Was Oswald denied Counsel by the Dallas Authorities ?

[Leonard Wright]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/26/j-edgar-hoover-called-oswald-killing-inexcusable.html

J. E. Hoover:

"[Oswald's death] will allow, I am afraid, a lot of civil rights people to raise a lot of hell because he was handcuffed and had no weapon," Hoover said. "There are bound to be some elements of our society who will holler their heads off that his civil rights were violated -- which they were."

Hoover said that the FBI had warned the Dallas police of threats to Oswald's life and that the city's police chief, Jesse Curry, had assured the bureau that Oswald would be properly protected.

"However," Hoover's memo reads, "this was not done."

-There is a document from Hoover that references the fact that Oswald's rights may have been violated based on the failure to protect him while in police custody. I'll try to find this memo.

[Leonard Wright]

J.E. Hoover (Report dated 11/24/1963 - 4:00 pm - "From" and "To" not indicated)

"Oswald had been saying he wanted John Abt as his lawyer and Abt, with only that kind   of evidence, could have turned the case around, I'm afraid. All the talking down there might have required a change of venue on the basis that Oswald could not have gotten a fair trial in Dallas...."

Source:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32263509.pdf

[John Iacoletti]

It's a way to avoid addressing the actual evidence that links Oswald to this crime with absolute certainty.

You can't avoid something that doesn't actually exist.

[Leonard Wright]

A lawyer for Oswald would have asked to see original evidence, and not photographs of "evidence" taken at FBI Headquarters.

A lawyer would have also seen that the money order that 'Hidell' allegedly used to purchase the mail order rifle was never deposited, and never endorsed by any bank or the Federal Reserve. So...no proof of ownwership. Unless Kliens was in the habit of shipping out free rifles.....

[Tim Nickerson]

A lawyer for Oswald would have asked to see original evidence, and not photographs of "evidence" taken at FBI Headquarters.

A lawyer for Oswlad would have been allowed to see the original evidence.

A lawyer would have also seen that the money order that 'Hidell' allegedly used to purchase the mail order rifle was never deposited, and never endorsed by any bank or the Federal Reserve. So...no proof of ownwership. Unless Kliens was in the habit of shipping out free rifles.....

That lawyer would have seen that the money order was actually deposited and that it passed through the banking system and reached its final destination at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia. The money order has Klein's stamp on it, which indicates that it passed through their till. And it has a File Locator Number on it which establishes that it was in fact paid. That File Locator Number was placed on it by the Treasury Dept.

[Leonard Wright]

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Commissioned to investigate the assination, didn't see the original evidence (money order) photographed by the FBI.

The Kleins stamp on the money order does not prove it was put through their till. It proves it was stamped. The FBI spent hours at Kleins on Nov. 22--23.

I understand that the final repository for cashed money orders was in Kansas City. If that is incorrect please correct me.

How would the Treasury Department confirm it was paid if it was not endorsed as paid by a bank?

Please pardon any typos. I am on mobile at the moment.

[Leonard Wright]

Rob Caprio. I have read many of your 50 reasons, but not all.

I did not realize I was reciting your comments.

Please keep up your excellent contrubutions to this forum. I am new to this forum but have a long time interest in the matter.

[Tim Nickerson]

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Commissioned to investigate the assination, didn't see the original evidence (money order) photographed by the FBI.

Are you sure about that? It would seem rather odd if he didn't. The FBI photograph of the money order as well as the money order itself were Warren Commission exhibits.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 788, and ask you if you have examined that exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that is the money order which was included with the purchase order to Klein's. Have you prepared a photograph of that exhibit, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is it an accurate photograph of the money order, Exhibit No. 788?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm

The Kleins stamp on the money order does not prove it was put through their till. It proves it was stamped. The FBI spent hours at Kleins on Nov. 22--23.

Ok, then how about this?:



Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see the extreme top of this microfilm, the date, March 13, 1963; to what does that refer?
Mr. WALDMAN. This is an imprint made by our cash register indicating that the remittance received from the customer was passed through our register on that date.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/waldman.htm

I understand that the final repository for cashed money orders was in Kansas City. If that is incorrect please correct me.

If you are saying that the final repository for ALL cashed money orders was in Kansas City then you are incorrect.

How would the Treasury Department confirm it was paid if it was not endorsed as paid by a bank?

The fact that the Treasury Dept. received it was confirmation that it had been cashed.