Challenging Universally Accepted Truths

[Robert Howard]

Greg,

Thought this might be of some interest.

James

James, you were right. I did. Great stuff and much appreciated.

I hesitate to add to this thread since the comments are of a speculative nature, but I honestly believe there is a great deal of logic in them. I agree with Jim Root that the Smith Act looms in the background as a very significant item, accordingly if this is a bona fide issue, then the question becomes, did Oswald have knowledge of any then existant situation which would come into play at his trial, or did he anticipate that his alleged involvement in the assassination was going to be linked by his accusers as part of a plan to bring the overthrow of the government about.......?

Logic dictates that the former is more plausible, but, obviously just an opinion.......

One of the most frustrating unresolved issues regarding various allegations regarding the assassination, in this case of a right-wing extremist i.e. General Edwin Walker, one which he voiced practically until his death, was the statement that "Oswald and Ruby had been arrested after the attempt on his life, but that, on orders from Washington, the Dallas Police were forced to release them."

While the issue of secrets remaining so, for decades has always been a topic of great debate, [see Mark Felt, Deepthroat......etc...] I believe that the allegation is nothing but a myth, and if Oswald and Ruby had been arrested after the Walker shooting, that Someone Would Have Talked.........

Thus, if that is the case, the whole myth of the arrests, was nothing more than a possible Plan B, to add Ruby to the conspiracy, perhaps if anything unravelled.........If so then it was another alternative that wasn't needed......Just a thought......

[Robert Howard]

This may be off-topic but some will see its relevance

[Jim Root]

Greg

Just some thoughts:

"That's one of the flaws, as I see it: Oswald did not let everyone know who he wanted. The only thing he said publicly was "I am waiting for someone to come forward to give me legal assistance."

Oswald was waiting for someone....Abt. This is consistant with what he said to the Dallas attorney that visited him.

"If he in fact did know, I would surmise it was through Ruth Paine, since Abt's wife was (or had been) on the AFSC board. Recall that Oswald allegedly rang Ruth for help in getting Abt - and that an internal Dallas ACLU investigation had concluded Oswald had attended that one meeting with Ruth - not Michael."

I believe that there is enough consistant evidence to show that Oswald repeatedly spoke of the Smith Act in conjunction with his desire to have Abt represent him. The ACLU was secondary to the Smith Act in Oswalds desire to have Abt. It is this apparent knowledge of the Smith Act by Oswald that I find so intriguing. If looked at together with the backyard photos (taken prior to the Walker assassination attempt) we find Oswald holding two different magazines from two organizations that did not agree with each other yet both had, at different times been targeted by the Smith Act.

In consideration of this particular information it is my belief that Oswald was building his defense and his desire to have Abt act as his attorney was based upon his knowledge of these two different organizations and how the government had played 1st one then the other against themselves (perhaps just as the government had played him).

""Yet that very night, Henry Wade, who presumably had been briefed for the interview, was asked by the press if Oswald had yet engaged a lawyer, to which Wade replied, "His people have been here, but we don't know of any particular individual."

This is consistant with the testimony. Oswald had not "engaged a lawyer." he was holding out for Abt, the Smith Act Attorney.

"Later that day, Curry faced the media. At one point, he was told by an unknown reporter from NBC that Oswald had been yelling and complaining about no attorney, before being asked if he had one yet. Curry's curt reply: "Not that I know of." Meanwhile Bob Clark of WFAA was claiming to Curry that Oswald had told him that he wanted Abt. Clark then asked Curry if he knew who Oswald had been referring to. Curry replied, "No, I don't" despite having been present during Oswald's appearance before David Johnson in which again, Oswald had allegedly asked for Abt."

It seems that by the time of the Clark question even the press was aware of who Oswald wanted as his attorney making Currys reply at that time rather unifomed if not moot.

"Does it really make any sense that Oswald would be keen as mustard to tell every official he could that he wanted Abt, whisper to a reporter that he wanted Abt… but specifically refrain from saying so with the worlds microphones pointed at him?"

There are many things about the assassination of JFK that do not make much sense, which if we could understand them all would make this case much simpler. I still believe that there is enough in the record to show that Oswald wanted Abt, that Oswald never got a hold of Abt, that Oswald was aware of Abt's involvment in the Smith Act cases and that Oswald had a knowledge of the Smith Act.

Have you ever read NSC-68?

Interesting document for my research.

Jim Root

[William O'Neil]

Greg

Just some thoughts:

"That's one of the flaws, as I see it: Oswald did not let everyone know who he wanted. The only thing he said publicly was "I am waiting for someone to come forward to give me legal assistance."

Oswald was waiting for someone....Abt. This is consistant with what he said to the Dallas attorney that visited him.

"If he in fact did know, I would surmise it was through Ruth Paine, since Abt's wife was (or had been) on the AFSC board. Recall that Oswald allegedly rang Ruth for help in getting Abt - and that an internal Dallas ACLU investigation had concluded Oswald had attended that one meeting with Ruth - not Michael."

I believe that there is enough consistant evidence to show that Oswald repeatedly spoke of the Smith Act in conjunction with his desire to have Abt represent him. The ACLU was secondary to the Smith Act in Oswalds desire to have Abt. It is this apparent knowledge of the Smith Act by Oswald that I find so intriguing. If looked at together with the backyard photos (taken prior to the Walker assassination attempt) we find Oswald holding two different magazines from two organizations that did not agree with each other yet both had, at different times been targeted by the Smith Act.

In consideration of this particular information it is my belief that Oswald was building his defense and his desire to have Abt act as his attorney was based upon his knowledge of these two different organizations and how the government had played 1st one then the other against themselves (perhaps just as the government had played him).

""Yet that very night, Henry Wade, who presumably had been briefed for the interview, was asked by the press if Oswald had yet engaged a lawyer, to which Wade replied, "His people have been here, but we don't know of any particular individual."

[What

This is consistant with the testimony. Oswald had not "engaged a lawyer." he was holding out for Abt, the Smith Act Attorney.

"Later that day, Curry faced the media. At one point, he was told by an unknown reporter from NBC that Oswald had been yelling and complaining about no attorney, before being asked if he had one yet. Curry's curt reply: "Not that I know of." Meanwhile Bob Clark of WFAA was claiming to Curry that Oswald had told him that he wanted Abt. Clark then asked Curry if he knew who Oswald had been referring to. Curry replied, "No, I don't" despite having been present during Oswald's appearance before David Johnson in which again, Oswald had allegedly asked for Abt."

It seems that by the time of the Clark question even the press was aware of who Oswald wanted as his attorney making Currys reply at that time rather unifomed if not moot.

"Does it really make any sense that Oswald would be keen as mustard to tell every official he could that he wanted Abt, whisper to a reporter that he wanted Abt… but specifically refrain from saying so with the worlds microphones pointed at him?"

There are many things about the assassination of JFK that do not make much sense, which if we could understand them all would make this case much simpler. I still believe that there is enough in the record to show that Oswald wanted Abt, that Oswald never got a hold of Abt, that Oswald was aware of Abt's involvment in the Smith Act cases and that Oswald had a knowledge of the Smith Act.

Have you ever read NSC-68?

Interesting document for my research.

Jim Root

Jim and Greg,

What amazes me about Wade, is how absolutely stupid and uninformed this guy seems about events happening around him , and of which, he SHOULD be informed . It makes me wonder if this was by design. (?)

[Greg Parker]

Very nice Jim! Let us not forget that Adele Edison said that Rivera told her that Oswald would, " Ask for a lawyer named Abt"!

Bill, she may well have added, "and if he doesn't, they'll just say he did. He won't be around long enough to deny it."

But all of that presupposes he was going to be captured in the first place.

During testimony, Nichols claimed Curry made this comment: "I am glad that you came down and talked to him. At least that takes a problem off of us about not furnishing him a lawyer."

Of course, that problem could have been solved earlier when Greg Olds made his inquiries.

I remain convinced Oswald never mention the ACLU, and that it's unlikely he mentioned Abt.

The cops on the other hand, would not have known anything about Abt, so they are ruled out as the original source. However, they got the info on Abt from somewhere - and for that, I would look to Chuck Webster and Greer Raggio.

[Greg Parker]

Continuing my reply to Jim... (mine in red)

“I said I wanted to contact Attorney Abt, New York. He defended the Smith Act cases in 1949, 1950, but I don’t know his address, except that it is in New York….”

On Saturday afternoon, November 23, 1963, around 3:30 PM Oswald made a telephone call to Ruth Paine

Ruth Paine:

I said, “Well, hi.” And he said he wanted to ask me to call Mr. John Abt in New York for him after 6:00 PM. He gave me a telephone number of an office in New York and a residence in New York…He said he was an (the) attorney he wanted to have…

She also said she was "stunned" and "appalled" by the request. What a circus performance that must have been for the kids... watch in Awe as The Amazing Woman of Two Faces Attempts to Add to That Huge Repertoire with "Stunned" and "Appalled"! Come one, come all..."

Oswald’s mother confirmed Ruth Paine’s story when the Warren Commission questioned her. Marguerite Oswald recalled the call she received from Ruth Paine.

Marguerite Oswald:

…the telephone rang, and it was Mrs. Paine. She said, “Mrs Oswald, Lee called and he was very upset because Marina was not with me, and he asked me to get a lawyer for him, a Mr. Abt.”

Marguerite was only confirming what she'd been told by Ruth "family ties to the CIA all over the place" Paine.

At 6:30 P.M. on November 22nd Oswald was a part of a police lineup for three witnesses to the Jefferson Davis Tippit murder. The three witnesses were Cecil J. McWatters, Sam Guiyard, and Ted Callaway. Once again Oswald is quoted as saying:

“I want to get in touch with a lawyer, Mr. Abt, in New York City…”

Quoted as saying is not proof he said it.

Early the next morning, at 1:35 A.M., November 24, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was arraigned for the Murder with Malice of John F. Kennedy when he said:

“Well, sir, I guess this is the trial…I want to contact my lawyer, Mr. Abt, in New York City. I would like to have this gentleman. He is with the American Civil Liberties Union.”

Ditto.

Mr. Abt was never a member of the American Civil Liberties Union. He was general counsel for the Senate Sub-Committee on Civil Liberties from 1935-1937, and was later a legal advisor for the Progressive Party from 1948-1951. He worked with and knew Alger Hiss and has been, many times, labeled as a communist.

If he knows all about Abt, why is he under the misapprehension that Abt was with the ACLU? That sounds more like the kind of blurred lines error that would come from your local bone-headed anti-communist constabulary. They were given the right information, but a slip like this was almost inevitable.

But Lee Harvey Oswald was absolutely correct on his other statement; a study of John Abt’s biography demonstrates that he had indeed represented people accused of violating the Smith Act. Oswald, it seems, was familiar enough with the Smith Act cases that had begun fifteen years earlier, when Oswald was eight years old. He had knowledge of Mr. Abt that he knew where Jonathon Abt could be located (New York). Oswald knew that these particular cases had actually occurred more than a decade earlier.

On November 23, 1963, H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar Association, contacted Oswald for a brief discussion at 5:30 P.M.:

Oswald

“….Do you know a lawyer in New York named John Abt? I believe in New York City. I would like to have him represent me. That is the man I would like.”

Jim, that's a bit cheeky… making it look like you're quoting Oswald when in fact you are quoting what Nichols claims Oswald said.

Now let's look at what follows:

"…and at some period I believe prior to that, either in talking to the police, or talking to--must have been talking to either Captain King or the chief---I had been told that some effort had been made to get hold of Mr. Abt, and that he was in Connecticut at his home, and maybe, and I have forgotten who said who was trying to get ahold of him. At least, I did vaguely know that someone was trying to get ahold of him, but I told Mr. Oswald I didn't know him."

As pointed out in the Third Decade article, if Nichols was really there to help Oswald, why didn't he tell Oswald that Abt was not available? Even if he did not know that, why didn't he at least offer to contact him for Oswald? Was blurting Oswald's alleged choice to the media an act designed to help Oswald, or summon and disseminate the Commie boogie to nudge along public opinion?

Assistant counsel for the President’s Commission, Mr. Samuel A. Stern, interviewed James W. Bookhout on April 8, 1964. Bookhout was a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation stationed in Dallas at the time of the assassination. He was present at several of the interrogations of Oswald at the invitation of Captain Will Fritz. On the morning of November 24, 1963, James Bookhout participated in an interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald conducted by Captain Fritz and was later questioned about his knowledge of this event. Also present at the Oswald interrogation were T.J Kelly and David B. Grant, of the U.S. Secret Service, Robert I. Nash, a U.S. Marshall and Detectives Billy L. Senkel and Fay M. Turner of the Homicide and Robbery Bureau of the Dallas Police Department.

Mr. Bookhout:

Yes. It was in this interview that he (Oswald) mentioned he wanted to contact Attorney Abt (spelling) A-b-t, New York City. I recall Captain Fritz asked him if he knew Abt personally and he said he did not, but he explained that he knew that Abt had defended the Smith Act cases in 1949, or 1950, and Captain Fritz asked him if he knew how to get ahold of Mr. Abt, and he stated that he did not know what his address was, but he was in New York.

And then you have Holmes' testimony that Oswald asked for Abt during the last interrogation. IF that really happened, why was everyone in the room silent. Why didn't someone tell Oswald Abt had declined? It was a fact well publicized by then

On April 17, 1964, just nine days after James Bookhout was interviewed by Warren Commission attorneys, J. Lee Rankin, general counsel for the Warren Commission, and Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the Presidents’ Commission interviewed John Abt. (Warren Commision Report) Wesley J. Liebeler was also the Warren Commission Attorney that interviewed General Walker.

Unfortunately for history, the interview was amazingly short. J. Lee Rankin neglected to probe into Abt’s involvement in the Smith Act cases, even when the opportunity afforded itself. The total transcript of Jonathan Abt’s interview contains less than two pages of questions and responses. The longest statement made by Abt dwelt with how, because he and his wife were at their mountain retreat, he had missed the calls that Lee Harvey Oswald had made to him from the Dallas Police Department jail. Were the Warren Commissioners and the American public denied an opportunity to understand that a possible Oswald defense was to center around Jonathan Abt’s knowledge of the Smith Act?

Reading the transcript of Abt’s testimony, I was surprised, not by what was there but once again, by what was missing. Lee Harvey Oswald repeatedly stated that he desired Jonathan Abt as his attorney because Abt had represented clients in Smith Act cases. But the questioning by the General Council for the Warren Commission went in a different direction:

Mr. Rankin.

“Mr. Abt, did you learn that Lee Harvey Oswald was interested in having you represent him apparently because of some prior connection of yours with the American Civil Liberties Union?”

Mr. Abt.

“No. My assumption was, and it is pure assumption, that he read about some of my representation in the press, and, therefore, it occurred to him that I might be a god man to represent him, but that is pure assumption on my part. I have no direct knowledge of the whole matter.”

(Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. X, p. 116)

Mr. Rankin then asked:

“You have told us all that you know about it?

Mr. Abt.

“Yes. I may say that I had no prior contact with Oswald, knew nothing about him, did not know the name, and this request came as something entirely new and surprising to me when it came.”

Mr. Rankin.

“None of your clients had ever communicated to you about him prior to that time you heard about it over the radio?”

Mr. Abt.

“No; I had no recollection of even having heard the name, his name, before that time.”

Mr. Rankin.

“Thank you.”

At this point the interview was ended. The Warren Commission gathered no further information about Johathan Abt nor was there any speculation about why Lee Harvey Oswald would be so insistent upon having an attorney that was familiar with the Smith Act. An act designed to prosecute for advocating the over-through of the Government of the United States.

What can we speculate about any possible Oswald defense?

Only that he was never ever going to have any.

The mother of Lee Harvey Oswald Marguerite Oswald, and his wife, Marina Oswald visited Lee at 1:10 P.M. November 24, 1963 for about 20 minutes. At this meeting Oswald again reiterated his desire to have Abt as his attorney.

“Everything is fine. I know my rights, and I will have an attorney. I already requested to get in touch with Attorney Abt,…”

Yet later she would write that all he said in regard to legal help was "do not worry mother, I will get an attorney." If that is indeed all he said, then her recollection for the Warren Commission was based on that, but adding the name Abt as being based on what he'd heard from others.

In 1993 we learned more about the thoughts of Marina Oswald when her friend and biographer, Priscilla McMillan appeared on the television show Frontline.

Historian Priscilla Johnson McMillan was a reporter in Moscow in the 1950’s and interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald shortly after his defection to the Soviet Union. Later, after the Kennedy assassination, McMillan befriended Oswald’s widow, Marina, and the two spent considerable time together. In 1977, McMillan wrote “Marina and Lee,” an intimate portrait of the Oswalds’ life together. In an interview conducted in conjunction with the first broadcast of Frontline’s “Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?” in 1993, Priscilla Johnson McMillan made this statement:

“Lee, in jail, told Marina that she had friends, that they would help her. He told her that there was someone in New York who would help him. He was counting on John Abt, lawyer for the American Communist party, to be his lawyer. He telephoned Ruth Paine and asked her to call Abt. Marina thought, when she saw Lee in jail, she could see that he was frightened. But then she thought that he would use the trial to proclaim his ideas, and to say that what he had done was justified by History.”

Marina never mentioned anything about help from NY or from Abt in her testimony as far as I recall.

Frontline also interviewed Robert Oswald, Lee’s older brother, about Abt:

“I asked him about this lawyer in New York…and I told him I would get him one down here, meaning in Texas. He said no, he wanted that one up there. I didn’t press it any further. He was seeming to be pretty adamant about it. …”

Yet in the contemporaneous news story posted by JR, Wade is quoted as saying that Robert had informed him the family had no money to pay for a lawyer.

Robert is also the source of the entirely fictitious claim that Oswald's youth was vicariously lived through the TV show, "I Led Three Lives". This show made its debut on Oct 4, 1953. Robert's claim was that Lee was STILL watching it in 1952 when he (Robert) left their Fort Worth home to join the Marines.

Was the assassination of John F. Kennedy an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States? If so, it failed. It did succeed in showing the world that our Constitutional government was not only resilient but that it could, again, survive another cataclysmic event just as it had done numerous times before.

I believe Lee Harvey Oswald knew his history well enough to know that a single event would not change our government. But we can question why Oswald would be so intent on having Abt act as his attorney. Since the record shows that he repeatedly stated the reason he wanted Abt was his connection to the Smith Act Trials, I began to wonder, was Oswald going to use his trial to accuse someone, or group, of violating the Smith Act? I remembered that Oswald had left information behind that would have been found if he had been apprehended for assassinating Edwin Walker. Did he have a motive? Did he believe he need a trial?

Did Oswald have a reason to believe that someone or some group was attempting to over-through the government?

Remember:

“She (Marina) testified that Oswald said that General Walker ‘was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that might be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives.”

If a trial had taken place would anybody believe that Kennedy had violated the Smith Act in some way that could justify taking the life of the President?

The strange thing is, Major General Edwin Anderson Walker would seem to be the more obvious choice if Oswald’s intent was going to be to accuse someone of attempting to overthrow the government. But it would also seem to be irrational to believe that Oswald would be siding with Walker and his “right wing” accusations that were being leveled against the Kennedy Administration. Is there any connection? The question began to haunt me.

In 1951 twenty-three Communists were indicted using the Smith Act. By 1957 the number had grown to over 140. It would take a number of Supreme Court decisions in 1957 to finally halt the parade of prosecutions. The two most important were Yates v. United States and Watkins v. United States. In Watkins the Court ruled that a defendant who had opted not to use the Fifth Amendment could still use the First Amendment against “abuses of the legislative process.” The vote was six to one, with Chief Justice Earl Warren writing the majority opinion.

Is it a coincidence that Earl Warren was associated with the use of the Smith Act to prosecute communists, first as a candidate for the vice-presidency in 1948 and then as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1957? In 1963 many conservatives in the United States considered Warren, the former Republican Governor of California for eight years, a left wing radical. Did Justice Earl Warren influence the commission to eliminate any mention of the Smith Act cases from the final report of his commission?

When Jack Ruby fired his fatal shots the American public lost the opportunity to witness the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. The jury of public opinion lost our opportunity to hear more about the possible defense strategy that would be used to defend Lee Harvey Oswald when the telephone calls to Jonathan Abt went unanswered.

On Sunday morning November 25th 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was himself assassinated while being transferred to a more permanent jail site to await prosecution. At the time of his death, Lee Harvey Oswald had very few items in his possession. One item of significance was a sheet of paper with two phone numbers written on it. Those phone numbers were the telephone numbers for Jonathan Abt.

Jim Root

Edited February 2, 2008 by Greg Parker

[William O'Neil]

Continuing my reply to Jim... (mine in red)

“I said I wanted to contact Attorney Abt, New York. He defended the Smith Act cases in 1949, 1950, but I don’t know his address, except that it is in New York….”

On Saturday afternoon, November 23, 1963, around 3:30 PM Oswald made a telephone call to Ruth Paine

Ruth Paine:

I said, “Well, hi.” And he said he wanted to ask me to call Mr. John Abt in New York for him after 6:00 PM. He gave me a telephone number of an office in New York and a residence in New York…He said he was an (the) attorney he wanted to have…

She also said she was "stunned" and "appalled" by the request. What a circus performance that must have been for the kids... watch in Awe as The Amazing Woman of Two Faces Attempts to Add to That Huge Repertoire with "Stunned" and "Appalled"! Come one, come all..."

Oswald’s mother confirmed Ruth Paine’s story when the Warren Commission questioned her. Marguerite Oswald recalled the call she received from Ruth Paine.

Marguerite Oswald:

…the telephone rang, and it was Mrs. Paine. She said, “Mrs Oswald, Lee called and he was very upset because Marina was not with me, and he asked me to get a lawyer for him, a Mr. Abt.”

Marguerite was only confirming what she'd been told by Ruth "family ties to the CIA all over the place" Paine.

At 6:30 P.M. on November 22nd Oswald was a part of a police lineup for three witnesses to the Jefferson Davis Tippit murder. The three witnesses were Cecil J. McWatters, Sam Guiyard, and Ted Callaway. Once again Oswald is quoted as saying:

“I want to get in touch with a lawyer, Mr. Abt, in New York City…”

Quoted as saying is not proof he said it.

Early the next morning, at 1:35 A.M., November 24, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was arraigned for the Murder with Malice of John F. Kennedy when he said:

“Well, sir, I guess this is the trial…I want to contact my lawyer, Mr. Abt, in New York City. I would like to have this gentleman. He is with the American Civil Liberties Union.”

Ditto.

Mr. Abt was never a member of the American Civil Liberties Union. He was general counsel for the Senate Sub-Committee on Civil Liberties from 1935-1937, and was later a legal advisor for the Progressive Party from 1948-1951. He worked with and knew Alger Hiss and has been, many times, labeled as a communist.

If he knows all about Abt, why is he under the misapprehension that Abt was with the ACLU? That sounds more like the kind of blurred lines error that would come from your local bone-headed anti-communist constabulary. They were given the right information, but a slip like this was almost inevitable.

But Lee Harvey Oswald was absolutely correct on his other statement; a study of John Abt’s biography demonstrates that he had indeed represented people accused of violating the Smith Act. Oswald, it seems, was familiar enough with the Smith Act cases that had begun fifteen years earlier, when Oswald was eight years old. He had knowledge of Mr. Abt that he knew where Jonathon Abt could be located (New York). Oswald knew that these particular cases had actually occurred more than a decade earlier.

On November 23, 1963, H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar Association, contacted Oswald for a brief discussion at 5:30 P.M.:

Oswald

“….Do you know a lawyer in New York named John Abt? I believe in New York City. I would like to have him represent me. That is the man I would like.”

Jim, that's a bit cheeky… making it look like you're quoting Oswald when in fact you are quoting what Nichols claims Oswald said.

Now let's look at what follows:

"…and at some period I believe prior to that, either in talking to the police, or talking to--must have been talking to either Captain King or the chief---I had been told that some effort had been made to get hold of Mr. Abt, and that he was in Connecticut at his home, and maybe, and I have forgotten who said who was trying to get ahold of him. At least, I did vaguely know that someone was trying to get ahold of him, but I told Mr. Oswald I didn't know him."

As pointed out in the Third Decade article, if Nichols was really there to help Oswald, why didn't he tell Oswald that Abt was not available? Even if he did not know that, why didn't he at least offer to contact him for Oswald? Was blurting Oswald's alleged choice to the media an act designed to help Oswald, or summon and disseminate the Commie boogie to nudge along public opinion?

Assistant counsel for the President’s Commission, Mr. Samuel A. Stern, interviewed James W. Bookhout on April 8, 1964. Bookhout was a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation stationed in Dallas at the time of the assassination. He was present at several of the interrogations of Oswald at the invitation of Captain Will Fritz. On the morning of November 24, 1963, James Bookhout participated in an interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald conducted by Captain Fritz and was later questioned about his knowledge of this event. Also present at the Oswald interrogation were T.J Kelly and David B. Grant, of the U.S. Secret Service, Robert I. Nash, a U.S. Marshall and Detectives Billy L. Senkel and Fay M. Turner of the Homicide and Robbery Bureau of the Dallas Police Department.

Mr. Bookhout:

Yes. It was in this interview that he (Oswald) mentioned he wanted to contact Attorney Abt (spelling) A-b-t, New York City. I recall Captain Fritz asked him if he knew Abt personally and he said he did not, but he explained that he knew that Abt had defended the Smith Act cases in 1949, or 1950, and Captain Fritz asked him if he knew how to get ahold of Mr. Abt, and he stated that he did not know what his address was, but he was in New York.

And then you have Holmes' testimony that Oswald asked for Abt during the last interrogation. IF that really happened, why was everyone in the room silent. Why didn't someone tell Oswald Abt had declined? It was a fact well publicized by then

On April 17, 1964, just nine days after James Bookhout was interviewed by Warren Commission attorneys, J. Lee Rankin, general counsel for the Warren Commission, and Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the Presidents’ Commission interviewed John Abt. (Warren Commision Report) Wesley J. Liebeler was also the Warren Commission Attorney that interviewed General Walker.

Unfortunately for history, the interview was amazingly short. J. Lee Rankin neglected to probe into Abt’s involvement in the Smith Act cases, even when the opportunity afforded itself. The total transcript of Jonathan Abt’s interview contains less than two pages of questions and responses. The longest statement made by Abt dwelt with how, because he and his wife were at their mountain retreat, he had missed the calls that Lee Harvey Oswald had made to him from the Dallas Police Department jail. Were the Warren Commissioners and the American public denied an opportunity to understand that a possible Oswald defense was to center around Jonathan Abt’s knowledge of the Smith Act?

Reading the transcript of Abt’s testimony, I was surprised, not by what was there but once again, by what was missing. Lee Harvey Oswald repeatedly stated that he desired Jonathan Abt as his attorney because Abt had represented clients in Smith Act cases. But the questioning by the General Council for the Warren Commission went in a different direction:

Mr. Rankin.

“Mr. Abt, did you learn that Lee Harvey Oswald was interested in having you represent him apparently because of some prior connection of yours with the American Civil Liberties Union?”

Mr. Abt.

“No. My assumption was, and it is pure assumption, that he read about some of my representation in the press, and, therefore, it occurred to him that I might be a god man to represent him, but that is pure assumption on my part. I have no direct knowledge of the whole matter.”

(Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. X, p. 116)

Mr. Rankin then asked:

“You have told us all that you know about it?

Mr. Abt.

“Yes. I may say that I had no prior contact with Oswald, knew nothing about him, did not know the name, and this request came as something entirely new and surprising to me when it came.”

Mr. Rankin.

“None of your clients had ever communicated to you about him prior to that time you heard about it over the radio?”

Mr. Abt.

“No; I had no recollection of even having heard the name, his name, before that time.”

Mr. Rankin.

“Thank you.”

At this point the interview was ended. The Warren Commission gathered no further information about Johathan Abt nor was there any speculation about why Lee Harvey Oswald would be so insistent upon having an attorney that was familiar with the Smith Act. An act designed to prosecute for advocating the over-through of the Government of the United States.

What can we speculate about any possible Oswald defense?

Only that he was never ever going to have any.

The mother of Lee Harvey Oswald Marguerite Oswald, and his wife, Marina Oswald visited Lee at 1:10 P.M. November 24, 1963 for about 20 minutes. At this meeting Oswald again reiterated his desire to have Abt as his attorney.

“Everything is fine. I know my rights, and I will have an attorney. I already requested to get in touch with Attorney Abt,…”

Yet later she would write that all he said in regard to legal help was "do not worry mother, I will get an attorney." If that is indeed all he said, then her recollection for the Warren Commission was based on that, but adding the name Abt as being based on what he'd heard from others.

In 1993 we learned more about the thoughts of Marina Oswald when her friend and biographer, Priscilla McMillan appeared on the television show Frontline.

Historian Priscilla Johnson McMillan was a reporter in Moscow in the 1950’s and interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald shortly after his defection to the Soviet Union. Later, after the Kennedy assassination, McMillan befriended Oswald’s widow, Marina, and the two spent considerable time together. In 1977, McMillan wrote “Marina and Lee,” an intimate portrait of the Oswalds’ life together. In an interview conducted in conjunction with the first broadcast of Frontline’s “Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?” in 1993, Priscilla Johnson McMillan made this statement:

“Lee, in jail, told Marina that she had friends, that they would help her. He told her that there was someone in New York who would help him. He was counting on John Abt, lawyer for the American Communist party, to be his lawyer. He telephoned Ruth Paine and asked her to call Abt. Marina thought, when she saw Lee in jail, she could see that he was frightened. But then she thought that he would use the trial to proclaim his ideas, and to say that what he had done was justified by History.”

Marina never mentioned anything about help from NY or from Abt in her testimony as far as I recall.

Frontline also interviewed Robert Oswald, Lee’s older brother, about Abt:

“I asked him about this lawyer in New York…and I told him I would get him one down here, meaning in Texas. He said no, he wanted that one up there. I didn’t press it any further. He was seeming to be pretty adamant about it. …”

Yet in the contemporaneous news story posted by JR, Wade is quoted as saying that Robert had informed him the family had no money to pay for a lawyer.

Robert is also the source of the entirely fictitious claim that Oswald's youth was vicariously lived through the TV show, "I Led Three Lives". This show made its debut on Oct 4, 1953. Robert's claim was that Lee was STILL watching it in 1952 when he (Robert) left their Fort Worth home to join the Marines.

Was the assassination of John F. Kennedy an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States? If so, it failed. It did succeed in showing the world that our Constitutional government was not only resilient but that it could, again, survive another cataclysmic event just as it had done numerous times before.

I believe Lee Harvey Oswald knew his history well enough to know that a single event would not change our government. But we can question why Oswald would be so intent on having Abt act as his attorney. Since the record shows that he repeatedly stated the reason he wanted Abt was his connection to the Smith Act Trials, I began to wonder, was Oswald going to use his trial to accuse someone, or group, of violating the Smith Act? I remembered that Oswald had left information behind that would have been found if he had been apprehended for assassinating Edwin Walker. Did he have a motive? Did he believe he need a trial?

Did Oswald have a reason to believe that someone or some group was attempting to over-through the government?

Remember:

“She (Marina) testified that Oswald said that General Walker ‘was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that might be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives.”

If a trial had taken place would anybody believe that Kennedy had violated the Smith Act in some way that could justify taking the life of the President?

The strange thing is, Major General Edwin Anderson Walker would seem to be the more obvious choice if Oswald’s intent was going to be to accuse someone of attempting to overthrow the government. But it would also seem to be irrational to believe that Oswald would be siding with Walker and his “right wing” accusations that were being leveled against the Kennedy Administration. Is there any connection? The question began to haunt me.

In 1951 twenty-three Communists were indicted using the Smith Act. By 1957 the number had grown to over 140. It would take a number of Supreme Court decisions in 1957 to finally halt the parade of prosecutions. The two most important were Yates v. United States and Watkins v. United States. In Watkins the Court ruled that a defendant who had opted not to use the Fifth Amendment could still use the First Amendment against “abuses of the legislative process.” The vote was six to one, with Chief Justice Earl Warren writing the majority opinion.

Is it a coincidence that Earl Warren was associated with the use of the Smith Act to prosecute communists, first as a candidate for the vice-presidency in 1948 and then as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1957? In 1963 many conservatives in the United States considered Warren, the former Republican Governor of California for eight years, a left wing radical. Did Justice Earl Warren influence the commission to eliminate any mention of the Smith Act cases from the final report of his commission?

When Jack Ruby fired his fatal shots the American public lost the opportunity to witness the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. The jury of public opinion lost our opportunity to hear more about the possible defense strategy that would be used to defend Lee Harvey Oswald when the telephone calls to Jonathan Abt went unanswered.

On Sunday morning November 25th 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was himself assassinated while being transferred to a more permanent jail site to await prosecution. At the time of his death, Lee Harvey Oswald had very few items in his possession. One item of significance was a sheet of paper with two phone numbers written on it. Those phone numbers were the telephone numbers for Jonathan Abt.

Jim Root

Greg, I take it then you don't believe Osawald opened the P.O. Box 2915 either? If he did, then it appears to me that the ACLU is in 'play', and subsequent actions by Lee are expected.

There are indeed surface oddities that make the record confusing, as to what gambit /charade is being conducted in Dallas (post arrest), and by whom. However , I do see Oswald as an instructed, if not willing, participant in it, at least up to that point.

You may well be correct, that others beside Oswald are laying on additional evidence without his knowledge. I'm just not convinced that Oswald did not ask for Abt.

-Bill

[William O'Neil]

Greg, In my previous response, I meant to say P.O. Box 6225. I do believe that's the one with ACLU listed on application (supposedly).

[Greg Parker]

Greg, I take it then you don't believe Oswald opened the P.O. Box 6225 either? If he did, then it appears to me that the ACLU is in 'play', and subsequent actions by Lee are expected.

There are indeed surface oddities that make the record confusing, as to what gambit /charade is being conducted in Dallas (post arrest), and by whom. However , I do see Oswald as an instructed, if not willing, participant in it, at least up to that point.

You may well be correct, that others beside Oswald are laying on additional evidence without his knowledge. I'm just not convinced that Oswald did not ask for Abt.

-Bill

Bill,

I can't recall off the top if Oswald or a postal clerk filled out the application - but either way, the ACLU could have been added to it.

It is fairly commonly believed that Oswald asked for Abt or the ACLU for the same reasons he had associated himself with the FPCC, and the evidence on the face of it seems to support that notion.

Against that, I say

firstly, the evidence that he did, when studied, is not by any stretch, above suspicion;

secondly, that if he truly was playing that same game, it would have been far more effective to specifically ask for Abt or the ACLU at one of the press conferences.

and thirdly, that if he really was asking for them, he was taking a huge gamble with his life in the face of the death penalty. I think few would dispute he loved his kids, and for that reason, would not take that risk. He would have known that Abt was not a criminal lawyer, and would have had no experience in murder cases, and that the ACLU only dealt with civil liberty cases. Bearing in mind that he loved his kids and knew he faced the death penalty, he did exactly what you would expect anyone else to do in the same situation when he got before a microphone and the media - he pleaded for SOMEONE (i.e. anyone) - to come forward.

But if Oswald was not behind this, who was? Not the cops - the one believable thing any of them said about this matter was that they'd never heard of Abt.

But as luck would have it, two legal experts just happened to be hanging around City Hall that day. Charles ("Chuck") Webster, a Law Professor at SMU and Greer Raggio about whom I'm still trying to find out more.

Not that there is much on Webster - but there is one very interesting doc on him concerning the activities of the CP and the GI Forum http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

It seems in 1960, certain members of the CP and GI Forum had formed a committee to support Webster for a run at congress. Instrumental in it was one, Bill Lowery - a security informant ( more on him here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...d&pid=11482 ). This indicates to me, Webster was an "approved" Leftist, if you get my drift. He certainly seemed to be in good standing with Dallas police. He was also the person who convinced Greg Olds that Oswald's rights were being looked after - resulting in Olds backing off and not insisting on seeing the prisoner.

[Greg Parker]

The only thing he [Oswald] said publicly was "I am waiting for someone to come forward to give me legal assistance."

When Oswald said that, I would imagine it was for two purposes. First, to try to get real legal assistance (i.e. a lawyer). Second, a plea to those who were his intelligence handlers to help him get out....that surely this must be a 'mistake'! He likely had in mind he was being set-up by some...but I'd imagine felt others would come to his rescue...he'd not been so calm and collected if he knew what the scenario called for (his assassination), and that no one with any real power was going to help him in ANY way...why the 'fate of the whole country' depended on his death at that point...

His thwarted attempts to call someone in N.C. who was clearly an intelligence contact to call in case of emergency was never really followed-through in any 'investigation'...as it would have pointed to his being an intelligence asset with CIA and other agencies.

His attempts to call for help went nowhere....and his calls to the Paine's were a dead end [as they were part and parcel of setting him up].

Peter,

it was me who made the comment you quoted. Jim himself, was also only quoting it in order to give a direct response.

I don't disagree with the general thrust of what you say. There are numerous areas that were under-investigated at the time.

The roles of Charles Webster and Greer Raggio among them.

Here is what Curry said on Apr 22, '64:

Mr. RANKIN - Do you know whether an attorney from Dallas was offered to him and came to the jail?

Mr. CURRY - T

here were some members of the Civil Liberties Union came to see us that night, and they said they were concerned with whether or not he was being permitted legal counsel.

Mr. RANKIN - Did they talk to you?

Mr. CURRY - No; t

hey didn't talk to me. They talked to Professor Webster

.

Mr. RANKIN - How did this come to you, attention?

Mr. CURRY - He told me.

Mr. RANKIN - I see. Now, tell us what he said.

Mr. CURRY - He said that they had come down to see whether or not he was being permitted legal counsel, and Professor Webster is in the law school out at Southern Methodist University and

he told them he thought he was being given an opportunity to get in touch with legal counsel, and they seemed satisfied then about it.

We also got Mr. Nichols.

Here is what Wade said on Jun 8, '64:

Mr. RANKIN. I see. You don't bring him before a magistrate?

Mr. WADE. Well, that is called--you can have an examining trial before the magistrate to see whether it is a bailable matter. At that time, I don't believe he had been brought before the magistrate, because I told David Johnston as we left there, I said, "You ought to go up before the jail and have him brought before you and advise him of his rights and his right to counsel and this and that," which, so far as I know, he did. But

at that meeting you had two attorneys from American Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. RANKIN. Which meeting?

Mr. WADE.

That Friday night meeting, or Friday night showup we had better call it, midnight on Friday night. I believe it was Greer Ragio [sic] and Professor Webster from SMU. I saw them there in the hall, and Chief Curry told me that they had been given an opportunity or had talked with Oswald. I am not sure. I was under the impression that they had talked with them but, of course, I didn't see them talking with him.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you talk to them about it?

Mr. WADE. Yes; I told them that he is entitled to counsel, that is what they are interested in on the counsel situation, and anybody, either them or anybody else could see him that wanted to.

Mr. RANKIN. What did they say then?

Mr. WADE. Mr. Rankin, I will tell you what, there was so much going on I don't remember exactly.

The only thing was I got the impression they had already talked with them somewhere, but I don't know whether they told me or the chief told me or what.

Like I say, it was a mob scene there, practically, and they were standing in the door when I--they were in the meeting there.

So... Wade had the distinct impression that Webster and Raggio (whom he refers to as ACLU members) actually spoke with Oswald - something Curry had not mentioned. Did the commission try and clear this important point up? Of course not. They did not go back and ask Curry. And they did not call either Webster or Raggio, or ask the FBI to interview them.

To recap... Webster and Raggio were both described as "legal experts". Webster was actually a Law Professor at SMU.

They had been at City Hall all day, and seemed to have a good rapport with police.

They told Greg Olds' ACLU delegation that Oswald's rights were being attended to, and this was enough to get Olds to back off and not push to see Oswald.

Wade described the two as actually being members of the ACLU, and believed they had talked to Oswald.

Neither were called by the WC or interviewed by the FBI.

In 1960, members of the CP and the GI Forum formed a committee to help Prof. Webster in his run for Congress. Among them was Bill Lowery, a Security Informant who intended having a crash course in Marxism in order to "recruit" fellow committee members.

[Myra Bronstein]

This is just an excellent thread Greg.

Wish I had something to contribute, but for now I can only read with interest.

Great work.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Myra Bronstein

[William O'Neil]

Greg, I take it then you don't believe Oswald opened the P.O. Box 6225 either? If he did, then it appears to me that the ACLU is in 'play', and subsequent actions by Lee are expected.

There are indeed surface oddities that make the record confusing, as to what gambit /charade is being conducted in Dallas (post arrest), and by whom. However , I do see Oswald as an instructed, if not willing, participant in it, at least up to that point.

You may well be correct, that others beside Oswald are laying on additional evidence without his knowledge. I'm just not convinced that Oswald did not ask for Abt.

-Bill

Bill,

I can't recall off the top if Oswald or a postal clerk filled out the application - but either way, the ACLU could have been added to it.

It is fairly commonly believed that Oswald asked for Abt or the ACLU for the same reasons he had associated himself with the FPCC, and the evidence on the face of it seems to support that notion.

Against that, I say

firstly, the evidence that he did, when studied, is not by any stretch, above suspicion;

secondly, that if he truly was playing that same game, it would have been far more effective to specifically ask for Abt or the ACLU at one of the press conferences.

and thirdly, that if he really was asking for them, he was taking a huge gamble with his life in the face of the death penalty. I think few would dispute he loved his kids, and for that reason, would not take that risk. He would have known that Abt was not a criminal lawyer, and would have had no experience in murder cases, and that the ACLU only dealt with civil liberty cases. Bearing in mind that he loved his kids and knew he faced the death penalty, he did exactly what you would expect anyone else to do in the same situation when he got before a microphone and the media - he pleaded for SOMEONE (i.e. anyone) - to come forward.

But if Oswald was not behind this, who was? Not the cops - the one believable thing any of them said about this matter was that they'd never heard of Abt.

But as luck would have it, two legal experts just happened to be hanging around City Hall that day. Charles ("Chuck") Webster, a Law Professor at SMU and Greer Raggio about whom I'm still trying to find out more.

Not that there is much on Webster - but there is one very interesting doc on him concerning the activities of the CP and the GI Forum http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

It seems in 1960, certain members of the CP and GI Forum had formed a committee to support Webster for a run at congress. Instrumental in it was one, Bill Lowery - a security informant ( more on him here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...d&pid=11482 ). This indicates to me, Webster was an "approved" Leftist, if you get my drift. He certainly seemed to be in good standing with Dallas police. He was also the person who convinced Greg Olds that Oswald's rights were being looked after - resulting in Olds backing off and not insisting on seeing the prisoner.

Greg, Then again, maybe like the NO's FPCC, Os had no intention of actually forming a chapter (or hiring Abt), but just trying to create that appearance.

What was that Nike ad, "Image is everything...."

Last year we went to the Library of Congress to look at the Herbert Philbrick Collection. Many interesting things were found. Including the fact that Herb had hooked up with Dallas RWer Earl Lvely, and that they had decided to write the REAL story on Os and 11/22. Earl's job was primarily researching the Dallas area of the case.

He approached his local contacts which included people in the DPD, who may have pointed Earl towards trusted ("approved")

sources ( like Lowery and Webster) for info on the Dallas 'leftist community' (LOL). Looks to me like Lowery may have been a COMINFIL informant. Webster sounds like a similar type ( esp. being a Prof @SMU). Some of these "leftists" cooperated with authorities just to keep their own arse out of the ringer.

The manuscript was never finished due to publishing problems etc. However, it did make for interesting reading.

-Bill

[Greg Parker]

This is just an excellent thread Greg.

Wish I had something to contribute, but for now I can only read with interest.

Great work.

Thanks Myra. I think it's just about run its course unless others have more they can add.

Greg, Then again, maybe like the NO's FPCC, Os had no intention of actually forming a chapter (or hiring Abt), but just trying to create that appearance.

What was that Nike ad, "Image is everything...."

Bill, you may be right. But in the case of the FPCC he sought media attention. With Abt, he seems to have avoided it (apart from allegedly whispering the Abt request to some reporters as he was being moved - with at least one of those reporters being a CIA asset according to the Third Decade article). I really don't understand what purpose it would serve to only create that impression with his captors.

Last year we went to the Library of Congress to look at the Herbert Philbrick Collection. Many interesting things were found. Including the fact that Herb had hooked up with Dallas RWer Earl Lvely, and that they had decided to write the REAL story on Os and 11/22. Earl's job was primarily researching the Dallas area of the case.

He approached his local contacts which included people in the DPD, who may have pointed Earl towards trusted ("approved")

sources ( like Lowery and Webster) for info on the Dallas 'leftist community' (LOL).

I was under the impression he did in fact, approach Lowery... and Butler, and that Butler was warned to cease feeding him FBI documents.

Looks to me like Lowery may have been a COMINFIL informant. Webster sounds like a similar type ( esp. being a Prof @SMU). Some of these "leftists" cooperated with authorities just to keep their own arse out of the ringer. sweatingbullets.gif

The idea of being such an informant was to get yourself into a position of power in order to manipulate the organization. Hence, Lowery nominating Joe Molina as President of the Dallas GI Forum with himself as Sergeant-at-Arms makes me wonder...

The manuscript was never finished due to publishing problems etc. However, it did make for interesting reading.

Speaking of books...what's the latest news on yours?

-Bill

[William O'Neil]

This is just an excellent thread Greg.

Wish I had something to contribute, but for now I can only read with interest.

Great work.

Thanks Myra. I think it's just about run its course unless others have more they can add.

Greg, Then again, maybe like the NO's FPCC, Os had no intention of actually forming a chapter (or hiring Abt), but just trying to create that appearance.

What was that Nike ad, "Image is everything...."

Bill, you may be right. But in the case of the FPCC he sought media attention. With Abt, he seems to have avoided it (apart from allegedly whispering the Abt request to some reporters as he was being moved - with at least one of those reporters being a CIA asset according to the Third Decade article). I really don't understand what purpose it would serve to only create that impression with his captors.

Last year we went to the Library of Congress to look at the Herbert Philbrick Collection. Many interesting things were found. Including the fact that Herb had hooked up with Dallas RWer Earl Lvely, and that they had decided to write the REAL story on Os and 11/22. Earl's job was primarily researching the Dallas area of the case.

He approached his local contacts which included people in the DPD, who may have pointed Earl towards trusted ("approved")

sources ( like Lowery and Webster) for info on the Dallas 'leftist community' (LOL).

I was under the impression he did in fact, approach Lowery... and Butler, and that Butler was warned to cease feeding him FBI documents.

Looks to me like Lowery may have been a COMINFIL informant. Webster sounds like a similar type ( esp. being a Prof @SMU). Some of these "leftists" cooperated with authorities just to keep their own arse out of the ringer. sweatingbullets.gif

The idea of being such an informant was to get yourself into a position of power in order to manipulate the organization. Hence, Lowery nominating Joe Molina as President of the Dallas GI Forum with himself as Sergeant-at-Arms makes me wonder...

The manuscript was never finished due to publishing problems etc. However, it did make for interesting reading.

Speaking of books...what's the latest news on yours?

-Bill

Greg, I see your point about Os not going public with his request , and it is another puzzle among several, in this whole legal representation issue. Something's fishy... is it cod or catfish?

Yes, Earl did contact Lowery , who ( ostensibly) was never clear, about just what he could offer Lively in the way of help. Yet he didn't exactly tell him to buzz off either.

The BOOK is chugging along, tho work and the holidays made it hard to stay productive. You're not helping either mate, with all these distractions you keep coming up with jus kiddin

Carry on,

-Bill

[Greg Parker]

Greg, I see your point about Os not going public with his request , and it is another puzzle among several, in this whole legal representation issue. Something's fishy... is it cod or catfish?

Yes, Earl did contact Lowery , who ( ostensibly) was never clear, about just what he could offer Lively in the way of help. Yet he didn't exactly tell him to buzz off either.

The BOOK is chugging along, tho work and the holidays made it hard to stay productive. You're not helping either mate, with all these distractions you keep coming up with blink.gif jus kiddin

Carry on,

-Bill

Sorry cobber. Missed this previously. Look forward to the book, though!