Post by Gil Jesus on Nov 30, 2021 8:30:12 GMT -5
The Sins of the Dallas Police
by Gil Jesus
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever discuss your father with Lee Oswald?
Mr. PAINE. On a phone call shortly after the assassination he called and thought it was outrageous to be pinning Lee Oswald who was a scapegoat, an ideal person to hang the blame on. (2 H 392)
From the time he was arrested, Oswald was deemed guilty and the prevailing sentiment against him and even his family was one of hate. That hate would extend to the Dallas Criminal Bar Association, where no one would step up to represent him.
In fact, no member would even talk to him.
His constitutional rights were violated. He requested a lawyer and yet he was repeatedly questioned without benefit of one. Although he was unable to contact his first choice of counsel, he was denied his second. In spite of his repeated public cries for legal help, the police made sure he didn't get any. His arraignment was held at 1:38 am on Saturday morning, a tactic known in interrogation circles as "sleep deprivation", designed to make a suspect confess to a crime.
He was not allowed to contact counsel or see family who could make that contact for him until Saturday, when police were sure no lawyer would be in his office.
In the end, he was murdered by Jack Ruby in an obvious attempt to prevent him from going to trial and exposing this fraudulent case against him.
As a result of public outcry and Congress' threat to investigate the whole matter, President Johnson created the Warren Commission to look at the evidence and render a conclusion. The Commission had no investigative arm, but instead relied on the investigation conducted by the FBI.
Suffice it to say that the FBI's "investigation" of the President's assassination was nothing of the sort. It was instead a gathering of evidence to frame Oswald post mortem for Kennedy's assassination, the murder of Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit and the shooting at General Edwin A. Walker.
Any witness account that did not support that "Oswald was the sole assassin, that he did not have confederates who were still at large and the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial" was ignored, omitted or misrepresented.
Some witnesses complained that the statements attributed to them in FBI reports were not the statements they gave.
In other words, the FBI lied in their reports.
In it's final report, the Warren Commission rubber-stamped the FBI's "investigation". It concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy, murdered Dallas Officer J.D. Tippit and shot at General Edwin A. Walker even though evidence to the contrary existed.
The original framing of Oswald began in Dallas where the prosecutorial system was based on misconduct and whose foundation was "conviction at any cost".
The Sins Of The Dallas Police
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". Nearly every single time he appeared before reporters, he lamented about not having counsel on his behalf.
At the same time, the Dallas authorities were telling different stories to those who came forward in response to Oswald's pleas. One version was that Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. A second version was that Oswald had declined any and all legal assistance, save for one attorney named John Abt from New York.
While Oswald did express a preference for Abt, he also requested a second choice --- any lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU did attempt to make contact with Oswald, but its representatives were discouraged by police from doing so
The ACLU And Oswald
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)
Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30pm 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 as I just mentioned, Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his "second choice" of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session, some 6-8 hours previously. (ibid.)
After deliberation, Olds and three others headed for Dallas Police Headquarters.
Olds and his party arrived on the fourth floor, where they met Charles Webster, a lawyer and professor of law at SMU, who took them in to see 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 nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry." (7 H 323)
So here we have two different stories:
On the one hand the police say that Oswald was given the opportunity to request counsel and he didn't, and the judge saying that he declined counsel.
And of course, we know that both of 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. (ibid., pg. 52)
Later in his testimony, Hill reiterates:
Mr. HILL .........he had previously in the theatre said he wanted his attorney.
Mr. BELIN. He had said this in the theatre?
Mr. HILL. Yes; when we arrested him, he wanted his lawyer. He knew his rights. (ibid., pg. 61)
Olds attended the Midnight Press Conference", where Oswald AGAIN publicly requested that "someone come forward to give me legal assistance".
Having been discouraged by the police, the law professor and the judge from contacting Oswald, Olds was left to choose whom to believe....them or Oswald. It was a choice he'd later regret.
He testified that...
"......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. (ibid., pg. 324)
We now know today that many of Wade's convictions in criminal court have been overturned on DNA evidence.
Olds then told the Commission that the visit of Dallas Bar Association President H. Louis Nichols to speak with Oswald on Saturday went a long way in reassuring Olds' questions about suspected denial of counsel to Oswald:
Mr. OLDS. Mr. Nichols went down late this afternoon, I think around 5:30, and he reported after that that he had seen Oswald in respect to the same reasons that we had for going down there Saturday night, to see if he wanted some sort of legal representation, and to make sure whether or not he was denied---being denied it, and he said that he was satisfied that--in essence, Oswald told Nichols he was satisfied with the situation. (ibid., pg. 325)
Before The Judge
At the midnight press conference, Oswald told reporters that he had appeared before a judge and had protested that he was not allowed a lawyer:
" I was questioned by a judge. I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing." ---Lee Harvey Oswald
That reference was for the earlier arraignment for the murder of J.D. Tippit. By midnight, police had finished the paperwork charging Oswald with the assassination of President Kennedy, but he had not yet appeared before the judge to hear that charge against him.
In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Mr. 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 court to appoint him a lawyer, the judges of the criminal district court will, and do appoint lawyers to represent those people. (7 H 331)
So the judge was required by law to appoint a lawyer if a defendant asked for one. Oswald said he protested that he was not allowed one. Did he?
None of the authorities who were present at Oswald's arraignment for the murder of JD Tippit, and who testified under oath before the Warren Commission, could recall what Oswald said during that hearing.
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)
What are the chances that every official who was called to give testimony on what Oswald said during the Tippit arraignment is going to have a total loss of memory?
Oswald And The Dallas Bar Association
District Attorney Henry Wade had been under pressure from lawyers regarding the treatment of Oswald. One of the issues was Oswald's repeated public claims that he was not being allowed legal representation.
In Dallas, there were two bar associations: The Dallas Bar Association and the Criminal Bar Association.
On Saturday, the 23rd, one of the attorneys who were pressuring Wade contacted H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar Association to request that he look into whether or not Oswald had legal representation, wanted legal representation or wanted it but had been denied of it.
Nichols response was to call Henry Wade on the phone and make an inquiry. (7 H 327)
Nichols testified before the Warren Commission that Wade told him that as far as he knew Oswald had not asked for any lawyer so Nichols asked Wade to give Oswald a message that the Dallas Bar Association would provide him with a lawyer if he needed one. According to Nichols, Wade said he'd pass the message onto his assistants and if Oswald ASKED for a lawyer, Nichols offer would be given to him. (ibid.)
Of course, the reason why Wade's response was a lie is that Oswald HAD been requesting a lawyer from the time of his arrest, including the evening before during the "Midnight Press Conference".
After thinking it over, Nichols decided that he and a member of the criminal bar association should visit and talk with Oswald.
But according to Nichols, he couldn't get a member of the criminal bar to go with him.
When he contacted Henry Wade, Wade told him to go visit Oswald alone and to "tell him you will get him a lawyer". (5 H 240)
To have a civil lawyer go in to question Oswald alone was a joke.
A civil lawyer would never ask the right questions:
Was he being beaten?
Was he being starved?
Was he being deprived of sleep?
Was he being isolated from his friends and family?
Was he being denied counsel?
In addition, according to his own testimony, Nichols was "connected" to the Dallas Police and the City of Dallas.
Nichols used to work for the city attorney's office, and at the time of Oswald's incarceration, still represented the city credit union and had a brother on the police force, so, he had known many of these city authorities for years. (7 H 327)
Nichols then called one of those people, Capt. Glen King of the DPD to ask if Oswald had a lawyer:
"Captain King said that as far as he knew there had been no one representing him, and as far as he knew, Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. He had not asked for the right to call a lawyer, and had not asked that a lawyer be furnished to him---" (ibid.)
Now, keep in mind that King said this on the afternoon of Saturday, the 23rd, AFTER Oswald had made a public plea the night before for "someone to come forward to give me legal assistance" and AFTER he appeared in the 2:30 pm lineup viewed by William Whaley, who testified:
"He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer." ( 2 H 261 )
Nichols attempts to avoid becoming involved by asking Capt. King to deliver a message to Oswald:
I said, "Well, Glen, if you know at any time that he asks for a lawyer, or wants a lawyer, or needs a lawyer, will you tell him that you have talked to me, as president of the bar association, and that I have offered to get him a lawyer if he wants one." (7 H 327)
Capt. King offered Nichols the chance to talk to Oswald but Nichols "didn't know whether I wanted to or not at this point".
I didn't know to what extent I would, or wanted to, or should become embroiled in the facts. I wanted to know whether he needed a lawyer, and I didn't anticipate that I would be his lawyer, because I don't practice criminal law. (ibid. pg. 331)
However, Nichols was pressured into going by a law professor from SMU.
"I then received a call from another lawyer who was a professor out at S.M.U. and he wanted to know whether or not the bar association was doing anything about getting a lawyer for Oswald. I told him what had transpired, what I had done, and I hadn't decided what should be done at this time, if anything by me, as president of the bar association. He seemed to think that it would be advisable and would be helpful if I would go up and satisfy myself personally as to whether or not Oswald had any lawyer, wanted a lawyer or was asking for a lawyer and hadn't been able to get one, and I told him that I had not decided what to do, so, I sat around and decided if it had to be done. It seemed like enough time had gone by, and enough uncertainty among the people I talked to as to whether or not he had a lawyer or had asked for a lawyer that I decided I might as well go up and talk to him, so, I cleaned up and went on up to the city hall. That was probably 5:30 or so in the afternoon." (ibid. pgs. 327-328)
The law professor, in a sense, twists his arm as if saying, "It's been over 24 hours since his arrest and he hasn't asked for an attorney yet?"
When he arrived at the police station, he went up to the Chief's office looking for Capt. King. The Chief saw him and introduced him to an FBI agent, then volunteered to take him up to Oswald's cell himself. ( ibid., pg 328 )
When Nichols asks Oswald if he had a lawyer, Oswald starts complaining about his treatment:
Mr. NICHOLS. I asked him if he had a lawyer, and he said, "Well, he really didn't know what it was all about, that he was--had been incarcerated, and kept incommunicado, and I said, "Well, I have come up to see whether or not you want a lawyer, because as I understand--" I am not exactly sure what I ,said there, or whether he said something about not knowing what happened to President Kennedy, or I said that I understood that he was arrested for the shot that killed the President, and I don't remember who said what after that. This is a little bit vague. (ibid.)
Here Nichols is having an exclusive talk with the accused assassin of President Kennedy, and he can't remember what was said in the exchange.
Mr. STERN. He, I gather, used the word "incommunicado" to describe----
Mr. NICHOLS. Yes; that was his word.
Mr. STERN. Did he elaborate on that, or any---or indicate to you that he had not been able to see members of his family or other people of his choice?
Mr. NICHOLS. No; he did not say that he had been refused anything. Just didn't elaborate, and I REALLY DIDN'T ASK HIM at that point. MY INQUIRY WAS INTENTIONALLY VERY LIMITED. I merely wanted to know whether he had a lawyer, if he had a lawyer then I had no problems. If he asked for a lawyer and they did not offer him one, that was contrary to what I had been told, because I had been told, as far as the police were concerned, and Mr. Wade, as he recalled, that the man had never asked for a lawyer. Nor had he asked to call a lawyer, for the right to call a lawyer, so that I was interested in knowing whether or not he had a lawyer and whether or not he had requested a lawyer and been refused..... I didn't go into the other questions, or whether or not he wanted to see his family and hadn't been permitted. I really was concerned about whether or not he had a lawyer or wanted a lawyer, or whether we had any obligations to furnish him one. (ibid., pg. 330)
In addition, when Oswald asked for John Abt or a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union, Nichols told him that he didn't know Abt and he didn't know any lawyers who were members of the ACLU but admitted under oath that "as it turned out later, a number of lawyers I know ARE members". (ibid. pg. 329)
According to Nichols' testimony, this was the exchange between himself and Oswald:
NICHOLS. 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?"
OSWALD. No, not now. 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.
NICHOLS. 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.
OSWALD. No. (ibid.)
As Nichols is leaving, Chief Curry asked him to make a statement to the press:
"....As I left the chief asked me whether or not I wanted to make a statement to the press, and I said, "Well, I don't know whether I do or not. I don't know whether it is the thing to do or not." And he said, "Well, they are going to be right outside the door there, and if you want to say anything this would be an opportunity to do it. Incidentally, I am very glad you came up here. We don't want any question coming up about us refusing to let him have a lawyer. As far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one." (ibid.)
Nichols then went before the media and stated that Oswald had refused his offer for help:
"He appeared to me that he knew where he was and pretty much what his rights were with regard to being represented, and he knew apparently--at least the conversation was that if he didn't get somebody to represent him that he wanted that he could always fall back on the bar association, or somebody, and I had told him that I would see him next week if he wanted me to, and I satisfied myself at least, to the extent, that the man appeared to know what he was doing. He did not appear to be irrational. He appeared to be calm. He turned down my offer of help, and I felt like at that point that was all I needed to do, and this was later Saturday afternoon, and I had no inkling that anything else, except maybe that the next week if he didn't get a lawyer I might hear from him, or check into it, and that's all I know about Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald." (ibid. pg. 330)
Nichols never mentioned to the press Oswald's request for John Abt or the American Civil Liberties Union. He never mentioned to the press Oswald's complaint of being held "incommunicado".
Confused Police Chief Curry
Chief Curry, the only witness to the exchange between Oswald and Nichols, could not remember which day it occurred, testifying that Nichols' visit was on Friday (4 H 155).
Later in his testimony, Curry is told that Nichols' visit was on Saturday, not Friday.
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, you said that Mr. Nichols came that afternoon. I call to your attention that we have information that he came there on the Saturday afternoon.
Mr. CURRY. Perhaps it was, not the Friday. That perhaps was on Saturday.
Mr. RANKIN. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you could just summarize briefly where we are.
(Discussion off the record.)
At that point, a "discussion off the record" is conducted and when the discussion comes back on the record, Curry's memory has improved. He tells the Commission that Nichols offered to provide counsel to Oswald, but Oswald "didn't care to at this time" but in the event he couldn't secure counsel for himself, he would "call on you later".
Then Rep. Ford asks the stupidest question:
Representative FORD. Did Nichols and Oswald talk one to another? (ibid., pg 158)
Trust Their Actions, Not Words
When Nichols visited Oswald on Saturday evening, Oswald had already contacted Ruth Paine for help contacting Abt. Oswald was under the impression that Ruth Paine was handling his counsel, so he turned Nichols down. This is supported by Mrs. Paine's testimony. She testified that Oswald called her about 3:30 or 4 pm and asked her to contact John Abt after 6 pm. (3 H 85)
It's also supported by Marguerite Oswald, who testified that she didn't see her son until sometime after 4:30 pm and that he told her that he'd already requested to get in touch with attorney Abt. ( 1 H 149 )
From the time of his arrest, the longer the wait for Oswald to contact an attorney, the less chance that that contact was going to be made.
Try collect calling a lawyer in his New York office on a Saturday.
Good luck.
And the police knew this, which is why Oswald was held incommunicado through Friday and up until Saturday noon. The authorities could not allow him to come in contact with either counsel directly or family and friends, who would have sought counsel on his behalf.
Once the police were satisfied that his chances of securing counsel were next to nil, they allowed him to make the call.
When Oswald couldn't contact Abt because it was a collect call and there was no one there to accept the charges, he turned to Ruth Paine for help.
Mrs. Paine didn't like Oswald and her testimony indicates that she may have been less than enthusiastic about helping him contact Abt.
She testified that she called both numbers, home and office that Oswald had given her, but was unsuccessful in contacting him. When Oswald called back at 9:30 pm, she said that she "couldn't recall" whether she reported to him that she was unable to contact Abt.
She could only tell the Commission that "something was said but I do not recall it specifically" (3 H 88)
Mrs. Paine further told the Commission that "I am of the impression I again tried the home telephone of John Abt on Sunday morning, but I am not certain, and there was no answer. That I certainly remember." (ibid, pg. 85)
When the Commission inquired if Mrs. Paine had ever attempted to report to Oswald that she was unable to contact attorney Abt, she was forced to admit that she "made no effort" to call the police station and speak with him.(ibid.)
The question remains: did Ruth Paine actually TRY to make those calls on Oswald's behalf?
And if she did, why didn't she keep Oswald informed of her progress?
John Abt told the Warren Commission that he and his wife had gone off for a weekend at their cabin in Connecticut and on Saturday, the press "began to call me up there" and that "these calls kept on all day Saturday and again Sunday morning". (10 H 116)
How could all of these reporters reach Abt, but Mrs. Paine could not?
Even if she could not contact Abt, why didn't Mrs. Paine, as a member of the Civil Liberties Union, contact that organization for help or at least contact her husband to do so?
Marguerite Oswald testified that on Friday, the 22nd, she was troubled by the attitude of Ruth Paine towards her son. Although Mrs. Paine said that she could get Lee a lawyer, she was doing nothing about it:
"I am worried because Lee hasn't had an attorney. And I am talking about that, and Mrs. Paine said, 'Oh, don't worry about that. I am a member of the Civil Liberties Union, and Lee will have an attorney, I can assure you.' I said to myself 'but when?' Of course, I didn't want to push her, argue with her. But the point was if she was a member of the Union, why didn't she see Lee had an attorney then? So I wasn't too happy about that." (1 H 146)
Lee Harvey Oswald requested a lawyer from the time of his arrest until late Saturday afternoon, when he contacted Ruth Paine for help.
The testimony has also shown that Oswald was held incommunicado until after noon on Saturday. During that period between his arrest and the visit of his family, Oswald repeatedly pled for legal assistance and when the ACLU responded to that plea, they were lied to by the Dallas Police and chose to believe that lie.
The Dallas Police were successful in keeping Oswald "incommunicado" until Saturday afternoon, at a time when the likelihood of Oswald's securing counsel had diminished. It was at this time that the Dallas Police allowed his family to see him and allowed him to make his phone call.
Attorney Abt testified that he and his wife didn't leave for the cabin until Friday evening. Had Oswald been allowed to make that phone call at the time of his arrest, he would have made contact with Abt before they left for Connecticut.
The authorities were eager to put the "denial of counsel" issue to rest, so they agreed to allow a civil lawyer with connections to the city and its police department and the president of the Dallas Bar Association, to "question" Oswald about the denial of counsel issue in private.
After that interview, the lawyer faced the press and declared that Oswald had refused his offer for help.
The purpose of his "intentionally very limited" interview of Oswald seems to have been to take the pressure off of the authorities in Dallas rather than to insure that Oswald had counsel.
By his own admission, his "concern" was not for how Oswald was being treated. When Oswald complained, Nichols admitted that he "didn't ask any questions".
His testimony that Oswald told him to "come back next week" defies logic and common sense and is contrary to documented video showing Oswald repeatedly asking for "someone to come forward".
Not John Abt........someone..............ANYONE.
I find it hard to believe that Nichols could have been impartial and not have mentioned that Oswald HAD requested the name of John Abt or the American Civil Liberties Union. I also find it hard to believe that an impartial party would not mention Oswald's complaint about his treatment.
In the end, Nichols served the interests of the Dallas authorities better than he served the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Perhaps that was the plan all along.
Further proof of Lee Harvey Oswald's framing is documented in the way in which the Dallas Police conducted unfair police lineups. Every attempt was made to influence witnesses into identifying Oswald by putting him into lineups with police detectives, teenagers and even a Mexican.
Then there's evidence of evidence substitution. Unless, of course, you believe that police officers can repeatedly misidentify evidence that's clearly marked and were unable to get the color of a jacket correct that was in their possession.
There's also evidence that police manufactured evidence in the form of a paper "gunsack". The paper and tape used to make the gunsack came from the rolls that were on the shipping table on the AFTERNOON of the assassination.
When you have a guilty suspect, you don't need to do those things because the evidence will always stand on its own merit. The fact that they DID do those things leaves a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
Finally, the police made sure Oswald would never get to the County Sheriff's custody. They couldn't turn him over to the very deputies who reported seeing evidence that didn't fit the narrative. He'd never get the chance to go to trial and expose the fraud that was the case against him.
His guilt was determined by the new President Lyndon Johnson, who told Homicide Captain Fritz, "you've got your man, investigation's over."
Thanks to Johnson, once Oswald was dead the coverup of his framing would fall to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
by Gil Jesus
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever discuss your father with Lee Oswald?
Mr. PAINE. On a phone call shortly after the assassination he called and thought it was outrageous to be pinning Lee Oswald who was a scapegoat, an ideal person to hang the blame on. (2 H 392)
From the time he was arrested, Oswald was deemed guilty and the prevailing sentiment against him and even his family was one of hate. That hate would extend to the Dallas Criminal Bar Association, where no one would step up to represent him.
In fact, no member would even talk to him.
His constitutional rights were violated. He requested a lawyer and yet he was repeatedly questioned without benefit of one. Although he was unable to contact his first choice of counsel, he was denied his second. In spite of his repeated public cries for legal help, the police made sure he didn't get any. His arraignment was held at 1:38 am on Saturday morning, a tactic known in interrogation circles as "sleep deprivation", designed to make a suspect confess to a crime.
He was not allowed to contact counsel or see family who could make that contact for him until Saturday, when police were sure no lawyer would be in his office.
In the end, he was murdered by Jack Ruby in an obvious attempt to prevent him from going to trial and exposing this fraudulent case against him.
As a result of public outcry and Congress' threat to investigate the whole matter, President Johnson created the Warren Commission to look at the evidence and render a conclusion. The Commission had no investigative arm, but instead relied on the investigation conducted by the FBI.
Suffice it to say that the FBI's "investigation" of the President's assassination was nothing of the sort. It was instead a gathering of evidence to frame Oswald post mortem for Kennedy's assassination, the murder of Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit and the shooting at General Edwin A. Walker.
Any witness account that did not support that "Oswald was the sole assassin, that he did not have confederates who were still at large and the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial" was ignored, omitted or misrepresented.
Some witnesses complained that the statements attributed to them in FBI reports were not the statements they gave.
In other words, the FBI lied in their reports.
In it's final report, the Warren Commission rubber-stamped the FBI's "investigation". It concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy, murdered Dallas Officer J.D. Tippit and shot at General Edwin A. Walker even though evidence to the contrary existed.
The original framing of Oswald began in Dallas where the prosecutorial system was based on misconduct and whose foundation was "conviction at any cost".
The Sins Of The Dallas Police
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". Nearly every single time he appeared before reporters, he lamented about not having counsel on his behalf.
At the same time, the Dallas authorities were telling different stories to those who came forward in response to Oswald's pleas. One version was that Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. A second version was that Oswald had declined any and all legal assistance, save for one attorney named John Abt from New York.
While Oswald did express a preference for Abt, he also requested a second choice --- any lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU did attempt to make contact with Oswald, but its representatives were discouraged by police from doing so
The ACLU And Oswald
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)
Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30pm 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 as I just mentioned, Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his "second choice" of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session, some 6-8 hours previously. (ibid.)
After deliberation, Olds and three others headed for Dallas Police Headquarters.
Olds and his party arrived on the fourth floor, where they met Charles Webster, a lawyer and professor of law at SMU, who took them in to see 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 nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry." (7 H 323)
So here we have two different stories:
On the one hand the police say that Oswald was given the opportunity to request counsel and he didn't, and the judge saying that he declined counsel.
And of course, we know that both of 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. (ibid., pg. 52)
Later in his testimony, Hill reiterates:
Mr. HILL .........he had previously in the theatre said he wanted his attorney.
Mr. BELIN. He had said this in the theatre?
Mr. HILL. Yes; when we arrested him, he wanted his lawyer. He knew his rights. (ibid., pg. 61)
Olds attended the Midnight Press Conference", where Oswald AGAIN publicly requested that "someone come forward to give me legal assistance".
Having been discouraged by the police, the law professor and the judge from contacting Oswald, Olds was left to choose whom to believe....them or Oswald. It was a choice he'd later regret.
He testified that...
"......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. (ibid., pg. 324)
We now know today that many of Wade's convictions in criminal court have been overturned on DNA evidence.
Olds then told the Commission that the visit of Dallas Bar Association President H. Louis Nichols to speak with Oswald on Saturday went a long way in reassuring Olds' questions about suspected denial of counsel to Oswald:
Mr. OLDS. Mr. Nichols went down late this afternoon, I think around 5:30, and he reported after that that he had seen Oswald in respect to the same reasons that we had for going down there Saturday night, to see if he wanted some sort of legal representation, and to make sure whether or not he was denied---being denied it, and he said that he was satisfied that--in essence, Oswald told Nichols he was satisfied with the situation. (ibid., pg. 325)
Before The Judge
At the midnight press conference, Oswald told reporters that he had appeared before a judge and had protested that he was not allowed a lawyer:
" I was questioned by a judge. I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing." ---Lee Harvey Oswald
That reference was for the earlier arraignment for the murder of J.D. Tippit. By midnight, police had finished the paperwork charging Oswald with the assassination of President Kennedy, but he had not yet appeared before the judge to hear that charge against him.
In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Mr. 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 court to appoint him a lawyer, the judges of the criminal district court will, and do appoint lawyers to represent those people. (7 H 331)
So the judge was required by law to appoint a lawyer if a defendant asked for one. Oswald said he protested that he was not allowed one. Did he?
None of the authorities who were present at Oswald's arraignment for the murder of JD Tippit, and who testified under oath before the Warren Commission, could recall what Oswald said during that hearing.
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)
What are the chances that every official who was called to give testimony on what Oswald said during the Tippit arraignment is going to have a total loss of memory?
Oswald And The Dallas Bar Association
District Attorney Henry Wade had been under pressure from lawyers regarding the treatment of Oswald. One of the issues was Oswald's repeated public claims that he was not being allowed legal representation.
In Dallas, there were two bar associations: The Dallas Bar Association and the Criminal Bar Association.
On Saturday, the 23rd, one of the attorneys who were pressuring Wade contacted H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar Association to request that he look into whether or not Oswald had legal representation, wanted legal representation or wanted it but had been denied of it.
Nichols response was to call Henry Wade on the phone and make an inquiry. (7 H 327)
Nichols testified before the Warren Commission that Wade told him that as far as he knew Oswald had not asked for any lawyer so Nichols asked Wade to give Oswald a message that the Dallas Bar Association would provide him with a lawyer if he needed one. According to Nichols, Wade said he'd pass the message onto his assistants and if Oswald ASKED for a lawyer, Nichols offer would be given to him. (ibid.)
Of course, the reason why Wade's response was a lie is that Oswald HAD been requesting a lawyer from the time of his arrest, including the evening before during the "Midnight Press Conference".
After thinking it over, Nichols decided that he and a member of the criminal bar association should visit and talk with Oswald.
But according to Nichols, he couldn't get a member of the criminal bar to go with him.
When he contacted Henry Wade, Wade told him to go visit Oswald alone and to "tell him you will get him a lawyer". (5 H 240)
To have a civil lawyer go in to question Oswald alone was a joke.
A civil lawyer would never ask the right questions:
Was he being beaten?
Was he being starved?
Was he being deprived of sleep?
Was he being isolated from his friends and family?
Was he being denied counsel?
In addition, according to his own testimony, Nichols was "connected" to the Dallas Police and the City of Dallas.
Nichols used to work for the city attorney's office, and at the time of Oswald's incarceration, still represented the city credit union and had a brother on the police force, so, he had known many of these city authorities for years. (7 H 327)
Nichols then called one of those people, Capt. Glen King of the DPD to ask if Oswald had a lawyer:
"Captain King said that as far as he knew there had been no one representing him, and as far as he knew, Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. He had not asked for the right to call a lawyer, and had not asked that a lawyer be furnished to him---" (ibid.)
Now, keep in mind that King said this on the afternoon of Saturday, the 23rd, AFTER Oswald had made a public plea the night before for "someone to come forward to give me legal assistance" and AFTER he appeared in the 2:30 pm lineup viewed by William Whaley, who testified:
"He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer." ( 2 H 261 )
Nichols attempts to avoid becoming involved by asking Capt. King to deliver a message to Oswald:
I said, "Well, Glen, if you know at any time that he asks for a lawyer, or wants a lawyer, or needs a lawyer, will you tell him that you have talked to me, as president of the bar association, and that I have offered to get him a lawyer if he wants one." (7 H 327)
Capt. King offered Nichols the chance to talk to Oswald but Nichols "didn't know whether I wanted to or not at this point".
I didn't know to what extent I would, or wanted to, or should become embroiled in the facts. I wanted to know whether he needed a lawyer, and I didn't anticipate that I would be his lawyer, because I don't practice criminal law. (ibid. pg. 331)
However, Nichols was pressured into going by a law professor from SMU.
"I then received a call from another lawyer who was a professor out at S.M.U. and he wanted to know whether or not the bar association was doing anything about getting a lawyer for Oswald. I told him what had transpired, what I had done, and I hadn't decided what should be done at this time, if anything by me, as president of the bar association. He seemed to think that it would be advisable and would be helpful if I would go up and satisfy myself personally as to whether or not Oswald had any lawyer, wanted a lawyer or was asking for a lawyer and hadn't been able to get one, and I told him that I had not decided what to do, so, I sat around and decided if it had to be done. It seemed like enough time had gone by, and enough uncertainty among the people I talked to as to whether or not he had a lawyer or had asked for a lawyer that I decided I might as well go up and talk to him, so, I cleaned up and went on up to the city hall. That was probably 5:30 or so in the afternoon." (ibid. pgs. 327-328)
The law professor, in a sense, twists his arm as if saying, "It's been over 24 hours since his arrest and he hasn't asked for an attorney yet?"
When he arrived at the police station, he went up to the Chief's office looking for Capt. King. The Chief saw him and introduced him to an FBI agent, then volunteered to take him up to Oswald's cell himself. ( ibid., pg 328 )
When Nichols asks Oswald if he had a lawyer, Oswald starts complaining about his treatment:
Mr. NICHOLS. I asked him if he had a lawyer, and he said, "Well, he really didn't know what it was all about, that he was--had been incarcerated, and kept incommunicado, and I said, "Well, I have come up to see whether or not you want a lawyer, because as I understand--" I am not exactly sure what I ,said there, or whether he said something about not knowing what happened to President Kennedy, or I said that I understood that he was arrested for the shot that killed the President, and I don't remember who said what after that. This is a little bit vague. (ibid.)
Here Nichols is having an exclusive talk with the accused assassin of President Kennedy, and he can't remember what was said in the exchange.
Mr. STERN. He, I gather, used the word "incommunicado" to describe----
Mr. NICHOLS. Yes; that was his word.
Mr. STERN. Did he elaborate on that, or any---or indicate to you that he had not been able to see members of his family or other people of his choice?
Mr. NICHOLS. No; he did not say that he had been refused anything. Just didn't elaborate, and I REALLY DIDN'T ASK HIM at that point. MY INQUIRY WAS INTENTIONALLY VERY LIMITED. I merely wanted to know whether he had a lawyer, if he had a lawyer then I had no problems. If he asked for a lawyer and they did not offer him one, that was contrary to what I had been told, because I had been told, as far as the police were concerned, and Mr. Wade, as he recalled, that the man had never asked for a lawyer. Nor had he asked to call a lawyer, for the right to call a lawyer, so that I was interested in knowing whether or not he had a lawyer and whether or not he had requested a lawyer and been refused..... I didn't go into the other questions, or whether or not he wanted to see his family and hadn't been permitted. I really was concerned about whether or not he had a lawyer or wanted a lawyer, or whether we had any obligations to furnish him one. (ibid., pg. 330)
In addition, when Oswald asked for John Abt or a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union, Nichols told him that he didn't know Abt and he didn't know any lawyers who were members of the ACLU but admitted under oath that "as it turned out later, a number of lawyers I know ARE members". (ibid. pg. 329)
According to Nichols' testimony, this was the exchange between himself and Oswald:
NICHOLS. 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?"
OSWALD. No, not now. 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.
NICHOLS. 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.
OSWALD. No. (ibid.)
As Nichols is leaving, Chief Curry asked him to make a statement to the press:
"....As I left the chief asked me whether or not I wanted to make a statement to the press, and I said, "Well, I don't know whether I do or not. I don't know whether it is the thing to do or not." And he said, "Well, they are going to be right outside the door there, and if you want to say anything this would be an opportunity to do it. Incidentally, I am very glad you came up here. We don't want any question coming up about us refusing to let him have a lawyer. As far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one." (ibid.)
Nichols then went before the media and stated that Oswald had refused his offer for help:
"He appeared to me that he knew where he was and pretty much what his rights were with regard to being represented, and he knew apparently--at least the conversation was that if he didn't get somebody to represent him that he wanted that he could always fall back on the bar association, or somebody, and I had told him that I would see him next week if he wanted me to, and I satisfied myself at least, to the extent, that the man appeared to know what he was doing. He did not appear to be irrational. He appeared to be calm. He turned down my offer of help, and I felt like at that point that was all I needed to do, and this was later Saturday afternoon, and I had no inkling that anything else, except maybe that the next week if he didn't get a lawyer I might hear from him, or check into it, and that's all I know about Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald." (ibid. pg. 330)
Nichols never mentioned to the press Oswald's request for John Abt or the American Civil Liberties Union. He never mentioned to the press Oswald's complaint of being held "incommunicado".
Confused Police Chief Curry
Chief Curry, the only witness to the exchange between Oswald and Nichols, could not remember which day it occurred, testifying that Nichols' visit was on Friday (4 H 155).
Later in his testimony, Curry is told that Nichols' visit was on Saturday, not Friday.
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, you said that Mr. Nichols came that afternoon. I call to your attention that we have information that he came there on the Saturday afternoon.
Mr. CURRY. Perhaps it was, not the Friday. That perhaps was on Saturday.
Mr. RANKIN. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you could just summarize briefly where we are.
(Discussion off the record.)
At that point, a "discussion off the record" is conducted and when the discussion comes back on the record, Curry's memory has improved. He tells the Commission that Nichols offered to provide counsel to Oswald, but Oswald "didn't care to at this time" but in the event he couldn't secure counsel for himself, he would "call on you later".
Then Rep. Ford asks the stupidest question:
Representative FORD. Did Nichols and Oswald talk one to another? (ibid., pg 158)
Trust Their Actions, Not Words
When Nichols visited Oswald on Saturday evening, Oswald had already contacted Ruth Paine for help contacting Abt. Oswald was under the impression that Ruth Paine was handling his counsel, so he turned Nichols down. This is supported by Mrs. Paine's testimony. She testified that Oswald called her about 3:30 or 4 pm and asked her to contact John Abt after 6 pm. (3 H 85)
It's also supported by Marguerite Oswald, who testified that she didn't see her son until sometime after 4:30 pm and that he told her that he'd already requested to get in touch with attorney Abt. ( 1 H 149 )
From the time of his arrest, the longer the wait for Oswald to contact an attorney, the less chance that that contact was going to be made.
Try collect calling a lawyer in his New York office on a Saturday.
Good luck.
And the police knew this, which is why Oswald was held incommunicado through Friday and up until Saturday noon. The authorities could not allow him to come in contact with either counsel directly or family and friends, who would have sought counsel on his behalf.
Once the police were satisfied that his chances of securing counsel were next to nil, they allowed him to make the call.
When Oswald couldn't contact Abt because it was a collect call and there was no one there to accept the charges, he turned to Ruth Paine for help.
Mrs. Paine didn't like Oswald and her testimony indicates that she may have been less than enthusiastic about helping him contact Abt.
She testified that she called both numbers, home and office that Oswald had given her, but was unsuccessful in contacting him. When Oswald called back at 9:30 pm, she said that she "couldn't recall" whether she reported to him that she was unable to contact Abt.
She could only tell the Commission that "something was said but I do not recall it specifically" (3 H 88)
Mrs. Paine further told the Commission that "I am of the impression I again tried the home telephone of John Abt on Sunday morning, but I am not certain, and there was no answer. That I certainly remember." (ibid, pg. 85)
When the Commission inquired if Mrs. Paine had ever attempted to report to Oswald that she was unable to contact attorney Abt, she was forced to admit that she "made no effort" to call the police station and speak with him.(ibid.)
The question remains: did Ruth Paine actually TRY to make those calls on Oswald's behalf?
And if she did, why didn't she keep Oswald informed of her progress?
John Abt told the Warren Commission that he and his wife had gone off for a weekend at their cabin in Connecticut and on Saturday, the press "began to call me up there" and that "these calls kept on all day Saturday and again Sunday morning". (10 H 116)
How could all of these reporters reach Abt, but Mrs. Paine could not?
Even if she could not contact Abt, why didn't Mrs. Paine, as a member of the Civil Liberties Union, contact that organization for help or at least contact her husband to do so?
Marguerite Oswald testified that on Friday, the 22nd, she was troubled by the attitude of Ruth Paine towards her son. Although Mrs. Paine said that she could get Lee a lawyer, she was doing nothing about it:
"I am worried because Lee hasn't had an attorney. And I am talking about that, and Mrs. Paine said, 'Oh, don't worry about that. I am a member of the Civil Liberties Union, and Lee will have an attorney, I can assure you.' I said to myself 'but when?' Of course, I didn't want to push her, argue with her. But the point was if she was a member of the Union, why didn't she see Lee had an attorney then? So I wasn't too happy about that." (1 H 146)
Lee Harvey Oswald requested a lawyer from the time of his arrest until late Saturday afternoon, when he contacted Ruth Paine for help.
The testimony has also shown that Oswald was held incommunicado until after noon on Saturday. During that period between his arrest and the visit of his family, Oswald repeatedly pled for legal assistance and when the ACLU responded to that plea, they were lied to by the Dallas Police and chose to believe that lie.
The Dallas Police were successful in keeping Oswald "incommunicado" until Saturday afternoon, at a time when the likelihood of Oswald's securing counsel had diminished. It was at this time that the Dallas Police allowed his family to see him and allowed him to make his phone call.
Attorney Abt testified that he and his wife didn't leave for the cabin until Friday evening. Had Oswald been allowed to make that phone call at the time of his arrest, he would have made contact with Abt before they left for Connecticut.
The authorities were eager to put the "denial of counsel" issue to rest, so they agreed to allow a civil lawyer with connections to the city and its police department and the president of the Dallas Bar Association, to "question" Oswald about the denial of counsel issue in private.
After that interview, the lawyer faced the press and declared that Oswald had refused his offer for help.
The purpose of his "intentionally very limited" interview of Oswald seems to have been to take the pressure off of the authorities in Dallas rather than to insure that Oswald had counsel.
By his own admission, his "concern" was not for how Oswald was being treated. When Oswald complained, Nichols admitted that he "didn't ask any questions".
His testimony that Oswald told him to "come back next week" defies logic and common sense and is contrary to documented video showing Oswald repeatedly asking for "someone to come forward".
Not John Abt........someone..............ANYONE.
I find it hard to believe that Nichols could have been impartial and not have mentioned that Oswald HAD requested the name of John Abt or the American Civil Liberties Union. I also find it hard to believe that an impartial party would not mention Oswald's complaint about his treatment.
In the end, Nichols served the interests of the Dallas authorities better than he served the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Perhaps that was the plan all along.
Further proof of Lee Harvey Oswald's framing is documented in the way in which the Dallas Police conducted unfair police lineups. Every attempt was made to influence witnesses into identifying Oswald by putting him into lineups with police detectives, teenagers and even a Mexican.
Then there's evidence of evidence substitution. Unless, of course, you believe that police officers can repeatedly misidentify evidence that's clearly marked and were unable to get the color of a jacket correct that was in their possession.
There's also evidence that police manufactured evidence in the form of a paper "gunsack". The paper and tape used to make the gunsack came from the rolls that were on the shipping table on the AFTERNOON of the assassination.
When you have a guilty suspect, you don't need to do those things because the evidence will always stand on its own merit. The fact that they DID do those things leaves a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
Finally, the police made sure Oswald would never get to the County Sheriff's custody. They couldn't turn him over to the very deputies who reported seeing evidence that didn't fit the narrative. He'd never get the chance to go to trial and expose the fraud that was the case against him.
His guilt was determined by the new President Lyndon Johnson, who told Homicide Captain Fritz, "you've got your man, investigation's over."
Thanks to Johnson, once Oswald was dead the coverup of his framing would fall to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.