Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt2

Professor Charles ("Chuck") Webster
Very little can be gleaned from the Warren Commission volumes about Charles Webster except that he had been at police head-quarters most of the day following the assassination; that he was a law professor at the Southern Methodist University (SMU); that he gave assurances to the DCLU delegation about Oswald's civil rights; that he had taken this delegation to Captain King for further assurances; that he may himself have been involved with the DCLU; and that he very likely attended a meeting with various officials regarding the upcoming arraignment. However, there is one document of no little interest in the HSCA subject files. It is a FBI memo regarding the American GI Forum and is dated June 20, 1960. This indicates that Bill Lowery had attended a meeting of a committee which had formed to support Webtser's run for Congress. The committee members were mainly CPUSA members or past members.[6] Lowery had been a founding member of the Dallas branch of the American GI Forum along with TSBD employee, Joe Molina. He had also been an FBI informant/infiltration agent since 1945. Another of those founding members was Felix Bartello (also an informant). Bartello was later to become a member of a Minutemen splinter group which had formed in support of Edwin Walker's efforts at Oxford. One of the other members, Ashland Burchwell, had been caught en-route to Mississippi with a car load of weapons.

In 1963, Lowery testified against a suspected communist named John Stafford before the Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB) in Washington. Stafford is also mentioned in the above document. The case drew headlines when RFK asked Texas state authorities to refrain from taking action on Stafford until the Feds were through with him. Further controversy arose when Lowery's status as informant was blown when, at the hearings, he admitted he had infiltrated the GI Forum and other reputable groups for the FBI. The FBI predictably denied he was acting for anyone other than the CPUSA - a lie exposed through the release of files.

As a sidebar, it may well be the Stafford case that gave Edwin Walker the idea to allege RFK had intervened in having Oswald released from police custody after being arrested for the Apr 10 so-called assassination attempt. Prof. Webster seems to have had a very cozy relationship with the Dallas DPD for someone of so pink a hue.

Grier & Louise Raggio timeline
1938: Louise Ballerstedt joins the American Friends Service Committee and spends that summer working in Galena, Illinois for the Society of Friends

1939: Louise graduates from the University of Texas and is awarded a Rockefeller Foundation grant for a one-year internship at the White House. Here, she meets the likes of Eleanor Roosevelt, befriends LBJ and dates John Connally. While in Washington, she also works for the National Youth Administration (NYA)

1940: Louise returns to Austin still with the NYA, working under Jake Pickle.[7] April 19, 1941: Grier Raggio and Louise Ballerstedt marry after a short courtship. Grier, a lawyer, is working for the Department of Agriculture investigating misuse of food stamps for purchase of alcohol and other illegal substances

December 7, 1941: Pearl Harbor is attacked by the Japanese resulting in the US entering WWII and Grier is drafted

March, 1942: Grier is sent to Pacific Theater after initially being sent to New Orleans to attend Officer's Training School for Intelligence where he is rejected on security grounds. He serves with the 386th Air Service Group. During the course of the war he would send letters home highly critical of the US army

August 6, 1942: First son Grier, Jr is born

September, 1945: Grier returns from the war and works for the Veteran's Administration Board

1946: Second son Tom is born

1947: At the insistence of Grier, Louise enrols in Southern Methodist University law School

1947: Third son Kenneth is born. Louise drops out of law school

1948: Grier is relieved of duties while answering 8 charges of "Un-American activities" including; being a member of the Communist Party; a member of the American Spanish Aid Committee; a member of the American Civil Rights Union; that he had advocated and praised the Russian system of government to co-workers and; that on another occasion had advocated the overthrow of the government by force. He and Louise travel to Washington where Grier appears before the Veterans Administrations Loyalty Board. He denies all charges except one - telling a fellow worker that “there is no difference between Stalin forcing Communism on the countries of Europe and the US forcing democracy on them”. This statement he asserts, had been taken out of context. He is cleared by the board and returns to work. Throughout this period and perhaps beyond, the Raggio's claim their phone is tapped and that they are under constant surveillance

1949: Louise and Grier join the Unitarian Church

1950: Louise returns to law school

1952: Louise graduates and does volunteer work for the League of Women Voters and the Women’s Alliance of the Unitarian Church while practicing law part-time from home. Meanwhile, Grier is again the focus of government interest in his activities

1953: Louise obtains a job as an assistant DA under Henry Wade through the help of friend and mentor, Judge Sarah T Hughes. Judge Hughes would, after the assassination of JFK, administer the oath of office to LBJ

March 1, 1954: Grier is guest speaker at a meeting of the Peace and World Relations Group of the Temple Emanu-El Sisterhood. His subject is, "Are We in Danger of Losing Our Civil Rights and Liberties?"

1955: Grier Raggio opens a law office in the Rio Grande Building in Dallas [8]

April, 1956: Louise quits DA's office to join her husband's law practice. Firm is now known as Raggio & Raggio and specializes in divorce cases

1957: Louise's former employer, Jake Pickle, becomes director of the Texas State Democratic Executive Committee. Holds that position until 1960

1960: Louise serves on the newly organized Family Law Section of the State Bar

1961: Jake Pickle becomes a member of the Texas Employment Commission

1961: Sarah Hughes becomes a Federal District Judge

January 27, 1963: Grier debates Wyatt W Lipscomb, city attorney in Garland for the Soroptimist Club of Dallas at the Baker Hotel. Subject of debate is "Does Membership in the United Nations Serve the Best interests of the United States?" Louise is a club member

November 13, 1963: Ruth Paine files a petition for divorce stating she separated from Michael on September 1, 1962, and that for 6 months prior to
separation, she had suffered a course of "unkind, cruel harsh and tyrannical treatment and conduct" at the hands of her husband. Ruth's attorney in this filing was Louise Raggio.[9] Recall that the Paine's and Raggio's attend the same church

November 22, 1963 Morning: Grier and Louise are at the Trade Mart for the luncheon [10]

November 22, 1963 Evening: Grier gets a call either from an ACLU member in Austin (according Greg Olds) or from Washington (according to Louise) concerning either finding out if Oswald was being denied counsel (according to Olds) or asking that he witness Oswald's arraignment (according to Louise). Grier phones Olds about this. In turn, Olds phones police, then calls Grier back. Grier suggests they go down and check out the situation

November 22, 1963, 11:15 PM: Olds, Raggio and 2 other DCLU members meet across from City Hall at Plaza Hotel, then try to talk to Earl Cabell without success before speaking with Prof. Charles Webster outside the office of Captain Fritz

November 22, 1963, 11:40 PM: Webster takes delegation to Captain King

November 22, 1963, 11:50 PM: According to Wade, Grier Raggio and Charles Webster are both at a meeting just prior to the midnight press conference regarding the arraignment in the JFK case. David Johnston however, only named himself, Curry, Fritz, Wade and 2 or 3 assistant DAs as being present

Midnight: According to Olds, the others in the delegation go home at the time he goes down to watch the press conference [11]

1970: Grier and Louise's eldest son, Grier, Jr starts up a journal called "The New Democrat" which he edits with Stephen Schlesinger, son of JFK aide and historian, Arthur

October 26, 1970: Conservative journalist, John Chamberlain writes widely published article, "Where else Can Democrats Go?" predicts that Raggio (whom Chamberlain describes as a Mayor John Lindsay functionary) and Schlesinger are "sewing the dragon's teeth" through their support of McGovern which he states will lead to problems at the '72 convention unless the Left gets its way

1972: Gary Allen, a John Birch Society propagandist and author of "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" publishes "Richard Nixon: The Man Behind the Mask" which quotes from the Chamberlain article, suggesting that Nixon and some of the Left in the Democratic Party are "part of the same conspiracy".

According to Allen, the Left, with Raggio and chlesinger playing prominent roles, will split the party, ensuring an easy win for Nixon

guns & money
There are two other people named Raggio who turn up in the records. Any connection to Grier Raggio is unknown, and they are mentioned here only for the benefit of anyone who might have an interest in genealogy. The first is David L Raggio originally of Natchitoches, Louisiana. He was a WWII veteran who served with the 879th Airborne Engineers.

Raggio, in 1963 and by now a geologist, entered into a partnership with Richard Davis and Gus de la Barre. The business which resulted was known as the Guatemalan Lumber & Mineral Corp. In actuality however, it was a front for training Cuban exiles at camps in the area around Lake Pontchartrain.

The second is William Raggio. As Washoe County District Attorney and friend of Frank Sinatra, he was heavily involved in the investigation into the December 8, 1963 kidnapping of Sinatra's son, Frank Jr. In March, 1968, New Orleans played host to the National Convention of District Attorneys. An awards banquet was planned as part of the convention with Hubert Humphrey originally slated as guest speaker. When Humphrey withdrew after hearing how Garrison was criticizing LBJ over various aspects of the Shaw case, as well as the original investigation of the assassination, Garrison placed himself into the guest speaker role.

The organizing committee, fretting over what Garrison might say, requested a meeting with him. The meeting culminated in barbed exchanges between Garrison and Raggio - who had attempted to warn Garrison to leave out any mention of the assassination in his speech. Garrison reacted by cancelling the banquet and shipping all the catered food to an orphanage.

In 1970, Richard Nixon hatched plans to recapture a hostile senate for the Republicans at the Nov 3rd elections. To this end, he hand-picked 9 candidates. Among them was William Raggio. Raggio failed in his bid.

In 1972, he did win a seat in the Nevada state senate, and has held it ever since.


ENDNOTES
[1] Commission Exhibit 987 is a letter from Greg Olds to J Lee Rankin. It is on DCLU letterhead which lists all board members and other office holders within the organization.

[2] Also according to Louise Raggio, her husband had called Olds at the insistence of someone from the Washington Office - not Austin.

[3] Commission Document 87, p 549

[4] Treasure-Hunting in the National Archives, The Third Decade, vol 2, # 2 by Sylvia Meagher, January 1986. The document cited by Meagher in the article is found in Commission Document 5, p 400

[5] The 1:35 Arraignment and the Rewriting of History, The Third Decade, vol 3, # 4 by Timothy Cwiek, May, 1987

[6] NARA Record Number: 124-90010-10040

[7] Pickle bio: 1938; United States Navy, served three and a half years; area director, National Youth Administration, 1938-1941; radio business; public relations executive; director of Texas state Democratic Executive Committee, 1957-1960; member of Texas Employment Commission, 1961-1963). He had also been a political aide to LBJ and in Nov 1963 was the Democratic Nominee in the 10th District run-off with Republican Jim Dobbs. He was hated by the liberal faction of his own party who had got Kennedy over the line in Texas in 1960. In fact, one of those Kennedy supporters, Jack Ritter appeared on TV, Nov 21 urging those who had previously supported him to now support Dobbs, indicating that Pickle was not an acceptable candidate for the Democrats, and had been "less than forthright" during debates. Kennedy was due in Austin after the Dallas visit.

[8] The 112th MIG also had an office in the Rio Grande Building, as did the Immigration & Naturalization Service. The latter was listed in Oswald's address book

[9] Warren Commission Document 849, p33. As no further action was taken within 6 months of filing, the case was automatically dismissed

[10] November 22 - The Day Remembered by Morning News Staff, Dallas, p136

[11] Unless otherwise stated, background information on Louise and Grier Raggio has been sourced from the roster of the 386th Air Service Group; Louise Raggio's autobiography, Texas Tornado; Louise Raggio profile from the Texas State Bar; article published by the Texas Women Lawyers Association, "Louise B Raggio: Handing the Torch to Today's Generation" and; The Dallas Morning News archives

bump

Greg, this is one of your posts from the EF in 2010 after I expressed doubts that Oswald ever requested the services of John Abt.  The Abt scenario simply fed into the concept of Oswald as a Marxist IMO:

'Lee Farley', on 07 Oct 2010 - 11:57 AM, said:

Lee Farley wrote:In relation to the topic of the thread: what is the critical consensus concerning Oswald's attempts to contact John Abt? Personally I don't think Oswald requested his services at all.

Lee, I don't know about any consenus. This is another of those issues where I may as well have beat my head against a brick wall instead of putting forward the argument that Oswald never asked for the ACLU OR Abt. Less painful.

Most don't doubt he did in part because H Lewis Nichols said he did. After all, this guy was head of the Dallas Bar Association.

But here's a little background on him: He was a WWII vet, and still in the Army Reserves at the time of the assassination. He previously worked as a City Attorney, and like Ruby was extremely familar with both the building, and its occupants. The Army Reserves were a recruiting ground for Army Intel. Nichols had no problem seeing Oswald; immediately afterwards giving an "impromptu" press conference, confirming that Oswald's legal rights were being looked after, and that Oswald had declined his assistance, wanting either Abt or someone from the ACLU. In 1969, Nichols wrote a piece for Reader's Digest in which he stated that after Nixon's nomination, he was summoned to a strategy meeting at the Mayflower Hotel. Nixon had a "special assignment" for him. It was to head up Operation Integrity which involved heading up a volunteer army of 100,000 to ensure a fair count in the election. It seems Nichols and Nixon went waaaay back...

FWIW, there may be a link between Ruth Paine and John Abt. When Harold Ware was killed in an auto accident near Baltimore about l935, Abt succeeded him as leader of the underground in Washington. Abt not only succeeded him in the job, he married Ware's widow, Jessica Smith. Smith was a member of the AFSC, and had been to Russia in the '20's on a relief mission.

She (Smith) was also a Socialist. Abt is most often associated with the CPUSA, but there was a time that the Communists (under Browder's leadership) actally supported Norman Thomas' (Socialist Party) presidential campaigns. Thomas, like RP, was a native of Ohio, and her entire family supported him.
As far as I am aware, RP had been very active in the AFSC at least up to moving to DFW.


Smith's trip to Russia had actually been with first husband, Ware, and involved "Agricultural collectivization projects", as well as relief work. Back in the US of A, Ware and Smith conducted a nine month survey of life in rural America, with the results being published in the "American Farmer". Naturally, Ware concluded that the Soviet system was far superior.


A snip from RP's testimony:



Mr. Jenner.
Have your parents had any interests in political matters?


Mrs. Paine.
Yes. Most of that interest I absorbed from hearing it told about, rather than
being around when it was going on. Most of the activity was in New York and,
as I have said, I moved 2 weeks after I was born from New York. But they have
always been interested in what is called the cooperative movement.


Mr. Jenner.
Tell me what you understand----


Mrs. Paine.
My understanding is that the consumer owns the business. In other words, holds
the shares, the stock that control, and determine the management of the
business, and share in the profits.


Mr. Jenner.
Is that something like what I would call a farmers cooperative?


Mrs. Paine.
I don't know what farmers cooperative is.


Mr. Jenner.
Would you describe what you understand the cooperative movement is?


Mrs. Paine.
I think consumers cooperative is somewhat different. I am not certain what
farmers cooperative is. I know that they were interested in and voted for
Norman Thomas when they were in New York.


Mr. Jenner.
Have you ever had any interests of that nature, that is an active political
interest in a political party? For example, the Socialist Party which Mr.
Thomas was the head, or leader?


Mrs. Paine.
No.


Mr. Jenner.
I take it from this thumbnail sketch of your life up to the present moment,
your interests were largely in the Friends and recreation for children, people
who needed help. Your interests were in the social area, but not a political
party interest.


Mrs. Paine.
That is a correct statement.

********************


The AFSC was started up by a group of socialist Quakers in order to help draft resisters. RP is a political animal - despite her denial. All her "charity" work and work with exchange programs had one aim: helping undermine communism and the Soviet Union.


What got me looking at this was reading somewhere that Abt's home phone number was unlisted. Don't know about the US - but here, if a phone number is unlisted, the phone company won't give out the number - it's the whole reason why people have it unlisted to start with. If it was unlisted - then Lee could NOT have got Abt's home number from the operator as claimed by the DPD.

So everyone is happy that Oswald's rights were being looked after because Nichols was on the job and accurately reported his conversation with Oswald?

And we can be equally happy because the DCLU were satisfied? Hell's bells! They even used their commie-given psychic powers to know that Oswald was a liar so there was no need to go against those upstanding gentlemen in the DPD who gave assurances that Oswald had declined help!

And on the subject of the DPD, we can be damn sure Oswald's rights were in safe hands because damnit, Oswald's rights were read at the arraignment held behind locked doors without a stenographer, or any sort of list of who was present - because those good ol' boys told us they held it in secret - not to hide anything! Nosirreee Bob. It was done to protect that sonabitches rights.

greg parker wrote:So everyone is happy that Oswald's rights were being looked after because Nichols was on the job and accurately reported his conversation with Oswald?

And we can be equally happy because the DCLU were satisfied? Hell's bells! They even used their commie-given psychic powers to know that Oswald was a liar so there was no need to go against those upstanding gentlemen in the DPD who gave assurances that Oswald had declined help!

And on the subject of the DPD, we can be damn sure Oswald's rights were in safe hands because damnit, Oswald's rights were read at the arraignment held behind locked doors without a stenographer, or any sort of list of who was present - because those good ol' boys told us they held it in secret - not to hide anything! Nosirreee Bob. It was done to protect that sonabitches rights.

Greg,

Has anybody ever put together a genesis of the John Abt story?  Who first reported it, when it was first published, etc?

As far as I'm aware there is not one recording of Oswald on his many trips through the corridors of this as a request.  It would be interesting to know who was the first to print this and whether there were any other reports at the same time of Abt being mentioned by Oswald.  If he did shout for Abt was the coverage of this in the media total coverage or was it isolated to one newsgroup and then copied by others?

greg parker wrote:So everyone is happy that Oswald's rights were being looked after because Nichols was on the job and accurately reported his conversation with Oswald?

I'm not, Greg.

Upon apprehension in the Texas Theater, Oswald protested loudly against police brutality, that he was not resisting arrest, and that he wanted a lawyer.

During the ride to DPD HQ, Oswald again insisted that he wasn’t being handled properly, had done nothing and demanded his rights, which presumably included a lawyer.

At 4:45 pm during the lineup for Helen Markham, “It isn't right to put me in line with these teenagers. . . . You know what you are doing, and you are trying to railroad me. . . . I want my lawyer.”

Immediately after the lineup, during his second interrogation session: ”I want that attorney in New York, Mr. Abt.. . . I don't know him personally, but that is the attorney I want. . . . If I can't get him, then I may get the American Civil Liberties Union to send me an attorney."

At the tail end of the same, second interrogation: “Can I get an attorney?. . . I have not been given the opportunity to have counsel. . . ."

During the transfer to the 6:30 lineup for Guinyard, Calloway and McWatters: “ "I didn't shoot anyone," Oswald yelled in the halls to reporters. . . . "I want to get in touch with a lawyer, Mr. Abt, in New York City. . . . I never killed anybody."

Sometime during the 3rd, one-hour interrogation commencing about 7:55: “I don't care to talk anymore. . . . I am waiting for someone to come forward to give me legal assistance. . .”

At about 8:55 after being fingerprinted and submitting to a paraffin test: "I will not sign the fingerprint card until I talk to my attorney.”       

During the five minute press conference at about 11:25 pm:  "Well, I was questioned by Judge Johnston. However, I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing. I really don't know what the situation is about. Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that, and I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance."

At the alleged 1:35 AM arraignment for the assassination: “I want to contact my lawyer, Mr. Abt, in New York City. I would like to have this gentleman.”

At about 10:30 the next morning, the first thing Oswald said: "I said I wanted to contact Attorney Abt, New York.”

During a visit from his mother and wife shortly after 1:00 pm:  "No, there is nothing you can do. Everything is fine. I know my rights, and I will have an attorney. I already requested to get in touch with Attorney Abt, I think is his name. Don't worry about a thing." 

During a Saturday afternoon lineup, Oswald surprised cabbie William Whaley who testified: “He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.”

At about 3:40 Saturday afternoon, Oswald called Ruth Paine to ask her to contact John Abt in New York city.

Between 5:30 and 6 pm on Saturday afternoon, after having already demanded legal counsel no fewer than 14 times (to our knowledge, there may we have been more), we are asked to believe that when H. Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Association offered to find Oswald a lawyer, the suspect said: “"No, not now. You might come back next week, and if I don't get some of these other people to assist me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me." 

(Perhaps Oswald thought whomever would be assigned to him wouldn’t be a lawyer, but an informant tasked with drawing out a confession.  He was smart enough to be wary, to wit: he told his brother Robert during a ten minute visit that he didn’t trust the phones they used to converse through the thick glass separating them: "I cannot or would not say anything, because the line is apparently tapped.”) 

About 11:15 am on Sunday morning, only minutes before being murdered by Jack Ruby, Oswald told SS agent Thomas Kelley:  "I will be glad to discuss this proposition with my attorney, and that after I talk with one, we could either discuss it with him or discuss it with my attorney, if the attorney thinks it is a wise thing to do, but at the present time I have nothing more to say to you."

From his first moment in police custody to the final moments before his death, Oswald insisted that he wanted legal representation, which he was denied over the course of about 46 hours in custody.

Given the foregoing, I think it’s safe to say that either Oswald had some unexplained reason for declining the offer from Louis Nichols for legal counsel that we’ve yet to prove, or Nichols - and others - committed outright perjury in recounting the episode.

Robert,

Is it not odd that prior to the Oswald midnight press conference reports have him shouting for John Abt and after the midnight press conference reports have him shouting for John Abt?  Yet at the press conference itself he does not mention him and instead asks for "someone."  Let's read that word given its literal meaning for now because I know we can read between the lines and give more meaning to the word "someone" as in he was specifically asking for "a certain someone."

On the face of it, is this behaviour of Oswald somewhat strange, especially given the fact that he was also allegedly asking Ruth Paine to get in touch with Abt the next day - - that she, of course, failed to do.  I have no doubts that Oswald was shouting for a lawyer from the getgo and was also shouting for a lawyer during his interrogations but the whole Abt scenario is just too pat for me since the name Abt does not leave his lips in any recording of him being dragged through the corridors of City Hall and he missed his big opportunity to ask for Abt, a sure fire way to get the message out, when 15 microphones and TV cameras were plonked in front of his face at his "press conference."

Also, given the fact that I believe Oswald did speak extensively to his interrogators even if I do not believe the notes are an accurate or complete version of events, I think his openness to speak is also representative of his innocence.  In all likelihood the charges that were being brought against him must have sounded so preposterous that he couldn't stop himself from speaking.  Anyone involved in planning the assassination or if they were somehow involved in it would surely have glued their lips shut UNTIL a lawyer walked through the doors, whether that was John Abt or anyone else.

Lee Farley wrote:Robert,

Is it not odd that prior to the Oswald midnight press conference reports have him shouting for John Abt and after the midnight press conference reports have him shouting for John Abt?  Yet at the press conference itself he does not mention him and instead asks for "someone."  Let's read that word given its literal meaning for now because I know we can read between the lines and give more meaning to the word "someone" as in he was specifically asking for "a certain someone."

On the face of it, is this behaviour of Oswald somewhat strange, especially given the fact that he was also allegedly asking Ruth Paine to get in touch with Abt the next day - - that she, of course, failed to do.  I have no doubts that Oswald was shouting for a lawyer from the getgo and was also shouting for a lawyer during his interrogations but the whole Abt scenario is just too pat for me since the name Abt does not leave his lips in any recording of him being dragged through the corridors of City Hall and he missed his big opportunity to ask for Abt, a sure fire way to get the message out, when 15 microphones and TV cameras were plonked in front of his face at his "press conference."

Also, given the fact that I believe Oswald did speak extensively to his interrogators even if I do not believe the notes are an accurate or complete version of events, I think his openness to speak is also representative of his innocence.  In all likelihood the charges that were being brought against him must have sounded so preposterous that he couldn't stop himself from speaking.  Anyone involved in planning the assassination or if they were somehow involved in it would surely have glued their lips shut UNTIL a lawyer walked through the doors, whether that was John Abt or anyone else.

Lee:

First and foremost, we both agree on Oswald's innocence.

I understand your reservations, and they’re well-founded.  It is unwise to take at face value almost anything said by DPD and Dallas DA’s  without corroborative evidence.  In my own mind, that holds doubly true for anything said by Ruth Paine, whether under oath or otherwise.  Hence, if they all cite Abt’s name, we have good reason to be cautious.   

The omission of Abt’s name during the press conference may be peculiar, or may simply be due to the fact that the conference was so quickly truncated before Oswald had a chance to say much of anything.  Aside from being short, only a few minutes, it was also highly chaotic, with numerous questions being peppered at him simultaneously.  When he realized the conference was ending abruptly for no apparent reason, the look of contempt on his face was palpable.  

Perhaps it is only me, but when Oswald said “I do request... someone to come forward to give me legal assistance," I’ve always heard a minor pause as though he was trying to think of what to say, followed by a slight emphasis on the word “someone,” as though he had someone specific in mind.  Or perhaps it only seems that way because of the pause preceding “someone.”  (And I don’t think he meant Abt, but that’s just my speculation.)

This really depends largely upon which of two broader pictures one sees in play. 

1)  If we assume that Oswald was attempting to infiltrate the FPCC and ingratiate himself with other leftist organizations, at somebody else’s behest, then asking for Abt only further burnished the “leftist” credentials he seemed intent upon establishing as part of his role as a mole for a third party. 

That he did not mention Abt by name during the press conference doesn’t automatically mean the name “Abt” never passed his lips at other times.  Moreover, if we take Oswald at his contemporaneous word, during the press conference he had not yet been charged with the assassination, and said he’d only heard about his alleged involvement in the assassination from reporters in the hallway. 

Had that denial been false, surely Curry or Fritz or Wade would have countered it and told the press that Oswald had been interrogated about the assassination.  .

However, if Oswald’s protestations were true, he was requesting Abt to defend him against a charge of murdering Tippit, not the assassination.  The mention of Abt takes on an entirely different complexion once Oswald is allegedly arraigned for the assassination.  

2)  If we assume that Oswald was a genuine leftist, then his work with the FPCC was spectacularly unsuccessful.  By design. 

One cannot recruit members to a cause by handing out leaflets that contain an incorrect address in almost every case.  And handing out leaflets just long enough to be caught doing so by TV cameras and then leaving doesn’t comport with a genuine leftist intent upon winning real converts.  If even the arresting police commented that the fracas between Oswald and Bringuier was “staged,” I am prepared to take their word for it.  Requesting to see a specific FBI agent once under arrest likewise renders spurious the notion that Oswald was acting out of genuine political beliefs. 

Consequently, I must adhere to the belief that his leftist crusade was a sham, and that citing Abt’s name was done at the instruction of somebody else, initially in connection with the Tippit murder, not the assassination. 

What I find wholly unconvincing is that a man who at every turn demands legal representation would turn it down when offered, unless he had reason to suspect DPD chicanery in providing such a lawyer. 

And if he suspected such chicanery, he was wise beyond his years.  Almost as though he’d had the very training in resisting interrogation that his captors claimed to have witnessed from him.  For so young a man, he handled himself remarkably well under the circumstances and came across to all as a cool customer.  Something in his background seems to have prepared him to exhibit this behavior in custody. 

I suspect the provision of Abt’s name, and the Hail Mary phone calls to John Hurt, are both of a piece, with Oswald playing out a string he’s been instructed upon should he be arrested.  I think he actually thought somebody would come to his aid and protect him.  When he realized this was not going to transpire, he grew increasingly frantic in his hallway denunciations of how he was being handled.

Others may see something else entirely.

What I find wholly unconvincing is that a man who at every turn demands legal representation would turn it down when offered, unless he had reason to suspect DPD chicanery in providing such a lawyer.


I don't think its DPD chicanery, I think they would have preferred if the Dallas affiliate of the ACLU had  not sent lawyers down to assist Oswald. I think Oswald was offered counsel and I think, being the suspicious sort, turned it down. You can't stop a man from hiring the lawyer of his choice (assuming he's available). So even if LHO accepted the services of a Dallas lawyer, he could change counsel as soon as Abt or whoever flew down.

The basic advice any lawyer would give Oswald is to shut his mouth and suggest his wife do the same until the lawyers determine the the outline of the state's case and how strong the evidence is. These DCLU lawyers would look to the nation like either crooked shysters or nuclear grade morons if they took any other course of action in such a high profile case.

Remember too, Fritz's hands were tied for an unusual reason, for the first time ever (and probably the last time, every big case since then, when the FBI steps in the room, they're in charge), a local cop in a redball case was interrogating a suspect in the presence of a rotating cast of men from the Secret Service, the FBI, the Postal Inspector, Sheriff's Office and DA. Its hard to beat a confession out of a man when you have an audience of strangers who could make your life miserable if they find your methods objectionable.

beowulf wrote:What I find wholly unconvincing is that a man who at every turn demands legal representation would turn it down when offered, unless he had reason to suspect DPD chicanery in providing such a lawyer.


I don't think its DPD chicanery, I think they would have preferred if the Dallas affiliate of the ACLU had  not sent lawyers down to assist Oswald. I think Oswald was offered counsel and I think, being the suspicious sort, turned it down. You can't stop a man from hiring the lawyer of his choice (assuming he's available). So even if LHO accepted the services of a Dallas lawyer, he could change counsel as soon as Abt or whoever flew down.

The basic advice any lawyer would give Oswald is to shut his mouth and suggest his wife do the same until the lawyers determine the the outline of the state's case and how strong the evidence is. These DCLU lawyers would look to the nation like either crooked shysters or nuclear grade morons if they took any other course of action in such a high profile case.

Remember too, Fritz's hands were tied for an unusual reason, for the first time ever (and probably the last time, every big case since then, when the FBI steps in the room, they're in charge), a local cop in a redball case was interrogating a suspect in the presence of a rotating cast of men from the Secret Service, the FBI, the Postal Inspector, Sheriff's Office and DA. Its hard to beat a confession out of a man when you have an audience of strangers who could make your life miserable if they find your methods objectionable.

Hi Beowulf:

Perhaps we’re working at cross purposes here, so I just want to clarify in case I’ve not been clear in my wording.  Being misunderstood is bad enough when it happens, but me being responsible for it is even worse.

I certainly don’t think that Fritz or anyone else would have beaten a confession out of Oswald, because the accused would invariably be paraded before the press in coming days.  Black eyes or other outward signs of police brutality committed after his arrest would reflect poorly upon the DPD, who had already acquired much egg-on-face with Kennedy’s murder. 

When I referred to chicanery, my thoughts were more along the lines of a cop impersonating a lawyer, to draw out any confession they hoped or thought Oswald might have been prepared to impart under lawyer-client privilege. 

Along similar lines, perhaps a conference with a genuine lawyer in a room wired for sound, so that no such privilege would exist in fact.  If Oswald already suspected the phone used by visitors was tapped, which he alluded to with his brother Robert, I think it likely he may have balked at any conversation with a lawyer in the DPD’s environs, for much the same reason.  

However, Oswald’s insistence at every opportunity that he was being denied legal counsel before numerous public witnesses is hard to square with declining such counsel when it was reputedly offered.  I say “reputedly” because I do not believe civil lawyer Louis Nichols’ story at all.  But then, since I’m not convinced by the extant evidence that Oswald was legally arraigned for either crime, perhaps I’m not the best judge in this matter.

I likewise find it counterintuitive, to say the least, that Dallas Civil Liberties Union counsel would accept the word of police that the suspect in custody was happy without legal representation when every public utterance he had made demonstrated the opposite. 

Should they not have said to DPD, “We’d like to hear it from him, thanks?”

Should they not have said to DPD, “We’d like to hear it from him, thanks?”

That's a fair point, the cops aren't exactly disinterested witnesses and those arraignments sound rather shady in that, the judge should have asked him whether he wanted counsel and if he did, gotten a lawyer for him before the cops could talk with him again. However, criminal procedure has changed so much in 50 years, I couldn't tell you if that  was SOP for 1963 Dallas.

As for beating confessions out of suspects, in 1963 the cops knew how to do this without leaving bruises. Fritz doesn't really strike me as a straight arrow above breaking the rules to get a confession. The wildcard was all those damn Feds in the room. Pretending to be a lawyer to get Oswald to confess is so wildly illegal and so easily detected, there is no way in Hades the Secret Service or the FBI or, for that matter, the District Attorney (all of whom had men in the room) would be party to it. Anything Oswald said to a fake lawyer (or overheard saying in a wiretapped conversation with a real lawyer) would be suppressed and any evidence collected because of the illegality would be barred from trial as "fruit of the poisonous tree".

From Greg Olds' (DCLU) testimony:

Mr. OLDS. Yes. I got a phone call about 10:30 that night from one of our board members saying they had been called by the President of the Austin affiliate who was concerned about the reports that were being circulated on the air. I think Oswald was directly quoted as saying he had not been given the opportunity to have counsel, and the suggestion was made that it might be well to check into this matter, and I believe I called this--I first called the police department to inquire about this, and finally talked to Captain Fritz, Capt. Will Fritz, and was--raised the question, and he said, "No--" that Oswald had been given the opportunity and declined. And I called--then I called the board member back who had called me----
Mr. STERN. Excuse me. Did Captain Fritz say that Oswald did not want counsel at that time, or that he was trying to obtain his own counsel?
Mr. OLDS. What I was told, that he had been given the opportunity and had not made any requests. So, I called our board member back and conferred with him and he suggested that we go down and see about it at the police department, in person, to get further assurances. 
---------------------------------


we told Captain King what we were there for, and he said, he assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel. 

======================


Justice of the Peace David Johnston was. He was the one that had held the I believe an arraignment, I believe is the right term, at 7:30 when the first charge of murder was filed against Oswald, and he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of--Oswald's rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. 
Mr. STERN. What happened next?
Mr. OLDS. Also we were--I believe Chief Curry was quoted to us as having said some--also that Oswald had been advised of his rights to counsel. I am not sure who told me that. I believe that it was Mr. Webster. That was about all. We felt fairly well satisfied that Oswald probably had not been deprived of his rights, so, we then broke up.

=============================
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.

Mistake, yes. But to some extent, I can forgive Olds. He was not a lawyer himself. But he did have at least two lawyers with him and a professor of law already embedded with the cops for the day. None of those gentlemen can be excused in any way, shape or form.

Olds testimony stands out for another reason: not a single question about Oswald's alleged appearance with Michael Paine at a DCLU meeting.  Olds was there, so why no questions?  Simple. The WC already knew that what he'd say was not what they wanted to hear. He had already told the FBI he had no memory of Oswald being there.

Interesting. The surprising thing is the Dallas police held him so long, you'd expect (and again, the past is another country) once he is arraigned he'd then be  handed over to the sheriff and booked into county jail. Makes you wonder if they were keeping him around so Jack Ruby could do his work. It speaks well of Sheriff Decker, that it seems someone really, really didn't want Oswald under guard in his jail.

beowulf wrote:Interesting. The surprising thing is the Dallas police held him so long, you'd expect (and again, the past is another country) once he is arraigned he'd then be  handed over to the sheriff and booked into county jail. Makes you wonder if they were keeping him around so Jack Ruby could do his work. It speaks well of Sheriff Decker, that it seems someone really, really didn't want Oswald under guard in his jail.

What we have is Oswald saying at every available opportunity when cameras and microphones are around that he wants someone to come forward to give legal assistance - but then when no cameras are around, he is telling all and sundry either he doesn't want any assistance, or he wants Abt and no one else.

Sorry. I don't buy it. 

And I still don't believe he ever asked for Abt.

Yes - two newsmen claim they heard him ask as he was being led away - but no one else did - and at least one of those two was a CIA asset (according to Carl Bernstein - and he'd know!) 

The Dallas cops would not have had a clue who Abt was.

But there were two people who would have known. Prof. Chuckie-Boy Webster - "commie" law professor at large and apparently very chummy with DPD - and Ruth Paine who most likely knew Abt's wife through the AFSC.

I found this to be really exceptional work and writing by Greg; blew me away in fact. I think I have little to add but after re-reading it last night I did copy & paste some sections of it and the ensuing discussion that were most of interest to me. My comments in bold.
 
===========
 
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."

Permitted stands out at the end; he was in custody, we believe the DPD always does the right thing, but I feel sorry we didn't talk to him ourselves because it wasn't clear if we'd be allowed to????

----

Grier & Louise Raggio timeline

1938: Louise Ballerstedt joins the American Friends Service Committee and spends that summer working in Galena, Illinois for the Society of Friends

1939: Louise graduates from the University of Texas and is awarded a Rockefeller Foundation grant for a one-year internship at the White House. Here, she meets the likes of Eleanor Roosevelt, befriends LBJ and dates John Connally. While in Washington, she also works for the National Youth Administration (NYA)

1940: Louise returns to Austin still with the NYA, working under Jake Pickle.[7] April 19, 1941: Grier Raggio and Louise Ballerstedt marry after a short courtship. Grier, a lawyer, is working for the Department of Agriculture investigating misuse of food stamps for purchase of alcohol and other illegal substances
...
March, 1942: Grier is sent to Pacific Theater after initially being sent to New Orleans to attend Officer's Training School for Intelligence where he is rejected on security grounds. He serves with the 386th Air Service Group. During the course of the war he would send letters home highly critical of the US army
........
1948: Grier is relieved of duties while answering 8 charges of "Un-American activities" including; being a member of the Communist Party; a member of the American Spanish Aid Committee; a member of the American Civil Rights Union; that he had advocated and praised the Russian system of government to co-workers and; that on another occasion had advocated the overthrow of the government by force. He and Louise travel to Washington where Grier appears before the Veterans Administrations Loyalty Board. He denies all charges except one - telling a fellow worker that “there is no difference between Stalin forcing Communism on the countries of Europe and the US forcing democracy on them”. This statement he asserts, had been taken out of context. He is cleared by the board and returns to work. Throughout this period and perhaps beyond, the Raggio's claim their phone is tapped and that they are under constant surveillance

1949: Louise and Grier join the Unitarian Church

1950: Louise returns to law school

1952: Louise graduates and does volunteer work for the League of Women Voters and the Women’s Alliance of the Unitarian Church while practicing law part-time from home. Meanwhile, Grier is again the focus of government interest in his activities

1953: Louise obtains a job as an assistant DA under Henry Wade through the help of friend and mentor, Judge Sarah T Hughes. Judge Hughes would, after the assassination of JFK, administer the oath of office to LBJ

Nice to know her husband's issues didn't hold her back

March 1, 1954: Grier is guest speaker at a meeting of the Peace and World Relations Group of the Temple Emanu-El Sisterhood. His subject is, "Are We in Danger of Losing Our Civil Rights and Liberties?"

1955: Grier Raggio opens a law office in the Rio Grande Building in Dallas [8]

April, 1956: Louise quits DA's office to join her husband's law practice. Firm is now known as Raggio & Raggio and specializes in divorce cases

1957: Louise's former employer, Jake Pickle, becomes director of the Texas State Democratic Executive Committee. Holds that position until 1960

1960: Louise serves on the newly organized Family Law Section of the State Bar

1961: Jake Pickle becomes a member of the Texas Employment Commission

1961: Sarah Hughes becomes a Federal District Judge

January 27, 1963: Grier debates Wyatt W Lipscomb, city attorney in Garland for the Soroptimist Club of Dallas at the Baker Hotel. Subject of debate is "Does Membership in the United Nations Serve the Best interests of the United States?" Louise is a club member

November 13, 1963: Ruth Paine files a petition for divorce stating she separated from Michael on September 1, 1962, and that for 6 months prior to separation, she had suffered a course of "unkind, cruel harsh and tyrannical treatment and conduct" at the hands of her husband. Ruth's attorney in this filing was Louise Raggio.[9] Recall that the Paine's and Raggio's attend the same church

November 22, 1963 Morning: Grier and Louise are at the Trade Mart for the luncheon [10]

November 22, 1963 Evening: Grier gets a call either from an ACLU member in Austin (according Greg Olds) or from Washington (according to Louise) concerning either finding out if Oswald was being denied counsel (according to Olds) or asking that he witness Oswald's arraignment (according to Louise). Grier phones Olds about this. In turn, Olds phones police, then calls Grier back. Grier suggests they go down and check out the situation

November 22, 1963, 11:15 PM: Olds, Raggio and 2 other DCLU members meet across from City Hall at Plaza Hotel, then try to talk to Earl Cabell without success before speaking with Prof. Charles Webster outside the office of Captain Fritz

November 22, 1963, 11:40 PM: Webster takes delegation to Captain King

November 22, 1963, 11:50 PM: According to Wade, Grier Raggio and Charles Webster are both at a meeting just prior to the midnight press conference regarding the arraignment in the JFK case. David Johnston however, only named himself, Curry, Fritz, Wade and 2 or 3 assistant DAs as being present

Midnight: According to Olds, the others in the delegation go home at the time he goes down to watch the press conference [11]

1970: Grier and Louise's eldest son, Grier, Jr starts up a journal called "The New Democrat" which he edits with Stephen Schlesinger, son of JFK aide and historian, Arthur

October 26, 1970: Conservative journalist, John Chamberlain writes widely published article, "Where else Can Democrats Go?" predicts that Raggio (whom Chamberlain describes as a Mayor John Lindsay functionary) and Schlesinger are "sewing the dragon's teeth" through their support of McGovern which he states will lead to problems at the '72 convention unless the Left gets its way

1972: Gary Allen, a John Birch Society propagandist and author of "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" publishes "Richard Nixon: The Man Behind the Mask" which quotes from the Chamberlain article, suggesting that Nixon and some of the Left in the Democratic Party are "part of the same conspiracy".

According to Allen, the Left, with Raggio and chlesinger playing prominent roles, will split the party, ensuring an easy win for Nixon

guns & money

There are two other people named Raggio who turn up in the records. Any connection to Grier Raggio is unknown, and they are mentioned here only for the benefit of anyone who might have an interest in genealogy. The first is David L Raggio originally of Natchitoches, Louisiana. He was a WWII veteran who served with the 879th Airborne Engineers.

Raggio, in 1963 and by now a geologist, entered into a partnership with Richard Davis and Gus de la Barre. The business which resulted was known as the Guatemalan Lumber & Mineral Corp. In actuality however, it was a front for training Cuban exiles at camps in the area around Lake Pontchartrain.

The second is William Raggio. As Washoe County District Attorney and friend of Frank Sinatra, he was heavily involved in the investigation into the December 8, 1963 kidnapping of Sinatra's son, Frank Jr. In March, 1968, New Orleans played host to the National Convention of District Attorneys. An awards banquet was planned as part of the convention with Hubert Humphrey originally slated as guest speaker. When Humphrey withdrew after hearing how Garrison was criticizing LBJ over various aspects of the Shaw case, as well as the original investigation of the assassination, Garrison placed himself into the guest speaker role.

The organizing committee, fretting over what Garrison might say, requested a meeting with him. The meeting culminated in barbed exchanges between Garrison and Raggio - who had attempted to warn Garrison to leave out any mention of the assassination in his speech. Garrison reacted by cancelling the banquet and shipping all the catered food to an orphanage. [really gotta like Garrison sometimes]
In 1970, Richard Nixon hatched plans to recapture a hostile senate for the Republicans at the Nov 3rd elections. To this end, he hand-picked 9 candidates. Among them was William Raggio. Raggio failed in his bid.

In 1972, he did win a seat in the Nevada state senate, and has held it ever since.

　
[8] The 112th MIG also had an office in the Rio Grande Building, as did the Immigration & Naturalization Service. The latter was listed in Oswald's address book

==========================================

RCD:

(Perhaps Oswald thought whomever would be assigned to him wouldn’t be a lawyer, but an informant tasked with drawing out a confession. He was smart enough to be wary, to wit: he told his brother Robert during a ten minute visit that he didn’t trust the phones they used to converse through the thick glass separating them: "I cannot or would not say anything, because the line is apparently tapped.”)

From his first moment in police custody to the final moments before his death, Oswald insisted that he wanted legal representation, which he was denied over the course of about 46 hours in custody.

Given the foregoing, I think it’s safe to say that either Oswald had some unexplained reason for declining the offer from Louis Nichols for legal counsel that we’ve yet to prove, or Nichols - and others - committed outright perjury in recounting the episode.

=========

LDF:

Is it not odd that prior to the Oswald midnight press conference reports have him shouting for John Abt and after the midnight press conference reports have him shouting for John Abt? Yet at the press conference itself he does not mention him and instead asks for "someone." Let's read that word given its literal meaning for now because I know we can read between the lines and give more meaning to the word "someone" as in he was specifically asking for "a certain someone."

On the face of it, is this behaviour of Oswald somewhat strange, especially given the fact that he was also allegedly asking Ruth Paine to get in touch with Abt the next day - - that she, of course, failed to do. I have no doubts that Oswald was shouting for a lawyer from the getgo and was also shouting for a lawyer during his interrogations but the whole Abt scenario is just too pat for me since the name Abt does not leave his lips in any recording of him being dragged through the corridors of City Hall and he missed his big opportunity to ask for Abt, a sure fire way to get the message out, when 15 microphones and TV cameras were plonked in front of his face at his "press conference."

=========

RCD:

Perhaps it is only me, but when Oswald said “I do request... someone to come forward to give me legal assistance," I’ve always heard a minor pause as though he was trying to think of what to say, followed by a slight emphasis on the word “someone,” as though he had someone specific in mind. Or perhaps it only seems that way because of the pause preceding “someone.” (And I don’t think he meant Abt, but that’s just my speculation.)

[might that pause be a sign of desperation -- as in "I do request....someone please come forward to give me legal assistance"? in that reading, "someone" would equal "anyone"]

Consequently, I must adhere to the belief that his leftist crusade was a sham, and that citing Abt’s name was done at the instruction of somebody else, initially in connection with the Tippit murder, not the assassination.

What I find wholly unconvincing is that a man who at every turn demands legal representation would turn it down when offered, unless he had reason to suspect DPD chicanery in providing such a lawyer....

============

RCD:

When I referred to chicanery, my thoughts were more along the lines of a cop impersonating a lawyer, to draw out any confession they hoped or thought Oswald might have been prepared to impart under lawyer-client privilege.

Along similar lines, perhaps a conference with a genuine lawyer in a room wired for sound, so that no such privilege would exist in fact. If Oswald already suspected the phone used by visitors was tapped, which he alluded to with his brother Robert, I think it likely he may have balked at any conversation with a lawyer in the DPD’s environs, for much the same reason.

However, Oswald’s insistence at every opportunity that he was being denied legal counsel before numerous public witnesses is hard to square with declining such counsel when it was reputedly offered. I say “reputedly” because I do not believe civil lawyer Louis Nichols’ story at all. But then, since I’m not convinced by the extant evidence that Oswald was legally arraigned for either crime, perhaps I’m not the best judge in this matter.

I likewise find it counterintuitive, to say the least, that Dallas Civil Liberties Union counsel would accept the word of police that the suspect in custody was happy without legal representation when every public utterance he had made demonstrated the opposite.

Should they not have said to DPD, “We’d like to hear it from him, thanks?”

==============

beowulf:

Pretending to be a lawyer to get Oswald to confess is so wildly illegal and so easily detected, there is no way in Hades the Secret Service or the FBI or, for that matter, the District Attorney (all of whom had men in the room) would be party to it. Anything Oswald said to a fake lawyer (or overheard saying in a wiretapped conversation with a real lawyer) would be suppressed and any evidence collected because of the illegality would be barred from trial as "fruit of the poisonous tree".

I wouldn't think it would be altogether necessary for anyone to pretend to be a lawyer, or for an honest lawyer's conversations with Oswald to be wired; surely there would be some lawyers out there who would be more than happy to collude with (or already in collusion with) the DPD in representing themselves to Oswald as "an honest lawyer"? I realize it's a stretch to believe that such lawyers might exist --- dishonest, corrupt, and so on.

=========

From Greg Olds' (DCLU) testimony:

Mr. OLDS. Yes. I got a phone call about 10:30 that night from one of our board members saying they had been called by the President of the Austin affiliate who was concerned about the reports that were being circulated on the air. I think Oswald was directly quoted as saying he had not been given the opportunity to have counsel, and the suggestion was made that it might be well to check into this matter, and I believe I called this--I first called the police department to inquire about this, and finally talked to Captain Fritz, Capt. Will Fritz, and was--raised the question, and he said, "No--" that Oswald had been given the opportunity and declined. And I called--then I called the board member back who had called me----

Mr. STERN. Excuse me. Did Captain Fritz say that Oswald did not want counsel at that time, or that he was trying to obtain his own counsel?

Mr. OLDS. What I was told, that he had been given the opportunity and had not made any requests. So, I called our board member back and conferred with him and he suggested that we go down and see about it at the police department, in person, to get further assurances.

---------------------------------

....we told Captain King what we were there for, and he said, he assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel.

---------------------------------

........Justice of the Peace David Johnston was. He was the one that had held the I believe an arraignment, I believe is the right term, at 7:30 when the first charge of murder was filed against Oswald, and he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of--Oswald's rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel.

Mr. STERN. What happened next?

Mr. OLDS. Also we were--I believe Chief Curry was quoted to us as having said some--also that Oswald had been advised of his rights to counsel. I am not sure who told me that. I believe that it was Mr. Webster. That was about all. We felt fairly well satisfied that Oswald probably had not been deprived of his rights, so, we then broke up.

"Probably" i.e., "close enough"

=============================

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.


Greg Parker:

Mistake, yes. But to some extent, I can forgive Olds. He was not a lawyer himself. But he did have at least two lawyers with him and a professor of law already embedded with the cops for the day. None of those gentlemen can be excused in any way, shape or form.

Olds testimony stands out for another reason: not a single question about Oswald's alleged appearance with Michael Paine at a DCLU meeting. Olds was there, so why no questions? Simple. The WC already knew that what he'd say was not what they wanted to hear. He had already told the FBI he had no memory of Oswald being there.

-------------------------------

What we have is Oswald saying at every available opportunity when cameras and microphones are around that he wants someone to come forward to give legal assistance - but then when no cameras are around, he is telling all and sundry either he doesn't want any assistance, or he wants Abt and no one else.

Sorry. I don't buy it.

And I still don't believe he ever asked for Abt.

Yes - two newsmen claim they heard him ask as he was being led away - but no one else did - and at least one of those two was a CIA asset (according to Carl Bernstein - and he'd know!)   

The Dallas cops would not have had a clue who Abt was.

But there were two people who would have known. Prof. Chuckie-Boy Webster - "commie" law professor at large and apparently very chummy with DPD - and Ruth Paine who most likely knew Abt's wife through the AFSC.

=====================

I agree with Lee and Greg; the more you look at it, the more it appears the Abt request is part of the "manufacturing process" for the dirty rotten Commie scum who murdered our beloved president (real tears).

If only we could be sure that Ruth Paine & CIA media assets could be trusted to tell the truth. I mean, you'd at least think Ruth could be trusted, her being an apolitical Quaker and all, just trying to look after the Oswalds and their well-being like she did.

Oswald had to be shown to the public in the worst possible light to him. No shower, no change of clothes. Nothing but a totally dishevelled oddball will do. Much better for the audience than mere newsprint. Maybe thats why he was kept alive?

I wonder if the use of Abt could be either have been manufactured to continue the "commie" theme,

Or

A sign to those outside that he was maintaining silence. The clenched fist while being filmed may also have been used as a sign to his handlers that he was saying nothing. Maybe this was to keep his daughters alive.

Colin Crow wrote:A sign to those outside that he was maintaining silence. The clenched fist while being filmed may also have been used as a sign to his handlers that he was saying nothing. Maybe this was to keep his daughters alive.

Who knows? But it can be noted that he was killed straight after apparently telling Inspector Kelley that he'd be willing to talk to the USSS in private if his lawyer agreed.

I agree with Lee and Greg; the more you look at it, the more it appears the

Abt request is part of the "manufacturing process" for the dirty rotten Commie scum who murdered our beloved president (real tears).


If only we could be sure that Ruth Paine & CIA media assets could be trusted to tell the truth. I mean, you'd at least think Ruth could be trusted, her being an apolitical Quaker and all, just trying to look after the Oswalds and their well-being like she did.

Thanks for the kind words, Dan. Hopefully the significance of these two threads will become clearer at a later date when it is placed in the full context of events and inter-connections.

Among the pocket litter allegedly found on Oswald after his death was a scrap of paper containing Abt's private and office numbers. along with the number for The Worker.

Abt's home number was unlisted and the law firm he worked for did not bear his name as in for example  Abt, Rapt, Uptight and Gonski   
He was alleged to have obtained Abt's number/s from the operator. Don't know about the US, but here, unlisted phone numbers are never given out by the phone company. And having the number for The Worker? I'd call that overkill. I think this scrap of paper was planted just like the pristine bus transfer. I now also believe there was other pocket litter was planted... but that's for another day.

surely there would be some lawyers out there who would be more than happy to collude with (or already in collusion with) the DPD in representing themselves to Oswald as "an honest lawyer"? I realize it's a stretch to believe that such lawyers might exist --- dishonest, corrupt, and so on.

Oh the world is full of dishonest, corrupt lawyers but generally they try to keep their knavery hidden. If you represent the most famous defendant in the world, you can't throw the case without it soon being obvious to every other lawyer in the world. Furthermore, defendants rarely confess to their lawyers, in fact you'd rather not know because if you assume he's innocent you can say "he didn't do this" but if he tells you he did it, you're not allowed to say that nor are you allowed to present evidence arguing he didn't do it. You may ask, well, who would know?  Attorney-client privilege belongs to defendant, not the lawyer, so if you go ahead and break the law and tell a knowing falsehood to court, you'd relying on an admitted killer to keep his mouth shut to keep  you from being disbarred, yeah... no.
Even if Oswald confessed to a lawyer, the shyster can't tell anyone and if he does, its inadmissible even if the lawyer goes over and tells the DA what Oswald said.  Remember, attorney client privilege only binds what the lawyer can say, not the client.  A privileged conversation (and any evidence found because of it) is always inadmissible in court.  if I remember correctly,  when OJ Simpson was tried for murder, he confessed in jail to his (and Bob Kennedy's) old friend Rosey Greer and was overheard doing so by a sheriff's deputy. However, since Greer is an ordained minister, the conversation fell under priest-penitent privilege and neither the deputy nor Greer could be called to testify about it.  
I take your point that Oswald's request for a lawyer was probably ignored all down the line and he didn't actually refuse an offer to see a Dallas ACLU lawyer. An interesting question is what evidence did the Dallas police uncover because of its continued questioning after Oswald asked for a lawyer. Presumably, though I don't know what the case law was at the time, anything the police uncovered as a result of their illegal questioning (didn't they search the Paine garage because of something Oswald had said?) would likewise be barred from trial as fruit of the poisonous tree.

It's not an ideal world. And I think the issue Greg has raised is about the entire "system of justice" in 1963 Dallas being corrupt, unfair, biased, etc. A system of justice can be racially biased (in that white people are favored, receive preferential treatment, while minorities are discriminated against in various ways), or socioeconomically biased (the wealthy are favored as against treatment of those from lower social classes), or politically/ideologically biased ("right thinking" is favored), and so on. So while an overheard conversation between (for instance) O.J. Simpson & Rosie Grier should or is supposed to fall under a "priest-penitent privilege," with the content of that conversation being inadmissible in court, it doesn't always work out so cleanly in the real world. If the system of justice itself is corrupt (or biased, etc), then standards of "legal correctness" like attorney-client privilege are about as meaningful and binding as a defensive tackle-halfback privilege.

beowulf wrote:Even if Oswald confessed to a lawyer, the shyster can't tell anyone and if he does, its inadmissible even if the lawyer goes over and tells the DA what Oswald said. 

I'm not advocating that they would have tried this, but I have to say, I can't really see the difference between this and other inadmissible attempts to extract a confession - like - lie detector tests - or that hoary old chestnut where they separate two suspects and tell each of them that the other has ratted them out (well, okay-- I'm assuming that would be inadmissible since it's extracted as a direct result of giving the suspect false information).

or that hoary old chestnut where they separate two suspects and tell each of them that the other has ratted them out (well, okay-- I'm assuming that would be inadmissible since it's extracted as a direct result of giving the suspect false information).

Ha ha, since cops aren't allowed to beat suspects into confessing, judges totally understand the police often have to trick suspects into confessing by lying to them. For example...


"Defendant's principal ground for reversal is that County Court erred in denying suppression of his confession, arguing that it was involuntary because it was made after a police officer falsely informed him that the victim was alive and would soon be released from the hospital. Mere deception by the police is not alone sufficient to render a confession inadmissible unless accompanied by a promise or threat that could induce a false confession..."
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2874346184488678469&q

Is there no one (apart from Dan) who thinks it's at least mildly interesting that Ruth's lawyer was a friend of LBJ and had dated Connally? That this lawyer had been an assistant DA under Wade? That her husband was on the DCLU delegation to check on Oswald? That this delegation had connections to FBI counterintelligence efforts regarding local "communists"? That the husband himself was allegedly rejected for military intelligence work - based on an alleged subversive background? That  he complained about being harassed by (presumably) the FBI? That he set his divorce practice up in the very same building as the MIG 112?  

I know it doesn't have JFK snorting coke with an under-aged hamster, but despite that oversight, it still may have some value in that it points to the warning issued by Jack Ruby and hinted at by the Oxnard caller, that a new form of government was moving in. I'm not suggesting that the full calculus for such a leap is embedded here, but it will come.

beowulf wrote:or that hoary old chestnut where they separate two suspects and tell each of them that the other has ratted them out (well, okay-- I'm assuming that would be inadmissible since it's extracted as a direct result of giving the suspect false information).

Ha ha, since cops aren't allowed to beat suspects into confessing, judges totally understand the police often have to trick suspects into confessing by lying to them. For example...


"Defendant's principal ground for reversal is that County Court erred in denying suppression of his confession, arguing that it was involuntary because it was made after a police officer falsely informed him that the victim was alive and would soon be released from the hospital. Mere deception by the police is not alone sufficient to render a confession inadmissible unless accompanied by a promise or threat that could induce a false confession..."
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2874346184488678469&q

The threat would be the implied threat that things will go much harder in court unless you play ball like your partner is...