The State's Case Against James Earl Ray

I finally got around to putting something together!

http://mlkmurder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-states-case-against-james-earl-ray.html

Hopefully it'll serve as a half-decent primer for those who know little or nothing about the case. I would really like to get some good discussion going on this all-too-often overlooked crime. When I tried to do so over on the Ed forum all I ended up with was Len Colby.

Good of you for putting this together, Martin. I will try and make some time to read it. Len Colby? That guy's a fucking idiot. I mean, anyone who thinks that John F Kennedy was a conservative, well....... I won't say it.

Hasan Yusuf wrote:Good of you for putting this together, Martin. I will try and make some time to read it. Len Colby? That guy's a fucking idiot. I mean, anyone who thinks that John F Kennedy was a conservative, well....... I won't say it.

 I doubt that he really thinks that, Hasan.

He's just a troll, pure and simple. He'll say whatever he needs to say to antagonize the person he's talking to.

He knows precisely fuck all about the MLK assassination but that didn't stop him from copying and pasting whatever he could find on the net in an attempt to "debate" me.

P.S. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on my piece.

Martin Hay wrote:I finally got around to putting something together!

http://mlkmurder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-states-case-against-james-earl-ray.html

Hopefully it'll serve as a half-decent primer for those who know little or nothing about the case. I would really like to get some good discussion going on this all-too-often overlooked crime. When I tried to do so over on the Ed forum all I ended up with was Len Colby.

Len's a member here, and though he has never made a post, he is welcome to.

I'd be disappointed if we couldn't get a discussion going - with or without Len's input.

He's just a troll, pure and simple. He'll say whatever he needs to say to antagonize the person he's talking to.

I think that you are most likely correct about that, Martin.

This is a fabulous article, Martin, an impressive piece of scholarship. I've finally had the chance to read it, having a whirlwind schedule these days. This case sounds like a rerun of Oswald's framing, in large parts- why mess with a tried-and-true formula? It really seems that the people who controlled this trial were the ones who pulled off this crime. So the FBI and Memphis Police and Tennessee coroner's office are culpable, at least in my mind. And using the CIA's lone-nut formula. 

No dissection of the track of the bullet by Jerry Francisco. The FBI's Robert Jensen provides a false trail of a T-shirt and shorts to LA. Shoe scuff marks in the tub were likely made by police investigating this crime. And Ray Hendrix & William Reed corroborated James Earl Ray's early exit time from the crime scene area, strengthening Ray's contention that he spent only 15 minutes in the rooming house. But were not heard from for 25 years.

Why do you think he plead guilty?

What factors deter you from thinking that an Army Intelligence team pulled off the murder? That's my own opinion, admittedly not formed from anywhere near as extensive the research you have put into this. 

Thank you for condensing the salient details into a fine piece of journalism. A friend of mine e-mailed me the trial transcript back in May but it's over 2000 pages.  

Martin Hay wrote:I finally got around to putting something together!

http://mlkmurder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-states-case-against-james-earl-ray.html

Hopefully it'll serve as a half-decent primer for those who know little or nothing about the case. I would really like to get some good discussion going on this all-too-often overlooked crime. When I tried to do so over on the Ed forum all I ended up with was Len Colby.

Martin,

I haven't finished reading it yet, but so far, it an impressive piece of writing.

A couple of things to fix:
 
Thus the implication is made that Ray was specifically looking for a room with a view of Dr. King's room at the Lorraine. But as Brewer said in her April 4, 1964 interview, Ray didn't check the view from the window before accepting the room, he just “looked in” and “said that was fine.”  should read "...Thus the implication is made that Ray was specifically looking for a room with a view of Dr. King's room at the Lorraine. But as Brewer said in her April 4, 1964 [19??] interview, Ray didn't check the view from the window before accepting the room, he just “looked in” and said "that was fine.” 

A question also... it's not entirely clear to me if Ray did in fact specifically request a north facing room, or whether that just happened to be the room offered after he rejected the first. This seems a reasonable point to make clear because you say that Ray claimed he took a room there at Raoul's request (as part of being framed). In that event, it surely can't be left to chance that he ends up with the "right" room.

Richard Gilbride wrote:This is a fabulous article, Martin, an impressive piece of scholarship. I've finally had the chance to read it, having a whirlwind schedule these days. This case sounds like a rerun of Oswald's framing, in large parts- why mess with a tried-and-true formula? It really seems that the people who controlled this trial were the ones who pulled off this crime. So the FBI and Memphis Police and Tennessee coroner's office are culpable, at least in my mind. And using the CIA's lone-nut formula. 

No dissection of the track of the bullet by Jerry Francisco. The FBI's Robert Jensen provides a false trail of a T-shirt and shorts to LA. Shoe scuff marks in the tub were likely made by police investigating this crime. And Ray Hendrix & William Reed corroborated James Earl Ray's early exit time from the crime scene area, strengthening Ray's contention that he spent only 15 minutes in the rooming house. But were not heard from for 25 years.

Why do you think he plead guilty?

What factors deter you from thinking that an Army Intelligence team pulled off the murder? That's my own opinion, admittedly not formed from anywhere near as extensive the research you have put into this. 

Thank you for condensing the salient details into a fine piece of journalism. A friend of mine e-mailed me the trial transcript back in May but it's over 2000 pages.  

 Thank you Richard. I'm glad you enjoyed the article.

I am currently (and slowly) working on a piece about why Ray pled guilty. Should be done in a few days.

Will get back to you about the Army Intel stuff. To be honest, I need to re-familiarize myself with that angle, make sure I've got my facts straight.

greg parker wrote:

Martin Hay wrote:I finally got around to putting something together!

http://mlkmurder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-states-case-against-james-earl-ray.html

Hopefully it'll serve as a half-decent primer for those who know little or nothing about the case. I would really like to get some good discussion going on this all-too-often overlooked crime. When I tried to do so over on the Ed forum all I ended up with was Len Colby.

Martin,

I haven't finished reading it yet, but so far, it is an impressive piece of writing.

A couple of things to fix:
 
Thus the implication is made that Ray was specifically looking for a room with a view of Dr. King's room at the Lorraine. But as Brewer said in her April 4, 1964 interview, Ray didn't check the view from the window before accepting the room, he just “looked in” and “said that was fine.”  should read "...Thus the implication is made that Ray was specifically looking for a room with a view of Dr. King's room at the Lorraine. But as Brewer said in her April 4, 1964 [19??] interview, Ray didn't check the view from the window before accepting the room, he just “looked in” and said "that was fine.” 

A question also... it's not entirely clear to me if Ray did in fact specifically request a north facing room, or whether that just happened to be the room offered after he rejected the first. This seems a reasonable point to make clear because you say that Ray claimed he took a room there at Raoul's request (as part of being framed). In that event, it surely can't be left to chance that he ends up with the "right" room.

 Thanks for spotting that one, Greg. Will fix ASAP.

Ray didn't request a north-facing room, he just rejected the "house keeping" room he was shown first. I'll try to make that more clear.

Martin Hay wrote:P.S. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on my piece.

Martin,

Sorry, but I haven't read your article yet. I will try to make some time tomorrow to do just that.

A fantastic introduction to the case, Martin.  Like Greg I haven't really ever delved beneath the surface of the King assassination other than reading a couple of books and watching a few documentaries.

Your introduction makes me want to look into it more.  When I heard Hancock and Wexler were writing a book on the topic I was going to buy it to read at some point when I had some time available but having read your review I put the purchase off.  But given the current debate about whether books are worthy or unworthy is the Hancock/Wexler book worth reading on any level and where did the book go awry in your opinion?  Do they give a good account of the narrative but reach poor conclusions or do they focus on the wrong things?

Lee,

Thanks for the compliments, I'm glad my article piqued your interest, that's exactly what I was hoping for. I'd love to see more informed and reasoned debate on this subject as it's become equally if not more important than the JFK case for me over recent years. I've actually never been to Dallas but I've been to Memphis twice (awesome place BTW).

The first part of the Wexler/Hancock book, as I said in my review, is genuinely fascinating in detailing a number of alleged plans and attempts on King's life by groups like the KKK and the NSRP. What the authors presented would certainly make these groups suspects. But then, they always were.

Not sure what you've read already but IMHO the best place for anyone to start is with Harold Weisberg's Frame-Up, which is actually being reissued this November. Then maybe read the HSCA report (cautiously), Ray's book, Bill Pepper's two books, and the transcript for the 1999 King V. Jowers civil suit. Once you're familiar with all of that, then read the Wexler/Hancock book and I think you'll understand why I was so critical.

Martin,

Haven't read your review, but your own article is commendable. 

As for the Hancock/Wexler book... I was hoping one or both would join and respond to your criticisms. I believe this could be done without it getting too personal.

greg parker wrote:Martin,

Haven't read your review, but your own article is commendable. 

As for the Hancock/Wexler book... I was hoping one or both would join and respond to your criticisms. I believe this could be done without it getting too personal.

 Greg,

I was in contact with Larry whilst I was working on the review at which time he said he wanted to have a dialogue after it was done. But once it was up on CTKA I didn't hear anything from him. Eventually I emailed him and he said he was too busy and too focused on other matters so Stuart Wexler emailed me instead. As I expected, Wexler was none to happy with my review which he called "a hit piece that fundamentally misrepresented key aspects of our book, and the facts of the case." We had an unfortunately fairly unpleasant exchange that didn't exactly endear us to one another. So I don't exactly relish the idea of getting back into it with Mr. Wexler. I did try to engage him in a civil discussion on JFK matters on the Ed forum earlier this year but it seemed clear to me that he wasn't really interested. So I guess I'd rather deal with Larry, who I think is a really good bloke.

Of course, if either of them want to discuss the alleged misrepresentations in my review, then I'll respond in a civil way. I have no intention of getting personal with anyone.

Martin Hay wrote:

greg parker wrote:Martin,

Haven't read your review, but your own article is commendable. 

As for the Hancock/Wexler book... I was hoping one or both would join and respond to your criticisms. I believe this could be done without it getting too personal.

 Greg,

I was in contact with Larry whilst I was working on the review at which time he said he wanted to have a dialogue after it was done. But once it was up on CTKA I didn't hear anything from him. Eventually I emailed him and he said he was too busy and too focused on other matters so Stuart Wexler emailed me instead. As I expected, Wexler was none to happy with my review which he called "a hit piece that fundamentally misrepresented key aspects of our book, and the facts of the case." We had an unfortunately fairly unpleasant exchange that didn't exactly endear us to one another. So I don't exactly relish the idea of getting back into it with Mr. Wexler. I did try to engage him in a civil discussion on JFK matters on the Ed forum earlier this year but it seemed clear to me that he wasn't really interested. So I guess I'd rather deal with Larry, who I think is a really good bloke.

Of course, if either of them want to discuss the alleged misrepresentations in my review, then I'll respond in a civil way. I have no intention of getting personal with anyone.

Larry is one of the more gentle souls in this arena, and I had thought of Stu as someone whose feathers would be hard to ruffle, so I'm surprised about any unpleasantness.

I think such a discussion could be fruitful for all if entered into in the right spirit.

Martin,
 
I just recently finished reading your essay. Well done! I thought it was an excellent essay, very nicely presented, with lots of great information.

Martin, I think it's a very fine article introducing the issues in the case. As some of you are now discussing the Hancock/Wexler book and issues associated with it, I assume you and some others might be interested in what I've provided by way of my background:

http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/.

Take care of yourself,
Dan

Hasan Yusuf wrote:Martin,
 
I just recently finished reading your essay. Well done! I thought it was an excellent essay, very nicely presented, with lots of great information.

 Thanks, Hasan.

I hope it inspires you to read more about the case.

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:Martin, I think it's a very fine article introducing the issues in the case. As some of you are now discussing the Hancock/Wexler book and issues associated with it, I assume you and some others might be interested in what I've provided by way of my background:

http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/.

Take care of yourself,
Dan

Thanks, Dan.

I just read your piece too and I have to tell you that I disagree vehemently that Posner's MLK book is "required reading". IMHO it is no different from Case Closed in that it is full of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies. I would describe Killing the Dream as little more than a distillation of three previous books, He Slew the Dreamer by William Bradford Huie, The Making of An Assassin by George McMillan, and An American Death by Gerold Frank. All three of those books contain lies, some of which were exposed by the HSCA. McMillan's is particularly and knowingly deceitful. In any case, I would not recommend Posner's book to anyone who isn't already familiar with the case in general and, more importantly, Posner's tactics. What is obvious is that Posner stays away from a meaningful discussion of the forensic evidence so that he doesn't have to note how non-existent  the case against Ray actually is. Instead, he cobbles together as much bullshit as he can to paint a picture of Ray as a violently racist, drug-addicted, wannabe pornographer who killed Dr. King for infamy and a $50,000 bounty. In essense, this is the same picture and conclusion that Wexler and Hancock presented in their book
 
Anyone who feels the need to read Posner's piece of trash should follow it up with Harold Weisberg's manuscript written in response, Whoring With History, in which he tears Posner a new one and points out how he made his career by "kissing official ass". There is no doubt that Killing the Dream is exactly the type of book the FBI, Tennessee, and the establishment in general would have wanted written in the mid '90s in order to counter William Pepper's book and the HBO mock trial that "acquitted" Ray. And to "discredit" anything of significance Pepper was uncovering. It is beyond me to see it as a coincidence that Case Closed came hot on the heels of Oliver Stone's movie and Killing the Dream turned up just after Ray and the King case started making significant news again. 

Anyhoo...I also noticed that you wrote of your feeling that William Pepper's book (I assume you mean the first one, Orders to Kill?) has "any number of problems". I myself have issues with areas of Pepper's work so I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on his stuff. I think it would be quite useful to get some discussion of Pepper's theories going.

Martin Hay wrote:Lee,

Thanks for the compliments, I'm glad my article piqued your interest, that's exactly what I was hoping for. I'd love to see more informed and reasoned debate on this subject as it's become equally if not more important than the JFK case for me over recent years. I've actually never been to Dallas but I've been to Memphis twice (awesome place BTW).

The first part of the Wexler/Hancock book, as I said in my review, is genuinely fascinating in detailing a number of alleged plans and attempts on King's life by groups like the KKK and the NSRP. What the authors presented would certainly make these groups suspects. But then, they always were.

Not sure what you've read already but IMHO the best place for anyone to start is with Harold Weisberg's Frame-Up, which is actually being reissued this November. Then maybe read the HSCA report (cautiously), Ray's book, Bill Pepper's two books, and the transcript for the 1999 King V. Jowers civil suit. Once you're familiar with all of that, then read the Wexler/Hancock book and I think you'll understand why I was so critical.

 Thanks for steering me in the right direction, Martin.  As you well know, it's taken me longer than twenty years to make sense of the JFK assassination.  Is the MLK case, in your opinion, an easier case to get to grips with?

For me, the RFK killing is open and shut from the autopsy by itself and all the other stuff that surrounds it, similar to but not as bad as the JFK case, are elements designed to confuse matters.

How long did it take for you to get to the place you are at now regarding the MLK murder?

Lee David Farley wrote:
 Thanks for steering me in the right direction, Martin.  As you well know, it's taken me longer than twenty years to make sense of the JFK assassination.  Is the MLK case, in your opinion, an easier case to get to grips with?

For me, the RFK killing is open and shut from the autopsy by itself and all the other stuff that surrounds it, similar to but not as bad as the JFK case, are elements designed to confuse matters.

How long did it take for you to get to the place you are at now regarding the MLK murder?

One book I should have recommended but forgot is Philip Melanson's The Martin Luther King Assassination which I think was also published as The Murkin Conspiracy. It has some very useful info and a good analysis of some of the HSCA "investigation".

I'd say the King case is less confusing than the JFK one but there has been a lot less written on it. Most of the books out there are pretty much establishment books that pretend to explain why Ray did what I believe the evidence shows he didn't do. Unfortunately, there's no one book that serves as a simple introduction and overview of the history of the case without trying to push the State's agenda. I've actually considered writing one but don't feel ready to attempt that yet. Ray's own book, Who Killed Martin Luther King?, is actually not a bad chronology although it's obviously very self-serving.

The first book I read was Bill Pepper's Orders to Kill, and that was back in about 1999. It didn't make a huge impression on me though so it was probably a year or two before I picked up another book. In 2004 my wife and I made our first trip to Memphis, and it was visiting the Civil Rights Museum (which you probably know is built on the site of the killing) that really piqued my interest. But it always took a back seat to JFK and it's probably only been the last two years where I've spent more time on MLK.

Martin Hay wrote:

Thanks, Dan.

I just read your piece too and I have to tell you that I disagree vehemently that Posner's MLK book is "required reading". IMHO it is no different from Case Closed in that it is full of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies. I would describe Killing the Dream as little more than a distillation of three previous books, He Slew the Dreamer by William Bradford Huie, The Making of An Assassin by George McMillan, and An American Death by Gerold Frank. All three of those books contain lies, some of which were exposed by the HSCA. McMillan's is particularly and knowingly deceitful. In any case, I would not recommend Posner's book to anyone who isn't already familiar with the case in general and, more importantly, Posner's tactics. What is obvious is that Posner stays away from a meaningful discussion of the forensic evidence so that he doesn't have to note how non-existent  the case against Ray actually is. Instead, he cobbles together as much bullshit as he can to paint a picture of Ray as a violently racist, drug-addicted, wannabe pornographer who killed Dr. King for infamy and a $50,000 bounty. In essense, this is the same picture and conclusion that Wexler and Hancock presented in their book
 
Anyone who feels the need to read Posner's piece of trash should follow it up with Harold Weisberg's manuscript written in response, Whoring With History, in which he tears Posner a new one and points out how he made his career by "kissing official ass". There is no doubt that Killing the Dream is exactly the type of book the FBI, Tennessee, and the establishment in general would have wanted written in the mid '90s in order to counter William Pepper's book and the HBO mock trial that "acquitted" Ray. And to "discredit" anything of significance Pepper was uncovering. It is beyond me to see it as a coincidence that Case Closed came hot on the heels of Oliver Stone's movie and Killing the Dream turned up just after Ray and the King case started making significant news again. 

Anyhoo...I also noticed that you wrote of your feeling that William Pepper's book (I assume you mean the first one, Orders to Kill?) has "any number of problems". I myself have issues with areas of Pepper's work so I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on his stuff. I think it would be quite useful to get some discussion of Pepper's theories going.

 
It's been several years so I'd have to re-read Orders to Kill to give any significant answer. What I can recall right now is that I felt Pepper had been "played" by his 2 anonymous gunmen-in-hiding-in-Latin-America, probably in line with a disinformation strategy like we see so much of in the JFK case. you know, "Let's put THIS out there and let 'em argue about it" kinda thing.



Also I came to the conclusion that "Raul" was not a real person but that all Ray had to say about "Raul" was very important, since it might indicate a good deal of Ray's doings and circumstances apart from any necessity of believing that it was Raul who held all the strings. In other words, if Ray had said (for example) that "Raul had me blow up a train" and then a train was blown up, it might reveal information that SOMEONE had gotten him to blow up the train without it having to have been "Raul." I'm thinking here of the overall activities of Ray and the necessity of analyzing what he has to say about this shadowy figure, and from there how much we might be able to deduce whether it was not other "associates" that led Ray around in various ways. (Vague I know)



As for your other points, I notice that you seem to have some strong feelings about this Posner fellow. And as I understand it, he's since had some difficulties with credibility. After reading his MLK book I was reminded of Patricia Lambert's book on Jim Garrison's investigation, False Witness (?), and I thought to myself, This must be how the pros do it: present your evidence and arguments; do your best to counter the claims of the target in question (Garrison, Pepper); then, above all, make sure you close with allegations of child molestation against the target. It's like the icing on the cake apparently.



The only other thing I can recall from the book, and maybe the only thing of significance to me, was Posner's mentioning that when Ray made his (pre-assassination) trip from Canada to Birmingham, Alabama, Ray rented a room that was a block away from J. B. Stoner's headquarters for the National State's Rights Party. Naturally, Posner mentioned (in a footnote I think) that "this had all been investigated by important people and there was no connection found blah blah blah....."

　

　

"[Posner] cobbles together as much bullshit as he can to paint a picture of Ray as a violently racist, drug-addicted, wannabe pornographer who killed Dr. King for infamy and a $50,000 bounty. In essense, this is the same picture and conclusion that Wexler and Hancock presented in their book."



Which might indicate how dependent they may have been on Posner, just as (to my recollection) Posner was heavily dependent on Huie. But then I know Larry was following/reading Huie early on, before mentioning Posner. My opinion is that the "bounty" is the safe way out, since the HSCA came to that conclusion without being able to find what Paul Trejo calls "hard evidence." Plenty of people wanting Dr. King dead, plenty of money out there being promised -- it was the lure of a "bounty" that brought Ray to kill King. Three and a half decades later, we're ready to accept something like that; just don't bother us with anything more organized and scary-sounding.

Martin Hay wrote:Thanks, Hasan.

I hope it inspires you to read more about the case.

It certainly has, Martin.

Sorry Martin. Back to MLK and Mr Ray, now.

This thread shouldn't be derailed. I have moved some posts to another forum.