(Testimony of Robert Inman Bouck Resumed)
Mr. Mccloy.
Dallas, who had been a defector, who was employed at the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. Bouck.
Yes, sir; we would have looked at that.
Mr. Mccloy.
You would have looked at that?
Mr. Bouck.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Mccloy.
Knowing that the Texas School Book Depository was on the President's route?
Mr. Bouck.
On the President's route.
Mr. Stern.
Would it have made a difference to you if he was a legitimate employee of that institution?
Mr. Bouck.
Well, not from our standpoint of having us look at it. I can't predict too well what the field office would have done after they looked. It would depend on what they found out, but the field office would have checked that. We would has asked them to check it and they would in fact have checked it not knowing what conclusions they would have arrived at, I don't quite--I am not quite able to predict just what measures they would have taken.
Senator COOPER. May I ask a question on this point? Have you examined your records since the assassination of President Kennedy to determine if the name Lee Oswald appears in your files?
Mr. Bouck.
We have never had it prior in any connection, never in our records.
Senator COOPER. I gathered from what you said in response to Mr. McCloy's question you do not keep any special file relating to defectors?
Mr. Bouck.
No, sir.
Senator COOPER. In this country?
Mr. Bouck.
Not unless there is something much more to it than the fact they defected.
Senator COOPER. Then in the case of Lee Oswald from your statement that you do not keep any file on defectors, if you had known about his presence there, what would have been the cause then for you to have taken special notice of him?
Mr. Bouck.
The key there would have been a defection plus a knowledge that he had a vantage point on the route. Those two together would have required action.
Senator COOPER. The point I make is, and this again is arguing after the fact, if the fact he was a defector, plus a vantage point would make you take notice of him it would seem to me it would be very substantial evidence to have in your file that he was a defector, wouldn't you think so?
Mr. Bouck.
Well, again, this is part of this big study that we are in. We never before knew, I think, of a defector who did anything like this so we are not quite sure that defection in itself is a key to an assassin. However, that combined with certain things, knowing that he had a vantage point would have caused us to look.
Mr. Stern.
Were there any other characteristics of Oswald that you believe to have been known to other Federal agencies before November 22 that would have been important to you in deciding whether or not he was a potential threat?
Mr. Bouck.
Yes. I think I have supplied you with a list of about 18 things that were known to the Federal agencies, but these, I believe, were spread from Moscow to Mexico City in at least four agencies, so I am not aware of how much any one agency or any one person might have known.
But there was quite a little bit of derogatory information known about Oswald in this broad expanse of agencies.
Mr. Stern.
.Without respect to any such list, what other characteristics, trying as much as possible to avoid hindsight, do you think were germane to determine his potential danger?
Mr. Bouck.
I would think his continued association with the Russian Embassy after his return, his association with the Castro groups would have been of concern to us, a knowledge that he had, I believe, been court-martialed for illegal possession of a gun, of a hand gun in the Marines, that he had owned a weapon and did a good deal of hunting or use of it, perhaps in Russia, plus a number of items about his disposition and unreliability of character, I think all of those,
|
