Mr. Hubert.

is a letter, or verifax or photostatic copy of a letter, dated December 31, 1963, to J. E. Curry, signed by Jack Revill, and C. C. Wallace, purporting to be a report on an interview by Reserve Officer W. J.--William J. Newman, No. 317, and for the purposes of identification I am marking that document "Dallas, Tex., March 26, 1964, Exhibit No. 5038-C." Continuing your identification. "Dallas, Tex., March 26, 1964, Exhibit No. 5038-C. Deposition of W. J. Newman." I am signing my name on that document, which is also to be found in Commission Report--Commission Document No. 81-A point 79. Finally, I am marking what purports to be a copy of the report by FBI Agents James C. Kennedy and Leo L. Robertson, concerning an interview with William J. Newman on December 24. 1963, and for identification I am marking that document, "Dallas, Tex., March 26, 1964. Exhibit 5038-D. The deposition of W. J. Newman." And signing my name on that document.
Now, Mr. Newman, you have had an opportunity, I think, to read these various documents there, 5038, then 5038-A, B, C and D.

Mr. Newman.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Hubert.

The only purpose of asking you to read them and to compare them is to ask you if you can assist us at getting at the facts, and that is all we want to know.

There seems to be some contradiction between them. Maybe there is not. If there isn't and you can show us that there isn't, that is all we want to know. If there is a contradiction, we would like to have your explanation, if we can, as to what is the truth, because that is all we want to know anyhow. If there is a contradiction, it is obvious that one of the statements must be wrong, and all we want to do is tell us which is wrong and which is right. That is the sole purpose of this inquiry.

Mr. Newman.

Be happy to; if I can.

Mr. Hubert.

Perhaps I can get at it this way :-These reports seem to indicate that you saw a man coming down the ramp. These records also seem to indicate that you saw a man climbing over a rail in the basement. Now, I think we can clarify this situation immediately by asking you, do those reports relate to two different instances?

Mr. Newman.

That's correct

Mr. Hubert.

In other words, there was a man climbing over the rail, and there was a man coming down the Main Street ramp, and as far as you know they are two different episodes ?

Mr. Newman.

Two different things.

Mr. Hubert.

Two different things. All right. We got a lot clarified there. Now, I think the other point is when did each of these happen, and let's take, first of all, the man coming down the ramp.

Mr. Newman.

This, as I stated there, was, as near as I can estimate, approximately I minute or less prior to the shooting.

Mr. Hubert.

I think you said in your statement that because of the various conditions existing you could not identify the man by name or sight or anything of that sort?

Mr. Newman.

No.

Mr. Hubert.

That is to say when he was coming down the ramp?

Mr. Newman.

That's correct. I have also---I have never made any estimate.

Mr. Hubert.

No; that's correct. I didn't mean to intimate that you had. It is a fact that a man coming down--that you did see a man coming down, but you really don't know who he is, and that never have known ?

Mr. Newman.

That's correct.

Mr. Hubert.

You have, of course, seen pictures and so forth of Jack Ruby since?

Mr. Newman.

That's right.

Mr. Hubert.

Would you say that the man coming down the ramp was Jack Ruby?

Mr. Newman.

No; I wouldn't. By the same token, I wouldn't say that he wasn't.

Mr. Hubert.

In other words, you can't say whether he was or wasn't?

Mr. Newman.

That's right. I just didn't pay that much attention to it at the time.