The Clay Shaw preliminary hearing testimony of Perry Raymond Russo (continued)




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.


I might say that a verbatim transcript was in the morning paper, very close to it.


I have not had time to read it.


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.


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:


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.)


I don't understand the question.


I don't understand it either.


Your Honor, I think it is just about as clear as this witness' conception of God is.


Your Honor, this is --


This is not a catechism class, let's move on with the case.


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?


I object at this time. I think this area has been sufficiently covered. The man testified --


What is the purpose of this tesimony?


This has a direct bearing on the credibility of the witness, and I can assure the Court that it will be tied in.


The objection is sustained.


I beg your pardon?


Objection is sustained.


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.


Your objection is sustained.


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.


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?


I would like you to unbind the page.


Yes, sir, I remember.


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.


What is the date on that, Mr. Dymond? When is it supposed to be done?


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.


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 --


If the Court please, I will ask that the witness be instructed to answer the question and then explain.


You have been asking him a lot of hearsay all along.


This answer is not responsive to my question.


He said he did not write it.


I asked him whether or not he gave him that information.


Did or did you not give this information to anybody at Equitable Life Assurance?


These particular words, "One, partial," no.


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.


Answer yes or no and then explain.


I gave him information which he asked me, well, how do we mark --


I object.


It is your position he has to give you a yes or no and cannot amplify?


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.)


These are not his words. How can he answer directly when these are not his words. This is as a result of general conversation.


He can answer whether he gave that information and then go on to explain.


I rule he can explain. You asked him a question, and every time he commences to answer the question you cut him off.


Your Honor, he does not commence to answer the question.


The objection is overruled. Now, take your bill.


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.


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.


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.


I fail to see the relevancy of this.


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 --


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.


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.


I suggest that you get on with the facts.


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.


The witness did not say he had only two. He said there were other friends.


The question is misleading.


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?


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.


Which is not in evidence, and I have the right to question the witness.


It is not relevant anyway.


Let's hear from him, Mr. Alcock. One at a time.


May I ask counsel not to interrupt me in my objection.


I was making the objection, Mr. Dymond, when you stood up.


I beg your pardon. I was talking to the Court and I was interrupted, and I will ask the Court to instruct counsel --


One at a time. Mr. Dymond, let me hear your position.


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.


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.


Is Your Honor taking the position that this man's credibility is not an issue in this case at this time?


You have not contradicted him on any of the main facts of his testimony. That is the point I am making.


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.


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.


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.


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?


The witness has not completed his answer and Mr. Dymond is asking him another question.


Let him finish his answer.


-- 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.


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.



Clarence "Frogman" Henry



And so, I said if he wants to run I will keep in touch with you and let you know what tells me, and I said it has to be in strictest confidence. And she said OK. And a few days later or maybe a week later, Al came over and I was home. He may have come over before that, but I was home, and he invited me to his place in Kenner, to Dave's place in Kenner.

Q. And I take it you accepted the invitation and went out there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Tell us what general area of Kenner Dave Ferrie's place was?

A. I couldn't do that.

Q. How did you get there, Mr. Russo?

A. We went in a car.

Q. Via what main street, if you recall?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You don't remember whether you went out Airline Highway, Veterans Highway, Jefferson Highway, or how you got there, is that correct?

A. No, sir.

Q. Who drove?

A. I don't know. There was a bunch of us in the car. I don't remember.

Q. Well, who all was in the car?


Objection. It is irrelevant and immaterial.


The State's objection is overruled.


Al, of course, Al was in the car, and two or three of my friends.


Q. Who were these two or three friends you make reference to?

A. Adele Marquad and Pete Peterson -- Lefty -- and one of my cousins. I don't remember which.

Q. You don't remember which one?

A. No, sir.

Q. This man, Marquad, which you mentioned, is he a local man?

A. It is a woman, a young girl.

Q. Adele?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is she a local woman?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know what section of the City she lives in?

A. The St. Claude Street area.

Q. Is she married now, single?

A. She is married now.

Q. Is she married to a man by the name of Marquad or to a man with a different name?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know her husband's name?

A. Marquad is her husband's name. Laporte was her other. Laporte was her original name.

Q. Laporte was her maiden name?

A. Yes.

Q. And she lived on St. Claude or in the St. Claude area?

A. I don't know where she and her husband live now. During this period of time, she lived around St. Claude and Desire.

Q. Pete, or Lefty Peterson, is he a local man?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does he still live in New Orleans?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where does he live?

A. He moves about, and I am just not sure right now.

Q. When is the last time you have seen him?

A. I have seen him up here a couple of occasions.

Q. Have you seen him up here in connection with this case?

A. Not inside the trial. In Mr. Garrison's office.

Q. In other words, he has been interviewed by the District Attorney's office?

A. I would prefer you ask them that.

Q. Do you know where he is living at present?

A. No, sir.

Q. So, you and your cousin, Adele Marquad, and Lefty Peterson went in whose automobile to Dave Ferrie's house?

A. It could have been mine. I am not sure of that.

Q. And what kind of car was that?

A. If it was mine it would have been a '59 Plymouth.

Q. Can you give us any other possibility as to whose car it might have been?

A. Lefty had access to transportation at work. I have a vague recollection he has had cars. I have a vague recollection he had a car at that time.

Q. Do you recall what kind it was?

A. A '49 or '50 Ford.

Q. A '49 or '50 Ford?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you feel safe in saying that you went out there either in your car or Lefty's car?

A. I would not be willing to say.

Q. Now, when you arrived at Ferrie's house out in the Kenner area, who was there?

A. A bunch of boys whom I had never met and Dave and his mother.

Q. Approximately how many boys?

A. Maybe ten or twelve.

Q. Ten or twelve?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember any of their names?

A. Some of the first names.

Q. Can you give us the first name that you remember?


Excuse me, Mr. Dymond, do you want to make this the lunch hour?


That will be fine.

(Recess for lunch.)


Back to the top



Back to previous Perry Russo testimony



Back to Shaw preliminary hearing menu

Back to Jim Garrison menu


Search this site
    powered by FreeFind

Back to JFK menu

Dave Reitzes home page