From the September-October 1999 issue (Vol. 6 No. 6) of Probe
(Click here if your browser is having trouble loading the above.)
Original essays treating the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., its historical and political context and aftermath, and the investigations conducted.
(Click here if your browser is having trouble loading the above.)
(Click here if your browser is having trouble loading the above.)
The following is a transcription of Judge Joe Brown’s remarks made on the 30th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King on April 3, 1998 at the Centenary Methodist Church in Memphis. The remarks were transcribed by author Dick Russell who will be writing an article for High Times this fall on this conference. Russell is also the author of the current book Black Genius which was published by Carroll and Graf earlier this year. Our thanks to Dick for letting us share this transcription with our readers.
(Click here if your browser is having trouble loading the above.)
(Click here if your browser is having trouble loading the above.)
Is there a conscious, coordinated effort to undermine any hope for a new trial for James Earl Ray in the Martin Luther King case? Or can the strange events unfolding in Memphis be chalked up to the incompetence and miscalculations of Ray and his allies? Wherever the truth may lie, there is little doubt that as the New Year rolls in, the hope for a new trial, so real and vibrant last summer, appears to be receding further over the horizon daily. Unless the King forces recover, or some spectacular development strikes and catches fire, it could be that the sixties assassination case that seemed about to be reopened, has now been closed forever.
As we reported in July (Vol. 4 No. 6), Judge Joe Brown, at Ray lawyer Bill Pepper’s request, was trying to resolve the issue of whether or not James Earl Ray’s rifle could have fired the alleged bullet that killed King on the terrace of the Lorraine Motel in April of 1968. Because a round of test firings, also requested by Pepper, had proved inconclusive, Brown had tried to dig up the bullets test fired by the FBI in 1968. These were found by the Bureau at the end of July. The FBI lab notes on the 1968 test firings, like those by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1978, claiming inconclusive results as to whether Ray’s .30.06 Remington hunting rifle had fired the fatal shot. So Pepper, and his local Memphis partner Wayne Chastain, were on the verge of asking Brown for further testing.
At this point, two things happened. First, Ray’s legal team began to split apart, and second, the local District Attorney’s office began a successful attempt to derail Brown’s efforts to find cause to reopen the case.
Concerning the former, Ray’s defense team began to break apart over an internal dispute that seemed to pit Pepper and Chastain against Jack McNeil who, like Chastain, is a local Memphian. The dispute appeared to be over McNeil’s unexpected meetings with James Earl Ray and his authorization of other people to see Ray (Memphis Commercial Appeal 7/23/97). At this point Pepper tried to fire McNeil. But McNeil refused to step down, saying that only Judge Brown could remove him from the case. Simultaneous with this infighting, Mark Lane tried to enter the case as an ally of another lawyer trying a different tactic. Lane joined local attorney Andrew Hall in trying to get a grant of clemency for Ray which, of course, would preclude a new trial. Lane was quoted in the Commercial Appeal (7/22/97) as saying that he had “very strong doubts about Pepper’s credibility.” This was based on the June 19th ABC ambush of Pepper with a living Bill Eidson, a former Special Forces agent who Pepper depicted in his book as dead. According to Pepper, Eidson was one of the Army snipers ordered to Memphis to assassinate King as part of a contingency plan (see Probe Vol. 4 #5). Because of this, Eidson has filed a libel action against Pepper. Lane also added, appraising Pepper’s performance: “He’s taken very strong evidence and fouled it.” By November, Hall was saying that Pepper had sabotaged his clemency bid by convincing supporters not to send letters to the governor.
At the beginning of August, an even stranger episode took center stage. To join the dispute amongst lawyers, a dispute between judges now broke out. Earlier motions in the Ray case had been heard in the court of Judge John Colton. But in 1994, through a routine rotation assignment, Pepper’s request for new rifle tests ended up in Brown’s court. In April, 1997 the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the local District Attorney’s argument that Brown did not have the authority to proceed with the testing. Most thought that this decision had settled the jurisdictional matter. Apparently it did not. For on August 5th, Judge John Colton ordered the clerk of court’s office to confiscate the Ray case files from Brown’s office. This order was based on a report by special court-appointed master Mike Roberts, a University of Memphis law professor. His report said that Brown’s care for the files was so haphazard that their present condition “imperils any possible retrial of this case.” Roberts’ report also questioned whether or not Brown should be presiding over the present hearings, since Ray had entered his 1969 guilty plea in Criminal Court Division 3, where Colton presides today. Roberts’ report was filed with the Court Clerk while Brown was on vacation in Jamaica.
The day after the Colton-Roberts maneuver, prosecutor John Campbell filed a motion to dismiss the Pepper-Chastain request for a new round of test-firings. Campbell’s motion stated:
The proposition that his right to ask for testing is unlimited and can continue until the defense obtains the results it like is totally unreasonable and would amount to an abuse of discretion by the court.
At the same time, Roberts announced through the Commercial Appeal (8/7/97) that he was preparing a final report questioning Brown’s authority to hear the case at all. He also predicted that the pressure on Brown would mount leading to a meeting with a presiding judge to resolve a dispute over who should hear the case.
The Commercial Appeal now openly joined the effort to stir things up. On two consecutive days, August 8th and 9th, it ran derogatory lead editorials about Judge Brown. The first was headed “More Circus: Ray Confusion grows on judge’s vacation”, the second was bannered, “Ray Fiasco: Transfer is a solution; talks also would help.”
Brown fired back in a phone interview with the newspaper while still on vacation. He said that the Colton-Roberts maneuver was motivated by local Republican politics and was a ploy to try and wreck his credibility. Brown further added that, “It’s ridiculous, it’s disgusting and it’s partisan politics.” In response to this, Colton made a comment that revealed a certain empathy with local prosecutor John Campbell. Colton said that Brown was “absolutely correct” in overseeing the original round of rifle testing approved by the appeals court, but then suggested that Brown had overstepped that original authority. Colton stated, “It has been determined that he [Brown] should make the ruling on that issue and that issue alone.” Previously, Campbell had expressed concern that Brown was conducting an open ended inquiry when the judge had requested the original FBI test bullets for comparison purposes.
At this point, the FBI stepped forward. U.S. Attorney Veronica Coleman said that the Bureau would agree to turn over the 1968 test fires to county prosecutors “upon a proper request.” Campbell responded that his office would request that the Bureau turn over the 1968 test bullets on the condition that the defense paid for further testing. Also, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on August 15th noted that one of the grooves found on the 1997 test bullets was not mentioned in the examiner’s notes from the 1968 FBI test-firing.
On August 16th, Court Clerk Bill Key did something he previously stated he would not do. He delivered an order to Brown’s office seeking the return of the Ray files to him. On more than one occasion, Key had said he would not do this until Brown had returned from vacation on August 18th.
On the 18th, and the day before Brown was expected to rule on another round of test-fires, two more surprise turns took place. First, Colton appointed Roberts as a special prosecutor to look into the King case. Campbell immediately filed an emergency appeal over Colton’s action, claiming Colton had no authority to name Roberts as a special investigator with subpoena power. Campbell commented: “He’s basically going to convene his own little grand jury, I guess. He’s going to take evidence and then seal it…. I don’t really know where he’s going on it.”
Roberts agreed to put his probe on hold until the appeal court ruled on Campbell’s motion. Tennessee Attorney General John K. Walkup joined in Campbell’s appeal. Now, whether willy-nilly or not, a formal challenge had been mounted and filed over Brown’s proceeding and authority. It would be impossible for a court to rule on Colton’s actions without touching on Brown’s. Roberts seemed to invite the challenge to his new and surprising authority. He said to the Commercial Appeal on August 19th, “If someone wants to challenge it, let them challenge it, and it will go up to the Court of Criminal Appeals.”
The combined appeal stated:
Judges Brown and Colton are doing harm to the justice system because of the confusion they have engendered. The public can have no confidence in the reliability of any decisions which may eventually be entered in the wake of these orders.
Meanwhile, the state attorney general in Shelby County, Bill Gibbons, asked the FBI to turn the 1968 test bullets over to the local Criminal Court Clerk’s office. Gibbons also said that he was investigating “every credible lead.” He then qualified that by saying:
Our position is that James Earl Ray murdered Dr. King and is exactly where he belongs-in prison. The one remaining issue is if anyone helped Ray.
Before Roberts’ inquiry was halted, Colton issued some interesting insights into how it was to be conducted. On August 20th, he told the Commercial Appeal that Roberts would be working without a fee and no court reporter would be assigned to him when taking testimony. He expected such costs to be paid privately, perhaps by Roberts himself.
On August 21st, Colton and Brown met in the office of Probate Court Judge Donn Southern, who also serves as presiding judge of Shelby County’s state trial courts. It was a closed meeting and both judges refused to comment as they left. Southern did issue a statement saying that there should be no more public feuding and that such feuding had had a negative impact on the court’s work.
On Friday, August 29th, the three judge appeal court panel sharply criticized both Brown and Colton on the grounds that both had overstepped their power to investigate Ray’s claims. The court voided Colton’s order giving subpoena power to Roberts. The judges stated that Colton did not have jurisdiction to act and had usurped the prosecutor’s authority to investigate crimes. The court ruled that Brown, under narrow constraints, could continue testing the rifle. But it shackled his efforts by voiding his order that the FBI turn over the 1968 test bullets for comparison purposes and also demanding that Ray, not the state, pay the bill for the testing. The first round of tests had cost $18,000. The court found that Brown had crossed the line from adjudicator to investigator and that he had exceeded his authority in several ways, including his criticisms of the DA’s office and his receiving sealed documents which created “an appearance of secrecy.”
Within a week of this ruling, the DA’s office moved to get Judge Brown taken off the Ray case. On September 3rd, motions were filed asking Brown to step down from the case on the grounds that he had made false statements, engaged in conversations with the defense, and was lacking in objectivity. The motion asked that the case be reassigned to another judge. At first, Brown made no overt move to answer the motion.
In the interim, Andrew Hall tried another alternative to free Ray. Working with Mark Lane, Hall drew upon a technicality in old Tennessee law. Days after pleading guilty to King’s assassination, Ray sought to withdraw his plea in a letter to Shelby County Criminal Court Judge W. Preston Battle. Battle died of a heart attack days later, before he could rule on Ray’s request. The law had stated that a new trial should be allowed when a judge dies while considering such a motion. This bid was dismissed by Judge Cheryl Blackburn on September 18th. The judge decided that since the law had been altered in 1996, it did not apply.
By the second week of September, Brown seemed to be withdrawing from the case. Admonished by the appeals court, attacked by the DA, constrained by what Ray’s defense team could afford in the way of further rifle tests, Brown made no more rulings on the case. In November, he flew to Los Angeles to tape a pilot for a possible television syndication deal with Big Ticket Television, the producers of Judge Judy. Commenting on the initial taping, Brown said, “I had a ball. It was fun.” (Commercial Appeal 11/4/97) A later report in December by the entertainment trade magazine Variety, said that the Judge Joe Brown Show was racking up TV station clearances for a fall 1998 launch.
With Brown apparently out of the picture, the local DA’s office, with state attorney Bill Gibbons in tow, now took over whatever investigation was left to be done.
On September 5th, Gibbons wrote a letter to Roberts asking him for whatever information he had garnered while he was special prosecutor for Judge Colton. Roberts replied in a letter to Gibbons that an investigator from Gibbons’ office had threatened to charge him with obstruction of justice if he didn’t tell what he knew. He added that people “in your office have chosen to threaten me as a way of attacking Judge Colton.” Roberts also added that he felt troubled about “revealing allegations made by citizens claiming the killing of Dr. King was not being adequately investigated.” (Commercial Appeal 9/11/97)
Gibbons then decided to go public with his own beliefs on the subject:
James Earl Ray is a professional con man who very much wanted attention. This is a guy who had very, very low self-esteem and saw assassination as a way to improve it basically. I think that was the primary motive.
Gibbons then added that, “There is a pretty good possibility that he had some help.” Gibbons’ ideas about a very limited kind of conspiracy with Ray as the trigger man are reminiscent of those of Robert Blakey. And the Commercial Appeal (9/17/97) revealed that local DA’s John Campbell and Lee Coffee had traveled to Indiana in September to talk to Blakey about his views on the King case. After the meeting, Campbell told the paper that Blakey’s congressional committee “still came down to the conclusion that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King.”
By September the status of the case boiled down to two separate branches, both rather weak. One consisted of Andrew Hall and Roberts (Lane seems to be out of the picture at this time). In November, they announced they would team up on a new effort to free Ray by arguing that he was mentally incompetent when he pleaded guilty in 1969. The plea was coerced since he was suffering from isolation and harassment while in jail. The Hall-Roberts teaming was of short duration. Hours after appearing before Judge Colton, Roberts was fired, ten days after he started working. Hall said that Pepper was behind the termination. Jerry Ray, James Earl Ray’s brother, said Pepper called Ray in prison and told him he had too many lawyers at work for him. By November 11th, Wayne Chastain, Pepper’s former partner, also announced that he was leaving the case.
The second branch consisted of Chastain’s former partner, Jack McNeil who returned to the case after being separated from Pepper and Chastain. McNeil was now hooked up with detectives John Billings and Ken Herman, two local investigators who had long been delving into the King assassination. Gibbons and Campbell subpoenaed the two gumshoes to have them appear before the county grand jury to present all evidence they had of a conspiracy in the King case. The two detectives had worked for Pepper before, especially on the Raoul side of the case. A man Ray calls Raoul squired him around Canada and the U.S. paying him large amounts of money to be a courier in what seemed to be a gunrunning operation. Ray and Pepper are now convinced that Raoul played a major part in setting him up to take the fall in the King case. Billings and Herman both believed that the subpoenas were issued so the evidence they had would not be presented before a grand jury independently of the DA’s office, which is what McNeil had been attempting to do. In late September a three-person panel made up from the grand jury and headed by foreman Herbert W. Robinson was handed a set of affidavits by McNeil. By Tennessee law this panel would review the evidence before deciding if the grand jury should investigate further and/or indict someone. McNeil’s affidavits and evidence centered on two people: the mysterious Raoul, and former Memphian Lloyd Jowers. Jowers was the man who claimed on national television in 1993 that he was paid $100,000 to have King killed. Amid the evidence turned over by McNeil to Robinson was a tape of that interview, and an affidavit by one Glenda Grabow who claims to have known Raoul. Grabow is the person who Pepper calls “Cheryl” in his book Orders to Kill. (Incidentally, Pepper gave her real name away in the book himself. In photo #24, he calls her “Cheryl”, yet in the caption to photo #27, a drawing of Ray lawyer Percy Foreman, he calls her Glenda Grabow.) In the accounts in the Commercial Appeal, it appears that Grabow has expanded her story a bit. She now appears to be saying that Jack Ruby knew Raoul also.
To this latest effort, Robert Blakey responded through the New York Times (11/23/97):
There is a difference between suspicion and evidence. The government has to respond to these suspicions. But I am extremely skeptical of the underlying credibility of any of the evidence. These people are forcing the government to chase ghosts.
In December, while the three grand jurors were visiting the scene of the 1968 shooting, the Lorraine Motel, Herman and Billings visited Dallas. Apparently they were trying to shore up the new Jack Ruby side of the Raoul story. Meanwhile, on December 1st, the Associated Press ran a wire story saying that Pepper and others had misunderstood the Army Intelligence side of the supposed assassination story.
Now, retired Colonel Edward McBride who oversaw the 111th Military Intelligence Group’s Memphis operations said the reason King was under surveillance was only to monitor whether or not a riot would break during his visits and if any troops would be needed to be sent into a city to restore order. Another agent of that group, Jimmie Locke, was quoted as saying, “We weren’t particularly concerned except that he might be the catalyst for an event of some kind.” The 111th is the military group that Pepper says sent a military sniper team into Memphis the day of King’s murder. It is also the group to which, Pepper says, local undercover agent Marrell McCollough’s reports eventually went.
On December 10th, Newsday’s Michael Dorman reported on the final developments in the Herman-Billings Dallas investigation. Apparently, the two investigators ran into Beverly Oliver. Oliver claims to be the so-called “Babushka Lady” who is seen in pictures of President Kennedy’s fatal trip through Dealey Plaza in Dallas on November 22, 1963. The woman has a camera in her hands and probably took some very valuable photos of the assassination. Yet no one had ever seen the pictures or found out who she was. In the 1970’s, researcher Gary Shaw of Cleburne, Texas said that he had discovered that Oliver was the mysterious woman. Oliver made claims that she worked at Ruby’s club, saw Oswald with Ruby, and saw Oswald’s friend David Ferrie at Ruby’s also. Yet, when Oliver Stone’s researcher on JFK, Jane Rusconi, checked on the camera Oliver said she had in Dealey Plaza, it turned out the model was not for sale in America at the time. According to Dorman’s report, she now told Herman and Billings that she saw Raoul at Ruby’s club also. Dorman also reported that Ray’s defense was also investigating the idea that Ruby was actually still alive and living in Chicago.
After making a presentation to the three-member panel in mid-December, McNeil announced he was seeking indictments against Jowers and a New York man he (and Pepper) thought was Raoul. According to the Commercial Appeal, Jowers is now saying that four Memphis police officers were in on the plot to kill King. After the presentation, McNeil told the press that he felt the three man panel was “genuinely interested.” He continued, “It was a very good meeting.” Evidently, McNeil got the wrong impression. On December 18th, the panel rejected McNeil’s request for a re-examination of all the evidence and a reopening of the case to the full grand jury. In a letter to McNeil, Herbert Robinson said that the panel found “there was not sufficient, credible information presented in this matter to warrant an investigation by the Grand Jury.” According to the Commercial Appeal of December 19th, the Gibbons-Campbell task force will continue to work on leads in the case.
If this inquiry is now, for all intents and purposes, dead, it will be in no small part due to the role of the mainstream media. The New York Times apparently decided to go after Dexter King. Dexter was the member of the slain leader’s family who most openly allied himself with Pepper. He also met with Ray last spring in a nationally televised meeting on CNN. He also appeared on many talk shows pushing the conspiracy angle in the King case and the need for a new trial for Ray. In a syndicated story that was published by many papers in mid-August, Times reporter Kevin Sack attacked the King family for not doing more to promote MLK’s legacy of civil rights activism. Sack wrote that the family was preparing “to transform King’s legacy into a financial empire.” (This refers to a proposed deal between the King family and Time-Warner over intellectual property rights to King’s speeches and images.) Sack honed in on Dexter’s role in this as the new executor of MLK’s estate. He also attacked Dexter for backing Pepper’s book and the British based attorney’s efforts to free Ray.
This attack was followed up by a similar article by Curtis Wilkie in the December issue of George. Wilkie works for the Boston Globe, which was recently bought by the New York Times. His article was a longer, harsher version of Sack’s. Wilkie criticized Dexter for meeting with Ray on national television in the following terms: ===BEG=== Once revered as the last blood link to the civil rights prophet, the King family has seen its credibility shaken by its blessing of Ray. Yet the alliance with the killer is just the latest in a series of audacious moves that 36 year old Dexter King has made since taking over the family’s power base…. (Emphasis added) ===END===
Wilkie’s bias is clear from the above italicized words. If he granted the probability that Ray was innocent, he could not then make the blanket charges he needs to frame his hit piece. Eliminating the bias, overkill, and spurious lamentation for a lost legacy, the rest of Wilkie’s article comes down to three main points: 1) The King family, especially Dexter, was taken in by Pepper’s book; 2) Dexter has decided to make money from the failing Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change; and 3) Dexter has concentrated power in his hands by forcing some of the Center’s elder board members to resign.
Most of the people who read this journal know that Wilkie’s first point is dubious. Whatever the faults in Pepper’s book, he did raise some interesting points that merit consideration, and he did win a symbolic acquittal of Ray in the only legal forum he ever had: HBO’s 1993 mock trial. Concerning Wilkie’s second point, the King Center, by Wilkie’s own account it was not doing very well before Dexter took over. If Dexter wants to sell his father’s papers to a large college library, why not? They would be better cared for there and better organized by a professional archivist, which the Center can’t afford. Wilkie’s third point is partly related to the second. Some of the people on the Board stemmed from King’s sixties generation of civil rights activism, which really doesn’t exist anymore. The Center has not been all that successful with them and Dexter and his siblings don’t see themselves as emulating their father, which is their prerogative. It is doubtful that any leader in America could today do what King did in his brief career. Certainly, John F. Kennedy Jr., the guiding light behind George understands that fact.
The New York Times also carried an article about another media force lurking amid the dying embers of the once hopeful King case. In an August 20th article noting the dispute between Colton and Joe Brown, the Times mentioned that Gerald Posner was in Memphis working on a book for Random House about the King assassination. In a peculiarly insightful way, Posner may have made a valuable comment to the Times “The judges are not just arguing over local issues, but over who will control the enduring historical record of this combustible and unpredictable case.” If one considers what Brown was attempting to do early last year versus what has happened since, the “combustible historical record” of the King case seems pretty much a dying flame.
But fireman Posner won’t have much help from the Ray brothers in stamping out this one. In an exchange of letters published on the JFK Lancer web site (www.jfklancer.com), Posner approached James Earl Ray about an interview for his upcoming book. In the very same disingenuous way he approached subjects for his JFK whitewash Case Closed, Posner assumed the role of the disinterested observer who would follow the evidence wherever it would lead. The Ray brothers were not falling for it. Jerry Ray wrote Posner on August 21st that he and his brother would not cooperate with Posner. Jerry Ray wrote that if Posner needed some help in writing his kind of book, he should interview people at the FBI, the Justice Department, Robert Blakey, Louis Stokes (former chairman of the HSCA), and King biographer Dave Garrow. He told Posner he could give him the name of additional “slime balls” (Ray’s phrase) to speak to upon request.
Meanwhile, James Earl Ray’s condition continues to weaken. In October, he was sent to Columbia Nashville Memorial Hospital in serious condition. This was his eighth visit in the last year. Ray is dying of cirrhosis of the liver. Tennessee hospitals have refused to consider him as a transplant candidate because of his age (69), and prison officials refuse to pay for an out of state operation. He has been approved for a liver transplant at the University of Pittsburgh, but can’t be placed on a waiting list until he makes a payment of $278,000. Because of this, Pepper and King family friend Rev. James Lawson are trying to raise money through a fund supporting this cause. See the box at the end of this article for information.
But all is not gloom. To use a suitable cliché, hope, in the form of Oliver Stone, springs eternal. In the October issue of Icon magazine, Stone was pictured on the cover. Near the end of the long profile of the embattled movie director, the following tantalizing sentence appeared: “He’s planning on returning to a political subject in the near future-the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.” The New York Times (11/23/97) mentioned that Stone had been to Memphis and has a project in development called MLK. So if Posner, as expected, douses the sparks, perhaps Stone’s film will reignite the combustion.
Still, the sad spectacle chronicled above cries out for explication. What was John Colton’s motivation? Why did Roberts and Colton spring their surprise on Brown while he was on vacation? Did their agenda coincide with that of Campbell and Gibbons? Why did Brown walk away from the case? Why did Roberts, as Ray’s lawyer, try to pursue the case in Colton’s court when the jurisdictional matter had been decided in Brown’s favor twice already? Does McNeil really find Beverly Oliver credible? Did Pepper fall for two deceptions: Captain William Eidson’s “death”, and the Grabow/ Cheryl association with Raoul? Why did Pepper not temporarily move to Memphis to be sure no internecine feuds could wreck the opportunity of a lifetime? If Dexter King truly wishes to see a new trial, why did he not finance another round of test fires which would have helped keep Judge Brown on the case?
Future historians of King, and his assassination, have these and more questions to sift through in order to explain the most recent reversal in the King chronicles. Whatever the forces behind these new twists, Judge Brown has now effectively joined the ranks of Jim Garrison and Richard Sprague as those too passionate in their efforts to find the truth about the assassinations of the sixties.
Meanwhile, with Brown out of the picture, the Gerald Posner version awaits. But this time, Oliver Stone may have the last word.
On August 11th, Shelby County Criminal Court Judge Joe Brown stated that, due to the District Attorney’s reluctance, he may seek the appointment of a special prosecutor in the James Earl Ray case. In an order setting August 19th as the next hearing date, the judge wrote that the state seems opposed to discovering the “true facts” of the matter and because of this obstinacy, “The patience of this court has been very sorely tried.” Further, Judge Brown added, “The state appears singularly opposed to vigorously proceeding to ascertain the true facts of this case.” He characterized the prosecutors as being “further opposed to recognizing let alone protecting the interests of the family of the victim, the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.”
There seems to be enough evidence to indicate that Brown is correct about the reluctance of the Memphis DA’s office to vigorously pursue Brown’s evidentiary proceeding to its fullest. Brown has been trying to refine the process of testing the alleged rifle that James Earl Ray had in Memphis and which was supposedly used to kill King there in 1968. The first round of tests came back inconclusive in July. There was a marking on 12 of the 18 bullets test fired which was not on the 1968 death slug. But this may have been caused by either a build up of residue in the barrel from the test fires or from a metal defect in the rifle barrel itself. Brown suggested cleaning the barrel to determine the origin of the marking.
That state attorneys, led by John Campbell, objected to this procedure. Campbell argued that cleaning the rifle with brushes would alter the identifying markings left on any subsequent bullets fired. He then added: “All you’re going to do is increase the controversy in this case.” Ignoring that remark, Judge Brown also told attorneys to acquire the previously fired test bullets shot by the FBI in 1968 and the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. On July 18th, prosecutors announced to the press that the FBI could not find the original 1968 test bullets. Lee Coffee, an assistant DA, said he had been told, “They have been able to locate copies of the lab notes only. They have not been able to find the bullets.” Later in the month, the Bureau said they had found the bullets. Campbell then told the Associated Press:
To think that now, all of a sudden, we’re going to be able to do something with these bullets is really pushing it. As much as people may want this gun to tell them something, there’s just a limit to how much you can expect it to do.
After Brown’s comments about a possible special prosecutor, Campbell again fired a shot at Brown: “This is going completely out of control. He basically wants to conduct his own Warren Commission [and] that’s going too far.”
It seems that the powers that be in Memphis are siding with Campbell. Brown’s colleague on the bench, John Colton, has ordered the transcripts from an April administrative hearing delivered to his office. That hearing and a subsequent appeal decided that Brown’s court (Division 9) could hear Ray’s appeal even though Ray’s original plea in 1969 was in Colton’s court (Division 3). This is an issue that the DA’s office has also raised in the press.
Campbell seems to have an ally in the local newspaper. The Memphis Commercial Appeal has tried to make an issue of who should be made to pay for the costs of the test firings done by Ray’s defense team. This issue made the top of the front page on July 18th. The next day, the Commercial Appeal ran an editorial which quoted the DA’s office and their witnesses calling the whole proceeding a waste of time. That editorial is typified by its opening statements: “More than one person may be milking the James Earl Ray case. Possible motives include these: publicity, money, and orneriness.” It ended with these comments: “What does Brown want? He may be a bigger mystery than the rifle.”
There is little doubt that what Brown is doing is not business as usual in the King case. When prosecutors challenged his actions in court by saying he had stepped over the line from being a judge to becoming an advocate, Brown retorted: “We’re trying to get the facts. Dr. King is in his grave, a national hero, a world hero. And I’m … getting to the facts.” Brown was also forceful on getting the original 1968 round of test results:
The federal government has impounded that evidence and sealed it for the next 50 years. The court thinks, among other things, that justice might be served if we were able to examine those bullets and the court feels the state of Tennessee has a claim on evidence that pertains to this case.
Brown seems to have recognized that other investigative bodies, including Ray’s first lawyers, have not exactly been vigorous in their pursuit of truth in the case. As a judge, Brown has never been afraid to try new and innovative methods when others have been shown to be ineffective. In regard to alternative sentencing, Brown has said:
What I do see is what’s been tried in the past has not worked. Otherwise, if it had of, the situation would not be as it is now. Something new needs to be tried.
We agree. We also find it a bit perverse that because Brown is actually intent on pursuing a fair hearing for Ray, and genuinely trying to get to the bottom of whether or not Ray fired the fatal bullet that killed King, people are getting edgy and uncomfortable.
In his August 11th announcement, Brown also seemed to be leaning toward another round of test firings. Brown suggested finding a way to clean the rifle without damaging the inside of the barrel. Brown signed an order that same day requiring the FBI to produce the bullets for the next hearing.
These new developments have continued to give the King case a high profile in the media. Readers will recall that in our last issue (p. 29) we mentioned a creditable piece written by Jim Lesar for the June 8th Washington Post. In an interview with Probe, Lesar provided us some insight into how major papers like the Post handle high profile cases like this one. Lesar told us the piece finally printed was his third effort. His original, much stronger, piece questioned the original guilty pleas by Ray. It minutely examined the questionable methods and ethics used by his original lawyers — Percy Foreman and Arthur Hanes — and author William Bradford Huie in coercing him into pleading guilty, an action Ray now regrets. Lesar backed this up with evidence discovered in proceedings against Foreman when he was acting as Ray’s lawyer in the seventies. All of this was cut out of the piece as run because, the Post editors told Lesar, Ray was “presumed guilty.” By who? The Post?
On the good side, Bob Scheer of the Los Angeles Times wrote a vigorous piece (7/15/97) questioning J. Edgar Hoover’s role in the death of King. But the real surprise was the New York Times. On July 6th, it ran an unsigned editorial titled “The Amnesty Option.” This was a response to the King family’s wish as expressed by Andrew Young on ABC’s Turning Point in June. The opening lines of the editorial read:
Crimes that tear the soul of a nation should not be left examined or obscured by mystery. South Africa has shown the healing power of truth as it looks back at the crimes of apartheid … But it is also true that contemporary American society is still haunted by some unresolved questions that nag at the national conscience. Such questions, if left unresolved, promise to provide fodder for conspiracy theorists for decades to come.
The editorial then noted two traumatic incidents that “have proved especially fertile for conspiracists,” namely the JFK and MLK murders. Although the Times had reservations about the process, it did say, “we see enough merit in the idea to recommend a broader national discussion.” It then recommended that the Clinton administration consider the concept. We have heard no response yet from the White House.
Significantly, the Times noted that the clock is running out on the window of opportunity: “The lifetime of unidentified witnesses and conspirators, if they exist, is fast running out.” To dramatize that thought, Frank Holloman, who was police and fire director in Memphis in 1968, died eleven days after the Times editorial appeared. Holloman would have been a prime witness either in a new trial for Ray or before a Truth Commission. Not only did he run those two important departments, but prior to that, he had been an FBI agent for 25 years. In seven of those years, he was in almost daily contact with Hoover as inspector in charge of the director’s office.
It seems a bit late in the day for the New York Times to change its tune. In fact, for them, it’s almost midnight. If the major media would have poured its resources into any of the major assassinations of the sixties when they occurred, time would not be “fast running out.” One thing the Times and other media could do while waiting for Clinton’s answer is push for the declassification of all the files on the King case. This would greatly aid Ray’s attorney Bill Pepper if Brown is allowed to reopen that case. It would also decrease the anxiety of conspiracy theorists like us. It may even show that we actually share a lot of the concerns of people like John McCloy and Gerald Ford (see page 3).
As we went to press, the test results ordered by Memphis Judge Joe Brown on the alleged rifle used to kill Martin Luther King have not yet been finalized. In mid-June CNN filed a story saying that the first tests run as a result of the judge’s order came back inconclusive. The lead firearms investigator for the defense, Robert Hathaway, asked to conduct another round of testing. The story stated that an inadequate cleaning of the rifle may have necessitated the repeat process.
In May, the state of Tennessee decided to rule out a trip to Pittsburgh for a possible liver transplant for King’s alleged assassin James Earl Ray. Ray’s doctors say he has a liver disease and may not be able to survive much longer without such an operation. Ray wants to be evaluated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which has one of the leading organ transplant programs in the world. Reportedly, this issue will be discussed in court at a later time. If the rifle tests come back as Ray’s lawyer, Bill Pepper expects – i. e. showing that the fatal bullet did not come from Ray’s weapon – Judge Brown could order a new trial. Although trials in absentia have been held, in this case Ray wants to testify at his trial. So public pressure could be applied for the transplant. In an interview with Reuters on June 27th, Ray stated, “There are a lot of people who think I should get the transplant.” He added the fact that the King family supported his request and that should be a “strong point” in his favor.
The involvement of King’s survivors has really been Pepper’s greatest achievement and has given the most ballast to the move for a new trial. Dexter King’s well-publicized spring meeting with Ray, featured on the cover of our last issue, has propelled the MLK case into the mainstream media eye. As Lisa Pease has noted, Dexter’s new prominence has forced the establishment to trot out some grizzled veterans to lead the attacks on Pepper and Ray: Dick Billings, Priscilla Johnson, and Robert Blakey. In the interim from spring to summer, the coverage has improved, but only incrementally.
On June 8th, the Washington Post featured a column by Jim Lesar of the Assassination Archives and Research Center. Lesar had been Ray’s attorney in the early seventies. In the article, Lesar wrote:
My own view is that Ray did not shoot King. And though he was in Memphis at the time and likely involved with the people who did, there is substantial evidence that suggests he was not aware that King was going to be killed.
Lesar went on to single out two aspects of Pepper’s book, Orders to Kill, he considers especially compelling. The first aspect is the accumulation of five affidavits, including Ray’s, identifying the mysterious “Raul,” the apparent CIA operative who Ray states maneuvered him around Montreal and then the U.S. prior to King’s murder. Second, Lesar mentions the role of Lloyd Jowers who ABC’s Sam Donaldson interviewed twice, once in 1993 and again earlier this year. Jowers has stated that he paid a man to shoot King in Memphis. Jowers also has said that he was visited by a “Raul” who, Lesar writes, “delivered a rifle to him and asked him to hold it until final arrangements were made.” The attorney went on to detail certain holes in the official case against Ray. Lesar’s piece was a creditable and objective essay that did not ignore the national overtones of the crime:
Ray has a right to the trial he never had. But the country also deserves such a trial. With Ray’s death, we shall lose our last best chance to clear up just what happened during a painful moment of our history.
There were two other national media organs who felt compelled to comment on the King-Pepper-Ray ongoing drama.
Emerge bills itself as “Black America’s Newsmagazine.” It is published ten times a year and has a circulation of 150,000. It is a subsidiary of Black Entertainment Television, a popular cable TV offering. In their current July/August issue, the cover story asks “Who Killed Dr. Martin Luther King?” Writer Les Crane and the magazine had a not-so-subtle angle in the presentation of the story. Referring to Dexter King’s belief in Ray’s innocence, they term this a “strange assertion.” Introducing Ray, they call him a “cagey convict” who “was steadfastly shopping for a new trial – and an organ transplant.” Referring to Pepper, the pejorative used is that he “has wrangled for a movie deal.” Payne then proceeds to actually put some stock in the House Select Committee hearings on the King case. Payne also quotes Jessie Jackson on Ray’s testimony during the Robert Blakey helmed HSCA hearings: “That Raoul shit is getting thinner and thinner.”
Blakey himself figured in a program seen by millions in regard to the attempt to get a trial in the King case. On June 19th, ABC presented a one hour telecast devoted entirely to the King case. Turning Point is a newsmagazine with three rotating hosts: Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer, and Forrest Sawyer. This installment was hosted by the last, which is interesting. Back in 1991, when Oliver Stone’s JFK was opening, the director made an appearance on ABC’s Nightline. Ted Koppel was not the host that night. Forrest Sawyer was. To say the least, the show’s format – it opened with a long, carefully edited montage which was negative to Stone, the film, and Jim Garrison – and Sawyer himself, were not fair to Stone.
Turning Point featured a wide variety of interviews: King’s friend and colleague Andrew Young, Coretta King and all four of her children, Memphis pastor Billy Kyles, former New York Times reporter Earl Caldwell, Blakey, King biographer Dave Garrow, journalist Steve Tompkins, and Pepper himself. Predictably, of the guests, the two resisting a new trial for Ray were Garrow and Blakey. Early on Garrow stated:
I think the King family has been the victim of very bad advice and counsel. What we have here is a situation that is sad and disappointing. James Earl Ray’s guilt is proven.
Most people would think that a family standing together and demanding, at great personal expense, the truth about a loved one’s death is anything but sad and disappointing. Most would call it courageous and inspiring. Some would even hope that John F. Kennedy Jr. and his sister would do likewise. And, as far as facts and evidence go, in the closest thing to a real trial that Ray had – HBO’s mock trial in 1993 with Pepper as his lawyer – the verdict was for acquittal.
Blakey, who has become a sound bite propagandist since the release of JFK, said something just as inexplicable:
We still prosecute people who murder civil rights leaders. We did. His name’s James Earl Ray. If there are other suspects out there that evidence can be developed in, I’d rather see them prosecuted, rather than given an opportunity to write a book.
Blakey seems to have forgotten the history of the case he studied for two years. In the truest sense of the word, Ray was never prosecuted. As Pepper and others have shown, he was coerced into pleading guilty by Percy Foreman in order to avoid the electric chair. Further, Foreman presented the prosecution’s case to him and told him that if he did not plead guilty that he would not give his case his best effort. Blakey, a law professor, never addresses the legal ethics involved in this or the fact that Foreman and Ray’s first lawyer, Arthur Hanes, agreed to take money from someone who was writing a book, William Bradford Huie, in exchange for channeling information to him from their client. They then talked Ray into agreeing to this as a way of paying their fees. Also, in the nearly thirty years since the murder, no legal authorities, including Blakey, have ever seriously considered formal accomplices in the crime. So how could anyone suggest, as Blakey does, prosecuting “other suspects.”
Further, on the point of Ray’s guilty plea, what Blakey and Garrow never note is that at the plea hearing, Ray went on the record as saying that he did not agree with Ramsey Clark and Hoover’s ideas on the subject of conspiracy, or lack of it, in the case. He specifically named those two men, as well as the DA in court, as expressing theories he did not agree with.
Some of Turning Point was good and valuable. ABC showed some archival footage of the murder scene and the events which followed, plus some photographs, which I don’t recall seeing before. Andrew Young was allowed to voice his plea for a “Truth Commission” on the King case. This would be modeled on the present hearings going on in South Africa presided over by Desmond Tutu. Witnesses with worthwhile information are granted immunity in return for full disclosure so the nation can proceed with a cleansing process through the eventual unraveling of the truth. The program also went into Hoover’s attacks on King, both open and clandestine.
Perhaps the most impressive guest was former New York Times reporter Earl Caldwell. Caldwell has been consistent in his testimony that he saw a man in the bushes below King’s room after the shooting. He also revealed that no one from any investigation “ever came to me and asked me even one question, ever.” Further, he was the only person on the program to ask for full file disclosure:
I do think that we ought to open up every file that the government is holding, that tells us anything about the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. We can look in the files and determine the integrity of the investigation. We can do that.
Predictably, Sawyer constructed a trap for Pepper in the second half of the program. Towards the end of Pepper’s book he details the tale of an Army special forces group sent to Memphis in April of 1968 to surveil King. Working from interviews conducted by reporter Steve Tompkins, Pepper writes that they received a special briefing and were told to actually terminate King. They would have if he would not have been fired upon already. According to Tompkins’ sources, one of the leaders of this group, Bill Eidson, later died. Sawyer took Pepper through this part of his book, questioning his methodology, and then produced Eidson and a cohort. Although Pepper held up fairly well through this elaborate set-up, he had been sandbagged. Strangely, and although the sequence was probably edited to favor Sawyer, he doesn’t seem to have seen it coming. Tompkins was also on the show and he implies that Pepper went too far with the material he had given him. But also, neither Tompkins nor Pepper appear to have checked out their military intelligence sources with the utmost scrutiny.
This reflects on another aspect of the Bill Pepper-Dexter King alliance. Both Dexter and Pepper of late have been quoted as saying that President Johnson either knew of the King plot or was in on it. For instance, Sawyer asked both about Johnson’s knowledge of the plot and Pepper and King both replied in the affirmative. Dexter defended his position, rather naively, by saying:
Well, based on the evidence that I’ve been shown, I would think that it would be very difficult for something of that magnitude to occur on his watch and he not be privy to it.
By this logic, one could have asked Kennedy how he could not have known about the plots to kill Lumumba, Castro and himself. Intelligence agencies do this all the time. As Victor Marchetti told me in an interview in 1993, Richard Helms specifically told him not to tell Johnson about an operation that had been discussed at a meeting just concluded. Also, the accusations against Johnson are the least supported in Pepper’s (generally) good book. This is not meant to rule out the possibility, but rather to comment on the wisdom of going public with the accusation, especially with the klieg lights bearing down on you.
There may be something at work behind the scenes here. On January 19, 1997, Pepper did an interview with Ian Masters on his show Background Briefing carried on Pacifica radio. On that program, Pepper commented on the recent rush of new information he had been getting from various sources. This, in itself, would make an experienced field investigator leery. But he then described one of these sources as a former naval intelligence officer who was now working as a featured reporter at a newspaper. This could be Tompkins or Bob Woodward. We hope it’s not the latter. As readers will recall from our special Watergate issue (Vol. 3 No. 2), no reporter did more to bury the real truth of that case with the major media than Woodward.
There was one – perhaps inadvertently – truthful and poignant moment on the show that almost redeemed the antics pulled on Pepper. Going through a montage of all those who opposed King – black militants, white racists, even Sen. Robert Byrd – the camera came back to his wife, who related the story of how they were together when they learned that President Kennedy had been assassinated. They were sitting together when King turned to his wife and said prophetically: “That’s exactly what’s going to happen to me.”
On Thursday, March 27, nearly 29 years after his father’s death, Dexter King met with James Earl Ray in a small room at the Lois DeBerry Special Needs Facility, Ray’s current home. Dexter faced Ray, and after several awkward minutes of small talk came to the question to which so many want the answer: “I just want to ask you for the record, did you kill my father?”
“No I didn’t,” came Ray’s reply. And in a display of the grace and compassion for which his family has long been known, Dexter King replied, “I just want you to know that I believe you, and my family believes you, and we are going to do everything in our power to try and make sure that justice will prevail.”
True to his word, Dexter, recently supported by his older brother Martin Luther King III, has continued to talk to the media at every turn, calling for a trial to answer the questions long buried in this case.
The week after this historic meeting, Dexter King appeared opposite David Garrow on NBC’s Today show. Garrow is the author of the book The FBI and Martin Luther King. He was also one of the ARRB’s guests at the “Experts Conference” held in 1995. At that appearance, Garrow was pushing the ARRB to investigate the FBI’s possible role in the assassination of President Kennedy.
On NBC, Garrow and King were clearly at cross purposes. King was calling for a new trial, and Garrow was there to convince all that Ray’s guilt was beyond question. Garrow made an astonishing, insulting attack on the King family by saying:
I think it’s very sad that the King family and the King children are so uninformed of the history that they could be open to believing that Mr. Ray was not involved in Dr. King’s assassination …
Unfortunately, the King family has not looked at the record that the House Assassination committee [HSCA] compiled 19 years ago. There’s really no dispute among people that know this history well about Mr. Ray’s guilt.”
King, besides wondering aloud how anyone could object to the family’s wanting to know who killed their loved one, pointed out:
The House Committee did not have all the information. If it was such an open-and-shut case, why today are we asking this question?
Just a few days after this exchange, King and Garrow met again on CNN’s Crossfire. On that show, King openly accused Garrow of being a spook:
Mr. Garrow, I’ve been told – and I am now more than ever convinced – is an agent for the national security and intelligence forces to distort the truth in this case.
Garrow responded by saying it was “very sad and very embarrassing for the King family to be in a position where it’s saying things like that.” But indeed, it is Garrow who should be embarrassed. Anyone who knows the history of the King assassination knows full well that the evidence shows conspiracy, and that Ray was most likely not the assassin.
Likewise, this would not be the first time someone accused media people of covering up for the government in this case. During the HSCA, Walter Fauntroy, one of the members studying the King assassination, charged that reporters covering the HSCA were linked to the CIA and suggested the HSCA might investigate them. A few days later, for reasons about which we can readily speculate, Fauntroy backed down, saying the HSCA had “no plans now or in the future” to seek testimony of journalists regarding their possible ties to the intelligence community.1
Fauntroy was most likely correct in his charge, if the history of this case means anything. One of the earliest books written on the James Earl Ray case was one by Gerold Frank. William Pepper, Ray’s current attorney, in his book Orders to Kill, quotes from an FBI memo from Assistant Director Cartha DeLoach to Hoover’s close confidant, Clyde Tolson:
Now that Ray has been convicted and is serving a 99-year sentence, I would like to suggest that the Director allow us to choose a friendly, capable author or the Reader’s Digest, and proceed with a book based on the case.
The next day, DeLoach followed up his own suggestion with this:
If the Director approves, we have in mind considering cooperating in the preparation of a book with either the Reader’s Digest or author Gerold Frank ….Frank is a well known author whose most recent book is The Boston Strangler. Frank is already working on a book on the Ray case and has asked the Bureau’s cooperation in the preparation of the book on a number of occasions. We have nothing derogatory on him in our files, and our relationship with him has been excellent.2 [Emphasis added.]
Another author favored by the intelligence community was George McMillan, whose book The Making of an Assassin was favorably reviewed by no less than Jeremiah O’Leary. Mark Lane tells us, “On November 30, 1973, it was revealed that the CIA had forty full-time news reporters on the CIA payroll as undercover informants, some of them as full-time agents.” Lane adds, “It seems clear than an agent-journalist is really an agent, not a journalist.” He then tells us:
In 1973, the American press was able to secure just two of the forty names in the CIA file of journalists. The Washington Star and the Washington Post reported that one of the two was Jeremiah O’Leary.3
On March 2 of this year, the Washington Post ran not one but two articles condemning Ray and the calls for a new trial, written by longtime CIA assets Richard Billings and Priscilla Johnson McMillan, wife of George McMillan. In another paper the same Sunday, G. Robert Blakey, the architect of the cover-up at the HSCA, also made his voice heard for the case against a new trial. And a week later, Ramsey Clark – the man who within days of the assassination was telling us there was no conspiracy in the King killing – has also recommended the formation of yet another government panel in lieu of a trial for Ray. The only voice missing was Gerald Posner. But his too will come. Posner’s next book will be about the Martin Luther King assassination, according to Time magazine.
Is the presence of such people commenting on the James Earl Ray case just coincidence? Or indicative of a continuing cover-up? Examine their backgrounds and decide for yourself.
It’s predictable, really, that Priscilla would be writing in defense of the official myths relating to the MLK case. “Scilla”, as her husband called her, has been doing the same in the John Kennedy assassination case for years. She just happened to be in the Soviet Union in time to snag an interview with the mysterious Lee Harvey Oswald. Later, she snuggled up to Marina long enough to write a book which Marina later said was full of lies, called Marina and Lee. Priscilla’s parents once housed one of the most famous and high-profile defectors the CIA ever had – Svetlana Alliluyeva, daughter of Josef Stalin. Evan Thomas – father of the current Newsweek mogul of the same name and the man who edited William Manchester’s defense of the Warren Report – assigned Priscilla to write the defector’s biography. Alliluyeva later returned to the Soviet Union in dismay, saying she was under the watch of the CIA at all times.
I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want.
– 1962 CIA Memo
Is Priscilla CIA? She applied for a job there in the fifties, and her 201 file lists her as a “witting collaborator,” meaning, not only was she working with the agency, she knew she was working with the agency. And how independent was she? In a memo from Donald Jameson, who was an experienced Soviet Russia Branch Chief and who in the same year handled Angleton’s prize (and the CIA’s bane) Anatoliy Golitsyn, wrote of Priscilla:
Priscilla Johnson was selected as a likely candidate to write an article on Yevtushenko in a major U. S. magazine for our campaign…I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want.4 [Emphasis added.]
Priscilla’s latest writing shows that either she never learned the truth about her husband’s book, or she is unabashedly willing to support the lies therein. For example: George McMillan has long since been taken to task by researchers for writing that Ray’s hatred of King came about as Ray watched King give speeches from Ray’s prison cell. But that prison had no TVs available to inmates, either in cells or cell blocks, until 1970 – two years after King had been killed! This has long since been exposed in print in numerous places. Yet Priscilla repeats this canard in the Washington Post, in 1997. Is this another assignment?
In addition, George McMillan relied heavily on James Earl Ray’s brother Jerry as a source. Yet Jerry and George both admit that Jerry lied to George. Jerry also alleged, and George did not deny when given the chance, that George made up quotes and attributed them to Jerry. Now, Priscilla writes uncritically of George’s version of events, without acknowledging to Post readers any of these serious challenges to the credibility of George’s description of events.5
George McMillan himself is also a very interesting character, who shows up in both the King and Kennedy assassination investigations. What is not well known is that George McMillan was one of the earliest post assassination interviewers of George de Mohrenschildt. As reported by Mark Lane on Ted Gandolfo’s Assassinations USA cable program, George McMillan had been in Dallas a few weeks after the assassination. He left his notebook in a hotel with Oswald’s name in it. When the notebook was found, it was reported to the FBI. In it were notes McMillan had taken from de Mohrenschildt. Later, George tried to get in on the Garrison investigation, according to a memo from Garrison’s files, but was rejected because he came on like “three bulls in a very small china shop.” And after de Mohrenschildt’s alleged suicide, McMillan wrote the following in the Washington Post:
I stayed with de Mohrenschildt and his wife in their lovely house which clutched the side of a steep hill overlooking Port-Au-Prince – and which was, not insignificantly, I suppose, within the compound where Papa Doc Duvalier then lived. We had to pass through heavily guarded gates as we came and went.
One can only imagine the kind of clearance needed to be able to live inside the dictator’s compound, and to gain access to it as a journalist.
….
1. Three Assassinations, Volume 2 (New York: Facts on File, 1978), p. 245. Fauntroy’s original charge was made 4/27/77.
2. William Pepper, Orders to Kill (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1995), pp. 53-54.
3. Mark Lane and Dick Gregory, Murder in Memphis (formerly Code Name: Zorro) (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1993), pp. 232-233.
4. CIA Memo from Donald Jameson, Chief SR/CA, dated December 11, 1962.
5. Lane and Gregory, pp. 230-251.
(Click here if your browser is having trouble loading the above.)
In 1963, a popular political figure was shot in the back. The killer was not convicted. In his closing arguments to the jury, having laid out the evidence of the accused’s guilt, the Assistant District Attorney responsible for the case asked the jury:
Where justice is never fulfilled, that wound will never be cleansed ….Is it ever too late to do the right thing?
And the Hinds County jury rose to the call, and made a bridge across history to right an old wrong. On Saturday morning, February 5, 1994, the Hinds County, Mississippi jury, over 30 years after the crime, convicted Byron de la Beckwith with the murder of one of the earliest civil rights activists of the 1960’s: Medgar Evers.
The circumstances that brought this case from the dustbin of history back into the headlines and courtroom is an extraordinary one, detailed in the book Ghosts of Mississippi, by Maryanne Vollers (New York: Little, Brown & Company, 1995) and depicted in a movie made from the book. Were it not for a courageous, tenacious Assistant District Attorney named Bobby DeLaughter, and a set of fortuitous circumstances, aided by the widow Myrlie Evers, this crime might have gone forever unsolved, unpunished. Fortunately for the Evers family and for history, DeLaughter was determined to bring this to trial, saying “We would have been derelict in our duty if we had not proceeded.”
In 1987, DeLaughter’s boss, District Attorney Ed Peters, had said he didn’t think the case could be reopened. And most likely he would have been right, had it not been for a confluence of evidence that surfaced, such as a 1989 Jackson Clarion-Ledger article revealing the possibility of jury tampering in a previous trial; long-preserved court records from previous trials, held by the widow; and in a truly mystical twist of fate – the finding of the murder weapon in DeLaughter’s ex-father-in-law’s gun collection. And by the time of the trial, DeLaughter and his staff had found six people to whom Beckwith had bragged of his murder of Evers. No, in Mississippi, in 1994, it was not too late to see justice served.
But is it too late in Memphis? In an eerily preemptive comment made to USA Today in 1994, the NAACP’s Earl Shinhoster had warned that the Evers victory might be a unique case, saying that it “would take something of proportion or magnitude”of what had happened in the Evers case to right other old wrongs, “which we may not ever get”. On February 20, 1997, the family of Martin Luther King, together with William Pepper, lawyer for James Earl Ray, went before Shelby County Criminal Court Judge Joe Brown to plead for new scientific tests to be performed on the alleged murder weapon. No match has ever been made between the bullet found in King and the weapon associated with Ray. Sophisticated tests could conceivably rule out Ray as the assassin.
As the last chance for the truth is fading with Ray’s health, the family of Martin Luther King has stepped from the shadows of their own long-held doubts to call for a new hearing of evidence in the killing of the great leader. Spurred by the rapid deterioration of James Earl Ray, the man alleged to have been the assassin, Dexter King, the youngest son of Martin Luther King, spoke for his family in calling for a real trial. The King case was never tested in a court of law, since Ray immediately confessed, then recanted a couple of days later claiming his confession was coerced. “The lack of a satisfactory resolution to questions surrounding the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. has been a source of continuing pain and hardship to our family. Every effort must be made to determine the truth…this can only be accomplished in a court of law,”said Dexter to reporters, adding that the family members “…are united today in calling for the trial that never occurred. We make our appeal at this time because of concerns that Mr. Ray’s illness may result in death, which will end the possibility of a trial ever to come.”
As reported in the last issue of Probe, Ray is deathly ill. In need of a liver transplant and in hospital care, this is his last chance to see the truth come out in his lifetime. His current lawyer, William Pepper, has written a book detailing much of the evidence that shows that Ray could not have committed such a crime without help, and that it is extremely unlikely that Ray committed the crime at all. In December of 1993, Lloyd Jowers, owner of the restaurant Jim’s Grill, (located in the basement of the rooming house from which the shots were allegedly fired,) went on ABC’s PrimeTime Live show to say that he been had asked to hire an assassin to kill King. The person he hired, he said, was not James Earl Ray. Jowers’ confession came on the heels of an HBO-sponsored mock trial in which Pepper and others laid out the facts of the case before a jury. The jury in the HBO trial found Ray not guilty, but the facts uncovered in the process caused Jowers to ask for immunity if he told more of what he knew. When promises of immunity were not forthcoming, Jowers went into hiding.
Dexter and the family have harbored suspicions of a high level conspiracy involving forces in the government for 29 years, but have kept silent. Now, Dexter is finding his voice. “It’s no secret that my father during that time was considered enemy No. 1 to the establishment. It’s no secret that he was not the most favorite person of J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI.”Citing his father’s opposition to the Vietnam war, Dexter expanded upon this theme, suggesting that “There may have been individuals [in the government] who saw him as a major threat. The country was in turmoil at the time, I guess you could say civil unrest, and this frightened many people. So, certainly there would be adequate motive.”
….

(Click here if your browser is having trouble loading the above.)