Q: Where did you see Dave Ferrie after the assassination?
A: Probably -- I am almost sure it was over at my house several times.
Q: Over at your house. Where were you living then?
A: On Elysian Fields.
Q: Was it in keeping with the open invitation that he had that he came there at that time?
A: Well, everybody had an open invitation to come over, I guess their -- it was in line with that.
Q: So he did come into your house at that time?
A: Well, the side apartment.
Q: I beg your pardon?
A: The side apartment is attached to the house.
Q: Into your apartment?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he sit down?
A: I am sure he did.
Q: In other words, you had a visit with him. Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Now, upon that occasion, which was after President Kennedy had been killed, after what you had heard up on Louisiana Avenue Parkway did you have any occasion to discuss with Dave Ferrie at that time the killing of President Kennedy?
A: No, at that time he was very bitter, you know, or he seemed to be changed quite a bit than he was before. Of course before he had a good mind, but he apparently lacked purpose, that was my idea. Again in '64 or late '64, whenever he came over, he was just a different person, he was not the same like he was before.
Q: You didn't see fit to ask him whether he had killed President Kennedy or whether he knew who killed him or anything like that?
A: I didn't see fit to ask him anything, he talked and grumbled about the D.A., grumbled about the Police Department in general, grumbled about the FBI.
Q: What was he grumbling about with respect to the District Attorney?
MR. ALCOCK: I object to hearsay.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Was this the only time that you saw Dave Ferrie after the assassination?
A: I saw him a few times, I am not sure how many.
Q: Can you give us an approximation?
A: I saw him at the service station, you already know that and perhaps five, six, or seven times after that, not too many.
Q: Now, in all of these five, six, seven or eight times that you saw Dave Ferrie after the assassination, was there ever any discussion of the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: No. The times that we met were for very short periods, and he was a broken person in '64 and '65, I thought. When we met I was generally on the run most of the time because Charlton Lyons, this thing was coming up, of course that was, I think in March, and then they had the national elections and all that kind of stuff, Goldwater election in '64, and also this other thing I was involved in during the summer months, in '64 it was baseball, the baseball team, again in '65, and '63 and '64 was my graduating year, and whenever he came over it would not be more than three or four or five minutes at the most, maybe a little
[text missing?]
A: I saw him a few times, I am not sure how many.
Q: Can you give us an approximation?
A: I saw him at the service station, you already know that and perhaps five, six, or seven times after that, not too many.
Q: Now, in all of these five, six, seven or eight times that you saw Dave Ferrie after the assassination, was there ever any discussion of the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: No. The times that we met were for very short periods, and he was a broken person in '64 and '65, I thought. When we met I was generally on the run most of the time because Charlton Lyons, this thing was coming up, of course that was, I think in March, and then they had the national elections and all that kind of stuff, Goldwater election in '64, and also this other thing I was involved in during the summer months, in '64 it was baseball, the baseball team, again in '65, and '63 and '64 was my graduating year, and whenever he came over it would not be more than three or four or five minutes at the most, maybe a little bit longer.
Q: And to the best of your recollection, the assassination was never discussed. Is that correct?
A: No.
Q: Did he ever ask you, "For goodness sake, keep quiet about what you heard up on Louisiana Avenue Parkway"?
MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor, Mr. Dymond knows that is hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DYMOND: I don't think that is hearsay on Your Honor's previous ruling on a point of similarity yesterday.
THE COURT: The acts and declarations of each co-conspirator, a conspiracy, if one did actually exist, it was at an end after the commission of the intended crime.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling, if the Court please, Counsel for the Defense reserves a bill of exception, making the question, the objection, the ruling of the Court a part of the bill. Now, if the Court please, in order for me to perfect this bill, I am going to have to get an answer from the witness, which of course would have to be done out of the presence of the Jury.
MR. ALCOCK: There is no provision in the law for such a procedure.
MR. DYMOND: Unless we do that, the Supreme Court has no way of knowing in the event of appeal what testimony we were deprived of.
MR. ALCOCK: The question is quite obvious, what did this man say in 1964, and the objection is to hearsay, the Court has sustained it, and what he is going to say is totally immaterial. The Court can determine, I am sure, the Supreme Court can determine whether or not as a matter of law that was hearsay, whatever the response was.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, as you well know, whether it is hearsay or not would be completely immaterial to an appellate court unless the appellate court found it was harmful, prejudicial, to keep that out of evidence.
THE COURT: You are asking to have the Jury go upstairs so you can perfect your bill?
MR. DYMOND: They can go back in the anteroom, I can get this in a matter of 30 seconds.
THE COURT: Let me make one statement for the record so that the record will show what happened. The Court sustained an objection by the State on the grounds that the evidence sought to be elicited was hearsay, primarily because the conspiracy, if one actually existed, it was at an end after the commission of the intended crime; however, Defense Counsel requested the Court to remove the Jury so he could ask certain questions of the witness to perfect his bill of exception, and that is the status of the case as of this moment.
MR. DYMOND: I might say out of the presence of the Jury, and I would like to refer Your Honor to the Enganic (?) case with which you are familiar.
THE COURT: I prosecuted the case.
MR. DYMOND: Co-conspirators were held for the actions of co-conspirators after the actual commission of the crime.
THE COURT: The Code states specifically they are liable for the actions up until the time the conspiracy comes to a conclusion.
MR. DYMOND: Right up until the time of arrest, Your Honor.
MR. ALCOCK: Referring to the Code, Article 844 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Pro- cedure, I think that article is quite clear in where it states in Paragraph (b) a form of bill of exception shall contain only the evidence necessary to form the basis for the bill, and the only evidence necessary to form the basis for this bill is the pro- pounded questioning, my objection, and the Court's ruling. There is no provision in this law to have counsel have this question answered for the benefit of an appellate court, should it be necessary. If that is the case, Your Honor, any time Defense Counsel wanted to reserve a bill, knowing the testimony would not be proper, although the Jury might be removed, he could still get in what he wanted to get into the record.
MR. DYMOND: It's on the basis of that very article that we contend we do have a right to do this, this is testimony that is necessary to make up the bill of exception.
THE COURT: I will permit you to proceed in this matter for this reason: You feel that the answer to be sought from the witness may have a great bearing on your bill to be considered by the Court. I will permit you to proceed.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: At any of these meetings, wherein you saw David Ferrie and spoke with him, after the
assassination of President Kennedy, did he ever caution you to keep quiet about what
you had heard on Louisiana Avenue Parkway?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: That's all.
Q: THE COURT:
Bring the Jury back in.
MR. DYMOND: We will ask that that answer be made part of the bill too. Now, if the Court please, in the presence of the Jury, I would like to reserve my bill of exception, making the Defense question, the State's objection, the reasons for their objection, the answer of the witness which was taken outside of the presence of the Jury, and the Court's ruling and the entire record up until this point, parts of the bill.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, how many times in total did you see the man whom you termed Leon
Oswald?
A: Four.
Q: Four times?
A: Four times.
Q: Let's go back to the first time that you ever saw him. Would you relate the circumstance surrounding that incident.
MR. ALCOCK: I object to this at this time. I realize that Counsel has wide latitude on cross-examination, but I feel that we have been down this path before, and that this is highly repetitious. We went into this yesterday, we went into this today, how many times are we going to go over this ground?
MR. DYMOND: This series of questions does have a purpose and will be connected up.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Would you give us the circumstances surrounding your first meeting with Leon Oswald.
A: Well, I went up to Ferrie's apartment, I think I was in Ferrie's automobile, and Oswald, or at least the guy I had never met was on the front porch rocking or sitting, and we went up the staircase into the house and he introduced me, and at that time he was polishing or wiping a rifle, and he didn't stay there long, he left after a little bit.
Q: You say you were introduced to him at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, had you arrived at the house with David Ferrie?
A: I am not sure, I think I did that night, but I remember he said something about the guy up on the porch, you know, at nighttime.
Q: You say this was nighttime. Is that right?
A: Oh, yes.
Q: Could you approximate the time of night?
A: No.
Q: Could you tell us approximately what date this was?
A: No, it was in September, right before the party, that was the first time I had ever seen the guy.
Q: You said it was in September of 1963?
A: Right.
Q: At that time did you have any conversation with Leon Oswald?
A: Well, there was antagonism, he just didn't seem to take towards being very social.
Q: Now, when was the next occasion on which you saw him?
A: A few nights later.
Q: About how many?
A: Two or three nights, three nights.
Q: Two or three nights later?
A: Yes.
Q: What were the circumstances surrounding that?
A: Well, I was coming back from uptown, I think playing basketball and we came in and everybody was, you know, the night of that meeting, with everybody --
Q: So the night of the meeting was the second time that you had seen him. Is that right?
A: Right.
Q: On the night of this meeting and the party, did you hear Oswald introduced to anyone?
A: The night of the meeting and the preceding night he was introduced to me.
Q: The night of the meeting and the party which preceded it?
A: The night of the meeting is the same as the party, right, and the previous time that I went up there.
Q: On the night of the party and meeting, did you hear Leon Oswald introduced to any of the other guests?
A: No, they were there already, I am sure he was, Dave Ferrie took pains to introduce him.
Q: Did you hear him referred to by name that night?
A: No, I don't think so.
Q: Did you know his name that night?
A: I had been introduced to him a couple of nights before.
Q: So you remembered his name?
A: It was the same guy, yes.
Q: Now, after the night of the party and meeting, when was the next time you saw Leon Oswald?
A: Several days later.
Q: Several days later. What were the circumstances surrounding that?
A: Well, I just dropped in, and he evidently was having trouble with his wife or something to that effect and I left.
Q: Who else was there?
A: Ferrie.
Q: Just Ferrie and Leon Oswald?
A: Right.
Q: Did you know his name at that time?
A: Well, it was the same guy that had been introduced to me.
Q: Then the last time that you saw Leon Oswald, when was that?
A: Just a day or so after that, a few days after that.
Q: What were the circumstances surrounding that?
A: Again I just dropped in, that was probably -- I was probably uptown, might have been the first week of class or would have been the registration time period or anything right along there, because I was going uptown for the last time, I think it was during the day.
Q: You heard his name mentioned that time?
A: No.
Q: Did you have any conversations with him?
A: No.
Q: It is your testimony thta he was about to leave for Houston at that time?
A: I heard the name Houston mentioned, I am not sure whether he was going, but he was leaving.
Q: Who mentioned the name Houston?
A: Dave Ferrie.
Q: Of course you knew that Leon Oswald's name was at that time, didn't you?
A: Right.
Q: Now, right after President Kennedy was assassinated, would I be correct in saying that you heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald on television many times, on radio and saw it in the newspapers?
A: Right, Well, that is in line with what I was asked on WAFB Television, the transcript you read to the Jury, about Lee Harvey Oswald. It is true that I did not know a Lee Harvey Oswald and I have stuck to that since. The guy that I knew was Leon Oswald, and when Sciambra showed me the photograph, essentially it was the same guy, but that was Lee Harvey's photograph there.
Q: Had you connected the two names at all, the identify, the fact that the two last names were identical before that?
A: I told a couple of friends of mine that I knew him or I had known him.
Q: Oh, you did?
A: Right.
Q: What friends did you tell this to?
A: My cousin recalled it, and probably I told several people that, but probably I am almost sure I told my cousin, because he mentioned it to me, and probably I told some people at school, but I am not sure who they were.
Q: Now, you have testified that Leon Oswald was Ferrie's roommate at that time.
A: That is the way Ferrie introduced him.
Q: And that is what you have termed Leon Oswald in your previous statements concerning this case, haven't you?
A: Oh, on the stand, yes.
Q: Now, I refer you to the second paragraph on Page 4 of the Sciambra memorandum.
A: Second paragraph, yes.
Q: Composing, on the fifth line of this second paragraph, I will read the statements made, "He said that Ferrie introduced him to someone he called his roommate. He said Ferrie mentioned his name but he can't remember it right now." Now, did you correct that statement when you went through the Sciambra memorandum making corrections yesterday?
A: I corrected the essence of the paragraph, although I don't have my copy here, but I corrected the essence of the paragraph, that this is some -- some of this essentially was previously what we were talking about and some of it was not, it did not clearly bring into focus what we talked about.
Q: Your testimony now, Mr. Russo, is that you did not tell Mr. Sciambra in Baton Rouge that you could not remember the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Is it my testimony that I did not?
Q: Is it your testimony that you did not tell Mr. Sciambra that you were unable to remember the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Are you asking two negatives now? I don't understand.
Q: I will try to rephrase it.
A: Would you put it in the affirmative, an affirmative question.
Q: Is it your testimony at this time that the statement contained in this memorandum to the effect that you were unable to remember the name of Ferrie's roommate is incorrect?
A: That statement is incorrect.
Q: Is that statement contrary to the statement concerning this that you made to Mr. Sciambra?
A: This is, well, part of it is right, part of it of it was not, it did not clearly bring into focus what we talked about.
Q: Your testimony now, Mr. Russo, is that you did not tell Mr. Sciambra in Baton Rouge that you could not remember the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Is it my testimony that I did not?
Q: Is it your testimony that you did not tell Mr. Sciambra that you were unable to remember the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Are you asking two negatives now? I don't understand.
Q: I will try to rephrase it.
A: Would you put it in the affirmative, an affirmative question.
Q: Is it your testimony at this time that the statement contained in this memorandum to the effect that you were unable to remember the name of Ferrie's roommate is incorrect?
A: That statement is incorrect.
Q: Is that statement contrary to the statement concerning this that you made to Mr. Sciambra?
A: This is, well, part of it is right, part of it is not. I picked the whole paragraph and said the essence of this paragraph is incorrect, some of it is right and some of it is not.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Sciambra that you knew the name?
A: Right, I did.
Q: Of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Right.
Q: Did you give Mr. Sciambra the name of Ferrie's roommate?
A: Yes.
Q: And still you do admit in his memorandum Mr. Sciambra says that you were unable to remember that name?
A: Well, I am not going to hold by that memorandum, that is for Mr. Sciambra to answer about that.
Q: I will ask you, you have read this memorandum over, you read it yesterday?
A: Right.
Q: Is there any statement in this memorandum identifying Ferrie's roommate as Leon Oswald?
A: Well, towards the back of the statement, as I recall it in there, I am not looking at the statement now --
Q: I ask that you look at the statement now and tell me where you can find any place in there where it does.
A: Leon is mentioned right in the back, but that is not when we mentioned it, the last page. Page 7, and that is the only place it is mentioned.
Q: Would you read the portion that you claim clarifies that.
A: Well, I am not saying it verifies it, but it is the only place he says that the name Leon really rings a bell, you see that on the third line, that is the only place it was mentioned in here.
Q: Now, is it your testimony that you told Mr. Sciambra that the roommate's name was Leon Oswald?
A: I told him, right.
Q: And of course you don't know why it would not be in his memorandum, do you?
A: No.
Q: Now, Mr. Russo, I would like to ask you whether you were acquainted with certain people in connection with your acquaintance with David Ferrie. Did you ever know a man or boy by the name of Tommy Compton?
A: I knew one by the name of Tommy, but I don't know the last name.
Q: Do you know whether or not Tommy Compton ever roomed with David Ferrie?
A: Ever rolled what?
Q: Roomed, was a roommate of David Ferrie?
A: The only roommate that I know was Oswald.
Q: Did you ever know a man or boy by the name of Layton Martens?
A: I know him now, I did not know him then, no.
Q: When did you first make his acquaintance?
A: I guess about a year ago, a year and a half ago.
Q: Now, since your meeting Layton Martens about a year or a year and a half ago, did you ever have any conversations with him?
A: We have.
Q: In your meetings or your acquaintance with Layton Martens, your conversations with him, have you ever discussed this case, Mr. Russo?
A: Oh, a little bit.
Q: Mr. Russo, do you recall on August 15, 1968, picking up Layton Martens in your automobile as he was walking in the French Quarter?
A: Probably, you know, if I saw him on the street I would have stopped, I am sure.
Q: I take it you are not sure of the date?
A: Of the date, no.
Q: I am going to ask you whether you made certain statements to Layton Martens upon that occasion. First, referring to this case, "This is the most blown-up and confused situation I have ever seen." Do you recall having made such a statement?
A: Something similar to that, not exactly those words, yes.
Q: But you did say something similar to that. Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Did you also make this statement, "I don't think any of these people involved excepting Sheridan and Townley should be convicted of anything because they didn't do anything"?
A: No, what we were talking about --
Q: I am asking you whether you made that statement.
THE COURT: You --
MR. DYMOND: I will ask the answer to the question and then an explanation.
THE COURT: I was about to tell him that, answer the question, answer the question either yes or no and then you are able to explain.
A: Yes.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, if you care to explain, go ahead.
A: The explanation is this: During the period of '67 all the way up to the summer, there were three phonies that used to come over to the house, one was James Phelan, he had the pretense of being a newspaper reporter, he was attempting to interfere with the investigation, he was followed on his heels by Rick Townley of WDSU and Walter Sheridan, I guess he is of NBC and not WDSU, and right in quick succession these people came along, not attempting to report any news at all, attempting to create news or change testimony or to force a change in testimony or asking me to change it, things like that, and that is essentially what I was stating then, three people, of course, others too, but these three were serious, they told me they would cut Garrison down and he couldn't get elected dogcatcher, the only thing they were after was busting Garrison down to his knees. I told Layton Martens on several occasions essentially the same thing, I said that of course Phelan initially was trying to report the news, but where he went bad I don't know, and Walter Sheridan didn't report anything and Rick Townley didn't have any serious attempts to report either, they were trying to make the news, being like the midget that slayed the dragon or whatever it was. I don't know what role they were playing, but I told him, I said, "Rick Townley and Walter Sheridan, both of them are scum, and I would like to see both of these two in jail."
Q: But you did make the statement, "I don't think any of the people involved excepting Sheridan and Townley should be convicted of anything because they didn't do anything"?
A: Absolutely.
Q: You said that? I ask you whether you made this statement on that occasion: "I really didn't know Ferrie very well, but I did meet him, he was with Emilio Santana and another blond-haired man named Lauren."
A: Named what?
Q: Lauren, L-a-u-r-e-n.
A: I don't remember that name at all, I do remember, and in our discussions - I will skip Emilio Santana for a minute, no, that statement I did not make.
Q: You did not make?
A: No, I just wanted to answer your question. Layton Martens told me essentially, "This is the way I knew Dave Ferrie," and I said, "Well, I didn't know him like that at all, this is the way I knew Dave Ferrie," and he said he didn't know him like that, and his summation was that Dave Ferrie had these multi-aspects to his personality and having that, and I said, "Well, that is true, I probably didn't know him real well," because I didn't know any of the things he told me and they were alien, as far as my knowledge of Dave Ferrie, they were alien to his personality.
Q: I ask you whether you made this statement on that occasion: "I met Ferrie through Allen Landry's parents, his mother in particular, she insisted that Ferrie was a homosexual and was trying to take Al away from home, she hated him."
A: The Landrys?
Q: Yes.
A: Essentially that, yes.
Q: I now ask you whether you recall having seen Layton Martens approximately two days after the first incident which I have recalled to you.
A: Well, I am not sure of the date.
Q: More particularly on August 17, 1968, at approximately 11:30 p.m.
A: I am not sure of the date, no.
Q: But you did see him shortly after that?
A: I saw him on several occasions, yes.
Q: On your next meeting with Layton Martens, I want to ask you whether you made these statements: "I have made most identifications on the basis of photographs alone."
A: Well, absolutely right.
Q: The next one, "I am sure of the identification I made of Shaw but not 100 per cent. I want to meet with him to make absolutely sure, but I am afraid to. It could have been Banister and Lewallen."
A: No, that is absolutely false.
Q: You say you did not say that. Is that right?
A: Yes, I will give you what I said in line with that.
Q: All right.
A: James Phelan made it a big point that he felt it was Banister. Now, Lewallen's name did not come up until Walter Sheridan, Rick Townley showed a picture of Lewallen to me, but Phelan made a big point of this, and I was talking to Martens about it and I told him essentially that I said I was sure 100 per cent, but I said in a case like this you have to be sure 1,000 percent, and I said that Phelan went as far as setting up not an appointment, but over in Biloxi, which the D.A.'s Office knew about because they bugged the house, they had it watched and they had tape-recorded the conversations, but they knew, and Mr. Phelan was going to set up in the Town of Biloxi or Gulfport of Bay St. Louis where the Defendant would be there and I would happen to drop into the same motel or something along that line, and I told Layton Martens in a case as serious as this, you would have to be 1,000 per cent sure although it was impossible to be that, but I was 100 per cent sure. Does that make sense?
Q: Isn't it true that you asked this meeting with Shaw be set up?
A: You are talking about with Phelan?
Q: I am talking about the meeting with Phelan.
A: I am not real sure of who initiated that. I added it probably in a general sense, and he said, "Well, -- the best way and the impossible way of course would be for me and Shaw to get together, I said if that is possible, and I said it is not, and he let it drop, and Phelan came the next day and said, "Well, I have it set up for this weekend, I can get Shaw to go over to Biloxi or be in Biloxi," and he said, "You can just drop in," and I said, "Well, that won't work because Shaw would have a wall that thick in front of him, it would serve no apparent purpose, the only way you could know a person is to have it unmolested and unharassed, and in the particular position he is in, it just would not be a free conversation.
Q: Shaw agreed to meet with you on that occasion didn't he?
A: I don't know if Shaw did or he didn't. I am just telling you what Phelan said.
Q: But you did want, you did want to meet with Shaw to get 1,000 per cent sure as you have said. Is that correct?
A: No, I said I was 100 per cent sure, but I say in a case of this magnitude, I was talking about from my own aspects, so much pressure being applied from people, from WDSU and from NBC and of course James Phelan, just a tremendous amount of pressure to alter your testimony, because they were sure they were right, they were sure that Shaw was not there and it was probably Banister or Lewallen or somebody else, maybe, and that I said in a case of this magnitude, you should be 1,000 per cent sure, but in a criminal court you can't be, you can only be 100 per cent.
Q: Would it be fair for me to say you wanted to be surer than you were?
A: Would it be fair to say? No, it would not be fair to say that, no.
Q: Well, 1,000 per cent would be more sure than 100 per cent?
A: In a different way, it is this way: I went into great explanation with Phelan, I don't know if I talked to Layton Martens about this, but I went into a long explanation with Phelan from the period of February 25th on, when I saw him it was late -- well, May, and of course Townley and Sheridan were in June, but I went into a long explanation of black versus color about what I thought of the whole situation, I said this had been a personal turmoil for many people of course as well as for the Defendant too, but as many people that were calling, I didn't mind Ken Elliot or Alec Gifford or Jim Kemp, they would just ask questions and let it go at that, but these people from WDSU didn't, they tried to alter the news and gt down to making the news, and I was not only 100 per cent sure because I said that instantly upon seeing Mr. Shaw stick his head out of the door on 1313 Dauphine Street, but I said it would probably be -- this is theoretical, and of course this is just theoretical, it is a good thing if you could be 1,000 per cent sure.
Q: Well, 1,000 per cent in your way of putting it would be surer than 100 per cent?
A: Well, 100 per cent is completely sure.
Q: What do you mean by 1,000 per cent?
A: 1,000 per cent is something that you can never reach, if you really want to know. Let's suppose there is a man that is walking around in the City of New Orleans 54 or 55 and has white hair and the same structure, the same physical structure, let's suppose there is a man, I haven't seen him, I have seen the Defendant. Now, that I am sure of, and I saw him at Dave Ferrie's apartment and I saw him with Oswald and Ferrie and they shot the breeze about killing the President. No, if there is a man and he would walk into this door right now and he would look similar to the Defendant, then I would have to think it over, but at this point I am absolutely sure 100 per cent that the Defendant is the man that was there.
Q: You say the Defendant is the man who was there shooting the breeze about killing the President. Is that right?
A: Right, in September you are talking about?
Q: Now, to use your words, Mr. Russo, didn't you say that you would like to get in a room with Shaw and hear him talk and --
A: Again I want to get to the theoretical concept of justice that I have, yes. The best thing to do would be to get into a man's mind and think what he thinks, but that is not possible either, and I was trying to give an example of this to -- if you are referring to Layton Martens, I am referring to James Phelan because I told him the same thing essentially, the thing in you can never be too sure.
(A pause in the trial while the Reporter added a new pad of Stenographic paper.)