◆ SpookStack

C QQ San Francisco Filo #62-2812 (5). Whethor the building wos of tho samo sise and kind as thet under construction on March 26, 1946; | ee thet he himself had injected this question pre into the case and that nothing hed been introduced on this point at the time of the first hearing. It subso- quently developed that there were two ohengos, one as to material uscd ani one os to the size. He stated that at the outset the construction was to be of lattico steel and was later changed to reinforoe2 concrete. The Commis- sionor felt, howevor, that this wos a change from a more eritical to a loss oritical mterial, ond should nct pro- judice the Respondonts. He stated that in regard to size, the building actually being constructec wos determined to be ‘some 7,000 squaro feet less than that shown on the plot plan of Jenucry 12, 1946. Te felt thet this chongo also resulted in o conservation of materials and thus wes not in vdolation of ony CPi order. He stated that ho had rulod that tho plot plan ‘%ated March 22, 1946 introlucei into ovi- donco as Exhitit 4 was tho "“efinitivo jocuncnt as to sizo, and construction was in close conformity to this plan" Tic statci tht while thero wes sestimony by bx » other witnesses for tho icsponients at tho first hearing that the plan of January 12 was tho basic plan, ho folt thero wns no metericl differcuee betwoon the two plans which woul? £nfluence his docision, tho chiof diffcrenee, he folt, boing that the Narch 22, 1946 plon wos smaller in sizes The Cormissioncr felt that there was no evidence of mis- reprosontation and sts. *hot nono had been offerod the Govermont. ie 6 = nat testify an? he thoush’ opresonta— tin at only ono building was being built was mercly o oon- } clusion Me state’ that he folt that the Respondent's tostimny py 7C at the first MNoaring, that tunnels continued undor tho entire "horseshoe" was also only the conclusion of the witnesses, and their idea of the tumel, which they hai goinc? from having tale} to the architects, and did not fecl that they were materially mis-stating the facts. He stated that he "tossc. the tunnels out" in making his decision, giving testimony regard- ins tho tumnel‘s woisht only in connection with cther cviience showing a physical Sonnoction botween the buildings. Te felt that really material witnesses in the case were the architects who vt the CPi Investigators. Mle felt that the Government had not sust: the burton cf proof that the buildings were separate. He thought that the -24-