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 of him without an attorney present to represent and advise him.

This blows away the Commission's lie that Oswald refused legal help and the nonsense perpetrated by some of its supporters that Oswald denied legal help to authorities but cried for it in front of reporters. It also calls into question the allegation of Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Association, who told the press that Oswald refused his help, but failed to tell them about the complaints of his treatment Oswald had made to him.

 

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Joe Bauer]

I thought suspects were automatically provided legal assistance when they ask for such, and if they can't afford a private lawyer a public defender one is assigned to them?

Not the case in 1963?

How's this for Texas Style justice:

Oswald is a "suspect" in Dallas PD custody.

Oswald's personal physical safety is 100% the responsibility of the Dallas PD while in their custody.

Oswald is also one of the most ( if not the most ) threatened criminal suspects in American history. 

And he is also the most important criminal suspect in American history.

What he has to share could change the course of American history and reveal the truth about who killed a sitting president and why.

Oswald is whacked before he even gets out of the DPD building?

By a local sleazy strip joint owner who easily defeated the DPD security to do what he did?

The most negligent action failure in American police force history.

And ignoring warnings by even members of the DPD to move Oswald at night without broadcasting a daylight transfer just adds to the monstruous failure.

Technically, legally, Oswald's wife and children should have been compensated for the DPD's absolute worst case negligence in American history which caused the death of an untried suspect in their custody.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Robert Montenegro]

31 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

a local sleazy strip joint owner who easily defeated the DPD security to do what he did?

The most negligent action failure in American police force history.

And ignoring warnings by even members of the DPD to move Oswald at night without broadcasting a daylight transfer just adds to the monstruous failure.

Technically, legally, Oswald's wife and children should have been compensated for the DPD's absolute worst case negligence in American history which caused the death of an untried suspect in their custody.

Jack Ruby didn't just bypass and defeat the Dallas Police Department, Mr. Bauer, but a phalanx of Dallas Police, State Police, Texas Rangers, Reserve United States Army Intelligence officers, FBI Special Agents, Federal Bureau of Narcotics assets, US Secret Service Agents, ATF Agents and liaison plain-clothes Dallas Courthouse officers.

Hell, Mr. Oswald had ten times more officers of the law physically surrounding him in the minutes leading up to his public execution than President Kennedy had in the damned motorcade!

I have actually asked this of Mr. Simpich, why don't you point the power of the Mary Ferrell Foundation, all of it's resources and documents, and defend the Oswald family against the Dallas Police Department?

Without getting into too much detail of a private conversation, Bill pretty much told me it would be a solid case against DPD if it were wrongful death, or mishandling of evidence or violations of Mr. Oswald's civil rights.

But I believe, if I remember correctly, that Bill Simpich said that the Oswald family would have to initiate the proceedings, and they have given strong indications that they are afraid for their lives, even to this day.

Of course, I will stress, that the Warren Commission had no legal precedent, and therefore, no conclusion it drew about Mr. Oswald could be used in a court proceeding, so that's disturbing.  

Edited July 12, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[Paul Cummings]

At this point, DPD nor Decker are calling the shots.

[Leslie Sharp]

@Paul CummingsBy then, hadn't Ilya Mamantov surfaced to provide Marina with translation? Are you familiar with the story that Mamantov was picked up at his home on Mockingbird Lane at approx. 12:15, prior to the assassination in Dealey?

Edited July 12, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Mark Knight]

As far as Oswald's rights, Miranda v. Arizona wasn't decided until 1966. 

That meant that, prior to 1966, many defendants had their rights violated during police questioning because those rights weren't specifically enumerated until Miranda.

Interrogations in 1963 were quite different. Remember, DPD tried to get Buell Wesley Frazier to sign a confession against his will, and when he refused, there was nearly a fistfight.

[Paul Cummings]

50 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Paul CummingsBy then, hadn't Ilya Mamantov surfaced to provide Marina with translation? Are you familiar with the story that Mamantov was picked up at his home on Mockingbird Lane at approx. 12:15, prior to the assassination in Dealey?

No I hadn't heard. Was it a bus or taxi that picked him up? (jk)

[Robert Montenegro]

46 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

As far as Oswald's rights, Miranda v. Arizona wasn't decided until 1966. 

That meant that, prior to 1966, many defendants had their rights violated during police questioning because those rights weren't specifically enumerated until Miranda.

Interrogations in 1963 were quite different. Remember, DPD tried to get Buell Wesley Frazier to sign a confession against his will, and when he refused, there was nearly a fistfight.

 

I see.

Yeah, I just got done watching Errol Morris' "The Thin Blue Line" recently and was thinking the whole time, man, if Dallas police were this cold-hearted talking about a seemingly innocent man in 1988, just how bloodthirsty were they in 1963? 

[Roger Odisio]

4 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

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 of him without an attorney present to represent and advise him.

This blows away the Commission's lie that Oswald refused legal help and the nonsense perpetrated by some of its supporters that Oswald denied legal help to authorities but cried for it in front of reporters. It also calls into question the allegation of Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Association, who told the press that Oswald refused his help, but failed to tell them about the complaints of his treatment Oswald had made to him.

 

 

"It also calls into question the allegation of Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Association, who told the press that Oswald refused his help, but failed to tell them about the complaints of his treatment Oswald had made to him."

Oswald refused Nichols' offer because he preferred John Abt or someone from the ACLU.  But he told Nichols and Nichols mentioned at his news conference in the hall, that if he couldn't get his preference he might "at a later time" check back with the Bar.  Oswald also asked Nichols to check back with him at some point to see if he still needed a lawyer. 

Oswald was dead about 17 hours later.  It's been my speculation that the idea that Oswald seemed to be getting close to getting a lawyer hastened his murder.  They could not let him have one.

[Gil Jesus]

36 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

"It also calls into question the allegation of Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Association, who told the press that Oswald refused his help, but failed to tell them about the complaints of his treatment Oswald had made to him."

Oswald refused Nichols' offer because he preferred John Abt or someone from the ACLU.  But he told Nichols and Nichols mentioned at his news conference in the hall, that if he couldn't get his preference he might "at a later time" check back with the Bar.  Oswald also asked Nichols to check back with him at some point to see if he still needed a lawyer. 

Oswald was dead about 17 hours later.  It's been my speculation that the idea that Oswald seemed to be getting close to getting a lawyer hastened his murder.  They could not let him have one.

I wouldn't put too much stock in what Louis Nichols said.

Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoociation was reluctant to visit Oswald.
The reason may have been because the Dallas Bar Association did not handle criminal cases. Those were handled by the Criminal Bar Association. ( 7 H 331 )

In addition, Nichols had connections to the city.

Nichols used to work for the city attorney’s office and at the time of Oswald’s incarceration, still represented the city credit union and had a brother on the police force, so, he had known many of these city authorities for years. ( 7 H 327 )

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 admitted 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.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Pat Speer]

My understanding is that Oswald refused the help of the lawyer offered him, and wanted John Abt instead. Abt wasn't available or interested. Oswald then asked for an attorney from the ACLU, but was killed before he could talk to one. (Coincidence? I suspect not.)

If I recall the ACLU attorney sent to defend Oswald was William Kunstler, who would go on to become the attorney for the Chicago Seven. 

[Joe Bauer]

8 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

Hell, Mr. Oswald had ten times more officers of the law physically surrounding him in the minutes leading up to his public execution than President Kennedy had in the damned motorcade!

Excellent absurd reality truth analogy RM.

Which makes the Oswald assassination so impossibly illogical and improbable even a child could see it was a set up.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

7 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

As far as Oswald's rights, Miranda v. Arizona wasn't decided until 1966. 

Yes, that is right. Thank you Mark.

[Gil Jesus]

12 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

As far as Oswald's rights, Miranda v. Arizona wasn't decided until 1966. 

That meant that, prior to 1966, many defendants had their rights violated during police questioning because those rights weren't specifically enumerated until Miranda.

Interrogations in 1963 were quite different. Remember, DPD tried to get Buell Wesley Frazier to sign a confession against his will, and when he refused, there was nearly a fistfight.

 Miranda was a 1963 case that took three years of appeals to make it to the Supreme Court.

Police Departments used to get monthly bulletins from the FBI on updates of court cases "in the pipeline" that may have national implications. I'm sure the Dallas Police knew about Miranda.

Even if they didn't, Fritz testified that Oswald had been "given his rights", including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Both by himself and the judge at the Tippit arraignment.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34#relPageId=224&search="his_rights"

Then he went ahead and violated the guy's rights.

The point is that once he "lawyered up" the questioning should have stopped. It didn't.

That's a violation of the 5th and 6th amendments.