Monday, November 16, 2009

Saint John Hunt's Father, CIA Killer, Knew Oswald Was Innocent


Anyone who thinks LBJ was not involved in Kennedy's murder is badly mistaken. The CIA Contract killer and Watergate Burglar E. H. Hunt told his son the truth.

"It is the meloncholy law of human societies
to be compelled sometimes to choose a great evil
in order to ward off a greater evil."
-Lyndon Baines Johnson

“This is Probably the Last Interview I’ll Do:” An Interview with Saint John
Hunt on His Father & The JFK Assassination
August 21,
2007 by cadeveo
-----------this fine interview is available elsewhere on the Internet, as well-------

"It is the meloncholy law of human societies
to be compelled sometimes to choose a great evil
in order to ward off a greater evil."-Lyndon Baines Johnson

Saint John Hunt found me. He found my Stranger Than Holy Wood(y) article and left a brief comment several months back. I decided to e-mail him back, since his father’s deathbed revelations about the JFK assassination were still quite fresh in the media-sphere. Saint John and I struck up a correspondence that culminated in the following interview, which he says might be his last.

He’s done all he can to publicize his father E. Howard Hunt’s information regarding government involvement in the JFK murder. In the process, he’s had to deal with accusations about his motives and character. Nevertheless, there are no regrets. The weight is now off his shoulders. He’s done what he needed to do in the service of truth. Here’s hoping that the truth wins in the end.

It’s been an interesting few months for you. First, Rolling Stone published the article about your father’s JFK confessions. You’ve been on Coast to Coast where you played an excerpt of your father’s inside knowledge about Cord Meyer and LBJ’s involvement, plus you’ve been interviewed on CNN, by Alex Jones and both Inside Edition and 60 Minutes have taken an interest in you. How much has all this attention changed your life and what do you find interesting about the different angles of approach these different researchers, journalists and media groups have taken toward you and your story?
This whole process of telling the media what my father told me in some ways affected my life to a greater degree before he passed away. When he decided to tell me some of what he knew( he said there was more to this, and he would be sharing that with me as time went on) I carried this around with me for three years. Due to the pressures which were placed upon him, he never went public with this when he was alive, yet he asked me to tell his story after his death.

So after he died it was with a great feeling of relief that I was finally able to tell the tale of the conspiracy to kill JFK. Now what I think is that there was more than one plot to kill Kennedy. It is quite plausible that there were at least several plots running independently of each other…this is why there is credible evidence to support a Cuban plot, a Mafia plot, a CIA plot etc… it’s well known that almost everyone within the military and industrial intel. community was anxious to get rid of Kennedy regardless of the risk. My greatest regret is that in bringing this information out, I have lost my family. They want nothing to do with me. Now that my job is done, my life is normal. I work a 40 hour week, play in my band Saint John and the Sinners on weekends and will be starting school again this August. I have also proposed to my girlfriend Mona of two years and am making plans for our wedding.

As far as the media, I can say that they have treated me very well. I knew that they would attack me on the credibility issue…because of my outlaw past, so I elected to disclose my checkered past right away. It’s funny that Vincent Bugliosi said that I wasn’t a credible person. During one of the Coast to Coast radio shows I did, I said to Mr. Bulgliosi that I wasn’t surprised that he would use such an obvious “lawyer” tactic against me. I offered that since he had never met me or spoken to me, and had never examined the evidence that I had, how could such an intelligent man be so stupid as to make a character judgment about someone he didn’t know. (Note from Judyth Vary Baker: Bugliosi also dismissed me in his book as "deluded" and "a poor puppy"--yet never interviewed me, relying instead on secondhand accounts from persons known to have lied about me. Small world!)
Rolling Stone treated me very well and so did Inside Edition. 60 Minutes, on the other hand, bowed to pressure not to run with the story (until Fall, they say). (Note from Judyth Vary Baker: I had a similar experience: Sixty Minutes made three different appointments to film, backed down three times, over a period of 14 months.)

Why do you believe your father chose, after years of either denying his involvement or remaining silent, to reveal the CIA and other connections to the JFK assassination to you and you alone? There’s certainly something poetic in him revealing these things to you. As I mentioned in an essay on my site about JFK, it was another Saint John who wrote the Book of Revelation, after all. You were a primary caregiver for him through his last illnesses and it seems obvious this would have played a role.

You have to understand that my father and I had already established a strong unbreakable bond of trust and secrecy. As you know, I did many illegal things for my father after Watergate which I never spoke of. I also lied to the congress for him during the Watergate inquest. I was always my father’s strongest and most devoted ally in our family, I took great care of him on and off I could during the last years of his life…so it was natural that I was in the right place to prompt him to tell the truth after all these years of denying. He and I had a very special relationship. We didn’t always see eye to eye, and we had disappointed each other throughout our lives but our bond was deep and intact till the day he died.

Your father’s second wife has accused you and your brother David of coaching your father into saying the things you have on tape and on paper regarding the JFK assassination. How do you feel about being accused of manipulating your father like that?

Although my father was very sick he was always in control of his words and thoughts. I couldn’t even make him eat a bowl of soup if he didn’t want to. What Laura and my sisters say about my forcing an old man to make up stories is just ridiculous. He was still E. Howard Hunt till the very end. Also I have ten hours of unseen video tape of him and it is clear that he is of sound mind and strong will. Also the audio tape which he sent to me in Jan. of ‘04, was unsolicited and made by him without my being present. As a professional caregiver, I find their statement to be slanderous and libelous. Laura never knew that part of my father’s life, and to this day, [she] doesn’t even believe that he was involved in assassination plots against foreign leaders or in illegal government coups that have led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Your father isn’t the only person that has linked LBJ to the JFK assassination. His former mistress, Madeline Duncan Brown, also mentioned that before her death that the night before the assassination he told her that those ” S.O.B.’s,” meaning the Kennedy’s, would never bother him again. She also fingered H.L. Hunt in this. Since doing the Alex Jones interview, have you had a chance to become familiar with Brown’s revelations? If so, in what ways does this dovetail or diverge from information your father gave you?

You know, I don’t really follow that stuff. I’m not a JFK assassination buff but I have come to realize that what my father told me fits in with what other people have said in the past. A lawyer for Billy Sol Estes wrote me and said that Billy told him that LBJ was involved. So this angle is not a new one. I might add that this interview is probably the last one I’ll do. It is sometimes painful to dredge up all these memories and talk about things that can never be resolved like my mother’s death (murder). So I’m glad to put all this behind me. The media doesn’t seem interested in breaking this story on mainstream news or in publishing a book about it. So I’ve just moved on with my life and I’m a very happy person.

In the aftermath of your father’s involvement in Watergate, your family’s life spun out of control. Your mother died in a plane explosion, your father went to jail. Your brother David was taken to live with a family friend with Cuban-exile community ties, where he ended up being taken on gun-running operations. It’s been reported that you and your sister were furious with your father at the time. What helped to mellow your anger, given all the tragic fallout?

My sisters never forgave my father for his sins. I have spent years in an effort to convince them that forgiveness is the best way to start the healing process. They never visited him (only once in 15 years) and left him to die without their support at his bedside.

They didn’t even come to his memorial service in January when he passed. It is with utter disbelief that they are thought of as part of the family and I who stood by him and gave unconditional love have been banished from their lives. I wasn’t allowed to see the will, nothing of my father's memory was left to me and I am hated and vilified.

In an article in Crime Magazine, reporter Don Fulsom states his case for, among other things, your father’s revelations to you having been a limited hang out. And indeed, given the line of work your father did, his training, oaths, etc., I’ve suspected the same thing myself. Do you consider this possibility yourself and what your father may have been leaving out or “spinning,” particularly regarding his involvement in the JFK assassination? (It’s certainly not an easy thing to think about and I don’t envy you having to consider this, along with everything else you’ve experienced.)

I don’t know what you mean by a limited hang out. Do you mean disinformation? If you mean did my father minimalize his role in the JFK hit…yes I think it’s quite possible. I know for a fact that he had much more he wanted to share with me. If I had only been able to stay with him longer and if we were able to keep our project a secret from the rest of the family I would have been able to get the whole story. It is tragic to me that the selfish and self serving actions of others coupled with the threat of litigation that his lawyer kept pounding into him, along with his total dependency on these same people resulted in him withdrawing his efforts to bring the truth out. This was to be the last act of a charismatic and heroic warrior that had been used and manipulated by his government. I think that one of the key elements that my father left out was the (this is only my theory) involvement of Dick Helms in the plot. Helms was my father’s boss, was the logical link between Cord Myer and LBJ. It is dubious that LBJ went to Cord. It is quite plausible that LBJ was referred to Cord through Helms. My father’s undying loyalty to Helms is well known, and of course we all know that Helms was a master at getting the dirty work done while keeping his own involvement above suspicion. As far as my father’s real involvement, there has been testimony given under oath that he was in Dallas the day before the murder and handed an envelope of cash to Sturgis in the presence of Marita Lorenz. Of course her “credibility” was attacked as has mine but her testimony could not be shaken by my father’s attorney. This man is a snake and quite possibly a “handler” for the agency. His name is Snyder and was recommended to “babysit” my father by William F. Buckley Jr. Snyder played a crucial role in suppressing the truth about the plot and forcing my father to withdraw from the project. He has continued to be a thorn in my side and continues to act as the “Hunt estate” attorney. If anyone has manipulated my father it was Snyder.

Has anyone in government or the legal profession approached you since you came forward with your father’s tapes about possible new investigations or prosecutions of the JFK case? If not, what do you make of that? And if so, could you discuss it?

The only person in the legal profession that approached me was Douglas Caddy. Caddy was my father’s first attorney during Watergate and also represented Billy Sol Estes. Estes as you might know was one of LBJ’s henchmen…involved in a lot of shady deals down in Texas and it was Estes who confided in Caddy that LBJ had revealed to him (Estes) that he, LBJ had conspired to kill JFK. Caddy produced or at least participated in a DVD documentary about the assassination of Kennedy in which much evidence was given regarding LBJ’s involvement.

Since your revelations came out, the CIA, with much media fanfare and PR, announced that they would be revealing their “family jewels,” information about past actions, including the agency’s involvement with the 1954 coup in Guatemala, the Bay of Pigs, etc., many of these being operations your father cut his teeth on. That’s certainly a curious coincidence. The other thing about this information is that, as discussed awhile back when RFK, Jr. appeared on news-actor Chris Matthew’s show, some of the information seems to be aimed at further smearing the Kennedy’s after their death. What do you make of these revelations in light of what you learned from your father?

It is curious that the Agency should reveal the “family jewels” at the very moment that I came forward with my revelations. You have to wonder about that. I haven’t read what has come out but it’s true, a lot of the ops they talk about were ones that involved my father deeply. I remember when he was asked to testify before the Church Committee and the House Intel. Committee back in the 70’s. I think it will only be a matter of time before more people with pieces of the puzzle come forward.

9. What, if anything, did your father tell you about Oswald? Don Fulsom in his article for Crime Magazine mentions that your father operated out of the same building at 544 Camp Street as Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in the early 60’s. He goes on to mention that your father had set up a CIA front called “The Cuban Revolutionary Council” there at the same time Oswald printed pro-Cuban pamphlets there.

I have read that my fathers office in New Orleans was the same bldg. as 544 Camp street. It’s true my father did set up the Cuban Rev. Council and was deeply involved in propaganda so it’s more than likely that if he had ever met Oswald it may have been there. Certainly their paths crossed very closely and my father was training Cubans for the invasion in Guatemala and around New Orleans.

The Rolling Stone article, among others, mentions you had a struggle with meth addiction and dealt meth for a number years, leading to some felony convictions. I assume (correct me if I’m off the mark) you experienced some rather shady situations and characters during those lost years. Perhaps that’s not so different than the world of intelligence operatives. Did those experiences help you in any way to understand your father and the world he had once been involved with?

That’s a very interesting question. We are both ex-felons and had to learn to operate on the fringes of law and society. One could make a comparison with being a drug dealer and a spy. They are both secretive and dangerous. I would never compare my outlaw life with his…although his was sanctioned by the government, he still was jailed for his crimes. I had many dark and dangerous “friends”, associates and clients, carried a gun as well as kept a small arsenal, had drop places for cash and drugs but I could never bring myself to get violent with someone…I had others take care of my problems for me…it was a fast and furious life, sometimes glamorous, lots of girls and such but I have regrets that I spent too much time living like an outlaw, always looking over your shoulder, cops, DEA, drug squad, DA’s office, locals, other drug dealers, rip-offs; I’m lucky to have come out of it alive and clean, sober and healthy. 6 years now!!

In the chain of command your father drew for you, he has LBJ at the top, then CIA disinfo agent Cord Meyer, underneath whom were CIA agents Bill Harvey and David Morales, who was also involved in Bay of Pigs and has been recently linked to the site of RFK’s assassination; the last link in the diagram is the shooter, who is listed as “french gunman, grassy knoll.” Could you give us some more detail about these players and how they fit together, from what your father revealed?

There has been a recent book on the life of Bill Harvey which gives dramatic evidence that there was a very real connection between Harvey and the Corsican underworld. The evidence is in the form of several memos signed off by Harvey for the use of assassins. He states that it would not be advisable to use Italian Mafia types which could be traced easily…rather his connections in the Corsican/French underworld would be much cleaner and less traceable. So there you have why a Corsican was used and who recruited him. “Him” being Sartre. Through sworn testimony we have Sturgis and Lorenz bringing the guns up from Miami to Dallas. My father paying the money for the teams, and through the testimony of Billy Sol Estes, backed by the fingerprint found at the depository which has been verified as that of Malcolm Wallace ( who worked for LBJ and Estes as a killer) we can start to see how the ground teams worked. Up through the chain of command we have Morales and Veciana who attended the meetings with Sturgis and my father in Miami and threshed out ideas for the hit. Veciana may have had more to do with Oswald’s recruitment with regards to the mysterious Maurice Bishop who everyone knows is David Atlee Phillips. Above them we have Cord Myer who had two motives to kill Kennedy. I’m not sure what Cords’ role may have been although I suspect that he may have been the one that was approached by LBJ through (speculation here) Helms. I truly feel that Helms is the one to bring the right people together in a very subtle way. Most of these men had worked closely together before, and were quite familiar with this type of assignment.

Aside of the French gunman your father fingered, there have been other suspects for the role of the shooter, including the Warren Commission and CIA’s favorite suspect, Oswald. Besides him, there was a man in a Chicago prison with Mafia ties by the name of James Files that a European researcher, Wim Dankbaar, believed pulled the trigger. (This theory has been called into question for a number of reasons.). People have also suspected Frank Sturgis and Woody Harrelson’s father, Charles, who was a contract hit-man in Texas at the time and who may also have “auditioned” as a participant in the Bay of Pigs operation. Of course, some have theorized on multiple gunmen in Dallas on the day JFK died. Have you found further corroboration regarding the man your father identified?

There was some solid information by researcher Stephen Rivelle some years ago which was included in the documentary “The Men who Killed the President” in which Rivelle followed some leads which were given to him by unnamed sources in the DEA and led to a drug trafficker named Christian David. David divulged the name Lucien Sarte as being the man who fired from the grassy knoll. I don’t know if there has been other evidence to have come out, but those are interesting facts which seem to substantiate each other.

For over forty years there have been suspicions about what happened in Dallas in 1963 and much, much evidence to “debunk” the establishment mythology surrounding that event and its meaning. Yet, lots of those same power structures remain in place, and the corruption continues. The people ask that the government come clean, that justice be done, that things change and yet, it continues. Certainly, very little seems to change for the better in terms of citizen relationship with so-called government. Through inaction, we continue to confer de-facto legitimacy on that which is not legitimate. If none of the other revelations has been successful in changing people’s relationship to the kind of powers that led your father to undertake some of the unfortunate actions he did, or the kind of power behind the JFK tragedy, what can you hope will come of the information your father gave you?

I feel sad to say that I think the whole JFK mystery will never be a cause for the reorganization of government. We still have the main stream media to fight…My story has been buried, and yet people like Vincent Bugliosi’s book have gotten much media time. My job, my purpose is complete. I have tried everything I could think of to bring this information to the public and the media, and so I must at this point back away from pursuing this only because my life and my family demand that I give my attentions to them. If someone were to want to publish my story I would welcome that. If someone such as Larry King would have me on his show I would welcome that as well. I hope I have added some piece of the puzzle and that someone will take the ball and do something with it. It takes money, agents, publishers, people with media connections and if all that should happen, I would surely stand up and take my place in pushing this forward. I still hold unseen memos from my father as well as tapes and videos that broaden this subject.

Thanks, Saint John. I’m very happy to have had the opportunity to correspond with you and read your responses. Before we finish, do you have any final thoughts or comments you’d like to add?

Thanks for the opportunity to vent…my final thoughts are that maybe one day we can put this whole thing in order and have a government made up of people carrying out the will of the people. Thanks.

Posted in CIA, JFK assassination, conspiracy poetics, history, interviews, media, politics | 10 Comments

10 Responses
on August 21, 2007 at 11:28 pm jeremiasx
Wow…great article…a little more light is always helpful in this situation. Thanks for your efforts here.

on August 22, 2007 at 4:42 am cadeveo
You’re welcome. I truly am lucky to have had the opportunity to correspond with Saint John.

Feel free to link to this and tell others about it. Word of mouth is one way to get out the truth that isn’t beholden to the agendas of the controlled media.

Peace, Jeremias.

on August 22, 2007 at 11:12 am Wim Dankbaar
Although the late Howard Hunt’s revelations are extremely interesting, the reader should separate what Howard Hunt said from what his son says. See my email to him below.

And if Saint John claims his father wrote “French Gunman” on the grassy knoll, on a piece of paper depicting Dealey Plaza, I would like to see that piece of paper! The next question that arises : Why did he not put a name to it? And what would have been his source for the information?

Howard Hunt has always denied he was the tramp in the hat, and he certainly did not admit it to his son. Howard Hunt was still lying to his son on deathbed, denying his own role in the assassination. For Howard Hunt, as well as Frank Sturgis were in Dallas that day, except not dressed up as tramps.

One might wanna look up the testimony of Marita Lorenz and the libel suit of Hunt against magazine “The Spotlight”.

I guess the acclaimed “patriot” could not bear to be remembered as a participant in high treason. But think again, in his deathbed “confession” he acknowledges being aware of the plans. What is the difference anyway?

By the way, James Files remembers Hunt well. Specifically how he enjoyed taking part in torture sessions.


—– Original Message —–
From: Wim Dankbaar
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 10:31 AM
Subject: Stop speculating please


Although I value your information a lot, it corroborates the facts to a good extent. I think you are paying yourself and the truth a disservice if you keep saying that you believe Sturgis and your father were two of the three tramps.

First, it is your own subjective opinion, your father didn’t tell you this. It’s just lip-service to a popular myth from the JFK research community.

Second, it is in direct contradiction with your father’s story. He claimed no direct involvement, only advance knowledge. So how could he end up in Dealey Plaza dressed up as a tramp? Are you then saying he was lying to you ?

Third, you offer no candidate for the third tramp.

Finally, the tramps were Chauncey Marvin Holt, Charles Rogers, and Charles Harrelson.

The name of Cord Meyer is very interesting. Chauncey Holt mentioned him too. See attached document from the Who was who, compiled by Chauncey Holt.

Best regards,

Wim Dankbaar

Here’s my answer to someone seeking my opinion on “Badgeman” and the French/Corsican connection:

No need to reconcile, as Badgeman is complete hogwash thanks to Gary Mack and Jack White.

If you outline the so called figures in the complete Moorman picture, you will see that they are much to small to be human beings, unless they were toddlers.

No matter how much you “enhance” or colorize them. That’s why they always show the blowup.

Also a normal height person only has his head sticking above the picket fence.

Jack White explains this away by saying they were standing on a car bumper, but that doesn’t explain their size.

Sure I have heard the name of Sarti, and also his alleged accomplices Bocognani and Pironti, who proved they were not there, which was eventually admitted by Nigel Turner and Steve Rivele.

Nevertheless, the myth is very persistent.

French speaking foreign assassins in Dallas? Think again.


The only thing that can be verified is that french OAS assassin Jean Soutre was in Dallas and extradited within 48 hours.

* A CIA document released in 1977 states that Jean Soutre, a French assassin and member of the violent anti-Kennedy group called the OAS, was in Dallas on the day of the assassination. The document also says Soutre was picked up by U.S. authorities in Texas and deported within forty-eight hours of the shooting. (It is likely that the person was actually Michel Mertz using Soutre’s name, as explained in Brad O’Leary and Ed Lee, THE DEATHS OF THE COLD WAR KINGS, Baltimore: Cemetery Dance Publications, 2000, pp. 93-171. Mertz, too, was an assassin and was a ranking figure in the French Mafia.)

So I am not saying that there was no French/Corsican whatsoever. What I believe is this: The Corsican mafia was informed of the hit on Kennedy through the Trafficante connection. Maybe they were even asked to supply gunmen, but none of this materialized. How do I know they had advance knowledge? Because of this recently declassified letter that was sent to James Files in prison, asking if he was the author. The mafia figure that is described is Dominique Venturi, who took over the Corsican crime family in Marseille with Marcel Francisco from the Guerini brothers when they were killed in 1967. The “certain branch of organized crime” is the Corsican mob, and the number 4 at the time (now number 2) is Venturi.

on August 28, 2007 at 9:18 pm Avid Researcher
Ater having chewed through many, many JFK variations, I personally chose the following three (Franko-Corsican) gunmen as the most likely men who did the job:

Lucien Sarti, Francois “Big Lips” Chiappe and Jean Paul Angeletti.

And also seems to be one of the less popular variants, which is oh-so typical for the truth.

on January 26, 2008 at 6:22 am Hail Eris! Hail Crockpots!: An Interview with Adam Gorightly « Waking the Midnight Sun
[...] remembering all sorts of strange personal encounters and came to believe he had been involved in the assassination conspiracy. It’s easy to think he simply snapped after being hounded and accused for so long, but [...]

on January 27, 2008 at 12:43 am Robert Jones
People of this generation seem to not know how well and how accurate the early assassination studies were done. I lived in Hollywood, Florida in l963. The Anti Castro Cubans were as vocal as a football game. An assassination blip had already taken place in Miami, changing JFK’s plans. The air was charged with right wing hate. My friends and I were appalled when we learned of the Texas trips. None of us believed he would come back. On Nov 22nd, we gathered around a radio
anticipating the worse. Sorry, folks, its true. Later, I unknowingly destroyed my wife’s innocence( she was unaware of the evil around us) when I called her into the living room to watch Oswald’s transfer from the Dallas jail. Watch this, I said, without the slightest hesitation. You are about to see the first live murder on television. (I have only one witness still alive)
But, although I did not then know of or the names of the Cuban Bay of Pigs CIA organization, we knew JFK was hated
for its failure. The assassination ultimately was a thoroughly simple matter. Use Bobby Kennedy’s CIA/ Mafia hit squad(to get Castro) already in tact, and change the
target to JFK. An LBJ on the edge of disgrace and prison, an angry, bitter Richard Nixon, and an atmosphere of racial tension, it was so easy to predict. We were stunned, not that it happened, but by how easily they got away with it.
They now had the power and Bobby Kennedy knew it. Hoover and Johnson had him by the balls. Only as president would he regain any power. The sick part was that, in my own opinion, Congress, including the Kennedy boys, the Press, and even though a doubting one, the American public
decided the truth was too ugly to face and show the world.
To destroy Johnson would destroy the democratic party, and the surviving Kennedies needed it as their own power base. A tragic error! Today we make too big a deal of the nuts and bolts. They matter only in a purely legal setting and that will never happen. We have not one, but several names to place on the grassy knoll Thousands still don’t believe the shot from the front. But it is they who have the hangups, not the conspiracy nuts. They are the people LBJ and his planners knew they could rely on. Nothing complicated or odd in this whole thing. I know numerous young college graduate liberals who simply can’t see their own lives and professions as having meaning and value in a country where the author of the ultimately successful civil rights bill is also a psycho murderer , liar, and thief. And yet, they all read Hamlet and Julius Caesar with relish.What E Howard Hunt did or did not write down is not needed. Even I knew all that, and that there was always a problem as to whether he was the tramp in the hat. Who cares. I”m only sorry the bastard and those on his sheet were not hanged.
In a just society, we, like Charles the II, may someday have Lyndon, Tricky Dick, and all those right wing homicidal CIA comic book characters, dug up like Oliver Cromwell and hanged for treason along with God knows how many murders. Now, if you are an Oswald, Gods in his heaven alls right with the world nice sane GOOD person, you can shake your head, sigh, and be assured kooks like me are ignored by the powers they trust. And, they are right. After all, who was JFK that we should reveal the evils in our midst for the sake of justice. There are plenty little bastards(the kind who like to read about Confederate victories) who justify it by saying the bastard deserved it. As if a few sexual affairs are the same as all those dead bodies in a place we have already forgotten why we were there.

on April 27, 2008 at 6:59 am Ron Dahlke
I believe that Lucien Sarte’ was likely one of two shooters who stood behind the white stockade (picket) fence on the short hill on the north side of Elm street in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963. I also believe that James E. (Sutton) Files stood behind the same fence, but stood behind the fence about 10 feet or so from where it abruptly turns toward the triple overpass bridge.

I believe Files’ story, for several reasons:
a. He told his story to Joe West, a private investigator in Texas, who was given his name by an FBI Special Agent (Zechariah Shelton). West had been researching the JFK assassination for several years by that time. f

Shelton had previously investigated Files on charges of hijacking commercial big-rig trucks, selling the merchandise in Chicago. Also Files had been running stolen cars to Dallas, where one of Shelton’s FBI informants, who knew and often drove Files as part of Files’ illegal auto sales operations. Once they went through Dealey Plaza. Files, who liked and trusted the man, whom he did not know was an informant with the FBI, told the informant: “If the American people knew what really happened here, they would not be able to handle it.”

West found Files, where he is still serving a 50 year term for attemting to shoot a Chicago cop. Over a two year period of time, they developed a friendship. Files started telling West about aspects of the assassination, including the fact that a shooter he knew fired a mercury bullet when JFk was hit in the right temple of his head. Files told West that if JFK’s body were exhumed, it would contain mercury in the area of the head because mercury never changes of dissipates.

West was in a hospital recouperating from heart surgery after several weeks. A new doctor was brought into his case, who changed his post-op medications, and West suddently died.
Jimmy got word from his many contacts “on the street” that West was in fact murdered. West had filed a law suit to have JFK’s body exhumed in order to discover whether mercury was (is) present. The suit died with West.

Jimmy then told West’s successor that he was the actual shooter on the knoll. He told the new investigator, who had worked with West’s investigative firm, that he had used a weapon that was “given to him by David Atlee Phillips. Files’ CIA handler, who also was the Agency’s handler for Lee Harvey Oswald. Files had run guns to Oswald, delivering them to Oswald at Clinton, Louisiana.

Oswald, who had worked with Dr. Alton Ochsner, Mary Sherman, Judyth Vary Baker, Guy Banister and David Ferrie, was also FBI Informant S-2-179. He had, just as his warning note that ended up on the telexes of 100 FBI offices all over America, infiltrated the kill-Kennedy “violent revolutionary group” and reported it to FBI Special Agent, James Hosty.

This was after he left Judyth, his New Orleans lady friend, and, after a failure to enter Cuba from Mexico City, was called back and sent to work at the Texas School Book Depository by George H. W. Bush’s long time friend, George DeMohrenschildt
with help from Ruth Paine, and D. H. Byrd, the at that time owner of the Texas School Book Depository building.

Hunt mentioned not only David Phillips, but also David Morales, and William King Harvey as well as General Ed Lansdale, who sent Man-X (in immediate charge of Operation Mongoose in Miami. Florida) out of the country on a 2 week flying vacation. Col. Fletcher Prouty was a faithful, honest Army officer.

Phillips knew Morales, knew Oswald though presenting himself to Oswald as Maurice Bishop, knew Alpha 66 leader, Antonio Veciana who was a friend of James Files.

2. A bullet casing was found under several inches of soil several feet away from the picket fence on the knoll, several feet from where the concrete steps go down to Elm street in Dealey Plaza in 1987. John Rademacher who found it, put it into safe keeping when the media paid little attention when the find was announced.

There were markings on one end of the shell, but no one knew what they were. Thus, no one paid further attention to the shell. After West’s death, and Files’ admission to the new investigator about his role in the shooting, they told Files that a bullet shell casing had been found several years earlier.
Files told them, “If you find the shell from the bullet I fired, you’ll find my teethmarks in it around the shell near the orifice (the open end of any shell casing is called it’s “orifice.”

The new investigator went back to Dallas, recovered the bullet that had been kept by Rademacher, had it studied by five odontological forensics scientists, and were told that the indentations on the shell were “from human dentition.”

I think that, given the fact that there is good evidence to show that there were indeed two shooters behind the fence on the knoll, including Files’ statement that he was aware that there were “others behind the fence in back, about 15 yards away, would put Lucien and his spotter, in just about the right place in terms of where “badge-man” is seen in the Mary Moorman Polaroid photo, and a figure peering over the fence near some shrubs in the same photograph.

Why should all this be investigated by a Texas Grand Jury? Because Congress can no longer be trusted to investigate anything. They are too much in the hip pockets of the corporate side of what is called, the Industrial-Intelligence-Industrial Complex.

And, because two high-level individuals who were up to their noses in the assassination plot, George H. W. Bush and Senator Arlen Specter are still alive and lying their way though life even now.

The hiararchy that Hunt neglected to mention was the connection between David Sanchez Morales, Ted Shackley, and near the top of everything that is CIA, George H. W. Bush, are the reason why such an investigation NEEDs to take place.

After all, look what they are planning right now, agaiost Iran!
We all know what allowed Vietnam to happen, and Watergate and Iran-Contra, and the first Gulf War and now, the second Gulf War. There is a name common to all of these horrendous events. Guess who. Peek-aboo. He’s still running things.

on January 13, 2009 at 5:06 am Don Fulsom
Nice interview! Makes sense to me, except for the LBJ part.
I’ll update my piece in Crime Magazine.
If St. John wants to contact me with any of his documents and further thoughts, I’d love to hear from him.
I wonder if he suspects any Nixon role in the JFK murder.
And whether he thinks his dad was just the CIA payoff man.
Sorry to hear what his search for the truth has done to his family.
All best,

on January 26, 2009 at 1:19 am Don Fulsom
Thanks again for the fine interview–on which I based an update to my piece.
I repeat my interest in communicating with St. John. I can even tell him about a book agent who asked how he could get in touch with him.

on January 27, 2009 at 5:31 am cadeveo
He seemed pretty serious about getting on with his life. Perhaps you should try e-mailing him directly. He has one listed at his website:

Good luck.
visit,,, and

Some links in this article lead to Youtube videos that show the relationships of certain individuals named in this article to others named.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Lee Harvey Oswald Was Not Allowed to Contact a Lawyer!


Text from Last Night's BlackOp Radio Program


By Gil Jesus ( 2009 )

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever discuss your father with Lee Oswald?

Mr. PAINE. On a phone call shortly after the assassination he called
and thought it was outrageous to be pinning Lee Oswald who was a
scapegoat, an ideal person to hang the blame on. ( 2 H 392 )

Lee Harvey Oswald claimed that the Dallas Police would not let him
have a lawyer. He repeatedly asked for "someone to come forward and
give me legal assistance". Nearly every single time he appeared before reporters, he lamented about not having counsel on his behalf.

At the same time, the Dallas authorities were telling different
stories to those who came forward in response to Oswald's pleas. One
version was that Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. A second version
was that Oswald had declined any and all legal assistance, save for
one attorney named John Abt from New York.

While Oswald did express a preference for Abt, he also requested a
second choice --- any lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU did attempt to make contact with Oswald, but its
representatives were discouraged from doing so.


According to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first
interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 1 )

Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 2 )


Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberites
Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald's being denied counsel.

According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:

He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him
that Oswald had been given the opportunity
to request counsel and had not made any requests.

This of course was a lie, because as I just mentioned, Fritz told the
Commission that Oswald made known his "second choice" of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session, some 6-8 hours previously. ( 3 )

After deliberation, Olds and three others headed for Dallas Police

Olds and his party arrived on the fourth floor, where they met Charles Webster, a lawyer and professor of law at SMU, who took them in to see Capt. Glen King.

Olds testified that "Captain King ......assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel."

Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:

"Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where
Justice of the Peace David Johnston was...... he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of--Oswald's rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry." ( 4 )

So here we have two different stories:

On the one hand the police say that Oswald was given the opportunity
to request counsel and he didn't, and the judge saying that he
declined counsel.

And of course, we know that both of these accounts are lies because in his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had
requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater.
( 5 )

Later in his testimony, Hill reiterates:

Mr. HILL .........he had previously in the theatre said he wanted his

Mr. BELIN. He had said this in the theatre?

Mr. HILL. Yes; when we arrested him, he wanted his lawyer. He knew his rights. ( 6 )

Olds attended the Midnight Press Conference", where Oswald AGAIN
publicly requested that "someone come forward to give me legal

Having been discouraged by the police, the law professor and the judge from contacting Oswald, Olds was left to choose whom to believe....them or Oswald. It was a choice he'd later regret.

He testified that...

"......I have always been sorry that we didn't talk with Oswald,
because it was not clear whether we would be permitted to see him that night or not."

Mr. STERN. But, you did not ask to see him?

Mr. OLDS. No; we did not, which I think was a mistake on my part.

( 7 )

We now know today that many of Wade's convictions in criminal court
have been overturned. ( 8 )

Olds then told the Commission that the visit of Dallas Bar Association President H. Louis Nichols to speak with Oswald on Saturday went a long way in reasurring Olds' questions about
suspected denial of counsel to Oswald:

Mr. OLDS. Mr. Nichols went down late this afternoon, I think around
5:30, and he reported after that that he had seen Oswald in respect to the same reasons that we had for going down there Saturday night, to see if he wanted some sort of legal representation, and to make sure whether or not he was denied---being denied it, and he said that he was satisfied that--in essence, Oswald told Nichols he was satisfied with the situation. ( 9 )


At the midnight press conference, Oswald told reporters that he had
appeared before a judge and had protested that
he was not allowed a lawyer:

" I was questioned by a judge. I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing." ---Lee Harvey Oswald

In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Mr. Nichols stated that indigent defendants in criminal felony cases were appointed counsel by judges at their request.

Mr. STERN. What is the practice in this jurisdiction regarding the
appointment of counsel for indigents accused in criminal cases?

Mr. NICHOLS. Basically, I think that would follow the statutes which
provide that where it comes to the attention of the court, that a man charged with a felony is not represented by an attorney that the court will appoint an attorney to represent him. ..............The usual procedure is, I believe, when it comes to the attention of the judge that an accused in jail is not represented by an attorney--I am talking about a felony case now---or a man, whether he is in jail or not, if he makes requests of the court to appoint him a lawyer, the judges of the criminal district court will, and do appoint lawyers to represent those people. ( 10 )

None of the authorities who were present at Oswald's arraignment for
the murder of JD Tippit, and who testified under oath before the Warren Commission, could recall what Oswald said during that hearing.

The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment,
but could not remember what that comment was. ( 11 )

Homicide Detective Elmer Boyd likewise could not remember what Oswald
said (12 )

The same kind of amnesia seems to have struck Will Fritz ( 13 )

and Detective Richard Sims couldn't remember what either the judge or
Oswald said. ( 14 )

What are the chances that every official who was called to give
testimony on what Oswald said during the Tippit arraignment is going to have a total loss of memory ?


District Attorney Henry Wade had been under pressure from lawyers
regarding the treatment of Oswald. One of the issues was Oswald's
repeated public claims that he was not being allowed legal

In Dallas, there were two bar associations: The Dallas Bar Association and the Criminal Bar Association.

On saturday, the 23rd, one of the attorneys who were pressuring Wade
contacted H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar Association to request that he look into whether or not Oswald had legal
representation, wanted legal representation,or wanted it but had been
denied of it.

Nichols response was to call Henry Wade on the phone and make an
inquiry. ( 15 )

Nichols testified before the Warren Commission that Wade told him that as far as he knew Oswald had not asked for any lawyer,so Nichols asked Wade to give Oswald a message that the Dallas Bar Association would provide him with a lawyer if he needed one. According to Nichols, Wade said he'd pass the message onto his assistants and if Oswald ASKED for a lawyer, Nichols offer would be given to him.
(16 )

Of course, the reason why Wade's response was a lie is that Oswald HAD been requesting a lawyer from the time of his arrest, including the evening before during the "Midnight Press Conference".

After thinking it over, Nichols decided that he and a member of the
criminal bar association should visit and talk with Oswald.

But according to Nichols, he couldn't get a member of the criminal bar to go with him.

When he contacted Henry Wade, Wade told him to go visit Oswald alone
and to "tell him you will get him a lawyer". ( 17 )

To have a civil lawyer go in to question Oswald alone was a joke.

A civil lawyer would never ask the right questions:

Was he being beaten ?
was he being starved ?
Was he being deprived of sleep ?
Was he being isolated from his friends and family ?
Was he being denied counsel ?

In addition, according to his own testimony, Nichols was "connected"
to the Dallas Police and the City of Dallas.

Nichols used to work for the city attorney's office, and at the time
of Oswald's incarceration, still represented the city
credit union and had a brother on the police force, so, he had known
many of these city authorities for years. ( 18 )

Nichols then called one of those people, Capt. Glen King of the DPD to ask if Oswald had a lawyer:

"Captain King said that as far as he knew there had been no one
representing him, and as far as he knew, Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. He had not asked for the right to call a lawyer, and had
not asked that a lawyer be furnished to him---" ( 19 )

Now, keep in mind that King said this on the afternoon of Saturday,
the 23rd, AFTER Oswald had made a public plea the night before for "someone to come forward to give me legal assistance" and AFTER he appeared in the 2:30 pm lineup viewed by William Whaley, who testified:

"He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought
about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer." ( 20)

Nichols attempts to avoid becoming involved by asking Capt. King to
deliver a message to Oswald:

I said, "Well, Glen, if you know at any time that he asks for a
lawyer, or wants a lawyer, or needs a lawyer, will you tell him that you have talked to me, as president of the bar association, and that I have offered to get him a lawyer if he wants one." ( 21 )

Capt. King offered Nichols the chance to talk to Oswald but Nichols
"didn't know whether I wanted to or not at this point".

I didn't know to what extent I would, or wanted to, or should become
embroiled in the facts. I wanted to know whether he needed a lawyer,
and I didn't anticipate that I would be his lawyer, because I don't
practice criminal law. ( 22 )

However, Nichols was pressured into going by a law professor from

I then received a call from another lawyer who was a professor out at
S.M.U. and he wanted to know whether or not the bar association was
doing anything about getting a lawyer for Oswald. I told him what had
transpired, what I had done, and I hadn't decided what should be done
at this time, if anything by me, as president of the bar association.
He seemed to think that it would be advisable and would be helpful if
I would go up and satisfy myself personally as to whether or not Oswald had any lawyer, wanted a lawyer or was asking for a lawyer and hadn't been able to get one, and I told him that I had not decided what to do, so, I sat around and decided if it had to be done. 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. ( 23 )

The law professor, in a sense, twists his arm as if saying, "It's been over 24 hours since his arrest and he hasn't asked for an attorney yet ?"

When he arrived at the police station, he went up to the Chief's
office looking for Capt. King. The Chief saw him and introduced him to an FBI agent, then volunteered to take him up to
Oswald's cell himself. ( 24 )

When Nichols asks Oswald if he had a lawyer, Oswald starts complaining about his treatment:

Mr. NICHOLS. I asked him if he had a lawyer, and he said, "Well, he
really didn't know what it was all about, that he was--had been incarcerated, and kept incommunicado, and I said, "Well, I have come up to see whether or not you want a lawyer, because as I understand--" I am not exactly sure what I ,said there, or whether he said something about not knowing what happened to President Kennedy, or I said that I understood that he was arrested for the shot that killed the President, and I don't remember who said what after that. This is a little bit vague. ( 25 )

Here Nichols is having an exclusive talk with the accused assassin of
President Kennedy, and he can't remember what was said in the

Mr. STERN. He, I gather, used the word "incommunicado" to describe----

Mr. NICHOLS. Yes; that was his word.

Mr. STERN. Did he elaborate on that, or any---or indicate to you that
he had not been able to see members of his family or other people of
his choice?

Mr. NICHOLS. No; he did not say that he had been refused anything.
Just didn't elaborate, and I REALLY DIDN'T ASK HIM at that point. MY
whether he had a lawyer, if he had a lawyer then I had no problems. If he asked for a lawyer and they did not offer him one, that was
contrary to what I had been told, because I had been told, as far as
the police were concerned, and Mr. Wade, as he recalled, that the man
had never asked for a lawyer. Nor had he asked to call a lawyer, for
the right to call a lawyer, so that I was interested in knowing
whether or not he had a lawyer and whether or not he had requested a
lawyer and been refused..... I didn't go into the other questions, or
whether or not he wanted to see his family and hadn't been permitted.
I really was concerned about whether or not he had a lawyer or wanted
a lawyer, or whether we had any obligations to furnish him one.
( 26 )

In addition, when Oswald asked for John Abt or a lawyer from the
American Civil Liberites Union, Nichols told him that he didn't know
Abt and he didn't know any lawyers who were members of the ACLU but
admitted under oath that "as it turned out later, a number of lawyers
I know ARE members". ( 27 )

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. ( 28 )

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." ( 29 )

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." ( 30 )

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


Chief Curry, the only witness to the exchange between Oswald and
Nichols, could not remember which day it occurred, testifying that
Nichols' visit was on Friday ( 31 ).

Later in his testimony, Curry is told that Nichols' visit was on
Saturday, not Friday.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, you said that Mr. Nichols came that
afternoon. I call to your attention that we have information
that he came there on the Saturday afternoon.

Mr. CURRY. Perhaps it was, not the Friday. That perhaps was on

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you could just summarize briefly where we are.

(Discussion off the record.)

At that point, a "discussion off the record" is conducted and when the discussion comes back on the record, Curry's memory has improved. He tells the Commission that Nichols offered to provide counsel to Oswald, but Oswald "didn't care to at this time" but in the event he couldn't secure counsel for himself, he would "call on you later".

Then Rep. Ford asks the stupidest question:

Representative FORD. Did Nichols and Oswald talk one to another ?
( 32 )


FBI agent James Bookhout testified that he attended two interrogation
sessions of Oswald on November 23rd ( Saturday ). One was at 10:30 am and the second was at 6:30 pm. In the first one he attended, he said that Fritz gave Oswald directions on how to make a collect call. In the second Oswald thanked him for allowing him to make the call.

Mr. BOOKHOUT. Yes, it was in this interview that he mentioned he
wanted to contact Attorney Abt A-b-t, New York City. I
recall Captain Fritz asked him if he knew Abt personally and he said
he did not, but he explained that he knew that Abt had defended the
Smith Act cases in 1949, or 1950, and Captain Fritz asked him if he
knew how to get ahold of Mr. Abt, and he stated that he did not know
what his address was, but he was in New York.

I recall that Captain Fritz explained to him that he would allow him
to place a long distance call for Abt, and he explained to Oswald how to ask the long distance operator to trace him down and locate him, even though Oswald didn't even know his address or telephone number.

Mr. STERN. Did he actually make the call in your presence?

Mr. BOOKHOUT. No; he didn't make the call in my presence. The next
interview that we had with him, I recall that Captain Fritz asked him
if he had been able to contact Mr. Abt. Oswald stated that he had made the telephone call and thanked Captain Fritz for allowing him to make the call, but actually he had not been able to talk to Abt. He wasn't available. Wasn't in his office or something---- ( 33 )

Bookhout's account is supported by Forrest Sorrels. ( 34 )

So Bookhout puts the time of Oswald's use of the phone between 11:30
am and 6:30 pm on Saturday.

William Whaley testified that Oswald was still screaming for his
lawyer at the 2:30 lineup he viewed:

Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what
he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were
trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer. ( 35 )

Ruth Paine testified that Oswald called her about 3:30 or 4 pm and
asked her to contact John Abt after 6 pm. ( 36 )

Marguerite Oswald testified that she didn't see her son until sometime after 4:30 pm and that he told her that he'd
already requested to get in touch with attorney Abt. (37 )

From the time of his arrest, the longer the wait for Oswald to contact an attorney, the less chance that that contact was going to be made.

Try contacting a lawyer long distance in his New York office on a
Saturday evening in 1963.

Good luck.

And the police knew this, which is why Oswald was held incommunicado
through Friday and up until Saturday noon. The authorities could not allow him to come in contact with either counsel directly or family and friends, who would have sought counsel on his behalf.

Once they were satisfied that his chances of securing counsel were
next to nil, they allowed him to make the call.

When Oswald couldn't contact Abt, because it was a collect call and
there was no one there to accept the charges, he turned to Ruth Paine for help. Mrs. Paine testified that she called both numbers, home and office that Oswald had given her, but was unsuccessful in contacting Abt. When Oswald called back at 9:30 pm, she said that she "couldn't recall" whether she reported to him that she was unable to contact Abt.

She could only tell the Commission that "something was said but I do
not recall it specifically" ( 38 )

Mrs. Paine further told the Commission that "I am of the impression I
again tried the home telephone of John Abt on Sunday morning, but I am not certain, and there was no answer. That I certainly remember." ( 39 )

When the Commission inquired if Mrs. Paine had ever attempted to
report to Oswald that she was unable to contact attorney Abt, she was
forced to admit that she "made no effort" to call the police station
and speak with him. ( 40 )

The question remains: did Ruth Paine actually TRY to make those calls
on Oswald's behalf ?

And if she did, why didn't she keep Oswald informed of her progress ?

John Abt told the Warren Commission that he and his wife had gone off
for a weekend at their cabin in Connecticut and on Saturday, the press "began to call me up there" and that "these calls kept on all day Saturday and again Sunday morning". ( 41 )

How could all of these reporters reach Abt, but Mrs. Paine could not ?

Even if she could not contact Abt, why didn't Mrs. Paine, as a member
of the Civil Liberties Union, contact that organization for help or at least contact her husband to do so ?

Marguerite Oswald testified that on Friday, the 22nd, she was troubled by the attitude of Ruth Paine towards her son. Although Mrs. Paine said that she could get Lee a lawyer, she was doing nothing about it:

"I am worried because Lee hasn't had an attorney. And I am talking
about that, and Mrs. Paine said, "Oh, don't worry about that. I am a member of the Civil Liberties Union, and Lee will have an attorney, I can assure you." I said to myself 'but when ?' Of course, I didn't want to push her, argue with her. But the point was if she was a
member of the Union, why didn't she see Lee had an attorney then ? So
I wasn't too happy about that. ( 42 )


The testimony presented in this narrative has shown that Lee Harvey
Oswald requested a lawyer from the time of his arrest until late
Saturday afternoon, when he contacted Ruth Paine for help. The
testimony has also shown that Oswald was held incommunicado until
after noon on Saturday. During that period between his arrest and the
visit of his family, Oswald repeatedly pled for legal assistance and
when the ACLU responded to that plea, they were lied to by the Dallas
Police and chose to believe that lie.

The Dallas Police were successful in keeping Oswald "incommunicado"
until Saturday afternoon, at a time when the likelihood of Oswald's
securing counsel before Monday had diminished. It was at this time
that the Dallas Police allowed his family to see him and allowed him
to make his phone call.

The importance of the timing of Oswald's access to a telephone can be
summed up in this way:

Attorney Abt testified that he and his wife didn't leave for the cabin until Friday evening. ( 43 ) Had Oswald been allowed to make that phone call at the time of his arrest, he would have made contact with Abt before they left for Connecticut.

The authorities were eager to put the "denial of counsel" issue to
rest, so they agreed to allow a civil lawyer with connections to the
city and its police department and the president of the Dallas Bar
Association, to "question" Oswald about the denial of counsel issue in private.

After that interview, the lawyer faced the press and declared that
Oswald had refused his offer for help.

It's difficult to imagine, given the press coverage of that weekend,
that Nichols never saw on TV, never heard on radio or never read in
the newspapers, Oswald's pleas for assistance and instead was forced
to rely on "what I had been told".

The purpose of his "intentionally very limited" interview of Oswald
seems to have been to take the pressure off of the authorities in
Dallas rather than to insure that Oswald had counsel. By his own
admission, his "concern" was not for how Oswald was being treated.
When Oswald complained, Nichols admitted that he "didn't ask any

His testimony that Oswald told him to "come back next week" defies
logic and common sense and is contrary to documented video showing
Oswald repeatedly asking for "someone to come forward".

Not John Abt........someone..............ANYONE.

I find it hard to believe that Nichols could have been impartial and
not have mentioned that Oswald HAD requested the name of John Abt or
the American Civil Liberties Union. I also find it hard to believe
that an impartial party would not mention Oswald's complaint about his treatment.

In the end, Nichols served the interests of the Dallas authorities
better than he served the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Perhaps that was the plan all along.

The proof of Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence is documented in the way in
which the Dallas Police conducted the police lineups, tampered with
the evidence and held him incommunicado for over 24 hours, effectively delaying his contacting counsel.

When you have a guilty suspect, you don't need to do those things
because the evidence will always stand on its own merit.

The fact that they DID do those things is a testament, IMO to his



1. ( 7 H 123, 7 H 165 )

2. ( 4 H 214-215 )


3. ( 4 H 214-215 )

4. ( 7 H 323 )

5. ( 7 H 52 )

6. ( 7 H 61 )

7. ( 7 H 324 )


9. ( 7 H 325 )


10. ( 7 H 331 )

11. ( 15 H 507 )

12. ( 7 H 130 )

13. ( 4 H 217 )

14. ( 7 H 171 )


15. ( 7 H 327 )

16. ( ibid. )

17. ( 5 H 240 )

18. ( 7 H 327 )

19. ( ibid. )

20. ( 2 H 261 )

21. ( 7 H 327 )

22. ( 7 H 331 )

23. ( 7 H 327-328 )

24. ( 7 H 328 )

25. ( ibid. )

26. ( 7 H 330 )

27. ( 7 H 329 )

28. ( ibid. )

29. ( ibid. )

30. ( 7 H 330 )


31. ( 4 H 155 )

32. ( 4 H 158 )


33. ( 7 H 314 )

34. ( 7 H 356 )

35. ( 2 H 261 )

36. ( 3 H 85 )

37. ( 1 H 149 )

38. ( 3 H 88 )

39. ( 3 H 89 )

40. ( ibid. )

41. ( 10 H 116 )

42. ( 1 H 146 )


43. ( 10 H 116 )