JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 816)


TONY FRATINI SAID:

There's been some bitter soul searching going on in Dallas County, as one man after another is being released from prison after being convicted, years ago, of crimes they did not commit. .... So far, 17 men have been cleared in Dallas - that's more than most states. All were put on trial by prosecutors who worked for the legendary District Attorney Henry Wade.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Henry Wade didn't collect a single piece of evidence in the JFK or Tippit cases.

I know he didn't "collect" any of the evidence in the overturned cases that CTers love to now highlight (so they can call Wade a corrupt asshole), but Wade would have merely used the evidence collected by OTHERS to prosecute Oswald.

Now, is a rational person supposed to believe that all of this evidence is phony?

If not---Oswald's probably guilty.

And in the Oswald case, the defendant didn't even live to stand trial, so Henry Wade had no chance to be a corrupt prosecutor even if he had wanted to be one! (Isn't this obvious?)

So whether Henry Wade was a rotten and corrupt District Attorney has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Lee Harvey Oswald killed John Kennedy and/or J.D. Tippit.

OTHER people besides Henry Wade evaluated the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases. Wade did NOTHING. So why is Wade's record as an alleged corrupt D.A. of Dallas County even brought up in a case when the defendant never even stepped into a Dallas courtroom? It's silly.

What's next on the "Excuses" list for the conspiracy theorists in order to try and set free a double killer named Oswald?

The inventive conspiracy crowd has already pretended that all of the evidence is tainted (sans a speck of proof that ANY of it was).

And they've gone down the "Wade Is Corrupt" path. But, as pointed out above, that's meaningless since he had nothing whatsoever to do with gathering any of the evidence against Oswald and since Oswald never even went to trial to be prosecuted by Mr. Wade. (Duh!)

And the CTers love to claim that Hoover, LBJ, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the CIA "covered up" everything. Which, again, is a crappy argument because none of those persons or entities collected a single piece of the evidence which hangs Oswald. Nor did they (or the Dallas Police Department either, for that matter) make Oswald behave like a very guilty person between 12:33 and 1:50 PM CST on November 22, 1963. (Did Hoover or LBJ force Oswald to pull a gun on the cops in the theater? And did they force him to leave the scene of JFK's murder at 12:33?)

And the CTers have pretended that "Oswald Lookalikes" were doing things to frame the "real" Oswald. (Sans any proof at all, naturally.)


TONY FRATINI SAID:

In regards to WADE - how many times on National TV did he,and others, state that LHO was guilty? You know that the evidence was paraded in front of the national media like it was a circus. How exactly was LHO going to get a fair hearing anywhere?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Irrelevant.

Why?

Because Henry Wade never got a CHANCE to be CORRUPT in a court of law in the case of "The State Of Texas Vs. Lee Harvey Oswald".

And AFTER Oswald's demise, there have been MULTIPLE organizations and committees that have concluded that Oswald was, in fact, GUILTY as charged (times two murders).

So why in the world, in THIS case, would anybody be silly enough to lay a bunch of blame at Henry Wade's doorstep? Wade did NOTHING to "prosecute" Oswald. Nothing. He made a few statements in the DPD hallways to suggest that Oswald was, in fact, guilty, yes.

I'm not saying it was wise for Police Chief Jesse Curry or Captain Will Fritz or Mr. Wade to make such "Oswald did it" statements in front of the potential jury pool when Oswald was still alive. It was pretty reckless, IMO. But the fact remains that essentially Henry Wade did nothing in this case. The work was done by other people.

And the evidence was independently evaluated by the Warren Commission and the HSCA and the Rockefeller Commission. And Henry Wade played no part whatsoever in the overall evaluation of the evidence that was performed by the above-named entities. And we know what the conclusions of those entities were, don't we? (Were they ALL corrupt too? Prob'ly so, huh?)

David Von Pein
October 15, 2014