From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 1:54:11 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 1:16:56 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:   
   > > Was he biased? He was concerned enough about Oswald’s rights that he   
   made a trip to the jail to visit Oswald and talk to him:    
   > >    
   > > “By that time I had time to think about what I thought my obligation   
   should be, and realizing that under the circumstances maybe some people might   
   overlook the fact that Oswald had rights that needed to be protected at the   
   same time, and if he didn'   
   t have a lawyer, regardless of what the legal obligation was to appoint him a   
   lawyer, we, the bar association, ought to look into the matter.”   
   > > He said he went to the jail and visited with Oswald of his own volition.    
   > >    
   > > “It seemed like enough time had gone by, and enough uncertainty among   
   the people I talked to as to whether or not he had a lawyer or had asked for a   
   lawyer that I decided I might as well go up and talk to him, so, I cleaned up   
   and went on up to the    
   city hall. That was probably 5:30 or so in the afternoon.”   
   > Hank, you are the biggest bullshit artist here.    
   >    
   …   
   >    
   > According to Nichols’ testimony, this was the exchange between himself and   
   Oswald:    
   >    
   > NICHOLS. What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the   
   Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?”    
   >    
   > OSWALD. No, not now. You might come back next week, and if I don’t get   
   some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to   
   represent me.    
   >    
   > NICHOLS. Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and to me,   
   whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to do anything about   
   getting a lawyer right now.    
   >    
   > OSWALD. No. ( ibid. )    
      
   Oswald declined his offer to help him acquire counsel. That’s what’s   
   important.   
      
      
   >    
   > As Nichols is leaving, Chief Curry asked him to make a statement to the   
   press:    
   >    
   > “….As I left the chief asked me whether or not I wanted to make a   
   statement to the press, and I said, “Well, I don’t know whether I do or   
   not. I don’t know whether it is the thing to do or not.” And he said,   
   “Well, they are going to be    
   right outside the door there, and if you want to say anything this would be an   
   opportunity to do it. Incidentally, I am very glad you came up here. We   
   don’t want any question coming up about us refusing to let him have a   
   lawyer. As far as I know, he    
   has never asked for one. He has never asked to call one.” ( ibid. )    
   >    
   > Of course, the Chief was lying to Nichols because in this video interview in   
   the hallway of police headquarters earlier that day, Chief Curry admits that   
   Oswald DID ask for a lawyer but didn’t say who he wanted and police were not   
   going to call all    
   over town to find him one and obtaining counsel was Oswald’s responsibility,   
   not the department’s.    
   >    
   > Nichols then went before the media and stated that Oswald had refused his   
   offer for help:    
   >    
   > “He appeared to me that he knew where he was and pretty much what his   
   rights were with regard to being represented, and he knew apparently–at   
   least the conversation was that if he didn’t get somebody to represent him   
   that he wanted that he could    
   always fall back on the bar association, or somebody, and I had told him that   
   I would see him next week if he wanted me to, and I satisfied myself at least,   
   to the extent, that the man appeared to know what he was doing. He did not   
   appear to be    
   irrational." He appeared to be calm. He turned down my offer of help, and I   
   felt like at that point that was all I needed to do, and this was later   
   Saturday afternoon, and I had no inkling that anything else, except maybe that   
   the next week if he didn’   
   t get a lawyer I might hear from him, or check into it, and that’s all I   
   know about Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald.” ( ibid. pg. 330 )    
   >    
   > Nichols never mentioned to the press Oswald’s request for John Abt or the   
   American Civil Liberties Union.    
   > He never mentioned to the press Oswald’s complaint of being held   
   “incommunicado”.    
   >    
   > Nichols didn't go there on his own volition.    
   > He didn't want any part of it.   
      
   Nobody held a gun to his head. After conferring with other lawyers, he decided   
   to do he due Finland ask Oswald himself if he needed or wanted help in   
   acquiring a lawyer. Oswald seemed coherent, knowledgeable about the law, and   
   his rights, and declined    
   Nichols’ offer.    
      
   Oswald said, no, not at this time. Oswald wasn't refused counsel, he declined   
   it.    
      
   You don't want to accept that. I get it, if I appointed myself Oswald’s   
   defense counsel, I would want to reject it as well. But you’re entitled to   
   your own opinion, not your own facts. And the fact is Nichols offered Oswald   
   the opportunity to get a    
   lawyer through him, and Oswald declined.   
      
   And that’s why you raised this nonsense issue: “Do you have video or audio   
   of Oswald saying that he didn't want legal assistance, or are you depending on   
   the hearsay testimony of a labor lawyer who didn't want to get involved ?”   
      
   You claim he didn't want to get involved, but Nichols himself went to the jail   
   of his own volition to ensure that Oswald knew his rights, and that Oswald   
   could obtain a lawyer with his help if Oswald wanted one. Oswald wanted a   
   specific lawyer, and    
   declined Nichols’ offer of help.   
      
   .   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)