Here's an afterthought concerning Oswald and his reported insistence on getting John Abt to represent him.
As far as we know, no one tried to reach John Abt on behalf of Oswald. Abt said that he was never contacted by anyone.
So, even if Robert Oswald was not going to do the right thing for his brother, as laid out in my last post:
it appears that he didn't even lift a finger for his brother to try to reach Abt.
Ruth Paine claimed that Oswald called her twice asking her to contact Abt, and she just ignored it. You'd think she would have had the decency to tell him, "No. I won't do that for you." But, she didn't.
But, all of that are just claims. Was Oswald really hell-bent on Abt? If so, then why didn't he call for Abt when he had world micophones at his lips? If Oswald had mentioned wanting John Abt on national and international media, it was a sure thing that word would have gotten to Abt. But, all Oswald asked for was "legal assistance". In other words, what we have that we can actually confirm does NOT support that Oswald would only accept Abt.
So, why should we believe it? Remember who is claiming it. Maybe we should believe Oswald instead.
Duke Lane claims that H. Lewis Nichols, the head of the Dallas Bar Association, did NOT talk to Oswald directly but allowed police to act as a go-between. That is appalling if it's true; appalling that he did it and appalling that he didn't reveal that to reporters when he discussed his meeting with Oswald.
Also, according to Duke, there were two bar associations in Dallas: one for criminal law and one for non-criminal law. Nichols was the head of the one for non-criminal law. So, what about the other one? Why didn't someone from the criminal bar association visit Oswald?
I think it's possible, even likely, that the entire claim that Oswald insisted on Abt alone is a complete lie. It may be that he mentioned Abt but was never adamant that it had to be him. It was, after all, an insane position to take for someone in his position. He needed a lawyer immediately.