Witness testimony and writings related secondhand or thirdhand accounts of unrelated, and in some cases, contradictory conspiracy claims.
For example, an unidentified person who did not testify alleged in an out-of-court deposition, which was read to the jury, that he participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. Unrelated to that claim, the notes of an interview of an unidentified source, which were written by a journalist who did not testify, purported to document a claim that a military team was conducting surveillance of Dr. King and actually photographed the assassination.
Significantly, no eyewitness testimony or tangible evidence directly supported any of the conflicting allegations of a government-directed conspiracy. The only relevant non-hearsay eyewitness accounts presented at the trial suggest nothing more than the possibility that Dr. King, like other civil rights activists who were the subjects of government surveillance in the s, may have been watched by military personnel around the time of the assassination.
However, we found nothing to indicate that surveillance at any time had any connection with the assassination. Critical analysis of the hearsay allegations in light of significant information that was not introduced at the trial demonstrates that the none of the conspiracy claims are credible.
No evidence corroborated the various allegations and other information contradicted them. For instance, in the case of the interview notes of a source claiming that his military surveillance team witnessed and photographed the assassination, we found nothing to substantiate the allegation but, rather, information to contradict it.
The journalist who wrote the notes also told us that he did not credit the source or his story. See Section VII. Other evidence introduced in King v. Jowers suggested the existence of yet another conspiracy apparently unrelated to the alleged government-directed conspiracies.
In this regard, witnesses testified offering observations and hearsay accounts implying that two African American ministers associated with Dr. King were part of a plot to kill him. The allegations against the African American ministers are far-fetched and unpersuasive. Additionally, we found no information during our investigation of the Jowers and Wilson allegations or our review of the historical record to substantiate these claims, while significant information, not introduced at the trial, contradicts them.
In sum, the evidence admitted in King v. Jowers to support the various conspiracy claims consisted of inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Because of the absence of any reliable evidence to substantiate the trial's claims of a conspiracy to assassinate Dr.
King involving the federal government, Dr. King's associates, Raoul, or anyone else, further investigation is not warranted.
Findings Of Earlier Official Investigations. Our findings are consistent with the conclusions reached by prior official investigations. Italso concluded that Ray's assertions that someone else shot Dr. King were "so patently self-serving and so varied as to be wholly unbelievable. In , the Shelby County, Tennessee District Attorney General completed a four-year investigation of the early versions of Jowers' allegations and concluded that "there is no credible evidence that implicates Loyd Jowers for the murder" of Dr.
That investigation further determined that the Raul from New York, whose photograph was identified by Jowers, Ray and others, was not connected to the assassination. Earlier, in , a Shelby County Grand Jury also concluded that there was no credible evidence to justify investigation of any of Jowers' claims. Our investigative team consisted of four attorneys from the Department of Justice and three federal investigators.
Other governmental forensic services and private experts performed analysis pertaining to other issues. The investigative team reviewed materials generated by federal, state, and local law enforcement officials, prior investigations, private parties, the media, and courts. In the end, the investigative team considered tens of thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of items of evidence, hundreds of witness statements, and the extensive work product of private parties and other investigations.
With regard to official records, we examined documents and evidence from the original criminal investigation conducted by the FBI, state and local law enforcement, and the state prosecutor's office; the investigation of the assassination by a Department of Justice Task Force DOJ Task Force ; the investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations HSCA ; and the investigation by the Shelby County, Tennessee District Attorney General's office.
As to the HSCA investigation, we reviewed the 14 published volumes of testimony and evidence and, with the permission of the House Administration Committee, relevant records sealed at the National Archives since The investigative team also considered documents and information provided by private parties who have conducted their own investigations.
Specifically, we spoke with Dr. We considered information and materials each provided. We also reviewed relevant pleadings, discovery materials, and hearing transcripts from post-conviction and civil litigation related to the assassination, including evidence from the trial of King v. Finally, we collected and read hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles and several pertinent books. The investigative team reviewed these materials to determine whether there was any credible evidence to support any aspect of Jowers' or Wilson's allegations.
The process was time-consuming and labor-intensive and the sheer volume of materials was enormous. In fact, because of the depth and number of prior investigations and the breadth of media coverage, most witnesses have given several prior statements, and some have provided as many as five detailed accounts of what occurred.
For example, James Earl Ray's official statements and testimony, by themselves, cover more than a thousand pages. At the outset, we reviewed the materials to learn about the assassination and prior investigations and to gain a historical perspective regarding claims relating to the crime.
We analyzed prior statements, affidavits, and testimony of relevant witnesses to determine whether they were internally consistent and in accord with each other and other evidence. When we found significant contradictions, we investigated further in an attempt to determine reasons for the inconsistencies.
Notwithstanding the breadth of our review of the historical record, the investigative team did not consider everything related to the King assassination because of restrictions on time, resources, and access to documents. For example, because standard House of Representatives Rule VII mandates that the materials from the HSCA investigation, like all similar House records, remain sealed in the National Archives for at least 30 years, the House Administration Committee permitted us to review only information relevant to our investigation.
As a result, while nothing we requested from the Committee was withheld, we did not examine the great volume of sealed records in their entirety. Rather, with the assistance of the HSCA's former chief investigator, we examined the records catalogue and then identified, obtained and studied all materials we believed to be pertinent.
Also, while numerous books and articles have been written about the assassination, we did not review all of these works. The investigative team also conducted its own original inquiry of the allegations, including interviewing more than witnesses. We attempted to locate and interview every civilian and law enforcement officer who witnessed events related to the shooting or the recovery of Ray's Mustang.
We also attempted to locate and interview all witnesses who had information relevant to the allegations by Jowers or Wilson or who purported to corroborate any portion of such allegations. With regard to witnesses who were particularly significant, we interviewed, when appropriate, their friends, relatives, and associates.
After a review of the evidence presented during King v. Jowers , we conducted additional witness interviews and records review as warranted. We conducted most interviews in person.
Some were conducted by telephone when necessary. When helpful and practical, we conducted interviews at the scene of the assassination. We also contacted and interviewed many witnesses more than once to clarify what they had said or to obtain further information based on what we subsequently learned from other sources.
Because our investigation comes more than 30 years after the crime, a number of witnesses, not surprisingly, have died or were unavailable due to poor health. We were also unable to interview a few persons because they refused to cooperate or could not be located. Even so, we were able to consider the observations and opinions of nearly all relevant witnesses since most persons who were now unavailable had given prior statements. Scientific testing and analysis were conducted on the two documents we obtained from Wilson.
We collected handwriting exemplars and known samples from relevant subjects to compare with the writing on the Wilson documents. Moreover, because one of the documents appeared to be a list of numbers and words, we had a cryptologist analyze the writing for evidence of a code. We consulted several experts in firearms identification regarding testing and analysis performed over the years on the evidence discovered at the crime scene. We also had experts at Ford Motor Company evaluate photographs taken during the recovery of Ray's abandoned Mustang to determine whether its doors were ajar or unlocked, as Wilson claimed.
In addition to inspecting the crime scene in person, we reviewed numerous photographs and diagrams of the area. Despite the volume of material we obtained and reviewed and the number of witnesses we interviewed, our investigative options were sometimes limited. Most importantly, we had no subpoena power because the tolling of the statute of limitations on any underlying federal crime prevented the convening of a federal grand jury.
To the extent possible, the investigative team carried out its inquiry in the same manner it would have conducted any other federal criminal investigation. When appropriate, we advised witnesses that a willful and knowing false statement to our investigation could be prosecuted. We also explored the possibility of granting certain witnesses immunity from prosecution. On one occasion, we sought the assistance of a federal court to obtain information.
Because Wilson refused to provide us the original documents he allegedly took from Ray's car, we obtained a search warrant for his safe deposit box at his bank. Shortly thereafter, he released the documents to avoid execution of the warrant.
Our investigation and report were nearly finished in November , when trial began in King v. We monitored the trial, obtained transcripts of witness testimony, and conducted additional follow-up investigation as warranted.
Accordingly, we have now considered all relevant information presented during the trial, as well as information derived from the additional investigation it prompted.
On this day 51 years ago, Robert F. Park—and today, a GAI-designed shared-use greenway is helping make that park more accessible to the community it serves. The new shared-use greenway is located where, just a few hours after Martin Luther King Jr. Kennedy dispensed with the politics of the Democratic presidential primary and delivered an earnest appeal for calm and mutual understanding before a primarily African American audience.
Byers' testimony in committee public hearings was also given under an immunity grant. Byers gave the following account to the committee: He was contacted in late or early by John Kauffmann, whom he had known since as a former stockbroker and operator of the Buff Acres Motel and a drug manufacturing company, both located in Imperial, Mo. Kauffmann had, in return for payment, permitted Byers to store stolen merchandise, including stolen cars, at his motel.
Kauffmann told him to meet him at that evening, which Byers did, and together they drove to the home in Imperial of John Sutherland, a St. Louis patent attorney. The three men met in a study that Byers described as decorated with Confederate flags and Civil War memorabilia.
There was a rug replica of a Confederate flag as well, and Sutherland was wearing what appeared to Byers to be a Confederate colonel's hat. Sutherland said he would have to kill, or arrange to have killed, Dr. Martin Luther King. Byers, who told the committee he did not know at the time who Dr.
King was, asked where that amount of money would come from. Sutherland told him he belonged to a secret southern organization that had plenty of money. According to Byers, no names were mentioned. Byers said he neither accepted nor rejected the offer, indicating he would think it over. Outside the door of Sutherland's home, however, he told Kauffmann he was not, interested. Byers indicated he feared he would end up murdered or in the penitentiary if he got involved in drugs.
Louis FBI field office, so there had been no official investigation of the information it contained. The FBI conducted interviews in with the two former special agents, since retired, who had handled the informant. It was determined that the failure to follow up on the information resulted from inadvertence on the part of the agents who stated, in retrospect, that they should have acted on the lead.
The current leadership of the Bureau is to be commended for creating a climate within the Bureau where an informant report of this character could be forwarded to a congressional committee rather than ignored or destroyed.
In light of her conviction on drug charges in , Mrs. Kauffmann's testimony was regarded with some skepticism by the committee. She confirmed that her late husband and Sutherland had been business associates and Wallace supporters.
She also recalled that Kauffmann had taken Byers to Sutherland's home on one occasion but that Sutherland was not home. To determine if Byers' story was credible, the committee initiated a full-scale investigation of Byers, Kauffmann, and Sutherland. Dozens of associates of each were interviewed or deposed, and several were called to testify in executive session.
In addition, files of local, State and Federal agencies were reviewed. Although the investigation was hampered by the death of many of the principals, the committee uncovered enough evidence to be convinced that the Byers allegation was essentially truthful. There was in existence, in or , a St. Louis conspiracy actively soliciting the assassination of Dr.
The committee found that Byers was a logical target for solicitation in such a conspiracy, even though he testified that he did not know why Kauffmann would have approached him. More specifically, his brother-in-law, John Paul Spica, had been convicted of the contract murder of a St. Louis businessman. Nevertheless, the committee sought further corroboration for Byers' account, realizing that his criminal record raised substantial doubts concerning his credibility.
Byers himself explained that he had not wanted to get involved in any way or attract attention to his criminal activities. According to Byers, Weenick was told in Byers had two conversations with Randall, one in and the other in Byers waived his attorney-client privilege with Weenick and Randall, and they were interviewed by the committee. The two attorneys were then subpoenaed to appear at a committee public hearing. Martin Luther King and that Byers gave him the impression that, while the offer was seriously made, he Byers never took it seriously.
Weenick was pressed by the committee on his assessment of Byers' credibility. He replied:. Byers had absolutely no reason to tell me this at the time he told it to me, or any other time.
Whether he made it up or not, I don't know. There was--there seems to be no credible reason why he would have made it up and told it to me and to Mr. Randall, and evidently to this other person who was an FBI informant I can't say for certain that he is not lying, but I certainly don't know what his motive would be for doing so.
Louis, learned he might be subpoenaed to tes-. He complained to staff counsel, committee investigators. To support his position about the value of his testimony, he raised--for the first time with the committee-- doubts he said he had about Byers' credibility. He offered the speculation that Byers might have concocted the story in and told it to a person he suspected of being an FBI informant to test his suspicion.
According to Randall's theory, if the FBI subsequently contacted Byers about the King assassination, he would have his suspicions about the informant confirmed. Nevertheless, Randall was called to testify, as was Weenick, at a public hearing on November 29, He next saw him when he assisted him in incorporating a business in He then stated to the committee that he had run into Byers at the courthouse in , shortly before he left private practice to take the bench.
Byers asked his advice on the procedures for claiming immunity in a grand Jury investigation, saying he thought he might be questioned by Federal authorities about his knowledge of a plot to assassinate Dr. Byers then told Randall a story that reflected in essential details Byers' testimony before the committee and the story Byers told Weenick.
During his committee testimony. Randall said he did not remember that Byers had told him of the King offer prior to the meeting. The committee accepted the basic outlines of Judge Randall's testimony. Indeed, he added valuable detail to the story told by Byers. As such, his testimony contributed to the work of the committee.
Nevertheless, the committee found that Judge Randall's memory that only one conversation took place was in error.
The committee also rejected Randall's speculation about Byers' possible effort to unmask an FBI informant. It believed that the theory was offered to undermine the witness' own testimony in order to discourage the committee from compelling his public appearance.
Byers was a relatively sophisticated and experienced criminal and he would have known such a ploy would not work. It would only have served to expose him to an FBI investigation that he, with a long history of dealing in stolen property, would have wanted to avoid. The very significance of his information would have subjected him to increased scrutiny. The committee's chief investigator testified that, based on his experience, Byers' more likely course of action would have been to dis-.
Byers also recalled a discussion with Randall about the offer for the assassination of Dr. Louis police detective who told the committee that a St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter had been looking into a rumor in or or Byers' involvement with a patent attorney in the King assassination. The committee agreed with Weenick's testimony that Byers had no motive to lie about the offer.
Unlike many sources of King death threats, who have fabricated information for publicity, Byers' conduct since has demonstrated a consistent unwillingness to get involved in the investigation of the King assassination.
He did not volunteer his information to the committee; he refused to cooperate until he was subpoenaed and granted immunity. The committee's conclusion that Byers' testimony of a serious conspiracy to kill Dr.
King in the St. Louis area was essentially truthful was independently substantiated by the sworn testimony of an unpaid informant for the Jefferson County, Mo, sheriff's office in and This witness spent 3 years thereafter with a State police agency. He requested anonymity, since he was concerned that his failure to take more vigorous action in with the information might damage his reputation, destroy his marriage, and injure his career in private industry.
As a sheriff's office informant, witness A spent much time at the Buff Acres, the motel operated by Kauffmann in Imperial, Mo. He had been asked to investigate numerous individuals who frequented the motel. He testified that Kauffmann was accepting stolen property in exchange for room rent, running a prostitution ring out of the motel and dealing in drugs.
He then recounted conversation he had heard at the motel regarding a standing offer to murder Dr. First, it provided a source of funds that could explain the involvement of a financially motivated criminal such as Ray. In either case, he would have been interested in a new source of income at about the time of the assassination. When interviewed by the committee, Lt.
Wally Ganzman said he could not recall the incident, but he did not deny that it occurred. The second officer had since died. Second, the Sutherland-Kauffmann conspiracy was located in the St.
The principals lived there, and the offers were made thereboth Sutherland's offer to Byers and the standing offer at Kauffmann's motel.
James Earl Ray visited St. Louis at least twice during his fugitive period, and his brother John was a permanent resident. Given the circulation of the offer among the area's criminal elements, at least at the Buff Acres Motel, it seemed entirely possible that word of the offer might reach the Ray family. John Kauffmann was born April 7, , and died April 1, Louis resident, involved in a variety of business activities, including the manufacture of gliders and real estate development.
His widow, Beulah, still lived there in Kauffmann's criminal record disclosed that he was arrested and convicted for the manufacture and sale of amphetamines in Through the company, he was ordering amphetamine sulfate powder in bulk and making amphetamine pills from the powder.
Kauffmann sold an estimated 1 million pills illegally to undercover Federal agents in Testimony given at Kauffmann's narcotics trial revealed a link between his illegal drug operation and the Missouri State Penitentiary where James Earl Ray was incarcerated until his escape in April of During an interview with the committee, one of Kauffmann's codefendants disclosed that Kauffmann had arranged for an additional delivery to the Missouri State Penitentiary on the day of his arrest.
Kauffmann's criminal record did not reflect a conviction for any crimes of violence. Nevertheless, the committee learned that a Federal narcotics agent was ambushed and shot just after talking to an informant about Kauffmann. This incident occurred shortly after Kauffmann's arrest, but following disclosure that the victim was a Federal agent who had worked undercover on the Kauffmann case. In addition, while the committee was unable to obtain information that would provide substantial details on Kauffmann's political attitudes, it did establish that he was associated with John Sutherland in efforts to establish an American Party chapter in the St.
Louis area in Examination of numerous American Party petitions filed with the Missouri Secretary of State for the Presidential election showed Kauffmann's signature as either circulating officer or as notary public. John Sutherland, a descendant of early colonists, was born in Charlottesville, Va. He died in Louis, , and a master of laws degree from Benton College of Law. He held a commission in the U. Army Reserve from to , though he apparently never served on active duty.
He was married in to Anna Lee of Atlanta. Sutherland practiced patent law in St. He was a lifelong resident of the St. Louis area and had no criminal record. A number of associates of Sutherland were interviewed by the committee. One characterized him as a "die-hard southerner" who "never let the Civil War die. Sutherland belonged to a number of social and professional organizations, and he was active politically throughout his adult life. A segregationist or anticivil rights strain was apparent in many of these organizations.
For example, information obtained from FBI St. Louis field office files indicated that Sutherland was the founder and chairman of the steering committee of the first St. Louis Citizens' Council in Available information indicated that Sutherland withdrew from an active leadership role in the citizens' council after the first year of its existence. Louis organization in , stated during a committee interview that, to his knowledge, Sutherland had ceased formal ties with the citizens council prior to The SSIC was an organization of businessmen and industrial leaders, and its policies as of reflected opposition to the civil rights movement, and a suspicion of Communist infiltration of the "Negro movement.
She also confirmed that her husband's den was decorated with Confederate paraphernalia, including a Confederate flag. She volunteered that Sutherland had been an active member of the Southern States Industrial Council and at one time had inquired into possible membership in the National States Rights Party. Sutherland said John Kauffmann had not been a close associate of her husband, and she disclaimed any knowledge of an offer to kill Dr.
King or a discussion of such an offer. While Sensing called it a "senseless, tragic crime" and recommended that the killer " King and those associated with him. King to account for his attitude toward civil disobedience, Sensing speculated that the assassin, " I realize there is a law against murder, but in this case, I think the law was unjust. The committee was unable to identify the secret southern organization to which Sutherland referred as the source of payment when he allegedly made the offer to Byers.
It did, however, establish that he belonged to at least two organizations with extreme segregationist leanings, 62 and it developed evidence of pronounced racial bias in Sutherland himself. Based on this background investigation, the committee concluded that the two principals, Sutherland and Kauffmann, met the criteria being serious conspirators:. They had the motive, i. They actively sought the opportunity to carry out a plot, as evidenced at least by their solicitation of Byers.
The committee turned finally to an examination of the possibility that the Sutherland-Kauffmann offer might have reached James Earl Ray. Four possible connectives were explored. The committee determined that Spica was convicted and imprisoned in for the contract murder of a St. Missouri State Penitentiary records showed that he was incarcerated from to and that for at least part of that time he occupied a cell in the same cell block and same tier of the prison as Ray.
In executive session testimony before the committee, Spica acknowledged that he was acquainted with Ray, but he denied close contact with him. It was the target of protest by St. Louis civil rights organizations for its restricted membership policies. Consistent with its duty to be cautious in its evaluation of the evidence, the committee acknowledged that none of the four connectives could be firmly established. Byers testified during public hearings that he visited Spica regularly 64 until his conviction, in December , on a Dyer Act charge interstate transportation of stolen automobiles.
Nevertheless, he stated emphatically that he did not discuss the Sutherland-Kauffmann offer with him. In light of Spica's incarceration at Missouri State Penitentiary until , his only potential role in the assassination might have been as a conduit of information between Byers and Ray.
The committee found no evidence to contradict the denials of both Spica and Byers that the Sutherland-Kauffmann offer was discussed prior to the assassination. Finally, the committee believed that active planning for the assassination of Dr. King did not begin until early March , a period when Ray had discussions with California associates about his plans to travel east.
Thus, if Ray did receive word of the Kauffmann-Sutherland plot while still in Missouri State Penitentiary, it would have to be assumed that Ray stored it away for later consideration. The second possible connective developed by the committee was Dr. Hugh Maxey, a medical officer at the Missouri State Penitentiary. Committee interviews with relatives and associates of John Kauffmann indicated that Kauffmann and Maxey were associated for several years.
Kauffmann characterized it as a purely social relationship, one that lasted from the early 's until Kauffmann was sent to Federal prison for the sale of amphetamines. The committee looked into other reasons for an association between Maxey and Kauffmann. It was learned, for example, that Maxey assisted Kauffmann in obtaining the services of parolees in work release programs. An examination of prison records established that Maxey had contact with James Earl Ray at the prison and, further, that Ray pushed a food cart in the prison hospital on occasion.
Maxey, who was over 80 and of failing health when he was interviewed by the committee, denied his own involvement in illegal drug distribution. He characterized his relationship with Kauffmann as social and declined to discuss the association further.
Finally, Maxey stated that he had contact with James Earl Ray only as a patient. He denied any knowledge of an offer to kill Dr. King circulating at the prison during his employment there.
The committee's investigation did not substantiate a Maxey connective. The committee was unable to establish firmly any criminal ac-. Prison authorities informed the committee that visiting records for the pertinent period were missing from Spica's file. In addition, while the opportunity existed for extensive contact between Ray and Maxey, there was no evidence that any relationship developed beyond that of doctor and patient. The third connective explored by the committee was Naomi Regazzi, an employee of the Grapevine Tavern when it was operated by John Ray in Byers told the committee that he was acquainted with a St.
Louis resident named Robert Regazzi and that Regazzi and Spica also knew each other. The significance of this was amplified by the fact that Naomi Regazzi, a former wife of Robert, was a bartender at the Grapevine Tavern in St.
Louis from January to July In an attempt to substantiate this connective, the committee heard testimony from a number of people. Byers stated that to the best of his recollection, he did not discuss the offer with Regazzi. Spica further stated that he had had no knowledge of an offer to kill Dr.
King, thus making it impossible for him to have passed the offer to Regazzi. Regazzi, in an interview with the committee, claimed that he had no knowledge of events leading to the King assassination.
He said he had been separated from Naomi during the period of her employment at the Grapevine, so he could not have communicated an offer to her, had he known about it. Finally, the committee subpoenaed Naomi Regazzi to testify under oath in executive session.
She confirmed her employment at the Grapevine between January 1, , and July She recalled seeing her ex-husband during this period only when he wanted to see their son. She stated that he was never in the Grapevine itself.
King at the Grapevine. She added that she discussed Dr. King with John Ray only after the assassination. While Naomi Regazzi, who had become Naomi Denny could have brought information concerning the offer on Dr. King's life to John Ray's tavern, the committee found no evidence that she, in fact, did. Denny was separated from Robert Regazzi as of or , and her relationship with him afterwards was limited to his visits to see their son.
In addition, Byers did not recall telling Regazzi of the offer, and both Regazzi and his former wife denied having heard of it. The committee noted that an examination of Mrs. Denny's testimony indicated that she was not always candid.
The connective remained unsubstantiated. Wallace for the Presidency in the late months of and early months of Former associates of Sutherland reported that his strong support of the American Party was based in large degree on the party's conservative position on civil rights.
The committee also learned that considerable support for the American Party campaign was drawn from the White Citizens Council in St. Louis, an organization dedicated to racial separation. As has been noted, Sutherland was a member of the council. John Ray was apparently active in the American Party campaign. His support for Wallace was reflected in an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:. John Ray said he last saw his brother at the prison.
John Ray's Grapevine Tavern was a distribution point for American Party campaign literature, as the committee's investigation developed from sources including his brother, Jerry.
Further, James' persistent denials of his AIP activity, despite clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, 66 necessarily raised the additional question: What, beyond the activity itself, was he trying to conceal? Ray's concern about his AIP activities was best reflected in his curious sensitivity about one of the proposed "stipulations of fact" that he was asked to sign as part of the proceedings leading to his guilty plea in March Ray, through his attorney, Percy Foreman, deleted the reference to Wallace headquarters.
No other stipulations in the paragraph document were altered. James Earl Ray testimony, Aug.. John Ray's interest in AIP politics also seemed out of character, since he apparently had never evidenced it before or and since, as a convicted felon, he was not able to vote.
For this reason, and because of demonstrated ties between both Sutherland and Kauffmann and the AIP, the committee's investigation was focused on this connection. It was determined that a significant amount of AIP campaign activity occurred in the neighborhood of the Grapevine Tavern. Louis Citizens Council and the American Party. Louis area and a likely place for John Ray to have acquired his Wallace campaign paraphernalia The committee also closely examined Glen Shrum, since deceased, a close friend of Viola Anderson and one who was instrumental in American Party organization in the Third Congressional District, the district in which John Ray's tavern was located.
Shrum was described to the committee as an activist member of radical right-wing organizations, such as John Birch Society and the Minutemen.
The committee contacted several American Party and White Citizens' Council members, who said that several informal meetings were held in the neighborhood in which Ray's tavern was located during the campaign.
Reportedly, Shrum attended many of them. Ultimately, however, the committee's investigation of the St. Louis conspiracy proved frustrating. Only circumstantial evidence was developed. Direct evidence that would connect the conspiracy in St. Martin Luther King, Jr. An hour later, he was declared dead. For nearly 50 years, the federal government has maintained that James Earl Ray was the gunman who assassinated King that day.
FBI investigators at the time traced the shot to a rooming house across the street, and witnesses directed them to a large bundle dropped on the sidewalk after the shooting. It contained a pair of binoculars, a newspaper with a story about King staying at the Lorraine Motel, and a.
All three bore the fingerprints of an escaped convict named James Earl Ray. An international manhunt led to his capture in June at Heathrow Airport in London, where he was caught carrying two fake Canadian passports.
0コメント