Thursday, June 9, 2011
The Hounds of Hell Just Won't Let Go
I would hope with this one video, I could set the record straight and that the voices of revenge could be silenced once and for all.
After 75 years, you would think the voice of reason would finally prevail. I refer to the deliberate attempts of pundits who through all these years have perpetuated a half truth concerning a tragic event which took place in July 1926.
The killing of D. E. Chipps in which J. Frank Norris was fully exonerated, but nevertheless has been a lingering albatross on the life and ministry of J. Frank Norris.
One aspect of this event I wish to address at this time. All of the pundits, and there are plenty of them, and most of them have a hateful hidden agenda in which they dwell upon one theme they hope to make a case. They repeat over and over that J. Frank Norris murdered an unarmed man. The truth is, no one can prove one way or the other whether Chipps was armed or not. Without a doubt, when the coroner performed his autopsy, there was no weapon found, but one crucial fact should settle the whole matter. Waiting at the foot of the stairs was a volley of would-be Chipps sympathizers. Even if there were just one, that would be sufficient to prove the case. It looks awfully suspicious when these sympathizers quickly ascended the stairs. Compare this scene with the defense witnesses whose presence in the church office was not tainted with suspicion. The testimonies of these ladies is a credible or more so than the prosecution witnesses who had no business at the scene of action. All of the defense witnesses testified to the same essential facts. Their testimonies verified the fact that prosecution witnesses were seen retrieving an object from the body of Chipps.
L. H. Nutt is literally the only eye-witness who also testified that Chipps made a hip pocket move which indicates that Chipps indeed did have a gun. The record also records that the prosecution did not present the jacket Chipps was wearing which would have verified whether or not Chipps had a made a hip pocket move. If his coat had not been pulled back bullet holes would have penetrated the jacket. The prosecution did not want the jacket to be seen, so they withheld that important piece of evidence from the jurors.
Now the question is, which set of witnesses possessed the greater credibility. At this point in time, 75 yrs. hence, no one can answer that question. So the only conclusive outcome is; we simply do not know if Chipps was armed or not. So my point is simply stated. Pundits, you should admit that a half truth is sometimes worse than an outright lie.
By Roy Falls June 9, 2011
Give heed to truth, let the speaker speak truly and the judge decide justly.