Mr. HALL. I have three copies of the same thing here for your benefit, Mr. Hubert. There are 3 pages there. Mr. HUBERT. I understand; is this your entire notes? Mr. HALL. This is an interview log in which I set forth the circumstances of the interview. These are not my notes on the actual interview. I do not have my notes of that interview. I took my notes and prepared these reports of the interview and I commenced the night following the interview and after that was typed up, then I destroyed the notes that I took at the time. Mr. HUBERT. So, actually the running notes of the interviews themselves do not exist? Mr. HALL. That’s right. Mr. HUBERT. That is, as I understand it, standard practice and the interview notes are destroyed after the report is made? Mr. HALL. After the report of the interview has been prepared. In this case it was a matter of hours following that, and this represents my notes in effect because it was prepared from them. Mr. HUBERT. It was prepared directly from them? Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. HUBERT. And immediately--the same day? Mr. HALL. Immediately afterwards; it probably actually was extended after midnight that night. Mr. HUBERT. What you have handed me as being your notes is really a log? Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. It’s a log showing the times, the date, who was present, and specifically the times and what happened. Mr. HUBERT. Well, I’m going to mark it for the purpose of identification as follows: “Dallas, Texas, May 28, 1964, Exhibit No. 4 of the deposition of C. Hay Hall.” On the first page I am signing my name below that. There is a second page which I am initialing in the lower right-hand corner and a third page which I am initialing in the right hand corner, and Mr. Hall, you have been kind enough to supply me with two extra copies which I thank you for, but I will just mark the one for identification, and I think you have already testified concerning what it is. Mr. HALL. Back to your previous question as to whether this denial on the part of Ruby was before or after his conference with an attorney, Mr. Tom Howard, I believe his conference with Mr. Howard was after that denial? Mr. HUBERT. In other words, he had refused to tell you he got in, in effect? Mr. HALL. Yes. Mr. HUBERT. Prior to having talked with Mr. Howard? Mr. HALL. Yes; I based that on the time he went there, because his conference with Mr. Howard was almost 2 o’clock and there was only--a majority of the interview had been conducted before then. Mr. HUBERT. Which was--an hour and 15 minutes it had been going on already? Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. HUBERT. Was he speaking freely to you? Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.