Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry admits to newsmen in the hallway that Lee Harvey Oswald DID ask for a lawyer. At that point, the questioning of Oswald should have stopped, but because it continued, anything Oswald said after that would have beeninadmissable at trial.
Oswald's rights under the 5th and 6th Amendment to the US Constitution were violated as a result of the continuing interrogation without an attorney present.
https://youtu.be/cCuz2vl0G2Y
Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry admits to newsmen in the hallway that Lee Harvey Oswald DID ask for a lawyer. At that point, the questioning of Oswald should have stopped, but because it continued, anything Oswald said after that would have beeninadmissable at trial.
Oswald's rights under the 5th and 6th Amendment to the US Constitution were violated as a result of the continuing interrogation without an attorney present.
https://youtu.be/cCuz2vl0G2Y
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:18:56 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:inadmissable at trial.
Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry admits to newsmen in the hallway that Lee Harvey Oswald DID ask for a lawyer. At that point, the questioning of Oswald should have stopped, but because it continued, anything Oswald said after that would have been
Oswald's rights under the 5th and 6th Amendment to the US Constitution were violated as a result of the continuing interrogation without an attorney present.
https://youtu.be/cCuz2vl0G2YOswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but would
that hold up in court?
Oswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:05:08 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Oswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.Source ?
Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry admits to newsmen in the hallway that Lee Harvey Oswald DID ask for a lawyer. At that point, the questioning of Oswald should have stopped, but because it continued, anything Oswald said after that would have beeninadmissable at trial.
Oswald's rights under the 5th and 6th Amendment to the US Constitution were violated as a result of the continuing interrogation without an attorney present.
https://youtu.be/cCuz2vl0G2Y
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:16:26 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston: “Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said
So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Of course he was. He was posturing for the media, just as he did when he accused the DPD
of police brutality when he was being arrested. You have demonstrated a complete lack of
skepticism about the things Oswald was saying to the media.
Oswald knew he was guilty of two murders. He also knew it was almost certain he would beHere, Corbett approves of an extrajudicial murder, showing what kind of fella he really is. We all knew already, of course. Corbett loves the murderers.
convicted and sentenced to die. By making these public red herring complaints, he was laying
the ground work for a potential appeal. Fortunately, Jack Ruby made that moot. Nice shot, Jack.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:a court of law.
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as inadmisssible in
Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said
So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald. The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as inadmisssible
nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston: “Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said
So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Of course he was. He was posturing for the media, just as he did when he accused the DPD
of police brutality when he was being arrested. You have demonstrated a complete lack of
skepticism about the things Oswald was saying to the media.
Oswald knew he was guilty of two murders. He also knew it was almost certain he would be
convicted and sentenced to die. By making these public red herring complaints, he was laying
the ground work for a potential appeal. Fortunately, Jack Ruby made that moot. Nice shot, Jack.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as inadmisssible
nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston: “Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said
So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Of course he was. He was posturing for the media, just as he did when he accused the DPD
of police brutality when he was being arrested. You have demonstrated a complete lack of
skepticism about the things Oswald was saying to the media.
Oswald knew he was guilty of two murders.
convicted and sentenced to die. By making these public red herring complaints, he was laying
the ground work for a potential appeal. Fortunately, Jack Ruby made that moot. Nice shot, Jack.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
Also the 1966 Miranda decision, spelling out a legal *interpretation* of those rights was heretofore lacking, and it is dubious at best to retroactively apply such as strict understanding to prior cases of conduct.
The Miranda case was a 1963 case that took three years to get to the Supreme Court.
Your Constitutional rights are yours at birth, not when the Supreme Court says so.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston: “Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said
So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Of course he was. He was posturing for the media, just as he did when he accused the DPD
of police brutality when he was being arrested. You have demonstrated a complete lack of
skepticism about the things Oswald was saying to the media.
Oswald knew he was guilty of two murders.Connolly didn't die
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:21:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:16:26 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston: “Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel.
So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Of course he was. He was posturing for the media, just as he did when he accused the DPD
of police brutality when he was being arrested. You have demonstrated a complete lack of
skepticism about the things Oswald was saying to the media.
Had Ruby not murdered Oswald (notice I have no problem saying that even though Ruby, likeOswald knew he was guilty of two murders. He also knew it was almost certain he would beHere, Corbett approves of an extrajudicial murder, showing what kind of fella he really is. We all knew already, of course. Corbett loves the murderers.
convicted and sentenced to die. By making these public red herring complaints, he was laying
the ground work for a potential appeal. Fortunately, Jack Ruby made that moot. Nice shot, Jack.
Oswald, was not under a criminal conviction when he died), Oswald likely would have escaped
execution when the Supreme Court struck down all existing death penalty statutes. In the
process they spared the lives of Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson. That was a shame. It would
have been an even bigger shame if Oswald had also escaped execution. He likely would have still
been sitting in his jail cell at the age of 84 and be demanding to be paroled. It almost worked
for Sirhan but that's in the nutty state of California. I think Texas would have been much less
sympathetic toward Oswald.
I would have much preferred to see Oswald fried into a smoldering pile of ash in the Texas
electric chair, but because that outcome seems in doubt, Ruby's actions were the next best
thing.
PS. It wouldn't bother me in the least if OJ suffered the same fate as Oswald, but that's
wishful thinking.
he would have just been convicted again
solely on the forensic and eyewitness testimony.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
Also the 1966 Miranda decision, spelling out a legal *interpretation* of those rights was heretofore lacking, and it is dubious at best to retroactively apply such as strict understanding to prior cases of conduct.
The Miranda case was a 1963 case that took three years to get to the Supreme Court.
Your Constitutional rights are yours at birth, not when the Supreme Court says so.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote: >> > We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but would
that hold up in court?According to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had lawyered up ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didnt.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as inadmisssible
beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry. ( ibid. )
Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswalds being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his second choice of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that Captain King assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was he also assured us that there had been an opportunity ofOswalds rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said nothing
So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald. >> The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one. ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didnt say who he wanted.
Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.
Of course he was. He was posturing for the media, just as he did when he accused the DPD
of police brutality when he was being arrested. You have demonstrated a complete lack of
skepticism about the things Oswald was saying to the media.
Oswald knew he was guilty of two murders. He also knew it was almost certain he would be
convicted and sentenced to die. By making these public red herring complaints, he was laying
the ground work for a potential appeal. Fortunately, Jack Ruby made that moot. Nice shot, Jack.
Had Ruby not murdered Oswald (notice I have no problem saying that even though Ruby, like
Oswald, was not under a criminal conviction when he died), Oswald likely would have escaped
execution when the Supreme Court struck down all existing death penalty statutes. In the
process they spared the lives of Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson. That was a shame. It would
have been an even bigger shame if Oswald had also escaped execution. He likely would have still
been sitting in his jail cell at the age of 84 and be demanding to be paroled. It almost worked
for Sirhan but that's in the nutty state of California. I think Texas would have been much less
sympathetic toward Oswald.
I would have much preferred to see Oswald fried into a smoldering pile of ash in the Texas
electric chair, but because that outcome seems in doubt, Ruby's actions were the next best
thing.
PS. It wouldn't bother me in the least if OJ suffered the same fate as Oswald, but that's
wishful thinking.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:39:04?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:05:08?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Oswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.Source ?
Would you believe the ABA Journal?
Why are you trying to get Oswald off on a technicality? Do you think that would serve a purpose?
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
Also the 1966 Miranda decision, spelling out a legal *interpretation* of those rights was heretofore lacking, and it is dubious at best to retroactively apply such as strict understanding to prior cases of conduct.
The Miranda case was a 1963 case that took three years to get to the Supreme Court.
Your Constitutional rights are yours at birth, not when the Supreme Court says so.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:05:08 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Oswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.Source ?
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:a court of law.
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as inadmisssible in
Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said
So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald. The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as inadmisssible
nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston: “Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said
down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he sit
So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.What part of “No” did you not understand?
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal counsel.
Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting tocontinue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.
honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less than
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston: “Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said
down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he sit
What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal counsel.
continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to
honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less than
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel.
sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he
counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal
continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to
than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statementsFact: Oswald did not get his call for a lawyer until almost 24 hours after his arrest.
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
And fuck Will Fritz and his lies.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston: “Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel.
down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he sit
counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart. . . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal
continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to
honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less than
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statements
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston: “Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel.
down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he sit
counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart. . . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal
continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to
honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less than
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statements
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:…The usual procedure is, I believe, when it comes to the attention of the judge that an accused in jail is not represented by an attorney–I am talking about a felony case now—or a man, whether he is in jail or not, if he makes requests of the
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Louis Nichols stated that indigent defendants in criminal felony cases were appointed counsel by judges at their request.
Mr. STERN. What is the practice in this jurisdiction regarding the appointment of counsel for indigents accused in criminal cases ?
Mr. NICHOLS. Basically, I think that would follow the statutes which provide that where it comes to the attention of the court, that a man charged with a felony is not represented by an attorney that the court will appoint an attorney to represent him
So the judge was required BY LAW to appoint a lawyer if a defendant asked for one.
But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritz’s office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said.
The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 15 H 507 )
Homicide Detective Elmer Boyd likewise could not remember what Oswald said. ( 7 H 130 )
The same kind of amnesia seems to have struck Will Fritz ( 4 H 217 ) and Detective Richard Sims couldn’t remember what either the judge or Oswald said. ( 7 H 171 )
“Can’t remember” is an old trick used by witnesses who wish to avoid the choice of telling the truth or lying under oath.
So here we are told that a judge and three police officers inside Capt. Fritz’s tiny little office ( where the arraignment occurred ) couldn’t remember the exact same thing. ( 15 H 507 )
That’s simply not credible.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Louis Nichols stated that indigent defendants in criminal felony cases were appointed counsel by judges at their request.
Mr. STERN. What is the practice in this jurisdiction regarding the appointment of counsel for indigents accused in criminal cases ?
Mr. NICHOLS. Basically, I think that would follow the statutes which provide that where it comes to the attention of the court, that a man charged with a felony is not represented by an attorney that the court will appoint an attorney to represent him…The usual procedure is, I believe, when it comes to the attention of the judge that an accused in jail is not represented by an attorney–I am talking about a felony case now—or a man, whether he is in jail or not, if he makes requests of the
So the judge was required BY LAW to appoint a lawyer if a defendant asked for one.
But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritz’s office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said.
The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 15 H 507 )
Homicide Detective Elmer Boyd likewise could not remember what Oswald said. ( 7 H 130 )
The same kind of amnesia seems to have struck Will Fritz ( 4 H 217 ) and Detective Richard Sims couldn’t remember what either the judge or Oswald said. ( 7 H 171 )
“Can’t remember” is an old trick used by witnesses who wish to avoid the choice of telling the truth or lying under oath.
So here we are told that a judge and three police officers inside Capt. Fritz’s tiny little office ( where the arraignment occurred ) couldn’t remember the exact same thing. ( 15 H 507 )
That’s simply not credible.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:12:25 PM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:47:15 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
counsel. Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined
he sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that
counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal
to continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting
than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
No it doesn'tDoesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses establish Oswald as aOnce again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statementsFact: Oswald did not get his call for a lawyer until almost 24 hours after his arrest.
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
And fuck Will Fritz and his lies.
double murderer. That's all that matters now.
Selective CUNTbet style justice this is?
The evidence was and still is dreck.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:47:15 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel.
sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he
counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal
continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to
than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
Doesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses establish Oswald as aOnce again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statementsFact: Oswald did not get his call for a lawyer until almost 24 hours after his arrest.
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
And fuck Will Fritz and his lies.
double murderer. That's all that matters now.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:47:15 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel.
sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he
counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal
continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to
than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
Doesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses establish Oswald as aOnce again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statementsFact: Oswald did not get his call for a lawyer until almost 24 hours after his arrest.
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
And fuck Will Fritz and his lies.
double murderer. That's all that matters now.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel.
sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he
counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal
continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to
than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie aboutWhy would he put his ability to practice law at risk to go out of his way to perjure himself? As well as potential jail time.
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
A whole lot of people seem to be willing to go to jail by saying things and doing things, a truckload of people out to get the poor patsy.
Or he was just guilty, and a bunch of idiots can`t come to grips with it.
Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statements
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:…The usual procedure is, I believe, when it comes to the attention of the judge that an accused in jail is not represented by an attorney–I am talking about a felony case now—or a man, whether he is in jail or not, if he makes requests of the
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Louis Nichols stated that indigent defendants in criminal felony cases were appointed counsel by judges at their request.
Mr. STERN. What is the practice in this jurisdiction regarding the appointment of counsel for indigents accused in criminal cases ?
Mr. NICHOLS. Basically, I think that would follow the statutes which provide that where it comes to the attention of the court, that a man charged with a felony is not represented by an attorney that the court will appoint an attorney to represent him
So the judge was required BY LAW to appoint a lawyer if a defendant asked for one.
But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritz’s office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said.
The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 15 H 507 )
Homicide Detective Elmer Boyd likewise could not remember what Oswald said. ( 7 H 130 )
The same kind of amnesia seems to have struck Will Fritz ( 4 H 217 ) and Detective Richard Sims couldn’t remember what either the judge or Oswald said. ( 7 H 171 )
“Can’t remember” is an old trick used by witnesses who wish to avoid the choice of telling the truth or lying under oath.
So here we are told that a judge and three police officers inside Capt. Fritz’s tiny little office ( where the arraignment occurred ) couldn’t remember the exact same thing. ( 15 H 507 )
That’s simply not credible.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:05:55 PM UTC+1, Bud wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel.
sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he
counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal
continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to
than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie aboutWhy would he put his ability to practice law at risk to go out of his way to perjure himself? As well as potential jail time.
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
A whole lot of people seem to be willing to go to jail by saying things and doing things, a truckload of people out to get the poor patsy.
Or he was just guilty, and a bunch of idiots can`t come to grips with it.Why
Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statements
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
yeah why?
You bed bound twat.
Get your crayon and write in whatever you like.
That's your reply when cornered.
Fuck off already, take a pill and go to sleep.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel.
sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he
counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal
continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to
than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statementsRobert Oswald said that he offered to get Oswald a lawyer but that he, Oswald, told him not to. That he wanted Abt.
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
So we have Nichols and Robert Oswald giving the same account. And we have Oswald making several phone calls trying to contact Abt.
Here is Robert Oswald's account from his book:
"What about this attorney you tried to contact in New York?" I asked. "Who is he?"
"Well, he's just an attorney I want to handle my case."
"I"ll get you an attorney down here."
"No, he said, "you stay out of it."
"Stay out of it. It looks like I've been dragged into it."
"I'm NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYBODY FROM DOWN HERE," he said very firmly. "I want this one."
Oswald was a Marxist, he detested the US economic and political systems. He didn't trust any lawyers from Dallas, anyone he didn't know. Because he was an erratic, paranoid person - quite similar to some of these people who defend him.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston: “Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel.
down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he sit
counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart. . . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal
continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to
honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less than
Robert Oswald said that he offered to get Oswald a lawyer but that he, Oswald, told him not to. That he wanted Abt.Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statements
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:01:58 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:05:55 PM UTC+1, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
counsel. Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined
he sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that
counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal
to continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting
than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less
what is in evidence and scribble in what you like. A very stupid hobby.Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie aboutWhy would he put his ability to practice law at risk to go out of his way to perjure himself? As well as potential jail time.
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
A whole lot of people seem to be willing to go to jail by saying things and doing things, a truckload of people out to get the poor patsy.
Isn`t that what you idiots did with the wallet shown being examined by police at 10th and Patton? It is unknown, so you idiots break out your crayons and make it the wallet of anyone you like. You like blank canvasses so you can fingerpaint. You ignoreOr he was just guilty, and a bunch of idiots can`t come to grips with it.Why
Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statements
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
yeah why?
You bed bound twat.
Get your crayon and write in whatever you like.
That's your reply when cornered.
Fuck off already, take a pill and go to sleep.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:34:31 PM UTC+1, Steven Galbraith wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel.
sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he
counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal
continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to
than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
More incomplete garbage.Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statementsRobert Oswald said that he offered to get Oswald a lawyer but that he, Oswald, told him not to. That he wanted Abt.
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
So we have Nichols and Robert Oswald giving the same account. And we have Oswald making several phone calls trying to contact Abt.
Here is Robert Oswald's account from his book:
"What about this attorney you tried to contact in New York?" I asked. "Who is he?"
"Well, he's just an attorney I want to handle my case."
"I"ll get you an attorney down here."
"No, he said, "you stay out of it."
"Stay out of it. It looks like I've been dragged into it."
"I'm NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYBODY FROM DOWN HERE," he said very firmly. "I want this one."
Oswald was a Marxist, he detested the US economic and political systems. He didn't trust any lawyers from Dallas, anyone he didn't know. Because he was an erratic, paranoid person - quite similar to some of these people who defend him.
he said he wanted Abt on the morning of the 23rd. and if he could not get one he would get one from the ACLU.
B00M!
Oh and do explain the lawyers that showed up before the press conference and were given the run around by Fritz and co.
Do tell.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:01:48 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:34:31 PM UTC+1, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
counsel. Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined
he sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that
counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal
to continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting
than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
More incomplete garbage.Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statementsRobert Oswald said that he offered to get Oswald a lawyer but that he, Oswald, told him not to. That he wanted Abt.
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
So we have Nichols and Robert Oswald giving the same account. And we have Oswald making several phone calls trying to contact Abt.
Here is Robert Oswald's account from his book:
"What about this attorney you tried to contact in New York?" I asked. "Who is he?"
"Well, he's just an attorney I want to handle my case."
"I"ll get you an attorney down here."
"No, he said, "you stay out of it."
"Stay out of it. It looks like I've been dragged into it."
"I'm NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYBODY FROM DOWN HERE," he said very firmly. "I want this one."
Oswald was a Marxist, he detested the US economic and political systems. He didn't trust any lawyers from Dallas, anyone he didn't know. Because he was an erratic, paranoid person - quite similar to some of these people who defend him.
he said he wanted Abt on the morning of the 23rd. and if he could not get one he would get one from the ACLU.
B00M!
Oh and do explain the lawyers that showed up before the press conference and were given the run around by Fritz and co.Even if all of your allegations were true, a big if, it does not change the fact that Oswald
Do tell.
murdered two people and there is ample evidence of that. At best, it might have gotten
anything Oswald said ruled inadmissible, but since Oswald didn't admit to anything, that
wouldn't have been an obstacle to his conviction.
The 1966 Miranda ruling did not establish any new rights. What Miranda did was establish
strict rules that police departments had to follow IN THE FUTURE. The purpose of these rules
was to protect recognized rights, the right of the accused to counsel during questioning and
the right against self incrimination. Prior to Miranda, the rules varied from state to state and
in some cases were quite nebulous. Miranda addressed both of those.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:38:52 PM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:01:48 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:34:31 PM UTC+1, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
counsel. Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined
that he sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested
legal counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining
opting to continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and
less than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
More incomplete garbage.Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statementsRobert Oswald said that he offered to get Oswald a lawyer but that he, Oswald, told him not to. That he wanted Abt.
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
So we have Nichols and Robert Oswald giving the same account. And we have Oswald making several phone calls trying to contact Abt.
Here is Robert Oswald's account from his book:
"What about this attorney you tried to contact in New York?" I asked. "Who is he?"
"Well, he's just an attorney I want to handle my case."
"I"ll get you an attorney down here."
"No, he said, "you stay out of it."
"Stay out of it. It looks like I've been dragged into it."
"I'm NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYBODY FROM DOWN HERE," he said very firmly. "I want this one."
Oswald was a Marxist, he detested the US economic and political systems. He didn't trust any lawyers from Dallas, anyone he didn't know. Because he was an erratic, paranoid person - quite similar to some of these people who defend him.
he said he wanted Abt on the morning of the 23rd. and if he could not get one he would get one from the ACLU.
B00M!
Oh and do explain the lawyers that showed up before the press conference and were given the run around by Fritz and co.Even if all of your allegations were true, a big if, it does not change the fact that Oswald
Do tell.
murdered two people and there is ample evidence of that. At best, it might have gotten
anything Oswald said ruled inadmissible, but since Oswald didn't admit to anything, that
wouldn't have been an obstacle to his conviction.
The 1966 Miranda ruling did not establish any new rights. What Miranda did was establishIF
strict rules that police departments had to follow IN THE FUTURE. The purpose of these rules
was to protect recognized rights, the right of the accused to counsel during questioning and
the right against self incrimination. Prior to Miranda, the rules varied from state to state and
in some cases were quite nebulous. Miranda addressed both of those.
blah blah blah.
That is admitting defeat because of the evidence.
Glad you see it our way.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:39:52 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:38:52 PM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:01:48 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:34:31 PM UTC+1, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
counsel. Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined
that he sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested
legal counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining
opting to continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and
less than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
More incomplete garbage.Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statementsRobert Oswald said that he offered to get Oswald a lawyer but that he, Oswald, told him not to. That he wanted Abt.
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
So we have Nichols and Robert Oswald giving the same account. And we have Oswald making several phone calls trying to contact Abt.
Here is Robert Oswald's account from his book:
"What about this attorney you tried to contact in New York?" I asked. "Who is he?"
"Well, he's just an attorney I want to handle my case."
"I"ll get you an attorney down here."
"No, he said, "you stay out of it."
"Stay out of it. It looks like I've been dragged into it."
"I'm NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYBODY FROM DOWN HERE," he said very firmly. "I want this one."
Oswald was a Marxist, he detested the US economic and political systems. He didn't trust any lawyers from Dallas, anyone he didn't know. Because he was an erratic, paranoid person - quite similar to some of these people who defend him.
he said he wanted Abt on the morning of the 23rd. and if he could not get one he would get one from the ACLU.
B00M!
Oh and do explain the lawyers that showed up before the press conference and were given the run around by Fritz and co.Even if all of your allegations were true, a big if, it does not change the fact that Oswald
Do tell.
murdered two people and there is ample evidence of that. At best, it might have gotten
anything Oswald said ruled inadmissible, but since Oswald didn't admit to anything, that
wouldn't have been an obstacle to his conviction.
The 1966 Miranda ruling did not establish any new rights. What Miranda did was establishIF
strict rules that police departments had to follow IN THE FUTURE. The purpose of these rules
was to protect recognized rights, the right of the accused to counsel during questioning and
the right against self incrimination. Prior to Miranda, the rules varied from state to state and
in some cases were quite nebulous. Miranda addressed both of those.
blah blah blah.
That is admitting defeat because of the evidence.
Glad you see it our way.The ifs all come from your side. The LNs have all the evidence on their side. If you dispute that,
please present ONE piece of evidence that indicates somebody other than Oswald took part in
either murder. We both know you can't.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:in a court of law.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote: >> > We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but would
that hold up in court?According to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had lawyered up ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didnt.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as inadmisssible
beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry. ( ibid. )
Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswalds being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his second choice of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that Captain King assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was he also assured us that there had been an opportunity ofOswalds rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said nothing
So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald. >> The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one. ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didnt say who he wanted.
Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. Youve been told that.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htmpart of No did you not understand?
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he sit down.
So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
Its curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal counsel. What
Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyers help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (interim because were assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to continue to talkto the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.
honest.
Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.
Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less than
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:43:35 PM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:as inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:39:52 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:38:52 PM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:01:48 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:34:31 PM UTC+1, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point
counsel. Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined
that he sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases. In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested
legal counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining
opting to continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and
being less than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
More incomplete garbage.Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statementsRobert Oswald said that he offered to get Oswald a lawyer but that he, Oswald, told him not to. That he wanted Abt.
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
So we have Nichols and Robert Oswald giving the same account. And we have Oswald making several phone calls trying to contact Abt.
Here is Robert Oswald's account from his book:
"What about this attorney you tried to contact in New York?" I asked. "Who is he?"
"Well, he's just an attorney I want to handle my case."
"I"ll get you an attorney down here."
"No, he said, "you stay out of it."
"Stay out of it. It looks like I've been dragged into it."
"I'm NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYBODY FROM DOWN HERE," he said very firmly. "I want this one."
Oswald was a Marxist, he detested the US economic and political systems. He didn't trust any lawyers from Dallas, anyone he didn't know. Because he was an erratic, paranoid person - quite similar to some of these people who defend him.
he said he wanted Abt on the morning of the 23rd. and if he could not get one he would get one from the ACLU.
B00M!
Oh and do explain the lawyers that showed up before the press conference and were given the run around by Fritz and co.Even if all of your allegations were true, a big if, it does not change the fact that Oswald
Do tell.
murdered two people and there is ample evidence of that. At best, it might have gotten
anything Oswald said ruled inadmissible, but since Oswald didn't admit to anything, that
wouldn't have been an obstacle to his conviction.
The 1966 Miranda ruling did not establish any new rights. What Miranda did was establishIF
strict rules that police departments had to follow IN THE FUTURE. The purpose of these rules
was to protect recognized rights, the right of the accused to counsel during questioning and
the right against self incrimination. Prior to Miranda, the rules varied from state to state and
in some cases were quite nebulous. Miranda addressed both of those.
blah blah blah.
That is admitting defeat because of the evidence.
You said IFGlad you see it our way.The ifs all come from your side. The LNs have all the evidence on their side. If you dispute that,
please present ONE piece of evidence that indicates somebody other than Oswald took part in
either murder. We both know you can't.
Even if all of your allegations were true...
Doesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses establish Oswald as a
double murderer. That's all that matters now.
The ifs all come from your side. The LNs have all the evidence on their side. If you dispute that,
please present ONE piece of evidence that indicates somebody other than Oswald took part in
either murder. We both know you can't.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:59:45 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:12:01 PM UTC+1, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:01:58 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:05:55 PM UTC+1, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
counsel. Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined
that he sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested
legal counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining
opting to continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and
less than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being
ignore what is in evidence and scribble in what you like. A very stupid hobby.Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie aboutWhy would he put his ability to practice law at risk to go out of his way to perjure himself? As well as potential jail time.
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
A whole lot of people seem to be willing to go to jail by saying things and doing things, a truckload of people out to get the poor patsy.
Isn`t that what you idiots did with the wallet shown being examined by police at 10th and Patton? It is unknown, so you idiots break out your crayons and make it the wallet of anyone you like. You like blank canvasses so you can fingerpaint. YouOr he was just guilty, and a bunch of idiots can`t come to grips with it.Why
Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statements
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
yeah why?
You bed bound twat.
Get your crayon and write in whatever you like.
That's your reply when cornered.
For a supposed innocent person it sure is strange that the Oswald defenders want so much evidence tossed out (meanwhile uncritically accepting the most dubious claims of a conspiracy). "Chain of custody!" "Miranda!!" This is the only controversial eventAll you guys do is shoot blanks.LMAOFuck off already, take a pill and go to sleep.
I love the sound of an outgunned loner nutter.
Doesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses establish Oswald as a
double murderer. That's all that matters now.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:12:01 PM UTC+1, Bud wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:01:58 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:05:55 PM UTC+1, Bud wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
counsel. Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined
that he sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested
legal counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining
opting to continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and
less than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being
ignore what is in evidence and scribble in what you like. A very stupid hobby.Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie aboutWhy would he put his ability to practice law at risk to go out of his way to perjure himself? As well as potential jail time.
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
A whole lot of people seem to be willing to go to jail by saying things and doing things, a truckload of people out to get the poor patsy.
Isn`t that what you idiots did with the wallet shown being examined by police at 10th and Patton? It is unknown, so you idiots break out your crayons and make it the wallet of anyone you like. You like blank canvasses so you can fingerpaint. YouOr he was just guilty, and a bunch of idiots can`t come to grips with it.Why
Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statements
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
yeah why?
You bed bound twat.
Get your crayon and write in whatever you like.
That's your reply when cornered.
LMAOFuck off already, take a pill and go to sleep.
I love the sound of an outgunned loner nutter.
All you guys do is shoot blanks.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:12:25 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses establish Oswald as aThen why TF are you here ?
double murderer. That's all that matters now.
If you're satisfied that the case was closed, why TF are you and your asshole friends here in a CONSPIRACY newsgroup ?
You've got all the answers.
You don't accept any evidence to the contrary.
You repeatedly lie about things.
What do you and your asshole pals have to add to the Warren Commission's case ?
Not a thing.
This isn't about evidence with you people.
You people are full of hate for anyone who says the "C" word.
So you come in here trolling those you consider "kooks" and try to expose them and make them look silly.
But it's you own ignorance of the very evidence you support that exposes you all as the fools in the end.
Your bottom line: the evidence proves Oswald did it.
Great, we can all stop posting now.
Except for you. You can still cry about where all the "conspiracy theorists" have gone.
Because in the end, without the CTs posting in this newsgroup, you're life has no meaning.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 6:29:53 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:41:11 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:The Supreme Court determines what those rights are.
Also the 1966 Miranda decision, spelling out a legal *interpretation* of those rights was heretofore lacking, and it is dubious at best to retroactively apply such as strict understanding to prior cases of conduct.
The Miranda case was a 1963 case that took three years to get to the Supreme Court.
Your Constitutional rights are yours at birth, not when the Supreme Court says so.
Unfortunately, in a perversion of what were originally believed to be "innate" God-given human rights, this is true. Hence one day you apparently have the constitutional right to kill the unborn one day and the next you don't.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:48:58 PM UTC+1, robert johnson wrote:as inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:43:35 PM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:39:52 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:38:52 PM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:01:48 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:34:31 PM UTC+1, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:25:37 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point
declined counsel. Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had
suggested that he sit down.So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and
obtaining legal counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in
opting to continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and
being less than honest.Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.
It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.
More incomplete garbage.Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statementsRobert Oswald said that he offered to get Oswald a lawyer but that he, Oswald, told him not to. That he wanted Abt.
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.
So we have Nichols and Robert Oswald giving the same account. And we have Oswald making several phone calls trying to contact Abt.
Here is Robert Oswald's account from his book:
"What about this attorney you tried to contact in New York?" I asked. "Who is he?"
"Well, he's just an attorney I want to handle my case."
"I"ll get you an attorney down here."
"No, he said, "you stay out of it."
"Stay out of it. It looks like I've been dragged into it."
"I'm NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYBODY FROM DOWN HERE," he said very firmly. "I want this one."
Oswald was a Marxist, he detested the US economic and political systems. He didn't trust any lawyers from Dallas, anyone he didn't know. Because he was an erratic, paranoid person - quite similar to some of these people who defend him.
he said he wanted Abt on the morning of the 23rd. and if he could not get one he would get one from the ACLU.
B00M!
Oh and do explain the lawyers that showed up before the press conference and were given the run around by Fritz and co.Even if all of your allegations were true, a big if, it does not change the fact that Oswald
Do tell.
murdered two people and there is ample evidence of that. At best, it might have gotten
anything Oswald said ruled inadmissible, but since Oswald didn't admit to anything, that
wouldn't have been an obstacle to his conviction.
The 1966 Miranda ruling did not establish any new rights. What Miranda did was establishIF
strict rules that police departments had to follow IN THE FUTURE. The purpose of these rules
was to protect recognized rights, the right of the accused to counsel during questioning and
the right against self incrimination. Prior to Miranda, the rules varied from state to state and
in some cases were quite nebulous. Miranda addressed both of those.
blah blah blah.
That is admitting defeat because of the evidence.
The burden is on you.You said IFGlad you see it our way.The ifs all come from your side. The LNs have all the evidence on their side. If you dispute that,
please present ONE piece of evidence that indicates somebody other than Oswald took part in
either murder. We both know you can't.
Plus the WR is NOT a legal document.
And Oswald is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
You forgot all that didn't you.
Like Doyle you only come with the convenient stuff and the other truckload that blasts your bs to bits you rather not mention.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:41:11 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:The Supreme Court determines what those rights are.
Also the 1966 Miranda decision, spelling out a legal *interpretation* of those rights was heretofore lacking, and it is dubious at best to retroactively apply such as strict understanding to prior cases of conduct.
The Miranda case was a 1963 case that took three years to get to the Supreme Court.
Your Constitutional rights are yours at birth, not when the Supreme Court says so.
And Oswald is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
For a supposed innocent person it sure is strange that the Oswald
defenders want so much evidence tossed out ...
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:01:51?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:12:25?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses establish Oswald as aThen why TF are you here ?
double murderer. That's all that matters now.
If you're satisfied that the case was closed, why TF are you and your asshole friends here in a CONSPIRACY newsgroup ?
You've got all the answers.
You don't accept any evidence to the contrary.
You repeatedly lie about things.
What do you and your asshole pals have to add to the Warren Commission's case ?
Not a thing.
This isn't about evidence with you people.
You people are full of hate for anyone who says the "C" word.
So you come in here trolling those you consider "kooks" and try to expose them and make them look silly.
But it's you own ignorance of the very evidence you support that exposes you all as the fools in the end.
If I am ignorant of the evidence, why is it you can't provide any that somebody other than
Oswald took part in the murders of the two men in question.
Your bottom line: the evidence proves Oswald did it.
BINGO!!!
Great, we can all stop posting now.I will if you will.
Except for you. You can still cry about where all the "conspiracy theorists" have gone.
Because in the end, without the CTs posting in this newsgroup, you're life has no meaning.
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 18:25:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzantin a court of law.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as inadmisssible
nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )
Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
“Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said
So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.You've been told you're both a liar and a coward.
down.https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he sit
What part of “No” did you not understand?So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
I said, "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==
It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal counsel.
continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to
honest.
Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.
Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less than
By lying about the evidence in this case time and time again, you've
proven yourself to be less than honest.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:13:19?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:in a court of law.
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 18:25:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote: >>>>> We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but would
that hold up in court?According to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had lawyered up ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didnt.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as inadmisssible
beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry. ( ibid. )
Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswalds being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his second choice of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that Captain King assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:
Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was he also assured us that there had been an opportunity ofOswalds rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said nothing
You've been told you're both a liar and a coward.
So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one. ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didnt say who he wanted.
Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. Youve been told that.
Youve asserted that on numerous occasions.
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 10:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzantinadmisssible in a court of law.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:13:19?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 18:25:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry.” ( ibid. )
Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that “Captain King ……assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.”
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston: >>>> “Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was…… he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of–Oswald’s rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said
You've been told you're both a liar and a coward.
So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests >>>> STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.
Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.
You’ve asserted that on numerous occasions.And PROVEN it a number of times.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:46:09 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
All you guys do is shoot blanks.And you should know about blanks. You have one sitting on top of your shoulders.
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:12:53?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:inadmisssible in a court of law.
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 10:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:13:19?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 18:25:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but wouldAccording to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 7 H 123, 165 )
that hold up in court?
Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 4 H 214-215 )
At this point, once Oswald had lawyered up ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didnt.
By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as
beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry. ( ibid. )
Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswalds being denied counsel.
According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:
He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him that Oswald had been given the opportunity to request counsel and had not made any requests.
This of course was a lie, because Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his second choice of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.
Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to Capt. Glen King. Olds testified that Captain King assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.
Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston: >>>>>> Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where Justice of the Peace David Johnston was he also assured us that there had been an opportunity ofOswalds rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said nothing
And PROVEN it a number of times.You've been told you're both a liar and a coward.
So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.
STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests >>>>>> STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.
One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.
In his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater. ( 7 H 52 )
Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one. ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didnt say who he wanted.
Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. Youve been told that.
Youve asserted that on numerous occasions.
More repetition of the same assertion.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:18:56?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:inadmissable at trial.
Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry admits to newsmen in the hallway that Lee Harvey Oswald DID ask for a lawyer. At that point, the questioning of Oswald should have stopped, but because it continued, anything Oswald said after that would have been
Oswald's rights under the 5th and 6th Amendment to the US Constitution were violated as a result of the continuing interrogation without an attorney present.
https://youtu.be/cCuz2vl0G2Y
Oswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:05:08 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:inadmissable at trial.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:18:56 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry admits to newsmen in the hallway that Lee Harvey Oswald DID ask for a lawyer. At that point, the questioning of Oswald should have stopped, but because it continued, anything Oswald said after that would have been
Oswald's rights under the 5th and 6th Amendment to the US Constitution were violated as a result of the continuing interrogation without an attorney present.
We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but would that hold up in court?https://youtu.be/cCuz2vl0G2YOswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 06:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>him……The usual procedure is, I believe, when it comes to the attention of the judge that an accused in jail is not represented by an attorney–I am talking about a felony case now—or a man, whether he is in jail or not, if he makes requests of the
wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:25:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Louis Nichols stated that indigent defendants in criminal felony cases were appointed counsel by judges at their request.
Mr. STERN. What is the practice in this jurisdiction regarding the appointment of counsel for indigents accused in criminal cases ?
Mr. NICHOLS. Basically, I think that would follow the statutes which provide that where it comes to the attention of the court, that a man charged with a felony is not represented by an attorney that the court will appoint an attorney to represent
So the judge was required BY LAW to appoint a lawyer if a defendant asked for one.
But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritz’s office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said.
The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 15 H 507 )
Not only isn`t this guy a judge...
Yep... judge.
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 08:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
All you guys do is shoot blanks.If blanks are all the evidence is, then why are you here?
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:25:25 AM UTC+10, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:inadmissable at trial.
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:05:08 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:18:56 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry admits to newsmen in the hallway that Lee Harvey Oswald DID ask for a lawyer. At that point, the questioning of Oswald should have stopped, but because it continued, anything Oswald said after that would have been
and union leaders had been those charged in the past under the Smith Act (designed to deport or jail those furthering the communist conspiracy on behalf of foreign powers). The only person who would know who Abt was in that room was Webster. He thereforeOswald's rights under the 5th and 6th Amendment to the US Constitution were violated as a result of the continuing interrogation without an attorney present.
Nothing "ish" about it, It was hearsay.We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but would that hold up in court?https://youtu.be/cCuz2vl0G2YOswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.
Fuck it, L:ook. They were originally going to claim in the indictment that he acted in furtherance of the "International Communist Conspiracy '. That was the bulk of the purpose of the first interroagtion that resulted in
( a ) having it leak out to the White House and the WH having the cops take that out of the indictment, and
( b ) Oswald telling reporters they only picked him up because he lived in the Soviet Union. That was the impression he got from that initial interogation.
As for Abt -- Oswald had no fucking idea who Abt was. Sitting inside the interrogation room was Law Professor Chuck Webster. He was there advising the cops on any applicable federal laws. He specialized in labor law. It is no suprise then that labor
But it was a trap. Only someone who actually WAS working for the commies would ask for Abt - who had never defended a murder case in his life. In short, asking for Abt only made him look MORE guilty.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:03:47?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:himThe usual procedure is, I believe, when it comes to the attention of the judge that an accused in jail is not represented by an attorneyI am talking about a felony case nowor a man, whether he is in jail or not, if he makes requests of the court
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 06:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:25:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Louis Nichols stated that indigent defendants in criminal felony cases were appointed counsel by judges at their request.
Mr. STERN. What is the practice in this jurisdiction regarding the appointment of counsel for indigents accused in criminal cases ?
Mr. NICHOLS. Basically, I think that would follow the statutes which provide that where it comes to the attention of the court, that a man charged with a felony is not represented by an attorney that the court will appoint an attorney to represent
So the judge was required BY LAW to appoint a lawyer if a defendant asked for one.
But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritzs office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said.
The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 15 H 507 )
Not only isn`t this guy a judge...
Yep... judge.
Not even a lawyer...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 120:44:58 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,426 |