Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

I want to put up this resource from the JFK files at Hood College. It is a timeline of Marina Oswald that goes from the time of the assassination to 1967, I believe. 

https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Marina+Oswald+was+brainwashed+Mark+Lane+JFK+files+hood&fr=yfp-t&fp=1&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

When you click on it, it opens a Word document on your computer which contains the information. 

There are a lot of gems in there, some of which I posted last night. But, another one is a statement by Marina several days after the Oswald shooting, in which she said, in broken English: "I love Lee. Lee a good man. He didn't do anything." That statement got published in LIFE magazine on November 29, 1963.

I want you to think about the fact that that statement establishes, beyond any doubt, that at the time, Marina was not accusing Oswald of shooting at Walker, nor of seeking to shoot Nixon, nor of wanting to hijack a plane to Cuba. And that's because obviously those are bad things, and if she knew those things about him, she would not have said what she did. 

And that tells me that they really had their work cut out for them in flipping her. 

But, what I want to discuss this morning is the extent to which Oswald's Constitutional rights were violated. You recall that at the Midnight Press Conference, a reporter asked him if he shot the President, and Oswald's response was, "No one has said that to me yet. I have not been charged with that. The first I heard of it was when a reporter in the hall asked me that question."

So, during the interrogations, they never informed him that he was suspected of killing the President? 

The reporter informed Oswald that he has been charged with killing the President, and Oswald's response was to grimace. 

So, the paperwork to charge him had been filed with a judge (Judge David Johnston), and Oswald didn't know? He wasn't told yet? 

It is important to remember that Marina was never a suspect in the commission of any crime. Therefore, neither the Secret Service, nor any entity, had any legal right to detain her. Even if you accept the claim that they did it to protect her, shouldn't they have offered the protection and let her decide? You don't coerce someone to let them protect you, do you? But, there is no evidence of that. The evidence points to them just telling her to come along. 

And, there is no evidence of Oswald being informed that his wife was under the control of the Secret Service. But, had he lived, it is imponderable that they could have done it: held Marina. That's because they would have been prosecuting him for two murders, with the death penalty on the line, and the idea that he could get a fair trial while his wife was being held by the same authorities who were accusing him of two capital crimes and prosecuting him for them is preposterous. 

But, the crucial thing is: they placed Marina into custody while Oswald was still alive.  What gave them the right to do that without informing him?  Name one other case in the history of jurisprudence in which that happened. You can't. 

And there really was no justification for it because they could have protected her just as well with her living at Ruth Paine's house. They could have stationed police outside 24/7. And where did she have to go? She had no car and couldn't drive. They never gave her a choice. They never asked her if she wanted protection. And they never informed Oswald. 

They never let Marina visit with Oswald alone- in private. The one visit she had with him included her mother-in-law. Don't you think a husband and wife have things to say to each other that require privacy? And it is known that Oswald was not close with his "mother". He never had any contact with her the whole time he was in New Orleans and not since returning to Dallas on October 3 either. Marguerite didn't even know about the birth of Rachel- they didn't tell her. Lee and Marina had the right to confer alone. 


Now, let's look at the claim that Oswald turned down being given a Texas lawyer while holding out for John Abt. Note first that we don't have this from Oswald. From Oswald, we have repeated complaints on his part that Dallas Police were not letting him have a lawyer, and repeated requests "for someone to come forward to provide legal assistance."  Oswald even complained at the Midnight Press Conference that at the "very short but sweet" hearing in which he was arraigned for shooting Tippit that he expressed to the judge that he was being denied counsel. But Judge Johnston, in his testimony to the WC, stuck to the story that Oswald said it had to be Abt or nobody.

Now, I don't believe that, but let's assume for a moment that it's true, that Oswald did the strange behavior of complaining about wanting a lawyer but then turning one down when offered. A judge would be far more neutral than the cops, right? A judge would be even more concerned than the cops about the upholding the accused's legal rights. So, wouldn't he query further if Oswald said that? Such as: finding out whether he knew John Abt, (Oswald didn't, and he said he didn't) whether he had ever been in contact with him (he hadn't); asking whether he knew if John Abt had a license to practice law in the state of Texas, because if he didn't, he could only work through a Texas lawyer anyway; and whether there was a basis for Oswald to assume that John Abt would be willing to drop everything and come there. And upon finding out that the answers to those questions were all negative, doesn't it seem like the judge would say to Oswald: 

"You don't have a basis to assume that this is going to happen, and as the judge of these proceedings, I feel it is my duty to strongly warn you that you need a lawyer, a Texas lawyer, and you are making a catastrophic mistake by refusing one."

Now, even if you believe the ridiculous story that Oswald was refusing a lawyer while at the same time pleading for one, don't you think that if he heard that from the judge, that he would say, "Alright. Assign me a Texas lawyer." ???

OK, let's cut to the chase of Johnston's testimony. He said that in arraigning Oswald he told him the following:

"He was also told at both of these instances that he would be given the right to contact an attorney of his choice."

That's NOT how it goes. He was supposed to be told that he has the right to an attorney, and if he doesn't have an attorney, and if he doesn't have the means to pay an attorney, that one would be provided to him at State expense. The "right" went beyond what Johnston said.

Mr. HUBERT. Did he ask this at either of these occasions?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; that was one of the first things he said--that he wanted this man from New York of the Civil Liberties Union.
Mr. HUBERT. He said that to you ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes [spelling] A-b-t; however that's pronounced. He said he would like to have this gentleman and I told Oswald when he made that statement that he would be given the opportunity to contact the attorney of his choice.
Mr. HUBERT. Whose duty was it to see that he was given that opportunity?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The telephone would be made available to him to make any call he wished to make and that would have been advanced to him through the normal routine. He possibly could have been given this permission at the city jail and also had he ever made it to the county jail, here again he would have been given the opportunity to contact a lawyer. 

The original case in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of State-sponsored counsel for indigent defendants went back to 1932. But, there was a famous case earlier that year, Gideon vs. Wainwright, in which the Supreme Court ruled in March 1963, that 

"Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence."

So, that Supreme Court ruling was made in March 1963, which means that it was the law of the land in November 1963. According to Judge Johnston no pleadings were made at either of Oswald's arraignments. Oswald was not asked to plead guilty or not guilty. Johnston said that the whole purpose of the arraignment was to inform Oswald of the charges against him and to make sure he knew what his legal rights were. Then, why didn't Johnson inform Oswald that he was entitled to more help in getting a lawyer than just being allowed to make a call? 

As far as we know, Oswald never did get a call through to John Abt. Abt said that he never heard from Oswald or anyone calling on Oswald's behalf. There is the testimony of Ruth Paine that Oswald called her from the Dallas Jail and asked her to call John Abt. And she said that she simply didn't; that she did not want to help him. 

There is a woman named Dawn Meredith who is a lawyer, and she claims that, regarding lawyers, Oswald asked for "anybody." That he used the word "anybody." I wish she had provided a reference for that.

This is from an exchange on Education Forum, and one Frankie Vegas pointed to the significance of Oswald never asking for Abt in front of media microphones. Wouldn't that have been most effective?

But, the fact is, that Abt did find out. By Saturday evening, reporters asked him if he was going to represent Oswald, and he said no because he was too busy with other clients. 

What we are left with is the solid, indisputable evidence of Oswald asking the public repeatedly for legal help in a generic way, vs the claim of authorities that he turned down such help when offered. But, I have shown you in writing that all the judge said to Oswald was "call anyone you want."  Gee. Thanks a lot.

Duke Lane said:  "H.Lewis Nichols, the head of the Dallas Bar Association, which included no criminal attorneys, did not talk with Oswald directly, but allowed the police to act as go-between, certainly a venal if not mortal sin for any sort of "defense" attorney, eh?" 

Note that there was a separate Criminal Bar Association in Dallas, so why didn't they call them? And why didn't any of those lawyer come forward themselves, upon seeing that Oswald was being denied counsel? Who's to say they didn't? Maybe they did and were turned away, and we were never told. 

Oswald's right to an attorney was denied.