The CHAIRMAN. Had he moved from somewhere else recently? Mr. ADLERMAN. You changed another part of your testimony. You stated on page 5 of your original statement: Rose claimed that during the weapon collection of July 1966 zip guns were turned in, rather than more sophisticated weapons, at the urging of John Fry. There were no zip guns in that collection, as the Treasury Department's inventory would show. Do you want to change that statement? Mr. LAPAGLIA. I don't recall any zip guns turned in at that time. Mr. ADLERMAN. You want to let it rest? Mr. LAPAGLIA. I don't have the inventory that was taken during the raid. Mr. ADLERMAN. You make a categorical statement there were no zip guns. Were there any zip guns turned in or not? Mr. LAPAGLIA. There may have been one or two zip guns. yes. Mr. ADLERMAN. You have been working with guns for 6 or 7 or 8 years? Mr. LAPAGLIA. Yes. Mr. ADLERMAN. You would recognize a zip gun? ? Mr. LAPAGLIA. Yes. Mr. ADLERMAN. You would not be able to detect the smell of marihuana? Mr. LAPAGLIA. No. TESTIMONY OF GEORGE ROSE-Resumed Mr. Rose. I would like to say something. As pertaining to my idea of zip guns, we didn't use the old type of zip gun any more because they were too dangerous. That was just a pipe and piece of wood and nail and rubber band. The CHAIRMAN. What do you use now? Mr. ROSE. When I say zip gun, I mean a blank shooter that you can take and drill out and make it into a caliber pistol or a toy pistol that you can do the same thing to. The CHAIRMAN. Can you show me any zip guns you are talking about on this picture? Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What are the zip guns you are talking about? Show them to him, too. Do you agree? Mr. LAPAGLIA. I stand corrected if that is a zip gun. That is not my understanding of a zip gun. Mr. BRACKETT. Is Mr. LaPaglia now discharged or is he to be summoned again? Is he now discharged unless summoned again? The CHAIRMAN. Not unless summoned. He will remain under his present subpena subject to being recalled. He is discharged at present until notified. Rose, also. Mr. ROSE. There is one more thing I would like to say. Mr. LaPaglia made the statement that I had been convicted on charges of possession of narcotics. I never have. There was one occasion when I was in a stolen car and the fellow in the car had one weed with him. This was thrown out of court. I got 6 months probation for being in that car but I have never been convicted. The CHAIRMAN. Was that a stolen car? Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It was a stolen car? Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You got 6 months on that? Mr. ROSE. For being in the car. That was in 1962, by the way. The CHAIRMAN. In 1962? Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. He says he doesn't know the smell of marihuana. What do you say about that? Mr. ROSE. He knows; he knows very well. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock Monday morning. (Members present at time of recess: Senators McClellan and Mundt.) (Whereupon, at 6:15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, July 1, 1968.) RIOTS, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL DISORDERS MONDAY, JULY 1, 1968 U.S. SENATE, PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 11:18 a.m., in room 3302, New Senate Office Building, pursuant to Senate Resolution 216, agreed to March 15, 1968, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Members of the subcommittee present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; and Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. Also present: Jerome S. Adlerman, general counsel; LaVern J. Duffy, assistant counsel; John J. Walsh, investigator; Dr. Robert E. Dunne, assistant counsel; Philip W. Morgan, chief counsel to the minority; John Brick, investigator; and Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. (Members of the subcommittee present at time of reconvening: Senators McClellan and Curtis.) The CHAIRMAN. Call the next witness. Mr. ADLERMAN. Edward Spellar. The CHAIRMAN. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Senate subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. SPELLAR. I do. TESTIMONY OF EDWARD W. SPELLAR The CHAIRMAN. The committee was delayed this morning because we had unexpected work to do which has required our attention since 10 o'clock this morning. We are a little late. We are sorry about it. This is a tremendous task we are involved in, and with our other senatorial duties it is sometimes impossible to keep a schedule. We do the best we can. Will you state your name, place of residence, and occupation, please? Mr. SPELLAR. My name is Edward W. Spellar, S-p-e-l-l-a-r, 9728 South Avalon, Chicago. I am a police officer for the city of Chicago. The CHAIRMAN. You are a police officer? Mr. SPELLAR. Yes, I am. I am presently assigned to the State's attorney's office of Cook County. The CHAIRMAN. How long have you had this assignment? Mr. SPELLAR. I have been with the State's attorney's office since April of 1967. 85-779-68-pt. 11- -8 The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. SPELLAR. Yes, sir, I do. The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to proceed with it? Mr. SPELLAR. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. SPELLAR. My name is Edward W. Spellar, and I have been in the State's attorney's office, Cook County, Chicago, Ill., since April 1967. Prior to that time, I was a member of the Chicago homicide section for a period from 1960 through 1967. My total time as a police officer of the city of Chicago is 2212 years. Since I have been connected with the State's attorney's office, I have been working as an investigator involving various indictments committed by youths who are gang members in the city of Chicago. I am assigned to assist State's attorney, William J. Martin. The youth of Woodlawn in Chicago are forced into gangs by threats and intimidation and if they refuse to join up, they are often shot or killed. A number of cases of this type can be found in the files of the Chicago Police Department's Homicide Section. I would just like to cite the facts in one shooting case which is illustrative of many in our files. On February 18, 1967, at 6:20 p.m., a young male Negro youth by the name of Luther Williamson, age 14, was shot on the streets at 6458 South Woodlawn, once in the head with a bullet in his skull, once in the arm, and once through his body, by means of a .22-caliber revolver. In brief, the circumstances of this case were that his mother, Frankie Lee Williamson, stated that her son had been bothered in the past prior to the shooting and attempts were made to force him to attend gang meetings. As a result of this, she sent him to live with an uncle in Gary, Ind. During the time that I had mentioned, her son went to a store in company with a Michael Schaeffer, a male Negro, 11 years old. While in the store, two boys entered and asked Luther Williamson if he had remembered them. When Luther said, "No," they informed him that they thought he was the boy that was supposed to come to the club meeting. They also asked him if he was a member of the Rangers or Disciples. Luther said that he was not. The two boys who had accosted Luther then walked out of the store. A few minutes later, Luther left the store and as he reached the sidewalk, he was then shot once in the head and once in the arm by one of the boys he had just spoken to. He fell to the sidewalk and, at this time, the assailant walked to him, bent over and shot him again through the the body. As a result of this shooting, I am informed by the investigating detectives that the boy is now a vegetable. I have been informed that up until this date, the case has been unsolved. The CHAIRMAN. Why would it be unsolved if this boy knew who did it? Mr. SPELLAR. They did not know who did it, sir. It is unsolved in respect to the case. The terminology we use is that the case is not yet cleared by arrest. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean no one has been arrested? The CHAIRMAN. Notwithstanding the fact that it is known who did the shooting? Mr. SPELLAR. They did not know who did the shooting, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You don't know the names of the boys? Mr. SPELLAR. That is correct, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The merchant, would he be able to identify them? Mr. SPELLAR. An identification was given of the assailants. As a matter of fact, I have with me, and with the permission of this committee I would like to submit to them, a full police department case history on the shooting of Luther Williamson. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. It will be received and made Exhibit No. 200. (Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 200" for reference, and may be found in the files of the subcommittee.) The CHAIRMAN. We will determine later whether it should be printed in the record. What I don't understand is that you are testifying here about a murder-well, you say he didn't die. But it was a shooting. Mr. SPELLAR. He did not die. The CHAIRMAN. It has not been solved. Yet you are able to give all the details of how it occurred. How did you get these details? Mr. SPELLAR. There was an eyewitness to the fact, sir. That was the 11-year-old boy who was with the victim. As a matter of fact, I was informed by Detective McNally, a former associate of mine in area 2, that momentarily at the hospital, which was Billings, they had a chance to question the boy prior to the time he was taken in for surgery. At that time they had obtained a story from both the victim and the 11-year-old boy, and also they had obtained the description of the two wanted assailants, plus the alleged reason for the shooting, which was the fact that the boy was in a territory The CHAIRMAN. The victim was able to make a statement? Mr. SPELLAR. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. But did he know the names of the boys who shot him? Mr. SPELLAR. He did not, no, sir. The CHAIRMAN. He did not know them. I assume from what you said, that he has become a vegetable, that he is now incompetent to testify? Mr. SPELLAR. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You don't have the 11-year-old youth? Mr. SPELLAR. I do not have him, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That is the only testimony you would have——— Mr. SPELLAR. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Could that 11-year-old youth identify the assailants? Mr. SPELLAR. No, sir. (At this point Senator Curtis withdrew from the hearing room.) The CHAIRMAN. Senator Curtis has to leave. That leaves only one member of the committee. Under those circumstances, we can only proceed with the consent of the chairman and the ranking minority member. If that consent is available, we will insert it into the record at this point. |