[104-10423-10337.pdf — page 36]
# 13-00000refrained from further comment but of course by that time the identificationof the gun was known, the caliber of the gun, where it had come from, whereit had been bought and the information we had rundown in Chicago and hadfurnished to the Dallas Police Department.If the case had been in the hands of the FBI none of that information wouldhave been given out: Because of the publicity you had to face the charge thatthe prejudice of the community would require a change of venue. With thepublicity, I don't know where you could have changed the venue to, since news-papers all over the State covered it. I think a Houston reporter was the firstone 'who wrote that Oswald was an informant of the FBI. We went to thenewspaper reporter. He refused to tell us his source. He said he had alsoheard it from other persons. We asked him the names of these persons and weinterviewed 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 alwaysthe result where you are daily giving out press interviews because the presswants stories desperately. We have always adopted the policy in the Bureauof no comment until we have the warrant and make the arrest. Then a releaseis 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. attorneythereafter and the court to try the case.I was concerned about the demand for change of venue, because all the evidencewas being given out. At that time, of course, we didn't know that Oswald wasgoing to be killed, and there was a possibility that he might be confronted withsome of this evidence. If it had been kept secret and used in the interrogationof him, just confronting him with what was found, such as his picture with thegun might have been helpful.A small thing can often make a man break and come forward with a fullconfession. If he knows in advance that you have certain evidence he will beon guard against answering questions. Of course, he is always advised of hisrights and that he can have an attorney. We always make a point of this. Wegenerally have a reputable physician of the community present in our officewhile the prisoner is there, to administer to him and be able to testify that hehas not been subjected to third degree methods. He is examined when he comesin and he is examined before we take him to the commissioner. Taking himbefore the commissioner in a case like Oswald's would probably have been donewithin 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 amin favor of having the procedures of law enforcement officers as tightly bounddown 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 ruleagainst third degree methods, but years ago many police departments used thethird degree. I think very few of them use it now because if they use it theyviolate the civil rights statutes and we investigate them for having brutallyhandled a prisoner. Many allegations are made unfairly against police officersthat they have used third degree methods and we are able to prove they haven'tin our investigations. That is particularly true where civil rights matters areinvolved. We have such cases in many areas where civil rights agitation isgoing on.Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Hoover, to remind you of my question, any suggestions thatyou may have concerning the protection of the President, and the informationthat the Commission has that you have a special appropriation in that con-nection for the Bureau?Mr. HOOVER. We do not have a special appropriation for the protection of thePresident. The Secret Service, of course, has that responsibility. On Decem-ber 2, I prepared this memorandum for the President, and for the chief of theSecret Service at the request of the President, outlining suggestions that I feltshould be considered to tighten up on the security of the President. If theCommission desires I will be glad to leave this or I will be glad to read it to theCommission.Representative Boggs. Why don't you ask the Director just to summarize it.Mr. RANKIN. Will you summarize it?116