Original subtitles

In Europe, heads of state always die at the hands of conspirators.

Our presidents are killed by madmen.

The pattern is remarkably consistent.

Abraham Lincoln, April 14th, 1865.

Target, sitting in stationary.

Reign, six inches, successful.

James Garfield, July 2nd, 1881. Target, walking at two and a half miles per

hour. Range, three feet.

Successful. William McKinley, September 6th, 1901.

Target, standing and stationary.

Range, one foot.

Successful. Theodore Roosevelt, October 14th, 1912.

Target, standing and stationary.

Range, six feet.

Wounded.

Survived.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, February 15th, 1933.

Target sitting and stationary.

Range 23 feet.

Five shots, five misses.

In no case was the killer an expert marksman.

In every case, the Secret Service was unprepared.

And in every case, the assassin was a political fanatic willing to die to get

the president.

Now, no professional technician can be expected to lay his life on the line for

such a cause.

So we've determined that our action can best be carried out.

During a motorcade.

How so?

Because they're scheduled well in advance.

And they give you a chance to fire from cover and get away in the confusion.

How do you select your operatives?

I can tell you, Harold.

Now, in the old days, you used to have to train your own men from the ground

Keep them on your payroll the rest of their lives.

No more.

Wow.

You know how many men were fired by the CIA after the Bay of Pigs fiasco?

There's a small army of anti -Castro Cubans. They're all ready. They're all

available. They can do anything from picking a lock and bugging an embassy to

taking care of an ambassador.

So, how many of them do you need?

A team of three men.

I've got two teams in the field for over a month.

Why two?

One team will be selected for action.

The other for backup and getaway.

These are all men I've used before, Harold.

trained, reliable, professional.

Now, one man firing from long range at a moving target is out of the question.

Even with two men, we found the percentages of failure are too high.

The only possible scenario is three rifles with triangulated fire.

The president's car is now turning onto Elm Street, and it will be only a matter

of minutes before he arrives at the trademark.

I was on Simmons Freeway earlier, and even the freeway was jam -packed with

spectators waiting their chance to see the president.

as he made his way towards the trade line.

Portland Hospital has been advised to stand by for a severe gunshot wound.

I repeat, a shooting in the motorcade in the downtown area.

Portland Hospital has been advised to stand by for a severe gunshot wound.

The president's car is now going past me.

The limousine is now traveling at a very high rate of speed. Secret service men

standing up in the limousine. They are armed with submachine guns. The

president's old woman in the limousine might have been hit by the gunfire.

Secret service man is still spread eagle over whoever is in the car. The

president and Mrs. Kennedy, and as we understand, Governor and Mrs. Connolly.

this point, it looks as though it could have been one or two, or even all of the

people within the car may have been the victims, may have been struck by shots.

We don't know.

Hoffman Hospital in the distance.

Now on Harry Hines Boulevard, following behind the motorcade, many, many police

officers, maybe 20 or 25 motorcycle policemen, falling in behind at

There's already a cordon of police officers running from their cars, from

vehicles here.

Official party, as I can see it, pulling around toward the emergency room of

Parkwood Hospital. The policeman says, no, you cannot come in here. You cannot

come in here. We'll let nobody else in. It was definitely the president's car.

We can see the first lady's paint suit.

That's the only identification we could see, but we know it is the president's

car. Another car directly behind the presidential car.

There were also parties in that car.

Another Secret Service man spread eagle over them. We don't know. Perhaps there

was some hit in that car as well. We're not sure.

Would you be willing to say, with all this evidence, that it is now beyond a

reasonable doubt at all that Oswald was the killer of President Kennedy?

I would say that without any doubt he's the killer. The law says beyond a

reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, which there's no question

the killer of President Kennedy. That case is closed in your mind? As far as

Oswald's concerned, yes. It's so unlikely, I don't see how anyone can

it.

Everyone will believe it. They want to believe it.

They have to.

People, the government, everyone.

Even his brother?

He's the Attorney General, for God's sake.

True.

But he's not thinking as Attorney General tonight.

He's grieving for a murdered brother.

By the time his grief subsides, all the power will have died.

It'll be too late.

Yes.

That's right.

Hold the body there.

I'll make arrangements in the morning.

That's right. Thank you.

Tim.

James Farrington.

Heart attack.

In the three years after the murders of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald,

18 material witnesses died.

Six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a

one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks, and two from

natural causes.

An actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times concluded that on November 22,

1963, the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967 were

100 ,000 trillion to one.

What about that railroad man, Lee Bowers? Saw those men at the picket

Graveyard dead.

August this year.

Single car accident on an empty road in Midlothian, Texas. The doctor said it

was some kind of strange shock when he died.

We need to find more witnesses, Lou.

Whether it was Rose Jeremy or she said she was a dope runner for Jack Ruby.

And she said that Ruby knew Oswald for years.

Can we talk to her?

She did, too. She didn't run.

Many people wondered how Ruby got into the basement to kill Oswald, how the

Dallas police allowed that. The commission evidently conducted no

at all to discover that.

The commission was not able to present a single witness who ever saw Oswald

carry a package which might have contained a rifle.

The commission could not present a single eyewitness who ever saw Oswald

the rifle at the president.

had offered to tip it.

The commission did not even discuss the fact that the rifle which Oswald

allegedly ordered under the name of A. Hedell is entirely different from the

rifle before the commission, the alleged murder weapon.

None of these areas and many others have been even explored.

Sir, do you believe that the Warren report is a deliberate whitewash?

I think one can go further than that. I think one can say that the commission at

the outset decided that the report was going to be a tranquilizer for the

American people.

And so they've reassured us. The man who did it is dead, and we can all go to

sleep easily if we believe the commission report. But I think no

who reads the report can believe it.

Every day, sightseers come by to take their pictures of the assassin's window.

But what strikes you on a return to this place is that while the rest of us can

forget for a day or a week at a time what happened here,

There are people who are still consumed by it. They are an informal society,

reporters, lawyers, private citizens, some policemen, who are not satisfied

the Warren Report.

They may not agree with or even like each other, but they are all dedicated

wondering.

One of them is Penn Jones, editor of the Midlothian Mirror, a country newspaper

near Dallas.

It is his published belief... that more than a dozen people connected with the

assassination have died strangely, some violently.

I claim that there have been at least 17 deaths, strange peripheral

deaths, that have taken place since the assassination that I know about, and I

certainly don't believe I know all of them.

And it is my feeling that there are some other people who must die.

Mr. Ainsworth, you knew most of the people in this article.

Do you agree that it is strange they have died, most of them violently?

I'd like to think that Mr. Jones is just misinformed and that he's an honest

man, an editor fighting for the truth. I hope that this is it. I hope he's just

ignorant of the real facts in the case.

I'd hate to think that he's a charlatan in a situation like this.

Could there have been a conspiracy?

Well, I'm not saying that there was not. I don't think that any sensible man can

say there's nobody else involved.

And I am not trying to be radical about this belief of mine. I think anything's

possible. I've seen too many things to say it's not.

But all I'm saying is that Mr. Jones, Mr. Lane, and all these other crusaders

who say the Warren Commission isn't worth the paper that it's printed on,

Warren Commission report, They haven't shown me one fact.

I would rather be the lowest, the sorriest bootlegger in the Middle Ocean

than to be in the shoes of Earl Warren in the eyes of history.

If this is the democracy that we claim it is, then he plunked

his final when his country needed him most. You're being just...

too generous to the commission and to the staff simply to say they did a

job.

Too often, the next most obvious question was not asked.

Too many times, important witnesses were not called.

We had actual destruction of evidence, and the commission nor the staff lawyers

even raised their eyebrows.

Well, I find it hard to believe that Bill Hunter of the Long Beach newspaper

knew enough of anything about this assassination to be killed because of

And I don't think you could say he was killed with two other people in the room

without including them in the conspiracy, too.

They're twisted half -truths. They're speculation.

They're the works of a man who had a theory and then looks around for facts

substantiate that theory. And he's not the first, nor will he be the last.

Tom Howard, Tom, they told me that Tom died of a heart attack, and

I believe it. Of course, Mr. Jones says there was no autopsy, very ominous about

it. No, there wasn't an autopsy, and anybody who dies of a heart attack,

very seldom ever is.

He says Tom was acting very strangely three or two days before he's dead.

once again, this is really a conspiracy here, I can see it.

Tom was...

Just a good old boy. He had heart trouble, and a lot of people knew it.

Jim Cody was a personal friend of mine, too.

And Jim didn't know, I don't think he knew enough about the assassination or

cared enough about it to delve into it. He was not an investigative reporter. He

was a light feature writer and a very good one.

His death is not mysterious to the Dallas police. I'm sure if you talk with

them, they'll tell you who did it and they'll show you evidence to

it. The man that killed him is serving a life term on another charge.

Mr. Jones, a philosophical question.

Since 90 % of the CIA's evidence has not been released and much of the FBI

evidence has been withheld, is it possible that there are some things that

would be better for all of us not to know?

I hope to God I never live to the time that such a thing takes place in this

country.

I made fun of the Jews in Germany for walking so sheep -like to their deaths.

But I didn't really know that I might someday have to prove that I meant what

said. But I did, and I think if we're in such a condition that

this democracy can't stand the truth, then we're in a hell of a case.

Well, I certainly think that there were two riflemen. I think there were at

least two riflemen.

And when you have two riflemen firing simultaneously in this compact an area,

then I say it was a conspiracy.

And in view of the peripheral deaths that continue to take place,

I say they got away with it and are still killing.

There are others.

A stripper who hanged herself in the Dallas City Jail.

Oswald's landlady. Heart attack.

A cab driver who picked Oswald up. Head on collision.

Mr. Weisberg, in the past when I've interviewed you, I've found you kind of

critical about some of the missing evidence and missing documents. How are

getting along here?

Well, these people are very cooperative.

What we can't get here is beyond their control to make available to us other

documents, and many too many classified by the other agencies of the government.

But the people here at the archives on every level, they take their

responsibilities quite seriously.

So to answer your question, I've gotten enough here to finish another book.

I still haven't gotten all I'd like to have.

Are the documents here that answer the questions that you think have to be

answered? Many of them.

I have already found the answers to some of the questions I asked in Whitewash,

yes. Each agency, investigative agency of the government, was asked to review

each one of their investigative reports that had been submitted to the

commission to make a determination as to whether the report should or should not

be made available, working on the guideline that the maximum possible

should be made available.

reserving only those that, first of all, are classified in the interest

of national defense.

Others where the report would reveal techniques, methodology, sources of

information of the investigative agencies, another class that is

But I should think within the lifetime of most of us, they will be made

available.

Ramparts Magazine notes that much of the evidence, including some films of the

actual assassination, is missing from the National Archives.

Jess Curry, who resigned as police chief of Dallas, believes the Kennedy family

has them.

District Attorney Henry Wade, who prosecuted Jack Ruby, says Penn Jones'

is hogwash.

No one denies these deaths as fact.

But to find in them a connection, a curiosity, or a conspiracy goes beyond

Such a conspiracy implies that there is a secret many people found for which

they died, a conspiracy so monstrous and effective it could erase any

substantive clues to its secret.

There have been many conspiracy theories in three years.

Perhaps it is that... We are so used to history being made and changed by great

men and great events.

It is hard to believe a troubled man could do it too.

John Hart, CBS News, Dallas.

Lose boss.

More bad news from Miami.

They found Terry's Cuban friend Elanio Del Valle today.

Hacked to death with a machete in his car. He was tortured.

Chopped in the heart at point blank range and his skull split open with an

But she don't scream anymore.

At least two unsigned suicide notes.

If it's a suicide, I've seen weirder, Jim.

For purposes of those of you who have television cameras or tapes

for radio or for personal use, I'm going to speak from a brief prepared text to

begin with, and then we'll be available for any questions that you might have.

But so there will be no misunderstanding or misinterpretation of this news

conference today, let me first speak to you from this brief prepared text.

I want to make it abundantly clear that I have no desire to prolong or to

perpetuate the stark memories of the tragedy of three years ago.

This conference has been arranged solely as a result of the widespread request

of newsmen.

And I want to take just a moment.

to reiterate and to clarify once again the events of that day, November the

22nd, 1963.

Let me point out that the information that I'm about to give you is not new.

It's precisely the information I recalled and related in a television

from a hospital bed in Dallas on November the 27th, 1963, just a few days

following the assassination.

It's precisely the way I related it to the Warren Commission and my testimony

before that body.

It's also precisely the way it has been recalled by me in interviews since that

time.

I am convinced beyond any doubt that I was not struck by the first bullet.

I know that I heard the first shot, that I turned to my right to see what was

happening. Seeing nothing, I was in the process of turning to my left, and I was

struck by a second shot.

The third shot struck the president.

but did not strike me.

Now, as I said earlier, this testimony was presented to the Warren Commission.

They chose to disagree with my interpretation and my memory of what had

occurred, and this is their privilege.

But I maintain my original view and always shall.

Well,

I think, obviously...

There is room for disagreement because of the time factor involved.

I cannot and never have been able to say with any degree of certainty, even

after reviewing the films in great detail, at the precise 1 18th of a

which I was hit. Now, by the same token, I don't think the commission can do so,

nor do I think anyone else can do so.

No one can say at the precise 1 18th of a second viewing the film.

when President Kennedy was hit. It's a question, obviously, each of us were

struck before the reactions became apparent in the film. I think this in

provides sufficient leeway in the time factor, when you're speaking in 20ths of

a second, to provide an area of disagreement and yet not provide any

substantive difference.

Governor, did you hear all three of the shots, including the one that hit you?

No, sir, I did not. I heard...

A first shot that did not hit me. I did not hear the shot that hit me. And I

heard another shot, which was the last shot that hit President Kennedy.

Did your wife? I heard only two shots. I did not hear the shot that hit me. Did

your wife hear all three shots? Very clearly. She heard three shots very

clearly.

That was my testimony before the commission.

The thought occurred to my mind then because of the rapidity of the shots.

Nothing has occurred since then to lend any credence to it, whatever.

But as a matter of fact, I also testified before the commission, as I

and I haven't reviewed that testimony.

My first impression was that it was either one or more persons or someone

an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots. But this was a

thought that went through my mind.

That is the finding of the commission, and I have no

reason whatever to question it.

Well,

I think it was more than half a second between the shots. I think it was

probably almost close to two seconds between the time President Kennedy

was hit with the first shot and the time I was hit.

Well,

the target, yes, the target was shifting. But the point you have to

course, is that, as I stated a moment ago, it's almost impossible

to know at what point either of us were hit, as a matter of fact.

You can determine with some degree of certainty, I think, when I really began

to react from looking at the films.

I think becomes very apparent in about frame 234.

It's less certain when the president began to react because he was behind the

highway sign.

But either one of us could have been hit sometime before that, as a matter of

fact.

And it depends on what the human reaction is. And nobody knows precisely

long it would take to react to where it would become visible in a movie film.

Can you estimate now?

You recall the time span between the first shot and the third. Do you have

any... Not with any certainty that would be of any value at all, only

that they were all very rapid shots.

There's no question about that, and I had that impression then as I do now.

For purposes of clarification, the commission says you were hit by the

shot, and you say you were convinced you were not hit by the first shot. But as

far as you're concerned, it was not...

cast any doubt on the commission's findings?

No, basically it does not.

We disagree on that one point, but the commission heard about 10 million words

of testimony and came forth with a number of findings, and I don't know why

disagreement on this one point destroys the value of the commission's work as

far as I'm concerned. And I must say that I'm not going to put myself in a

position of being infallible.

And when I say that I'm not infallible, let me make it abundantly clear that I'm

not going to change my mind about what I believe.

But nevertheless, they do have evidence. They do have other facts that they have

considered informing their opinions about what happened.

And the particular lawyer whose accounts I've read makes a fairly plausible

story talking about the tree and the time factor and so forth and so on.

But, again, we may both be wrong.

Both of us, the commission says President Kennedy couldn't have been hit

early as possibly he was hit.

I don't think I was hit until about frame 231, 232.

But, again, we're dealing here, when we talk about this frame, we're talking

about an 18th of a second.

And I assure you that I cannot play with any degree of certainty.

at precisely what point I was hit. I don't know.

I want to make it very clear, however, that simply

because I disagree with the Warren Commission on this one detail does not

that I disagree with the substance of their overall findings.

I think the commission did an outstanding job under very difficult

circumstances. Each of the members of that commission, Chief Justice Earl

Warren, Senator Richard B. Russell, Senator John Sherman Cooper,

Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald Ford, Mr. Allen Dulles, and Mr. John J. McCloy

are men of unquestioned integrity, of long and devoted service to

this nation, men whose dedication to the task of seeking truth in these

circumstances I would never question.

and men whose patriotism has been manifested so many times in so many ways

over such a long period of time that it is shocking to me that in the

backlash of tragedy, journalistic scavengers such as Mark Lane attempt to

the motives of these members individually, cast doubts upon the

whole, and question the credibility of the government itself.

I think it's time that we pause and reflect on who these individuals are.

I suspect that a searching investigation into their own credentials will divulge

that their motives have political overtones and that their views have been

prominence out of all proportion to their values.

I'll take any questions. Governor, may I ask, are you satisfied beyond any

shadow of a doubt?

that there was one and only one assassin?

I have no reason to question it whatsoever.

I'm satisfied beyond any doubt that there was only one.

I have made no financial arrangements with Mr. Lane. Mr. Lane is doing the

investigating of my son's murder.

Mr. Lane, are you doing this gratis?

Yes, I've agreed at the request of Mrs. Oswald to represent the interests of her

son before the commission to conduct an investigation.

and to release the results of that investigation at a time which I deem to

appropriate. I'm not being paid a fee for this.

I have a hunch that from the get -go, Oswald had infiltrated this group,

probably Cubans, right -wing extremists. He was told to be at the book

depository that day by his handlers to either prevent the assassination or to

take part in it.

I mean, they could have told him anything. Either they were going to

the plotters that day, or they were going to simulate an attack on Kennedy

whip up public opinion.

so that Kennedy would have to reverse his policies on communism.

It doesn't really matter what they told him. He was under order.

He was a foot soldier.

And you can't miss.

He is a dead duck.

I don't buy it, Chief.

A segment of our government has participated in what is probably the

hoax in the history of mankind.

And there's not exactly a great deal of enthusiasm in Washington, D .C.

about admitting this fraud, which we're going to have to do ultimately because

we're going to force them to do it by bringing up the truth.

But what they're trying to do now is employ every countermeasure possible to

discredit the office in advance and prevent the trial.

Mr. Gervich also charged that, and I quote, illegal and unethical practices

ordered by you and your probe actions, which he said warrant an investigation

the parish or a federal branch. Well, let me answer that right to the point.

district attorney who uses unethical practices and illegal practices not only

should not be district attorney, he should not be a member of the bar.

This is the fiction with which they are going to have the most trouble in the

long run.

Because as a district attorney, I have not only done a great deal to defend

individual rights, I have spoken and written about the importance of

rights in this country. And we simply do not use such practices. Let me say

this, though.

This is not the end. This is probably just the beginning of the counterattack.

I'm sure there will be more fictions and continued effort to discredit the

office and to halt the investigation at all costs.

We're satisfied that the attitude of the federal government in this matter is

that under no conditions will there be a trial.

And I want to reply to that philosophy by saying that there is not enough

newsprint in America and there is not enough money in the United States

to prevent us from bringing out the whole truth.

and showing the American people what really happened in Dallas. The Warren

Commission report is wrong by a country mile, and they are not going to be able

to stop us by using force from showing the people what really happened.

Mr. Garrison, Mr. Gurvich said he had gone to see Senator Robert Kennedy in

order to reassure him that there was nothing to your case. The senator said

he was disgusted by the fact that people were...

rehashing it or going into it again?

Well, all I can say with regard to Senator Kennedy's remark is I would have

agree with him. I certainly would be awfully tired of it myself, and that's

only comment I can make about Senator Kennedy. I don't think he would have any

way of knowing what's going on here. We have not attempted to contact him, and I

have no comment to make one way or the other, except that it is rather odd that

this man who disappeared,

six weeks ago, should surface in Washington and then in New York. And

course of his strange journey in the East, he's overcome by a concern for the

Kennedy family and decides to go see them.

Again, this is probably as sincere as his present pronouncements about the

investigation. I think in the final analysis, it's just another piece of

evidence on the scale.

that Mr. Gurvich has been seeing many people in the East, and I don't know

ones have had the ultimate influence on him, but he has been influenced, and he

is being used as a tool by them, which is unfortunate. I do feel sorry that he

was stupid for such things.

You've said in the past that there will be more arrests in this case. Do you

still consider that there will be more arrests?

Positively, there will be more arrests.

As a matter of fact, I think that it's because the federal government is well

aware that there will be more arrests, and they're well aware that we stumbled

on what really happened in Dallas, that has caused the frantic...

countermeasures, the idea at all costs that the investigation has to be

There will be other arrests, and as far as I'm concerned, these countermeasures

are an absolute waste of time because we are going to continue to dig up the

truth, and there is no way in the world, there's not enough power in Washington,

D .C. to prevent these other arrests and to prevent us from coming up with the

truth of what really happened.

They're just wasting their time.

Mr. Garrison, you have said Mr.

Gervich played a very minor role in your investigation, yet at the same time he

was given copies of the master file and from time to time made comments on the

investigation to the public.

Can you explain that?

Yes, and I sometimes make stupid decisions, and this is one of them.

Mr. Gervitz also charged that, and I quote, illegal and unethical practices

ordered by you in your probe, actions which he said warrant the investigation

a grand jury.

Well, this adoption, the sudden adoption by him of the party line coming down

from the east is very significant. It speaks for itself.

NBC has made the statement that Clay Shaw is not Clay Bertrand.

I can't make any comment about the Clayshaw case, even indirectly.

You've said in the past that there will be more arrests in this case. Do you

still consider that there will be more arrests?

On positivity, there's never been any question about that.

Joe, do you see any other questions?

There's, first of all, they're trying to create the picture that...

that we have an office which uses improper methods, yet in five years

never had one case reversed for improper methods.

And secondly, of course, they're trying to create the impression that we have no

case, and knowing that I cannot reply until the trial. The point is, why is

there such necessity for major news media?

Why is there such an effort to create the impression prior to trial that there

is no case? If there's no case, then we just lose it at the trial. That's all.

What's the great urgency?

What's the problem? The problem is that there are individuals and agencies in

Washington, D .C., that know that they have been caught fooling the American

people, and they are going to be exposed, and they're trying to prevent

That's what it's all about.

Do you feel his statement, Mr. Gurvich's statement, and NBC's statement, that

Clay Shaw is in fact not the Clay Bertrand that is involved in the case,

think that's a part of it?

To answer that, I would have to make a statement which might prejudice

Mr. Shaw's position, and I'm not going to let these people draw me

into...

saying anything derogatory or detrimental about Clay Shaw, because I'm

to give any basis for a reversal in this case, nor any basis to criticize my

office for prejudicing his case in advance.

So I simply can't answer it. Of course, I can't answer many of the things

they're bringing up as they know.

They can charge that we have no case.

if they want, and this is one of their main fictions, knowing that I cannot

reply, yes, we have a case, because one, two, three, four.

I am not going to prejudice Mr. Shaw's rights in this case.

Well, Mr. Gurvich said in the seven months he was employed in your office,

never saw any reliable evidence against Clay Shaw.

Well, all I can say is Mr.

Gurvich, first of all, was not in the office seven months. Mr. Gurvich showed

up.

Just about Christmas time, out of the blue, and was with us, I'd say,

approximately three months. So that was a slight exaggeration there.

As a matter of fact, he never was on the payroll at any time, and again, he

never received even the title of investigator. So there's a slight

there.

Again, as to whether or not there is evidence, I cannot answer without

reflecting on Mr. Shaw's case, and they know that.

They should not be attempting to hurt the state's case by publicly implying

there is no evidence when they know better. But they are so desperate that

are willing to do anything, and now they're using the defector that they've

picked up to publicly pretend that there is no evidence. Well, all I can say is

that... This is a case in which already three judges have passed on it and felt

there was evidence enough to hold the man for trial.

A grand jury of 12 citizens has indicted the defendant, and that's all I'm going

to say because I'm not going to be drawn into commenting on the evidence.

Would Mr. Gervich have had access to evidence against Mr. Shaw?

Yes, he would have had access to evidence after he insisted so strongly

given a copy of the files.

He had been driving me around quite a bit by then, and he was a definite help

many ways. So I said, well, let's give him a copy of the files. As a matter of

fact, I remember several members of the staff warning me that his appearance was

kind of gratuitous and kind of odd and late, so to speak. But it's one of those

bad decisions which I sometimes make. I said, no, I...

I'm confident that he's honest about it. Give him a copy of the files, which we

did up to that point.

Although, about six weeks ago, when we learned that he was having meetings with

Walter Sheridan of NBC, we stopped giving him the files at that point, and

haven't seen him around the office since. So he's been gone some time.

I want to call your attention how interesting it is that this meshes with

general fiction being issued from the New York Times and now from the Newsday

interview. Newsday is owned by Mr. Moyers, former assistant to President

Johnson. And the fiction is being issued by the Newsweek, that phony news

magazine, which is owned by the Washington Post.

And this is just a part of the general fiction being issued.

by Washington, D .C. elements in order to try and break up the case in advance.

Since all this has occurred, what has this done to your case? Has it weakened

any? It hasn't weakened the case directly, but it has had this effect.

extensive and continued counterattacks...

by major news media from the East, and I don't refer to CBS because I have to

say that they have been very balanced and fair in their approach, but this is

kind of an exception, have taken up an awful lot of our time in solving the

communication problem, in having to take statements from witnesses to show that

we don't use improper methods. This has taken up an awful lot of our time.

A problem we're even more concerned about is the possible effect on jurors

this area. And I'm sure this is one of the main things that the federal

government has in mind in trying to smash this case by smashing, pounding

again and again on the fiction that there is no case. There is no case,

that I cannot reply until the trial.

So there's a definite effort to prejudice jurors in advance, and we are

concerned about that. Thirdly...

There's harassment of witnesses.

For example, the National Broadcasting Company alone went to see one of our

witnesses nine times, offered him a trip to California to pay all expenses, and

would guarantee to prevent him from being extradited if he would leave

trial. This has become a problem, too, because some of our witnesses are

awfully nervous because of the pressures.