Yes, sir; and I know I was amazed as I walked through the television room there and saw Chief Curry with that gun. You see, at that time they had not identified the gun as his gun, but he was telling about the report on it.

Mr. Rankin.

Will you just describe what you saw there at that time?

Mr. Wade.

Well, I know he was in a crowd, and it seems to me like he had the gun, but on second thought I am not even sure whether he had the gun, but he was tracing the history of how that the gun was bought under the name, under an assumed name from a mail-order house in Chicago and mailed there to Dallas, and that the serial number and everything that had been identified, that the FBI had done that, something else.
I believe they said they had a post office box here, a blind post office box that the recipients of that had identified as Oswald as the guy or something that received it.
In other words, he went directly over the evidence connecting him with the gun.

Mr. Rankin.

You say there was a crowd there. Who was the crowd around him?

Mr. Wade.

Newsmen. You see, I was at home. I was watching it on television.

Mr. Rankin.

I see. Did you do anything about that, then? Did you call him and ask him to quit that?

Mr. Wade.

No; I felt like nearly it was a hopeless case. I know now why it happened. That was the first piece of evidence he got his hands on before Fritz did.

Mr. Rankin.

Will you explain what you mean by that?

Mr. Wade.

Well, this went to the FBI and came to him rather than to Captain Fritz, and I feel in my own mind that this was something new, that he really had been receiving none of the original evidence, that it was coming through Fritz to him and so this went from him to Fritz, you know, and I think that is the reason he did it.
So I stayed home that afternoon. I was trying to think, it seems like I went back by the police station some time that night, late at night.

Mr. Rankin.

This way of giving evidence to the press and all of the news media, is that standard practice in your area?

Mr. Wade.

Yes; it is, unfortunately. I don't think it is good. We have just, even since this happened we have had a similar incident with the police giving all the evidence out or giving out an oral confession of a defendant that is not admissible in court. You know, oral admissions are not generally admissible in Texas. And they gave all the evidence out in it.

Mr. Rankin.

Have you done anything about it, tried to stop it in any way?

Mr. Wade.

Well, in this actually, in the same story they quoted me as saying, I mean the news quoted me as saying they shouldn't give the information out, that is the evidence, we have got to try the case, we will get a jury, it is improper to do this, or something to that effect. So far as taking it up with--I have mentioned many ,times that they shouldn't give out evidence, in talking to the police officers, I mean in there in training things, but it is something I have no control over whatever. It is a separate entity, the city of Dallas is, and I do a little fussing with the police, but by the same token it. is not a situation where I think it is one of your major problems that are going to have to be looked into not only here but it is a sidelight, I think, to your investigation to some extent, but I think you prejudice us, the state, more than you do the defense by giving out our testimony.
You may think that giving out will help you to convict him. I think it works the other way, your jurors that read, the good type of jurors, get an opinion one way or another from what they read, and you end up with poor jurors. If they haven't read or heard anything of the case---well, not generally the same type of juror.
The only thing I make a practice of saying is that I reviewed the evidence in

« Previous | Next »

Found a Typo?

Click here

Last Update: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 21:56:34 CET