1. In this report, we use the spelling Raoul to refer to Ray's alleged accomplice, except when specifically mentioning either the accused man from New York or the entries on the Wilson documents.
2. With the exception of newspaper articles reporting Wilson's account, no evidence relevant to Wilson's allegations was presented in King v. Jowers.
3. Attorneys Barry Kowalski, Lisa J. Stark, and Seth Rosenthal are from the Civil Rights Division and attorney Jerry Massie is from the Criminal Division. They were assisted by Inspector Yvonne Bonner, Special Agent Brad Farnsworth, and Inspector R. Nolan Carwell, from the United States Marshals Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the United States Postal Service, respectively.
4. The Attorney General and the Director of the FBI recused the FBI from participating in the investigation because it has been accused of involvement in the assassination.
5. We focused particularly on two recent books that discuss, among other things, the Jowers allegations -- Dr. Pepper's Orders to Kill and Gerald Posner's Killing the Dream.
6. A number of witnesses are now deceased. We confirmed their deaths by death certificates or social security records. However, we located almost all relevant living witnesses. Those who are deceased or could not be located are identified in the text below.
7. The state statute of limitations on murder has not tolled. However, our investigation was conducted independent of the Shelby County District Attorney General.
8. Jowers' comments about customers in the grill on the day of the assassination have not been as consistent. The day after the shooting, Jowers alerted the Memphis police to a stranger who he thought had been at the grill the day before. The police detained, questioned, and eventually released the man. According to Dr. Pepper, many years later Jowers claimed the same man was someone else with alleged CIA connections. In another interview around the time of the assassination, Jowers asserted that a different stranger, who introduced himself as "Jesse Jackson," was in the tavern the night of the assassination. The name Jackson does not appear on the list of persons in the grill compiled by the police within minutes of the assassination. In 1969, Jowers told defense investigators that the man was instead Jim Sanders, who had become a regular patron after the assassination.
9. While Jowers made no public report indicating he possessed additional information bearing on the assassination until 1993, two of his friends in the taxi cab business have claimed that in the 1970s he made ambiguous comments suggesting things to come. During King v. Jowers, James Milner testified that Jowers told him that Ray was not responsible for the murder and that "law enforcement officers done [sic] it * * * you can take that to the bank." Another cab driver friend of Jowers, James Isabel, testified that while drinking together, he asked Jowers, "did you drop the hammer on Martin Luther King?" According to Isabel, Jowers responded, "you think you know I did. I know what I did, but I'll never admit it or tell it in a court of law."
10. Liberto had been accused of involvement in the King assassination by an individual who came to the FBI days after the murder. See Section IV.D.2.a.(2)(a) below. Although we generally do not name individuals against whom unfounded accusations have been made, we do with Liberto because both the House Select Committee on Assassinations and the11. We were not able to review the amended answer in King v. Jowers. The clerk's office advised that the trial judge took the unusual action of sealing the docket after the trial.
12. Similarly, Jowers repudiated his conspiracy allegations in his original court-filed answers in Ray v. Jowers and King v. Jowers. In these answers, filed in October 1994 and October 1998, Jowers denied the truth of virtually every allegation he had ever made about the purported plot to assassinate Dr. King. As to his claims about obtaining money, he expressly denied that he received money from Liberto, was paid money to hire an assassin, and gave money to Raoul. As to his claims about the murder weapon, he denied that he received it from Raoul before the shooting. He also denied that after the shooting, he obtained the rifle from the assassin, hid it in the grill, and gave it to Raoul or another person. Jowers reportedly amended his original answer in King v. Jowers. According to the clerk's office, the court docket is sealed.
13. Because we do not credit Jowers' inconsistent allegations, we refer to the two assassins he has named as the "Man on South Main Street" and the "Lieutenant," respectively.
14. In Jowers' October 1997 meeting with Dexter King, Dr. Pepper was present. Ambassador Andrew Young was present for the March 1998 meeting. We obtained and reviewed an audio tape recording of the 1998 interview from Dr. Pepper. However, Garrison refused to provide a copy of a video tape recording of the 1997 interview.
15. During closing argument in King v. Jowers, Dr. Pepper relied on the testimony of another cab driver, William Hamblin, to explain the disposal of the rifle. Hamblin testified that his and Jowers' mutual friend, James McCraw, also a taxicab driver, said thathe tossed the rifle into the river after receiving it from Jowers. See Section IV.D.1.c. below.
17. Although Jowers and/or Garrison named the "Undercover Officer," the "TACT Inspector," the "Homicide Inspector," and the "Former Partner," we do not do so, because we do not credit the allegations.
18. As previously discussed, Jowers has also alleged the involvement of another co-conspirator, whom he has referred to as "Hardin," "Royal," or "Raoul." He reportedly identified this co-conspirator in a photo array presented to him sometime after 1993. James Earl Ray and another witness also identified the same individual. See Section VI.C. below regarding the reliability of the array. Allegations regarding Raoul are discussed further in Section VI below.
19. Jowers has not been consistent or clear about when or from whom he received this instruction. He has alternately claimed that both Liberto and the man he knew as "Hardin" or "Raoul" told him to be at the backdoor at 6:00 p.m. Additionally, when he made his now abandoned claim about hiring a hit man, he said he told the hit man to meet behind Jim's Grill between 4:30 and 5:00, not at 6:00 p.m. See Section IV.C.2. above for discussion of Jowers' contradictory statements.
20. During our investigation, Dr. Pepper and Dexter King advised our attorneys that they suspected that two African American ministers, close associates of Dr. King, were involved in the assassination. They claimed that one of the ministersmay have lured Dr. King to the balcony, while the other -- possibly to diminish Dr. King's protection -- evicted a group of young African American activists, known as the Invaders, from the Lorraine just before the assassination. Evidence related to these accusations was subsequently presented at the trial of King v. Jowers. For the reasons discussed in Section VII below, we find these allegations do not warrant further inquiry.
21. Spates made the sworn statement after a tape-recorded interview by investigators. The information Spates provided in the sworn and tape-recorded statements is consistent.
22. Any suggestion that the police omitted Spates' name because of an alleged practice of ignoring African American witnesses seems implausible, since the list contained the name of the "Man on South Main Street," who was African American.
23. Both Saltman and Dr. Pepper in 1993 and 1995, respectively, reported that Jowers made statements to the contrary.
24. Reverend James Orange, one of Dr. King's associates who was in the parking area at the time of the shooting, has reported that he saw a puff of smoke in the brush near the fire station after he had heard the shot. He came forward with his account for the first time during preparations for the HBO mock trial. No one else has ever confirmed such an observation. Additionally, because there were no footprints in the muddy area where Orange claimed to have seen the smoke, the observation, even if accurate, does not suggest the presence of an assassin at that location.
25. Caldwell also specifically recalls that he did not mention seeing a figure in the bushes either to his New York Times editor or later to author Gerald Frank. Frank interviewed Caldwell for his 1972 book about Dr. King's assassination, An American Death, and included Caldwell's account, which made no reference to a figure in the bushes.
26. A somewhat related issue involves speculation over the years that a second white Mustang was on South Main Street at the time of the assassination. At his guilty plea, James Earl Ray admitted that he parked his white Mustang on South Main Street and drove it away after he shot Dr. King. In the years following, Ray made completely contradictory statements about when he left South Main Street in the Mustang. Ray's defenders, relying on several eyewitnesses who reported seeing a white Mustang parked or driven on South Main Street at various estimated times, have contended that two white Mustangs must have been part of the plot to frame Ray. We found no reliable evidence during our investigation, in our review of the evidence in King v. Jowers, or in the historical record to support speculation that an alleged second Mustang was connected to the assassination.
27. The HSCA attempted to determine the origin of the shot that killed Dr. King. It hired an engineering firm to conduct measurements, review eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence, and consult with its medical panel that examined, among other things, the bullet's path through Dr. King's body. The firm found that the "most probable location of the assassin" was the rooming house bathroom. It could not, however, exclude the possibility that the shot came from behind Jim's Grill. Thus, according to the firm's analysis, it was physically possible that the shot was fired from either the bathroom window or the backyard area.
28. Canipe told defense investigators in 1969 that the police responded to South Main Street ten minutes after the bundle was dropped. He told Department of Justice investigators in 1976 that police arrived "within minutes." While providing no written record of an interview with Canipe nor having any recollection that he personally interviewed him, one of Ray's first attorneys, Arthur Hanes, Jr., advised us and testified in King v. Jowers that he now recalls that Canipe said that the bundle was dropped ten minutes before the shooting. Hanes' current recollection is inconsistent with Canipe's recorded statement to defense investigators in 1969, as well as his other recorded statements. Moreover, since Canipe never claimed to have heard the shot, it is unclear how he could have related the time the bundle was dropped to the time of the shooting. Because Canipe is dead, this ambiguity cannot be resolved.
29. Three of Jowers' close friends have supported his claim that he hid a rifle in Jim's Grill after the shooting. Betty Spates (see Section IV.D.1.a.(3) above) and James McCraw (see this section below) claim they saw Jowers concealing a rifle under the counter of the bar. James Milner, a friend and former cab driver, remembers that Jowers told him he hid the rifle but was unsure whether Jowers said that he hid it "under a cupboard," "under the shelf," or "somewhere back in the kitchen." See Section IV.F.2. below.
30. Private investigator Kenneth Herman has claimed that Jowers also told one of Spates' sisters, Bobbie Balfour, that he found the gun "used to kill King" behind Jim's Grill. Balfour, however, repudiated what Herman attributed to her. Balfour testified in King v. Jowers that Jowers told her the day after the assassination that the police -- not Jowers -- had found a gun. Her recollection was that Jowers said they found the gun "in the backyard," rather than on the sidewalk in front of Canipe's. Balfour would not speak with our investigation.
31. Like McCraw's other accounts, his information regarding the "Lieutenant" evolved. A month before the deposition, McCraw told Dr. Pepper that at around 6:20 p.m. on the night of the assassination, he saw the "Lieutenant" emerge from a building on South Main Street. This statement directly contradicts what he said in his subsequent deposition, in which he testified that he did not see the "Lieutenant" on the night of the assassination and that a police blockade prevented him from returning to South Main Street after his encounter with Stephens. Similarly, McCraw earlier contradicted his claim about hearing the "Lieutenant" announce an intent to kill Dr. King. In preparation for a 1992 BBC news magazine show about the assassination, McCraw mentioned the supposed threat but advised that he did not remember the name of the person who made it.
32. As a case in point, one of the individuals in Jim's Grill at the time of the assassination told us that about an hour before the shooting, an elderly, white woman entered his place of employment and said "someone ought to kill the son of a bitch [Dr. King]." The patron said he heard at least a dozen similar comments during the sanitation workers' strike, which dramatically increased racial tensions in Memphis.
33. In his many narratives, Ray never claimed to have been in the Memphis area between his April 1967 prison escape and the assassination. The historical record, which is replete with documented evidence of Ray's whereabouts as a fugitive, also shows that Ray was never in the Memphis area when McFerren alleges he was.
34. Whitlock never approached law enforcement officials before the HBO mock trial with his information about Liberto, notwithstanding his claim that he had close relationships with them. Whitlock also told us that the only person he told about Liberto's alleged admission prior to 1993 was his former roommate, Marshall Law. When we interviewed Law, he recalled that on several occasions, Whitlock pointed out a man at the pizza parlor and said the man was taking credit for killing Dr. King. Law's report contradicts Whitlock's contention that he never saw Liberto after Liberto's purported admission.
35. At the HSCA hearing, Redditt testified under oath that he was part of the surveillance team. Nonetheless, prior to his testimony, he incorrectly claimed that he was actually part of Dr. King's security detail. The HSCA consequently criticized Redditt for initially misleading the public about his assignment.
36. The HSCA ultimately discovered that the threat was directed at an African American sergeant in Knoxville. At the time the threat was reported, however, the Senate staffer thought that Redditt was the target and conveyed his mistaken belief to the Memphis police. The Intelligence Unit ultimately learned of the mistake around 4:15 p.m., but by that time, Redditt had already been removed from the fire station. The leadership of the Department told the HSCA that they did not learn of the mistake prior to making the decision to remove Redditt.
37. Putting aside whether the police were conspirators, there is also nothing to suggest that someone else made threats against Redditt to facilitate the assassination by having him removed. For instance, the two threats Redditt received directly -- one at the airport and another, via telephone, at the fire station -- appear to have come from persons who were sympathetic to the sanitation workers, loyal to Dr. King, and angry at Redditt for "spying." As for the threat inaccurately reported by Manuel, the HSCA found no evidence to suggest that it was made or reported to the police to facilitate the assassination. In fact, as it turned out, the threat was not even directed at Redditt.
38. The genesis of the report was Redditt's experience at Mason Temple on the evening of April 3, 1968. After he observed Newsum talking to Reverend Blackburn, Blackburn approached him and said that it was known that he was spying from the fire station.
39. As previously indicated, Jowers named each individual. Because we do not credit his allegation, we do not name any of them in this report.
40. Lowe, who investigated the activities of groups considered subversive by the FBI, told us that he and his partner followed the activities of one such group, the Invaders, who were at the Lorraine during Dr. King's stay. Because of the FBI's interest in the Invaders, as well as in Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Lowe monitored activities at the motel on April 3 and 4, 1968. In connection with the assignment, he arranged meetings with uniformed officers who patrolled the area. During one interview, Lowe recalled meeting with uniformed officers in Jim's Grill and another nearby tavern, both convenient places to talk away from the activity at Fire Station No. 2. Subsequently, he recalled such meetings only occurred at the fire station.
41. Lowe speculated that the "Undercover Officer's" superior, Lieutenant Arkin, might have met with him in Jim's Grill near the time of the assassination. Lowe said that he made this assumption because Jim's Grill was a convenient place to meet near the Lorraine at that time. Arkin, however, told us he never met the "Undercover Officer" in such a public place, although he acknowledged that the two otherwise met regularly. Additionally, as related in detail below, the "Undercover Officer" stated under oath that he was never in Jim's Grill.
42. In 1974, after several more years with the Memphis Police Department, the "Undercover Officer" was hired by the CIA. He still works there and has had a successful career. Our examination of CIA records relating to the CIA's recruitment of the "Undercover Officer" demonstrated no connection between him and the CIA before that time.
43. These results were obtained from the third in a series of polygraph examinations. The first two examinations in the series did not present specific questions like the third. Instead, they presented a total of four, almost identical, general questions about the truthfulness and accuracy of a written statement, prepared by the "Undercover Officer" before the examination, which contained denials of Jowers' allegations and a number of different factual assertions. The "Undercover Officer's" responses to these four general questions about the written statement were evaluated as inconclusive and, in one case, deceptive. Because of these inconsistent, indeterminate results, the polygraphers decided to ask narrowly-tailored, specific questions in the final examination.
44. Police witnesses we interviewed claim that the Memphis police had portable radios (walkie-talkies) in 1968, notwithstanding a contrary, unsubstantiated assertion by the lawyer questioning the ex-wife at trial.
45. In yet another belated effort to bolster Jowers' claims and Ray's defense, James McCraw tried to undermine the "Lieutenant's" alibi. In a June 1995 deposition, he testified that he picked up the "Lieutenant's" ex-wife in his cab at approximately 8:00 p.m. on the night of the assassination. The ex-wife denies the claim, explaining she had her own car at the time and never took taxis. Moreover, as discussed in detail above, McCraw's ever-expanding claims about the assassination -- this one included -- render him an entirely unreliable witness. Finally, even if McCraw's suspect testimony were true, it is not inconsistent with and does not undermine the alibi, since it allegedly accounts for the ex-wife's whereabouts two hours after the assassination.
46. In an effort to search for evidence that might corroborate Jowers' allegations or provide new leads relevant to the assassination, we attempted, utilizing current technology, to identify latent fingerprints from the evidence collected during the 1968 murder investigation. Hundreds of latent prints retrieved from a large number of different locations were never matched to any particular person. Since the 1960s, however, technological advancements have made it possible to compare latent fingerprints against computer data bases called Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS), containing the known fingerprints of millions of people. At our request, the USSS, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, and the FBI laboratories used their respective AFIS data bases to attempt to match usable, previously unidentified latent fingerprints. This effort did not produce anything to corroborate Jowers' allegations or present any viable new leads.
47. It is standard procedure for the government to obtain a proffer before granting someone immunity from prosecution. The proffer, a detailed account of the relevant facts from the person seeking immunity, is evaluated by the prosecutor to determine whether immunity is warranted. A complete and truthful proffer is always a prerequisite to any immunity grant. To allow the prosecutor an opportunity to consider the proffer without adverse consequence to the person seeking immunity, the government promises it will not use the proffer itself in any criminal prosecution. Hence, "use" immunity is extended for the proffer regardless of whether the government ultimately grants complete immunity from prosecution.
48. Sometime in 1997, Wilson contacted the King Center in Atlanta and reported that he had information relevant to the assassination. He was referred to Dr. Pepper, who was then representing James Earl Ray. Dr. Pepper and Wilson met and discussed the documents. Dr. Pepper advised that they could be useful to Ray's defense should he be granted a new trial and thus requested that Wilson not divulge their existence. Wilson complied and made no effort to contact any government authorities about the documents. By March 1998, when Dr. Pepper determined that it was unlikely that Ray would obtain a trial, Wilson, following Dr. Pepper's advice and with the help of Dr. King's son and Ambassador Young, met with District Attorney Howard.
49. An FBI spokesperson, as well as retired FBI agents and officials, publicly questioned whether Wilson's claims were true. Specifically, they commented that Wilson's name did not appear on FBI records related to the discovery of Ray's car, that the agents who conducted the search did not recall Wilson, and that Wilson's allegation, if true, revealed conduct that may constitute obstruction of justice.
50. As noted in Section III, the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI decided to recuse the FBI from our investigation because of allegations relating to its involvement in the assassination.
51. Since public disclosure of the documents in March 1998, Wilson had refused to release the documents to the Department of Justice. Because of uncertainties relating to the meeting, the investigative team took two cautionary measures. First, to ensure that the documents were not destroyed or removed from the bank, where we believed them to be, we posted a United States Marshal in the parking lot on the morning of our meeting. Moreover, in case Wilson refused to release the documents, as he did, we prepared an affidavit in support of a search warrant for Wilson's safe deposit box.
52. We are aware that any reliance upon FBI records may be questioned because Wilson has made the allegation that he found the FBI Atlanta field office telephone number among the papers in the Mustang. The records relating to the discovery and search of the Mustang, however, were written three decades before Wilson revealed his allegations. According to Wilson, no one was aware of his documents until 1997. Consequently, the FBI could not have knowingly designed its records in 1968 to distort facts relevant to Wilson's belated allegations.
53. The recollection of one witness, who was 13 years old in 1968, differs from that of everyone else. He told us that the Mustang's two doors, trunk, and possibly hood were all wide open. Not only did no one else recall this, but because law enforcement did not have keys to the car at the scene, it is unlikely they could have opened the trunk without damaging it. In addition, if the doors, trunk, and hood had been opened, it is likely that the car would have been photographed as such. The only photographs we found depicting the Mustang opened were taken later, after it was towed to a garage where it was opened and searched. Moreover, even assuming that this teenager's account is accurate, it fails to support Wilson's claim that a door was ajar.
54. The photographs depict several FBI agents on the scene. Wilson said he believes that he arrived when only one or two FBI agents were present. Moreover, one of the Atlanta detectives pictured in the photographs relieved the detectives who originally opened the driver-side door. Consequently, the only documented opening of a door had to have occurred hours before the photographs were taken.
55. This is the same young boy who recalled the Mustang's doors, hood, and possibly trunk open. See footnote 53. He remembers witnessing a dispute between two groups of law enforcement officers, all in plainclothes, about whether the already-opened car should have been opened in the first place. Even if this isolated account -- which is at odds with the recollection of all the other witnesses -- is accurate, it does not support Wilson's claim that he saw uniformed officers arguing before the car door was opened.
56. These three accounts appear questionable. The FBI supervisor, now in his 80s, also recalled that he found the Mustang by chance before the Atlanta police were called to the scene. This is inaccurate. Similarly, the two pre-teen witnesses inaccurately recall seeing a rifle in the Mustang's back seat. One of the girls admitted that her recollection may have been influenced by what others had suggested about the condition of the car. In fact, one witness confirmed that there were boys who had told some girls that there was a rifle in the car to scare them. In any event, other than the uncorroborated account of these youthful witnesses, there is no evidence to suggest a rifle was in the car.
57. The physical evidence related to the King assassination has been maintained by the Shelby County Clerk's office since it was assembled for the 1969 prosecution of James Earl Ray. An evidence canister there, containing one cigarette filter and a small amount of tobacco, is labeled "Debris removed from ashtray of 1966 White Mustang." The FBI laboratory number attached to the evidence, however, corresponds to the contents of an unrelated ashtray.
58. In the 1960s, surreptitious, unauthorized entries and searches by law enforcement were referred to as "black bag" jobs.
59. On November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the assassination of President Kennedy. Less than 48 hours later, Jack Ruby murdered Oswald. Immediately thereafter, Ruby was jailed until his death on January 3, 1967.
60. The USSS advised that they could not test the Wilson document because it was coated with a "resin type * * * preservative" that Wilson acknowledged he put on it.
61. The USSS's conclusion is based on empirical observation. When paper is torn a new edge is exposed. It is impossible to place a pencil marking on a newly exposed edge until after the paper has been torn and that new edge has been created. Because microscopic analysis revealed that the pencil dash (-) on the partial page from the telephone book extends onto the newly exposed edge, the USSS concluded that the pencil marking had to have been placed on the document after it was torn, not before.
62. Examination also established that the "Raul 214-" entry was not written at the same time as Jack Ruby's telephone number. We have no explanation of what, if anything, this suggests.
63. The notation "214-" appears to be an area code rather than the first three digits of a telephone number because in the 1960s telephone numbers in Dallas and many other locations began with letters, not numbers.
64. Wilson has claimed that among the documents he took from the Mustang that were later stolen from him was a business card of a Dallas, Texas gun dealer. He said he could not remember any details about the card. The "missing" card arguably suggests a connection between Ray, a Raul, and the Kennedy assassination because Ray claimed that a Raoul was a gun smuggler, that the card allegedly came from Ray's car, and that President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. However, since Wilson did not provide the card and claimed not to remember the name of the business or any other details about it, no investigative leads were presented.
65. In 1993, following the HBO mock trial, witness Glenda Grabow came forward and claimed that a man she knew 30 years before, when she was a teenager, admitted to assassinating both President Kennedy and Dr. King. She later allegedly identified a photograph of a New York state resident named Raul as the person she knew. Jowers and Ray identified the same photograph. See Section VI.C. below for a discussion of Grabow's allegations and the reasons why the Raul identified by Grabow, Ray, and Jowers could not have participated in the crime.
66. Our investigation reconsidered at least one potential lead that was also investigated by the HSCA. Delegate Walter Fauntroy, who served on the HSCA, suggested we consider the possibility that Allan Thompson, a manager at the St. Francis Hotel in Los Angeles, had spoken to Raoul when he took messages for Ray from someone who identified himself as Hardin. The HSCA was unable to locate Thompson, whom we have subsequently determined is deceased. We nonetheless spoke to a former FBI agent who originally investigated the Thompson allegation. He confirmed his report to the HSCA that Thompson was uncooperative and not a credible witness. The agent related that Thompson refused to identify a person he claimed had information about Hardin, withheld property Ray left at the St. Francis, apparently for his own personal gain, and provided nothing to support his unsubstantiated claim regarding the telephone messages. Accordingly, we found no evidence to suggest that Thompson's allegation is worthy of belief. In any event, even if true, there are no current leads as to Hardin's identity.
67. Grabow's accounts have been inconsistent. They nonetheless have included, at one time or another, the facts related here.
68. Because we ultimately conclude that the Raul from New York was not connected to the assassination, see Section VI. C.3.e. below, we do not reveal his last name. Rather, we refer to him by his first name, Raul.
69. Herman's credibility may be questionable since he has state and federal criminal convictions for mail fraud, possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, grand larceny, and passing bad checks.
70. According to Billings' testimony in King v. Jowers, Ray also claimed that he had seen the same photograph of Raul during the 1978 HSCA hearings, as had his then attorney, April Ferguson. Ferguson was not asked when she appeared as a witness during the trial whether she had seen the picture of Raul. However, when we interviewed her and showed her the photograph, she said she had not seen it before and could not recall being shown any photographs during the HSCA hearings. Accordingly, we found nothing to corroborate Billings' hearsay account of Ray's contention.
71. Ray has repeatedly claimed that he first met Raoul at the Neptune Tavern in Montreal, Canada in the middle of July 1967. Between August 8 and 18, 1967, Ray allegedly met with Raoul at the tavern at least five times. On August 21, 1967, Ray and Raoul allegedly smuggled contraband across the United States-Canadian border at Detroit. On August 28, 29, and 30, 1967, Ray supposedly met with Raoul at the Starlite Cafe in Birmingham, Alabama, to discuss Ray's purchasing a car. On October 7, 1967, Ray again allegedly met with Raoul in a motel in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico to smuggle contraband over the Mexican border. Sometime in mid-December, 1967, Ray purportedly met Raoul at the Le Bunny Lounge in New Orleans, Louisiana. On March 23 and 24, 1968, Ray allegedly met with Raoul at the Starlite Cafe and a rooming house in Birmingham and Atlanta, Georgia, respectively. Ray claims that on March 29, 1968, he went with Raoul from Atlanta to Birmingham to purchase the rifle later found on South Main Street after the assassination. Ray maintains that on April 3, 1968, he met with Raoul at the New Rebel Motel in Memphis, Tennessee and gave him the rifle. Finally, on April 4, 1968, the day of the assassination, Ray purportedly met Raoul several times in Memphis.
72. Grabow's story was presented in King v. Jowers through hearsay testimony by her husband, brother, John Billings, and Jack Saltman. None of these witnesses related Grabow's claim that Dago also killed President Kennedy and her alleged friend Jack Ruby, Oswald's assassin, was merely identified by the witnesses as "Jack." Nor were any of the contradictions or ambiguities in her various accounts resolved by any evidence presented during the trial.
73. Reported identifications of Raul's photograph by four other persons -- Grabow's husband, Grabow's younger brother, Sid Carthew, an English political extremist, and an anonymous source claiming to be a National Guardsman -- are of little significance. None of these purported witnesses provide first-hand information that connects the New York Raul to the assassination. Moreover, the reported identifications are themselves suspect. Grabow's husband, according to Billings' testimony in King v. Jowers, was initially unsure, when shown the photograph, whether it was the man he had known in Houston. Grabow's younger brother was only six or seven at the time he allegedly knew the same man, someone he remembered from Houston. Sid Carthew did not come forward until 1995 and more recently dramatically expanded his account. In his initial affidavit, he claimed that he met the New York Raul in the same Canadian bar in which, according to Ray, Raoul and Ray met. At that time, Carthew did not, however, allege that he saw Ray and the New York Raul together or anything else relevant to the assassination. In a deposition three weeks before the trial of King v. Jowers, Carthew added that he also talked to someone at the bar who resembled Ray and who was with Raoul. Finally, the journalist who showed the photograph to the purported former guardsman refused to reveal the individual's identity and told us that he did not find him credible.
74. For example, shortly after his arrest for the murder of Dr. King, Ray entered into a contractual arrangement with author William Bradford Huie to pay for his legal bills. Ray provided Huie with "The 20,000 Words," a detailed handwritten account of his activities for the nine months preceding and the two months following the assassination. In 1977, as part of the HSCA investigation, Ray was interviewed by staff investigators for several hours at a time on eight separate occasions about his activities during that same time frame. In addition, while incarcerated, Ray wrote a book entitled Who Killed Martin Luther King? The True Story by the Alleged Assassin, published in 1992.
75. It is questionable whether Ray ever was in Jim's Grill. One of Ray's original attorneys, Arthur Hanes, Jr., told us that when Ray was asked to draw a diagram of the establishment, he provided a sketch that was totally inaccurate. Ray's inability to provide a factually correct diagram is significant in light of comments made by author William Bradford Huie. Huie observed that Ray had a good memory for detail and places as to where he stayed. Huie also explained Ray had previously provided him with 20 or 30 accurate diagrams of various places and had accurately described the interiors of taverns in Montreal, Chicago, Puerto Vallarta, and Los Angeles. In addition, defense investigators were unable to find any witnesses from Jim's Grill, either employees or patrons, who could corroborate that Ray was there.
76. Ray has also contradicted himself as to the location of the lot, having said it was two or three miles from the rooming house, nine blocks away, and five or six blocks away.
77. Jerry Ray testified in King v. Ray that he had contact with his brother James between his 1967 escape and the assassination, that James claimed he was well-paid for illegal activities by someone named Raoul, that James said nothing about a plan to kill Dr. King, and that he was falsely accused by the HSCA of assisting his brother.
78. The reports were redacted at trial to omit the names of the sources. They were introduced through Professor Clayborne Carson, Director of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project. Professor Carson testified that he could not attest to the accuracy of the information in the documents. After trial, he advised us that the reports were sent to him by Dr. Pepper shortly before the trial and that he had not confirmed who authored them. As discussed below, we subsequently learned that the documents were written by former Memphis Commercial Appeal reporter Stephen Tompkins, who did not appear as a witness.
79. Tompkins explained that prior to the trial, he advised Dr. Pepper of how he would have testified if called as a witness. He further told us that the interview notes he furnished to Dr. Pepper included a cover note relating that he had not been able to verify the source's identity or story. Such a cover note was not introduced at trial.
80. We initiated a search of records from the Department of Defense, the National Archives, and the Alabama National Guard (the parent organization for the 20th SFG). Several earlier attempts to locate materials relevant to military surveillance of Dr. King preceded our search. In the 1970s, three congressional committees obtained military records pursuant to their investigations of military surveillance of civilians (including Dr. King). In 1993, the Chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees and the Congressional Black Caucus made further inquiries for records. As a result, the Department of Defense, the National Archives, and other sources, including the Alabama National Guard, conducted extensive records searches for relevant information. We reviewed that information as well as additional records which we located.
While we discovered no records that documented surveillance of Dr. King in Memphis, records do establish that the Army monitored the civil unrest there associated with the strike in March and April 1968. The after-action report for that mission, which was designated Operation Lantern Spike, relates that the 111th MIG was the only military unit, other than the Tennessee National Guard, operating in Memphis at that time. The after-action report only documents Dr. King's public activities in Memphis. The report suggests that the 111th MIG's intelligence information was derived solely from observations at public events and liaisons with local law enforcement and the Tennessee National Guard. It also reflects a "low-tech" operation. For example, it recommends that walkie-talkies should be made available in the future because of the delay caused when agents had to find public telephones to report observations during public events.
81. Green's recollection of the roof, including the low, knee-high wall bordering the rooftop, is an accurate description of the location and how exposed to view it is.
82. Tompkins said that he identified one of the witnesses to Dr. Pepper using a false name. He picked a name from the roster of the 20th SFG that was different from the source's real name.
83. Tompkins claimed that he had seen "personal" records indicating that troops from the 20th SFG were sent to Memphis. He advised, however, that he had destroyed all of his records related to his investigation, because he could not take them along when he moved and did not want them subpoenaed by the federal government, which he distrusted. The only record Tompkins specifically recalled was a document he obtained and gave to Dr. Pepper, who published it in his book, Orders to Kill. It was a purported order deploying the 20th SFG to "recon" Memphis prior to Dr. King's arrival. Tompkins told us and, according to him, Dr. Pepper as well, that the order was "bogus." The order was not introduced in King v. Jowers. We are aware of nothing to contradict Tompkins' assessment that the order is not authentic.
84. On another subject, Tompkins advised that the guardsman picked the photograph of a man from New York named Raul recently accused of being Raoul from a photo array, which was given to him by Dr. Pepper, as a man he had seen in New Orleans involved in gun smuggling. See Section VI.C.3. above.
85. In 1995, Tompkins expressed a different view. He signed an affidavit for Dr. Pepper asserting that the information he received from the guardsman appeared credible.
86. The team leader sued Dr. Pepper and the publishers of the two editions of Orders to Kill for libel for including the guardsman's allegations about him in the book. The publishers settled the lawsuit, conceding that the facts published were false. A default judgment has been entered against Dr. Pepper.
87. Congress conducted several inquiries in the 1970s regarding military surveillance of private citizens. In 1971-1973, the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights documented widespread military surveillance of civilian political activities. Specifically, the Subcommittee noted that intelligence was gathered on Dr. King and others who were in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The Subcommittee further commented that military intelligence "developed a massive system for monitoring virtually all political protest in the United States [and] * * * repeatedly infiltrated civilian groups."
88. Accusations against ministers associated with Dr. King are not new. In the 1970s, Reverend Ralph Abernathy, a close friend and advisor, was accused of conspiring to kill Dr. King.
89. As elsewhere in this report, we do not name individuals against whom unfounded accusations are made.