I don’t know how many of you recall the case of Daniel Perry, so let me remind you. back in 2020 when BLM was running amok, Daniel Perry was driving in Travis County when he got caught in the middle of a BLM riot.
He was sitting in his car when a BLM member by the name of Garrett Foster, pointed his gun at Perry, who then pulled his own gun. He shot and killed Garrett.
The Soros-backed DA, Jose Garza charged him with murder and got a conviction.
Meanwhile in the Democrat hellhole of Travis County…
A Texas soldier was found guilty of murder on Friday after Soros-backed District Attorney Jose Garza sought murder charges for an act of self defense during the 2020 George Floyd riots.
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNELSgt. Daniel Perry, an army soldier who shot and killed an armed BLM-Antifa protester in Austin in July 2020 was indicted on a murder charge in 2021.
In the summer of 2020, Police confirmed that two people fired shots during an altercation in Austin between a motorist and a Black Lives Matter-Antifa protester, during which the protester was shot and killed.
Police say that the man who was killed, Garrett Foster, was armed and confronted the vehicle — but was not the other person who fired shots.
Prior to being fatally shot, Garrett Foster said on camera that the “people who hate us” are “too big of p-ssies to actually do anything about it” when asked why he was carrying a rifle.
A still frame from footage of the incident appears to show Foster in a posture that looks like he was pointing a weapon at the driver.
Now, David Fugitt, the lead detective in the case, accused Soros-backed District Attorney Jose Garza of witness tampering saying he told him to “remove exculpatory information.” Fugitt asked what would happen if he refused and testified to the truth. He then received an email ordering him to do as he was told. The message was loud and clear. He would face being fired for refusing to set Perry up for acting in self-defense.
Fugitt said:
“It became clear to me that the District Attorney’s office did not want to present evidence to the grand jury that would be exculpatory to Daniel Perry and/or show the witnesses statements obtained by the family of Garrett Foster and/or their attorneys were inconsistent with prior interviews such witnesses gave the police and/or the video of the incident in question.”
Daniel Perry case — read the affidavit from the lead detective, claiming that the Soros DA directed him "to remove exculpatory information that I had intended to present to the grand jury during my testimony."
This detective believes the Soros DA acted criminally. pic.twitter.com/3iDhWUZLkh
— Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) April 8, 2023
The affidavit states:
“Prior to the grand jury presentation in this case, I had several conversations with the district attorney’s office regarding the presentation of exculpatory evidence related to Daniel Perry. It became clear to me that the District Attorney’s office did not want to present evidence to the grand jury that would be exculpatory to Daniel Perry and/or show the witnesses statements obtained by the family of Garrett Foster and/or their attorneys were inconsistent with prior interviews such witnesses gave the police and/or the video of the incident in question. I had also wanted to present previous statements from the Complainant in Count 2 where she never once suggested that Daniel Perry intentionally and knowingly threatened her with imminent bodily injury by driving a motor vehicle in her direction. The District Attorney’s Office also made me remove an animation from Daniel Perry’s driving the night of the incident coordinated with his cell phone records that would have refuted the deadly conduct charge ultimately returned by the grand jury.
On more than one occasion I was directed by the Travis County Attorney’s Office to remove exculpatory evidence that I had intended to present to the grand jury during my testimony. At that point, I specifically asked if there would be “ramifications” if I did not do so. I was told by assistant district attorney Guillermo Gonzalez that he would ask elected District Attorney, Jose Garza, what would happen if I refused to agree to the limitations I was being ordered to comply with. I was later sent an email simply reaffirming the exculpatory evidence subjects I was forbidden from mentioning during my testimony. Of my original 158 slide PowerPoint presentation, the presentation was reduced to 56 slides with almost all of the exculpatory evidence ordered removed. I felt like I did not have any other options but to comply with their orders.
In my mind, after this directive from Jose Garza, is when the conduct of the District Attorney’s Office when from highly unethical behavior to criminal behavior.”
