Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy - Ludwig von Mises ...

Joint Congressional Committee, Pearl Harbor Attack: Part 3 759
too. What “possible interest, personal interest” might Saff ord
have in this controversy? “You realize, of course,” Keefe said to
Saff ord, “that in view of the implications that have been stated in
the cross-examination of you, especially by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Murphy], that you have made some rather strong
charges? . . . Th at may well militate against your career as a naval
offi cer. Did you realize that when you came here as a witness?”
Of course, Saff ord replied, every time he had testifi ed. True,
he had “no personal interest, except I started it and I have got to
see it through.”
Keefe: And despite the fact that you have nothing personally
to gain, and everything to lose, you have persisted in this story
every time you have testifi ed?
Saff ord: I have. 106 . . . I believe the best defense is telling the
truth. 107
Finally Saff ord completed fi ve days (February 1–6) before the
JCC, battered and bruised perhaps, but unbowed. His testimony
remained consistent throughout the investigations.
Chief Warrant Offi cer Ralph T. Briggs, the Cheltenham code
clerk who had intercepted the “Winds Execute,” had bowed to the
command of his superior offi cer and did not testify. Saff ord had
respected Briggs’s request for confi dentiality, never mentioned his
name, and revealed nothing Briggs had told him in confi dence. 108
(Because of personal problems—his wife was going blind—
Briggs complied with the order of Captain Harper, his superior
offi cer, out of fear he would be fi red if he disobeyed. Only since
his retirement in 1977 has he acknowledged intercepting the
106Ibid., pp. 3807–08.
107Ibid., p. 3717.
108See Chapter 28, pp. 671ff .