NEWS COVERAGE AND POLICE POLICY
Consistent with its policy of allowing news representatives to remain within the working quarters of the Police and Courts Building, the police department made every effort to keep the press fully informed about the progress of the investigation. As a result, from Friday afternoon until after the killing of Oswald on Sunday, the press was able to publicize virtually all of the information about the case which had been gathered until that time. In the process, a great deal of misinformation was disseminated to a worldwide audience. (For some examples see [app. XII].)
As administrative assistant to Chief Curry, Captain King also handled departmental press relations and issued press releases. According to King, it was “the responsibility of each member of the department to furnish to the press information on incidents in which they, themselves, were involved, except on matters which involved * * * personnel policies of the department, or * * * unless it would obviously interfere with an investigation underway.”[C5-216] In Oswald’s case, Chief Curry released most of the information to the press. He and Assistant Chief Batchelor agreed on Friday that Curry would make all announcements to the press.[C5-217] However, there is no evidence that this decision was ever communicated to the rest of the police force. The chief consequence appears to have been that Batchelor refrained from making statements to the news media during this period.
Most of the information was disclosed through informal oral statements or answers to questions at impromptu and clamorous press conferences in the third floor corridor. Written press releases were not employed. The ambulatory press conference became a familiar sight during these days. Whenever Curry or other officials appeared in the hallway, newsmen surrounded them, asking questions and requesting statements. Usually the officials complied. (See Commission Exhibit No. 2632, [p. 232].)
Commission Exhibit No. 2632
Press interview with Chief Curry in third floor corridor.
Curry appeared in interviews on television and radio at least a dozen times during November 22-24. He did not attend any of the interrogations of Oswald in Captain Fritz’ office except at the beginning and toward the end of Sunday morning’s session; he received his information through Captain Fritz and other sources.[C5-218] Nevertheless, in sessions with the newsmen on Friday and Saturday he gave detailed information on the progress of the case against Oswald. Recorded statements of television and radio interviews with Curry and other officials in Dallas during November 22-24 have been transcribed and included in the record compiled by the Commission.[C5-219] An example of these interviews is the following transcript of remarks made by Curry to newsmen on Saturday:
Q. Chief Curry, I understand you have some new information in this case. Could you relate what that is?
A. Yes, we’ve just been informed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that they, the FBI, have the order letter from a mail order house, and the order was sent to their laboratory in Washington and the writing on this order was compared with known samples of our suspect, Oswald’s handwriting and found to be the same.
Q. This order was for the rifle?
A. This order was for the rifle to a mail order house in Chicago. It was [inaudible]. The return address was to Dallas, Texas, to the post office box under the name of A. Hidell, H-I-D-E-double L. This is the post office box of our suspect. This gun was mailed parcel post March 20, 1963. I understand he left Dallas shortly after this and didn’t come back until I think about two months ago.
Q. Do you know again on what date this rifle was ordered and are you able to link it definitely as the rifle which you confiscated at the School Book Depository?
A. That we have not done so far. If the FBI has been able to do it I have not been informed of it yet. We do know that this man ordered a rifle of the type that was used in the assassination of the President from this mail order house in Chicago and the FBI has definitely identified the writing as that of our suspect.
Q. On another subject—I understand you have photographs of the suspect, Oswald, with a rifle like that used. Could you describe that picture?
A. This is the picture of Oswald standing facing a camera with a rifle in his hand which is very similar to the rifle that we have in our possession. He also had a pistol strapped on his hip. He was holding two papers in his hand, with one of them seemed to be The Worker and the other says Be Militant—I don’t know whether that was headlines or the name of the paper.
Q. How much did the gun cost from the mail order house?
A. I understand the gun was advertised for $12.78, I believe.
Q. Have you received any results on the ballistics test conducted on the gun and on Oswald?
A. They’re going to be favorable. I don’t have a formal report yet.
Q. But you are sure at this time they will be favorable?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you feel now that you have the case completely wrapped up, or are you continuing?
A. We will continue as long as there is a shred of evidence to be gathered. We have a strong case at this time.
Q. I believe you said earlier this afternoon that you have a new development which does wrap up the case—the first time you said the case definitely is secure. Is that correct?
A. That was this morning. This additional evidence just makes a stronger case.
Q. But this is not the same evidence you were referring to then?
A. No, that’s true.
Q. Would you be willing to say what that evidence was?
A. No, sir. I don’t wish to reveal it. It might jeopardize our case.
Commentator: Thank you very much Chief Jesse Curry of the Dallas Police Department.[C5-220]
Although Captain Fritz permitted himself to be interviewed by the news media less frequently than did Chief Curry, he nevertheless answered questions and ventured opinions about the progress of the investigation. On Saturday he told reporters that he was convinced beyond a doubt that Oswald had killed the President. He discussed some of the evidence in the case, especially the rifle, but his contribution to the knowledge of the reporters was small compared with that of Chief Curry.[C5-221]
Many other members of the police department, including high officials, detectives, and patrolmen, were also interviewed by news representatives during these days.[C5-222] Some of these men had participated in specific aspects of the case, such as the capture of Oswald at the Texas Theatre and the search for evidence at the Texas School Book Depository Building. Few, if any, seemed reluctant to submit to questions and to being televised. It seemed to District Attorney Wade that the newsmen “just followed everybody everywhere they went * * * they interviewed some of your patrolmen * * * on the corner * * * they were interviewing anybody.”[C5-223]
Wade himself also made several statements to the press. He visited police headquarters twice on Friday, twice on Saturday, and twice on Sunday. On most of these occasions he was interviewed by the press and appeared on television.[C5-224] After Oswald had appeared before the press on Friday night, Wade held an impromptu conference with reporters in the overflowing assembly room.[C5-225] Wade told the press on Saturday that he would not reveal any evidence because it might prejudice the selection of a jury.[C5-226] On other occasions, however, he mentioned some items of evidence and expressed his opinions regarding Oswald’s guilt. He told the press on Friday night that Oswald’s wife had told the police that her husband had a rifle in the garage at the house in Irving and that it was missing the morning of the assassination. On one occasion he repeated the error that the murder rifle had been a Mauser. Another time, he stated his belief that Oswald had prepared for the assassination months in advance, including what he would tell the police. He also said that Oswald had practiced with the rifle to improve his marksmanship.[C5-227]
The running commentary on the investigation by the police inevitably carried with it the disclosure of many details that proved to be erroneous. In their efforts to keep the public abreast of the investigation, the police reported hearsay items and unverified leads; further investigation proved many of these to be incorrect or inaccurate. For example, the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building was initially identified as a Mauser 7.65 rather than a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 because a deputy constable who was one of the first to see it thought it looked like a Mauser. He neither handled the weapon nor saw it at close range.[C5-228]
Police sources were also responsible for the mistaken notion that the chicken bones found on the sixth floor were the remains of Oswald’s lunch. They had in fact been left by another employee who ate his lunch there at least 15 minutes before the assassination.[C5-229] Curry repeated the erroneous report that a Negro had picked up Oswald near the scene of the assassination and driven him across town.[C5-230] It was also reported that the map found in Oswald’s room contained a marked route of the Presidential motorcade when it actually contained markings of places where Oswald may have applied for jobs, including, of course, the Texas School Book Depository.[C5-231]
Concern about the effects of the unlimited disclosures was being voiced by Saturday morning. According to District Attorney Wade, he received calls from lawyers in Dallas and elsewhere expressing concern about providing an attorney for Oswald and about the amount of information being given to the press by the police and the district attorney.[C5-232] Curry continued to answer questions on television and radio during the remainder of the day and Sunday morning.[C5-233]
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover became concerned because “almost as soon as * * * [FBI Laboratory reports] 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.”[C5-234] On Sunday, after Oswald was shot, Hoover dispatched a personal message to Curry requesting him “not to go on the air any more until this case * * * [is] resolved.” Hoover testified later that Curry agreed not to make any more statements.[C5-235]
The shooting of Oswald shocked the Dallas police, and after the interviews that immediately followed the shooting they were disposed to remain silent. Chief Curry made only one more television appearance after the shooting. At 1:30 p.m., he descended to the assembly room where, tersely and grimly, he announced Oswald’s death. He refused to answer any of the questions shouted at him by the persistent reporters, concluding the conference in less than a minute.[C5-236]
District Attorney Wade also held one more press conference. Before doing so on Sunday evening, he returned once more to the police station and held a meeting with “all the brass” except Curry. Wade told them that “people are saying * * * you had the wrong man and you all were the one who killed him or let him out here to have him killed intentionally.” Wade told the police that “somebody ought to go out in television and lay out the evidence that you had on Oswald, and tell them everything.” He sat down and listed from memory items of evidence in the case against Oswald. According to Wade, Chief Curry refused to make any statements because he had told an FBI inspector that he would say no more. The police refused to furnish Wade with additional details of the case.[C5-237]
Wade nonetheless proceeded to hold a lengthy formal press conference that evening, in which he attempted to list all of the evidence that had been accumulated at that point tending to establish Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy. Unfortunately, at that time, as he subsequently testified, he lacked a thorough grasp of the evidence and made a number of errors.[C5-238] He stated that Oswald had told a woman on a bus that the President had been killed, an error apparently caused by the busdriver having confused Oswald with another passenger who was on the bus after Oswald had left. Wade also repeated the error about Oswald’s having a map marked with the route of the motorcade. He told reporters that Oswald’s description and name “went out by the police to look for him.”[C5-239] The police never mentioned Oswald’s name in their broadcast descriptions before his arrest.[C5-240]
Wade was innocent of one error imputed to him since November 24. The published transcript of part of the press conference furnished to newspapers by the Associated Press represented Wade as having identified the cabdriver who took Oswald to North Beckley Avenue after the shooting, as one named “Darryl Click.” The transcript as it appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post of November 26, reads:
A. [Wade] a lady. He then—the bus, he asked the bus driver to stop, got off at a stop, caught a taxicab driver, Darryl Click. I don’t have his exact place—and went to his home in Oak Cliff, changed his clothes hurriedly, and left.[C5-241]
The correct transcript of the press conference, taken from an audio tape supplied by station WBAP, Fort Worth, is as follows:
A. [Wade] A lady. He then—the bus, he asked the bus driver to stop, got off at a stop, caught a taxicab driver.
Q. Where?
A. In Oak Cliff. I don’t have the exact place—and went to his home in Oak Cliff, changed his clothes hurriedly and left.[C5-242]
In this manner, a section of Dallas, “Oak Cliff,” became a nonexistent taxicab driver, “Darryl Click.” Wade did not mention the cabdriver by name at any time. In transcribing the conference from the sound tape, a stenographer apparently made an error that might have become permanently imbedded in the literature of the event but for the preservation and use of an original sound tape.
Though many of the inaccuracies were subsequently corrected by the police and are negated by findings of the Commission included elsewhere in this report, the publicizing of unchecked information provided much of the basis for the myths and rumors that came into being soon after the President’s death. The erroneous disclosures became the basis for distorted reconstruction and interpretations of the assassination. The necessity for the Dallas authorities to correct themselves or to be corrected by other sources gave rise not only to criticism of the police department’s competence but also to doubts regarding the veracity of the police. Skeptics sought to cast doubt on much of the correct evidence later developed and to find support for their own theories in these early police statements.
The immediate disclosure of information by the police created a further risk of injuring innocent citizens by unfavorable publicity. This was the unfortunate experience of Joe R. Molina, a Dallas-born Navy veteran who had been employed by the Texas School Book Depository since 1947 and on November 22, 1963, held the position of credit manager. Apparently because of Molina’s employment at the Depository and his membership in a veterans’ organization, the American G.I. Forum, that the Dallas police considered possibly subversive, Dallas policemen searched Molina’s home with his permission, at about 1:30 a.m., Saturday, November 23. During the day Molina was intermittently interrogated at police headquarters for 6 or 7 hours, chiefly about his membership in the American G.I. Forum, and also about Oswald. He was never arrested, charged, or held in custody.[C5-243]
While Molina was being questioned, officials of the police department made statements or answered questions[C5-244] that provided the basis for television reports about Molina during the day. These reports spoke of a “second suspect being picked up,” insinuated that the Dallas police had reason to suspect another person who worked in the Texas School Book Depository, stated that the suspect had been arrested and his home searched, and mentioned that Molina may have been identified by the U.S. Department of Justice as a possible subversive.[C5-245]
No evidence was ever presented to link Molina with Oswald except as a fellow employee of the Texas School Book Depository. According to Molina, he had never spoken to Oswald.[C5-246] The FBI notified the Commission that Molina had never been the subject of an investigation by it and that it had never given any information about Molina to the Dallas police concerning any alleged subversive activities by him.[C5-247] The Dallas police explained in a statement to the FBI that they had never had a file on Molina, but that they did have one on the American G.I. Forum.[C5-248]
Molina lost his job in December. He felt that he was being discharged because of the unfavorable publicity he had received, but officials of the Depository claimed that automation was the reason. Molina testified that he had difficulty in finding another position, until finally, with the help of a fellow church member, he secured a position at a lower salary than his previous one.[C5-249]
If Oswald had been tried for his murders of November 22, the effects of the news policy pursued by the Dallas authorities would have proven harmful both to the prosecution and the defense. The misinformation reported after the shootings might have been used by the defense to cast doubt on the reliability of the State’s entire case. Though each inaccuracy can be explained without great difficulty, the number and variety of misstatements issued by the police shortly after the assassination would have greatly assisted a skillful defense attorney attempting to influence the attitudes of jurors.
A fundamental objection to the news policy pursued by the Dallas police, however, is the extent to which it endangered Oswald’s constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury. Because of the nature of the crime, the widespread attention which it necessarily received, and the intense public feelings which it aroused, it would have been a most difficult task to select an unprejudiced jury, either in Dallas or elsewhere. But the difficulty was markedly increased by the divulgence of the specific items of evidence with which the police linked Oswald to the two killings. The disclosure of evidence encouraged the public, from which a jury would ultimately be impaneled, to prejudge the very questions that would be raised at trial.
Moreover, rules of law might have prevented the prosecution from presenting portions of this evidence to the jury. For example, though expressly recognizing that Oswald’s wife could not be compelled to testify against him, District Attorney Wade revealed to the Nation that Marina Oswald had affirmed her husband’s ownership of a rifle like that found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.[C5-250] Curry stated that Oswald had refused to take a lie detector test, although such a statement would have been inadmissible in a trial.[C5-251] The exclusion of such evidence, however, would have been meaningless if jurors were already familiar with the same facts from previous television or newspaper reports. Wade might have influenced prospective jurors by his mistaken statement that the paraffin test showed that Oswald had fired a gun. The tests merely showed that he had nitrate traces on his hands, which did not necessarily mean that he had fired either a rifle or a pistol.[C5-252]
The disclosure of evidence was seriously aggravated by the statements of numerous responsible officials that they were certain of Oswald’s guilt. Captain Fritz said that the case against Oswald was “cinched.” Curry reported on Saturday that “we are sure of our case.”[C5-253] Curry announced that he considered Oswald sane, and Wade told the public that he would ask for the death penalty.[C5-254]
The American Bar Association declared in December 1963 that “widespread publicizing of Oswald’s alleged guilt, involving statements by officials and public disclosures of the details of ‘evidence,’ would have made it extremely difficult to impanel an unprejudiced jury and afford the accused a fair trial.”[C5-255] Local bar associations expressed similar feelings.[C5-256] The Commission agrees that Lee Harvey Oswald’s opportunity for a trial by 12 jurors free of preconception as to his guilt or innocence would have been seriously jeopardized by the premature disclosure and weighing of the evidence against him.
The problem of disclosure of information and its effect on trials is, of course, further complicated by the independent activities of the press in developing information on its own from sources other than law enforcement agencies. Had the police not released the specific items of evidence against Oswald, it is still possible that the other information presented on television and in the newspapers, chiefly of a biographical nature, would itself have had a prejudicial effect on the public.
In explanation of the news policy adopted by the Dallas authorities, Chief Curry observed that “it seemed like there was a great demand by the general public to know what was going on.”[C5-257] In a prepared statement, Captain King wrote:
At that time we felt a necessity for permitting the newsmen as much latitude as possible. We realized the magnitude of the incident the newsmen were there to cover. We realized that not only the nation but the world would be greatly interested in what occurred in Dallas. We believed that we had an obligation to make as widely known as possible everything we could regarding the investigation of the assassination and the manner in which we undertook that investigation.[C5-258]
The Commission recognizes that the people of the United States, and indeed the world, had a deep-felt interest in learning of the events surrounding the death of President Kennedy, including the development of the investigation in Dallas. An informed public provided the ultimate guarantee that adequate steps would be taken to apprehend those responsible for the assassination and that all necessary precautions would be taken to protect the national security. It was therefore proper and desirable that the public know which agencies were participating in the investigation and the rate at which their work was progressing. The public was also entitled to know that Lee Harvey Oswald had been apprehended and that the State had gathered sufficient evidence to arraign him for the murders of the President and Patrolman Tippit, that he was being held pending action of the grand jury, that the investigation was continuing, and that the law enforcement agencies had discovered no evidence which tended to show that any other person was involved in either slaying.
However, neither the press nor the public had a right to be contemporaneously informed by the police or prosecuting authorities of the details of the evidence being accumulated against Oswald. Undoubtedly the public was interested in these disclosures, but its curiosity should not have been satisfied at the expense of the accused’s right to a trial by an impartial jury. The courtroom, not the newspaper or television screen, is the appropriate forum in our system for the trial of a man accused of a crime.
If the evidence in the possession of the authorities had not been disclosed, it is true that the public would not have been in a position to assess the adequacy of the investigation or to apply pressures for further official undertakings. But a major consequence of the hasty and at times inaccurate divulgence of evidence after the assassination was simply to give rise to groundless rumors and public confusion. Moreover, without learning the details of the case, the public could have been informed by the responsible authority of the general scope of the investigation and the extent to which State and Federal agencies were assisting in the police work.