Mr. Hubert. Any other corrections?
Dr. Bieberdorf. Let’s see. On page 3, the second paragraph, “Bieberdorf states that he was not acquainted with Jack Ruby, but that he did interview Ruby in the police jail on Sunday, November 24, at about 4 or 5 p.m.”
This time—I looked it up at a later date, and it was at exactly 2:05 p.m., rather than my estimation at that time of 4 or 5 p.m.
Mr. Hubert. All right, have you any other on that document 5123?
Dr. Bieberdorf. Well, there are a few more.
Mr. Hubert. Otherwise, it stated correctly the nature of the physical examination that you gave to Ruby and the findings?
Dr. Bieberdorf. The next sentence that follows that is correct, but then there is another. That same paragraph, the last sentence in this paragraph reads, “Bieberdorf states that he gave Ruby a physical examination at this time in order to insure Ruby had not concealed any weapon on his person.”
This is not correct here. Later on in the afternoon of November 24, I was asked by the police or Lieutenant—I believe in charge of the jail at that time, to go upstairs and at the request of detectives and one of the FBI agents, I performed a rectal examination on him to make sure he had not smuggled—or to see if he had brought anything in on his person.
This was at 6 p.m., so, I did see Ruby on two occasions. One at 2:05 and one at 6. I think that report tends to indicate it was only one.
Mr. Hubert. It really was two, and you have explained it.