Message From David Von Pein

[Paul Cummings]

Just now, David Von Pein said:

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

Yeah a big so what after 30+ years.

[David Von Pein]

1 minute ago, Paul Cummings said:

Yeah a big so what after 30+ years.

Implying that the Fritz notes are all fake? Is that it?

[Paul Cummings]

Just now, David Von Pein said:

Implying that the Fritz notes are all fake? Is that it?

Of course not. Why would the WC or HSCA need them. Move along nothing to see here.

[David Von Pein]

5 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Why would the WC or HSCA need them?

They didn't. They did just fine at arriving at the truth without seeing those sketchy Fritz notes.

Does that fact amaze you so?

 

5 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Move along; nothing to see here.

10-4.

Edited July 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Paul Cummings]

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

They didn't. They did just fine at arriving at the truth without seeing those sketchy Fritz notes.

Does that fact amaze you so?

 

10-4.

I guess they didn't since it was only the President of the United States who got murder. Why have those notes lying around for a future trial or investigations.

[Mark Knight]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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.

Can you show me where OSWALD HIMSELF is saying that he refused a lawyer? If not, this bit about refusing a lawyer is hearsay. I know you don't believe Chief Curry when he said in 1969 that he could never place Oswald in the SE window of the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand...yet you believe Curry when he says Oswald refused a lawyer.

Show me ONE scene on film where OSWALD was speaking and he refused a lawyer. Just ONE. There is plenty of film with Oswald asking for a lawyer to come forward and represent him.

Of course, I suppose in your mind, Chief Curry is 100% honest in 1963-'64, but 100% lying in 1969. What reason would Curry have to lie in 1969? It's not as if Oswald was going to come back and gun him down if he stuck to his story from '63-'64. It's not as if Curry was going to get rich by changing his story, either. And he already had his "15 minutes of fame" [and then some] in '63-'64. So why would Curry have a reason to lie in 1969? What possible gain was in it for him?

[David Von Pein]

17 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Can you show me where OSWALD HIMSELF is saying that he refused a lawyer? If not, this bit about refusing a lawyer is hearsay.

So, you think H. Louis Nichols of the Bar Association was lying on Nov. 23?

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Implying that the Fritz notes are all fake? Is that it?

They were copied after the fact.  Didn't he admit this?  Including Oswald was out front with Shelly.  Maybe the one true thing about the interrogation notes.  Since there stupidly was no stenographer or tape recorder.  Deliberately.

[Roger Odisio]

A suspect is entitled to not only remain silent but also to have a lawyer to help with that decision.  We know Oswald asked publicly more than once for a lawyer to come forward.  We don't know how many times he asked the cops in private for a lawyer.

"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"  You have distorted what Nichols said, making it sound like Oswald for some reason didn't want an attorney.  The opposite is true.  Oswald told Nichols he wanted to be represented by John Abt, counsel to the communist party in New York.  Or failing that he would like an ACLU attorney to represent him.  Nichols asked what about a member of the Dallas bar to represent him.  Oswald said not at this time, but if he couldn't get his first two choices he might get back to him.  He even asked Nichols to check back with him "at a later time" to see whether he had gotten counsel (this is all in the tape you so graciously provided, which causes me to wonder how you thought you could get away with distorting it).

Point is, Oswald wanted a lawyer and tried his best, given his lockdown by the police, to get one.  He understood he was entitled to one.  He never got one.  That was a violation of his rights.

[David Von Pein]

Yes, Roger, let's all feel sorry for poor Lee Oswald, who claims he wants a lawyer and then refuses the help of Mr. Nichols. How much sense does that make? Apparently he's got to have a specific lawyer (Abt). I guess no other attorney would do. But beggars can't always be choosers, can they?

Pardon me if I shed no tears for Mr. Oswald and his "They won't let me have any legal representation" crap.

Edited July 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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

Uhhh... Please. Oswald had repeatedly asked for a specific lawyer, John Abt. He wasn't pretending he wanted a lawyer; he really wanted one. Just not one picked out by the authorities. 

[David Von Pein]

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Uhhh... Please. Oswald had repeatedly asked for a specific lawyer, John Abt. He wasn't pretending he wanted a lawyer; he really wanted one. Just not one picked out by the authorities. 

Awwww......poor fella. 🙁

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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.

Oh boy. You can't be this naive. You must know that the reason police departments failed to tape interrogations back then was for the same reason they turn off body cameras today--to conceal their own behavior. Police departments routinely lied about the evidence against suspects back then and routinely pressured suspects into confessing. Fritz in particular was considered to be a mediocre or worse detective but an expert interrogator, who frequently lied, cajoled, and manipulated suspects into confessing. 

That is why there are no tapes, and that is why some thought Oswald to have been trained to resist interrogation. I mean, how else could he have resisted the charms of the great Will Fritz?

[Pat Speer]

14 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, Roger, let's all feel sorry for poor Lee Oswald, who claims he wants a lawyer and then refuses the help of Mr. Nichols. How much sense does that make? Apparently he's got to have a specific lawyer (Abt). I guess no other attorney would do. But beggars can't always be choosers, can they?

Pardon me if I shed no tears for Mr. Oswald and his "They won't let me have any legal representation" crap.

Okay, David, this is why your presence here wasn't missed. Your hatred of Oswald is such that you hold him to a standard you wouldn't apply to yourself or anyone you care about. If you were in legal trouble with the authorities (who you know want to kill you), and you couldn't reach the lawyer of your choice, would you accept a lawyer chosen by the...authorities (the ones you know want to kill you)? Of course not!!!

So please quit arguing and insulting others just for the "fun" of it... You're not Bugliosi. Thank God. 

[David Von Pein]

6 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Fritz in particular was considered to be a mediocre or worse detective but an expert interrogator, who frequently lied, cajoled, and manipulated suspects into confessing. 

"Cajoled" I can easily believe (and even expect) from a guy in Fritz' occupation. But have you got any proof regarding that "lied" allegation, Pat?