Mr. Sorrels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hubert. Did you make the telephone call to Curry or Batchelor as a result of the conversation you had with Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Sorrels. No.
Mr. Hubert. That was independent? You think it was before?
Mr. Sorrels. No; I don’t think it was before, because as I recall it, this conversation with Mr. Griffin was quite some time before.
Mr. Hubert. Mr. Sorrels, I call your attention to the fact that on the exhibit which has been identified as Commission Document 354, as to which you have already testified, there is no mention of the names of the officers who were present, and that is dated February 3, 1964. Does that help you to recollect whether you then got interested in who those people were and called Batchelor or Curry, or both?
Mr. Sorrels. It probably brought it to my mind that there were other people present there, and I think I so informed Mr. Griffin on the telephone. But that is not what prompted me to make the call about the two uniformed officers, because that had no bearing on what I told Mr. Griffin. What he was asking me over the telephone is what I had heard Ruby say. And I told him what I had heard Ruby say. And he had asked me about certain things that I did not recall hearing Ruby say, and I told him so at the time. And when I was in District Attorney Wade’s office, the question was asked of me by Mr. Wade as to whether or not certain statements alleged to have been made by Ruby were made to Officer Dean in my presence, and I told him I did not hear anything like that.
Mr. Hubert. Well, perhaps another approach would be this: You were interested or became interested sometime in finding out the names of these people. Isn’t that a fact?
Mr. Sorrels. Yes; but only for that particular purpose.
Mr. Hubert. And you also wanted to convey the information that you were doubtful whether you would qualify, as you put it, as a witness, because you had failed to warn. And that that thought came into your mind after Wade indicated that you might be a witness.