Updates

Sprague was a prolific writer on all political assassinations of the 1960s. His work appeared primarily in Computers and Automation, and later in People and the Pursuit of Truth, a newsletter he started with his longtime colleague, Edmund Berkeley.

Researcher Christopher Sharrett recalled Sprague as a friend and mentor. "Dick always viewed the JFK assassination as a political coup at the center of American power," he said, adding that Sprague described his views in the privately published The Taking of America 1,2,3.

In the 1960s, Richard Sprague was a friend and advisor to former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, who unsuccessfully tried businessman Clay Shaw in connection with the assassination. In the 70s, Sprague was a first a lobbyist for, and then an outspoken critic of, the House Select Committee on Assassination.

Richard E. Sprague is survived by three children.

Our thanks to Christopher Sharrett for contributing to this item.

This piece first appeared in the March-April, 1996 issue of PROBE, the newsletter of the Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassinations. It is reprinted with permission.

In 1965, I took the oath of police officer of the City of New Orleans, an oath in which I swore to protect and to serve the citizens of the Crescent City to the best of my ability and to uphold the laws of the City of New Orleans, the State of Louisiana and the United States of America. Shortly thereafter, I took a second oath, this one administered by my father. It was an oath in which I swore to my father in the presence of my God that I would never obey an order from a superior I considered to be illegal, unethical or immoral.

In what I believe to be a tribute to the integrity of the police commanders under whom I served, not once was I required to even consider the oath to my father.

This changed in late 1974 or early 1975 when I was ordered to destroy grand jury records of former DA Jim Garrison's investigation into the assassination of President John F Kennedy. I felt then and I feel now that to have obeyed that order would have been a violation of both my oath as a police officer as well as the one to my father. Based on the historical significance of the documents, destruction was possibly illegal, unquestionably immoral and quite probably unethical.

I was in the process of destroying outdated, non-essential grand jury transcripts of testimony taken in investigations dating as far back as the mid-fifties when I came across those taken in connection with the prosecution of Clay Shaw. Certain Connick would want them preserved despite the fact they met the criteria for destruction, I packed them separately. On one of his visits to the storage area where the records to be destroyed were temporarily retained, I showed him the box of Kennedy material. I can only describe his behavior as some sort of bizarre outrage. He demanded immediate removal of the records from the building and destruction of them. They spent several days in the trunk of my car as I made several attempts to get him to reconsider the order. He was adamant about destruction. I discussed the matter with several others in the office to no avail.

I had three alternatives:

1. Destroy the documents as ordered.

2. Deliver the box to Connick's office and tell him to have someone else do it. But upon consideration of the number of "yes" men on his staff, I knew their fate was sealed from the moment of delivery and this was tantamount to destroying them myself.

3. I could personally retain them thereby preventing destruction. I opted for number three and retained them for twenty-one years.

Everything I heard and read about the law led me to believe it empowered the investigative arm it created, the Assassination Records and Review Board, with far-reaching authority to unseal and make public any and all records conducted by any and all investigative agencies despite other laws or court orders which mandated secrecy. Since the law's passage was a direct result of public pressure generated by Oliver Stone's movie, surely the records in my possession were high on their list of targeted documents.

I concluded that this ARRB would make its way to New Orleans. Either their arrival went unannounced or unnoticed because the first I heard about their presence in town was during a 10 p.m. newscast early in July, 1995. I was first amazed to see excerpts of Connick's testimony to the panel, expressing "shock" at taking office in 1974 and subsequently determined that Mr. Garrison's records had been "pilfered" by either Mr. Garrison or members of his staff. I was numbed. Not only was Connick lying to the panel about the missing records, he was blaming their disappearance on a man no longer around to defend himself.

But who could I call at 10:15 p.m.?

The morning news article by Mr. Dave Snyder in the Times-Picayune, went into a little more detail and I contacted Mr. Snyder and asked him how to get in touch with the ARRB. He told me I was too late, that Connick had been their last witness and they left shortly after he completed his testimony.

I then spent considerable time on long distance information trying to locate a phone number for the Board in Washington. Not realizing they reported directly to Congress and were not part of any department, bureau or agency, I could locate no one who even knew what I was talking about.

I then called Mr. Richard Anelico of WDSU and informed him of the situation and asked if he could possibly locate the Board for me.

He called me back and told me the Board was anxious to get the records and were concerned about the fact that Connick had lied to them. He gave me a name and number in Washington. However, I did not want to become embroiled in what I suspected would become a heated confrontation between Connick and the Board and I asked Angelico if he would get the documents to the Board for me. He said he would and would protect my anonymity. I suggested the affidavit I have admitted to executing here today as a way of explaining how the records found their way to Mr. Angelico.

My intent was threefold:

1. I could finally get rid of them.

2. Albeit minuscule, I could offer up some small measure of defense for Mr. Garrison.

3. The records, be they truth or fiction, fact or fantasy, would finally be in the hands of an agency which would protect and preserve them.

At no time did I intentionally harbor, express or demonstrate contempt for either the laws of the State of Louisiana or the rules of the Criminal District Court of Orleans Parish regarding procedure of the Grand Jury.

While no longer a police officer, I still feel a sense of duty to the citizens of New Orleans and I am firmly convinced that my actions served them. In the event this court rules I have erred in the eyes of man, I place my fate in the hands of Judge Marullo, confident that should his ruling be an adverse one, I will be vindicated in time by the Ulti mate Judge, the One who will judge us all.

Only a foolish man would order the destruction of those records. Only a fool would have destroyed them.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An independent board compiling a public record of President Kennedy's assassination asked a federal court on Thursday to force New Orleans District Attorney Harry Connick to turn over documents.

But Connick is determined to fight the Assassination Records Review Board. "He kind of feels they're not worth cooperating with," said his attorney, William Wessel.

At issue are documents concerning an investigation into the Kennedy assassination by Connick's predecessor, Jim Garrison. Garrison's probe was depicted by Oliver Stone in the 1992 movie "JFK."

After the film generated public concern that the government hasn't disclosed all it knows about Kennedy's assassination, the board was created to uncover new assassination-related materials and review any records that government agencies have kept secret.

Connick has refused to comply with a subpoena issued by the board. On Thursday, the board asked the U.S. District Court in New Orleans to compel him to turn over the Garrison records. A hearing has been set for March 27.

Wessel argued that the board has jurisdiction over federal records, but no right to any state or local materials, public or private.

But Connick has also held out because he's angry that the board refused to return another batch of grand jury records provided by a former investigator for Garrison, Gary Raymond, who had stored them for 20 years.

The board received the records after Raymond provided them to a New Orleans television reporter, Richard Angelico.

"They were transferred up there by a local reporter and his snitch," Wessel said. "The review board knows they weren't entitled to those, but they decided to keep them. That, of course, has made for negative reaction in Mr. Connick's mind."

The board maintains it has a right, under federal law, to all assassination-related materials. The records are being housed in a collection at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, Md.

John R. Tunheim, the board's chairman, said the court action was taken "to ensure that the public interest in these assassination records is protected."

Meanwhile, the board is hanging onto the grand jury records until their legal status is clarified, probably through the courts. Its view is that federal law providing for the release of such materials takes precedence over state laws governing grand jury secrecy.

Last month, a state court found Raymond and Angelico guilty of contempt.

Connick had brought charges against the two, saying that the state's grand jury secrecy law had been violated when Raymond handed over the records and when Angelico aired the names of some of the witnesses in July.

Raymond testified that he kept the transcripts after Connick ordered their destruction in 1974 because he felt they were of historical value.

Where does one draw the line between breach of etiquette and theft by deception of research material? Recently we had the unpleasant experience of finding out that a supposed newcomer to the "amateur" research community who was busy picking our brains was, in fact, employed by a professional author well known to the JFK researchers. We use this term "amateur" to describe those researchers who do not make a living from writing books but who nevertheless spend countless hours working without pay to seek the truth behind the Kennedy assassination. We amateurs spend money on travel, conferences, books, photocopies, phone calls, and FAX's and are grateful to accept as our reward the reciprocity of information from one another and an added measure of truth behind a murder. Some of us are even lucky enough to see our names in print in non-profit assassination journals.

Like the "amateurs" competing in the Olympics, we are just as skilled, intelligent and talented as those "professional" journalists and authors who make their living from writing. We are lawyers, doctors, accountants, teachers, physicists, business managers, etc., etc. Yet these very same professional writers think nothing of using our work product without compensation and in many instances without proper credit or acknowledgement.

Worse is the writer who through intermediaries exploit the hard earned knowledge of others for their own pecuniary interest. We will not mention names---you know who you are. The case in point was all the more egregious because it involved a fraudulent attempt to gain access to a lengthy manuscript left behind by an "amateur" assassination researcher who died of cancer last year. This amateur was both a lawyer and university regent who had dedicated years to her research. By having an intermediary pose as an amateur [the] behind-the-scenes author hoped to avoid having to pay for the contents of the manuscript as would ordinarily happen in the world of publishing. The disguised amateur never revealed her true intentions in seeking the contents of this manuscript nor did she reveal for whom she was working. When she and her true boss were caught red-handed, their defense was that no one asked for such background information. First of all, this was not true as Anna and Carol both attempted to ascertain her background. But even if we did not endeavor to learn more about her, she and her employer had a moral and legal obligation to disclose the truth considering the unique nature of the information sought.

We share this experience with the research community not to make you any more paranoid than you probably are---what with worrying about whether CIA or FBI are hiding under your bed. Instead we want to remind each of you the importance of the golden rule to treat others as you would like to be treated. Give credit where credit is due. Insist that publishers, news programs, and other media allow you the opportunity to give credit. Be honest as to your intentions when you seek information from each other. Praise one another's work instead of finding fault by way of sarcastic rebuttals. Reciprocate when a fellow researcher has shared something with you.

Dealings with third parties, such as witnesses, is a little bit trickier because initial disclosure might scare them away. Also, proprietary interests of writers do in fact need safeguarding. That is [a] legal topic beyond the scope of this essay. At a minimum, perhaps the professional journalists and authors involved in assassination research can at least share with us their occupation's Code of Ethics that govern such matters so that we are all utilizing the same rules of play. In summation, do not burn bridges with your fellow researchers, amateurs or professionals, by unfair or deceptive practices. We have a common cause that takes precedence over profits and literary fame. To those culprits who did us wrong, BEE-WARE that you are in the "dog house". You may come out when you receive your research material the old-fashioned way---by earning it.

NOTE: This essay is being submitted to both The Fourth Decade and Probe in the hope that both journals will publish it.

* * *