Oswald's Choice

[Roger Odisio]

I woke up this morning thinking about that all-time great movie, Sophie's Choice. Oswald had a similar life or death choice to make.

 

From the time of his arrest in the theater, Oswald was clamoring for a lawyer.  When, soon after his arrest that Friday, the jackals in the hall screamed "did you kill the president", Oswald said no sir I didn't. Finally, as the question was repeated he screamed I'm  just a patsy, as he was shoved into an elevator.  He realized he was being framed for the JFKA.

 

An individual's rights against self incrimination and to a lawyer weren't fully established until 1966 in the Supreme Court's Miranda decision (Legal scholars:  could there have been a connection between that decision and the spectacle of Oswald's treatment by the authorities in '63?). But after more than a day of questioning Oswald without a lawyer present and allowing him to be question by news media in public, it's likely the authorities realized they might be jeopardizing their case.  Even if they didn't care about that (I think they were planning to kill him to take a trial off the table), various lawyers, including those with the ACLU, were contacting the authorities, asking if Oswald had representation,  and wanting to represent him.  What the authorities were doing was a bad look at a minimum.

 

A side note:  during the WC proceedings, Mark Lane offered to sit in to represent Oswald (he recognized the whole proceeding was about framing Oswald), including the right to cross examine information presented about Oswald).   He was turned down.  The WC was conducted almost entirely in secret. Silly idea!  What was benefit of killing Oswald and burying and distorting his story if someone could be there challenging us!

 

Saturday afternoon the head of the Dallas Bar showed up to offer Oswald the services of one the lawyers from his organization. Oswald understood the extent of right wing control of Dallas.  He turned down the offer.  He said he preferred a New York lawyer, John Abt, or someone from the ACLU.

 

But he didn't leave it there.  If he couldn't get one of his choices he would reconsider the offer. Get back to him in a few days if he hadn't found a lawyer of his choice.

 

I've contended this was an alarm bell. The murder of Oswald couldn't wait.  He couldn't be allowed to talk to a lawyer, even one of our own guys, and tell him his alibi:  where he was when Kennedy was murdered,

 

Oswald was dead less than 24 hours later.

 

It's my understanding that in a case like this, a client's lawyer is an officer of the court required to pursue a defense of his client. It's the adversarial system.  That's how we got Johnnie Cochrane telling those lies about OJ.  That means when Oswald told his lawyer that he had stepped out after lunch to "watch the p. parade" his lawyer would have tried to verify his claim.  NBC would not have been able to hide the Darnell and Weigman films! The danger of this scenario to the authorities is clear isn't it?

 

But suppose Oswald had made a different choice when offered a Bar lawyer. Suppose he had said the following.  I didn't do it. I'm being framed. I need to talk to a lawyer who can handle my defense.  Please choose a good criminal lawyer from your org and have him come by tonight. I need to tell him my story as soon as possible. I need him to sit in the next time I'm questioned.  

 

Would that choice have saved Oswald's life?  Would it have preserved the evidence exonerating Oswald that the authorities have tried so assiduously to suppress?  Even if Oswald told his alibi to a lawyer, could he have still been murdered and the lawyer walk away in silence, since there would be no trial?  Is there even a legal avenue for a conscientious lawyer, having learned first hand of Oswald's alibi, to pursue his exoneration?

 

Damn, I wish Greg Parker hadn't closed ROKC.  This is a question right up their alley. Maybe some of the lawyers here can help me understand these questions.

[Kevin Balch]

10 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

I woke up this morning thinking about that all-time great movie, Sophie's Choice. Oswald had a similar life or death choice to make.

 

From the time of his arrest in the theater, Oswald was clamoring for a lawyer.  When, soon after his arrest that Friday, the jackals in the hall screamed "did you kill the president", Oswald said no sir I didn't. Finally, as the question was repeated he screamed I'm  just a patsy, as he was shoved into an elevator.  He realized he was being framed for the JFKA.

 

An individual's rights against self incrimination and to a lawyer weren't fully established until 1966 in the Supreme Court's Miranda decision (Legal scholars:  could there have been a connection between that decision and the spectacle of Oswald's treatment by the authorities in '63?). But after more than a day of questioning Oswald without a lawyer present and allowing him to be question by news media in public, it's likely the authorities realized they might be jeopardizing their case.  Even if they didn't care about that (I think they were planning to kill him to take a trial off the table), various lawyers, including those with the ACLU, were contacting the authorities, asking if Oswald had representation,  and wanting to represent him.  What the authorities were doing was a bad look at a minimum.

 

A side note:  during the WC proceedings, Mark Lane offered to sit in to represent Oswald (he recognized the whole proceeding was about framing Oswald), including the right to cross examine information presented about Oswald).   He was turned down.  The WC was conducted almost entirely in secret. Silly idea!  What was benefit of killing Oswald and burying and distorting his story if someone could be there challenging us!

 

Saturday afternoon the head of the Dallas Bar showed up to offer Oswald the services of one the lawyers from his organization. Oswald understood the extent of right wing control of Dallas.  He turned down the offer.  He said he preferred a New York lawyer, John Abt, or someone from the ACLU.

 

But he didn't leave it there.  If he couldn't get one of his choices he would reconsider the offer. Get back to him in a few days if he hadn't found a lawyer of his choice.

 

I've contended this was an alarm bell. The murder of Oswald couldn't wait.  He couldn't be allowed to talk to a lawyer, even one of our own guys, and tell him his alibi:  where he was when Kennedy was murdered,

 

Oswald was dead less than 24 hours later.

 

It's my understanding that in a case like this, a client's lawyer is an officer of the court required to pursue a defense of his client. It's the adversarial system.  That's how we got Johnnie Cochrane telling those lies about OJ.  That means when Oswald told his lawyer that he had stepped out after lunch to "watch the p. parade" his lawyer would have tried to verify his claim.  NBC would not have been able to hide the Darnell and Weigman films! The danger of this scenario to the authorities is clear isn't it?

 

But suppose Oswald had made a different choice when offered a Bar lawyer. Suppose he had said the following.  I didn't do it. I'm being framed. I need to talk to a lawyer who can handle my defense.  Please choose a good criminal lawyer from your org and have him come by tonight. I need to tell him my story as soon as possible. I need him to sit in the next time I'm questioned.  

 

Would that choice have saved Oswald's life?  Would it have preserved the evidence exonerating Oswald that the authorities have tried so assiduously to suppress?  Even if Oswald told his alibi to a lawyer, could he have still been murdered and the lawyer walk away in silence, since there would be no trial?  Is there even a legal avenue for a conscientious lawyer, having learned first hand of Oswald's alibi, to pursue his exoneration?

 

Damn, I wish Greg Parker hadn't closed ROKC.  This is a question right up their alley. Maybe some of the lawyers here can help me understand these questions.

Why did Oswald insist on Abt who would have been difficult to get and as far as I know had never defended a murder case? I get the impression he was stalling for time. He knew he could have just pleaded the 5th until he obtained counsel but instead he gave conflicting or cryptic answers.

The city of Dallas was not going to prosecute the case. I imagine their interrogations were aimed at seeing if there was any case and had they missed any accomplices.

[Greg Doudna]

Roger, yes. But there is another unknown in this: exactly what wording did Nichols of the Dallas Bar Association use in asking Oswald if he would like the Dallas Bar's assistance in obtaining counsel? There is no record, or testimony, as to exact wording. By Nichols' own account, the Dallas Bar came to Oswald with no concrete offer of legal assistance, only Nichols' inquiry whether Oswald would like the Dallas Bar to attempt to find him a lawyer. How long would that take? Nichols could very legitimately have said (we don't know) this could take a couple of days, I can ask but you understand there is no guarantee on how immediate this may be. Nichols certainly was not volunteering himself to be counsel for Oswald, and Nichols explicitly told reporters afterward that he could not speak for any other lawyer until he made Oswald's request known and some other lawyer expressed willingness.

If it were expressed in terms of non-immediacy, Oswald, who may have anticipated being in direct phone contact or via intermediary with Abt imminently, as in within hours, could have answered to Nichols that he would pursue his Abt preference first. Which could then be reported by Nichols as Oswald turning down Nichols' offer to immediately begin seeking an offer of a lawyer for Oswald.

There was also activity on the same day, Saturday Nov 23, on the part of Oswald's mother, Marguerite, to obtain a lawyer. Not only was that on Marguerite's mind according to her own account and told by Ruth Paine, but Police Chief Curry directly told reporters that he had information that Marguerite was attempting to find an attorney for Oswald that day. 

That corresponds to Monk Zeldon, New Orleans' premier criminal defense attorney, representing Dean Andrews at the time and stating directly with Dean Andrews standing beside him, that the inquiry to Dean Andrews for legal counsel for Oswald on Sat Nov 23 had come from Marguerite Oswald of Dallas. Nobody has believed that. Everybody has bought the Clay Shaw angle as if that was gospel truth, as if Clay Shaw would have an interest in secretly finding a lawyer for Oswald (why would he care?). But what Monk Zeldon said is the true story of the true inquiry that came to Dean Andrews--who already was Oswald's lawyer in New Orleans--on that. And it was not Dean Andrews being asked if he wanted to do so, as if he had a choice. No, Dean Andrews was told to do it. And the reason Dean Andrews would not reveal who specifically had called him (the intermediary relaying the inquiry from Marguerite), even perjuring himself in his answers, is because it came through Marguerite's old Mob family contacts in New Orleans, and Dean Andrews feared them more than he feared legal prosecution for perjury! 

And we have it from Dean Andrews' son, in his recent book, that Dean Andrews was under a mob contract out on his life at the time, which Marcello was protecting Dean Andrews from! (Think about that. What does that sound like? Could that possibly have played a role in Dean Andrews' refusal to give straight answers concerning the lawyer inquiry?)

But back to Oswald in Dallas. Was Oswald aware of Marguerite's reaching out to New Orleans for a lawyer for him? Probably not necessarily. It would be good to know further details on how that worked on that day though, on Sat Nov 23.

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Roger, yes. But there is another unknown in this: exactly what wording did Nichols of the Dallas Bar Association use in asking Oswald if he would like the Dallas Bar's assistance in obtaining counsel? There is no record, or testimony, as to exact wording. By Nichols' own account, the Dallas Bar came to Oswald with no concrete offer of legal assistance, only Nichols' inquiry whether Oswald would like the Dallas Bar to attempt to find him a lawyer. How long would that take? Nichols could very legitimately have said (we don't know) this could take a couple of days, I can ask but you understand there is no guarantee on how immediate this may be. Nichols certainly was not volunteering himself to be counsel for Oswald, and Nichols explicitly told reporters afterward that he could not speak for any other lawyer until he made Oswald's request known and some other lawyer expressed willingness.

If it were expressed in terms of non-immediacy, Oswald, who may have anticipated being in direct phone contact or via intermediary with Abt imminently, as in within hours, could have answered to Nichols that he would pursue his Abt preference first. Which could then be reported by Nichols as Oswald turning down Nichols' offer to immediately begin seeking an offer of a lawyer for Oswald.

There was also activity on the same day, Saturday Nov 23, on the part of Oswald's mother, Marguerite, to obtain a lawyer. Not only was that on Marguerite's mind according to her own account and told by Ruth Paine, but Police Chief Curry directly told reporters that he had information that Marguerite was attempting to find an attorney for Oswald that day. 

That corresponds to Monk Zeldon, New Orleans' premier criminal defense attorney, representing Dean Andrews at the time and stating directly with Dean Andrews standing beside him, that the inquiry to Dean Andrews for legal counsel for Oswald on Sat Nov 23 had come from Marguerite Oswald of Dallas. Nobody has believed that. Everybody has bought the Clay Shaw angle as if that was gospel truth, as if Clay Shaw would have an interest in secretly finding a lawyer for Oswald (why would he care?). But what Monk Zeldon said is the true story of the true inquiry that came to Dean Andrews--who already was Oswald's lawyer in New Orleans--on that. And it was not Dean Andrews being asked if he wanted to do so, as if he had a choice. No, Dean Andrews was told to do it. And the reason Dean Andrews would not reveal who specifically had called him (the intermediary relaying the inquiry from Marguerite), even perjuring himself in his answers, is because it came through Marguerite's old Mob family contacts in New Orleans, and Dean Andrews feared them more than he feared legal prosecution for perjury! 

And we have it from Dean Andrews' son, in his recent book, that Dean Andrews was under a mob contract out on his life at the time, which Marcello was protecting Dean Andrews from! (Think about that. What does that sound like? Could that possibly have played a role in Dean Andrews' refusal to give straight answers concerning the lawyer inquiry?)

But back to Oswald in Dallas. Was Oswald aware of Marguerite's reaching out to New Orleans for a lawyer for him? Probably not necessarily. It would be good to know further details on how that worked on that day though, on Sat Nov 23.

Thanks for the response. What does "yes" mean?

 

Here is Nichols' news conference after talking to Oswald.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFkb9sOmq6g. From the Dallas Morning News :  "What I am interested in is knowing right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?" Mr. Nichols asked Oswald.

 

Nichols asked Oswald if he wanted the Dallas Bar, or him, to find him an attorney.  They had a program that would provide lawyers for indigent individuals.  He was concerned that Oswald had no representation. But this is a major criminal case.  Sounds like that kind of offer was inadequate on its face, but it was a concrete offer. An F Lee Bailey could be added to the team later.  This was about immediate help for Oswald and getting his alibi on the record. I suspect Oswald understood that.

 

Yes, it's unclear when a lawyer could be gotten.  It's true, apparently Nichols didn't make the offer with some person already in mind. I think somewhere in the conference Nichols said he had not contacted anybody yet for the job.  He wanted to first ask Oswald.  Nichols himself was not a criminal lawyer.

 

But what if Oswald said to him I need a lawyer right now (in the course of agreeing to Nichols' offer, not turning him down) because they are continuing to question me without one, violating my rights.  What would Nichols have said? Nichols comes across, and may actually be, someone who was genuinely concerned that Oswald lacked representation. He had some inquiries from other lawyers, but he took it upon himself to visit Oswald, he said, because he was concerned about that.

 

As for Abt, Oswald told Nichols he had asked family members that afternoon to contact him.  Apparently they couldn't reach him before Oswald was murdered. You have supplied details about others doing a lawyer search.  None of them bore fruit before Oswald was murdered.

 

Which leaves my questions on the table. What if...

 

My initial reaction is accepting Nichols' offer would not have saved Oswald's life unless he could have told his alibi to the lawyer that night before he was murdered the next morning. Then, as I said, I don't know what would happen to that information or the lawyer he talked to.  I need the help of a lawyer but so far none has stepped forward to help.

 

I don't think accepting Nichols' offer per se would have accelerated his murder any sooner than when it was done the next morning. Oswald's mere indication that he was pursuing a lawyer was enough to doom him quickly.

[Greg Doudna]

Roger, is it certain Oswald (if he were innocent) would have known that he needed an alibi for being somewhere other than at a window shooting at the time of the shots? Would Oswald have known that a rifle had been found on the 6th floor, or that the shots came from there? Everyone else in the world knew that from TV news, but did Oswald have access to TV news? Or to other prisoners who did who would tell him? Nothing in the interrogation reports seems to verify him being told specifically of what was found on the 6th floor, or that a Mannlicher-Carcano was found there and traced to him. Lots of earwitnesses were not sure where the shots came from, some thought they came from the Grassy Knoll, others thought from the TSBD but few had any clear idea of where in the TSBD exactly. How would Oswald know what alibi in terms of location he needed, specifically?

Another question: when Oswald learned he was being charged with the assassination of Kennedy, is it certain he understand that to mean he was charged with shooting the rifle that killed JFK? There are charges that could be brought against persons or conspirators in the assassination who may not necessarily have been gunmen. Oswald would have known he was being suspected and accused of involvement in the assassination, and a reporter in the hall asked if he shot the president, but is it certain Oswald realized the police thought he had personally shot JFK? Unless he knew that, he might not not know of need or significance in establishing his precise location at the moment JFK was shot, or that that necessarily was an issue. 

Your questions re Oswald's establishing an alibi assume Oswald knew what it was he needed an alibi for, and while that has always been assumed, and may be so, just for the record how is that known as distinguished from assumed? 

[Tom Gram]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Another question: when Oswald learned he was being charged with the assassination of Kennedy, is it certain he understand that to mean he was charged with shooting the rifle that killed JFK? There are charges that could be brought against persons or conspirators in the assassination who may not necessarily have been gunmen. Oswald would have known he was being suspected and accused of involvement in the assassination, and a reporter in the hall asked if he shot the president, but is it certain Oswald realized the police thought he had personally shot JFK? Unless he knew that, he might not not know of need or significance in establishing his precise location at the moment JFK was shot, or that that necessarily was an issue. 

I think Greg Parker has brought up this point before, since Abt had been in the press for defending Smith Act cases, or something along those lines. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

Are there any more details on Oswald being questioned by Judge Johnston?  Most of those present "didn't remember" when asked what LHO said during that event. All I can find is what LHO said to the press (that he had protested for not being allowed legal representation).

Nichols did nothing, he didn't even know (....) ACLU lawyers were among his Dallas bar association (if we can believe that)

The ACLU didn't even bother to actually see LHO himself, they were there (actually hiding behind Nichols statements, the Judge, etc).  One of them did say later on (...) he regretted not having asked to see LHO himself (what kind of a lawyer is that???).

So, all those lawyers involved had some really really poor excuses... 

My guess : nobody wanted to do it, so his choice wouldn't have made a difference

[Roger Odisio]

12 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Roger, is it certain Oswald (if he were innocent) would have known that he needed an alibi for being somewhere other than at a window shooting at the time of the shots? Would Oswald have known that a rifle had been found on the 6th floor, or that the shots came from there? Everyone else in the world knew that from TV news, but did Oswald have access to TV news? Or to other prisoners who did who would tell him? Nothing in the interrogation reports seems to verify him being told specifically of what was found on the 6th floor, or that a Mannlicher-Carcano was found there and traced to him. Lots of earwitnesses were not sure where the shots came from, some thought they came from the Grassy Knoll, others thought from the TSBD but few had any clear idea of where in the TSBD exactly. How would Oswald know what alibi in terms of location he needed, specifically?

Another question: when Oswald learned he was being charged with the assassination of Kennedy, is it certain he understand that to mean he was charged with shooting the rifle that killed JFK? There are charges that could be brought against persons or conspirators in the assassination who may not necessarily have been gunmen. Oswald would have known he was being suspected and accused of involvement in the assassination, and a reporter in the hall asked if he shot the president, but is it certain Oswald realized the police thought he had personally shot JFK? Unless he knew that, he might not not know of need or significance in establishing his precise location at the moment JFK was shot, or that that necessarily was an issue. 

Your questions re Oswald's establishing an alibi assume Oswald knew what it was he needed an alibi for, and while that has always been assumed, and may be so, just for the record how is that known as distinguished from assumed? 

According to Hosty's notes of Oswald's first interrogation after being arrested, Oswald said that after eating lunch he went outside to see the "p. parade". We don't know exactly when that was or what he saw. If you have ever been to DP you know that if Oswald was the shadowy figure on the steps in Darnell and Weigman he couldn't have seen the fatal head shots.

As you know the questioning was not recorded and everyone there was supposed to destroy their notes.  Hosty didn't.  He wrote a book in the mid 90s to take advantage of the renewed interest in the case.  He didn't mention Oswald saying that. But he turned over his notes to NARA where Bart Kamp discovered the one in question.

It's reasonable to conclude Oswald must have been asked a question or two about where he was when Kennedy was murdered.  Whether or not that meant to him he was a suspect, he freely gave his answer. It was his alibi.

I'm not sure it matters if the rifle was brought up in that first questioning.  He needn't have known what story they were going to go with that implicated him.  He simply offered his alibi when asked.  

But it seems likely that he got an indication that the cops thought he was a suspect.

Oswald blurted out I'm just a patsy in the hallway that evening after he is asked 4 times in about 20 seconds "did you shoot (or kill) the president?". After his denial, he had offered another reason for his arrest he probably though might get the cops and reporters off his tail:  he was taken in because he lived in the Soviet Union.

He was already anticipating that whatever they charged him with, they were going to add to it that he was a commie.  Hence the reason he wanted John Abt as his lawyer. 

The questions in the hallway the first night of did you kill the president seems to mean did you personally shoot him. Some reporters may have been simply fishing for a sensational story.  But If I'm Oswald I'm going to assume they had gotten information from the cops.

Oswald "established an alibi" because the cops asked him to. He was a 24 year old kid without a lawyer who could advise him. During his remaining few hours to live, he probably became clear about what the cops were up to.  

[Greg Doudna]

 

59 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

According to Hosty's notes of Oswald's first interrogation after being arrested, Oswald said that after eating lunch he went outside to see the "p. parade". We don't know exactly when that was or what he saw. If you have ever been to DP you know that if Oswald was the shadowy figure on the steps in Darnell and Weigman he couldn't have seen the fatal head shots.

As you know the questioning was not recorded and everyone there was supposed to destroy their notes.  Hosty didn't.  He wrote a book in the mid 90s to take advantage of the renewed interest in the case.  He didn't mention Oswald saying that. But he turned over his notes to NARA where Bart Kamp discovered the one in question.

It's reasonable to conclude Oswald must have been asked a question or two about where he was when Kennedy was murdered.  Whether or not that meant to him he was a suspect, he freely gave his answer. It was his alibi.

I'm not sure it matters if the rifle was brought up in that first questioning.  He needn't have known what story they were going to go with that implicated him.  He simply offered his alibi when asked.  

But it seems likely that he got an indication that the cops thought he was a suspect.

Oswald blurted out I'm just a patsy in the hallway that evening after he is asked 4 times in about 20 seconds "did you shoot (or kill) the president?". After his denial, he had offered another reason for his arrest he probably though might get the cops and reporters off his tail:  he was taken in because he lived in the Soviet Union.

He was already anticipating that whatever they charged him with, they were going to add to it that he was a commie.  Hence the reason he wanted John Abt as his lawyer. 

The questions in the hallway the first night of did you kill the president seems to mean did you personally shoot him. Some reporters may have been simply fishing for a sensational story.  But If I'm Oswald I'm going to assume they had gotten information from the cops.

Oswald "established an alibi" because the cops asked him to. He was a 24 year old kid without a lawyer who could advise him. During his remaining few hours to live, he probably became clear about what the cops were up to.  

Seems like a fair analysis.

Fritz in his WC testimony says he did tell Oswald he was accused of shooting JFK, also Connally, and that Oswald denied shooting either one, though Fritz says he had not put that in his written report. Therefore as you say he would have realized the importance of an alibi proving he was not a shooter. I am still unclear how much Oswald was told about the rifle find on the 6th floor.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever ask him what he thought of President Kennedy or his family?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him what he thought of the President. 
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. What he thought about the family--he said he didn't have any particular comment to make about the President.
He said he had a nice family, that he admired his family, something to that effect. At one time, I don't have this in my report, but at one time I told him, I said, "You know you have killed the President, and this is a very serious charge."
He denied it and said he hadn't killed the President.
I said he had been killed. He said people will forget that within a few days and there would be another President.
Mr. DULLES. Did he say anything about Governor Connally?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't think I questioned him about the Governor at that time. I might have asked him at one time. I remember telling him at one time he shot the Governor.
Mr. DULLES. Will you give us that?
Mr. FRITZ. He denied shooting any of them.

[Tony Rose]

On 5/2/2024 at 1:03 PM, Roger Odisio said:

I woke up this morning thinking about that all-time great movie, Sophie's Choice. Oswald had a similar life or death choice to make.

 

From the time of his arrest in the theater, Oswald was clamoring for a lawyer.  When, soon after his arrest that Friday, the jackals in the hall screamed "did you kill the president", Oswald said no sir I didn't. Finally, as the question was repeated he screamed I'm  just a patsy, as he was shoved into an elevator.  He realized he was being framed for the JFKA.

 

 

This may seem like nitpicking, but Oswald didn't scream anything. He raised his voice. "Screamed" carries a helluva lot of connotations that are not present in "in a loud voice." Precision in language would be the savior of out grand investigation if we all engaged in it, instead of e-screaming.

[Roger Odisio]

16 hours ago, Tony Rose said:

This may seem like nitpicking, but Oswald didn't scream anything. He raised his voice. "Screamed" carries a helluva lot of connotations that are not present in "in a loud voice." Precision in language would be the savior of out grand investigation if we all engaged in it, instead of e-screaming.

I said it was the reporters, not Oswald, that screamed at him, did you kill the president.  But actually both yelled something at the end of the session..  The reporters asked him that question incessantly, 4 times in roughly 20 seconds. The first three questions were delivered calmly. 

Then, as Oswald is being directed into an elevator to end the session, he declares in a loud voice, I'm just a patsy. At the same time a reporter is asking, for the fourth time, did you kill the president, also in a loud voice.

Would you accept yelled instead of screamed?

 

[Tony Rose]

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I said it was the reporters, not Oswald, that screamed at him, did you kill the president.  But actually both yelled something at the end of the session..  The reporters asked him that question incessantly, 4 times in roughly 20 seconds. The first three questions were delivered calmly. 

Then, as Oswald is being directed into an elevator to end the session, he declares in a loud voice, I'm just a patsy. At the same time a reporter is asking, for the fourth time, did you kill the president, also in a loud voice.

Would you accept yelled instead of screamed?

 

"he screamed I'm  just a patsy, as he was shoved into an elevator" Your words.

"Scream" generally results from pain or fear, with a connotation of hysteria. "Yell" additionally be from surprise or enthusiasm.

As said, some might see this a picking nits, but I would not qualify Oswald as hysterical, but insistent.

[Bill Simpich]

My belief has always been that Oswald was told by whoever was handling him to ask for John Abt or the ACLU.

The John Abt request led right to a man who was not only 1000 miles away, but general counsel to the Communist Party.  Want a war with Cuba?  Tie LHO to the CPUSA.

The Paines were ACLU members.  The ACLU was considered to be a group of commie sympathizers to many people...minor league Communist Party.  Michael Paine looks like he convinced LHO to join the ACLU in the month before his death.  The ACLU had a black eye after that came out.  That organization - which did a lot of good work - was totally compromised.   They did not come sprinting to LHO's aid on Nov. 23, after he issued his call for help on TV the night of the 22nd.

LHO called Ruth Paine on the 23rd, asking her to expedite his attempts to reach John Abt.  She did virtually nothing, maybe one phone call and nothing more.  As I recall, she said she was resentful that LHO was asking for her help in finding an attorney.  She could have found him an ACLU attorney if she had really cared.  I'm sure she did not want to be calling up Communist Party members.

I think it was more than bad luck that LHO did not find a real attorney before his death that he could trust with his story.  If I was his handler, the Abt/ACLU story is what I would have told him if I wanted to burn up a couple of days.   LHO was considering private counsel by the time he spoke to local bar association member Nichols the night of the 23rd.   It is tragic that Nichols could not convince him to trust him - I don't think Nichols made a serious attempt.  I don't know why.

I believe the plan was for LHO to never get out of the TSBD, and in any case to never leave the theater alive - and the fallback plan was that he was told in advance to ask for Abt or the ACLU if "anything happened".  That would dirty him up even more, make any search for an attorney even more difficult, and give the planners a chance to bump him off.

The attorney-client privilege gets pretty wobbly after the client is dead, because the client is the one who is holding the privilege.  Once the client is dead, the attorney often feels s/he is free to talk.

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

My belief has always been that Oswald was told by whoever was handling him to ask for John Abt or the ACLU.

The John Abt request led right to a man who was not only 1000 miles away, but general counsel to the Communist Party.  Want a war with Cuba?  Tie LHO to the CPUSA.

The Paines were ACLU members.  The ACLU was considered to be a group of commie sympathizers to many people...minor league Communist Party.  Michael Paine looks like he convinced LHO to join the ACLU in the month before his death.  The ACLU had a black eye after that came out.  That organization - which did a lot of good work - was totally compromised.   They did not come sprinting to LHO's aid on Nov. 23, after he issued his call for help on TV the night of the 22nd.

LHO called Ruth Paine on the 23rd, asking her to expedite his attempts to reach John Abt.  She did virtually nothing, maybe one phone call and nothing more.  As I recall, she said she was resentful that LHO was asking for her help in finding an attorney.  She could have found him an ACLU attorney if she had really cared.  I'm sure she did not want to be calling up Communist Party members.

I think it was more than bad luck that LHO did not find a real attorney before his death that he could trust with his story.  If I was his handler, the Abt/ACLU story is what I would have told him if I wanted to burn up a couple of days.   LHO was considering private counsel by the time he spoke to local bar association member Nichols the night of the 23rd.   It is tragic that Nichols could not convince him to trust him - I don't think Nichols made a serious attempt.  I don't know why.

I believe the plan was for LHO to never get out of the TSBD, and in any case to never leave the theater alive - and the fallback plan was that he was told in advance to ask for Abt or the ACLU if "anything happened".  That would dirty him up even more, make any search for an attorney even more difficult, and give the planners a chance to bump him off.

The attorney-client privilege gets pretty wobbly after the client is dead, because the client is the one who is holding the privilege.  Once the client is dead, the attorney often feels s/he is free to talk.

When Oswald was confronted that first night with questions as to whether he had killed JFK, he sought to parry them by saying, no, the reason he was arrested was because he had been living in the Soviet Union.  That can explain his asking for Abt, who was known to have defended accused communists. Whether he knew that on his own or was told by handlers.

 

That means, to the extent it had dawned on him that he was going to be charged with killing JFK, he likely had already expected they would use the SU incident against him with a jury.  As you suggest.

 

Nichols made clear in his talk with the press that he visited Oswald on his own as Bar Assn president.  He noticed Oswald did not yet have a lawyer.  He probably knew or suspected the police were questioning him without one.  He thought it was his duty to offer to try to find one if Oswald wanted him to. He was not a criminal lawyer and had no one in mind at that point. When Oswald turned his offer down (but said he might take him up later) his job was done.

 

It's interesting to speculate what Nichols would have done if Oswald had said could you send one over here tonight; I didn't do it and they're questioning me without a lawyer.

 

In fact that's the kind of scenario that interests me.  What if Oswald had told his alibi to a lawyer before they killed him?  What happens then?  What if anything would his lawyer do with what Oswald told him?  What could he do? What would you have done, Bill, if the lawyer was you?

 

You're trying to get access to the Darnell and Weigman films in the MFF lawsuit.  If Oswald told you he went out on the steps to watch the motorcade, would the D&W films be the first thing you sought from those villains at NBC?  Would you have standing to do that if your client was dead?