CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ORLEANS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW
198-059
1426 (30)
SECTION "C"
EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS IN OPEN COURT
Afternoon, February 12, 1969
Charles A. Neyrey, Reporter
B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"
After the recess from 2:50 o'clock p.m. to 3:10 o'clock p.m., the following took place:
THE COURT: Is the State and Defense ready? I believe the witness has been tendered.
MR. ALCOCK: Yes, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN:
Q: Now, Mr. Sciambra, for the record, you are the same Andrew Sciambra who has been
participating in this case as an Assistant District Attorney, is that right?
A: That is correct.
Q: You have examined witnesses and have examined prospective jurors?
A: I have.
Q: And you are at this time presently an Assistant District Attorney?
A: I am.
Q: And you are still actively engaged in the trial of this case?
A: I am.
Q: And you were present in the courtroom during the entire time that Perry Raymond Russo testified?
A: I was.
Q: And you are privy to the district attorney's entire file?
A: I am.
Q: Mr. Sciambra, you testified I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that on February 25, 1967, you interviewed Russo in Baton Rouge?
A: That is correct.
Q: Now when did you begin to prepare your memorandum?
A: On the morning of February 27.
Q: And that was a Monday morning?
A: That was a Monday morning, correct.
Q: What date did you completely complete the memorandum by dictation to the stenographer?
A: I cannot give you the exact date but anywhere from seven to ten days later.
MR. DYMOND: That is a 1967 calendar.
BY MR. WEGMANN:
Q: Now I hand you a 1967 calendar and direct your attention to the latter part of
February and first part of March, 1967 and can you state the day of the week in which you finally completed your memorandum?
A: I cannot state the exact date of the week because I can't give you the exact time it took me to finish it. I can say it took me anywhere from seven to ten days and that is an approximate figure.
Q: What would be the date of the seventh day?
A: The day of the seventh day?
Q: Would be March what?
A: March 4.
Q: Monday, March 4, is that right?
A: It is Saturday, March 4.
Q: In other words it may have been completed on Saturday, March 4?
A: Possibly.
Q: Would you and your secretaries have worked to complete the statement on Saturday?
A: At that time we did and frequently on Saturday -- matter of fact we still do.
Q: What would be the outside date that the memorandum was completed?
A: Outside date, I would say somewhere around March 7 which is within seven to ten days, a seven to ten day-span.
Q: What day of the week was that?
A: That would have been a Tuesday.
Q: When the report was completed, Mr. Sciambra, what did you do with it?
A: When the report was completed I just finished dictating it and went on to other things, left it to the secretary to type it up whenever they'd get a chance to.
Q: When was the report physically delivered to you typed as it appears in this record?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Was it more than seven to ten days?
A: It could have been.
Q: It wasn't less than seven to ten days?
A: I doubt if it was less than.
Q: When the secretary completed the physical typing of it, what did she do with it?
MR. ALCOCK: I object unless he knows of his own knowledge.
THE COURT: If you know, Mr. Sciambra.
A: I could give you the procedure, the standard procedure in the office.
BY MR. WEGMANN:
Q: I will be more specific, Mr. Sciambra: Was the report delivered to you or delivered to Mr. Garrison?
A: It was delivered to both of us.
Q: At the same time?
A: I can't tell you that. I did receive a copy eventually of the report.
Q: And you can't give us the approximate date when you received the completed report?
A: I cannot.
Q: Did you personally deliver a copy to Garrison?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Do you know who did?
A: Of my own knowledge, no.
Q: Now is it possible that you delivered the memorandum to Garrison at the NOAC, the New Orleans Athletic Club?
A: I didn't.
MR. ALCOCK: I object as I believe the witness said he did not deliver it.
BY MR. WEGMANN:
Q: Did you direct anyone to deliver a copy to Garrison?
A: No, I did not.
Q: How do you know Garrison got a copy or is it merely an assumption on your part?
A: Later on I found out he read it so I assume he got a copy.
Q: When did you find out he read it?
A: I can't give you the exact date.
Q: Approximately how long after it was dictated.
A: I have no idea.
Q: Was it before or after the preliminary hearing?
MR. ALCOCK: I object, Your Honor, as he answered he had no idea.
MR. SCIAMBRA: I can give you an idea.
THE COURT: Would you approximate it, Mr. Sciambra?
THE WITNESS: If I could explain this perhaps it would straighten it out as regards the memorandum.
BY MR. WEGMANN:
Q: You stated this morning you made a verbal report to Garrison on the interview of Russo on February 25.
A: That is correct.
Q: When did you make this verbal report?
A: As soon as I left Perry's apartment in Baton Rouge.
Q: You made it via long distance telephone?
A: No, I get in the car and drove to Garrison's house.
Q: Who was present?
A: Just me and Jim Garrison, perhaps his wife was home. I don't remember.
Q: Other than the immediate family were there any newspaper reporters present?
A: No, nobody at all.
Q: Now, Mr. Sciambra, you took notes, is that correct?
A: I did.
Q: Where are those notes today?
A: Those notes were burned.
Q: When did you burn those notes?
A: Sometime after I completed the memorandum.
Q: How long after?
A: Very shortly, shortly and may I explain why I burned my notes?
THE COURT: You have a perfect right to explain.
A: Ever since this case began we have had tremendous problems in the District Attorney's Office trying to keep information from flowing out of the district attorney's office to others. Not too long ago a person who works for a national news magazine and a person who is a witness for the Defense showed up in Clinton and Jackson, Louisiana with a certain list of our witnesses trying to see just what they would testify to in this trial.
One of the persons noticed them and that is the reason we burned them now and the reason why many people in the district attorney's office burn their notes. We have been trying very unsuccessfully to prevent this information from getting in the hands of others.
BY MR. WEGMANN:
Q: And hasn't it been a practice from Mr. Garrison's control of the office to show your files and other information to the news media?
A: Absolutely not, not me.
Q: Don't you know, Mr. Sciambra, that the Sciambra Report was shown to James Phelan by Mr. Garrison?
A: Yes, I do know that.
Q: Isn't it also a fact that there was a meeting at Mr. Garrison's home at which you were present, Mr. William Gurvich and Mr. Jim Phelan was present and also Mr. Garrison, where it was discussed in great detail the omission in your report of the so-called "third meeting"?
A: That is exactly right. There was a meeting there and at that time I explained to Jim Phelan and I have also explained to this Court that even though the second memorandum, that Phelan insisted was the first memorandum, was incomplete; it properly reflected everything Perry told me in Baton Rouge except the meeting in Ferrie's apartment with Clem Bertrand, Lee Oswald --
Q: Let me ask you this: When you went to Baton Rouge what crime were you investigating?
A: Investigating a conspiracy -- at that time nobody had been charged. We were investigating the Kennedy assasination.
Q: Can you show me anywhere in the Sciambra Memorandum where there is any statement by you in your seven-page memorandum with reference to the assassination of Kennedy?
A: Indirectly on page 5, just to point out one thing, -- "Russo said that, that in the summer -- Russo said -- Russo said that during the summer of '63 Ferrie became obsessed with the idea that an assassination could be carried out in the United States very easily if the proper amount of planning was made. Every time Russo talked to Ferrie he told him more and more about how he was the kind of person who could successfully plan an assassination. Russo said that he never referred directly to J.F.K. and always used the President of Mexico or President Eisenhower as an example" --
There is an indirect reference to the assassination of Kennedy and also when he mentions availability of escape, and also when he mentions about triangulation of cross-fire.
Q: Where does it say triangulation of cross-fire?
A: It is not in this memorandum.
Q: Excuse me?
A: It is not in this memorandum but another thing we discussed that was omitted from this memorandum.
Q: In other words you went to Baton Rouge to investigate the assassination of the President but there's only an indirect reference to Kennedy --
A: Well --
Q: Let me finish my question and you now mention cross-fire and you mention the possibility of exits of escape and where in this memorandum is there anything about exits?
A: Let me explain my frame of mind.
Q: Answer the question first and then you can explain.
A: In regard to exits?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: "Ferrie said --" this is on page 5 -- "The whole key to a successful assassination would be the availability of exit and the use of the mass confusion that would result from such a plot."
Now let me further explain my answer.
Q: Go on.
A: When I went up to interview Perry Russo in Baton Rouge at that particular time I had read, heard, knew, of an interview that Perry had given to I believe a Baton Rouge reporter by the name of Bankston or Cranston. The article appeared in the Times- Picayune and also appeared in the Baton Rouge paper, so even before I talked to Perry I certainly was aware of the content of what he had to say because of what I had seen in the newspaper article and that Perry was referring to the assassination of President Kennedy, and Perry had brought out in the interview, and in that sense I was perfectly aware that Perry was discussing the assassination of President John Kennedy.
Q: So as I understand it when you went to Baton Rouge you had prepared yourself or brought yourself up to date by reading Bankston's article in the Times-Picayune?
A: When I went to Baton Rouge I was concerned -- I was the most surprised guy in the world when Perry picked out the picture of Clay Shaw and identified him as Clem Bertrand and when he picked out the picture of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Q: And the conspiracy meeting involving Dave Ferrie?
A: Definitely.
Q: And still is it a fact that you went up there and prepared yourself by reading Bankston's article?
A: That is correct.
Q: And is it a fact that you came back from Baton Rouge and yet that conspiracy meeting is not mentioned in your detailed seven-page memorandum?
A: That is because this conspiracy meeting was taken care of in my first memorandum, which was the sodium pentathol memorandum and not this one which is my second memorandum, and which I considered secondary and peripheral to the most important thing that Perry told me in Baton Rouge, which was the meeting between Clem Bertrand, Leon Oswald and Dave Ferrie.
Q: My question is that there is nothing in this memorandum, is there, about the third meeting?
A: As I said before --
Q: Answer yes or no and then explain.
A: You are correct, and this memorandum which is not the first memorandum but the -- was a secondary memorandum and I was not as concerned about this at this time as I was about the first memorandum which had already been tested successfully under sodium pentathol.
Q: You are telling us that this memorandum does not contain a true content of your conversation with Russo on February 25?
A: I am telling you this memorandum does not contain a complete transaction or a word by word description of the discussion between Perry and me. It is incomplete, inaccurate, there are omissions and I think I have a good reason for it.
Q: In other words you admit that the memorandum is full of omissions, full of inaccuracies and is full of errors?
A: Definitely.
Q: When Sciambra you were shown earlier by Mr. Alcock an exhibit identified as S-1 --
A: And which exhibit is that? Can I see S-1?
Q: I don't have it now but while they're looking for that, Mr. Sciambra, as an attorney and practicing criminal attorney, don't you know that a sodium pentathol memorandum would have been inadmissible whereas a memorandum you prepared on February 27 was admissible?
A: I didn't think about it.
Q: You didn't give it any concern?
A: I didn't. I did it because I was instructed to do it.
Q: I show you a drawing marked S-1, as is identified now, and you testified this morning before lunch that Russo identified that picture in Baton Rouge?
A: That is correct.
Q: Is that the identical picture?
A: I don't know if it's the identical one but it is a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and he did identify a picture of Oswald.
Q: You don't know if that is the picture or not?
A: If it was introduced it was.
Q: Isn't it true that Russo only identified one side of the picture?
A: I really don't remember.
Q: You don't have any recollection?
A: I don't have any recollection.
Q: Did you show him Russo's [sic] picture individually?
A: No.
Q: Or as a general picture?
A: All I know is he saw the picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and picked it out.
Q: You testified earlier about bringing in an artist to draw on the pictures?
A: Yes, sir, that is correct.
Q: Isn't it correct that that picture drawing session lasted for five or six hours?
A: I wouldn't say five or six hours, maybe one hour or one and a half or two hours because there were some problems.
Q: Russo had difficulty identifying him with the person he saw?
A: Russo never had trouble identifying him. There was some problems because Perry wanted to get Lee Harvey Oswald appearing in the same appearance as Ferrie's apartment. He wanted to see him with his hair messed up, say with a three or four days hair growth of beard, dirty and disheveled, and looking like a beatnik. The problem was, the problem was to put Oswald in the same physical appearance as he was in Ferrie's apartment. That was the problem.
Q: Mr. Sciambra, let's go back to the notes you burned. Isn't it a fact that James Phelan subsequently, after the memorandum was submitted to Mr. Garrison, came to you and asked you for those notes?
A: That is exactly right and I went to look for them and couldn't find them there.
Q: There weren't any leaks in the district attorney's office that time?
A: We always had leaks in the District Attorney's office.
Q: From the very inception?
A: From the inception.
Q: If you knew you had burned them why did you go look for them?
A: I wanted to see if -- the main reason is I wanted to see that I had done it.
Q: How many pages of notes?
A: I would imagine I took two and a half to three pages of notes.
Q: Legal-sized paper?
A: Right.
Q: On regular legal paper?
A: Yes, correct.
Q: Isn't it a fact your memorandum contains extensive memorandums as to phone numbers and addresses?
A: It does have some phone numbers and some addresses.
Q: And isn't it a fact on occasion in your memorandum you have properly spelled such names as Kershenstine and Landry and --
A: What is the purpose for putting them on the legal pad.
Q: And at least that part of the memorandum is correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Were there any names omitted that Russo mentioned to you?
A: Not that I can remember.
Q: Now, Mr. Sciambra, on your Direct Examination you made reference to Item No. 7 which according to my numbers is found on the bottom of Page 3 that was admitted -- look there --
A: The bottom of Page 3?
Q: The bottom of Page 3, "He also admitted to Russo for the first time that he was a homosexual and he wanted to know if Russo would be willing to take the drug."
A: Unh-hunh.
Q: As I understand your testimony that is not what Russo told you?
A: Can I tell you exactly how it happened?
Q: Answer my question and then you can explain. Is it not there?
A: That is not what Russo said specifically word for word but that is my appreciation, my own words of what Perry did tell me.
Q: Did Perry tell you Ferrie was a homosexual?
A: Perry told me he knew Ferrie was a homosexual?
Q: Isn't that what the statement says?
A: The statement does say that but Perry said that Ferrie did not tell him that.
Q: So we are splitting hairs?
A: You are splitting hairs.
Q: Let me ask you this, Mr. Sciambra: What explanation do you have for the fact that today you have a specific recollection as to specific items -- for instance that took place over two years ago whereas within seven days after the time it happened you apparently were filled with inaccuracies?
A: Because I sat down and hear Perry explain it.
Q: Now it is your testimony now based upon what Mr. Russo had to say in the last two days?
A: I think I listened to Perry's testimony and it brought back a lot of things that happened.
Q: Isn't it a fact that since the time that Mr. Russo appeared on the scene he has been your responsibility?
A: He has not been my responsibility.
Q: Haven't you seen him on a regular basis?
A: I have not seen Perry on a regular basis. As a matter of fact no one particular individual is my responsibility. There are about four or five people assigned to this investigation and no one can take the time out to have any one person under him because there is too many things to do, too many people to see and too many people to talk to.
Q: Have you had any other assignment since February of '67 other than this assignment?
MR. ALCOCK: Read the question and don't answer it yet.
(Whereupon, the last propounded question was read back by the Reporter.)
THE COURT: You are assuming he did have an assignment.
BY MR. WEGMANN:
Q: Have you any other assignments besides the assassination probe?
A: At the present time?
Q: You, yes.
A: You mean since I began on the case -- oh, I see, I know what you mean, no, no.
Q: Your answer is no?
A: I have been working primarily on the investigation of the assassination.
Q: That was probably true in February and March '67 when the statement was made?
A: Right.
Q: Now I direct your attention to what I call Item No. 14 which is found on Page 4 of the memorandum right about a quarter of the way up from the bottom. I will read it to you because I don't believe we have the same memorandums, but it's my Item 14.
"Ferrie told Russo that he had tried the aphrodisiac drug --" you find that?
A: Right.
Q: Where it says, "Ferrie told Russo that he had tried the aphrodisiac drug on his roommate and it worked perfectly. He said that he and his roommate laid in bed naked and he gave the drug to his roommate and his rommate became very passionate and aggressive and had intercourse with Ferrie."
A: Correct.
Q: My question is did Russo use the word "intercourse" with you?
A: As I said before --
Q: Answer yes or no and then you can explain.
A: I can't remember, can't remember specifically and I would like to explain why I can't remember.
Q: Go ahead.
A: I remember specifically Perry telling me that Ferrie had the ahprodosiac drug and had given it to his roommate and that they had laid in bed and that Leon became very passionate and whether or not Perry used the word or whether I assumed that, I can't answer and that is the reason why "intercourse" is in the memorandum.
Q: As I understand, this is your language?
A: This is completely my interpretation, my own words of what Perry told me.
Q: Do you usually put assumptions in your report to the District Attorney?
A: Sometimes, yes.
Q: And without identifying them as assumptions?
A: Sometimes, yes.
Q: Routinely or as regular procedure?
A: I don't know what is regular procedure and again we are splitting words.
Q: Do you state your assumptions as facts as you did in this particular memorandum?
A: I said my assumptions what they are and I use them to explain it in the memorandum.
Q: Is there any way by reading your memorandum that we can distinguish the facts from the assumptions?
A: Sometimes but not all the time.
Q: How would you do that?
A: The memorandum states assumption and states facts.
Q: No one would know?
A: No but as each situation has come up I would be able, I would be able to explain it.
Q: Directing your attention to No. 20 which is on Page 6 and which deals with the time he called his "brother Steve" over to look at Arcacha's picture and asked him if that face was familiar and where his brother Steve said "Yes, it looks like the guy in the film." Is that in your words also?
A: No.
Q: Which part are you referring to, the word "brother"?
A: Perry did introduce me to Steve as a brother or half-brother.
Q: He introduced you to him as a brother or half-brother and was Steve actually in Baton Rouge?
A: Definitely.
Q: And the first time you heard the expression "soul brother" was when Russo testified here?
A: Right.
Q: I notice various parts in your memorandum, Mr. Sciambra, where you have certain statements like No. 19 where it says "Do you know or recognize any of these people?"
A: Wait a minute so I can find that.
Q: It's halfway down on Page 6 about Arcacha Smith.
A: Okay.
Q: I notice you have that in quotation marks and was that a true quote from Russo or rather a true quote by you from your notes?
A: I don't know if it's word by word but the essence is correct and I showed him pictures and asked him if he recognized any of the people in the pictures. The essence is correct.
Q: The essence is correct?
A: I don't know if do you know or recognize any of these people but that is the essence of what I would say to anybody when I would show them a pictrue, do you know or recognize any of those people.
Q: Well why did you put it in quotes?
A: Because those would be my words.
Q: Further down where he said "It looks like a guy in the film," is that a true quote from Russo -- that's two lines down?
A: That's right.
Q: Is that fact or assumption?
A: Where is that -- two lines down?
Q: Then he called his Brother Steve over to look --
A: Yes.
Q: -- and he said, Yes, it looks like the guy in the film"?
A: That is what Steve said, right. Right before that it says Steve said in his own words "Yes, it looks like the guy in the film."
Q: You are reading a quote in your words at that particular time when you were dictating this particular portion of the memorandum?
A: I was writing notes on that day, and I was writing quotes and it just depended that particular day in what was involved.
Q: I am talking about when you were writing these notes?
A: Writing notes?
Q: In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, did you take down quotes from Russo?
A: I don't know if I would go through the trouble of opening quotes and closing quotes when I was taking those notes.
Q: I will take you now down to my Item 23 which is at the bottom of Page 6, where he said "The only thing that doesn't make him stand up and say he is sure beyond the shadow of any doubt is the fact that the roommate was always so cruddy and had a bushy beard."
A: I don't see that -- I see it now.
Q: Is that Russo's words to you?
A: I can't tell you exactly if that was Perry's words to me or not because it is my interpretation of what Perry told me when he said he would like to see Oswald in the same condition he was in in Ferrie's apartment, namely messed up hair, three or four day growth of beard, and dirty looking like a beatnik.
Q: In Baton Rouge there was a doubt in Russo's mind as to the identity of Oswald?
A: No, sir, not a doubt in Russo's mind as to identifying Oswald but only a doubt, not a doubt but only a desire on Russo's part to see Oswald in the same physical condition, never a doubt in the identification; he was always positive.
Q: Why do you use the words in your memorandum, "Beyond the shadow of any doubt," these are your words?
A: Right, because at that time --
Q: Is you interpretation?
A: It is my interpretation on what Perry was saying.
Q: That it is your interpretation of what Russo told you?
A: Okay, fine.
Q: Now it is also your interpretation of what Russo told you that "He was always cruddy and had a bush beard." Did Russo use the word "bushy"?
A: I don't know if Russo used the word "bushy" or not. I am inclined that he didn't. He described Oswald as having a three or four day growth and it was in between that. That was one of the problems in trying to get a picture to look like that with a three or four day growth.
Q: Have you ever seen a bushy beard only three or four days old?
A: It would depend, it would depend on the individual. Some would grow a three or four days growth and have a bushy beard and some can grow 'em for three or four weeks and you would not describe it as such.
Q: Let's go to the item at the very end where you talk about hypnosis and do I understand that you disagree with Russo when he says this is an error where you say he says he had been hypnotized and he said that he never had been hypnotized?
A: Russo said yesterday he never had been hypnotized?
Q: Yes.
A: What is your question?
Q: I'm asking you "He states he had been hypnotized like this before and it had helped him to recall and that he would be glad to do it for us." Is that what Perry told you or is this an assumption?
A: It is my interpretation of what Perry told me.
Q: Well tell us what Perry told you.
A: Perry told me that Dave Ferrie and someone else, I forget his name, had attempted to hypnotize him and it was or there was a difference between Ferrie and Perry as to whether or not Ferrie and the other guy had actually accomplished it by putting him under hypnosis. He said he did not and Ferrie said he was of the opinion he had and this was your interpretation of that conversation.
Q: Mr. Sciambra, you were satisfied with Ferrie's interpretation rather than Russo's?
A: On that particular item?
Q: Yes.
A: Evidently I did.
Q: Now did you ever have a conversation with Ferrie?
A: Dave Ferrie?
Q: Yes.
A: Which time?
Q: Any time.
A: I met Dave Ferrie two or three times out on the Lakefront Airport when I was in Law School.
Q: Was Dave Ferrie alive February 25?
A: Was Dave Ferrie alive February 25?
Q: Yes.
A: If I'm not mistaken Dave Ferrie died February 22.
Q: He wasn't in Baton Rouge and you were reporting only what Russo told you and your interpretation?
A: That is correct.
Q: Have you ever taped an interview with Perry Russo?
A: No, I never did.
Q: Does the District Attorney's office own tape recording equipment?
A: They own it but you've got to realize at that time we had three or four -- the District Attorney's office owns big tape recorders and certainly it would be unreasonable to have to carry them around. As you well know, Mr. Wegmann, you talk to a lot of people and you don't record it. We have a couple of small ones but at that particular time I believe there -- they were out and in addition I was called from home and wasn't pre- pared and if Garrison hadn't called me at 8:00 o'clock in the morning I certainly wouldn't have gone.
Q: You stated in April or May of '67 that James Phelan got your permission or Russo told you that Phelan was going to talk to him.
A: Russo told me that Phelan did.
Q: Isn't --
A: I called Perry and told him that Phelan wanted to talk to him and I set the whole thing up.
Q: Wasn't that in March?
A: In March.
Q: I am talking about May.
A: May in Perry's apartment on St. Phillip?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, Perry called Phelan and said that and I said let me first check with Garrison and as a result of my checking with Garrison we let Phelan go over there, let him go over there and see how far he would go and let us tape the conversation and that is what we did.
Q: Mr. Sciambra, let's go back to the meeting that took place between you, James Phelan, Jim Garrison and Bill Gurvich at Mr. Garrison's home.
A: Okay.
Q: Isn't it a fact that there was a discussion between you and Phelan as to whether or not the third meeting was contained in the memorandum and isn't it a fact at that time that you and Phelan disagreed and that he said --
MR. ALCOCK: I object to what Mr. Phelan said. We have gotten into an awful lot of hearsay here.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
BY MR. WEGMANN:
Q: Isn't it a fact that Mr. Phelan offered to make you a bet that it was not in the
memorandum and you insisted it was in the memorandum?
A: In --
MR. ALCOCK: My objection is hearsay.
THE COURT: I will permit it.
A: I don't know anything about a bet offered by Phelan. There was a dispute between Phelan and myself as to whether Perry told me during the first interview, and I told James Phelan that Perry did tell me this in Baton Rouge and if he didn't believe it or had any questions I would be perfectly willing to call up Perry and arrange an interview and he could go up there and talk to Perry all he wanted to.
Q: Did you talk to Perry before Phelan got to Baton Rouge?
A: I called Perry and told him that Phelan wanted to talk to him and to ask him questions and to tell me anything he wanted to know.
Q: Was this before or after the preliminary hearing?
A: It was after the preliminary hearing of March 21.
Q: Going back to your memorandum, Mr. Sciambra, on Page 6 --
A: Okay.
Q: -- what I call discrepancy No. 21 --
A: Okay.
Q: -- the next picture he identified was that of Clay Shaw?
A: That is right.
Q: He said that he saw this man twice. The first time was when he pulled into Ferrie's service station to get his car fixed?
A: That is correct.
Q: And he said Shaw was the person who was sitting in the compact car talking with Ferrie?
A: Yes.
Q: And he remembers seeing him again at the Nashville Street Wharf when he went to see J.F.K. speak?
A: Right.
Q: But he recollects nothing about meeting him at Ferrie's house?
A: That is an omission by me.
Q: But there is nothing in this memorandum about a third meeting?
A: That is correct.
Q: Why didn't you in this memorandum say that he saw him three times an enumerate the third meeting?
A: Because it was an error on my part. I was not really covered, as I said before, not really concerned of the information in the second memorandum. I considered this a memorandum of record and not information and the information in this record I considered to be secondary and peripheral to the information I dictated in the first memorandum which contains the full account of the meeting that took place in Ferrie's apartment between Shaw, Oswald and Ferrie. I made this memorandum to begin with because there were some names we were going to check out at a later date.
Q: And it is a seven-page memorandum, six and a quarter pages?
A: Right.
Q: Let me ask you this: When Phelan talked to you at Garrison's house, isn't it a fact you insisted to Phelan it was in the memorandum and Phelan told you that you didn't know what in the world you were talking about?
A: I insisted to Phelan that Perry told me this in the first interview.
Q: Answer the question.
A: The answer is no and I gave you the explanation.
Q: Do you deny that Mr. Phelan offered to quit his job with the Saturday Evening Post if you would quit yours with the District Attorney if it wasn't in that memorandum?
A: I never denied anything.
Q: You mean he nevered offered anything?
A: That is exactly right.
Q: You told, you told Russo to lead Phelan on in May or June '67?
A: That is right and can I give you my reason?
Q: Can you say yes or no?
A: At that particular time we didn't think an out-of-state Journalist, we considered at very best as a journalistic prostitute, should come into this State and try to hurt our case by trying to influence our case by showing him a picture of Guy Banister.
Q: You've finished your explanation?
A: By showing Perry a picture of Guy Banister, which he later did and telling him it was Banister and not Shaw and telling Perry he would be the patsy if Shaw were not convicted; that Perry would be on the edge of the limb and Garrison would go and get him; and also told Perry he should visit an attorney, a $200,000.00 a year attorney that they had and that he or Shaw would take care of the expenses.
Q: Isn't this the same James Phelan that in March you arranged for Russo to meet himself without any representative of the DA's office being present, without anybody being bugged, yet this is the same man you told Russo to talk to in Baton Rouge?
A: I was merely telling him --
Q: But by May he had become a prostitute?
A: That is right because of his inability to objectively report what he should. That is why he became a prostitute.
Q: In the same month of June '67 Russo gave a statement to Sergeant O'Donnell on?
A: No, I didn't.
Q: Do you know who I'm talking about when I say O'Donnell?
A: Sure did.
Q: You arranged the meeting?
A: I don't know if I arranged it.
Q: Did O'Donnell report back to you?
A: No, he didn't.
Q: Did you read O'Donnell's report?
A: You mean the report of the interview?
Q: Yes.
A: Of the sodium pentathol?
Q: The report of O'Donnell made in June of '67 to the District Attorney's office.
A: I didn't read it word for word but I had the memorandum that O'Donnell had given a copy to Jim Garrison.
Q: You are not saying that O'Donnell is a prostitute?
A: Definitely not. I think he misinterpreted Perry's words though.
Q: You said that Phelan was a prostitute and for not have objectively reported it?
A: That was obvious.
Q: What did he find -- do you feel you objectively reported what Russo told you on February 25 in Baton Rouge?
A: I reported it to the best of my ability. That would make me a sloppy memorandum writer but it doesn't make me a prostitute.
Q: What?
A: Some twenty-six inaccuracies, twenty-six inconsistencies, differences between my interpretation and Perry's words.
Q: How many omissions?
A: It had some omissions but the obvious omission was the fact I did not report in that memorandum that Perry had told me about meeting in Ferrie's apartment between Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald and that was the big omission and that I pointed out.
Q: He used the word "Shaw" in Baton Rouge?
A: No, he didn't. He has always identified Clay Shaw as Clem Bertrand. Even today he identifies Clay Shaw as Clem Bertrand.
MR. WEGMANN: That is all the questions I have.
MR. ALCOCK: No further questions.