Part 48

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.