chapter VI

. There is no reliable evidence that Ruby went to Havana subsequent to September 1959.[A16-420]

Although Ruby denied ever being in Hawaii,[A16-421] there is some evidence that during the summer of 1961 he was in Honolulu seeking dancing talent.[A16-422] While it is unlikely that Ruby would forget a trip to Honolulu in 1961, there is no other indication that such a trip, if it occurred, had any sinister motives.

CHARACTER AND INTERESTS

Family Relationships

As mentioned previously,[A16-423] Eva Grant was the only member of the family living in Dallas when Ruby returned to that city in late 1947. In 1948, she returned to the west coast, visiting Dallas sporadically until 1959, when she assumed management of the Vegas.[A16-424] Despite their recurring arguments, during which they sometimes came to blows,[A16-425] Ruby was closer to Eva than any of his brothers or sisters. In the summer of 1963, Eva complained bitterly to Ruby because he gave a friend about $800 instead of paying Vegas Club bills. Eva, citing her poor health, stated that she should be hospitalized. Ruby rejoined that he had provided her money to enter a hospital. He then shoved her, causing her to fall back about 8 feet and hurt her arm and shoulder. At this point Ruby insisted he wanted her to leave the Vegas Club.[A16-426]

Ruby frequently told Eva to submit to an operation and in early November 1963 she consented. She was hospitalized for a week, leaving about November 13.[A16-427] While she was in the hospital, Jack called Earl and Sam, requesting them to convey their concern to Eva.[A16-428] According to Eva, Jack visited her at the hospital two or three times a day. He kept in constant touch with her throughout the weekend of November 22.[A16-429]

Sam Ruby moved to Dallas from Chicago in July 1955, after selling his interest in the Earl Products Co.[A16-430] His son’s asthma and Eva’s suggestion that he work as a builder in Dallas prompted the move.[A16-431] Apparently as a result of difficulties in collecting the $5,500 Sam loaned Jack in 1955 to pay Federal excise taxes,[A16-432] Jack and Sam were never particularly close to each other. However, Sam entered into a partnership in an unsuccessful ice cream business with Jack’s close friend, Ralph Paul.[A16-433] Jack visited Sam and his family occasionally, especially on Jewish holidays, and from time to time they spoke to each other by telephone.[A16-434]

Jack had sporadic contacts with his brother Earl, who remained in Chicago until about 1960, when he moved to Detroit.[A16-435] The most successful of the brothers, Earl often gave Jack business advice and capital.[A16-436] He estimated, perhaps conservatively, that, when arrested, Jack owed him $15,000.[A16-437] The evidence also indicates that Jack borrowed at least $1,000, and probably more, from his sister Marion in Chicago.[A16-438]

Social Relationships

There have been statements that Ruby was a homosexual. The available evidence does not support the allegation. There is no evidence of homosexuality on his part; Ruby did not frequent known gathering places for homosexuals,[A16-439] many of the reports were inherently suspect or based upon questionable or inaccurate premises,[A16-440] and Ruby and most of his associates and employees denied the charge.[A16-441] All the allegations were based on hearsay or derive from Ruby’s lisp or a “feeling” that Ruby was a “sissy,” seemed “weird,” acted effeminately, and sometimes spoke in a high-pitched voice when angry.[A16-442] Some proceeded upon the erroneous theory that Ruby did not date women.[A16-443]

For the better part of 11 years, Ruby dated Mrs. Alice Reaves Nichols, a blonde divorcee, 4 years younger than he. Mrs. Nichols, secretary to a Dallas life insurance company executive,[A16-444] testified that she saw Ruby twice a week between 1948 and 1956, and once a week from then until about 1959.[A16-445] Ruby discussed marriage with Mrs. Nichols,[A16-446] but Mrs. Nichols stated that while dating Ruby she was seeing other men and he was taking out other women.[A16-447] Although there are sharply conflicting reports about whether Ruby dated women who worked for him,[A16-448] the record indicates that Ruby sought and enjoyed feminine company.[A16-449]

Affection for Dogs

Ruby was extremely fond of dogs. Numerous persons stated that he was constantly accompanied by several of the dogs he owned.[A16-450] Testimony at Ruby’s trial in March 1964 indicated that he referred to his dogs as his “children.”[A16-451] He also became extremely incensed when he witnessed the maltreatment of any of his dogs.[A16-452]

Religious Interests

Reared in the Jewish faith, Jack Ruby was not especially devout. Rabbi Hillel Silverman, whose conservative temple Ruby favored, reported that when Ruby’s father died in 1958, Ruby came to services twice daily for the prescribed period of 11 months to recite the traditional memorial prayer.[A16-453] Ruby normally attended services only on the Jewish high holy days and he was quite unfamiliar with the Hebrew language.[A16-454]

Ruby was apparently somewhat sensitive to his identity as a Jew. He forbade his comedians to tell stories directed at Jews or Jewish practices[A16-455] and, on several occasions after 1947, he fought with persons making derogatory remarks about his ethnic origins.[A16-456] The evidence also indicates that he was deeply upset that an advertisement insulting President Kennedy appeared above a Jewish-sounding name.[A16-457]

Physical Activities and Violence

While in Dallas, Ruby continued attempts to keep in excellent physical condition. He frequently exercised at the YMCA, the Carousel, and his apartment, where he maintained a set of weights.[A16-458] Ruby was extremely concerned about his weight and health, including his baldness,[A16-459] and about his appearance in general.[A16-460]

Ruby’s concern for his physical well-being was partially motivated by practical considerations, for he was his own unofficial club bouncer. On about 15 occasions since 1950, he beat with his fists, pistol whipped, or blackjacked patrons who became unruly.[A16-461] At other times, he ejected troublesome customers without a beating,[A16-462] in many instances, justifiably.[A16-463] However, many people stated that he employed more force than necessary, particularly because he often ended a fracas by throwing his victim down the stairs of the Carousel.[A16-464]

Besides acting as a bouncer, Ruby on numerous other occasions severely beat people who were not club patrons, usually employing only his fists. Several of these episodes have been discussed in connection with Ruby’s relationship with his employees.[A16-465] In 1951, Ruby attacked a man who had called him a “kike Jew” and knocked out a tooth.[A16-466] At about that time Ruby is also reported to have knocked a man down from behind and then to have kicked him in the face.[A16-467] In about 1958, Ruby disarmed a man who had drawn a gun on him at the Vegas, beat him almost to death, put the gun back in the man’s pocket, and threw him down the stairs.[A16-468] In 1958, Ruby reportedly knocked down a man at the Vegas who was 6’3” tall and weighed 230 pounds. Ruby was approximately 5’9” tall and weighed about 175 pounds.[A16-469] Ruby then made the man, who had slapped his date, crawl out of the club.[A16-470] In a fight at the Vegas, reportedly witnessed by policemen, Ruby severely beat a heavyweight boxer who had threatened him.[A16-471]

During 1962, several violent episodes occurred. Ruby beat a man who refused to pay admission or leave and then shoved him down the stairs.[A16-472] He “jostled” a woman down the stairs of the Carousel and struck her escort, who was “much smaller” than he.[A16-473] On one occasion, Ruby picked up a man who was arguing with his date, knocked him to the floor, cursed him, and then removed him from the Vegas.[A16-474] When a cabdriver entered the Carousel and inquired about a patron who had neglected to pay his fare, Ruby struck the cabdriver.[A16-475]

In February 1963, Ruby badly beat Don Tabon, who had made some remarks about Ruby’s lady companion, injuring Tabon’s eye.[A16-476] Ruby was acquitted of a charge of assault and Tabon sought no monetary relief because he believed Ruby financially incapable of satisfying any resulting judgment. A doctor who went to the Carousel several times between August and November 1963, stated that on each occasion Ruby ejected someone from the club.[A16-477]

Buddy Turman, a prizefighter and Ruby’s friend, stated that Ruby “picked his shots.”[A16-478] According to Turman, a bouncer at the Vegas for about a year, Ruby’s victim was frequently drunk, female, or otherwise incapable of successfully resisting Ruby’s attack. The evidence indicates that, unlike his youthful escapades, Ruby was often malicious. He frequently felt contrite, however, when his anger had passed or when his victim was an old acquaintance, and he would seek to make amends for his violent temper.[A16-479]

With two exceptions, there is no evidence that Ruby settled disputes with firearms. Shortly before Joe Bonds’ conviction in 1954, Ruby is reported to have chased Bonds with a pistol.[A16-480] And, Larry Crafard reported that about a week before the assassination, Ruby told him to get Ruby’s gun so that an AGVA official and former employee, Earl Norman, could be ejected.[A16-481] Although Ruby did not often use his gun, it was frequently accessible when he was carrying large amounts of money.[A16-482]

Generosity to Friends and the Need for Recognition

While Ruby often flared up and acted aggressively, he seemed to calm down or forget his anger quickly, and there is also a great deal of evidence that he was extremely generous to his friends. He loaned money to them and apparently cared little whether the loans would be repaid.[A16-483] He was quick to offer employment to persons desperately in need of a job[A16-484] and he lent considerable aid to persons seeking work elsewhere.[A16-485] Moreover, when friends or new acquaintances had no roof over their heads, Ruby’s apartment was frequently theirs to share.[A16-486]

Ruby’s unusual generosity may be explained in part by his extremely emotional reaction to persons in distress, which may have resulted from his firsthand familiarity with poverty, and by his unusual craving to be recognized and relied upon.[A16-487] Many of Ruby’s acquaintances described him as a “publicity hound,” “glad hander,” and “name dropper,” one always seeking to be the center of attention.[A16-488] Apparently the “egocentrism” of his youth[A16-489] never left Ruby. Yet, frequently he sought reassurance from persons he admired.[A16-490]

APPENDIX XVII

Polygraph Examination of Jack Ruby

PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENTS

As early as December of 1963, Jack Ruby expressed his desire to be examined with a polygraph, truth serum, or any other scientific device which would test his veracity.[A17-1] The attorneys who defended Ruby in the State criminal proceedings in Texas agreed that he should take a polygraph examination to test any conspiratorial connection between Ruby and Oswald.[A17-2] To obtain such a test, Ruby’s defense counsel filed motions in court and also requested that the FBI administer such an examination to Ruby.[A17-3] During the course of a psychiatric examination on May 11, 1964, Ruby is quoted as saying: “I want to tell the truth. I want a polygraph * * *.”[A17-4] In addition, numerous letters were written to the President’s Commission on behalf of Ruby requesting a polygraph examination.[A17-5]

When Ruby testified before the Commission in Dallas County Jail on June 7, 1964, his first words were a request for a lie detector test. The Commission hearing commenced with the following exchanges:

Mr. JACK RUBY. Without a lie detector test on my testimony, my verbal statements to you, how do you know if I am telling the truth?

Mr. TONAHILL [Defense Counsel]. Don’t worry about that, Jack.

Mr. RUBY. Just a minute, gentlemen.

Chief Justice WARREN. You wanted to ask something, did you, Mr. Ruby?

Mr. RUBY. I would like to be able to get a lie detector test or truth serum of what motivated me to do what I did at that particular time, and it seems as you get further into something, even though you know what you did, it operates against you somehow, brain washes you, that you are weak in what you want to tell the truth about and what you want to say which is the truth.

Now Mr. Warren, I don’t know if you got any confidence in the lie detector test and the truth serum, and so on.

Chief Justice WARREN. I can’t tell you just how much confidence I have in it, because it depends so much on who is taking it, and so forth.

But I will say this to you, that if you and your counsel want any kind of test, I will arrange it for you. I would be glad to do that, if you want it. I wouldn’t suggest a lie detector test to testify the truth.

We will treat you just the same as we do any other witness, but if you want such a test, I will arrange for it.

Mr. RUBY. I do want it. Will you agree to that, Joe?

Mr. TONAHILL. I sure do, Jack.[A17-6]

Throughout Ruby’s testimony before the Commission, he repeated his request on numerous occasions that he be given an opportunity to take a lie detector test.[A17-7] Ruby’s insistence on taking a polygraph examination is reflected right to the end of the proceedings where in the very last portion of the transcribed hearings Ruby states:

Mr. RUBY. All I want to do is to tell the truth, and the only way you can know it is by the polygraph, as that is the only way you can know it.

Chief Justice WARREN. That we will do for you.[A17-8]

Following Ruby’s insistence on a polygraph test, the Commission initiated arrangements to have the FBI conduct such an examination.[A17-9] A detailed set of questions was prepared for the polygraph examination, which was set for July 16, 1964.[A17-10] A few days before the scheduled test, the Commission was informed that Ruby’s sister, Eva Grant, and his counsel, Joe H. Tonahill, opposed the polygraph on the ground that psychiatric examinations showed that his mental state was such that the test would be meaningless.[A17-11]

The Commission was advised that Sol Dann, a Detroit attorney representing the Ruby family, had informed the Dallas office of the FBI on July 15, 1964, that a polygraph examination would affect Ruby’s health and would be of questionable value according to Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a Detroit psychiatrist.[A17-12] On that same date, Assistant Counsel Arlen Specter discussed by telephone the polygraph examination with Defense Counsel Joe H. Tonahill, who expressed his personal opinion that a polygraph examination should be administered to Ruby.[A17-13] By letter dated July 15, 1964, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade requested that the polygraph examination cover the issue of premeditation as well as the defensive theories in the case.[A17-14]

Against this background, it was decided that a representative of the Commission would travel to Dallas to determine whether Jack Ruby wanted to take the polygraph test. Since Ruby had had frequent changes in attorneys and because he was presumed to be sane, the final decision on the examination was his, especially in view of his prior personal insistence on the test.[A17-15] In the jury conference room at the Dallas jail on July 18, Assistant Counsel Arlen Specter, representing the Commission, informed Chief Defense Counsel Clayton Fowler, co-Counsel Tonahill and Assistant District Attorney William F. Alexander that the Commission was not insisting on or even requesting that the test be taken, but was merely fulfilling its commitment to make the examination available.[A17-16] In the event Ruby had changed his mind and would so state for the record, that would conclude the issue as far as the Commission was concerned.[A17-17]

Chief Defense Counsel Fowler had objected to the test. He conferred with Jack Ruby in his cell and then returned stating that Ruby insisted on taking the examination.[A17-18] Mr. Fowler requested that (1) Dr. Tanay, the Detroit psychiatrist, be present; (2) the results of the test not be disclosed other than to the Commission; (3) the questions to be asked not be disclosed to the District Attorney’s office; and (4) the results of the test be made available to defense counsel.[A17-19] Sheriff William Decker announced his intention to have Allan L. Sweatt, his chief criminal deputy who was also a polygraph operator, present to maintain custody of Jack Ruby while the examination was being administered.[A17-20] Assistant District Attorney Alexander requested a list of questions, a copy of the recording made by the polygraph machine and a copy of the report interpreting the test.[A17-21] In response to the numerous requests, the procedure was determined that the questions to be asked of Ruby would be discussed in a preliminary session in the presence of defense counsel, the assistant district attorney and Chief Jailer E. L. Holman, who was to replace Sweatt.[A17-22] The assistant district attorney would not be present when Ruby answered the questions, but Jailer Holman was allowed to remain to retain custody of Ruby.[A17-23] No commitment was made on behalf of the Commission as to what disclosure would be made of the results of the examination.[A17-24] Since Dr. Tanay was not in Dallas and therefore could not be present,[A17-25] arrangements were made to have in attendance Dr. William R. Beavers, a psychiatrist who had previously examined and evaluated Ruby’s mental state.[A17-26]

At the conclusion of the lengthy preliminary proceedings, Ruby entered the jury conference room at 2:23 p.m. and was informed that the Commission was prepared to fulfill its commitment to offer him a polygraph examination, but was not requesting the test.[A17-27] On behalf of the Commission, Assistant Counsel Specter warned Ruby that anything he said could be used against him.[A17-28] Chief Defense Counsel Fowler advised Ruby of his objections to the examination.[A17-29] Ruby then stated that he wanted the polygraph examination conducted and that he wanted the results released to the public as promptly as possible.[A17-30] Special Agent Bell P. Herndon, polygraph operator of the FBI, obtained a written “consent to interview with polygraph” signed by Jack Ruby.[A17-31] Herndon then proceeded to administer the polygraph examination by breaking the questions up into series which were ordinarily nine questions in length and consisted of relevant interrogatories and control questions.[A17-32]

ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEST

During the course of the polygraph examination Jack Ruby answered the relevant questions as follows:

Q. Did you know Oswald before November 22, 1963?

A. No.[A17-33]

Q. Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?

A. No.[A17-34]

Q. Are you now a member of the Communist Party?

A. No.[A17-35]

Q. Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

A. No.[A17-36]

Q. Are you now a member of any group that advocates the violent overthrow of the United States Government?

A. No.[A17-37]

Q. Have you ever been a member of any group that advocates violent overthrow of the United States Government?

A. No.[A17-38]

Q. Between the assassination and the shooting, did anybody you know tell you they knew Oswald?

A. No.[A17-39]

Q. Aside from anything you said to George Senator on Sunday morning, did you ever tell anyone else that you intended to shoot Oswald?

A. No.[A17-40]

Q. Did you shoot Oswald in order to silence him?

A. No.[A17-41]

Q. Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Friday night?

A. No.[A17-42]

Q. Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Saturday morning?

A. No.[A17-43]

Q. Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Saturday night?

A. No.[A17-44]

Q. Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Sunday morning?

A. Yes.[A17-45]

Q. Were you on the sidewalk at the time Lieutenant Pierce’s car stopped on the ramp exit?

A. Yes.[A17-46]

Q. Did you enter the jail by walking through an alleyway?

A. No.[A17-47]

Q. Did you walk past the guard at the time Lieutenant Pierce’s car was parked on the ramp exit?

A. Yes.[A17-48]

Q. Did you talk with any Dallas police officers on Sunday, November 24, prior to the shooting of Oswald?

A. No.[A17-49]

Q. Did you see the armored car before it entered the basement?

A. No.[A17-50]

Q. Did you enter the police department through a door at the rear of the east side of the jail?

A. No.[A17-51]

Q. After talking to Little Lynn did you hear any announcement that Oswald was about to be moved?

A. No.[A17-52]

Q. Before you left your apartment Sunday morning, did anyone tell you the armored car was on the way to the police department?

A. No.[A17-53]

Q. Did you get a Wall Street Journal at the Southwestern Drug Store during the week before the assassination?

A. No.[A17-54]

Q. Do you have any knowledge of a Wall Street Journal addressed to Mr. J. E. Bradshaw?

A. No.[A17-55]

Q. To your knowledge, did any of your friends or did you telephone the FBI in Dallas between 2 or 3 a.m. Sunday morning?

A. No.[A17-56]

Q. Did you or any of your friends to your knowledge telephone the sheriff’s office between 2 or 3 a.m. Sunday morning?

A. No.[A17-57]

Q. Did you go to the Dallas police station at any time on Friday, November 22, 1963, before you went to the synagogue?

A. No.[A17-58]

Q. Did you go to the synagogue that Friday night?

A. Yes.[A17-59]

Q. Did you see Oswald in the Dallas jail on Friday night?

A. Yes.[A17-60]

Q. Did you have a gun with you when you went to the Friday midnight press conference at the jail?

A. No.[A17-61]

Q. Is everything you told the Warren Commission the entire truth?

A. Yes.[A17-62]

Q. Have you ever knowingly attended any meetings of the Communist Party or any other group that advocates violent overthrow of the Government?

A. No.[A17-63]

Q. Is any member of your immediate family or any close friend, a member of the Communist Party?

A. No.[A17-64]

Q. Is any member of your immediate family or any close friend a member of any group that advocates the violent overthrow of the Government?

A. No.[A17-65]

Q. Did any close friend or any member of your immediate family ever attend a meeting of the Communist Party?

A. No.[A17-66]

Q. Did any close friend or any member of your immediate family ever attend a meeting of any group that advocates the violent overthrow of the Government?

A. No.[A17-67]

Q. Did you ever meet Oswald at your post office box?

A. No.[A17-68]

Q. Did you use your post office mailbox to do any business with Mexico or Cuba?

A. No.[A17-69]

Q. Did you do business with Castro-Cuba?

A. No.[A17-70]

Q. Was your trip to Cuba solely for pleasure?

A. Yes.[A17-71]

Q. Have you now told us the truth concerning why you carried $2,200 in cash on you?

A. Yes.[A17-72]

Q. Did any foreign influence cause you to shoot Oswald?

A. No.[A17-73]

Q. Did you shoot Oswald because of any influence of the underworld?

A. No.[A17-74]

Q. Did you shoot Oswald because of a labor union influence?

A. No.[A17-75]

Q. Did any long-distance telephone calls which you made before the assassination of the President have anything to do with the assassination?

A. No.[A17-76]

Q. Did any of your long-distance telephone calls concern the shooting of Oswald?

A. No.[A17-77]

Q. Did you shoot Oswald in order to save Mrs. Kennedy the ordeal of a trial?

A. Yes.[A17-78]

Q. Did you know the Tippit that was killed?

A. No.[A17-79]

Q. Did you tell the truth about relaying the message to Ray Brantley to get McWillie a few guns?

A. Yes.[A17-80]

Q. Did you go to the assembly room on Friday night to get the telephone number of KLIF?

A. Yes.[A17-81]

Q. Did you ever meet with Oswald and Officer Tippit at your club?

A. No.[A17-82]

Q. Were you at the Parkland Hospital at any time on Friday?

A. No.[A17-83]

Q. Did you say anything when you shot Oswald other than what you’ve testified about?

A. No.[A17-84]

Q. Have members of your family been physically harmed because of what you did?

A. No.[A17-85]

Q. Do you think members of your family are now in danger because of what you did?

(No response.)[A17-86]

Q. Is Mr. Fowler in danger because he is defending you?

(No response.)[A17-87]

Q. Did “Blackie” Hanson speak to you just before you shot Oswald?

A. No.[A17-88]

INTERPRETATION OF THE TEST

A polygraph examination is designed to detect physiological responses to stimuli in a carefully controlled interrogation. Such responses may accompany and indicate deception.[A17-89] The polygraph instrument derives its name from the Greek derivative “poly” meaning many and the word “graph” meaning writings.[A17-90] The polygraph chart writings consist of three separate markings placed on a graph reflecting three separate physiological reactions.[A17-91] A rubber tube is placed around the subject’s chest to record his breathing pattern on a pneumograph.[A17-92] That device records the respiratory ratio of inhalation and exhalation strokes.[A17-93] The second component is called a galvanic skin response which consists of electrodes placed on the examinee’s fingers, through which a small amount of electrical current is passed to the skin.[A17-94] The galvanometer records the minute changes in electrical skin response.[A17-95] The third component consists of a cardiograph which is a tracing obtained by attaching a pneumatic cuff around the left arm in a manner very similar to an apparatus which takes blood pressure.[A17-96] When the cuff is inflated, that device records relative blood pressures or change in the heart rate.[A17-97]

From those testing devices, it is possible to measure psychological or emotional stress.[A17-98] This testing device is the product of observation by psychologists and physiologists who noted certain physiological responses when people lie.[A17-99] In about 1920 law enforcement officials with psychological and physiological training initiated the development of the instrument to serve as an investigative aid.[A17-100]

The polygraph may record responses indicative of deception, but it must be carefully interpreted.[A17-101] The relevant questions, as to which the interrogator is seeking to determine whether the subject is falsifying, are compared with control questions where the examiner obtains a known indication of deception or some expected emotional response.[A17-102] In evaluating the polygraph, due consideration must be given to the fact that a physiological response may be caused by factors other than deception, such as fear, anxiety, nervousness, dislike, and other emotions.[A17-103] There are no valid statistics as to the reliability of the polygraph.[A17-104] FBI Agent Herndon testified that, notwithstanding the absence of percentage indicators of reliability, an informed judgment may be obtained from a well-qualified examiner on the indications of deception in a normal person under appropriate standards of administration.[A17-105]

Ordinarily during a polygraph examination only the examiner and the examinee are present.[A17-106] It is the practice of the FBI, however, to have a second agent present to take notes.[A17-107] It is normally undesirable to have other people present during the polygraph examination because the examinee may react emotionally to them.[A17-108] Because of the numerous interested parties involved in Ruby’s polygraph examination, there were present individuals representing the Commission and the Dallas district attorney, as well as two defense counsel, two FBI agents, the chief jailer, the psychiatrist, and the court reporter, although the assistant district attorney and one defense counsel left when Ruby was actually responding to questions while the instrument was activated.[A17-109] Ruby was placed in a position where there was a minimum of distraction for him during the test.[A17-110] He faced a wall and could not see anyone except possibly through secondary vision from the side.[A17-111] Agent Herndon expressed the opinion that Ruby was not affected by the presence of the people in the room.[A17-112]

Answer by Ruby to certain irrelevant control questions suggested an attempt to deceive on those questions. For example, Ruby answered “No” to the question “While in the service did you receive any disciplinary action?”[A17-113] His reaction suggested deception in his answer.[A17-114] Similarly, Ruby’s negative answer to the query “Did you ever over-charge a customer?” was suggestive of deception.[A17-115] Ruby further showed an emotional response to other control questions such as “Have you ever been known by another name”[A17-116] “Are you married?”[A17-117] “Have you ever served time in jail?” [A17-118] “Are your parents alive?”[A17-119] “Other than what you told me, did you ever hit anyone with any kind of a weapon?”[A17-120] Herndon concluded that the absence of any physiological response on the relevant questions indicated that there was no deception.[A17-121]

An accurate evaluation of Ruby’s polygraph examination depends on whether he was psychotic. Since a psychotic is divorced from reality, the polygraph tracings could not be logically interpreted on such an individual. A psychotic person might believe a false answer was true so he would not register an emotional response characteristic of deception as a normal person would.[A17-122] If a person is so mentally disturbed that he does not understand the nature of the questions or the substance of his answers, then no validity can be attached to the polygraph examination.[A17-123] Herndon stated that if a person, on the other hand, was in touch with reality, then the polygraph examination could be interpreted like any other such test.[A17-124]

Based on his previous contacts with Ruby and from observing him during the entire polygraph proceeding, Dr. William R. Beavers testified as follows:

In the greater proportion of the time that he answered the questions, I felt that he was aware of the questions and that he understood them, and that he was giving answers based on an appreciation of reality.[A17-125]

Dr. Beavers further stated that he had previously diagnosed Ruby as a “psychotic depressive.” [A17-126]

Based on the assumption that Ruby was a “psychotic depressive,” Herndon testified:

There would be no validity to the polygraph examination, and no significance should be placed upon the polygraph charts.[A17-127]

Considering other phases of Dr. Beavers’ testimony, Herndon stated:

Well, based on the hypothesis that Ruby was mentally competent and sound, the charts could be interpreted, and if those conditions are fact, the charts could be interpreted to indicate that there was no area of deception present with regard to his response to the relevant questions during the polygraph examination.[A17-128]

In stating his opinion that Ruby was in touch with reality and understood the questions and answers, Dr. Beavers excepted two questions where he concluded that Ruby’s underlying delusional state took hold.[A17-129] Those questions related to the safety of Ruby’s family and his defense counsel.[A17-130] While in the preliminary session Ruby had answered those questions by stating that he felt his family and defense counsel were in danger, he did not answer either question when the polygraph was activated.[A17-131] Dr. Beavers interpreted Ruby’s failure to answer as a reflection of “internal struggle as to just what was reality.”[A17-132] In addition, Dr. Beavers testified that the test was not injurious to Ruby’s mental or physical condition.[A17-133]

Because Ruby not only volunteered but insisted upon taking a polygraph examination, the Commission agreed to the examination. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover commented on the examination as follows:

It should be pointed out that the polygraph, often referred to as “lie detector” is not in fact such a device. The instrument is designed to record under proper stimuli emotional responses in the form of physiological variations which may indicate and accompany deception. The FBI feels that the polygraph technique is not sufficiently precise to permit absolute judgements of deception or truth without qualifications. The polygraph technique has a number of limitations, one of which relates to the mental fitness and condition of the examinee to be tested.

During the proceedings at Dallas, Texas, on July 18, 1964, Dr. William R. Beavers, a psychiatrist, testified that he would generally describe Jack Ruby as a “psychotic depressive.” In view of the serious question raised as to Ruby’s mental condition, no significance should be placed on the polygraph examination and it should be considered nonconclusive as the charts cannot be relied upon.[A17-134]

Having granted Ruby’s request for the examination, the Commission is publishing the transcript of the hearing at which the test was conducted[A17-135] and the transcript of the deposition of the FBI polygraph operator who administered the test.[A17-136] The Commission did not rely on the results of this examination in reaching the conclusions stated in this report.

APPENDIX XVIII

Footnotes

For references to the testimony of witnesses before the Commission, the following citation form is used: number of volume, “H” (for “Hearings before the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy”), page number, and the name of the witness in parentheses, e.g., 7 H 441 (O’Donnell). Commission exhibits are referred to by the capital letters “CE” and number; deposition exhibits by the name of the witness, the capital letters “DE,” and the number or letter of his exhibit, e.g., CE 705; Sorrels DE 1. References to audiovisual sources for one Dallas broadcasting station (WFAA) are cited as follows: PKT for video tapes, PKF for films, and PKA for audio tapes. The video and audio reels and tapes of other stations are cited by number, e.g., WFAA-TV reel PKT 10; KBLD-TV reel 13.

FOREWORD

[F-1] Executive Order No. 11130 is set forth as app. I.

[F-2] The White House press release is set forth as app. II.

[F-3] Senate Joint Resolution 137 (Public Law 88-202) is set forth as app. III.

[F-4] The names of all witnesses are set forth in app. V.

[F-5] The procedures of the Commission are set forth as app. VI.

##