Q. This conversation took place on the loading dock outside?

A. Right, yes.

Q. Was there anyone else around that you observed?

A. There were only the supervisors, the dock supervisors, who make sure that the papers are loaded. Not anyone who was listening to us. But good point. I said, if this thing is as secret and as sinister possibly as you say it is, I said, then people could be watching us right now or know that I'm having this conversation with you. And he looked at me and he says, yes, indeed that's true. He was just saying that people who would know about the program certainly have the capability to know who is visiting and talking with whom.

After a half an hour -- oh, I also tried to work the deal to be able to go along with him in this van and talk with him in his van as he was delivering papers. And I have to say that, the area that he delivered papers to was really the worst part of Las Vegas. I mean, it's not a place where you'd like to get found alone. Anyway, he turned down that request. So Marlowe and I went back to the motel room. And we sat down and said, what are we going to do? You know, as far as this guy talking. And then two things occurred to me. One is, I should say one thing occurred to me, and then Marlowe made a recommendation. Marlowe said it had been his experience that, when he was trying to talk to people, what he asked them to confirm or deny things. Or act as a road map, in other words. We would come and say, I've heard this. And then the other person could say, yes, that's true, or no, that's not true. Therefore, it's not a matter of them exposing them their information, we expose ours. In other words, to know exactly what we have.

The other thing -- I kept thinking about what he said, about the fact that he was not desirous of turning in, or exposing people. in other words, his mission was not designed to bring the downfall of the Government or something else like that. Or, you know, like bring action against specific individuals. And so I kept thinking about that. And it suddenly dawned on me. And I told Marlowe, I said, you know the people who are involved in this, I said, I've been going at this all wrong. I've been going and talking to these people who allegedly were involved in the new identity program, as being mean-spirited, as being people who were doing a wrong thing, that they were almost villainous, and taking away a persons life, even though they were permitting them to get out of Southeast Asia, or out of the jungles or something.

And I said, the people, I said, who did this thought that they were being good, loyal, and indeed were doing it for the most patriotic reasons that were around. And so I said, rather than accusing him of being a criminal, I should accuse him, or tell him that I understand that he was doing this for the most patriotic reasons possible. And I told Russell that I was going, that I wasn't going to leave. So I decided to go back. And I went back the second night, Saturday night, and I went back early. And Russ came back, and he showed up, which was unlike his usual work habits. As I was told by other people, Russ just showed up when his papers were due off the dock. He loaded them in his truck, and took off very business-like, although he was well-liked by his co-workers.

So I showed up. He showed up about a half an hour early. I said, I'm still here. And he said, yes, I expected that you would be. It was easy-going. It was not angry, like the night before, which was a real, verbal sparring match. This night there were no problems at all. He spent about 15 or 20 minutes talking with some of his coworkers. And then he says, excuse me, he says, I need to talk with this young man. So he and I sat in his van, and we talked. And I said, I told him that I wanted again to talk about the new identity program. And I had some other questions for him, specifically. I told him I wanted him to help as a road map. I told him personally, face-to-face, I could use your name in a story tomorrow. But I said, but quite honestly it's notjust your name that I want, I said, it is specific information. I want to know, one, whether or not this thing ever existed, and how it worked.

And I said, also I need to apologize to you, because I was here last night accusing you of being a bad guy, and 1 know that you weren't, that you were doing this for the best of reasons. So he says, well what are your questions. And we went off. And basically what's in that story is what came from him, that allegedly the new identity program, at least the part that he knew about, began sometime around 1981, in the 1981 time frame. He said, don't get tied up with dates, specific dates, he says, because people who were involved in the beginning were not necessarily people who were involved at the end. And vice versa. Some might know about one part, but not know about the other part.

I personally believe that the program began, almost accidentally, as early as 1979, not by intent or not by design. But by these people that videotape talks about, and some other cases that came out, and people also that General Kalugin talked about, when he gave information that was sent back home by Vietnam in 1979. That in 1979 the program got started only because here came these Americans back who either were late returnees, or deserters, or turncoats, or whatever, but who had been MIA, who had been POW. And what do you do with them?

And because of what the United States had intended to do, or was doing, and court-martialing of Bobby Garwood, you could not have all of these other people showing up, without essentially doing, being fair and maybe putting them under suspicion or court-martial. I think that's basically how it started. There is historical precedent to this. Some of the turncoats, actually people who were captured from Korea, the 23 or so who came back under the table, or secretly, not openly. And the American public, by and large, did not know about,that. They knew a couple.of cases, but they did not know the great number for many years.

Q. Excuse me. I do not mean to be argumentative. It was my understanding, and I was rather young at the time, that there were 23. But I thought as the years went on, one or two or three a year openly asked to come back, and came back.

A. Yes.

Q. So I'd like for you to explain a little,that they came back under the table, which, meaning that they, we didn't know that they came back.

A. Okay, good point. I should not -- when I say, under the table, by that I mean that it was not openly broadcast about all of them. Certainly they, some did come out more openly, but others came out. It's my understanding that not all 23 came out when they arrived home. That it was declared either that they were coming home, or that they had arrived.

Anyway, getting back to Mr. Leard and his testimony, he said that in 1981, and this would have been shortly after the ransom, alleged, I'll use the word alleged, ransom offer that was made to the Reagan administration in January of 1981. Shortly after that, American POW's came home, and it was deliberately designed that they either not be talked about, or that some were given new identities. According to Mr. Leard, the program kind of, the numbers were not extensive until the 1984-1985 time frame. That's when the largest numbers came. Specifically what I did, just to be honest, is I said, I understand that this program involved between 100 and 275 who were brought back.

Early on my personal belief was that like only nine -- when I say early on, I mean like when I first became aware of this supposed program, I thought that the number was only eight or nine, but later there were larger numbers, in part because of Father Shelton's story, but because of other stories. And so I told Leard the ballpark figure. And he says, yes. He says, in that range. He says, but don't get caught up with specific numbers, he says, because people will use a specific number to get off the issue, or off the -- I'm looking for a word -- from under this situation. In other words, if I come up and if I say I understand that there were 109 brought back, and it's actually 108 or you've got two others who are coming and so it's really 111, they'll say no, there's nothing to that. So he said not to get stuck on the numbers. The number that we use in the story, I think, is approximately 275 or something like that.

Q. What I'd like to do, since you've talked about this, and while it's in this exhibit, let's mark this as a separate exhibit, so that it's going to be easier for people that read the deposition to ---

A. Okay.

Q. Now, I'm going to show you this exhibit, which we've used in Shelton. This is your Exhibit 6. (The document referred to was marked Hendrix Exhibit No. 6 for identification.)

BY MR. ERICKSON:

Q. Is this the entire story, as you recall it?

A. From looking at it, yes, that is, yes, from the reproduction.

Q. Okay. Please continue. But I wanted to get this in specifically, for the ease of everybody reading it.

A. Okay. He said that, well, basically after we started talking about people who died, people who died on the plane, people who went back, the number, in other words adding the increments, adding the units, came out to about 275. That would have been between 1981 and 1986. He said the program, as explained in the story, was ended in 1986, with the disclosure of the Iran hostage, Iran-Contra --

Q. I think, just for point of clarification, you used the figure 300. Is that -- nearly 300?

A. Yes, right.

Q. Okay.

A. Because there were people other than the program that Leard was talking about. In other words, Leard was talking, like say for a time frame between 1981 and 1986, and there were others who supposedly came home before then.

Q. How long did this conversation take place with Leard?

A. About a half an hour.

Q. Were you permitted to go on his route that night?

A. No, I wasn't.

Q. Did you ask to?

A. I don't remember that I did ask, in part because all of the questions that I had set out, and I told him also that I might be back with him, but all the questions that I had set out, he answered, and answered even above and beyond what I expected.

Q. Was your military affairs person with you?

A. No, he was not with me. In part, I did not want to spook my source by having too many people around. I had been introduced by his wife. He knew me by face. So I felt that was better.

Q. Well, Mr. Hendrix, let me go over this again. You first went over with his wife, and you were unsuccessful in talking to him.

A. That's correct.

Q. You wrote a letter. Did not get a response. And you made the determination, for the reasons that you've disscussed on the record, why you wanted to take -- I believe his name is Marlowe?

A. Yes.

Q. As your public affairs officer. You show up unannounced at the dock. And he is a little hostile. You go back with Marlowe the next day. You make a decision to try a new approach, and you go by yourself.

A. Marlowe is in the parking lot. He's watching me. He sees that I'm having this conversation with this man.

Q. Okay. So he was there, but he wasn't involved or listening to the conversation.

A. That's correct, that's correct.

Q. And the conversation that Saturday night, I believe you said, lasted approximately 30 minutes?

A. Yes, in which we were talking specifically about the program.

Q. And what did you do then? Did you return to Riverside?

A. And I returned to Riverside and talked to my editors. And at that point, the only people that we had on the record were Russell Leard and the videotape, and my editors felt that for a story of this consequence, that we needed more than that. And so I began working on more than that.

Q. Let me go back and just ask a few questions,that have come to my mind, and I'm not saying that they should have come to yours in any way, shape or form. What duty station, or what unit was he assigned to during the time he was involved in this? Did you ask that question?

A. No. A good question, okay. In 1981 he was, I know because of military records, that he was in 1981 and 1982, when he was at Nellis, that he was stationed, it was a detachment at Nellis.

Q. Do you know the mission of Nellis Air Force base?

A. Well, stationed at Nellis, like any Air Force base, since I've been at the Air Force base, are many different units. And as a matter of fact, one detachment, for instance, can be even off Nellis proper by tens of miles. And it's my understanding that whether his detachment was on Nellis physically, or -- no, I know as a matter of fact, that it was off the, at least part of it was off the central area of Nellis, the administrative headquarters at Nellis.

Q. Well your June 19, 1992 article described him as a communications and computer specialist.

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Why would a computer and communications expert be involved in this type of operation?

A. Good Question. And the answer is really simple. It's because the secrets in the information of this world are taken care of by clerks. Generals do not send out the messages. They may talk on phones. They may say, I want an airplane from here to here. Or they may do something. But they do not do the scheduling. They don't do the crews. As a matter of fact many times -- don't even know how to set up the computer program, even the telecommunications system that you would need for a secure line, or whatever.

So basically you need somebody who knows what they are doing. I was a personnel specialist in the Air Force. And I know that at times, I might have known more about the probability of our missiles being able to go off than even sub commanders did.

Q. Now am I correct, you said this program somewhat inadvertently got started in 1979, and continued through 1986?

A. My belief is that, yes, the program inadvertently began with, as you will see on the videotape, with the return of Marine MIA's Robert Greer and Frederick Schreckengost in 1989 or 196 -- excuse me, 1979.

Q. Well, it was during your conversation with Mr. Leard, am I correct? He was involved in this only during the time he was in the Air Force?

A. Okay. No. Thank you. In 1984-85 -- he was out of the Air Force by that time. And it is my understanding that he was since he had been in on part of it -- that they were cranking it up for the large, larger numbers in 184 and 185. And he was requested to come back in and help. He did not come back in active duty, but he was in Las Vegas at that time.

Q. So in 1981-82, when he was involved in this, he was attached to Nellis Air Force Base at some specific command?

A. Uh-hunh.

Q. Did he indicate how many other people were involved in this operation?

A. No, he didn't. I did not specifically ask him that, in part because he said that he was not going to -- at least in the earlier conversations -- that his intent was not to tell. Use -- he did not use this word, but I will use it. Necessarily to squeal on others basically. No.

Q. Did vou get the impression that the entire operation -- and when I use --he word operation, I'm talking about the, the whole command structure -- was run out of Nellis, or maybe this was just a detachment?

A. This is -- a specific answer to that specific question -- is I don't know. Anything that I said would be a feeling, but he did say -- I did ask him about a specific unit that I had been pursuing, whether or not it might have been involved, and he said -- again, he said this was not done, like, the command might have been organized but it was not like, they then went over and got the 67th Military Airlift Wing, and then the such and such medical squadron or something else like that to do it.

He said -- and this was the reason why he supposedly was involved -- that we did this by individuals. He said, we got individuals from individual units. He says don't try to trace this thing through a unit. You trace it through the individuals, he says. And these were his words. He says, you hide a tree in the forest. Basically, the fact, he said, and again he said that we picked people -- we selected them because they were good at what they did, whether or not they were fliers, whether or not they were technicians -- computer technicians or whatever.

Q. Did he ever give you any number of -- were there five people involved? 500?

A. No, he did not. But obviously, what the numbers that we were talking about -- upward to 275, at least, that he said that he was familiar with. It would have to have been a sizable number.

Q. Did you get the idea that this was his primary focus in '81 and '82 while he was on active duty? Or was this the type of thing that he may get a set-up -- as we say in the Navy, TAD -- or, I believe, the Air Force is TDY -- orders to report somewhere for two weeks and then come back? Or was this an ongoing effort? Or did he become that specific?

A. No. He wasn't that specific and, quite honestly, I wasn't that specific in my questions. In part, because I was trying to confirm information -- trying to get enough information. And also to pursue and really find out some of the specifics that he did provide. For instance, whether or not this was handled primarily out of the Philippines. He said it wasn't, and Charlie Shelton, Jr. -- Father Shelton -- said that the information he got was that there was this operation that was being principally conducted out of Clark. Mr. Leard said that's not true. That it was a special place that was set up. I went to the detail of even listing specific locations and even as far out as Antarctica or an aircraft carrier, and he said no. He says, you will have to work on the exact location yourself.

Q. Now, am I correct? Father Shelton had told you during one of your conversations with him about his conversation in 1986 in Gulfport, Mississippi, about this prior to you interviewing Mr. Leard.

A. That is correct.

Q. And this was -- I don't want to say a primary source -- but certainly a very important source for you to ask some of the questions that you did.

A. Well, it did, in part, because I wanted to confirm or deny whether or not part of what Charlie Shelton was saying -- quite honestly, I was very skeptical of Charlie's story. thought it was a little too pat for the son of Americas only POW -- active POW -- to be sitting there and someone coming in with this information.

I thought either it was a set-up of Charlie or I didn't know what else. And so, about the one thing that I was interested in specifically of Charlie's story was whether or not there were people who had died on these missions -- these air medevac missions that came out of Vietnam. And he said, he -- meaning Leard -- said that some had, but I had not written anything about Charles Shelton's story have never written anything about Charles Shelton's story and may never write anything about Charles Shelton's story. I have contacted people who supposedly were involved and they basically were not of the same -- the fellow that Charlie was talking about was not a medic, according to his family. But that doesn't mean anything. A person can say they're a medic and not be.

MR. ERICKSON: Why don't we take a break.

(Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the deposition in the above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene at 12:45 p.m., this same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(12:45 p-m.)

Whereupon,

DAVID E. HENDRIX,

the witness herein, having been previously duly sworn, was further examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SELECT COMMITTEE (RESUMED)

BY MR. ERICKSON:

Q. Let's go back on the record. Mr. Hendrix, is there anything you said in your earlier testimony, before we took a break, that you want to change or modify at this time? Realizing, of course, you have requested to review it anyway. But if there is something that you want to alter, we can do it now.

A. No. As far as substantive fact or anything else like that, no.

Q. Let's start this.afternoon with proceeding with the same subject. When did -- if you recall -- did you talk to Father Charles Shelton about any story or information that he had concerning flights of POW's out of Vietnam in any way?

A. I can't -- all I can do is give you a general time frame - It would have had to have been, I think, sometime in 1986 -- I'm not exactly sure -- but from his records, his military records -- even you can tell approximately what it was because he was already in the Air Force. He had been assigned as a chaplain to Mississippi and he was -- his home on -- he was home on leave because he was preparing to go overseas.

He had gotten an assignment, I think, to Brussels, or maybe even Turkey, earlier and it was changed I think, maybe, to Brussels -- but I'm not sure. And he and my wife and I went to lunch and, as we were talking -- we were talking about different elements of the POW/MIA situation when he told me this story that -- and my wife was there also. That he had been counseling this young man who was going to marry a girl who was Catholic and this young man -- and I say young -- anyone under 30 is young to me -- and he was counseling him about taking the Catholic faith. And that the man and -- the man who was in the Air Force -- was there with his fiancee.

Q. Do you remember any names or dates that this allegedly took place?

A. Again, the only thing that I can say is this was -- it might have been September or October -- time frame. Can we stop a moment just so I can consult some notes?

Q. Please. (Discussion off the record.)

MR. ERICKSON: I will mark an exhibit for you, which will be Exhibit Number 7. (The document referred to was marked Hendrix Exhibit No. 7 for identification.)

BY MR. ERICKSON:

Q. This is two pieces of paper with various names and dates on it. Do you recognize this?

A. Yes, I recognize that as my handwriting. I gave copies of this to Father Shelton last week because, although this is from notes taken several years ago -- quite a few years -- 3 or 4 years or so ago --

Q. Do you know when those notes were taken? Is there any way you can identify an approximate date?

A. No. It would be though after he was out of the Air Force. It would be after he was back in Riverside. I remember because I wanted to chase this down. I wanted as specific information as I could --

Q. Your Exhibit Number 7 was taken from a conversation with Father Shelton?

A. Yes. What I did was -- I asked Father Shelton to go back through his records. I asked him: this is how it happened? I asked him specifically for the name. He said that he could not remember it off the top of his head. And then I ... asked him: well, do you have records of something like that? And then he went back and checked these. He said he went back and checked his records and then he gave me this information.

Q. Okay. What did he say about this particular incident, if you recall?

A. Okay. The incident, he said, was -- as I was explaining earlier that the service member -- this staff sergeant was getting counseling because he was marrying a Catholic girl and was thinking of taking the Catholic faith.

Q. What was the service member's name, if you can tell from Exhibit Number 7?

A. It would be Staff Sergeant Michael John McFall. And this allegedly was his Social Security number and serial number that was given to me by Charles Shelton. He then Father Charles, during this luncheon thing -- said -- with my wife and I -- where he provided the information -- told me that as he was counseling -- and the couple were there together -- that McFall looked and saw this POW memorabilia that Father Charles had on his desk as an Air Force chaplain -- related to Father Charles' dad, Colonel Charles Shelton.

And so then the staff sergeant started talking and saying that he had information about POW's and that he had, as a matter of fact, been on a flight -- on a couple of flights, in which POW's were flown -- American POW's were flown out of Haiphong and, I think, Hanoi. That supposedly that the planes had taken off -- that they were C-130's, I think -- had taken off from Clark Air Force Base, had flown to Thailand, had been remarked, and then flown into Hanoi or Haiphong, were onloaded with Caucasians who were emaciated, who were in bad physical shape.

The first flight, I think, included something like -- I think, if memory is correct -- is 24 of these Caucasians, none of whom were speaking or were permitted to speak. And that -- and also that the crew members supposedly were -- had the patches and unit designator -- anythinq that would designate exactly where they were from had been removed from their uniforms, except for some crew members supposedly had an American flag on it that would designate them as being American and that one of the POW's were -- well, it was a POW -- had gone up and touched the American flag as if they were feeling something for the first time. And then -- but anyway, the flight went on and the enlisted member -- the one to whom Father Charles was talking -- the one who was giving this information to Father Charles then, he started crying, according to Father Charles. Because, he said, he -- being the service member -- said that they had been his responsibility. He said that they were his patients and that-they had died. My memory is that Father Charles said that this person to whom he talked to purported to be a medic. But, anyway, that -- that, that 3 of this 24 people died because they were in such bad shape before they landed-back at Clark for their first medical treatment. I have to say that I sat there with -- almost shaking my head -- it was really an incredible story.

Q. When did this flight -- when was it to have taken place?

A. Supposedly 1984, I think. 1984-85. I'm quite sure it was 1984.

Q. Just to clear up for the record -- you mentioned that you had lunch with Father Shelton with your wife.

A. Yes.

Q. But Exhibit Number 7 -- those notes were taken at a later date?

A. Yes, a later date because -- you see here, down here is the wedding November ist, 1986. So it would have been -- it was after the wedding. The date of the interview that he had with the couple who were going to be married was October 12th, 1986. According to that, my thought was -- and these are my notes, meaning what Father Charles was saying. Father Charles was sayinq-that it was his thought that it was a scheme or a plan that had evolved in 1985 and was over by the summer of 186.

Q. Did he talk about any other flights or was this the only flight he talked about?

A. Father Charles -- at the time of the first conversation I had with Father Charles -- at this luncheon-conversation with my wife, there was only one flight that was mentioned. it was after our conversation at this lunch that, I think, Father Charles mentioned either another flight or more than one flight. You have to remember that at lunch -- it wasn't like a formal interview situation. And we were just exchanging information and , quite honestly, I thought at the time -- my wondering was, as he was giving this information, was whether or not he was giving privileged information.

Privileged under the priest-confessor type situation. I talked to him about that later and he said no, since it was not a confessional situation. That it was a counseling situation and he said also that he warned this fellow that he should not be just talking about this to anybody and that he went so far as to tell this fellow's mom, I think, that this guy had to be very careful about to whom he told things. The thing that Father Charles was -- if nothing else -- was -- while he was in the military -- was that even though this may seem incongruous, he got information about POW's and he was very active in the POW/MIA issue -- that he still, from all I could tell by his bearing, was deeply concerned and interested. That while it was supposed to be a secret for the military to be there -- or be kept secret -- but then, of course, he told me this.

Q. You mention that he was home on leave preparing to go to Belgium or Europe. Did he go there or do you know?

A. I thought that he had. And it was only later that I found out that, I don't think, that he ever went to Europe -- that his orders were canceled. There was an allegation about -- some fellow alleged that Father Charles had been inappropriate. I think there was a homosexual allegation or something like that that was involved. And it was my understanding then that Father Charles was offered a chance either to resign with nothing being made open or go to court-martial, at which time everything would be dragged through. And he opted for -- as he said, for the good of his faith and everything else like that -- to not fight it -- not that he didn't want to but that he decided it would be better not to.

Q. You mentioned early in your testimony that you first met Father Shelton in about '84, '85.

A. It would have been about June 185.

Q. From then until-now, how much contact have you personaly had with him, bearing in mind that there's been several stories written. I mean, do you have a weekly meeting? Or once a month?

A. No. As a matter of fact, what I meant when he and I had a conversation last week -- it was the first time we had talked in like 11 months. So there is no scheduled meeting.

Q. Do you recall how many months passed from the time you had your luncheon.meeting with Father Shelton and then you basically had an interview with Father Shelton with some of his notes so that you could make what are Exhibi-. Number 7?

A. I would say probably about -- it might have been 2 years -- somewhere roughly in that time frame.

Q. Did Father Shelton tell you anything else at any time that gave you other information about POW's coming out of Vietnam by aircraft or by a reidentification program such as when you talked to George Russell Leard?

A. Or by design? Yes, he did. He talked to me about a fellow that he knew in Arizona. Just a second here, I'm trying to think. If you want to stop the tape a second so I can get a name from my notes. Okay. Gordon LeBlanc, L-e-B-1-a-n-c.

Q. And what did Gordon tell the Father?

A. Again, this is from Father Charles' information, because I've not been able to get ahold of LeBlanc myself. Gordon M. LeBlanc and he is out of the Phoenix area, maybe Scottsdale. Anyway, Charles Shelton said that Gordon M. LeBlanc was a major oil exploration specialist -- major international kind of wheeler-dealer in oil-drilling projects that had significant ties to the Chinese -- Nationalist Chinese -- before the war -- World War 11 -- started and, so, this is an older fellow.

And had then, as a matter of fact, for a while been in the Kennedy administration, I think, with transportation or energy field. And that he met LeBlanc -- he, meaning Charlie -- had met LeBlanc through a mutual friend and LeBlanc supposedly had this plan in which American POW's would be brought out of Southeast Asia and introduced -- would be brought out of Laos, Vietnam or wherever else they were being held -- and reintroduced into other Asian countries or Southeast Asian countries to kind of get them out of the way -- they, meaning the POW's -- out of the way so that it was not so much a problem with starting up trade relations with Vietnam again because of the intense interest to drill for oil off the coast of Vietnam. And so LeBlanc and Shelton used to talk extensively about this and about international financing and other things to help this to pass. I never met LeBlanc personally and -- as much as I could to trace him down as being a major force in oil or exploration or anything else like that -- I did not do that personally.

Q. Do you know from your Air Force experience or perhaps common knowledge how many crew members would be on a C-130?

A. Well, normally there would be -- and just back in the '84, '85 time frame -- there would be the pilot, the copilot -- it depends. If it were a long trip, there would be at least two of those. There would be a navigator. There would be a couple of crew chiefs and then, if you're talking air medical evacuation, there would be at least another, I would think, three, four, or five of those, depending upon on long the trip was.

It was my understanding -- this more from George -- no, not from George, I'm sorry. More from other people that C-130 -- C-130's doesn't make sense to me. Until I was talking to other people and they said, well, because the C-141 is faster and it's going to get emaciated Americans to a hospital faster and all this -- but what I was told -- that no C-130 would make the most sense because almost -- there's almost every air force in the world has got a C-130 or an L-10 in it and, as a matter of fact, even the Vietnamese Air Force has got C-130's in it -- that were captured or left behind.

And so you can take a C-130 and paint it and it can be even a Red Cross airplane. And you can fly them in and out. The one thing that Leard said -- because I pushed him on the type of aircraft in part because I was checking out part of what Charlie had been saying -- is -- I asked Leard about the C-130's and asked him about this unit, the 3400th Tech Training whatever -- some squadron. And Leard said, do not get tied up with specific aircraft. He said that any time any airplane lands -- and what you see on the outside doesn't tell you what's on the inside -- and, as a matter of fact, he made a point of that because that -- I was scribbling in my note pad. You know -- the answers to his question -- and he stopped me. And he said, stop, stop, stop. He said, don,t get caught up in the specific type of aircraft.

Q. You mentioned that Father Shelton said that the crew members could not talk and were ordered not to talk. Did he elaborate on who gave the order for them not to talk?

A. No. it would be my assumption it was just an order that went along with the flight -- with that particular mission.

Q. Were there any debriefers on the plane? Or were there any non-U.S. personnel on the C-130?

A. None that Father Charles mentioned. None as far as I know. I don't know whether or not this enlisted person gave that information.

Q. Did you ever personally talk to -- either by telephone or in person -- with Sergeant McFall, did you say?

A. McFall. I have-not talked to McFall by person. I talked to his family members. McFall, at the time I was calling him, was away TDY at an officer's candidate school or officer training school program for the Reserves. And I didn't want to spill the beans, especially to the family members -- you know -- what I was calling about. And so, I just asked if indeed they had been married. And I called first the parents -- and if the daughter had been married by this priest from Mississippi and they said yes -- and then I talked to the wife. And she said yes and she knew that Father Charles was related to POW but she could not remember anything specifically that had been mentioned.

Q. Sergeant McFall's wife?

A. Sergeant McFall's wife. That had been mentioned during this interview -- that really would have been significant, but of course I can take that two ways. Either nothing really was mentioned there or that you get a cold call from a reporter over the phone about something sensitive -- I mean, not everybody blabs or says what they know to be lurking in the background. But the one thing that they did say was that McFall -- I think that they said McFall was more in electronics, like an AWACS type person as opposed to being medical. Again, that doesn't prove anything one way or another, except that somehow the story has got to be straightened. Somehow you've got to find out which one is so, or if the whole -- if one is. Was he AWACS or was he medic? Or, indeed, the basic story is -- did this flight take place?

Q. You mentioned off the-record, just before we started this afternoon session, that you wanted to talk about aircraft and I made a note. Maybe now is a good time for you to discuss.

A. Well, basically, the point was that -- I wanted to make was -- that even though you might search for a C-130 unit or something like that -- Leard's statement that you don't -- you don't close yourself in just specifically on one type of aircraft or one type of unit -- that, as a matter of fact, a Lear Jet can be painted a certain color and go in and fly in and out and have on the inside -- land at Oakland Airport and have inside POW or MIA.

Q. In either of your conversations with Leard or Father Shelton, is 24 about the size that they brought out? Or is that just what this sergeant reported to him on this particular flight?

A. On the number 24 -- is the one specifically that I remember on this first flight from the sergeant -- or as Charlie related this story. As Leard talked, the flight numbers were in that range. Some might have been a little larger. But there was no specific number. In other words, there was no magic number.

Q. And in your Exhibit Number 6, you talk as many as 300. So, if you equate t.he 24, there were numerous flights.

A. Oh, yeah. There were several flights.

Q. Did anybody -- Father Shelton or Leard -- mention that the U.S. had paid any money to the Vietnamese for these POW'S?

A. They did not. But another source has. Another source has said that the United States has provided money under the table, beginning in 1983, of tens of millions of dollars to quote improve the living conditions of the American POW'S. This source I consider extremely, extremely credible. I would put absolute faith in what he said as to what he heard or what was given to him. I am not going to reveal the source but, according to him, in 1983 a White House staffer said, we are providing this aid under the table to the Vietnamese to improve the living conditions of the POW'S.

Since then I've looked for ways -- obviously, if there's a paper trail, I would love to have it, and it would be in the paper tomorrow. But the best that I can come up with is that the -- every time we do a dig in Vietnam -- and I asked Mr. Ptak this in July during the meeting here -- of family members in Washington, D.C. Every dig that the Americans do in Vietnam or Laos even, for that fact, cost the American government a significant amount of money. Mr. Ptak said -- I asked him if it was like a million dollars a dig and he said he could not give a specific number but that it was a significant amount of money.

And that the Americans will say let's dig here, and the Vietnamese will say let's dig here, and if there's no compromise you dig where the Vietnamese say dig. And each one of those, even though -- that they are, probably have the lowest wage rates in the world if not close to it -- I mean, there may be someone who makes less money than Vietnamese workers. Each one---of those digs and excavations, I'm told, cost at least a million dollars. And so there are lots of ways to transfer money. For instance, there have been a lot of -- since 19, in the 1980's -- a lot of water, hydroelectric projects in Laos -- through World Bank, through the United Nations, assistance and other programs -- the United States certainly still has relations with the Laos. And so basically the money can go into, into Laos and then go next door to Vietnam. Another source has suggested that is the way to do that. Also oil exploration rights. Although we're not in -- although U.S. companies are not yet drilling in Vietnam -- they have been drilling in Laos, around Pakse and Tchepone. And so there are rights there also. There are a lot of ways to transfer money. Also, since this allegedly started in 1983 in which the money was given under the table. Supposedly some of the -- well, I say, supposedly -- I don't know for sure through which third countries transfers might have been made. But a la Iran Contra, in which we transferred things through Israel -- certainly, we have a lot of friends in Southeast Asia -- the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea -- there are a lot of places. And also one interesting element that came up within the last couple of years was the disclosure like that, I think, Vietnam was sending some old military stuff to Iran, because obviously Iran had old American equipment and should need spare parts.