Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 22, 2018 10:19:07 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
spartacus-educational.com/USAaptJ.jpg
One of the most basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the right to legal representation if we are accused of a crime. Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was denied this right. In his nearly 48 hours in custody of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) he was NEVER given a lawyer despite repeatedly asking for “someone to come forward to represent him.” The DPD did NOT even see fit to give him a Public Defender (PD) until he could secure his own lawyer. Let’s look at this in more detail.
*******************************************
The official excuse (still used to this day by the WC defenders) is that he wanted John Abt and only John Abt. John Abt was known to defend Communists in different situations. LHO was supposed to have said the following during his interrogations (I have to say supposedly since NO notes were taken or recordings made per the DPD):
"I want that attorney in New York, Mr. Abt. I don't know him personally but I know about a case that he handled some years ago, where he represented the people who had violated the Smith Act, [which made it illegal to teach or advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government] . . . I don't know him personally, but that is the attorney I want. . . . If I can't get him, then I may get the American Civil Liberties Union to send me an attorney."
This quote alone shows LHO was NOT set on Abt alone as he said he would take a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as well (heck, I’m sure he would have been grateful for a Public Defender at that point). Where did this claim of him ONLY wanting Abt come from? Who knows for sure, but it has served the DPD, the WC and its current day defenders well. It also served another purpose quite well – it made LHO look like a Communist and this was valuable for the official solution.
It seems odd that a man who LHO supposedly wanted so bad would tell the WC he was NEVER given a request by LHO. Read this testimony and see how it corresponds to the claim LHO supposedly made while being interrogated.
Mr. RANKIN - You have been informed, I am sure, that Lee Harvey Oswald, after his arrest, tried to reach you to request that you act as his counsel. I don't know how you were informed, but I have seen it in the newspapers. When did it first come to your attention?
Mr. ABT - May I tell you the story, Mr. Rankin? Perhaps that is the simplest way.
Mr. RANKIN - Yes.
Mr. ABT - On Friday evening, the 22d, my wife and I left the city to spend the weekend at a little cabin we have up in the Connecticut woods. Sometime on Saturday, several people phoned me to say that they had heard on the radio that Oswald had asked that I represent him, and then shortly after that the press--both the press, radio, and TV reporters began to call me up there. I may say we have a radio but we have no TV there. And in the interim I turned on the radio and heard the same report.
I informed them--and these calls kept on all day and night Saturday and again Sunday morning--I informed all of the reporters with whom I spoke that I had received no request either from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf to represent him, and hence I was in no position to give any definitive answer to any such proposal if, as and when it came. I told them, however, that if I were requested to represent him, I felt that it would probably be difficult, if not impossible, for me to do so because of my commitments to other clients. I never had any communication, either directly from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf, and all of my information about the whole matter to this day came from what the press told me in those telephone conversations and what I subsequently read in the newspapers.
Does this sound like LHO requested Abt as claimed? Not to me. Abt did NOT even know why LHO would want him and had to assume the reason.
Mr. RANKIN - Mr. Abt, did you learn that Lee Harvey Oswald was interested in having you represent him apparently because of some prior connection of yours with the American Civil Liberties Union?
Mr. ABT – No. My assumption was, and it is pure assumption, that he read about some of my representation in the press, and, therefore, it occurred to him that I might be a good .man to represent him, but that is pure assumption on my part. I have no direct knowledge of the whole matter.
The assumption was meant in regards to Abt’s defense of Communists that he had defended in the past who had been accused of violating the Smith Act. Again, this whole claim regarding Abt was meant to paint LHO as a “red.” There is NO evidence he, or anyone on his behalf, ever contacted Abt at all.
So we must ask again, why was LHO denied his most basic right? Also, why did the DPD behave in this manner when it was in their BEST INTEREST to make sure they followed the law and had representation for the accused? Anything LHO might have told them in those hours of interrogation was NOT allowed in court since he had NO lawyer and they could NOT show he WAIVED his right to one. He was brought to the station in handcuffs, thus, he was automatically being arrested, and had the right to remain silent and have an crif he wished. He obviously wished since he mentioned it many times.
This statement is one of the rights:
- If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you, if you wish.
Why was NONE appointed? LHO obviously wanted one, especially as the day drew on and the charges became more serious. The only time a lawyer was acquired for him was when he was dead. Then too, the WC suddenly decided he needed a lawyer. LHO had more lawyers when he was DEAD than when he was alive.
As most will know who have researched this case Mark Lane was hired by LHO's mother, Marguerite Oswald, to defend her son's interest during the WC hearings. However, the WC saw fit to provide the deceased alleged assassin with another lawyer for the record to serve his interests. They would write this about it:
"In all fairness to the ALLEGED (WC defenders take note of this word) assassin and his family, the Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to advise whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for Oswald's widow." (WCR, xiv-xv)
Further endorsement would come from Gerald Ford who would call him the "ethical conscience of the American Bar" and the NY Post would say, "The Warren Commission's appointment of the president of the American Bar Assn. to represent the INTERESTS of Lee Harvey Oswald, President Kennedy's accused assassin, is a welcome development." The NY Post continued with "His willingness to undertake the assignment is consistent with a long legal tradition of which men of conservative backgrounds have entered the arena of controversy and undertaken to defend the least popular causes." (NY Post, February 27, 1964)
What did Craig have to say about this assignment? "We are NOT counsel for Lee Harvey Oswald", he told the Commission. He said he would participate in the hearings to see that "all facts pertaining to the INVOLVEMENT of Lee Harvey Oswald with the assassination of President Kennedy are FULLY investigated and fairly presented." The "bar's ethical conscience" seemed to lack the knowledge of our system of "innocent UNTIL proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" as much as the WC defenders on this board.
So how did this all work out? Well there is NO record in the WCR or its 26 volumes of Mr. Craig or his associates EVER recalling a witness. There is NO record of a witness being listed as a prospective witness by Mr. Craig or his associates. IF they presented a name of a new witness it is not mentioned in the WCR. IF Mr. Craig or his associates ever attended one of the 25,000 interviews, there is NO record of it in the WCR. In fact, beyond the section above Mr. Craig appears NOWHERE in the WCR, the 26 volumes or the index. Mr. Craig and his associates NEVER participated in cross-examinations, beyond an occasional question or two on a rare occasion, and these were of minor importance or to fasten guilt to LHO more firmly.
The WC would state "The Commission has functioned neither as a court presiding over an adversary proceeding nor as a prosecutor determined to prove a case, but as a fact finding agency committed to the ascertainment of the truth." (WCR, xiv) Here is their outline for their "fact finding" investigation:
I. Oswald's activities on November 22;
II. Oswald's background;
III. Oswald's career in the Marine Corps and his stay in the Soviet Union;
IV. Oswald's murder in the Dallas police station;
V. Ruby's background;
VI. The procedures employed to protect President Kennedy
Sounds like they left NO stone uncovered, huh? No wonder the N.Y. Times would say this AFTER LHO was dead (safely?):
"The Dallas authorities, abetted and encouraged by the newspaper, TV and radio press, trampled on every principle of justice in their handling of Lee Harvey Oswald. . . . The heinousness of the crime Oswald was alleged to have committed made it doubly important that there be no cloud over the establishment of his guilt.
Yet -- before any indictment had been returned or any evidence presented and in the face of continued denials by the prisoner -- the chief of police and the district attorney pronounced Oswald guilty." (New York Times, November 25, 1963, p. 18.)
We again see evidence that disputes the claims of the WC, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.
spartacus-educational.com/USAaptJ.jpg
One of the most basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the right to legal representation if we are accused of a crime. Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was denied this right. In his nearly 48 hours in custody of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) he was NEVER given a lawyer despite repeatedly asking for “someone to come forward to represent him.” The DPD did NOT even see fit to give him a Public Defender (PD) until he could secure his own lawyer. Let’s look at this in more detail.
*******************************************
The official excuse (still used to this day by the WC defenders) is that he wanted John Abt and only John Abt. John Abt was known to defend Communists in different situations. LHO was supposed to have said the following during his interrogations (I have to say supposedly since NO notes were taken or recordings made per the DPD):
"I want that attorney in New York, Mr. Abt. I don't know him personally but I know about a case that he handled some years ago, where he represented the people who had violated the Smith Act, [which made it illegal to teach or advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government] . . . I don't know him personally, but that is the attorney I want. . . . If I can't get him, then I may get the American Civil Liberties Union to send me an attorney."
This quote alone shows LHO was NOT set on Abt alone as he said he would take a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as well (heck, I’m sure he would have been grateful for a Public Defender at that point). Where did this claim of him ONLY wanting Abt come from? Who knows for sure, but it has served the DPD, the WC and its current day defenders well. It also served another purpose quite well – it made LHO look like a Communist and this was valuable for the official solution.
It seems odd that a man who LHO supposedly wanted so bad would tell the WC he was NEVER given a request by LHO. Read this testimony and see how it corresponds to the claim LHO supposedly made while being interrogated.
Mr. RANKIN - You have been informed, I am sure, that Lee Harvey Oswald, after his arrest, tried to reach you to request that you act as his counsel. I don't know how you were informed, but I have seen it in the newspapers. When did it first come to your attention?
Mr. ABT - May I tell you the story, Mr. Rankin? Perhaps that is the simplest way.
Mr. RANKIN - Yes.
Mr. ABT - On Friday evening, the 22d, my wife and I left the city to spend the weekend at a little cabin we have up in the Connecticut woods. Sometime on Saturday, several people phoned me to say that they had heard on the radio that Oswald had asked that I represent him, and then shortly after that the press--both the press, radio, and TV reporters began to call me up there. I may say we have a radio but we have no TV there. And in the interim I turned on the radio and heard the same report.
I informed them--and these calls kept on all day and night Saturday and again Sunday morning--I informed all of the reporters with whom I spoke that I had received no request either from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf to represent him, and hence I was in no position to give any definitive answer to any such proposal if, as and when it came. I told them, however, that if I were requested to represent him, I felt that it would probably be difficult, if not impossible, for me to do so because of my commitments to other clients. I never had any communication, either directly from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf, and all of my information about the whole matter to this day came from what the press told me in those telephone conversations and what I subsequently read in the newspapers.
Does this sound like LHO requested Abt as claimed? Not to me. Abt did NOT even know why LHO would want him and had to assume the reason.
Mr. RANKIN - Mr. Abt, did you learn that Lee Harvey Oswald was interested in having you represent him apparently because of some prior connection of yours with the American Civil Liberties Union?
Mr. ABT – No. My assumption was, and it is pure assumption, that he read about some of my representation in the press, and, therefore, it occurred to him that I might be a good .man to represent him, but that is pure assumption on my part. I have no direct knowledge of the whole matter.
The assumption was meant in regards to Abt’s defense of Communists that he had defended in the past who had been accused of violating the Smith Act. Again, this whole claim regarding Abt was meant to paint LHO as a “red.” There is NO evidence he, or anyone on his behalf, ever contacted Abt at all.
So we must ask again, why was LHO denied his most basic right? Also, why did the DPD behave in this manner when it was in their BEST INTEREST to make sure they followed the law and had representation for the accused? Anything LHO might have told them in those hours of interrogation was NOT allowed in court since he had NO lawyer and they could NOT show he WAIVED his right to one. He was brought to the station in handcuffs, thus, he was automatically being arrested, and had the right to remain silent and have an crif he wished. He obviously wished since he mentioned it many times.
This statement is one of the rights:
- If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you, if you wish.
Why was NONE appointed? LHO obviously wanted one, especially as the day drew on and the charges became more serious. The only time a lawyer was acquired for him was when he was dead. Then too, the WC suddenly decided he needed a lawyer. LHO had more lawyers when he was DEAD than when he was alive.
As most will know who have researched this case Mark Lane was hired by LHO's mother, Marguerite Oswald, to defend her son's interest during the WC hearings. However, the WC saw fit to provide the deceased alleged assassin with another lawyer for the record to serve his interests. They would write this about it:
"In all fairness to the ALLEGED (WC defenders take note of this word) assassin and his family, the Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to advise whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for Oswald's widow." (WCR, xiv-xv)
Further endorsement would come from Gerald Ford who would call him the "ethical conscience of the American Bar" and the NY Post would say, "The Warren Commission's appointment of the president of the American Bar Assn. to represent the INTERESTS of Lee Harvey Oswald, President Kennedy's accused assassin, is a welcome development." The NY Post continued with "His willingness to undertake the assignment is consistent with a long legal tradition of which men of conservative backgrounds have entered the arena of controversy and undertaken to defend the least popular causes." (NY Post, February 27, 1964)
What did Craig have to say about this assignment? "We are NOT counsel for Lee Harvey Oswald", he told the Commission. He said he would participate in the hearings to see that "all facts pertaining to the INVOLVEMENT of Lee Harvey Oswald with the assassination of President Kennedy are FULLY investigated and fairly presented." The "bar's ethical conscience" seemed to lack the knowledge of our system of "innocent UNTIL proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" as much as the WC defenders on this board.
So how did this all work out? Well there is NO record in the WCR or its 26 volumes of Mr. Craig or his associates EVER recalling a witness. There is NO record of a witness being listed as a prospective witness by Mr. Craig or his associates. IF they presented a name of a new witness it is not mentioned in the WCR. IF Mr. Craig or his associates ever attended one of the 25,000 interviews, there is NO record of it in the WCR. In fact, beyond the section above Mr. Craig appears NOWHERE in the WCR, the 26 volumes or the index. Mr. Craig and his associates NEVER participated in cross-examinations, beyond an occasional question or two on a rare occasion, and these were of minor importance or to fasten guilt to LHO more firmly.
The WC would state "The Commission has functioned neither as a court presiding over an adversary proceeding nor as a prosecutor determined to prove a case, but as a fact finding agency committed to the ascertainment of the truth." (WCR, xiv) Here is their outline for their "fact finding" investigation:
I. Oswald's activities on November 22;
II. Oswald's background;
III. Oswald's career in the Marine Corps and his stay in the Soviet Union;
IV. Oswald's murder in the Dallas police station;
V. Ruby's background;
VI. The procedures employed to protect President Kennedy
Sounds like they left NO stone uncovered, huh? No wonder the N.Y. Times would say this AFTER LHO was dead (safely?):
"The Dallas authorities, abetted and encouraged by the newspaper, TV and radio press, trampled on every principle of justice in their handling of Lee Harvey Oswald. . . . The heinousness of the crime Oswald was alleged to have committed made it doubly important that there be no cloud over the establishment of his guilt.
Yet -- before any indictment had been returned or any evidence presented and in the face of continued denials by the prisoner -- the chief of police and the district attorney pronounced Oswald guilty." (New York Times, November 25, 1963, p. 18.)
We again see evidence that disputes the claims of the WC, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.