Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt1

Somehow I got stuck
Between the rock and the hard place
And I'm down on my luck - Warren Zevon


The Dallas Civil Liberties Union visits City Hall
Of those interviewed by the commission, the following people should have been able to supply information regarding the DCLU visit to City Hall: Greg Olds; Jesse Curry; Glen King; Henry Wade; David Johnston.

the Olds' version
Greg Olds, president of the DCLU testified before the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964 that he had received a call from a board member on the night of the assassination advising him that the president of the Austin affiliate had concerns about reports that Oswald was being denied counsel. Olds' immediate response was to phone the police, eventually getting through to Captain Fritz. Fritz advised that Oswald had indeed been given the opportunity to have counsel, but had declined. Upon discussing this with the board member, it was decided to go to City Hall to try and obtain further assurances. After meeting at the Plaza Hotel with the unnamed board member and two others at 11:15 pm, Olds and his delegation walked across the road to City Hall where he tried unsuccessfully to speak with Mayor Earle Cabell. From there, the small group went up to the office of Captain Fritz. Somewhere on that floor they met and spoke to Charles ("Chuck") Webster, a professor of law at Southern Methodist University. Webster told them he had been there "a good part of the time" since the assassination. Upon hearing their intent, Prof. Webster took them to see Captain Glen King. It was now approximately 11:40 pm. King, as Fritz had before him, reassured the delegation that Oswald had made no requests for counsel. Olds also recalled being told that Curry had said that Oswald had been informed of his right to counsel. He thought this had been related to him by Webster. Seeking yet further corroboration, two of those who had arrived with Olds went down to the basement and spoke with Justice of the Peace, David Johnston.

Johnston advised that Oswald had just been charged with the assassination; had been read his rights and had declined counsel.

Satisfied now that Oswald was not being deprived of his rights, the group broke up, and Olds, hearing that a press conference was about to start, decided to attend. He believed the others went home. Olds described the conference as "noisy" and once Oswald was brought in, "very confusing" with no one beyond the first row of reporters being able to hear. Olds also related how he'd heard later about Jack Ruby being there "up near the front", and how Ruby had helped answer a question, but that he had not seen him himself. He also added it was only later from TV coverage that he'd actually formed a clear picture in his mind of Oswald being asked and answering questions. Asked then by assistant counsel Stern if this had helped give further assurances about Oswald's rights, Olds replied, "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."

As with so many others, there were problems with Olds' testimony which remained unexplored.

timing
Olds' could not have been told that Oswald had been charged with the assassination just before the press conference, as that arraignment did not happen until just after 1:30 am Saturday. What Olds had most likely been told was that the complaint was filed just prior to the conference. Oswald was not present for this.

what could be heard at the conference
Ruby was at the back, not the front. The only reason to place Ruby at the front would be because he himself claimed no one at the back could hear anything - and he knew Ruby had been able to hear due to his correcting an answer given by DA Wade. This issue is important, as it goes to the heart of how serious Olds was in wanting to help the accused. If Ruby could hear Wade, then Olds should have been able to hear Oswald when he said, "I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance." Even in the event he did not, he surely must have heard it repeated from reporter to reporter. But then, as he later claimed, after seeing TV footage, he believed Oswald had lied and the police had been telling the truth: a very radical stand, indeed for this alleged communist front organization to make.

Oswald's attendance at a DCLU meeting
Olds was at the meeting allegedly attended by Oswald, but was not asked any questions about it at all during his testimony.

who was in Olds' DCLU delegation to City Hall?
Olds was not asked, and did not volunteer this information. However, as we shall see, one of them was Grier Raggio, Sr.

the Curry version
Chief Jesse Curry testified before the Warren Commission on April 22, 1964. Curry told the commission that some members of the DCLU came in on the night of the assassination to find out whether or not Oswald was being permitted legal counsel. They did not speak to him, but to Prof. Webster. Webster then related the discussion to Curry, advising that he'd told the delegation that he thought Oswald had been given every opportunity to get in touch with legal counsel. This version is very close to that given by Olds - the only detail missing being that Webster took the delegation to speak with Capt. King, and such an omission is not unreasonable, nor telling.

the King version
Captain Glen King testified before the commission on May 28, 1964. King's version is unknown as he was not asked about the DCLU visit.

the Wade version
DA Henry Wade testified before the commission on June 8, 1964 Wade's contribution to our knowledge of what transpired was not large, but it was intriguing. He told the commission that two attorneys from the ACLU (read DCLU) had been at "that meeting". In context, the meeting being referred to was one held just after the complaint regarding the assassination was filed, and just prior to the midnight press conference. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the arraignment (refer to entry under David Johnston). Wade named the two lawyers as Grier Raggio (misspelled as "Greer Ragio" in commission records) and Prof. Webster. Wade further testified that Curry advised him that the two had been given the opportunity to talk to Oswald, and that he believed they had in fact, talked to him. Asked by Rankin of the commission if he himself spoke with the two, he confirmed he had, and that he'd advised them that Oswald was entitled to counsel and that they, or anybody else, could see him that wanted to, but was unable to recall their response to this.

Curry was not recalled to testify if Wade's memory was correct.

the Johnston version
David Johnston was the Justice of the Peace who (allegedly) arraigned Oswald for both the Tippit and JFK murders. He testified before the commission on June 26, 1964. Johnston's only real contribution to the subject at hand was in his confirmation that a meeting for the purpose of discussing the JFK arraignment took place between the complaint being laid in that case and the midnight press conference. However, he did not confirm the presence of Webster or Raggio, naming only himself, Fritz, Curry and Wade, along with two or three of Wade's assistants as being present.

who Was At The JFK arraignment meeting?
According to Olds, two of those with him went down to the basement to speak with David Johnston. This was just after they spoke with Captain King at around 11:40 pm. This was around the time that the arraignment meeting was taking place in the basement.

Wade confirmed that two attorneys from the DCLU were at this meeting. He named them as being Grier Raggio and Prof. Charles Webster.

Johnston made no mention of their presence, but did say two or three of Wade's assistants were there, and it's possible he mistook Raggio and Webster as being Assistant DAs. In fact, the wife of Grier Raggio had indeed been an Assistant DA under Wade until 1956. It has not been confirmed that Webster was a member of the DCLU, but it is possible he assisted them in hearings in which they were involved. Raggio, on the other hand, was on the DCLU board [1] - and was the un-named board member who phoned Olds according to his widow, Louise Raggio in her autobiography, Texas Tornado.[2]

who was at the JFK arraignment?
According to the testimony of David Johnston, there were 7 or 8 police officers and an Assistant DA named Maurice Harrell present at the arraignment (apart of course, from himself and Oswald). According to the testimony of others, also present was Wade, Alexander, Fritz and Stephenson - yet Wade himself denied being present.

A Secret Service Report dated Jan 8, 1964 states that the following people had been present: Johnston, Fritz, Curry, Day, Harrell and Kelley.[3] Louise Raggio has claimed both in her book and in an oral history for the Sixth Floor Museum, that her late husband Grier had gone to City Hall with the intention of witnessing the arraignment where Oswald's rights legally had to be read out. It does not appear from the various testimonies that anyone from the DCLU actually did witness the arraignment, but as shown, at least two, including Raggio, took part in a meeting about it. Were the testimonies deliberately vague and ambiguous to conceal the presence of Raggio and others at the arraignment? If they were present - as had apparently been the intention, the ramifications of same are enormous, for Oswald was alleged to have again asked for John Abt or someone from the ACLU at this arraignment.

was the arraignment a fabrication?
An alternative explanation for the vagueness and ambiguity was put forth by Sylvia Meagher in Accessories After the Fact. Meagher noted the absence of a check-out slip for moving Oswald from his cell, the lack of a transcript for the arraignment, and that a detective in the room in which it allegedly took place had known nothing about it, even though he claimed to have been there until 2:30am. Meagher therefore concluded that no arraignment had taken place.

In an article for The Third Decade, published nearly 20 years after her book, Meagher described finding a document by James Hosty in which he stated that he'd been advised by Fritz on November 25, 1963 that no arraignment had taken place in the JFK assassination. The reason given was the fact that Oswald had already been charged and arraigned on other matters.[4] This was taken as being as good as confirming the original suspicion. In this instance however, I think a simple error had been made by Hosty. David Johnston testified to the commission that no arraignment had taken place regarding the wounding of Connally due to the previous two arraignments on capital offences, but that it probably would have been made the following week. This is most likely what Hosty had been told. Meagher's investigation into this matter was taken forward by Timothy Cwiek a little over a year after Meagher's article appeared. Cwiek could identify only 4 newspapers as reporting the arraignment that weekend; the Philadelphia Bulletin, the Dallas Times-Herald, the New York Times and the Washington Evening Star. Of those, only the Bulletin and the Times actually used the word "arraignment". Looking into this further, Cweik found no follow up stories in any of the 4 papers, including in "wraps-ups" of the entire weekend. Stranger still; no other publications picked up the story. In an effort to find out more, Cwiek contacted the reporter for the Bulletin who had landed this apparent major scoop, John McCullough. McCullough declined an interview. He did appear before the Warren Commission, but did not offer information about the arraignment, nor was he asked about it. The story got even stranger when Cwiek looked more closely at the other 3 papers. The Times article appeared in the microfilm records of the newspaper, but not in any actual hard copies that were tracked down.[5] And to top it off, the Evening Star reporter was Jeremiah O'Leary. O'Leary was once described by Carl Bernstein as having "a valuable personal relationship" with the CIA during the 1960s.

It also needs to be noted that under Texas law, arraignments are (and were in 1963) held in an open court. If this one was held at all, it was done behind closed doors at police head-quarters, with some of the names of witnesses suppressed. You may well ask why this would be. Incredibly, Jesse Curry gave the following answer when asked by Rankin. Try not to laugh. It's way too serious: "This was actually unusual because this type of arraignment--- because usually it would have been later than this, but we were trying to take whatever precautions we could to see that he was given his--we were not violating his civil rights. That is the reason that we did arraign him in the city hall. Ordinarily we would have taken him before a court."

So there you have it. It was done in secret to protect his civil rights. And apparently this was fine and dandy with Olds, Raggio and the other DCLU members.

bump

BUMP

bump

Our boy.......

Greg,
I can not even count the numerous stories published saying Lee was killed on the way to his arraignment.
(This in a fruitless search for arraignment stories of Oswald Saturday morning.)
Seemed he would be arraigned after he was transferred, at least in most of the worlds mind...Funny they claim this.

And odd that open court was not used. At all.
They had municipal courtrooms that could be used I am guessing in the Municipal Building on the first or second floors.
They could be used as a makeshift criminal court,,, unless there is a requirement for it to be a criminal court proper. Could not a judge from criminal courts be brought to 106 Harwood Dallas Municipal Building to arraign Lee on a criminal/felony/capital case?
Would they need to advertise for two weeks in a public newspaper or some administrative limitation prevent such a court room from acting as another court room?

I'm sure a lawyer or judge can fill us in...
Like Marvin Belli did with his client Jack Ruby.
He claimed diminished capacity and wanted a change of venue.
When Judge Brown said he would likely deny the venue change it was withdrawn but Brown took the other psychological part under advisement, Wade sat back and allowed Belli to spill the defenses case before Brown then prepared its 'defense' to the defense.
It was as if Belli telegraphed the whole defense to the enemy. Was Ruby helped by the Professor/doctor Chuck Webster to develop this strategy?


And something out of Monty Python The Meaning of Life
where the buildings sail about attacking each other like pirate ships is Melvin Belli and his war on of all things an insurance company much like "The Crimson Permanent Assurance Company" he wars with The Holy Grail Insurance Company.


So how does the WC explain the dilemma?

Page 201

I know nothing more than that and I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance.

Q. Did you kill the President?

A. No. I have not been charged with that. In fact nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question.

Q. Mr. Oswald, how did you hurt your eye?

A. A policeman hit me.46

At this time Oswald had been arraigned only for the murder of Patrolman Tippit, but questioning by Captain Fritz and others had been substantially concerned with Oswald's connection with the assassination.47

On Friday evening, representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union visited the police department to determine whether Oswald was being deprived of counsel. They were assured by police officials and Justice of the Peace Johnston that Oswald had been informed of his rights and was being allowed to seek a lawyer.48 On Saturday Oswald attempted several times to reach John Abt, a New York lawyer, by telephone, but with no success. 49 In the afternoon, he called Ruth Paine and asked her to try to reach Abt for him, but she too failed. 50 Later in the afternoon, H. Louis Nichols, president of the Dallas Bar Association, visited Oswald in his cell and asked him whether he wanted the association to obtain a lawyer for him. Oswald declined the offer, stating a first preference for Abt and a second preference for a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union.51 As late as Sunday morning, according to Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes, Oswald said that he preferred to get his own lawyer.52

Whomever was advising him was doing a great job of delaying Lee simply asking for a criminal defense attorney licensed in Texas to represent him at arraignments and protect his rights in the press and in court of public opinion.

It seems that Fred Bruner was in the building as well on the eve of Nov 22. he was a top Dallas criminal lawyer. he knew and represented Jack Ruby. 
https://obits.dallasnews.com/us/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/name/fred-bruner-obituary?id=24772088




From UNT  https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184904/m1/1/
Pic: DTH

Greg Olds has passed away.
Vinny posted this on FB so thanks to him.

One further detail.  This is a video of H Louis Nichols, president of the Dallas Bar after he had offered Oswald a lawyer from the local Bar during a 3 minute meeting with Oswald the day after the JFKA.  



Oswald refused the offer.  He said if he could not get John Abt, or someone from the ACLU, he might reconsider Nichol's offer.  Further, he asked Nichols to check back with him within some unspecified time period to see if he had gotten a lawyer.

The fact that Oswald said he would consider Nichols' offer if he couldn't get his preference, indicated the seriousness of his pursuit of someone to tell his story to.  Oswald was dead about 17 hours later. They weren't going to let him talk to a lawyer, even a shill from the Dallas Bar.

Thanks Bart. May he Rest in Peace.

For those interested, there is a second thread with way more info on this whole thing.
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t16-send-lawyers-guns-money-pt2?highlight=lawyers