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

Fact: Oswald complained to the judge at the Tippit arraignment on Friday evening that he was being denied legal representation, and that was before he ever said a word about Abt. 

I don't doubt that Oswald mentioned Abt, but the whole idea that he turned away other legal representation needs to be examined. What do we really know? We know that Oswald repeatedly lamented his lack of a lawyer, and he did so publicly. It was the first thing he addressed at the Midnight Press Conference, and he also ended with it.  

So, the record does not support the notion that he would have rejected legal representation other than Abt. 

And it was the morning after the Midnight Press Conference that damage control set in. That's right, damage control: from the damage Oswald did the night before, telling the world that he was being denied a lawyer. And it's why they brought Attorney Louis Nichols in to visit Oswald and make a statement to reporters. 

First, the issue of whether Oswald was legally entitled to a court-appointed lawyer is, to my mind, clear; he was. The famous Gideon vs. Wainwright case was decided by the Supreme Court in March 1963, and they said that an indigent defendant, by virtue of the Sixth Amendment, is entitled to a court-appointed attorney. Last I checked, November comes after March on the calendar, and therefore Oswald's case fell within the scope of Gideon. They had to provide him a lawyer. 

Louis Nichols was a civil attorney, not a criminal one, and that point is always emphasized. But, he had to be privy enough to know that Oswald desperately needed a lawyer. He claimed to speak to Oswald and ask him if he wanted his help in getting a lawyer, and Oswald told him no, not at this time, but Nichols never claimed to weigh on Oswald that he should let him help him get a lawyer, that it was important, that it was crucial, that it was vital, and that it would be reckless and foolhardy for him to turn help down.  And surely even as a civil lawyer, Nichols had to know that. You didn't have to be a lawyer at all to know that. So, Nichols failed Oswald, even if the story he told is verbatim true. 

And look how easy it would have been for Nichols to say to Oswald, "You can pursue Abt, and you can pursue the ACLU, but until you get either of them, let me assign you a lawyer who can help you immediately, as in, today. You need a lawyer right now. You needed him yesterday." Now, that's what Nichols should have told Oswald. 

This is the video of Nichols' press conference on November 23.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDViJgIEurI

You'll hear Nichols say that Oswald has not requested any legal representation. Did Nichols not attend or listen to the Midnight Press Conference the night before in which Oswald adamantly and repeatedly requested legal representation? Nichol's claims conflict directly with that. 

So, did Nichols visit with the real Oswald or not? I don't claim to know. Oswald never acknowledged such a meeting. He never spoke of it. It would be interesting to find out if Oswald publicly requested a lawyer on Saturday afternoon after his alleged meeting with Nichols. If he did, then don't you agree that what Nichols said must be a crock o' shit?

And let us not forget that the reported record of what Oswald said is bloated with things that he didn't say. Remember: the ONLY things we can be sure Oswald said are the things that we can hear him say with our own ears. That's it. Nothing else. This is the JFK assassination we are talking about.