|
| |
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. GLEN D. KING beginning at 15H51...
The testimony of Capt. Glen D. King was taken at 11:20 a.m., on May 28,
1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay
Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Leon D. Hubert, Jr., assistant counsel of the President's
Commission.
Mr. HUBERT. This is the deposition of Capt. Glen D. King.
Captain King, my name is Leon D. Hubert. I am a member of the advisory
staff of the General Counsel of the President's Commission. Under the provisions of
Executive Order 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and the joint resolution of Congress No.
137, and the rules of procedure adopted by the President's Commission in conformance with
the Executive order and the joint resolution, I have been authorized to take a sworn
deposition from you. I state to you now that the general nature of the Commission's
inquiry is to ascertain, evaluate, and report upon the facts relevant to the assassination
of President Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of Lee Harvey Oswald. In particular,
as to you, Mr. King, the nature of the inquiry today is to determine what facts you know
about the death of Oswald and the surrounding circumstances, and any other pertinent facts
you may know about the general inquiry.
Now, Captain King, I believe that you appear here today by virtue of a
general request made to you by Mr. J. Lee Rankin, general counsel of the staff of the
President's Commission, addressed to your chief, Mr. Curry, asking that you appear before
it. Under the rules adopted by the Commission, you are entitled to a 3-day written notice
prior to the taking of this deposition, but such rules also provide that a witness may
waive this 3-day notice if he so wishes. Now, I will ask you to state whether or not you
are willing to waive the 3-day notice.
Captain KING. Yes, sir.
51
Page 52
Mr. HUBERT. Will you stand and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you are about to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Captain KING. I do.
Mr. HUBERT. Will you please state your name?
Captain KING. Glen D. King.
Mr. HUBERT. And your age?
Captain KING. I am 39.
Mr. HUBERT. Your address?
Captain KING. I live at 519 Goldwood, Dallas 32, Tex.
Mr. HUBERT. What is your occupation, sir?
Captain KING. Police officer with the city of Dallas.
Mr. HUBERT. And how long have you been so employed?
Captain KING. I was first employed on August 2, 1948.
Mr. HUBERT. And have you been with the police department continuously
since then?
Captain KING. No; I have not. I left the department in, I think it was
1950, and was gone approximately 11 months, and returned in 1951; and I have been with the
department continuously since that date.
Mr. HUBERT. Was that a resignation from the department?
Captain KING. It was a resignation from the department and I entered
into private business.
Mr. HUBERT. It was voluntary?
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. And did you start at the bottom, as it were?
Captain KING. Yes; as a patrolman.
Mr. HUBERT. I notice that in the report of the proceedings at which you
made a speech, I think, in Washington, there was a description of you and your career
given and I am going to read it into the record here and ask you if it is correct.
You were introduced as follows: That you are an administrative
assistant to Chief Curry and that you are a former newspaper man, that you were a police
reporter on the Dallas Morning News when you joined the police department in 1948; that
you have served in every division of the department until you have risen to the position
you now hold; that you had studied journalism in college at the University of Texas and
SMU; that you have attended a number of police institutes and lectured at some of them;
that you have written in the field of political science and that you are the author of two
books and numerous magazine articles; is that all correct, sir?
Captain KING. Sir, this is correct.
Mr. HUBERT. What was your specific assignment on November 22 and for
some months or weeks or whatever it was prior to that date, the year being 1963?
Captain KING. As the administrative assistant to the chief, one of my
primary responsibilities is press relations and public relations also. On the date of
November 22 I was asked to remain in the administrative offices while other members of the
administrative staff were going to be absent on their assignments, and I was asked to stay
in the administrative offices.
Mr. HUBERT. I would like for you to describe for the record just under
normal circumstances just what the functions and duties and responsibilities of your
position are.
Captain KING. There are, of course, a lot of rather dissimilar or
separated functions of the office.
Mr. HUBERT. I am particularly interested in the ones dealing with press
relations and public relations.
Captain KING. As I say, the office our office is the unit of the
department that is charged with the efforts of the department for public relations and it
is the office to which the local newsmen know they can come to receive any assistance that
they need in their work. It is one in which they can register complaints against the
department and procedures of the department and the treatment that they receive, or it is
one to which they can come to secure information on things they are investigating.
Mr. HUBERT. In other words, there is a setup-a central spot--where
every newsman can get the information and information will be gotten for him?
52
Page 53
Captain KING. This is true.
Mr. HUBERT. That's your office and you are the head of that?
Captain KING. That's true; yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Prior to November 22, were any standard operating
procedures set up for relationships with the press?
Captain KING. Yes; we had a general order in the department which in
very brief and very general terms set forth a policy of the department so far as their
relations with the press was concerned. We had published prior to that time a memorandum
from the chief setting forth what the policy of the department would be. Briefly stated,
it was the policy that we would render any possible assistance to the press except that
assistance which would seriously interfere with any investigation that we had underway.
This policy made it the responsibility of each officer of the department to do this.
My office is the press relations office, but my office is not the only
place in the department where a newsman could get information. It was the responsibility
of each member of the department to furnish to the press information on incidents in which
they, themselves, were involved, except on matters which involved departmental personnel
policies of the department, or, as I said, unless it would obviously interfere with an
investigation underway.
Mr. HUBERT. In the latter case, if it would interfere with an
investigation underway, what was the policy then?
Captain KING. If it would interfere, then it was the policy that the
information would be withheld.
Mr. HUBERT. And the press then would simply not be told or be sent
away, as it were?
Captain KING. It would be withheld from the press; yes.
Mr. HUBERT. And you say that that was the general policy, not merely
with respect to your relations with the press, but with every police officer's relations
with the press?
Captain KING. That's correct; yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Was it your duty to enforce that policy in the event you
saw it was being disrupted; that is to say, in the event you observed that press
relationship was interfering with an investigation?
Captain KING. It would be--probably; yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, did you have any general system of registration of the
press--I'm not speaking now of November 22--but of norma1 conditions whereby
identification cards and so forth would be issued?
Captain KING. Yes, sir; we have.
Mr. HUBERT. What was that?
Captain KING. We have an identification card that we have prepared, the
department prepared, and newsmen who are employees of regular news gathering agencies in
town, upon identification as such or request of their employer actually, are furnished
with the press identification.
Mr. HUBERT. I suppose that would be given mostly to local press people,
would it not?
Captain KING. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, on the occasion of the President's visit, is it fair
to state that more outside newsmen sought this accreditation or identification card?
Captain KING. Some did seek it--yes. Very little of it actually was
done. We received a call from--at least these are the only ones that I can recall, Mr.
Hubert, that we gave the identification to---out-of-State or newsmen who did not normally
work here we received a call from channel 4, KRLD-TV and they said they had some people in
here from out of the city, of which I recall there were eight of these. They were
identified to us by Eddie Barker who is the news director of KRLD, and they were furnished
press cards. These are the only ones I recall.
Mr. HUBERT. That was prior to the assassination?
Captain KING. No, this was subsequent to the assassination. These are
the only ones that I can recall that were given for newsmen who came into town to cover
this.
Mr. HUBERT. Is it your thought now that the newsmen who were not local,
who were not known to you and who did not have individual identification cards
53
Page 54
should have not been admitted or spoken to unless they had obtained clearance?
Captain KING. I don't think it would have been possible from a
practical point of view--I don't think it could have been done.
Mr. HUBERT. Would you tell us why?
Captain KING. "Why" has to include the atmosphere that
existed over there, the tremendous pressures that existed, the fact that telephones were
ringing constantly, that there were droves of people in there; it would also have to
include the fact that the method by which you postively identify someone it doesn't
mean--it's not easy. If someone comes into us with a letter from the New York Times on
their letterhead stating that this man is an employee of the New York Times, "Will
you please furnish him with identification?", we haven't any way of knowing that
actually this letter did come from the New York Times and that it was not on a forged or
stolen letterhead.
Mr. HUBERT. Normally you would not issue a card to such an individual
without a checkout, as it were?
Captain KING. That's true.
Mr. HUBERT. And your thought was that checkouts were just simply
impossible?
Captain KING. They were.
Mr. HUBERT. Was any attempt made to set up a system whereby only
positively identified news people would be admitted to the areas near Oswald?
Captain KING. I'm not sure I understand your question, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. After the death of the President, when you say that this
atmosphere and this condition developed with the press where there were mobs of people and
so forth, was there any effort made by anyone to clear out the place, as it were, and then
readmit only those who were known to be accredited or definitely identified?
Captain KING. There were officers assigned to the area there primarily
the third floor where the homicide office is located and where most of the newsmen were,
and they did screen the newsmen and other people who came in there. I was not the person
who assigned them out there and I don't actually know what instructions they were given
and I don't know actually the procedures by which they screened them. I was inside of my
office most of the time with telephones ringing.
Mr. HUBERT. Would it normally have been your duty to screen them or to
see that they had identification?
Captain KING. No, actually it wouldn't--I think normally it would be
the duty of the officer who was working the incident to check the identification.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know if anyone suggested that something should be
done to correct the conditions which you have described?
Captain KING. I understand that Chief Batchelor on his arrival at the
station ordered some more men assigned up there and tightened up to a certain extent the
security that was up there, but I was not present when this was done.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know if anyone suggested that the whole place be
cleared out completely and then readmit only those definitely accredited individuals?
Captain KING. I don't know of anything like that.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know of anyone who suggested that at all?
Captain KING. I don't recall anyone having suggested that--no, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. I gather from what you are telling me that the presence of
the press and under the conditions that they were present would be considered by you at
least as a serious disruption of the normal methods of interrogation of a prisoner?
Captain KING. I would say that nothing really that was going on there
at that time was normal.
Mr. HUBERT. Is it your opinion that the presence of the press as they
were, particularly on the third floor, when Captain Fritz was interrogating Oswald did
interfere with the investigation?
Captain KING. I think it must have yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Can you give us any examples of how it did?
Captain KING. Well, the hallways were full--actually with men and
officers. I was out on occasion in the hallway and officers tried to keep an aisle or
pathway cleared in the hall so people who had business in the other bureaus on that end of
the floor and people who were working out of the homicide and
54
Page 55
robbery bureau could get in and out, and this was a constant battle because of the number
of newsmen who were there. They would move back into the aisleway that had been cleared.
They interfered with the movement of people who had to be there.
The door from the elevator, the jail elevator--the ones used for the
transportation of prisoners--is south of the doorway of the homicide and robbery bureau
where the interrogations were conducted, and whenever Oswald was brought down from the
jail or taken back from homicide and robbery to the jail, he had to pass through this
area. There was noise out there--a considerable amount of noise out there, and I think
this must have been a disquieting thing.
Mr. HUBERT. And you mentioned that your general policy about the
cooperation of the press had an exception, and that is, when it would interfere with an
investigation, and you have, I think, demonstrated now that in your opinion there was
interference with the investigation?
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know of any effort made by anyone to invoke the
exception to the general rule?
Captain KING. I think no effort was made. I think that the decision was
made without ever having been stated, actually, that this was certainly not a normal
circumstance; that the newsmen should be allowed to remain in there.
The news cameramen first arrived--I don't recall the time it was--it
was a short time after the death of the President or the shooting, and Chief Lunday, as I
recall, is our traffic division chief. He was the only chief officer in the department who
had returned. We checked--they wanted to bring their cameras up to the third floor, and we
checked with Chief Lunday to see if it was permissible, and I was told it would be.
Mr. HUBERT. You did that yourself?
Captain KING. Yes. I am thinking it was Chief Lunday--it was either
Chief Lunday or Chief Lumpkin, and did receive permission for them to bring their cables
through the windows. Of course, the number of newsmen in the beginning was less than it
later became, and more and more came in.
Mr. HUBERT. At the time you checked the matter with Chief Lunday or
perhaps it was Lumpkin, your thought was that at that time the presence of the press would
not constitute interference?
Captain KING. We didn't--I didn't have any idea at that time that we
would have the number that we had.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, did it occur to you at any later time that the number
had increased to the point that something ought to be done about it?
Captain KING. The obvious answer is "yes", but it didn't
actually. The newsmen out there, I guess you become accustomed to them out there, or
accustomed to the idea of them being out there, once you have decided that they are going
to be permitted to be there, and it was the obvious policy of the department at that time
that they would be permitted to be there and so far as my ever mentioning to anyone else
or recommending to anyone else or suggesting to anyone else that they should be removed--I
did not.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you hear anyone else suggest that the situation was
getting out of hand, if it was, in fact, sir?
Captain KING. I don't recall having done so.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, of course, a large part of that was due, I take it, to
the fact that Oswald was being interrogated on the third floor in Captain Fritz' office,
which is the normal place where a person charged with murder would be interrogated?
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. But, do you know if anyone thought of removing Oswald to
another place and thus avoid the press in the room?
Captain KING. That, I do not know, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. You had not heard that discussed?
Captain KING. I don't recall having heard it discussed.
Mr. HUBERT. Did it occur to you. that that might be one way to get
around this situation which you found?
Captain KING. No; actually it did not.
731-231 O-64-Vol.XV---5
55
Page 56
Mr. HUBERT. Were there other places available so it could actually have
been done?
Captain KING. I am sure that some place could have been found--I don't
know whether a place could have been found that would have solved more problems than it
raised or not--I don't know.
Mr. HUBERT. Then, in what way?
Captain KING. Well, because this is the normal--this is the place where
these homicide officers are assigned. This is the place where their equipment is, this is
the place where they normally work and this is something that had not even occurred to
me---moving him to some other location and moving the interrogation or the investigation
of him to some other place--this is something again in which I was not involved in and in
which I was not in.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, I have read the transcript of the speech that you
made before the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington, which I will
introduce into this deposition in a little while.
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. And I gather from it that to a considerable extent the
police department was influenced to tolerate this condition to a large extent by the tract
that this was an extraordinary case and that any effort to run the press away might be
misconstrued in some manner.
Captain KING. I think that it very definitely might have. I think
probably that these are things that were put into words after the conditions returned more
to normal over there. They were not things that were actually said. We didn't sit down,
frankly, we didn't really have much time to sit down to do anything, but we didn't just
sit down and say, "We are going to let the press remain here for this reason, for
this reason, or for this reason," even if they might have been the reasons that we
did in fact.
Mr. HUBERT. There were no staff meetings or anything of that sort to
consider and determine that problem-- the problems?
Captain KING. No; there were meetings of the administrators of the
departments, certainly, but these were informal meetings.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, was this problem discussed at any of those meetings,
and by "this problem," I mean the problem of the press conditions?
Captain KING. To my knowledge that I remember--no; it probably was--it
would almost have had to have been mentioned over there about the fact that there were
these large number of newsmen there, but any discussion of their removal or any
consideration really, of their removal, I don't recall.
Mr. HUBERT. I notice that you mentioned in your speech also that the
press were murmuring, I think, or voicing in some ways some possibly discrediting remarks
as to the Dallas Police Department, and that that factor influenced somewhat the
conditions.
Captain KING. It was my understanding that one of the newsmen--I heard
this, but I don't know who he was and I, of my own knowledge, don't know that this
actually occurred, but that one of them had obtained a picture of Oswald, that he had a
picture of Oswald, and he held it up before the cameras and said, "This is what the
man who assassinated or who shot President Kennedy looks like or at least this is what he
did look like." He says, "He has been in the custody of the police department
for an hour and I don't know what he looks like now."
Mr. HUBERT. That was heard by you and others--
Captain KING. This was not heard by me. I said I was told this--I did
not hear it--I was not a witness to it.
Mr. HUBERT. But you were told that this occurred shortly after, in
fact, it had occurred or was supposed to have occurred?
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. That is to say, you heard it on the 22d of November?
Captain KING. I don't remember whether it was on the 22d or the 23d--I
don't remember when I heard it.
Mr. HUBERT. But it was before Oswald was shot?
Captain KING. I believe that's correct--yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you remember that on the night of the 22d when Oswald
was brought to the assembly room at which he was displayed, as it were, to the press?
56
Page 57
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Were you present at that time?
Captain KING. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us how that occasion came about, what brought
about this showing of Oswald to the press in the assembly room?
Captain KING. Actually, I was not a part of the discussions to bring
him down there, nor a part of the decision to bring him down there and I don't know. I was
told--I was directed to go to the assembly room and I don't remember exactly what time it
was--it was a short time before he was brought down there.
Mr. HUBERT. Who directed you?
Captain KING. Chief Curry, I believe.
Mr. HUBERT. Did he say what the purpose was?
Captain KING. He said that Oswald was going to be brought down to the
assembly room and the newsmen were going to be down there and he wanted a policeman down
there to maintain order.
Mr. HUBERT. Did he consult with you as to whether or not this was the
proper thing to do?
Captain KING. No, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Would it have been normal for him to consult with you in
your position as public relations officer?
Captain KING. Probably not--no.
Mr. HUBERT. You did not offer any objection to this proposal?
Captain KING. I did not.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know if anyone else did?
Captain KING. No, sir; I don't--I don't know.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know if there had been any release made by anyone in
the police department to the press that Oswald had not confessed?
Captain KING. No, I don't. I don't know whether there was or not--that
he had not confessed?
Mr. HUBERT. Yes.
Captain KING. I think it probably was--I think it was mentioned that
there had not been a statement--I think it was mentioned too, that he denied knowledge of
the murder, so I'm sure the statement along this line was made to the press.
Mr. HUBERT. Perhaps by inference and implication you have already
answered the following question but I want to ask it now--is it your thought that in this
particular case more information was given to the press and more latitude was given than
would normally be given in a murder case which did not involve the President of the United
States?
Captain KING. Probably--probably more, certainly there were more people
there that were more involved in it than there would have been, I think, under any other
circumstances.
Mr. HUBERT. I would think, then, that this would be considered to be a
wholly abnormal situation, that is to say, physical conditions and the mass of people the
importance of the case and so forth?
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. What was the relationship between the police department and
the district attorney's office in handling the press, was there any coordination of
effort?
Captain KING. Mr. Wade was at the police department most of the time,
or quite a lot of the time. I think Mr. Alexander was there some. There was discussion
made of what would be released to the press whether there was any discussion with him on
the actual physical handling of the press and permission for them to be there or not, I
don't recall.
Mr. HUBERT. Who discussed with Mr. Wade or any other member of the
district attorney's office, what would be released to the press?
Captain KING. I did on one occasion, or at least I was present on one
occasion when a discussion was had with Mr. Wade, and this was the only occasion that I
can recall.
Mr. HUBERT. Can you tell us about it, please, sir?
Captain KING. I think it was--I'm not sure which night it was, whether
it was on Saturday night or on Sunday night--I don't remember whether it was before
57
Page 58
or after Oswald was killed---Chief Curry was not there, but he had said to the press in my
presence, and said to me that there were elements of evidence that he was not going to
comment on, and he told me that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had requested that we
not comment on some of the evidence and that it was not his intention to do so.
In Chief Curry's absence there was a meeting in the chief's office at
which was present, Captain Fritz was there and Chief Stevenson was there and I think Chief
Lumpkin was there and Chief Batchelor was there, and there was a discussion with Mr. Wade
on the release of certain information, and I don't exactly remember what the evidence was,
but there was some evidence that Mr. Wade wanted to release to the press.
Mr. HUBERT. Was it in relation to the prosecution of Oswald or the
prosecution of Ruby?
Captain KING. I don't know whether--I don't recall whether it was in
relation to the prosecution of anyone or not, or whether it was just evidence general
evidence in the case. I don't remember what the item of the evidence was.
Mr. HUBERT. I asked that question in order to assist in fixing the
date.
Captain KING. The date yes; I know, but I do recall that we opposed the
release of the evidence or a statement on the evidence and that Mr. Wade then sometime
thereafter appeared before the newsmen and made some comment regarding the evidence.
Mr. HUBERT. Then, it was at night, you say?
Captain KING. It was at night--yes.
Mr. HUBERT. It could have been either the night of the 23d or the night
of the 24th?
Captain KING. It could have been and I don't recall.
Mr. HUBERT. Could it have been the night of the 22d, too?
Captain KING. I don't think it was, because I think Chief Curry was at
the police station until late on the night of the 22d. I'm thinking it was the night of
the 24th, which was Sunday night, wasn't it?
Mr. HUBERT. Yes.
Captain KING. I'm thinking it was that night, because I know he was not
there and I think he was there until the small hours of the morning on actually both
Friday and Saturday, and I think that this was Sunday night, but I can't say definitely
that it was.
Mr. HUBERT. But in any case it was the police department's opinion that
the evidence should not be released?
Captain KING. It was the opinion of those members who were there that
it should not be released--yes.
Mr. HUBERT. And that prevailed?
Captain KING. So far as we were concerned in our release of it--so far
as that was concerned--yes, sir; but the district attorney did make some comment to the
press regarding it.
Mr. HUBERT. And that was over your objection?
Captain KING. Well, actually, I don't know.
Mr. HUBERT. Let me put it this way: You had decided not to do it?
Captain KING. That's correct--we did not do it.
Mr. HUBERT. And you expressed your view to him that it should not be
done?
Captain KING. We expressed to him the statement of the chief that the
department was not going to do it. I think the chief had indicated to the FBI we would
not, or at least, this was what he told us at any rate.
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know if any studies have been made or policies
changed since this incident in the police department with reference to relations with the
press?
Captain KING. There has not been any change in our written policy, only
I know the chief has said--I heard him say on more than one occasion that if we were faced
with the same circumstances again, he would certainly restrict the presence of the newsmen
there and we would act differently from the manner in which we did this time, but so far
as any change having been made in the written policy of the department, I don't know
anything about it.
Mr. HUBERT. Of course, it is always easier in retrospect to know what
is the best thing to do, but part of a study after all is to see what is the best thing to
do.
58
Page 59
Captain KING. Oh, yes; I think you could probably get an excellent
argument with a lot of points on both sides right now on a discussion of what the proper
treatment of the newsmen would be.
Mr. HUBERT. Given this same situation?
Captain KING. Given this same situation--yes; with the benefit of
hindsight and with the benefit of the experience you had--I think you could raise many
points--good points on both sides.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, I have handed you previously two statements of
interviews with you by the FBI. I am marking a statement which is dated January 25, 1964,
by putting in the right margin the following: "May 28, 1964, Dallas, Tex., Exhibit
No. 1, deposition of Capt. Glen D. King, Leon D. Hubert. Jr., and then my signature, and I
ask you if you have read that report of the interview of you by FBI Agents Clements and
Sayres, and if you consider that to be a correct and proper report of the interview?
Captain KING. Yes; sir.
Mr. HUBERT. I have also marked for identification an earlier interview
of you by FBI Agent Leo Robertson on December 9 and December 10, 1963, and for the purpose
of identification, I have marked that document as follows: "May 28, 1964, Dallas,
Tex., Exhibit No. 2, deposition of Capt. Glen D. King," and I have signed my name,
and since it consists of 2 pages, I have put my initials in the lower right-hand corner. I
think you have read that document, and I ask you if it is a correct and fair statement of
your interview with FBI Agent Robertson?
Captain KING. I think there is nothing in that that is incorrect. I
believe I told Agent Robertson at that time that I had in my memory seen Jack Ruby one
time prior. I had known him since 1955 or 1956, I believe, and I think my statement to him
was that I had first met him at that time when I was in the vice squad, and I had seen him
one time since then and I had heard the name.
Mr. HUBERT. You did not see him at any time in the Dallas Police
Department building from November 22 until the shooting?
Captain KING. Not until the shooting--no, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Then, there is a third document which is a letter dated
December 2, 1963, addressed to Chief Curry and apparently the original was signed by you,
and I have marked it for identification as follows: to wit: "Dallas, Tex., May 28,
1964, Exhibit No. 3, deposition of Capt. Glen D. King," and I have signed my name
under that, all of which appears in the right hand margin of the first page, and since
that document contains 2 pages, I have put my initials at the bottom on the right hand
corner of the first page, and I ask you if that is a correct statement of the facts as you
saw them and as you reported them?
Capain KING. Yes; sir.
Mr. HUBERT. With reference to the letter addressed to Chief Curry,
dated December 2, which I have just marked for identification as Exhibit No. 3, with
reference to the second paragraph, I invite your attention to this paragraph and ask you
if you know why the press had congregated in the basement?
Captain KING. Yes; sir. On the evening of November 23, I don't recall
the time, but on the evening of November 23, Chief Curry had appeared before the newsmen
and had told the newsmen--they had asked him something about--I think--if they might be
able to leave and get something to eat or get some rest and not miss anything that was
there, and Chief Curry had told them that the transfer would not be made prior to 10
o'clock the next morning--that was Sunday morning.
Mr. HUBERT. But was any announcement made as to what route would be
used to take him out of the building?
Captain KING. Not to my knowledge no.
Mr. HUBERT. In fact, there were several other routes by which he could
be taken?
Captain KING. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. Have you heard whether anyone told them that the route
would be via the basement?
Captain KING. I don't know whether anyone--I don't recall whether
anyone did or not.
59
Page 60
Mr. HUBERT. Do you know why they all assembled there instead of in some
other spot?
Captain KING. No--in my thinking on it; and I don't even know why I
thought it was going to be from the basement, but this was the only thing that had
occurred to me. There might have been something that I heard and don't recall, but my
impression was that it was going to be from the basement and out, and maybe because this
is our normal method of transfer, our normal way we transfer. We bring them down into the
jail office and out through the jail office and this might be why I was thinking this
about it, but this was the way I thought about it.
Mr. HUBERT. In this second paragraph of Exhibit No. 3 you say you went
to the basement because of the number of newsmen who were assembled there. Do you mean by
that that that was a matter of some concern to you?
Captain KING. Actually no--not a matter particularly of concern--there
was not anything happening there that I thought was unusual or anything that I was
particularly concerned about. There were more newsmen going down in there than there were
up on the third floor and I went down there actually to be available more than anything
else.
Mr. HUBERT. In other words, the way that the letter reads--the way that
sentence reads--the fact that newsmen were there was what motivated you to go there?
Captain KING. That's correct.
Mr. HUBERT. Because otherwise you had no connection with the transfer?
Captain KING. That's correct.
Mr. HUBERT. And you thought it was your duty to be there since you were
the press man?
Captain KING. That's correct.
Mr. HUBERT. And where the press was, you would be?
Captain KING. That's correct.
Mr. HUBERT. I notice in the fourth paragraph you state that you talked
briefly with Captain Jones, Captain Talbert, and Captain Arnett--do you recall the nature
of the conversation?
Captain KING. I don't recall what was said only we spoke briefly, and I
don't remember actually what any of us said. I remembered having seen them down there. I
don't know whether it was anything more than a greeting or not.
Mr. HUBERT. Would you say that the conditions you have described
concerning the press, that is to say, the number of them, the noise, the commotion, the
cameras and so forth, continued to be as bad after Oswald was shot, as those conditions
had been prior to the shooting? You see, heretofore, you have described the conditions
really on the 22d and the 23d.
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. And for the morning of the 24th. Then came the shooting of
Oswald, and what would you have to say about the conditions with relation to the press
after that incident as a comparison?
Captain KING. I don't recall any noticeable change.
Mr. HUBERT. Ruby was not ever on the third floor, as I recall it, was
he?
Captain KING. I don't know--I don't remember ever having seen him on
the third floor--I don't know whether he was there or not.
Mr. HUBERT. I have also shown you previously what appears to be a
galley proof of the purported publication of a speech made by you before the meeting of
the American Society of Newspaper Editors and I have marked this document for
identification as follows: "Dallas, Texas, May 28, 1964, Exhibit No. 4, deposition of
Capt. Glen D. King," and I have signed my name in the right-hand margin.
The pages that I have shown you are marked with blue ink--this is page
7 and it is on that page that I have marked the identification data which I have just
dictated.
On page 8, marked in blue ink, I have put my name in the bottom
right-hand corner, the same with page 9, and the same with page 10, and the same with page
11, where your speech ends at the top of page 11, and also I have marked my name on the
bottom of page 17, because there is a comment by you there on that page, and the same with
pages 18, 19, and 20.
60
Page 61
Now, I think you have read this galley proof?
Captain KING. I have yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Addressing ourselves now to pages 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11,
which is the body of your speech, would you say that this is a correct report of what you
said?
Captain KING. I'm sure it is--yes--as I said, I did not read this. I
had a prepared text there that I actually didn't particularly follow. I spoke more
ex-temporaneously then, and I can't remember exactly my wordage on it, but there is
nothing in there I think that I did not say. There is nothing incorrect there.
Mr. HUBERT. Turning to page 17, it appears that a Mr. Black asked you
to comment on a point, and there is printed on this galley proof on page 17 what purports
to be your comment, and I think that you told, me that you wanted to make some correction
as to that comment?
Captain KING. Only in one word only. My answer as listed on this---
Mr. HUBERT. On page 17?
Captain KING. On page 17--it is written here, "I think it probably
would be improper for me to comment on this even before the other members of the
panel," and I think what I said there, and certainly what I would have intended to
say, is, "I think it probable that it probably would be improper for me to comment on
this even more than the other members of the panel."
Mr. HUBERT. In other words, your thought was that nobody should comment
on it, and you least of all?
Captain KING. Me least of all--yes.
Mr. HUBERT. On other pages there are comments that appeared by you and
I understand from what you tell me that these this galley proof fairly represents what is
correct as to what you said, as far as you can remember?
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. Now, I would like the record to show that this galley proof
shows some corrections made apparently by some editorial process, and at other places
there are some apparent typewriter corrections and some words changed or added by pen and
ink and that these various changes and comments were not made by me or by Captain King but
are in the same condition as were received by me from the American Association of
Newspaper Editors in this way, that by letter dated May 26, 1964. Mr. Gene Giancarlo,
G-i-a-n-c-a-r-l-o [spelling], addressed a letter to Mr. Barefoot Sanders, U.S. attorney,
enclosing this galley proof, and that Mr. Sanders handed this to me this morning.
Captain KING. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. All of these comments being relative to Exhibit No. 4.
Captain King, is there anything you would like to add to what has been said?
Captain KING. I think not.
Mr. HUBERT. Immediately prior to the beginning of this deposition, I
had a short conversation with you in which I showed you the various documents that were
introduced. The rules of the Commission require that I now ask you if there was any
discussion between us concerning those documents or anything else that is not covered in
the deposition?
Captain KING. I recall nothing that was said before that was not
covered after the deposition was begun.
Mr. HUBERT. And there is nothing inconsistent between what we spoke of
before and what was covered in the deposition?
Captain KING. No inconsistencies.
Mr. HUBERT. Thank you very much, Captain.
Captain KING. Thank you. This is not of any particular value this that
I have here but this is what I had prepared.
Mr. HUBERT. Let's get this in the record, Captain, that you have
referred to a prepared speech that you went to the American Society of Newspapers
conference with, as to what you have already testified, that you used this as a basis but
actually spoke largely extemporaneously.
Captain KING. That's correct, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. You have also indicated to me that I may introduce this
prepared copy of the text for whatever it is worth?
Captain KING. Yes; sir.
Mr. HUBERT. And I will do that and mark it for identification as
follows, to
61
Page 62
wit: I am placing in the right-hand margin the words, "Dallas, Texas, the date May
28, 1964, Exhibit No. 5, deposition of Capt. Glen D. King," and I am signing my name
below that and I am initialing the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth,
the seventh and the eighth pages by placing my initials in the lower right- hand corner.
I have not read this Exhibit No. 5--do you know if there is anything in
it that was omitted from the speech?
Captain KING. Not from the speech proper. Actually, I think there are
no inconsistencies between this and the speech. There might have been some things said in
the prepared text that I didn't say there, and I think there was, or vice versa, but I
think there are no inconsistencies.
Mr. HUBERT. Well, in any case, the contents of Exhibit No. 5, whether
or not spoken by you at the time you made your speech, represents your views in any case?
Captain KING. That's correct.
Mr. HUBERT. All right, sir, I think that is all. Thank you very much,
Captain, and we appreciate it.
Captain KING. Thank you--I appreciate this opportunity to speak with
you.
C. Ray Hall
Page 62
|
