Think about the fact that Oswald they denied a lawyer, despite his howling for one numerous times, while Ruby they provided a lawyer without him ever asking for one.
Will Fritz told reporters on Sunday afternoon that Ruby was talking to his attorney "as is his legal right." His legal right? What about Oswald's legal right to an attorney?
Ruby never asked for a lawyer, and the lawyer that he was given was not his lawyer at the time. Tom Howard had previously done some legal work for Ruby, but he was not currently his lawyer. But, Ruby went along with it because Ruby went along with everything.
But, this speaks volumes: A lawyer for Ruby but no lawyer for Oswald.
Of course, the story goes that Oswald turned down a lawyer. But, do you believe it? You can listen to Oswald. You can hear his voice. You can hear him plead for a lawyer. You can hear him implore the whole world for legal assistance. He never once told us that he wanted John Abt and only John Abt. They claim that that's what he told them off-camera, but why should you believe them when it contradicts- in fact and in spirit- what you can directly hear him say with your own ears? Why believe them over Oswald?
If you are really an Oswald defender, as I am, you need to listen to him and believe him.
And I hope you will believe me when I tell you that Oswald never met with H. Louis Nichols and turned down legal representation. That alleged meeting occurred on Saturday while Oswald was being led to Fritz' office for his 6:30 interrogation. It had to involve an Oswald double, and I assume Nichols was bamboozled. There is NO WAY that 18 hours after the Midnight Press Conference that Oswald would reverse what he said there so passionately, imploring the whole world for an attorney, any attorney.
I checked for the number of times Oswald asked for a lawyer and I came up with 13 times that I could hear him say it. He even added once, "and these police officers won't allow me to have one." That's one, any one, not a particular one.
So, the fact is that it was polar opposite the way Oswald and Ruby were treated in respect to legal representation. And it means that: they very much did not want Oswald to talk to a lawyer, but they didn't mind if Ruby did.
The question is why? Why the polar difference? Let's start with Oswald. They couldn't let Oswald talk to a lawyer because they knew it would be devastating- for them. Very quickly, easily and effectively Oswald would have won over the lawyer, and he would immediately gained a staunch advocate. They would have had to kill the lawyer.
The case against Oswald was so bad, so totally bogus and corrupt, that they could not only not let him go to trial, they couldn't let him speak to an attorney even once.
As it was, Oswald was very effective at the Midnight Press Conference. He sounded lucid; completely civilized; intelligent, and rational. There wasn't anything about his behavior or demeanor that suggested that he was a violent man. Oswald was so effective at the MPP, they quickly had to end it. They had to pull him off the stage because he was helping himself and hurting them so much.
And really, it was insane that they did it. It's impossible to make sense of it. Name me one other prisoner who got an international press conference the night of his arrest. You can't. It's never happened before or since. It's an insane idea. Prisoners have rights, but talking to the press is not one of them. So, why did they do it? Never mind what they said. Why did they REALLY do it? I sincerely think there was a plan to kill him that night. Something must have gone awry that they didn't go through with it.
Oswald was so effective at the Midnight Press Conference that they had to add weird sound effects to it, racket noises, and weird military sounds. Listen to the background noises yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20gMauCyU0s
At one point, you hear a man yelling, "At ease." What do you make of that? Obviously, it's artificial. But, why did they put it in there? I believe it's because it is the final order to a firing squad: Ready, aim, fire, at ease.
To an attorney, Oswald would have established his whereabouts during the shooting, which was the doorway. He would have established that he didn't own or order a rifle. He would have established that he was not on the 6th floor, that he went down to the first floor for lunch at 11:45 and never went back up. He would have established where he was at 1:15 when Tippit got shot, and it was not at 10th and Patton. Every single question that his attorney asked, he would have been able to answer lucidly, convincingly, and substantially. So, how long would it have taken his attorney to realize that Oswald was framed and innocent? At the most: 15 minutes.
And that's why they couldn't let Oswald speak to an attorney. They would have had to kill the attorney.
But, in Ruby's case, they had nothing to fear. Oswald denied guilt, but Ruby didn't. Ruby accepted that he did it- not because he planned to do it, and not because he remembered doing it, but only because Dallas Police told him that he did it. And that is a very bizarre thing. It is bizarre for someone to defer to others about his own actions. Most people, and I mean practically everyone, goes by their own cognition and awareness.
If someone tried to tell you that you did something that you have no memory of doing, and no inclination to do, where the action is contrary to all that you know of yourself and your nature, you would deny it vehemently. It wouldn't matter how many detectives told you that you did it; you would deny it adamantly and fiercely. Anyone would. But, Ruby was damaged goods. And they knew that because they damaged him- with drugs, for sure, but probably with hypnosis too.
Ruby didn't know anything, and that's why they could let him speak to an attorney. "I don't know what happened. I just went there, and all of a sudden, the cops jumped me, and then they told me I shot Oswald. I don't remember doing it. I didn't plan to do it. I never had the thought to do it. But, they tell me I did it."
That's all he could tell an attorney. And that's why they were OK with letting him have one right away.
But, to those who believe that Ruby did it, like the author Mark Shaw, that he was involved with the Mafia, that he was involved in the JFK assassination, that he killed Oswald to silence him, that he killed him as a Mafia hit man, how could they give him an attorney? How could they trust him to keep his mouth shut? Even if said he would, as in "Don't worry; I won't tell anyone. I'll die in the electric chair. I don't mind..." why would they believe him? Why would they take the chance? Why would they risk it when they could very easily have stalled since Ruby wasn't asking for a lawyer, and then they could have arranged for his death, as in, he hung himself in his cell; he slashed his wrists; he overdosed with pills he had hidden on him; he died trying to escape; he got in a fight with another prisoner and was wounded fatally; he had a heart attack; etc.
The fact that Ruby was given a lawyer right away should tell you that none of the alternate story about him is true. Ruby did not shoot Oswald, and he did not know anything about it, and he did not know anything about the murder of JFK either.
RUBY KNEW NOTHING. HE WAS A TOTAL BLANK. HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING. And that is why it was safe to give him a lawyer.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.