Was Oswald denied Counsel by the Dallas Authorities ?

[John Iacoletti]

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.

I can't recall a time when you ever discussed the evidence in detail.  You just claim that there is a mountain of it and that there is no doubt.

It's because I'm familiar with the evidence that I know this is a big bluff.  You present unsubstantiated conclusions about the evidence as if it is evidence itself.  And you refuse to examine or even acknowledge the issues that make the so-called evidence either questionable, tainted, or irrelevant.  You just parrot things like "Oswald's rifle" without even attempting to show what this declaration is based on.  Because if you tried it would crumble instantly.

And that is why you won't engage in a discussion about any of the evidence.  You think posturing, strawmen, and insults will somehow prove your case.

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.

Of course it makes a difference how Oswald was treated.  It shows that the police didn't give a whit about how this case was investigated.  Even if he was actually guilty of the crime, they still railroaded him.

  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.

No we don't.  We have access to conflicting and biased recollections of what he said during interrogation.  Just one of many issues with your "evidence".

[James Dahl]

Police can hold someone without laying charges for a couple days.  I don't think Oswald was charged with any crime at the time he was killed, he was held as a suspect

[John Iacoletti]

Police can hold someone without laying charges for a couple days.  I don't think Oswald was charged with any crime at the time he was killed, he was held as a suspect

Yes he was.  He was charged for Tippit's murder at about 7 PM and JFK's murder at about 11:30 PM on 11/22.

[Tim Nickerson]

He was a representative of the ACLU, who Oswald specifically invoked.

So what?

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.

How do you know that they lied? We know that Oswald made an on-camera show for the public but did he actually make a request for an attorney to the DPD? If so, how do you know?

[John Iacoletti]

So what?

How do you know that they lied? We know that Oswald made an on-camera show for the public but did he actually make a request for an attorney to the DPD? If so, how do you know?

Why do you think his "on camera show" as you put it was not a request to the DPD?  According to Gerald Hill, who was a DPD officer, Oswald asked for a lawyer when they were still in the theater.  And according to one of your star witnesses, William Whaley, he also asked for a lawyer during his lineup.  Is this somehow also not supposed to be a "real request" either?  What makes it a real request in your mind?  Oswald was held incommunicado until Saturday around noon.

[Richard Smith]

Under the Bill of Rights you are entitled to representation. You are also entitled to remain silent.

Since the DPD, FBI and the SS claimed that LHO answered questions despite not being represented then he had to waive his right to an attorney, but this form is nowhere to be found.

Can any LNer provide this signed waiver form?

Again, it makes no difference now.  Oswald is long dead.   Any "rights" that he might have been denied him over 50 years ago are relevant only in the context of a criminal trial that will never take place.  Not outside that context.   Here on planet earth, we can take all the relevant information into consideration - whether it would have been admissible or not in a trial - and use that to assess whether Oswald was the assassin.  Conduct a seance and let Oswald know that you believe his rights were violated if that will make you feel better but resolution of that issue adds or detracts nothing, however, from the case against him.

[Bill Brown]

It makes a big difference as this is still an OPEN case. LHO was DENIED his rights and this was only necessary if there was NO evidence supporting the claims of the authorities. If there really had been supporting evidence for their claims then this wouldn't have been necessary at all.

No.  This is NOT an open case.  Therefore, your point is entirely invalid.

[Richard Smith]

It makes a big difference as this is still an OPEN case. LHO was DENIED his rights and this was only necessary if there was NO evidence supporting the claims of the authorities. If there really had been supporting evidence for their claims then this wouldn't have been necessary at all.

Contact the DPD and ask them if this is an open case.  Get back to us with their answer.  Is the Lincoln assassination an open case because Booth didn't live long enough to be convicted?  And even if this were an "open" case, Oswald's rights are relevant only to him in a criminal trial.  No one else.  He is dead.  The rest of your babbling makes no sense.  Do you think police only want to interrogate people that are innocent of crimes and not those that are guilty?  LOL.  The police want information.  The more a suspect talks the better regardless of how much evidence they have.  Particularly in the early stages of the investigation when they are trying to confirm what happened.  They have incentives to encourage guilty parties to talk their heads off.  To suggest the police would not want to interrogate Oswald on Nov. 22-24 if they had a strong case is one of the most bizarre claims made here.  And that is saying a whole lot.