Vs. Case No. 97242-4 T.D.






December 1, 1999



Before the Honorable James E. Swearengen,

Division 4, Judge presiding.





Suite 2200, One Commerce Square

Memphis, Tennessee 38103

(901) 529-1999


(901) 529-1999



For the Plaintiffs:


Attorney at Law

575 Madison Avenue, Suite 1006

New York, New York 10022

(212) 605-0515

For the Defendant:



Attorneys at Law

100 North Main Street, Suite 1025

Memphis, Tennessee 38103

(901) 527-6445

For the Attorney General:


Assistant Attorney General

425 Fifth Avenue North

Nashville, Tennessee 37243

(615) 741-3491

Reported by:


Registered Professional Reporter

Daniel, Dillinger, Dominski,

Richberger & Weatherford

2200 One Commerce Square

Memphis, Tennessee 38103


(901) 529-1999





Direct Examination

By Mr. Garrison --------------- 1448


By Mr. Pepper ----------------- 1461

Redirect Examination

By Mr. Garrison --------------- 1468


Direct Examination

By Mr. Pepper ----------------- 1476


By Mr. Garrison --------------- 1532

Redirect Examination

By Mr. Pepper ----------------- 1541


By Mr. Garrison --------------- 1542


30 --------------- 1385 (Collective)

31 --------------- 1508

32 --------------- 1511

33 --------------- 1539


(901) 529-1999



(December 1st, 1999, 9:55 a.m.)

MR. MYERS: ... work product and

certain other items involving confidential

informants and the like can be removed and

held from the public. Because records have

been released does not necessarily constitute

a waiver of work product -- the work product

privilege. That doesn't mean that Judge

Beasley or Judge Duire's thought processes

were in there. Neither side has come forward

and said, here are papers from Judge Beasley

and Judge Duire. Here is their stuff on

thought processes, mental impressions,

beliefs, legal theories of the case.

None of that has been shown or

identified as having been produced. And to

somehow say something has been waived,

without coming in and being specific as to

what it is that has been waived, is not

valid. I mean, ordinarily if one is going to

show a waiver of any privilege, one has got

to be fairly specific concerning what it is

that's been given up. Yet neither side here

has come in and identified that.


(901) 529-1999


There's been discussions about

wanting to talk to an investigator who

apparently has been talking to people for

several years. This case has been pending

for a while. The way the Court systems work,

a case doesn't get filed on day one and tried

on day two.

And under the discovery rules, which

would govern this case, the Rules of Civil

Procedure, starting with Rule 26 going

through Rule 37, there could have been

attempts made to discover this stuff before

coming to trial. If all these serious

allegations were out there to be raised, why

weren't depositions taken before this time?

Why weren't subpoenas put out for

depositions? Why weren't records inspected,

people called in? In the normal course of a

civil action, this is what happens.

And if these people were so

important and so critical to the case, and

that this is literally pay money or not, why

wasn't an attempt made before this time --

before now to call these witnesses into

court? One would expect that a lawyer


(901) 529-1999


doesn't want to put somebody on the stand

without knowing what he's going to say.

That's playing Russian roulette with one's

malpractice policy a lot of times.

Supposedly, Judges Duire and Beasley

are supposed to have made false statements,

and this has supposedly been known a while.

Why weren't they questioned before this

time? The statute that provides the

exemption of testimony from trial does allow

depositions in certain cases. That could

have been done. It hasn't. These files have

been open to anybody. So to determine

whether Mr. Jowers had any involvement in the

murder of Dr. King, and if this is a public

report, then this public report may have

identified witnesses, may have identified

evidence. Why haven't these people been

sought out, questioned and brought in?

Under Rule 602 those would be the

people who are competent to testify in this

Court rather than bringing in prosecutors who

handled the case 30 years ago. There's been

talk about missing items of evidence. Not

conceding that's true or not. How would


(901) 529-1999


Judge Beasley and Judge Duire know about


The case happened 30 years ago.

There's been no -- no evidence or suggestion

that any of these files have been in their

exclusive control or custody over this time.

And, in fact, in all likelihood, they became

just records within the District Attorney

General's office. And given the historical

significance of the facts involved, it would

not be surprising if many people haven't

rummaged through those files. Certainly they

would be of interest to academic historians.

They would be of interest perhaps to other

authors or members of the public who wanted

to know something that happened.

What it sounds like is going on is a

case that rather than calling these people

and checking it out and sifting through the

evidence, let's try to bring the lawyers in

and get them to do -- or an investigator and

get them to do our homework for us. And,

again, that gets right back to work product.

Lawyers are not required to do somebody

else's trial prep, are not required to do


(901) 529-1999


somebody else's civil discovery.

And the law generally protects it

except in those extraordinary circumstances

where the exclusive control rests perhaps

within the lawyer's hands, and then it goes

only to factual material. For all these

reasons we would ask the Court, again, to

quash the subpoena.

MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, can I

just reply briefly to that?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. GARRISON: If Your Honor

please, first of all, when the Attorney

General says that we didn't take an

initiative stand for Mr. Glankler -- take

depositions, they have filed a report --

about a 50, 75-page report to indicate all

the things that he did in the investigation.

I have seen reports. It's a matter of public


So, I mean, I knew what he said.

I've talked to him personally more than

once. He has told me about my client calling

and he recorded a statement and so on and so

forth. So, I mean, I don't know what I can


(901) 529-1999


gain by a deposition. He's publicly made

statements about this.

Now, as far as Judge Beasley and

Judge Duire, if Your Honor please, they have

been on television the last 15 months making

statements about this case. Strange that

they got on television, they have given press

conferences to the press here in Memphis.

It's strange they get on television and tell

the whole world about what they know about

this case but they can't come in here and

tell 12 people. And their testimony, if the

Court please, I think is absolutely essential

to the defense of this case. As far as

Mr. Jowers is concerned, it's a very serious

case, a historical matter.

And, if Your Honor please, if Your

Honor's discretion will permit you to require

them to come in -- I have two or three

questions I want to ask them. And Mr. Myers

can object to it if I ask them anything that

he feels is not pertinent. But I think that

in view of the public policy in this case, in

view the historical nature of this case, the

importance of it, that they should be


(901) 529-1999


required to come in and testify, and

certainly Mr. Glankler. There's no exemption

under any law that I can think of.

THE COURT: In checking the

statute, 24-9-101, the Court doesn't find any

provision that would automatically exclude

these parties. One of the most sacred rights

in our judicial system is that right to

subpoena witnesses on one's behalf.

Now, it's said that these parties --

it's anticipated that certain questions may

be asked of these witnesses which would be

improper. If that is so, the time to react

to that would be at the time that the

question is asked. At that point the Court

would determine the relevance or the

admissibility of the answer they gave.

It's also suggested that there were

opportunities before the trial to discover or

to take advantage of certain information.

All of you as lawyers know that during the

course of a trial issues arise, and the

defendant has no way to anticipate all of the

proof that is to be presented by the

plaintiff and, therefore, cannot prepare in


(901) 529-1999


advance always for issues that may arise and

know how to construct his defense.

As far as playing roulette by

bringing in witnesses that have not been

interviewed -- first of all, according to the

defendant, he has spoken with these

witnesses. And in addition to that, if a

party wants to play roulette and take that

chance, the Court has no control over it.

The bottom line is that the Court

does not feel that the motion is well taken,

and I'm going to deny it.

MR. MYERS: Your Honor, at this

time I would just like to ask for sufficient

time to file a Rule 9 application for

interlocutory appeal on this -- on this

point. And I would cite in 9(A)(1)

irreparable injury. There have been

privileges asserted with respect to work

product and the like. And if a witness is

forced to take the stand and made to testify,

that privilege is, for all intents and

purposes, lost.

Second, with respect to

prosecutorial immunity -- and the case is


(901) 529-1999


going that way in terms of required showing

before a prosecutor should be called as a

witness. Those very items are of such a

nature as they would be lost unless allowed

to be fully litigated within the -- the

appellate process.

THE COURT: I'm going to deny

your request. Anything further?

MR. GARRISON: No, sir.

MR. PEPPER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The

Court is going to take ten minutes.

(Brief break taken.)

MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, if it

please the Court, the plaintiffs are nearing

the end of their case. And in the absence of

the defendant, Mr. Loyd Jowers, plaintiffs

have decided that based on an earlier

deposition of Mr. Jowers, it might be just as

cost effective in terms of time to read

portions of that deposition into the record

and putting the entire deposition into

evidence, along with the relevant exhibits.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. PEPPER: That saves us


(901) 529-1999


having to go to Mr. Jowers and deposing him

again. This deposition was taken on the 2nd

of November, 1994, in an earlier case styled

James Earl Ray, Plaintiff, versus Loyd

Jowers, Raul, and other unknown co-

conspirators, Case Number 641892-0.

On Page 238 of the deposition, a

question to Mr. Jowers had to do with an

interview he had given to an ABC reporter,

Mr. Sam Donaldson. And leading up to the

question was: "He is saying: Did James Earl

Ray kill Martin Luther King? Do you see your

answer to that question--"

Answer -- this is the defendant,

Mr. Jowers -- "yes."

Question: "-- as it appears in the

transcript? Was that your response to that

question Mr. Donaldson asked?"

Answer: "No."

Question: "Then he said, do you

know who killed Martin Luther King?"

And the answer, Mr. Jowers:

"Mr. Pepper, I think I better take the Fifth

Amendment on that. Do you want me to read it

to you?"


(901) 529-1999


Question: "Yes."

Mr. Jowers: "On the advice of my

attorney, I invoke the right to refuse to

answer on the Fifth Amendment of the

Constitution on the grounds that it might

tend to incriminate me."

Question: "That's fair enough.

That transcript that we've entered into the

record says: Do you know who killed Martin

Luther King, Jr.? The transcript has you

saying: Yes.

"You have refused to repeat that

answer here before us. Are you prepared,

though, to deny that you gave that answer at

that time?"

Mr. Jowers' answer: "Do you want me

to read this to you again?"

Question: "Yes."

Answer, Mr. Jowers: "On the advice

of my attorney, I take the privilege to plead

the Fifth Amendment according to the United

States Constitution that it might tend to

incriminate me."

Question: "Mr. Jowers, would you

take that position in respect of each of


(901) 529-1999


those highlighted questions in the text, or

is there any of those questions that you feel

that you could safely answer?"

Answer, Mr. Jowers: "I plead the

Fifth on all those questions."

Question: "On all of these?"

Answer: "Yes, sir. After going

back and reading, pleading the Fifth


Question: "I understand that. You

made that clear."

Dr. Pepper: "I'd just like to note,

Counsel, for the record with exception to the

pleading of the Fifth by Mr. Jowers on a

basis of the fact that the accuracy of the

transcript has been already agreed to and

entered into the record, and that being the

case it becomes our position --"

Attorney Garrison: "Okay.

Dr. Pepper, we will stipulate that the

questions were asked and Mr. Jowers gave

these answers."

Dr. Pepper: "Okay. We accept

that stipulation."

(End of Deposition testimony.)


(901) 529-1999


MR. PEPPER: Now, Exhibit 1 to

that deposition was the transcript of an ABC

news PrimeTime Live program, which was

televised on December 16, 1993. And in the

course of that program, in the course of that

interview, the following exchange took


(Reading from Exhibit 1.)

Donaldson: "Mr. Jowers, did James

Earl Ray kill Martin Luther King?"

Loyd Jowers: "No, sir, he did not."

Donaldson: "Do you know who killed

Dr. King?"

Mr. Jowers: "I know who was paid to

do it."

Donaldson: "Was there a conspiracy

involving more than one person?"

Mr. Jowers: "There was a

conspiracy. Yes, sir, sure was."

Donaldson: "Were you involved in

this conspiracy to kill Martin Luther King,


Mr. Jowers: "I was involved in it


Mr. Jowers, continuing on Page 2:


(901) 529-1999


"Liberto had done me a large favor. I owed

him a favor. You know, at least I thought I


Donaldson: "Did there come a time

when he came and asked you to repay that


Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir."

Donaldson: "And was it a large

favor he wanted in return?"

Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir."

Donaldson: "What did Frank Liberto

ask you to do?"

Mr. Jowers: "He asked me to handle

some money transaction, hire someone to

assassinate Dr. Martin Luther King."

Donaldson: "To kill Dr. King?"

Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir. He asked me

if I know someone. I told him I thought I

knew someone who would probably do it."

Donaldson: "And he gave you some


Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir."

Donaldson: "Large amount of money?"

Mr. Jowers: "Large amount of money,

yes, sir. Delivered it to the cafe."


(901) 529-1999


Donaldson on a voice-over:

"PrimeTime has been told there was

approximately $100,000 delivered to Jowers in

a produce box, but that's not all he

received. Jowers says another man came to

see him, a man whose name sounded something

like Raul."

Mr. Jowers: "And he looked like he

was part Mexican, possibly part Indian,

because he didn't have a heavy beard, talked

with an accent."

Donaldson: "Did he bring a rifle

with him?"

Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir. He brought

a rifle in a box."

Donaldson: "What did he ask you to

do with this rifle?"

Mr. Jowers: "He asked me to hold

the rifle until we made -- he made

arrangements or we made arrangements, one or

the other of us, for the killing."

Donaldson voice-over: "So now

Jowers had the money, had the rifle, had been

asked to hire a shooter, but he says Frank

Liberto also provided a cover."


(901) 529-1999


Donaldson: "Did he talk about the


Mr. Jowers: "Liberto? Yes, sir."

Donaldson: "What did he say?"

Mr. Jowers: "He said they wouldn't

be there. Said they wouldn't be there that


Donaldson: "Did he say there would

be a decoy there?"

Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir. Said he had

set it up where it looked like somebody else

did the killing."

Donaldson voice-over: "Enter James

Earl Ray. Was he part of the conspiracy?"

Mr. Jowers: "He was part of it, but

I don't believe he knew he was part of it."

Donaldson: "Well, Mr. Jowers, did

you find someone to do the killing?"

Mr. Jowers: "Yes, sir."

Donaldson: "Why would a person

participate in a conspiracy to kill

Dr. King?"

Mr. Jowers: "A portion of it,

naturally, was for money. Any involvement I

might have had in it was doing a friend --


(901) 529-1999


doing a friend a favor."

Donaldson: "Would it have been

because you hated Dr. King?"

Mr. Jowers: "No, I didn't hate

Dr. King."

Donaldson: "Or hated black people?"

Mr. Jowers: "No, sir. It was for a

friend, doing a friend a favor that I owed

him, a large favor."

Donaldson: "Well, is doing a friend

a favor called murder the kind of favor you

would do?"

Mr. Jowers: "Depends on how good a

friend it is and what you owed the friend."

(End of testimony read from

Exhibit 1.)

MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, that's

the end of the portion of the exhibit to be

inserted into the record, and move that the

entire deposition of November 2, 1994, and

all of the exhibits attached thereto be

included in this record as plaintiffs'

exhibit at this time.

THE COURT: All right, sir.

(Whereupon said documents were


(901) 529-1999


marked as Collective Exhibit Number 30.)

THE COURT: Next order of


MR. GARRISON: If Your Honor

please, we may have portions of the

deposition we may want to read.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

MR. GARRISON: If I could have

just a second here.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, my

associate, Mr. Bledsoe, is going to read from

the deposition.

THE COURT: All right, sir.

MR. GARRISON: Just read the

questions and the answers that were given.

MR. BLEDSOE: The beginning of

the deposition, question by Dr. Pepper:

(Reading from the November 2,

1994, transcript.)

Q. Mr. Jowers, thank you very much for

coming. I appreciate your cooperation

particularly during this period of time when

there has been a great deal of stress and

difficulty. And we are very grateful to your


(901) 529-1999


very able counsel, Mr. Garrison, for

assisting in clearing his busy calendar to be

here and help us.

We -- I would like to begin almost

at the beginning in terms of who you are

because I've known you for 16 years.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. But I don't know a great deal about


A. Yes, sir.

Q. So I would like to go back to the

beginning. Could you tell us where you were

born and where you were raised.

A. I was born in Lexington, Tennessee,

on November 20, 1926.

Q. Where did you spend your childhood?

A. I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

Q. Where did you spend your childhood?

A. I moved from there, I was a two-year

old, and my childhood was spent in Kenton,


Q. Where did you go to school in Kenton?

A. Kenton High School, yes, sir.

Q. Did you graduate from Kenton High



(901) 529-1999


A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. What did you do after school?

A. I went into the military.

Q. Where did you go in the military;

which branch of the service?

A. Navy.

Q. In the Navy. What did you do there?

A. I was the helmsman on the ship. I

went to school for six weeks to be a helmsman

on a ship.

Q. What period of time would that have


A. What period of time?

Q. Yeah, when was that?

A. 1944 through '46 -- through part of


Q. Where were you stationed?

A. On a ship out of Norfolk, Virginia.

Q. Off the Norfolk coast?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what did you do after the --

after you were discharged?

A. After I was discharged in Memphis,

Tennessee, or Millington, I moved to Memphis

and continued living here and went to school.


(901) 529-1999


Q. But you mentioned Millington. Were

you sent to Millington as part of your --

A. I was sent to Millington to be

discharged, yes, sir, from Norfolk.

Q. Were you there just for the purpose

of discharge or --

A. Yes.

Q. -- were you stationed there?

A. No, sir, I was not stationed there,

just for purposes of being discharged.

Q. You were discharged out of


A. Right.

Q. What was your rank on termination?

A. Seaman II.

Q. What was the nature of your


A. Honorable discharge.

Q. And your parents, Mr. Jowers, where

were they during all this period of time?

A. They lived in Kenton, Tennessee.

Q. What was your father's occupation?

A. He was a farmer.

Q. So you were a farming family?

A. Yes, sir.


(901) 529-1999


Q. Did you have any brothers or sisters?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who were they?

A. Well, I had an oldest brother named

Carl; brother named Max; younger brother

named Billy; older sister named Mary; one

older one named Nellie and one named Willa

Mae, Elsie and Dolly.

Q. That's a large family.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did they all survive childhood?

A. Yes, sir, all of them.

Q. Are they all still alive?

A. No, sir, some of them are.

Q. Some of them are.

A. Oldest brother Carl is deceased; my

oldest sister Mary is deceased. All the rest

of them are still living.

Q. Did any of them move into Memphis or

did they stay --

A. I have two sisters living in Memphis

now, yes, sir.

Q. You have two sisters. Who are the

two sisters presently living in Memphis?

A. One of them's name is Willa Mae


(901) 529-1999


Witherspoon and the other one's name is Elsie


Q. Elsie Whitley, and what was the name

of the Witherspoon?

A. Willa Mae.

Q. Willa Mae Witherspoon, and they

presently live in --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- Memphis?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. So you would have then entered

Memphis for purposes of living around 1946,

upon discharge?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did you live when you came to

Memphis in 1946?

A. I lived with my uncle at 612 St.

Pauly Street.

Q. Now, was that your mother's brother?

A. My mother's brother.

Q. Your mother's brother. And where did

you work when you were living there?

A. I went to school at JB Cook Company

on the GI Bill of Rights. I did finish that

course, almost two years.


(901) 529-1999


Q. Yes.

A. When I finished that, I went on to

the police department. I was a city

policeman. I don't know the exact date.

Some time in April or May of 1946 through all

of 1948. I resigned December 2, 1948.

Q. So you were on the police force for

nearly two years was it?

A. Yes, sir, two years.

Q. Two years. And you went to join the

police force after you took this training


A. Yes, sir.

Q. You just applied to the police

force. Why did you think of becoming a

policeman at that point?

A. Well, I really can't explain it

except it seemed like a good job.

Q. So you applied. Did they have -- I

don't suppose they had any training academies

back in those days.

A. No, sir, they did not. You got all

your training with the older policemen.

Q. And what were your early duties when

you went on the police force?


(901) 529-1999


A. I went right into a squad car.

Q. You were on street patrols?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Primarily riding or on foot?

A. No, I was riding. They didn't have

foot patrols back then.

Q. What area of the city were you

assigned to?

A. Over a two-year period I run, I

guess, every ward in the city. They

transferred you from one ward to another back


Q. Right.

A. You run this ward, like downtown was

Ward II this month, next month you might be

in east Memphis, Ward II. They just switched

everyone around, switched partners, switched

wards, automobiles, the whole nine yards.

Q. Who was your partner? You were in a

two-man squad car, were you?

A. Yes, sir, all cars were two-man.

Q. Who was your partner, do you recall?

A. I guess probably over two years I was

with about every policeman on the force.

Q. They rotated you?


(901) 529-1999


A. They rotated the partners also -- the

partners also every month. I'll give you a

couple of names. I can't remember all of


Q. Sure. Who were some of the people

with whom you partnered?

A. Johnny Barger, I suppose that was the

first one I rode with.

Mr. Garrison: You said Barker?


B A R G E R. Andy Chitwood was another one.

I think those were the first -- those were

the ones that I got my training from.

Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) Right.

A. Johnny went on to be field

inspector. Chitwood retired. Well, they're

both retired. They're both deceased now.

Q. Right.

Dr. Pepper: Mr. Garrison, as a

matter of procedure, do you mind if

Mr. Chastain -- if he has a question from

time to time, if he comes in?

Mr. Garrison: Go right ahead.

Dr. Pepper: So if there's something

that you would like --


(901) 529-1999


Mr. Garrison: Let's go off the


(Off-the-record discussion.)

Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) So you were -- during

this period of time you were on squad car

duty and you were moving all over the city?

A. All over the city, yes, sir.

Q. Did they assign you -- was this just

regular patrol? Did you get assigned

particular duties such as vice squad or anti-

gambling or anything like that?

A. I was a city policeman.

Q. So you were on regular detail?

A. Back then we didn't have specialized

departments like they have now. If you had a

crime in your ward, we called them, I guess.

They may still be that, I don't know. The

police run that ward, done their darndest to

solve whatever it was.

Now, they had -- the only specialist

department they had back then was homicide.

The ward called work for the homicide

department. If they had any other department

other than homicide, I didn't know anything

about it.


(901) 529-1999


Q. Right.

A. They may have, but I didn't know

anything about it.

Q. You didn't know anything about it if

they did?

A. No, sir.

Q. Who was the chief of police during

these two years when you were on the force?

A. I don't remember his first name. His

last name was Perry. That was just a

figurehead here. The boss was the


Q. Right.

A. His name was Joe Boyle.

Q. Joe --

A. Boyle, B O Y L E. He done all the

hiring and firing.

Q. He did all the hiring and firing.

Was he related, as far as you know, to the

Boyles who had a financial interest in the

Chisca Hotel -- to that Boyle family?

A. I think it was the same family.

Q. Same family.

A. I'm not positive.

Q. One of them was a -- they were fairly


(901) 529-1999


prominent local people?

A. Right.

Q. So you think there was a connection?

A. I'm sure it was. Because back

then -- I'm sure you've heard of Mr. Ed


Q. Yes.

A. No one did anything here without his

approval, believe me they didn't.

Q. He pretty much ran the --

A. That includes the police department.

Q. -- city, didn't he?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you remember who some of the

inspectors were underneath the chief, such as

the homicide inspector?

A. Field inspectors is what they were

called back then. Was a name by the name of

John Dwyer. No -- yeah, John Dwyer.

Q. Dwyer?

A. Buddy Dwyer? I don't think Buddy and

John were the same.

Mr. Garrison: Yes, they were the


The Witness: They were the same,


(901) 529-1999


but I couldn't remember.

Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) So he was an


A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who were some other inspectors that

you recall?

A. Well, now, the inspector, he had a

section of the city and they transferred him

also. He was my inspector the entire time

that I was a policeman.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. And the lieutenants, the one that

had -- I don't know how many cars, five or

six cars. He would go around and meet every

night to make sure we were doing what we were

supposed to do. He would be transferred to a

section of the city also.

Q. Right. But who were some of the

names of the people who were either

inspectors, captains, whom you can recall


A. Well, my immediate captain was

Captain Lovejohn. I don't remember his first

name. If I ever knew it, I don't remember



(901) 529-1999


Q. Lovejohn?

A. Lovejohn.

Q. Right. Okay. Any other captains you

recall, any other officers?

A. Police officers?

Q. Yes.

A. I guess if you give me enough time I

could remember half of them.

Q. Let me just throw some names and see

if they make any sense to you. One has been

mentioned earlier, "Zachary."

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was Zachary's position back in

those days when you recall?

A. I recall him as being just a regular

patrolman like I was on a separate shift.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. The way that thing operated back

then, you can have -- he may have been my

relief at one time or another. I can't

remember all those other policemen.

Q. Did you know then Patrolman Zachary?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You knew him back in '46?

A. Yes, sir, but he wasn't on the same


(901) 529-1999


shift I was on.

Q. Different shift?

A. I believe he was my relief shift.

Q. Did you come to -- continue to know

him over the years?

A. After I left the police department?

Q. Yes.

A. Just in passing is all. I think he

wrote me a ticket one time after I got out of

the police department for speeding.

Q. I see. Do you recall when he started

to move up in the force?

A. No, sir, I do not.

Q. Okay. Did you know Sam Evans, Sr.,

back then?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was his rank?

A. Just regular patrolman.

Q. He was street patrolman as well. He

started out that way?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And at the time when you left the

force was he still a patrolman or had he

moved up?

A. He was on a separate shift, sir. I'm


(901) 529-1999


not sure.

Q. You're not sure?

A. No.

Q. But he was a career policeman as


A. Sure.

Q. Did you know Inspector Evans pretty

well when you were on the force?

A. Just in passing is all.

Q. Did you continue to know him after

you left the force?

A. No.

Q. You didn't have much contact --

A. I didn't have any contact with him

that I remember.

Q. -- with him after you left?

A. No, sir.

Q. How about the man who eventually

became chief, McDonald, did you know him back

in those days?

A. I knew him, yes, sir, but he was

field inspector on -- well, I guess you would

call it, if I was on the first shift, he

would be on the second shift.

Q. He was an inspector even back then?


(901) 529-1999


A. Yes, sir.

Q. That long ago?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How about Chief Lux?

A. Chief Lux, he was on a separate

shift. He wasn't on the one I was on.

Q. Was he also an inspector back then or

was he --

A. I'm not sure.

Q. That's fine. These are -- I'm taking

you back a long way. If you don't remember,

just say I don't remember.

A. That's fine.

Q. How about Graden Tynes?

A. Grady?

Q. Graden Tynes, T Y N E S.

A. Yes, sir, I know him.

Q. You knew him?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How well did you know him?

A. I suppose about as well as I know you

or anyone like that.

Q. Uh-huh, yeah.

A. I'm not sure if he was anything other

than a just regular patrolman. I don't think


(901) 529-1999


he was.

Q. Right.

A. We went to work at the police

department -- I think he went to work two or

three months after I did.

Q. He came on after you did?

A. I think so, yes, sir. Either before

or after, relatively close.

Q. Right.

A. I never run with him because he was

on a separate shift than I was on.

Q. He was. Did you know Jule Ray?

A. Jule who?

Q. Ray, R A Y. Jule Ray.

A. No.

Q. He eventually became a captain in the

same department as Mr. Tynes, but you don't

remember him?

A. No, sir, I do not.

Q. How about a man who eventually became

an inspector, Don Smith, does that mean

anything to you?

A. I knew Mr. Smith casually. I

remember when he left the patrol and went

into homicide.


(901) 529-1999


Q. Uh-huh.

A. But I'm not sure if he stayed there

long. Seems to me he didn't stay there very


Q. Now, are we talking about the same


A. I'm not sure.

Q. I'm talking about Don Smith, not

Tommy Smith. Tommy Smith was a homicide

detective. Don Smith may have been in

homicide at one time, I don't know.

A. I only knew one. I didn't know the

other one. Don was the one that I knew.

Q. Don was the one you knew, okay.

A. He was on a separate shift than I was

on. I think he was our relief in the squad

cars on occasion back when we were policemen.

Q. Right. Okay. Did you, Mr. Jowers,

keep contact up with any of these names that

we have been through? Now, after you left

the force, did you have any kind of ongoing

social or other contact with them?

A. I did with Grady Tynes, yes, sir.

Q. You did. What was the nature of your

contact with Inspector Tynes?


(901) 529-1999


A. Well, his wife and my wife went to

school together.

Q. Right.

A. In a little place out from Kenton,

Tennessee, called Mason Hall. In fact, they

graduated from that school.

Q. Right.

A. And we -- we were fairly close

friends. We never talked about police

business after I was not a policeman anymore.

Q. This was your first wife that you're

referring to?

A. Yes.

MR. GARRISON: Go to 30 to 34.

MR. BLEDSOE: Okay. Beginning

on Page 30 at the top of the page. I'm

sorry, the middle of the page.

(Resume reading from the


Q. Many years after the fact when you

had chance to reflect on the police

department back then, was there a fair amount

of corruption that you observed in your

course of your work as a policeman?

A. Well, not a great deal. I think that


(901) 529-1999


was the purpose of shifting everyone around

all the time. It could have been without me

knowing about it, but I doubt there was very


Q. Right. But if there was corruption,

what form did it take?

A. Well, of course, I can tell you what

I heard. I heard the ward was running crap

games, allowing bootlegging on Sunday.

Q. Minor things like that?

A. Minor things like that. But as far

as that ever taking place, I just don't know.

Q. Right. This is a very useful way of

getting facts on the record, Mr. Jowers, by

you just saying, this is what I heard, but I

don't know or -- I'm perfectly happy for you

to do that any time you want to. It's a

useful way of getting information out without

you being in the frame, if you know what I


A. Uh-huh.

Q. We all hear things.

A. Sure.

Q. Why did you decide then to leave the

police force?


(901) 529-1999


A. Well, they didn't pay enough really

for a man to make a living.

Q. Right.

A. They did not. I drew $105 every two


Q. Not a lot of money.

A. That's not enough money. Even back

then it wasn't enough money to really get by


Q. In the course of your work in the

police department and coming toward the end

of it, did you have contact with many

business people in Memphis?

A. Many who?

Q. Business people, businessmen.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you come into contact with some

of them?

A. Yes.

Q. Who were some of the more prominent

business people that you knew in Memphis, do

you recall?

A. Well, I guess I better start with the

top, Mr. Ed Crump. I was -- you wouldn't

call me a personal friend, but I knew him and


(901) 529-1999


he knew my name.

Q. You did know Mr. Crump?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you come to know Mr. Crump?

A. I think the first time I met

Mr. Crump was where I was going to school

under the GI Bill for JB Cook Company. He

and Mr. Cook were good friends. That's the

first time I met him.

Q. Right.

A. That was about -- I had only been

there a couple of months when Mr. Crump come


Q. Uh-huh.

A. I guess that's the most prominent

businessman that I knew.

Q. It probably would be. Let's go down

from there. Who were some of the other

businessmen who you knew?

A. Well, Mr. Dave Jolly. He owned Jolly

Can Company, a large cab company, made a lot

of money. I knew Mr. Hamilton Smythe. He

was -- he didn't own Yellow Cab, but he

managed Yellow Cab Company.

Q. Did Mr. Hamilton Smythe eventually


(901) 529-1999


come to buy Yellow Cab?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. At the time that you knew him, he was

just the manager?

A. Manager of Yellow Cab.

Q. Was he --

A. Dave Jolly owned Jolly Cab Company.

Q. Was Mr. Smythe a pretty wealthy man

or was he just average means?

A. His family was wealthy. His father

was in -- I knew him, not real well. He was

in the construction business.

Q. Right.

A. He built a number of subdivisions

over the city. One I can remember in

particular out in -- well, it's probably

Midtown now, but back then it was way out

east. In fact, it was out of the city.

Q. I see.

MR. GARRISON: 40 through 42.

MR. BLEDSOE: Beginning at the

top of Page 40.

(Resume reading from the


Q. So you started off at Veterans Cab


(901) 529-1999


Company in 1948?

A. No, I was still a policeman.

Q. You were still a policeman?

A. Yes, sir. We were organized in --

I'm trying to remember the month. It was

early '48, but I was still a

policeman, continued to be a policeman. No,

it was '47.

Q. Because you left in '48?

A. It was the last part of '47. Seems

to me like September of '47.

Q. Right.

A. I was trying to make it '48, but I

resigned in December '48, so it had to be


Q. Right. So you were still working as

a policeman and you had this Veterans Cab


A. I was part of it. Actually, it was

against the Memphis City ordinance to do

anything like that.

Q. Right. Well, people moonlight all

the time, particularly if they don't have

enough money.

A. Right.


(901) 529-1999


Q. They have to do that sometimes. Who

was your dispatcher back then, do you recall?

A. At the cab company?

Q. Yes.

A. One of them was Paul Brandon. That

was his job.

Q. So he actually worked as dispatcher?

A. Yes.

Q. How long did he stay on as dispatcher

for this cab company; do you recall that?

A. Oh, a number of years. He went from

dispatcher to assistant manager. It seems to

me like he left about 1950 and he went on to

the police department.

Q. He changed. He went to the police

department you --

A. Police department.

Q. -- you had come off?

A. Sold his stock. I bought his stock

in the cab company. Which originally we

weren't supposed to be able to sell the

stock, but we changed the bylaws of the

company where we could buy and sell stock.

Q. Did you become the largest

stockholder at that point in time?


(901) 529-1999


A. No, sir. Six shares was all I ever

owned for a number of years.

Q. Who was the largest single

shareholder in the company, do you recall?

A. We didn't have one individual who

owned the majority until a number of years.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. I think before anyone really got

control of the company where I would be just

one man was about, heck, I don't know, '54,

'55, somewhere in there.

MR. GARRISON: 171 through 176.

MR. BLEDSOE: Question by

Dr. Pepper.

(Resume reading from the


Q. When you came to work that morning --

that next morning that Mr. Chastain is

referring to, did you come alone or did you

drive anybody with you?

A. No, sir, I drove by myself.

Q. You drove in by yourself --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- that next morning? Were you

joined -- who was the staff person who came


(901) 529-1999


on duty? Did you have any employees?

A. Bobbi.

Q. Bobbi?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And how did she get to work that

morning, do you recall?

A. I have no idea. Rode a bus, I guess.

Q. She just came in and she met you


A. She came in to work, yeah.

Q. She came in to work and met you?

A. I don't recall whether she was late

or not. She could have been, but I don't


Q. Right. Mr. Jowers, have you had a

chance to look over these statements that you

gave back at the time in 1968? During the

break did you have a chance to review them?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is there anything with respect to

this statement that you gave to the Memphis

Police Department that you discussed with

Counsel that you would wish to amend or

change at this time?

A. No, sir.


(901) 529-1999


Q. That's as you recall it?

A. Yes, sir.

Dr. Pepper: We'll admit that.

Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) This is a statement

given -- this is not a statement. This is

what's known as a 302 taken by the -- it's a

report of an interview done by the FBI on the

7th of April, 1968, with you. It's even

possible you never saw this one before

because often -- most people don't get a

chance to see that. It's an interview with

the FBI, but this talks about a stranger who

was in the Grill.

And I'm wondering if you recall that

interview. Is that an accurate report of the

interview that you gave the FBI with respect

to that stranger?

A. As I remember.

Q. It is. It's an accurate report?

A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Garrison: Dr. Pepper, would you

like to have this marked too?

Dr. Pepper: I would like to have

this marked if that's all right.

The Witness: For the record, that


(901) 529-1999


statement was not given on the 7th.

Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) It was not?

A. No, sir, the next day. The next day

when I talked to the FBI is the only time I

talked to them.

Q. Mr. Jowers, you're right. The

statement was taped on the 7th and it was

given the next day by you.

A. Right.

Q. You're quite right. I'm going to put

this in and possibly come back to this.

There is a photograph waiting. This

statement was given on -- the date of this

statement is on February 6, 1969. I'm

wondering if you would just take a look at

that and see if that is accurate.

A. Yes, sir.

Dr. Pepper: If Mr. Garrison has no

objection, we'll mark that and put it in.

Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) Now, this is the text

of an interview done with you by the BBC and

it covers a range -- covers a range of

matters, Inspector Charlie Stephens and his

drinking, that you recalled.

A. Uh-huh.


(901) 529-1999


Q. It discusses the stranger, you are

returning, a whole variety of matters. Would

you just take a look at that. I think you

have probably seen it during the break, but I

just want to be sure that you are happy with

what they reported that you said there.

A. Yes, sir.

Dr. Pepper: We'll mark that.

Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) I want to show you

this photograph and ask you if you have ever

seen this person before, if you recognize


A. No, sir, I don't recall ever seeing


Q. You don't recall having seen this man

before around the Grill or anywhere?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay, that's fair enough.

MR. GARRISON: 188 through 195.


(Resume reading from the


Q. I know, but which staff or waitress,

employee, came in that particular morning on

April 4th?


(901) 529-1999


A. My cook come in, Bobbi come in her

regular time. I think she come in either

7:00 or 7:30. I don't remember the exact

time, but --

Q. Right. She came in at 7:00 or 7:30?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did anyone else come in with Bobbi

that morning?

A. No, sir.

Q. Who was on duty in the course of that


A. I worked the front and Bobbi was in

the back cooking lunch.

Q. So Bobbi was in the back and you were

in the front?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So then you would leave at your usual

time, did you?

A. Yes.

Q. Was Bobbi there alone or was there

another waitress there?

A. Bobbi was alone.

Q. Bobbi was alone?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you saying that Betty Spates did


(901) 529-1999


not come in that morning at all?

A. No, she was in the afternoon shift.

Q. What time would she have come in


A. She was scheduled to come in at 4


Q. Do you know or do you recall if she

did in fact come at 4 o'clock that day?

A. She did not, no.

Q. She didn't come in at 4 o'clock that


A. When I come to work, Bobbi told me

that she called in. One of her children was

sick. She wasn't going to be able to work.

Q. So who did you have working that


A. No one. I worked myself. I worked

it by myself.

Q. So you were working that afternoon by


A. Yes, sir.

Q. Wasn't Bobbi there?

A. She left at 4 o'clock.

Q. She left at 4 o'clock?

A. Yes, sir.


(901) 529-1999


Q. And Alda, where was Alda?

A. Alda?

Q. Alda Washington, Alda Mae?

A. I don't think she was still working

for me at that time. If she was, it was just

part time, but she was not working that day.

Q. And Rosie Lee Dabney?

A. She had already been gone several

months before then.

Q. She was no longer working?

A. No, sir.

Q. So really who did you have working?

Was Lena working?

A. No, sir.

Q. Where was Lena?

A. Lena had already gone too.

Q. She had left, been discharged -- she


A. Right.

Q. Bobbi was the only one working?

A. I had Bobbi, Betty and myself. And

Alda Mae worked part time, but she was not

working on that day.

Q. She was not working on that day?

A. No.


(901) 529-1999


Q. So you went away in the morning.

Bobbi was there working.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You returned at about what time?

A. Four o'clock.

Q. At about 4 o'clock. Did you talk to

Bobbi when you came back in there?

A. Just for a few minutes. She told me

that Betty wasn't coming in because one of

her children was sick. She did work over

that afternoon, it seems to me, about 30

minutes to help me to get ready to handle the

night business by myself.

Q. So Betty didn't come. Alda stayed --

Bobbi stayed with you a little longer?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Then she left and that left you

there, effectively, all alone?

A. Right.

Q. Did she give any other reports on any

other people that came in that day or that

she had seen that day?

A. Not anything out of the ordinary. Of

course, she didn't have to tell me about

Charlie Stephens being down there drunk


(901) 529-1999


because he was there drunk when I went in.

Q. Right.

A. Actually, I went right in and went to

work because she was real busy.

Q. I see. So you went right in and went

right to work?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What time did you leave that morning,

9 or 10 o'clock as usual?

A. I think it was 10:00, 10:30.

Q. Ten or 10:30 you left that morning?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. To return at what time?

A. I returned at 4 o'clock.

Q. At 4 o'clock?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Which car were you driving that day;

do you recall?

A. I was driving the Cadillac.

Q. Where was the Rambler -- the brown

Rambler station wagon?

A. My wife was driving that.

Q. Your wife was driving that. When you

came back at 4:00 and you parked your car,

where did you park?


(901) 529-1999


A. Well, when I turned the corner and

drove in there, there was a white car sitting

right in front of the building, right in my

parking spot. So I pulled right up against

him like that.

Q. Right.

A. Left my car close to the fire plug.

Q. Left your car close to the fire plug?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What kind of car was that, do you


A. All I can recall about it, it was a

white or light colored Mustang.

Q. Did you look at the license plate?

A. It was an out-of-state license.

Q. Out-of-state. Did you know which


A. Didn't pay no attention what state, I

sure didn't.

Q. Did you notice any other cars parked

either behind you or in front of the Mustang?

A. Well, in front of the Mustang there

was cars all the way to the corner. I didn't

move my car down there because there was no

place to move it in front of the Mustang or


(901) 529-1999


back the other way. All that was full of

automobiles too.

Q. Do you know which kinds of

automobiles those were?

A. I have no idea.

Q. You don't remember which ones they

were. When you arrived to work, you

proceeded from which street onto South Main?

How did you come into South Main?

A. I come down -- I would come down the

expressway and get off -- sometimes I get off

on Vance, sometimes I get off on Crump and

come around. I think that afternoon I come

around because I was going in the right

direction where I wouldn't have to turn


MR. GARRISON: Continue on to


MR. BLEDSOE: From there?


MR. BLEDSOE: To 213?


(Resume reading from the


Q. Which way did you -- which side of


(901) 529-1999


the street did you come out, did you proceed

west on? Which one led you up to South Main


A. Huling, Talbot, the one that went

right down by the fire station. I'm not

really sure which street that is.

Q. Well, that's Butler. By the fire

station is Butler.

A. Butler, yes.

Q. So you came up Butler?

A. Come up Butler where I would be on

the right side of the street.

Q. Proceeded north on South Main, pulled

right in there and then went right inside?

A. Right.

Q. Then you began to work. How many

people were in there at the time?

A. There were several people in there.

A lot of them was from M.E. Carter.

Q. Do you remember some of the names of

some of the people? If you could close your

eyes for a moment, could you recall who were

actually in there on the 4th of April around

4 o'clock?

A. I really can't. I know Charlie


(901) 529-1999


Stephens was in there.

Q. How long did he stay?

A. He didn't stay but a few minutes

after I got there.

Q. But you don't remember any other


A. Absolutely, no, sir.

Q. But you have previously -- when your

memory was fresher back at the time, you did

give some names and you've reviewed that.

A. At that time I could have told you

everyone in there.

Q. Sure. But we didn't expect you to

recall all of those things. You didn't leave

the Grill at any time once you arrived there?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. What did you proceed to do at that

point in time when you got in? What did you

do? Did you go in the back? Did you work on

the counter?

A. Right up front working the counter.

Like I said, the cook stayed over long enough

to get the food out on the steam table for

the supper crowd.

Q. Then she left?


(901) 529-1999


A. Then she left, yes.

Q. Was Harold Parker in there? I'm

going to just jog your memory a bit.

A. Harold never did come in until --

normally around 5:00, 5:30.

Q. Did he come in, as you recall, around

5:00, 5:30 that day?

A. I think he come in a little earlier

than normal for some reason or other, 4:30.

Q. Right.

A. Because I had only been there a short

while when he come in.

Q. Right. Now, when Bobbi left, did

you -- what did you do? Did you take over

all of her duties yourself?

A. Yeah. Sure. If they wanted a

sandwich, I prepared it for them. I waited

on them just like a waitress would.

Q. There were quite a number of people

there at the time?

A. Yes, sir, sure was.

Q. Around the time we know the shooting

took place, as you may recall, was slightly

after 6 o'clock.

A. Uh-huh.


(901) 529-1999


Q. Where were you at the time?

A. I was behind the counter working.

Q. The counter being -- we've seen it

down along on the side?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. What were you doing?

A. When the actual noise went off, I was

drawing a beer, a pitcher of beer. It took a

few minutes to draw. I had it about half

drawn when the noise went off and I quit.

Q. Right. What did you do? What did

you do when you heard the noise?

A. I went back in the kitchen door. It

sounded like a noise in the kitchen so I went

and checked. Walked by Parker and asked, did

you hear that noise? And he said, yes, he

did. He didn't know what it was. I looked

inside the kitchen and wasn't nothing there.

So I went on back to finish drawing my

pitcher of beer.

Q. What was the next thing that you knew

that something was wrong?

A. When the police come to the door,

they told me to lock the door and don't --

there had been a shooting upstairs and told


(901) 529-1999


me to lock the door and don't let anyone in

or out. So that's what I done.

Q. So you locked the door?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Everyone that was in stayed in?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You let no one else into the place?

A. Not until the policeman brought a

black guy there and told me to put him in

there, that he was out in the street and it

was too dangerous out there.

Q. Who was that black guy, do you know?

A. Frank Holt.

Q. Are you sure that the man brought to

the door and put inside was Frank Holt and

not Robert Wheeler?

A. I'm sure it was Frank Holt, sure.

Q. You're sure of that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Because there is an FBI statement

that says that Robert Wheeler was put inside

there. You don't recall a second person

being put in?

A. I'm sure I'd remember if it was, but

I don't think so.


(901) 529-1999


Q. Right. At about what time was

Mr. Holt put in there?

A. Quite a while after that. Could have

been as late as 7 o'clock.

Q. That late?

A. Yes, sir. It was already beginning

to get dark and 6 o'clock -- it was still

real daylight.

Q. Do you remember, Mr. Jowers, a

particular customer who ordered eggs and

sausage in the restaurant that afternoon or

at some point in the course of that day, a

man who had eggs and sausage and then

returned the next morning and also had eggs

and sausage?

A. Sure, I recall that.

Q. You recall that man?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In fact, you took some action with

respect to that man, didn't you? What do you

recall that you did?

A. I told the police about him going in

there. What made me remember him being there

was ordering breakfast up in the day, almost

time for lunch.


(901) 529-1999


Q. Right.

A. He ordered a breakfast special. I

went on working on lunch and I fixed his

breakfast for him. The next morning -- and

they told me if he came back in, be sure to

call them. So the next morning around 9:00,

9:30, he come in again, ordered the same


Q. Same thing?

A. Sitting at the counter, same place.

Q. About what time -- you're sitting at

the counter on the side?

A. Sure.

Q. About what time did he order this

breakfast, this eggs and sausage meal?

A. The first time?

Q. Yes.

A. I think that's the last thing I done

before I went home, so it had to be close to

11 o'clock. We already had most of the steam

table out.

Q. So you were going to leave -- you

were leaving around 10:30, elevenish; is that

what you're saying?

A. Yes.


(901) 529-1999


Q. Did you actually prepare that eggs

and sausage for him?

A. Yes, sir, I sure did.

Q. So you served him yourself?

A. I sure did. I did also the next


Q. Also the next morning?

A. Yes, sir. I also went and called the

police for him.

Q. This is a report of that actually

written by, when he was a reporter,

Mr. Chastain here. I just wonder if you

could, if you would take a quick look at

that. And this is -- one and two are the

relevant portions that deal with this


I'll strike out all the rest, but I

want to make sure that that seems to be

accurate. If anything doesn't gibe with your

memory -- I'm trying to get the historical

record correct here, or we will change it.

A. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Q. Is that basically accurate? Is that

sort of what happened?

A. (Witness nodding head affirmatively.)


(901) 529-1999


Dr. Pepper: What I would like you

to do is strike all that that doesn't relate

to this. I'm boxing in what I think is.

Mr. Garrison: Okay.

Dr. Pepper: Just stuff that relates

to this.

Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) Who was that police

captain that told you about this fellow

having some real connections here? Do you

recall who that captain was?

A. No, sir, I do not.

Q. Or remember his name at all?

A. No, sir.

Q. It wasn't Captain Jack Wallace, or it

couldn't have been Evans, he was an inspector

back then.

A. No, sir.

Q. You don't remember --

A. It could have been, but I don't

really know.

Q. Or Mulner?

A. No, sir.

Q. But you do remember this man who

appeared and had eggs and sausage in your

place on the 4th of April in the late-ish


(901) 529-1999


morning and then early again the next

morning, and you called the police and they

came and took him away?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Could you tell us now whether this

looks like the man or whether you can say

whether that was the man. And this is a


A. No, sir, I don't believe that's him.

No, sir, I sure don't.

Q. You don't remember that this is the


A. No, sir, I do not.

Q. How would you describe this fellow?

How tall was he? And do you recall, did he

have dark hair?

A. It would be hard to describe him now

because that's been a long time ago.

Q. Yes, it has. Do you recall at

various times you have identified this man as

the man who was there? Do you recall that

having been shown these photographs

previously, years ago, that you did identify

the man?

A. It seems now to me I recall seeing


(901) 529-1999


the picture that I said it looked like him.

I didn't say it was him.

Q. Okay. Photographs are tricky

anyway. This is a mug shot which gives you a

slightly different perspective. Does that

ring any bell with you?

A. No, sir, it does not.

Q. That doesn't either. Okay. That's

fine. Now, during all of this period of time

in the aftermath of the shooting of Dr. King,

you continued business, did you, as usual in

the restaurant?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you follow the events of the case

that were going on?

A. The events of what?

Q. The events of the case when they

apprehended Mr. Ray, brought him back, were

you aware of basically what was happening in


A. Just the account of it on the news or

the newspaper, yes.

Q. Did you ever yourself go up to the

courthouse at any time when there were

hearings going on with Mr. Ray?


(901) 529-1999


A. No, I did not.

Q. You don't recall ever going up there?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you ever discussed the case with


A. Not that I recall other than

investigators asking me questions. Or they

had one investigator there that worked for

them, I guess asked me every question in the

world I suppose.

Q. Which agency was he with?

A. What was his name, Lewis?

Mr. Garrison: Mr. Hamby.

Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) Did the Memphis

Police Department call him?

A. No, he was a private investigator.

Mr. Garrison: Oh, that was Renfroe


Q. (BY DR. PEPPER) Oh, Renfroe Hayes.

A. Mr. Chastain remembers him, I'm sure.

Q. We all remember Renfroe Hayes.

A. I just couldn't remember his name.

Q. He asked you lots of questions, did


A. Every day.


(901) 529-1999


Q. He just came by and probably asked

the same ones over and over again.

A. Over and over, yes, sir.

Q. He might even have forgotten that he

asked them. So, anyway, you were subject

obviously to an awful lot of questions.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you during this period of time

ever have any contact with Mr. Frank Liberto?

A. No, sir.

Q. You never saw him or talked to him or

had any contact at all with him?

A. No, sir.

Q. Nor anyone representing him or --

A. No, sir.

Q. -- being close to him. What happened

to Mr. Charlie Stephens during this period of


A. I don't know if it was that same

night or whether it was the next day, but

they put a 24-hour a day guard on Charlie

Stephens -- the police department did.

Q. Right.

A. I saw him every day.

Q. Was he brought into your place to eat


(901) 529-1999


and drink?

A. Sure.

Q. Who paid his bills?

A. Well, what little pay I got was from

the policeman on a portion that was

paid, something like 50 some dollars for one

time. That was a very small portion of it.

Q. That was supposedly from the police


A. Police Department.

Q. That they were going to --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- make sure that Charlie was taken

care of?

A. Right.

Q. Did you discuss any of these events

with Mr. Knipes who was next door to you?

A. No, sir.

Q. You never had any conversation?

A. I very rarely saw Mr. Knipes.

Q. You didn't see him at all after this?

A. No, sir.

Q. So you had no opportunity to discuss

these issues with him or with Mr. Bailey at

the Lorraine?


(901) 529-1999


A. No, sir.

Q. Not at all?

A. No, sir.

Q. Then you eventually closed down Jim's


A. Yes, sir.

Q. That would have been in '71?

A. I think it was July '71.

Q. Right.

A. I'm almost sure it was.

Q. Which of the staff continued to work

with you right up until the time when you


A. The only person that I had working

for me right until I closed was Bobbi.

Q. Bobbi continued to work with you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Right until you closed?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What happened to Betty?

A. She left my employment and went to

work for the restaurant on the corner of Main

and Calhoun.

Q. The Arcade?

A. Yeah, Arcade.


(901) 529-1999


Q. She went to work down there?

A. Yes.

Q. Alda Mae, she was where?

A. She just worked for me part time.

Q. Still part time. Rosie Lee?

A. I think she had already gone before I

took over.

Q. Rosie Lee Dabney?

A. She was already gone.

Q. So Bobbi was the only one who was


A. Yes, sir.

Q. Lena had gone?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When did -- did Bobbi stay right up

to the end?

A. Stayed right to the day I closed,

yes, sir.

Q. All right. After the killing, when

was the next time that you went out into that

back area?

A. I believe it was two or three days

later. They had already cleaned it up when I

went back there.

Q. You went back there and saw it


(901) 529-1999


cleaned up much the same way that we've shown

in the photographs earlier?

A. Yes.

Q. It was all cleaned up?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did you know how it got cleaned up?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Do you know who cleaned it up?

A. I did not know at the time, but I

heard later that the city cleaned it up, a

city crew cleaned it up.

Q. Did you hear when that city crew

cleaned it up?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. When that cleaning up was going on,

you did not hear it or see it at all?

A. No, sir.

Q. Is it possible that they could have

done such a big clean up as that without you

seeing it?

A. The only way I would have known they

were out there is if I went out the back

door, which I didn't do.

Q. So it's possible all this work could

have been going on and you wouldn't have


(901) 529-1999


known anything about it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So you remember seeing it cleaned up

a few days afterwards?

A. It was several days afterwards.

Q. That was the first time you saw it?

A. First time I went out in the back.

Q. First time you went out in the back?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You saw it all cleaned up?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you go down to the basement that


A. Yeah. That's the reason I went out

to the back, to go to the basement. I don't

remember what for.

Q. You went down there. Did you see

anything different or strange in the


A. No.

Q. It was basically the same it had been


A. Yes.

(End of deposition testimony.)

MR. GARRISON: That's it. Your


(901) 529-1999


Honor, that's all from the deposition.

THE COURT: All right. You

might wonder why we didn't swear him in. He

wasn't testifying for himself, he was reading

the testimony of someone else. All right.

MR. PEPPER: Your Honor,

plaintiffs are going to forgo any additional

attempts to examine Mr. Jowers believing, on

the basis of the record that's created here,

that to all of the questions he will likely

continue to plead the Fifth Amendment.

Therefore, plaintiffs have one -- one final

witness, and that witness is Mr. Dexter Scott


Now, we thought we might be deposing

Mr. Jowers, so Mr. King is just arriving in

the city about this time, so we would -- we

would propose to call him first thing this

afternoon prior to closing our case. But

Mr. Garrison has informed me that one of his

witnesses under subpoena has arrived and is

waiting in the hallway. And the plaintiffs

have no objection to Mr. Garrison calling his

first witness out of turn and -- that would

be prior to plaintiffs closing their case


(901) 529-1999


if Your Honor wishes to do that at this hour.

THE COURT: All right. That's

permissible. We'll allow that. And let me

explain to you Ladies and Gentlemen of the

Jury, the defendant is going to put on one of

his witnesses, but the plaintiff has not yet

completed his proof. All right.

MR. MYERS: Your Honor, may we

approach before this witness? I want to

bring one matter to the Court's attention at

side bar.

THE COURT: All right.

(A bench conference was held at

sidebar outside the hearing of the jury.)

MR. MYERS: Your Honor, the only

request that the State has with respect to

Mr. Glankler, he is the chief investigator

for the task force. He runs undercover

operatives. And I note that there are

cameras in this courtroom. What we ask is if

the Court would order that his face not be

shown for purposes so that --

THE COURT: Mr. Glankler?

MR. MYERS: Mr. Glankler.

THE COURT: The attorney?


(901) 529-1999


MR. MYERS: He's not an

attorney. It's his son.

THE COURT: Oh, I see.

MR. MYERS: Yes, sir, he is the

chief investigator in the drug task force



MR. PEPPER: No problem with

that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. You can

just go whenever you want -- do you want them

to bring him in?

MR. MYERS: I don't know if they

have an electronic ability to scramble his


THE COURT: Well, the cameras --

we can't control those other cameras.

MR. MYERS: The other question I

have of the Court is on this morning's ruling

as to objections being made.


MR. MYERS: Would the State be

permitted to interpose objections for the

purpose of protecting privileges, work

product and any prosecutorial process?


(901) 529-1999


THE COURT: I'll rule on all

those objections as they emerge.

MR. MYERS: And the Court will

permit me to make those objections?


MR. PEPPER: Are you going to be

able to get him with his face covered, or you

may need time to do that? If he's going to

take time to do that, we're running into the

afternoon now, I suggest we stay with the

regular order of things and we'll call our

last witness, and then they can put him on.

How long --

MR. GARRISON: It's going to be

rather short I think.

MR. PEPPER: I might take a

little time with him.

MR. GARRISON: He's here and


THE COURT: Do you have

something to --

MR. MYERS: I do not. I

thought -- I assumed there would be the

electronic ability to scramble.

THE COURT: He probably can


(901) 529-1999


handle it. But you have these other cameras

that can't do that -- the still ones.

MR. MYERS: I believe it's in

the Court's discretion to ask that pictures

not be taken of him, and I would ask the

Court to exercise discretion in that regard.

THE COURT: I'll do that. I'll

do that. I still don't know whose present in

the courtroom.

MR. MYERS: Yes, sir, I

understand. Someone may see him who

recognizes him, but our concern is

broadcasting his picture at large.

THE COURT: I'll tell the still

cameras. And let me -- let's find out

whether or not those cameras can do it. Have

that camera man come over here, the TV man.

THE BAILIFF: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: They are concerned

about the identity of this witness over here

and want to know if there's some way that you

can obscure his face so that it won't be



me, Your Honor. I'm with Court TV.


(901) 529-1999




THE COURT: They're concerned

about the safety of this next witness, if his

identity is known, and want to know if you

can obscure his face so that he won't be



can do is shoot the lawyers and -- maybe

shoot him from here down, not shoot his face,

as opposed to obscuring his face. Does that

satisfy you?

MR. MYERS: That's fine as long

as his face does not show.


can report his name and everything?

MR. MYERS: I believe so. Let

me just check.

THE COURT: We'll just wait.

MR. CARTER: Good afternoon,

Your Honor. My name is Robert Carter. I'm

assistant district attorney over there, and

I'm the director of the West Tennessee Drug

Task Force. Mr. Glankler is currently

assigned to our task force, and I'd like to


(901) 529-1999


strenuously request that his visual image not

be made public in this.

THE COURT: We've agreed to


MR. CARTER: Well, if I heard it

correctly, we thought about maybe trying to

shoot from his head down. Well, I happen to

be here, and I see a number of people with

hand-held cameras. I mean, we're talking

about his life is at stake.

THE COURT: I'm going to tell

those hand-held cameras not to take



can shoot just the attorneys.

MR. CARTER: That's fine.


shoot him at all.

MR. CARTER: It's not a matter

of us trying keep an operation going. This

is personal security for this individual.

THE COURT: We can accommodate



this all the time. We have yet to have that


(901) 529-1999



MR. MYERS: I understand. And

this has been a unique situation, as you



watch the camera.

MR. MYERS: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right.

(The bench conference was

concluded and the following proceedings were

held in the hearing and presence of the



Having been first duly sworn, was examined

and testified as follows:



Q. Hi, Mr. Glankler. How are you today?

A. Good morning -- or good afternoon.

Q. Good afternoon. Let me ask you --

I'm not going into any great detail of your

background because I understand for security

reasons. But let me ask you, among other

things, have you investigated or conducted an

investigation over the last 24, 36 months --


(901) 529-1999


the investigation concerning the

assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And would you tell His

Honor and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury --

A. I'm sorry. I can't hear.

Q. And would you tell His Honor and

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury about when

that started roughly?

A. I was appointed to begin the

investigation in December of '93.

Q. All right. Who -- was it the

District Attorney -- who appointed you to do


A. The District Attorney General.

Q. All right. And tell us, how did you

go about conducting that investigation. Did

you talk to witnesses or how did you -- what

all did you do?

A. There were numbers of things to do.

And we did what was our instruction to do.

They had a plan and -- what they wanted us --

or who they wanted us to talk to or attempt

to talk to.

Q. All right, sir.


(901) 529-1999


A. The beginning thing started with

trying to locate some of the original


Q. All right, sir. Would it be a fair

statement to say you talked to many witness?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Took affidavits or statements from

many witnesses?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. And did you take the

affidavits and reports back to the District

Attorney General after you obtained those?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. And after the

investigation was concluded, was there a

report then written partially by you or by

the District Attorney General as to what the

findings were based upon your investigation?

A. With all due respect, which District

Attorney? I mean, any of those --

Q. Well, I believe that -- Rodney

started after you; am I correct?

A. Yes.

Q. The present District Attorney is

Mr. Gibbons; am I correct sir?


(901) 529-1999


A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. There was a report

written last year in 1998; am I correct, sir?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many pages does that report


A. I do not know.

Q. Did you ever see it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever read it?

A. A portion of it. It's on the


Q. Did you author any of the report?

A. Beg your pardon?

Q. Were you the author of any part of

that report?

A. No, sir, I did not write the report.

Q. Was that report based upon -- I know

you had someone else that worked with you.

But was it based upon some of the affidavits

that you had taken and some of the

investigation that you uncovered in

determining what took place here?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Well, would it be fair to


(901) 529-1999


say that the report was as much as 40 pages?

A. Sir, I don't know. I wouldn't know.

Q. How long has it been since you read


A. Quite -- quite some time.

Q. All right. You did read the report?

A. I want to say that -- yes, sir. I

mean, I've read it, but it's just been so

long, and my current reassignment to other


Q. The conclusion of the report was, as

I understand it, that --

MR. MYERS: I'm going to object

on hearsay. I mean, that's -- the report --

it's getting into out-of-court statements for

the purposes of offering them for the truth

of the matter asserted.

MR. GARRISON: I'll withdraw the


Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Let me ask you

this: Did you find anyone else that was

involved in the assassination, based upon all

the statements that you took and the

affidavits, other than James Earl Ray?

MR. MYERS: Your Honor, again,


(901) 529-1999


these reports are in the document. The

document speaks for itself. At this point

I'm going to renew my objection as to

competency to testify. This witness has no

personal knowledge of those facts. So that

the State doesn't waive -- and to preserve

that objection, I will raise it again at this


MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, based

on his personal knowledge and the

investigation that he did, I think he can

certainly answer my question if he knows or

doesn't know.

MR. MYERS: Your Honor, if

you're getting into his opinion as to whether

somebody acted alone, whether somebody had

help, this gets into work product.

MR. GARRISON: Well, we had been

through that already, Your Honor. The report

has been circulated around the King family

and others, and it's generally been seen, so

it's no private thing. I think he can answer

a question as to whether or not he found

anyone else that was involved from his

investigation other than James Earl Ray.


(901) 529-1999


MR. MYERS: Your Honor, that's

necessarily opinion. Whether in his opinion

there was somebody involved, whether in his

opinion there wasn't somebody involved.

MR. GARRISON: I'm not asking

for his opinion. Your Honor, I'm asking what

he knows from his personal investigation. I

think he can answer yes or no.

THE COURT: You're asking him if

he has any personal knowledge of the

involvement of someone else?

Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Based upon your

personal investigation, Mr. Glankler, did you

find anyone that told you or gave an

affidavit saying anyone was involved in the

assassination other than James Earl Ray?

MR. MYERS: I'm going to object

to the form of the question. It's asking

based on the investigation as opposed to

personal knowledge.

MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I

presume if he investigated it, he has some

personal knowledge. I don't know how he can

investigate and not have knowledge of it

unless he didn't know what he was doing each


(901) 529-1999



THE COURT: Well, you can

rephrase the question and ask him of his

personal knowledge.

MR. GARRISON: All right.

Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Mr. Glankler, you

had personal knowledge -- you knew what you

were doing when you took these affidavits;

did you not, sir?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you know what you were doing


A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you know what you were seeking?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Based upon what you have

conducted in the investigation and talking to

the people you've talked to and affidavits

you've taken, did you find anyone else that

told you -- any affidavit or any information

from any source that anyone had anything to

do with the assassination except James Earl


MR. MYERS: Again, objection.

There's hearsay called for in this and,


(901) 529-1999


again, it's going to opinion as opposed to


THE COURT: I'm going to allow

him to answer that one.

Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) All right. What is

your answer, Mr. Glankler?

A. No, sir.

Q. All right. Now, how many witnesses

would you say you interviewed? As much as

20, 30, 40, 50? How many?

A. Probably closer to the 40, 50 range.

Q. I'm sorry, how many?

A. I said probably closer to the 40 or

50 range. And I could be even off from that.

Q. All right.

A. This spanned five years.

Q. All right. This was over a five-year

period that you interviewed witnesses; am I

correct, sir?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Now, Mr. Glankler, did

you ever have any conversation with a

Mr. Loyd Jowers?

A. On one occasion, yes, sir, that I



(901) 529-1999


Q. What was the occasion for that?

A. He called me.

Q. All right. Did you record it?

A. Yes, sir, I believe I did.

Q. All right. In fact, you've shown

that to Mr. Gerald Posner and let him listen

to it, who wrote a book about it, didn't you?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. How did he get it in his book? He

said he listened to it. How did he get it?

A. I don't know how he got it,

Counselor. I didn't give it to him.

Q. Okay. What was the extent of the

conversation with Mr. Jowers?

A. Well, I think the crux of it was he

was --

MR. MYERS: Your Honor, I'm

going to object on hearsay as to what

Mr. Jowers may have said to this investigator

out of court. And under Rule 803 it's

classic hearsay.

MR. GARRISON: I think it

certainly goes to the heart of this case. My

client is a defendant, and I have a right to

know what statement he's taken from him and


(901) 529-1999


what was said.

MR. MYERS: Of course, evidence

has to be admissible even if it does go to

the heart of the case. And it falls under

hearsay and therefore, under the Rules of

Evidence, is inadmissible.

THE COURT: Are you suggesting

that it was a statement against his


MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I

don't know what it was. He claims to have a

statement from Mr. Jowers. He's been

claiming that for years. And I've never had

the privilege of it, and I think I'm entitled

to know what the conversation consisted of,

what was said.

THE COURT: Do I understand the

statement itself was not a part of the file

that you --

MR. GARRISON: No, it was never

delivered to us, and I've never had it or any

way to review it.

THE COURT: I'll allow him to


Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Can you tell us,


(901) 529-1999


Mr. Glankler, the extent of the conversation

you had with Mr. Jowers? And it was about

this assassination, wasn't it?

A. First of all, it was a conversation,

not a statement.

Q. Okay.

A. He called me.

Q. And it was about the assassination,

wasn't it?

A. Well, he called me to complain, as I

tried to answer a moment ago.

Q. All right. Tell us about that.

A. It was an unexpected call. He calls,

and he's upset that we had interviewed a

number of his siblings and relatives.

Q. His relatives, all right. Go ahead.

A. And said that they had no knowledge

about any of the reports in the paper and on

television and whatnot. And he was upset

with the fact that we had gone to talk with


Q. All right.

A. And I simply explained to him that

that was part of the investigative process.

I'm trying to remember what else he


(901) 529-1999


mentioned. He did mention to me that he

didn't -- he didn't want me to call any more

of his relatives. Well, you know, okay. And

one of the other things he was adamant about

was about the rifle. And that he told me

that was the correct rifle.

Q. And we're talking about the one

that's over and held by the Criminal Court

Clerk right now?

A. Mr. Garrison, I asked him. If I

remember correctly, I said, are you talking

about the one that was in the bundle that was

dropped and that kind of story, and he said


Q. He said that was the rifle?

A. That's what he told me.

Q. Okay.

A. And he just wanted to reiterate that

his family members didn't have any knowledge

one way or the other. In fact, commented

that he probably would be getting in trouble

for calling. And I said, you know, your

attorney didn't want, you know, us to talk to

you. So he called me on his own is all I can

tell you. And that's really all I remember


(901) 529-1999


about it.

Q. That's about the extent of the


A. Yes, it wasn't very long.

MR. GARRISON: Okay. That's all

I have.

THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Pepper.

MR. PEPPER: Thank you, Your




Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Glankler.

A. Good afternoon, sir.

Q. Mr. Glankler, this Court and Jury

have heard evidence about various aspects of

plaintiffs' case related to the assassination

of Martin Luther King and the involvement of

Mr. Jowers. Let me ask you, in the course of

your investigation, did you consider whether

the brush area behind the rooming house was

cut down?

MR. MYERS: Your Honor, I'm

going to object in terms of deliberative

process, mental impression and everything

else as we discussed -- I'm renewing my


(901) 529-1999


objections that were raised in the hearing

this morning.

MR. PEPPER: Your Honor,

Mr. Glankler conducted an investigation.

This is a critical area of the case. We're

dealing with a fact as to whether or not

something took place. His investigation

should have related to that -- that

incident. Plaintiffs simply want to know if

he investigated it and what was the result.

THE COURT: If he investigated


MR. PEPPER: If in the course of

his investigation he considered that -- that


THE COURT: Well, I'll sustain

the objection then.

Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Mr. Glankler, did you

ever interview Mr. Maynard Stiles whose

testifying --

A. I know the name, Counselor, but I

don't think I took a statement from Maynard

Stiles or interviewed him. I don't think I


Q. Did you ever interview Mr. Floyd


(901) 529-1999



A. Can you help me with what he does?

Q. Yes. He was a black fireman who was

assigned to Station Number 2.

A. I don't recall the name, Counsel.

Q. All right. Ever interview

Mr. Norville Wallace?

A. I don't recall that name either


Q. Ever interview Captain Jerry


A. Fireman also?

Q. Jerry Williams was a policeman. He

was a homicide detective.

A. No, sir, I don't -- I really don't

recall that name.

Q. Fair enough. Did you ever interview

Mr. Charles Hurley, a private citizen?

A. Does he have a wife named Peggy?

Q. Yes.

A. I think we did talk with a Peggy

Hurley or attempted to.

Q. Did you ever interview a Mr. Leon


A. Again, I just don't recall without --


(901) 529-1999


Q. Did you ever interview Mr. James


A. I believe we did. He talks with a


Q. Yes, the voice box.

A. Yes, okay. I believe we did talk to

him, yes, sir.

Q. How about Mrs. Olivia Catling who has

testified --

A. I'm sorry, the last name again.

Q. Catling, C A T L I N G.

A. No, sir, that name doesn't --

Q. Did you ever interview Ambassader

Andrew Young?

A. No, sir.

Q. You didn't?

A. No, sir, not that I recall.

Q. Did you ever interview Judge Arthur


A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever interview Mrs. Bobbi


A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you interview Attorney James



(901) 529-1999


A. Lassar?

Q. Lassar.

A. I don't recall.

Q. Did you ever interview Mr. Royce


A. I don't recall that name either.

Q. Ever interview Mr. J.B. Hodges? He's

a former MPD patrolman.

A. I don't recall.

Q. Ever interview Reverand James Orange?

A. I know that name came up in the

investigation. I've heard it. I don't

recall having the opportunity to speak with

him. I don't think we did -- or I did


Q. Ever interview a Portuguese

journalist who interviewed Raul's wife --

the alleged Raul's wife -- a woman named

Barbara Reis?

A. A Portuguese journalist?

Q. Yes, who was covering this case.

A. I don't recall that name.

Q. Did you ever interview Mr. Jack


A. Well, Mr. -- if you say


(901) 529-1999


"interviewed" -- I don't know if that would

be the proper term. But he had been to our

office a number of times to give


Q. Did you ever take a statement from


A. A direct statement?

Q. Right.

A. No, sir, if you're talking in terms

of formal -- I don't recall taking one from

him, no, sir. I know that he came to talk to

us and was wanting to offer information about

things and --

Q. All right. Did you ever interview a

Mr. Bill Hamblin?

A. Hamblin?

Q. H A M B L I N, close friend of

Mr. McCraw's for 15 years.

A. Again, Counselor --

Q. Okay.

A. -- I really don't recall. There's so

many names. I'm trying to remember the ones

I can.

Q. I appreciate that. I appreciate

that. It's been a long investigation for you


(901) 529-1999


as well. Mr. J.J. Isabell?

A. Again, it's a name it seems like I've

heard. I don't believe I did.

Q. How about Mr. Carthel Weeden, did you

ever interview him?

A. Say that last name again for me.

Q. Carthel Weeden.

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know who he is?

A. To be honest with you, I can't pull

it up right this second.

Q. He's the captain of Fire Station

Number 2. He ran the fire house --

A. Okay.

Q. -- in the approximate locality of the

killing. He was in charge of everything that

happened in that fire house.

A. Okay.

Q. Did you ever interview Reverend

Walter Fountroy?

A. No, sir.

Q. Mr. Louis Ward -- you ever interview

Mr. Louis Ward?

A. I don't recall. It's a common name,

but I don't recall his name.


(901) 529-1999


Q. Did you ever interview Mr. Steve

Tomkins who was a Commercial Appeal reporter?

A. I don't -- I don't know if we

interviewed him, but I recall there was an

article in the paper. I remember his

involvement. That's about the best I can do

for you on that -- or alleged involvement.

Q. All right. You ever interview a cab

driver named Jimmy Adams?

A. I don't recall that name, no, sir.

Q. Did you ever interview a former New

York Times journalist, a New York Daily News

correspondent named Earl Caldwell?

A. Earl Caldwell? Not that I recall.

Q. You never interviewed him in the

course of your investigation?

A. Beg your pardon?

Q. You never interviewed him in the

course of your investigation?

A. I just don't recall that name.

MR. PEPPER: I have no further

comments about this investigation -- no

further questions for this investigator.




(901) 529-1999


Q. Mr. Glankler, you worked on

documenting this investigation on behalf of

the State of Tennessee, weren't you?

A. Yes, sir, at the instruction of the

District Attorney General.

Q. That's Mr. Barrout (phonetic) that

you started out with?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you ever find any witness at

all that you ever talked to that indicated

that Mr. Jowers had anything to do with the


MR. MYERS: Again, this is

hearsay, Your Honor, and witness statements,

part of the record and speak for themselves.

MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I

think I have a right to ask him if he -- of

his own personal knowledge of the

investigation what he found. It's certainly

a pertinent question.

MR. MYERS: The question of

necessity is asking him to draw conclusions

if there's -- if there's something in that

statement that would lead him to conclude

that somebody acted alone or there were


(901) 529-1999


other --

MR. GARRISON: Let me ask it

another way.

Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Mr. Glankler, of

all the people you talked to, did anyone ever

state to you that Mr. Jowers had anything to

do with the assassination?

A. Counsel --

MR. MYERS: That's hearsay, and

I'm going to object on those grounds.

THE COURT: It also is -- asks

the question of whether or not there was any

kind of selective prosecution. I'm going to

allow him to answer.

Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Can you answer the

question, Mr. Glankler?

A. I'll try. We talked to a number of

people as you know.

Q. Yes.

A. Some people tried to support claims

of Mr. Jowers' involvement. But in the

interview process, you know, like --

especially --

MR. MYERS: Your Honor, may we

approach a minute?


(901) 529-1999



(A bench conference was held at

sidebar outside the hearing of the jury.)

MR. MYERS: Your Honor, this is

the first time I've heard the words

"selective prosecution." I would draw the

Court's attention to United States v.

Armstrong cited in the State's memorandum

from this morning. In U.S. v. Armstrong,

before any inquiries into selective

prosecution may be made, the person

alleging -- making such allegations, number

one, make a specific allegation of it.

Number two, has come forward with credible

proof that there was indeed a selective

prosecution by showing someone else was

deserving of it.

My understanding of this was that

from the way this is cast, it was not a

matter of -- a question of selective

prosecution, it was a question of somebody

was involved or not involved. And --

THE COURT: I believe you're

right. And I believe we have ridden this

horse as much as we can anyway.


(901) 529-1999



THE COURT: I'll reverse my

ruling and sustain his objection.

MR. GARRISON: All right.

(The bench conference was

concluded and the following proceedings were

held in the hearing and presence of the


Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Mr. Glankler, the

report that was written had a conclusion to

it, didn't it? It had a concluding point to

the report, didn't it?

A. That being the one from the Attorney


Q. At the end of the report.

A. The Attorney General did.

Q. It gave a number of witnesses that

had been interviewed and what each said.

MR. MYERS: Your Honor, that

document speaks for itself. And if it's a

document that's evidenced, I'm going to

object on those grounds.

MR. GARRISON: Well, Your Honor,

if he will produce a document, that will be

great. We'll let the jury look at it if he


(901) 529-1999


will produce a document. Otherwise I think

I've got a right to ask him about a report

that he authored and investigated.

MR. MYERS: Well, Your Honor,

counsel seems to have a lot of knowledge

about a report he's never seen.

MR. GARRISON: I have seen it.

MR. MYERS: And if it has been

seen, presumably counsel ought to have a

copy, and that could be entered into

evidence. That's the best evidence as to

what this report says.

MR. GARRISON: Your Honor,

unfortunately, I don't have a copy. The King

family let me read it. And he knows about

it, he helped author it, and I think I've got

a right to ask him about it.

MR. MYERS: He didn't testify

that he helped author it, Your Honor. He

said that he investigated it and others

authored it. So he's being asked to testify

as to a document he's really not competent to

testify to.

MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, if

counsel will agree to produce the copy of the


(901) 529-1999


report for us, well, that will be super, and

we'll end this right now.

THE COURT: What's the question


MR. GARRISON: If he will agree

to produce a copy of the report, then that

will be fine.

THE COURT: What was the

original question?

MR. GARRISON: The original

question was: Was there an ending point to

the report?

MR. MYERS: I believe he was

asking what did the report say.

MR. GARRISON: No, I didn't. I

asked him if there was an ending part to the


Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) Isn't that what I

asked you, Mr. Glankler?

A. You asked me if -- I thought you said

ending part or a conclusion or something

along that line.

THE COURT: Did the report have

a conclusion?

MR. GARRISON: Yes, sir.


(901) 529-1999


THE COURT: Oh, he can answer


Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) All right. Did it

have a conclusion?

A. Best I recall, I believe it does,

yes, sir.

Q. And did it conclude the fact that

Mr. Ray acted alone in this case?

MR. MYERS: Your Honor, I'm

going to object. That's hearsay. That

report is an out-of-court declarant, and

second --

THE COURT: I'll sustain the


MR. GARRISON: All right.

That's all I have.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MR. PEPPER: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Do you have

anything? Do you want to be heard?

MR. MYERS: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. You're

free to leave.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Judge.

(Witness excused.)


(901) 529-1999


THE COURT: I think we ought to

take our lunch break now. We'll do that and

we'll resume at 2 o'clock.

(Lunch Recess.)

THE COURT: All right.

Mr. Pepper, are you prepared to go forward?

MR. PEPPER: Yes, we are, Your


THE COURT: All right.

MR. PEPPER: At this time

plaintiffs call their last anticipated

witness, Mr. Dexter Scott King.


Having been first duly sworn, was examined

and testified as follows:



Q. Good afternoon, Mr. King.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Thank you for being with us this


Would you state, please, your full

name and address for the record.

A. Dexter Scott King, 449 Auburn Avenue,

Atlanta, Georgia, 30312, which is my business


(901) 529-1999



Q. And what do you presently do?

A. Well, I currently serve as chairman,

president and chief executive officer of the

Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for

Nonviolent Social Change.

Q. In Atlanta, Georgia?

A. That's correct.

Q. And how long have you been in that


A. Almost five years. Exactly five

years at the end of this month.

Q. Tell the Court and the jury what you

have done previously, what other activities

you have been in?

A. Well, I've worked at the King Center

for a number of years in different capacities

heading up the various programs, serving as a

special assistant to the founder, my mother,

Coretta Scott King.

Q. How old were you, Mr. King, when your

father was taken?

A. I was seven years of age.

Q. Do you recall any feelings, any

emotions or thoughts that occurred around


(901) 529-1999


that time?

A. The thing I remember most is that we

were all trying to move on with our lives.

My mother was very strong and very stoic and

what I felt was a strong example. So in

retrospect, I feel like we really didn't have

an opportunity to mourn because we

transformed that experience into a triumph

over tragedy, or so we thought at that time.

Q. How long did that kind of stoicism


A. I would say literally up until the

past couple years when we first got involved

with new information and evidence regarding

my father's death.

Q. And could you describe for this Court

and jury how it was that you and the family

eventually did decide to become involved with

this issue?

A. Well, it was actually a New York

Times reporter that had reached out to my

family when James Earl Ray first went in the

hospital, when it was first reported that he

was in a coma and having liver trouble, which

I believe must have been December of 1996.


(901) 529-1999


I'm not -- my dates are not

necessarily accurate, but I remember it was

December. Then January, I remember vividly

because I was away on vacation after the King

holiday the latter part of January, and I was

out of the country, so I called to check my

answering service, and there was a message

from a reporter, which I didn't know at the

time, because it was just a paging service,

and the only thing there was a number, but I

called the number and essentially was told by

the reporter that they were working on a

story, that they were sorry to bother me,

they felt it might be a little awkward, but

they had gotten word from the Ray family that

they wanted to reach out to us, the King


While it was awkward, they felt that

their loved one was innocent. They never

wanted to bother us in the past, but because

he was near death or having a terminal

illness, it was kind of a now-or-never

proposition. All they were really asking is

would we come and testify, would we make a

plea for a trial, not dealing with any sense


(901) 529-1999


of guilt.

At that time we had not seen the

evidence. Of course, we knew of your work,

but we had not seen anything. We basically

caucused with the family, and all of us were

traveling in different places, but by phone

on a conference call we took a consensus to

find out how we should respond, and the

general feeling is that whether he is

innocent or guilty, the man deserves a trial,

a real trial, which he never received, to

hear the evidence and get information out.

I think at that point we were

resolute about that, that we were going to

make this statement. And that's what

happened. Late February, mid-February, we

held a press conference where all of the

family members were present and we

essentially said why we were making a stand,

taking a stand, in support of the trial.

From that point forward we, of

course, reached out to you, which at that

time we were presented with certain evidence

and we began to see the picture and it became

more evident that this had to come out, there


(901) 529-1999


had to be a forum for information at least to

be heard.

As you know, my mother and I came to

Memphis, came here and testified in Judge

Brown's courtroom, in regards to testing the

rifle. From that point forward things

evolved. For want of a better term, there

was a snowball effect where people started

coming forward independently, just reaching

out to myself, to my family, and all kinds of

information started coming forward.

Q. It sort of opened up the gate?

A. Yes. It was really literally a flood

gate of information and people who -- I

recall one letter I read from a gentleman who

said, you know, I've been in silent sympathy

with your family for the past almost thirty

years, and it discussed their background, the

fact that they served in various capacities

in the federal government, the Central

Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of

Investigation, and the fact that we are on

the right track, that Ray did not do it, you

are right, stand your ground, we support you,

the fact that these things happened, it is


(901) 529-1999


happening today, the way in which he was set

up, that's common protocol.

So all of these types of letters

came in. The interesting thing is we didn't

know what to believe, because we are not

investigators. We have no experience in

deciphering what is fact from fiction. But

in this instance so much information came to

the forefront that we were looking for a

forum where the, quote, experts could really

separate truth from -- you know, fact from


Q. And what is the best forum? What did

you come to believe was the best forum for

that to take place?

A. We felt a court of law, where we

would have twelve independent jurors who

could hear information and determine for

themselves. I just felt if twelve people --

whatever decision they came up with after

hearing the information, we could live with

that. That would help to bring about closure

and resolution.

Q. Mr. King, how do you answer the

criticism that has been leveled at the family


(901) 529-1999


that the family's involvement in this case at

this point in time is driven by profit or by

a concern for generating a project, a movie

project, or something of that sort to

generate money?

A. I've heard that before, and it is

appalling to me. Not to be dramatic about

it, but for anyone to insinuate or to think

that we or anyone, frankly, would try to

profit off of someone's tragedy, off the

tragedy of a loved one -- you know, the

question that would often be asked is why

now, why thirty years later? Well, I was

seven years old. What am I going to do, ask,

well, I want to know who killed my father at

seven years old?

Sure, I wanted to know, but the

thing that was so interesting is all my life,

the main question that has been asked over

and over by reporters or common folk is do

you believe James Earl Ray killed your


Now, I'm thinking to myself --

almost I guess thirty years now people

continue to have asked that question,


(901) 529-1999


including the media, and it is ironic that

the only reason we got involved with this was

because the press beat our door down until

finally we made a statement. Our typical

posture was no comment. We just didn't deal

with it. Maybe we were in denial. Who

knows. I believe we really were trying to

move on with our lives.

So there is a bit of resentment,

because the very forces that drew us into

this are now saying, why are you doing it?

Yet you can't close Pandora's box once you

open it. It evolves. So it is the most

hurtful thing, frankly, to have to endure,

someone questioning it.

Q. How do you answer the criticism,

though, of the family has been manipulated

from the beginning of its involvement up to

the present time and even into these

proceedings here, that these proceedings are

all part of a manipulation of the family?

A. Well, that, again, is hard to hear.

I would have to say, coming from not only one

generation or let's say two parents who were

in their own right very strong individuals


(901) 529-1999


who carried a mantle of leadership, to think

that somehow we could be manipulated is

really insulting, because what that is saying

is that, you know, this family was able to

make sacrifices and to contribute to

ultimately what I believe has been one of the

most important social movements in this

country and endure so much, along with

others, endure so much trauma and tragedy,

and yet somehow we all of a sudden have lost

our minds.

I mean, that doesn't -- it is not

logical. So no, we have not been

manipulated. I think we have done what most

people do when they see something in front of

them that doesn't add up. You ask the

question. Then one question leads to


Certainly, as I said, this was not

something that we sought out, it ought sought

us out. I think that makes all the

difference in the world.

Q. Historically have you become aware of

what happened to your father and his

organization after he came out against the


(901) 529-1999


war in Vietnam on April 4, 1967?

A. Yes. He made the statement at the

Riverside Church in New York "why I oppose

the war in Vietnam." Interestingly enough,

as we've been going through this period, it

is so amazing for me that as soon as this

issue of potential involvement of the federal

government came up, all of a sudden the media

just went totally negative against the

family. I couldn't understand that.

I kept asking my mother, what is

going on? She reminded me, she said, Dexter,

your dad and I have lived through this once

already. You have to understand that when

you take a stand against the establishment,

first you will be attacked, there is an

attempt to discredit, second, to try and

character assassinate, and, third, ultimately

physical termination or assassination, in

that order.

Now, the truth of the matter is if

my father had not -- if he had stopped and

not spoken out, if he had just somehow

compromised, he would probably still be here

with us today.


(901) 529-1999


Q. If he remained a civil rights leader?

A. Exactly. If he had just talked about

riding in the front of the bus, being able to

sit down at lunch counters, that was not

threatening. In fact, that expanded the

economic base when there was integration.

But the minute you start talking

about redistribution of wealth and stopping a

major conflict, which also has economic

ramifications, and he understood the

injustice and the disparity of

African-American men fighting on the front

lines in a disproportionate number losing

their lives with their white comrades but yet

could not even come home and eat at the same

lunch counter with their white comrades they

just fought with in Vietnam or could not live

in the same neighborhood or any number of

things, he saw this was a major injustice and

what it was doing to the black family, the

way it was destroying families, all these

young black men being sent away and dying in

disproportionate numbers.

So to make a stand, the fact that a

lot of people, soldiers who were on leave


(901) 529-1999


were hearing his message, and there was this

fear of, you know, desertion, black soldiers

saying I'm not going to fight this unjust

war, why am I here, so he was certainly seen

as a threat. Unfortunately he was not. It

was a real tragedy. As he said, there cannot

be any great disappointment where there is no

great love, I'm forcing my country to live up

to its truth. And the rest is history.

Q. Has the family suffered economically

and the King Center, the work of the

perpetuation of the legacy of Martin King,

have they suffered economically similarly to

what occurred to SCLC and your father back in


A. I would have to say yes. While it is

very hard to quantify losses in terms of

dollars and cents, I can certainly tell you

that I have seen a difference in the way we

have been dealt with by corporate supporters,

contributors, when, quote, controversy


As you know, most businesses don't

like controversy, right, wrong or

indifferent, no one wants to be seen as


(901) 529-1999


embracing something that is controversial.

And yet that is the way -- I remember doing

an interview and the reporter asked me,

aren't you concerned, it sounds so

controversial? I said, no, have you

forgotten that the man which we honor -- this

was around the King holiday celebration --

was one of the most controversial individuals

of his time.

In fact, tell me how he went from

being public enemy number one in the 1960's

to a national hero with a holiday in the

1980's. Explain that to me. Well, the point

I'm making is that he can be relegated to

I-have-a-dream land because he is not here.

Certainly in death he can be martyred and put

on a pedestal, but does America really want

to deal with what he was fighting for, what

he ultimately died for, in terms of solving

the triple evils of poverty, racism, violence

and war.

Q. Do you think the atmosphere created

by the media, which has in effect established

an icon figure, do you think that kind of

atmosphere contributes to portraying him in


(901) 529-1999


terms of his last years of struggle?

A. Yes. I have to believe from everyone

I spoke to who knew him intimately from

outside the family that those were some of

his most depressive years in terms of really

facing up to the fact -- as he talked about

here in Memphis, I've been to the mountain

top, I've seen the promised land -- that he

had to know that things had really gotten


He was on his way to Washington for

the Poor People's Campaign and March, which

would bring together all of these forces from

different walks of life, that this could no

longer be relegated to minority status

but Appalacian Whites, Chicano

Mexican-Americans, Native Americans,

African-Americans, all coming to the steps of

the nation's capitol to say we will not leave

here until poverty is solved.

That has not been addressed today.

And because it was not addressed then, his

voice had to be silenced. That's why we're

here, to get the truth out. My hope is that

in this process, in a court of law, we I


(901) 529-1999


think still have the last vestige of hope in

a democracy to have a jury, to have a forum

to get the truth out, because it is sad what

I've witnessed with the media, it is just sad

in a republic that is supposed to be

independent when there is not an independent

media on certain issues, particularly when it

comes to issues of national security where

there is this fear that the people cannot

handle it, we cannot allow this out, this

truth out.

That is so disheartening. But yet a

court of law still I believe, the judicial

process, is the last hope of allowing the

truth to come forward.

Q. In terms of the impact of the media,

have you personally experienced among close

friends of yours a reaction that has been the

result of media coverage of this case over

the last few years?

A. Yes. I mean, the past three years in

specific, since we've been actively seeking

the truth, has been probably the most

traumatic period of my life for whatever

reason. I've had to really reassess so many


(901) 529-1999


things, because I was not aware of the impact

that it was having on me personally and my


But I would have to say in one

incident I recall a very close friend who

grew up in Tennessee, happens to come from a

prominent family in Tennessee -- we went to

school together -- and I remember her saying

when I first got involved that James Earl Ray

is guilty, why are you all involved with

this? I kept listening to her. I just heard

it go on and on. Finally I stopped her and I

said, why do you think that? What are you

basing your facts on? She said, well, that's

what they said on the TV, that's the basis,

the news.

I stopped and I said, let me explain

something to you. I took her through this

whole scenario of how disinformation works

and how more importantly mental and

psychological warfare and brainwashing works,

that if you hear something over and over and

over again, right, wrong or indifferent or

true or false, it will become habitual and it

will automatically program you in a sense.


(901) 529-1999


The sad thing is that she stopped

and acknowledged it, you are right. I said,

now let me show some of the things or explain

some of the things that have been explained

to me and you make your own choice.

The thing I appreciated about your

approach to all of this, because it was very

awkward, you were representing the accused,

if you will, and as you know for many years

we were not really comfortable with even

addressing this issue, because we didn't know

anything, however, when you told me, the

thing that impressed me when we first sat

down, was you said, listen, you are the

family of the victim and you have every right

to see every shred of everything, everything,

talk to witnesses, anybody that I've had the

opportunity in my ten-year trek of work and

investigation, and you had an open-book

policy. You said, you tell me who you want

to talk to, who do you want to see, and you

judge for yourself. You didn't put any words

in my mouth. You didn't try to lead us down

any path. You just said, here, put it on the

table, look at it and make your own


(901) 529-1999



But I think there are so many people

who were so -- this is not really an issue of

logic or intellect, this is an issue of

emotion. So many people are emotionally

predisposed because of thirty years of

programing, including ourselves. We always

felt James Earl Ray may have been involved,

but we also believed there was probably

extensive involvement, but then after seeing

the evidence, it was just clear that that was

not the case.

Q. This Court and jury have heard

extensive testimony yesterday on exactly the

issue that you've just been addressing, the

power of the media, particularly the visual


Let's move on. Did there come a

time after you got involved with the case and

seeking a trial that there was an opportunity

for you to meet with the defendant in this


A. Yes.

Q. And in fact did you not have two

meetings with this defendant?


(901) 529-1999


A. Yes, I did.

Q. And was the first meeting not

attended by you and me together with

defendant's counsel and the defendant?

A. That's correct.

Q. And then you had a second meeting

with Ambassador Young and the defendant and

his counsel?

A. That's correct.

Q. The Court and jury have heard

Ambassador Young's testimony and also a

recording of that meeting that I believe you

made, was made in your presence. Would you

tell the Court and jury what you recall from

the two meetings that you had as to the

defendant as to admissions against his own

interest -- which makes it possible for you

to tell them in the courtroom -- what do you

recall defendant admitting in those meetings?

A. Well, he admitted first and foremost

that he had been contacted by Frank Liberto,

who he described the relationship with Frank

Liberto as someone who helped him out in the

past and was essentially calling in a chip or

favor and that Mr. Liberto said that he would


(901) 529-1999


send over to his place, over to Jim's Grill,

a package, and in that package would be some

money. It was in a produce box, the normal

delivery that he would receive.

Subsequently, after that box was

delivered, a gentleman, he was told, would be

by to pick it up. Well, that gentleman was

described as Raul. That he would come by

and pick up the money, and then from there he

would be delivering another package, which

would be a rifle.

Now, that package was delivered I

believe the morning of April the 4th. At

that time the rifle -- he said he was told to

be at the back door at six o'clock. Well,

the rifle was going to be picked up prior to

that. I may have my details a little sketchy

in terms of timing. But the gist of it was

that he would meet or did meet a gentleman at

the back door to pick up the smoking rifle.

He described that gentleman as Earl Clark.

The next day --

Q. Just for the record, Earl Clark, a

Memphis Police Department officer?

A. Lieutenant, I believe. He said he


(901) 529-1999


was clear about that because they were

hunting buddies. He knew Earl Clark very


After I guess the incident, he said

he threw the slug down the commode and tried

to flush it down the commode, and essentially

that clogged up the commode, you know. I

remember that very well because he couldn't

get it to, you know, to flush basically. And

the next morning the rifle was retrieved, and

that was pretty much his recollection.

Well, actually, no, he also said

that there were people who met there,

officers he knew, from the Memphis Police as

well as what he said were government types,

which he assumed to be FBI and other

government agents, meeting in his

establishment with these officers that he

knew, that he did know from the Memphis

Police, and he interpreted those meetings as

planning meetings. So in effect his place

was being used as a staging area.

Q. Did you ask Mr. Jowers questions

throughout the course of that meeting?

A. I did. I continuously asked him was


(901) 529-1999


he -- you know, was there anybody else or

anything else that he was not telling me.

And my sense was that -- maybe I shouldn't

speculate here. I know I shouldn't

speculate. But my sense is that he did not

want to -- he felt uncomfortable a little

bit and a little bit embarrassed in front of

me in saying or admitting that he had

involvement in the killing of my father. I

could certainly understand that.

What I said to him is, you know, my

family is not in this for retributive

justice. We're a forgiving family. My

father was stabbed by a woman who took --

almost took his life before I was even born,

and he forgave her. So we're not in this to

put people in jail. We want the truth to

come out.

His fear, obviously, was admitting

something against his own -- you know, that

would be used against him, and yet I felt

like he wanted to get something off his

chest. I felt like he wanted to make

something right before he left this earth.

It was a little bit awkward, but I


(901) 529-1999


have to say that I'm glad that, you know, I

feel a sense of liberation in knowing more

about what happened, what has happened in

this tragedy. It has certainly helped to

better deal with it.

Q. Did you form the impression that he

was being truthful to you?

A. I did. I really felt that. So did

Ambassador Young. We talked about it

afterwards a few times, actually, and

compared notes.

I think that in spite of the fact --

keep in mind that this was the second meeting

with myself and Ambassador Young. The first

meeting was, of course, myself along with

you. The story was consistent. So there was

not a change between the time you and I met

with him and then subsequently when

Ambassador Young and myself met.

Q. Did you have the impression from

those two meetings that he was knowingly or

unknowingly involved in what he was doing at

the time of the assassination?

A. I felt like he was knowingly involved

but didn't fully want to admit it, or, as I


(901) 529-1999


said, felt uncomfortable because of the

awkwardness of who I was. But it was obvious

that he knew what was going on to me.

Q. Now, he mentioned this figure, Raul,

having picked up the money at one point in

time and delivered a weapon. Did he identify

a photo spread -- of a photo spread did he

identify a photograph of him for you?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. If we can put this up.

(Photographs displayed on an

overhead projector.)

Q. We can see the photo spread that has

been in evidence here in the Court. I don't

know if you can see it. Which of these six

individuals did he identify as Raul to you?

A. The second one down on the right in

the middle.

Q. Here?

A. Yes.

Q. This picture here?

A. That's the one.

Q. He said this was the man who

delivered the money and subsequently -- I'm

sorry, picked up --


(901) 529-1999


A. Picked up.

Q. He picked up the money and then

delivered the rifle?

A. Correct.

Q. Did he know anything else about this

person or say anything else that you


A. Well, he said something about, you

know, he thought Mexican or wet-back or

something, but he didn't want to -- you know,

he didn't know which nationality he was. But

he was definitely, you know, of Spanish -- he

thought of Spanish descent.

Q. Did you come away with the belief

that the fatal shot that killed your father

was fired from the bushes, the brush area,

behind the defendant's grill?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did he say what he did with the

murder weapon, the actual murder weapon, not

the throw-down gun, the actual murder weapon?

A. I believe he said he threw it in

the -- I'm sorry. That was another piece of

that. That someone picked it up, and I

believe he said he heard they threw it in the


(901) 529-1999


river. But I -- I don't remember who, the

details of who picked it up and how it got,

you know, supposedly thrown in the river.

Q. Now, Dexter, at one point in time

when the family had came out and started

asking questions, being involved in this

case, were you and the family contacted by a

former FBI man?

A. Yes, we were.

Q. Who this was officer?

A. Donald Wilson.

Q. What did Mr. Wilson tell you, discuss

with you, again, very contrary to his own

professional and personal interests?

A. Well, he told me that he had received

some evidence, actually obtained evidence

from a crime scene dealing with the white

Mustang which was alleged to have been James

Earl Ray's vehicle and said that he had

traveled to the crime scene along with a

senior agent. He was essentially kind of a

new rookie agent, if you will, and the

veteran agent had him tag along to the crime


And when he opened the door, these


(901) 529-1999


pieces of paper fell out, these items that he

instinctively just picked up, retrieved and

put them in his pocket. And ultimately he

had held on to these items for quite some


He said the thing that made him come

forward was he saw my mother and I on CNN,

which in this case is good to have the media

putting it out there, but he saw us

testifying in I guess Judge Brown's courtroom

and asking -- making a plea for the truth to

come out. And at that time he felt that

really moved him to resolve this after so

much time.

Q. Where did these articles, these items

that he showed you, where did he get them,

where did they actually fall from?

A. The inside of the car, the door.

When he opened the door, they just hit the


Q. This car, which car was this again?

A. This was the white Mustang that James

Earl Ray had ditched in I believe Capital

Homes, which is a housing project in Atlanta.

Q. And these pieces of paper were in an


(901) 529-1999


envelope or loose and fell out of the car?

A. Correct.

Q. And he picked them up and kept them?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Why did he hold on to them all these


A. Well, he tried to give me some

history, which I thought was fairly

interesting, because it speaks to his motive,

but he talked about when he joined the Bureau

fresh out of law school here in Tennessee, I

think, where he went to school, and he saw

working for the Federal Bureau as being a way

to help with civil rights.

He really seemed to be committed to

making a difference in the cause of justice

in this country at that time. And he said

the most incredible thing happened to him

literally on his first day on the job, or

let's say his first day in training, when he

was going -- or assigned to go to the


He was assigned to a black rookie

agent, I guess they were rookie agents when

they were going through training, and they


(901) 529-1999


were in Virginia, I believe it was, at a

rooming facility where they all stayed, and

when they went to check in, his black

roommate was denied admission.

He said he was just so sure that the

brass, top brass, were going to really come

down on these people, this resident manager,

if you will. And he watched the way the

situation was handled, and he said, you know,

from that day forward, I knew I made the

biggest mistake of my life.

What he was saying is that the black

agent could not room with him, that Director

Hoover and all the top brass didn't do

anything about rectifying the situation.

So -- and he said when it just

really hit him is a few years later the

agent, the black agent, was killed in the

line of duty, and at his funeral I believe in

Chicago he was talking about how the director

and everyone was there talking about how

great this guy was, and all he could remember

is when the guy really needed support, they

were nowhere to be found.

He said once he started learning


(901) 529-1999


about the climate and the culture of the

Bureau and how this type of thing would

happen, he instinctively felt that if he had

turned in that evidence, his superiors would

have -- it would have ended up missing.

And I don't remember, there was

another incident, and I can't remember

whether this happened before or after the

Mustang was discovered, but he and his

agent -- I mean he and his partner happened

to see a gentleman that fit the description

of James Earl Ray somewhere in their travels,

and they radioed into headquarters to ask

what to do, whether to apprehend or to let

him go, whatever, and they were told

basically to come back immediately to

headquarters and basically sign off.

He said again from that incident he

knew that he was making the right decision,

because he really believed this could have

been the man, but they were told to not


Q. To your personal knowledge, what has

happened to Agent Wilson since that time?

A. He has been character assassinated.


(901) 529-1999


He has also said that his wife has been

somewhat terrorized. Just different types of

harassment tactics have been used to silence

him, to intimidate him.

I witnessed for myself the way this

whole thing was handled in the media, and the

first knee-jerk response that came out was

that this guy was not even an FBI agent. I

watched literally the news cycle of how

within minutes first he is not an agent,

second, well, he wasn't on the crime scene

detail -- which is true technically, because

the car was impounded and taken to the garage

where it was taken a part by special agents

to go over it with a fine-tooth comb, which

he was not officially a part of that

detachment, but he was definitely on the

scene -- and ultimately there were quotes

from former FBI agents saying, well, whatever

he has is fabricated.

Now, how can you make an unilateral

statement when you haven't even seen what he

has? So it amazed me to watch how this man

was attacked for coming forward with

something. And he really believed -- the


(901) 529-1999


saddest thing about this whole episode is

when I met this gentleman, I could see the

sincerity. He was a man who was to me the

epitome of a do-gooder government bureaucrat

who really joined the service to do the right

thing, who wanted to serve his country, who

believed in the constitution.

And he was so shocked, I think

almost naive, because he kept saying, I want

to make sure that the Attorney General Janet

Reno gets this information personally. And I

remember thinking how, you know, maybe naive

that he was, but he believed that if he

forged ahead, that the right thing would be

done. You know, I really feel sorry for him,

to be honest with you, because I don't think

he had a clue.

Q. There were a series of articles

written by one local reporter who tried to

get this story out and they were published

and plaintiffs would like to move their

admission into evidence at this time.

(The above-mentioned documents

were marked Collective Exhibit 31.)

Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) I'll put up on the


(901) 529-1999


screen now a document or a piece of paper.

It is not very clear, but what it is is a

telephone directory page. Have you seen that


A. Yes, I have.

Q. Do you see this writing up here?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you make that out from that


A. Yes, I can.

Q. What does it say?

A. Raul.

Q. The name Raul?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recognize this as one of

the -- poor copy though it is, and we're only

doing with a copy here, but do you recognize

this as a copy of one of the pieces of paper

that he found in the -- that fell out of the


A. Yes, I do.

Q. Okay. I'll put up a second photocopy

of another document he gave you, another

piece of paper. Do you recognize this piece

of paper as one that you were shown by Agent


(901) 529-1999



A. Yes, I do.

Q. What did you make of this? What did

you think this was?

A. Payment, like a payment schedule or

list of payments made.

Q. It looked like a schedule of some

monies that were to be paid?

A. Yes.

Q. Does this appear to be some sort of

list of payments or a payment sheet?

A. Yes, correct.

Q. You said he said this also came from

the Mustang?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. This list of payments, at the bottom

of it, do you see this writing here?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Can you make that name out?

A. I cannot. From here I cannot make it

out. It is very --

Q. It is very fuzzy, isn't it?

A. It is very fuzzy.

MR. PEPPER: Let me do this,

Your Honor. Let me make take the copy up and


(901) 529-1999


ask the witness to take a look at it closer.

Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Is that helpful at


A. I am still having a hard time.

Q. Then you should not identify it if

you can't. That's fine.

MR. PEPPER: We will move the

admission of both of these collectively as

the next exhibit.

THE COURT: Did you identify

that as one of the documents that was shown

you to by the agent?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

(Whereupon, the above-mentioned

document was marked as Exhibit 32.)

Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) At the time you met

with Agent Wilson, did you also discuss

another document that was in the car at the

time that fell out and that he retrieved at

the time?

A. Well, he talked about other

information he had obtained, but he didn't go

into detail at the time. I subsequently

found out about the other information.

Q. How did you personally come to learn


(901) 529-1999


of this other piece of information?

A. I believe it was from a reporter with

the Atlanta Journal Constitution and an

article that actually he subsequently wrote

about it, about the evidence, and the fact

that the Justice Department I believe had

subpoenaed that separate -- that additional

piece of evidence.

Q. What was that additional piece of

evidence that the subpoena was issued for?

A. It was a piece of paper or a card, I

don't remember the exact instrument, but it

was paper or a card with the phone number to

the Atlanta office of the FBI.

Q. The phone number of the Atlanta

office of the FBI in James Earl Ray's


A. That's correct.

Q. Did there come a time, Mr. King, as a

result of all of this activity that you

decided to meet with James Earl Ray?

A. Yes.

Q. Why did you decide to take that step

and meet with the man who had been accused of

killing your father?


(901) 529-1999


A. Well, first and foremost I didn't

believe that he had actually pulled the

trigger at the time. My feeling was even if

he had, based on the upbringing that I have,

that I've had and my family, that it would

have been the right thing to do.

Being raised in a Judeo-Christian

home or faith to practice what you preach in

terms of forgiveness, if he didn't do it,

then I felt, which I did feel, I was there on

the grounds of this man has also suffered an

injustice, but regardless of either scenario,

somehow we both, victim/victimizer, both

victims, however you look at it, had some

type of commonality.

So for me spiritually meeting with

the accused, if you will, was important for

me to personally eye to eye meet this man and

ask him did he do it while in my heart I did

not believe that he did, but I needed to do

that for the record, if you will.

I thought about the fact that --

again, some people were really outraged.

They were upset with me, why did you meet

with him? As I said earlier, this has been


(901) 529-1999


an emotional issue and not an intellectual or

logical issue, issue of logic. People just

react to what they've been conditioned to.

Again, I've had to draw on my

earliest experiences of dealing with an

assassin when my grandmother was killed in

1973 -- I'm sorry, in 1974. I was there with

my grandfather when he forgave his wife's

killer, my grandmother. And yet -- of

course, I knew about my father forgiving the

woman who stabbed him and almost took his


So there was a precedent set growing

up. In our home we were always taught don't

hate white people, don't hate the person who

did this. So I didn't see it as being out of

character to meet with him.

Q. It was really a part of the family's

practice and process, wasn't it? Did you go

with your grandfather to visit your

grandmother's killer in prison?

A. Well, no. Actually, while she was on

the operating table we walked over to where

he was being kept, because there was an

altercation to apprehend him. He had to have


(901) 529-1999


treatment as well. We went over to meet with


My grandfather asked him why he did

it. Essentially he said, I came to get you,

and when I get out, I'm going to get you. My

grandfather simply said, son, God bless you,

and I'm going to pray for you and I'm going

to forgive you for your sins.

Of course, standing there witnessing

this at a very young age helped me to

understand what forgiveness was all about,

and having that strong spiritual foundation

and base is really what has sustained us for

all this time.

Q. So it is not just your father's

example in life and times but your

grandparents as well?

A. Yes, that's correct. When my father

was killed, I remember a lot of things that

happened, but I wasn't old enough to really

understand, you know, the whole forgiveness

concept. I do remember it was an ominous


I remember us really feeling very

awkward about him coming back to Memphis that


(901) 529-1999


last time. For whatever reason, we felt

something was going to happen. I know I felt

that. It was very ominous. That was the

extent of it. I didn't know why.

Q. Now, did there come a time when you

progressed in your consideration of this case

and the family's quest for answers and truth

that you decided to ask the Justice

Department or the President of the United

States in the first instance to open an


A. Yes.

Q. What has happened with respect to

that request and would you describe how it

has proceeded?

A. Yes. Well, initially we had a

meeting with President Clinton asking him to

open an investigation. At that time we were

requesting what we saw as a similar model to

South Africa's Truth & Reconciliation

Commission. We really felt if this truth was

going to come out, it had to be done in the

context of amnesty or immunity and a healing,

a cleansing, that when there are crimes

against the people, if you will, by the


(901) 529-1999


State, there has to be some type of process

so that people can come forward without fear

of reprisals.

So that was our first request. And

that was not granted. What he said he would

do is he would speak with the Attorney

General, Janet Reno, and ultimately she made

the decision that she would do what was

called a limited investigation, which would

focus on, quote, new evidence.

What we tried to explain to her is

that we believe that while you can refer to

the, quote, new evidence ala Donald Wilson,

ala Loyd Jowers, the old evidence, quote, was

flawed. In fact, it has not thoroughly been


So to pigeonhole it into this,

quote, new investigation or only focusing on

new evidence, is probably not going to serve

us because you are only going to be in effect

drawing conclusions that don't deal with the

a holistic picture.

In order to do this, and the last

time I checked, there is no statute of

limitations on murder, but the reality is


(901) 529-1999


that, you know, you have to deal with

everything, and yet that request was not

granted. So we were very disappointed. But

we wanted to at least in the spirit of, you

know, reconciliation, give the powers that be

the benefit of the doubt to try and come up

with something that made sense.

We still to this day don't know

where that stands. But I can say that I'm

not optimistic, because I just -- the signs

or the things that typically would point

towards optimism have not been evident. This

is totally a gut feeling.

I noted it is customary to be silent

during an investigation until all facts are

in, but the thing that has always been ironic

to me is that if we're the victims of the

family, then everyone from the DA locally to

the Justice Department is supposed to

represent our interest, at least that's what

I thought growing up watching Perry Mason and

everything and the like, but in this instance

it seems like we have been put on the

opposite side of State, and we've, rather

than being embraced and our cause being


(901) 529-1999


supported and us getting equal justice and

fighting for our rights, we've been almost

summarily dismissed.

So I don't know. I mean, I always

try to remain optimistic. I do believe there

are things bigger than all of us that can

intervene and ultimately in the end, as my

father would say, the arc of the moral

universe is long, but it bends towards

justice. To me I interpreted that as meaning

it may not come out in your lifetime, but in

time all things are revealed.

Q. But what about those who finally say

that this is important for the family and it

is important for you from a personal

standpoint that the truth be developed and it

emerge, but is it necessary for the nation,

for this Republic, to go through this siege,

this anguish, this torment again?

A. Oh, certainly. Anyone who says just

let it go, I mean, let's face it, nothing is

going to bring him back, the thing that will

certainly resolve and allow for healing,

closure and healing, is resolving it so it is

not still in this land of uncertainty.


(901) 529-1999


Anyone who has had a tragedy --

certainly my family is high profile, but

we're no different than any person who has

lost a loved one and just simply want to know

what happened, whether it is a car accident

or anything. I mean, you want to know how

your loved one left, if you will.

Certainly in this instance where

there was so many questions that were not

answered and this thing was put to bed so

quickly, it is always inevitably going to

come back up.

So what has been happening is that

for whatever reason there are those who have

tried to suppress it, don't want to deal with

it, because it is a can of worms, but I have

to say, like anything that has not been

resolved, it will haunt you until it is

resolved. And that's not just the victim.

It is the victimizer. It is those who

represent the victims and the victimizers,

because we are all, as my father used to say,

inextricably tied together by a garment of


You cannot separate and say, well,


(901) 529-1999


that happened then, so we shouldn't deal with

it, because to me it is just like it was

yesterday. I mean, I remember what I was

doing when he was killed. I remember details

of everything. And because that has not been

resolved, I know for me personally it has

affected me in so many ways didn't even

realize until recently of thinking I had

dealt with and I really had not.

So this in a real sense from a

personal side but then from a holistic side,

in terms of the people, in terms of the

masses, yes, it has to be dealt with because

it is not about who killed Martin Luther

King, Jr., my father, it is not about

necessarily all of those details, it is about

why was he killed. Because if you answer the

why, you will understand the same things are

still happening. Until we address that,

we're all in trouble, because if it could

happen to him, certainly it can happen to --

if it can happen to this family, it can

happen to anybody.

Q. In his honor's courtroom here -- this

may be a court of last resort, Mr. King.


(901) 529-1999


A. That's correct.

Q. -- why should the nation, this

Republic, be concerned about the why, about

the why and the how of what happened to

Martin Luther King, Jr., aside from the

family interest, the nation, this Republic,

why is it important to know?

A. Well, it is important to know so it

will not be repeated. That's the injustice.

It should not be repeated. That if we say

we're true to our calling, as he talked about

in the "I Have a Dream" speech, about the bad

check, he talked about the importance of all

Americans coming together, black, white, it

didn't matter, but people of goodwill being

given an opportunity to have life, liberty

and the pursuit of happiness, that's what

we're all here for, and how can you have that

in a so-called democracy if the democracy, if

the State, the Republic, do not like what you

are saying and you are told from childhood

that you have freedom of speech, freedom of

press, freedom of all this, but the fact of

the matter is if what you are saying goes

against what certain people believe you


(901) 529-1999


should be saying, you will be dealt with,

maybe not the way you are dealt with in

China, which is over, but you will be dealt

with covertly and in some way the same

result. The result is the same.

Personally I would rather someone

tell me you have no rights, you can't speak,

than to think I have the rights and yet I'm

in mental bondage because I'm thinking I'm

free all along but there is a long leash that

the minute I say something that doesn't fit

with the elite or with the special interests,

I'm in trouble.

That is what Martin Luther King,

Jr., represented, someone who spoke for all

of us, who spoke for the least of these who

were not heard. That's why this is

important, because this really opens the

issue up of why he was taken from us in the

first place.

Q. I'd like you to address two final

issues, if you would. There has been

evidence in these proceedings that

photographs were in fact taken of the

assassination by military personnel.


(901) 529-1999


A. Uh-huh.

Q. They were on the roof of a fire

station, no less. In all likelihood, those

films, those photographs, of the entire event

of the assassination of your father exist

today in some archive, deeply buried,

perhaps, but in some archive of the


What would you say to the Department

of Defense, to the military intelligence

structure of the United States, to the

government of the United States that controls

perhaps that photographic visual evidence of

the truth in this case, what would you ask

them to do with that information, those


A. I think the information should

obviously, all of it, should come forth,

should be brought out. I understand why it

hasn't been.

There is fear, obviously, that if

the truth were to come out, who would -- what

would that say? I mean, really, we are

talking about, quote, a political

assassination in modern-day times, a domestic


(901) 529-1999


political assassination.

Of course, it is ironic, but I was

watching a special on the CIA, and they say,

yes, we've participated in assassinations

abroad but, no, we could never do anything

like that domestically. Well, I don't know,

but what's to say, you know, whether you call

it CIA or some other innocuous acronym or

agency, killing is killing.

The issue becomes what do we do

about this? Do we endorse a policy in this

country, in this life, that says if we don't

agree with someone, the only means to deal

with it is through elimination and

termination? I think my father taught us the

opposite, that you can overcome without

violence, that there are ways, because when

you use violence, you leave residue that the

next generation will come back, and it is a

vicious cycle. You never solve the problem.

So I would say that all information,

evidence, should be -- there should be full

disclosure. To be honest, I mean, if the

family of the victim -- if you want to look

at it in terms of first right, if there is a


(901) 529-1999


protocol, if we're saying we can forgive and

let people off the hook, then why can't

anybody else?

I mean, if you can measure suffrage,

and technically we say, well, we suffered the

greatest loss, if you can measure it that

way -- I'm not saying you can -- but if we're

saying we're willing to forgive and

embark upon a process that allows for

reconciliation, why can't others? That's


Q. This action -- finally, this action

is against Loyd Jowers as a defendant and

other unknown conspirators. If evidence

emerges at this trial in this civil courtroom

that could or should result in the

prosecution, the criminal prosecution of

other individuals, is the family interested

in pursuing criminal prosecution of others

known and unknown involved in this


A. No. We have never been interested in

criminal prosecution. As I stated before,

this was not about and is not for us about

retributive justice. We're not in this to


(901) 529-1999


make heads roll.

We're in this to use the teachings

that my father taught us in terms of

nonviolent reconciliation. It works. I

mean, we're living together in the South

today because of that great movement, black

and white together, different types of

advances that have occurred as a matter of a

peaceful, nonviolent movement. We know that

it works.

So, therefore, we have to be true to

our cause. We have to practice what we

preach. So what we're saying is that we're

not looking to -- we're not looking to put

people in prison. What we're looking to do

is get the truth out so that this nation can

learn and know officially.

I frankly feel I already know the

truth. And, I mean, if the world never finds

out officially, it is never broadcast across

the world, that's a tragedy. But I can move

on with my life knowing that I now know what

happened. I believe that in my heart.

So this proceeding is almost really

technically our final legal remedy, and I


(901) 529-1999


think -- I know it has been long and drawn

out and the jury has had to do such a tedious

task at deciphering all of this body of

evidence, and I think -- and testimony, and I

think that that certainly has to be

considered, that there was no other way to do

it, this was a last resort, we tried

everything, we did everything humanly


We've not gained anything. We've

lost financially. We've -- I could spend

days giving you countless examples of the

agony and the defeat. And when people ask

that question, are you in it for money, what

money? People back away. Everybody I know

who has been associated with this has been --

has paid a price. You know, I don't -- it is

not a benefit.

The only benefit is that the truth

has to ultimately come out, because that's

what we all believe in. I believe we all

stand for justice and want the right thing to

happen. So ultimately as a last resort in

this proceeding, to say that we're not

looking for great remuneration, it is the


(901) 529-1999


total opposite, we're looking for nominal

damages, but we're looking for the truth.

And you can't put a price on the truth.

So that hopefully answers your


Q. It goes a long way to it, but in

terms of Mr. Jowers, and the final issue is

an issue of damages, Mr. King, because this

is a civil action, a wrongful death action

against the defendant, and damages inevitably

raises its head, and whilst you have said

we're only interested in nominal damages,

that needs in a plea to the jury to be

spelled out with a degree of more


What would be in your mind an

appropriate sort or type, quantity, number of

damages and for what purpose would those

damages be used if you were to ask this jury

to award damages with a number figure, what

would make sense to you and the family at

this point in time?

A. Well, the number I'm a little bit

fuzzy on because, you know, numbers are so

subjective. But let's just say for the sake


(901) 529-1999


of this proceeding, let's say we were granted

a hundred dollar --

Q. Suppose the request were to be framed

in terms of a hundred dollars which would go

toward the funeral expenses of your father.

What would you do -- if that were the case

and you were given that award, what do you

think you might appropriately do with that


A. I think it would only be fitting that

any sum of money, no matter how small or

large, go to benefit some cause that he would

have wanted or been associated with. Because

this is Memphis, because of what it

represents, he was here supporting the

sanitation workers for their plight, and I

would certainly support and want to see some

benefit, whether it be their welfare, the

Sanitation Workers Union Welfare Fund or

something along those lines that the family

could contribute that sum to and even, you

know, contribute more out of our pockets.

I just think that we need to bring

closure to this. It something as minimal as

the fact that even to this day I have awkward


(901) 529-1999


feelings when I come here. I'm still -- it

is not any reflection of the people, because

the people are wonderful. Everybody rolls

out the red carpet, bends over backwards to

be hospitable.

But until this injustice is settled,

then all we can really do is try to deal with

what he would have done, and he was here to

support a campaign that dealt with man's

inhumanity to man, and now that we're

rounding out and coming to the end of this

journey, my hope is that this will be not an

ending but a beginning, a launching pad, so

that an example can be set here in this

courthouse in this city and in this state to

show people, to send a message that it does

not always have to be the way that people

think or what they assume, that impressions

and opinions, no matter what anybody writes

in a column or an editorial, that hopefully

people's hearts have been moved and their

heads have been dealt with and there will be

a verdict that is one of fairness and


MR. PEPPER: Mr. King. Thank


(901) 529-1999


you very much.

THE COURT: Let's take a break

before cross-examination.

(Jury out.)

(Short recess.)

THE COURT: Mr. Garrison, do you

want to cross-examine the witness?

MR. GARRISON: Do you want to

bring the jury?

THE COURT: Yes. That might be

a good idea.

(Jury in.)

THE COURT: All right. They

wanted to start without you all, but I told

them we can't do that.

You may proceed.



Q. Good afternoon, Mr. King. How you

are today?

A. Fine. How about yourself?

Q. Fine. Thank you. Mr. King, you and

I have talked about this matter quite a few

times, haven't we?

A. Yes, we.


(901) 529-1999


Q. As a matter of fact, I've been to

Atlanta and I've talked to your family and

you about this, haven't we?

A. Yes, we have.

Q. When Mr. Jowers met with you

in Jackson, Tennessee, and again Little Rock,

Arkansas, with you and Ambassador Young, he

freely and voluntarily told you what he knew

about this case. He answered your questions

the best he could. Am I correct, sir?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Mr. King, when you met the first time

with Mr. Jowers, he apologized to you for any

part he may have played in this, didn't he?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And he also told you that he did not

know at the time that the main target was Dr.

King, he told you that, didn't he?

A. He did say that.

Q. That he had no idea that Dr. King

would be assassinated or knew anything that

was going on?

A. That's true. He did say that.

Q. I believe he also told you that he

was -- he had an agreement or had been asked


(901) 529-1999


by Mr. Liberto to handle some money and he

had handled money before on other occasions

before this. Do you recall that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Let me ask you, Mr. King, you had

talked to Mr. Jowers and Ambassador Young,

too, about immunity for him, did you not,


A. Yes, we did.

Q. In fact, Reverend Lowery, what was

his position?

A. He was President of the Southern

Christian Leadership Conference.

Q. And he came here and spent the better

part of a day and met with Mr. Gibbons in an

effort to try to obtain immunity for Mr.

Jowers. You are aware of that, aren't you?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And Mr. Gibbons refused?

A. That's correct.

Q. Can you tell us this: Did you ever

have any meeting with either Mr. Campbell or

Mr. Gibbons from the District Attorney's


A. Yes, I did.


(901) 529-1999


Q. Okay. Did they ever explain to you

as to why they were so against having this

rifle tested?

A. Yes. They basically said, and I

don't recall the exact outcome of the

conversation, but essentially they felt it

would be a waste of time, that the rifle had

been tested previously and it was

inconclusive. So why is it going to change


Q. Dr. Pepper asked you a moment ago

about there had been some discussion or

some -- something in the news media about the

fact that you and your family had been

manipulated. You investigated this quite a

bit before you started this action, did you

not, sir?

A. Yes. I guess the total of

information that has come forth has just been


Q. And let me ask you this, Mr. King:

Based upon all the information that has come

to you within recent years and the witnesses

that have come forth, isn't it true that you

have made the statement that you thought that


(901) 529-1999


from the President, who was Lyndon B.

Johnson, on down were part of this or knew

that this was going to happen?

A. Well, no, actually that statement was

taken out of context. I was asked by a

journalist or interviewer, Forrest Sawyer, to

be exact, from ABC -- I guess it was Turning

Point was the program -- whether I felt

President Johnson was involved or knew about

it, and I simply made the comment, which, of

course, got edited out, prefacing by saying

if what Bill Pepper says is true or has

written in his book is true, then I would

find it very difficult for something of this

magnitude to occur without the Commander in

Chief, in other words, if the military were

involved just based on my knowledge of

protocol and structure, the way the military

operates, then the Commander in Chief would

have to give certain orders in order to

mobilize certain forces.

Q. All right, sir.

A. But, of course, the way it was

edited, it said that I said, yes, President

Johnson was involved and knew about it. I


(901) 529-1999


however, did also say that the FBI -- it was

a known fact that Director Hoover had a major

beef, if you will, and certainly a hatred

towards my father and had stated publicly and

it is in fact public record that they

actually harassed him, surveilled him and did

other things to try and discredit him. That

is public record.

Q. Dr. Pepper asked you about

Mr. Wilson. Are you familiar with what has

happened to the notes that Mr. Wilson had?

A. Yes.

Q. What has happened to those notes?

A. The Justice Department has

confiscated them to try and authenticate

them. To my knowledge, I assume they are

still in the custody of the Justice


Q. As far as you know, there has been

nothing -- no test or anything that would

tend to say that these were fabricated or a

forgery. Am I correct, sir?

A. That's correct. I was actually told

by a reporter who had been in touch with the

Justice Department that they could not rule


(901) 529-1999


them out, and they are trying to figure out

how to, for want of a better word, how to

classify them in order I guess to make them

either -- what I'm told inconclusive is

sometimes a way of saying not conclusive,

and, you know, it is like "inconclusive"

leaves you still in the balance, but I

believe if you can't rule it out, certainly

you can't say that it is a phony.

Q. Were you aware of the investigation

by the local District Attorney that started

back in 1993 and that they concluded in 1998,

were you aware of all of that?

A. That they started -- I'm sorry?

Q. I believe in 1993.

A. That who? Could you repeat who?

Q. The local District Attorney started

an investigation into some new allegations

and things. Are you aware of that?

A. I've been generally aware, not

specifically, in terms of the details of


Q. Let me hand you a report, Mr. King,

and ask you if you have seen this before,

which was provided to the District Attorney's


(901) 529-1999



A. Yes. This is the more recent

report. When you said 1993 --

Q. I think it says it started in 1993.

I think the report itself says that. A copy

was delivered to your family I believe in

Atlanta the last year in March.

A. Yes, I have seen a copy.

Q. That was provided to you.

MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I'd

like to have that marked as an exhibit to his


(The above-mentioned document

was marked Exhibit 33.)

Q. (BY MR. GARRISON) You've seen the

report and read it, haven't you, Mr. King?

A. Yes, I have. It has been quite some

time, a couple of years, since I have.

Q. Let me ask you, did you learn that

the government had sealed the records of the

investigation of your father's assassination?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever question any one as to

why those records were sealed?

A. Yes.


(901) 529-1999


Q. What answers did you get?

A. Well, I was told that there was

information that might be incriminating, that

could possibly incriminate government

involvement or corroborate government

involvement, and I was also told that there

may have been information fabricated, that

there was definitely information that the FBI

fabricated to try and discredit my father,

and that that information could possibly also

be included in that -- in the sealed records

as well.

Q. Mr. King, based upon what information

you have obtained over the last few years and

information that has come to you, Mr. Jowers

really played a very small part in this,

didn't he?

A. Well, it depends on what you call

"small part." I mean, certainly I would see

him as a specific conduit, if you will.

Whether he was the person -- if you are

asking me whether he was the person who

orchestrated and planned and put all the,

quote, conspiracy together, I would have to

say, no, I do not believe he was, quote, the


(901) 529-1999


brains behind this conspiracy.

Q. According to his discussion with you,

he was simply doing things he had done

previously for this person that he named as

Frank Liberto?

A. That's correct.

Q. And he was doing the normal things he

thought were normal in carrying out the

instructions of Frank Liberto. Am I correct,


A. Yes, you are.

Q. That's pretty much what he said?

A. That's correct.

MR. GARRISON: I believe that's

all. Thank you, Mr. King.



Q. Mr. King, you made your position, the

family's position, clear with respect to the

feelings about Mr. Jowers and how you would

regard him at this point and what you feel

should take place. Mr. Jowers' counsel just

asked you if Mr. Jowers advised you in the

meetings that he did not know about the

details or about the assassination and about


(901) 529-1999


who the person was that to be assassinated.

And you answered yes, he did state this.

Let me ask you once again, finally,

did you believe then, do you believe now,

that Mr. Jowers was telling you the truth

with respect to that point, that he did not

know who was being assassinated?

A. No, I do not believe he was telling

me the truth at that time. I believe that --

he definitely said that he did not know, but

I don't believe that part. I think he was

telling the truth up until that point.

I just sensed -- and Ambassador

Young and I talked about that fact -- that he

seemed very uncomfortable admitting that much

knowledge to, you know, to me basically.

Q. Going that far?

A. Exactly, being the victim's family.

And I could understand why.

MR. PEPPER: Thank you,

Mr. King. Nothing further.



Q. Mr. King, let me ask you this: He

met with you voluntarily at his own expense


(901) 529-1999


and fully cooperated with you, didn't he?

A. Yes, he did. As you know, it was --

there was hesitation initially until we

finally were able to work everything out.

The fear of prosecution was always an issue.

I believe that -- I just felt that he was

getting this off his chest.

Q. All right. But the first thing he

did was apologize to you for anything that he

may have done that would have caused the

death of your father, didn't he?

A. He did.

MR. GARRISON: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: All right. You may

stand down, sir. Thank you.

(Witness excused.)

THE COURT: Does that complete

the plaintiffs' proof?

MR. PEPPER: Being our last

witness, your Honor, the plaintiffs


THE COURT: All right.

Mr. Garrison, do you want to go forward?

MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I

have some witnesses that were here earlier.


(901) 529-1999


I let them go until ten in the morning. I

didn't know how far we were going to


THE COURT: We were prepared to

go on to midnight if necessary.

MR. GARRISON: I hope you are

joking, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. We'll

adjourn until ten o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Jury out.)

(The proceedings were

adjourned at 4:20 p.m.)


(901) 529-1999