Home

 

 

MLK  CONSPIRACY PROVEN IN COURT

 

 
 

 

 

   

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY
COUNTY , TENNESSEE FOR THE THIRTIETH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS

_______________________________________________

CORETTA SCOTT KING, et al,
Plaintiffs,
Vs. Case No. 97242
LOYD JOWERS, et al,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________

EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS
December 8th, 1999
_______________________________________________

Before the Honorable James E. Swearengen,
Division 4, judge presiding.
_______________________________________________

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD COURT REPORTERS
Suite 2200, One Commerce Square
21 Memphis, Tennessee 38103

(901) 529-1999

APPEARANCES -

For the Plaintiff:

DR. WILLIAM PEPPER
Attorney at Law
New York City, New York

For the Defendant:

MR. LEWIS GARRISON
attorney at Law
Memphis, Tennessee

Court Reported by:

MR. BRIAN F. DOMINSKI

Certificate of Merit
Registered Professional Reporter
Daniel, Dillinger, Dominski, Richberger & Weatherford 22nd Floor
One Commerce Square
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

PROCEEDINGS

(9:50 A.M.)

(Jury in.)

THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We've got two more depositions that we're going to -- no. As I promised you, we're going into the arguments of counsel, and then you'll get your instructions.

As I indicated to you earlier, the plaintiff would give his summary first. The defendant then would give his version, and then the plaintiff is allowed an opportunity to respond to the defendant's arguments.

Mr. Pepper, you may proceed.

MR. PEPPER: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let me right at the out set thank you for your attention throughout these proceedings, long and sometimes tedious though they may have been. We're very grateful for your sitting here and listening to the variety of evidence that you have heard.

Your Honor will charge you on the various aspects of evidence that you heard. You know you've heard a great deal of testimony here. You also have available to you a great number of exhibits that are attached to the testimony that you have heard.

We urge you to at any point require these exhibits to be brought to you so that you can read them and consider them at length. All the testimony, the various levels of credibility that you describe, his Honor will charge you with that, but it is really down to you at the end of the day as to how much you believe the various people who sat in that chair there and who told you things.

The media is very quick and prompt to say and yell out that such and such is hearsay, second-hand accounts, third-hand accounts. But the media is unable to tell you, ever course, what the law is with respect to hearsay evidence.

They think because something is hearsay, a person is saying what another person has said, that it is not to be regarded, it is to be dismissed. In actual fact, ladies and gentlemen, if a witness is giving you hearsay but the hearsay statement is from a person who is speaking against his own interest, saying something that could put him in jail in the case of the defendant here, could have him indicted, then that is to be taken very seriously. It is admissible because of that exception. There are a range of other exceptions why you can consider hearsay.

Now, it is my job, my role here this morning, to summarize the plaintiffs' case. It is a case that is divided really into nine sections. In the course of presenting that case to you, we've taken witnesses out of order simply because they have come from various parts of the country and the world.

We've had problems with schedules. So at one time you would hear a witness talking to you about a rifle, a murder weapon in evidence, then another time you would hear a witness talking about a crime scene, and we had already gone over that. So it is difficult for you sometimes perhaps to put all those pieces together in an orderly fashion. That's really what I have to do. I have to try to do that. I have to set it out so that you can see how this case folds together. I'm going to try to work with you on that this morning and try to help you understand it as best I can. Plaintiffs' case began with a section that dealt with the background, the background of all of this, why you are here, why Martin King was assassinated, why he came to Memphis before he was assassinated. So it dealt with the background.

Then we moved with a second area concerned which was local conspiracy we called it, what was happening here in Memphis , what events were going on that constituted conspiracy, legally civil conspiracy under the law. Because that's really what we are asking you to find is that there was a conspiracy here.

Thirdly, we dealt with the crime scene. What was this crime scene all about. Where was the crime scene? What happened there?

Fourthly, we went into the rifle. This is the murder weapon. We discussed the murder weapon and asked you to consider all the evidence with respect to the murder weapon. We move next to a shadowy figure called Raoul. Who is this man who was claimed to have been James Earl Ray's controller and the role that he played in this case?

Then we move beyond that to what we have called a broader conspiracy beyond Memphis that reached into the higher levels of the government of the United States and some of its agents and officials. We moved through that with you. We went beyond that, then, into really what amounts to a cover up. What was the cover-up activity and why was it important and why have these events been shielded

from public view so that only you, you twelve, fourteen, here day after day, and his Honor, alone perhaps in this broad land, have heard this evidence.

How could that be, a case as important as this? How could that be? But it has been the case. Then we considered the defendant's admissions, the defendant -- the named defendant in this case, his actual admissions, against his own interest and what is in evidence with respect to that.

We moved lastly really to the area of damages. And there was a fair amount of testimony on damages from the members of the family with respect to what they were looking for and what their perspective was in terms of any kind of remuneration for the loss that they have suffered.

So that's the outline. Now let's look at each of those sections, if we can.

First the background. Martin King, as you know, for many years was a Baptist preacher in the southern part of this country, and he was thrust into leadership of the civil rights movement at a historic moment in the civil rights movement and social change movement in this part of the country. That's where he was. That's where he has been locked in time, locked in a media image, locked as an icon in the brains of the people of this country.

But Martin King had moved well beyond that. When he was awarded the Noble Peace Prize he became in the mid-1960's an international figure, a person of serious stature whose voice, his opinions, on other issues than just the plight of black people in the South became very significant world-wide. He commanded world-wide attention as few had before him. As a successor, if you will, to Mahatmas Gandhi in terms of the movement for social change through civil disobedience. So that's where he was moving. Then in 1967, April 4, 1967, one year to the day before he was killed, he delivered the momentous speech at Riverside Church in New York where he opposed the war.

Now, he thought carefully about this war. He had been inclined to oppose it for quite a long period of time. Prior to that, two, three years prior to that he had uneasy feelings.

I remember vividly, I was a journalist in Vietnam, when I came back he asked to meet with me, and when I opened my files to him, which were devastating in terms of the effects upon the civilian population of that country, he unashamedly wept.

I knew at that point really that the die was cast. This was in February of 1967. He was definitely going to oppose that war with every strength, every fiber in his body. And he did so. He opposed it. And from the date of the Riverside speech to the date he was killed, he never wavered in that opposition. Now, what does that mean? Is he an enemy of the State? The State regarded him as an enemy because he opposed it. But what does it really mean, his opposition? I put it to you that his opposition to that war had little to do with ideology, with capitalism, with democracy. It had to do with money. It had to do with huge amounts of money that that war was generating to large multinational corporations that were based in the United States , corporations that were based in the United States .

When Martin King opposed the war, when he rallied people to oppose the war, he was threatening the bottom lines of some of the largest defense contractors in this country. This was about money. When he threatened to bring that war to a close through massive popular opposition, he was threatening the bottom lines of some of the largest construction companies, one of which was in the State of Texas , that patronized the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson and had the major construction contracts at Cam Ran Bay in Vietnam . This is what Martin King was challenging. He was challenging the weapons industry, the hardware, the armament industries, that all would lose as a result of the end of the war.

Forget about democracy, forget about any ideology. This opposition to Martin King, this growing enmity to him, was based on money and the loss of money. The second aspect of his work that also dealt with money that caused a great deal of consternation in the circles of power in this land had to do with his commitment to take a massive group of people to Washington and there to encamp them in the shadow of the Washington memorial for as long as it took. For as long as it took, they would make daily trips to the halls of Congress and they would try to compel the Congress to act, as they had previously acted in terms of civil rights legislation, now to act in terms of social legislation.

Now, he begin to talk about a redistribution of wealth, in this the wealthiest country in the world that had such a large group of poor people, of people living then and now, by the way, in poverty.

That problem had to be addressed. And it wasn't a black-and-white problem. This was a problem that dealt with Hispanics, and it dealt with poor whites as well. That is what he was taking on. That's what he was challenging.

The powers in this land believed he would not be successful. Why did they believe that? They believed that because they knew that the decision-making processes in the United States had by that point in time, and today it is much worse in my view, but by that point in time had so consolidated power that they were the representatives, the foot soldiers, of the economic -- the very economic interests who were going to suffer as a result of these times of changes. So the very powerful lobbying forces that put their people in the halls of Congress and indeed in the White House itself and controlled them, paid and bought them and controlled them, were certainly not going to agree to the type of social legislation that Martin King and his mass of humanity were going to require.

So there was a fear. What happens when they are frustrated? What happens when they don't get any satisfaction? What would happen? They feared, the military feared, that there would be a violent rebellion in the nation's capital. And they didn't have the troops that could contain half a million angry poor alienated Americans. They didn't have the troops. Westmoreland wanted another two hundred thousand in Vietnam . They didn't have them to give to him. They didn't have them. They were afraid that mob would overrun the capital. They were afraid that what Mr. Jefferson had urged many, many times, that the body politic can only be cleansed by a revolution every twenty years.

They were afraid that Mr. Jefferson would be listened to and that that revolution would take place. Because of that, those factors, Martin King was not going to be allowed, not going to be allowed to bring that group of people to Washington . So that's the reason for the hostility. He saw Memphis as part and parcel of the overall problem, as a microcosm. He saw the plight of the garbage workers here as being symptomatic of the pervasive sickness of American society.

So he said if we turn our backs on these ones, how can we go on behalf of the broad national interests? These ones need us now, let's start the Poor People's Campaign here, which is what he did.

So he came to Memphis and he was here on the 17th and 18th of March and he spoke and he returned again on the 28th of March and the march turned nasty. Indications are there that there were provocateurs, that it was broken up deliberately, that he was discredited because of that, and he had to then return. And so he did plan to come back. There was opposition within his own organization. But he said, no, we're going to do this and we're going to lead a peaceful march and this is the way we're going to launch this campaign, and so he came back to Memphis. After the 28th he came back on the 3rd of April.

Now we move to the local conspiracy that related to the death of Martin Luther King. You've heard evidence of a very reputable forty-year-in-business store owner sit up there and tell you that he always bought -- every Thursday he went to Frank Liberto's warehouse, that was his last stop before he went back to Somerville, and on that Thursday, April 4, he heard the owner of that place take the telephone and scream into it, "Shoot the son-of-a-bitch when he comes on the balcony," amongst other things. That is the first indication of the involvement of a Mr. Frank Liberto, which information was given to the police and the FBI and forgotten about.

Then you've heard two other independent witnesses testify at different ends of the trial, one called as a witness by the defense, Mrs. Lavada Addison, who had this conversation with Mr. Liberto in her cafe when Liberto leaned over the table at a time when the Select Committee hearings were on, apparently something came on the television, and whispered to Mrs. Addison, "I arranged have Martin Luther King killed."

She jumped back and was shocked by this. So. Liberto puts himself in it against his own interest, mind you. He has said that. You are entitled to believe that. Then comes Mrs. Lavada Addison's son Nathan, who confronts Liberto, and Liberto again confirms the same thing to him. So we see now Mr. Frank Liberto's involvement in this whole scenario.

Then we have from the defendant himself in sessions that are before you and you've heard testimony from Ambassador Young and Mr. King about how he was approached and he was asked to assist or become involved in this assassination again by Mr. Liberto and how he was told that he would be visited by a man called Raoul, he would first receive some money, be visited by a man called Raoul, he would pass the money to Raoul, he would receive a gun, that he was be asked to participate in this endeavor and he should not worry because there would be no police around, the police would not be there.

We've heard him say that in fact he did these things and that he received the gun after the shooting. He said he received the gun right at his back door. That's as far as he went in his admissions. Of course, he also said he didn't know what was going on. Neither Ambassador Young nor Mr. King believed him in that respect, that he didn't know what was going on.

Now, why would anyone say this? Is this something new? No. You heard testimony from witnesses who indicated that Mr. Jowers had said this to them years ago, as much as twenty years ago he had said this, he had said that he knew how Martin Luther King was killed. He had indicated to them that he didn't do it but he knew how it was done, and in one case he actually told the same story way back then that he is telling now. So this is not some afterthought from Mr. Jowers to try to make a movie or become -- have notoriety or something like that. This is a consistent story that has been around for a long time, and other witnesses from previous times have confirmed it.

So other indications of the local conspiracy, what are they? You've heard about the removal of Detective Redditt, who was a police officer on surveillance duty on the afternoon. He was removed within an hour of the killing and told there was a threat on his life and he was sent home to arrive at his home at the time of the assassination, never to hear about this threat again. This was a phony threat. I think it became quite clear. They didn't trust him because when been a community relations officer that had been secunded into intelligence and at the last minute had to pull him off, he might have seen something, done something that was untrustworthy. He was pulled off. The other officer remained making notes of what he saw.

There were two black firemen, the only two black firemen in the fire station, they were removed. They were given orders the night before not to report for duty but to go to another fire station in each case where they were surplussed to requirements.

Why were they removed? Why were those two black firemen removed, the only two black firemen, and the night before? You heard the Jerry Williams, Captain Williams, testified that he had always formed an elite black homicide group of detectives as a bodyguard for Dr. King. The last visit, he was not asked to form that bodyguard. This was the only time he was not asked to form that bodyguard, and he didn't know why he was not asked to form that bodyguard. And that troubled him. You heard that the police were at one point around the Lorraine Motel and then they were removed, or they just disappeared. They disappeared within a half hour, forty-five minutes of the killing. Why did they disappear? Where did they go? You saw evidence that the Invaders, a local community-organizing group that had been willing to work with Dr. King toward the end and were there for the purpose of helping him produce a produce a peaceful march, at ten minutes to six, eleven minutes before the actual shooting, they left the motel. They were ordered to leave the motel. They were told their bills were no longer going to be paid and they had to leave the hotel. So they emptied out. They might have reacted violently and caused some sort of conflagration at the hotel, but they didn't. They just left.

You heard about the removal of the emergency tact forces. This is the emergency tact forces, in this case it was Tact 10, which was usually a group of four or five police cars with officers from the sheriff's department, police officers. They were around the Lorraine Motel until the afternoon before the killing. The afternoon of the 3rd they were ordered to be pulled back to the fire station on the periphery. When Inspector Evans was asked who gave him the instructions to pull them back, he said it was a request from Dr. King's group. But when he was asked who, you may recall, he said, oh, yes, I think it was Reverend Kyles that gave me that instruction. But the tact forces were pulled back.

The defendant on the day of the killing ordered a witness whom you heard who was working at a waitress for him, ordered Bobbie Balfour not to take any food upstairs to Grace Stephens, who was ill, and who had been received food on a daily basis, but that day, because the second floor of the rooming house was being used as a staging ground, no one was allowed up there, and he told her not to go up there. So she didn't go. So she didn't go.

Then you heard Olivia Catling, who had never been spoken to by anyone, Olivia Catling took the stand and told about a man coming from an alley that was connected to a building that was attached to the rooming house. She saw this man coming through that alley shortly after the killing, some minutes after the killing, and getting into a 1965 Green Chevrolet that was parked on Huling and then speeding away Norton Mulberry Street right in front of the police burning, rubber as he went, with no interference whatsoever from them.

All of these things, all of these events, I submit to you profoundly are strong evidence of the existence of a conspiracy just at the local level, not even mentioning the fact that the defendant has also indicated that planning sessions took place in his grill prior to the assassination.

So I think it is important to see that total picture of evidence you have. There should be no doubt that all of these things are indicative overwhelmingly of conspiracy. Now, are we conspiracy buffs because we find all of this evidence insurmountable? I think not. But you have heard it. The masses of Americans have not. And the media has never put it to them and I submit to you probably never will. That's why your presence is so important.

The crime scene, what about this crime scene? We submit that the crime scene, of course, was the back area of the rooming house. It was terribly overgrown with bushes. The bushes were thick and they were difficult to penetrate and that they provided an excellent sniper's lair. That's where the crime took place.

Any number of witnesses and evidence in the record indicates that a person or persons was seen in those bushes at the time of the shooting. These are different accounts that we put into the record, separate and apart.

There is other evidence, again, separate independent evidence, that a person was seen jumping from the wall, jumping over the wall and running up Mulberry Street . As a result of this, we've concluded some while ago and have tried to provide enough impetus for you to conclude that the shot came from these bushes and not from the bathroom window.

The bathroom window and the rooming house bathroom has been officially the scene of this crime forever. The State had evidence long ago that that was not the case, that the dent in the window sill was not made by the rifle, even though they maintained that was the case. The bathroom was seen open.

The State's main witness was drunk at the time. He was intoxicated. He couldn't identify anybody. Captain Tommy Stephens said he couldn't identify anyone, much less stand up. Yet it was the affidavit of Charles Stephens that brought James Earl Ray back to this country back from England . That was the basis of the proof that brought him back.

Do you know what confidence the State had in their own chief witness? They didn't even call him at the time of the guilty plea hearing. He didn't even testify at that point. Now, the murder weapon itself, Judge Joe Brown heard testimony and evidence in this case for about four years. He paid particular attention to the weapon, and he has had a lifetime of experience and developed knowledge about weapons and about rifles in particular. We qualified the judge as an expert. He came before you and he sat there.

Anyone who heard Judge Brown's testimony with respect to that weapon should have no -- and weapons in general should have no doubt whatsoever that he is in fact an expert. The media will point to his lack of technical training, courses having been taken with respect to learning about rifles. The other areas for developing expertise happens to be experience and self knowledge and development, which is what Judge Brown has.

Judge Brown sat in that chair and gave you sample technical scientific reasons why that weapon in evidence is not the murder weapon very clearly. He said, first of all, the scope was never sighted in. Because it was never sighted in, if you use that scope, to quote him, you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with that weapon, remember that expression, because it was firing to the left and below the target, because it was never sighted in.

He also said the scope couldn't have been altered by having been dropped in a bundle. You can't alter a scope to that extent, its accuracy, by doing that.

He said also that the death slug did not have the same metallurgical composition as existed in the lead of the other evidence bullets that were found in that bundle the State has always said it was one of a number of bullets the defendant had and you should see them as a package, if you will. Judge Brown said, no, the death slug was different in metallurgical composition than the bullets that were there.

Beyond this, there is evidence that you've heard that this clearly couldn't have been the murder weapon because the defendant told a taxi driver, James McCraw, to get rid of the murder weapon, and he did so. McCraw, being a close friend of Jowers, a confident of Jowers, took the actual murder weapon and threw it off the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge . So it is laying at the bottom of the Mississippi River for over thirty-one years. The real murder weapon is at the bottom of that river.

Now, Bill Hamblin, no reason to lie, he said McCraw would only tell him this when he got drunk and he told him this over fifteen years. This is not something McCraw made up one day. It is over a period of fifteen years. I remind you that he told this same story.

Judge Arthur Haynes testified that he was, of course, James Earl Ray's first lawyer along with his father, and he testified that in the course of their early on-the-scene investigation, they talked to Guy Canipe, who owned the amusement shop in front of which was found the bundle which contained, amongst other things, the rifle. He said Canipe told them very early on, before anyone else apparently had done any kind of tampering with him, told him very early on that that bundle was dropped some minutes before the actual shooting. Imagine that, that the bundle, the murder weapon, the rifle in evidence, was dropped minutes before the actual shooting.

Now we come to Raoul, this shadowy figure who the defendant has mentioned and who James Earl Ray has talked about right from the beginning as someone who controlled him. You have a number of independent people, not even knowing each other, who have identified this man from a spread of photographs that they have seen. And they range from an English merchant seaman, who we had to depose by telephone at some length, who ran into this same Raoul at the same bar James did, up at the Neptune in Montreal .

They range from him to the Grabows, Royce Wilburn, to the defendant himself who identified Raoul from a spread of photographs before Ambassador Young and Mr. King, and, of course, James Earl Ray, who also identified him.

If that is not enough, if that is not enough, we have the British film producer, Jack Saltman, going to the door of Raoul's house, showing a photograph and having his daughter admit that that is the photograph of her father, her words to the effect that anyone can get that picture or that photograph of my father. It is from Immigration & Naturalization. She identified her own father as the person in that photograph.

Under subpoena and reluctantly a Portuguese journalist took the stand. She had conducted an interview with a member of the family. The member of that family had told her that this was a horror, a nightmare for them and for the family, but the one comfort they had was that the government was helping them, that the government had sent people to their home approximately three times or so, and that the government was monitoring their telephone calls and the government was providing them with guidance. The government was trying to give them comfort and advice.

Can you imagine if anything like that happened to -- if any charges were laid against any of us in those circumstances, do you think the government would come around and see us, help us, monitor our phones?

That act alone indicates the importance and the significance of this man, Raoul. So it is essential that that be put clearly in the context.

Now, as I understand it, the defense had invited Raoul to appear here. He is outside this jurisdiction, so a subpoena would be futile. But he was asked to appear here. In earlier proceedings there were attempts to depose him, and he resisted them. So he has not attempted to come forward at all and tell his side of this story or to defend himself.

As we move into the next area, we're concerned now about a broader conspiracy, a broader conspiracy. That is two-pronged, ladies and gentlemen. On the one hand, the broader conspiracy goes beyond a shooter in the bushes who gets away with killing Martin King. It goes from him to a Mr. Jowers, who is involved in facilitating, and it goes back to Mr. Liberto, whom you've heard was clearly a part of it, but it goes beyond Mr. Liberto in terms of the Mob side, because you've heard from witness Nathan Whitlock how he used to push a fruit cart in New Orleans with Mr. Carlos Marcello and that he then has this relationship and this awareness of Marcello and Marcello activities. Carlos Marcello has been the Mob kingpin, was the Mob leader in this part of the country, for a long, long time.

So any contract, any Mob contract, on Martin Luther King's life, would come from Marcello through Liberto into the local infrastructure that Marcello had here in Memphis . Marcello himself was involved in gun running. Part of the evidence in terms of the military involvement is contained in a lengthy article that we put into evidence that appears in March of 1993 in the Commercial Appeal by Steve Tomkins, and that article indicated that there was a high-ranking general who had been charged and imprisoned for aiding and abetting the trading in stolen weapons. That deal meant what he was involved in was the theft of guns from arsenals, armories and camps, like Camp Shelby in Mississippi, the theft of weapons from those places that went to -- were trucked to a Marcello property in New Orleans, and from the Marcello property in New Orleans were shipped around the coast into Houston, Texas, where they were taken off. And that is where Raoul and his crowd came into the receipt of those weapons before they went into Latin and South America .

So that's one prong of the broader conspiracy, the Mob. But, you see, already there is a relationship between organized crime and the military in the receipt of those weapons and in the ongoing sale of them.

Then we move directly into the government of the United States , their agents themselves. We've learned that the 111th Military Intelligence Group based at Fort McPherson in Atlanta , Georgia , were here.

They were in Memphis . They had Martin King under surveillance. That as open -- quote, open surveillance, eye-to-eye surveillance.

They had him under surveillance. Eli Arkin of the Memphis Police Department Intelligence Bureau, Intelligence Division, said they were in his office. He has he has admitted they were in his office.

They were here.

There was another section here that was involved in covert surveillance of Martin King. "Covert" means bugging, wiretapping, that type of activity. That was done at the Rivermont when he was here on the 17th or 18th. You heard a witness say he was one of three people who were effectively a surveillance team. They had Martin King's suite bugged, every room of it bugged, including the balcony. If he wanted to speak privately and went out on the balcony, they would pick it up by relay from the roof.

That covert -- that type of covert surveillance was carried out by another agency, usually the Army Security Agency. So there we have those two agencies involved very clearly here.

Then there were photographers. Remember those photographers that Captain Weiden talked about. They were on the roof of the fire station. He put them there. Who were they? They were a psychological operations team, and they were there and they photographed everything throughout that day. That means, ladies and gentlemen, that there is a film of everything that happened, photographs of everything that happened buried somewhere. We tried long and hard to unearth it unsuccessfully, but it is there and it is hidden, as it was hidden from this jury it is hidden from the American people. Maybe the media one day will let you know that it exists. But it is there. They took those photographs. They were what is known as a psychological operations team, and they were there and they photographed everything throughout that day. That means, ladies and gentlemen, that there is a film of everything that happened, photographs of everything that happened buried somewhere. We tried long and hard to unearth it unsuccessfully, but it is there and it is hidden, as it was hidden from this jury it is hidden from the American people. Maybe the media one day will let you know that it exists. But it is there. They took those photographs. They were what is known as a psychological operations team, and we know who the two members of that team were.

So there is this very strong presence now, which is primarily surveillance, it is intelligence gathering, it is visual and it is audio and it is going on and Martin King and his group are the subject of it.

But then there is another group that is more sinister. They are not more sinister because of what they did, because they didn't really do anything, but we know they had a presence. And that was a special eight-man sniper unit that was here in Memphis . They were all part of the 20th Special Forces Group. They were here and they were assigned and they were trained for an operation, for a mission, in Memphis . You heard testimony by a man who himself was a national security council operative who was very involved in Iran-Contra activities, who had been a long-standing operative, if you will, of the government of the United States and whose best friend was a member of that sniper team. There was no reason in the world for his best friend other than in a moment of whatever, anguish or burden, desire to relieve himself, to talk about this, this mission that he was on which he was assigned to in Memphis which was aborted, but he was assigned to it.

With a Q and A approach you heard documents of working papers that were used to get information from other -- from another source who lives south of the border and who fled the country in the 1970's out of fear who was also a part of that unit. So they were there, and there are three separate sources that confirm the presence. But they did not -- it was not necessary for them to do anything. The mission was aborted because the Mob contract was successful in killing Martin Luther King and framing James Earl Ray.

Remember, one of the things that Liberto also told the defendant, Loyd Jowers, was that there was a setup man, there was a patsy, lined up to take the blame. There was another area of comfort that the defendant could have.

Now we move to the cover-up aspect of this case. This in many ways is the most sad in a representative democracy to have to have this kind of cover-up be successful for so long. It is a shame. It is a tragedy. I think it goes right to the essence of democracy and the right of the people to know.

The cover-up activities in this case, ladies and gentlemen, range from murder to press manipulation and distortion, with bribery in between. Murder, unfortunately in our view, and from the evidence that you have heard here, credible sources, is that a taxi driver who pulled into the Lorraine Motel maybe six minutes before the killing or so, shortly before the killing, a Yellow Cab taxi driver who pulled into that drive and who was standing at the rear of his car loading the trunk of the car with the baggage, the luggage, of someone that was leaving, unfortunately for him, immediately after the shooting he saw the shooting and then turned to look at the other side of the road and saw a man come down out of the bushes and run up the street and get into a waiting Memphis Police Department traffic car which sped away.

When he reported this to his dispatcher, he thought the police had the assassin because he was in a police car going away. Well, this man, as you've heard, was questioned by the police a couple of times that week. He was to give a statement the next day.

He didn't give a statement, did he? No, his body was found off the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge supposedly thrown out of a speeding car. Now, when we tried to find death certificates for this man, we couldn't, either in Arkansas or in Tennessee . There is no death record at all. We found his phone number with that of his wife listed in 1967, 1966 and 1967, Betty and Paul Butler. This is all in evidence. The Polk Directory pages are there for you to look at. In 1968 it is Betty, brackets, widow, WID, of Paul, Betty widow, 1968 and 1969 she a widow. Paul Butler was her deceased husband. He was, for him, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That is in some ways the worst of it. Because is there anything really worse than losing your life when you've been in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The next aspect of cover-up is the tampering, drastic alteration, of the crime scene. What happened there? You've heard what happened. Seven o'clock in the morning Inspector Sam Evans called Maynard Stiles, who was a public works administrator, and asked him to get a work crew out there and to cut down those bushes. They cut the bushes down. Now, normally what one does with a crime scene, at least for quite a period of time, is to rope it off and keep people out of it and investigate it as it is. You don't go and destroy the crime scene. You don't know what is there. You go and you deal with it the way it was at the time of the crime.

No, it was cut right to the ground, cut right to the ground. And however long it took them to do it, they did a good job, because it was not possible for a sniper to be in that area once it was cut to the ground because he could obviously be very visible.

So the image of a flat, barren area is what was relayed, and that reinforced the whole bathroom window. There was no house-to-house investigation, ladies and gentlemen. Do you remember Judge Brown on the stand saying that this was the most deficient investigation, criminal investigation, he had ever seen as a criminal court judge? He is talking about all of these kinds of things. Imagine, no house-to-house investigation.

What that means is that no policeman going and knocking on the door of all of the local residents and asking them did they see anything, did they hear anything, because surely if they had, they would have knocked on Olivia Catling's door, wouldn't they? She just lived down the street on Mulberry. She would have told them what she saw. But they didn't. They didn't do that, did they? No, they didn't do that, not at all. Why? Why did they suppress two alibi statements, a statement from Ray Hendricks and William Reed, who left Jim's Grill, oh, thirty-five minutes past the hour of five, forty minutes past the hour of five, right around there, maybe even -- well, right around that time. It would be difficult to pin exact times down.

They left Jim's Grill, saw James Earl Ray's Mustang parked in front of Jim's Grill, started to work walk up the street and a couple of minutes later when they went up a couple of blocks and were about to cross Vance, one pulled the other back when the same white Mustang they thought came right around the corner driving away, as James Earl Ray had said he done.

He always said he left the scene of the crime around to that time to try to go have a spare tire repaired. Here are two alibi witnesses with statements given to the FBI in their 302's kept from the defense, withheld from the guilty plea jury, suppressed.

What else was suppressed? What was suppressed was the fact that they had a scientific report from the FBI that the dent in the window sill could not sufficiently be tied to the rifle. They had that. They had that almost a year prior to the actual guilty plea hearing. And yet they went before the guilty plea jury and said that scientific evidence would establish that the murder weapon made that dent. Obstruction of justice, suppression? That and worse.

What about the death slug that could not be matched? You know, the media and the State have turned the burden in this case of matching the bullet to the rifle the other way around. They are saying because you can't exclude it, it may be the murder weapon. That's not the way it works. In any other case that's not the way it works.

This is not a good rifle in evidence when you cannot match the death slug to it. And it was a death slug capable of being matched. You have evidence that that bullet was capable of being matched if it could.

There were enough striations, enough independent markings that they could match it if they could.

So the guilty plea hearing guilty plea hearing heard none of this. I talked to members of the guilty plea jury years later.

They heard none of this. This was all kept quiet. They certainly would have had questions about Mr. Ray's plea if they had.

They certainly didn't know that his lawyer had agreed in writing to pay $500 if he would plead guilty and not cause any problems and that $500 could be used to hire another lawyer who could help overturn the plea. They certainly were not told that.

They certainly were not told those kinds of pressures that descended on him at the last minute to cop this plea, which I'm afraid people do all the time in desperation, particularly when they are in isolation the way he was.

What about Captain Weiden? My goodness. Captain of the fire station, never interviewed by local police authorities. The man who ran that installation, who was there at the time, never interviewed by the authorities. Forgetting about knocking on people's doors. Here is official, he is a senior executive officer of the fire station. They didn't talk to him. They didn't interview him. They didn't ask him what was going on there that afternoon. Were they afraid that he would have told them about the photographers on the roof? Because if he had, then they wouldn't have been unnoticed, would they? It wouldn't have been unnoticed that there were photographs of what went on, and they would have then had to request those photographs. So if you don't talk to Captain Weiden, you don't have to know about them. If you don't know about it, you don't ask for it.

You heard Bill Schaap on the stand for a long time talking about media distortion and the use of media for propaganda. He gave you the history of how it has developed particularly over the 20th century America but, of course, it is a long-standing activity throughout history in older nations than this.

But Schaap took you painstakingly through that history down to the present time when he dealt with the way the media handled Martin Luther King, how they handled his opposition to the war in Vietnam, how he was attacked because of that opposition to the war.

Then he moved on. There were similar, comparable attacks on the King family since they decided they wanted the truth out in this case and they decided that James Earl Ray was entitled to a trial, similar media treatment happened to them that happened to Martin, similar loss of contributions and money for the work that happened to Martin back in those days. The same thing.

Bill Schaap led you through that. There were a couple of instances where he referred to the huge network of ownership and control of media entities all over the world by the Central Intelligence Agency. It is a matter of public record. It has appeared in Congressional hearings, Senate hearings, which most people don't read, don't know anything about, and, of course, the media only covers in sparse fashion, because it is contrary to their interests to show that great numbers of newspapers, radio stations, television stations, may in fact be actually owned by the Central Intelligence Ageny in this country as well as elsewhere.

He talked about the numbers of actual agents who work for media companies, who are placed in positions in network television company positions, in newspaper company positions, on newspaper editorial board positions.

If you see the history of how national security cases are covered and this is one, you will be amazed that some of the most liberal columnists, writers, respected journalists, Pulitzer Prize winners, who have all the liberal credentials, when it comes to this kind of case, they all of a sudden are totally with the government because national security cases are a different ball game.

Ambassador Young ran into one at one point in an airport, and he said to him, how can you do this, Tony, about this case, you have great credentials in every other way, what is it about this case? His response was, you'll be happy to know my wife agrees with you. But that was it. That was the end of the response.

The point is on these cases there is a special type of treatment that is given. It is important to understand that across the board. That explains a lot of what we're talking about. Examples: Column 1, New York Times, November, the article is here, Alton, Illinois, bank robbery, Wendell Rose, Jr., the Times wrote this whole piece, fabricated, whole cloth, that the Ray brothers robbed the bank in Illinois and that's where James got his money and therefore there is no Raoul.

The problem was that the article said that the Times had conducted a special investigation that paralleled that of the House Select Committee and that of the FBI, and all three investigations indicated this was the case. Case closed, this is where Ray got his money.

The problem is they never talked to the chief of police in Alton , Illinois . They never talked to the president of the bank in Alton , Illinois . There was no investigation. And when those people were talked to by myself or by Jerry Ray, who went down there to turn himself in -- you think I did this, I'm prepared to turn myself in -- the guy said, go away, you've never been a suspect. Isn't that amazing, out of whole cloth. But it appears, and that's the mindset that the people have.

You heard Earl Caldwell say he was sent to Memphis by his national editor, New York Times national editor, Claude Sitton at the time, and told to go to Memphis and his words were "nail Dr. King." Nail Dr. King. That is what he said he was told was his mission here in Memphis as a New York Times reporter. I can go on. But these are examples of what happens with the media.

Now, Bill Schaap told you the impact of that out of thirty-one years is very devastating, is very hard to hear this for thirty-one years and have somebody come along and say, no, you've been told the wrong thing and here are a whole set of facts that are incontrovertible and this is why you've been old the wrong thing.

The reaction is still, oh, yes, that's interesting, but the next day we still believe, because it is almost implanted neurologically. That's the problem that this kind of distortion, media propaganda abuse, just raises.

Mr. Jowers here, the defendant, was a victim of that. They gave him -- ABC gave him a lie detector test and they told him at the end of that lie detector test that he had failed, why was he doing this, was he looking for money, he had failed this lie detector test. You heard from a cab driver, who has nothing to gain by this, take the stand and say, yeah, he drove those ABC people to the airport, took them to the airport, and he heard their conversation. His ears perked up when he heard Jowers' name because he heard them, the guy in the front, the examiner, said, I couldn't get him to waver, I couldn't get him to waver. They were commenting on how much he remembered in so much detail and why he remembered so much detail.

There is no question about him failing this test. They couldn't get the defendant to lie. And yet that program was broadcast, was put out to masses of people in this country to believe to this day that the defendant lied, that he lied.

Now, you heard -- we're still on cover-up. I'm sorry. You heard about two efforts to bribe James Earl Ray. I don't know of any others, but you have heard of two in particular, one from a lawyer, Jack Kershaw, who told you about a meeting at the Nelson Book Publishing Company and he was offered a sum of money if Ray would admit that he did it. He was offered this money by William Bradford Huey, who was a writer, if Ray would confess that he did it and did it alone and he would give him this money and give him a pardon and he would go on and have a nice life.

Mr. Kershaw went over to the prison, as you heard, asked Mr. Ray if you want to take up this wonderful offer. Ray, of course, said, no, and sent him packing. Some while later a telephone -- on a telephone conversation Huey made the same offer to Jerry Ray. His problem then was that that conversation was recorded. Jerry Ray testified and you have a transcript of that recording, he was offered now $220,000, they greatly increased the sum of money, $220,000, also a pardon. And the best story, of course, that they wanted, that Huey wanted, was the story why I killed Martin Luther King.

So they were offering him money, a pardon if he would tell that story. It didn't work. James, of course, was not interested in anything of the sort. James had always only wanted, from three days after his conviction, he had always wanted a trial. That is what he wanted. Then there were a number of attempts to kill James Earl Ray. These attempts vary. One time he escaped from Brushy Mountain in 1977, he escaped from Brushy Mountain with six others. No sooner did his feet hit the ground and they were up in the woods there -- if you know that area of Petros, Tennessee, it is pretty rural in some areas and rocky and hilly -- he was up in the woods, and no sooner did he go get up in the woods but there was an FBI SWAT team out of the Knoxville office on the scene.

Who asked for them? It is a State escape, State prisoner. The State is handling it. No, here comes in the SWAT team. They have snipers with sniper rifles. What are they going to do with those sniper rifles?

Lewis Stokes was chairman of the Select Committee on Assassinations. He calls Ray Blanton, who is a governor of the State at the time. Reverend Fauntroy was a part of to that conversation and said he was the one who encouraged Stokes to call, but he was there. Stokes calls Blanton and says that you better get over to Brushy Mountain . If you don't, I'm going to lose my most famous witness and your most famous prisoner because the FBI is going to kill him. Blanton goes over in a helicopter and chases the FBI away.

They didn't what to go at first. He told them he would put them in the same sell James Earl Ray came out of if they didn't. He saved James Earl Ray's life. He was caught and brought back by local authorities, which is the way it should have been.

The second attempt was in April of 1978. You heard April Ferguson, public defender counsel, tell you how that worked. She went out, interviewed a prisoner who had called their office when April and Mark Lane were representing James back at that time. He was offered a contract. He was asked to put out a contract on James Earl Ray, and he decided not to do it.

One, he thought he was being set up because the person who called him left a number and he had to call him back. When he called had him back, he was calling him back at an Executive Suites hotel that he knew, the prisoner knew, was being used by the local US Attorney's Office and the FBI where they interviewed informants and where they did the briefings. That's where the phone call came from.

He thought he was being set up. The phone call came to him from a fellow called Arthur Wayne Baldwin, who was a Mob figure in Memphis but who also was involved as a federal informant and was used by the government.

So he gave the statement of how this contract was put out by Baldwin on James Earl Ray's life, and Ms. Ferguson testified as to her affidavit. Defendant's prior admissions, the next section of plaintiffs' case, you've heard a good deal of it, how the defendant has admitted how he was approached by Mr. Liberto and how he was told that he would receive a package, which he did, and money and eventually a rifle to hold, and he told about planning sessions in his cafe, and he told about taking a rifle from the shooter, taking the rifle from the shooter, one that was still smoking. He said taking it from his back door.

He named the shooter as a Memphis Police Department lieutenant, Earl Clark, who is deceased, who was a sharpshooter who he said was a hunting companion of his, a friend of his, and a friend of Liberto's as well and who never had any contact with him again after this day.

Now, Mrs. Clark, the first wife, who testified, gave her husband an alibi. It is only fair that you consider what Ms. Clark said. When I first interviewed here in 1992 -- she referred to that interview. In fact, her son was there. He was not twenty-two. He was born later. He was about sixteen. Her daughter was born in 1970. It was the son who was present. She told essentially the same story at that point in time.

There are serious questions with that story, and they have to do with whether or not in fact Lieutenant Clark had a radio at all at that point in time and whether or not in fact Dent Cleaners was open later than six p.m. on that day. Because by her accounts she got there sometime between six-thirty and six-forty to pick up his uniform. But, in any event, you have to consider all of that.

Lastly, in respect of the defendant's situation, we had placed a woman -- aspects of a woman's testimony into the record so that you can review it, and she was a waitress who had been a lover of the defendant during that previous year.

She very reluctantly in 1992 gave a statement that had really to be worked out of her. She didn't want to tell this story even then because she was afraid that her former lover and boss, Mr. Jowers, was the killer.

He was the only one she saw, she said, out there, and she was afraid that he was the killer. Plaintiffs do not believe that to be the case at this point in time.

She described him running, face white as a sheet, looking like a wild man with all mud on his knees, as though he had been kneeling in that brush area. She has been to some extent discredited because there have been -- people have descended upon her for various reasons. She was a -- a statement of hers was taken repudiating a lot of things she said, but she subsequently said in another sworn statement that she didn't even read what the state officials told her to sign.

So in a case like this, this is a difficult area for you to assess for yourselves in terms of what you read and what you have heard here.

The last area of the plaintiffs' case has to do with damages. We've addressed that. Members of the family have addressed that in terms of the spirit in which the family has approached these proceedings from the beginning.

Yes, we want a verdict of liability, a verdict of a finding of conspiracy, but the family is not interested to benefit financially from these proceedings. There has to be damages in civil litigation of this sort. It is a wrongful death action. So the request is that there be an award of one hundred dollars to offset funeral expenses at the time. And that one hundred dollars the family has decided to contribute, along with other contributions, to a welfare fund of the sanitation workers in this city, because that is the reason that Dr. King came here in the first place.

Now, what I'd like to do is to briefly take you through a visual summary, it will be much quicker than my verbal summary, but to take you through a visual picture of the summary of what you have just heard in terms of the major aspects of the plaintiffs' case.

24 THE COURT: Does anybody need a break?

A JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: You do? All right. Just five minutes.

(Jury out.)

(Short recess.)

THE COURT: All right, Sheriff. Bring the jury back out, please.

(Jury in.)

THE COURT: All right,

Mr. Pepper. You may resume.

MR. PEPPER: Thank you, Your Honor. We have a depiction of the overall seen of the assassination at about five forty-three, the time we've pinpointed, on the afternoon of the assassination. Here in this depiction we have two people on the firehouse roof, we show two people in the brush area at this time, a number of witnesses down below the balcony right in there.

THE COURT: Mr. Pepper, excuse me. Can you see that?

A JUROR: Yes.

MR. PEPPER: Am I in your way?

THE COURT: You may stand over here, Mr. Pepper.

MR. PEPPER: There is also a car, a Chevrolet car, parked here on Huling, and two Mustangs on South Main Street . You will remember Charles Hurley testified that he drove up behind this Mustang when he was picking his wife up. It had Arkansas plates. This Mustang is believed to have been James Earl Ray's.

Now, when we move ahead, we're still at five forty-three, but it is between five forty-three and five forty-four, Hendricks and Reed, who have been in Jim's Grill here, have come out and have since walked up this street. About this time this first Mustang has pulled off. Everything else remains the same. You have the photographers on the roof, you have the two figures in the brush, who we believe to be Earl Clark and Loyd Jowers, and you have witnesses below the balcony over here.

Now we're at five-fifty. The evidence reveals that this first Mustang is gone. The second Mustang still remains. Photographers still remain clicking away on the roof. The figures in the brush still remain. The Invaders have started to leave the hotel. They are coming down the stairs and they are leaving at five-fifty. They were noticed leaving. Billy Kyles, Reverend Kyles, is right there knocking on Martin King's door as the evidence indicates at ten minutes to six. The witnesses are still down below.

At five fifty-five, the Invaders are now off the premises, they've gone. Reverend Kyles has come away from the door and is on the balcony to the right of the door. The witnesses are still below. Photographers are still in their perch photographing. The Chevrolet is still parked where was. And now a Memphis Police Department traffic car has pulled up to this intersection right here at Mulberry and Huling. In addition to that, about this time a rifle and an evidence bundle has been dropped by this figure right here in Canipe's.

Next. Still at five fifty-five, between five fifty-five and five fifty-six, the Yellow taxicab has pulled into the Lorraine driveway and is loading a passenger. The man who has dropped the rifle has now approached this second Mustang with the Arkansas plates here. The figures in the bushes are still there. The Chevrolet is there and the taxi driver himself is standing toward the rear of his car next. About five fifty-six, in that area, Martin King appears on the balcony and begins to talk to a number of the people below who we've been calling as witnesses. The taxi driver is still there unloading a passenger's luggage, and the photographers are there. The rifle remains, but now the second Mustang moves off. The traffic car remains in position and the Chevrolet remains where was.

Okay. Six-oh-one p.m., April 4th, 22 1968, Martin Luther King has been felled by a single shot. Everything else remains the same. The taxi driver is facing the brush area. The photographers are still on the roof of the fire station. The rifle in evidence remains in Canipe's doorway. The Chevrolet remains on Huling. The Memphis traffic car remains at the intersection of Mulberry and Huling. The figures in the bushes at this point remain there.

Next. Instantly, between six-oh-one and six-oh-two, immediately after the shot, one of the two figures, and we maintain it is the defendant, is moving toward his building carrying the murder weapon. The other figure in the bush, in the bushes, is going down -- appears to be at this point not going down but appears to be alone around the edge of the wall. The photographers are there. The taxi driver is still there looking at the brush area, and journalist Earl Caldwell, having heard the shot, has come out of his room.

It is difficult to do this with computers. You may recall Caldwell was in his shorts standing there looking at the bushes seeing this figure in the bushes. The traffic car remains there. Kyles remains off to the right of the fallen Martin King instantly after the shot. The witnesses are there, some of whom turn toward the bushes looking up in that direction.

Next. Also between six-oh-one and six-two, because that's what it takes, Mr. Jowers has entered his establishment. The shooter has gone down over the wall and has run toward that Memphis traffic vehicle, car vehicle, right there. This is all happening between six-oh-one and six-oh-two. That's the period of time in which this was carried out.

The taxi driver has seen the shooter jump from the wall and run to here and get into that traffic car. The photographers must have photographed it. There they are. The rifle remains. Mr. Jowers has entered his establishment at that point in time.

Okay. Around six-oh-five, under great pressure from his passenger, the taxi driver actually drives away, left the Lorraine parking lot. The shooter, having gotten into that traffic car, is also gone, disappeared. That traffic car sped up Huling, west on Huling. It is gone. Mr. Jowers is inside his establishment, the witnesses remain in place where they were. Mr. Caldwell has gone back into his room to put on his trousers.

Next. We're at about six-oh-eight. At this point in time barricades in the form of police cars have been established at either end of Mulberry, thus blocking any entrance to the street. We're at six-oh-seven. I'm a minute ahead of myself.

We're at about six-oh-seven. Everything else remains pretty much the same except Journalist Caldwell has come out of his room again and would eventually make his way up to the balcony. Dr. King is still down, witnesses are in place, photographers are in place, the rifle remains where it is, and Reverend Kyles is still on the balcony.

Also at six-oh-seven or thereabouts Olivia Catling has arrived at the corner of Mulberry and Huling. She has three children with her. Two are hers and one is a neighbor child. She has come to that corner just about this time, having heard the shot from inside her house. Everything else remains pretty much in place with the photographers, the witnesses and Journalist Caldwell coming out and the rifle still at Canipe's.

Okay. About six-oh-nine we have a man appearing in the alley. This is the first time he has appeared. He has apparently come from connected Buildings to the rooming house and he is now seen in the alley. Everything else remains the same. The barricades are in place. Mrs. Catling is there.

Next. He moves between this time, within a minute, very quickly to this car seen by Mrs. Catling and the children. Next. He gets in the car and rips off east on Huling, making a sharp turn going north on Mulberry right in front of this police barricade and proceeds unimpeded north on Mulberry away from the scene.

Now, at that point in time Mrs. Catling notices a fireman who is standing in front of the wall, and he is talking to policemen, yelling at policemen, that the shot came from the clump of bushes up there. They apparently are not listening to him. Those are the -- that's the visual depiction of the critical events that we wanted to put forward.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes that is helpful to amplify the verbal narrative. Sometimes it confuses more than it helps. But I think we've tried to draw this and depict it as precisely as we can within the constraints of the actual evidence that has been presented to you.

Let me close by saying to you that long after people forget what has been said in this courtroom, all the words that you've heard from witnesses and lawyers, and long after they have forgotten about accounts that they have read about this case, they are going to remember what was done here. They are going to remember what action you took, what decision you came to.

You have got to understand the monumental importance of your decision. You are going to -- they are going to forget everything I said, everything defense counsel has said, everything the witnesses have said. They are going to remember one thing, the ruling of this jury, the verdict of this jury because you have heard evidence that has never before been put on in a court of law.

Some of it would have been put on in Mr. Ray's trial, if he had ever been granted a trial. He wasn't. It wasn't heard. Judge Brown was on the verge of granting that trial, on the eve, in our view, so close to granting that trial, and then he was removed by the Court of Appeals in this state from the case, summarily removed. Without any argument, any oral argument, they made that decision. So Mr. Ray never had the trial. He was in his dying months when he might have gotten that trial. The Court of Appeals finished that possibility.

Only you have heard this. The people in the United States of America have not heard this. The masses of people in this country or the world have not heard this. They've heard snippets, they've heard edited clips on various documentaries and programs, but no one has heard the detailed evidence that you have here.

That is why your decision at this point in time is the most significant decision that will have been taken in thirty-one years in terms of this case.

Please don't underestimate the importance of it. In our view, what has happened in this case, the injustice that has happened in this case, and it may be symptomatic of other cases, we don't know -- we haven't gotten into that, we've just focused on this case -- but what has happened here in our view is representative of the failure that symbolizes to me the failure of representative democracy in this country.

Isn't it amazing that one could say that over a simple murder case. But when you look at the wealth of evidence that has come forward and you understand how this case has been conducted and you understand how it has been covered up, and when you see how unresponsive elected officials and government has been and how complicit they have been, you can come to no other choice.

Governmental agencies caused Martin Luther King to be assassinated. They used other foot soldiers. They caused this whole thing to happen. And they then proceeded with the powerful means at their disposal to cover this case up. This is a conspiracy that involved -- and that's a nasty word. People insult people in this country who use the word "conspiracy." Nowhere else in the world, as Bill Schaap told you, is it viewed that way. In Italy and France conspiracy is taken for granted because they have lived with it so much longer. Remember that there were thirty-nine daggers going into Cesar.

You know, these things do not happen as a rule without the involvement of other people and in this case, this type of murder, without the involvement of seriously prominent individuals in government. So it is in my view a failure of democracy and this Republic that it has not been able to bring this forward.

What we're asking you to do at this point in time is send a message. We're asking you to send a message, not just right a wrong. That's important, that you right a wrong and that you allow justice to prevail once and for all. Let it prevail. Let justice and truth prevail, else the heavens fall. No matter what, let it prevail. Let it come forward. We're asking you to let that happen.

But in addition to that, we're asking you to send a message, send a message to all of those in power, all of those who manipulate justice in this country that you cannot get away with this. Or if you can get away with it, you can only get away with it for so long. Ultimately truth-crushed earth will rise again, and it has risen in this courtroom, ladies and gentlemen. Send that message. You, you twelve, represent the American people. You are their representatives with respect to justice in this case. They cannot be here. The media will keep the truth from them forever. You represent the people of this land. You must speak for them.

In all of my years I've had confidence in one institution anywhere in the Anglo-American world, and it is a jury. It is twelve people independently hearing evidence and ruling. That's you. You have this duty to yourselves, this obligation to your fellow citizens, and you have an opportunity to act in a most significant way that perhaps you can ever imagine, because your verdict of conspiracy in this case, your verdict of liability for the defendant and his other co-conspirators, means history is rewritten, means textbooks have to be rewritten, means the actual result of this case and the truth of this case now must come forward formally.

This message also will be sent to the Attorney General of the United States , whose team are investigating in a limited way, they say, this case. But you have heard much more, so that is why this message is so important. Please send it.

On behalf of the family of Martin Luther King, Jr., on behalf of the people of the United States, I ask you to find for the plaintiff and find that conspiracy existed and that those conspirators involved not only the defendant here but we're dealing in conspiracy with agents of the City of Memphis and the governments of the State of Tennessee and the United States of America.

We ask you to find that conspiracy existed and once and for all give this plaintiff family justice and let's cleanse this city and this nation of the ignorance that has pervaded this case for so long. Let the truth reign in this courtroom once and for all.

Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Mr. Garrison.

MR. GARRISON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I promise you one thing, I won't take that long. Let me say this first of all: I've been practicing law here starting forty years this past August, and I think this is the most important case to me that I've ever been associated with.

I've tried cases in this courtroom and all over this courthouse, and I think this case is the most important case I've ever been associated with. I say that because it is important to the King family, it is important to the American way of life, important to quality and important to history now.

Over the past few years I've met with Ms. Coretta King and Mr. Dexter King and the family, and they are a very lovable family. They have gone through more than any family should have to go through and simply because of the color of their skin, because Dr. King simply was seeking equality and equal rights. And if our constitution means anything, it means that is for everybody.

Now, Dr. Pepper has pursued this case for years. He is like a bulldog on your trousers. You just can't shake him loose, you can't shake him off. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't be here today. He and I have many areas of agreement, but we have many areas of disagreement. I want to put those out you to now.

First of all, let me say this: I told you at the beginning that anything that Mr. Jowers had to do with this was very, very minute and small. I think the proof fairly shows that. Here is a man who had a greasy-spoon restaurant, a beer joint, to put it bluntly, that was there in a place where he had been dealing with a Mr. Liberto, and perhaps those things weren't the way they should be, but he is not on trial for that. He simply said that I had handled money for Mr. Liberto previously and that here again he asked me to handle some money. He said he was going to send a box to him. I didn't know what it was. He said that the money came in and the box came in and that he said someone would pick up the box and you be at the back door at six 4 o'clock and something would be handed to you. He says I didn't know anything.

Now, he met with Mr. Dexter King and Ambassador Young freely and voluntarily at his own expense, his own time. He told them what limited information he had about this. He was very honest with them and very sincere in telling them what he knew about this case, which was very limited.

He told Dexter King, which Mr. King admitted here, that he said I didn't know anything about this as far as it being Dr. King that would be the target of assassination, I had no knowledge of that. He said I apologize to you for anything that I may have done that would cause the death of your father, but I had no idea, no knowledge, it was just simply something I was doing and had been doing previously, it wasn't any different from the other things.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, it is ironic to note here that there is only one person that has placed any blame on Mr. Jowers as far as being there doing anything. That's Ms. Spates. You've heard her testimony. You've heard an affidavit read to you that she gave to the prosecutors of the city of Memphis , their investigators. She first tried to say that Mr. Jowers was there and she saw him and all this thing about him being white and so forth and so on, but she came back and in an exhibit here that you have a right to see said I wasn't even there, I was at work that day, I didn't see anything, because I didn't see Mr. Jowers with a gun, I never saw anything, I was at work that day.

Which version do you believe? This is a sworn statement, a sworn statement under oath she gave to the prosecutors. It is saying I wasn't even there. So which version do you I believe of Ms. Spates?

She first tried to say she had been offered some money by Mr. Jowers and even by me. Yet the first thing I asked her in her testimony is -- I had never seen the lady but twice in my life -- Ms. Spates, isn't it true you have never been offered any money we never even talked about any money? She said, that's exactly right. She goes on to say I was never offered any money. So you have Ms. Spates, who is the only person that said anything about Mr. Jowers' involvement in this, and which version do you believe? Do you believe that she told the truth one time or the other time? Both of them were under oath. Now, as far as Mr. McCraw, I knew Mr. McCraw, represented him for years. The thing about Mr. McCraw is that as Mr. Hamblin said, you couldn't believe a thing he said.

That's his best friend, he got on the stand and said you couldn't believe a word he said. Mr. Jowers played a very, very insignificant and minor role in this if he played anything at all. He stated because of who he has come forth and said, that he has lost his wife, everything he has and his health. So he played a very insignificant, very small role, if anything in this thing.

It was much bigger than Mr. Jowers, who owned a little greasy-spoon restaurant there and happened to be at the location that he was. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I guess the area of disagreement between Dr. Pepper and myself for the most part is this: It is Mr. James Earl Ray's part in this case.

Let's look at this. You know, you have Mr. Ray here, who was a convict who spent ninety-nine and nine-tenths of his life in prison, who would do anything for money. He'd rob, take a gun, steal, do anything for money. He enjoyed his notoriety as the most famous prisoner this state has ever known.

He enjoyed that. That was a big thing with him. Here he was let out of prison in a bread truck. If you saw the poster here that's an exhibit, fifty dollars reward. Big reward for him, wasn't it, for a man. He came and talked Dr. King. Don't you think it is ironic he was in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, Memphis, Tennessee, when Dr. King was there, Selma, Alabama, little town of Selma when Dr. King was there?

Don't you think it is ironic that there was a map that they found when he was in Atlanta where he circled Dr. King's home, his church, his place of business? I asked him on the deposition -- I know the deposition was long and burdensome to you, but I want you to hear what he said. He has told a thousand and one stories. This was his last one. This is number one thousand and one. As far as I know, it is the last time he ever told his story and testified.

It is ironic that he had a map of Atlanta with these three markings. He had never been to Memphis , never been to Birmingham , never been to New Orleans , no maps. But a map of Atlanta was found in his car which admitted had the circle around Dr. King's home, his place of business and Dr. King's church.

Now, the State of Tennessee says that James Earl Ray acted and acted alone. I think there is some validity to that. I don't agree with everything they say, but I think there is some validity to it. Mr. Ray, when I asked him how did you know that Dr. King had been assassinated, he said, I heard it on the news. I had just gone through a whole series of questions where he said I never listened to the news. I said, didn't you know they had riots in Memphis , didn't you know there was someone killed there? He said, I never listened to the news. Five minutes after Dr. King was killed, yeah, I heard it on the news. I think Mr. Ray's testimony speaks for itself.

He goes in and buys a gun he says from somebody named Raoul that asked him to do this, but he gets a gun that Raoul says -- first of all, Raoul didn't tell him to get a scope. He got that on his own. He didn't tell him to get a scope on a rifle. He goes in and says, I want another gun, this is not the right gun, Raoul told me to do this, but he never showed the gun to Raoul. Was there really a Raoul? Maybe there was. Isn't it ironic that for month no one ever saw him with Mr. Ray, no one, no one. Now, when you take all the testimony here from Mr. Ray and all the scenarios and the things that happened, it makes you wonder, did Mr. Ray do this? Dr. Francisco says, I was taken up to the window there where the shot was supposed to have come from and I saw the path of the bullet. In my opinion, it came from that window sill. This is a medical examiner saying that. Ladies and gentlemen, last year the Attorney General's Office here concluded a five-year investigation, five years, and this is a report of theirs. Don't decide this case without reading this report. It is an exhibit. Can you read it. Don't decide the case without seeing this. It wouldn't be fair to anyone if you didn't. They concluded that there is no proof here that anyone acted in this case except Mr. Ray that was material.

Now, you know, you wonder sometimes why people tell things, and you've got to think about, well, is that -- what are the circumstances? Because in March of 1969, here again is an exhibit which you need to read before deciding this case, Mr. Ray was asked by Judge Battle, "Are you pleading guilty to murder in the first degree in this case because you killed Dr. Martin Luther King under such circumstances that would make you legally guilty of murder in the first degree under the law as explained to you by your lawyers? Answer, yes."

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I think under the circumstances, if you remember former Congressman Fountroy here said -- I asked him, why did the committee conclude that Mr. Ray was the assassin? What was his answer? He said because he kept changing his story. Do you remember tht? That's the testimony he gave here, a gentleman who was in charge of the congressional committee.

This went on for weeks and weeks and weeks. They spent money, untold sums of money to investigate this case. They concluded that Mr. Ray was the one who pulled the trigger, was the one who did the assassination.

Now, let me say this: After spending several years with this case and talking to many, many witnesses, listening to this trial and taking many depositions, you can't help but wonder about things. You've got to wonder from this standpoint: Would the restaurant owner of a greasy-spoon restaurant and a lone assassin, could they pull away officers from the scene of an assassination? Could they change rooms? Could they put someone up on top of the fire station? A convict and a greasy-spoon restaurant owner, could they do that? You know, when this trial started, there are two people mentioned in this guilty plea who are still living. I talked to them and issued subpoenas for them to be here who are prosecutors to explain you to ladies and gentlemen as to why there wasn't more done to investigate this case. Mr. Ray tried several times, seven, eight, nine times, to get a trial the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, never granted it. He was turned down that many times. Why didn't they test the gun? I don't know. It doesn't make sense to me. You know, that would have ended this case if they had tested the gun. There is DNA -- they can use means now to test these guns. They could find out if they wanted to. Why wasn't that done? I don't understand.

I've never understood as to why the prosecutors and the Attorney General, if they really wanted to end this case and solve it, why didn't they test the gun. That would have told us whether or not Mr. Ray -- that was the gun that did it with his fingerprints on it or was it another gun. It was never done. They fought it and fought it and fought it.

I talked to two prosecutors who agreed to be here to testify, who had subpoenas to be here. The day before yesterday, without you knowing, the Court of Appeals said, no, you can't bring them in.

They turned us down again. That's the same thing we've had over and over and over.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, it is ironic in this case that when the extradition proceedings were started against Mr. Ray, that it was to try to extradite him for conspiracy to murder. That was the first thing the United States government tried to extradite Mr. Ray for, was conspiracy to murder.

You know, when you stop and rationalize this case and think, there has to be more it to it than a greasy-spoon restaurant owner and an escaped convict. They could not have arranged these things. They could not have done those things. Mr. Arkin testified here that one hour before the assassination, or a couple hours, there was a man that came in from Washington , sent in here from Washington saying Mr. Redditt has had a threat on his life and you've got to go get him. Could a greasy-spoon operator and escaped convict arrange for that? You know that's not the case. And I do, too. Anyone who can think knows better than that. Mr. Arkin also said there were officers from the United States government in his office. Why were they here? What were they doing here? They were sent here by the United States government.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, we've had problems with race in Memphis , and I'm sorry to say that I must talk about it to some extent. It has been said by a person who was very knowledgeable that we have the most serious racial divisions in Memphis of any city in this nation, and that's bad, that's terrible. We've got to live together and learn to live together and to know that we are all bothers and sisters. It shouldn't be this way. It shouldn't be we should have this type racism and the type problems we have.

In this case you have the opportunity to speak. You'll speak in your verdict in case that will either say one of two things: That we know that there was a conspiracy here, we know that they didn't intend for Dr. King to go to Washington to march, and we know that the United States government, the FBI and the Memphis Police Department and other government agencies along with Mr. Liberto and Mr. Earl Clark and Mr. James Earl Ray were involved in this case, and that's the type verdict that I would ask you to consider.

You told me at the beginning you weren't afraid to let the chips fall where they may. I gather from that that you are not afraid of the United States government. You are not afraid of the Memphis Police Department. If they are liable, you are going to say they are. Am I correct? Isn't that what we agreed to?

I think the testimony here that you've heard and the proof that you've heard indicates clearly there is more than just Mr. Jowers involved. He was a small-time greasy-spoon cafe operator who played a very small significant part in this case, if anything. If you will study over the reports I've provided for you and the exhibits, think about all the testimony that has been given here and what really happened, ladies and gentlemen, your verdict would have to be that the United States government, the FBI, the Memphis Police Department and others were involved in this conspiracy to murder Dr. King.

It is a shameful, terrible thing that happened here in Memphis . I'm sorry and apologize to Mr. King that it did, but think about it. It is a very serious matter. You'll never have a more serious opportunity to sit on a jury than this where the issues are more serious than this. Whatever you say will be recorded in history, and this will be it. We expect this case to end after this. It has been going on for years, but we think it is going to end with your decision in this case.

Please give it serious consideration and please think about a judgment against others besides Mr. Jowers. He played a very small part, you know he did, in this case. Think about the other part that Mr. Ray played, Mr. Liberto played. You've got testimony here from a witness that is uncontradicted saying that Mr. Liberto told me he had Martin Luther King assassinated.

Go over it. Think about it. Read over it. There is only one thing to do, that's to say that we the jury find that the United States government, FBI, State of Tennessee, Mr. Liberto, Mr. James Earl Ray, they were all involved in a conspiracy to murder Dr. Martin Luther King. That's the only decision can you make.

Thank you.

MR. PEPPER: I didn't realize I was going to have to try Mr. James Earl Ray's guilt or innocence in this courtroom, but counsel has raised it, so I should address some of the issues.

Mr. Ray had a habit of marking maps. I have in my possession maps that he marked when he was in Texas, Montreal and Atlanta, and what he did was it helped him to locate what he did and where he was going.

The Atlanta map is nowhere related to Dr. King's residence. It is three oblong circles that covered general areas, one where he was living on Peachtree. He did this. He did this up in Montreal at the Neptune Bar, did this in Texas when he was going down to Mexico and Laredo . It was a habit that James had. The maps are part of his practice, if you will.

James never stalked Martin Luther King. James was moved from place to place on instructions. He was told to go somewhere and he would go. He was given to some money, told to come to New Orleans and he would be given money.

James Earl Ray was in Los Angeles and was told to go to New Orleans . When Martin Luther King came to Los Angeles , James Earl Ray left. He was there first and he left. He didn't stay in Los Angeles . That was the time he left for Atlanta when Martin came there in March. He was in Atlanta when Martin King was there part of the time, but Dr. King was in and out of Atlanta a great deal of the time. So he would have to be there some of the time. He was not in Selma when Martin King was in Selma . That is a myth. He didn't stalk Dr. King. There was no reason to stalk him.

He wasn't in New York when he was in New York . He wasn't in Florida when he was in Florida . He wasn't in Chicago when was when Martin King was in Chicago . He worked in Wanetka , Illinois , for a period of time.

He wasn't in prison ninety-nine percent of his time. Before James Earl Ray went into the Army, he held down jobs. When came out, he held down jobs. When he got fired, that's when he started to get in trouble. He went and hung out in bars occasionally and somebody would suggest a good idea about how to get some money. So James fell into it. He was, rightly as Mr. Garrison says, was a penny-ante crook. That's really what it came down to.

He knew nothing about firearms. The man who sold him the rifle, Donald Woods, said he never saw a person who new less about firearms than James Earl Ray. Never saw a person who knew less about firearms.

He used to carry a pistol. When he would stick up a store, he would carry a pistol, and he had five bullets in the pistol. I asked him, James, why would you have five bullets in the pistol, why not six? He always kept the firing pin chamber empty. He was embarrassed to tell me.

Finally I got it out of him. One time literally he shot himself in the foot. It was an accident and the gun went off. He decided if he kept the firing pin chamber empty, that wouldn't happen. He only had five bullets. When he was arrested at Heathrow in London , that gun he was carrying had only five bullets.

He was somebody who was capable of being used for a crime like this. He was someone who was gullible in a lot of ways.

He was someone who needed money. He was on the run when he was concerned and he was someone that could be used. And he was used, and being used, he was told only what he needed to know. Because that's the way those things operate. Once he came under the control of this fellow, he would be told where to go, what to do, only what he needed to know.

10 He bought the wrong gun. He bought a 243 Winchester . Raoul said, no, he wanted 12 a 30-06. He pointed it out to him in a 3 brochure and he went back and got it. The very fact that he bought a gun and then went around and immediately exchanged it indicates that somebody is involved, somebody is controlling him or telling him to do something. So he did that.

Yes, he heard about the assassination on the radio, heard it on the car radio. He came back around to go to park the car on South Main Street the way Raoul instructed him. At the time he came back around, the police were all over the place.

He is an escaped convict. He is not thinking of Martin Luther King or anything else. He is thinking of being an escaped convict and being stopped. So he takes off. That's exactly what he did. He took off. And he did hear about this on the radio. The more he drove, the more he listened to the radio, the more he realized he was in serious trouble.

One of the problems James Earl Ray faced and lawyers for him faced was the fact that he was a classic con. If he believed someone was trying to help him, he wouldn't tell, he wouldn't name that person, wouldn't tell you who the person was. By my view, he mistakenly believed he was being helped, particularly when he was in Canada . But he would never tell us who was assisting him because he thought these were people who were legitimately trying to help him and he was not going to rat on them.

When he was captured after one prison escape and he was asked continually to explain how he got out, how he managed to get away, he refused to tell them. When I pushed him on it, how did it happen, he said, well, the guard was asleep, the guard fell asleep.

I said, why didn't you tell me that? He said, no, no, I might need him again another day. Even in that case he wouldn't tell So Ray was that kind of character.

I looked at him from 1978 to 1988, only began to represent him in 1988. Ten years after I started on this case I consented to represent James Earl Ray when I became totally convinced after ten years of looking at the evidence that he had no knowing involvement. He pled guilty because that was the thing to do.

Mr. Garrison read to you the response to the judge. What he left out was the fact that Ray said, yes, legally guilty, legally guilty. He was legally because he was copping a plea, so he was legally guilty. He never confessed. The media has always said he confessed, the confessed killer. He never confessed.

He always insisted that he didn't do it, always wanted a trial. When he fired the Haynes, Foremen came in, December 18th Foreman came on this case, formally into Memphis for the first time for a hearing, two p.m. that afternoon Foreman's local counsel was in meeting with the prosecutor. Two p.m., December 18th we have the minutes of the meeting, the local attorney was meeting with the prosecutor, Canale, to start plea-bargaining negotiations. Imagine that, without any knowledge of Ray at all.

On February 21 he was writing to his brother that I expect a trial to start perhaps in April. That late they had been stitching him up all that time beforehand.

Finally Foreman comes down on him and says that you've got to plead guilty, they are doing fry your ass, they convicted you in the paper, they are going to send your father back where he was a parole violator forty years ago, they are going to harass the rest of your family and, besides, Forman said, I'm not in good health and I can't give you your best defense.

That was the thing that James said always, he had to get rid of that lawyer and didn't think the judge would change him, so he said to him to plead, which he did on March 10th, and then I'll get a new trial, the motion was denied on March 13th, and he tried ever since. He filed motions. The judge died. Judge Battle died with his head on James Earl Ray's application for a new trial, died in his chambers with his head on those papers at the end of March. James was denied that trial.

When a sitting judge dies, normally such a case when a motion is pending, it is granted. There were two motions pending before that judge. One was granted. One was not. James Earl Ray remained in prison. I mean, I didn't intend to belabor Mr. Ray's innocence, but I believe firmly he is innocent, he was an unknowing patsy in this case and he was used.

As far as Ms. Spates' testimony, I did refer to it earlier. The statement that you heard read under oath in her deposition were paragraphs specifically from an affidavit that she had given subsequently to her interview by the TBI and the Attorney General's Office here. And from what she told me, that was a horrifically-pressured interview that they gave her, was distorted inaccurate, untruthful, and that's why she gave that other story. And she reluctantly put Mr. Jowers right in the middle of it.

Now, having said all of that, Mr. Garrison is quite right, you can read the Attorney General's report. Take a look at it. Remember one thing when you take a look at it. The man who headed that investigation sat there. He was one of the witnesses Mr. Garrison called that we were able to examine before the Court of Appeals said you are not going to talk to any of those people.

Mr. Glankler sat in that chair. I just gave him a sampling of names, gave him twenty-three names. Do you recall that? I asked him if he interviewed these people in his investigation, these witnesses with vital evidence that you've heard, twenty-three.

Do you know how many he actually interviewed? I recall I think it was two. That's the investigation the Attorney General's Office did. That just speaks for itself, in my view. So I would look at the report in that kind of context. As to the House Select Committee investigation, Representative Fountroy is very uncomfortable with the results of that investigation, very unhappy, has been for a number of years. He has indicated that they didn't have enough time, they could have perhaps done better if they had more time.

At other times he said the staff he thinks misled them. Fountroy was never happy with the results of that investigation. And I think he has made that quite clear.

Raoul, the evidence on Raoul speaks for itself. Mr. Jowers himself has identified Raoul. Mr. Jowers identified Raoul from the spread of photographs that I showed him when Dexter King and I met. He knows who Raoul was. He identified him as the man who came into the restaurant who Liberto sent in.

Now, one thing Mr. Garrison and I do agree on -- we agree on a lot of things, actually, but one thing in particular, is that Mr. Jowers is a small part of this whole thing. He owned this cafe, and he did have a debt, an obligation, to Mr. Liberto, and he was prevailed upon to become involved in this assassination. He didn't go out looking for it. He was prevailed upon to be involved.

I'm not really certain about how much money he got for his involvement. I think he got a substantial amount of money. I think that is what the stove money was all about. But I'm not certain of that. We will never know that, I suppose.

Mr. Jowers has unburdened himself to the King family. He has -- it is late in his life. And for whatever reason, he has come forward and he has, as Mr. Garrison has told you, voluntarily told elements of the story.

We believe that that is what he has done.

He has just told elements of the story protecting himself to the extent that he can because he is worried about being ultimately indicted. We think foolishly so because we don't think there is any interest in that, but that is his fear.

What, however, we don't believe, is that Mr. Jowers was unknowingly involved.

We've put into evidence the Prime Time Live interview with Sam Donaldson, and in that interview and in the transcript of that it is very clear -- he tells different nuances of the story, but it is very clear that he knew what was going on, he knew what was happening.

Both Ambassador Young and Dexter King have said the one thing they didn't believe about him is when he said he didn't know. You can understand why he would say that, because he is talking to the son of Martin Luther King, Jr., the son of the victim is sitting right in front of him. How does he -- with eyes together how does he say I knew, I was a part of this, I was a knowing part of it? So he said, I don't know. We just don't believe that.

And we believe the evidence of Bill Hamblin, who said McCraw told him what happened to that rifle, but he told him when he was drunk over a period of fifteen years each time. It might be very right that McCraw would lie when he was sober. But when he was drunk, Hamblin said, you may recall, he was straight, he told him the truth, and he told him the same detail again and again and again. If he had been sober and he would tell him one story and then another, then you would say there was some prevarication, maybe it was not true, but Hamblin said it was the same story again and again and again but only would discuss it when he was intoxicated.

On the basis of all of that, we believe that Mr. Hamblin is telling the truth, that that murder weapon is at the bottom of the Mississippi River where it was thrown by Mr. McCraw.

So that is basically it, ladies and gentlemen. I think that you have to keep in mind that no matter how small the part Mr. Jowers played in this whole sorry episode, he nonetheless played a part and is a conspirator. He is guilty, libel in this court. He is libel in this court of conspiracy because he was involved.

Irrespective of James Earl Ray, and I believe in respect of James' memory -- he is not here to defend himself, but I had to give you information about him -- but irrespective of that, even if you found that James was involved and up to his neck, that does not absolve Mr. Loyd Jowers, neither does it absolve the governments and the government agents who have been involved in this case.

So a verdict of an existence of conspiracy, as Mr. Garrison said, quite rightly, does mean that there is a conspiracy, and it involves all of the elements that you have seen here today, and the award of damages, nominal though it is, is to be -- is also to be a part of your verdict.

Thank you very much. Once again, please, we're asking you to send this message from this courtroom across the land. Though they will not know the details what you have heard probably ever, unless researchers want to come in and read all of this, they will not be able at least to suppress the mighty Whirlitzer sound of your verdict.

That's the message that we ask you to send from this courtroom to the rest of this country and indeed the world who are concerned about the assassination of Martin Luther King and his loss to civilized mankind.

Thank you.

(Jury charge not transcribed.)

(3:02.)

THE COURT: I understand the jury has reached a verdict. I'm going to bring them out. They've indicated that they want a picture of themselves. So I'm authorizing this gentleman to take one picture. He is going to make sure there are no additional copies. I'll have copies made of them and send them to the jurors.

(Jury in.)

THE COURT: All right, ladies and gentlemen. I understand you reached a verdict. Is that correct?

THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

THE COURT: May I have that verdict.

(Verdict form passed to the Court.)

THE COURT: I have authorized this gentleman here to take one picture of you which I'm going to have developed and make copies and send to you as I promised. Okay. All right, ladies and gentlemen. Let me ask you, do all of you agree with this verdict?

THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict?

THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

THE COURT: All right. I want to thank you ladies and gentlemen for your participation. It lasted a lot longer than we had originally predicted. In spite of that, you hung in there and you took your notes and you were alert all during the trial. And we appreciate it. We want you to note that our courts cannot function if we don't have jurors who accept their responsibility such as you have.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF TENNESSEE :

COUNTY OF SHELBY :

I, BRIAN F. DOMINSKI, Reporter and Notary Public, Shelby County , Tennessee ,

CERTIFY:

The foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the time and place stated in the foregoing styled cause with the appearances as noted;

Being a Court Reporter, I then reported the proceedings in Stenotype to the best of my skill and ability, and the foregoing pages contain a full, true and correct transcript of my said Stenotype notes then and there taken;

I am not in the employ of and am not related to any of the parties or their counsel, and I have no interest in the matter involved.

WITNESS MY SIGNATURE, this, the ____ day of ___________, 1999.

___________________________

BRIAN F. DOMINSKI

Certificate of Merit Holder; Registered Professional Reporter, Notary Public for the State of Tennessee at Large My commission expires: April 14, 2001.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999


THE TRIAL

CHAPTER 9

We were indeed first out on November 15, 1999. The Judge agreed to let one media pool camera in the courtroom along with our own video camera. The media camera, like the media itself, would come and go (they were nearly always absent, with the notable and sole exception of local anchorman Wendell Stacy who almost lost his job at that time over his insistence that he attend every day. – so important did he regard the case. He was eventually fired and by August 2000 was preparing a wrongful dismissal action.)

Jury selection began that morning in the small Division IV courtroom. We discussed moving the case to a larger courtroom, but because of the Judge’s health needs, it was agreed that the trial would remain in his usual room. The Judge disclosed to both sides that he had been a member of the group, which had carried Dr. King’s casket from the funeral home in Memphis after the assassination. If, therefore, either side wanted him to withdraw, he said he would, we certainly had no reason to do so although the defense might have felt differently. Defense attorney Garrison also had no objection. The Judge stayed on the case.

After almost despairing about finding an acceptable local counsel, I finally was able to obtain the services of Juliet Hill-Akines, a young black lawyer, who had been admitted to the Bar in 1994. Before Juliet agreed, I discussed the possibility with a large number of local lawyers, all of whom turned down the opportunity – usually because they were advised that it would have a negative impact on their careers. Rather than expressing such apprehensions, Juliet took this as a challenge and an honor to be representing the family of Martin Luther King Jr. I admired her decision and was grateful for her independence and courage.

Judge James Swearingen barred the media from the jury selection process. Due to the sensitivity of the case, he was anxious to protect the identities of the individual jury members and, to the extent possible, ensure their privacy. He would issue a further order barring any cameras from being pointed at the jury at any time during the trial and would even hold one spectator in contempt and impose a fine for violating the order.

An attorney for The Memphis Commercial Appeal, promptly made a motion requesting the Judge to allow the media to be present during the jury selection process. Relying upon the rules of court, which gave him discretion, the Judge denied the motion. They appealed, and the Judge’s ruling was eventually overturned, but it was moot since we had selected the jury by the end of the first day.

Since there were five plaintiffs to one defendant, we had the right exercise many more exclusions. We used them all since the jury pool – in excess of forty – contained a large number of people who were employed by law enforcement agencies and security firms. After the voir dire, I consulted with Juliet in respect of each candidate. Almost routinely, we agreed to exclude potential jurors from those areas of work.

At the end of that first day, a jury of eight men and four women, six of them black and six white, were chosen. The trial would start at 10:00 AM the next morning, and after opening arguments, we would begin the plaintiff’s case with Coretta Scott King as our first witness. On behalf of the plaintiffs, I had drawn together an intelligent, enthusiastic volunteer team. Professor Phillip Melanson and the Reverend Mike Clark agreed to deal with all media queries since both sides had agreed that we would follow the English practice that counsel would not give media interviews during the trial. The decision was taken to avoid the inevitable media spins and in an effort to let the evidence spear for itself. Risako Kobayashi, my assistant, would co-ordinate the production of evidence and the synchronisation of materials and exhibits to witness testimony. Attorney Ray Kohlman, from Massachusetts, was in charge of court logistics, special research, and last minute investigation. My sons Sean and Liam, over from England, would respectively organize for the scheduled arrival and departure of the nearly 70 witnesses and film the proceedings.

Security was handled by Cliff Dates (CDA Security), who organised security details for the members of the King family, who, in turns, were present in the courtroom throughout the trial.

The trial began on 16 November. Opening arguments were finished by the lunch break, and that afternoon we called Coretta Scott King as our first witness. Court TV was there to cover her testimony and provide the pool camera. They would pull out and be absent for most of the trial, returning for celebrity witnesses but missing most of the material evidence as did the rest of the media. In copycat fashion, as though programmed by the same puppeteer, local regional and national media were absent for most of the trial.

The plaintiff’s case was divided into nine areas of evidence:

  • The background to the assassination
  • The local conspiracy
  • The crime scene
  • The murder weapon
  • Raul
  • The broader conspiracy
  • The cover up – its scope and activities
  • The defendant’s prior admissions
  • Damages

Though many of the witnesses testified to facts with which the reader is already familiar since they emerged in the investigation, discussed earlier, I will summarise the details of the testimony because, of course, they achieve a new status as evidence given under oath in a court of law.

The Background

Mrs. King led off the group of witnesses, whose testimony provided evidence about the historical background and events leading up to the assassination. They offered various perspectives and facts and described the official hostility to Dr. King’s vigorous opposition to the war in Vietnam and his commitment to lead a massive contingent of poor and alienated people to Washington, where they would take up a tent city residence in the Capitol and lobby the Congress for long overdue social legislation. Dr. King’s support of the sanitation workers strike was described by Reverend James Lawson as was the eruption of violence in the march of March 28, which Dr. Coby Smith of the Invaders testified, appeared, to be the work of out of state provocateurs.

The role of the Invaders and their sudden departure from the Lorraine Motel was testified, to in detail, by Dr. Smith and Charles Cabbage. Smith said that the Invaders decided to work with Dr. King in planning of the April march because they had been wrongly blamed for the violence, which had broken up the previous march. He insisted that they had conducted their own investigation and became convinced that the disruption was caused by out of state provocateurs. He said they had reached a basic agreement with SCLC and Dr. King, and in order to facilitate their participation in the planning process, the group had moved into two rooms in the Lorraine Motel. Their rooms were also on the balcony level some doors south of Dr. King’s room, and he said that they had participated in various planning sessions and meetings with Dr. King following his arrival on April 3.

Cabbage described the Invaders’ sudden departure within 11 minutes of the shooting. He said that a member of the Lorraine staff knocked on their door. It must have been after 5:30 PM. They were told that they had to leave because SCLC was no longer going to pay their bill. This appeared strange because the bill for that evening’s lodging would have clearly been paid, or obligated to be paid, much earlier in the day. Though it made no sense from any standpoint, he said they accepted the order, which he said they were told came from Reverend Jesse Jackson, and quickly packed up their things and began to leave around 10 minutes before 6:00 PM. The timing of their departure was later confirmed by the testimony of MPD Captain Willie B Richmond (retired), who noted the event in his surveillance report developed from his observation post inside and at the rear of the fire station. Captain Richmond also testified that around the same time, he observed Reverend Kyles knock on Dr. King’s door. Richmond said Dr. King opened the door, spoke with him briefly, and then closed the door. Kyles then walked some distance north on the balcony and stood at the railing. This account, of course, contradicted the story of Kyles has told for nearly 32 years, in which he said he was in Dr. King’s room for about 30 - 45 minutes before the shooting.

At one point, Cabbage said when they were being asked to leave, he observed the Reverend Jesse Jackson standing on the ground near the swimming pool, which was opposite the balcony rooms occupied by Dr. King and the Invaders. He said that Reverend Jackson kept glancing impatiently at his watch. (It must be said, however, that the group was running late for their scheduled dinner at Reverend Kyles’s home.)

It is more difficult to understand why Jackson would have caused them to be summarily evicted (if he indeed did so) at that hour so near the time of the killing. Reverend Jackson has reportedly stated subseqnetly that he didn’t even remember that the Invaders were staying at the Lorraine.

Cabbage never understood it. In his testimony, he also confirmed that the Invaders occupying the Lorraine rooms were quite heavily armed as was their usual custom because of the hostility of the MPD.

The Local Conspiracy

The involvement of produce dealer Frank Liberto in setting up the local conspiracy was conclusively established by a string of witnesses.

For the first time in the 22 years that I have known him, John McFerren took the stand and testified under oath about hearing, within an hour and a quarter of the killing, Liberto screaming into the telephone to “Shoot the son of a bitch on the balcony,” subsequently telling the caller to go to New Orleans to collect money from his brother. John, courageous and forthright, began his testimony by telling the jury about the long history of his family’s ascent from slavery and his civil rights activity and harassment in Fayette County, one of Tennessee’s most racist areas. As he described the events that took place within an hour and a quarter of the assassination, he repeated the same story under oath that he first put before the FBI/MPD team who interviewed him for hours at the Peabody Hotel on the Sunday evening following the crime. The federal and local officials dismissed his account in 1968 as did the Congressional Committee 10 years later. This time it would be different. A jury of 12 of John McFerren’s fellow citizens listened attentively. Members of my team observing said the jury was clearly moved.

The role of Frank Liberto was further confirmed by the testimony of Nathan Whitlock and his mother LaVada Addison who provided details about the admissions Liberto made to them separately in 1978, leaving them in no doubt that he had organised the Memphis hit on Dr. King, that there would be no security, the police were co-operating, and that a patsy was in place. In subsequent testimony, Dexter King and Ambassador Young testified that in their separate interviews with Loyd Jowers, he had told them that sometime in March after Dr. King’s first speech on behalf of the sanitation workers on March 18, he was approached by Liberto, to whom he said he owed a “big favour.” He basically confirmed the story he had on the Prime Time live program without any mention of Frank Holt being involved. Liberto told him that he would be given $100,000 in a vegetable delivery box and that he was to turn this money over to a man named Raul who would visit him sometime afterward. He told Dexter and Andy (and me, for as noted earlier, I attended the session with Dexter) that Liberto had told him no police would be around and that they had a patsy. In fact, he said, it all happened in exactly that way. Planning sessions for the assassination were held in his grill involving lieutenant John Barger (whom he had known from his own early days on the police force) Marrell McCollough, a black undercover officer introduced to him by Barger, as his new partner, MPD sharpshooter lieutenant Earl Clark (who was a hunting companion of Jowers), a senior MPD inspector, and finally, a fifth officer who he did not know. He said he remembered that there were five because he had to pull up a chair to the four-seater booth. Jowers said that if James was at all involved, he was an unknowing patsy.

Hence, Jowers also confirmed the involvement of Frank Liberto. Along with the testimonial evidence of McFerren, Whitlock, and Addision and the deceased Art Baldwin’s earlier disclosures, Frank Liberto’s primary role in the assassination appeared to be clear.

A steady succession of witnesses provided details of the removal of all police from the area of the crime, the failure to put the usual security unit in place as well as the removal of other individuals, whose presence in the crime scene area constituted a security risk to the assassination mission.

Fireman Floyd Newsom and Norvell Wallace, the only two black firemen at Fire Station No. 2, testified that less than 24 hours before the assassination, they were ordered not to report to their regular Fire Station No. 2 post on the periphery of the Lorraine Motel but to stations in other parts of the city. Newsom and Wallace said that their transfers left their base station short handed while they were surplus to requirements at the stations where they were sent. The transfers made no sense, and they were given no satisfactory explanation. Newsom said eventually one of his superiors told him that the police department had requested his transfer.

Detective Ed Redditt, a community relations officer assigned to intelligence duty as Willie Richmond’s partner on the surveillance detail at the rear of the fire station, testified that he was picked up by Lieutenant Eli Arkin, about an hour before the assassination and taken, first, to Central Police Headquarters, where he was ordered, by Director Frank Holloman, to go home because of an alleged threat on his life. His protests were ignored. As he sat, parked with Arkin in front of his house, the news of the assassination came over the car radio. He never again heard about the alleged threat, which apparently was a mistake of some sort. He never received a satisfactory explanation, but it was clear that his primary community relations police duties had caused him to become closely involved with the community, not MPD intelligence. It was understandable that he would not be trusted to be allowed to stay in the crime scene area if dirty work was a foot.

Memphis Police Department homicide detective Captain Jerry Williams (retired) testified that on Dr. King’s previous visits to Memphis, he had been given the responsibility of organising and co-ordinating a security unit of all black homicide detectives who would provide protection for Dr. King while he was in the city. They would ordinarily remain with him throughout his visit even securing the hotel – usually the Rivermont or the Admiral Benbow – where he stayed. Captain Williams testified that on Dr. King’s last, and fatal, visit to Memphis, however, he was not asked to form that security unit. It was not in place. He always wondered why but never received a satisfactory explanation. At one point, he was told that Dr. King’s group did not want them around. There was no indication, of any kind, from any SCLC source that this was true. In fact, Reverend Lawson remembered being impressed with the group on a previous visit and their verbal promise to him that as long as they were in place, no harm would come to Dr. King.

On April 3 and 4, 1968, they were not in place.

Testifying out of order, because he had been hospitalised, Invader Big John Smith said that though there was a small police presence at the motel, earlier on the afternoon of April 4, he noticed that it had completely disappeared within a half-hour of the assassination.

University of Massachusetts Professor Phillip Melanson took the stand to testify about the removal of the emergency forces TACT 10 Unit from the Lorraine Motel on April 4. Only, he and I had previously separately interviewed inspector Sam Evans, who was in charge of those units, and since I could not readily testify, Phil took the stand. He said that Evans admitted pulling back the TACT 10 Unit, which had been based at the Lorraine Motel, to the periphery of the fire station. Evans claimed that the decision was taken pursuant to a request from someone in Dr. King’s group. When pressed as to who actually made the request, he said that it was Reverend Kyles. The fact, that Kyles had nothing to do with SCLC and no authority to request any such thing, seemed to have eluded Evans.

It would be hard to imagine, on that April 4, a more complete stripping away of not only the available security personnel from Dr. King but also a more thorough removal of individuals who were not deemed completely trustworthy or controllable. And it was all set in motion twenty four hours before the assassination.

Stories had always been around about Dr. King’s room having been changed. Former New York City police detective Leon Cohen testified that early in the morning on the day, following the assassination, he learned from Walter Bailey, the manager of the Lorraine Motel, that Dr. King was meant to be in a secluded more secure courtyard room, but that on the evening prior to his arrival, someone from SCLC’s office in Atlanta called to instruct that Dr. King be given a balcony room overlooking the swimming pool. Cohen, who moved to Memphis and worked as a private investigator after retiring from the New York City Police Department, testified that Bailey maintained that he tried to talk the person who Bailey said was a man who he knew out of this decision, but the caller was adamant. Dr. King was moved.

At time of the trial, Taxi driver James Millner had known Loyd Jowers for over twenty five years. He testified that, in fact, in the early to mid 1970’s, Jowers had basically told him the same story that he revealed in 1993 about how he became involved with the assassination, how it was planned and carried out, and who (Lieutenant Earl Clark) pulled the trigger.

Another driver – J. J. Isabel – testified that on the occasion of St. Patrick’s day 1979 or 1980 – he and Jowers drove two chartered busses to Cleveland taking a Memphis group to a bowling tournament. They shared an hotel room, and after a meal and some drinking on the first evening, when they returned to their room, Isabel said he asked Jowers, “Loyd, did you drop the hammer on Martin Luther King?” He said that Jowers kind of hesitated for a moment or two and then replied, “You may think that you know what I did, but I know what I did, but I will never tell it in court.”

The value of Millner and Isabel’s separate testimony is, of course, that like Whitlock/Addision and McFerren, they provide corroboration at least of a local conspiracy, as well as aspects of Jowers’ story, long before his involvement become an issue.

One of Jowers’s former waitresses Bobbi Balfour testified that on the day of the killing, Jowers told her not to carry food up to a tenant in the rooming house, Grace Walden Stephens, who was ill. She said that it had always been her regular practice with Loyd’s approval to bring food up to Charlie Stephens’ common law wife during her illness, but on that day, Loyd explicitly told her to stay away from the second floor.

Finally, Olivia Catling, who lived and still lives, on Mulberry Street, midway between Huling and Vance about 200 yards from the Lorraine, testified that she was at home preparing dinner for her family when she heard the shot. She knew that Dr. King was staying at the Lorraine Motel, and she feared the worst. As quickly as she could, she collected her young children and ran out of her house down Mulberry Street toward the Lorraine. By the time she reached the Northwest corner of Huling and Mulberry (see Fig. # ), the police had already barricaded Mulberry Street with a police car, so she and the children had to stand on the corner. She testified that shortly after she arrived on the corner, she saw a white man running from an alley, half way up Huling, which ran to a building connected with the rooming house. He arrived at a car parked on the south side of Huling and facing east, got in, and drove quickly away turning left on to Mulberry and going right past her as well as the MPD officers opposite her who were manning the barricade. She was surprised that the police paid no attention to him and did not try to prevent him from leaving the area.

Shortly afterward, she testified that she saw a fireman – who she believed must have walked down from the fire station – standing near the wall below the brushes, yelling at the police on the street that the shot came from a clump of bushes apparently just above the area where he was standing. She said that the police ignored him.

Olivia Catling testified that she had never been interviewed by any law enforcement officials. She said that there was no house to house investigation. Though she has lived so close to the scene of the crime for 32 years since the assassination, no one had knocked on her door until I did so in November of 1999. She seemed relieved to finally get it off her chest. She said that she had been so burdened all of these years because she knew that an innocent man was in prison. When I met her, of course, James had died, but at least this wiry, clear, and tough-minded Memphian could take satisfaction that at last her story would be heard.

Memphis Police Department homicide detective Captain Tommy Smith (retired) testified that very soon after the assassination, he interviewed rooming house tenant Charles Quitman Stephens, the state’s chief witness against James Earl Ray, and found him intoxicated and hardly able to stand up. It must be remembered that it was on the strength of Stephens’s affidavit of identification that James was extradited from England. In actual fact, Captain Smith said he was not in condition to identify anyone.

The state had always maintained that after firing from the bathroom window, James stopped in his room to pick up his bundle of belongings and fled carrying the rifle and the bundle, eventually exiting the front door of the rooming house, dropping the bundle in the doorway of Guy Canipe’s shop. Then, so the official story goes James got into a white Mustang parked just slightly south of Canipe’s store and drove away. Stephens was supposed to have caught a glimpse of the profile of the fleeing man.

Charles Hurley testified that while waiting to pick up his wife from work, he parked behind that white Mustang about an hour and a quarter before the shooting. He said that a man was sitting in it and was still there when they drove away. Most importantly, however, he again confirmed, though now under oath, that the white Mustang parked just south of Canipe’s store, in which James is supposed to have driven away, had Arkansas license plates. ( white background, red letters ) James’s Mustang, of course, had Alabama ( red background white number ) plates.

We read into the record and introduced into evidence FBI 302 statements taken from two witnesses who left Jim’s Grill about 20 minutes before the killing. Ray Hendrix and Bill Reed said that late on the afternoon of April 4, they walked north on South Main Street after having looked at the white Mustang parked directly in front of Jim’s Grill. The car interested them so they took particular note of it. They both confirmed, in separate statements, that as they were about to cross Vance – two blocks north of Jim’s Grill – the Mustang turned the corner directly in front of them. The male driver was alone. This would have been about 5:45 PM. This statement was suppressed at the time and never turned over to the defence or revealed to the guilty plea jury a year later.

The Crime Scene

Olivia Catling was the latest observer to give evidence about the bushes behind the rooming house being the place, from where the fatal shot was fired. There was abundant, current, and historical eyewitness testimony, which clearly established this fact and which was introduced into evidence..

Solomon Jones, Dr. King’s driver in Memphis, told a number of people at the scene shortly after the shooting, Wayne Chastain being one, that he saw a figure in the bushes come down over the wall. The Reverend James Orange could not appear due to a death in his family, but his sworn statement was read into the record. He said that as turned around from a crouching position in the Lorraine parking area, immediately after the shot, he saw what he thought was smoke (we have since learned that although it had the appearance of smoke, it would have been sonic dust rising from the bushes caused by the firing of the high powered rifle in the heavily vegetated area.) He said no law enforcement or investigative person had ever taken a statement from him.

Memphis Police Department dog officer J. B. Hodges testified that he arrived on the scene within minutes after the shooting. With the aid of a metal barrel to stand on, he climbed up over the wall and entered the brush area. He described the bushes as being very thick from the edge of the wall for some distance toward the back of Jim’s Grill and the rooming house. He said he had to fight his way through the formidable thicket, but that eventually he arrived at a clearing and went to the alleyway, which ran between the two wings of the rooming house. No too far into the alley, he said (that he found a pair of footprints heading in the direction of the rooming house. At the end of the alley, there was a door leading to the basement, which ran underneath the entire building. It had rained the night before, and the ground cover was wet, but there was no growth in the alley, and the mud revealed an apparently freshly made large footprints – sized 13 – 13 ½. Hodges guarded his discovery until a cast was made. Those footprints has never been identified or explained.

As a part of their testimonies related to their questioning of Loyd Jowers, Dexter King and Andrew Young separately recounted how he admitted taking the rifle from the assassin whom he said had in fact fired from the bushes. An earlier deposition of Jowers’ former waitress/lover Betty Spates was read into the record, in which she claimed having seen him carrying a rifle, running from the bushes in through the back door of his kitchen. In this last instance, the defense raised the question of her credibility noting that she had altered her story when questioned by official investigators. As noted elsewhere, this was true, but she advised me that it was the result of their harassment. The last statement, she gave to me under oath, was consistent with what she originally told me in 1992. (Television trial producer Jack Saltman, recently confirmed to me that Spates had independently told him the same story also in 1992.) She had indeed seen Loyd, white as a sheet, with muddy knees, running from the bushes with the rifle. For years, she believed that he did it, having tried back in 1969 to get the story out. She had no idea that he had taken the gun from the actual shooter.

Former New York Times reporter Earl Caldwell could not break prior engagements in order to testify, but the defense agreed to allow in a video of his testimony at the television trial on the condition that the cross-examination conducted by former U.S. Attorney Hickman Ewing was also played. We agreed, and the jury saw and heard Caldwell testify that he was sent to Memphis by the Times on April 3 with the instructions from national editor Claude Sitton to “... nail Dr. King.” He said he was in his ground floor motel room when he heard the shot, which he said, sounded like a bomb blast. In his shorts, he said he ran outside of his room and began to stare at the bushes, from where he instinctively thought the shot must have come. He is certain that he saw an individual crouching in the bushes, which he said, were quite thick and tall. He vividly described the person’s posture even in cross-examination coming down from the stand to demonstrate how the person was squatting and rising.

Probably, the most powerful single piece of evidence (although the cumulative weight is overwhelming), that the assassin fired from the bushes, was provided by the testimony of Louie Ward, who recounted the story of fellow driver who he always knew as “Buddy” but came incorrectly to believe was Paul Butler, who, when in the process of picking up a passenger at the Lorraine just before 6:00 PM, happened to see, immediately after the shot, a man come down over the wall, run north on Mulberry Street, and get into a Memphis Police Department traffic car, which had been parked at the corner of Mulberry and Huling and which then speeded away. Louie Ward testified that he later learned that the taxi driver had been killed that night, allegedly having been thrown out of a speeding car on Route 55, the other side of the Memphis Arkansas Bridge. He heard that the body was found the next morning. Attorney Raymond Kohlman, to whom I had assigned the research task, testified that the 1967 Memphis Polk Telephone Directory showed Paul and Betty Butler living at 2639 (Apt # P1) Central Avenue, Memphis. His employment was listed as a taxi driver for the Yellow Cab Company, and his wife was a manager of a local Gridiron restaurant. In the 1968 directory, Betty Butler was listed at the “widow of Paul.” Attorney Kohlman went on to state that there appeared to be no record of a death certificate for Paul Butler. Subsequent to the trial, we would learn that “Buddy” was not Paul Butler but another driver who regularly made the airport runs in Car 58.

Ernestine Campbell, who a minute or two before the shooting had driven up Butler, took a right turn on to Mulberry, and then stopped in front of the Lorraine driving way very shortly after Dr. King had been shot, told me, for the first time, (as I pressed her to remember everything she saw.) that as she started to pull away, on her right – the passenger side – mirror she saw the back of a Yellow taxi cab in the Lorraine driveway. I believed that in that fleeting glimpse, she had seen taxi cab 58, Buddy’s car. We urgently tried to get her to testify, and whilst at first she was willing, eventually she ran from the idea, even frustrating our efforts to serve her with a subpoena.

The Murder Weapon

Independent testimony established that the rifle in evidence was not the murder weapon.

Criminal Court Judge Joe Brown took the stand under subpoena to share his particular knowledge of the rifle evidence. I qualified Judge Brown as a ballistics expert for the purpose of his testimony about the weapon, and as he moved through his testimony, his expertise was never in doubt. He began by telling the jury that the scope on the rifle had never been sighted, in which meant that one could not fire it accurately when lining up a target through the scope. We introduced an April 5, 1968 FBI report, which stated that the rifle, on the day after the killing, had failed an accuracy test – firing 3 ½ inches to the left and 4 inches below the target. In addition, he said that the metallurgical composition of the death slug lead was different from the composition of the other bullets found in the evidence bundle in front of Canipes while the composition of each of the other bullets matched. He had no doubt the rifle in evidence was not the murder weapon.

In a startling development, Bill Hamblin, deceased taxi driver McCraw’s house mate/roommate for 15 years, took the stand and testified that for those 15 years, spanning the 1970’s and early 1980’s, McCraw had consistently told him (but only when he was intoxicated) that on the morning after the shooting (April 5) Jowers not only showed him the rifle that killed Martin Luther King but told him to get rid of it. McCraw said that he drove on to the Memphis Arkansas Bridge (Route 55) and threw it off. In his deposition taken years earlier, McCraw had only gone so far as to say that Jowers had shown him the actual murder weapon on the morning after the killing. If we are to believe that testimony and there is no reason for Hamblin to lie, then the actual murder weapon of Dr. King has been enmired in the silt of the Mississippi river for 32 years. Hamblin testified that McCraw would never discuss the subject when he was sober and that when he did talk about it, the details were always the same.

Hamblin also testified that on one occasion when he and McCraw were renting rooms in a house on Peabody, owned by an FBI agent, named Purdy, he told the FBI landlord that he should talk to McCraw sometime because he had information about the killing of Dr. King. Promptly, after that conversation, he said, they were given their eviction notices, and during the 30-day grace period, the MPD harassed them on a number of occasions.

At the time of the assassination, Bill Hamblin was working in Memphis barbershop – the Cherokee barbershop and his boss was Vernon Jones. Mr. Jones just happened to have as a client the same FBI agent Purdy who some years later would become Hamblin’s and McCraw’s landlord. The agent had apparently been having his hair cut by Mr. Jones for upwards of 10 years, and so they had a long-standing relationship. Hamblin testified that the agent came in for a haircut within two weeks after the killing, and after he had finished, as the agent was about to leave, Hamblin’s boss pulled him aside and within earshot asked him who killed King. Hamblin said he did not hear the soft-spoken reply, but he asked his boss about the answer and was told “he said the C.I.A. ordered it done.

Birmingham, Alabama Probate Court Judge Arthur Hanes Jr., who, along with his father, was James Earl Ray’s first lawyer, testified that in his preparation for trial, that they had no doubt would result in James Earl Ray’s acquittal, he had interviewed Guy Canipe in the doorway of whose store the bundle of evidence including the evidence rifle was dropped. He said that Canipe told him in no uncertain terms that the rifle was dropped about 10 minutes before the shot was fired so it obviously could not have been the murder weapon. Judge Hanes testified that Canipe was prepared to testify for the defense at the trial.

Washington D.C. Attorney, James Lesar, who specializes in Freedom of Information Act legal actions, testified that in one such application, he obtained an FBI report concerning tests that they had conducted on the bathroom window sill or, more specifically, on a dent in the window sill which they suspected might haven been caused by the assassin resting or pressing the barrel on the old wooden sill. Though a prosecutor had alleged to the contrary before the guilty plea jury on March 10, 1969, we introduced into evidence the actual report issued by the laboratory in April, 1968. It stated that it would not be possible to tie the dent in the windowsill to the rifle in evidence.

In their testimonies, Dexter King and Andy Young said that the defendant himself had made it clear that the murder weapon was not the rifle in evidence, but the one he took from the shooter. Jowers also told them that he had tried to flush the spent shell down his toilet, but it stopped it up, and he had to remove it. The Mississippi River became its final resting place as well.

We explored the possibility of recovering the rifle form the river but gave up the idea when we learned that a train locomotive, tanks, barges, and cars had been lost in the enormous deep silt bottom, which was stirred continually by a strong current. It was frustrating to have to accept that even though we knew the location of the murder weapon, we would not be able to recover it. This disappointment, however, was alleviated by the realization that we had demonstrated through clear and convincing evidence that the rifle purchased by James, as instructed, was not the murder weapon.

Raul

Memphis private investigator John Billings provided the background information of how a photograph of the man we had come to know as Raul was obtained. Ironically he said, a Memphis Police Department officer, who had been assigned to the District Attorney General’s task force, had obtained the Immigration and Naturalization Service photograph and turned it over to them in an effort to convince them that he was willing to cooperate and work with them in the search for the truth. Eventually, they learned that nothing could have been further from his true intentions, but, in the short run at least, it gave them the photograph taken in 1961 when he emigrated to the United States from Portugal. Billing’s colleague Ken Herman organized a spread of six photographs for exhibiting to witnesses. Billings testified that, in his presence, when he placed the spread in front of him, James Earl Ray readily identified the man in the spread (who we knew to be Raul) as being the person who had controlled his movements and given him money and who he had come to know as Raul. As mentioned earlier, James had seen the same photograph in 1978 and, at that time, identified it (with some media coverage), so this was not a surprising revelation.

Glenda Grabow had earlier, consistently identified the man in the photograph as the person, who she had known in Houston from 1963 onward and who, in or around 1974, in a fit of rage implicated himself in the assassination of Dr. King just before he raped her.

At the time of the trial, Glenda had injured ribs in an automobile accident and was suffering from internal bleeding preventing her from testifying. Husband Roy testified instead and confirmed that he had been present when she gave her earlier affidavit statements. Thus, the jury had access to Glenda’s story including the details about her relationship with Percy Foreman, his admission that James Earl Ray, though innocent, had to be sacrificed and the fact that Foreman knew – or so he said – Raul.

After Roy confirmed its authenticity, I introduced into evidence a telephone bill for their home telephone which showed on April 20, 1996, a six minute telephone call to Raul’s home telephone number. Under questioning, Roy stated that Glenda would not have stayed on the phone for six minutes with this person unless he was known to her. It is hard to imagine anyone keeping a conversation going with a complete stranger for that period of time.

Glenda had some time previously provided me with notes of her conversation with Raul, written, however, after the conversation. Whilst I believe them to be an accurate account of the conversation, I did not think that in Glenda’s absence, we should attempt to enter them into evidence. It is useful however to see them in the context of Raul’s denials about even knowing Glenda. The conversation went as follows:

QUOTE

Glenda: Raul

Raul: Yes

Glenda: This is Glenda Grabow

Raul: Olinda

Glenda: Yes. I was just calling to tell you I was supposed to come to New York.

Raul: Where you at?

Glenda: Houston

Raul: Houston?

Glenda: When I come to New York, I will call you.

Raul: When?

Glenda: I still don’t know yet when. You sell wine now?

Raul: Ya.

Glenda: Do you still deal in guns?

Raul: Ya, I still deal in lots of guns.

Glenda: You do?

Raul: Ya.

Glenda: Have you heard from Jack Valenti Lately?

Raul: No, not for long time. Why you want to know? Why you call me?

Glenda: I will try and talk to you when I get there.

Raul: OK. O ya.

Glenda: I heard your daughter was getting married?

Raul: Ya, she get married. How many you have now?

Glenda: I just have the two girls and they are grown now. Time flies. Well I will call back later. When is the best time to call?

Raul: My wife get here, or (leave here) at 6:00

Glenda: OK, I will call you when I get there.

Raul: OK

Glenda: Bye.

UNQUOTE

Glenda’s brother, Royce Wilburn, an electrical contractor from Nashville, Tennessee, who had not discussed the case or his testimony with his sister, testified that the man, he knew as “Dago” and whose photograph he picked out of the spread, did indeed hang out, off and on, at a gas station near their home in Houston. He confirmed that his sister and he used to see and talk with the man because the gas station, where he hung out, was between their home and school.

British merchant seaman Sid Carthew, in a telephone deposition described how he had met Raul – whom he had under oath previously identified from the spread of photographs – late in the summer of 1967, in the Neptune Bar on West Commissioners Street in the Montreal docks area. At that time, he said Raul appeared to be with another person who may well have been James Earl Ray. Carthew said at one point Raul came over and introduced himself (as Raul). Sid, who was identified with the British nationalists, said that the Neptune was a regular haunt of his and his mates when they came ashore following days at sea on the voyage from Liverpool. Someone in the bar must have told Raul about his politics because eventually the conversation came around to the question of whether Sid might want to buy some guns. Sid said he expressed interest, and they began to negotiate. Raul said that their guns were new army (US) issue, and the price reflected the money that had to be paid to a sergeant who was organizing the supply. (To my mind, this matched Warren’s earlier account of guns being taken from Camp Shelby or other military installations, trucked to New Orleans, and delivered to Carlos Marcello who organized the sales, with, according to Glenda Grabow, deliveries from Houston.)

The negotiations broke down, and the deal fell apart according to Sid over the quantity. They were discussing the purchase of 9MM pistols. Sid said he would take four. Raul asked him how he was going to get them home. Sid, thinking about four pistols, said he would put them in his pockets or in a carrier bag. Raul, thinking of four boxes, suddenly realized that this was not the deal he thought it was and exploded in disappointment. From that day to this, Sid remembers those details and Raul’s face.

Former UK Thames television producer, Jack Saltman, who had produced the 1993 Thames/HBO television trial of James Earl Ray, took the stand to testify that after the trial, when convinced that an egregious injustice had been done, he continued some investigating efforts on his own. He particularly focused on Raul. At one point, he took the spread of photographs to Raul’s front door. The jury heard the tape-recorded exchange between Saltman and Raul’s daughter who was on the other side of the door. They heard her admit that the photograph was indeed of her father. Her words were effectively that “… anyone could get that picture of my father.” It was a startling admission for now Raul’s own daughter had joined the ranks of all of the others, who had confirmed that the critical photographic evidence was indeed her father.

Both Dexter King and Ambassador Young testified that the defendant Loyd Jowers had unhesitatingly identified the photograph as being that of the man who appeared in his grill to pick up the Liberto cash and leave the murder weapon a “package” for the actual assassin.

Barbara Reis was very uncomfortable on the stand. Reporters do not like to have to testify in court. She is the primary US correspondent of Publico the largest newspaper in Portugal, and because Raul was Portuguese, her paper was interested in the story. She was covering the trial and in attendance in court almost every day for the first two weeks. Some time earlier, however, she had gone to Raul’s home and spoke with a member of his family ( who we agreed not to identify ) and that was why we believed that we had no choice but to issue a subpoena for her testimony. She was outraged, but I believed that her evidence was too valuable not to be put in front of the jury. So under oath, she reluctantly recounted what she had been told during the course of that interview.

She said that she was informed that though these allegations had greatly disrupted their lives and were terrible, nevertheless the family took great comfort from the fact that they were being protected and advised by government agents who had visited their home on three occasions and who were monitoring their telephones. The government was helping them through those difficult days.

The fact that government was helping a retired automobile worker in such a fashion was not lost on the members of the jury. We could see them thinking – what is this all about? Everyone knows full well that the government does not become involved in such fashion on behalf of ordinary citizens. There clearly was something special about this person; some very good reason for the government to extend itself to such an extent. Ordinary private citizens are obviously not afforded these services. It is our contention, of course, that he was and will continue to be protected for services rendered to the national security interests of the state.

Don Wilson’s resolve hardened, and he refused to testify at the trial, but his evidence was too important not to be placed before the jury. Early on, Don had told Dexter King about the events and given him copies of two of the pieces of paper he took away from James’s abandoned Mustang. Dexter was, therefore, in a position to identify the materials, the originals of which had been with the Justice Department going through a process of authentication for several months. In the course of his testimony, Dexter recounted how Don Wilson originally explained how/when he opened the slightly a jar passenger door of James’s car, an envelope fell on the ground, and he instinctively put his foot on it, bent over, picked it up, and put it in his pocket. The young agent was initially afraid that he had screwed up material criminal evidence by allowing it to become separated from the automobile possibly connected with a crime. Later, when he had an opportunity to consider the materials, he decided to hold on to them in part, no doubt, because he was in a difficult, if not impossible, position, for not having turned them in straight away and also because he genuinely came to believe that the notes would be buried if he turned them over to his superiors at the Atlanta Field Office. So he retained them – for nearly 30 years, until he decided to come forward in an effort to support the King family and James Earl Ray.

The material – see Figs. # and , did in fact contain the name Raul as well as a list of what appeared to be a list of payments to be made. When shown a true copy of the torn page from a Dallas telephone directory with handwriting at the top, in his testimony, Dexter King identified the name Raul as he did for a second time on the payoff list.

There was also written at the top of the telephone directory page (which contained the listings of the family of H. L. Hunt) the letter “R” preceding a telephone number. As discussed earlier, when I learned that the phone number belonged to the Vegas Club owed by Jack Ruby pointing to a connection between Raul and Ruby, I went to Dallas to find and interview some of Jack Ruby’s strippers as well as Madeleine Brown – Lyndon Johnson’s mistress of 21 years. I saw Beverly Oliver, Chari Angel, and Madeleine Brown separately. In each instance, I placed the photographic spread in front of them and each time without hesitation, Raul was identified as a person seen in the company of Jack Ruby in 1963, usually at the Carousel, Ruby’s other Dallas Club. Beverly Oliver said that on one occasion, she remembered Raul giving Ruby $20,000 in a Piggley Wiggley grocery store bag.

Glenda Grabow’s story about the connection between Raul and Ruby had, in my view, been corroborated, but I eventually decided against introducing evidence this connection and the link to the Kennedy assassination. I did not want to run the risk of taking the jury down that road. It was, after all, surplusage to our main case, and there was always the possibility that the jury would refuse to accept the connection with the Kennedy assassination, and then begin to question the primary pillars of our evidence. I had Madeleine, Beverly, and Chari lined up to travel to Memphis and then did not call them. It was a temptation, which had to be resisted, but it was not easy because I believed these courageous women. Madelein Brown for example is very credible, and some aspect of her recollections of her life and genuine love for Johnson were compelling. The fact, that she gave birth to his only son I have seen and obtained a copy of Johnson’s commitment (through has local lawyer Jerome Ragsdale) to provide support for his son Steven which continued even after the President’s death). That she was able to provide such detail about their relationship, was impressive. Of particular note was her recollection of the events of Thursday evening November 21, 1963 – the night before the assassination. She said she attended a social gathering at Clint Murchison’s home. Ostensibly, it was an event to honor J. Edgar Hoover who was a close friend of Murchison, H. L. Hunt and the other Texas oil giants. The guest list included John McCloy, Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, Richard Nixon, George Brown, of the Brown and Root Construction company, R. L. Thornton, President of the Mercantile Bank, and Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell, brother of General Charles Cabell, former Deputy Director of the CIA who was fired by President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs.

Madeleine told me that near the end of the party, Johnson made an appearance and the group quickly went into Murchison’s study behind closed doors. After a while, the meeting broke up, Johnson anxious and red faced came up, embraced her, and with a quiet grating sound, whispered a message, she would never forget, in her ear. “After tomorrow, those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again – that’s no threat, that’s a promise. She was stunned, but the next day she realized what he meant.

I decided not to take our case in this direction. It was tactical decision but, if, however, I am asked whether I believe that Raul and Ruby knew each other, were associates, and that the same forces were involved with both assassinations, I could only truthfully answer in the affirmative.

The Broader Conspiracy

We next turned to present the evidence that the conspiracy to kill Martin Luther King Jr. extended well beyond Memphis, Tennessee and, in fact, reached into the echelons of power in the nation’s capitol.

Former Memphis Police Intelligence Officer, Jim Smith took the stand under subpoena. His testimony at the television trial resulted in him losing his security clearance, being put under surveillance, and eventually, being in fear for his life, leaving Memphis only to find that the FBI had permanently blocked him from ever again obtaining a position in law enforcement. Now six years later, he returned to Memphis having been transferred there in another line of work when an opening arose. He was uneasy and not willing to testify unless subpoenaed. We served him. He basically restated his earlier testimony that on March 18, 1968 he was assigned to assist a two men surveillance team parked in a van in the area of the Rivermont Hotel. The van contained audio surveillance equipment and the two agents – he did not know which federal agency they were from. I had earlier concluded that they were Army Security Agency Operatives and that they listened in on conversations and activities in the suite occupied by Martin King. He did not, himself directly, participate in any of the surveillance but he observed it and understood what was going on. Back in 1992, I had been able to obtain a detailed description of the location of the microphone placements in the suite. It was so extensive that even if Dr. King went on to the balcony his conversation would be relayed to the tape recorders in the van below. In addition to the covert (non eye to eye) surveillance activities of the ASA agents, the court heard testimony from defense witness Eli Arkin, the MPD intelligence officer – that the 111th M.I.G. was on the scene conducting its own surveillance activities. He said that some of them were based in his office.

Military historian Doug Valentine, whose book The Phoenix Program included a mention of a rumor that photographs of the assassination were taken by army photographers, arousing my interest, took the stand to testify about the military affiliation of the man who provided the Memphis Police with the false assassination threat against Detective Redditt, justifying his removal from the surveillance detail at the rear of the fire station. Valentine said that when he interviewed the individual, Phillip Manuel, (who had been in Memphis on April 3 and 4, ostensibly pursuant to his position as a staff member of the McClellan committee) he learned that Manuel previously – and perhaps then as well – worked with the 902nd MIG. I had gradually come to believe that this little known unit coordinated the federal agency task force activity in Memphis and also liaised with the non military side of the operation.

Carthel Weeden, the former Fire Department Captain in charge of Fire Station number 2, testified in detail about how in the morning, of April 4, he was approached by two men in Civilian clothers who showed him army credentials and asked to be taken up to the roof of the fire station where they would be in a position to photograph people and activity in the area. Though Carthel was not certain exactly how he carried them up to the roof, it must have been up the outside iron ladder which at the time was attached to the north side of the building near the side door and the fire hose tower. He said that he observed them taking their photographic equipment out of their bag. Carthel testified that he did not notice them again during that day and he just assumed that completed their various tasks. Carthel also testified that he had never been interviewed any local, state, or federal law enforcement official. The reason for this is obvious. Had he been interviewed, it is quite likely that the investigators would have become aware of the soldiers on the roof. They would then have the obligation to locate them and the photographs they took. This, of course, would be the path that any serious investigation would have to take. It would be anathema to those efforts which were only set up to conceal the truth for from all we understood as a result of meetings between Steve Tompkins and the photographers the actual assassin was caught on film powering the rifle right after firing the fatal shot.

In his testimony, Professor Clay Carson read into the record portions of documents which I had provided to the King Papers Project, which he directs, at Stanford University. One of the documents was a report from Steve Tompkins prepared for me after a meeting at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago with one of the photographers. Amongst other details was the photographer’s confirmation that the assassin was caught on film and that it was not James Earl Ray.

Professor Carson, also read the responses to questions I had asked Steve Tompkins to raise with the Green Beret I had referred to as Warren. The exchange, on the record went like this:

Direct Examination

By Dr. Pepper

Q. Dr. Carson, good afternoon - - barely afternoon. Thank you for joining us here. You’re come some three thousand miles, and I know that time is precious in terms of your schedule, so I’d like to just move ahead.

Would you please state your full name and address for the record.

A. Clayborne Carson, Palo Alto, California.

Q. And what is your profession?

A. I’m a professor of history at Stanford.

Q. And what do you - - what is your relationship to the works and life of Martin Luther King, Junior?

A. I’m the editor of Martin Luther King’s papers, and I’m director of the Martin Luther King papers project at Stanford.

Q. And how long have you been in that position?

A. Fifteen years.

Q. And have you published various works on Doctor King’s work and life?

A. Yes, I have. I’ve published, I think, edited or authored five - - I think five books on Martin Luther King.

Q. All right. And is the King papers project at Stanford University an ongoing project?

A. Yes, it is. It’s a long-term project to publish all of the historically significant papers of Martin Luther King. It’s been going on for fifteen years. It will probably go on as long as I go on.

Q. And in your capacity and as part of that project at Stanford, do you have the process of collecting documents and materials of all sorts of natures related to Doctor King’s life, work and death even?

A. Yes, sir. The purpose of the paper is - - papers project is to assemble all of the historically significant papers from archives around the world. We’ve contacted probably some two hundred or more archieves to make sure that we have all of the historically significant papers. Obviously, the largest collections are those at the King Center in Atlanta and at Boston University.

Q. Right. And as a part of that responsibility, did you receive from me certain documents, certain reports with respect to the assassination of Martin Luther King?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And it should be clear to the Court and Jury that you are not in any way involved in attesting to the accuracy or the validity of this informaion, but you are simply reporting on what it is that you have received; is that correct?

A. That’s right.

Q. So we’re asking you to do that in a professional capacity and in line with your role as editor and director of the King papers project.
With that background, Professor Carson, I’d like you to move, please, to the first set of responses in the documentation that I’ve provided to you and of the project that I addressed to a resource who was traveling and providing me with information.
The Court and Jury have become aware with how that process worked so we just need to go into a question and answer mode here.
On Page 2 of - - well, on Page 2 of the questions and whatever page of the response, I’d ask you to turn to Paragraph 2.1.4, and the question that was asked to be answered was: Was the operation, in re, our target, a one op, or were there other similar operations? If others, any details possible. Please, at least learn if they were domestic, foreign or both.

What is the answer that you have?

A. Answer: Lots of other ops nationwide. These are the ones I was at, summer of 1967 - - parentheses, June 12th through 15th, 1967 - - Tampa, Florida. Two Alpha teams deployed during riots. Detroit, summer, July 23rd, riot. Washington, October 1967, riot. Chicago, just before Christmas, 1967, recon. February 1968, Los Angeles.

Q. Thank you. Question 2.1.5: When was the instant operation? The instant operation is the Memphis operation against Martin Luther King. When was the instant operation first raised with him, that is, the source. A, where and by whom? Answer.

A. Answer: Date unknown. Place, Camp Shelby, Mississippi. Briefed by Captain Name. First, a recon-op - - not sure when killing King first mentioned.

Q. What - - 2.1.6: What were the first details of the operation scenario put to him? A: Was target named:

A. Yes, King. Another answer.

Q. Yes. Please continue.

A. Young added later.

Q. First answer, King. Young added later.

B: What was site:

A. Site not set. Depended on our intel and recon. We positioned at rooftop ascent across Lorraine motel about 1300 hours, 4 April. Don’t know why or how intel came in.

At brief, 0430, reminded Doctor King was the leader of a movement to destroy American government and stop the war. We were shown CR, close range photos, of King and Young. Don’t know - - don’t remember anyone worrying about killing those sacks of shit.

One but - - buddy on Team 1, remember bragged about him, had him in center mass, parentheses, this is a sniper term meaning cross hairs and center of chest. During that big March in Alabama, should have done it then.

Parentheses, Bill, I did some checking from my files. There is a John Hill listed among the 20th special forces teams that was deployed in Selma, Alabama in 1965 for the beginning of the march to Montgomery.

I interviewed two of the team members who were there, and they said a sniper team had King in their scope until he turned left and crossed the bridge. This may be the same Hill on main team. None of the other names match.

Another Name - - parentheses, that’s me - - asked about clothes. We were dressed as working stiffs working on the docks. Parentheses, I believe this means their cover was day laborers on President’s Island where the riverboat barge and the warehouses are located, end parentheses.

Equipment was stored in suitcases, moved along, came up in cars from Camp Shelby. Only place I remember eating in Memphis was a Howard Johnson’s.

My spotter and I were met by a Name down near the train tracks where we were let out. I remembered this guy because he looked a lot like a buddy - - parentheses, buddy of mine. This guy got us to the building where we set up. I always figured he was a spook.

From him, we got a detailed AO - - parentheses, area of operations map - - not the kind you’d buy in a gas station, pictures of cars the King group were driving, and the guy got us to the building where we set up. I always figured he was a spook.

From him, we got a detailed AO - - parentheses, area of operations map - - not the kind you’d buy in a gas station, pictures of the cars the King group was driving and the Memphis police tact - - parentheses, tactical radio frequencies. Maybe some other stuff, I just don’t remember.

Q. C: Any explanation of reason?

A. Name gave none.

Q. D: Any indication of sanction by or involvement of others, one at federal, state or local levels?

A. Everybody but my brother was there. Spooks, the company - - parentheses, CIA - - Feebs - - parentheses, FBI - - police, you name it. The only person I remember talking to besides CO, Name, was some guy who was the head of the city - - parentheses, Memphis tact parentheses - - tactical squad. I think his first name was Sam. Name put him on radio to describe to us what was in that hotel - - parentheses, Lorraine. I do remember he saying friendlies would not be wearing ties. Took that to mean that somebody inside the King group as informant. Did meet in person one other guy. Met him on sidewalk down couple blocks from our perch. Directed by Name. This guy identified himself with the police intelligence. Said city was about to explode, and blacks would be murdering whites in the streets. After a few minutes, I figured was asking me to sit tight and kill any rioters if things went to hell. He seemed to know something about us and said had met with Name before this day.

Q. E: Was operation pure military, any involvement of FBI, state police, local sheriff’s, poster police, civilians, anyone in targets organization?

A. Our part military. Far as I know, we were coordinating with units at NAS. This would be Millington Naval Air Station.

Q. Okay. Move over to the response to Question 3, please. Was he aware of any support from inside Doctor King’s organization, SCLC, or inside the local Memphis groups working with Doctor King? Details and names if possible.

A. Scuttlebutt was 111th - - parentheses, military intelligence group out of Fort McPherson - - had guy inside King’s group.

Q. Moving to Number 7. Did he actually see anything at the time of the shooting? Where was he precisely?

A. I thought Team 1 had fired early. I guess I still think they may have. After that day, I only saw Captain Name twice more, and both times, he refused to talk to me about what happened. After the shot, I keyed - - parentheses, radioed - - CO to ask for instructions, and after a wait - - parentheses, I think this means Name told him to wait - - was told to exit building and make our way to pick-up point. If this helps, I heard a lot of gunfire, and I think remembering - - I remember thinking it was an Army sniper shot. It surprised me later when I heard some wacko civilian had done it. Name described the shooting to me, and let me tell you this. Whoever fired that shot was a professional. Even from three hundred meters, there’s no way just anyone could make that shot.

Q. Eight: If the military unit did it, how does he explain the head shot, and their not waiting for the coordinated hits from the second target, A-Y, Andrew Young?

A. When you have everybody’s hands in someone’s pants, it’s a cluster fuck. That’s what happened in Nam - - what happened here.

Q. What kind of weapons were they carrying?

A. Standard forty-five caliber sidearms, M-16 sniper rifles and some K-bars - - parentheses, this is a military knife. We also had some frags - - parentheses, fragmentation grenades - - and two or three laws, light anti-air - - anti tank weapon rockets.

Q. Ten: How did the two teams communicate with each other? When was the last contact prior to the killing?

A. By radio. The shot was fired just after the TTR - - parentheses, top of the hour I guess this means, 1800, end parentheses - - sit rep - - parentheses, situation report.

Q. Eleven: Set out details of their exiting Memphis, how - - where they went.

A. Exit by foot to waiting boat.

Q. Finishes the first section. Now the second - - second series of questions and answers. We’ll just move through these. Number 1: Where was Young?

A. Best I remember, a bunch of them had been upstairs. My spotter got Young when they all left. He went downstairs. He had come out of his room below and looked like to me was heading for the - - a car when the shot was fired. We were must getting ready to do the sit rep. He was definitely out of his room.

Q. Second page, 2.15 and 2.16: What was the nature of the training - - real purpose training?

A. This was a recon, slash, surveillance mission to support major Army element at Millington and possible deployment of other heavy units, dash, one of the dozens in cities with large black populations. We were walking the ground literally. We would walk city streets to identify possible sniper and ambush sites, anything that would help the guys coming into a riot to survive. Target reduction - - parentheses, Bill, he means killing Young and King, end parentheses - - was discussed as a option should the situation go in the toilet, and we had a riot on our hands in the AO - - parentheses, area of operations. Then and only then was that option briefed. You need to talk to him - - parentheses, he’s referring here to you, end parentheses - - about how a military mission is done. Logistics, intelligence, communications which make up seven-eighths of a mission. What I’m saying is that target reduction was brief, but we had to get to a riot before it was authorized on the net.

Do you want me to go on?

Q. Yes.

A. Here NAME digressed into an argument over radios. Said team had PRC 77’s unreliable. Out of - - on that roof that evening, we were watching. I had Young targeted, but only to watch.

Q. Then moving down - - Bill, I asked here about the psychological warfare photo recon stuff at this point. Continue.

A. Big psy-ops (phonetic) plan to discredit King and his party using any means at hand. We weren’t told much about this, but, again, SOP with fifth special forces was psy-ops included and everything. M-A-C-V-S-O-G had long time begged into this. We call this, quote, gray operations and spreading propagenda to newspapers and radio stations. This was done a lot against black pot-heads. I wasn’t involved in this, but I kept my ears open, and this was a big push. Any intel we picked up to help this effort out was passed back up the chain. Not sure about reserved element of psy-ops. Most guys in Nam I knew worked for the fourth psy-ops group at Teng Sau Nu. I know there they ran their own newspaper, radio and TV operations.

Q. Yes. 2.1.7: When was Memphis first mentioned?

A. Not sure. Original brief of twentieth recon operations including - - included Memphis among cities where possible rioting was possible at Camp - - Camp Landing. Parentheses, Bill, this is in Florida, end parentheses. Memphis was scouted 22 February by Alpha team for sniper communications and supply sites. We had a lot of stuff going in, but previous recon produced a lot more.
What we were doing is similar to Nam. Maps, terrain studies, readouts of infrared imagery from aerial recon blackbirds - - parentheses, Bill, he’s referring to SR 71 blackbird over flights of Memphis and other potential riot cities, this mentioned in my series, end parentheses - - and anything else we could find, which we shipped to S2 and Nam Trang. Here we shipped to Camp Shelby S2. Where intel went from there, I’m not sure.

Q. 2.1.8: Who was in charge of training?

A. NAME Captain.

Q. How long was the training period?

A. Can’t remember. Too long ago. Too many missions before and after.

Q. During training - - 2.1.13: During training, who were you told were targets?

A. We were told these were recon missions whose purpose was to reverse the cluster fuck in Detroit where our guys didn’t even have maps of city streets. Our mission was to walk the ground before the heavies - - parentheses, Bill, means tanks and APCs here - - got there. Training was entirely based on identifying communications links, supply sites, places where troops could be quickly and safely inserted where the black community was, where black churches were, where black leaders congregated - - parentheses, restaurants, churches.

Q. 2.1.14: Other members of team involved other sites.

A. Worked with Captain Name in Tampa.

Q. 2.1.15. Were all those 9 – 0 second operations?

A. Don’t know and don’t care. What I know is this. You start asking a lot of questions about the 9 – 0 second - - he pronounced ninety-deuce - - you’d better be digging a deep hole.

Parentheses, Bill, he was very reluctant to discuss 9 – 0 second. I tried several times in this interview to broach subject. He refused to.

Q. 2.1.16: Who controlled training and actual operations?

A. Team leader and his exec. control.

Q. 3.2: Who was on the February 22nd Memphis recon mission?

A. I was on it. Will give other names if agreed they not be made public.

Q. 3.3: Did entire unit go together to Memphis on 4 April or separate? Explain.

A. No. We went in separate cars in two’s.

Q. 3.4: What time leave Camp Shelby for Memphis?

A. Don’t remember.

Q. 3.8: You’re referring to this Name fellow - - I’m sorry. 3.8: Who did spook on ground work for?

A. You’re referring to this Name fellow who met us down by railroad yards. Guy smelled like a company guy. We had maps, but this guy gave us a detailed map of the AO - - parentheses, area of operations - - not a regular service station map. This was like a grid map you got in the field with street and building names.


>Anyway, this Name, I think it was James reminded me of a friend. I got no proof though, but he was definitely a spool.

Q. 3.9: Details of conversation.

A. You got to be kidding. We just talked about the current situation, our location and radio net.

Q. And then questions 3.9 to 3.14.1: No answrs?

A. parentheses, Bill, these questions, he simply could not remember.

Q. That finishes the second section. Lastly, Professor Carson, you have a one-page report of a meeting that took place in Chicago, also at plaintiffs’ counsel’s request, having to do with the location of some photographers on the roof of the fire station in Memphis. Would you read that report, please.

A. Trip to meet NAME, 1 December, 1994, Chicago. Location, Hyatt Regency, downtown off Michigan Avenue. Breakfast, slash, lunchroom off of lobby. Description, about five-feet-ten inches, one-sixty to one-seventy pounds. Gray, short chopped hair, nice suit - - parentheses, Brook Brothers style - - wing tipped shoes, erect, obviously ex military. Said in Vietnam assigned first SOG - - parentheses, special operation group - - base, Kan Tu, worked 525th psychological operations battalion. Refused to discuss place of birth, date of birth or other personal info. April 3, 4 weekend, 9-0 second operation. New Colonel Name, worked with him number of assignments. Two agents in Memphis day of killing. Therefore, routine photogs and surveillance copied to Name and Name - -

Q. Yes.

A. - - believed distributed to other agencies. Idea to pick up anyone in photos, might be identified as communist or national security threat - - such H-U-M-I-N-T-S-O-P in King’s surveillance. When King came out on balcony, camera was filming. No photo moment King shot, but several of him falling. Second guy with Name watched approaching cars, heard shot and saw white man with rifle. Quickly snapped his picture several times as this guy left scene. Shooter was on the ground clearly visible. Name witnessed only his back as left scene. Said never got a visual face ID. Name and second guy rooftop of fire station, both armed with forty-five caliber automatics. Second guy carried small revolver in hlster, small of back. Pictures hand delivered to Colonel Name, but second guy with Name kept negatives. Name has no copies. Said will approach second guy for two thousand dollars, give us name and address.

DR. PEPPER: Thank you very much, Professor Carson. There is a final document, which is a choronology of important dates, that has been provided to us from January 17, 1967 to the 4th of April listing dates, times and places and subjects of meetings that took place in government agencies throughout that entire year. We’re not going to go through that here, but I am going to close that and move that that be admitted as a part of the total package of evidence.

Thank you for coming, and no further questions.

Thus, for the first time a jury heard the details of the investigative process Steve Tompkins and I employed in order to reveal the presence and the role of the eight man Alpha 184 unit in Memphis on April 4, 1968. It became abundantly clear that the team did not carry out the assassination but were in fact in position to do. Steve had always maintained that they were only going to be ordered to shoot in the event of a riot. As mentioned earlier that never made any sense to me, given the apparent absence of any possible riot at the time in the area of the Lorraine. However, the testimony of Invader Charles Cabbage made that possibility of violence breaking out late that afternoon, all too real. Cabbage acknowledged that the members of his group, who occupied two balcony rooms just south of Dr. King’s room, were armed. When ordered to leave the hotel, shortly before the assassination (actually leaving within 11 minutes of the event) the Invaders might well have been expected to react violently disrupting the surface calm of the motel. If instead of leaving peacefully, the Invaders had reacted violently that could have created the required circumstances and cover for any military action deemed necessary. In the event the Invaders left peacefully and the killing was not carried out by the army snipers who were ordered to withdraw from their position promptly after the shooting. They left the city immediately.

Covert operative Jack Terrell who previously I had referred to as “Carson” desperately wanted to testify in person but his liver cancer became worse and he was not allowed to travel. We had to use his video deposition taken in Orlando, Florida on February 7, 1999. It stunned the court. After describing his previous covert activities on behalf of the Government he described his close friendship with the 20th SFG green beret J. D. Hill who he came to know in Columbus, Mississippi. He said that J. D. would train for two weeks every summer at Shelby with his unit and that he used to return in excellent physical condition. He said that on one such occasion in 1975 J. D. seemed to want to unburden himself. It was then that he began to spell out the details of a mission for which he trained and which was to be carried out in Memphis. He said that his unit had trained for a considerable period of time to carry out an assassination against a target or targets who were to be in a moving automobile. He said that snipers were placed high above and a considerable distance away from the target vehicle. They were not told who was the target but suspected it might have been an Arab.

On April 4, Jack said that J. D. told him that he and his unit set out for Memphis, still not aware of who the target was to be. It is at this point that a whether or not it was a function of the progressively worsening of the disease affecting his recollection of detail, I am uncertain. In my first session with Jack in 1994, he had indicated that J. D. told him that the team was already in Memphis and had been on three occasions, in position – similar to Warren’s version – when they were told to withdraw. The discrepancy arose between his deposition account and the statement he originally gave to me in 1994. There, in fact, may be no discrepancy, at all. In his earlier account it was clear that the unit was staying somewhere in the area but outside of Memphis. They would travel to town and take up their positions – water tower, building roof, and window – and then leave at the end of the day. It may well be that when he testified that they were en route to Memphis when told to withdraw he was referring to the last trip in on April 4. When he heard about the assassination J. D. told Jack that his initial reaction was that another team was also involved and his unit did not get the call. What is incontrovertible, however, is that J. D. Hill was a member of a unit which trained to carry out an assassination on American soil and the event was to take place in Memphis, Tennessee on or around April 4, 1968.

When, shortly afterward J. D. learned that Dr. King had been assassinated on the day of their mission, he realized that this was his unit’s mission.

Terrell then described the suspicious circumstances of J. D. ‘s death in 1979 where his wife was alleged – though not indicted – to have put a neat semi circle of 357 Magnum bullets in his chest, after he returned home late at night. He was dead before he hit the floor, and Terrell said it was impossible for J. D.’s wife who weighted about 90 pounds to have handled the 357 magnum weapon with such precision.

He next went on to describe the three hour interview he gave to the ABC Turning Point Program at my request. After they produced the team leader, who I thought was dead, alive and well, – though without acknowledging his criminal conviction for negligent homicide – I believed that Terrell’s corroboration of the military operation in Memphis would be helpful. ABC did not use one second of the interview but soon afterward he began to receive official calls which led him to believe that his life could be in danger. He left the country for several months. So, not only did ABC not use the interview, we came to believe that it was very possible that they had turned the tape or the information over to the Government. Terrell maintained that there was no reasonable excuse for them not using his interview. In fact, there was every reason for ABC to be aware of his credibility since he had been previously a source, interviewed by them on sensitive matters on more than one occasion. When Jack learned that they had blocked out his story in its entirety, he decided that he had to testify.

The Cover Up

A large number of witnesses testified to the extensive range of activities which caused the truth in this case to remain hidden and justice denied for nearly 32 years.

Incredibly, the chronicle of events and actions included murder, solicitation of murder, attempted bribing, suppression of evidence, alternation of the crime scene, and the control manipulation, and use of the media for propaganda purposes:

Murder

Former taxi driver and security officer Louie Ward testified about what he learned from the observation of Yellow taxi cab driver Buddy, who, when picking up passenger at the Lorraine at the time of shooting, saw a man came down over the wall, run north on Mulberry Street, get into a Memphis Police Department traffic car and be driven away. Louie Ward testified that he heard this account directly from Buddy, who was driving car number 58 on that day. He said that Buddy told him this story just before two police officers arrived and were told the same thing. Later that evening Ward said he saw a number of MPD cars parked at the Yellow cab offices. He was certain that they were taking a statement from Buddy.

Since he was only a part-time driver, Ward said he did not return to work as a driver for about two weeks. When he did, he entered the Yellow cab offices, after his first day behind the wheel and asked, the few people in the lounge where was “Buddy.” He said he was told that he was dead having been thrown out of a car on Route 55 – the Memphis – Arkansas bridge – on the night Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Ward said he learned that Buddy’s cab No. 58 was found at the Yellow cab offices, and his body was found the next morning around 10:30 AM.

He said he watched the newspaper for an obituary or death notices, but there was none.

As noted earlier, Massachusetts Attorney Raymond Kohlman testified that he had enquired about any death records in Memphis and the neighboring states and found that there was no record of the death.

In his pre-trial deposition, the owner of the Yellow cab company, whose son runs the business today, testified that he no longer had any records dating back to 1968 and also that he did not recall hearing about any such incident involving this driver, who he believed actually left the company some time before 1968. Many of the drivers had died, and though we were never able to locate with certainty the dispatcher on duty that night, one person, who Ward believed also knew what happened and who may have been the dispatcher on duty on the evening of April 4, refused to discuss the matter. This same person apparently came into a substantial amount of money after the event and bought a very expensive house, which would have certainly been way beyond his means as a taxi driver or any apparent family resources.

So, at this writing, we are left only with the unwavering statement of Louie Ward who concerned about his own safety and that of his family kept it to himself for a quarter of a century. He said that he did call John Pierotti at one point and told him what he knew. He said that Pierotti then Shelby County District Attorney General gave him short shrift, and Word said he become so angry that he asked the district attorney if he was the person driving the police car that took the shooter away.

We had no doubt that Louie Ward was telling the truth. He had no reason to come forward at this point in time and lie. He never asked for anything, and our team concurred unanimously that he was one of the most credible witnesses we put before the jury.

The effectiveness of the cover up of this side murder event, however, was staggering. There was no police report or statement taken from the driver, in any file, and no death record or report existed. No driver alive, except Louie Ward, remembered or was willing to talk about the incident, although Hamilton Smythe IV the present manager of the Yellow cab company did acknowledge to Nathan Whitlock that he heard about such an event, but then quickly said only his father could comment. The father, Ham Smythe III, as noted earlier, stated that he did not believe it ever happened.

Alteration Of The Crime Scene

Maynard Stiles, in 1968, was a senior administrator of the Memphis department of public works. In 1999, he had been retired for a number of years living outside of the city, but he readily agreed to testify about what he did early on the morning of April 5, 1968.

The day after the assassination began for Maynard Stiles at 7:00 AM when his phone rung. He said MPD inspector Sam Evans was on the other end of the phone, and he had an urgent request. He asked Stiles to send a team to completely clean up the area between the rooming house on South Main Street. The team would work under police supervision, but the basic job was to cut the thick brush and bushes to the ground, rake then into piles so they could be carted away. Stiles hung up and called Dutch Goodman, who he instructed to pull a team together. Willie Crawford was recruited along with some others who began working that morning.

Stiles said that he checked on the progress in late morning, and he recalls that the job was so extensive that it took his men more than one day to complete.

So far as he was concerned, he was cooperating with the police. It was not his job to question the decision to clean up the area. For all, he knew they were looking for evidence. In fact, of course, a cardinal rule of criminal investigation was contravened. An area which was part of the crime scene was not only not sealed off preventing intrusion but also a clean up crew was brought in for the express purpose of drastically altering the entire physical setting itself so that it could never be examined, considered, and analyzed as it was at the time of the crime. All traces of the bushes and brush, which were in place at the time of the crime, were removed. Ordinarily, it is the routine responsibility of the police to ensure that the crime scene is preserved as it was at the time of the crime. In this instance, the Memphis police ensured just the opposite – that from the morning of April 5, 1968, the area would be completely altered and never again be as it at 6:01 PM on April 4, 1968, the evening before.

Not only was there – as Olivia Catling testified – no house to house investigation in area of the Lorraine Motel but also a considerable number of people in the area of Jim’s Grill and the Lorraine Motel were never interviewed. At the time as Reverend Orange noted, many were told to shut up and stay out of the way. This and other omissions prompted Judge Joe Brown to declare that this was the sorriest excuse for an investigation that he had ever seen. The old adage if you didn’t look for evidence, you won’t find it held true in Memphis following the assassination.

Where potential evidence was stumbled upon or acquired it frequently was ignored or suppressed – this was the case with the two FBI 302 statements given by William Reed and Ray Hendrix, which we put into evidence. They were the two men who left Jim’s Grill about 20 minutes, or so, before the killing and spent some time looking at James’s Mustang before working north on South Main Street. Just as they reached Vance, about two blocks away, they saw the white Mustang, driven by a dark haired man, turn the corner in front of them. These observations, in fact, corroborated James’s account of how he left the scene several minutes before the shooting in an effort to have the flat space tire repaired. In other words, they constituted an alibi but were kept from the defense and suppressed.

Also suppressed were critical scientific reports known to the prosecution at the time. First, that the dent in the bathroom windowsill, which the state contended had been made by murder weapon, could not have been proved to have been made by a rifle. Secondly, that the death slug removed from Dr. King’s body could not be linked to or matched with the rifle in evidence, and that this alleged murder weapon had failed an accuracy test on the morning after the shooting because it had never been sighted in.

Though this evidence was noted earlier, it is important to focus on it here in terms of its suppression being integral to the cover up.

Bribery

Near the end of his tenure as James Earl Ray’s lawyer – he was replaced by Mark Lane in 1977 – and during the early period of the investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Jack Kershaw testified that he was asked to attend a meeting in the offices of a Nashville publishing company. The meeting was held in a large conference room, and those present included author William Bradford Huie. He didn’t recognize any of the other persons, but he said that two of them appeared to be government types.

He was asked to take an offer to James Earl Ray. The offer consisted of a sum of money (in this instance $50,000) a parole and an opportunity for a new life if James would finally admit that he was the killer. Kershaw said he listened, challenged Huie at one point in terms of the reason behind, and the feasibility of, the arrangements but agreed to take them to his client. He said James rejected the proposal out of hand.

James’s brother Jerry took the stand a testified how, some time later, he was personally contacted by author Huie who basically made the same offer except that this time the amount on offer had increased to $220,000. James was still having none of it.

Jerry tape-recorded this conversation and authenticated the transcript of that recording as being accurate and the one he caused to be made. It was entered into evidence.

Murder Attempts

 

The jury heard evidence of two other more sinister cover up efforts to put an end to James Earl Ray’s protestations of innocence and request for a trial.

Former Congressman and HSCA King Subcommittee Chairman Walter Fauntroy testified that after James Earl Ray escaped (an escape that had “set up” written all over it) with a number of other inmates in 1976, they learned that the FBI had immediately and uninvited sent a SWAT team consisting of upwards of 30 snipers to the prison. Their information was that this unit was there not to help capture Ray but to kill him. Fauntroy said that at his urging HSCA Chairman Stokes called Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton and asked him to intervene in order to save their main witness and Blanton’s most famous prisoner. Blanton promptly took a helicopter to the prison and ordered the FBI out of the area, thus saving James’s life for he was captured non violently shortly afterward.

April Ferguson who is now a federal public defender was, in 1978, Mark Lane’s assistant. She testified that their office was contacted by an inmate at the Shelby County Jail named Tim Kirk. When she and an assistant went out to interview Kirk, he told them that he had been asked by a Memphis mob connected topless club owner Arthur Wayne Baldwin to put out a contract on James Earl Ray. Kirk, who had some lethal connections at the Brushy Mountain Penitentiary, could have organized the hit but he became suspicious. Baldwin did not reach him that first time, and he had to return the call. When he did call back, he realized that the number was to a suite of rooms in an hotel near the Memphis airport, where a suite of rooms was kept by the local US Attorney’s office and the FBI and used to interview witnesses and for other purposes. He thought that he might have been set up, and so he decided to contact Ray’s lawyer and another effort to silence James was aborted.

Baldwin had died, but as noted earlier, when I spoke with him in 1994 at the Shelby County Penal Farm, he basically confirmed Tim Kirk’s story. Baldwin also mentioned another effort, in which he himself was actually to participate in the killing of James. He said James’s continued presence at the time of the HSCA hearings was a source of serious concern and worry to Carlos Marcello and consequently to the Memphis godfather, who he recalled had tongue lashed Liberto for not killing Ray at the time.

The Media

Half a day was occupied with the testimony of Attorney William Schapp, who we qualified as an expert on government use of the media for disinformation and propaganda purposes. After providing the jury with survey of these practices by governments throughout history in a detailed question and answer exchange, Schapp introduced the court to these practices of the United States Government in other cases or issues, where intelligence and/or national security interests were believed to be involved. A number of examples were cited. One, for example, involved a CIA propaganda story that was spread all over the world and widely believed for some four years, that Cuban troops fighting in Angola had:

1) raped Angolan women 2) were tried and convicted of these crimes 3) were executed by the victims

In fact none of the above was true. The story was revealed by the agent who promulgated it to be false and to have been totally concocted at the CIA station in Zaire and disseminated through the extensive world-wide agency network. Schapp revealed that the agency alone – not to mention its counterparts in the rest of the American intelligence community – owned or controlled some 2,500 media entities all over the world. In addition, it has its people ranging from stringers to highly visible journalists and editors in virtually every major media organization. As we have seen and were indeed experiencing every day of the trial, this inevitably results in the suppression or distortion of sensitive stories and the planting and dissemination of disinformation.

He then turned to the coverage of the King assassination and examined the extraordinary universal media hostility against Dr. King when he came out against the Vietnam war, and the same reaction against his family when they decided to advocate a trial for James Earl Ray. Cited were specific examples of media distortion and blatant lies, which characterized the media coverage of the case and James Earl Ray’s alleged role for over 30 years. Particular mention was made of the totally baseless New York Times front page column piece reporting on alleged investigations by the FBI, the HSCA, and the Times of the 1967 Alton Illinois bank robbery. This piece was far worse than distorted or slanted reporting, since the investigations did not take place and the Ray brothers were never even suspects as the Times article stated. It was a domestic example of the type of pure fabrication similar to the story about the Angolan rapes.

Schapp explained that a Harvard neurologist had helped him to understand the power of the neurological impact upon human cognizance, intellectual functioning, and reasoned decision making when the same story is told over and over again. That impact makes the story a knee jerk part of the people who are exposed to it. Even if they are convinced on one occasion, by powerful evidence to the contrary, the next day will usually find them reverting to the long held belief, which has became a part of themselves – often integral to their very identity. Nothing less than some sort of intense de-programming experience with ongoing reinforcement is required.

After analyzing the powerfully comprehensive control of the media by the forces who control American public policy and examining their identical policy and coverage in terms of the assassination, the systematic brainwashing of Americans in respect of this case became abundantly clear to the court, jury, and those present. Bill Schapp’s analysis and testimony highlighted the absence of the media in our courtroom. In effect by not being there, they proved his point. As noted earlier, only one local television journalist stayed. He was ordered away, and he refused. Probably, only his popularity as a local anchor saved his job for the time being. He was later fired. He – Wendell Stacey – said he was never more disgusted with his profession. He noted that The New York Times and the AP reporter spent much of their time in the hallway outside of the court. They and Court TV would be present when celebrities testified, but for them to remain and hear the evidence might mean that they would have to write about it, and this was surely not what their editors wanted to read.

Considering all of the aspects of the cover up in this case, the ongoing media role is the most sinister precisely because it, if not powerfully controverted, as was done with the trial, perpetuates the lies and disinformation from one generation to the next, for all time.

The Defendant’s Prior Admissions

The defendant Loyd Jowers had made a number of admissions over the years, which, taken cumulatively, constituted powerful evidence of his knowing involvement in the assassination. A number of witnesses took the stand, each with a particular piece of the picture of Jowers’s role.

Taxi diver James Millner, who met Jowers in the early 1970’s, recounted how he came to work closely with Jowers during 1979 – 1980, seeing him about 8 hours a day. On one occasion during this time some twenty years ago, he testified that Jowers told him that Dr. King was killed not by James Earl Ray but by a law enforcement officer and that he knew all about it.

Millner said that after Jowers told him that Dr. King was actually killed by a law enforcement officer, he added that “You can take that to the bank.” After that admission over 20 years ago, it was not until 1998 when Millner said that he carried on a long distance telephone relationship with his friend over a period of two and one half to three months. During these conversations, Millner testified that Jowers essentially told him what happened. He said he asked Jowers if he pulled the trigger, and the response was – “I was involved to a certain extent, but I did not pull the trigger.” He said Jowers stated that Frank Liberto sent him a large sum of money in a produce box. He took it and put it in an old stove. Then, the man he knew as Raul picked it up. Millner continued that Loyd told him that the assassination was planned over two days in meetings in his café attended by five men – only three of whom he knew. Millner testified that Jowers identified an old police buddy with whom he used to ride, inspector John Barger, a black MPD undercover officer, Marrell McCollough, introduced by Barger, and a hunting buddy, lieutenant Earl Clark. But he insisted that two other men were present that he didn’t know.

Millner said that Jowers told him that Frank Liberto instructed him to be at his back door around 6:00 PM where he would receive a “package.” He was there, heard a shot, and then took the “still smoking” rifle from his friend Earl Clark. Then, he tried to flush the cartridge shell down his toilet, but it stopped it up. When he retrieved it later that night, he threw it in the Mississippi River. The next morning, Jowers said, Raul picked up the rifle.

As noted earlier, J. J. Isabel testified confirming his earlier statement that he and Jowers each drove a chartered bus to Cleveland, taking a group of Memphis bawlers to a tournament on St. Patrick’s day in 1979 or 1980. They shared a hotel room, and after dinner and beers (with Jowers having more than a few) as they sat on their beds talking, Isabel said Jowers confirmed his knowledge about involvement in the assassination. Isabel said Jowers’s response gave him pause. He dropped the subject and never raised it again.

The jury had, of course, previously heard from Bill Hamblin that his roommate James McCraw had maintained over a 15 year period that Jowers had given him the actual murder weapon on the day after the killing and told him to get rid of it, which he did by throwing it off the Memphis – Arkansas bridge into the Mississippi river. In his earlier deposition, McCraw only event so far as to admit that Jowers showed him the actual murder rifle on the morning after the shooting. It was hardly surprising that he concealed his true role and only discussed the extent of his involvement with his friend when he was dunk refusing to broach the subject when he was sober.

Also as dicussed earlier, Bobbi Balfour, (Betty Spates sister, previously “Smith”) one of Jowers’s waitresses, testified that on the morning of the day of the assassination, Jowers instructed her not, as had been her daily practice, to bring food upstairs in the rooming house to Grace Stephens who was bedridden and recuperating from an illness. Grace and Charlie Stephens’s room was right next to the one rented by James Earl Ray in mid afternoon, and which appears to have been used by Raul for staging activity with James having been kept outside of it by instructions from Raul on one pretext or another for most of the time.

Ms. Balfour also testified that Jowers picked her up and drove her to work the next morning. On the way, she said that he told her that the police found the murder weapon out behind the café.

Betty Spates story, which first surfaced in 1992, was put into evidence as a rebuttal witness through her deposition and her earlier affidavits, in which stated that standing at the backdoor of the café’s kitchen around 6:00 PM on April 4, 1964 when she saw Loyd, her boss and lover running from the bushes carrying a rifle. His face was white as a sheet, and the knees of his trousers were wet and muddied. Rushing by her, she said he broke down the rifle, then wrapping it in a cloth he carried it into the Grill, where he put it under the counter. For all of the intervening years, Betty Spates thought Loyd, himself, was the assassin because she didn’t see anyone else out in the bushes.

Defense counsel Garrison attacked Spates credibility quoting from a statement she gave to the Shelby County District Attorney General’s and FBI investigators, in which she denied seeing anything. She subsequently had told me that she felt threatened by the two official investigators. We intended to call defendant Jowers at this stage of the proceedings, but after the first week of the trial, his health deteriorated preventing his return to the courtroom. Consequently, we read portions of his deposition into evidence. That evidence included the statements discussed earlier that he confirmed he made in a December 16, 1993, television interview with Sam Donaldson on his Prime Time Live program, in which he admitted that he became involved in facilitating the assassination at the request of Memphis mobster Frank Liberto, to whom he owed a big favor. As noted earlier, he was told that there would be no police around and that a patsy (James Earl Ray) was in place, who did not know what was going to happen.

The most critical testimony and in terms of evidence damning admissions by Loyd Jowers came from Ambassador Andrew Young and Dexter Scott King. Dexter participated in two separated meetings with Mr. Jowers. The first session was in my presence, and the second was with Ambassador Andrew Young at the table. On both occasions, Mr. Jowers was accompanied by his attorney Lewis Garrison.

Both Dexter and Andrew Young testified that Jowers, admitted being approached by Frank Liberto who told him that his assistance was required for the operation and that there would be no police around at the time and that they had a patsy lined up, would received a lot of money, which he was to turn over to a person, named Raul, who would visit him and who would leave a rifle with him.

He said these events took place, and subsequently, there were meetings in his grill, where the assassination was actually planned. Attending those sessions were Jowers and MPD friend inspector John Barger, who Jowers said introduced Marrell McCollough, another senior MPD inspector, (whom he named) and MPD lieutenant Earl Clark.

The testimony revealed that Jowers said that on the day, Earl Clark collected the rifle from him within an hour of the killing. The next time he saw it was when he said, he took it from Clark when it was still smoking after the shot. Jowers said he tried to flush the shell casing door the toilet in the rear off the grill, but it stopped it up. Eventually, he said he threw it into the Mississippi river. According to Jowers’s version, on this occasion, the actual murder weapon was picked up the next day by one of Liberto’s people.

Jowers insisted that he didn’t know who was going to be killed and contended that he did not participate in the planning sessions. Both Dexter King and Andrew Young testified that on this point, they didn’t believe him. They agreed that he appeared to be an old man waiting to relieve himself of a great burden, but that he didn’t quite seem able to bring himself to be completely truthful as to his role and the extent of his knowledge in first of the victim’s son.

This, of course, would explain whey he would not admit being out in the bushes with the shooter or directing James McCraw to get rid of the murder weapon as is indicated by other evidence.

The interview session conducted by Dexter King and Andrew Young was tape-recorded, and that recording authenticated by Ambassador Young was introduced into evidence in its entirety.

It is interesting that while he told Millner that he did not know the other two men at the planning sessions in his café and that Raul picked up the rifle the day after the killing, in the King / Young interviews, he named a fourth man (an MPD inspector) who participated, and he said that one of Frank Liberto’s people picked up the murder weapon on the morning of April 5.

Damages

The King family did not bring the action for the purpose of obtaining a large damage award against Loyd Jowers or his co-conspirator agents of the City of Memphis, State of Tennessee, and the Federal Government. The family decided to request only nominal damages in the amount of $100 toward the funeral expenses of their loved one. Three of the five family members testified with great dignity. Mrs. King, Dexter, and Yolanda, each in her or his own special way told the jury what it meant to lose Martin King as a husband and a father. From their perspectives, the jury and the court had a unique opportunity to focus on the personal loss to young children of a loving, caring, and playful father, as well as the sudden absence suffered by their mother as she was traumatically separated from her lifetime partner with whom as one she had experienced joy and sadness, success, and setbacks, tribulation, and adulation. One began to set a glimpse of the burden of being the close family of a man, a human being, who becomes a legendary, heroic figure in life, then mythologized, and perhaps beatified if not sainted on earth. (At this writing, Martin King has been declared a Martyr by the Vatican - the first step toward sainthood.)

The Case For The Defense

Defense counsel, Garrison, as experienced as any member of the Memphis bar called this case the most important litigation, he had tried in his 40 years of practice. He had been, however, placed in a most difficult position by his client’s admissions driven by a desire, on the one hand to obtain immunity from prosecution (which began in 1993) and on the other to unburden his conscience in his waning years. The defense therefore took the position that Mr. Jowers had no liability, but if he did, it was minuscule compared with that of the co-conspirators who were agents of the city, state and federal governments. The strategy was to minimize Jowers involvement, and consequently, it made little sense not to acknowledge the role played by the alleged co-conspirators.

Therefore, throughout the presentation of the plaintiff’s case, defense focused on eliciting evidence from relevant witnesses on cross-examination, which tended to minimize his client’s involvement though not that of the co-conspirators.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, the defense moved for a dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiff’s wrongful death action had been field outside of the one year statute of limitations. We argued that the statute only began to run after Dexter king’s first meeting with Loyd Jowers and actually heard for the first time the account of his personal involvement. The meeting was held on March 2, 1998, and the action filed on October 2, 1998 within the year. No proof was offered that the plaintiff’s or any of them had access to reliable information about the defendant’s role as well as any opportunity to test his credibility. Plaintiffs, for a considerable time, diligently sought an opportunity to learn the truth from the defendant, and as soon as the meeting with Dexter was agreed, it was held without delaying.

After extensive oral argument, the Judge denied the motion.

The most hotly disputed defense motion, and the last before Lewis Garrison opened his case, was for a mistrial based upon the inability of his client to attend the trial and assist with his defense due to his deteriorating health condition. A doctor’s letter was provided in support. It was true that Jowers had been absent after the first week, and we had considered going to his home in order to take his deposition. We ultimately decided against doing this when he informed us through his attorney that he would invoke the fifth amendment throughout.

We argued that the mistrial was not timely or warranted since we at the outset had fully disclosed our witness list and the scope of their expected testimony to the defense, which had ample time to prepare. Since the defendant had made it clear that he was unwilling to testify in his own behalf either in front of the jury or by deposition, his presence or absence was irrelevant.

The Judge was also unhappy with the language of the doctor’s letter noting that it did not explicitly state that Jowers was unable to attend court or testify.

The court denied the motion for a mistrial, and the defense moved on with its case.

First, he called the Reverend Samuel “Billy” Kyles. In response to questions put to him on direct examination, Reverend Kyles described his civil rights experiences in Tennessee and the events surrounding the sanitation workers strike and Dr. King’s visit. He said that they were all under surveillance and he referred to the Redditt – Richmond surveillance operation which was conducted from the rear of the fire station. He said that he learned that one of the black officers (He was referring to Willie B. Richmond.) engaged in that activity was so troubled by it that he became an alcoholic, left the police force, and died, implying that he committed suicide. He gave his usual account of how he went into Dr. King’s room about an hour before the assassination, spent the last hour of Dr. King’s life with him. He described their conversation or “preacher talk.” He gave an emotional statement of how he had come to believe that it was God’s will that he had been there to be present when this great man died. He said, inexplicably, that Dr. King did not die using drugs or from engaging in some other criminal, activity but because he was there to help the garbage workers. He described how a little old lady came to one of his speeches and told him how she just wanted to shake his hand because his hand had touched Dr. King. Thus, he considered himself blessed to have had this experience.

When Lewis Garrison surrendered the witness, he was riding high with his credibility intact. After cross-examination was completed, it was in tatters.

At the outset, I decided that my associate Juliet Hill-Akines would conduct the cross-examination of Reverend Kyles. I believed that the level of my personal hostility and disdain was so high that professionally it would be appropriate to ask Juliet to handle cross.

She focused on how he drew pleasure from women, such as the one he described, reaching out to him, and seeking to touch his hand. Then, her questions dealt with Willie B. Richmond indicating not only that he was alive but also that he had testified at this trial. Kyles was surprised. She then walked him through Kyles statement which, of course, refutes his claim to have been in Dr. King’s room observing that he simply knocked on the door, had a few words with Dr. King who then closed the door, and Kyles walked over to the balcony some way down from the room.

Reverend Kyles said that statement was simply not true. He could not explain, however, why the officer would lie about these simple facts.

Then, Juliet played a videotape of a speech given him on the thirtieth anniversary of the assassination. In it, he described again how he spent Dr. King’s last hour on earth with him and Reverend Abernathy in Room 306. Then, as he described how he and Dr. King stood together on the balcony at the railing, he seemed to get carried away and became transfixed as he said at one point: -

“. . . only as I moved away so he could have a clear shot, the shot rang out. . .”

The jury and the Judge looked stunned.

Juliet played the tape three times, so it became very clear that he had, in fact, somehow admitted stepping aside so that a shooter could get a clear shot.

When she asked him who he was thinking about getting a clear shot, he said, he supposed it would have been James Earl Ray.

At one point during cross-examination, Kyles mouthed silently to her “You should be ashamed of yourself.”

When he was dismissed, he walked behind the attorneys’ chairs and asked Garrison – “What did you get me into?” Garrison replied “I just called you as a witness.”

Yolanda King was in court that day and had the very uncomfortable experience of sitting through Reverend Kyles testimony.

Next, the defense called Frank Warren Young from the Shelby County Criminal Clerk’s office. He brought with him the original transcript of the record of the guilty plea hearing and authenticated it so that it could be placed in evidence and in the record. The defense thus ensured that James Earl Ray’s guilty plea was in evidence four the jury’s review.

On cross-examination, I asked the witness to focus on particular aspects of the transcript.

I asked him look at the first pages of the transcript and observe whether or not James Earl Ray had been put under oath by Judge Preston Battle. (Required practice during a guilty plea hearing) He had not been sworn. I next asked him to read James’s interruption of the proceedings when he stated that he had never agreed with Ramsey Clark or J. Edger Hoover that there had been no conspiracy and he did not want to do so now.

Upon request, he read the state’s representations about: The existence of the second Mustang, (which they falsely claimed at the time was the only Mustang); the eyewitness Charlie Stephens (who was actually too drunk to have seen anything); the dropping of the bundle in front of Canipes (the jury had already heard Judge Hanes testify about Canipes’s statement); and the deliberative misrepresentation of the dent in the windowsill, about which it was stated that forensic evidence would conclusively establish “. . .will match the markings on the barrel of the rifle in evidence.” (after Attorney Lesar had introduced a FBI laboratory report stating that this was not possible.)

As their next witness, the defense called former MPD lieutenant Eli Arkin. Arkin, who was a senior intelligence officer, confirmed that he had picked up detective Redditt at the fire station and eventually, after the meeting in the MPD Central Headquarters, on director Holloman’s instructions, he took him to his home. Shortly after they arrived, there the assassination took place.

Lieutenant Arkin then confirmed that elements of the 111th Military Intelligence Group worked out of his office for some time during the sanitation workers strike.

On cross-examination, he denied ever meeting or talking with any of the Alpha 184, Special Forces team in Memphis on the day of the assassination. Eli Arkin’s confirmation of the presence and activity of the 111th Military Intelligence Group in Memphis added to the defense’s mitigating claim.

The first wife of lieutenant Earl Clark, Rebecca Clark, was called as the next defense witness. Prior to her testimony, she had asked for a copy of her deposition to review and was provided with it. Mr. Garrison established that her husband kept a large collection of guns and that he was an expert shot. She said that she got off work at 4:00 PM that day and that it took her about 10 – 15 minutes to get home, so she arrived home around 4:15 PM. She then said she believed that her husband got home about an hour or so later and lay down for a nap which lasted 30 – 40 or 45 minutes until a report came over the police walkie talkie radio, which he left on the dining room table for her to monitor.

When the word of the assassination came through, she woke him up, and he told her to go and get his clean uniform from the cleaners before they closed. She set out for the cleaners which was about 15 minutes away, and he took a bath. When she returned, he left.

Attorney Garrison raised the fact that kind of walkie talkie, she was talking about, was not available during those times. She couldn’t comment on that she said she only knew what she heard.

On cross-examination, I came back several times to the question of whether she was lying to protect not her dead divorced husband but her children and, of course, himself. She denied that she would lie for that purpose. One major problem with her alibi for her former husband was the timing of the events, which she described, and the conflict between her earlier recollections in her deposition of April, 1999 and her current story.

In her deposition, she clearly stated that she usually worked until 3:00 PM, but on that day, she worked until 4:00 PM. She also stated that her husband came home” fairly soon” after she had arrived. She set the time of his unannounced arrival at some 10 – 15 minutes after her own. She also indicated that he was not asleep very long when the announcement came on the radio. In court, she now remembers that he could have arrived as much as 45 minutes after her, putting it at or around 5:00 PM, and that his nap could have lasted for quite some time – an hour or more.

It clearly appeared to me that she was trying to cover up for an unexplained period of an hour, which may have meant both she and her husband Clark came home earlier and that he left earlier well before the assassination.

As discussed later, we subsequently learned that the cleaners would have been closed by the time she should arrived – around 6:30 PM. At that time, Mr. Dent the owner would be at home having dinner with his family. We would also learn that she did not go near the cleaners that afternoon but that her husband who was not home did go there himself. We would also confirm that the kind of Walkie Talkie radio which she said her husband brought home was definitely not in use at the time.

Attorney Garrison read portions of a “John Doe November 5, 1999, telephonic deposition into the record. The witness, who contacted Garrison, declared that he was involved in the assassination of Martin King present to a $400,000 contract for the killing put out by Water Reuther the leader of the United Auto workers. He contended that Reuther was being pressed by Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson. Because of Dr. King’s anti war activity and that Carlo Marcello cooperated but was not directly involved, and James Earl Ray was not even there having left for Atlanta.

Attorney Garrison completed reading, his portions of the telephone deposition I advised a court that we had concluded that this witness was providing misinformation and false evidence, and I referred to Page 56 of the deposition and read his response to my question on cross-examination with respect to him arriving at his position at the corner of the brush area near the wall. When I asked him how long he took to get there in his position from the time he entered the parking lot area, which was adjacent to the brush area behind the rooming house, he replied only a couple of minutes. When I asked him if he encountered any impediment as he passed through the area to his position, he said None except for the bushes, through which he had to make through his way. We then put up on the screen a photograph taken within a day or so of the assassination showing the area behind the rooming house. Very clearly visible on the photograph was fence which was at about five feet tall and which around east and west from the north side of the rooming house all the way down to the very edge of the wall. For the witness to have passed through this area and not having on countered, this fence was unimaginable. Since there were even some barbed wire strands across the top, it would have required some effort to climb over it.

Based upon this particular fact and other statements he made, which did not conform to facts we knew about the case including the Caliber bullet retrieved from Dr. King, we concluded that this witness was not credible.

The defense had subpoenaed Marvin Glankler, the investigator in charge of the Shelby County District Attorney General’s last investigation, and Retired Judges James Beasley and Robert Dwyer who were Assistant Attorneys General in 1968, prepared the state'’ case against James Earl Ray and in Beasley’s case actually presented the state’s evidence to the guilty plea jury. Garrison said that initially they told him they would be pleased to take the stand and defend their work and the case against James.

By early December close to the time they were due to take the stand, their positions had changed. A motion to quash the subpoena was filed on their behalf by the State Attorney General. Argued out of the presence of the jury, the Judge denied the motion and ordered the former Judges to appear. Meanwhile, Marvin Glankler, out of turn, arrived at the courthouse along with a representative of the anti-drug task force, which he now headed. The Judge’s order required him to take the stand but with Glankler outside of the courtroom, the state’s lawyer and the task force official argued in a bench conference that his testimony could destroy his cover and jeopardize the sensitive operation. It was finally agreed that Glankler would take the stand, but that the cameras would avoid showing or photographing his face. He was sworn in and began his testimony.

Garrison attempted repeatedly to draw information form Glankler on the Attorney General’s investigative report, which was published in 1998. He was met with continual objections from the Assistant Attorney General who was there to represent the state, the Shelby County District Attorney General and, of course, investigator Glankler. The state lawyer was up and down like a jack in the box. His intention was clearly to limit Glankler’s testimony to the maximum extent possible. He basically contended that the report should speech for itself, and since Glankler did not write it, he could not comment on it. Garrison was able to extract the facts that the District Attorney General’s office began an investigation in 1993 and ended it in 1998. That he, Glankler, was the Chief investigator, and that the investigation may have included statements taken from some 40 witnesses.

On cross-examination, I took a different tack. I asked Glankler if he had interviewed 25 named witnesses, the evidence from all of whom had already been heard by the jury. I asked him about each one in turn. Of the 25, he had interviewed only two. He had not even heard of most of the others. The negative impact on the credibility of the District Attorney General’s investigation and report was evident in the expression of disbelief on the jurors’ faces.

The defense next called LaVada Whitlock Addison, Nathan Whitlock’s mother, and as noted earlier, she testified in detail about the time in her café when her regular customer, Memphis produce man Frank Liberto told her that he had arranged the killing of Martin Luther King. She said that she ran the little pizza parlor – which was between Liberto’s home and his warehouse in the Scott Street market – between 1976 and 1982. She said that Liberto would stop in four or five times a week starting in 1977 and that they developed a good relationship, one in which he would often confide in her about various things. He trusted and liked her. On the day in question, she said they were sitting together at two tables pushed together, and something came on the television about Dr. King. (The congressional hearings were being televised in 1978.) He leaned forward toward her and said “I had Dr. Martin Luther King killed.” She said, she recoiled and told him – “Don’t be telling me anything like that. I don’t want to hear it. I don’t believe it anyway.” She said that this was the only time he ever mentioned it to her though she saw him many times afterward.

Attorney Garrison read large portion of James Earl Ray’s deposition into the record, which basically set out James’s story and the history of his involvement from the time he escaped from prison in 1967.

After the Spates rebuttal evidence, discussed earlier, was concluded defense counsel Garrison renewed his motion for a mistrial, based upon his client’s absence from court. This was denied promptly, and he then filed a motion for directed verdict, which he argued was justified because the plaintiffs did not meet the required burden of proof. I argued that the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs was overwhelming and that though we had met the standard we decided not to move for a directed verdict in the case because we wanted it to go to the jury.

The Judge denied the motion, and closing arguments began.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General appealed Judge Swearingen’s denial of the motion to quash the subpoenas served upon Judges Beasley and Dwyer to the Court of Appeals and the Court promptly overturned the ruling and ordered the subpoena quashed. Judges Beasley and Dwyer were spared the inevitable uncomfortable task of defending the state’s investigation and justifying certain representations made on March 10, 1969 to the guilty plea hearing jury.

The Closing Arguments

Over a period of nearly two hours, I took the jury through the evidence, step by step, reminding them that the King family had brought this trial because the initial investigation was badly flawed and had not been remedied by any subsequent official local or federal investigation. I reminded them that the truth had been covered up for 31 years but that in this courtroom, even though the media had been absent most of the time and the outside world had not learned about the evidence or even heard about the trial, the truth had been revealed. As Martin King after said “Truth crushed to earth shall rise again” – and so it did.

During the last half-hour with the use of computer graphics, we took the jury through the last 21 minutes of Dr. King’s life and the eleven minutes immediately following the killing.

Lewis Garrison contended that if his client had any liability, he was at worst only a small cog in the conspiracy, which took Martin Luther King’s life. He tried to focus the jury’s attention on the city, state, and federal government as well on James Earl Ray.

The Jury Instructions

By late morning, we were finished and the Judge instructed the jury. He gave the standard instructions, defining direct and circumstantial evidence, advising them that they and only they must decide questions of fact and how much weight to put on the various aspects of evidence, which had been laid before them, while he would determine the law. He reminded them that they must find for the plaintiffs if they found that the plaintiffs’ allegations were proved by a preponderance of the evidence, in other words if the allegations were more likely true than not. On the issue of damages, he reminded them that they were bound by the parties’s stipulation that the damages should no exceed $100 – a payment toward the funeral expenses.

Finally, he told them that he had prepared a jury verdict sheet, which contained those questions to be answered.

1. Did the defendant Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King? If yes,
2. Did you also find that others including governmental agencies were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant?
3. What is the total amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs?

The case went to the jury just before lunch.

The Verdict

It took the jury about one hour to decide. After nearly four weeks of trial and some 70 witnesses they found that:

1. YES – Loyd Jowers participated in a conspiracy to do harm to Martin Luther King.
2. YES – Others including governmental agencies were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant.
3. The total damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs are $100.

 

The Judgment

The issue of comparative liability was agreed to rest with the Judge. Based on the evidence before him, Judge Swearingen apportioned liability as follows:

 

 


 

The Transcription of the King
Family Press Conference on the
MLK Assassination Trial Verdict

December 9, 1999
Atlanta , GA

Coretta Scott King: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America . It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. As we pursued this case, some wondered why we would spend the time and energy addressing such a painful part of the past. For both our family and the nation, the short answer is that we had to get involved because the system did not work. Those who are responsible for the assassination were not held to account for their involvement. This verdict, therefore, is a great victory for justice and truth. It has been a difficult and painful experience to revisit this tragedy, but we felt we had an obligation to do everything in our power to seek the truth. Not only for the peace of mind of our family but to also bring closure and healing to the nation. We have done what we can to reveal the truth, and we now urge you as members of the media, and we call upon elected officials, and other persons of influence to do what they can to share the revelation of this case to the widest possible audience. I know that this has been a difficult case for everyone involved. I thank the jury and Judge Swearington for their commitment to reach a just verdict, I want to also thank our attorneys, Dr. William Pepper and his associates for their hard work and tireless dedication in bringing this case to justice. Dr. Pepper has put many years of his life, as well as his financial resources, into this case. He has made significant personal sacrifices to pursue the search for the truth about my husband's assassination.

I want to thank my son Dexter, who showed great courage and perseverance and who took a lot of unmerited and personal attacks so we could get to the truth about the assassination. And I want to thank my other children, Yolanda, Martin and Bernice who have kept the faith, refused to become embittered and have remained steadfast in their efforts to pursue the truth of their father's assassination. My husband once said, "The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Today, almost 32 years after my husband and the father of my four children was assassinated, I feel that the jury's verdict clearly affirms this principle. With this faith, we can begin the 21st century and the new millennium with a new spirit of hope and healing.

Dexter King: I would just like to say that this is such a heavy moment for me. Yet while my heart is heavy, and this is a bittersweet occasion, bitter because we are dealing with tragedy, a tragedy that occurred some 32 years ago, but, yet today, we are still dealing with it. It is sweet because finally we know what happened. Sweet because this family has been vindicated, sweet because we can say that we are truly free at last. We can now move on with our lives. I want to give a real thanks to my mother, for her leadership and her tireless effort in carrying this burden all this time. You know we as children at that time were so young that we did not really understand what was going on. To my siblings, who have been here and been steadfast, to my aunt, we as a family have been unified around this effort. We finally got what we have been asking for, the opportunity to present evidence that we always felt would bring the truth out in a court of law. To have had 12 individual jurors to bear what we have been saying, that if the American public were allowed to really hear, they too would conclude what has now been concluded by those 12. I want to make a special thanks to Dr. William Pepper, for really if it were not for his efforts, we would not have known about this. We really would not have gotten involved. We can say that because of the evidence and information obtained in Memphis we believe that this case is over. This is a period in the chapter. We constantly hear reports, which troubles me, that this verdict creates more questions than answers. That is totally false. Anyone who sat in on almost four weeks of testimony, with over seventy witnesses, credible witnesses I might add, from several judges to other very credible witnesses, would know that the truth is here. The question now is, "What will you do with that?" We as a family have done our part. We have carried this mantle for as long as we can carry it. We know what happened. It is on public record. The transcripts will be available; we will make them available on the Web at some point. Any serious researcher who wants to know what happened can find out.

And I just want to state for the record for once and for all, that those of you in the media who may innocently be reporting that inaccuracy, you know, because you may be legitimately ignorant about the facts, I want to clear that up now. Those of you who may be a part of the media manipulation, you to can hear this. The word that always comes forth first, that James Earl Ray confessed, is not true. He never confessed. He pleabargained. Any of you that understand the legal process understand that plea bargain is not the same as a confession. Why? Essentially it is put forth in an effort to get a lenient sentence. Also, it is an admission to having committed the crime. The second thing, is that this verdict was not, as has been reported, a conspiracy that said others were involved other than James Earl Ray. That is not what that jury voted on. I want to be clear about that. They clearly voted on evidence that stated that James Earl Ray was not the shooter, that he was set up, that he was an unknown patsy. That Lloyd Jowers, along with his coconspirators, that the jury also concluded involved state, local and federal agencies. I want to be clear about that, because you keep hearing duplicitous reports. I also want to put to rest for once and for all, that no one is qualified to speak on this case except the people who were there, the jurors, the family and, of course, the legal team. Just because someone says they marched with Dr. King does not make them an authority on this subject, whether they are political conduits or government publicists who continue to recycle these lies and continue to discredit this family. This is what happened to my father. There is a very distinct process or protocol that happens when there is an issue of national security. First, there is an attempt to discredit ones credibility. Second, there is harassment. And finally, if that does not work, termination or elimination. That is what happened to our loved one, because he challenged the establishment. He spoke out against the war in Vietnam . He talked about dealing with poverty, by taking poor people to Washington . There was also an interest in the political process. He became too powerful. Let us not forget, as my mother said, that it was the failure of the system to do the right thing by its citizens, who first and foremost caused and created a Martin Luther King Jr. and others to get out on the front line and be beaten, brutalized and even killed. And now, it is the failure of the system to do the right thing, which is now to find out who killed this man. Because they themselves will have to show bloody hands. So it is left up to our efforts as private citizens, as he was a private citizen who had to seek other means through private regress. We thank God for democracy. There is still in America a system, even with all of its shortcomings, that in some cases justice can be achieved. So we believe that this verdict speaks to that last bastion of this democracy. Where 12 independent people could hear something and that you and I am also given the opportunity to hear and to know. So in that regard we celebrate.

Finally, we know that because this has occurred after 32 years, we can finally move on with our lives. We don't care what the justice department does. This is another misnomer. We did not do this to force their hand. I doubt seriously that they will indict themselves, for who polices the police? That is up to the American public. We, [the King family] have done our part. Those of you, if you find it in your hearts to get the "powers that be" to officialize what 12 independent people have already done, that is your business. We know what happened. This is the period at the end of the sentence. Please, after today, we do not want questions like; "do you believe that James Earl Ray killed your father?" I have been hearing that all of my life. No, I don't. This is the end of it. Thank you.

Martin Luther King, III: First I want to say, well done brother, well said. On behalf of all of the persons who worked with my father and as the spokesperson of the organization that he cofounded, SCLC, I don't think that I can say much more than what my brother Dexter has said, and what my mother has said. Certainly this has been a very, very long time coming. It essentially says that the truth can in fact come through. It essentially says that if you keep working forward, sometimes for some, even in the twilight, that one day you will reach the conclusion of truth. This could not have happened without a lot of people. I too, want to thank Dr. Pepper and his team, who have been working on this for almost 20 plus years. I too, must thank my brother, who basically sat us down and had the courage to encourage us to take on this issue that we knew was going to be a process of maybe, attempting to discredit this family. Some people have said that we are crazy. Some have stated that we were trying to do other things. The only thing we have ever tried to do was to seek that which is true. So while this is in a sense closing for us, or may be the end of a chapter for us, it might be just the beginning for others, as my brother Dexter has stated and my mother has stated.

We are very pleased this day. I hope that this will give others encouragement to always seek that which is true. Thank you.

Bernice King: I guess I will speak, for I have never spoken before regarding the assassination of my father. I was only 3 yearsold. You may remember me as the one in my mother's lap at the funeral. I don't have much to say, because in a real sense I recall words that were spoken when the decision came down from the Supreme Court, regarding the bus boycott in Montgomery , Alabama . The words spoken were that "God had spoken" from the Supreme Court. I think that God has spoken from 12 independent jurors in Memphis , Tennessee concerning my father's assassination. As somewhat the spiritual leader for this family, because I am an ordained Christian Minister, I have to truly give praise to God for what has happened. We cannot know that God is not a liar. He has spoken his word that I will never leave you, not forsake you, that I will be with you until the end of the earth. So I praise God for what may happen. I thank God for my family. My family praises God for Attorney William Pepper, for his diligent and tireless efforts. There is a word in scripture that says do not be weary in what you are doing, for in due season you will reap if you faint not. Today, we have reaped a harvest, not only for us alone, but also for this nation. And I believe that ultimately God is going to speak even more truth in regards to the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., because as we said from the beginning, even though we needed a sense of peace and satisfaction to have the record set straight, the reality is that it is not who killed Martin Luther King, Jr., but as we go forth into the new millennium, as a nation, but what killed Martin Luther King, Jr. Because whenever we get to what killed Martin Luther King, Jr., then we will deal with the various injustices that we face as a nation and ultimately as a nation that leads this world. So I thank God for what has happened. I thank the American people for their voices that have been relentless in this pursuit in various ways. Even to those who have not been able to speak at this point, I thank God for their prayers.

William Pepper: Ladies and Gentlemen, this great republic has throughout it's history, has been afraid to face the issues that Martin Luther King tried to confront at the end of his life. Dexter King said quite frankly, that Martin King opposed the war in Vietnam , and sought to bring the poor to Washington to rally for their cause in the halls of Congress. They took up tents in the shadow of the Washington Memorial to remind the lawmakers that forces of power in this land that do exist, and they have rights which were being denied to them.

Because he took on those forces, powerful economic forces that dominated politics in this land, they killed him. He was killed because he could not be stopped. He was killed because they feared that half a million people would rise in revolution in the capitol of this country, and do what Mr. Jefferson said needed to be done every 20 years, to cleanse this land. This land has not been cleansed. This nation has not faced the problems that Martin Luther King, Jr. died trying to face and confront. They still exist today, the forces of evil, the powerful economic forces that dominate the government of this land and make money on war and deprive the poor of what is their right, their birthright. They still abound and they rule.

The jury heard the background of Dr. King's crust. They understood, finally, the reason why he was stained. He was not a civil rights leader when he was stained. He was an international figure of great stature. He had a moral banner that he was waving and it was heard and seen all over the land. Here and in Europe, Southeast Asia . He had that kind of compelling presence. He was a danger and a threat to the status quo. So he was eliminated.

What the jury also heard, from all of those witnesses for almost four weeks, was that he was assassinated because of the removal of the all police protection when he was in the city of Memphis . Even Black Firemen were taken away. His body guard staff were removed. Attack forces were moved back. On and on it went. And then the Mafia involvement with Jowers was put forth in excruciating detail of how this was planned and who was behind this.

The man who controlled James Earl Ray was identified by independent witnesses from spreads of photographs they had seen. Like a British journalist showed a photograph of this man to his daughter and she said anybody could get this photo of my father identifying him heading others. A Portuguese journalist met with the family and was told how the government of the United States was protecting this man. Now, in their homes protecting their phones. Who is this person? Who is this person that the government continues to protect? Against what kind of assault?

Then the proof goes into the broader conspiracy. The fact that had you known that there were photographers on the roof of the fire station. Had you known that two army photographers were on the roof of the fire station photographing everything. Two cameras, one on the balcony and one whisking around the driveway and into the brush area. Did you know ladies and gentlemen that the assassination was photographed? That there were photographs buried in the archives at the Department of Defense? No you did not know. And you know why you did not know? Because there was no police investigation in this case. No house to house investigation. Neighbors as late as two weeks later stated "they never knocked on my door, now let me tell you what I saw." And she takes the stand and she tells what she saw.

She tells that she saw a fireman tell the police that the shot came from those bushes there, and the police ignored him. Seeing a man run from an alley and get into a car and is whipped away right in front of the police. And the police not bothering at all to stop him. No, no, no, you did not know about any of this did you? They didn't talk to the Captain who ran the fire station. No one talked to that man in thirty years. He put the photographers up there. He took the stand and stated, "yeah I put them up there. They showed me credentials saying they wanted to take pictures."

Where are those pictures? That proof has existed for all of these years. It's there. It has been buried. The tragedy of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a tragedy for this family here. This family in my view is America's first family because of their struggle and for what they have stood for, going back for generations, going back to 1917, the first world war period, this family was under surveillance by military intelligence back then. Up to the present time they have been feared. So that is a tragedy for this family. It is a tragedy for this nation and to the world that this man was taken from us when he was.

The third tragedy was the failure of representative democracy to deal with this as a political act. This type of act which was covered up. How was it covered up? Well, the jury heard evidence as to how it was covered up for 31 years. And ladies and gentlemen, the evidence they heard ranged from murder, murder of a poor innocent cab driver who was putting luggage into a taxi cab in the driveway of the Loraine Motel and who saw the shooter come down over the wall, run down Mulberry Street and get into a waiting Memphis Police traffic car to be driven away. He told his dispatcher, "Oh, they got the killer. I saw him being driven away in a Memphis Police Department traffic car." What happened to that poor taxi cab driver? He was interviewed by the police that night and they found his body the next morning. NO record of that death exists. NO record exists. If we had not found people whom he had told that story, who heard him on the very night we would have never known about this.

Then we have to go to the directories and find out who was his wife and who he was. To see his listings in the directories in 66 and 67, and then in 68, see "Betty" his widow. He is dead, he is gone and he is history. So it goes from murder, down through bribery. James Earl Ray was offered large sums of money on two occasions: when he was in prison and a pardon if he would plead guilty. He did not do it. There was evidence of attempted assassination of James when he was in prison. Evidence was produced of how they tried to get rid of James, how they tried to kill him when he was in prison. We went all through all of that. Then ladies and gentlemen, the media. Because this could not have been covered up without the help of the media. This is not a condemnation of the good works of journalists who come and write stories and put them through to your editors and watch them publish, or television cameramen who do your jobs as you are supposed to do it. It has to do with forces that ultimately decide what gets on the air, what gets in print and what the slant is. So we put Bill Shat who is one of the leading experts on media this information and propaganda used by government on the stand, and he explained in detail how governments have done this historically and how they have done it down to the present time. He explained how they took this family on when they decided they were going to come out for a trial for James Earl Ray. And how they took Martin King on when he came out against the war in Vietnam .

And remember, when Dr. King came out against that war, it made everyone come out against him. The media attacked him like there was no tomorrow. Just like the media attacked his family like there is no tomorrow when they did what was right. It is the job of the media to disclose. Not the job to hide. This has been covered up, it has been hidden all of these years. Now the jury has spoken. And what did the verdict say? And they are going to be trotted out and here comes the spins, "Oh the Judge was asleep during a lot of the trial and he didn't hear a lot of the evidence. Oh there was a lot of hearsay there." Not mentioning the admissions against interest are omitted if there is hearsay.

One thing after another like this by people who have never seen him, who have never heard him, who are not interested in the efforts, but who have got a locked in position that says that there was a lone assassin and that is always the way it is going to be. Well let us hope that together we can somehow make a step so that we can end this nonsense. We can end this nonsense. We can end this cover up. We can say for once and for all that a jury has spoken. They heard everything. If there is any decency left in this system, it is the fact that you can get 12 people who can hear what other people have to say, they can review documents, there are about 50 exhibits that they were able to review, and they can make up their own minds.

The defense tried several times to have the case dismissed. The Judge refused. So it did go to a jury and that jury has spoken. Let's hope this is a forum, which we can say, is healing. We have reached the truth. The family is satisfied. What the government does, the government can do. The government may do now what it has never done before. If they want to take it up now, let them take it up. The real, real ongoing, almost criminal aspect of the case that still exists, is the fact that this family privately had to do what the government has not done and would not do. Make no mistake about it, all the evidence that was heard in that court over the course of the last 30 days has been available for 32 years. It has been there right in front of them. All they had to do was look, ask questions, believe credible people who were willing to talk to them, and not further go away because there were black shop owners and they didn't know what they heard when he heard the man say, shoot the son of a B when he comes on the balcony. He didn't know and he didn't understand that. This was a businessman from Somerville . In the traditional history of the country, where a person who was a friend and a colleague of a victim, only for one year, the last year of his life, but during that year the friend and colleague of the victim decided 20 years later the convicted murderer of that victim. Then eventually came to represent the family in the final quest of justice. That has been the process that I follow. That has been the result. We have at last obtained justice. Martin King was always fond of saying in moments of trial, that truth crushed to earth, no matter how much it is crushed, will always rise again. Ladies and Gentlemen, in that courtroom yesterday in Memphis , Tennessee , finally that truth crushed to earth rose again. Today we acknowledge that truth.

Dexter King: I want to thank all of you for being so patient and for coming out to cover this. At this moment, we have now ended our formal statements and would now like to open it up for questions.

Answer to Question by Dexter King: What should happen next as you have heard, we really have no control over. I don't mean to sound rash or insensitive, but we really don't care at this time. As my father used to say, in healthy self interest, this family is now hoping to cleanse and to heal and move. Closure. This is it for us. We are here to say that we feel that we can move on from here.

Answer to Question by Dexter King: No, no, Mr. Jowers did name names. That is another misnomer. Why is there so much misinformation. The only thing I can say is that if anybody wants to really take time they should read these transcripts. Ironically, I happen to get a call from Mr. Jowers on my way over here on my cell phone. He called to basically say that he wanted the family to know and to express to you, Mother Dear, that he never wanted nor intended any harm to us and that he is glad this is off of his chest. He is glad the jury ruled the way they did. He said that his attorney does not even know that I am talking to you, and I don't care. I don't have much longer and I don't care what is going to happen to me now. He is very afraid of an indictment. That is the reason he was never willing to come forward. Dr. Pepper kept telling him that he did not have to worry, because they do not want the truth, so you are not going to get indicted. If they indict you, that will throw away all the "official" story, which we now know is not

Question: There are many people out there who feel that as long as these conspirators remain nameless and faceless there is no true closure, and no justice.

Dexter King: No, he named the shooter. The shooter was the Memphis Police Department Officer, Lt. Earl Clark who he named as the killer. Once again, beyond that you had credible witnesses that named members of a Special Forces team who didn't have to act because the contract killer succeeded, with plausible denial, a Mafia contracted killer.

Question: I'm sorry, my question goes to the family's feelings. There are those who feel that as long as this greater conspiracy that has remained faceless and nameless and until there are faces and names attached to that conspiracy that justice will not be served. The family doesn't share that view?

Dexter King: Well no, because we know. I guess I am not making myself clear. There is an institutional framework on how these things happen. So if you want to go back and do the research for those who want to know who gives an order. I do know certain things about the military, and the commander in chief has to make certain commitments for certain troops to be committed domestically. In this instance, there was denial that the troops were not there, Special Forces were not there. But in fact, with the Captain of the Firehouse, which Atty. Pepper had on the stand, said he put the Army Special Ops. photographers on the roof. There was another witness that talked about all the Army Officers, a Memphis Police Officer, an inspector who talked about all the army brass that was there. He said that he had never seen that much Army Brass in his office ever before. So all of this information is there. It's just that no one has really looked. This is the most incredible coverup of the century. I can't even believe it. It is mindboggling. But again, if anybody wants to go do the research, and we do live in an age of microwave society and everybody wants things like that (very quickly), but if anyone is serious about sitting down and going through this, they will come up with the same conclusions as we did and 12 other people did as well.

Question: So the family doesn't necessarily want to see those people spend time in jail?

Dexter King: No, we were never in this for a retribution of justice. We follow the spirit of our loved one. He forgave the woman who almost took his life, if you recall, when he was stabbed. I personally witnessed my grandfather forgiving the killer of his wife when I was 13 years of age. The only thing that this family and I have ever talked about is reconciliation. We are a family of love. We try to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. We are never looking to put people in jail. What we are looking to do is cleanse the society because these ills still exist. Just as my sister stated so eloquently, it is not who killed Martin Luther King, Jr., but what killed him and why was he killed. He was killed because he was addressing injustices that today still have not been addressed.

Dexter King: So once again, we want to thank each and every one of you for coming out. We are hopeful about whatever the powers that be decide, but that is on them. But we caution you, be wary. You will be hearing attacks that the family is in this for money. I can tell you and I can show you the receipts. We have spent a lot of money. And we have lost a lot of money because of this. There is no gain. As you know, the verdict rendered a small, nominal sum. We requested a hundred dollars because there had to be some damages, because it was a wrongful death suit. We did that because we were never in this for money. We spent money. We had to pay for some 70 odd witnesses to appear and all their expenses. But you cannot put a price on freedom. And certainly you cannot place a price on death. So the thing we hope for is that we can move forward into this new millennium, coming into the Christmas Season.

Question: Can you tell us something from your conversation this morning with Mr. Jowers?

Dexter King: He simply stated that he wanted me to know, as well as my family and my mother (he asked me about my mother), that he is sorry for all of this. But he said that he is glad that it turned out the way it did. He said what happens, happens. That he does not know what will happen to him as he gets to his age. He is still fearful as a result of all of this that he is going to go to prison. The first time I met with him, that was the first thing he was concerned about. He said, "I don't want to go to jail. I am an old man and I am so afraid." Even though the Justice Department granted him federal immunity, he is concerned and worried about the issue of state immunity, the state of Tennessee . We assured him that if that were the case, we would certainly make a stand to grantimmunity. We would support that kind of thing.

Question: Did he say anything in this conversation about his role in the assassination?

Dexter King: Well not in this conversation, but on several other occasions. At least two occasions that I met with him. At another time he actually called names. It was somewhat of a confessional thing, because he would call me sometimes late into the evening just to talk. You could tell it was a cleansing process. Why does a person who is almost, you know, terminal in a sense....even James Earl Ray was offered a liver transplant he would've just said that he did it. Why would someone take that to their graves? Especially if they had a chance to have a little more life?

Question: This is to Mr. Pepper. Was there anything that came out in the trial that you didn't know about?

William Pepper: Lydia Cayton came forward when the trial was about to begin. She lived just down the street from the Lorraine Motel. On the afternoon of the shooting, she heard the shots and grabbed her two children and ran down to the corner, about 8 minutes after the shooting. One of her neighbors stood with her. She was the one who saw a man run from an alley that connected to a building of the rooming house, and get into a Chevrolet Corvair and drive around the corner, while the police stood there on the corner of Mulberry. She also saw a fireman screaming at the police that a shot came from the bushes. Ms. Cayton's evidence and courage is very important. The courage of the Fire Department Captain to come forward and talk about putting the photographers up on the roof. These people were concerned and frightened. That I think was significant. The testimony of the main witness who talked to the cab driver who was killed, Louis Ward. And the taxi driver who talked about the network television team, who drove to the airport after they had given Mr. Jowers a lie detector test. This was very important.

They gave Mr. Jowers a lie detector test at one point, and you will hear that Mr. Jowers failed the lie detector test. They came in and told him that he failed at the end of it. While this team was being driven to the airport, they were talking about Jowers, and because he knew Mr. Jowers, his ear perked up. He heard the examiner in the front seat say, "There is nothing I can do to get him to waver." And the passengers in the back, asking, "Well how does a man retain so much detail like that? How can he recollect that so accurately?" The front seat passenger said in reply, "I don't know, I couldn't get him to lie." And when a program aired, Jowers was still shown as failing the lie detector test. That cab driver came forward. Another cab driver and security guard, who lived another 15 years, a man called James McGraw, came forward and he tried not to testify, but eventually he did. He said, that a close friend of Mr. Jowers got drunk and every time he was intoxicated over a period of 15 years, and they lived together, he would always go back to one thing he did, that he, McGraw, after the assassination, was told by Jowers to take this rifle and get rid of it. He threw it off of the Memphis Arkansas Bridge into the Mississippi River .

That is where the murder weapon has lain for 32 years. McGraw said he would never talk about it when he was sober, always when he got drunk and the details were always the same. Always the same. He found him credible and McGraw was very close with Jowers. That is the kind of evidence that emerged as the trial went on. The jury found all of this persuasive. A Head of Intelligence, The United States Department admitted that he had no trained intelligence officers in his office and that even they were a nuisance at one point and time. The man who headed the Protective Unit for Dr. King was never informed of the last visit. He stated that they were told to protect him every time he came in early, but not the last time. The man who learned about the change in Dr. King's ,that he was supposed to be in room 201, a courtyard room. That was then changed to room 206, which was an exposed balcony room. Then there is the whole thing about the bushes…the bushes. So many witnesses saw figures in the bushes and the shooter coming down over the bushes and running. You know the next morning at 7 o'clock, Inspector Sam Evans, from the Memphis Police Department pulled Maynard Styles, the Administrator of the Public Works Department and told Mr. Styles to get a team out there and cut those bushes down. At seven a.m., on the 5th of April, a team is sent to cut down the bushes. Now what does that mean in police terms? It means that you have totally devastated and changed the scene of a crime so that it is never the same. If there are no bushes, there can be no sniper. So that is the kind of thing that they did. This unfolded throughout.

The most moving testimony was probably that of a former government operative, a very credible guy of the National Security Council, who is now dying of liver cancer. His best friend was on the sniper unit, 20 Special Forces team there. He told how he learned about that unit and how they were assigned and what they were to do from his buddy back in the seventies. His testimony was riveting, even though it was on a screen, because he was dying from liver cancer and could not attend. There is so much evidence that emerged in the court about a whole range of activity that if I summarize I am going to leave something out. I encourage anyone who is interested to go and review the records, to digest the records and look over them, and the exhibits that are all available. There are certain military documents and certain names in there, even some of my working papers are available. I am asked to remind you that if anyone wants to communicate with me by email, you can at: mailto:wpinclawus@aol.com.. So I am happy to receive any inquiries at any time and any information at any time. We have come to the end of a long road. I encourage you to go and put questions to whoever you want to in government, for it is now in the hands of the government to do whatever they will do. Hopefully, it will not be to continue covering this up. But I would have to be skeptical of any other result. Thank you.


KING FAMILY STATEMENT ON THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT "LIMITED INVESTIGATION" OF THE MLK ASSASSINATION


ATLANTA . . . On behalf of The family of Martin Luther King, Jr, Martin Luther King III today issued the following statement on the U.S. Justice Department's release of its report on their "limited investigation" of recent evidence regarding the assassination of Dr. King

"We learned only hours before the Justice Department press conference that they were releasing the report of their results of their "limited investigation," which covered only two areas of new evidence concerning the assassination of Dr. King. We had requested that we be given a copy of the report a few days in advance so that we might have had the opportunity to review it in detail. Since that courtesy was not extended to us, we are only able at this time to state the following:

1. We initially requested that a comprehensive investigation be conducted by a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, independent of the government, because we do not believe that, in such a politically-sensitive matter, the government is capable of investigating itself.

2. The type of independent investigation we sought was denied by the federal government. But in our view, it was carried out, in a Memphis courtroom, during a month-long trial by a jury of 12 American citizens who had no interest other than ascertaining the truth. (Kings v. Jowers)

3. After hearing and reviewing the extensive testimony and evidence, which had never before been tested under oath in a court of law, it took the Memphis jury only 1½ hours to find that a conspiracy to kill Dr. King did exist. Most significantly, this conspiracy involved agents of the governments of the City of Memphis, the state of Tennessee and the United States of America. The overwhelming weight of the evidence also indicated that James Earl Ray was not the triggerman and, in fact, was an unknowing patsy.

4. We stand by that verdict and have no doubt that the truth about this terrible event has finally been revealed.

5. We urge all interested Americans to read the transcript of the trial on the King Center website and consider the evidence, so they can form their own unbiased conclusions.

Although we cooperated fully with this limited investigation, we never really expected that the government report would be any more objective than that which has resulted from any previous official investigation. In a reasonable period of time, when we have had an opportunity to study the report, we will provide a detailed analysis of it to the media and on the aforementioned website."

For more information, please contact communications@thekingcenter.org.

The King Center thanks Daniel Dillinger Dominski Richberger Weatherford, Inc for their support and assistance in making the posting of this transcript possible.
The King Center gratefully acknowledges the services & contributions of the Data Company of Memphis, TN for trial graphics

SEE Video>>>

http://www.examiner.com/x-6495-National-Intelligence-Examiner~y2009m5d5-Martin-Luther-King-assassination-video-Court-determines-government-involved-in--MLK-assassination

I can be reached for Questions, Comments, Files Transfers or, Clarifications at the following e-mail address.

tomnln@cox.net

Hit Counter

JOWERS TRIAL TRANSCRIPT

VOLUME I

The King Center

Dr. Martin Luther King JR.

Mrs. Coretta Scott King

Welcome | Mission Statement | Founder's Vision | Chairman's Message | President's Message | Make a Donation | News | Trial Transcript | Contact

Donate to the King Center

The King Center graciously accepts your donations to assist with our mission. more

donate today >>

Get Involved

SOSMake it a semester of service!

find out how at servenet.org>>

Shop

Proceeds from your purchases support the mission of The King Center in educating the world about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s philosophy and methods of nonviolence in order to create the Beloved Community.

THE TRIAL

1

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY , TENNESSEE

THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS

_____________________________________________

CORETTA SCOTT KING, MARTIN

LUTHER KING, III, BERNICE KING,

DEXTER SCOTT KING and YOLANDA KING,

Plaintiffs,

Vs. Case No. 97242-4 T.D.

LOYD JOWERS and OTHER UNKNOWN

CO-CONSPIRATORS,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________

BE IT REMEMBERED that the above-captioned cause came on for Trial on

this, the 15th day of November, 1999, in the above Court, before the
Honorable James E. Swearengen, Judge presiding, when and where

the following proceedings were had, to wit:

VOLUME I

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI,
RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD & PARKER
COURT REPORTERS
22nd Floor, One Commerce Square
Memphis , Tennessee 38103
(901) 529-1999

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

2

- APPEARANCES -

For the Plaintiffs:

MR. WILLIAM PEPPER
Attorney at Law
575 Madison Avenue, Suite 1006
New York, New York 10022
(212) 605-0515

For the Defendant:

MR. LEWIS K. GARRISON, Sr.
Attorney at Law
100 North Main Street, Suite 1025
Memphis , Tennessee 38103

(901) 527-6445

For The Commercial Appeal:

MR. LUCIAN T. PERA
Attorney at Law
Armstrong, Allen, Prewitt, Gentry
Johnston & Holmes, PLLC
80 Monroe Avenue, Suite 700
Nashville, Tennessee 38103
(901) 524-4948

Reported by:

MS. MARGIE J. ROUTHEAUX
Registered Professional Reporter
Daniel, Dillinger, Dominski,
Richberger & Weatherford
2200 One Commerce Square
Memphis , Tennessee 38103

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

3

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE COURT: Mr. Garrison, are you all ready?

MR. GARRISON: Ready.

THE COURT: Let me see the lawyers in chambers before we get started.

(Brief break taken.)

THE COURT: All right. Are we ready to proceed?

MR. GARRISON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: If there are any members of the media, we're going to ask you

to excuse yourself until after the jury selection process. All right, Mr. Sheriff,

you can get us some jurors.

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Pepper, who are these additional people with you?

DR. PEPPER: They're all with us, part of our team.

THE COURT: Are they going to participate in the trial?

DR. PEPPER: Only as assistants, that's all.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

4

THE COURT: I normally introduce those parties who are going to participate.
And if they are, I need their names.

DR. PEPPER: You want me to write them down for you, Your Honor?

THE COURT: That has dual purposes -- for my convenience and then, in
addition to that, once we have called their names, we're in a position to
ask the jurors if they're familiar with their names.

DR. PEPPER: Sure. (Brief break taken.)

MR. PERA: Your Honor, for many years -- and I should first say, Your Honor,
that all I know about this situation is what I've learned in the last 15 minutes.
But as I say, for the record, I do represent The Commercial Appeal. I'm a little
out of breath. But my name is Lucian Pera. And since at least 1984 when the
Supreme Court decided the Press Enterprise case -- Press Enterprise versus Superior
Court of California . And the cite on that I can give you which is 464 U.S. 501.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

5

In 1984 the Supreme Court has made it clear, as has virtually every court in the
nation -- has addressed the issue that there is a constitutional right on the part
of members of the public and, therefore, members of the press to attend jury voir
dire proceedings in court. I would add, Your Honor, that in Tennessee there have
been at least two cases on this point -- I believe three. The first one of which
is State versus Drake which is a 1985 case which squarely follows the analysis in
what are called the quartet of cases of which Press Enterprise is a part from the
U.S. Supreme Court. And that case requires that if there is a closure of any part
of a trial that there must be under the constitution specific findings by the Court
on a motion by a party that there will be prejudice if there's not a closure and
specifically how the closure is tailored as narrowly as possible to meet the
compelling interest of preventing prejudice.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

6

requires written findings. There have been at least two other cases since then,
Your Honor. I don't -- I can't cite you the precise name on this short of notice,
but I will remind the Court of one the Court may be familiar with arising from
this county. I believe it was in front of a criminal court judge across the street.
And essentially what happened is that there was -- it was a rather horrible
gang-related murder case. In fact, it was one in which I believe the victims were
literally buried alive. There were claims of misconduct ongoing in the midst of the
trial. In fact, the Court itself was under 24-hour armed guard at home and at the
office -- at the court. During the course of that trial, the judge heard testimony
from witnesses obviously. And one of the witnesses who had testified was to testify
again. The Court imposed a gag order essentially closing the trial implicitly and
saying that the reporters might not print the name of that witness who had already

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

7

testified in open court and who was to further testify as a rebuttal witness. The
Court expressed very specific concerns about safety, that the witness might flee,
that the trial might be jeopardized for that reason. And the Court of Appeals --
excuse me, I think it was the Court of Criminal Appeals -- specifically and flatly
and firmly reversed that ruling and said that what goes on in open court is open,
and the constitution requires that it be so, and again reaffirming State vs. Drake
relying on Press Enterprise. So, Your Honor, with that thought in mind -- again,
I've not been privy to the discussions here about what the problem were that
were sought to be addressed, and I apologize to the Court for not being prepared
in that respect. But I would urge the Court to not close this hearing to members
of media including my client, The Commercial Appeal.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. PERA: And, Your Honor, I might finally request that in compliance with

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

8

State versus Drake, whatever the Court's decision there, that there be specific
findings of fact tailored to address the issues under Press Enterprise .

THE COURT: All right. First of all, I would like to refer you to Supreme Court Rule 30, Media Guidelines, under Section C(2) which reads as follows: "Jury selection. Media
coverage of jury selection is prohibited."

MR. PERA: Your Honor, it's my -- am I interrupting? I can look at the rule, Your Honor,
but it's my impression that Rule 30 addresses television coverage and similar media coverage. To the extent that that rule, Your Honor, either says or is interpreted to mean that voir dire may be closed by a court without constitutional foundation, the specifics which are very clear -- I can cite them to the Court if I can get my hands on State versus Drake.

If that rule says that or means that or the Court interprets it to mean that, then
it is unconstitutional, Your Honor.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

9

THE COURT: Well, let me further refer you to Section D, and that section deals with limitations. And under 2 it says:

"Discretion of Presiding Judge." That's me.

"The presiding judge has the discretion to refuse, limit, terminate or temporarily
suspend media coverage of an entire case or portions thereof in order to 1.) Control
the conduct of proceedings before the Court.

2.) Maintain the quorum and prevent distraction. 3.)" -- and this one I am concerned
with --"Guarantee the safety of any party, witness or juror." This case is such that
I feel that the jurors should be protected from public scrutiny and that the public
shall not be aware of who they are. I don't want -- and I'm going to assure them when
we voir dire them that they will remain anonymous. And for that reason they will feel
free to participate in the trial process. That's my ruling.

MR. PERA: Your Honor, may I be heard on this point?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

10

THE COURT: No. I've ruled. I have ruled.

MR. PERA: Okay. Your Honor, meaning no disrespect, may I ask -- may I ask a question?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. PERA: Has this Court considered or has it been proposed to the Court that the jurors remain anonymous and therefore that proceedings be allowed to take place in open court
with, for example, members of the public and/or media present but nevertheless with the jurors remaining anonymous? Has that been considered, Judge?

THE COURT: No, sir, because I don't feel that that's a viable solution.

MR. PERA: May I ask a further inquiry, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. PERA: Is it the Court's ruling that the entire trial is going to be held in secret?

THE COURT: No, sir. Once the jury selection process is completed, then it

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

11

will be open to the media as prescribed by court rules with cameras and with reporters
and all of that. This court is not excluding the media from the trial proceeding, but it
is excluding them from the jury selection process.

MR. PERA: Well, Your Honor, again -- the Court knows me, and the Court knows that I'm not inclined to argue with a ruling once it's been made. But since I'm getting into this so late, Your Honor, I have to inquire further. Your Honor, if -- I'm not at all sure I understand how this is tailored narrowly under the guidelines of the constitution.

I mean, for example, Your Honor, if -- if the identities of the jurors is what the Court is trying to protect, then -- and not, for example, their answers to the questions of one of the parties as to their particular biases or lack of biases, it seems to me that the Court might consider having the jurors, as has been done across the country, I think the Court is probably aware

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

12

of this -- having the jurors remain anonymous and have the parties to the case and the
Court refer to them in whatever way would do so anonymously but, nevertheless, allow the
questioning that goes to, for example, bias -- their views on particular subjects to
be explored in open court as the constitution requires. I would urge that upon the Court
as a remedy that has been used elsewhere. And it would not trample on the First Amendment
but it would, nevertheless, meet the Court's concerns.

THE COURT: I'm going to deny your request.

MR. PERA: Your Honor, when -- you're ruling then that until voir dire is complete and the jury is sworn that this hearing is closed both to members of the press and the public?

THE COURT: I'm not excluding the public, no, sir.

MR. PERA: So I can sit here for example?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

13

THE COURT: You may, yes, sir. But if you do, then you would be under a gag order. As an officer of the Court you could sit, yes, sir.

MR. PERA: But another member of the public could be present and not be under some sort of gag order?

THE COURT: I'm going to exclude all members of the public, as a matter of fact, during the jury selection process. I'm not going to let reporters come in here and say, at this time I'm not a reporter, I'm just a member of John Q. Public.

MR. PERA: Okay, Your Honor. I just wanted to make sure I understand your ruling then. The hearing is closed to members of the press and the public until the jury is sworn.

THE COURT: And the public. And the public, yes, sir.

MR. PERA: May I -- I assume that what has transpired here so far, I'm under no gag order; is that correct, Your Honor? Because I may well be instructed by

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

14

my client to pursue appellate relief. THE COURT: You are free to do that.

MR. PERA: Okay. I just want to make sure that we understand each other. Thank you. Appreciate it, Your Honor.

MR. GARRISON: In the Court's ruling I think Your Honor did the proper thing.

(Brief break taken.)

(By Order of the Court, the Jury Selection portion of the trial was not transcribed.)

MR. PERA: I would like to apply for permission to appeal under Tennessee Rule
of Appellant Procedure 9 from the Court's earlier ruling.

THE COURT: Oh, yes. Of course.

MR. PERA: Thank you, Your Honor. I assumed so. Your Honor, may I present an order on that either this afternoon or in the morning?

THE COURT: You may.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

15

MR. PERA: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Lunch Recess.)

(Jury Selection resumed.)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have completed our process. We have
12 jurors now and two are alternates. So the rest of you I'm going to excuse and thank you for your patience, and you can report to the main jury room tomorrow at 9:30.

All right. Now that we have selected or jurors and alternates, we would ask to you please stand and take the official oath as jurors in the case.

THE CLERK: Ladies and Gentlemen, please raise your right hand.

(Whereupon the jury was sworn in.)

THE CLERK: Okay. Please be seated.

THE COURT: All right. Normally at this stage we would begin our trial which would be the rendering of an opening

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

16

statement by the lawyers. That is they would tell you what they expect the proof to be as
it develops in the case, and then we would start to hear the witnesses in the case. But
because of the hour, I'm going to excuse you and ask you to be here tomorrow at 9:45 so
that we can get started promptly at 10 o'clock, reminding you that you should not speak
with the lawyers or the witnesses or anyone else involved in the case and that you should have no contact with the media. I think -- I'll have some additional instructions for you tomorrow before we start to hear the proof. You should not go back to the main jury room for any reason. You come directly here from now on which means that you don't report at the regular 9:30 thing over there. Just come right here. Mr. James will show you our jury facility back here, and that's where you should congregate until you come out as a group.
We would ask you -- sometimes the jurors would sit out in the hall and do things of that sort before the trial begins

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

17

in a normal case. But because of the nature of this one and because we don't want you to
be exposed to the media, we would ask you to please not congregate in the hallways out
there. If there are smokers in the crowd, then during our breaks, you can feel free to
go down and do your smoking or whatever else just as long as you don't have any contact
with the media. If we -- if for any reason we need to take a comfort break on your behalf, we're very considerate, we'll do that. We want this to be a pleasant experience for you.
But it's a serious matter, and let's not forget that. All right.

(Court adjourned until 11/16/99 at 10:00 a.m.)

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999


Terms of Service & Privacy Policy

© 2004 - The King Center - Atlanta , GA

Map and Directions | Contact Us | Hours of Operation

Make a Donation | King Holiday | Get Involved | Teachers & Students | Programs & Services

© Copyright 2009 The King Center | site by: DeepBlue

VOLUME II

The King Center

Dr. Martin Luther King JR.

Mrs. Coretta Scott King

Welcome | Mission Statement | Founder's Vision | Chairman's Message | President's Message | Make a Donation | News | Trial Transcript | Contact

Donate to the King Center

The King Center graciously accepts your donations to assist with our mission. more

donate today >>

Get Involved

SOSMake it a semester of service!

find out how at servenet.org>>

Shop

Proceeds from your purchases support the mission of The King Center in educating the world about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s philosophy and methods of nonviolence in order to create the Beloved Community.

THE TRIAL

18

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY ,

TENNESSEE FOR THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL

DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS

_______________________________________________

CORETTA SCOTT KING, et al,

Plaintiffs,

Vs. Case No. 97242

LOYD JOWERS, et al,

Defendants.

_______________________________________________

PROCEEDINGS

November 16th, 1999

VOLUME II

_______________________________________________

Before the Honorable James E. Swearengen,

Division 4, judge presiding.

_______________________________________________

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI,

RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

COURT REPORTERS

Suite 2200 , One Commerce Square

Memphis , Tennessee 38103

(901) 529-1999

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

19

- APPEARANCES -

For the Plaintiff: DR. WILLIAM PEPPER

Attorney at Law

New York City , New York

For the Defendant:

MR. LEWIS GARRISON

Attorney at Law

Memphis , Tennessee

Court Reported by:

MR. BRIAN F. DOMINSKI

Certificate of Merit

Registered Professional

Reporter

Daniel, Dillinger, Dominski, Richberger & Weatherford

22nd Floor

One Commerce Square

Memphis , Tennessee 38103

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

20

- INDEX -

WITNESS: PAGE/LINE NUMBER

CORETTA KING

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:........................ 53 22

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. GARRISON:...................... 70 15

COBEY SMITH

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:........................ 75 10

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. GARRISON:...................... 96 16

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:........................ 101 4

CHARLES CABBAGE

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:........................ 102 10

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. GARRISON:..................... 121 7

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:....................... 127 18

JOHN McFERREN

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:....................... 132 5

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. GARRISON:..................... 155 10

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:....................... 159 9

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

21

NATHAN WHITLOCK

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:....................... 160 9

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. GARRISON:..................... 184 4

THOMAS SMITH

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:....................... 185 14

CHARLES HURLEY

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:....................... 192 15

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

22

PROCEEDINGS

(November 16th, 1999, 10:15 a.m.)

MR. PERA: Your Honor, good morning. I have a couple preliminary matters related to the matter you have on trial. May I address the Court this morning?

THE COURT: Let me get my orders first.

MR. PERA: Okay. I thought that was done, Your Honor. That's why I approached.

THE COURT: Any additional orders? Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Pera.

MR. PERA: As you know, I'm Lucian Pera. I represent the Commercial Appeal. First, your Honor, I have an order on yesterday's proceedings as to our motion for access -- I have served this on counsel for the parties -- that both grants -- both denies my motion for access, grants our status as an intervenor for our limited

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

23

purpose and grants the Rule 9 motion that you orally granted yesterday.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. PERA: Does that meet with your approval, your Honor? There are two other matters, your
Honor, I want to present. One is a motion we filed this morning. As I understand it, although, of course, I wasn't here and my client wasn't in the courtroom, voir dire has been completed.

We have moved -- filed a motion with the Court, I'm not sure if the Court has received it yet, for access -- immediate access as soon as practicable to the transcript of voir dire proceedings. We have filed a motion and would ask the Court to grant us immediate access to the transcript of the voir dire proceedings held in this case.

THE COURT: Denied.

MR. PERA: Denied?

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. PERA: May I, Your Honor --

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

24

I'll obviously give a moment to counsel. I'm anticipating one of two possible results. I've actually prepared an order. Since I know my client may be interested in an appeal, I will share this with Mr. Pepper and Mr. Garrison.

There is one other matter, Your Honor. That is my partner Ms. Leizure is in a better position to address it than I. We know the Court has granted access to the trial to the broadcast media, but under Rule 30 we would also, as the Court knows, do use still photographers and would request and have filed a motion yesterday afternoon by access by one of our still photographers to the courtroom.

If the Court needs to hear that addressed from a legal point of view under Rule 30, my partner, Ms. Leizure, can address that.

THE COURT: As for still photography, I'll have to refer to the rule, which does allow it, but it is limited.

MS. LEIZURE: Your Honor, I

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

25

believe the provisions are that you can limit it to two still photographers.

THE COURT: Who are you?

MS. LEIZURE: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I'm Kathy Leizure. I'm Mr. Pera's partner. I represent the Commercial Appeal.

THE COURT: Kathy who?

MS. LEIZURE: I'm Kathy Leizure. I believe the provision is, your Honor, you can limit it to two still photographers who are using no more than two cameras each.

THE COURT: I intend to abide by the rule.

MS. LEIZURE: Okay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It says if there are more than two, if we're going to have still photography in the courtroom, you'll have to work it out among yourselves. If they can't work it out among themselves, then I'm going to disallow all of it.

MS. LEIZURE: I understand, Your Honor. There is a provision in here for pooling arrangements, which I would be happy

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

26

to try to work out if I know, you know, what other media have been granted access pursuant
to this rule for still photography purposes.

THE COURT: I intend to abide by the rules. It is for that same reason that I disallowed the presence of media during the jury selection. All right. Assuming that there are no others who want to have still photographers in the room, I'll allow yours, but if it comes to a point where there are more than the rule allows, if you can work it out among yourselves, I'll do that. If not, as I said, I'm going to disallow all of them, because I'm not going to become involved in a dispute over who can and who cannot.

MS. LEISURE: I understand, Your Honor. I understand. So I will advise my client that they can bring the still photographer in within the provisions, the criteria and guidelines of the rules.

THE COURT: The other thing is that I have instructed all of them that they are not to photograph my jury.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

27

MS. LEIZURE: That's right. That's certainly a provision that is in the rule. That's understood.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. PEPPER: May I be heard, Your Honor?

MR. PERA: I've provided this order --

THE COURT: Just a moment. Go ahead, Mr. Pepper.

MR. PEPPER: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, the family has its own still photographer who would like to be present in the courtroom and will abide by all of the rules. It is Mr. Benedict Fernandez, who for nearly forty years has followed the history of Dr. King's work and these proceedings.

THE COURT: All right. Those two, then.

MR. PEPPER: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. PERA: Mr. Pepper, is this order okay.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

28

MR. PEPPER: Yes.

MR. PERA: Your Honor, if I could pass the order for immediate access to is the transcript. Mr. Garrison and Mr. Pepper have approved that order, although I haven't actually signed that original. Thank you, your Honor. I appreciate you hearing us.

THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Garrison, are you ready?

MR. GARRISON: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Pepper?

MR. PEPPER: Yes.

THE COURT: Bring the jury out,

Mr. Sheriff.

(Jury in.)

THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Glad to see that everybody made it this morning. Yesterday I inadvertently omitted one of the Court personnel. I should have introduced him. I have to constantly remind him that I'm elected by the residents of Shelby County and that he is not my boss. It is my court

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

29

clerk, Mr. Brian Bailey over here. I think I introduced everybody else. Before we begin the trial, I'm going to give you some preliminary facts that you can refer to during the course of this trial. Before the trial begins, I'm going to give you some instructions to help you
understand how the case will proceed, what your duties many be, and how you should conduct yourselves during the trial. When I have completed these instructions, the attorneys will make their opening statements. These statements will be brief outlines of what the attorneys expect to be evidence. After the opening statements, you will hear the evidence. The evidence generally consists of the numbered exhibits and testimony of witnesses. The plaintiffs will present evidence first. The defendant will then be given the opportunity to present evidence.

Normally the plaintiff presents all of the plaintiff's evidence before the other

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

30

parties present any evidence. Exceptions are sometimes made out of this usually to accommodate a witness. The witnesses will testify in response to questions from the attorneys. Witnesses are first asked questions by the party who calls the witness to testify, and then other parties are permitted to cross-examine the witness.

Although evidence is preserved my asking questions, the questions themselves are not evidence. Any insinuation contained in a question is not evidence. You should consider a question only as it gives meaning to the witness' answer. Evidence may be presented by
deposition. A deposition is testimony taken under oath before the trial and preserved in
writing or sometimes it will be videotaped. During the trial objections may be made to the evidence or trial procedures. I may sustain objections to questions asked without permitting the witness to answer or I may instruct you to disregard an answer that

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

31

has been given. In deciding this case you may not draw an inference from an unanswered
question, and you may not consider testimony that you are instructed to disregard. Any arguments about objection or motions are usually required to be made by the attorneys out of the hearing of the jury. Information may be excluded because it is not legally admissible. Excluded information cannot be considered in reaching your decision. A ruling that is made on an objection or motion will be based solely upon the law. You must not infer from a ruling that I hold any view or opinion for or against any parties to this lawsuit. When all of the evidence has been presented to you, the attorneys will make their closing arguments. The attorneys will point out to you what they contend the evidence has shown, what inferences you should draw from the evidence and what conclusions you should reach as your

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

32

verdict. The plaintiff will make the first argument and will be followed by the defendant. Plaintiff will then respond to the defendant's arguments. Unless you are otherwise instructed, statements made by the attorneys are not evidence. Those statements are made only to help you understand the evidence and apply the law to the evidence. You should ignore any statement that is not supported by the evidence.

After the arguments are made, I will instruct you on the rulings of law that apply to the case. It is your function as jurors to determine what facts -- what the facts are and apply the rules of law that I have given you to the facts that you have found. You will determine the facts from all of the evidence. You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts. On the other hand, you are required to accept the rules of law that I give you, whether you agree with them or not.

As the sole judge of the facts, you

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

33

must determine which of the witness' testimony you accept, what weight you attach to it and what inferences you will draw from it. The law does not, however, require you to accept all of the evidence in deciding what evidence you will accept. You must make your own evaluation of the testimony given by each of the witnesses and determine the weight you will give to that testimony. You must decide which witnesses you believe and how important you
think their testimony is. You are not required to accept or reject everything a witness says. You are free to believe all, none or part of any person's testimony. In deciding which testimony you believe, you should rely on your own common sense and every-day experiences. There is no fixed set of rules to use in deciding whether you believe a witness, but it may help you to think of the following questions:

Was the witness able to see, hear or be aware of the things about which the witness testifies?

How well was the witness able to recall and

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

34

describe those things? How long was the witness watching or listening? Was the witness distracted in any way? Did the witness have a good memory? How did the witness look and act
while testifying? Was the witness making an honest effort to tell the truth or did the
witness evade questions? Did the witness have an interest in the outcome of the case? Did the witness have any motive, bias or prejudice that would influence the witness' testimony? How reasonable was the witness' testimony when you consider all of the evidence in the case?

There are certain rules that would apply concerning your conduct during the trial and during recesses that you should keep in mind. First, do not conduct your own investigation into the case, although you may be tempted do so. For example, do not visit the scene of an incident, read any books or articles concerning any issue in the case or consult any other source of information. If you were

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

35

to do that, you would be getting information that is not evidence. You must decide the case only on the evidence and law presented to you during the trial. Any juror who receives any
information about the case other than that presented at the trial must notify the Court
immediately. Do not discuss the case either among yourselves or with anyone else during the trial.

You must keep an open mind until you have heard all the evidence, the attorneys' closing arguments and my final instructions concerning the law. Any discussion before the conclusion of the case would be premature and improper.

Do not permit any other person to discuss the case in your presence. If anyone does attempt to do so, report that fact to the Court immediately without discussing the incident with any of the other jurors. Do not speak to any of the attorneys, parties or witnesses in the case even for the limited purpose of saying good morning. They are

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

36

also instructed not to talk to you. In no other way can all of the parties feel assured of your absolute impartiality. All right. There are a couple of additional comments I would like to make. I know that when you are over in the big room, the jury commissioner probably tells you don't ever leave anything lying around. I just want you to know that we have not had any unhappy experiences, that your personal affects are considered to be safe in the jury room.

So if you have sweaters or coats or lunches or whatever else, then you can feel pretty safe leaving them back there while you are here or while you are gone to lunch. Also, if we need to take a comfort break, let us know and we'll be glad to accommodate you. We want to make this a pleasant experience for everyone. We would ask you to be on time whenever we are supposed to congregate. We'd hate to have to be waiting on someone who is disrespectful of the others and for some

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

37

reason couldn't make it on time.

Finally, I know that sometimes, usually after lunch, but any time of day you can become weary and just can't keep your eyes open. So I am going to designate each of you and authorize you to nudge your neighbor if you catch them dozing on us. All right. As I promised, the attorneys will give their opening statements, that is, they will tell you what they expect the proof to be in this case. After they have done that, we will begin to hear the proof.

As I told you, this is a case on conspiracy. Conspiracy I guess in general terms would mean carrying out a design or plan where two or more have agreed to commit an act to do injury or damage. And the planning, of course, is not enough. They have to, in addition to the planning, do an act pursuant to that plan in order to be a co-conspirator.

All right. The plaintiff will begin. Then after the defendant has given

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

38

their opening statement, we will start to hear the proof in the case.

Mr. Pepper.

MR. PEPPER: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. On the 3rd of April, 1968, loving husband, father of four young children kissed his family goodbye and left for Memphis , Tennessee . He would never return. They would never see him alive again.

On the 4th of April, 1968, approximately one minute past six in the evening as he stood on a balcony overlooking a parking area of the Lorraine Motel, he was felled by a single bullet, never regained consciousness and died shortly thereafter.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the beginning of this story. The plaintiff in this case, the victim, was a husband and a father, but he also was a prophetic figure in American history. He had been a civil rights leader as a young man after school and in his early pastor's years, but he moved beyond

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

39

that calling, beyond that calling on behalf of the poor in the southern part of this
country, in this area of this country, to become an international figure concerned with
the plight of poor people, economic injustice and with the issues of peace and war.

So as he grew in his leadership and his calling, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. With that award he became truly an international figure, not a regional pastor fighting for justice on behalf of his people. He then turned his attention to the plight of poor people and the effect of war.

He came out strongly during the last year of his life to oppose the war in Vietnam because he saw it destroying an ancient culture and civilization that had so much in common with the plight of black people and the poor everywhere in the world. So he opposed that war.

He also turned his attention to the plight of poor people, the growing numbers of poor in the United States , and had put together a poor people's campaign that was to

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

40

descend on Washington D.C. in the spring of 1968, the very spring in which he was
assassinated. That March an encampment did come off but without its leader. As such, it is history now that it did not have the impact that it might have had on the Congress of the United States . The victim was, of course, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr...

The defendant in this case, Mr. Loyd Jowers, who owned Jim's Grill, which was at the ground floor of a rooming house on South Main Street in Memphis at the time. It no longer exists, but the building is still there.

Your Honor has quite correctly advised you not to go near the scene of this crime because it has changed so much over the years. It would only be very confusing for you. That is the reason for that instruction.

At that time and now that building backed onto an area, like a vacant lot area or a backyard. That backyard was covered with brush and bushes, and beyond it was the Lorraine Motel and the balcony on which

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

41

Martin Luther King stood when he was assassinated. The defendant managed and owned that grill, and the plaintiffs will attempt to prove that the wrongful acts and conduct of this defendant led to the death of Martin Luther King from behind his very premises, from the bushes, the brush in that area.

Now, by way of disclosure to you, counsel for both parties have agreed not to conduct any interviews with the media, not to talk to the press at all, during the course of this trial. The Court has so instructed you with respect to that. We think that is a most important
instruction, and, in addition, plaintiffs would hope that you would think carefully
about the issues of this case and the facts that are presented and the evidence that
comes before you and not considering what is on television or radio or in the newspapers
regarding this case.

We would ask you please consider staying away from any coverage of that sort

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

42

and make your decision solely on what you hear in this courtroom. It is most important.

Also by way of disclosure I have the obligation to tell you that I was a friend and a colleague of the victim in this case during only the last year of his life. Years later I began to look into the facts of this case and ultimately became convinced that the man accused of the crime was not guilty and undertook to represent him and was his lawyer for the last ten years of his life.

He died in prison, never having a trial on the evidence in the case. And the plaintiff family decided that this man also was innocent of the crime and decided to come out and support a trial for him a few years before he died.

Now, the Court has properly instructed you with respect to the nature of the evidence. There will be mostly live witnesses, but there will also be some deposition evidence that you will hear, some affidavits, some public statements, and the

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

43

Court will advise you as to the range of voracity you should put on any evidence that is admitted in this Court. But it will not all be live testimony, although indeed most of it will.

With respect to the plaintiff's proof, it is -- the case will be divided into a variety of sections. It is important to us that you consider those sections in the order as it appears.
There will be a general introductory background area of the case that will familiarize yourself with what led up to this wrongful death so that will be hopefully as clear to you as can be.

There will then be evidence laid before you that will indicate that in fact the fatal bullet was fired from the brush area behind the rooming house, from a row of bushes that were very tall and thick where a sniper lay in wait and fired the shot. So that section will deal with the bushes.

There will be a section of proof that will deal with the rifle that is in evidence that is alleged to have caused the

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

44

death of Dr. King. And the proof that the plaintiffs will put forward will demonstrate to you that in fact the rifle in evidence is not the murder weapon and that the murder weapon was disposed of in another way.

Plaintiffs will advance proof that there were a number of other people involved. As Your Honor has correctly told you, of course a conspiracy involves more than one. Whilst this case is focusing in a civil court on Mr. Jowers as the defendant, there were other people involved. And some of those individuals will be developed in evidence.

In particular one individual will be developed in evidence who was critical to the coordination of a lot of these activities and who is beyond the reach of this Court, although will be invited, has been invited, and will be invited to attend, but was a part
of this conspiracy, this collaboration with Mr. Jowers.

Now, defendants have in their answer, their amended answer, indicated that

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

45

if liability results, and counsel has mentioned that yesterday, if liability results, attaches to his client, that it should also attach to other agencies and individuals.

Because that door is open, plaintiffs will advance evidence of the extent and the scope of this conspiracy so that you understand the umbrella under which the defendant was operating, so it is clear to you the kind of total picture in which he found himself as he carried out his wrongful acts which led to this death.

One indication of this conspiracy, why we are here thirty-one years later in this courtroom in Memphis, Tennessee, is the suppression of the truth, the cover-up that has lasted for so long and the effects of that cover-up in terms of people learning the truth and courts, such as this Court, being able to entertain proceedings designed to unearth that truth.

This cover-up itself and that section of the case would show you

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

46

indications of the wrong and will relate directly to the wrong itself that we are proving here and alleging here.

Now, because these witnesses will come from various parts of the country and various parts of the world, I must say, we've had to adjust to various schedules of people. So to some extent the evidence you hear up there may be disjointed. But what I ask you to consider is that each of the witnesses who testify with respect to facts will be putting forward to you a particular piece of this puzzle. And they are being called only for -- he or she will be called only for that particular piece. So you must discern what that is in each instance.

Yes, there will be an introductory statement so that you get to know the witness and who the witness is, get a feeling for whether he or she is credible. But beyond that there will be a piece of information. It would be very useful in our view for you, if you could, to take notes in the course of these proceedings. I know the

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

47

State I understand does not provide you with note paper or pads in this jurisdiction. But if you could provide yourselves with them just to make notes of particular facts that you think are relevant that a witness has testified to or an exhibit that you might want to look at further or later on during deliberations, that would be very helpful to you when you begin to refresh your own recollections, because there will be a lot of information coming out.

There will be a great deal of information coming out from a number of witnesses. You may very well expect to forget some of it unless you have noted it down so you understand what they said. I urge you to consider using that, to use some mechanical way of recalling what has happened.

I think that's basically it. I think plaintiffs believe that as a result of the evidence you will hear in this courtroom, that finally the truth will emerge in respect of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. He often said that

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

48

truth-crushed earth will rise again. Well, I think plaintiffs sincerely hope that the
truth will be resurrected in this courtroom. And that as a result of the truth being
resurrected in this courtroom, the events, those horrible events of April 4th, 1968, will be unearthed and seen and understood.

Ladies and gentlemen, prepare yourselves for the resurrection of truth with respect to that horrible day, April 4, 1968. And I suggest to you that some of the evidence you hear may go to the essence of this Republic and may in fact shake some of the foundations of this Republic. So important is this case, so important is the evidence, please consider it carefully and well.

We seek a verdict of liability against the defendant because he played a critical role in these events. But it goes well beyond him. And we're prepared to acknowledge and to establish that.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Garrison.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

49

MR. GARRISON: If Your Honor please and Dr. Pepper and ladies and gentlemen, as you know, I'm Lewis Garrison. I represent Mr. Jowers, who is the defendant in this case.

I'd like to say this: I started forty years ago in this practice of law in August, and on April the 6th, 1968, I was about three hundred feet from this very spot in my desk when Dr. King was assassinated.

Now, Dr. Pepper and I agree on probably eighty percent of the things that he is advocating and stating to you. There are some areas that we do not agree upon. I'll touch on those now.

Ladies and gentlemen, April 4th, 1968, this city was racially divided. November 16, 1999, it is still racially divided. I'm sorry to tell you, it is. It is an error we need to work on, and I hope this trial will bring out some things that perhaps will have some bearing on that.

Mr. Jowers has been around the City of Memphis a long time. He is a former

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

50

police officer. When this occurred in 1968, he was operating a small restaurant called Jim's Grill.

Now, you'll find that any part that he -- he has conferred with Mr. Dexter King and Ambassador Young and told them some things that he knew and heard, but I think you will find that he was a very small part, if any -- if any -- in the assassination of Dr. King. He was simply operating a little restaurant down on South Main Street .

Anything that Mr. Jowers may have had to do with this certainly was unknown to him. He was never told that the target of an assassination was Dr. King. Certainly his feelings are that he was at sympathy with Dr. King and certainly for the things that Dr. King was seeking.

Certainly Ms. King and her family have been made to suffer more than any family should. There is no question about that. They've had to go through more than a family should have to go through. We're certainly in sympathy with them and have always been,

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

51

always have been behind Dr. King and the things that he was seeking. When I was growing up, not too far from here, we had separate rest rooms, separate water fountains, those type things, separate schools. It doesn't seem like it was very long ago. But after Dr. King came
along, those things came to some extent, but we still take too much of our rights for granted. It has not always been the way it is now.

In this trial you will hear from different persons that will bring forth things that you probably never heard before. For instance, there will be a police officer that will testify here about the United States government sending in agents just before Dr. King's assassination. You'll hear a lady here testify about a police officer who was her husband who was very prejudiced against people whose skin was not white.

You'll hear, ladies and gentlemen, from a gentleman who will also tell you that he had a chance to be with Mr. James Earl Ray

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

52

for some months before the assassination, and he'll provide information to you as to what
Mr. Ray disclosed to him as to how he escaped from the Missouri prison, who helped him, and
the purpose of it.

I think, ladies and gentlemen, you'll find in this case that Mr. Jowers was a very, very small cog in a big wheel, if he was a party at all. He never knowingly did anything that would have caused the death of Dr. King or brought any hardship on Ms. King or her family.

Now, this has been a long process. I've been involved it seems like forever. It has been many, many years. Dr. Pepper has been involved in this three times as long as I have. But this is the final chapter.

Whatever historians may write, your verdict will be the final chapter in this case. So in this case I think when you hear all the testimony here and all the proof that Dr. Pepper will offer and I'll offer, I'm going to be able to stand here and ask you not only if you find that Mr. Jowers had

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

53

anything to do with it, but there are others who are much more responsible than he was who
knew what they were doing and who brought about the commission of this hate crime. That's what it was. And that others are responsible and that they should be held liable instead of Mr. Jowers. It will be an interesting trial. I think that you will certainly find it interesting, and I hope that you do. If you will listen attentively, because this is a very important case in the history of this country.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Pepper, call your first witness, please.

MR. PEPPER: Plaintiffs call Mrs. Coretta Scott King to the stand. CORETTA SCOTT KING
Having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:

Q. Good morning, Mrs. King.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

54

A. Good morning.

Q. Thank you for being here. I realize how stressful it is at the time, particularly
because of the gauntlet of the media out there. We're grateful for your presence. Could you just tell us by way of background what was the purpose of Dr. King's visit to Memphis , his involvement in Memphis and his coming here in 1968.

A. Martin came to Memphis to support the sanitation workers who were engaged in a strike for better wages and working conditions. He felt it was important to come to support them because they were working poor people.

Q. And how did the sanitation workers' strike and his support for that fit into the Poor People's March in Washington which had been planned for later on, the spring?

A. He felt that it was important that he give his support to them because they were a part of what he was really struggling to get the nation to understand, that people work full-time jobs but in a sense for part-time

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

55

pay. Even people who were poor who worked could not make a decent living. So they would then be invited to join the mobilization for the campaign which was to be held in Washington .

Q. Right. And was this support -- his support for the sanitation workers in Memphis and the plans for the Poor People's March in Washington to be covered by the umbrella of non-violence at all times?

A. Absolutely. He felt that -- as you know, his whole life was dedicated to non-violent struggle. Any time there was violence of any kind, it was very disturbing to him, and he disavowed it completely and whenever he had an opportunity to. He dedicated his life to helping people to understand the philosophy of non-violence, which he lived it as a way of
life. And so when he came to Memphis -- I don't know, Counsel, should I mention that he -- I don't want to get ahead of myself, but when he came to Memphis the first time and there was a march that he led

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

56

which his organization had very little to do with planning, that broke out in violence. It was very, very upsetting to him because most of the marches, I would say all of them, that he had led had always been mobilized with the support of the National Southern Christian Leadership Conference staff. Therefore, they were aware of any problems, any controversies that might exist, conflicts between groups and among groups. But he came that day from a trip, got off the plane and went straight to the head of the march. Of course, the march did
break out in violence. It was most disturbing to him. So when he -- when this happened, he
felt that it was very important for him to return to Memphis to lead a peaceful, non-violent march before he could go forth to Washington. He had to demonstrate that a non-violent march, a peaceful march, could take place in Memphis because of the criticisms that were being leveled at that time.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

57

Q. So he returned to Memphis that last time because of the violence that broke out on the march of March 28th, and he was determined, from what you are saying, to restore the position of non-violence to the movement?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Did he attribute -- did he have any idea why that march on March 28th turned violent? Did he have any notion of what caused that?

A. Well, I think he became aware that there was a local -- well, he thought at the time what was a local group of young people who really precipitated the violence. The feeling was that there were some forces behind them, that they were not just persons who decided that they would throw rocks and break windows.

Q. Now, what was behind or underlay his decision to come out against the war in Vietnam and to take on such a public political posture, if you will, which was quite a different change for him?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

58

A. I must say that my husband had wanted to speak out against the war in Vietnam for many years before he actually did do so. He always -- he understood the conflict that existed in Vietnam from its inception. And he realized that it was an unjust war in the first place. Then it was being fought against, you know, people of color who were poor. And wars, of course, for him didn't solve any social problems but created more problems than they solved.
He felt that this particular war was not -- we could not win. Of course, history proved him right within a very short period of time after he spoke out. As a matter of fact, one year after he spoke out against the war, he was vindicated in that the nation had reversed itself and its policy toward that war.

That was April 4th, 1968, when he actually spoke out against the war in his first public statement. But he said he had to do it because his conscience -- he could no longer live with his conscience without

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

59

taking a position. He felt that doing so, perhaps he could help to mobilize other public opinion in support of his position, which was, again, against the war.

Q. Do you recall the reaction of other civil rights leaders at that time when he came out against the war?

A. Yes, I do. Civil rights leaders, other opinion makers, all criticized him, both black and white. It was certainly -- certainly he expected it, but he probably didn't expect some of the people who criticized him to do so publicly. His way in the non-violent way was to privately disagree and to go and talk to persons which are having a disagreement, but to be attacked publicly was very difficult for him. He also knew that if he spoke out, it would probably affect the support, the financial support, for his organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. And, of course, it did very profoundly. He knew that before he took that risk and that position. So it wasn't

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

60

surprising, but, nevertheless, it was painful.

Q. Was there much discussion at the time about him running for public office because he was being pushed forward as a third-party candidate with Dr. Benjamin Spock as an alternative to Lyndon Johnson's being returned to office at that time? What do you recall about him moving in that direction of more serious political activity?

A. Well, I was aware of the fact that there was talk about his running for public office. It was interesting because from what I knew of him, I never thought that he would run for public office. Just knowing the kind of person he was, and because, you know, politics is very important and necessary, but he would be freer to make statements according to his conscience if he didn't run for public office, and because he was Christian minister and because he took his commitment so seriously, I felt that it would have been difficult for him. But at the same time I remember him

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

61

saying that because of the criticisms that he had gotten as he had spoken out against the
war, the media had stopped carrying any of his statements and they didn't understand --
no one was getting his message, because the message wasn't being carried forth. There were a number of critical articles and some cover stories that were very critical of him at that time. Time magazine, for instance, did one in 1967 that was extremely critical. He had been the Time man of the year in 1964 after the Peace Prize, and 1957 was the first time, so it
was, again, very painful for him not to be able to get his message out. So he said if I did run for office, it would be one way of getting my message out because I would have to be given equal time. The interesting thing about my husband, he always considered, you know,
every aspect of an issue, both the pros and the cons. And then he would make his mind up as to what he would do.

Q. Were there any comments that he made

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

62

the night before his departure to Memphis, that last trip, any indications that he had of potential danger or the seriousness of the task that he faced in Memphis?

A. I don't remember specific comments in that regard. But he had -- after he returned from Memphis after the violence broke out, which was like on a Friday evening, he went back on a Tuesday -- he went back on --

Q. He arrived on a Wednesday, the 3rd.

A. -- on Wednesday morning. But in between that time I was aware of how heavily it weighed on him, the problem of -- this whole problem of the sanitation workers' conflict and what he could do to help by getting his staff united. Because some of the staff didn't feel he should go to Memphis in the first place. He was very strongly in favor of that.

So he came home late -- I guess it was Tuesday evening he came in. There was not time to talk. He got up very early Wednesday morning to go to Memphis . He always called me, you know, almost every

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

63

night when he was on trips, so he didn't say whole lot about it, but I could tell that he had a lot of anxiety and it was very heavily weighing on his mind.

Q. Did he go through these times, and particularly this last year, manifesting an awareness that his life was in danger, that he had taken a path of action now that might have brought his life into danger?

A. Yes. I think he was aware of that certainly. I might say he was aware from the early days after Montgomery, Montgomery forward, but I think as he got closer toward this period of his life, he was even more acutely aware. Given the positions that he had taken, he realized that, you know, he could be killed at any time, but for him, his commitment to what he believed and to a higher authority was such that he didn't mind giving his life for a cause that he believed in.

He used to say that the end of life is not to be happy but to do God's will, come

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

64

what may. So for him being happy was when he could come out against the war against Vietnam . He said to a colleague, and I heard this on the telephone, I was the happiest man in the world when I could come out personally against this evil and immoral war, because I came to a point where I felt that silence was betrayal.

So that was -- I think that was his position.

Q. Mrs. King, on March 10th, 1969, one James Earl Ray entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to ninety-nine years in prison for the assassination of your husband. Mr. Ray
stayed in prison until he died. But he tried continually to get a trial. At one point the family decided to support an effort for a trial for Mr. Ray. Why did the family take that position that late in the day at that point in time?

A. Well, as a matter of fact, it was because he of new information that we had received and largely because of the efforts that you had put forth to investigate a

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

65

number of these leads that had come out and found that they were reliable enough. When we looked at it and investigated it, we felt then that we had to take a position. For years we hoped that somebody else would find out, find the answers. We wanted to know the truth. But
the truth was elusive.

We wanted to go on with our lives. We felt the only way we could do it was to really take the position that we did take, because the evidence pointed away from Mr. Ray, not that he might have not had some involvement but he was not the person we felt that really actually killed him.

THE COURT: Just a moment. I see this man aiming a camera at my jury. I don't know that he has been told not to.

DEPUTY JAMES: I've instructed him not to take it of the jury.

THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) What was the general reaction to the family as a result of that

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

66

position? Were there animosity? Were there attacks, lawsuits? What happened to the family, yourself and the children and the organization as a result of that position?

A. Well, there were a number of media articles that were negative toward the family. As a result of that -- there were several really and over a period of months, and as a result of it, we feel that there was some -- it had affected some of the support that we might have been able to receive for the King Center.

Q. Financial support?

A. Financial support, yes.

Q. Contributions?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that similar to what happened to SCLC back in 1967?

A. That's right.

Q. Mrs. King, why is the family bringing this action now thirty -- almost thirty-one years later against the defendant, Mr. Jowers?

A. Well, it has only been recently that

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

67

we realized the extent of Mr. Jowers' involvement. So we felt that it was important to bring it now. We're all getting older, I'll say, and, of course, we wanted to be able to get the truth, as much of it as we can, out before it gets later.

I don't know how much longer any of us will be around. That's not given. But the fact is that my family, my children and I -- I've always felt that somehow the truth would be known, and I hoped that I would live to see it. And it is important I think for the sake of healing for so many people, my family, for other people, for the nation. I think Martin Luther King, Jr., served this nation. He was a servant. He gave his -- he willingly gave his life if it was necessary. It is important to know, actually not because we feel a sense of revenge -- we never have.

We have no feeling of bitterness or hatred toward anybody. But just the fact that if we
know the truth, we can be free, and we can go on with our lives.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

68

Q. Mrs. King, is the family seeking a large monetary award from Mr. Jowers as a
result of this action?

A. No, it is not about money. That's not the issue. I think what we're concerned about is the fact that certainly there is some liability by Mr. Jowers, but we're concerned about the truth, having the truth coming out, and in a court of law so that it can be documented for all. And we were hoping that this would be one way of getting to the truth.

MR. PEPPER: Mrs. King, thank you very much.

MR. GARRISON: If we could possibly take a short break before I ask my questions.

THE COURT: Very well. We will take a fifteen-minute recess.

(Jury out.)

(Short recess.)

THE COURT: Are you ready for the jury?

MR. GARRISON: Yes, if Your

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

69

Honor please.

THE COURT: Bring the jury out.

(Jury in.)

THE COURT: All right, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to read to you before we begin here the Court rules on taking notes. You are permitted to take notes during the trial. You may take notes only of verbal testimony from witnesses, including witnesses presented by deposition or videotape. You may not take notes during the opening statements or closing arguments or take notes of objections made to the evidence. You may not take notes during
breaks or recesses. Notes may be made only in open court while witnesses are testifying. Your notes should not contain personal reactions or comments but, rather, should be limited to a brief factual summary of testimony you think is important.

Please do not let your note-taking distract you and cause you to miss what the witness said or how the witness said it.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

70

Remember that some testimony may not appear to be important to you at the time. The same testimony, however, may become important later in the trial. Your notes are not evidence. You should not view your notes as authoritative records or consider them as a transcript of
the testimony. Your notes may be incomplete or may have certain errors and are not an exact account of what was said by a witness.

All right. You may proceed, Mr. Pepper. Oh, would you like to cross-examine, Mr. Garrison?

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:

Q. Good morning, Mrs. King.

A. Goods morning.

Q. Ms. King, you and I met before and we've talked a few times. I've talked to your sons several times. Let me say this to you: I know it isn't easy for you to be the mother of four
children, but they are all fine, honorable

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

71

sons and daughters, very fine, honorable people and I know you are pleased with them. I know Dr. King would be.

Let me ask you, Ms. King, you've never been afforded the opportunity to come into a court of law such as this and be able to be a witness as a part of it, have you? When Mr. Ray had a hearing, you were not a party to that hearing, were you?

A. No.

Q. You never had an opportunity to come into a court of law before this to have a jury decide the issues in the case. Am I correct, please, ma'am?

A. That's correct.

Q. Let me ask you, did Dr. King before his assassination, sometime before he came to
Memphis , did he receive a lot of threats that you are aware of that may be hearsay? Was he
aware of a lot of threats?

A. Well, the morning that he was to come back to Memphis that second time, which was the final time, his plane was delayed because of threats that had come to him. I

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

72

understand that -- well, of course, over the years there had been threats on his life many
times.

Q. Do you recall, Ms. King, when Dr. King would appear at a place such as Memphis here who would plan his security? Do you know who was in charge of that or how they arranged for security for him? Did he have someone in his group that was responsible for it or did they rely on the local police department? Do you know how that was done?

A. I really don't know how that was handled except usually when he went into cities, the people who -- when he went to towns, the people locally, the committee locally that invited him, would handle the security.

Q. Let me ask you, Ms. King, when Dr. King returned from Memphis after the march, do you recall -- was there any particular group or any particular person that insisted he come back here a second time? Did he ever mention to you anything about any particular person or any group that insisted on him

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

73

coming back a second time?

A. I don't know about his coming back specifically, but I know about his coming initially. I think what he had said publicly before he left was that he was planning to come back. So I think there was that understanding that he would be coming back. How it came about I'm not sure.

Q. You mentioned earlier I believe that he seemed to be agonizing over the fact that he would return to Memphis . Was that because of the threat or because of the conditions here?

A. No, not because of the threats but just because it was so important that he lead a non-violent demonstration. Of course, there was an injunction. He had to get past the injunction as well. He took those -- his responsibility very, very seriously, because he knew that the nation and indeed the world was watching. In his own conscience he wanted to be clear that he was doing the right thing.

Q. Now, Ms. King, you are aware of the

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

74

fact that Mr. Jowers had met and conferred with Mr. Dexter King, your son, on one occasion, then again with Mr. Dexter King and Ambassador Young on another occasion. You have heard about that, I'm sure?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Are you aware of the fact that Mr. Jowers stated to them each time he met with them that he was not aware of any of the acts he did that would lead up to the assassination of Dr. King, that whatever acts -- there was no mention of that to him, that he had no idea that whatever acts he may have been called upon he had no idea would lead to the assassination Dr. King? Are you aware of that?

A. I'm not aware of the conversation as much as I wasn't involved with it. So I couldn't speak to the detail of that.

Q. I see.

MR. GARRISON: I believe that's all. Thank you, Ms. King.

THE COURT: Any redirect?

MR. PEPPER: Nothing further,

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

75

Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may stand down, Ms. King.

(Witness excused.)

MR. PEPPER: Plaintiffs call Dr. Cobey Smith.

COBEY SMITH

Having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:

Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Smith.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Thank you for coming here. Would you state your full name and address for the record, please.

A. Cobey Vernon Smith, 2240 Brown Avenue , Memphis , Tennessee .

Q. And what is your occupation?

A. I'm an educator consultant.

Q. Were you a member of a group called the Invaders back in 1968?

A. Yes.

Q. You were an active member of that

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

76

group at the time of the assassination of Martin Luther King?

A. Yes.

Q. At the time of the sanitation workers' strike?

A. Yes.

Q. And when were the Invaders formed?

A. In 1967.

Q. Who formed that group?

A. I formed that group along with Charles Cabbage and John Smith.

Q. What was the purpose of the Invaders? What was their organizational purpose?

A. The purpose was to provide an organizational format for young people, for people in the City of Memphis . We really formed as a result of the Meredith march in Mississippi , which is when I first met Dr. King. Many of us who had gone down became active in organizing and became proponents of the black power movement. We saw ourselves as agents for liberation of our people throughout the country.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

77

I don't know whether people can really remember this, but in 1966 and 1967 it was extremely unsafe to walk the streets in cities like Memphis and southern cities across the country, cities all over. So we saw ourselves as an organizing tool to make people aware of the fact that we were a free people with all the rights and privileges of Americans, to operate and seek prosperity, equality and all the other things that were rightfully ours by law.

Q. So the Invaders were a local community-organizing group?

A. That's right.

Q. How were the Invaders funded? How were they financed?

A. Out of our own pocket. We received no real funding. We received one grant for the black organizing project, which is a grant I wrote in 1967. We received some jobs from the War on Poverty Commission. Cab and I were hired as thirty-dollar-a-week organizers in 1967, a job from which we were fired because we had

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

78

affiliation with SNCC and other organizations.

Q. Would you tell the jury what SNCC stands for?

A. The Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee.

Q. What was the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee?

A. It was a national organization which spent -- which really developed out of the civil rights movement which at its inception provided the foot soldiers for the civil rights movement, the young men and women who went out and desegregated lunch counters, students from all over the country, many from Memphis, incidentally, who became the cannon fodder for the movement, as a matter of fact. We would go out and do the organizing work, go into the rural areas, go into the cities, the colleges, the prisons, everywhere there was a need really to let people know the kinds of things that Dr. King and others had talked about were realities

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

79

for us.

Q. Did you see yourself in a sense as foot soldiers, community-based foot soldiers, in that movement?

A. Well, you know, now that I'm a gray-haired old man, I don't want to be vain enough to say that. We really thought that we were a chosen few on a mission. We really saw ourselves as helping fulfill the American dream.

We were idealists for the most part. We were people born of desire to change the concept in America from its desegregated biased roots and its hatred for African-Americans to people who understood that we should enjoy the right to vote, the right to speak freely, the right to come and go as we please, to live where we wanted to, to seek an education, all those little things that people now seem to say we take for granted.

Q. With this background and this history and this organizational activity, was there a time when you associated -- became associated

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

80

with Dr. King's activities in Memphis ?

A. Oh, yes. Oh, yes.

Q. When was that?

A. When the sanitation workers started their -- we did the basic street organizing, you might say, for the events that led up to the sanitation workers' strike. We went out and got the -- we told grown men that they had a right to petition government, to question police, to do all kinds of things. Then when the organization, the AFSCME, which is the American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees, started to organize its membership, many of its leaders came to us and they accepted our efforts to go out in the communities and gain support for the kind of people who needed this help. When you say this to somebody, it
probably sounds -- I don't know how to really describe it because this was a very dangerous
thing to do. You didn't have a right to go and talk to the city government about organizing its employees. That was against

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

81

the law. You did not have a right to question a policeman if they stopped you and talked to you or if they asked you a question. And people were afraid. We didn't have many lawyers, judges, anything else, who would actually stand up to the kind of abuse that we were subjected to here in Memphis .

So when the sanitation workers got together and decided they would organize, they offered a list of things that they wanted, to be recognized as a union, to receive the same pay as white employees, other kinds of things, that seem so mundane to us now. That platform that they used, we had been using it for a few years since a man who is now a judge ran for public works commissioner.

So we were involved in this process actively trying to get it together. And that year when we became -- when the union kind of put itself together, the real hell broke loose in Memphis . The mayor decided that it would never be recognized. A group of

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

82

ministers got together and decided that they would work in support of the union. We worked hard to get them to come in. And because we were having such great difficulty with the white community resisting this whole effort, with many people in the black community being threatened and who were afraid, the leadership of the strike itself decided to invite Dr. King here.

Dr. King was not only the greatest leader that we've ever had, he was a person who by his bearing and presence brought a kind of calm to the entire community, to those who were opposed to us. We understood because of our youth and our exuberance that sometimes we were not perceived as being ready to lead. There were people who were afraid of us because we would stop and ask questions.

Well -- or because we would even resist the kinds of pushing around that we received. Several days after the start of the strike itself, the sanitation workers had a march down Main Street , and the police took their

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

83

cars and pushed them into the sidewalk.

Q. Do you know -- excuse me for interrupting. Do you know the date of that particular march?

A. No, I don't remember the exact date. But it was --

Q. Was it in February of 1967 or March of 1967?

A. It would have been in February.

Q. Early on in the strike?

A. Yes. Very early in the strike. A number of sanitation workers were injured. Before that happened, two men were killed, were crushed, in a garbage truck, one that automatically closed down and collected the garbage. That set off a fierce to resistance, a fierce resistance. When they had to march down Main Street and the police attacked them, dogs,
clubs, guns, beat the hell out of a lot of them, we really decided to ask for a more militant stance from the union itself.

This probably sounds pretty mundane, but prior to that time the religious leaders

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

84

did not want to approach this as if it were a regular strike. Many of us had grown up in the -- with roots to the labor movement, just as we had to the civil rights movement. We believed, for example, that ASCFME should operate its strike just like the AFL-CIO or the Teamsters or anybody else and that we should stop the flow of trucks that were being driven by strike breakers, that we should end this garbage collection that was designed to break the strike. Well, we found ourselves in a greatly divided strike effort.

Many of the ministers and some of the black leaders in town were much more interested in compromising and going along with the edicts of the city administration. We did not want to see that occur. We wanted a full and legitimate recognition of the union. We wanted to make
sure that the rights of these employees were protected. Most of these men were from rural
West Tennessee, had been driven off the farm, had come in from places like Fayette County

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

85

where they had been driven off the land in what we call the Tent City .

Q. The founder of Tent City will be testifying in these proceedings. So we can move from that. But let me move you onto the association with Dr. King. What was the relationship that emerged between the Invaders and SCLC, Dr. King's organization here in Memphis , related to the sanitation workers' strike?

A. Originally when Dr. King's people got here there was a kind of an uneasiness between the two organizations. In fact, there were -- there was a brief struggle, skirmish, that kind of occurred, some bad feelings, some other things. It took Dr. King's arrival here to ease those problems out, to kind of smooth that over.

We insisted on following the same principles that we had learned from Dr. King during the
Meredith march in Mississippi and other places.

Q. Did the Invaders with its relationship with SCLC play a role in the

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

86

first march that Dr. King led here on the 28th of March, 1967, on behalf of the sanitation workers' strike?

A. We did not play an active role in that march because the night before, Reverend Jim Lawson and reverend H. Ralph Jackson came to the steering committee and presented a letter with bullets in it and said that they had been sent by the Invaders and that we had
threatened them. Consequently I ordered the members of our organization off the streets, not to participate.

Q. So the clergy-led steering committee received from somewhere --

A. From somewhere.

Q. -- a letter with some bullets in it?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was represented as having been sent by the Invaders?

A. That's right.

Q. It was taken as a threat by the more traditional civil rights groups here?

A. Yes. They were very annoyed with us. They didn't like our style. They didn't

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

87

like the blue jeans, the long hair. I used to have hair.

Q. Dr. Smith, style aside, did the Invaders send that threat to --

A. No, no.

Q. -- to the organization?

A. Quite frankly, the protocol for groups like ours, if we intended on sending a message, we sent a message. We were not interested in showing --

Q. Let me move you on. You know the march on the 28th of March became violent?

A. Yes.

Q. That was perhaps the only violent march or march that turned violent that Dr. King ever led.

A. Yes.

Q. And you know that the Invaders have been blamed for causing that disruption.

A. Yes.

Q. And you know that Dr. King returned to Memphis to lead another march on his fatal trip here as a result of that violent march?

A. Yes.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

88

Q. Now, let me ask you, did the Invaders disrupt that march?

A. No.

Q. How was that march disrupted? Who disrupted that march, to the best of your knowledge?

A. We received --

Q. Strike that. Let me rephrase that. Did you conduct as an organization an investigation?

A. Yes. I personally conducted an investigation. I ordered a complete investigation to see if any of our people were involved. As I said, I put an order out that our people would not attend the march because we had already, once that letter had been sent with the bullets in it, we knew that we would receive the blame. Our people started to report the influx of other individuals who were coming in with Illinois license plates who were seen about town, who were seen on Beale Street by our affiliates on Beale Street, and who were members of several organizations, some the

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

89

Black Egyptians out of East St. Louis, some reported to have been Blackstone Rangers out
of Chicago .

Q. So these were strangers that came to Memphis just prior to this march. Is that what you are saying?

A. That's right.

Q. Why would they have come to Memphis ?

A. We have no idea, because usually when organizations came to town, they would contact us. The Black Egyptians did. Chuck Cohen and some other people did in fact contact our people in an appropriate fashion. The ones we were concerned about were unidentified.

This is very unusual, because the nature of the movement was such that people relied on each other for housing, for accommodations, for transportation, for information, for all kinds of things. The nature of the movement was a very communal kind of thing. Everybody helped everybody if we could.

Q. What did you learn about the

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

90

disruption of that march and what do you know about -- from personal knowledge do you know
about how that march was disrupted?

A. That march was disrupted, in my opinion, by police and by agents from parts unknown who came here specifically to embarrass Dr. King and to disrupt the march. The FBI reports, classified reports that have since been released, indicate to me that through the informants that they -- they always black out the name of the informants -- always indicate that there were plans to disrupt our activities, to single out the individuals in my organization and
several other organizations as the kind of fall guys.

We were supposed to be the ones who would be blamed. Some indication was that the march was supposed to be stopped at Main Street and turned south on Main instead of being allowed to turn north where we were supposed to have had a warehouse with weapons in it and we were going to start a race war.

Q. This was the kind of rumor that you

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

91

heard?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. As a result of the violent disruption of the march, Dr. King decided to come back to Memphis ?

A. Yes.

Q. And the Invaders established yet a closer working relationship with him?

A. Yes.

Q. This time?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you going to work closely in the preparation of the next march?

A. Yes, yes. There were some essential problems with that first march. There were no marshals. There were no people on the march route who would establish what the perimeters of the march would be. In a disciplined march, you always have to have someone organize the flanks to keep the people separated from the pedestrians, so to speak, who would stand there, even though we encouraged people to join the march, the idea is you have to have very disciplined people

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

92

who will not break windows, who will not run, who will not panic, who will not be afraid, in case we met force. The marshals were instructed to protect people, to show them how not to panic and cause themselves to be hurt. That didn't exist in the first march. In the second march, Dr. King made an agreement for the Invaders to participate in the march, to be marshals for the march, to protect individuals and to make certain that we were not blamed for things that ultimately happened in the first march.

Q. Just reverting quickly to the break-up of the first march, do you know which hotel Dr. King was taken to when that march turned violent?

A. Yes. He was taken to the Rivermont. It was a Holiday Inn flagship, which is now an apartment building. But when our people went up there, he had no guards on his room, they went straight to the room and were able to see Dr. King without anybody protecting him. We thought that was horrendous. We

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

93

thought that that was -- we really were very afraid for Dr. King at that time.

Q. In the planning in which you were engaged in the second march, the march that Dr. King never made, the march which in fact became a memorial march for his death, did you take up rooms under the -- with the financial support of his organization?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. Did you take up those rooms at the Lorraine Motel?

A. Yes.

Q. The very place where Dr. King was assassinated?

A. Yes. As a part of the organization.

Q. Do you recall how many rooms the Invaders had there?

A. They had two rooms.

Q. And how many Invaders were in those rooms at that time?

A. The total numbers probably ran to about twenty, from ten to twenty Invaders. Some would leave and come back. Other people would come. But around ten to twenty.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

94

Q. And this was a part of your working arrangement with Dr. King so you would be on site to plan with him. Is that right?

A. That's right. And to assist in SCLC's efforts in whatever fashion was required.

Q. Were the Invaders at some point summarily asked to leave the Lorraine Motel?

A. My field representatives called and reported they had been asked to leave the hotel, that they had been put out.

Q. When did that take place?

A. Just a little while before the assassination.

Q. On the day of April 4th?

A. On the day of April 4th.

Q. Close to the time of the assassination?

A. Yes. Within a few hours.

Q. Excuse me.

A. Within a few hours.

Q. Did the Invaders in fact leave the motel at that time?

A. Yes. It was a very difficult

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

95

situation. Some Invaders were still there, but once put out of the room, the main body of our group had to do what they were asked to do. At the time that I received the report from the people in the field, they were also concerned about a number of other things.

There was no police presence. It was a very confused situation. We did not know who was in charge. Some of -- I could not get a clear answer about who gave the order to put the Invaders out of the hotel.

Q. We may come to that with other witnesses. But were you surprised that you were asked to leave the hotel?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. This was not in accordance with your arrangements with Dr. King?

A. No, it was not. Dr. King had agreed to involve the Invaders. He had chastised his people for making it difficult for the Invaders to operate along with them. We had a very good relationship.

Dr. King probably is the reason --

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

96

James Lawson and Dr. King are the reasons that I have spent almost thirty-five years of my life in the movement.

MR. PEPPER: No further questions. Your witness.

THE COURT: Do you expect your cross-examination to be lengthy?

MR. GARRISON: I don't think it will be terribly long. I'll go on if you want me to.

THE COURT: I'll take about five seconds. Then you can continue with your examination.

(Brief recess.)

THE COURT: Mr. Garrison.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. GARRISON:

Q. Dr. Smith, if I may ask you a few questions, I would appreciate it. Let me ask you, during the time that you were working with Dr. King's group, were you made aware of any threats against Dr. King by any source?

A. No.

Q. And when Dr. King came in the first

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

97

time when there was a march and there was a riot and he had gone back to Atlanta , are you
aware of the fact that he planned to come back or said I'll be back? How was that left?

A. I was aware that Dr. King was going to be back. We were extremely interested in making sure that the march worked, that the sanitation workers' strike was successful.

Q. Among the group that you were with, Dr. Smith, the Invaders, was there a gentleman whose name was Merrell McCullough?

A. Yes.

Q. What part did he play in this?

A. Merrell McCullough was our director of transportation. He had the only car and the only gas. So we made him the minister of transportation. That should have made us leery right there. We're talking about some poor youngsters in a very poor town. I guess you can say that Memphis is still a poor town.

We didn't have anything. We didn't have any money. We got around the best we

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

98

could, which was usually to bum a ride. In fact, the police would sometimes have to give us a ride. The ones that were watching us would sometimes give us a ride. McCullough was a very accessible person. He would come to my home every day, as he would go around all the Invaders. When I met him, he was introduced to me by what we call the Riverside Invaders, who brought him into the organization.

Q. Did you later learn that he at that time was working undercover for the Memphis Police Department?

A. Yes. I was invited down to the police department after Dr. King was assassinated, and I was introduced to him by inspector types of the Memphis Police Department as Officer Merrell McCullough.

Q. And would it surprise you to learn that he was brought into Mr. Jowers' restaurant by another officer and introduced as Officer Merrell McCullough?

A. I did not know about that until much later on, but I was extremely surprised. I

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

99

think one of the reasons I was surprised is because we felt that there were people who would infiltrate our group, but we did not have any idea that the infiltration was of a nature broader than the local police department.

We knew that many members of the -- many men who are now members of the police department, in fact, the former police director who has just recently resigned, was also an undercover agent in our organization.

Q. Dr. Smith, the day that the assassination occurred, you were along with some other members of your group in a room or two rooms at the Lorraine Motel. Am I correct, sir?

A. The members of my organization were there.

Q. What floor were you on?

A. On the second floor.

Q. All right. Was there a time that day that you had occasion to look across the street to see what was down on the street

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

100

below the motel and across over there on the other side? Did you have any occasion to do that that day that you recall?

A. I did not. On that day I had to leave to maintain what we call our information center. What I had to do was to receive the information from around the city from our various locations where we thought the strategic information that told us what was happening with the strike itself, with the plans for events and activities, in preparation for the strategy team's meeting and that sort of thing.

Q. All the time that you were at the hotel and the going and coming, do you ever remember seeing anyone in that brush area there across from the hotel? Do you ever recall any activity, seeing anyone in that area?

A. No, I did not see anyone in that area.

MR. GARRISON: Dr. Smith, I had hair once like you. Thank you.

THE COURT: Any redirect?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

101

MR. PEPPER: Very briefly, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:

Q. Dr. Smith, do you know where Merrell McCullough is employed today?

A. I understand he is employed at the Central Intelligence Agency out of Langley, Maryland .

Q. Langley , Virginia ?

A. Virginia.

MR. PEPPER: No further questions.

THE COURT: All right. You may stand down, Dr. Smith.

(Witness excused.)

THE COURT: All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our lunch break at this time. We'll resume at two o'clock.

(Lunch recess.)

THE COURT: All right. Bring the jury out, please.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

102

(Jury in.)

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Pepper. Call your next witness.

MR. PEPPER: Thank you, Your Honor. Plaintiffs call in Charles Cabbage.

CHARLES CABBAGE

Having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Cabbage.

A. How are you doing, sir.

Q. For the record, would you state your full name and address, please.

A. Charles Laverne Cabbage, 1942 Florida Street , Number 6, Memphis , Tennessee .

Q. Thank you very much for coming down here this afternoon.

A. You are perfectly welcome.

Q. We've heard testimony earlier about the Invaders and the background and the purpose of the organization and all of that detail.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

103

What I want to do is I want to move on with you. Would you tell us what your position was in the Invaders around the time of 1968?

A. Around 1968 -- first of all, let me try to clear something up here as far as the name "Invaders" goes. My title was execute secretary of the Black Organizing Project, which was a project that we had put together and made up one of the groups we organized. The press actually just gave us the name "Invaders" and it kind of stuck. You know, it kind of stuck. A lot of people can kind of relate to that.

Generally we were referred to as the Invaders about, but actually my title was executive secretary, Black Organizing Project.

Q. What was your role in the Black Organizing Project and that group in particular?

A. Well, basically training street organizers, going on to campuses, trying to set up various and different groups,

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

104

educating, trying to empower black people basically, trying to make an impression on the structure, the power structure, as it was at the time, generally raising the consciousness of black people at that time period. We were basically facing difficult times.

Q. Consciousness-raising activities?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Now, when the march Dr. King led on the 28th of March broke up into a riot, did you and any of the members of the organization meet with Dr. King shortly after that?

A. We did. We met afterward. We had made an effort to meet with him before then, before the march. There were many indications that there was going to be a serious problem, but we were unable to reach him at the time. After the riot occurred, we made an effort to meet with him then. We knew he was staying at the Rivermont. That was public knowledge at the time. So a group of us we

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

105

met out at John's apartment out in south Memphis and we decided that we best go over
there and try to get a chance to talk to him and let him know what the situation was, what
he had walked into.

Q. Some of you went along to the Rivermont to meet with Dr. King. Would that -- when would that have been? Would have been the day after the riot?

A. You are going to have to help me here with these dates and times here. We're talking about a long time ago. As near as I can recollect, I think it was probably been the next day.

Q. The riot took place on the 28th of March. You would have met with him on the 29ing of March?

A. Probably. Probably.

Q. When you went to the Rivermont to meet with Dr. King after this disruption, did you notice any security at the Rivermont for him that the point?

A. No. It was nonexistent. It is kind of strange you should ask that question,

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

106

because when we decided to go, that's the first thing we thought about, how were we going to get past the security, because we knew that there would be some. So one of the fellows that was with us at the time, he said, well, we'll try and see if we can't get through the back door. We walked through the back door. Lo and behold, the back door came straight open, I
mean, no problem at all. We walked right into the door, upstairs to his room, knocked on the door, never saw a soul, no one.

Q. You went directly up to his room?

A. Directly.

Q. You knocked on the door?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there any security inside the room?

A. No security.

Q. Who answered the door?

A. I think Reverend Abernathy answered the door. No, wait a minute. Let me get this straight. Was it Bernard Shaw that was with him at the time. You have to help me

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

107

here. I think Bernard answered the door because I think Dr. King was in the bathroom putting on his tie. I think Reverend Abernathy was standing in the background. I introduced myself, told Mr. Shaw my name is Charles Cabbage, I'd like to talk to Dr. King, I represent the Invader organization. Reverend Abernathy immediately said, stop, no, the doctor does not want to talk to you all now. At this particular time I heard Dr. King call out from the bathroom, he said, no, let him in because I want to talk to him. So we went in the room and sat down and we had a nice long talk.

Q. Basically what was the nature of that conversation?

A. We had brought along some literature, discussing, you know -- explaining our position on certain issues, describing our organization, its structure, some of our goals and objectives.

We were really trying to demonstrate to him that the rumors that had been spread

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

108

about us were untrue and unfounded, that we were really not out to create any kind of disruptive behavior in the City of Memphis, that we were really about basically, like I said, consciousness-raising, introducing the concept of the empowerment of black people at the time generally referred to as black power. That was almost a criminal offense at that particular time. We felt there was some work that needed to be done. In the process of presenting our literature to him, we also presented parts of a program that we had put together that we wanted to try to establish into the community called the Community
Unification Program. We were seeking funding at that particulars time.

But the conversation never really got into the literature itself. They looked it over and went immediately to the march and what happened.

Q. How did Dr. King react to this conversation that you had with him?

A. Dr. King was hot hostile. He was

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

109

positive all the way. His first reaction was, and it kind of shocked me in a way, because I was expecting him to be hostile and I was expecting him to be a bit defensive, you know, because the information that he had received was that we were opposed to everything he stood for, and the first question he asked me was, you know, Brother Cabbage, why did you all do this to me? I explained to him, I said, Doc, we did not do this to you.

Our intention from the very beginning has been, first of all, we did not want you to come here because we had been organizing around -- we had been organizing around not a non-violent theme at that particular time. For him to walk into Memphis trying to lead a non-violent demonstration on the occasion we're talking about was just walking into the jaws of a tiger. It was in our best interest as well as his for him not to be here. We wanted him
not here.

So we weren't able to accomplish

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

110

that, because we really just didn't have the voice that we wanted in the meetings and
strategy sessions that were being held at the time that was controlling the sanitation
strike and those events.

Q. There came a time as a result of this meeting and other discussions that your organization came to agree to work with Dr. King in terms of the following march, the next march that was planned?

A. All this was discussed -- all this came about that day in that meeting, because, know, after I had told -- I don't want to make it sound like I'm giving Dr. King advice, but I tried to inform him as best as I could of what the situation was, the volatility of the situation and some of the things that he could do to be able to come into Memphis and be able to have a non-violent demonstration. I let him know that we had been organizing around counter-themes for at least a year, that a lot of people were aware of it, and in order for him to be able to pull a

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

111

successful non-violent march off here in Memphis, that he needs to pull up all the way, go back to Atlanta, reorganize, send in some workers to begin to teach non-violent doctrines and discipline, because in order to be able to do and accomplish what they were setting out -- what they were attempting to do would take some serious training.

Q. When you met with him and were agreeing to work together, you took up residence in the Lorraine Motel as a means of a place for working with him for manning the second march. Is that right?

A. His suggestion was one of the things we need to do then was probably try to work together. He said, what I will do is we will go back and I'll send some people in and we're going to put you and maybe some of your people on the staff. We agreed immediately, you know. From that point on we decided when they came back, they were contacted. When they came back, I don't remember the exact time line on this, but we took up in the

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

112

Lorraine Motel, we took the two rooms on the top floor, the right-hand side of the building.

Q. Do you know how many people were in those two rooms?

A. We just had the two rooms. At that time we were young. They just stayed full all the time.

Q. Those rooms were on the balcony level, the upper level?

A. Balcony level, yes.

Q. The same level on which he was assassinated?

A. Yes.

Q. Did there come a time when you were asked to leave those rooms?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. This was after the third meeting that we had had. Let me try and explain this. After the organizers for SCLC had come to Memphis , had come back to Memphis after Dr. King had left, Reverend Orange, Carl Reader (Phonetic) and some of the others at that

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

113

time, we began to go out into the community and have workshops. So we began to get to be quite friendly. We got along well. So when Dr. King came back, we began to meet downstairs
in the dining room. We had two meetings downstairs in the dining room. We had one in his room. And in the meeting we were discussing how we would be able to pull the march off.

And one of the things that we had decided that would be necessary would be that the Invaders would be involved in actually marshalling the demonstration. I had problems with that initially because I didn't think I could sell that to the group. So when I took this back to our board up on the second floor where we were staying, we had heated arguments about it, but eventually got this over to the entire group and we agreed to marshal the parade. This is after the second meeting we probably -- finally came to a decision and we were on board to act as marshals.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

114

Q. You were on board after the second meeting?

A. After the second meeting we were on board.

Q. After the third meeting somehow you were told to leave the hotel?

A. Now, John had to remind me of this. After the second meeting after we had come to the conclusion that we were all going to work together on this, that we had as much at stake in it as they did, so, therefore, it would be the right thing for us to do, we had sort of an impromptu meeting in Dr. King's room where we had some final points to work out. That meeting lasted maybe about five to ten minutes. We go back to the hotel, to our rooms, and we discussed it a little bit, and we sat around, and here comes a knock on the door.

Q. There was a knock on the door?

A. Yeah.

Q. This was on the 4th of April?

A. Yes.

Q. On the day of the assassination?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

115

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What time was this knock on the door?

A. It took us about twenty minutes to clear the room.

Q. So it took you twenty minutes to clear the room?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. What is the significance of that? What time does that make it?

A. We weren't really keeping no watch or time on this. We weren't really watching the
clock per se. But from some of the things that I read from some of the investigations that had been carried out since then, I think we left out about ten until six or eleven until six or something like this.

Q. You were told to leave?

A. Yeah.

Q. Sometime within a half hour, thirty-five minutes, of the killing you left?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. You left at ten minutes to six, which is about eleven minutes before the killing?

A. See, this is did --

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

116

Q. Somewhere in there?

A. I always felt that as we were pulling out -- it took us a little while to get organized to get out of the room. There were quite a few of us there. We got out as quickly as we could. We weren't ready to go. We were there all day for meetings and everything.

There was only one car there, that was mine. We threw things in the car, got in the car. As soon as we got in the car and drove up Mulberry, this is when I heard the shot.

Q. Very shortly after you --

A. Before I could make it to Main Street .

Q. Why were you asked to leave the motel within minutes of the killing?

A. There is a lot of conjecture on that. I do not know. I mean, it is illogical. It doesn't make any sense. Check-out time is the next day.

Q. Was your room paid for through that evening?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

117

A. Yes. I mean, SCLC was taking care of the entire bill.

Q. So they had paid for it through the evening?

A. I don't know what their records indicate, but I would assume if they had already rented the room, you know, then -- they don't rent them by the half day. It was just a totally illogical move. It didn't make any sense.

Q. Who gave the orders for you to leave the motel?

A. Izzy answered the door. I wouldn't have been the one to answer the door. Izzy answer the door. Izzy, from my best recollection, says that one of the maids had come by to clean the room and asked us to leave, they said that you all would have to leave. Next came Reverend Orange and came in and explained to us that, hey, man, you all will have to leave. Nobody asked why because -- you know, we had feelings that there was something very, very wrong because

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

118

it was sort of a surreal kind of a day. But we had no inkling that he would have been assassinated that afternoon.

Q. He was assassinated within a very few minutes of your being told to leave. Did anyone ask the maid who gave the instructions for you to leave?

A. Not to my recollection. Not to my recollection. Nobody asked her that. I asked Orange why we got to leave.

Q. And what did he say?

A. My best recollection -- I don't know how to put this. Jessie said you got to go.

Q. Jessie?

A. Yeah.

Q. Jessie Jackson said you had to go?

A. Yes.

Q. Was Jessie Jackson a person who worked closely with your organization?

A. No, no.

Q. Who were the SCLC people who worked closely with you?

A. Carl Reader and Orange .

Q. Why would Reverend Jackson be the one

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

119

to give you instructions for you to leave?

A. I never questioned that. I assumed by him handling the money it was a clear-cut decision for him saying -- the way it came down, we were not paying for the room, Jessie was not authorizing payment for the room anymore, so you all have to leave.

Q. They already had paid for the room apparently?

A. This I realize now, but at that particular time we never knew how serious these minutes and seconds were, you know, to a significant historical event. I mean, in hindsight we can see these things, but as they occurred, you know, who would take time to remember anything like that and write it down or jot it down.

Q. So, Charles, I put it to you your testimony this afternoon is that you were asked to leave late in the day close to the time of the killing, you did leave --

A. Yeah.

Q. -- and then you heard the shot within a short time after you left?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

120

A. As soon as I pulled off the lot and made a right turn, got beside the fire station, the shot rang out. We all ducked down in the car. Normally we would make a right turn to go down to Beale Street and turn left to get on the interstate. This time when we heard the shot we immediately began -- See, we had a different route from leaving the hotel. At night we would take a different route because of the police surveillance around the hotel at night. So we took a left turn, took Calhoun, went toward the river, took a back street to Florida street, got to Crump, went back over to Castle, I think it was, and went over the railroad tracks and back alleys and made it all the way to south Memphis.

Q. Did you notice any security, any police presence or security, in the motel late that afternoon before you left and after you left?

A. Not at any time.

Q. I'm sorry?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

121

A. Not at any time.

Q. You didn't notice any security?

A. There was none. There was never any security, never.

MR. PEPPER: No further questions, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. GARRISON:

Q. Mr. Cabbage, I have two or three questions I would to ask you if you don't mind. Before this date of April the 4th when you were asked to leave the room, did you ever learn of any threats against Dr. King? Was it common that you heard any threats against him?

A. Yeah.

Q. Was it a pretty much common day-to-day thing?

A. No, this was a direct knock on my front door to my house, which made it even more expedient for us to try and get to him and let him know. There was a gentleman that knocked on my mother's front door. We were

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

122

sitting in the house. He came inside and introduced himself. He was from South Africa . He came in and sat down, sirens wailing, fires going off all over the city, curfew on. This man came into our house, sat down and talked to me and told me, said, Charles, I'm going to tell you something, they are going to kill Dr. King in Memphis . I done about passed out.

Q. Is that the day before the assassination?

A. I can't recall that date. I really can't.

Q. Was it the general feeling of the Invaders that it was unsafe for Dr. King to come here to Memphis ?

A. Absolutely.

Q. You didn't want him to come here?

A. No, we did not.

Q. Is that because it was not safe to come?

A. It was unsafe, and we knew that because of the position that we had taken

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

123

politically that if anything went wrong, that we would be the one to blame for it.

Q. They would blame it on your group?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Did you recall a gentleman in your group named Merrell McCullough?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What part did he play with your group?

A. Merrell first came into the organization because of the activities that we were conducting out at Memphis State . We were organizing the Black Students Association out there. Merrell I think was attending classes out there. I think John B. Reddin told him.
He was interested and wanted to learn more about the condition of black people in this condition, so John brought him to the apartment where we were generally holding these meetings, which were generally open to anybody who wanted to attend, they could come. And Merrell came.

Q. The day that you were organizing in

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

124

the room before the assassination, Mr. Cabbage, was Merrell McCullough there, was he one of the ones?

A. No, he was not there. He was with Reverend Orange.

Q. Do you know where Merrell McCullough was when you left the room that day?

A. He and Reverend Orange gone out shopping or something like this. We knew that he was the police, but what can you do about this. You know you are going to be infiltrated. We made him minister of transportation. He had a car. We gave him something to do.

Then when we made the alliance with SCLC and began to work with SCLC, he came along with the group. So now he is moving driving people around, some of the SCLC staff people around. It is just of the one of the quirks the way things happened. He ended up driving the SCLC staff around. We did not know he was as highly connected as he was.

Q. Let me ask you this: You said you were ordered to leave sometime late that

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

125

afternoon before six o'clock?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see Reverend Jackson at the motel before you left?

A. Yes, he was at the meeting.

Q. Late that afternoon?

A. We met during the day. If you want to go into the event, we can talk about the meeting, but he was there at the hotel that day. As a matter of fact, he was the last person we saw as we left the meeting. He was standing down by the pool.

Q. He was down on the parking level, lower level?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And did you see Dr. King talking to reverend Jessie Jackson?

A. Not at that time, no.

Q. Mr. Cabbage, let me ask you this: You were in the room facing the street over across from the rooming house across there, weren't you?

A. We were right by where the pool used to be.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

126

Q. Did you ever look over there and see in the brushy area where it was raised up off the street with a concrete barrier, I think it is, and a lot of trees, did you ever see anyone in there moving around in the bushes that you could tell?

A. No. I never really paid any attention to it. We were constantly moving around, our people, because we provided our own security, and no reports ever came to me that we ever saw anything or anybody at that particular time.

Q. When you heard the shot the day that it occurred, did you go back to the scene or did you go ahead and leave?

A. We immediately went to Riverside Community. We got stopped once by a police officer, a young guy. I don't know who he was. He was nervous. He talked to us and he let us go. That took about five minutes. We went directly to my mother's house. She come running. As I pulled up in front of the house, she is rushing down to the house crying, screaming to the top of her

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

127

voice, they just shot Dr. King, they just shot Dr. King. I immediately began to think, oh, my God, how far is this going to go, because we were aware that the assassination plot was on because of the fellow that had come to my house. So what I did was I got out of the car and turned the car over to some of the other people in our organization, sent it back down to the hotel to see in the event anybody else would be targeted, if we could be of any assistance security-wise. We weren't trained professionals or anything like that. Anybody in a situation like that would try to help.

MR. GARRISON: That's all I have. Thank you, sir.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:

Q. Mr. Cabbage, do you know who the man was who came into your home and told you that Dr. King was going to be assassinated?

A. He introduced himself as John Laue.

Q. I'm sorry?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

128

A. He introduced himself as John Laue.

Q. John Laue?

A. Yes.

Q. How do you spell his last name?

A. I didn't ask for a spelling, but there was another John Laue present at the hotel who spelled his name L O U E, I think, but, you know, this man was an entirely different -- a totally different description.

Q. Was there man black or white?

A. He was Middle Eastern, long brown hair. I'd remember him again if I saw him. I never saw him again.

Q. Did you know him previously?

A. No. Never seen him before in my life.

Q. Never seen him before in your life?

A. No.

Q. Could his name have been spelled L A U E?

A. Something like that. I may have the spelling wrong. I didn't ask him how to
spell his name is what I'm trying to say. I do remember him saying that his name was John

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

129

Laue. I do remember that.

Q. Did you ask him how he knew there was going to be an assassination?

A. He just said he knew.

Q. He just said he knew?

A. Yeah.

Q. You didn't ask him how he knew?

A. No.

Q. Do you know where he was employed?

A. He said he was a photographer a freelance photographer, a journalist.

Q. Freelance photographer?

A. Freelance photographer journalist from South Africa .

Q. Was his first name John or Joseph?

A. I'm saying that he said he introduced himself as John Laue.

Q. Charles, was it routine practice for some of the Invaders to carry weapons?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And why would they carry weapons?

A. Basically for protection.

Q. Protection against whom?

A. Well, it was a hostile environment we

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

130

were working in. We had numerous confrontations with the police. There were armed bands of white citizens who rode around in the community with high-powered rifles in their car. Some of us had been shot at before. It was basically for self-defense.

Q. When you saw Reverend Jackson standing down at the swimming pool, was he doing anything?

A. Well, he said -- he had his arms folded and checking the time seeing how long it would take us to get out of the hotel.

Q. He was looking at his watch?

A. He was checking it.

Q. Lastly, did you have the occasion as a result of your suspicion of a white person who wanted to associate with the Invaders to go through some personal documents of that person?

A. That was an incident that occurred. This was a year prior to. A gentleman with military intelligence -- we used to hang out at a place called the Log Cabin. This is where we used to meet on South Parkway . This

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

131

guy come stumbling in drunk, strange in the first place, because he had to be nuts being
there in south Memphis at this particular time anyway. He comes into our meeting room. He
was immediately stopped, frisked and robbed. In the process of being robbed, somebody took
his wallet. In going through the wallet, we found a military intelligence ID and three
dollars.

Q. And three dollars?

A. Three dollars.

Q. You found an identification card with military intelligence officer?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. This was about a year before the killing?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. This would be then in 1967?

A. 1967, yes. Yes, sir.

MR. PEPPER: No further

questions.

THE COURT: All right. You may stand down, sir. Thank you.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

132

(Witness excused.)

JOHN McFERREN

Having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:

THE COURT: Sit back and relax.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Good afternoon Mr. McFerren.

A. Glad to be here.

Q. Thank you for coming. Would you state your full name and address for the record, please.

A. My full name is John McFerren, spelled J O H N, capital M C F ER R E N, McFerren.

Q. And your address, Mr. McFerren?

A. 7615 Highway 195, Somerville, spelled S O M E R V I L L E, zip code is 38068.

Q. Thank you. John, would you just tell the Court, please, and the jury a bit of your
background, how you come to be where you are

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

133

today.

A. First of all, I'd like to say my granddaddy was brought here five years before the Civil War in chains. He was a slave. And lesser than a mile and a half from the store, the record will show in 1867 he gave seven dollars and a half for four hundred acres of land. We have some of that in the family yet.

Q. John, did there come a time in 1959 or 1960 that you became involved in civil
rights activity, voter registration activity, in Fayette County and the area of Somerville?

A. Well, I'd like to please the Court to go back a little bit further than that how I got deeply involved. I met Gerald Estes in Camp Ellis , Illinois , and later I met him again in 1957. In 1957 he was a young practicing attorney. He came to Somerville to defend Burton Dotson.

Q. John, what opposition did you meet when you started, though, moving -- I'm moving forward -- when you started the voter registration project in Fayette County ?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

134

A. According to the way I got the records together, before 1960 there was no negroes registered to vote in that county. In 1957 me and Mr. Estes and the others got together. He was the legal counsel. We ormed a league called the Fayette County Civic & Welfare League to set out to get negroes registered to vote.

At that time the negroes didn't have no chance, and the law, they would pick them up, sentence them, and put them out on the road, and a negro didn't have no chance. The only way we could figure out to change that landscape was through the ballot box.

Q. What did you do?

A. We formed this group. It was the first -- around about April or May in 1959 to get the negroes registered to vote. We got a small majority of negroes registered, and we had a local sheriff election. The local man that we was supporting was named L. T. Redbanks. He run for sheriff against the local sheriff. The Democrat party refused to let us vote.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

135

That's how it got started. That's how it got started. When they refused to let us vote, on August the 12th, 1959, Gerald Estes filed a suit against the Democratic party asking for us to have the right to cast our ballot.

Q. What happened as a result of that action?

A. Well, that was in 1959. In 1960, the early part of 1960, we was still pushing to get negroes registered to vote, and the local editor of the Fayette Falcon was named Coaster. The wavy understand it, the Commercial Appeal man name here was named Coaster. They was folks.

When we got it going, he put an ad in the Fayette Falcon and the Commercial Appeal that they was going to make a thousand negroes move off the land in 1960, that winter.

During that time in 1960, if you registered, you had to move. The leaders of the movement, the citizen council and the Klu Klux Klan, they had a list that later

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

136

that we got ahold to it through by borrowing it from the Klu Klux Klan's secretary. Ebony magazine published the list. We got ahold of it, forwarded it -- we got a photostatic copy of it, and the made carried it back and put it in the safe and they never knew how we got the list.

The list in this Ebony magazine had all -- had A's behind it, that you couldn't buy nothing nowhere. I was the leader of the group, and they run me out of every wholesale house in Memphis .

Q. Now, this was an embargo list, this was a list of people who no wholesale house should sell any products of any sort. Is that what you are saying?

A. Wouldn't sell them for money at no price.

Q. Moving on now, John, what kind of business were you in, what kind of business did you take over?

A. Well, my brother, he had the store. And he had an education and always followed saw mills and such. He said, I'm going to

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

137

move, I'm just going to leave. He thought he was the one that was behind the movement all the time, and I was the one who was spearheading the movement with the people. He moved to Memphis and left them out there. When he moved to Memphis , then Gulf Oil Company, they jumped in the squeeze. In 1960 no oil company would sell no black farmers no gasoline, no oil and no seed in 1960. It was a liberal at Eades named Ben Roafer. He told all the farmers to come down there to him and he'd sell them what they want. He had more business than he could look at.

During that time I made friends with the underworld. What I mean by the underworld, they run me out of every wholesale house in Memphis but Malone & Hyde. The bread companies wouldn't sell nothing to me. There was a young bread man who said, tell you what you do, you meet me out there on Summer Avenue and I'll sell you off the bread off the truck.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

138

I would come to Memphis and meet him on Summer Avenue in Memphis in a 1955 Ford car. That's what I had. I would come to Memphis and meet him on Summer Avenue and get bread. They Klan would get after me every night or two. I had -- which I'm a top mechanic myself on the old models. To make a car run fast and turn curves faster, if you noticed, a 1955 Ford has got a solid frame in the front. We took the torch and cut two inches out of the frame in the front. That brought the front wheels in and let the back wheels be wider, and we had chains on -- see, a 1955 Ford has got straight springs behind it. That let the car wheels up when it would go around a sharp curve, it would slide around. At that time, which I could see a
nail in the highway now, at that time my vision was better and I could drive just like I was standing still, and when they'd get after me, I'd cut over in them back roads, and them new cars couldn't turn good like me. At that time wasn't no two-way radios in

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

139

cars. During that time we had Tent City going.

Q. John, let me stop you there. Would you just tell the Court and the jury what Tent City was?

A. Tent City, we went to Washington, and me and my attorney, Carrie Porter Boyd and one other guy. At that time this was under the Eisenhower Administration, and they filed an injunction against the landowners from stop making the tenant farmers move. And this was under the Eisenhower Administration.

That was in 1961. President Kennedy got elected in 1961 in November, and he took office in 1962.

Q. Well, John, let's back up a minute. It is a historical fact that John Kennedy was elected in 1960, took office January 20th of 1961. So it is a year back.

A. A year back. I'm just --

Q. That's okay. Continue.

A. And during that time that I was leading my folks and all this was -- we'd

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

140

have meetings to discuss it, and I decided the only way to be successful in political ranks would be independent from the citizen's council and the Klu Klux Klan. What I mean by being independent, stay out of the Klan's pocketbook. When you borrow money from the Klan, he squeeze up on you in a minute.

Q. John, what kind of business do you run today?

A. I run a grocery store and oil company.

Q. How long have you run that business?

A. I've been running that business since 960.

Q. That's when you took it over from your brother?

A. That's when I took it over from my brother. But now let me run back back just a second. Shaw, a fellow named Shaw, bought it from my brother first. He stayed in it about a month and a half. Because of me going into the business after then -- there was an eighty-three year old man named John Lewis.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

141

He said, John, he says, they will starve us to death, we need somebody in that business who knows how to do and feed us. At that time a test was going. If you get Jet magazine, you can see some of the people were so poor, they were starving. Of course, you take most of the people at that time, they had never been nowhere or no-how to maneuver out of oppression.

The Jet magazine published some pictures how poor the folks were at that time.

Q. In Fayette County ?

A. In Fayette County .

Q. Let's move on. You have run this business all these years?

A. That's correct.

Q. How many days a week is your business open?

A. The onliest time -- at that time the business was -- we were running seven days a week. I had a family. But after I lost -- the Klan tore my family up. I only shuts it up when I go to pick up merchandise.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

142

Q. Now, where do you buy your merchandise?

A. All over Memphis .

Q. Where have you always bought your merchandise?

A. Well, I bought all over Memphis . I'd buy from Frank Liberto's Produce, I'd buy from the meat houses, Morrell Meat Company, Fineberg Meat Company. I know every one in Memphis .

Q. You sell produce and meats as well?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you sell fuel oil and gasoline?

A. That's correct.

Q. In 1968 where did you buy your produce?

A. From on market street.

Q. Was there a market there?

A. There was a market there when I first started coming there.

Q. What did you buy at this market?

A. I'd buy -- on that street, the street runs north and south, and on that street, the
banana house, the tomato house, and Frank

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

143

Liberto sold most of the produce and sometimes bananas.

Q. So you bought produce from a warehouse run by --

A. Frank Liberto.

Q. -- a man framed Frank Liberto. In 1996?

A. That's correct. I did before then. See, I knew him way before then. Around about 1960, 1960 or 1961, I got to know him real well.

Q. How many years had you been buying produce from Mr. Liberto?

A. Since 1906 or 1961.

Q. Since 1960 or 1961 he ran that warehouse?

A. He was there then, but I didn't know his name. When I first started going there, I didn't know his name like I did later.

Q. What day of the week -- do you recall what day of the week did you go to pick up your produce in the year 1968?

A. It was on a Thursday, around five-fifteen.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

144

Q. So you would -- why would you go there around five-fifteen every Thursday? A. Well, you've got to understand how I made the runs. I first started with Malone & Hyde on south -- Malone & Hyde was on South Parkway .

Q. Right.

A. I'd make that run, the dry grocery run. Then I would come on up and I'd have it to put my meat on ice and produce on ice. I'd make them's two places my last pick-ups.

Q. So Liberto's warehouse was your last pickup?

A. Was the last pickup.

Q. You would get there around five-fifteen?

A. I got there that day at five-fifteen exactly.

Q. We're coming to that day. April 4th was a Thursday, the day Martin Luther King was assassinated was a Thursday.

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you go to Frank Liberto's place that day?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

145

A. I went there that day.

Q. You arrived there at what time?

A. Around five-fifteen. Now --

Q. Would you describe what the layout of the place was and what you did when you arrived at that warehouse?

A. That warehouse faced east and west, but you enter in the gate on the south side,
and when I drove around to the north side and come up about fifteen feet of the door, I
stopped my truck. At that time I had a three-quarter ton pickup truck with a canvass
on it, a cloth canvass over it.

Q. Okay.

A. When I drove up to the -- when I stopped the pickup truck out in front of the door, this door is on the north side, and there is a big door that could you rollback and back a truck up in.

Coming in from the north side on the right side there is a little small office, and when I got within ten to fifteen feet of this office, why, Latch was standing up.

Q. Who was Mr. Latch?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

146

A. Mr. Latch had a scar around his neck like this.

Q. What was his relationship to Mr. Liberto?

A. He was a handyman. I never did know, because I was always scared of Mr. Latch.
You see, if you looked at him, he had a scar from right here to right there, and he would
always be mean, but Mr. Liberto was always friendly. I wouldn't fool with Mr. Latch. I would stay away from him if I could.

Q. So you walked in that afternoon, into the entrance and the office. You said you were how far from the office?

A. Ten to fifteen feet.

Q. Ten to fifteen feet from the office?

A. That's correct.

Q. Then what happened next?

A. The phone rang. When the phone rang, Latch picked it up. When Latch picked it up, Latch said, that's him again. He give it to Mr. Liberto. Mr. Liberto said, shoot the --

Q. You can just say what he said.

A. Shoot the son-of-a-bitch on the

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

147

balcony. Well, at that time they didn't have noticed me. I was just standing up a little
closer to them just looking. I was a cash-paying customer. He would always tell me, you go get what you want and come by the office and pay for it.

If the warehouse hadn't been changed, the doors, you have a line formed going in there.

Q. Let's go back over what you saw. You heard Mr. Liberto talking on the telephone?

A. Telephone.

Q. Around what time of the day was this?

A. I'd say that was around five -- ten minutes after, five-fifteen, around five twenty-five, not quite five-thirty.

Q. Five twenty-five to five-thirty you heard him talking on the telephone?

A. Telephone.

Q. He received a phone call. What did you hear him say once again?

A. Shoot the son-of-a-bitch on the balcony.

Q. Shoot the son-of-a-bitch on the balcony. Then what happened after that?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

148

A. Then he looked around and seen me. Then they said, go on and get your merchandise. The locker is made with two doors, you open one door, then you walks in and open another door. I went on in and got my merchandise, come on back out. Then when I was coming back out, the phone rang again. Latch picked it up and give it to Mr. Liberto. And Mr. Liberto told him to go to his brother in New Orleans and get his $5,000.

Mr. Liberto wrote me a ticket. I never would buy nothing from nowhere without a bill. He give me a bill. I took the bill, put my merchandise in the truck, then I went on the back side of the company out on that street and I come around to hit Summer Avenue and hit old 64 home. When I got home, my wife called and says, do you know Dr. King done got killed? I says, I know it. It all come back to me in my mind what I had heard. That's what I told her, I know it.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

149

Q. John, did you tell this story at that time to anyone?

A. I didn't tell it to no one until it got to worrying me, I wondered what they know I heard. You know, when you gets kind of itchy -- that was on a Thursday. So on a Friday or Saturday, no later than Saturday morning, Mr. Baxton Bryant, who was a Baptist white minister that I know in Nashville , I called him and told him what I had heard. So that Sunday evening he said, John, I'm in church now. Says, I'll be there about four o'clock tomorrow evening. When he came down about four o'clock that Sunday evening, we talked it over, and in meantime he had contacted Mr. Lucius Burch's son-in-law to meet me and him with the FBI down here in Memphis .

Q. And did you have a meeting with the FBI and any local law enforcement people in Memphis on that Sunday?

A. Well, that night, that Sunday night, we met with the FBI. Now, I didn't know whether or not that they was local police or

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

150

somebody else. But the only somebody I know was the FBI -- one was a tall and one was a lower.

Q. Did you tell them this story, these details?

A. I gave them the same details. They questioned me two or three hours over the same thing, the same thing. They questioned me two or three hours over the same thing.

Q. Did you give these details to them on any other occasion?

A. That Monday, two little young FBI come out to the store and stayed there half a day questioning me the same thing. So that Tuesday Robert Powell from New Orleans come there, which he used to run a store out there on 64 highway, and I wasn't at the store when he came, he -- the lady where I hide was named Ms. Ida Mae. The record will show that in my deposition with the FBI. She told them that I was at the house. So Robert -- I stayed about an hour and a quarter from the store.

Robert Powell drove on out there to

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

151

the house, and when he come out this to the house -- I knowed him -- I never did have no
dealings with him, but I knowed him, and he come out there to see me, and he talked with me, and at that time he had a big Gulf station in New Orleans tied up with the Mafias, I know it. I wouldn't say much to him, but the onliest questions he asked me was how to get to my house from the back roads. It jumped curious in my mind that all this done happened and he wanted to know how to come to my house through the back roads.

Q. John, you told this story. What happened as a result of your giving this information to the officials?

A. Well, in the meantime, Hal Flannery, which I've got his phone in my pocket right now, he was in the Justice Department. Of course, he had been working with us on the landowners' case.

I called him that Tuesday and told him about Robert Powell had been there and I was scared of him. See, when you buy from

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

152

groups, you begin to know who is who.

Q. Who has happened as a result of the information that you gave the officials? Has anything happened in succeeding years?

A. First of all, Dean Milk Company run my mama down, caught her on the road, run over the truck. After then they hired Marion Yancy and Rue Grady hired the Andersons to beat me up, beat me to death. And they give a 1961 Pontiac and three hundred fifty dollars to beat me to death.

They got out at the courthouse and run me in Ms. Fair Theater's yard. That's the person who owns the theaters in Somerville now. They still own it. When we was fighting in the yard, she come out there with her gun, said, if you all don't quit beating him, I'm going to kill you.

Q. John, were you put in the hospital as a result of that?

A. Well, I come to my family doctor -- and I'd rather not discuss his name, because something else I'm going to bring out, I don't want any reprisals against him -- I

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

153

come to my family doctor, and by my grandparents on my daddy's side come up in slavery, I learned a lot about nerve doctors. When you take mullet and boil it down, which mullet has got a little stickers on, it looks like a catfish, you can boil it down and take Vaseline and make a salve and take iodine salt and lay in it and draw a sweat out. That's what I did. I come to the doctor. They examined me and said I didn't have no -- I didn't break no bones.

Q. John, I want to move along because of the time constraints we have.

A. I understand.

Q. Were you ever asked to go to Washington and testify before the House Select Committee on Assassinations and tell what you have told us here today?

A. Let me bring one other point up.

Q. John, no, stay, please, with me and answer this question.

A. All right. Gene Johnson came down investigating for the Select Committee. Me

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

154

and him went over all the records. I discussed what I know, what I knew with him. And when the time come for me to if to Washington to testify before the Select Committee, he come out there with the papers for me to sign, and when he come out there with the papers for me to sign, I noticed that he had gotten a little hostile towards me.

Somebody had got, in my opinion, to him and changed his attitude. That's my thinking. I signed the papers and got everything ready. I says, John -- he says, John, he says, I'll call you before you come up and testify before the Select Committee. And the Select Committee was going on. Two to three days before I was supposed to go, he called me up and said, John, we don't need you.

Q. So the answer to the question is that at the end of the day, you were not called to testify before the Congressional committee?

A. I was not called.

Q. That's what you heard.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

155

MR. PEPPER: No further questions.

THE COURT: Let's take about

fifteen minutes.

(Jury out.)

(Short recess.)

(Jury in.)

THE COURT: All right.

Mr. Garrison.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. GARRISON:

Q. Mr. McFerren, you and I have talked before about all of the things that you know. You knew Mr. Liberto quite a long time, did you, Frank Liberto, over a period of years?

A. I know him from 1960 up until 1996, I was in his business once or twice a week.

Q. Okay. After the assassination of Dr. King, did you ever see him anymore after that?

A. I never did see him personally after that.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

156

Q. Okay. And during the time that you were around Mr. Liberto, Mr. McFerren, did you ever hear him mention the name of Loyd Jowers, ever hear him ever mention that name to you?

A. Not to me.

Q. All right. Let me ask you this, sir: After you saw Mr. Liberto when you would go for your produce to buy it -- am I correct, sir?

A. That's correct. Ninety percent of the time he would be there, but sometimes Latch would be there.

Q. All right, sir. You've lived in Somerville many, many years, in the town of Somerville , am I correct, sir?

A. I've been there all my life. The only time I've been away is when I was in the Army.

Q. Do you know Mr. Liberto visited Somerville -- are you aware that he visited Somerville on occasion?

A. He would -- I wouldn't say every Saturday morning, but he would visit John

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

157

Wilder's office, which is on the east side of the courthouse. Now, let me explain this to
you so you'll understand. When the assassination committee of Dr. King was going on in Washington , getting ready to go on, he went to visiting John Wilder's office regular.

Now, the way I got ahold of it, I had some of our underground watching. Two to three weeks before James Earl Ray broke pen out of Brushy Mountain, I called Washington and told the Select Committee that they was going to kill James Earl Ray or something was going to happen to him.

I talked to Mr. Gene Johnson, which I've got his phone numbers, I've got Mr. Flanders' phone numbers in my pocket now, I've got Mr. Dole's phone numbers in my pocket now. I was in correspondence with all of them.

The Justice Department, what I said before, the Justice Department covered it up. When I said they covered up the barnyard, I mean they covered it up. Now, if

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

158

you look at the records, the assistant to the United States Attorney General at that time
was -- it was under the Nixon administration. He had a heavy voice. I talked to him one time. I says, I know Dr. King's killings, who is in it, they trying to set me up to get me killed. Mitchell, that was his name. If you ever talked to him on the phone, he has got a gross voice like a bullfrog.

Q. All right. Let me ask you this, Mr. McFerren: Since all this started and you started the civil rights movement, have you ever been shot?

A. I've been shot, I've been beat up twice. The citizen council and the Klu Klux Klan hired a man named Benefield, gave him eighteen hundred dollars to kill me. He got chicken and didn't kill me. He sent word to me by Reverend Frank Jones. He came to my brother's house. He didn't even know which one of the houses I stayed in. Myself, Reverend Frank Jones and Mr. Benefield come down here on Vance. Our

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

159

lawyer's office was at 860 Vance Avenue . That's Gerald Estes office on Vance. He filed -- he made an affidavit with the law and sent it to the Justice Department that he was hired to kill me. It hit on a dead ear. Nothing come about it.

MR. GARRISON: I appreciate it. Thank you, sir.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:

Q. Is it true that almost thirty-one years ago you told the same story that you have told to this jury and this Court this afternoon?

A. That's correct.

Q. And is that story true to the best of your recollection and knowledge today as it was then?

A. That's correct.

Q. And have you ever had an opportunity to tell this story before in a court of law?

A. This is the first time.

MR. PEPPER: John, thank you very much. No further questions.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

160

THE COURT: All right. You may stand down, sir. You can remain in the court room or you are free to leave.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

(Witness excused.)

JAMES NATHAN WHITLOCK

Having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:

Q. Would you state for the record, please, your name and address.

A. My name is James Nathan Whitlock. I don't want to give you my address to where everybody can hear.

Q. That's all right. We will pass on that.

A. Okay.

Q. Have you been a long-term resident of Memphis ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, Mr. Whitlock, what do you do for a living?

A. I'm a taxi driver, professional

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

161

musician.

Q. And how long have you been a professional musician?

A. For twenty-five years. Twenty-five years.

Q. What instrument do you play?

A. I'm a guitar player singer/song-writer.

Q. Have you played in areas other than Memphis and Tennessee ?

A. Yes, sir. I've played in Las Vegas , Canada , California , the Bahamas , from one point all the way -- just everywhere.

Q. So you've traveled a good deal?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you in the course of the time you've been in Memphis , though, have you received any commendations or any awards as a result of civic activity?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Would you tell the Court and the jury what those have been?

A. I received Tennessee 's outstanding achievement award from Governor McWhorter. I

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

162

received the concern an Aide De Camp Award from the other governor, the heavy-set guy. I can't remember what his name is. I received a commendation from the city from Mayor Herenton, stuff from the senator, letters from -- accommodating (sic) letters from Vice-president Gore, another letter from Jim Sasser, U.S. senator.

Q. Did any of these have to do with saving an individual's life, one or other persons' lives?

A. Yes, sir, they sure did.

Q. What were those occasions, those incidents?

A. The first one was pertaining to a passenger when I was driving a taxicab who caught a cab up to the Sterick Building downtown here and decided he was going to jump off the roof and commit suicide.

A police officer -- I had radioed for the police to come. It was on top of the parking garage. The police officer came, and there was a tussle involved, and they both fell off the building and I climbed down the

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

163

end of the building and pulled them both in. That is the first time something like that -- I received some accommodation. Then one of my neighbors was in a fight and got his throat cut down the street from where I lived, and I kept him from bleeding to death. I captured his assailant, too. So that was some more involved with that.

Q. You've been in the right place at the right time, or depending on how you look at it, maybe the wrong place at the wrong time. Did you in the course of your time here in Memphis in your younger years back in the 1960's come to know a man named Frank Liberto?

A. Not in the 1960's, no, sir.

Q. When did you come to know Mr. Liberto?

A. In the late 1970's, approximately 1978, 1979 and 1980.

Q. So you knew him at the end of the 1970's, that's when you came to know him?

A. That's right, yes, sir.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

164

Q. Would you describe to the Court and the jury how you come to know him, what the circumstances of your relationship were?

A. Mr. Frank and myself were friends. He would come to my mother's restaurant on a daily basis early in the morning and late in the evening he'd come back. I spent most of my time with him in the evening time. Occasionally he would come there at lunchtime.

We had a restaurant, an Italian restaurant, a pizza restaurant, and he would come and eat breakfast with my mother and spend the rest the day with me occasionally.

Q. Was the restaurant located somewhere between his work and his home?

A. Yes, sir, it was. It was located approximately -- Mr. Frank's -- the Scott Street Market was about a mile from my restaurant. The way I understand it, he lived off of Graham somewhere, and we were kind of in between.

Q. He had a produce house at the warehouse at the Scott Street Market?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

165

A. That's what I understand, yes, sir, tomato house.

Q. Right. When he -- when you came to know him, he would stop at the cafe, at your mother's restaurant, and what would you talk about? What was there between the two of you that developed, this relationship?

A. Well, at the time I'd been performing in Las Vegas , and Mr. Frank, he would come in and drink beer a lot. I knew how to play a song, an Italian song, on the guitar called Malaguena. I used to play him this song. He used to like what I would play him and he would tip me money.

Then it got to where Mr. Frank was -- I had a little small three-piece combo, and he would book -- he would give me jobs, such as that, performing. He liked for me to play music. He would talk about the old times and where he came from. He would talk about my relationship
with my mother. I reminded himself of -- myself of him when he was young, how I treated my mother and how we lived.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

166

Q. When he talked to you about the old times or his earlier years, did he tell you where he lived or -- what experiences did he describe?

A. He called it the old country. I remember playing him that song, he used to lay his head back and would say, yeah, it is just like I was in the old country, that's the way they would play it, I like that song.

That's the only mention of his origin he ever -- where he came from he ever
made to me directly that wasn't pertaining to the United States .

Q. Pertaining to the United States , did he ever discuss any experiences or life when in the City of New Orleans ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did he tell you about his life there?

A. Well, I asked him some stuff that led up to him telling me that he had come from New Orleans, but I had heard that he was in the Mafia. And I asked him if he was in the

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

167

Mafia. And he didn't say yes or no. He answered me by saying, I pushed a vegetable cart in the French Quarter with Carlo Marcello when I was a boy. I didn't know what that meant. I
let that go. It went over my head. Years later I saw the movie the assassination of RFK or JFK with Oliver Stone, and Mr. Frank, he talked Italian, and he said, I push a vegetable cart with Carlo Marcello when I was a boy. Carlo Marcello, I didn't know what that meant. Then I saw that movie, and it said Carlos Marcello, the kingpin of the Mafia from New Orleans . I said, that's Carlo, that's not Carlos, that's Carlo. That's what threw the two together.

Q. So he confided or told you about his earlier life experience with Carlos Marcello, the New Orleans Mafia boss?

A. That's correct.

Q. But did you when you first met him and you heard he was associated with the Mafia, did you know what the Mafia was at that point?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

168

A. No, sir. I asked Mr. Frank what it was.

Q. What did he say?

A. I asked him, I said, what is the Mafia? Is it a bunch of bad guys that sit around and table and scheme up something mean to do? He said, no, it is a bunch of businessmen that take care of business.

Q. Now, did there come a time, Mr. Whitlock, when you heard about a conversation that Mr. Liberto had with your mother?

A. Yes, sir. Pertaining to Martin Luther King?

Q. Yes, sir. Pertaining to Martin Luther King.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did that conversation on the day of the assassination of Martin Luther King that he had with your mother, did that upset you in some way?

A. Yes, it did, in a way it did. Because that he would talk to my mother directly about gangsterism, that is what I

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

169

was predominantly upset about. It wasn't the subject matter of what it was about, it was the fact that he would think that he could, you know, go to that level to talk to her about that. That's what upset me more than anything.

Q. When you heard about this, what did you do?

A. I went directly to Mr. Frank about it when he showed up at the pizza parlor and just asked him, I said, hey, Mr. Frank, did you kill Martin Luther King?

Q. Because what had you heard that he had said to your mother?

A. He told mama that he had killed Martin Luther King -- had Martin Luther King killed. I didn't like him talking that to my mother. I thought he was out of line for coming forward with that, talking to her. He could talk to me about it. But he stepped over the line. So that's when I approached him.

Q. You became offended and you actually just went up to him and confronted him?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

170

A. That's right.

Q. How old were you at that point, Mr. Whitlock?

A. Eighteen.

Q. As an eighteen-year-old young man, you went up to this fairly formidable individual, wasn't he?

A. Define "formidable."

Q. He was good sized, he had an aura of power about him?

A. He was a big man, yes, sir.

Q. You confronted him by asking him the question, did he kill Martin Luther King?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. He glared at me, he says, you've been talking to your mother, hadn't you? I said, yeah. He said, you wired? I didn't even know what he meant by that. I went, no, I'm not wired.

Q. He asked if you were wired, and you didn't know what he meant by that?

A. I thought he was talking about -- I thought he meant am I taking amphetamine

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

171

pills and wired up. I said, no, I'm not crazy. He sat there for a second. He says --

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I don't want to offend anybody, and I don't know how many people are watching this television, but I'm going to have to use some --

Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Just speak clearly and plainly, just what he said.

A. I'm going to use that N word nobody wants to hear. I don't want to offend anybody by saying this.

Q. Mr. Whitlock, just say what you know.

A. He told me, he said, I didn't kill the nigger, but I had it done. I said, what about that other son-of-a-bitch up there taking credit for it? He says, ahh, he wasn't nothing but a troublemaker from Missouri , he was a front man.

I didn't know what that meant. Because "front man" to me means something different than what he was thinking about. I said, a what? He said, a setup man. I said,

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

172

well, why did you kill the preacher for? He says, ahh, it was about the draft. He says, boy, you don't even need to be hearing about this. He said, don't you say nothing. He stood up and he acted like he was going to slap me up upside the head. So I stood up there. Me and him are looking at each other. He has got this glare look on his eye. I could tell he was thinking about hitting me.

It run through my head, you old son-of-a-bitch, you hit me, I'm going to knock a knot upside your head, I don't care who you are. He is standing there glaring at me. He says, you fixing to go to Canada , aren't you? I said, yeah. Then about that time the phone rang. I just walked over there and answered the phone and was busy with the pizza stuff, I looked up, and he is gone. He left his beer sitting there on the table. It was about half full.

Q. Did you ever have any other discussion with him about this matter?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

173

A. No, sir.

Q. And do you recall what year this was?

A. 1979.

Q. 1979?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. You went off to Canada , then?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Played your gig?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Did you ever see or talk to Mr. Liberto again?

A. My time frame -- he called me, okay, on the phone, right after that, and he says, Nate, I've got a job for you. I went, oh, man, he is going to want me to -- well, let me back up just a little bit here. Mr. Frank -- there was something that happened over at the pizza parlor prior to this conversation I had with him about him having Martin Luther King whacked. Something took place right prior to that at the pizza parlor that left him open to talk to me in these kinds of ways. It was a pretty nasty situation, but

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

174

I had to do what I had to do over there. I don't tell everybody what I did. About a week or two prior to this conversation I had with Mr. Frank, some guy came in, he looked kind of like John Wayne. He was a big guy, a redneck guy, walked in my mother's restaurant drinking a beer.

Mama runs over there to the door and she says, you can't bring a beer in here but I'll sell you one. He just -- once again, I'm going to have to use some nasty language to make it how it was. He says, I just might buy this mother-fucking place, and he back-handed my mama.

When he did, I walked around from the counter with a nightstick and knocked fire from his tail end and knocked him through the front door, hit him across here and busted his eye open real bad, busted his head open, knocked him out on the front doorstep out there and whacked him again with that stick.

There was a man that was working out there named Louis Bonsella. He come running

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

175

out there and said, don't hit him no more, Nate, you are going to kill him. I said, I'm
trying to kill this MF. Some other guy come running out the door and says, oh, wait a
minute, come on, Red, talking about the guy I hit with the stick, come on, Red, they are
going to kill us. So I hit him in the GP.

So the last I saw these two knuckle-heads, they were dragging each other down the sidewalk. Meanwhile, Mr. Frank had got me up in a truck a couple days later, he got me up in there. Mama called the cops. They come over there. She filed a report on the guy causing such a disturbance. The lieutenant shows up over there. He gets me out on there on the sidewalk and
says, Nate, you are going to have to watch yourself because there is going to start a war over here. I whacked this guy good with that stick.

Mr. Frank got me in the truck. He started asking me about this fight. He says, were you going to kill him, Nate? I said, yeah, I was, but Louis stopped me. He said,

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

176

who? He said, the guy over there working at the place. He said, oh, that old dago son-of-a-bitch.

Then he says, well, it is a good thing you didn't kill him, you would have been in a whole lot of trouble if you would have. You got out of it, but I would have helped your mama. He said, could you do it again? I said, I guess so, if somebody come up in the pizza parlor acting the fool and hit mama, I said, yeah, I'll tear them up.

He says, no, would you do it just in general? I said, to who? He said, mostly dope niggers over there on around Hollywood , going up around the Hollywood over Plough Boulevard . He motioned over there towards Hollywood .

I said, I don't know. He said, could you do it for some money? I said how much money? He said, five or ten, it depends. I said, who is it? He says, these dope boys get these white girls over there, the families still care something about them, either the police can't or won't do anything

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

177

about it and he said that's it, that's who we want to get right there. I said, who exactly is it? He said, there is always some nigger around here needs to be killed. I don't know. I'll let you know.

Well, when he called my back after we had this conversation about Martin Luther King, he told me about that, he said, oh, I've got a job for you, Nate. Oh, God, he is going to want me to kill some dope idiot over here somewhere.

He says, get your nigger. I had a guy, a black man, that played drums for me, and another man. He says meet Billy down at the Cook Convention Center . He was talking about a music job.

Q. It wasn't a contract to kill somebody?

A. Yeah. He wanted me to play for Sheriff Bill Morris' Christmas party. I was to go down there to the Cook Convention Center , play this Christmas party and I get paid a check. Then he shows back up over

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

178

there at the pizza parlor. That's what the conversation was about.

Q. Did there come a time years later when you wrote a letter to a government official in which you discussed or in which you stated what you have told this Court and jury today?

A. I didn't go into detail, but I had written the governor of Tennessee with a copy written to John Wilder, the lieutenant governor, and to the -- I sent one to the person at the Board of Responsibility and to another Memphis attorney, yes, sir, I did.

Q. And were there any repercussions on you as a result of that letter and what you said about this case?

A. Yes, sir, it was.

Q. What happened you to?

A. Well, I started having this guy follow me around in a car that was undercover car that had a bunch of antennas on it. I was working my taxicab. He was constantly following me for about two days. Then I got down here at Poplar and

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

179

Cleveland and I called my mother-in-law, ex-mother-in-law up on the phone in Shelby Forrest, and I had a bunch of cops roll down on me, a bunch of police. I said, heck, there is a robbery somewhere, I better get out of here. I hung up the phone and took off.

I didn't know they was there for me. I get around the corner and I'm pulled over. I had three squad cars with loads of police with guns to my head. They hit me in the groin twice, smashed my face up against the back of the car, stretched me out. One of them cops -- I used to wrestle a couple years ago at the Coliseum, and one of the cops recognized me from when I
wrestling. He said, wait a minute, this is Nate. They was working on the hood smashing my face down in that thing, you know. I was just taking it. They didn't put anything on me that I hadn't hardly had before. So I'm just taking it however I can take it. But the one cop stopped it. The guy had a gun to my head while the other one

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

180

was working on me. He said, wait a minute, Nate, what is this about? I said, I don't know, man, I guess it is my ex-wife or something. I didn't know what it was about.

Q. You didn't put it together at that point?

A. Not at that moment, no, I didn't. The top cop that knew me, he put me in his squad car and looks back at me, he said, Nate, have you been making phone calls to Nashville? I said, ug-huh, not me.

They jerked me out of the car again. They said, how much change you got on you? I had like eighty cents in change. They are all looking like he ain't got enough money to make a long-distance phone call. I said, what are you talking about? He says -- the cop asked me, he says, do you -- have you been making bomb threats? I said, I can't even set my VCR much less make a bomb. I don't know what you are talking about. This is the cop I know. He says, have you been trying to embezzle money out of anybody, some

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

181

government guy? I said, no, ma'am, what the heck is this? Then all of a sudden this guy that has been following me, he pulls up there real quick in this unmarked car, because they are on the radio saying -- I said, if this is all what is going on, you've got the wrong guy, you need to go back over there wherever he is on the phone and see if you can find him, because you've got the wrong person here.

Well, when that took place, the cop that put all the regular Memphis police on me, the undercover guy, he come wheeling up and blocks his face so he can't see me and walks by the car and said, here is the number he is calling. I'm listening out the window to them. I call him a lying SOB when he walks by the door because that's what he was was. I ain't called anybody in Nashville .

Q. Well, the upshot of it all was that this was serious harassment that happened you to?

A. That's an understatement. Then they got me downtown, read me my Miranda rights.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

182

I said, am I under arrest? He said, boy, you in a lot of trouble. He said, you can't get no lawyer, you can't get no bond. He said, why does the Secret Service have a hold on a cab driver?

This is that cop up there named Johnstone, eleventh floor, bomb unit. I says, I can't tell you. He said, well, you going to have to tell me. I said, I'll talk to the AG about it because he told me not to say a word to nobody about this. He said, you ain't talking to nobody until you tell me why the Secret Service has ahold on this cab driver right here. I said, okay if you really want to know it, I'll give it you. There are entities within the
government -- he is taking a statement. They give my give me my Miranda rights. I'm not
sure if I'm under arrest or not. Then I give the statement. You can't make a statement
unless I done read you your rights, he said. I said, fine. Okay. I guess I was arrested.

I give the statement. I said, the

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

183

reason why they doing this to me is there are entities within the United States government that don't want me to say what I know about the assassination of Martin Luther King. He almost fainted. He walked out of the room. I saw him through the window. He was on the FAX machine and he was working the FAX machine. I read the heading of the paper he had. It had something on there that said Washington . He walks back in there with the FAX. Him and Larkin, the other major up there, they read it, and they said, get the hell out of here. I was arrested with guns to my head, hit in the groin, read my Miranda, then un-arrested and kicked loose all at the same time.

Q. My goodness. Nate, thanks very much for coming down here this afternoon.

MR. PEPPER: No further questions.

THE WITNESS: Dr. Pepper, you don't have to thank me for telling the truth.

MR. PEPPER: No further

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

184

questions.

THE COURT: Mr. Garrison might

have some questions for you, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. GARRISON:

Q. Mr. Whitlock, I've known you and your family for quite a few years, haven't I?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Let me ask you this: How long have you known Mr. Loyd Jowers seated over here?

A. Since 1985, Mr. Garrison.

Q. You worked when he was in the cab business, did you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You've been around him quite a bit?

A. Not in the last ten years I haven't, no, sir.

Q. You'd been around him quite a bit before then?

A. A long time ago, yes, sir.

Q. Has he ever made any mention to you about the assassination of Dr. King?

A. No, sir.

Q. He never said any word about that?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

185

A. I never drew the two together until I saw Mr. Jowers and yourself and Mr. Akins on one of them television programs. I called mama up on the phone. I said, does that sound familiar?

MR. GARRISON: That's all I have.

THE COURT: All right. You may

step down.

(Witness excused.)

THOMAS H. SMITH

Having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:

Q. Captain Smith, good afternoon.

A. Hi.

Q. Thank you for coming here this afternoon.

A. You are welcome.

Q. Would you state for the record, please, your name and address?

A. Thomas H. Smith, 2997 Knight Road , Memphis , Tennessee .

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

186

Q. Captain Smith, were you employed by the Memphis Police Department?

A. No longer. I've been retired for eleven years now.

Q. How long did you work for the Memphis Police Department?

A. Thirty-three years.

Q. What was the rank that you achieved?

A. Well, at one time I was captain in charge of homicide.

Q. Were you assigned to homicide at the time of the assassination of Martin Luther King?

A. Yes, sir, I was. I was assigned to homicide in 1960.

Q. So in 1968 you were a homicide detective involved in that investigation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In the course of that investigation did you first of all arrive on the scene around the time of the killing?

A. Yes, sir. My partner and I, Roy Davis, were the first ones on the scene at the time of the killing.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

187

Q. At some point in time did you go over and into the rooming house on the opposite side of Mulberry?

A. Yes, sir, I did, during the time of my investigation after I did what I had to do at the scene. I was going around looking for witnesses and went over to the rooming house.

Q. Did you go up to the second floor of that rooming house and into a room occupied by a man called Charles Stephens?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. And his common-law wife Grace Stephens?

A. Grace, yes.

Q. How long after the killing did you go into that room and see Mr. Stephens?

A. Well, it couldn't have been all that long, because we tried to expedite matters. It was still daylight. I talked to Mr. Stephens. I could not talk to Grace.

Q. You could not talk to Mr. Stephens?

A. No.

Q. Why couldn't you speak with Mr. Stephens?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

188

A. She is drunk, passed out on the bed.

Q. He was drunk and passed out?

A. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: He said "she" was.

Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) I'm sorry, Mrs. Stephens was drunk and passed out. What about Mr. Stephens?

A. He had been drinking heavily.

Q. Did you talk to him?

A. He was leaning up against the door and talked with me briefly, yes, sir.

Q. And what kind of condition was he in?

A. He was also intoxicated but not as bad as Grace.

Q. Were you aware of the fact that Mr. Stephens gave a statement that was used in the extradition proceedings from London against James Earl Ray?

A. I wasn't for a long time. I know he was.

Q. And that as a result of Mr. Stephens' identification of a profile in the distance that he saw, Mr. Ray was extradited from London and brought back to the United States.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

189

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In your opinion at the time when you interviewed him, within minutes of the killing, after the killing, would he have been capable of making that kind of identification?

A. No, sir. No way.

Q. Because of his intoxication?

A. No, sir. I don't think he could. I didn't think enough of his statement that I took to take him downstairs, downtown and take a formal statement from him and so put it in my arrest report that he was intoxicated to the point there was no sense in bringing him downtown.

Q. You put that in your report?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was that report ever reflected in the Memphis Police Department investigation report?

A. Yes, sir. It is quite full of the investigation. We all wrote our little part that we had in it.

Q. But did you read the official MPD

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

190

report and did you ever see the comments that you have made just now included in that report?

A. No, sir. I have never read the report. I never had my hands on it. Well, I did have my hands on, it but I never had time to read it. When I was promoted in charge of the homicide squad, there was a report in the office, and I took it out of the desk -- out of the file and put it in my desk drawer where I could securely lock it up.

Q. All right.

A. And it was later taken from me by Chief John Moore. He called me one day and asked me if I had it. I said yes, I did. He said, bring it to me. I carried it down there. I haven't seen it since.

Q. Do you know what happened to it?

A. No, sir.

Q. One final line of questioning. Were you over in the hospital at the time when the body of Martin Luther King was present in a morgue room?

A. Yes, sir, I was there.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

191

Q. And did you put your hand on the back of Dr. King under his lower left shoulder blade and feel an object?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was the object that you felt just beneath the skin?

A. Well, it felt just like a bullet to me, the lead jacket of a bullet.

Q. Did it feel as though it was one piece?

A. Yes, sir, it was still round.

Q. It felt as though it was one piece?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. PEPPER: Nothing further,

Your Honor.

MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I have no questions. Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Thank

you very much, Captain.

(Witness excused).

MR. PEPPER: Your Honor,

plaintiffs have another witness who has made a special trip here. The entire testimony will not take more than about seven to ten

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

192

minutes.

THE COURT: We'll hear it.

MR. PEPPER: Thank you.

MR. PEPPER: Call Mr. Charles Hurley, please.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, let me probably admonish you. You probably have heard some things you have never heard before about this case. You are not to discuss this evidence, not with your family, not among yourselves or anyone else.

CHARLES HURLEY

Having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PEPPER:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Hurley. It has been awhile.

A. It has.

Q. Would you please state your name and address for the record, please.

A. Charles Hurley, 2595 Cedar Ridge Drive , Germantown , Tennessee .

Q. Mr. Hurley, what do you do for a

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

193

living?

A. I'm division manager for Save-a-lot Food Stores.

Q. How long have you held that position?

A. That position, about four years.

THE COURT: H U R L E Y?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) At the outset let me thank you very much for coming down here at considerable inconvenience to yourself. Mr. Hurley, what position did you hold -- what was your work back in 1968?

A. I was advertising manager for National Food Stores in Memphis .

Q. What did your wife do at that time?

A. She worked for the Seabrook Paint Company. She was a buyer at Seabrook Paint Company down on South Main Street .

Q. Physically where was the Seabrook Paint Company located in respect of the rooming house?

A. It would be immediately across the

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

194

street, virtually right across the street.

Q. Virtually opposite the rooming house in question?

A. Right, uh-huh.

Q. And therefore virtually opposite Jim's Grill, the restaurant at the bottom of the rooming house?

A. Yes, I believe that would be correct.

Q. What was your practice on a usual day when you finished work?

A. Well, what I would do is I would go downtown and pick up my wife. I worked down on South Florida Street, which is not really very far from there, and we had one car at the time, so that's what our usual practice was to do.

Q. On the 4th of April, 1968, Thursday afternoon, did you go downtown to pick up your wife?

A. I believe, yes.

Q. Do you recall what time of day that was?

A. I normally got off about four-thirty. It is probably fifteen or

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

195

twenty minutes to where she was. I would just normally drive down and pick her up.

Q. And so around a quarter to five --

A. About that, I would say.

Q. -- ten to five, you drove to South Main Street ?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were facing north as you go?

A. I would be facing north, yes.

Q. And would you pull over to the side of --

A. Yes. I would -- if she wasn't downstairs, I would pull over and park.

Q. Was she downstairs on that day?

A. I believe she had come down and I was not downtown, so she had gone back up to her work space.

Q. So when you arrived, she wasn't down there?

A. No, she wasn't down there.

Q. What did you do?

A. I just sat in the car and waited for her.

Q. Where did you park your car?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

196

A. I parked, you know, facing north. That would be the east side of South Main right there almost opposite the rooming house.

Q. Was there an automobile parked immediately in front of you?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. And what kind of car was parked immediately in front of you?

A. It was a white Mustang.

Q. It was a white Mustang?

A. Yes.

Q. How far back, can you estimate, was that Mustang from Jim's Grill or the rooming
house?

A. It was right there. That has been a long time.

Q. Sure.

A. But it was right there.

Q. Did you notice the license plates on that white Mustang?

A. Yes, I did. Yes, I did.

Q. What kind of license plates were there on that white Mustang?

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

197

A. As I recall at the time and still believe, it was an Arkansas license plate, because the numerals were red and the background was white.

Q. Do you believe the license plate on that car was a white Mustang?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Are you aware of the fact that James Earl Ray was driving a white Mustang in Memphis on that day?

A. I've heard that subsequently, yes.

Q. Are you aware of the registration of that Mustang that James Earl Ray was driving?

A. You know, only what I've been told or heard subsequently. I think it was the FBI or someone had told me it was an Alabama license, they believed it to be an Alabama license.

Q. He was driving an Alabama license-plate-registered car. You saw a white Mustang with Arkansas plates?

A. I believe them to be Arkansas plates.

Q. On that street?

A. Yes.

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

198

Q. Was there anyone sitting in that car?

A. There was one person sitting in the car.

Q. When your wife came down and you picked her up and you drove away, was that person still sitting in that car?

A. Yes, uh-huh.

Q. Could you describe that person?

A. The only thing I could see was the back of someone's head sitting in the car. I couldn't identify him from that, I'm sure.

MR. PEPPER: That's fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Hurley. Nothing further.

MR. GARRISON: I have no questions of Mr. Hurley, thank you.

THE COURT: All right, sir. You may stand down. You are free to leave.

(Witness excused.)

THE COURT: Any more out-of-towners?

MR. PEPPER: Well, we do have on call outside two more witnesses whose testimony will be very brief. We can have them return, if Your Honor wishes, tomorrow

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999

199

to begin in the morning. One has come from Florida , but he is prepared to stay over. It is at Your Honor's discretion, whatever you wish.

MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, his testimony may not be quite as brief. I will have some cross-examination on him.

THE COURT: Very well. You've answered the question I might have asked. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to stop at this point. We will resume tomorrow at ten o'clock. Again, please don't discuss the testimony with anyone. That also goes for the witnesses who have testified here. You are not to discuss your testimony on the stand here with any of the reporters or anyone else.

All right.

(Jury out.)

(The proceedings were adjourned at 4:30 p.m.)

DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD

(901) 529-1999


Terms of Service & Privacy Policy

© 2004 - The King Center - Atlanta , GA

Map and Directions | Contact Us | Hours of Operation

Make a Donation | King Holiday | Get Involved | Teachers & Students | Programs & Services

© Copyright 2009 The King Center | site by: DeepBlue


LLOYD JOWERS TETIMONY

 

How the Government Killed Martin Luther King, Jr.

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

03 April 13

efore scoffing at this headline, you should know that in 1999, in Memphis, Tennessee, more than three decades after MLK's death, a jury found local, state, and federal government agencies guilty of conspiring to assassinate the Nobel Peace Prize winner and civil rights leader. The same media you would expect to cover such a monumental decision was absent at the trial, because those news organizations were part of that conspiracy. William F. Pepper, who was James Earl Ray's first attorney, called over 70 witnesses to the stand to testify on every aspect of the assassination. The panel, which consisted of an even mix of both black and white jurors, took only an hour of deliberation to find Loyd Jowers and other defendants guilty. If you're skeptical of any factual claims made here, click here for a full transcript, broken into individual sections. Read the testimonies yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

It really isn't that radical a thing to expect this government to kill someone who threatened their authority and had the power to organize millions to protest it. When MLK was killed on April 4, 1968, he was speaking to sanitation workers in Memphis, who were organizing to fight poverty wages and ruthless working conditions. He was an outspoken critic of the government's war in Vietnam, and his power to organize threatened the moneyed corporate interests who were profiting from the war. At the time of his death, he was gearing up for the Poor People's Campaign, an effort to get people to camp out on the National Mall to demand anti-poverty legislation – essentially the first inception of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The government perceived him as a threat, and had him killed. James Earl Ray was the designated fall guy, and a complicit media, taking its cues from a government in fear of MLK, helped sell the "official" story of the assassination. Here's how they did it.

The Setup

The defendant in the 1999 civil trial, Loyd Jowers, had been a Memphis PD officer in the 1940s. He owned a restaurant called Jim's Grill, a staging ground to orchestrate MLK's assassination underneath the rooming house where the corporate media alleges James Earl Ray shot Dr. King. During the trial, William Pepper, the plaintiff's attorney, played a tape of an incriminating 1998 conversation between Jowers, UN Ambassador Andrew Young, and Dexter King, MLK's son. Young testified that Jowers told them he "wanted to get right with God before he died, wanted to confess it and be free of it."

On the tape, Jowers mentions that those present at the meetings included MPD officer Marrell McCollough, Earl Clark, an MPD lieutenant and known as the department's best marksman, another MPD officer, and two men who were unknown to Jowers but whom he assumed to be representatives of federal agencies. While Dr. King was in Memphis, he was under open or eye-to-eye federal surveillance by the 111th Military Intelligence Group based at Fort McPherson in Atlanta, Georgia. Memphis PD intelligence officer Eli Arkin even admitted to having the group in his own office. During his last visit to Memphis in late March of 1968, MLK was under covert surveillance, meaning his room at the Rivermont was bugged and wired. Even if he went out to the balcony to speak, his words were recorded via relay. William Pepper alleges in his closing argument during King v. Jowers that such covert surveillance was usually done by the Army Security Agency, implying the involvement of at least two federal agencies.

Jowers also gave an interview to Sam Donaldson on "Prime Time Live" in 1993. The transcript of the interview was read during the trial, and it was revealed that Jowers openly talked about being asked by produce warehouse owner Frank Liberto to help with MLK's murder. Liberto had mafia connections, and sent a courier with $100,000 to Jowers, who owned a local restaurant, with instructions to hold the money at his restaurant.

John McFerren owned a store in Memphis and was making a pickup at Liberto's warehouse at 5:15 p.m. on April 4th, roughly 45 minutes before the assassination. McFerren testified that he overheard Liberto tell someone over the phone, "Shoot the son of a bitch on the balcony." Other witnesses who testified included café owner Lavada Addison, who was friends with Liberto in the 1970s. She recalled him confiding to her that he "had Martin Luther King killed." Addison's son, Nathan Whitlock, also testified. He asked Liberto if he killed MLK, and he responded, "I didn't kill the nigger but I had it done." When Whitlock pressed him about James Earl Ray, Liberto replied, "He wasn't nothing but a troublemaker from Missouri. He was a front man ... a setup man."

The back door of Loyd Jowers' establishment led to a thick crop of bushes across the street from the Lorraine Motel balcony where Dr. King was shot. On the taped confession to Andrew Young and Dexter King, Jowers says after he heard the shot, Lt. Earl Clark, who is now deceased, laid a smoking rifle at the rear of his restaurant. Jowers then disassembled the rifle, wrapped it in a tablecloth and prepared it for disposal.

The corporate media says it was James Earl Ray who shot MLK, and he did it from the 2nd floor bathroom window of the rooming house across the street from the Lorraine Motel. The official account alleges the murder weapon was dropped in a bundle and abandoned at Dan Canipe's storefront just before he made his getaway. But even those authorities and media admit that the bullet that tore through MLK's throat didn't have the same metallurgical composition as the bullets in the rifle left behind by James Earl Ray. And Judge Joe Brown, a weapons expert called to testify by Pepper in the 1999 trial, said the rifle allegedly used by James Earl Ray had a scope that was never sighted in, meaning that the weapon in question would have fired far to the left and far below the target.

The actual murder weapon was disposed of by taxi driver James McCraw, a friend of Jowers. William Hamblin testified in King v. Jowers that McCraw told him this story over a 15-year period whenever he got drunk. McCraw repeatedly told Hamblin that he threw the rifle over the Memphis-Arkansas bridge, meaning that the rifle is at the bottom of the Mississippi river to this day. And according to Hamblin's testimony, Canipe said he saw the bundle dropped in front of his store before the actual shooting occurred.

The Conspiracy

To make Dr. King vulnerable, plans had to be made to remove him from his security detail and anyone sympathetic who could be a witness or interfere with the killing. Two black firefighters, Floyd Newsum and Norvell Wallace, who were working at Fire Station #2 across the street from the Lorraine Motel, were each transferred to different fire stations. Newsum was a civil rights activist and witnessed MLK's last speech to the striking Memphis sanitation workers, "I Have Seen the Mountaintop," before getting the call about his transfer. Newsum testified that he wasn't needed at his new assignment, and that his transfer meant that Fire Station #2 would be out of commission unless someone else was sent there in his stead. Newsum talked about having to make a series of inquiries before finally learning that his reassignment had been ordered by the Memphis Police Department. Wallace testified that to that very day, while the official explanation was a vague death threat, he hadn't once received a satisfactory answer as to why he was suddenly reassigned.

Ed Redditt, a black MPD detective who was assigned to MLK's security detail, was also removed from the scene an hour before the shooting and sent home, and the only reason given was a vague death threat. Jerry Williams, another black MPD detective, was usually tasked with assembling a security team of black police officers for Dr. King. But he testified that on the night of the assassination, he wasn't assigned to form that team.

There was a Black Panther-inspired group called The Invaders, who were staying at the Lorraine Motel to help MLK organize a planned march with the striking garbage workers. The Invaders were ordered to leave the motel after getting into an argument with members of MLK's entourage. The origins of the argument are unclear, though several sources affirm that The Invaders had been infiltrated by Marrell McCollough of the MPD, who later went on to work for the CIA. And finally, the Tact 10 police escort of several MPD cars that accompanied Dr. King's security detail were pulled back the day before the shooting by Inspector Evans. With all possible obstacles out of the way, MLK was all alone just before the assassination.

The Cover-Up

Around 7 a.m. on April 5, the morning after the shooting, MPD Inspector Sam Evans called Public Works Administrator Maynard Stiles and told him to have a crew destroy the crop of bushes adjacent to the rooming house above Loyd Jowers' restaurant. This is particularly odd coming from a policeman, since the bushes were in a crime scene area, and crime scene areas are normally roped off, not to be disturbed. The official narrative of a sniper in the bathroom at the rooming house was then reinforced, since a sniper firing from an empty clearing would be far more visible than one hidden behind a thick crop of bushes.

Normally, when a major political figure is murdered, all possible witnesses are questioned and asked to make statements. But Memphis PD neglected to conduct even a basic house-to-house investigation. Olivia Catling, a resident of nearby Mulberry Street just a block away from the shooting, testified that she saw a man leave an alley next to the rooming house across from the Lorraine, climb into a Green 1965 Chevrolet, and speed away, burning rubber right in front of several police cars without any interference. There was also no questioning of Captain Weiden, a Memphis firefighter at the fire station closest to the Lorraine, the same one from which Floyd Newsum had been transferred just a day before.

Memphis PD and the FBI also suppressed the statements of Ray Hendricks and William Reed, who said they saw James Earl Ray's white mustang parked in front of Jowers' restaurant, before seeing it again driving away as they crossed another street. Ray's alibi was that he had driven away from the scene to fix a tire, and these two statements that affirmed his alibi were withheld from Ray's guilty plea jury.

The jury present at Ray's guilty plea hearing also wasn't informed about the bullet that killed MLK having different striations and markings than the other bullets kept as evidence, nor that the bullet couldn't be positively matched as coming from the alleged murder weapon. Three days after entering the guilty plea, James Earl Ray unsuccessfully attempted to retract it and demand a trial. Incredibly, James Earl Ray turned down two separate bribes, one of which was recorded by his brother Jerry Ray, where he was offered $220,000 by writer William Bradford Huey and the guarantee of a full pardon if he would just agree to have the story "Why I Killed Martin Luther King" written on his behalf.

The Deception

One of the 70 witnesses that William F. Pepper called to testify in King v. Jowers was Bill Schaap, a practicing attorney with particular experience in military law, with bar credentials in New York, Chicago, and DC. Schaap testified at great length about how the government, through the FBI and the CIA, puts people in key positions on editorial boards at influential papers like the New York Times and Washington Post. He describes that although these editorial board members and news directors at cable news outlets may be liberal in their politics, they always take the government's side in national security-related stories. Before you write that off as conspiracy theory, remember how people like Bill Keller at the New York Times, as well as the Washington Post editorial board, all cheerfully led the march to war in Iraq ten years ago.

Another King v. Jowers witness was Earl Caldwell, a New York Times reporter who was sent to Memphis by an editor named Claude Sitton. Caldwell testified that the orders from his editor were to "nail Dr. King." In the publication's effort to sell the story of James Earl Ray as the murderer, the Times cited an investigation into how Ray got the money for his Mustang, rifle, and the long road trip to Tennessee from California. The Times said that according to their own findings as well as the findings of federal agencies, Ray got the money by robbing a bank in his hometown of Alton, Illinois. In Pepper's closing argument, he says that when he or Jerry Ray talked to the chief of police in Alton, along with the bank president of the branch that was allegedly robbed, neither said they had been approached by the New York Times, or by the FBI. Essentially, the Times fabricated the entire story in order to sell a false narrative that there was no government intervention and that James Earl Ray was a lone wolf.

So for the following 31 years after King's death, nobody dared to question the constant reiteration of James Earl Ray as the murderer of Martin Luther King. Even 13 years after a jury found the government complicit in a conspiracy to murder the civil rights leader, the complicit media continues to propagate the false narrative they sold us three decades ago and vociferously shout down any alternative theories as to what happened as "conspiracy theory," framing those putting forth such theories as wackjobs undeserving of any credibility. It's strikingly similar to how the Washington Post defended their warmongering in a recent editorial commenting on the invasion of Iraq, and had one of their reporters defend the media's leading of the charge into Iraq.

As we remember Dr. King and the important work he did, we should also reject the official account of his death as loudly as the government and media shout down anyone who tries to contradict their lies. As Edward R. Murrow said, "Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up, at least a little bit."

 


Carl Gibson, 25, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Madison, Wisconsin. You can contact him at carl@rsnorg.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and follow him on twitter at @uncutCG.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+52#indian weaver2013-04-03 12:36

Heavy duty investigation. I expect that NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox will air this story immediately. I'd suggest forwarding it to everyone you know who ignorant and loves amerika, the present Fascist Terrorist Regime of Amerika that is. Publish it wherever possible.

+21#robcarter.vn2013-04-04 00:36

Sadly Wikipedia explains why it's hard for press to oppose the Government later whit-washing of the trial for want of substance? Press could risk libelous retribution cost to base on a civil suit denied by US Government own investigators later?

Allegations of conspiracy
In 2000, the U.S. Department of Justice completed the investigation about Jowers' claims but did not find evidence to support allegations about conspiracy. The investigation report recommended no further investigation unless some new reliable facts are presented.[179] In 2002, The New York Times reported that a church minister, Rev. Ronald Denton Wilson, claimed his father, Henry Clay Wilson—not James Earl Ray—assassinate d Martin Luther King, Jr. "There is no way a ten-cent white boy could develop a plan to kill a million-dollar black man."[183] In 2004, Jesse Jackson stated:


The fact is there were saboteurs to disrupt the march. And within our own organization, we found a very key person who was on the government payroll. So infiltration within, saboteurs from without and the press attacks. ... I will never believe that James Earl Ray had the motive, the money and the mobility to have done it himself. Our government was very involved in setting the stage for and I think the escape route for James Earl Ray.[184

+9#moreover2013-04-03 20:11

I had the privilege to record William F. Pepper at the Boston Public Library about 10 years ago. I remember thinking this is a conspiracy that makes sense: the motives fit, there were clear coordinated efforts to remove MLK's usual layers of protection, there is ballistic evidence - and even confessions!
Now compare that to the 9/11 conspiracy clowns who were never able to establish a clear convincing narrative combining any of these elements. They're giving the real conspiracies a bad name.

+2#tingletlc2013-04-05 17:44

Interesting. You're more willing to credit a plausible narrative based entirely on hearsay and circumstantial evidence (MLK) than a call, based on direct public evidence, for further investigation of claims that that very evidence proves are physically impossible (9/11). I refer you in the former instance to the June 2000 report by the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ declining to investigate the questions raised by Pepper in King v. Jowers (http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/mlk/), and in the latter instance to the vast video archive of the collapse of WTC Buildings 1, 2 and 7 on the one hand, and the laws of physics on the other.

I have no compelling basis to reject Pepper's theory, but I haven't seen the forensic evidence to support it beyond a reasonable doubt. I do have grounds that I consider not only compelling but downright dispositive to doubt the official account of 9/11. I don't need a thesis of my own to substitute for the official one; it's enough to say that there is uncontroverted evidence proving that the government claim is simply impossible.

So what's the deal here? You must admit that a rigorously critical review of Pepper's evidence, while it was enough to persuade a jury, is not enough to remove all doubt. And you must equally admit that the plain evidence of our eyes and a stopwatch is far more than enough to warrant a thorough reinvestigation of 9/11. [continue]

+3#tingletlc2013-04-05 17:52

[continued]

I gather that you're not incapable, given a satisfying narrative, of doubting your government; so I have to ask: what about 9/11 obliges you to dismiss as "conspiracy clowns" those who have demanded another look at evidence that has never been explained away?

+46#MEBrowning2013-04-03 20:13

We lost not one but three Democratic "kings" in 1963 and 1968, and we've been struggling, as a party and as a country, ever since.

+10#wantrealdemocracy2013-04-04 10:34

MEBrowning is obviously still holding the belief that the Democrats are a lesser evil than the Republicans. WRONG! They are hand in hand in destroying any semblance of democracy in our nation. We have lost John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X, Paul Wellstone, and Martin Luther King Jr. because they stood up against the corrupt 'leadership' of this nation. This evil has been going on for a very long time but now, in our current situation, it should be clear to all of us that we need regime change. Our government is not OURS in any sense. It is time for regime change here in the U.S. of A. First step is for each of us to resolve NEVER AGAIN TO VOTE FOR A D OR AN R. There is no lesser evil.

+1#MEBrowning2013-04-05 14:17

wantrealdemocra cy "obviously" hasn't read the first comment under this article:

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/16746-how-the-dems-pushed-ashley-judd-out-of-the-race

Please read it and rethink your post.

+2#kochadoodledoo2013-04-06 03:52

A third party has never yet been successful in our elections and just seems to have helped the worst of the two evils. How do you expect to prevent that?

+3#RHytonen2013-04-07 02:57

Quoting kochadoodledoo:

A third party has never yet been successful in our elections and just seems to have helped the worst of the two evils. How do you expect to prevent that?



Easy - just perhaps not as immediate as is sorely needed.

Everyone switches their official party registratin to GREEN (see the actual platform, jill stein.org/issue s ) to send a clear anticorporate message.

Then you vote ONLY Green.

I mean this, it HAS to start somewhere.

"Fallout?" "Spoiler?"
The "fallout" we have now,
literally could not be worse.

Nor will it stop, pretty much no matter WHAT we do, but DEFINITELY if we do nothing (ie, vote for the choices corporations give us through THEIR media. And it IS all theirs.)

Of course, if you really wanted change, you would OCCUPY. At LEAST "bang a pan." (google: Cacelorazo )

+18#DaveM2013-04-03 20:42

In 1977, James Earl Ray appeared on a television pilot, "The Truth: With Jack Anderson". He was the highlight of a series of guests who were given polygraph examinations on camera. Ray was given two tests, and failed both spectacularly.

Polygraph tests are not evidence, of course. The examiner noted that Ray was "the most nervous subject he had ever encountered", which may have led to inaccurate results from the polygraph, which essentially measures one's stress level.

That said, there is at least some indication that James Earl Ray had some involvement in Martin Luther King's assassination. He had a rifle of the right type and caliber and was in the right place at the right time....surely this was not mere coincidence. Yes--he could have been set up. And it's hard to believe that anyone planning an assassination would not bother to sight in a scoped rifle. Or was the rifle dropped at some point and the scope knocked off aiming point?

On the other hand, as per the above, there were obviously other parties involved here. Whether they actually carried out the assassination, or just took several steps to "make sure" Ray was fingered as the guilty party, other dirty hands were at work. The "official" history should be re-examined accordingly.

+27#jstick2013-04-03 20:55

Mr. Gibson does not reference the book which provides all the details of the assassination: Orders to Kill by William Pepper. Look for the second edition, the one with all the revelations of the 1999 trial.
Nor does Mr. Gibson reference the role of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover as spelled out by Attorney Pepper in his book.

+40#lark36502013-04-03 21:56

Every so often a leader comes along who truly wants to make the world a better place...someone who wants justice and equality for all people....someo ne with advanced intellectual ability that is able to bring people together for the common good....I guess that wasn't part of the agenda....

+33#Milarepa2013-04-03 21:57

The term conspiracy theory is used to discredit a lot of speculation based on deep, factual investigation. With conspiracy out of the way very little remains, to wit JFK, RK, MLK, 9/11 etc.
Who was behind Sirhan Sirhan? We may never know ...

+17#wrodwell2013-04-03 22:01

Revelations such as these have usually been viewed as classic cases of "the truth shall set us free."
But nowadays, it's a case of the truth imprisoning us even more as its revelations couldn't be more "instructive" in this era of growing surveillance and heightened "security". The more American citizens become aware of such heinous back room manipulations, the more they're apt to be cowed into silence and acquiescence. Just like the German people once were.
Long Live Freedom!

+28#ladypyrates2013-04-03 22:44

Funny how that same media refused to report the verdict of the US District Court Jury that found the CIA responsible for the murder of President Kennedy. (United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, case number 80-1121-Civ-JWK , February 6, 1985)...

+16#Richard Raznikov2013-04-03 22:48

Thank you, Carl. It's a very surreal experience living with the official story of this killing when one knows it's false. I've had the same experience for many years with respect to the killings of the Kennedys. The evidence is there but it's as though the difficulty in facing facts is too daunting for many people. If you haven't yet seen it, check out my novel which covers these events in the 'sixties: http://www.amazon.com/News-From-A-Parallel-World/dp/1478194448/

+3#kochadoodledoo2013-04-06 03:59

As Keb Mo said, "We're just the victims of comfort." We've given the government, the courts, and corporate America carte blanche in exchange for comfort.

+3#PRB2013-04-03 22:55

I tried to read the transcript on the King Center site, but the links to the chapters of the transcript don't take you to the text at all.

If you were able to access it, please tell me how you got there.

+4#CarlGibson2013-04-04 07:36

Hi PRB,

Here's a PDF of the full transcript- http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf

+36#teineitalia2013-04-04 00:14

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is a murder, committed in my name- and with the taxpayer dollars of my parent's generation. I am so ashamed of what we allow to happen by our silent, complicient behavior. I can only remember the words of King himself: "the moral arc of the universe is long- but it bends toward justice." hoping for Justice to be served here.. in my lifetime.

+23#Muffy7872013-04-04 00:27

Another wonderful investigative report by Carl. He is such a young man and so thorough in his work. I am sure that this article is more truth than fiction.
I would love to see him do a similar report on JFK's
assassination as there are so many theories out there, we need to find out who was really behind it and by no means was Oswald solely responsible for that heinous crime.

+18#End Endless Wars2013-04-04 00:53

Mr. Gibson,
Question: if a jury in Memphis found the conspirators guilty, were they later acquitted? If not what happened to them? This is an important piece of information that would help substantiate this article. Thank you.

+28#walt2013-04-04 04:10

All shocking to read! Thanks, Carl, for this report.

What is really tragic is the amount of hatred in America for black people. We may have thought that most of that ended decades ago, but it hasn't. The best proof is found watching those who have spent the last five years trying to damage or destroy President Obama's administration at every turn.

The white hoods from years ago may not be seen as much today, but another group has taken over and is working hard to maintain the bigotry.

+12#tedrey2013-04-04 04:15

It will be very important to observe how the media reports, or does not report, this story. Failure to report and deal with it will be almost tantamount to confession.

+8#EternalTruth2013-04-04 07:23

You mean this story from 1999? It's been 14 years of silence already. The evidence is in.

+28#Oscar2013-04-04 04:33

This story reminds me so much the murder of JF Kennedy: the same lack of due security, the same 'amateurish' handling of the investigation, the same accusations of conspiracy theory to those that dear to doubt the official story.

+5#wantrealdemocracy2013-04-04 10:38

Maybe it seems to be the same because it was done by the same evil forces--who are, unfortunately, still in control of 'our' government.

+5#MidwestTom2013-04-04 04:37

This is interesting, and I do not doubt one word of it. What I find odd is the omission of who was in the room with Dr. king. I have heard many stories over the years; this surely came up at this trial, but was not covered by this article. Does anyone know?

+23#Glen2013-04-04 04:48

No surprise here. Folks have been doing their own investigation since JFK was shot. The results have been published but too many citizens continue to believe the U.S. government reigns supreme and would never conduct any crime against citizens - that also includes such as the attack on the world trade center.

Assassination has never been uncommon in the U.S., no matter the method. Those wishing to change the system have always been in danger. Just ask folks who were street active or politically active during the '60's, as private citizens.

Hell, ask Marilyn Monroe.

-8#charsjcca2013-04-04 06:08

Rodney King was more of a threat.

+4#genierae2013-04-04 06:36

MLK, JFK, and RFK were hated by the same elements that hate our president, I pray that the Secret Service is doing its job.

+9#Christopher Lutter-Gardella2013-04-04 06:49

Excellent article Carl.
Keep-up the fantastic journalism!
Peace!
Christopher Lutter-Gardella (of Backbone Campaign association)

+18#dkonstruction2013-04-04 06:50

The important question, I think is Why? Not why in general but why was King killed when he was killed? He had long been a thorn (to say the least) in the side of much of the power structure (and, e.g., Hoover had labeled him the most dangerous man in the country).

As long as King was just talking about race he was not a sufficient enough threat. When he moved from strictly to talking about race to talking about class as well (as Gibson notes, King was supporting a sanitation workers strike when he was killed) -- not to mention his opposition to the Vietnam War -- this was when he became "truly" dangerous. The same can be said of Malcolm X (who after going to Mecca and seeing white Muslims comes back to the US and, like King, his views evolved to understand that it is not just about race but also about class.

This should be a lesson to all those who have so enthusiasticall y embraced "identity politics" and in the process abandoned calls for economic equality and justice and organizing across racial and ethnic lines.

+27#futhark2013-04-04 07:24

As long as the public keeps accepting uncritically the official accounts of the murders of JFK, MLK, RFK, the 3000 who died as a result of the 9/11 coup, and the people that died as a result of the followup false flag anthrax attacks, the agents of the surveillance state apparatus behind them will continue to be emboldened in the use of criminal means to achieve their ends.

Support Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

+10#reiverpacific2013-04-04 07:35

Just confirms my disdain for the OS corporate owner-media and it's patsy-like pandering to the halls of power.
It's all smoke and mirrors in it's hubris and they get away with it as they have the rapt but incurious and fleeting attention of their lemmings addicted to content-free programming between ever-lengthenin g commercials for stuff they don't need but are persuaded to want.
Like all corporate self-aggrandizi ng commercials, if it comes our of the "official" channels, post helen Thomas white house press corps or owner-media, believe the opposite.
And stick to either the "Alternative" sources US or the foreign press if you want any facts and depth of reporting.
The quoted Edgar R. Murrow must be revolving in whatever his remains are in.
It's really becoming more and more like Franco's Spain or Suharto's Indonesia but instead of the papers being blacked out, they are just censored more subtly and the foc'rin' screen is merely a reflection of Rome's "Panem et Circences".
You have a hard time getting many books here like the late Phillip Agee's or Greg Palast's, except at "alternative" activist book stores one of which was attacked and the windows smashed in Portland OR not too long ago.
The message? "Conform or die"!.

+10#ritaague2013-04-04 08:06

And, how do the oh so tragic killings (slaughters of leaders I've felt, strongly, since they occurred, to have been by the evil, coup d'etat takeover, greed and power addicted wannabe govt. controller fiends) of MLK, JFK, and RFK, give notice to us today that more of such slayings are coming?

Anwers: The real McCoy, justice upholding judge, Hon. Judge Forrest in Fed. Dist. Court (New York's Southern Div.) had Navy Seals escorting her out of the courtroom and courthouse when ruling in favor of plaintiffs in the extremely under reported by the 'mess' media trial of the century: Hedges, et. al. v. Obama, et. al.. Very recently,I, a legal asst. member of plaintiffs' legal team, was humbled (and, I admit, comforted and then some), to be told by a big whig in law enforcement, that I was being watched and kept safe. My hope is that all truth telling plaintiffs/atto rneys/judge in the aforementioned trial, are also being kept an eye on, in order to be kept from MLK style martyrdom.

Yep, there's a war going on alright. But, what nearly all Americans do not comprehend, rather than lied into, erzatz terrorist wars, it's the war that a Pres. named Eisenhower foretold of, when he warned us of the power addicted takeover of the military-indust rial complex, the battle of the evil, villainaire rulers against those who lead and wish to lead the way to all of us occupying liberty and justice for all.

0#RHytonen2013-04-07 03:02

I do believe Eisenhower was the LAST noncorporate President.

(Remember: It was under JFK that the first of a thousand cuts was delivered to the 90%+ TMR.)

+4#wwway2013-04-04 09:02

With the latest murder of a Texas prosector Texas lawmakers and enforcers are backing off from the Aryans. The gun manufacturers own our government. Americans have largely given permission and their consent to the murder of school children, theater goers and law enforcement officers for years now. Government by and for the people determines the government they want to live under and deserve. If they want the gun manufacturers and bankers to rule then that's what they get. Do Chickens for Col. Sanders really expect to survive?

+15#lorenbliss2013-04-04 09:20

Let us not forget – while government agents undoubtedly pulled the trigger of the rifle that murdered Martin Luther King Jr; while government agents undoubtedly fired the guns that killed President John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Sen. Robert Kennedy, Fred Hampton, Alison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, William Schroeder, Sandy Scheuer, Phillip Gibbs, James Green; while government agents unquestionably helped protect the killers of Karen Silkwood and in all probability murdered Sen. Paul Wellstone – the kill orders nevertheless came from the real One Percent: the nameless, faceless, Bohemian Grove-type secret circle of Big Business tyrants that has ruled the United States with its neofascist regimen of death and suppression since the coup of 22 November 1963.

All that has changed under Barack the Betrayer is the government of the United States now publicly acknowledges it is no different from the government of Nazi Germany: constitutional protections have been nullified and rendered so meaningless, government agents can now murder us at any time for any reason. Such is capitalist governance: absolute power and unlimited profit for the Ruling Class, total subjugation for the rest of us. The only surprise in all this is the huge number of people who were too stupid to see that capitalism – infinite greed elevated to maximum virtue – invariably morphs into fascism.

+13#Adoregon2013-04-04 10:07

Let us not forget John Lennon.

+6#wantrealdemocracy2013-04-04 10:42

Time for regime change in the U.S. of A.

+1#Glen2013-04-05 04:45

The security at Bohemian Grove just might be breached with a drone of the type these folks no doubt agree with when used over citizens. There are other gatherings, such as Bilderberg that would be difficult but not impossible to intrude upon.

Wanna take bets on when that will happen?

+1#kochadoodledoo2013-04-06 04:13

I'd almost rather see Barack the Dictator, as it is clear that no president can accomplish anything by himself (hopefully herself one of these days soon). A cooperative congress is necessary; a do-nothing racist congress just collects a salary and wastes our hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

+1#BKnowswhitt2013-04-04 11:14

All the dots are more connected here in:

“Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination” by Lamar Waldron. This guy did some real good research and he had the same except that King was killed in exchange for favors to please white supremies in the south in that era. No conspiracy just connects better dots than most .. this was good ole boy times and the rednecks in the south hated king ... like obama ...

+6#Merschrod2013-04-04 14:27

Dsten you seatbelts while the war with N. Korea is being cooked and promoted. It seems to have taken the front pge from Iran. I wonder why?

+4#indian weaver2013-04-05 09:03

The Korean b.s. is only a government distraction for preparation to attack Iran, keeping the real agenda OFF THE FRONT PAGES. Don't believe a word you read anymore, look behind the words, not at the words.

+6#frederico2013-04-04 16:48

OK, Carl did a great job reminding us of the truth. First, they killed MLK, and then they gave him a national holiday. Hoover and the other trolls killed many of our most courageous and enlightened heroes, and the despicable corporate media continues to spin the web of lies and justifications. Many of agree that we need regime change. Fine, but now what? Nobody has the easy formula to make this happen. How do we do this and avoid a bloodbath? Forget the election process, that's one of the most rotten pillars of our society, rotten to the core. The only way is that the consciousness of many millions must raise so that they will be in the streets to seize our corrupt government. Is another government the answer? Will the same bottom feeders rise to the top of the food chain to oppress the rest of us, as they have done through all of human (his)story, with the exception of a very few advanced societies? How do we have direct democracy without having chaos? It's past time to start putting forth action plans to end the nightmare of amerIkA. I remain hopeful but skeptical that enough enlightened citizens will tear themselves away from TV, consumerism, greed and other distractions, to give a shit enough to have the massive revolt so obviously necessary. Even if we get that far, how do we deal with the morons and the GMO humans who will most definitely fuck things up all over again? The bottom line is: has human evolution come far enough yet, or has it come to it's ugly end?

+11#eduardoben2013-04-04 17:29

THIS is why Dr. King was assassinated. And why he was being shadowed by US Army intelligence for at least twelve months before his death. It is unlikely that a Poor People's March on Washington would have been a major cause of his death.

I served in an Airborne infantry unit in Vietnam --- the 173rd Airborne Brigade.

Because of institutionaliz ed racism within the Army, white boys would more often be assigned to learn helicopter maintenance, radar technology, how to work in tanks, intelligence and administrative skills etc. while black boys were much more likely to be assigned to carry a rifle in an infantry unit.

Consequently the closer you would get to the rifle squads (the grunts on the ground) the higher the percentage of black soldiers. In some infantry units black soldiers comprised 50% or more of the troops.

And that is why Dr. King WAS a threat. If he told black soldiers to put their rifles down and refuse to fight -- which he came close to doing in his Vietnam War speech at the Riverside Church in New York a year to the DAY before he was killed -- the US ground war in Vietnam would have come to a screeching halt.
If Malcolm X -- who King had reconciled with had joined in that call, there would have been no question about the ground war coming to an end. The Army knew that King had the power -- if he chose to use it -- to bring the US ground war to a halt. I believe THAT is why the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed.

Eduardo Cohen

+2#idic52013-04-04 18:09

I am a pretty interested and well educted citizen and I NEVER learned of MLK civil lawsuit til the last go around of MLK's birhtday last january, and I heard about it here on FB - probably from OM!!!! - mainstream meida - nothing. today's chciago trib - mentkioned raul, but that raul was never found . end of single sentence on this !
ck out this video where he talks about how , in the civil trial brought by teh king familiy inte late 90s, he was the oNLY person there watching this trial - this is incredible (as he saw it , also) - in addition to the incredbiole claims that were found to be true under the civil stds
at 2:20 he starts talking about the assassinations

at 4:52 he starts talking about teh mlk lawsuit
at 10:47 - NO ONE from mainstream media was there at the trial !!!
at 11:27 a portugal reporter that everyone in the US was on teh Simpson and clinton trials , but NO ONE was there
at 14:38 'it is amazing the care that teh govt took to kill mlk'. army intelligence was there, army rifle unit in case the shooter wd not do the job'.
at 18:36 talks about the viet name phoenix program and vets involved in this top secret forces pgm tasked with killing 'terrorists' were in Memphis that day.
at 20:47, Note also his comments on 'Crime Stop' from 1984 where the normal common sense moral and ratiocinative faculties of inference are blocked beause the conclusions wd be so beyond the pale that it is blocked .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUdqgD6-cLM

+5#Edwina2013-04-05 07:24

This may explain why Dr. King's family came to the conclusion that James Earl Ray had not been the murderer, and "forgave" him. At the time, it was mysterious, and the media did not delve into the reasons for their change of opinion (that I saw). The federal government and its propaganda machine, the mainstream media, becomes less credible every day.

-4#indian weaver2013-04-05 09:09

For me, Obama / government / corporate Wehrmacht media have NO CREDIBILITY. I don't believe a word any of them say, starting with that baby boy toy the slave Obama, serving slavishly his mommy and daddy to kill, terrorize, assassinate, torture worldwide for his paycheck. This applies to most all employees of the government now who get paid to kill worldwide, all part of the War Machine. In fact, is this government anything but a war machine? Do something right or good and he's as good as dead. Does he know that? Obama has no insight or courage. insight. self evaluation and principles require courage.

+3#noitall2013-04-05 15:13

I've often wondered, why is it that the people I like, that are making headway doing what seems right for this country, get bumped off while those that seem totally evil and against everything that I believe in, do things that seem treasonous to this country, end up getting important political positions (fox guarding hen house type jobs). Is it that BIG TIME greed drives them (and these wolves don't hunt alone, ever) to connive against anyone that does not support their greedy ends? It is so obvious too, that they have everything SO TIED UP that anyone saying "Hey, that official story doesn't make sense" is called a "conspiracy theorist" and EVERYONE tells them to get on with life and accept the OFFICIAL STORY. I actually have had friends get short with me when I mention 9/11 not making sense; first time planes disintegrated on impact, metal buildings crumbling by fire whether hit by the planes or not. I get, "Oh you're one of those 'conspiracy theorists', eh?!" I've always learned that if it goes against my instincts and doesn't make sense, ITS BULLSHIT! Re: John Lennon, do you think his killer was an independent actor? Me neither. I guess we can see why Koch, et. al. are so hell bent to control what we hear and know. For me, Ignorance is NOT bliss!

+3#kochadoodledoo2013-04-06 04:24

For many there is "comfort in not-knowing." For those committed to knowing, there's no going back, no matter how painful.

+2#Replicounts2013-04-19 08:08

The most obvious reason for the U.S. government to kill Dr. King is that he threatened the pipeline of African American cannon fodder going to Vietnam.

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post


THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.