Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 14, 2018 16:26:12 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
i1.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/vlcsnap-2015-05-22-19h59m26s119-Copy.png
static01.nyt.com/images/2016/05/13/us/sub-13-lane-obit-1/sub-13-lane-obit-1-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg
This post will look at some of the claims made by Dallas D.A. Henry Wade on the Sunday following the assassination after Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) has been shot dead. These are important for two reasons in my mind. Firstly, because the Warren Commission (WC) would use many of them later on, and secondly, because quite a few would change AFTER LHO was dead. This part is crucial because as of that Saturday Wade was claiming the case was "clinched" against LHO so that begs the question, why were their claims changing then?
All of this comes from Mark Lane's great rebuttal called a Lane's Defense Brief for Oswald that was published on December 19, 1963 in the magazine called The Guardian. Mr. Lane had a heck of a time finding anyone to publish it, and in fact, NO one would except the Guardian and he would receive some backlash from his corporate clients for doing this. As you will see even as early as 12/19/63 there were major holes in the Dallas Police Department’s (DPD) case against LHO.
*************************************************
Point One
At the press conference on 11/23/63 Wade said there were SEVERAL witnesses who saw LHO at the alleged SN window of the TSBD. Wade stated, "First, there was (sic) a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore building in the window--detailing the window--while he was looking out."
This statement is TOTALLY FALSE and the WC would NOT even use it. As it turned out just one witness, Howard Brennan, was provided saying he saw LHO in the window and even this was shaky. Why? Because he was quoted in the December 9, 1963 edition of Newsweek saying this, "I CAN'T identify him, but IF I see a man WHO LOOKS LIKE HIM, I'll point him out."
Of course that is EXACTLY what he did once LHO was dead. He claimed he "looked most like the man he saw" in the window. This is NOT a firm, positive ID folks. Brennan was shown a lineup on the day of the shooting after he saw LHO's picture on television and still he could NOT ID LHO as the man he saw.
Why would Wade make the comment he did on national television when he knew there were NOT multiple witnesses?
Point Two
Wade made mention of the palm print allegedly found on the rifle LHO allegedly used --6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano--but even at the time of the writing of Lane's article the FBI had said, "NO palm prints were found on the rifle."
This conclusion by the FBI was carried in the Fort Worth Press and was later LEAKED BY THE FBI in an off-the-record briefing session. The FBI indicated anger at Wade for stating a palm print was present when in fact it was NOT!
Why would Wade say a palm print was present on the rifle when the FBI said it was NOT? Furthermore, why would the WC say it was present when the FBI said it was NOT?
Point Three
Wade would say LHO's palm print appeared on a cardboard box found at the window. Wade stated, "On this box that the defendant was sitting on, his palm print was found and identified as his."
Since it was never claimed that LHO ever wore gloves how is it that a palm print (again, they are NOT as unique as fingerprints and it is based on the number of characteristics that are present) was found on a movable box, but NOT on the window ledge, window frame, window, floor, walls, shell casings and clip? And as for the rifle, again all we got was a claim of a palm print, but as we saw in point two the FBI denied this.
Lane would point out in his rebuttal article that this box was brought to the POLICE STATION and was present when LHO was there! It isn't hard to think they could have added the print given their burning desire to make LHO look guilty.
Point Five
***Note: I skipped four as that pertains to the paraffin test and I think it is obvious at this point in time that LHO did NOT fire a rifle recently since it came back negative for the cheek. The Washington Star reported NO gunpowder was found on LHO's cheeks on 11/24/63.
Wade claimed LHO ordered the Italian CARBINE (are you listening LNers) through the mail under an assumed name. Wade said, "It (the rifle) as I think you know, has been idenditfied as having been purchased last March by Oswald, from a mail-order house through an assumed name named Hidell, mailed to a post office box here in Dallas." He would go on to say this was THE WEAPON that killed the president.
Yet, shortly after LHO's arrest Wade said something very different. Dallas law enforcement officials announced they had found the murder weapon. Wade and his associates studied it. The rifle was shown on air repeatedly and one officer held it high in the air. After hours of examination Wade said without hesitation, that "the murder weapon was a GERMAN MAUSER."
ONLY on the next day (Saturday) did the FBI announce it could show LHO ordered the Italian Carbine through the mail! There are so many issues here that even Mark Lane could NOT know about in early December 1963 when he wrote this article. Firstly, the alleged murder weapon was NOT a Carbine, but rather a SHORT RIFLE (40")! He could NOT see the evidence yet to see that they would claim LHO ordered a Carbine but received a 40" model! He could NOT see there was ZERO evidence showing LHO ever received any package at his Dallas P.O. Box either!
He also could NOT see Part III of the application (although Holmes had told the N.Y. Times by then) for the post office box to see that LHO LISTED NO ONE ELSE AS BEING ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE MAIL THERE. So, if anything came in for a A. Hidell it would have been SENT BACK to the sender!
Why did Wade call the weapon a Mauser on 11/22/63 and then an ITALIAN CARBINE on 11/23/63? Was he saying the men on his police force were incompetent? How about himself and his associates since they "studied" it for hours?
www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html#s1k
I'll finish the other points in a different post.
i1.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/vlcsnap-2015-05-22-19h59m26s119-Copy.png
static01.nyt.com/images/2016/05/13/us/sub-13-lane-obit-1/sub-13-lane-obit-1-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg
This post will look at some of the claims made by Dallas D.A. Henry Wade on the Sunday following the assassination after Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) has been shot dead. These are important for two reasons in my mind. Firstly, because the Warren Commission (WC) would use many of them later on, and secondly, because quite a few would change AFTER LHO was dead. This part is crucial because as of that Saturday Wade was claiming the case was "clinched" against LHO so that begs the question, why were their claims changing then?
All of this comes from Mark Lane's great rebuttal called a Lane's Defense Brief for Oswald that was published on December 19, 1963 in the magazine called The Guardian. Mr. Lane had a heck of a time finding anyone to publish it, and in fact, NO one would except the Guardian and he would receive some backlash from his corporate clients for doing this. As you will see even as early as 12/19/63 there were major holes in the Dallas Police Department’s (DPD) case against LHO.
*************************************************
Point One
At the press conference on 11/23/63 Wade said there were SEVERAL witnesses who saw LHO at the alleged SN window of the TSBD. Wade stated, "First, there was (sic) a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore building in the window--detailing the window--while he was looking out."
This statement is TOTALLY FALSE and the WC would NOT even use it. As it turned out just one witness, Howard Brennan, was provided saying he saw LHO in the window and even this was shaky. Why? Because he was quoted in the December 9, 1963 edition of Newsweek saying this, "I CAN'T identify him, but IF I see a man WHO LOOKS LIKE HIM, I'll point him out."
Of course that is EXACTLY what he did once LHO was dead. He claimed he "looked most like the man he saw" in the window. This is NOT a firm, positive ID folks. Brennan was shown a lineup on the day of the shooting after he saw LHO's picture on television and still he could NOT ID LHO as the man he saw.
Why would Wade make the comment he did on national television when he knew there were NOT multiple witnesses?
Point Two
Wade made mention of the palm print allegedly found on the rifle LHO allegedly used --6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano--but even at the time of the writing of Lane's article the FBI had said, "NO palm prints were found on the rifle."
This conclusion by the FBI was carried in the Fort Worth Press and was later LEAKED BY THE FBI in an off-the-record briefing session. The FBI indicated anger at Wade for stating a palm print was present when in fact it was NOT!
Why would Wade say a palm print was present on the rifle when the FBI said it was NOT? Furthermore, why would the WC say it was present when the FBI said it was NOT?
Point Three
Wade would say LHO's palm print appeared on a cardboard box found at the window. Wade stated, "On this box that the defendant was sitting on, his palm print was found and identified as his."
Since it was never claimed that LHO ever wore gloves how is it that a palm print (again, they are NOT as unique as fingerprints and it is based on the number of characteristics that are present) was found on a movable box, but NOT on the window ledge, window frame, window, floor, walls, shell casings and clip? And as for the rifle, again all we got was a claim of a palm print, but as we saw in point two the FBI denied this.
Lane would point out in his rebuttal article that this box was brought to the POLICE STATION and was present when LHO was there! It isn't hard to think they could have added the print given their burning desire to make LHO look guilty.
Point Five
***Note: I skipped four as that pertains to the paraffin test and I think it is obvious at this point in time that LHO did NOT fire a rifle recently since it came back negative for the cheek. The Washington Star reported NO gunpowder was found on LHO's cheeks on 11/24/63.
Wade claimed LHO ordered the Italian CARBINE (are you listening LNers) through the mail under an assumed name. Wade said, "It (the rifle) as I think you know, has been idenditfied as having been purchased last March by Oswald, from a mail-order house through an assumed name named Hidell, mailed to a post office box here in Dallas." He would go on to say this was THE WEAPON that killed the president.
Yet, shortly after LHO's arrest Wade said something very different. Dallas law enforcement officials announced they had found the murder weapon. Wade and his associates studied it. The rifle was shown on air repeatedly and one officer held it high in the air. After hours of examination Wade said without hesitation, that "the murder weapon was a GERMAN MAUSER."
ONLY on the next day (Saturday) did the FBI announce it could show LHO ordered the Italian Carbine through the mail! There are so many issues here that even Mark Lane could NOT know about in early December 1963 when he wrote this article. Firstly, the alleged murder weapon was NOT a Carbine, but rather a SHORT RIFLE (40")! He could NOT see the evidence yet to see that they would claim LHO ordered a Carbine but received a 40" model! He could NOT see there was ZERO evidence showing LHO ever received any package at his Dallas P.O. Box either!
He also could NOT see Part III of the application (although Holmes had told the N.Y. Times by then) for the post office box to see that LHO LISTED NO ONE ELSE AS BEING ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE MAIL THERE. So, if anything came in for a A. Hidell it would have been SENT BACK to the sender!
Why did Wade call the weapon a Mauser on 11/22/63 and then an ITALIAN CARBINE on 11/23/63? Was he saying the men on his police force were incompetent? How about himself and his associates since they "studied" it for hours?
www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html#s1k
I'll finish the other points in a different post.