On May 1, the San Francisco Chronicle quoting certain “unimpeachable sources” of the Los Angeles Times said that the FBI had found or obtained a map of Atlanta with “the area of Dr. Martin Luther King’s residence and church circled and … linked to accused assassin James Earl Ray.” The article went on to state that “the map tends to support a theory by some investigators that Ray stalked Dr. King for some time before fatally shooting him on April 4.” (On May 22, the Scripps-Howard newspaper chain carried the same story across the nation.) So shortly after being identified, a leak clearly from the Bureau portrayed Ray in the national media as a killer who consciously stalked his prey and left behind tangible evidence.
Praise for the Bureau manhunt also appeared in print. It was widespread and appeared to have first been declared by nationally syndicated columnist, and Hoover friend, Drew Pearson in a column written with Jack Anderson that appeared on May 6, 1968:
“We have checked into the operations of the FBI in this respect and are convinced that it is conducting perhaps the most painstaking, exhaustive manhunt ever before undertaken in the United States. Its G-men have checked every bar ever patronized by James Earl Ray, every flop-house he ever stopped at, every cantina in Mexico he ever visited. It has collected an amazing array of evidence, all linking Ray with the murder.”
In early May, as a matter of routine, the FBI asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to examine its files to assess whether anyone resembling the fugitive James Earl Ray might have applied for a passport recently. (A similar exercise underway in the United States had been unproductive.)
A task force of constables compared Ray’s photographs with passport applications from April 23, 1967 (the day of Ray’s escape from prison, where he had been sentenced for armed robbery).
On May 20, a young constable found a photograph that looked like Ray. It was attached to the application of one Ramon George Sneyd, a thirty-five-year-old native of Toronto. The passport had been issued on April 24, 1968 and sent on that date to Sneyd care of the Kennedy Travel Bureau in Toronto.
Mr. Sneyd turned out to be a Toronto policeman who was clearly not the man in the photograph accompanying the passport application. Sneyd said that around the first of May he received a call from someone who claimed to be with the passport division inquiring whether he had lost his passport. When he said he had never had a passport, the caller apologized, saying that it must have been a mistake and hung up.
The RCMP forwarded the passport application to the FBI laboratory in Washington for a handwriting comparison with the Galt signature. They matched.
Backtracking Ray’s movements, the RCMP discovered he had apparently arrived in Toronto on April 8 and explored using not one but two new identities: Sneyd and Paul Edward Bridgeman, a thirty-five-year-old man who had some resemblance to Ray. Bridgeman had also received a telephone call asking if he had lost his passport (he had had one eight years earlier).
The RCMP also discovered that there was a Toronto citizen named Eric St. Vincent Galt who was the only Eric Galt listed in the Canadian telephone directories in 1968. He worked for Union Carbide, the US defense manufacturer.
The RMCP quickly learned from the Kennedy Travel Bureau that Ray, as Sneyd, had left for London on a British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) flight on May 6. Scotland Yard was contacted and every port of entry into the United Kingdom was alerted. The official reason was that Ramon George Sneyd, traveling on a Canadian passport, had violated the Alien Immigration Act. If apprehended he was to be held for questioning.
Later that same day Ray flew to London and then to Portugal, where he obtained a new passport from the Canadian embassy that corrected a misspelling in the last name from “Sneya” to “Sneyd.” He flew back to London on May 17.
Meanwhile, in the United States, the media continued their coverage of the case. In a May 20 Time magazine article, “acquaintances” reportedly referred to Ray as “… an obsessive racial bigot, an abrasive patron, who belted screwdrivers, dozed on the bar stool and bickered with anyone around.”
A May 20 Newsweek article cited the FBI’s comments on an ad placed by Ray and another ad that he answered by sending a Polaroid photograph in which his face appeared to be puffed up. Newsweek reported that “Bureau insiders said he was taking amphetamines off and on and his weight might well have fluctuated sharply as a result.”
The article noted that the Bureau had released another photograph of Ray taken with a prostitute in Mexico, but she was “clipped out.” The article continued: “Still, the fact of her presence—plus Galt/Ray’s pathetic try for mail-order romance, yielded telling insights, and thus helped fill out his emerging portrait as an ingrown, emotionally stunted loner. The more investigators find out about their man, in fact, the less they see him as the conspiratorial type. ‘You take five guys who don’t know each other and put them in a room,’ said one. ‘Four of them would start talking small talk to each other. Ray would sit by himself.’ He picked up the suspect’s mug shot. ‘This is our man,’ he said. ‘He killed King.’”
Hence, in this one leak to Newsweek the Bureau conveyed to the American public—two weeks before Ray’s capture—that the man being sought for the killing of Dr. King was a vice-ridden loner and was certainly guilty.
Jeremiah O’Leary, a frequent mouthpiece for the Bureau, in an article in the Washington Star, quoted unnamed convicts interviewed by unnamed investigators (who could only have been FBI agents tracking Ray) as saying that “Ray was a racist and a habitual user of amphetamines while in prison.” O’Leary also maintained that “some of his fellow prisoners described him as an anti-negro loner who spent much of his time in jail reading sex books and girlie magazines.”
Other wire service syndicated pieces were equally damning. For example, one story under the leader “Ray Talked Of Bounty On King: Friend,” put out by UPI, quoted a convict named Raymond Curtis, allegedly a friend of Ray’s, as saying that Ray told him that if there was a bounty on Dr. King, he would collect it if he got out. Curtis also alleged that Ray used dope, bragged about picking up lots of women, and was a loner.
It is difficult to imagine more damaging depictions of an accused person who hadn’t yet even been apprehended, much less given a chance to tell his story.
On Saturday, June 8, Ray, wearing a beige raincoat and shell-rimmed glasses, presented his Canadian passport at the desk at Heathrow Airport at approximately 11:15 a.m. He had been scheduled to fly on a British European Airways flight to Brussels at 11:50 a.m. Immigration officer Kenneth Human noticed a second passport when Ray pulled the first from his jacket and asked to see that one as well. It was identical except that it had been issued in Ottawa on April 4, and the last name was “Sneya.” Ray explained about the misspelling and stated that he’d had no time to get it corrected before leaving Canada, requiring him to take care of it in Lisbon.
Ray was approached by Detective Sergeant Philip Birch of Scotland Yard, who asked to see the passports. He took Ray (as Sneyd) to a nearby room and telephoned Scotland Yard. Detective Chief Superintendent Thomas Butler and Chief Inspector Kenneth Thompson were notified and headed toward Heathrow. Ray was searched by Sergeant Birch; the officer extracted a .38 revolver from his back right pocket, the handle of which was wrapped in black electrical tape. The six-chamber gun was loaded with five rounds.
Ray explained that he was going to Rhodesia and thought the gun might be needed because of the unrest there. Birch informed him that he was committing an offense for which he could be arrested. Shortly after 1:00 p.m., Butler and Thompson arrived, and Ray was placed under arrest for possession of a gun without a permit and was taken to Cannon Row Police Station, fingerprinted, and placed in a cell. Later Butler and Thompson told him that they had reason to believe he was not, in fact, a Canadian citizen but an American wanted in the United States for various offenses including murder with a firearm.
Solicitor Michael Eugene was appointed to represent Ray. Extradition was routinely opposed. Ray wrote to
US attorneys F. Lee Bailey of Massachusetts and Arthur J. Hanes of Birmingham, indicating that he was interested in seeking legal services in the event of his return to Memphis to stand trial on a murder charge. Bailey, who had been friendly with Dr. King, wasn’t willing to act, but Arthur Hanes and his son, Arthur Jr., were interested and went to England in an effort to visit their new client. During their first trip, in June 1968, they were denied access, but soon afterward they were allowed to see Ray.
The extradition requests from the states of Tennessee and Missouri were based largely on the affidavit of one Charles Quitman Stephens, a resident of the South Main Street rooming house, who had emerged as the state’s chief witness. He had provided a tentative eyewitness identification of Ray as a person he allegedly saw in the hallway of the rooming house around the time of the killing.
Extradition was granted. Ray appealed. Subsequently, on the advice of his new lawyer, Arthur Hanes Sr., Ray dropped the appeal. While the extradition proceedings were in process, an entire cell block in the Shelby County jail in Memphis was prepared for Ray in consultation with the federal government. When Ray was formally extradited to the United States on July 19, 1968, he was placed in the specially arranged facilities.
The Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson column on July 22, 1968, stated that Ray was a lone gunman. It began: “It now looks as if the FBI has exploded the generally prevalent theory that the murder of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King involved a conspiracy.”
The column went on to confirm that the FBI had “found a robbery where Ray probably got his money.” It continued, “The FBI has been checking very carefully, and one of the robbers answers the description of James Earl Ray. He had the same long hair, the same height, and the same physical makeup.”
Thus surfaced—for the first time—the Alton, Illinois, bank robbery story. This claim enabled the Bureau in 1968 to explain how James covered his living expenses during his period as a fugitive. If he had obtained funds from this source, it could be contended that he had no help from anyone else. (Years later we would learn that not only had Ray nothing to do with this robbery but that there were other prime suspects.)
The Hanes father and son team, aided by local private investigator Renfro Hays, began to prepare for trial. Then a surprising thing happened. On November 10, just two days before the trial and after a visit from Texas attorney Percy Foreman, Ray dismissed Hanes and retained Foreman. On November 12, Foreman obtained an extension based on his late arrival into the case.
On December 18, concerned by Foreman’s irregular attendance because of his poor health, the court appointed public defenders Hugh Stanton Sr. and Hugh Stanton Jr. to assist Foreman and ordered them to be ready to try the case if Foreman wasn’t available. On January 17—the next court date set after the appointment of the Stantons—Foreman was, indeed, absent because of illness. The judge said that if Foreman was unable to handle the case, the Stantons would have to try it. The date was confirmed for March 3.
The Stantons assigned two investigators, George King and George Getz, to interview witnesses and work on the case. Foreman was sick for part of January, and the Stantons were obviously concerned about whether he would be able to carry on. They advised the court that they wouldn’t be ready to go to trial on March 3. The trial was put off for another month.
Ultimately, the case never came to trial because James Earl Ray entered a plea of guilty on Monday, March 10, 1969.
The matter was heard before Judge Preston Battle. Judge Battle asked Ray if he understood that the charge of murder in the first degree was being levied against him in this case, “because you killed Dr. Martin Luther King under such circumstances that it would make you legally guilty of murder in the first degree under the law as explained to you by your lawyers.”
Ray responded, “Yes, legally yes.”
After Ray affirmed that the plea of guilty was made freely and voluntarily with full understanding of its meaning and consequence, twelve names were called from the jury pool.
After the seating of the jury, Phil M. Canale Jr.—the district attorney general of Shelby County—introduced himself; his executive assistant, Robert Dwyer; and his assistant attorney general, James Beasley. His presentation to the court recommended punishment of a term of ninety-nine years. Canale indicated that even though the defendant had consented to the plea, accepted the stipulations, and verified the free and voluntary nature of his undertaking in the voir dire, the state was still obligated to provide fundamental proof to the judge and jury.
He concluded by saying that the investigation had been conducted by local police, national police organizations, and international law enforcement agents, and that his office had examined over three hundred items of physical evidence. His chief investigator had traveled thousands of miles throughout the United States and to foreign countries, and found no evidence that any conspiracy was involved in this killing, no proof that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by anyone other than or in addition to James Earl Ray. Canale pledged that if any evidence was ever presented that showed there was a conspiracy, he would take “prompt and vigorous actions in searching out and asking that an indictment be returned, if there were other people, or if it should ever develop that other people were involved.”
Percy Foreman then addressed the jury and said it had taken him a month to convince himself that there was no conspiracy. He maintained that he talked with his client for more than fifty hours and estimated that most of the time was spent in cross-examination, “checking each hour and minute and each expenditure of money down to seventy-five cents.”
After his presentation, Foreman asked each juror whether he was willing to subscribe to the verdict of ninety-nine years. Each juror answered, “Yes, sir.” At the end of the polling, the jury was officially sworn in and witnesses were called.
Testimony was then taken from Reverend Kyles, Dr. King’s personal lawyer Chauncey Eskridge, Coroner Dr. Jerry Francisco, Homicide Chief N. E. Zachary, and FBI special agent in charge Robert G. Jensen.
After a recess, Assistant Attorney General Beasley set forth the agreed-upon stipulation of facts that the state would prove, in addition to the testimony previously heard. Beasley summarized the state’s interpretation of the actual killing and the details of the flight of James Earl Ray, his trip overseas, his apprehension, and his return.
Judge Battle asked the jury to raise their hands if they accepted the compromise and settlement on a guilty plea and a punishment of ninety-nine years. The jury was unanimous, and the verdict was signed. Ray was sentenced to ninety-nine years in the state penitentiary.
On the face of it, it was difficult to imagine how Ray could have so clearly admitted guilt if, in fact, he didn’t commit the crime. (Only many years later would I learn about the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the guilty plea.) At one point early in the proceedings, he appeared to object to what was being said and done. After both sides accepted the jury, he interrupted the proceedings by saying:
“Your Honor, I would like to say something. I don’t want to change anything that I have said, but I just want to enter one other thing. The only thing that I have to say is that I can’t agree with Mr. Clark.”
“Mr. who?” asked the judge.
“Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. I agree with all these stipulations, and I am not trying to change anything.”
“You don’t agree with whose theories?”
“Mr. Canale’s, Mr. Clark’s, and Mr. J. Edgar Hoover’s about the conspiracy. I don’t want to add something on that I haven’t agreed to in the past.”
Mr. Foreman said, “I think that what he said is that he doesn’t agree that Ramsey Clark is right, or that J. Edgar Hoover is right. I didn’t argue that as evidence in this case, I simply stated that—underlining the statement of [Attorney] General Canale—that they made the same statement. You are not required to agree with it all.”
Though the general public was made well aware of the guilty plea, Ray’s equivocation at the hearing
went largely unnoticed.
It was all over by lunchtime. Within three days of arriving at the penitentiary, Ray had written to the court requesting that his plea of guilty be set aside and that he be given a trial.
Three days after Ray’s letter to the court, on March 16, the Washington Post led a front page national news section with the heading “Ray Alone Still Talks of a Plot.”
After quoting Memphis prosecutors who had “access to the massive investigative files of the FBI” and who see “Ray as a man who had a general hatred of Negroes and at best an unspecific and unstructured desire to harm King,” the article went on to assert that Ray remained the only person associated with the case who believed that there was a conspiracy.
The fact that many others—including Dr. King’s widow, Ralph Abernathy, and other associates—believed in the existence of a conspiracy was ignored.
Chapter 4
QUESTIONS ABOUND
Questions abound, truth is elusive,
The dark glass prohibits sight,
Clouds of hatred even more assertive
Compelling truth to embrace flight.
During the next nine years, I had virtually nothing to do with the civil rights or antiwar movements, having walked away after Dr. King’s funeral. I had no hope that the nation could be reconstructed without Dr. King’s singular leadership. There quite simply was no one else. Ralph Abernathy and I had had only sporadic contact during those nine years. I had completed doctoral degree studies in education and law and written two books. Ralph had taken on, and then been forced to give up with some bitterness, the leadership of the SCLC.
In late 1977, during a telephone conversation, Ralph told me he wasn’t satisfied by the official explanation of Dr. King’s murder and wanted to have a face-to-face meeting with the alleged assassin of his old friend. He said he would welcome an opportunity to hear Ray’s story and assess it directly for himself. Would I arrange such a meeting and accompany him? Ray’s lawyer at the time, Mark Lane, was receptive to the idea.
The Plot to Kill King Page 7