Oswalds Rights in DPD Custody

[Gerry Down]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

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

What law was broken?

[Johnny Cairns]

Percy Foreman; 

Federal decisions for at least five years have held that a defendant has a right to legal counsel at every level including arraignment before a justice of the peace. It's not being done in Texas, but it's the law, and (Oswald) is entitled to counsel whether he requests it or not. 

[Bill Brown]

3 hours 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. 
 

 

 

 

Nonsense.

There is nothing which proves that Oswald gave his name and place of employment during the lineups.

 

[Gerry Down]

25 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Percy Foreman; 

Federal decisions for at least five years have held that a defendant has a right to legal counsel at every level including arraignment before a justice of the peace. It's not being done in Texas, but it's the law, and (Oswald) is entitled to counsel whether he requests it or not. 

Oswald was denied nothing. The DPD left him phone repeatedly for a lawyer, and meet with one - Nichols, whom Oswald told to get lost.

Oswald wanted a lawyer in New York so that lawyer would be at least a day or two away. Oswald was the one denying himself a lawyer, not the DPD.

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Nonsense.

There is nothing which proves that Oswald gave his name and place of employment during the lineups.

Exactly. And the only reason to ask participants in a lineup about anything is (when relevant) to allow the witness to hear their speaking voices. There is no obligation to answer truthfully.

[Bill Brown]

18 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Exactly. And the only reason to ask participants in a lineup about anything is (when relevant) to allow the witness to hear their speaking voices. There is no obligation to answer truthfully.

 

You're using wayyyyyy too much common sense, Mark.

 

[Gerry Down]

While still alive in police custody, Jesse Curry said LHO was the assassin but that there could be a conspiracy.

This was arguably providing room for manoeuvre for Oswald in a trial whereby Oswald could claim it was a conspirator who actually pulled the trigger.

Is Curry prejudicing a potential jury by publicably speculating there might be a conspiracy and they only captured Oswald while others roam free?

 

[Johnny Cairns]

Gerry, 

As a basic requirement, in my opinion, have you read the WCR? How about any of the exhibits of the 26 Volumes? 

[Johnny Cairns]

Mark…

WF/JL to Calloway;

“We want to be sure. We want to try and wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President and if we can warp him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him.”
 

Do you think that’s a fair and impartial way to make a line-up? 
 

 

Edited April 8 by Johnny Cairns

[Gil Jesus]

3 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Mark…

WF/JL to Calloway;

“We want to be sure. We want to try and wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President and if we can warp him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him.”
 

Do you think that’s a fair and impartial way to make a line-up? 
 

 

Absolutely not. 

The correct way:

"I'm going to show you a lineup of (whatever number) men. If you DON'T see the man who shot the police officer, tell me he's not there. If you DO see him, tell me the number he's standing under."

You don't tell the witness that the suspect is in the lineup. You let the witness tell YOU he's in the lineup.

The absence of an attorney gave police the freedom to conduct lineups that were completely unfair, using fillers that did not match the witnesses descriptions or even resembled Oswald. Had a lawyer been present, he never would have allowed such lineups. 

The Dallas Police never produced photographs of the the fillers as they were dressed for the first two lineups. This is how the fillers were dressed.

The Police instead produced photos of the "fillers" in clothes they were not wearing at the time of the lineups.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/wc-lineups.jpg

The Police did not produce photographs of the "fillers" in lineups 3 and 4.

This deceptive move by the Police, to suppress what the "fillers" looked like at the time of the lineups, allowed the Commission to conclude in its Report that, "The Dallas Police furnished the Commission with photographs of the men who appeared in the lineups with Oswald and the Commission has inquired into the general lineup procedures used by the Dallas police as well as the specific procedures in the lineups involving Oswald. The Commission is satisfied that the lineups were conducted fairly." ( Report, Chapter 4, pg. 169 )

Had Oswald been convicted, the conduct of these lineups would have been grounds for an appeal. These lineups would have been enough to have his conviction overturned and granted a new trial. And any witness identifications made from these lineups would have been inadmissable at re-trial.

 

Edited April 8 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

14 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Percy Foreman; 

Federal decisions for at least five years have held that a defendant has a right to legal counsel at every level including arraignment before a justice of the peace. It's not being done in Texas, but it's the law, and (Oswald) is entitled to counsel whether he requests it or not. 

By Texas law, Oswald was entitled to counsel the moment he was formally arraigned for ( charged with ) Tippit's murder. From the testimony of H. Louis Nichols:

Mr. NICHOLS. Basically, I think that would follow the statutes which provide that where it comes to the attention of the court, that a man charged with a felony is not represented by an attorney that the court will appoint an attorney to represent him……The usual procedure is, I believe, when it comes to the attention of the judge that an accused in jail is not represented by an attorney--I am talking about a felony case now---or a man, whether he is in jail or not, if he makes requests of the court to appoint him a lawyer, the judges of the criminal district court will, and do appoint lawyers to represent those people. ( 7 H 331 )

So the judge was required by law to appoint a lawyer if a defendant asked for one.

But in their testimonies, the judge and the three police officers who were in Capt. Fritz's office when Oswald was arraigned for the murder of Tippit could not remember what he said.

The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment, but could not remember what that comment was. ( 15 H 507 )

Homicide Detective Elmer Boyd likewise could not remember what Oswald said. ( 7 H 130 )

The same kind of amnesia seems to have struck Will Fritz ( 4 H 217 ).

Detective Richard Sims couldn't remember what either the judge or Oswald said. ( 7 H 171 )

"Can't remember" is an old trick used by witnesses who wish to avoid telling the truth under oath. It was used quite frequently during the Watergate Hearings.

So here we are told that a judge and three police officers inside Capt. Fritz's tiny little office couldn't remember what the most important defendant in Dallas history said during his arraignment for the murder of one of their officers. ( 15 H 507 )

That's simply not credible.

The ACLU did attempt to make contact with Oswald, but its representatives were discouraged by police from doing so.

Edited April 8 by Gil Jesus

[Johnny Cairns]

Spot on Gil. 

Edited April 8 by Johnny Cairns

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Mark…

WF/JL to Calloway;

“We want to be sure. We want to try and wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President and if we can warp him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him.”

Do you think that’s a fair and impartial way to make a line-up?

Why? Do you think Callaway picked Oswald because of anything Leavelle said?

[Gil Jesus]

There are several things Mr. Down fails to mention in his argument that Oswald's rights were not violated.

The absence of a lawyer gave the Dallas Police free reign to question Oswald after he had asked for a lawyer.

It gave the Dallas Police the freedom to hold Oswald incommunicado, not allowing him to see his family for almost 24 hours. This prevented Oswald from asking them for help getting an attorney.

It gave the Dallas Police the freedom to conduct unfair lineups.

It also gave the Dallas Police the freedom to arraign Oswald at the ungodly hour of 1:35 am on Saturday.

And while Mr. Down and his allies commend the Dallas Police for allowing Oswald to use the phone, they fail to mention that Oswald was not allowed to use the phone until 1:40 pm on Saturday the 23rd, 24 hours after his arrest. Police delayed his use of a phone until they were sure no New York lawyer would be in his office. Of course, Oswald was unable to reach Abt at his office. Satisfied that Oswald was unable to reach an attorney, Police then allowed him to use the phone twice more, at 4 pm ( when he called Ruth Paine and got no answer because they had gone shopping ) and 8 pm ( when he finally got a hold of Mrs. Paine ).

The problem with the Lone Nut side is that they never tell you the whole story.

While Mr. Down and his allies in the Lone Nut community reap praises on the Dallas Police for allowing Oswald to speak to a lawyer, they don't tell you that that lawyer ( H. Louis Nichols ) did not practice criminal law. They don't tell you that there were TWO Bar Associations in Dallas, the Dallas Bar Association and the Dallas CRIMINAL Bar Association and that Nichols was President of the first one. They don't tell you that Nichols was a reluctant participant, pressured to go see Oswald by a professor at SMU school of law. They don't tell you that Nichols used to work for the city attorney's office and at the time of Oswald's incarceration, still represented the city credit union. They don't tell you that having a lawyer who did not practice criminal law go in to question Oswald was a joke.

A civil lawyer would never ask the right questions:
Was he being beaten?
Was he being starved?
Was he being deprived of sleep?
Was he being isolated from his friends and family?
Was he being denied counsel?

Finally, they don't tell you that Nichols had a brother on the police force, so, he had known many of these city authorities for years. ( 7 H 327 )

Even more shockingly, Mr Down and his allies never tell you that Oswald told Nichols he was being held incommunicado ( 7 H 328 ) and he wanted either John Abt from New York or the ACLU to represent him. ( ibid. pg. 329 )

Not only did Nichols testify to this fact, he told the press the same thing.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/abt-or-ACLU.mp4

But you'll never hear that from Mr. Down or his allies on the Lone Nut side.

From the Dallas Police's standpoint, what a perfect lawyer to speak to Oswald. Nichols then gave in to Chief Curry's request that he give a statement to the press that Oswald did not want a lawyer.

Nichols reluctance to get involved in this case and the fact that the city was a client of his, made him a shill for the Dallas authorities who were pushing a narrative that Oswald did not want legal counsel.
 

 

Edited April 8 by Gil Jesus

[Paul Cummings]

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

There are several things Mr. Down fails to mention in his argument that Oswald's rights were not violated.

The absence of a lawyer gave the Dallas Police free reign to question Oswald after he had asked for a lawyer.

It gave the Dallas Police the freedom to hold Oswald incommunicado, not allowing him to see his family for almost 24 hours. This prevented Oswald from asking them for help getting an attorney.

It gave the Dallas Police the freedom to conduct unfair lineups.

It also gave the Dallas Police the freedom to arraign Oswald at the ungodly hour of 1:35 am on Saturday.

And while Mr. Down and his allies commend the Dallas Police for allowing Oswald to use the phone, they fail to mention that Oswald was not allowed to use the phone until 1:40 pm on Saturday the 23rd, 24 hours after his arrest. Police delayed his use of a phone until they were sure no New York lawyer would be in his office. Of course, Oswald was unable to reach Abt at his office. Satisfied that Oswald was unable to reach an attorney, Police then allowed him to use the phone twice more, at 4 pm ( when he called Ruth Paine and got no answer because they had gone shopping ) and 8 pm ( when he finally got a hold of Mrs. Paine ).

The problem with the Lone Nut side is that they never tell you the whole story.

While Mr. Down and his allies in the Lone Nut community reap praises on the Dallas Police for allowing Oswald to speak to a lawyer, they don't tell you that that lawyer ( H. Louis Nichols ) did not practice criminal law. They don't tell you that there were TWO Bar Associations in Dallas, the Dallas Bar Association and the Dallas CRIMINAL Bar Association and that Nichols was President of the first one. They don't tell you that Nichols was a reluctant participant, pressured to go see Oswald by a professor at SMU school of law. They don't tell you that Nichols used to work for the city attorney's office and at the time of Oswald's incarceration, still represented the city credit union. They don't tell you that having a lawyer who did not practice criminal law go in to question Oswald was a joke.

A civil lawyer would never ask the right questions:
Was he being beaten?
Was he being starved?
Was he being deprived of sleep?
Was he being isolated from his friends and family?
Was he being denied counsel?

Finally, they don't tell you that Nichols had a brother on the police force, so, he had known many of these city authorities for years. ( 7 H 327 )

Even more shockingly, Mr Down and his allies never tell you that Oswald told Nichols he was being held incommunicado ( 7 H 328 ) and he wanted either John Abt from New York or the ACLU to represent him. ( ibid. pg. 329 )

Not only did Nichols testify to this fact, he told the press the same thing.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/abt-or-ACLU.mp4

But you'll never hear that from Mr. Down or his allies on the Lone Nut side.

From the Dallas Police's standpoint, what a perfect lawyer to speak to Oswald. Nichols then gave in to Chief Curry's request that he give a statement to the press that Oswald did not want a lawyer.

Nichols reluctance to get involved in this case and the fact that the city was a client of his, made him a shill for the Dallas authorities who were pushing a narrative that Oswald did not want legal counsel.
 

 

Excellent work Gill. Thank you.