|
ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN LUTHER KING |
|
Chapter 23: The Eve of the Trial: January 24, 1993 THOUGH THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUED, twenty-four hours before the trial was to begin we believed that our case contained a few surprises for the prosecution. We intended to show, through his own testimony and that of others, that James Earl Ray, a fugitive on the run with few options, was a patsy. At some point he was targeted by persons involved in a conspiracy to kill Martin Luther King and kept on a string with the unfulfilled promise of travel documents and the ongoing payment of relatively small sums of money for the performance of routine tasks as requested. He was moved around the country by a handler he knew only as Raul. An affidavit sworn by Randy Rosenson and the testimony of his former lawyer, Gene Stanley, would not only confirm the existence of Raul but indicate that the HSCA had known of his existence. Finally, when it was decided that the assassination would be carried out in Memphis, James was given specific instructions to buy a particular rifle within a few days of the killing, and to rent a room in the rooming house on the day itself. We would attack head-on the conclusions of the prosecution's case and the HSCA report by introducing available evidence. We would show that there was no ballistics evidence to establish that the death slug was fired from the rifle purchased by James and found with the dropped bundle. In addition, although the death slug had frequently been described as being fragmented, or in three pieces, we had evidence that the bullet taken from Dr. King's body was in one piece when it was sent to the FBI laboratory in Washington. We had developed substantial evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution's contention that the shot came from the bath room. There was no fingerprint evidence in the room and, most important, an eyewitness-taxi driver James McCraw -- would testify that the bathroom was empty and the door was open a few minutes before 6:00 p.m. McCraw would also testify that on the morning of April 5 Jowers showed him a rifle in a box under the cash register in Jim's Grill. We believed that the prosecution was going to rely on the affidavit statement of Charlie Stephens, which purported to identify a profile of James. Since Stephens had made contradictory statements and was drunk at the time, we would destroy his credibility. Our evidence would include testimony from reporter Wayne Chastain, McCraw, and police detective Tommy Smith, who saw Charlie Stephens drunk within minutes of the shooting. We intended to assert that James Earl Ray was gone from the area by the time of the shooting. Eyewitnesses William Reed and Ray Hendrix would testify through their statements that his Mustang came up South Main Street and turned onto Vance sometime before 6:00. Through the testimony of former Press Scimitar photographer/reporter Jim Reid we would seek to introduce evidence of gas station attendant Willie Green, who allegedly saw James and who we had come to believe had died. Reid told me that Green had excitedly identified James from a photo Reid showed him, saying that he was the man at his gas station around 6:00 p.m. on the day of the murder. (We had some reservations about this identification because we had finally been able to view the NBC/Earl Wells interview of Willie Green. Even though Green had clearly identified a photograph of James as the person he saw, he also said that the man had used the telephone, which didn't jive with James's recollections.) We knew that the prosecution was going to maintain that the Mustang which was seen leaving from just south of Canipe's, after the bundle was dropped, was driven by James. We would produce evidence that it was another virtually identical vehicle to that of James, which arrived in the area shortly after 4:30 that afternoon and which had Arkansas plates. *** WE WERE PREPARED to introduce evidence to show that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy that orchestrated a number of significant events leading up to the slaying. Eyewitnesses would confirm that the demonstration of March 28 was sabotaged by provocateurs. Evidence would be advanced that in preparation for his return to Memphis Dr. King was manipulated into staying at the Lorraine Motel and that the room originally reserved for him in a protected, ground-level area was changed to a highly exposed, second-floor balcony room. MPD surveillance logs indicated that Rev. Billy Kyles had not been truthful about his movements within the last hour of Dr. King's life, and this was confirmed by Ralph Abernathy and Hosea Williams. Kyles had, in fact, however innocent it may have been, called Dr. King out of his room minutes before the shooting and then concocted a story about talking to him in the room. There was some indication from MPD inspector Sam Evans that it was Kyles who requested the TACT units be pulled back (although I questioned whether there was any such request and Kyles has denied making it). We also knew that Reverend Kyles had taken a room (312) at the Lorraine on April 3 and 4, even though he lived in Memphis. We knew that Reverend Kyles was to be the prosecution's first witness, and I was eager to have an opportunity to raise these issues with him. The defense would show that the shot actually came from the brush area behind the rooming house, with witnesses testifying that they had seen a person or persons there. Smoke was seen rising from the bushes right after the shooting. There were also the fresh footprints found at the beginning of the alleyway; we planned to introduce photographs of the plaster casts through the testimony of MPD dog officer J. B. Hodges, who discovered them. Most explosive of all would be the testimony of Betty Spates, if she would actually come forward. She believed that her life had been in jeopardy ever since April 4, 1968, because of what she saw that day. She could positively identify a conspirator to the killing, if not the shooter himself, who appeared to take immediate possession of the murder rifle, break it down, and carry it away. Betty Spates's sister Bobbi could substantiate elements of her story, and she'd also be able to testify that the manager of Jim's Grill had put the second floor of the rooming house off-limits on that day, preventing the delivery of food to a recuperating tenant -- Grace Walden. But Bobbi, too, was afraid. Evidence of the involvement of organized crime figures would be introduced through the testimony of John McFerren if we could get him to testify about what he heard and saw late on the afternoon of April 4 at the LL&L Produce Company in Memphis. The role of the local police in the assassination would be raised by evidence about the unexplained transfer on April 4 of two black firemen from their usual duty assignment at fire station 2 and the forced removal of black detective Ed Redditt from his surveillance post in the fire station two hours before the shooting. In addition, there was the pull back of the TACT units from around the Lorraine, the absence of the usual security unit of black homicide detectives, and the disappearance of all police from the motel Within an hour of the shooting. Contrasted with the removal of the local police and their security personnel was the presence on April 4 of FBI or other federal agents in unmarked cars on Ruling and Butler streets, with the Lorraine situated in between. We referred to this impinging presence as a "surveillance sandwich." The Invaders abruptly left the hotel only to return to the area shortly after the shooting and be stopped by barricades that appeared within ten minutes. We learned that it ordinarily took about thirty minutes for them to be brought from their storage depot and put in place. The defense would present evidence of the predisposition of the federal government to harm and discredit Dr. King. The use of electronic surveillance, wiretapping, and diversified harassment activities against Dr. King for a number of years before 1968 would be documented, (Former FBI special agents Arthur Murtagh and Bill Turner would substantiate these assertions. ) We would also call as a witness Jim Smith, the local MPD special services intelligence bureau officer, who along with federal agents participated in the electronic surveillance of Dr, King in Memphis. The FBI had always vehemently denied that King was ever electronically surveilled in Memphis. Our surprise evidence would establish this as yet other long-standing lie and establish the interest the FBI or other collaborating federal agency took in Dr. King while he was in Memphis. The plethora of strange events involving government officials, at one level or another, would be capped by the bizarre disclosure of Ed Redditt concerning a photograph of MPD officer Louis MacKay standing guard over the well-known bundle of evidence lying not in front of Canipe's but on the corner of Huling and Mulberry streets. The existence of a previous assassination effort against Dr. King would be put into evidence through the affidavit of Myron Billet. We would also seek to introduce the affidavit of Jules "Ricco" Kimbel who claimed to have piloted the plane, owned by a company of New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcello, that flew two shooters to Memphis from Canada, Kimbel's statement conflicted in part with our developing understanding of the events, but he was adamant about the involvement of government assets in coordinating and executing the assassination. Finally, the defense would provide a range of evidence about the cover-up, official dirty tricks, and the suppression of the truth about what took place on that afternoon, starting with the hoax broadcast that diverted police attention to the northern part of the city away from the crime scene and the logical escape route to the south. This would be presented in conjunction with the failure of the MPD to follow some of its standard emergency procedures designed to facilitate the apprehension of a fleeing suspect. We would give evidence establishing the cutting down of the brush the morning after the shooting, and we would show that it was at the request of the police. Then there were the efforts to kill James or to buy him off with an offer of money, a pardon, and a new identity for a detailed confession. Testimony from James's previous attorney Jack Kershaw about William Bradford Ruie's offer of money was planned. Evidence about the contract offer on James's life that was offered to inmate Tim Kirk, and the events surrounding James's escape from Brushy Mountain Penitentiary at a time when the RSCA was being founded, was to be introduced. James's lawyers and his brother weren't immune from dirty tricks. St. Louis television reporter John Auble was scheduled to testify about specific instances of RSCA dirty tricks set up against Mark Lane in 1978 and also against James's brother Jerry, through the use of an informant, Oliver Patterson, who admitted his role. Former Alton, Illinois, police officer John Light was scheduled to testify about the RSCA, FBI, and New York Times collaborating to falsely lay the blame for the Alton bank robbery on James and Jerry Ray. We believed that all this evidence was relevant because it showed external, even official, interest in establishing James Earl Ray as the lone assassin or in getting him out of the way. The bureau's manipulation of the media's coverage of Dr. King and James was to be the subject of testimony researched and prepared by Bill Schaap of the Institute of Media Analysis in New York. Schaap's research had documented a campaign of hate and distortion against King and a gradual reconstruction of James's image from that of a petty criminal to a lone, racist assassin. Our concluding evidence was to be provided by Walter Fauntroy himself, who said that he and the other RSCA members were misled by the staff and their own counsel. Fauntroy would say that his review of the evidence now indicated to him that James was not guilty. *** PRINCIPAL PARTICIPANTS ON both sides of the case held one final pretrial meeting on Sunday morning, January 24. Hickman Ewing had been provided in discovery with our documentation that dealt with the bureau's COINTELPRO activities against Dr. King, as well as Bill Schaap's research on the manipulation of the media and the Jerry Ray/William Bradford Ruie telephone conversation transcripts. As a result, I believe he thought we were going to defend James by putting the government on trial; to a certain extent, of course, this was true. Ewing told the judge he believed that much of our evidence wasn't relevant to any trial of James Earl Ray for murder. He admitted, for example, that FBI harassment of Dr. King was well known but maintained that it was irrelevant and that there was no evidence of any such activity against Dr. King in Memphis. I replied that there was indeed. The prosecutor looked skeptical. I told the judge that I did intend to introduce such evidence, that I believed to be relevant since a significant aspect of the defense case pointed to the involvement of the bureau and perhaps other intelligence agencies in the murder of Dr. King and its cover-up. The judge proposed a private meeting with the defense after this session in order to ascertain specifically what evidence we were seeking to introduce. The two sides had basically agreed on the trial procedures to be followed, but a few areas had not been clearly defined. Perhaps the main concern was the introduction of statements from witnesses who for one reason or another couldn't attend and therefore couldn't be cross-examined. We formally requested that FBI 302 interview reports be excluded because our investigation had located witnesses who repudiated 302 statements attributed to them that they had never seen. It wasn't as though exclusion of 302 reports wouldn't have hurt our case. Our team had tried feverishly, without success, to locate alibi witnesses William Reed and Ray Hendrix. If the 302s were inadmissible, we knew we'd have lost their alibi statements, but we'd come to believe that some of the 302s were so unreliable that they might cast doubt on the trial itself. The judge ruled that such reports of interviews, since they were taken by law enforcement officers, had a basic presumption of credibility and should be admissible. Throughout the meeting I waited for producer Jack Saltman to bring up the fact that the FBI had made reservations in the same hotel and on the same floor as the jury and had a technical surveillance team go through each of the rooms reserved for the jurors. It began to appear that he wasn't going to raise the issue at all. It may have been that he was afraid of the impact on the judge or even on Ewing. Ultimately, I forced the issue and he finally reluctantly mentioned it. The revelation was greeted with blank stares and no comment at all by the judge or the prosecutor. *** IN OUR PRIVATE CONFERENCE with the judge, I outlined the cospiracy-related elements of the case, and in so doing summarized evidence on the following issues we intended to introduce:
The judge was negative about allowing in any of this evidence, questioning its relevance to the specific charge of murder. The more he heard, the more rigid he seemed to become. He asked if we had evidence of any COINTELPRO activities against Dr. King in Memphis. I said we did. He asked what form it took. I said the evidence came from a participant in the activity. Reluctantly, he admitted that he might let such evidence in if we could concretely show it was done in Memphis. It was difficult to remain restrained, particularly in light of the disclosures of FBI activity regarding the trial jury's security. If anything, I expected that this revelation would enhance the relevance and credibility of the point we sought to make. In retrospect, the incident might have made the judge even more cautious. He promised a ruling by 6:00 p.m. I left the conference more depressed than at any time since we had begun to work on the trial. If the judge ruled against us, our case would be severely crippled; the entire trial could have become a farce. I believed that my obligations as a lawyer would require me to go immediately to the prison and confer with James. I'd have to put everything on the table and let him decide whether he wished to go ahead. Since the idea of the trial itself had originated with me, I certainly was not going to collaborate in its subversion. At about 2:45 that afternoon, as we waited in the corridor for a pretrial press conference to begin, my frustration must have been obvious. There was no telling what I would do, or what I would say to the media. Just before the press conference began, the judge called Ewing and me aside. He was going to let the defense put on its case, but he was ordering us to reveal the names of all of our witnesses, except the "security" witnesses, to the prosecution by the next morning. The press conference went ahead in a spirited, upbeat manner, and when we left the courthouse late that afternoon I believed we had the court's approval for putting forward a wide-ranging defense.
|