I was interested in your impression.
Lieutenant REVILL. Yes, sir; and if this is being recorded, then I'd rather not state an opinion as to his truth and veracity.

Mr. Hubert.

I understand. Did you mention on that first occasion any other names to Ruby ? I think you have mentioned already, Vaughn and-
Lieutenant REVILL. I mentioned the officers who were in the positions to have seen Ruby.

Mr. Hubert.

Did you mention to him the name of Daniels, ex-police officer? Lieutenant REVILL. I may have. I might have asked him if he knew Daniels.

Mr. Hubert.

But, in any case, that is all of your questions. He refused to discuss and at this time he his lawyer wasn't present?
Lieutenant REVILL. On the second interview, which would have occurred on December the

Mr. Hubert.

Before you leave that, I want to get a little bit more information concerning this, I think you said, "Fit of anger," when he cursed you and told you you were a hatchet man.
Lieutenant REFILL. What upset him---

Mr. Hubert.

Did he say any other things ?
Lieutenant REVILL. What upset him was that I was involved in this thing. When I walked in he said something to the effect, "Well, the Intelligence people are involved in it now. They think I am a Communist." I don't know what gave him that idea, but I have known Jack Ruby since 1953. I have never been a friend with him. I knew him enough to talk to him. Lieutenant Cornwall took the position of being his friend, and I was the foe, and that is the way we conducted our interview. We were unable to get any information from him.

Mr. Hubert.

But the mention of Harrison, apparently is the thing that set--
Lieutenant REVILL. Set him off, and I have never been satisfied, personally, with Harrison's statement. Of course, this is my personal opinion.

Mr. Hubert.

I think that kind of answers the other question.
Lieutenant REVILL. Yes; it does. They were reluctant--I say, "They," the other members of the committee were reluctant to have him submitted to a polygraph examination, but I thought that this was one way of determining if he was truthful or not.

Mr. Hubert.

It was as a result of your insistence that he was put under one ?
Lieutenant REVILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. Hubert.

All right, perhaps we can go to the second interview. On what date was that?
Lieutenant REVILL. This would have occurred on the 3d of December.

Mr. Hubert.

Tuesday?
Lieutenant REVILL. On a Tuesday, yes, sir. The afternoon of December 3. What we had been attempting to do was to put Jack Ruby on a polygraph machine, and his lawyer, Tom Howard, had been approached during the first interview as to doing this. He stated that there were other lawyers coming into the case and that he would have to have their permission before agreeing to let Jack take this examination. On Monday we communicated with Tom by telephone and he kept hedging with us, and telling us he had not heard from the other lawyers. By "Tom," I mean Tom Howard, the lawyer. On Tuesday, we discussed it again with him and he stated that he was still trying to work this thing out. So, Cornwall and I again decided--that we would go directly to Jack Ruby. He was the person involved, and we would give him the opportunity to submit to the examination. If he wanted to, fine. If he doesn't want to then it's also fine.

« Previous | Next »

Found a Typo?

Click here

Last Update: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 21:56:36 CET