Complete Transcript of
the Martin Luther King, Jr.
Assassination Conspiracy Trial
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.
_____________________________________________
PROCEEDINGS
December 1, 1999
VOLUME X
_______________________________________________
Before the Honorable James E. Swearengen,
Division 4, Judge presiding.
_______________________________________________
DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD
- APPEARANCES -
For the Plaintiffs:
MR. WILLIAM PEPPER
For the Defendant:
MR. LEWIS K. GARRISON, Sr.
For the Attorney General:
MR. MICHAEL MYERS
Reported by:
MS. MARGIE J. ROUTHEAUX
WITNESS: PAGE NUMBER
[LOYD JOWERS, via deposition Nov. 2, 1994]
Direct Examination
By Mr. Garrison --------------- 1448
Cross-Examination
By Mr. Pepper ----------------- 1461
Redirect Examination
By Mr. Garrison --------------- 1468
Direct Examination
By Mr. Pepper ----------------- 1476
Cross-Examination
By Mr. Garrison --------------- 1532
Redirect Examination
By Mr. Pepper ----------------- 1541
Recross-Examination
By Mr. Garrison --------------- 1542
TRIAL EXHIBITS
30 --------------- 1385 (Collective)
31 --------------- 1508
32 --------------- 1511
33 --------------- 1539
P R O C E E D I N G S
(December 1st, 1999, 9:55 a.m.)
MR. MYERS: ... work product and
certain other items involving confidential
informants and the like can be removed and
held from the public. Because records have
been released does not necessarily constitute
a waiver of work product – the work product
privilege. That doesn't mean that Judge
Beasley or Judge Duire's thought processes
were in there. Neither side has come forward
and said, here are papers from Judge Beasley
and Judge Duire. Here is their stuff on
thought processes, mental impressions,
beliefs, legal theories of the case.
None of that has been shown or
identified as having been produced. And to
somehow say something has been waived,
without coming in and being specific as to
what it is that has been waived, is not
valid. I mean, ordinarily if one is going to
show a waiver of any privilege, one has got
to be fairly specific concerning what it is
that's been given up. Yet neither side here
has come in and identified that.
There's been discussions about
wanting to talk to an investigator who
apparently has been talking to people for
several years. This case has been pending
for a while. The way the Court systems work,
a case doesn't get filed on day one and tried
on day two.
And under the discovery rules, which
would govern this case, the Rules of Civil
Procedure, starting with Rule 26 going
through Rule 37, there could have been
attempts made to discover this stuff before
coming to trial. If all these serious
allegations were out there to be raised, why
weren't depositions taken before this time?
Why weren't subpoenas put out for
depositions? Why weren't records inspected,
people called in? In the normal course of a
civil action, this is what happens.
And if these people were so
important and so critical to the case, and
that this is literally pay money or not, why
wasn't an attempt made before this time –
before now to call these witnesses into
court? One would expect that a lawyer
doesn't want to put somebody on the stand
without knowing what he's going to say.
That's playing Russian roulette with one's
malpractice policy a lot of times.
Supposedly, Judges Duire and Beasley
are supposed to have made false statements,
and this has supposedly been known a while.
Why weren't they questioned before this
time? The statute that provides the
exemption of testimony from trial does allow
depositions in certain cases. That could
have been done. It hasn't. These files have
been open to anybody. So to determine
whether Mr. Jowers had any involvement in the
murder of Dr. King, and if this is a public
report, then this public report may have
identified witnesses, may have identified
evidence. Why haven't these people been
sought out, questioned and brought in?
Under Rule 602 those would be the
people who are competent to testify in this
Court rather than bringing in prosecutors who
handled the case 30 years ago. There's been
talk about missing items of evidence. Not
conceding that's true or not. How would
Judge Beasley and Judge Duire know about
that?
The case happened 30 years ago.
There's been no – no evidence or suggestion
that any of these files have been in their
exclusive control or custody over this time.
And, in fact, in all likelihood, they became
just records within the District Attorney
General's office. And given the historical
significance of the facts involved, it would
not be surprising if many people haven't
rummaged through those files. Certainly they
would be of interest to academic historians.
They would be of interest perhaps to other
authors or members of the public who wanted
to know something that happened.
What it sounds like is going on is a
case that rather than calling these people
and checking it out and sifting through the
evidence, let's try to bring the lawyers in
and get them to do – or an investigator and
get them to do our homework for us. And,
again, that gets right back to work product.
Lawyers are not required to do somebody
else's trial prep, are not required to do
somebody else's civil discovery.
And the law generally protects it
except in those extraordinary circumstances
where the exclusive control rests perhaps
within the lawyer's hands, and then it goes
only to factual material. For all these
reasons we would ask the Court, again, to
quash the subpoena.
MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, can I
just reply briefly to that?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. GARRISON: If Your Honor
please, first of all, when the Attorney
General says that we didn't take an
initiative stand for Mr. Glankler – take
depositions, they have filed a report –
about a 50, 75-page report to indicate all
the things that he did in the investigation.
I have seen reports. It's a matter of public
record.
So, I mean, I knew what he said.
I've talked to him personally more than
once. He has told me about my client calling
and he recorded a statement and so on and so
forth. So, I mean, I don't know what I can
gain by a deposition. He's publicly made
statements about this.
Now, as far as Judge Beasley and
Judge Duire, if Your Honor please, they have
been on television the last 15 months making
statements about this case. Strange that
they got on television, they have given press
conferences to the press here in Memphis.
It's strange they get on television and tell
the whole world about what they know about
this case but they can't come in here and
tell 12 people. And their testimony, if the
Court please, I think is absolutely essential
to the defense of this case. As far as
Mr. Jowers is concerned, it's a very serious
case, a historical matter.
And, if Your Honor please, if Your
Honor's discretion will permit you to require
them to come in – I have two or three
questions I want to ask them. And Mr. Myers
can object to it if I ask them anything that
he feels is not pertinent. But I think that
in view of the public policy in this case, in
view the historical nature of this case, the
importance of it, that they should be
required to come in and testify, and
certainly Mr. Glankler. There's no exemption
under any law that I can think of.
THE COURT: In checking the
statute, 24-9-101, the Court doesn't find any
provision that would automatically exclude
these parties. One of the most sacred rights
in our judicial system is that right to
subpoena witnesses on one's behalf.
Now, it's said that these parties –
it's anticipated that certain questions may
be asked of these witnesses which would be
improper. If that is so, the time to react
to that would be at the time that the
question is asked. At that point the Court
would determine the relevance or the
admissibility of the answer they gave.
It's also suggested that there were
opportunities before the trial to discover or
to take advantage of certain information.
All of you as lawyers know that during the
course of a trial issues arise, and the
defendant has no way to anticipate all of the
proof that is to be presented by the
plaintiff and, therefore, cannot prepare in
advance always for issues that may arise and
know how to construct his defense.
As far as playing roulette by
bringing in witnesses that have not been
interviewed – first of all, according to the
defendant, he has spoken with these
witnesses. And in addition to that, if a
party wants to play roulette and take that
chance, the Court has no control over it.
The bottom line is that the Court
does not feel that the motion is well taken,
and I'm going to deny it.
MR. MYERS: Your Honor, at this
time I would just like to ask for sufficient
time to file a Rule 9 application for
interlocutory appeal on this – on this
point. And I would cite in 9(A)(1)
irreparable injury. There have been
privileges asserted with respect to work
product and the like. And if a witness is
forced to take the stand and made to testify,
that privilege is, for all intents and
purposes, lost.
Second, with respect to
prosecutorial immunity – and the case is
going that way in terms of required showing
before a prosecutor should be called as a
witness. Those very items are of such a
nature as they would be lost unless allowed
to be fully litigated within the – the
appellate process.
THE COURT: I'm going to deny
your request. Anything further?
MR. GARRISON: No, sir.
MR. PEPPER: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. The
Court is going to take ten minutes.
(Brief break taken.)
MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, if it
please the Court, the plaintiffs are nearing
the end of their case. And in the absence of
the defendant, Mr. Loyd Jowers, plaintiffs
have decided that based on an earlier
deposition of Mr. Jowers, it might be just as
cost effective in terms of time to read
portions of that deposition into the record
and putting the entire deposition into
evidence, along with the relevant exhibits.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PEPPER: That saves us
having to go to Mr. Jowers and deposing him
again. This deposition was taken on the 2nd
of November, 1994, in an earlier case styled
James Earl Ray, Plaintiff, versus Loyd
Jowers, Raul, and other unknown
co-conspirators, Case Number 641892-0.
On Page 238 of the deposition, a
question to Mr. Jowers had to do with an
interview he had given to an ABC reporter,
Mr. Sam Donaldson. And leading up to the
question was: "He is saying: Did James Earl
Ray kill Martin Luther King? Do you see your
answer to that question–"
Answer – this is the defendant,
Mr. Jowers – "yes."
Question: "– as it appears in the
transcript? Was that your response to that
question Mr. Donaldson asked?"
Answer: "No."
Question: "Then he said, do you
know who killed Martin Luther King?"
And the answer, Mr. Jowers:
"Mr. Pepper, I think I better take the Fifth
Amendment on that. Do you want me to read it
to you?"
Question: "Yes."
Mr. Jowers: "On the advice of my
attorney, I invoke the right to refuse to
answer on the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution on the grounds that it might
tend to incriminate me."
Question: "That's fair enough.
That transcript that we've entered into the
record says: Do you know who killed Martin
Luther King, Jr.? The transcript has you
saying: Yes.
"You have refused to repeat that
answer here before us. Are you prepared,
though, to deny that you gave that answer at
that time?"
Mr. Jowers' answer: "Do you want me
to read this to you again?"
Question: "Yes."
Answer, Mr. Jowers: "On the advice
of my attorney, I take the privilege to plead
the Fifth Amendment according to the United
States Constitution that it might tend to
incriminate me."
Question: "Mr. Jowers, would you
take that position in respect of each of
those highlighted questions in the text, or
is there any of those questions that you feel
that you could safely answer?"
Answer, Mr. Jowers: "I plead the
Fifth on all those questions."
Question: "On all of these?"
Answer: "Yes, sir. After going
back and reading, pleading the Fifth
Amendment."
Question: "I understand that. You
made that clear."
Dr. Pepper: "I'd just like to note,
Counsel, for the record with exception to the
pleading of the Fifth by Mr. Jowers on a
basis of the fact that the accuracy of the
transcript has been already agreed to and
entered into the record, and that being the
case it becomes our position –"
Attorney Garrison: "Okay.
Dr. Pepper, we will stipulate that the
questions were asked and Mr. Jowers gave
these answers."
Dr. Pepper: "Okay. We accept
that stipulation."
(End of Deposition testimony.)
MR. PEPPER: Now, Exhibit 1 to
that deposition was the transcript of an ABC
news PrimeTime Live program, which was
televised on December 16, 1993. And in the
course of that program, in the course of that
interview, the following exchange took
place.
(Reading from Exhibit 1.)
Donaldson: "Mr. Jowers, did James
Earl Ray kill Martin Luther King?"
Loyd Jowers: "No, sir, he did not."
Donaldson: "Do you know who killed
Dr. King?"
Mr. Jowers: "I know who was paid to
do it."
Donaldson: "Was there a conspiracy
involving more than one person?"
Mr. Jowers: "There was a
conspiracy. Yes, sir, sure was."
Donaldson: "Were you involved in
this conspiracy to kill Martin Luther King,
Jr.?"
Mr. Jowers: "I was involved in it
indirectly."
Mr. Jowers, continuing on Page 2:
"Liberto had done me a large favor. I owed
him a favor. You know, at least I thought I
did."
Donaldson: "Did there come a time
when he came and asked you to repay that
favor?"
Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir."
Donaldson: "And was it a large
favor he wanted in return?"
Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir."
Donaldson: "What did Frank Liberto
ask you to do?"
Mr. Jowers: "He asked me to handle
some money transaction, hire someone to
assassinate Dr. Martin Luther King."
Donaldson: "To kill Dr. King?"
Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir. He asked me
if I know someone. I told him I thought I
knew someone who would probably do it."
Donaldson: "And he gave you some
money?"
Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir."
Donaldson: "Large amount of money?"
Mr. Jowers: "Large amount of money,
yes, sir. Delivered it to the cafe."
Donaldson on a voice-over: "PrimeTime has been
told there was approximately $100,000 delivered to
Jowers in a produce box, but that's not all he
received. Jowers says another man came to
see him, a man whose name sounded something
like Raul."
Mr. Jowers: "And he looked like he
was part Mexican, possibly part Indian,
because he didn't have a heavy beard, talked
with an accent."
Donaldson: "Did he bring a rifle
with him?"
Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir. He brought
a rifle in a box."
Donaldson: "What did he ask you to
do with this rifle?"
Mr. Jowers: "He asked me to hold
the rifle until we made – he made
arrangements or we made arrangements, one or
the other of us, for the killing."
Donaldson voice-over: "So now
Jowers had the money, had the rifle, had been
asked to hire a shooter, but he says Frank
Liberto also provided a cover."
Donaldson: "Did he talk about the
police?"
Mr. Jowers: "Liberto? Yes, sir."
Donaldson: "What did he say?"
Mr. Jowers: "He said they wouldn't
be there. Said they wouldn't be there that
night."
Donaldson: "Did he say there would
be a decoy there?"
Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir. Said he had
set it up where it looked like somebody else
did the killing."
Donaldson voice-over: "Enter James
Earl Ray. Was he part of the conspiracy?"
Mr. Jowers: "He was part of it, but
I don't believe he knew he was part of it."
Donaldson: "Well, Mr. Jowers, did
you find someone to do the killing?"
Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir."
Donaldson: "Why would a person
participate in a conspiracy to kill
Dr. King?"
Mr. Jowers: "A portion of it,
naturally, was for money. Any involvement I
might have had in it was doing a friend –
doing a friend a favor."
Donaldson: "Would it have been
because you hated Dr. King?"
Mr. Jowers: "No, I didn't hate
Dr. King."
Donaldson: "Or hated black people?"
Mr. Jowers: "No, sir. It was for a
friend, doing a friend a favor that I owed
him, a large favor."
Donaldson: "Well, is doing a friend
a favor called murder the kind of favor you
would do?"
Mr. Jowers: "Depends on how good a
friend it is and what you owed the friend."
(End of testimony read from
Exhibit 1.)
MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, that's
the end of the portion of the exhibit to be
inserted into the record, and move that the
entire deposition of November 2, 1994, and
all of the exhibits attached thereto be
included in this record as plaintiffs'
exhibit at this time.
THE COURT: All right, sir.
(Whereupon said documents were
marked as Collective Exhibit Number 30.)
THE COURT: Next order of
proof?
MR. GARRISON: If Your Honor
please, we may have portions of the
deposition we may want to read.
THE COURT: Oh, okay.
MR. GARRISON: If I could have
just a second here.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, my
associate, Mr. Bledsoe, is going to read from
the deposition.
THE COURT: All right, sir.
MR. GARRISON: Just read the
questions and the answers that were given.
MR. BLEDSOE: The beginning of
the deposition, question by Dr. Pepper:
(Reading from the November 2,
1994, transcript.)
Q. Mr. Jowers, thank you very much for
coming. I appreciate your cooperation
particularly during this period of time when
there has been a great deal of stress and
difficulty. And we are very grateful to your
very able counsel, Mr. Garrison, for
assisting in clearing his busy calendar to be
here and help us.
We – I would like to begin almost
at the beginning in terms of who you are
because I've known you for 16 years.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But I don't know a great deal about
you.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So I would like to go back to the
beginning. Could you tell us where you were
born and where you were raised.
A. I was born in Lexington, Tennessee,
on November 20, 1926.
Q. Where did you spend your childhood?
A. I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
Q. Where did you spend your childhood?
A. I moved from there, I was a two-year
old, and my childhood was spent in Kenton,
Tennessee.
Q. Where did you go to school in Kenton?
A. Kenton High School, yes, sir.
Q. Did you graduate from Kenton High
School?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. What did you do after school?
A. I went into the military.
Q. Where did you go in the military;
which branch of the service?
A. Navy.
Q. In the Navy. What did you do there?
A. I was the helmsman on the ship. I
went to school for six weeks to be a helmsman
on a ship.
Q. What period of time would that have
been?
A. What period of time?
Q. Yeah, when was that?
A. 1944 through '46 – through part of
'46.
Q. Where were you stationed?
A. On a ship out of Norfolk, Virginia.
Q. Off the Norfolk coast?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what did you do after the –
after you were discharged?
A. After I was discharged in Memphis,
Tennessee, or Millington, I moved to Memphis
and continued living here and went to school.
Q. But you mentioned Millington. Were
you sent to Millington as part of your –
A. I was sent to Millington to be
discharged, yes, sir, from Norfolk.
Q. Were you there just for the purpose
of discharge or –
A. Yes.
Q. – were you stationed there?
A. No, sir, I was not stationed there,
just for purposes of being discharged.
Q. You were discharged out of
Millington?
A. Right.
Q. What was your rank on termination?
A. Seaman II.
Q. What was the nature of your
discharge?
A. Honorable discharge.
Q. And your parents, Mr. Jowers, where
were they during all this period of time?
A. They lived in Kenton, Tennessee.
Q. What was your father's occupation?
A. He was a farmer.
Q. So you were a farming family?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have any brothers or sisters?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who were they?
A. Well, I had an oldest brother named
Carl; brother named Max; younger brother
named Billy; older sister named Mary; one
older one named Nellie and one named Willa
Mae, Elsie and Dolly.
Q. That's a large family.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did they all survive childhood?
A. Yes, sir, all of them.
Q. Are they all still alive?
A. No, sir, some of them are.
Q. Some of them are.
A. Oldest brother Carl is deceased; my
oldest sister Mary is deceased. All the rest
of them are still living.
Q. Did any of them move into Memphis or
did they stay –
A. I have two sisters living in Memphis
now, yes, sir.
Q. You have two sisters. Who are the
two sisters presently living in Memphis?
A. One of them's name is Willa Mae
Witherspoon and the other one's name is Elsie
Whitley.
Q. Elsie Whitley, and what was the name
of the Witherspoon?
A. Willa Mae.
Q. Willa Mae Witherspoon, and they
presently live in –
A. Yes, sir.
Q. – Memphis?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. So you would have then entered
Memphis for purposes of living around 1946,
upon discharge?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you live when you came to
Memphis in 1946?
A. I lived with my uncle at 612 St.
Pauly Street.
Q. Now, was that your mother's brother?
A. My mother's brother.
Q. Your mother's brother. And where did
you work when you were living there?
A. I went to school at JB Cook Company
on the GI Bill of Rights. I did finish that
course, almost two years.
Q. Yes.
A. When I finished that, I went on to
the police department. I was a city
policeman. I don't know the exact date.
Some time in April or May of 1946 through all
of 1948. I resigned December 2, 1948.
Q. So you were on the police force for
nearly two years was it?
A. Yes, sir, two years.
Q. Two years. And you went to join the
police force after you took this training
course?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You just applied to the police
force. Why did you think of becoming a
policeman at that point?
A. Well, I really can't explain it
except it seemed like a good job.
Q. So you applied. Did they have – I
don't suppose they had any training academies
back in those days.
A. No, sir, they did not. You got all
your training with the older policemen.
Q. And what were your early duties when
you went on the police force?
A. I went right into a squad car.
Q. You were on street patrols?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Primarily riding or on foot?
A. No, I was riding. They didn't have
foot patrols back then.
Q. What area of the city were you
assigned to?
A. Over a two-year period I run, I
guess, every ward in the city. They
transferred you from one ward to another back
then.
Q. Right.
A. You run this ward, like downtown was
Ward II this month, next month you might be
in east Memphis, Ward II. They just switched
everyone around, switched partners, switched
wards, automobiles, the whole nine yards.
Q. Who was your partner? You were in a
two-man squad car, were you?
A. Yes, sir, all cars were two-man.
Q. Who was your partner, do you recall?
A. I guess probably over two years I was
with about every policeman on the force.
Q. They rotated you?
A. They rotated the partners also – the
partners also every month. I'll give you a
couple of names. I can't remember all of
them.
Q. Sure. Who were some of the people
with whom you partnered?
A. Johnny Barger, I suppose that was the
first one I rode with.
Mr. Garrison: You said Barker?
THE WITNESS: Barger,
B A R G E R. Andy Chitwood was another one.
I think those were the first – those were
the ones that I got my training from.
Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) Right.
A. Johnny went on to be field
inspector. Chitwood retired. Well, they're
both retired. They're both deceased now.
Q. Right.
Dr. Pepper: Mr. Garrison, as a
matter of procedure, do you mind if
Mr. Chastain – if he has a question from
time to time, if he comes in?
Mr. Garrison: Go right ahead.
Dr. Pepper: So if there's something
that you would like –
Mr. Garrison: Let's go off the
record.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) So you were – during
this period of time you were on squad car
duty and you were moving all over the city?
A. All over the city, yes, sir.
Q. Did they assign you – was this just
regular patrol? Did you get assigned
particular duties such as vice squad or
anti-gambling or anything like that?
A. I was a city policeman.
Q. So you were on regular detail?
A. Back then we didn't have specialized
departments like they have now. If you had a
crime in your ward, we called them, I guess.
They may still be that, I don't know. The
police run that ward, done their darndest to
solve whatever it was.
Now, they had – the only specialist
department they had back then was homicide.
The ward called work for the homicide
department. If they had any other department
other than homicide, I didn't know anything
about it.
Q. Right.
A. They may have, but I didn't know
anything about it.
Q. You didn't know anything about it if
they did?
A. No, sir.
Q. Who was the chief of police during
these two years when you were on the force?
A. I don't remember his first name. His
last name was Perry. That was just a
figurehead here. The boss was the
commissioner.
Q. Right.
A. His name was Joe Boyle.
Q. Joe –
A. Boyle, B O Y L E. He done all the
hiring and firing.
Q. He did all the hiring and firing.
Was he related, as far as you know, to the
Boyles who had a financial interest in the
Chisca Hotel – to that Boyle family?
A. I think it was the same family.
Q. Same family.
A. I'm not positive.
Q. One of them was a – they were fairly
prominent local people?
A. Right.
Q. So you think there was a connection?
A. I'm sure it was. Because back
then – I'm sure you've heard of Mr. Ed
Crump.
Q. Yes.
A. No one did anything here without his
approval, believe me they didn't.
Q. He pretty much ran the –
A. That includes the police department.
Q. – city, didn't he?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you remember who some of the
inspectors were underneath the chief, such as
the homicide inspector?
A. Field inspectors is what they were
called back then. Was a name by the name of
John Dwyer. No – yeah, John Dwyer.
Q. Dwyer?
A. Buddy Dwyer? I don't think Buddy and
John were the same.
Mr. Garrison: Yes, they were the
same.
The Witness: They were the same,
but I couldn't remember.
Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) So he was an
inspector?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who were some other inspectors that
you recall?
A. Well, now, the inspector, he had a
section of the city and they transferred him
also. He was my inspector the entire time
that I was a policeman.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. And the lieutenants, the one that
had – I don't know how many cars, five or
six cars. He would go around and meet every
night to make sure we were doing what we were
supposed to do. He would be transferred to a
section of the city also.
Q. Right. But who were some of the
names of the people who were either
inspectors, captains, whom you can recall
now?
A. Well, my immediate captain was
Captain Lovejohn. I don't remember his first
name. If I ever knew it, I don't remember
it.
Q. Lovejohn?
A. Lovejohn.
Q. Right. Okay. Any other captains you
recall, any other officers?
A. Police officers?
Q. Yes.
A. I guess if you give me enough time I
could remember half of them.
Q. Let me just throw some names and see
if they make any sense to you. One has been
mentioned earlier, "Zachary."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was Zachary's position back in
those days when you recall?
A. I recall him as being just a regular
patrolman like I was on a separate shift.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. The way that thing operated back
then, you can have – he may have been my
relief at one time or another. I can't
remember all those other policemen.
Q. Did you know then Patrolman Zachary?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You knew him back in '46?
A. Yes, sir, but he wasn't on the same
shift I was on.
Q. Different shift?
A. I believe he was my relief shift.
Q. Did you come to – continue to know
him over the years?
A. After I left the police department?
Q. Yes.
A. Just in passing is all. I think he
wrote me a ticket one time after I got out of
the police department for speeding.
Q. I see. Do you recall when he started
to move up in the force?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Okay. Did you know Sam Evans, Sr.,
back then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was his rank?
A. Just regular patrolman.
Q. He was street patrolman as well. He
started out that way?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And at the time when you left the
force was he still a patrolman or had he
moved up?
A. He was on a separate shift, sir. I'm
not sure.
Q. You're not sure?
A. No.
Q. But he was a career policeman as
well?
A. Sure.
Q. Did you know Inspector Evans pretty
well when you were on the force?
A. Just in passing is all.
Q. Did you continue to know him after
you left the force?
A. No.
Q. You didn't have much contact –
A. I didn't have any contact with him
that I remember.
Q. – with him after you left?
A. No, sir.
Q. How about the man who eventually
became chief, McDonald, did you know him back
in those days?
A. I knew him, yes, sir, but he was
field inspector on – well, I guess you would
call it, if I was on the first shift, he
would be on the second shift.
Q. He was an inspector even back then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That long ago?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How about Chief Lux?
A. Chief Lux, he was on a separate
shift. He wasn't on the one I was on.
Q. Was he also an inspector back then or
was he –
A. I'm not sure.
Q. That's fine. These are – I'm taking
you back a long way. If you don't remember,
just say I don't remember.
A. That's fine.
Q. How about Graden Tynes?
A. Grady?
Q. Graden Tynes, T Y N E S.
A. Yes, sir, I know him.
Q. You knew him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How well did you know him?
A. I suppose about as well as I know you
or anyone like that.
Q. Uh-huh, yeah.
A. I'm not sure if he was anything other
than a just regular patrolman. I don't think
he was.
Q. Right.
A. We went to work at the police
department – I think he went to work two or
three months after I did.
Q. He came on after you did?
A. I think so, yes, sir. Either before
or after, relatively close.
Q. Right.
A. I never run with him because he was
on a separate shift than I was on.
Q. He was. Did you know Jule Ray?
A. Jule who?
Q. Ray, R A Y. Jule Ray.
A. No.
Q. He eventually became a captain in the
same department as Mr. Tynes, but you don't
remember him?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. How about a man who eventually became
an inspector, Don Smith, does that mean
anything to you?
A. I knew Mr. Smith casually. I
remember when he left the patrol and went
into homicide.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. But I'm not sure if he stayed there
long. Seems to me he didn't stay there very
long.
Q. Now, are we talking about the same
Smith?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. I'm talking about Don Smith, not
Tommy Smith. Tommy Smith was a homicide
detective. Don Smith may have been in
homicide at one time, I don't know.
A. I only knew one. I didn't know the
other one. Don was the one that I knew.
Q. Don was the one you knew, okay.
A. He was on a separate shift than I was
on. I think he was our relief in the squad
cars on occasion back when we were policemen.
Q. Right. Okay. Did you, Mr. Jowers,
keep contact up with any of these names that
we have been through? Now, after you left
the force, did you have any kind of ongoing
social or other contact with them?
A. I did with Grady Tynes, yes, sir.
Q. You did. What was the nature of your
contact with Inspector Tynes?
A. Well, his wife and my wife went to
school together.
Q. Right.
A. In a little place out from Kenton,
Tennessee, called Mason Hall. In fact, they
graduated from that school.
Q. Right.
A. And we – we were fairly close
friends. We never talked about police
business after I was not a policeman anymore.
Q. This was your first wife that you're
referring to?
A. Yes.
MR. GARRISON: Go to 30 to 34.
MR. BLEDSOE: Okay. Beginning
on Page 30 at the top of the page. I'm
sorry, the middle of the page.
(Resume reading from the
deposition.)
Q. Many years after the fact when you
had chance to reflect on the police
department back then, was there a fair amount
of corruption that you observed in your
course of your work as a policeman?
A. Well, not a great deal. I think that
was the purpose of shifting everyone around
all the time. It could have been without me
knowing about it, but I doubt there was very
much.
Q. Right. But if there was corruption,
what form did it take?
A. Well, of course, I can tell you what
I heard. I heard the ward was running crap
games, allowing bootlegging on Sunday.
Q. Minor things like that?
A. Minor things like that. But as far
as that ever taking place, I just don't know.
Q. Right. This is a very useful way of
getting facts on the record, Mr. Jowers, by
you just saying, this is what I heard, but I
don't know or – I'm perfectly happy for you
to do that any time you want to. It's a
useful way of getting information out without
you being in the frame, if you know what I
mean.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. We all hear things.
A. Sure.
Q. Why did you decide then to leave the
police force?
A. Well, they didn't pay enough really
for a man to make a living.
Q. Right.
A. They did not. I drew $105 every two
weeks.
Q. Not a lot of money.
A. That's not enough money. Even back
then it wasn't enough money to really get by
on.
Q. In the course of your work in the
police department and coming toward the end
of it, did you have contact with many
business people in Memphis?
A. Many who?
Q. Business people, businessmen.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you come into contact with some
of them?
A. Yes.
Q. Who were some of the more prominent
business people that you knew in Memphis, do
you recall?
A. Well, I guess I better start with the
top, Mr. Ed Crump. I was – you wouldn't
call me a personal friend, but I knew him and
he knew my name.
Q. You did know Mr. Crump?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you come to know Mr. Crump?
A. I think the first time I met
Mr. Crump was where I was going to school
under the GI Bill for JB Cook Company. He
and Mr. Cook were good friends. That's the
first time I met him.
Q. Right.
A. That was about – I had only been
there a couple of months when Mr. Crump come
back.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. I guess that's the most prominent
businessman that I knew.
Q. It probably would be. Let's go down
from there. Who were some of the other
businessmen who you knew?
A. Well, Mr. Dave Jolly. He owned Jolly
Can [Cab] Company, a large cab company, made a lot
of money. I knew Mr. Hamilton Smythe. He
was – he didn't own Yellow Cab, but he
managed Yellow Cab Company.
Q. Did Mr. Hamilton Smythe eventually
come to buy Yellow Cab?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the time that you knew him, he was
just the manager?
A. Manager of Yellow Cab.
Q. Was he –
A. Dave Jolly owned Jolly Cab Company.
Q. Was Mr. Smythe a pretty wealthy man
or was he just average means?
A. His family was wealthy. His father
was in – I knew him, not real well. He was
in the construction business.
Q. Right.
A. He built a number of subdivisions
over the city. One I can remember in
particular out in – well, it's probably
Midtown now, but back then it was way out
east. In fact, it was out of the city.
Q. I see.
MR. GARRISON: 40 through 42.
MR. BLEDSOE: Beginning at the
top of Page 40.
(Resume reading from the
deposition.)
Q. So you started off at Veterans Cab
Company in 1948?
A. No, I was still a policeman.
Q. You were still a policeman?
A. Yes, sir. We were organized in –
I'm trying to remember the month. It was
early '48, but I was still a
policeman, continued to be a policeman. No,
it was '47.
Q. Because you left in '48?
A. It was the last part of '47. Seems
to me like September of '47.
Q. Right.
A. I was trying to make it '48, but I
resigned in December '48, so it had to be
'47.
Q. Right. So you were still working as
a policeman and you had this Veterans Cab
Company?
A. I was part of it. Actually, it was
against the Memphis City ordinance to do
anything like that.
Q. Right. Well, people moonlight all
the time, particularly if they don't have
enough money.
A. Right.
Q. They have to do that sometimes. Who
was your dispatcher back then, do you recall?
A. At the cab company?
Q. Yes.
A. One of them was Paul Brandon. That
was his job.
Q. So he actually worked as dispatcher?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did he stay on as dispatcher
for this cab company; do you recall that?
A. Oh, a number of years. He went from
dispatcher to assistant manager. It seems to
me like he left about 1950 and he went on to
the police department.
Q. He changed. He went to the police
department you –
A. Police department.
Q. – you had come off?
A. Sold his stock. I bought his stock
in the cab company. Which originally we
weren't supposed to be able to sell the
stock, but we changed the bylaws of the
company where we could buy and sell stock.
Q. Did you become the largest
stockholder at that point in time?
A. No, sir. Six shares was all I ever
owned for a number of years.
Q. Who was the largest single
shareholder in the company, do you recall?
A. We didn't have one individual who
owned the majority until a number of years.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. I think before anyone really got
control of the company where I would be just
one man was about, heck, I don't know, '54,
'55, somewhere in there.
MR. GARRISON: 171 through 176.
MR. BLEDSOE: Question by
Dr. Pepper.
(Resume reading from the
deposition.)
Q. When you came to work that morning –
that next morning that Mr. Chastain is
referring to, did you come alone or did you
drive anybody with you?
A. No, sir, I drove by myself.
Q. You drove in by yourself –
A. Yes, sir.
Q. – that next morning? Were you
joined – who was the staff person who came
on duty? Did you have any employees?
A. Bobbi.
Q. Bobbi?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And how did she get to work that
morning, do you recall?
A. I have no idea. Rode a bus, I guess.
Q. She just came in and she met you
there?
A. She came in to work, yeah.
Q. She came in to work and met you?
A. I don't recall whether she was late
or not. She could have been, but I don't
recall.
Q. Right. Mr. Jowers, have you had a
chance to look over these statements that you
gave back at the time in 1968? During the
break did you have a chance to review them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there anything with respect to
this statement that you gave to the Memphis
Police Department that you discussed with
Counsel that you would wish to amend or
change at this time?
A. No, sir.
Q. That's as you recall it?
A. Yes, sir.
Dr. Pepper: We'll admit that.
Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) This is a statement
given – this is not a statement. This is
what's known as a 302 taken by the – it's a
report of an interview done by the FBI on the
7th of April, 1968, with you. It's even
possible you never saw this one before
because often – most people don't get a
chance to see that. It's an interview with
the FBI, but this talks about a stranger who
was in the Grill.
And I'm wondering if you recall that
interview. Is that an accurate report of the
interview that you gave the FBI with respect
to that stranger?
A. As I remember.
Q. It is. It's an accurate report?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garrison: Dr. Pepper, would you
like to have this marked too?
Dr. Pepper: I would like to have
this marked if that's all right.
The Witness: For the record, that
statement was not given on the 7th.
Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) It was not?
A. No, sir, the next day. The next day
when I talked to the FBI is the only time I
talked to them.
Q. Mr. Jowers, you're right. The
statement was taped on the 7th and it was
given the next day by you.
A. Right.
Q. You're quite right. I'm going to put
this in and possibly come back to this.
There is a photograph waiting. This
statement was given on – the date of this
statement is on February 6, 1969. I'm
wondering if you would just take a look at
that and see if that is accurate.
A. Yes, sir.
Dr. Pepper: If Mr. Garrison has no
objection, we'll mark that and put it in.
Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) Now, this is the text
of an interview done with you by the BBC and
it covers a range – covers a range of
matters, Inspector Charlie Stephens and his
drinking, that you recalled.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. It discusses the stranger, you are
returning, a whole variety of matters. Would
you just take a look at that. I think you
have probably seen it during the break, but I
just want to be sure that you are happy with
what they reported that you said there.
A. Yes, sir.
Dr. Pepper: We'll mark that.
Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) I want to show you
this photograph and ask you if you have ever
seen this person before, if you recognize
him.
A. No, sir, I don't recall ever seeing
him.
Q. You don't recall having seen this man
before around the Grill or anywhere?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay, that's fair enough.
MR. GARRISON: 188 through 195.
MR. BLEDSOE: Okay.
(Resume reading from the
deposition.)
Q. I know, but which staff or waitress,
employee, came in that particular morning on
April 4th?
A. My cook come in, Bobbi come in her
regular time. I think she come in either
7:00 or 7:30. I don't remember the exact
time, but –
Q. Right. She came in at 7:00 or 7:30?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did anyone else come in with Bobbi
that morning?
A. No, sir.
Q. Who was on duty in the course of that
morning?
A. I worked the front and Bobbi was in
the back cooking lunch.
Q. So Bobbi was in the back and you were
in the front?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So then you would leave at your usual
time, did you?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Bobbi there alone or was there
another waitress there?
A. Bobbi was alone.
Q. Bobbi was alone?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you saying that Betty Spates did
not come in that morning at all?
A. No, she was in the afternoon shift.
Q. What time would she have come in
then?
A. She was scheduled to come in at 4
o'clock.
Q. Do you know or do you recall if she
did in fact come at 4 o'clock that day?
A. She did not, no.
Q. She didn't come in at 4 o'clock that
day?
A. When I come to work, Bobbi told me
that she called in. One of her children was
sick. She wasn't going to be able to work.
Q. So who did you have working that
afternoon?
A. No one. I worked myself. I worked
it by myself.
Q. So you were working that afternoon by
yourself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Wasn't Bobbi there?
A. She left at 4 o'clock.
Q. She left at 4 o'clock?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Alda, where was Alda?
A. Alda?
Q. Alda Washington, Alda Mae?
A. I don't think she was still working
for me at that time. If she was, it was just
part time, but she was not working that day.
Q. And Rosie Lee Dabney?
A. She had already been gone several
months before then.
Q. She was no longer working?
A. No, sir.
Q. So really who did you have working?
Was Lena working?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where was Lena?
A. Lena had already gone too.
Q. She had left, been discharged – she
left?
A. Right.
Q. Bobbi was the only one working?
A. I had Bobbi, Betty and myself. And
Alda Mae worked part time, but she was not
working on that day.
Q. She was not working on that day?
A. No.
Q. So you went away in the morning.
Bobbi was there working.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You returned at about what time?
A. Four o'clock.
Q. At about 4 o'clock. Did you talk to
Bobbi when you came back in there?
A. Just for a few minutes. She told me
that Betty wasn't coming in because one of
her children was sick. She did work over
that afternoon, it seems to me, about 30
minutes to help me to get ready to handle the
night business by myself.
Q. So Betty didn't come. Alda stayed –
Bobbi stayed with you a little longer?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Then she left and that left you
there, effectively, all alone?
A. Right.
Q. Did she give any other reports on any
other people that came in that day or that
she had seen that day?
A. Not anything out of the ordinary. Of
course, she didn't have to tell me about
Charlie Stephens being down there drunk
because he was there drunk when I went in.
Q. Right.
A. Actually, I went right in and went to
work because she was real busy.
Q. I see. So you went right in and went
right to work?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time did you leave that morning,
9 or 10 o'clock as usual?
A. I think it was 10:00, 10:30.
Q. Ten or 10:30 you left that morning?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. To return at what time?
A. I returned at 4 o'clock.
Q. At 4 o'clock?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Which car were you driving that day;
do you recall?
A. I was driving the Cadillac.
Q. Where was the Rambler – the brown
Rambler station wagon?
A. My wife was driving that.
Q. Your wife was driving that. When you
came back at 4:00 and you parked your car,
where did you park?
A. Well, when I turned the corner and
drove in there, there was a white car sitting
right in front of the building, right in my
parking spot. So I pulled right up against
him like that.
Q. Right.
A. Left my car close to the fire plug.
Q. Left your car close to the fire plug?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What kind of car was that, do you
recall?
A. All I can recall about it, it was a
white or light colored Mustang.
Q. Did you look at the license plate?
A. It was an out-of-state license.
Q. Out-of-state. Did you know which
state?
A. Didn't pay no attention what state, I
sure didn't.
Q. Did you notice any other cars parked
either behind you or in front of the Mustang?
A. Well, in front of the Mustang there
was cars all the way to the corner. I didn't
move my car down there because there was no
place to move it in front of the Mustang or
back the other way. All that was full of
automobiles too.
Q. Do you know which kinds of
automobiles those were?
A. I have no idea.
Q. You don't remember which ones they
were. When you arrived to work, you
proceeded from which street onto South Main?
How did you come into South Main?
A. I come down – I would come down the
expressway and get off – sometimes I get off
on Vance, sometimes I get off on Crump and
come around. I think that afternoon I come
around because I was going in the right
direction where I wouldn't have to turn
around.
MR. GARRISON: Continue on to
213.
MR. BLEDSOE: From there?
MR. GARRISON: To 213.
MR. BLEDSOE: To 213?
MR. GARRISON: Mm-hum.
(Resume reading from the
deposition.)
Q. Which way did you – which side of
the street did you come out, did you proceed
west on? Which one led you up to South Main
Street?
A. Huling, Talbot, the one that went
right down by the fire station. I'm not
really sure which street that is.
Q. Well, that's Butler. By the fire
station is Butler.
A. Butler, yes.
Q. So you came up Butler?
A. Come up Butler where I would be on
the right side of the street.
Q. Proceeded north on South Main, pulled
right in there and then went right inside?
A. Right.
Q. Then you began to work. How many
people were in there at the time?
A. There were several people in there.
A lot of them was from M.E. Carter.
Q. Do you remember some of the names of
some of the people? If you could close your
eyes for a moment, could you recall who were
actually in there on the 4th of April around
4 o'clock?
A. I really can't. I know Charlie
Stephens was in there.
Q. How long did he stay?
A. He didn't stay but a few minutes
after I got there.
Q. But you don't remember any other
ones?
A. Absolutely, no, sir.
Q. But you have previously – when your
memory was fresher back at the time, you did
give some names and you've reviewed that.
A. At that time I could have told you
everyone in there.
Q. Sure. But we didn't expect you to
recall all of those things. You didn't leave
the Grill at any time once you arrived there?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. What did you proceed to do at that
point in time when you got in? What did you
do? Did you go in the back? Did you work on
the counter?
A. Right up front working the counter.
Like I said, the cook stayed over long enough
to get the food out on the steam table for
the supper crowd.
Q. Then she left?
A. Then she left, yes.
Q. Was Harold Parker in there? I'm
going to just jog your memory a bit.
A. Harold never did come in until –
normally around 5:00, 5:30.
Q. Did he come in, as you recall, around
5:00, 5:30 that day?
A. I think he come in a little earlier
than normal for some reason or other, 4:30.
Q. Right.
A. Because I had only been there a short
while when he come in.
Q. Right. Now, when Bobbi left, did
you – what did you do? Did you take over
all of her duties yourself?
A. Yeah. Sure. If they wanted a
sandwich, I prepared it for them. I waited
on them just like a waitress would.
Q. There were quite a number of people
there at the time?
A. Yes, sir, sure was.
Q. Around the time we know the shooting
took place, as you may recall, was slightly
after 6 o'clock.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Where were you at the time?
A. I was behind the counter working.
Q. The counter being – we've seen it
down along on the side?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. What were you doing?
A. When the actual noise went off, I was
drawing a beer, a pitcher of beer. It took a
few minutes to draw. I had it about half
drawn when the noise went off and I quit.
Q. Right. What did you do? What did
you do when you heard the noise?
A. I went back in the kitchen door. It
sounded like a noise in the kitchen so I went
and checked. Walked by Parker and asked, did
you hear that noise? And he said, yes, he
did. He didn't know what it was. I looked
inside the kitchen and wasn't nothing there.
So I went on back to finish drawing my
pitcher of beer.
Q. What was the next thing that you knew
that something was wrong?
A. When the police come to the door,
they told me to lock the door and don't –
there had been a shooting upstairs and told
me to lock the door and don't let anyone in
or out. So that's what I done.
Q. So you locked the door?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Everyone that was in stayed in?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You let no one else into the place?
A. Not until the policeman brought a
black guy there and told me to put him in
there, that he was out in the street and it
was too dangerous out there.
Q. Who was that black guy, do you know?
A. Frank Holt.
Q. Are you sure that the man brought to
the door and put inside was Frank Holt and
not Robert Wheeler?
A. I'm sure it was Frank Holt, sure.
Q. You're sure of that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Because there is an FBI statement
that says that Robert Wheeler was put inside
there. You don't recall a second person
being put in?
A. I'm sure I'd remember if it was, but
I don't think so.
Q. Right. At about what time was
Mr. Holt put in there?
A. Quite a while after that. Could have
been as late as 7 o'clock.
Q. That late?
A. Yes, sir. It was already beginning
to get dark and 6 o'clock – it was still
real daylight.
Q. Do you remember, Mr. Jowers, a
particular customer who ordered eggs and
sausage in the restaurant that afternoon or
at some point in the course of that day, a
man who had eggs and sausage and then
returned the next morning and also had eggs
and sausage?
A. Sure, I recall that.
Q. You recall that man?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, you took some action with
respect to that man, didn't you? What do you
recall that you did?
A. I told the police about him going in
there. What made me remember him being there
was ordering breakfast up in the day, almost
time for lunch.
Q. Right.
A. He ordered a breakfast special. I
went on working on lunch and I fixed his
breakfast for him. The next morning – and
they told me if he came back in, be sure to
call them. So the next morning around 9:00,
9:30, he come in again, ordered the same
thing.
Q. Same thing?
A. Sitting at the counter, same place.
Q. About what time – you're sitting at
the counter on the side?
A. Sure.
Q. About what time did he order this
breakfast, this eggs and sausage meal?
A. The first time?
Q. Yes.
A. I think that's the last thing I done
before I went home, so it had to be close to
11 o'clock. We already had most of the steam
table out.
Q. So you were going to leave – you
were leaving around 10:30, elevenish; is that
what you're saying?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you actually prepare that eggs
and sausage for him?
A. Yes, sir, I sure did.
Q. So you served him yourself?
A. I sure did. I did also the next
morning.
Q. Also the next morning?
A. Yes, sir. I also went and called the
police for him.
Q. This is a report of that actually
written by, when he was a reporter,
Mr. Chastain here. I just wonder if you
could, if you would take a quick look at
that. And this is – one and two are the
relevant portions that deal with this
instant.
I'll strike out all the rest, but I
want to make sure that that seems to be
accurate. If anything doesn't gibe with your
memory – I'm trying to get the historical
record correct here, or we will change it.
A. I don't see anything wrong with it.
Q. Is that basically accurate? Is that
sort of what happened?
A. (Witness nodding head affirmatively.)
Dr. Pepper: What I would like you
to do is strike all that that doesn't relate
to this. I'm boxing in what I think is.
Mr. Garrison: Okay.
Dr. Pepper: Just stuff that relates
to this.
Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) Who was that police
captain that told you about this fellow
having some real connections here? Do you
recall who that captain was?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Or remember his name at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. It wasn't Captain Jack Wallace, or it
couldn't have been Evans, he was an inspector
back then.
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't remember –
A. It could have been, but I don't
really know.
Q. Or Mulner?
A. No, sir.
Q. But you do remember this man who
appeared and had eggs and sausage in your
place on the 4th of April in the late-ish
morning and then early again the next
morning, and you called the police and they
came and took him away?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you tell us now whether this
looks like the man or whether you can say
whether that was the man. And this is a
copy.
A. No, sir, I don't believe that's him.
No, sir, I sure don't.
Q. You don't remember that this is the
man?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. How would you describe this fellow?
How tall was he? And do you recall, did he
have dark hair?
A. It would be hard to describe him now
because that's been a long time ago.
Q. Yes, it has. Do you recall at
various times you have identified this man as
the man who was there? Do you recall that
having been shown these photographs
previously, years ago, that you did identify
the man?
A. It seems now to me I recall seeing
the picture that I said it looked like him.
I didn't say it was him.
Q. Okay. Photographs are tricky
anyway. This is a mug shot which gives you a
slightly different perspective. Does that
ring any bell with you?
A. No, sir, it does not.
Q. That doesn't either. Okay. That's
fine.
Now, during all of this period of time
in the aftermath of the shooting of Dr. King,
you continued business, did you, as usual in
the restaurant?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you follow the events of the case
that were going on?
A. The events of what?
Q. The events of the case when they
apprehended Mr. Ray, brought him back, were
you aware of basically what was happening in
1968?
A. Just the account of it on the news or
the newspaper, yes.
Q. Did you ever yourself go up to the
courthouse at any time when there were
hearings going on with Mr. Ray?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You don't recall ever going up there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever discussed the case with
anyone?
A. Not that I recall other than
investigators asking me questions. Or they
had one investigator there that worked for
them, I guess asked me every question in the
world I suppose.
Q. Which agency was he with?
A. What was his name, Lewis?
Mr. Garrison: Mr. Hamby.
Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) Did the Memphis
Police Department call him?
A. No, he was a private investigator.
Mr. Garrison: Oh, that was Renfroe
Hayes.
Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) Oh, Renfroe Hayes.
A. Mr. Chastain remembers him, I'm sure.
Q. We all remember Renfroe Hayes.
A. I just couldn't remember his name.
Q. He asked you lots of questions, did
he?
A. Every day.
Q. He just came by and probably asked
the same ones over and over again.
A. Over and over, yes, sir.
Q. He might even have forgotten that he
asked them. So, anyway, you were subject
obviously to an awful lot of questions.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you during this period of time
ever have any contact with Mr. Frank Liberto?
A. No, sir.
Q. You never saw him or talked to him or
had any contact at all with him?
A. No, sir.
Q. Nor anyone representing him or –
A. No, sir.
Q. – being close to him. What happened
to Mr. Charlie Stephens during this period of
time?
A. I don't know if it was that same
night or whether it was the next day, but
they put a 24-hour a day guard on Charlie
Stephens – the police department did.
Q. Right.
A. I saw him every day.
Q. Was he brought into your place to eat
and drink?
A. Sure.
Q. Who paid his bills?
A. Well, what little pay I got was from
the policeman on a portion that was
paid, something like 50 some dollars for one
time. That was a very small portion of it.
Q. That was supposedly from the police
department?
A. Police Department.
Q. That they were going to –
A. Yes, sir.
Q. – make sure that Charlie was taken
care of?
A. Right.
Q. Did you discuss any of these events
with Mr. Knipes who was next door to you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You never had any conversation?
A. I very rarely saw Mr. Knipes.
Q. You didn't see him at all after this?
A. No, sir.
Q. So you had no opportunity to discuss
these issues with him or with Mr. Bailey at
the Lorraine?
A. No, sir.
Q. Not at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. Then you eventually closed down Jim's
Grill.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That would have been in '71?
A. I think it was July '71.
Q. Right.
A. I'm almost sure it was.
Q. Which of the staff continued to work
with you right up until the time when you
closed?
A. The only person that I had working
for me right until I closed was Bobbi.
Q. Bobbi continued to work with you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Right until you closed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What happened to Betty?
A. She left my employment and went to
work for the restaurant on the corner of Main
and Calhoun.
Q. The Arcade?
A. Yeah, Arcade.
Q. She went to work down there?
A. Yes.
Q. Alda Mae, she was where?
A. She just worked for me part time.
Q. Still part time. Rosie Lee?
A. I think she had already gone before I
took over.
Q. Rosie Lee Dabney?
A. She was already gone.
Q. So Bobbi was the only one who was
there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Lena had gone?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did – did Bobbi stay right up
to the end?
A. Stayed right to the day I closed,
yes, sir.
Q. All right. After the killing, when
was the next time that you went out into that
back area?
A. I believe it was two or three days
later. They had already cleaned it up when I
went back there.
Q. You went back there and saw it
cleaned up much the same way that we've shown
in the photographs earlier?
A. Yes.
Q. It was all cleaned up?
A. Yeah.
Q. Did you know how it got cleaned up?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Do you know who cleaned it up?
A. I did not know at the time, but I
heard later that the city cleaned it up, a
city crew cleaned it up.
Q. Did you hear when that city crew
cleaned it up?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. When that cleaning up was going on,
you did not hear it or see it at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is it possible that they could have
done such a big clean up as that without you
seeing it?
A. The only way I would have known they
were out there is if I went out the back
door, which I didn't do.
Q. So it's possible all this work could
have been going on and you wouldn't have
known anything about it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you remember seeing it cleaned up
a few days afterwards?
A. It was several days afterwards.
Q. That was the first time you saw it?
A. First time I went out in the back.
Q. First time you went out in the back?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You saw it all cleaned up?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you go down to the basement that
time?
A. Yeah. That's the reason I went out
to the back, to go to the basement. I don't
remember what for.
Q. You went down there. Did you see
anything different or strange in the
basement?
A. No.
Q. It was basically the same it had been
before?
A. Yes.
(End of deposition testimony.)
MR. GARRISON: That's it. Your
Honor, that's all from the deposition.
THE COURT: All right. You
might wonder why we didn't swear him in. He
wasn't testifying for himself, he was reading
the testimony of someone else. All right.
MR. PEPPER: Your Honor,
plaintiffs are going to forgo any additional
attempts to examine Mr. Jowers believing, on
the basis of the record that's created here,
that to all of the questions he will likely
continue to plead the Fifth Amendment.
Therefore, plaintiffs have one – one final
witness, and that witness is Mr. Dexter Scott
King.
Now, we thought we might be deposing
Mr. Jowers, so Mr. King is just arriving in
the city about this time, so we would – we
would propose to call him first thing this
afternoon prior to closing our case. But
Mr. Garrison has informed me that one of his
witnesses under subpoena has arrived and is
waiting in the hallway. And the plaintiffs
have no objection to Mr. Garrison calling his
first witness out of turn and – that would
be prior to plaintiffs closing their case
if Your Honor wishes to do that at this hour.
THE COURT: All right. That's
permissible. We'll allow that. And let me
explain to you Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Jury, the defendant is going to put on one of
his witnesses, but the plaintiff has not yet
completed his proof. All right.
MR. MYERS: Your Honor, may we
approach before this witness? I want to
bring one matter to the Court's attention at
side bar.
THE COURT: All right.
(A bench conference was held at
sidebar outside the hearing of the jury.)
MR. MYERS: Your Honor, the only
request that the State has with respect to
Mr. Glankler, he is the chief investigator
for the task force. He runs undercover
operatives. And I note that there are
cameras in this courtroom. What we ask is if
the Court would order that his face not be
shown for purposes so that –
THE COURT: Mr. Glankler?
MR. MYERS: Mr. Glankler.
THE COURT: The attorney?
MR. MYERS: He's not an
attorney. It's his son.
THE COURT: Oh, I see.
MR. MYERS: Yes, sir, he is the
chief investigator in the drug task force
unit.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PEPPER: No problem with
that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. You can
just go whenever you want – do you want them
to bring him in?
MR. MYERS: I don't know if they
have an electronic ability to scramble his
face.
THE COURT: Well, the cameras –
we can't control those other cameras.
MR. MYERS: The other question I
have of the Court is on this morning's ruling
as to objections being made.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MYERS: Would the State be
permitted to interpose objections for the
purpose of protecting privileges, work
product and any prosecutorial process?
THE COURT: I'll rule on all
those objections as they emerge.
MR. MYERS: And the Court will
permit me to make those objections?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. PEPPER: Are you going to be
able to get him with his face covered, or you
may need time to do that? If he's going to
take time to do that, we're running into the
afternoon now, I suggest we stay with the
regular order of things and we'll call our
last witness, and then they can put him on.
How long –
MR. GARRISON: It's going to be
rather short I think.
MR. PEPPER: I might take a
little time with him.
MR. GARRISON: He's here and
ready.
THE COURT: Do you have
something to –
MR. MYERS: I do not. I
thought – I assumed there would be the
electronic ability to scramble.
THE COURT: He probably can
handle it. But you have these other cameras
that can't do that – the still ones.
MR. MYERS: I believe it's in
the Court's discretion to ask that pictures
not be taken of him, and I would ask the
Court to exercise discretion in that regard.
THE COURT: I'll do that. I'll
do that. I still don't know whose present in
the courtroom.
MR. MYERS: Yes, sir, I
understand. Someone may see him who
recognizes him, but our concern is
broadcasting his picture at large.
THE COURT: I'll tell the still
cameras. And let me – let's find out
whether or not those cameras can do it. Have
that camera man come over here, the TV man.
THE BAILIFF: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: They are concerned
about the identity of this witness over here
and want to know if there's some way that you
can obscure his face so that it won't be
recognizable.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse
me, Your Honor. I'm with Court TV.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She's the
producer.
THE COURT: They're concerned
about the safety of this next witness, if his
identity is known, and want to know if you
can obscure his face so that he won't be
recognizable.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What we
can do is shoot the lawyers and – maybe
shoot him from here down, not shoot his face,
as opposed to obscuring his face. Does that
satisfy you?
MR. MYERS: That's fine as long
as his face does not show.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And we
can report his name and everything?
MR. MYERS: I believe so. Let
me just check.
THE COURT: We'll just wait.
MR. CARTER: Good afternoon,
Your Honor. My name is Robert Carter. I'm
assistant district attorney over there, and
I'm the director of the West Tennessee Drug
Task Force. Mr. Glankler is currently
assigned to our task force, and I'd like to
strenuously request that his visual image not
be made public in this.
THE COURT: We've agreed to
that.
MR. CARTER: Well, if I heard it
correctly, we thought about maybe trying to
shoot from his head down. Well, I happen to
be here, and I see a number of people with
hand-held cameras. I mean, we're talking
about his life is at stake.
THE COURT: I'm going to tell
those hand-held cameras not to take
pictures.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And we
can shoot just the attorneys.
MR. CARTER: That's fine.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And not
shoot him at all.
MR. CARTER: It's not a matter
of us trying keep an operation going. This
is personal security for this individual.
THE COURT: We can accommodate
him.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We do
this all the time. We have yet to have that
problem.
MR. MYERS: I understand. And
this has been a unique situation, as you
know.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We'll
watch the camera.
MR. MYERS: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right.
(The bench conference was
concluded and the following proceedings were
held in the hearing and presence of the
jury.)
MARK GLANKLER,
Having been first duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q. Hi, Mr. Glankler. How are you today?
A. Good morning – or good afternoon.
Q. Good afternoon. Let me ask you –
I'm not going into any great detail of your
background because I understand for security
reasons. But let me ask you, among other
things, have you investigated or conducted an
investigation over the last 24, 36 months –
the investigation concerning the
assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And would you tell His
Honor and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury –
A. I'm sorry. I can't hear.
Q. And would you tell His Honor and
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury about when
that started roughly?
A. I was appointed to begin the
investigation in December of '93.
Q. All right. Who – was it the
District Attorney – who appointed you to do
that?
A. The District Attorney General.
Q. All right. And tell us, how did you
go about conducting that investigation. Did
you talk to witnesses or how did you – what
all did you do?
A. There were numbers of things to do.
And we did what was our instruction to do.
They had a plan and – what they wanted us –
or who they wanted us to talk to or attempt
to talk to.
Q. All right, sir.
A. The beginning thing started with
trying to locate some of the original
witnesses.
Q. All right, sir. Would it be a fair
statement to say you talked to many witness?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Took affidavits or statements from
many witnesses?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. And did you take the
affidavits and reports back to the District
Attorney General after you obtained those?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. And after the
investigation was concluded, was there a
report then written partially by you or by
the District Attorney General as to what the
findings were based upon your investigation?
A. With all due respect, which District
Attorney? I mean, any of those –
Q. Well, I believe that – Rodney
started after you; am I correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The present District Attorney is
Mr. Gibbons; am I correct sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. There was a report
written last year in 1998; am I correct, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many pages does that report
contain?
A. I do not know.
Q. Did you ever see it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever read it?
A. A portion of it. It's on the
internet.
Q. Did you author any of the report?
A. Beg your pardon?
Q. Were you the author of any part of
that report?
A. No, sir, I did not write the report.
Q. Was that report based upon – I know
you had someone else that worked with you.
But was it based upon some of the affidavits
that you had taken and some of the
investigation that you uncovered in
determining what took place here?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Well, would it be fair to
say that the report was as much as 40 pages?
A. Sir, I don't know. I wouldn't know.
Q. How long has it been since you read
it?
A. Quite – quite some time.
Q. All right. You did read the report?
A. I want to say that – yes, sir. I
mean, I've read it, but it's just been so
long, and my current reassignment to other
duties.
Q. The conclusion of the report was, as
I understand it, that –
MR. MYERS: I'm going to object
on hearsay. I mean, that's – the report –
it's getting into out-of-court statements for
the purposes of offering them for the truth
of the matter asserted.
MR. GARRISON: I'll withdraw the
question.
Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Let me ask you
this: Did you find anyone else that was
involved in the assassination, based upon all
the statements that you took and the
affidavits, other than James Earl Ray?
MR. MYERS: Your Honor, again,
these reports are in the document. The
document speaks for itself. At this point
I'm going to renew my objection as to
competency to testify. This witness has no
personal knowledge of those facts. So that
the State doesn't waive – and to preserve
that objection, I will raise it again at this
time.
MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, based
on his personal knowledge and the
investigation that he did, I think he can
certainly answer my question if he knows or
doesn't know.
MR. MYERS: Your Honor, if
you're getting into his opinion as to whether
somebody acted alone, whether somebody had
help, this gets into work product.
MR. GARRISON: Well, we had been
through that already, Your Honor. The report
has been circulated around the King family
and others, and it's generally been seen, so
it's no private thing. I think he can answer
a question as to whether or not he found
anyone else that was involved from his
investigation other than James Earl Ray.
MR. MYERS: Your Honor, that's
necessarily opinion. Whether in his opinion
there was somebody involved, whether in his
opinion there wasn't somebody involved.
MR. GARRISON: I'm not asking
for his opinion. Your Honor, I'm asking what
he knows from his personal investigation. I
think he can answer yes or no.
THE COURT: You're asking him if
he has any personal knowledge of the
involvement of someone else?
Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Based upon your
personal investigation, Mr. Glankler, did you
find anyone that told you or gave an
affidavit saying anyone was involved in the
assassination other than James Earl Ray?
MR. MYERS: I'm going to object
to the form of the question. It's asking
based on the investigation as opposed to
personal knowledge.
MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I
presume if he investigated it, he has some
personal knowledge. I don't know how he can
investigate and not have knowledge of it
unless he didn't know what he was doing each
day.
THE COURT: Well, you can
rephrase the question and ask him of his
personal knowledge.
MR. GARRISON: All right.
Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Mr. Glankler, you
had personal knowledge – you knew what you
were doing when you took these affidavits;
did you not, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know what you were doing
then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know what you were seeking?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Based upon what you have
conducted in the investigation and talking to
the people you've talked to and affidavits
you've taken, did you find anyone else that
told you – any affidavit or any information
from any source that anyone had anything to
do with the assassination except James Earl
Ray?
MR. MYERS: Again, objection.
There's hearsay called for in this and,
again, it's going to opinion as opposed to
fact.
THE COURT: I'm going to allow
him to answer that one.
Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) All right. What is
your answer, Mr. Glankler?
A. No, sir.
Q. All right. Now, how many witnesses
would you say you interviewed? As much as
20, 30, 40, 50? How many?
A. Probably closer to the 40, 50 range.
Q. I'm sorry, how many?
A. I said probably closer to the 40 or
50 range. And I could be even off from that.
Q. All right.
A. This spanned five years.
Q. All right. This was over a five-year
period that you interviewed witnesses; am I
correct, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now, Mr. Glankler, did
you ever have any conversation with a
Mr. Loyd Jowers?
A. On one occasion, yes, sir, that I
recall.
Q. What was the occasion for that?
A. He called me.
Q. All right. Did you record it?
A. Yes, sir, I believe I did.
Q. All right. In fact, you've shown
that to Mr. Gerald Posner and let him listen
to it, who wrote a book about it, didn't you?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. How did he get it in his book? He
said he listened to it. How did he get it?
A. I don't know how he got it,
Counselor. I didn't give it to him.
Q. Okay. What was the extent of the
conversation with Mr. Jowers?
A. Well, I think the crux of it was he
was –
MR. MYERS: Your Honor, I'm
going to object on hearsay as to what
Mr. Jowers may have said to this investigator
out of court. And under Rule 803 it's
classic hearsay.
MR. GARRISON: I think it
certainly goes to the heart of this case. My
client is a defendant, and I have a right to
know what statement he's taken from him and
what was said.
MR. MYERS: Of course, evidence
has to be admissible even if it does go to
the heart of the case. And it falls under
hearsay and therefore, under the Rules of
Evidence, is inadmissible.
THE COURT: Are you suggesting
that it was a statement against his
interest?
MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I
don't know what it was. He claims to have a
statement from Mr. Jowers. He's been
claiming that for years. And I've never had
the privilege of it, and I think I'm entitled
to know what the conversation consisted of,
what was said.
THE COURT: Do I understand the
statement itself was not a part of the file
that you –
MR. GARRISON: No, it was never
delivered to us, and I've never had it or any
way to review it.
THE COURT: I'll allow him to
answer.
Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Can you tell us,
Mr. Glankler, the extent of the conversation
you had with Mr. Jowers? And it was about
this assassination, wasn't it?
A. First of all, it was a conversation,
not a statement.
Q. Okay.
A. He called me.
Q. And it was about the assassination,
wasn't it?
A. Well, he called me to complain, as I
tried to answer a moment ago.
Q. All right. Tell us about that.
A. It was an unexpected call. He calls,
and he's upset that we had interviewed a
number of his siblings and relatives.
Q. His relatives, all right. Go ahead.
A. And said that they had no knowledge
about any of the reports in the paper and on
television and whatnot. And he was upset
with the fact that we had gone to talk with
them.
Q. All right.
A. And I simply explained to him that
that was part of the investigative process.
I'm trying to remember what else he
mentioned. He did mention to me that he
didn't – he didn't want me to call any more
of his relatives. Well, you know, okay. And
one of the other things he was adamant about
was about the rifle. And that he told me
that was the correct rifle.
Q. And we're talking about the one
that's over and held by the Criminal Court
Clerk right now?
A. Mr. Garrison, I asked him. If I
remember correctly, I said, are you talking
about the one that was in the bundle that was
dropped and that kind of story, and he said
yes.
Q. He said that was the rifle?
A. That's what he told me.
Q. Okay.
A. And he just wanted to reiterate that
his family members didn't have any knowledge
one way or the other. In fact, commented
that he probably would be getting in trouble
for calling. And I said, you know, your
attorney didn't want, you know, us to talk to
you. So he called me on his own is all I can
tell you. And that's really all I remember
about it.
Q. That's about the extent of the
conversation?
A. Yes, it wasn't very long.
MR. GARRISON: Okay. That's all
I have.
THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Pepper.
MR. PEPPER: Thank you, Your
Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. PEPPER:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Glankler.
A. Good afternoon, sir.
Q. Mr. Glankler, this Court and Jury
have heard evidence about various aspects of
plaintiffs' case related to the assassination
of Martin Luther King and the involvement of
Mr. Jowers. Let me ask you, in the course of
your investigation, did you consider whether
the brush area behind the rooming house was
cut down?
MR. MYERS: Your Honor, I'm
going to object in terms of deliberative
process, mental impression and everything
else as we discussed – I'm renewing my
objections that were raised in the hearing
this morning.
MR. PEPPER: Your Honor,
Mr. Glankler conducted an investigation.
This is a critical area of the case. We're
dealing with a fact as to whether or not
something took place. His investigation
should have related to that – that
incident. Plaintiffs simply want to know if
he investigated it and what was the result.
THE COURT: If he investigated
it?
MR. PEPPER: If in the course of
his investigation he considered that – that
event.
THE COURT: Well, I'll sustain
the objection then.
Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Mr. Glankler, did you
ever interview Mr. Maynard
Stiles whose testifying –
A. I know the name, Counselor, but I
don't think I took a statement from Maynard
Stiles or interviewed him. I don't think I
did.
Q. Did you ever interview Mr. Floyd
A. Can you help me with what he does?
Q. Yes. He was a black fireman who was
assigned to Station Number 2.
A. I don't recall the name, Counsel.
Q. All right. Ever interview
Mr. Norville Wallace?
A. I don't recall that name either
offhand.
Q. Ever interview
Captain Jerry
Williams?
A. Fireman also?
Q. Jerry Williams was a policeman. He
was a homicide detective.
A. No, sir, I don't – I really don't
recall that name.
Q. Fair enough. Did you ever interview
Mr. Charles Hurley,
a private citizen?
A. Does he have a wife named Peggy?
Q. Yes.
A. I think we did talk with a Peggy
Hurley or attempted to.
Q. Did you ever interview a
Mr. Leon
Cohen?
A. Again, I just don't recall without –
Q. Did you ever interview
Mr. James
McCraw?
A. I believe we did. He talks with a
device?
Q. Yes, the voice box.
A. Yes, okay. I believe we did talk to
him, yes, sir.
Q. How about Mrs.
Olivia Catling who has testified –
A. I'm sorry, the last name again.
Q. Catling, C A T L I N G.
A. No, sir, that name doesn't –
Q. Did you ever interview
Ambassader
Andrew Young?
A. No, sir.
Q. You didn't?
A. No, sir, not that I recall.
Q. Did you ever interview
Judge Arthur
Haynes?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever interview
Mrs. Bobbi
Balfour?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you interview
Attorney James
Lassar [Lesar]?
A. Lassar?
Q. Lassar.
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you ever interview
Mr. Royce
Wilburn?
A. I don't recall that name either.
Q. Ever interview
Mr. J.B. Hodges?
He's a former MPD patrolman.
A. I don't recall.
Q. Ever interview
Reverand James Orange?
A. I know that name came up in the
investigation. I've heard it. I don't
recall having the opportunity to speak with
him. I don't think we did – or I did
anyway.
Q. Ever interview a Portuguese
journalist who interviewed Raul's wife –
the alleged Raul's wife – a woman named
Barbara Reis?
A. A Portuguese journalist?
Q. Yes, who was covering this case.
A. I don't recall that name.
Q. Did you ever interview
Mr. Jack
Saltman?
A. Well, Mr. – if you say
"interviewed" – I don't know if that would
be the proper term. But he had been to our
office a number of times to give
information.
Q. Did you ever take a statement from
him?
A. A direct statement?
Q. Right.
A. No, sir, if you're talking in terms
of formal – I don't recall taking one from
him, no, sir. I know that he came to talk to
us and was wanting to offer information about
things and –
Q. All right. Did you ever interview a
Mr. Bill Hamblin?
A. Hamblin?
Q. H A M B L I N, close friend of
Mr. McCraw's for 15 years.
A. Again, Counselor –
Q. Okay.
A. – I really don't recall. There's so
many names. I'm trying to remember the ones
I can.
Q. I appreciate that. I appreciate
that. It's been a long investigation for you
as well. Mr.
J.J. Isabell [Isabel]?
A. Again, it's a name it seems like I've
heard. I don't believe I did.
Q. How about Mr.
Carthel Weeden, did you ever interview him?
A. Say that last name again for me.
Q. Carthel Weeden.
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know who he is?
A. To be honest with you, I can't pull
it up right this second.
Q. He's the captain of Fire Station
Number 2. He ran the fire house –
A. Okay.
Q. – in the approximate locality of the
killing. He was in charge of everything that
happened in that fire house.
A. Okay.
Q. Did you ever interview
Reverend
Walter Fountroy [Fauntroy]?
A. No, sir.
Q. Mr.
Louis Ward – you ever interview
Mr. Louis Ward?
A. I don't recall. It's a common name,
but I don't recall his name.
Q. Did you ever interview Mr. Steve
Tomkins [Tompkins] who was a Commercial Appeal reporter?
A. I don't – I don't know if we
interviewed him, but I recall there was an
article in the paper. I remember his
involvement. That's about the best I can do
for you on that – or alleged involvement.
Q. All right. You ever interview a cab
driver named Jimmy
Adams?
A. I don't recall that name, no, sir.
Q. Did you ever interview a former New
York Times journalist, a New York Daily News
correspondent named Earl
Caldwell?
A. Earl Caldwell? Not that I recall.
Q. You never interviewed him in the
course of your investigation?
A. Beg your pardon?
Q. You never interviewed him in the
course of your investigation?
A. I just don't recall that name.
MR. PEPPER: I have no further
comments about this investigation – no
further questions for this investigator.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q. Mr. Glankler, you worked on
documenting this investigation on behalf of
the State of Tennessee, weren't you?
A. Yes, sir, at the instruction of the
District Attorney General.
Q. That's Mr. Barrout (phonetic) that
you started out with?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you ever find any witness at
all that you ever talked to that indicated
that Mr. Jowers had anything to do with the
assassination?
MR. MYERS: Again, this is
hearsay, Your Honor, and witness statements,
part of the record and speak for themselves.
MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I
think I have a right to ask him if he – of
his own personal knowledge of the
investigation what he found. It's certainly
a pertinent question.
MR. MYERS: The question of
necessity is asking him to draw conclusions
if there's – if there's something in that
statement that would lead him to conclude
that somebody acted alone or there were
other –
MR. GARRISON: Let me ask it
another way.
Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Mr. Glankler, of
all the people you talked to, did anyone ever
state to you that Mr. Jowers had anything to
do with the assassination?
A. Counsel –
MR. MYERS: That's hearsay, and
I'm going to object on those grounds.
THE COURT: It also is – asks
the question of whether or not there was any
kind of selective prosecution. I'm going to
allow him to answer.
Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Can you answer the
question, Mr. Glankler?
A. I'll try. We talked to a number of
people as you know.
Q. Yes.
A. Some people tried to support claims
of Mr. Jowers' involvement. But in the
interview process, you know, like –
especially –
MR. MYERS: Your Honor, may we
approach a minute?
THE COURT: Yes.
(A bench conference was held at
sidebar outside the hearing of the jury.)
MR. MYERS: Your Honor, this is
the first time I've heard the words
"selective prosecution." I would draw the
Court's attention to United States v.
Armstrong cited in the State's memorandum
from this morning. In U.S. v. Armstrong,
before any inquiries into selective
prosecution may be made, the person
alleging – making such allegations, number
one, make a specific allegation of it.
Number two, has come forward with credible
proof that there was indeed a selective
prosecution by showing someone else was
deserving of it.
My understanding of this was that
from the way this is cast, it was not a
matter of – a question of selective
prosecution, it was a question of somebody
was involved or not involved. And –
THE COURT: I believe you're
right. And I believe we have ridden this
horse as much as we can anyway.
MR. GARRISON: Okay.
THE COURT: I'll reverse my
ruling and sustain his objection.
MR. GARRISON: All right.
(The bench conference was
concluded and the following proceedings were
held in the hearing and presence of the
jury.)
Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Mr. Glankler, the
report that was written had a conclusion to
it, didn't it? It had a concluding point to
the report, didn't it?
A. That being the one from the Attorney
General?
Q. At the end of the report.
A. The Attorney General did.
Q. It gave a number of witnesses that
had been interviewed and what each said.
MR. MYERS: Your Honor, that
document speaks for itself. And if it's a
document that's evidenced, I'm going to
object on those grounds.
MR. GARRISON: Well, Your Honor,
if he will produce a document, that will be
great. We'll let the jury look at it if he
will produce a document. Otherwise I think
I've got a right to ask him about a report
that he authored and investigated.
MR. MYERS: Well, Your Honor,
counsel seems to have a lot of knowledge
about a report he's never seen.
MR. GARRISON: I have seen it.
MR. MYERS: And if it has been
seen, presumably counsel ought to have a
copy, and that could be entered into
evidence. That's the best evidence as to
what this report says.
MR. GARRISON: Your Honor,
unfortunately, I don't have a copy. The King
family let me read it. And he knows about
it, he helped author it, and I think I've got
a right to ask him about it.
MR. MYERS: He didn't testify
that he helped author it, Your Honor. He
said that he investigated it and others
authored it. So he's being asked to testify
as to a document he's really not competent to
testify to.
MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, if
counsel will agree to produce the copy of the
report for us, well, that will be super, and
we'll end this right now.
THE COURT: What's the question
again?
MR. GARRISON: If he will agree
to produce a copy of the report, then that
will be fine.
THE COURT: What was the
original question?
MR. GARRISON: The original
question was: Was there an ending point to
the report?
MR. MYERS: I believe he was
asking what did the report say.
MR. GARRISON: No, I didn't. I
asked him if there was an ending part to the
report.
Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Isn't that what I
asked you, Mr. Glankler?
A. You asked me if – I thought you said
ending part or a conclusion or something
along that line.
THE COURT: Did the report have
a conclusion?
MR. GARRISON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Oh, he can answer
that.
Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) All right. Did it
have a conclusion?
A. Best I recall, I believe it does,
yes, sir.
Q. And did it conclude the fact that
Mr. Ray acted alone in this case?
MR. MYERS: Your Honor, I'm
going to object. That's hearsay. That
report is an out-of-court declarant, and
second –
THE COURT: I'll sustain the
objection.
MR. GARRISON: All right.
That's all I have.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. PEPPER: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Do you have
anything? Do you want to be heard?
MR. MYERS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. You're
free to leave.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Judge.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: I think we ought to
take our lunch break now. We'll do that and
we'll resume at 2 o'clock.
(Lunch Recess.)
THE COURT: All right.
Mr. Pepper, are you prepared to go forward?
MR. PEPPER: Yes, we are, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PEPPER: At this time
plaintiffs call their last anticipated
witness, Mr. Dexter Scott King.
DEXTER SCOTT KING
Having been first duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. PEPPER:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. King.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Thank you for being with us this
afternoon.
Would you state, please, your full
name and address for the record.
A. Dexter Scott King, 449 Auburn Avenue,
Atlanta, Georgia, 30312, which is my business
address.
Q. And what do you presently do?
A. Well, I currently serve as chairman,
president and chief executive officer of the
Martin
Luther King, Jr., Center for Nonviolent Social
Change.
Q. In Atlanta, Georgia?
A. That's correct.
Q. And how long have you been in that
position?
A. Almost five years. Exactly five
years at the end of this month.
Q. Tell the Court and the jury what you
have done previously, what other activities
you have been in?
A. Well, I've worked at the King Center
for a number of years in different capacities
heading up the various programs, serving as a
special assistant to the founder, my mother,
Coretta Scott King.
Q. How old were you, Mr. King, when your
father was taken?
A. I was seven years of age.
Q. Do you recall any feelings, any
emotions or thoughts that occurred around
that time?
A. The thing I remember most is that we
were all trying to move on with our lives.
My mother was very strong and very stoic and
what I felt was a strong example. So in
retrospect, I feel like we really didn't have
an opportunity to mourn because we
transformed that experience into a triumph
over tragedy, or so we thought at that time.
Q. How long did that kind of stoicism
continue?
A. I would say literally up until the
past couple years when we first got involved
with new information and evidence regarding
my father's death.
Q. And could you describe for this Court
and jury how it was that you and the family
eventually did decide to become involved with
this issue?
A. Well, it was actually a New York
Times reporter that had reached out to my
family when James Earl Ray first went in the
hospital, when it was first reported that he
was in a coma and having liver trouble, which
I believe must have been December of 1996.
I'm not – my dates are not
necessarily accurate, but I remember it was
December. Then January, I remember vividly
because I was away on vacation after the King
holiday the latter part of January, and I was
out of the country, so I called to check my
answering service, and there was a message
from a reporter, which I didn't know at the
time, because it was just a paging service,
and the only thing there was a number, but I
called the number and essentially was told by
the reporter that they were working on a
story, that they were sorry to bother me,
they felt it might be a little awkward, but
they had gotten word from the Ray family that
they wanted to reach out to us, the King
family.
While it was awkward, they felt that
their loved one was innocent. They never
wanted to bother us in the past, but because
he was near death or having a terminal
illness, it was kind of a now-or-never
proposition. All they were really asking is
would we come and testify, would we make a
plea for a trial, not dealing with any sense
of guilt.
At that time we had not seen the
evidence. Of course, we knew of your work,
but we had not seen anything. We basically
caucused with the family, and all of us were
traveling in different places, but by phone
on a conference call we took a consensus to
find out how we should respond, and the
general feeling is that whether he is
innocent or guilty, the man deserves a trial,
a real trial, which he never received, to
hear the evidence and get information out.
I think at that point we were
resolute about that, that we were going to
make this statement. And that's what
happened. Late February, mid-February, we
held a press conference where all of the
family members were present and we
essentially said why we were making a stand,
taking a stand, in support of the trial.
From that point forward we, of
course, reached out to you, which at that
time we were presented with certain evidence
and we began to see the picture and it became
more evident that this had to come out, there
had to be a forum for information at least to
be heard.
As you know, my mother and I came to
Memphis, came here and testified in Judge
Brown's courtroom, in regards to testing the
rifle. From that point forward things
evolved. For want of a better term, there
was a snowball effect where people started
coming forward independently, just reaching
out to myself, to my family, and all kinds of
information started coming forward.
Q. It sort of opened up the gate?
A. Yes. It was really literally a flood
gate of information and people who – I
recall one letter I read from a gentleman who
said, you know, I've been in silent sympathy
with your family for the past almost thirty
years, and it discussed their background, the
fact that they served in various capacities
in the federal government, the Central
Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the fact that we are on
the right track, that Ray did not do it, you
are right, stand your ground, we support you,
the fact that these things happened, it is
happening today, the way in which he was set
up, that's common protocol.
So all of these types of letters
came in. The interesting thing is we didn't
know what to believe, because we are not
investigators. We have no experience in
deciphering what is fact from fiction. But
in this instance so much information came to
the forefront that we were looking for a
forum where the, quote, experts could really
separate truth from – you know, fact from
fiction.
Q. And what is the best forum? What did
you come to believe was the best forum for
that to take place?
A. We felt a court of law, where we
would have twelve independent jurors who
could hear information and determine for
themselves. I just felt if twelve people –
whatever decision they came up with after
hearing the information, we could live with
that. That would help to bring about closure
and resolution.
Q. Mr. King, how do you answer the
criticism that has been leveled at the family
that the family's involvement in this case at
this point in time is driven by profit or by
a concern for generating a project, a movie
project, or something of that sort to
generate money?
A. I've heard that before, and it is
appalling to me. Not to be dramatic about
it, but for anyone to insinuate or to think
that we or anyone, frankly, would try to
profit off of someone's tragedy, off the
tragedy of a loved one – you know, the
question that would often be asked is why
now, why thirty years later? Well, I was
seven years old. What am I going to do, ask,
well, I want to know who killed my father at
seven years old?
Sure, I wanted to know, but the
thing that was so interesting is all my life,
the main question that has been asked over
and over by reporters or common folk is do
you believe James Earl Ray killed your
father?
Now, I'm thinking to myself –
almost I guess thirty years now people
continue to have asked that question,
including the media, and it is ironic that
the only reason we got involved with this was
because the press beat our door down until
finally we made a statement. Our typical
posture was no comment. We just didn't deal
with it. Maybe we were in denial. Who
knows. I believe we really were trying to
move on with our lives.
So there is a bit of resentment,
because the very forces that drew us into
this are now saying, why are you doing it?
Yet you can't close Pandora's box once you
open it. It evolves. So it is the most
hurtful thing, frankly, to have to endure,
someone questioning it.
Q. How do you answer the criticism,
though, of the family has been manipulated
from the beginning of its involvement up to
the present time and even into these
proceedings here, that these proceedings are
all part of a manipulation of the family?
A. Well, that, again, is hard to hear.
I would have to say, coming from not only one
generation or let's say two parents who were
in their own right very strong individuals
who carried a mantle of leadership, to think
that somehow we could be manipulated is
really insulting, because what that is saying
is that, you know, this family was able to
make sacrifices and to contribute to
ultimately what I believe has been one of the
most important social movements in this
country and endure so much, along with
others, endure so much trauma and tragedy,
and yet somehow we all of a sudden have lost
our minds.
I mean, that doesn't – it is not
logical. So no, we have not been
manipulated. I think we have done what most
people do when they see something in front of
them that doesn't add up. You ask the
question. Then one question leads to
another.
Certainly, as I said, this was not
something that we sought out, it ought sought
us out. I think that makes all the
difference in the world.
Q. Historically have you become aware of
what happened to your father and his
organization after he came out against the
war in Vietnam on April 4, 1967?
A. Yes. He made the statement at the
Riverside Church in New York
"why
I oppose the war in Vietnam." Interestingly enough,
as we've been going through this period, it
is so amazing for me that as soon as this
issue of potential involvement of the federal
government came up, all of a sudden the media
just went totally negative against the
family. I couldn't understand that.
I kept asking my mother, what is
going on? She reminded me, she said, Dexter,
your dad and I have lived through this once
already. You have to understand that when
you take a stand against the establishment,
first you will be attacked, there is an
attempt to discredit, second, to try and
character assassinate, and, third, ultimately
physical termination or assassination, in
that order.
Now, the truth of the matter is if
my father had not – if he had stopped and
not spoken out, if he had just somehow
compromised, he would probably still be here
with us today.
Q. If he remained a civil rights leader?
A. Exactly. If he had just talked about
riding in the front of the bus, being able to
sit down at lunch counters, that was not
threatening. In fact, that expanded the
economic base when there was integration.
But the minute you start talking
about redistribution of wealth and stopping a
major conflict, which also has economic
ramifications, and he understood the
injustice and the disparity of
African-American men fighting on the front
lines in a disproportionate number losing
their lives with their white comrades but yet
could not even come home and eat at the same
lunch counter with their white comrades they
just fought with in Vietnam or could not live
in the same neighborhood or any number of
things, he saw this was a major injustice and
what it was doing to the black family, the
way it was destroying families, all these
young black men being sent away and dying in
disproportionate numbers.
So to make a stand, the fact that a
lot of people, soldiers who were on leave
were hearing his message, and there was this
fear of, you know, desertion, black soldiers
saying I'm not going to fight this unjust
war, why am I here, so he was certainly seen
as a threat. Unfortunately he was not. It
was a real tragedy. As he said, there cannot
be any great disappointment where there is no
great love, I'm forcing my country to live up
to its truth. And the rest is history.
Q. Has the family suffered economically
and the King Center, the work of the
perpetuation of the legacy of Martin King,
have they suffered economically similarly to
what occurred to SCLC and your father back in
1967?
A. I would have to say yes. While it is
very hard to quantify losses in terms of
dollars and cents, I can certainly tell you
that I have seen a difference in the way we
have been dealt with by corporate supporters,
contributors, when, quote, controversy
strikes.
As you know, most businesses don't
like controversy, right, wrong or
indifferent, no one wants to be seen as
embracing something that is controversial.
And yet that is the way – I remember doing
an interview and the reporter asked me,
aren't you concerned, it sounds so
controversial? I said, no, have you
forgotten that the man which we honor – this
was around the King holiday celebration –
was one of the most controversial individuals
of his time.
In fact, tell me how he went from
being public enemy number one in the 1960's
to a national hero with a holiday in the
1980's. Explain that to me. Well, the point
I'm making is that he can be relegated to
I-have-a-dream land because he is not here.
Certainly in death he can be martyred and put
on a pedestal, but does America really want
to deal with what he was fighting for, what
he ultimately died for, in terms of solving
the triple evils of poverty, racism, violence
and war.[?]
Q. Do you think the atmosphere created
by the media, which has in effect established
an icon figure, do you think that kind of
atmosphere contributes to portraying him in
terms of his last years of struggle?
A. Yes. I have to believe from everyone
I spoke to who knew him intimately from
outside the family that those were some of
his most depressive years in terms of really
facing up to the fact – as he talked about
here in Memphis, I've been to the mountain
top, I've seen the promised land – that he
had to know that things had really gotten
bad.
He
was on his way to Washington for
the Poor People's Campaign and March, which
would bring together all of these forces from
different walks of life, that this could no
longer be relegated to minority status
but Appalacian Whites, Chicano
Mexican-Americans, Native Americans,
African-Americans, all coming to the steps of
the nation's capitol to say we will not leave
here until poverty is solved.
That has not been addressed today.
And because it was not addressed then, his
voice had to be silenced. That's why we're
here, to get the truth out. My hope is that
in this process, in a court of law, we I
think still have the last vestige of hope in
a democracy to have a jury, to have a forum
to get the truth out, because it is sad what
I've witnessed with the media, it is just sad
in a republic that is supposed to be
independent when there is not an independent
media on certain issues, particularly when it
comes to issues of national security where
there is this fear that the people cannot
handle it, we cannot allow this out, this
truth out.
That is so disheartening. But yet a
court of law still I believe, the judicial
process, is the last hope of allowing the
truth to come forward.
Q. In terms of the impact of the media,
have you personally experienced among close
friends of yours a reaction that has been the
result of media coverage of this case over
the last few years?
A. Yes. I mean, the past three years in
specific, since we've been actively seeking
the truth, has been probably the most
traumatic period of my life for whatever
reason. I've had to really reassess so many
things, because I was not aware of the impact
that it was having on me personally and my
family.
But I would have to say in one
incident I recall a very close friend who
grew up in Tennessee, happens to come from a
prominent family in Tennessee – we went to
school together – and I remember her saying
when I first got involved that James Earl Ray
is guilty, why are you all involved with
this? I kept listening to her. I just heard
it go on and on. Finally I stopped her and I
said, why do you think that? What are you
basing your facts on? She said, well, that's
what they said on the TV, that's the basis,
the news.
I stopped and I said, let me explain
something to you. I took her through this
whole scenario of how disinformation works
and how more importantly mental and
psychological warfare and brainwashing works,
that if you hear something over and over and
over again, right, wrong or indifferent or
true or false, it will become habitual and it
will automatically program you in a sense.
The sad thing is that she stopped
and acknowledged it, you are right. I said,
now let me show some of the things or explain
some of the things that have been explained
to me and you make your own choice.
The thing I appreciated about your
approach to all of this, because it was very
awkward, you were representing the accused,
if you will, and as you know for many years
we were not really comfortable with even
addressing this issue, because we didn't know
anything, however, when you told me, the
thing that impressed me when we first sat
down, was you said, listen, you are the
family of the victim and you have every right
to see every shred of everything, everything,
talk to witnesses, anybody that I've had the
opportunity in my ten-year trek of work and
investigation, and you had an open-book
policy. You said, you tell me who you want
to talk to, who do you want to see, and you
judge for yourself. You didn't put any words
in my mouth. You didn't try to lead us down
any path. You just said, here, put it on the
table, look at it and make your own
judgment.
But I think there are so many people
who were so – this is not really an issue of
logic or intellect, this is an issue of
emotion. So many people are emotionally
predisposed because of thirty years of
programing, including ourselves. We always
felt James Earl Ray may have been involved,
but we also believed there was probably
extensive involvement, but then after seeing
the evidence, it was just clear that that was
not the case.
Q. This Court and jury have heard
extensive testimony yesterday on exactly the
issue that you've just been addressing,
the power
of the media, particularly the visual
media.
Let's move on. Did there come a
time after you got involved with the case and
seeking a trial that there was an opportunity
for you to meet with the defendant in this
case?
A. Yes.
Q. And in fact did you not have two
meetings with this defendant?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And was the first meeting not
attended by you and me together with
defendant's counsel and the defendant?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then you had a second meeting
with Ambassador Young and the defendant and
his counsel?
A. That's correct.
Q. The Court and jury have heard
Ambassador
Young's testimony and also
a
recording of that meeting that I believe you
made, was made in your presence. Would you
tell the Court and jury what you recall from
the two meetings that you had as to the
defendant as to admissions against his own
interest – which makes it possible for you
to tell them in the courtroom – what do you
recall defendant admitting in those meetings?
A. Well, he admitted first and foremost
that he had been contacted by Frank Liberto,
who he described the relationship with Frank
Liberto as someone who helped him out in the
past and was essentially calling in a chip or
favor and that Mr. Liberto said that he would
send over to his place, over to Jim's Grill,
a package, and in that package would be some
money. It was in a produce box, the normal
delivery that he would receive.
Subsequently, after that box was
delivered, a gentleman, he was told, would be
by to pick it up. Well, that gentleman was
described as Raul. That he would come by
and pick up the money, and then from there he
would be delivering another package, which
would be a rifle.
Now, that package was delivered I
believe the morning of April the 4th. At
that time the rifle – he said he was told to
be at the back door at six o'clock. Well,
the rifle was going to be picked up prior to
that. I may have my details a little sketchy
in terms of timing. But the gist of it was
that he would meet or did meet a gentleman at
the back door to pick up the smoking rifle.
He described that gentleman as Earl Clark.
The next day –
Q. Just for the record, Earl Clark, a
Memphis Police Department officer?
A. Lieutenant, I believe. He said he
was clear about that because they were
hunting buddies. He knew Earl Clark very
well.
After I guess the incident, he said
he threw the slug down the commode and tried
to flush it down the commode, and essentially
that clogged up the commode, you know. I
remember that very well because he couldn't
get it to, you know, to flush basically. And
the next morning the rifle was retrieved, and
that was pretty much his recollection.
Well, actually, no, he also said
that there were people who met there,
officers he knew, from the Memphis Police as
well as what he said were government types,
which he assumed to be FBI and other
government agents, meeting in his
establishment with these officers that he
knew, that he did know from the Memphis
Police, and he interpreted those meetings as
planning meetings. So in effect his place
was being used as a staging area.
Q. Did you ask Mr. Jowers questions
throughout the course of that meeting?
A. I did. I continuously asked him was
he – you know, was there anybody else or
anything else that he was not telling me.
And my sense was that – maybe I shouldn't
speculate here. I know I shouldn't
speculate. But my sense is that he did not
want to – he felt uncomfortable a little
bit and a little bit embarrassed in front of
me in saying or admitting that he had
involvement in the killing of my father. I
could certainly understand that.
What I said to him is, you know, my
family is not in this for retributive
justice. We're a forgiving family. My
father was stabbed by a woman who took –
almost took his life before I was even born,
and he forgave her. So we're not in this to
put people in jail. We want the truth to
come out.
His fear, obviously, was admitting
something against his own – you know, that
would be used against him, and yet I felt
like he wanted to get something off his
chest. I felt like he wanted to make
something right before he left this earth.
It was a little bit awkward, but I
have to say that I'm glad that, you know, I
feel a sense of liberation in knowing more
about what happened, what has happened in
this tragedy. It has certainly helped to
better deal with it.
Q. Did you form the impression that he
was being truthful to you?
A. I did. I really felt that. So did
Ambassador Young. We talked about it
afterwards a few times, actually, and
compared notes.
I think that in spite of the fact –
keep in mind that this was the second meeting
with myself and Ambassador Young. The first
meeting was, of course, myself along with
you. The story was consistent. So there was
not a change between the time you and I met
with him and then subsequently when
Ambassador Young and myself met.
Q. Did you have the impression from
those two meetings that he was knowingly or
unknowingly involved in what he was doing at
the time of the assassination?
A. I felt like he was knowingly involved
but didn't fully want to admit it, or, as I
said, felt uncomfortable because of the
awkwardness of who I was. But it was obvious
that he knew what was going on to me.
Q. Now, he mentioned this figure, Raul,
having picked up the money at one point in
time and delivered a weapon. Did he identify
a photo spread – of a photo spread did he
identify a photograph of him for you?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. If we can put this up.
(Photographs displayed on an
overhead projector.)
Q. We can see the photo spread that has
been in evidence here in the Court. I don't
know if you can see it. Which of these six
individuals did he identify as Raul to you?
A. The second one down on the right in
the middle.
Q. Here?
A. Yes.
Q. This picture here?
A. That's the one.
Q. He said this was the man who
delivered the money and subsequently – I'm
sorry, picked up –
A. Picked up.
Q. He picked up the money and then
delivered the rifle?
A. Correct.
Q. Did he know anything else about this
person or say anything else that you
recall?
A. Well, he said something about, you
know, he thought Mexican or wet-back or
something, but he didn't want to – you know,
he didn't know which nationality he was. But
he was definitely, you know, of Spanish – he
thought of Spanish descent.
Q. Did you come away with the belief
that the fatal shot that killed your father
was fired from the bushes, the brush area,
behind the defendant's grill?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did he say what he did with the
murder weapon, the actual murder weapon, not
the throw-down gun, the actual murder weapon?
A. I believe he said he threw it in
the – I'm sorry. That was another piece of
that. That someone picked it up, and I
believe he said he heard they threw it in the
river. But I – I don't remember who, the
details of who picked it up and how it got,
you know, supposedly thrown in the river.
Q. Now, Dexter, at one point in time
when the family had came out and started
asking questions, being involved in this
case, were you and the family contacted by a
former FBI man?
A. Yes, we were.
Q. Who this was officer?
A. Donald Wilson.
Q. What did Mr. Wilson tell you, discuss
with you, again, very contrary to his own
professional and personal interests?
A. Well, he told me that he had received
some evidence, actually obtained evidence
from a crime scene dealing with the white
Mustang which was alleged to have been James
Earl Ray's vehicle and said that he had
traveled to the crime scene along with a
senior agent. He was essentially kind of a
new rookie agent, if you will, and the
veteran agent had him tag along to the crime
scene.
And when he opened the door, these
pieces of paper fell out, these items that he
instinctively just picked up, retrieved and
put them in his pocket. And ultimately he
had held on to these items for quite some
time.
He said the thing that made him come
forward was he saw my mother and I on CNN,
which in this case is good to have the media
putting it out there, but he saw us
testifying in I guess Judge Brown's courtroom
and asking – making a plea for the truth to
come out. And at that time he felt that
really moved him to resolve this after so
much time.
Q. Where did these articles, these items
that he showed you, where did he get them,
where did they actually fall from?
A. The inside of the car, the door.
When he opened the door, they just hit the
ground.
Q. This car, which car was this again?
A. This was the white Mustang that James
Earl Ray had ditched in I believe Capital
Homes, which is a housing project in Atlanta.
Q. And these pieces of paper were in an
envelope or loose and fell out of the car?
A. Correct.
Q. And he picked them up and kept them?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Why did he hold on to them all these
years?
A. Well, he tried to give me some
history, which I thought was fairly
interesting, because it speaks to his motive,
but he talked about when he joined the Bureau
fresh out of law school here in Tennessee, I
think, where he went to school, and he saw
working for the Federal Bureau as being a way
to help with civil rights.
He really seemed to be committed to
making a difference in the cause of justice
in this country at that time. And he said
the most incredible thing happened to him
literally on his first day on the job, or
let's say his first day in training, when he
was going – or assigned to go to the
academy.
He was assigned to a black rookie
agent, I guess they were rookie agents when
they were going through training, and they
were in Virginia, I believe it was, at a
rooming facility where they all stayed, and
when they went to check in, his black
roommate was denied admission.
He said he was just so sure that the
brass, top brass, were going to really come
down on these people, this resident manager,
if you will. And he watched the way the
situation was handled, and he said, you know,
from that day forward, I knew I made the
biggest mistake of my life.
What he was saying is that the black
agent could not room with him, that Director
Hoover and all the top brass didn't do
anything about rectifying the situation.
So – and he said when it just
really hit him is a few years later the
agent, the black agent, was killed in the
line of duty, and at his funeral I believe in
Chicago he was talking about how the director
and everyone was there talking about how
great this guy was, and all he could remember
is when the guy really needed support, they
were nowhere to be found.
He said once he started learning
about the climate and the culture of the
Bureau and how this type of thing would
happen, he instinctively felt that if he had
turned in that evidence, his superiors would
have – it would have ended up missing.
And I don't remember, there was
another incident, and I can't remember
whether this happened before or after the
Mustang was discovered, but he and his
agent – I mean he and his partner happened
to see a gentleman that fit the description
of James Earl Ray somewhere in their travels,
and they radioed into headquarters to ask
what to do, whether to apprehend or to let
him go, whatever, and they were told
basically to come back immediately to
headquarters and basically sign off.
He said again from that incident he
knew that he was making the right decision,
because he really believed this could have
been the man, but they were told to not
proceed.
Q. To your personal knowledge, what has
happened to Agent Wilson since that time?
A. He has been character assassinated.
He has also said that his wife has been
somewhat terrorized. Just different types of
harassment tactics have been used to silence
him, to intimidate him.
I witnessed for myself the way this
whole thing was handled in the media, and the
first knee-jerk response that came out was
that this guy was not even an FBI agent. I
watched literally the news cycle of how
within minutes first he is not an agent,
second, well, he wasn't on the crime scene
detail – which is true technically, because
the car was impounded and taken to the garage
where it was taken apart by special agents
to go over it with a fine-tooth comb, which
he was not officially apart of that
detachment, but he was definitely on the
scene – and ultimately there were quotes
from former FBI agents saying, well, whatever
he has is fabricated.
Now, how can you make an unilateral
statement when you haven't even seen what he
has? So it amazed me to watch how this man
was attacked for coming forward with
something. And he really believed – the
saddest thing about this whole episode is
when I met this gentleman, I could see the
sincerity. He was a man who was to me the
epitome of a do-gooder government bureaucrat
who really joined the service to do the right
thing, who wanted to serve his country, who
believed in the constitution.
And he was so shocked, I think
almost naive, because he kept saying, I want
to make sure that the Attorney General Janet
Reno gets this information personally. And I
remember thinking how, you know, maybe naive
that he was, but he believed that if he
forged ahead, that the right thing would be
done. You know, I really feel sorry for him,
to be honest with you, because I don't think
he had a clue.
Q. There were a series of articles
written by one local reporter who tried to
get this story out and they were published
and plaintiffs would like to move their
admission into evidence at this time.
(The above-mentioned documents
were marked Collective Exhibit 31.)
Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) I'll put up on the
screen now a document or a piece of paper.
It is not very clear, but what it is is a
telephone directory page. Have you seen that
before?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Do you see this writing up here?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you make that out from that
distance?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. What does it say?
A. Raul.
Q. The name Raul?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recognize this as one of
the – poor copy though it is, and we're only
doing with a copy here, but do you recognize
this as a copy of one of the pieces of paper
that he found in the – that fell out of the
Mustang?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. I'll put up a second photocopy
of another document he gave you, another
piece of paper. Do you recognize this piece
of paper as one that you were shown by Agent
Wilson?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What did you make of this? What did
you think this was?
A. Payment, like a payment schedule or
list of payments made.
Q. It looked like a schedule of some
monies that were to be paid?
A. Yes.
Q. Does this appear to be some sort of
list of payments or a payment sheet?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. You said he said this also came from
the Mustang?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. This list of payments, at the bottom
of it, do you see this writing here?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Can you make that name out?
A. I cannot. From here I cannot make it
out. It is very –
Q. It is very fuzzy, isn't it?
A. It is very fuzzy.
MR. PEPPER: Let me do this,
Your Honor. Let me make take the copy up and
ask the witness to take a look at it closer.
Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Is that helpful at
all?
A. I am still having a hard time.
Q. Then you should not identify it if
you can't. That's fine.
MR. PEPPER: We will move the
admission of both of these collectively as
the next exhibit.
THE COURT: Did you identify
that as one of the documents that was shown
you to by the agent?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
(Whereupon, the above-mentioned
document was marked as Exhibit 32.)
Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) At the time you met
with Agent Wilson, did you also discuss
another document that was in the car at the
time that fell out and that he retrieved at
the time?
A. Well, he talked about other
information he had obtained, but he didn't go
into detail at the time. I subsequently
found out about the other information.
Q. How did you personally come to learn
of this other piece of information?
A. I believe it was from a reporter with
the Atlanta Journal Constitution and an
article that actually he subsequently wrote
about it, about the evidence, and the fact
that the Justice Department I believe had
subpoenaed that separate – that additional
piece of evidence.
Q. What was that additional piece of
evidence that the subpoena was issued for?
A. It was a piece of paper or a card, I
don't remember the exact instrument, but it
was paper or a card with the phone number to
the Atlanta office of the FBI.
Q. The phone number of the Atlanta
office of the FBI in James Earl Ray's
Mustang?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did there come a time, Mr. King, as a
result of all of this activity that you
decided to meet with James Earl Ray?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you decide to take that step
and meet with the man who had been accused of
killing your father?
A. Well, first and foremost I didn't
believe that he had actually pulled the
trigger at the time. My feeling was even if
he had, based on the upbringing that I have,
that I've had and my family, that it would
have been the right thing to do.
Being raised in a Judeo-Christian
home or faith to practice what you preach in
terms of forgiveness, if he didn't do it,
then I felt, which I did feel, I was there on
the grounds of this man has also suffered an
injustice, but regardless of either scenario,
somehow we both, victim/victimizer, both
victims, however you look at it, had some
type of commonality.
So for me spiritually meeting with
the accused, if you will, was important for
me to personally eye to eye meet this man and
ask him did he do it while in my heart I did
not believe that he did, but I needed to do
that for the record, if you will.
I thought about the fact that –
again, some people were really outraged.
They were upset with me, why did you meet
with him? As I said earlier, this has been
an emotional issue and not an intellectual or
logical issue, issue of logic. People just
react to what they've been conditioned to.
Again, I've had to draw on my
earliest experiences of dealing with an
assassin when my grandmother was killed in
1973 – I'm sorry, in 1974. I was there with
my grandfather when he forgave his wife's
killer, my grandmother. And yet – of
course, I knew about my father forgiving the
woman who stabbed him and almost took his
life.
So there was a precedent set growing
up. In our home we were always taught don't
hate white people, don't hate the person who
did this. So I didn't see it as being out of
character to meet with him.
Q. It was really a part of the family's
practice and process, wasn't it? Did you go
with your grandfather to visit your
grandmother's killer in prison?
A. Well, no. Actually, while she was on
the operating table we walked over to where
he was being kept, because there was an
altercation to apprehend him. He had to have
treatment as well. We went over to meet with
him.
My grandfather asked him why he did
it. Essentially he said, I came to get you,
and when I get out, I'm going to get you. My
grandfather simply said, son, God bless you,
and I'm going to pray for you and I'm going
to forgive you for your sins.
Of course, standing there witnessing
this at a very young age helped me to
understand what forgiveness was all about,
and having that strong spiritual foundation
and base is really what has sustained us for
all this time.
Q. So it is not just your father's
example in life and times but your
grandparents as well?
A. Yes, that's correct. When my father
was killed, I remember a lot of things that
happened, but I wasn't old enough to really
understand, you know, the whole forgiveness
concept. I do remember it was an ominous
period.
I remember us really feeling very
awkward about him coming back to Memphis that
last time. For whatever reason, we felt
something was going to happen. I know I felt
that. It was very ominous. That was the
extent of it. I didn't know why.
Q. Now, did there come a time when you
progressed in your consideration of this case
and the family's quest for answers and truth
that you decided to ask the Justice
Department or the President of the United
States in the first instance to open an
investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. What has happened with respect to
that request and would you describe how it
has proceeded?
A. Yes. Well, initially we had a
meeting with President Clinton asking him to
open an investigation. At that time we were
requesting what we saw as a similar model to
South Africa's Truth & Reconciliation
Commission. We really felt if this truth was
going to come out, it had to be done in the
context of amnesty or immunity and a healing,
a cleansing, that when there are crimes
against the people, if you will, by the
State, there has to be some type of process
so that people can come forward without fear
of reprisals.
So that was our first request. And
that was not granted. What he said he would
do is he would speak with the Attorney
General, Janet Reno, and ultimately she made
the decision that she would do what was
called a limited investigation, which would
focus on, quote, new evidence.
What we tried to explain to her is
that we believe that while you can refer to
the, quote, new evidence ala Donald Wilson,
ala Loyd Jowers, the old evidence, quote, was
flawed. In fact, it has not thoroughly been
reviewed.
So to pigeonhole it into this,
quote, new investigation or only focusing on
new evidence, is probably not going to serve
us because you are only going to be in effect
drawing conclusions that don't deal with the
a holistic picture.
In order to do this, and the last
time I checked, there is no statute of
limitations on murder, but the reality is
that, you know, you have to deal with
everything, and yet that request was not
granted. So we were very disappointed. But
we wanted to at least in the spirit of, you
know, reconciliation, give the powers that be
the benefit of the doubt to try and come up
with something that made sense.
We still to this day don't know
where that stands. But I can say that I'm
not optimistic, because I just – the signs
or the things that typically would point
towards optimism have not been evident. This
is totally a gut feeling.
I noted it is customary to be silent
during an investigation until all facts are
in, but the thing that has always been ironic
to me is that if we're the victims of the
family, then everyone from the DA locally to
the Justice Department is supposed to
represent our interest, at least that's what
I thought growing up watching Perry Mason and
everything and the like, but in this instance
it seems like we have been put on the
opposite side of State, and we've, rather
than being embraced and our cause being
supported and us getting equal justice and
fighting for our rights, we've been almost
summarily dismissed.
So I don't know. I mean, I always
try to remain optimistic. I do believe there
are things bigger than all of us that can
intervene and ultimately in the end, as my
father would say, the arc of the moral
universe is long, but it bends towards
justice. To me I interpreted that as meaning
it may not come out in your lifetime, but in
time all things are revealed.
Q. But what about those who finally say
that this is important for the family and it
is important for you from a personal
standpoint that the truth be developed and it
emerge, but is it necessary for the nation,
for this Republic, to go through this siege,
this anguish, this torment again?
A. Oh, certainly. Anyone who says just
let it go, I mean, let's face it, nothing is
going to bring him back, the thing that will
certainly resolve and allow for healing,
closure and healing, is resolving it so it is
not still in this land of uncertainty.
Anyone who has had a tragedy –
certainly my family is high profile, but
we're no different than any person who has
lost a loved one and just simply want to know
what happened, whether it is a car accident
or anything. I mean, you want to know how
your loved one left, if you will.
Certainly in this instance where
there was so many questions that were not
answered and this thing was put to bed so
quickly, it is always inevitably going to
come back up.
So what has been happening is that
for whatever reason there are those who have
tried to suppress it, don't want to deal with
it, because it is a can of worms, but I have
to say, like anything that has not been
resolved, it will haunt you until it is
resolved. And that's not just the victim.
It is the victimizer. It is those who
represent the victims and the victimizers,
because we are all, as my father used to say,
inextricably tied together by a garment of
destiny.
You cannot separate and say, well,
that happened then, so we shouldn't deal with
it, because to me it is just like it was
yesterday. I mean, I remember what I was
doing when he was killed. I remember details
of everything. And because that has not been
resolved, I know for me personally it has
affected me in so many ways didn't even
realize until recently of thinking I had
dealt with and I really had not.
So this in a real sense from a
personal side but then from a holistic side,
in terms of the people, in terms of the
masses, yes, it has to be dealt with because
it is not about who killed Martin Luther
King, Jr., my father, it is not about
necessarily all of those details, it is about
why was he killed. Because if you answer the
why, you will understand the same things are
still happening. Until we address that,
we're all in trouble, because if it could
happen to him, certainly it can happen to –
if it can happen to this family, it can
happen to anybody.
Q. In his honor's courtroom here – this
may be a court of last resort, Mr. King.
A. That's correct.
Q. – why should the nation, this
Republic, be concerned about the why, about
the why and the how of what happened to
Martin Luther King, Jr., aside from the
family interest, the nation, this Republic,
why is it important to know?
A. Well, it is important to know so it
will not be repeated. That's the injustice.
It should not be repeated. That if we say
we're true to our calling, as he talked about
in the "I Have a Dream" speech, about the bad
check, he talked about the importance of all
Americans coming together, black, white, it
didn't matter, but people of goodwill being
given an opportunity to have life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness, that's what
we're all here for, and how can you have that
in a so-called democracy if the democracy, if
the State, the Republic, do not like what you
are saying and you are told from childhood
that you have freedom of speech, freedom of
press, freedom of all this, but the fact of
the matter is if what you are saying goes
against what certain people believe you
should be saying, you will be dealt with,
maybe not the way you are dealt with in
China, which is over, but you will be dealt
with covertly and in some way the same
result. The result is the same.
Personally I would rather someone
tell me you have no rights, you can't speak,
than to think I have the rights and yet I'm
in mental bondage because I'm thinking I'm
free all along but there is a long leash that
the minute I say something that doesn't fit
with the elite or with the special interests,
I'm in trouble.
That is what Martin Luther King,
Jr., represented, someone who spoke for all
of us, who spoke for the least of these who
were not heard. That's why this is
important, because this really opens the
issue up of why he was taken from us in the
first place.
Q. I'd like you to address two final
issues, if you would. There has been
evidence in these proceedings that
photographs were in fact taken of the
assassination by military personnel.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. They were on the roof of a fire
station, no less. In all likelihood, those
films, those photographs, of the entire event
of the assassination of your father exist
today in some archive, deeply buried,
perhaps, but in some archive of the
Pentagon.
What would you say to the Department
of Defense, to the military intelligence
structure of the United States, to the
government of the United States that controls
perhaps that photographic visual evidence of
the truth in this case, what would you ask
them to do with that information, those
photographs?
A. I think the information should
obviously, all of it, should come forth,
should be brought out. I understand why it
hasn't been.
There is fear, obviously, that if
the truth were to come out, who would – what
would that say? I mean, really, we are
talking about, quote, a political
assassination in modern-day times, a domestic
political assassination.
Of course, it is ironic, but I was
watching a special on the CIA, and they say,
yes, we've participated in assassinations
abroad but, no, we could never do anything
like that domestically. Well, I don't know,
but what's to say, you know, whether you call
it CIA or some other innocuous acronym or
agency, killing is killing.
The issue becomes what do we do
about this? Do we endorse a policy in this
country, in this life, that says if we don't
agree with someone, the only means to deal
with it is through elimination and
termination? I think my father taught us the
opposite, that you can overcome without
violence, that there are ways, because when
you use violence, you leave residue that the
next generation will come back, and it is a
vicious cycle. You never solve the problem.
So I would say that all information,
evidence, should be – there should be full
disclosure. To be honest, I mean, if the
family of the victim – if you want to look
at it in terms of first right, if there is a
protocol, if we're saying we can forgive and
let people off the hook, then why can't
anybody else?
I mean, if you can measure suffrage,
and technically we say, well, we suffered the
greatest loss, if you can measure it that
way – I'm not saying you can – but if we're
saying we're willing to forgive and
embark upon a process that allows for
reconciliation, why can't others? That's
all.
Q. This action – finally, this action
is against Loyd Jowers as a defendant and
other unknown conspirators. If evidence
emerges at this trial in this civil courtroom
that could or should result in the
prosecution, the criminal prosecution of
other individuals, is the family interested
in pursuing criminal prosecution of others
known and unknown involved in this
assassination?
A. No. We have never been interested in
criminal prosecution. As I stated before,
this was not about and is not for us about
retributive justice. We're not in this to
make heads roll.
We're in this to use the teachings
that my father taught us in terms of
nonviolent reconciliation. It works. I
mean, we're living together in the South
today because of that great movement, black
and white together, different types of
advances that have occurred as a matter of a
peaceful, nonviolent movement. We know that
it works.
So, therefore, we have to be true to
our cause. We have to practice what we
preach. So what we're saying is that we're
not looking to – we're not looking to put
people in prison. What we're looking to do
is get the truth out so that this nation can
learn and know officially.
I frankly feel I already know the
truth. And, I mean, if the world never finds
out officially, it is never broadcast across
the world, that's a tragedy. But I can move
on with my life knowing that I now know what
happened. I believe that in my heart.
So this proceeding is almost really
technically our final legal remedy, and I
think – I know it has been long and drawn
out and the jury has had to do such a tedious
task at deciphering all of this body of
evidence, and I think – and testimony, and I
think that that certainly has to be
considered, that there was no other way to do
it, this was a last resort, we tried
everything, we did everything humanly
possible.
We've not gained anything. We've
lost financially. We've – I could spend
days giving you countless examples of the
agony and the defeat. And when people ask
that question, are you in it for money, what
money? People back away. Everybody I know
who has been associated with this has been –
has paid a price. You know, I don't – it is
not a benefit.
The only benefit is that the truth
has to ultimately come out, because that's
what we all believe in. I believe we all
stand for justice and want the right thing to
happen. So ultimately as a last resort in
this proceeding, to say that we're not
looking for great remuneration, it is the
total opposite, we're looking for nominal
damages, but we're looking for the truth.
And you can't put a price on the truth.
So that hopefully answers your
question.
Q. It goes a long way to it, but in
terms of Mr. Jowers, and the final issue is
an issue of damages, Mr. King, because this
is a civil action, a wrongful death action
against the defendant, and damages inevitably
raises its head, and whilst you have said
we're only interested in nominal damages,
that needs in a plea to the jury to be
spelled out with a degree of more
specificity.
What would be in your mind an
appropriate sort or type, quantity, number of
damages and for what purpose would those
damages be used if you were to ask this jury
to award damages with a number figure, what
would make sense to you and the family at
this point in time?
A. Well, the number I'm a little bit
fuzzy on because, you know, numbers are so
subjective. But let's just say for the sake
of this proceeding, let's say we were granted
a hundred dollar –
Q. Suppose the request were to be framed
in terms of a hundred dollars which would go
toward the funeral expenses of your father.
What would you do – if that were the case
and you were given that award, what do you
think you might appropriately do with that
money?
A. I think it would only be fitting that
any sum of money, no matter how small or
large, go to benefit some cause that he would
have wanted or been associated with. Because
this is Memphis, because of what it
represents, he was here supporting the
sanitation workers for their plight, and I
would certainly support and want to see some
benefit, whether it be their welfare, the
Sanitation Workers Union Welfare Fund or
something along those lines that the family
could contribute that sum to and even, you
know, contribute more out of our pockets.
I just think that we need to bring
closure to this. It something as minimal as
the fact that even to this day I have awkward
feelings when I come here. I'm still – it
is not any reflection of the people, because
the people are wonderful. Everybody rolls
out the red carpet, bends over backwards to
be hospitable.
But until this injustice is settled,
then all we can really do is try to deal with
what he would have done, and he was here to
support a campaign that dealt with man's
inhumanity to man, and now that we're
rounding out and coming to the end of this
journey, my hope is that this will be not an
ending but a beginning, a launching pad, so
that an example can be set here in this
courthouse in this city and in this state to
show people, to send a message that it does
not always have to be the way that people
think or what they assume, that impressions
and opinions, no matter what anybody writes
in a column or an editorial, that hopefully
people's hearts have been moved and their
heads have been dealt with and there will be
a verdict that is one of fairness and
justice.
MR. PEPPER: Mr. King. Thank
you very much.
THE COURT: Let's take a break
before cross-examination.
(Jury out.)
(Short recess.)
THE COURT: Mr. Garrison, do you
want to cross-examine the witness?
MR. GARRISON: Do you want to
bring the jury?
THE COURT: Yes. That might be
a good idea.
(Jury in.)
THE COURT: All right. They
wanted to start without you all, but I told
them we can't do that.
You may proceed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. King. How you
are today?
A. Fine. How about yourself?
Q. Fine. Thank you. Mr. King, you and
I have talked about this matter quite a few
times, haven't we?
A. Yes, we.
Q. As a matter of fact, I've been to
Atlanta and I've talked to your family and
you about this, haven't we?
A. Yes, we have.
Q.
When
Mr. Jowers met with you in Jackson,
Tennessee, and again [in] Little Rock,
Arkansas, with you and Ambassador Young, he
freely and voluntarily told you what he knew
about this case. He answered your questions
the best he could. Am I correct, sir?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Mr. King, when you met the first time
with Mr. Jowers, he apologized to you for any
part he may have played in this, didn't he?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And he also told you that he did not
know at the time that the main target was Dr.
King, he told you that, didn't he?
A. He did say that.
Q. That he had no idea that Dr. King
would be assassinated or knew anything that
was going on?
A. That's true. He did say that.
Q. I believe he also told you that he
was – he had an agreement or had been asked
by Mr. Liberto to handle some money and he
had handled money before on other occasions
before this. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Let me ask you, Mr. King, you had
talked to Mr. Jowers and Ambassador Young,
too, about immunity for him, did you not,
sir?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. In fact, Reverend Lowery, what was
his position?
A. He was President of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference.
Q. And he came here and spent the better
part of a day and met with Mr. Gibbons in an
effort to try to obtain immunity for Mr.
Jowers. You are aware of that, aren't you?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And Mr. Gibbons refused?
A. That's correct.
Q. Can you tell us this: Did you ever
have any meeting with either Mr. Campbell or
Mr. Gibbons from the District Attorney's
Office?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. Did they ever explain to you
as to why they were so against having this
rifle tested?
A. Yes. They basically said, and I
don't recall the exact outcome of the
conversation, but essentially they felt it
would be a waste of time, that the rifle had
been tested previously and it was
inconclusive. So why is it going to change
now?
Q. Dr. Pepper asked you a moment ago
about there had been some discussion or
some – something in the news media about the
fact that you and your family had been
manipulated. You investigated this quite a
bit before you started this action, did you
not, sir?
A. Yes. I guess the total of
information that has come forth has just been
overwhelming.
Q. And let me ask you this, Mr. King:
Based upon all the information that has come
to you within recent years and the witnesses
that have come forth, isn't it true that you
have made the statement that you thought that
from the President, who was Lyndon B.
Johnson, on down were part of this or knew
that this was going to happen?
A. Well, no, actually that statement was
taken out of context. I was asked by a
journalist or interviewer, Forrest Sawyer, to
be exact, from ABC – I guess it was Turning
Point was the program – whether I felt
President Johnson was involved or knew about
it, and I simply made the comment, which, of
course, got edited out, prefacing by saying
if what Bill Pepper says is true or has
written in his book is true, then I would
find it very difficult for something of this
magnitude to occur without the Commander in
Chief, in other words, if the military were
involved just based on my knowledge of
protocol and structure, the way the military
operates, then the Commander in Chief would
have to give certain orders in order to
mobilize certain forces.
Q. All right, sir.
A. But, of course, the way it was
edited, it said that I said, yes, President
Johnson was involved and knew about it. I
however, did also say that the FBI – it was
a known fact that Director Hoover had a major
beef, if you will, and certainly a hatred
towards my father and had stated publicly and
it is in fact public record that they
actually harassed him, surveilled him and did
other things to try and discredit him. That
is public record.
Q. Dr. Pepper asked you about
Mr. Wilson. Are you familiar with what has
happened to the notes that Mr. Wilson had?
A. Yes.
Q. What has happened to those notes?
A. The Justice Department has
confiscated them to try and authenticate
them. To my knowledge, I assume they are
still in the custody of the Justice
Department.
Q. As far as you know, there has been
nothing – no test or anything that would
tend to say that these were fabricated or a
forgery. Am I correct, sir?
A. That's correct. I was actually told
by a reporter who had been in touch with the
Justice Department that they could not rule
them out, and they are trying to figure out
how to, for want of a better word, how to
classify them in order I guess to make them
either – what I'm told inconclusive is
sometimes a way of saying not conclusive,
and, you know, it is like "inconclusive"
leaves you still in the balance, but I
believe if you can't rule it out, certainly
you can't say that it is a phony.
Q. Were you aware of the investigation
by the local District Attorney that started
back in 1993 and that they concluded in 1998,
were you aware of all of that?
A. That they started – I'm sorry?
Q. I believe in 1993.
A. That who? Could you repeat who?
Q. The local District Attorney started
an investigation into some new allegations
and things. Are you aware of that?
A. I've been generally aware, not
specifically, in terms of the details of
that.
Q. Let me hand you a report, Mr. King,
and ask you if you have seen this before,
which was provided to the District Attorney's
Office?
A. Yes. This is the more recent
report. When you said 1993 –
Q. I think it says it started in 1993.
I think the report itself says that. A copy
was delivered to your family I believe in
Atlanta the last year in March.
A. Yes, I have seen a copy.
Q. That was provided to you.
MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I'd
like to have that marked as an exhibit to his
testimony.
(The above-mentioned document
was marked Exhibit 33.)
Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) You've seen the
report and read it, haven't you, Mr. King?
A. Yes, I have. It has been quite some
time, a couple of years, since I have.
Q. Let me ask you, did you learn that
the government had sealed the records of the
investigation of your father's assassination?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever question any one as to
why those records were sealed?
A. Yes.
Q. What answers did you get?
A. Well, I was told that there was
information that might be incriminating, that
could possibly incriminate government
involvement or corroborate government
involvement, and I was also told that there
may have been information fabricated, that
there was definitely information that the FBI
fabricated to try and discredit my father,
and that that information could possibly also
be included in that – in the sealed records
as well.
Q. Mr. King, based upon what information
you have obtained over the last few years and
information that has come to you, Mr. Jowers
really played a very small part in this,
didn't he?
A. Well, it depends on what you call
"small part." I mean, certainly I would see
him as a specific conduit, if you will.
Whether he was the person – if you are
asking me whether he was the person who
orchestrated and planned and put all the,
quote, conspiracy together, I would have to
say, no, I do not believe he was, quote, the
brains behind this conspiracy.
Q. According to his discussion with you,
he was simply doing things he had done
previously for this person that he named as
Frank Liberto?
A. That's correct.
Q. And he was doing the normal things he
thought were normal in carrying out the
instructions of Frank Liberto. Am I correct,
sir?
A. Yes, you are.
Q. That's pretty much what he said?
A. That's correct.
MR. GARRISON: I believe that's
all. Thank you, Mr. King.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. PEPPER:
Q. Mr. King, you made your position, the
family's position, clear with respect to the
feelings about Mr. Jowers and how you would
regard him at this point and what you feel
should take place. Mr. Jowers' counsel just
asked you if Mr. Jowers advised you in the
meetings that he did not know about the
details or about the assassination and about
who the person was that [was] to be assassinated.
And you answered yes, he did state this.
Let me ask you once again, finally,
did you believe then, do you believe now,
that Mr. Jowers was telling you the truth
with respect to that point, that he did not
know who was being assassinated?
A. No, I do not believe he was telling
me the truth at that time. I believe that –
he definitely said that he did not know, but
I don't believe that part. I think he was
telling the truth up until that point.
I just sensed – and Ambassador
Young and I talked about that fact – that he
seemed very uncomfortable admitting that much
knowledge to, you know, to me basically.
Q. Going that far?
A. Exactly, being the victim's family.
And I could understand why.
MR. PEPPER: Thank you,
Mr. King. Nothing further.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q. Mr. King, let me ask you this: He
met with you voluntarily at his own expense
and fully cooperated with you, didn't he?
A. Yes, he did. As you know, it was –
there was hesitation initially until we
finally were able to work everything out.
The fear of prosecution was always an issue.
I believe that – I just felt that he was
getting this off his chest.
Q. All right. But the first thing he
did was apologize to you for anything that he
may have done that would have caused the
death of your father, didn't he?
A. He did.
MR. GARRISON: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: All right. You may
stand down, sir. Thank you.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: Does that complete
the plaintiffs' proof?
MR. PEPPER: Being our last
witness, your Honor, the plaintiffs
rest.
THE COURT: All right.
Mr. Garrison, do you want to go forward?
MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I
have some witnesses that were here earlier.
I let them go until ten in the morning. I
didn't know how far we were going to
get.
THE COURT: We were prepared to
go on to midnight if necessary.
MR. GARRISON: I hope you are
joking, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We'll
adjourn until ten o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Jury out.)
(The proceedings were
adjourned at 4:20 p.m.)
Volume 10
1 December 1999
COURT REPORTERS
Suite 2200, One Commerce Square
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
(901) 529-1999
Attorney at Law
575 Madison Avenue, Suite 1006
New York, New York 10022
(212) 605-0515
MR. JOHN H. BLEDSOE
Attorneys at Law
100 North Main Street, Suite 1025
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
(901) 527-6445
Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, Tennessee 37243
(615) 741-3491
Registered Professional Reporter
Daniel, Dillinger, Dominski, Richberger & Weatherford
2200 One Commerce Square
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
MLK-They Slew the Dreamer Presentation
Page 1
|Page 2|Page 3|Page 4|Page 5|Page 6
More JFK Assassination Links
The JFK Assassination: In the Light of Day
Gary Revel interview on guilt/innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald
JFK: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS DARKLY
Pictures of Assassins
JFK Assassination Bullet Fragment Analysis Proves Second Shooter
Conspired to Kill: Opinion by Gary Revel
3 Tramps in Dealy Plaza: What are they to JFK killing
The business of murder related to Santo Trafficante, the Mafia, the CIA, JFK, MLK and RFK
Deep Throat Surfaces - Watergate and Assassinations
JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t by James Fetzer
JFK Assassination Invetigation Continues
MLK Assassination Investigation
Investigating the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. - People get Killed
They Slew the Dreamer - Lyrics and History
Copies of pages from the transcript of the James Earl Ray guitly plea hearing and analysis by Special Investigator Gary Revel
The Deadly Business of the Murder of Martin Luther King Jr.
Mystery Helicopter and Riot Control in Memphis During March with MLK
Leutrell Osborne Finds Disturbing New Details Investigating Martin Luther King Jr. Assassination
New Questions About E. Howard Hunt And MLK Assassination-A Gary Revel Commentary
RSS Feed: Gary Revel MLK Assassination Investigation
Search Engine Submission - AddMe
A Gary Revel Investigative News Site
WEBSITE Copyright (c) 2006 - 2014 Gary Revel