The CHAIRMAN. Director, before you get into that question, and may
I ask something that I would like to hear you discuss in this same
connection?
Mr. HOOVER. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. You have told us that you had no jurisdiction down there
in Dallas over this crime.
Mr. HOOVER. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Because there is no Federal crime committed. And I assume
that that caused you some embarrassment and some confusion in doing
your work?
Mr. HOOVER. It most certainly did.
The CHAIRMAN. Because of the likelihood of your being in conflict with
other authorities. Do you believe there should be a Federal law?
Mr. HOOVER. I am very strongly in favor of that.
The CHAIRMAN. Against an attempt to assassinate the President?
Mr. HOOVER. I am very strongly in favor of legislation being enacted
and enacted promptly that will make a Federal crime of attempts upon
the life of the President and the Vice President, and possibly the next
two persons in succession, the Speaker and the President pro tempore
of the Senate. In the Oswald case, we could not take custody of him.
If we had had jurisdiction we would have taken custody of him and I
do not believe he would have been killed by Rubenstein. The failure
to have jurisdiction was extremely embarrassing. I think the killing
of Oswald has created a great fog of speculation that will go on for
years, because of the things that Oswald might have been able to tell
which would have been of assistance in pinning down various phases of
this matter. This must be done now by collecting evidence from third
parties, and not from Oswald himself.
Now, as to the publicity that took place in Dallas, I was very
much concerned with that. We have in the FBI a crime laboratory
that furnishes free service to all law enforcement agencies of the
country. Any law enforcement agency can send to our laboratory here
in Washington any evidence--blood, dirt, dust, guns, anything of
that kind--and our laboratory examines it and then reports back to
the contributing police department. This was being done in the early
stages of the Oswald case, and almost as soon as the report would
reach the Dallas Police Department, the chief of police or one of the
representatives of the department would go on TV or radio and relate
findings of the FBI, giving information such as the identification of
the gun and other items of physical evidence.
Now, that concerned me for several reasons. In the first place, I don't
think cases should be tried in the newspapers. I think a short and
simple statement can be made when a person is arrested, but the details
of the evidence should be retained until you go into court to try the
case. Secondly, it creates a great deal of speculation on the part of
the press. There was very aggressive press coverage at Dallas. I was
so concerned that I asked my agent in charge at Dallas, Mr. Shanklin,
to personally go to Chief Curry and tell him that I insisted that he
not go on the air any more until this case was resolved. Until all
the evidence had been examined, I did not want any statements made
concerning the progress of the investigation. Because of the fact the
President had asked me to take charge of the case I insisted that he
and all members of his department refrain from public statements.
There was an officer in his department who was constantly on the
radio or giving out interviews. The chief concurred in my request and
thereafter refrained from further comment but of course by that time
the identification of the gun was known, the caliber of the gun, where
it had come from, where it had been bought and the information we had
run down in Chicago and had furnished to the Dallas Police Department.
If the case had been in the hands of the FBI none of that information
would have been given out. Because of the publicity you had to face the
charge that the prejudice of the community would require a change of
venue. With the publicity, I don't know where you could have changed
the venue to, since newspapers all over the State covered it. I think
a Houston reporter was the first one who wrote that Oswald was an
informant of the FBI. We went to the newspaper reporter. He refused to
tell us his source. He said he had also heard it from other persons.
We asked him the names of these persons and we interviewed them but
none of them would provide the source. In other words, I was trying
to nail down where this lie started. That, of course, is always the
result where you are daily giving out press interviews because the
press wants stories desperately. We have always adopted the policy in
the Bureau of no comment until we have the warrant and make the arrest.
Then a release is prepared briefly stating what the facts are, what
the written complaint says, the fact. The complaint was filed with the
Commissioner, and that ends it. We don't try to run it out for a week
or 10 days. It is up to the U.S. attorney thereafter and the court to
try the case.
I was concerned about the demand for change of venue, because all the
evidence was being given out. At that time, of course, we didn't know
that Oswald was going to be killed, and there was a possibility that
he might be confronted with some of this evidence. If it had been kept
secret and used in the interrogation of him, just confronting him
with what was found, such as his picture with the gun might have been
helpful.
A small thing can often make a man break and come forward with a full
confession. If he knows in advance that you have certain evidence he
will be on guard against answering questions. Of course, he is always
advised of his rights and that he can have an attorney. We always
make a point of this. We generally have a reputable physician of
the community present in our office while the prisoner is there, to
administer to him and be able to testify that he has not been subjected
to third degree methods. He is examined when he comes in and he is
examined before we take him to the commissioner. Taking him before the
commissioner in a case like Oswald's would probably have been done
within 4 or 5 hours. Generally we try to arraign a prisoner within an
hour.
That makes it more difficult; you have to work faster. But again I say
I am in favor of having the procedures of law enforcement officers as
tightly bound down as we can, with due respect for the interests of
society.
Of course, there must be an equal balance. For years we have had a rule
against third degree methods, but years ago many police departments
used the third degree. I think very few of them use it now because if
they use it they violate the civil rights statutes and we investigate
them for having brutally handled a prisoner. Many allegations are made
unfairly against police officers that they have used third degree
methods and we are able to prove they haven't in our investigations.
That is particularly true where civil rights matters are involved. We
have such cases in many areas where civil rights agitation is going on.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Hoover, to remind you of my question, any suggestions
that you may have concerning the protection of the President, and
the information that the Commission has that you have a special
appropriation in that connection for the Bureau?
Mr. HOOVER. We do not have a special appropriation for the
protection of the President. The Secret Service, of course, has that
responsibility. On December 2, I prepared this memorandum for the
President, and for the chief of the Secret Service at the request of
the President, outlining suggestions that I felt should be considered
to tighten up on the security of the President. If the Commission
desires I will be glad to leave this or I will be glad to read it to
the Commission.
Representative BOGGS. Why don't you ask the Director just to summarize
it.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you summarize it?
Mr. DULLES. Can we have a copy of it?
Mr. HOOVER. Oh, yes.
Representative FORD. Could the copy be put in the record as an exhibit?
Mr. HOOVER. Yes, sir; that is all right with me. I have no objection to
it.
Regarding travel, first, advise the Secret Service as far in advance as
possible of the President's travel plans and proposed itinerary. The
reason for that is there have been Presidents who suddenly decide they
are going somewhere and the Secret Service does not have the chance
always to cover the area and check the neighborhood and check the hotel
or place where it may be.
Representative BOGGS. You have one like that right now, Mr. Director.
Mr. HOOVER. I know from experience.
Second, avoid publicizing exact routes of travel as long as possible.
Again, it has been the practice in the past to announce the President
is going along a certain route and, therefore, great crowds will gather
along that route. And, therefore, I thought that was something that
should not be given out and the President should be taken along some
routes which are not announced. At the present time, he goes to cities
and he wants to see people and the crowd wants to see him. In Dallas,
the route was publicized at least 24 hours before so everybody knew
where he would be driving.
Third, use a specially armored car with bulletproof glass and have such
cars readily available in locations frequently visited. The President,
as I observed earlier in my testimony, had no armored car. He has one
now which I supplied to Secret Service and they will have one made no
doubt in due time for the President's use. But if it had been armored,
I believe President Kennedy would be alive today.
Fourth, avoid setting a specific pattern of travel or other activity
such as visiting the same church at the same time each Sunday.
Regarding public appearances. First, use maximum feasible screening of
persons in attendance including use of detection devices sensitive to
the amount of metal required in a firearm or grenade.
Second, use a bulletproof shield in front of the entire rostrum in
public appearances such as the swearing in ceremony at the Capitol on
inauguration day, the presidential reviewing stand in front of the
White House on the same day and on the rear of trains.
Third, keep to a minimum the President's movements within crowds,
remain on the rostrum after the public addresses rather than mingling
with the audience. Again, there is great difficulty in that field.
Fourth, in appearances at public sporting events such as football
games, remain in one place rather than changing sides during half-time
ceremonies.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. DULLES. About the armored car you said if Kennedy had an armored
car that might have saved him. Would the back of the armored car have
some protection to protect his head?
Mr. HOOVER. Oh, yes.