Chief Curry admits Oswald DID ask for a lawyer

[Gil Jesus]

Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry admits to newsmen in the hallway that Lee Harvey Oswald DID ask for a lawyer. At that point, the questioning of Oswald should have stopped, but because it continued, anything Oswald said after that would have been inadmissable at trial.

Oswald's rights under the 5th and 6th Amendment to the US Constitution were violated as a result of the continuing interrogation without an attorney present.

https://youtu.be/cCuz2vl0G2Y

[BT George]

So you do care more about his legal rights--though moot after he was dead--are more important to you than whether he *was* guilty? Sorry. I am more concerned whether OJ *actually8 did it, that what a criminal law court might hold. Same with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. ...Not that I am convinced that if you mention wanting to talk to an attorney, but decide to keep blabbing the meantime, your rights actually have been violated. Also the 1966 Miranda decision, spelling out a legal *interpretation* of those rights was heretofore lacking, and it is dubious at best to retroactively apply such as strict understanding to prior cases of conduct.

[Bud]

Oswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but would that hold up in court?

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:05:08 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> Oswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.

Source ?

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
Also the 1966 Miranda decision, spelling out a legal *interpretation* of those rights was heretofore lacking, and it is dubious at best to retroactively apply such as strict understanding to prior cases of conduct.

The Miranda case was a 1963 case that took three years to get to the Supreme Court.
Your Constitutional rights are yours at birth, not when the Supreme Court says so.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but would
> that hold up in court?

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 )
At this point, once Oswald had “lawyered up ” ( as detectives say ), any questioning of the suspect should have stopped.
It didn’t.

By continuing to question Oswald after he had requested the presence of a lawyer was not only a violation of his Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, it rendered anything he said after that point as inadmisssible in a court of law.

Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30 pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald’s being denied counsel.

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 Fritz told the Commission that Oswald made known his “second choice” of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session at 2:20, some 8 hours previously. ( ibid. )
So Fritz lied to Olds.

Not convinced, Olds headed for the Dallas Police Station, where he talked to 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.” ( ibid. )

So we have four different stories from four different Dallas Police officials.

STORY # 1: Fritz told the WC that Oswald had requested John Abt and as a second choice someone from the ACLU.
STORY # 2: Capt. King told Olds that Oswald had not made any requests
STORY # 3 Judge David Johnston told members ofthe ACLU that Oswald had denied counsel.
STORY # 4 Chief Curry said in the above video that Oswald HAD requested a lawyer, but didn't say who.

One good thing about the truth is, it never changes.

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. ( 7 H 52 )

Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.
The Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases.
In addition, Nichols had connections to the city and a brother on the Dallas Police force.
As he was leaving the station, the Chief asked him to make a statement to the press.
The Chief told him, "as far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( 7 H 328. )
Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in the above video interview in the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day,
Chief Curry admits that Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted.

Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:18:56 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Once again, Gil, the DPD allowed the president of the Dallas Bar Association to meet with
Oswald. He was not a criminal lawyer but told Oswald that he could find a criminal lawyer to
represent him. Oswald declined, the offer because he was still hoping John Abt would take
his case.

As for anything Oswald said, none of it would have been needed to convict him of a double
murder plus the assault on Connolly.

Why are you trying to get Oswald off on a technicality? Do you think that would serve a purpose?

[John Corbett]

Would you believe the ABA Journal?

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/bar_prez_who_met_with_lee_harvey_oswald_after_jfk_assassination_dies_at_94

[John Corbett]

Of course he was. He was posturing for the media, just as he did when he accused the DPD
of police brutality when he was being arrested. You have demonstrated a complete lack of
skepticism about the things Oswald was saying to the media.

Oswald knew he was guilty of two murders. He also knew it was almost certain he would be
convicted and sentenced to die. By making these public red herring complaints, he was laying
the ground work for a potential appeal. Fortunately, Jack Ruby made that moot. Nice shot, Jack.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Here, Corbett approves of an extrajudicial murder, showing what kind of fella he really is. We all knew already, of course. Corbett loves the murderers.

[John Corbett]

Had Ruby not murdered Oswald (notice I have no problem saying that even though Ruby, like
Oswald, was not under a criminal conviction when he died), Oswald likely would have escaped
execution when the Supreme Court struck down all existing death penalty statutes. In the
process they spared the lives of Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson. That was a shame. It would
have been an even bigger shame if Oswald had also escaped execution. He likely would have still
been sitting in his jail cell at the age of 84 and be demanding to be paroled. It almost worked
for Sirhan but that's in the nutty state of California. I think Texas would have been much less
sympathetic toward Oswald.

I would have much preferred to see Oswald fried into a smoldering pile of ash in the Texas
electric chair, but because that outcome seems in doubt, Ruby's actions were the next best
thing.

PS. It wouldn't bother me in the least if OJ suffered the same fate as Oswald, but that's
wishful thinking.

[donald willis]

Connolly didn't die

[John Corbett]

If you read the Miranda decision, you will see they were saying they were NOT establishing any
new rights. The were establishing new rules to protect existing rights that police would have to
follow IN THE FUTURE. The Miranda rules were not made retroactive so it does not follow that
Oswald's statements would have been ruled inadmissible, unless Oswald's lawyers could
establish he had been coerced. It's a moot point anyway since Oswald never confessed to the
crime so there was nothing for the trial court to rule inadmissible.

Gil should take note of one significant fact. Even though SCOTUS ruled in favor of Miranda by a
5-4 vote, it did not get him off the hook. He was granted a new trial in which his confession was
not admissible. He was convicted again and sentenced to 20-30 years. So even if Gil had
managed to get Oswald off for a Miranda violation, he would have just been convicted again
solely on the forensic and eyewitness testimony.

[John Corbett]

That would have been a felonious assault conviction in addition to the double murders.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Yes. You're the kind of guy who is glad that the law is circumvented in order to murder people whom you do not like. "Fuck the law! Just kill them!" It might as well have been a MAGA slogan.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 12:01:11 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> he would have just been convicted again
>solely on the forensic and eyewitness testimony.

Youo're lying again. Chickenshit says when you make empty claims like
this, and cannot cite - you're lying.

[BT George]

If no one interpret constitutional rights that way *yet* it's pretty silly to claim the DPD should have been doing so "ahead of their time". Not to mention that what you are posting sidesteps the ultimately more imporatant question---especially given a dead Oswald, DID HE ACTUALLY DO IT?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:16:25 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Can you name these logical fallacy, Corbutt?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:40:04 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Had Ruby not murdered Oswald (notice I have no problem saying that even though Ruby, like
>Oswald, was not under a criminal conviction when he died), Oswald likely would have escaped
>execution when the Supreme Court struck down all existing death penalty statutes. In the
>process they spared the lives of Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson. That was a shame. It would
>have been an even bigger shame if Oswald had also escaped execution. He likely would have still
>been sitting in his jail cell at the age of 84 and be demanding to be paroled. It almost worked
>for Sirhan but that's in the nutty state of California. I think Texas would have been much less
>sympathetic toward Oswald.
>
>I would have much preferred to see Oswald fried into a smoldering pile of ash in the Texas
>electric chair, but because that outcome seems in doubt, Ruby's actions were the next best
>thing.
>
>PS. It wouldn't bother me in the least if OJ suffered the same fate as Oswald, but that's
>wishful thinking.

Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.

Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.

Which makes who exactly the fool?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:11:29 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:39:04?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:05:08?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> > Oswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.
>> Source ?
>
>Would you believe the ABA Journal?

You cite hearsay, and whine that we need to believe it?

Are you stupid?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:09:39 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Why are you trying to get Oswald off on a technicality? Do you think that would serve a purpose?

Why are you trying to prove Oswald's sole guilt without citing any
evidence?

[Bud]

Yes.

[Bud]

The Supreme Court determines what those rights are.

[Hank Sienzant]

Nichols spoke personally with Oswald and offered his help and that of the Dallas Bar Association in getting Oswald a lawyer. Oswald declined that offer. You’ve been told that.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he sit down.
So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
. . .
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."
He said, "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."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."
I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
== UNQUOTE ==

It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?

Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.

>
> Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.

Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less than honest.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.

In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Louis 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.

But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritz’s office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said.

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 )

“Can’t remember” is an old trick used by witnesses who wish to avoid the choice of telling the truth or lying under oath.

So here we are told that a judge and three police officers inside Capt. Fritz’s tiny little office ( where the arraignment occurred ) couldn’t remember the exact same thing. ( 15 H 507 )

That’s simply not credible.

[John Corbett]

Only if the trial judge found Oswald's claim to be more compelling than the testimony of the
president of the Dallas Bar Association. Had this become a bone of contention, that attorney,
an officer of the court, would have been called to testify under oath. It would not have been
hearsay.

It seems rather absurd to claim the president of the Dallas Bar Association would lie about
Oswald refusing legal counsel when the purpose of his visit was to determine whether Oswald's
legal rights were being afforded to him.

Once again, even if Oswald's rights had been violated, it would have only invalidated statements
he made to police and since he denied involvement in either murder, there was nothing he said
that could have been used against him anyway.

[robert johnson]

Fact: Oswald did not get his call for a lawyer until almost 24 hours after his arrest.
And fuck Will Fritz and his lies.

[John Corbett]

Doesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses establish Oswald as a
double murderer. That's all that matters now.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:25:57 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.
> In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Louis 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 ?
>

Now comes the reason the idiot has contrived to disregard the information he doesn`t like.

> 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.

What judge was hearing Oswald`s case?

> But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritz’s office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said.
>
> The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 15 H 507 )

How was this judge connected to Oswald`s case?

> 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 )
>
> “Can’t remember” is an old trick used by witnesses who wish to avoid the choice of telling the truth or lying under oath.

Get your crayon and write in whatever you like.

> So here we are told that a judge and three police officers inside Capt. Fritz’s tiny little office ( where the arraignment occurred ) couldn’t remember the exact same thing. ( 15 H 507 )
>
> That’s simply not credible.

Imagine a world where idiots determined what is credible.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:25:57 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

I must compliment you on the thoroughness of your knowledge on this point.

[Bud]

Why would he put his ability to practice law at risk to go out of his way to perjure himself? As well as potential jail time.

A whole lot of people seem to be willing to go to jail by saying things and doing things, a truckload of people out to get the poor patsy.

Or he was just guilty, and a bunch of idiots can`t come to grips with it.

[robert johnson]

Why
yeah why?
You bed bound twat.

Get your crayon and write in whatever you like.

That's your reply when cornered.
Fuck off already, take a pill and go to sleep.

[robert johnson]

No it doesn't
Selective CUNTbet style justice this is?

The evidence was and still is dreck.

[robert johnson]

"Imagine a world where idiots determined what is credible."

Imagine a world with delusional lone nutters who just deny and do not face reality for even a nano second.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:25:57 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.
> In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Louis 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.
>
> But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritz’s office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said.
>
> The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 15 H 507 )

Not only isn`t this guy a judge, he isn`t even a lawyer. He is a justice of the peace, an elected position.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I am David L. Johnston.
Mr. HUBERT. How old are you, sir ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I am 36; I believe.
Mr. HUBERT. What is your address ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. My residence address is 100 North Dorothy in Richardson, Tex. My office address is in the County Government Center, 1411 West Beltline Road, Richardson, Tex.
Mr. HUBERT. What is your occupation ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I am the elected justice of the peace, precinct No. 2 of Dallas County, Tex.
Mr. HUBERT. Are you a lawyer too ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir; I am not an attorney.
Mr. HUBERT. What term are you serving?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I am serving my second elected term, which expires December 31, 1966.
Mr. HUBERT. The term is for how long ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Four years.
Mr. HUBERT. You have been in that office for how long?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I took office January 1, 1959. Prior to that I was with the Dallas County Sheriff's Department for 9 1/2 years.
Mr. HUBERT. Under Sheriff Decker ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Under Sheriff Decker; yes.
Mr. HUBERT. What are the general duties of the justice of the peace in Texas?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The justice of the peace in Texas has civil jurisdiction up to $200 in civil matters; has misdemeanor jurisdiction as provided by the statutes for criminal offenses of a misdemeanor nature in which the fine does not exceed $200 plus the costs. He is the acting coroner under our statutes. He is a magistrate. He can hold courts of inquiry, issue search warrants or any process relevant to a felonious act in the State of Texas.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/johnst_d.htm

"I am 36; I believe." ???

[Bud]

Isn`t that what you idiots did with the wallet shown being examined by police at 10th and Patton? It is unknown, so you idiots break out your crayons and make it the wallet of anyone you like. You like blank canvasses so you can fingerpaint. You ignore what is in evidence and scribble in what you like. A very stupid hobby.

[Steven Galbraith]

Robert Oswald said that he offered to get Oswald a lawyer but that he, Oswald, told him not to. That he wanted Abt.
So we have Nichols and Robert Oswald giving the same account. And we have Oswald making several phone calls trying to contact Abt.
Here is Robert Oswald's account from his book:
"What about this attorney you tried to contact in New York?" I asked. "Who is he?"
"Well, he's just an attorney I want to handle my case."
"I"ll get you an attorney down here."
"No, he said, "you stay out of it."
"Stay out of it. It looks like I've been dragged into it."
"I'm NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYBODY FROM DOWN HERE," he said very firmly. "I want this one."
Oswald was a Marxist, he detested the US economic and political systems. He didn't trust any lawyers from Dallas, anyone he didn't know. Because he was an erratic, paranoid person - quite similar to some of these people who defend him.

[robert johnson]

LMAO
I love the sound of an outgunned loner nutter.

[robert johnson]

More incomplete garbage.
he said he wanted Abt on the morning of the 23rd. and if he could not get one he would get one from the ACLU.
B00M!

Oh and do explain the lawyers that showed up before the press conference and were given the run around by Fritz and co.
Do tell.

[John Corbett]

Even if all of your allegations were true, a big if, it does not change the fact that Oswald
murdered two people and there is ample evidence of that. At best, it might have gotten
anything Oswald said ruled inadmissible, but since Oswald didn't admit to anything, that
wouldn't have been an obstacle to his conviction.

The 1966 Miranda ruling did not establish any new rights. What Miranda did was establish
strict rules that police departments had to follow IN THE FUTURE. The purpose of these rules
was to protect recognized rights, the right of the accused to counsel during questioning and
the right against self incrimination. Prior to Miranda, the rules varied from state to state and
in some cases were quite nebulous. Miranda addressed both of those.

[robert johnson]

IF

blah blah blah.

That is admitting defeat because of the evidence.

Glad you see it our way.

[John Corbett]

The ifs all come from your side. The LNs have all the evidence on their side. If you dispute that,
please present ONE piece of evidence that indicates somebody other than Oswald took part in
either murder. We both know you can't.

[robert johnson]

You said IF

[robert johnson]

The burden is on you.

Plus the WR is NOT a legal document.
And Oswald is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

You forgot all that didn't you.

Like Doyle you only come with the convenient stuff and the other truckload that blasts your bs to bits you rather not mention.

LMFAO

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 18:25:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 2:08:03?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

You've been told you're both a liar and a coward.

>https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
>
>== QUOTE ==
>Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he sit down.
>So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
>. . .
>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."
>He said, "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."
>I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
>And he said, "No."
>I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
>== UNQUOTE ==
>
>It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?
>
>Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.
>
>
>>
>> Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.
>
>Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less than honest.

By lying about the evidence in this case time and time again, you've
proven yourself to be less than honest.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 04:12:23 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Doesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses establish Oswald as a
>double murderer. That's all that matters now.

Doesn't change the fact that you're a liar who has REPEATEDLY refused
to cite this alleged "forensic evidence" so that others can see if
you're telling the truth or not.

You aren't, of course.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 07:38:51 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Even if all of your allegations were true...


You've been unable to refute any point made by Gil.


Logical fallacy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 07:43:34 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The ifs all come from your side. The LNs have all the evidence on their side. If you dispute that,
>please present ONE piece of evidence that indicates somebody other than Oswald took part in
>either murder. We both know you can't.

I've answered this question repeatedly. And Corbutt *KNOWS* I have.
He simply refuses to respond to me anymore.

But that *STILL* makes him a liar.

And unable to refute the evidence I listed for someone other that
Oswald...

[Bud]

All you guys do is shoot blanks.

[Steven Galbraith]

For a supposed innocent person it sure is strange that the Oswald defenders want so much evidence tossed out (meanwhile uncritically accepting the most dubious claims of a conspiracy). "Chain of custody!" "Miranda!!" This is the only controversial event I can think of where one party uses legal standards in judging the evidence. Lindbergh baby kidnapping, Sacco and Vanzetti, whatever. No one says "You can't use that evidence against Hauptmann, it wouldn't be allowed in court."

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:12:25 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Doesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses establish Oswald as a
> double murderer. That's all that matters now.

Then why TF are you here ?
If you're satisfied that the case was closed, why TF are you and your asshole friends here in a CONSPIRACY newsgroup ?

You've got all the answers.
You don't accept any evidence to the contrary.
You repeatedly lie about things.

What do you and your asshole pals have to add to the Warren Commission's case ?
Not a thing.

This isn't about evidence with you people.
You people are full of hate for anyone who says the "C" word.
So you come in here trolling those you consider "kooks" and try to expose them and make them look silly.
But it's you own ignorance of the very evidence you support that exposes you all as the fools in the end.

Your bottom line: the evidence proves Oswald did it.
Great, we can all stop posting now.

Except for you. You can still cry about where all the "conspiracy theorists" have gone.
Because in the end, without the CTs posting in this newsgroup, you're life has no meaning.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:46:09 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> All you guys do is shoot blanks.

And you should know about blanks. You have one sitting on top of your shoulders.

[John Corbett]

Did you hear that, John Wilkes. RJ has just exonerated you of killing Lincoln.

> You forgot all that didn't you.
>
> Like Doyle you only come with the convenient stuff and the other truckload that blasts your bs to bits you rather not mention.
>

Imagine all the people we would let off the hook if history held to the innocent until proven
guilty in a court of law. We could go all the way back to Attila the Hun. Then we had Genghis
Kahn and his brother Don. More recently Hitler and Stalin get a clean slate. Let's not forget
Pol Pot. Then we have so many mass shooters who never lived to stand trial. Charles Whitman,
Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza, Omar Mateen, and Salvador Ramos
should all held innocent of any alleged crimes because, like Oswald, none of them lived to
stand trial. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

[John Corbett]

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:01:51 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:12:25 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Doesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses establish Oswald as a
> > double murderer. That's all that matters now.
> Then why TF are you here ?
> If you're satisfied that the case was closed, why TF are you and your asshole friends here in a CONSPIRACY newsgroup ?

To ridicule idiots who want to exonerate Oswald.

>
> You've got all the answers.

All the ones that are important. I'm puzzled as to why so many are still baffled after all these
years.

> You don't accept any evidence to the contrary.

There is none. I've asked you repeatedly to present just one piece of evidence that somebody
other than Oswald took part in either murder and you've balked each and every time.

> You repeatedly lie about things.
>
> What do you and your asshole pals have to add to the Warren Commission's case ?
> Not a thing.
>
> This isn't about evidence with you people.
> You people are full of hate for anyone who says the "C" word.

Pity would be a better word. I find it a shame some people can be so fucking stupid.

> So you come in here trolling those you consider "kooks" and try to expose them and make them look silly.

They don't need much help.

> But it's you own ignorance of the very evidence you support that exposes you all as the fools in the end.

If I am ignorant of the evidence, why is it you can't provide any that somebody other than
Oswald took part in the murders of the two men in question.

>
> Your bottom line: the evidence proves Oswald did it.

BINGO!!!

> Great, we can all stop posting now.
>

I will if you will.

> Except for you. You can still cry about where all the "conspiracy theorists" have gone.
> Because in the end, without the CTs posting in this newsgroup, you're life has no meaning.

You have an exaggerated idea of your own importance to me.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 6:29:53 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:41:11 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> > Also the 1966 Miranda decision, spelling out a legal *interpretation* of those rights was heretofore lacking, and it is dubious at best to retroactively apply such as strict understanding to prior cases of conduct.
> > The Miranda case was a 1963 case that took three years to get to the Supreme Court.
> > Your Constitutional rights are yours at birth, not when the Supreme Court says so.
> The Supreme Court determines what those rights are.

Unfortunately, in a perversion of what were originally believed to be "innate" God-given human rights, this is true. Hence one day you apparently have the constitutional right to kill the unborn one day and the next you don't.

[John Corbett]

I've never understood the argument that the right to an abortion was a constitutional right. If it
was, why didn't it exist until 1973. Was there an amendment passed that year? I don't want to
get into an argument about whether abortion should or should not be legal, but it seems rather
silly to claim it is or was a constitutional right when the Constitution is silent on the matter.

[Hank Sienzant]

You’ve asserted that on numerous occasions. But as above, those claims are repeated by you in the hope that with constant repetition comes acceptance of the claims as true.

We all noticed that you didn’t attack anything I said here. Below, you just repeat the same claim.

Show the lies and the cowardice in my original post in this thread. Go ahead, we’ll wait.

> >https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
> >
> >== QUOTE ==
> >Mr. NICHOLS: I reintroduced myself to Oswald and told him my name, and that I was president of the Dallas bar, and that I had come up to see him about whether or not he had a lawyer, or needed a lawyer, or wanted a lawyer, and suggested that he sit down.
> >So, he sat on one bunk and I sat on the other. Maybe 3 or 4 feet apart.
> >. . .
> >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."
> >He said, "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."
> >I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
> >And he said, "No."
> >I was satisfied in my own mind that he knew what he was doing, and that he didn't want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything right now.
> >== UNQUOTE ==
> >
> >It’s curious to me in reaching your conclusions expressed above that you omit mentioning that Oswald spoke with a lawyer (H. Louis Nichols, at the time the President of the Dallas Bar Association) and declined their help in obtaining legal counsel. What part of “No” did you not understand?
> >
> >Oswald expressed an interest in obtaining Abt, but declined a lawyer’s help in getting a local (interim) lawyer, (“interim” because we’re assuming Abt would choose to represent Oswald). In declining the offer from Nichols, and opting to continue to talk to the police, Oswald abrogated any claim that his statements were illegally obtained.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, Oswald at every public opportunity, was asking for legal representation.
> >
> >Before and after turning down the offer of help in obtaining a lawyer from the President of the Dallas Bar Association. By proclaiming he was denied legal representation but declining the offer of help in obtaining such, Oswald was being less than honest.
> By lying about the evidence in this case time and time again, you've
> proven yourself to be less than honest.

More repetition for effect. Show the supposed lies in my response to Gil above. You can’t, because I quoted the testimony of Nichols who went to the Dallas jail to ascertain if Oswald was being denied a lawyer or simply choosing to reject anyone except his first choice (Abt). Oswald made it clear he wanted Abt, and if he couldn’t get Abt, he would settle for an ACLU lawyer, but only after he determined he couldn’t get Abt.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 09:28:41 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:01:51?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:12:25?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> Doesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence and eyewitnesses establish Oswald as a
>>> double murderer. That's all that matters now.
>> Then why TF are you here ?
>> If you're satisfied that the case was closed, why TF are you and your asshole friends here in a CONSPIRACY newsgroup ?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> You've got all the answers.

Agreement deleted.

>> You don't accept any evidence to the contrary.

Outright lie deleted.

>> You repeatedly lie about things.
>>
>> What do you and your asshole pals have to add to the Warren Commission's case ?
>> Not a thing.
>>
>> This isn't about evidence with you people.
>> You people are full of hate for anyone who says the "C" word.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> So you come in here trolling those you consider "kooks" and try to expose them and make them look silly.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> But it's you own ignorance of the very evidence you support that exposes you all as the fools in the end.
>
>If I am ignorant of the evidence, why is it you can't provide any that somebody other than
>Oswald took part in the murders of the two men in question.

Because you're both ignorant AND a liar.

>> Your bottom line: the evidence proves Oswald did it.
>
>BINGO!!!

Sad that you can't cite in support of your faith.

>> Great, we can all stop posting now.
>>
>I will if you will.

You're lying again...

>> Except for you. You can still cry about where all the "conspiracy theorists" have gone.
>> Because in the end, without the CTs posting in this newsgroup, you're life has no meaning.

Meaningless whimpering deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 08:51:57 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> For a supposed innocent person it sure is strange that the Oswald

> defenders want so much evidence tossed out ...

Says the moron who cannot name a **SINGLE** eyewitness he accepts in
all of their contemporary statements & testimony.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 09:20:35 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>> And Oswald is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Whining deleted...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 10:34:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

And PROVEN it a number of times.

[Hank Sienzant]

More repetition of the same assertion. Everyone is seeing how you avoided entirely the subject matter of my post - whether Oswald asked for help in obtaining a lawyer when he spoke with a lawyer after his arrest. He wanted Abt and told Nichols that. He would only settle for an ACLU lawyer if Abt declined to defend him.

And Abt himself testified to this:
== QUOTE ==
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.
== UNQUOTE ==

[Bud]

Doesn`t take much to show your ideas have no merit.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 11:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Actually no, you're provably lying.

The first time, I pointed out that you're both a liar and a coward.
The second time was not a repeition, but a reference that the prior
fact mentioned had been proven a number of times.

And proven again, here.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 05:01:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:25:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> > Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.

>> In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Louis 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 ?
>>
> Now comes the reason the...

Logical fallacy deleted.

Chickenshit proves he can't use the evidence and reasonable argument.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 06:11:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Isn`t that what you idiots did with the wallet shown being examined by police at 10th and Patton? It is unknown, so you idiots break out your crayons and make it the wallet of anyone you like. You like blank canvasses so you can fingerpaint. You ignore what is in evidence and scribble in what you like. A very stupid hobby.

Can you name this logical fallacy?

Or explain why you rely on logical fallacies rather than the actual
evidence?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 10:05:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:18:56?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry admits to newsmen in the hallway that Lee Harvey Oswald DID ask for a lawyer. At that point, the questioning of Oswald should have stopped, but because it continued, anything Oswald said after that would have been inadmissable at trial.
>>
>> Oswald's rights under the 5th and 6th Amendment to the US Constitution were violated as a result of the continuing interrogation without an attorney present.
>>
>> https://youtu.be/cCuz2vl0G2Y
>
> Oswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.

You're lying again, Chickenshit.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 16:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:39:04?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:05:08?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> > Oswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.

>> Source ?

Notice that this coward was unable to provide a source. And according
to this coward, uncited empty claims are lies.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 16:29:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:41:11?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:03:32?PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> Also the 1966 Miranda decision, spelling out a legal *interpretation* of those rights was heretofore lacking, and it is dubious at best to retroactively apply such as strict understanding to prior cases of conduct.
>> The Miranda case was a 1963 case that took three years to get to the Supreme Court.
>> Your Constitutional rights are yours at birth, not when the Supreme Court says so.
>
> The Supreme Court determines what those rights are.

No they don't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 05:05:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>Why would he put his ability to practice law at risk to go out of his way to perjure himself? As well as potential jail time.
>
> A whole lot of people seem to be willing to go to jail by saying things and doing things, a truckload of people out to get the poor patsy.
>
> Or he was just guilty, and a bunch of idiots can`t come to grips with it.

Can you name these logical fallacies?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 06:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:25:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> > Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.
>> In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Louis 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.
>>
>> But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritz’s office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said.
>>
>> The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 15 H 507 )
>
> Not only isn`t this guy a judge...
...
> Mr. HUBERT. What are the general duties of the justice of the peace in Texas?
> Mr. JOHNSTON. The justice of the peace in Texas has civil
> jurisdiction up to $200 in civil matters; has misdemeanor jurisdiction
> as provided by the statutes for criminal offenses of a misdemeanor
> nature in which the fine does not exceed $200 plus the costs. He is
> the acting coroner under our statutes. He is a magistrate. He can hold
> courts of inquiry, issue search warrants or any process relevant to
> a felonious act in the State of Texas.

Yep... judge.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:38:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:05:42?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:46:09?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>> All you guys do is shoot blanks.
>> And you should know about blanks. You have one sitting on top of your shoulders.
>
> Doesn`t take much to show your ideas have no merit.

Yet you can't even do *that* much.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 08:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> All you guys do is shoot blanks.

If blanks are all the evidence is, then why are you here?

[Greg Parker]

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:25:25 AM UTC+10, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:05:08 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:18:56 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry admits to newsmen in the hallway that Lee Harvey Oswald DID ask for a lawyer. At that point, the questioning of Oswald should have stopped, but because it continued, anything Oswald said after that would have been inadmissable at trial.
> > >
> > > Oswald's rights under the 5th and 6th Amendment to the US Constitution were violated as a result of the continuing interrogation without an attorney present.
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/cCuz2vl0G2Y

> > Oswald was offered a lawyer. He declined.

> We have some hearsayish evidence that Oswald declined having a lawyer, but the only word directly from Oswald was that he had been denied representation. I think he probably was holding out for Abt, but would that hold up in court?

Nothing "ish" about it, It was hearsay.

Fuck it, L:ook. They were originally going to claim in the indictment that he acted in furtherance of the "International Communist Conspiracy '. That was the bulk of the purpose of the first interroagtion that resulted in

( a ) having it leak out to the White House and the WH having the cops take that out of the indictment, and

( b ) Oswald telling reporters they only picked him up because he lived in the Soviet Union. That was the impression he got from that initial interogation.

As for Abt -- Oswald had no fucking idea who Abt was. Sitting inside the interrogation room was Law Professor Chuck Webster. He was there advising the cops on any applicable federal laws. He specialized in labor law. It is no suprise then that labor and union leaders had been those charged in the past under the Smith Act (designed to deport or jail those furthering the communist conspiracy on behalf of foreign powers). The only person who would know who Abt was in that room was Webster. He therefore must have given the name to Oswald.

But it was a trap. Only someone who actually WAS working for the commies would ask for Abt - who had never defended a murder case in his life. In short, asking for Abt only made him look MORE guilty.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:03:47 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 06:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:25:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> >> > Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.
> >> In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Louis 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.
> >>
> >> But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritz’s office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said.
> >>
> >> The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 15 H 507 )
> >
> > Not only isn`t this guy a judge...
>

> Yep... judge.

Not even a lawyer...

Mr. JOHNSTON. I am the elected justice of the peace, precinct No. 2 of Dallas County, Tex.

Mr. HUBERT. Are you a lawyer too ?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir; I am not an attorney.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:03:47 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

What do the blanks you guys shoot have to do with the evidence?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I think Oswald knew who Abt was. Whether or not you think he was a genuine Dirty Red, he knew the material and history. Maybe even JD Tippit knew who Abt was.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 20:23:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:03:47?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 08:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> All you guys do is shoot blanks.
>>
>> If blanks are all the evidence is, then why are you here?
>
> What do the blanks you guys shoot have to do with the evidence?

Couldn't answer my question, could you?

You come here with no ammunition at all.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 20:21:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:03:47?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 06:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:25:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:35?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>>>> Oswald was a liar, but we do have proof that he said he was denied representation. We have only hearsay that he refused it. A court might have ruled in his favor on this point.
>>>> In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Louis 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.
>>>>
>>>> But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritz’s office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said.
>>>>
>>>> The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 15 H 507 )
>>>
>>> Not only isn`t this guy a judge...
>>
>> Yep... judge.
>
>Not even a lawyer...

There are no explicit requirements in the U.S. Constitution for a
person to be nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age,
education, job experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact,
according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not need
to even have a law degree.
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-the-requirements-to-become-a-supreme-court-justice-104780

If you need no law degree to rise to the highest position a judge can
obtain, then you lose again...