enemy strength figures interested in the subject matter? MR. RIESE: -Objection. Did they accept that explanation?

Transcription

1 "--"-"-~ "...l.-..- '----_... J.... l._ ll_ I 1 BY MR. BRON: 2 3 Were the analysts whom you instructed to reduce the enemy strength figures interested in the subject matter? MR. RIESE: -Objection. c! 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, they were, much more so than I. 6 BY MR. BRON: 7 Did they press you harder than you pressed 8 COL. Hawkins for explanation? 9 Yes, they did. 10 Did you give them the explanation that COL. Hawk.ins had given you? 12 Undoubtedly I did because I had nothing else to 13 offer. 1 Did they accept that explanation? I don't think so. Did you form a view at that time, that is in the Fall of 67, as to the competence of the analyst whom you instructed to reduce their enemy strength figures? I didn't know them all that well by any manner of means, but I had no reason to believe that they weren't compete t. I would like to ask you to read for the record, if you will, paragraph 6 of your affidavit.

2 I, ~ r---rr.-_. 1 1 MR. RIESE: Object to the reading into the record. 2 THE WITNESS: Paragraph 6. "During the latter 3 months of 67, the reports on enemy infiltration in South Vietnam prepared by the analysts at the OB Branch of CICV, 5 were regularly rejected when sent :Eorward to the MCV J-2 CI 6 7 command. These reports showed an increase rate of enemy infiltration into South Vietnam. LTCOL. Everrette Parkins, 8 who was at that time Chief of the uto-battle Section of the 9 OB Branch, was the officer directly responsible for the 10 preparation of enemy infiltration figures. He was directed by the MCV J-2 command to revise his infiltration projections 12 to conform with MCV J-2 requirements. Parkins said that this 13 could not be done and was relieved the responsibility for 1 preparation of enemy infiltration figures. It was my understanding and the generally prevailing understanding of the officers in the OB Branch at that time, that Parkins was relieved in large measure for supporting reports of a higher rate of enemy infiltration into South Vietnam and the rate of infiltration being officially reported by MCV J-2 at that time. BY MR. BRON: The time you signed this affidavit, did you believe

3 1 the statements in that paragraph to be true? 2 MR. RIESE: Objection. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. BY MR. BRON: 5 Do you now believe the st:atements in that paragraph 6 to be true? 7 MR. RIESE: Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. 9 BY MR. BRON: 10 :;:.!~.;,~~<... Prior to the air', i o'f the UnGa.ru:l-id Enemy, did you tell George Crile and Sam dams in substance what is in 12 paragraph 6 of your affidavit? 13 Yes, I did. 1 Do you regret having spoken to Sam dams and George Crile in connection with the preparation of the MR. RIESE: Objection. () THE WITNESS: I have mixed emotions on that, I really do, but overall at this stage of the game I would say, no, I don't have any regret. BY MR. BRON: Could I ask you to explain your answer a l~e.,, (/.J more ~ ~-.-~--~-, , , "'----, ~lt.. itt.--. i

4 , , r'-tr--- 1 fully? 2 Well, I suppose it all stems from my initial 3 reluctance to be involved in what he was doing. It was okay insofar as a book was concerned but when it came to 5 television exposure, why, I objected to that, but now in 6 retrospect it's okay as to what's happened and I don't mind 7 my involvement. Does that answer your question? Not really. 8 Why at this stage do you not mind your involvement? 9 Well, needless to say, when I first got involved 10 in this thing I thought I was the only guy on the block. I didn't know if there were other people, naturally I must have 12 assumed that there were. I didn't know anybody other than 13 my associates and, of course, when I found out Parkins wasn't 1 talking I felt kind of lonely out there, but now I see that Ct../ ~ there many individuals that knew.things that I didn't know and, of course, the most amazing revelation is Hawkins himself coming forward with, you know, so much information that I had no idea as to what was really going on and yet I know all this now from what you have seen and, yes, it has made me feel better about it. MR. BRON: No further questions. MR. RIESE: This is just going to take me a few

5 -----~ , ~TT Tr minutes. 2 FURTHER EXMINTION BY MR. RIESE 3 BY MR. RIESE: During your testimony under Mr. Baron's examination, c; 5 you mentioned some senior people and you mentioned that one 6 of those was COL. Hawkins who was Order Battle Chief at one 7 point and that COL. Weiler then became Battle Chief and 8 Hawkins was in some other capacity, correct? 9 Yes. 10 Do you recall what other capacity that was? I don't think there is any other title attached to 12 it. Obviously, during this changeover that was taking place, 13 he had probably been asked to extend and was there in a 1 supernumerary capacity. Other than the occasion which I will refer to as the Hawkins' incident that involved the corp analysts and the occasion of the presentation you made at the Saigon conference which we talked about briefly this morning, did you discuss with anyone the evidence that went into making up administrative service figures in the Order of Battle? No. It has been characterized by your own testimony by

6 ~. ----:--~l T.. -rt Mr. Baron's questions today, that you felt these were improper 2 orders, referring to what? Referring to COL. Hawkins giving me a list of figures that I in turn was to pass on to the corp analyst changing their holdings insofar as numbers of units and individuals were concerned. I thought that was an improper order. nd can you be specific with me as to what you mean 8 by improper? 9 Okay. Wrongful in that there was no reason for 10 doing this other than being ordered to do it. You testified earlier that COL. Hawkins did give 12 you some explanation for this, correct? 13 Yes. 1 I believe this morning you said when he came down to you there was some moments of discussion and that the only thing that you could remember of his explanation was the quotation you gave us earlier about try not to characterize it; is that correct? That's correct. today? Did he give you other reasons that you don't recall I don't believe so.

7 II I \ I, 1 Could he have? 1 2 I don't think so. Oddly enough, bad as my memory 3 is, that particular incident stands out fairly well even as to actual location of where it occurred. 6 5 nd where did it occur? Okay. IT was right within OB itself, geographically, I 7 When I say OB itself, I mean one of the offices within OB, 8 that's all I can say. 9 By this time this office is at CICV, correct?. I 10 Yes, definitely. Were you the rating officer for these corp analystrs? 12 I didn't rate them but I -- obviously I wasn't, 13 but I have been thinking about that as to those individuals 1 that I did rate then. I know that I did not -- I wa~n't involved in their efficiency reports, so there had to be somebody in between. o You testified in response to some questions from Mr. Baron about what you said was the Graham estimate? Yes. nd I believe you said something about it having to do with OB figures; is that correct? Yes, I did " ~ _... -_ ~----~ ~._--:rl--,.rr--- \

8 1 This morning I asked you how much involvement 2 COL. Graham had with ground Order of Battle; do you recall 3 what your response was at that time? Nothing, I am sure. 5 How is it that this Graham estimate has to do with 6 OB figures? 7 Okay. It's a good questi.on and when you say estimate 8 or when I use the term estimate this is an all inclusive noun 9 and it doesn't deal with OB figures specifically, but included 10 within an estimate would be figures involving Order of Battle and that's what I am talking about in that sense. 12 In my particular figures, is that what you are talkin 13 about? 1 No, I don't, I don't. This is just -- I am sure I can't be the only one and yet I haven't read this anywhere insofar as referring to the Graham estimates. I haven't heard anyone else use it subsequent, to my time there and as far as I know, I'm the only one that has used it. I don't know. Did you associate it with a particular category of figures? Well, all I can say about how I thought about the --."" , r T-T~ ----<-rr" --

9 1 Graham estimate, it was an optimistic type of document, 2 if such a document existed. 3 Do you associate it with a particular document that you saw? 5 No. 6 Do you recall whether it had something p.articular ( 7 to do with infiltration? '. 8 I don't recall. I mean, when you are using the 9 term it -- and I am not saying there is anything such as it, 10 okay. We are both referring to here is the Graham estimate? ':".-: - I," :'.' 12 Yes, exactly, but whether or not this is in ~-1Y'" 13 form or whether it was simply talk. in which as far as I was 1 concerned it was just talk, that's it. In response to a question from Mr. Baron concerning COL. Parkins, you described a situation involving him, it had to do with I think your words were a methodology that he was supposed to work with; is that correct? Do you recall what I am referring to here? I am sure I do. I think this involved COL. Morris and COL. Parkins? We didn't say anything about that , ~l -T- -~rr----

10 _.. _._ r ~ r-r'-;rr--i 1 Okay. In your testimony earlier under Mr. Baron's 2 examination, you testified concerning this methodology to 3 COL. Parkins who was supposed to work with concerning infiltration. Had you spoken to anyone else before today 5 about that methodology? 6 Oh, yes. 7 Had you talked to Sam dams about that? 8 Yes. 9 nd had you talked to George Crile about that? 10 Probably. You mentioned that you met George Crile person to 12 person on only one occasion? 13 Yes. 1 How long of a meeting was that. Rather lengthy, at least four hours, probably. nd was Mr. dams present during that entire time? Yes. C) Okay. COL. Morgan, you said during your testimony that Commander Meacham subsequently replaced COL. Parkins; is that correct? Yes. Were the two individuals there simultaneously?

11 126 Yes. 2 When did this replacement then occur? 3 Okay. Meacham probably arrived at CICV in mid c) summer of '67 and he was assigned to what we termed, I guess, OB studies and I don't know in what function other than eventua replacement for Parkins, so there was quite an overlap and because Parkins wasn't due to rotate until January, and just 8 what duties Meacham performed during that time other than worki g 9 with Parkins, that's all he did so far as I know and I should 10 know because that's all he did. MR. RIESE: Off the record a second. 12 (Brief pause.) 13 1 BY MR. RIESE: ~m. RIESE: I think I can wrap this up briefly. You spoke earlier at Mr. Baron's questioning, about these reductions in administrative service units. Do you know Strike that. You stated you thought that they were significant is that correct? I stated that within the minds of the ana1ys~s I am sure they felt they were significant and I further went on to say that probably I did at the same time, too. Can you define in magnitude or numbers what is._ _._----_.... _--_._ _._----

12 , ,-- -~ -T ---'[" significant? 2 ll right. I have scooted~it and I -- there is a 3 figure way back in my mind and as to whether or not it's a figure that came at a later date or whether it was at that 5 particular time, this is very difficult to put your finger Ci 6 on, but percent is in my mind. Now, whether or not that's 7 what I recall from that particular time or whether it was 8 something I had seen later. I don't know. That's all I can 9 say on that subject. 10 You have no better recollection? No, I don't. 12 MR. BRON: Could I have the question -- not that, 13 but your previous -- Let me explain this. It seems to me that 1 he gave a percentage. You asked what the significance was. I don't think the record is clear as to whether he is indicatin what percentage he recalled these units being reduced by or what what percentage is significant. BY MR. RIESE: Okay. Let me ask you, the recollection that you just had is that a recollection of what would be considered by you to be significant? Yes, I do.

13 128 Okay. Do you know for a fact whether or not the 2 percentage you just stated was a percentage of reduction? 3 No, I don't. Is there a lower percentage that you would still 5 consider significant? 6 Oh, I think anything of a magnitude of ten up would 7 have been significant, yes. 8 Do you know what that would have translated to in 9 terms of absolute numbers at the time, ten percent? 10 Ten percent? Insofar as a particular unit or insofar as the overall strength of administrative services? 12 Let's say the overall strength. 13 Okay. The overall strength of the administrative 1 services would be roughly 0,000, so ten percent would be significant. This recollection of 0,000, how is it you remember that number? Well, this is a number that was carried -- this is a number -- as I recall, this is a number that was carried in OB for the whole time I was there practically, in regard to administrative services or I could be confusing it with another service, but as I recall I shouldn't get into the ~ ! ,~ '-~----- r----'--1--~-r----- l -...,.-

14 129 1 numbers game, so don't get me involved in that. 2 Did you have any responsibility for political 3 infrastructure numbers? No. 5 Do you recall what those numbers were at the time? C 7 I know I asked you this morning but we are coming 6 No. C) 8 up with recollections now that I am not sure I recall from 9 this morning. Let me ask you again; do you recall the numbers 10 you agreed at the Saigon conference? I recall you asking me that question and I categorica ly 12 said no and I would have to say the same thing. 13 Was this 0,000 number that you have just spoken 1 about, a number that would have been included in Order of Battle summaries? I am not going to continue talking about numbers because I really don't remember specific numbers and I shouldn' have even stated that number because my recollection is not that good insofar as numbers are concerned, okay. s I say, I really don't want to get into this number game because it just doesn't make sense because I don't have a vivid recollection or any recollection of numbers..._.._.. ~. L..._ , T---:-r.--T--,-r--I I

15 ' ' ' ,---.--'r-ti'-r-,'-r---- Do you consider Ever/ette Parkins to be an hones:t 2 man? 3 Well, I always did up until I read his affidavit and I don't think there is anything there as far as honesty 5 is concerned in that sense, but I just couldn't understand 6 it. I mean, I have a bad memory but his is terrible. 7 MR. RIESE: I have no further questions. 8 MR. BRON: I have maybe two or three and it won't 9 take me but five or ten minutes. 10 FURTHER EXMINTION BY MR. BRON BY MR. BRON: 12 I am holding a package in my hand, COL. Morgan, 13 did you produce this package today in response to the 1 subpoena you received from plaintiff's counsel? Yes, I believe that contains the affidavits and other material that was sent to me by the Capital Legal Foundation. s you referred during what I refer to as the second examination by plaintiff's counsel to an affidavit from COL. Parkins, and I would like to ask you first whether you got the affidavit that you said that you had read of COL. Parkins?

16 l3l 1 2 /1 Well, since you just picked it out of that pile that you have in front of you, obviously I got it from the Capital Legal 3 Foundation. Did you receive any affidavit from COL. Parkins 5 prior to receiving a package from Capital Legal Foundation? 6 No. 1 nd among the materials you received from the Capital 8 LEgal Foundation, was there included in that package of 9 materials an affidavit from COL. Parkins? 10 Yes. Can you tell me whether the document that I now 12 hand you is that affidavit? 13 Yes. 1 MR. BRON: I would like to have this document marked as Defendant's Exhibit 500 for identification. (Defendant's Exhibit 500 was marked for identification.) MR. BRON: I have no further questions. FURTHER EXMINTION BY MR. RIESE BY MR. RIESE: COL. Morgan, I am holding in my hands a bound volume which is entitled ppendix B to memorandums in support

17 132 of Defendant, CBS's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, 2 3 affidavits referred to in CBS's memorandum. Is this the document you brought with you today pursuant to subpoena? Yes. 5 Have you had an opportunity to skim this document? 6 Yes. 7 Have you read any of the affidavits in this document? 8 Yes. 9 Do you know what affidavi.ts in this document you 10 have read? Yes, I am sure I do. I can't recount them, if that's 12 what you are asking me to do Did you read any affidavits by COL. Parkins that are contained in here? Yes, I did. Ci like to ask. Do you know how many affidavits COL. Parkins has? Yes, there are two in there. nd you have read them both? Yes, I read them both MR. RIESE: No further questions. MR. BRON: I have a few other questions I would

18 133 FURTHER EXMINTION BY MR. BRON 2 BY MR. BRON: "r--_, ll 7 There are two affidavits I will represent in this volume which were executed by COL. Parkins. One of them begins on page B-86 and the other one on page B-90. I would like you to review those affidavits and take as much time as you need to. 8 Okay First, I would like to ask you, if you can, to identify which of those affidavits you are referring to when you earlier testified in response to questions from plaintiff's 12 counsel? 13 How do I identify? 1 By the beginning page and let me for clarity of the record, innicate that the testimony I am referring to c) is when you said in substance that you had thought that COL. Parkins was honest until you read his affidavit, and the subsequent testimony that you gave during that examination. Can you identify for us by the first page, the beginning page number which affidavit it is that you were referred to at that time? MR. RIESE: Objection.

19 _..._-----_. -._---_..._---_._ _ _._ r("', ~ \. -" THE WITNESS: B-86; is that the type of identificati n you are looking for? This is the first one of two. BY MR. BRON: NOW, could you examine an affidavit that has been marked as Defendant's Exhibit Oh, I did it wrong, didn't I. Obviously I did, because this is the first one I received. 8 Okay, correction. The second, B Could you explain what it is in Defendant's 10 Exhibit 500 or the affidavit which begins on page B-90 of the appendix you have in front of you and I will represent 12 those are the same document, what it is that prompted your 13 remark? c) 1 MR. RIESE: THE WITNESS: Objection. Insofar as my statement that I considered Parkins an outstanding young man until such time I read his affidavit? BY /JI..R. BRON: Yes, that's what I would like you to explain. Well, as I said, if what he is stating here is what he truely believes, then his memory is worse than mine and,. '-/ mine isn't the greatest f-el: any manner of means, because I

20 ---_._._----._--_.._-_._------_.._..._ would imagine that he would have a more vivid recollection of what really took place at the time than what I see here. nd I say that simply because he was very aware of the incident with COL. Morris at the time that it took place and I am sure and yet I don't recali\~pecifically discussing it with me, but I know he had to and it was -- well, there was such general knowledge about it and since I was as close to him as anyone there, certainly he had t.o talk about it with me; and then I objected that this is the affidavit that it has 10 it in -- oh, yes, paragraph whei e he talks about working /) ",,': ':::-,. wi th Da-v-i-d Graham and his glowing t.ributes to him is something 12 that I don't understand. s far as I know he didn't think 13 1 anything more of Graham than I did, but that's not what he is saying in here. You want me to elaborate on that as to what he is saying in here? C \ ) The only reason I would ask you to read the passage in question is because of the?roblem here, I will state for the record, is that COL. Parkins appears to have executed both of the affidavits on the same date, which does not make for a particularly easy method of identificaticn. MR. RIESE: But I will note there aren't as many numbered paragraphs and there is only one paragraph, so

21 136 I will object to him reading. 2 BY MR. BRON: 3 that I will ask you to read into the record the paragraph any paragraph that you contend does not comport with ( ' your recollection of the facts at that time? 6 MR. RIESE:' Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: Okay. parag~aph. "During my ;''::''.' ~. tour in Vietnam I worked with ~ Graham. I considered him 9 one of MCV's best intelligence officers; his knowledge and 10 ability were outstanding. I expressed these views to Mr. Sam dams during our conversation in 80." 12 BY MR. BRON: 13 Could you review that affidavit and, again, I 1 don't like to burden you, but for clarity of the record, could you read in any other passages from COL. Parkins' c) affidavit which do not to the best of your knowledge, comport with your recollection of the facts? MR. RIESE: I object. THE WITNESS: Well, this paragraph 10 troubled me or troubles me. nyway, should I read it? MR. BRON: Please. MR. RIESE: Objection. ~-----.~.-~~ ~--.--.' ' ~----.._-,...".--..,.-~.~r_."~.--.

22 MR. BRON: Let the record show that the witness is reading from Defendant's Exhibit 500. THE WITNESS: Paragraph 10. "When I was in CICV there were questions raised from time to time by my superiors about accuracy of the method used by my unit to estimate enemy infiltration. This is normal and proper because intelligence is not a precise science. I was not pressured to lower my estimates of any enemy infiltration. I did not have reports with estimates of enemy infiltration sent back to me with orders to use different numbers. I never stated to anyone that such things occurred." 12 That's the end. That's at variance with what I 13 recall of what was going on at the time. I thought Parkins () 1 was very unhappy with what was happening with his figures. 'rhat was my overall impression. So whether or not this is his true recollection or not, I don't know. It's certainly open to discussion. BY MR. BRON: Is it conclusive with what you understood the facts to be? No, it's not. No, it is not. I don't see how he can state his being questioned about the accuracy of the method _~_~.._. ~_.~._M M.."~ ~. " r ,-~~r T.--~.-.r -.-

23 138 1 etcetera, and this is normal and proper because intelligence 2 is not a precise science. I agree with what he is saying 3 here, but this isn't the way it happened. What he was being pressured to do was not normal in my mind. 5 nd what was he being pressured to do? 6 To change the methodology -- I had that term 7- r~ (- -: 7 that had been developed over a period of months, if not by 8 that time almost years, as to how best to estimate enemy 9 infiltration. He was being asked to change that and by 10 changing it, it was my overall impression that raw figures would be derived from a new system that would actually be 12 lower than what was being reported under the system that had 13 been arrived at and agreed to by all that were involved. 1 MR. BRON: ll right. I have no further questions. MR. RIESE: Neither do I. lidd;,iduajl STltTE OF CUFORNI DEPOSITION OF DVID MORGN (; ~UNTY OF.:--7S a~n~l;i~j"""'!!"'9 J 55. lhsa 27,Bl' bel Olema. 8h1sis 'S8Y penoaauyappeued Dmz; d C M.. -~~- '-' - orean Notary Public illliiid I.,. oaid S... I.,. _eel to m. OD tho buia 01.. tw...- _"~, be Iblowa to..., '.L'_. ---, ~OD" to tho _ L... -1rUmoD'1IIId ackaowl l - 10 tho 10m w~ ----tubocribed to tho 1 -~RR.... WITNESS my baud IIIId olflcial Mal. " (-83) My Commission expires

24 138 e'i -' etcetera, and this is normal and proper because intelligence 2 is not a precise science. I agree with what he is saying 3 here, but this isn't the way it happened. What he was being pressured to do was not normal in my mind. 5 nd what was he being pressured to do? 6 To change the methodology -- I had that term -- 7 that had been developed over a period of months, if not by 8 that time almost years, as to how best to estimate enemy 9 infiltration. He was being asked to change that and by 10 changing it, it was my overall impression that raw figures would be derived from a new system that would actually be 12 lower than what was being reported under the system that had 13 been arrived at and agreed to by all that were involved. 1 MR. BRON: ll right. I have no further questions. MR. RIESE: Neither do 1. (Whereupon, at the hour of : p.m., the deposition was concluded.) ' i ',',?' e SUBSCRIBED ND SWORN TO BEFORE My Commission expires, me this I,"1 J ~ day q NOTRY PUBLIC 0 I...; ,--_, -.,.., T ~_..- --

25 _..._--_._--_ STTE OF CLIFORNI 2 COUNTY OF SN DIEGO ss. 3 I, CROLINE T. HOFELD, a Notary Public in the State 5 of California, hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing 6 deposition was previously duly sworn to testify the truth, 7 the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the within- 8 entitled cause; that said deposition was taken at the time 9 and place therein stated; that the testimony of the said 10 witness was reported by me and was thereafter transcribed by me into typewriting; that the foregoing is a full, complete 12 and true record of said testimony. 13 I further certify that I am not of counselor 1 attorney for either or any of the parties in the foregoing deposition and caption named, or in any way interested in the outcome of the cause named in said caption. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this Cc:-ti''-. day of June, 8..~. ".. OFFICIL SEL ~~;;~ CKOL!NE HOFELD (!i?-~-:..:';~~",~.:, NO'! i.i-ly PlJel1C CLIFORNI ~ > f',~., LOS NC.~LES COUNl'( :/',-,-'... My Comm. Expires Oct,, 85