Was Oswald denied Counsel by the Dallas Authorities ?

[Richard Smith]

You can't be for real.  Arraigning somebody before the evidence is even finished being gathered and analyzed is not a conclusion.  It's just a decision to bring a case to trial.

So what?  I'm sure he believed the same about the other 19 cases he prosecuted that were overturned.

Again you can't follow along.  The relevant question as to whether this is an open case is not your subjective opinion of the strength of the case but whether the Dallas authorities who had the legal responsible for prosecuting it are satisfied of Oswald's guilt.  They were satisfied and continue over 50 years later to be satisfied of Oswald's responsibility for the crime.  That is the relevant point to this discussion.   With Oswald's demise, the case is therefore considered a closed matter in their official view (i.e. the one that matters) because the responsible party is dead and beyond prosecution.  The decision to charge Oswald for the crime is further confirmation of the position of the Dallas authorities that Oswald was the responsible party (as confirmed by Wade).  That is not just a decision to "bring a case to trial" but based on their internal assessment of the case that the evidence is strong enough to convict in a criminal trial (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt).  As a result, there is no doubt whatsoever that the official position of the Dallas authorities is that Oswald is responsible for murders of JFK and Tippit.  Again, even if you disagree with that assessment, that is still the conclusion of the Dallas authorities making this a closed case from the perspective of the law enforcement entity with the legal responsibility for that case.  Your opinion is not relevant in that context because lonely Internet fringe loons have no role in the official process.  That is where your confusion apparently lies in believing your opinions are somehow relevant to whether the Dallas authorities consider the case open. 

[Matt Grantham]

 Spoke freely is a bit of a stretch. 45 seconds or less I believe Is there any non police witnesses that said Oswald drew a gun?

[John Iacoletti]

Mary "Fake but accurate" Mapes? I ask you to name the 19 cases that Wade prosecuted that were overturned and the best that you can do is link to an article by a woman who was fired from CBS for fraudulent journalism? How pathetic.

Nice ad hominem fallacy.  I suppose you'll find some fault with the nbc news article that Mike posted the link for as well?  Anything to avoid dealing with Henry Wade's reign of error.

[John Iacoletti]

Again you can't follow along.  The relevant question as to whether this is an open case is not your subjective opinion of the strength of the case but whether the Dallas authorities who had the legal responsible for prosecuting it are satisfied of Oswald's guilt.  They were satisfied and continue over 50 years later to be satisfied of Oswald's responsibility for the crime.  That is the relevant point to this discussion.   With Oswald's demise, the case is therefore considered a closed matter in their official view (i.e. the one that matters) because the responsible party is dead and beyond prosecution.  The decision to charge Oswald for the crime is further confirmation of the position of the Dallas authorities that Oswald was the responsible party (as confirmed by Wade).  That is not just a decision to "bring a case to trial" but based on their internal assessment of the case that the evidence is strong enough to convict in a criminal trial (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt).  As a result, there is no doubt whatsoever that the official position of the Dallas authorities is that Oswald is responsible for murders of JFK and Tippit.  Again, even if you disagree with that assessment, that is still the conclusion of the Dallas authorities making this a closed case from the perspective of the law enforcement entity with the legal responsibility for that case.  Your opinion is not relevant in that context because lonely Internet fringe loons have no role in the official process.  That is where your confusion apparently lies in believing your opinions are somehow relevant to whether the Dallas authorities consider the case open.

Says the lonely Internet fringe loon who thinks that his opinion that an arraignment complaint equates to "satisfied of Oswald's responsibility for the crime" and "case is closed" is somehow relevant.

[Matt Grantham]

 The Oswald that pulled his gun is not the one arrested on the balcony? Two witnesses Buroughs and Haire stated they saw a person arrested in the back of the theater

[Tim Nickerson]

Nice ad hominem fallacy.  I suppose you'll find some fault with the nbc news article that Mike posted the link for as well?  Anything to avoid dealing with Henry Wade's reign of error.

The one who is avoiding dealing with something here is you. I've asked you to name the 19 cases that you claimed Wade successfully prosecuted that have since been overturned. As of yet, you've failed to do so.

[John Iacoletti]

The one who is avoiding dealing with something here is you. I've asked you to name the 19 cases that you claimed Wade successfully prosecuted that have since been overturned. As of yet, you've failed to do so.

Because NBC is fake news and D Magazine is "fraudulent journalism"?  I guess you better add Dallas Morning News to your list of fraudulent sources too.

http://truthinjustice.org/dallas-eyewitness.htm

[Mike Orr]

If Oswald were to receive legal assistance ,  whoever Oswald retained to be his lawyer then the Attorney-client privileges would be in place and by it's very nature , the attorney-client relationship affords a distinct , invaluable right to have communications protected from compelled disclosure to any 3rd party , including business associates and competitors , government agencies and even criminal Justice authorities ! If Oswald had retained a Lawyer then it would probably have been bad for certain individuals and probably bad for the Lawyer . Then there's Ruby who wanted the Warren Commission to take him back to Washington DC so he could talk and of course the WC denied Ruby the ' Trip to talk ' !