Orders to Kill Read online

  By July 1967, the number of riots and other serious disruptions against public order had reached ninety-three in nineteen states. In August there were an additional thirty-three riots which occurred in thirty-two cities in twenty-two states.

  Dr. King was at the center of it all. His unswerving opposition to the war and his commitment to bring hundreds of thousands of poor people to a Washington D.C. encampment in the spring of 1968 to focus Congress’s attention on the plight of the nation’s poor, turned the government’s anxiety into utter panic. I believe that there was no way Dr. King was going to be allowed to lead this army of alienated poor to Washington to take up residence in the shadow of the Washington memorial.

  When army intelligence officers interviewed rioters in Detroit after the July 25, 1967 riot—which left nineteen dead, eight hundred injured, and $150 million of property damage—they were amazed to learn that the leader most respected by those violent teenagers was not Stokely Carmichael nor H. Rap Brown but Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

  Six weeks after the Detroit riot the National Conference for New Politics (NCNP) scheduled a national convention over the Labor Day weekend in Chicago. The gathering of 5,000 delegates from all around the country and from every walk of life was expected to support a third-party presidential ticket of Dr. King and Dr. Spock. We now know how much shock this prospect caused at the highest levels of government.

  So caught up were we in the fight for social change that we didn’t appreciate the strength and determination of the opposition. It has become clear to me that by 1967 a siege mentality had descended on the nation’s establishment forces, including its federal law enforcement, intelligence and military branches. At the best of times, official Washington and its appendages throughout the country are highly insular and protective. In 1967–1968, with the barbarians, as they would have regarded them, gathering just outside the gates of power, any move in defense of the system and its special economic interests would have been viewed as a patriotic duty. All significant organizations committed to ending the war or fostering social or economic change were infiltrated, subjected to surveillance, and/or subverted.

  This book has been in development since 1978 and reflects a long-term effort to uncover the truth about the assassination. It does not cover the full scope of the investigation since many leads were examined and discarded and much information, however interesting, ultimately turned out to be superfluous to the central story. In 1988, I agreed to represent James Earl Ray, and by 1990 I had become convinced that the only way to end his wrongful imprisonment would be to solve the case. The investigation on which the book is based has been focused on that goal. However, for a period of nearly seven years prior to publication, I’ve tried in every way possible to put evidence of James’s innocence before a court. Frustrated at every turn, I now turn to the court of last resort—the American people.

  This story has taken twenty-seven years to unfold. This is largely the result of the creation and perpetration of a cover-up by government authorities at local, state, and national levels.

  I’ve become convinced that, had they not met obstruction from within their own ranks, some of the honest, competent Memphis homicide detectives I’ve come to know over the years could have ferreted out enough evidence to warrant indicting several Memphians on charges ranging from accessory before and after the fact, to conspiracy to murder, to murder in the first degree. Among those indicted would have been some of their fellow officers. Even without official obfuscation, however, it’s unlikely that these detectives could have traced the conspiracy further afield to its various well-insulated sources.

  As will become increasingly clear, it was inevitable that such a local police investigation wouldn’t be allowed and that each and every politically sponsored official investigation since 1968 would disinform the public and cover up the truth.

  Years of investigation led to an unscripted television trial in 1993 that resulted in a not-guilty verdict. My subsequent investigation has unearthed powerful new evidence. The stories of several key witnesses, silent for twenty-seven years, are revealed for the first time. Although we will never know each and every detail behind this most heinous crime, we now have enough hard facts to overwhelmingly support James Earl Ray’s innocence. The body of new evidence, if formally considered, would compel any independent grand jury—which, as of the time of this writing, we have been seeking for a year and a half—to issue indictments against perpetrators who are still alive. Even as this book goes to press we are pursuing all possible avenues through the courts to obtain justice and free James, as well as to bring to account those guilty parties whom we have identified.

  Ultimately, there are many victims in this case: Dr. King; James Earl Ray; their families, and the citizens of the United States. All have been victimized by the abject failure of their democratic institutions. The assassination of Martin Luther King and its coverup extends far and wide into all levels of government and public service. Through the extensive control of information and the failure of the system of checks and balances, government has inevitably come to serve the needs of powerful special interests. As a result, the essence of democracy—government of, by, and for the people—has been terminally eroded.

  Thus, what begins as a detective story ends as a tragedy of unimagined proportions: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is dead; James Earl Ray remains in prison; many of the guilty remain free, some even revered and honored; and our faith in the United States of America is shaken to the core.

  William F. Pepper London, England

  Glossary

  ACLU American Civil Liberties Union

  ACSI Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence

  agency Central Intelligence Agency

  Alpha 184 Team Operation Detachment Alpha 184 Team. Special Forces Field Training Team in specialized civilian disguise selected from 20th SFG

  AFSCME Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees Union

  agent provocateur covert operative used to infiltrate a targeted group and influence its activity

  AUTOVON first generation fax machine—state of the art in 1967

  ASA Army Security Agency

  asset government independent contract agent whose actions may be officially denied

  behind the fence operation covert, officially deniable operations

  body mass assassin’s human target area—the chest area

  BOP Black Organizing Project (companion organization of the Invaders)

  bureau Federal Bureau of Investigation

  center mass another term for “body mass” (see above)

  CIA Central Intelligence Agency

  CIAB Counterintelligence Analysis Board

  CINCSTRIKE Commander–in–Chief U.S. Strike Command C.O. Commanding Officer

  COINTELPRO—FBI counterintelligence program aimed at targeted dissenting/protest groups.

  COME Community on the Move for Equality (coalition of labor and civil rights groups in Memphis formed at the time of the sanitation workers strike spearheaded by an interracial committee organized by local clergy)

  COMINFIL FBI designation for a communist infiltration investigation of a targeted group

  committee House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations

  CONUS Continental United States

  D.A. District Attorney

  DEA Drug Enforcement Agency

  DEFCON Acronym for national security emergency with seriousness expressed in ascending order, e.g. DEFCON 2, 3, 4

  DIA Defense Intelligence Agency

  ELINT electronic intelligence surveillance

  FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

  HSCA House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations

  HUMINT Human Intelligence Source (informer)

  IEOC Intelligence Emergency Operation Center—army intelligence communications and deployment centre which was established in an area where civil unjest was anticipated

  Invaders small militant bl
ack organizing group in Memphis, oriented toward self-help

  IRR Investigative Records Repository—army intelligence records repository at Fort Holabird where intelligence files on civilians were kept

  LAWS light anti–tank weapon rockets

  LL&L Liberto, Liberto & Latch (produce company owned by Frank C. Liberto)

  MIGs Military Intelligence Groups (counterintelligence)

  MPD Memphis Police Department

  NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

  NAS Millington Naval Air Station

  NCNP National Conference for New Politics

  NLF National Liberation Front

  NSA National Security Agency

  ONI Office of Naval Intelligence

  Operation CHAOS CIA program for the collection of information on citizens and groups through the interception and reading of mail, and the placement of informants and covert operators in dissenting organizations

  Operation MINARET NSA watch–list program collecting information on individuals and organizations involved in civil disturbances, antiwar movements and military deserters

  OS Office of Security—department in CIA from which a variety of super secret covert operations was mounted, often involving members of organized crime

  Project MERRIMAC CIA SOG project which focused on infiltration of and spying on ten major peace and civil rights groups

  Project RESISTANCE 1967 OS project designed to infiltrate meetings of antiwar protestors, recruit informants and report on black student activities in cooperation with local police

  Psy Ops Psychological Operations

  recon. reconnaissance

  SAC FBI Special Agent in Charge—ranking officer in any field office

  SCLC Southern Christian Leadership Conference

  SFG Special Forces Group a.k.a. the Green Berets

  SNCC Student Non Violent Coordinating Committee

  SOG Special Operations Group—small covert often interservice operations groups formed for a particular purpose

  TACT (TAC) emergency tactical units deployed in Memphis at the time of the sanitation workers strike which consisted of twelve men in three or four vehicles

  TBI Tennessee Bureau of Investigation

  USAINTC U.S. Army Intelligence Command (the overall army intelligence organization)

  USIB United States Intelligence Board

  CHART 1

  PART I

  Background to the Assassination

  1

  Vietnam: Spring 1966–Summer 1967

  THIS STORY BEGINS IN VIETNAM, where I had gone as a freelance journalist in the spring of 1966.

  Soon the picture became clear. Wherever I went in South Vietnam, from the southern delta to the northern boundary (I corps), U.S. carpet bombing systematically devastated the ancient, village-based rural culture, slaughtering helpless peasants. Time and again, in hospitals and refugee camps, children, barely human in appearance, their flesh having been carved into grotesque forms by napalm, described the “fire bombs” that rained from the sky onto their hamlets.

  After a time in the field, I suffered a minor injury in a crash landing near Pleiku caused by ground fire. I returned to Saigon, where I went to a party held by some casual friends. I was tired and upset. For several days in the Central Highlands I had been confronted with one atrocity after another. Because I was far from a battle-hardened correspondent, I wasn’t taking it very well. Soon I was approached by a young Vietnamese woman who solicited information from me. Aided by a few drinks, I expressed my disgust with the U.S. involvement in the war. The woman appeared sympathetic. After that evening, I never saw her again.

  The next day I was summoned by Navy Commander Madison, the press accrediting officer, who my colleagues advised was an intelligence operative. He commented on my absence from the daily Saigon press briefings (at which the military line was disseminated) and stated that he had received reports of unacceptable remarks made by me. He advised me that my accreditation was going to be revoked.

  I returned home and began to prepare articles for publication and testimony to be given before Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s Subcommittee to Investigate Problems Connected with Refugees and Escapees. My article “The Children of Vietnam” was published by Ramparts in January 1967, during which time Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was becoming increasingly concerned over the Johnson administration’s plans to reduce its domestic antipoverty spending in order to channel more funds to the war effort.

  Dr. King hadn’t yet categorically broken with the White House over the issue, but soon after the Ramparts article appeared he received calls from Yale chaplain William Sloane Coffin, Nation editor Carey McWilliams, Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas, and others, urging him to take a more forceful antiwar stand and, indeed, to even consider running as a third-party presidential candidate in 1968. I would later learn that wiretaps of the conversations in which the candidacy was discussed were relayed to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and, through him, to Lyndon Johnson.

  On Saturday, January 14, King flew to Jamaica, where he had planned to work on a book about one of his most ardently held beliefs—the idea of a guaranteed income for each adult citizen. He was accompanied by his friend and associate Bernard Lee. While having breakfast he began to read the January Ramparts. According to Lee, and also recorded by David Garrow in his historical account, Bearing the Cross,1 Dr. King was galvanized by my account of atrocities against civilians and the accompanying photographs. Although he had spoken out against the war before, he decided then and there to do everything in his power to stop it.

  Dr. King’s new commitment to oppose the war became his priority. He told black trade unionist Cleveland Robinson and longtime advisor Stanley Levison that he was prepared to break with the Johnson administration regardless of the financial consequences and even the personal peril.2 He saw, as never before, the necessity of tying together the peace and civil rights movements, and soon became involved in the antiwar effort. He spoke at a forum sponsored by the Nation in Los Angeles on February 25, 1967, joined Benjamin Spock (a proposed running mate in his possible third-party candidacy) in his first antiwar march, through downtown Chicago on March 23, and began to prepare for a major address on the war to be presented at the April 15 Spring Mobilization demonstration in New York.

  From the beginning of the year, he began to devote more time to the development of a new coalition. He had come to believe it was time to unite the various progressive, single-issue organizations to form a mighty force, whose power would come from increased numbers and pooled funds. The groups all opposed the war and all wanted equal rights for blacks and other minorities, but their primary concern was eliminating poverty in the wealthiest nation on earth. These common issues formed the basis of the “new politics,” and the National Conference for New Politics (NCNP) was established to catalyze a nationwide effort. I was asked to be its executive director.

  Though our emphasis was on grassroots political organizing, our disgust with the “old politics,” particularly as practiced by the Johnson administration, compelled the NCNP to consider developing an independent presidential candidacy. To decide on this and adopt a platform, a national convention—to be attended by delegates from every organization for social change across the land—was scheduled for the 1967 Labor Day weekend at the Palmer House in Chicago.

  In New York on Tuesday, April 4, exactly twelve months before his death, Dr. King addressed an audience of more than three thousand at Riverside Church and made his formal declaration of opposition to the war. He expressed his concern that his homeland, the Great Republic of old, would never again be seen to reflect for the world “the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but rather come to mirror the image of violence and militarism.” He called for conscientious objection, antiwar demonstrations, political activity, and a revolution of values whereby American society would radically shift from materialism to humanism.

  Response to the speech was prompt and overwhelmin
gly condemnatory. Old friends (such as Phil Randolph and Bayard Rustin) either refused to comment publicly or disassociated themselves from King’s position. The domestic economic and civil rights progress of Lyndon Johnson was strongly supported by liberals and civil rights leaders who were loathe to alienate the president by opposing his war effort. I noted Dr. King’s increasing pessimism that resulted from continued sniping from civil rights leaders like Roy Wilkins of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Whitney Young of the National Urban League. (We didn’t know at the time that Wilkins was meeting and working with the FBI’s assistant director, Cartha DeLoach,3 throughout this period.) Even some of King’s closest longstanding personal advisors were opposed to the speech. For example, it was ironic that Stanley Levison, long labeled by the FBI as the strongest “communist” influence on Dr. King, attempted in every way possible to restrain King’s efforts to oppose the war formally.

  The reaction from newspaper editorials was virtually always negative. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and Life magazine joined the chorus of criticism.

  During the run up to the April 15 antiwar demonstration, Dr. King and I discussed not only the effect of the U.S. war effort in Vietnam but also political strategy in general and particular details of the demonstration. Five days before the demonstration, the NAACP board of directors passed a resolution attacking King’s effort to link the peace and civil rights movements. Martin said to me in a moment of frustration, “They’re all going to turn against me now, but still we must press on. You and the others must not only be steadfast, but constantly so.”

  He and others asked me to put forward the idea of a King-Spock ticket at the demonstration. He didn’t want to appear to be explicitly seeking such a nomination, for the media would certainly paint him as engaging in a self-serving quest, to the detriment of his professed calling and cause. If, on the other hand, he was pressed or drafted into the race, he could answer the call and run—not to win, but to heighten national debate and awareness.