Message From David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

25 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So please quit arguing and insulting others...

Who did I "insult", Pat? (Other than Lee Oswald.)

Edited July 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

And I am sorry if I'm coming across as brusque or uncaring when I speak of the plight Lee Oswald found himself in while in the custody of the DPD. But knowing the evidence that exists against Oswald as I do know it in BOTH cases of murder he was charged with in 1963, it's very difficult for me to muster any measure of sympathy or compassion for LHO at all. I guess I am biased against Oswald. But overwhelming evidence has a tendency to do that sometimes.

Edited July 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Paul Brancato]

John Abt OR an ACLU lawyer. Two days in custody, asking for but not getting legal representation. No stenographer, no tape recording for the investigation of the crime of the century. Sorry David. The DPD simply could not be trusted to run a fair interrogation. It doesn’t prove Oswald’s innocence, but it goes a long way towards believing the few words we did hear out of his mouth. I have not been charged with that. I’m a patsy. I’d like a lawyer. And then the coup de grace - Ruby. Most of us of a certain age knew for certain at that moment that a coverup was in place. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Paul Brancato

[Cory Santos]

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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

He wasn’t.  For the record Attorney Nichols was a highly respected attorney in Dallas.   Mr.  Knight, Oswald wanted an ACLU lawyer from New York apparently.  
He told Marina not to worry because they “had friends” that would help them. There was also a call-not by Oswald-allegedly made to Dean Andrews asking him to help Oswald.  
So, where did Oswald say on tape he wanted a specific lawyer?  I don’t recall that.  He asked for a lawyer and turned down-at that time- Attorney Nichols’ reasonable offer to help.

Of course any criminal attorney would have jumped at defending him.  The publicity would have made the OJ trial and Johnny Depp trial look like the least viewed episode of The People’s Court.  
Did the police then try to get confessions?   Sure.   So why did Oswald keep talking? Did he like the attention? 
So Mr.  Speer, to respectfully point out, Attorney Nichols went to the jail on his own.  He was not “chosen” as you stated.  To follow is his testimony which explains the local procedures of the time as well in case others have not reviewed it.
But Mr.  Knight asked above where Oswald “refused” a lawyer.  The fact is that as of that weekend, as David noted, Oswald had refused a lawyer, specifically Attorney Nichols.  Now that was not a taped or recorded statement by Oswald but if you doubt it why would a well known attorney not tell the truth?   Was he now part of the conspiracy in your view?   Seems very far fetched.

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

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Cory Santos

[Guest]

Nichols testimony is kinda disappointing to me, in this - rather short - testimony he said 24 times "I don't know"," I didn't know", "I had not", etc...

And whatever he did or had, he had to ask others first

For being a President he sure didn't know a lot... he could have appointed LHO an ACLU lawyer right there, but 'he didn't know he knew' a lot of lawyers that were a member of the ACLU  ....    

If this "I-don't-know" atittude showed towards LHO, I can understand him not making the trip with this guy.

I sure would like a lawyer that knows things.

LHO's character probably didn't help either - often presenting himself as one that knows best (but really didn't)  - very soon people will stop offering you goodies.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

"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?

You are correct in that we don't have proof Fritz lied to Oswald. It's all a bit foggy now but when I was up in the middle of all this I remember coming across some books on law enforcement techniques saying it was perfectly okay for an interrogator to lie to a suspect--the classic ones being that someone saw them do it or that their presumed colleague had already fingered them--to get them to cooperate. I also remember reading about a court case in which a detective manufactured evidence--like "Look at this! We found your prints on the gun!"--and this did not result in the release of the suspect---seeing as this evidence was never presented at trial.

As these techniques were widely used at the time as part of an effort to induce a confession, and as Fritz was widely known as an expert interrogator whose primary skill was inducing confessions, I assume he used the techniques available to him. This was Texas, after all, a law and order state, and the Wild Wild West at that. The rights of the suspect were barely considered. They were guilty until proven innocent, or until they confessed. Period. 

It should also be noted that when the Innocence Project began comparing DNA samples retrieved from crime victims or crime scenes against the men convicted of these crimes, they found that Dallas had by far the worst track record for the entire country, and that Wade (and his collaborators like Fritz) had locked up more innocent men than any law enforcement officers in American history. As Wade had also been responsible for more death sentences than any other DA in modern history, it follows that Wade and Fritz had almost certainly caused the deaths of men who would have been found innocent should they not have confessed after being lied to by Fritz. 

The dude had blood on his hands. I can't prove it. But the historical record certainly suggests as much. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

Pat,

Thank you for your last post above. Many of the things you said do make sense.

Although I have no proof either, I have a feeling that the scenario you talked about in this portion of your last post is probably a tactic that some police officers have, indeed, employed (especially in a case where the police had a lot of physical evidence against the suspect):

"I remember coming across some books on law enforcement techniques saying it was perfectly okay for an interrogator to lie to a suspect--the classic ones being that someone saw them do it or that their presumed colleague had already fingered them--to get them to cooperate." -- P. Speer

Edited July 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

...it follows that Wade and Fritz had almost certainly caused the deaths of men who would have been found innocent should they not have confessed after being lied to by Fritz. 

I'm a little bit perplexed by the above comment of yours, Pat. Are you implying here that many of the Henry Wade cases that have recently been overturned in Dallas County (due to new DNA results being available) are cases in which the arrested suspects actually confessed  to crimes they never committed?

Even if Fritz & Wade had  lied to those suspects about certain things, why would a completely innocent person want to confess to something he didn't do?

Can you elaborate, Pat?

Edited July 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

21 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I'm a little bit perplexed by the above comment of yours, Pat. Are you implying here that many of the Henry Wade cases that have recently been overturned in Dallas County (due to new DNA results being available) are cases in which the arrested suspects actually confessed  to crimes they never committed?

Even if Fritz & Wade had  lied to those suspects about certain things, why would a completely innocent person want to confess to something he didn't do?

Can you elaborate, Pat?

I don't know the specifics of those cases, but I do know there have been hundreds of cases in which innocent people have confessed. Quite often they are mentally deficient, and believe the cops when the cops tell them that their buddies said they did it, or that their fingerprints were found at the scene, etc. They are then told the cops will take it easy on them if they'd just confess. Sometimes, even, they confess so the cops will stop asking them the same questions over and over. 

The TV show Making a Murderer dealt with an incident where a mentally deficient boy was badgered into telling the police what they wanted to hear--that he had helped his uncle murder a woman. They then used this "confession" as evidence against the uncle, even though his "story" was quite different than the "story" they presented at the uncle's trial. 

Both nephew and uncle remain in prison, last I checked. 

FWIW, the Memphis 3 case is yet another high profile case in which a young mentally deficient person confessed and fingered his buddies, after being told he could go if he just told the police what they wanted to hear. After years and years, the three young men were eventually released. But it wasn't because the police suddenly realized the error of their ways. 

P.S. There have also been numerous "Hauptmann" situations, where a convicted man has been promised he wouldn't receive the death penalty if only he'd confess. Famously, Hauptmann in the 30's and Tookie Williams in 2005, refused to confess to crimes for which they claimed they'd been wrongly convicted, and were sentenced to death. God only knows how many of those in prison today were offered a similar deal, and confessed to something they didn't do to avoid a harsher sentence. 

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

Thanks for another informative post, Pat.

I guess I was just unaware that the act of confessing to a crime you never committed  was so widespread and (somewhat) commonplace in the law enforcement world.

A person would, indeed, have to be very "mentally deficient" to do something like that.

Edited July 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

I guess I was just unaware that the act of confessing to a crime you never committed  was so widespread and (somewhat) commonplace in the law enforcement world.

It is indeed more common than one would imagine. However, a competent (and honest) prosecutor will seek to verify the information before taking it to trial and not rely simply on the "confession."

[Ron Bulman]

If anyone takes time to read the whole thing you will well see Wade and Friz were well practiced well before 1963 in finding a scapegoat.

When Henry Wade Executed an Innocent Man - D Magazine

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

If anyone takes time to read the whole thing you will well see Wade and Fritz were well practiced well before 1963 in finding a scapegoat.

When Henry Wade Executed an Innocent Man - D Magazine

I wonder if a single one of those "scapegoats" behaved the way Lee Harvey Oswald behaved on November 21st and 22nd, 1963?

Let me know if any of them did.

Edited July 7, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

I wonder if a single one of those "scapegoats" behaved the way Lee Harvey Oswald behaved on November 21st and 22nd, 1963?

Let me know if any of them did.

The point is that Wade and the DPD have a known history of fabricating evidence and extracting false confessions. Does that not impugn the integrity of at least some of the evidence against Oswald?

Anyone interested in just how bad the DPD were under Wade should read this:

Ricky Dale Wyatt vs. City of Dallas et al

It’s a very interesting read: there’s fabricated evidence, blatant lying, bogus lineups… the whole nine yards. I think that some of the officers named in this suit were also involved in the JFK case.

There was also Randall Adams, made famous by Errol Morris in the Thin Blue Line, which is required viewing for anyone interested in the Dallas Police. 

A quick Google search shows that it’s still happening today: https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/police-lies-dont-shock-these-attorneys-anymore-12518408

I also stumbled on a case from 1979 where a Dallas cop was convicted of murder for trying to coerce a confession from a suspect by playing Russian roulette: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Santos_Rodriguez

Is it really rational to assume that the Dallas police were beyond reproach on the JFK case? I’m gonna have to go with no. 

[Pete Mellor]

On 7/6/2022 at 7:48 AM, Paul Brancato said:

No stenographer, no tape recording for the investigation of the crime of the century. Sorry David. The DPD simply could not be trusted to run a fair interrogation. 

Paul, It does seem that History shows that DPD could not be trusted (along with the D.A.'s office) to run a fair interrogation.  Yet I am sure that I have at some point come across a statement from Fritz, that it was the norm his Homicide Dept., did not use a stenographer or any recording of interviews of suspects.  We know Ruby's assassination of the accused assassin was on t.v., so, an open and shut case, but again, there is no record of any verbatim interview on Ruby's actions that I am aware of on Sunday 24th.

In Oswald's case, the DPD had the Carcano with Oswald's palm and finger prints by Friday evening so maybe considered, however reprehensible, that the case was a cinch and no requirement for a stenographer or to go out shopping for a tape recorder....much to our frustration today.  Just another murder case that certainly good ole boy Henry would obtain the death penalty.