Mr. Fowler. In behalf of Jack Ruby and as attorney for Jack Ruby, I respectfully request that the Warren Commission deny the request of the Dallas district attorney’s office for the following reasons: Number One—that this is a matter of request that has been made by Mr. Ruby to the Warren Commission only, that if the district attorney’s office were furnished with these questions and answers and any other matters pertaining to the giving of this polygraph test, it might and could and very well effect the outcome of his case that is now on appeal before the court of criminal appeals here in the State of Texas, and we respectfully request that the request by the district attorney’s office be denied by the Warren Commission in all of their requests for this information.
On the other hand, we who represent Jack Ruby, respectfully request that we be furnished a copy of the questions that will be asked and that if some determination is made as to the answers and the outcome is ever made public, that we be furnished the information of the outcome of the tests.
Now, this is off the record.
(Statement by Mr. Fowler to Mr. Specter, off the record, requesting that Mr. Ruby be advised again when brought into the room for the test, the requests of his attorneys and family with respect to taking the test.)
Mr. Specter. In response to those two statements, no commitment can be made on behalf of the Commission anticipating the action of the Commission in advance of knowledge by the Commission of the results of the tests, and any additional evidence which may be submitted on the competency of Mr. Ruby which may aid the Commission in the evaluation of the results of the polygraph examination. The requests of Mr. Alexander and Mr. Fowler will be transmitted to the Commission and will be carefully studied by the Commission before any final decision is reached.
With respect to a list of questions, the procedure as previously outlined will permit all parties to be present when the questions are enumerated, so that the questions asked of Mr. Ruby will be a surprise to no one, but will be discussed in his presence and in the presence of representatives of both the district attorney’s office and Mr. Ruby’s defense counsel, so that there is no limitation to the taking of notes on the questions that may be asked.
With respect to the results, including a copy of the results themselves and a copy of the interpretation, no commitment can be made until the Commission has examined the results in this matter fully.
With respect to affecting the outcome of any subsequent proceedings, the Commission has exercised the greatest possible care in avoiding the influencing of the State court proceedings.
The action taken by the Commission has been designed to fulfill its function, while at the same time not interfering, or interfering to the minimal possible extent, with the State court proceedings. Now, before we get Mr. Ruby in, do you want to make a request for his doctor; and when we get Mr. Ruby in, we will make the other statement and then we will be able to go ahead, but I don’t think we want to go through any more with him present than we have to.
Mr. Tonahill. Yes; it is requested that Dr. William Beavers, who has been retained by Jack Ruby’s family to observe and treat Jack Ruby, be present during the examination in order that he may observe and render any expression that he may have to offer that will be of benefit to the Commission as well as to Jack Ruby’s mental health condition, with special reference to interpreting the results of the polygraph tests, and as an aid and guide to the Commission in its interpretation of it as to what weight and value to give to it.