As a result of looking at some of the film that you fy are about to see, it turns out tha t other film was taken as Page 35
10 W 12 14 15 16 18 19 "20 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 54 wp, ‘Fone other filmn, efght minutes later, I am told a again this has to be documented and examined. In the additional film which was taken, there is a picture of a person who, as you look at him, looks kind of bearded who has, to say the least, a couple of days' growth of beard. I was advised by the person who is exhibiting the film that in that exhibitor'’s opinion this bearded individual in fact was Lovelady. | Well, obviously, if Lovelady has a beard, and as you | can see in the picture of the person that appears to be Oswald, it is of someone who is clean-shaven, it raises questions in my mind, can it be? What about it? > Of course, the first thing to find out is is this apparently bearded person Lovelady, If he is not, then that avenue is not an avenue of immediate investigation. Subsequently, we will get into that as well. In addition, this bearded person is wearing a certain plaid shirt, black, red, it stands out, you will see it in the picture. I dispatched, as a result of that I sent some people i we found out where Lovelady was. The last he was known was in Dallas. We traced him to Denver. I sent out some people to Denver to interview Lovelady. And Lovelady was shown this additional film, the new film, if I can call ‘it that. Sure enough, Lovelady and his wife both see it and say, "Yes, that is me." And his wife goes on to say that age 39
55 Lovelady hates to shave, she always has to be on him to shave, and so forth. And Lovelady said, Hy u W, you are the first people that have ever asked me was I shaven/on the day of the assassination. Nobody ever asked And when I was shown that original picture where I said the Daok-alike of Oswald was me, nobody asked me, really, what jaqket or what shirt I wore that day or anything earance."S Fl now, do not misunderstand, I happen to be a big believer that to be thorough and detailed 7 and I am not saying from this that in fact that is still a different person than the person of the look-alike of Oswald who was photographed. What I am now doing, one of the things I am going to ask, we want to subpgena the Associated Press negative, the original negative that they have, and we want to arrange to have this photograph of what appears to be the look-alike of Oswald blown up. | | Obviously we want to see what kind of shirt was being worn, we want to see n he could still be the same person and the beard may yet be in that picture, although it does 20 !! not appear to be at the initial thrust of it. But what I 21 ff am Saying to you is, this is the kind of detail that is 22 involved in doing a thorough investigation. If it is going to 23 || be done in a way that reflects credit, it has to be done 24 || thoroughly. 25 To do it in a way with inadequate staff, not a willingness Docld: 322764096}] Page 40
10 - 41 12 18 . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 32264096 56 to be thorough and not a willingness to be professional about it, you are going to be subject to searching inquiry, an evaluation as the Warren Commission has, for my money it means ‘then do not do it. But if you are going to do it, do it thoroughly. Tie do have this film. If there are any questions I will be happy to answer them. Maybe we might recess for lunch. Chairman Downing. Thank you, Mr. Sprague. I feel sure there are questions. We will probably take them in order and go to 12:30 and then adjourn for lunch. Mr. Gonzalez? | Mr. Gonzalez. We had a brief discussion about how we ‘can insure continuity. One thing depends on the other. I think we have learned as we have gone along, I think you realize::some aspects of the congressional procedures that may not have been too clear to you. We do have some questions that we will have to direct at the proper time to the leaders of the House. But at this point I do not know if the fact is clear that you cannot really make commitments. There is really no way we can insure commitments to people that have forsaken a job in order to get on with the committee until: we know exactly what is going to be done by the 95th Congress in providing appropriations. ‘And I think that really is the all-important question at this point. I do not know how to resolve it. age 41
10 11 12 15 16 17 18 20 al 25 DoclId: 322764096 57 . Yj Me. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the statement by Mr. Gonzalez, he is absolutely right. And let me state that of the personnel that has been recruited af this is a skeletal kind of recruiting I am going into n when you look at this resume, I have recruited people who are giving up good positions, who are coming here as professionals, really, with'a kind of faith and confidence that the Congress intends to do a thorough job. Chairman Downing. Mr. Devine? Mr. Devine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief, Mr. Sprague. I am extremely impressed by your. presentation. You have been sitting there for h hour and 15 minutes right off the top of your head giving us a very fine analysis of why you think we should go in the direction you are seeking to go, and I find very little area of disagreement. You point out about polygraphs, lie detectors, you recognize immediately it is merely an investigative tool, it is not conclusive. I have three questions that perhaps you can answer rapidly. I am concerned about press releases by anyone connected with this investigation. I had to fly to Miami last week one day~and back the next, and read in the Miama Herald all about the fact that, as I indicated to you earlier, this is going to be a massive investigation; it could be a age 42
10 11 _14 15 16 17 19- 20 21 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 58 career for many people, with no termination of the number of persons involved. And that raised the question, not particu- larly as to whether or not that is the right thing, but who should make releases, who should be talking about what this committee is doing. FG I hope that we do not have press releases by the executive director or by staff members or by committee staff. I think we should determine policy on who is the spokesman and who should talk about what. The other thing that occurs to me, if in fact the Congress does provide the funds to give us 170 or more persons, what are we going to do with the bodies? Do we have a place to headquarter them? If we have met that particular problem, maybe you have an answer to that. Chairman Downing. That is in the general area. Mr. Preyer? . Mr. Thone. How about that first question? Chairman Downing. Do you want to respond? Mr. Sprague. Yes, may I respond? -Chairman Downing. Certainly. Mr. Sprague, With regard to the last question first, we do have an inadequate temporary space in the-hetd House wonel Dene now, really just three rooms, but we are making arrangements to get additional temporary space right next to it, which I think will be adequaCte for the remainder age 43
17 18 19 20 21 @ 22 23 24 25 Docld: 322764096 59 of this year with what is do-able with the limitations of budget for this year.. Q] what I would request, and do need, if the committee would feel that what is being asked is proper, I think there should be the initiation of a request of the Architect to give you the place for these numbers of bodies, and questioning rooms as well, with the new Congress. That is on the agenda which we will take up as well. With regard really to the first question, I think that the only spokesman, really, ought to be the chairman and there ought to be a press aide to whom those inquiries from the press goes, so the chairman is not driven crazy by the demands. I may say this, and if there is criticism, I accept it; while I have not spoken of the investigation or the material that I have laid out here, what I have said publicly has been on the need for staff, and the numbers of staff. That I have done on the basis that I thought that there is a certain public education involved. This has nothing to do with the direction of the investigator information developed, but I do recognize, well, 170 in my opinion is minimal, it sounds tremendous when someone hears it. _I really thought it would be of aid, even to the committee and the Congress, if members of the public heard not from a ‘congressman but someone who is, I do hope, considered a professional, as to whati:is the proféssional need for staff. age 44
60 That is the reason, and that is the area that I have spoken about myself. 3 GP chairman Downing. Mr. Preyer? P 4 Mr. Preyer. Well, I agree with Mr. Devine on the splendid ness of your presentation, Mr. Sprague. I agree with you entirely on the importance of this being a definitive investi- gation, and that if it is not done right it is better not to do it at all. Along that line, I would be interested in the strategy of how we convince Congress of that and what role we as individual members should play, if any. Should we let all of this suddenly hit the Congress cold with a report in December? | Maybe that is the way to give it maximum impact. Or do not say anything? Or should we among our colleagues informally be talking about the needs for staff such as you have indicated here? _ What should we be doing right now, if we agree with you that this is something that ought to be done, which I do agree with? Mr. Sprague. Mr. Preyer, the chairman and I have met with the Speaker, I guess I should not say the Speaker, 23 || probably the next Speaker of the House and the present x ) 24- 25 Speaker , really for the purpose of laying out, not in the depth that I just did here, but the concepts and the kind of Docld: 322764096 fiPage 45
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Docld: 322764096 61 staff. that is required, because in my view a big mistake would be made in just thinking that we just drift along. FF what? Organizing now for something in January? I think, and here I urge this committee + I cannot do every- thing; you are the congressmen, you are the people experienced on the Hill, not me. I am willing to knock myself out. If you want, I will appear before 435 congressmen, one-by-one, and go through the same presentation so it is understood. Hopefully you would feel that that is not necessary. But if you feel it is, I will do it. - 1 think it is important that on a nonpolitical basis, which is really what this investigation is + you cannot urge that strong enough * that really the leadership all around, both parties, be brought into recognizing what . hopefully you do, and that it is understood that, yes, we will get this kind of backing and that; yes, we will get what is the required appropriation. | I think the groundwork for that must be done as of yesterday, not tomorrow. I think it has to be worked on now. One of the things that I read right now, I understand. /- did not until I came down here that when the new Congress convenes in January 3, there is an interim of time in which things have to get going. | Well, I really do think that when we are talking about investigating these two assassinations, we cannot be in the age 46
N 11 12 e » 14 21 22 23 24 25 - Docld: 322764096 62 posture of telling investigators, you may have to go out to Denver or you may have to go to Toronto, or may have to go somewhere else, that stop, stop the investigation cold because we need oy, thege weeks, a month, for the reorgani- zation of the new Congress. q I do not think that that would even, just the appearance of it I do not think would be appropriate for the Congress. What I would urge this committee to do, and I do not know what’: to do, but it is to get involved or take the steps with the leadership so they understand that ought not to be, so there could be introduced HOUR. l, H.R. 2 perhaps, HR. 3, something where there is a continuity and we can be in the posture of getting the kind of staff lined up. Obviously we cannot recruit all of the people now, we can only be recruiting a few people. I think it has to be done immediately. Chairman Downing. I will get with the Speaker to see what can be done to provide this continuity. It strikes me we have two ways to go in the resolution: Immediate action on the request by the committee for money ra Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, I also have one other comment. I do not look upon this as a career matter for the staff. It will be nice to work with you and I will appreciate it, but I have other fields to go to back in Philadelphia. This is, in my opinion, a one~shot operation, which is age 47
10 12 14 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 Docld: 322764096 63 different than the usual continuous committee. it is to do both jobs thoroughly. Wx have stated you cannot put a time limitation. When I — speak to juries in murder cases, where we are going to lock them up, juries like to have some idea how long they are going to be confined for the length of this trial. Well, I give them an approximation, saying, but if IL say a plonth, do not at the end of the month jump up and say, Mr. Sprague, you promised us the case would be over today. In that sense I do not think there can be a time limitation. I hope that we could finish the job in the tyb-year period of the next Congress. I do not. think that it ought to be on and on and on and on, and with the kind of staff I am talking about, I hope we can do a difinitive job. Chairman Downing. Mr. McKinney? Mr. McKinney. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will excuse ny voice. I.am pretty impressed by your presentation. I do have one problem. Most of us are wearing about six hats at this table. I think it came out at the Senate hearings that lord knows I do not want to add to the staff. But I do think that our reputations are going to ride on this, every person at this table is going to be either looked at as a buck-passer, a failure, and another one of those sort of whitewashers, or age 45
15 16 17 18 19. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Docld: 322764096 64 they are going to be looked at as people who did a thorough, one-time definitive job. . Y I really do feel, for instance I am ranking member on one committee, probably a ranking member on two subcommittees, and I really do feel, without interrupting your flow, that: we are going to have to have as members someone on this committee that keeps us from being just innocents. We are not a jury, we are not sequestered to hear each Stage. We are going to have to come in here with some kind of background behind us and some continuing knowledge. I do not think we can take your staff and keep pulling them all the time to get the background information. It seems to me the Senate Committee tried it without individual staff and found out it just could not be done if they did not have a continual liaison person with your operation, particularly on the subcommittee level. With that I will stop speaking. Chairman Downing. Perhaps that is a good suggestion. Mr. Sprague. May I respond, Mr. Chairman and Mr. McKinney? | ‘That sounds nice. In my opinion it is not workable in this instance, and I will say why in a moment. What I had thought was desirable here, and again one of the reasons for the subcommittee, is that what I intend to do is to see that on a weekly basis each member of the age 49
17 18 20 21 (23 + 24 25 65 subcommittee is fully advised as to what is going on and we are going to take that: burden, the deputy chief in Kennedy or King, for that subcommittee, with me, is going to have the responsibility of getting together and giving that information. q I think the obligation is ours to furnish it weekly, as opposed to having a member of each congressman's staff, standing or sitting by, for this reason: Again, it is a little different area of operation, as I see it. | I had a meeting, for example, going over this matter of the film, and the person out in Denver, Lovelady, if in fact we must be sitting in on these meetings and having one representative from each congressman sitting in to discuss that congressman, it becomes an unworkable operation. The investigation phase here, in each case, is not only, ‘let's say somebody. in Denver, it has to do with New Orleans, it has to do with Houston. The only way that a staff member ‘from each congressman could then be knowledgeable on his own would be if he was to sit with me and the chief deputy in literally every one of the overall operational matters, and that would mean that we have 12 staff people sitting in there. I think it would be unworkable. What I word + Rect. at least, is that in starting out, at least you attempt it initially the way in which I suggest, where we have that burden and keep each subcommittee fully Docld: 32264096 PHge 50
1 advised on a weekly basis. If that does not seem to do it, e 2 maybe then we would have to make some change, but I would 3 | urge that we at least attempt it that way. Cantor 5 Els 12:20 & 10 12 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Docld: 322764096 ge 51
BOB CANTOR 68 FLWS AT 12 noon 1 | ghairman Downing. I would advise the members @ 2 ; we are trying to close up by 12:30. I don't want to 3 cut it short. We can come back to this. If we could wrap @ 4 it up in 10 minutes, it would be good. | 5 Mr. Stokes? 6 Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 7 | . Mr. Chairman, I may have several questions. . 8 Chairman Downing. Take the time. 9 Mr. Stokes. Thank you very much. 10 Mr. Sprague, let me join with my colleagues in commending “ 11 you for the presentation you have made. I would concur in 12 the analysis you have made with reference to the absolute need © 13 for professionalism, not only by the staff but by this committe@¢. 14 Consequently I would be one who would certainly support 15 whatever you need, in order to bring this investigation, 16 this massive type of investigation, the type of staff that you need. This makes me really wonder why you want to make 17 18 this type of presentation in executive committee rather 19 than in open committee. ‘20 It would seem to me that such a presentation would have 21 had value to the public at large, and would perhaps commence @ 22 helping to mold the opinion of the public at large as to the massiveness of the job, the need or necessity for 23 gnd professionalisn,, the kind of staffing that would be required. 25 I would like em your comments on that. Docld: 32264096 Page 52
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 © 22 23 25 69 yx. Sprague. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Stokes, I do think that the laying out of what is needed in terms of staff is desirable to present to the public, and as a matter of fact that is the reason with regard to public press conferences and interviews I have done that. What I thought would be undesirable would be to raise in a public posture at this point even the questions concerning the guilty plea of Ray or the question in terms of a photograph. In the document we have submitted to you, where we lay out threshold questions of inquiry, I thought maybe there might be some questions raised about that, that it would facilitate and be desirable that that kind of detail not be said publicly, because I do think that in terms of the appearance of really professionalism, that the avoidance of saying that kind of thing publicly is helpful. Now I did not know how I could be really making the presentation to the committee this morning without at the same time getting into some detail of what was found out at the threshold. I thought it would be more meaningful to the committee to get that kind of detail as well to understand the presentation. If I could have made the presentation in just the numbers, and I would be glad to do it again without getting.into the detail, I quite agree with you. Chairman Downing. I take part of that responsibility. It was a decision I made and looking back on it, it may have DoclId: 322764096 Pge 53
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 DoclId: 322764096 70 been better to have it made public but that is something that is up for question now. Y Go ahead. Gf ur. Stokes, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sprague, my next question has to do with the degree of staffing that you have done thus far in your recruiting. mechanism. Of course one of my major concerns, in an area in which I am quite sensitive, is that of minority appointment. I realize this is a skeleton staff that you have put together, but I have read the resumes that you have submitted to us,” and I do have some very serious concerns with reference to personnel thus far recruited. Particularly I look at your staff recruiting in the area of attorneys and investigators, an you correct me if I am wrong, but other than Belford Lawson, are any other minorities on that list of 11 thus far employed? Other than Belford Lawson in the 11 that you have employed thus far, are there any other minorities? Mr. Devine. Are you talking about black minorities or 15% Republican minoritg® Mr. Sprague. Are you just asking about attorneys, Mr. Stokes? Mr. Stokes. I am concerned with attorneys and investi- gators, the list of 11. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Lawson is the only black member of those presently employed. However, that is not to say he qe 454
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 71 is going to be the only black member, and we are interviewing others, and I have been in touch with Mr. Fauntroy about recruiting black members. d Mr. Stokes. In the case of Belford Lawson, whom I happen to know and I know he is a very busy lawyer, probably one of the top counsel in the country + Is this the son? Mr. Sprague. Yes; this is the son, Mr. Stokes. Mr. Stokes. He is being employed full time then. Mr. Sprague. Oh, yes. Mr. Stokes. I couldn't see Belford Lawson being employed for $20,000. Mr. Sprague. Full time, as will be the requirements for each member. Mr. Stokes. Let me ask you this. In terms of the selection of those who are going to act in the capacity of acting chief counsel or deputy chief counsel, in both the | inves 7198 Khe ws, King and Kennedy dmoéd@dentm, were any blacks considered in terms of those appointments? Mr. Sprague. Yes, they were. Mr. Stokes. Can you give me some idea about how many? Mr. Sprague. I would say approximately four for those positions. I am not talking about other positions where they are under consideration. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons I have held up the filling of the position of Docld:322764096 Page 55
10 "1 12 @ is 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Y 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 72 deputy chief counsel of the Legal Pivision right now is I am trying really to get a black attorney for that position. q) ye. Stokes. So that I understand, you are not saying you have any difficulty or trouble finding qualified legal talent in the black community for these positions. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Stokes, I have been having some problem. I have as a matter of fact contacted numbers of people and urged them to submit, and I have specifically stated black attorneys with criminal experience to me. Now I would be glad to sit down with you and discuss some of the people that were considered here, and really the reason why they were not put in the position of deputy chief, and I feel pretty confident that in discussing that, that you will concur. | There is in my opinion, and I think I have made it quite clear as a matter of fact in my discussions, certainly again I think with Mr. Fauntroy, I want to see the staffing here equally balanced. I would not, for example, want to see the King probe a black investigative probe and the Kennedy, white. I want to get people of all races. I want to get it on a combined basis. | Mr. Stokes. Neither would I like to see that, but I would like to see a concerted effort, of course, in balancing ‘the staff to see that we do get and provide an opportunity for some of the talent that I do know exists, and I would be age 56
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 @ 22 23 25 DoclId: 322764096 73 very happy to work with you on this, in terms of your ovaila Ale la wye rs, finding saumisbabdeligy and I will be glad to discuss the matter with you outside of this hearing. FD mr. Spraque. May I make one further response, as a matter of fact along that same line. Some of the people _in the chief deputy spot, as you noted from New York, they have at my request obtained the names of some experienced black attorneys and investigators. My problem there is not black at all. I really would like to get a more broad base. I do not want to have everybody from one locality of the country. I would like to have the staff really represent a broad national base. Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Downing. Thank you. | The hour of 12:30 has arrived, so we will recess until 2 if that is convenient. These booklets that you have in front of you are fairly sensitive as they contain not only the mode of questioning and line of questioning of certain witnesses, but it also contains the names of the witnesses which we propose to investigate, and for that. reason I believe that when you leave today they ought to be turned back to the committee. If you want to see them in the meantime, — I think it is perfectly proper for you to go into the committee “xoom to see them but to let this material out to the press might hinder the investigation. If you will bear with me, age 7
10 "1 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 Docld: 322764096 74 leave it here and somebody will be in the room, Mr. Feeney, you will see to that. The room is going to be electronically swept while we are at lunch again, and we will come back and resume the questioning of Mr. Sprague and go forward with the rest of the agenda. gf The press is going to come in and ask me questions. Is it all right if I say that the number of 170 was mentioned, and that we spent all this time explaining it? yr. McKinney. I suggest that Mr. Sprague explain some -of the technical reasons for the depth of investigation. Chairman Downing. The committee will recess until 2 o'clock. fwnereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., this same day.] qe 5a
-—_ 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 eo # £4» 25 75 AFTERNOON SESSION | [ . (2rtS=paels chairman Downing. The committee will come to order. = = = Are there any people in the room that have not been identified to the reporter as to their name and staff position? | | The committee will come to order. At the time of the recess Mr. Stokes had finished his questioning of Mr. Sprague. I now recognize Mr. Thone. Mr. tThone. No questions. Chairman Downing. Mr. Fauntroy? Mr. Fauntroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sprague, I simply have one question to which I would like for you to react. You are aware of the fact that a great deal of suspicion has been directed at the staff in many investigations relating to the Congress, and you are aware also probably of some of the allegations that would go to the staffing of the Warren Commission, in terms of information leads that were not followed, in terms of questions that were not asked that certainly it would appear should be asked, and in some instances allegations that materials and evidence that was made available was not in fact noted. As we prepare ourselves to do the thorough investigation that you have indicated that we must do, I am concerned also DoctId: 322764096 PRge 59
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 a) 24 25 76 about staff, and for that reason I was certainly supportive of the agreement that staff should be hired by you, since you were going to be responsible for the investigation. Already, however, I have received a number of questions about at least one staff person, Mr. Robert Ozer, on the basis of his conduct as federal prosecutor in the State of Michigan, relating to a Supreme Court judge, where according to newspaper accounts that have been made available to me, he is accused of having engaged in investigation by terrorism, and been responsible for something that you call guilty by announcement, so much so that both the Nation Magazine have taken note of his conduct, and numerous newspapers in Michigan have taken note of it. negatively, and I believe or you may correct me if I am not right “3 that at the suggestion of the Michigan Bar Association, at the instigation of the Michigan Bar Associaton, he was removed from the position of investigator. Gg] I raise that question for two purposes. One is that we certainly want to be careful that we not subject ourselves as an investigative committee to unwarranted criticism for being overzealous, and employing tactics that may not stand up to the eye of scrutiny and fair play, but also I raise the question because I would wonder what you would think of having to assist you in the hiring of a large staff that we think is necessary, a personnel committee of DoclId: 322764096 Page 60
10 Vi 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 77 this committee, to assure that not only are your concerns that you get the very best, and we want that, but also our concern that we not be exposed unduly to both political pressures and to possible embarrassment up the line. Uf yr. Spraque. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fauntroy, with regard to the two parts really to that question, I took this position on being assured that the determination as to who to hire would be made by me, for the reason that in my view .investigation should not be tinged with selection on a political basis, in the sense as an investigator I am responsible for the staff and the team work. It of course would be impossible to do a thorough and proper investigative job with people that have been put on who I do not approve. I say that preliminarily. I think that it has come across as a high watermark at the inception of this committee that the committee has been willing to really turn over its own power for hiring personnel, to keep it on that kind of a level, and 1 think a mistake would be made to go back from that. I am certainly concerned, and I think that the question raised that people ought not to be on the staff, however, that in any way could reflect upon not only the integrity of the staff but really the committee, the integrity of each person on the committee, is a point that I would not quarrel with, and would have not the slightest objection let's say when there is somebody DoctId: 322764096 PRge 61
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 25 78 that I think measures the test for putting on the staff, if there is let's say a personnel committee then to submit that name for let's say the personnel's committee determination "Yes, we concur" as opposed to it being initiated the other way around, which I think would be wrong. I would have no. objection along that line, and I think that still meets the same high level of selection, so that that is my response to that. ff with regard to Mr. Ozer in particular, let me say that I am aware and was aware, upon employing him, of the | controversy that has occurred as a result of his prosecution of a justice of the Supreme Court in Michigan, and in looking into it, I ascertained certain facts. Mr. Ozer has been a prosecutor in the Department of Justice for a number of years, heading strike forces in Philadelphia and Buffalo, before being out in the Michigan area. From the knowledge that I have of him, he has always been, and I think it goes without question, an excellent investigator. From some observations of my own, this is before coming here, I had knowledge of his prosecuting some cases, and in my own view he is not quite the trial lawyer that I would like to see. That is not a reflection on him. He is a good investigator but he ought to let other people try his cases. That is all I mean as to that. DoclId: 322764096 Page 62
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DoclId: 322764096 86 avoid it. The background check is not for the purpose of that agency then determining for us whether we will accept or reject that employee. It is information. I am all for letting the FBI get all of the information that they can, turning it over to us, for us to have it for evaluating whether we want that person, not asking them to do it. It doesn't achieve anything because they can do anything. Why not avail ourselves of that. It doesn't bother me. I do not see that that is going to interfere in the least, and ‘your concept that maybe they have developed something in a background check that they are not going to turn over, — and to use it at some time, if that was to be, that can be done anyway in any event, so it seems to me that if that is the reason for avoiding having the FBI do a background check, it really doesn't hold water. HY I guess I also have this feeling in my mind with regard to it, and the reason that I do not say let another agency do it. I said earlier the goal is to do a thorough, definitive job. I do not want to be in a position, and I suggest the committee ought not to want to be, that an avenue of attack can subsequently occur. I don't even want to waste the time of this committee or the staff with a public debate how come this committee and its staff did not allow ’ its personnel to be subject to an FBI check. It is a waste of energy to get into, and with a broad body of the public age FO