Request to the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate
TO INVESTIGATE THE CONDUCT OF THE
U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
IN THE ROSENBERG-SOBELL CASE
Submitted by:
THE NATIONAL ROSENBERG-SOBELL COMMITTEE
1050 Sixth Avenue
New York City 18, N. Y.
(Provided by Arlene Tyner)
INTRODUCTION
The functions of the Attorney General's office, including the offices of the various United States attorneys and their assistants, as well as the various bureaus in the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are to carry out the laws of our nation. These officials are charged with the responsibility not only of prosecuting those persons accused of crimes but also of protecting impartially the constitutional and legal rights of all citizens. It has been said that "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all and whose interest therefore in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case but that justice shall be done". (See Appendix 1.)
We believe that in the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Morton Sobell the Attorney General's office and the subordinate United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York failed to carry out their responsibilities with respect to achieving justice for all citizens regardless of political persuasion, and used every means at their command, lawful and unlawful, to send the Rosenbergs to their death and Morton Sobel1 to Alcatraz.
Mr. Sobell is alive today. He is appealing his conviction and sentence. The Attorney General's office continues to oppose these efforts. The Attorney General's office, in our view, is obstructing justice, exercising coercive pressures on Mr. Sobell, and generally is guilty of practices wholly alien to American concepts of fairness and decency.
We therefore turn to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate of the United States, as elected officials of the people and of the Senate, and ask that the Committee examine the improper conduct of the Attorney General's office in the Rosenberg-Sobell case.
This request for an investigation is based on the following facts:
The Attorney General's office knowingly used and encouraged perjured testimony against the Rosenbergs and against Morton Sobell.
The Attorney General's office promised rewards and in fact did give such rewards to several chief witnesses in the Rosenberg-Sobell case.
The Attorney General's office deliberately engaged in an unlawful campaign of misrepresentation of facts through press releases prior to the trial and thus falsified essential aspects of the case, influencing public opinion to prejudge the defendants.
The Attorney General’s office attempted and still attempts to keep from the courts documents that reveal the perjuries and the role the Attorney General's office played in obtaining these perjuries.
The Attorney General's office engaged in the use of mental torture against the Rosenbergs and mental torture, as well as physical violence against Morton Sobell.
The Attorney General's office, by deception and misrepresentation, interfered with the courts’ handling of the case.
The Attorney General's office, by withholding information, by deception, and by outright falsehoods, misled two Presidents of the United States, who had before them appeals for clemency.
* * * * *
I. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE KNOWINGLY USED AND ENCOURAGED PERJURED TESTIMONY AGAINST THE ROSENBERGS AND AGAINST MORTON SOBELL
There are documents which prove that the Attorney General's office knowingly solicited perjured testimony from prosecution witnesses Benjamin Schneider, David Greenglass and Ruth Greenglass.
An outstanding example of the knowing use of the perjured testimony by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York appears in the testimony of Benjamin Schneider, the final prosecution witness.
Briefly, Schneider’s testimony was that some time in May or June of 1950, the Rosenbergs had come into his small photographic shop located not far from the Federal Courthouse and had secured passport photographs from him. The Rosenbergs denied this, and no photographs, negatives, receipts, or other documents were introduced in support of Schneider's testimony. Obviously, the import of this type of testimony was to convey to the jury the impression that the Rosenbergs were about to flee the country when they were arrested.
Schneider testified that he had not seen the Rosenbergs from the time they came into his shop in May or June 1950, until the day he appeared to testify against them. (Schneider's name never appeared on the government's list of witnesses. He was a surprise witness, an improper act in a capital case.)
It was subsequently disclosed by the defense attorney and confirmed by an F.B.I. affidavit that Schneider had been brought into the courtroom the day before by F.B.I. agents with the knowledge and consent of the prosecuting attorney and that Schneider had identified the Rosenbergs not through a "line-up" procedure, but with the assistance of F.B.I. agents. (See Appendix 2.)
When Schneider said that he had not seen the Rosenbergs between May or June 1950, and the day he testified, he committed perjury. The F.B.I. agents and the prosecution knew it and they had a responsibility to bring that to the attention of the court and the jury.
The list of perjuries committed by David Greenglass and his wife, Ruth Greenglass, are numerous, and in every case appear to have been perpetrated with the assistance and knowledge of the prosecution.
Many of these perjuries were revealed for the first time in a series of documents (See Appendix 3.) emanating from the office of 0. John Rogge, counsel for the Greenglasses and Max Elitcher, the major prosecution witness against Sobell. Mr. Rogge is a former official of the Attorney General's office. The authenticity of the documents has been publicly acknowledged by Mr. Rogge.
One of the documents is in David Greenglass, own handwriting, as verified by handwriting expert Elizabeth McCarthy of Boston, Mass. The others are typed inter-office memoranda of the Rogge law firm..
The perjuries sanctioned by the prosecution include:
A- Greenglass writes that the F.B.I. told him that he had asked Harry Gold, a confessed spy, to return later on the morning of Gold's alleged visit to the Greenglass apartment in Albuquerque, New Mexico. "I didn't remember this", Greenglass then writes, "but I allowed it in the statement". He subsequently testified to the F.B.I. version. (See Appendix 3, Section A.)
B- Greenglass' entire testimony must be viewed in the light of a memo from the Rogge office summarizing a description of Greenglass by his wife. Mrs. Greenglass said her husband had a "tendency to hysteria". She said he would become delirious and once when he had the grippe he ran nude through the hallway, shrieking of "elephants" and "lead pants". Mrs. Greenglass said she had known him since he was 10 years old and that he "would say things were so even if they were not". She said "he talked of suicide as if he were a character in the movies but she didn't think he would do it". (See Appendix 3, Section B.)
C- David Greenglass writes in a handwritten statement that he informed the F.B.I. that his wife was not present during the visit by Gold. This is corroborated by his wife’s statement to Mr. Rogge that "she had remembered no visitors at her house". Nevertheless both David and Ruth Greenglass, testifying for the prosecution at the trial said that Mrs. Greenglass was present during the visit. (See Appendix 3, Section B.)
D- Greenglass writes that he told the F.B.I. "I didn't know who sent Gold to see me". At the trial he stated for the prosecution that his brother-in-law, Julius Rosenberg, had sent Gold to see him. (See Appendix 3, Section A.)
E- Greenglass, in the same document, writes that he couldn't remember what it was that he gave Gold. At the trial he testified that he gave Gold a sketch of a decisive segment of the atom bomb. He reproduced in court — after a lapse of seven years — a sketch of this segment. (See Appendix 3, Section A.)
F- Greenglass answered on the witness stand that the prosecution did not give him any assistance in the drawing up of a sketch of a complicated atom bomb and he even denied having been coached to refresh his memory. (This sketch was impounded during the trial.)
Two possibilities exist in respect to the authenticity of this sketch of the atom bomb, and both involve the prosecution in an obvious fraud.
1- If this sketch were accurate, Greenglass, a trade school graduate who had failed eight of his eight courses at a technical school, could not have produced it without assistance of the prosecution and other persons willing to aid the prosecution. Accuracy, in this case, could only have been "planted" by by [sic] the prosecution.
2- If this sketch was, as Life magazine and other periodicals maintained, an inaccurate or meaningless design, then Greenglass could only have perpetrated this fraud with the assistance of the prosecution-which made sure not to call a single scientist to pass an opinion on the sketch. In this case a substantial fraud would have been perpetrated on the jury, the court, and the American people, who have been led to believe that it was the Greenglass sketch that permitted Russia to develop the atom bomb.
G- Under cross-examination, Greenglass said he could not recall the purpose of an F.B.I. visit to him early in 1950, months before his arrest on an espionage indictment. This denial was made in the presence of the prosecution, which knew that the purpose of the visit to Greenglass concerned his theft of uranium. Julius Rosenberg testified that he believed Greenglass was in trouble, possibly because of uranium theft.
An affidavit now proves that David Greenglass did steal uranium from Los Alamos. This affidavit was made by Bernard Greenglass, brother of David Greenglass and quotes David Greenglass as admitting the theft. (See Appendix 4.)
H- Greenglass testified for the prosecution that a console table in the home of the Rosenbergs was an elaborate piece of furniture given to the Rosenbergs by the Russians and hollowed out for micro-film development.. The prosecution told the jury that this special table was an expensive piece of furniture that must have cost in excess of $85. Although the F.B.I. had gone through all of Rosenbergs’ possessions and located the only console table the Rosenbergs possessed, this table was never produced. in court.
An affidavit by a sales staff member of the R. H. Macy Company in New York supports the Rosenberg testimony that the table had been purchased from them for approximately $21. (See Appendix 5.) Further, the table is neither hollowed out for micro-film developments as the prosecution avowed, nor does it differ in any way from any other console table of the same make.
All this was known to the prosecution, which had the table in its possession for a period, and who could have checked the manufacturer's and the department store’s code numbers, as did the defense when the table finally came to light again.
I- Documents show that Greenglass protested his innocence when arrested and arraigned, and that efforts were being made by a newspaper to provide him with counsel. (See Appendix 3, Section B.)
But Greenglass testified at the trial that he had told the F.B.I. the truth from the time of his arrest. The prosecution knew that this was a lie, but allowed it to stand.
II. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE PROMISED REWARDS AND IN FACT DID GIVE SUCH REWARDS TO SEVERAL WITNESSES IN THE ROSENBERG-SOBELL CASE
To obtain the perjured testimony and make certain that the perjured witnesses would not recant from the prosecutions position, the Attorney General's office gave immunities and rewarded these witnesses.
A- Witness Max Elitcher testified that he believed Morton Sobell to be a spy. Elitcher's testimony in the trial was the only direct association of Sobell with espionage. (By nature of the "conspiracy" charge, all testimony against the Rosenbergs automatically applied to Sobell.)
Elitcher admitted in court that he faced a perjury indictment for having denied Communist Party membership on a government application for employment. He stated that he "hoped for the best" as a consequence of his testimony.
To this day Mr. Elitcher has not been arrested or indicted or tried on this perjury charge. Moreover, a document from the Rogge firm discloses plans for discussions with the F.B.I. to guarantee Elitcher’s salary in "sensitive" employment. (See Appendix 3, Section E.)
B- A document from the Rogge firm discloses that the prosecution shifted the trial from New Mexico because the prosecution feared that David Greenglass might get a harsh sentence before a Federal judge in that state. (See Appendix 3, Section E.)
This document indicates further that a promise was made to David and Mrs. Greenglass that neither would appear as defendants. But when the Rosenberg defense counsel charged that a "deal" was being made, the prosecution, according to the document, hastened to inform the Rogge firm that Greenglass "would now have to consider" becoming a defendant. (See Appendix 3, Section E.)
Another memorandum indicates that the prosecution held out hope of a suspended sentence to David Greenglass in return for his cooperation, after it became necessary to make him a defendant. Greenglass was assured that should he have to spend any time in jail, Director of Prisons Bennett would arrange for special treatment. Bennett is the same official who chose Alcatraz as the place where Morton Sobell has been doomed to spend thirty years. (See Appendix 3, Section D.)
Following the sentencing of David Greenglass, the prosecution publicly declared that it would see to it that Greenglass served no more than five years. He will be eligible for parole in 1955.
C- According to Mrs. Greenglass' own testimony, she herself was directly involved in atomic espionage. Yet she was never arrested, indicted or tried.
It cannot be argued that the prosecution used leniency in regard to Mrs. Greenglass as a woman and a mother, for this very same prosecution rushed Mrs. Ethel Rosenberg, a mother of two children to the electric chair on June 19, 1953.
Thus the prosecution has rewarded witnesses who committed perjury with immunities, economic advantages, and favored treatment.
III. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE DELIBERATELY ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL CAMPAIGN OF MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS THROUGH PRESS RELEASES PRIOR TO THE TRIAL AND THUS FALSIFIED ESSENTIAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE, INFLUENCING PUBLIC OPINION TO PREJUDGE THE DEFENDANTS
In violation of long-standing principles, the Attorney General’s office tried Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Morton Sobell in the press and on radio and television before bringing them to trial. This was done by "planting" inflammatory stories.
In one instance, as illustrated by one of the Rogge documents, government attorneys held special conferences with Mr. Oliver Pilat, a reporter for the New York Post, who was preparing pre-trial stories on the case. (See Appendix 3, Section C.)
An unprecedented volume of pre-trial press releases were issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Justice Department and the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and created a definite preconception of the defendant's guilt, and made a fair trial virtually impossible.
These pre-trial press releases affirmed the guilt of the petitioners; "disclosed" alleged evidence in the press which was never produced at the trial; asserted that the defendants were Communists and that this ideological tie motivated them, and connected them with Fuchs and other self-confessed spies who, it was claimed, were wholly responsible for the Soviet development of the atom bomb.
More than 600 feature newspaper stories based on prosecution press releases attested to the degree with which the entire community was saturated with these press releases before and during the trial of the defendants in the case. Public hostility to these defendants was aroused to such an extent that public preconception of their guilt was generally acknowledged. It thus became virtually impossible for these defendants to have a fair trial. It may be stated that this pre-trial publicity emanated from the offices of the then Attorney General Howard McGrath and F. B. I. Director J. Edgar Hoover, as well as the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
The kind of stories that were given to the press upon the arrest of Morton Sobell are also typical. Statements which the press attributed to the then U. S. Attorney Irving Saypol, and never denied by him, said that Sobell was a "close personal friend of Julius Rosenberg"; that Rosenberg "recruited Sobell as a member of the ring"; and "told Sobell to leave the country". No such evidence was ever produced at the trial.
On August 18, 1950, the New York Journal ran the headline "Arrest N.Y. Man As Reds' A-Spy' and juxtaposed a large photograph of Morton Sobell. The New York Times in its prominent page-one story quoted U. S. Attorney Saypol as follows: "Mr. Saypol said that Sobell had many dealings with Rosenberg in the conspiracy to supply Russia with atomic secrets".
It was proven, and admitted in court by Judge Irving Kaufman, that Morton Sobell was not involved in atomic espionage. Judge Kaufman told Sobell: "The evidence in the case did not point to any activity on your part in connection with the atomic bomb project".
Thus the prosecution deliberately issued false information to the press before the trial.
During the very course of the trial the prosecution released to the press a story involving one William Perl, alleging that he had confessed to having knowledge of the supposed espionage activities of the Rosenbergs and Sobell. Two years later, Mr. Perl was brought to trial, at which time the prosecution admitted that there never had been such a confession.
An opinion by the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals called this conduct -in regard to the Perl matter "reprehensible" and said that if the point had been raised by the defense during the trial, it would have been grounds for granting a new trial.
The Perl "confession" was timed to adduce inculpating evidence through mass media of communication and to convey to the public and the jury the idea that the defendants were further involved in espionage. The prohibition to jurors that they were to shun newspaper stories of the trial was by-passed by the creation of a "disassociated" story that was surreptitious and false.
The prosecution caused to be published in the press an extensive list of witnesses numbering approximately 120. Five of every, six of these were not called. But the public and the jury were informed through the device of this extensively publicized list of witnesses that 120 people would testify to the guilt of the Rosenbergs and Sobell in connection with atomic espionage, while in fact there were only three witnesses who gave testimony against the Rosenbergs, and Sobell. (David Greenglass and Ruth Greenglass testified primarily against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and Max Elitcher testified against Morton Sobell. [sic]
The list of these non-called witnesses included the above-mentioned William Perl and General Leslie R. Groves, Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer and Dr. Harold C. Urey. It is now clear that at least one of our top atomic scientists, Dr. Urey, was never consulted by any prosecution official prior to the trial as to whether or not he had information bearing on the case or whether he would appear as a prosecution witness. His name was added to the "list" to lend weight to the prosecution case.
Dr. Urey subsequently expressed an adverse opinion of the prosecution's case, and asked for executive clemency, stating that in his opinion the Rosenbergs and Sobell were not guilty of the crime with which they were charged. He declared that the prosecution's case was built on "patently perjured testimony" and requested an interview with the Attorney General. The interview was denied. (See Appendix 6.)
The only possible purpose for the well publicized list of "witnesses" in the Rosenberg-Sobell case was to create an atmosphere so hostile to the defendants that their convictions became an absolute certainty.
To create a situation in which the public mind is compelled, by its natural respect for the opinion of an agency of government, to condemn in advance of trial persons accused of a crime, is a direct interference with justice.
An investigation of these practices will aid in restoring an objective atmosphere vital to the current appeals by Morton Sobell.
IV. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE ATTEMPTED AND STILL ATTEMPTS TO KEEP FROM THE COURTS DOCUMENTS THAT REVEAL THE PERJURIES AND THE PART PLAYED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IN OBTAINING THESE PERJURIES
The Attorney General's office has fought and continues to fight against any examination of the new documents, because these documents point to the complicity by that office itself in the perjuries of the Greenglasses, Schneider and other witnesses
Morton Sobell, in his appeal for a new trial, asks that this evidence be examined on grounds that if the documents had been presented in the original trial, the jury might have reached a different verdict. An investigation of these perjuries may finally permit the courts to judge the appeal of Morton Sobel1 in the light of fact rather than fiction.
However, the Attorney General's office opposes Morton Sobell's request that the courts examine the newly-discovered documents. It voiced the same determined opposition to the examination of these documents by the courts when they came to light shortly before the execution of the Rosenbergs.
It is not uncommon in our courts for prosecutors to appear at the side of defense counsel and acknowledge that newly discovered evidence has shed new light on a trial. Prosecutors have stood before judges and pleaded for the speedy release of prisoners because subsequent revelations had created the gravest doubt of their guilt.
Not so in the Rosenberg-Sobell case. The Attorney General's office has sought to escape from the consequences of its acts by preventing the courts from studying the new evidence or reviewing the trial record. (It must be remembered that the Rosenberg-Sobel1 case has never been granted a review by the Supreme Court and that the Attorney General's office has opposed every motion for a review.)
The Attorney General’s office shielded the perjuries of the prosecution witnesses because in doing so it shielded itself.
V. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE ENGAGED IN THE USE OF MENTAL TORTURE AGAINST THE ROSENBERGS AND MENTAL TORTURE, AS WELL AS PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, AGAINST MORTON SOBELL
In its efforts to escape reprimands or punishment for its disregard of human tradition of Justice in the Rosenberg-Sobell case, the Attorney General Is office initiated and sanctioned a campaign of mental torture against Ethel and Julius Rosenberg and Morton Sobell. It did so in the desperate hope that one or two or all three, to alleviate their plight, would confess guilt and thus save the prestige of the Attorney General’s office.
We charge that in the Rosenberg-Sobell case the dictum of the Constitution of our country against cruel and inhuman punishment has been flouted beyond the comprehension of sensitive, upright citizens.
A- Shortly after being sentenced, Ethel Rosenberg was removed from her confinement in New York and transferred to the death house at Sing Sing on orders of the Director of Prisons, holding office under jurisdiction of the Attorney General. This was done despite the fact that she and her husband, who was in turn transferred to the death house at his own request to be near his wife, were then preparing their first appeal from their conviction and sentences.
B- On Monday, June 1, 1953, the United States Marshall, acting on instruction from the Attorney General's office, visited Ethel and Julius Rosenberg at Sing Sing’s death house and informed them that they would be electrocuted on their 14th wedding anniversary, June 18, 1953.
C- The U. S. Attorney General's office repeatedly offered the Rosenbergs their lives in turn for a "confession". The Rosenbergs died swearing they were innocent and had nothing to confess.
Three weeks before they were executed, Julius Rosenberg made a public protest at this attempt to torture them into a false confession. Julius Rosenberg made known that on the instructions of U. S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell, he had just been visited by Director of Prisons Bennett who had made another "offer" of leniency in return for "cooperation". (See Appendix 7.) In violation of law and custom, the defendants did not have the benefit of the presence of their legal counsel when this visit was made.
D- Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on instruction from the Attorney General's office, were at Sing Sing’s death house during the days preceding the execution, arguing with Ethel and Julius Rosenberg separately, informing each that the other had confessed", appealing to each to "save the other" by a "confession". They continued this mental torture of the Rosenbergs until a few moments before the execution of the couple.
E- The very "arrest" of Morton Sobell began with an act of illegality and brutality on the part of subordinates of the Attorney General's office. Morton Sobell swore in an affidavit that he was kidnapped from Mexico. (See Appendix 8.) This affidavit has never been denied by the Attorney General’s off ice. Briefly, the affidavit relates that in August 1950, shortly before his intended return to the United States from Mexico, Sobell was kidnapped from his vacation apartment, beaten up, carried to the United States border, and then arrested by agents of the F.B.I. Kidnapped with Sobell were his wife, Helen Sobell, and their two children. The Mexican authorities have declared that persons responsible for this attack on Sobell and his family were not Mexican police.
It was the obvious intention of the F.B.I. to terrorize Sobell into a "confession" which he says he cannot truthfully make because he is innocent.
Undoubtedly, too, the Department of Justice derived satisfaction from the headlines following Sobell's arrest, which related that a "would-be-escape" had been apprehended by an alert federal police.
F- While Morton Sobell's appeal was still pending, he was suddenly transferred to Alcatraz prison. The transfer was effected at that time despite a contrary recommendation to the Attorney General’s office by Judge J. Weinfeld of the United States District Court. Alcatraz, established for incorrigible criminals who are deemed beyond rehabilitation, was certainly not the prison for Morton Sobell, even if he were guilty of the crime charged against him.
Because his family resides in the East, and because the courts of jurisdiction on his appeals are in the East, Morton Sobell is now virtually isolated from his family and attorney. He is unable to expedite the handling of his appeals except by the most infrequent contact with his wife or counsel.
VI. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, BY DECEPTION AND MISREPRESENTATION, INTERFERED WITH THE COURTS’ HANDLING OF THE CASE
As has been indicated before, the Attorney General's office came to the courts with the type of falsifications it used on an unsuspecting and uninformed public. But, in addition, it stood before the courts in a most irregular manner on at least two other occasions.
A- The Attorney General conferred privately with the late Chief Justice Vinson immediately after Mr. Justice Douglas had granted the Rosenbergs a stay of execution. This conference was reported by syndicated columnist Marquis Childs. There would have been nothing irregular if the Attorney General had conferred with Chief Justice Vinson on a matter not before the Court, but this private conference could not help but place the Rosenberg case before the Supreme Court in a prejudiced manner.
The Attorney General's office, an Executive Department of the Government, thus sought to influence the Supreme Court in an action which must be described as unconstitutional.
B- A reading of Mr. Justice Frankfurter's opinion reveals that during the extraordinary special session on June 19, 1953, called at the instigation of the Attorney General’s office, the Justices were led to understand that even in the event of an adverse decision, the Rosenbergs would not be put to death that day. (See Appendix 9.) Whether this promise was given on the grounds of respect to the Jewish Sabbath, which began that evening, or to permit a further appeal to the President for clemency or to the courts on points of law, is not presently known.
What is clear is that the Justices appear to have been assured that an adverse decision that afternoon would not lead to an execution a few hours later. Yet while the Court was in session, the executioner was standing by at Sing Sing on orders from the Attorney General's office.
VII. THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE, BY WITHHOLDING INFORMATION BY DECEPTION AND BY OUTRIGHT FALSEHOODS, MISLED TWO PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO HAD BEFORE THEM APPEALS FOR CLEMENCY
The Attorney General’s office, having misled the public, the lower courts, and the Supreme Court, permitted itself the same course of action toward the authority of final appeal for clemency, the President of the United States.
It misled two Presidents on at least four aspects of the case.
It concealed from President Harry S. Truman the fact that an appeal for clemency had been made by His Holiness, Pope Pius XII and by the Rabbinates of France and Italy.
It gave President Dwight D. Eisenhower the impression that the crime had been committed for money. The monetary motive was cited by the President to a group of clergymen appealing for clemency. Attributing the alleged crime to a monetary motive was contrary to the prosecution’s claim in court that the crime had been inspired by political motives, a claim on which it justified the introduction of testimony allegedly connecting the Rosenbergs with Communism.
The Attorney General's office informed President Eisenhower that a member of a ministers’ delegation seeking an audience was a Communist, an utter falsehood calculated to prejudice the President against the ministers’ appeal for mercy.
Lastly, it advised the President that the Rosenberg-Sobell case had been reviewed many times by the courts with the result that the President based his final denial of clemency on this ground. The Attorney General’s office knew that the courts had never reviewed the case because of its own opposition to such a review. It must, of necessity, therefore have concealed from the President the following statement made by Supreme Court Justice Black on June 19, 1953: "It is not amiss to point out that this Court has never reviewed this record and has never affirmed the fairness of the trial below. Without an affirmance of the fairness of the trial by the highest court of the land, there may always be questions as to whether these executions were legally and rightfully carried out".
CONCLUSION
The laws and customs governing the administration of justice in our country were achieved by the people of the United States through tremendous efforts and sacrifices over a period of two hundred years. Freedom from arbitrary arrest, guarantees that political opinions would not become grist for a prosecutor's mill, prohibition against the public dissemination of prejudicial and inflammatory charges — all these and more have been sought so that the people of our country might live without fear of unjust arrest, unjust trial and unjust punishment.
In the Rosenberg-Sobell case, the office of the Attorney General of our country violated and continues to violate to this day these laws and customs.
This charge is not made lightly; it is made with proof that has withstood the test of investigation.
An Attorney General's office that conducts its affairs in such disregard of law and human life menaces the true administration of justice and the life and interests of every citizen.
If permitted to go on unchecked, such conduct can bring only further sorrow and disgrace to the people of our country. There can be no justice for Morton Sobell so long as such conduct is allowed to continue.
The conduct of the Rosenberg-Sobell case by the Attorney General's office must be thoroughly aired and investigated, so that a peril to our country's welfare and good name may be removed.
We turn to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate of the United States with a request for such an investigation.
NATIONAL ROSENBERG--SOBELL COMMITTEE
1050 Sixth Avenue
New York 18, N. Y.
APPENDIX
1. United States vs. Berger, 295 U.S. 78, 88
Griffin vs. The United States 183 F 2nd 990
2. The following is the text of the affidavit by F. B. I. Agent John Harrington.
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK AFFIDAVIT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK C 134-245
JOHN A. HARRINGTON, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and have been so employed since 1943.
On March 26, 1951, during the course of the trial of the above-named defendants, I met Special Agents Walter Roetting and Lester 0. Gallagher in the vicinity of Courtroom 110 in the United States Courthouse. I was informed by these agents that they had located a photographer who had identified a photograph of Julius Rosenberg as a person whose passport photograph he had taken. At this time, I was informed that the photographer was at 99 Park Raw, New York City.
I communicated these facts to Mr. Irving H. Saypol, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who directed that the photographer be brought to the United States Courthouse to confirm the identity of Rosenberg previously made. I communicated this information to Agents Roetting and Gallaher [sic].
Shortly thereafter, I again met Agent Gallaher [sic] who had with him a man whom I now know as Ben Schneider, a photographer of 99 Park Row, New York City. I brought Mr. Schneider into Courtroom 110, to the fore part of the courtroom inside the railing where there were two vacant seats. I instructed Mr. Schneider to look round the court room and see if he saw anybody he recognized. I did not point out any specific person to Mr. Schneider. Mr. Schneider looked around and, when he saw Julius Rosenberg, he stated to me that that was the man whose pictures he had taken.
At no time did I point out or in any other way indicate who was Julius Rosenberg or the place where he was located in the courtroom to Mr. Schneider.
JOHN A. HARRINGTON
Sworn to before me this
lst day of December, 1952
3. The following are the texts of the documents emanating from the office of 0. John Rogge.
A) The handwritten memorandum by David Greenglass:
Saturday
June 1950
These are my approximate statements to the F. B. I.
1. I stated that I met Gold in N. M. at 209 Hick St., my place. They told me that I had told him to come back later because I didn't have it ready. I didn't remember this but I allowed it in the statement. When he came back again I told them that I gave him the envelope with the stuff not expecting payment and then he gave me an envelope. Later I found that it contained $500.
2. I told them that on a visit to me in Nov. 1944 my wife asked me if I would give information. I made sure to tell the F. B. I. that she was transmitting this info from my brother-in-law Julius and was not her own idea. She was doing this because she felt I would be angry if she didn’t t ask me.
I then mentioned a meeting with a man who I didn't know, arranged by Julius. I established the approximate meeting place but no exact date. The place was a car, an Olds owned by my father-in-law, at somewhere above 42nd St. on lst Ave. in Manhattan. I talked to the man but I could recall very little about which we spoke. I though [sic] it night be that he wanted me to think about finding out about H.E. lenses used in experiment tests to determine data on the A bomb.
I made a general statement on my age, etc.; you know, the usual thing.
I mentioned no other meting with anyone.
One more thing, I identified Gold by a tom or cut piece of card, but I didn't tell them where or how I got it. Also, I definitely placed my wife out of the room at the time of Gold's visit.
Also, I didn’t know who sent Gold to me.
I also made a pencil sketch of the H.E. mold set up for an experiment. But this I'll tell you, I can honestly say the information I gave Gold may be not at all what I said in the statement.
MEMORANDUM
TO: FILE June 19, 1950
FROM: RHG
Re: David Greenglass
OJR and I visited Mrs. Greenglass at her home, 285 Rivington Street, Brooklyn, New York, at 4:00 P.M. Sunday, June 18, 1950. She was in bed as she had just returned from the hospital.
We first discussed the question of arranging a meeting of various relatives at our office to discuss financial problems. The relatives proposed are as follows:
1. Abe. Feit
1039 Union St., Brooklyn, N.Y.
Tel. STerling 3-6473
Business Address:
810 Washington St. - Tel. ST 3-60732. Mr. Feit is father-in-law of Louis Cohen,
80 Lefferts Ave.
Tel. Jacob Cohen & Son. BUckminster 2-71033. Norman Brown (Friend of the family)
7981 Louis St. Tel. GR 4-3609
4. Barney Zerkel (A cousin)
2124 Fast 26th St. Tel. DE 2-0312
5. Sam Greenglass
1384 Carroll St. Telephone:
6. Rose Stein (Friend)
7. Stel1a Silverman (Friend)
There was subsequently present during the conference: Issy Feit, Sam Greenglass, Bernard Greenglass, and Louis Abel.
Mrs. Greenglass discussed her visit to New Mexico. She was there between March 1945 and March 1946. They had been married in 1942. She feels that New Mexico is a very bad place to try the case since the citizens did not like GI’s, because of the big boom and then the big slack, because of anti-semitism [sic] and because the local citizens all felt bitter about the wives of the GI's taking jobs there. She was employed in Albuquerque by the OPA and temporarily by the Soil Conservation Office.
As to her husband, she stated that he had a "tendency to hysteria". At other times he would become delirious and once when he had the grippe he ran nude through the hallway, shrieking of "elephants", "Lead Pants".
She had known him since she was ten years old. She said that he would say things were so even if they were not. He talked of suicide as if he were a character in the movies but she didn't think he would do it. They had been under surveillance by the FBI for several weeks. In particular, they had noticed a car of the Acme Construction Company, 1400 First Avenue in Manhattan. She ascertained there was no such Company. (There is an Acme Construction Company at 1402 Fulton Street in Brooklyn). She was interviewed at the hospital by two FBI men, Mr. Tully and Mr. Wood. One was tall, ruddy and dark. The other she described as toothy and short. They assured her that they had nothing against her. She described her stay in Albuquerque and stated that she could not remember all of her addresses. Since it was difficult for GI’s to get rooms for a long period, they had lived in five or six places. She had only been to Los Alamos to a party for a few hours one time. She had remembered no visitors at her house. She had notice of the project and signed an affidavit for it. She knew her mail was censored. She would not have allowed her husband to bring anything home after Hiroshima had disclosed what the project was. She intended to raise a family and did not want that kind of material around. In the future she will refer everyone to her lawyer.
She pointed out Dave did not ask f or the job; that he was going overseas, that they have been watched constantly and feels as if they are the object of persecution. Shortly before their accident the FBI asked if they had a specimen of uranium in the house, in the course of what they call a routine investigation. One of their friends had a similar experience.
People in the neighborhood want to raise a petition.
All newspapers are to be referred to her lawyer.
People keep flocking in the house to offer support and advice including that perhaps a right-wing lawyer should be selected. The Jewish Daily Forward, which is certainly not a leftist newspaper, is very excited about the anti-semitic [sic] issue and has offered a lawyer. Mrs. Greenglass urged OJR to try to get a court appointment for himself and he agreed to try. OJR pointed out that if Dave was innocent he should talk; that if not it would be advisable not to talk but to let the Government prove its case. The third course was that of cooperation. That was also discussed at length.
There was a long discussion about JR.
Questions to be looked up:
1. Was the arrest valid - was he held in detention before the complaint issued?
2. What is the effect of the complaint?
3. What do the cases hold on the intent to harm the Government?
4. Statements of Co-conspirators.
5. Venue.
6. Joinder.
MEMO
8/23/50 FROM RHG TO RHG
TO FILE
Re: Greenglass
Lane, the Assistant U, S. Attorney, called me at 1:00 o'clock and told me that something important had come up with respect to New Mexico and would I and/or Fabricant see him this afternoon. I told him that I could and HJF would come with me.
Lane wanted to know when OJR would return and I told him that we had expected him and in fact were trying to ascertain exactly when he would return. HJF and I went over to see Lane at 4:00 o'clock. He told us that Bloch had earlier in the day argued to the judge at the arraignment of his clients that they were absolutely innocent and that from the fact that Greenglass was not indicted but merely named as a co-conspirator in the New York indictment, it looked to Bloch as if the government had made a deal with you as Greenglass' attorney. Lane felt that we would now have to consider the question of whether it was OK that Greenglass be indicted here in a superseding indictment and not merely named as a co-conspirator. He would then be a defendant and be tried here in New York but would testify against the others. (See also the Newspaper clipping)
The New Mexico District Attorney, acting on instructions from the Attorney General's office, with whom Lane had been in touch, would agree to such a procedure. Lane pointed out that he thought it was obviously advantageous for both sides for the matter to be decided in New York. HJF told Lane that if there was no hurry we would not want to give a definite commitment but that it would seem that such an arrangement would probably be approved by OJR.
I thought at least that I should make a purely off the record inquiry as to whether Dave could not testify as a co-conspirator in New York but not as a defendant and that the question of his plea be postponed. But Lane said that something should be done on this before September 6th and reiterated again it was to our advantage not to take any chance of getting before a judge in New Mexico, clearly indicating that he felt that in a small state like New Mexico they might well prefer to give a good stiff sentence (of course he added he did not want to sell us on anything and so forth).
There was no indication that Ruth is to be indicted and neither Herb nor I wanted to raise the point. I had the inference that they were not planning to indict her but I could be wrong and I didn't even want to ask the question, though you may desire to do so.
Lane also informed us that he believed they found nothing on the bag in the way of fingerprints.
There was some discussion between HJF and Lane on the question of Sobell but Lane did not know what Sobell planned to do.
I think it best not to discuss this with Ruth until you return as she might get somewhat excited about it and at any rate we don't have to do anything before September 6th.
We learned today Friday that Lane thinks Dave should agree to a plea in N.Y. on the New Mexico indictment; the New Mexico papers would all be sent here and then there would be the N.Y. indictment.
Also, I had lunch with Ruth, Pilot [sic], and HJF. We looked at Pilot’s [sic] articles. They look OK, but HJF as a precaution told Lane previously he would insist Pilot [sic] who already had 2 conferences with Saypol, showed the draft of the articles to Saypol or Lane.
M E M O
TO: OJR
FROM: RHG 8/21/50
Re: Greenglass
I spoke to Ruth Greenglass this morning. She is feeling better and so is Dave apparently about the fact that they were not named as defendants. From Helen I learned that she may have been a little upset about it originally but now she feels the thing is moving smoothly.
However, Dave is worried about something else which I was able to reassure him through Ruth. Some of his cellmates in the Tombs have been telling him horror stories about the treatment he will get. I told her that we were happy to say that few of our clients went to jail but those who did had never had such a complaint. I further assured her that Saypol would not permit any mistreatment. But the thing that impressed her most however was that I told her that you were on friendly terms with Bennett, Director of of [sic] Prisons. This impressed her because she feels that Dave may not get a suspended sentence and is worried about the kind of treatment he will get. I assured her that if 'he does go to jail for a period of time that you would certainly not hesitate to speak to Bennett and to make sure that Dave got good and fair treatment.
E) The typewritten document revealing plans for F.B.I. assistance to Max Elitcher.
MEMORANDUM
To: OJR
From: HJF March 19, 1951
In connection with our conversation this morning wherein I told you of Elitcher's particular problem concerning which you suggested that it would be profitable to speak with MacInerny [sic], the following is a thumb-nail sketch of the client.
He was a City College classmate of Rosenberg, Sobell, Perl, et al. After graduation from City College in 1938, Elitcher was employed by the Navy Department as electrical engineer. His work for the Bureau of Ordnance was primarily in the field of fire control.
As appeared from the trial, with the Rosenbergs and Sobell, Elitcher had joined the Communist Party and was on the fringe of the spy apparatus created by Rosenberg. Elitcher never gave any classified material or other information to Rosenberg. However, he was constantly sought out and urged to participate in the espionage activities of the latter.
In 1948, he resigned from the Navy Department and took private employment with the Reeves Instrument Co. in this city where he was a project engineer in the field of fire control. The work which he did was classified and Elitcher never did receive clearance from the Navy for this private employment. Sobell was employed in the same plant in a similar capacity.
In July, 1950, Elitcher was interviewed by the FBI and even from the inception of this interview to the present time, he and his wife have cooperated fully with the government in connection with their prosecution of the aforesaid espionage ring. As you know, Elitcher and his wife testified before the grand jury not only in connection with the conspiracy indictment but subsequently in connection with the indictment of Perl for perjury.
The importance of Elitcher’s cooperation cannot possibly be underestimated since he was the government’s lead-off witness and provided the testimony which links Rosenberg and Sobell.
Shortly before the spy trial got under way, it was suggested to Elitcher by Reeves that it would be best if he resigned from his employment with Reeves Instrument Co. Elitcher did resign effective as of the last working day prior to the beginning of the trial.
He has never been named as a defendant or as a co-conspirator in any prosecution and it is reasonable to assume he never will be.
It is equally reasonable to assume that his cooperation in subsequent prosecutions by the government will be essential to the success of said prosecutions and it is also apparent that Elitcher will continue to cooperate.
At the present time, Elitcher, whose income in private employment was in the $8,000 range, would find a ready demand for his services at salaries in excess of $8,000, needs a profitable employment and preferably in the field in which his qualifications are tops, to wit: fire control work.
It is evident that he will not be employed until his loyalty and security status is cleared up. Whereas, normally an engineer with his qualifications would be employed with clearance to follow, here Elitcher feels quite correctly that he cannot go to a prospective employer without relating some of the events which have heretofore transpired. This recital would in all probability nullify the usual course of security investigations and clearance. Under the circumstances, Elitcher would like to initiate formally or otherwise some procedure whereby this security status would be cleared up or whereby he could be employed with a full recital of the story and subject to clearance.
In other words, if Elitcher could be assured that when he sought employment either in classified or other electrical engineering works that the appropriate authorities would come forth at some future time when his security investigation was under way and state things of commendatory nature such as the circumstances would permit, then to some extent, the initial obstacle to employment would be overcome.
It is to this end that I think your talk with McInerny could be helpful. If the Department of Justice or the FBI were to furnish Elitcher's prospective employers with a letter stating that they would be willing to appear or give testimony in his behalf at any future security investigation, it would be a most desirable achievement.
4. The text of the affidavit by Bernard Greenglass is as follows:
State of New York
County of New York SS
My name is Bernard Greenglass. I live at 64 Sheriff St. New York, N.Y. I am the brother of Ethel Rosenberg and David Greenglass; Ethel is my elder sister and David is my younger brother.
Some time in the year 1946 my brother David told me he had taken a sample of uranium from Los Alamos without permission of the authorities. He told me this at his home 265 Rivington Street New York, N.Y. I do not remember whether Ruth, David’s wife was present at that time.
Sometime later, and I don't remember whether it was a year or more later or sometime before David’s arrest in June, 1950, David told me that he had thrown this uranium into the East River.
About a month ago, on a Friday night, David Rosenberg, Julius Rosenberg's brother came to my home to discuss the case of Ethel and Julius. There was also present Ruth Greenglass and my mother Tessie Greenglass. The subject of uranium came up. I told Dave Rosenberg the same story that I am stating here.
Ruth, David's wife, said "David took a sample of uranium but he threw it in the East River."
I told this same story about the uranium to my sister Ethel during my visit to her about a month and one half ago on a Saturday at the Sing Sing death house.
I also told the same story to Rabbi Koslowe at his home in Mamaroneck, N.Y., in the presence of David Rosenberg on the evening of May 25, 1953.
I have voluntarily related this story again to Emanuel H. Bloch at his office at 401 Broadway, New York, N.Y, on this 31st day of May, 1953.
The above is true.
Bernard Greenglass
Sworn to before me this 31st
day of May 1953.
Gloria Agrin, Notary Public
State of N.Y.
Com. Exp. Mar. 30, 1954
5. Excerpt from the affidavit on the console table by a staff member of Macy’s Department Store:
STATE OF NEW YORK )
: SS
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------
On March 14, 1953, there was submitted to me for observation and examination, certain photographs of a console table, depicting various views of the same and parts of the same. I have marked each of these photographs with my signature; there are a total of six photographs and I have marked them "A" to "F" both inclusive.
I make the following statement voluntarily and based upon what I observed from the said photographs. I am assuming that the photographs, and the markings as shown on the console table, are genuine:
(a) The table is a type and style which was handled and sold by Macy's in the furniture and occasional furniture department. It is possible that Macy’s handled and sold the particular table shown in these photographs during the years 1944 and 1945.
(b) The markings on the table are not in sufficient detail for me to state that Macy's handled or sold this particular table, or this type or style of table during any particular year.
(b) The table would appear to have been manufactured by the Brandt Manufacturing Company and the markings "N N 4046-760-F4-1997" on the under side of the table would indicate the following information:
"N N" means Macy’s occasional furniture department
"4046" is the pattern number assigned by Brandt Manufacturing Company to this style in the year 1940
"760" means the Brandt Manufacturing Company Cabinet Works of Hagerstown, Md.
'"F4" is a symbol of a Macy season; "F4" was last used as a symbol in the fall season of 1936; however, "E4" was last used as a symbol in the early part of 1944. A view of photographs "E" and "F", which are close-ups, show that the seasonal symbol could be read as either "F4" or "E4". The use of "E4" would be consistent with the manufacturer’s pattern number.
"1997" is Macy's retail selling price of $19.97.
(d) This console table was one of the lower priced tables sold in Macy's furniture department some time during or subsequent to the year 1944, if the symbol "E4" is correct.
6. Text of telegram which Dr. Harold C. Urey sent to President Eisenhower on June 12, 1953:
The case against the Rosenbergs outrages logic and justice. It depends on the testimony of Greenglass and his wife, both confessed spies and alleged accomplices of the Rosenbergs. Greenglass is supposed to have revealed to the Russians the ‘secret’ of the atomic bomb. Though the information supposed to have been transmitted could have been important, a man of Greenglass' capacity is wholly incapable of transmitting the physics, chemistry and mathematics of the atomic bomb to anyone. He and his wife were the only ones who pretended to connect the Rosenbergs with atomic espionage. New evidence makes even more plain what was plain enough before, that the prosecution's case has no logic in it, and that it depends upon the blowing up of patently perjured testimony. I tried to see the Attorney General this past week but was unable to secure an appointment. On behalf of all those interested in the defense, I ask to be allowed to present my understanding of the case to you, Mr. President.
HAROLD UREY
Dear Manny:
After the incident of the special visit from the emissary of the Attorney General of the U.S., I rushed off a telegram to you and I wrote up an account of what took place at the interview but when I heard you were going to see us the next day I preferred to verbally give you all the details. After reading the bald lie of the Justice Department that Mr. Bennett's visit was routine and that they intimated no deal was offered I feel it my duty to present the facts as they took place last Tuesday.
First, let me tell you that the mental torture Ethel and I went through took a very great toll and has revealed the naked ugly brutality of police state tyranny.
On Monday, June lst Mr. Carrol [sic] and Mr. Foley, U. S. marshals were up to serve us with papers setting down our executions for our 14th wedding anniversary, June 18th, 11:00 p.m. My wife and I are to be humbly united in death on the very day of our greatest happiness, our wedding day. They were very pleasant but they had a job, a distasteful one at that to do and they pointedly asked me before they left if they could do anything for us and I said yes -- bring us good news. Their visit was routine.
Tuesday at 11:00 a.m. after my visit with Ethel I was ushered into the counsel room and there was Mr. Bennett, Federal Director of the Prison Bureau. Mind you this was the first time I was alone with anyone and without an officer or Sing Sing official present (I believe its [sic] against the regulations here). We were alone for about an hour while the principal keeper, Mr. Kelley, sat outside the room while the door was closed.
Mr. Bennett opened the conversation and said "Mr. Brownell, the Attorney General, sent me to see you and he wants you to know that if you want to cooperate with the government, you can do so through me and I will be able to make arrangements for you to talk with any proper officials. Furthermore, if you, Julius, can convince these officials that you have fully cooperated with the government they will have a basis to recommend clemency". (Routine?? -- No deal??)
You can realize how shocked I was but I didn’t want to lose my temper or self-control and I said in the first place we are innocent, that is the whole truth and therefore we know nothing that would come under the meaning of the word cooperate. "By the way, did you tell our lawyer that you were coming to see us about this matter". He said no, your lawyer will see you tomorrow. (He knew that's why he came) I told him to get in touch with you as it was the only proper thing to do and he said he would later on.
You mean to tell me Mr. Bennett that a great government like ours is coming to two insignificant people like us and say "cooperate or die". It is a terrible thing to do to offer to barter life by "talking". It isn't necessary to beat me with clubs but such a proposal is like what took place during the middle ages equivalent to the screw and the rack. You are putting a tremendous pressure on me. He said "why do you know that I didn't sleep last night when I knew I had to see you and Ethel the next day the next day and talk to you about this matter. Why, I was terribly worried". How do you think we feel sitting here waiting for death for over two years when ve are innocent. My family has gone through great suffering. My sister had a nervous breakdown. My aged ailing mother is tormented. Our children have known much emotional and mental agony. Then you talk to us about this.
Remember, Mr. Bennett, we love our country, it is our home, the land of my children and my family and we do not want its good name to be shamed and in justice and common decency we should be allowed to live to prove our innocence. He then said no, not a new trial; only by cooperating will there be a basis to ask for commutation. Look here, Julius, he said, you didn't deny that you do not know anything about this espionage. I certainly did and furthermore did you read the record, sir. He said he did not countered by saying you had dealings with Bentley. I never did and if you read the record she said on the stand she did not know me and never met me. You had dealings with Gold didn't you. Of course I didn't. He said on the stand he never knew me or met me. You should have read the record to be familiar with the facts. Oh, I read a newspaper account of it. (It is interesting to note how they are convinced of their own lies and of course they will not stick to the record.)
Listen Julius, I was just sent here but if you agree I will bring someone to see you who is thoroughly familiar with the case and you will try to convince him you have cooperated with the government. What do you want to do, have him convince me I am guilty when I am not. You want him to put ideas in my head you will only be satisfied when I say the things you want me to say but I will not lie about this matter.
Look, Julius, he said, Gordon Dean, the head of the Atomic Energy Commission is a very good friend of mine and if he is convinced that you have cooperated fully and told all you know about espionage he will speak to the President and recommend clemency. I don’t know anything about espionage since I am innocent and I think you should tell the Attorney General to recommend clemency because it is the just, humane and proper thing to do in this case. Our country has a reputation to maintain in the world and many of its friends are outraged at the barbaric sentence and the lack of justice in this case.
I know there has been a lot of publicity in this case but that is not germane; what is the point is that you have to convince the officials that you have cooperated. Well, Julius, why did your brother-in-law -involve you. I believe he did it to save his own skin also to try to make himself out to be a minor innocent dupe dominated by someone else so that he should not be held accountable for his own actions. Besides the government had caught the Greenglasses with the goods and they had to find some way to mitigate their own punishment. With my background of being fired for alleged communism from government service, because I was a union organizer and since he was a relative and knew me intimately and we had violent quarrels and there existed personal animosity between us, I was falsely involved. Also the prosecution saw a chance to make great political capital out of "communist-spy-atom-bomb" and my wife and I became scapegoats, wee straws tossed around by the political controversies that raged in the cold war. Why not go to the Greenglasses and get them to cooperate to tell the truth about this frameup.
You yourself Mr. Bennett, as head of the Prison Bureau know that Greenglass and Gold were together in the Tombs for 9 months, discussing the case, studying notes from a big looseleaf covered book, rehearsing testimony, talking to FBI agents, the prosecution and their attorneys. You know this because the records of the Tombs will show it and yet your department refused to give us an opportunity to subpoena these records to prove this. You know that Greenglass was coached on the A bomb sketch testimony both verbally and from notes. You know the prosecutor permitted the Greenglasses to perjure themselves. You know the prosecution caused Schneider to perjure himself. You know the government is preventing my wife's family from coming forth with exculpating testimony. You know that the prosecution has exculpating evidence that they are withholding from the court. In short we did not get a fair trial and we were framed. Now you want us to admit that their big lie is the truth. That we can never do. Sure, Mr. Bennett, we will cooperate fully - give us our day in court and under oath from the witness stand we will repeat the truth and at the same time we will be able to subpoena witnesses to prove our claim. That is the way to give us justice. Oh, no, Julius, no new trial; only by cooperating can you help yourself. But you can have the District Attorney to agree to one of our motion. [sic] Then we will put up or shut up and I am sure we will be vindicated. No, that is not germane; you have to cooperate with the government.
How about the death sentence. Even if the verdict were a true one, which we vehemently deny, we never should have gotten such a severe sentence. The history of our country in freeing war criminals, nazi and fascist, in not putting to death traitors and spies and yet for the first time the Rosenbergs are the worst criminals in all our history. You know as a reasoning man this is not so. All the facts in the case, the trial record and the sentence prove it was a means of coercion. The humane, proper and just action would be for our lives to be spared. We are a leading, peaceful country with a great prestige in the world and we must consider what the people will think about the fact that our government says to two people cooperate or die. Remember it would be in the best interest of our country to commute our sentence of death. "But Julius, I am giving you the opportunity to cooperate" he said.
Since Judge Kaufman made a terrible blunder with this outrageous sentence and he has the bull by the tail and he can't let go. That's right, Julius, we need you to help him change this sentence and you can do this by telling all you know. I cannot bail him out for his mistake for we never should have received this sentence and in fact we should never have been brought to trial.
Julius, all the courts upheld the constitution many times and all the officials in Washington believe you guilty. Why most everybody believes you guilty. You know that only one appeals court upheld the verdict of the original trial. Denial of certiorari does not pass on the merits of the case. At all other court actions we didn't get a hearing but only the right to file papers. This is the form of the law - not its spirit. Always such haste because they are afraid we will prove our innocence. Also people like Dr. Urey, Prof. Einstein, scientists, lawyers, men of letters, have grave doubts about the case after reading the record. The Pope, 3,000 Christian Church leaders, prominent rabbis and millions of people have asked for clemency. No, Julius, the Pope did not ask for clemency. Yes, he did and I have the articles from the Osservatore Romano to prove it. We had the record printed, the one that records the entire proceedings of the trial and people read it and they came away with grave doubts about the justice of the verdict. This record is available and will be read and the only way to cleanse this damning record is to let us live so we can prove our innocence.
Julius, the trial not being fair, the sentence being too severe and all the publicity are not germane to the issue; the only way is for you to cooperate and convince the officials in Washington they will have a basis to ask for clemency.
All these three years you say I am not telling the truth then if I say what you want me to say that would be cooperating and then it would be the truth. In good conscience I could not lend myself to this practice and I must say in effect this pressure on us is cruel and unconscienable [sic]. The only decent thing to do is to tell Mr. Brownell to recommend clemency.
It was 12:00 o'clock when he went in to see Ethel for a � hour now and then they brought me into the woman’s wing and he continued to try to browbeat us for another � hour till 1:00 p.m. Ethel will tell you about what took place during this hour.
At the end of our session the Warden walked into the women's wing and asked what is this all about and I told him Mr. Brownell sent Mr. Bennett to tell us if we cooperated with the government he would recommend clemency to the President. You will note the Warden was not present when the offer was made.
After I was in my cell again after 1:00 p.m. Mr. Bennett came over and he tried to convince me again to let him bring people who are familiar with the case and "you would submit to answer questions of what you know about this". Then I said why this would be like brainwashing, Mr. Bennett. He then asked if he could come to see me again and I said yes if he brings good news.
Ethel and I resolved not to see anyone except when you are present also. I have [sic] you a few of the details as best I can recollect them. I also told you some more of what took place at our last consultation. Excuse the penmanship, the rambling and the discontinuity but these are the true facts. The interview and visit was not routine; it was well planned, cold and calculated mental torture. In an arrogant manner, in utter disregard for ethics, justice, plain common decency and humanity we were told in effect cooperate or die - a dirty deal which the government needs to help hide a vicious frameup against two innocent people, in order to make political capital with this case and our lives.
Yes, they run the government, the courts and the press but they are beginning to worry about the people for they are sovereign and will not let this gross miscarriage of justice to stand.
This terror was visited on two defenseless people but it could not succeed because we are right and we refused to abandon our principles, our belief in democracy, freedom and the integrity of the individual. The people must be told all about what took place for there is great danger in our land if this fascist stuff is not stopped now. Anyway you look at it as it happened last Tuesday, we saw what police state methods means and it is terrifying to behold. After all the buildup in the newspapers they weakly deny that they made a dirty deal because they were exposed. The great difficulty is that by their control of the mass media of information they are continuously in small doses brain washing the readers and listeners about our case and the public is misinformed. Every effort must be made to spread the truth,
We must live to defeat the plans of the Justice Department to kill us because they couldn’t use us. I have faith that the people will learn the facts and save our lives and force the courts to stay our execution in order to see that we get justice in the time honored tradition of our great American heritage. What will be the answer of America to all this? We are still confident that the good name of our country will be maintained and we will live.
All my love --
Julie
You can understand counselor, that it isn't possible to remember all the words of the conversations that took place but if the brain washing session were recorded all that I wrote would be the gist of what took place stripped of fancy words and transparent camouflage. In effect he told me you not understand we control the courts and you'll never get anywhere there. Also he displayed an utter disregard for the feelings and conscience of the people of the world as if to say we call the tune and if they don't like it they can lump it. Besides it is apparent that he has a contempt for democracy and the traditional freedoms of our country and believes in an authoritarian approach to this matter. In so many words he said, only if I become an informer, do and say things that satisfy the officials in Washington, then they will let us live. Here in practice they show the meaning of all the fine words that they give lip service to. These are acts of desperation, signs of a deep illness and I fear that in the moments of madness they will disregard better judgment and the sane counsel of calm and intelligent responsible leaders of the government and in frustration and hate commit double murder.
I have read your papers on the writ of mandamus action and on the motion of illegal sentence and the law and logic of our argument is unassailable and without doubt will raise substantial questions of law. Why the courts don't even bother to read and study the questions we raise. They don't even make a pretense of going through the motions of even giving us the form of the law. It seems to me that when it comes to our case there is no law any more. [sic] Then the courts have deteriorated to the point that they are merely appendages to an autocratic police force and in political cases the rights of defendants and the protection of the constitution no longer operates. These are plain facts and I think that each and everyone [sic] of our legal papers should be printed in many thousands of copies and should receive wide distribution to inform America that it is happening here.
We are supposed to be sophisticated people and we've read a great deal yet would you believe it that even after the "browbeating" I am still amazed that it actually took place. Incidentally, I think our concise and poignant statement was an excellent one because it told the true story, plainly for everybody to see.
I must say for Ethel that she is indeed a gem, a most marvelous and heroic woman. Although the strain has been very severe I am proud that we were able to successfully resist the mental torture. It is good to know that all of us are doing our utmost. When, oh when, will our agony be over and how soon will we see some daylight? We are waiting and hoping to hear the good news soon.
As ever, Julie
P.S. Please send me copies of all your legal papers and copies of the printed material the committee puts out. (We haven't received any of this stuff in months). Thanks JR
8. Affidavit of Morton Sobell giving details of his arrest:
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY Or NEW YORK, ss:
Morton Sobell, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am one of the defendants herein and I make this affidavit in the interest of justice and in furtherance of my rights as an American born and brought up in this country.
On Wednesday, August 16, 1950 at about 8:00 p.m. we had just finished our dinner in our apartment in Mexico City in the United States of Mexico, and while my wife and I were lingering over our coffee there was a knock on the door. My older daughter opened the door and three men burst into the room with drawn guns and bodies poised for shooting; these men did not ask my name, did not say what they wanted. I demanded to see a warrant, or some other legal process. No reply, except some vague charge that I was one "Johnny Jones" and that I robbed a bank in Acapulco in the sum of $15,000.00 was made. Of course, I vehemently denied the charge and tried to show them my papers, visas, etc., to prove that I was no bank robber.
One of the men showed a piece of metal in his hand and said they were police. They were dressed in civilian clothes. A fourth man came later. He also was in civilian clothes.
Only about 10 minutes lapsed from the time that they came till they hustled me out, and that was after I insisted on calling the American Embassy; but without being permitted to do so.
They picked me up bodily and carried me down from the fourth floor to the ground floor. In the street I kept shouting for the police. A taxi was hailed and they opened the door; tried to force me into the taxi; when two more men came in and beat me over the head with black jacks until I lost consciousness. I woke up in the taxi and I was stretched horizontally at the feet of the three men.
When the car stopped in front of a building, they ordered me to get up; they told me to get into the building, but not to make a scene or they would plug me. We walked to the elevator; we went upstairs, and we went into an office. They sat me down and a slim, tall, dark man came over; he looked at me. I asked him what it was all about. He slapped me in the face and told me that they were the ones that were asking questions. At that point I discovered that my head was bloody and my shirt bespattered with blood.
However, they asked me no questions, but they photographed me in several poses. We spent in that building from approximately 8:30 p.m. till 4:00 a.m. At 12:00 midnight, they offered me something to eat; but I had no appetite for food. During all the time no one questioned me. Some persons who identified themselves as officers to guard me chatted with me but expressed ignorance of the reason I was there.
At 4:00 a.m. I was moved into a large four door Packard and seated in the rear with two armed men, one on each side of me. At that moment, the same tall thin man came to the door and spoke to my guards in English saying to them "if he makes any trouble, shoot him".
The driver of the car, who apparently was the leader of the expedition, and who answered to the name of "Julio" told me they were taking me to the Chief of the Mexican police for further action. With a number of stops for one reason or another, we drove on till about 6:00 p.m. At that time Julio tried to make a phone call, or he did make one, and he told me that he was trying to get the Chief of Police. The same thing happened at about 10:00 p.m. and at midnight, on August 17th, telling me that he was trying to make sure that the Chief of Police would be available.
At about 1:30 we arrived at Nueva Lorado [sic], we stopped in front of a building, and Julio went into the building and returned in about ten minutes and told me that he had spoken to the Chief and that the Chief told him to take me across the border and let me go.
We stopped at the Mexican customs on the Mexican side of the bridge, across the Rio Grande marking the border. No examination was made of my baggage and then we waited around in the car for about ten minutes. Julio returned and we started onward. When we reached the bridge, which as heretofore stated marks the boundary between the U. S. A. and Mexico, our car was flagged. We stopped and the front door opened. A man entered with a badge in his hand and stated that he was a United States agent and he remained in the car. When we arrived at the United States Customs I was directed to sign a card after they searched my baggage and myself. They handcuffed me and placed me in jail where I remained for five days, after which time I was taken to New York City.
Morton Sobell
Sworn to before me this 4th day of
April, 1951. Sol Paikin, Commissioner
of Deeds, New York City. Residing in
Bronx City. New York County Clerk's
No. 40. Commission expires Sept. 28, 1952
9. Justice Frankfurter stated in an opinion on June 19, 1953:
"On the assumption that the sentences against the Rosenbergs are to be carried out at 11 o'clock tonight, their counsel ask this Court to stay their execution until opportunity has been afforded to them to invoke the constitutional perogative [sic] of clemency. The action of this Court, and the division of opinion in vacating the stay granted by Mr. Justice Douglas are, of course, a factor in the situation which arose in the last hour. It is not for this Court even remotely to enter into the domain of clemency reserved by the Constitution exclusively to the President. But the Court must properly take into account the possible consequences of a stay or a denial of a stay of execution of death sentences upon making an appeal for executive clemency. Were it established that counsel are correct in their assumption that the sentences of death are to be carried out at 11 p.m. tonight, I believe that it would be right and proper for this Court formally to grant a stay with a proper time-limit to give appropriate opportunity for the process of executive clemency to operate. I justifiably assume, however, that the time for the execution has not been fixed as of 11 o'clock tonight. Of course, I respectfully assume that appropriate consideration will be given to a clemency application by the authority constitutionally charged with the clemency function."