Warren Commission (04 of 26): Hearings Vol. IV (of 15)

by United States. Warren Commission

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT INMAN BOUCK RESUMED

Mr. Stern. I would like to turn now, Mr. Bouck, to the sources of information for PRS on potentially dangerous individuals.

Would you describe the various sources you rely upon?

Mr. Bouck. Yes. If I might refer to this exhibit that is 760 which would be page 4 of that, the second memorandum. I believe the front of that lists the sources. No. 1 is mail, packages, telephone calls, received at the White House, the President's home, on trips, and so forth, these are screened, and so forth, in PRS and evaluated and if they meet certain prescribed criteria they are retained by PRS and become a source of information.

Unwelcome visitors to the White House or anywhere else the President may be is another source. Information received——

Mr. Dulles. What page are you on?

Mr. Bouck. That is the page.

Mr. Dulles. The first page?

Mr. Bouck. Yes, I am reading from the second paragraph or rather the tabulation.

Mr. Dulles. Yes, I find it.

Mr. Bouck. Certain information comes directly to us or is developed by us, item 3. Item 4, reports from other Government agencies, and officials. Item 5, reports from police departments, State and local sources, and then we get a certain amount of phone calls, letters and information that come directly to us from the public.

Mr. Stern. We may get some notion of the volume of the information you receive from this document, which is entitled "Protective Research Cases, November 1961 through November 1963," which would be Exhibit 762. Do you recognize that, Mr. Bouck?

Mr. Bouck. I do, I prepared this document.

Mr. Stern. May it be admitted?

Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.

(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No. 762, for identification, was received in evidence.)

Mr. Stern. Turning to the first page in the summary of Exhibit 762, Mr. Bouck, you have taken the Protective Research cases from November 1961 to November 1963, which involve residents of the State of Texas, and these were how many cases?

Mr. Bouck. 34.

Mr. Stern. And you have broken them down by the source of the information in four categories which are——

Mr. Bouck. Letters or phone calls; detected by the Secret Service; reported by Federal agencies; reported by local authorities.

Mr. Stern. Then towards the bottom of that page you have given gross figures during the same 2-year period of the nationwide activity. Would you state what the nationwide caseload was?

Mr. Bouck. Yes. The cases we received nationwide and did not investigate because they didn't meet the criteria for investigation were 7,337. The cases we received and investigated were 1,372.

During the same period on these cases we arrested 167 people and 91 investigations were unproductive. They did not solve the cases.

Mr. Stern. You stated that the volume of information received has been rising. Would you describe the total for the years 1943, 1953, and 1963?

Mr. Bouck. Yes. These do not represent cases. These represent items of information reported.

In 1943 we had about 7,000 such items coming to our attention; in 1953 this had increased to somewhat over 17,000 items. By 1963 this had increased in excess of 32,000 items.

Mr. Stern. Each of those items is examined by one of the five Special Agents working on this area?

Mr. Bouck. That is right.

Mr. Stern. Now of the 34 Texas cases in this 2-year period——

Mr. Dulles. Could I ask a question before you get on the Texas cases, on this record, it indicates that about 6,000 cases were "received but not investigated" it seems to me for the record it would be well to have a little more on that as to why they weren't investigated, and so forth.

I suppose in a great many cases, you couldn't find who it was. It was an anonymous letter that came in. Would that be included?

Mr. Bouck. Not for the cause of this, sir. I assume you are speaking of this 7,337 cases.

Mr. Dulles. That is right.

Mr. Bouck. In the bottom table.

Mr. Dulles. Of those 1,372 were received and investigated?

Mr. Bouck. We receive a great deal of information on people that we do not feel at that time intended to harm the President, but that would bear watching. We aren't quite sure whether they will become worse in the future, and this is——

Mr. Dulles. Is that among about the 6,000 cases I am referring to?

Mr. Bouck. The 7,000.

Mr. Dulles. Well, there are 7,337 cases received, but not investigated.

Mr. Bouck. These are two separate ones. The investigated cases are in addition.

Mr. Dulles. This is in addition to that?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. I see.

Mr. Bouck. The 7,000 cases are cases that we received, we looked at, and felt that we will file it and see if anything more happens on this, but it doesn't warrant investigative attention until we get something more alarming than we have.

Mr. Dulles. Who makes that judgment, is that made in your department?

Mr. Bouck. That is made in my department by one of these five agents that are listed in this document.

Mr. Dulles. Do you review their determination?

Mr. Bouck. I do not review all of them. I review a percentage of their determinations, and I am consulted on any that are borderline or that are difficult.

Mr. Stern. Of the 34 Texas cases, almost half or 15 were reported by Federal authorities. Is this typical of all information received by PRS in the course of a year?

Mr. Bouck. No, this would be typical of the investigated cases but not typical of the entire quantity of cases received.

Mr. Stern. I see.

Representative Ford. Are the 34 listed here included in the 7,337 or the 1,372?

Mr. Bouck. 1,372.

Mr. Stern. Do you have a judgment, Mr. Bouck, as to the proportion of cases coming to you from other agencies, Federal agencies, State and local agencies, of the total number of cases you have?

Mr. Bouck. About 90 percent of the cases generated would be other than from agencies. The 10 percent that come from Federal and local agencies, the majority of that come from Federal agencies. I wouldn't know quite the percentage. But the majority of the 10 percent would be Federal agencies.

Mr. Stern. And predominantly from any one agency?

Mr. Bouck. Yes, predominantly from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Stern. As to the 90 percent that is generated internally, as it were, do you have an opinion as to how many of those arise because of correspondence with the White House by the subject?

Mr. Bouck. The great majority of them arise from telegrams, telephone calls, unwelcome visitors, letters to the White House.

Mr. Stern. Unwelcome visitors at the White House?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. Do you know how many cases within the 7,337 noted here, which I understand is nationwide, were from Texas?

Mr. Bouck. Yes. I believe we show that in the third paragraph, 115 cases were in Texas.

Mr. Stern. Yes.

Mr. Bouck. In addition to the cases investigated. It is up in the third paragraph from the top, right under the table, the second paragraph under the table, sir; right where your finger is, the first line there.

Mr. Dulles. 115?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. Did the name of Lee Harvey Oswald appear in your files at any time prior to the 22d of November 1963?

Mr. Bouck. No, sir; we had never heard of him in any context.

Mr. Dulles. His name doesn't appear at all?

Mr. Bouck. Not as of that time. Prior to Dallas, it did not appear in any fashion. We had no knowledge of the name.

Mr. Dulles. You had no report from the State Department or the FBI that covered his trip to Russia or anything of that kind?

Mr. Bouck. No, sir.

Mr. McCloy. Or of the CIA?

Mr. Bouck. No, sir.

Mr. Stern. Mr. Bouck, what kind of information do you look for, what are the criteria you apply, in determining whether someone is a potential danger to the President? What do you ask other agencies, Federal, State, and local to be on the lookout for?

Mr. Bouck. Our criteria is broad in general. It consists of desiring any information that would indicate any degree of harm or potential harm to the President, either at the present time or in the future.

Mr. Stern. Had you ever prior to Dallas had occasion to—for any part of your activities—list criteria that you would apply in trying to determine whether someone is a potential danger?

Mr. Bouck. We had not had a formal written listing of criteria as such except in this general form of desiring everything that might indicate a possible source of harm to the safety of the President. We had some internal breakdown of information for the processing of certain kinds of material where the criteria were involved.

Mr. Stern. I didn't mean to restrict my question to criteria for external sources, but those you used internally as well.

Mr. Bouck. We had some internal, as well.

Mr. Stern. I show you now a one-page document entitled "The following criteria are used as guides in determining whether White House mail is to be accepted for PRS processing," which has been marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 763. Can you identify that?

Mr. Bouck. Yes, sir; this is a document that I helped draft some years ago. It is a document I prepared for the Commission. It is a document that was used up to and at the time of Dallas.

Mr. Stern. For what purpose?

Mr. Bouck. For the purpose of screening White House mail. The White House gives us a considerable quantity of mail, not all of which we—it is desirable that we keep, and this is a guide to the agents in determining what we should keep and what should go back to be answered by the White House staff.

Mr. Stern. This guide is not used by the White House mailroom? This is an internal guide for your own agents?

Mr. Bouck. My own agents.

Mr. Stern. What instructions does the White House mailroom have as to mail that is to be sent to you?

Mr. Bouck. The White House mail has two general instructions: One, we supply them with identification information on all existing cases in which mail is concerned; that any further mail in those cases is automatically referred to us.

Their criteria are the same as our other general criteria—that in addition to these known cases we desire letters, telegrams, or any other document they receive that in any way indicates any one may have possible intention of harming the President.

Mr. Stern. Have you——

Mr. Dulles. Could I ask just one question here?

Mr. Stern. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles. I note that this list does not include membership in various types of organizations, such as the, for example, the organizations that are on the Attorney General's list. Have you ever considered that?

Mr. Bouck. Yes; if I might explain, sir; the letters we are talking about are letters that are written by people, and they rarely include that kind of information, but we do in other categories, this is for a special purpose. This is letters only that are sent to the President which is all this is applied to. This does not apply to other sources of information, only the one source of letters.

Mr. Stern. Have you had occasion, Mr. Bouck, before Dallas, to put in writing criteria to be employed by Secret Service agents in dealing with uninvited callers at the White House?

Mr. Bouck. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. I show you now a document which I have marked for identification Commission Exhibit No. 764, one page, entitled "The following criteria are used as guides in determining whether White House callers should be committed for mental observation." Do you recognize that?

Mr. Bouck. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. Did you have it prepared?

Mr. Bouck. I did.

Mr. Stern. How was this employed?

Mr. Bouck. A great percentage of the people who come to see the President or to the White House gates have been found to be suffering from mental illness. This involves a determination as to whether a legal process will take place of committing these people, and in discussions with the Mental Commission in Washington and elsewhere, we have found that certain criteria meet their desires in whether or not we should legally process them. So this was prepared as a guide to agents in trying to determine whether we could send these people down for commitment to a mental institution or consideration by the Commission on Mental Health.

Mr. Stern. Under the District of Columbia commitment procedures?

Mr. Bouck. Yes; that is right.

Mr. Stern. Beyond these criteria for dealing with White House mail and uninvited visitors at the White House, what instructions within the broad framework of your criteria do you give to Treasury law enforcement officers, including Secret Service agents, with respect to the kind of information you are interested in receiving?

Mr. Bouck. We have participation in a broad program of Treasury schools which include all of the Treasury agencies as well as participation of certain other people in our own schools. We have a coordination setup in Treasury on which the heads of organization levels meets regularly.

In all of those the Secret Service jurisdiction, the Secret Service desires and needs in the way of protection of the President have been included many times over.

It is a constant, one of those things that is constantly brought up many times both in the schools and in the coordination needs of the Secret Service needs and functions in these areas.

Mr. Stern. Do you participate in other training programs of other law enforcement agencies?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. Will you describe that and with particular reference to this problem?

Mr. Bouck. We participate both on the national level and at the field level. Our agents in the field are instructed to accept any invitation to teach in a police school of any level or security school, and we have prescribed exact outlines of material they should get across. One of the main topics being the protection topic.

We teach in Marine schools here in Washington. We teach in some of the State activities; a number of the different military activities. We have had students from most of the bigger agencies of government, CIA, State, and so forth, who have attended these portions of our training schools.

Mr. Stern. What requests do you make to other Federal agencies?

Mr. Bouck. We make this same request—that we desire any and all information that they may come in contact with that would indicate danger to the President.

Mr. Stern. How are these requests communicated?

Mr. Bouck. They are fundamentally communicated by personal contact of varying degrees with the FBI. We have a personal liaison contact in which an individual, a liaison officer actually makes daily contact.

With the other agencies, other security agencies and enforcement agencies, we are—people on my staff have personal relationships where we can call on the telephone and do call on the telephone very frequently, sometimes some agencies everyday, and they in turn call us.

Mr. Stern. What agencies do you have these liaison relationships with—Federal agencies?

Mr. Bouck. We have on a commonly used basis, we have some liaison with almost all of them but on a common using basis we have these relationships with CIA, with the several military services, with the Department of State. I have mentioned the FBI.

Mr. Stern. Central Intelligence Agency?

Mr. Bouck. Oh, yes; very much so. They are, especially on trips very, very helpful.

Mr. Dulles. Foreign trips?

Mr. Bouck. Foreign trips, yes.

Representative Ford. How often do your people check to see procedures which are used by these various agencies for the determination of whether an individual is a dangerous person?

Mr. Bouck. We don't do that systematically. We frequently have such discussions but they are usually on a specific basis. Our representative will call up and say, "We just received this information. Would this be of interest to you."

In these borderline cases, we have much of that, and after discussion we decide whether it would or would not be. But outside of raising this question as it comes in connection with business between our agencies we do not make a practice of just simply querying them on this. We have not done that, as I recall.

Representative Ford. You don't lay down a particular criterion for Agency X, Y, or Z?

Mr. Bouck. No. We have the one general criterion that we have advocated for many years. I think it is quite well understood. We do not see signs that there were any lack of knowledge that this was our job and we wished this kind of information.

Mr. Dulles. Have you made any study going back in history of the various attempts that have been made, and successful and unsuccessful attempts, that have been made against Presidents or——

Mr. Bouck. Rulers.

Mr. Dulles. Or people about to be President, or who have been President?

Mr. Bouck. Yes, yes. We have not only studied all of our own but we have studied all of the assassinations that we could find any record of for 2,000 years back. And strangely enough some of the thinking that went on 2,000 years ago seems to show up in thinking of assassinations today.

Mr. Stern. Do you increase protection on the Ides of March?

Mr. Dulles. Is that available? Is that—I don't know.

Mr. Bouck. It is available in a rather crude form. It has not been boiled down to a concise report.

Mr. Dulles. How voluminous is this? I should be very much interested in thumbing through it because I have been trying to study the past history.

Mr. Bouck. The rough notes on this are this high.

Mr. Dulles. A few thousand pages?

Mr. Bouck. The studies didn't go beyond that.

Mr. Dulles. By cases?

Mr. Bouck. Yes. Of course, in many of these cases it is very spotty and these are handwritten notes. We never, outside of extracting in this in training material and what not, we have never systematized it down to where it is a readable document as such.

Mr. Dulles. Have you tried to draw any conclusion out of this study as to the type of people, the types of causes, the types of incentives?

Mr. Bouck. Yes; we have.

Mr. Dulles. That is in your department, is it, to do this?

Mr. Bouck. Yes; it is. We have arrived at some conclusions from it.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. McCloy. On the record. Your study of the prior assassinations would take into account Czolgosz, Guiteau, what type of persons they were?

Mr. Bouck. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCloy. The thing to me that seems very worthy of research is the plotter, I mean the political plotter as against, for want of a better word, the loner, the man who is self-motivated against the man who has to have a group around him. How do you tell one from the other? I just was reading last night in Loomis about Madame Corday. She was just as much of a loner as apparently Mr. Oswald was.

Mr. Dulles. So was Czolgosz so far as I can make out, and so was Zangara. Zangara, I was told, planned to shoot Hoover and then he decided that the climate of Washington wasn't very healthy in February and March for him because he had stomach trouble, so he decided that F.D.R. was coming to Miami and it was just as good to shoot him. You have situations of that kind that defy it.

Mr. Bouck. I believe he intended to shoot the King of Italy before that but he got a chance to migrate before he got an opportunity.

Mr. Dulles. Zangara?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. McCloy. Do you have any look out for defectors as such?

Mr. Bouck. As such we have never been quite able to determine that that is a valid criterion. We do not as such.

Mr. McCloy. You have some suspicions, now, don't you?

Mr. Bouck. Yes; we have some suspicions now; yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles. I wonder whether it would not be useful for this Commission to have, if it could be reduced to readable form and to assist, the conclusions of your study if you have such conclusions?

Mr. Bouck. We will do that, sir.

Mr. Dulles. What do you think, do the rest of you agree to that?

Mr. McCloy. I think it is part of our mission to try to make recommendations in regard to the future protection of the Presidents. Actually, we don't want to go into anything which is going to compromise the future security of Presidents. We simply want to augment. What we are concerned about is how well equipped we are to do the job in the light of all the circumstances and I would think that any conclusions that you have in this regard, if you—the Secret Service, Treasury—could convey them to us in a form that perhaps we might endorse, it might be helpful from your point of view and our point of view.

Representative Ford. I would agree with that observation.

Mr. Dulles. You can possibly define categories. You may find the loner, you may find a fellow engaged in a plot with others for political reasons and that would help us very much because we find that particularly the case we are investigating falls into one of these classes.

Mr. Bouck. All right.

(Discussion off the record.)

(At this point Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)

Mr. McCloy. I think we are ready to go ahead.

Mr. Stern. Fine, Mr. Chairman. I would like to turn now to the actual processing by PRS of the information they receive and have Mr. Bouck tell us what happens to an item of information when it is received, how it is processed, how the references to field offices are made, and perhaps you might illustrate, Mr. Bouck, from the cases that are summarized in Commission Exhibit 762.

Mr. Bouck. In Exhibit 760, the second memorandum applies to that, and I will basically follow that unless questions differ.

Mr. Stern. I think it would be better for you not to read it but to paraphrase it, tell us what happens.

Mr. Bouck. When a document is received by the Secret Service, it is first searched against our files to see if we have any previous experience with this individual or with this threat. If it is found that we do have previous material there is an analysis made, and then a determination is made at that point as to what the apparent degree of threat would be on this.

If it appears that on the surface there is a threat, lookouts will immediately be issued to the White House detail, the White House police and various other security details, in order that they may be alerted to any danger that happens.

If the danger seems quite strong, a telephone call will be made to the field office in order to begin the investigation without even waiting for the mail. The threat is then processed and sent through the mail with the documents to the office concerned.

If it is determined that it is a possible danger, a card is put in a particular file which would alert us in case the President went to that area that an investigation of a dangerous person were underway. After the field office has investigated they would attempt to take corrective action if a law has been violated, the individual will be prosecuted, if practical, and if the individual is determined to be mentally ill, attempts will be made to get commitment into a mental institution.

When the report is submitted back, if the individual is not confined or is not evaluated as being no danger, then we would put cards in several control devices, one being a trip index file to make sure that we alerted the field office when the President went to that area; another being a control checkup device which means that if this individual is regarded as dangerous we will keep checking up on him every few months to see if he is getting worse or see what he is doing.

Mr. Stern. Could you illustrate by a case or two from Exhibit 762 the different kinds of matters that come to your attention and the different ways in which they are processed?

Mr. Bouck. Yes. On page 2 of this exhibit happens to be a case that had its origin in the field, in Denton, Tex., of a potential threat that appeared to apply to Dallas. It was investigated in the field, and pictures were obtained, and information was obtained and dispensed to the White House detail at the time President Kennedy went to Dallas, and in this particular case, it was subsequently referred to PRS and has been placed in our files and indexed in our indexes. Case No. 3 is a similar——

Mr. Dulles. May I ask a question there? When you refer to the field offices, this is the field office of the Secret Service?

Mr. Bouck. Field offices of the Secret Service.

Mr. Dulles. How many do you have?

Mr. Bouck. Sixty.

Mr. Dulles. Sixty?

Mr. Bouck. In the United States, and I believe one of those is in Puerto Rico and one is in Paris, of the 60.

Mr. Dulles. Those offices cooperate with the FBI offices?

Mr. Bouck. Yes. If you will look over these cases, you will see that as a matter of fact, this page 3, this case is given as originating with the chief of police of Denton, Tex., but the FBI already also determined that and they reported that to us almost simultaneously.

Mr. Dulles. Yes; that doesn't show up on this particular page.

Mr. Bouck. No; it is stated, I think in some other exhibit but I erroneously neglected it here. But you will find in many of those, that was true on page 5, that indicates a case where the FBI has picked up information and gave it to us.

Mr. Stern. You might mention, perhaps, Mr. Bouck, the cases under the last tab of your exhibit which were cases that were not investigated, just as a contrast.

Mr. Bouck. That is right. These referrals from the FBI are all through here. Page 8 is another one where they picked up information and gave it to us. The first four sections relate to the cases in the four offices of Texas during a 2-year period. The very final one illustrates just a little sample of the kind of cases we received in Texas which we did not think warranted investigation. That will give you an idea of what those cases amounted to. Why we didn't go into them.

Mr. McCloy. Let me ask you this: Are your records and equipment modern in the sense that you have got punchcards on all these, have you got the type of equipment that you would think that extensive files and extensive information and quick access to them might be very important. Do you have IBM machines and do you have punchcards, for example, so that you can have quick cross references?

Mr. Bouck. No, sir. Our files are conventional, card indexes, conventional folders. We do not have machine operation in that sense.

Mr. McCloy. Don't you think that with all this mass of information that comes in that that would be an asset to you?

Mr. Bouck. If I might defer to Mr. Carswell again, I believe that is in the document you are handling, discussion of that, am I right, Mr. Carswell, or in the studies that are going on.

Mr. Carswell. Yes.

Mr. Bouck. This is part of this big overall consideration again.

Mr. McCloy. It just seems to me this is almost a typical case of where that type of thing can do you a great deal of good. You have it in industry to a very marked degree. I wonder whether it could be—I don't know enough about the flow of these things.

Mr. Bouck. This is under a great deal of consideration as a part of this post-Dallas study that Mr. Carswell referred to and I am quite sure that it will be contained in the final results.

Mr. McCloy. Very well. Go ahead.

Mr. Dulles. Could I ask one question in that connection? You say at the bottom of the page, this introductory table page, that the total exceeded 32,000 items.

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. Does that mean now you have cards on 32,000 people?

Mr. Bouck. Oh, no; we have cards on close to a million people.

Mr. Dulles. A million people?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. This total then is 1-year total?

Mr. Bouck. This is a 2-year total—no, wait a minute. I beg your pardon.

Mr. McCloy. 1963.

Mr. Bouck. This is a 1-year total for 1943, 1-year total for 1953, and 1-year total for 1963.

Mr. Dulles. That is just the number, and these figures are cumulative that you have here?

Mr. Bouck. No; everyone is a year.

Mr. Dulles. That is what I mean, you have the total you have to add this up for previous years, but you don't keep them forever, you take some of these out.

Mr. Bouck. These are not all cards, but these are items of information. In 1-year cases we might get 40, 50 items in a particular case, and these items would go in the case files.

Mr. Dulles. Do you know how many names you have carded now, approximately?

Mr. Bouck. We have not counted them but we think in the vicinity of a million but they are not all active, you see. We have no way of knowing when people die in some cases and things like that. So we don't know just how many of these million are now active. Certainly very much less than a million.

Mr. Dulles. But you have a million names carded?

Mr. Bouck. Yes. In the indexes.

Mr. Stern. In the files which you describe as basic files, I believe, how many cases are current, either in your office or within easy access?

Mr. Bouck. About 50,000.

Mr. Stern. About 50,000. So that 950,000 are in some other storage?

Mr. Bouck. Not all of these cards, you see, will represent cases because we have some cases in which many people are involved. There would be considerably less cases than there would be card indexes, but we do have a very sizable storage of cases under National Archives, some of the older ones having gone to places like the Roosevelt Library.

(At this point Representative Ford left the hearing room.)

Mr. Stern. These are your basic files which now have something in the order of 50,000 active cases?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. And some of these involve more than one individual?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. In these cases?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. A case might be an organization, as I understand it, rather than an individual?

Mr. Bouck. That is right.

Mr. Stern. And the members of that organization would be collected under that one case?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. Would they also be listed individually?

Mr. Bouck. They would be listed individually if they were of interest to us as individuals. Sometimes we would get the membership of a group of people that attended a lecture, let's say, where very derogatory information was given out about the President, but most of these people seem like ordinary citizens and it doesn't seem like worth investigating. We might have 200 people listed in that, this would not be normal, but it would be a few cases like that.

Mr. Stern. Now, as I understand it you by no means investigate every individual who is in one of these 50,000 cases?

Mr. Bouck. That is correct.

Mr. Stern. And what are the criteria that you use?

Mr. Bouck. The criteria for investigation are feelings that there is indeed an indication that there may be a danger to the President.

Mr. Stern. But there has to be some indication of a potential danger to the President to get that individual into a case to begin with, I take it. If it were clear he was not?

Mr. Bouck. Yes; but not necessarily a current indication. We take many of these where we think an individual is becoming hostile and a little bit disgusted with the President, we take many of those cases to watch these people. We keep getting information here and there along, and frequently after we get the second or third piece of information, we decide indeed this individual is perhaps—does perhaps constitute a menace, and at that point we would investigate it.

Mr. Stern. As I understand it, one of the main purposes of your investigation is to attempt to deal with the dangerous individual at that time?

Mr. Bouck. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. How would you deal with these people whom we are speaking about?

Mr. Bouck. We deal with them primarily in three ways. First, if a law violation is involved an attempt will be made to see if a prosecution is in order.

Mr. Stern. What sort of law violation?

Mr. Bouck. Well, we have a threat law, for one, that is under our jurisdiction. Then in the case——

Mr. Stern. This is threats against the President?

Mr. Bouck. Threats against the President. Then there is——

Mr. Dulles. Is that a local law?

Mr. Bouck. No; that is a Federal law.

Mr. Dulles. It is a Federal law?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. And it involves what sort of act?

Mr. Bouck. It involves making a threat to kill the President or to harm the President.

Mr. Stern. Not necessarily——

Mr. McCloy. Do you have a citation of that law?

Mr. Bouck. It is in some exhibit, I am sure.

Mr. McCloy. I think it is well to put it in the record if we have it.

Mr. Dulles. Yes; I think it would be very good.

Mr. Carswell. Can we supply it?

Mr. Dulles. Why don't you supply it?

(It was later supplied as 18 U.S.C., Section 871.)

Mr. Bouck. If the investigation indicates that the individual is mentally unbalanced, which a high percentage are, then attempt will be made to persuade local authorities to get hospitalization, confinement in an institution.

If neither of those are possible, attempts will be made to get local officers and family, if they will cooperate, to help us keep track of him, and we will institute checkups from time to time when we are investigating. Those are basically the control measures that we are able to use. In some cases we may conduct surveillance, by the way, if we can't do any of those, and we regard the man as very dangerous.

Mr. Stern. I show you a 1-page pink card marked for identification Commission Exhibit No. 765. Can you tell us what that is?

Mr. Bouck. Yes; this is a card which we have prepared when an individual that we have rated as dangerous is placed in an institution, either a mental institution or a penal institution. We supply that card to the superintendent of the institution. We ask him to put it in the front of the individual's case jacket, and it is all filled in so that the return address and all are on it. The frank portion of it on the bottom is a frank portion, all he has to do is to indicate whether the individual has escaped, transferred or been released and drop it in the mail to advise us on action they may take on letting him out or if he has escaped.

Mr. Stern. That is the control you exercise over persons who are institutionalized in prison or some sort of hospital?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. When an individual is determined after investigation to present some level of danger but not sufficient to warrant prosecution or not to be a mentally disturbed person warranting commitment, how do you control that individual, keep track of him?

Mr. Bouck. If we think he is in fact dangerous, he would be in our checkup file which is really a control device by which at least every 6 months we reinvestigate and in between times we try to have arrangements with the family and local officers to let us know if he leaves town or buys a gun or anything.

The other device is a geographical card file in which we would put a card to let us know about this individual in case the President went to that geographical area so that the office might take a further look and see if he was a menace.

Mr. Stern. At the time of Dallas, do you know approximately how many persons were in institutions under this system where you would be notified if they left or escaped?

Mr. Bouck. I am sorry, I don't have that.

Mr. Stern. The order of magnitude, any estimate?

Mr. Bouck. It would be some thousands but I wouldn't really have a close idea. I could get that and supply it. I just would have to guess and it would be a very bad guess.

Mr. Stern. Fine. But you can determine this for us?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. Good. How many at the time of Dallas would be in your checkup control file system with this periodic review?

Mr. Bouck. About 400.

Mr. Stern. 400 individuals?

Mr. Bouck. That is nationwide.

Mr. Stern. Again, at the time of Dallas, how many individuals would have been listed in the trip-index file which you have described?

Mr. Bouck. About a hundred.

Mr. Stern. One hundred in the Nation?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. What are the criteria for putting someone's name in the trip-index file?

Mr. Bouck. The belief on the part of the local field office, with confirmation from the Protective Research Section that this individual would indeed constitute a risk to the President's safety, if he went to that area.

Mr. Stern. This is done, this is organized, on a geographic basis?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. By Secret Service field offices?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. Is there any other control device that you employed at the time of Dallas?

Mr. Bouck. We had at the time a very small device that we call an album which has a few, perhaps 12 or 15 people that we consider very dangerous or at least dangerous and so mobile that we can't be sure where they might be. This is a constant thing. Copies of these are kept before the protective personnel at the White House all the time. This resides in their office.

Senator Cooper. On that point, if this last category represents a group that is so highly dangerous, have any individuals in that group reached the place where they have made such statements as would bring them under the Federal act which would require prosecution?

Mr. Bouck. No, sir; if they were prosecutable we would seek that solution immediately, and many of them have been taken to the district attorney and it has just been determined they do not quite meet the requirements for prosecution.

Some have been prosecuted, and have served sentences and are out at the end of sentences but still thought to be dangerous.

Senator Cooper. Yes.

Mr. Bouck. Some have been in mental institutions and discharged, and there isn't ground to put them back but we are still afraid of them.

Mr. Stern. Are the individuals who are listed in the trip-index file, which numbered at the time of Dallas about 100, also listed in the checkup control files?

Mr. Bouck. Yes. Yes; they would, primarily that 100 would to a large degree be in both places.

Mr. Stern. Then it is a fair summary, Mr. Bouck, that at the time of Dallas the number of individuals that you were concerned with were some thousands, the number you will supply, who were institutionalized either in prison or in mental hospitals, and with such institutions you had an arrangement that would promptly notify you of the discharge or escape of that individual, some 400 on a systematic review, approximately every 6 months by your field offices, of which 400, 100 were separately identified as particularly dangerous in the trip-index file, and some 12 to 15 whose photographs were in the album?

Mr. Bouck. Yes; I think——

Mr. Stern. As a matter of fact, I would suppose the people in the album would also be in the checkup control file so really we are talking about, are we not, the unknown number in institutions, and about 400 other individuals whom you were actively reviewing and about whom you would be concerned on the occasion of the President's trip?

Mr. Bouck. That is right.

Mr. Stern. In addition, you had files on, active files on, approximately 50,000 cases involving at least that number and probably more, individuals which were your basic library, as it were, but of reference use only until more information was developed about them?

Mr. Bouck. Well, I think you are quite accurate except in the last category. In these 50,000 cases would be tremendous numbers of cases that had been given investigative attention, and had been determined that our first thought or our first indications of danger were not substantiated. The investigator, and we concurred, felt that the individual, at least at any particular time, that this particular individual was not really in fact a menace to the President's life.

Mr. Dulles. What was the location of these 50,000 cases? We are talking now about Dallas, is that countrywide?

Mr. Bouck. Countrywide.

Mr. McCloy. International.

Mr. Bouck. It is worldwide over a period of 20 years.

Mr. Dulles. Yes. Somebody in Thailand, if he was in Thailand wouldn't be of much danger in Dallas.

Mr. Stern. But he would, as I understand it, sir, be included in the basic files if he had come to their attention as a potential danger.

Mr. Dulles. Someone in New Orleans, for example, he could get up to Dallas very quickly or if he were in Houston, but this 50,000 covers the whole world.

Mr. Stern. Yes; and I think the important point here, Mr. Dulles, is that these are 50,000 cases of background information, including people already investigated and found not to represent danger. The number of cases under active scrutiny at the time of Dallas amounted to about 400, who were reviewed periodically, plus a much larger number, in the thousands, of persons committed or imprisoned, and as to those, I expect there would be no problem until they were released.

Mr. Bouck. That is right.

Mr. Stern. And you had a system to be notified about the release or escape, is that correct?

Mr. Bouck. That is correct.

Mr. Dulles. So can we get from that about the number of cases you felt to look at in connection with the President's trip to Dallas?

Mr. Bouck. We actually——

Mr. Dulles. What range would that be?

Mr. Bouck. We actually looked at a volume of cases approximating 400 in connection with the trip to Dallas.

Mr. Stern. Well——

Mr. Bouck. That is the total file that we looked into.

Mr. Stern. On a national basis?

Mr. Bouck. The total two or three files we looked into would encompass about that many people.

Mr. Dulles. All right. That gives me just what I was asking for.

Mr. Stern. In point of fact, Mr. Bouck, when you looked at the checkup control file and the trip-index file before the Dallas trip how many names were reported for the areas in the Dallas field office territory where the President was to visit?

Mr. Bouck. We found no uncontrolled people in the trip file for Dallas. All of the cases in Dallas were controlled to our satisfaction. We found also in the checkup file no uncontrolled individuals that we thought warranted an alert for Dallas.

Mr. Dulles. Did you ask the FBI or any other local agency for any cases they might have?

Mr. Bouck. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles. In connection with the trip?

Mr. Bouck. In fact, they referred several cases to us in connection with the trip, right prior to the trip on the local level.

Mr. Dulles. On the local level?

Mr. Bouck. On the local level.

Mr. McCloy. Being as objective as you can be under the circumstances, what would you have done if the FBI had told you there was a man named Oswald in Dallas, who was a defector, had been a defector?

Mr. Bouck. I think if they had told us only that, we probably would not have taken action. If I might qualify it further, if we had known what all of the Government agencies knew together, and knew that he had that vantage point on the route, then we certainly would have taken very drastic action.

Mr. McCloy. If they had told you that there was a man named Oswald in 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, if we had had them altogether, would have added up to pointing out a pretty bad individual, and I think that, together, had we known that he had a vantage point would have seemed somewhat serious to us, even though I must admit that none of these in themselves would be—would meet our specific criteria, none of them alone.

But it is when you begin adding them up to some degree that you begin to get criteria that are meaningful.

Senator Cooper. I am sure you have answered what I am going to ask but I will ask it anyway. Then it is correct prior to the assassination the Secret Service had no information from any agency or any source——

Mr. Bouck. That is correct.

Senator Cooper. Relating to Lee Oswald?

Mr. Bouck. That is correct.

Mr. Stern. I believe you said earlier, Mr. Bouck, that before Dallas you thought the liaison arrangements were satisfactory and that other Federal agencies, in particular, had full awareness of the kind of information that the Secret Service was looking for under the general criteria that you articulated?

Mr. Bouck. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. Why then, do you think you were not notified of Oswald? Was there perhaps something wrong with the system?

Mr. Bouck. This, of course, is opinion. In my opinion, there was no lack of knowledge of what we should have. Insofar as I know no individual knew enough about Oswald to judge him to meet our criteria of presenting a danger to the President. I know of no individual who knew all about Oswald, including the fact that he had a vantage point on the route.

If that is so, I don't know. I didn't know.

Mr. McCloy. Somebody in the FBI knew it, didn't they?

Mr. Bouck. I have no record to know that. They knew certain information. I have no record that would indicate they knew all of the derogatory information.

Mr. McCloy. I don't know I would say they knew all the derogatory information but they certainly knew the vantage point and they certainly knew the defection elements.

Mr. Bouck. I know they knew he was in Dallas. Whether they recognized that as being on the route, I don't know that.

Mr. McCloy. I think the record shows he was employed there, or the deposition shows.

Mr. Bouck. I don't know that.

Mr. Stern. Is it of key importance to what you say now regarding the information on Oswald before the assassination to identify his vantage point? If you would take that away from the other characteristics does he then not become a threat?

Mr. Bouck. He would not meet the criteria of a threat as we had it at that time, if you take that away.

Mr. Stern. And the criterion was——

Mr. Bouck. That there be some specific indication that a possible danger to the President existed.

Mr. Dulles. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. McCloy. Back on the record.

Mr. Stern. Well, Mr. Bouck, if the pivotal ingredient is his employment at that Depository, is that because that showed some, to your mind, some intention, some desire to be on the route, because access to the route——

Mr. Bouck. No; it relates him to the President. This, I think if all the information that was known about him, indicates that he was a pretty untrustworthy individual, I think there was no indication that that untrustworthiness might be of a danger to the President until you associated that he had a vantage point where he might use it toward the President.

There was nothing previous that indicated that the President might be an object of this, and——

Mr. Stern. As far as any of us know, any citizen had pretty much the same sort of access to the parade route. Is there any difference——

Mr. Bouck. We would feel the same way if we knew this much derogatory type of information about any citizen if we knew he had a particular vantage point on a route.

Mr. Stern. But a citizen, possessing all the characteristics you believe to have been known about Oswald but not having access through employment or residence or some comparable relationship to the parade route, would not have been of concern to you under the criteria and practices in effect at the time of Dallas, is that what you are saying?

Mr. Bouck. I think a little broader than that. Access of any kind, working in a hotel or any point where he might have unusual access.

If you broaden the question to that, I would say that is what I am saying.

Mr. Stern. Unusual access?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. McCloy. If I might intervene here, if I understand it. I don't know whether it is good but there is speculation and conjecture in it, I don't know if you will get far with it. Probably if you had known all the derogatory information that you now know was accumulated in all of the agencies of the Government irrespective of where this fellow was in Dallas you might have kept your eye on him.

Mr. Bouck. Again, that would be speculation. I don't know. It wouldn't be normal. It wouldn't fit within our normal category unless we knew he was—he had a vantage point. We know of tremendous numbers of people who are bad people that we don't keep an eye on.

Mr. McCloy. Yes; but suppose you knew these men, or suppose you encountered some of these defectors. I am told there are 18 others, wouldn't you have been somewhat negligent if you didn't check up on him when he got to the vantage point in Dallas?

Mr. Bouck. If we had checked up, I don't know whether we would have gone beyond that.

Mr. McCloy. I don't suggest that but you might have kept him under surveillance.

Mr. Bouck. We would have taken note of this.

Mr. Stern. Would that have been true if he had not been known to be living in Dallas, if his last known address was New Orleans?

Mr. Bouck. If he had not been living in Dallas we would not have checked on on him in this trip area even with the other information.

Mr. Stern. Suppose he had been living in Fort Worth?

Mr. Bouck. Well, if we had known he were living in Fort Worth that would be the same as Dallas, to us. When we speak of a city we speak of the driving distance or the commutable distance to a city.

Mr. Stern. We will move very quickly to questions concerning Oswald and I would like to go back now and cover the details of your file search and other PRS activity for the Texas trip, the total Texas trip. If you would start with the first date you heard that the President was preparing to travel to Texas and tell us what your Section did and what you found.

Mr. Bouck. Our first knowledge of the Texas trip was on November 8 when the advance agent, Agent Lawson, reported to the Protective Research Section that the President was going to Texas, and that Dallas was one of the stops. A check at that time was made of our trip index, and no cards were found on Dallas to indicate that there was an uncontrolled dangerous person in Dallas.

Two such people were found at the Houston stop. This information was imparted to Mr. Lawson at that time.

Mr. Stern. Excuse me, could you identify the two Houston cases from Exhibit 762?

Mr. Bouck. Yes; they are in here. Case No. 21 is one. This individual is a local law-enforcement officer that was not considered awfully dangerous but again because he might have an unusual vantage point we made arrangements each time to see that he was not used in any way that he might have a vantage point. Case 26 is the other one, which is a case that goes back many, many years of an individual who has been repeatedly threatening but we have been unable to do much about. She has been in and out of mental hospitals.

Mr. Stern. So these were the two cases?

Mr. Bouck. The two cases.

Mr. Stern. That were in the trip-index file involving the jurisdiction of the Houston field office?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

A notation was made at that time for the individual in charge of that section and on the 14th he again checked that file. He pulled out these two cards, and he checked the checkup file and concluded that these in the State of Texas were the only two uncontrolled people that we should alert the field about, and he pulled the case jackets on these two people and reviewed those, and then caused an alert to be prepared on these two people, the original being sent to the White House Detail, and the copy being sent to the field office.

Mr. Stern. These are the same two Houston cases?

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. Was there an additional case added on the 14th?

Mr. Bouck. No; not by our section. There were just the two. There were cases picked up in the field on some of these, but we only sent out the two cases as being in our opinion of protective concern on that trip.

Mr. Stern. Would you look, Mr. Bouck, please, at the first page of Exhibit 760, the first text page, the third paragraph, the middle of the paragraph, it says, "On November 14, 1963, the above indicated clerical employee prepared an office memorandum advising the name of one PRS subject who had previously been referred to the interested offices and was still of concern and furnishing identifying data on a new PRS subject who had not been previously included in the alert."

Mr. Bouck. These were the two cases. The one we had alerted on a previous trip, the deputy sheriff one, had not been, that had occurred since a previous trip and so this was the first time that we had told the detail and the field office that this individual should be looked at. Making a total of two.

Mr. Stern. Were there entries in the trip-index file then for the other cities that the President was planning to visit or the other field office areas, Dallas, San Antonio, and El Paso?

Mr. Bouck. No; there were no cards on any of the other three cities, indicating uncontrolled people.

Mr. Stern. So in the four field offices covering the entire State of Texas there were in the trip index only two cards both of them residing in the Houston office area?

Mr. Bouck. That is correct.

Mr. Stern. Now, do you know what was done in Dallas to supplement this investigation into potentially harmful people?

Mr. Bouck. Dallas made contact with the local authorities, they had contact with the FBI, they had contact with the local police in Dallas, and also some of the suburbs, particularly Denton, Tex., in which they received information on several situations and several individuals in addition to, well, they received this information.

Mr. Stern. Are those cases summarized in Exhibit 762?

Mr. Bouck. Yes; they are. I think the first one of those is page No. 2 of Exhibit 762, which involved people who had attempted to embarrass Ambassador Stevenson. Also page 3 is a further one. I believe they also received information on some scurrilous literature that was being circulated in Dallas at that time from the FBI.

Mr. Stern. Now, referring to the visit of Ambassador Stevenson in October, I believe——

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. Was anything done at the time of that visit in October to identify the people who were participating in the obstreperous conduct that occurred?

Mr. Bouck. I do not know. It was nothing——

Mr. Stern. So far as PRS was concerned?

Mr. Bouck. Nothing was done by PRS.

Mr. Stern. These individuals did come to light in the liaison activities just prior to President Kennedy's trip to Dallas?

Mr. Bouck. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. And they were then, as I understand it, placed in your permanent records and are now in your trip-index files?

Mr. Bouck. That is correct.

Mr. Stern. Mr. Bouck, since the Stevenson trip received a great deal of publicity and I take it you knew about it at the time or PRS knew about it, can you tell us why there was no effort in October to determine who these people were for possible use if President Kennedy or a later President should consider a trip to Dallas?

Mr. Bouck. Well, there are a great many disturbances and activities around, and we have never felt that we should document those per se inasmuch as they did not constitute a jurisdiction—they were not within our jurisdiction except when the President went to an area, so it has always been something that we attempted to resolve when we had jurisdiction in the area because the President was going there, rather than engage in investigative activity that was not within our jurisdiction just per se, whenever there was a disturbance.

Mr. Stern. I am not sure I follow that. I take it your jurisdiction is to determine, perhaps not to act upon, but to determine people who might be threats to the President or Vice-President.

Mr. Bouck. These people were not judged at that time to be threats to the President, necessarily.

Mr. Stern. I see. Their activities in connection with Ambassador Stevenson's visit did not seem to you at that time——

Mr. Bouck. They did not fit our criteria as being a direct indication that the President might be harmed, but then when the President went to that area, then a more serious connotation was put on those people and they were investigated and were identified and pictures were made of them and given to the agents.

Mr. Stern. That is because the President was then going to that area?

Mr. Bouck. Yes; that is right.

Mr. Stern. Suppose the President was going to another area to which these individuals had moved in between the Stevenson visit and the hypothetical Presidential trip. You would have had no record of them, no way of knowing about them, is that correct?

Mr. Bouck. No; that would have to—unless it had been reported to me they had moved, then the only way we would pick that up would be in the local liaison which begins some days before a trip.

Mr. Stern. But there would have been no basis to report to you that they had moved as I understand it because they would not have been persons of concern to you merely because of their involvement in the Stevenson affair?

Mr. Bouck. That is probably right.

Mr. McCloy. To summarize your testimony a bit, I gather that the fundamental criterion that you were looking for is the potential threat to the health and life of the President of the United States, that you are not a general security agency of the United States, but are directed particularly to that particular objective, and one of the things that alerts you most is the threat, and then you examine that threat to determine whether or not it is a serious threat. A lot of elements enter into that and at that point when it does become a serious threat, then you put it on your alert files, is that abut right?

Mr. Bouck. That is a very good——

Mr. McCloy. Furthermore——

Mr. Bouck. Analysis.

Mr. McCloy. Flowing from that the mere fact that a man or woman was a defector, or a man is a member of a political organization doesn't in itself embody the threat to the United States, to the President, the person of the President of the United States.

Mr. Bouck. Right.

Mr. McCloy. It is only as there is some additional element that causes you to fear that there is a potential menace that you put in that category you have been talking about?

Mr. Bouck. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. I think we might illustrate that, Mr. McCloy, by a series of abstracts of cases that Mr. Bouck has prepared. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 766 for identification.

Mr. Bouck. Yes.

Mr. Stern. And would you describe that and summarize very briefly the cases involved there which I think are intended to typify, are they not——

Mr. Bouck. Yes; I prepared this and the thought was that the Commission might be interested in a couple of examples of how the PRS function has been helpful in protection, and so three cases have been presented in this paper.

Mr. Stern. Mr. Bouck, have you anything you would like to add, any clarification, any amplification of the matters we have discussed this morning?

Mr. Bouck. I don't believe so. I think Mr. McCloy's summary probably exceeds anything I could give, and I think it is quite good and reflects, I believe, what we were trying to get at here.

Mr. Stern. Have you reviewed the memoranda and other exhibits that you have identified this morning and do you have any corrections or additions to make to those?

Mr. Bouck. No, sir; I think they are accurate.

Mr. Stern. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request the admission of all the exhibits that Mr. Bouck has identified for us this morning. I have no further questions.

Mr. McCloy. They may be admitted.

(The documents referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit Nos. 760 through 766, were received in evidence.)

Mr. McCloy. I have one more question I would like to ask you. In the light of what you know now about the whole episode, have you come to any conclusions as to how you ought to operate in the future other than you did in the Dallas situation?

Mr. Bouck. As Mr. Carswell has mentioned, of course, a great deal of study is being conducted. I think there are a number of other things that can be done. Great problems arise as to human rights and constitutional rights and costs and resources and just sheer—dealing with just sheer volumes of millions of people, and I do not feel I would want to give final judgment as to whether we should do these things until we have completed all of these studies, but perhaps there will be some that will——

Mr. McCloy. Do you at this stage have any definite ideas about any steps that ought to be taken for the added protection of the President?

Mr. Bouck. Well, I have quite a lot of them which are incorporated in this study. I have been, and as I understand it, the Commission perhaps will have the benefit of that but I have been very heavily involved in many, many ways in this study, and as to the final conclusions, of course, I think maybe it goes all the way to the Congress to decide the practicality of some of this.

Mr. McCloy. I am sure it does.

Mr. Bouck. I just don't quite feel in a position to say that I would want to recommend most of these things without reservation at this time. If I might, without presuming to evade your question, if we could delay that a little bit until we have completed this rather massive look that we are now taking.

Mr. McCloy. Very well. Thank you very much for your cooperation, and very much obliged to you and the Treasury Department for helping us.

Mr. Bouck. Thank you, sir.

Mr. McCloy. To achieve our—perform our duties.

Thank you.

We will adjourn until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

---

Afternoon Session
TESTIMONY OF WINSTON G. LAWSON, ACCOMPANIED BY FRED B. SMITH, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, TREASURY DEPARTMENT

The President's Commission reconvened at 2 p.m.

Mr. McCloy. Mr. Lawson, you know the general purpose of what we are here for?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCloy. In the way of trying to get as much information as we can, not only regarding the assassination of the President but also some background as to the steps that have been taken to protect him and as well as perhaps to take some testimony with the thought that we might be able to recommend measures that might insure future security of our Presidents. I will ask you, if you will, to rise and I will swear you.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Lawson. I do.

Mr. McCloy. Go ahead.

Mr. Stern. Mr. Lawson, would you state your name, age, and address for the record, please?

Mr. Lawson. Winston George Lawson, 35 years old, 516 Vista Drive, apartment 204. Falls Church, Va.

Mr. Stern. What was your education at the college level?

Mr. Lawson. A bachelor of arts with a major in history and government.

Mr. Stern. From what?

Mr. Lawson. University of Buffalo, 1949.

Mr. Stern. Briefly, what was your employment experience from 1949 to 1959?

Mr. Lawson. From the time of my graduation after a couple of months working for a firm that my father worked for, I became a wholesale carpet salesman until December 1951, and then I joined the Carnation Co., manufacturers of milk products nationally, and was a representative in various capacities for them in New York State. In 1953, March, I went in the Army and I had been a reservist and was called up as a CIC agent. I had 16 weeks of basic infantry, basic training, went to the CIC Counterintelligence School in Holabird, Md.—Fort Holabird, Md.—outside of Baltimore, and then was assigned eventually to the Lexington field office where I did general counterintelligence work for the Army, background investigations, and some interviews of the prisoners, POW's from the Korean war.

After I returned to civilian life in 1955, I returned to the Carnation Milk Co. and had various sales or public relations jobs with them in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., Syracuse, N.Y., generally covering most of the State of New York. I applied to enter the Secret Service approximately 3 years before I was accepted, and entered the Secret Service in October 1959 in the Syracuse field office.

Mr. Stern. Will you tell us of your experience in the Secret Service, describing briefly each assignment of work?

Mr. McCloy. When you say CIC agent you mean——

Mr. Lawson. Counterintelligence agent; yes, sir, in the Army. I was hired as an agent in the Syracuse field office, and did general investigative work in the Syracuse area, part of New York State, with time out for a special assignment during the Eisenhower administration for approximately 21 days when I had to come to Washington to replace some agents who were advancing some large trips in South America. I was away from the Syracuse office in Treasury School for 6 weeks and I was away from the Syracuse office for 5 weeks while I attended Secret Service School.

I was here in Secret Service School during the inauguration of President Kennedy. The school was let out for that day so that they could take advantage of the agents that were here in town for post assignments. After returning to Syracuse for approximately 3 weeks I was transferred to Washington on the White House detail in March 1961.

Mr. Stern. And you have been a member of the White House detail.

Mr. Lawson. Of the White House detail.

Mr. Stern. Since then?

Mr. Lawson. Yes.

Mr. Stern. What has your experience been, Mr. Lawson, in doing advance work for Presidential or Vice Presidential trips?

Mr. Lawson. I have assisted on some advances and I have had the overall responsibility on some others. Some of my overall responsibilities were Billings, Mont.; Little Rock; Buffalo and Niagara Falls, N.Y.; Cherry Point, N.C.

Mr. Stern. Approximately how many trips did you have the major responsibility for, and how many did you assist on in doing advance work?

Mr. Lawson. I have assisted on five or six and had the major responsibility on seven or eight, I believe, and then have done what we call local advances here in the Washington area, if the President is going to a dinner or to a speech or to a function here in Washington.

Mr. Stern. Do all members of the White House detail do advance work for Presidential trips?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; after they have been there a few months perhaps, or sometimes a little less, depending on the need of advances, they are assigned to go out and help on some advances, and then they will work regular shift work for a while and then they may be assigned other advances and then a little bit later have the responsibility of one.

Mr. McCloy. Mr. Ford, this is Mr. Lawson from the Secret Service. He is just giving us his qualifications and giving his experience up to the time that he was given responsibility in connection with making preparations, advance preparations, for Presidential trips.

Mr. Stern. When you are not doing advance work, Mr. Lawson, what are your general responsibilities?

Mr. Lawson. I am assigned to a regular shift, of which there are three on the White House detail, and we work 2 weeks 4 to 12, 2 weeks midnights, 2 weeks days. That is generally because if there is a Presidential movement here in Washington, usually if it is a daytime engagement the 4-to-12 shift will have to come in and work extra. If it is an evening engagement, why, the 8-to-4 shift will have to work extra. And then as the President takes trips, if we are assigned to work that day we would also go along as a regular working agent, accompanying him or going just ahead of him.

Mr. Stern. When you do the advance work for a trip, do you file reports in connection with the work you have done?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. Do you typically file a report somewhere in the middle of the advance and then at the end, or how does it work? What are your responsibilities?

Mr. Lawson. Until just prior to the Dallas trip we had a report which we tried to get out if it was at all possible and send back to Washington, the complete report at that time, and then write a supplemental after we returned to Washington, with any changes. The first advance and the advance that I had in Billings, Mont., and in Little Rock, Ark., I was able to do that. Those were in September and October of 1963. However, they changed the reporting system so that we send a preliminary report, and it was the first one of this type that I had had after the Dallas trip. So this one has a preliminary report and also a final survey report.

Mr. Dulles. How much forenotice did you have of the Dallas trip; do you recall?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; I was notified of it on November 4, which is quite a bit of notice.

Mr. Dulles. So you could start your preparations for it on November 4, approximately?

Mr. Lawson. I was notified that there would be a trip, but that I would have more information on November 8; yes, sir; and I was given more information on November 8.

Mr. Dulles. And when was it in that period that you were notified that Dallas was to be visited?

Mr. Lawson. On November 4.

Mr. Dulles. On November 4?

Mr. Lawson. I was told that I would be going to Dallas, but they didn't know very many of the details yet and wouldn't until November 8.

Mr. Stern. Mr. Lawson, I show you a document marked for identification Commission No. 767. Can you identify that?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; I can. It is my preliminary report for the Dallas trip.

Mr. Stern. And that was prepared when?

Mr. Lawson. That was prepared in Dallas, late afternoon or early evening Tuesday, November 19, and sent to Washington by airplane.

Mr. Stern. Mr. Chairman, may this be admitted?

Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 767 was received in evidence.)

Mr. Stern. I now show you a document marked for identification Commission No. 768. Can you identify that, Mr. Lawson?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; that is a final survey report which I prepared upon my return from Dallas.

Mr. Stern. And that is the final report in this preliminary-final report arrangement——

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. Which you have described? And can you identify this additional document marked for identification Commission Exhibit No. 769?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; this is a statement of the activities that I had, to the best of my knowledge, in connection with the Presidential visit to Dallas covering my activities only pertaining to the Dallas trip from November 4 through 21.

Mr. Stern. This, I take it, was not a routine report?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; it was not.

Mr. Stern. It was prepared because of what transpired at Dallas? Mr. Chairman, may we have admitted 768 and 769?

Mr. McCloy. They may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 768 and 769 were received in evidence.)

Mr. Stern. Now, beginning November 8, can you tell us the preparations for your trip that you did here in Washington?

Mr. Lawson. Yes. Acting on the instruction to come into the office on November 8 for the additional instructions that I had been told I would receive, Mr. Roy Kellerman, who is an assistant special agent in charge of the detail, gave myself and other members of the advance teams going out what information they had up to that time on their respective stops. Mr. Kellerman told me the name of Mr. Jack Puterbaugh, whom I would meet on an airplane taking the advance agents to Dallas the next week. I contacted the White House Communications Agency to see if they were sending a communications representative along to help out as they usually did, and was given his name. Mr. Kellerman gave me the name of a car contact in the Dallas area so that we would be able to obtain cars for the motorcade, which is normal.

Mr. Stern. These are cars, as I understand it——

Mr. Lawson. For the Presidential party.

Mr. Stern. Furnished to you by——

Mr. Lawson. The Ford Motor Co.

Mr. Stern. By people in the area that you visit——

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. For use during the visit of the President? Were you told anything about the assistance you would have in doing advance work for the Dallas trip?

Mr. Lawson. Could you be more explicit, please?

Mr. Stern. Whether you would have another agent assigned to do the work with you?

Mr. Lawson. Oh, yes. I had been told earlier, sometime between November 4 and 8, that another agent would be accompanying me, but, because of the Presidential trips which were occurring right at that time, that they would not be able to send out one at the same time, and he would have to join me later in Dallas after some of the other trips had been taken care of.

Mr. Stern. What were the usual arrangements as far as assignments?

Mr. Lawson. Quite often two agents would go out at the same time; yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. And your responsibilities and those of this other agent when he joined you pertained only to Dallas; is that correct?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. You were not concerned with any other city in the President's route?

Mr. Lawson. Not on that occasion; no, sir.

Mr. Stern. And each of those cities had its own advance agent or agents?

Mr. Lawson. That is correct.

Mr. Stern. Doing the same work you were doing?

Mr. Lawson. That is correct.

Mr. Stern. When, in fact, did the other agent join you?

Mr. Lawson. On Monday evening. May I refer to the date of this?

Mr. Stern. Please.

Mr. Lawson. November 18; Monday evening.

Mr. Stern. Now, what steps did you take in Washington before you left, with respect to determining the names and other information about persons who might be in the Dallas area and who might be regarded as potential threats to the President?

Mr. Lawson. I went—on November 8, after leaving Mr. Kellerman's office, I went to the office in the Executive Office Building where our agents of the Protective Research Section are, and notified agents at that location that I was being assigned the advance for Dallas, Tex., trip, the date of this trip, and that I requested them to check their files and determine as to whether I should have the name of any individual in the Dallas area who was of record to us as an active subject.

Mr. Stern. Was this request made in writing?

Mr. Lawson. It was oral, sir.

Mr. Stern. Is it usually made that way, orally? Do you ever make a written request?

Mr. Lawson. I have never done so. I don't know about the other individuals.

Mr. Stern. What did they tell you?

Mr. Lawson. I was told after waiting there a little while that there were no subjects of record in the Dallas area, of active PRS individuals that we would expect to harm the President.

Mr. Stern. And this check was made while you were present in the office?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Representative Ford. How long did it take, for example?

Mr. Lawson. I believe I was there approximately 10 minutes. Not much more than 10 minutes, sir.

Representative Ford. In other words, they made this check on your behalf in that period of time?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Do you know how they went about it? Did you observe how they went about it?

Mr. Lawson. In looking back I can recall the individuals going to certain files, but I have never worked in the PRS Section and I only know general information about it.

Representative Ford. You asked somebody to check on the names of people who might be a threat in Dallas?

Mr. Lawson. That is correct, sir.

Representative Ford. And within a period of 10 minutes they came back and said there were no names?

Mr. Lawson. That is right, sir.

Mr. Dulles. What was their answer again? I didn't quite clearly hear it when you said it the first time.

Mr. Lawson. I don't believe I could give you an exact answer.

Mr. Dulles. In general what was your recollection?

Mr. Lawson. There were no PRS subjects, active PRS subjects which would be a threat to the President to our knowledge in the Dallas area in the files.

Mr. Dulles. And would you define PRS?

Mr. Lawson. Protective Research Section.

Mr. Stern. Was there a file that you yourself checked preliminary to your trip?

Mr. Lawson. I don't believe so.

Mr. Stern. Not a file of individuals but a file that might be helpful to you in your advance work for Dallas?

Mr. Lawson. We have files of past trips, some of President Eisenhower's. I am not sure how long ago they go back because they are probably taken out and put some place else periodically. But for example we have all of President Kennedy's trips right now plus President Johnson's current ones, and an agent could if he desired, if he was being assigned to a city, go and see if the President had been there recently, and look in that for names or perhaps if he was going to the same hotel or something, this would give him names of people to contact there. He might obtain information. There was no report on Dallas for President Kennedy.

Mr. Stern. You checked?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. And found no report. This file would contain the reports such as your final report which we have marked "768," is that right?

Mr. Lawson. That is correct.

Mr. Stern. There was nothing in there——

Mr. Lawson. No, sir.

Mr. Stern. Reflecting any recent trip to the Dallas area?

Mr. Lawson. That is correct.

Mr. Stern. Did anything else transpire before you left for Dallas as far as advance preparation?

Mr. Lawson. I picked up paraphernalia that we use, sometimes more than other times depending on the type of trip it is. If there is to be a motorcade as there is in this case, we usually get car numbers for the windows and some identification pins for people who will not have identification supplied by a local committee, and other paraphernalia of this type, and I obtained those and took them with me.

Mr. Stern. Did anything else happen before you left for Dallas?

Mr. Lawson. I called the Dallas office, the agent in charge was not in, and talked to another agent, told him that I was coming down with other agents on the Texas trip and would be dropped off at approximately 7:30 on the evening, Tuesday evening, of the next week, and——

Mr. Stern. What was the date?

Mr. Lawson. I believe that is the 12th of November. That Mr. Puterbaugh and Chief Warrant Officer Bales from the Communications Agency, White House, would be accompanying me, and would they make arrangements to please have us met at the airport and for rooms. And then dictated a confirming memo before I left on the eighth.

Representative Ford. Did you have any other contacts with PRS other than this one?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. Stern. You then went to Dallas on November 12?

Mr. Lawson. That is correct.

Mr. Stern. What did you do in Dallas from the time of your arrival in connection with trying to learn about people who might be potentially dangerous to the President?

Mr. Lawson. I was aware of the so-called Stevenson incident and so I didn't have to be told that there.

Mr. Stern. How did you become aware of that?

Mr. Lawson. I had read it in the paper, and so without making inquiries I was aware of that when I went there.

Mr. Stern. You received no specific advice about that from PRS?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; I was aware of this fact. And then of course it was after I arrived there people were talking about it also. And although to my knowledge none of the people involved in that particular incident had threatened the President or were known to us as threatening the President, I asked Agent Howlett if he would view some films of this incident that I understood one of the local TV stations had.

I was informed of this by a local executive of the local paper who was on the host committee, that they had such films. And Agent Howlett did view these and had some still shots made of these individuals, although we still did not know that they were against President Kennedy or might harm him in any way. This was an extra on my part. I had asked Agent Howlett if he had any contact with any individuals, informants in the area that he might have, that the office might have about rightwing elements and what they might do, and was told that prior to my arrival in Dallas they had received some information on some rightwing activity, and that an investigation had been made, and that he also had talked to an informant or two I believe. But to their knowledge there was nothing in the radical-type rightwing movement so-called in the Dallas area that they knew of that was going to harm President Kennedy.

Mr. Stern. Did anything else occur? Did you have any discussions of this problem with the local police?

Mr. Lawson. We talked with the local police on many occasions as to what would happen if there were demonstrations, pickets and so forth, if they knew of any activity, and I believe S. A. Howlett from the Dallas office did the same thing. The papers, the newspapers in Dallas had a few articles on how watchful the police were going to be of the crowd, with particular emphasis on disturbances or pickets, and some of the local committee, host committee, as well as some of the local political groups in the area were worried that perhaps the police would be overzealous in controlling picketing or disturbances, and asked me if I could find out just what the police were planning to do in this event, that there were some wild rumors as to just what the police were going to do. And because we like to have our local Agents who have to work with the police in these areas maintain the liaison I asked Mr. Sorrels if he would contact the chief of police and find out exactly what they planned to do in relation to picketing, and discussed the new ordinance that had been passed on the Monday, November 18 I believe it is, prior to the President's visit. And we were told that the police would accept peaceful picketing, but that the new ordinance was strictly to give them some power to act if pickets or individuals were interfering with lawful assembled groups, if they were trying to make noise to drown out people who were bona fide speakers at lawful groups, or if they were trying to interfere with any person entering or departing a lawful assembly.

Mr. Stern. Did anything occur in connection with a circular that was being circulated at the time?

Mr. Lawson. Yes sir; I learned of a circular which had been distributed in various parts of the city, blue in color with President Kennedy's picture on it, and a list of grievances against him called treasonist to the United States. I was given a copy of the circular in the police chief's office, and requested Mr. Sorrels, our local agent in charge—he had received a copy of this circular, and I asked him to check with the district attorney's office, the Federal district attorney, to see if it was against the Federal law. At quick reading myself it didn't look like it was a violation of Federal law but I was in no position to judge it, and I could see no direct threat.

Mr. Dulles. What Federal law did you have in mind then?

Mr. Lawson. Under our jurisdiction, sir, of protection of the President and investigation of letters or other threats in connection to the President.

Mr. Dulles. This circular that you referred to is this the advertisement in the papers?

Mr. Lawson. No.

Mr. Dulles. Was this something different?

Mr. Lawson. I never saw the advertisement in the paper the morning of the 22d, and the first knowledge I had of that particular advertisement was after I had returned from Dallas.

(Discussion off the record.)

Representative Ford. What page?

Mr. Stern. Exhibit 4 to the attachment of exhibits.

Mr. Lawson, I show you a one-page document marked "Commission Exhibit No. 770" for identification with two photographs of President Kennedy, and the title "Wanted for Treason." Is this a copy, a photograph of the circular you have been describing?

Mr. Lawson. It is, sir.

Mr. Stern. May it be admitted?

Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 770 was received in evidence.)

Mr. Stern. The newspaper advertisement was a series of questions addressed to President Kennedy asking why he had done certain things.

Mr. Dulles. I remember seeing it. Have you any idea as to the number of these circulars that were distributed, any estimate?

Mr. Lawson. No sir; I have no idea how many were put out. They appeared in certain sections of the city I was told. The police told me they had no idea who had put them out or when they had been put out, and Mr. Sorrels said that some had been brought over to his office by the FBI, which is how he had known about it, and that neither he nor they knew the source of them.

Mr. Dulles. And nobody was apprehended or seen in the act of circulating these.

Mr. Lawson. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Dulles. By any authority as far as you know?

Mr. Lawson. That is right.

Mr. Stern. In respect to questions like what steps are taken to assure the security of the President on the trip and how to work out liaison arrangements with local Federal and municipal authorities, what is your understanding of the division of responsibility between yourself as the advance agent and the head of the local Secret Service office?

Mr. Lawson. The advance agent who goes out from Washington is responsible for the overall stop, for making the advance arrangements, and on the day of the movement would have authority over the other agents at the stop already or the agents accompanying the President, and of course the agent in charge of the detail coming from Washington would also have authority naturally over the agents.

However, he is just arriving in the city probably for the first time, and the advance agent would have certain knowledge about certain events and would have more authority than he does in certain respects or he would ask his advice. So that there is a boss over the agents which would be the advance agent and also the gentleman in charge of the detail coming from Washington. The local agent in charge of the local office assists the advance agent in all of his arrangements in the territory that is to be visited, and the local agent in charge conducts such investigations to assist the advance agent, and the local agent in charge would be in charge of any liaison with local officials, local police officials.

Mr. Stern. Insofar as the concern is for persons who might be dangerous or threatening to the President, the agent in charge of the Dallas office would be responsible for liaison arrangements with local authorities but you ultimately would be responsible as the delegate of the head of the White House detail, for decisions as to what steps should be taken?

Mr. Lawson. That is correct.

Mr. Dulles. What police powers, if any, can you exercise in that situation in a sovereign State?

Mr. Lawson. I believe the actual police powers as such would only be in the event of actual knowledge of a threat on the President's life, anything that we have jurisdiction of. If we hear of an oral threat or see a written threat on the life of the President or see someone attempt to take his life, this is our jurisdiction, and we would be able to act as such.

Mr. Dulles. You could effect an arrest.

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; however, anything which would fall under the jurisdiction of the local police such as firearms laws or picketing laws or disturbances or anything like that we have to depend upon the local police to use their jurisdiction.

Mr. McCloy. Suppose the President is shot and you apprehend the murderer. Can you arrest him and put him into custody?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; I could arrest him for the shooting of the President, but it is my understanding actually for the murder, no, but because he tried to take the life of the President I could.

Mr. McCloy. I understand there may be some question, there is a gap in the law there that it fits no Federal crime.

Mr. Lawson. I will have to refer to counsel here as to just where it stops, when it becomes murder actually where we have no jurisdiction, and an attempt on the life of the President.

Mr. Dulles. Let's take a less-clear case. If you suspected Mr. X was a man who was going to interfere with the President, although he had committed no overt act, could you move in then or would you call upon the local police?

Mr. Lawson. If he was a suspect, sir, and we had a belief that he might try to harm the President while he was in Dallas, I would try to assign a Secret Service agent in conjunction with local police authorities, to watch him. If it was a function where it was by invitation only or there was some kind of control as to how the people got in, you would make sure that he did not get in because you were watchful of the ticketholders, et cetera.

However the function was to be handled; if it was a ball park where anyone could buy a ticket to go in, then we would just have to have the man watched, or perhaps the local police themselves somehow could keep him from going to that ball park. But I as an agent could not.

Mr. Dulles. Even if the President were in attendance in the ball park?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; unless there was some reason that I could have him arrested, I would not be able to do so. But I would have him watched if I knew that there might be a threat.

Mr. Dulles. Am I asking questions that should go to counsel?

Mr. Smith. I don't have any disagreement with what Agent Lawson has said so far.

Mr. Dulles. Is there not some confusion of jurisdiction though here?

Mr. McCloy. Isn't the panel studying this?

Mr. Stern. We are.

Mr. McCloy. That is what I thought. The panel is working on the law.

Mr. Dulles. You are working on the law?

Mr. Stern. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. You have got all the evidence that you want?

Mr. Stern. Yes; and there is a large area where Federal jurisdiction does not exist except on some strained theory of conspiracy. There is no substantive Federal jurisdiction with respect to great areas.

Mr. Lawson. Might I add one thing please. The White House detail agents are supposed to protect the life of the President wherever he is. If there is a shot from the crowd or something happens, whether the President is hit or not, get him away, get him out, and still protect him. However, if you were riding on a car and actually saw someone do something, and you were able to get to that individual, you would then hold that person. But a White House detail agent would not drop the President and then go look for someone who might have tried to harm him at the time that he is there. That is not our function.

Mr. Stern. Turning now to the question of the motorcade route, Mr. Lawson, what can you tell us about how that was selected?

Mr. Lawson. On November 8 when Mr. Kellerman was giving me some of the information on the proposed trip to Dallas, all of the advance agents for the respective stops were given the current itinerary as prepared by the White House staff for their stops, and for the Dallas stop there was a 45 minute time lapse from the time the President landed at the airport until the time that he attended the luncheon, and at the time that I left Washington, it had not been decided whether he would attend this luncheon at the Trade Mart where it later was planned to have it, or at the Women's Building on the Fair Grounds. And this figured a great deal in the parade route, the 45 minutes.

Mr. Stern. The 45 minute time interval?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. Was established for you by the White House?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. And were you specifically instructed to prepare a parade route or was this your reaction to the time lag?

Mr. Lawson. This is my function. I wasn't specifically asked to, but this would be the function of the advance agent.

Mr. Stern. Were you instructed that there would be a motorcade?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. And that is what this 45 minutes was for?

Mr. Lawson. That is correct.

Mr. Stern. How was the actual route determined then once the Trade Mart had been selected as the site for the luncheon?

Mr. Lawson. Various routes were under consideration. We could have gone from the airport direct to the Trade Mart the way that we should have returned, the 4-mile route returning from the Trade Mart to the airport, or we could have taken a city street-type route all the way downtown and all the way back, or we could have taken a freeway downtown and a freeway back.

But the route that was chosen was chosen because it was the consensus of opinion that it was probably the best route under the circumstances. It allowed us 45 minutes to go from the airport to the Trade Mart at the speed that I figured the President would go from past experience with him in advances, and as a regular working agent riding in a followup car.

It allowed us to go downtown, which was wanted back in Washington, D.C. It afforded us wide streets most of the way, because of the buses that were in the motorcade. It afforded us a chance to have alternative routes if something happened on the motorcade route. It was the type of suburban area a good part of the way where the crowds would be able to be controlled for a great distance, and we figured that the largest crowds would be downtown, which they were, and that the wide streets that we would use downtown would be of sufficient width to keep the public out of our way. Prime consideration in a motorcade is to make sure the President isn't stopped unless he plans it himself. You must have room to maneuver, alternative routes to turn off from, room for buses and so forth, and particularly room to keep the public out of the street.

Mr. Stern. What was the extent of your review of the parade route with the local police?

Mr. Lawson. With the local police I went over the entire route on one occasion, went to the various stops at other times and so actually did parts of the route at that time, the part of the route which would be near the stop like the airport and the Trade Mart. But the actual route I went over with two police officers from the Dallas Police Department.

Mr. McCloy. By went over you mean you actually drove along the entire route?

Mr. Lawson. We drove it sir, with them taking notes, and them making suggestions and Mr. Sorrels and I making suggestions.

Mr. Stern. To what extent did they actually participate in the decision that this be the route?

Mr. Lawson. They were asked their advice on possible routes that you could go to the Trade Mart.

Mr. Stern. And they had no disagreement with the route——

Mr. Lawson. No, sir.

Mr. Stern. That was actually selected, no criticism of it? What arrangements did you make with the Dallas police for security along the route, starting from Love Field and getting to the Trade Mart?

Mr. Lawson. A good deal of it was traffic control, both to keep people out of our path as the motorcade progressed so that they would have at least the major intersections covered and as many of the other ones as possible. Those which were not, all intersections that were not able to be controlled physically by a policeman or more than one policeman were to be controlled by motorcycles that would hop-skip the motorcade, or other police vehicles in the motorcade.

At certain times certain intersections were to be cutoff as we proceeded so that it would allow time for any traffic ahead of us to clear the area before we arrived there. Where it was felt from past experience and the type of area that we were passing through there would be large crowds, more police were requested for along the route, and on the routes.

Mr. Stern. Foot policemen or motorcycle patrolmen?

Mr. Lawson. Both, sir. They were requested at the corners to have more than one policeman, so that there would be policemen for watching the crowd and controlling the crowd, and other policemen who would have jurisdiction over the traffic in the area, so that someone wouldn't be watching the crowd and a car going by him or vice versa. We saw the underpasses or overpasses or bridges that were on the route, and they were requested to have officers, depending on the type of installation there that I just mentioned, the type that it was, either under it or over it, on the underpasses. The railroad lines were checked and here was no rail traffic of a scheduled nature over the two rail crossings that we would pass, none on the way in but two on the way out.

However, just to make sure that a switch engine or other trains wouldn't come along about the time we were due there, and then stop the President's motorcade, why we had police stationed at the railroad crossings that were on the same level as the road.

Mr. Stern. What were the instructions that you asked be given to the police who were stationed on overpasses and railroad crossings?

Mr. Lawson. They were requested to keep the people to the sides of the bridge or the overpass so that—or underpass—so that people viewing from a vantage point like that would not be directly over the President's car so that they could either inadvertently knock something off or drop something on purpose or do some other kind of harm.

Mr. Stern. This is all people, not just outside members of the public?

Mr. Lawson. Any citizen that was trying to view the motorcade, they were to be kept from right directly over the President's car, if it was a bridge or an underpass.

Mr. Stern. What about the deployment of police on rooftops of buildings at any point along the route?

Mr. Lawson. We had—police were requested at points where I knew that the President would be out of the car for any length of time.

Mr. Stern. And where was that?

Mr. Lawson. At the Trade Mart and at the airport.

Mr. McCloy. May I interrupt at this point. During the course of the motorcade while the motorcade was in motion, no matter how slowly, you had no provision for anyone on the roofs?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir.

Mr. McCloy. Or no one to watch the windows?

Mr. Lawson. Oh, yes. The police along the area were to watch the crowds and their general area. The agents riding in the followup car as well as myself in the lead car were watching the crowds and the windows and the rooftops as we progressed.

Mr. McCloy. It was part of your routine duties when you were going through a street in any city, to look at the windows as well as the crowds?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; and if the President's car slowed to such a point or the crowd ever pressed in to such a point that people are getting too close to the President, the agents always get out and go along the car.

Mr. Stern. Perhaps you had better describe the vehicles and passengers in the motorcade beginning with the pilot car and going, say, through the Vice Presidential followup car.

Mr. Lawson. At one time I could have probably listed them all by name.

Mr. Stern. No, not their names, but the vehicle order.

Mr. Lawson. The vehicle itself, yes sir.

Mr. Stern. And the agents, the number of agents.

Mr. Lawson. And the function of the vehicle.

Mr. Stern. And the function of the vehicle and the responsibility of the agents in the vehicle.

Mr. Lawson. Yes sir. This varies, but in a usual motorcade, as in this particular instance, there is what we call a pilot car. This is usually a local police car that precedes the motorcade some distance, depending on the crowd. It would usually precede it by at least a quarter of a mile. This is to see if there is any kind of a disturbance up ahead far enough so that we are able to take an alternate route if the need arises. It being a police car, it has radio communications with the whole network of the police and also the police at the stops, the ones we have just left and the particular function like the Trade Mart or airport that we are going to.

In this car ride a few command officers of the local police department, and it is their job to make sure that the traffic is stopped as it was planned to be, look out for any disturbances, and in general be a front guard for the motorcade.

Mr. McCloy. Do you have a communications system with the Secret Service agents for this pilot car?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; because the next car in the motorcade is what we call a lead car and it is actually a rolling command car. We try to have a command officer from every jurisdiction of police with a radio net of their own in that vehicle. Sometimes if you are in an area where there are State police and local police and sheriff's and quite a few jurisdictions, where it is a long motorcade and you are going through various counties you are not able to have a command officer of every jurisdiction in that.

But in Dallas the lead ear, the car that I was in directly ahead of the President was a police car, and of course it had a radio that was in contact with the pilot car and any other radio on the police net. In addition to that, I had a portable radio on the Secret Service White House network.

Mr. McCloy. Was there a Secret Service agent riding in the pilot car?

Mr. Lawson. No sir; there was not.

Mr. McCloy. The first Secret Service agent was——

Mr. Lawson. In the lead car.

Mr. McCloy. Was in the lead car. I don't know whether you want to—I have got to leave. Are you going to ask why they didn't go down Main Street?

Mr. Stern. Yes.

Mr. McCloy. Take care of that. The suggestion was made yesterday—you are going to cover that?

(Discussion off the record.)

Representative Ford. I would like if I might to follow up with a question which you asked a minute ago on the record. As I recall your testimony, Mr. Lawson, you indicated that the police who were assigned along the route had the responsibility to check windows and the crowd. Is that what you indicated?

Mr. Lawson. And also the agents as they went by; yes sir. It wouldn't be just a police responsibility; no, sir.

Representative Ford. How did the police know they had that responsibility?

Mr. Lawson. In our police meetings, of which we had three or four listed in here, we talked about crowd control and watching the crowd, and of course the agents just do that anyway. That is part of their function. And in the newspaper accounts it said how watchful the police were going to be of all kinds of activity, and actually they requested public assistance, as I recall it, anyone that noticed anything unusual they had asked that they notify the police.

Representative Ford. When you meet with police officials, in this case Chief Curry, Sheriff Decker, and who else, is this clearly laid out that the members of their organization have the specific responsibility of checking windows? Do you followup to see whether this is actually put in writing to the members of the police force, and the Sheriff's department?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; I do not followup to see if it was put in writing.

Mr. Dulles. You mean an external check don't you? You don't mean going through each building?

Representative Ford. No. As I understood it, policemen have the responsibility to check windows and to look at the crowd, and I was just wondering whether there is any followup to be sure that the chief of police and the sheriff or anybody else actually makes this specific communication to the people in their organizations.

Mr. Lawson. In this particular instance there was not. Sometimes on my own advances I have received copies of police directives. Sometimes this is covered and sometimes there are other directives. This is not normal though. It is just that the police say "Here is a copy of one of our orders." Sometimes it is the posting of police, sometimes it is that. In Berlin where I was assisting on an advance for President Kennedy's trip in June, we received all kinds of information of this type, even to the fact where the police had requested anyone to notify them of anyone that tried to gain entry into their room that didn't belong there, if it was a business office or if it was a private home or if all of a sudden they discovered they had a friend that they never knew they had before and all that. But this is not always done.

Mr. McCloy. I want to get it clear. In your presence, in the instructions to the police in Dallas, did you tell the police to keep their eye on windows as you went along?

Mr. Lawson. I cannot say definitely that I told the police to watch windows. I usually do. On this particular case I cannot say whether I definitely said that. I believe I did, but I would not swear to the fact that I said watch all the windows.

Mr. McCloy. I have heard it rumored that there was a general routine in the Secret Service that when you were going through in a motorcade or by car, that the problem of watching windows was so great that you didn't do it. It was only as you came to a stop that it was the standing instructions that then roofs should be watched and places of advantage would be inspected or looked at. Is that true?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; the agents in the motorcade are to watch the route and the rooftops and the windows as they can. Of course there were thousands of windows there, over 20,000 I believe on that motorcade. But agents are supposed to watch as they go along.

Representative Ford. An advance agent such as yourself goes to talk with local police officials?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Do you have a checklist? Do you have a procedure in writing that you hand to a local law enforcement agent so that he is clear as to the responsibilities of himself and his people?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; I have no checklist, although myself I have a number of things that I have marked down from past advances and seeing what other individuals do that I usually try to follow.

However, every situation is so different. Sometimes there are motorcades and sometimes there are not, and it just wouldn't fit every situation.

Representative Ford. But there is no specific list of instructions that the Secret Service gives to a local law enforcement agency?

Mr. Lawson. No.

Representative Ford. At the time of the Presidential visit?

Mr. Lawson. No.

Representative Ford. Do you think that it would be helpful?

Mr. Lawson. It would be helpful in a general way. And it could be augmented to fit the situation.

Representative Ford. In other words, if you had general instructions you could give those to the local law enforcement people, and as you say, for special circumstances, or different circumstances, you could augment them at the scene?

Mr. Lawson. I believe it would be helpful. For example, I know that New York police have, because we were up there so often, and I just returned from there yesterday, they have a checklist of their own in the police meetings with the Secret Service that they go over, what time the arrival is, where he is going to be met, is it a motorcade, is it a helicopter, et cetera. But still there are many more things that should be in there.

Representative Ford. But I would think for every Presidential visit there would be certain mandatory things that would have to be done, areas of responsibility of Federal officials, areas of responsibility for local officials.

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Such a memorandum or checklist I should think would be helpful in defining the areas of responsibility, being certain that there is no misunderstanding as to whose responsibility it is for A, B, C, or D operations.

Mr. Lawson. I agree.

Mr. Stern. Were any arrangements made to inspect buildings along the parade route?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; other than those buildings that we were stopping at.

Mr. Stern. And this would be?

Mr. Lawson. The Trade Mart.

Mr. Stern. And Love Field?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles. Is it recognized in your business, if it is a fact, that a building that affords a window that looks down parallel with the motorcade is an unusually vulnerable point? Do you get the trend of my question?

Mr. McCloy. Parallel rather that at right angles?

Mr. Dulles. Yes.

Mr. Lawson. I know that there are some windows that are more vulnerable than others, let's say.

Mr. Dulles. That give a more vulnerable point of attack?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; if you were going in a motorcade at 50 or 60 miles an hour and then all of sudden there was some reason why something narrowed down and you had to slow up or you knew there was going to be a big crowd here and the President would probably slow his vehicle like he usually did for big crowds and stand up and wave, then you would be more concerned about those windows in that area than other areas. This motorcade to my knowledge, we went 15 or 20 miles an hour through most of it except the downtown section at about 7 or 10.

Mr. McCloy. 10 or 7 did you say?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; 7 to 10 miles an hour.

Mr. Dulles. In this case I assume that if anyone had been looking at windows, the car that would have seen the rifle and the man would have been a car several cars back from the President's car, is that not correct?

Mr. McCloy. It might have been the other.

Representative Ford. The testimony of one of these young men that we had, if it is accurate, I would have thought that the lead car might have seen the Book Depository.

Mr. Stern. We will hear testimony from another passenger in the lead car, Mr. Sorrels, who was in charge of the Dallas Secret Service Office, that as the car turned from Houston onto Elm, he saw people in the windows of the School Book Depository Building. He cannot recall seeing anyone on the sixth floor, and it is more likely that he saw people on the fifth floor from his descriptions. He saw some Negro employees. But he could see from the lead car people in the Book Depository Building as it came in view around the corner.

Mr. McCloy. Did you see anybody in the School Book Depository?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; at this point just as we started around that corner I asked Chief Curry if it was not true that we were probably 5 minutes from the Trade Mart, and it is quite usual to make a radio call to your next point of stop that you are 5 minutes away. Therefore right about the time we turned that corner and were a little ways past it, I am sure I was speaking on the radio, because the White House Communications Agency has about the time I gave the 5 minutes away warning signal, and within seconds after that the shots were fired.

Representative Ford. As you came or as the lead car came down Houston Street——

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. You were facing the Texas School Depository?

Mr. Lawson. Right.

Representative Ford. Did you look at or scan that building?

Mr. Lawson. I do not, no, because part of my job is to look backwards at the President's car. The speed of the motorcade is controlled by the President's car, unless is it is an emergency situation. If he stands up and is waving at the crowd and there are quite a few crowds then, of course, the car goes slower. If the density of the crowd is quite scarce or there is a time factor why you are going faster. So the person in the lead car in this rolling command car usually keeps turning around and watching the President's car. If his car comes up on our bumper that means we are not going fast enough and we should go faster, and you tell the command officer to call the motorcycles, the pilot car, et cetera, to move out faster. If you notice that his car is dropping back from you, that means their car wants to go slower and you do the same thing in reverse. So I was watching the crowds along the sides, requesting Chief Curry to move motorcycles up or back, depending on the crowd, move them up towards the President's car because at certain times people were almost out to the car, and to use them as kind of a wedge. Other times they were able to drop back or go forward, so that I was looking back a good deal of the time, watching his car, watching the sides, watching the crowds, giving advice or asking advice from the Chief and also looking ahead to the known hazards like overpasses, underpasses, railroads, et cetera.

Representative Ford. But as the lead car turned from Main onto Houston and proceeded toward Elm, you were more preoccupied with looking at the President?

Mr. Lawson. I don't know whether I was looking sideways or backwards then, but I do recall noticing the Book Depository Building and that corner and then deciding that we must be about 5 minutes away, and asking Chief Curry if this was not so and then making a radio broadcast.

Representative Ford. So as you drove down Houston Street, you didn't have an opportunity to look at the Texas School Depository?

Mr. Lawson. I may have, but I don't remember if I saw this. I was doing so many things all at once.

Representative Ford. What was Sorrels' responsibility at this point?

Mr. Lawson. His responsibility would be again to watch the crowds and the windows a little bit more than I because it was my responsibility to be watching the Presidential car.

Mr. Stern. He was sitting in the rear right, was he not?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; and I was in the right front.

Representative Ford. He didn't have the responsibility of looking back like you did?

Mr. Lawson. Not as much as I would have; no, sir.

Representative Ford. In light of the problem of trying to have individuals in numerous buildings, inspecting the buildings and so forth, is it desirable to have more people in another car ahead of the lead car for the purpose of scanning buildings?

Mr. Lawson. Giving a personal opinion now, I would say that that would be a good factor. However, if someone stayed back from the window until you went by and then stuck his gun out the window, why it might not be as good.

Representative Ford. It wouldn't be any worse.

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; but if they did see something that wasn't a likely occurrence, then they could broadcast over the radio stop the President or turn right or turn left.

Representative Ford. But as I understand your responsibilities in the lead car, it doesn't appear that you had an opportunity to do the scanning?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir.

Representative Ford. Which was necessary.

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; I would not.

Representative Ford. So you are really left up to one individual in the lead car in the Secret Service for that purpose?

Mr. Lawson. Yes.

Representative Ford. I raise the question whether that is adequate for the overall purpose.

Mr. Smith. Sir, I don't want to interfere with the procedures but could I ask a question off the record?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. McCloy. I think you might go on the record with this. There has been some question as to whether we are referring directly only to the lead car or whether to all the personnel in the cavalcade. I gather, Mr. Ford, you were referring to the personnel in the lead car as distinguished from the other Secret Service personnel and other police in the motorcade as a whole?

Representative Ford. That is correct. I am cognizant of the fact we have a followup car. What are the responsibilities of those in the followup car?

Mr. McCloy. By followup car do you mean the President's car because there will be Secret Service men in the President's car too?

Representative Ford. There was only one on this occasion, or two, the driver and Mr. Kellerman. The driver was certainly preoccupied, and as I remember Mr. Kellerman's testimony, he was so engaged he didn't have an opportunity to do the kind of scanning that would appear to be necessary. So whatever scanning there was done by either the lead car or the Presidential car or the followup car primarily had to be done by the people in the followup car. Is that a fair analysis?

Mr. Lawson. I don't recall if you mentioned the pilot car, but they would have had an opportunity in the pilot car to do some scanning.

Representative Ford. But there are no Secret Service people there.

Mr. Lawson. No Secret Service people in that one.

Mr. McCloy. There would be Secret Service men in the Vice Presidential car, and of course there is the Secret Service car that follows the Presidential car, all through the route there are interspersed Secret Service men.

Mr. Dulles. It must have been the third or fourth or fifth car in the motorcade that was right opposite the window at the time the assassin put the rifle well out of the window and shot.

Mr. McCloy. Why do you say that?

Mr. Dulles. The shooting took place when the President's car was somewhere here (indicating to photograph of scene). It had made the turn, you see. Here is the building. Now there is the window up here roughly. He didn't shoot here. They went around the turn and were down here. There was a barricade there. There was something there that obstructed the view you will remember.

Mr. McCloy. That is the sign here like this.

Mr. Dulles. It would be down that far.

Mr. McCloy. It might have been there.

Mr. Dulles. As close as that? Whatever it was, the car that was right opposite the window and going in this direction at that time must have been the fourth or fifth car—the car which had the best view of the assassination. You wouldn't be looking I shouldn't think, if you were in a car here, you wouldn't be looking back there. You would be looking off here and off here for protection.

I should think that car in this strange situation, where he was shooting right down the street—isn't that correct? I don't know if you have ever followed that up. I don't know what car it is. It is some car along here, though, that would have been right opposite the window at the time the shooting took place, not one of the lead cars or the President's car.

Mr. Stern. By these cars you mean, sir——

Mr. Dulles. In the motorcade. Some of these down here. It might have been even the wire services or the press cars. I don't know how many cars but I think from our photographs we ought to be able to identify that.

Representative Ford. A man named Jackson who was a photographer in one of the cars with photographers is an individual who identified the fact that somebody was in that window with a rifle as I recall.

Mr. Dulles. He was in one of the press cars was he?

Representative Ford. Yes.

Mr. Dulles. The wire service car is the seventh car including the lead police vehicle. Well, the lead car, if you count the lead car, six, the sixth car.

Representative Ford. He testified as I recall that the car in which he was—was halfway down the block between Main and Elm at the time that he looked up and saw the building and saw people in windows.

Mr. Dulles. This is Houston and this is Elm. Houston and Elm isn't it, not Main. Main and Elm, or yes.

Representative Ford. However, the time span between the time that the lead car, the President's car and the followup car came down Houston and turned down Elm is a relatively short period of time.

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCloy. By the way, at what speed were you going as you came around the turn and into Elm Street? You said 7 to 10 downtown. Would it be about the same speed there?

Mr. Lawson. I imagine it was a little faster at this time, sir, because the downtown section where it was quite heavily populated with people watching the motorcade, we had been out of that for a while before we got to the Houston Street turn. So we were probably back up to perhaps 12 or 15 miles an hour by then.

Mr. McCloy. But you would have had to slow up a bit coming around the curve.

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. Mr. Lawson, can you tell us why you didn't plan the motorcade so that it went straight down Main Street to turn right on to the entrance to the freeway instead of taking this dogleg on Houston and Elm?

Mr. Dulles. Jerry, will you take over.

Representative Ford. Will you proceed please, Mr. Stern?

Mr. Stern. Yes.

Mr. Lawson. You mean why we didn't come straight down Main Street to the Stemmons Freeway?

Mr. Stern. Right.

Mr. Lawson. Because it is my understanding there isn't any entrance to the freeway on Main Street.

Mr. Stern. But you don't yourself recall now or do you?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, I was told that there wasn't any entrance that way, and I myself once when I went to the Trade Mart, not knowing that there was any entrance to it, went down Main Street. You must enter the freeway going in the direction that we wanted to go from the Elm Street extension.

Mr. Stern. When you went down Main Street you found that you could not get on to the entrance to the Stemmons Freeway?

Mr. Lawson. Going the direction on the freeway towards the Trade Mart, that is correct.

Mr. Stern. Which is the direction the motorcade was to go?

Mr. Lawson. Was to go; yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. Have you ever had occasion to provide for building checks along a motorcade route when you were doing an advance, or is it just never done? This is as of the time of Dallas.

Mr. Lawson. I have never had an advance where I had buildings checked on our route.

Mr. Stern. It is not a question——

Mr. Lawson. On a moving route.

Mr. Stern. It is not a question of your instructions? You could if you wanted to, I take it? It is just a matter of your discretion and your training, is that correct?

Mr. Lawson. I don't believe it is discretion. It is just that to my knowledge only inaugurations or when a foreign president or king comes to Washington, like that where it is a motorcade route known practically for years in advance of how you are going to go do we check, start out with enough men, enough time ahead of time to check the whole route up to that time.

Mr. Dulles. Is there any practice of going to the superintendent of a building and putting any responsibility on him to see that strangers don't come into the building at that time, or assuming any responsibility at all with respect to the inmates of the building? I don't know what the practices are.

Mr. Lawson. As I stated, sir, there was for inaugurations here in Washington—we have done building surveys of buildings that overlook the White House, that overlook the grounds, that overlook areas where the President goes quite often or where he might be out or something like that. Yes, sir; we keep those quite up to date. Out on a trip away from Washington, I have never requested building superintendents to do this. This was not the usual practice.

Mr. Smith. May I ask a question there, sir. Is any of that information that you just gave the type of thing that is not supposed to be known publicly? I just don't know how necessary this is to the record, I mean about checking the buildings around the White House and so on. Is there anything about that that is sensitive?

Mr. Lawson. I would assume that most of the people thought that we did.

Representative Ford. I think that is the general impression.

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Smith. I can check on that. If there is something in there I might want to come back on.

Representative Ford. I think as far as we are concerned if you do check on it and find that it is something that ought to be left off the record we could certainly do so.

Mr. Dulles. It might be declassified as a whole or lower the classification, so I think it is well to put in the record what you have said, that this part of the record should be reviewed by the Secret Service, and if it is a security matter I think they ought to raise it. I don't think we want to ever disclose anything that the responsible agency thinks would imperil the life of any President.

Mr. Smith. I have in mind what he said and I will check on it right away. Unless I come back and make some point about it, why you can rest assured that there will be no problem.

Representative Ford. Will you call the attention of the Commission to what you find out, whether it should or should not be in the record?

Mr. Smith. Yes, I will. May I tell Mr. Stern?

Representative Ford. Surely.

Mr. Stern. Were you aware of a suggestion that a vehicle with representatives of the Dallas homicide squad be in the motorcade, I believes behind the Vice President's car, a decision that was changed just before November 22?

Can you tell us anything about that?

Mr. Lawson. I believe I recall some mention of them asking—I don't remember if they asked if there should be a car or not but I believe there was some mention that there be a car, that they could have a car in the back there. This was not usual procedure. In New York it is, and on foreign trips it is.

Mr. Dulles. I understood that car was to be between the lead car I think and the President's car, was it not, or is it between—no, between the lead car and the President's car.

Mr. Stern. I haven't yet seen the transcript of yesterday's session, sir, and I am not quite sure.

Representative Ford. My recollection is that it was to follow the President's car, either behind the followup car or behind the Vice President's car.

Mr. Dulles. We can check that. It is somewhere in there. I have a feeling it was ahead of the President's car but I may be wrong.

Mr. Stern. I understand we have been advised that at one point there was such an arrangement and that this was changed, and that Captain Fritz, the head of the Homicide Division, who was to ride in that car, went instead at someone's request to the Trade Mart where he was to participate in security at the speaker's table. Do you know anything about that?

Mr. Lawson. I remember it being mentioned. Whether it was a request or whether they had already laid it on I do not know, but I do remember it being mentioned that they could have a car if it was so desired.

Mr. Stern. If they desired?

Mr. Lawson. I don't recall if it was that they would put it in if we wanted it or if they said that they definitely would put it in or what.

But it was mentioned, and I hadn't thought of this since. That is why I am a little hazy on it. But I don't know even who cancelled it, whether they did or whether we had just said well it is not the normal procedure so that they did. But as far as Captain Fritz going to the Trade Mart, I don't know anything about that.

Mr. Stern. But you did say, I take it, it is normal procedure in New York?

Mr. Lawson. In New York, New York has a special squad of people. One of their main functions is protection of foreign dignitaries when they come to visit the U.N. or for any other reason. These people are used——

Mr. Dulles. Do we give more protection to foreign dignitaries than we do to our own Chief of State?

Mr. Lawson. Is that a question for me?

Mr. Dulles. That is a question.

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; I don't believe we do. I don't believe the security, the advance security arrangements, are quite as stringent.

Mr. Stern. This New York procedure is something you have worked out with the New York authorities?

Mr. Lawson. I am not aware of the policy arrangements that were made. I do know that there is a detective car used in New York quite often filled with this special detail of men.

Mr. Stern. Do they have a special responsibility in the motorcade?

Mr. Lawson. They act as Secret Service agents act in the motorcade. They help out if there is a stop and we need extra men and so forth. But I am not aware of why they are there. It wasn't my decision that they be there.

Mr. Dulles. Could I ask one question right there. Whose duty is it, whose responsibility is it to decide how many of these cars will be in the motorcade, how many protective cars let me say? I am not speaking of cars for dignitaries or press and so forth, but how many protective cars are in a motorcade? Does the Secret Service decide that or do the local police decide it to some extent or do you decide it in consultation?

Mr. Lawson. We have our usual motorcade, and usually it is in consultation. They take our recommendations quite frankly.

Mr. Dulles. Have you been giving any consideration to reviewing that procedure to see whether the existing procedure is the best from the protective angle?

Have you any suggestions to give us on that?

Mr. Lawson. I believe that the chief's office is, but I am not in a position to say what they are going to do.

Mr. Dulles. I think it would be interesting if that was being done. Maybe it should be done, just to have a good look at it. If you could advise us as to whether that is under consideration, it might be helpful.

Representative Ford. I think it was my understanding that the Treasury Department is making a review of this whole setup, are they not?

Mr. Smith. Yes, I understand so. I understand that we have discussed with the Chief Justice an arrangement, sort of a question and answer thing to begin with on this because of the sensitive nature of this information, to see if adequate information for your purposes can be developed that way, and then at that point or at some point in the future it will be decided how this question of the review and new procedures will be handled. That is my understanding of it.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Smith. I am Fred B. Smith, Deputy General Counsel of the Treasury Department.

Representative Ford. Will you stand and be sworn.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Mr. Smith. I do.

Mr. Dulles. I wonder if the witness would just repeat.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Stern. On the record.

Representative Ford. Would you repeat what you indicated a moment ago, Mr. Smith?

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; I have been informed that an arrangement was worked out with the Chief Justice with respect to the question of improving procedures for the protection of the President that certain information would be provided in the form of questions and answers, and that after that procedure had been fulfilled, consideration would be given as to such questions as the necessity of further testimony on such questions and appropriate security arrangements with respect to such information.

This is on hearsay. I haven't been involved in that myself. I would like to ask Mr. Stern if that is in accordance with his understanding.

Mr. Stern. It is my understanding.

Mr. Dulles. If it is appropriate I suggest that maybe this question of the number of protective cars in a motorcade of this nature might be one of the questions you would be willing to consider, or whoever is considering this matter would be willing to include among the subjects of consideration.

Representative Ford. Will you proceed, Mr. Stern.

Mr. Stern. I would like to finish on this special New York practice with you, Mr. Lawson. If an incident were to occur during a motorcade in New York, is it your understanding that the responsibility of these New York officials, detectives, would be to investigate the incident or to stay with the motorcade as the Secret Service would?

Mr. Lawson. I am afraid I couldn't answer that. I don't know.

Mr. Stern. Is there something special about the New York circumstances that makes it desirable to have these additional detectives that you don't ordinarily have?

Mr. Lawson. Again I don't know. I conceive myself personally—where we go through quite often—I believe there are more people in the State of New York than there are in Billings, Mont., and you might have more of a chance of something occurring in New York. But again I don't know why it is in New York and not usual in other places.

Mr. Stern. Was the organization of the motorcade in Dallas typical, apart from New York?

Mr. Lawson. Yes. Quite typical.

Mr. Stern. Would it be the same in Billings, Mont., or would you have additional strength in the motorcade in Dallas?

Mr. Lawson. As far as escorting people, there were more people in Dallas.

Mr. Stern. More celebrities?

Mr. Lawson. No; by escorting people I meant motorcycles or something like that. Again it depends on where you are, even if they have motorcycles or how many they have. But the makeup of the motorcade vehicles itself, again depending on who is coming and how many cars you have is pretty generally the same. A pilot car, a lead car, the President's car, motorcycles if you have them, some motorcycles if you have them along the side of the motorcade to help keep it intact or if it gets split up as it has on occasion to be able to catch them up and rear vehicles to keep them from passing the motorcade, et cetera.

Mr. Stern. And the one Presidential followup car.

Mr. Lawson. And the Secret Service followup car; yes, sir. This was my first movement with the President and the Vice President all at the same time. That was quite out of the ordinary.

Mr. Stern. And there you added a Vice-Presidential followup car?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. Performing the same function as the Presidential followup?

Mr. Lawson. That is correct.

Mr. Stern. But apart from the motorcycles, I take it if you had been in Billings, Mont., the organization of the motorcade would have been the same; is that correct?

Mr. Lawson. Just about the same; yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. I would like to touch briefly on the selection of the Trade Mart and the security measures there, having in mind that your three memorandums cover this in great detail. If you could just highlight and indicate if in any respect your memorandums are inaccurate or incomplete. The record will rely primarily on your memorandums.

Mr. Lawson. I don't know of any incorrectness in it. There might be.

Mr. Stern. Or any detail that you would want to add?

Mr. Lawson. No; I can't. If you have some specific questions.

Mr. Stern. Why don't you just summarize then how the Trade Mart was selected, your participation in it, the consideration of alternatives, the decision ultimately to use the Trade Mart, whether you had any particular preference between the Trade Mart and the other building that was considered. Take that part of it first.

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir. The morning after we arrived in Dallas, late in the morning, we, Mr. Sorrels and Mr. Puterbaugh and myself and another agent from Dallas, Agent Stewart, went to Mr. Cullum's office who is the president of the Dallas Chamber of Commerce, a local businessman who was acting as subcommittee chairman I guess for the local host committee.

Mr. Stern. I don't think we need this much detail because we have your memorandum. If you could just tell us in general terms where you went and the considerations.

Mr. Lawson. Some of us went to Mr. Cullum's office and after talking with him there for a while we went to the Trade Mart, met with representatives of the Trade Mart, the general manager of the Trade Mart, and were shown generally around the building, told how they usually handled luncheons or dinners or dances that are held there.

Mr. Stern. Were there particular security problems that the Trade Mart presented?

Mr. Lawson. There were balconies there and also it was a building that would be used by other people that day. However, this is somewhat good because it wasn't exactly a public building where anyone could wander in. The lessees of the showrooms there or their customers have to be checked in. You either have to be a lessee or a bona fide customer of a showroom in order to even get in the building. They have kind of a semisecurity of their own that way. So it was good in that respect. There were hanging bridges and balconies, as I have said, side corridors and what not. After we left there, we went to the Women's Building at the fairgrounds, to look that over, and in this particular case the food would have had to have been brought in because there isn't any kitchen there, which was a plus at the Trade Mart. They had a regular cafeteria there and a catering service, which the Women's Building didn't have. The Women's Building is on one floor, quite low ceilinged, and the press coverage that is usually quite in evidence when the President is anywhere, both from the traveling press with him and the local press would have required their usual press coverage, and it would not have been as good in the Women's Building, because of the low ceilings.

They usually like to be up at least as high as the President or higher, 1, 2, or 3 feet. So we could put them in a balcony at the Trade Mart but we could not do so, at least get them any higher because of the low roof at the Women's Building. There were numerous columns in the Women's Building that would have blocked everybody's view of the people at the head dinner table, guests, and the guests there. So there were pluses and minuses for both buildings, and I so informed people in Washington and Mr. Puterbaugh informed people in Washington also.

Representative Ford. Who made the decision as to the Trade Mart or the Women's Building at the fairgrounds?

Mr. Lawson. That was made in Washington, sir.

Representative Ford. By whom, do you know?

Mr. Lawson. I am assuming by the White House. I know that Mr. Puterbaugh was in contact with the National Democratic Headquarters people, and they were in contact with the White House and with the various groups down in Texas, the Governor's office as well. When the decision was finally made, we were told that it had been made but not to tell anyone yet because the announcement would come probably from the Governor's office.

Representative Ford. Do you make a report in writing in this kind of a situation, the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two buildings?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir.

Representative Ford. From a security point of view?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir.

Representative Ford. How do the people in Washington make the decisions then?

Mr. Lawson. Mr. Puterbaugh told the people he was in contact with and I told Mr. Behn's office what I saw.

Mr. Stern. Who is Mr. Behn?

Mr. Lawson. Mr. Behn is the agent in charge of the White House detail. What I saw in both buildings. As I say the decision was made back here in Washington.

Representative Ford. You summarized your views on this kind of a situation to Mr. Behn?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Who is your superior. By telephone, not in writing?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir.

Representative Ford. Is this the case in all instances?

Mr. Lawson. Well, it usually doesn't happen. Usually I know when you are going some place if the function is to be at the Statler Hotel or something like that.

Representative Ford. Do you know whether or not Mr. Behn made any recommendations on this?

Mr. Lawson. I have no idea.

Representative Ford. You gave him your observations and your recommendations?

Mr. Lawson. I don't know if I gave it to him. I gave his office. Now there were at that time two assistants.

Representative Ford. Did you make a recommendation one over the other?

Mr. Lawson. No; I did not. I said that I was sure we could effectively handle both situations. Again the motorcade was to be taken into consideration also. If you went to the Trade Mart you would have certain ways to go and if you went to the Women's Building you would have certain ways to go. And so they had to decide, someone had to decide whether they wanted the Trade Mart or certain motorcade specifications also, in the 45 minute time lapse.

Mr. Stern. On the basis of your experience, if you had had a strong preference from a security point of view for one building over the other do you think that would have been followed in this case?

Mr. Lawson. I could have only told them what I thought, and how much weight it would have had I don't know.

Mr. Stern. Can you tell us roughly the total number of police, sheriff's office officials, and Secret Service agents that were engaged in protecting the President in Dallas and break them down if you can as between people at the Trade Mart, people on the motorcade route, people at Love Field?

Mr. Lawson. I can give you what I was told was going to—that the police were going to provide but I won't be able to tell you exactly what they did provide, and also inform you that I was told that certain police were going to be shifted from one spot to another. I understood that as we went by a certain part of the motorcade some of those police then would be shifted perhaps over to the motorcade route on the way back in the intervening 1½ or 2 hours that would still elapse. And I have that in my report if I can turn to it.

Mr. Stern. Yes; why don't you tell us in total numbers at each location.

Mr. Lawson. But again I cannot tell you if these police figures, being the ones that they gave me, show that these are the same amount of men that were shifted or if these are separate men, because they were going to use part on the motorcade and shift them to another spot.

Now, whether that would double it or what I do not know. At the Trade Mart 108, and I believe this includes out in the parking lots and on there. That doesn't mean they were inside the Trade Mart. Along the Route 90. And escorts 20. Love Field 55, cruising 100.

Mr. Stern. Cruising?

Mr. Lawson. Chief Curry said that naturally they have the rest of the city to protect and we can't go in and take every policeman that they have so that someone knows that all the police are going to be involved and it would be easier to commit certain crimes. But in addition to his regular police coverage of police cars throughout the city, there were also going to be some other police cars fairly close to our motorcade area, so that they could be called in if they had to be.

Mr. Stern. I see.

Mr. Lawson. Detectives, 40; department of public safety uniformed, 40; rangers, 5; plainclothes, 16; Dallas County Sheriff Department, 14; fire department, 26; the White House detail agents, 20; agents from the Vice President's detail, 4; agents from the Dallas office, 4.

Mr. Stern. So there were 28 Secret Service agents involved?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. At the various locations. Do you know whether the Dallas police who were used were full-time policemen or were auxiliary policemen?

Mr. Lawson. I do not know.

Mr. Dulles. Do you happen to know the circumstances under which there were some certain changes made as to the location of the motorcycle escort that went close to the President's car?

Mr. Lawson. I know that their position varied, depending on the crowds.

Mr. Dulles. No, I mean apart from that, apart from the crowd situation do you recall that any orders were given by or on behalf of the President with regard to the location of those motorcycles that were particularly attached to his car?

Mr. Lawson. Not specifically at this instance orders from him. Just what I know to be the case from other advances, that unless it is necessary, it was my understanding that he did not like a lot of motorcycles surrounding the car. That is why we had four just back of the President's car, so that they could come up and intercept anyone running out from the sides easily, or we could call the other motorcycles back to him if we had to.

But if there are a lot of motorcycles around the President's car, I know for a fact that he can't hear the people that are with him in the car talking back and forth, and there were other considerations I believe why he did not want them completely surrounding his car.

Mr. Stern. Can you summarize for us briefly the security arrangements at Love Field?

Mr. Dulles. Could I ask one question about the car before we get to Love Field. There has been testimony here that the back seat, the seat in which the President and Mrs. Kennedy had sat, could be raised or lowered I believe by the President himself, could be raised so he could get a better view of the surrounding people, and then it could be lowered and put in a normal position. Do you know anything about that or how that mechanism worked and who worked it?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; I am not familiar with his car except for the fact that I know that you can raise or lower the seat. Now whether that is done by him or in the front seat, we do have people that would be competent to tell you that, however.

Mr. Dulles. You don't know whether that seat was raised at this particular time?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir.

Mr. Dulles. As the car went——

Mr. Lawson. I don't believe it would have been starting out.

Mr. Dulles. I was talking about it at the time of the shooting.

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; I have no idea.

Mr. Stern. Could you now just very briefly and generally summarize the security arrangements at Love Field and your participation in them. Were they under your control and supervision?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; they were under my control and supervision. We held our police meeting at the airport last because of problems involved in finding an area big enough for his motorcade to start and the planes to park and so forth. This was not actually resolved until the day before he arrived, and that is why the police meeting was held at that point quite late. But arrangements were made to have the general public contained behind a chain link fence which is there anyway, and any overflow general public to be in a parking lot a little ways further away from the President, if there was not enough room behind this chain link fence. Police were along both of these fences to keep the people in their place.

There were two service roads which came in between these two general public areas. We closed off one and used the other because it was the only service road that most of the wings from the Dallas Air Terminal were able to use, catering trucks going together, airplanes, mechanics and people being ferried, crews being ferried and so forth so we couldn't cut it off directly.

However, these roads were to be shut off when his plane touched down, and kept shut off until after his motorcade departed inward, and then they were to be used again while we were gone and then just before we returned to the airport they were to be shut off again.

Mr. Stern. What about police on buildings?

Mr. Lawson. Police were requested on the wing of the air terminal that came out closest to where he would stop, and police were requested to be on the air cargo building to the rear of this crowd area, which is a little higher than the small building, the customs building. Any policeman on the air cargo building would be able to control anybody on the roof at the customs building.

Mr. Stern. Were these police stationed to watch the crowd, to watch persons who might be on the roofs of these buildings, to watch persons who might be in these buildings? What was their function?

Mr. Lawson. The police on the building tops were to make sure that no unauthorized people were on the building tops, and to watch generally anything else that they could watch, that they were keeping their building top clear. And there were police along the fences to watch the crowd and to keep the people from coming onto the field who were not supposed to. There were detectives to be assigned throughout the crowd, to mingle with the crowd so that the people in the crowd would not know they were detectives.

Mr. Stern. Was there any particular check of offices inside the buildings which might present a vantage point overlooking the place where the President was to land and be received?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir.

Mr. Stern. Were there such overlooking places?

Mr. Lawson. There wouldn't have been except in a certain wing way up to the right of where he landed, quite a ways away.

There wasn't any building directly in front on the side where he would come off the plane and walk down. There would be a building to his right at the very end of a wing that came out, and there was police on that. The crowd behind the fences would go over to the customs building, and no one would be able to see out of this one-story customs building. And behind that was the air cargo building where a policeman was requested on top. The police were then also requested all the way along our exit route along the parking lots and the runways as we went out of the airport and the motorcycle escort vehicles were waiting down closer to where we made our exit, again because of the room factor.

Mr. Stern. Did you confer with Air Force representatives who had responsibility for the President's plane and the Vice President's plane?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir. I learned that they had been in for a general meeting of their own the morning of the 13th that I had not been aware of, but because of the Presidential trips the week before he came to Dallas, he went to Maryland and he went to New York and he went to a couple places in Florida, they were not able to send someone out to help with setting up the airport as soon as was usual.

And because of a personal problem, the one that was to arrive on Wednesday morning, didn't arrive until Wednesday evening. I was quite certain that the area that we were being provided by the local airport was not going to be sufficient for our motorcade formation, the parking of three jet planes and so forth. But being a layman, I couldn't really impress them that this was so. But when the Air Force people did come in, they agreed that as set up it would not work, and Mr. Sorrels and the assistant airport director were able to get some extra space from a couple of companies nearby there, and it was able to be worked out, still really not enough room but it was adequate.

Mr. Stern. Ultimate responsibility for determining those arrangements—whether those arrangements are adequate is with the Air Force, is that right?

Mr. Lawson. I don't really believe I understand your question. Would you make it again please?

Mr. Stern. You were concerned that the arrangements were not adequate.

Mr. Lawson. Yes.

Mr. Stern. But you had to have the Air Force recommendation to straighten things out with the local authorities?

Mr. Lawson. Well, I know the size of the planes because I have the dimensions of them that I take with me on a trip, and other things, and also from past experience. However, they make measurements and they know their own FAA rules, Air Force rules as to how close you can park jet planes to one another, what the turning radiuses are and so forth, so I was certain that the room that we had been provided wasn't enough, but I was also quite certain that when the Air Force got there, they would bear me out, which was true.

Mr. Stern. If the Air Force is satisfied with the arrangements though, is that the end of it?

Mr. Lawson. Only for certain things. They would say if they definitely had enough room to park, how they would be parked, how they would come in, how they would go out and so forth. But again final security responsibility would be up to us. If it is an area where you can't possibly fit the press area in, the motorcade can't line up, the people can't come out without creating a lot of confusion so that you can't tell what is going on, then it delves into security, because the more confusion you have the worse off you are security-wise.

Mr. Stern. I think we might touch briefly on press arrangements. Will you tell us, if you know, how the final arrangements for the President's visit were announced, and particularly the motorcade route.

Mr. Lawson. I know from reading in the paper how it was announced but I do not know who announced it. I believe it appeared in the Tuesday morning paper. That would have been the 19th I believe. There was quite a bit of speculation before that perhaps the motorcade would go here and perhaps the motorcade would go there, but I believe that the one that was finally used was put in the paper on Tuesday morning, the 19th from my recollection. Let me make sure that Tuesday is the 19th.

Mr. Stern. It is the 19th. Had there been a meeting on the 18th at which this was considered?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; there was a meeting late in the afternoon of the 18th, in a private club in Dallas that I arrived at late. The meeting was called primarily as I understand it because of the various political groups that wanted certain things, and what Washington wanted, and there were various problems to work out as to who got tickets, who sat at the head table, who rode in what cars and so forth. And the local host committee had designated a certain individual to be their representative there, and then these other groups also had people represented. Mr. Puterbaugh, for example, the liaison man that went with me from Washington, was there. And I had just come from going over the route with the police earlier that afternoon, and I told them as a point of information that this was the route as we had it now, unless it was changed later.

Representative Ford. The following morning——

Mr. Lawson. The following morning.

Representative Ford. It was announced in the newspapers?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles. It was Tuesday morning, isn't it the 19th.

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; Tuesday morning.

Mr. Stern. Is this a normal amount of advance publicity for this kind of motorcade, regarding the actual route?

Mr. Lawson. Well, it depends on how much notice you have that the President is going there. It was announced this morning that he is taking a trip tomorrow on Appalachian poverty, so we sent agents out this morning. Naturally even if they wanted to publicize the motorcade route they wouldn't be able to do so in this instance. But on other occasions it had been announced sooner than that or about as soon in various areas; yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. Did you set up the areas at which the press would be located at Love Field and at the Trade Mart?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; I did, with the approval of Mr. Hawkes from the White House staff, when he made a trip a little bit later. Time was of the essence. Sometimes we do it all when they do not send out someone to represent the press office from the White House, and sometimes they do it. In this case, because telephone lines, power lines, various engineering data would have to be disseminated and fixed up, we had to know where the press areas were going to be before Mr. Hawkes was able to come.

So I told them that I would set it up in the belief that I knew what they usually wanted from the White House press office, but that he would have the power to overrule me, and I requested assistance of a local TV technician as to the angles and what not that the cameramen would like.

Mr. Dulles. May I ask one question there. Do you know whether any consideration is now being given to withhold the announcement of the actual route to be followed by the Presidential party until say the morning that the trip is actually taken?

Mr. Lawson. Does this go into the realm of what we were talking about before as to what we are going to do in the future?

Mr. Smith. It might. Do you suppose, sir, that that is one of the things that——

Mr. Dulles. One has to do it in time so that those who want it could get it, but it seems to me that say if the party was going to move here about noon, now if the morning papers gave that that would give people plenty of time to get to the positions they wanted, but wouldn't give a prospective assassin very much time to prepare.

Mr. Smith. Sir, I don't know what the answer to that question is, but the question arises as to whether this isn't in that area where, you know, we are sort of deferring because of the sensitive nature of it. I don't really know what the answer is, and I don't know whether it is sensitive or not. Apparently Mr. Lawson thinks that it might be.

Mr. Lawson. No, just from your previous things, I can give you an off-the-record answer and you can tell me if it is.

Representative Ford. Why don't we make the same arrangement on this as we had on the previous. Why don't you state for the record what you know and then we will have the same arrangement in this case as we had in the other.

Mr. Smith. Sir, I don't want to quibble but that was sort of an after the fact arrangement in the sense that that it came out in the testimony there after the fact. I was a little bit concerned about it.

I am not sure we would want to make this arrangement on questions and then reserving on the handling of them, because that isn't completely in accord with what I understand to be the present arrangement with the Chief Justice.

Representative Ford. I suggest we do it this way then. Mr. Lawson now shouldn't answer but I suggest that Mr. Stern in the questions that are being prepared, for which answers will be given, that this question be included.

Mr. Dulles. That is entirely satisfactory to me.

Mr. Smith. I am sure you are aware we have no desire to withhold any information whatsoever. It is just a question of procedure here.

Representative Ford. This question is among those that are to be asked in this interrogatory. Then the issue can be raised at that time.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Stern. Mr. Chairman, if you have questions to ask, or Mr. Dulles, about the advance preparation up to the time of November 22, I think this would be an appropriate time to cover it.

Representative Ford. Do you have any, Mr. Dulles?

Mr. Dulles. I don't think of any at the moment; no. It has been very well covered.

Representative Ford. Mr. Lawson. I would like to clear up in my own mind some details. You were notified November 4 that you had this assignment for the Dallas trip.

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Who actually notified you?

Mr. Lawson. Mr. Boring called me. He is assistant agent in charge of the White House detail, one of two.

Representative Ford. That was November 4?

Mr. Lawson. November 4; yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Do you recall the time of day?

Mr. Lawson. I believe it was late in the afternoon.

Representative Ford. What did you do next after being notified?

Mr. Lawson. He told me that there wouldn't be any information available of any consequence until about the 8th. So I still had my regular duties and I was working.

Representative Ford. What was the first thing you did officially in reference to the Dallas trip?

Mr. Lawson. I went to Mr. Behn's office and called to Mr. Kellerman on the 8th of November, and got the information that they had up to that time, the proposed itinerary for the Texas trip, the time my airplane left, the name of some contacts and so forth, and then after that, went to the Protective Research Section, picked up this paraphernalia, called the Dallas office that I was coming, and so forth.

Mr. Dulles. Were you advised that this information should be kept secret or is that just understood, when you were first given the information about your assignments? That was kept entirely secret?

Mr. Lawson. Well, I wasn't advised that it should be kept secret.

Mr. Dulles. But you never would give out this information.

Mr. Lawson. No, sir.

Mr. Dulles. Until it is actually published.

Mr. Lawson. That is right. I believe it was published before that though, however, anyway.

Mr. Dulles. It was published that the President was going to Texas before you went?

Mr. Lawson. That is my recollection, but it is in the newspapers.

Mr. Dulles. Do you remember the date of that? Don't delay on this account. Go right ahead.

Representative Ford. Approximately how many such trips had you handled prior to this one?

Mr. Lawson. I had assisted on some with a more experienced agent, and I had had a few of my own responsibility with people assisting me. I had assisted in Berlin.

Representative Ford. Will you speak a little louder please?

Mr. Lawson. I had assisted in West Berlin in June. I had assisted in Cincinnati on one of the congressional campaign trips in October before they discontinued because of Cuba. I assisted in Albuquerque, N. Mex., on one of his AEC trips. My responsibility, where I had the responsibility myself, had been Cherry Point, N.C.; Billings, Mont.; Little Rock, Ark.

The Billings one was in September of 1963, and the Little Rock stop was in October, the month before the assassination. Those were my two responsibilities. I assisted in San Diego. That was my first assist. Then I have had other assists and responsibilities here in Washington, fund-raising dinners or speeches, lunches.

Representative Ford. I gather then you had the principal responsibility in five?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Or thereabouts?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. In each of those cases was the procedure the same as far as PRS is concerned?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. You would go to the PRS and get a list of the names of individuals and this other equipment?

Mr. Lawson. That is correct.

Representative Ford. Now in the five or thereabout times that you did this in the past, what was your experience with PRS?

Mr. Lawson. I was told in Buffalo, N.Y., of a couple individuals, a couple of nuisance-type individuals more than actual threats. Also told that there were a couple of individuals that came up after I had left Washington on the Little Rock advance. Subsequent to the time that I left, they notified the field office that things were under investigation.

Representative Ford. But only in the one instance, Buffalo, were you actually given the names of a threat, prior to your departure?

Mr. Lawson. Yes; I believe that is so. The other ones were subsequent to that time.

Representative Ford. And in the case of Little Rock you subsequently received——

Mr. Lawson. Yes.

Representative Ford. A name or names?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; and also in Buffalo there were some phone calls to the office that there was a threat involved.

Representative Ford. In the case of Buffalo you had a name or two before you went?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. But in the other cases where you had the responsibility?

Mr. Lawson. Nothing.

Representative Ford. The PRS gave you nothing?

Mr. Lawson. That is right.

Representative Ford. Do you know from your own knowledge, conversation with others who have similar responsibilities, whether PRS normally had names to give to the agent in charge?

Mr. Lawson. Yes; there have been occasions when that has happened, and they are constantly sending over things in Washington, for example. If we are just going out to the Sheraton for a dinner, you always call up and say is there anything particular right now that we should know about, a recent escapee or anything like that that we might not know of yet. They put out lookout notices, send us a notification of people who have lost their White House passes, etc.

Representative Ford. Now, when you actually went to Dallas, who in the Secret Service was under your jurisdiction, or what individual did you work with down there in the Secret Service?

Mr. Lawson. I worked with Mr. Sorrels. He wouldn't really be under my jurisdiction because he was the local agent in charge, and he had various agents, also. On the day of the event his agents would be under my jurisdiction, and also his, because he is normally their boss.

Representative Ford. Howlett; what is his responsibility?

Mr. Lawson. He is an agent of the Dallas office.

Representative Ford. Responsible to Mr. Sorrels?

Mr. Lawson. To Mr. Sorrels; yes, sir.

Representative Ford. You got to Dallas when?

Mr. Lawson. The evening; Tuesday evening, the 12th.

Representative Ford. When did you make the decision to investigate this group of extremists down there?

Mr. Lawson. I heard that there were films available, I believe, on Wednesday, or Thursday. I believe it was Wednesday.

Representative Ford. That would be November 13?

Mr. Lawson. The 13th; yes, sir. And I kept it in mind so that I could talk to the local office about that. I asked individuals in the local office, Mr. Sorrels and also Special Agent Howlett, if they had any knowledge, if they had done any informant-type work, if they had any knowledge of anything that was going to go on that we might not know in PRS, because PRS would only know of definite trips by the President. But they might know of something else that might occur. And also at another time I talked to Special Agent Howlett and asked him if he would view the films of this.

Representative Ford. You arrived there on the 12th, Tuesday?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. You met with Sorrels when?

Mr. Lawson. On Wednesday morning.

Representative Ford. Wednesday morning?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Did you bring up, or did he bring up, the problem of so-called extremist groups?

Mr. Lawson. I believe I brought them up, but I am not sure I brought them up that morning. It was sometime later.

Representative Ford. Sometime that day?

Mr. Lawson. It was that day or the next day that we talked about it. We talked about these extremist groups off and on, of course, all the time that I was there.

Representative Ford. Did you limit it to so-called rightwing groups, or did you have a broader view than that, about groups that might be a problem on this trip?

Mr. Lawson. I believe that I specifically talked about the rightwing groups; yes.

Representative Ford. Did you ever have any responsibility for a trip to New York at any time?

Mr. Lawson. No; I did not. I just assisted in one, the World's Fair opening yesterday, but at that time I had not.

Representative Ford. This would have to be hypothetical under the circumstances, but if in the time prior to November 22 you had the responsibility of a Presidential trip to a community where you knew the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was active, would you have taken any special interest in that group?

Mr. Lawson. I don't know. If at that time I had ever heard that they were particularly, might be any threat to the President, a particular group, if I knew that there was a particular group that advocated the killing of the President, yes. If it was just a political group of one kind or another, no, I probably wouldn't unless I had definite information.

Representative Ford. Did you have any evidence that the groups you investigated in Dallas had any program or interest in killing the President?

Mr. Lawson. No; I did not.

Representative Ford. You had this investigation made of this group in Dallas because of the Stevenson incident?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; I didn't have the investigation made, because I don't think I would be in the position to have it made. Mr. Sorrels or PRS or something like that could have. I asked, since we knew that there were these individuals, and an incident had occurred in the past; although no threat to the President was known, perhaps we had better at least try to find out if they were going to do anything, which is what I did.

Representative Ford. When you go on with responsibility to a particular community, do you normally inquire of groups of one kind or another that have a reputation for political activity of one sort or another?

Mr. Lawson. Not for just political activity; no, sir.

Representative Ford. I meant political activity in the broader sense; not one political party versus another, but political extremist groups.

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; usually, if there is going to be any picketing, an extremist group or something like that, it will come from the police sources or another Federal source. They will tell us that they have heard that certain individuals are going to hang signs from a window as we go by, or demonstrate, or something like that.

Representative Ford. Did you ask the Dallas police or any other local authorities if they knew of any individuals or groups that might be a threat to the President?

Mr. Lawson. I knew that Special Agent Howlett had been in contact with them, both about the informants and going over to view the films. I did not, except when I saw this one piece of literature, and asked them if they knew anything about it.

Representative Ford. Did Special Agent Howlett report to you of what contacts he had made with the Dallas police or other local law-enforcement authorities on this point?

Mr. Lawson. In generalities, yes, sir. He told me that he had seen an informant outside of the city of Dallas, and that this informant had been active in some of the movements; that he had quit because he was afraid, but to his knowledge there was nothing going to occur.

Representative Ford. Do you when you have this responsibility rely on somebody else to ask the local people, or do you ask the questions yourself of any groups that they know of or any individuals that they know of locally?

Mr. Lawson. I believe it would depend on the circumstances. In this case I knew that Special Agent Howlett was in contact with them. At no time—you usually ask the police if they know of anything that is going to occur, but, as I said, just regular political groups, unless I know that they have anything to do with the President, I have never done so.

Mr. Dulles. Would that include the Fair Play for Cuba Committee or Communist groups or extreme rightist groups?

Mr. Lawson. It would have up until that time; yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Certainly the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was one that took violent exception to this country's policies, and they were active in a number of communities, including New York, as I recall. It is my recollection that the President, prior to the assassination, had been to New York at a time that this organization was active. What I am trying to find out is, if the PRS doesn't provide you with information about an individual or an organization, is it your responsibility to actually make extra checks locally, based on your own knowledge or your own experience?

Mr. Lawson. Well, I believe it would be my responsibility if I knew of any organization that did advocate the killing or the harming of the President.

Representative Ford. There was no specific information that you had in this case that the so-called rightwing extremist groups——

Mr. Lawson. That is right.

Representative Ford. Had that in mind?

Mr. Lawson. That is right; that is correct. It was also my understanding that, if anything was known about some of these other groups going to plan anything to embarrass the President or hurt the President, we would be notified by the people whose jurisdiction it is to look into those matters or who might have a little bit more knowledge about them than the Secret Service.

Representative Ford. When you got to Dallas, did you personally check with the local FBI office about any individuals or any groups?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; I did not. All the liaison either would be handled from the local SAC's office or through Washington.

Representative Ford. That would be between some Secret Service office——

Mr. Lawson. Either Mr. Sorrel's office and the local FBI office or from our office to the FBI headquarters in Washington.

Representative Ford. In the ordinary course of events that information would be given to you?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. In this case there was none?

Mr. Lawson. I did find out that the police had sent over a couple of copies of these pamphlets, but that is the only information that I had of any liaison locally between the two.

Mr. Dulles. Are you referring to Commission Exhibit No. 770?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; I am.

Mr. Dulles. Do you know what action was taken with respect to this pamphlet by the Dallas police?

Mr. Lawson. No; I do not, subsequent to that time.

Mr. Dulles. How long before the President's visit to Dallas was this brought to your attention; do you remember?

Mr. Lawson. Yes sir; Thursday afternoon.

Mr. Dulles. Thursday afternoon; Thursday before the Friday?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. In this preliminary report dated November 19, which is Commission Exhibit 767, I notice there is no information in here about this extra effort that was made down there over and above the PRS.

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Is the format for this laid out in advance?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; it is.

Representative Ford. Do they give you an opportunity to add anything to it if you want to or feel you should?

Mr. Lawson. It could be; yes; I am sure it could.

Representative Ford. Was there any reason why you didn't indicate in this preliminary report what you had done in this regard?

Mr. Lawson. No; that belongs in our PRS section of the report. If this had occurred in September or October, and this report as it is here now, the final report had been sent in early, that would have been in there.

Representative Ford. I don't understand that.

Mr. Lawson. Approximately a month before the Dallas trip, we changed the reports, if there was time, of course, on all these. In Washington, D.C., for an on-the-record movement we have a report made up like this final one, only it isn't called final. It is a survey report, and it has everything in the introduction, PRS, and everything right in it, and then a supplemental report. For our out-of-town trips they had a preliminary survey report, and then a final survey report, so that if the report had been done in September, let's say, that would have been in it, because it is in the regular format under PRS. You put in under the PRS section anything containing any untoward incident, any information that you receive from PRS or anything that developed later.

Representative Ford. This report I have here, final survey report, Commission Exhibit 768, does include that information?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; it does.

Representative Ford. Do you know whether or not Mr. Kellerman had this preliminary report prior to his departure for Dallas?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; I prepared this Tuesday, late afternoon, and Tuesday evening, the 19th, and made arrangements to have it flown by airline to Washington, and then have an agent from the White House detail pick it up from the airplane, which is normal procedure both on the preliminary report, and when we use it to send the complete report ahead of time.

Then I called to make sure that it arrived, which it had.

Representative Ford. This was prior to Mr. Kellerman's departure with the President?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; it had to be done that early because they were gone out of Washington the day before they got to me.

Representative Ford. Are your current regulations for preliminary report different now than they were at this time?

Mr. Lawson. I believe for out-of-town trips we have a preliminary report and a final survey report.

Representative Ford. Is the current format any different now than it was November 19?

Mr. Lawson. I don't believe so. Again, there are things that you can add here, certain stops; you might have a motorcade list and you might not, if there isn't any motorcade.

Representative Ford. I believe that is all. Do you want to proceed?

Mr. Dulles. I have one or two questions that were brought up by your own questions. Did you have any discussion with the Dallas police about General Walker's activities?

Mr. Lawson. No; I did not, but I knew that he was in this rightwing group and that Special Agent Howlett was pursuing this.

Mr. Dulles. Was following its activities?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles. And he was one of your local——

Mr. Lawson. He was the local agent.

Mr. Dulles. Agent in Dallas. This morning when Agent Bouck testified, he left with us some memoranda, Commission Exhibit 762, setting forth 10 cases which had been looked into by the Dallas office during the period October 25, 1961 to October 30, 1963.

I note that a good many of these cases are marked closed, but I wanted to ask whether the reports of these cases were brought to your attention either before you left or after you got to Dallas, or are you familiar with them?

Mr. Lawson. I am not familiar with them, but if they are active cases, people that——

Mr. Dulles. In some cases it is stated, "Investigation completed." This particular case, CO2-34007, says:

"Investigation completed on December 12, 1963, by the Dallas office in Texas."

That means that this case at least was closed after the assassination. You don't recall that.

This is a report from a student at the university about a subject that made derogatory remarks against the President. You don't recall that case having been brought to your attention?

Mr. Lawson. I know that Special Agent Howlett told me. I believe this might be connected with one of those informant things outside of Dallas that I was speaking about, but I don't know this—I know it was Texas. Whether this is the same one or not I don't know. But I would only have knowledge of something that was brought to their attention that the President's life was threatened, and I was given no information that such had occurred.

Mr. Dulles. And so you don't recall any of these 10 or 9 other cases here? A good many of them are noted as closed. That situation would not be brought to your attention?

Mr. Lawson. No; they would not.

Mr. Dulles. Would not?

Mr. Lawson. No.

Mr. Dulles. In some cases it is noted, "Subsequent activity none." It is stated, "Periodic checkups were not deemed necessary. Prosecution was declined."

This was the case of a remark made by a gentleman at a bridge party. You don't recall that case?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; I wouldn't have any occasion to know what cases have come into PRS.

Mr. Dulles. Even if they related to Dallas?

Mr. Lawson. Only if they related to Dallas, and I have been told that these individuals were in the active file, it was an open case, and that we should be watchful of this particular individual, but I was given none of this information.

Mr. Dulles. In your case when you left Washington you weren't given any cases that you considered dangerous in the Dallas area?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir.

Representative Ford. When they do give you the name and the case of an individual such as in the instance of Buffalo, what do you get? What is given to you, I mean?

Mr. Lawson. You are given the name and the number of the case, and then there is a file in Buffalo just like there is a file in Washington, and you can review that file there, and depending on the circumstances you would again have the person followed, or try something to keep him away from the President.

Mr. Dulles. I see. You are simply given the name and the file number.

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles. Of the individuals?

Mr. Lawson. You might be given some other information, like what it concerns, but I mean you wouldn't sit down and read the whole thing because you could get that in the Buffalo office or wherever.

Mr. Dulles. What would have been your normal practice so far as you can judge if you had been informed that a man, an American had defected to the Soviet Union and had returned to the United States and was living in Dallas and was working in the Texas School Book Depository, would that have been sufficient cause alone to cause you to make an investigation or report it to the Dallas police?

Mr. Lawson. If I had had that information—again this is supposition.

Mr. Dulles. I realize that.

Mr. Lawson. But I probably would have asked advice on it from either the PRS section or the White House detail ahead of it; yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles. Supplementing a point that was raised earlier, I find that President Kennedy's visit to Texas was reported in the Dallas Morning News as early as September 26, 1963, and the pertinent sections of this press report—it is headed, "Kennedy to Visit Texas November 21–22," and there is also included in the heading, "Dallas Included." The first two paragraphs of this story reported from Jackson Hole, Wyo., that area, where the President was then on a visit:

"White House sources told Dallas News exclusively Wednesday night that President Kennedy will visit Texas November 21 and 22.

"The visit will embrace major cities of the State including Dallas."

That is just to check on the point of the date when it was first published. So it was published sometime before you were notified of your assignment.

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; I was doing the Billings advance. He left Billings to go to Jackson Hole, Wyo., and then returned the next morning again to Billings.

Mr. Dulles. You don't recall having heard that though?

Mr. Lawson. No.

Mr. Dulles. In connection with your work with the President's party on that trip?

Mr. Lawson. No.

Representative Ford. Will you proceed, Mr. Stern?

Mr. Stern. To conclude the advance work, Mr. Lawson, would you describe the advance work for the Dallas visit as the same as or different from typical advance preparations for a trip of this nature?

Mr. Lawson. I don't know if that is too general, but I would say that it was quite a typical trip.

I tried to do everything I could think of to make the advance run smooth, and this trip work all right.

Mr. Stern. The length of time you spent doing the advance, the contacts you had, the time spent by other people, this was typical of this kind of trip?

Mr. Lawson. Sometimes you go out earlier than other times. Actually this was out just a little bit earlier than usual.

An average, if you have to give an average, I would say you are out about 7 days ahead of time. But like I say, some fellows left this morning for a trip tomorrow.

Mr. Stern. Now on the period up to November 22, as I said before, we will rely substantially on what is in your memorandum. If there is anything now that you would like to add or correct in the statements you have made there, anything you would like to add to your testimony so far today before this Commission, will you do so?

Mr. Lawson. I can't recall any.

Mr. Stern. I would like to move then to the actual events of November 22. I show you first a two-page document marked for identification Commission Exhibit 771. Can you identify that?

Mr. Lawson. I can.

Mr. Stern. Will you tell us what it is and why it was prepared?

Mr. Lawson. It was a statement prepared by me on request of inspectors in the chief's office as to my knowledge of the event of the shooting of President Kennedy itself, and I prepared this the day after I returned from Dallas, which was the 23d of November.

Mr. Stern. I now show you a five-page memorandum marked for identification Commission Exhibit 772. Could you identify that for us and tell us how it was prepared?

Mr. Lawson. This is a statement that I gave about as many of my activities, official activities concerning the President's visit the whole day of November 22, and until I returned to Washington early on the morning of November 23, as I could.

Mr. Stern. Mr. Chairman, may these be admitted?

Representative Ford. They may be.

(The documents marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 771 and 772 for identification were received in evidence.)

Mr. Stern. So that 772, the memorandum prepared on December 1 would include everything that you put in your memorandum of November 23 which was done immediately upon your return?

Mr. Lawson. Yes.

Mr. Stern. Turning to your memorandum of December 1, Commission Exhibit 772, it mentions on page 1 discussion of weather conditions and the decision whether or not to use the bubble-top on the Presidential automobile. Could you expand on that for us and tell us what happened?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; it was quite rainy early in the morning of the 22d in Dallas, and I received a phone call from the Assistant Agent in Charge Mr. Kellerman, who was in Fort Worth with the President, asking about weather conditions in Dallas, and what they probably would be, and discussing whether to use the bubble-top on the President's car or not. I was told the bubble-top was to be on if it was raining, and it was to be off if it was not raining.

Mr. Stern. And then what happened? Did the weather clear?

Mr. Lawson. The weather cleared quite fast. I can't recall now. It was approximately an hour or 45 minutes before the President was scheduled to arrive, and we had purposely put off changing the top until the last minute when we could find out what the weather was going to be.

But it cleared and the weather became quite sunny all of a sudden. Also I received a phone call from Fort Worth from Agent Hill, who was assigned to Mrs. Kennedy, asking what the weather was and whether the top would be on or not. I suppose that was so he could let her know whether she had to wear a hat or something because of the weather.

I told him that it looked like it was starting to clear, but we still had not made up our minds whether to have the bubble-top on or off at the point of his call. But I told him if it was raining it would be on, and if it was clear it would be off.

Mr. Stern. Were you involved in the final decision respecting the bubble-top?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; the weather was clear so I told them to have it off.

Mr. Stern. Then from your memorandum you visited, early on the morning of November 22, the Trade Mart?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. And checked the final arrangements there, returned to Love Field, checked the final arrangements there?

Mr. Lawson. Yes.

Mr. Stern. The President arrived. You might tell us a bit about the reception and the President's greeting the crowd.

Mr. Lawson. Yes. The press plane came in. It was the first plane in, and some agents that were on the press plane that were coming in early were sent to their respective posts at the Trade Mart.

The traveling press that comes with the President were shown the press area, were shown where the plane would be, and so forth, told a little bit about the arrangements there.

The transportation staff and people from the White House press office were told a little bit more in detail about what would happen at Love Field, and the motorcade, and the press arrangements down at the Trade Mart.

Ordinarily you need to provide transportation to the function for the Presidential Seal, the flags, heavy sound equipment that comes on the press plane and all that, and it was arranged for station wagons and trucks to take that.

But they told me upon arrival that they had sent these direct to Fort Worth since it was so close and that we didn't need those. Shortly after this, the Vice President's plane arrived, and I went out to greet it with the agent from the Vice Presidential detail, and showing people where to go if they wanted to get in their cars, and telling them where the President's plane would be, and making myself useful to the people coming off the Vice Presidential plane.

While it was stopping, the Presidential plane was landing and taxiing over, so that they went practically directly from their plane, those people who wanted to greet the Presidential plane, to the rear ramp, where he would be arriving. The President's plane stopped and the greeting committee and the Vice President and Mrs. Johnson and any of those people on the plane that had wanted to greet the President, local Congressmen, et cetera, were over at the President's rear ramp and then I was at the rear ramp across from the greeting committee and the other dignitaries when he arrived.

He went through the greeting committee. I was on his left, the opposite side of the greeting committee, and the other dignitaries. He walked toward the fence. At that time I made sure that the motorcade was all ready to go, and the drivers were in their cars, and told people that were in the motorcade to please get in their cars because as soon as the President was ready, and we didn't know if that would be 1 minute or 10, and as soon as he was in the car, why they would go.

And gave instructions for moving the press ropes out of the press area, because of the tightness there. We had to move part of the press area before our motorcade could drive by. And in general doing all of these little last-minute things.

Then went over to the fence and went along with the President, watching the crowd and talking to a few of the agents on some of their responsibilities, and went to look to see if the lead cars and the other police cars were about ready to go, and saw that the President was not yet, so went back to him, and then got him to his car and ran for my lead car and the motorcade proceeded from the airplane.

Mr. Stern. Is it typical that the advance agent rides in the lead car?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. Why is that?

Mr. Lawson. I suppose for various reasons. No. 1, the Presidential driver, although you might have given him a route or all that, he wouldn't really be familiar probably with the streets and all that, and this is the car that has the command police officials in it, and the Secret Service agent that knows the most about the start.

So in any emergency situation the Presidential car will follow that lead car if possible unless told otherwise. It is the best place for an agent, and also he controls the motorcade speed, and so forth, from there.

Mr. Stern. Was there anything unusual in the motorcade until you got to Main and Houston?

Mr. Lawson. Not unusual. There were crowds along the way, sometimes heavier than others in about the spots that it was expected to be that way.

Mr. Stern. What was your impression of the attitude of the crowd generally?

Mr. Lawson. It looked quite friendly, not as hopping and skipping as much as some other places, but very friendly and sometimes people just jumped up and down and screamed and yelled. This one seemed to be a quite friendly group by and large.

On one occasion I noticed a sign, I can't recall what it is right now, but it was an out-of-the-ordinary sign, a sign designed to catch someone's attention, and I thought right then that probably it would catch the President's attention if he was looking to the right-hand side of the car, which he was, and he stopped there, which is not unusual.

Sometimes he would stop for certain groups, certain types of people at certain places unannounced, if there was something that caught his fancy or caught his eye, and he did there. And of course the crowd pressed around, and the other agents got off the followup car, got around his car.

Mr. Kellerman got out. I was a little bit more ahead than I had been. We back up, stopped the motor car, told everybody by radio what was happening, the other police that we were stopped. Before I was out of the car to give any assistance, why we were moving again.

Mr. Stern. Was that a built-up area with high buildings or were you still in the suburbs?

Mr. Lawson. No; that was a suburban-type of area, a shopping center-type of area out away from the downtown area.

Mr. Stern. I think perhaps now you could tell us what you observed and what transpired from the time your car turned into Houston Street off of Main.

Mr. Lawson. As I have said previously today, right around that corner I gave this radio broadcast that we were 5 minutes away.

Mr. Stern. Was this while you were on Houston or had you turned?

Mr. Lawson. We had turned the corner. We were either at the corner, I believe we were just about at the corner when I asked the question if I shouldn't give about a 5-minute signal now so we must have been around the corner then when I actually finished broadcasting. It doesn't take long.

Mr. Stern. Around the Houston-Elm corner?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; right in front of the Book Depository Building, and then a little ways away from that probably by the time I had finished broadcasting.

I noticed a few people along the right-hand side I can recall now, and more people on the right-hand side than out in the center strip median which is there, a grassy center strip. There weren't many people on the left at all.

I recall thinking we are coming to an overpass now, so I glanced up to see if it was clear, the way most of them had been, the way all of them had been up until that time on the way downtown, and it was not. There was a small group, between 5 and 10 that looked like workmen. I got the impression, whether it was wrong or not I don't know, that they were railroad workers. They had that type of dress on.

And I was looking for the officer who should have been there, had been requested to be there, and I noticed him just a little bit later, that he was there, and I made a kind of motion through the windshield trying to get his attention to move the people from over our path the way it should have been.

But to my knowledge I never got his attention, and I have said in one of these statements that we were under the bridge, and I have said in another one that we were just approaching this overpass when I heard the shot. I really do not know which one is so, because it was so close, but we were about at the bridge when I heard the first report.

Mr. Stern. Now just to finish up with the people on the overpass, were they in a crowd together, or spread out?

Mr. Lawson. They were spread out 1 or 2 deep, and as I say, between 5 and 10 of them to my knowledge, and I noticed the police officer standing behind them about in the middle of the group.

Mr. Stern. And as far as you can remember now, in a position to observe all of them? Were they in close enough a group?

Mr. Lawson. Oh, yes; observed them from the back.

Mr. Stern. Observed them from the back. Did you notice any unusual movement?

Mr. Lawson. I did not.

Mr. Stern. Did you know whether the policeman saw your signal or acknowledged it?

Mr. Lawson. I didn't have any acknowledgment of it, and I don't know if he saw the signal or not. At least the people didn't move, They still stayed there in the middle.

Mr. Stern. Were you able to see the sides of the overpass, apart from the area directly over the lane you were traveling in? Could you observe more?

Mr. Lawson. I am sure I could have, but I can only recall the people. My immediate problem was right up there on the bridge, and I was concentrating right there. I don't recall anything on either side of the embankments.

Mr. Stern. Or any people?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; I do not recall any.

Mr. Stern. Just this group?

Mr. Lawson. This group up on the bridge.

Mr. Dulles. Could I ask one question there. I think you testified just now that your car was very close to the overpass.

Mr. Lawson. I believe it was.

Mr. Dulles. And yet your car was only—well, how many feet ahead of the President's car was your car at that time, roughly?

Mr. Lawson. I am not sure because I wasn't looking back right at that time at the President's car. I was looking at the bridge because of the people up on the bridge.

Mr. Dulles. What was the normal distance?

Mr. Lawson. I think it was a little further ahead than it had been in the motorcade, because when I looked back we were further ahead.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Stern. Then what happened?

Mr. Lawson. I heard this very loud report which at first, flashing through my mind did not say rifle shot to me. It sounded different than a rifle shot. It sounded louder and more of a bang rather than a crack.

My first impression was firecracker or bomb or something like that. I can recall spinning around and looking back, and seeing people over on the grassy median area kind of running around and dropping down, which would be this area in here.

Mr. Dulles. I might just add the witness is now referring to an aerial photograph.

Mr. Stern. Indicating the area between Elm Street and Main Street, the grassy area between the two streets.

Did you observe anything on the grass strip to the right of Elm Street?

Mr. Lawson. No; I didn't, and it is my impression that my car was in this direction, so that when I looked back, that is why I saw this particular area here and not things over here that we had actually, see, started this curve so that when I looked back I was looking this way.

Mr. Stern. You were looking to the grass strip?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. In between Elm and Main and not to the grass strip across Elm Street?

Mr. Lawson. That is correct.

Mr. Stern. North of Elm Street.

Mr. Dulles. The curve you referred to is the curve to the right.

Mr. Lawson. It curves to the right just as it starts at the underpass, and continues to the right.

Representative Ford. Why did you look back? Is that the direction of sound?

Mr. Lawson. The direction of the sound and the direction of the President.

Representative Ford. Are you sure that the sound you heard came from the rear and not from the front?

Mr. Lawson. I am positive that it came from the rear, and then I spun back that way to see what had occurred back there.

Mr. Dulles. Could you tell at all whether the sound came from above you?

Mr. Lawson. No; I could not. It was quite a general loud bang, an echoing-type bang.

Representative Ford. At the time of the sound you were within 15 or 20 feet of the overpass approximately?

Mr. Lawson. I was quite close to the overpass, yes, sir; but I don't know exactly how close.

Representative Ford. You are sure that the sound didn't come from the overpass?

Mr. Lawson. I am in my own mind that it didn't. It came from behind me. Then I heard two more sharp reports, the second two were closer together than the first. There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer together, two and three were closer together than one and two.

Mr. Stern. What else did you observe when you looked back?

Representative Ford. May I ask a question here. Had you turned around by the time the second and third shots had been fired?

Mr. Lawson. Yes; I had.

Representative Ford. Did you get an impression from where they came?

Mr. Lawson. Again just behind me is the only impression I got, but in relation to behind me, where I do not know.

Representative Ford. Certainly not in front of you?

Mr. Lawson. No.

Mr. Stern. You were in a closed car?

Mr. Lawson. Yes; I was. The windows were open.

Mr. Stern. And you were on the right-hand side in the front?

Mr. Lawson. The right-hand side; yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles. Could you see the President's car when you looked back?

Mr. Lawson. Not that first time. As I looked back I looked right straight and saw the grassy median. Then the second and third shots, reports, I noticed the President's car back there, but I also noticed right after the reports an agent standing up with an automatic weapon in his hand, and the first thing that flashed through my mind, this was the only weapon I had seen, was that he had fired because this was the only weapon I had seen up to that time.

The events after that are a little bit jumbled, but I recall seeing Agent Hill on the rear of the President's car receiving a radio message that we should proceed to the nearest hospital. The nearest hospital was a continuation of our route.

Mr. Stern. Did you know that or were you told that?

Mr. Lawson. I knew that. Let me make a correction. I don't know if it was the nearest hospital, but I knew that it would be the fastest one that we could get to under the circumstances of where we were going under this freeway.

Mr. Stern. Did you know as part of your preparation or did you merely observe it in the arrangements you were making?

Mr. Lawson. I had observed this from all the times I had passed the hospital going over the route; yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. But it is not ordinarily a part of your advance work, or is it, to locate hospitals?

Mr. Lawson. This is not a part of our report, but quite often in my own report in other times I have listed hospitals and so forth, bed facilities in some of my other reports. I did not in this case, but I had noted this hospital.

Mr. Stern. But it is something you pay attention to yourself?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; it is. Again we depend upon the police knowing the city even better naturally than the advance agent to get us to a hospital depending where we are or anything like that, that would occur.

Mr. Dulles. What was the lead car doing at this time?

Mr. Lawson. The car that I was in, sir?

Mr. Dulles. I thought you were in the second car.

Mr. Stern. The pilot car.

Mr. Dulles. The pilot car, not the lead car.

Mr. Lawson. The pilot car was up ahead of us, so appeared other things I recall noting a police officer pulled up in a motorcycle alongside of us, and mentioned that the President had been hit.

When the Presidential car leaped ahead, although there was quite a distance, not quite a distance but there was some distance between the two cars, they came up on us quite fast before we were actually able to get in motion. They seemed to have a more rapid acceleration than we did.

Mr. Dulles. Did they actually pass you?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; they never did. We stayed ahead of them. The route was clear to the Trade Mart anyway, which was part of the route that we used to get to the hospital.

And then from the Trade Mart on, the route was going to be policed after we arrived at the Trade Mart, so that on the route from the Trade Mart to the Parkland Hospital, which isn't very far, we had to do some stopping of cars and holding our hands out the windows and blowing the sirens and the horns to get through, but we made it in pretty good time.

I also asked Chief Curry to notify, to have the hospital notified that we were on the way. I heard Chief Curry broadcast to some units to converge on the area of the incident down by where it happened. I don't recall how he phrased it, so that they would know to go to the Texas Book Depository area. He told them to converge on a certain area, and that is what it turned out to be.

When we arrived at the hospital, as our car pulled up and was still moving, I jumped out and a couple of the motorcycle policemen that had arrived there ahead of us, I asked them to keep any crowd back, any press people back, etc., as I went running in the building.

I was looking for the stretchers that might be coming our way, and didn't notice any at first until I looked quite a ways down the corridor and saw two stretchers being pushed my way, and I ran down, turned around, put one hand on each one and then as they pushed and I pulled, we ran outside.

The stretchers had to be placed in tandem because of the ambulance area and Governor Connally being ahead of President Kennedy was placed on the first one and taken immediately away. President Kennedy was placed on the second one by myself and some other individuals, and we went into the emergency room area and were shown into a particular emergency room.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Stern. Mr. Lawson, your memorandum is quite complete on the events from arrival at the hospital to your return to Love Field. If there is anything you would like to add to that, please do so, or to anything you have told us from the departure from Love Field to the arrival at Parkland Hospital.

Mr. Lawson. I can't recall anything.

Mr. Stern. I would like then to cover with you just a few points on your opportunities to observe Lee Harvey Oswald following his arrest. As I understand it, you returned to the Dallas Police Headquarters with Chief Curry and other police officials after he was informed that a suspect has been arrested, and arrived at the police headquarters somewhere between 3:30 and 3:45; is that correct?

Mr. Lawson. I believe the Presidential plane took off at 2:40 something, 2:47, so that I didn't leave Love Field until after that. It was probably at least 10 minutes after that that we left.

We made certain that the agents had all arrived back from the various places that they were to return to Washington, and that the White House staff, none of them had been left any place, and that the Air Force II was going to pick up any stragglers. The press was going to depart on a press plane, and so forth, so it was probably a little after 3 o'clock before we left.

I recall that it was very bad traffic in the downtown area. We were bumper to bumper and didn't move a few times because apparently the chief thought everybody was converging on the downtown area to see this, plus all the people who had been there when it happened and just stayed there. I arrived sometime quite late.

Mr. Dulles. You were still with Chief Curry?

Mr. Lawson. I was. I was told by Chief Rowley rather than to come back to remain in Dallas. It was quite late in the afternoon we arrived at police headquarters.

Mr. Stern. What were the conditions at police headquarters when you arrived?

Mr. Lawson. Quite a bit was happening. I got the impression they had squads of detectives doing all kinds of things, people working on the Presidential assassination, people working on the Tippit killing. I know that they had squads of men going out doing various things and coming back, and it was quite hard just to keep abreast of things that were breaking as to what each group was finding out as it was happening, and quite often we were way behind.

Mr. Stern. What about the appearance of the press and television reporters and cameramen at that time?

Mr. Lawson. At least by 6 or 7 o'clock they were quite in evidence up and down the corridors, cameras on the tripods, the sound equipment, people with still cameras, motion picture-type hand cameras, all kinds of people with tape recorders, and they were trying to interview people, anybody that belonged in police headquarters that might know anything about Oswald——

Mr. Stern. Can you estimate how many reporters?

Mr. Lawson. There were quite a few. The corridors, up and down the corridors towards the chief's office to the right of the elevator, around the elevator landing and down the corridors to the left of the elevator towards the homicide area were quite packed. You had to literally fight your way through the people to get up and down the corridor.

Representative Ford. Did you stay with Chief Curry most of the time?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; I was in various rooms and with various people for the rest of the evening. I saw Chief Curry quite often that evening.

Mr. Dulles. Who was in command at that time of the Secret Service detachment in giving the orders and coordinating the Secret Service men?

Mr. Lawson. Sorrels. My advance as such, was over, and I was just another Secret Service agent.

Mr. Dulles. He was in command?

Mr. Lawson. Sorrels would be in command of any Secret Service activity.

Mr. Dulles. Subject of course to orders from Washington; I realize that.

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; and we understood that Inspector Kelley, on one of our frequent phone conversations with Washington, we were told that Inspector Kelley, one of our inspectors, was being sent out to coordinate the Secret Service investigation and to be the overall commander of the Secret Service out there, and he did arrive at approximately 11 o'clock that evening and was met by an agent.

Mr. Dulles. Does the Secret Service have a facility for commandeering, getting airplanes when it needs them fast?

Mr. Lawson. In certain instances, sir, I believe we use the Air Force and the MATS people for advance trips, or if the Presidential airplanes are full and they still need agents to go some place, why they will put on another airplane for us. Sometimes we use Air Force transportation, sometimes commercial.

Mr. Dulles. You have adequate facilities, have you, to get around in time of emergency like this, quickly?

Mr. Lawson. I wouldn't be in a position to answer that, sir.

Mr. Dulles. Chief Rowley would probably be the one.

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. When did you first observe Lee Harvey Oswald, Mr. Lawson?

Mr. Lawson. It was early in the evening of November 22. He had been in police headquarters for a little while at least before I first saw him, and they had already interrogated him as I understand it, and various detectives, police officials, and Mr. Sorrels and a couple other agents and myself saw Lee Harvey Oswald when he was brought in for Mr. Sorrels to talk to at Mr. Sorrels' request.

Mr. Stern. Did you interrogate him?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. Stern. Did Mr. Sorrels handle the interrogation alone?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir; that particular one.

Mr. Stern. What were the questions and answers as best you can recall?

Mr. Lawson. He asked information as to name.

Mr. Dulles. Who is "he" now?

Mr. Lawson. Mr. Sorrels in asking the questions already had some background on Mr. Oswald before he started questioning Mr. Oswald. The detectives or other individuals had told them what they knew up to this point about Oswald, his name, that he had been out of the country previous to this time to Russia, and a few other things. It was known at the particular time, perhaps 6 or 7 o'clock.

Mr. Stern. I take it you had phoned his name to your headquarters in Washington as soon as you knew Oswald's name?

Mr. Lawson. I didn't. Perhaps Mr. Sorrels did.

Mr. Stern. Did your office advise you whether they knew anything about Oswald or had found out anything about Oswald?

Mr. Lawson. Not me personally.

Mr. Stern. That you know of?

Mr. Lawson. Not me personally.

Mr. Stern. Were any other questions asked?

Mr. Lawson. Yes; I recall Mr. Sorrels asking if he had been out—where he had been living, where he had been employed over the last years, and other information Mr. Sorrels already knew about.

Representative Ford. What was his attitude? What was the attitude of Oswald during this period?

Mr. Lawson. Oswald just answered the questions as asked to him. He didn't volunteer any information. He sat there quite stoically, not much of an expression on his face.

Mr. Dulles. Quite what?

Mr. Lawson. Stoically.

Mr. Dulles. Stoical?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Was he belligerent?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir; he didn't seem to be belligerent at all.

Representative Ford. Did he resent the interrogation?

Mr. Lawson. I didn't get the impression that it was a great resentment. He just answered the questions as they were asked of him.

Mr. Dulles. Did he answer all the questions?

Mr. Lawson. I believe he did.

Mr. Dulles. These were questions that Mr. Sorrels put to him?

Mr. Lawson. Yes; of course, Mr. Sorrels, I don't believe at that time, as I remember it, didn't ask him everything that we knew about him.

Representative Ford. Was there a transcript kept of this interrogation?

Mr. Lawson. I don't know.

Mr. Stern. Do you recall any other questions that were asked?

Mr. Lawson. I don't. At this time they were just general-type questions.

Mr. Stern. What was his physical condition?

Mr. Dulles. Could I ask one question there? The question wasn't asked him at this time, at least while you were present, whether he was or was not guilty of the attack on the President?

Mr. Lawson. This I do not recall. During this I recall I was called out for a phone call a couple of times. We were given information from Mr. Max Phillips, who was in our PRS section, and I believe it was during this that someone, an agent, was wanted on the phone, and I went out and answered this, and they gave us some information on people that it might have been—a case that wasn't Oswald.

Mr. Stern. What was his physical condition?

Mr. Lawson. He was quite, well, unkempt looking, and I recall that he had a few bruises on his face.

Mr. Stern. A few bruises?

Mr. Lawson. I believe over an eye, a bruise or two. I can recall that he had a bruise over an eye or on a cheekbone, or someplace on his face, in looking back. And had a shirt and a pair of pants on. He wasn't very tidy looking, a little unkempt in his appearance.

Mr. Stern. Was he handcuffed, do you recall?

Mr. Lawson. I don't recall. I know I saw him handcuffed around police headquarters quite a bit, but during this interrogation I don't remember if he was handcuffed or not.

Representative Ford. How long did this interrogation go on?

Mr. Lawson. This was not long.

Representative Ford. Five minutes?

Mr. Lawson. Five to ten minutes at the most; yes, sir.

Mr. Stern. Then what happened? Did Mr. Sorrels finish?

Mr. Dulles. May I ask one other question there? Was there an interrogation just conducted by Mr. Sorrels, or were there others in on it, the police or the FBI?

Mr. Lawson. I don't know if there were FBI agents there. There were other plainclothesmen there, and a few uniformed officers.

Mr. Dulles. Mr. Sorrels conducted the investigation?

Mr. Lawson. Mr. Sorrels was asking these particular questions, general-type questions, and when he finished the police took him back to another area.

Mr. Stern. When did you next see Oswald?

Mr. Lawson. I recall seeing him in another room in homicide headquarters with a couple of plainclothes people and their talking to him. I saw him later in the evening, perhaps 9:30, 10 o'clock, when he was brought down to a showup room, because we had information that a gentleman had seen someone at a window, and so—

Mr. Stern. Do you know who that was, the witness?

Mr. Lawson. I do not know; no, sir.

Mr. Stern. Could it have been someone named Brennan?

Mr. Lawson. The name doesn't mean anything to me. Mr. Sorrels had sent an agent out to bring him down to police headquarters to talk to him, and he informed us he had seen someone in the window, but he had also seen Lee Oswald on television in the meantime, and he didn't know of how much value he would be.

Mr. Stern. Did he say anything about whether he thought——

Mr. Lawson. He could not say yes or no, whether Oswald was the individual or not.

Mr. Stern. Did you notice any irregularity in the way the showup was conducted?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir.

Mr. Stern. Did it seem like a normal one to you, the size of the people?

Mr. Lawson. I didn't notice any irregularity.

Mr. Stern. And their dress?

Representative Ford. Had Oswald had any additional physical damage done?

Mr. Lawson. No, sir.

Representative Ford. The last time you saw him?

Mr. Lawson. No; he had not. That was not the last time I saw him, however. Then I later, approximately 11:30, or around midnight, it was announced that there would be a press conference again down in the showup room, and Inspector Kelley had arrived by that time, not too long before that, and Inspector Kelley and I and another agent or two went down to this press conference where it was just completely packed. Everyone couldn't get in the room, the cameramen, reporters, broadcasters, and so forth. Upon a signal——

Mr. Dulles. Who conducted that meeting?

Mr. Lawson. I believe it was the assistant district attorney and Chief Curry and perhaps Captain Fritz. We were just there watching.

Mr. Stern. Tell us more about what——

Mr. Lawson. He was brought in through the crowd and through a side door there, through the corridors, brought in, and I believe the chief and the district attorney each gave statements, and Oswald was asked a few questions then by the press, but I don't recall of it except that he was whisked out again fairly rapidly after that.

Mr. Stern. Do you remember what any of the questions were and his responses?

Mr. Lawson. No, I don't.

Mr. Stern. How many people were in this room?

Mr. Lawson. It was overflowing. You could hardly hear because everyone was shouting questions. That is why I don't remember what the specific questions were and what his responses were.

Mr. Stern. Do you have any impression why this interview was conducted?

Mr. Lawson. No; I do not.

Mr. Stern. Do you recall anything else that was said by the eyewitness that Mr. Sorrels had arranged to be brought in for the showup, anything else that he said while he was standing talking to you or Mr. Sorrels or while Oswald and others were on the——

Mr. Lawson. No; I don't.

Mr. Stern. Then shortly after this showup, or shortly after this interview in the showup room, you left for Washington, I take it?

Mr. Lawson. Yes; there had been quite a bit of discussion during the evening as to what evidence they had up to this time, the rifle, clothing, et cetera, would be brought to Washington to the FBI lab to be worked on, or whether the police would keep it in their custody for a little while longer for their investigation, and there was quite a bit of discussion by various people all evening long.

And when it was finally decided it would be released by the Dallas police, the rifle and other evidence to return to Washington, Inspector Kelley told me to return on the special plane that was flying the evidence and the accompanying FBI agent back to Washington.

Mr. Dulles. Was the evidence turned over to you or the FBI?

Mr. Lawson. To the FBI, sir. I just returned on the plane.

Mr. Stern. Was there at one point a reluctance on the part of the Dallas police to release the evidence?

Mr. Lawson. Yes, sir. They felt, from what I overheard, they felt they might be able to get an identification of the rifle from one of the local gunshops. There were various leads that they wanted to follow out on that rifle that evening and the next day. I believe there was some talk that they couldn't locate some of the gunshop owners, and some of the other things they wanted to do. So they wished to keep this rifle for a day or so and then release it.

Mr. Stern. I am told this has been covered with other witnesses, so there is no need to pursue it. I have nothing further.

Representative Ford. How long was this interview where Oswald was present?

Mr. Lawson. The press interview, sir?

Representative Ford. How long was he before the press?

Mr. Lawson. I would say 5 minutes at the most.

Representative Ford. I have no other questions.

Mr. Dulles. I have no other questions.

Representative Ford. Is that all, Mr. Stern?

Mr. Stern. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Thank you very much, Mr. Lawson, you have been very helpful.

Mr. Dulles. We appreciate it very much.

(Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

---

[Thursday, April 30, 1964]
TESTIMONY OF ALWYN COLE

The President's Commission met at 9:25 a.m. on April 30, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and John J. McCloy, members.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel.

The Chairman. The Commission will be in order.

The purpose, Mr. Cole, of today's hearing is to take the testimony of Mr. James C. Cadigan and yourself. Mr. Cadigan is a questioned documents expert of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and as we all know, you are a questioned documents expert of the Department of the Treasury. We desire your testimony for technical assistance to the Commission in connection with the papers used in this hearing concerning the assassination.

Mr. Cole. I understand.

The Chairman. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please?

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Cole. I do.

The Chairman. Mr. Eisenberg, you may conduct the examination.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, could you state your full name, please?

Mr. Cole. That is Alwyn Cole.

The Chairman. I am obliged to spend the morning with the Court. We are hearing arguments today and when I leave, in a short time, Congressman Ford will preside at the meeting and conduct it.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is your position, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. I am employed as examiner of questioned documents with the U.S. Treasury Department.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you state your specific duties in this position?

Mr. Cole. I am required to examine any document in which the Treasury Department is interested when a question arises about the genuineness of the document or the identity of any of its parts. A good deal of this work includes the identification of handwriting.

Mr. Eisenberg. From what sources is work referred to your laboratory, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. From the several divisions of the Office of the Treasury of the United States, and from the various Bureaus of the Treasury Department, including the enforcement agencies: Secret Service, narcotics, customs, internal revenue service.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, can you tell us how you prepared yourself to carry on this work of questioned documents examination?

Mr. Cole. I served an apprenticeship of 6 years under Mr. Burt Farrar from 1929 to 1935. Mr. Farrar at that time was the document examiner for the Treasury Department, and at the time of my association with him he had had over 40 years of experience in the work.

Under Mr. Farrar's tutelage I studied the leading textbooks on the subject of questioned documents, which includes handwriting identification, and I received from him cases for practice examination of progressively increasing difficulty, made these examinations, prepared reports for his review, and also during this period I had assignments to other Government laboratories, those of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the Government Printing Office, and I had close association with other technical workers in the government service.

I succeeded Mr. Farrar in 1935, and I have had daily practical contact with questioned problems from 1929 to the present date.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, are you a member of any associations of persons engaged in questioned documents examination?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I am.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you state those positions?

Mr. Cole. I am a member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, of the International Association for Identification, and of the American Academy of Forensic Science.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you give instructions to others in this work, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. I do. I am an instructor at the Treasury Department Law Enforcement Officer Training School.

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you had occasion to testify in Federal or other courts?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I have, many times.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this witness be permitted to give expert testimony on the subject of questioned documents.

The Chairman. The witness is qualified.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, I now show you a photograph of an envelope and a purchase order. The envelope is addressed to Klein's, in Chicago, from one "A. Hidell," and the purchase order, which is included in the photograph, is an order also addressed to Klein's from "A. Hidell," and I ask you whether you have examined this photograph.

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 773?

The Chairman. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 773 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. For the record, this photograph was produced from a roll of microfilm in the possession of Klein's, a Chicago firm which sells weapons of various types, and which sold the assassination weapon.

Now, Mr. Cole, I am going to hand you a group of documents which I will identify for the record.

The first is an application form to Cosmos Shipping Co., Inc., signed Lee H. Oswald, and containing handprinting and cursive writing. Have you examined that document, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as Commission Exhibit 774, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 774 was marked and received in evidence.)

The Chairman. I wonder if it might not be better to put the tab on the document itself because someone in handling it might take it out of the envelope.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Eisenberg. The second document is a letter addressed to the American Embassy, entitled "Affidavit of Support," and signed Lee H. Oswald.

Mr. Cole. I have examined this document.

Mr. Eisenberg. I would like that admitted as 775, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 775 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. The third is a group of checks made payable to the order of Lee H. Oswald, and the company listed on the top of the check is Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Inc. These checks are endorsed on the back "Lee H. Oswald," and I ask you whether you have examined these documents?

Mr. Cole. I have examined these documents.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may these be admitted as 776?

The Chairman. They may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit 776 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Here I would like to mark the envelope.

The fourth item is a library card for the New Orleans Parish, or the Orleans Parish, and the signature is Lee H. Oswald.

Mr. Cole. I have examined this document.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 777?

The Chairman. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 777 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. The next item consists of photographs of two letters to the Department of State, both concerning payments on loans, repayments of loans, and both signed "Lee H. Oswald," and I ask whether you have examined these documents?

Mr. Cole. I have examined these photographs.

Mr. Eisenberg. May these be admitted as 778?

The Chairman. They may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 778 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Next are two pages of writing on lined and holed paper entitled "The Communist Party of the United States Has Betrayed Itself!" and numbered "1" and "2," with some discoloration. Mr. Cole, have you examined those?

Mr. Cole. I have examined these. The discoloration mentioned was on the documents when I first saw them.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may these be admitted as 779?

The Chairman. Admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 779 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Next is a file entitled "Oswald, Lee Harvey, USMC"—which stands for Marine Corps—serial number or file number 1653230, and then another number appears, 8812, and this has various writing, certain of which are signed by Lee H. Oswald, together with letters to Lee H. Oswald, and I ask you if you have examined this file, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Yes; I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. May this be admitted as 780, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 780 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Next is a passport application signed "Lee H. Oswald," dated in the upper right "Passport Issued June 25, 1963," and there are other dates which appear—principally June 24, 1963—in other portions of the application. Mr. Cole, have you examined that?

Mr. Cole. I have examined this document.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 781, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 781 was marked, and received into evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Next is a letter entitled "Dear Sirs: This is in regard to my wife's file" and so forth, addressed apparently to the Immigration and Naturalization Offices in San Antonio, Tex., signed "Lee H. Oswald," together with another such letter addressed to the same—addressed to Dallas, Tex., the Office of Immigration and Naturalization, Dallas, Tex., signed "Lee H. Oswald," and a third letter to Room 1402, Rio Grande Building, 251 North Field Street.

These letters, all signed "Lee H. Oswald", and all having to do with aspects of immigration and naturalization, are entitled or numbered on the backs respectively 00645, dated July 5, 00146, dated—that is July 5, 1962, in the first—00146, dated July——

Mr. Cole. I believe it is 6.

Mr. Eisenberg. July 6, 1962, and 010156, dated July 10, 1962. Have you examined these three documents?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. May these be admitted as 782A, 782B, and 782C, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman. They may be admitted under those numbers.

Mr. Eisenberg. And finally, an item consisting of two subitems, one a short note signed "Lee H. Oswald" and beginning, "Please enroll me as an associate member at $2.00," relating to the ACLU, and the second item being an application to the American Civil Liberties Union national office, "Please enroll me as a new member of the ACLU," name printed "Lee H. Oswald," and I ask you whether you have examined these two items.

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. May these be admitted under the common caption 783?

The Chairman. They may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 782A, 782B, 782C, and 783 were marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Cole, have you compared the documents 774–783, all signed "Lee H. Oswald," with the document 773, the photograph of a purchase order to Klein's Sporting Goods, for purposes of determining whether the author of the documents 774–783 also authored the document 773?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is your conclusion?

Mr. Cole. It is my conclusion that the author of the standard writing bearing the exhibit numbers which you just related——

Mr. Eisenberg. 774–783?

Mr. Cole. 774–783, is the author of the handwriting on Commission Exhibit 773.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, you referred to the term "standard writing," Mr. Cole. Can you explain that term?

Mr. Cole. I used these as the standard writing, as a basis for comparison.

Mr. Eisenberg. "These" referring to 774–783?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Those standards would be what you would refer to, therefore, what might also be referred to as "known" items?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. And the Document 773 is the "questioned" item?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now for the record, in the future I will refer collectively to 774–783 as the standards.

The Chairman. They were all written by the same person?

Mr. Cole. Yes, Your Honor.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, were these the only standards or potential standards from which you had to draw, or were a larger group of potential standards furnished to you?

Mr. Cole. I saw a larger group of papers of potential standards.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you state the circumstances under which this larger group was given to you?

Mr. Cole. I came to your office and reviewed a very large group of papers, and I pointed out what I would regard as a cross section or representative sample from that larger group of papers.

Mr. Eisenberg. And can you explain the basis on which you took the actual standards 774–783, that is, on which you selected those documents from the larger possible group of documents which might have served as standards?

Mr. Cole. Well, two bases: One, that the writing is fairly clear and legible; most of these documents are not stained or mutilated in any way; all the writing can be seen clearly. And, two, I think that this group of papers gives a complete, reasonably complete record of the writing habits of the author.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, continuing on these standards for a moment, have you examined other questioned documents besides Commission 773 at my request?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do the standards which you selected, that is, items 774 through 783, in your opinion provide a sufficient basis for comparison of the other questioned documents which you also examined?

Mr. Cole. They do provide a satisfactory basis for comparison.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are they sufficiently close in time, both to 773 and to the other questioned documents which you have examined?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Does handwriting change over the course of time, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Handwriting does change over the course of time, but usually fairly large periods are involved, 5 or 10 years or such.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is there any variation in the writing instruments which were used to produce the various standards?

Mr. Cole. Yes; I think a variety of instruments were used.

Mr. Eisenberg. Does this affect your ability to use the standards as against the questioned documents or as against those questioned documents produced with other writing instruments?

Mr. Cole. It does not adversely affect my ability to make a comparison.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is, you are able to compare a document produced by a ballpoint pen with a document produced by a fountain pen and vice versa?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do the standards show both cursive writing and handprinting?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you explain meaning of the term "cursive writing"?

Mr. Cole. Cursive means connected writing, as the term is used, with a running connected hand, whereas handprinting refers to the separate writing of letters without the connection of letters and usually involves a somewhat different style for the formation of letters, that is Roman capital letters or the lower case letters.

Mr. Eisenberg. Cursive writing then is the type of writing which we normally use, which connects—in which the letters are connected, the type which is taught in schools?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, some of the standards which are in the group 774 to 783 are photographs rather than originals.

Mr. Cole. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Does a photograph in your opinion provide a sufficient standard on which to base a conclusion as to a questioned document?

Mr. Cole. Well, I believe these particular photographs are satisfactory for that purpose.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would you draw a conclusion as to the origin of a questioned document if your only standard was a photograph?

Mr. Cole. If the photographs were comparable to the photographs we have in this case; yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, you examined the standards in their entirety, did you?

Mr. Cole. I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you have stated in answer to an earlier question they were all prepared by the same person, as I understood it?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. What is unique about these photographs that gives you this certainty or——

Mr. Cole. Well, I did not mean to indicate they are of a specially good quality, but I had in mind the possible existence of other photographs which would be much poorer and would not provide a satisfactory basis. I think that on these photographs I can see everything that is necessary to see to appreciate writing habit.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, when you say the standards were all written by one person, that is with the exception of initials put on by law enforcement officers and the like?

Mr. Cole. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Cole, returning to 773, the questioned document, can you tell the Commission how you formed the conclusion that it was prepared by the author of the standards, that is, what steps you followed in your examination and comparison, what things you considered, what instruments or equipment you used, and so forth?

Mr. Cole. I made first a careful study of the writing on Commission Exhibit 773 without reference to the standard writing, in an effort to determine whether or not this writing contained what I would regard as a basis for identification, contained a record of writing habit, and as that—as a result of that part of my examination, I concluded that this is a natural handwriting. By that I mean that it was made at a fair speed, that it doesn't show any evidence of an unnatural movement, poor line quality, tremor, waver, retouching, or the like. I regard it as being made in a fluent and fairly rapid manner which would record the normal writing habits of the person who made it.

I then made a separate examination of the standards, of all of the standard writings, to determine whether that record gave a record of writing habit which could be used for identification purposes, and I concluded that it, too, was a natural handwriting and gave a good record of writing habit.

I then brought the standard writings together with the questioned writing for a detailed and orderly comparison, considering details of letter forms, proportion, pen pressure, letter connections, and other details of handwriting habit, and as a part of my examination I made photographs of the standard writings and brought certain parts of them together on a chart for greater convenience in comparing the standards with the questioned writing.

The Chairman. Gentlemen, I think it will be necessary for me to leave now, Congressman Ford, you will preside, will you, please? I appreciate it.

(Discussion off the record.)

(At this point, the Chief Justice left the hearing room.)

Representative Ford. Proceed.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, you mentioned that the writing in both the questioned document, 773, and the standard seem to be produced at a natural speed.

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. How do you determine that any document is produced at a natural speed?

Mr. Cole. Because that conforms to a large number of other specimens that I have examined over a period of years which I knew to be normal writing. Specifically, it agrees with respect to the quality of the line, which is reasonably good in this handwriting and which I would expect to be quite poor in an unnatural specimen, one that had been made at an abnormally reduced writing speed.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you expand further on what you mean by "quality of the line"?

Mr. Cole. Well, quality of line is—refers to the sharpness of the edges of lines, to the absence of tremor, waver, patching, retouching, and similar defects.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, could you explain the basis on which you were able to make an identification of a questioned writing as being authored by the person who wrote a standard writing?

Mr. Cole. This is based upon the principle that every handwriting is distinctive, that since the mental and physical equipment for producing handwriting is different in every individual, each person produces his own distinctive writing habits. Of course, everyone learns to write in the beginning by an endeavor to repeat ideal letter forms, but practically no one is able to reproduce these forms exactly. Even though a person might have some initial success during the active period of instruction, he soon departs from these and develops his own habits. It may be said that habit in handwriting is that which makes handwriting possible. Habit is that which makes handwriting efficient. If it were not for the development of habit, one would he obliged to draw or sketch.

Some habit would be included even in those efforts. But the production of handwriting rapidly and fluently always involves a recording of personal writing habit. This has been confirmed by observation of a very large number of specimens over a long period of time, and it has further been demonstrated by, on my part, having a formal responsibility for rendering decisions about the identification of handwriting based upon an agreement of handwriting habit in situations where there would be a rigorous testing of the correctness of these decisions by field investigators, for example, of the law-enforcement agencies, and a demonstration that these results were confirmed by other evidence.

This is the basis for identification of handwriting.

Mr. Eisenberg. As I understand it, you mean you would make a preliminary identification of a suspect on the basis of handwriting and it has been your experience that field investigation confirms that determination with additional evidence?

Mr. Cole. This is not what I would call "a preliminary identification." This would be a formal presentation and formal report to other persons who are interested in the problem, and the investigation would be continued from that point.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, is handprinting as well as cursive writing unique to every individual?

Mr. Cole. Well, I would say much of it is. Not all of it. Handprinting doesn't always give the same amount of information about writing habit as does cursive writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are you always able to identify the author of a writing if you have a questioned document and a standard document?

Mr. Cole. No, sir; not always.

Mr. Eisenberg. And can you expand on that?

Mr. Cole. Well, some handwriting doesn't include enough distinctive features, or in some cases there may not be enough of it to give a complete enough record of handwriting habits to be certain that you have a basis for identification.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you need a sufficient basis in both the questioned and the standard?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do the standards that you have selected provide a sufficient basis for making identification?

Mr. Cole. They do.

Mr. Eisenberg. Without going into every questioned document separately, do the questioned documents which you have reviewed at my request each individually provide a sufficient basis for comparison?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Is there a difference of opinion in your profession as to how much or how little you need for this purpose?

Mr. Cole. Yes; I think it would vary from one worker to another, depending upon his experience in the work.

It sometimes happens that a person with limited experience may go to either one extreme or to the other. He may sometimes be rather reckless. Other times he may be extremely cautious.

Representative Ford. But the decision you have made in this case would be what other experts, in your opinion, would agree to?

Mr. Cole. I would say others with whom I am familiar, with whom I have worked and talked to, corresponded with over the years.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, can you characterize the skill of the author of the standards and Exhibit 773?

Mr. Cole. I would say it is an average skill.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are some of the standards prepared more skillfully than others?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you account for that at all?

Mr. Cole. I think there is a natural range of the use of skill in handwriting, possibly depending upon the purpose or the physical surroundings for producing handwriting or the writing instruments. When the conditions for producing handwriting are the best, and one's purpose is a perfectly free expression of his handwriting habit, then he may produce a better handwriting than when conditions are poor, such as an awkward writing position or poor writing tools.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, you mentioned earlier that you had prepared some photographs or charts——

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Showing the standards or portions thereof?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you produce those charts?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Cole, you have produced here three large charts, each entitled "Standard Writing" and bearing the designations "A," "B," and "C" in the upper left-hand corners. Can you tell us precisely what is reflected on these charts A, B, and C?

Mr. Cole. These charts show excerpts from the standard writings, sometimes showing a portion of a line, other times showing a single word or a block of writing from the standard exhibits.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were these charts, which are in the form of photographic reproductions, prepared by you or under your supervision, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. They were.

Mr. Eisenberg. Are they true and accurate reproductions of the portions of the standard writings they purport to reproduce?

Mr. Cole. They are.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may these be admitted as 784A, B, and C?

Representative Ford. They may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 784A, B, and C were marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, have you prepared a photograph of Exhibit 773?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. Will you produce that photograph, please? Was that photograph 773 made by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. And is it a true and accurate reproduction of 773?

Mr. Cole. Yes, it is.

Mr. Eisenberg. May this be admitted as 785, Mr. Chairman?

Representative Ford. It may be.

(Commission Exhibit No. 785 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, the quality of 785, the reproduction, seems to be somewhat brighter or whiter than 773. Can you explain that? The contrast seems sharper.

Mr. Cole. Yes, that was purposely done in an effort to improve the legibility of the handwriting shown on 773. It simply involves the technique of developing the negative and making the print. It doesn't add to or take anything away from 773.

Representative Ford. It doesn't change the quality of the handwriting?

Mr. Cole. No, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, could you please explain by reference to 785 and 784A, and B, and C, why you concluded that the author of the standards reproduced in part on 784A, B, and C was also the author of 785?

Mr. Cole. There is an agreement in details of the formation of letters which I think are distinctive to this writer.

In other words, it involves unusual departures from the conventional or copybook method of forming letters. One example is the capital letter "A" on 785 in the name "A. Hidell." The stroke on the left side of that capital is first a down stroke, which is almost exactly retracted by an upstroke.

In other words, this is more than necessary to give the bare outline of the letter, and this extra stroke is a characteristic of the standard writing, and it may be observed in a number of places on the charts A, B, and C. One place where it may be observed is on chart "C," item 8 in the capital "A" in "Orleans." We have a downstroke on the left side of the letter which is almost exactly retracted by the upstroke.

Mr. Eisenberg. This downstroke starts just above the left side of the bar across the "A," is that the downstroke you are referring to?

Mr. Cole. Yes, that is correct.

Representative Ford. Would that also be true in chart C, item 4, in the "A" in "Harvey"?

Mr. Cole. Yes. As a matter of fact, virtually every "A," capital "A" produced in the standard writing has that feature. There are some few that lack it, but it occurs often enough to show that it is a habit of this writer, and it corresponds with the "A" shown on 785.

Now, not all features of this writing are regarded as being useful for identification. Some of the more simplified forms naturally have less individuality. That would be true of the capital letter "H" in "Hidell." While I don't see any significant difference, neither does the letter have any identifying feature.

When we pass over to the letter "i" though, in "Hidell," we see a feature which is distinctive, and that is the emphasis on the first stroke of the letter, the elongation of the approach stroke. Here again is something which the writer does as a matter of habit, it is not an essential feature for producing a legible "i." And we also have the circumstance that most small letter "i's" show an increase in forehand slant. Both of these features, the emphasis of an approach stroke and the increase in forehand slant, are found in the standard writing.

Representative Ford. Would you explain in lay terms what you mean by "an increase in forehand slant"?

Mr. Cole. A slant to the right.

One place where that may be observed in the letter "i" is on chart A, item 8, in the word "it." Another place where rather an exaggerated effect of the elongation of the approach stroke may be observed is on chart A, item 3, in the "t" of the "the." Of course, this requires a similar movement as that used in producing the letter "i," and this elongation of the approach stroke agrees with the effect found on 785.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, in chart A, item 8, the word "in" appears. Do you see the same elongated approach stroke in that word?

Mr. Cole. It is not elongated, but it is made somewhat with extra pressure. We also have an instance of extra pressure on "i"—there is a very small bulb of ink which indicates an extra pressure on the beginning stroke. I might point that out as being a feature of the approach stroke shown in the letter "t" on chart A, item 3.

Mr. Eisenberg. Proceed.

Mr. Cole. Now, I won't mention each and every letter in this writing. When I pass over a letter, the meaning is that at that particular point I don't find anything distinctive with respect to writing habit, although at the same time I do not find any significant difference.

I now move to the combination of "l," the double "l's" in "Hidell" in 785. Here we observe that the second "l" is somewhat larger than the first, and we find from time to time in the standard writing where there are a pair of "l's" that the second is larger than the first, one example is chart A, item 5, the word "filled."

In the capital letter "B" of the word "Box" on 785, still in the upper left corner, we observe that the upper lobe of the "B," that is, the closed circular form near the top of the letter, is somewhat smaller than the lower lobe. These proportions I observed in the standard writing, one item is found on chart A, item 9, "B" of "Board."

In the capital "D" of "Dallas" on 785, the relationship of the capital loop, I mean the looped form at the top of that capital letter, is similar to that relationship which we found in "D's" of the standard writing, one item being on chart B, item 2, in the abbreviation "Dept.," and in that same item 2 the capital "D" of "D.C." along the bottom line.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, on chart A-6 there is another initial "D." Would you say that bears the same conformation?

Mr. Cole. Yes; it is similar, although the loop is not complete. The aspect of the cap loop, I would say, would be the same if the loop had been completed. It is not as complete there as it is in other examples.

In the word "Dallas," the terminal "s," still referring to 785, is modified from the conventional or copybook method of making that letter by being flattened out, forced far over on its side. In other words, it has an extreme forehand slant rather than standing up in a more vertical position which we would find in a copybook. The same is true of the terminal "s" in the word "Texas" in that area. Now this, too, is a habit found in the standard writings, one good example being chart B at the end of item 3, the "s" of the word "this."

In the word "Texas" a very distinctive method of forming the letter "x" is observed. Now, this involves first the production, passing directly from the letter "e" first the production of a point or cusp, and then an underhand movement similar to that which would be required for the letter "u," then with the pencil on the paper another point or cusp is produced. The word is finished with the letters "as," and then the cross bar is made in such a manner that it runs along the side of the second cusp. In other words, the basic part of the "x" form, that is, the part which is connected to the other writings, is somewhat in the shape of a shallow "u." May I demonstrate that on a pad here?

Mr. Eisenberg. Please, Mr. Cole.

Mr. Cole. I have just drawn here an "x" diagraming the form observed on 785 which shows its production of a shallow "u" shape, with the cross bar striking across the second point of that "u" shaped form. This, I say, is highly distinctive, and it is found in the standard writing in several places.

Mr. Eisenberg. Pardon me. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce that diagram as 786?

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 786 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Cole. This distinctive formation of the "x" is observed on chart B, item 4, in the word "Texas," also in the same chart B, item 13, in the word "Texas," and also item 12 on the same chart.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, did you say there was no pen lift after finishing the second cusp, until the letters "as" are added?

Mr. Cole. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that the "x" is not crossed, so to speak, until the entire word is correct.

Mr. Cole. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. How distinctive would you regard this form as being?

Mr. Cole. Well, I regard it as highly unusual and carrying a good deal of weight for identification purposes, because it is a wide departure from the copybook method or conventional method of making the letter, and it involves the addition of a part rather than an omission which might come from carelessness.

Still considering Exhibit 785 and inspecting the word "Air" of "Air mail," just under the stamp, I find a correspondence in the letter forms with the standard writing. Chart B, item 5, where the same word is reproduced, "Air." One distinctive feature there is the simplified method of making the shoulder of the letter "r." Where the copybook or conventional form would show first a point at the top of the "r" and then the production of a rounded shoulder, this omits the point, form and develops immediately into a rapidly sloping or curving down slope.

Mr. Eisenberg. Will you illustrate the copybook form on your chart paper, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. The conventional or copybook form of this "r" would be approximately in this manner: Cusp at the top, broad shoulder on the right side.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have that admitted as 787, Mr. Chairman, the copybook form of the "r"?

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 787 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Cole. The letter "m" in "mail" in 785, with respect to the unusually broad spread of the arches of that letter, corresponds with the letter "m" on chart B, item 6, top line, in the word "me," where we have a similar spreading of the width of the arches of the "m."

The capital "K" in the word "Klein's" on 785 compares favorably with "K's" in the standard writing, chart A, items 13 and 14.

Again, this word "Klein's" demonstrates a habit on 785 of a somewhat greater forehand slant for the letter "i," that is, as contrasted with the slant observed for the letter "e," and it also shows this tendency to flatten out or run the letter "s" along the writing lines, rather than giving it a more vertical position, and this has already been observed in the standard writing. The entire word "Dept." that is, the abbreviation "Dept," on 785, compares favorably with that word as shown on chart B, item 2, that is the same abbreviation, "Dept."

I will mention specifically two details of the letter "p." One is that it lacks an upper extension, which is a part shown in most copybook forms. In other words, there is no part of the staff—which, of course, is connected to the lower extension—which extends above the body of that letter, and that is true both as between the questioned "p" on 785 and that shown on chart B, item 2, in the abbreviation of "Dept." Another feature is the failure to bring the body in to a point where it touches the staff, and this is a frequent feature in the "p's" in the standard writing. Now, on chart B, not only in the abbreviation of the word "Dept." in item 2, but moving down to consideration of item 3 and the word "receipt," we observe a similar effect in the letter "p."

In the letter "t," a distinctive feature is the abruptness of ending that letter just before it reaches the writing line, which would differ from other letters, which touch the writing line, and many of which have a rising terminal stroke. In the questioned writing on 785 in "t" of "Dept," and also in the "t" in the abbreviation of "street" in the line below, we have just such a thing in the letter "t" which is shown from time to time in the standard writing—one example being chart A, item 13 in the abbreviation of "street." We have the same effect on chart A, item 8, in the word "it."

In the word "Washington" on 785, one distinctive feature is the curved staff of the letter "g." In other words, there is a continuous curve from the apex of the "g" down to the bottom of the lower extension, and this method of treating a "g" is repeated in the standard writing, one example being chart A, item 2, in the word "obligations."

Mr. Eisenberg. Would that also be true in chart B, item 10, in the word "Washington"?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; a very good example of it.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, that item B-10 is spelled differently from the standard, from the questioned document, rather. Does that—what is your opinion as to that variation in spelling?

Mr. Cole. There are a number of misspellings in the standard writings, and sometimes in the standard you will find words repeated in a correct spelling and at other times with an incorrect spelling. In other words, there is a variation in that respect. I think it comes partly from carelessness, not essentially from lack of knowledge of how to spell the word.

Representative Ford. These variations would be in the same letter or the same document?

Mr. Cole. Yes; sometimes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Actually there is an example of that in B-2, where Washington is spelled incorrectly?

Mr. Cole. That is correct. Now, in the combination of letters "cago" just below the word "Washington" on 785, we also have a repetition of this curved right side of the letter "g" found also in the standard writing, and another feature worth noticing there is the closing of the letter "o" rather far back on the upper left side of the letter. This is distinctive because many writers are reluctant to make leftward strokes, since the normal movement of handwriting is from left to right, and this I would say represents a writing habit in the questioned writing which is also repeated in the standard in a number of places. Chart B, in the abbreviation "no," of item 10, that is, the second segment of item 10, and also in the zero, item 11, you see a similar method of closing that circular form far back on the left side of the letter.

Representative Ford. That would appear also in B-13 in the word "to"?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Representative Ford. Is there a difference in B-15 "you"?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; there is, but we are dealing with a terminal form in the questioned writing. In other words, the opportunities for expressing this particular habit is present in terminal forms and not medial forms, the forms inside a word.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you find generally or often that a writer's terminal forms or beginning forms will differ from the forms inside of the—the letters inside of the word?

Mr. Cole. Yes; in that it gives a different opportunity for expression of writing habit.

Mr. Eisenberg. So is this an unusual—is this unusual, then that the terminal form should be different?

Mr. Cole. No; not at all.

I invite attention to the exaggerated length of the comma following the figure "6" on 785. This is repeated in the standard writing on chart B, item 2, the comma following the word "chief." Also on chart B the commas in items 1 and 9, following the word "Dallas." The double "l's" of the abbreviation "Ill" on 785, again show the habit of making the second "l" somewhat larger than the first, which was previously pointed out as corresponding to the standard writing on chart A, item 5 in the word "filled."

The form of the capital letter "I" of "Ill" on 785 compares favorably with that form as on on chart B, items 3 and 4 where we have the personal pronoun "I." Now, moving now to the writing which is a part of the order form bearing the name "Klein's" on this same Exhibit 785, I will draw attention to the method of making the dollar sign before the amount "19.95." In the copybook or conventional method of making this particular sign the "S" shape is usually fairly prominent. In other words, the crossbars are usually subordinated to the "S" shape. Here we observe a very heavy pressure and exaggerated length and wide spacing of those crossbars, which almost obliterate the "S" shaped part of the dollar sign. This is shown in the standard writing chart B, item 6, second line, the dollar sign preceding "$2."

On this order form the figure "5" of the amount "$19.95" shows an exaggerated length of the final stroke of the "5," I mean the approximately horizontal stroke across the top of the letter. That same habit was previously observed in the "5" of the combination "2915" at the upper left of 785. Now, this method of—excuse me, let me mention one more example of that letter "5" on 785. On the order form, the figure "5" of the post office box number "2915" shows the same feature. Moving now to the standard writing, we find that treatment of the letter "5," of the figure "5," on chart B, item 7, in the combination of figures "6225." It is also shown on chart B, item 1, in the combination of figures "2915," and again in the same position, item 9 of chart B.

In the name "A. Hidell," I observe that we have a capital "H" and we have capital forms of the "l's" but the remainder of the name uses lower case letters, "ide" as lower case letters.

Mr. Eisenberg. This is in the order blank again?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir. This habit of using a combination of capital and small letters is a habit in the standard writing. One example would be chart C, item 6, where various words show a similar mixture. For example, in the name "Oswald" we have capital forms for "O," "S," "W," and "A," but a lower case letter for the "l" and "d." Dropping down to the word "Mercedes," we have capital forms for "M," "R," "C," and "S," but in that same word the letters "e" and "d" have lower case forms. And this mixture of capitals and small letters, as I say is found frequently in the standard writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. Well, is a mixture like that infrequent—apart from the particular letters which you use as small or large letters?

Mr. Cole. Well, I would say it is a part of this man's handwriting habit to make such mixtures. Another person who might mix capital and lower case forms might perhaps select different letters for that purpose. In other words, I think in this writing we find that very frequently as to the letter "i" and the letter "e."

Mr. Eisenberg. Is the fact of mixture itself significant?

Mr. Cole. Yes; it is a part of his writing habit.

Mr. Eisenberg. How highly individualistic is the fact of mixture to this person's writing?

Mr. Cole. I regard it as having a fair weight. I wouldn't classify it with the very considerable weight we give to that distorted form of the "x" but I think it is just one more point for consideration with all of the other similarities.

A similar mixture is found in the word "Texas." Again referring to the order form of 785, we have all capital letters except the letter "e," and then moving over to the standard writing, see the word "Texas" on chart C, item 1, the use of capital letters except as to the "e" form.

Representative Ford. The same would be true, I gather, on C-7 in the use of "e" in the word "Texas"?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir. This combination of agreement in the details of forms of letters, proportions, and other features between the writing on Commission Exhibit 785 and various parts of the standard writing constitute the basis for my opinion that the writings are in the hand of the same person.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, in many cases you have either pointed to, or it can be noted, that there are differences or variations within the writing of the standards or in the writing of the questioned documents. Is this unusual?

Mr. Cole. No; as a matter of fact, it is usual to find variations in handwriting, and, of course, that is demonstrated by the various standard writing that we have here, where you find the same combination of letters they are not identical with a photographic sameness, but they have a range of variation. I would say that no part of the questioned writing that we have considered on 785 would go outside of that normal range of variation which is true in the standards.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you find any differences between 785—or 773, of which 785 is a reproduction—and the standards?

Mr. Cole. I don't find anything that I would regard as a significant difference, but, of course, there are points where there is not a perfect identity. For example, in the combination of letters "Ill." an abbreviation for Illinois, while we don't have that same abbreviation in the standards, we have got the full name written out on chart B, item 5, and item 14. We have a smooth curved connection between the "I" and the following "l" in those particular parts of the standard, but there is an angular connection on 785 between the same letters. That is a difference or variation, but I don't regard it as necessarily being a significant one. It could be merely an accidental feature, a momentary hesitation on 785 before proceeding into the making of the "l."

Mr. Eisenberg. Why don't you conclude on the basis of that difference that the questioned document was written by a different author than the standard documents?

Mr. Cole. Because it is not nearly enough to raise such a question. There would be required for an opinion that this was made by some other person, a similar body of differences corresponding to the similarities that I have talked about. In other words, if in fact this was in the handwriting of some other person, I would expect to be able to make about the same demonstration with respect to differences as I have already made with regard to similarity.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would you need to find as many differences as similarities in order to say there was a different author involved in the questioned and standard?

Mr. Cole. No; depending upon the character of the differences. A fairly small number would prevent a conclusion of identity or show the hand of some other person, if they were really distinctive differences.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, did you find any evidence in 773 that the author attempted to disguise his handwriting?

Mr. Cole. Were you referring to 785?

Mr. Eisenberg. 785 is a reproduction of 773. You can use 785 to answer the question, yes.

Mr. Cole. There is one faint suggestion of that possibility. It doesn't permit a conclusion that that was the purpose. But I refer to the use of a lower case "t" in the word "texas" in the return address in the upper left corner. Since this writer demonstrates a good knowledge about the formation of capital letters, it is possible that the choice to make a lower case "t" was a deliberate one, and it could have been at that particular point for the purpose of disguise. But I say if that was his purpose, it certainly was not maintained, and would be a very faint effort toward disguise.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, do you consider it unusual for a person to use an alias without attempting to disguise his handwriting?

Mr. Cole. No; I would not.

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you had any experience along those lines?

Mr. Cole. Yes; I have observed a number of aliases where there is no particular effort to disguise.

Mr. Eisenberg. In your capacity as questioned document examiner of the Treasury Department, do you receive for examination checks, the endorsements on which have been forged?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And on any occasion does the endorsement, the forged endorsement, does the forged endorsement indicate that no effort, no attempt has been made to disguise the endorsements?

Mr. Cole. That is a rather frequent condition, that the spurious endorsement is made without an attempt to conceal or disguise writing habit or to imitate the writing of any other person.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, do you know on the basis of your experience whether individuals ever resort to handprinting as an attempt at disguise?

Mr. Cole. Yes; it is a rather frequent method of disguise.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, you testified earlier that handprinting can be identified as to author?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is this common knowledge, that is to say——

Mr. Cole. It is common knowledge among document examiners. I don't think it is common knowledge among others.

Mr. Eisenberg. Might a layman attempt to disguise his handwriting simply by resorting to undisguised handprinting?

Mr. Cole. Yes; he might.

Mr. Eisenberg. What are the usual evidences of disguise, by the way, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Well, in cursive handwriting the usual evidences of disguise involve some unnaturalness, such as a reduction of writing speed, and other distortions such as writing very large, with an exaggerated freedom, where parts of letters of various words are run together; such as an exaggerated length of lower extensions and upward extensions which tends to intermingle forms and make it difficult to see the details of them; or writing very small, in almost microscopic size where, again, the width of a pen stroke itself tends to conceal details of handwriting; alterations of slant, such as a person who normally writes a forehand slant or slanting to the right, changing to a vertical or a backhand slant. Most efforts at disguise are not well planned. They usually involve a determination to alter the writing along one particular line such as writing very large, very small, or a change in the slant. Other features are the simplification of letter forms. For example, a person attempting to conceal a writing habit may feel that his writing habit is revealed mostly by capital letters so you might have him using printed forms for capitals, but cursive forms for most other letters.

Representative Ford. Can you tell the difference between a right-handed and a left-handed person by either cursive or capital letters?

Mr. Cole. No, sir; not definitely. Left-handed writers tend to write more vertically, and for that particular left-hand writer who holds his hand above the writing line, this gives a reversal of the pressure on what would ordinarily be regarded as upstrokes and downstrokes, and when you see that reversal this is an indication of left-hand writing. But it is only when you have that special circumstance that you get that signal about it.

Representative Ford. Is there anything in any of the writings that you have analyzed of Lee Harvey Oswald of an indication that he was left-handed?

Mr. Cole. Well, I wouldn't say that I could make a determination of whether he was left-handed or right-handed.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, in your expert work do you draw a distinction between a spurious and a forged document?

Mr. Cole. Well, I think of the word "forgery" as having that legal connotation of malice or intent. The production of a false writing with an intention to deceive or defraud somebody else. Spurious writing means a false writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is, a writing produced by one hand calculated to look as if it had been produced by another?

Mr. Cole. Well, not necessarily, that situation that you just discussed would involve simulation of the person's, another person's writing. But the word "spurious" could refer to a false writing, the writing of the name of one person by another who had no particular right to do it. But, of course, if the element of an intent to defraud is not there, I suppose in a legal sense it is not forgery.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, what are the elements which you look for to see whether a person, A, has attempted to reproduce the handwriting of another person, B, with intent to deceive or otherwise?

Mr. Cole. Two categories of differences. One, defects of line quality, by which is meant tremor, waver, patching, retouching, and noncontinuous lines, pen lifts in awkward and unusual places. And the other class of differences is details of the forms of letters, by which I mean that when the person attempting to simulate another writing concentrates upon the reproduction of one detail, he is likely not to see other details. He may, for example, be able to imitate the gross form of a letter but he may get proportions wrong or letter connections wrong.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is the probability that person A could imitate the handwriting of person B without leaving a telltale trace in one of these two categories?

Mr. Cole. I think it is only a very remote possibility. But I would add to that the need for having a fairly extensive specimen of writing. Of course the possibility of a successful simulation is better with smaller specimens of writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, did you find any evidence in either category that a person had attempted to simulate the writing of the author of the standards in this case in producing either 773 or any of the other questioned documents which you examined?

Mr. Cole. No; I did not find such indications.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you feel, did you say, there would be only a remote probability that in the absence of such indication such a simulation could exist?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. When you say remote, could you put this in terms of figures?

Mr. Cole. I would say there is no reasonable possibility of it, and I will put it this way: That from my study of these documents, there is no particular element or elements of the handwriting that I can point to and say this could be evidence of simulation.

Mr. Eisenberg. You mentioned before that you need to have a sufficient amount of writing to make that type of determination. Do you feel that the questioned documents provided a sufficient amount of writing for that?

Mr. Cole. They do.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is that individually or collectively?

Mr. Cole. Individually.

Representative Ford. All of the illustrations on 784 A, B, and C are taken from Commission exhibits——

Mr. Eisenberg. 774–783.

Representative Ford. Collectively?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Carrying that question forward, on what basis did you select excerpts from 774 to 783 to reproduce 784 A, B, and C?

Mr. Cole. The chief effort was to collect together in a fairly small space items that were appropriate for comparison through repetition of the same material, and in doing that there was kept in mind the general purpose of giving a good representative cross section of all of the writing habit illustrated in the standard writings.

Mr. Eisenberg. Well, that anticipates my next question, which is, whether this is a representative cross section or was selected in order to reproduce those particular characteristics you find in the questioned documents.

Mr. Cole. I think it is a representative cross section, and I say a part of the effort was to bring here some letters and combinations for convenience of comparison. It was in no way an effort to substitute these charts for the originals.

Mr. Eisenberg. Your actual examination was made on the basis of the originals or the charts, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Yes; all of the—the chief examination was made upon the basis of the originals and all parts of the originals, not limited to the parts shown in the charts.

Mr. Eisenberg. These charts are only for demonstrative purposes, making your testimony easier to follow, is that correct?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. You discussed briefly, Mr. Cole, or perhaps more than briefly, the use of a photograph as a standard. Now, in the case of 773, a photograph is used as a questioned document, or rather a questioned document consists of a photograph. Are the comments you made on the use of a photograph as a standard applicable to the use of a photograph as a questioned document, that is, can you make a determination on the handwriting in a photograph?

Mr. Cole. With these photographs I think a satisfactory determination can be made. I would not necessarily include all photographs.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes?

Mr. Cole. Because there is a widely varying quality in photographs.

Mr. Eisenberg. When you say these photographs, do you include the other photographs included among the questioned documents you have examined at my request?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a U.S. postal money order in the amount of $21.45, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods, from "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." For the record I will state that this money order was included with the purchase order in Exhibit 773 which has just been identified, and was intended and used as payment for the weapon shipped in response to the purchase order, 773. I ask you, Mr. Cole, whether you have examined this money order for the purpose of determining whether it was prepared by the author of the standards?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this money order admitted as 788?

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

(The document was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you prepared a photograph of that Exhibit 788, the money order?

Mr. Cole. Yes; I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. And you have produced that photograph for me just now, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was this prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is it an accurate photograph of 788?

Mr. Cole. It is.

Mr. Eisenberg. May this be admitted as 789, Mr. Chairman?

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 789, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, before you discuss your conclusion, the handwriting on 788 seems to have a slight blur in some parts. Could you explain that in any way?

Mr. Cole. Yes; it is my view that this document has been in contact with moisture which affected the ink of the handwriting. Such contact might have been through an effort to develop fingerprints.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was it or is it discolored at this point at all, do you think?

Mr. Cole. There are only two small areas of discoloration on this document, one of them being along the upper edge just above the figure "9," and the other along the right edge just opposite the figure "5." This indicates to me that at one time this document was more deeply stained but has been cleared up by some chemical bleach.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was it in the same condition when you examined it as it is now?

Mr. Cole. It was.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, would you explain by use of charts 784 A, B, and C, and the photograph 789, why you conclude 788 was prepared by the author of the standards in this case?

Mr. Cole. On the photograph, 789, I invite attention to the capital "K" of "Klein's," which compares favorably in form to the "K's" of exhibit—of chart A, items 13 and 14, with the exception of a larger circle at the center of that "K" on the right side of 789, which is not reproduced in the standards, but it is my belief that this writer might well produce such a circular form when a letter is somewhat larger and more freely made.

Mr. Eisenberg. On what do you base that belief, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. That that would be a normal result of greater freedom and a larger writing, it would produce a circular form rather than an angle.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is this based upon your experience with questioned documents and making analyses?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; now, in that——

Mr. Eisenberg. Excuse me 1 second. Just to elaborate on that. Do I take it that your experience is such that you have found you can predict forms of letters based upon the samples you have before you, predict forms which may be used in other samples by the same author?

Mr. Cole. Well, within certain narrow limits. That is, having information about the range of variation in the body of standard writing, it is reasonable to make a small allowance for the production of forms not actually illustrated there, as long as they are consistent with the forms that are actually available for examination. In other words, I would regard it as a consistent thing in this writing to occasionally produce a circle at the center portion of a letter "K"; it does not, in my opinion, represent a difference of writing habit.

Now, in that same word we observe a habit heretofore mentioned of increasing the amount of forehand slant, in the letter "i"—that is in "Klein's" of the photograph 789—which has previously been observed in the standard writing. Several examples have been pointed out. For the present, I will mention the one on chart A, item 1 in the word "obligations," the second letter "i" there shows an increased forehand slant. The same is true of the "i" of the word "firm" on the same line.

The combination of letters in the word "sporting," that is, the combination "port," are illustrated in the standard writing, chart A, item 2 in the word "support," item 3 in the word "port," in item 4 in the word "transportation," and here we find very close agreement in all details of those letter forms. With respect to the letter "p," the absence of an under extension, that is, the absence of any part rising above the arched part of the letter on the writing line, and the circumstance that the body of the letter or arch, as it is shown here on the photograph 789, is not brought all the way into the staff, it is made almost as a pure arch form with no movement in here towards the staff, which is the same movement we have here on chart A, item 3 in the word "port," repeated also on item 4, and in the two "p's" of item 2. Now, there is a distinctive method of making the connection between the letters "o" and "r," by drawing a very straight line, horizontal line almost exactly paralleling the base of the word across from the letter "o" to the "r" on the photograph 789, and this movement is also repeated on chart A, items 3 and 4, in the combination letters "or" also in item 2 in the same combination of letters.

This writing demonstrates the habit in the figure "5" of a considerable exaggeration of the final stroke of the letter, or the cap stroke, a horizontal stroke at the top of the letter observed on the photograph 789, and shown in several places in the standard writing, some of which have already been mentioned, one being on chart C, item 7, and on chart B, items 1 and 9, the figure "5."

Also in this writing, we find that highly distinctive "x" form in the word "Texas," involving the production of a shallow U-shaped form with the crossbar passing across the second point of that U-shaped form for the word "Texas." This is the basis for my conclusion that the questioned writing on the money order is in the hand of the author of the standard writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 135, which, for the record, consists of the purchase order to Seaport Traders from "A. Hidell" for the revolver which was used in the murder of Officer Tippit.

Mr. Cole, have you examined Commission Exhibit 135 to determine whether it was produced by the author of the standards in this case?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is your conclusion?

Mr. Cole. It is my conclusion that this handwriting is in the hand of the person who produced the standard writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you taken a photograph of 135?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would you produce that, please?

Was this photograph prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is it an accurate reproduction of 135?

Mr. Cole. It is.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have that admitted as 790?

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 790, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, could you explain your reasons for your conclusion by reference to the charts 784 A, B, and C, and to the photograph, 790?

Mr. Cole. On the photograph 790 I invite attention to the first line of handprinting, which has a long horizontal line drawn through it. Toward the ends of that line there is an amount which appears to read "$1.35," and I draw attention to the form of the dollar sign, which sign has already been mentioned in other writing, and here we find that same feature of subordinating the S part of the dollar sign to the crossbars, the crossbars being, or the verticals being made in such a way as to practically obliterate the S-shaped part. There, again, that is a feature of writing habit of the author of the writing on 790 which corresponds with the habit in the standard writing shown on chart B, item 6, second line, in the amount "$2.00."

Next, I draw your attention, in the approximate area as that just discussed on 790 there, to the amount "29.95." Now, with respect to the form of the figure "2" we observe a rounded cap or top to the letter and a rather prominent loop to the base, and it is observed that the leftward extension of the cap of the letter is considerably short of the amount of leftward motion across the base. This corresponds to the form and placement of parts as shown in the standard writing chart B, item 1, in the combination "2915."

In that same amount, on the photograph 790, again we observe the exaggerated length of the cap of the figure "5" which corresponds to the standard writing, chart B, item 1, the figure "5" there.

The dollar sign which was previously described is repeated in the amount "$10.00" on the left side of the photograph 790, and I believe that the treatment of the verticals there is the same, that is, an unusually heavy pressure, but it appears that the pen was not delivering a normal quantity of ink at that point. Nevertheless, there is this same effect of almost obliterating the S-shaped part of the dollar sign.

Now, moving on down to the bottom part of the photograph 790, and considering first the form of the "B" in the word "Box" on the address line, here again we observe that tendency of a fairly small upper lobe relative to the size of the lower lobe of the "B," and this is repeated in the standard writing, one place being chart B, item 1, in the "B" of "Box."

The word "DALLAS" on the photograph 790 shows capital "L's" which have a compound curve across the base: that is, instead of a simplified form of letter, where there would be a simple straight line across the base, we have first a rising stroke and then a stroke that curves downward towards the writing line. This compound curve across the base of "L's" is repeated in the standard writing, chart B, item 1 and 9, in the same word "DALLAS."

Again, on the photograph 790, the second letter "A" in "DALLAS" illustrates a habit previously mentioned of using a downstroke to begin the left side of the "A," which stroke is almost exactly traced, and this too is repeated in the standard, chart B, item 1, the second "A" of "DALLAS." Opposite the printed word "State" on photograph 790, the word "Texas" again shows this mixture of capital forms and lower-case forms, specifically the use of a lower case "e" in combination with capital letters, which is true in the standard writing, chart B, items 1 and 9, in the word "Texas."

This constitutes my reasons for believing that the questioned writing shown in the photograph 790 is in the hand of the author of the standard writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, there seems to be a very varying amount of blackness or color in the ink on Commission Exhibit 135, which is shown up in your photograph. Do you have any explanation for that?

Mr. Cole. I think the pen was not functioning properly, that very heavy pressure was used on the document to bring the ink down from the pen, and we can see that the writer is reacting to this, for example, in the word "Box" on the address line, where you have only a moderate quantity of ink and then as you move along to the figures "2915" you observe that heavier pressure is used. In other words, it is my view that the writer observed that the pen was tending to fail, and that he increased pressure in order to persuade more ink to come down from the pen.

Mr. Eisenberg. There also seems to be a doubling of lines in some parts, such as the "J" in "A. J. Hidell," and the upper area also of "A. J. Hidell."

Mr. Cole. Yes; that could very well be for the same reasons, because if you move to the upper part of this exhibit there are other places where the pen almost failed. You have strokes that have a shallow center with ink only on the outside borders of strokes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, can you make out the writing which is printed in and then crossed out in this exhibit?

Mr. Cole. Well, a part of it.

Just below the printed word "Snubbie" there appears to be a line of writing which says, "1 AMMO," if that is "A-M-M-O"—the second "M" is somewhat indistinct. And then there is parenthesis, BOX of 25, close parenthesis, dollar mark, 1.35. Then just below that there is a line of writing, the first word of which I cannot make out, that is, I cannot make any intelligible word of it, but the second word appears to be "holster." In other words, the word "holster" would lie just above the words "total price" and then there follows some figures which appear to be "1.95."

Representative Ford. Is it your judgment on this exhibit that at the point where the applicant is required to give his age that it is "23" or "28"?

Mr. Cole. I would read that as "28."

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you make out the date which is next to that age, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Well, I read the first part of the date as 1/27, and I am unable to read the last figure, which is through a part of the very heavy dotted line.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do there seem to be one or two figures?

Mr. Cole. It looks like a single figure there following a diagonal.

(Discussion off the record.)

Representative Ford. Back on the record.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of part of an application for a post office box, dated "box opened October 9, 1962," and also dated in the lower right "October 9, 1962," with the signature "Lee H. Oswald" and I ask you whether you have examined that item?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have that admitted as 791, Mr. Chairman?

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 791 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you compared it with the standards in this case, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is your conclusion?

Mr. Cole. It is my conclusion that the handprinted name "Lee H. Oswald," the address "3519 Fairmore Ave.," and the signature "Lee H. Oswald" on this document are in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you prepared a photograph of 791?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you produce that?

Thank you. Is this photograph which you have handed me an accurate reproduction prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 792?

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 792 was marked and received in evidence.)

Representative Ford. Continue.

Mr. Eisenberg. Before we go any further, what is your conclusion concerning the words "Dallas, Texas" appearing after "Fairmore Ave."?

Mr. Cole. It is my conclusion that that wording is not in the writing of the author of the standard writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. And that in "2915"?

Mr. Cole. That is not in the handwriting of the author of the standards.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you have any idea who inserted that?

Mr. Cole. No, sir; I don't but I think in the handling of this kind of material it happens from time to time that a postal clerk may complete a document.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, with reference to 792 and 784 A, B, and C, could you explain the reasons for concluding that 791 is in the handwriting of the author of the standards as to those portions which you have designated as being in the handwriting of the author of the standards?

Mr. Cole. In the printed name at the upper left of the photograph 792 the capital "L" of "Lee" shows a compound curve across the base, which has previously been mentioned as a handwriting habit found in the standards, one example being on chart B, item 9, another example on chart C, item 4.

The name "Oswald" shows the use of capital forms except for the letters "ld." This particular use of a mixture of capitals and lower-case forms is found on chart C, item 1, at the top line where the final forms "l" and "d" are lower case forms.

I will mention also the particular writing movement used for constructing the letter "d," referring to the photograph 792. There is first a moderately long downstroke, and then without lifting the pen there is a rising movement which at the same time moves towards the left to complete the body of the letter. This method of construction is also observed in the standards, chart C, item 1, top line, in the "d" of "Oswald." Since there is a slightly more open effect at the base in this standard "d," the method of construction can be seen clearly, but it was made in the same way in the photograph, as shown by the photograph 792.

In the word "Fairmore," it is observed that on the photograph 792 there is a tendency to reduce the size of the small letter "i" and, of course, this is again an example of the use of the lower case form in combination with the capitals. The size relationship and the particular mixture of this form with capitals is shown in the standard writing chart C, item 5, in the word "deportations" and in the word "diet," also in item 9 in the word "curtailment."

The word "Fairmore" also shows the use of a lower case "e" in combination with capital letters, which has been observed frequently in several parts of the standard writing, one example not mentioned heretofore is item 3 of chart C in the word "discharge."

The signature "Lee H. Oswald" along the lower line shown by the photograph 792 compares favorably in all details with the signatures in the name of "Lee H. Oswald" in several standard charts, being on chart A, item 15; on chart B, again item 15; also on chart B, item No. 1; and on chart C, item 6, the next to the last line. Now, one distinctive feature of this signature is the writing movement employed in the combination of letters capital "O" and the "s" following, where the "s" form is rather blurred or corrupted. It does not give a complete capital "s" form, but instead the upper part of the "s" is represented only by a line which is approximately horizontal, sinking downwards to the base of the "s," and then a looped form at the base.

Mr. Eisenberg. You said a capital "s" form; did you mean that?

Mr. Cole. No; I meant that it is not a complete "s" form. It is somewhat slurred or blurred with respect to a true "s" form. This particular method of slurring the form is clearly illustrated on chart B, item 1, in the name "Oswald" and is also shown on chart B, item 15, in the name "Oswald."

(At this point Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)

Mr. Cole [continuing]. In the signature shown by the photograph 792, in the capital "L," we observe with regard to the base loop, this would be the lower half of the letter, we see a vertical aspect of that base loop. Now, in a more conventional or, say, a copybook form of a letter "L" you would find the base loop with a horizontal aspect, that is, stretched out along the writing line. Here we find a vertical aspect of that part, which is reproduced in the standard writing on chart A, item 15.

That last reference was to the base loop of the capital "L" of the signature "Lee H. Oswald" as shown by the photograph 792 as compared with chart A, item 15.

Now on the photograph 792, we observe that between the two upright strokes of the letter "H" there is a very thin diagonal line of joining. This is repeated in the standard writing, chart B, item 1, top line. Now, again in this "H" as shown on 792 we see this more or less vertical aspect of the treatment of a looped formation near the base of the right side of the letter "H," that is, instead of moving fully to the left to give a normal cross bar, there is only a base loop there which, I say, is made in a vertical direction. This is repeated in the standard writing, chart A, item 15, in the middle initial "H."

The "w" of "Oswald" shown by the photograph 792 is characterized by a rather full rounding across the base of the letter, and this degree of roundness is shown in the standard writing, chart B, item 15. There is a horizontal stroke which constitutes the letter connection between "w" and "a" shown by the photograph 792, and this method of making a connection is repeated in the standards, chart B, item 15.

Mr. Eisenberg. You say "w" and "a"?

Mr. Cole. "w" and "a".

The size relationship between the letter "l" and the letter "d" as shown by the photograph 792 is the same as that found on chart A, item 15. The relationship of the body of the "d"—by which I mean that part which would ordinarily rest on the writing line, and in a conventional form would be more or less circular—and the upper extension is also similar as between the photograph 792 and chart A, item 15. In other words, there is practically no roundness of the body. Again, we have got an emphasis of the more or less vertical strokes for what should be a rounded portion for the body.

This constitutes my reasons for believing that the questioned writing as shown by the photograph 792 is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. Any further questions on this application?

Representative Ford. No questions.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole. I now hand you an item consisting of a change-of-address card addressed to the "Postmaster, Dallas, Texas," dated May 12, 1963, relating to Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas, Tex., setting forth a new address at Magazine Street, New Orleans, and signed "Lee H. Oswald," and I ask you if you have examined that change-of-address card?

Mr. Cole. Yes, I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. May this be admitted as 793, Mr. Chairman?

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 793 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you compared that change-of-address card, 793, with the standards in this case?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is your conclusion?

Mr. Cole. It is my conclusion that the author of the writing on Exhibit 793 is the same person who executed the standard writings.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you prepare a photograph of 793?

Mr. Cole. I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you produce that?

Is this an accurate photograph, an accurate reproduction, of 793, prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Cole. Yes, it is.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may this be admitted as 794?

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 794 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. By reference to the photograph 794 and reference to your charts 784 A, B, and C, could you discuss the reasons which led you to your conclusion concerning this change-of-address card?

Mr. Cole. Handwriting habits shown by this exhibit, and I am looking now at the photograph 794, have been mentioned heretofore. If it is agreeable, I will simply review these in a body before proceeding to the standard writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, is that agreeable?

Representative Ford. You may proceed.

Mr. Cole. On line 1, shown by the photograph 794, the use of a lower case "l" and "d" in combination with capital letters, the compound curve across the base of the "L" in "Lee," the exaggerated length of the comma between the two names; below, in the word "BOX," the somewhat larger upper lobe of the capital "B"—excuse me, the somewhat smaller upper lobe of the capital "B" as contrasted with the larger lobe of that letter; in the "O" of "BOX" the connection or the closing of the "O" fairly high on the left side instead of towards the center or the right side, the same habit being also illustrated in the "O" in the combination "P.O."; the form of the "2" with the rather prominent base loop; the exaggerated length of the cap of the figure "5"; in the word "Dallas," the compound curve across the base of the "L"s; the circumstance that the "A" begins with a down stroke which is almost exactly retraced; the circumstance that the word "Texas" includes a lower case "e"; the use of the small letter "i" in combination with capital letters in the word "Magazine"; and similar features to those just described in the word "New Orleans."

Now, all of these things on the charts Exhibit A, B, and C

Mr. Eisenberg. I don't think you need to point to them in detail, since you have already pointed to those items.

Mr. Cole. Yes.

I also find a substantial agreement in details of the signature, "Lee H. Oswald," as shown by the photograph 794, and signatures shown in the standard writing, with particular regard to the signature of chart C, item 6, next to the last line.

This constitutes my reasons for believing that the writing on Commission Exhibit 793 is in the hand of the person who made the standard writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, there seems to be a double line in several of these letters on the reverse side of this change-of-address card, such as the "D" in "DALLAS," the "e" in "Texas" and so forth. Can you give any explanation for that?

Mr. Cole. Well, I think the double line is more evident in the address "4907 Magazine Street, New Orleans, La."

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes?

Mr. Cole. And a possible reason is that the writer was dissatisfied with the width of the line as shown on the two lines above. While I regard it as having a fair legibility, the only explanation I can see is that for this particular document the writer wanted a heavier writing and, of course, one way to get it is to go over it again.

A thing of this kind can also be related to a writer's knowledge of the functioning of a certain pen.

If he knows that the pen he is using usually gives a heavier line, and for a particular writing he sees a thinner line, he may then make some modification in his handling of the pen and get the kind of line he wants.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is this similar to the retouching you mentioned earlier as being an evidence of forgery?

Mr. Cole. I would say no, since it is done in such an apparently spontaneous and confident manner. There is not the slightest evidence that any effort was made to conceal the presence of this retracing. I think I should say that generally the person producing a false or spurious writing does retouching in order to correct some imperfection of a letter, that is, he criticizes his work as he goes along and if he encounters a part which he thinks is incorrect with respect to form, he may then retouch it in order to correct it. It would be very unusual in any false or spurious writing to see any extensive retracing.

Mr. Eisenberg. Any further questions on this card?

Representative Ford. No further questions.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item which appears to be a selective service system notice of classification with the name "Alek James Hidell" printed and the same signature, and a photograph which appears to be the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald—and I state for the record that this item was obtained from the wallet of Lee Harvey Oswald following his apprehension after the assassination and the murder of Officer Tippit—and I ask you whether you have examined that item?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. May that be admitted as 795, Mr. Chairman?

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 795 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. When did you first examine that item, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. May I refer to a note?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, certainly.

Mr. Cole. I first saw that item on December 6, 1963.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you make an examination at that time?

Mr. Cole. I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. At whose request was that?

Mr. Cole. At the request of the Chief, U.S. Secret Service.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was your conclusion at that time?

Mr. Cole. It was my conclusion that that is not an original document but that it is in fact a photographic reproduction of some original document.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you draw any conclusions as to how the reproduction might have been prepared?

Mr. Cole. Yes; it was my conclusion that a photograph was made of some original document, and that the resulting film negative was retouched for the purpose of blocking out certain parts, and by that I mean that the person processing a negative in this way would take an opaque compound and where you had clear areas of the negative, the negative, of course, showing clear areas where there was black on the original, that he would cover up this clear area of the negative so that in a resulting print nothing would come through. This would be a way of eliminating information which was actually on the original document.

Mr. Eisenberg. Such as the name of the person to whom the document had been issued?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Draft board and so forth?

Mr. Cole. Yes; then a print would be made of that retouched negative, and this, I believe, is such a print.

Mr. Eisenberg. There is information on this item consisting of the name "Alek James Hidell," a selective service number, and so forth. Could you draw any conclusion as to how this information had been put into the item if the card was prepared in this way?

Senator Cooper. What information, do you mean the name?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; the name "Alek James Hidell," the selective service number, the date of mailing, the signature of the member or clerk of local board, color of eyes, and so forth, all of the information appearing in print or color on the card.

Mr. Cole. That information was typed directly onto the photographic print which is Exhibit——

Mr. Eisenberg. That is 795?

Mr. Cole. 795.

Mr. Eisenberg. Does this item consist of one or two photographic prints, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. There are two photographic prints, one for the front and one for the back, and they are pasted together.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is it on ordinary photographic paper?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is there evidence that more than one typewriter had been used in inserting the signature——

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Excuse me, the name, and some of the other information which I have referred to?

Mr. Cole. Yes, at least two typewriters were used. This may be seen clearly by the record of the selective service number, which includes a fairly light typewriting and then a heavier typewriting.

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you produced a photograph of Exhibit 795 or have you taken a photograph rather?

Mr. Cole. Yes, I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would you produce that?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Thank you. Was this photograph prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is it a true and accurate reproduction of 795?

Mr. Cole. It is.

Mr. Eisenberg. May this be admitted as 796?

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 796 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. This is the front of 795, is it, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you also taken a photograph of the rear, the reverse side?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. This was prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is it a true and accurate photograph?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. May this be admitted as Exhibit 797?

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 797 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you have extra copies of that?

Mr. Cole. I am sorry; I do not.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you hold these photographs so that the Commission can see them, and illustrate your point concerning the use of more than one typewriter?

Mr. Cole. The selective service number shows typewriting which has a fairly light deposit of ink from the ribbon. It also shows typewriting with a somewhat heavier deposit. Now, there is a clear difference in the design of the figure "4" which shows that two different typewriters were used.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you think of any reason why that might have been done, why two different typewriters were used?

Mr. Cole. Well, here again the typewriter shown by the typewriter impression has a rather poor legibility and it is my theory that a person producing typing of such limited legibility might well move the job over to another typewriter having a more heavily inked ribbon. I might say also that it is quite difficult to type on this glossy photographic paper. The ink won't come down from the ribbon nearly as well on such a surface as it does on ordinary bond paper.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, you have also reproduced the back, the reverse side, of 795 in your photograph 797. Is the typewriting on the back, illustrated in 797, that contained in the light-impression typewriter shown on the front, or the heavy-impression typewriter?

Mr. Cole. The lighter impression.

Mr. Eisenberg. You can tell that how, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Well, it is illustrated, first of all, by the extremely small deposit of ink, and second by the circumstance that we can see the same design of figure "4" in a part of the address between this frame, which is the design of the figure "4" of the lighter typewriting on the face of the document.

Senator Cooper. Could I ask you, is it correct that the typewriter which you say was used, which gave a light impression, the "4" is closed at the apex?

Mr. Cole. That is correct.

Senator Cooper. And the heavier typewriter which was used which produced the "4," the "4" is open at the apex?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Carrying that question forward, the reverse side shows the "4" closed at the apex, does it not?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. There seems to be some erasure under the name "Alek James Hidell" which is typewritten in the front side, as well as a faint letter or two. Did you draw any conclusions as to that material?

Mr. Cole. Well, in this area there is also in addition to typewriting already mentioned, there is evidence of a rather sharp indentation of typewritten material, which could result from the blow of a typewriter key against this paper without the interposition of any ribbon at all. Most typewriters have an adjustment called "stencil" whereby you can prevent the ribbon from coming up in front of the type bar, and there is a complete line of indentations along there which reads "Alek James Hidell," and one very interesting feature is that just to the left of the indented name "Alek" there is a capital letter "O."

I don't say at that particular point there was any completion of a name following the letter "O" but we do have this clear indentation of the letter "O."

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you prepared a photograph which brings out those details a little more clearly than in the original, 795?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I have. This photograph was made by a very low angle of illumination, a raking light across the document which shows up the indentations.

Mr. Eisenberg. This was prepared by you and under your supervision?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. It is a true and accurate reproduction of 795?

Mr. Cole. It is.

Mr. Eisenberg. May this be admitted as 798?

Representative Ford. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit 798 was marked and received in evidence.)

Senator Cooper. Could I ask a question? You referred to an indentation representing the letter "O." Could you point that out and indicate the exhibit upon which you identified the letter "O"?

Mr. Cole. Here. I point to an area approximately two typewriter spaces on the left of the visible letter "A" of "Alek."

Senator Cooper. On Commission Exhibit 795?

Mr. Cole. Yes; correct.

Senator Cooper. Were you able to determine whether that indentation representing "O" was made by a typewriter or does it represent a letter which was still visible from the original card of selective service classification?

Mr. Cole. That is a typewritten letter "O," sir. I think that nothing is visible on that line from the original.

Mr. Eisenberg. Referring to your photograph, 798, there seems to be—the word "James" seems to be printed more than once, as does the name "Hidell," in stencil. Is that your observation, Mr. Cole, also?

Mr. Cole. Yes; that is true.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is there any other material that was printed in stencil, on the stencil setting, of the typewriter?

Mr. Cole. Yes; there is a writing of the serial number which is also in stencil form.

Mr. Eisenberg. Anything else? We are referring now just to the front of the card.

Mr. Cole. Yes. The date of mailing also shows an indentation.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you think of any reason why the use of the typewriter on stencil may have been done?

Mr. Cole. I can mention reasons that I have observed on other documents which might apply to this one, and that would be an effort on the part of the operator of the machine to find a correct place for beginning typewriting, but I am obliged to say that on those other examples I have never seen such extensive stenciled writing. I would say that a single letter should give a person a pretty good idea of the position for beginning writing, and it should not be necessary to write out this material in full.

Now another theory for applying indentations to this type of material might be, say, previous experience with trying to write on a glossy surface, and knowing that you don't get enough ink from a ribbon on such a surface and possibly an intention to apply a rather sharp indentation and later fill that in with pigment. I am a little doubtful if it would be successful but one might attempt to try it, because various kinds of printing are made in that way, first by producing an indent, and then working a pigment down into the indentation. I would say on this particular document, I don't see there was any evidence that the preparer of the document went through with any such plan.

Representative Ford. For the record, I do have to leave to attend the House session, and Senator Cooper, will you preside as chairman?

Senator Cooper. Yes; I will be glad to do so.

(At this point Representative Ford departed the hearing room.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Referring to your photograph 798 again, the word "James" in "Alek James Hidell" seems to have been printed twice, as you stated before, and the second time it seems to have started—at least twice—and the second time it seems to start after the first "James" has stopped. Is that your observation?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Referring back to your theories or the possible theories you mentioned as explanations of the printing by stencil, would the placement of the two "James" on the upper line indicate whether or not either of those theories might be applicable?

Mr. Cole. Well, of course, the repetition of these names is somewhat opposed to the theory that a person might prefer to ink it in later. But, of course, it is possible that he could not see it very well, and that he might think he could make a selection of either one or the other for inking in.

Mr. Eisenberg. Does the word "James" appear to have been stenciled more than twice?

Mr. Gore. Well, there is some overlapping or superimposition of indentations in the first record of the indented name "James." It could have been as many as three times in the stencil operation.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Cole, have you produced a photograph of the reverse side of the selective-service card——

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is, 795?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. And was this taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. And is it a true and accurate photograph of 795?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may this be admitted as 799?

Senator Cooper. It will be admitted.

(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit 799, was received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. This is an additional photograph of the reverse side of 795?

Mr. Cole. That is correct. The one last mentioned was also made with a very low angle of illumination raking the light across the document.

Mr. Eisenberg. The "one last mentioned" being 797 or 798?

Mr. Cole. 799 was made with the low-angle illumination to bring out the indentation.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is as opposed to 797, which is the reverse side of the photograph introduced as 795?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And that had a normal illumination?

Ir Cole. Yes., correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. By use of this 799 photograph, could you read to us what was stenciled, insofar as possible?

Mr. Cole. Opposite "Color of Eyes" there is discernible the indented typewritten letters "CT." This is just to the left of the visible letters "GR." Then opposite the "Color of Hair" there is an indentation of the word in capital letters "BROWN." Just above the visible "9" for the inch figures of height, there is a second indented "9." Opposite the word 'weight" there is a small letter "i" as an indentation.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is "i" the lower case of the figure in the typewriter which produces "1" in upper case?

Mr. Cole. No; it is the lower case "l" which is used for the "1" on most typewriters. In the frame above the wording "Local Board Stamp" there is visible typewriting and indentations but I think this is probably all one typewriting act, the ink coming down from the ribbon only in a rather irregular fashion. Just outside the frame on the right side there is an indentation of the abbreviation "ST."

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, did you have occasion to examine these cards at a subsequent time—this card, I am sorry, the Selective Service notice of classification, or spurious Selective Service classification, 795?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. At that time did you examine the negatives which I now hand to you?

Mr. Cole. I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. For the record, these are a set of negatives which were found at one of the premises inhabited by Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Chairman, may I have them admitted as 800? I would like these negatives which Mr. Cole examined and which were found in one of the residences of Lee Harvey Oswald to be received as 800.

Senator Cooper. It is so ordered.

(The negatives referred to were marked as Commission Exhibit 800 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you also examine this card which I now hand you, which for the record is a Selective Service System notice of classification in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald, found in the wallet of Lee Harvey Oswald following his apprehension after the assassination and the murder of Officer Tippit?

Mr. Cole. I did examine this card.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may this card, which is Oswald's actual Selective Service System notice of classification, be admitted as 801?

Senator Cooper. So ordered.

(The document referred to was marked as Commission Exhibit 801, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Now what did your examination of the negatives and the card show, in relation to your earlier examination, conducted simply of the Exhibit 795?

Mr. Cole. May I say something off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator Cooper. Back on the record.

Would you please state on the record your reasons for making your prior answer to the question of counsel?

Mr. Cole. I have some question whether this is actually the card which I had previously examined, although I am sure I did examine a Selective Service card, and it will take just a moment of close examination of this one to determine that, and I would suggest that if there are any other Selective Service cards available belonging to this group or grouped with this card that I should see them at the same time.

Senator Cooper. Your statement is then that you just desired to examine——

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Senator Cooper. This card and any other Selective Service card that may be available?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Senator Cooper. I suggest that the Commission recess for a sufficient time to permit the witness to examine the Selective Service card.

Mr. Eisenberg. Before that recess, let me introduce another card relating to the Selective Service System, which is the registration certificate of Lee Harvey Oswald. Did you examine—did you examine this registration certificate, Mr. Cole? And perhaps you can now, Mr. Reporter, note a recess while he examines both the registration certificate and the Selective Service System notice of classification.

Senator Cooper. So ordered.

(Short recess.)

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I did examine this registration certificate.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you examine the Selective Service System notice of classification?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I did. I did examine the notice of classification.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is 801. May I have the registration certificate admitted as 802?

Senator Cooper. Let it be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 802, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. This was also found in the wallet of Oswald following his apprehension. Now, on the basis of your examination of these cards and the negatives, did you find yourself reinforced in your earlier conclusion, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. I did. This confirmed my earlier conclusion which was formed at a time I had only the photographic prints. Exhibit——

Mr. Eisenberg. No. 795, together with photographs thereof, is that what you are referring to now?

Mr. Cole. That is correct; yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you discuss the negatives, Exhibit 800, that you referred to in your examination?

Mr. Cole. Yes; there are two negatives which are of Selective Service System notice of classification. Both of these negatives show extensive retouching, sometimes called opaquing, for the purpose of preventing certain material which appeared on an original from printing on a photographic print. The two negatives are apparently related to a single original. One of them has a somewhat greater amount of retouching than the other. It is my view that the second negative, that is, the one showing the smallest amount of retouching, was probably made from a photographic print of the first one. In other words, the retouching operation has involved two steps which resulted in the production of two separate negatives. A possible reason for the second step was that on the negative showing the most extensive retouching there is still some material remaining from the original document, namely the lower extensions of two letters "f" which pass through certain wording at the right side of the document, reading "local board," and another word reading "violation." Now on the second negative of the pair a successful operation in touching out those particular parts was accomplished.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you believe that the second negative was prepared from the first, or they were prepared separately from the Selective Service card itself?

Mr. Cole. I believe that the second negative was prepared from a photographic print of the first one.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, for ease of discussion, I would like to take out the "first negative" from Exhibit 800 and give it a separate number, 803, if I may. Is that all right, Mr. Chairman?

Senator Cooper. Yes.

(The negative referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 803, and was received in evidence.)

Mr. Cole. The negative I hand you now is the one I referred to as the first negative, and the one having the most extensive retouching or opaquing.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is the one with the portion of the signature appearing over the word "violation"?

Mr. Cole. That is right. A portion which has not been retouched out of the negative.

Mr. Eisenberg. And does that same portion appear in the original of Oswald's card, 801?

Mr. Cole. It does.

Senator Cooper. Is that a part of the record?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, sir. Now, there is a good deal of red material on the reverse side of this "first negative." That is the opaquing material, is it?

Mr. Cole. Correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. I would like to make the "second negative" referred to 804, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Cooper. Very well. You want that made a part of the record?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, sir.

Senator Cooper. Let it be made a part of the record.

(The negative referred to, marked Commission Exhibit 804, was received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. We are extracting that from 800 for ease of discussion.

Now, Mr. Cole, I call your attention to the fact that the words appearing on the face of the original 801, the printed material beginning "The law requires you, subject to heavy penalty for violation, to carry this notice in addition to your Registration Certificate," and going on for two full paragraphs of small or ordinary Roman lower and upper case, and ending in solid caps "FOR ADVICE, SEE YOUR GOVERNMENT APPEAL AGENT," this language in the original spreads across the bottom of the card from left to right, starting slightly to the right of the dotted line running up and down the card and marked "registrant must sign here," and extending quite close to the right margin.

Does it appear in the same fashion, approximately, on the "first negative," which is Exhibit 803?

Mr. Cole. Yes; but, of course, this negative includes a section along the left side which is not shown on the original.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which is actually a blank section, is that correct?

Mr. Cole. Correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is the negative slightly enlarged, apart from that blank section?

Mr. Cole. I think it is the same size.

Mr. Eisenberg. I call your attention to the "second negative," which is Exhibit 804, and this same language, "The law requires you," and so forth, until "FOR ADVICE, SEE YOUR GOVERNMENT APPEAL AGENT" appears in a much smaller compass, that is to say it starts substantially to the right of the margin or the signature line and is separated from the signature line by another dotted line.

Mr. Cole. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. And does that correspond to the forged card, 795?

Mr. Cole. It does.

Mr. Eisenberg. Has that created a space on the forged card which does not exist on the original?

Mr. Cole. That is correct.

Mr. Eisenberg. And is that the space into which the photograph has been inserted on the forged card?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. I call your attention to a small strip of negative which appears to bear this language, and I ask you whether you believe that this negative might have been used in the preparation of the forged card?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I believe this negative was used for producing the forged card which is a photographic print.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may that be made 805?

Senator Cooper. Let 805 be made a part of the record.

(The negative referred to was marked and received in evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 805.)

Mr. Eisenberg. In your opinion, can you account for the reduction in size of that printing, "The law requires you" and so forth?

Mr. Cole. Well, it would seem that it had to be reduced in size to accomplish the obvious purpose on the card, Exhibit 795, of providing extra space for a photograph.

Mr. Eisenberg. How would that be done?

Mr. Cole. This can be done photographically. When a photographic camera is set up to take a picture of a document you have a considerable range for making either enlargements or reductions on the negative.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is this whole process one which requires a great deal of skill, and when I say "whole process" I refer to the re-creation of a new card by use of opaquing material and the reduction in size of a portion of the text on the original card?

Mr. Cole. No; I wouldn't say that it requires a great skill. I would say an elementary knowledge of photography, especially the photographic techniques used in a printing plant, would be enough for such a purpose.

Senator Cooper. On that point, would it require study to learn to make, to exercise these techniques, either from a textbook or information from someone else or by observation of the practice?

Mr. Cole. I think observation and association with other people, or being in a place where such techniques were going along in the normal operation of a photographic laboratory or printing plant, would be enough. A person wouldn't have to consult a text. As a matter of fact, similar things are done for normal printing operations.

Senator Cooper. That is the question I wanted to ask. Would this type of technique in an average shop or plant be normal?

Mr. Cole. Oh, yes.

Senator Cooper. Would it require much practice on the part of an individual before such technique could be successfully accomplished?

Mr. Cole. No; I would say a moderate amount of practice.

Senator Cooper. How much, would you say? How many times would a person have to, if it is possible to say, practice this kind of a technique before he could do it reasonably well?

Mr. Cole. On a trial-and-error basis. I would say that a half dozen attempts on a trial and error basis of going through such an operation, perhaps making an error, finding how to correct it, doing it again, achieving more success, would certainly be enough.

Senator Cooper. You would say then, assuming that Lee Oswald made these changes, that he would have had to practice them several times before he could have successfully made the changes which were indicated by the exhibits that have been introduced?

Mr. Cole. Well, sir; I would say he would not necessarily have to practice on this particular document, but if he had some practice, he or any other person, had had some practice in normal operation, similar operations in a printing plant, then he could accomplish this result.

Senator Cooper. Would these changes have required the assistance at the time of another person——

Mr. Cole. I think not.

Senator Cooper. Or could they be accomplished by one person?

Mr. Cole. One person could easily do it.

Senator Cooper. Thank you.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now on these questions which Senator Cooper has been asking, I ask you to refer back to Exhibit 800, consisting of a group of other negatives not related to the selective-service card, and ask you whether those negatives bear any evidence of opaquing and similar techniques as were used in the creation of Exhibit 795?

Mr. Cole. They do. All of them show evidence of opaquing, that is, touching out certain information, letting other information come through.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think this might have constituted sufficient practice to produce the 795 result?

Mr. Cole. Yes; I think so.

Senator Cooper. Would it have been necessary for a person making these changes to have had for his use any kind of special equipment, or what kind of equipment would be required to make these changes?

Mr. Cole. Well, sir; in a printing plant there are usually what they call light tables, a table with a transparent surface with a light under it, which are used for making up, for assembling various materials to be included in a single plate. But that wouldn't be essential. A person could take a negative ready for retouching right to the window there, place it against the window and touch out material in that manner.

Senator Cooper. My question really goes to this point: Would it have been necessary for a person who made these changes to have done the work in a shop or printing plant or could it be done outside of a printing shop?

Mr. Cole. It would not have to be done in a printing shop. It could be done easily in this room or any ordinary living accommodations.

Senator Cooper. That is all.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would you need, Mr. Cole, in your belief, the type of equipment you are likely to find in a printing plant, or could this be done with home equipment?

Mr. Cole. I would say it could be done with home equipment, but I think it is unlikely with respect to the actual preparation of the negative that one would get a successful result from home equipment. I believe that for the preparation of the negative, that is, apart from the retouching operation, that one would need a very accurate camera such as are found in photographic laboratories and printing plants.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could the opaquing have been done off the printing premises?

Mr. Cole. Yes; the opaquing could be done almost anywhere, in any ordinary living accommodation, needing only a source of light to pass through the negative, the liquid opaquing material, and a small brush.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, if you were going to prepare a forged Selective Service System notice of classification, and if you did not have access to blanks of the Selective Service System itself, how would you go about preparing such a forgery?

Mr. Cole. I would use a method similar to that already described here with one modification; namely, that in preparing the original negative, I would make an enlargement directly on the negative, then go through the opaquing operation, and in making the final print I would reduce it back to original size. That would produce a somewhat better quality of print, and it gives somewhat more freedom in the opaquing operation, that is, in working with a larger negative there is not as much danger of running the opaque into some material that you want to save, and we see on these negatives there are a few places where the person doing the opaquing has actually permitted this material to run into a part that should be saved on the original.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would you use the same type of photographic paper?

Mr. Cole. I would not. I would use a dull-surfaced paper which would look more like an original document.

Mr. Eisenberg. When you said that the person who produced the negatives let his opaque run into areas which he wanted to save, what areas are you referring to, what type of areas?

Mr. Cole. Well, areas where there is needed a sharp outline of a box which is to receive some printed information, and this, of course, is a very thin line, and it is very difficult to control this liquid on the negative. There are some places where it has run into the line and apparently it was necessary to make some strengthening or correction of that line later.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you see evidence of correction of the line?

Mr. Cole. Yes; on Commission Exhibit 795 the boxes for selective service number apparently have been strengthened somewhat.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now referring to Commission Exhibit 801, which is the actual card, do the numbers overlap or extend to the borders of the margin at all?

Mr. Cole. There is one figure in particular which runs right along the line of the box. This is the first box on the left, and the figures are "41" and the "1" lies directly over the line on the right side of the box.

Mr. Eisenberg. And does the "4" in "41" and the "3" in "39" overlap the boxes?

Mr. Cole. They do.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would that practically necessitate a correction of the boxes?

Mr. Cole. Yes; it would, in order to repair the line.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, I hand you an item entitled "Certificate of Service Armed Forces of the United States," reading "This is to certify that Alek James Hidell" and so forth, and "Period of Active Duty"—on the reverse side now—"October 1, 1958" to a date which is blurred, and I ask you whether you have examined this item?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may this be admitted as 806?

Senator Cooper. Let the exhibit be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 806, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. When did you first examine this item, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. That was also examined in December of 1963, December 6, 1963.

Mr. Eisenberg. Together with the selective service system notice of classification?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. And did you have any negatives at that time, or the original?

Mr. Cole. I did not.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was your conclusion at that time, based solely upon the examination of 806?

Mr. Cole. It was my conclusion that 806 is actually a photographic print from a photographic negative. It is not an original document.

Mr. Eisenberg. And on what did you base this conclusion?

Mr. Cole. My familiarity with the appearance of photographic paper primarily.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you prepare photographs at that time, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you produce those? These photographs are of the front and reverse, respectively, of Commission Exhibit 806?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. And these were prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. And they are accurate photographs of 806?

Mr. Cole. They are.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as 807 and 808, respectively.

Senator Cooper. The exhibits will be admitted to the record.

(The photographs referred to were marked as Commission Exhibits Nos. 807 and 808, respectively, and were received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. 807 will be the front and 808 will be the reverse. Mr. Cole, could you attempt to decipher the typewriting on the reverse side as shown in the photograph 808?

Mr. Cole. The typewriting reads "October 13 1958," and on the second line there is some confusion of the typewriting, in other words, there is more than one typing operation on the line reading "To." One of these typing operations reads "October 12, 1961." One of the other typing operations on the line for "To," as determined by a previous examination under the microscope, shows an indent of "23 October 1959."

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you believe that was—yes, go ahead.

Mr. Cole. Also on the line reading "From" there is an indentation of another typewriter operation which reads "24 October 1957."

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you believe those indentations were caused by a typewriter set at stencil?

Mr. Cole. Yes; without the interposition of a ribbon between the type bar and the paper.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you take photographs with side light, as you had in the case of the selective service card, to attempt to bring out these stencil marks?

Mr. Cole. I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you produce those photographs? You are handing me a photograph of the front side of the certificate of service, and is this a photograph which you took?

Mr. Cole. It is.

Mr. Eisenberg. An accurate reproduction of the Exhibit 806?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 809, Mr. Chairman?

Senator Cooper. Let this exhibit be made a part of the record.

(The photograph referred to previously marked as Commission Exhibit No. 809, was received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. You have also given me a photograph of the reverse side of 806?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. This was taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. And is it an accurate photograph of the reverse of 806?

Mr. Cole. It is.

Mr. Eisenberg. May the photograph of the reverse be admitted as Exhibit 810?

Senator Cooper. Exhibit 810 will be admitted as part of the record.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you show us what you found in the way of indentations caused by stencils, by referring to these Exhibits 809 and 810?

Mr. Cole. 809 shows the face of the exhibit and in addition to the clearly visible typewriting of the name "Alek James Hidell," there is a repetition of this name somewhat below the visible typewriting in the form of typewritten indentations.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is this similar to the typewritten indentations found in the selective service card, 795?

Mr. Cole. Yes; they are.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you believe that the name "Alek James Hidell" was stenciled once or more than once?

Mr. Cole. More than once, at least twice, I would say.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is the relative position of the two stenciling operations?

Mr. Cole. They were somewhat below, about one-half to three-quarters of the height of a typewritten character below, the visible typewriting.

Mr. Eisenberg. What is the relationship to each other?

Mr. Cole. They are offset about one-quarter to one-half the height of a typewritten character.

Mr. Eisenberg. From each other?

Mr. Cole. That is right, vertically.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is it accurate to say then that there is a progression upward as comparing the typewritten name and the two stenciled operations, or at least that the three are set in step, so that each one is below the next impression?

Mr. Cole. That is correct, with the visible typewriting having the better position relative to the reproduction of the printed matter.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you think of the reason why this might have been, why this operation might have been performed in this manner, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Yes. It could easily result from some difficulty of finding the correct place for typewriting the name on the card. The lowermost indentation would have been an incorrect position since it was run into a part of the reproduction of the printed matter.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, I refer back to 798, which is a highlight photograph of the selective service card, and ask you whether the stenciled material in 798 appears above the line on which the typewritten material—first name, middle name, and last name—should appear?

Mr. Cole. Yes; somewhat above.

Mr. Eisenberg. In light of that, do you think it is possible that the individual who prepared this card used the stencil to determine at what point the typewriting would be placed so that it was in the correct position in relationship to the line above which it belonged?

Mr. Cole. That is a definite possibility and, of course, he might also have been concerned about the position for the reproduced printed matter—"First name," "Middle name," "Last name."

Mr. Eisenberg. Bringing your attention back once more to 795, the Selective Service System card, was the reverse side of that card prepared in your opinion from Commission 802, which is the reverse side of the registration certificate? I also call your attention to 801 for comparision, that is, the original of the selective service card.

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir. The reverse of the photographic identification card, Commission Exhibit 795, could be a photographic reproduction of the reverse of Commission Exhibit 802, with the performance of certain opaquing operations.

Mr. Eisenberg. Looking at the reverse side of the two cards, 802 and 801, does the reverse side of the card 801 have any information for identifying characteristics of the individual bearing the card?

Mr. Cole. It does not.

Mr. Eisenberg. And what about the reverse side of 802?

Mr. Cole. The reverse side of 802 provides space for a personal description, color of eyes, color of hair, complexion, height, and weight.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you find among the negatives in 800 a negative which might have been used or was used to prepare the reverse side of the selective service card, 795, the spurious card?

Mr. Cole. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this negative classified separately as 811 for purpose of ready identification?

Senator Cooper. Let it be so classified, and admitted as part of the record.

(The document referred to, was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 811 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you find a negative which might have been used for the preparation of the certificate of service, that is 806?

Mr. Cole. Yes; I did, for both face and back.

Mr. Eisenberg. Were these negatives in your opinion used as the negatives for that purpose?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir. In my opinion, these are the very negatives that were used for producing the photographic print representing a certificate of service.

Mr. Eisenberg. May these be subclassified as or separately classified as 812, Mr. Chairman, and introduced as 812?

Senator Cooper. Let the document be designated as 812 and admitted as part of the record.

(The item referred to, was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 812 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you reach the same conclusion, by the way, as to the negative 811, that is, that it was definitely the negative used to produce the reverse side of 795?

Mr. Cole. I did. This is the very negative to produce the reverse side of 795.

Mr. Eisenberg. Returning to 795, there are two signatures which appear in 795 in ink, is that correct?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is, the signature over the caption "Member or clerk of local board," and the signature over the caption "Registrant must sign here"?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. The second signature reads "Alek J. Hidell"?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you read the first signature?

Mr. Cole. The first signature appears to be the name "Goodhoffer," but that is partly an estimate. In other words, it is not possible to read this in a clear manner. That is a possible spelling of the name but not necessarily the only spelling.

(At this point, there was a short recess, and Mr. McCloy entered the hearing room.)

Senator Cooper. I am now called to the Senate. Mr. John McCloy will act as Chairman.

(At this point Senator Cooper departed the hearing room and there was a further recess.)

Mr. Eisenberg. How does that compare with the signature on the original card, Exhibit 801?

Mr. Cole. It is not the same name and, of course, not in the same handwriting.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, did you compare the two signatures on Exhibit 795 with the standards in this case to determine whether the signatures have been written by the person who produced the standards?

Mr. Cole. I did compare the signatures on 795 with the standard writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. With respect to the signature above "Member or clerk of local board," I have not formed any conclusion about authorship. With regard to the writing "Alek J. Hidell," it is my opinion that the author of the standard writing is the author of that name.

Mr. Eisenberg. And referring to the charts of the standards which you prepared, and referring to the photograph of 795, could you explain the reasons for this conclusion?

Mr. Cole. Would you want any copy of this?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; if you have a copy.

Mr. Cole. The capital letter "A" of the name "Alek" on 795 is reproduced in the standard writing on chart B, item 6, in the general conformation of the several lower case "a's" in that area. I refer to it as a capital "A" because it begins the name, but actually with respect to size and formation it is closely similar to the lower case "a's" of item 6. Now the similarity is largely in the method that the staff is made, the way it pulls away from the oral body of the letter with only a moderate rate of retracing along the right side. That detail, as I say, is found both in the "A" on 795, and in the several "a's" of item 6. There are three in a row there, each beginning a line of writing.

The letter "k" of the name "Alek" compares favorably with the "k's" of the standard writing, chart A, items 13 and 14. With regard to the middle initial "J" there is not a cursive "J" that is, as distinguished from a printed "J"—shown on the charts of standard writing. But the movement required for producing a "J" is similar to that required for producing the capital letter "I," and we observe a similarity as to movement with respect to the "J" of 795 as compared with the "I" of chart B, item 3.

One characteristic of the capital letter "H" of "Hidell" on 795 is the method of making that formation which stands for the crossbar. Now this is the closed part along the lower half of the right side of the letter, which would represent the crossbar of the letter. This is the general movement used in a number of the signatures of Lee H. Oswald. One good example is that on chart B, item 15, the middle initial "H". Another feature of that "H" is the connection to the following letter by an approximately horizontal stroke passing from the finish of the crossbar of the "H" across to the "i," and we observe a similar method of connection, although not with the same letter, on chart A, items 10 and 11, where the "o" is connected by a straight line, almost horizontal projection of the crossbar, from the "H" to the "o".

The letter "i" again shows a feature, which has previously been mentioned in the standard writing, of an increase of forehand slant, that is a slant to the right with respect to that letter as compared to other letters. This feature is shown in a number of places in the standard writing, one good example being on chart B, item 10, the second "i"—which is there because of a misspelling of the word "Washington" that is spelled, the last few letters, "tion"—and there we observe that rather extreme increase of the forehand slant of the letter "i".

The letter "d" of "Hidell" compares favorably with the "d's" of the standard writing on chart A, item 5, in the word "discharge," and on the same chart, item 6 in the word "regards."

The final "l's" show a perceptible increase of pressure on the downstrokes, which is also found in the standard writing, chart B, item 6, top line, the word "enroll." This shows a somewhat more extreme increase in pressure on downstroke, but I regard it basically as the same habit. This particular part also shows a very abrupt terminal stroke for the letter "l" as between 795 and compared with the final or last stroke of the "l" on chart B in the last stroke in the word "enrolled."

These constitute my reasons for believing that the author of the standard writing is the author of the signature "Alek J. Hidell" on Exhibit 795.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now concerning the other signature, Mr. Cole, are you unable to or—can you state why you are unable to arrive at a conclusion?

Mr. Cole. Well, partly because of the limited writing we have for comparison. The last part of the name is practically illegible, and the letters are so confused that I believe they do not accurately record writing habit. I would regard it as being a rather unnatural writing. Now there is fair legibility in the letters of the first name, and they do have a moderate rate or amount of similarity to the standard writing, but since it is only a few letters, I think there is not a basis for a conclusion.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is the signature inconsistent with the writing of the standards?

Mr. Cole. No; I wouldn't say there was any—there is certainly no basis for eliminating the author of the standards as being the author of that signature.

Mr. Eisenberg. Does there appear to be any attempt at disguise in this signature?

Mr. Cole. Well, I wouldn't regard it. If there is such an attempt, it is not, it seems to me, not a matter of deliberation or trying hard at it, but only a matter of being extremely careless in the last part of that signature.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is illegibility sometimes used as a method of disguise?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; it is.

Mr. McCloy. May I ask some questions about this?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. McCloy. If that word is "Good," that first word on the Exhibit 796, is it——

Mr. Eisenberg. 795, and the photograph is 796.

Mr. McCloy. 795. If that letter "G" is compared with the capital letter "G" on the standard chart B-5, "Glenview," would you say there is any similarity between the two?

Mr. Cole. Yes; there is, with respect to the size of the upper loop which is on the left side of the letter, and the approximate horizontal motion in passing from that loop over to the right side of the letter.

Mr. McCloy. We have it again in 14 of that same chart?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCloy. The "J" which seems to follow the word "Good," however, does not seem to comport with the "J" on the signature "Alek J. Hidell" does it?

Mr. Cole. No; but, of course, you are getting there to the area where the rather serious corruption or illegibility of forms begins. I think one could say that from the fair legibility of the first name, and the very poor legibility of the last name, that this is a deliberate effort. In other words, you have got a demonstration of the ability of the writer to produce a legible writing and, therefore, to devolve into this very illegible effort could be intentional.

Mr. McCloy. I noticed when you compared the "J" in "Alek J. Hidell" with the standard "I," such as the one on chart B-3, there was a definite similarity, but I notice on chart A, No. 7, there is an "I," a capital "I" presumably, which apparently doesn't have the same conformation as the "J" in the Commission Exhibit 795. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Cole. Yes; that is true, but I think in studying these forms we ought to consider all available "I's," and there would be some others, such as the one on B-4 and one in B-6. It shows a fair range of variation, especially with regard to finishing the lower part of that letter. Now, I would judge the one on B-3 to be definitely a part of his writing habit, because it gives the impression of having been made with a considerable amount of freedom. Generally, a larger form is made more freely, more naturally, than a smaller form.

Mr. McCloy. I see.

Mr. Cole. And you see you have got sort of a cramped effect across the base of the "I" in A-7.

Mr. McCloy. What I am getting at is, you don't suggest that all these "I's" and all these "J's" exactly conform, but you are talking in terms of similarities that turn up in certain of them that you believe are significant?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a yellowish card entitled "International Certificates of Vaccination as approved by The World Health Organization," and so forth, PHS Form 731, and reading in part, "This is to certify that Lee Oswald, whose signature follows" and with the signature, "Lee H. Oswald," date of birth and so forth, "has on the date indicated been vaccinated or revaccinated against smallpox," with a date appearing in a rubber-stamp printing, what appears to be rubber-stamp printing, "June 8, 1963," and a rubber-stamp signature of "Dr. A. J. Hideel, P.O. Box 30016, New Orleans, La.," with some type of stamp on the right side next to the name, and a signature "A. J. Hidell" over the name; and I ask you whether you have examined this item?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may this be admitted as Commission Exhibit 813?

Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 813, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, I also will show you Commission Exhibit 115, which consists of a Warrior rubber stamping kit which has already been introduced in evidence in connection with testimony of Marina Oswald, and which was found at one of Oswald's residences, and ask you whether you have examined this Commission Exhibit 115?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you attempt to determine whether the signatures "Lee H. Oswald" and "A. J. Hideel" on Commission Exhibit 813 were prepared by the author of the standards?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was your conclusion?

Mr. Cole. It is my conclusion that the author of the standard writing is the author of the writing you just described.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you attempt to determine whether the apparent rubber-stamp printing had been produced by use of the Warrior kit, Exhibit 115?

Mr. Cole. I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was your conclusion?

Mr. Cole. It is my conclusion that the kit could have been used for producing the rubber-stamp printing on—Exhibit 813 is it?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes.

Did you prepare a photograph of 813, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Will you produce that photograph? You have produced two photographs, one of which shows the outside or exterior portion of 813, and the other one shows the interior portion?

Mr. Cole. Correct; yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you take each of these photographs?

Mr. Cole. I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. And are they accurate reproductions of the Exhibit 813?

Mr. Cole. They are.

Mr. Eisenberg. Approximately what enlargements are these, by the way?

Mr. Cole. About 1½ diameters.

Mr. Eisenberg. These are what size photographs?

Mr. Cole. Eight by ten.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may these two photographs be admitted as 814 and 815?

Mr. McCloy. They may be.

(The photographs referred to were marked as Commission Exhibits Nos. 814 and 815, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. 814 will be exterior part of 813, and 815 will be the interior.

Now, the exterior portion of 813 also shows some handprinting "Lee H. Oswald" which came out in this photograph—in 814—a little clearer. Did you identify that handwriting, Mr. Cole——

Mr. Cole. I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. As being—what was your conclusion?

Mr. Cole. It is my conclusion that that handprinting is in the hand of the person who made the standard specimens.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now by reference to those photographs, 814 and 815, and by reference to your charts of the standards, could you explain the reasons for your conclusion on the handwriting and handprinting?

Mr. Cole. With respect to the signature, "Lee H. Oswald," as shown by the photograph 815, this compares favorably with other sample signatures that I have examined, some of which are shown on the charts, namely chart A, item 15; chart B, item 15; and chart C, item 6, second line from the bottom. There is, I think, a closer comparison with certain other standard signatures of "Lee H. Oswald" which I have examined, as appearing on the reverse of certain checks.

Mr. Eisenberg. And those are in evidence, are they, as one of the standards, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. That was described in the record when you introduced it?

Mr. Cole. Yes; the signatures as endorsements on these several checks show what might be described as an exaggerated freedom and carelessness in the execution of this signature.

Mr. Eisenberg. Excuse me, was that 776, that exhibit consisting of the checks?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; the signatures and endorsements of the checks in Exhibit 776 show some variation with respect to the care and formation of letters. There are a few endorsements in that group which show a greatly exaggerated freedom or a carelessness in execution. These signatures appear on, especially on, check numbers 2408 and 2506 of this exhibit, and they compare quite favorably in detail with the signature shown by the photograph, Commission Exhibit 815.

Now with regard to the writing of the name "A. J. Hideel" we observed in the combination of letters "Hi" that that letter is joined by means of a projection of a crossbar into the letter "i"; that in the letter "e," which is separated from the preceding "d," there is a very high placement of the loop, that is, instead of beginning at the writing line, the loop of the letter begins about halfway up on the staff, and this is a form that is very familiar in the standard writing, particularly in the handprinted forms. For example, on chart C, item 3, the final "e" in the word "discharge" shows a similar effect. Also on chart C, item 6, the second line, in the name "Mercedes" we have got two "e's" that show a similar effect.

The final "l" shows this perceptible increase of pressure on the downstroke, and a very abrupt terminal stroke also, which had been previously mentioned as being a characteristic of chart B, item 6, in the word "enroll."

Now with regard to the handprinting as shown by Commission photograph Exhibit 814, and considering particularly the name "Oswald," we have a detailed agreement in every feature of letter forms there, and I will direct attention especially to the use of the lowercase "l" and "d" as associated with the capital or uppercase forms of the other four letters of the name, and I will also mention the method of forming the "d," considering first one of the standards where it can be seen more clearly. On chart C, item 6, the first line, final "d" of "Oswald" shows first a fairly long downstroke, then a stroke rising from the end of that downstroke moving upwards and to the left to form the body of the letter, and this method of formation is also used in the "d" of "Oswald" as shown by the photograph Exhibit 814.

On the next line below there is faintly visible the name "Orleans" and I will direct attention to the base of the "l," which shows a rather deep compound curve. That is, here again, instead of having a simple horizontal line to represent the base of that printed letter, there is a fairly deep curve which is found in the standard writing in several places, one example being chart C, item 4.

This word also illustrates the tendency to mix lowercase forms with capitals in the case of the use of the lowercase "e" in "Orleans," and that, of course, is repeated many places in the standard writing, a good place being chart C, item 6, the word "Mercedes." These are the reasons for my belief that the author of the standard writing is the author of the handwriting on——

Mr. Eisenberg. 813?

Mr. Cole. 813.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, the handwriting and handprinting on 813 is all extremely dim. Do you have any explanation for that?

Mr. Cole. There is evidence that this document has been treated with chemicals, probably for the purpose of developing for fingerprints. Such chemicals are ordinarily included in solvents which dissolve ink, and some bleach out ink. I think that is the reason for the poor legibility of this ink writing. At one time, I think, it probably had a pretty good legibility.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was this the condition of the item when you examined it?

Mr. Cole. Yes; it was.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, you stated that the apparent rubber-stamp printing could have been produced by the Warrior rubber kit, 115. First let me ask you, is this actually rubber-stamp printing?

Mr. Cole. Yes; I believe it is.

Mr. Eisenberg. That is, the printing on the vaccination certificate. When you say it could have been produced by the print in Exhibit 115, could you elaborate as to your findings on that point?

Mr. Cole. Yes; in considering that question, I made an impression from the stamp, from the type setup in a stamp which is a part of this kit at the present time. Now the typing as set up reads "L. H. Oswald, 4907 Magazine St., New Orleans, La.," and, of course, that text repeats some of the letters, a good many of the letters, which are in the rubber-stamp impression "Doctor A. J. Hideel, P.O. Box 30016, New Orleans, La.," and I made a careful comparison of these letters as taken from the stamped impression with what is shown on 813, and I found that they agree perfectly as to measurements of the type faces, and they agree as to the design of letters. Therefore, I would say that the rubber-stamp type faces from this particular kit could have been used to produce that rubber-stamp impression on 813.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you produce the two cards which you used to record the impression of the 115 rubber-stamp kit?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; the second card is an impression from the date stamp which is a part of this kit, and that too agrees along the same lines with respect to measurements of the letters and the designs of the letters.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may these two cards be admitted as Commission Exhibit 816?

Mr. McCloy. They may be admitted.

(The cards referred to were marked as Commission Exhibit No. 816 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Are there microscopic characteristics on rubber-stamp printing sufficient to make positive identifications?

Mr. Cole. I don't regard any to be present in this particular stamp. But while the type faces could not be regarded as perfect, I don't know of any way to determine whether the imperfections belong only to this kit or whether they would be true of all Warrior rubber-stamp kits.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you notice any imperfections?

Mr. Cole. Well, I did not actually catalog any imperfections, but in looking at the type I had the general impression that it is not a perfect impression, certainly not as perfect as you would get from metal type in a regular printing operation.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, you stamped an impression other than the one contained on the card 813. Could you explain the reasons for that?

Mr. Cole. I stamped the material which was already set up in type. Since it repeated a good deal of the material, enough for examination, I did not want on my own volition to tear down the stamps that were in this in order to set up other type.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you examine the stamp impression appearing on the right-hand side of the interior of the Document 813?

Mr. Cole. I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you come to any conclusion as to that stamp?

Mr. Cole. Yes; this stamp includes wording which reads in reverse, and there is a double stamping of the wording, and the text is "BRUSH IN CAN" the three words, "BRUSH IN CAN." The word "BRUSH" extends in approximately a semicircle across the upper part of the stamp and the words "IN CAN" in a semicircle across the lower part.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you think of any explanation of why those words should appear?

Mr. Cole. Yes; a possible explanation is that the object used to make the stamped impression was the top of some container of a solvent or cleaning fluid with raised lettering, and that the top of this can was pressed against a stamped pad, and then pressed against this document.

Mr. Eisenberg. What would the object be?

Mr. Cole. Well, I think it is very common to see rubber-stamped impressions on documents of this particular character. They are so commonplace, I think that it is probably a habit or custom among most people not to read them. They may be regarded as giving a document an official appearance. That may be the purpose of getting some sort of stamp onto the document.

Mr. Eisenberg. Why do the letters appear in reverse, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Well, they would naturally appear in reverse. If they read correctly in raised letters as the top of some container, if it was intended that they be read correctly there, then they would naturally be in reverse from the stamped impression. Of course, you will observe that in this Warrior stamping kit the material set up in the rubber stamp there is in reverse, which produces correct reading and writing from an impression. There is one more feature of this particular stamp I think ought to be mentioned.

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, please.

Mr. Cole. There is toward the center of that stamp a rectangle of a deposit of ink in a certain pattern, sort of a spotty mottled pattern of ink, and this corresponds to the pattern of the blank parts of the date stamp.

Mr. Eisenberg. Which date stamp is that?

Mr. Cole. The Warrior stamping kit includes a dating stamp, and on the adjustable bands are certain blank areas. Now, the pattern on those blank areas is similar to the pattern which we have in this rectangle of the stamp just discussed.

Mr. McCloy. May I ask, this Post Office Box 30016, is that——

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes; that corresponds——

Mr. McCloy. Does it correspond to the one he used in New Orleans?

Mr. Eisenberg. I am about to introduce an exhibit which shows Post Office Box 30061, that is, the last two figures reversed, and I imagine his spelling accounts for that.

Mr. Cole, I now show you an item consisting of a part of an application for Post Office Box 30061 in New Orleans, dated June 11, 1963, with a postmark, signed "L. H. Oswald," and in the part of the box captioned "Names of persons entitled to receive mail through box" and so forth, the words are written "A. J. Hidell, Marina Oswald," and I ask you whether you have examined that item?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this item admitted, Mr. Chairman, as 817?

Mr. McCloy. Let it be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 817, and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you compare this with the standards to determine who wrote the writing on that exhibit, or more accurately, whether the printing and writing was produced by the same person who produced the printing and writing on the standards?

Mr. Cole. I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was your conclusion?

Mr. Cole. It is my conclusion that the author of the standard writing is the author of the writing on Commission Exhibit 817.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you take a photograph of Commission 817?

Mr. Cole. I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. This was taken by you or under your supervision?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. And it is a true and accurate reproduction of 817?

Mr. Cole. It is.

Mr. Eisenberg. This is an 8 by 10 photograph. Mr. Chairman, may this be admitted as 818?

Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 818 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. By reference to this photograph and by reference to your charts of standards, Mr. Cole, can you explain to us how you came to this conclusion?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; with respect to the handprinting of the name "A. J. Hidell," I direct attention to the formation of the letter "d" in the same manner as that previously described in the standard writing, chart C, item 6, first line—a close correspondence as to the construction, writing movement, in forming those letters.

The letter "e" compares favorably not only as to form but the circumstance that here again the lowercase letter is mixed in with capital letters. Of course, that applies to the three letters "ide" associated with the other capital letter of that name, and that is a habit shown in many places in the standard writing.

The "L's" have the compound curve across the base, which has previously been observed in the standard writing.

In the name "Marina," the form of the capital letter "M" compares closely with the capital letter "M" shown on chart C, item 6, second line, the name "Mercedes."

That same name shows the form of letter "A" with the retraced stroke on the left side which exists in many places in the standard writing.

The name "Oswald" again shows this mixture of uppercase and lowercase letters, namely the circumstance that the "l" and "d" are lower-case forms, whereas the previous, the other four letters are upper case.

The signature "L. H. Oswald," agrees with other signatures that I have examined, some of which are shown on the charts, chart A, item 15, chart B, item 15, and chart C, item 6, next to the last line, a close correspondence in all details, except that there is some confusion or overriding in the second letter of the last name in the area of the "s," which may be only an accidental imperfection in that particular area. Otherwise, there is a fairly clear showing of all the letters, and they agree with the standards.

Mr. Eisenberg. Does that "s" that you refer to appear to be two "s's," one printed and one written?

Mr. Cole. Yes; it could be that. They are somewhat intertwined there, and we have got this name just following an instance of making handprinting, so that could be an explanation of it.

Mr. Eisenberg. Next, I show you a photograph of a card reading "Fair Play for Cuba Committee. New Orleans Chapter, L. H. Oswald," signature, "L. H. Oswald," dated June 15, 1963, signed "Chapter President—A. J. Hidell," and I ask you whether you have examined that photograph?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. May this be admitted as 819, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 819 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. For the record, this is a photograph of a card that was found in Oswald's wallet at the time of his apprehension.

I now show you a card, a paper card, which appears to be the same as Exhibit 819, except that there is no visible marking where the words "Chapter"—where the signature "Chapter President—A. J. Hidell" is written on Exhibit 819, and the card is seriously discolored with a dark brown discoloration, and I ask you whether you have examined this card I now hand you?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. May I have that admitted as 820, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 820 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. In your opinion, is 819 a photograph of the card, 820?

Mr. Cole. Yes; it is.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you account in any way for the discoloration of the card 820?

Mr. Cole. The discoloration is characteristic of that which has previously been observed as resulting from treating a document with a solution of silver nitrate. Such treatment is sometimes done in the hope of developing latent fingerprints, and this treatment could be, and probably is, the explanation for the elimination of a line of writing on the line for signature above the title "Chapter President."

Mr. Eisenberg. Were you able to make out whether any writing had appeared in the space which is now blank on Exhibit 820, making provision for the——

Mr. Cole. Yes; it is——

Mr. Eisenberg. Excuse me, making provision for the chapter president's signature?

Mr. Cole. Yes; there is barely enough showing to indicate that there was a line of writing there at one time.

Mr. Eisenberg. Could you tell whether it was the same as the signature "A. J. Hidell"?

Mr. Cole. It conforms generally to the signature "A. J. Hidell," that is, the form shown by the photograph, Exhibit 819.

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you taken a photograph of 819?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; I am sorry, sir; I do not have that photograph with me.

Mr. Eisenberg. All right.

Do you want to take a look at this, Mr. McCloy?

Did you compare the signatures "Lee Oswald" and "A. J. Hidell" on 819 to determine whether they had been written by the author of the standards?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir; may I look at that photograph? Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was your conclusion as to the signature of Lee H. Oswald?

Mr. Cole. It is my opinion that the author of the standard writing is the author of the signature "Lee H. Oswald" on Exhibit 819.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was your conclusion as to the signature "A. J. Hidell"?

Mr. Cole. I find no basis in the standard writing for identification of the author of such standard writing as the author of the name "A. J. Hidell" as shown by 819.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think that the author of the standard writing might have produced that signature in a disguised hand?

Mr. Cole. I think that is highly improbable, because this does not appear to be a disguised hand. It looks like a fairly natural handwriting.

Mr. Eisenberg. And that is based upon the items which you enumerated earlier which indicated the presence of a natural handwriting, such as speed and so forth?

Mr. Cole. Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think that, apart from the naturalness of the writing, the signature "A. J. Hidell" was within Oswald's abilities as a penman?

Mr. Cole. It appears to be somewhat beyond his ability. I would say taking into account his general level of writing skill as shown by the standards, I would say this represents a somewhat higher writing skill.

Mr. Eisenberg. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Eisenberg. On the record.

Mr. Cole. I now hand you a yellow sheet of paper, which has already been introduced into evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 110, and for the record I will state that this consists of an interlinear translation from Russian into English. The Russian script on this document has been identified as being that of George Bouhe an acquaintance of the Oswald's, and the English script as being that of Marina Oswald. Marina herself identified this as her handwriting, and she stated that Bouhe was teaching her English by writing out the Russian and having her translate into English. As far as I know this is the only standard we have of Marina's handwriting in the Latin alphabet. Mr. Cole. I ask you whether you have examined Commission Exhibit 110?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. Have you attempted to compare the signature "A. J. Hidell" on Commission Exhibit 819 with the Latin or English printing, or writing rather, in Exhibit 110, to determine whether they were both written by the same person?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. And what is your conclusion?

Mr. Cole. My conclusion is that the author of the writing in the Latin alphabet on Exhibit 110 is a possible author of the name "A. J. Hidell" on 819, but I do not offer that as a definite conclusion. I say "possible author" because I observed a similarity in the particular parts where close comparison is possible, namely, with respect to the lowercase letter "d," of which one example is found in the word "day" on the left side of the lower one-third of Exhibit 110. The similarity consists in the degree of roundness of the body of the letter, and the fairly short and thin loop or the upper extension of the letter "d," plus a similarity with respect to the terminal stroke of that letter, the circumstance that it is not joined continuously with the letter following.

Another similarity is observed in the double "l's" of the word "especially," which is on the last line at the right side of 110, and here we have a similarity with respect to the proportion of the height of those letters relative to other small letters.

There is no opportunity for making a more extensive comparison between the name "A. J. Hidell" on 819 with this standard writing. And on that basis I would say only that the author of the standard could be regarded as a possible author of the questioned signature.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, would the production of Cyrillic writing, that is writing in the Russian language, be useful to you in evaluating the signature on 819?

Mr. Cole. I believe not.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you explain that?

Mr. Cole. Well, ordinarily a person who—I might say this, that the construction in writing one alphabet and the other would be completely different—that one would develop habits along different lines. It could not be expected that there would be a close translation of habits from one alphabet into another.

Mr. Eisenberg. Is enough writing present in 819 so that you believe you could make a definite identification if you had a sufficient standard on which to base your comparison?

Mr. Cole. Yes; I think so.

Mr. Eisenberg. If we obtained a greater standard, that is, a more voluminous standard, of the handwriting of Marina Oswald or other persons, would you undertake to make the examination and to submit your result, either in the form of testimony or by written communication to us, Mr. Cole?

Mr. Cole. Yes; I would be quite willing to.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may we state on the record that the Commission is requesting Mr. Cole to do this, if we can obtain a better standard, and that we will attempt to obtain such a standard?

Mr. McCloy. Very well.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, referring to 110 again for a moment, can you characterize the degree of skill with which the writing is produced, that is the English or Latin alphabet present on 110?

Mr. Cole. I would say it is an average degree of skill, fairly good based upon the perfection of letter forms, regularity of proportions, speed of writing—I would say fairly good.

Mr. Eisenberg. Would it require much practice in the use of the Latin alphabet to attain the degree of skill evidenced in 110?

Mr. Cole. Well, it would certainly take some practice. It is not the writing of a novice in forming these particular letters.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you expand a little on what you mean by "some practice"? A week's practice, or a month's practice, or a year's practice?

Mr. Cole. Of course, this depends on how intensive the practice is, but I would certainly say more than a week's practice.

Mr. McCloy. Mr. Cole, have you examined the Russian script, have you attempted to make anything out of such Russian script as we have of Marina Oswald, have you seen standard forms?

Mr. Cole. No, sir; I have not.

Mr. McCloy. Might it not be helpful to look at some of that to see whether there is anything you can make out of that that would help you in the——

Mr. Cole. I am inclined to doubt it, but I would be quite willing to take a look at it.

Mr. McCloy. I can understand your reasons for doubting it but there may be something that we have here—we have here, have we not?

Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, we do.

Mr. McCloy. A very substantial number, quantities of Marina's writing in Russian, and it may be that there is something you can glean from that if you would look at it perhaps before you go.

Mr. Eisenberg. I will make arrangements for Mr. Cole to see that writing, Mr. Chairman.

Any further question on this Fair Play for Cuba Committee card?

Mr. McCloy. No, I don't think so.

Mr. Eisenberg. Finally then, Mr. Cole, I show you an item consisting of a letter on a yellow piece of stationery, apparently torn from a legal-size pad, addressed to Leslie Welding Co. from "Lee H. Oswald"—signed "Lee H. Oswald"—and with an address handprinted, and reading "Dear Sir, this is to explain that I have moved permanently to Dallas, Texas, where I have found other employment," and so forth, and I ask you whether you have examined that item?

Mr. Cole. I have.

Mr. Eisenberg. May that be admitted as 826, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.

(The item referred to was marked 826, and received into evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you attempt to compare this item with the standards to determine whether it had been produced by the author of the standards?

Mr. Cole. I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. What was your conclusion?

Mr. Cole. It is my conclusion that the author of the standard writing is the author of the writing shown by Exhibit 826.

Mr. Eisenberg. Can you briefly give us some of the reasons for that conclusion?

Mr. Cole. Yes; there is an agreement in a great many details between this letter, 826, some of which I think are more significant than others.

One of the really highly significant points is the formation of the letter "x" in the word "Texas" which has already been mentioned in connection with other exhibits. Now, this word appears on 826, on the second——

Mr. Eisenberg. Excuse me. That exhibit should be, have been, 820A. Let's refer to it from now on as 820A.

(The item referred to was renumbered.)

Mr. Cole. The exhibit just mentioned is understood to be 820A, and the word "Texas" appears on the second line of the body of the letter. The method of forming this "x" is first to construct a U-like form, that is, a form having two cusps with a shallow curve connecting the two, and then to make the crossbar in such a manner that it comes very close to the second cusp. This is a very unusual variation of the letter "x," and it appears in the standard writing—also in the word "Texas"—in several places, chart B, items 4, 12, and 13.

The writing shows the tendency to exaggerate certain approach strokes or initial strokes of letters. In the body of Exhibit 821 this is evident in the letter "i" of "is," which is the second word of the first line, and moving along that same first line we have the same effect for the first stroke of the "t" of "to" and the "t" of "that." Then moving down to the second paragraph, third word, the same effect is shown, and this is illustrated in the standard writing in two places, one good example being chart A, item 1, the word "to," the same chart, item 3, the word "the."

The construction of the small letter "p" has been mentioned heretofore, has been characterized by an absence of an upper extension, that is, no extension that passes above the height of the body of the letter, and the body of the letter is made in the form of an arch, rather than a circle closed against the staff. This is shown in the words "presently" and "employ," which are in the last line of writing of this exhibit, and this is repeated in the standard writing as shown by chart A, item 2, the word "support," item 3, the word "port" and the word "transportation."

There is a very close agreement in all details of the signature of Lee H. Oswald on this letter with the several examples of the signatures shown on these charts, chart A, item 15, chart B, item 15, and chart C, item 6, second to the last line.

The word "Texas," including this highly significant "x," is repeated as the last word on this letter.

These constitute some of my reasons for believing that Exhibit 820A is in the handwriting of the author of the standard writing.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, to recapitulate then, all the standards which you have examined and which were put in evidence, and all of the questioned documents which you have examined and which were put in evidence, are in the handwriting of the same person, with the exceptions you have noted, such as "A. J. Hidell" on the penultimate exhibit, the FPCC card?

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Cole, did you have any information concerning any identifications or nonidentifications of handwriting made by any other Federal agency in this matter?

Mr. Cole. No, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you have any other information whatsoever concerning identification or nonidentification by anyone in this matter?

Mr. Cole. No, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. Do you at this point have any such information?

Mr. Cole. No, sir.

Mr. Eisenberg. That completes my examination, Mr. McCloy.

Mr. McCloy. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. McCloy. Commission Exhibit 776 is a series of checks which have been endorsed by Oswald, some in lead pencil and some in ink. Some of those endorsements seem to be, rather the handwriting seems to be, very irregular, loose, malformed, certain other ones very clear and quite regular, and in comparison with other standards of Oswald's I find some difficulty in conforming the signatures on certain of these endorsements to those standards. I wonder if you would look at these and tell me whether you have any comments in regard to the comments I have made about this—about these checks? The first two or three there seem to exemplify what I am talking about.

Mr. Cole. In my opinion the endorsements on these checks show a moderately wide range of writing habit, and they also show variations which may be due to an attitude about the act of writing, and I am thinking especially of the more distorted signatures, such as that appearing on No. 2408; and by attitude I mean that a person might find the act of writing very inconvenient or distasteful or might actually be experiencing some strong emotion at the particular time.

Mr. McCloy. Could it be, might I interrupt, could it be that he was writing while he was in movement here, while he was in an automobile or some jolting vehicle?

Mr. Cole. Well, that can affect handwriting, of course, but I believe it is unlikely, because the first letter of his name is well formed. The first letter of "Lee" on this endorsement of 2408 shows as much skill and control as any of the better signatures.

Mr. McCloy. You think maybe something irritated him in between?

Mr. Cole. That is a possibility. I think most people find the act of writing, especially writing a signature, a pleasant thing to do. I think that is one reason why people develop a somewhat higher skill.

Mr. McCloy. It depends on whether it is an endorsement of a check or a drawing of the check.

Mr. Cole. That could make a difference.

Mr. McCloy. Well, thank you very much.

Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.

(Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

---

[Tuesday, May 5, 1964]
TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. FAIN, JOHN LESTER QUIGLEY, AND JAMES PATRICK HOSTY, JR.

The President's Commission met at 9:25 a.m. on May 5, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Gerald R. Ford, John J. McCloy, and Allen W. Dulles, members.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; David W. Belin, assistant counsel; Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel; Howard P. Willens, assistant counsel; Charles Murray, observer; and Leon Jaworski, special counsel to the attorney general of Texas.