ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN LUTH

"Science," the Greek word for knowledge, when appended to the word "political," creates what seems like an oxymoron. For who could claim to know politics? More complicated than any game, most people who play it become addicts and die without understanding what they were addicted to. The rest of us suffer under their malpractice as our "leaders." A truer case of the blind leading the blind could not be found. Plumb the depths of confusion here.

Re: ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN

Postby admin » Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:28 am

Chapter 17: James Earl Ray's Legal Representation Reexamined

TO MOST EFFECTIVELY PREPARE JAMES'S APPEAL I had to understand the entire history of his representation, including the circumstances surrounding the guilty plea. I began at the beginning. Arthur Hanes, Sr., had told me that he believed James sought him out because he had tried a similar case, the defense of Alabama residents charged with the killing of a Detroit woman, Mrs. Viola Liuzzo. Mrs. Liuzzo had been gunned down from a side window of an overtaking car, on a dark road outside of Selma during the time of the historic Selma-to-Montgomery march. She was driving black marchers (as was I) out of Montgomery on that night. Hanes said that it was not unusual for him to be approached in such matters, for as mayor of Birmingham he had proved to be a conservative on racial issues. (Recall, however, that James's other choice was F. Lee Bailey, a Boston lawyer strongly identified with liberal politics.)

Hanes and his son Art, Jr., were contacted by author William Bradford Huie of Huntsville, Alabama, who wanted exclusive rights to write James's story. Huie had told Hanes that he could present the accused in a favorable light and that the sale of his writing would be the means of raising money for the defense.

In early July 1968, Hanes made a trip to London, taking with him documents furnished by Huie. One was a very broad power of attorney, bestowing on Hanes the authority to act for James. In another document, James transferred to Hanes any monies that he would receive as a result of a subsequent agreement with Huie. These two documents were signed July 5, 1968.

On July 8, 1968, Hanes and Huie executed an agreement giving Huie exclusive rights to produce literary material dealing with the case.

After several days James decided to sign the agreement because he thought there was no other chance to raise money for his defense. Huie agreed to pay Hanes and James each 30 percent of the gross receipts from the literary works. James's money was to go directly to Hanes for his defense. In September 1968, at James's request, the July 8 agreement was amended whereby Hanes would receive a flat fee of $20,000 plus expenses. James asked for the change because he came to understand that Hanes was employed to handle the case only at the trial level, and he wanted to have available financial reserves for an appeal if necessary.

The English magistrate's decision to grant extradition was based largely on the affidavit of the state's "eyewitness" Charles Q. Stephens. Having finally decided against an appeal on Hanes's advice, James was extradited and flown to the United States on July 19, arriving at the Shelby County Jail early that morning.

The conditions of James's eight-month (July 19, 1968-March 10, 1969) confinement in the specially prepared jail cell were extraordinary. Guards were present at all times. Closed-circuit television cameras monitored every move, including the exercise of his natural bodily functions. Since multiple microphones allowed for total audio surveillance, in order to communicate privately James and Hanes had to get down on their hands and knees and whisper in each other's ears. The cell area was brightly lit twenty-four hours a day; to sleep, James had to cover his eyes with a cloth. There was no natural light, no fresh air. The guards kept a log that recorded all visitors. In addition to the constant surveillance, all of James's mail was screened, including correspondence with his attorneys, with copies provided to the prosecutor's office. Trash from the cell, including James's notes prepared for discussions with his attorney, was also periodically screened and turned over to the prosecutor.

The impact of these conditions eroded James's physical and mental health to the point that by late February 1969 his capacity to resist pressure (from his second attorney, Percy Foreman to enter a plea, had become greatly diminished.

Art Hanes and his son told me that they were ready to go to trial by November 12, 1968. They felt that they had prepared their case well and believed that the state wouldn't be able to prove James guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The senior Hanes stressed that James never authorized him to plea bargain with the attorney general. He always insisted on a trial. Hanes recalled that at an early stage the state did offer a life sentence in exchange for a plea. James refused.

During the pretrial period, Huie asked James questions through Arthur Hanes. Hanes would deliver Huie's inquiries to his client. When James responded in writing, Hanes would take the answers back to Huie. After some time Huie invited Jerry Ray to visit him at his home in Huntsville, paying his way. At that meeting he asked Jerry to talk with his brother to convince him not to take the stand in his own defense. Jerry was convinced that Huie didn't want James to testify because any testimony he gave would be in the public domain and therefore decrease the value of Huie's book.

Jerry, furious, told James that Hanes was in collusion with Huie and advised his brother to get another lawyer. He suggested Percy Foreman (the so-called Texas Tiger) because of his reputation as an aggressive criminal defense lawyer. James said he didn't want Foreman, but the local Memphis lawyer they contacted, Richard J. Ryan, indicated that the case was too big for him. Jerry then contacted Percy Foreman on his own. Foreman agreed to take the case but wanted a letter from James requesting a visit before he would go down and see him. James refused, saying he would go to trial with Arthur Hanes.

Jerry again called Foreman who asked him to bring copies of the contracts James had signed with Hanes and Huie and meet with him. On November 10, two days before the trial was to begin, Jerry and John Ray met Percy Foreman at the Memphis airport. Foreman read the contracts and said, "I can break these, let's get a cab and go and see your brother."

James had always wondered how Foreman actually got in to see him that first time. Art Hanes answered the question for me. He said that Sheriff Bill Morris had told him that when Foreman appeared at the jail that first time, the jailer called him and then put the visit on hold while Morris consulted with Judge Battle. To Morris's surprise, Battle was receptive to the visit and told Morris to let the Texas lawyer go in and talk to James. Thus it appears that for whatever reason, the trial judge actually facilitated the removal of the Haneses from the case on the eve of the trial.

In the course of that meeting Foreman told James that if he continued with Hanes, he would probably be "barbecued." Foreman promised not to get involved in any type of book contract until the trial was over. He quoted a fee of $150,000 including appeals.

James had become convinced that Hanes was working for Huie and Huie was releasing information to the FBI because the bureau was somehow able to follow leads he provided to Huie, turning up promptly after he had provided him with the confidential information. Foreman capitalized on this, putting enormous pressure on James to retain him, passionately criticising the relationship between Hanes and Huie as a conflict of interest that was probably going to cost James his life.

On the evening of November 10, Hanes was handed a letter summarily dismissing him. He offered Foreman his time and the benefit of his experience in preparing the case but Foreman didn't seem interested. Because Judge Battle perceived Foreman to be unwell and was concerned about his frequent absences from the court, he appointed public defender Hugh Stanton Sr. as associate defense counsel on December 18, 1968. Eventually Stanton's status was elevated to that of co-counsel. Foreman obtained an extension of the trial date and then moved to establish his own contractual relationship with Huie, which was concluded on January 5, 1969. He also suggested that Jerry meet with writer George MacMillan, who, along with his wife, has long been associated with U.S. intelligence.

To this day, James regrets having retained Foreman. If nothing else, Foreman's poor health was an obvious impediment to competent representation. During this time Foreman was on three types of medication daily as a result of a car accident. He had fairly recently testified under oath that it was impossible for him to sleep properly or to sit and concentrate for any period of time. Consequently, he stated, he was not able to take any major cases by himself. He was also in trouble with the federal government on tax and other charges.

After a couple of weeks Foreman contacted Hanes in Birmingham, asking for a meeting. Hanes, Sr., told me that they spent two or three hours with him, then took him to dinner, surprised by his nonchalance and lack of specific thoughts in preparing for the trial.

In a drastic change of position, on February 13, 1969, Foreman brought a letter summarizing his advice to his client to plead guilty, with a list of reasons. A surprised James signed the letter, not in agreement but only in acknowledgment of having received the advice, making it clear to his agitated lawyer that he had no intention of entering a plea. From then on Foreman began pressing James to enter a plea of guilty.

James was completely opposed to the idea. In fact on February 17, in a letter to his brother Jerry, James wrote:

Dear Jerry:

I thought I would answer your letter. I guess you read that they postponed the trial until April 7. I look forward to going to trial sometime in April, probably the last part.


Undeterred by James's recalcitrance, Foreman brought him fifty-six stipulations of fact prepared by the prosecutor and aggressively pressed him to agree to all of them and plead guilty. He hammered away at James relentlessly, telling him, "They're gonna fry your ass if you don't" (despite the fact that no one had been executed in Tennessee in many years, that the overriding political sentiment in the state was against the death penalt , and that the King family had expressed their opposition to using it in the case). Foreman also assured him that his aging father would be sent back to Idaho, where he had been a minor parole violator, forty-odd years earlier, if James did not plead guilty. He stated that the press had convicted him anyway and that no Memphis jury would acquit him. Finally, and ac- cording to James most importantly, he told him that if he went to trial he couldn't guarantee to put forward his best effort as defense counsel.

James ultimately came to believe that Foreman would throw the case if he didn't agree. He was certain that the judge wouldn't let him substitute another attorney so late in the proceedings, but he reasoned that if he made a deal he could get rid of Foreman, get another lawyer, and open up the case all over again. He finally agreed to enter the plea in exchange for Foreman paying a sum of money to his brother Jerry so that they could hire a new attorney and open up the case. This they indeed did, hiring local attorney Richard Ryan shortly after the hearing.

On Friday, March 7, Foreman arrived at the jail at 7:45 a.m. to make sure that James was in the proper frame of mind and that everything was ready for a smooth entry of the plea. Foreman agreed in writing to provide Jerry with a loan of $500 "contingent upon the plea of guilty and sentence going through on March 10, 1969, without any unseemly conduct on your [James's] part in court."

The transcript of the March 10, 1969, court hearing supports James's assertion that all he meant to do was plea bargain on the charge without admitting guilt. He admits that there was overwhelming evidence that he was in the area and somehow involved, however unknowingly. Thus being tied to the events and having bought a gun found at the scene, he believed that he might indeed be "legally" guilty. At one point, in response to a question of guilt, he explicitly said, "Yes, legally, yes." He made a point of interrupting the proceedings at one stage to refute the popular notion that there was no conspiracy.

James was sentenced on March 10, 1969, to ninety-nine years, the most severe sentence aside from death that he could receive. Three days later he began a struggle for a trial, shortly thereafter hiring attorney Ryan.

On March 31, 1969, Judge Battle was considering James's motion to vacate his plea and obtain a trial, when he died of a heart attack at his desk. In fact, he was found with his head on James's motion papers. The law at the time in Tennessee stated that if a judge died while considering such a motion, the motion was automatically granted. In the only other case where a judge died while considering such a motion, the petitioner was given a new trial. Technically speaking James's motion for a trial also encompassed setting aside his guilty plea, but the principal aim of the statute -- to grant the relief sought when the judge most familiar with the issues is removed from the scene -- surely applies in such a case. However, James's motion was denied in 1969, as was each and every subsequent petition for relief. By 1988 James had accumulated a history o refusals by the courts to hear new evidence.

I was amazed at the predicament James had found himself in. Foreman had backed him into a corner, where he felt the only way out was to enter a plea to get rid of him and be paid for doing so to have funds to hire another lawyer, who would then have to undo the plea. Despite the conflict of interest, Hanes had conducted a serious investigation and was confident that he would obtain an acquittal, whereas it appeared that Foreman had never intended to go to trial. As to the sufficiency of the defense investigation of the case, Foreman would later contend under oath that he had some six or eight student investigators working on the case, but he was unable to remember their names and he admitted that he didn't keep any written notes or pay records. He said he paid them in cash. [5] He maintained that he himself continued interviewing witnesses "Just up until the day Ray told me he thought it was best to enter a plea of guilty in consideration of a waiver of the death penalty and that was in the first few days of February ...." [6 ] This contention must be viewed in the light of the letter which James wrote to his brother much later -- February 17, 1969 -- in which he said he was looking forward to going to trial in April.

Foreman also maintained that James told him he had intentionally placed fingerprints all over the gun. "He told me he didn't wipe them off, that he wrapped the gun up to keep the fingerprints from being wiped off. [7] He told me why. He wanted the boys back at Jefferson City to know that he had done it."

These statements were unlike any other version of the events and issues. In all the sessions I spent with James Earl Ray, he never agreed with the position put forth by Percy Foreman, and it is inconceivable to anyone else I know who has been close to the case, including the Haneses, that he could have made these remarks.

Foreman maintained that at their first meeting James told him that Arthur Hanes wanted him to plead guilty but that he did not want to. This is the only time I ever heard it alleged that James thought Hanes wanted him to plead guilty. This unsubstantiated allegation is vehemently denied by the Haneses and calls forth the greatest anger from James, who has consistently maintained that the man he came to call Percy "Four- flusher" harassed and tormented him until he agreed to enter the plea.

Twelve years after the guilty plea, James discovered further behind-the-scenes maneuverings. He learned of the existence of certain handwritten notes made during the course of the guilty plea negotiations by the district attorney general, Phil Canale, who finally provided them to the HSCA in 1978. James was not able to obtain a copy of the notes until around 1981. They revealed that Judge Battle had appointed public defender Hugh Stanton, Sr., as associate counsel with Foreman on December 18, 1968, and within hours of being appointed Stanton was in Canale's office offering to plead his new client, whom he had never seen. The negotiations continued for more than two months without James's knowledge. Prosecutor Canale's notes also made it clear that Judge Battle himself played an active role in these discussions; Foreman subsequently con- firmed that he had regular direct ex parte discussions with the judge. At one point, the notes indicate that Judge Battle actually passed messages from Foreman to Canale. For a trial judge, this activity was clearly improper and demonstrates the lengths to which all sides -- with the exception of the actual defendant -- were willing to go to avoid a trial.

The Canale notes also revealed that Stanton had a conflict of interest stemming from his previous representation of the state's primary witness against James -- Charles Q. Stephens -- and that the district attorney general raised this issue in passing with Stanton, who dismissed it out of hand.

James's latest petition for relief and his eventual appeal were founded largely on the revelations contained in the notes and on the fact that the notes were withheld from him. There were material constitutional arguments in support of James's appeal.

Hugh Stanton's conflict of interest was a classic. He had been appointed to represent James (and in light of the concern about Foreman's health had been raised to the status of co-counsel) by Judge Battle, the same judge who at an earlier hearing in July 1968, when the state sought a protective custody order against Stephens, had appointed him to represent Stephens.

Thus we had a defense co-counsel who had, in the same case, within the previous six months represented the primary prosecution witness against the defendant. In addition, Charlie Stephens had applied for the publicly offered reward for providing identification of James and thus also had a financial interest in the conviction of the person he identified. obviously, vigorous cross-examination of Stephens would be required at trial for an effective defense. This meant the case couldn't go to trial because if it did Stanton would be precluded from examining Stephens because he had no waiver from him. Thus James would have been unable to confront the main witness against him.

This scenario appeared to be a blatant violation of James's Sixth Amendment rights to independent counsel and the right to confront an accuser. The Supreme Court has thrown out and condemned convictions where lesser conflicts of counsel have existed.

Thus, I felt I had good cause to hope the appeal I filed on James's behalf would succeed, yet the attorney general's answer brief ignored the major issues of law that were raised. My first reaction was that the state's brief was neither carefully nor thoughtfully prepared, and I was therefore inclined to believe that the state knew something I didn't.

I prepared and filed a brief and then a reply brief with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and waited for oral argument to be scheduled. I was looking forward to the opportunity of advancing the principal issues to the three judge appellate panel in Cincinnati. It seemed that the state had no effective rebuttal, and it was my intention to drive this point home to the court.

There was no chance. The court ruled that the appeal be denied and that oral argument was unnecessary. I applied for a hearing and reconsideration en banc -- before the full court. This was denied.

Subsequently, on June 19,1989, I filed a petition for a review by the U .S. Supreme Court (certiorari). This was a last resort. If the Supreme Court denied James's appeal, it would be fundamentally changing the law by denying the timeless right of the accused to confront his accuser. This would make a mockery of the U .S. justice system and give prosecutors and trial judges everywhere unprecedented power to deprive a person of his liberty. In any other case this would be unthinkable.

In addition to the petition filed, the producers of the BBC television documentary Inside Story: Who Killed Martin Luther King? which was aired in September 1989 and which raised many of the unanswered questions about the case, sent a video copy of the program to each member of the Supreme Court. All fell on deaf ears. Certiorari was denied on October 30, 1989. The trial that James Earl Ray had so long been denied seemed to be as far away as ever.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN

Postby admin » Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:29 am

PART IV: THE TELEVISION TRIAL OF JAMES EARL RAY

Chapter 18: Preparations for the Television Trial of James Earl Ray: November 1989-September 17, 1992


I WAS DISAPPOINTED, saddened and angry. The court's refusal to consider the serious issue of defense counsel's conflict of interest was demoralizing, not only in respect of James's case but also in its denial of what I had always regarded as a fundamental right of a criminal defendant. More than ever I became convinced that inevitably such politically sensitive cases were subject to different standards of law and procedure and that James would not be set free unless his actual innocence was proven.

If the Supreme Court would not grant James a trial, I would find another way to get his case heard. During 1989 I began to flesh out the bones of the idea of a television trial. It would have to be unscripted, featuring real evidence, witnesses, judge, and counsel before an independent jury. It would also have to be conducted strictly according to Tennessee law and criminal procedure. James liked the proposal from the outset. He knew that the revelations of one or another documentary had never generated enough public support from which he could benefit. He believed that if he could tell his story to an independent jury he had a good chance of winning, even though material evidence contained in federal government files pertaining to the case continued to be sealed and unavailable to the defense.

I spent two years getting nowhere. Finally, Thames Television in London expressed interest in producing the program. However, since Thames was to lose its franchise the following year and thus not be able to broadcast the program, it would have to arrange a sale to another broadcaster. In addition, a U.S. joint venture partner was needed to share the costs.

In early 1992 I signed a contract with Thames. It was agreed that both counsel and the judge would be paid reasonable professional fees. I insisted that the Ray family also be paid a fee. Thames promised that the investigation on both sides would be amply and equally funded. This commitment included funds not only for the extensive field investigation required but also the costs connected with the travel and accommodation of the defense team and witnesses. Eventually, however, the defense expense allocation was substantially less than what was required, so I had to personally subsidize the defense costs.

In Memphis I introduced Thames producer Jack Saltman to my local investigator, Ken Herman, who would provide him and his team with a wide range of introductions and assistance during this period of the project.

Saltman finally settled on former U.S. attorney Hickman Ewing, Jr., as the prosecutor. Hickman had been the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Tennessee for about ten years. Before that he had been the assistant U.S. Attorney with primary trial responsibility and was an experienced prosecutor. To maximise credibility I had hoped that Hickman might involve, as second chair or in some other capacity, Robert "Buzzy" Dwyer or Jim Beasley, who had been the front-line prosecutors in 1968. However, Hickman selected as second chair Glenn Wright, a black former Shelby County assistant attorney general who was then in private practice. My second chair was April Ferguson, a U.S. federal public defender at the time.

For the judge, Hickman accepted my proposal of Marvin E. Frankel, a federal district court judge now practicing law in New York City. judge Frankel had also previously taught evidence at Columbia Law School and was well regarded in New York legal circles. I understand that from the outset he was excited about the idea.

The jury was selected from a pool of citizens initially secured by a consultant search group. They came from Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, and Texas and completed questionnaires and submitted to videotaped interviews. Hickman and I eventually agreed on twelve jurors and two alternates.

In Memphis, we found support and encouragement for the project. By now the city had a black administration. In addition to a black mayor and a black director of police and fire, the criminal court clerk's office, where all of the physical evidence in the King case was held, was administered by a black, elected clerk -- Minerva Johnican -- who offered to do everything she could to assist.

However, John Pierotti, the Shelby County district attorney general, was white. Though he had ultimately succeeded his mentor Phil Canale, who was the attorney general in 1968, Pierotti told us early on that he had no interest in covering up any aspect of the King case and offered whatever support he could give. Saltman was ecstatic. I was much more guarded, expecting doors to close at any moment.

We gained access to the attorney general's investigatory file because James had previously obtained a court order to that effect. I hoped to undertake extensive ballistics and neutron activation tests on the rifle, the evidence bullets, and the death slug and to arrange for DNA testing on certain other items.

The American cable producers Home Box Office (HBO) and Thames requested access to and the right to use, if not conduct tests upon, the physical evidence in the clerk' s office. The application to the criminal court went before Judge john P. Colton, Jr., who at the outset was enormously positive and receptive. He had a reputation for fairness and openness. Local counsel told us we were fortunate to be in his particular court.

The motion was delayed to give the state attorney general an opportunity to reply. The office responded by stating that it had no objection to the production having access to the evidence inside the clerk's office but that it was opposed to any removal of evidence from that office and also to any testing of the rifle, the evidence bullets, or any other items. It became clear that this was the best agreement we were going to get from the attorney general's office; practically speaking, every indication was that the attorney general's opposition would be upheld by the Tennessee courts. A consent order was drawn up and agreed to by the attorney general and ourselves, allowing limited access to the evidence within the clerk's office.

With agreement by all parties, and no opposition in sight, I traveled from England to Memphis, arriving around 4:00 p.m. on Friday, June 5, 1992. I was met by Ken Herman, whose first words, "Maybe they'll listen to you now," stopped me in my tracks. Barely an hour earlier, Judge Colton had, on his own motion, ordered that the evidence not be made available at all, for any purpose. This inexplicable action confirmed that twenty-five years later, nothing had really changed.

Among the reasons for Colton's ruling was his purported concern that James could be prejudiced in the event that a real trial was granted one day, and that James had an appeal pending before the state supreme court. The fact that James had earlier submitted an affidavit stating that he supported the proposed access to the evidence and waiving any future right to complain, was dismissed by the judge who went so far as to question James's mental state, unbelievably expressing concern about whether he was able to give informed consent. It was ironic: we were attempting to gain access to evidence to provide a television trial precisely because James had been unable to get an official trial for twenty-four years, yet this judge, whose predecessors and court had denied every post-conviction relief petition during that period, denied even the most minimal access to evidence, purportedly to protect James in the event he one day got an official trial.

The judge also seemed to ignore the fact that other media representatives had been routinely given permission to view and photograph the evidence, which after all was all that our consent order allowed.

The court's action stunned everyone. Had something or someone caused Colton to do a dramatic and uncharacteristic about-face? Even some of his friendliest colleagues couldn't explain his action.

Early the next morning we drove furiously to the Riverbend maximum security prison in Nashville where James had been transferred. James decided to withdraw his pending appeal, thus eliminating one alleged objection set out by the judge. I was impressed by his calm, indeed philosophical, reaction. He immediately saw the political nature of the judge's decision. For him it was one more example of the double standard that had long hindered his case.

At the subsequent hearing, with all parties in agreement, the judge listened politely, complimented counsel on their presentations, and reserved his decision. Ten days later he denied the motion and made his order permanent.

HBO pursued an appeal. Given the scheduling of cases, I knew that this would get us nowhere, and the lawyers' bills would further drain the budget.

Shortly afterward we discovered that after issuing an order in our case, Judge Colton had allowed a television station to film the evidence. We promptly requested equal right of access. He couldn't deny our request, and we were finally able to examine and photograph the physical evidence within the confines of the clerk's evidence room.

Early on I insisted that we take James's testimony in the prison before the beginning of the production. I wanted to have him undergo direct and cross-examination, under oath, before the judge, just in case, for whatever reason, the state authorities decided not to allow him to participate. We also wanted to safeguard against anything happening to him before his actual testimony.

Meanwhile, Ken Herman was sent to find out whether Char lie Stephens was still alive. There was a rumor that he had been seen in a Memphis tavern within the last year. We and others had believed that Stephens had been dead for a number of years. Herman was unable to find Stephens. Then, at the dirt-floor house where Stephens's brother and closest living relatives still lived, he learned that two FBI agents had come down there with Charlie in the late 1970s and had stayed for about two weeks in the area. Eventually, a job had been arranged for Charlie in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and he moved there. The family told us that they had received word from Little Rock in the summer of 1979 that Charlie had died of a heart attack, but they never saw the body, which had been cremated. Ken went to Little Rock and concluded that Stephens had in fact died there in August 1979.

In New York in early August I visited and interviewed Earl Caldwell, who was currently writing for the New York Daily News. His description of events surrounding the killing cast much doubt on the official version. Caldwell, who had previously been interviewed for the BBC documentary, was a New York Times reporter in 1968 assigned to cover Dr. King's April visit to Memphis. He told me that the Times national editor, Claude Sit ton, said he had heard Dr. King had lost control of his group, and that he wanted Caldwell to "nail" him. Caldwell was dumbfounded. He decided he would simply do his job. He certainly was not about to play a part in any effort to "nail" Martin Luther King.

Caldwell stayed in room 215 on the ground level of the Lorraine, near the southern end, or Butler Street side of the motel (see Chart I, page xxxiii). At about 6:00 p.m. on April 4 he was standing in the doorway of his room in his shorts when he heard what he thought at first was a bomb explosion. He was looking at the brush area at the rear of the rooming house on the other side of Mulberry Street and saw a figure in the bushes, a white male wearing what appeared to be coveralls. The man was crouched or semi crouched in the midst of the high bushes and was staring at the balcony. Caldwell was astonished when told (and shown pictures) later on that there was no brush; that the area was actually wide open and that a sniper would have had no place to hide.

He didn't see a gun in the hands of the man, and he was quickly distracted by Solomon Jones, who began driving the car back and forth frantically in the driveway of the motel. When Caldwell looked back to the brush area, the man had disappeared. He soon learned that Dr. King had been shot. (Though Caldwell was unaware of it, soon after the shooting Solomon Jones told the assembled national media that he had seen a man come out of the bushes at the time of the shooting, make his way over the wall, actually enter the Lorraine property, and then slip away. Desperate to follow, he tried to find a way out of the Lorraine Motel parking area, becoming hysterical when he couldn't find a clear path to drive out, because he believed that the shooter was getting away -- hence the furious maneuvering back and forth of the car, seen but not understood by Earl Caldwell.)

Caldwell said that at various times he had written about what he had seen, although not in the Times because it had a policy of not allowing reporters to inject their views into a news story. He was never interviewed by the FBI or any other police authority and was not called to testify by the HSCA, so his observations were effectively buried.

***

IN AUGUST 1992 I began reviewing and copying the attorney general's files, a process that would go on for months. With each visit to Memphis the list of names of people to be inter viewed grew.

The four-drawer metal cabinet containing the files had about eight thousand pages of documents, reports, and materials developed from the MPD and FBI investigations of the case. I initially focused on material that would be relevant to James's testimony. Much of the documentation in the form of copies of James's receipts, canceled checks, and correspondence simply corroborated his version of events.

The primary document was the 1968 MPD investigation re port and its many supplements, which contained statements from the police and firemen on duty in the area of the murder scene that day; it also had statements of other people who were in and around the South Main Street area at the time. Its conclusion: that the shot was fired from the bathroom and that the killer ran down the north, front stairs of the rooming house carrying a bundle of belongings that included the murder weapon, exited through the front door, and headed south toward his car, which was parked in front of Canipe's. It postulated that he saw a police car, which was part of TACT unit 10, whose members were then on break at the fire station, parked up to the sidewalk in the driveway of the fire station, panicked, and dropped the bundle in Canipe's doorway and then got into the Mustang and drove off. All this must have been accomplished in under two minutes of the shooting, because that was how long it took Lt. Bud Ghormley to reach the bundle, with Deputy Vernon Dollahite arriving from the opposite direction soon after. (There was no mention of the other Mustang that James McCraw and others saw in front of Jim's Grill, which was where James said he had parked and left his car until he drove away shortly before 6:00. The report concluded that James had driven his car to the York Arms Store when he went to purchase the binoculars and then returned and parked in front of Canipe's.)

MY ASSISTANT, JEAN, flew in from London to help with my sessions with James, which began on Saturday, August 22. Our preparation lasted ten or more hours a day. We intensively went over his story and the various statements he had made over the years. The inevitable memory lapses concerning various details had to be confronted and explained. We began in the beginning, with his childhood.

I wanted James to emerge as the type of person I knew him to be rather than the violent racist the media had portrayed. While growing up, he had little contact with blacks, but he remembered shooting dice with blacks at the bus stop on his way home from the shoe factory when he was working there. He evinced no hostility toward blacks whatsoever and his employers at the Indian Trails restaurant in Illinois had said he got along very well with his fellow workers, most of whom were minorities. They were sorry to see him go.

James was basically shy, with average intelligence and an understated sense of humor. He bought a gun only when he needed it for a job; he didn't routinely carry a weapon. His source, inevitably, was one or another "fence." He had no experience with a rifle outside of his army training. In the army he qualified as a marksman, which was the lowest rating possible and a requirement of basic training.

He had never fired at another person and in fact only ever loaded his six-shot pistols with five bullets, leaving the firing chamber empty, which would require pulling the trigger twice to fire the gun. (For example, as mentioned earlier, when he was arrested at Heathrow Airport he had only five bullets in his six-chamber revolver.) He followed this practice to avoid accidentally discharging the gun, which was a real possibility as far as he was concerned. Early in his criminal activity, when approaching the scene of a planned burglary, the owner of the premises yelled at him and he fled frantically, tripping and discharging the weapon, shooting himself in the foot.

There was no doubt that he was an incompetent, petty criminal -- a bungler. On more than one occasion he either failed to get to the scene of a planned crime, got there too late, or was arrested soon after fleeing. Once, while robbing a store, he took off his shoes to move about quietly. He saw police outside and panicked, running away in his stocking feet and carrying on for miles before putting on a pair of women's shoes that he found along the way. He did this, he said, because he didn't want to look conspicuous as he approached a town. He was picked up soon after. He was easily led and had a proclivity for meeting in bars his various companions in crime who would propose illegal operations, This tendency was particularly important in light of his assertion in the King case that he was a patsy following the instructions of a handler named Raul whom he also met in a bar -- the Neptune in Montreal.

I asked James about the Atlanta map found in his apartment in Birmingham. Although he said he did mark the map, he denied making any marks associated with Dr. King's residence, church, and SCLC office. He said that he invariably bought a map when he traveled to a new area and would routinely mark it to get his bearings.

Regarding his movements on the afternoon of the killing, he basically confirmed his earlier story. He said he had walked to the York Arms Store to buy the binoculars, ending up covering the ground twice since he didn't go far enough the first time, and returned to ask Raul for further instructions.

The sessions with James continued until Saturday, August 29, when we met with the judge, the prosecutor and representatives of Thames and HBO, to hammer out a set of policies and procedures covering all aspects of the trial and preparation. One problem that confronted me resulted from my status as the attorney for the defendant, now representing him in a trial for television. This was probably an unprecedented position for a U.S. attorney.

My position that the defendant's interests were primary required me frequently to be uncooperative with the production team. Requests that would in my view materially compromise the defense case or detract from the rights that the defendant would have in a real trial were unacceptable unless the benefit of the proceeding itself was commensurate with the concession. The greatest area of contention focused on the element of surprise, a primary asset of the defense in any criminal proceeding but anathema to a tightly timed film production schedule. The production team wanted us to disclose to the producer and the prosecution the names of every defense witness and a summary of their testimony so that the number of side bar disputes would be minimized. This would have unacceptably contravened the defendant's interests, so a compromise schedule of disclosure was agreed upon and producer Saltman gave us a pledge of confidentiality with respect to all defense evidence and leads incurred in our investigation.

On the sensitive issue of remuneration for witnesses it was agreed that they would be paid a nominal amount, forty dollars, with compensation for expenses and any loss of earnings, which would necessarily vary from person to person.

Eventually a manual of procedures was developed for the trial. It was agreed that to the maximum extent possible the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure (TRCP) would be followed. The most significant deviations from these rules were ultimately the following:

• Since a number of witnesses had died or were otherwise unavailable, it was agreed that their prior statements could be put on the record if they were taken under oath, made to a law enforcement official, or otherwise deemed reliable and relevant by the judge. Any prior inconsistent statements could also be provided at the same time as a substitute for cross-examination.
• The judge ruled that with the exception of our security witnesses we had to give the prosecution full disclosure of our case. The judge reasoned that although the defense had not formally requested discovery of the state's case, it had been allowed access to the district attorney general's 1968 file. This of course didn't take into account the embargo of a wide range of other evidence and documentation, such as that produced by the HSCA, which is sealed until 2029.
• A sine qua non condition of the trial was the understanding that the defendant would take the stand, testify, and submit to cross-examination. Since James had wanted this opportunity for twenty-four years, he readily agreed and in fact testified for thirteen hours.
• We agreed that each side would give notice (according to an agreed-upon schedule) to the other side regarding the various categories of defense witnesses: regular, surprise and security. We were concerned primarily with security witnesses John McFerren, Tim Kirk, and Betty Spates, who feared for their personal safety. We were certain that they wouldn't testify unless their identities were protected at least prior to their testimony.
• The producers believed that James's guilty plea had to be dealt with in some way. Eventually it was agreed that I would deliver a twenty-minute speech to the jury, explaining the reasons and conditions surrounding the plea, and Hickman would then be given five minutes to rebut.
• We would insist that the defense investigation be entirely independent from the prosecution and the producers, and would share information with the production team (which was agreed to be in confidence) only to the extent that it was absolutely essential to do so. Thus we operated on a strictly need-to-know basis whenever possible.

James's examination was scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. the following Tuesday, September 1. That morning we crowded into a relatively small prison conference room, made even smaller by the presence of the camera equipment. My direct examination lasted all of that day. When at one point during a break the judge made an adverse comment about prison food, suggesting going out to eat, James shyly said, "Take me with you," and then, amid laughter, added, "I'll even pay."

Hickman cross-examined James for most of the following day, after which I conducted redirect, then Hickman began his re-cross-examination.

One morning while we were preparing for James's testimony, I arranged to interview inmate Tim Kirk.

I asked Kirk if he would agree to testify or give a statement about the offer of a contract to kill James that was communicated to him by Arthur Baldwin back in 1978. Kirk wanted to help James but was very reluctant because of the high profile he would get and the impact such assertions might have on his potential parole and, indeed, his safety inside the prison. Finally, on a subsequent visit, he refused to testify publicly but agreed to provide a current statement or affidavit if I could arrange for his name to be withheld.

With the examination of James completed on September 2, I resumed my review of the attorney general's file in Memphis. There were a number of photographs of the scene, most of which appeared to have been taken the day after the crime. The brush area was shown to be clear, and piles of cut twigs and branches were scattered around. Some photographs taken from the Lorraine balcony showed the rooming house and the open bathroom window. In most photographs a large tree branch prominently hung over the retaining wall at the edge of the brush area. (See photographs #12 and 13.)

Photographs of footprints near the top of the alleyway were of immediate interest. Also in the file was a statement listing three officers on the scene shortly after the shooting as patrolmen Torrence N. Landers, Carroll Dunn, and J. B. Hodges. They had apparently climbed up onto the wall from Mulberry Street, made their way through the bushes to the edge of the building, and near the top of the alleyway between the two wings of the rooming house stumbled on the large (13-1/2"-14") footprints in the wet soil heading toward the door to the building. This door at the end of the alleyway opened on to a landing that led to the basement and off to the right into Jim's Grill. Landers's statement said that they proceeded down the alley but only perfunctorily checked the basement underneath the rooming house and the grill because they did not have a flashlight. I thought it was extraordinary that the basement wasn't inspected.

Though the footprints had been photographed and a plaster cast made of them, this evidence was ignored.

Before returning home to London, Jean and I went to see witness James McCraw, the former cab driver, only to be told that he had been rushed to the hospital. There McCraw expressed his concern that he might not make it to late January, when the trial was scheduled to be held, because of his failing health. His evidence was vitally important: the state of intoxication of the state's chief witness, the fact that the bathroom was empty minutes before the shooting, and the existence of a second rifle which had never been disclosed before.

We decided to take a declaration under oath from him as soon as he was released from the hospital. Though by taking his statement we would have to provide it to the prosecution in advance of his testimony, at least then his information would be preserved.

HBO issued its final commitment to the project on September 17, and Thames confirmed that we could proceed. A filming date for the trial was fixed for January 25, 1993, with international airing scheduled for the twenty-fifth anniversary of Dr. King's death, April 4, 1993. We had three-and-a-half months to investigate and prepare for trial. Considering the enormity of the task, it was no time at all.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN

Postby admin » Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:30 am

Chapter 19: Pretrial Investigations: September-October 1992

AT THE OUTSET we had no illusions about our task. It would not be enough to show reasonable doubt of James's guilt because the media had already convicted him. We would have to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. The strategy would be twofold. We would seek to introduce evidence that directly contravened each significant aspect of the state's case and then, to the extent possible, attempt to show how the killing actually occurred. We intended to go well beyond the actual murder to demonstrate the existence and extent of a cover-up. There was no shortage of material and leads, but how much could be turned into hard evidence to put before a jury?

Hickman and his prosecution team had an opportunity to conduct a fresh investigation of the case. It was thus conceivable that he could come up with a theory different from that advanced by the state in 1969. Eventually, we came to believe that he would prosecute the case along the lines set out in the MPD/FBI reports, relying largely on circumstantial evidence.

There were several outstanding leads from my previous investigatory work to follow up. Top of the list was Betty Spates. I had previously instructed Ken Herman to keep in touch with her from time to time, hoping that she would develop enough trust to reveal whatever it was that she knew. A number of other people had to be located, including: Randy Rosenson; Solomon Jones, who had been missing from Memphis for years; William Reed and Ray Hendrix Jim's Grill customers who left the grill shortly before 6:00 p.m.); and service station attendant Willie Green -- all of whom were potential alibi witnesses as to James's whereabouts at the time of the killing; and of course, rooming house manager Bessie Brewer.

I wanted to interview each person we could identify as being in Jim's Grill that afternoon, as well as each person who was in the rooming house, each fireman on duty at fire station 2, each member of TACT 10 on rest break in the fire station at the time, and the employees of the Tayloe Paper and Seabrook Wallpaper companies across the street from the rooming house.

It was obviously important to interview any police officers who were at the scene or involved in the investigation in any way, as well as members of Dr. King's entourage and the staff at the Lorraine, and a number of other persons who were in the area.

Then there were the individual members of the Invaders, the local black civil rights leadership, and ordinary community people who had never previously been properly interviewed. Further afield, the stories of people like Morris Davis and Jules "Ricco" Kimbel needed to be further checked out, and James's movements in Montreal and Toronto would have to be looked at.

It was obviously essential to obtain information about the role of organized crime. The conversation John McFerren accidentally overheard in Frank C. Liberto's office provided a rare insight into its potential involvement, but I knew it wasn't going to be easy to break into that closed community.

Ultimately, of course, there was the question of where the conspiracy went and who provided the money. This would inevitably require that the investigation extend to organized crime's structure beyond Memphis and in particular Carlos Marcello's organization in New Orleans. I knew that we would have to "follow the money," because mob involvement would have been for money.

***

SINCE JAMES HAD TRAVELED extensively in the year following his escape from Jefferson City, I had to organize an investigation that not only blanketed Memphis and rural Tennessee but extended to California in the west, Toronto and Montreal in the north, Texas in the southwest, and virtually every area of the South, though with a focus on New Orleans, Atlanta, Birmingham, and Miami. I would also need to obtain information from former prisoners and staff at Missouri State Penitentiary as well as selective others at Brushy Mountain.

I had to assemble a team of investigators. Assignments would be given to each of them on a need-to-know basis, with most of them not knowing one another and no one else privy to the overall scope of the work. Most of them would be licensed private investigators in their particular areas. My team rapidly grew to twenty-two.

Separating the relatively few valuable pieces of material in the attorney general's files from the overwhelming amount of irrelevant and false information and accusations was time-consuming. We made notes of leads that appeared to have possible significance. Frequently, these seemed not to have been followed up.

Certain documents in the attorney general's files related to what Betty Spates might know about the murder. One was a report of a claim by Memphis bailbondsman Alexander Wright, who had come to know Betty Spates in 1969 when he was arranging bail for her brother, Eddie Lee Eldridge. The report was dated February 3, 1969, and issued by Detective J. C. Davis of the MPD intelligence division. Davis wrote that:

Information from a reliable source has been received by the above and this information is that Mr. WRIGHT at State Surety Bonding Company was quoted as saying, "I know two women who were working in the building where the shot came from that killed King. They told me that RAY was across Main Street and not in the building when the shot was fired. The man who killed King is the owner of the flop house, and not RAY." Mr. Wright also stated that policemen were in the building when the shot was fired that killed King and that they had been coming there prior to the day that King was killed.

After these two women were questioned by the police and FBI they were fired by their boss, the man who killed Dr. King. They are willing to take the witness stand in court.


A handwritten note under the typed report initialed by the attorney general's chief investigator John Carlisle stated:

We have a tape in our offices that was taken from a tape that O'Neil [Wright's boss, who recorded Betty's comments] brought to this office on January 30.


The second document relating to Betty Spates was Mr. Car lisle's report of an interview he conducted with James Alexander Wright on February 10, 1969. Mr. Wright confirmed that Betty told him Ray was not guilty because she knew about his movements that afternoon and that her "boss man" [Loyd Jowers] was out in the back and was the only one who could have killed Dr. King.

The third document purports to be an interview with Betty Spates on February 12, 1969, in which she appears to deny ever making the statement alleged by Wright. It is curious that this statement is unsigned, although a space was left for the signature of "Mrs. Betty Spates."

Wright's description of Spates's account of James's movements on the afternoon of April 4 didn't agree with what I knew about the case, but I remembered that when I spoke with her some four years earlier she was adamant about James's innocence, though she refused to provide details. It appeared to me that, however clumsy her effort, she had tried back in 1969 to provide James with an alibi because she knew he was innocent. As I suspected, she had indeed seen the gun and now I better understood her fear. I wondered what else she knew.

Wright confirmed his story to me, adding that Betty had told him that a number of MPD plainclothes and uniformed policemen came to the grill, apparently to inspect the place, during the week leading up to the killing. After the killing she spoke to him again and said that she knew Ray couldn't have done it because he was upstairs drunk and that they had found the gun within fifteen feet of the killing out in the back by the corner of the building. (It occurred to me that this was the area where the footprints leading into the alley were found.)

***

CHARLES CABBAGE, one of the founding leaders of the Invaders and the BOP back in the 1960s, agreed to contact each available former member of the Invaders and try to arrange a session with me.

Former firemen Floyd Newsom and Norvell Wallace agreed to testify about their unexpected transfer from fire station 2 on April 4. Though it was likely that the prosecution would attempt to dismiss it as a coincidence, I believed it was one of a number of inexplicable official actions indicative of a conspiracy.

Olivia Hayes, who worked at the Lorraine as a receptionist during 1968, reluctantly told me that Dr. King was supposed to be in room 202 on the ground level but somehow was switched to the balcony room, 306. She didn't admit to knowing why. Here was further confirmation of the room change. When I pressed her, perhaps too insistently, she clammed up.

***

THE TAYLOE PAPER COMPANY was located across the street from Jim's Grill in 1968. A number of its employees used to stop in the grill after work for a beer and a game of shuffleboard or pinball. Two of those persons, Kenneth Foster and David Wood, gave statements at the time confirming that they ob served a white Mustang parked in front of Jim's Grill, but they were not available in 1992.

Steve Cupples, who had worked at Tayloe Paper back in 1968 and had been in Jim's Grill on the evening of April 4, agreed to be interviewed. He remembered leaving work on April 4 sometime between 5:00 and 5:20, parking his car across the street from Jim's Grill.

"Sure, I remember a Mustang in front of the bar," he said. "I got dust on my new blue suit squeezing between its rear and the front bumper of the car parked tightly behind it." He said he was certain that the Mustang was there at 5:15 or 5:20 and that its back bumper was "virtually even" with the north entrance door of the rooming house. (See chart 4 for the lineup of cars in the rooming house area on South Main at 5:30 on April 4.)

Cupples recalled that the FBI visited him on four occasions, twice at home and twice at work. They asked him the same questions every time, showed him photographs of the same person, whom he didn't recognize, and he believes they asked him not to speak with anyone about what he saw. When asked about other persons who "hung out" in the area, he commented that there was a black street artist who used to "hang out" in the grill. This artist was almost a "fixture" but Cupples didn't remember the familiar figure being there that day. He agreed to help us in any way he could.

Jimmy Walker, deputy coroner for the city of Atlanta in 1992, had also worked at Tayloe. He vaguely recalled that on the afternoon of April 4 he had to park just behind the fire hydrant, in front of Canipe's, and he periodically opened the door of the grill to check his car. He noticed the white Mustang in front of the grill because it was in the area where he usually tried to park. He agreed to come to Memphis and undergo hypnosis in an effort to sharpen his memory. When he did so in early 1993, he confirmed his story.

Another Tayloe employee, Franklin Ray, also remembered the Mustang being parked in front of the grill. So then, there were four available Tayloe employees and statements by two others who said they saw a white Mustang parked in front of the grill, at the same time that the state and other independent witnesses (McCraw and the Hurleys) confirmed that a similar white Mustang was parked in front of Canipe's. The facts pointed to the presence of two identical white Mustangs, parked within seventy-five to one hundred feet of each other, around the time of the shooting. Here was another "coincidence" for the prosecution to address.

Image
CHART 4: Diagram depicting the lineup of cars in the rooming house area of South Main Street at 5:30 P.M. on April 4.

Yet another coincidence was the hoax CB radio broadcast on the evening of the assassination. On Saturday morning, October 24, 1992 I met Carroll Satchfield who had legally changed his name to Carroll Carroll. On April 4, while in his electronics and communications shop on Union Avenue near Cooper, he had turned on channel seventeen of his CB radio and heard "We are now at the corner of Summer and East Parkway." It was, he thought, a police chase, and as he listened he noticed that although the broadcast was reporting the cars going ever farther away from him, the signal remained constant throughout the thirty-five-minute broadcast, as though coming from a fixed location. "Phoney," he thought -- a practical joke.

Eventually he learned that he was listening to the voice of a hoaxer whose account was being picked up by William Austein, who had flagged down MPD car number 160, driven by officer Rufus Bradshaw. Austein proceeded to relay the account of the "chase" to officer Bradshaw, who in turn passed it on verbatim to MPD dispatcher Willie Tucker.

I knew that if we could develop the details surrounding this event -- which diverted all police attention immediately after the shooting to the northern end of the city, away from the scene of the crime and the logical escape route to the south combined with the MPD's failure to follow their standard emergency procedures (no all points bulletin or Signal Y). I might be able to convince the jury it was one more indication of a conspiracy.

***

THE NEXT DAY, October 25, I had my first opportunity to examine the physical evidence in clerk Minerva Johnican's criminal court clerk's office. Certain key items of evidence were not as described.

The bullets found in the bundle, which were described in the clerk's inventory as having been test-fired, were clearly never fired. The casings of the unfired bullets were sliced, and thus it was obvious to me that neutron activation or other trace element analysis tests had been performed on them, which was consistent with the HSCA forensic report that the FBI conducted such an examination back in 1968. In that test a sample of lead would have been taken from each bullet to compare with lead from the death slug to determine whether the bullets and the death slug came from the same batch. If they did, this would mean that the bullets in the evidence bundle (which contained other personal items belonging to Ray) likely had been bought at the same time and place as the actual death slug itself.

Yet there was no report of the results to be found anywhere. Neither was there any mention of the test, nor any report in the attorney general's files. What happened to the report? Other forensic test reports were turned over to the attorney general. Why not this one?

A number of maps had been found among James's belongings recovered in Atlanta, either in the Mustang or in his room at the Garner rooming house. He had obviously acquired them as he entered a new state or city. As James told us was his practice, he had made markings on virtually every one of them, including the Atlanta map. However, the markings on the Atlanta map seemed to have little bearing on Dr. King's home or church, focusing primarily on the 14th Street area near the rooming house.

Cigarette butts and ashes collected by the FBI from the Mustang after it was found in the Capitol Homes parking lot in Atlanta were missing. James didn't smoke, so the presence of cigarette butts pointed to someone else having been in the car at some time. Eyewitness reports in the attorney general's file taken at the time the abandoned white Mustang was found in Atlanta described the ashtray as overflowing, yet the evidence from the Mustang contained only one butt and a minuscule amount of ash.

I asked Johnican to raise the question of the tampered-with and missing evidence with the attorney general. The deliberate or negligent destruction of the evidence had most likely occurred before Johnican took office, and I hoped that she might raise the issue of her predecessor's custodial responsibility. I also hoped she would consider undertaking some forensic tests on her own account and authority, but such was not to be.

I interviewed fireman William B. King. He remembered being in the back of fire station 2 looking out of the window in the door when the shot was fired. Dr. King was standing straight up, he said, though he had been bent over a few seconds earlier. He said that fireman Charles Stone was lying on top of the lockers looking out the window at the moment of the shooting. William King believed that only he and Stone actually saw the shooting. He recalled MPD detective Redditt leaving earlier. After the shot, William King called his wife and went outside to the rear of the firehouse and looked over toward the brush area behind the rooming house which was about one hundred feet north of where he was standing. He said that he noticed freshly cut white wood.

As mentioned earlier, the terrain of the rooming house backyard sloped slightly downward toward the wall. The eastern area, closest to the wall, was engulfed with a mixture of untamed mulberry bushes and small trees. Most of the small trees were between ten and fifteen feet tall, but at least one extended to a height of about twenty-five feet, and there was one sycamore tree which was much taller. The thicket of mulberry bushes extended for some distance from the wall back into the yard, eventually giving way to high grass and weeds.

He added that, at the time, the FBI and the attorney general's office told him not to discuss what he had seen with anyone. He was never questioned by the HSCA, and no defense counselor investigator had talked to him in the intervening years.

William King said that a few days later he walked down Mulberry Street to the Lorraine driveway and confirmed that the freshly cut wood was still there. How would the prosecution explain this? I believed William King may have been talking about a sizable branch, which I recalled seeing depicted in various photographs over the years and more recently in an 8" X 10" glossy in the attorney general's file. (See photograph #13.)

Whether cut before or after the shooting, in its original upright position the branch could have come between the bathroom window of the rooming house and the balcony on which Dr. King was standing when he was shot. (Even from the official photographs we examined, there is serious question as to whether a clear shot existed.) William King would take the stand.

Retired fire lieutenant George Loenneke also told me how he had seen Dr. King at the moment he was shot. He said that Richmond had been away from the window at the time and that he, Loenneke, had raised the alarm.

Loenneke then surprised me. He said that some days after the shooting, he talked with a sales girl who worked on the ground floor in Seabrook's offices directly opposite the rooming house. She told him that around 5:30 on the afternoon of the shooting she saw a man pull up in a white Mustang and park it just south of Canipe's. She observed the man leave the car soon after and go upstairs, entering the rooming house through the northernmost door adjacent to Jim's Grill. She was certain that the man was not James Earl Ray. Loenneke didn't know the girl's name. Could she be found? If so there might be further evidence not only of the second Mustang but of another person (apparently the same person seen by the Hurleys) driving and parking it just south of Canipe's.

Fireman Charles Stone was in the rear of fire station 2 at the time of the shooting. He was on top of the lockers, looking out through the small windows located between the lockers and the ceiling. Only he and William King actually saw Dr. King hit by the bullet, he said. George Loenneke was "messing about with his locker" and probably didn't see anything.

On October 29, Ken Herman and I went to Central Church, where Rev. James Latimer was pastor. I had wanted to meet with him for some time, having heard years earlier about his strange visitor a week after the killing who supposedly needed "spiritual guidance" in the matter of the King killing or he would "commit suicide." Latimer confirmed the account Russell Thompson had given me of the incident and said that he had told his story to Inspector N. E. Zachary of the MPD, and to the FBI. They promised to "check it out." He heard nothing. In August he was visited by two men who showed him credentials and emphasized that they were from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI), not the FBI. They showed him photographs that closely resembled the man who visited him, but that was the last Latimer heard about it. I showed him a mug shot of jack Young blood and he said that this did not appear to be the man. Subsequently I visited him with Wayne Chastain and showed him a proper photograph of Youngblood and he hesitated but still could not positively identify him. Wayne reminded him that he had previously identified Youngblood closer to the time. Latimer shrugged and said, "It's been twenty-five years."

No one familiar with TBI procedures could explain the TBI involvement. They wouldn't usually become involved in a Shelby County/Memphis investigation, being used as a rule in smaller towns without the facilities available in Shelby County.

***

I INTERVIEWED RETIRED NEW YORK CITY POLICEMAN LEON COHEN, who was a private investigator in Memphis in 1968. In the course of his work he had befriended the owner of the Lorraine, Walter Bailey. On April 5, he saw Bailey at the Lorraine and found him deeply distressed. His wife had suffered a stroke immediately after the shooting of Dr. King and was near death in St. Joseph's Hospital.

Bailey told Cohen that he had arranged for Dr. King to be placed in room 202 on the ground floor when a call from Atlanta came through with a request that he be moved to room 306. Bailey protested, maintaining that the ground- floor room facing an inner courtyard was more secure, but the caller insisted on the change.

Cohen's conversation with Walter Bailey substantiated Olivia Hayes's recollection that Dr. King was to have been housed on the ground floor and then was moved. However, it differed from Wayne Chastain's account of a conversation with Bailey in 1970 or 1971 when Bailey told him that his wife had been visited by a dark-skinned advance man with an Indian appearance who insisted on the change.

Why the different stories? Since Walter Bailey has been dead for a number of years, it is only possible to speculate. If an advance man actually organized the switch, Mrs. Bailey would have realized what role she had unwittingly played at the time of the shooting. It would have been natural at the time for her husband to try to protect her by mentioning a call. Another explanation, of course, is that later on Bailey may have shifted the blame from himself at a time when he couldn't be contradicted. This occurred to me sometime later, when William Ross, who used to drive Walter Bailey, told me that at one point Bailey told him that he regarded his wife's death as a sort of sacrifice, explaining that he had come to associate her death with Dr. King's own passing. He said Dr. King had to die be- cause he was taking on forces, including government, he couldn't overcome. If he hadn't been killed in Memphis at the Lorraine on April 4, 1968, it would have been somewhere else and some other time. But it was a pity, Bailey said, that his wife became so closely involved.

When I later interviewed the Baileys' daughter, Carolyn Champion, and her husband, they were adamant that Mrs. Bailey had been declared in excellent health by their family doctor around the time of the stroke. They were convinced that for some reason she had taken a measure of personal responsibility for the assassination. They didn't know why.

***

WE WERE UNABLE TO FIND WILLIE GREEN, the black service station attendant who might have seen James around 6:00 on April 4 when, as James claimed, he had gone to a gas station to get a spare tire repaired. This was supported by an FBI report on the examination of the Mustang that confirmed the spare tire was indeed flat. Memphis investigator Cliff Dates eventually convinced us that Green was dead.

Around this time I became immersed in the mysteries surrounding the work and death of William Sartor. As mentioned earlier, Sartor became deeply involved with the case after following up on John McFerren's story. Until his death he increasingly believed organized crime was involved in the murder -- in particular the Carlos Marcello organization in New Orleans. He spent considerable time in New Orleans meeting with Marcello contacts, including the man's nephew, Little Joe.

In 1971, suddenly and unexpectedly, Bill Sartor died, ostensibly from an overdose, though he wasn't a drug user. Dale Dougherty, who had been a boyhood friend of Sartor, and Bill Sartor's mother had long considered the death suspicious. The night before he died, he told Dougherty that someone had agreed to talk to him in Memphis, and he was looking forward to the meeting. In recent days he had been acting fearfully, often sitting in his mother's home watching the road with a shotgun at the ready. But that last evening when he stopped off where she worked, he was in good spirits. He told her that he was going to stop at the Hickory Stick bar for a couple of drinks and then go to bed. He asked her to wake him early. She couldn't rouse him the next morning. He was rushed to the hospital but never regained consciousness.

She had never been able to obtain a postmortem report. The death certificate stated the cause was undetermined. Try as she might, no one would cooperate. Even her family physician, after making a few phone calls, told her to leave it alone.

There it rested until I spoke with Dougherty, who had become the trustee of Bill Sartor's notes and manuscript, a copy of which had been provided to the HSCA. I began to explore what appeared to be the more relevant of Sartor's leads. He noted that produce man Frank Liberto flew to Detroit the night that James Earl Ray was extradited from London. He learned this following a telephone conversation between Sartor's girlfriend (and future wife) who placed the call, and Liberto's partner, James Latch, who told her that since Ray was being brought back that night Frank would be nowhere around. I found this interesting because it showed apprehension on Liberto's part and also revealed that he had some family or contacts in Detroit, a city near the Canadian border. I also agreed to help Dougherty and Mrs. Sartor get some answers about Sartor's death. Dougherty, in turn, agreed to come to Memphis and attempt to interview one Pat Lyons, a former friend of Sartor's wife, who had assisted them in their work on the case.

Pat Lyons was one of the last persons to speak with Bill Sartor, who had called him from Waco the evening before his death about his visit to Memphis. When Dougherty went to Memphis in November, Lyons flat-out refused to speak with him. Later one of our local investigators surveilled the house in which Lyons lived with his mother, which appeared to be permanently sealed, with all the windows closed and the blinds drawn.

This man was frightened. Sartor had written that at one point in 1969-1970 a local hood held a knife to Lyons's throat and told him that he was under instructions to kill him. The order, according to Sartor, resulted from Lyons's help in his King investigation. Lyons told Sartor the order came from an associate of Frank C. Liberto, and he was only able to get out of the immediate danger by pleading with his assailant to put him on the phone with Liberto's associate or even Frank Liberto himself and then convincing him that he was not helping Sartor but just trying to find out what he knew so that he could relay the information.

By 1992 Liberto had been dead for fourteen years. Yet Lyons was still terrified.

Meanwhile Dougherty worked at full speed in his effort to get an autopsy report on Sartor. He enlisted the assistance of the Waco district attorney, Ken Abels, and one of his investigators, J. C. Rappe.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN

Postby admin » Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:32 am

Chapter 20: Corroboration and New Evidence: November 1992

I INTERVIEWED PHOTOGRAPHER JOHN "BILL" McAFEE, who in 1968 was covering Dr. King's involvement with the garbage strike on network assignments. McAfee set up his camera at the Lorraine just before noon on April 4, noticing as he arrived MPD chief J. C. MacDonald "lurking" around the Butler Street driveway entrance of the Lorraine, walkie-talkie in hand. He recognized MacDonald, having photographed him many times, and he was surprised to see him since the chief rarely left his office.

McAfee left the Lorraine at around 5:00 to drive the reporter he was working with to the airport. Waiting for him at home there was a message from ABC assigning him to cover the immediate aftermath of the assassination. He bolted out the door and drove back to the South Main Street area, stopping briefly to pick up a sound man and some equipment at his brother's audio shop on Second Street, one block from Mulberry Street.

As he entered the shop he heard the local AM station actually being overridden by a powerful CB broadcast. He realized that in order for this to occur the CB broadcast must have been transmitting from a base in the immediate area. What he heard was the hoax broadcast, and this was the first time there had been any indication that it might have originated from the immediate vicinity of the shooting.

I subsequently called Carroll Carroll, who confirmed that for a CB transmission to override an AM signal it had to originate close to the receiving set. Thus the possibility that the broadcast was a prank carried off by a CB hoaxer in a distant part of the city, as had been concluded by the MPD, made no sense.

McAfee was willing to testify.

***

IN LATE OCTOBER AND EARLY NOVEMBER, with the help of Sarah Teale of Teale Productions, I visited CBS, NBC, and ABC studios in New York to view all the available library film taken at that time. I was most interested in Earl Wells's NBC interview with gas station attendant Willie Green, as well as in locating photographs of the bush area behind the rooming house before it was cut.

Ernest Withers, a black Memphis photographer, also agreed to provide contact sheets of photographs of the scene at the time. In addition. he agreed to attempt to identify and locate a black woman who was a senior at LeMoyne College in the spring of 1968 who was referred to in Hugh Stanton's investigation notes as allegedly seeing a man (possibly, I thought, the same person described by Solomon Jones) leaving the scene right after the shooting. The young woman apparently screamed at the police to go after the man.

Neither Teale nor Withers was able to produce any clear photographs of the bushes taken on the day of the shooting, nor was Withers able to locate the LeMoyne student. I also tried to find Mary Hunt who was in the Joseph Louw photograph of the people on the balcony pointing in the direction of the back of the rooming house. She appeared to be focusing her gaze on some point further to her left (south) than the others. I eventually discovered that she had died of cancer.

One of our priorities was to gain a conclusive understanding of what happened to the backyard area of the rooming house. By 1992 the area was vastly different from the way it was in 1968. Then, the common backyard area of the connected wings of the rooming house led to a four-foot-wide alley running to a door that led down to the basement and, from the inside landing to the right, into Jim's Grill.

The backyard sloped slightly downward toward a high wall (about 7'6"-8') rising from the Mulberry Street sidewalk. As mentioned previously, the area closest to the wall was engulfed with a thicket of untamed mulberry bushes, small trees of up to twenty-five feet in height, untended grass and weeds, and a tall sycamore tree. The thick bushes extended for some distance from the wall back into the yard.

We needed to interview as many people as we could who remembered the yard at the time. Wayne Chastain had gone up to the second floor of the rooming house on April 4 shortly after the shooting to get a view of the bushes and the backyard. He said he looked through the Stephens's kitchen window and saw a very thick growth of bushes and brush.

Press Scimitar reporter Kay Black repeated what she had told me in 1978 about the telephone call she received on April 5 from former mayor William Ingram, in which he said that there was a work crew behind the rooming house cutting down all the bushes and high brush and grass in the area. Ingram appeared to be suspicious of the purpose behind this activity.

Later that morning, Black went over to the area and saw that the cutting and clearing had been completed. The bushes were gone, the brush was removed and debris was neatly raked and stacked in piles. No satisfactory reason was ever given to her, although there was some mention of a concern that tourists not be offended. Black agreed to testify. (SCLC field organizer James Orange had noticed the bushes at the time of the shooting and that they were gone the next morning. I made a mental note to contact him.)

Cab driver James McCraw, who was familiar with the area and went out there occasionally through the rear door of the grill, said it was completely overgrown and never cared for or tended at all. While not knowing the exact time, McCraw did recall that the area was cut and cleaned by the city shortly after the shooting.

Former MPD captain (lieutenant in 1968) Tommy Smith who had refused for a very long time to be interviewed, finally agreed. In our 1992 meeting he vividly remembered the state of overgrowth in the rooming house backyard. He described a "thicket" of mulberry bushes, which impeded him considerably as he attempted to gain access on the evening of the shooting.

As to the presence of a person in the bushes, Earl Caldwell agreed to testify at the trial. I believed that the defense had found in him the strongest available witness that the shot had come from the brush area behind the rooming house. We were still looking for Solomon J ones, who had been away from Memphis for a number of years. It was rumored that he was in Atlanta, and since he had previously worked for funeral homes we began to check out the funeral homes there.

***

HAVING LEARNED ABOUT THE FOOTPRINTS near the top of the alleyway between the two buildings and that three patrolmen had been in that area shortly after the shooting, I had been trying to locate the only one who was still alive -- dog officer J. B. Hodges. He had long ago moved from Memphis out into the country. Since he had been in that area immediately after the shooting, I believed that if we could find him he would be able to give us a good description.

In addition, I wanted to locate Maynard Stiles, who had been deputy director of the Memphis City Public Works Department in 1968. Since he was in charge of day-to-day operations it was likely that he would have been responsible for giving the orders for any cutting and cleanup activity.

***

IT HAD OFTEN BEEN RUMORED that a tree branch was cut some time shortly before April 4. Jim Reid, the former Memphis Press Scimitar reporter/photographer who had told me fourteen years earlier that he had taken a picture of the cutting, was still unable to come up with the photograph.

After many attempts, on November 30 I caught up with Captain Ed Atkinson, who in 1968 had been a staff assistant to Memphis fire and police director Frank Holloman. I thought that he might have seen or had access to some significant documentation. He didn't, but he remembered being present in the aftermath of the killing at a discussion in police headquarters with two other officers. One of the officers said that he was present with two FBI agents at the bathroom window at the rear of the rooming house after the killing; one of the agents said that a tree branch would have to be cut, because no one would ever believe that a shooter could make the shot from that point with the tree in the way. The branch was cut down the next day. Atkinson didn't remember who the officers were.

Weeks later, Atkinson underwent hypnosis to enhance his memory. For some time he described two featureless faces, though he said one of the voices sounded familiar. Slowly he began to recognize the owner of the familiar voice and he identified him as Earl Clark (an MPD captain). Then he discerned that the other officer who was recounting the conversation he had witnessed was a sergeant. He wasn't able to identify him, though he described him as wearing thick-rimmed glasses, and having a moustache.

***

EVEN THOUGH JAMES NEVER DENIED BUYING THE GUN found in the bundle in front of Canipe's, we obviously needed to learn as much as possible about that purchase.

When Ken Herman interviewed Aeromarine Supply store manager Donald Wood in his Birmingham store, Mr. Wood more or less repeated his statements to the HSCA, saying that the buyer, whom he photo-identified as James Earl Ray, knew nothing about guns. He added that the buyer said he was going deer hunting in Wisconsin with his brother-in-law. Then, curiously enough, he volunteered that he had always believed that one of his customers, a Dr. Gus Prosch, was somehow involved in the killing. He said that Prosch had bought a lot of guns from him, was involved with gun dealings, and had also been involved in racial problems. When, months later, I interviewed Wood he confirmed his earlier statement to my investigator. Prosch's name had surfaced on the periphery of the case before, in the affidavit of Morris Davis. We knew that for some reason his fingerprints had been compared by the FBI with some of the unidentified prints in this case with no success. Prosch had rebuffed Herman's earlier attempt to interview him. Subsequently, I extensively interviewed Prosch, alone and in Morris Davis's presence. He categorically denied any involvement.

I also instructed Herman to try to confirm James's movements between March and April 1, 1968, since I believed that the prosecution was going to contend that he had stalked Dr. King in Atlanta during that time. The motels James said he had stayed in on his trip from Birmingham to Memphis either no longer existed or had long ago discarded their records. We met similar frustration in Atlanta where potential witnesses were either dead or missing.

Jim Kellum, a local investigator, had at my request developed a file on topless-club owner Art Baldwin, who had been named by inmate Tim Kirk as the person who put out the contract on James in June or July 1978. Kellum's documents independently confirmed Baldwin's connections with organized crime through mob leader Frank Colacurcio in Seattle and Carlos Marcello in New Orleans, as well as his role as an informant and witness for the federal government against Tennessee governor Ray Blanton and members of his staff.

Kellum, however, had no success in arranging access to produce man Frank Liberto's mistress, or in pinpointing information about his organized crime associates referred to by writer William Sartor.

Then suddenly, on November 17, 1992, Kellum asked to be released of any further work, saying some of his contacts weren't taking kindly to the thrust of my investigation. I understood. I discreetly approached private investigator Gene Barksdale, who had been close to the Liberto clan, for information on Frank Liberto's activities. I pressed him to talk to Liberto's mistress and for information on Liberto's organized crime associates, one of whom, Sam Cacamici, I learned had died. Barksdale told me that some of his old friends in the Liberto family started behaving strangely when he approached them on these issues. He also got no cooperation from the mistress in his initial efforts.

The investigation of the Liberto connections to the killing was complicated by the fact that in 1968 there were no fewer than three Frank Libertos in Memphis alone, each with extended family connections in New Orleans. The first Frank Liberto (Frank Camille Liberto), the primary target of the investigation, was the produce dealer overheard by john McFerren who died in 1978. The second Frank Liberto had also been dead for over ten years. In 1968 he owned Frank's liquor store and the Green Beetle Tavern on South Main Street, just up the block from Jim's Grill. The third and probably wealthiest Frank Liberto was over 80 in 1992. Barksdale told me that despite his age he was still active in his automobile business. So in 1968 we had no fewer than three Frank Libertos with some, as yet unclear, family relationship. There was also another member of the Liberto family, apparently related to Frank C. Liberto, who owned and ran a business a short distance from the Lorraine.

John McFerren told me about Ezell Smith, who worked for this business and around the time of the assassination saw a rifle being put together there. McFerren said Ezell learned later that this was the gun used to kill Martin Luther King.

As noted earlier, in 1978 I had somehow acquired a photograph of a building with a note along the top margin indicating that a building within blocks of the scene of the crime owned by a relative of an organized crime figure, was where the rifle bought by Ray was stored until April 4, 1968.

Ken Herman photographed the building where Ezell had worked. It was the same building as in the photograph sent to me. I saw this as the first crack in the silence that kept closed the involvement of local organized crime in the killing. We looked for Ezell, without success. The frustration of not being able to capitalize on such a tip was overwhelming.

***

WE NEXT SOUGHT OUT Emmett Douglass, the policeman whose car the MPD report states spooked James as he allegedly fled. The MPD report concluded that he entered the sidewalk looking south on South Main Street and saw Douglass's "emergency cruiser" parked near the sidewalk at the north front side of the fire station. At that point he supposedly panicked, throwing the bundle down in Canipe's recessed doorway before driving away in the Mustang parked nearby.

The HSCA report hedged. It stated that James probably saw the Douglass cruiser that was parked "adjacent" to the station and pulled up to the sidewalk (a physical impossibility since the front of the station was set back about sixty feet from the sidewalk) or possibly saw policemen exiting from the fire station.

A TACT 10 cruiser driven by Emmett Douglass was indeed parked at the north side of the fire station but not near the sidewalk. Douglass was sitting in the station wagon monitoring the radio during the break that afternoon, while the other members of his unit were in the fire station.

On a chilly late November evening, Captain Douglass went with me to the fire station and showed me exactly where he was parked late in the afternoon of April 4, 1968. He insisted that he was not parked up to the sidewalk but was directly in front of the northwest side door of the station about sixty feet back from the sidewalk of South Main Street. (See Chart 5, p. 215.) In 1968, a set of billboards with frames that extended from the ground to a considerable height were located on the north side of the parking lot, right next to the rooming house building. These structures would have blocked the view of anyone looking toward his position from that spot.

It was rumored that there had also been a hedge that ran between the edge of the fire station driveway and the parking lot next door extending out to the sidewalk, which would have impeded the view of anyone looking from the sidewalk near Canipe's to the spot where the MPD alleged that Douglass's car was parked. If the rumors were true that the hedge had been cut down soon after the shooting, it could have been done to bolster the MPD claim that James was frightened upon seeing the police wagon parked near the sidewalk.

Douglass told me that he never told the MPD or the FBI that he was parked up near the sidewalk; it would have made no sense for him to park up where he would have obstructed both pedestrian and incoming vehicular traffic. By parking farther back alongside the building and opposite the door, he was out of the way yet readily accessible to his TACT unit fellow officers in the event of an emergency.

Image
CHART 5: THE SCENE OF THE ASSASSINATION

After the shot, Douglass got out of the car and began to run toward the rear of the station, but, remembering his radio duty, he returned to the car and called in to headquarters. Others had exited the station through the northeast side door and went over the low fence and wall. Douglass remembered two officers, one with a gun drawn, running from the front of the station, crossing his line of vision about sixty feet in front of him within a minute of the shooting. If he had been parked up near the sidewalk, they would have passed very close to the front of his car. They were nowhere near him.

Douglass agreed to testify.

***

FORMER FBI AGENT ARTHUR MURTAGH, who had testified before the HSCA as to the bureau's extensive COINTELPRO activities against Dr. King, agreed to take the stand. His profound disillusionment over the bureau's disregard for the Constitution and his first-hand knowledge of the bureau's illegal activities against Dr. King made Murtagh an invaluable asset to the defense.

***

WHEN I HAD BEGUN MY EXAMINATION OF THE FILES in the attorney general's office in the Criminal Justice Center Building, Investigator Jim Smith was assigned to assist me. He had a long-term interest in the case, and his assistance proved to be of immeasurable value. Gradually, Smith began to talk about his experiences in 1968.

As a young policeman, he attended a clandestine training course run in Memphis. It covered such activities as riot control and physical and electronic surveillance techniques. The sessions began in late 1967 and were conducted in strict secrecy by federal trainers paid by one or another federal agency. None of the Memphis participants understood why the training was necessary, because Memphis had never experienced the type of riots seen in other cities. The events of early 1968, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, caused some of those select Memphis policemen to rethink their reactions at the time. Perhaps Holloman knew something that they didn't. Some of this training was conducted in secret facilities, the location of which was not even known by the participants, who were picked up at police headquarters and driven in a van (from which it was not possible to see outside) directly inside the training facility somewhere in Memphis. The Memphis officers couldn't understand the reason for the cloak and dagger behavior. It occurred to me that these were typical of the training sessions mentioned earlier that the CIA conducted during this period for selected city and county police forces. Such sessions were coordinated by its Office of Security (OS), often in conjunction with the FBI and army intelligence which had similar programs.

Smith also told me of a shadowy federal contract agent who was assigned to run some of these sessions. Cooper, who went by the name of Coop, arrived in January 1968. Jim thought it strange that, unlike the other trainers, Coop didn't stay at an up-market hotel but rather at the Ambassador Hotel on South Main Street, in the area of Jim's Grill. He remembered meeting Coop at Jim's Grill, in the Arcade Restaurant, and at the Green Beetle. When Smith asked why he "hung out" in such places, Coop replied that this was where he had to go to get information he needed. Coop drew detailed maps of the area, and told Smith that he was with army intelligence before he became an FBI agent. He had been dismissed because of a drinking problem, and he seemed to drift into this contract work. It occurred to Smith that Coop was really on some sort of intelligence gathering mission and that the training activity was a cover.

Coop dropped out of sight just before the assassination. Smith never saw him again.

Since there was considerable confusion about where Dr. King stayed in his previous trips to Memphis, I asked Jim Smith what he knew. He knew that on at least one occasion -- the evening of March 18, 1968 -- Dr. King stayed at the Rivermont. Smith knew this because he was assisting a surveillance monitoring team. The unit operated with the collaboration of the hote,1 and placed microphones throughout the suite. The conversations in Dr. King's penthouse suite were monitored from a van parked across the street from the hotel. Since Smith hadn't placed the devices he didn't know exactly where they were. Another source -- who must remain nameless -- described the layout to me. Every room in Dr. King's suite was bugged, even the bathroom. My source said they had microphones in the elevators, under the table where he ate his breakfast, in the conference room next to his suite, and in all the rooms of his entourage. Even the balcony was covered by a parabolic mike mounted on top of the van. That mike was designed to pick up conversations without including a lot of extraneous noise because it used microwaves that allowed it to zero in on conversations.

The surveillance team had about a dozen microphones -- "bugs" -- each transmitting on a different frequency, which prevented feedback. The multiple bugs enhanced the recording by providing a stereo effect, which was a trick allegedly learned from the movie industry. There was a repeater transmitter mounted on top of the hotel, which picked up each transmission and relayed it to one of the voice-activated recorders in the van. The recorders were all labeled according to where their respective bugs were located, and a light on the control panel came on when activity was being recorded from a particular bug. The person monitoring listened to it for a moment to decide whether something was being said that needed to be reported immediately. If it didn't seem urgent, it was simply recorded and at the end of the shift it was sent to the office to be transcribed and filed for future reference.

The surveillance detection equipment generally available wasn't sophisticated enough to pick up the bugs used, because they emitted a very weak signal. In fact, they transmitted the signal only about forty or fifty feet, to the rooftop repeater. My source said that there was nothing on the market at that time that would allow them to pick up such a weak signal.

The source said the repeater on the roof picked up the weak signal and amplified it many times before transmitting it to the van. Since the bugs could transmit about fifty feet and the ceilings in King's suite were about eight feet high with the repeater directly above them, there was forty feet or so to spare.

If Dr. King hadn't been on the top floor, the repeater would have been placed in the room directly above him or in one of the rooms on either side of his room.

I was advised that this surveillance effort wasn't undertaken to learn about Dr. King's strategies. The intelligence operation was mounted to catch him in sexually compromising situations which could be exploited at the right time.

At the time of the surveillance Jim Smith was detailed to special services and assigned to the MPD intelligence bureau. He said he actually acted as a gofer for the two federal agents who ran the surveillance and manned the headphones. They told him that they were instructed to obtain any incriminating information they could about Dr. King's personal activities, plans, and movements. They operated from a van parked near the hotel. This confirmed what I had suspected for years.

Dr. King also stayed at the Rivermont on the night of March 28, just after the march. As mentioned earlier, he was routed there by the MPD, led by motorcycle lieutenant Marion Nichols, who also arranged for his suite. Although Smith wasn't detailed to the surveillance team on that evening, it is reasonable to assume that the same surveillance program was in effect.

Smith, of course, was aware that the bureau had electronically surveilled Dr. King all over the country, and he quite rightly believed that these activities were no longer a secret. He may not have appreciated that the bureau had always denied there had been any electronic surveillance in Memphis. Illegal electronic surveillance conducted so close to the time of the assassination wasn't an operation with which the bureau would want to be associated. At the time Smith and I assumed that the surveillance was being conducted by the FBI, because the operation appeared to have their "M.O." stamped all over it.

I now understood why Dr. King was routed to the Rivermont on March 28 (where he had no reservation) instead of the Peabody (where he was supposed to stay that evening). The change had never made sense to me because the Peabody was sufficiently removed from the violence and was accessible. Lt. Marion Nichols wasn't available for an interview at any time before the trial. When interviewed subsequently he denied any personal or departmental responsibility for the decision to go to the Rivermont, stating that it was a decision made by someone in Dr. King's party.

After checking with his chief, Fred Wall, who had no idea what he would say but told him to go ahead and just tell the truth, Jim Smith agreed to testify.

Smith also recalled the outbreak of violence in the march of March 28 when he was part of a phalanx of police officers stretching across South Main Street at McCall as the marchers came up Beale Street. He said that he and his fellow officers were told not to break ranks even though some isolated individuals between them and the main line of the march began to break windows.

The violent disruption of that march was of interest because there were indications that provocateurs were present. This was the only violent march ever led by Dr. King, the violence coming apparently from within the group itself. It necessitated his return to Memphis on April 3, when he was moved to a highly visible accommodation in a most vulnerable motel where he wouldn't normally have stayed.

Rev. Jim Lawson's recollections dovetailed with Jim Smith's. He remembered leading the marchers up Beale Street and out to Main, where they were confronted by riot police. This was ominous in itself to those committed to a peaceful march, but then Lawson saw a group of youths on the sidewalk in the area between the marchers and the police. He knew the Invaders and most of the other young black activists but did not recognize any of these youths as being from Memphis. They had begun to break shop windows, yet the police remained impassively in place, just watching.

Lawson knew then that the police were going to use the gang activity as a justification to turn on the marchers. He stopped the march and tried to turn the line around, worried as much about Dr. King's safety as anything else. King didn't want to leave but eventually let himself be spirited away by Bernard Lee and Ralph Abernathy.

On another tack Jim Lawson agreed to travel to Washington to speak with Walter Fauntroy, intending to explore the entire HSCA investigation with him, and assess his willingness to help. Lawson and I agreed to meet in Memphis in late December.

***

THE DEFENSE HAD TO BE CONCERNED about the statement of the prosecution's only eyewitness. Under our rules of procedure, in Stephens's absence his official statement could be read into the record. His drunkenness wouldn't be evident in a statement taken after the event. He would have to be impeached.

I saw Grace Walden, Stephens's common-law wife, on November 29 at the convalescent home where she now lived. She again confirmed that Charlie Stephens was drunk on the afternoon of April 4 and that he didn't see anything. This corroborated information already gathered through interviews with Wayne Chastain, MPD captain Jewell Ray and homicide detective Roy Davis and his partner, lieutenant Tommy Smith. Captain Ray had gone into the rooming house before 6:30 p.m. He was unable to interview Charlie Stephens because he was so drunk. Detective Davis tried to interview Stephens that evening too but also found he was simply too drunk, and lieuten ant Smith confirmed that he had tried to interview Stephens on that evening but found him incoherent and barely able to stand up.

Tommy Smith offered another unsettling revelation relating to a photograph I found in the attorney general's file showing a lump just below Dr. King's shoulder blade. It appeared to be where the death slug had come to rest just under the skin (see photograph # 16.) Smith confirmed that fact and said that he pinched the skin and rolled what appeared to him to be an intact slug beneath his fingers. He said that at the time he was certain they had a good evidentiary bullet.

The death slug in the clerk's office was in three fragments and the official story that had evolved was that it had always been in three fragments. However, in the HSCA volumes there was a photograph of the slug, apparently taken at the time of removal by Dr. Francisco, showing it to be in one piece at that point. Francisco's report referred to a single slug.

* * *

WHEN I INTERVIEWED CAPTAIN JEWELL RAY I told him that I had noticed in one report that he had met with an army intelligence officer named Bray on the evening of the murder. He confirmed the meeting. He said that Bray was the liaison with the Tennessee National Guard.

Jewell Ray was Lt. E. H. Arkin's superior in the MPD intelligence bureau. He said that Arkin was so close to the FBI that he (Jewell) locked his desk drawer to prevent documents from being routinely turned over to Bill Lawrence of the local FBI field office. Captain Ray resented the FBI's practice of taking everything and giving little or nothing in return. Arkin wouldn't agree to be interviewed before the trial.

***

CALVIN BROWN HAD LIVED AT THE LORRAINE after the assassination. I asked Ken Herman to locate him to see if he knew or heard anything during that time about the death of Mrs. Bailey or the killing itself. I eventually interviewed him sitting in Herman's car in front of Brown's house. Brown surprised me by declaring that he had heard that Jowers, the owner of Jim's Grill, did it. He couldn't recall the source of his information.

***

I LOCATED A TELEPHONE REPAIRMAN named Hasel Huckaby who according to a supplement to the MPD report was working near the scene of the crime on April 4. Huckaby said that on April 4 he and his partner, Paul Clay, were assigned to complete some work at Fred P. Gattas's premises on the corner of Huling and South Main Streets. At one point Huckaby noticed a well-dressed though apparently intoxicated person sitting on the steps by a side entrance of Gattas's place on Huling. Parked across the street was a plain dark-blue sedan that Huckaby associated with the man. Huckaby said that the man would occasionally stagger over to him and pass some inane remark. He felt there was something phoney about the person. He was too well-dressed for the neighborhood and his behavior didn't ring true.

The man was still there when Huckaby and Clay left late that afternoon. Huckaby gave a routine statement following the assassination but was puzzled as to why MPD detective J. D. Hamby wanted him to detail each minute of his working assignments for a period of two weeks prior to the day of the assassination. About five years later, he was working on a line in the central headquarters of the police department when he saw Lt. Hamby. On impulse he asked Hamby if he had ever found out who the "drunk" was whom he saw on April 4, 1968. He was told that the man's name was Smith and that he was really an FBI agent under cover. If true, this was the first indication of an FBI presence at the scene prior to the shooting.

Apparently this was information that Huckaby shouldn't have learned -- later he received a package in the mail containing half a burned match, half of a smoked cigarette, and rattles from a rattlesnake. After asking around, he came to believe that this parcel was a threat; a warning for him to keep his mouth shut about what he had learned if he wanted to finish the rest of his life. I found it interesting that none of this information appeared in his MPD statement. Huckaby agreed to testify.


Another person whose name appeared in the MPD report with no apparent significance was Robert Hagerty, who at the time was employed at the Lucky Electric Supply Company on Butler, just behind the Lorraine. During the afternoon of April 4 he noticed a sedan parked diagonally across from his shop just off Butler Street in such a way as to allow anyone inside a clear view of the balcony of the Lorraine Motel. There were two men dressed in civilian clothes sitting in the car, holding walkie-talkies. Hagerty didn't recognize the men as local detectives. The issue of walkie-talkies to MPD officers at that time was very limited. This was another indication that they could have been federal officers.

A second surveillance team, then, seemed to be operating on Butler, so that the Lorraine was literally sandwiched in between the two posts. We had apparently stumbled upon the first indications of a federal surveillance presence in the proximity of the Lorraine within hours of the assassination.

This surveillance presence must be viewed along with five other factors: (1) the removal of security for Dr. King, (2) the removal of Detective Redditt from his surveillance detail, (3) the transfer of firemen Newsom and Wallace, (4) the pullback of the TACT units, particularly TACT 10 and (5) the presence of Chief MacDonald in the area of the Lorraine with a walkie-talkie in hand.

Chief William Crumby had told me in 1988 that a pullback of the TACT units had occurred and that the request came in "the day before." As to who made the request, he said, as noted earlier, "It could have been Kyles." He noted, however, that the emergency vehicles were under the direct command of Inspector Sam Evans. Crumby was willing to testify to what he knew about the pullback. Inspector Sam Evans had died in 1993.

I was astounded to hear for the first time in late 1992 that Dr. King had always been provided with a small personal security force of black homicide detectives when he came to Memphis. Its very existence and function had never been made public or mentioned. The only security unit referred to by the HSCA or otherwise publicly known was the squad of white detectives formed and removed by Inspector Don Smith on the first day of Dr. King's last visit.

It was obviously important to speak with the small cadre of black homicide detectives on the force in 1968. After two interviews with officers who were not on duty on the 4th, Tom Marshall and Wendell Robinson, I met with one who was: Captain Jerry Williams, now retired from the MPD. He described how as a young homicide detective in the 1960s he was given the task by Inspector Don Smith to put together a team of four black plainclothes homicide officers to provide security for Dr. King when he came to Memphis. Such visits were infrequent; King had been in the city only a handful of times before the visits connected with the sanitation workers' strike. The four-man team would apparently remain with Dr. King wherever he went, on a twenty-four-hour detail, staying in the same hotel. Williams recalled organizing a group on two previous occasions when Dr. King was in the city. Jim Lawson subsequently told me that he remembered this group of detectives as sincere and proud of being assigned to guard Dr. King.

I told Williams that for a number of years I had been very interested in where Dr. King stayed on his various visits to Memphis. In light of the FBI-generated criticism of him prior to his decision to stay at the Lorraine on his last visit, I wanted to know whether he had, in fact, ever stayed at that motel before. Williams said that on the previous visits he remembered Dr. King staying at the Rivermont and the Admiral Benbow Inn but didn't recall him ever staying overnight at the Lorraine Motel. He said, however, that he might take a room there to receive local blacks who could visit more comfortably than in the white-owned hotels. (At that time, only a couple of motels didn't exclude blacks.) As Williams spoke, I remembered seeing a photograph taken by Ernest Withers of Dr. King during such a visit standing at the door of room 307.

"I was always troubled that I wasn't instructed to put together the security team for Dr. King's last visit," Williams said. He was certain that no one else had been given the assignment because he had discussed it with various black officers after the killing. When asked whether he ever asked Don Smith why the detail wasn't formed, he smiled and gently said no, that it wasn't something you would do in those days. Back then a black police officer couldn't even arrest a white person. The most he could do was to detain a suspect and call for a white officer to arrive.

Williams had formed the detail at Inspector Smith's request as recently as March 18, when Dr. King came to town to address a strike rally for the first time. On that visit Dr. King stayed in the top floor suite at the Holiday Inn Rivermont Hotel, and Detective Williams and his team posted a man in front of his door and stayed in nearby rooms. Williams believed that a unit was also in place on the evening of March 28, after the march broke up in violence, but he didn't recall who formed it, speculating that it was R. J. Turner, who had since died.

In his testimony before the HSCA, Inspector Smith stated that he had put together a security group that met Dr. King at the airport and followed him to the Lorraine on April 3. This detail consisted entirely of white detectives. They were Lt. George Kelly Davis, Lt. William Schultz, and Detective Ronald B. Howell, joined by Inspector J. S. Gagliano and lieutenants Hamby and Tucker at the Lorraine. Not one of them had any previous history of being assigned to Dr. King, nor would they have been regarded as suitable in terms of relating to the civil rights leader or his purposes. But since information about this previous black security detail had been concealed until now, Smith's white security force was never viewed in its proper context.

The detail was removed at Smith's own request later that same afternoon when he stated that he believed that the King party wasn't cooperating with them. (Jim Lawson and Hosea Williams maintain that there was no lack of cooperation from the King party.)

According to the HSCA report, when Inspector Smith asked for permission to withdraw the detail, chief of detectives William Huston allegedly conferred with Chief MacDonald who gave permission for the withdrawal, though MacDonald maintained that he did not recall the request, or removal. The HSCA also noted that Director Holloman maintained that he knew nothing about these decisions8 and further stated that it "... tried to determine if Dr. King was provided protection by the MPD on earlier trips to Memphis but it could not resolve the question." [9]

This wasn't surprising, since no one from the FBI or the HSCA ever questioned Jerry Williams or any member of the previous security details he pulled together: Elmo Berkley, Melvyn Burgess, Wendell Robinson, Tom Marshall, R. J. Turner, Caro Harris, Ben Whitney, and Emmett J. Winters.

Williams was certain that if his usual team had been in place it could not and would not have been removed as easily as could some other white officers. The prosecution would say it was another coincidence. I regarded the omission of black security officers on Dr. King's last visit as one of the most sinister discoveries yet.

***

I SPENT SIX HOURS WITH MORRIS DAVIS in Birmingham on November 28. As previously mentioned years earlier, I had acquired an affidavit in which Davis contended that he had become aware of a plot to kill Dr. King involving Birmingham medical doctor Gus Prosch, a Frank Liberto, Ralph Abernathy and Fred Shuttlesworth. The HSCA had summarized Davis's allegations in its report, before dismissing them. Though giving little credence to most of his allegations, I was interested to learn what he knew about any involvement of Frank Liberto.

He said that in 1967 and 1968 he frequented the Gulas Lounge in Birmingham. There he became friendly with a Dr. Gus Prosch, who some years later would be convicted for illegal gun dealing and income tax evasion. Prosch introduced him to a man named Frank Liberto.

It soon became clear to me that Davis wasn't talking about any of the three Memphis Frank Libertos we had come across, but another Frank Liberto, whom he described as being dark haired and dark complected, between thirty- five and forty years old, about six feet tall and around 190 pounds. This Liberto allegedly had businesses in both Memphis and New Orleans.

Davis had earlier in the 1960s acted as a paid informant for the Secret Service, in counterfeiting matters, and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). He said he assisted the Birmingham police in their investigation of the bombing of the 16th Avenue Church in which four children died, and they fed him information on various matters which interested him, some of which he would pass on to his federal agency contacts.

Davis maintained that the DEA files showed that one Frank Liberto was part of a major international drug trafficking operation associated with the Luigi Greco family in Montreal and that his operation spread from Corpus Christi, Texas, to Memphis, New Orleans, and Los Angeles, with family contacts in Detroit and Toronto. He said that Liberto was based primarily in New Orleans and had a home on Lake Ponchartrain outside of New Orleans.

Davis said that he had gone to Memphis in 1977-78 at his own expense to investigate the King assassination as part of some informal arrangement with the HSCA. In Memphis he met a Liberto flunky he knew only as Ed. He first saw Ed coming out of Frank's [Frank Liberto's] liquor store at 327 South Main Street. Ed outlined the gunrunning and drug operations of Frank Liberto. He said that guns were smuggled into Latin America over the border near Corpus Christi, Texas, in exchange for cocaine and marijuana. Ed also said that Liberto ran a number of gambling operations in various sections of Memphis.

Ed then took Morris Davis to the Liberto business where Ezell Smith worked. He told Davis that around 7:30 p.m. on March 30 James delivered to those premises the rifle he had purchased earlier that day. It was kept there until the morning of April 4, when it was fired once and the cartridge left in the gun. Its sole purpose was to be a throwdown gun for the cover-up of the killing.

I stiffened. Once again, the same building was being raised. The photograph of that building and its handwritten note flashed in my mind. Had Davis been the source of that photocopy? Subsequently, he was to say that he was not, although there was some similarity in the handwriting. (As mentioned earlier, the building was the one in the photograph which turned out to be the same one also allegedly referred to by Ezell Smith and of course owned by a relative of produce man Frank Liberto.)

Davis said that he confirmed at the Memphis land records office that most of the buildings in the 300 to 400 block of South Main Street -- including the Merchant's Lounge, the liquor store and the Green Beetle -- were owned by Frank Liberto, although a number were in his father's name. His father, according to Davis, was also Frank Liberto (Frank H.), who lived on the Memphis-Arlington Road in a large estate purchased in 1974. Davis knew nothing more about the father. I knew that the person at this address was auto dealer Frank Liberto, who in 1992 was in his eighties. There was no way this Liberto could have been the father of the Frank Liberto who owned the liquor store and the Green Beetle, who in 1992 was dead but would have also been around eighty years old.

Ed said that a person named Jim Bo Stewart handled business for Liberto when he was away. He also confirmed that James was a patsy/decoy and that they meant to kill him after the job was completed. Ed claimed at one point to have been sent inside the prison by Frank Liberto on an arranged drug charge to kill James in 1969.

Davis then went on to say that some details that HSCA investigator Al Hack gave him began to corroborate what he himself had observed in March 1968 as well as what he had learned from Ed and his own DEA sources. Hack told him that he had obtained two phone numbers called by James before he left Puerto Vallarta for Los Angeles, which numbers appeared to be related to the Liberto family.

Davis said that after taking in all of his information, the HSCA buried his story and canceled his testimony on the day before it was scheduled.

There was no way that we could use any of Morris's information without obtaining specific corroboration. Even if the judge would have allowed his testimony, it would have been irresponsible to put this man on the stand. Davis understood and offered his full assistance in seeking corroboration. He suggested that I speak with Robert Long and Oscar Kent, each of whom knew about some aspect of the story. Davis also agreed to let me have his entire set of files on the case.

I couldn't locate Robert Long, and though Oscar Kent was still in the area I wasn't able to catch up with him at this time. I set about attempting to see what could be corroborated.

As for the gambling dens Davis described, S. O. Blackburn, a former MPD officer who had been assigned to investigate illegal gambling operations, later confirmed that there was a good deal of it going on during the time. At least two of the Frank Libertos (produce man and liquor man) and another member of the Liberto family were involved, and one of the gambling dens frequented was the Check Off (formerly the Tremont Cafe) which had been owned at the time by Loyd Jowers.

Ken Herman said that former Birmingham detective Rich Gianetti remembered Davis as a person who sold information and whose accounts were truthful. Gianetti also remembered a Frank Liberto who said he was from New Orleans and who visited the Gulas Lounge and spent money liberally. He said he was a good dresser and his description roughly matched the one Davis gave. When I later spoke with Gianetti, however, he said he only vaguely remembered the name of Frank Liberto.

Davis had maintained that HSCA counsel and staff had visited him at various times and he had provided the names and dates of these visits. Since these men were federal employees, there would be a public record of their expense requests and payments. An analysis of the General Services Administration (GSA) disbursement records for special and select committees obtained by D. C. investigator Kevin Walsh basically confirmed Davis's recollections and notes. It was obvious that the HSCA had devoted a considerable amount of time to Morris Davis. The principal HSCA investigator assigned to Davis was Al Hack. Subsequently I spoke to Hack, who admitted that Davis had appeared to have credibility as an informant for other federal agencies and that he did trade in information but try as they might, they could not confirm Davis's allegations. Hack's partner in the investigation was an Atlanta policeman named Rosie Walker who had since died. I suspected his files on the case might help us and asked our Atlanta private investigator to try to obtain them.

Aside from the Liberto allegations, some of which would be corroborated, Davis's statements about Abernathy, Shuttlesworth, and a range of other people and events, were, for one reason or another, not believable. Whether this was the result of honest mistakes, deliberate fabrication or official disinformation was not clear. Davis stood by his story and said that he recorded a number of his conversations with HSCA staff which would substantiate his claims. I could not listen to them because the equipment required had long ago ceased to be manufactured, though Davis's lawyer undertook to try to find a compatible machine.

***

THE EVIDENCE WE HAD UNEARTHED up until now tied together and strengthened evidence discovered earlier. Some startling contradictions to the official case had developed. There could no longer be any doubt that the chief prosecution witness had been drunk and unable to observe anything. Also it was clear that Chastain's earlier information about there being a change of Dr. King's room at the Lorraine was correct. Somehow he had been mysteriously moved from a secluded, ground-level courtyard room to a highly exposed balcony room. Lorraine employee Olivia Hayes recalled this and then Leon Cohen confirmed it, re- counting his conversation at the time with Walter Bailey, the owner of the Lorraine.

As a result of the observations of Solomon Jones, James Orange, and Earl Caldwell, it now appeared conclusive that the fatal shot was fired from the brush area and not from the bathroom. We had seen evidence of the fresh footprints found in that brush area, which as Kay Black and James Orange alleged fourteen years earlier, was cut down and cleared early the morning after the killing, possibly along with an inconveniently placed tree branch.

A number of suspicious events were confirmed. The only two black firemen had been taken off their posts the night before the killing. These reassignments -- considered along with the removal of black detective Ed Redditt from his surveillance post and the failure of the MPD to form the usual security squad of black detectives for Dr. King -- were ominous. The emergency TACT units were also pulled back, with TACT 10 being moved from the Lorraine to the fire station. Finally, on Butler and Huling streets bordering the Lorraine) there were apparently surveillance details of some federal agency that afternoon.

In addition, for the first time evidence had been uncovered that the CB hoax broadcast, which drew police attention to the northeastern side of the city, had been transmitted from downtown near the scene of the killing.

Former FBI agent Arthur Murtagh personally confirmed a range of harassment and surveillance activity by the bureau against Dr. King, and MPD special services/intelligence bureau officer Jim Smith confirmed that Dr. King's usual suite at the Rivermont was under electronic surveillance by federal agents.

There were increasing indications that members of the Liberto family at least in Memphis and New Orleans, were implicated in the killing. For example, we learned that a rifle connected with the killing -- perhaps the murder weapon -- appeared to have been stored in the premises of a Liberto business only a few blocks from the Lorraine.

Jim's Grill owner Loyd Jowers, whose behavior had always seemed curious, seemed increasingly likely to have played a role. Not only was his involvement rumored locally, but a bailbondsman quoted one of Jowers's waitresses as pointing the finger at her boss. Taxi driver McCraw had earlier claimed that Jowers showed him a rifle he had under the counter in the grill that he contended was the murder weapon.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN

Postby admin » Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:32 am

Chapter 21: Making a Case: December 1992

ON DECEMBER 1, 1992, in St. Louis, Susan Wadsworth, a friend of FBI and HSCA informant Oliver Patterson, who had since died, confirmed her knowledge of his covert, dirty-tricks activities but refused to testify at the television trial for personal reasons. I also spoke with St. Louis television reporter John Auble who confirmed the incident, discussed earlier, where New York Times reporter Tony Marro was sent to a St. Louis hotel to interview Patterson and obtain derogatory information about Mark Lane. Auble, who had filmed the incident, was willing to testify and agreed to provide the footage.

The next day in New York I talked with Bill Schaap of the Institute for Media Analysis. Schaap and his colleague Ellen Ray (no relation to James) had agreed to be our experts on the role and use of the media in this case. I asked them to analyze the media's treatment of Dr. King during his last year, as well as that of James Earl Ray from the time of his identification to his conviction. I thought it was important to reveal that government manipulation of the media was part and parcel of the ongoing conspiracy. I intended to put Bill Schaap on the stand. He had an international reputation on the political use of the mass media and had testified as an expert in the Spycatcher case in Australia, where the British government had attempted to stop publication of former MI-5 agent Peter Wright's book.

***

FOR SOME TIME I'd been interested in finding out whether any foreign intelligence agencies had any information in their archives about the assassination of Dr. King. The previous summer I had traveled to Moscow to meet with ranking KGB officials who had come to treat long-held secrets as a commercial commodity and a source of income. Despite their willingness to search, it appeared that they knew little about the assassination.

On December 4 I flew to Paris to meet with French lawyer (avocat) Marcel Sorrequere and Pierre Marion, the former head of SDECE -- the French equivalent of the CIA. Sorrequere had been personal lawyer to French president Charles DeGualle as well as to SDECE superintendent Ducret, who in 1968 was head of SDECE and had since died. Marion insisted on intense secrecy. He agreed to tap his sources in French and Israeli intelligence. At one point he said to me, "You are in great danger." I realized that he had already concluded that some part of the U.S. intelligence community had been involved in, if not responsible for, the assassination of King. Marion had no reason to overstate himself. Sometime afterward France went through a turbulent change of government. Marion's inside sources became very nervous about discussing anything sensitive. His Israeli sources claimed to have no information.

****

BACK IN MEMPHIS, after many tears and much soul searching, Betty Spates had finally agreed to tell all. In an interview with Ken Herman, she revealed that she had had an affair with Loyd Jowers which began when she first went to work at the grill in 1967 when she was about seventeen years old. She said she only "helped out" and couldn't be formally employed in a place where beer was served because of her age. She also worked part-time across the street at the Seabrook Wallpaper Company. She said that she believed that on the day of the assassination she went to the grill around 5:30 a.m. to help Jowers prepare for the day. As was their custom, she thought that they went to the small storage room at the back of the kitchen, where Jowers kept a cot, and "fooled around." Jowers would sometimes also use the room for a catnap in the afternoon. On other occasions he would go home during his break -- usually around 2:30 p.m. -- or go off to the Tremont Cafe on Calhoun, which he also owned.

That afternoon Spates came over from Seabrook to Jim's Grill several times. She knew that prostitutes had been working in the Huling/Mulberry area and was determined to keep an eye on Loyd. She said that he had been spending a lot of time in the backyard that week and she was worried that he might be two-timing her. Around 2:30 in the afternoon Jowers announced that he was closing up for a while and ordered everyone out, including her.

She went back to Seabrook and returned again around 5:00. Around 6:00 she noticed that Jowers had disappeared from the grill and she went to the kitchen to look for him. She was standing in the kitchen when she heard what sounded like a shot and then, within seconds, Jowers burst into the kitchen through the back door with a rifle. "What are you doing with the gun?" she asked. He said, "If I catch you with a nigger, I'll kill you." She was frightened. "Loyd, I ain't doing nothing," she said. He said softly, "I wouldn't hurt you."

Jowers was pale, "real white," and nervous. In front of her he broke the gun down into at least two pieces and then without a word held them close to his chest and walked briskly through the grill and out the front door. She watched through the front window as he turned right and walked the short distance to his brown and white station wagon parked north of tile grill. She saw him open the hatch of the wagon and put the pieces of the gun inside. He then came back into the grill. The entire series of events -- from the time he entered the kitchen until he put the pieces of the gun in the wagon and came back inside-took only seconds.

Spates recalled that Jowers's wife used to come to Memphis every Thursday to have her hair done; Spates assumed that she also did so on that day, and at the time she thought that was the reason for Jowers's more than usual efforts to keep her out of the grill. He was always more cautious on Thursdays. Jowers's wife owned the white Cadillac that was parked that day close to the fire hydrant, behind James's Mustang, but Spates wasn't certain whether his wife (who has since died) had parked it herself or whether Jowers had done so, as he claimed.

She also remembered finding around this time a large sum of cash, "more money than I ever saw," in an old suitcase in a disused stove in the kitchen.

Spates was afraid of Jowers. Jowers told her that he'd kill her if she ever talked about what she had seen. Over the years she'd been visited at each new job by Jowers's "heavy," Willie Akins. She believed that this was Jowers's way of telling her that he was keeping an eye on her. She also said that in 1969 he bought a house for her on Oakview to keep her quiet. It was put in her sisters' names because she was underage.

Betty Spates elaborated on her story when I interviewed her on December 16. She said she and her sisters Bobbi and Alda had begun to work at the grill in 1967. On the afternoon of April 4 she remembered waitresses Rosie Lee Dabney and Rosetta working in the morning but leaving around 3:30 p.m. She believed that Bobbi was there in the afternoon.

She said that during the time she was having an affair with Jowers he rented an apartment for her on Peabody. After the lease was up Jowers moved her upstairs to the rooming house for a while, and then in 1969 he bought the house on Oakview for her -- or so he told her.

Then in the spring of 1969 she recalled that two men came by to visit at the new Oakview house, one of whom was black. They said that if she and her sisters would tell all they knew, they would get money, new identities, and be moved away. Betty didn't want to leave Memphis, so she refused. Since that time, she insisted no one had ever talked to her about this case other than in her discussions with Herman and me. Even on the night of the killing, when the police came in they told all the blacks in the grill, "You niggers don't know anything, get in the back." She said she and a number of the blacks went into the kitchen and were never interviewed.

She also remembered going through a marriage ceremony arranged by Jowers which was conducted in the Oakview house in November 1969 Jowers, who she said had begun to drink heavily in 1968, divorced his first wife around this time).

One evening in January 1972 when Betty was working at the Arcade Restaurant she met a Mexican named Luis Ortiz, whom she took home with her. Jowers must have seen his car parked in front of the house; he came in, drew a gun, and took Ortiz away with him. Betty never saw Ortiz again and believed that Jowers killed him that night. His car remained there for some time.

Betty said that Jowers eventually put out a contract on her life. She said Willie Akins was supposed to do the job but mistook her sister Bobbi for her and tried to get Bobbi to go out with him so he could better arrange the killing. When Akins did finally meet Betty, he realized his mistake. During a subsequent interview she provided details of what she said were two attempts by Akins to kill her by shooting at her on one occasion and again at her and her two sons in 1983. I resolved to learn more about Akins.

Betty told me that Jowers had remarried within the last year and moved to the country. He had forgotten all of his black friends. She currently had no contact with him but seemed relieved when I told her that we didn't believe that Jowers had actually shot Dr. King. It was obvious that she still had some feelings for Jowers. She said that until he remarried earlier that year he had provided support for two of her children.

I had instructed Ken Herman to interview Rosie Lee Dabney, another waitress from Jim's Grill. A few days later he reported on his interview with her. Rosie Lee was off at the time of the shooting and knew nothing about the gun, but she was aware of the affair between Jowers and Betty. She confirmed serving eggs and sausage that afternoon to a stranger.

In interviews, Bobbi told us that she went to work early on the day of the shooting. She remembered that a priest came into the grill early in the morning asking where a certain church was located. She thought that was strange since there were no churches in that downtown area. She also remembered seeing James Earl Ray come in for a cup of coffee during the afternoon.

She was sure Jowers had gone out for a while in the morning because she remembered that Rosie Lee had to pay the beer man when he came in between 9:00 and 10:00. She said the beer man pulled into the spot where Jowers's old station wagon had been parked.

Bobbi also said that Jowers told her first thing that morning not to take breakfast up to Grace Walden, who lived in room 6-B on the second floor of the rooming house, as was her custom. He made it clear that he wanted no one to go upstairs into the rooming house on that day.

Jowers drove Bobbi to work the next day, April 5, in his old brown and white station wagon and told her that he had found the gun out back that was used to kill Dr. King and had turned it over to the police. He told her to be careful when she spoke about these events. Other than being interviewed by two men in 1968 who asked her if she saw Ray (not wanting to get involved she said no), no one had ever talked to her about the case.

James McCraw had stated that Jowers showed him a rifle in a box on a shelf under the cash register, contending that he had found it out back and later that he had turned it over to the police. Thus, if Betty ever raised a question, both Bobbi and McCraw would state that he'd told them about finding a gun and turning it in. It was a rudimentary cover-up at best, but Jowers probably thought it was better than nothing.

As for the Oakview house, Bobbi believed that she and her sister Alda had bought the house. She paid $200 for the $9,000 property purchase. The whole family lived in the house, and Jowers stayed there many times. Bobbi recalled that Jowers fired her soon after April 4, 1968, but did not remember any wedding of Betty and Jowers.

Bobbi confirmed that Jowers had also owned the Tremont Cafe on Calhoun, and MPD officer S.O. Blackburn disclosed that the cafe was a gambling den used by Jowers, both Frank Libertos and another member of the Liberto family. This information was the first indication that Jowers had any association with the Libertos.

Betty's other sister, Alda, refused to talk during this period.

The indications were that Jowers had no facility with a rifle. It also seemed clear that there were other people in the brush area and that the large footprints in the alley couldn't have belonged to the diminutive Jowers, who apparently usually had others do his dirty work. Jowers, then, seemed much more likely to be an accomplice than the shooter.

***

ON DECEMBER 5, Dale Dougherty called me from Waco, very excited. The hospital postmortem report on the death of his friend Bill Sartor had finally been pried loose after twenty-one years. It showed that Sartor had a lethal dose of methaqualone in his system when he died. Since Sartor had no history of any such drug use, Dougherty believed that it had been administered to him -- either in the drinks he had at the Hickory Stick bar before he arrived home, or forcibly later that evening as he lay in bed.

Ken Abels, the Waco district attorney, officially declared the death a homicide. He assigned his chief investigator, J. C. Rappe, to work with Dougherty and coordinate the inquiry.

Since much of Sartor's work prior to and at the time of his death involved the killing of Dr. King and focused on Shelby County, Dougherty asked J. C. Rappe if he would formally request help from the Shelby County attorney general's investigative staff. This he did, requesting help from Shelby County attorney general's investigator Jim Smith who had been designated as that office's liaison to our work on the King case. Smith went to his chief who in turn secured the attorney general's permission for the cooperation.

I saw the investigation of Bill Sartor's death as being complementary to my inquiry into Dr. King's murder. The Waco investigation would be assisted by the knowledge I had about the King case, and I would have access to witnesses not previously available.

We went to see Robert Patrick Lyons, who Sartor had maintained was attacked by a Liberto hit man who held a knife to his throat and said he was ordered to kill him for helping Sartor learn things he had no business knowing. Lyons had earlier rebuffed Kenny and Dale Dougherty. Jim Smith and I, as a special counsel to the Sartor family, now would have several meetings with him. It was obvious that Lyons was still deathly afraid. He denied knowing any of the persons or the events concerning him described by Sartor.

In a session a few months later he told Jim Smith that he remembered Sartor calling him just before he died, saying he was coming to Memphis. Lyons thought Sartor mentioned the name of a person in the Waco area called Sam Termine with whom he was going to meet. When Dougherty mentioned this name to J.C. Rappe, it rang a bell. Termine was a club owner and one of Carlos Marcello's operatives in Waco. It was clear that Lyons knew far more than he was willing to admit.

***

DURING THIS TIME WE SEARCHED for Gene Pearson Crawford, who we learned from the attorney general's files was allegedly the "eggs and sausage" man who ate in Jim's Grill on the afternoon of the fourth and the morning of the fifth. (Now it appeared that although Jack Youngblood could possibly have been the person who successively visited attorney Russell X. Thompson and Reverends Latimer and Baltensprager on the morning of April 11, it was unlikely that he was, as we had earlier suspected, the "eggs and sausage" man.) Crawford was picked up by the police after Loyd Jowers called them on April 5, only to be promptly released. He had vanished, but when we found out that he was a drifter from Jackson, Tennessee, whose father had been known by the woman who managed the Ambassador Hotel, his potential significance greatly diminished. There was, however, no indication that Crawford was a gun collector, as FBI special agent in charge Jensen had maintained to Wayne Chastain was the case with the man whom hey arrested.

***

KEN HERMAN CALLED former LL&L Produce Company vice president and Liberto partner James Latch, only to be told that he was under a doctor's care and that he couldn't discuss anything that happened in 1968. Besides, he said, he had suffered a heart attack and his memory was faulty.

Latch obviously knew a good deal. An FBI 302 report (302 reports are not signed statements but rather an FBI agent's summary of what a person allegedly said) on him in the attorney general's file confirmed that he was working at LL&L on the afternoon of April 4 and that he had a long scar on his neck. John McFerren's 302 report of the late-night interview the Sunday following the killing noted that McFerren had described the man who answered the phone and passed it over to "fat Frank" as "one of the bosses" and as having such a scar. He had to have been describing James Latch. I was determined to go to Mississippi to see Mr. Latch, but that would have to wait until after the trial.

***

I WAS AFRAID that Hickman might introduce statements of questionable validity from some of James's fellow prisoners. Under our rules, FBI 302 interview reports were admissible. When we asked James about particular individuals whose 302 interviews we had read, he genuinely seemed not to know them at all or only remotely. This included the informant Raymond Curtis, whose story, as previously noted, had been widely quoted by UPI in a wire service release. It would have taken UPI very little checking to learn that, though they were both in Jefferson City prison at the time, Curtis never knew James and that certainly James never spoke to him about anything. UPI's FBI contacts could have confirmed, however, that Curtis was well known to the bureau. Harold Weisberg obtained the FBI file on Curtis (C.A. 75-1996), and it revealed that he was determined to make a name for himself in this case. He apparently began his endeavors with an effort to defraud Ebony magazine by attempting to sell a false story of a "contract" offer to kill Dr. King. According to Weisberg, the FBI records even characterized Curtis as a "pathological liar," [10] but this didn't deter the media from spreading his blatant lies about James, nor did it cause the bureau to reveal that it knew he was lying. Curtis's account reinforced the image they wanted of the lone assassin.

I obtained the testimony of one or more prisoners who actually knew James well. One was J. J. Maloney, a former multiple murderer and armed robber who had rehabilitated himself, becoming a published author and poet and a reporter for the Kansas City Star. He confirmed James's story about his escape in the bread box from Missouri State Penitentiary on April 23, and said positively that James was not a racist, that he kept to himself in prison, didn't use drugs, and had no problem with black inmates. When we asked him what he knew about particular prisoners who had made negative statements about James, he commented that those inmates didn't know James nor did they have contact with him. He questioned why prisoners who knew James well and moved in his circle weren't interviewed by the FBI.

Maloney was a find. He had been sent by the Star to cover the story of James's 1977 escape from Brushy Mountain. When he arrived, he saw upwards of fifty flackjacketed, heavily armed FBI agents already on the scene. They had established a base camp, and some of them had gone into the hills where the escapees had fled. Maloney didn't know why they were there. James and the others were, after all, state prisoners, and there had been no call for federal assistance. He recalled that a highly vexed Tennessee governor Ray Blanton showed up and ordered the FBI out. When they didn't leave, he threatened to put them in the cell vacated by James.

Maloney agreed to testify.

Ken Herman and I met with another former inmate, Don Wolverton, at his automobile garage. Wolverton had shared a cell with James at Brushy Mountain off and on for three and a half years. He knew him well and liked him. He also confirmed that James wasn't a racist, didn't use drugs, and had no difficulty with blacks. After he and James were thrown in the hole for eighteen months following a botched escape attempt, they celled alongside each other.

In 1981 James had been the victim of a stabbing at Brushy Mountain Penitentiary, allegedly by some members of a militant black organization -- the Akabulon group. Wolverton remembered that three or four days before the stabbing, Doc Walker, one of the assailants, was moved next to James. Two days before the incident, Wolverton (who had put in for a transfer nearer home one and a half years earlier) was suddenly transferred to Nashville. Wolverton said this was ominous because he always looked out for James.

Wolverton agreed to take the stand.

***

IN CONVERSATIONS WITH ONE OF MY INVESTIGATORS Jim Johnson, Jules Ricco Kimbel, expanding on the story he had earlier told English producer John Edginton's researchers, said that he had piloted a Cessna owned by a company controlled by Carlos Marcello and flown two shooters in and out of Memphis on April 4. He provided specific details of his route -- Three Rivers, Detroit, Atlanta, New Orleans, and west Memphis. I had doubts about Kimbel's truthfulness. When Canadian investigator Alec Lomonos of checked on the street where Kimbel originally said he took James to get identification documents, it was clear that he was mistaken or fabricating. Later, after viewing photographs of James, he decided that James was not the person he took to get identification. Further, in his story about flying in the shooters from Canada, he said he took off from an airport near Three Rivers, an area he said the CIA used for training operations. Eventually we learned that apparently no such training activity was conducted there.

However, some of Kimbel's information seemed to have the ring of truth, because certain aspects dovetailed with information we had obtained from other sources.

Kimbel continually referred to the Liberto family, and in particular, Sal Liberto of New Orleans, whom we knew to be one of Frank Camille Liberto's brothers. He stated that Sal was connected to Carlos Marcello. Kimbel took "assignments" from H. L. Hunt's Placid Oil Company over a period of twenty years, and he referred to Hunt as an implacable foe of Dr. King who, with Leander Perez, the powerful Louisiana racist, wanted King out of the way.

Kimbel described Marcello as having extensive business operations in Texas. He said that in all likelihood Marcello and Hunt were in business together in Louisiana and possibly elsewhere. Kimbel confirmed knowing Sal Liberto and said he was aware that Hunt's chief of staff, John Curington, posing as a Dallas private investigator, handled the con tracts for a variety of unpleasant tasks the old man required.

Of great interest was Kimbel's description of a hunting camp where he said H. L. Hunt would occasionally meet and play cards with Carlos Marcello. Investigator Jim Johnson had once told me that he remembered being taken by his uncle to an east Texas ranch in the 1950s where he and his uncle and the owner of the ranch, Monroe Walridge, went dove hunting and where he saw Hunt and Hoover playing poker.

Writer Anthony Summers had earlier shown me his research on J. Edgar Hoover, which included evidence of Hoover's connections to the Texas oil barons, even to the point of them making gifts to him of shares in a number of their companies. He provided a copy of Hoover's last will and testament, which showed his oil company shareholdings. Summers also documented Hoover's closeness to senior mob leaders and their control over him. Among those figures exerting power over the nation's top law enforcement officer was Carlos Marcello.

In late October I had instructed Johnson to make initial contact with John Curington, who lived on a ranch in Big Sandy, Texas. Curington, along with Paul Rothermel, Hunt's chief of security, left the Hunts in 1969, falling into disfavor with the family (in particular, with sons Bunker and Herbert) over alleged managerial improprieties of the subsidiary HLH Foods. Rothermel had been seconded to H. L. Hunt by Hoover in 1954, leaving the bureau to take over security for the Hunt organization. In the course of the dispute, Bunker and Herbert had resorted to wiretapping Rothermel. When Rothermel discovered this he brought criminal proceedings against them. One of the lawyers the Hunt brothers hired in 1969 (to represent one of their investigators charged) was none other than James's second attorney, Percy Foreman, who had often represented the Hunts.

Curington, a native Texan, had attempted to trade in information at various times and on one occasion provided material for a National Enquirer article on the Kennedy assassination linking Hunt financing to that event. Jim Johnson was unable to make contact with him because he was serving a sentence for a white-collar crime and was unable or unwilling to meet until he was released. Any discussions with Curington would have to take place after the trial.

***

AT ERNESTINE AND HAZEL'S RESTAURANT, a longstanding black-owned cafe on South Main Street about three hundred yards from the rooming house, I spoke with patron William L. Ross, who told me that he was around the Lorraine at the time of the killing. He had gotten off work and taken the bus to Butler and South Main, arriving around 5:45. He began to walk down Butler to Mulberry, then turned left on Mulberry, crossed the street to the Lorraine side, and walked alongside the wall. There were a lot of people in the parking lot below the balcony. He heard the shot, ducked down, then straightened up and ran the fifty or so feet back to the driveway, where he saw Dr. King down on the balcony and people milling everywhere. Ross recalled seeing uniformed police coming up Mulberry.

Ross remembered talking with a woman who told him of a conversation that took place in the lobby of the Lorraine at the time of the shooting. A phone call allegedly had been put through to room 306 just before Dr. King went out on the balcony for the last time. This was the first I had heard about this message being relayed to Dr. King's room.

Since Ross was closer to the brush area than anyone else I had found, I wanted him to undergo hypnosis in order to learn if he saw anything or anyone right after the shooting. He agreed to try it. Ross also pointed me to Ernestine Campbell, whom I would interview soon afterward.

In 1968 Ernestine Campbell and her husband owned the Trumpet Hotel which abutted the Lorraine. No one had ever talked to her or asked her about what she saw on that fateful afternoon. Ernestine said she left the hotel and started for home just before 6:00 p.m., driving her gold-bronze Cadillac up Butler and turning right on Mulberry. As she passed the Lorraine driveway on Butler, she saw Dr. King standing on the balcony. She didn't hear anything because she had the car windows up and the radio on. As she turned the corner onto Mulberry she looked up and saw Dr. King lying on the balcony. She thought he'd had a heart attack. She stopped for a minute or two at the driveway, wondering why people weren't racing to the balcony. Possibly she had arrived at the driveway when everyone was still in a state of shock.

Her attention was in particular drawn to Jesse Jackson whom she said had one foot on the first step of the stairway looking up to the balcony while bent over "... putting something into a suit bag." Her pause was brief, and she drove on without seeing any policemen or really noticing anyone at all.

***

JIM LAWSON TOLD ME THAT WALTER FAUNTROY, the former HSCA head of the King investigation, wanted to cooperate, and we set up a meeting. I had not seen Fauntroy for fifteen years, and I was surprised and encouraged by his friendliness and receptivity. We were joined by his personal lawyer, Harley Daniels, who had been examining a wide range of HSCA "sealed" raw files that Walter had secured following the completion of the committee's work. It appeared to me that Daniels had been trying, for the better part of a year, to investigate the King case solely through files and documentation. (They were planning to write a book based on this research.)

One of them told me that Hoover used to receive daily army intelligence reports on Dr. King's activities in 1967- 1968. I had discovered a document in the attorney general's file showing that MPD intelligence officer Captain Jewell Ray had met after the killing with a Colonel Bray, who was identified as being with army intelligence. At the time, I put it down to the plan, as Captain Ray had claimed, to move the Tennessee National Guard into Memphis to control any possible riots arising from the planned march. Now I began to believe that the army may have played a wider role.

It was curious, I thought at the time, that Hoover would have needed to receive reports from army intelligence surveillance when he appeared to have his own FBI operation in place (the surveillance activity at the Rivermont described by Jim Smith).

***

I TRIED TO CHECK OUT THE POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT of an elusive character named J. C. Hardin. According to an FBI memo, in March 1968 while James was living at the St. Francis Hotel in Los Angeles a person named J. C. Hardin, who had spoken with the manager, Alan Thompson, had inquired about James. I learned that produce man Frank C. Liberto's mother's maiden name was Hardin. The fact that a Hardin had married into the Liberto family may have no bearing on the King case, of course, but I thought it should be checked out. Attorney Jim Lesar who was James's lawyer in the mid-1970s, was familiar with an interview of a former Tampa-based FBI agent, John Hartingh, who was alleged to have remarked, upon being asked about J. C. Hardin, that he was an asset of the bureau. I asked James about this matter, and he denied any knowledge of J. C. Hardin or anyone else inquiring after him at the hotel during this time. The Hardin name would come up later in our investigation in another context.

Another stranger allegedly visited James in Toronto (giving him an envelope) shortly before James flew to England. For a very long time there had been publicity and rumors about this visit by a so-called "fat man." I finally learned the identity and address of the visitor, Robert McDoulton, from files in the attorney general's office. When I called McDoulton and introduced myself, he was abrupt and, I thought, fearful, saying he didn't want to talk about the incident. Then he hung up.

As 1992 WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, former Seabrook employee Frances Thompson was located and agreed to testify as to what she observed on the afternoon of April 4. She seemed convinced that she had seen a man sitting in a Mustang parked on South Main Street opposite the Seabrook offices where she was employed. One of my investigators seemed convinced that the man was James Earl Ray.

Former FBI agent Bill Turner agreed to testify from personal experience about the extensive use of electronic surveillance and "black bag jobs" (illegal break-ins) by specially trained units of the bureau. Turner had been an agent for about ten years but became appalled at the way Hoover ran the bureau and sought a congressional investigation. Consequently he was forced out of the FBI.

***

So, then, by the end of December, Betty Spates for the first time had directly implicated her former boss and lover, Loyd Jowers, in the murder, admitting that after hearing what sounded like a shot she saw him run into the kitchen from the brush area carrying a rifle.

Her sister Bobbi had confirmed in part, telling of being driven to work the next morning by Jowers, who admitted finding a rifle out back. The new information seemed to fit with cab driver McCraw's earlier revelation about being shown a gun under the counter of the grill by Jowers on the morning after the killing. Bobbi had pointed to some sinister activity going on upstairs on the day of the killing, recalling that Jowers put the second floor off limits. Further, S. O. Blackburn's information had revealed that Jowers's other cafe had been a gambling den frequented by, among others, two Frank Libertos and another member of the Liberto family. Also surfacing (from HSCA files retained by Walter Fauntroy) was the surveillance by army intelligence on Dr. King in collaboration with Hoover.

Finally, Bill Sartor's death had been confirmed to be a homicide. It became apparent that early on, though without hard factual evidence, he was on the trail of a Marcello/Liberto connection in the murder of Dr. King.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN

Postby admin » Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:33 am

Chapter 22: The Trial Approaches: January 1993

AS THE NEW YEAR YEAR began we were just twenty-four days from the trial. I came again to Memphis and wouldn't return to England until the jury reached a verdict. For James and me the trial was the culmination of years of waiting and work, and I believed it could result in rewriting the history of one of the republic's most tragic periods.

We opened an office on the lower floor of James E. "Jeb" Blount III's law offices, a few blocks from the court. I insisted on having a 6'x4' security safe moved in to house our most sensitive files. We would also have the offices swept for the presence of any electronic surveillance devices.

I finally interviewed former MPD detective Edward Redditt, now a schoolteacher in Somerville, Tennessee. He told me that in early 1968 he had been on regular assignment as a community relations officer on the Memphis police force. During the time of the sanitation workers' strike he had been seconded to the intelligence bureau, reporting directly to Lt. E. H. Arkin. Arkin was in day-to-day operational control and was also the designated liaison officer to the FBI and its local office intelligence specialist, William Lawrence.

Redditt was assigned the task of conducting surveillance on the striking sanitation workers. When Dr. King and his party returned to Memphis, he was ordered to take up a surveillance post along with black patrolman Willie B. Richmond, who was a regular member of the MPD intelligence bureau, in the locker room at the rear of fire station 2, on the corner of Butler and South Main streets. From this vantage point they could see the Lorraine Motel through a peephole in a paper put over the glass of a rear locked door. There were small windows as well near the ceiling on that back wall, but to see through them one had to lie on top of the lockers. As we have seen, this is what fireman Charles Stone was doing at the time of the shooting.

Thus the two-man team of Redditt and Richmond was on duty on April 3 and April 4, keeping an eye on the movements of Dr. King's party and the Invaders in and around the motel. On April 4 Richmond arrived late-probably between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. Redditt was on duty, however, covering for his partner, whom he didn't really know or trust. He has since come to believe that Richmond was primarily assigned by Arkin to keep an eye on him.

Redditt told a familiar story: sometime after 4:00 p.m. on the afternoon of April 4, Arkin appeared at the fire station and told Redditt to follow him to headquarters. Redditt went along and was led into a large conference room where he said he saw assembled twenty or more people, many of whom he didn't recognize. Some of them were in military uniforms. MPD director Holloman told Redditt that a contract had been put out on his life and that security was going to be arranged for him and his family. Holloman said that a secret service agent had flown in from Washington to tell them of this threat. Redditt's first reaction was disbelief. He had been threatened from time to time by community activists who thought he had sold out, but hostility came with the turf. It never occurred to him that either he or his family would be in such danger as to require protection. When Redditt protested, Holloman ordered him home. He was officially off duty, and there would be no further discussion.

Arkin drove him home. They arrived in front of his house shortly before 6:00 p.m. and while still sitting in the car a report of the assassination came over the radio. Redditt was told to remain off work until further notice. Three days later he was called back and not a word was mentioned about the threat on his life. It seemed to disappear as quickly as it came. At various times he asked about it, only to be told that it had all been a mistake; the report had confused him with another black officer in another city. To this day he regards the incident as a mystery, and he considers the timing of his removal as sinister.

The HSCA report disclosed that the man identified as the Washington "secret service" agent wasn't a secret service agent at all. He was Phillip Manuel, the chief investigator for Arkansas senator John McClellan's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Manuel's role has never been satisfactorily explained. He has admitted to being in Memphis on the day of the assassination, but has never been able to provide a reason. Director Holloman's recollections over the years have been similarly unrevealing.

The HSCA reviewed an internal MPD memorandum establishing that Arkin had in fact received conclusive information on April 4 that there was no threat on Detective Redditt's life. If there was any relevant threat at all it was against another black police officer in another city. The HSCA noted that "... this information was being received by Arkin as Holloman was holding his meeting with Redditt." [11]

The committee took the issue no further.

Redditt brought up an even stranger event. Sometime in the mid-1970s, prior to the HSCA investigation, he was asked to go over to the Federal Building in Memphis where he was shown a photograph by a person who he believes was a Justice Department official. (The Justice Department conducted an investigation of the FBI's investigation of the case during that period.) The photograph was of a bundle lying on the comer of Ruling and Mulberry streets. The bundle was being watched over or guarded by a uniformed Memphis police officer holding a shotgun whom Redditt identified with certainty as Louis MacKay, the same black patrolman who had been assigned to guard the evidence found in front of Canipe's until homicide chief Zachary took charge of it and carried it away. A well-circulated photograph shows officer MacKay, shotgun at the ready, in front of Canipe's.

I had never heard even a rumor about this extraordinary incident. At the end of our session Redditt agreed to testify about both experiences.

Louis MacKay was still an active MPD officer in 1993. Re- viewing the events of that April 4 evening, he was positive that he guarded the bundle only on South Main Street by Canipe's and nowhere else. He has no explanation for the photograph described by Redditt. That photograph has never been seen again.

The obvious question is whether the photograph of Louis MacKay at Canipe's doorway and possibly the bundle itself could have been superimposed on a photograph of the corner at Huling and Mulberry. But for what purpose? Could this have been an alternate "official" escape route?

***

BETTY SPATES'S SISTER Alda finally spoke to me, adding new ele- ments to Betty's story. She said that after the killing, Jowers fired Bobbi, Rosie Lee, and Rosetta. Contrary to what Betty and Bobbi had said, however, Alda contended (though I didn't believe her) that she had herself only begun work at the grill seven months after the event. Working with her at the time were Big Lena (the head cook) and Joy. She said that Betty used to come around and try to "supervise" things, taking advantage of her relationship with Jowers.

Alda recalled finding money in a suitcase in an old stove and telling Betty about it. Betty told Jowers and Jowers quickly fired both Lena and Alda. Alda recalled Jowers getting a phone call, going away and returning with the suitcase. She also recalled that Jowers told her not to go out the back door into the rear yard area. She added that Betty had a gun with a scope on it back in the 1970s and sometimes kept it under her bed. Alda couldn't recall any wedding at the Oakview house and had never heard about Jowers buying it. She believed that she and Bobbi had purchased the house by themselves.

Finally, Alda told us that Coy Love, a black street-artist, saw a man run across South Main Street just after the killing, continue up the alleyway by Seabrook, and then take off a hooded sweatshirt and throw it into a dumpster. To his later amazement, she said, Coy saw that the man was black.

Solomon Jones's story about seeing a man in the bushes with a hood or something around his head came to mind. In a statement to the MPD, Jones said he saw a man heading back toward the rooming house. This could explain the footprints in the alley as being left by someone heading in to Jim's Grill and to South Main Street. In his statement given to the media on the evening of the shooting, he said he saw a man come down over the wall and onto or near the Lorraine property, only to drift away. We continued to look for Jones without success.

I was concerned that some of Alda's recollections seemed to contradict parts of Betty's statement, although it appeared that Alda was trying to distance herself from the events of April 4. Betty hadn't mentioned having a rifle, and we also wondered if either Betty or Alda was confused about the time when Jowers placed money in the stove -- or whether there could have been two lots of stashed bills. Lastly, we didn't know what to make of Betty's uncorroborated insistence that a wedding took place.

At the risk of offending Betty, Kenny, local black investigator Cliff Dates, and I went to the Shelby County Jail to talk to her son, John Spates. He had been incarcerated there since October on what appeared to be a frivolous complaint by an acquaintance of his. Spates confirmed Akins's attempt to shoot him, his brother, and his mother back in 1983 but said he didn't understand why-one moment Akins seemed to be their friend and the next he seemed determined to kill all three of them. His mother had obviously been reluctant to tell any of them about what she saw, afraid that it would also put their lives in danger. I felt more confident about Betty's story after talking with her son. They seemed to be mutually protective, and I believed that, whatever the reason, Akins was likely to have made an attempt on John's life. We were still confused about when Jowers's cash appeared, as well as about the possible significance of the second-hand Coy Love story and were concerned about whether or not Betty was in possession of a rifle after the killing. We would eventually learn that Coy Love had died and we were unable to locate any surviving family he had.

Betty soon learned about our visit with john and was upset. It was clear that she had tried to shelter John from the underlying reason for the murder attempt in 1983. She believed that if he didn't know what she saw around 6:00 p.m. on April 4, 1968, he would be safe. She didn't recall ever having a rifle, and insisted that she had seen the cash in the stove prior to the killing.

Meanwhile, Ken Herman had located Bessie Brewer, the manager of the rooming house at 422-1/2 South Main at the time of the shooting, and we set out to see her. Apparently her husband Frank had died and she now lived alone. Herman reported that according to her daughter, Bessie had been told by the FBI back in 1968 not to talk to anyone, and she had followed those instructions to this day.

When Herman introduced us she announced that she was not the Bessie Brewer that we wanted, but that she and her late husband had frequently been confused with the other Bessie and Frank, who were black. As we chipped away at that transparent story, I showed her a photograph of the area of the rooming house and detected a clear sense of recognition in her eyes; but she wouldn't relent. Bessie wasn't talking.

***

A NUMBER OF LOOSE ENDS began to come together. James Orange confirmed that he had seen smoke rising from the bushes right after the shot and then noticed the disappearance of those bushes the next morning. He would provide a statement, since a previously scheduled trip to South Africa made it impossible for him to testify in person at the trial.

James's former attorney Jack Kershaw confirmed Jerry Ray's story about the offer made to him by William Bradford Huie in a meeting in Nashville. On offer was: $220,000 as well as pardons from Missouri and Tennessee in exchange for James's admissions that he was the killer. Jack told me that he took the offer to James who dismissed it out of hand. (Later, as we have seen, Huie came back again with the offer but would go through Jerry.) Kershaw believed that the two other men present at the meeting might well have been federal agents. He had no doubt that Huie was acting as an intermediary for the federal government since he reasoned that only the government could arrange the pardons and the protection. I recalled that Huie had previously developed a close working relationship with the FBI.

Former Louisville policeman Clifton Baird agreed to try to set out the details of the 1965 conspiracy to kill Dr. King in Louisville, although he was concerned that severely impaired speech caused by two strokes could detract from his credibility as a witness. Ultimately I was forced to abandon hope of even obtaining a statement from him. His wife said he was too unwell to consider the matter.

***

ON JANUARY 10 came the revelation from former MPD homicide detective Barry Neal Linville. Linville and his partner, J. D. Hamby, were present along with Lt. Tommy Smith at the city morgue on the evening of the murder. He and Hamby watched Shelby County coroner Dr. Jerry Francisco extract the death slug in one piece and hand it over to them for tagging as evidence and delivery to the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C. Dr. Francisco also took photographs of the bullet, which he turned over to homicide inspector Zachary and to the FBI. Though of poor quality, there is a photograph taken by Francisco at the time of the removal of the slug from Dr. King's body in the HSCA volumes. There are no such photographs in the attorney general's file, having mysteriously disappeared.

When I showed the now retired Barry Linville a photograph of the three bullet fragments presently under the control of the clerk of the criminal court, which are identified as Q-64, the FBI marking for the death slug (see photograph #15), Linville was incredulous. "That's not the bullet I saw taken from the body," he said. "The slug I saw was in one piece and in very good condition." The only visible defect, he maintained, was that the exposed lead in the nose of the bullet was flattened. On a scale of one to ten he rated the slug as a nine. I was impressed with Linville's forthrightness and certainty. Here was an experienced homicide officer who had seen thousands of evidence bullets, and he was amazed at the changes that had somehow occurred to the death slug he saw being removed from Dr. King's body. He could offer no explanation for this alteration of a vital piece of evidence. Neither could he explain why during the past twenty-five years no one had contacted him as one of the original MPD homicide investigators about what he saw and knew.

Barry Linville readily agreed to take the stand.

***

I FINALLY CAUGHT UP WITH MAYNARD STILES, who in 1968 was the deputy director of the Memphis City Public Works Department, and conclusively learned that early on Friday morning, April 5, a two-man team was sent out to cut and clean up the entire backyard at 422-1/2 South Main Street. Stiles told me that the predawn request came from the police department, and that he immediately assigned the task to Dutch Goodman and Willie Crawford. Dutch Goodman had since died, but Willie Crawford was still working for the Public Works Department. According to Ken Herman he confirmed that he and Goodman did the cleanup under police supervision.

Having learned about the footprints near the edge of the alleyway between the two wings of the rooming house and that three patrolmen had been in the area, I had been trying to locate the only one who was still alive, former MPD officer Joe "J. B." Hodges. We finally found him. He said that a short time after the killing, he climbed on top of some drums at the base of the wall under the bushes and entered the backyard of the rooming house from the Mulberry Street side to join TACT 10 member patrolman Torrence N. Landers, who was already there. Hodges remembered having considerable difficulty in getting through the thick mulberry bushes.

Hodges told me that, contrary to earlier reports, he and not Landers had discovered the very large footprints in the mud just inside the alleyway. They appeared to him to be freshly made. He secured that area until a plaster cast was made of the prints, which turned out to be very large-one foot was 13-1/2" and the other 14" long.

Hodges agreed to testify.

Keep in mind that it had rained heavily the night before the killing, and in his statement Torrence Landers had said that the ground was wet. It appeared that the heavy rain had washed mud inside the entrance of the alleyway. Here was yet another clear indication of the presence of a person in that area behind the rooming house. Along with the previous observations of Caldwell, Jones, Orange, and Ross (all of which had somehow eluded official investigators for twenty-five years), the significance of the brush area as the likely scene of the shooting was again enhanced.

***

My INTERVIEWS WITH THE INVADERS turned up a few notable observations. Charles "Izzy" Harrington was one of the Invaders occupying rooms 315 and 316 farther along the balcony from Dr. King's room 306 on April 3 and 4. On April 3, he stayed around the motel and thought he heard sounds and activity in the bushes on the other side of Mulberry Street behind the rooming house. I was interested in the recollection but didn't think it particularly significant because the night of April 3 had been a stormy one and the rustling of the bushes could have been caused by the wind.

Izzy said that at about 5:45 or 5:50 p.m. on April 4, a maid knocked on his door and told him that the Invaders were going to have to leave the motel, because Dr. King's group was no longer going to pay their bill (previously, Invader Charles Ballard had also recalled this incident). When Izzy asked who had given her those instructions, she said Reverend (Jesse) Jackson. Izzy and the rest of the Invaders gathered up their things and left, some in Cabbage's blue Mustang, others on foot. This explained the sudden departure recorded in Patrolman Richmond's log, which was compiled from his surveillance post in the fire station across the street.

Izzy recalled that they had only been off the motel property for about fifteen minutes when they heard the sirens and learned about the shooting. They ran back toward the motel only to find that roadblocks (Public Works Department wooden horses) were in place on Mulberry Street. He said it couldn't have been more than ten minutes after the shooting that they were put up. His opinion was that someone knew what was going to happen and had them ready.

Calvin Taylor, another Invader, remembered the March 29 meeting with Dr. King with a feeling of awe.

FBI agent Bill Lawrence, who was the Memphis field office's intelligence liaison with the MPD, had testified before the HSCA that the MPD knew everything that was said at that meeting because "they had someone there." Before I was able to confirm the electronic surveillance of Dr. King's suite, I assumed that he meant that one of those present was reporting to him. Even with the electronic surveillance I believed it likely that they had an informant at the meeting. The bugging of course provided an opportunity for them to check the accuracy of their source's report. Such checking was routine. One of my MPD sources confided to me that on occasion he was assigned to an army intelligence officer he only knew as Hamilton. On this detail, one of his assignments was to follow an informant named "Copperhead" so that the intelligence section could evaluate his reports and work. Copperhead is now a popular Democratic legislator. His adherents would likely say that he acted like many others who manipulated the system to their own ends. I heard allegations of this type of collaboration regularly leveled at many of the "established" civil rights leaders in Memphis.

I indicated to Taylor that I knew the Invaders were infiltrated not only by the MPD through McCollough but also by the FBI, which had its own informant. Taylor became nervous and asked me if I knew who the person was. I said that I had a good idea but it wasn't my intent to follow it up. He seemed to relax, and the discussion continued. In 1968 he was a copy boy for the Commercial Appeal. His editor at the time told him that Bill Lawrence of the FBI had said he should watch his step because he was associating with the wrong people. He continued to associate with the Invaders and after the assassination he was made a full-fledged reporter.

"Big John" Smith, a native Memphian, had returned to Memphis from the West Coast where he had joined the Black Panthers. He came back to work with the Invaders and assist in their local organizing efforts. During early 1968 he was under nearly constant surveillance -- physical (from the moment he left his home each day) and, he suspected, electronic as well.

He said that on the afternoon of April 4 he arrived at the Lorraine to meet other Invaders at about 4:45. A number of MPD officers were there when he arrived. He particularly remembered seeing Caro Harris sitting in the lobby. At about 5:30 he came downstairs to the restaurant to have something to eat with his wife and friends. He remembered noting that at that time all the police had disappeared. A kind of stillness had descended over the motel. "It was eerie," he said.

He agreed to testify.

***

RUFUS BRADSHAW, the police officer who had relayed the hoax message to central dispatcher Billy Tucker on April 4, confirmed that he had been flagged down by passing motorist William Austein, who then proceeded to relay the CB transmission to him, which he passed on as he was given it. To protect himself, Bradshaw said he pulled a private citizen into the car so that if he ever needed an independent statement of the event he could produce it. He had guaranteed anonymity to this person unless the necessity arose.

He had particularly hostile words for the FBI's treatment of Austein, which he couldn't understand and he believed was unwarranted. He agreed to testify.

***

FORMER GOVERNOR RAY BLANTON confirmed J. J. Maloney's story about the massive FBI SWAT team which quickly appeared after James's escape in June 1977. He said that he was motivated to go to the prison immediately after the escape by a phone call from Louis Stokes, the HSCA chairman. Stokes told him that if he didn't get over to the prison, he was likely to lose his most famous prisoner and the HSCA was going to lose its star witness. Stokes's staff had learned that the FBI team was sent to Brushy Mountain with instructions to find James and not bring him back alive. Blanton said that because Stokes treated the FBI presence so seriously it was clear that there was no time to lose. He immediately took a helicopter from the capitol to the prison. He found it unprecedented that the FBI would come in uninvited and with such force on a state prison escape. Upon arriving he realized that Stokes had been right -- he too concluded that the bureau wanted James dead.

The governor was reluctant to testify, though, wanting to keep a low profile, since he had one remaining criminal count pending before an appellate court, which if reversed would completely overturn his conviction on charges of corruption.

In my second meeting with Walter Fauntroy he said he was willing to testify for the defense at the trial. He said that in recent years he had reanalyzed some HSCA documentation and had become convinced that James was innocent. I was elated. He said he had concluded that much of the material had been withheld from the committee by its staff, who manipulated the HSCA's findings and report. He also confirmed governor Blanton's story, saying that it was he (Fauntroy) who first received the reports about the FBI's determination to kill James after his escape and that he caused Louis Stokes to alert the governor. I continued to press Fauntroy for information he said he had pertaining to the surveillance communications generated by army intelligence on Dr. King's activities.

* * *

THE TRIAL was now less than two weeks away. We had found Randy Rosenson, whose memory had clearly been affected by a long history of drug abuse. Rosenson stated that he was interviewed by the HSCA several times. He eventually recalled that on some of these occasions, he was represented by Knoxville attorney Gene Stanley. He agreed to allow Stanley to testify at the trial to provide evidence of the HSCA's apparent knowledge about the existence of Raul. Rosenson himself agreed to give an affidavit about these matters, since he couldn't travel to Memphis as he was in a daily outpatient methadone treatment program and running a business. Rosenson's and Stanley's recollection of the HSCA interviews in Knoxville, Atlanta, and elsewhere were confirmed by the General Services Administration (GSA) expenditure reports.

Rosenson also recalled an American Indian who lived in Miami in 1968 and who had substantial contacts in Latin and South America, and was involved in drug smuggling and gun-running. Rosenson said that during this time he made frequent trips to Mexico with this person. Curiously enough, this individual owned a white Mustang. Rosenson also stated that prior to an HSCA interview in Richmond, he was visited by a big man who told him he should admit to having known James when asked. It would solve many problems. Rosenson said he refused. The man was introduced to him as a high-level Tennessee state official.

In subsequent telephone conversations with investigator Jim Johnson, inmate Jules "Ricco" Kimbel stated that he too knew the American Indian referred to by Randy Rosenson, whom I will call Harry. He said Harry was associated with Carlos Marcello and was a very dangerous man. A criminal record check showed that this person's files had been "cleaned," indicating that he also had, or had previously, some relationship with one or another federal agency. Such associations are for life, and their existence and any resulting activity are usually jealously protected. The "sanitizing" of files is just one way of ensuring secrecy. The discovery was exciting, but it was clear that it would be long after the trial before we would be able to investigate in detail this person's role, if any, in the case.

***

By JANUARY 16 I HAD prepared final affidavits for Jules "Ricco" Kimbel, Randy Rosenson, inmate Tim Kirk, and Marie Martin and Charlie Stein whom James had known in Los Angeles. Martin and Stein had previously been interviewed by investigator Jim Johnson. I thought statements from them might be necessary to rebut racist allegations contained in FBI 302 reports of their interviews which the prosecution might introduce. Martin, in particular, said that the FBI report of their interview with her, which she hadn't previously seen, was inaccurate and incomplete. She remembered James as being totally different from the media descriptions of him. She said that, far from being racist or violent, he danced with black women and played pool with black customers who "hung out" in the lounge of the St. Francis Hotel, where she tended bar. She never saw or heard of him displaying even a hint of violence. He was, on the contrary, quiet and somewhat shy.

We wanted several witnesses to be hypnotized to determine whether they could remember anything further. The state of Tennessee allows the introduction of evidence given following memory enhancement through hypnosis if a prescribed process is scrupulously followed and the sessions videotaped. As required, Dr. Joseph Cassius, who had experience in conducting this kind of exercise, knew nothing about the significance of the questions we had prepared.

Charles Hurley, who had picked up his wife at Seabrook Wallpaper on April 5, was among those hypnotized. Under hypnosis he remembered the first letter of the license plate on the Mustang parked in front of him, which he couldn't remember before being hypnotized but which was the same letter (A) he identified in his 1968 statement where he also identified the second letter as L. He now described for the first time that, as he pulled out from behind the white Mustang with a man sitting in it, he saw an old brown station wagon parked just north and on the same side of the street as Jim 's Grill. My assistant Jean and I looked at each other in amazement. It appeared that Charles Hurley had just substantiated the presence of Jowers's old brown station wagon in the approximate location where Betty Spates had said it was when she saw Jowers deposit a broken-down rifle in the trunk. Later, Hurley agreed to accompany us on a brief visit to the South Main Street area. Fully conscious, he noticed the alteration of the billboard area from the way it was.

Ernestine and Hazel's cafe patron William Ross also underwent hypnosis. He recalled details with astonishing precision. Ross described hearing the shot as he reached the Mulberry Street door of the Lorraine on foot. He ducked down and then turned to the left, enabling him to look westward toward the brush. He insisted that from this vantage point, only a few feet from the wall, he had no doubt that the shot came from the brush in the area just behind and on top of the wall. He also remembered seeing a "pale goldish-brown" Cadillac on the same side of the street. This would likely have been the goldish-brown Cadillac driven by Ernestine Campbell as she was going home.

Ross learned from Walter Bailey sometime after the shooting about a phone call that had come through the switchboard for Dr. King's room just before 6:00 p.m. He recalled being told that the call or a message was relayed to the room by either Mrs. Bailey or someone relieving her. Under hypnosis, he was certain that the message for Dr. King was, "They're ready for him now," or words to that effect.

Ross said someone called Catherine who apparently worked at the Lorraine in 1976 had also heard about the phone call from Walter Bailey and also from Walter's brother Theotis. I looked for her but was unable to find her.

***

FOR THE FIRST TIME Ken Herman and I were able to inspect the cellar underneath Jim's Grill and the two businesses next door, including Canipe's. We confirmed that the door from the alleyway between the buildings opened into a ground-level landing. Off the landing, on the right, a door led into Jim's Grill. Straight ahead from the landing there was a flight of stairs that led to the cellar underneath the grill. We also discovered long- unused coal chutes in front of the cellars. These chutes opened onto the sidewalk in front of the buildings. Considering the failure of the police on the scene to properly inspect the cellar and the presence of the footprints heading toward the alleyway door, I thought that this layout could be significant. subsequently, we were to learn that in the real" of the grill -- in the kitchen -- there was a trapdoor, which also led to the cellar. It was a labyrinth. In 1968 there were three doors leading to the outside at the rear of the northern wing of the building where James's room 5-B was located -- one in the alleyway, one at the bottom of the rear rooming house stairs, and one leading directly from the grill itself through the storage room at the back of the kitchen. (See photograph #12)

Although there is a question of whether it was blocked up in 1968, at one time there was another inside door on the north rear side of the kitchen, which opened to the foot of the rear stairway of the rooming house as well as to the back door at the foot of the rooming-house stairs.

Only after this extensive examination could we appreciate the possible shooting locations and escape routes. The assassination had to have been well planned because it was undeniable that the MPD was there in force very quickly after the shot was fired.

On one occasion, when I was exploring the dingy cellar of the rooming-house building, a caretaker told me that prosecutor Hickman Ewing too was interested in the backyard as the possible scene of the shooting. A chill shot through me. Was it possible that he was going to abandon the shot-from-the-bathroom scenario, which had always been a cornerstone of the state's case? To flush him out, I proposed to him that we save the court's time and stipulate that the shot didn't come from the bathroom. Ewing's response was unequivocal: "Ludicrous." Our concern was finally put to rest when he said he was going to introduce a photograph that allegedly showed footprints in the bathtub.

We interviewed a former office manager for Jowers's cab company. Jowers was one of the founders of the Veterans Cab company.) Aside from his stories about various criminal activities of Jowers and Willie Akins in the early 1970s, he also said that Jowers's and Akins's involvement in the killing of Dr. King was widely rumored among the drivers.

We obtained a photograph and rap sheet on Willie Akins. He was clearly a big man and a nasty piece of work, with a history of violence. Had we found the owner of the mysterious footprints found by J. B. Hodges in the alleyway?

***

JOHN LIGHT AGREED TO TESTIFY. He had been a senior officer in the Alton Police Department in 1978 when the New York Times, the HSCA, and the FBI all tried to establish that James and Jerry Ray were responsible for the Alton, Illinois, bank robbery. He confirmed Lt. Walter Conrad's statement to me that neither the Times, the HSCA, nor the FBI had made any contact with them in an effort to check out the allegations.

It was agreed that the prosecution was to receive Tim Kirk's statement in advance. On the day it was delivered, I drove with Ken Herman and an Invader intermediary, Abdul Yawee, to visit Doc Walker in another Tennessee prison. Walker had been one of the members of the black Akabulon group convicted of attempting to murder James in the Brushy Mountain prison library back in 1981. I needed to explore the possibility of another contract having been put out on James, either to intimidate or actually to eliminate him, as had occurred with Art Baldwin's offer to Tim Kirk in 1978.

At the time of the Baldwin contract James was about to testify in public before the HSCA for the first time. I am certain there was considerable fear in some quarters about what he might say. In 1981, however, there was no indication that James had any intention or opportunity to come forward with any revelations. It had been characterized as racially motivated by a small, well-known group of black militants, determined to gain public attention. The result was that two of them, Partee and Doc Walker, each received an additional sentence of sixty- six years while one of their number, Ransom, received a considerably smaller term. James had refused to testify against them, insisting that he couldn't identify any of his assailants.

Until I spoke with Doc Walker, the incident made no sense at all. Walker admitted that he was moved next to James just before the assault. It was, he said, an administrative decision. (Recall that James's "protector," Don Wolverton, had been transferred to Nashville just before this event.) At the time of the attack James had been allowed to enter the library, even though it had somehow been stripped of security.

Walker maintained that the attack took place behind a partition. He wasn't in that area but two of his friends, Partee and Ransom, were there, as were a couple of white prisoners who testified against them. The result of the attack on James was that their group was effectively destroyed -- they were split up and the leadership received long sentences.

The assault enabled the prison authorities to deal harshly with a small group of black militants who were a constant source of unrest inside the walls of Brushy Mountain. Although it's true that James had some twenty-two knife wounds, not one was life-threatening. If they had really wanted to kill James, they could have done so easily. The role of the white prisoners, except as informants to provide evidence against the three blacks, wasn't clear. Neither was it understandable why one member of the group received only a fraction of the sentence that was meted out to Walker, who wasn't even directly present at the attack.

BACK IN MEMPHIS, Ken Herman met me with a chilling story. The security officer hired by the HBO /Thames producers was Jim Nichols, an MPD officer Herman knew and trusted. Since the jury was arriving in Memphis on January 24 and being taken directly to their hotel-the Hilton-he did a routine check on the upcoming reservations. No one connected with the defense or the prosecution was to know where the jury was being housed. These arrangements were made by the producers with maximum secrecy. The Hilton was definitely not regarded as among Memphis's first-class hotels. The producers believed that its out-of-the-way location near the airport would best ensure the jury's sequestration.

When Nichols examined the reservation list he realized that on the seventh floor, where the entire jury was to be housed, five rooms had been reserved for the same week in the name of William Sessions, the director of the FBI. Nichols was dumbfounded. When he commented on the illustrious guest, the hotel security officer was clearly proud. He said that an electronics team had come in from Washington earlier that week and had gone through every room on that floor in preparation for the visit by the director and his four agents.

Never had I expected this. The potential for tampering with the jury or some of its members was considerable, and it was likely that at least their private conversations and possibly their formal deliberations would be monitored.

Nichols had reported the FBI reservations to producer Salt- man, who canceled the Hilton reservations and put the jury elsewhere. Nichols had checked the schedule of the Memphis director of police and fire, Melvin Burgess, to see if there was any note or indication of the Sessions visit, since it would be unprecedented for the director of the FBI to come to a city and not notify the local police chief. Nichols said he found nothing indicating the visit during the week of January 24, nor did Burgess know anything about it.

Saltman confirmed the story but asked me not to mention it until he had the opportunity to bring it up at our final pretrial meeting scheduled for Sunday, January 24. Nichols reported that the FBI reservations were canceled shortly after the jury was scheduled to stay at another hotel.

***

BALLISTICS EXPERT CHUCK MORTON arrived from California to examine and photograph the death-slug fragments and the other evidence bullets found in the bundle left in Canipe's doorway. The latter, he agreed, had been subjected to neutron activation tests, indicated by the uniform slicing open of cartridge jackets and the removal of lead samples. Morton's initial reaction, refuting the FBI's story, was that there were enough individual stria or markings on the remains of the death slug for a determination to be made as to whether it came from the Remington Gamemaster 760 30.06 evidence rifle. (The FBI had stated in their report that: "the bullet, Q64, from the victim ... has been distorted due to mutilation and insufficient marks of value for identification remain on this bullet. Therefore, it was not possible to determine whether or not Q64 was fired from the Q2 rifle.")

***

I FLEW TO NASHVILLE TO finally prepare James for his testimony. He was basically in good spirits, anticipating what would effectively be, at long last, his trial on the charge of the murder of Dr. King.

I explained that one of our Memphis investigators, John Billings, would be at his side throughout the proceedings. James would have a direct communications link to the defense table via a one-way earpiece that my assistant Jean would wear throughout the trial, and would have direct two-way contact by portable telephone with me during the court breaks.

While at the prison I also visited Tim Kirk and got his answers to the prosecution 's queries about his original affidavit. Since Kirk wouldn't be on the stand, this was the closest they would get to cross-examining him. The session was stressful. One of my aides, Ray Kohlman, accompanied me. Certain information prosecutor Ewing sought would have identified Kirk as its source and put him in serious danger inside the walls. We followed a tenuous line.

At one question, concerning the killing of a Memphis club owner who was a rival of Art Baldwin, he blurted out, "This son of a bitch is trying to get me killed." I explained to him that nothing would please Ewing more than his failure to provide this evidence. I continued to believe that his testimony about the contract offer on James's life, which was communicated to him by Baldwin in 1978 just before James's scheduled HSCA testimony, was a striking example of the ongoing cover-up of the existence of a conspiracy in this case.

***

BACK IN MEMPHIS I was debriefed on the discovery meeting, which had been conducted by Jean in my absence, during the course of which each side had an opportunity to examine the documentary evidence of the other.

I learned that in the prosecution's bundle of evidence was a photograph that showed a police car in the forecourt of the fire station, pulled right up to and facing the curb of South Main Street. The photograph had been taken after the assassination, and it was taken from the area of sidewalk near Canipe's. (See photograph #23) Its presence told us that the prosecution was considering introducing it as a true representation of Emmett Douglass's cruiser, which we had determined was parked way back by the north side door, out of the line of sight of anyone leaving the rooming house. The thought that the prosecution might infer that the photograph was taken shortly after the shooting was alarming. I had to wonder whether they really believed this evidence.

***


IT HAD BEEN NEARLY FOUR YEARS since I had seen Hosea Williams. Now he agreed to try to convince his former roommate, SCLC chief accountant and FBI informant Jim Harrison, to testify at the trial. Recalling Dr. King's last visit to Memphis, Hosea said he was surprised to learn that they weren't going to stay at the Rivermont but that their reservations had been changed to a motel called the Lorraine. Though in pain from a back injury, he would testify "come hell or high water," and later he would thank me for the "privilege."

DURING THE LAST WEEK BEFORE THE TRIAL, we broadcast an appeal on a popular local radio talk show for anyone with any information about the case to come forward. It resulted in one new witness. Emmanuel White remembered attending the sanitation workers' march on March 28. He said that he and his family pushed toward the front of the line to get closer to Dr. King, wanting to touch him. Near the front of the line, White saw some young men between the marchers and the police begin to break store windows. The person who started the vandalism was white, but blacks quickly followed suit. He subsequently observed mass looting, with the stolen goods being loaded into cars and vans, with Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and other out-of-state license plates. He had heard that a number of these people came from Chicago, Detroit, and St. Louis. Emmanuel White was eager to testify.

White's observations fitted in with comments of former senior Invader leader Dr. Coby Smith, who in an interview on January 9 had said that the Invaders leadership left participation in the march up to their members' discretion but deliberately stayed away themselves. They were fearful that disruption was going to take place and that they would be blamed. Afterward, the Invaders conducted their own investigation, which established the presence in the area that day of a number of cars with Illinois license plates and a number of youths who weren't known to any of the Invaders. When Smith told me this in 1992, I recalled the 1967 Labor Day weekend in Chicago, the NCNP convention, the Black Caucus, and the Blackstone Rangers' participation in the government-sponsored provocation.

***

AS WE NEARED THE END OF OUR INVESTIGATION, we couldn't help being struck by the absence of any reference in the attorney general's files, including the MPD and FBI investigation reports, to certain issues, events, and persons of significance:

• The changing of Dr. King's motel room.
• Taxi driver James McCraw's observations.
• The observations of New York Times reporter Earl Caldwell.
• The complete story of Solomon Jones.
• The observations of Kay Black or Maynard Stiles, or indeed any reference to the brush having been cut.
• The observations of Rev. James Orange.
• Charlie Stephens's intoxication that evening.
• The strange visits to attorney Russell x. Thompson and Rev. James Latimer.

As THE INVESTIGATION ALMOST completely gave way to the trial itself, it was apparent that much was yet to be done. The four-month intensive investigative period had seemingly disappeared in an instant. Had we another three months and the necessary resources to follow through on the plethora of loose ends and newly generated leads, I believed that it might have been possible to pull off a "Perry Mason" courtroom performance, as a result of which James's innocence would be established. But at this point, only Betty Spates's testimony could provide this result.

We tried every way to convince Betty and Bobbi to testify. Betty said she would come forward if Bobbi agreed. Bobbi was reluctant. We offered to have their faces blocked out or to provide a screen. They thought about it. Finally, Betty said she would testify if we blocked out her face. But I still sensed uncertainty.

Jowers could not know that Betty was testifying. The plan was to bring Jowers and his wife up from the country and put them up at a hotel the night before. Betty would take the stand just before lunch and then leave the court. Jowers would be the first witness after lunch, being brought to the waiting room for defense witnesses and then straight into court.

Jowers would be told that he would be testifying generally about the events of the day. He had been approached in a very nonthreatening way. Initially we had hoped that the prosecution could convince him to testify. They did indeed want him as a witness, knowing nothing about the real course of events, but when Hickman Ewing approached him, Ken Herman said that Jowers apparently told him to "go fuck himself."

The jury, having already heard Betty's and possibly Bobbi's, and McCraw's testimony about Jowers's actions and involvement in the killing, would be primed for Jowers's testimony. I planned to end up treating Jowers as a hostile witness and to break him down, step by step. But it all depended on the participation of Betty and Bobbi.

Even knowing that so much was left to be done, as we approached the trial I believed that we had advanced the defense case to a point it had never reached before. My concerns now were to hold on to witnesses, to expand that list by convincing others to testify, and to get the judge to allow various aspects of evidence before the jury.

It wouldn't be long before I was informed that Jowers was insisting on having his lawyer present in the courtroom for the entirety of his testimony.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN

Postby admin » Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:34 am

Chapter 23: The Eve of the Trial: January 24, 1993

THOUGH THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUED, twenty-four hours before the trial was to begin we believed that our case contained a few surprises for the prosecution.

We intended to show, through his own testimony and that of others, that James Earl Ray, a fugitive on the run with few options, was a patsy. At some point he was targeted by persons involved in a conspiracy to kill Martin Luther King and kept on a string with the unfulfilled promise of travel documents and the ongoing payment of relatively small sums of money for the performance of routine tasks as requested. He was moved around the country by a handler he knew only as Raul. An affidavit sworn by Randy Rosenson and the testimony of his former lawyer, Gene Stanley, would not only confirm the existence of Raul but indicate that the HSCA had known of his existence.

Finally, when it was decided that the assassination would be carried out in Memphis, James was given specific instructions to buy a particular rifle within a few days of the killing, and to rent a room in the rooming house on the day itself.

We would attack head-on the conclusions of the prosecution's case and the HSCA report by introducing available evidence. We would show that there was no ballistics evidence to establish that the death slug was fired from the rifle purchased by James and found with the dropped bundle. In addition, although the death slug had frequently been described as being fragmented, or in three pieces, we had evidence that the bullet taken from Dr. King's body was in one piece when it was sent to the FBI laboratory in Washington.

We had developed substantial evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution's contention that the shot came from the bath room. There was no fingerprint evidence in the room and, most important, an eyewitness-taxi driver James McCraw -- would testify that the bathroom was empty and the door was open a few minutes before 6:00 p.m. McCraw would also testify that on the morning of April 5 Jowers showed him a rifle in a box under the cash register in Jim's Grill. We believed that the prosecution was going to rely on the affidavit statement of Charlie Stephens, which purported to identify a profile of James. Since Stephens had made contradictory statements and was drunk at the time, we would destroy his credibility. Our evidence would include testimony from reporter Wayne Chastain, McCraw, and police detective Tommy Smith, who saw Charlie Stephens drunk within minutes of the shooting.

We intended to assert that James Earl Ray was gone from the area by the time of the shooting. Eyewitnesses William Reed and Ray Hendrix would testify through their statements that his Mustang came up South Main Street and turned onto Vance sometime before 6:00.

Through the testimony of former Press Scimitar photographer/reporter Jim Reid we would seek to introduce evidence of gas station attendant Willie Green, who allegedly saw James and who we had come to believe had died. Reid told me that Green had excitedly identified James from a photo Reid showed him, saying that he was the man at his gas station around 6:00 p.m. on the day of the murder. (We had some reservations about this identification because we had finally been able to view the NBC/Earl Wells interview of Willie Green. Even though Green had clearly identified a photograph of James as the person he saw, he also said that the man had used the telephone, which didn't jive with James's recollections.)

We knew that the prosecution was going to maintain that the Mustang which was seen leaving from just south of Canipe's, after the bundle was dropped, was driven by James. We would produce evidence that it was another virtually identical vehicle to that of James, which arrived in the area shortly after 4:30 that afternoon and which had Arkansas plates.

***

WE WERE PREPARED to introduce evidence to show that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy that orchestrated a number of significant events leading up to the slaying.

Eyewitnesses would confirm that the demonstration of March 28 was sabotaged by provocateurs. Evidence would be advanced that in preparation for his return to Memphis Dr. King was manipulated into staying at the Lorraine Motel and that the room originally reserved for him in a protected, ground-level area was changed to a highly exposed, second-floor balcony room. MPD surveillance logs indicated that Rev. Billy Kyles had not been truthful about his movements within the last hour of Dr. King's life, and this was confirmed by Ralph Abernathy and Hosea Williams. Kyles had, in fact, however innocent it may have been, called Dr. King out of his room minutes before the shooting and then concocted a story about talking to him in the room. There was some indication from MPD inspector Sam Evans that it was Kyles who requested the TACT units be pulled back (although I questioned whether there was any such request and Kyles has denied making it). We also knew that Reverend Kyles had taken a room (312) at the Lorraine on April 3 and 4, even though he lived in Memphis. We knew that Reverend Kyles was to be the prosecution's first witness, and I was eager to have an opportunity to raise these issues with him.

The defense would show that the shot actually came from the brush area behind the rooming house, with witnesses testifying that they had seen a person or persons there. Smoke was seen rising from the bushes right after the shooting. There were also the fresh footprints found at the beginning of the alleyway; we planned to introduce photographs of the plaster casts through the testimony of MPD dog officer J. B. Hodges, who discovered them.

Most explosive of all would be the testimony of Betty Spates, if she would actually come forward. She believed that her life had been in jeopardy ever since April 4, 1968, because of what she saw that day. She could positively identify a conspirator to the killing, if not the shooter himself, who appeared to take immediate possession of the murder rifle, break it down, and carry it away.

Betty Spates's sister Bobbi could substantiate elements of her story, and she'd also be able to testify that the manager of Jim's Grill had put the second floor of the rooming house off-limits on that day, preventing the delivery of food to a recuperating tenant -- Grace Walden. But Bobbi, too, was afraid.

Evidence of the involvement of organized crime figures would be introduced through the testimony of John McFerren if we could get him to testify about what he heard and saw late on the afternoon of April 4 at the LL&L Produce Company in Memphis.

The role of the local police in the assassination would be raised by evidence about the unexplained transfer on April 4 of two black firemen from their usual duty assignment at fire station 2 and the forced removal of black detective Ed Redditt from his surveillance post in the fire station two hours before the shooting. In addition, there was the pull back of the TACT units from around the Lorraine, the absence of the usual security unit of black homicide detectives, and the disappearance of all police from the motel Within an hour of the shooting.

Contrasted with the removal of the local police and their security personnel was the presence on April 4 of FBI or other federal agents in unmarked cars on Ruling and Butler streets, with the Lorraine situated in between. We referred to this impinging presence as a "surveillance sandwich."

The Invaders abruptly left the hotel only to return to the area shortly after the shooting and be stopped by barricades that appeared within ten minutes. We learned that it ordinarily took about thirty minutes for them to be brought from their storage depot and put in place.

The defense would present evidence of the predisposition of the federal government to harm and discredit Dr. King. The use of electronic surveillance, wiretapping, and diversified harassment activities against Dr. King for a number of years before 1968 would be documented, (Former FBI special agents Arthur Murtagh and Bill Turner would substantiate these assertions. )

We would also call as a witness Jim Smith, the local MPD special services intelligence bureau officer, who along with federal agents participated in the electronic surveillance of Dr, King in Memphis. The FBI had always vehemently denied that King was ever electronically surveilled in Memphis. Our surprise evidence would establish this as yet other long-standing lie and establish the interest the FBI or other collaborating federal agency took in Dr. King while he was in Memphis.

The plethora of strange events involving government officials, at one level or another, would be capped by the bizarre disclosure of Ed Redditt concerning a photograph of MPD officer Louis MacKay standing guard over the well-known bundle of evidence lying not in front of Canipe's but on the corner of Huling and Mulberry streets.

The existence of a previous assassination effort against Dr. King would be put into evidence through the affidavit of Myron Billet.

We would also seek to introduce the affidavit of Jules "Ricco" Kimbel who claimed to have piloted the plane, owned by a company of New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcello, that flew two shooters to Memphis from Canada, Kimbel's statement conflicted in part with our developing understanding of the events, but he was adamant about the involvement of government assets in coordinating and executing the assassination.

Finally, the defense would provide a range of evidence about the cover-up, official dirty tricks, and the suppression of the truth about what took place on that afternoon, starting with the hoax broadcast that diverted police attention to the northern part of the city away from the crime scene and the logical escape route to the south. This would be presented in conjunction with the failure of the MPD to follow some of its standard emergency procedures designed to facilitate the apprehension of a fleeing suspect. We would give evidence establishing the cutting down of the brush the morning after the shooting, and we would show that it was at the request of the police.

Then there were the efforts to kill James or to buy him off with an offer of money, a pardon, and a new identity for a detailed confession. Testimony from James's previous attorney Jack Kershaw about William Bradford Ruie's offer of money was planned. Evidence about the contract offer on James's life that was offered to inmate Tim Kirk, and the events surrounding James's escape from Brushy Mountain Penitentiary at a time when the RSCA was being founded, was to be introduced.

James's lawyers and his brother weren't immune from dirty tricks. St. Louis television reporter John Auble was scheduled to testify about specific instances of RSCA dirty tricks set up against Mark Lane in 1978 and also against James's brother Jerry, through the use of an informant, Oliver Patterson, who admitted his role. Former Alton, Illinois, police officer John Light was scheduled to testify about the RSCA, FBI, and New York Times collaborating to falsely lay the blame for the Alton bank robbery on James and Jerry Ray. We believed that all this evidence was relevant because it showed external, even official, interest in establishing James Earl Ray as the lone assassin or in getting him out of the way.

The bureau's manipulation of the media's coverage of Dr. King and James was to be the subject of testimony researched and prepared by Bill Schaap of the Institute of Media Analysis in New York. Schaap's research had documented a campaign of hate and distortion against King and a gradual reconstruction of James's image from that of a petty criminal to a lone, racist assassin.

Our concluding evidence was to be provided by Walter Fauntroy himself, who said that he and the other RSCA members were misled by the staff and their own counsel. Fauntroy would say that his review of the evidence now indicated to him that James was not guilty.

***

PRINCIPAL PARTICIPANTS ON both sides of the case held one final pretrial meeting on Sunday morning, January 24.

Hickman Ewing had been provided in discovery with our documentation that dealt with the bureau's COINTELPRO activities against Dr. King, as well as Bill Schaap's research on the manipulation of the media and the Jerry Ray/William Bradford Ruie telephone conversation transcripts. As a result, I believe he thought we were going to defend James by putting the government on trial; to a certain extent, of course, this was true.

Ewing told the judge he believed that much of our evidence wasn't relevant to any trial of James Earl Ray for murder. He admitted, for example, that FBI harassment of Dr. King was well known but maintained that it was irrelevant and that there was no evidence of any such activity against Dr. King in Memphis. I replied that there was indeed. The prosecutor looked skeptical.

I told the judge that I did intend to introduce such evidence, that I believed to be relevant since a significant aspect of the defense case pointed to the involvement of the bureau and perhaps other intelligence agencies in the murder of Dr. King and its cover-up. The judge proposed a private meeting with the defense after this session in order to ascertain specifically what evidence we were seeking to introduce.

The two sides had basically agreed on the trial procedures to be followed, but a few areas had not been clearly defined. Perhaps the main concern was the introduction of statements from witnesses who for one reason or another couldn't attend and therefore couldn't be cross-examined. We formally requested that FBI 302 interview reports be excluded because our investigation had located witnesses who repudiated 302 statements attributed to them that they had never seen.

It wasn't as though exclusion of 302 reports wouldn't have hurt our case. Our team had tried feverishly, without success, to locate alibi witnesses William Reed and Ray Hendrix. If the 302s were inadmissible, we knew we'd have lost their alibi statements, but we'd come to believe that some of the 302s were so unreliable that they might cast doubt on the trial itself. The judge ruled that such reports of interviews, since they were taken by law enforcement officers, had a basic presumption of credibility and should be admissible.

Throughout the meeting I waited for producer Jack Saltman to bring up the fact that the FBI had made reservations in the same hotel and on the same floor as the jury and had a technical surveillance team go through each of the rooms reserved for the jurors. It began to appear that he wasn't going to raise the issue at all. It may have been that he was afraid of the impact on the judge or even on Ewing. Ultimately, I forced the issue and he finally reluctantly mentioned it. The revelation was greeted with blank stares and no comment at all by the judge or the prosecutor.

***

IN OUR PRIVATE CONFERENCE with the judge, I outlined the cospiracy-related elements of the case, and in so doing summarized evidence on the following issues we intended to introduce:

• Government intelligence agency operations directed against Dr. King, as well as the FBI's specific COINTELPRO, COMINFIL, and other programs of harassment. and electronic surveillance, including activities carried out in Memphis.
• Previous FBI and other governmental intelligence agency efforts to facilitate or arrange the murder of Dr. King
• The changing of Dr. King's hotel as well as his room.
• The manipulation and use of the print and visual media by the FBI and intelligence agencies.
• Specific attempts to either buy off or kill the defendant.
• The expert opinion of the chairman of the subcommittee of the RSCA, Walter Faun troy, that the committee was misled by its staff.

The judge was negative about allowing in any of this evidence, questioning its relevance to the specific charge of murder. The more he heard, the more rigid he seemed to become. He asked if we had evidence of any COINTELPRO activities against Dr. King in Memphis. I said we did. He asked what form it took. I said the evidence came from a participant in the activity. Reluctantly, he admitted that he might let such evidence in if we could concretely show it was done in Memphis.

It was difficult to remain restrained, particularly in light of the disclosures of FBI activity regarding the trial jury's security. If anything, I expected that this revelation would enhance the relevance and credibility of the point we sought to make. In retrospect, the incident might have made the judge even more cautious. He promised a ruling by 6:00 p.m.

I left the conference more depressed than at any time since we had begun to work on the trial. If the judge ruled against us, our case would be severely crippled; the entire trial could have become a farce. I believed that my obligations as a lawyer would require me to go immediately to the prison and confer with James. I'd have to put everything on the table and let him decide whether he wished to go ahead. Since the idea of the trial itself had originated with me, I certainly was not going to collaborate in its subversion.

At about 2:45 that afternoon, as we waited in the corridor for a pretrial press conference to begin, my frustration must have been obvious. There was no telling what I would do, or what I would say to the media.

Just before the press conference began, the judge called Ewing and me aside. He was going to let the defense put on its case, but he was ordering us to reveal the names of all of our witnesses, except the "security" witnesses, to the prosecution by the next morning.

The press conference went ahead in a spirited, upbeat manner, and when we left the courthouse late that afternoon I believed we had the court's approval for putting forward a wide-ranging defense.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN

Postby admin » Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:35 am

Chapter 24: The Trial: January 25-February 5, 1993

JUDGE MARVIN FRANKEL CALLED THE COURT TO ORDER at 9:30 a.m., Monday, January 25, 1993.

In his opening remarks the prosecutor forcefully contended that James was guilty. He said the defense would be "Anybody but me"; James would have them believe that the responsibility for Dr. King's murder was with the FBI, the CIA, or some guy named Raul.

I asked the jury to keep open minds and promised to take them on a journey that would boggle the imagination. I told them Dr. King had been a lamb led to slaughter by forces he knew only too well but that the defendant was also manipulated and controlled by forces that to this very day he didn't understand and couldn't identify.

The prosecution's first witness was Rev. Samuel "Billy" Kyles. Ewing led him through the sanitation workers' strike and Dr. King's agreement to come to Memphis. Kyles outlined the idea behind the Poor People's Campaign and said that, in his view, it was "... too much for the powers that be, to bring these poor people to Washington, to embarrass this nation by camping out on the mall in Washington." Ewing then. moved on to the details of the march.

To our astonishment, Kyles blurted out that he had learned later that the FBI had hired provocateurs to disrupt the march. We'd fought to have such evidence admitted on behalf of the defense, and here it was being volunteered by the prosecution's very first witness. Judge Frankel seemed uncomfortable. Ewing, obviously unwilling to challenge his first witness, tried to ignore the statement.

In discussing events close to April 4, Kyles volunteered that they had boycotted one of the local newspapers, the Commercial Appeal, because it had engaged in character assassination of Dr. King. This was an example of just the sort of media manipulation we were planning to introduce.

The questioning quickly moved Kyles to April 4. The preacher described his supposed conversation in room 306 with King and Abernathy, and his position on the balcony some feet away from where King was shot just after 6:00 p.m. I began cross-examination by asking Kyles if he was familiar with Dr. King's speech at the Riverside Church on April 4, 1967. He said it was King's first major speech against the war and admitted that it had engendered a great deal of hostility. Kyles then volunteered that Hoover had made no secret of his dislike for King, whom he had called the most notorious liar in the country.

Kyles confirmed the fact that there was usually a black security squad formed to protect Dr. King in Memphis. He testified that he didn't remember there being any security on April 4 and that he was aware that the TACT units had been pulled back.

I countered Kyles's assertion that Dr. King had always stayed at the Lorraine, and he had to admit that in fact, at least on the two occasions before his final visit, he had stayed at the Rivermont.

I asked Kyles why, when he lived in Memphis, he had registered in room 312 at the Lorraine. He answered that he took a room in the event that someone else coming in without a reservation might need it. But in the next breath he went on to say, "As it turned out, A. D. King did come in, his brother came in," implying that A. D. was going to take the room. He further stated that he ended up taking A. D. to his home. In fact A. D. had registered in room 201.

Finally, I challenged his description of his activities on the fateful afternoon. I raised the MPD surveillance reports, which recorded him not as being in the room with Martin, but rather knocking on his door at 5:50 and calling him outside.

The dilemma for the defense, of course, was that by undermining Kyles's credibility, we could erode one of our basic themes of the FBI's anti-King activity. Kyles stuck to his story.

My exchange with the first witness would be one of the most heated of the trial. It was a dramatic start.

The court recessed after Kyles's testimony. On the steps of the courthouse Kyles said it was a real trial in every way, that the defense didn't pull any punches, and that his cross-examination was rigorous.

After the recess Ewing read into the record the statements of Ralph Abernathy and MPD intelligence officer Willie B. Richmond, which contained his surveillance report. Richmond's statement revealed that Billy Kyles had not been inside Dr. King's room at any time but that he had knocked on Dr. King's door around 5;50-about eleven minutes before the shooting. Dr. King answered the door, peered out, closed the door and emerged a few minutes later, shortly before 6;00, ready to leave for a soul food dinner at Kyles's home.

Abernathy's statement confirmed that he and King hurriedly prepared to go after the SCLC staff meeting broke up. He remembered Dr. King going outside and waiting for him on the balcony.

Lt. George Loenneke was brought on to describe his observations of Dr. King when he was struck. Loenneke stated that he had been watching Dr. King's party and the Lorraine from a peephole at fire station 2 when he saw King shot. As we have seen, two other firemen (Charles Stone and William King) said that the lieutenant was fiddling with his locker at the moment Dr. King was hit.

It wasn't significant, but something else that the lieutenant knew was important. He had told me about the Seabrook sales- girl who volunteered that she saw a man park a white Mustang in front of Canipe's amusement company and go upstairs in the rooming house. She was certain that the man was not James Earl Ray.

I wanted this story on the record. The problem was that it was hearsay. Ewing clearly knew about it because before the lieutenant could answer my eliciting question he was on his feet objecting to "anything that someone at Seabrook supposedly told him." The judge promptly sustained.

The prosecution established the presence of the bundle in front of Canipe's and introduced testimony relating to how soon after the shot was heard that it was found. Through the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Vernon Dollahite, Ewing did indeed introduce a photograph -- for illustrative purposes -- of the general area around the time, showing a police car parked up on the sidewalk of the fire station parking lot. This was the photograph he had shown us in discovery and I thought it was misleading because he appeared to be using it to imply that the police car was in that spot at the time that James was allegedly fleeing. In fact, the photograph was taken at an entirely different time because the car in the picture was not that driven by Lt. Emmett Douglass, which at the time was parked much farther back and adjacent to the northwest door on the side of the fire station.

Former MPD lieutenant and FBI Academy graduate James Papia took the stand. He was one of the first officers on the scene and in the rooming house, and he testified that there was discoloration in the bathtub; he said it appeared someone had stood in it with shoes on.

During my cross-examination he admitted that he had no idea about where the rear stairway of the rooming house led and whether the back door at the foot of these stairs was locked or open. He also said he never entered Charlie Stephens's and Grace Walden's room 6-B, which overlooked the Lorraine and adjoined the room James rented as well as the bathroom. Papia was thus unable to offer any opinion on the sobriety of the state's main witness, Charlie Stephens.

The prosecution introduced statements of Willie Anschutz, a now deceased tenant of the rooming house, which said that after hearing the shot he saw a man run from room 5-B down the hall toward the front of the building, carrying some sort of package.

This was followed by former MPD homicide detective and FBI Academy graduate Glynn King, another one of the first police officers on the scene. He confirmed the presence of scuff marks in the bathtub and told of interviewing the land- lady, Bessie Brewer, and Charlie Stephens, who he insisted did not appear to be even slightly intoxicated.

On cross-examination he said he remembered seeing the register for the rooming house. Since that book was not in the evidence in the clerk's office, I asked why he had not taken possession of it. His reply was simply, "You know, I don't know why."

Next, since Charlie Stephens was dead, the prosecution introduced his 1968 statement, for which I had ample refutation.

Homicide inspector N. E. Zachary detailed the items found in the bundle he took away from Canipe's door. Included were a number of personal effects belonging to James and, of course, the 30.06 Remington rifle he purchased in Birmingham. All of this physical evidence was, he said, turned over to the FBI for forensic analysis by their laboratory in Washington. Also sent to the bureau's lab, according to Zachary, was the death slug in three fragments.

Ewing read a statement of the now deceased Lt. J. D. Halliby in which he asserted that he turned over to Zachary "one battered lead slug" he received from the coroner, Dr. Jerry Francisco, after Francisco removed it from Dr. King's body.

James's purchase of the gun from Aeromarine Supply, his rental of a room at the new Rebel Motel on April 3, and his rental of the "sleeping room " in the South Main Street rooming house the next day were established, as was his purchase of the binoculars found in the bundle. We had offered to stipulate to these facts, which were not at issue, but the prosecutor refused, wanting to lay his proof before the jury.

Former Memphis field office special agent Joe Hester headed up the FBI's investigation of Dr. King's murder, and in the witness chair he said he would have hated to be known as the man who couldn't find the murderer of Martin Luther King. He discussed the extent of the search for the killer, and the resources expended. Under cross- examination he conceded that there were two white Mustangs in front of the rooming house on the afternoon of the assassination but called it a "coincidence." He contended that the bureau's COINTELPRO program was directed against communists, not Dr. King. He said there was no organized crime in Memphis, and he categorically asserted that there was no electronic surveillance of Dr. King in Memphis; without a doubt, he said, if there was he would have known about it.

The prosecution called Donald Champagne. He had been the head of the HSCA's ballistics panel and was well respected. He testified to the process followed by the panel.

On cross-examination he conceded that the results of the panel's analysis were inconclusive. They couldn't match the death slug to the evidence rifle. Champagne confirmed that the death slug provided to them was in three fragments.

The prosecution's next witness, New York forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden (who headed the HSCA's forensic panel), volunteered on direct examination that the bullet extracted from Dr. King was originally in one piece. Here again, the prosecutor was impeaching one of his own witnesses: Zachary.

Ewing closed his case with statements and testimony on a series of issues. One involved the date on which James put in his laundry when he was in Atlanta (James saying March 27 or thereabouts, and the state contending April 1).We had difficulty with this point because James had always insisted that he wasn't in Atlanta on April 1, and the tangible evidence of the laundry receipt seemed to indicate that he was. We felt that the date itself wasn't really important, but it had become an issue.

As to the circles drawn on the Atlanta map found in James's room in the Atlanta rooming house, which the prosecution contended were near Dr. King's house, the SCLC offices, and around James's own current location on 14th Street at the time, the prosecution witness had to admit that the circles didn't enclose or pinpoint the areas at all.

The prosecution's last live witness was former FBI fingerprint expert George Bonebrake, who had worked on the evidence back in 1968. As expected, he identified one print of James on the evidence rifle and one on the scope, as well as others on some of the personal items in the bundle. He admitted on cross-examination that no prints of James were found in the rented room 5-B, the bathroom or anywhere else in the rooming house. He also had to admit that there were numerous other fingerprints found in the rooming house and lifted from the Mustang itself that he never identified and wasn't asked to identify.

The prosecution's case of circumstantial evidence was completed in three days, following the testimony of eighteen live witnesses and the introduction of twenty-two statements from unavailable witnesses.

***

WE OPENED THE DEFENSE CASE ON THURSDAY, January 28. Before we had even started, we lost one witness-our CB expert, Carroll Carroll, who refused to testify because of the publicity surrounding the trial. Much more worrisome was that we were also dangerously close to losing Betty Spates, whose nervousness was also compounded by the publicity.

After the testimony of J. J. Maloney and Don Wolverton, two former inmates who had known James quite well and attested that he was neither a racist nor a violent person, the trial was preoccupied for two days with the direct and cross-examination of James, conducted by satellite from the prison in Nashville. He was able to view the entire trial on a monitor in the prison and appeared on a monitor in the courtroom throughout the proceedings.

Immediately following James's testimony I explained how and why he had originally agreed to the guilty plea only to withdraw it and request a trial three days later. In his rebuttal, Hickman Ewing basically said that the plea was freely and intelligently given.

There were scheduled to be forty-nine live defense witnesses and nine statements from unavailable witnesses following James. (At the outset when Ewing's assistant Glenn Wright, a former prosecutor on the attorney general's staff, learned about the large number of proposed witnesses, he was incredulous. He asked Jean, "How can you get anyone to testify for James Earl Ray?" She replied, "It's called conducting an investigation.")

In an effort to give credibility to our contention that Raul existed, Knoxville attorney and former assistant U .S. attorney for eastern Tennessee Gene Stanley was put on the stand. The judge was furious about Stanley's attempt to narrate his representation of Randy Rosenson during his interrogation by the HSCA which included particular hearsay statements by committee staffers who confirmed the existence of Raul. We thought the statements should be admitted because they were against the interests of the speaker and therefore admissible, even though hearsay.

Our sworn statement from Rosenson dated January 20, 1993, confirmed his questioning by the HSCA staff, his involvement in smuggling activity in 1967-1968 across the Mexican border, and his travels with an American Indian who had both mob and FBI connections and who owned a white Mustang. Over our objections, the judge excluded the following part of the statement, which dealt with his HSCA interviews; "During these sessions the HSCA staff were primarily interested in having me identify an associate of James Earl Ray whose existence they acknowledged and whom they called Raul.

***

SHOCK WAVES WENT THROUGH THE COURTROOM when our witness Barry Neal Linville, the former MPD homicide detective, looked at the photograph I showed him of the three fragments of the bullet alleged to be the death slug and stated, "That's not the bullet I saw." He said that he had seen thousands of bullets in his career and that except for some flattening of the lead at the top, the bullet he and his partner saw the coroner take from Dr. King's body was a near-perfect evidence bullet.

Ewing tried to discredit Linville and failed. When asked if anyone else saw the bullet, Linville reeled off a list of MPD officers. The homicide office had been full of FBI officers, and there had been numerous photographs depicting the slug. "We felt that we found a piece of gold," he added.

Our ballistics expert, Chuck Morton, confirmed prosecution expert Champagne's statement that it was not possible to conclude that the death slug was fired from the rifle found in front of Canipe's.

Prosecutor Ewing asked about the degree of intactness of the bullet. Morton testified that according to the HSCA report the total weight of the three fragments was roughly half of a fully intact slug. Ewing used this to imply that the slug couldn't have been in such a pristine condition as Linville had stated. This really could only be explained by an inaccurate measurement taken by Hamby or as a result of the breaking off on impact and dispersal in the victim's body of most of the lead from the soft nose of the bullet that Linville admitted had been flattened.

In light of Linville's startling testimony, Ewing did the best he could with what he had, but he wasn't able to deal with the fact that the bullet when removed had been in one piece and was now in three fragments.

Linville's observations were supported by MPD captain Tommy Smith, who described how upon pinching the lump of skin below the shoulder blade covering the bullet and rolling the slug between his fingers, he had no doubt that it was in one piece. He went on to testify that Charlie Stephens was so drunk that he could hardly stand up when he tried to interview him shortly after the killing. He further confirmed the presence of thick bushes at the rear of the rooming house.

My co-counsel, April Ferguson, read into the record the affidavits of William Reed and Ray Hendrix, which confirmed their observation of the white Mustang leaving the scene minutes before the shooting.

We had next planned to show, through the testimony of former taxi driver James McCraw, that the shot couldn't have come from the bathroom window because the bathroom was empty just before 6;00 p.m. However, McCraw had a heart attack in the witness room and had to be rushed to intensive care. We had taken an extensive statement from him, but we held off introducing it at this point, hoping that he might recover sufficiently to testify before the trial ended.

We put Capt. Emmett Douglass on the stand to counter the prosecution's contention that the person who dropped the bundle in front of Canipe's did so in panic upon seeing a police cruiser pulled up to the sidewalk. Douglass was adamant that his car wasn't pulled up to the sidewalk and wouldn't have been visible to anyone looking along the street in the position of the person fleeing the scene.

In his cross-examination, Ewing confronted Douglass with a previous statement in which he had said he thought he saw more than one gun when he looked at the bundle. Douglass himself readily admitted that his mind had been "playing tricks" on him.

The judge refused to allow the testimony of Jim Reid regarding his interview of gas station attendant Willie Green. It was hearsay, he ruled, refusing to accept our argument that the testimony was covered by the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. On balance, however, the ruling by the judge in this instance probably served to keep untrustworthy evidence from the jury.

He also refused to allow testimony of Wayne Chastain and Leon Cohen relating to their separate conversations with Walter Bailey, the owner of the Lorraine Motel, concerning the change in King's room. Again the judge considered it hearsay, and denied our argument that an exception applied.

We proceeded with testimony from Charles and Peggy Hurley and later Jimmy Walker showing that there were in fact two Mustangs parked in front of the rooming house on the afternoon of the shooting. By establishing the presence of two Mustangs and that the Mustang in front of Canipe's was not James's, it followed that James had in fact parked in front of the grill as he maintained. As further evidence that it was the Mustang in front of Jim's Grill that belonged to James, we later called Frances Thompson to the stand. She had worked at Seabrook Wallpaper in 1968. The FBI 302 report of her interview at the time stated that she said she had seen a man sitting in the Mustang parked just south of Canipe's, at around 4:30-5:00 on the afternoon of April 4. When our investigators interviewed her she said that that was wrong and that in fact, she saw the man sitting in the Mustang parked in front of Jim's Grill. I was concerned about this apparent discrepancy.

When I raised the FBI report of her interview with her, she said it was incorrect and was quite definite that the car was in fact in front of Jim's Grill.

On cross-examination she confused Ewing with the prosecutor who had taken her statement originally. Ewing sought to discredit her with this and she became flustered, but she unwaveringly stood by her testimony that she saw a man in the car in front of Jim's Grill.

***

WE MOVED ON TO ESTABLISH OUR affirmative defense-that the assassination was the result of an elaborate conspiracy. The testimony of former policeman Jim Smith, the Rev. James Lawson, Emmanuel White, and Dr. Coby Smith all combined to show that provocateurs were at work in causing the sanitation workers' march to break up in violence. This was considerably bolstered by the previous testimony of Reverend Kyles.

Wayne Chastain testified about Stephens's intoxicated condition and his observation of the dense bushes, which he viewed from the Stephens's kitchen window just after the killing.

The defense found itself in an unusual situation. While virtually all the live witnesses for the prosecution were former policemen or FBI agents, the defense witnesses were from both sides and included a considerable number of policemen on duty during the time. This was particularly evident in the testimony concerning the disruption of the march. Dr. Coby Smith, while waiting to testify, told Jean how the Invaders were constantly under surveillance by the MPD and how young black men who had gone into the army were also used to spy on them. Meanwhile Jim Smith, who was also waiting to testify, was surreptitiously tugging at Jean's sleeve and trying to tell her that the practice Coby Smith described was true because Jim himself had been assigned to spy on the Invaders.

With one notable exception, all the policemen whom I had interviewed in preparation for the trial either believed that James was innocent or had serious doubts about his guilt. The exception, ironically, was Detective J. C. Davis, who at the time was an officer assigned to the intelligence bureau and who drafted the memo I found in the attorney general's office which referred to Betty Spates's statement contending James's innocence and her boss's culpability.

Jim Smith was later recalled to testify about his assignment to assist a team of federal agents conducting electronic surveillance on Dr. King in his suite at the Holiday Inn Rivermont Hotel on the evening of March 18. Smith stated that while he was assisting the agents he came to learn that they were hoping to pick up personal dirt on the civil rights leader. They were receiving in a van not far from the hotel. He referred to them only as "federal agents" until I inquired if they were FBI and he said they were. The basis of his knowledge was hearsay, and I felt sure that if Ewing had objected the judge would have sustained. Afterward, outside the courtroom, Ewing's assistant Glenn Wright attacked Smith, saying, "I thought you were supposed to be on our side."

The two men working in the area on the afternoon of April 4 -- Hasel Huckaby and Robert Hagerty -- testified to their observations, which helped establish that surveillance activities were conducted on the streets immediately north and south of the Lorraine.

The jury could see a pattern of intelligence activity directed against Dr. King up to the moment of his death. I hoped that they would contrast this evidence of unofficial presence with the testimony we were to introduce of the stripping away of any official protective security presence around Dr. King and the Lorraine. Jerry Williams would testify about the absence of the special security unit of black homicide detectives usually provided to Dr. King in Memphis, and John Smith would recall that any remaining security/police around the motel disappeared within twenty minutes of the shooting.

Black firemen Floyd Newsom and Norvell Wallace, and black MPD officer Ed Redditt later testified that they were transferred and removed from duty assignments at fire station 2 during the last twenty-four hours of Dr. King's life.

Former chief William O. Crumby, who was going to testify about the pull back of the TACT units, was unable to do so at the last minute. He was not well.

***

BY THE THIRD DAY OF THE defense, we were experiencing major setbacks. McCraw was still in intensive care, so his statement was read into the record. The judge refused to allow the part describing the rifle Jowers kept in a box under the cash register. I have never understood this ruling. This hurt, but far worse was to come. John McFerren fled in fear and couldn't be persuaded to return to give evidence. Fear had also silenced Betty and Bobbi, who were due to testify that day. Betty had refused to answer the phone and wouldn't come to the door.

We had Loyd Jowers waiting to testify and had to put him on. He lived some distance away, and if we didn't call him now he would leave and we would miss the chance. We hoped against hope that somehow Betty and Bobbi could be persuaded to testify or at least give sworn statements so that Jowers would be impeached. If necessary, we could even recall him. As he had previously requested, he insisted on having his lawyer present in the courtroom for the duration of his testimony. His attorney, Lewis Garrison, had represented Jowers for years on his various civil matters. Jowers made the most of a hearing problem, which gave him ample time to reflect on the questions. It was interesting that Jowers lied about a number of matters -- some seemingly insignificant but some clearly of importance. For example, at one point he denied that there was a rear exit at the foot of the back stairs. At another point he said he always kept the door leading from the kitchen to the rear stairs locked and barred. He said he had no staff at all working on the afternoon of April 4. Not wanting him to be come aware of the degree of communication I had had with the waitresses who were in fact working that day, I didn't press him.

***

WE RETURNED TO THE TRIAL office that evening to learn that Hosea Williams, who should have arrived that day, was in too much pain even to get to the airport. He asked if he was really needed and was told yes. We rescheduled his appearance.

Meanwhile, Oscar Kent had arrived from Birmingham and was waiting to talk to us. (We had earlier made contact with him because Morris Davis had told us that he could corroborate Davis's allegations about Dr. Gus Prosch. After considering for some time, he offered to come to Memphis to talk to us.) He remembered seeing Davis and Prosch at the Gulas Lounge but said he didn't know anything about their business or any connection they might have with the King case. He went on to reveal an extraordinary story of his own. He said that he had been involved in illegal activity with some Birmingham police detectives. They had a falling-out and tried to set him up, charging him with a number of crimes over a period of years, all subsequent to 1968. The significance of this, he said, was that on March 30, 1968 he delivered a payoff to two detectives in a parking area near the Aeromarine Supply Company when they were on a stakeout waiting for James Earl Ray to appear . James did appear and entered the store. Kent said the detectives, whom he named, had James's photograph and real name. They told him it was not their intention to pick up James but merely to confirm his appearance. If true (the members of our team had different views as to this), it was a startling disclosure, one that indicated foreknowledge of the killing by the police department. There was no time to do any corroboration on Oscar Kent. I decided he would go on the stand.

***

FEBRUARY 1 WAS ANOTHER difficult day for the defense. It started well, with former FBI agent Arthur Murtagh movingly recalling the bureau's extensive unconstitutional efforts to discredit Dr. King. At various points he broke down and sobbed. Ewing again tried to prevent any evidence of the FBI's illegal activity against Dr. King, but the judge overruled him. However, he wouldn't let Murtagh mention the spontaneous remark of fellow agent James Rose, who upon hearing about the assassination exclaimed, "We [or they] finally got the son of a bitch!"

Former FBI agent Bill Turner's testimony was abbreviated after Ewing raised an objection as to relevance after only a few minutes, but not before Turner had described the FBI's "black bag" operations during this period.

St. Louis newscaster John Auble, who was prepared to testify about the incident of "dirty tricks" by the HSCA using the New York Times, was thrown off the stand by the judge virtually be- fore he could open his mouth. The judge maintained that such post-assassination activities were not material to the charge of murder, despite our argument that as evidence of a cover-up they were relevant to the existence of a conspiracy.

The judge ordered a recess and asked the defense where it was going. We then told him we planned to call Bill Schaap as an expert on the political uses and manipulations of the media in influencing mass public opinion about Dr. King and James Earl Ray. The judge commented that author Gerold Frank had convicted James in his book. We told him that that was precisely the point. Jean produced the FBI memo from DeLoach to Hoover (dated the day after Ray's guilty plea hearing) proposing that an official record of the case be written by a friendly writer, and suggesting Gerold Frank. We knew the judge had read the book and so we had been waiting for an opportunity to introduce the memo. To his credit the judge allowed us to introduce it over Ewing's objection. He refused, however, to allow us to call Bill Schaap.

He treated the same way defense evidence pertaining to the efforts of the HSCA and the media to tie the Ray brothers to the Alton bank robbery. Former Alton policeman John Light's testimony was not to be heard.

We pressed on with testimony indicating that in all likelihood the shot came from the brush area opposite the Lorraine. We introduced the statements of Solomon Jones and Rev. James Orange. Kay Black also testified to having observed the area on the morning of April 5 after it had been cut and cleared up. Retired police officer J. B. Hodges testified to finding fresh footprints in the alleyway, and Maynard Stiles testified that the brush and the bushes were cut to the ground early the next morning.

William Ross came to testify about his enhanced recollection that the shot came from the bushes. Unfortunately, earlier Ewing had requested a conference in chambers to object to this testimony because Ross didn't remember where he thought the shot came from until after he was hypnotized. We thought that was the idea; that the subjects' recollections were sharper after hypnosis. We allowed the prosecution to view the video of our hypnosis sessions and though he talked generally about procedures his objections seemed to be more result-driven. The judge affirmed: Ross was out, even though Hurley and Walker, who had also been hypnotized, had been allowed in.

Oscar Kent took the stand and testified to his business relationship with particular Birmingham detectives in 1968 and to having observed two of them surveilling James Earl Ray as he entered and left the Aeromarine store on March 29. Kent testified that he had been charged with a number of fabricated crimes after this episode, but that the charges were ultimately dropped. He said that prior to his Aeromarine observations, with the exception of traffic violations, he had never been charged with a crime. On cross-examination Ewing asked Kent to provide details. In the course of doing so he described James as wearing khaki trousers and a lightweight light blue wind- breaker. Though Ewing did not follow it up, this statement gave us concern because Donald Wood, the manager of Aero- marine, had clearly described James as being dressed in a dark suit, white shirt and tie, which, in fact, was James's usual dress during this time. James later confirmed to us that he had never owned the type of clothes described by Kent.)

***

SINCE SO MANY WITNESSES HAD BEEN EXCLUDED, the defense was running short. We were anxiously awaiting the arrival of Hosea Williams. Meanwhile, another crisis had emerged. Earl Caldwell had begged off, saying he was suffering from the flu. The defense staff pleaded and offered to provide local medical care. We held our breath.

Williams, having been met at the arrivals gate by a wheel- chair, was driven straight to the courthouse. He testified that he arrived with Dr. King on April 3, that they were looking forward to staying at the Rivermont Holiday Inn, and that he was surprised that they were taken to the Lorraine Motel. He said that neither he nor anyone else in the entourage was familiar with the Lorraine and no one understood why the change was made.

In response to a question about room assignments, he said that Dr. King was "initially" given a room on the ground floor but "... for some strange reason, his room was changed."

He recounted the events in the hours before the assassination.

On cross-examination Ewing concentrated on Dr. King's itinerary in the months and weeks prior to the killing, apparently attempting to establish that his movements were public knowledge.

During my re-direct, Williams confirmed that there was an FBI informant employed as an accountant under Ralph Abernathy, SCLC's treasurer.

In addition to the losses already mentioned, the judge ruled that the defense couldn't introduce the affidavit of Tim Kirk relating to the contract offer on James's life; or Jack Kershaw's testimony about the offer of money and a pardon for James on the condition he admitted guilt; or Myron Billet's film inter- view and affidavit relating to a previous conspiracy to kill King; or Jules "Ricco" Kimbel's affidavit about flying in two shooters. We didn't even bother raising the issue of Oliver Patterson's affidavit, which outlined dirty tricks by the HSCA against Jerry Ray, including the taking of hair samples, theft of correspondence, and the introduction to him of a female agent for purposes of gathering information in exchange for sex.

It was the exclusion of evidence about the hoax broadcast that most upset James. The broadcast within minutes of the shooting was obviously of crucial importance. We had the dispatcher, William Tucker, ready to testify. The transcripts of the tapes had long been publicized and known. We also had the policeman in the field, Rufus Bradshaw, who received and radioed in the false CB account of a car chase involving a white Mustang. But the judge said, "Your client has benefited once from this hoax by being able to escape. I'll not let him benefit twice." The legal reasoning escaped me. James was so angry that he wanted to withdraw from the case.

John Billings called late at night to say that James was threatening not to appear the next day. I called James and told him that I shared his frustration but believed that the jury was with us. I agreed to recall him to the stand to give him an opportunity to ventilate.

Betty and Bobbi continued to avoid us. We prepared an affidavit for Betty to sign, but she refused. She spoke to to our investigator Cliff Dates on February 2, apologizing for any inconvenience caused and stating that she had finally decided not to cooperate, fearing that if she did so Jowers would "surely kill her." She also stated her belief that if the trial went well, James would be paroled in two years' time.

On James's recall the next morning, Ewing spent more time on his feet objecting than he did in his chair. James was determined to talk about the hoax, and Ewing and the judge were determined that he would not.

Ken Herman said he noticed a look of interest on the jurors' faces when the prosecutor tried to shut James up. He said the look asked, "What are they trying to keep from us?"

I later learned that when James showed up that morning he had with him a book with a sign inside it on which the following words were printed: THIS TRIAL IS A FARCE. He intended to flash it in front of the cameras if things continued the way they had. John Billings did his best to stabilize the situation.

Next on the stand was fireman William King. He testified that the day after the shooting he walked down Mulberry Street and noticed that "bushes" behind the rooming house had been freshly cut. When asked, he said that he was talking about trees rather than bushes, and he identified a long tree branch that appeared to have been recently cut and that hung over the wall.

I was thankful that Earl Caldwell finally appeared. He told how New York Times editor Claude Sitton had told him to "nail Dr. King." He vividly described how after the shot he saw a crouching man rising up from the bushes and staring at the balcony until he was distracted by Solomon Jones furiously driving the car back and forth. On cross-examination Caldwell testified that he had learned that the King party was to stay at the Lorraine Motel on or around April 1. He repeatedly stressed the height and thickness of the bushes in which he saw the crouching man.

The judge had repeatedly told me he wouldn't allow former congressman Walter Fauntroy to testify for the defense. However, I went ahead and called him. If the judge didn't want him to testify he would have to take him off the stand in front of the jury. Fauntroy had direct personal knowledge of the bureau's activities against Dr. King and of Hoover's attitude, because he had been the SCLC's man in Washington and had even attended the one meeting between Dr. King and Hoover. He had also had an opportunity to review a great deal of documentation from the HSCA's classified files and had become convinced that James was not guilty. As I attempted to elicit these facts, Ewing had hardly voiced his objection when the judge sustained.

In fairness, it seemed that the judge became increasingly committed to holding the evidence to that which was strictly relevant to a charge of murder. The judge's rulings severely limited our effort to demonstrate a very wide range of conspiratorial evidence related to the planning, execution, and ongoing cover-up of the truth about Dr. King's murder.

It's always tempting to second-guess the man in the robe, and in fact some of his rulings made good sense and were (even if intuitively so) well-founded in the rules of evidence. For example, Jules "Ricco" Kimbel's allegations of his involvement in a conspiracy as the pilot who flew the shooters in and out of Memphis had taken on material aspects of unreliability. As is often the case, particular aspects of his story had the ring and feel of truth but courtroom proof certainly requires and deserves a higher standard. The judge viewed these submissions more objectively than I did at the time. (Eventually I concluded that Kimbel may have provided me with some false information in the hope of inducing me to provide legal assistance to his brother, who was also in prison.)

I believe that the tightness of the judge's procedures, how- ever, was overdone in some instances. The change of Dr. King's room was raised by Hosea Williams in his testimony, but the background for the change wasn't only material to the affirmative defense but highly significant. The events were set out by the now deceased manager of the Lorraine, Walter Bailey, in his conversations with investigator Leon Cohen and reporter Wayne Chastain, but these conversations were excluded by the court even though they were clearly against the interests of Mr. Bailey. Tim Kirk's affidavit setting out the details of the contract on James back in 1978 by U.S. government informant/operative Art Baldwin was always agreed to be allowed in if Hickman was permitted to ask questions to which Kirk would respond. This was done, and still the affidavit was kept out, despite it being extraordinarily contrary to Kirk's interests.

In rebuttal, Ewing attacked Oscar Kent's testimony by introducing a statement from Johnny C. Woods, one of the Birmingham detectives Kent had named. He denied being involved in any stakeout looking for James Earl Ray and noted that the Aeromarine Supply Store in 1968 was located near the Birmingham airport and not in a mall, where it is now. He further contended that he didn't meet Oscar Kent until the 1970s.

In their strident closing, the prosecutors kept the emotional level high, lamenting the loss to King's widow and his orphaned children. Their pretensions were sickening, particularly because throughout the trial I wasn't allowed even to hint at the personal relationship between myself and Martin and the impact that his death had had on me.

In the absence of any evidence, the prosecution referred to James's "racism" and made a great deal of the fact that James supposedly "stalked" Dr. King. The main thrust of their closing was in trying to discredit the defense witnesses or to dismiss the significance of their testimony. In the words of journalist Andrew Billen of the English newspaper the Observer, "They spend [sic] most of their allotted hour colourfully rubbishing the defense case rather than establishing their own."

***

IN MY CLOSING STATEMENT, I asked the jury to put aside the heat and consider the case carefully. I asked them first to consider the type of person James Earl Ray was, to think about his behavior in the context of his circumstances, and I urged them to ask themselves whether he was capable of pulling off such a crime.

The prosecution hadn't introduced a shred of evidence of any motive, I said, and pointed out the absurdity of their argument that James had stalked Dr. King. He had, for example, been in Los Angeles before Dr. King arrived, and when Dr. King arrived, he left. Also, there was no evidence to indicate that James even knew Dr. King was in Atlanta at the beginning of April, less than three weeks before the killing; when examined, the marks on James's map of Atlanta were clearly not around Dr. King's home or church. Further, the HSCA had considered the map to be such a flimsy piece of evidence that the members dismissed it. I went over the many holes in the prosecution's admittedly circumstantial case, including the failure to match the evidence slug to the rifle at the scene; the fact that none of James's fingerprints were found in the rooming house; the fact that the state's chief witness was falling- down drunk; that the bathroom was empty just before the shot was fired; that there were three eyewitnesses to activity in the bushes; and that two eyewitnesses saw James's white Mustang being driven away from the rooming house minutes before the shooting.

I moved on to catalog the wide variety of strange events surrounding the case, including the apparent tampering with the evidence slug, the cutting of the tree and bushes, the change of motel and room, and the removal of security, Detective Redditt, and the two black firemen, asking if any of these actions could really have been arranged by James acting alone. I also reminded the jury about the revelation of the conducting of electronic surveillance against Dr. King in Memphis and the denial of that activity by FBI agent Joe Hester.

The judge addressed the jury for a half hour, after which they retired to consider their verdict. During deliberations the jury asked to see again photographic evidence submitted by the defense showing the death slug lodged just under the skin in Dr. King's back, the death slug itself, and the footprints found in the alleyway at the rear of the rooming house.

After seven and a half hours they sent word that they had reached a verdict.

The trial had run for over fifty hours during ten days, and when it ended we knew we would have to wait nearly two months to learn the result, as it would be revealed only when HBO and Channel 4 in England aired the trial on April 4, 1993. In spite of the fact that the greater part of our evidence concerning conspiracy had been excluded, and we couldn't put on our most explosive testimony because the witnesses were too afraid to testify, we believed we had put forward a good case.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN

Postby admin » Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:35 am

Chapter 25: The Verdict: February-July 1993

I HAD BEEN BACK IN ENGLAND for less than a week when Jim Smith called. After the trial he was harassed and closely watched in the attorney general's office. Meanwhile, Ewing tried his utmost to have Smith 's testimony excluded from the program. The rules required that the two sides sign off on the final version as being representative and fair, and Ewing wrote a blistering memo virtually accusing Smith of lying. He stated that after his testimony Smith had said to Glenn Wright (Ewing's co-counsel) that he really didn't know who the federal agents operating the surveillance of King worked for, but had assumed it was the FBI. He also said that it was rumored they were with the army. Jack Saltman told me that he was angry and disappointed with Ewing. He and Thames's legal advisor, Peter Smith, told Ewing that just as the defense wouldn't be allowed to edit his case, neither would he be allowed to edit defense testimony. Eventually, one bit of Smith's testimony was edited out at Peter's suggestion and my reluctant agreement; at the time, I hoped that it might help to ease pressure on Smith. It consisted of a few lines where I had asked him how he would characterize the statement of an FBI official who said categorically that there was no electronic surveillance on Dr. King; Smith had replied that the agent either would have been lying or didn't know about it. On cross-examination (of which Smith was not aware) Joe Hester had said categorically that there was no such surveillance and if there had been he would have known about it.

Joe Hester had been made to look like either a liar or a fool, and he was still close to that office and to the former agents who had gone to work there. One way or another Jim Smith feared that they were going to get him by setting him up in some way.

When I raised the issue of Smith's ongoing harassment with Jack Saltman, he was livid. He promised Smith that if it continued he would himself go and call a press conference in Memphis to blast the FBI. I mentioned Smith's concern that Hickman Ewing might have played a role. Jack took it up with Ewing, who said that the attorney general's office was indeed furious with Smith but that he had advised them that it would only look worse if they attempted to harass or penalize him in any way.

More than once after the program aired Jim Smith was called over to the FBI office and was actually grilled on his testimony as though the FBI was trying to learn what else he might know. He said they were acting as though he might have gone through their files and uncovered other information that could have been damaging to the bureau. He was told that if he didn't cooperate he'd never get his security clearance renewed.

***

ON SUNDAY, MARCH 21, 1993, two weeks before the trial was aired, the Memphis Commercial Appeal published the results of an eighteen-month investigation on the activities of army intelligence related to the civil rights movement. The article by Steve Tompkins concluded that army intelligence, which had a close working relationship with the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover (who was himself made an officer), had kept Dr. King under electronic surveillance while he was in Memphis and elsewhere, even up to the day of his assassination. Walter Fauntroy had told me in preparation for his testimony that he had obtained copies of army intelligence reports that went straight to Hoover's desk each morning. The Commercial Appeal article noted that the close working relationship between the army and the FBI often meant that the army, with its far greater manpower, conducted these types of surveillance operations for Hoover, all over the country. Agents were for all practical purposes made available for Hoover's use.

In addition, the piece reported that army intelligence despatched Green Beret teams to thirty-nine racially explosive U.S. cities, including Memphis, with instructions to make detailed maps, identify landing zones for riot troops, and scout sniper sites.

Jim Smith's testimony concerning his association with such a surveillance team operating on March 18 against Dr. King at the Rivermont Hotel, and the map-drawing agent Coop, was confirmed. He was personally vindicated. Martin Luther King was, without doubt, under electronic surveillance while in Memphis, and the collaborators were the MPD (which employed Smith at the time), the FBI (which received the surveillance tapes and transcripts) and U.S. army intelligence.

***

THE PROGRAM WAS SCHEDULED FOR SUNDAY EVENING, April 4, the twenty-fifth anniversary of Dr. King's death. The plan was for James, Hickman Ewing, and me to sit in the parole board's conference room at the prison for a special viewing before television cameras set up to record the first reactions to the verdict. Afterward Sheena MacDonald of Channel 4 in England would interview each of us, and this was to be transmitted by satellite to the U.K. viewing audience.

I was running slightly late on Sunday morning, and when I arrived at the prison, a little after nine, the screening had already begun. Except for minor breaks, the program was uninterrupted for nearly three hours. By the time the jury went out, the viewing room had filled up. Even warden Mike Dutton had come in. The jury returned to the courtroom, announcing that they had reached a verdict. The court clerk collected the verdict and passed it to the judge who read aloud: "The Jury finds the Defendant Not Guilty."

There was a moment of silence and then James grinned. I smacked him on the back. Ewing's head just dropped. His chin lay buried in his chest for some time.

MacDonald moved quickly to ask the usual questions. I spoke about presenting an application for exoneration to the governor. James, somewhat at cross-purposes, said that perhaps he could now have a real trial. I stressed that the state had put forward its best case.

Ewing, now recovered, admitted that the program was well done and was good as far as it went. Then he began to backtrack with excuses. Any trial so long after the fact hurts the prosecution. He had no subpoena power. Eventually, in another forum, he stated that "at least" one defense witness "flat-out lied."

He stated that if the governor ever granted our proposed application, then he should be "impeached." Later in the interview, although throughout the trial he had vehemently opposed the idea that a conspiracy existed, he (apparently obliquely referring to the recent Commercial Appeal army intelligence article) now stated that it was quite possible that there was a conspiracy but that James was definitely involved. Incredibly, he went on to say that James may have been helped or hired by the Klan or the U .S. army to do the job.

Not unexpectedly, the verdict wasn't covered as a news event. It was virtually ignored by the media, with the exception of the NBC Today Show. In the days before the verdict was announced the phones were ringing off the hook with media inquiries, but when the verdict was made public the silence was deafening.

At the first opportunity I began to prepare the application to the governor for exoneration, and on Thursday, May 6, 1993, at 10:00 a.m., I entered the offices of Governor Ned McWerter's counsel, David Wells. I explained that we wished the governor quietly and seriously consider to the information that I was going to leave with Wells, and to do so with an open mind. I informed him that the investigation for the trial had produced a considerable body of new evidence but that there seemed no possibility, in our view, that the courts could reconsider the King case with the degree of objectivity required.

Counsel Wells assured me that he would place the issues before the governor. He said he would himself have to read the documents, and since I was filing an application and exhibits totaling nearly seven hundred pages, this would take him some time. He indicated that other work would make it impossible for him to begin for the next two weeks.

After the meeting, I returned to the hotel to meet Jim Lawson and the Rev. Will Avery, who were to participate in a press conference about the application at 3:00 that afternoon.

The governor had made a statement about two hours earlier that appeared to be deliberately timed to undercut our efforts. When asked by the press about the application, he responded that James Earl Ray was in prison when he entered the governor's office and James would still be inside when he left. I was forced to dismiss the statement as an impromptu remark not worthy of his office or the trust and responsibilities it conveyed. I had to disclose that counsel Wells had assured me that no matter what the governor said publicly the issues raised by the application would be brought to his attention.

The story was confined to the local area. Associated Press staff were present, but the details of the application weren't picked up. The networks ran none of the local footage. The news of the application to the governor was barely out there.

I decided to submit a petition to Amnesty International to take up the case. J had done so on two other occasions only to be refused. James was not, Amnesty had decided, a true "prisoner of conscience" -- imprisoned or kept in prison because of his political beliefs. Now, after speaking with Dina Coloma, a researcher in the International Secretariat of Amnesty International, I thought that we might have a chance.

Coloma had seen the trial and admitted that as it had proceeded she had tried herself to conceive how the defendant might fit the Amnesty criteria. For Amnesty to consider intervening, it would be necessary for me to submit a formal petition establishing that James was a political pawn. I did so. The petition set out the basic political issues that have long been a part of the case. It raised a serious question about the occurrence and perpetuation of a miscarriage of justice as a result of governmental intervention. It detailed the tampering with some items of evidence and the suppression of other evidence.

Subsequently Coloma asked me if I would be willing to prepare a further submission on the issue of the guilty plea and set out in detail precisely how that came about. If it was clear that James had been railroaded into entering the plea, that was an issue which Amnesty could seize upon. I asked her if I might not also submit a note on the extradition issue, since James had been extradited largely, if not entirely, on the basis of the fraudulent and false affidavit of Charlie Q. Stephens. I briefed both issues, delivered the further submissions on June 25, and waited.

On July 14, Amnesty's head of research, Martin Smart, wrote saying that limited resources made it impossible for Amnesty in the short term to dedicate the staff necessary to examine and verify the allegations contained in the application.

***

DESPITE THE LACK OF NEWS COVERAGE, I considered the trial a success. Its preparation had provided a foundation for the opening up of the case as had never before been possible.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN

Postby admin » Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:36 am

PART V: THE CONTINUING INVESTIGATION

Chapter 26: Loyd Jowers's Involvement: August-December, 1993


IN THE TRIAL'S AFTERMATH I had begun to focus on Loyd Jowers. I wanted to find a way to put the evidence that we had uncovered about his involvement on the record. In addition we needed to learn as much as possible about what he knew in order to get to the bottom of the conspiracy in Memphis. Though we already had enough evidence to establish James's innocence, the closer we could get to solving the crime, the better our chances of securing freedom for James.

Wayne Chastain knew Jowers's lawyer, Lewis Garrison, and frequently Garrison would discuss the case with him. Garrison told him that his client had dropped hints that he knew much more about the events of April 4 than anyone else. Garrison said that he seemed to be looking for a way to open up.

Ken Herman told me that on his own initiative he had gone to see Garrison and had a discussion with him about the alleged involvement of his client in the killing. He said Garrison somehow had learned about what we knew (I didn't understand how this could be so but I was later to find out). Garrison told him that he had advised Jowers and Willie Akins (who was also a client of his) not to say anything until a grant of immunity was obtained. He had undertaken to his clients to approach the Tennessee attorney general John Pierotti with such a request. John Billings asked his next door neighbor -- black judge and founder of the National Civil Rights Museum, D'Army Bailey -- to quietly ask the attorney general to review the request for immunity, which would shortly be submitted.

I was annoyed that Herman and Billings had taken all of these actions on their own, without instructions. They had both worked for me through the end of the trial. After April 4, 1993 not only did I not have funds to continue to use their services but as a result of the budgetary shortfall previous monies were owed to them and others. Herman and Billings had, however, a continuing legal and ethical responsibility to lames which derived from their association with his defense and myself as his lawyer. Not only had they indirectly tipped-off Jowers and Akins to what we knew, but it was quite possible they had put essential witnesses, already fearful, at risk. If Betty and Bobbi knew that Jowers and Akins had become aware of their cooperation with us, we had little chance of convincing them to cooperate further.

Though I did not learn about this until October 4, sometime in May 1993 Garrison decided to include lames McCraw, Bobbi Smith, and Betty Spates in the request for immunity. It was not clear to me how or even whether he had been authorized to act on behalf of Smith and Spates, but I knew that he had represented the three men on personal injury cases. I also didn't see how any of the people other than Jowers could be charged with any crime, since the statute of limitations had run out on any criminal charges stemming from acts committed after the crime.

I didn't expect attorney general Pierotti to approve the request for immunity, since he and his office had long been closely associated with the official "solution" of the case. Pierotti was a young prosecutor in the office in 1968 when Phil Canale was the attorney general. I was advised by Jim Smith that during the pretrial period Canale kept in touch with developments.

My early contacts with attorney general Pierotti were concerned with gaining access to the evidence for the TV trial, and he appeared to be most reasonable, Eventually, however, he opposed any testing of evidence whatsoever, and would only let us examine it in the Clerk of Court's office where it was stored. I also learned after the trial that his office had unofficially assigned a staffer to assist Hickman Ewing with his prosecution.

Jim Smith also told me that over the years a number of former FBI men had come to work for the office and this group was very protective of the status quo. In fact, it was the ex-FBI cabal and others who made life miserable for Smith after the trial, and caused the renewal of his security clearance to be denied. (By late May 1993 he was getting such hostility from his colleagues that he feared that he might be set up and his career finished. He had seen it happen to others. He therefore provided notice of his intention to leave after the new year and began to job hunt.)

I had no involvement in Garrison's request, but was anxious for the truth to come out, and hoped that all of the possibilities would be fully explored. It was obvious that Jowers would not reveal what he knew unless some sort of satisfactory immunity or plea arrangement could be obtained. There were any number of plea-bargaining possibilities open to the prosecutor and Garrison.

I discovered an alternative route for obtaining immunity. A little-known Tennessee statute provides that:

40-12-106. Prosecution of persons applying to testify not barred -- Express immunity. -- Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no person applying to testify before the grand jury shall be immune from prosecution based upon testimony subsequently given pursuant to such application, except under express grant of immunity by the grand jury. (emphasis added)


This allowed us to sidestep the attorney general's office and approach the grand jury directly and ask that body to hear evidence on the case. Ken Herman said he mentioned my suggestion to Garrison, but the lawyer insisted on going the conventional route. Herman said that he and Garrison both believed that the story was too big for Pierotti to suppress.

Garrison met with Pierotti at 3:00 p.m. on June 3 and laid out the request, stating that his unnamed clients wished to provide specific evidence pertaining to the killing of Martin Luther King in exchange for a grant of immunity from the state and federal governments. Pierotti asked Garrison for a brief statement outlining the evidence. Herman said Garrison quoted the attorney general as having said that once Garrison provided this there would be no problem issuing the grant. Garrison submitted the formal written request on June 22, 1993.

Meanwhile bits and pieces of Jowers's and Akins's story began to be passed on to me (usually now through Wayne Chastain, to whom Herman and gradually Lewis Garrison would talk). The allegation surfaced that Jowers had hired Frank Holt, a black produce-truck unloader, to do the shooting. (This report brought instantly to mind Coy Love's story about seeing a black man throw a hooded sweatshirt into a dumpster behind the Tayloe Paper Company.) Holt worked at the time for M. E. Carter Produce Company, which was located on Front Street (which ran parallel to South Main and was the next block east. We had come across Holt's name in an FBI 302 report, which stated that he had been in front of Jim's Grill immediately after the shooting and was told by the police to go inside the grill and stay out of the way. I had asked Ken Herman to look for Holt as a possible witness in our pretrial investigation but Herman couldn't locate him. According to Herman, Jowers told Garrison that Frank Liberto (the produce man) had given him the contract to murder King, thus apparently independently confirming John McFerren's story.

Jowers apparently acknowledged having seen lames in the grill on April 4 seated at a table with a dark-haired Latino. This was almost exactly as James had described his meeting with Raul on the afternoon of the killing. Jowers also indicated that the money for the contract came from New Orleans and was delivered to Memphis in an M. E. Carter Produce Company truck carrying produce from that city. Herman also reported that Jowers had confirmed Betty's story about the events of April 4 leading up to the shooting.

There was no indication where and with whom the contract originated and it was quite possible that the information Jowers knew extended only to the local details of the actual killing. In any case, Jowers was insisting that he wouldn't reveal all he knew until he was granted immunity.

It transpired that Akins did not know Jowers at the time of the killing, but only became involved with him about a year later.

***

IN LATE JULY, I widened the focus of my investigation. I met with Steve Tompkins, the former Commercial Appeal investigative reporter, whose front-page piece on the active role of army intelligence since the end of World War I in surveilling and infiltrating black organizations and civil rights groups had been published on March 21, 1993.

Army intelligence had spied on Dr. King's family for three generations. The article noted that there was an extraordinary fear in official circles of what would happen if Dr. King was allowed to lead masses of American poor into Washington that spring. It stated that army intelligence was "... desperately searching for a way to stop him. ..."

I wanted to learn whether Tompkins, who had spent eighteen months researching his piece, knew anything about the King killing and if so whether he could open up some doors for me. Since Dr. King had been under army surveillance I wondered if the killing had been seen and even photographed. I had earlier read about this possibility in Douglas Valentine's book, The Phoenix Program, though at the time it appeared to be too speculative. [1]

Tompkins, a lanky, guardedly friendly man, had gone to work for the Tennessee Governor's Economic Development Department. I noted that he had confirmed the presence in Memphis that day of a number of army intelligence operatives. I needed to know their roles and, if possible, who they were. He would not give me their names but he did offer an observation that surprised and chilled me. He explained that he had stumbled on certain information which he was unable to print because of the lack of corroboration. He said that he had come to believe that in addition to surveilling Dr. King on April 4, 1968, the army presence in Memphis had a more sinister mission related to the assassination.

He had come to this conclusion after a conversation with a former Special Forces soldier now living in Latin America. The nervous ex-soldier had showed up with an AK-47 rifle which he kept near at hand throughout the interview. This man was the only member of the army unit whom Tompkins had been able to interview. Another member had been shot in the back of the head in New Orleans. The ex-soldier told Tompkins that he decided to leave the country after one of the members of the unit deployed to Memphis had been killed. He said it appeared that a "cleanup" operation was underway and that he had better get out.

I was at once excited and frustrated because this important information greatly complicated the picture. It was imperative that I investigate it as far as I could. Tompkins warned me that, if publicly questioned, he would deny telling me the information. As we parted, he said he was relieved to be away from the project, stating, "These people are incredibly dangerous. They'd kill you, your mother or your kids, as soon as look at you. You have to be very careful."

In a subsequent conversation I asked him if he would take me to his contacts or at least provide me with the names of people involved so that I might seek them out myself. I hoped he would become involved since he himself had been in naval intelligence and so had initial credibility and military access. He also understood far better than I could the mentality of that special community and how they operated. He reluctantly agreed to think about it.

***

TWO AND A HALF MONTHS after Garrison met with Pierotti there was no sign that the attorney general was going to act or even that he was seriously considering Garrison's request. I had therefore begun to think about ways of applying pressure in an attempt to force his hand.

On August 16 I wrote to him, informing him that I was aware of Garrison's petition, calling on him to grant the petition (or make a plea bargain arrangement with Jowers) and pointing out its potential impact, both in setting the record straight and in bringing about the release of a man who had been unjustly imprisoned for almost a quarter century. I also pointed out that the individuals concerned were effectively benefiting from de facto immunity.

Pierotti was on holiday at the time. He responded on September 8:

Some months ago an attorney came to my office and stated that he knew of people who had knowledge of the murder of Dr. King which had heretofore not been revealed. He asked me if I would be interested in this information, to which I replied affirmatively. He stated that he could not reveal these people's identity unless I was in a position to seek, from the Courts or through Grand Jury proceeding, a grant of immunity from prosecution.

I told this attorney that I would not consider immunity unless I had a full and complete statement detailing their knowledge of this matter. I would further only be interested in considering immunity if the information they provided could be corroborated by independent sources and documents. I asked this attorney if he was working with you or working independently. He replied he was working independently, so we therefore must be referring to different people. ...

As you state in your letter, your client has been incarcerated for over twenty-four (24) years and you believe him to be innocent. However, I have not been presented with any information or documentation to support your belief. I, therefore, have no reason to consider granting anyone immunity, and I will not consider any such action unless and until I have evidence which can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.


Correspondence continued. It became clear that he had no intention of considering the request. On September 15 he even denied having anything to consider, stating that: "... I have not been presented with any document requesting formal immunity for anyone in connection with this case, nor have I been presented with a summary of the evidence which any such applicant might possess which would cause me to consider immunity should such an application be made. If and when such evidence is presented to me I will consider it carefully but at this time I have nothing to consider."

I wrote back that, sadly, I had to conclude that he was being economical with the truth. He promptly replied that he had to hear from the federal government and that there was no use in continuing the exchange of letters until then.

I believed that Pierotti was seeking to make the federal government a scapegoat for his own inaction. In fact if immunity was granted for a state crime and a federal grant of immunity then requested in respect of other lesser federal offenses, it would be unusual for the federal government not to accede to the state's request.

On October 4, at the request of Lewis Garrison and Ken Herman, Wayne Chastain met both men in Garrison's office. To Chastain's surprise, Garrison provided him with a copy of the actual request for immunity submitted to the attorney general on June 22. Despite Pierotti's representations in his letter to me of September 15, the request was indeed a document asking for immunity and it contained a summary of the evidence on which the request was based.

It stated that Jowers (designated as Witness Green) was approached before the assassination and offered money to locate a person to assassinate Dr. King. The funds would come from another city through a local person or persons. Jowers, who had close contact with some persons in the MPD, was advised that he was in a strategic location to assist and that Dr. King would be a guest at the Lorraine Motel from a certain date. Jowers was to be provided with a weapon. Jowers located a person to do the job and funds were delivered to Jowers before the assassination in stacks of large bills. At the time of the shooting Jowers was stationed close to the assassin and once the shot was fired, the weapon was passed to Jowers who disassembled it and wrapped it in a covering. Jowers had been advised by other conspirators that there would be no reason to suspect him or any of the other participants in the actual assassination since there would be a decoy following the assassination.

The proposal next recounted information allegedly known by Betty Spates (designated as "Witness Brown ... a close acquaintance of Jowers"). She would state that she was "within a few feet of the location where the shot was fired." Betty would also testify that she saw Witness Green with a rifle immediately after hearing the shot. She would state that she saw a large amount of money that had been delivered to Jowers. The money was in stacks of large-denomination bills. McCraw stated (he was Witness Black) that on the day after the killing Jowers showed him the gun and told him that it was the one used to assassinate Dr. King. Willie Akins (Witness White) would testify that he was asked, after the fact, by Jowers to take care of certain people "who knew too much." He was also told by Jowers that Jowers received the gun after the killing from the actual assassin. Bobbi Smith (Witness Gray) allegedly would testify that she was aware of the large amount of money paid to Jowers just before the assassination and that she had knowledge of other details about the actual killing.

The submission ended with a formal request for immunity for all five persons.

Jowers's story, as summed up for Chastain by Garrison, was that he had agreed at the request of produce-man Frank Liberto to hire a man to kill Dr. King on his last visit to Memphis. He had received $100,000 for his facilitation and he had paid a certain amount to the assassin, Frank Holt, who had worked as a loader for the M. E. Carter Company.

Jowers also contended that he tried to have Holt done away with; a task he gave to his heavy Willie Akins. Akins apparently confirmed this assignment although he said at first that he didn't know why Jowers wanted the man killed. Akins said that before he could carry out the job the man disappeared.

Since I had no doubt that the attorney general would continue to stonewall any action based upon this evidence, I had to take steps on behalf of lames. I retained Wayne Chastain as local counsel to approach the grand jury on James's behalf. I planned to ask the grand jury to subpoena attorney Garrison, at which time, if he so chose, he could request immunity for his client(s) in exchange for their testimony. I also formally asked the governor's counsel to ask the governor to hold off on issuing any ruling on our Motion for Exoneration since new evidence was forthcoming. I suggested that the governor could look foolish if he went ahead and ruled against us in light of information that would shortly be revealed.

***

BY OCTOBER 17 WAYNE CHASTAIN and I had agreed on the text of his submission to the grand jury. I would also provide Wayne with the name's and addresses of the five people to be subpoenaed (which Garrison had not given to him) and a list of suggested questions. I suggested that Wayne ask the grand jury to formally request that federal immunity also be granted. In any event, once primary immunity was granted on behalf of the state, the witnesses would have no choice. Under pain of contempt they would have to tell all that they knew.

We delayed our actual submission because Wayne advised giving the attorney general every chance to act. In any event I believed that because most grand juries were closely controlled by the prosecutor it would be desirable to focus some publicity on the request in order to maximize the possibility of the members taking our submission seriously and acting independently. I therefore began to brief certain representatives of the American mass media.

By the beginning of December I was increasingly frustrated by the lack of any progress concerning the request for immunity and the unwillingness of the media to take up the issue. On Tuesday evening December 7, I gave Wayne the go-ahead for the grand jury submission. He was to deliver the request (in the form of a letter and an affidavit) to testify the next day. He rushed it in and, on his own initiative, attached the names and addresses of the people to be subpoenaed. (I would have preferred that he had provided the names while testifying, but he thought that their inclusion would increase the sense of urgency.)

Later that day Wayne urged me to allow him to go to see the attorney general. I exploded. It was beyond me how he could believe there was a scintilla of hope that the attorney general would act. I was concerned that Pierotti knew the names of the witnesses and resolved to write to him to put him on notice that any contact with these witnesses outside of the grand jury room would be closely scrutinized. I explained to Wayne that on a previous occasion when one of these witnesses had tried in her way to come forward and get the truth out in order to clear James, she was visited unofficially in her home and, the record indicates, then called in officially and interrogated. Frightened off, it took twenty years for her to begin to come around again. I obviously had to do everything possible to prevent this happening again. My client was unlikely to survive another such period of recalcitrance.

I called Andrew Billen at the London Observer, one of England's oldest and most reputable broadsheets, to see if they would be interested. Billen had covered the trial and had a good working knowledge of the case. He was excited. So was his editor. It was clearly front-page material. Convinced that no American media entity would break the story, I gave the Observer the go-ahead.

Around this time I learned from some American contacts that lack Saltman was talking to various media people, trying to sell the story and name the witnesses. I was also advised that Herman and Saltman had been working together for some time.

I was appalled. The privilege of confidentiality to James had been cast to the wind. Saltman had violated the rules established for the TV trial with regard to security witnesses. In confidence I had disclosed the existence of the security witnesses and the nature of their testimony. My trust was being flouted. Such a disclosure was likely to drive all of the witnesses away. In that event James would be the clear loser.

I confronted Herman. Our relationship, which had been strained since the trial, was now irreparably damaged.

I instructed Wayne to add the names of Ken Herman and lack Saltman to the list of those persons to be subpoenaed. The next day, Thursday, December 9th, Wayne delivered the names directly to an attendant at the entrance to the grand jury room and waited. He was not called.

On Friday, Jim Smith told me that the attorney general and his number two, Strother, were closeted together continually and the local FBI special agent in charge had also been in for meetings. Jim said they seemed to have a "bunker mentality." I had no doubt that Wayne's request to appear before the grand jury was a source of their anxiety. The pressure was building.

Next, I became aware of and increasingly concerned about the rogue efforts of Herman and John Billings to locate Frank Holt. We all believed that Holt was in the Orlando area. Since, for their own reasons, they were determined to find Holt, I believed it essential that I exercise control over how he was approached. I was aware of a witness who saw a black man in the room lames had rented. It could have been Holt. I needed to know exactly what he was going to say. I told them that I would go to Orlando to approach and personally interview Holt if he could be found.

I also sent them formal notices asserting attorney's privilege over everything they knew or had connected with the case.

I would bring black investigator Cliff Dates with me. If Holt could be found, Dates would approach him in as nonthreatening a manner as possible and begin to discuss his problem, which was not going to go away.

The Memphis Commercial Appeal quoted Pierotti as having denounced both Garrison and me, calling the entire story a "fraud" or "scam."

***

ON THE MORNING the Observer hit the newstands, I caught the flight to Orlando. C. D. "Buck" Buchanan, the Orlando P.I. I had hired for the job, had come up with an address for Holt. Memphis investigator Cliff Dates met me in Orlando and we went to 32 North Terry, a small transient boarding house, and walked up to the porch where we found a fairly intoxicated Jimmie Lee Branner, his sister, and Theresa, a young boarder. A paper bag filled with empty beer cans lay on one side. Jimmie Lee said Holt had not been there for months. Theresa pulled us aside and told us about some "crooks" who had been looking for Holt. They said they were from the church, but they weren't because they gave Jimmie whiskey and money and told him not to tell anyone else that they were looking for Holt.

We continued to comb the streets of the area. Later, as we drove around, we saw a grey Cadillac approaching. We both recognized Ken Herman in the back, sitting between a black man in a baseball cap and John Billings. I thought that they must have seen us. We pulled over opposite the boarding house and Cliff Dates went up to the porch to see Theresa. I remained in the car. Over my right shoulder I saw the grey Cadillac approaching up the side street just behind us. The back of my head was clearly visible. As the car reached Terry Street and turned left to go in the opposite direction, it burned rubber.

***

AFTER TAKING DATES to the airport so that he could catch his plane back to Memphis, I returned to the area that night and scoured the streets and checked two homeless centers in the area, with no success.

I was hindered in my search for Frank Holt by having to spend part of the next two days (December 14 and 15) negotiating with the ABC Prime Time Live producers. I had learned that Jack Saltman had sold the story and his consulting services to them. I saw the program as potentially being useful to the effort to free James, but I was afraid that they might name the witnesses. This would likely hurt our legal efforts, since if Betty and Bobbi were named without their consent and before their statements could be heard in a courtroom, they would probably repudiate earlier statements, or not discuss the matter at all. This, of course, is exactly what had happened before. The two sisters had been scheduled to testify at the trial only to back out in fear at the last minute.

I contacted the ABC producer. Eventually he promised that only the witnesses they actually interviewed would be named. I was told that they planned to interview only Jowers and Akins. In fact senior correspondent Sam Donaldson was already interviewing Jowers and Akins, preparing to move on to Pierotti late that afternoon.

On the program, which aired nationwide on Thursday, December 16, 1993, Loyd Jowers cleared lames Earl Ray, saying that he did not shoot Dr. King but that he, Jowers, had hired a shooter, after he was approached by Memphis produce man Frank Liberto and paid $100,000 to facilitate the assassination. He also said that he had been visited by a man named Raul who delivered a rifle to him and asked him to hold it until final arrangements were made.

Loyd's cleanup man Akins confirmed he was ordered to kill the unnamed shooter but before Akins could get him in a place where he could "pop" him, the shooter disappeared, running off to Florida.

The producer's promise was worthless. Betty had been surreptitiously filmed leaving her place of work. Though partially obscured, she was recognizable and she was named. I was apprehensive about the effect.

The next morning I asked Cliff Dates to contact Betty and gauge her reaction to the show. He reported back that she was hurt and hostile and blamed me. She didn't realize that Herman and Saltman hadn't worked with me for eight months. Since she wouldn't talk to me I sent her a letter explaining the facts. From 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. that morning while doing other things I flipped back and forth from CNN to CBS to NBC and ABC. Incredible as it seemed, there was no news coverage of the previous night's program; not even on ABC. A review of the day's newspapers including the New York Times, U.S.A. Today, and the Washington Post showed only small mentions in the latter two, featuring Pierotti's new willingness not to reopen the case but to investigate further. Here was a confession, on prime-time television, to one of the most heinous crimes in the history of the republic -- and there was virtually no American mass media coverage. The story was buried.

Andrew Billen, who thought the silence of the American media extraordinary, wrote a follow-up article on the television revelations in the Observer.

Having concluded that the governor would not seriously consider the basis for the motion for exoneration, I filed a petition on James's behalf seeking a trial on the basis of the new evidence discovered during the course of our investigation as well as the sensational public admissions of Loyd Jowers.

On the night the program aired (December 16) John Billings, who was trying to keep lines of communication open, called to tell me that they had still not found Holt. He said that the leads were strong and it was only a question of time before he surfaced. He insisted that when they found him I would be the first to know. I just listened. Earlier that morning Jim Smith had said that it was all over Memphis that Holt was the person implicated. He also said that he had heard that Holt had been found.

I was scheduled to fly back to London on Friday, December 17. About an hour before the flight I learned that Dwight Lewis of the Nashville Tennessean newspaper had left a message on the office answering machine: they had found Frank Holt and he wanted to get my reaction to Holt's statement. My heart stopped.

I called Lewis, who told me that two of the Tennessean's re- porters and a photographer had located Holt that day at the men's homeless center on Central Boulevard in Orlando, one of the shelters where I had "hung out" earlier in the week. He would move from one shelter to another since any semblance of continuing stay was not allowed. He apparently said that he had been inside Jim's Grill on the afternoon of April 4 but knew nothing about the assassination. The Tennessean had flown him to Nashville where he had taken and passed a lie detector test.

I was concerned about Holt's safety and pleaded with Lewis not to mention his most recent address in the piece they were going to run the next day. Lewis said he would raise my concern with his editor. It was obvious that the decision was not his to make.

The Tennessean published a feature article on their interview with Frank Holt on Sunday, December 19. That morning I learned that Lewis had gone to the airport to put Holt on a plane bound for Orlando. Checking the schedules of flights to Orlando that day, I concluded that Holt had likely been put on a direct American flight. I asked Buck Buchanan to meet the flight and offer Holt a temporary safe house. Though the Tennessean had not printed Holt's address, since his name and general location were public and he had publicly refuted the allegations that he was the shooter, I thought his life might very well be in danger. After all, Akins had contended that Jowers had asked him in 1974 to get rid of Holt.

Buchanan met the plane and Frank Holt accepted the offer of protection and temporary accommodation until I could arrive to interview him on Wednesday. Buck settled him into a motel just outside of Orlando.

On Tuesday, Buchanan was contacted by the Tennessean as well as by investigators from Attorney General Pierotti's office. He had left his name at the homeless center the previous week when searching for Holt, and both the newspaper and the Shelby County officials had become aware of his interest.

The prosecutor had had five witnesses under his nose for over six months and had made no move to interview them, yet the Tennessean's story was not even two days old and Pierotti had already sent a team to another state to search him out to, as he put it, "shoot full of holes" the story told by Loyd Jowers.

Buchanan told the reporter that he could give him no information unless authorized to do so by his client, and he told the Memphis investigators that he was instructed by an attorney and bound by the privilege. (I found this investigator's attitude refreshing.) He advised me that they did not ask him to request my permission to allow them to have access to Holt, nor did I ever receive any request from the attorney general or any member of his staff. They went away empty-handed.

Buchanan met me on my arrival in Orlando around 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 23, and we took Holt out to dinner. He was a generally placid, almost expressionless man, and as we talked over the next three and one half hours, rapport was gradually established. He was concerned about his safety, saying that he wanted to leave the Orlando area and go to Tampa or elsewhere in the state.

The next morning Buck brought Holt around to my motel, where from about 8 a.m. until noon I interviewed him. He was uneasy about the tape recorder so I kept it off, taking notes instead. I had the benefit of informal comments he had volunteered to Buchanan before I arrived, including his impression that I had some responsibility to stop Jowers from telling lies about him.

Though I questioned him repeatedly, his story never varied. He said that he had left his home in Darling, Mississippi, in the mid-1950s and ended up in the Jacksonville area, which he had come to regard as a second home. In the early 1960s he went to Memphis and eventually took a job at the M. E. Carter Produce Company as a driver's helper, going on deliveries to towns in Arkansas and Mississippi.

Occasionally he would travel with the truck to Gulf port, Mississippi, and New Orleans where they would pick up some produce and bring it back to Memphis. This was the job he was doing in 1968 at the time of the assassination.

He had the impression that Frank Liberto, who had his own produce business (LL&L) out on Scott Street in the market, also had some interest in M. E. Carter because he frequently came around to the company's Front Street offices. Occasionally, he overheard conversations between Liberto and the "big wheels" of M. E. Carter, and on one occasion during the sanitation workers' strike he heard Liberto say, "King is a trouble-maker and he should be killed. If he is killed then he will cause no more trouble." Holt also recalled that Charles Liberto, whom he thought was Frank Liberto's brother, seemed to have a negative feeling about Dr. King.

Holt said that he drank beer at Jim's Grill two or three times a week and had frequented the cafe before Jowers took it over after Jim's death. He insisted that he didn't really know Jowers and that Jowers certainly didn't know him except to serve him.

He remembered Betty Spates and her sister, who were waitresses in the grill. He knew that Jowers had something going with Betty, and he recalled that he had heard that this was why Jowers split up with his wife. He recalled that Betty and Bobbi were always friendly to him when Jowers was not around but that they were less so when he was present.

He recalled going upstairs in the rooming house to visit and drink beer with two friends -- Applebooty and Commodore. Applebooty had worked at the warehouse at M. E. Carter. The last time Holt remembered being upstairs in the rooming house was before Commodore moved, which was sometime before the shooting. From his description of the layout, it appeared clear that Commodore had occupied room 5-B, the room rented by James on the afternoon of April 4, under the name John Willard. Bessie Brewer, the manager of the rooming house, had stated that the occupant of the room before lames was named Commodore, except she said that he had become ill and was taken to the hospital where he died.

Holt said that on the day before the shooting he had gone on a delivery run deep into Mississippi and that they did not return until late morning or early afternoon of the following day, Thursday, April 4. When he reached Memphis he made the rounds of a few bars and eventually ended up in Jim's Grill late in the afternoon. To the best of his recollection he was inside the grill at the time of the shooting and could not explain the reference in the FBI report that he was passing the grill on his way to work. He did not recall ever being interviewed by the police or FBI. I found his recollections somewhat worrying, but the discrepancy could have been explained by Holt's own faulty memory, hampered by the passage of time and his alcohol abuse.

He remembered another Frank who had worked at M. E. Carter. He was also tall, and only had one eye. He didn't know him well but thought he was married and lived in the area. (For some time Ken Herman and John Billings had been looking for a one-eyed Frank Holt with a street name of Chicken Hawk. I wondered if they could have confused the two.) Holt even said that he had seen the other Frank on the afternoon of April 4 and believed that he was wearing a lumber jacket of some sort. He did not think that the other Frank was any more likely to have been involved in the shooting than he was. (I resolved to try to locate him, nevertheless, but we were unable to do so.)

Holt said that he had no gun of any kind at that time. He had hunted rabbits and squirrels in Mississippi with a single-shot .22 rifle years ago but had no experience with larger caliber guns such as that which was used to kill Dr. King.

He said he had known Coy Love, the street artist, but didn't recall seeing him on April 4.

When asked why Loyd Jowers or anyone would have named him, he was puzzled. "They probably thought I was dead," he said. Holt had been gone from Memphis for 24 years, leaving in late 1969, and returning only for a few hours in 1993 to visit a sick friend.

He had no interest in notoriety and abhorred being linked to the assassination. My impression after our interview was that he was credible and that I was not likely to see a more unpromising candidate for the assassin.

Buck and I spent that afternoon with Holt, as he took another lie detector test, essentially covering the same ground as the Tennessean's had, and underwent hypnosis. Both sessions were videotaped, and both the hypnotist and the polygrapher involved concluded that Frank Holt was not involved in the crime.

Late in the afternoon of December 23, I shook hands with Frank Holt and said good-bye. I told him that I believed that he had further assisted in the clearing of his name.

I returned to England for Christmas believing that Jowers was either covering up his own role as the shooter or was protecting someone else. Akins's claim that he tried to find Holt and kill him in 1974 was incredible. By that time Holt had been gone from Memphis for five years.

In 1974, Jowers may have been constructing one of his self-protective stories, for around this time James was about to obtain a habeas corpus hearing. When threatened by events over the almost twenty-six-year history of this case, Jowers had always developed such stories. The morning after the shooting he told Bobbi that he had found a gun in the back and turned it over to the police. On that day he told cab driver McCraw a similar story. In 1968-1969 he identified lack Youngblood to Wayne Chastain as the mysterious stranger who was in the grill and who had been picked up by the police, only to deny it to Wayne and reporter Jeff Cohen in 1972. He then confirmed the Youngblood story to me in 1978 when the HSCA investigation was preparing to call lames. Regarding the presence of the waitresses in the grill on April 4, Jowers was strikingly inconsistent. In 1982, as I was pursuing some other leads in Memphis, he apparently instructed Akins to kill Betty. Six years later he finally tried to obstruct my locating Betty as well as her sisters Bobbi and Alda and the other waitress, Rosie Lee Dabney. It is thus possible to see an erratic pattern of cover-up or attempted cover-up activity by Loyd Jowers over the entire history of the case. This conduct has only begun to make sense in the perspective of the events of the last two years.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Political Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron