The Clay Shaw preliminary hearing testimony of Perry Raymond Russo
(continued)
MR. DYMOND:
At this time, if there has been made a transcription of yesterday's
testimony of the witness, Perry Russo, we will ask that the Court order that
the defense be furnished with a copy of same, and if there is a charge in
connection therewith, we will willingly bear it.
JUDGE BAGERT:
I might say that a verbatim transcript was in the morning paper, very close
to it.
MR. DYMOND:
I have not had time to read it.
JUDGE BAGERT:
We have conferred with the two stenographers, and they have burned the
midnight oil, and whereas they don't have it in the form wherein they would
normally transmit this to the Supreme Court, there is a copy. There will be a
photostat made, several photostats made, and given to the State and the
defense at the first recess.
MR. DYMOND:
The defense will ask an opportunity to cross examine the witness, Perry
Russo.
PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO, after having previously been sworn by the Minute
Clerk, testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Do you believe in God, Russo?
A. Sir?
Q. I said, do you believe in God?
A. It would depend on the definition.
Q. On the definition? How do you define God?
A. I define God as everything, the entity of the universe.
Q. Do you recall yesterday having raised your hand and taking an oath to
the effect that all the testimony which you had given in the proceedings would
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the significance of that oath in accordance with your beliefs?
A. The significance in accordance to my belief, I would be telling the
truth to the best I knew it under penalty of the law, of the Court. I don't
understand the law in that particular instance.
Q. Would you mean only under penalty of the law and oath or also under
penalty of God as you believe God?
A. I believe God is everything, including the law, all that is good,
including the universe, including the earth, the people, you, myself and
everyone here.
Q. Would your oath under these circumstances have any relationship to your
belief in God?
A. I do not understand the question.
Q. Would you consider your oath a promise to God to tell the truth?
A. I consider my oath a promise to myself, which is part of God, and
promise everyone in here, who are parts of God, and promise everybody that I
am telling the truth as best I know it.
Q. Would you consider your stated belief in God, the conventional belief in
God, or is this one peculiar to you?
A. I don't know what is peculiar to me or not. I have read and discussed
this with many priests at Loyola concerning different conceptions of God,
earlier conception and historical conceptions, and the idea of the Christian
God and the Mohammed, and things like that. I don't know if mine is more
peculiar than anyone else.
Q. You don't know that yours are any more peculiar than anyone else? Do you
go to church?
A. On occasions.
Q. On what occasions?
A. The occasion that I feel that I need to talk out whatever I am thinking
about at that particular time.
Q. Talk it out with whom?
A. I sometimes talk to ministers, I talk to priests, and I have not yet had
occasion to talk to a rabbi. I talk to someone that is willing to listen. I
like to do it in the confines of a church or sanctuary of it.
Q. Like the sanctuary of the quietness of the confines of the church?
A. That would be adequate. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you feel that you had committed a sin in the eyes of God if you
took an oath and testified to the truth and then testified falsely; I am
referring to your God as you believe it?
A. I believe that the truth should be spoken and I believe that it would be
against mankind, which is God, and certain portion of God [sic], it would be
against mankind, as well as against myself and everyone else.
Q. Would you consider it a sin in the eyes of God?
A. In God that I believe in, I have never really conceptualized His mind or
any sort of relationship in that instance, in that respect.
Q. In other words, your oath would have very little relation to your belief
in any God at all?
A. Now, Mr. Dymond, you are saying that, and I don't think I said that.
Q. Well, just answer the question?
A. What is the question?
(Let the record show that the court reporter reread the question.)
THE WITNESS:
I don't understand the question.
JUDGE BAGERT:
I don't understand it either.
MR. DYMOND:
Your Honor, I think it is just about as clear as this witness' conception
of God is.
MR. ALCOCK:
Your Honor, this is --
JUDGE BAGERT:
This is not a catechism class, let's move on with the case.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Where were you born?
A. New Orleans.
Q. When?
A. May 14, 1941.
Q. May 14, 1941?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was your father's full name?
A. Francis Raymond Russo.
Q. What was your mother's maiden name?
A. Morie Kimbrell.
Q. How many other children besides you were there in the family?
A. I had a sister, and I think she died when I was four years old.
Q. Do you know what her name was?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was it?
A. Frances, with an E-S.
Q. What other children, if any?
A. And my brother, Edwin.
Q. Edward?
A. Edwin.
Q. I take it that your mother and father were each married only once and
then to each other, is that correct?
A. There was discussions, which I am not sure of, and I have never been
able to validate, but I had a feeling, I cannot cite any records to that
effect, but I had a feeling my father was married before, and either it wasn't
an accredited marriage or it was annulled, or it was some confusion [sic].
Q. What gave you that feeling?
A. Well, it was one of the subjects that had been brought up. You see, my
mother and father were not very close, as far as I can recollect. My mother is
dead now. And that was one of the things that was argued about, at least, it
was parts of conversation, here and there, things like that, and I could not
cite you any source. I don't know what to look for.
Q. You say one of the things that was argued about?
A. Argued about or thrown up at each other, back and forth. Other things,
like working late, stuff like that.
Q. In other words, you heard your mother make statements to your father to
the effect that he had a previous marriage?
A. I heard them arguing about either -- I don't know if there was a
previous marriage. That was the impression I got. I just don't know if it was
or not. That was the impression I got.
Q. I would take it then that you don't know whether, if there were a
previous marriage, there were any children of that marriage?
A. Now, you are getting into an area where I think there are subsequent
children from it, but not before -- no, sir, not that I know of.
Q. I don't quite follow you; you say there were or there were not children
of any previous marriage?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Therefore, you would have only one living brother, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you had a sister who died when you were very, very young?
A. Four or five.
Q. Your brother, Edwin, what is his age?
A. He would be twenty-eight.
Q. Does he live in New Orleans?
A. His home is here in New Orleans, and he works for Boeing or Chrysler,
but he is studying for a doctorate in Baton Rouge.
Q. Has he ever been on the faculty in Baton Rouge?
A. He is currently on the faculty.
Q. How long has he been on the faculty?
A. I am not sure. I think this is the first semester. He explained to me in
one instance where he needed so many hours of teaching. In other words, he had
a Bachelor and Master from Tulane, and he needed so many hours of teaching,
and then after the teaching, he had a dissertation to make, and attempt to get
a doctorate degree.
Q. Do you know when he put in these hours of teaching?
A. I think this semester, the first semester.
Q. Just this semester?
A. Perhaps before.
Q. Now, your father is still alive, is he not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I understand that your mother died not too long ago?
A. She died in 1963.
Q. Now, prior to the death of your mother, was your father supporting your
mother?
A. The money that my mother got, she got from my father, but that was an
area of problem, a problematic area.
Q. But whatever money she got, she got from your father?
A. As far as I know.
Q. You did not support her, in other words, is that correct?
A. No, not as such, no.
Q. What do you mean by not as such?
A. Well, if I had money on me and she wanted it, she could have it. I did
not support her.
Q. You did not consider yourself supporting her either totally or
partially?
A. No.
Q. Is your brother self-supporting or not?
A. Right. He works, I think he gets paid from the LSU people, and I don't
know if he still gets paid by Chrysler or Boeing. I think he does, but I am
not sure of that.
Q. Have you ever had to support your brother?
A. My older brother?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. You don't have any younger brothers, do you?
A. Not as such, no.
Q. Have you ever had to support anybody but yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Well, I give support to my grandmother in Mississippi.
Q. When was that?
A. Well, there is some property. Now, the law would have to -- I don't know
the law, but the property, when my grandfather died, something to this effect,
it passed on to my mother and her sisters, I think, and brothers, and when she
died, the ownership came to me, I guess. That is what I have been told. I have
had to sign papers, not had to, but I asked to sign papers which would turn
over any money that got, that my grandmother would get from this property,
would go, not to me, but to her.
Q. I think my question was whether you supported or helped support your
grandmother?
A. That to me constitutes support.
Q. Did you give your grandmother money that you earned or had of your own?
A. The property is supposed to be of earning capacity, and I turned over
that earning capacity to her. I do it once a year.
Q. In whose name is the property?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are you still getting revenue from that?
A. I get nothing from the property.
Q. What did you turn over to your grandmother?
A. I surrendered whatever would have come to me or which should come to me
to her.
Q. You say it should come to you; is that property in your name or was it
in your name?
A. I don't know the law about this area, but I was told by my uncles that
the property was now mine, at least part mine, anyway, because of my mother's
share. And now, I have subsequently just turned over, not rights to it, I
don't guess -- I don't know what I turned over. I know that --
Q. You have never given your grandmother money out of your earnings?
A. Maybe five or ten dollars at a time whenever I be up there. Anything I
could help. I cannot say really out of my earnings, but all the money I get is
out of my earnings.
Q. Five or ten dollars at a time?
A. Any time she needed money, if she needed it, I am willing to give to any
of my relatives and friends.
Q. Have you ever given it to her with sufficient frequency?
MR. ALCOCK:
I object at this time. I think this area has been sufficiently covered. The
man testified --
JUDGE BAGERT:
What is the purpose of this tesimony?
MR. DYMOND:
This has a direct bearing on the credibility of the witness, and I can
assure the Court that it will be tied in.
JUDGE BAGERT:
The objection is sustained.
MR. DYMOND:
I beg your pardon?
JUDGE BAGERT:
Objection is sustained.
MR. DYMOND:
I would like at this time to say that we are in position to furnish to this
Court evidence of contradictory statements made by this witness. I think we
have the right to have him testify along these lines if we can furnish such
statements to the Court. The credibility of this witness is a vital issue.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Your objection is sustained.
MR. DYMOND:
At this time the defense would like to respectfully object to the ruling of
the Court, making the entire testimony, all the proceedings, the objection,
the ruling of the Court, parts of the bill, and the reason for the objection
being that when the credibility of a witness is a vital and material issue in
a case, that the defense, on cross examination, has the right to elicit
testimony which will show prior contradictory statements by the witness.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Now, Mr. Russo, I refer you to the exhibit which has been marked for
identification, D-19, purporting to be your personal and employment record
with the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, and directing
your attention to a pamphlet contained in that record which is labeled
personal history, and more particularly, page seven of that pamphlet, and I
ask you whether or not the writing on that page is your handwriting?
A. The writing is not my handwriting.
Q. Do you recall having given the information which is contained on that
page?
MR. ALCOCK:
I would like you to unbind the page.
THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir, I remember.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. You remember having given the information reflected by this pamphlet
which you have examined, is that correct?
A. I remember the office in Baton Rouge having discussed the information.
JUDGE BRANIFF:
What is the date on that, Mr. Dymond? When is it supposed to be done?
MR. DYMOND:
The date on that, Your Honor, is 8-8-66; no, no. It is in August of 1966.
We cannot get a more exact date.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. When you gave this information which is reflected by this pamphlet, did
you represent that information to be the truth?
A. May I first of say this; the information was given in conference with
Taylor Bernard. It doesn't appear to be his handwriting, but perhaps it is.
This information, it was given to him at his request, just general
information.
Q. Given by you?
A. At that time, right.
Q. And did you represent it to be the truth?
A. The information that I gave was the truth.
Q. I direct your attention to a statement on page seven of this pamphlet,
in answer to this question, "How many adults depended upon you, excluding your
wife," wherein is written the answer, "One, partial," and I ask you whether
you gave him that information?
A. Taylor Bernard and I discussed the situation. He asked me how I --
MR. DYMOND:
If the Court please, I will ask that the witness be instructed to answer
the question and then explain.
JUDGE BAGERT:
You have been asking him a lot of hearsay all along.
MR. DYMOND:
This answer is not responsive to my question.
JUDGE BAGERT:
He said he did not write it.
MR. DYMOND:
I asked him whether or not he gave him that information.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Did or did you not give this information to anybody at Equitable Life
Assurance?
THE WITNESS:
These particular words, "One, partial," no.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Did you give him information which is of the same meaning that you
support one adult other than a wife partially?
A. I would need to amplify my answer on this.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Answer yes or no and then explain.
THE WITNESS:
I gave him information which he asked me, well, how do we mark --
MR. DYMOND:
I object.
JUDGE BAGERT:
It is your position he has to give you a yes or no and cannot amplify?
MR. DYMOND:
No. I take the position he has to answer my question and then he has a
right to explain it or not.
(Let the record show that the question was reread to the witness.)
MR. ALCOCK:
These are not his words. How can he answer directly when these are not his
words. This is as a result of general conversation.
MR. DYMOND:
He can answer whether he gave that information and then go on to explain.
THE COURT:
I rule he can explain. You asked him a question, and every time he
commences to answer the question you cut him off.
MR. DYMOND:
Your Honor, he does not commence to answer the question.
JUDGE BAGERT:
The objection is overruled. Now, take your bill.
MR. DYMOND:
To which ruling, counsel respectfully reserves a bill of exceptions, making
all the testimony, all the proceedings in the case, all the pleadings, the
ruling of the Court, particularly the testimony of this witness, together with
the objection and ruling of the Court, parts of the bill.
THE WITNESS:
In other words, Taylor Bernard had asked me about the W-2 and how to make
it out, whether I could claim any support. He asked me about my grandmother,
and I said, well, I said, well, she got the money from, if there were any
money, she got it from the property. She was about ninety years old. I said
when I could I helped her financially, which didn't amount to a big thing, and
I said I could not claim that, and he explained to me that it would take my
estimation of what I needed for the Equitable to sit down and begin me on a
contract basis with salary, and so, I said I support her, but in a partial
manner, but I could not claim her on income tax, because it would be unfair to
the Federal Government. I said I just can't put down her as I claim her, and
that was the sum and essence.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. But you said you did support her in a partial manner, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And by that you mean by giving her revenues from property that you don't
know whether it is in your name or not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you claim her as a dependent on your income tax return?
A. No, sir.
Q. Russo, have you ever been under psychiatric treatment?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When and for how long?
A. Between 1959 and the middle of 1960 or late '60.
Q. For approximately how many months would you say?
A. The treatment and the consultations which we discussed things covered
perhaps maybe two years or a year and a half.
Q. Maybe a year and a half or two years?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you say they commenced approximately when?
A. 1959, I think.
Q. 1959?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what about part of 1959?
A. In October.
Q. About October of 1959?
A. I feel that is the case.
Q. And they terminated approximately when?
A. The last time I saw the doctor and when the consultations terminated are
two different things.
Q. Tell us about each, if you will?
A. Well, the consultations, as of consequence, ended approximately 1960 or
1961, right in that area, late 1960 or early 1961.
Q. What other visits with the psychiatrist are you talking about after the
termination of the consultations?
A. Well, I had occasion to go back when my mother died, and I visited him
on circumstances such as that, but there was no consultation, you know, on a
regulated basis.
Q. In other words, whenever you were under any great stress or anything of
that nature, you went back to the psychiatrist, is that right?
A. No. I would not evaluate it as such.
Q. How would you evaluate it?
A. When I thought I wanted to talk about previous things that had gone on
in my past and which he knew about, and circumstances and situations which
were personal to me, then I felt the best man to go to is the man that knew
it, and not have to go through five years of talk and finally get somebody to
understand the situation.
Q. Now, when you say upon the occasion of your mother, the death of your
mother -- the death of your mother was the last such visit, would you say?
A. No, I don't think. I may have gone subsequent to that.
Q. To the best of your recollection, when would be the last time you went?
A. I --
Q. I don't expect you to be exact, just your recollection?
A. The last time I can remember going was around October of 1965, or
September, maybe.
Q. October or September of 1965, you said?
A. I am guessing that.
Q. Would you be able to say with confidence that you have not consulted
with a psychiatrist during the year 1966?
A. Unless I have given it some serious thought and put him in the right
context, I am not willing to say whether I would do that.
Q. You would not be able to say that?
A. I have talked to him on the phone. Now, whether it was in 1966, 1965, or
any other years, I am not sure.
Q. Getting to the current year, 1967, Mr. Russo, can you state with
absolute confidence and positiveness that you have not consulted with a
psychiatrist during the year of 1967?
A. Now, first of all, let me ask a question so I can clarify something; you
are referring to the psychiatrist of 1959 to 1961?
Q. Any psychiatrist?
A. I have talked to many doctors at LSU.
Q. I am not referring to merely social conversations, but I am talking
about consulting with a psychiatrist for the purpose of which a psychiatrist
would ordinarily serve an individual?
A. May I add that we talked about social things and also talked about
personal things. Where is the line of demarcation?
Q. Were you using him as a psychiatrist when you spoke with him, or were
you conversing with him as a friend only?
A. I make it no habit to use anyone in that reference.
Q. I said, were you conversing with him as a friend or were you conversing
with him as a psychiatrist?
A. I was conversing with him as a friend.
Q. In other words, during the year of 1967 you have had no professional
conversations with a psychiatrist, is that right, and you are stating that
positively?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in what neighborhood, if you know, was your family living shortly
after you were born, Mr. Russo.
MR. OSER:
I fail to see the relevancy of this.
MR. DYMOND:
The witness is under cross examination here. We did not know who the
witness would be until he came into Court, and I think we are entitled --
JUDGE BAGERT:
First of all, this is why you are given a preliminary hearing. This is not
a trial. It is a preliminary hearing, and you are getting full discovery in
advance of trial, and there is nobody required to tell you who the witness
was. Now, the witness is on the stand. It is our sentiment here that you are
entitled to a wide latitude in cross examining, in cross examination, which
has been afforded you. Where he lived after he was born is something you will
have to tie in with relevancy. The objection is sustained, irrelevant.
MR. DYMOND:
I would like to reserve a bill of exceptions, making the entire testimony,
all the proceedings, counsel's question, the ruling of the Court, and the
entire record of testimony parts of the bill.
JUDGE BAGERT:
I suggest that you get on with the facts.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. I understand that you attended McDonogh High School, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. During what years?
A. 1956 to 1959.
Q. 1956 to 1959?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At that time did you know James Ferrie; I meant to say David Ferrie?
A. No, I don't think I did. Perhaps I did late 1959, but I don't think so.
Q. Would you have known him while you were still a high-school student; can
you tie it in that way?
A. No, I cannot really tie it in that way.
Q. When was the first time you ever knew David Ferrie?
A. It was through a friend of mine.
Q. I said when?
A. Approximately 1960 or 1961.
Q. What was that friend's name?
A. Al Landry.
Q. Al Landry?
A. Is it not a fact that you were threatened with expulsion from McDonogh
for making public statements that you did not believe in God?
A. I was never threatened with expulsion from McDonogh High School.
Q. Did you have any difficulties with the faculty over such public
statements?
A. From my side of the picture, no.
Q. What do you mean by your side of the picture?
A. I would think that the faculty at McDonogh could testify better to that.
Q. I am asking whether to your knowledge you had any difficulty with the
faculty at McDonogh over such an alleged statement?
A. I had discussions.
Q. You had discussions with them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you accused of having made such public statements?
A. Accused by whom?
Q. Accused by anybody?
A. May I ask a question? I do not understand the question. That is it.
Q. You don't understand the question?
A. No, sir.
Q. I said, were you accused by anyone during your years of attendance at
McDonogh High School of having made the statement that you did not believe in
God?
A. I may have. I don't recollect.
Q. Mr. Russo, are you telling me you would not remember something like
that?
A. My interest was limited at that time. I had many things on my mind. One
of them was high school, studies, and another was baseball.
Q. Would you deny that you were accused of such statements?
A. I would not deny it either.
Q. And you would not admit it either, would you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You graduated from McDonogh, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that?
A. June or May of 1959.
Q. Where were you living at that time?
A. On Elysian Fields.
Q. How old were you when you graduated?
A. Probably eighteen.
Q. Where did you matriculate upon your graduation from McDonogh.
A. I entered Tulane.
Q. Tulane University?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was that in, the College of Arts and Science, or what?
A. I entered in the College of Arts and Science, as far as I can remember.
Q. How long did you testify you had attended Tulane?
A. Two years.
Q. What two years would those have been?
A. The first two, 1959 to 1960, '60 to '61.
Q. Among the student body at Tulane University, did you have anybody, any
particular close friends?
A. I had many friends.
Q. At Tulane?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you, to the best of your ability, name a few of those?
A. Ronald N. Quinn, who is a lawyer, and Jess Schowendald (sp?), who is a
doctor. I had others. If I was allowed some time I could think of them.
Q. Are you telling us at this time that you cannot think of any other
friends except the two that you named?
A. I had to me was a lot of friends [sic]. I always wanted people around. I
like people. At Tulane it was the same situation.
Q. Are you unable to say any more at this time?
A. That I would consider close friends, I am unable to do so.
Q. So, you had only two?
A. I did not say that.
MR. OSER:
The witness did not say he had only two. He said there were other friends.
JUDGE BAGERT:
The question is misleading.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. When was the occasion for you leaving Tulane University?
A. In September of '61 my father told me I was going to Loyola.
Q. Your father told you that you were going to Loyola?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As a student at Tulane, were you ever accused of giving false testimony
in any hearing or proceeding?
A. Proceeding there [sic] I have never been accused of giving false
testimony.
Q. You never have been; so, after leaving Loyola, at least leaving Tulane,
after two years at Tulane, you then matriculated to Loyola, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that an immediate transfer, or was there any lapse of time in
between?
A. It was the next semester, excluding the summer.
Q. In other words, after the summer vacation you checked into Loyola?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that in the Arts and Science Department of Loyola that you
matriculated?
A. My degree was in social studies. I am not sure whether it was Arts and
Science at Loyola.
Q. Did you take a course in political science there?
A. That was my major.
Q. Can you tell us some of the other courses you took at Tulane -- Loyola,
I might say?
MR. ALCOCK:
I object, Your Honor. He has got a subpoena duces tecum, the entire record
of this man's matriculation at Loyola University which outlines every course
he ever took.
MR. DYMOND:
Which is not in evidence, and I have the right to question the witness.
MR. ALCOCK:
It is not relevant anyway.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Let's hear from him, Mr. Alcock. One at a time.
MR. DYMOND:
May I ask counsel not to interrupt me in my objection.
MR. ALCOCK:
I was making the objection, Mr. Dymond, when you stood up.
MR. DYMOND:
I beg your pardon. I was talking to the Court and I was interrupted, and I
will ask the Court to instruct counsel --
JUDGE BAGERT:
One at a time. Mr. Dymond, let me hear your position.
MR. DYMOND:
The transcript of this man's record is not in evidence at this time. We
have the right to ask him questions pertaining to his attendance at Loyola for
the purpose, if nothing else, of testing his credibility, as compared to the
official records of Loyola University.
JUDGE BRANIFF:
That is not an issue in the case right now. Let's get on with the facts.
And then if you want to impeach his testimony, you can lay the foundation
then.
MR. DYMOND:
Is Your Honor taking the position that this man's credibility is not an
issue in this case at this time?
JUDGE BRANIFF:
You have not contradicted him on any of the main facts of his testimony.
That is the point I am making.
MR. DYMOND:
I would like a ruling whether I can cross examine this man on material
which is reflected by an exhibit which has been produced here in Court in
response to a subpoena duces tecum.
JUDGE BAGERT:
We are not going to answer any general questions. Before you know it, you
will be propounding a million and one questions of law to us. The objection
has been taken to your asking him a question as to what subjects did you take.
I would suggest you ask him, point out to him, what subjects he took. That is
my own observation. But if you want a ruling on the objection, the objection
is to the question, as I understand it, what subjects did you take at Loyola,
and I will go in conference with my colleagues.
All right, order in the Court. The question was what subjects did you take,
and there was an objection by the State, and that objection is sustained.
MR. DYMOND:
To which ruling of the Court, counsel respectfully reserves a bill of
exceptions, making the objection to the ruling, being based upon counsel's
contention that we have a right to cross examine a witness as to material
which is contained in a written document produced in Court in response to a
subpoena duces tecum by this Court. We would like to make a part of that bill
all of the testimony, all the pleadings in this matter, the ruling of the
Court, and subject to its later being introduced into evidence, the exhibit
which has been marked for identification purposes, D-18, together with the
ruling of the Court.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Now, during the time that you attended Tulane University, were you
acquainted with Dave Ferrie?
A. While I was at Tulane -- yes, sir.
Q. Would you tell us what relation to your matriculation at Tulane -- when
you met David Ferrie?
A. I do not remember the month.
Q. Was it shortly after you matriculated during, say, your first four or
five months at Tulane, or was it later than that?
A. The very beginning of my association with Dave Ferrie, the first time I
met him, or the first couple of times, are vague in relation to the time
elements, such as school and whatever else.
Q. Could you go so far and tell us whether it was in your first or second
year at Tulane that you met him?
A. I would say around 1960.
Q. Would that have been in your first or second year at Tulane?
A. That would have been both.
Q. Therefore, your knowing him would have commenced during your first year
at Tulane?
A. Perhaps the second year in '60.
Q. Who did you say introduced you to Ferrie?
A. I met him through a common acquaintance.
Q. What was his name?
A. Al Landry.
Q. Does Al Landry live here in New Orleans at this time, if you know?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know where he lives?
A. I know the house.
Q. On what street is it?
A. I don't know the street.
Q. What area of the city?
A. In Gentilly.
Q. Does he live by himself or with his parents or is he married?
A. He lives with his parents.
Q. Do you know his father's name?
A. Not the first name, no.
Q. You don't know what street it is on?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where did this introduction to Ferrie take place?
A. As I told Mr. Garrison yesterday, Al had talked about Ferrie and many
times over and over, and had built up his character and his prestige and
statu[r]e, so to speak, and he asked me if I wanted to go see him, and I, for
one reason or another, I turned him down, mainly because of school and books
and studying, and --
Q. I asked you if you wanted to go see him?
A. Al asked if I wanted to go meet this friend of his, and I said yes, but
maybe another time, maybe tomorrow or next week, always putting him off. Al
and I and my cousins and everyone played baseball and basketball around Cor
Jesu High School, and --
Q. What is your cousin's name?
MR. OSER:
The witness has not completed his answer and Mr. Dymond is asking him
another question.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Let him finish his answer.
THE WITNESS:
-- and we played basketball around Cor Jesu and baseball around Cor Jesu,
and late at night, seven o'clock, we would go to Tulane and play, and
sometimes, play basketball there. I went over to see Al one night, to meet
him, and I talked to his parents either the same night or the next night when
I came to get him because we were going up to Tulane, and then I talked to
Mrs. Landry and she told me that he had run away from home and at that time
they told me about Dave Ferrie, and I got involved.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. At that time they told you -- who told you that?
A. Mr. and Mrs. Landry.
Q. Who is this cousin of yours you made reference to?
A. Well, I have ten or twelve cousins. It was different cousins that came
and played basketball.
Q. OK, you say you had ten or twelve cousins that went and played
basketball?
A. Not at one time.
Q. I am talking about around the time you met Dave Ferrie?
A. It would have been either Gerald Kirchenstein, George Kirchenstein,
Timmy Kirchenstein, and even their sister, perhaps, but in a light friendly
game.
Q. And you say your friend's parents told you about Ferrie, and that is
when you got involved?
A. The mother was upset about Al.
Q. So, where did you first meet Ferrie?
A. Well, I told Mrs. Landry, I said, if Dave [sic] wants to go, don't fight
him. I said let him go. If anyone can alienate Al from Dave, I told Mrs.
Landry that I could, I felt I could, I said, because Al always came over
during the day and sometimes at night, and we would go play baseball and
basketball or go listen to Frogman play music.
 
 

(Recess over and Court is resumed.)
JUDGE BAGERT:
Is the State ready?
MR. OSER:
Yes, sir.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Is the defense ready?
MR. DYMOND:
Yes, sir.
PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO, after being recalled to the witness stand, and having
previously been sworn by the Minute Clerk, testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Mr. Russo, you earlier mentioned that you alienated Dave Ferrie from a
friend of yours, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As a result of that alienation, is it a fact that there was a threat on
your life by Dave Ferrie?
A. Would you repeat the question, please?
Q. As a result of that alienation by you, is it a fact that there was a
threat on your life by David Ferrie?
A. David Ferrie made a remark to that, with that meaning, yes, sir. Q. To
whom did he make that remark? A. To me. Q. What did he say? A. Well, it was on
Bourbon Street, and besides I don't like this, you know, and he wanted to talk
to Al alone without me around, and I said, no, to that, that was out, and then
he said, well, I am going to get you for that. Q. And you interpreted that as
a threat on your life? A. At that time, yes, sir. Q. Do you still interpret it
as such? A. After subsequent meetings with Ferrie I said no to myself. Q. You
said no to yourself, meaning by that, that you no longer interpreted it that
way? A. I no longer interpreted that as an overt antagonism against me. Q. In
other words, you no longer interpreted that as a threat on your life, is that
right? MR. WARD: I object. Mr. Dymond is assuming a fact that has never been
proved. He is trying to twist what has been previously been [sic] said and I
object. JUDGE BAGERT: Just rephrase it.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Do you mean by your testimony that after subsequent meetings with Ferrie
that you ceased to interpret this remark by him as being a threat on your
life?
A. He never ever made another remark of that nature.
Q. I did not ask you that, sir.
A. Well, I cannot answer the question with a yes or no.
Q. Do you still think it was a threat on your life or not?
A. At which time?
Q. Right now; do you think it was a threat at the time it was uttered?
A. At the time it was uttered I was upset, and I interpreted it at that
time that he intended to do me some harm.
Q. How do you interpret that remark right now; do you consider it as having
been a threat on your life?
A. I interpret the remark right now is [sic] that he was upset also, and
that perhaps he may have said it out of anger, or bitterness, or what have
you. It was never ever brought up again.
MR. DYMOND:
If the Court please, I don't know how I can make my question any clearer.
JUDGE O'HARA:
I don't think he has responded to your question either.
MR. DYMOND:
I ask that he be instructed to respond, Your Honor.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Well, answer the question, Mr. Russo.
THE WITNESS:
Can I have the question repeated?
(Let the record show that the question was reread to the witness.)
THE WITNESS:
Now I interpret it that it was not a threat on my life.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Now, when did this change of opinion take place, whether this was
actually a threat on your life?
MR. WARD:
I object. It is too irrelevant to go into at this time. It is asking for an
opinion by this man.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
Over a period of maybe three or four months. The exact months, I do not
know.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. In other words, by the beginning of 1965, would your opinion have been
changed by that?
A. That is the beginning of 1965 -- my opinion had changed.
Q. You no longer thought it was a threat, is that right?
A. I no longer thought that the remark made on Bourbon Street as a threat
as I then thought.
Q. Did David Ferrie at any other time threaten your life?
A. Not that I can remember.
Q. Were you interviewed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 24th, 1967,
by a reporter by the name of Jim Kemp of Station WAFB?
A. Yes, sir, but he introduced to me [sic] as from WDSU.
Q. But you do remember Jim Kemp, don't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I am reading what purports to be a transcription of your interview with
him, and I am going to ask you whether or not you stated the words which I
will read to you:
"Question: Mr. Russo, I wonder if you could tell us how did you come to
know David Ferrie, and how well did you know him?
"Answer: Well, I came to know Dave Ferrie back in New Orleans through a
friend of mine who was at that time a member of the Civil Air Patrol, and
actually, what transpired was the friend was having difficulty at home, and
after talking to his family, the family blamed it on the guy, Dave Ferrie, and
they said that he was messing up the boy's mind, he was making him want to
leave home, he was going to alienate him away from the family. So I said,
well, I said there was probably nothing they could do, because I had played
ball a long time and had been associated with Al -- that's the boy -- for some
time, what actually happened was that I intervened and go on Al's side and
began to talk him away from Dave, and finally he told Dave he didn't want to
see him, didn't want to have anything to do with him. At that time, Dave made
a personal threat against my life."
Did you tell that to Mr. Jim Kemp?
A. Yes, sir, something to that essence.
Q. Tell me that if your feeling as to whether this was a threat or not had
been changed by the beginning of 1965, why on February 24th, 1967, would you
have still termed this a threat against your life?
A. Because very frankly in '60 or '61, it was a threat. That is the way I
interpreted it then. He asked me how I had come to meet him, and I said under
those circumstances. At that time he made a threat.
Q. And because you used to think it was a threat, you called it a threat on
the 24th of February, is that right?
A. I don't understand the question.
Q. Do you have any difficulty in hearing?
A. No, sir.
(Let the record show that the question was reread to the witness.)
THE WITNESS:
Verbally, it was.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Do you deny that in your interview with Mr. Kemp on the 24th of February
that you said Ferrie had threatened your life?
A. No, I do not deny it.
Q. Still, at that time you did not believe he had threatened your life, did
you?
MR. WARD:
As to when?
MR. DYMOND:
I said at that time.
JUDGE BRANIFF:
What time do you mean, '67 or '60?
MR. DYMOND:
Whether at the time of this interview he thought his life had been
threatened, on February 24th, 1967, whether at that time he was of the opinion
that his life had been threatened back in the Bourbon Street incident?
THE WITNESS:
On February 24th, I am accepting your date, I said that at one time Dave
Ferrie had threatened my life.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Now, when you said that, did you believe he had actually threatened your
life?
A. In other words, when I made this statement that Dave Ferrie had
threatened my life, I believed that as that date he had threatened it, yes,
sir.
Q. Now, Russo, you testified on the direct examination that you had an open
invitation to Ferrie's house, to go there whenever you wanted to, isn't that
right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you say there was a reciprocal invitation to Ferrie from you for
him to come to your house?
A. For him to come to my house, yes.
Q. Where were you living then?
A. 4607 Elysian Fields.
Q. Where was Ferrie living at the time?
A. Louisiana Avenue.
Q. Would you recall whether the address was 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway?
A. It was 3300. I don't know the number.
Q. Russo, I show you a photograph which has been marked for identification,
S-9, purporting to represent the outside of the duplex, the upper portion of
which was occupied by Ferrie at the time about which we are talking, and can
you, I ask you whether or not you can identify it as such?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In other words, that is the home to which you had an open invitation, is
that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Approximately how many visits did you make to Ferrie's apartment at 3330
Louisiana Avenue?
A. Every visit I made?
Q. I don't expect you to be exact on that, but approximately how many
visits did you make there?
A. Maybe thirty or forty.
Q. Now, could you give us as close as you are able to the date at which
this open invitation for you to go to Ferrie's house commenced, that year?
A. I don't know.
Q. Was it prior to 1963?
A. May I amplify on this? I don't know in this regard because most times he
visited me, you see, and then he began to invite me up there.
Q. Can you tell us whether you went there prior to the year 1963?
A. I have a strong feeling that I did, but I'm not sure of that.
Q. Would you have a strong feeling you went there any time during the year
1962?
A. I don't know, because Ferrie either came to my house, which I would be
more of the opinion to say that he did, that he came to my house.
Q. But you could not say whether you visited his house in 1962?
A. No, sir.
Q. Could you tell us about how many times Ferrie came to your house on
Elysian Fields?
A. Perhaps ten or fifteen.
Q. Didn't you testify that you had been over to his house over thirty
times, and that he came to your house more frequently?
A. No, he came to my house in the beginning more frequently to my house.
Q. Would you say that you were familiar with the interior construction of
Ferrie's apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue?
A. In what direct reference are you making to interior?
Q. The relative position of rooms, the position of furniture?
A. General knowledge, yes, sir.
Q. I show you an exhibit marked for identification, Defense No. 1,
purporting to be a rough sketch of the floor plan of the Ferrie apartment at
3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, and I ask you whether that is reasonably
accurate without regard to scale?
A. I have no knowledge of the back area of the house. So , I can
acknowledge these two room.
Q. Tell me what rooms are represented on this sketch that you have no
knowledge of?
A. Is this the kitchen here?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't think I had ever been in the kitchen.
MR. DYMOND:
Let the record indicated that the witness is pointing to the area
designated by the numbers D-8 and D-9.
THE WITNESS:
And I don't think I have been to the bedroom.
MR. DYMOND:
Let the record show that the witness is indicating an area designated on
the sketch as D-4 and D-5.
THE WITNESS:
What does S R stand for?
MR. DYMOND:
Sitting room.
THE WITNESS:
I don't think I been [sic] in the sitting room.
MR. DYMOND:
Let the record show that the witness indicates the area marked by the
numbers D-15 and D-16.
THE WITNESS:
And I have been into the bathroom on one occasion.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. You were familiar with the location of the bathroom, is that correct?
A. I would not be willing to say. I am not sure. I had been there on one
occasion.
MR. DYMOND:
I will ask that the foregoing testimony show that the witness is indicating
the area marked for identification as D-3.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. How about the remaining rooms, the front porch?
A. I had been in the dining room, this area, and I had been in this room,
and I had been through the hall.
MR. DYMOND:
Let the record indicate that the witness has indicated the areas marked as
D-10, D-11, and D-12, as one room, D-13 and D-14 as another room, and D-7 as
the hall.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Now, Russo, reference has been made in your testimony to an apartment or
a residence which was occupied by Ferrie up in the Kenner area; did you ever
visit him in that residence, or did you ever visit at that residence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you tell me approximately how many times?
A. Once.
Q. One time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Roughly when was that?
A. It was the very beginning of our relationship.
Q. Was that by yourself or anybody else?
A. I was with some friends.
Q. What friends?
A. Just some girls and a boy.
Q. Are you unable to name them at this time?
A. I could probably give a few names.
Q. Please do?
A. Lefty was there.
Q. That is Lefty Peterson?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Adele.
A. Adele Marquad?
Q. That is her name now. Perhaps others, I don't recall. Al Landry.
A. Do you recall that there were other people with you on that occasion,
and are you unable to remember their names, or do you not recall whether there
were other people with you?
Q. I don't really recall whether there were or were not other people.
A. This one visit you made to Ferrie's residence in the Kenner area, what
was the purpose of that visit?
A. On invitation.
Q. Issued by whom?
A. Al Landry.
Q. Al Landry invited you to go to Ferrie's place in Kenner, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you do after you got there?
A. There was a Civil Air Patrol meeting going on or took place as soon as
we got there, I am not sure, and we just sat around and watched.
Q. Now, was that just a Civil Air Patrol or was there any practice for
jungle warfare going on at that meeting?
A. Well, the meeting centered around reading some minutes or previous
business, and I guess it was Civil Air Patrol because Al was a member of that.
Q. Upon that visit, did you see any practice for jungle warfare taking
place?
A. I did not know anybody at that time.
Q. Did you see any such practice taking place?
A. I did not know who was who. I did not know who was practicing, who was
teachers and who were students.
Q. I am asking you whether you saw anybody at that time practicing jungle
warfare at Ferrie's residence or in the vicinity of Ferrie's residence in
Kenner?
A. The explanation of the Civil Air Patrol, or at least their group, was
for that purpose, and at that time they did not do any of that. No, they went
through a meeting.
Q. Did you ever see any jungle warfare practice being conducted in the
vicinity of Ferrie's residence in Kenner?
A. Not that I remember, no.
Q. You did not; you testified on direct that Dave Ferrie introduced you to
quite a few of his friends?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who were these friends, what were their names?
A. I don't remember. There was eight or ten people there.
Q. And you don't remember one single name?
A. He introduced me to his mother.
Q. Anybody else?
A. Other people. I don't remember their names?
Q. Was his mother living there in the home with him?
A. I took it for granted she was.
Q. And you don't remember any other individual to whom he introduced you
to, is that correct?
A. No.
Q. Would one of these friends to whom he introduced you to would have been
Layton Martens?
A. I don't remember the name.
Q. Are you telling me now you don't know Layton Martens?
A. I don't know Layton Martens.
Q. Were you aware of the fact that Ferrie ever had an apartment mate or a
roommate, whatever you chose to call it, that was living with him in the
apartment on Louisiana Avenue Parkway?
A. At what time?
Q. Ever?
A. Ever? The person I went up there and saw and met there was, were
introduced to me as a roommate.
Q. You never did meet a man by the name of Layton Martens who lived with
Ferrie at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway?
A. No, sir.
Q. This man, Al, to whom you referred as living there with Ferrie, when did
he start living there?
A. I did not say that. I don't think I said that. Could that be repeated?
Q. Who did you say was living with Ferrie?
A. Could that be repeated?
Q. This roommate to whom he introduced you to, what was his name?
A. The roommate at Louisiana Avenue, Leon Oswald.
Q. Leon Oswald.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know of your own knowledge that Leon Oswald was living there at
3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway with Dave Ferrie?
A. No, sir.
Q. What year are we talking about now?
A. '63.
Q. Tell us what month you are referring to?
A. September.
Q. Approximately how many times did you see the man whom you called Leon
Oswald at Ferrie's apartment on Louisiana Parkway?
A. Three or four.
Q. Three or four times?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Commencing approximately when and ending approximately when?
A. It began about the middle of September.
Q. When was the last time you saw him there?
A. Around the beginning of October or maybe late September.
Q. In other words, it would have been all three times within a period of
two to three weeks, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there one or more than party which took place at Ferrie's apartment
on Louisiana Avenue Parkway?
A. By party, you mean many people?
Q. That is right?
A. There was only one.
Q. And when did that party take place?
A. Around the middle of the month.
Q. Is that as close as you can come on dates?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you refer to the middle of the month of September of 1963, within
what bounds, date-wise, do you term the middle of the month?
A. I never really gave that, you know, put it the way you're phrasing it,
any serious thought. The middle of the month to me is after the fifteenth.
Q. After the fifteenth, you say?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you call the twentieth the latter part of the month?
A. It would probably be the middle also.
Q. You have testified as to having attended this party at Ferrie's
apartment in mid-September of 1963; how did you get up there to the apartment?
A. I recollect that I was brought up.
Q. By whom?
A. One or the other of my friends.
Q. One or the other of your friends?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you don't remember what friend brought you up there?
A. At that period of time, many people were with me at that time.
Q. Russo, you did not have any trouble testifying --
MR. WARD:
I would like to make an objection. He is assuming a fact, and it is
argumentative.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Objection sustained. Rephrase the question.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Can you explain why your memory --
MR. WARD:
I object.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Sustained. It is an improper question. It is an unfair question. Just ask
him the facts.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. You are testifying you don't know who took you there?
A. I am testifying I was with a bunch of people.
Q. How many people?
A. Maybe three others besides myself.
Q. And you can't name one of them, can you?
MR. WARD:
I object. He has never asked that question before.
JUDGE BAGERT:
The objection is overruled.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. You cannot name one of them, can you?
A. There was friends there. I could tell you who I associated with at the
time. I am sure it was one of them.
Q. Can you name one of the three or four people who went with you to the
Oswald party, the party which you testified to; I meant at Ferrie's apartment
in mid-September of 1963?
A. Peterson was with me that night. I am sure he came inside. I will
testify for him, but I am sure he came inside.
Q. Did he go to the house with you, in the same vehicle?
A. Well, we had two or three cars. We were up playing basketball up at
school. There was just a bunch of people, a bunch of boys and girls. We had
either finished studying or what, I don't know, what particular reason we were
up there at school. I was always up there late at night, every night, and so,
I just drove back, and I don't think I was in my own car because I don't think
I had a car at the time. Who stepped in with me -- I am sure Lefty did.
Q. You are sure Lefty was in the car with you?
A. I am sure he stepped up with me. I don't know if he was in another car
or not.
Q. Well, give us the names of all the other people who went there in all of
the cars with you?
A. I don't remember all the cars that went with me. Inside I would say
Lefty Peterson was there, and Sandra Moffett, and that is all I can
definitely, would be willingly definitely say [sic] was there.
Q. How many cars were there?
A. What time now?
Q. Going with you in the same group to Ferrie's apartment?
A. Leaving Tulane?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. It must have been with ten people, maybe three cars.
Q. Did the occupants of all three of the cars go to the party?
A. No.
Q. Approximately how many of them did go to the party?
A. Two or three. These two came in with me, but whether they stayed, I
don't think they took part in the party.
Q. Do you know why they went there?
A. They are friends of mine.
Q. Did you tell them that there would be a party there?
A. I did not know there was a party.
Q. Did you invite them to go with you?
A. Dave had met them before, and I never objected to any of Dave's friends,
and he never said anything about mine.
Q. Did you invite them to go with you or not?
A. I probably did. I don't recall.
Q. Now, you have testified that Sandra Moffett and Lefty Peterson went
there with you, but cannot say that they were in the same automobile, is that
right?
A. They may or they may not have been. I don't know.
Q. Can you name any other people who arrived at that party at approximately
the same time you did?
A. I can name some other people I was with at Tulane, that were perhaps at
Tulane with me.
Q. I am asking you whether you can name any other people who arrived at
this party at approximately the same time that you did?
A. No, sir.
Q. This Sandra Moffett, is she a local girl or not?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where is she from?
A. She is from Alabama.
Q. What part of Alabama?
A. I don't know.
Q. Where did you know her?
A. I met her some years before.
Q. Was she a Tulane student?
A. No, just a girl I had met.
Q. Where did you meet her?
MR. WARD:
I object. It is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with probable cause.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Objection is overruled.
THE WITNESS:
I don't recall the first time I met Sandra.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. You don't recall the first time you met her, you say?
A. No, sir.
Q. So, you don't know who introduced you to her?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you don't know where you were introduced to her?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever go out with her on any other occasions?
A. Several.
Q. Approximately how many?
A. I cannot recall.
Q. Do you know where she lived at that time?
A. She lived -- I don't know the name of the street. I could show you the
residence.
Q. In what area of the City was it?
A. Canal and Broad.
Q. In the neighborhood of Canal and Broad?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it a street running parallel to the river or perpendicular to the
river?
A. It was running perpendicular to the river.
Q. Tell us approximately how many blocks from the corner of Canal and
Broad?
MR. WARD:
I make the same objection. We would be here for weeks with this. It is so
irrelevant.
JUDGE BAGERT:
What is the relevancy of this?
MR. DYMOND:
We have here a witness testifying about another individual who went to the
party with him. It is conceivable that we would be able to produce the witness
if we know who she is and where she is.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Objection overruled.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Can you tell us now how many blocks from the corner of Canal and Broad
this girl lived?
A. No, sir.
Q. You went out with her quite a few times?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You used to pick her up at her home?
A. No.
Q. Where did you used to pick her up from?
A. Very rarely did I pick her up at her home. She came over to my house.
Q. How many times did you pick her up at her home?
A. Maybe twice, three times.
Q. And you cannot give us any estimate as to how many blocks from Canal and
Broad?
A. Perhaps I can show you the residence.
Q. Can you give us an estimate of how many blocks?
A. No, sir.
Q. About what time of the day or night was it that you arrived at this
party?
A. At night.
Q. About what time?
A. I don't recall. Just late. I know it was late.
Q. Is it your testimony you cannot even approximate the time?
A. My testimony is that it was late.
Q. Is that as definite as you can be about it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it before or after midnight?
A. It was before midnight. It went on after, until after midnight.
Q. Was it before or after ten PM?
A. I don't know.
Q. Still, you are able to remember how everybody was dressed, is that
right?
MR. WARD:
I object to that. It is argumentative.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Sustained.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Do you remember how the people were dressed at that party?
A. Some, yes.
Q. Can you explain why you are able to remember this?
MR. WARD:
I make the same objection.
MR. DYMOND:
I have not finished my question yet.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Proceed.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Can you explain why you are able to describe the dress of some of the
people at that party and cannot even tell us who went there with you, nor
approximately what time you got there?
MR. WARD:
I object. It is argumentative.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
Because of the very nature of Dave Ferrie.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. Because of the very nature of Dave Ferrie?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Please explain what did the nature of Dave Ferrie have to do with your
ability to remember these various things?
A. Dave Ferrie, to me was, to say the least, very interesting as a
personality. He always, to me, gave off the appearance, and to my friends gave
off the appearance, that he was prone to the spectacular. At least in words,
if not in deeds, and so, on some occasions before I had met some of his
friends, and these people were not normally dressed and up there or whenever I
dropped on Dave you always expected something different, and generally
speaking, even if he did not give it to you in words, it was in fact. And
under those circumstances I took, it just impressed me, the contrast
available.
Q. Do you consider a white shirt and a maroon sport jacket unusual or
spectacular sort of dress?
A. In what context?
Q. You answer the question, please?
MR. WARD:
I object.
JUDGE BAGERT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
At Dave Ferrie's apartment, the place was in shambles, always messed up,
and things were all about, ash trays always had cigarette butts in them, and
the scene was always one of chaos, and this man was dressed differently. He
just physically, by dress, was not, just did not belong there by dress.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q. How was Lefty Peterson dressed on that occasion?
A. I don't recall.
Q. You would not know then whether his dress fit in with the surroundings?
A. Sir?
Q. You would not know whether his mode of dress fit in with the
surroundings?
A. Lefty, to me, did not fit in the context either.
Q. I am talking about his dress.
A. I did not take note of his dress during that period of time. I was
seeing him frequently.
Q. Referring to the girl, Sandra, who was with you, how was she dressed
that night?
A. I don't recall.
Q. How many other people were at that party that night?
A. Maybe eight or ten.
Q. Other than the man whom you referred to as Clem Bertrand, Leon Oswald,
and Ferrie, can you describe the dress of some of these other eight or ten
people?
A. There were some Spanish-speaking guys who were dressed in dark greens.
Q. Fatigue uniforms?
A. Whatever you want to call them. I don't know if they were. Some were in
khakis, khaki pants, and there were two young boys there, and I don't recall
really what they were dressed in. I think in dungarees or something, but that
would be about it.
Q. Is that the greatest particularity with which you can describe the dress
of the other people?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, the group that was there that night, that is to say, the eight or
ten people you have referred, what would you say the ratio of men to women
were within that group?
A. There was the girl I had brought.
Q. Any other women?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Do you think you would recall had they been there?
A. I don't know. Dave Ferrie was spectacular.
Q. So then, to the best of your recollection, Sandra was the only female in
the bunch, is that right?
A. As far as I know, yes.
Q. How long did Sandra stay there at the party?
A. Perhaps a couple of hours.
Q. Did she leave before you did?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did Lefty Peterson stay there?
A. I don't recall. Perhaps a couple of hours.
Q. Who left first, Sandra or Lefty Peterson?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did Lefty leave before you did?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You testified that you don't remember the other names of the people who
arrived there with you; individually or as a group, do you recall how long
they stayed there?
A. From the time I got there, perhaps, two hours, three hours, I don't
know.
Q. They all left before you did, is that right?
A. The party began to dissipate and people were leaving, not in a group,
everybody just did not walk out in a group.
Q. Can you give us any reason why you stayed there after the friends with
whom you had arrived had left?
A. Because I did not have a ride.
Q. You could not go with them?
A. With whom?
Q. Your friends with whom you had arrived?
A. They had left, one at a time.
Q. They had left at what time?
A. One at a time.
Q. Were you concerned about getting a ride home from the apartment?
A. Well, I wanted to go home, and I figured Dave would give me a ride. He
had done so on a previous occasion.
Q. Did you ask him whether he would or not?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. You knew he had other guests there, didn't you?
A. There was a party going on. I was not going to be rude and say to stop
the party and take me home. So, I did not say anything. I probably did discuss
it with him at one time.
Q. Didn't you realize you would have to stay there until the entire party
ended and everyone else left before Dave Ferrie could give you a ride?
A. At the very beginning I did not realize when my rides were leaving, or
ride. Then when I could not do anything about it, I guess, well, I am stuck
here.
Q. Did you ever ask Ferrie to give you a ride?
A. No, sir, it was not my habit to do so.
Q. Do you know a man by the name of Louie Lane?
A. No, sir.
Q. To possibly refresh your memory, this man has been in show business, and
your testimony is that you don't know that?
A. Not by name.
Q. Therefore, I take it that you would not be able to testify as to whether
he attended that party, is that right?
A. No, I couldn't testify that he was there.
Q. Do you know a man by the name of Joe Kenny, a musician?
A. The name rings a bell, but I don't know where.
Q. You say the name does ring a bell?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. To possibly refresh your memory, this man was known as the man of many
horns; he was a musician; now, do you know him?
A. The man I know, as I know of many horns, could blow two trumpets. If
that was the same guy, I know him, I met him.
Q. Was he at the party that night?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are you positive of that?
A. Absolutely sure of it. If the man I have in mind with two horns in his
mouth, he was not at the party.
Q. Had you ever heard that man that you are referring called or referred to
as the man of many horns?
A. I heard this man whom I saw perform introduced as a man who could do
anything with a horn, and he blew two trumpets at one time, and the boss at
this nightclub liked that.
Q. Is it your positive testimony that the man whom you knew who blew two
trumpets at once was not at this party, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is your testimony, is it not, Russo, that when this party dwindled
down, there remained at the party Leon Oswald, Clay Bertrand, Dave Ferrie, and
you?
A. No, sir.
Q. In what respect am I wrong in that question?
A. I was there, and Dave Ferrie was there, and Leon Oswald, but his name
was not Clay, it was Clem.
Q. Clem Bertrand?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is your testimony those were the four people?
A. Yes, sir.
JUDGE BAGERT:
May I interrupt. The gentleman from Channel 6 is here. Is the attorney
here? I am just making an inquiry about the return of a subpoena. Would you
make your return now in open Court.
(Let the record show that the witness, Perry R. Russo, was removed from the
witness stand.)