JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Mike Orr on April 04, 2018, 03:47:18 AM
-
Lee Harvey Oswald claimed that the Dallas Police would not let him have a lawyer. He repeatedly asked for "someone to come forward and give me legal assistance" . While Oswald did express a preference for John Abt from New York , his second choice ... was any lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union . The ACLU did attempt to make contact with Oswald, but its representatives were discouraged from doing so, maybe to avoid an attorney - client privilege ??? Oswald requested a lawyer during the first interrogation session. Captain Will Fritz , testifying before the Warren Commission , said that during the 1st session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the ACLU . 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 . 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 request. This of course was a lie , because as Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald made known his 2nd choice of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session , some 6-8 hours previously. After deliberation , Olds and 3 others headed for Dallas Police Hdqrts. Olds and his party arrived on the 4th floor, where they met Charles Webster, a Lawyer and Professor of law at SMU, who took them to see " Captain Glen King. Olds testified that "Captain King........assured us that Oswald had not made any request for counsel." Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnson: Justice of the Peace David Johnson also assured us that there had been an opportunity of--Oswald's rights which had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said nothing beyond that . That was the extent of our inquiry. And of course these accounts are lies because 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.
-
It would seemingly only matter had there been a trial. Oswald didn't say much that could have used against him anyway other than a few lies like not owning a rifle. 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. CTers attempt to blur the legal context from reality as though they are one and the same. They are not. 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.
-
Lee Harvey Oswald claimed that the Dallas Police would not let him have a lawyer. He repeatedly asked for "someone to come forward and give me legal assistance" . While Oswald did express a preference for John Abt from New York , his second choice ... was any lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union . The ACLU did attempt to make contact with Oswald, but its representatives were discouraged from doing so, maybe to avoid an attorney - client privilege ??? Oswald requested a lawyer during the first interrogation session. Captain Will Fritz , testifying before the Warren Commission , said that during the 1st session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the ACLU . 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 . 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 request. This of course was a lie , because as Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald made known his 2nd choice of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session , some 6-8 hours previously. After deliberation , Olds and 3 others headed for Dallas Police Hdqrts. Olds and his party arrived on the 4th floor, where they met Charles Webster, a Lawyer and Professor of law at SMU, who took them to see " Captain Glen King. Olds testified that "Captain King........assured us that Oswald had not made any request for counsel." Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnson: Justice of the Peace David Johnson also assured us that there had been an opportunity of--Oswald's rights which had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said nothing beyond that . That was the extent of our inquiry. And of course these accounts are lies because 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.
If I recall correctly, the ACLU reps were told that LHO had been read his rights and declined legal representation. Shortly after that exchange he appeared at the midnight press conference and requested someone come forward to provide legal representation.
It obvious now that he was denied legal help.
-
It would seemingly only matter had there been a trial. Oswald didn't say much that could have used against him anyway other than a few lies like not owning a rifle. 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. CTers attempt to blur the legal context from reality as though they are one and the same. They are not. 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.
Dave Reitzes had a quote (in the old forum) from Assisstant DA Bill Alexander where Alexander said that even AFTER reading Oswald his 5th Amendment right to remain silent (as required by Texas law at that time) that any statement he made *wouldn't* have been used against him. It was, he said, Dallas policy not to use them. The FBI also had a requirement to read suspect their rights to remain silent and to a counsel. Prior to Miranda most states required the police to read suspects those rights. Texas, however, did not REQUIRE that a lawyer be provided only that a suspect had the right to one; this is something that Miranda requires.
However Fritz testified that he read Oswald his right to remain silent several times because he knew that if he didn't any statements would be thrown out. Which is at odds with what Alexander said, i.e., that they didn't use them anyway. So why would Fritz be worried about the statements being tossed if the policy was not to use them?
So would Oswald's statements during the interrogation be used? Like a lot of things in this event you can argue it both ways.
As to denying counsel: As I noted above, Texas was not required to provide suspect a counsel only that they had a right to one. Which lawyer was denied Oswald? He wanted Abt and before it could be determined whether Abt would represent him (and Abt's behavior that Saturday was, to me, quite odd: it was like he was ducking the matter) it's clear to me that he, Oswald, didn't want another person.
The problem, in my view, with not getting Oswald a lawyer was due to Oswald's obstinacy and not because of anything the Texas authorities were doing.
I can't find the Alexander quote anywhere but I don't doubt that Dave had it correctly.
-
Dave Reitzes had a quote (in the old forum) from Assisstant DA Bill Alexander where Alexander said that even AFTER reading Oswald his 5th Amendment right to remain silent (as required by Texas law at that time) that any statement he made *wouldn't* have been used against him. It was, he said, Dallas policy not to use them. The FBI also had a requirement to read suspect their rights to remain silent and to a counsel. Prior to Miranda most states required the police to read suspects those rights. Texas, however, did not REQUIRE that a lawyer be provided only that a suspect had the right to one; this is something that Miranda requires.
However Fritz testified that he read Oswald his right to remain silent several times because he knew that if he didn't any statements would be thrown out. Which is at odds with what Alexander said, i.e., that they didn't use them anyway. So why would Fritz be worried about the statements being tossed if the policy was not to use them?
So would Oswald's statements during the interrogation be used? Like a lot of things in this event you can argue it both ways.
I can't find the Alexander quote anywhere but I don't doubt that Dave had it correctly.
My point is that the issue is moot since there will never be a trial. And even if his statements had been excluded in the trial, there wasn't much in the interrogation other than catching Oswald in a few lies. He denied his involvement. We have access to the information in the interrogation regardless of whether it would have been admissible. This whole discussion is to put Oswald in the positive light as the victim of injustice by being denied his rights. Like Caprio's silly games about the unfairness of the lineup. It plays into the CTer mindset that Oswald was a victim and the DPD was out to get him.
-
Dave Reitzes had a quote (in the old forum) from Assisstant DA Bill Alexander where Alexander said that even AFTER reading Oswald his 5th Amendment right to remain silent (as required by Texas law at that time) that any statement he made *wouldn't* have been used against him. It was, he said, Dallas policy not to use them. The FBI also had a requirement to read suspect their rights to remain silent and to a counsel. Prior to Miranda most states required the police to read suspects those rights. Texas, however, did not REQUIRE that a lawyer be provided only that a suspect had the right to one; this is something that Miranda requires.
However Fritz testified that he read Oswald his right to remain silent several times because he knew that if he didn't any statements would be thrown out. Which is at odds with what Alexander said, i.e., that they didn't use them anyway. So why would Fritz be worried about the statements being tossed if the policy was not to use them?
So would Oswald's statements during the interrogation be used? Like a lot of things in this event you can argue it both ways.
As to denying counsel: As I noted above, Texas was not required to provide suspect a counsel only that they had a right to one. Which lawyer was denied Oswald? He wanted Abt and before it could be determined whether Abt would represent him (and Abt's behavior that Saturday was, to me, quite odd: it was like he was ducking the matter) it's clear to me that he, Oswald, didn't want another person.
The problem, in my view, with not getting Oswald a lawyer was due to Oswald's obstinacy and not because of anything the Texas authorities were doing.
I can't find the Alexander quote anywhere but I don't doubt that Dave had it correctly.
"So why would Fritz be worried about the statements being tossed if the policy was not to use them?"
Considering there is allegedly no stenographic or physical recording of Oswald's interrogations I doubt very much he was worried about statements being tossed.
A better guess would be they were more worried about what he was saying behind closed doors getting out before he could be shut up permanently. IMO
-
"So why would Fritz be worried about the statements being tossed if the policy was not to use them?"
Considering there is allegedly no stenographic or physical recording of Oswald's interrogations I doubt very much he was worried about statements being tossed.
A better guess would be they were more worried about what he was saying behind closed doors getting out before he could shut up permanently. IMO
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Olds never asked to see Oswald. Not only that but he wasn't even a lawyer.
He was a representative of the ACLU, who Oswald specifically invoked. But they still lied when they told Olds that Oswald hadn't requested an attorney. I think they didn't want him to have an attorney while they questioned him and certainly not someone from the ACLU.
-
So you keep claiming.
If you ever figure out what that is, please let me know.
I don't understand the obsession or value of asking me to recite the case against Oswald. As though it not known to you and we haven't discussed it a thousand times. It is well documented and you are aware of the evidence. You reject it. Do you really think we would advance this discussion by my noting Oswald's rifle was found at the crime scene and you responding "Oswald's rifle? LOL." How many times would you like do go around and around on those topics? The case against Oswald has been laid out in excruciating detail. Likely the most investigated case in criminal history. The relevant point here is that EVEN if Oswald's legal rights were violated 50 plus year ago by denying him counsel, it makes no difference now. And in fact, our knowledge of the case is enhanced by having access to his responses in the interrogation. The more information the better for us. Oswald's legal rights are relevant only to him in a trial. And we know there will never be one. So it is largely pointless to answer even if there were a way to resolve the issue.
-
I don't understand the obsession or value of asking me to recite the case against Oswald. As though it not known to you and we haven't discussed it a thousand times.
I can't recall a time when you ever discussed the evidence in detail. You just claim that there is a mountain of it and that there is no doubt.
It's because I'm familiar with the evidence that I know this is a big bluff. You present unsubstantiated conclusions about the evidence as if it is evidence itself. And you refuse to examine or even acknowledge the issues that make the so-called evidence either questionable, tainted, or irrelevant. You just parrot things like "Oswald's rifle" without even attempting to show what this declaration is based on. Because if you tried it would crumble instantly.
And that is why you won't engage in a discussion about any of the evidence. You think posturing, strawmen, and insults will somehow prove your case.
The relevant point here is that EVEN if Oswald's legal rights were violated 50 plus year ago by denying him counsel, it makes no difference now.
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.
And in fact, our knowledge of the case is enhanced by having access to his responses in the interrogation. The more information the better for us.
No we don't. We have access to conflicting and biased recollections of what he said during interrogation. Just one of many issues with your "evidence".
-
Police can hold someone without laying charges for a couple days. I don't think Oswald was charged with any crime at the time he was killed, he was held as a suspect
-
Police can hold someone without laying charges for a couple days. I don't think Oswald was charged with any crime at the time he was killed, he was held as a suspect
Yes he was. He was charged for Tippit's murder at about 7 PM and JFK's murder at about 11:30 PM on 11/22.
-
He was a representative of the ACLU, who Oswald specifically invoked.
So what?
But they still lied when they told Olds that Oswald hadn't requested an attorney. I think they didn't want him to have an attorney while they questioned him and certainly not someone from the ACLU.
How do you know that they lied? We know that Oswald made an on-camera show for the public but did he actually make a request for an attorney to the DPD? If so, how do you know?
-
So what?
How do you know that they lied? We know that Oswald made an on-camera show for the public but did he actually make a request for an attorney to the DPD? If so, how do you know?
Why do you think his "on camera show" as you put it was not a request to the DPD? According to Gerald Hill, who was a DPD officer, Oswald asked for a lawyer when they were still in the theater. And according to one of your star witnesses, William Whaley, he also asked for a lawyer during his lineup. Is this somehow also not supposed to be a "real request" either? What makes it a real request in your mind? Oswald was held incommunicado until Saturday around noon.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
How about starting a thread on whether Oswald was wearing boxers or briefs on the day he assassinated JFK? I'm sure that qualifies as an historical fact.
If he did, you would probably consider that to be part of your "mountain of evidence" and that this somehow demonstrated an intention to commit murder. Because that's what you do.
-
Texas has no Statute of limitations for murder or manslaughter charges .
-
Look up the term "statute of limitations". Most crimes have one, but murder does NOT. This is an OPEN case. Case closed. 🤣
Ugh. Is the Lincoln assassination an open case? You are confusing concepts. Although there is no statute of limitations on murder, the JFK case is not "open" because the Texas authorities are satisfied that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person responsible for that crime. When the person responsible for a crime is known to the authorities and deceased (i.e. not subject to prosecution) the matter is considered closed. It is solved from the perspective of the authorities. What would be the point in continuing to investigate the matter if the authorities are satisfied that the party responsible for the crime is known? But don't take my word for it. Contact the DPD and ask them if the JFK assassination is an open case that they are actively investigating. Let us know who is still working on this case. He must be a lonely person not unlike yourself. Maybe you could become pen pals. But you have taken us down the rabbit hole again with your endless nonsense. Even if the matter were technically considered open and we all agreed that Oswald was denied legal counsel, you haven't shown why it matters in 2018 over 50 years after Oswald's death. The relevance of Oswald's legal rights as they would pertain in a criminal trial expired with him on Nov. 24, 1963 when it became clear there would never be such a trial. They have no relevance outside that context in regard to his guilt or innocence in the JFK assassination fifty years later. And you have shown none. What you are attempting to do is portray Oswald as a sympathetic victim of police injustice. THEY were out to get him. LOL. It's a way to avoid addressing the actual evidence that links Oswald to this crime with absolute certainty.
-
The Lincoln case had a trial. People were found guilty. How clueless are you? Or, is it that you employ lies to hide the truth?
If a brave police force and DA wanted to charge someone for JFK's murder and they have the evidence they could since this is an OPEN case. Are you calling Hoover a liar since he said the case would be open for all of time.
Whew. There was no trial for John Wilkes Booth. He was the person who assassinated Lincoln. Like Oswald he died before he could be tried and convicted. So is that an open case or not under your misguided application of the statute of limitations? It is exactly the same scenario as Oswald. Here is a hint: The case is closed because the authorities are satisfied Booth was the responsible party (just like Oswald). They are not actively investigating the Lincoln assassination for that reason. There would be no point. The same holds true for the JFK assassination. It is a closed matter from the perspective of the authorities who have the responsibility to prosecute that matter. They arrested and charged Oswald for that crime. They are satisfied that he was the assassin. He is dead. The matter is closed from a legal perspective. Again, if you are claiming otherwise contact the DPD and ask them who is actively working on the JFK investigation.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/26/j-edgar-hoover-called-oswald-killing-inexcusable.html
J. E. Hoover:
"[Oswald's death] will allow, I am afraid, a lot of civil rights people to raise a lot of hell because he was handcuffed and had no weapon," Hoover said. "There are bound to be some elements of our society who will holler their heads off that his civil rights were violated -- which they were."
Hoover said that the FBI had warned the Dallas police of threats to Oswald's life and that the city's police chief, Jesse Curry, had assured the bureau that Oswald would be properly protected.
"However," Hoover's memo reads, "this was not done."
-There is a document from Hoover that references the fact that Oswald's rights may have been violated based on the failure to protect him while in police custody. I'll try to find this memo.
-
J.E. Hoover (Report dated 11/24/1963 - 4:00 pm - "From" and "To" not indicated)
"Oswald had been saying he wanted John Abt as his lawyer and Abt, with only that kind of evidence, could have turned the case around, I'm afraid. All the talking down there might have required a change of venue on the basis that Oswald could not have gotten a fair trial in Dallas...."
Source:
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32263509.pdf
-
It's a way to avoid addressing the actual evidence that links Oswald to this crime with absolute certainty.
You can't avoid something that doesn't actually exist.
-
A lawyer for Oswald would have asked to see original evidence, and not photographs of "evidence" taken at FBI Headquarters.
A lawyer would have also seen that the money order that 'Hidell' allegedly used to purchase the mail order rifle was never deposited, and never endorsed by any bank or the Federal Reserve. So...no proof of ownwership. Unless Kliens was in the habit of shipping out free rifles.....
-
A lawyer for Oswald would have asked to see original evidence, and not photographs of "evidence" taken at FBI Headquarters.
A lawyer for Oswlad would have been allowed to see the original evidence.
A lawyer would have also seen that the money order that 'Hidell' allegedly used to purchase the mail order rifle was never deposited, and never endorsed by any bank or the Federal Reserve. So...no proof of ownwership. Unless Kliens was in the habit of shipping out free rifles.....
That lawyer would have seen that the money order was actually deposited and that it passed through the banking system and reached its final destination at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia. The money order has Klein's stamp on it, which indicates that it passed through their till. And it has a File Locator Number on it which establishes that it was in fact paid. That File Locator Number was placed on it by the Treasury Dept.
-
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Commissioned to investigate the assination, didn't see the original evidence (money order) photographed by the FBI.
The Kleins stamp on the money order does not prove it was put through their till. It proves it was stamped. The FBI spent hours at Kleins on Nov. 22--23.
I understand that the final repository for cashed money orders was in Kansas City. If that is incorrect please correct me.
How would the Treasury Department confirm it was paid if it was not endorsed as paid by a bank?
Please pardon any typos. I am on mobile at the moment.
-
Rob Caprio. I have read many of your 50 reasons, but not all.
I did not realize I was reciting your comments.
Please keep up your excellent contrubutions to this forum. I am new to this forum but have a long time interest in the matter.
-
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Commissioned to investigate the assination, didn't see the original evidence (money order) photographed by the FBI.
Are you sure about that? It would seem rather odd if he didn't. The FBI photograph of the money order as well as the money order itself were Warren Commission exhibits.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 788, and ask you if you have examined that exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that is the money order which was included with the purchase order to Klein's. Have you prepared a photograph of that exhibit, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is it an accurate photograph of the money order, Exhibit No. 788?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm
(https://i.imgur.com/jVl3GQF.jpg)
The Kleins stamp on the money order does not prove it was put through their till. It proves it was stamped. The FBI spent hours at Kleins on Nov. 22--23.
Ok, then how about this?:
(https://i.imgur.com/QBZJWsM.jpg)
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see the extreme top of this microfilm, the date, March 13, 1963; to what does that refer?
Mr. WALDMAN. This is an imprint made by our cash register indicating that the remittance received from the customer was passed through our register on that date.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/waldman.htm
I understand that the final repository for cashed money orders was in Kansas City. If that is incorrect please correct me.
If you are saying that the final repository for ALL cashed money orders was in Kansas City then you are incorrect.
How would the Treasury Department confirm it was paid if it was not endorsed as paid by a bank?
The fact that the Treasury Dept. received it was confirmation that it had been cashed.
(https://i.imgur.com/NL1hnLl.png)
-
Booth was SEEN shooting Lincoln. If he didn't die he could have been tried 50 years later if need be.
There is NO supporting evidence for the claims made by the WC so stop spreading falsehoods.
In which we make some progress! So is the Lincoln assassination an "open" case or not? The known assassin was killed prior to receiving a trial and being convicted. If Oswald had not been killed, he certainly would have been tried but the entire point is that he was killed. Just like Booth. And the authorities are convinced Oswald was the assassin. Just like Booth. Both matter are considered closed by the authorities charged with investigating them.
-
The money order has Klein's stamp on it, which indicates that it passed through their till.
No it doesn't. It indicates that it has "KLEIN'S" stamped on it.
When was it deposited in Klein's bank account?
-
Are you sure about that? It would seem rather odd if he didn't. The FBI photograph of the money order as well as the money order itself were Warren Commission exhibits.
What is there that connects this particular postal money order with any specific Klein's order?
Mr. WALDMAN. This is an imprint made by our cash register indicating that the remittance received from the customer was passed through our register on that date.
What on Waldman exhibit 7 tells you what specific money order was remitted?
-
In which we make some progress! So is the Lincoln assassination an "open" case or not? The known assassin was killed prior to receiving a trial and being convicted. If Oswald had not been killed, he certainly would have been tried but the entire point is that he was killed. Just like Booth. And the authorities are convinced Oswald was the assassin. Just like Booth. Both matter are considered closed by the authorities charged with investigating them.
I smell another circular argument. How do you know what the authorities are convinced of?
-
I smell another circular argument. How do you know what the authorities are convinced of?
I smell something too but it's not circular. The Dallas authorities arrested and charged Oswald with the assassination in 1963 based on their assessment of the evidence. Based on their investigation they concluded Oswald was the responsible party. The prosecuting authorities make that determination not some lonely Internet krank. It is now 2018. Nothing has changed. There is no active investigation into the JFK assassination by the Dallas authorities. Or do you think some DPD detective goes to work everyday looking for the JFK assassin even though they believe him to be dead? But it does not matter. Caprio has simply dragged the discussion into another of his rabbit holes by confusing the concepts of an active case with the statute of limitations. EVEN if the case were considered open, Oswald's legal rights expired with him. They are relevant only to Oswald in a trial. It makes no apparent difference today to his guilt or innocence whether he was denied legal counsel over fifty years ago. That is the point of the OP. If someone else were arrested and charged with the assassination, Oswald's legal rights would have no relevance to that matter. This is just a way to make the double murderer Oswald appear sympathetic as the victim of injustice.
-
I smell something too but it's not circular. The Dallas authorities arrested and charged Oswald with the assassination in 1963 based on their assessment of the evidence. Based on their investigation they concluded Oswald was the responsible party.
Really, Richard? You wouldn't be making things up again, would you? Where was this conclusion documented?
This is just a way to make the double murderer Oswald appear sympathetic as the victim of injustice.
Calling somebody a "double murderer" doesn't actually prove that he murdered anyone. And either way, he was the victim of injustice. He was illegally searched, assaulted, and arrested, deprived of counsel, and railroaded with unfair lineups and evidence with questionable provenance.
-
J. Edgar Hoover:
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/hoover-rights.png)
-
The Dallas authorities arrested and charged Oswald with the assassination in 1963 based on their assessment of the evidence. Based on their investigation they concluded Oswald was the responsible party. The prosecuting authorities make that determination not some lonely Internet krank.
Really, Richard? You wouldn't be making things up again, would you? Where was this conclusion documented?
Here you go John:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0171a.htm
-
Here you go John:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0171a.htm
That's an arraignment complaint. It's an accusation, not a conclusion. Exactly what investigation had been done on JFK's murder before 1:35 am on 11/23/63?
-
We have made no progress as you continue to lie. No one disputes that Booth killed Lincoln as this was witnessed, but there is NO supporting evidence for the claim that LHO shot JFK or JDT. None.
You have no way of showing that LHO killed anyone. You're sunk.
In which you are ominously close to actually learning something! Who would have thought it possible after so many examples to the contrary? So you agree the Lincoln assassination is not an open case because the authorities are convinced of Booth's guilt and despite the fact that he received no trial, conviction, or legal counsel. Sound familiar? In addition the statue of limitations has not expired on the Lincoln assassination. So that also addresses your prior erroneous argument that because there is no SOL on murder the matter must be considered an open case in the absence of a conviction. Transfer those principles to the JFK assassination. The only difference in circumstance is that you, as a fringe loon, don't accept the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt. The history books and Dallas authorities representing the voice of reason, however, have concluded that Oswald was the responsible party. The case is closed on that matter.
-
That's an arraignment complaint. It's an accusation, not a conclusion. Exactly what investigation had been done on JFK's murder before 1:35 am on 11/23/63?
LOL. Tell me you are not for real but just spoofing a conspiracy theorist. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Dallas authorities had concluded that Oswald was responsible for the assassination. They arrested and charged Oswald for that crime. The DA responsible for prosecuting Oswald confirmed his belief in Oswald's guilt. It is not necessary for you to accept that evidence, but to acknowledge that the Dallas authorities had reached that conclusion (whether you agree with their assessment or not as the opinion of a lone kook has no bearing on whether the official authorities consider this an open matter):
-
LOL. Tell me you are not for real but just spoofing a conspiracy theorist. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Dallas authorities had concluded that Oswald was responsible for the assassination. They arrested and charged Oswald for that crime.
You can't be for real. Arraigning somebody before the evidence is even finished being gathered and analyzed is not a conclusion. It's just a decision to bring a case to trial.
The DA responsible for prosecuting Oswald confirmed his belief in Oswald's guilt.
So what? I'm sure he believed the same about the other 19 cases he prosecuted that were overturned.
-
So what? I'm sure he believed the same about the other 19 cases he prosecuted that were overturned.
Name the other 19 cases that Wade prosecuted that were overturned.
-
Name the other 19 cases that Wade prosecuted that were overturned.
My bad, it was 25 cases.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/ (https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/)
-
He was the Wade in "Roe v. Wade" and he compiled a conviction rate that was so impressive that DA's ruefully called themselves the 7% Club . But now 7 years after Wades death, the Chiefs Legacy is taking a beating . Nineteen convictions--3 for murder--and the rest involving Rape or Burglary-- won by Wade and 2 successors who trained under him and have been overturned after DNA evidence Exonerated the defendants. About 250 more cases are under review.
No other County in America---and almost no State, for that matter---has freed more innocent people from prison in recent years than Dallas County, where Wade was DA from 1951 to 1986.
nbcnews.com/id/25917791/ns/us_news-crime_and_court/after-dallas-das-death-conviction
Associated Press updated 7/29/2008
John Iacoletti --- My bad it was 25 cases. Good work John ---- There is no telling how many more will have their cases overturned.
-
My bad, it was 25 cases.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/ (https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/)
Mary "Fake but accurate" Mapes? I ask you to name the 19 cases that Wade prosecuted that were overturned and the best that you can do is link to an article by a woman who was fired from CBS for fraudulent journalism? How pathetic.
-
You can't be for real. Arraigning somebody before the evidence is even finished being gathered and analyzed is not a conclusion. It's just a decision to bring a case to trial.
So what? I'm sure he believed the same about the other 19 cases he prosecuted that were overturned.
Again you can't follow along. The relevant question as to whether this is an open case is not your subjective opinion of the strength of the case but whether the Dallas authorities who had the legal responsible for prosecuting it are satisfied of Oswald's guilt. They were satisfied and continue over 50 years later to be satisfied of Oswald's responsibility for the crime. That is the relevant point to this discussion. With Oswald's demise, the case is therefore considered a closed matter in their official view (i.e. the one that matters) because the responsible party is dead and beyond prosecution. The decision to charge Oswald for the crime is further confirmation of the position of the Dallas authorities that Oswald was the responsible party (as confirmed by Wade). That is not just a decision to "bring a case to trial" but based on their internal assessment of the case that the evidence is strong enough to convict in a criminal trial (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt). As a result, there is no doubt whatsoever that the official position of the Dallas authorities is that Oswald is responsible for murders of JFK and Tippit. Again, even if you disagree with that assessment, that is still the conclusion of the Dallas authorities making this a closed case from the perspective of the law enforcement entity with the legal responsibility for that case. Your opinion is not relevant in that context because lonely Internet fringe loons have no role in the official process. That is where your confusion apparently lies in believing your opinions are somehow relevant to whether the Dallas authorities consider the case open.
-
Spoke freely is a bit of a stretch. 45 seconds or less I believe Is there any non police witnesses that said Oswald drew a gun?
-
Mary "Fake but accurate" Mapes? I ask you to name the 19 cases that Wade prosecuted that were overturned and the best that you can do is link to an article by a woman who was fired from CBS for fraudulent journalism? How pathetic.
Nice ad hominem fallacy. I suppose you'll find some fault with the nbc news article that Mike posted the link for as well? Anything to avoid dealing with Henry Wade's reign of error.
-
Again you can't follow along. The relevant question as to whether this is an open case is not your subjective opinion of the strength of the case but whether the Dallas authorities who had the legal responsible for prosecuting it are satisfied of Oswald's guilt. They were satisfied and continue over 50 years later to be satisfied of Oswald's responsibility for the crime. That is the relevant point to this discussion. With Oswald's demise, the case is therefore considered a closed matter in their official view (i.e. the one that matters) because the responsible party is dead and beyond prosecution. The decision to charge Oswald for the crime is further confirmation of the position of the Dallas authorities that Oswald was the responsible party (as confirmed by Wade). That is not just a decision to "bring a case to trial" but based on their internal assessment of the case that the evidence is strong enough to convict in a criminal trial (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt). As a result, there is no doubt whatsoever that the official position of the Dallas authorities is that Oswald is responsible for murders of JFK and Tippit. Again, even if you disagree with that assessment, that is still the conclusion of the Dallas authorities making this a closed case from the perspective of the law enforcement entity with the legal responsibility for that case. Your opinion is not relevant in that context because lonely Internet fringe loons have no role in the official process. That is where your confusion apparently lies in believing your opinions are somehow relevant to whether the Dallas authorities consider the case open.
Says the lonely Internet fringe loon who thinks that his opinion that an arraignment complaint equates to "satisfied of Oswald's responsibility for the crime" and "case is closed" is somehow relevant.
-
The Oswald that pulled his gun is not the one arrested on the balcony? Two witnesses Buroughs and Haire stated they saw a person arrested in the back of the theater
-
Nice ad hominem fallacy. I suppose you'll find some fault with the nbc news article that Mike posted the link for as well? Anything to avoid dealing with Henry Wade's reign of error.
The one who is avoiding dealing with something here is you. I've asked you to name the 19 cases that you claimed Wade successfully prosecuted that have since been overturned. As of yet, you've failed to do so.
-
The one who is avoiding dealing with something here is you. I've asked you to name the 19 cases that you claimed Wade successfully prosecuted that have since been overturned. As of yet, you've failed to do so.
Because NBC is fake news and D Magazine is "fraudulent journalism"? I guess you better add Dallas Morning News to your list of fraudulent sources too.
http://truthinjustice.org/dallas-eyewitness.htm (http://truthinjustice.org/dallas-eyewitness.htm)
-
If Oswald were to receive legal assistance , whoever Oswald retained to be his lawyer then the Attorney-client privileges would be in place and by it's very nature , the attorney-client relationship affords a distinct , invaluable right to have communications protected from compelled disclosure to any 3rd party , including business associates and competitors , government agencies and even criminal Justice authorities ! If Oswald had retained a Lawyer then it would probably have been bad for certain individuals and probably bad for the Lawyer . Then there's Ruby who wanted the Warren Commission to take him back to Washington DC so he could talk and of course the WC denied Ruby the ' Trip to talk ' !
-
If Oswald were to receive legal assistance , whoever Oswald retained to be his lawyer then the Attorney-client privileges would be in place and by it's very nature , the attorney-client relationship affords a distinct , invaluable right to have communications protected from compelled disclosure to any 3rd party , including business associates and competitors , government agencies and even criminal Justice authorities ! If Oswald had retained a Lawyer then it would probably have been bad for certain individuals and probably bad for the Lawyer . Then there's Ruby who wanted the Warren Commission to take him back to Washington DC so he could talk and of course the WC denied Ruby the ' Trip to talk ' !
Legal counsel could have ended the interrogations and/or at the very least kept a stenographic record of what was said.
Kept the defendant's wife from isolated protective custody and questioning.
Would have objected to Lee's unsafe public exposures and transfer and prevented, at least at that time, LHO's murder by Ruby.
A few of the many reasons LHO was denied an attorney.
IMO