Mr. SORRELS. I think it is possibly a bit of both, because it is always my practice to tell these people that we cannot promise them anything--I am talking about the people we handle for prosecution in our investigations. And that, of course, they don’t have to tell us anything if they don’t want to. We make that known--because if we do not we know if there is a trial in a case, that that question is going to be asked, and we know that under our laws that a person is supposed to be warned of his constitutional rights before he is questioned. Mr. HUBERT. Is that your version of what the law is? Mr. SORRELS. Yes. Mr. HUBERT. Coming back to the policy matter, I don’t expect you to be able to quote it to me now, but you have the impression there is something in writing in some manual of standard operations, instructions, that requires that you warn a person of his constitutional rights? Mr. SORRELS. I just cannot answer that question, because I just can’t recall if there is a specific instruction of that particular thing or not. But I do know that if we do not warn them of their constitutional rights, that we are--we will be in serious trouble in the trial of a case because if the question is asked, “Did you warn this man of his constitutional rights?” we have to tell the truth, and if we say “No, it wasn’t,” we would be jeopardizing our case. Mr. HUBERT. Now, at the time you called Curry, you had not spoken to Wade? Mr. SORRELS. Not about the actual interview with Ruby at that time. Mr. HUBERT. At the time you talked to Curry, was that before or after you saw Wade at Love Field? Mr. SORRELS. I can’t say for sure, but I think it was probably afterwards. Mr. HUBERT. What I am trying to get at is what motivated your call to him. Mr. SORRELS. I probably didn’t make myself plain. What motivated my call to him was that I figured that if I was called to Mr. Wade’s office to explain this thing to him, that the fact that I had not warned Ruby when I approached him to get this information--that I had not warned him of his constitutional rights, that I would not--it would not be good testimony. And my thought is that the two men who were--the two uniformed officers there, who were just standing by and had nothing to do with the questions and so forth, who heard what was said, they might be able to testify to that effect. Mr. HUBERT. So you wanted to get that information to someone in authority? Mr. SORRELS. That is right. Mr. HUBERT. And the information was twofold--that you knew there was someone who could testify as to what Ruby had said, because you had heard Ruby say it in the presence of other people? Mr. SORRELS. That is right. Mr. HUBERT. And, secondly, you were doubtful as to whether your testimony as such would be valuable? Mr. SORRELS. That is right. Mr. HUBERT. Do you know why you conveyed that information to Curry instead of Wade?