From: jecorbett4@gmail.com   
      
   On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:41:29 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 6:38:00 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:    
   > > Wade's record as a prosecutor is completely irrelevant to the JFK   
   assassination since his office never prosecuted that case.   
   > Au contraire. The credibility of a criminal case is based on the credibility   
   of the police who put it together and the DA who decided to prosecute it.    
      
   Wade's only involvement in the case was formally charging Oswald with the two   
   murders, which only requires a minimal    
   amount of evidence. He never even got a chance to present the case to the   
   grand jury. As for the police, their job is to    
   gather the evidence and send it to the DA. They don't work at his direction.   
   You want to take the ludicrous position that the   
   DPD was engaging in a cover up from the get go. Do you think they were onboard   
   before the assassination or were they    
   recruited to join in the cover up after the assassination? I'm not sure which   
   is the more ridiculous proposition.    
      
   > Once Oswald was formally charged with the murders, the case was Wade's.   
   Because it didn't go to TRIAL is irrelevant.    
      
   Wade never had the chance to engage in the prosecutorial misconduct you seem   
   to be accusing him of.    
      
   > Those defendants were framed BEFORE they went to trial, not while they were   
   in court.    
   > You argument is therefore moot.   
      
   Wade's involvement ended the minute the person he had charged was pronounced   
   dead. Just what do you think Wade did in   
   the roughly 36 hours between the time Oswald was charged and he was declared   
   dead that would cast doubt on the    
   conclusions of the WC?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)