Mlk trial

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. The rifle remains, but now the second Mustang moves off. The traffic car remains in position and the Chevrolet remains where was. Six-oh-one p. The taxi driver is facing the brush area. The photographers are still on the roof of the fire station.

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. 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.

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. 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. Jowers has entered his establishment at that point in time. 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. Jowers is inside his establishment, the witnesses remain in place where they were.

Caldwell has gone back into his room to put on his trousers. 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. 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.

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. 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.

The barricades are in place. Catling is there. He moves between this time, within a minute, very quickly to this car seen by Mrs. Catling and the children. 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.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes that is helpful to amplify the verbal narrative. Sometimes it confuses more than it helps. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. Let it prevail. Let justice and truth prevail, else the heavens fall. No matter what, let it prevail.

Let it come forward. 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. It is twelve people independently hearing evidence and ruling.

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. Let the truth reign in this courtroom once and for all. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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 that would be the target of assassination, I had no knowledge of that. 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. She first tried to say that 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. So which version do you I believe of Ms. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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 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. He came and talked Dr. King was there, Selma, Alabama, little town of Selma when Dr. King was there? 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.

I think there is some validity to that. 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. 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. He got that on his own. 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. 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? 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. It is an exhibit. Can you read it. They concluded that there is no proof here that anyone acted in this case except Mr.

Ray that was material. Because in March of , here again is an exhibit which you need to read before deciding this case, Mr. 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. Ray was the assassin? What was his answer? He said because he kept changing his story. Do you remember that?

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Could a greasy-spoon operator and escaped convict arrange for that? And I do, too. Anyone who can think knows better than that. 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. In this case you have the opportunity to speak. Liberto and Mr. Earl Clark and Mr. 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? Jowers involved. He was a small-time greasy-spoon cafe operator who played a very small significant part in this case, if anything. It is a shameful, terrible thing that happened here in Memphis. King that it did, but think about it. It is a very serious matter. Whatever you say will be recorded in history, and this will be it.

This trial and its transcript would not have happened without the steadfast determination and perseverance of William Pepper , beginning in , to investigate the circumstances of Martin Luther King Jr. The King Family expressed great courage and understanding in declaring themselves the plaintiffs.

By recounting their experiences, the seventy witnesses at the trial engaged in truth-telling that made the the facts of Dr. King's murder tangible and known. From my position I wish to thank John Judge for his invaluable help addressing many questions I had and ways of resolving them. Without his support this presentation would not be possible.

This presentation is dedicated to the memory of Wendell Stacy b. July 3, , d. August 22, [1] , [2] , [3] , a first rate investigative reporter as well as a Memphis television reporter and cameraman.

We constantly hear reports, which trouble 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.

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. Author, political historian and theologian Jim Douglass said that the truth was in that Memphis courtroom in , but barely anyone was there to meet it face-to-face:.

I can hardly believe the fact that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it.

What I experienced in that courtroom ranged from inspiration at the courage of the Kings, their lawyer-investigator William F. The seriousness with which U. As previously stated, the Justice Department methodically countered every shred of evidence presented in the trial, and many people laugh it off as mere conspiracy theory, but Douglass insists that is not surprising at all:. Some of the papers contained references to a Raul the alternate spellings, Raoul and Raul, are discussed in Section I and figures associated with the assassination of President John F.

According to Wilson, someone who later worked in the White House subsequently stole the other papers he took from Ray's car, including one with the telephone number of an FBI office. Both the Jowers and the Wilson allegations suggest that persons other than or in addition to James Earl Ray participated in the assassination. Ray, within days of entering his guilty plea in , attempted to withdraw it. Until his death in April , he maintained that he did not shoot Dr.

King and was framed by a man he knew only as Raoul. For 30 years, others have similarly alleged that Ray was Raoul's unwitting pawn and that a conspiracy orchestrated Dr. King's murder. These varied theories have generated several comprehensive government investigations regarding the assassination, none of which confirmed the existence of any conspiracy.

However, in King v. Jowers , a recent civil suit in a Tennessee state court, a jury returned a verdict finding that Jowers and unnamed others, including unspecified government agencies, participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr.

Our mission was to consider whether the Jowers or the Wilson allegations are true and, if so, to detect whether anyone implicated engaged in criminal conduct by participating in the assassination. We have concluded that neither allegation is credible. Jowers and Wilson have both contradicted their own accounts.

Moreover, we did not find sufficient, reliable evidence to corroborate either of their claims. Instead, we found significant evidence to refute them.

Nothing new was presented during King v. Jowers to alter our findings or to warrant federal investigation of the trial's conflicting, far-ranging hearsay allegations of a government-directed plot involving the Mafia and African American ministers closely associated with Dr.

Ultimately, we found nothing to disturb the judicial determination that James Earl Ray murdered Dr. King or to confirm that Raoul or anyone else implicated by Jowers or suggested by the Wilson papers participated in the assassination. This report documents the findings of our investigation. Our conclusions are based on over witness interviews, scientific testing and analysis of relevant documentary evidence, and review of tens of thousands of pages of records, including the files and papers from four previous official investigations, related litigation including King v.

Jowers , private parties, and the media. After original investigation and analysis of the historical record, we have concluded that neither the Jowers nor the Wilson allegations are substantiated or credible. We likewise have determined that the allegations relating to Raoul's participation in the assassination, which originated with James Earl Ray, have no merit. Finally, we find that there is no reliable evidence to support the allegations presented in King v.

Jowers of a government-directed conspiracy involving the Mafia and Dr. King's associates. Accordingly, no further investigation is warranted. At the time of the assassination, Loyd Jowers owned and operated Jim's Grill, a tavern below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, Until , Jowers maintained in several public statements that he was merely serving customers in his tavern when Dr.

King was shot. He did not claim any involvement in the assassination or significant knowledge about it. Jowers also reported that he hired a hit man to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill and received the murder weapon prior to the killing from someone with a name sounding like Raoul.

Jowers further maintained that Ray did not shoot Dr. King and that he did not believe Ray knowingly participated in the conspiracy. Since his television appearance, Jowers and his attorney have given additional statements about the assassination to the media, the King family, Ray's defenders, law enforcement personnel, relatives, friends, and courts. Jowers, however, has never made his conspiracy claims under oath. See Section IV.

In fact, he did not testify in King v. Jowers , despite the fact that he was the party being sued. The one time Jowers did testify under oath about his allegations in an earlier civil suit, Ray v.

Jowers , he repudiated them. Further, he has also renounced his confessions in certain private conversations without his attorney. For example, in an impromptu, recorded conversation with a state investigator, Jowers characterized a central feature of his story -- that someone besides Ray shot Dr. King with a rifle other than the one recovered at the crime scene -- as "bullshit. When Jowers has confessed, he has contradicted himself on virtually every key point about the alleged conspiracy.

For example, he not only identified two different people as the assassin, but also most recently claimed that he saw the assassin and did not recognize him. King, claiming instead that he merely held the money for the conspirators. Additionally, Jowers has been inconsistent about other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, including his role in it, Raoul's responsibilities, whether and how Memphis police officers were involved, and the disposal of the alleged murder weapon.

Equally significant, the investigative team found no credible evidence to support any aspect of Jowers' varied accounts. There is no corroborating physical evidence, and the few isolated accounts allegedly supporting Jowers' claims are either unreliable or unsupportive.

At the same time, there is evidence to contradict important elements of Jowers' allegations. For instance, investigators did not find a trail of footprints in the muddy ground behind Jim's Grill after the murder, undermining Jowers' claimthat the assassin shot Dr. King from that location and brought the rifle to him at the backdoor. Similarly, there is substantial evidence establishing that the assassin actually fired from the bathroom window of the rooming house above Jim's Grill.

The genesis of Jowers' allegations is suspect. For 25 years following the assassination, Jowers never claimed any specific involvement in or knowledge of a conspiracy. It was not until , during a meeting with the producer of a televised mock trial of James Earl Ray, that Jowers first publicly disclosed the details of the alleged plot, including the names of the purported assassin and other co-conspirators.

He also initially sought compensation for his story, and his friends and relatives acknowledge that he hoped to make money from his account. Jowers' conduct also undermines his credibility.

He refused to cooperate with our investigation. Even though he repeatedly confessed publicly without immunity from prosecution, he was unwilling to speak to us without immunity.

We were willing to consider his demand, but he refused to provide a proffer of his allegation, a standard prerequisite for an immunity grant, particularly where a witness has given contradictory accounts. His failure to provide a proffer demonstrates that he was unwilling to put forth a final, definitive version of his story.

It further suggests he is not genuinely concerned about obtaining protection from prosecution, but instead has sought immunity merely to lend legitimacy to his otherwise unsubstantiated story. From the beginning, Jowers' story has been the product of a carefully orchestrated promotional effort.

In , shortly after the HBO television mock trial, Jowers and a small circle of friends, all represented by the same attorney, sought to gain legitimacy for the conspiracy allegations by presenting them first to the state prosecutor, then to the media. Other of Jowers' friends and acquaintances, some of whom have had close contact with each other and sought financial compensation, joined the promotional effort over the next several years.

For example, one cab driver contacted Jowers' attorney in and offered to be of assistance. Thereafter, he heard Jowers' conspiracy allegations, then repeated them for television and during King v. Telephone records demonstrate that, over a period of several months, the cab driver made over 75 telephone calls to Jowers' attorney and another 75 calls to another cab driver friend of Jowers who has sought compensation for information supporting Jowers' claims. In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated.

Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers , his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility.

We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. Rather, in March , he revealed that for the past 30 years he had been concealing evidence that might be relevant to the crime. Once there, Wilson purportedly opened the Mustang's door and a small envelope containing several papers fell out.

According to Wilson, he took the papers, hid them, and told no one about them for 30 years. William Pepper, then Ray's lawyer, publicly disclosed Wilson's revelation at a press conference.

Immediately before the press conference, Wilson told his story to the District Attorney in Atlanta and expressed a strong interest in providing the documents to the Department of Justice for a full investigation. It was not until six months later that our investigation ultimately obtained the only two documents Wilson maintained he still had. One of the documents is a portion of a torn page from a Dallas telephone directory.