New interview with Robert Wilson on my INTO THE NIGHTMARE research

[Joseph McBride]

http://garyrevel.com/jfk/mcbride2.html

http://www.amazon.com/Into-Nightmare-Kil...1939795257

[Marc Ellis]

http://garyrevel.com/jfk/mcbride2.html

http://www.amazon.com/Into-Nightmare-Kil...1939795257

The problem of prosecutors who are drunk with power and have access to the public till to pursue their vendettas-is both a systemic by-product of the adversarial system of "justice" and an individual moral and ethical failing repeated perhaps millions of times since the nation's founding. Wade, Connick, even Nifong are symptoms of a very wide-spread disease.

Your book is next on my list.

[Drew Phipps]

I've met Henry Wade, too, and heard him speak. My impression of him doesn't include "power-drunk vigilante." He certainly seemed to take his job very seriously. "Zealous advocacy" is a hazard of the profession in the system of adversary justice (on both sides). His job was to present the State's case in its best possible light. He held that job for more than 30 years

As a prosecutor, he also had the ethical obligation to seek "justice" and not just convictions. Every prosecutor has to strike some balance between ethics and advocacy. I've met hundreds of prosecutors, and just like any other group of people, there are better and worse. Henry Wade didn't seem to me as a prosecutor that had crossed the line, at least in his attitude towards his work. I've met a very few that did.

You should probably also acknowledge that Henry Wade's office policy of preserving evidence even after it was no longer "necessary" to do so, has been of significant assistance to Craig Watkins, and the Innocence Project. It is also inconsistent with the idea that he deliberately pursued people he knew to be innocent.

In view of Mr. McBride's interview with Henry Wade, I'd also have to say that we now have to consider that Henry Wade's professional doubts, concerning Oswald getting a fair trial, might also have been a factor (for any pre-assassination conspirators) in making the decision to kill Oswald at the first opportunity.

[Joseph McBride]

I've met Henry Wade, too, and heard him speak. My impression of him doesn't include "power-drunk vigilante." He certainly seemed to take his job very seriously. "Zealous advocacy" is a hazard of the profession in the system of adversary justice (on both sides). His job was to present the State's case in its best possible light. He held that job for more than 30 years

As a prosecutor, he also had the ethical obligation to seek "justice" and not just convictions. Every prosecutor has to strike some balance between ethics and advocacy. I've met hundreds of prosecutors, and just like any other group of people, there are better and worse. Henry Wade didn't seem to me as a prosecutor that had crossed the line, at least in his attitude towards his work. I've met a very few that did.

You should probably also acknowledge that Henry Wade's office policy of preserving evidence even after it was no longer "necessary" to do so, has been of significant assistance to Craig Watkins, and the Innocence Project. It is also inconsistent with the idea that he deliberately pursued people he knew to be innocent.

In view of Mr. McBride's interview with Henry Wade, I'd also have to say that we now have to consider that Henry Wade's professional doubts, concerning Oswald getting a fair trial, might also have been a factor (for any pre-assassination conspirators) in making the decision to kill Oswald at the first opportunity.

***

As I write in INTO THE NIGHTMARE, the appellate
attorney for Randall Adams, Melvyn Carson Bruder, says in THE THIN BLUE LINE, "Prosectors in
Dallas have said for years, 'Any prosecutor can convict a guilty man. It takes a great prosecutor
to convict an innocent man.'" This seems particularly relevant to the way Oswald
was railroaded for the murders of Kennedy and Tippit, which he did not commit.

Much has been written about the corruption of Wade's office. Yes, it's ironic that
he preserved much of the evidence that has helped the current DA, Craig
Watkins, free thirty-three innocent people sent up by Wade, and one hopes there will be more such exonerations to come. I discuss that in the interview. Wade
also let Errol Morris dig into the evidence that helped free Adams. Wade may
have been conflicted on such matters. But he certainly crossed ethical lines.

And, yes, Wade was smart and had doubts about the Oswald case. As did Captain
Fritz and Detective Leavelle, as I also note.

[Albert Doyle]

I've met Henry Wade, too, and heard him speak. My impression of him doesn't include "power-drunk vigilante."

Which goes to show how corrupting the conspiracy was of otherwise ordinary public officials. Some might have an another opinion of Texas justice however.

[Drew Phipps]

"Prosectors in Dallas have said for years, 'Any prosecutor can convict a guilty man. It takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent man.'"

You know that's a joke, right? Not a very funny joke, to be sure, but still a bit of the dark humor that many folks in the criminal justice develop as sort of a callus to the miserable business that is criminal justice.


Henry Wade and the DA's office barely got involved in the Kennedy/Tippet case. They filed a charge and went to a couple press conferences and talked to (too many) reporters. Those folks didn't have time to "railroad" anyone. If there was evidence planted in advance, the conspirators did it. If there was evidence fabricated (or lost) in the investigation, the blame for that must fall squarely on the FBI and the Dallas PD. Prosecutors don't like to get too closely involved with the evidence collection part of the investigation, because that tends to make them witnesses and thereby unable to perform their prosecutorial duties. After indictment, of course, that changes.

High visibility cases, like this one, carry a great deal of pressure, which does tend to have a corrupting effect. But I doubt that the "pressure" had a chance to "get to" the DA, who is more of a benchwarmer during the early phase of a case.

[Jim DiEugenio]

How can it be a joke if the DA's office did it scores of times?

I mean, look at the Linell Jeter case for an early indication of just how bad Dallas justice was.

[Drew Phipps]

From what I understand, the majority of the "actual innocence" reversals (in Dallas and elsewhere) come from mistaken identification of the suspect by civilian witnesses, and when new scientific techniques are brought to bear, such as DNA, they can exclude a person as a suspect. Contrast that to the Michael Morton case, where the conviction was overturned because of a failure of the Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson to provide to the defense evidence that tended to exonerate him (his son's statement to the police saying, "daddy wasn't there," and a record of the deceased's credit card being used after her death). Later, Morton was exonerated and the real killer prosecuted.

Prosecutors aren't required to exclude favorable identification witnesses even if they privately entertain doubts. You cannot blame the prosecutors for playing the hand they are dealt to the best of thier ability, so long as they play by the rules.

[Albert Doyle]

It's pretty clear to me the whole Dallas Police Department was rottenly in on the deal. Who was it, Leavelle, who said Kennedy's shooting was like any other nigger shooting? The Oswald-Ruby timing thing was obviously orchestrated from within. Wade was following the script and wasn't about to challenge Lyndon.

[Drew Phipps]

If you truly believe that, then why did LBJ's aide Cliff Carter call Henry Wade and tell him NOT to charge Oswald with conspiracy (which had already happened)? Did Wade just forget his single most important line? Why did LBJ call DPD Curry and tell him to stop investigating other aspects of the assassination ("You got your man")? Did Curry forget his lines too?

Any time someone prosecuted for something they didn't do, you have , by definition, a "conspiracy," at least to violate their civil rights. Prosecution requires the active (if not knowing) participation of police, attorneys, secretaries, judges, jailors, even the mail room clerk. That doesn't seem to me to be the sort of "conspiracy" that need concern us here.