Josiah Thompson-"One of those members ends up either stealing or destroying 4 of those frames, very, very important frames. As a young professor of philosophy, I had not a clue what was going on but I knew that something was going on. So, three weeks later I snuck a camera into the TIME-LIFE building and made a copy of the Zapruder film, against specific orders from my employer LIFE magazine.

"Did that for two reasons, the film was in private hands, in private custody, I figured I had no idea what was going on at LIFE magazine, figured it was a power struggle of some sort and thought for posterity, for all of us, it would be very useful to have a copy outside those private hands. In addition, I wanted to make certain measurements on the film concerning the movement of the President's head, measurements that were finally published in "Six Seconds" which would give some notion as to whether impressed forces on the President at the time of the head shot could be interpreted as either one shot or two shots. I was not permitted to take the film out of the building, hence to do that I had to make a copy. I had to steal a copy.

"The following June, we made an offer to TIME Inc., my publisher and I made an offer which was we would turn over all commercial interest in the book to TIME-Inc. in exchange for the right to use selected parts of certain Zapruder frames. We were turned down flat and on the advice of counsel, went forward and published artist renderings of those films [frames]. We were sued. I lost all the earnings from the book but we won. Judge Inzerbe Wyatt (sic?) of the Southern District ruled in a summary judgement that we had used the film as a "fair use". That particular judgement, mentioned by Jim Lesar was in fact an enormously important expansion of the doctrine of "fair use", where First Amendment privleges are involved.

"That's the way things stood. In other words, what I'm trying to explain here is that with the film in private hands all sorts of anomalies occurred. The necessity of me trying to act for the public good to steal a copy of the film, which is a rather extraordinary event.

"Why is this film important? It's enormously important. If you want to know what happened in Dealey Plaza this film shows you as much as any film can.

"How could it be used by the research community? Well, there have been certain quibbles about the authenticity of the film. I have no doubt that it's authentic, but that can be proven, that can be shown, all queries and challenges to the authenticity if this film is in government hands, remains in government hands can be satisfactorily overcome. When that's done this film then becomes a baseline for all additional studies of what happened in Dealey Plaza. For example, the medical evidence, there have been many claims of extra autopsies, faking of autopsy photos, et cetera, et cetera if the medical evidence does not match what you see on the Zapruder film, then you might have cause to challenge that photographic evidence. Evidence of [from] other films could be compared against this film as a baseline. If they match, fine. If they don't match then you know that something's wrong. Much more importantly of course is the deduction of trajectories and ultimately firing points which can only be done with great precision by using the most resolved copy of the film available.

All of that can be done only if this film remains in government hands. In 1964 J. Edgar Hoover said this case would be forever opened. In 1977 '78 the House Committee judged that a conspiracy was involved in the Kennedy assassination, was in fact probable. We now know that the case really is still open at this time and as Jim Lesar pointed out there may be a federal prosecution in the future. For all those reasons, the central evidence in the case should remain in government hands, as it is now, and the legal arguments, I think that Mr. Lesar and the Professor offered should sustain you in your judgements to take the film."

Chairman Tunheim-"Thank you Mr. Thompson. Are there questions from members of the Board? (pause) I have a question for you, in terms of the future needs and uses of this film by researchers, do you think that copies made now, particularly copies that might be the complete frame, including the sprocket, copies that are digitalized, do you think that that serves the same purpose for the sake of researchers who are examining this film, assuming that you could guarantee that they do come from the original?"

Josiah Thompson-"Yes. I don't think any researcher should be fiddling around with the original. I think there should be a protocol established as for how a digitized copy is made with the state of the art equipment, state of the art techniques, state of the art algorithms, et cetera. That digitized copy which is then fully authenticated should then be the basis of all research in the future. The original would simply be held as a kind of reference mark that would continually be available to justify the copy as a foundational copy.

Chairman Tunheim-"Go ahead, Henry."

Dr. Henry Graff-"You seemed to have watered it down a little bit in your last statement, I realize that you don't have a piece of paper in front of you, the importance of holding onto the original. Suppose you had that team saying this is an accurate, true copy of the original, why would the possession of the original then, by the government, be essential?"

Josiah Thompson-"Well, because we don't know whether the techniques that we use tomorrow and the protocols and algorithms we would use tomorrow to make the most highly resolved copy we can make, we don't know that five years from now we can't do better, or ten years from now it can be better."

Dr. Henry Graff-"Thank you."

Chairman Tunheim-"With respect to a question that Dr. Hall asked Mr. Lesar, is there a ceiling on the amount that the taxpayer should pay for this film in your view?"

Josiah Thompson-"I don't think the taxpayer should pay a penny for this film.

(applause, by me and me alone.)

"I should add that the figure, $150,000 which the Zapruder family received from LIFE magazine, I know from working at LIFE did not include the licensing rights. LIFE then sold the Zapruder film to Der Stern (a German magazine), to Paris Match, et cetera, et cetera. The Zapruder family also had an interest in those licensing rights. So, I have no idea whether Jim Lesar's estimate as under a million dollars is accurate. In my opinion it could run as far as $3 to 5 million at this point."

Chairman Tunheim-"Thank you very much Mr. Thompson, we appreciate your joining us today. Next we are going to hear from Moses Weitzman, who is a photographic expert who has worked with the Zapruder film in the past. Good afternoon Mr. Weitzman, thank you for joining us."

Moses Weitzman-"Much of what I was going to say probably has already been voiced by previous witnesses. My understanding of my testimony was to comment on the technical value of keeping the original and I believe there are several good reasons for keeping the original under Archival control. As already mentioned technology is advancing exponentially. In the future, we will have better capability of duplicating and analyzing the images both photochemically and digitally. The copies that I made for TIME-LIFE were done thirty years ago. Even today's technology is well ahead, there are better lenses, film, and computerized digitial scanning. Because of the last mentioned item, digital scanning, which would enable someone to accurately record, but also unfortunately, to manipulate the image. It would be important to keep the original as a benchmark of accuracy to guard against irresponsible manipulations of the image.

One of the, I believe Mr. Lesar mentioned something about the information between the sprocket holes, unfortunately, when I did the work thirty years ago, there was no equipment for duplicating 8mm. We juryrigged existing hardware and the way I came to be recommended to do it was by the manufacturor of the equipment, Oxford Corporation. That imagery could very well be duplicated by properly manufactured components. And if the material were to be retained by the Archive, and I would recommend them doing so, it would be well for them to invest in the hardware, which would be nominal when all things are considered, to properly duplicate this material with today's technology both photochemically and digitally. There are several very fine companies on the West Coast making motion pictures which are reaping multi-millions which I am sure would leap at the opportunity to assist the committee in doing a better job of this.

"And I would welcome any questions, I guess that presentation's it."

Chairman Tunheim-"Go ahead, Henry."

Dr. Henry Graff-"Mr. Weitzman, when did you last see the film?"

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"I think I saw it for a second time when, I believe it was CBS, brought it to me for duplicating. I think it was an anniversary of the assassination, possibly in 1975."

Dr. Henry Graff-"So, you do not know yourself from observation what the condition of the film is today."

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"Well, I was here about 6 or 7 months ago-

Dr. Henry Graff-"Here at the Archives?"

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"Here at the Archives, I don't remember whether I was shown the film or not but my recollection of it was in '75 was that it was in less condition then it was when I first saw it, and with all things that are not made of stone they will deteriorate with time but preservation of film is a fine art today. And Eastman Kodak has put out many, many such papers. It has been my personal experience they even reclaimed a piece of footage that the emulsion was peeling away from the substrate so there is certainly the possibility of maintaining the film. It is approximately some thirty odd years, you can keep film for a hundred years if it's properly maintained."

Dr. Henry Graff-"Thank you."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"That was really the heart of my question, as well, and that is, is this truly a wasting asset?"

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"Well, everything, everything (laughs) sooner or later deteriorates and disappears but I would think for our practical purposes, I would think that you could maintain this film at least for another 25 to 50 years which would probably serve the purpose well because by then the technology, as I mentioned, which is advancing exponentially will enable us, no doubt, to record it with permanent accuracy. That is not available today. And my original contention is that it should be kept as a benchmark so that in the near future if someone starts to manipulate the image and put things in there that really aren't supposed to be there there will be something to say that, 'Hey, this is what the original was. There isn't X, Y, Z, character out there in the front."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"Do you know how many copies there are of the Zapruder film?"

Mr. Moses Weitzman- (sighs) "Oh, God, unfortunately, I probably am the grandfater of many of them. The original copy, the very first copy I made was a 16mm film, which I showed to TIME-LIFE. They were very, very excited about that and they commissioned us to make a 35mm copy. Since there did not exist any proper equipment, the very first copy I made in 35mm was substandard commercially. It was placed incorrectly vis-a vis the track area of the film, so it could not be used. That was thrown into a box in my office. I was general manager and quality control and vice president of the company. I left the company shortly thereafter and was then recalled by the owners of the company, Technical Animations, to sell off their assets. They wanted to close the company down and lo and behold in my office there was my box with that piece of film, that technically imperfect copy. And to the best of my knowledge that copy is what a great many copies have been made from. I kept it as a sample of my expertise, not, not being into the whole underground culture of-

Dr. Kermit Hall-"Part of your portfolio."

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"Pardon me?"

Dr. Kermit Hall-"Part of your portfolio."

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"So to speak, yes. What I could do, drawing a perfect circle so to speak. And that's what I would periodically trot out to show it to people. I would presume at some point, because I did not keep it under lock and key, somebody made suriptious copies of it and then used it."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"Well it seems to me taht if you are concerned about baseline issues that having some sense of the spread, of breadth of copies that are out there becomes very, very important. Thank you, (there seemed to be the idea that the questioning of Mr. Weitzman was done, it wasn't) for me."

Chairman Tunheim-"Dr. Joyce?"

Dr. William Joyce-"Mr. Weitzman to return to your comment about the importance of preserving the film as a baseline, I'm wondering are you absolutely confident that you on the basis on the knowledge that you have both, of the original film and the technology of film making and film reproduction today that you could authenticate the original film in the camera as the original film?"

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"Let me understand the question, are you asking me whether at the time I did it initially did I know it was the original film?"

Dr. William Joyce-"No, I'm asking you if we were to take, if the film were to be taken today, and one of the important considerations does seem to me to be, or thought about is baseline, which other people, I think Jim Lesar mentioned that as well, are you confident that the film can be authenticated as the original camera copy of the film?"

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"Certainly Eastman Kodak could, it was Kodachrome, and there might be I don't remember pecisely but I believe there were edge markings on the film as to when it was manufactured and they certainly could make forensics examination of it, when the material was laid done. As to whether it was the piece that was photographed originally, yes, you can look at it and if the image reads through the base we know it came from an original camera. As to whether it would be, it would be impossible to make a duplicate contact copy reading through the base. Today someone might have the hardware to make an image reading through the base optically, that is to say through a lense, but if one were to make a contact copy, immediately you would see the difference. It would not be proper, it would also read the wrong way. So there are a lot of ground rules that one could determine, a). it's an original that was photographed in a camera, and b.) it wasn't made by a contact copy, and the manufacture could give you a good indication of when this particular piece of film was manufactured."

Dr. William Joyce-"Thank you."

Dr. Anna Nelson-"I have been interesed in what you were telling us because we have heard that the film was really no longer viewable, it had disintegrated. And I think part of the problem was that in the earliest period when TIME-LIFE had it it probably didn't quite have the same facilities that the National Archives has. Just to make sure I understand what you are saying is that really doesn't matter anymore, no matter how bad off the film is something can be done with it and can revive it and restore it."

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"Unless the image is totally destroyed, and I don't-

Dr. Anna Nelson-"No, I don't think so-

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"I don't know that answer, the process of duplicating it is a frame by frame basis, on equipment, at least the equipment that I used, an optical printing machine, which looks like a motion picture projector sitting on a lathe bed facing a very precise camera, focusing on the image and photographing it, it is advanced at a frame at a time. Also, one would use what is called a full emersion gate, that is kind of an aqurium that each individual frame is surrounded by a liquid that has the same level of refractive index as the emulsion, that would remove a good deal of the damage. If it were being scanned rather than being put onto film, scanned digitally then that image could be enhanced and repaired so to speak as many modern motion pictures are being done for commercial re-release. So unless the matrial is really, really destroyed it can be brought to near pristine condition."

Dr. Anna Nelson-"And that's an important consideration for us."

Chairman Tunheim-"There is however, Mr. Weitzman some evidence that some of the frames from the original are missing through handling at some point in time in its past, that together with the somewhat deteriorated condition that the film is in, is there any argument that first generation copies made today may be better evidence of the original than the original itself?"

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"Well, certainly a copy should be undertaken now with today's technology. It's better than what I had 30 years ago, no question about it. And I think if that were to be done someone should invest 10 or 15 or 20 thousand dollars that is necessary for the additional hardware to duplicate regular 8mm with the full emersion gate.

"The missing frames were missing when I got the material, because that was part of what it is, however, if there exists those frames elsewhere, even if they aren't very good, they could be reinserted and enhanced. So you could reconstruct digital copy that in some ways might be better than the original, but nevertheless, the original would still be the benchmark because one would assume that this is being done by responsible people and being held under responsible circumstances."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"Help me a little bit here, there are in fact copies of the Zapruder film that predate the taking of those frames, so there is in fact a copy that contains those now missing frames, in the original, right? Now I guess the question that I would pose then, and this is in the area of speculation, et cetera, et cetera, would it not be the case that that copy would have for evidentiary purposes because it is pristine in the sense that it has not been chopped up, greater value?"

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"No, sir. Because it is a contact copy, (it is) my understanding, that is to say it is an 8mm that was made, not optically with a lense, but by contact, a sandwich. And as a result of that fine detail was lost."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"So the argument then would be that the previous copy, the full copy that is with the frames in it is of value but it doesn't in your judgement transcend the necessity of having the original as a baseline."

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"That's correct, sir."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"Thank you."

Chairman Tunheim-"We have heard arguments over time that there is the ability to enhance the original to make it into a sharper image, make a better film out of it. Is that true? I mean can you take the film today and enhance it or are we simply creating new issues were there weren't issues before?"

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"Yes, there is that capability. I'm not an expert in computer technology. I have a passing understanding of it because it's now a technology that is coming to fruitition after I retired. However, from the literature that I have read the answer to that question is yes, you can take an unsharp image and sharpen it. There are algorithms that will determine where the edges meet, so to speak, of a light and dark area and create a new image. You can even, well, you've seen it in motion pictures "Jurasaic Park", and any number of them where they create and paint full images. So that, but, unfortunately, that very capability would enable someone who is irresponsible to paint in something that doesn't exist. So the necessity of keeping that jobe (sic?) block, or that meter block in the Archive is very, very important."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"This baseline argument then really turns out to be important not just in terms of gaging other copies but taking account of what might be done with the original if it were put in private hands-

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"Exactly."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"which is someway to distort and put out false-

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"you know, it exploits, sensational exploitation, needless to say everyone here has been exposed to that sort of thing."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"Twister."

Chairman Tunheim-"Thank you very much Mr. Weitzman. We appreciate your testimony here today."

Mr. Moses Weitzman-"Thank you very much, bye-bye."

Chairman Tunheim-"Next we are going to hear from Richard Trask, who is a photographic expert on the photography of the assassination and has written a book entitled, Pictures of the Pain. We welcome you presence here today, Mr. Trask, it's good to see you again."

Richard Trask-"Thank you. Well, I have some prepared remarks, which I am going to cut down a bit for the sake of time.

"It is both a pleasure and an honor to be before the Board again. After I spoke with you back in March,1995 during your hearings to obtain public input on the scope of your work I was most pleased that you actively included photographic records within your purview. I believe that the diverse assassination research community, and the broader community of American historians, almost universally applaud your efforts and tenacity to locate and make available any and all records relating directly and indirectly to the assassination of President Kennedy. I also want to tell you how impressed I have been by the professionalism, objectiveness and commitment of David Marwell and the staff of whom I have come into contact, particularly Tom Samoluk with whom I have spoken and worked (with) on a number of occasions.

"I have been asked to comment today upon the significance of the Zapruder film of the President Kennedy assassination particularly with regards to how the film fits into the historical record of the event. Though I am not a specialist on photographic technology, I spent over ten years researching the photographic history of the assassination as to the story of the photographers and their experiences, the visual images they created and how these images have been used and abused by the government, media and critic. My wife and I self published a book in 1994 titled Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the assassination of President Kennedy. Historical photograpy is typically defined as the use of photographic images to facilitate the study and interpretation of history. Photography has limitations for use as historical evidence however and may exhibit only partial truths, biases and distortions of reality. It can never tell the whole story of an event and one must cautiously realize its limits.

"Yet, for all its potential shortcomings photography comes closer than any other record to being a true trace of reality. While eyewitnesses accounts of events can be accurate, their accuracy is scewed by the emotional impact of the event upon the witness, the location of the witness to the event, personal bias, the later opinions of others, and recollections over time. Through the medium of photography however, a photographer captures on film in a form truer than any persons eye, or memory, brief, relevant and dramatic slices, of the reality of the scene. And these created images are able to be examined and interpreted as true historical artifacts of the incident itself.

"At Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 about three dozen people had cameras. These incidental observers of history recorded in a variety of photographic formats, and with differing equipment and skills the last moments in the life of a President of the United States. One of the most famous photographers there was Abraham Zapruder. Around noontime Zapruder walked a short distance to the Dealey Plaza park area. He noticed the rectangular blocks some four feet high at the West end of the decorative concrete pergola area. This location would afford him an elevated perch giving him a good sweeping view of Elm Street. The complete Elm St. motorcade sequence, which in the Zapruder film runs about 26 seconds, the 486 frames, all later subsequently assigned individual numbers for investigative references, had been exposed through Zapruder's telephoto camera lense at 18.3 frames per second. The first 132 frames were shot of the lead motorcycle escort and when Zapruder started his camera again for an approximately 19 second uninterrupted run his first frame showed the Presidential Lincoln already on Elm St.

"To call Zapruder's film remarkable is an exaggerated understatement. It is, due to the subject mater and clear angle of view undoubtedly one of the most important, if not the most historically important movie film ever made.

"Noted researcher Josiah Thompson correctly described the Zapruder film to you today, and in his 1967 book as, quote, 'the nearest thing to absolute proof about the sequence of the events in Dealey Plaza.' We watch as the President and Governor react to shots being made through their bodies, followed by a short sequence in which Mrs. Kennedy leans forward and holds the arm of the President, the next is a terrible scene as the President's head explodes, like a rag doll he crumbles into his seat, while his wife scurries out towards the car trunk. This amateur home movie film, almost not made in the first place, soon became one of the most well known artifacts of the twentieth century. Though this strip of film shows us in excrutiating detail the fact that a President died, it also opened to immense speculation the interpretation of the exact means of his death.

"Had the Zapruder film never been taken much of the later debate over the actual sequence of shots, the timing of the shots, and the victims reactions to the shots would not have taken place. It is a dichotomy that much of these later controversies surrounding the facts of the assassination found birth in this the very piece of evidence that brought us the most truthful visual record of the assassination itself. As a result of the film's existence various government agencies and a subculture of investigators have delved into science, psuedo science, studying physics, ballistics, medicine, pathology, human reaction to stimului and photo interpretation, all to find the truth of the reality.

"During the afternoon of November 22, Zapruder had his film developed and then had three first generation copies made. Later that day the Dallas Secret Service was given custody of two of the copies of the film. These prints were subsequently used by the FBI and Secret Service in the government's investigation. The existence and potential newsworthiness of this film soon became known to the media. LIFE magazine editor Richard Stolley arrived in Dallas by the end of the day. LIFE had the reputation of being the premiere weekly illustrated magazine which prided itself on its ability to snag and illustrate important stories. Stolley contacted Zapruder and was able through good timing, LIFE's deep money pockets, and the magazine's fine reputation as perceived by Zapruder to acquire all reproduction rights and the original film.

"LIFE published a selection of the film frames in its November 29, 1963 issue. Its emotional impact on the American public was immense. Though additional frames were reproduced in subsequent issues of LIFE over the next few years, TIME-LIFE's dogged refusal to allow this key historical film to be viewed by the public in any form save by what LIFE believed to be appropriate was the cause for many legitimate observers to condemn their policy. This possesive and secretive attitude would help foster the belief among many observers that LIFE was significantly responsible for preventing serious non-governmental investigation from learning the entire truth about the assassination.

The Warren Commission relied heavily on in house studies of what the Zapruder film revealed. The Hearings volume made available in November 1964 included reproductions of over 160 frames from the film. As a result, for the first time interested researchers had a chance to examine much of the film for themselves.

"This was followed in 1969 by bootleg copies of the movie, which came into general circulation as the result of the Garrison investigation. And the first television broadcast of the film in March 1975. The film became more and more available and criticism of TIME-LIFE's repressive policy made the company so uncomfortable that in April 1975 the film's ownership was transferred back to the family for one dollar.

"Numerous theories and books have been produced as a result of a study of the Zapruder film. Various government agencies, major corporations and institutions of higher learning have been caught up in the interpretation of this film's meaning while scores of objective and subjective amateurs sleuths have attempted to exact from it elusive truths.

"And what of the actual significance of this film to the understanding of the events of the assassination? How does it compare with other surviving documentary materials? Comparing it to the 14 other known amateur and professional 8 and 16mm films made in Dealey Plaza during the assassination and the immediate aftermath it is my considered opinion that the Zapruder camera optics, the film stock used, the film technique of the operator and clarity of the subject make it far superior to any other films made. It is also the only film to show the assassination in its entirety and from a location which graphically displays the horror of the event and full movements of the victims and others in the presidential limousine.

"Thus, this is the most important artifact existing which actually displays a visual record, the entire assassination. And one of the best, if not the best in terms of clarity. So too I would venture to say that given the grammar and content of the film this is undoubtedly the most important film ever made of a historical event. There are certainly other dramatic films which have been made but none compared to the historic nature of this event. I have been unable to think of another comparable example of such a monumentic historical event captured on film so completely.

"Now given the importance of the film when compared to other photos and films made that day how then does this document compare with other singular documentary materials relating to the assassination? As explained earlier this record is indeed unique and a cornerstone to any examination and investigation into the incident. A simple examination of how this film has been so heavily used in the government investigation and that of so many other investigators easily bears this out. Put simply, this film is, in my opinion, the most important surviving document of the President Kennedy assassination.

And what of the significance of the original film versus a good first generation copy of it? The original Zapruder film is a true artifact in that it was the actual record made during the assassination, the one and the same film exposed at the time of the shooting. A physical examination of it without the neccessity of electronics or other interpretative devices save (for) light and enlargement takes us to the time of the event itself, and is clearer than any multi-generation copy can be. Though not a technician, I can tell you that an examination of both the original and any copy made from the original, barring any external manipulation, will clearly show the original's superiority and clarity to any copy.

"And should the original be within the collection of the National Archives, as the representative historical repository of the nation? I believe beyond a doubt that it belongs within the collection owned by the United States. It is my opinion that given the importance of this artifact, both in its historical and potential evidentiary nature such an artifact should not remain in private or corporate hands and should be in the representative hands of the American people.

"I am, however, somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of direct taking of private property by the government, even when compensated value given. Perhaps I am too much of an optimist but I would hope that such an artifact as this, which has generated quite a bit of revenue over the years, might be considered by its current owners to be at a point in its history to be appropriately given over to the American people. It would be preserved and should be available under correct conversation standards for appropriate potential future study. Technologies will undoubtedly continue to evolve allowing for potentially a new study of the far superior original film. Availability of the original film may also lay to rest the present opinion of some buffs that the film was manipulated to get rid of proofs of conspiracy. Possible commercial licensing of the images might possibly be kept by the owners but the original film artifact itself is too important to be eventually made into a trophy by others for private or personal gain or notoriety.

This film was created by a combination of amateur talent and serendipity. Its place in American history is well established and hopefully the present owners will acknowledge the importance of this film to the American people as a whole by appropriate and generous action.

"Thank you."

Chairman Tunheim-"Thank you, Mr. Trask. Questions?

Dr. Kermit hall-"I do."

Dr. Henry Graff-"I have."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"Henry? I defer to my colleague."

Dr. Henry Graff-"I have a very simple question, I regret I do not know your book, have you personally examined the original?"

Richard Trask-"I have never seen the original. I have seen the Archives copy and a number of other copies.-"

Dr. Henry Graff-"How then do you know that there is greater clarity there?"

Richard Trask-"Only because that is a fact of nature. When you are talking about an original photograph as originally taken and compare it with any copy, superiorly made as possible, the copy always through photographic artifact, through other manipulations just is not as crisp and clear as an original.

Dr. Henry Graff-"(to Trask) Thank you. (to Dr. Hall) I'm sorry."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"Let me if I may just raise a couble of questions, you used some powerful words in your presentation, 'truth', 'reality', and I raise this because I want to put this proposition before you, that the Zapruder film does not show the assassination of the President. The Zapruder film shows the President being shot. It does not demonstrate who shot the president. And indeed if you compared the Zapruder film with the video that we have of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Oswald, on an evidentiary basis, that's a far more powerful piece of film, if you will, than is the Zapruder film.

"Now again, I'm playing a little bit of the role of a devil's advocate here and so you will have to excuse me, but doesn't that in an essence really mean that other than the great and tragic circumstance of the president being murdered, in the presence of his wife, doesn't that really mean that the Zapruder film on balance puts more ambiguity in to our understanding of the assassination than it brings clarity?"

Richard Trask-"A simple answer to that is yes. And I think I was trying to point out that the dichotomy of the Zapruder film is the fact that if the Warren Commission did not have the Zapruder film much of the controversy that arose, as to number of shots, timing, and so forth, just wouldn'tt have been there, because the other films don't show in the clarity that the Zapruder film does this kind of information."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"I think this is an important point, as it is for Dr. Hall, we would like to operate on the theory that as a piece of evidence it should be retained because it is conclusory but I would submit that the value of the Zapruder film lies in its ambiguity, and it is the ambiguity and hence the inability to come to closure with some of the central issues related to the assassination, at least given the present technology, that makes it important as a public record."

Richard Trask-"There will always be ambiguity with the Zapruder film, however, in my experience of being interested and reading about the assassination over a thirty year period its been amazing how much information has been able to be generated by study of the film. I can't tell in the future what new techniques will be devised which will give us a closer aspect of the truth, but no you are not going to find in the Zapruder film a Rosetta stone of who did it."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"So, therefore, how much is it worth to the American public?"

Richard Trask-"Well, as I've,...if it were on the open market I believe that it would be, probably, ummm

Dr. Kermit Hall-(interupting) "But its a trophy, it's now a trophy, its not a piece of evidence."

Richard Trask-"Ummmm, yes and no. It is evidence, you certainly can find information about it( the assassination?, or did he mean to say in it, meaning the film itself?) Its also a matter of the historic record. Its as important to keep something like this as it is anything else in history. It is, I believe, the most dramatic film that was ever photographed showing a presidential assassination."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"Thank you."

Dr. Anna Nelson-"But to continue that a little bit, LMH clearly has not yet decided, and they have had it a long time, to give it to the American people. So if you were weighing the value, should we weigh the value in a way that would cost what? What is the top?"

Richard Trask-"I believe on the open market something like that would be in the tens of millions of dollars. I do not believe the United States government should pay that kind of money for that type of film.

Dr. Anna Nelson-"Thank you."

Richard Trask-"And I'm hoping, you know I'm just a little old archivist from a small town in Massachusetts, but I know that people give-

Dr. Kermit Hall-(says some kind of humourous remark, I'm sorry I couldn't make it out.)

Richard Trask- (laughs) In my experience, several years ago, I had a person who makes a lot less money than I make who came in with a copy of the Declaration of Independence that was printed in Salem in 1776. And it had on the back of it, 'To be read before the clergy in Danvers", and I knew and we had it examined and it was worth in excess of $30,000 dollars, and this man did not hesitate, and he could have used the money, to give it to our little archives. And I would think that if the Zapruder family, considering the history of this film, what a marvelous demonstration this would be to donate something like-

Dr. Kermit Hall-(interrupting, to play devil's advocate, again) "This is America,

Richard Trask-"-to the American people.

Dr. Kermit Hall-"-why don't they have a right to make something off of their good fortune?

Richard Trask-"Well, I think they have. I think it's quite evident that money has been made off of it from day one."

Chairman Tunheim-"Thank you very much Mr. Trask, we appreciate your joining us again. And next our final witness today is Mr. Art Simon. He is an assistant professor in the department of English at Montclair State University, in New Jersey. And he is the author of the book Dangerous Knowledge: The JFK Assassination in Art and Film, published in 1995. Professor Simon."

Art Simon-"Thank you for the opportunity to address the Board today.

"I want to begin by underscoring a theoretical point, one which Mr. Hall has already just discussed, and that is the footage shot by Abraham Zapruder is not a window onto the past. It is not a reproduction. It is a representation. While it is commonplace to say that film offers us a slice of reality, a window onto the world, in fact, what Zapruder did was produce a perspective, a perspective on the assassination, one that has become the dominant visual point of view of the event. As a product, and not a window, Zapruder's choices and his reactions, his decision to film in color, to stand in a certain position, to use 8mm, to move the camera as he did, these give us a mediated form of vision, these do not give us the truth about what took place 33 years ago.

"I believe there is really limited evidentiary value left in the Zapruder film. Indeed, although I have not looked at the original in its present form, it may be that if first generation copies exist in good condition they may be more useful to those who wish to continue the investigation, or as Mr. Weitzman has suggested some kind of combination of the original and first generation copies.

"Now I understand that one of the arguments for preserving the original print holds onto the possibility that some future optical technology might be employed that allows the original to yield new important information. As much as I would like to believe this and with all due respect, again, to what Mr. Weitzman said I think this may well be an enabling fiction, a fantasy. A fantasy that motivates further study and fuels a faith that someday historical ambiguities will ultimately be made clear.

"The film has become a fetishized object, invested with the potential to coverup our lack of reliable answers to many questions. In fact, this faith in future enhancements of the film has been a recurring trope over the last 30 years and, of course, a variety of such processes have been applied to the film. The Zapruder footage has repeatedly been cast in the role of ultimate witness and investigators on both sides of the debate have insisted that, with the proper scrutiny, its images can render a legible view of the event. Now while three decades of analysis has produced a significant challenge to initial readings of the film offered by both the government and the mainstream press, this also produced a multiplicity of interpretations, a crises of knowledge. A critique, a serious critique of films capacity to offer a unified vision and discernable truth. In other words, the application of new technologies has not, and probably would not guarantee a unanimity of interpretation.

"What then is the status of the original film? I would suggest to you that it is a secular relic, a material piece of the past and for reasons that are either psychological, or for some perhaps, spiritual, individuals and nations, hold onto such relics. I might add parenthetically that we live in a culture which privileges origins, which endows with significance first things, first editions of books, first words spoken by a baby, we have a ceremony for the first pitch of a ball game. We have manufactured that significance through social convention and ritual. In a sense, the government does much the same. Why does the government preserve the original Constitution? We have plenty of copies, we know the contents of the Constitution. Now while the Constitution was a public document from the beginning, the Zapruder film was not. But still, the nation expends resources to preserve significant objects from the past which have had private origins, people's homes, perhaps Lindbergh's plane, I'm sure the list is very long. Perhaps these objects are maintained for aesthetic reasons, because the textures and faded colors bear traces of time and change. Moreover, perhaps preserving such objects function symbolically as the governments way of saying historical consciousness is important, and that although the past cannot be preserved, some index of it can be located in the tangible artifacts which have been kept or rediscovered. The film, then, is part of some ongoing and perpetual archeology project. Although, on the other hand we might say that old things are just kind of cool, and we hold onto old things, for reasons that we really can't explain. And I am not sure there is anything wrong with that. And I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with the government acknowledging that we hold onto objects and artifacts for that reason.

"I would only add to what's been said already and that is if federal funds are going to be spent to keep the original film out of private or corporate hands, as I believe it should, then some mechanism for access needs to be maintained. The criticism that has been directed at the government for the last thirty some years over its handling of the investigation of the assassination must be taken seriously, and so I would just propose that the Board consider whether or not the government is the right institution to hold onto the film, and consider at least the options of entrusting the film to a museum, a research institution, or a university."

Chairman Tunheim-"Thank you very much Mr. Simon, Professor Simon. Are there questions?"

Dr. Anna Nelson-"Actually, Mr. Simon I don't know that it's our, there's any, it belongs to the Zapruder family and so obviously it belongs in the National Archives if it is sitting in the Archives, rather than a museum or a private institution. I don't think we could do that under our statute. But of course your point that it should be kept is an interesting one, but if I understanding what you are saying it's okay to keep secular relics. (There is a priceless mocking smile on the good doctor's face as she asked this.)

Art Simon-"Yes."

Dr. Anna Nelson-"That it might be useful to keep it for that reason."

Art Simon-"For reasons that we might not explain in a course of law so much as raise questions about the psychology of the nation if there is such a thing (that) exists."

Dr. Anna Nelson-"You also in your book talk a good bit about its cultural meaning to the society. Is this also something you are intimating when you say that it should be in the public sector because of the failure to put it there for so many years.

Art Simon-"I don't know that-

Dr. Anna Nelson-"Is it culturally important?"

Art Simon-"I don't know from the standpoint of cultural, for artists who want to borrow the images and recontextualize them to comment on the event, on the last thirty three years. I don't know that it's necessary for the government to have the original. Artists can use those images and have, have used them, exploited them in various ways. So the original film that ran through Zapruder's camera, I don't know that it's necessary for it to have cultural use in the future."

Dr. William Joyce-"Well, you have quite a turn of phrase, I noted 'enabling fiction' and 'fetishized object' and 'secular relic' among them all of which speak to a certain kind of, in my view, marginalization of the film in the sense of the film as a record. And I'm wondering, that I certainly agree with you that its important for government to assist us, the population, in terms of our historical consciousness, and I'm wondering if you see in addition to that if we don't in fact have a record here and whether, if you have any comment to make about the film in its recordness?"

Art Simon-"My first comment would be I'm not sure fetishes are marginal."

Dr. William Joyce-"Okay."

(laughter)

Art Simon-"But second, there's no question that it's an important of the event, and I think those issues have already been addressed. I don't mean to claim that the film has no evidentiary value, it has tremendous evidentiary value, I'm not sure that it has much value left in the sense that I think that the conflict over interpretation will continue. We've learned important things about what took place on that day thanks to Zapruder's film, so I don't mean to marginalization it as a piece of evidence or a historical record of the event at all. But only to suggest that even though we have film text that doesn't guarantee in any way that we will all agree about what we see in the text, and so as Mr. Hall mentioned earlier ambiguities will persist, such is the nature of writing history and dealing with evidence from the past."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"I can't help reflecting again on that, I think of the Rodney King videotape, and there three different juries were able to reach somewhat competing understandings of what that film actually told them.

"The question I guess of some moment, in my mind, is the extent to which we have an obligation, that is this generation has an obligation to make sure that generations that come are put in at least as good a position as we are with regard to coming to terms with whatever evidence is there. And one of the problems that I have in this regard is that admitting that there are theories that explain the assassination in terms of the federal government as self participating and therefore the last person you would want to give the emulsion fluid to is in fact the wolf. Recognizing that particular line of argument it does seem to me that the playing field for those who will subsequently come aught to be in such order that those who come to play with this will be in at least as good a position as we are today which would seem to indicate to me that there aught to be some response that would make sure that as a physical artifact and I know that you are using the word 'relic' in a different way, but the preservation of that is not just a matter of symbol but is also therefore a matter of substance."

Art Simon-"Yeah, I would agree."

Dr. Anna Nelson-"So would I."

Art Simon-"I would agree. I would just reiterate that I'm not sure that those future generations will be free of the same kind of interpretative struggle.

Dr. Kermit Hall-"Well, yes, we certainly know, if we know anything at all about the writing of history is that it's hard to find a punctuation mark and that what we may in fact owe future generations is their opportunity to interpret what they will out of the material, if they do not have the material it is hard to interpret it.

Chairman Tunheim-"Go ahead Ann."

Dr. Anna Nelson-" (somethng about the statute)

Dr. Henry Graff-"Professor, I assume you think that rituals and the keeping of artifacts, while it may be fetishistic, some are more fetishistic, all fetishes are equal but some are more equal than others."

(laughter)

"And I think that is what we are talking about, and that seems to be an element in the response you just gave to Dr. Hall."

Dr. Anna Nelson-"You can see we have been reading to many documents."

Dr. Henry Graff- (to Mr. Simon) We've been reading you too."

Chariman Tunheim-"Any further questions? Thank you very much."

Art Simon- "This is the question then, so the question you decide then is how much should the government pay for a fetish? And what that might be worth.

"Thank you."

Chairman Tunheim-"Thank you very much Professor Simon. We appreciate your testimony. And let me just on behalf of the Board thank all of our witnesses here today who provided testimony and opinion and thoughts and good advice to us. The Review Board will be keeping the public record open on this hearing for several weeks until April 18th so if anyone wishes to address the subject further we would be very happy to receive public comment. It can be sent to the Review Board's office at 600 E Street NW, Washington, D.C., the zip is 20530. It's the Assassination Record Review Board.

"I will also note for the record that the Board has received thoughtful comments from David Lifton, who is an author who is concerned about this issue as well. And we have also received a letter which will be part of the public record from an attorney for the Zapruder family.

"Let me again thank the witnesses today for their testimony. I thought it was very helpful and useful for the Board as it really debates and considers what the position of the United States should be relative to the camera original version of this historic Zapruder film.

"The Board is going to take a ten minute recess, right now and then return for some brief additional testimony and a relatively brief public meeting as well. We'll be in recess."

(Recess. The following was not televised by C-SPAN)

Chairman Tunheim-"The Board is now going to come back into session. We have an additional witness on the question of the Zapruder camera original film that we would like to hear from now, Deb Conway, Miss Conway?"

Debra Conway-"Hi, for those of you that have not met me my name is Debra Conway and I came all the way from Los Angeles to be with you today. I want to thank all of the board members, David Marwell, and all of the distinguished speakers that came before me today.

"I would like to take this opportunity to speak on behalf of the JFK assassination research community. I have no personal agenda other than to show support of the Board's past efforts and to applaud your decision to address the status of the Zapruder film. However, I would like to bring to your attention additional actions that the Board should take related to the matter at hand. And let me explain. Recently, the Zapruder film was the subject of what I would consider a major workshop and symposium at the JFK-Lancer conference in November held in Dallas of '96. Though important new research and questions were brought up on the film presented we were severally hindered by the lack of access to a verified copy of the original film, studies of the original film, a control film taken with the original camera, the camera itself, and the first section of film not taken at Dealey Plaza.

"I have with me, for the Board today, copies of that Zapruder film symposium from the conference which will include different information on the different versions of the film.

"Many photographic materials of evidence in this still open murder case are kept under less than satisfactory conditions in private hands and various other locations. Neither the private owners, one who has kept her film in a lock box, supposedly trying to sell it for the last 33 years, not the government, who has, always, not always protected the photos and films from being damaged, copied or stolen, not even the research community, some of whom seem to have problems being collectors, none have been the best of caretakers up till now.

"Action that I feel the Board could take, the decision you make on the Zapruder film status as it falls under the language and spirit of the JFK Act must also effect other photographs and films of assassination related events. I ask you to be bold and to use the JFK Act to collect and protect the originals of these items. Lock boxes and shoe boxes are not acceptable repositories. Saving a piece of film for years until the value raises, and lawsuits over who owns what has brought research on the Zapruder film and these other pieces of photography and films to a halt. The value of scholars and researcher's access to these items must be placed above those of private owners, private collectors, or museums. Let the owners continue their collection of fees for use of films or photos, or even maintain ownership, copyright, be compensated, however, you must insist that the originals of these most important films and photographs be properly housed in the government archives and never allowed to be sold.

"While I am a firm believer in the American free enterprise system and the rights of property holders, these must be exceptions. The issue of ownership, copyrights, and 'show me the money' is secondary to the need to assign these materials permanent protection as JFK assassination documents.

"Thank you.

Chairman Tunheim-"Thank you Miss Conway, are there questions from members of the Board?"

Dr. Anna Nelson-"Assuming we have to pay for the film, 'we' being the American people, the American taxpayers, I'll ask you the question I've asked others, where do we stop? What's the ceiling? Is it of such a value that you don't set a ceiling?

Debra Conway-"That's a question that I've asked myself the last few days that I've been here. In fact, I must have rewritten this 3 minute statement to you 4 or 5 times because I thought, it is priceless to me as a researcher, however, as a citizen I don't feel that we should be held ransom by the Zapruder family. And I'm afraid that as soon as you announce price controls that's what the price goes up to. I mean I can remember the Nixon presidency very clearly on that matter. I think that someone here today made a great point in the audience when they said after the Jackie Onassis auction we should be very fearful of what a collector would offer the Zapruder family for this film. We should be very fearful of what someone would be willing to pay just for the copyrights. I think its two separate issues, the ownership and copyright.

I agree with the speakers before me who said that the family should donate the film. I think they've made enough money, but I know that's not answering your question. I would advise you to do-

Dr. Anna Nelson-"(said something but it got obliterated as Deb continued)

Debra Conway-"do research on what they've been paid, and once you make that public maybe they will be shamed into donating it. Maybe you need to use the press and the public to help you with that."

Dr. Anna Nelson-"But of course that is their private business. Well, I was just curious and I didn't expect to hear a large amount, because in fact that is an issue that we have to consider as Board members, but also as tax payers, and to responsible members of the Congress, especially this year..."

Debra Conway-"I was unaware that compensation was a factor looking at the Nixon papers. I was unaware that compensation was a part of that Act. I wish I had known that before and I will, you know, continue to look into any other, you know, the same as you, any attorneys do and any time that compensation becomes a factor. Again, I would research what the film has been worth in the past, and get several appraisers to come in and assist you, which I am sure you are going to do but I don't think that the American people, or the citizens of the world should be held hostage by this family's right, to something that may already belong to us, and should belong to us. Be bold.

Dr. Henry Graff-"I would just like to say as a fellow researcher I share your passion about documents and records and so on. Are you working on a particular aspect of the assassination yourself?"

Debra Conway-"I do help the authors and researchers. And on the side my favorite, I call it 'spyworld', I love to read about Mexico City and what was going on with the CIA. But I see myself more as a facilitator, to keep the dialogue going. It doesn't bother me that there is debate, disagreement, and discussion. I encourage that.

Dr. Anna Nelson-"We have been real bold with Mexico City. We've got a lot of new documents there.

Debra Conway-"Oh, man I've been happy."

(laughter)

Chairman Tunheim-"Thank you very much Miss Conway."

Debra Conway-"Your welcome."

Chairman Tunheim-"We appreciate your coming all this way."

Debra Conway-"Thank you for having me."

Chairman Tunheim-"We've got one item of housekeeping as a Board that we need to take care of at this meeting and that is the meetings of the public meeting that we held on October 16, 1996 and that has been distributed to all Board members. Is there a motion to approve?

Dr. Kermit Hall-"So moved."

Chairman Tunheim-"Is there a second?"

Dr. Anna Nelson-"Seconded

Dr. Henry Graff-"Seconded."

Chairman Tunheim-"It has been moved and seconded that the open Board meeting from October 16, 1996 be approved. All in favor say 'aye'.

All-"Aye."

Chairman Tunheim-"Opposed? It's carried on a unanimous vote."

Dr. Marwell-"Mr. Chairman, I have a piece of housekeeping and that is a vote to close portions of the next meeting on April 23rd, 24th."

Chairman Tunheim-"For purposes of reviewing classified material?"

Dr. Kermit Hall-"So moved."

Chairman Tunheim-"Seconded?"

Dr. William Joyce-"Seconded."

Chairman Tunheim-"All those is favor say, 'aye'.

All-"Aye."

Chairman Tunheim-"Opposed, the motion is carried. Okay, further we heard from Mr. Gunn earlier that there are aspects of this decision before the Board relative to the camera original film that can be debated in public and aspects of it that cannot. Now would be an appropriate time for discussion. Board members are there any actions or courses of action that we would like to take comments?

Dr. Anna Nelson-"I'm somewhat mystified by the determination of the Nixon Papers Act as compensative. I'm sitting here trying to remember, but I seem to recall that there was no compensation instead of a determination between public and personal papers. Perhaps we could ask Steve Tilley.

Dr. Henry Graff-"Yes, Steve Tilley is here."

Chairman Tunheim-"Steve, Steve, there is a question that you may or may not have an answer to, Anna, what was your question?"

Dr. Anna Nelson-"A couple of, the law professor raised the issue of compensation we were talking about anything comparable to what we are trying to decide now with the Zapruder film and he raised the question of the Nixon Act, and in fact there was an element, a part of it that gave a compensation for Nixon. I can't remember that.

Mr. Steve Tilley-"Yes, the Court of Appeals ordered that there was compensation, whether or not the compensation has taken place or not I don't know."

Dr. Anna Nelson-"That's what, I guess that's what my confusion is over because I've never seen that in fact he was compensated. The big debate was over what was personal and what was private and I've never seen the-"

Mr. Gunn-"The ultimate decision was that for his personal papers, which includes the tapes I believe, he was to be compensated, that was a 'taking' of private papers for public use so there was a compensation to be made for that. The court found that the Act made for that compensation. There was another example in this particular area where Congress passed a law in 1965 to provide compensation for certain parts of assassination evidence that had been collected to provide compensation to, for example Marina Oswald for the Manlicher-Carcano that had been seized by the government. Congress had enacted a specific clause that addressed this, in the Nixon papers I believe simply by the court that the Act effected a 'taking' of private property for public use and so compensation was warranted.

Dr. Anna Nelson-"But then the decision has to be made what is private property, what are his private papers and what are his public papers, so maybe compensation has been deferred.

Dr. Henry Graff-"I don't know if Steve knows the answer, of if Jeremy would know, but has the sum of money been decided upon and been made public?"

Steve Tilley-"I don't believe the actual compensation has taken place."

Dr. Henry Graff-"Even though the taking occurred several years ago, right? during his lifetime.

Steve Tilley-"Well, yes, the compensation case was one of many lawsuits that have progressed over the years concerning the Nixon materials and there was a ruling that said there must be compensation but I don't believe there has been a completion of that suit. The people at our Nixon project, the legal counsel could give the Board a better explanation."

Dr. Henry Graff-"Thank you."

Chairman Tunheim-"Further comments? Unfortunately, we do not have a lot of time this afternoon due to travel schedules to engage in a lengthy debate. Dr. Hall?

Dr. Kermit Hall-"Well, I guess I can only compliment David Marwell and also Jeremy and in essence the entire staff. I think this turned out to be one of our most productive and enlightening public hearings. I think the spoken range of the issues that were raised and the sophistication that the people were willing to bring to the issues that were presented were really quite helpful to us and it certainly reinforces in my mind the purpose to make sure that the historical field of play is in fact one that is level and balanced and that all subsequent comers have the same opportunities as the those who have come before. And I also think that we as a group aught to be pretty close, don't you think Mr. Chairman, to being able to reach a decision on this matter at some appropriate moment and I will offer a motion to the effect perhaps that my colleagues and fellow Board members that is appropriate to come up with an answer that is before us at our next meeting."

Chairman Tunheim-"I think we certainly can. We certainly will have more information available to us by then, information from today's hearing, information from keeping the public record open for the next several weeks for additional testimony to come in. I would think that that is an appropriate conclusion to make."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"Well let me then if I may make the motion Mr. Chairman, and the motion would be that, more as a matter of practice on this issue, we will reach or take a decision at our next meeting with regard to the issues of the Zapruder film.

Dr. William Joyce-"Seconded."

Chairman tunheim-"It has been moved and seconded that the decision be made at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board. Is there further discussion on this matter?

(no respopnse)

"Hearing none, all in favor of the motion say "aye".

All-"Aye."

Chairman Tunheim-"Opposed?"

(no response)

"It's carried on a unanimous vote. Anything further that we should be reviewing this afternoon? Dr. Marwell?"

David Marwell-"Should I take it that we should schedule an open meeting at the next-"

Chairman Tunheim-"That at the appropriate time in which we should have that done, on the 23rd or 24th we should ."

Dr. Kermit Hall-"I think today has certainly demonstrated a great value in, as our General counsel has said, the light of public interest to bear on an issue of such significance, and certainly making a decision I think we all recognize and understand the importance of public input."

David Marwell-"Is there anything that we can do to help you along the way in writing more information, additional testimony, should additional evidence come in.

Dr. William Joyce-"What would be the process in regards to additional testimony comes in?

David Marwell-"Well, we will collect it and distribute it. I think that's best.

Chairman Tunheim-"Will the transcript of this hearing will be available?

David Marwell-"Yes, it will be and we will distribute it as well."

Dr. Anna Nelson-"I would suggest that we ask the legal counsel of the Archives about the Nixon papers. I keep bringing that up because I don't think that's a good example for us."

Dr. Henry Graff-"Yes, I think so too. I would have said that too."

David Marwell-"I think we need a better example where the 'taking powers'-

Dr. Anna Nelson-"Yes."

David Marwell-"We can call the archives."

Dr. Henry Graff-"I suppose that this company knows that C-SPAN was recording-

Joe Backes-"Finally, here. Yes."

Dr. Henry Graff-"Pardon me?"

Joe Backes-"That they were finally here for you, yes."

(Dr. Anna Nelson laughs)

Dr. Henry Graff-"Well, this was of particular interest I'm sure. One of the important reasons why Judge Tunheim offered the address at the end was so that people around the country could, whatever hour of the day of the day or night this airs, I say this as I know it will please Miss Conway too, in light of the intensity with which she spoke that we will be hearing from the public."

Chairman Tunheim-"We didn't give them your email address Henry."

(laughter)

"Okay, anything further to come before the Board today? Mr. Gunn?

Anything further from you for us? Okay, is there a motion to adjourn?"

All-"So moved."

Chairman Tunheim-"Is there a second?"

Dr. William Joyce-"Seconded."

Chairman Tunheim-"All in favor say 'aye'.

All-"aye."

Chairman Tunheim-"Opposed? Meeting's adjourned. Thank you very much."

Return to Main Page

* * *