Why Was LHO Denied Legal Representation?
robcap...@netscape.com
president. He is taken before Judge J.P. Johnson (another irony) and
remanded to the Sheriff of Dallas County and there will be no bond due
to it being a capital offense charge. By law LHO has the right to be
transferred "fortwith", meaning immediately, but this is denied as he
will spend all day Saturday and up to his death on Sunday at the
police jail. Why is he not transferred right away? Judge Johnson
informs him he is entilted to representation of his choice. As
history has shown LHO was asking for John Abt all day, but nothing has
come of it. He then says if Abt is NOT avilable he will take a counsel
from the Dallas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union to
represent him.
He is very irritated by now as he has been pleading for over 8 hours
to have legal representation (something the DPD, WC and all LNers act
like never happened) and he will even beg for it during a press
conference he is taken to. He has phoned Ruth Paine twice for help
and she had done nothing as she says he is guilty. All to NO avail.
When asked about this by the WC Judge Johnson says he informed LHO of
his rights again, but never got into why no lawyer was ever produced.
Chief Curry's memory wasn't as good as Judge Johnson's because he said
"I do not recall whether he did or did not" when asked the same
question.
What we do know is the ACLU did contact the DPD to help LHO and
protect his rights, BUT they were told by the DPD "that Oswald has
DECLINED the services of a lawyer." Another example of the pure
dishonesty of this case, why would they deny LHO his rights if this
was an above-board investigation? What were they so afraid of?
Bud
wrote:
> At 1:35 am on 11/23/63 LHO is formally charged with the murder of the
> president. He is taken before Judge J.P. Johnson (another irony) and
> remanded to the Sheriff of Dallas County and there will be no bond due
> to it being a capital offense charge. By law LHO has the right to be
> transferred "fortwith", meaning immediately,
Well, "forthwith" does.
> but this is denied as he
> will spend all day Saturday and up to his death on Sunday at the
> police jail. Why is he not transferred right away? Judge Johnson
> informs him he is entilted to representation of his choice. As
> history has shown LHO was asking for John Abt all day, but nothing has
> come of it. He then says if Abt is NOT avilable he will take a counsel
> from the Dallas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union to
> represent him.
>
> He is very irritated by now as he has been pleading for over 8 hours
> to have legal representation (something the DPD, WC and all LNers act
> like never happened) and he will even beg for it during a press
> conference he is taken to. He has phoned Ruth Paine twice for help
> and she had done nothing as she says he is guilty. All to NO avail.
> When asked about this by the WC Judge Johnson says he informed LHO of
> his rights again, but never got into why no lawyer was ever produced.
> Chief Curry's memory wasn't as good as Judge Johnson's because he said
> "I do not recall whether he did or did not" when asked the same
> question.
>
> What we do know is the ACLU did contact the DPD to help LHO and
> protect his rights, BUT they were told by the DPD "that Oswald has
> DECLINED the services of a lawyer."
Who at the ACLU talked to who at the DPD?
bigdog
The JFK assassination predates the landmark Miranda ruling which
defined the legal rights of the accused. Miranda required that anyone
arrested for a crime must be told they have the right to remain
silent, if they give up the right, anything they say can be used
against them, that they have the right to have an attorney present
during questioning, and that if they couldn't afford an attorney, one
would be appointed. Since those protections were not in place in 1963,
it was not uncommon for police to interogate suspects at length with
no attorney present.
robcap...@netscape.com
Miranda came into being in 1965, but it has NOTHING to do with the
right of legal representation which has been guaranteed under the
Constitution since the beginning of the country. Nice try though.
Bud
wrote:
If Oz had made it to trial, he would have had legal representation
at that trial.
> Nice try though.
I asked you a question, robbie, who at the ACLU called who at the
DPD?
muc...@gmail.com
This could take a while for Rob to answer. His post was nothing more
than an edited and rephrased portion of Ira David Wood's assassination
chronology - which is awfully light on footnotes:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono2.pdf
(Search for the word "forthwith" (or scroll to page 100).)
-Mark
Bud
Thanks Mark. I knew it wasn`t his work, which is why I asked for
those names. Those names would be the basics, and the basics are often
missing in these kook articles.
Martin Shackelford
Oswald asked for representation--his first choice was an East Coast attorney
for
left causes, and his second choice was the ACLU.
When reps of the ACLU came to the Dallas PD, they were told by police that
Oswald didn't want their representation--without checking with him again,
despite
the fact that he had specifically indicated that he would accept ACLU
representation.
He was, therefore, denied legal representation after having asked for it.
If you're not sure whether he asked for it, please look at the films in
which he asks
"for someone to come forward and give me legal representation."
Martin
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:916d4a2d-b48c-4976...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Bud
wrote:
> You should know the Warren Commission material better than that, Bud.
You shouldn be able to read better than that, Martin. I haven`t
address that issue (except to say that if Oswald went to court, he
would have had legal representation). rob wrote "What we do know is
the ACLU did contact the DPD to help LHO and protect his rights". All
I`ve been doing is asking rob for the name of the person from the
ACLU, and the name of the person in the Dallas Police Department that
person spoke with. How can we "know" this conversation took place if
rob can`t even name the people who participated in it?
> Oswald asked for representation--his first choice was an East Coast attorney
> for
> left causes, and his second choice was the ACLU.
> When reps of the ACLU came to the Dallas PD, they were told by police that
> Oswald didn't want their representation--without checking with him again,
Ah, good, you say the same things as rob. Can you supply the name
of the person at the ACLU, and the person in the DPD the ACLU person
spoke with?
> despite
> the fact that he had specifically indicated that he would accept ACLU
> representation.
> He was, therefore, denied legal representation after having asked for it.
> If you're not sure whether he asked for it, please look at the films in
> which he asks
> "for someone to come forward and give me legal representation."
I`m not sure what obligation the DPD would be under to secure
Oswald legal representation. He was given phone calls.
> Martin
>
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
muc...@gmail.com
> On Jul 21, 1:09 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > You should know the Warren Commission material better than that, Bud.
>
> ย ย You shouldn be able to read better than that, Martin. I haven`t
> address that issue (except to say that if Oswald went to court, he
> would have had legal representation). rob wrote "What we do know is
> the ACLU did contact the DPD to help LHO and protect his rights". All
> I`ve been doing is asking rob for the name of the person from the
> ACLU, and the name of the person in the Dallas Police Department that
> person spoke with. How can we "know" this conversation took place if
> rob can`t even name the people who participated in it?
Gregory Olds (Dallas ACLU president) called the DPD on the evening of
11/22, and was told by Captain Fritz that Oswald had been given the
opportunity to have counsil and declined. Together with three other
ACLU members, he later went down to the police department. The group
was assured by Captain King that Oswald had not made any requests for
counsel, and by Justice of the Peace Johnston that Oswald had been
advised of his rights during arraignment for the Tippit murder - and
declined council.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Olds.pdf
> > Oswald asked for representation--his first choice was an East Coast attorney
> > for
> > left causes, and his second choice was the ACLU.
> > When reps of the ACLU came to the Dallas PD, they were told by police that
> > Oswald didn't want their representation--without checking with him again,
>
> ย ย Ah, good, you say the same things as rob. Can you supply the name
> of the person at the ACLU, and the person in the DPD the ACLU person
> spoke with?
>
> > despite
> > the fact that he had specifically indicated that he would accept ACLU
> > representation.
> > He was, therefore, denied legal representation after having asked for it.
> > If you're not sure whether he asked for it, please look at the films in
> > which he asks
> > "for someone to come forward and give me legal representation."
>
> ย ย I`m not sure what obligation the DPD would be under to secure
> Oswald legal representation. He was given phone calls.
Yes, he wasn't given the opportunity to meet representatives of the
ACLU, but there were other opportunities. He decided to hold out for
Abt.
Bud
> On 21 Jul., 12:18, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 1:09 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > You should know the Warren Commission material better than that, Bud.
>
> > You shouldn be able to read better than that, Martin. I haven`t
> > address that issue (except to say that if Oswald went to court, he
> > would have had legal representation). rob wrote "What we do know is
> > the ACLU did contact the DPD to help LHO and protect his rights". All
> > I`ve been doing is asking rob for the name of the person from the
> > ACLU, and the name of the person in the Dallas Police Department that
> > person spoke with. How can we "know" this conversation took place if
> > rob can`t even name the people who participated in it?
>
> Gregory Olds (Dallas ACLU president) called the DPD on the evening of
> 11/22, and was told by Captain Fritz that Oswald had been given the
> opportunity to have counsil and declined. Together with three other
> ACLU members, he later went down to the police department. The group
> was assured by Captain King that Oswald had not made any requests for
> counsel, and by Justice of the Peace Johnston that Oswald had been
> advised of his rights during arraignment for the Tippit murder - and
> declined council.
>
Thanks for supplying this, Mark. These things carry more weight
with me when I can tell it`s actual people involved, with kook claims
you can never tell.
robcap...@netscape.com
Is your sole job here to see what we are reading? When was the last
time you posted anything? Get a life. And I will answer because it
is not hard to find if one really wants to. Why didn't you search that
one for us? Check Bud's post for the answer.
robcap...@netscape.com
Thanks Mark? What in the heck did he add to the conversation? The
ACLU lawyers name was Otto Mullinax, and of course we don't know who
LIED and said LHO did NOT want representation. They have kept this a
secret like all the other horrible things they did.
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> > On Jul 21, 1:09 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > You should know the Warren Commission material better than that, Bud.
>
> > ย ย You shouldn be able to read better than that, Martin. I haven`t
> > address that issue (except to say that if Oswald went to court, he
> > would have had legal representation). rob wrote "What we do know is
> > the ACLU did contact the DPD to help LHO and protect his rights". All
> > I`ve been doing is asking rob for the name of the person from the
> > ACLU, and the name of the person in the Dallas Police Department that
> > person spoke with. How can we "know" this conversation took place if
> > rob can`t even name the people who participated in it?
>
> Gregory Olds (Dallas ACLU president) called the DPD on the evening of
> 11/22, and was told by Captain Fritz that Oswald had been given the
> opportunity to have counsil and declined. Together with three other
> ACLU members, he later went down to the police department. The group
> was assured by Captain King that Oswald had not made any requests for
> counsel, and by Justice of the Peace Johnston that Oswald had been
> advised of his rights during arraignment for the Tippit murder - and
> declined council.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Oswald asked for representation--his first choice was an East Coast attorney
> > > for
> > > left causes, and his second choice was the ACLU.
> > > When reps of the ACLU came to the Dallas PD, they were told by police that
> > > Oswald didn't want their representation--without checking with him again,
>
> > ย ย Ah, good, you say the same things as rob. Can you supply the name
> > of the person at the ACLU, and the person in the DPD the ACLU person
> > spoke with?
>
> > > despite
> > > the fact that he had specifically indicated that he would accept ACLU
> > > representation.
> > > He was, therefore, denied legal representation after having asked for it.
> > > If you're not sure whether he asked for it, please look at the films in
> > > which he asks
> > > "for someone to come forward and give me legal representation."
>
> > ย ย I`m not sure what obligation the DPD would be under to secure
> > Oswald legal representation. He was given phone calls.
>
> Yes, he wasn't given the opportunity to meet representatives of the
> ACLU, but there were other opportunities. He decided to hold out for
> Abt.
This is incorrect, he said if Abt was NOT available he would take a
local ACLU lawyer. Besides, the issue is under the Constitution you
are guaranteed a lawyer whether you can afford one or not. The
"Miranda" rights law just made police advise the arrested person of
these rights, but they have existed since the inception of the
Constitution. So the truth is the second he said "I want a lawyer"
one needed to be provided. Period.
> > > > DPD?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
RE: The CT myth of "Oswald Being Denied Legal Counsel"........
Conspiracy theorists are, of course, forced to label Captain Will
Fritz a "liar" once again with respect to this "counsel for Oswald"
issue....because CTers must think Fritz was telling a big, fat whopper
of a falsehood when he told the Warren Commission this in 1964, which
is a statement that makes it abundantly clear that Mr. Oswald was
never "denied legal counsel" during his brief 2-day stay at the Dallas
City Jail:
JOE BALL -- "Did you say anything to him [Oswald] about an attorney
the first time you talked to him?"
CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "Yes, sir; the first time. He asked about an
attorney, and I told him he certainly could have an attorney any time
he wanted it. I told him he could have an attorney any time he liked,
any attorney he wanted. I told him, I said, we will do it. He said he
wanted an attorney in New York. And he gave me his name, Mr. Abt, and
he said that is who he wanted, and I told him he could have anyone he
liked."
[Later....]
FRITZ -- "He [LHO] told me that he didn't want a lawyer and he told me
once or twice that he didn't want to answer any questions at all. ....
I talked to him about a lawyer a number of times and he said he didn't
want the local attorneys, some attorney had been up to see him after
one of these questionings, and he said he didn't want him at all. He
wanted Mr. Abt."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
Also:
The President of the Dallas Bar Association (H. Louis Nichols) came to
see Oswald on Saturday, November 23 and offered the services of the
DBA, but LHO turned down the offer and told Nichols that he might
contact him later if he could not secure Mr. Abt's services. .....
"The chief [Jesse Curry] had the officer open the door, and he
introduced me to Oswald, and told him my name and said that I was the
president of the Dallas Bar Association and had come up to see him
about whether or not he needed or wanted a lawyer. .... I said, "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"."
-- H.L. Nichols; WC Testimony; April 8, 1964
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
Anyone who claims that Lee Oswald was denied legal assistance is
simply 100% wrong.
There's also this tidbit of info from Nichols' WC session (re: Chief
Curry's concerns on Saturday, 11/23 about this matter):
"[Jesse Curry] said, '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 know, he has never asked for one. He has
never asked to call one.'* And I believe the chief mentioned that Mr.
Abt's name, but he said, has never asked us to call him. .... He
[Curry] said, 'I am glad that you came down and talked to him. At
least that takes a problem off of us about not furnishing him a
lawyer'."
* = This comment made by Chief Curry, however, if Nichols heard Curry
correctly, does conflict with Capt. Fritz' WC statements that I posted
ealier....because Fritz indicated to the WC that in the very FIRST
interrogation session he had with Oswald (which was, of course, on
11/22), LHO had requested Mr. Abt as an attorney. Evidently, some of
the initial communications between Fritz and Curry about Fritz'
interrogations of Oswald were lacking in some details.
robcap...@netscape.com
> RE: The CT myth of "Oswald Being Denied Legal Counsel"........
The real myth is the fact that the LNers think a man would NOT ask for
a lawyer in 48 hours of multiple interrogations and police lineups.
What a joke. Nothing more needs to be said.
David Von Pein
>>> "The real myth is the fact that the LNers think a man would NOT ask for a lawyer in 48 hours of multiple interrogations and police lineups. What a joke." <<<
Among all of his other failings, it now seems as if the kook named
Robert can't read.
I just a few minutes ago posted the remarks of Captain Will Fritz re.
the topic of LHO asking for a lawyer. Why didn't you read it? Let me
guess -- Fritz is a bald-faced liar here, right?:
CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "He [LHO] asked about an attorney [on 11/22, during
Fritz' very FIRST interrogation of Oswald], and I told him he
certainly could have an attorney any time he wanted it. I told him he
could have an attorney any time he liked, any attorney he wanted. I
told him, I said, we will do it. He said he wanted an attorney in New
York. And he gave me his name, Mr. Abt, and he said that is who he
wanted, and I told him he could have anyone he liked. .... I talked to
him about a lawyer a number of times and he said he didn't want the
local attorneys; some attorney had been up to see him after one of
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "The real myth is the fact that the LNers think a man would NOT ask for a lawyer in 48 hours of multiple interrogations and police lineups. What a joke." <<<
>
> Among all of his other failings, it now seems as if the kook named
> Robert can't read.
>
> I just a few minutes ago posted the remarks of Captain Will Fritz re.
> the topic of LHO asking for a lawyer. Why didn't you read it? Let me
> guess -- Fritz is a bald-faced liar here, right?:
It has NOTHING to do with Fritz, who is a liar by the way, but you
CANNOT expect to have anything stand up in a court if you have denied
the accussed a lawyer. Even if they claim they don't want one, which
is not the case here, you have to get them one when they are being
charged with capital crimes. Dave just doesn't understand (or
probably doesn't care) our legal system. Also, they probably knew this
wouldn't make it to court, right?
Martin Shackelford
You are confusing the issue completely. No one said the DPD was under an
obligation to "secure Oswald legal representation."
The problem was, they TURNED AWAY legal representation that he had
requested.
Martin
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:c49f6b14-ee35-452d...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Oswald was never told that the ACLU had been there.
Martin
<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9e06152-3c9a-4a8d...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
and unlikely.
Martin
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:754ab5d7-b857-4996...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
muc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, at the (Friday) midnight press conference, Oswald did make a
public request for someone to come forward to give him legal
assistance, but the following afternoon, he told the president of the
local bar association that their assistance would only be required if
he was unable to get either (1) Abt or (2) someone from ACLU to
represent him. It would (presumably) have been quite easy for Nichols
to find a local attorney to provide immediate assistance, at least
until a more permanent arrangement could be made, but Oswald wasn't
interested.
Tell me, Rob, when do *you* think Oswald decided that Abt was NOT
available?
Gil Jesus
>On Jul 21, 7:10ย pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> RE: The CT myth of "Oswald Being Denied Legal Counsel"........
>
>The real myth is the fact that the LNers think a man would NOT ask for
>a lawyer in 48 hours of multiple interrogations and police lineups.
>What a joke. Nothing more needs to be said.
Oswald PUBLICLY requested legal representation. It's on videotape:
"I am asking that someone come forward and give me legal assistance"
Lee Harvey Oswald during the "Midnight Press Conference" 11/22/63
It's pretty bad when a suspect has to go before TV cameras and ask for
a lawyer.
Yeah, right. they didn't deny him one.
muc...@gmail.com
Well, Mullinax may be the first name that pops up when you Google aclu
+dallas +oswald, but the name you'll find in the official records is
Olds. It seems that Mullinax was one of Olds' three (unnamed)
companions. If you want to know who said what to whom(Olds), I'm
afraid you'll have to consult the 26 Volumes (or read some of the more
recent posts here).
Bud
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:18:15 -0700 (PDT), "robcap...@netscape.com"
>
> >On Jul 21, 7:10 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> RE: The CT myth of "Oswald Being Denied Legal Counsel"........
>
> >The real myth is the fact that the LNers think a man would NOT ask for
> >a lawyer in 48 hours of multiple interrogations and police lineups.
> >What a joke. Nothing more needs to be said.
>
> Oswald PUBLICLY requested legal representation. It's on videotape:
>
> "I am asking that someone come forward and give me legal assistance"
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald during the "Midnight Press Conference" 11/22/63
>
> It's pretty bad when a suspect has to go before TV cameras and ask for
> a lawyer.
He also said he hadn`t killed anyone.
> Yeah, right. they didn't deny him one.
Yah, right, he didn`t kill anyone.
Bud
wrote:
> Yes, that's Fritz's version. Somewhat different than the ACLU rep's version,
> and unlikely.
Actually, in the testimony Mark supplied by Olds (of the ACLU),
they asked around the station to see if Oswald had asked for a lawyer,
and had a few people say he was offered, but declined. That satisfied
Olds, who then heard about, and attended the press conference. It was
at this press conference that Oz asked for someone to step forward and
provide him with legal representation. But, Oswald is known to say
anything in public in order to garner support from weak-minded
listeners. Like the "I`m not resisting arrest" in the Texas Theater",
or the "I`m just a patsy" in the hallways of the Dallas police
station, these sound bites have no basis in the reality of the
situation, but are merely said to put the authorities on the
defensive.
> Martin
>
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:754ab5d7-b857-4996...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
you're learning Dudster.... kutgw!
Bud
wrote:
> All of the information is in the Warren material, Bud--look it up yourself.
Are you new to newsgroups, Martin? rob presented an article. In that
article, he claimed someone did something. You think it`s improper for
me to ask that person`s name?
> You are confusing the issue completely.
Because I`m not focusing on what you feel is important? How do you
confuse an issue by asking for information? Mark supplied the
information I requested, and I learned a bit about this issue.
> No one said the DPD was under an
> obligation to "secure Oswald legal representation."
> The problem was, they TURNED AWAY legal representation that he had
> requested.
According to Olds, you have the chronology reversed. The Dallas
police satisfied the representatives of the ACLU that Oswald was
offered legal representation, and then Oswald made the request at the
press conference. But, what chance did Oz have of beating these
charges in a court of law? Knowing them to be zero, his only chance
would be getting freed on a technicality. So, he refuses legal
representation, so he can play the "I didn`t get legal representation"
card. You kooks buy it, but you bought into his silly patsy claims
also.
Bud
What the fuck is "kutgw", did you accidently suck up some bong
water?
aeffects
don't get so testy son.... kutgw = keep up the good work! Before you
know it you'll be spouting ALL the CT mantra's... LMFAO!
robcap...@netscape.com
Mark - you are playing games and I'm not going along. The name of the
person who showed up is immaterial. The point that is tantamount in
terms of importance is LHO was accused of two capital crimes, he was
forced to participate in numerous interrogations (with NO notes or
recordings being taken - or claimed to be taken) and numerous line-up
all with NO legal representation. The real truth is NONE of the
things the DPD and DA claimed they got that weekend would have beed
admissable in court due to the flagrant disregard for LHO's rights.
Obviously, someone had the knowledge there would be NO trial to worry
about.
Under the Constitution:
"Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, **and to have the Assistance of Counsel for
his defence**." Ratified 12/15/1791
Amendment 5 is also applicable:
"Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when
in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, **without due process of law;** nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation." Ratified
12/15/1791
Both of these amendments deal with legal representation, but also for
the parameters of how someone is to be judged in terms of guilt or
innocence. Show me where LHO got any of these rights in his treatment
during that weekend and after his death. He was treated no different
from a man in a jail in the old west when a "lynching party" came to
get him and hang him from the nearest tree. All people who defend this
type of behavior weaken this country even more.
muc...@gmail.com
I thought I was making a point about getting your sources straight
(and not trust everything you read on conspiracy websites).
> The point that is tantamount in
> terms of importance is LHO was accused of two capital crimes, he was
> forced to participate in numerous interrogations (with NO notes or
> recordings being taken - or claimed to be taken) and numerous line-up
> all with NO legal representation. ย The real truth is NONE of the
> things the DPD and DA claimed they got that weekend would have beed
Oh, did they get anything useful from Oswald, like a confession?
> admissable in court due to the flagrant disregard for LHO's rights.
> Obviously, someone had the knowledge there would be NO trial to worry
> about.
If anyone violated Oswald's right that weekend, it was Jack Ruby.
Perhaps you should take your complaints to him.
I'm certainly no legal eagle, so perhaps you could tell me precisely
which of the above rights you think were violated. Did the
authorities, for example, deny Oswald the right to have assistance of
counsel for his defence during trial???
> He was treated no different
> from a man in a jail in the old west when a "lynching party" came to
> get him and hang him from the nearest tree. All people who defend this
> type of behavior weaken this country even more.
I'm not exactly condoning Ruby's behaviour, but I can't get all worked
up over what happened to Oswald. In some ways he got off too easy.
Bud
rob thinks getting the facts straight is "playing games". He is an
idiot.
> The name of the
> person who showed up is immaterial.
Actually, Oswald confessed to a number of people. Their names are
immaterial.
> The point that is tantamount in
> terms of importance is LHO was accused of two capital crimes, he was
> forced to participate in numerous interrogations
What method did they employ to force Oswald to answer the questions
they asked?
> (with NO notes or
> recordings being taken - or claimed to be taken) and numerous line-up
> all with NO legal representation. The real truth is NONE of the
> things the DPD and DA claimed they got that weekend would have beed
> admissable in court due to the flagrant disregard for LHO's rights.
The real truth is that you know as much about the law as you do
everything else.
> Obviously, someone had the knowledge there would be NO trial to worry
> about.
Then why would they care if he had a lawyer?
> Under the Constitution:
>
> "Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.
>
> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
> speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
> district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
> shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
> the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
> witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
> witnesses in his favor, **and to have the Assistance of Counsel for
> his defence**." Ratified 12/15/1791
Oz would have had this, had he lived.
> Amendment 5 is also applicable:
>
> "Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.
>
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
> crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except
> in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when
> in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
> person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of
> life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
> witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
> property, **without due process of law;** nor shall private property
> be taken for public use, without just compensation." Ratified
> 12/15/1791
How does this apply?
> Both of these amendments deal with legal representation, but also for
> the parameters of how someone is to be judged in terms of guilt or
> innocence. Show me where LHO got any of these rights in his treatment
> during that weekend and after his death.
After you are dead, you don`t have these rights, idiot. And you need
to show how these statutes apply, we don`t have to show how they don`t
apply. Idiot.
> He was treated no different
> from a man in a jail in the old west when a "lynching party" came to
> get him and hang him from the nearest tree.
Actually, he was treated quite different, as he wasn`t drug to a
tree and hanged. He should have been, but he wasn`t.
> All people who defend this
> type of behavior weaken this country even more.
I think the cops should apprehend and detain murderers.
Martin Shackelford
word of the police.
Martin
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:2f3b5d4e-f121-4ce8...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
Bud
wrote:
> In other words, as I said, Olds never talked with Oswald, just accepted the
> word of the police.
Not just the police, but lawyers who were at the station who talked
to Oz. The fact is that Oz could have had a lawyer, he just decided to
hold out for Abt. It was Oz`s doings that led to him not having
representation in custody. The truth is, Oz wanted Abt if he could get
him for trial, he wasn`t worried about having a lawyer early in
custody, or he would taken one of the local lawyers offered to him.
Abt, being in New York, couldn`t possibly have been in Dallas early
on.
> Martin
>
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
muc...@gmail.com
> On Jul 24, 5:07 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > In other words, as I said, Olds never talked with Oswald, just accepted the
> > word of the police.
>
> ย ย Not just the police, but lawyers who were at the station who talked
> to Oz. The fact is that Oz could have had a lawyer, he just decided to
> hold out for Abt. It was Oz`s doings that led to him not having
> representation in custody. The truth is, Oz wanted Abt if he could get
> him for trial, he wasn`t worried about having a lawyer early in
> custody, or he would taken one of the local lawyers offered to him.
> Abt, being in New York, couldn`t possibly have been in Dallas early
> on.
Rob should read this; perhaps he'll be able to sleep again. The poor
thing has been worried sick that proper procedure wasn't followed 45
years ago.
Bud
> On 24 Jul., 11:56, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 24, 5:07 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > In other words, as I said, Olds never talked with Oswald, just accepted the
> > > word of the police.
>
> > Not just the police, but lawyers who were at the station who talked
> > to Oz. The fact is that Oz could have had a lawyer, he just decided to
> > hold out for Abt. It was Oz`s doings that led to him not having
> > representation in custody. The truth is, Oz wanted Abt if he could get
> > him for trial, he wasn`t worried about having a lawyer early in
> > custody, or he would taken one of the local lawyers offered to him.
> > Abt, being in New York, couldn`t possibly have been in Dallas early
> > on.
>
> Rob should read this; perhaps he'll be able to sleep again. The poor
> thing has been worried sick that proper procedure wasn't followed 45
> years ago.
The kooks feel the need to recycle these myths every so often. I
checked the archives, found "jerrymac" giving the pertinent
information 10 years ago here...
robcap...@netscape.com
This is a funny comment coming from someone who believes in the made-
up story of the WC. LOL!!! Why don't you take your own advice and
really check out the lunacy the WC states as fact? I have been
studying this case for over 20 years, I hardly believe everything I
read, but there is very little I read that I haven't checked out many
times before. You and Bud have tried to make this into a side issue of
who showed up for the ACLU. Who cares, the point is in 48 hours of
captivity LHO had NO legal representation which is against the law.
> > The point that is tantamount in
> > terms of importance is LHO was accused of two capital crimes, he was
> > forced to participate in numerous interrogations (with NO notes or
> > recordings being taken - or claimed to be taken) and numerous line-up
> > all with NO legal representation. ย The real truth is NONE of the
> > things the DPD and DA claimed they got that weekend would have beed
>
> Oh, did they get anything useful from Oswald, like a confession?
They have claimed he said many things, and people like DVP likes to
call LHO a liar for it, when we have NO clue whether he said them or
not. That is another problem with having NO legal defense, the
authorities can say anything they want.
> > admissable in court due to the flagrant disregard for LHO's rights.
> > Obviously, someone had the knowledge there would be NO trial to worry
> > about.
>
> If anyone violated Oswald's right that weekend, it was Jack Ruby.
> Perhaps you should take your complaints to him.
More games here, who allowed Ruby to have access to LHO all weekend?
Who allowed Ruby to walk into the basement and pull out a gun and
shoot the man in their custody? That is right, the same ones who
denied him legal representation - the DPD.
They do NOT just pertain to trial, by law as soon as someone in
custody requests a lawywer you are NOT allowed to talk to them
anymore. This is where the right of "remaining silent" comes in.
Again, "Miranda" laws just made the police tell the suspect of these
rights, but the rights existed long before 1965 as you can see by the
ratification dates. Someone as smart as LHO knew these rights, he was
NOT the average purse snatcher in custody as he showed his knowledge
of the laws by complaining about the prejudiced lineups.
> > He was treated no different
> > from a man in a jail in the old west when a "lynching party" came to
> > get him and hang him from the nearest tree. All people who defend this
> > type of behavior weaken this country even more.
>
> I'm not exactly condoning Ruby's behaviour, but I can't get all worked
> up over what happened to Oswald. In some ways he got off too easy.
This sums up the LNers position, you folks are willing to "hang"
someone without real proof and evidence! This is crazy thinking. This
type of thinking allowed someone like Hitler become a powerful force.
robcap...@netscape.com
Bud, show me just ONE time you got the "facts straight." Just once
will suffice.
> > The name of the
> > person who showed up is immaterial.
>
> ย ย Actually, Oswald confessed to a number of people. Their names are
> immaterial.
You did NOT confess, your utter lack of understanding of this case is
showing again.
> > The point that is tantamount in
> > terms of importance is LHO was accused of two capital crimes, he was
> > forced to participate in numerous interrogations
>
> ย ย What method did they employ to force Oswald to answer the questions
> they asked?
Who knows? I wasn't in the room, where you? The whole point is you
are NOT allowed to interrogate someone without a lawyer if they
request one, and we know LHO did request one.
> > (with NO notes or
> > recordings being taken - or claimed to be taken) and numerous line-up
> > all with NO legal representation. ย The real truth is NONE of the
> > things the DPD and DA claimed they got that weekend would have beed
> > admissable in court due to the flagrant disregard for LHO's rights.
>
> ย ย The real truth is that you know as much about the law as you do
> everything else.
Thanks for the compliment!! I appreciate you saying that as I do try!
> > Obviously, someone had the knowledge there would be NO trial to worry
> > about.
>
> ย ย Then why would they care if he had a lawyer?
Exactly! I can always count on Bud messing up and telling the truth.
> > Under the Constitution:
>
> > "Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.
>
> > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
> > speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
> > district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
> > shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
> > the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
> > witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
> > witnesses in his favor, **and to have the Assistance of Counsel for
> > his defence**." Ratified 12/15/1791
>
> ย ย Oz would have had this, had he lived.
Sure he would, just like his rights were honored during the 48 hours
he was in custody.
> > Amendment 5 is also applicable:
>
> > "Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.
>
> > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
> > crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except
> > in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when
> > in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
> > person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of
> > life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
> > witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
> > property, **without due process of law;** nor shall private property
> > be taken for public use, without just compensation." ย Ratified
> > 12/15/1791
>
> ย ย How does this apply?
Figure out for yourself.
> > Both of these amendments deal with legal representation, but also for
> > the parameters of how someone is to be judged in terms of guilt or
> > innocence. ย Show me where LHO got any of these rights in his treatment
> > during that weekend and after his death.
>
> ย After you are dead, you don`t have these rights, idiot. And you need
> to show how these statutes apply, we don`t have to show how they don`t
> apply. Idiot.
You are wrong again, as you have the right NOT to be accused of
something you were NOT SHOWN to have done. There was NO confession
and the WC never showed LHO did the crimes they have accussed him of.
In this country, NOT Nazi Germany your home country, you have are
considered "innocent" UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
> > He was treated no different
> > from a man in a jail in the old west when a "lynching party" came to
> > get him and hang him from the nearest tree.
>
> ย Actually, he was treated quite different, as he wasn`t drug to a
> tree and hanged. He should have been, but he wasn`t.
This shows everyone what kind of mind we are dealing with here. End
of story.
> > All people who defend this
> > type of behavior weaken this country even more.
>
> ย ย I think the cops should apprehend and detain murderers.
Sure they should, BUT they should also PROVE they are murderers too!
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> > On Jul 24, 5:07 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > In other words, as I said, Olds never talked with Oswald, just accepted the
> > > word of the police.
>
> > ย ย Not just the police, but lawyers who were at the station who talked
> > to Oz. The fact is that Oz could have had a lawyer, he just decided to
> > hold out for Abt. It was Oz`s doings that led to him not having
> > representation in custody. The truth is, Oz wanted Abt if he could get
> > him for trial, he wasn`t worried about having a lawyer early in
> > custody, or he would taken one of the local lawyers offered to him.
> > Abt, being in New York, couldn`t possibly have been in Dallas early
> > on.
>
> Rob should read this; perhaps he'll be able to sleep again. The poor
> thing has been worried sick that proper procedure wasn't followed 45
> years ago.
Believing the lies of a liar (you) won't make me sleep any better.
You should really have been trained better than that.
> > > >> > Mr. Abt."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud
Just above, when I called you an idiot.
> > > The name of the
> > > person who showed up is immaterial.
>
> > Actually, Oswald confessed to a number of people. Their names are
> > immaterial.
>
> You did NOT confess,
Didn`t say I did, idiot.
>your utter lack of understanding of this case is
> showing again.
>
> > > The point that is tantamount in
> > > terms of importance is LHO was accused of two capital crimes, he was
> > > forced to participate in numerous interrogations
>
> > What method did they employ to force Oswald to answer the questions
> > they asked?
>
> Who knows? I wasn't in the room, where you?
Oz never said anything to anyone about torture. Perhaps they placed
him in the comfy chair.
> The whole point is you
> are NOT allowed to interrogate someone without a lawyer if they
> request one,
Not true, idiot. They can ask questions. You are under no
compulsion o answer them. Oz had the right to remain silent. He did
not exercise that right, he tlaked.
>and we know LHO did request one.
What we know is that he declined numerous offers of legal
representation.
> > > (with NO notes or
> > > recordings being taken - or claimed to be taken) and numerous line-up
> > > all with NO legal representation. The real truth is NONE of the
> > > things the DPD and DA claimed they got that weekend would have beed
> > > admissable in court due to the flagrant disregard for LHO's rights.
>
> > The real truth is that you know as much about the law as you do
> > everything else.
>
> Thanks for the compliment!! I appreciate you saying that as I do try!
The sad thing is you are the flagship for the kook faction now, the
only one still willing to embarrass himself publicly by discussing the
case.
> > > Obviously, someone had the knowledge there would be NO trial to worry
> > > about.
>
> > Then why would they care if he had a lawyer?
>
> Exactly! I can always count on Bud messing up and telling the truth.
So, why did the conspiracy care if he had a lawyer if the plan was
to kill him?
> > > Under the Constitution:
>
> > > "Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.
>
> > > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
> > > speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
> > > district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
> > > shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
> > > the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
> > > witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
> > > witnesses in his favor, **and to have the Assistance of Counsel for
> > > his defence**." Ratified 12/15/1791
>
> > Oz would have had this, had he lived.
>
> Sure he would, just like his rights were honored during the 48 hours
> he was in custody.
You haven`t shown any violations of his rights, idiot.
> > > Amendment 5 is also applicable:
>
> > > "Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.
>
> > > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
> > > crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except
> > > in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when
> > > in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
> > > person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of
> > > life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
> > > witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
> > > property, **without due process of law;** nor shall private property
> > > be taken for public use, without just compensation." Ratified
> > > 12/15/1791
>
> > How does this apply?
>
> Figure out for yourself.
I did, it doesn`t apply. I was just wondering how you thought it
did.
> > > Both of these amendments deal with legal representation, but also for
> > > the parameters of how someone is to be judged in terms of guilt or
> > > innocence. Show me where LHO got any of these rights in his treatment
> > > during that weekend and after his death.
>
> > After you are dead, you don`t have these rights, idiot. And you need
> > to show how these statutes apply, we don`t have to show how they don`t
> > apply. Idiot.
>
> You are wrong again, as you have the right NOT to be accused of
> something you were NOT SHOWN to have done.
Where can this "right" be found, idiot?
> There was NO confession
> and the WC never showed LHO did the crimes they have accussed him of.
> In this country, NOT Nazi Germany your home country, you have are
> considered "innocent" UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
Oz was guilty as soon as he killed those people.
> > > He was treated no different
> > > from a man in a jail in the old west when a "lynching party" came to
> > > get him and hang him from the nearest tree.
>
> > Actually, he was treated quite different, as he wasn`t drug to a
> > tree and hanged. He should have been, but he wasn`t.
>
> This shows everyone what kind of mind we are dealing with here. End
> of story.
At least Oswald hanging from a tree is a happy ending to the
story.
> > > All people who defend this
> > > type of behavior weaken this country even more.
>
> > I think the cops should apprehend and detain murderers.
>
> Sure they ...
>
> read more ยป
muc...@gmail.com
If anyone sounds like a lunatic, Rob, it's you.
> I have been
> studying this case for over 20 years, I hardly believe everything I
> read, but there is very little I read that I haven't checked out many
> times before.
LOL!!!
> You and Bud have tried to make this into a side issue of
> who showed up for the ACLU. Who cares, the point is in 48 hours of
> captivity LHO had NO legal representation which is against the law.
Huh? Would you have *forced* him?
> > > The point that is tantamount in
> > > terms of importance is LHO was accused of two capital crimes, he was
> > > forced to participate in numerous interrogations (with NO notes or
> > > recordings being taken - or claimed to be taken) and numerous line-up
> > > all with NO legal representation. The real truth is NONE of the
> > > things the DPD and DA claimed they got that weekend would have beed
>
> > Oh, did they get anything useful from Oswald, like a confession?
>
> They have claimed he said many things, and people like DVP likes to
> call LHO a liar for it, when we have NO clue whether he said them or
> not. That is another problem with having NO legal defense, the
> authorities can say anything they want.
This is getting rather hypothetical. Please point out the actual
rights violation.
> > > admissable in court due to the flagrant disregard for LHO's rights.
> > > Obviously, someone had the knowledge there would be NO trial to worry
> > > about.
>
> > If anyone violated Oswald's right that weekend, it was Jack Ruby.
> > Perhaps you should take your complaints to him.
>
> More games here, who allowed Ruby to have access to LHO all weekend?
Well, a lot of people had "access" to Oswald over the weekend.
> Who allowed Ruby to walk into the basement and pull out a gun and
> shoot the man in their custody? That is right, the same ones who
> denied him legal representation - the DPD.
In light of what happened, I'm sure they will step up security next
time they have someone like Oswald in custody.
Huh? You can ask them all the questions you want, but they may choose
not to answer.
> Again, "Miranda" laws just made the police tell the suspect of these
> rights, but the rights existed long before 1965 as you can see by the
> ratification dates. Someone as smart as LHO knew these rights, he was
> NOT the average purse snatcher in custody as he showed his knowledge
> of the laws by complaining about the prejudiced lineups.
You really admire him, don't you? If he was "smart" enough to be aware
of his RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, then what's the big problem???
> > > He was treated no different
> > > from a man in a jail in the old west when a "lynching party" came to
> > > get him and hang him from the nearest tree. All people who defend this
> > > type of behavior weaken this country even more.
>
> > I'm not exactly condoning Ruby's behaviour, but I can't get all worked
> > up over what happened to Oswald. In some ways he got off too easy.
>
> This sums up the LNers position, you folks are willing to "hang"
> someone without real proof and evidence! This is crazy thinking. This
> type of thinking allowed someone like Hitler become a powerful force.
You have adopted the popular standpoint, and *we* are supposed to be
the mindless drones?!