Navigation
Volumes
|
(Testimony of Nancy Perrin Rich)
Mr. Hubert.
I think the letter that you handed me was in an envelope, which was plain, other than the fact that it had in the left-hand upper corner the words "Office of District Attorney, Room 204, Courthouse, Sacramento 14, California" I am marking a Xerox copy of the original of that envelope, which has been returned to you, for identification by writing on the Xerox copy the following, to wit: "Washington, D.C., June 2, 1964, Exhibit 2, Deposition of Nancy Perrin Rich," under which I have signed my name, and I ask you to sign yours as you did with reference to Exhibit No. 1.
Mrs. Rich.
Note for the record that I signed Nancy E. Perrin Rich under Mr. Hubert's signature.
(The documents referred to were marked Nancy E. Perrin Rich Exhibits 1 and 2 for identification.)
Mr. Hubert.
Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs. Rich.
At this time I would also, pertaining to my statement concerning working for various police organizations, introduce into this informal hearing, so to speak, another piece of material given to me by the Oakland Police Department while working on a case for them, under the name of Julie Anne Cody. Also under this name is a police record purposely devised by the Oakland Police Department for obvious purposes, to coincide with this card that I am about to hand to Mr. Hubert--also, how shall we say it--falsified, made up by the Oakland Police Department, for obvious purposes. This was to get me into a particular place---I had to have a police record--all done with the sanction of the Oakland Police Department. May I also note that on that card the dates and the names are fictitious, intentionally so. The card was in reality printed in, I believe, November of 1963.
Mr. Hubert.
You say you want to introduce this card into this proceeding?
Mrs. Rich.
Yes. And I will tell you why. If you note the date on that, some of my statements--Let's say that this came into light, and I didn't give the explanation of why and what this meant--the dates would conflict with some of my testimony. And I want this understood that this was purely done to, shah we say, consummate a case for the Oakland Police Department. I was not actually in California the dates on that card.
Mr. Hubert.
When was this card issued to you?
Mrs. Rich.
In reality, this card was issued in November of 1963. I ,was working on a grand larceny case.
Mr. Hubert.
You want this card back, the original?
Mrs. Rich.
Yes.
Mr. Hubert.
All right. Now, as soon as we have a xerox copy made of the card, we will identify it and sign the copies as we have done the other.
Meanwhile, let us pass on to another point. I think you have mentioned that you saw Ruby at a certain meeting at which your husband was present and there was a general discussion of guns or Cuban. refugees.
Mrs. Rich.
Your statement is partially correct.
Mr. Hubert.
Will you tell us what is actually correct?
Mrs. Rich.
At the first meeting there were four people present. There was a colonel, or a light colonel, I forgot which. I also forget whether he was Air Force or Army. It seems to me he was Army. And it seems to me he was regular Army. There was my husband, Mr. Perrin, myself, and a fellow named Dave, and I don't remember his last name. Dave C.--I think it was Cole, but I wouldn't be sure.
Dave came to my husband with a proposition.
Mr. Hubert.
There were only four people present?
Mrs. Rich.
Let me clarify the statement about Dave. He was a bartender for the University Club on Commerce Street in Dallas. I became associated with 'him and subsequently so did my husband. Well, at first it looked all right to me. They wanted someone to pilot a boat---someone that knew Cuba, and my husband claimed he did. Whether he did, I don't know. I know he did know boats. So they were going to bring Cuban refugees out into Miami. All this was fine, because by that time everyone knew Castro for what he appears to be, shall we say. So I said sure, why not--$10,000. I said that is fine.
|
Found a Typo?
Click here
|
