Oswalds Rights in DPD Custody

[Gerry Down]

It’s often said that Oswald was denied his rights in DPD custody by being questioned without a lawyer present. However in 1963, no such right existed. The right to have a lawyer present while being questioned by police only came into effect in June 1964 in the Escobedo v. Illinois case:

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment.^[1] 

LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escobedo_v._Illinois

Likewise, it was not until June 1966, that it came into effect that police officers had to actually tell a suspect that they had a right to a lawyer:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial. Specifically, the Court held that under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot use a person's statements made in response to an interrogation while in police custody as evidence at the person's criminal trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with a lawyer before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them before answering questions.

LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

Despite this, the DPD agreed to Oswalds request for a lawyer, and allowed him to make several calls looking for one. But Oswald made things awkward by looking for one that was all the way over in New York – Mr. John Apt.  

[Johnny Cairns]

Oswald’s civil and constitutional rights were egregiously violated by the Dallas officials. 

[Gerry Down]

2 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Oswald’s civil and constitutional rights were egregiously violated by the Dallas officials. 

Well, they should have done a better job when transferring him in the DPD basement.

[Gerry Down]

10 minutes 30 seconds in on this video:

It's made clear that Oswald was not being deprived of having a lawyer. 

[Greg Doudna]

"How long were you with him?"

"About three minutes."

...

"Did he fully understand the charges against him?"

"I don't know.

"You didn't discuss--?"

"I did not discuss the charges with him."

...

(unintelligible question from reporter)

"I do not believe so since he's not asking for a lawyer to represent him at this time."

~ ~ ~

It is not clear Oswald was offered by Nichols an opportunity to have a temporary, immediate counsel immediately that would not jeopardize Oswald's ability to have his preferred Abt of New York take full control of his defense if Abt agreed to do so, when contact was able to be made to Abt. 

It seems Nichols asked Oswald if he wanted the Bar Association to get him a full attorney for his case other than Abt, and Oswald wanted Abt. Oswald not wanting to forego Abt seems to be behind Oswald's answer of "no" to the question from Nichols as asked and as Oswald understood the question. Nichols' all of three minutes inquiry over, Nichols goes out and announces Oswald is not asking for an immediate attorney, even though Oswald plainly and repeatedly was saying to anyone who would listen that he was.

Above all, above all, no indication Nichols made a clear offer, understandable to Oswald, that Nichols and the local Bar Association would offer to provide him with immediate temporary counsel pending contact and decision from Abt in New York and, if Abt agreed, the temporary counsel's deferral over to Abt to take control of Oswald's defense. 

If Nichols had said, "I offered him immediate counsel without jeopardizing his ability to have Abt come in, and he STILL said NO", that would be a different matter. The reason Nichols did not spell that out, is because Nichols did not offer that to Oswald. If he had, he would have said so. 

"About three minutes."

He was in there just long enough to get a desired "no" to the way he asked the question, then out of there. 

When Michael Paine phoned the local ACLU Saturday morning (following Ruth's and Marguerite's conversation of the night before), asking if anything was being done about legal counsel for Oswald, Michael was told they were on it. When the ACLU showed up later that day to try to see Oswald themselves, they were turned away, denied access to Oswald, on the grounds that Oswald had not requested to see them. It appears the reason Oswald had not requested to see them was because he had not been informed they were there, to know to request to see them.

The whole idea was to keep Oswald away from a lawyer as long as possible because the instant a lawyer entered the picture Oswald would go silent (every lawyer would tell Oswald to quit talking). That would remove Fritz's earnest attempts to break out a confession from Oswald. That is what was going on.

It was a travesty. 

[Johnny Cairns]

You are spot on, it was a travesty Greg.

Anyone that tries to advocate for the opposite, ask yourself this question. If you were in Oswald’s position, innocent, accused of a crime, do you think you would have been treated fairly as a result of the Dallas Police conduct? 
 

The American Civil Liberties union charged yesterday that the police and prosecuting officials of Dallas committed gross violations of civil liberties in their handling of Lee H. Oswald, the accused assassin of President Kennedy. The ACLU said that it would have been simply impossible for Oswald, had he lived, to have obtained a fair trial because he had already been tried and convicted by the public statements of Dallas law enforcement officials. 

 

[Gerry Down]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

"How long were you with him?"

"About three minutes."

...

"Did he fully understand the charges against him?"

"I don't know.

"You didn't discuss--?"

"I did not discuss the charges with him."

...

(unintelligible question from reporter)

"I do not believe so since he's not asking for a lawyer to represent him at this time."

~ ~ ~

It is not clear Oswald was offered by Nichols an opportunity to have a temporary, immediate counsel immediately that would not jeopardize Oswald's ability to have his preferred Abt of New York take full control of his defense if Abt agreed to do so, when contact was able to be made to Abt. 

It seems Nichols asked Oswald if he wanted the Bar Association to get him a full attorney for his case other than Abt, and Oswald wanted Abt. Oswald not wanting to forego Abt seems to be behind Oswald's answer of "no" to the question from Nichols as asked and as Oswald understood the question. Nichols' all of three minutes inquiry over, Nichols goes out and announces Oswald is not asking for an immediate attorney, even though Oswald plainly and repeatedly was saying to anyone who would listen that he was.

Above all, above all, no indication Nichols made a clear offer, understandable to Oswald, that Nichols and the local Bar Association would offer to provide him with immediate temporary counsel pending contact and decision from Abt in New York and, if Abt agreed, the temporary counsel's deferral over to Abt to take control of Oswald's defense. 

If Nichols had said, "I offered him immediate counsel without jeopardizing his ability to have Abt come in, and he STILL said NO", that would be a different matter. The reason Nichols did not spell that out, is because Nichols did not offer that to Oswald. If he had, he would have said so. 

"About three minutes."

He was in there just long enough to get a desired "no" to the way he asked the question, then out of there. 

When Michael Paine phoned the local ACLU Saturday morning (following Ruth's and Marguerite's conversation of the night before), asking if anything was being done about legal counsel for Oswald, Michael was told they were on it. When the ACLU showed up later that day to try to see Oswald themselves, they were turned away, denied access to Oswald, on the grounds that Oswald had not requested to see them. It appears the reason Oswald had not requested to see them was because he had not been informed they were there, to know to request to see them.

The whole idea was to keep Oswald away from a lawyer as long as possible because the instant a lawyer entered the picture Oswald would go silent (every lawyer would tell Oswald to quit talking). That would remove Fritz's earnest attempts to break out a confession from Oswald. That is what was going on.

It was a travesty. 

I don't think Nichols could discuss the charges with Oswald as that would amount to giving legal advice. And Oswald made it clear he didn't want his legal assistance at that time.

If Nichols didn't make himself clear as you suggest might have happened,that would be a failing on Nichols part and not the DPD. The DPD had done their part by allowing Nichols in to see Oswald.

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Johnny Cairns said:

You are spot on, it was a travesty Greg.

Anyone that tries to advocate for the opposite, ask yourself this question. If you were in Oswald’s position, innocent, accused of a crime, do you think you would have been treated fairly as a result of the Dallas Police conduct? 
 

 

The American Civil Liberties union charged yesterday that the police and prosecuting officials of Dallas committed gross violations of civil liberties in their handling of Lee H. Oswald, the accused assassin of President Kennedy. The ACLU said that it would have been simply impossible for Oswald, had he lived, to have obtained a fair trial because he had already been tried and convicted by the public statements of Dallas law enforcement officials. 

 

It could be argued that the Tippit and Kennedy families were deprived of a fair trial for their loved ones by the DPD allowing Oswald to have a midnight press conference where he could say anything he wanted and sway a potential jury.

Likewise by allowing Oswald say anything he wanted in the hallway as he passed the media, most notably his "I'm a Patsy" phrase which has demonstrably swayed many in the public that Oswald was innocent. It could be argued that Oswald was doing his best to sway a potential jury.

He was also doing his best to invalidate the line-ups by shouting his mouth off while the witnesses were trying to pick someone from the lineup.

While the DPD should not have made those public statements, it's also the case that Oswald was doing his best to interfere in the legal process.

[Gil Jesus]

On 4/3/2024 at 8:21 AM, Gerry Down said:

It’s often said that Oswald was denied his rights in DPD custody by being questioned without a lawyer present. However in 1963, no such right existed. The right to have a lawyer present while being questioned by police only came into effect in June 1964 in the Escobedo v. Illinois case:

I don't know what country you live in, but in the US, your Constitutional Rights begin at birth, not when a court determines them.

They're inalienable rights which are granted by our Creator, not by any government or authority, including the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court can only judge based on its interpretation of the Constitution, it does not grant rights.

At the time Oswald was questioned without a lawyer present, his right to assistance of counsel was denied in violation of the "assistance of counsel" clause of the 6th Amendment.

Without a lawyer present, his 5th Amendment right to protection against self-incrimination was also violated.

I see that you failed to mention that Escobedo was a 1960 case and Miranda was a 1963 case. Escobedo took four years to get to the Supreme Court and Miranda took three. But Oswald had the same Constitutional right to have a lawyer present as did Escobedo in 1960. The fact that the court didn't rule in favor of Escobedo until 1964 is irrelevent. The fact is both defendants' rights were violated, one in 1960 and the other in 1963.

And Oswald had the same Constitutional protection against self-incriminattion that Miranda did earlier that year.

So your theory that Constitutional rights are afforded by court decisions is flawed.

Whether you like it or not, that's the truth.

And by the way, the New York lawyer's name was John Abt, not Apt.

[Johnny Cairns]

The Kennedy/Tippit family were not on trial, only Oswald, who was tried and convicted many, many times by the conduct of the Dallas Police. 
 

Have you read the Warren Report? Because they even had to confront the abhorrent treatment Oswald was subjected to whilst in custody. 
 

Oswald’s statements could perjure a jury? What like when the Dallas Police told the American people the man was a communist? Or when they publicly released all the evidence against him to the American people? 
 

Again, anyone that tries to argue the deplorable line-ups Oswald was subject to is onto a serious loser. Again, wouldn’t you, innocent accused of a crime, not protest such line-ups? What about the disclosures of the DPD to Calloway? Think that’s a fair way to make a line-up? 
 

The fact remains that Oswald’s civil and constitutional rights were grossly violated by the Dallas Officials, which resulted in his murder whilst in custody. 
 

Utterly deplorable. 
 

 

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

I don't know what country you live in, but in the US, your Constitutional Rights begin at birth, not when a court determines them.

They're inalienable rights which are granted by our Creator, not by any government or authority, including the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court can only judge based on its interpretation of the Constitution, it does not grant rights.

At the time Oswald was questioned without a lawyer present, his right to assistance of counsel was denied in violation of the "assistance of counsel" clause of the 6th Amendment.

Without a lawyer present, his 5th Amendment right to protection against self-incrimination was also violated.

I see that you failed to mention that Escobedo was a 1960 case and Miranda was a 1963 case. Escobedo took four years to get to the Supreme Court and Miranda took three. But Oswald had the same Constitutional right to have a lawyer present as did Escobedo in 1960. The fact that the court didn't rule in favor of Escobedo until 1964 is irrelevent. The fact is both defendants' rights were violated, one in 1960 and the other in 1963.

And Oswald had the same Constitutional protection against self-incriminattion that Miranda did earlier that year.

So your theory that Constitutional rights are afforded by court decisions is flawed.

Whether you like it or not, that's the truth.

And by the way, the New York lawyer's name was John Abt, not Apt.

Oswald didn't believe in God. I guess that's why he told Nichols he didn't want legal counsel from him.

Unless you believe that Oswald was denying himself his own rights by telling Nichols he didn't want him.

Can one deny themselves their own rights?

[Gerry Down]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

 Again, anyone that tries to argue the deplorable line-ups Oswald was subject to is onto a serious loser. Again, wouldn’t you, innocent accused of a crime, not protest such line-ups?

If I was innocent, I wouldn't know what the real suspect looked like therefore I would not be demanding I should look different in the line up than I do.

[Johnny Cairns]

If everyone else is well dressed but you are in a t-shirt and you’re name and place of work, which you had to tell to the ‘witnesses’ viewing the line-up, was highly disseminated to the public, when everyone else was giving false names and places of work, would you think the line-ups were fair??
 

Again, what about the Calloway quote? Any comments on that?
 

As Dr Buckout stated: the line-ups were utterly worthless. 
 

 

 

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Johnny Cairns said:

If everyone else is well dressed but you are in a t-shirt and you’re name and place of work, which you had to tell to the ‘witnesses’ viewing the line-up, was highly disseminated to the public, when everyone else was giving false names and places of work, would you think the line-ups were fair??
 

Again, what about the Calloway quote? Any comments on that?
 

As Dr Buckout stated: the line-ups were utterly worthless. 
 

 

 

I agree, the DPD were at fault in areas. But i started this thread more in relation to the myth that Oswald was wronged by being questioned with no lawyers present. I think this is a myth that should be out to bed. 

[Johnny Cairns]

It’s not a myth? Oswald was wronged by being questioned without a lawyer. Fact.