Posted on 02/09/2003 1:43:45 AM PST by Vigilant1
I just heard on a local news broadcast that the murderer of US Attorney Tom Wales has been caught, and he's NOT a discgruntled gun rights advocate, as Wales' contemporaries suggested. The murder occured in Wales's Seattle home last year. You can download the LA Times Magazine article that parrotted these slanderous accusations here (.pdf format):
Article: Tom Wales Fought for Gun Control. Maybe He Died for It.
=========================================================
This is a Washington State TRT press release on this subject:
Tom Wales Murder Investigation
by Washington State Tyranny Response Team
A general release to the media, Seattle PD, and FBI: Washington State Tyranny Response Team calls for answers regarding the Tom Wales murder investigation.
With the one-year anniversary of the murder of Tom Wales approaching, we are expecting there will be a new barrage of media reports prominently stating the possibility that Mr. Wales was killed by a gun enthusiast because of his work with Washington Ceasefire, a gun control organization. In the time since his death, most of the media has steadfastly refused to acknowledge an equally credible possibility, that he was killed, perhaps even voluntarily, to provide a martyr and desperately needed funds to the gun control movement. There have been just two mentions of that possibility in the mainstream media to date, in a statement by Joe Waldron of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms on CBS, and in an article in Seattle Weekly.
The mainstream media has also refused to acknowledge that there are facts to support this possibility. Witnesses saw the killer walk to his vehicle, which was directly across the street under a streetlight, and drive away. Yet to date there has been no description of the killer or his vehicle released, or at least a reason for keeping it secret. So far as we are aware, this is unprecedented except in cases of cover-ups. This lends credence to the possibility that certain public officials, who are Ceasefire members, could have found themselves in an embarrassing position and ordered a cover-up.
There has also been no release of information from the 911 tape. Mr. Wales made his own call after being shot, and could have relayed information about the killer. Recent reports have indicated that he could not speak because of a throat wound. If so, then letting the public hear for themselves would put that question to rest.
At the time of the murder, Mr. Wales' life was, by all accounts, in shambles. He had recently been through divorce, which is distressing enough even if you leave out the fact that his wife left him for another woman. The gun ban movement he held so dear was also disintegrating from bankruptcy, layoffs, and lack of support, meaning he couldn't keep the promises and threats he was making to gun rights supporters. Under these circumstances, it is not implausible that he would sacrifice himself for the cause.
Wales was killed just under one month before the November election. The "October surprise" timing was perfect for Ceasefire to start fundraising, gathering support, and to sway the election. Historically, martyrs (such as those created at Columbine) have been their most cherished means of fundraising.
After the murder, Washington Ceasefire went immediately to work to financially capitalize on his death. The first calls for donations came at the end of the announcement of his death. The fundraising website was registered just two business days later.
There is only one instance we are aware of when a Ceasefire representative was publicly questioned about details of the investigation. Bruce Gryniewski, the former Executive Director, was asked about this on the Kirby Wilbur show on April 8th, in the 8:00am hour. Following is a partial transcript.
Kirby: Okay now if I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, the morning after the police reported, that upon hearing gunshots several people went to their windows or went to see, and an individual was seen going to a car that was parked under a streetlight and driving away.In this interview, Mr. Gryniewski makes what amounts to a series of excuses as to why the neighbor might not have gotten a good look. His statement that "it was dark" is not consistent with the fact that the killer and his vehicle were both seen directly under a streetlight on a residential street. Regardless of vantage point, there should be more details such as height and build, clothing, hair color and style, etc. There should also be vehicle information. Mr. Gryniewski knew this at the time of the statement.
Bruce: That is correct.
Kirby: Now, do you know if any kind of description of this individual was made by these people, because one thing I've noticed strangely about this investigation is that no description was given for the public to help, like you know, tall white male in his thirties, or short black female in her twenties, there was no kind of description given out by the authorities that I'm aware of.
Bruce: That's right, there was no description, it is puzzling to me, the one neighbor apparently, and this was according to press reports not law enforcement, apparently saw the individual walking away, it was a male individual, but beyond that no description. It's hard to say what vantage point this neighbor may have been at, it was dark, it was about 10:40 at night, and so it would have been difficult to see in any case, but yeah there was as far as I know no specific description on the suspect.
Mr. Gryniewski also stated it was "puzzling" to him that this information was never released. This would indicate that the subject never came up in conversations with authorities. It is not credible to ask us to believe that he has never discussed this with authorities, or gotten any kind of answer, or at least a reason for keeping it secret, especially since our organization has been trying to call attention to this ever since the murder. This statement could easily be read to indicate collusion with authorities to conceal the killer's description. However you choose to read it, this is not the statement of a man who wants to know what the killer of his friend looks like.
This same analysis of his statement was made public shortly after the interview. Soon after that, Mr. Gryniewski abruptly left his position at Ceasefire amid secrecy, leaving a vacancy that has still not been filled. This has led to speculation that he sought to avoid questions he could not answer. He can now be found at Washington Conservation Voters.
We hereby call upon the FBI and Seattle PD to release the descriptions of the killer and his vehicle, a transcript of the 911 tape, and any other relevant information that might help locate him. This is the only way to clear up questions about the investigation, and enable the public to do their part in locating the killer. This is an issue of public trust, and this is a time when citizens and authorities need more than ever to be able to work together.
We also call upon the news media to do their part in obtaining and reporting this information. This is essential to maintaining their own credibility. The type of one-sided reporting implicating gun enthusiasts that we have seen up to this point is a matter we in the shooting community do not take lightly. Media agencies that have refrained from this type of scapegoating have our thanks. To those who have not, we expect a little more balance and consideration of the alternate possibility this time.
Last but not least, we would like to see Washington Ceasefire make their own request for the release of information about the killer. There should be no one more interested in knowing that. Their apparent disinterest in that information, as well as their preference for raising money from his death at every opportunity, has been cause for great concern.
-----
More information about this topic can be found by going to www.frp-wa.com and clicking "articles."
Contact:
Kevin Schmadeka (360) 757-7122
Jeff Stewart (253) 332-7984
----------
Nov. 10, 2002 - Addendum to Press Release:
After this release was broadcast to the media, the following excerpt from an article about the Wales murder appeared in the Seattle Times on October 6th.
Although it was widely reported that Wales had managed a call to 911, agents now say that isn't true.
Moments after the shooting, a neighbor saw a man walking quickly through a side yard, to a parked vehicle that sped away. She didn't get a good look at the man or the vehicle.
Initially after the murder, authorities simply would not repeat what Tom Wales told them in the 911 call. Later, the story was that he could not speak because of a throat wound. After this call was made for release of the tape, he never made any 911 call at all.
They also state now that the witness didn't get a good enough look to relay any descriptive information. This is the first public mention of the subject of a description. This statement is also entirely implausible. Since the witness saw the killer run down the narrow side yard, the only two places she could have been looking from are right next door, and directly across the street. Either place affords a close and clear view of the vehicle parking spot under the streetlight.
Are you saying that it isn't possible for "gun rights advocate" to be so far "out there" that he might commit a murder such as this?
Funny. I heard Al Sharpton once say that it was impossible for a black person to be a "racist." I thought HE was full of ****, too.
Here is an interesting article about the duplicity of the LA Slimes liar/reporter who started this war of words:(Tom Wales: The Manufacturing of a Martyr )
Here are two interesting paragraphs from this article:
Early news reports played up the possibility that Wales was murdered because of his courageous stand against guns. In reality, the investigation never found any indication that this was the case and it appears more likely that he was killed as a result of his work as a federal prosecutor. The absence of evidence has not discouraged several reporters who practice advocacy journalism.
The leading media cheerleader for the Wales canonization project is Kim Murphy, Seattle Bureau Chief of the notoriously anti-gun Los Angeles Times. Her fourth article on Wales made the front page of the LA Times Sunday Magazine. The headline sums up the tone: “Tom Wales Fought for Gun Control, Maybe He Died For It.” Murphy also eulogizes Wales by lovingly listing the details of his life in a way that reads like a movie script about the ideal sensitive, gentle, urban male.
Ceasefire was in severe financial trouble until this story came out.
The whole thing smacks of PCism, lies from an anti gun fiction writer and a scam to raise money for Ceasefire.
This falls in the same realm of looking for evil white snipers in an evil white van in the DC sniper case. Of course in that fiasco, the calls and witnesses who saw two black men in an old not white sedan were buried under left wing Bravo Sierra.
What were the financial connections and political connections with Wales and Ceasefire. Were there financial connections like money being donated for a future political campaign like Governor or Senator for Washington.
Or was it just a political scam to get the votes of the gun haters in Seattle locked in for him for future races?
Maybe, but it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that the witness has defective eyesight (nearsighted, night blind etc.).
Using your logic, then it would be okay for me to say something as ridiculous as, "It's also possible that Illbay is a cross-dressing white supremacist with a propensity for watching the Animal Channel in hopes of seeing animals 'doing it'."
Of course, you'll agree with this as the topic of a front-page article and the central theme of a police investigation, right? I mean, after all, it is possible. Anyone who would say it is impossible is just full of ****, right? And, of course, those aren't "slanderous accusations", either, right? Just because they probably aren't true, and are great leaps proceeding from unfounded predictions, doesn't mean they're wrong.
By the way, how many other far-right gun whacko murderers can you find on a quick internet search? I found plenty of accusatory pieces, full of this "non-slander", but no actual murderers. What exactly makes it "reasonable" to assume that a pro-gun-rights activist did it?
(I look forward to your reply, but I probably won't be back online until Monday afternoon... wearing asbestos underwear, I'm sure. (^8 )
Now, don't go starting any rumors. And of course, we shouldn't repeat such baseless accusations. Really.
Now that you've brought this up we'll have to pay more attention to his position on various things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.