[NOTE: All references
to the transcript of James Earl Ray's guilty plea hearing are noted
with a “T” followed by the page number i.e. T27 for page 27 of
the transcript.]
On March 10, 1969,
lifelong petty criminal and recent prison escapee, James Earl Ray,
pled guilty to the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But despite
entering this plea, Ray never admitted to shooting Dr. King and
maintained until the day he died that he had been manipulated and
set-up for the assassination. As I hope to show, the facts support
his contention. There is not a scrap of hard forensic evidence or
even reliable eyewitness testimony to establish guilt on his part.
And the evidence that exists is, in fact, exculpatory. I will detail
in an upcoming post the reasons why he entered a guilty plea when he
so clearly was not the assassin. But for now I wish to concentrate on
the evidence alluded to at the guilty plea hearing that was said to
prove his guilt, and the evidence not offered in court that actually
proves the opposite.
As Shelby County
District Attorney Philip M. Canale explained to the jury, “It is
incumbent upon the State in a plea of guilty to murder in the first
degree to put on certain proof for your consideration. We have to put
on proof of what we lawyers call the proof of the corpus delicti
which is the body of the crime” (T12) I can only begin to imagine
how Ray must have felt sitting through what followed Canale's opening
remarks, realising how flimsy the case against him really was, and
how utterly unconvincing and worthless was the State's so-called
“proof”. Because it is without doubt that nothing the prosecution
presented at the hearing came anywhere close to proving that “Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed by James Earl Ray and James Earl
Ray alone, not in concert with anyone” as Canale insisted. (T14)
The prosecution offered
the testimony of five witnesses whom Canale told the jury would “fill
you in on certain important aspects of the case.” (T12) The first
of these was Reverend Samuel B. Kyles, a friend of Dr. King who was
on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel with him at the moment he was
shot. Having turned his back to walk away, Kyles did not see King as
he was struck and mistook the sound of the shot for a car backfiring.
(T32) He did not have any personal knowledge of the origin of the
shot but mentioned looking towards the front of the rooming house
opposite “because there were bushes and things.” (T35) Next up
was King's attorney Chauncy Eskridge who was also at the Lorraine
that evening. Asked, “did you look back over towards a rooming
house there shown on the mock-up?” Eskridge replied, “I did.”
(T40) He was not asked and did not explain why. Neither Eskridge nor
Kyles saw any movement in the area of the rooming house.
The third witness was
Shelby County Medical Examiner Dr. Jerry T. Francisco who performed
the autopsy. Dr. Francisco testified that the cause of death was “A
gunshot wound to the cervical and thoracic spinal cord” and
identified for the court the bullet that was removed from Dr. King's
body. (T44-45) He also testified that the angle of the incoming
bullet was “from above downward” (T45) and claimed the wound was
consistent with a shot from the rooming house. (T46) However, Dr.
Francisco gave no indication that he considered Dr. King's posture at
the time the shot was fired when, according to Eskridge, King was
leaning over the balcony talking to people in the parking lot below.
(T40) Also not mentioned in his testimony, but reported by the HSCA
11 years later, is that Dr. Francisco did not dissect the path of the
bullet as he should have done. (HSCA report, p. 289)
Dr. Francisco was
followed on the stand by Memphis Police Inspector N.E. Zachary who
committed perjury by falsely swearing to being the officer who found
a bundle of evidence in the doorway to Canipe's Amusement Company
(next door to the rooming house) minutes after the assassination.
(T49) In fact, the bundle was first observed by Lieutenant Judson E.
Ghormley who called it in and arranged for an officer to guard the
evidence. (see April 16, 1968 statement of J.E. Ghormley) As Zachary
described it, the “package rolled up in a bedspread...consisted of
a blue briefcase and a Browning pasteboard box containing a rifle.”
(T49) He further testified to turning the rifle, the briefcase, and
it's various contents over to the FBI on 10:00 PM that night—all
except for a T-shirt and shorts. (T52) He did not explain why he kept
these two items.
Last up was FBI Special
Agent Robert G. Jensen who testified to receiving the bundle from
Zachary. (T55) He further testified to ordering his agents to make a
canvass of hotels and motels in Shelby County and finding a
registration card at the Rebel Motel bearing the name Eric S. Galt
(one of Ray's aliases); tracking the recovered rifle to Aero Marine
Supply Company in Birmingham, Alabama; recovering a white Ford
Mustang that was abandoned in Atlanta, Georgia; and tracing other
items from the suitcase—including
the T-shirt and shorts Zachary said he did not turn over— to
Los Angeles. Finally, Jensen was asked, “Did the investigation made
by the FBI culminate in the arrest of James Earl Ray?” to which he
replied, “Yes it did.” (T59) Canale's executive assistant Robert
Dwyer then informed the court, “That is all the proof the state
cares to offer at this time.”
And with that, with
none of facts of the crime established, and nothing about Ray's guilt
even close to proven, the witness testimony came to a pitiful end.
Following a short
recess, assistant James W. Beasley began to narrate “a stipulation
of the facts and evidence that the State would prove in addition to
the testimony that you heretofore heard in the trial of this case.”
(T60) Beasley's narrative runs for 40 pages and is brimming over with
trivialities that have no bearing on whether or not Ray killed King.
As Harold Weisberg noted, Beasley was trying to make it appear as if
a proper, thorough investigation had been conducted and to make the
evidence against Ray seem stronger than it actually was. Therefore,
in what follows, I have ignored the numerous irrelevancies that
require and deserve no response and concentrated solely on the
salient points of the State's case.
Ray at the Rooming
House
According to Beasley,
the State could show through the testimony of Bessie Brewer, manager
of the rooming house, that at around 3:00 PM Ray rented room 5-B
under the name of John Willard. On this point the State is
undoubtedly correct and Ray never denied it. He claimed, however,
that he rented the room at the request of the man whom he believed
set him up for the assassination; a man he knew only as “Raoul”.
Beasley made sure to note that Ray had rejected the first room he was
offered, a room on the south side of the building, in favour of a
room on the north side, facing the Lorraine Motel. (T61-62) 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, 1968 interview, Ray didn't ask for a room on the north side or check the view from the window
before accepting 5-B, he just “looked in” and “said that
was fine.” Ray's reason for rejecting room 8, according to Brewer,
was that “he didn't need the stove and the refrigerator. He just
needed a sleeping room” This is what Ray always maintained was his
reason for rejecting what he called a “housekeeping room”, adding
that this type of room is “for couples, I believe. And, uh, they're
usually roach-infested...” (HSCA MLK Vol. 9, p. 41)
To further support the
notion that Ray was spying on Dr. King from room 5-B, Beasley claimed
that after the shooting, when police searched the rooming house, they
found that a chest of drawers had been moved away from the window and
a wooden chair had been placed in front of it. Beasley told the jury
that “You could sit in this chair and...could see the Lorraine
Motel.” (T68) Beasley's claim is contradicted by the April 4, 1968,
Homicide Officers Report which states, “...it was noted by sitting
in the chair at this angle the spot where Dr. King was standing was
not visible but you must lean partially out the window to see the
spot.” So a view of King's room was not possible from 5-B unless
one hangs half out of the window! Beasley also leaves out the
inconvenient fact that neither the chest of drawers nor the chair had
Ray's fingerprints on them. In fact, Ray's fingerprints were not
found anywhere in the rooming house. (HSCA MLK Vol. 13, p. 112) This
quite obviously does not support the claim that he was up there
moving furniture around. Conversely, it appears to support Ray's
account in which he claimed that the total amount of time he spent in
the rooming house was around 15 minutes. (see HSCA MLK Vol. 9, p. 15)
The Bathroom
In
discussing the sniper's alleged position in the rooming house
bathroom, the State made a number of highly dubious and clearly
fallacious claims. According to Beasley, when homicide officers first
searched the bathroom, they “found marks in the bottom of the tub
consistent with shoe or scuff marks.” They discovered that the
window was open and a small wire-mesh screen had been “pushed off”
and found lying on the ground outside. And Inspector Zachary observed
a “fresh indentation” on the old wooden window sill. Beasley
further claimed that “the proof would show through expert testimony
that the markings on this sill were consistent with the machine
markings as reflected on the barrel of the 30.06 rifle” found in
the doorway of Canipe's. (T69) From this the State made its case that
Ray had stood in the tub, pushed the screen off with his rifle,
rested the barrel on the window sill. and fired the fatal shot. For
45 years this scenario has been accepted uncritically by journalists
and historians the world over and actively promoted by
establishment-friendly authors like Gerald Posner, Gerold Frank, and
Hampton Sides. And yet the evidence disproves it.
Despite
the importance the State placed upon them, the scuff marks in the tub
are of no value whatsoever in establishing Ray's guilt or innocence.
Assuming they really were caused by shoes, there is no way of knowing
who's shoes made them or when they were made. In fact, the HSCA
admitted that it was “unable to eliminate the alternative
possibility that these marks, apparently made by someone wearing
shoes, were left by police officers attempting to check possible
shooting angles immediately after the assassination.” (HSCA report,
p. 292) Similarly, it was never established when the wire-mesh screen
had actually become detached from the window frame of that run-down
old flophouse. And the claim that it was pushed off with the rifle is
contradicted by the FBI examination which found that “No aluminum,
screen-type scratches, paint, wood or other foreign material was
found on the muzzle or side of the barrel” of the rifle. (April 17,
1968, FBI Lab Report) As to Beasley's claim that “expert testimony”
would show that the dent in the window sill was made by the barrel of
the rifle, the FBI lab reports prove he was blowing smoke. After it
was removed, examination found that “insufficient marks for
identification were left on the board due to the physical nature of
the wood.” And, totally undermining the notion that a rifle was
fired whilst rested on the sill, “No gunpowder or gunpowder
residues were found on the Q71 board.” (April 11, 1968, FBI Lab
Report) Beasley's claim, then, was a deliberate falsehood; one he
knew he could get away with because there was to be no trial, no
cross-examination, and no need to ever produce the proof he promised.
In
1974, world-renowned forensics expert and Professor of
Criminalistics, Herbert L. Macdonell, was contacted by Ray's defense
team and asked to examine the physical evidence and testify at Ray's
evidentiary hearing. According to Harold Weisberg, who was the
defense team's sole investigator, MacDonell “erupted with laughter”
when he saw the dent on the sill because he immediately recognized
the impossibility of the State's allegation. MacDonell testified that
it was not possible “to determine even the class of the object that
made that indentation, let alone a specific or positive identity of
that object.” (Click
HERE for the complete transcript of MacDonnel's testimony) He further stated that the “only portion of the barrel that would
be capable of making such a clean, fine cut...would have to be the
muzzle”. But because of where that dent was, if the rifle was fired
with the muzzle resting in that dent, “It would have torn up the
windowsill.” Not only that but, as these pictures of MacDonell show,
with the rifle rested in that dent, the butt would be up against the wall so the rifleman himself would have
to be partially inside the wall!:
This
is not the only seeming impossibility with the State's shooting
scenario. In fact, the very idea that a sniper could have stood in
the bath tub and fired the fatal shot is unfeasible. A team from
Paris-Match magazine visited the rooming house bathroom in
April, 1968, and attempted to simulate the sniper's supposed
position.
What
they found was that the old-fashioned bath tub had a steeply slanting
back which made it impossible for the gunman to stand in the tub and
aim a rifle down on the Lorraine motel balcony. The best their
stand-in could manage was to stand precariously on the slippery edge
of the tub and this put him up so high that he had to raise the
window. This meant that he would be fully exposed to anyone on the
street below and would have had to have turned his head almost on its
side; making aiming more difficult. But more importantly, the
Homicide Officers Report reveals that when police searched the
bathroom they found that the window was only raised by “3 and 7/8
inches from the bottom sill.” Which, as I said before, means that
the State's scenario is ostensibly impossible.
The Bundle and the
Ballistics
As
noted above, very shortly after Dr. King was shot, a bundle of
evidence was found dumped in the doorway to Canipe's Amusement
Company. This bundle contained much evidence implicating Ray—
including a personal radio from Missouri State Penitentiary with his
prison ID number engraved on it—and
most importantly it contained the Remington Gamemaster 30.06 pump
action rifle alleged by the State to be the murder weapon. That Ray
purchased the weapon is not in question. However, as with the renting
of the room, Ray claimed that he did so on the orders of a man named
“Raoul”. Interestingly, fingerprint experts for the HSCA
disagreed about whether or not Ray's prints were found on the rifle.
The FBI had discovered and lifted only one identifiable fingerprint
on the rifle and one other on the telescopic sight. Two of the HSCA
experts, Ray H. Holbrook and Darrell D. Linville, agreed that the
print on the scope belonged to Ray but could not positively identify
the print on the rifle. (HSCA MLK Vol. 13, p. 117) The third expert,
Vincent J. Scalice, positively identified the print on the rifle as
Ray's but not the print on the telescopic sight. (Ibid, p. 113)
In
any case, what really matters is not whether or not Ray's prints were
on the rifle, but whether or not that rifle was the actual murder
weapon. Beasley told the jury that “The death slug removed from the
body contained land and groove impressions and direction of twist
consistent with those that were in the barrel of this rifle.” (T96)
Anyone who is remotely familiar with ballistics will understand that
Beasley's words are largely meaningless. As Herbert MacDonell
explained in his 1974 testimony, Beasley “is referring to class
characteristics. In other words, like a right shoe is a right shoe
and six lands and grooves to the right are six lands and grooves to
the right...It doesn't really say anything...” What the State did
not and could not offer was proof that the death slug was fired from
the rifle Ray purchased to the exclusion of all other rifles. When
FBI Agent Robert Frazier examined the ballistics evidence, he
reported that “it was not possible to determine whether or not Q64
was fired from the Q2 rifle.” This he blamed on the condition of
the bullet, writing, “The Q64 bullet has been distorted due to
mutilation and insufficient marks for identification remain on this
bullet.” (April 17, 1968, FBI Lab Report)
Herbert
MacDonell did not agree with Frazier's assessment. He testified, “I
feel there is sufficient detail there that with a good comparison
microscope and several test-firings that an identification ought to
be possible. I have seen several fineline striations in grooves No. 1
and 5, and the mutilation to the projectile is negligible from the
standpoint of firearms identification. It's mushroomed, but it's not
distorted. You have six lands and grooves to work with, not just one
fragment. I believe an identification is possible, or could be made.”
In 1979 the HSCA essentially shifted blame for the non-identification
from the bullet to the rifle itself. The firearms panel reported that
when test bullets “were compared microscopically, the panel found
so much variation among the individual identifying characteristics
that most could not be identified with each other. The panel
concludes that the Q2 rifle inconsistently engraves individual
identifying characteristics on successively fired bullets.” (HSCA
MLK Vol. 13, p. 63-64)
In
1994 Ray's lawyer, William Pepper, sought further testing of the
rifle and Judge Joe B. Brown granted his request. Frustratingly, the
results were once again inconclusive. However, as Judge Brown
testified at the 1999 King V. Jowers civil trial, 12 of the 18
test bullets showed a similar “unusual characteristic”, in the
form of a bump on the surface, that Brown (himself a ballistics
expert) felt was a result of “shattering in the tool” used to
make the barrel. Inspecting the barrel, Brown said that it was
“absolutely filthy” with jacket powder and believed that it was
this build-up that was causing the inconclusive results. He
testified, “Now, because this weapon was not cleaned, what happened
was that the filing material was being blown out of this flaw. So one
of these bullets would have a gross reflection of this flaw. The next
shot through it would be somewhat less impressed because of the
filing that had filled up this defect. The third one would have even
less of an impression. Then the filing would get blown out. The next
bullets through would not show it to a gross extent. So you've got
twelve bullets with the same common characteristic, that is, this
raised area on the surface of the bullet...that was not found on the
corresponding portion of the bullet removed from Dr. King.” (13th
Juror: The Official Transcript of the Martin Luther King Conspiracy
Trial, pgs. 235-236)
To
solve the problem, Brown suggested that the rifle be cleaned with a
chemical solution that would remove the filings without harming the
barrel. At that point, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals had
him removed from the case on the grounds that he had lost his
objectivity. Clearly the State of Tennessee was disturbed by the fact
that the results of this last round of testing were around 66%
consistent with the use of a different 30.06 rifle in the
assassination. It is worth noting at this point that, as Herbert
MacDonell testified, based on the class characteristics Beasley
described, their were millions of rifles in the US that could have
fired the death slug.
What
may further rule out the rifle in the bundle as the murder weapon is
the statement Guy Warren Canipe gave to public defender Hugh Stanton
Jr. on February 4, 1969. Canipe, who did not hear the shot fired,
claimed that the bundle was dropped “in front of his place of
business about 10 minutes when a Deputy Sheriff came up to take
charge of them.” As noted above, the first member of the Sheriff's
department on the scene was Judson E. Ghormley who said that he
arrived at the doorway of Canipe's approximately 2 minutes after the
shot was fired. When Harold Weisberg and attorney Jim Lesar retraced
his steps, it took them just 45 seconds. (Weisberg, Whoring with
History, p. 99) So if there is
any truth at all to Canipe's statement, since it is impossible for
the Remington Gamemaster to have been in two places at once, that
rifle simply could not have been used to shoot Dr. King.
The obvious question that Beasley did not seek to answer is why Ray
would have dumped that bundle full of incriminating evidence at the
scene of the crime. Memphis police speculated that Ray was on his way
to his white Ford Mustang when he
was spooked by the sight of a police cruiser parked in front of the
fire station. The HSCA borrowed this idea for its report, stating,
“...an official police cruiser parked in the fire station parking
lot protruded onto the sidewalk on the east side of South Main Street
and would have been clearly visible to Ray as he fled from the
rooming house. The committee believe that Ray threw the bundle of
evidence down in a moment of panic, probably triggered by his seeing
police activity or the police vehicle.” (HSCA report, p. 331) The
problem with this theory is that the driver of that police cruiser,
Emmett Douglass insisted that he was parked approximately 60 feet
back from the pavement where he would not have been visible to Ray.
(Pepper, Orders to
Kill, p. 214)
Additionally, on April 4, 1968, there was a large hedge that ran
along the edge of the fire station driveway, extending out to the
sidewalk, that would have blocked Ray's view of a car parked where
the HSCA claimed it was. This hedge was apparently cut down the
following morning. (Ibid, p. 363)
White
Mustangs and Ray's Alibi
The State has always maintained
that after firing the shot, Ray exited the rooming house, dropped the
bundle, climbed into his white Ford Mustang, which they claimed was
parked a few feet south of Canipe's, and quickly made his getaway. As
proof of this getaway, Beasley cited the statements of Guy Warren
Canipe and two customers who were in his store at the time; Bernell
Finley and Julius Graham. All three heard the bundle drop, saw a
white man walking south and, moments later, saw “a white Mustang
pull from the curb” and “head north on Main Street with one
occupant.” (T65) Beasley did not mention that none of the witnesses
saw whether or not the man who dropped the bundle was the same man
who drove off in the white Mustang. He also kept hidden the fact that
there were actually two white Mustangs parked on Main Street that
afternoon and one of them was observed leaving the scene right around
the time Ray said he left the rooming house to get his tire fixed.
There
is no doubt that one of the Mustang's was parked south of Canipes
because it was seen there by a number of witnesses including
Elizabeth Copeland and Peggy Hurley. (T63) But Ray always insisted
that he parked his Mustang directly in front of Jim's Grill, located
underneath the rooming house. Loyd Jowers, owner of Jim's Grill,
confirmed in his April 7, 1968, statement to Memphis police that
there was indeed a white Mustang with out-of-state license plates
parked directly in front of the grill that afternoon. According to
Ray, the car was parked in that spot until around 5:45 PM when he
“eased the Mustang north onto Main Street” and drove a few blocks
to an intersection “where there were two or three service
stations.” He pulled into the nearest one and asked the attendant
if he could repair the tire in the trunk but was told it was too
busy. According to Ray, he filled up with gas and made his way back
towards the rooming house but as he approached the area he spotted a
police car seemingly blocking off the intersection. Being an escaped
convict who was in town to conduct a gun deal, Ray said he quickly
turned off and made his way out of downtown Memphis. A few minutes
later, Ray claimed, he heard on the car radio that Dr. King had been
shot. (See Ray, Who
Killed Martin Luther King?,
p. 96)
Two
potentially important witnesses gave statements to the FBI on April
25, 1968, that corroborate important details of Ray's story. Ray
Hendrix and William Reed ate dinner at Jim's Grill and left at
approximately 5:30 PM. As they walked outside, Hendrix realised that
he had forgotten his jacket and went back inside the grill to
retrieve it. While he did so, Reed stood outside checking out the
Mustang that was parked there which, he noted, was “an off white
color”—Ray's Mustang was, in fact, a very pale yellow called
“spring Time Yellow”. When Hendrix reappeared, the two men walked
north along Main Street until they came to the corner of Main and
Vance. Just as they were about to cross the street, according to
Hendrix, “Bill Reed pulled him back to the curb because the car was
turning the corner.” This car, he said, was a white Mustang with a
lone male driver that Reed told him “was the Mustang that was
parked in front of Jim's Grill..” (13th
Juror,
p. 351-352) Hendrix and Reed, then, saw a car matching Ray's, with a
single male occupant, leaving the scene around the same time Ray said
he left, and heading in the same direction Ray said he was headed in.
Which means that they provide partial corroboration for Ray's alibi
and possible evidence of his innocence. Unbelievably, these witness
statements went overlooked until attorney William Pepper brought them
to light in 1993.
The
“Star Witness”
With
no forensic evidence of any kind to put Ray in the rooming house
bathroom with a rifle in his hands, and no proof that the dropped
rifle was the actual murder weapon, the State's case is entirely
dependent on a single alleged eyewitness: Charles Quitman Stephens.
Stephens lived with his wife Grace in room 6-B which adjoined both
the bathroom and the room Ray rented. “At approximately 6 PM”,
Beasley stated, “Mr. Stephens heard the shot coming apparently
through this wall from the bathroom (indicating). He then got up,
went through this room out into the corridor in time to see the left
profile of the Defendant as he turned down the passageway which leads
to an opening with a stairwell going down to Main Street.” (T65)
The way Beasley tells it, there's no ifs, ands, or buts about it;
Stephens heard the shot and identified Ray as the fleeing assassin.
I'm sure by now the reader will not be surprised to learn that the
truth is more than a little different.
Stephens
was an alcoholic who, on April 4, 1968, was as drunk as a skunk. As
usual. He was so drunk, in fact, that no more than 15 minutes before
the assassination his usual cab driver, James McCraw refused to take
him anywhere. As McCraw said in a sworn statement to the public
defender's office on February 3, 1969, when he arrived at the rooming
house he found Stephens lying on his bed in such a drunken condition
that he “could not get off the bed.” Memphis police officer Tommy
Smith found much the same when he entered the rooming house very
shortly after the assassination. As he said in his sworn testimony at
the King V.
Jowers
civil trial, Stephens was “intoxicated” and “leaning up against
the door”. Asked if he thought Stephens was in a condition to
identify anyone Smith replied, “No, sir. No Way...I didn't think
enough of his statement that I took to take him downstairs and take a
formal statement from him and so put it in my arrest report that he
was intoxicated to the point that there was no sense in bringing him
downtown.” (13th
Juror,
p. 56)
Nevertheless, a few hours later,
someone did decide to take Stephens downtown to take a statement from
him. At that point, Stephens told police that he would not be able to
identify the man if he saw him again because he “didn't get that
good a look at him...I just had a glimpse of one side of his
face...he wasn't turned around where I could see him.” As if this
wasn't damaging enough to the State's claim, when Stephens was
interviewed on April 18, 1968, by CBS news correspondent, Bill Stout,
and was shown a picture of Ray, the following exchange took place:
STOUT: Mr. Stephens, what do you
think of that picture? Does that look like the man?
STEPHENS: Well--[clears
throat]--Excuse me—from the glimpse that I—that I got of his
profile, it doesn't.
STOUT: It Doesn't?
STEPHENS:
Certainly—No, sir, it certainly doesn't. For one thing, he's too
heavy. His face is too full. He has too much hair, and his nose is
too wide—from the glimpse that, as I said, that I got of his
profile. But that definitely, I would say, is not the—the guy.
(Orders to Kill,
p. 97)
Definitely not the guy.
That's the State's star witness,
it's one and only witness, looking at Ray's picture and saying he was
“definitely not” the man he saw!
What else needs to be said?
No
Case to Answer
Several
years ago, retired British Police Detective, Ian Griggs, wrote a book
on the JFK assassination titled “No Case to Answer.” As Griggs
explained, the phrase “No Case to Answer” is a “loosely legal
expression in England...It basically means that despite thorough
investigation, insufficient evidence has been obtained to justify
taking the case before a court of law.” I submit that this should
unquestionably have been recognised as true of the case against James
Earl Ray. There is no forensic evidence of any kind implicating Ray;
no fingerprints, ballistics or gunshot residues or anything else
remotely resembling scientific proof. What the State offered instead
was a handful of lies it knew were disproven by the FBI's own
analysis. In a very real sense, the entire case rested on a single
eyewitness whose own statements exonerated rather than incriminated
Ray. The very fact that this utterly fabricated, wholly
unsubstantiated case actually made it before a judge is a travesty.
The fact that it ended with Ray serving a 99-year sentence while the
real killers got off scot-free is a shameful injustice. An injustice
that the State of Tennessee needs to own up to once and for all. For,
as Martin Luther King once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere.”