|
ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN LUTHER KING |
|
Chapter 25: The Verdict: February-July 1993 I HAD BEEN BACK IN ENGLAND for less than a week when Jim Smith called. After the trial he was harassed and closely watched in the attorney general's office. Meanwhile, Ewing tried his utmost to have Smith 's testimony excluded from the program. The rules required that the two sides sign off on the final version as being representative and fair, and Ewing wrote a blistering memo virtually accusing Smith of lying. He stated that after his testimony Smith had said to Glenn Wright (Ewing's co-counsel) that he really didn't know who the federal agents operating the surveillance of King worked for, but had assumed it was the FBI. He also said that it was rumored they were with the army. Jack Saltman told me that he was angry and disappointed with Ewing. He and Thames's legal advisor, Peter Smith, told Ewing that just as the defense wouldn't be allowed to edit his case, neither would he be allowed to edit defense testimony. Eventually, one bit of Smith's testimony was edited out at Peter's suggestion and my reluctant agreement; at the time, I hoped that it might help to ease pressure on Smith. It consisted of a few lines where I had asked him how he would characterize the statement of an FBI official who said categorically that there was no electronic surveillance on Dr. King; Smith had replied that the agent either would have been lying or didn't know about it. On cross-examination (of which Smith was not aware) Joe Hester had said categorically that there was no such surveillance and if there had been he would have known about it. Joe Hester had been made to look like either a liar or a fool, and he was still close to that office and to the former agents who had gone to work there. One way or another Jim Smith feared that they were going to get him by setting him up in some way. When I raised the issue of Smith's ongoing harassment with Jack Saltman, he was livid. He promised Smith that if it continued he would himself go and call a press conference in Memphis to blast the FBI. I mentioned Smith's concern that Hickman Ewing might have played a role. Jack took it up with Ewing, who said that the attorney general's office was indeed furious with Smith but that he had advised them that it would only look worse if they attempted to harass or penalize him in any way. More than once after the program aired Jim Smith was called over to the FBI office and was actually grilled on his testimony as though the FBI was trying to learn what else he might know. He said they were acting as though he might have gone through their files and uncovered other information that could have been damaging to the bureau. He was told that if he didn't cooperate he'd never get his security clearance renewed. *** ON SUNDAY, MARCH 21, 1993, two weeks before the trial was aired, the Memphis Commercial Appeal published the results of an eighteen-month investigation on the activities of army intelligence related to the civil rights movement. The article by Steve Tompkins concluded that army intelligence, which had a close working relationship with the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover (who was himself made an officer), had kept Dr. King under electronic surveillance while he was in Memphis and elsewhere, even up to the day of his assassination. Walter Fauntroy had told me in preparation for his testimony that he had obtained copies of army intelligence reports that went straight to Hoover's desk each morning. The Commercial Appeal article noted that the close working relationship between the army and the FBI often meant that the army, with its far greater manpower, conducted these types of surveillance operations for Hoover, all over the country. Agents were for all practical purposes made available for Hoover's use. In addition, the piece reported that army intelligence despatched Green Beret teams to thirty-nine racially explosive U.S. cities, including Memphis, with instructions to make detailed maps, identify landing zones for riot troops, and scout sniper sites. Jim Smith's testimony concerning his association with such a surveillance team operating on March 18 against Dr. King at the Rivermont Hotel, and the map-drawing agent Coop, was confirmed. He was personally vindicated. Martin Luther King was, without doubt, under electronic surveillance while in Memphis, and the collaborators were the MPD (which employed Smith at the time), the FBI (which received the surveillance tapes and transcripts) and U.S. army intelligence. *** THE PROGRAM WAS SCHEDULED FOR SUNDAY EVENING, April 4, the twenty-fifth anniversary of Dr. King's death. The plan was for James, Hickman Ewing, and me to sit in the parole board's conference room at the prison for a special viewing before television cameras set up to record the first reactions to the verdict. Afterward Sheena MacDonald of Channel 4 in England would interview each of us, and this was to be transmitted by satellite to the U.K. viewing audience. I was running slightly late on Sunday morning, and when I arrived at the prison, a little after nine, the screening had already begun. Except for minor breaks, the program was uninterrupted for nearly three hours. By the time the jury went out, the viewing room had filled up. Even warden Mike Dutton had come in. The jury returned to the courtroom, announcing that they had reached a verdict. The court clerk collected the verdict and passed it to the judge who read aloud: "The Jury finds the Defendant Not Guilty." There was a moment of silence and then James grinned. I smacked him on the back. Ewing's head just dropped. His chin lay buried in his chest for some time. MacDonald moved quickly to ask the usual questions. I spoke about presenting an application for exoneration to the governor. James, somewhat at cross-purposes, said that perhaps he could now have a real trial. I stressed that the state had put forward its best case. Ewing, now recovered, admitted that the program was well done and was good as far as it went. Then he began to backtrack with excuses. Any trial so long after the fact hurts the prosecution. He had no subpoena power. Eventually, in another forum, he stated that "at least" one defense witness "flat-out lied." He stated that if the governor ever granted our proposed application, then he should be "impeached." Later in the interview, although throughout the trial he had vehemently opposed the idea that a conspiracy existed, he (apparently obliquely referring to the recent Commercial Appeal army intelligence article) now stated that it was quite possible that there was a conspiracy but that James was definitely involved. Incredibly, he went on to say that James may have been helped or hired by the Klan or the U .S. army to do the job. Not unexpectedly, the verdict wasn't covered as a news event. It was virtually ignored by the media, with the exception of the NBC Today Show. In the days before the verdict was announced the phones were ringing off the hook with media inquiries, but when the verdict was made public the silence was deafening. At the first opportunity I began to prepare the application to the governor for exoneration, and on Thursday, May 6, 1993, at 10:00 a.m., I entered the offices of Governor Ned McWerter's counsel, David Wells. I explained that we wished the governor quietly and seriously consider to the information that I was going to leave with Wells, and to do so with an open mind. I informed him that the investigation for the trial had produced a considerable body of new evidence but that there seemed no possibility, in our view, that the courts could reconsider the King case with the degree of objectivity required. Counsel Wells assured me that he would place the issues before the governor. He said he would himself have to read the documents, and since I was filing an application and exhibits totaling nearly seven hundred pages, this would take him some time. He indicated that other work would make it impossible for him to begin for the next two weeks. After the meeting, I returned to the hotel to meet Jim Lawson and the Rev. Will Avery, who were to participate in a press conference about the application at 3:00 that afternoon. The governor had made a statement about two hours earlier that appeared to be deliberately timed to undercut our efforts. When asked by the press about the application, he responded that James Earl Ray was in prison when he entered the governor's office and James would still be inside when he left. I was forced to dismiss the statement as an impromptu remark not worthy of his office or the trust and responsibilities it conveyed. I had to disclose that counsel Wells had assured me that no matter what the governor said publicly the issues raised by the application would be brought to his attention. The story was confined to the local area. Associated Press staff were present, but the details of the application weren't picked up. The networks ran none of the local footage. The news of the application to the governor was barely out there. I decided to submit a petition to Amnesty International to take up the case. J had done so on two other occasions only to be refused. James was not, Amnesty had decided, a true "prisoner of conscience" -- imprisoned or kept in prison because of his political beliefs. Now, after speaking with Dina Coloma, a researcher in the International Secretariat of Amnesty International, I thought that we might have a chance. Coloma had seen the trial and admitted that as it had proceeded she had tried herself to conceive how the defendant might fit the Amnesty criteria. For Amnesty to consider intervening, it would be necessary for me to submit a formal petition establishing that James was a political pawn. I did so. The petition set out the basic political issues that have long been a part of the case. It raised a serious question about the occurrence and perpetuation of a miscarriage of justice as a result of governmental intervention. It detailed the tampering with some items of evidence and the suppression of other evidence. Subsequently Coloma asked me if I would be willing to prepare a further submission on the issue of the guilty plea and set out in detail precisely how that came about. If it was clear that James had been railroaded into entering the plea, that was an issue which Amnesty could seize upon. I asked her if I might not also submit a note on the extradition issue, since James had been extradited largely, if not entirely, on the basis of the fraudulent and false affidavit of Charlie Q. Stephens. I briefed both issues, delivered the further submissions on June 25, and waited. On July 14, Amnesty's head of research, Martin Smart, wrote saying that limited resources made it impossible for Amnesty in the short term to dedicate the staff necessary to examine and verify the allegations contained in the application. *** DESPITE THE LACK OF NEWS COVERAGE, I considered the trial a success. Its preparation had provided a foundation for the opening up of the case as had never before been possible.
|