A. BLOCH: Where are your children now?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: They are at a temporary shelter in the Bronx.
A. BLOCH: Have you seen them since you were arrested?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No, I have not....
A. BLOCH: Did you do all the chores of a housewife?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes, I did.
A. BLOCH: Cooking, washing, cleaning, darning, scrubbing?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes, I did.
A. BLOCH: Did you hire any help throughout that period?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: On occasion for brief periods. I know that when I came from the hospital after the birth of the first child I had some help for the first month, and then upon the time that the second child arrived, I had help for about two months, and there was a period when I was ill and that started about November 1944, I had to have help, right up to about the spring of 1945.
A. BLOCH: Now, outside of these three periods you last mentioned, you did all the housework yourself?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: That is right.
A. BLOCH: Your laundry and everything?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: That is correct.
Rosenberg testified that their console which Greenglass claimed was specially equipped for espionage work actually was purchased at Macy's.
COURT: Were you with him when he purchased it?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No, I was not.
A. BLOCH: Were you at home when it was delivered?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes, I was.
A. BLOCH: And did you see who delivered it?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Just the usual delivery person.
A. BLOCH: And can you recollect the year during which the table was acquired and sent to your home and received in your home?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, it was somewhere between, somewhere either in 1944 or 1945.
COURT: Do you remember whether you signed for it when it came or did your husband sign for it?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Oh, I think I signed for it when it came. It came during the day and I was home.
COURT: Did your husband do any other shopping by himself for furniture on any other occasion?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: He did buy something else. At the time I believe he bought a table.
COURT: At the same time?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes.
COURT: Was another piece of furniture purchased then?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I believe it was about the same time.
COURT: What was that piece?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I am not sure.
A. BLOCH: If I should suggest a lamp, would that refresh your recollection?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: It might have been. I remember there was some other item, but I couldn't--
SAYPOL: Well, I object to the suggestion. He might as well suggest a refrigerator.
COURT: All right. We will take it as a suggestion and the jury will understand where it came from.
COURT Did you know that he was going to make that purchase when he did make it?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Oh, yes, we had decided that we realIy needed a decent piece of furniture, at least a table, and so we did decide to make that expenditure.
COURT: As far as you know, how much was that expenditure?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: It was about $20 or $21. I remember that.
COURT: Was there any sale on at the time?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes. He came home and told me he really made a good buy; that it was--
COURT: Did you know in advance? Was there something advertised in the paper? Was there a sale at Macy's?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I couldn't say. I really couldn't recall at this time whether I had noticed a sale or not. We had just decided we needed a table and he stopped in to Macy's and found a buy....
A. BLOCH: Did you at any time type any matters that may be called information concerning anything relating to our national defense?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No, I did not.
COURT: Did you know anything about the charges that had been leveled against your husband by the Government in '45?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Oh, you mean the time that the Government dismissed him?
C0URT: Yes.
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, it was alleged that he was a member of the Communist Party.
COURT: And he was dismissed for that reason?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I refuse to answer on the ground that this might be incriminating.
COURT: No, no, no. I say, the Government dismissed him for that reason? I am not asking you whether he was. I am asking you whether the Government gave that as a reason for his dismissal.
A. BLOCH: May I advise the witness to answer that question?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, they gave that as a reason, that is right.
COURT: Now, you typed the reply for him; is that right?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes.
COURT: And the reply which you typed denied that he was a Communist?
COURT: Now, you typed the reply for him; is that right?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes.
COURT: And the reply which you typed denied that he was a Communist; is that correct?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I refuse to answer on the ground that this might be self-incriminating.
A. BLOCH: I advise you to answer.
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes.
Rosenberg testified that she never attempted to persuade Ruth Greenglass to ask he husband is he would be willing to steal secrets from Los Alamos. Judge Kaufman interrupted with questions.
COURT: Did you know that your brother was working on the atomic bomb project?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No.
COURT: When did you find out about that for the first time?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Oh, when he came out of the Army.
COURT: You mean in 1946?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes.
COURT: Did you know that he was working on a secret project while he was in the Army?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, he told us that when he came in on furlough.
COURT: When?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: At my mother's house.
COURT: In January 1945 or in November 1944?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I don't know the exact date of the furlough, but the first time.
A. BLOCH: May I ask you to keep your voice up, please?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes, I am sorry....
COURT: Well, what were your own views about the subject matter of the United States having any weapon that Russia didn't have at that time? That is, in 1944 and I945?
A. BLOCH: May I respectfully object to your question?
COURT: Yes. Objection overruled.
A. BLOCH: As incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.
COURT: It is most relevant. It goes to the matter of the state of mind, and intention has to be established in this case.
A. BLOCH: I except.
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I don't recall having any views at all about it.
COURT: Your mind was a blank on the subject?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Absolutely.
COURT: There was never any discussions about it at all?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Not about that, not about the weapon.
COURT: Was there any discussion at all as to any advantages which the United States had to make warfare that the Russians didn't have?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No, nothing of that sort.
COURT: You never heard any discussions that there should be some equalization between Russia and the United States?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No, sir.
Bloch asked Ethel about the testimony of the Greenglasses concerning David's visit with the Rosenbergs while on his first forlough from Los Alamos. Ethel denied that any plan was discussed to pass information to Ann Sidorovich in a theater in Denver.
A. BLOCH: Do you recall whether on that occasion Ann Sidorovich was present in your home?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: She may or may not have been. I really don't recall that.
Bloch then repeated the Greenglasses' testimony about the Jell-O box. He quoted Greenglass's testimony as to how Julius had said:
A. BLOCH: "This half will be brought to you by another party and he will bear the greetings from me and you will know that I have sent him"; was there any such thing? Did you ever hear of any such thing as a Jell-O box being cut in two in order to be a means of identification of any emissary or agent to be sent by your husband out West in order to get information from the Los Alamos Project?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Outside of this courtroom, I never heard of any such thing.
COURT: Incidentally, did you have any Jell-O boxes in your apartment?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Oh, yes....
A. BLOCH: Now, your sister-in-law testified, in substance, that she had a miscarriage some time after she had been living with her husband in Albuquerque, and that she had written you a letter in which she informed you of the fact that she had had a miscarriage, and that thereupon she received a response from you in the shape of a letter, in writing, in which you said, in substance, that soon a relative will come to visit her, and insinuated that that was a sort of a signal, or that the word "relative" had some meaning, transmitting to her the idea that somebody was going to come to see her and receive information; did you ever write a letter containing a phrase that a relative would come to see her?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No, I did not.
A. BLOCH: Did you ever make an arrangement with her, or did your husband in your presence, that if the phrase "relative" would be used in any letter, it would mean as an identifying mark, and that it would refer to somebody, an emissary of yours or your husband's coming over to get information?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: There was never any such talk.
A. BLOCH: Did you also communicate with your brother?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes, I did.
A. BLOCH: Now, your brother Dave was the youngest in the family?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: That's right.
A. BLOCH: And you were six years older than he was; and what was the relationship between him and you throughout the period of your living together in the same household, until you married and after you married?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, he was my baby brother.
A. BLOCH: Did you treat him as such?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes, that is exactly how I treated him.
A. BLOCH: Did you love him?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes, I loved him very much.
COURT: Did he sort of look up to you?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes.
COURT: And your husband? Before the arguments that were discussed here in court?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: He liked us both. He liked my husband.
COURT: Sort of hero worship?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Oh, by no stretch of the imagination could you say that was hero worship.
COURT: You heard him so testify, did you not?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes, I did....
A. BLOCH Now can you give us an idea of what you wrote about when you did write to your brother and to your sister-in-law?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, I wrote the usual "How are you? We are all right," and "Take care of yourself," and "This one had a baby," or "The other one got married," and things of that sort.
Ethel denied knowledge of Yakovlev, Bentley, Gold, and Fuchs beyond what she read in newspapers.
A. BLOCH: Did your husband at any time ever mention to you that he was engaged in any spying or espionage work or transmitting information received from various sources or from any source to the Russians?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: He wasn't doing any such thing. He couldn't possibly have mentioned it to me.
Bloch asked a series of questions designed to show that Ethel was too ill during the period of alleged espionage work to have played a very active role.
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, it so happens that I have had a spinal curvature since I was about thirteen and every once in a while that has given me some trouble, and at that time it began to kick up again. and occasionally I have to get into bed and nurse a severe backache. Through the bargain, I developed a case of low blood pressure, and that used to give me dizzy spells, sometimes to the point where I almost fainted. I also had very severe headaches, and it finally got so bad that I went to visit my doctor.
A. BLOCH: Who is your doctor?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Doctor Max Lionel Hart of Rego Park, Long Island.
A. BLOCH: Is Dr. Hart one of the witnesses listed as a Government witness in this case?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes, he is.
COURT: What is the point there? Why ask her that question? What is the relevancy of that?
A. BLOCH: Why not?
COURT: You mean to say that the Government has to call every witness listed on that?
A. BLOCH: I didn't say anything of the kind. I am just identifying the man. That is all.
COURT: All right. Go ahead.
A. BLOCH: And how long between that period, between the fall of 1944 and the middle of 1945, were you under Dr. Hart's care, professional care?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, I used to go for iron injections once or twice a week at least once a week, and very often twice a week regularly.
A. BLOCH: And that was during the period in which they claim you participated in this espionage plan?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, that was the period between the fall of 1944 and the spring of I945--
COURT: But you saw your brother, didn't you, when he came in on his furlough in January 1945?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes, I did.
Ethel added her son's infirmity to her own as an indication that her troubles precluded activities on an espionage front.
A. BLOCH: And what was the condition of your child's health?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: The condition of my child was very poor. I had had a very difficult time ever since his birth, I mean, with him. He was given to severe colds and sore throat with high fever. It wasn't the usual thing of where a baby gets sick occasionally. It was practically every week in and week out. By the time he was a year and a half old, that winter was extremely severe.
Ethel continued to deny playing any criminal role in espionage activities. She specifically denied typing up Greenglass's notes from Los Alamos. Questions turned to the table in their home allegedly used for processing microfilm.
A. BLOCH: Your sister-in-law testified that on a certain occasion in 1946, or at least she thought it was in 1946--that is page 10I3 -your sister-in-law visited you at your home and that she noticed a piece of furniture and that that piece of furniture was a mahogany console table; and that she had a conversation with the Rosenbergs-that means you and your husband-concerning the table; that she said that she admired the table and she asked you "when she bought a new piece of furniture," and that "she said she had not bought it, she had gotten it as a gift"; that she said "it was a very nice gift to get from a friend," and that "Julius said it was from his friend and it was a special kind of table," and thereupon your husband, Julius, "turned the table on its side to show us why it was so special"; did any such thing ever occur.
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No, it did not.
A. BLOCH: She further testified that "there was a portion of the table that was hollowed out for a lamp to fit underneath it so that the table could be used for photograph purposes," and that your husband said that "when he used the table he darkened the room so that there would be no other light and he wouldn't be obvious to anyone looking in"; did you hear any such conversation, at any time, either in I946 or 1947, or at any other period?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I never heard any such conversation.
A. BLOCH Did your husband ever use any table, console table or any other table, for photograph purposes?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No, he did not.
A. BLOCH: Did your husband ever photograph on microfilm or any other substance anything pertaining to any information or secret concerning the national defense, or anything else at all?
ETHEL ROSENBERG No, he did not.
Ethel was asked whether Julius ever discussed with her the demand for money made by Greenglass, which was alleged in Julius's testimony.
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, the first time he said that Davey had demanded $2,000 from him and had seemed pretty upset, and that when my husband told him that he had no such amount of money, he couldn't raise any such money for him, he said, "Well, could you at least do me another favor? Could you at least find out if your doctor will give me a vaccination certificate?"
COURT: Did he add why he wanted that vaccination certificate?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No, I don't recall my husband telling me anything of any reason for it. Except that Dave said that he was in a jam, he was in some trouble.
A. BLOCH: Were you worried about it?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes, I was.
COURT: Well, forget whether you were worried about it; what did you do about it?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, I said to my husband, "Well, doesn't he know the kind of financial situation we are in? Didn't you tell him you can't give him money like that?" And then I remember saying something to the effect that "If Ruthie doesn't stop nagging him for money, she is liable to give him another psychological heart attack like he had in the winter."
Ethel testified that Julius told her about another conversation with David Greenglass.
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, this time my husband told me that Davey really must be in some very serious trouble, that he was extremely nervous and agitated and that he began to talk wildly, threatened that he would be sorry if he didn't--my husband said that David threatened him, that he, my husband, would be sorry if that money wasn't forthcoming.
A. BLOCH: What did you say or do about it?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, I told my husband that I thought I should call the house and find out if everything is all right, and my husband said, "Well, the only thing is, Dave may be working, he may not even be home and I have no way of knowing just how much of this Ruthie knows about," and she has really had her hands full between her burns and having given birth to a child, and perhaps it would be wiser if he took it upon himself to see him at the earliest opportunity he could....
A. BLOCH: Did you at any time either on that occasion or any other occasion, either in words or in substance ask her to get an assurance from Dave that he was not going to talk, that he was going to claim he was going to be innocent, or that he was innocent and that if he does that, everybody will be okay and satisfied?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No, I never said any such thing....
A. BLOCH: That is all as far as I am concerned.
E. H. BLOCH Did I ever advise you to go to see Ruthie Greenglass and tell Ruthie Greenglass to tell her husband to keep his mouth shut?
COURT: What has that got to do with it? There has been no accusation hurled at you.
E. H. BLOCH: But Ruthie Greenglass testified that Ethel Rosenberg said her lawyer sent her down.
COURT: All right, go ahead.
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No, you never told me to do any such thing.
E. H. BLOCH: Well, what did I tell you to do with respect to the Greenglass family?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: You told me to stay away from them.
E. H. BLOCH: Did I tell you I believed that they were your enemies?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes, you told me that.
E. H. BLOCH: That is all.
Cross-examination
Saypol asked about the console that the Greenglass's suggested was a gift from the Russians.
SAYPOL: Did you ever tell any one that that table was a present?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No, I never did.
SAYPOL: You are sure of that?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I am sure of that, yes....
Saypol asked about film developing equipment found by the FBI in the Rosenberg home.
SAYPOL: Did your husband ever do his own developing and printing at home?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: He never did. He made one attempt in 1950 to develop some films and he did such a poor job of it that he decided that that kind of a hobby wasn't for him.
SAYPOL: Is that the first time he ever tried to develop some film?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: That's right; first time.
SAYPOL: What kind of material, what kind of equipment did he have and did he use in connection with his attempt to try to develop some films?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I don't think I could even describe it or name the stuff. It was just some developing developer, whatever you call it.
SAYPOL: Did he have trays?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: What did you say?
SAYPOL: Did he have trays, enamel trays, that he used for developing and printing photographs?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Not that I can recall.
SAYPOL: Did he have chemicals?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I think he had some kind of chemical.
SAYPOL: Did he have what is known as a daylight developing tank?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I never even heard of those words until you just said them.
SAYPOL: Don't you know that when he was arrested, the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation took away from your home some photographic equipment, including a developing tank and some trays?
A. BLOCH: I will object to it upon the ground it is assuming something that has not been proven. It may not be proven, and it is in the record.
COURT: Overruled.
A. BLOCH: Exception.
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, as I told you, I know there was some kind of developer around, but I wouldn't know what you call these things....
COURT: Well now, you remember the month of May very well, don't you?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes.
COURT: You remember the month of June 1950 very well?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes.
COURT: You remember all the incidents that have occurred?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes.
COURT: Did you have any pictures taken for any purpose whatsoever in May or June1950?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: We may have; we may have.
COURT: Do you remember where?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: No, all I remember was some commercial photographer.
COURT: How did you happen to go to that particular commercial photographer?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, I didn't say I went to any particular commercial photographer.
COURT: Well, you just remembered posing before a camera?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Yes.
COURT: How did you happen to get before that camera?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, my older boy happens to be very much interested in machines of any kind.
SAYPOL: Is that the eight-year-old boy?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: That's right. He is very precocious.
SAYPOL: So you took him in to play with the photographer, is that the idea?
COURT: Just a moment.
E. H. BLOCH: I submit that the witness--
SAYPOL: Well--
COURT: Mr. Saypol, will you wait until I am through?
E. H. BLOCH: I move that Mr. Saypol's remarks be stricken from the record.
COURT: They will be stricken. I asked you how did you happen to get to that particular photographer? Who recommended that particular photographer?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Nobody ever recommended any particular commercial photographer to us.
COURT: How did you happen to go to that particular one?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: We, as I tried to explain, my older child was interested in machines, among other things. We, it was our wont to go for walks with them and to stop and look at anything of interest, anything that might be of interest to the children, and very often, as we took these walks, the older child particularly would ask, "Oh, come, let's go in here and get our pictures taken." That is--I think kids generally do that kind of thing.
COURT: How many times would you say he had done that?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Oh, several times. We happen to be what you would call "snapshot hounds" and that bunch of pictures that you saw there doesn't nearly represent all the snapshots and all the photos that we have had made of ourselves and the children all through our lives.
COURT: Then you remember, you say, having had some photographs taken in May or in June?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: It may have been that time. I am really not sure. There were so many frequent occasions when we dropped into these places.
COURT: I am talking about the very last ones that you had taken.
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, I can't say what I don't recall and I really don't recall specifically.
SAYPOL: Well, we have it now at least that the photographer, the commercial photographer, was within walking distance of your home at 10 Monroe Street; is that right?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, there were times we took walks and took photographs elsewhere.
SAYPOL: We are now talking about the time that you last remember, within the two years, when you went with your family to a commercial photographer to have a picture taken or pictures?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: But I didn't say that we took a walk this particular time to this particular place.
SAYPOL: Where was it?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I wouldn't know.
COURT: Is this a convenient place to recess for lunch, Mr. Saypol?
SAYPOL: All right.
COURT: We will recess until 2:20.
Saypol asked Ethel whether she helped her brother David Greenglass join the Communist Party.
SAYPOL: Did you help him join the Communist Party?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I refuse to answer.
SAYPOL: She knows the answer.
BLOCH: She is a better lawyer than I am, no doubt.
SAYPOL: Go ahead.
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I am going to refuse to answer on the ground of self-incrimination.
SAYPOL: Now that your lawyer has interrupted, do you so refuse?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: That is right.
Ethel testified that she asked Ruth Greenglass how David was "standing up in jail."
SAYPOL: You mean, was, he talking about you and your husband? Is that what you meant when you asked that?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Of course not.
SAYPOL: Did you talk at that time about the possibility that perhaps Davey was going to implicate you in this?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, we did recall that the FBI had mentioned, had spoken to my husband in terms of my brother having implicated us, but frankly we didn't believe them.
At the grand jury she was asked whether she had "discussed this case with your brother David Greenglass." She refused to answer, claiming privilege. Saypol asked about her privilege claim.
ETHEL ROSENBERG: It was true, because my brother David was under arrest.
SAYPOL: How would that incriminate you, if you are innocent?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: As long as I had any idea that there might be me chance for me to be incriminated I had the right to use that privilege....
COURT: Now let me ask a question. If you had answered at that time that you had spoken to David, for reasons best known to you, you felt that that would incriminate you?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, if I used the privilege of self-incrimination at that time, I must have felt that perhaps there might be something that might incriminate me in answering.
SAYPOL: As a matter of fact, at that time you didn't know how much the FBI knew about you and so you weren't taking any chances; isn't that it?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I was using--I didn't know what the FBI knew or didn't know.
SAYPOL: Of course you didn't, so you weren't taking any chance in implicating yourself or your husband?
E. H. BLOCH Wait a second. I object to this entire line of questions . . .
Bloch moved for a mistrial.
COURT: I think it is proper cross-examination. Your motion for a mistrial is denied. Your objection is overruled....
ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, if I answered that I didn't want to answer the question on the grounds that it might incriminate me, I must have had a reason to think that it might incriminate me.
SAYPOL: Well, that reason was based on the advice that your lawyer had given you, was it not?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: My lawyer had advised me of my rights.
SAYPOL: He advised you only on the basis of what you told him?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: He advised me as to my rights, but he also advised me it was entirely up to me to decide, on the basis of what the question was, whether or not I thought any answer might incriminate me, and I so used that right.
SAYPOL: You weren't making those answers because of a concern that you had about incriminating your brother, were you?
ETHEL ROSENBERG: I can't recall right now what my reasons were at that time for using that right. I said before and I say again, if I used that right, then I must have had some reason or other. I cannot recall right now what that reason might or might not have been, depending on the different questions I was asked....
COURT: I think we have had enough of this subject, Mr. Saypol, and for this particular purpose, and the purpose for which it is limited, I don't see anything would be added by constant questioning and more assertion of the privilege. So I am going to ask you to go on to another topic....
SAYPOL: I have had enough questions.