The Plot to Kill King

by William F. Pepper

  Increasingly, I viewed the early-morning alteration of this area as sinister. It was inexplicable to me that the MPD, the FBI, and the HSCA investigations didn’t follow up on this lead begging for attention. James Orange told me that no one connected with any enforcement or investigative body had asked him about what he saw. When he tried to alert the police officers on the scene they told him to stay out of the way.

  In early November 1978, shortly after our HSCA meeting in Walter Fauntroy’s office, Dan Ellsberg told me that he had recently met Fauntroy at an ACLU affair. He said Fauntroy still denied mentioning the FBI to Tyson, Cooks, and Young, but when pressed, he expressed his opinion that the FBI “not only set the tone for Dr. King’s assassination through their harassment but, in fact, played a role in carrying out the conspiracy,” and that “it would not have been beyond J. Edgar Hoover to have personally approved, if not ultimately directed, the operation.”

  On Friday, November 17, 1978, Walter Fauntroy, Brady Tyson, Andy Young, and Stoney Cooks, all testifying before the HSCA, denied any knowledge of FBI involvement and refuted Daniel Ellsberg’s statement. Their testimony was in response to a front-page article in the Knoxville News Sentinel on November 11, in which Mark Lane and Anna Ray released the contents of the Ellsberg affidavit, alleging that the Ellsberg-Lowery statements proved “without a doubt” that FBI director Hoover ordered the assassination. I felt that Lane had gone too far in his interpretation of the information.

  Fauntroy categorically denied having received any evidence of FBI involvement, and Young denied receiving such information from Fauntroy. However, Young did at one point admit that “there were strange connections that we were all concerned about, and it was one of the things we wanted this Committee to look into.” He also acknowledged having a concern about official involvement in a conspiracy. Since no member followed up on those remarks, they were simply left hanging, and Young’s testimony was summarized as being a denial of Ellsberg’s allegations.

  Brady Tyson testified that he and Ellsberg had at first spoken generally about assassinations and then, when the conversation turned to the King killing, he told Dan Ellsberg about his “pet theory”—that a clandestine group within the FBI, though not an official or authorized operation, might have carried out the plot.

  Following suit, Stoney Cooks also denied knowledge of any FBI involvement. In response to a question from Congressman Harold Ford about Tyson’s reputation at the UN, Cooks stated that his colleague was kind of a “missionary,” and in seeking to provide Dan Ellsberg with the warmest possible welcome he probably “was a bit overzealous in his conversations.”

  I believed that Brady Tyson had probably been loose-tongued but truthful in his remarks to Dan Ellsberg. Fauntroy had probably shared his information in-house with Young and his aides, without any expectation that an outsider would hear the story and repeat it. When it came out after Ellsberg became convinced that the HSCA wasn’t going to act, the wheels were set in motion to deny it ever happened. Under pressure, Young and his aides denied hearing the story of Hoover’s possible involvement and Fauntroy himself (since he was a senior member of the committee and had to maintain the appearance of loyalty) had no choice, unless he was willing to resign.

  Dan Ellsberg’s revelation constituted not only the first real indication of FBI involvement in Dr. King’s murder but, even more ominous, it was an initial indication that the HSCA was not prepared to allow such evidence to become public or even to acknowledge what appeared to be its own information.

  More determined than ever to examine the official story, I went back to Memphis and turned my attention to Jim’s Grill. In 1968, Loyd Jowers told Chastain about a mysterious stranger who was in the Grill on the afternoon of April 4 and again the following morning, ordering eggs and sausage both times. Jowers described him as well-dressed and definitely out of place. Following police orders, when the man appeared on the 5th, Jowers called the police, who arrived and took the man in, only to release him soon afterward.

  Wayne Chastain maintained that many of the black people who had been in the Grill at the time of the shooting had never been identified. He has tried unsuccessfully to locate and interview each of the black waitresses on duty that afternoon, one of whom, Betty, he had heard had particular significance. Jowers seemed unable to assist him in finding Betty and one other waitress but arranged for him to interview a third waitress, Rosie Lee Dabney, who had waited on the stranger on the afternoon of April 4.

  Chastain had become aware, as a result of the activities of writer William Sartor, a stringer for Time magazine, and investigator Renfro Hays, that both Jowers and Rosie Lee Dabney had identified the “eggs and sausage” man from photographs that Sartor had shown them. The photographs depicted a government intelligence asset with ties to army intelligence and the CIA; his name was Walter Alfred “Jack” Youngblood. Chastain told me, however, that five years later, when he and reporter Jeff Cohen showed the same photographs to Jowers in a diner one night, Jowers changed his mind. He said that he didn’t think that was the man after all. When reminded about his earlier identification, he simply said he thought it wasn’t the man.

  Chastain said that MPD Assistant Chief Henry Lux denied taking Youngblood in, but Frank Holloman acknowledged that a man was detained, as did FBI special agent in charge (SAC) Robert Jensen. Jensen insisted that the man was a gun collector and that his presence had nothing to do with the killing.

  Chastain believed that this “egg and sausage” man was Jack Youngblood, and was the same mysterious person who he heard had visited attorney Russell X. Thompson and local ministers James M. Latimer and John Baltensprager a week or so after the killing. Reverend Latimer identified Youngblood as his mysterious visitor from a photograph Chastain showed him, and attorney Walter Buford (a college classmate and friend of Youngblood) said that Youngblood had called him while in town during that time. I resolved to pursue the story myself.

  I located and interviewed Loyd Jowers, a thin, almost anemic man, in his late sixties. Puffing on a cigarette, Jowers confirmed Chastain’s account of the arrest. I showed him photographs of Jack Youngblood and he said, “Yup, that’s him all right.”

  Attorney Russell Thompson told me that around 10:00 p.m. on April 10, 1968, he received a call from a man with a western accent. The caller said that he had just flown into Memphis from his home in Chicago, had heard of Thompson from some friends, and needed to talk to him immediately but that it was important to speak with him alone. They agreed to meet early the next morning.

  He described his visitor as being about six feet tall, about thirty-five years old, with light hair and wearing a sombrero. He also had a tattoo of the letters “T” over “S” on his arm, which Thompson recalled he could make disappear. He didn’t give his name (although he later used the alias Tony Benavites) and maintained that a Denver roommate of his, a professional gun (as was he) whom he called Pete, shot Dr. King. He said that only a fool would attempt to carry out the killing from a second-floor bathroom window at the end of a corridor because the trees could so easily have deflected a bullet. He said that Pete fired from the bushes, broke the rifle down, putting the barrel down his back, jumped from the wall, and disappeared in the confusion. Thompson was struck by the precise description of the brush and the trees behind the rooming house. This led him to believe that the man knew the area well and could even have been there when it happened.

  In an offhand way, he asked Thompson to represent his friend should he be charged. Benavites said that he himself had been picked up “last Friday” (the day the stranger in Jim’s Grill was arrested) and was turned loose after being taken up to the rooming house.

  Thompson heard from this man only once more in a brief phone call in which he said it didn’t appear that legal assistance would be required after all. Thompson gave a full report to MPD inspector N. E. Zachary and William Lawrence of the FBI.

  Less than four hours after the mysterious stranger left Thompson’s office on April 11,
Reverend James Latimer, pastor of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church at the time, received a telephone call just as he was heading off to lunch with his friend Reverend John Baltensprager. The caller said he needed some “spiritual guidance” or else he was going to “commit suicide.”

  The two ministers went to a steak house called Jim’s Place and met a rather smartly dressed man wearing tinted sunglasses, a blue sports coat, dark trousers, and boots. He was described as having dark wavy hair, long sideburns, and a dark complexion. He was about six feet tall and had an athletic build. At Latimer’s suggestion they went to Robilio’s Cafeteria in South Memphis, where there was more privacy. The man identified himself as J. Christ Bonnevecche and said that on the afternoon that Dr. King was killed he was employed as a runner for the Mafia.

  Latimer asked Bonnevecche whether he had killed Dr. King. The man said, “No, but I know who did.” He seemed to be implying that there was an organized-crime connection with the killing, but it didn’t really make much sense to the ministers. He said that he was a drug addict and rolled up his sleeves to show the ministers a scar on the inside of his elbow. As he did so, they noticed an intertwined tattoo, “T” over “J,” similar to the “T” over “S” that attorney Thompson had noticed. Bonnevecche reportedly also said that his friend “Nick” killed Dr. King. He said that Nick was very much like himself in personality and interests. He told them that Nick had entered and left town on a motorcycle and that when he exited he had the murder weapon strapped onto his back, having previously discarded the rifle stock.

  Reverend Latimer indicated, however, that a good deal of the discussion focused on the Kennedy assassination, which he said Bonnevecche maintained was a Mafia hit. His mysterious visitor also said that Robert Kennedy was next, and that he would definitely be assassinated if he won the California primary.

  This, of course, is exactly what happened. Reverend Latimer reported this conversation to Inspector Zachary, who promised, as he had with Thompson, to “check it out.”

  I wouldn’t be able to speak with Reverend Latimer for a number of years, but Russell Thompson talked with him about the incident. Thompson said that he had no doubt that the man who visited him was the same person who spoke with the ministers. Thompson said he never received a satisfactory explanation or a report back from Inspector Zachary or the FBI, and when I showed him Jack Youngblood’s picture, he seemed uncertain but thought that he could have been the man. Though his visitor was about the right age, Thompson had described him as being light-haired. All the photographs I had of Youngblood were of a dark-haired man. If Youngblood had been his visitor, he must have been in disguise.

  Youngblood did appear to match the description of a man who appeared at the St. Francis Hotel in Los Angeles shortly after the assassination. This man was with a James Earl Ray look-alike who appeared to have a great deal of money to throw around and who openly spoke of a second killing that was soon to take place. (Remember that during his stay in Los Angeles in late 1967 to early 1968, Ray had lived for some time at the St. Francis Hotel and was known there.)

  Months later I would meet Jack Youngblood on two occasions. He said that he knew some people who had direct information about the killing. They were living outside of the country and for a sum of money he might be able to get them to tell their story.

  When pressed as to why these overseas contacts would be willing to sit down and reveal what they knew about this case, considering that there is no statute of limitations for murder, he said the main reason was because they were disenchanted after having provided long and effective service to their government. They now felt that they were being sold down the river, forgotten. He claimed that he had an oil-company plane at his disposal.

  Because of his intelligence connections and activity, it was possible that he knew people who were involved. At the end of the day I came to believe it was unlikely that he had any direct involvement in the case. It seemed that either he was acting on behalf of the government, spreading false information (disinformation) in order to confuse and divert the investigation away from the truth, or he was holding out the promise of information in an effort to hustle money. Though I arranged some funds for him, he never produced the mysterious expatriate government operatives.

  I eventually came to believe that the “people” to whom he was referring were the same two military operatives known to have met with Steve Tompkins in Mexico over a period of time, at a much later date.

  Of all the indications of government involvement I encountered during my first investigatory period, none was more bizarre than the actions of William Bradford Huie. In 1978 Jerry Ray had told me that in 1976, as the HSCA was being formed, James Earl Ray’s Nashville attorney Jack Kershaw was invited to attend a meeting in Nashville with author William Bradford Huie and two other persons.

  Huie asked him to take an offer to his client: a payment of $220,000, a pardon from the governor of Tennessee, a waiver of the outstanding detainer (escape warrant) from the Missouri Department of Corrections, and a new identity, in exchange for unequivocal admission of guilt in the murder of Dr. King. Kershaw delivered the offer to his client, who rejected it out of hand.

  A short time later, when Mark Lane had replaced Kershaw, Huie repeated the offer to Jerry Ray in the course of two telephone conversations which Jerry tape recorded. Ray’s response was the same.

  Not long afterward I obtained copies of the transcript of the tape. In the October 29, 1977, 12:15 a.m. conversation, the following exchange took place:

  Jerry Ray: “So when this deal came up with James and Kershaw said you’d pay so much money if he’d, you know, plea guilty and confess.”

  William Bradford Huie: “Yeah, that’s right. But let me tell you one thing clearly. I’m not talking about just a statement. I’m talking about something that James has never done in his life before. I’m talking about a story that says how and why. And he explains….”

  Nine and a half hours later, a second conversation took place:

  Huie: “You’re talking about $200,000 here, Jerry. The only thing that will be of any value for both a book and film and put this right in your mind—Why and How I Killed Dr. King, by James Earl Ray, with the help of William Bradford Huie.”

  From the account of his contacts it is clear that Huie was acting as an intermediary in an effort to get James to confess in detail and thus, once and for all, close the case.

  Mark Lane had Jerry Ray tape record the offer and draw out Huie so the attempt was clear.

  PART III

  Chapter 7

  SHOWTIME—INVESTIGATIVE HEARINGS

  Public money, official lies

  Serve the pawns who rule

  Who serve to conceal unholy ties

  And use the media as their tool.

  Truth is blasphemed by their deceit

  With the masses regarded as fools,

  As foot soldiers are given unbridled conceit

  Not constrained by time-honored rules.

  Jerry Ray testified before the HSCA in open session on Thursday, November 30, 1978. Mark Lane was not permitted to represent Jerry because he already represented James and there might be a conflict of interest. Jerry had asked me to consider appearing with him. There were two problems. First of all I was obviously concerned that my appearance on his behalf—special appearance though it was—was not to be construed as a commitment at that stage to the unequivocal innocence of his brother. Second, my family feared that this overt action would be unwise. Nevertheless, I decided to represent Jerry for the specific purpose of protecting his rights.

  I overrode family opposition by inviting New York lawyer, feminist, and civil rights activist Florynce Kennedy (Flo) to be co-counsel. As one of the nation’s most prominent black women lawyers with considerable experience in opposing abuse of process, Flo added considerable strength to the witness table.

  I believed that the question of James’s and his brothers’ alleged involvement in a 1967 bank robbery in Alton, Illinois (J
ames’s birthplace), was likely to be a key element of the committee’s interrogation. In attempting to disprove the existence of Raul and thus the existence of a conspiracy, the committee would most likely claim that the money James received during his time on the run had been obtained from the $27,000 robbery of the Alton bank.

  It was evident that after his July 13, 1967, escape and during his stay in Canada, James Earl Ray had acquired money. The Alton bank robbery occurred on the day before some of his purchases began, and had thus been seized upon as the explanation for the source of his funds. James, however, said he initially obtained funds in Canada by robbing a Montreal brothel and that Raul subsequently gave him money. The HSCA speculated that rather than James escaping from prison, spending two and a half months in the States, traveling to a strange city in Canada in a destitute condition, and committing an armed robbery, it would be more reasonable to assume that he escaped from prison, made contact with his brother John in St. Louis, got a job while they planned a crime, then, after committing the robbery in a familiar area, fled to Canada.

  On November 17, 1978, The New York Times published a front-page article by Wendell Rawls Jr., stating that the results of a Times investigation agreed with the conclusions of a separate investigation by HSCA that the Ray brothers, including Jerry, were guilty of robbing the Alton bank.

  On Wednesday, the 29th, the day before Jerry’s appearance before the HSCA, I placed a call to East Alton police lieutenant Walter Conrad. I advised him that in an effort to put to rest the continuing allegations that my client had been a participant in that robbery, I had counseled him to return once again to East Alton and offer to be charged and stand trial (Jerry had previously surrendered himself on August 18, 1978, offered to waive the statute of limitations, take a lie detector test, and, if charged, stand trial for the robbery). I then told Lieutenant Conrad about The New York Times article.