The Clay Shaw trial testimony of Officer Aloysius Habighorst, continued



Q: Now, Officer Habighorst, do I understand your testimony correctly that in the B of I room while this interrogation went on, was Ivon, Loisel, Oser, and Ed Wegmann?

A: They were in there on and off. Some of them stay there for a while, go out and get some other information, come back, and as I was beginning to process Mr. Shaw, who else came in there or how many times I couldn't say because my attention was diverted.

Q: Let's take them one by one, Officer. Was Ivon ever in the B of I room that night?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Was Loisel in the B of I room that night?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Was Oser in the B of I room that night?

A: Yes.

Q: Was Ed Wegmann in the B of I room that night?

A: He was right inside the doorway.

Q: Was he inside the room or not?

A: Yes, sir. Well, I would consider that inside the room.

Q: Now, was Butzman there during the whole time?

A: No, sir.

Q: That is Sergeant Butzman. You know who I am talking about?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Was Sergeant Butzman there?

A: He was there but not during the entire procedure while I processed Mr. Shaw.

Q: Was Captain Curole there?

A: I didn't notice Captain Curole in the B of I at all.

Q: Was he in the Central Lockup?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Isn't it a fact that the attorney was excluded from the B of I room and not around to participate in that portion of the examination?

A: He was there for a time, now. Why he was excluded or taken from there I don't know, I never did leave the confines of the Bureau of Identification.

Q: Was the attorney with him at the time he answered your questions?

MR. ALCOCK: Objection, objection, Your Honor. He has already answered the question.

THE COURT: I didn't catch the answer.

MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: His answer is I don't know.

Q: Officer, do you understand the question Mr. Wegmann asked you?

A: Yes.

Q: While you were taking the fingerprints of Mr. Shaw, was any attorney present with him? Is that the question?

A: that is the question.

Q: Was anyone with him or not?

A: The attorney was at the door.

Q: I didn't ask you that. Was he with him?

MR. ALCOCK: This is what he testified.

THE COURT: I am trying to clarify. Would you rephrase the question, Mr. Wegmann.

Q: At the time that you got the information that is contained on the back of the exhibit, the fingerprint exhibit that Mr. Alcock just showed you, was the attorney present during that period of time?

A: No, sir.

Q: And was he present when Mr. Shaw signed that card?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now you are positive about that?

A: I recall him being at the doorway and Mr. Shaw was standing directly in front of me by the fingerprinting --

Q: Was he inside the door or outside the door?

A: He was just right inside the door proper.

Q: Physically in the room, physically inside of the B of I?

A: There is a little hallway that is there. I would say that he was more in the confines of the B of I than he was outside in the booking area.

Q: Was the door open or closed during this procedure?

A: The door is always open.

Q: Never closed?

A: No, sir.

Q: Now, you know what a Field Arrest Report is, don't you?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you see a Field Arrest Report on Shaw?

A: After I had fingerprinted him, yes, sir.

Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you a document which has been marked "D-15" for identification, and I ask you if you have ever seen this document before?

MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, to which question the State objects on the ground that it is not relevant to the predicate. It may be relevant later on but at this juncture it is not relevant.

THE COURT: Is that based on the time element, Mr. Alcock?

MR. ALCOCK: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Wegmann and Mr. Dymond elicited from the previous witness, Mr. Ivon, that this Field Report was made up by him after he turned Mr. Shaw over to the custody of the Central Lockup. When he did turn him over to the custody of the Central Lockup, he was then processed from one department over to Mr. Habighorst, and this report was not made until after he was in the custody of Mr. Habighorst.

MR. WEGMANN: I think that what the Court has done now, in effect you have prompted this witness as to what the testimony of Ivon was.

THE COURT: I never said what Ivon said.

MR. WEGMANN: In effect you have gone over Ivon's testimony. I think I have a right to ask this witness when he saw it from a time purpose, time angle. He may never have seen it.

THE COURT: Ask him the time.

MR. WEGMANN: I have to show him the document before I can ask if he remembers seeing it.

MR. ALCOCK: The Defense contention that this document in and of itself frightened Defendant into making a statement or in any way coerced the Defendant to make any statement, that is the sole issue before the Court.

THE COURT: I know of no connection of this statement with the predicate you are laying, I can see no connection as of this moment.

Q: Officer Habighorst, when did you see that document for the first time on March 1?

A: It was after the fingerprinting procedure.

Q: It was after the fingerprinting procedure?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And who gave it to you?

A: I don't recall if anyone gave it to me. Some of these papers I think are filed in the Magistrate's Court next morning, and being short-handed over there, you do a lot of work other than your assigned duties.

Q: Officer, why on direct examination did you state that Ed Wegmann was in and out when you now tell us he was standing by the door all the time?

A: When I would notice him he would be there, no further than by the door itself, he never did come any closer into the office other than right there by the door.

Q: Isn't it a fact, Officer, that attorneys are excluded by your regulations from going into that room?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Attorneys are not allowed in the room where you photograph and fingerprint people?

A: That is correct.

Q: Isn't that correct?

A: That is correct, yes, sir.

Q: Yet you are saying on this night the attorney was in that room --

A: Yes, sir.

Q: -- in violation of the regulations?

A: How he got in I do not know. As I said before, I did not leave the confines of the Bureau of Identification, so if someone let him in there, I wasn't lax, that was not my responsibility to screen the people coming in and out of that Lockup.

Q: All right. (Exhibiting document to witness) I show you a document which has been marked "D-16" for identification, Officer, and ask you if you are familiar with this document?

A: This is the Arrest Register.

Q: So you are familiar with it?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: That is the Arrest Register on Clay Shaw?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, isn't it a fact that you observed and saw this Register before you took his fingerprints?

MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor. Go ahead and answer the question.

THE COURT: You can answer. Did you see it or did you not see it?

THE WITNESS: I saw it in its entirety after I had fingerprinted him.

THE COURT: What do you mean by "in its entirety"?

THE WITNESS: Well, the whole thing was filled out, the entire Register was filled out. I hadn't seen it before.

Q: Didn't you see it before when it was partially filled out?

A: No, sir.

Q: Do you know who filled it out?

A: No, sir.

MR. WEGMANN: That is all.

MR. ALCOCK: One further question.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALCOCK: Q: Officer, referring you to the fingerprint card which you have identified -- that would be "S-60" -- I am referring you to the personal information contained at the back portion of it (exhibiting document to witness). From whom, if anyone, did you get that information?

A: This is the back of the Register here.

Q: Well, the front then.

A: The front of the Register is here. (Indicating) This information here I obtained from Mr. Shaw himself.

Q: All right.

MR. ALCOCK: No further questions.

Q: Was his attorney present when you obtained that information from him?

A: As I stated before, some of the information, Mr. Wegmann was in and out; now, I couldn't possibly state that he was there during the entire time that I got all the information, but some of the information that I got from Mr. Shaw, Mr. Wegmann was at that door.

Q: What about the information that was just shown to you by Mr. Alcock?

A: When I got that information from Mr. Shaw, as I stated, it is quite possible that he wasn't there for -- in its entirety.

Q: Well, my question to you again, Officer, is: When you got that information that you have just pointed out to Mr. Alcock, was the attorney present or was he not present? Specifically, Officer, when you got information concerning an alias, was the attorney present?

A: He could have been; I really couldn't say.

Q: You don't know.

THE COURT: Mr. Wegmann, will you permit an interruption?

How far is the doorway from the table where you take the prints, how far away from it?

THE WITNESS: Approximately about 15, 15 or 20 feet.

THE COURT: Say 20 feet?

THE WITNESS: I would say from about here to where Mr. Alcock is sitting.

THE COURT: That is about 30 feet?

THE WITNESS: Fifteen feet.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this: Were you speaking in a loud clear voice, or were you just speaking to Mr. Shaw when you --

THE WITNESS: I was speaking directly to Mr. Shaw.

THE COURT: Is there any way of knowing, Mr. Habighorst, whether or not Mr. Eddie Wegmann, who was 15, 20, 30 feet away, could hear what you were saying to Mr. Shaw?

THE WITNESS: No, I couldn't honestly say that he did hear it or he didn't hear it.

Q: How many times was he in and out of that room that night?

A: I would say about twice or maybe three times. My attention wasn't diverted by him. I had no -- if they allowed maybe for some special reason to let him in there, I don't know, it wasn't for me to question it.

Q: Did Ivon tell you that his attorneys had told Ivon that he was not to be questioned?

MR. ALCOCK: Objection, Your Honor, unless it is in the presence of the Defendant, it is hearsay.

THE COURT: The only thing I will permit is was he instructed. That I think is germane to the issue.

THE WITNESS: The only thing I questioned Shaw --

THE COURT: He didn't ask you that. Read the question.

(Whereupon, the pending question was read back by the Reporter.)

A: I don't recall anyone telling me not to question Mr. Shaw.

Q: Did you advise Mr. Shaw of his Constitutional rights?

A: I didn't advise him of his Constitutional rights because I didn't arrest him.

Q: Your answer is no then?

A: That is right.

Q: You just started asking him questions?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You didn't tell him what he had to answer and what he did not have to answer?

A: I explained to him that this was part of the booking procedure. If he didn't give me the information I couldn't force it from him.

Q: And you also told him that he had to be booked and this had to e done before he could make bond? Isn't that correct?

A: The fingerprinting procedure is mandatory, that he be fingerprinted for such an offense before he could be bonded out.

Q: And you told that to Shaw, that this had to be done before he could be released?

A: Yes, sir.

MR. WEGMANN: That is all the questions I have.

Q: Officer, prior to seeing Shaw that night in the Central Lockup, did you know any of the facts or evidence the State may or may not have had in connection with his arrest?

A: No, sir. Your office doesn't confide in me.

Q: Did you interrogate this man at any time in that room relative to the innocence or guilt of the Defendant?

A: No, sir.

Q: Was the Defendant at any time reluctant to give you any information?

A: No, sir, he was most cooperative.

Q: Did the Defendant at any time request that his attorney be immediately at his side when you were conversing with him?

A: Not of me, he didn't make none of those requests.

Q: Had you participated in -- at all, Officer, in the investigation into the alleged assassination of President Kennedy at that time?

A: No, sir.

Q: Did you have any knowledge at all about what the State might have had?

A: No, sir.

MR. ALCOCK: No further questions.

Q: You do watch TV and read the newspapers, don't you, Officer?

A: Yes, sir.

MR. WEGMANN: That is all the questions I have.

MR. ALCOCK: No further questions.

THE COURT: Who is your next witness?

MR. ALCOCK: That is all the State has on the predicate.

THE COURT: You may step down.

(Witness excused.)

MR. DYMOND: We have evidence on the predicate, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. What is your next move, Mr. Alcock?

MR. ALCOCK: That is the State's evidence on the predicate.

THE COURT: Do you wish to traverse?

MR. DYMOND: Yes, we do, Judge. Do you want us to go into that now or do you want to recess?

THE COURT: It is about five minutes of 3:00. We will take a recess. Have your witnesses available after the recess.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)


Back to the top



To Louis Curole testimony, resumed


Back to arrest record menu

Back to Shaw trial testimony

Search trial database chronologically

Additional resources on the trial of Clay Shaw


Search this site
    powered by FreeFind

Back to JFK menu

Dave Reitzes home page