Mr. LISHMAN. Were you consulted before they were destroyed? Mr. KENEFICK. I was not.

Mr. LISHMAN. Who customarily gives the order for the destruction of outages?

Mr. KENEFICK. As a general procedure, these are handled as part of our day-to-day operation.

Mr. LISHMAN. Who makes the decision?

Mr. KENEFICK. Ultimately, the news director, Mr. Ferrante.

Mr. LISHMAN. I think at this point it would clarify the record and bring matters into focus if Mr. Kelly, one of our staff investigators is sworn and asked to testify concerning a conversation he had with Mr. Kenefick on November 17.

Mr. ROGERS. Before you do that, Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question?

Mr. Moss. Yes, if it is very brief.

Mr. ROGERS. Do you destroy all outages on all your shows?
Mr. KENEFICK. No, sir, we do not.

Mr. ROGERS. Do you have any particular ones that you save or those that you don't?

Mr. KENEFICK. If in the judgment of the news director and his subordinates some outcuts or outages would have future historical value in the sense that they could be used as we used film when Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated, based on his experience in Chicago-those would be filed.

Mr. ROGERS. As I understand it, you had two shows and not just the one on this particular pot party, is that correct?

Mr. KENEFICK. There were two special reports or two segments, yes.

Mr. ROGERS. And you destroyed them all before you had even shown both segments?

Mr. KENEFICK. I believe that is the case.

Mr. ROGERS. Is this a normal procedure, outages destroyed before the film is shown?

Mr. KENEFICK. It has been our policy to keep outages or outtakes for approximately 3 weeks. Mr. Ferrante can testify to this on a firstperson basis.

He indicated to me that because of the promise made by Jack Missett to the participants of the party concerning their anonymity, that in his judgment it made sense to destroy the outtakes immediately.

Mr. ROGERS. Normally, it is 3 weeks after the showing that you keep it?

Mr. Moss. Would the gentleman withhold questions until we have sworn Mr. Kelly.

Please come forward and raise your right hand, Mr. Kelly.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. KELLY. I do.

FURTHER TESTIMONY OF JAMES P. KELLY, CHIEF INVESTIGATOR, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Moss. Identify yourself.

Mr. KELLY. I am James P. Kelly, chief investigator for the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Lishman.

Mr. LISHMAN. Mr. Kelly, did you, on November 17, 1967, have a conversation with Mr. Kenefick?

Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir, I did.

Mr. LISHMAN. Would you, in your own words, state the substance of that conversation?

Mr. KELLY. This conversation started, I think, about 3:15 in the afternoon and took place in Mr. Kenefick's office, in the company of Mr. Kane, my associate, Mr. Kenefick, Mr. Morsch, who is present here in the room I believe, and Mr. Ferrante.

The discussion concerned the "Pot Party at a University" film and also our reason for being at the studio at that time.

In the course of this conversation, I asked Mr. Kenefick and Mr. Ferrante whether or not there was a script. They told me there was no script, despite the conflicting statement in the FCC comment.

They told me the outtakes did exist on the 17th of November. I was particularly concerned with that because in early conversations with CBS personnel in New York regarding riot coverage we had run into considerable difficulty with them in obtaining a look at outtakes in regard to the riot programs, and I wanted to find out as a basic point whether or not they existed.

They told me as of November 17 that they did. I went down to the screening room and we watched the copy of the tape of the "Pot Party at a University," and further commented down there with Mr. Morsch and Mr. Ferrante about the outtakes and was assured they did exist.

We brought this up for the purpose of later use. We had run into trouble with CBS before on this matter and wanted to make sure we would not do so again. At that time, incidentally, I was informed by Mr. Morsch that we could not question Mr. Missett or any of the crew at CBS because there was an ongoing investigation by the State attorney's office. They were to inform us when it was over.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Kenefick, I believe you indicated that it was your policy to destroy these things approximately 3 weeks after. Do you mean 3 weeks after they were taken or 3 weeks after the matter appeared on the screen?"

Mr. KENEFICK. I believe it is 3 weeks after air-no, after the film is shot.

Mr. DINGELL. After shot?

Mr. KENEFICK. Right.

Mr. DINGELL. Even though that would be before the matter was shown?

Mr. KENEFICK. Right.

Mr. DINGELL. How long has Mr. Missett been with your station? Mr. KENEFICK. Mr. Missett became affiliated with WBBM-TV approximately 2 years ago. We have an ongoing internal program with Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism. We ask Northwestern each quarter to suggest a half dozen of their outstanding scholars or students

Mr. DINGELL. How long as an intern and how long as a reporter? Mr. KENEFICK. I can get the exact dates for you.

(The information requested follows:)

CBS STATEMENT ON EMPLOYMENT OF JOHN C. MISSETT BY WBBM-TV

Mr. Missett has been employed by WBBM-TV since September 6, 1966. For approximately the first three months, he was a part-time "intern" (his official payroll designation being "clerk"). He became a full-time employee on December 5, 1966, with reporter assignments commencing about April (his payroll designation changed to "news writer" on March 26, 1967).

Mr. DINGELL. I would like to know, approximately, how old he is. Mr. KENEFICK. Twenty-three.

Mr. DINGELL. And the only scrutiny you made of his comments with regard to the location of the alleged pot party was your discussions with Mr. Missett, is that correct, a 23-year-old man-who was graduated from college, when?

Mr. KENEFICK. In June of a year ago.

Mr. DINGELL. And you talked to him for how long to establish the location?

Mr. KENEFICK. About 21/2 hours.

Mr. DINGELL. And was the sole matter of your discussion during that 212-hour period the location of the pot party?

Mr. KENEFICK. It was not.

Mr. DINGELL. What were the other matters you discussed?

Let me change that. How much of that 22 hours was dedicated to ascertaining firmly and assuredly where the location of the pot party was?

Mr. KENEFICK. I can't be sure, but maybe 10 minutes.

Mr. DINGELL. Are you sure it was 10 minutes? Could it have been more like 5?

Mr. KENEFICK. It could have been.

Mr. DINGELL. Do you know Mr. John T. Case, Sr.?

Mr. KENEFICK. Yes.

Mr. DINGELL. Would it surprise you if I indicated that Mr. Case said, in a statement to the FCC, "the party was held at a rooming

house in Evanston?

Mr. KENEFICK. That would not surprise me.

Mr. DINGELL. Did you ever discuss the location of the pot party with Mr. John Case, Sr.?

Mr. KENEFICK. After the fact? Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Who is John Case?

Mr. KENEFICK. He is in the room. He was a sound man on the

crew.

Mr. DINGELL. Did he ever tell you where the pot party was held? Mr. KENEFICK. By address?

Mr. DINGELL. By address or by anything else.

Mr. KENEFICK. Not by address. But he satisfied me that it was within the university complex.

Mr. DINGELL. You just indicated to me that the only person you had talked to in your consideration of this matter was Mr. Missett in our early conversation on this point.

Mr. KENEFICK. I took that to mean prior to the initial broadcast, because I responded I did not talk to Mr. Guerin and did not talk to Mr. Glickman prior to the broadcast.

Mr. DINGELL. And you didn't talk to Mr. Case?

Mr. KENEFICK. Nor Mr. Case.

Mr. DINGELL. You talked about within the university complex. Describe, if you please, the Northwestern University campus. Is it a solid, contiguous tract of ground, or is it a series of pieces of ground interspersed with other private inholdings?

Mr. KENEFICK. As I understand the situation, there are inholdings within the greater Northwestern University complex. I take that to mean that, if on a given street there were 20 buildings, and two of those buildings did not happen to be owned by Northwestern University but the other 18 were, I consider that to be the campus property. Mr. DINGELL. What does the university consider that to be? Mr. KENEFICK. I would have to conclude

Mr. DINGELL. What do they consider private inholdings within their campus to be? Would they consider them to be campus?

Mr. KENEFICK. I don't see how they could consider them to be campus property. As I understand it, the map has been submitted, Mr. Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. Let me inquire, then. The statements that have been made in connection or concert with this program indicate this was on the Northwestern University campus. They would tend to give the casual listener the impression that this took place on property belonging to the university, would it not?

Mr. KENEFICK. Depending upon the individual's attitude of mind. Mr. DINGELL. Isn't there a substantial hazard that an ordinary individual of reasonable intelligence would assume that this means that the pot party was conducted on the physical premises owned and operated by Northwestern University?

Mr. KENEFICK. I suppose that could be concluded.

Mr. DINGELL. It is not unreasonable to assume that could be concluded in a number of instances?

Mr. KENEFICK. Depending on the individual.

Mr. DINGELL. Depending on the individual?

Mr. KENEFICK. But not necessarily.

Mr. DINGELL. Not necessarily, but reasonably. Did you make any inquiry to ascertain whether this building in which the pot party was held belonged to Northwestern or simply happened to be in an area interspersed with Northwestern University land holdings and buildings?

Mr. KENEFICK. I did.

Mr. DINGELL. Did you ask Mr. Missett whether this building was owned by Northwestern University?

Mr. KENEFICK. I don't recall if I asked him before the broadcast or following, but we did.

Mr. DINGELL. What did he tell you? Did he tell you it was owned by Northwestern?

Mr. KENEFICK. He did not.

Mr. DINGELL. Did you see the statement Mr. Missett gave to the FCC on this point?

Mr. KENEFICK. I did.

Mr. DINGELL. Did you see the statement given by the other gentlemen who went there?

Mr. KENEFICK. I did.

Mr. DINGELL. Did any of the other gentlemen indicate that they believed that this building belonged to Northwestern University?

Mr. KENEFICK. If I may refer to one of the statements, John T. Case: "The party was held in a roominghouse in Evanston. I saw what I know to be Northwestern University buildings nearby; there were approximately five persons already in the room."

Mr. DINGELL. Does that indicate to you that that was a building that belonged to Northwestern?

Mr. KENEFICK. It does not.

Mr. DINGELL. As a matter of fact, it would tend to indicate that it was a building that didn't belong to Northwestern University?

Mr. KENEFICK. Or that Mr. Case didn't know who owned the building.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Harvey, you are recognized.

Mr. JENCKS. I was going to ask you, Mr. Chairman, in the name of elementary fairness, it has already been testified here that we have submitted to the FCC an official Northwestern University map which categorically describes the campus area and includes the building where the pot party took place.

We have communicated with the station in Chicago and we are going to try to get you, by tomorrow, a copy of that map. I think that will put to rest this controversy.

(See fig. 2, p. 162.)

Mr. Moss. This elemental fairness goes both ways. I refer to the letter received by the chairman of this committee, the Honorable Harley Staggers, from Mr. Joseph DeFranco, assistant general attorney of CBS, listing the material which was not supplied in response to the subpena of this committee because it had been supplied to the Federal Communications Commission.

I will place this into the record at this point. The letter does not refer to any map or plat of any kind describing the location or the ownership of the site in question.

Therefore, at least to this extent, the response of CBS is deficient and is responsible for any apparent lack of "elemental fairness" which might be deduced from the statements or questions of any member of this committee.

(The document referred to appears on p. 94.)

Mr. HARVEY. My colleague from Ohio has asked me to yield for a question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Kenefick, I am interested in your comment that you were surprised at the front-page publicity in the press concerning the objection of Northwestern University to the television program in question.

Can you elaborate on that for me, please?

97-313-68- -14