COMMITTEE SENSITIVE

Q. Am I correct in remembering that when you talked to Mr. Leard he said that the Philippines was not where the prisoners were taken. Yet Father Shelton's story was that they were taken to Clark. Is that correct?

A. Yes. That is correct. Leard said the Philippines was not the principal place. In other words, that some might go through the Philippines, some might even -- but there was a principal spot -- he would not say specifically where it was. He said that it was a place prepared specifically for this project -- in the Pacific by intimation -- well, it would have to be an island. And, as I said earlier, I got down to the point of asking him, like an aircraft carrier or a hospital ship or something like that? And he said, no, you're just guessing. That the island was -- I asked him whether or not it was jungle, and he stopped and thought a moment and he says, yes, I guess there-is some.

But in trying to trace it down, I've checked on Kwajalein. I've checked on Johnston Island. I've checked on Eniwetok. I've checked on other places. And although he was not -- Leard was not specific about the island, other people suggest that Johnston Island might be the best spot. But I don't know for sure. In other words, it's a spot where you come in and give -- either -- not everybody may need medical treatment and so it is a reorientation camp also. And then from there, Leard said people were taken to other hospitals. Some to mainland U.S., and others to Hawaii, and others to Clark, and others to, maybe, Guam or Okinawa.

Q. You mentioned that he retired-from the Air Force in '81 or '82, but he was still involved later on?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he mention, or did you ask, was there a civilian contractor involved with any of this operation?

A. I did not ask that, quite honestly. It would not have occurred to me at that point to have asked that. Since then it has been brought to my attention. As a matter of fact another source, again who will remain undisclosed, says that according to their information it was probably done through the National Security Council but by contract with private agencies. Let me say also something else, for the record too -- I want to make sure that under the broad based program of secret reintroduction or secret return of POW'S, MIA's and others to the United States -- it's my understanding that under that broad thing there might be several sub-areas.

Some people such as Greer and Schreckengost, who were supposedly brought in quietly and given new identities, and who might have been turncoats or something. Others who were just outright deserters and who were allowed to come home, and others who were what we would call bona fide POW's and either under village arrest or under being held in a prison and were brought back so there are three subcategories.

Q. And it is your understanding that -- let me just use for the sake of these 300 from your article -- these new people were given new identity and really were never reunited with their wife, children, or mother, father.

A. That they were never reunited with their wife, mother, and children -- at least except for some, who might have wanted to blow their cover or some may have since then done that. There are at least a couple of cases. And some, yes, but -- for the sake of those people -- they were brought in -- some died because they were in bad shape. Those who survived were cleaned up and then either sent to another hospital or given the option of living in the United States -- where, if they didn't like it there because of the culture shock -- if they were held for any number of time -- at least 15 years -- they were probably more Asian than they were Western European. And after a time, some men took the option, according to Leard, of returning to Southeast Asia and -- in some area, either the Philippines, Indonesia or whatever. And some, according to another source, even opted to go back to Laos.

Q. Did the United States Government provide a lump sum of money or set up -- we're suggesting that people that perhaps had been captured certainly 6 years -- from 6 years up to 12-13 years are coming back. How do we -- if you know how do we resettle someone in the United States? Do we provide them funding? Do we set up bank accounts? How is this done? Or did Mr. Leard tell you?

A. Mr. Leard specifically did not tell me that. So any information I have about that would be from other sources. Just generally, the picture that emerges is that they -- after the hospital treatment, which Mr. Leard talked about after the reorientation after the hospital treatment -- and you're reintroduced into public and you are given a job. You are sent on a job and given some money. And you are located and obviously you also have a quote handler unquote, who is your contact person with whichever agency or organization is providing the cover. And also watching how well you're doing. And some supposedly have relocated within miles of their former family.

Q. What would be your speculation would be the motive for the United States Government to do this and what would be the motive for the Vietnamese Government? Because if this program took place, it would require the cooperation of both governments.

A. Yes, it would. And I've been asked that I don't know how many times. And all I can come up with is my own supposition, my own conclusions as for why the U.S. and the Vietnamese would do it -- I don't have much difficulty with that. You have -- at the end of '73 -- a difficult time. Nixon is undergoing the Watergate situation and we're not getting everybody home. We can't,disclose because at thattime the war in Laos is still secret, even though it is raging and still full-tilt. You don't want to let the American public know about Laos also, and so -- and so it is a really sticky situation and we do leave a lot of peovle behind. Or some have gone to the Soviet Union. And then there are supposedly some late returnees -- some POW's up through the '75 time period -- and I've talked to one who alleges that he came out late with a planeload in August of '73. It's hard to tell whether or not that's really true or not.

Q. A planeload?

A. Of Americans -- 60, or 70, or something. He says that he was in another camp and there's more than one story like this. If there only one story, you would just kind of pass it off. But anyway, that he and the others were marched aboard a flight and they were flown to Travis and within 2 days they were discharged and given their severance pay and their back pay and off they went. And they went home.

Q. Has there been any publicity on this? I mean I'm not necessarily questioning it but as I sit here and you tell me that a plane -- that U.S. Air Force plane, I trust, flies into Travis with 60 or 70 former U.S. POW's 2 years after.

A. Well, in this particular case I'm talking about, this was only within months after the regular. But it still should have raised some eyebrows, but Travis is a big place. And you're right. No, it was not publicized.

Q. This is the first I've ever heard of it and I've heard a lot of rumors since last year.

A. Well, this was not publicized. There was another fellow who supposedly escaped with a couple of others in 174, '74 time frame and he managed -- this was before the fall of Saigon -- to get into friendly hands and was shipped home quietly. So, you know, there are a lot of cases of this supposedly having happened, at least through 175. Okay, Nixon is out of office. Two years later, nobody wants to confess that you left -- what about all those people in Laos that are, you know, unaccounted for? That all of those people were left behind.

Then it becomes a thorny problem. The Vietnamese aren't getting their $4.2 billion or any other money. And it's really becoming a tough problem. So it's my person belief and I cannot prove this, but that in 1979 when the people that General Kulagin talked about -- supposedly his people interrogated and I know there's at least his subordinate doesn't agree with Kulagin's version. But when Kulagin's people came out and when Freer Schreckengost and a fellow by the name of John Sweeney came out and they were post Garwood, it then became a more troublesome problem because what do you do with these people? And so in '81, when the ransom offer was made, so many POW's for $4.2 billion, the United States then had to do something about it.

And President Reagan or his administration authorized a couple of inserts into Laos to determine if POW's were still there. And again, this is my speculation, that after '82 or '83, they got -- they, somebody in the U.S., they, somebody in Vietnam.-- said look, how do we dispose of this? This is a real sticky problem. And then, because there had already been people who had come home, they started a little bit at a time to see if maybe they can come home secretly or under the table, nobody telling about it.

Now, why would the people who come home be quiet? have not talked to one face to face. I've talked to a couple on the phone. They -- the biggest reason seems to be because others are still behind. In other words, you don't break the story or you don't tell about it or you keep the faith so others might still come out. And after so many years, you know, it just becomes the life that you live with or the lie that you live. So another thing is that -- and this goes by the POW's who came out under Operation Homecoming, is that over the 8 to 16 to 20 years chat you've been separated from your family, a lot of things happen. People remarry, children have grown up, et cetera. So there's a lot of reasons to remain quiet. Also, on the Greer case, Greer was not close to his family before he left so why should he be close when he came back?

Q. Why did you run this story in 1992 after you had part of the information in 1986 and 1987? Is there any particular reason to have -- the time lag between the time you got the information from Father Shelton and from Mr. Leard in Las Vegas until the time that this was published June 19th of 1992?

A. Quite honestly, part of the time was spent in trying to chase down some of the people. I always use the illustration of Bigfoot, okay. Somebody over here says they've spotted Bigfoot and found him and there are big marks in, you know, or other signs of Bigfoot having been there, but you don't have Bigfoot. You can do a story saying Bigfoot exists, but it's really better to have the person there -- Bigfoot there in front of you. And the same thing happened, was that under the first set of allegations that are on the videotape about the Greer Schreckengost and John Sweeney is that that was all I had and that was a small number.

Other names started showing up, other alleged cases, some in southern California. And it was a matter of trying to trace down and see first if such a person exists and then who were they before, because quite honestly, I am not ignorant of the fact that this is a major allegation. This is a major story. There is a scene in the movie, All The President's Men, in which -- about Watergate -- in which Woodward and Bernstein are being asked by their managing editor, do you know how important this story is? And they said yes. And he says, well -- or no, he says, are you certain about your facts? And they said, yes. He said, you'd better be, because all we're talking about is the Presidency of the United States, et cetera.

And when this is concluded, this story is concluded, I know of the significance and importance of this story. So it is not something that I do lightly. Something that people need to know, especially about journalists, is that 99.8 percent of us, especially me, it's the one thing that you don't want to do is be wrong. It's even stated as a negative. You don't state it as, I want to be right. You state it as, I do not want to be wrong. And part of it, as I said earlier, after I got the information from the tape then it took me a long time to make my editors watch the videotape.

After I got permission to go to Leard -- and I had done a lot of this work on my own time and used vacations and everything else like that to run down leads -- is that then they came back and wanted more information. And so it took like until about 192 to have compiled enough facts or at least enough other information -- all of it is not in this story that says yes, there is more than credible evidence that something like that existed. And part of it too was disclosures by -- in the research about World War II and Korean POW's -- that some had come back non-publicly after the war was over, some in '46, '47 time frame from World War and some after Korea. There was just a lot of information that built up.

And another thing, quite honestly, that helped, say, give credibility to the story or credence to the story, was General Kulagin who, quite without expectation, announced that his people had interrogated Americans in 1978 and then sent them home in 1979, but that they -- the names and phone numbers and things that they were given, that somehow they didn't check out in the United States. So, there was a lot of stuff. There was a lot of factoring.

Q. We obviously won't, in this deposition, won't have time to view the tape that you provided. But for the record, could you describe what the tape's about, what it shows, where it was filmed, who filmed it, things of that nature?

A. The videotape was filmed -- and it's 1983 or '84, I think maybe '84 or shortly after the National League of Families annual meeting. It shows a fellow by the name of Liam Adkins -- Liam is his nickname, his first name is William -- Adkins, A-d-k-i-n-s, U.S. Government. Some years he spells it A-t-k-i-n-s. Anyway, he is a fellow who had been special forces and said that after Bobby Garwood came out that someone that he knew wanted to do a book about -- Garwood wanted some background information. And Liam Adkins, having friends still in the military, he went to them to get records about Garwood to help provide background information on this book, that friends provided other information about other American MIA's who had been brought out-and -- in one case, discharged quietly.

John Sweeney who was discharged quietly under his own name and then two others, Greer and Schreckengost who came out, were discharged and were given new identities. And again, -because of the potential embarrassment to the United States Government. And he tells about the documents that he saw. He tells also about efforts to discredit him, about the fact that he was arrested in England. You know, there is a -- I think it's mentioned in my story, the June 19th story, as a matter of fact -- who's the columnist that did a story in 1980 based on documents that he also saw. Anderson.

A. Yeah, Jack Anderson, October 26th, 1980, a column Jack Anderson wrote. As many as six Americans are believed to have taken up arms against U.S. troops in Vietnam. At least two of these, both Marine privates, are known to have joined in combat with the Vietcong against American forces. Yet these two men now live in the United States, unpunished, under new identifies furnished by the Government itself. Anyway, he points out that, and I trace down that column. Anyway, I said well, if two of these can come back and get new identities, maybe there's more. I would find them to find out if they know any information about other POW'S.

Q. To the best of your knowledge,,were all of these 300 from Vietnam or were some of them also from Laos, or do you know?

A. I don't know that specifically. All I know is that they supposedly were picked up in the Hanoi Haiphong area, most of them, but all of them.

Q. Outside of Sergeant McFall and the retired George Russell Laird, has anyone else that was allegedly on these missions ever talked to you?

A. Not on the mission, no. There have been some who have -- I don't want to use the word some. There has been one who said that he -- no, I'm sorry, there were two -- who have said that they were brought out secretly. one under the secret return program who was not given a new name and then the fellow I talked to earlier. There are some others I'm tracking.

Q. Could you provide the committee or would you provide the committee if you have a capability the name or address or phone number of any of these 300 people that have come out? To me it would be critical and crucial -- this is John Erickson talking, not necessarily the committee -- but at least very persuasive, one way or the other, if we had one of these people that would come forward. And I bear in mind the difficulty of having someone doing that for the reasons that you've already elaborated on.

A. Because, like I say, supposing these are the people who say that they are involved with the program, supposedly some people have already been killed because of it. I don't want to be paranoid about it, but obviously that's the concern that weighs.

Q. Think it over.

A. I think that if I did, that it would have to be limited and it would have to be an off the record situation.

Q. Okay. We've covered a lot of ground this morning and this afternoon. Do you have anything else on this particular issue that you want to share with us?

A. One thing that I can think of at the moment. And then, if you don't mind, I would like us to take a pause, so that I can - - because I don't want to be on the airplane back and say, oh, I really wish I'd put this into this record. There is a lady -- two things -- there is a lady in New Mexico by the name of Sarah Bernasconi. I don't know if you've ever heard about Sarah or not. Have you?

Q. No. But they may not be overly significant.

A. Okay. Sarah Bernasconi, her first husband was an MIA. He was a B-52 crew member. His plane crashed during, I think, the '72 bombing or was knocked down during the '72 bombing of North Vietnam. She has given me permission to give her name. She remarried, as a matter of fact, to a POW, a returnee, who is, as I understand, the returnee -- his name is Bernasconi. I can't remember the name of her first husband, the MIA.

She says that she was contacted by a high ranking American officer a couple of years or several years ago saying that her husband was part of a group who were brought out alive. And it was my understanding in this situation was that they were being brought up in smaller numbers, not in large numbers. And, anyway, Sarah Bernasconi, B-e-r-n-a-s-c-o-n-i, and her phone number in New Mexico is area code XXX, XXX-XXXX. And she since has done a lot of digging on her own. Now since I don't know the name of her original source or the officer to whom she talked, I cannot corroborate the reliability of that source. I do know that she has spent a lot of her time and energy in trying to run this down.

Q. What would be the purpose, and I realize some of my questions are just calling for you with your experience in this issue to proffer up an answer, but when I heard that, what would be the reason a senior officer would call her to tell her that her husband was coming out? It almost sounds as if it was kind a cruel thing to tell her.

A. I know. I asked her that same thing or not those exact same words, but, why would you say this? It was supposedly because this -- it would be good to ask her that question. I'm trying to remember, because our conversation about that was fairly short and compacted. My understanding was that the returnee wanted either some information or something about his family. And this officer was breaching this to do that. Now, that may not make good sense, but I've talked to a lot of people who are very sensible about everything else they do, but they get stupid about something else, presupposing that it was stupid to disclose the program.

And then he supposedly said that the reason why he was providing her additional information was -- oh, again, as I've heard from more than one person, is that having done this for more than a year or 2, that it started finally getting to them, starting finally eating them. One of the things that, as a matter of fact my editors challenged me and other investigators, good investigators have challenged me and said, why, if this is so, why haven't we haven't we heard about this? I mean, why hasn't there been more information about it. And my response is, well, we have heard about it. We have heard some bits about it. We have heard some parts about it. For instance, just two illustrations. we heard that Soviets had had American POW's here, that Americans had gone to the Soviet Union. And we heard that before Kulagin and Yeltsin said that information. All of a sudden because Kulagin and Yeltsin said that it was so, then all of a sudden it become so.

The other thing is, you know, rumors and reports about the Stealth fighter program. I remember writing a story about Stealth fighters back in 1980 and my editor, you know, lifted his eye brow and said, okay, we'll run it. That was when I was a military affairs reporter. And almost everything I wrote about came out when the U.S. Government finally decided to say, yes, not only do we have them, we've got 54 of them. I mean they crashed and people -- and so there was information out there.

It's not that the United States Government or any other government cannot have a major significant secret operation. After all, the war in Laos was secret for years and we were losing hundreds of people over there. Dribbles of it would get out but no one would believe it, I mean. Hitler was killing Jews by the millions for years, but no one would believe it until after the war was over. It took me a long time to come to the point to where I can say at this table, at this point, that I do not know the absolute numbers of this program. But I am convinced that it exists. I am convinced that some people have made contacts with their families and that either compromised the program or it was enough that people started talking about it. So --

Q. So said you brought out Sarah's file and you had another. You said there were two.

A. Listen. This one, I tell you in all candor, I cannot give it more than one percent of credibility. But it's something that was so fantastic and everything that I felt at sometime I would say this, because I do not have the ability to chase after this one. And quite honestly, if this program exists, I think the American public needs to know about it. Allegedly and I do not say this because of dislike for Ann Mills Griffiths, but according to a source that I don't give a great deal of credibility to, but this guy works in a black world and goes back and forth between southeast Asia. He says that Ann Mills Griffiths' brother was brought out and was living under the new name of Mike Kanoke, K-a-n-o-k-e, in Missouri near a missile base.

Now as far as I know, and that was several years ago, there is only one base, one Air Force base in Missouri, and that was Whitman Air Force Base. And I think it since has been closed. I could just, through the simple thing of calling up - - oh, he also was supposedly, did I say this, working as a deputy sheriff or sheriff. Now, they don't list their names in the phone directory, so the phone directory check didn't prove anything out.

Q. Well, there is also, which is being phased out, there is Richards-Gabar Air Force Base in Kansas City and there's Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, which is very close to St. Louis. I just offered that.

A. Absolutely, okay. Then the only thing specific that I was told was that he was allegedly near a missile base in Missouri. Now, this one I'm hoping someone will check and see whether--.or not that is at all possible. As I said, there are a couple of other good cases and I will have to think about whether or not I provide those names.

MR. ERICKSON: Why don't we take a 5 or 10-minute break? (Recess.)

MR. ERICKSON: Let's go back on the record.

BY MR. ERICKSON:

Q. Mr. Hendrix, is there anything you said in your deposition at any time today, upon reflection, that you would like to change or modify at this point?

A. Nothing that I know of.

Q. Do you have any other information that you would like to share with the committee?

A. One last point I would like to bring up that I know about at this point is that and this is testimony that has previously been given to the U.S. Senate, but it was in 1986. Tom Ashworth, A-s-h-w-o-r-t-h, was who then a POW/MIA researcher for a number of years, testified before, I think it was the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee in 1986, about a conversation, a phone conversation, that he was involved in, in which the new identify or a program like it, was discussed.

And he only heard one half of the conversation. It was -- Mr. Ashworth was talking with an Air Force officer by the name of Charles Huff, H-u-f-f. And Huff was on the phone with Colonel Mark Richards, common spelling. And Mark Richards was then the officer in charge of the DIA's POW/MIA division, like Colonel Peck was. And on the part that he heard about, namely Ashworth, was that they were talking about, Huff and Richards were talking about a program in which POW's would be brought back and that they would be given -- that their families would not know about it. They would be quietly stowed away.

Tom Ashworth's testimony, to me, is that he thought that such an idea was so outlandish even though this supposedly was coming from Colonel Richards as repeated by Huff, that he didn't give it a lot of credence. I talked to Huff earlier this year in the June time frame, when I was preparing for this story. And Huff said that at the time that he was on the phone with Richards, that he was talking only about theoretical, was it at all possible? But anyway, that differs from Ashworth's testimony.

Another thing that might help is that Bo Gritz, Colonel Gritz, who was talking about his many missions in the early '80's, said -- the one mission, I think, was '83 or '84, one of the Operation Lazarus missions -- that he was so sure that he was going to have some out with them that he only bought a one-way ticket over there. And that the arrangements before hand was that if they did get people out there that they, meaning POW'S, out of Laos, that they would be brought back to the United States of America under what he called the Executive Protection Program in which they would not be disclosed when they did come out at first. He thought that they eventually would be disclosed, but it would not be done right away. So, there are just snippets here and there that point to possibilities.

Q. You have been involved in this issue, at least writing about it, for 8 to 10 years now. I have some just general questions that if you have any answers you'd like to share with. Why would the Vietnamese Government and/or Cambodian and/or Lao Government, hold prisoners back, in your opinion?

A. Well, in my opinion, it was originally historically the precedent with the French and that's been discussed often. They are not dumb. They probably knew American politics in 1970, '73 time frame better than we did in America. I'm sure that they knew that when they were promised $4.2 billion in money and aid from the United States by Kissinger and President Nixon that it was something that would probably have to go through Congress. And the sentiment in the United States at that time was to get done, get off of Vietnam, and it probably wouldn't come. So it was leverage.

Also, the Vietnamese were still very heavily involved with getting aid from the Soviet Union. So these people, especially some of the late arrivals with new technology were good for bartering off to either Communist China or to the Soviet Union. That was my same question when I got involved in this in late 1984. And you're right, it's coming up to 8 years now, almost. Our question used to be, why would the Vietnamese keep those people? Within about 6 months or a year after we got involved in this, our question became why would the United States not acknowledge them? And I think that those two questions have to come together.

I think that it is now moot in the mutual best interest of the United States and Vietnam and I'm talking about cynical politics more than any ethics or anything. It's to the best interests of both nations to come together, I am told and these from significant sources, because of the oil situation off the coast of Vietnam. It is my understanding and I am told that certain high level U.S. Government officials who were involved with an oil company by the name of Liberty Oil and other oil companies that had leasing and drilling rights off the coast of Vietnam -- this comes totally separate from anything that Charles Shelton and this LeBlanc friend of his.

But anything, that -- obviously we just fought a war over oil in the Mideast -- there are a lot of people who would like more oil to be available and there are large reserves off Vietnam. And I am told that since 1981 the driving force has been to somehow create a climate where the United States and Vietnam could come together and make access of the oil rights that are still there and the drilling rights that are still there, from even before the war was over. And that, feeling this and this is the grand scheme, which is the question that you asked, is that Japan is also pushing the United States to renew relations with Vietnam, not because Japan is interested in the United States getting a lot of trade, but Japan is interested in the oil drilling. Japan is without oil. There would rather it be far closer, much closer to them than the Mideast.

And since they don't have a Navy to protect them nor do the Vietnamese to protect the oil wells, especially the ones offshore from China, that they would just as soon that the U.S. Navy was back in Camrahn Bay or other places, especially since Subic Bay is now no longer part of America's inventory. And that is basically comes down to money and honest, you know, hardheaded politics of let's get this thing. If you run the New Identify Program into that, is let's get these people out of here, but somehow give them at least some kind of a life or get rid of the problem. Because it would be very diabolical for us to think of the hundreds of people who were missing, if nothing else, just of the ones in Laos, were lined up against a tree and shot and killed when the war was over because there was nothing else to do with them.

If we truly believe that to be so, if we truly believe that they were taken down a trail and shot in the back or had their heads cut off or turned into animals or something like that, if we truly believe that, then why should we betray what these people -- why should we even be trying to open negotiations with them. I don't really believe that they were, the southeast Asians, were all that brutal. I think it is a convenience. My belief, and I need to explain this because people may wonder whether or not I stuck my head out the window when I was flying back here to Washington, D.C., is that my pursuit of the New Identity Program, so-called, is separate from the oil thing. In other words, I did not create an oil story or panorama to neatly tuck the New Identity Program into it. They are totally separately arrived at. And I think that we really need to, we as a country, need to be looking at who is involved on whose boards of the oil leasing, the oil drilling companies. And I think that we'll find Bechtol and other firms that made a lot of money over there in Vietnam. And it's no crime to make money. I'm certainly not opposed to that.

Q. Do you believe that today, taking for example the theory that this program started in 1979 and at least from the information that you have, was in existence in 1986, do you think there are still live American POW's in Laos or Vietnam today?

A. I think if there are, I think that they are in smaller numbers, quite honestly, in part because of the program, in part because some have been sent to the Soviet Union. I had a source, as a matter of fact, it was during one of the last sessions or later sessions of the select committee, that people were talking, well, there's no other proof that we knew that large numbers of American POW's were on the ground -- Laotian, General Khamou Boussarath, I think, in an interview of a 1986 story that I got there, said that he had the names of a couple of hundred Americans who his people knew were alive and in Laos as late as 1974 or '75 time frame. He was run out of the country in '75 or escaped. And the United States never asked for that list. I think that there were large numbers after the war, but they have been pared down through various things and some have died. And probably there are not that many there now. But I think that there are people living in Asia and in some places in the United States.

Q. As a reporter, how do you make a decision when you interview A and A says to you that B told him this, this, and this? And then you interview B and B says, yeah, I met A, but I never said this, this and this. Is there a formula or are you at a stand-off.

A. No. Sometimes you're at a stand-off. I could probably deal better with a for instance kind of thing, but then it's a matter of, as a reporter, of going and looking at the credibility of each one. And if it's at an impasse and it's nothing that you can prove and it's not really key and essential to the story, then you just try and go on to the next best source. If all of a sudden later it becomes essential, then you go back and try and determine who's probably got the better credibility here or whether or not A had misunderstood B or B had misunderstood A. There are times when I know that one source is given deliberately false information, if you want to call it misdirection or something like that, just so that they can protect a source or something. So therefore you have to decide how much of this is true and how much of it is not. If too much is not true, then I can't believe it, because in the end my standard is me. You know, it's my credibility is on the line as much as anybody else. And at least all of my reporters are told to work that way and that is how I work.

Q. After your story that you published on June 19th, 1992, it is my understanding that this is really based on three things; number one, your initial video which you shared with us today coupled with Father Shelton's story, coupled with your interview of George Russell Leard.

A. No, it is not to do with Charles Shelton's story. Let me put it this way, quite frankly, and I've said this on the radio internationally, is that it is not based only on the Liam Adkins videotape information or on just Leard. If I had only had Adkins and only Leard, I would not have done the story. There had to be more to it than that. And some things that have not gotten into the story that are second or third chapters to come. For instance, the on the record information I gave you about the 183 -- supposedly we began giving money under the table to the Vietnamese. There are certain things obviously that had to happen to make it logical. in other words, there are Vietnamese who would have to know about this and there are Americans who have to know about this. And they had to do things in between.

The only thing Charlie's story really did for me was that -- because it's mentioned in Kiss The Boys Goodbye -- what his story did for me and it's not to say whether it's true or not true, is that suddenly it dawned on me that if you have this happening and if you have it in large-scale or small-scale numbers, you have to have other people who know about it. You have to have other people in the loop, have not only the commanders of the people who make the decision to do this, not only the flyers, not only the POW'S, but you have to have medics, you have to have clerks, you have to have even film makers.

I believe that if this did well, what with the United States Government or the Air Force's penchant for photographing everything that's possible that they can do and that's good, that somewhere in the archives -- and they are classified film archives not that far from Riverside that may show some people getting off the plane or their psychological reorientation or something. There are still stories that are coming from the war that people don't believe. So that story was based on far more than Leard and Liam Adkins and part, I'd had the Greer Schreckengost information for a long time. And it was when Rosemary Conway came back from southeast Asia and she told me that she had met face to face with someone by the name of -- who said that they were Greer. And that went a long step toward credence because -- and see, in that story is even the school at which this guy supposedly worked or wanted to work who said that he was Greer.

Rosemary Conway has been an absolute, over the years, 100 percent credible source. So you go back to what do you do about A and what do you do about B? A says something and I worked a long time with B and B has always been honest and I've always found their information to be true, then I'm going to believe B.

Q. No, I didn't mean to imply in my question that the article was written only from these three, but I was trying to use that as maybe primary sources, coupled with other information that you got.

A. Okay, sure. You know, for that part of the story, for that chapter in this or that car in this train is the primary source right there and was not based on McFall's story to Father Charles.

Q. I don't have any more questions. The record is open. If you have anything you would like to share with us or give to us, please feel free.

A. Okay. And this is the closest thing that I've got to a prepared statement and I guess other than putting me on a polygraph and watching how the needles work, you'd just have to take my word. But at this point, so far nothing that we printed has been disproved, if you want to use a negative. In all of our years that we've done this, and part of this information has even advanced the Iran Contra information. But I did not go into this -- and pursuing the POW/MIA reporting that we have done for 8 years -- I did not go into this thinking there was such a program as the New Identity Program from the beginning. It wasn't like I launched one off to say, wouldn't this be a good thing to find out?

As each story, as each phase, as each chapter has come along, it has come along almost in a natural progression or as new information. Even wondered whether or not it was possible. I believe, as I said on the tape, now. For many years, I was searching to find out if there was any credence or credibility to it, that it exists. And it's probably -- the New Identity Program by itself, in which you give POW's or people new identities for whatever reason, is probably part of a secret patriation program that also offers opportunities to return to deserters who stay behind or even kidnapees like happened in World War II.

I believe that American Government, some American Government officials know about it, but not all about it -- but not all American Government officials know about it. But I believe that some people at the highest levels know about the program. I believe that it was seeded and by the word s-e-e-d-e-d, that the seed was planted, as I said, almost by accident. And I talked about that earlier in the '78, '79 time frame. It bloomed in 1981 and blossomed or bore fruit in '84 and '85. According to Russell Leard in that story, my June 19th story, he said that the operation started up again in 1989. My last question to him as I was talking to him in 1989 and this was in July, I said to him, the program is finished and hasn't been restarted. And he said, oh, no, that's not true. He said just recently they wanted to start it again. Since that time, from two other people who were classified intelligence physicians, not now, but previously, said -- and who did not know George Russell Leard, who don't know him and have not talked to him -- have said, too, that they believed that the program was reintroduced in 1979.

Q. Have you talked to him since your conversation in 1989?

A. No, I have not. In part, because I wanted to remain honorable as opposed to badgering him and knocking him on the head and on the door all the time, and in part because he said, do your homework on this. And I figured if I found the island and came back and got more information, you know, then I would get more information from him. And quite honestly, to this point of the story -- obviously we'd like to know names and who was brought back and everything else like that -- but he was not willing to provide that at that time. I wanted to get the broad part of the story out and then deal with the specifics. So no, I haven't been back to him.

Q. When you were looking into George Russell Leard, did you find out, did he ever serve a tour of duty in Vietnam?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Do you recall where he was and what the years were?

A. Not without looking at my notes. I think it was '68, '69 time frame or something like that. I remember that he was injured while he was over there. It was a machete. He was hit by a machete from one of the locals and wound up with his right hand being really hurt. And he, I think, got a head wound with it, too. I'm not sure. The head wound may be wrong, but anyway, I know he was treated for that.

Well, we will suspend the deposition. If there's other information that you think of, you can certainly submit it for the record. And we will, when we receive the transcript in roughly a week to 10 days, we will send it out to you in Riverside. And again, if you could just make any corrections on a piece of paper and just send it back to us on that, we'll make the corrections.

And once again, on behalf of the committee, I thank you very, very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to fly in here and turn right around and fly back to California, but it has been helpful. And the deposition will be routed to whomever wants to read it. And thank you for your cooperation.

A. Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the taking of the instant deposition ceased.)

Signature of the Witness

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this {blank} day of {blank}19 {blank}.

Signature
NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission expires:

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1111 FOURTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
(202)289-2260
(800) FOR DEPO