Post by Rob Caprio on Jan 23, 2023 21:13:53 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
i1.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/vlcsnap-2015-05-22-19h59m26s119-Copy.png
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963, without assistance of any kind.
Much of their case came from two sources – the District Attorney’s office of Dallas and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). As fate would have it, these two sources had a long connection to each other due to Henry Wade.
District Attorney (DA) Henry Wade would make a lot of comments and allegations regarding the murder of JFK and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT), but this post is interested in one of his early comments.
*******************************************
When anyone is accused of a crime in the United States they are entitled to certain rights while in custody and while presenting their defense in court. Here is a comment by Henry Wade that shows he felt that LHO deserved no such rights as granted under the Constitution.
Quote on
Fred Brunes, a leading defense lawyer, was seated near Wade when the district attorney learned of the shooting.
“Fred, would you defend a man who would shoot down the President of the United States?” Wade asked.
'Definitely not,' Bruner replied. (Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963)
Quote off
What kind of question is this by a DA who is sworn to uphold the rights and processes of our legal system? As a defense attorney Fred Bruner had the right to defend whomever he chose, but a DA is not given the latitude to ignore the rights of a suspect simply because of a type of crime they are alleged to have committed. This shows in a succinct way that LHO was never going to receive fair treatment in the custody of the Dallas Police Department (DPD).
The irony is that Wade felt that a conspiracy had occurred early on in the “investigation” of the assassination.
Quote on
Everyone who participated in this crime—anyone who helped plan it or who furnished a weapon knowing the purposes for which it was intended—is guilty of murder under Texas law. They should all go to the electric chair.
He repeated to the News reporter, "The electric chair is too good for the killers." (Dallas Morning News, November 22, 1963)
Quote off
This is pretty clear language. It says “everyone who participated” in the assassination is guilty of murder. He states that people furnished rifles while knowing what the intended use was going to be for them. Then of course he says that the electric chair was too good “for the killers”. As in PLURAL.
What possible evidence could he have seen to change his mind so quickly and dramatically? Even if you claim that he saw evidence that showed LHO to be guilty (and this could NOT have happened since it doesn’t exist), how does LHO’s guilt rule out the participation of others so quickly? We are only talking several hours here. A real investigation would take much longer than that to rule out other people and groups from being involved in the assassination.
Clearly this statement by Wade, and all the other ones we have seen in this series, show that the initial truthful determination was that a conspiracy was involved in the murder of JFK. Only after it became obvious that the official fairy tale narrative called for a lone assassin did these statements change.
Once again we see that the real evidence does not support the conclusion that the WC reached, therefore, their conclusion is sunk again.
i1.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/vlcsnap-2015-05-22-19h59m26s119-Copy.png
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963, without assistance of any kind.
Much of their case came from two sources – the District Attorney’s office of Dallas and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). As fate would have it, these two sources had a long connection to each other due to Henry Wade.
District Attorney (DA) Henry Wade would make a lot of comments and allegations regarding the murder of JFK and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT), but this post is interested in one of his early comments.
*******************************************
When anyone is accused of a crime in the United States they are entitled to certain rights while in custody and while presenting their defense in court. Here is a comment by Henry Wade that shows he felt that LHO deserved no such rights as granted under the Constitution.
Quote on
Fred Brunes, a leading defense lawyer, was seated near Wade when the district attorney learned of the shooting.
“Fred, would you defend a man who would shoot down the President of the United States?” Wade asked.
'Definitely not,' Bruner replied. (Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963)
Quote off
What kind of question is this by a DA who is sworn to uphold the rights and processes of our legal system? As a defense attorney Fred Bruner had the right to defend whomever he chose, but a DA is not given the latitude to ignore the rights of a suspect simply because of a type of crime they are alleged to have committed. This shows in a succinct way that LHO was never going to receive fair treatment in the custody of the Dallas Police Department (DPD).
The irony is that Wade felt that a conspiracy had occurred early on in the “investigation” of the assassination.
Quote on
Everyone who participated in this crime—anyone who helped plan it or who furnished a weapon knowing the purposes for which it was intended—is guilty of murder under Texas law. They should all go to the electric chair.
He repeated to the News reporter, "The electric chair is too good for the killers." (Dallas Morning News, November 22, 1963)
Quote off
This is pretty clear language. It says “everyone who participated” in the assassination is guilty of murder. He states that people furnished rifles while knowing what the intended use was going to be for them. Then of course he says that the electric chair was too good “for the killers”. As in PLURAL.
What possible evidence could he have seen to change his mind so quickly and dramatically? Even if you claim that he saw evidence that showed LHO to be guilty (and this could NOT have happened since it doesn’t exist), how does LHO’s guilt rule out the participation of others so quickly? We are only talking several hours here. A real investigation would take much longer than that to rule out other people and groups from being involved in the assassination.
Clearly this statement by Wade, and all the other ones we have seen in this series, show that the initial truthful determination was that a conspiracy was involved in the murder of JFK. Only after it became obvious that the official fairy tale narrative called for a lone assassin did these statements change.
Once again we see that the real evidence does not support the conclusion that the WC reached, therefore, their conclusion is sunk again.