Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #1133: The Plot to Kill King

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself, HERE.

Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 40+ years’ work.

Please con­sid­er sup­port­ing THE WORK DAVE EMORY DOES.

FTR #1133 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment. 

Intro­duc­tion: In the after­math of the killing of George Floyd, there has been wall-to-wall cov­er­age of his mur­der and of the world-wide demon­stra­tions stem­ming from it. The advent of smart phone (with cam­eras) and the inter­net affords detailed and inti­mate expe­ri­ence of such an event.

How­ev­er, the orgias­tic cov­er­age of that event, the memo­r­i­al ser­vice led by FBI infor­mant and alleged [by the late War­ren Hinck­le] CIA oper­a­tive in Grena­da Al Sharp­ton stands in stark con­trast to the utter silence across the board on the cir­cum­stances of Dr. Mar­tin Luther King’s assas­si­na­tion.

On the fifti­eth anniver­sary of King’s mur­der, Mr. Emory did a twelve hour pro­gram about the cir­cum­stances of the assas­si­na­tion, repris­ing AFA #8 (done in 1985 on the 17th anniver­sary of the killing) and FTR #46, record­ed a decade lat­er and sup­ple­ment­ed on 4/3/2018.

Despite exhaus­tive and per­ilous research done by the likes of Dr. William F. Pep­per, 4/4/2018 was notable for the absence of sub­stan­tive dis­cus­sion of King’s mur­der.

The polit­i­cal and his­tor­i­cal sig­nif­i­cance of such an event was pre­sent­ed by Dr. Pep­per in his third book about the King assas­si­na­tion, The Plot to Kill King” . . . . . . . . When one is con­front­ed with the assas­si­na­tion of a major leader who per­son­i­fies the most trea­sured val­ues of the species and it becomes clear that those respon­si­ble for the mur­der are offi­cials of his own gov­ern­ment act­ing with the sanc­tion of those in the shad­ows who actu­al­ly rule, sure­ly one should strive to under­stand what that means now and for the future. In oth­er words, when the removal of a leader who has offend­ed pow­er­ful forces and spe­cial inter­ests in the Repub­lic takes on the sta­tus of an act of state, cit­i­zens must con­tem­plate what this reveals about their cul­ture and its civ­il and polit­i­cal sys­tems, their free­dom, the qual­i­ty and sta­tus of the rule of law, and their entire way of life. . . . ”

It seems that–for many–black lives mat­ter, but not Dr. King’s, appar­ent­ly, past a point.

Again, Dr. Pep­per not­ed that: ” . . . . cit­i­zens must con­tem­plate what this reveals about their cul­ture and its civ­il and polit­i­cal sys­tems, their free­dom, the qual­i­ty and sta­tus of the rule of law, and their entire way of life. . . . ”

In said con­tem­pla­tion, this pro­gram sup­ple­ments our pre­vi­ous work on the killing.

Although Dr. Pep­per repris­es the stun­ning infor­ma­tion he set forth in Orders to Kill in The Plot to Kill Kingwe will not reprise that here, in the inter­ests of time. (We do recap a short excerpt from Orders to Kill com­pris­ing an appar­ent evi­den­tiary trib­u­tary between King’s mur­der and the assas­si­na­tion of Robert F. Kennedy, which occurred two months lat­er.)

The bulk of the dis­cus­sion in this pro­gram is pre­sen­ta­tion and analy­sis of the polit­i­cal machin­ery in Mem­phis, Ten­nessee that engi­neered Dr. King’s mur­der. (Dis­cus­sion of the Spe­cial Forces team that was in Mem­phis as a back-up unit in case the civil­ian sniper missed King is detailed in FTR #46.)

In Pep­per’s inves­ti­ga­tion of King’s mur­der­ers, he detailed the appar­ent role of the late Rus­sell Lee Adkins, a mem­ber of the Dix­ie Mafia in Mem­phis, Ten­nessee. (The Dix­ie Mafia is dis­tinct from the Mafia, per se, that oper­at­ed in the South, although–as Pep­per makes clear–they worked with Mafiosi like New Orleans capo Car­los Mar­cel­lo and Mar­cel­lo asso­ciate Frank Lib­er­to, like Adkins, an oper­a­tor in Mem­phis.) 

His son Rus­sell Jr. took over exec­u­tive man­age­ment of the assas­si­na­tion machin­ery after his father’s death in 1967.

Note the coop­er­a­tion between the Ku Klux Klan and ele­ments of the Masons in Mem­phis. This should NOT be mis­un­der­stood as buy­ing into the myr­i­ad of anti-Mason­ic con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries which have pro­lif­er­at­ed on the Inter­net. The bulk of Freema­son­ry are what they rep­re­sent them­selves as being–civic activists and phil­an­thropists. The Third Reich planned to exter­mi­nate the Masons, along with the Jews and oth­ers.

That hav­ing been said, there have always been net­works with­in the Masons which, due to to their clan­des­tine oper­at­ing struc­ture, have been uti­lized for con­spir­a­to­r­i­al pur­pos­es. In these broad­casts, we have not­ed the P‑2 lodge of Licio Gel­li as one such enti­ty.

The Rus­sell Adkins Klan/Mason nexus is anoth­er. Note Rus­sell Sr.‘s son Ron Adkins depo­si­tion about the deci­sive influ­ence of this insti­tu­tion­al­ly racist enti­ty and its pow­er­ful oper­a­tional con­nec­tions:

  1. It dom­i­nat­ed Mem­phis munic­i­pal pol­i­tics empow­er­ing May­or Hen­ry Loeb and Fire and Police Com­mis­sion­er Frank Hol­lo­man, among oth­ers fig­ur­ing in the mur­der of King.
  2. The Adkins/Klan milieu had long-stand­ing oper­a­tional links with the FBI. Num­ber two man in the bureau at the time, as well as J. Edgar Hoover’s live-in lover, was close to Rus­sell Adkins and used him to dis­pense pay­ments to bureau oper­a­tives, includ­ing the Rev­erend Jesse Jack­son.
  3. The Adkins/Klan milieu net­worked with the Mafia, as stat­ed above.
  4. Ron Adkins, Rus­sell Sr.‘s son, deposed under oath that: ” . . . . Ron said that his father took him to his first lynch­ing when he was just six years old. . . .”
  5. The Adkins milieu was close to Dr. Breen Bland, whose alleged role in King’s death is dis­cussed below.

Next, we present the role of the Adkins machine as a con­duit for Hoover and Tol­son’s financ­ing for the escape of pat­sy-to-be James Earl Ray: ” . . . .  [FBI offi­cial Clyde] Tol­son was a sub­stan­tial con­nec­tion for his [Ron­nie Adkins’] father . . . . Of par­tic­u­lar inter­est to this case is that he brought the mon­ey which was to be paid to Harold Swen­son, the War­den of the Mis­souri State prison, in Jef­fer­son City, Mis­souri, in order for him to arrange for the escape of James in 1967. At Hoover’s request, James had been pro­filed as a poten­tial scape­goat, although the nature of the crime was not revealed. Ron told us about this assign­ment because he was an actu­al observ­er. He saw the mon­ey being deliv­ered by Tol­son and then, at his father’s invi­ta­tion, he rode to the prison where the mon­ey was paid to Swen­son by his father. . . Ray (who was always kept in the dark about this arrange­ment) suc­cess­ful­ly escaped from prison on April 23, 1967, and then . . . was mon­i­tored, con­trolled . . . . and moved around until the plans for the assas­si­na­tion and his use were final­ized. . . . .”

In the run-up to the assas­si­na­tion of king: ” . . . . In ear­ly 1968, two work­ers, thir­ty-five-year-old Echole Cole and twen­ty-nine-year-old Robert Walk­er were lit­er­al­ly swal­lowed by a mal­func­tion­ing ‘garbage pack­er’ truck. We would lat­er learn this was a planned mur­der by the Dix­ie Mafia fam­i­ly of Rus­sell Adkins, in coor­di­na­tion with Mem­phis Police Depart­ment Direc­tor of Police and Fire Frank Hol­lo­man, in order to com­pel Dr. King to return to sup­port the strik­ers. . . .” 

Sworn depo­si­tions by Lenny Cur­tis (a cus­to­di­an for the Mem­phis Police Depart­ment) and Nathan Whit­lock, a Mem­phis police­man named Frank Strauss­er was the actu­al shoot­er select­ed to exe­cute King: ” . . . . On that day, he [Strauss­er] broke to take lunch with [MPD Cap­tain Earl] Clark, and when he returned he resumed fir­ing. When he left at around 3:30 p.m., he put the top down on the con­vert­ible, took off his pow­der blue shirt, and threw it over the rifle in the back­seat, leav­ing only his white T‑shirt on. He ruf­fled his hair and put on a pair of sun­glass­es. When he left, May­or Loeb, Hol­lo­man, and the oth­er vis­it­ing police offi­cers were still there. They had met in Lieu­tenant Bullard’s office. . . .”

After high­light­ing the alleged role of Frank Strauss­er as the actu­al assas­sin, we present the oper­a­tional sequence of events on the ground in Mem­phis, Ten­nessee. Again, note the ubiq­ui­tous pres­ence of the Adkins/Dixie Mafia/Klan machine in the pro­gres­sion of events. ” . . . . Also observed arriv­ing at the MPD fir­ing range build­ing where he met with the shoot­er and Earl Clark were Direc­tor Hol­lo­man and May­or Hen­ry Loeb. . . .”

Note, also, the roles of Jesse Jack­son and the Rev­erend Bil­ly Kyles in these maneu­vers. (As dis­cussed in FTR #1005, both were being paid by FBI offi­cial Clyde Tol­son, through the Adkins machine. Jack­son’s appar­ent role was to help secure Room 306 in the Lor­raine Motel, over­look­ing the pool and afford­ing a clear shot, as well as to maneu­ver the Invaders out of the area. (The Invaders were a local Black Pow­er group who were present for secu­ri­ty pur­pos­es.) Kyles was there to help lure King out onto the bal­cony for the kill shot.

After King was shot, he was tak­en to St. Joseph’s hos­pi­tal, where, again the influ­ence of the Adkins machine came into play: ” . . . . . . . . Ron Adkins Tyler, under oath, told me that Dr. Breen Bland, who, remem­ber was also the Adkins’ fam­i­ly doc­tor, was in fact, the head sur­geon at the hos­pi­tal. . . . He said he was present and over­heard con­ver­sa­tions between his father and Dr. Bland, and then, fol­low­ing his father’s death, between his broth­er (Rus­sell Junior), Police and Fire Direc­tor Frank Hol­lo­man, and Dr. Bland about the impor­tance of Dr. King being tak­en to St. Joseph’s if he was still alive. . . . Ron Adkins Tyler has no doubt that they were deter­mined to make cer­tain that Dr. King would nev­er leave the emer­gency room at St. Joseph’s Hos­pi­tal alive. Though he did not know the details of the final cause of death, it appears that he was cor­rect. . . .”

Next, we focus on events at St. Joseph’s Hos­pi­tal on 4/4/1968:

  1. Among those events ” . . . . was the large pres­ence of mil­i­tary intel­li­gence offi­cers who had tak­en up posi­tions in the hos­pi­tal well before the shot was fired. Accord­ing to Dr. Cause­way, who was on duty at the time, the mil­i­tary intel­li­gence offi­cers knew the names of all of the emer­gency room nurs­es and doc­tors on duty. . . .”
  2. The atten­tion giv­en to the grave­ly wound­ed Dr. King: ” . . . . He [Dr. Cause­way] observed that no con­sid­er­a­tion was giv­en to mov­ing the crit­i­cal­ly injured vic­tim to the oper­at­ing room and he saw no sur­gi­cal effort being made to save him. When he inquired about treat­ment, he was told that he was being treat­ed. . . .”
  3. Accord­ing to sur­gi­cal aide Lula Mae Shel­by: ” . . . . there were many MPD offi­cers and army peo­ple milling about, in addi­tion to men in suits. . . . Dr. King was lying on a blood­ied gur­ney. She saw the huge hole in the low­er left side of his face, but heard one of the ER doc­tors say that he has a pulse. The ER doc­tors had per­formed a tra­cheoto­my and insert­ed a breath­ing tube. . . . in a while, the head of surgery (who appears to have been Dr. Breen Bland–the Adkins’ fam­i­ly doc­tor and col­lab­o­ra­tor dis­cussed ear­li­er) came into the emer­gency room with a cou­ple of men in suits and shout­ed at the staff work­ing on Dr. King, ‘Stop work­ing on the nig­ger and let him die. Now, all of you get out of here, right now. Every­body get out.’ . . . . as she was leav­ing, she heard three sounds of the men gath­er­ing or suck­ing up sali­va in their mouths–and then she heard two or three spit­ting sounds. This caused her, on the way out, to glance back over her shoul­der, and see that the breath­ing tube had been removed and Dr. Bland put a pil­low on and over the face of Dr. King. . . .”

After the mur­der, the above-men­tioned Lenny Cur­tis heard rumors about Frank Strauss­er being the assas­sin of King, as well as dis­cus­sion of Strauss­er being pres­sured to leave the MPD because of civ­il rights com­plaints being lodged against him.

Con­cerned that Cur­tis might dis­close infor­ma­tion about him to the FBI, Strauss­er con­front­ed him dur­ing a dri­ve and deliv­ered a warn­ing: ” . . . . ‘Lenny, you be care­ful now.’ The look he gave him was clear­ly threat­en­ing. . . .”

Fol­low­ing this inci­dent, Cur­tis expe­ri­enced strange, fright­en­ing things: ” . . . . . His gas was strange­ly turned on once when he was about to enter his house. He had lit a cig­a­rette, but as he opened the door he smelled gas and quick­ly put out the cig­a­rette. A strange Lin­coln was occa­sion­al­ly parked across the street from his apart­ment house. . . .  One morn­ing when the car was there, he got into his own car and quick­ly drove off, and the strange car pulled out and fol­lowed him. He man­aged to see the dri­ver. It was Strauss­er. At that time, new evi­dence in the case came up. He said that every time new evi­dence arose the offi­cer would pop up. He tried to move to a new house with­out notice but the land­lord of the new com­plex would report see­ing a man in the back of his house. When Lenny checked the area, he found a ‘tree stand,’ a V‑shaped stand where you could rest a rifle. When he put a stick in it, it focused on his kitchen and bath­room win­dows. He moved again, with­out notice. . . .”

Pep­per found Cur­tis to be inspir­ing, wait­ing until after his death in 2013 to come for­ward with his tes­ti­mo­ny out of fear for Lenny’s safe­ty. ” . . . . I safe­guard­ed his infor­ma­tion and his depo­si­tion for all of these years, fear­ful that the assas­s­in’s mas­ters would kill him if they learned about his coop­er­a­tion with me. . . .”

Before con­clud­ing the pro­gram, we revis­it the state­ment of one of the Spe­cial Forces offi­cers com­pris­ing the back-up fire team–a man Pep­per described under the pseu­do­nym “War­ren.” ” . . . .  . . . . War­ren said that on that occa­sion they also had a sec­ondary mis­sion, which was to do recon (recon­nais­sance of a home up in the West­ern Hills near the UCLA cam­pus.) The recon was to deter­mine the fea­si­bil­i­ty of a ‘wet insert ops deter­mined’ oper­a­tion. (‘Wet insert ops deter­mined’ means that the unit car­ries out a sur­rep­ti­tious entry at night into the tar­get­ed res­i­dence, kills every­one there, and leaves with­out a trace.)  He said that their recon deter­mined the fea­si­bil­i­ty of such an oper­a­tion. War­ren sub­se­quent­ly learned that the house was used by Sen­a­tor Robert F. Kennedy when he was in Los Ange­les in 1967–68. . . .”

We end the pro­gram with a caveat deliv­ered to for­mer Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Wal­ter Faun­troy [of Wash­ing­ton D.C.]–a founder of the Con­gres­sion­al Black Cau­cus. After inform­ing then Speak­er of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Carl Albert that he wished to head what was to become the House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions: ” . . . . Albert said to him, ‘Wal­ter, you don’t want that job.’ To which Faun­troy replied, ‘But I do want it; why not?’ Albert whis­pered, ‘Wal­ter, they will kill you.’ . . .”

1.  The pro­gram begins with Dr. Pep­per’s encap­su­la­tion of the sig­nif­i­cance of King’s assas­si­na­tion:

The Plot to Kill King by William Pep­per; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 2016 by William Pep­per; ISBN 978–1‑5107–2962‑9; pp. xxx-xxxi.

. . . . When one is con­front­ed with the assas­si­na­tion of a major leader who per­son­i­fies the most trea­sured val­ues of the species and it becomes clear that those respon­si­ble for the mur­der are offi­cials of his own gov­ern­ment act­ing with the sanc­tion of those in the shad­ows who actu­al­ly rule, sure­ly one should strive to under­stand what that means now and for the future. In oth­er words, when the removal of a leader who has offend­ed pow­er­ful forces and spe­cial inter­ests in the Repub­lic takes on the sta­tus of an act of state, cit­i­zens must con­tem­plate what this reveals about their cul­ture and its civ­il and polit­i­cal sys­tems, their free­dom, the qual­i­ty and sta­tus of the rule of law, and their entire way of life. . . . 

2. The bulk of the dis­cus­sion in this pro­gram is pre­sen­ta­tion and analy­sis of the polit­i­cal machin­ery in Mem­phis, Ten­nessee that engi­neered Dr. King’s mur­der. (Dis­cus­sion of the Spe­cial Forces team that was in Mem­phis as a back-up unit in case the civil­ian sniper missed King is detailed in FTR #46.)

In Pep­per’s inves­ti­ga­tion of King’s mur­der­ers, he detailed the appar­ent role of the late Rus­sell Lee Adkins, a mem­ber of the Dix­ie Mafia in Mem­phis, Ten­nessee. (The Dix­ie Mafia is dis­tinct from the Mafia, per se, that oper­at­ed in the South, although–as Pep­per makes clear–they worked with Mafiosi like New Orleans capo Car­los Mar­cel­lo and Mar­cel­lo asso­ciate Frank Lib­er­to, like Adkins, an oper­a­tor in Mem­phis.) 

His son Rus­sell Jr. took over exec­u­tive man­age­ment of the assas­si­na­tion machin­ery after his father’s death in 1967.

Note the coop­er­a­tion between the Ku Klux Klan and ele­ments of the Masons in Mem­phis. This should NOT be mis­un­der­stood as buy­ing into the myr­i­ad of anti-Mason­ic con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries which have pro­lif­er­at­ed on the Inter­net. The bulk of Freema­son­ry are what they rep­re­sent them­selves as being–civic activists and phil­an­thropists. The Third Reich planned to exter­mi­nate the Masons, along with the Jews and oth­ers.

That hav­ing been said, there have always been net­works with­in the Masons which, due to to their clan­des­tine oper­at­ing struc­ture, have been uti­lized for con­spir­a­to­r­i­al pur­pos­es. In these broad­casts, we have not­ed the P‑2 lodge of Licio Gel­li as one such enti­ty.

The Rus­sell Adkins Klan/Mason nexus is anoth­er. Note the deci­sive influ­ence of this insti­tu­tion­al­ly racist enti­ty and its pow­er­ful oper­a­tional con­nec­tions:

  1. It dom­i­nat­ed Mem­phis munic­i­pal pol­i­tics empow­er­ing May­or Hen­ry Loeb and Fire and Police Com­mis­sion­er Frank Hol­lo­man, among oth­ers fig­ur­ing in the mur­der of King.
  2. The Adkins/Klan milieu had long-stand­ing oper­a­tional links with the FBI. Num­ber two man in the bureau at the time, as well as J. Edgar Hoover’s live-in lover, was close to Rus­sell Adkins and used him to dis­pense pay­ments to bureau oper­a­tives, includ­ing the Rev­erend Jesse Jack­son.
  3. The Adkins/Klan milieu net­worked with the Mafia, as stat­ed above.
  4. Ron Adkins, Rus­sell Sr.‘s son, deposed under oath that: ” . . . . Ron said that his father took him to his first lynch­ing when he was just six years old. . . .”
  5. The Adkins milieu was close to Dr. Breen Bland, whose alleged role in King’s death is dis­cussed below.

The Plot to Kill King by William Pep­per; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 2016 by William Pep­per; ISBN 978–1‑5107–2962‑9; p. 239.

. . . . He [Ron Adkins, son of Rus­sell Lee Adkins] said his father and asso­ciates were life­long active Klan mem­bers and Masons. He sat in on meet­ings and recalled that his father said they would only have doc­tors who were Catholics, because they would nev­er tell about what was going on. It is for this rea­son that he only remem­bers Dr.‘s Breen and Basil Bland tak­ing care of their fam­i­ly, espe­cial­ly Breen, who was clos­est to them.

His father became a 32nd Degree Mason. The Klan and the Masons worked close­ly togeth­er. Ron said that his father took him to his first lynch­ing when he was just six years old.

His father and grand­fa­ther got along well with Boss E.H. Crump, who ran Mem­phis. From the age of five until he was nine years old, his father took him along to meet­ings in the house and else­where. He would end up bring­ing cof­fee and dough­nuts and sit around lis­ten­ing. he remem­bers John Wilder before he became Lieu­tenant Gov­er­nor, attend­ing along with May­or Hen­ry Loeb and Frank Lib­er­to, Car­los Mar­cel­lo and Clyde Tol­son, FBI direc­tor Edgar Hoover’s deputy.

Despite his father’s mod­est posi­tion, he had an enor­mous abil­i­ty to get things done behind the scenes. He was a “fix­er.” This pow­er clear­ly emanat­ed from his posi­tions in the Masons, the Klan and the Dix­ie Mafia.

Accord­ing to Ron­nie, the Klan and the Masons had dif­fer­ent styles. The Klans­men were the heav­ies and the Masons were more sub­tle. Togeth­er, they put May­or Loeb into office. . . . 

3. Next, we present the role of the Adkins machine as a con­duit for Hoover and Tol­son’s financ­ing for the escape of pat­sy-to-be James Earl Ray: ” . . . . . . . . [FBI offi­cial Clyde] Tol­son was a sub­stan­tial con­nec­tion for his [Ron­nie Adkins’] father . . . . Of par­tic­u­lar inter­est to this case is that he brought the mon­ey which was to be paid to Harold Swen­son, the War­den of the Mis­souri State prison, in Jef­fer­son City, Mis­souri, in order for him to arrange for the escape of James in 1967. At Hoover’s request, James had been pro­filed as a poten­tial scape­goat, although the nature of the crime was not revealed. Ron told us about this assign­ment because he was an actu­al observ­er. He saw the mon­ey being deliv­ered by Tol­son and then, at his father’s invi­ta­tion, he rode to the prison where the mon­ey was paid to Swen­son by his father. . . Ray (who was always kept in the dark about this arrange­ment) suc­cess­ful­ly escaped from prison on April 23, 1967, and then . . . was mon­i­tored, con­trolled . . . . and moved around until the plans for the assas­si­na­tion and his use were final­ized. . . . .”

The Plot to Kill King by William Pep­per; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 2016 by William Pep­per; ISBN 978–1‑5107–2962‑9; p. 240.

. . . . [FBI offi­cial Clyde] Tol­son was a sub­stan­tial con­nec­tion for his [Ron­nie Adkins’] father . . . . Of par­tic­u­lar inter­est to this case is that he brought the mon­ey which was to be paid to Harold Swen­son, the War­den of the Mis­souri State prison, in Jef­fer­son City, Mis­souri, in order for him to arrange for the escape of James in 1967. At Hoover’s request, James had been pro­filed as a poten­tial scape­goat, although the nature of the crime was not revealed. Ron told us about this assign­ment because he was an actu­al observ­er. He saw the mon­ey being deliv­ered by Tol­son and then, at his father’s invi­ta­tion, he rode to the prison where the mon­ey was paid to Swen­son by his father. This took place in Novem­ber or Decem­ber of 1966. Ray (who was always kept in the dark about this arrange­ment) suc­cess­ful­ly escaped from prison on April 23, 1967, and then (with the wrong fin­ger­prints released) was mon­i­tored, con­trolled, giv­en the pro­tect­ed “Galt” iden­ti­ty, and moved around until the plans for the assas­si­na­tion and his use were final­ized. I came to under­stand that this use of inmates was not an uncom­mon prac­tice. . . .

4. In the run-up to the assas­si­na­tion of king: ” . . . . In ear­ly 1968, two work­ers, thir­ty-five-year-old Echole Cole and twen­ty-nine-year-old Robert Walk­er were lit­er­al­ly swal­lowed by a mal­func­tion­ing ‘garbage pack­er’ truck. We would lat­er learn this was a planned mur­der by the Dix­ie Mafia fam­i­ly of Rus­sell Adkins, in coor­di­na­tion with Mem­phis Police Depart­ment Direc­tor of Police and Fire Frank Hol­lo­man, in order to com­pel Dr. King to return to sup­port the strik­ers. . . .” 

   The Plot to Kill King by William Pep­per; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 2016 by William Pep­per; ISBN 978–1‑5107–2962‑9; p. 3.

. . . . In ear­ly 1968, two work­ers, thir­ty-five-year-old Echole Cole and twen­ty-nine-year-old Robert Walk­er were lit­er­al­ly swal­lowed by a mal­func­tion­ing “garbage pack­er” truck. We would lat­er learn this was a planned mur­der by the Dix­ie Mafia fam­i­ly of Rus­sell Adkins, in coor­di­na­tion with Mem­phis Police Depart­ment Direc­tor of Police and Fire Frank Hol­lo­man, in order to com­pel Dr. King to return to sup­port the strik­ers. . . . 

5. Sworn depo­si­tions by Lenny Cur­tis (a cus­to­di­an for the Mem­phis Police Depart­ment) and Nathan Whit­lock, a Mem­phis police­man named Frank Strauss­er was the actu­al shoot­er select­ed to exe­cute King: ” . . . . On that day, he [Strauss­er] broke to take lunch with [MPD Cap­tain Earl] Clark, and when he returned he resumed fir­ing. When he left at around 3:30 p.m., he put the top down on the con­vert­ible, took off his pow­der blue shirt, and threw it over the rifle in the back­seat, leav­ing only his white T‑shirt on. He ruf­fled his hair and put on a pair of sun­glass­es. When he left, May­or Loeb, Hol­lo­man, and the oth­er vis­it­ing police offi­cers were still there. They had met in Lieu­tenant Bullard’s office. . . .”

   The Plot to Kill King by William Pep­per; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 2016 by William Pep­per; ISBN 978–1‑5107–2962‑9; p. 227.

. . . . Going back to the fir­ing range on the day of the killing, Lenny described the rifle as being brand-new. He said it was, ” . . . a strange look­ing rifle, but it made a tremen­dous noise every time he was shoot­ing down there. . . . He spent time with it all the day.” On that day, he broke to take lunch with [MPD Cap­tain Earl] Clark, and when he returned he resumed fir­ing. When he left at around 3:30 p.m., he put the top down on the con­vert­ible, took off his pow­der blue shirt, and threw it over the rifle in the back­seat, leav­ing only his white T‑shirt on. He ruf­fled his hair and put on a pair of sun­glass­es. When he left, May­or Loeb, Hol­lo­man, and the oth­er vis­it­ing police offi­cers were still there. They had met in Lieu­tenant Bullard’s office. . . .

6. After high­light­ing the alleged role of Frank Strauss­er as the actu­al assas­sin, we present the oper­a­tional sequence of events on the ground in Mem­phis, Ten­nessee. Again, note the ubiq­ui­tous pres­ence of the Adkins/Dixie Mafia/Klan machine in the pro­gres­sion of events. ” . . . . Also observed arriv­ing at the MPD fir­ing range build­ing where he met with the shoot­er and Earl Clark were Direc­tor Hol­lo­man and May­or Hen­ry Loeb. . . .”

Note, also, the roles of Jesse Jack­son and the Rev­erend Bil­ly Kyles in these maneu­vers. (As dis­cussed in FTR #1005, both were being paid by FBI offi­cial Clyde Tol­son, through the Adkins machine. Jack­son’s appar­ent role was to help secure Room 306 in the Lor­raine Motel, over­look­ing the pool and afford­ing a clear shot, as well as to maneu­ver the Invaders out of the area. (The Invaders were a local Black Pow­er group who were present for secu­ri­ty pur­pos­es.) Kyles was there to help lure King out onto the bal­cony for the kill shot.

Ralph Aber­nathy’s behav­ior is also worth scru­ti­niz­ing. He, too, seemed fix­at­ed on secur­ing Room 306 for King and lied about that room hav­ing been used before.

The Plot to Kill King by William Pep­per; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 2016 by William Pep­per; ISBN 978–1‑5107–2962‑9; pp. 279–280.

. . . . When Dr. King returned to Mem­phis, he went straight to the Lor­raine Motel. He had nev­er stayed there overnight before, pre­fer­ring to stay in oth­er, pre­vi­ous­ly all-white hotels, although he had held meet­ings with local com­mu­ni­ty lead­ers dur­ing the day at the Lor­raine.

When they arrived, he and Aber­nathy were giv­en room 306, although they were orig­i­nal­ly to have occu­pied room 202, a ground-floor, shel­tered room. Jesse Jack­son was tasked with get­ting Wal­ter and Lurlee Bai­ley to move him to the upper exposed room. The evi­dence from Ron Tyler Adkins indi­cates that he did so. Despite Ralph Aber­nathy’s insis­tence that room 306 was their usu­al room, and indeed, that they had been forced to wait for it to be vacat­ed upon their arrival, it had nev­er been their room before (not even for the day­time meet­ings and cer­tain­ly not for overnight stays). Fur­ther­more, it was vacant–and unoc­cu­pied when they arrived and so they were able to go direct­ly to it.

Rus­sell Adkins Sr. died in July 1967, and his son Rus­sell Jr. took over the assas­si­na­tion project. In fact, I have come to believe that Frank Hol­lo­man him­self arranged and facil­i­tat­ed the final details. Hol­lo­man reg­u­lar­ly attend­ed the Adkins’ meet­ings, com­ing out every Sun­day, and orga­nized the with­draw­al of the two black fire­men from the fire sta­tion and removal of black com­mu­ni­ty rela­tions offi­cer, Ed Red­ditt, from his post. He also had removed the usu­al group of black police offi­cers who always pro­vid­ed secu­ri­ty for Dr. King in Mem­phis. They were replaced by a group of white offi­cers who were not trust­ed and so remained out of the pic­ture.

Rev­erend Bil­ly Kyles (at whose home the SCLC group was to have had a bar­be­cue that evening) appears to have been giv­en the respon­si­bil­i­ty for get­ting Dr. King out onto the bal­cony (the MPD report by Willie B. Rich­mond states that, con­trary to Kyles’s long­time asser­tions, he knocked on the door at 5:50 p.m., spoke for a few sec­onds, and then walked away down the bal­cony, stand­ing at the rail­ing about forty to fifty feet away until the shoot­ing.) The Rev­erend Jesse Jack­son orga­nized the with­draw­al of the Invaders from the motel around twen­ty min­utes before the killing, where they had been work­ing with Dr. King to bring about a peace­ful march.

As not­ed else­where, the shoot­er, Strauss­er, was observed receiv­ing a “spe­cial” rifle at the MPD shoot­ing range the day before the killing, and then break­ing it in by prac­tice fir­ing it most of that day and the next (tak­ing a lunch break with Cap­tain Earl Clark on April 4), before leav­ing in the red and white Chevro­let con­vert­ible of his fire­man friend. Before leav­ing, he put the rifle in the back­seat and took off his shirt, wear­ing only an under­shirt and ruf­fling up his hair so that he would look more like an off-duty fire­man than a police offi­cer and sped off.

Also observed arriv­ing at the MPD fir­ing range build­ing where he met with the shoot­er and Earl Clark were Direc­tor Hol­lo­man and May­or Hen­ry Loeb. . . .

7. After King was shot, he was tak­en to St. Joseph’s hos­pi­tal, where, again the influ­ence of the Adkins machine came into play: ” . . . . . . . . Ron Adkins Tyler, under oath, told me that Dr. Breen Bland, who, remem­ber was also the Adkins’ fam­i­ly doc­tor, was in fact, the head sur­geon at the hos­pi­tal. . . . He said he was present and over­heard con­ver­sa­tions between his father and Dr. Bland, and then, fol­low­ing his father’s death, between his broth­er (Rus­sell Junior), Police and Fire Direc­tor Frank Hol­lo­man, and Dr. Bland about the impor­tance of Dr. King being tak­en to St. Joseph’s if he was still alive. . . . Ron Adkins Tyler has no doubt that they were deter­mined to make cer­tain that Dr. King would nev­er leave the emer­gency room at St. Joseph’s Hos­pi­tal alive. Though he did not know the details of the final cause of death, it appears that he was cor­rect. . . .”

The Plot to Kill King by William Pep­per; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 2016 by William Pep­per; ISBN 978–1‑5107–2962‑9; p. 262.

. . . . Ron Adkins Tyler, under oath, told me that Dr. Breen Bland, who, remem­ber was also the Adkins’ fam­i­ly doc­tor, was in fact, the head sur­geon at the hos­pi­tal. His med­ical office was about fifty yards from the hos­pi­tal. He said he was present and over­heard con­ver­sa­tions between his father and Dr. Bland, and then, fol­low­ing his father’s death, between his broth­er (Rus­sell Junior), Police and Fire Direc­tor Frank Hol­lo­man, and Dr. Bland about the impor­tance of Dr. King being tak­en to St. Joseph’s if he was still alive. Ron recalls that Dr. Bland was pre­pared to give him a cer­tain lethal injec­tion if it became nec­es­sary. He said that the last con­ver­sa­tion took place around the mid­dle of March 1968, just weeks before the assas­si­na­tion.

From what John Shel­by recalls his moth­er say­ing, the removal of the breath­ing tube and the use of the pil­low replaced the fatal injec­tion. 

Ron Adkins Tyler has no doubt that they were deter­mined to make cer­tain that Dr. King would nev­er leave the emer­gency room at St. Joseph’s Hos­pi­tal alive. Though he did not know the details of the final cause of death, it appears that he was cor­rect. . . .

8. Next, we focus on events at St. Joseph’s Hos­pi­tal on 4/4/1968:

  1. Among those events ” . . . . was the large pres­ence of mil­i­tary intel­li­gence offi­cers who had tak­en up posi­tions in the hos­pi­tal well before the shot was fired. Accord­ing to Dr. Cause­way, who was on duty at the time, the mil­i­tary intel­li­gence offi­cers knew the names of all of the emer­gency room nurs­es and doc­tors on duty. . . .”
  2. The atten­tion giv­en to the grave­ly wound­ed Dr. King: ” . . . . He [Dr. Cause­way] observed that no con­sid­er­a­tion was giv­en to mov­ing the crit­i­cal­ly injured vic­tim to the oper­at­ing room and he saw no sur­gi­cal effort being made to save him. When he inquired about treat­ment, he was told that he was being treat­ed. . . .”
  3. Accord­ing to sur­gi­cal aide Lula Mae Shel­by: ” . . . . there were many MPD offi­cers and army peo­ple milling about, in addi­tion to men in suits. . . . Dr. King was lying on a blood­ied gur­ney. She saw the huge hole in the low­er left side of his face, but heard one of the ER doc­tors say that he has a pulse. The ER doc­tors had per­formed a tra­cheoto­my and insert­ed a breath­ing tube. . . . in a while, the head of surgery (who appears to have been Dr. Breen Bland–the Adkins’ fam­i­ly doc­tor and col­lab­o­ra­tor dis­cussed ear­li­er) came into the emer­gency room with a cou­ple of men in suits and shout­ed at the staff work­ing on Dr. King, ‘Stop work­ing on the nig­ger and let him die. Now, all of you get out of here, right now. Every­body get out.’ . . . . as she was leav­ing, she heard three sounds of the men gath­er­ing or suck­ing up sali­va in their mouths–and then she heard two or three spit­ting sounds. This caused her, on the way out, to glance back over her shoul­der, and see that the breath­ing tube had been removed and Dr. Bland put a pil­low on and over the face of Dr. King. . . .”

The Plot to Kill King by William Pep­per; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 2016 by William Pep­per; ISBN 978–1‑5107–2962‑9; pp. 260–261.

. . . . With all these events going on in close prox­im­i­ty, the ambu­lance car­ry­ing the wound­ed Dr. King, Dr. Aber­nathy, and Bernard Lee, set out for St. Joseph’s hos­pi­tal at approx­i­mate­ly 6:10 p.m. Some five min­utes lat­er it arrived at the hos­pi­tal and Dr. King, still breath­ing and alive, was car­ried into the emer­gency room just after 6:15 p.m., where one would expect that work would begin in a fran­tic effort to save his life.

What has nev­er been sat­is­fac­to­ri­ly explained, or per­haps even revealed, until now, was the large pres­ence of mil­i­tary intel­li­gence offi­cers who had tak­en up posi­tions in the hos­pi­tal well before the shot was fired. Accord­ing to Dr. Cause­way, who was on duty at the time, the mil­i­tary intel­li­gence offi­cers knew the names of all of the emer­gency room nurs­es and doc­tors on duty. 

He observed that no con­sid­er­a­tion was giv­en to mov­ing the crit­i­cal­ly injured vic­tim to the oper­at­ing room and he saw no sur­gi­cal effort being made to save him. When he inquired about treat­ment, he was told that he was being treat­ed.

Anoth­er per­son on duty in the emer­gency room that evening was thir­ty-two-year-old sur­gi­cal aide Lula Mae Shel­by who had worked at the hos­pi­tal since 1964 or 1965. 

Her son, John­ton Shel­by . . .  told me, and sub­se­quent­ly con­firmed under oath (see Appen­dix N for a tran­script of his depo­si­tion), that she was not allowed to go home that evening or even call home. . . . In 2013,  John­ton called Mem­phis radio sta­tion WPLX host­ed by Thad­deus Matthews to tell his moth­er’s sto­ry. My long­time Mem­phis street friend, Jack­ie Smith, called me and facil­i­tat­ed my con­tact with him. John­ton said when his moth­er arrived home the next morn­ing (April 5), just before 11:00 a.m., she gath­ered the fam­i­ly in the liv­ing room to tell them what had hap­pened. She was dev­as­tat­ed and very hurt. He remem­bered clear­ly that she said, “I can’t believe they took his life.”

At first glance, what a strange state­ment.

She recalled that there were many MPD offi­cers and army peo­ple milling about, in addi­tion to men in suits.

She said that she was bring­ing med­ical instru­ments in and out of the emer­gency room–which was her job–where Dr. King was lying on a blood­ied gur­ney. She saw the huge hole in the low­er left side of his face, but heard one of the ER doc­tors say that he has a pulse. The ER doc­tors had per­formed a tra­cheoto­my and insert­ed a breath­ing tube.

She said that in a while, the head of surgery (who appears to have been Dr. Breen Bland–the Adkins’ fam­i­ly doc­tor and col­lab­o­ra­tor dis­cussed ear­li­er) came into the emer­gency room with a cou­ple of men in suits and shout­ed at the staff work­ing on Dr. King, “Stop work­ing on the nig­ger and let him die. Now, all of you get out of here, right now. Every­body get out.”

John­ton said that his moth­er told them as she was leav­ing, she heard three sounds of the men gath­er­ing or suck­ing up sali­va in their mouths–and then she heard two or three spit­ting sounds. This caused her, on the way out, to glance back over her shoul­der, and see that the breath­ing tube had been removed and Dr. Bland put a pil­low on and over the face of Dr. King. She said that she believed that he was still alive, how­ev­er bare­ly. With­out a doubt, if he was alive–as he appeared to be–he would have been suf­fo­cat­ed.

John­ton Shel­by repeat­ed his full rec­ol­lec­tion of his moth­er’s heart­felt dis­clo­sures under oath in a depo­si­tion I took of him in July 2014 (see Appen­dix N). . . .

9. After the mur­der, the above-men­tioned Lenny Cur­tis heard rumors about Frank Strauss­er being the assas­sin of King, as well as dis­cus­sion of Strauss­er being pres­sured to leave the MPD because of civ­il rights com­plaints being lodged against him.

The Plot to Kill King by William Pep­per; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 2016 by William Pep­per; ISBN 978–1‑5107–2962‑9; p. 227.

. . . . After the assas­si­na­tion, he [Lenny Cur­tis] heard rumors from var­i­ous MPD offi­cers with whom he was friend­ly that this offi­cer was the rifle­man who killed Dr. King. Cur­tis said he was told after the assas­si­na­tion that the offi­cer was asked to leave the MPD and he refused to quit. It appeared that they want­ed him to go because he was increas­ing­ly dis­obe­di­ent and a poten­tial embar­rass­ment with a grow­ing num­ber of civ­il rights com­plaints being lodged against him. The offi­cer report­ed­ly told the direc­tor, he would, ” . . . . blow his ass off–he’d shoot every one of them up there.” . . . .

10. Con­cerned that Cur­tis might dis­close infor­ma­tion about him to the FBI, Strauss­er con­front­ed him dur­ing a dri­ve and deliv­ered a warn­ing: ” . . . . ‘Lenny, you be care­ful now.’ The look he gave him was clear­ly threat­en­ing. . . .”

Fol­low­ing this inci­dent, Cur­tis expe­ri­enced strange, fright­en­ing things: ” . . . . . His gas was strange­ly turned on once when he was about to enter his house. He had lit a cig­a­rette, but as he opened the door he smelled gas and quick­ly put out the cig­a­rete. A strange Lin­coln was occa­sion­al­ly parked across the street from his apart­ment house. . . .  One morn­ing when the car was there, he got into his own car and quick­ly drove off, and the strange cr pulled out and fol­lowed him. He man­aged to see the dri­ver. It was Strauss­er. At that time, new evi­dence in the case came up. He said that every time new evi­dence arose the offi­cer would pop up. He tried to move to a new house with­out notice but the land­lord of the new com­plex would report see­ing a man in the back of his house. When Lenny checked the area, he found a ‘tree stand,’ a V‑shaped stand where you could rest a rifle. When he put a stick in it, it focused on his kitchen and bath­room win­dows. He moved again, with­out notice. . . .”

The Plot to Kill King by William Pep­per; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 2016 by William Pep­per; ISBN 978–1‑5107–2962‑9; pp. 226–227.

. . . . They made small talk, but when they got to Poplar and North Park­way, instead of stay­ing on Poplar and going straight into town, which would have been the most direct route, [Frank] Strauss­er slowed down and said, “Lenny, I want to ask you a ques­tion. What do you think about that guy Ray killing King?” 

Lenny said, “Oh, he did it. There is no doubt that he did it.”

Then Strauss­er asked him, ” . . . . are you still doing pri­vate detec­tive work, still work­ing with those FBIs?” Lenny was doing part-time work for a pri­vate detec­tive agency. He had a job doing secu­ri­ty work and occa­sion­al­ly some FBI agents would bring want­ed posters to him. He actu­al­ly helped them arrest one guy whom he rec­og­nized. He would also help by dis­trib­ut­ing them to stores around his com­mu­ni­ty and a num­ber of oth­ers were caught. Strauss­er seemed to know about the side­line. The last thing he said to him was, “Are you still help­ing the FBI?”

Lenny said, “Yeah, peri­od­i­cal­ly.”

He then said, “Lenny, you be care­ful now.” The look he gave him was clear­ly threat­en­ing.

Lenny said that he sub­se­quent­ly became aware that strange things were hap­pen­ing around him. His gas was strange­ly turned on once when he was about to enter his house. He had lit a cig­a­rette, but as he opened the door he smelled gas and quick­ly put out the cig­a­rete. A strange Lin­coln was occa­sion­al­ly parked across the street from his apart­ment house. He was fright­ened. One morn­ing when the car was there, he got into his own car and quick­ly drove off, and the strange cr pulled out and fol­lowed him. He man­aged to see the dri­ver. It was Strauss­er.

At that time, new evi­dence in the case came up. He said that every time new evi­dence arose the offi­cer would pop up. He tried to move to a new house with­out notice but the land­lord of the new com­plex would report see­ing a man in the back of his house. When Lenny checked the area, he found a “tree stand,” a V‑shaped stand where you could rest a rifle. When he put a stick in it, it focused on his kitchen and bath­room win­dows. He moved again, with­out notice. . . .

11. Pep­per found Cur­tis to be inspir­ing, wait­ing until after his death in 2013 to come for­ward with his tes­ti­mo­ny out of fear for Lenny’s safe­ty. ” . . . . I safe­guard­ed his infor­ma­tion and his depo­si­tion for all of these years, fear­ful that the assas­s­in’s mas­ters would kill him if they learned about his coop­er­a­tion with me. . . .”

The Plot to Kill King by William Pep­per; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 2016 by William Pep­per; ISBN 978–1‑5107–2962‑9; p. 228.

. . . . The courage of this hum­ble work­ing-class human stal­wart has both inspired and com­pelled me, now eleven years lat­er in 2014, to press on in hon­or of the endur­ing vital­i­ty of the human spir­it and its quest for truth. Once again, we are hum­bled by the nobil­i­ty of one who mate­ri­al­ly is among the least of us, but whose reign­ing pres­ence and val­ues, in spite of who we are, remind us who we could become.

Lenny Cur­tis died in Novem­ber of 2013. I safe­guard­ed his infor­ma­tion and his depo­si­tion for all of these years, fear­ful that the assas­s­in’s mas­ters would kill him if they learned about his coop­er­a­tion with me.

Now that Lenny is beyond their reach, there is no rea­son why all that he has giv­en up can­not now be shared. As not­ed above, his com­plete depo­si­tion may be seen in Appen­dix F. . . . .

12. Before con­clud­ing the pro­gram, we revis­it the state­ment of one of the Spe­cial Forces offi­cers com­pris­ing the back-up fire team–a man Pep­per described under the pseu­do­nym “War­ren.” ” . . . .  . . . . War­ren said that on that occa­sion they also had a sec­ondary mis­sion, which was to do recon (recon­nais­sance of a home up in the West­ern Hills near the UCLA cam­pus.) The recon was to deter­mine the fea­si­bil­i­ty of a ‘wet insert ops deter­mined’ oper­a­tion. (‘Wet insert ops deter­mined’ means that the unit car­ries out a sur­rep­ti­tious entry at night into the tar­get­ed res­i­dence, kills every­one there, and leaves with­out a trace.)  He said that their recon deter­mined the fea­si­bil­i­ty of such an oper­a­tion. War­ren sub­se­quent­ly learned that the house was used by Sen­a­tor Robert F. Kennedy when he was in Los Ange­les in 1967–68. . . .”

 Orders to Kill by William F. Pep­per; Car­roll & Graf Pub­lish­ers, Inc. [HC]; Copy­right 1995 by  William F. Pep­per; ISBN 0–7867-0253–2; p. 419.

 . . . . War­ren said that on that occa­sion they also had a sec­ondary mis­sion, which was to do recon (recon­nais­sance of a home up in the West­ern Hills near the UCLA cam­pus.) The recon was to deter­mine the fea­si­bil­i­ty of a “wet insert ops deter­mined” oper­a­tion. (“Wet insert ops deter­mined” means that the unit car­ries out a sur­rep­ti­tious entry at night into the tar­get­ed res­i­dence, kills every­one there, and leaves with­out a trace.)  He said that their recon deter­mined the fea­si­bil­i­ty of such an oper­a­tion. War­ren sub­se­quent­ly learned that the house was used by Sen­a­tor Robert F. Kennedy when he was in Los Ange­les in 1967–68. (Short­ly after the recon, Kennedy would declare for the Pres­i­den­cy.) . . . .

13. We con­clude with a caveat deliv­ered to for­mer Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Wal­ter Faun­troy [of Wash­ing­ton D.C.]–a founder of the Con­gres­sion­al Black Cau­cus. After inform­ing then Speak­er of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Carl Albert that he wished to head what was to become the House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions: ” . . . . Albert said to him, ‘Wal­ter, you don’t want that job.’ To which Faun­troy replied, ‘But I do want it; why not?’ Albert whis­pered, ‘Wal­ter, they will kill you.’ . . .”

The Plot to Kill King by William Pep­per; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 2016 by William Pep­per; ISBN 978–1‑5107–2962‑9; p. 62.

. . . . Faun­troy informed Carl Albert, then Speak­er of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives, that he want­ed to be  on a com­mit­tee to inves­ti­gate Dr. King’s death or even, if pos­si­ble, to head the com­mit­tee. Albert said to him, “Wal­ter, you don’t want that job.”

To which Faun­troy replied, “But I do want it; why not?”

Albert whis­pered, “Wal­ter, they will kill you. . . .”

Discussion

2 comments for “FTR #1133: The Plot to Kill King”

  1. This is not a com­ment about the black lives mat­ter move­ment as a whole or the cause. I have always sup­port­ed the Civ­il Rights move­ment.

    How­ev­er, it is unavoid­able, in my opin­ion...

    The Black Lives Mat­ter ORGANIZATION is CIA. Peri­od. Take a look at the lead­ers and founders. They are most­ly from Ford Foun­da­tion or sim­i­lar orgs, includ­ing the Ella Bak­er Cen­ter of CNN’s Van “Trump real­ly became pres­i­dent tonight by near­ly start­ing a war with Rus­sia” Jones. (no, Van, I’m nev­er going to for­get that).

    As I’ve dis­cussed before, Van’s rise from “Bay Area Marx­ist rad­i­cal” to “bor­ing CNN pun­dit who kiss­es CIA/State Dept ass” was mer­cu­r­ial... and telling.

    Hell, they tell you all about it! Ford Foun­da­tion gave 100 mil­lion to black groups in the last five years. I haven’t looked into these oth­er groups like Bore­alis yet, but I bet they are all con­nect­ed to CIA Lib­er­al (aka “Soros Net­works” as they are often called) ops like Open Soci­ety and Tides Foun­da­tion. It is a con­sis­tent pat­tern over the years.

    https://www.fordfoundation.org/ideas/equals-change-blog/posts/why-black-lives-matter-to-philanthropy/

    By part­ner­ing with Bore­alis Phil­an­thropy, Move­ment Strat­e­gy Cen­ter, and Bene­dict Con­sult­ing to found the Black-Led Move­ment Fund, Ford has made six-year invest­ments in the orga­ni­za­tions and net­works that com­pose the Move­ment for Black Lives.

    NOTE: There are three founders that get most of the atten­tion who seem to run Black Lives Mat­ter, the org, and if they actu­al­ly have a board, they are hid­ing mem­ber­ship. Seems odd that a 501c3 does­n’t have a pub­licly announced board? Isn’t three peo­ple kind of small?

    Ali­cia Garza- Don’t know much about her, but she has spo­ken at Ford events.

    https://fordfoundcontent-deploy.azurewebsites.net/ideas/ford-forum/inequalityis/alicia-garza-on-inequality-and-protecting-workers/

    Patrice Khan-Cul­lors

    https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/cullors-patrisse-1984/

    Ful­bright Schol­ar. That pro­gram has been used over and over by the pow­er elite to recruit assets. Also involved in Van Jones’ Ella Bak­er group.

    Opal Tometi

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opal_Tometi

    Our third leader Opal Tometi. Spo­ken at the Aspen Insti­tute, also received an award from the CIA’s writ­ers front group PEN (dis­cussed heav­i­ly in Stonor-Saun­ders book).

    Black Lives Mat­ter is SO oppressed, SO rev­o­lu­tion­ary, SO rad­i­cal... that they have an adver­tis­ing con­tract with J Wal­ter Thomp­son! Some of their for­mer clients include: Pinochet’s gov­ern­ment, the US Marine Corp, Shell, Kel­log­gs, Ford Motor, and a list of oth­ers.

    Now that I think about it, I bet that finan­cial mag­a­zine cov­er that said “What CEOs can Learn from Black Lives Mat­ter” was part of a pay for play. That is how mag­a­zines work. I can’t find it now, but it was either Forbes, For­tune, or Bloomberg.

    Remem­ber the time that Forbes ran a “What CEOs can Learn from the Black Pan­thers” cov­er back in the 60s? Yeah, that did­n’t hap­pen. J Wal­ter Thommp­son even­tu­al­ly bought the PR firm Hill Knowl­ton, which cre­at­ed the “Kuwait babies pulled from incu­ba­tors” sto­ry on behalf of the Kuwaiti dic­ta­tor­ship that helped get us into Gulf War 1.

    https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/291541/black-lives-matter-hires-j-walter-thompson.html

    https://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/jwt-group-inc

    “...In the ear­ly 1970’s J. Wal­ter Thomp­son received some pub­lic­i­ty that tem­porar­i­ly dam­aged its pub­lic image. The Water­gate break-in inves­ti­ga­tion revealed that five Nixon “oper­a­tives” were past employ­ees of J. Wal­ter Thomp­son. White House chief of staff H.R. Halde­man, press sec­re­tary Ron Ziegler, and appoint­ment sec­re­tary Dwight Chapin were all for­mer admen trained at Thomp­son. It was lat­er dis­cov­ered that the agency was indi­rect­ly con­nect­ed to a pub­lic rela­tions com­pa­ny that was a front for the CIA. The pub­lic rela­tions firm named in this accu­sa­tion was the Wash­ing­ton D.C. based Robert R. Mullen & Com­pa­ny. Sam Meek, who had long been the orga­ni­za­tion­al head of JWT’s inter­na­tion­al oper­a­tions, was a prin­ci­ple sup­port­er of the Mullen “agency.” Even two years after the news was first report­ed, J. Wal­ter Thomp­son remained sub­ject to rumors link­ing it with the CIA.”

    Per­haps most egre­gious is their cre­ation of a BLM cred­it card aimed at low income users and direct­ed towards work­ing with a black-owned bank. That is not entire­ly a bad thing, until one real­izes WHICH bank they picked. Keep in mind, this inves­ti­ga­tion of Waters may have been a GOP-insti­gat­ed hatch­et job as she has pissed off a LOT of peo­ple with her mav­er­ick stances (many of which I’ve sup­port­ed, hon­est­ly!). How­ev­er, that does not get this bank off the hook. And I have seen some pre­vi­ous instances of Waters involved with shadi­ness, and I am very clear that she is no saint! I will dig deep­er lat­er as I sus­pect I am going to find some famil­iar char­ac­ters. But that is a sto­ry for anoth­er day...

    https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2016/04/15/still-on-hook-for-bailout-money-bank-seeks-new.html

    “...The head­quar­ters search comes as One­U­nit­ed looks to move past a string of con­tro­ver­sies that date back to 2008. One­U­nit­ed received more than $12 mil­lion in fed­er­al funds from the Trou­bled Asset Relief Pro­gram, cre­at­ed at the height of the finan­cial cri­sis to prop up the flail­ing bank­ing sec­tor. The pack­age quick­ly came under heavy scruti­ny, how­ev­er, after Con­gress­woman Max­ine Waters, a senior mem­ber of the House Finan­cial Ser­vices Com­mit­tee, was accused of improp­er­ly using her influ­ence to get One­U­nit­ed the mon­ey, since her hus­band sat on OneUnited’s board.

    A con­gres­sion­al pan­el cleared Waters of ethics vio­la­tions fol­low­ing a mul­ti­year inves­ti­ga­tion, but One­U­nit­ed still has not paid the gov­ern­ment back the $12 mil­lion. Only six banks in the coun­try owe the Trea­sury Depart­ment more TARP mon­ey under the cap­i­tal pur­chase pro­gram than One­U­nit­ed does.

    Williams said the bank is in dis­cus­sions with the Trea­sury Depart­ment about pay­ing the mon­ey back. She declined to com­ment on the specifics of the dis­cus­sions.

    The bailout mon­ey was also con­tro­ver­sial because that same year, the FDIC issued a cease-and-desist order against One­U­nit­ed, accus­ing the insti­tu­tion of run­ning an unsound lend­ing oper­a­tion, includ­ing pay­ing exec­u­tives exces­sive salaries and oper­at­ing with­out effec­tive under­writ­ing stan­dards. Reg­u­la­tors also flagged exec­u­tive perks such as a 2008 Porsche and a hous­ing allowance for a $6.4 mil­lion beach­front home in Cal­i­for­nia. The bank only came out from under the cease-and-desist order late last year.”

    NOTE:Yeah, it sounds weird that much of the West­ern intel appa­ra­tus and linked NGOs of this coun­try SUPPORT black rad­i­cals, but I sim­ply can’t ignore the evi­dence. Any dis­cus­sion of this is dom­i­nat­ed by the Far Right, which just wants to blame it all on Soros and Jews.

    But to pre­tend that the CIA Lib­er­al net­works are NOT involved in this is just Flat Earth­erism. It does­n’t hold up to scruti­ny. All you have to do is start check­ing out the var­i­ous donor lists, boards, etc. It’s all there, they don’t even try to obscure it usu­al­ly! (the lack of board info on BLM suprised me, as this stuff is gen­er­al­ly easy to find)

    As soon as I heard that ” an inde­pen­dent autop­sy showed dif­fer­ent results from the coro­ner”, I knew it was going to be Michael Baden. And it was. He did the exact same thing that he did dur­ing the Fer­gu­son case. Don’t take this the wrong way, I’m hard­ly excus­ing what the Min­neapo­lis cop did or mak­ing any claim that it was Floy­d’s health issues that killed him. Even if he did die of oth­er health issues, there’s no way hav­ing a knee on his neck helped out!

    I have no doubt there are gov­ern­ment coro­ners who will forge results to fit polit­i­cal agen­das or pro­tect cops. How­ev­er, I’m big on evi­dence, and I have no evi­dence of any kind that this coro­ner inten­tion­al­ly cov­ered for the cops.

    Baden seems like as much an oppor­tunist as an asset. He SUPPORTED the O.J. side, for exam­ple, but prob­a­bly because he got paid to do so. How­ev­er, on JFK, his work was ter­ri­ble and he was a sup­port­er of the mag­ic bul­let. He was one of Blakey’s guys, which speaks vol­umes. Here is DiEu­ge­nio’s take on him. DiEu­ge­nio does­n’t call him out as CIA, but he has made it clear what he thinks of Blakey, and I think that should extend to Baden.

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24117-whats-the-deal-with-michael-baden/

    “...The irony with Baden is that he was brought in, along with Wecht, to be the orig­i­nal first two med­ical author­i­ties for the HSCA. This was done while Sprague and Tanen­baum were run­ning the show.

    Well, if you read my inter­view with David Giglio, you will see that once Sprague left, and then Tanen­baum, a sea change over­took that com­mit­tee. Baden agreed to go along with Blakey’s, shall we call them, new ideas and approach. Wecht would not. There­fore, Blakey made Baden head of the med­ical pan­el and they iso­lat­ed, delib­er­ate­ly iso­lat­ed, Wecht.

    Baden saw this open­ing as a way to make a nation­al name for him­self, which he real­ly did not have up until that time. Until that time, the New York pathol­o­gist who had done so was Mil­ton Halpern, who Baden had worked under.

    Well, good ole Mikey took the ball and ran with it. And he did what Tanen­baum and Sprague would not have done. He made and endorsed a bunch of naked assump­tions in order to cre­ate a false con­clu­sion. He him­self has admit­ted that the JFK autop­sy was one of the worst in his­to­ry. But some­how, after it was mod­i­fied by the Clark Pan­el, with no exhumed body, Baden said it was OK in its con­clu­sions.

    Pat Speer and Gary Aguilar have done some real­ly good work on the joke that is Baden. So has Mil­i­cent Cra­nor. ”

    Posted by CinqueAnon | August 3, 2020, 2:38 pm
  2. “It’s dark­est before the dawn” is one of those phras­es that has a lot of his­toric res­o­nance. It real­ly is the case that his­toric move­ments are often cat­alyzed by tru­ly dark and hor­ri­ble events. Such was the case with the 1955 mur­der of Emmett Till. A mur­der to bru­tal and sense­less it helped to gal­va­nize the US civ­il rights move­ment. And yet, as we’re going to see, the real sto­ry was worse. On many lev­els. Not only was there a cov­er up of the full cast of char­ac­ters involved with Till’s mur­der, but it appears that the cov­er up was cyn­i­cal­ly con­coct­ed by a then-famous jour­nal­ist moti­vat­ed by a com­bi­na­tion of a desire to sell the rights to the sto­ry but also expose the hypocrisy of White lib­er­als who sup­port­ed civ­il rights. That’s the dis­turb­ing pic­ture that’s now emerged fol­low­ing the release of a set of doc­u­ments from the daugh­ter of one of the lawyers involved with the case.

    The jour­nal­ist, William Brad­ford Huie, was at that point already a nation­al best-sell­ing author, pop­u­lar speak­er and co-host of a TV talk show. Huie was hired by the New York Her­ald Tri­bune to cov­er civ­il rights in the South and it was his 1956 arti­cle in Look mag­a­zine on Till’s mur­der that essen­tial­ly defined our col­lec­tive under­stand­ing of the facts of the case for the next 50 years. It was only in 2004 when the FBI reopened the Till case, releas­ing a heav­i­ly redact­ed report in 2006 chal­leng­ing that nar­ra­tive.

    As Huie described the Till case to the world, on August 24, 1955, Till whis­tled at a White woman, Car­olyn Bryant, out­side the con­ve­nience store where she worked. On August 28, J.W. Mil­am and Roy Bryant abduct­ed Till at gun­point at the home of Till’s great-uncle and great-aunt. They put him in the back of Milan’s Truck, where Till lay on his own for almost three hours as they drove Till out to a cliff where they planned to scare him. But unable to find the cliff, they end­ed up tak­ing Till to Mil­am’s tool shed where they pis­tol-whipped him. Then, accord­ing to Huie’s telling, Till decid­ed to boast about hav­ing sex with White women. It was at that point that the two decid­ed to kill Till. Till then loaded a gin fan onto the truck by him­self and they drove to a river­bank. Mil­am shot him in the head at a river­bank and they tied his body to the gin fan and dumped it in the riv­er. That was the sto­ry that endured for almost 50 years.

    As we’ve sub­se­quent­ly learned, that nar­ra­tive was basi­cal­ly a fic­tion, con­coct­ed by Huie with the coop­er­a­tion of Mil­am and Bryant. A sto­ry con­coct­ed after Mil­am and Bryant had already been acquit­ted for the mur­der by an all white, all male jury. Pro­tect­ed by dou­ble jeop­ardy laws, Mil­am and Bryant were free to share their ver­sion of the sto­ry and Huie pro­posed he share it with him. The idea was that Huie would sell the movie rights for the sto­ry, and Mil­am and Bryant would share in the pro­ceeds. Yes, this dis­tort­ed ver­sion of what hap­pened was con­coct­ed in part so Huie, Mil­am and Bryant could make a bunch of mon­ey.

    But from Mil­am and Bryan­t’s per­spec­tive there was anoth­er major motive for play­ing along: cov­er­ing up all the oth­er peo­ple involved with the mur­der. Based on what we know today, Milan and Bryant had between two and five accom­plices with them that night, includ­ing Mil­am’s broth­er-in-law Melvin Camp­bell. Accord­ing to the 2006 FBI report, Camp­bell told an unnamed per­son he was with Mil­am and Bryant the night Till was killed, which is some­thing Huie knew in 1955. Accord­ing to a Decem­ber 10, 1955, let­ter to John Whit­ton, one of the defense attor­neys in the case, Huie inter­view Till’s great-aunt who “talked mighty con­vinc­ing­ly about the ‘third man’ who came in her room and spoke with her” dur­ing the kid­nap­ping. That third man was Camp­bell. Huie made no men­tion of this third man in his 1956 sto­ry. It was John Whit­ton’s daugh­ter who even­tu­al­ly dis­cov­ered these doc­u­ments and released them to the pub­lic.

    Mak­ing this whole sit­u­a­tion all the more sor­did is the fact that Huie was pub­licly seen as a sup­port­er of the civ­il rights move­ment at the time. In fact, MLK wrote the fore­word to Huie’s book about the 1964 mur­ders of three civ­il rights activists. And yet, accord­ing to a Decem­ber 20, 1955, let­ter to Whit­ton, Huie explained how “I’m very old in this pro­pa­gan­da busi­ness. I know how to fight smart … so smart that my ‘ene­mies’ don’t real­ize just what is being done to them at times.” He went on to explain how some read­ers might think his upcom­ing arti­cle was a “god­send to the NAACP”, but it was no such thing. Huie also described how he includ­ed an anec­dote about Till hav­ing a pic­ture of a White girl in his wal­let because it would “pin­point the hypocrisy” of White “lib­er­als” and leave them “very uncom­fort­able.” “Most Negroes want to be white,” Huie wrote, and “vir­tu­al­ly all Amer­i­can Whites are opposed” to “inter­ra­cial mar­riage.” In oth­er let­ter, Huie bragged about sell­ing a neg­a­tive sto­ry about Till’s father to a “slan­der sheet”, which he hoped would please White Mis­sis­sip­pi­ans. He also promised in the let­ters to main­tain con­trol of any upcom­ing movie projects to ensure Till would­n’t be depict­ed too sym­pa­thet­i­cal­ly.

    That’s the incred­i­bly cor­rupt back­sto­ry to the Till mur­der that we’re just learn­ing about today. Almost sev­en decades lat­er. A watered-down dis­tort­ed sto­ry that, even still, was so bru­tal it ampli­fied the civ­il rights move­ment:

    The Wash­ing­ton Post

    Jour­nal­ist with­held infor­ma­tion about Emmett Till’s mur­der, doc­u­ments show

    William Brad­ford Huie’s new­ly released research notes show he sus­pect­ed more than two men tor­tured and killed 14-year-old Emmett Till, but sug­gest that he left that out when it threat­ened his sto­ry.

    By Gillian Brock­ell
    Updat­ed August 29, 2024 at 4:42 p.m. EDT|Published August 28, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. EDT

    A jour­nal­ist whose 1956 arti­cle was billed as the “true account” of Emmett Till’s mur­der with­held cred­i­ble infor­ma­tion about peo­ple involved in the crime, accord­ing to new­ly dis­cov­ered doc­u­ments.

    William Brad­ford Huie’s arti­cle in Look mag­a­zine helped shape the country’s under­stand­ing of 14-year-old Till’s abduc­tion, tor­ture and slay­ing in Jim Crow-era Mis­sis­sip­pi. The arti­cle detailed the con­fes­sions of two White men who pre­vi­ous­ly had been acquit­ted by an all-White jury in the mur­der. The men told Huie they had no accom­plices.

    Yet Huie’s own research notes, recent­ly released by the descen­dants of a lawyer in the case, indi­cate his report­ing showed that oth­ers were involved and sug­gest he chose to leave that out when it threat­ened the sale of his sto­ry. He also was seek­ing a movie deal about the mur­der and had agreed to pay the two acquit­ted men, J.W. Mil­am and Roy Bryant, part of the pro­ceeds.

    ...

    Pro­tect­ed by the U.S. Constitution’s dou­ble-jeop­ardy clause, Mil­am and Bryant told Huie after their acquit­tal that they had killed Till after Car­olyn Bryant, Roy’s wife, claimed the boy accost­ed her in August 1955.

    “Between 1955 and 2005, it was with­out ques­tion the sin­gle most influ­en­tial ver­sion of the sto­ry. And [Huie] was inten­tion­al­ly pro­tect­ing guilty peo­ple,” said Dave Tell, a Uni­ver­si­ty of Kansas pro­fes­sor whose 2019 book, “Remem­ber­ing Emmett Till,” was harsh­ly crit­i­cal of Huie’s report­ing.

    Till’s bru­tal lynch­ing shocked the world and helped gal­va­nize the civ­il rights move­ment. But mis­con­cep­tions of the events lead­ing to his death have per­sist­ed, and the FBI has reopened the case sev­er­al times — most recent­ly in 2017.

    In addi­tion to Huie’s 33-page research notes, the new­ly released doc­u­ments include let­ters he exchanged with John Whit­ten, one of the men’s defense attor­neys. Whitten’s grand­daugh­ter, Ellen Whit­ten, found the doc­u­ments in April and with her moth­er donat­ed them to the Emmett Till Archives at Flori­da State Uni­ver­si­ty [diginole.lib.fsu.edu].

    “I think shed­ding light on his­tor­i­cal wrongs is nev­er a bad thing,” Ellen Whit­ten said in an inter­view.

    Deb­o­rah Watts, Till’s cousin and co-founder of the Emmett Till Lega­cy Foun­da­tion, said the rev­e­la­tions in the doc­u­ments are impor­tant.

    “But in terms of vin­di­ca­tion? Emmett died. And he died because of a num­ber of lies,” she said. “We knew that they were lying on Emmett. We knew there were many that sought a prof­it and a pay­off from the pain that our fam­i­ly expe­ri­enced.”

    Davis W. Houck, the founder of the Till archives and co-author of a book about media cov­er­age of Till’s slay­ing, shared the doc­u­ments with The Wash­ing­ton Post and Mis­sis­sip­pi Today ahead of their pub­lic avail­abil­i­ty. Mis­sis­sip­pi Today pub­lished its sto­ry ear­li­er this month.

    ...

    ‘The true account’

    Huie was born and raised in Alaba­ma. By the mid-1950s he was a best-sell­ing author, pop­u­lar speak­er and co-host of a TV talk show, and was hired by the New York Her­ald Tri­bune to cov­er civ­il rights in the South.

    When Huie’s arti­cle hit nation­al news­stands, the impact was imme­di­ate. White Mis­sis­sip­pi­ans, who had pre­vi­ous­ly sup­port­ed Mil­am and Bryant, turned against them. U.S. Rep. Charles Dig­gs (D‑Mich.), one of the few Black mem­bers of Con­gress at the time, read the arti­cle into the con­gres­sion­al record. One Black news­pa­per hailed Huie’s “spec­tac­u­lar” report­ing.

    The sto­ry had an addi­tion­al effect: Black jour­nal­ists had been pres­sur­ing Mis­sis­sip­pi offi­cials and the FBI to inves­ti­gate and charge addi­tion­al sus­pects in the case. Huie’s “true account,” with its assur­ance that only two men were involved and its depic­tion of Till as a defi­ant brute, effec­tive­ly end­ed that effort.

    “This con­fes­sion, as it was tout­ed, sud­den­ly seemed enough to sat­is­fy every­body,” said Dev­ery S. Ander­son, author of a 2015 book on the Till case. If Huie had report­ed every­thing he had learned, “it’s pos­si­ble these oth­er peo­ple would have been indict­ed,” Ander­son said, though he also said they might have been acquit­ted.

    Experts now agree on this basic time­line: On Aug. 24, 1955, Till whis­tled at Car­olyn Bryant out­side the con­ve­nience store where she worked. What, if any­thing, hap­pened inside the store is unknown. In the ear­ly hours of Aug. 28, Mil­am and Bryant, along with at least two and per­haps five accom­plices, went to the home of Till’s great-uncle and great-aunt Moses and Eliz­a­beth Wright and abduct­ed Till at gun­point.

    They put him in the back of Milam’s truck, and one or more Black men who worked for Mil­am held Till down. They drove to the farm of Leslie Mil­am, anoth­er broth­er. A group of White men beat and tor­tured Till inside the barn, and Black neigh­bors heard Till cry­ing and beg­ging for his moth­er. Mil­am shot Till in the head, and Till was either dead or dying when he was loaded back into the truck around sun­rise. His body was tied to a 74-pound gin fan with barbed wire and dumped into the Tal­la­hatchie Riv­er. It was recov­ered on Aug. 31.

    Huie’s arti­cle said that Till accost­ed Car­olyn Bryant inside the store and asked her for a date before going out­side and whistling at her. Days lat­er, Huie wrote, Mil­am and Bryant abduct­ed him. They had nev­er met Till but knew it was him because the boy iden­ti­fied him­self.

    Till lay in the back of the truck for three hours while the men drove around look­ing for a cliff where they’d planned to scare him, Huie wrote. Unable to find it, they took him to Milam’s tool shed and pis­tol-whipped him. Till, who hard­ly bled, boast­ed of hav­ing sex with White women, Huie wrote. The men then decid­ed to kill him, the arti­cle said. Till loaded the gin fan onto the truck by him­self. At the river­bank, Mil­am shot him in the head.

    Huie’s research notes say he first arrived in Sum­n­er, Miss., on Oct. 6, 1955, two weeks after Mil­am and Bryant’s acquit­tal. He met with the men’s defense attor­neys, J.J. Bre­land and John Whit­ten, and pro­posed an idea: If they could help him obtain “the com­plete and truth­ful coop­er­a­tion of every White man who had been involved in the abduc­tion-and-slay­ing,” then he might be able to make them all rich. He want­ed to write an arti­cle, then a book, a stage play and a movie, and he would share a per­cent­age of the pro­ceeds of each project with the men and their attor­neys.

    They nego­ti­at­ed the terms for a few weeks. “At this point both Mr. Whit­ten and I were under the assump­tion there had been four White men in the abduc­tion-and-slay­ing par­ty,” Huie wrote in his research notes. Huie agreed to pay $3,150 and pitched the sto­ry to Look mag­a­zine, which insist­ed that every per­son named in the sto­ry sign a release form to pro­tect the mag­a­zine from libel claims.

    Both Whit­ten and Huie were sur­prised when, on Oct. 23, only Mil­am and Bryant showed up to be inter­viewed, claim­ing no one else had been involved in Till’s mur­der.

    A third kid­nap­per?

    Huie met with Mil­am and Bryant sev­er­al times, and in his research notes he repeat­ed­ly expressed doubts about the sto­ry they told him. He expressed even more doubts in let­ters to Whit­ten after he’d trav­eled to Chica­go to inter­view Black wit­ness­es.

    In a Dec. 10, 1955, let­ter, Huie told Whit­ten he inter­viewed Eliz­a­beth Wright, whom he found “intel­li­gent,” and who, he wrote, “talked mighty con­vinc­ing­ly about the ‘third man’ who came in her room and spoke with her” dur­ing the kid­nap­ping.

    “She said it was Milam’s broth­er-in-law from Minter City,” Huie said in the let­ter.

    Mil­am had a broth­er-in-law in Minter City named Melvin Camp­bell. In a heav­i­ly redact­ed 2006 report by the FBI, inves­ti­ga­tors said Melvin Camp­bell told an unnamed per­son he was with Mil­am and Bryant the night Till was killed. Camp­bell died in 1972.

    Huie nev­er men­tioned Wright’s claim of a third kid­nap­per in the Look arti­cle. If he had, Look would have required Camp­bell to sign a release form.

    Ander­son said this new infor­ma­tion changes what he thinks about Car­olyn Bryant, whom he had long sus­pect­ed of being inside the truck the night Mil­am and her hus­band kid­napped Till. If Camp­bell par­tic­i­pat­ed in the kid­nap­ping, then “there isn’t real­ly room for her in the truck,” Ander­son said.

    Ander­son said he now think it’s more like­ly that anoth­er per­son iden­ti­fied Till.

    If Huie had report­ed every­thing he was told, Houck said, “There’s going to be some peo­ple in the White press who con­tin­ue to say, ‘Okay, then why aren’t we pros­e­cut­ing? Why isn’t the DA in Tal­la­hatchie Coun­ty pros­e­cut­ing them?’ He essen­tial­ly shuts down the case legal­ly.”

    Doubts creep in

    In his research notes, Huie also wrote “there appears no doubt” that Car­olyn Bryant’s claim that Till accost­ed her was “fab­ri­cat­ed — prob­a­bly at the sug­ges­tion of one of the lawyers.” But in the Look arti­cle, he pub­lished her claim as fact. Bryant died last year.

    Huie also repeat­ed­ly expressed doubts about Mil­am and Bryant’s claim that Till sat in the back of the truck unre­strained. He wrote of chal­leng­ing them on how unbe­liev­able it was that Till didn’t try to escape.

    Huie con­clud­ed: “It still sounds unrea­son­able to me, but all that can be said in its defense is that it makes more sense than any oth­er expla­na­tion.” In the arti­cle, he report­ed the “impu­dent” Till sit­ting in the truck for hours as fact.

    “That part makes me mad,” Tell said. “They invent the myth of a defi­ant, sto­ic Emmett Till because they need to get rid of [the Black men], who are in the back, guard­ing him.”

    In the Dec. 10, 1955, let­ter to Whit­ten, Huie asked about one of those Black men, Levi “Too Tight” Collins, long believed to have been forced by Mil­am to par­tic­i­pate in the kid­nap­ping. Huie also men­tioned Willie Reed, an 18-year-old Black passer­by who had tes­ti­fied he caught a glimpse of Till in the back of the truck and heard him being tor­tured in Leslie Milam’s barn. Both Collins and Reed fled to Chica­go after the tri­al, where their sto­ries cir­cu­lat­ed.

    “I lis­tened to so much of this stuff in Chica­go that I began doubt­ing myself,” Huie told Whit­ten, “and one night I was on the point of com­ing back to Mis­sis­sip­pi and ‘pis­tol-whip­ping’ Mil­am for telling me a fab­ric of lies.” He then asked Whit­ten what he knew of Collins’s claims about Mil­am, admit­ting it was “too late for me to ask you to reas­sure me on this point.”

    Huie doesn’t men­tion Reed or Collins in his sto­ry. Doing so would have required him to get a signed waiv­er from Leslie Mil­am, the third broth­er in whose barn Till was beat­en. Instead, he pub­lished as fact a claim he doubt­ed — that Till was beat­en some­where else.

    In 1974, Leslie Mil­am sum­moned a min­is­ter to his home and con­fessed he had been “per­son­al­ly involved” in Till’s mur­der, accord­ing to the FBI. He died the next day.

    The ‘pro­pa­gan­da busi­ness’

    In a Dec. 20 let­ter to Whit­ten, Huie hint­ed that he pitched the sto­ry to Look because of its lax edit­ing prac­tices, writ­ing: “I dealt with a mag­a­zine with which I could exer­cise this con­trol.

    “You see, John,” he boast­ed, “I’m very old in this pro­pa­gan­da busi­ness. I know how to fight smart … so smart that my ‘ene­mies’ don’t real­ize just what is being done to them at times.”

    He explained that although some read­ers might think his arti­cle was a “god­send to NAACP,” it was no such thing.

    “Most Negroes want to be white,” he wrote, and “vir­tu­al­ly all Amer­i­can Whites are opposed” to “inter­ra­cial mar­riage,” so Huie had includ­ed an anec­dote about Till hav­ing a pic­ture of a White girl in his wal­let. It would “pin­point the hypocrisy” of White “lib­er­als” and leave them “very uncom­fort­able.”

    The com­ments in the let­ter are at odds with Huie’s rep­u­ta­tion as being sym­pa­thet­ic to the civ­il rights move­ment. The Black writer Zora Neale Hurston con­sid­ered him a friend, and Mar­tin Luther King Jr. wrote the fore­word to Huie’s book about the 1964 mur­ders of three civ­il rights activists.

    In oth­er let­ters, he bragged about sell­ing a neg­a­tive sto­ry about Till’s father — whom Till nev­er met — to a “slan­der sheet,” which he hoped would please White Mis­sis­sip­pi­ans. He coached Whit­ten on how he and the killers should lie about hav­ing met or spo­ken to Huie.

    Most­ly, he wrote of his efforts to get the movie made, promis­ing to main­tain con­trol of the project so Till wouldn’t be depict­ed too sym­pa­thet­i­cal­ly. The movie nev­er got made, although Huie even­tu­al­ly pub­lished a book about Till’s slay­ing and oth­er sto­ries.

    ‘M + B, destroy’

    At some point, John Whit­ten removed the fold­er con­tain­ing the notes and let­ters from his office. On the fold­er he wrote: “M + B, destroy.”

    But short­ly before his death in 2003, he told his daugh­ter-in-law — Ellen Whitten’s moth­er — where in his house he’d hid­den the doc­u­ments, in case any­thing hap­pened to him.

    Ellen Whit­ten was 19 when he died. She nev­er asked him about the case, because she’d nev­er heard of Emmett Till. “It’s not some­thing they teach in schools in Mis­sis­sip­pi,” she said. “Well, they do now. They did not at the time.”

    After she donat­ed the doc­u­ments to the Till archives, Houck called with news of their sig­nif­i­cance. He warned that her grand­fa­ther “does not come off well in these let­ters.”

    ...

    “I would hope that if any­one else had doc­u­ments relat­ed to the case they’re feel­ing sort of uncer­tain about, I think bring­ing it all to light helps,” she said.

    ———-

    “Jour­nal­ist with­held infor­ma­tion about Emmett Till’s mur­der, doc­u­ments show” By Gillian Brock­ell; The Wash­ing­ton Post; 08/29/2024

    ““Between 1955 and 2005, it was with­out ques­tion the sin­gle most influ­en­tial ver­sion of the sto­ry. And [Huie] was inten­tion­al­ly pro­tect­ing guilty peo­ple,” said Dave Tell, a Uni­ver­si­ty of Kansas pro­fes­sor whose 2019 book, “Remem­ber­ing Emmett Till,” was harsh­ly crit­i­cal of Huie’s report­ing.”

    A lie that endured for at least 50 years, obscur­ing what real­ly hap­pened and pro­tect­ing at least some of the cul­prits. An endur­ing lie about a bru­tal killing that helped gal­va­nize the civ­il rights move­ment, con­coct­ed short­ly after J.W. Mil­am and Roy Bryant were acquit­ted for Till’s mur­der by an all white, all male jury. The sto­ry was bad enough to ener­gize the civ­il rights move­ment and yet the truth was even worse. In 2004, the FBI opens an inves­ti­ga­tion into the case, releas­ing a heav­i­ly redact­ed report in 2006 that con­firms Huie’s sto­ry of just two men being behind the mur­der was a fab­ri­ca­tion designed to pro­tect the oth­ers involved. And here we are almost two decades after that FBI report, still learn­ing more details about the cor­rupt nature of this Huie’s arrange­ment:

    ...
    Pro­tect­ed by the U.S. Constitution’s dou­ble-jeop­ardy clause, Mil­am and Bryant told Huie after their acquit­tal that they had killed Till after Car­olyn Bryant, Roy’s wife, claimed the boy accost­ed her in August 1955.

    ...

    Till’s bru­tal lynch­ing shocked the world and helped gal­va­nize the civ­il rights move­ment. But mis­con­cep­tions of the events lead­ing to his death have per­sist­ed, and the FBI has reopened the case sev­er­al times — most recent­ly in 2017.

    In addi­tion to Huie’s 33-page research notes, the new­ly released doc­u­ments include let­ters he exchanged with John Whit­ten, one of the men’s defense attor­neys. Whitten’s grand­daugh­ter, Ellen Whit­ten, found the doc­u­ments in April and with her moth­er donat­ed them to the Emmett Till Archives at Flori­da State Uni­ver­si­ty [diginole.lib.fsu.edu].

    ...

    Huie’s research notes say he first arrived in Sum­n­er, Miss., on Oct. 6, 1955, two weeks after Mil­am and Bryant’s acquit­tal. He met with the men’s defense attor­neys, J.J. Bre­land and John Whit­ten, and pro­posed an idea: If they could help him obtain “the com­plete and truth­ful coop­er­a­tion of every White man who had been involved in the abduc­tion-and-slay­ing,” then he might be able to make them all rich. He want­ed to write an arti­cle, then a book, a stage play and a movie, and he would share a per­cent­age of the pro­ceeds of each project with the men and their attor­neys.

    They nego­ti­at­ed the terms for a few weeks. “At this point both Mr. Whit­ten and I were under the assump­tion there had been four White men in the abduc­tion-and-slay­ing par­ty,” Huie wrote in his research notes. Huie agreed to pay $3,150 and pitched the sto­ry to Look mag­a­zine, which insist­ed that every per­son named in the sto­ry sign a release form to pro­tect the mag­a­zine from libel claims.

    Both Whit­ten and Huie were sur­prised when, on Oct. 23, only Mil­am and Bryant showed up to be inter­viewed, claim­ing no one else had been involved in Till’s mur­der.

    ...

    Huie met with Mil­am and Bryant sev­er­al times, and in his research notes he repeat­ed­ly expressed doubts about the sto­ry they told him. He expressed even more doubts in let­ters to Whit­ten after he’d trav­eled to Chica­go to inter­view Black wit­ness­es.

    In a Dec. 10, 1955, let­ter, Huie told Whit­ten he inter­viewed Eliz­a­beth Wright, whom he found “intel­li­gent,” and who, he wrote, “talked mighty con­vinc­ing­ly about the ‘third man’ who came in her room and spoke with her” dur­ing the kid­nap­ping.

    “She said it was Milam’s broth­er-in-law from Minter City,” Huie said in the let­ter.

    Mil­am had a broth­er-in-law in Minter City named Melvin Camp­bell. In a heav­i­ly redact­ed 2006 report by the FBI, inves­ti­ga­tors said Melvin Camp­bell told an unnamed per­son he was with Mil­am and Bryant the night Till was killed. Camp­bell died in 1972.

    Huie nev­er men­tioned Wright’s claim of a third kid­nap­per in the Look arti­cle. If he had, Look would have required Camp­bell to sign a release form.
    ...

    And note how Huie was­n’t some ran­dom jour­nal­ist. He was a best sell­ing author who was hired by the New York Her­ald Tri­bune to cov­er civ­il rights in the South. So when Huie’s nar­ra­tive depict­ed Till as a defi­ant brute who boast­ed about hav­ing sex with White women while he was a cap­tive, this was some­one who US audi­ences had already learned to trust. That’s part of what makes this such a moral­ly gross sto­ry. This was­n’t just a jour­nal­ist fab­ri­cat­ing a nar­ra­tive to cov­er up a larg­er crime. This was a nation­al­ly known and trust­ed jour­nal­ist:

    ...
    Huie was born and raised in Alaba­ma. By the mid-1950s he was a best-sell­ing author, pop­u­lar speak­er and co-host of a TV talk show, and was hired by the New York Her­ald Tri­bune to cov­er civ­il rights in the South.

    When Huie’s arti­cle hit nation­al news­stands, the impact was imme­di­ate. White Mis­sis­sip­pi­ans, who had pre­vi­ous­ly sup­port­ed Mil­am and Bryant, turned against them. U.S. Rep. Charles Dig­gs (D‑Mich.), one of the few Black mem­bers of Con­gress at the time, read the arti­cle into the con­gres­sion­al record. One Black news­pa­per hailed Huie’s “spec­tac­u­lar” report­ing.

    The sto­ry had an addi­tion­al effect: Black jour­nal­ists had been pres­sur­ing Mis­sis­sip­pi offi­cials and the FBI to inves­ti­gate and charge addi­tion­al sus­pects in the case. Huie’s “true account,” with its assur­ance that only two men were involved and its depic­tion of Till as a defi­ant brute, effec­tive­ly end­ed that effort.

    “This con­fes­sion, as it was tout­ed, sud­den­ly seemed enough to sat­is­fy every­body,” said Dev­ery S. Ander­son, author of a 2015 book on the Till case. If Huie had report­ed every­thing he had learned, “it’s pos­si­ble these oth­er peo­ple would have been indict­ed,” Ander­son said, though he also said they might have been acquit­ted.

    ...

    Huie’s arti­cle said that Till accost­ed Car­olyn Bryant inside the store and asked her for a date before going out­side and whistling at her. Days lat­er, Huie wrote, Mil­am and Bryant abduct­ed him. They had nev­er met Till but knew it was him because the boy iden­ti­fied him­self.

    Till lay in the back of the truck for three hours while the men drove around look­ing for a cliff where they’d planned to scare him, Huie wrote. Unable to find it, they took him to Milam’s tool shed and pis­tol-whipped him. Till, who hard­ly bled, boast­ed of hav­ing sex with White women, Huie wrote. The men then decid­ed to kill him, the arti­cle said. Till loaded the gin fan onto the truck by him­self. At the river­bank, Mil­am shot him in the head.

    ...

    In his research notes, Huie also wrote “there appears no doubt” that Car­olyn Bryant’s claim that Till accost­ed her was “fab­ri­cat­ed — prob­a­bly at the sug­ges­tion of one of the lawyers.” But in the Look arti­cle, he pub­lished her claim as fact. Bryant died last year.

    Huie also repeat­ed­ly expressed doubts about Mil­am and Bryant’s claim that Till sat in the back of the truck unre­strained. He wrote of chal­leng­ing them on how unbe­liev­able it was that Till didn’t try to escape.

    Huie con­clud­ed: “It still sounds unrea­son­able to me, but all that can be said in its defense is that it makes more sense than any oth­er expla­na­tion.” In the arti­cle, he report­ed the “impu­dent” Till sit­ting in the truck for hours as fact.

    “That part makes me mad,” Tell said. “They invent the myth of a defi­ant, sto­ic Emmett Till because they need to get rid of [the Black men], who are in the back, guard­ing him.”
    ...

    And that brings us to Huie’s own boasts about how, “I’m very old in this pro­pa­gan­da busi­ness. I know how to fight smart … so smart that my ‘ene­mies’ don’t real­ize just what is being done to them at times.” And as we can see, those ‘ene­mies’ in this case were appar­ent­ly sup­port­ers of the NAACP, who would­n’t real­ize that this was all a cov­er up. And then Huie goes on to seem­ing­ly jus­ti­fy includ­ing a detail about Till hav­ing a pic­ture of a White girl in his wal­let because it would “pin­point the hypocrisy” of White “lib­er­als” who, Huie insist­ed, remained opposed to inter­ra­cial mar­riage. It would be one thing if Huie was an obscure jour­nal­ist mak­ing these com­ments. But this was a nation­al­ly known best-sell­ing author and some­one civ­il rights lead­ers appar­ent­ly con­sid­ered a friend. Includ­ing MLK appar­ent­ly:

    ...
    The ‘pro­pa­gan­da busi­ness’

    In a Dec. 20 let­ter to Whit­ten, Huie hint­ed that he pitched the sto­ry to Look because of its lax edit­ing prac­tices, writ­ing: “I dealt with a mag­a­zine with which I could exer­cise this con­trol.

    “You see, John,” he boast­ed, “I’m very old in this pro­pa­gan­da busi­ness. I know how to fight smart … so smart that my ‘ene­mies’ don’t real­ize just what is being done to them at times.”

    He explained that although some read­ers might think his arti­cle was a “god­send to NAACP,” it was no such thing.

    “Most Negroes want to be white,” he wrote, and “vir­tu­al­ly all Amer­i­can Whites are opposed” to “inter­ra­cial mar­riage,” so Huie had includ­ed an anec­dote about Till hav­ing a pic­ture of a White girl in his wal­let. It would “pin­point the hypocrisy” of White “lib­er­als” and leave them “very uncom­fort­able.”

    The com­ments in the let­ter are at odds with Huie’s rep­u­ta­tion as being sym­pa­thet­ic to the civ­il rights move­ment. The Black writer Zora Neale Hurston con­sid­ered him a friend, and Mar­tin Luther King Jr. wrote the fore­word to Huie’s book about the 1964 mur­ders of three civ­il rights activists.

    In oth­er let­ters, he bragged about sell­ing a neg­a­tive sto­ry about Till’s father — whom Till nev­er met — to a “slan­der sheet,” which he hoped would please White Mis­sis­sip­pi­ans. He coached Whit­ten on how he and the killers should lie about hav­ing met or spo­ken to Huie.

    Most­ly, he wrote of his efforts to get the movie made, promis­ing to main­tain con­trol of the project so Till wouldn’t be depict­ed too sym­pa­thet­i­cal­ly. The movie nev­er got made, although Huie even­tu­al­ly pub­lished a book about Till’s slay­ing and oth­er sto­ries.
    ...

    You have to won­der how many more gross­ly incrim­i­nat­ing let­ters of this nature still exist in this case. It’s pret­ty clear by now that a lot of peo­ple knew the truth. How much worse will this sto­ry get? Time will tell, but it’s hard to imag­ine any future updates to this sto­ry that don’t some­how make all it worse. Just as it’s also hard to imag­ine there aren’t a lot more exam­ples of this kind of ‘nar­ra­tive man­age­ment’ that nev­er get exposed and just remain ‘the truth’.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 9, 2024, 4:30 pm

Post a comment