Message From David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

DVP's supporting tape begins with Oswald asking for a lawyer to represent him.  Which he was entitled to but had been illegally denied by the cops.

It would be nice to see this claim proven by a CTer.

Any proof whatsoever, Roger, that Oswald "had been illegally denied" a lawyer by the Dallas cops?

Edited July 5, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Dorothy Garner, the supervisor of the women watching out of the 4th floor window, stayed behind on the landing, while 2 other women went down the stairs immediately after the shooting.  She was still there when Truly came up the stairs with a cop.  No Oswald. 

Here's something I said at Duncan MacRae's forum in 2014 regarding Dorothy Garner (and, eight years later, this still makes perfect sense to me):

"Why in the world would anyone think Dorothy Garner had her eyes transfixed on the STAIRS every single second immediately following the President's assassination? How silly would that be, considering what had just happened outside those fourth-floor, SOUTH-SIDE windows just moments earlier? Why would she (or anyone) have kept a vigil on the staircase? Therefore, since it makes no logical sense to think that Garner (or ANYBODY ELSE) had their eyes peeled on those stairs every second, Oswald could have easily been on that 4th-floor landing for a matter of--what?--five seconds and not been seen by anyone who was on the same floor. Or do conspiracy theorists REALLY want to contend that Dorothy Garner never took her eyes off those stairs between 12:30 and 12:32 PM? That's incredibly silly to believe that's the case (even if she DID catch a glimpse of Truly and Baker)." -- DVP; October 2014

Edited July 5, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Roger Odisio]

I hesitate to answer your question about Oswald and a lawyer, David, because the answer is so obvious it feels like I'm being played.  But I'm new here so I will.

Any suspect has a constitutional right to remain silent and have the presence of an attorney because anything he says can be used against him in a court of law.  In the Miranda decision in 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that a suspect must be informed of those basic rights, which always existed, before he is questioned by authorities.  

Oswald was entitled to have a lawyer present during questioning.  He knew it.  He asked for one (I think more than once).  They kept questioning him. He  never did get a lawyer.  That was illegal.

Others have told stories--I think one was by the head of the local bar at the time--of trying to get to Oswald to offer their services only to be thwarted by the cops.  That was a further layer of illegality by the authorities, tho it's not necessary to establish their fundamental breaking of the law in the first instance.   

 

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Oswald was entitled to have a lawyer present during questioning.  He knew it.  He asked for one (I think more than once).  They kept questioning him.  He never did get a lawyer.  That was illegal.

No, it's not. It's not "illegal" to ask questions of a suspect even without a lawyer present. Where did you get such a notion?

The suspect in custody is warned by the police that anything he says can be used against him. And the suspect then chooses whether to talk to the cops or just keep his trap shut. Oswald chose to talk. Nothing "illegal" about that at all.

And we also know (from H. Louis Nichols' interview, below) that Oswald on Saturday (Nov. 23) actually refused the help of Nichols and the Dallas Bar Association. Oswald told Nichols he didn't want his help.

 

And here's what Captain Fritz told the WC:

Mr. FRITZ. I told him [Oswald] that any evidence that he gave me would be used against him, and the offense for which the statement was made, that it would have to be voluntary, made of his own accord.

Mr. BALL. Did he reply to that?

Mr. FRITZ. He 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. And once or twice he did quit answering any questions and he told me he did want to talk to his attorney, and I told him each time he didn't have to if he didn't want to. So, later he sometimes would start talking to me again.

Edited July 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Paul Cummings]

5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So asking for legal representation was just for show?

No, it's not. It's not "illegal" to ask questions of a suspect even without a lawyer present. Where did you get such a notion?

The suspect is warned by the police that anuything he says can be used against him. And the suspect then chooses whether to talk to the cops or just keep his trap shut. Oswald chose to talk. Nothing "illegal" about that at all.

We know (from H. Louis Nichols' interview, below) that Oswald on Saturday (Nov. 23) actually refused the help of Nichols and the Dallas Bar Association. Oswald told Nichols he didn't want his help.

And here's what Captain Fritz told the WC:

Mr. FRITZ. I told him [Oswald] that any evidence that he gave me would be used against him, and the offense for which the statement was made, that it would have to be voluntary, made of his own accord.

Mr. BALL. Did he reply to that?

Mr. FRITZ. He 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. And once or twice he did quit answering any questions and he told me he did want to talk to his attorney, and I told him each time he didn't have to if he didn't want to. So, later he sometimes would start talking to me again.

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Paul Cummings

[David Von Pein]

23 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

So him asking for legal representation was all for show?

You bet it was. Just listen to that H. Louis Nichols interview again above.

Edited July 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Paul Cummings]

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

You bet it was. Just listen to that H. Louis Nichols' interview again above.

Yeah why would he need a lawyer when being held in jail. Makes total sense.

[Paul Brancato]

David - what do you think of the fact that no transcripts or tape recordings of the DPD and company ‘interviews’ of Oswald have ever surfaced? 

[David Von Pein]

16 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

David - what do you think of the fact that no transcripts or tape recordings of the DPD and company ‘interviews’ of Oswald have ever surfaced? 

As far as I know (and per the testimony of Captain Fritz printed below), the DPD just simply was not in the habit in 1963 of tape recording or transcribing the statements made by a suspect while in custody. That might sound extremely odd (and negligent) by today's standards of how police departments operate, but that was apparently the way it was in Dallas, circa 1963.

From Captain Fritz' 1964 testimony:

Mr. BALL. Did you have any tape recorder?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had one at this time we could have handled these conversations far better.
Mr. BALL. The Dallas Police Department doesn't have one?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I have requested one several times but so far they haven't gotten me one.

[End Quotes.]

What I would like to see is some proof from the conspiracy crowd to show that is was, indeed, normal for the DPD in the early 1960s to tape record and/or transcribe via a stenographer the statements made by an arrested suspect.

Can any CTer come up with any other case in DPD history (circa early 1960s) where the Dallas Police Department positively did tape or create a transcript of a suspect's interrogation sessions? I've certainly never seen any such "proof". (I'm not sure anybody has ever even attempted to look for such a thing among the DPD records.)

And if such a tape recording or text transcript cannot be dug up for even one other 1960s-era DPD case, then why would the lack of any tapes/transcripts for Oswald's interrogations be looked upon as sinister or underhanded in any way---versus merely being normal SOP for the DPD in circa 1963?

Edited July 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Paul Cummings]

4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yeah why have documentation when the suspect was being held for possibly killing the President of the United States or a DPD Officer. (sarcasm)

 

As far as I know (and per the testimony of Captain Fritz printed below), the DPD just simply was not in the habit in 1963 of tape recording or transcribing the statements made by a suspect while in custody. That might sound extremely odd (and negligent) by today's standards of how police departments operate, but that was apparently the way it was in Dallas, circa 1963.

From Captain Fritz' 1964 testimony:

Mr. BALL. Did you have any tape recorder?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had one at this time we could have handled these conversations far better.
Mr. BALL. The Dallas Police Department doesn't have one?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I have requested one several times but so far they haven't gotten me one.

[End Quotes.]

What I would like to see is some proof from the conspiracy crowd to show that is was, indeed, normal for the DPD in the early 1960s to tape record and/or transcribe via a stenographer the statements made by an arrested suspect.

Can any CTer come up with any other case in DPD history (circa early 1960s) where the Dallas Police Department positively did tape or create a transcript of a suspect's interrogation sessions? I've certainly never seen any such "proof". (I'm not sure anybody has ever even attempted to look for such a thing among the DPD records.)

And if such a tape recording or text transcript cannot be dug up for even one other 1960s-era DPD case, then why would the lack of any tapes/transcripts for Oswald's interrogations be looked upon as sinister or underhanded in any way---versus merely being normal SOP for the DPD in circa 1963?

 

[David Von Pein]

9 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Yeah why have documentation when the suspect was being held for possibly killing the President of the United States or a DPD Officer. (sarcasm)

I agree with you on this, Paul. It would be great if a recording existed of all the lies told by Oswald. We could then hear for ourselves, in LHO's own voice, all of those falsehoods that Oswald dished up for Fritz, Kelley, Bookhout, Hosty, et al.

But, as I said, it obviously was not SOP for the DPD to record/transcribe the interrogations of every suspect that was brought into City Hall back then---even when the suspect is accused of murdering the POTUS.

Incredibly lax? Maybe so. But what are we supposed to do about it now?

And should I assume that the lack of any Oswald in-custody recordings automatically means that Captain Fritz and Company lied their eyes out about the things that Oswald allegedly told the police while in custody?

That's a huge leap that I refuse to take. If others want to make that leap of faith, so be it.

Edited July 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Paul Cummings]

9 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

DVP: It's not even about the tape recorder. How do you have multiple people in the room and not come out of those interrogations with similar notes?

 

I agree with you on this, Paul. It would be great if a recording existed of all the lies told by Oswald. We could then hear for ourselves, in LHO's own voice, all of those falsehoods that Oswald dished up for Fritz, Kelley, Bookhout, Hosty, et al.

But, as I said, it obviously was not SOP for the DPD to record/transcribe the interrogations of every suspect that was brought into City Hall back then---even when the suspect is accused of murdering the POTUS.

Incredibly lax? Maybe so. But what are we supposed to do about it now?

And should I assume that the lack of any Oswald in-custody recordings automatically means that Captain Fritz and Company lied their eyes out about the things that Oswald allegedly told the police while in custody?

That's a huge leap that I refuse to take. If others want to make that leap of faith, so be it.

 

[David Von Pein]

28 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

It's not even about the tape recorder. How do you have multiple people in the room and not come out of those interrogations with similar notes?

The notes are similar. Why are you saying otherwise?

What's so different when comparing the notes of all those present (Fritz, Hosty, Bookhout, Kelley, and Holmes)?

Edited July 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Paul Cummings]

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You do. Why are saying otherwise?

What's so different when comparing the notes of all those present (Fritz, Hosty, Bookhout, Kelley, and Holmes)?

Fritz notes were released when?

[David Von Pein]

2 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Fritz notes were released when?

Nov. 20, 1997.

But so what? At least we have them now to look at.

https://web.archive.org/web/19991008085244/http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html