Now, there has already been clarification, as you know, concerning the date on this Exhibit No. 2, that this was really an interview of November 24 rather than November 25.
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hubert. That is to say, they are both November 24?
Mr. Hall. Yes; that was a typographical error.
Mr. Hubert. Yes; that was a typographical error and that has been clarified.
What I would like to have clarified now was whether or not these two documents, and which actually appear in different places in the Clements’ report, and to which I have given two exhibit numbers, really are a composite of the same interview, or does one of them refer to the first half, such as you have described it, and another to the other half? In other words, your interview was interrupted, you see, and I don’t know whether this is a composite of all of it or whether one of them deals with that first half, which went from 12:40 or 12:44 to 3:15 p.m. and the other part from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m., just how it came to be—that there were two separate documents?
Mr. Hall. These two documents are a composite of the entire interview. The reason they were divided is for reporting purposes. By that, I mean, that the first document relates to the events that happened.
Mr. Hubert. And by that “the first document” would you use by identification the exhibit numbers I have given them—which one do you mean by “the first”? The first one in Clements’, of course, is Exhibit No. 2, as far as physical position is concerned, because it runs from page 13 to page 18 of the first volume of the Clements’ report of November 30.
Mr. Hall. Your exhibit number here is wrong.
Mr. Hubert. That’s Commission Document No. 4, you see?