Testimony of Thomas S. Moulton, Church of Scientology v. Armstrong,


21 May 1984





---------------------------------------------------------------





THE WITNESS: Captain Thomas S. Moulton, M-o-u-l-t-o-n.


 


DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETERSON:


 


Q: Mr. Moulton, do you have a rank or position at the current time?


 


A: I am retired as a retired captain. My license is still intact.


 


Q: What type of license is that that you have?


 


A: Master Mariner.


 


Q: And where do you currently reside?


 


A: In Georgetown, Maine.


 


Q: And how long have you lived there?'


 


A: All of my life practically.


 


Q: And other than your license as Master Mariner, do you hold any other 


licenses?


 


A: I hold radar endorsements, of course, on that. I am also a licensed emergency 


medical technician.


 


Q: And when did you first get your Master's license?


 


A: 1947.


 


Q: And with a Master's license, what does that enable you to do?


 


A: My license is endorsed as Master of any vessel, steam, or motor, of any 


tonnage on any ocean.


 


Q: And how long have you held that license?


 


A: Since 1947.


 


Q: And at one time did you hold a position in the United States Navy?


 


A: I did, sir.


 


Q: And when did you first join the Navy?


 


A: The end of 1940 or the beginning of 1941. I think it was January of 1941.


 


Q: And prior to joining the United States Navy did you have any other experience 


on the high seas?


 


A: Not on the high seas. I was a coastwise fisherman for a time.


 


Q: For approximately how long?


 


A: Off and on for two or three years.


 


Q: And when you first joined the United States Navy in January of 1941, I 


believe, what was your first rank?


 


A: Ensign.


 


Q: And where did you first serve?


 


A: I was sent to Jacksonville, Florida at the Naval Air Station.


 


Q: And what course did you take at the Naval Air Station?


 


A: At the Naval Air Station I sat before an examinations board to change the 


type of classification of my commission from aviation specialist to dock 


terminal service.


 


Q: Where was that?


 


A: Jacksonville, Florida.


 


Q: And after completing the course of duty in Jacksonville where did you then 


go?


 


A: I was then sent to Cambridge, Massachusetts.


 


Q: What rank or position did you hold in Cambridge?


 


A: I was then Lieutenant Junior grade.  The Navy had taken over the Harvard yard 


and some of their buildings as a training school for senior officers.  I was 


head of the Navigation Department there.


 


Q: Were you an instructor?


 


A: Yes, sir.


 


Q: For how long did you instruct there at Harvard?


 


A: For the first two classes when we reappointed our successors from the class 


graduates. I left there in the fall.


 


Q: When you left Cambridge where did you then go?


 


A: Miami, Florida, to the Sub Chasing Training Center.


 


Q: At the Sub Chaser Training Canter, what the course of instruction that was 


offered there?


 


A: Well, a certain amount of ship handling, so forth; primarily it was 


anti-submarine warfare tactics and quite high qualifications in sonar.


 


Q: How long a course in this instruction was offered at the Sub Chaser School in 


Miami?


 


A: As I recall., it was 60 or 90 days.


 


Q: While you were at the Sub Chaser School in Miami, what year was that?


 


A: That would have been 1942.


 


Q: Do you recall the month?


 


A: I left there just before Christmas I think.  I think it was Christmas Eve.


 


Q: So it would be safe to say late October is when you first arrived?


 


A: I would think so, yes.


 


Q: And while you were in Miami at the Sub Chaser School did you meet L. Ron 


Hubbard?


 


A: I did.


 


Q: Was he also attending school?


 


A: Yes.  He was in my class.


 


Q: Did you know him socially?


 


A: Quite well.  He was a guest of my wife and me at dinner; we were his guests 


many times. We were quite close.


 


Q: He was also attending the school?


 


A: He was, sir.


 


Q: And at school he was taking the came courses you were taking?


 


A: Yes, the same class.


 


Q: And do you recall his rank at that time?


 


A: He was two stripes, full lieutenant.


 


Q: And to your knowledge had he any previous naval experience before attending 


the Sub Chaser School?


 


A: It was common knowledge that he had been in destroyers for some time before 


that.


 


Q: You don't have the exact details?


 


A: Other than hearing the instructors in the classrooms refer to it.  He was 


used as something an authority in the classroom.


 


Q: Do you know what his position was on these destroyers?


 


A: I am told he was gunnery officer on the EDSEL. I don't know about the others.


 


Q: You mentioned that you left the Sub Chaser School in December of 1942; where 


did you go from there?


 


A: I was pulled out of the class a week or ten days ahead of time.  There was a 


sub chaser being completed in Massachusetts that the captain had been taken ill 


on and they needed a captain. Because I was near the top of the class, I was 


pulled out ahead of time, I think a week or ten days. And I took over command of 


the SC-767.


 


Q: Did you see any duty on that sub chaser?


 


A: Yes, sir. I brought her - well, several patrols, quite a few patrols. I had 


her for several months. I don't remember just how long. I finally brought her to 


Miami and she was then turned over to the Brazilian Navy under Lend Lease.


 


Q: Now then, patrols were along the eastern seaboard of the United States?


 


A: Yes, sir, and offshore.


 


Q: And at that time was there an imminent danger of enemy submarines in the 


area?


 


A: There were sinkings all up and down at that time. We were so desperate for 


ASW vessels.


 


Q: And ASW is?


 


A: Anti-Submarine Warfare.


 


Q: And when did you again have communication with L. Ron Hubbard?


 


A: After my ship was turned over to the Brazilians - which would have been 


sometime in the early spring, perhaps March - I was assigned to a PC as 


executive officer. We started for the Southwest Pacific. but we were diverted en 


route to Key West and went through a week or ten day course in anti-submarine 


warfare at the fleet sound school.


 


Then I was promoted, was senior to the captain, so I was detached and then I 


returned to Miami to a subchaser training center for reassignment, and I 


received a call from Ron Hubbard that his executive officer was either ill or 


had been transferred or something. I don't recall the details.


 


Q: You recall at that time where Lt. Hubbard was stationed?


 


A: He was in Portland, Oregon at the Albina Engine and Machine Works with his 


new ship being built, and although I had a chance to go probably as captain 


myself on the PC, he asked me an a particular favor would I come out for a time 


as his executive officer because he was in serious difficulties, and that I did 


do.


 


Q: And the serious difficulties, was that as a result of losing his executive 


officer?


 


A: Mostly that. His executive officer had been transferred for some reason and 


he had two young ensigns who were not very experienced. of course. He was also 


ill at the time. He was recovering from, I believe. pneumonia but I am not 


certain.


 


Q: And then did you travel to Oregon?


 


A: I did.


 


Q: And when you first arrived in Oregon. did you meet with Mr. Hubbard?


 


A: I did. He had just come from the hospital or wherever he had been laid up. I 


think that was his first day back to duty.


 


Q: Did he seem to be in good physical condition?


 


A: Other than recovering from this illness that he had had, yes, sir.


 


Q: And when you took over duties, had the ship that Mr. Hubbard had been working 


on, had it been commissioned yet?


 


A: No, sir.


 


Q: What was the status of that ship?


 


A: She was still in building.


 


Q: And is that the ship that was later designated the PC-815?


 


A: That's correct.


 


Q: And were you also stationed there in Albina?


 


A: Albina Engine and Machine Works was the name of the shipyard.


 


Q: And that is in what city?


 


A: Portland, Oregon.


 


Q: Did you have an opportunity also to visit with Mr. Hubbard on a social basis?


 


A: Yes, he and his wife and I went to dinner several times.


 


MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?


 


THE COURT: All right, you may.


 


MR. PETERSON: Your Honor. I as showing the witness a photograph. Could we have 


that marked as plaintiff's next?


 


THE COURT:  90, I believe.


 


Q BY MR. PETERSON: Captain Moulton, do you recognize either of those two 


gentlemen?


 


A: I do.


 


Q: And who is the officer on the right?


 


A: On my right?


 


Q: The right-hand side of the picture.


 


A: That is I before the beard.


 


Q: And about what month and year was that taken?


 


A: That was taken in 1943. I would think in April, perhaps March, but probably 


April.


 


Q: And was that taken in Albina?


 


A: It was taken in the shipyard in one of their offices.


 


Q: And the gentleman on the left, do you recognize that gentleman?


 


A: That was L. Ron Hubbard.


 


Q: And is that the way he looked in April of 1943?


 


A: Exactly.


 


Q: And what was the purpose of taking that photograph?


 


A: It was for publicity purposes for the shipyard, I believe.


 


Q: It was actually taken in the office of the shipyard?


 


A: Yes, it was.


 


Q: And have you had that photograph in your possession since 1943?


 


A: I have had the original of that in my possession, yes.


 


Q: And I notice in that photograph that Captain Hubbard is wearing dark glasses; 


In that correct?


 


A: That is correct.


 


Q: And in all the times that you knew him in Portland did he wear dark glasses?


 


A: It was necessary for him to wear them, yes.


 


Q: And when you know him in Miami did he wear dark glasses?


 


A: Yes, he did, the same glasses.


 


Q: Did he ever tell you why he had to wear the dark glasses?


 


A: Yes.


 


Q: What did he say?


 


A: He said that his eyes had been injured in the flash from a large caliber gun. 


I think it was a four or five-inch gun on a destroyer he had been on.  The gun 


was fired prematurely. He was standing adjacent to the muzzle and he received a 


bad flash burn which did not impair his vision, but it was very painful for him 


to go around in any sort of light without the glasses on.  I saw him try it on 


one occasion.


 


Q:  On this one occasion that he tried to go without his glasses, could you 


describe that?


 


A: Yes. We were in a place in Seattle, I believe, known as the Seattle Tennis 


Club. There was this function, a dance or something, going on. And one of the 


ladies in the party was kidding him about wearing dark glasses in dim light at 


night.  And he told her why. And for some reason, she thought that was a strange 


story.


 


So to go along with it, he took his glasses off.  Within five or ten minutes, 


even in that dim light, his eyes watered very badly - became red. And I think he 


said he had a very bad headache.  He put his glasses back on and from then on 


wore them at all times except on the bridge at night in the dark.


 


A: Now, at any time when you were with Mr. Hubbard in Portland did he have any 


complaints about pain in his low back or any area like that?


 


Q:  He frequently complained of pain in his right side and the back in the area 


of the kidneys which he said was due to some damage from a Japanese machine gun 


very early in the war.  And from that he had considerable difficulty in 


urination. And upon at least one occasion I saw him urinating bloody urine. He 


had great difficulty in urinating.


 


Q: Now, at some time I presume that the PC-815 was completed and ready for sea 


duty. Is that correct?


 


A: That is correct.


 


Q: And do you recall about what time that was?


 


A: That would have been - I would think about - I don't know the exact date, but 


about the 1st of May; perhaps the last week in April of 1943.


 


Q: And when the ship was completed, what did you and Captain Hubbard do at that 


time?


 


A: We stayed in Portland for a week or ten days outfitting and conducted trials, 


builders' trials, during which time the propeller was damaged. And we came back 


and we drydocked to repair that.  The pilot managed to hit a mud lump in the 


river or something on the trials. That was repaired; we finished outfitting and 


went down the river sometime about the 10th, 11th, perhaps 12th of May.


 


Q: And when the trial runs and the outfitting had been completed, did you at 


that time receive any orders?


 


A: Yes. We were ordered to proceed to Astoria for loading ammunition. And then 


we were supposed to go to Seattle to have radar installed and some other 


equipment.


 


Q: Did you commence to proceed to Astoria to take on ammunition?


 


A: Yes, we did.


 


Q: Did you make it there?


 


A: When we got to Astoria they only gave us a small quantity of ammunition for 


structural firing, the tests that had to be made.


 


Q: What are structural firing tests?


 


A: The main gun had to be fired a certain number of rounds, perhaps a half dozen 


or something.  We had to roll ash cans from the racks on the stern and also fire 


the K-guns.


 


Q: "Ash cans," are those --


 


A: Depth charges.


 


Q: -- used in sinking submarines?


 


A: That is correct.


 


Q: What are K-guns?


 


A: They were guns shaped roughly in the shape of the letter K that fired depth 


charges. There were 


two of them aft so you could fire depth charges on each side through the air 


some distance from the ship.


 


Q: The ash cans, would they roll off the back?


 


A: They rolled off two racks in the back.


 


Q: Were there any other armaments on that ship?


 


A: Yes. She carried a 40-millimeter gun; she had three-inch 50, I believe. I way 


he confusing her with another ship, but I think she had a three-inch 50. I know 


she had a 40-millimeter forward and I think the three-inch 50 aft. She carried 


two or three 20-millimeters; I think perhaps two.


 


Q: After you had taken on the ammunition in Astoria, then you proceeded to test 


fire the guns?


 


A: Not at that time. We were due to go to Bremerton to do this at the Navy yard 


in Seattle.


 


There was a Navy plane that went down off the coast and all of us were ordered 


out to search for that ship or that plane. And when we came back in, our orders 


were then changed. And instead of going to Seattle because we were already late 


from this other thing, we would proceed to, I think it was, San Francisco. I 


have forgotten. I think it was San Francisco or San Diego, one or the other. And 


then we would conduct these tests en route.


 


Q: Okay. The trip to Seattle and the Bremerton shipyards at that location. I 


believe you testified that you were going to outfit the ship with radar 


equipment?


 


A: She was to get radar and also rocket propelled mousetraps which they did not 


carry at the time.


 


Q: What is a rocket propelled mousetrap?


 


A: They were rockets that could be fired from the foredeck. They were used in 


ASW attacks. They were a generation ahead of the depth charges. They later 


became standard equipment on all ships of that type.


 


Q: Okay. So with the test amount of ammunition that you had loaded at Astoria, 


you then proceeded, I believe it would be south down the coast?


 


A: We were bound south for either San Diego or San Francisco. I don't recall.


 


Q: And do you recall the approximate date that you had commenced the trip south?


 


A: It would have been, I would think, the last week in May. I am not certain of 


the date, perhaps the 22nd, 23rd. I am not sure.


 


Q: And that is 1943?


 


A: Yes, sir.


 


Q: And when you say "we," how many other ships were in the group?


 


A: We were alone. We were en route by ourselves.


 


Q: And who was the captain of that ship?


 


A: Ron Hubbard.


 


Q: And that is the PC-815?


 


A: That's correct.


 


Q: And what was your duty on the ship?


 


A: Well, I had several hats because there were only four officers and quite a 


few departments. I was executive officer. I was also the medical officer. I was 


communications officer, and I was also the engineering officer.


 


Q: Did Mr. Hubbard also wear several hats?


 


A: No, sir. He was captain or commanding officer. That was all.


 


Q: That was standard?


 


A: That was standard on all ships with reduced personnel.


 


Q: And did you have any type of sonar detection equipment on that ship?


 


A: Yes, sir. We had the latest sonar equipment at that date that was being used 


in anti&#8209;submarine warfare.


 


Q: Had you personally had any training on sonar equipment?


 


A: Yes, sir, both in Miami and in Key West. I was considered an expert on it. So 


was Ron, of course.


 


Q: And did you also have a separate officer or enlisted man who held the duty of 


operating sonar equipment?


 


A: We had either two or three sonar operators. One or two were third class, and 


I think one was first class, or second, and this came under me directly under 


communications. I was in charge of the sonar.


 


Q: And part of your training in the subchaser school in Miami, did you take 


instruction on the use of sonar equipment?


 


A: Yes, sir. We had what today are known as simulators which were used in the 


Navy and in the Air Force too, where the computer duplicated a submarine and his 


motions, and submarine trained people operated the computer and our bridge crew 


would operate the ASW team equipment, and we had mock battles.  Then, in Key 


West, we operated on live submarines with test firing equipment and conducted 


many runs there also.


 


Q: When a submarine is detected on some sonar equipment. does it make a 


distinctive response or noise of any kind?


 


A: Well, in the equipment of that day - I can't speak for what is used today, I 


am not familiar - you sent an outgoing signal and a pinging sound was reproduced 


as that signal went out. When the signal did not encounter any object there was 


no return, It was merely a series of pings which went on day and night when you 


were underway.


 


On anything that was picked up in the beam from this, you received an echo 


coming back which you then had to distinguish as to whether it was metal, such 


as a ship, a submarine, a whale, a fish or just disturbances in the water. They 


all had characteristic types of echoes,


 


Q: And part of your training was to distinguish between the different 


characteristics of the returning sounds on the sonar?


 


A: A good part of our training was, a great part because that was vital to a 


successful attack.


 


Q: And how could you distinguish the sound, for example, that would be made with 


sonar bouncing off of whale versus a submarine?


 


A: Well. when the sonar beam hit the whale, he would naturally have blubber and 


so forth, and the echo that returned was not as sharp. If you hit metal, other 


than in bad conditions of sound reception, it came back as a much crisper, 


sharper echo just as though you had talked to a hard wall as opposed to a padded 


cell type of wall.


 


Q: And disturbances, for example, bubbles or any other type of disturbance in 


the water; would that have a sound that was even different from that of a whale 


or a fish?


 


A: They all had a most characteristic sound under ideal conditions.


 


Q: And the sonar equipment on the PC 815, where was the receptor?


 


A: The equipment was in a small alcove right on the bridge. You could draw a 


curtain across it so the light at night didn't bother the bridge crew. but it 


was essentially on the bridge in a little alcove.


 


Q: Was there some scope on the sonar equipment also?


 


A: There was the operating dial with an arrow which indicated the direction that 


it was being trained at at the time.  There were numerous operational gauges 


along with it, but essentially it gave you the bearing that you sent the signal 


out on. And when it came back, then, of course, you had a receiver - much as a 


loudspeaker - where you could listen to the echo. The sound man heard the same 


thing on earphones. And I or whoever wanted to check it also had a pair of 


earphones which gave you better fidelity.


 


Q: And on the trip south in May of 1943 as an officer you were usually stationed 


on the bridge?


 


A: I stood a watch on the bridge, a four&#8209;hour watch.  Then I stood an additional 


watch because our two ensigns were not very experienced and usually when they 


were on watch, except under ideal conditions, I stood by on the bridge or in the 


chart room with one of them and Ron stayed back on with the other one.


 


Q: And as you were proceeding south in May of 1943 at some point did someone 


raise an alarm that there was a possible submarine in the area?


 


A: Yes, sir.


 


Q: And to your recollection who first raised that alarm?


 


A: Three of us did.  Ron was on the bridge; I was on the bridge and the sonar 


man, of course. All three called out at once. All three of us did, but there was 


a return echo.


 


Q: And when you heard the return echo what did you then do?


 


A: I immediately went to the sound gear. I probably put on my headset. That 


would have been routine. And we proceeded to evaluate the echo.


 


Q: And when you say "we", who were the other people on the bridge?


 


A: The sonar man, Ron and myself.


 


Q: And "Ron" is L. Ron Hubbard?


 


A: That is correct.


 


Q: And did you, after listening to the return sound on the sonar, reach a 


conclusion?


 


A: After we had evaluated it, there was more to it than just listening to the 


return echo. You checked the width of the target. Because you knew the tapered 


width of the beam, you could estimate the length of the target that you were 


getting a return from. You also checked it for a doppler which would be an 


indication of whether the range was opening or closing. This, you detect in the 


sound. You listen for screw noises or anything else that could help you evaluate 


the contact. In this case, after evaluation, we had determined it was a 


submarine.


 


Q: You mentioned you listened for screw noises?


 


A: The propeller sound coning from a ship, for example, or a submarine as 


opposed to the sound made by dolphins, whales, so forth. They are all more or 


less characteristic.


 


Q: The screw noises would be the sound of the propeller under water?


 


A: That is correct.


 


Q: Does a propeller under water have a distinctive sound?


 


A: Very definitely.  As a matter of fact, you can almost, if you are active in 


listening constantly and up to date in your practice, usually you can determine 


the type of ship it is.  They all have a characteristic signature or sound.


 


Q: And after listening to the sonar sounds for some period of time did you make 


an evaluation regarding the length of the target?


 


A: We decided it was roughly the length of a submarine. It made noises like a 


submarine and it was behaving like a submarine.


 


Q: Did you hear screw noises?


 


A: We did.


 


Q: And could you tell if the ship, the underwater target was coming toward you, 


away from you, or moving in what direction?


 


A: We would have been able to know from the doppler effect on the sound as well 


as once we began an evaluation, sooner or later we would start a time plot and 


start plotting what the target was doing, whether it was stopped, whether it was 


moving, and, if so, what course.  This was done both with what was then a highly 


classified attack piece of electronics, now, knowledge and obsolete. But it was 


then the very latest that very few people knew about. We had one of the earliest 


ones. And we kept that going for a plot along with our own manual plot with a 


stop watch.


 


Q: And you had determined that the target was a submarine?


 


A: Beyond any question.


 


Q: Did you scan the area for any other under water ships?


 


A: We had been conducting a routine search. Once we picked up on this target we 


concentrated on that, of course.


 


Q: After making the determination that it was indeed a submarine, what did you 


then do?


 


A: Well, we took some time &#8209; it has been so many years I can't remember how long 


&#8209; but we took some time to evaluate it. During that time we would know that a 


submarine would bear our pinging inside its hull. If he were friendly, he would 


have made recognition signals. We received no recognition signals; so we 


proceeded to attack.


 


Q: What type of recognition signals would a friendly submarine have made?


 


A In those days he would have fired a small rocket which gave one or more 


colored lights and ended up an a smoke signal of a distinctive color.


 


Q: And you didn't receive any type of --


 


A: We received none, no, sir.


 


Q: What did you then do?


 


A: We commenced our first attack.


 


Q: Was there any kind of an alarm sounded, or was the ship at that point already 


in readiness?


 


A: Where we were, it was routine to go into what was at night time an assembly. 


an alert. known as Condition 2. We sounded the general alarm for general 


quarters.  The attack, of course, could be started even in Condition 3 because 


everybody we needed was there. But with the general quarters, we obtained water 


tight integrity; alerted the engine room to manoeuvre and, of course, manned the 


guns.


 


Q: And you said you commenced an attack; what did you do to commence the attack?


 


A: We made a pass on them and dropped depth charges.


 


Q: And do you recall how many depth charges?


 


A: No, we were rationed because we only had something like 12 or 14 onboard. I 


think in our first attack, if I remember right, we rolled three or four and we 


fired the X guns, but I think if I remember right one of them didn't go off. 


After that we made a series of attacks over several days. Eventually our 


ammunition was replenished, but it took a lot of doing to get it replenished.


 


Q: When you commenced the first run or attack on the submarine, were you out 


there alone?


 


A: Yes, sir. Naturally we alerted the shore side people by radio that we were 


commencing an attack.


 


Q: And do you recall the approximate location of your vessel at the point you 


commenced the attack?


 


A: We were off the Oregon coast. I think it is called, if I remember right, Cape 


Meares. It was between there and a head called Tillamook. There is a beach in 


the area known as, I think it is Silver Sand Beach, something similar to that, 


and there is another landmark, Haystack Rock. We were somewhere off that. Our 


battle report would show the position, of course.


 


Q: Approximately how far off the coast did this incident take place?


 


A: I would have to refer to the battle report because we made so many runs over 


those days. We were, I would think, perhaps 10 or 12 miles, but that is purely 


my recollection.


 


Q: 10 to 12?


 


A: 10 to 12 miles - I would say, somewhere around there.


 


MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, could we have exhibit 60?  Captain Moulton, I am 


handing you exhibit 60. Do you know what that document is?


 


A: I do, sir.


 


Q: And what is it?


 


A: That was our battle report eventually submitted after the action was over.


 


Q: And when it was over, do you recall actually seeing that document before it 


was submitted?


 


A: I helped write it. It was written primarily by Ron Hubbard, but naturally I 


contributed to it also as did the other officers.


 


Q: And by referring to that document, can you give us a more exact location of 


where the incident took place?


 


A: I believe no, sir. I see on the first page it says "Just inside the steamer 


track," but there is nothing more than that. I imagine it is further on.


 


But to your recollection it was about 10 to 12 miles off --


 


A: I would think so. We were on approximately a hundred thousand curve because 


it was customary to steam that going up and down the coast. 


 


Q: You made a couple of runs dropping depth charges on the target?


 


A: We made several runs that night. This happened that night, and over the 


course of the next three days or so, two and a half days, we made a great many 


runs.


 


Q: What was the condition of the seas during the two and a half days of the 


attack?


 


A: Sometimes it was not bad. At times it got quite rough, and it was difficult 


to transfer ammunition to us. I remember we had difficulty, but then it smoothed 


back down again. That is when we finally did get some ammunition brought to us.


 


Q: In the two and a half days during the first group of attacks on the target, 


were you all alone?


 


A: We had for the first day, perhaps into the second day, we were alone. The 


first night we were alone. Eventually they were one, two, I believe two blimps 


came out, and then we had an old Coast Guard cutter, and we had, I think. two 


SC's eventually assigned to us.


 


Q: And what is an SC designation?


 


A: That is the sub chaser. the smaller class. the same an I had had before.


 


Q: And did they also join in the attack?


 


A: One did, was a considerable help. The other one was very reluctant to do much 


of anything., He was there, but not voting, so to speak.


 


Q: And what part did the two blimps take part in this attack?


 


A: They had a different type of anti&#8209;submarine detection gear, magnetic type of 


gear, and they confirmed all of our &#8209;&#8209; whenever we had a contact or we gained 


contact, we would give them the position. They would then pick it up on their 


gear and verify it or if they picked it up before we did, they would call us 


onto the barium range because after depth charge attacks, you lose contact and 


then you have to pick them up again, so we worked as a team together.  And at 


least at one point &#8209; I can't remember &#8209; ­at least twice they dropped depth 


charges on the target. They verified along with the depth charges we dropped.


 


Q: So the blimps were also equipped with depth charges?


 


A: They had depth charges set for shallow surface. They didn't have the large 


deep water ones that we carried.


 


Q: How were you in communication with the blimps?


 


A: We had regular radio gear, ship to ship and ship to air.  They had similar 


equipment,  except very weak. I think it was only five or ten watts.


 


For that reason, the shore stations could hear us, but they could not bear the 


blimps.


 


Q: Could you personally hear any of the radio transmissions between the PC-815 


and the blimps?


 


A: Yes. Because a great many of them I made myself as communications officer.  


Throughout the action I was in charge of all communications.


 


Q: And at any time in the communications that you had with the blimps did they 


confirm to you that the target was. indeed, a submarine?


 


A: In their opinion it was. They felt so.


 


Q: And how would they form an opinion that it was a submarine? Was it visual, or 


do they have certain type of equipment?


 


A: I think &#8209;&#8209; I frankly don't know. I have never been aboard that type of blimp. 


 How they evaluated, I have no idea; however, at one point when the submarine 


tried to surface on us, we all saw its periscope and what appeared to be perhaps 


the upper rim of its conning tower.  And the blimps also reported up its 


periscope to us.  They also reported it on another occasion further away when we 


had lost contact. They said they saw the periscope then. That one, we did not. 


We were a little too far away. I think.


 


So they saw it, I believe, twice. We had it only once,


 


Q: And they made a radio transmission of this location?


 


A: They called us over and I imagine they dropped a smoke float. That is what 


they had been doing; each time they had a contact they had marked it for us.


 


Q: Then you would proceed to the smoke float and start dropping depth charges? 


 


A: We would start ranging in that direction with our sonar and close on it until 


we picked it up.


 


Q: You mentioned that you had made these attacks over a two&#8209;and&#8209;a&#8209;half day 


period; after that what did you then do?


 


A: I think the total time we were in action was something like 60 hours. We then 


returned to Astoria to the section base.


 


Q: After you would make an attack on the target did you stop and try to make a 


visual observation to see if you had been successful in striking, or --


 


A: We were usually trying to recover contact with the sub.  Naturally, we were 


looking for debris or anything else that would help us. We had a great many 


lookouts posted at general quarters; everybody was looking in certain assigned 


sectors,


 


Q: What would a person on lookout be looking for to be able to ascertain whether 


or not a depth charge had either struck or in some way crippled a submarine?


 


A: Well,  if you had blown a big hole in him, you would naturally find, or 


hopefully find wreckage, bodies, or other equipment floating on the surface.  If 


you had damaged him outside, such as perforating a fuel tank, you would see 


quantities of oil coming to the surface.  If you damaged the screws or other 


equipment, you would hear this on the sonar by a different pitch and sound in 


the gear.


 


Q: And this 60&#8209;hour attack on the submarine, did you ever at any time make a 


sighting or a discovery of any other target in the area?


 


A: Yes. Yes. On, I believe it was toward the close of the second day when we 


made &#8209; we had lost contact with our submarine. And after one of the attacks when 


the water had been roared up. we were searching around to pick him up and we 


picked up a second contact which was not where it should have been at all if it 


had been ours.  We swung our sound gear back and forth and determined that we 


now had two targets.  We went through the same procedure and identified the 


second one as a submarine also.


 


Q: And during the period of the 60&#8209;hour attack and battle with the submarines, 


did you ever note any bodies or debris floating on the surface?


 


A: We found no bodies or solid wreckage.  On several occasions we had large 


quantities of oil surface which was noted both by us and by the blimp.  There 


was also a semi&#8209;solid yellowish sort of glutinous material. We never did 


identify what that was. We were too busy to stop and pick it up for samples.  It 


spread over quite an area. but we never knew what it was.


 


Q: Did you ever form an opinion on what you believed it to be?


 


A: No, sir. But the oil we knew was oil, of course.


 


Q: Did you at any time during the 60&#8209;hour battle make a determination that there 


was any change in the sound of the screws on the target?


 


A: Well, of course, they were speeding up, slowing down, and stopping and 


manoeuvring. But eventually we felt certain that we had damaged both of them. We 


were quite certain that we had completely wrecked the one who tried to surface 


on us. He never moved from that position after that for another day or no.  The 


second one --


 


Q: By not moving from a position for a day or so, what did that indicate?


 


A: We could pick him up with our sound gear. But he never changed position.


 


Q: what did that indicate to you?


 


A: We figured that he was long since past temporary damage, at had boon down so 


long I think he would have been out of air. He'd be unable to maneuver because 


early in that period, he had echo ranged on us. We heard the echo ranging 


clearly from his gear, and we were at that time fully expecting to have a 


torpedo sent at us, but the torpedo never came and we felt because of the angle 


that he was apparently at on the bottom, that he could not bring his stern or 


bow to bear on us to fire a torpedo.


 


Q: And the other target, did you make a determination as to the ultimate fate of 


that target?


 


A: In our opinion, the one sub was a definite sinking. We were fully decided on 


that.  The second one we felt was either sunk or damaged so badly that he could 


not get away.


 


Q: And at that point did you terminate the attack?


 


A: No, we stayed around. I have forgotten how long.  It would be in this report. 


We and the other ships patrolled the area for quite come time and act up picket 


lines and so forth to listen for any movement, We never heard any.


 


Q: And did you yourself file a report an part of that exhibit 60?


 


A: Exhibit 60? That is this?


 


Q: Yes.


 


A: Yes. I wrote nothing as elaborate as this. I merely wrote a short report.


 


Q: Could you locate that report in exhibit 60?


 


A: If it is here.


 


Q: I think it is just after the report of Captain Hubbard.


 


A: Yes, here in my report.


 


Q: And would you look down in about the second paragraph, I believe, of that 


report. Actually it is in the paragraph 3, subsection 1. You indicate that the 


attack took place in April?


 


A: No. That in an error on my part when I wrote it. That, of course, was May,


 


Q: Why do you think that you wrote April instead of May?


 


A: Well, I notice the report is dated May 25. This attack was over on the 21st. 


It was at least another day before we got into port. We were sent up to Seattle 


to report to Admiral Fletcher, and in all of this time we had had very, very 


little sleep. I was so tired I probably wrote half of this in my sleep. I have a 


habit of missing months and dates. That to why I keep a watch with a calendar on 


it because I never can remember dates.  That is not a typographical. It is 


merely my fault in writing it.


 


Q: In the action report I noticed there was an incident where I believe the 20 


millimeter gunners had taken some shots that weren't directed toward the target 


but maybe directed in another direction; do you recall such an incident?


 


A: I do. It damn near got me.


 


Q: And could you describe briefly what that incident was?


 


A: How it came about or why it was aimed where it was?


 


Q: Both.


 


A: Well, those 20 millimeters had a real flukey part known an a parallelogram. 


Was about yay big and it looked as though it could be put into the mechanism 


either way. In fact, it could be, but when it went in one way, you lost complete 


control of the trigger mechanism. This was a common fault that was later 


remedied in 20 millimeter guns, but in the early ones, that was common. And 


after a firing which we had done a day or so before, the guns naturally had been 


overhauled by very tired personnel and in the dark. We were showing no lights, 


and apparently this parallelogram, as we found it, had been put in backwards and 


for some reason the gun went off.


 


Q: Could you have been firing at the periscope or the conning tower?


 


A: Not at that particular firing. This one when the parallelogram was in, it was 


subject to going off at any fancy and if it did go off, there was no way to stop 


it unless you could run off and get it and rip off the magazine.  Otherwise it 


would go until the magazine was exhausted.


 


Q: And about how many rounds was in that magazine?


 


A: Oh, I have forgotten, about 100 to 150. The magazine was about yay big. but 


there were a lot of them. seemed like 10 million to me.


 


Q: When this particular 20 millimeter gun went off, where were you at the time?


 


A: I was up about two-thirds of the way up the mast.


 


Q: About how tall was that mast?


 


A: I don't know, probably 65 feet, 70 feet. I was up there for better 


visibility. And to continue, these 20 millimeter guns had done so much damage to 


the ships they were on early in the war because they were a very hard gun to 


control, if you were in the harness wearing them and you happened to slip, there 


was no way you could get back on your feet again because the thing was making so 


much vibration and they frequently kept going.


 


To accomplish some sort of control on the PC-815, she had one of the primitive 


methods that they put on to stop this. They had two cans, one that controlled 


the elevation and the other one controlled the horizontal train, and 


theoretically these could be set so that there was no part of the ship that you 


could hit directly with your fire. That was act by approximation in the yard. 


but until after you had made your trials, done your test firing, you were never 


sure of the setting and the thing never worked very well anyhow.


 


Later on they built what was called a birdcage or mousetrap built out of pipe 


with all sorts of weird curving, so that no matter where the gun barrel was, it 


couldn't be depressed or swung where it would hit the ship. We didn't have that.


 


I was at the mast and the gun went off and went the full round in the magazine. 


And I was much thinner then, fortunately. People who saw it say it missed me by 


about that far.


 


Q: Indicating about ten inches to a foot?


 


A: I would say about that.  I was making love to the mast and was almost out to 


the other side.  Looking down the barrel, it looked like it was coming right 


toward me.  


 


In the course of this, it did some small damage to the ship. The cans had never 


been given their final setting. And I think, if I remember right - it is a long 


time ago - I know we shot the antenna down.  But I think it hit the insulator at 


the end, something of that sort, but outside of that, there was no damage from 


it.


 


Q: Later on they corrected that problem on the ship?


 


A: I believe, if I remember right, she had the bird cage thing put on her when 


she got down to San Diego.


 


Q: And in reviewing the action report and accompanying documents, I noted that 


one of the admirals in the area had cast some doubt upon the fact that you had 


engaged in battle with an enemy submarine, do you recall the admiral making that 


assertion?


 


A: I remember our meeting with Admiral Fletcher, who was quite disparaging at 


the time we had the meeting, perhaps understandably so.


 


Q: Now, did he give you any factual reason why he believed that there were no 


enemy submarines involved in that attack?


 


A: The only thing that I know was that at the point where we had been screaming 


for ammunition for several days without results from shore side people. as 


communications officer and with Ron's permission, I originated a message to the 


commander and chief of the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor. It was a very - well, 


I wouldn't write it today. I was younger then.


 


But it was quite a nasty message asking why in thunder we couldn't get any help 


out there and get some ammunition, I coated this and sent it with a carbon copy 


so it would be equivalent to full copies to everybody on the coast, I guess.


 


I did see the message that came back immediately from the commander in chief of 


the Pacific Fleet, Admiral King, with a carbon copy to me asking Admiral 


Fletcher what was going on out there and why he had not been told of an action 


taking place.  I saw the carbon copy that went back from Admiral Fletcher to him 


where he said there was no submarine. I think he said "there were no submarines, 


repeat, no submarines in the area."  


 


This was quite a strong statement.  But in view of the political climate on the 


West Coast at that time, I could see why he might have said that. And having 


said that he would not deviate from it.


 


Q: Are there any other indications in that Action Report other than your report 


and Captain Hubbard's report that indicate that, indeed, the targets that were 


discovered were submarines?


 


A: Well, there were statements taken from all the crew, I see they are here.  I 


am sure some of the crew had mentioned that because some of them, I know, 


sighted the periscope.  The sonar men who, in each case, two or three of them, 


were very definite in that they had the submarine on their sonar. And we did 


have, as I said, communications from the blimps.


 


Q: Is there any other record that is kept as part of the action report, any 


testing or any read outs on equipment that also would indicate that the targets 


were submarines?


 


A: Yes. Our attack recorder - our attack director made a recording, an 


electronic recording which anyone competent in reading that could use to 


determine what type of target it was. Because it would give the type of echo. 


its strength. general characteristics and you could plot courses and distances 


from it. It would also contain a record of an attack. our recordings were all 


turned over to Admiral Fletcher at that conference. We did not get them back.


 


He called a man in on his staff to interpret them. The man was not a ASW man. He 


was, I believe, a three-striper or four-striper, but he was in Naval Aviation. 


And they were using a recorder, perhaps similar to this one. I never saw it, but 


he said he was not real competent to evaluate this. There were no submarine 


people there or any submarine people there at the time who could.


 


Q: So there was no one there who could look at that and say definitely it was a 


submarine.


 


A: I do know that these reports were later analyzed in, I believe, San Diego or, 


perhaps, San Francisco by another, I believe, Admiral Braisted, something like 


that. And he entered his comments concerning some, I think, 19 runs.


 


Q: He mentioned that some of these runs were mushy; the echos were mushy and 


could have been due to fish or knuckles in the water bubbles, but that two may 


have been submarines.


 


A: Well, that was sort of like saying a girl is a little bit pregnant. If the 


two may have been submarines, it is more than likely that the other 16 or 17 may 


have been submarines.


 


THE COURT: We'll take a 15-minute recess.


 


(Recess.)


 


THE COURT: All right. We are back in session. The witness has taken the stand. 


Please state your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath.


 


THE WITNESS: Thomas Moulton.


 


THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Peterson.


 


MR. PETERSON: Thank you.


 


Q: Now, you had mentioned earlier that there was some aspect of the political 


climate which I believe influenced Admiral Fletcher's conclusion; what was that?


 


A: Well, I am sure that - without that it would have been - at about that time 


either just before this action or just after, I think it was just after you had 


the shelling of a refinery here somewhere in the Los Angeles area, I believe 


just up the coast. It was written up in Reader's Digest a couple of months ago, 


three months ago.


 


At that time it caused quite a local panic, so I am told, and the press so 


indicated, and everybody on the West Coast apparently started a bunch of rumors, 


became quite upset about it.


 


I know that the commanders of the various areas received a lot of inquiries from 


shoreside people. It wasn't a panic, but it was getting into that stage.


 


It got so bad that I remember in Oregon that the papers there, there ware 


several articles. I saw one of them asking people to keep quiet, not start 


rumors and so forth, and I am quite sure that this was well known to all the 


commanders up and down the coast, and it was to their advantage. at least 


publicly, not to admit that there were submarines in the area and, of course, 


once Admiral Fletcher had sent this message to Admiral King, knowing how the 


Navy works, I am sure he wouldn't back down from it.


 


Q: And later on in the summer did you again receive any indication that in fact 


the submarine or the two submarines had been sunk in the area?


 


A: It wasn't that summer. It was some time after that.


 


I was traveling up the Columbia River on a merchant ship and was talking with 


the pilot who came from somewhere in that area, I believe, in that Sand Beach or 


Silver Sand Beach. And I happened to discuss this action with him.


 


He had been living there at the time -


 


MR. FLYNN: I’ll object to this.


 


THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.


 


Q BY MR. PETERSON: During the incident with the attack on the submarines. in 


your opinion, how did Captain Hubbard react?


 


A: Well, he ran a very competent, extremely competent attack throughout the 


thing. He did a very fine job.


 


And after the incident with the submarines in May of 1943 did the PC 815 


continue on its voyage?


 


A: We went back to Astoria for replenishment of ammunition. And at that time 


there was a new carrier, the first of the Kaiser carriers that came down from 


the Seattle area. And we went up to meet her and we picked her up in Port 


Angeles.


 


We were detailed to escort her because she was very valuable, as the first one 


and it was felt at the time that there might be grave damage from submarines and 


from mining in the area.


 


We escorted her to San Francisco where she took on stores and then escorted her 


front there to San Diego.


 


Q: And at some point did you then leave the PC 815?


 


A: Yes, sometime after we completed that escort. I would think within a week or 


two - I don't remember exactly.


 


Q: And then from the PC 815 where did you then go?


 


A: I was sent to the Amphibious Center in Virginia and took command – well, I 


went through the training program and took command of my first LST there.


 


Q: And did you see action at the battle of Saipan?


 


A: Yes. That was the last one.


 


Q: What happened there briefly?


 


A: Well, we were stranded on the - I had been the first ship to land there in 


the action on D-Day. And we were stranded on the reef for about 10 days. During 


that time the Japanese used to run dawn and dusk attacks on us. We were badly 


strafed and bombed and one thing and another and quite badly damaged. I lost a 


substantial part of my crew there.


 


MR. PETERSON: Nothing further from the witness, Your Honor.


 


THE COURT: You may cross-examine.


 


MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.


 


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:


 


Q: Sir, you have a rather remarkable memory after all of these years. I take it 


before your testimony today you refreshed your memory with regard to the Action 


Report which you have in front of you there?


 


A: I had a chance to skim through it; that is all, sir.


 


Q: Did you skim through any other documents such as the conference report of 


Admiral Fletcher?


 


A: If that was his letter of transmittal from this, I saw it too, yes.


 


Q: You did see the letter of transmittal from Admiral Fletcher?


 


A: Yes, I did, sir.


 


Q: Is that attached to the exhibit in front of you?


 


A: I think that is where I saw it. It doesn't seem to be in here.


 


Q: Now that in the letter that summarizes the results of the conference that 


Admiral Fletcher hold with regard to this action?


 


A: Yes that is the one I am looking for, but I so far haven't come across it.


 


Q: And that is where Admiral Fletcher stated that the action, in fact, never 


took place?


 


A: Something to that effect, yes, sir.


 


Q: And you can't find it in that exhibit?


 


A: I am still looking, but I am also listening to you at the same time.


 


Q: Now. the conference report in the transmittal of Admiral Fletcher would have 


been classified information and secret at that period of time; is that correct?


 


A: This entire record and everything pertaining to it was classified secret at 


that time. It since, I see here, has been declassified.


 


Q: So, Admiral Fletcher's notation that no such action ever took place would 


have been secret at that period of time; is that correct?


 


A: Yes, it would have been. I think it said something in there instructing that 


it be forwarded only by registered letter if I remember right.


 


Q: So if the political climate at the time in 1943 was one of fear on the West 


Coast, it would have been more helpful to that climate to disclose Admiral 


Fletcher's conclusions that there were no submarines; is that correct?


 


A: I am not sure I follow you. It would have been very helpful for him to insist 


that he had none, yes.


 


Q: But it would have been helpful to disclose his findings to the public that 


there had been no submarines?


 


A: No, I don't think so, because I believe the entire action was secret at that 


time.


 


Q: So, the public didn't know about it one way or the other?


 


A: Other than people who lived along the shore and saw and heard the things.


 


Q: When did you last see Admiral Fletcher's report?


 


A: I saw it this morning, I glanced at it. That is why I am trying to find it 


because I would recognize it if I saw it. I had not seen it before I came out 


here.  As I recall, it was dated June 23rd, and that was after I left the PC. I 


don't find it here, but I am sure it is in here.


 


Q: Who first contacted you. sir. with regard to your appearance as a witness?


 


A: Who first contacted me? Mr. - I think it is - Wittle, Tom Wittle.


 


Q: And approximately how long ago was that?


 


A: Last week or early, I think no, last week.  I am sorry.


 


Q:  Had you had any prior contact with any representatives of the Church of 


Scientology at any time in the last three or four years?


 


A: No, sir. not in over 15 years.


 


Q: And they found you in Maine?


 


A: Yes.


 


Q: Now, did you know L, Ron Hubbard as a good storyteller?


 


A: As a good storyteller?


 


Q: A person who told stories.


 


A: What sort of stories?


 


Q: Well, did you know him to have any reputation at the time you knew him during 


World War II as a good storyteller?


 


A: Do you mean jokes and things of that sort?


 


Q: No; stories about incidents that had taken place in his lifetime.


 


A: No, he was very reticent, as a matter of fact.


 


Q: Did you consider him to be a very honest person?


 


A: Indeed.


 


Q: And he told you that he had injured his eyes from a flash burn when a gun 


unexpectedly went off; is that correct?


 


A: Yes.


 


Q: Did he tell you when that took place?


 


A: It would have been sometime before Pearl Harbor, I don't know, I seem to 


remember he told me it was - it was on a destroyer, but I wouldn't swear to it 


after all of this time.


 


Q: But you are clear that he injured his eyes from the flash burn of a gun?


 


A: I am cleat that he said he did, yes.


 


Q: When you were serving with Mr. Hubbard did you over see his medical records 


with regard to his eye condition in 1942 and 1943?


 


A: No. sir.  I would not have seen him after I left the ship. I have never seen 


him since then.


 


MR. LITT: Your Honor, I -


 


Q BY MR. FLYNN: I'm talking about the period now when you were with him.


 


A: When I was with him, I don't remember him going to a doctor at all.


 


MR. PETERSON: I object to Mr. Flynn showing the witness something. I have no 


idea what he is showing the witness.


 


THE COURT: Just show counsel what it is before you show it to the witness.


 


MR. LITT: Your Honor,  the document that is being shown to the witness appears 


to be a Veterans Administration document from 1947.


 


MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, let’s hear the question.


 


He is showing the witness the document and pointing to things for the witness to 


look at before he has even asked his question. I think it is irregular. Why 


doesn't he ask the question rather than putting medical records in front of the 


witness who isn't a trained doctor?


 


THE COURT: I don't see any big question. He has asked him the question.  I’ll 


overrule the objection. You can answer whether he ever told you that.


 


THE WITNESS: He did not, no.


 


This was a hospitalization in February of 1942 which was before I knew him. He 


did not - it does not say in here that that was the original injury. This could 


have been an aggravation of an old one.  It says “excessive tropical sunlight,” 


but it doesn't say this was the cause of his original trouble.


 


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Does it say anything about a flash burn from a gun?


 


A: No. sir.


 


And with regard to his actual chronological medical history, in May 1942, this 


officer states, “While acting as intelligence officer for the Asiatic Fleet he 


exposed his eyes to strong sunlight and has had to wear tainted glasses ever 


since.”  Did he ever tell you that?


 


A: No, sir, he did not.


 


MR. PETERSON: I am not sure I understand what “tainted glasses” are.


 


THE COURT: For the record, it is what it in, I assume -


 


Q BY MR. FLYNN: He told you that -


 


THE COURT: He probably means “tinted.”  Go ahead.


 


BY MR. FLYNN: He told you that he was injured by a Japanese machine gun?


 


A: Yes. sir.


 


Q: When was that. sir. that he told you that?


 


THE COURT: When did he tell him. or when did he tell him he was injured?


 


Q BY MR. FLYNN: First, when did Captain Hubbard tell you that he was injured by 


a Japanese machine gun?


 


A: This was while we were in Miami which would have been in the fall of 1942. It 


was the fall of 1942.


 


Q: Is that -


 


A: While we were in Miami.


 


Q: Did he describe the circumstances under which he was injured by the Japanese 


machine gun?


 


A: Yes, in some detail; not entirely.


 


Q: What did he tell you?


 


A: That he had been in Surabaya at the time the Japanese came in or in the area 


of Surabaya and that he spent some time in the hills in back of Surabaya after 


the Japanese had occupied it.


 


Q: Now, Surabaya was where, sir?


 


A: That is a port on the north part of Java in the Dutch East Indies.


 


Q: So you understood from Captain Hubbard that he had been in Java fighting the 


Japanese and was hit by machine gun fire?


 


A: Not quite as you put it. He had been landed, so he told me In Java from a 


destroyer named the Edsall and had made his way across the land to Surabaya, and 


that is when the place was occupied. When the Japanese came in, he took off into 


the hills and lived up in the jungle for some time until he made an escape from 


there.


 


THE COURT: Sounds like the South Pacific, the “Tales from the South Pacific” by 


Kichener.


 


THE WITNESS: I know of it. I haven’t read it.


 


THE COURT: Anyway, go ahead.


 


Q BY MR, FLYNN: When did he tell that this took place, Captain Moulton?


 


A: He was there apparently on the 8th of December which corresponded to December 


7th, the other wide of the dateline.


 


Q: December 8th


 


A: At that period when the Japanese occupied all of the Dutch East Indies.


 


Q: That would have been in 1941 or 1942?


 


A: '42.


 


Q: So this would have been -


 


A: Did I say 1942?  I should have said 1941.


 


THE COURT: Was that Pearl Harbor?


 


THE WITNESS: That was at the time of Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was the 7th on 


one side and the 8th on the other side.


 


The Japanese came in - I was not in that area at the time so I don't know the 


exact time that they occupied Surabaya, but it was within a day or two after 


that.


 


BY MR. FLYNN: So he told you he was in the South Pacific in Surabaya when the 


Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor?


 


A: That is correct. He had been landed by the Edsall and she was sunk shortly 


after that. He was, as far an I know, the only person that ever got off the 


Edsall because he wasn't aboard when it happened. She was sunk within a few days 


after that.


 


Q: And Captain Hubbard told you all this?


 


A: Yes, sir, but I also know that she was sunk.  She is carried in the records 


as having been sunk with all hands.


 


Q: And all hands were lost except Captain Hubbard?


 


A: He was ashore at the time.


 


Q: And that is when he was hit by the machine gun fire?


 


A: Some time during his chasing up and around through the jungle before he made 


his escape.


 


Q: Now, when you were working with Captain Hubbard, did you ever look at any of 


his records with regard to his military history prior to the time that you act 


him?


 


A: No, sir. I would have no access to them.


 


Q: So you believed Captain Hubbard at the time?


 


A: Certainly. I had no reason not to.


 


Q: Did he tell you exactly where he was hit by the machine gun fire?


 


A: In the back, in the area of the kidneys, I believe on the right side.


 


Q: And did he tell you what caliber machine gun it was?


 


A: No, sir, he did not.


 


Q: And it damaged his urinary system?


 


A: Somewhere In the urinary system. I know he had a great bit of difficulty in 


urinating.


 


Q: And did he till you how long he remained hiding in the hills with these 


machine gun wounds before he was removed from the combat area?


 


A: I know that he told me he had made his escape eventually to Australia. I 


don't know just when it was. He apparently, he and another chap, sailed a life 


raft, I believe. to near Australia where they were picked up by a British or 


Australian destroyer.


 


Q: And that would have been late 1941, early 1942?


 


A: I would imagine it would have to have been early 1942 because it would take 


some time from December 7.


 


Q: Now, Captain Hubbard gave you all of these details that you are giving the 


court today; is that correct?


 


A: Well, I have no other knowledge except what he told me.


 


Q: And did he tell you how far he sailed the raft?


 


A: He told me he was picked up - again. I'm trusting my memory - but it was on 


the order of 75 miles off Australia.


 


I know it was under 100, but it was somewhere around 75 because it was a 


remarkable piece of navigation.


 


Q: And had he received any treatment for his wounds during this period of time?


 


A: This, I do not know.  He said that he was very ill in the jungle with the 


injuries. That is all I know.


 


Q: With machine gun bullets in his back?


 


A: I don't know if the bullets were in there or had passed through or what, I 


never saw the scars.


 


Q: Now, did he tell you whether he was an Intelligence officer at that time or 


what type of duty post he had?


 


A: No. He mentioned he had been on the Edsall. And that was all, and that he had 


previously served in other Vessels.


 


Q: You believed this entire story, is that correct?


 


A: I had no reason to disbelieve it. sir.


 


Q: Now, let me show you exhibit 500-II and ask if you are familiar with this 


type of Naval document called “Report of Compliance With Orders.”


 


A: This is a standard form, yes, sir.


 


Q: You are familiar with those forms; is that correct?


 


A: Yes. sir.


 


Q: Now, that relates to the Lieutenant J.G. Lafayette Hubbard; is that correct?


 


A: That is correct.


 


Q: And it shows that he was ordered to Australia on November 24, 1941; right, 


and that he left on December 8. 1941 from the United States?


 


A: Let me see.  Received the orders on the 24th and he was dispatched on 


December 8th; however -


 


Q: He arrived in Brisbane, Australia when, Captain Moulton?


 


A: It says January 16; however, this could be meaningless. It is not to be 


relied on.  If something you said just now is true - said he was an intelligence 


officer, I believe - if that is so, this would be meaningless.


 


Q: That could be false?


 


A: Not false, but an intelligence officer, as far as I know, has all sorts of 


spurious letters stating where he is sent to, when he got there.  I did not know 


he was an intelligence officer. But if he was, this would be meaningless.


 


Q: Now. what about this document, Captain Moulton; do you recognize what that 


is?


 


MR. PETERSON: Can we have -


 


MR. FLYNN: 500-JJ marked. “Confidential” at the bottom.


 


A: Yes.


 


Q: Do you recognize what that is?


 


A: This is a Navy communication stating that there is nothing available for him 


there and that he is ordered to return to Com 12. I think that was the West 


Coast.


 


Q: It says, “Lieutenant J.G. ordered returned via Chaumont; report to Com 12; 


unsatisfactory for any available assignment.”


 


A: That would be routine wording, yes.


 


Q: What is the date of that, Captain Moulton?


 


A: This is dated - let me see - 16 February 1942.


 


Q: That would be roughly a month after he was shot in the back with a Japanese 


machine gun?


 


A: Well, it would be anywhere from six to eight weeks on up, yes. If we assume 


that happened in early December.


 


Q: Let me show you this document from the United States Naval Attaché, 


Melbourne, Australia, dated February 14, 1942, exhibit 500-KK.


 


A : Uh-huh.


 


Q: Now, do you see the part that - let me read part of it to you.


 


'The subject officer arrived in Brisbane via SS President Polk. He reported to 


me that he was ordered to Manila for duty and asked for permission to leave the 


SS President Polk until a vessel offering a more direct route to his destination 


was available. I authorized him to remain in Brisbane for future transportation 


to his destination. By assuming unauthorized authority and attempting to perform 


duties for which he has no qualifications, he became the source of much 


trouble.”


 


Do you see that?


 


A: Yes.


 


Q:  “On February 11, 1942 I sent him dispatch orders to report to the commanding 


officer USS Chaumont” - that's C-h-a-u-m-o-n-t – “for passage to the United 


States. And upon arrival report to the commandant 12th Naval District for future 


assignment. This officer is not satisfactory for Independent duty assignment. He 


is garrulous and tries to give impressions of his importance. He also seems to 


think that he has unusual ability in most lines. These characteristics indicate 


that he will require close supervision for satisfactory performance of any 


intelligence duty.”


 


Q: Did you see that?


 


A: Does it say when - will you give me just a moment to read this?


 


Q: Sure.


 


A: This is dated, as I see, February 14. It says he arrived in Brisbane on the 


President Polk, but it doesn't say where he came from.


 


Q: Well, doesn’t the other report of compliance with orders indicate that he cam 


from the United States, Captain Moulton?


 


A: Not necessarily, it doesn’t mention the Polk.


 


Q: Do you know whether the President Polk was a life raft?


 


A: No, but I don’t know where he came from. It merely says he was on her on 


arrival in Brisbane. If he was on that run, she probably made a lot of ports in 


Australia. He may have ridden coastwise on her. I can't tell from this. I was 


not there.


 


Q: I take it that you like L. Ron Hubbard.


 


A: I served with him. I liked him very well at the time I served with him. It is 


a great many years ago.


 


Q: And rather than believe those documents, you'd believe what Mr. Hubbard said?


 


A: I never believe or disbelieve them. I merely pointed out that they do not 


state that he came on to Brisbane from the States.


 


Q: Does it say anything about being wounded by Japanese machine gun fire?


 


A: No, sir.


 


Q: It states that he is garrulous and unsatisfactory for any assignment.


 


MR. LITT: Objection - the document speaks for itself. It is argumentative.


 


THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.


 


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, I take it when you ware serving with him on the PC 815, you 


believed the machine gun story?


 


MR. LITT: Objections asked and answered.


 


THE WITNESS: You mean of his being wounded?


 


MR LITT: This is the third time.


 


THE COURT: Yes, it has already been indicated.


 


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, you went from an antisubmarine warfare vessel to an 


amphibious vessel, an LST?


 


A: Yes, sir.


 


Q: So after the incident involving you and L. Ron Hubbard on the PC 815 in May 


1943, you never saw anymore duty in connection with anti-submarine warfare 


vessels. Is that correct?


 


A: Let me see. No, I did not, sir.


 


Q: You were transferred out of that duty right after that incident?


 


A: No it was, oh, I would say two or three weeks later. I had a request transfer 


for some time. I had taken it, as I told you, temporarily as a relief executive 


officer,


 


Q: Now, so, I take it from the time where you dropped all these depth charges 


with the PC 815 and Mr. Hubbard, you never dropped any depth charges again on 


any supposed submarine contacts?


 


A: That is correct.


 


Q: Now, I believe you testified that you first heard the sonar contact and you 


evaluated it and determined it was a submarine?


 


A: That is correct.


 


Q:  Would you turn to page 2 of L. Ron Hubbard's -


 


A: Page 2? Yes, sir.


 


Q: L. Ron Hubbard's report of this action.  Now, in the second paragraph you 


find “Attack One”; is that correct?


 


A: Paragraph 2, no, sir. Are we looking at different things?


 


Q: Page 2.


 


A: We seem to have a different copy or something.


 


Q: We sure do. This copy was provided to me, Your Honor, by plaintiff's counsel. 


 I see, simply a question of different pagination at the bottom of one page with 


a handwritten number and a typewritten page 2 at the top.


 


A: Oh, I see. You didn't make that clear. I guess that is why I made a mistake.


 


Q: I guess I didn't. Typewritten page 2.


 


A: Correct.


 


Q: You see where “Attack One” begins and concludes?


 


A: Yes, sir.


 


Q: And then right next to that, at this point you have dropped all but three of 


your depth charges; is that correct?


 


A: Frankly I don't remember. We had dropped some of them. I don't remember how 


many we had left. We had very few to start with. I don't remember the count.


 


THE COURT: Are those the ash cans or X guns?


 


THE WITNESS: Well, the X guns fired ash cans and we also rolled them.


 


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, incidentally, in your Naval career was this the only time 


that you claimed you sunk a submarine?


 


A: The only time I claimed I sunk a submarine? It is the only time I sunk a 


submarine, yes, sir.


 


Q: Is it the only time you ever rolled ash cans to sink a submarine?


 


A: I rolled dummy ash cans on tame submarines for a period of two or three weeks 


from morning until night and in the night, also.


 


Q: So this is the first time that you ever suspected a live enemy submarine and 


rolled ash cans?


 


A: I had rolled them on tame submarines.


 


Q:  So this is the one and only time that you have ever rolled ash cans on 


supposed enemy submarines, this incident?


 


THE COURT: I assume it was your men that rolled them and you ordered them?


 


THE WITNESS: That is correct.


 


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, you said in the third paragraph after you claim that you 


found or made solid contact with a submarine, the notation that you have rolled 


all but three of your depth charges as indicated by the next page at this point.


 


“No one, including the commanding officer, could readily credit the existence of 


an enemy submarine here on the steamer track, and all sound men now on the 


bridge were attempting to argue the echo ranging equipment and chemical recorder 


out of such a fantastic idea."


 


A: That is correct.


 


Q: Now, this was after you had made the solid contact that you testified about. 


Is that correct?


 


A: Well, using your words. I think you are twisting just a bit.  To use an 


analogy, If you came down a dose of gonorrhea, it would be difficult to credit 


it, but the evidence is immutable.


 


This is what happened here; who would expect a submarine off the West Coast of 


California? But you can't argue with a machine, your hearing. and your training.


 


Q: Are you testifying that these are my words, or Captain Hubbard's words about 


a fantastic idea?


 


A: I just wanted to clarify the way you ware wording it. I didn't know what you 


were saying.


 


Q: All I did was write the words of Captain Hubbard


 


A: We'll try it again and I'll try to answer.


 


Q: Do you recall testifying that you first made sonar contact; you evaluated it; 


you determined it was a submarine and rolled depth charges?


 


A: Certainly.


 


Q: How many depth charges did you roll?


 


A: I don't remember. It would be in the attack report. It would be somewhere in 


the gunnery report.


 


Q: This statement of Captain Hubbard appears after attack one concluded; is that 


correct?


 


A: Yes.


 


Q: And that is where he says, “No one will argue for such a fantastic idea”?


 


A: As I told you, the analogy.


 


Let me point out that we never would have rolled the first ash cans as a matter 


of routine unless we knew what we were rolling it on. We didn't go around 


rolling them on porpoises.


 


Q: That seems to be the question, Captain Moulton.


 


A: Whose question?


 


Q: Now. after you did this first attack on this fantastic idea, there was three 


depth charges left on the ship; is that correct, on page 3?


 


A: Is that typewritten three?


 


Q:  Typewritten three.


 


A: Where does it give the amount – oh, I see.


 


Q: Only three depth charges were now left on the ship?


 


A: At that point, yes.


 


Q: “The next three attacks were therefore parsimonious”; do you see that?


 


A: “ . . . with an eye to harass the submarine”; yes.


 


Q: Now. one of the vessels that came onto the area, the SC 537, refused to even 


participate; didn't she?


 


A: She participated very poorly, as I mentioned earlier.


 


Q: She refused to cooperate because she didn't believe the soundings; is that 


correct?


 


A: I cannot say it was for any reason. All I know is her actions were not 


consonant with the orders that were given to her.  Why she did it, I cannot say.


 


Q: Did Captain Hubbard exceed his orders when he made the initial firings of the 


ash cans?


 


A: Absolutely not. This is war time. This is not playing games. You come across 


a submarine and he doesn't identify, you sink him if possible. You don't need 


orders from anybody for that.


 


Q: He didn't exceed his orders by firing first on the submarine?


 


A: No. He would have been very remiss if he hadn't done so.


 


Q: Would you turn to page 18, typewritten 18?


 


A: Yes, sir.


 


Q: In the last paragraph just above the signature of L. Ron Hubbard, do you see 


the statement. “. . . although exceeding its orders originally by attacking the 


first contact.”


 


A: Yes, sir.


 


Q: “This vessel feels only that it has done the job for which it was intended 


and stands ready to do that job again.”


 


A: Yes, sir.


 


Q: Now, did L. Ron Hubbard - did you help prepare this report with L. Ron 


Hubbard?


 


A: Yes, part of it, yes. This last paragraph, I don't recall. though.


 


Q: About his exceeding hie orders?


 


A: I still don't understand it. I think he was trying to perhaps explain 


something, but what, I have no idea.  You do not need orders to attack a 


submarine once you identify it.


 


Q: You never saw any further anti-submarine warfare duty after this incident?


 


MR. LITT: Objection. Asked and answered.


 


THE COURT: Sustained.


 


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you recall seeing an object floating in the water that you 


attack with, I believe, your 40-millimeter guns?


 


A: Yes, I remember that.


 


Q: That turned out to be a floating log?


 


A: Well, we thought perhaps - we eventually saw it, yes. We didn't know what it 


was when we opened fire.


 


Q: Do you recall on page 11 taking an oil slick sample, but finding that the 


slick was too thin for samples?


 


A: No. That, I don't recall.


 


Q: That is on page 11.


 


A: Typewritten?


 


Q: Typewritten.


 


A: What paragraph?


 


Q: The fourth paragraph from the top.


 


A: Oh, I see. Yes. I see that.


 


Q:  Do you recall that?


 


A: Not I don't, frankly.  But if that was diesel, that would probably be true. 


Diesel was very, very thin on the surface.


 


Q: Now. do you see in the two paragraphs below that a report that the sub had 


surfaced off Sand Lake caused all vessels except the Bonham to go flying north 


to that position, but then it was determined that that was a fishing vessel? Do 


you see that?


 


A: Yes, of course. I believe, if I recall correctly, that Ron sent them up there 


to investigate. That would be routine.


 


Q: Chasing fishing vessels?


 


A: Pardon me. You chased any contact on the surface until you identify what it 


is. We were in battle against a submarine here.


 


Now, when you first picked up the supposed submarine contacts, how long after 


you had left port did you pick up these contacts?


 


A: It was either - I believe it was the first night.


 


Q: And that was the first shakedown cruise of PC 815?


 


A: She was still on shakedown, yes.


 


Q: So you had pretty much an inexperienced crew at that time.  Is that correct?


 


A: That is completely incorrect.


 


Q: Well, had the crew seen any duty together prior to that point in time?


 


A: Together? No, except perhaps by coincidence. Some may have come from the same 


ship. We had a very, very competent group of people on that ship, one of the 


best crews I have called with.


 


Q: How long were you with them?


 


A: I was with them, as you know, for what, two months, three months.


 


Q:  And in the very first night of the shakedown cruise you had -


 


THE COURT: This in going to he argumentative, Counsel,


 


THE WITNESS: The ship had been to sea several times before that,


 


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Captain Moulton, after you left the ship, it proceeded down to 


the San Diego area?


 


A: After I left the ship, I think that I told you, I am trusting my memory, I 


believe I left her in San Diego, but I am not certain.


 


Q: Well, did you -


 


A: I left her either in San Francisco or San Diego. I believe San Diego.


 


Q:  So the birdcage that you testified about with regard to that gun was put on 


in San Diego. Is that correct?


 


A: It was supposed to have been put on at the first yard availability, to I 


would imagine it was done there. It was not on her at the time of our action. 


She still had the cans.  


 


Q: Now, shortly after this incident, in July 1943 do you recall whether Mr. 


Hubbard was relieved of command for firing on the Mexican coast?


 


A: That did not occur while I was on her, sir. I wouldn't know.


 


Q: You don’t know anything about that?


 


A: No.


 


Q: And do you know anything about Mr. Hubbard's subsequent Naval career after 


you served with him?


 


A: No, I never saw him again. I have talked with him, but it has not been in 15 


or 20 years.


 


Q: And do you know whether or not subsequent fitness reports were made on Mr. 


Hubbard as lacking the essential qualifies -


 


MR. PETERSON: I object to this. He's testified he has no knowledge.


 


THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.


 


THE WITNESS: This covers a period of time I don't know. so I wouldn't want to 


make a comment.


 


BY MR. FLYNN: This is roughly two or three months


 


THE COURT: I have already sustained the objection to the things that happened 


after.


 


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Who paid your way out here, Captain Moulton?


 


A: My expenses are being reimbursed by Mr. Peterson's firm, but I don't know who 


bought it. Actually, it hasn't been paid. It in on a credit card.


 


Q: So you came out here voluntarily?


 


A: Yes, sir.


 


Q: Now you and Mr. Hubbard were never given credit for sinking or damaging any 


Japanese submarines; were you?


 


A: I don't know. There is something quite odd about that and I have never gotten 


to the bottom of it. I believe we were.


 


Q:  Well, Admiral Fletcher in his report never gave you credit?


 


A: I am talking about the Navy Department in Washington. We were allowed, so I 


was advised, to wear two battle stars on our American Theater ribbon which I 


wore as long as I was in the service. I was told that they had been allowed by 


Washington.


 


Q: Now, you saw this report of Admiral Fletcher just before coming into the 


courtroom?


 


A: Yes, sir.


 


MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.  I would request the production of 


that.


 


MR. PETERSON: It misstates testimony. He said he saw a transmittal letter.


 


THE COURT: Whatever it was, let's produce it.


 


MR. PETERSON: The only thing I have is a copy of some exhibits.


 


THE WITNESS: Let me take a little time to go through that. I may -


 


THE COURT: If it is part of that, lot's not worry about it.


 


THE WITNESS: I think that is where I saw it, but I am not sure. Can you give me 


a page number, sir, from your file?


 


MR. FLYNN: I don't think it is in there, Captain Moulton.


 


MR. PETERSON: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?  I think this is what you 


are talking about.


 


MR. FLYNN:  I would move - I would offer this, Your Honor.


 


THE COURT: Well, he can mark it as an exhibit.


 


MR PETERSON: What number, Your Honor?


 


THE COURT: I guess 91.


 


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is this the document you were referring to marked "Secret" in 


the upper left-hand corner and signed -


 


A: Yes, This is the letter. That is what I would call second endorsement. So it 


is a part of the letter transmittal.  Our report was endorsed: first endorsement 


by somebody and then he was the second. And then it would go to someone else and 


subsequently it would end up and be sent back.


 


MR, FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.


 


THE COURT: Redirect?


 


MR. PETERSON: Yes, Your Honor.


 


REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETERSON:


 


Q: You mentioned that you had a Master Certificate; since the end of the war 


what has your last occupation been?


 


A: Except for a short period ashore where I worked in engineering I have been 


working almost entirely in the Merchant Marine.


 


Q: And were you involved in sailing ships off the Vietnam coast during the 


periods of the Vietnam conflict?


 


A: I was captain of ships throughout most of the Vietnam conflict.


 


Q: Have you recently retired?


 


A: As of the 1st of this month, officially.


 


Q: And during that period of time you have been sailing vessels?


 


A: Yes, sir.


 


Q: And during the remainder


 


A: When did you get out of the Navy?


 


A: I would have to check; either December 1946 or January of 1947.


 


Q:  From the period of time that you left PC 815 until the time you left the 


Navy did you serve basically in combat duty?


 


A: Yes, sir, essentially. As a matter of fact, until the and of the war it was 


all combat, in command.


 


Q: In command of LSTs?


 


A: Two LSTs and two repair ships - one repair ship. The second one was after the 


war.


 


Q: In cross-examination and reviewing certain documents that Mr. Flynn placed 


before you, you indicated that if Mr. Hubbard had been in Intelligence, that 


those particular documents wouldn't necessarily reflect the true factual 


situation.


 


A: That is my understanding, sir.


 


Q:  That in your understanding of what happened with officers who were involved 


in Intelligence duty; is that correct?


 


THE COURT: We are sure getting a lot of speculation. I don't know that there was 


any evidence that he was in intelligence work.


 


THE WITNESS: I don't know that he was in intelligence work. Counsel said he was.


 


THE COURT: Counsel said he may have said he was.


 


THE WITNESS: I thought he said he was.


 


THE COURT: He may have said he was. Hubbard may have said that Hubbard was in 


intelligence work.


 


THE WITNESS: One of the documents that you were discussing said something about 


It too.: I think one of those that you showed me; didn't it, the letter from 


Australia? You mentioned it.


 


MR. FLYNN: It is not my examination now.


 


MR. PETERSON: May I see those exhibits, Your Honor?


 


Q: Captain Moulton, in your experience in the Navy did you have yourself 


personal independent knowledge of how records were kept regarding intelligence 


officers?


 


A: Yes, sir.


 


Q: It was based upon that personal knowledge that you were answering Mr. Flynn’s 


question?


 


A: That is correct.


 


Q:  And you said that it would not be unusual for certain dispatches or orders, 


items, to be put into a Naval officer's file if he were in intelligence 


operations; is that correct?


 


A: This, we were told in instructions when we were taught how to keep Naval 


records. And as Captain, of course, I was ultimately responsible. It was common 


knowledge in the service,


 


Q: Part of it was for security reasons so that a enemy intelligence couldn't 


ascertain where certain offers or certain people ware conducting intelligence 


operations; in that correct?


 


A: I would think also to avoid letting people know that an intelligence officer 


was entering an area.


 


THE COURT: What do you mean by "an intelligence officer"? Is that somebody that 


is working with the Office of Naval Intelligence?


 


THE WITNESS: Or related.


 


THE COURT: Or OSS, or what?


 


THE WITNESS: I would say or any related organization.


 


THE COURT: What about just a lieutenant commander in the Navy, a lieutenant JG?


 


THE WITNESS: If his classification or commission was intelligence, it would he 


handled somewhat differently. At the time I knew him, his classification was 


DV(G).


 


THE COURT: I thought he was aboard a destroyer.


 


THE WITNESS: DV(G) would cover that.


 


THE COURT: Was he an engineering officer, or what?


 


THE WITNESS: No; a deck officer with the DV(G).


 


THE COURT: That has nothing to do with intelligence, does it?


 


THE WITNESS: Maybe yes, maybe no. A lot of intelligence officers carry DV(G) 


commissions. A lot of them carry special IV(S) commissions. They were changed 


frequently. I don't know, sir. It is speculation on my part only because another 


counsel mentioned that he had been in intelligence. I didn't know this.


 


MR, PETERSON: Your Honor, the line of questioning is because Mr. Flynn was using 


certain documents and the witness indicated that it wouldn't be inconsistent if 


the man was in Naval Intelligence.


 


THE COURT: I think we are getting out in left field. The witness isn't competent 


to testify about the way in which Naval Intelligence records were kept. He has 


some knowledge about some things. A lot of it is based upon what somebody might 


have told him. That is way out in left field. We have no solid evidence that Mr. 


Hubbard was ever an intelligence officer with Naval Intelligence.


 


Maybe somewhere in archives, maybe Mr. Hubbard will come in and tell us he was 


an intelligence officer.


 


MR. PETERSON: May I approach the witness, and ask him one question?


 


THE COURT: You don't have to approach him.


 


MR. PETERSON: I would like for it to be off the record.


 


MR. FLYNN:  Your Honor, I don't understand what is going on now.


 


MR. PETERSON: It is rather than taking a break.


 


(Conference between plaintiff's counsel and witness.)


 


THE WITNESS: Way I continue that with you for just a moment?


 


MR. PETERSON: No further questions.


 


THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, anything further?


 


RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:


 


Q: Captain Moulton, you never worked in Naval intelligence, did you?


 


A: I was assigned to intelligence duty at one point in my career.


 


THE COURT: Well, do you have a CIC on board your ship? That is an intelligence 


operation, isn't it?


 


THE WITNESS: I was stationed intelligence officer and chief of police for a time 


at the Bayonne Annex of the Brooklyn Navy shipyards at which time I had charge 


of security of the Europa when she was captured as a war prize, and I conducted 


considerable investigation for the Navy, as a result of which City officials 


were put in prison.


 


Q BY MR. FLYNN: And did you create false records when you did that?


 


A: That type of duty would not require any false records. sir. I was there 


openly.


 


Q: So the answer is you didn't create any false records?


 


A: No, sir.


 


MR, FLYNN: No further questions.


 


MR. PETERSON: I think the record now stands corrected, that he does understand 


and know Naval intelligence.


 


REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETERSON:


 


Q:  In that correct?


 


A: To some extent, sir.


 


MR. PETERSON: I have nothing further.


 


THE COURT: You may stop down, sir.


 


THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.


 


