페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir. It is a perfect example. I have been a police commander—this is not my first stint as a commander in the police department. I commanded a citywide burglary section for 3 years prior to being transferred to the third district, and prior to that time I had a burglary unit out in the field as a lieutenant, and prior to that I was the supervising sergeant in a burglary unit.

Senator Mundt. Did you have to take an examination of some type to get the first job?

Mr. GRIFFIN. All your civil service promotions are by competitive examination. My civil service rank is captain of police, but I am on leave from the civil service rank to accept this position as commander at a higher pay than the pay scale for captain.

Senator MUNDr. What impresses me is that you are a Negro, and we have had several others, and I don't see how I can accept the hypothesis that you people who are Negroes in the city of Chicago, and as proud of your race as anybody ought to be, be he German, Norwegian, or anybody else, could conceivably get engaged in a conspiracy to do in Reverend Fry if, in fact, his efforts were helping the poor colored people of the neighborhood. I think you would love that.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.
Senator MUNDT. You wouldn't make conditions worse.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Not at all.

Senator Mundt. Do you accept the hypothesis that you all ganged up on one preacher? That seems to be his position as I understand it on the basis of his testimony,

Did Mayor Daley ever tell you directly or indirectly, "go get Reverend Fry"?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I have had two words with Mayor Daley in my life. "Hello, sir." That was the extent of it.

Senator MUNDT. OK. That is all I have.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood that you had some hope for this program in the beginning, did you?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir. I was under the impression that this program would be geared for all the youth in the country. In short order, I found that my interpretations were all wrong, because the next thing I heard was that the gangs themselves would receive this money to do with it whatever they cared to do with it, and soon became obvious that the gang members were planning on splitting this up between the “21”, the Rangers and their counterparts in the Disciples.

The CHAIRMAN. They had some kind of picnic for them. Did you go along with that?

Mr. GRIFFIN. No, sir, but Reverend Brazier—he didn't call it a picnic.

The CHAIRMAN. What did he call it?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Orientation session.
The CHAIRMAN. You went along with that?

Mr. GRIFFIN. No, Reverend Brazier asked me if I would submit a letter to him relating the roles the Disciples had played during our period of tenseness during August 1967, which I did.

The CHAIRMAN. When was that?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Early August 1967.
The CHAIRMAN. Last year.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. When was this program inaugurated ?
Mr. GRIFFIN. October, if I am not mistaken.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you supported that picnic, or whatever it was?

Mr. GRIFFIN. This is the second time such a picnic has been held. The first time, the Urban Progress Center got the gangs out of town.

Let me give you some history on this. This happened before my tenure in office at the third district.

There is a picnic sponsored by the Chicago Daily Defender. That is a local daily newspaper. It is owned and operated by Negroes.

The CHAIRMAN. The Daily Defender is?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir. What they do is, they have a parade, and they have a picnic in Washington Park, and they invite the gang structures from all over the city to participate in this parade with the prize going to the best float.

What had occurred prior to my coming to the third district, gang structures would go out, armed to the teeth, and they are not interested in picnics or parades. They are out there for their confrontations, and I understand that the year prior to my coming to the third district, they had a very serious confrontation between two gang structures, and there were several people wounded.

In 1966, the Urban Progress Center, and the Commission on Youth
Welfare, arranged to bus these two groups out of town so that there
would be no such confrontation.

The CHAIRMAN. On that particular day.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

In 1967, Reverend Brazier and a representative from the Urban Progress Center discussed the feasibility of busing these children out again, and they both agreed that it would be an excellent idea, but no one would volunteer to pay the costs.

So after this incident of August 1, when we did get some help from two or three leaders of the Disciples, Reverend Brazier requested that I identify such cooperation in a letter, and I understand that on the basis of this letter he got his buses.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Any further questions?

One other, just one final question, as far as I am concerned: I asked you a while ago if you had any prejudice against the white Reverend Fry. Is there any reason at ail why you, as a Negro, and why your colleagues on the police force there in your district would have any prejudice or feeling against Reverend Brazier? Is there any reason why you would want to testify against him falsely or to place him in any bad light in this manner?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me, Mr. Chairman, give you some background about the Woodlawn Organization.

There are only a few civic organizations in the city of Chicago that are recognized by the administration.

The CHAIRMAN. By what administration?

Mr. GRIFFIN. By the city administration. That is, they can have a voice as to who will be issued a liquor license in a certain community, and things of this nature.

The CHAIRMAN. They are the kinds of organizations that are consulted, is that right, by the city administration ?

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, they are consulted, yes, sir, in a sense. The CHAIRMAN. Sir? Mr. GRIFFIN. They are consulted in a sense. I still feel that the Woodlawn Organization is still being consulted by the liquor board as it relates to liquor licenses. They have done a lot of good in the community, the Woodlawn Organization. I had a four-block strip on 63d Street that was called "sin strip.” There were 15 taverns in there. Through the help of the Woodlawn Organization we had a local option, and the committee voted dry. With the liquor stores gone, it eliminated some of the narcotics and prostitution problem.

It still is a responsible organization, but I think they went out of their field when they went into the manpower training program.

The CHAIRMAN. You have no prejudice against this organization?
Mr. GRIFFIN. None, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You say it has done some good, but in this instance it got off on the wrong track?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. So there is no reason why you would want to do this organization any harm?

Mr. GRIFFIN. None whatsoever.

The CHAIRMAN. What you seek to do is to simply let the facts be known so that this situation may be corrected ?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Why?

Mr. GRIFFIN. It is wrong to start with. It perpetuated the gang structure. It planted the seed into the minds of the others to do the same thing, that "If we misbehave, have these gang confrontations, extort and intimidate, we may put ourselves in a position to receive the same thing that they receive.

The CHAIRMAN. So it is simply an evil influence in the way it is being administered and the way this money is being expended?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very
Call the next witness.
Mr. ADLERMAN. Detective Steve Conner and Sgt. Milton B. Deas.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you be sworn, each of you?

Do each of you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. CONNER. I do.
Mr. DEAS. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Be seated, gentlemen.
On my left, will you identify yourself for the record, please?

[ocr errors]

you very much.

TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE STEVE CONNER AND SGT. MILTON B.

DEAS

Mr. CONNER. Detective Steve Conner, of the Chicago Police
Department.

The CHAIRMAN. Detective Steve Conner!
Mr. CONNER. Correct.
The CHAIRMAN. You are on the police force in Chicago, are you?
Mr. CONNER. Yes, sir.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you served on it!
Mr. CONNER. Six years.
The CHAIRMAN. In what department ?

Mr. CONNER. I was a patrolman in the 10th district for 2 years, and a detective in area 4 burglary unit for a year and a half, and then I spent 10 months with the unit, and I am presently in area 4, burglary.

The CHAIRMAN. You presently are
Mr. CONNER. Unit 4, burglary.

The CHAIRMAN. Pull that “mike” up closer. Thank you very much, for the moment.

Would you identify yourself, please?
Mr. Deas. Sgt. Milton B. Deas.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you on the police force?
Mr. DEAS. I am, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been on the police force?
Mr. Deas. Twenty years, seven months.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you a plainclothes sergeant, or do you wear the uniform?

Mr. DEAs. I am in civilian dress.
The CHAIRMAN. You are in civilian dress.
Mr. Deas. I am, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. In what branch of the department are you?

Mr. Deas. Presently with the intelligence division of the gang intelligence section.

The CHAIRMAN. I see. Gang Intelligence Unit, Chicago Police Dopartment. Very well.

Mr. DEAS. Correct.
The CHAIRMAN. We will start with you.

Senator Mundt. Let me ask Sergeant Deas if he has any idea as to the overall size of the Gang Intelligence Unit? Is this a small group of eight or 10 or 12, or is this a sizable unit in the city of Chicago?

Mr. Deas. Well, it is not a sizable force, in comparison to various other units, and it couldn't be classified as a very small unit.

Senator MUNDT. I will try again

Mr. DEAs. Due to the presence of other people here, sir, I would rather give you that, if possible, under confidential circumstances.

Senator MUNDT. You may proceed.
The CHAIRMAN. We will start with you, Detective Conner.
Do you have a prepared statement?
Mr. CONNER. Yes, I do, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to read it?
Mr. CONNER. If I may.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, you may proceed.
Mr. CONNER. This reports my meeting-

The CHAIRMAN. Unless you speak up a little louder, we are not going to be able to hear you.

Mr. CONNER. This is my report of a meeting at which I portrayed Mrs. Martin's husband, with the Legal Aid attorneys at 1114 South Oakley Street, Chicago.

The CHAIRMAN. You were assigned to pose as Annabelle Martin's husband?

Mr. CONNER. That is correct.
Senator CURTIS. May I ask a question?

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator CURTIS. This is the report you made immediately following after this happened?

Mr. CONNER. That is correct.
Senator CURTIS. And it is a true copy of the report?
Mr. CONNER. It is a true copy.

Senator CURTIS. You haven't changed any of this since this investigation started!

Mr. CONNER. No, I haven't.

Senator CURTIS. And it hasn't been changed since Mrs. Martin testified here?

Mr. CONNER. No, it hasn't. Senator CURTIS. But it is a report that is routine for you to make after carrying out a particular assignment?

Mr. CONNER. That is right.

Senator CURTIS. And you recognize it as the report that you made back at that time?

Mr. CONNER. I do.
Senator CURTIS. And it is correct?
Mr. CONNER. It is correct?
The CHAIRMAN. Dated September 27, 1967?
Mr. CONNER. That is right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, you may read it. Read it loud, so we can hear you.

Mr. CONNER. Reporting detective assigned to pose as Sanders Martin, Sr., husband of Mrs. Annabelle Martin, 1370 E. 62d St. Mrs. Martin is the mother of Sanders Martin, Jr. and Marvin Jerome Martin who are State witnesses in a murder case against Eugene Hairston. Events of assignment are as follows:

At 0915 hours, picked up Mrs. Martin in front of her apartment building and drove to legal aid office located at 1114 S. Oakley. En route Mrs. Martin filled reporting detective in on the details. She stated that Mr. Seltzer called her home late in the evening and stated that he had to see her immediately in his office. Appointment made for 9:50 a.m. September 27, 1967. Mrs. Martin further stated that she knew nothing about Attorney Seltzer as he had been hired by Reverend Fry. She stated that Reverend Fry owed her money and she went to him for $100. She could hire Attorney Thomas. She then went on to say that Reverend Fry told her not to worry, he would handle it and for her to go on to court and the attorney would be there. At court, attorney introduced himself as Bill Seltzer from legal aid. Mrs. Martin also stated that Reverend Fry had given her the impression that she would have to pay Mr. Seltzer for his services. She mentioned pay. ment to Mr. Seltzer and he responded that she did not have to worry about that, he was getting paid but he did not state by whom.

Upon arrival at the legal aid office, we were met by Mr. Seltzer and he asked who was reporting detective. Mrs. Martin introduced me as her husband. After looking me over, he led us into an office. There, he stated that the reason he wanted to see her was to get her permission to stop the State from bringing her sons to testify before the grand jury. Mrs. Martin asked why. He responded that he believed it would be safer for the two boys because then they would not have to be worried about retaliation from “Bull” or “Jeff” or other Rangers. He

[ocr errors]
« 이전계속 »