Return to Main Page
The conference in Washington was held the weekend of June 13-15, competing with the NBA Finals and Father's Day (to say nothing of The X-Files) for a nation's attention. Below are summaries of information presented by Philip Melanson, author of a new book on the murder of Senator Robert Kennedy, Shadowplay, and William Pepper, attorney for James Ray and author of Orders to Kill.
Melanson briefly related some of the developments in the RFK case since Scott Enyart's successful suit against L.A. concerning the destruction of his photographs of the assassination scene during the shooting. The city plans an appeal, but Melanson explained circumstances which mitigate against a successful appeal effort.
Elaborating on the process by which evidence was distorted, Melanson described Sirhan's questioning after the murder. At Sirhan's trial, police said he was calm and collected - calmer than some people brought in for traffic offenses. However, the tape recording of that session, suppressed in 1968 when Sirhan's attorneys sought it under discovery, has survived. Phil Melanson said that Sirhan on the tape is "babbling, afraid, and incoherent..."
So new instances of distortion and manipulation should come as no surprise. We now have a Magic Bullet in the Robert Kennedy murder, although it took some effort, as Melanson put it. The RFK neck bullet, a .22, was photographed "at the time of the shooting (sic), and it's really scrunched down to about half its size, as one might imagine. The bullet up in the California State Archives...looks just like the Magic Bullet - it hasn't been hurt by anything in the world."
(Researcher Lynn Mangan presented proof at the trial of Scott Enyart's suit that Evidence Envelopes 24 and 25 had been renumbered, and new envelopes introduced, supposedly containing Enyart's photos. Additional corruption of evidence will certainly be found in the future.)
Sirhan's attorney, Larry Teeter, has filed a writ of habeas corpus, which will likely be rejected. But Melanson sees the possibility of increased public awareness of the case, which could be useful in the future. Sirhan has already served eight years longer than most killers in California, and has been free of disciplinary write-ups for 21 years. (No small feat, according to Melanson, since the prisoner in the next cell is Charles Manson, who is constantly acting-out and encouraging Sirhan to do so, too.) Sirhan is a model prisoner; he has resources and a job awaiting him on the outside. But he was denied parole on June 18, 1997, and he won't have another parole hearing for five years. Melanson characterized Sirhan Bishara Sirhan as a political prisoner, and indicated that he was working to bring Sirhan's case before Amnesty International.
Last fall, when Pepper spoke at COPA's gathering in Washington, he related the findings of his investigation into the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King. His book was not reviewed in the United States, and even many assassination researchers were unfamiliar with his work. In June of this year, he spent no time going over that material, but instead launched into developments surrounding the possible trial of his client, James Earl Ray.
Ray's health is an important factor. Suffering from hepatitis C, he was comatose and in critical condition for a period of days in December, 1996. In fact, Ray was diagnosed with hepatitis C in 1994, but neither his family nor his counsel was informed.
Pepper has consulted liver specialists in various countries, and the consensus is that only a liver transplant can save Ray's life. A doctor at the University of Pittsburgh has agreed to conduct tests to determine Ray's prospects as an organ recipient. The problem, of course, is that control of Ray's medical treatment is held by Tennessee. Tennessee is not in a hurry to assist James Ray.
Pepper characterized the law concerning medical treatment for inmates as having been settled for 21 years and clarified in 40 cases. As Pepper put it, "to deny an inmate...medical care that is required to keep him alive is tantamount to being cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment ... the standard became known as 'deliberate indifference'. The state has been put on notice, they know what is required, and they are being deliberately indifferent." However, "...Tennessee law and regulations," Pepper observed, "give the commissioner of corrections discretion in these cases. So he has the discretion to violate the eighth amendment, which he freely did. After lengthy argument, he went away for an hour and a half and came back and ruled against us and denied our petition."
Appeals are in process, of course, and Pepper expressed confidence that eventually Tennessee would allow examination of Ray to determine his suitability for a transplant procedure. But clearance will certainly be delayed as much as possible.
After the assessment, assuming Ray is found to be an acceptable candidate, he will have to await an organ. Should an organ become available, he will have to be transported to Pennsylvania. This will provide Tennessee with another opportunity to delay, an opportunity which they certainly will take.
The King family was mobilized to act by William Pepper's book and by the failing health of Ray. They recognized that if Ray died without a trial, the truth would never come out. If they were going to act as a family, they had to do so soon. "Now they have been firmly behind this effort. They have been far wiser than I have been with respect to the media, and how the media is used in these kinds of cases ... If you grow up in a family that has been under surveillance and under harassment ... there tends to be almost a natural reaction, a gut feeling, when you start dealing with media people." The more high-profile the case becomes, he noted later, the more subject it becomes to media manipulation.
If I might, so to speak, interrupt Mr. Pepper for a moment, I would comment further on the media. I joined in AOL's "Great Debate" message group while the topic was the possible trial of Ray. "Conservative" Robert Novak and "liberal" Mark Shields were, seemingly, participating in the debate. Each logged a post. Neither stated that Ray should have a trial. Neither showed any familiarity with the facts in the case. Both were quick to caution that the consequent "media circus" (Novak) would produce a "conspiracy-feeding frenzy" (Shields), thus insinuating that recognition of a conspiracy stems from irresponsible journalistic behavior. Neither devoted more than a few sentences to the topic. They positioned themselves within the narrow confines of "responsible" journalistic discourse and exhibited minor degrees of interest without addressing any substantive issues at all.
One must admire the craft - "feeding-frenzy" certainly conveys the sense of dangerous, animal mindlessness one would want to attribute to one's opponents, and so it is an excellent phrase to bandy about. (And a delighful change of pace from that tired old cliche, "paranoid liberal/black," don't you think?) But what we have in fact been subjected to for the past few decades has been one "lone nut-feeding frenzy" after another. Novak's and Shields' careers developed in that stultifying environment of anti-news. It is possible that they were not even aware of the powerful irony and cynicism in their remarks. But if the media is so inherently untrustworthy in reporting political crimes, what confidence can we have in Novak and Shields, who are political commentators?! So let's return to Pepper's rather more direct speech before COPA.
"Under Tennessee law," Pepper said, "the only way you can open up a guilty plea is by using scientific evidence to prove actual innocence." According to Pepper, this is in keeping with a national trend. "Habeas corpus," he continued, "is virtually gone in the state of Tennessee." Given the standard, what scientific evidence is there in the case against Ray but the rifle and the bullet? The state long ago conceded that the bullet could not be matched to the alleged murder weapon. In other words, if Ray faced trial tomorrow, the rifle would be useless as evidence against him. But to secure that hoped-for trial, the burden of proof now falls on the defense. The defense must prove the bullet could not have come from that rifle - a higher standard to reach.
After a brief encapsulation of the FBI and HSCA ballistics tests, Pepper focused on the most recent series of tests. Judge Brown agreed to the tests in 1994; his decision was appealed and the appeal was upheld. Pepper filed a motion to reconsider, which was assisted by the attention brought to the case by the entrance of the King family into the controversy. Continued refusal to allow the defense to examine the alleged murder weapon - after 29 years - now appears suspicious. The judge again agreed to tests; his decision was again appealed; but this time, the appeal was denied.
While the tests were in progress, the judge imposed certain additional protocols on the balance of the work to be carried out, to insure more precise and careful examination. Pepper characterized Brown as a ballistics expert, and very well informed on the topic. Judge Brown also put a gag order on the process - which was promptly violated by a leak apparently just a few days before the COPA conference. Pepper expects the testing procedures aimed at excluding the rifle to be finished and the issue back in court in mid-July.
Living persons allegedly connected with the sniper teams Pepper has uncovered were given fictional names in his book, Orders to Kill. However, one alleged participant, Billy Eidson, was identified by his real name because Pepper had reason to believe Eidson was dead. Eidson is alive however, and has been living in Costa Rica. Supposedly, Eidson was working at a fire station in Birmingham, on April 4, 1968. Pepper reiterated his reasons for believing Eidson was involved, pointing out that employment and other records would have to be examined in evaluating Eidson's alibi. Pepper said that he has gone back over the information on Eidson and contacted his deep-cover sources on the operation. Their accounts are unchanged.
The New York Times, on June 20, 1997, claimed that Eidson's appearance "undermined at least part of Mr. Pepper's theory." The manner in which Pepper was confronted with Eidson was carefully crafted to discredit perception of military involvement in the assassination without conveying any information about the evidence Pepper has developed concerning the sniper teams. Eidson, flanked by other officers, ("no one below the rank of colonel," Pepper added) was sprung on Pepper, so to speak, at a press conference. Pepper was asked if he was surprised to find that Eidson was alive, and the paper accurately noted that Pepper agreed he might have received some incorrect information. But the paper neglected to report his other comments. Pepper said that of course he was surprised to see Eidson alive, that he was sorry for having declared Eidson dead, and that had he known Eidson was going to be available, he, Pepper, would have brought materials to discuss. But because Pepper was not informed in advance of the news conference that Eidson would appear, Pepper was denied that opportunity.
Expired former military men coming to life seems to be a feature of the King murder - and a phenomenon which ought to tell us something all by itself. In January of 1996, Pepper was contacted through an intermediary by another man who had been declared legally dead a decade ago, a colonel in military intelligence. Pepper believed the colonel had helped organize the military operation. The colonel called an associate of Pepper's to say that he had read Pepper's book and found it accurate, except that Pepper had overplayed the colonel's role. "I was in a chain of command situation," he said, "and I would like to work with you guys over the period of time so that you more fully understand how these things work and how this mission was planned and carried out."
Meanwhile, Pepper's associate has come under increasing pressure and a new interpretation of the military's presence has been floated. In this version, the snipers were there to act in the event of a riot; supposedly Pepper has mistakenly concluded that they were there to assassinate King. Pepper pointed out the Lorraine Motel was one of the most peaceful places in Memphis on the day of the killing. Since no riot conditions existed, why was King shot?
According to Pepper, a previously unknown witness, a former federal agent, has come forward with documentary evidence which substantiates a major portion of Ray's defense. The witness is prepared to come into court and testify. It is always pleasing, Pepper said, however long the delay, to have whistle-blowers come forward to further the pursuit of truth in important political cases.
The emergence of Eidson is a negative development in the short run. Pepper has commissioned certain investigatory work, which will necessarily require time and resources.
But beyond that, what has happened? Pepper believed a man was dead, when the man was actually living abroad. The claim today is that Eidson was at a Birmingham fire station when King was shot. Assume that's true. Does that mean he had no connection to the plot? David Ferrie was in a courthouse in New Orleans while President Kennedy was being gunned down in Dallas. Are we forced to conclude that Jim Garrison was wrong about Ferrie's role in that assassination?
In the long run, Pepper said, the Eidson controversy will produce a different reaction. Should Ray go to trial, Pepper can call Eidson to the stand and question him under oath - something which would be impossible were Eidson truly dead. And according to Pepper, another of his sources has been so angered by the developing situation that he, too, is considering testifying under oath and bringing classified documents as evidence.
It will require considerable courage, Pepper said, for this man to come forward. That is where we can help. Any attention we bring to this case provides a safer and more open environment for witnesses to stand up.
Meanwhile, there will be more misdirection in the mainstream media. "News" accounts will remain opinion pieces devoid of fact. Such anti-news already appears regularly, and the attacks will increase if Ray is granted a trial. That is how you know that you are getting close to the truth in America today.
Martin Luther King once said, "Truth crushed to earth will rise again." William Pepper added that those words have taken on new meaning for him. "The truth in this case has begun to rise again...to flower. And now the boots are out, and they are attempting once again to crush it. And we are determined that's not going to happen."
Return to Main Page
* * *