Was Oswald denied Counsel by the Dallas Authorities ?

[Gary Craig]

Oswald was allowed to speak to the press.  So I don't think they were too concerned about his statements being made public or they would have cleared the hallways and kept him under wraps.  And if the "plan" was to kill him as you suggest, why arrest him at all?  There were perfect opportunities to kill Oswald right after the assassination and upon his arrest at the TT.  No one would have questioned doing so.  But the plan was to arrest him, interrogate him, and let him speak to the press before recruiting someone to murder him on national TV?  Another person to be kept quiet. Tell me you can't believe that nonsense.

"There were perfect opportunities to kill Oswald right after the assassination and upon his arrest at the TT."

A pistol did misfire in the Texas Theater while Ozzie was struggling with McDonald.

"But the plan was to arrest him, interrogate him, and let him speak to the press before recruiting someone to murder him on national TV?"

The only people who I've heard/read make that claim are LNer's.

Most WC doubters just point out that LHO was denied legal counsel and was effectively muzzled by being stalked and murdered by Jack Ruby while in the custody of the DPD.

[Mike Orr]

Why was Oswald not given counsel after he asked for legal assistance. Oswald was very much alive and asked for legal assistance and for whatever reason was turned down by Fritz , Captain Glen King, and Judge David  Johnson . The WC was told by Sgt. Gerald Hill that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest in the Texas Theater. To say that it was a moot point seeing how Oswald would be shot on National TV a few days later and  would not be needing any legal assistance is like saying my car wouldn't start because there was no gas in the tank. It sounds like "THEY" did not want Oswald to talk to anyone , especially a lawyer who would have an attorney client privilege . It looks like there was a reason to not take any notes during Oswald's interrogations . That way there would be nothing on record except for hearsay and we know that hearsay didn't hold much water back then as well as now days.

[Richard Smith]

Why was Oswald not given counsel after he asked for legal assistance. Oswald was very much alive and asked for legal assistance and for whatever reason was turned down by Fritz , Captain Glen King, and Judge David  Johnson . The WC was told by Sgt. Gerald Hill that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest in the Texas Theater. To say that it was a moot point seeing how Oswald would be shot on National TV a few days later and  would not be needing any legal assistance is like saying my car wouldn't start because there was no gas in the tank. It sounds like "THEY" did not want Oswald to talk to anyone , especially a lawyer who would have an attorney client privilege . It looks like there was a reason to not take any notes during Oswald's interrogations . That way there would be nothing on record except for hearsay and we know that hearsay didn't hold much water back then as well as now days.

Oswald spoke freely to the world press.  Do you really believe the plan was to muzzle Oswald by not giving him access to a lawyer but let mobs of press folks ask him questions?  That is very silly.  If THEY did not want Oswald to talk to anyone, THEY would not have arrested him to begin with.  THEY had a perfect opportunity to kill him at the Texas Theatre when he pulled a gun.  Honestly, give what you are suggesting some thought.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Why was Oswald not given counsel after he asked for legal assistance. Oswald was very much alive and asked for legal assistance and for whatever reason was turned down by Fritz , Captain Glen King, and Judge David  Johnson . The WC was told by Sgt. Gerald Hill that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest in the Texas Theater. To say that it was a moot point seeing how Oswald would be shot on National TV a few days later and  would not be needing any legal assistance is like saying my car wouldn't start because there was no gas in the tank. It sounds like "THEY" did not want Oswald to talk to anyone , especially a lawyer who would have an attorney client privilege . It looks like there was a reason to not take any notes during Oswald's interrogations . That way there would be nothing on record except for hearsay and we know that hearsay didn't hold much water back then as well as now days.

From my readings, the state of Texas, under then existing state and federal law, was not required to provide him counsel. Oswald had to get one on his own. Nobody denied him counsel; and Texas was not required to give him one.

Louis Nichols, head of the Dallas Bar Association, testified that he met Oswald and that Oswald told him he, Oswald, didn't want Nichols to get him an attorney at that time. Oswald said, according to Nichols, that he wanted to get Abt or perhaps an ACLU lawyer before having Nichols get him a lawyer. Nichols said that he explicitly asked Oswald if he wanted him to get Oswald a lawyer at that time. He said no, that he didn't want one at that time.

From Nichols' WC testimony:

NICHOLS: I said [to Oswald], "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 [Abt, an ACLU lawyer] 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."

Again: "If I don't get some of these other people.......

Oswald was trying on his own to get counsel. The Dallas officials were not required to get him one.

This is how I read the matter; don't trust me, read up on it yourself.

Full testimony: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm

[John Iacoletti]

So it would not have made much difference even in a criminal trial to have excluded anything he said in the interrogation.  There was a mountain of admissible evidence that convicted him a thousand times over.

So you keep claiming.

Anyone interested in the case today doesn't have to concern themselves with whether Oswald's legal rights were protected in 1963.  They can avail themselves of all the evidence to reach a conclusion as to his guilt.

If you ever figure out what that is, please let me know.

[John Iacoletti]

Louis Nichols, head of the Dallas Bar Association, testified that he met Oswald and that Oswald told him he, Oswald, didn't want Nichols to get him an attorney at that time. Oswald said, according to Nichols, that he wanted to get Abt or perhaps an ACLU lawyer before having Nichols get him a lawyer. Nichols said that he explicitly asked Oswald if he wanted him to get Oswald a lawyer at that time. He said no, that he didn't want one at that time.

Why was Nichols allowed to see Oswald and Olds was not?

[Tim Nickerson]

Why was Nichols allowed to see Oswald and Olds was not?

Olds never asked to see Oswald. Not only that but he wasn't even a lawyer.

Mr. STERN. What is your profession?
Mr. OLDS. I am an editor of a weekly newspaper.
.......................................................
Mr. OLDS. We felt fairly well satisfied that Oswald probably had not been deprived of his rights, so, we then broke up. I think the other men went home, and I went downstairs. I heard that there was going to be a press conference, so I thought I could stand in on that and--do you want me to go ahead and detail that?
.........................................................
Mr. OLDS. Well, I know, but we had the idea that Oswald was not being accurate when he said he had been denied, because in our dealings with the police here, we have had reason to believe that they are very careful of this sort of thing. And certainly in a case of this notoriety, certainly, our tendency was to believe that, but I have always been sorry that we didn't talk with Oswald, because it was not clear whether we would be permitted to see him that night or not.
Mr. STERN. But, you did not ask to see him?
Mr. OLDS. No; we did not, which I think was a mistake on my part.