Was Oswald denied Counsel by the Dallas Authorities ?

[Mike Orr]

Why was Oswald not given counsel after he asked for legal assistance. Oswald was very much alive and asked for legal assistance and for whatever reason was turned down by Fritz , Captain Glen King, and Judge David  Johnson . The WC was told by Sgt. Gerald Hill that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest in the Texas Theater. To say that it was a moot point seeing how Oswald would be shot on National TV a few days later and  would not be needing any legal assistance is like saying my car wouldn't start because there was no gas in the tank. It sounds like "THEY" did not want Oswald to talk to anyone , especially a lawyer who would have an attorney client privilege . It looks like there was a reason to not take any notes during Oswald's interrogations . That way there would be nothing on record except for hearsay and we know that hearsay didn't hold much water back then as well as now days.

[Richard Smith]

Why was Oswald not given counsel after he asked for legal assistance. Oswald was very much alive and asked for legal assistance and for whatever reason was turned down by Fritz , Captain Glen King, and Judge David  Johnson . The WC was told by Sgt. Gerald Hill that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest in the Texas Theater. To say that it was a moot point seeing how Oswald would be shot on National TV a few days later and  would not be needing any legal assistance is like saying my car wouldn't start because there was no gas in the tank. It sounds like "THEY" did not want Oswald to talk to anyone , especially a lawyer who would have an attorney client privilege . It looks like there was a reason to not take any notes during Oswald's interrogations . That way there would be nothing on record except for hearsay and we know that hearsay didn't hold much water back then as well as now days.

Oswald spoke freely to the world press.  Do you really believe the plan was to muzzle Oswald by not giving him access to a lawyer but let mobs of press folks ask him questions?  That is very silly.  If THEY did not want Oswald to talk to anyone, THEY would not have arrested him to begin with.  THEY had a perfect opportunity to kill him at the Texas Theatre when he pulled a gun.  Honestly, give what you are suggesting some thought.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Why was Oswald not given counsel after he asked for legal assistance. Oswald was very much alive and asked for legal assistance and for whatever reason was turned down by Fritz , Captain Glen King, and Judge David  Johnson . The WC was told by Sgt. Gerald Hill that Oswald had requested counsel at the time of his arrest in the Texas Theater. To say that it was a moot point seeing how Oswald would be shot on National TV a few days later and  would not be needing any legal assistance is like saying my car wouldn't start because there was no gas in the tank. It sounds like "THEY" did not want Oswald to talk to anyone , especially a lawyer who would have an attorney client privilege . It looks like there was a reason to not take any notes during Oswald's interrogations . That way there would be nothing on record except for hearsay and we know that hearsay didn't hold much water back then as well as now days.

From my readings, the state of Texas, under then existing state and federal law, was not required to provide him counsel. Oswald had to get one on his own. Nobody denied him counsel; and Texas was not required to give him one.

Louis Nichols, head of the Dallas Bar Association, testified that he met Oswald and that Oswald told him he, Oswald, didn't want Nichols to get him an attorney at that time. Oswald said, according to Nichols, that he wanted to get Abt or perhaps an ACLU lawyer before having Nichols get him a lawyer. Nichols said that he explicitly asked Oswald if he wanted him to get Oswald a lawyer at that time. He said no, that he didn't want one at that time.

From Nichols' WC testimony:

NICHOLS: I said [to Oswald], "What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"
He said, "No, not now."
He said, "You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people [Abt, an ACLU lawyer] to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me."
I said, "Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now."
And he said, "No."

Again: "If I don't get some of these other people.......

Oswald was trying on his own to get counsel. The Dallas officials were not required to get him one.

This is how I read the matter; don't trust me, read up on it yourself.

Full testimony: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm

[John Iacoletti]

So it would not have made much difference even in a criminal trial to have excluded anything he said in the interrogation.  There was a mountain of admissible evidence that convicted him a thousand times over.

So you keep claiming.

Anyone interested in the case today doesn't have to concern themselves with whether Oswald's legal rights were protected in 1963.  They can avail themselves of all the evidence to reach a conclusion as to his guilt.

If you ever figure out what that is, please let me know.

[John Iacoletti]

Louis Nichols, head of the Dallas Bar Association, testified that he met Oswald and that Oswald told him he, Oswald, didn't want Nichols to get him an attorney at that time. Oswald said, according to Nichols, that he wanted to get Abt or perhaps an ACLU lawyer before having Nichols get him a lawyer. Nichols said that he explicitly asked Oswald if he wanted him to get Oswald a lawyer at that time. He said no, that he didn't want one at that time.

Why was Nichols allowed to see Oswald and Olds was not?

[Tim Nickerson]

Why was Nichols allowed to see Oswald and Olds was not?

Olds never asked to see Oswald. Not only that but he wasn't even a lawyer.

Mr. STERN. What is your profession?
Mr. OLDS. I am an editor of a weekly newspaper.
.......................................................
Mr. OLDS. We felt fairly well satisfied that Oswald probably had not been deprived of his rights, so, we then broke up. I think the other men went home, and I went downstairs. I heard that there was going to be a press conference, so I thought I could stand in on that and--do you want me to go ahead and detail that?
.........................................................
Mr. OLDS. Well, I know, but we had the idea that Oswald was not being accurate when he said he had been denied, because in our dealings with the police here, we have had reason to believe that they are very careful of this sort of thing. And certainly in a case of this notoriety, certainly, our tendency was to believe that, but I have always been sorry that we didn't talk with Oswald, because it was not clear whether we would be permitted to see him that night or not.
Mr. STERN. But, you did not ask to see him?
Mr. OLDS. No; we did not, which I think was a mistake on my part.

[John Iacoletti]

Olds never asked to see Oswald. Not only that but he wasn't even a lawyer.

He was a representative of the ACLU, who Oswald specifically invoked.  But they still lied when they told Olds that Oswald hadn't requested an attorney.  I think they didn't want him to have an attorney while they questioned him and certainly not someone from the ACLU.

[Richard Smith]

So you keep claiming.

If you ever figure out what that is, please let me know.

I don't understand the obsession or value of asking me to recite the case against Oswald. As though it not known to you and we haven't discussed it a thousand times.  It is well documented and you are aware of the evidence.  You reject it.  Do you really think we would advance this discussion by my noting Oswald's rifle was found at the crime scene and you responding "Oswald's rifle?  LOL."  How many times would you like do go around and around on those topics?  The case against Oswald has been laid out in excruciating detail.  Likely the most investigated case in criminal history.   The relevant point here is that EVEN if Oswald's legal rights were violated 50 plus year ago by denying him counsel, it makes no difference now.  And in fact, our knowledge of the case is enhanced by having access to his responses in the interrogation.  The more information the better for us.  Oswald's legal rights are relevant only to him in a trial.  And we know there will never be one.  So it is largely pointless to answer even if there were a way to resolve the issue.