Was Oswald denied Counsel by the Dallas Authorities ?

[Richard Smith]

Under the Bill of Rights you are entitled to representation. You are also entitled to remain silent.

Since the DPD, FBI and the SS claimed that LHO answered questions despite not being represented then he had to waive his right to an attorney, but this form is nowhere to be found.

Can any LNer provide this signed waiver form?

Again, it makes no difference now.  Oswald is long dead.   Any "rights" that he might have been denied him over 50 years ago are relevant only in the context of a criminal trial that will never take place.  Not outside that context.   Here on planet earth, we can take all the relevant information into consideration - whether it would have been admissible or not in a trial - and use that to assess whether Oswald was the assassin.  Conduct a seance and let Oswald know that you believe his rights were violated if that will make you feel better but resolution of that issue adds or detracts nothing, however, from the case against him.

[Bill Brown]

It makes a big difference as this is still an OPEN case. LHO was DENIED his rights and this was only necessary if there was NO evidence supporting the claims of the authorities. If there really had been supporting evidence for their claims then this wouldn't have been necessary at all.

No.  This is NOT an open case.  Therefore, your point is entirely invalid.

[Richard Smith]

It makes a big difference as this is still an OPEN case. LHO was DENIED his rights and this was only necessary if there was NO evidence supporting the claims of the authorities. If there really had been supporting evidence for their claims then this wouldn't have been necessary at all.

Contact the DPD and ask them if this is an open case.  Get back to us with their answer.  Is the Lincoln assassination an open case because Booth didn't live long enough to be convicted?  And even if this were an "open" case, Oswald's rights are relevant only to him in a criminal trial.  No one else.  He is dead.  The rest of your babbling makes no sense.  Do you think police only want to interrogate people that are innocent of crimes and not those that are guilty?  LOL.  The police want information.  The more a suspect talks the better regardless of how much evidence they have.  Particularly in the early stages of the investigation when they are trying to confirm what happened.  They have incentives to encourage guilty parties to talk their heads off.  To suggest the police would not want to interrogate Oswald on Nov. 22-24 if they had a strong case is one of the most bizarre claims made here.  And that is saying a whole lot.

[John Iacoletti]

Again, it makes no difference now.  Oswald is long dead.   Any "rights" that he might have been denied him over 50 years ago are relevant only in the context of a criminal trial that will never take place.  Not outside that context.   Here on planet earth, we can take all the relevant information into consideration - whether it would have been admissible or not in a trial - and use that to assess whether Oswald was the assassin.  Conduct a seance and let Oswald know that you believe his rights were violated if that will make you feel better but resolution of that issue adds or detracts nothing, however, from the case against him.

True to form, Richard ignores all counter-arguments to his proclamations and just repeats his original point over and over again.

Of course it makes a difference how Oswald was treated.  It shows that the police didn't give a whit about how this case was investigated.  Even if he was actually guilty of the crime, they still railroaded him.

[Gary Craig]

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.

"Oswald spoke freely to the world press."

LOL

[Richard Smith]

Baloney. Murder has NO statute of limitations. Your point is invalid as usual.

Put the matter to rest by contacting the DPD to determine if they consider the JFK assassination an "open" case.  The statute of limitation has nothing to do with that.  Is the Lincoln assassination an "open case" in your opinion simply because the assassin was killed prior to a trial?  A case is open only if there is reason to believe the murderer is still unknown.  Not because no one was ever been convicted.   Oswald was charged with the assassination of JFK in 1963 by the Texas authorities who had the responsibility for investigating and prosecuting the case.  It's closed.  But again, Oswald's "rights" are relevant only to him in a trial.  Not in any other context.  So it is unclear what objective would be achieved by concluding they were violated in 1963.  What happens then?

[Richard Smith]

I don't care what the DPD say -- the law says that the case is open. Murder has NO statute of limitations.

An author has NO power to close the case either. The case is still OPEN. Live with it.

LHO had rights BEFORE the trial too. Stop lying.

Maybe you should define what you mean by an open case or cite to this "law" you reference.  The Dallas authorities are the only party on planet earth that have the legal authority to prosecute anyone for JFK's assassination.  If they do not consider the matter "open" because they are convinced Oswald did it and the case is solved, it is a closed case.  Or do you still believe the DC police are looking for Lincoln's assassin?  I'm not sure what your final rambling references.  Oswald did have legal rights before the trial.  But the relevance of those rights expired when he did and it became clear there would never be such a trial.  Again, however, assume that you are correct and we all agree Oswald was denied legal counsel.  What would you like to happen now?  Do you want the DPD to write an apology and leave it on Oswald's grave?