Memorandum from James Bennett to Herbert Brownell with Report of Interview with Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

an June 5, 1953 IF I I E MEZORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JUN 5 1953 Bureau of Prisons Re: Report on Interview with rosehbergs On Tuesday, June 2, I interviewed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in the death house at Sing Sing. I talked first with Julius in an interview room which was made available to ne by the Warden. Following a short preliminary conversation about his health and the status of his case, I told him that it was part of my official duty to arrange for any visits he might care to request with Government officials familiar with the details of his case. I told him that there seemed to be a feeling on the part of some Government agencies that he was in possession of information which would be helpful in solving some as yet unanswered questions. I stressed the importance of early disclosure of any such information he might have and giving Government agents en opportunity to check on whatever statement he might meke in view of the fact that the execution date was only two weeks away. I had scarcely made known the purpose of my meeting when Julius launched dn a quite emotionally charged tirade to the effect that he and his wife were the victims not only of a gross miscarriage of justice but a "deal" by the Government on the one hand end his brother and sister-in- law, David and Ruth Greenglass. He asserted that Attorney General McGrath was the architect of the blot and had somehow influenced the selection of Judge Kaufmen as the trial judge and was generally responsible for the outcome. He is very bitter also toward his sister-in-law, iuth Greenglass, and lays great stress on the fact that she got off scot-free while his wife Ethel gets the death sentence. I questioned some of his statements and repeatedly told him that he ought somehow to be able to disabuse those faniliar with the case of the feeling he had failed to make a full disclosure and had not been cooperative. Each time he protested his innocence. He also claims that he was convicted on the basis of perjured testimony and trickery on the part of the prosecutor. For instance, he laid considerable stress on the fact that his brother-in-law, David Greenglass, was supposed to have mede the drawings involved from memory. He says that it was impossible for a person of as little education and experience and knowledge of engineering as his brother-in-law David to do this. He said this in the course of his request that he und his wife be given another opportunity to appear in court so that all of the facts could be brought out. He somehow apparently believes that if he could have another opportunity for public trial he could vindicate himself.