EXECUTIVE SESSION-BUSINESS MEETING
Originator: HSCA
Document date: 11/15/1976
Document type: PAPER-TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

JFK Assassination System

Identification Form

Agency Information

Date: • 10/7/201

AGENCY: HSCA

RECORD NUMBER: 180-10111-10191

RECORD SERIES: NUMBERED FILES

AGENCY FILE NUMBER: 014624

Document Information

, ORIGINATOR: HSCA

FROM:

TO :

TITLE : EXECUTIVE SESSION-BUSINESS MEETING

DATE: 11/15/1976

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 LAST REVIEW: 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 MLK materials withdrawn pp. 31-35.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.

v9.1

DocId: 32264096

Page 1

---

## Page 2

Depticate

Comestines

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE

on

SHECH COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS

Istato

BUSINESS NOTTING

Monday, November 15, 1976

Naaktration, Da di

Official Reporters to Committees

18-76108-1

\DocId: 32264096 Page 2

---

## Page 3

BOB CANTOR

ty

5212

CAYS

2

3

4

5

IZLE

CAPS

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Committee

BUSINESS MEETING

-

(Monday, November 15, 1976

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Us, House of Representatives, LITI

Select Committee en Assassinations, un

Washington. D. C.

I The committee proceeded into executive session at 10:35

a.n., in foom 2310, Rayburn House Office Building, the

Hongeriate Thomas N. Downing (chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Downing, (presiding), Devine,

Gonzalez, McKinney, Preyer, Thone, Stokes, Fauntroy, Burke,

Dodd, Ford, and Anderson.

Also present: Richard A. Sprague, chief founsel and

pirector; Kenneth Brooten, Counsel; Donovan I. Gay, Chief

Researcher; Richard Feeney, Billle Gay Larson,.

Rebecca Martin,

„Special Assistant;

dommittee ftaff:/Gus Edwardsy Christine Groden, Robert Groden,

Mosultants; Gail Beagle, Bruce Gwinn, Percy Harvey, Joe

McGee, Vicki Peckham Administrative Assistants; Peter D.

islative

Lennon, Robert H. Maloney, Henry Spring, Regat Assistants;

Quentin I. Burgess, §taff Assistant Vand William Briggs,

staff Membex.

DocId: 32264096

Hage 3

---

## Page 4

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

=

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

• 22

23

24

25

2

"chairman Downing. For the purposes of the record, I

would like each person in the room to identify themselves

with their title.

Mr. Burgess.

Quentin Burgess.

I am with Mrs. Burke's

office.

Mr. Maloney. Robert Maloney.

Congressman Stokes'

office.

Ms. Beagle. Gail Beagle, Congressman Gonzalez's office.

Mrs,

Na Martin. Rebecca Martin, with the committee staff.

Mr. Gay. Donovan L. Gay, committee staff.

Mr. Sprague. Richard A. Sprague, chief counsel.

Mr. Feeney. Richard Feeney, committee staff.

Ms. Peckham. Vicki Peckham, Mr. Thone's office.

Ms. Larson. Billie Gay Larson, committee staff.

Mr. Lennon. Peter Lennon, Mr. Dodd's staff.

Mr. McGee. Joe McGee, Mr. Mckinney' staff.

Mr. Spring. Henry Spring, Mr. Mckinney's office.

Ms. Groden. Christine Groden, consultant.

Mr. Groden. Robert Groden, consultant.

Mr. Briggs. William Briggs, Congressman Fauntroy's staff.

Chairman Downing. The

• first item on the executive

session will be a presentation by Mr. Sprague.

Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman and members of the select

Committee:

I would like to take up what has been done up to this

DocId: 32261096 Page 4

---

## Page 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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 on a

day-by-day basis.

I 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 i

Chairman Downing. Let me interrupt, Mr. Sprague.

John Anderson has been appointed to fill in the vacancy

IN THE POSITION

formerly occupied by Congress, falcott, 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.)

Chairman Downing. The committee will again come to

order:

I have a letter here from MI. John J. Rhodes, minority

leader, addressed to the Speaker: "As a result of the

DocId: 32264096

Flage 5

---

## Page 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DocId: 32264096

resignation of the Honesebte Burt I. Talcott for the

Select Committee on Assassinations, I now make the appointment

of the Honorable John B. Anderson."

I Mr. 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 2s

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 executive franch

of government, participated in those previous investigations,

Plige 6

---

## Page 7

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

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.

I 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 in each 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

DocId: 32264096 Ple 7

---

## Page 8

6

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to me that what has to be for this investigation to be

thorough, at least attempt to be definitive, is an independent

investigative staff of the Congress, not beholden to any

other agency of government. Again that is one of the

assumptions that I have made in analyzing what has to be

done, and making a determination to recommend to you as

to what kind of staff is necessary for this investigation

I am not stating whether or not the Congress was aware as

to what really is involved in the investigation of two

not something that you do with

homicides, two deaths. It

• is

three investigators and two file clerks.

I upon taking this assignment, I have instituted a number

of measures, and have taken certain actions up to this

point, one of which was to be in touch with agencies of

the xecutive franch of government, the CIA, the Department

of Justice, who spoke in behalf of that department and the

FBI, to initiate requests for access to material in their

possession. Suffice to say that the indications up to this

point have been that of full cooperation, and I might say.

that in speaking to the representative from the CIA, he

advised me that just at the initiation of our investigation,

the CIA has some 64 cartons of documents for examination

and review, which points out to some extent really the

size of the task that is being undertaken here, because

ve are dealing there with just one branch de the Executive

DocId: 32264096 Plue 8

---

## Page 9

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

‹10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

pranch of government in terms of a mass of materials.

I In order to investigate, it seems to me, that there

must be a review made as to what has been done up until now.

I do not see how, in looking and deciding the directions

to go, there can be any intelligent approach without finding

ZING

out what has been done, analyst

2 it, determination in

Ju areas Mo needs to be done, be unusing de riation

IN ORDERTO

Mion be able to make a determination what else has

to be done.

Each of you has before you a book in which we have

laid out an approach in each of these two cases. The

question I think was raised as to why should we proceed on

both matters, the two assassinations at the same time?

With regard to that question, let me respond as follows:

I think it important that we proceed simultaneously, for

the reason that, as I look at it, as a homicide investigator-

prosecutor, we are being called to the scene of two homicides

really 13 years later and 8 years later. I do not think

it is in the interests of this Congress, if it means what

it said, investigating the matters thoroughly, that the

Congress ought to be part of any further delay.

For example, it has come to my attention that since

at least the resolution on which this committee is presently

here as passed by the Congress, that authorities in Tennessee

have destroyed some documents relating to the surveillance

DocId: 32264096 Plige 9

---

## Page 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

on DI. King. If that be so, and I have sent an investigative

team down to Memphis, it emphasizes the fact that any delay

on

either one of these investigations is not really in the

interests of the Congress

to do a thorough job.

I There is another reason. As again an investigator

and homicide prosecutor, to me one of the essentials in a

thorough investigation is not to have a time limitation.

This is a different species of animal than the Congress

wanting to have say the unemployment statistics in Michigan

a week from Thursday and you can get it. You cannot in this

area say wrap up that matter by dfx months from today, Once

you put a limitation, a time barrier, that is destructive of

the investigative team, because what happens, and I speak

from experience here, the areas of inquiry, the people

who are being subject to the investigation, (use then that

ime limitation as a point where they know that if they get

a delay, if they get lost for a while, if they tie you up in

court for a while, they can really end up preventing the

conclusion of the investigation. I think it would be a

mistake, and again my main assumption is that what is

intended here is to do a thorough job, professional job,

definitive as can be, to start imposing some barrier of

timed I we were to proceed, for example, in the King

assassination first, there would be a great push to get that

wrapped up, so we could get on Kennedy, end vice vasca

If

DocId: 32261096 Plige 10

---

## Page 11

2

3

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

we were to be proceeding on Kennedy, there would nonetheless

be a push to get that wrapped up, to be proceeding on King

and I think that that kind of pressure ought not to exist,

that again in our main thesis of doing it thoroughly, we

ought to be willing to do them both.

4 Now what do I mean when I say "thoroughly"? I am aware

of Perry Mason on TV, and the appearance that you start

at X"point d'and you go to"foint Zand it is a nice path.

Maybe I am not that good an investigator. I have never been

able to do that.

I think a great number of questions have arisen in

each case, which I will get into in a moment, which

unfortunately make the public question the integrity of

government, the integrity of officials. Questions have been

raised on each of these cases going into the thoroughness.

of the investigation. For my part, as your chief counsel

and director, I feel that it is necessary in the investigation.

to be willing to be patient and thorough. I never can tell

whether a street, an avenue of an investigation is a dead

end, whether it is in fact not relevant until I go down

that street.

What I think is required when we taik about a thorough

investigation is a willingness to take up the areas of

tangential materiality, to be willing to ge

•down those

roads, make a determination when we get down thered yes,

DocId:32261096 Paye 11

---

## Page 12

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

what we found out in no way aids, in no way is really

ultimately relevant to what we are seeking, but if we

are unwilling to be that thorough, then again I say there is

no reason to be engaging in this investigation.

"To do it in a manner where we do not seek and intend to

be that definitive and thoroggh from my own feeling means

really don't do it in the first place. I am aware that

there are people in the Congress who perhaps felt that, no,

these investigations ought not to be pursued, for various

reasons, but my point is the Congress has decided to do it,

and I think that there is literally a vested interest in

each member of Congress, whether he was for it or not in

the first instance, that if it is to be done, it must be

done thoroughly. To do it in a manner that is going to

raise as many questions as have been raised up to now is

self-defeating, and I would urge the members of this

committee not to participate, just for your own sake and

for the sake of the Congress, in an investigation that is

just going through an appearance for the sake of appearance,

without the desire to do it thoroughly.

What do I mean when I say "thoroughly"? Let me bring

to your attention a number of matters. In the brief period

of time that I have been working on this matter, not only

going through concepts of what kind of an organization is

needed to do a thorough investigation, reviewing applications,

DocId: 32264096 Phie 12

---

## Page 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11.÷

and not getting them all reviewed yet, trying to interview

people, trying to take up questions with regard to the

commitment of the Congress in getting space, I have sought

to get some investigative effort underway. I did not see

why, just because I happened to be sitting doing some house-

keeping chores

something could not be done in the meantime.

9) Let me present to this committee some things, and I

want to emphasize this is just the first blush of an investi-

gation that we have ascertained. I will utilize at this

It the De. King assassination, not that I think of one

havd priority over another. Both have to be pursued, but

let me bring to this committee's attention what we ascertained

just by sending and obtaining the guilty plea of James Earl

Ray in the assassination of DI. King. This is a document

of only 140-tg

160 pages. You will find in the book that

you have in front of you a whole area of threshold inquiries

in just the DI. King assassination.

Let me point out that those threshold inquiries only

came about from an analysis of one document, the guilty plea.

We have not even yet availed ourselves, obviously we have

not had the time, of other areas of the investigation that

have existed before or interviewing seabi any witnesses.

When James Earl Ray had been arrested and was in

Tennessee to be prosecuted for assassinating Dr. King, an

approach was made in behalf of Mr. Ray to the Tennessee

DocId: 32264096 Plue 13

---

## Page 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

=

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

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.

9 Now MI. 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, to a

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

DocId: 32261096 Plige 14

---

## Page 15

13

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

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?

I 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 him a

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, secondly, 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 DI. 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."

DocId: 32264096

Plige 15

---

## Page 16

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22

23

24

25

I 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 MI. 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 of 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 "MI. Ray, what are you talking

DocId: 32264096 Page 16

---

## Page 17

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

about? Tell us what you know."

I 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

DocId: 32264096

Plise 17

---

## Page 18

1

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

AT FIWS 22

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 Gait, 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; uha has a remarkable 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.

• 9 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.

DocId: 32264096 PAse 18

---

## Page 19

Tartaro

• Cantor

11:10

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

=

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

I And there are lots of details in terms of what he does

when he is back in the States, such as, for example, out fin

the west Coast, thee 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 soweone of Ray's background i has

nothing sophisticated in his background i would end up

going to a plastic surgeon who is operating on the level of

dealing with the movie stars and having the cash to pay.

We find that just thige 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 Galti. 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.

In any event, what I am pointing out is really threshold,

DocId: 32261096 Paye 19

---

## Page 20

RG: 233

ENTRY:

BOX:

TAB #:

COPIES/ PRS. /CLASS.

11110191

file по.

014624

pp. 31-35

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:

THDRAWAL

• Security-Classified Information

[x. Otherwise Restricted Information

MLK.

Authority

08/22/93

Date

Withdrawn by NSCA

John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-526)

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

NA FORM 1A0DO (1-A6)

DocId: 322640914

---

## Page 21

36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

even begin to guess.

I We have the additional problem if and I do not 1o0k

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 whathas been done, and we have it in our

report here.

In the Warren

Conmission investigation they had a

staff, direct staff of their own, of 83 people. They had,

in addition f and it is the "in addition" that counts if 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 professionals

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.

DocId: 32264096 Plye 21

---

## Page 22

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22

23

24

25

37

4 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 Conmission and we have

DocId: 32261096 Rage 22

---

## Page 23

38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

I 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,

DocId: 32261096 Page 23

---

## Page 24

39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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 thige 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.

I Now when we are talking about what is necessary in an

Investigation, I get back, you do not just compare it: What

does the f I am sorry I am not that familiar with congressional

committees # 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.

DocId: 32264096

Hage 24

---

## Page 25

40

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

• 19

20

22

23

24

25

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.

I Let me give 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

I and we have a chart on the last page of the booklet that

is before you

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

DocId: 32264096

Mage 25

---

## Page 26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

committee and relate what you have to say." That is not the

way, in my opinion, you investigate. To investigate means

field interviews, it means being able to analyze what this

witness is saying, to be able to then check the areas of

corroboration or the areas to disprove what he is saying.

" It is only when that information has been tested that

there is then, in that instance, reason to then bring him

and have him under oath, let's say, before a committee or a

subcommittee.

There is another way in which the committee aids in the

investigation. Obviously, when we talk to people they do not

have to talk to us; they can tell us to go jump in the lake.

It is important to be able to then say, "Well, you do not want

to talk to us, fine, we are subpenaing you before a subcon-

mittee of the Congress of the United States, and that is where

you are going to testify."

So it is a device to be able to use in the investigative

process; hopefully along the line as information is developed

to be able, perhaps, to also use the terms "public hear ings""

if what is developed is developable and does not thwart the

continuing investigation and is in the area that ought to

be imparted publicly.

But you need to have, to do an investigation, the ability

to put people on a polygraph if they would agree to do it.

I do not happen to think the polygraph is gospel. I would

DocId: 32264096 Page 26

---

## Page 27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

9) 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 if not that she was saying it at first

blush, it was finding out really what she was withholding h

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 Jick Yablonski. We were able to

ascertain that she in turn recruited then her husband. We

were able to ascertain locations that the conspirators met.

DocId: 32264096 | Page 27

---

## Page 28

43

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

25

We were able even to

ascertain the dates, the motels, not

on the basis of what she was volunteering, but pinpointing it

in questions.

4) 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 f and I will use,

for example, just the King plea of guilty f that any document

that we obtain, we 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

DocId: 32261096 Plive 28

---

## Page 29

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

4 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-

DocId: 32264096

lpage 29

---

## Page 30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

referenced so that they show the later documents that come in.

I 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 bespeaka itself without

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 problem.

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 f it will

not do any good if it came in today and it geft 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,

DocId: 32264096 Fage 30.

---

## Page 31

46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ARE

at least in my own view, there is 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 Congresa

to be investigating here at all, particularly in the case of

DI. King.

I We need a legal staff to aid # you know, when we need

subpfenas issued, for example, I do not want the investigative

staff, some investigator there preparing a subpfena 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 subpoena 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.

DocId: 32264096 Page 31

---

## Page 32

47

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4) 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, 1f, as I just happened to m

in a matter I will raise with you shortly i 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

or, when we get reports back, all of a sudden they are

appearing in the Washington

Post or any other news media.

They have to be on the basis of our own security.

In addition, we obviously are going to be going into

areas with branches of the Ixecutive franch of government

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

to grant access, stating that there may be some individual

situations which they would like f they do not want to say

that they refuse to turn those matters over, but they would

rather take them up on a case-by-case basis, whether they

feel that the disclosure of the identity or the disclosure

of the means of securing the information may present a danger

in terms of an ongoing matter.

DocId: 32264096| Page 32

---

## Page 33

48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19.

20

21

22

23

24

25

"well, suffice it to say, I have no desire just to make

a big point, and 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; on a 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 comnittee, 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

DocId: 32264096 Page 33

---

## Page 34

49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19-

20

21

the United States.

I 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 Executive Branch 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 y as a

matter of fact, I really do believe as you listen to me the

question really ought to be in your mind: Can you do this kind

of a job with even 170?

22

23

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 y 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

24

25

raised earlier: Why have two subcommittees? I hope I have

at least made my presentation in any manner of some effectiveness,

DocId: 32261096 Page 34

---

## Page 35

50

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19.

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

| Now, what I also urge, and I have it in our report, I

think it important, however, that the entire committee be

kept advised. I do not think

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 f 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

DocId: 32264096 Page 35

---

## Page 36

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19°

20

21

22

23

51

cannot be recruiting the kind of staff to be doing this job.

What I 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.

I The reason in my mind

# 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 that 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.

24

25

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

DocId: 32264096 | Page 36

---

## Page 37

1

2

4

5

6

7

9

10

=

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

I You 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 conmittee 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.

assure you, you are not dealing with someone who has

DocId: 32264094

Page 37

---

## Page 38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19.

20

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 if something

that I had not even known, for example, in the past it

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 of looks like Oswald. And this if and I am

not saying anything that is new if this was brought to the

attention of the Warren Connission. The Warren Commission

determined that that, in fact, was not Oswald.

obviously, 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.

22

23

24

25

As a result of looking at some of the film that you

are about to see, it turns out that other film was taken as

DocId: 32264096 Page 38

---

## Page 39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

• 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

were

Some other f1lmn, effint minutes later, I am told fi

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 d 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

DocId: 32264096 Page 39

---

## Page 40

55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19•

20

21

23

24

25

Lovelady hates to shave, she always has to be on him to

shave, and so forth. And Lovelady said, H'you know, you are the

first people that have ever asked me was I shaven

Jon the

day of the assassination. Nobody ever asked me.

And when I was

shown that original picture where I said the look-alike of

Oswald was me, nobody asked me, really, what jacket or what

shirt I wore that day or anything about my appearance. "

I Now, do not misunderstand, I happen to be a big believer

that to be thorough and detailed

If 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

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 if he could still be the same person

and the beard may yet be in that picture, although it does

not appear to be at the initial thrust of it. But what I

am saying to you is, this is the kind of detail that is

involved in doing a thorough investigation. If it is going to

be done in a way that reflects credit, it has to be done

thoroughly.

To do it in a way with inadequate staff, not a willingness

DocId: 32264096| Page 40

---

## Page 41

56

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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 Comnission has, for my money it means

then do not do it. But if you are going to do it, do it

thoroughly.

Iwe 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.

DocId: 32261096

Rage 41

---

## Page 42

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

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 i this is a

skeletal kind of recruiting I am going into fy 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 of 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

DocId: 32264096

Hage 42

---

## Page 43

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

. 14

15

16

17

18

19-

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

I 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 held House

(Ns2>

Annex Tright now, really just three rooms, but we are

making arrangements to get additional temporary space right

next to it, which I think will be adequate for the remainder

DocId: 32264096

Page 13

---

## Page 44

59

1

•

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

of this year with what is do-able with the limitations of

budget for this year..

" 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 professional need for staff.

DocId: 32264096

Mage 44

---

## Page 45

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19.

20

21

22

23

24

25

60

That is the reason, and that is the area that I have spoken

about myself.

I Chairman Downing. Mr. Preyer?

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,

probably the next Speaker of the House and the present

Speaker, really for the purpose of laying out, not in the

depth that I just did here, but the concepts and the kind of

DocId: 32261096 | Page 45

---

## Page 46

61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

staff. that is required, because in my view a big mistake

would be made in just thinking that we just drift along.

" 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.

I think it is important that on a nonpolitical basis,

which is really what this investigation is f you cannot

urge that strong enough M 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. M

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

DocId: 32264096 |Page 46

---

## Page 47

62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

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 til, thage weeks, a month, fox the reogant-

zation of the new Congress.

I 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 HR. 1, HJR. 2 perhaps,

HIR. 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:

Inmediate action on the request by the committee for money i

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

• DocId: 32264096 Page 47

---

## Page 48

63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

different than the usual continuous committee. It is to

do both jobs thoroughly.

I| I 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 I

say a fonth, 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?

Mx. McKinney. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will excuse my

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

DocId: 32261096 Hage 48

---

## Page 49

64

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19.

20

22

23

24

25

they are going to be looked at as people who did a thorough,

one-time definitive job.

Q 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

DocId: 32264096 Page 49

---

## Page 50

65

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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 subcomittee, with me, is going to have

the responsibility of getting together and giving that

information.

I 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 would request, at least, is that la starting out,

at least you attempt it initially the way in which I suggest,

where we have that burden and keep each subcommittee fully

DocId: 32264096

Page 50

---

## Page 51

66.67

Cantor

fls

12:20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

advised on a weekly basis. If that does not seem to do it,

maybe then we would have to make some change, but I would

urge that we at least attempt it that way.

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DocId: 32264096

Hage 51

---

## Page 52

BOB CANTOR

FLWS AT

1.2 noon

68

1

2

3

5

6

7

9

10

=

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I Chairman Downing. I would advise the members

we are trying to close up by 12:30. I don't want to

cut it short. We can come back to this. If we could wrap

it up in 10 minutes, it would be good.

Mx. Stokes?

Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I may have several questions.

Chairman Downing. Take the time.

Mr. Stokes. Thank you very much.

Mr. Sprague, let me join with my colleagues in commending

you for the presentation you have made. I would concur in

the analysis you have made with reference to the absolute need

for professionalism, not only by the staff but by this conmittee.

Consequently I would be one who would certainly support

whatever you need, in order to bring this investigation,

this massive type of investigation, the type of staff that

you need. This makes me really wonder why you want to make

this type of presentation in executive committee rather

than in open committee.

It would seem to me that such a presentation would have

had value to the public at large, and would perhaps commence

helping to mold the opinion of the public at large as to

the massiveness of the job, the need or necessity for

professionalism?, the kind of staffing that would be required.

I would like #

• your comments on that.

DocId: 32264096

Playe 52

---

## Page 53

3

4

5

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

69

Mr. 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

DocId: 32264096 Ple 53

---

## Page 54

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

70

been better to have it made public but that is something that

is up for question now.

I Go ahead.

Mr.

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, and

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

ies?

Republican minority

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

DocId: 32261096 Page 51

---

## Page 55

71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

=

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

9 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 i

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.

MI. 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

investigations,

King and Kennedy insidenta

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?

MI. 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

DocId: 32264096

Phiye 55

---

## Page 56

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

72

deputy chief counsel of the Legal pivision right now is

I am trying really to get a black attorney for that position.

9 Aur.

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

egually 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

DocId: 32264096 Rage 56

---

## Page 57

73

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

very happy to work with you on this, in terms of your

available lawyers,

finding

dogsd and I will be glad to discuss the matter

with you outside of this hearing.

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

room to see them but to let this material out to the press

might hinder the investigation. If you will bear with me,

DocId: 32264096 Hate 57

---

## Page 58

1

2

3

4

5

6

9

10

12

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.

I 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?

Mr. 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.

Whereupon, at 12:30 poll., the committee was recessed,

to reconvene at 2 p.m., this same day.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DocId: 32264096

Have 58

---

## Page 59

75

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

AFTERNOON SESSION

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

+2.75-p-1=72

I 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. Thone. No questions.

Chairman Downing. Mr. Fauntroy?

MI. Fauntroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MI. 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

DocId: 32264096

Pilge 59

---

## Page 60

1

.2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

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 7 you may correct me if I am not right i

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.

9| 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

DocId: 32264096

Plige 60

---

## Page 61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

77

this comnittee, 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.

I Mr - 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 I 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

DocId: 32264096

Page 61

---

## Page 62

78

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

I 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.

DocId: 32264096 Playe 62

---

## Page 63

1

2

3

4

5

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DocId: 32264096

79

I However, in the situation in Michigan, he uncovered

evidence against a justice in the Supreme Court in Michigan,

for which he then tried that justice. The justice was

acquitted, but convicted of perjury charges arising from

testimony before the investigating grand jury. I had been

advised that Mr. Ozer had made statements to the news

media, particularly Newsweek Magazine, which subjected him

to admonition from the Department of Justice for having

spoken to that magazine. I had also been advised that there

had been allegations made that his use of the investigating

grand jury had been in a heavy-handed fashion.

I guess I must insert here, having been a prosecutor,

that I am very used to the concept that when you proceed

against certain individuals who were placed in a fairly

strong position with a political organization.. counter-

charges against the prosecutor many times are made. As

a matter of fact I think I even do a disservice there. Many

times part of really what occurs in prosecution, it need not

be someone in a high level in a political organization, the

defense becomes a counterattack against the prosecutor, so

that for allegations to occur is not something that moves

me one way or the other.

What I did do, I sought information from the Department

of Justice today, and they have submitted a letter, which I

have, which I would be glad to make available, that while

the Department of Justice thought that Mr. Ozer ought not to

Plise 63

---

## Page 64

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

80

have made his statement to the news media, they did investigate

his use of the grand jury, and found that there was no

improper use or nothing high-handed or improper in that.

" In addition, I have here a letter, which is from

Judge Ralph Guy, Jr., the District Judge of the United States

District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, which

I would be glad to just make a part of the record, unless

you would like to have it read.

Mr. Guy was the upilsd

a Stantos attorney at the very

time that MI. Ozer was heading a strike force in Michigan,

giving rise to the allegations. In this letter Judge Guy

relates fully the thoroughness, the total integrity of the

process by which Mr. Ozer did handle that very matter which

Mr. Guy, then the Utiled

Sgates attorney, was fully knowledgeable

of, and he endorses him and backs him up completely. I say

that really in response to the question that you have raised.

I might say that in addition, and again I cannot say this

too strongly, to do a thorough job here, the integrity of

the personnel and the way in which they are viewed is

all important, and I have spoken to Mr. Ozes, because I have

been aware, even from Judge Guy's letter, that Mr. Ozer

sometimes is not the most diplomatic individual in going

on his investigations, and at this point he is representing

the Congress of the United States, and that is really a

high tone of what one must do.

DocId: 32261096 Piye 61

---

## Page 65

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1.9

20

21

22

23

24

25

81

I Suffice to say that from my conversations with him,

and looking into these matters, I was and am satisfied as to

his integrity and ability, and his intent in not doing

anything that would be a disservice to the staff or this

committee.

With regard to the statement that he made to the news

media, what he said was a statement after the defense counsel

had made a statement. The defense counsel, after the

conviction of the Michigan justice, made the statement to

the news media that well, the justice was acquitted of the

substantive charges, and it was a technicality, that he was

convicted in his perjury charge.

Mr. Ozer's response, which he then gave, which he

perhaps ought not to have done, but it was in response to

that that Mr. Ozer said "Well, it is not an acquittal. A

justice of the Supreme Court has been convicted of a

perjury case," and that is part of what led to that news

comment.

I feel confident of Mr. Ozer's integrity and ability.

Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied with Mr.

Sprague's answer. I did not intend to get into a specific

justification of this particular employee, but to make the

point that perhaps a happy medium between our desire each to

have someone on staff and on the other hand not having any

role in at least looking at staff, that your formulation of

DocId: 32264096

Pare 65

---

## Page 66

1

z

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

82

the proposal is acceptable to me, that is that we have a

small committee to which you could refer, because there

might be things that the members of the Congress would see

and perceive immediately that might not occur to you.

9 Chairman Downing. Thank you, Mr. Fauntroy-

Mr. Anderson?

MI. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sprague, as you have noted this committee will

launch an investigation or a probe which is unprecedented

in the history of the Congress, and being without any

precedents therefore to guide us, it is difficult to make an

assessment and evaluation of the staffing requirements, as

indicated in the proposed table of organization that is

before me.

I am wondering with respect to the Kennedy and the

King task force, where apparently about 35 percent of the

personnel would be lawyers and 65 percent investigators,

that seems to be about the ratio, is there in fact some

precedent for that in the manner that the Senate Watergate

Committee was organized or the House Impeachment Committee?

How did you arrive at those ratios? Is there some rationale?

Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Anderson, I do not have

a rationale with regard to another committee. It was just

my own thinking process here of about one lawyer with each

two to three investigators working as a team, and I was

DocId: 32264096 Pige 66

---

## Page 67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

83

trying to figure the number

of teams that I thought would be

necessary. The investigative talent, the lawyer talent that

I am talking about here, is not just legal. They are to

take part in the investigaton as well, and from previous

working with lawyer-investigator teams, I have tried to use

approximately one lawyer with two to three investigators.

Anderson. Very briefly, you have already had a

colloguy with Mr. Stokes on the question of the efforts which

you have made with respect to minority hiring. More

generally I am wondering, and not in a great deal of detail,

that wouldn't be necessary, how do you go about recruiting

personnel for an assignment of this kind? Do they largely

come to you, or do you go to them, and if so, to whom do

you go? Do you have recourse to certain professional

organizations that put you in touch with people?

I would just be interested in a very broad, general

description of the process.

Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, we have had hundreds of

applications sent in to, which we are in the process of

reviewing. What I wanted to do and have done, to some

extent, is the people that I thought would be in the senior

positions, I wanted those to be people that I have gone

out and recruited, who were not just people who had submitted

applications. What I did do here, I have contacted lawyers,

I have contacted judges, I have contacted prosecutors around

DocId: 32264096 Plye 67

---

## Page 68

84

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the country, and asked them, and I put to them, that we are

trying to get a totally dedicated professional staff.

Would they think about it and submit names to me of people

in the upper echelon. What I wanted to do, when I got the

people in the upper echelons, I wanted them to go through

these applications that we now have, and cull from them and

set up interviews then of those people, but in the upper

echelons it was my initiation of inquiries. When I was

given names, I then made other inquiries of people that

had had contact, worked with them, and as a result of that,

then arranged interviews, and from those interviews that

I did personally, I culled out those in the upper echelons.

I Now of those people, I have turned over to them at this

point the applications that have come in, and have asked

them to go over these applications with me, after they

have weeded out those that they think ought to be weeded

out, and our thought is to then arrange for interviews with

those people.

Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Downing. Mrs. Burke?

Mrs. Burke. Thank you.

I also certainly want to commend you, Mr. Sprague, on

your statement to this committee. One question has been

bothering me. You indicated that one of the reasons we had

to have independent investigators was because those traditional

DocId: 32261096

Plive 68

---

## Page 69

85

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

agencies that we would draw investigators from would

possibly be a source of a great deal of the investigation

and review.

4| Do you see any problem very specifically in the FBI

conducting the investigation of the staff, if those staff

members may ultimately have to review the FBI? The thing

that bothers me is the possibility that something might

be in the profile of a potential staff member that would

not be disclosed, but could be disclosed at some future

time if it became necessary to discredit this committee.

Mr. Spraque. To answer your question, yes, that is an

area of concern to me. I have I guess two thoughts in

response. One is that whether the FBI or any other agency

is asked to do a backgrond check, in fact they can do it

whether we ask for our purposes or not, and if in fact they

do it, and obtain any information that they subsequently

want to use for whatever purposes to discredit, they are

free to do it. There is going to be nothing secret about

who is employed on this staff, and there is full reign for

anybody to check their background, so that the problem of

anyone releasing information, that is going to be whether

we utilize them to do a background for us or not.

Secondig, I have considered whether we ought to ask the

Defense Intelligence Agency to do a background check in lieu

of the FBI, but I really thought that there is no reason to

DocId: 32264096

paye 69

---

## Page 70

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

I 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

DocId: 32264096 Bage 70

---

## Page 71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

87

it doesn't mean that much but they are going to think that

that is of some significance. Why avoid it? I see no

reason to do that, and so my feeling is yes, let's have

that check.

Mrs. Burke.

That answers my question. I suppose

one of the reasons some of us were very concerned about

particular members of the staff is the possibility of it

being used in a political context, and I personally am

very concerned that we do have staff people who have been

checked, and who will not leak a lot of things to the

press or to agencies.

As I see it, our credibility is going to depend upon

the level of the staff, and also the security of the staff.

Mr. Sprague. I couldn't agree with you more, and this

gets into the area of staffing. You know people ask how

do you make judgments? Well, it is difficult, and I assure

this committee that I feel very deeply the burden that is

on my shoulders in terms of not letting you down, not letting

really the public down.

I do feel it. I feel this obligation to do a thorough

job, and that includes a staff that isn't going to let any

of us down, and it is looking into their background.

It is evaluating them, sizing them up.

I hope I end up being right in that task.

Mrs. Burke. Just one further question.

DocId: 32264096

lage 71

---

## Page 72

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

88

N Is it still our posture that all staff people that are

hired will be on a temporary basis, or are we now saying

that all staff people from this point forward are permanent

people?

Chairman Downing. There has been no decision, but I

just

assumed that they would be permanent, unless they didn't

prove to be qualified or for some reason had to be dismissed.

Mrs. Burke. I see.

Thank you very much.

Chairman Downing. Mr. Dodd?

Mr. Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sprague, I also join my colleagues in conmending

you for your statement this morning, for your outlining of

how you envision the role of this committee and the problems

you are going to have in tackling these two assassinations,

the investigations of them. I have a couple of questions

that have been raised at least in part, but I wasn't really

satisfied with the response.

One was raised by Mr. Mckinney regarding our individual

staff people that we have as members. I am sure you are aware

that all of us on this committee serve on at least one or

two other committees in addition to our obligations in

our district and so forth. Aside from the financial

problems, what will be the relationship as you see it between

our individual staff people and the committee staff?

DocId: 32264096 Plue 72

---

## Page 73

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

89

4 Mr. Spraque. I think I ought to make clear the role that

I see of the committee itself and the subcommittees, because

it may help really explain the way in which the investigation

proceeds. I do not see the committee or subcommittees just

sitting and being given transcript after transcript to read,

witnesses just being brought forth here to testify. There

is going to be a need here for members of the committee,

two members at a time from each of the subcommittees, to

have to go, for example, to Dallas, to have to go to wherever

for purposes of at times taking testimony, when witnesses

are not otherwise taking testimony.

There is going to be more of an investigative role

by the committee and the members of the committee themselves

in all parts of the country.

That is not going to of necessity mean a committee

having a staff member just read things. The only way that

can operate, for this committee to be successful as I

envision it, you are part of the investigative team really,

and we have to deal with you on a direct one by one basis,

and we can't deal through intermediaries.

Mr. Dodd. There are obviously going to be occasions when

material is coming in where each one of us are going to

want to designate our own staff member to be responsible for

this legislative area, and there are going to be numerous.

occasions that will arise where because of our other

DocId: 32264096 Flage 73

---

## Page 74

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

90

obligations we will want that staff person to be in contact

with the committee, to determine exactly what is going on,

what is coming in and so forth as a conduit.

Sprague. Fine. I would be happy for any individual

that any member of this committee designated, instead of

dealing directly with us, if you want someone else in touch

with us to be the intermediary, fine, as long as it is someone

that you have designated. That is no problem whatsoever.

Chairman Downing. Let me intercede a minute. I think

you have got a good point, but it ought to be limited to one

person. He ought to be known to the committee.

Mr. Dodd. You are anticipating my next question, Mr.

Chairman

Chairman Downing. Go ahead.

MI. Dodd. You then run into the potential problem

that Mrs. Burke has raised, and that is of course by

designating someone on our own staff you have got 12

additional people who may not have had checks done on them.

and you increase or open up the possibility of leaks and

so forth, and I am wondering what you are thinking about in

terms of that relationship, more than just what the daily

tasks will be, and so forth.

Mr. Sprague. I guess my response to that would be

that the information that we would be conveying to the

intermediary would be information that in my opinion, if

DocId: 32264096 Phse 74

---

## Page 75

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

=

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

91

that person had not been himself cleared, it was proper to

let's say clear and something of a more sensitive nature

occurred, I would want to take it up directly with members

of the committee, unless you arranged that that intermediary

was himself cleared.

9) It would have to be an area of a certain balancing

of what it is we are talking about.

Chairman Downing. The gentleman of any member of the

committee for that matter could designate a name now or

whenever he can, and we could have that man or woman cleared.

Mr. McKinney. Mr. Chairman, could I interject?

My whole reason for questioning was that I am being

perfectly selfish. I see one staff member on my staff

spending all his time with me, staying on top of this, and

quite frankly representing Fairfield County, Connection

I can't stretch over 700 letters a week with the staff

that I have now. I guess it is being selfish with money.

I don't know whether Chris was aiming that direction. I

don't know if we should designate one person having one person

take the whole bit but to be honest I don't know how I am

going to take one person out of the staff now.

Mr. Dodd. If the gentleman will yield back I wasn't

talking about the finincial problem. we are talking

potentially of 170 staff people to this committee. We add

in effect 12 more staff people in terms of the request of

DocId: 32264096 Plige 75

---

## Page 76

92

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the House Administration Committee. We then are going to

jeopardize the effectiveness of the committee staff in

terms of from a financial standpoint. I understood that

as being one of your real concerns. You may want to

respond to that.

Mr. Spraque. Could I say this, because there may be

some area of confusion here with regard to what detail do

you want to have information. Let me give as an example

here, if I may use the Yablonski murders, at one point

in that investigation, for example, I had people in Kentucky

interviewing coal miners for a certain purpose. Well, I

did not need to know the specific questions asked of each

coal miner and the specific responses. The summary that I

needed to know, just to let me know, are they proceeding on

this thing, are they asking the questions about certain

funding, and what is developing took faye minutes of my

time to learn things of that nature.

Now if this committee wants to know every little point,

then you are going to be having your time and your

intermediary's time just taken up on detail that I think is

going to be a waste of your time.

Mr. Dodd. So I don't drag this out any longer,

I might ask Mr. Sprague if he might consider this and give

it some thought as to the phairman's suggestion that if we

do designate someone, should it be someone who will be with

DocId: 32261096 Plue 76

---

## Page 77

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

93

this all the way through, what relationship you would want

to have with him through our office and so forth. I think

it would be helpful to us to have some clear idea, because

this is something we are all going to do. I guarantee

we are all going to have a staff person assigned to this.

I would like to know how we deal with that, so that we don't

infringe upon your efforts or the comnittee's efforts, and

at the same time we will be kept fully abreast of what is

going on.

T/MI. Spraque. Fine. I shall do so, though again let

me repeat that hopefully this is going to be a team effort,

and I know for my part the importance of the task. I really

do intend to see that each member here is kept advised and

matters are discussed with them, and frankly to the extent

that it can be done without going through intermediaries,

I prefer to try to do it.

Mr. McKinney. If I could interrupt without killing

this whole subject, I would agree with you. I would want

to be at every meeting, but the mere fact of the matter is

that you are trying to be ranking member of the District

of Columbia Committee. I just picked up the Washington Post

today and saw that one of my agencies is in terrible

trouble. All hell is going to break loose. We need something

really if you understand the way we live, which is tough

to understand because I still don't understand it after sax

DocId: 32264096

Have 77

---

## Page 78

1

3

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

94

years, someone who sits next to us who says " Hey, boss,

remember," becasue we are going to be a team, and we are

going to put our final stamp on your decision, and I know

what we are going to do. We are going to run to greet the

American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, from committee

meeting to committee meeting, we are going to go to your

briefings and we need one guy like Hank: "If you are going

to let me forget one thing on this committee, we are dead,

we need you."

I I think this is what we need, not replacing us so much

as to remind us that we are not meeting with the American

Legion and the Boy Scouts. We are talking about the

assassination of Martin Luther King. We want someone who

keeps track of it. It is a stupid way to live but that is

the way it is. We go to many areas. I don't have to tell

you that.

Chairman Downing. Counsel will take this under consi-

deration.

Mr. Sprague. One last thought on that if I may. When

you say attending these meetings, I really think our obligation

is to keep you advised without even meetings. I think we

have an obligation to keep you advised on an independent

basis. We have to make it our business to get to you, not

with the formality of a neeting. That to me is part of

our function here.

25

DocId: 32261096 Flage 78

---

## Page 79

1

2

3

4

5

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

95

9| Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman, if I may indulge, Mr. Sprague,

one other small question and then I will stop. I think it

is important. It has to do with the media and the press.

I might point out that in the last week or so I called

Mr. Sprague prior to a radio interview, to talk with him

about what I should be talking about and what I shouldn't

be talking about. I got a letter today from someone else,

what has some hidden information allegedly, and I am sure

all of us are going to be inundated with this kind of thing,

and I would like to see some of either unwritten rule,

gentleman's agreement or something, wherein those of us

on the committee don't want to unwittingly be the cause of

this team effort suffering as a result of a media play, not

in an effort to in any way sabotage the committee's work,

but we may be the source of information that shouldn't

be made public.

I think you understand what I am talking about. I am

sure all the members do on the committee, and I wonder if

you might be a little more clear as to how we should handle

that. What should be done, so that we don't sabotage this

effort?

Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, responding to the question,

it is really repeating what I said before, that I would hope

that it would be agreed that it is only the chairman and

the press aide to whom inquiries from the press should come,

DocId: 32261096 Phue 79

---

## Page 80

96

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

who would speak on behalf of the committee and the staff,

or of course anyone that the (hairman would designate to

make any speech.

" As the investigation proceeds, even with the inquiries

by the press out there when we recessed for lunch, I

really would like to see as a policy that there not be any

discussion even by the Chairman or anyone with regard to

what the evidence is as we are proceeding. I think that

that is just the wrong thing to do.

The scope of what I think is desirable at the moment,

which I would hope that the chairman would perhaps concur

in, I think there is a matter of public education involved

right now, having nothing to do with where the investigation

is proceeding, but I think there is a need to let the

public know, if my figure of 170 is a figure accepted by

this committee, as to that kind of educational process to

the public, so they understand that that is really not a

big figure.

Now that has nothing to do with what we are going to

look into, for example, on the questions asked, are we

going to examine this alleged report by j. Edgar Hoover, and

follow through on whether it went to the Warren Commission,

what the CIA allegedly did.

I do not think there should be any responses of that

nature. That is what we are investigating.

DocId: 32261096 Flage 80

---

## Page 81

97

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4 Now hopefully from time to time when things are

determined on some definitve basis, then the committee,

the Chairman, might decide to have a public hearing, and

present some testimony, but beyond doing it in that manner,

and beyond just an educational process for the public as

to what the financial needs are and the size of the staff,

I think it detracts from the dignity of this investigation

to be saying "No, we do not know of the FBI memo" or "we

are going to go into this or that CIA file." I think those

things ought not to be.

Mr

Dodd. I thank you, Mr. Sprague.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to ask that

second question.

Chairman Downing. You are welcome.

Mr. Ford?

Mr. Ford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have two questions of Mr. Sprague.

One as Mr. Dodd mentioned earlier, I would like to know

if it is possible since we are talking about approximately

170 staff people, each member of this committee, is it

possible that one member of the staff could be assigned to

each member of the committee?

Mr. Sprague. In my opinion that is impossible really.

one reason being I am not misstating it when I say that

my 170 figure is a bare bone figure. Even to come down

DocId: 32264096

Mage 81

---

## Page 82

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

FLWS

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

98 - 109

from that 170 by 12, is putting it in a most difficult

situation, but, second?, in terms of the staff, this is

a staff that is doing an investigative job for you, for the

public. I can't run an investigation where 12 people on that

staff are just sitting in on every meeting that we are

having, determining, when I get a report from somebody today,

that something is occurring in Dallas, and I want to sit

with my top people to review that and find out what is to

be done. Ought I to be calling 12 aides of 12 Congressmen

to sit in, before I then review that and decide what to

do, and then when I get that underway, I am getting a

report over on the King matter? Do I do that? It is an

unworkable thing to do it that way.

I What is workable, and I repeat again, is the obligation

on me to keep this entire (Ammittee advised as to what is

going on. I repeat what I said earlier. Try it my way.

If it doesn't work, fine. Then we will do it some other way.

Mr. Forg. One other question.

I missed the discussion, but how will you divide the

staff with regards to the King-Kennedy matter, or will you

divide the staff at all?

Mr. Sprague. There is an organizational chart in the

back of that book that I have there, and in brief it is

15 attorenys and 25 investigators on each.

DocId: 32264096

Phye 82

---

## Page 83

110

Tartaro

intor

3:00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Ford.

I see the chart on the back now.

Chairman Downing. That was gone into this morning, Mr.

Ford. But if you have any specific questions, feel free to

go ahead.

Mr. Ford. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Downing. Thank you very much, Mr. Sprague.

You have been very patient and I think you have explained in

depth your feelings about how this investigation should be

conducted.

Now Mr. Sprague is asking, and I think he is entitled to,

whether we accept his concept of how the committee should be

staffed, and I would entertain a motion now from someone

accepting the concept or discussion or whatever you want.

Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the

comittee, in affirming its earlier approbation of Mr. Sprague

as the general counsel and chief of staff, further that

affirmation by accepting his organizational chart and

presentation as to the staff organizational matters in accord-

ance with his recommendations.

Chairman Downing. Thank you.

Do I hear a second?

Second?

Mr. McKinney. Second.

Chairman Downing. All those in favor?

Mr. Burke. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask one

DocId: 32264096 Plige 83

---

## Page 84

2

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

question.

How does this organization anticipate we would

proceed?

I would we be holding hear ings in the subcommittees and

this information brought before individual subcomnittees and

then, at the end, the full committee would meet, or could we

have a bit of clarification?

I think the organization seems excellent except I am not

sure I understand how we plan to proceed.

Chairman Downing. All right.

Mr. Sprague, I turn that one over to you. I have an

answer, but I think he can tell you more succinctly.

Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, as I see it, with each of

the two subcommittees, the investigation which is under way

continues in greater measure. Of course, I must say there

cannot be much investigative effort with the limitations in

staff that we have now. It would really only be at the

first of the year.

It is, as the investigation proceeds we would be advising

each of the subcommittees as to exactly wha. fre are doing

with people out in the field and discussing with that

subcommittee whether or not at this juncture there is any

problem occurring where we need to use the subppena power of

that subcommittee and bring people before the subcommittee

for purposes of obtaining their testimony and, in addition,

discussing whether or not we have developed certain material,

DocId: 32264096

Fuge 81

---

## Page 85

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

112

even though we have developed it out in the field and we got

it willingly and there was no use to the subplena power,

but where, as a result of what we have developed, we ought

to have a committee hearing to get that fully on the record

and under oath in front of that subcoumittee keeping in mind

that. at some point there would also be a decision whether

it ought to be a public hearing. But that is why I say, and

repeat what I said earlier, the function is to keep the

subcommittee constantly up on what is going on.

I It is not just a matter of a subcommittee sitting and

people being hauled in to testify.

Does that answer your question?

Burke. Yes.

As you see it, then, as the subcommittee is informed,

it is in a private, not a public meeting, as we go through?

Mr. Sprague. Yes, with a determination then made, taking

it up with the chairman, really, of the entire committee,

I guess, whether or not certain information which has been

obtained ought now to be put forth on the record publicly.

Let me illustrate again what I mean here. Maybe this

would help explain at least my view of it.

I related earlier about the information about this

Lovelady. It would not be appropriate just to convene a

hearing of

a subconmittee in the Kennedy assassination just

to subpfena Lovelady frow Denver and have him testify. The

DocId: 32264096|| Page 85

---

## Page 86

4

1

3

4

5

6

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

113

first step is to go out there and interview him and find out

what does he know? What does he say about this other photo-

graph?

Q Now we have gotten that information.

But that does not

negate what is in the original Associated Press photo. We

ought not to be just wasting your time and this gets back to

how busy the committee members are in other things.

We now have to examine this original AP photo, get it

blown up, get it looked at, find out what is there. It may

turn out that that in fact is still a picture of Lovelady.

That ends that area and we will make a report of that to the

subcommittee, but there is no need to have taken the time up

in the hearing.

Let's take the converse of that. Let's suppose, as we

proceed here and then make that blow-up of the AP photo, it

turns out, absolutely, that the person in the photograph just

has no beard whatsoever, that he is wearing a different

shirt than what Lovelady is wearing minutes later on a photo

that is established; at that point I think that the subcon-

mittee might well want to consider, with that kind of

information, bringing Lovelady in, bringing in the experts

and the blow-up of the photographs, and having a hearing.

Upon getting that on the record, they then might determine

this is of sufficient interest in the public areak, it does

not interfere with the ongoing investigation; there might

DocId: 32264096

lage 86

---

## Page 87

114

5

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19.

20

21

22

23

24

25

then be an obligation to present that at a public hearing.

" That is my view as to the way in which these matters

would proceed.

Burke. I see.

Chairman Downing. Do you understand?

Mir. Burke. Thank you very much.

Chairman Downing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sprague.

Mx. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, before you proceed, may

I request, however, because I could not help notice that it

was stated that some material had come in, as I said earlier,

the document unit is an important unit in this investigation

and I would request, Mr. Chairman, that each member of the

committee, if they should get any information or any material

sent in to them, that they forward that or a copy of it to me

because then that will go into our document unit, for that

cross-reference thing of which I have spoken.

Chairman Downing: That is a good suggestion, Mr. Sprague.

I hope the committee members will do that.

Mr. Devine. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman Downing. Yes, Mr. Devine.

Mr. Devine. In order that we proceed in order and

properly, I notice in the minutes of our meeting on September

29 it was agreed that the chairman be given the authority to

employ a person or persons to head the overall administration

DocId: 32264096 Page 87

---

## Page 88

115

6

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

=

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and/or legal investigative staffs of the committees so long

as the actual title of a permanent position not be given,

and that the word "acting" be used in whatever title is

selected.

I Now, in response to a question raised down there, it says

any such employment could be made permanent only upon confir-

mation by the committee at its next meeting. I am merely

raising the question whether formal action is necessitated

by these minutes today as it relates to people that Mr.

Sprague mentioned.

Chairman Downing. We have already taken formal action

on Mr. Sprague.

Mr. Devine. Individually,. yes.

I am wondering about the other persons whose resumes

have been submitted, or do we want to reserve on that until

a later meeting?

Chairman Downing. Let's reserve on that.

It was my thought that should be limited to chief

counsel and/or staff director, top-flight positions; we would

not have to do it right down to clerical help. Let's reserve

on that, if you will.

Mr. Thone. You did not vote formally.

Chairman Downing.

The motion made by Mr. Gonzalez and

it has been seconded, that we accept the presentation as

offered by the chief counsel; all in favor signify by saying

DocId: 32264096|| Page 88

---

## Page 89

7

116

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13.

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

aye; opposed, no.

4 The ayes have it. Thank you.

Now, the next item on the agenda is the showing of the

Zapruder film. A little background on this film.

Mr. Zapruder was a dress manufacturer located in Dallas,

Tex. The morning that President Kennedy was to visit

Dallas and take this route, Mr. Zapruder and his secretary

went by and picked up his 8 millimeter Brownie movie camera

and was fortunate enough to get a position of prominence,

where he could view the entire scene. I believe he was

standing on a pedestal supported by his secretary. In any

event, this is one of the few films of the entire event.

Now there were many cameras around that day, but appar-

ently when the shooting stopped, they very wisely fell to the

ground or for other reasons did not keep a continuous filming

of the event. This film has quite a history. Mr. Zapruder

Bold it to time-llfe, who kapt it at as aplan years and

subsequently, for reasons of their own, sold it back to

Mr. Zapruder's son for the sum of $1.

It has been shown in television, I think, and maybe some

of you have already seen it, but it is, I believe, a starting

point, which everybody must see and make their own judgment

as to what they do see.

The film will be shown by Mr. Robert Groden. I do

not see him in the room.

DocId: 32264096

page 89

---

## Page 90

8

117

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

Cantor fls 15

4:00

icont.of

16

ilm)

Tartaro

17

ils Cantor

4:30

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9/ Mr. Sprague.

May we send for him?

Chairman Downing. Mr. Groden is known as a film expert,

an expert in photography. In addition, he has been a

student of this matter for the last ellen to t/give years.

So if Mr. Groden and his assistant will come in, we will

dim the lights and see the film.

We also ask Mr. Groden to narrate as he goes along what

we are seeing.

Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, one correction. It is more

than the Zapruder film. He has put together a number of films

and slides and single shots taken at that time.

Chairman Downing. Thank you.

[A film was shown.}

Chairman Downing. On behalf of the committee, we want

to thank you, Mr. Groden, for a very good presentation.

Mr. Groden. Thank you.

Mr. Gonzalez. There is one question I have.

The policeman who had drawn his gun and ended up on

top, was he ever identified in the testimony?

Mr. Groden. Yes, sir, he testified to the Warren

Commission. I am unclear as to his name. It may have been

Baker or Smith, but I am unclear as to which one it was.

I do not know. His testimony is in the volumes of the Warren

Committee.

Chairman Downing. Mr. Groden, will you please stick

DocId: 32264096

flage 90

---

## Page 91

118

1

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

around to see if the committee has questions?

Thone.

Who is the gentleman and what is his interest

here? I do not know that I got that.

Chairman Downing.

Suppose you tell him, Mr. Groden,

your background.

Mr. Groden. All right, my name is Robert Groden; I

reside in New York City. I have been researching the photo-

graphic evidence in the Kennedy assassination case for the

last elfren years. I brought and presented this evidence to

the House of Representatives on several occasions for the

purpose of trying to raise interest in some of the unanswered

questions contained in the photographic evidence.

Much of the evidence that you just saw was never viewed

by the Warren Commission. All of it was available to them.

The Warren Commission as a body never viewed the films that

you just saw.

The Zapruder film, perhaps the single most important

piece of evidence, was never viewed at all by the entire

Commission; indeed, there is only evidence that three or four

of the members actually saw it. They did deal with sections

of the film in slide form, but in all the millions of words

in the Warren Conmission report, there is not one mention,

not one word as to the backward motion of the President's

body, a very peculiar point.

I was asked to appear here and present to you the

DocId: 32261096 Mage 91

---

## Page 92

119

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

photographic evidence as I have been able to compile it.

There is more evidence available. I know where a lot of it

is, but it has not been available for study before. And that is

who I am and that is why I am here.

fer, Devine. What has motivated you during these elen

years, who finances your study?

Mr. Groden. Nobody is financing. I have never received

one penny in assistance for finding the films, making the

copies, or any of the work. I have done it purely out of a

desire to know what has happened, a driving curiosity and

perhaps the mystery. What happened to our President?

I wanted to know. I happened to be in the right place at

the right time to obtain prints of the films that you just

saw. The original films are available, I know where they are.

If there is any question in your minds at all as to the

validity of these films, the originals can easily be checked.

Copies of some of these, the most important ones, do exist

in the National Archives. The prints can be verified for

authenticity very easily.

Mr. Devine. Are you employed otherwise?

Mr. Groden. I was up until a few weeks ago. There was

a conflict between my job and doing this work. I am now

unemployed. I am trying to go into business for myself. But

•after eleyen years, it seemed to me this was far more important

than a job that would not allow me to follow through on this

DocId: 32264096

Rage 92

---

## Page 93

120

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19.

20

21

22

23

24

25

type of work. I felt this appearance was more important

and we had somewhat of a disagreement among other things, and

I am now unemployed.

Devine. How did you sustain yourself during these

eleen years?

Mr. Groden. I have done photo-optical work as my

profession since 1969. I developed the techniques which you

saw here dealing with 8 millimeter blow-up, liquid-gating.

I am proficient in step-framing and other photo-optical

techniques.

I made my living at that for several years. I was fortu-

nate in having the type of machinery available to me, because

there is no way I could have afforded to do this work. Bench

time for this type of work runs to about $50 an hour. The

single rotoscope version that you saw of just a close-up of

the President's head took about eye hours to shoot, one

frame at a time, refocusing every frame, repositioning the

exact point.

These are in some cases done from the original film

and in some cases done with a first-generation copy of the

film, even in the blow-up cases where zooming in, in that

type of area, would have been physically impossible.

But the techniques are known and verified and they have in

some cases been recreated.

I believe last year an attempt was done to recreate it

DocId: 32264096 Page 93

---

## Page 94

121

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19.

20

21

22

23

24

25

by the CBS television network show on the assassination.

Again, the time consumption here would not allow the same

type of work to be done, and this has been my specialty over

the years, 8 millimeter blow-up.

Ighairman Dorming. Let me ask a very important question.

Have you done anything to alter these films so as to

give a wrong impression of what you see?

Mr. Groden. Absolutely not. The film that you saw

at the beginning was requested to show the authenticity of the

film and the frame sequence. All I have done to the film

is liquid-gated it to clean it up. I will describe that

process very briefly.

As the film is photographed in an optical printer from

the original film to the raw stock or the unexposed film for

the duplicater, light passes through the film. If there

are any inconsistencies or imperfections in the film, such

as scratches or dirt, they will be amplified by the light

passing through the film. If you take a low-oxygen content

liquid and coat the film as it is being photographed, it

tends to make the light go in a straight line toward the dupli-

cating lens. This is liquid-gating.

The other technique i two other techniaues I used;

one is step-framing, whereby you photograph each frame more

than once to slow it down so that, as it is viewed, you com-

prehend what you are seeing better.

DocId: 32264096

Page 94

---

## Page 95

122

z

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

=

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

"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

DocId: 32264096 Page 95

---

## Page 96

123

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

I I had thought that perhaps If the film and the outtakes

were subjecid 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, M

Mr. Groden. Yes, sir.

Mx. Dodd.

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

DocId: 32264096

Yage 96

---

## Page 97

124

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

I Just 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.

Mr. 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 thai 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 if that that dange 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

DocId: 32264096

Mage 97

---

## Page 98

125

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

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.

DocId: 32261096 Page 98

---

## Page 99

126

1

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

Ironically enough, the exact motion of the President's

body from moment of impact until he hits the seat behind him,

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.

A 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 preonderance

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.

DocId: 32264096

Phase 99

---

## Page 100

127

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Groden. Yes, sir.

Mr. Fauntroy.

Were any of these films, say, the famed

"babushka lady's" film?

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

Hage 100

---

## Page 101

128

2

3

5

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

18

19.

20

21

22

23

24

25

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 myn or the film again, and the film

has not surfaced.

I 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 alleged by

Nts. Moorman or Miss Moorman, I am not clear which h

Mr. Fauntroy.

Ms.

Mr. Groden. Ms., okay, Ms. Moorman. I 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

DocId: 32264096| Page 101

---

## Page 102

129

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

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.

9

Mer.

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.

[Discussion off the record.f

Cantor

{1s

3:00.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

DocId: 32264096

Yage 102

---

## Page 103

BOB CANTOR

ty

5y.m.

AT

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

130

I Chairman porning. 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 wiltess 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 DI. 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 interpytation 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

DocId: 32264096

Plive 103

---

## Page 104

131

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

=

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Oswald is not yet Lovelady as we are going to have to

investigate that photograph and blow it up into a larger

thing and have it examined.

I I 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.

Mr.

podd.

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

DocId: 32264096

Page 101

---

## Page 105

132

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

for the closed session.

9 Now tomorrow we have the King assassination slides, the

authorization for subppenas. 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 thi 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 their material to us.

They just want to be protected and have a subplena 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 subpgena

served on them. That is the category that I am talking

about.

Mr. Thone. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to start where

I left off this morning, but I think Mre, Doad is absolutely

correct. Mr. Sprague, you said before that what we really

DocId: 32264096 Hage 105

---

## Page 106

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

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 members 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.

I I 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 here on 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?

DocId: 32264096 Plye 106

---

## Page 107

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

134

# I 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

DocId: 32264096 Hage 107

---

## Page 108

1

z

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

- 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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 this other

"Cover-Up,"

this book here entitled "Betrayai,"

"', amations 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 cetera@ t It

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,.mi

• the constraints of an

executive sessiong 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?

" 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.

MI. Sprague. If I may, and I apologize if I appear to

DocId: 32264096 Plige 108

---

## Page 109

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DocId: 32261096 Paise 109

136

be a little too abrupt with the conmittee. 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 chairman of the press aide for the committee

or someone designated by the thairman, and it would seem to

me that that is the answer to what Mr. Stokes just raised.

I. I 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. It 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

---

## Page 110

137

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

I I 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

DocId: 32264096

Hage 110

---

## Page 111

138

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

=

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

help an investigation by just starting out and saying let's

have everything really public here.

4 Mr. 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

total investigation that might in some manner be disruptive

or have some adverse bearing upon any witnesses to appear before

a fongressional committee, but obviously the majority of that

which we have received

in executive session today, there

nothing

hase been thing 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.

DocId: 32264096

Phoe 111

---

## Page 112

139

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22

23

24

25

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.

DocId: 32261096 Plage 112

---

## Page 113

140

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

•16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I do you see anything tomorrow that possibly should be

discussed in a closed session?

Mr.

Sprague. Mr. Chairman, of course I echo what Mr.

Devine just said. I think that the presentation has been

on a more professional level just because we have been in

executive session, and I would hope that we would continue

in that vein. When I notice on here authorization for

subpgenas, I do not think it ought to be a public discussion

in terms of the issuance of subpfenas. I note that one of

the areas yet to be discussed is taking up with the leadership

in the Congress ahead of time now getting, making sure that

there is the appropriate funding.

I am not a member of Congress, but I question how much

of a discussion of that nature would be really helped by

doing it publicly.

Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion?

I think MI. Stokes hit on a point that I intended to

mention. I see here some question in all of our minds about

exactly whpn we should or should not be is closed session.

I think maybe the first thing we ought to do would be to

have some sort of criteria laid out. I think more specifically,

Mr. Sprague, in terms of when you believe we should and

should not be in closed

session. There may be a different

set of guidelines we ought to be following than what we

traditionally follow in the Congress in terms of having

DocId: 32264096

Page 113

---

## Page 114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

=

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

•22

23

24

25

141-0143

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.

I I 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.

Chairman 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 f

Mr. Fauntroy?

MI. Fauntroy. I am concerned that we have a little

DocId: 32261096 Plige 114

---

## Page 115

144

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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.

$ Chairman Downing. It is, walter, because you have got

witnesses by name to be subppenaed, and you have got the

line and mode of questioning of certain witnesses.

Don't you agree?

Mx. 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.

whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned,

to reconvene at 10 a.M., Tuesday, November 16, 1976.

...

DocId: 32264096

Have 115

---