(Testimony of J. Edgar Hoover)
Mr. Hoover.
That is correct; and my letter of April 30 states the facts as they are in our flies.
Mr. Rankin.
Mr. Chairman, we offer in evidence Exhibits 864 and 865.
The Chairman.
They may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit Nos. 864 and 865 were marked for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. Rankin.
Mr. Hoover, do you have any suggestions that you would like to tell the Commission about of your ideas that might improve the security of the President, and you might comment upon information the Commission has received. You have a special appropriation that is related to that area.
Mr. Hoover.
Well, I, at the request of----
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
|
