Featured Post

PELTIER: MEMORIAL SERVICE

Dear Supporters: No, this is not about a memorial service for the unrepentant convicted double murderer Leonard Peltier. Each year ...

Sunday, November 22, 2015

PELTIER: PAINTINGS REMOVED & PELTIER PARADOX

Dear Supporters:

Referencing the previous NPPA Blog, Peltier’s paintings have been removed from display at the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Tumwater, Washington. (Footnote #1)

Peltier’s response was predictable, the quintessential one-trick-pony, repeating ad nauseam the same worn-out rhetoric of out-of-context quotes without proper attributions, half-truths and outright fabrications that have been the mainstay of the Peltier myth for decades. (Fn. 2)

This is stereotypical Peltier, the Peltier Paradox: A position Peltier takes that, despite the apparently sound or legitimate reasoning from acceptable premises, when examined in its entirety leads to senseless, illogical, and contradictory conclusions. In other words, the paradox sounds good, even logical at times, but the truth destroyed Peltier a long time ago.

For example, in the November 14th “Press Release” Peltier claims (through the ill-informed Peter Clark, ILPDC) are the following inaccuracies and errors:

            --Logic: Peltier became confused over the misplaced logic of his own argument by correctly stating, “former agents of the FBI” (in other words, citizens legally expressing their First Amendment rights to free speech and expression) that somehow morphs into  “government censorship.” When brought to their attention, it was patently obvious to the State of Washington that providing a free venue at taxpayer’s expense and promoting the sale of a felon’s artwork was inappropriate, immoral, and arguably illegal. That’s what led to the state, along with a public apology, to remove those paintings. (Fn. 3)

            --Acquittal: Had Peltier been tried with his co-defendants he would have been acquitted:

Well, close, and we’ll have to concede that possibility. However, the Butler/Robideau trial did not allow the government to properly present a fair case. It was forced to trial early and critical witnesses couldn’t be located in time. The jury deliberated for five days and twice reported it was deadlocked before reaching a verdict, so it wasn’t a foregone conclusion by any means. Also, in an unprecedented and wholly inappropriate move (one which, if the government had such an advantage, would have resulted in a mistrial), the trial judge took a ten-day recess allowing the defense an inordinate amount of time to prepare after the government’s case was presented to the jury. However, we have to live with that verdict…just as Peltier must live with his. (Fn. 4)

Other points raised in the “press release,” made without specific attributions and proper quoting, have long since been discredited:

            ---Ballistics evidence reflecting his innocence:

Innocence? Hardly. This had nothing to do with innocence but the meaning of the October 2, 1975 FBI Laboratory teletype that was examined and clarified during a three-day October 1975 hearing, after which, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, (authored by Judge Gerald Heaney), concluded:

“When all is said and done, however, a few simple but very important facts remain. The casing introduced into evidence had in fact been extracted from the Wichita AR-15. This point was not disputed; although the defense had its own ballistics expert, it offered no contrary evidence.” (Fn. 5)

            ---Extradition from Canada:

In spite of earlier criticism, the final word from the Canadian Government in 1999 was that “…Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States.” (Fn. 6)

            ---Witnesses lied at trial:

During the Direct Appeal, the 8th Circuit Court stated:

“However, upon further questioning at the trial by the government attorney, they (the witnesses) stated that the testimony they gave at the trial was the truth, as best they remembered it. Thus, their testimony provided no support for the proposed defense instruction that the government induced them to testify falsely in this trial or in a related trial.” (Fn. 7)

Also, let’s remind Peltier, Clark or any of the others to remember another important aspect of what Norman Brown said regarding the shootings and his recanted testimony at Peltier's trial. During the October 17, 2000, Arts and Entertainment (A&E) documentary entitled "Murder on a Reservation," this is what Brown said about when he was brought into the courtroom to testify against Peltier:

“They marched me in. This whole crowd of native people. As I was walking down the aisle there, I heard words spoken to me. "There's that sell out." "There's that pig, there's that little asshole, " and you know, "That's him." "Hey asshole, like little whisper.”

It is clear from this public admission that Norman Brown, although he blamed his initial change of testimony on his interrogation by the FBI, was clearly in fear for his safety, and perhaps even his life (remember: Anna Mae Aquash, and Perry Ray Robinson if there is any doubt), from his own People, particularly AIM members.

            ---The federal prosecutor has twice (twice?…there was only one court statement) admitted that the government “can’t prove who shot those agents.”

What AUSA Lynn Crooks actually said during an appellate hearing was:

”Well, undoubtedly it wouldn’t, but no doubt whatsoever that we would have convicted him. I think the best precedent that one can point to is the recent murder of our two marshals. We have exactly the same kind of situation. But we can’t prove who shot those agents.”

Based on this ‘inartful’ statement, Peltier tried to claim that the government changed its theory of the prosecution, to which, the 8th Circuit Court replied:

“Peltier’s arguments fail because their underlying premises are fatally flawed.” (Fn. 8) (So you see Leonard, when the facts are disclosed, the paradox is self-evident.) 

            ---“there is a possibility that a jury would have acquitted Leonard Peltier.”

However, prior to this statement in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision (Judges, Heaney, Ross and Gibson) stated:

“We affirmed the conviction on September 4, 1978. In Affirming, we too accepted the government’s theory that both agents had been killed with a high-velocity small-caliber weapon fired at point-blank range at a time when the men were seriously wounded and unable to defend themselves. We then held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Peltier responsible for the murders.

And, from the same 8th Circuit decision (again, Judge Gerald Heaney), was:

“The question now before us is whether the newly-discovered evidence (the October 2, 1975 teletype) indicating Hodge (FBI Laboratory examiner) may have not been telling the truth, considered in the light of the evidence the jury had before it, would have caused the jury to reach a different result. While that possibility exists, Bagley requires more.”

“There is a possibility that the jury would have acquitted Leonard Peltier had the records and data improperly withheld from the defense been made available to him in order to better exploit and reinforce the inconsistencies casting strong doubts upon the government’s case. Yet, we are bound by the Bagley test requiring that we be convinced, from a review of the entire record, that had the data and records withheld been made available, the jury probably would have reached a different result. We have not been so convinced.” (Fn. 9)

In other words, Leonard, Peter, et. al., No matter what Judge Heaney’s personal feelings may have been, he, and Judges Ross and Gibson, made their decision based on the law.

            ---As late as November 2003, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that “…Much of the government’s behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation and its prosecution of Leonard Peltier is to be condemned. The government withheld evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed.”

(This decision and remark had nothing to do with Peltier’s conviction but a challenge by Peltier to the U.S. parole commission.)

But, isn’t it interesting to note that just prior to, and after this comment, conveniently omitted from the 11/14/15 “Press Release,” the same appellate court said:

"Previous federal court decisions provided the (Parole) Commission with ample facts to support its conviction that Peltier personally shot Agent Coler and Williams." And further, "While Mr. Peltier, asserts 'the Commission identified no plausible evidence that [he] shot the agents after they were incapacitated,' this statement is simply not true. The evidence linking Mr. Peltier to these crimes is enumerated above.”

“Because we hold the Commission’s finding that Mr. Peltier shot and killed Agents Coler and Williams was rational, we need not address the Commission’s implication that the same disposition is supportable if Mr. Peltier only aided and abetted at the murder scene. As such, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of relief.”  (Fn. 10)

* * *
In a subsequent November 16th “press release” a desperate Peltier laments that this event was picked up by many news organizations across the nation and ended with:

 “This attack will not be the last. Be on the alert and always respond to negative press. Use the facts presented at www.whoisleonardpeltier.info as your talking points.”

These ILPDC “talking points” is the paradox described above and it’s evident that Peltier felt the sting of an immediate and effective reaction to the Washington State situation.

Peltier press releases always begin with the solicitations to participate in the ongoing dirty little secret, the money; “Leonard counts on supporters like you! Make a donation online/Pledge to Donate Monthly. Mail donations to ILPDC, Hillsboro, Oregon.” It’s bewildering that Peltierites remain blind to the realities of the Peltier scam. (Fn. 11)

Understand this:

First, the President’s guidelines for clemency consideration; long incarcerations for minor drug offenses and excluding crimes of violence, does not include the likes of Leonard Peltier. (Fn. 12)

Secondly, it’s not just the family of Jack Coler and Ron Williams, or their friends and co-workers, nor the hundreds of agents who worked the Reservation Murders (RESMURS) investigation, nor the thousands of former and retired FBI agents, nor the tens of thousands of former and retired federal, state and local law enforcement, or the hundreds of thousands of current law enforcement officers and officials, and not even just the millions of law-abiding citizens, but it is these groups, collectively, who will make their voices heard if there is even a hint of consideration for a cold-blooded, remorseless killer.

Peltier should be shown the same compassion he gave to the wounded and murdered agents, Jack Coler and Ron Williams. And that would be none…

Clemency is as dead as parole. Deal with it.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

Footnotes:
1) Darren Smith article, last accessed 11/21/15:
2) Peter Clark, ILPDC, last accessed 11/21/15:
3) King5 coverage, last accessed 11/21/15:
4) Trials and critical witnesses:
5) Ballistics conclusion; page 5, first paragraph. (Also in re Bagley….)
7) Witnesses lied at trial, Direct Appeal, Section IIA http://noparolepeltier.com/585.html
8) Prosecutor admitted & Fatally flawed: http://noparolepeltier.com/997.html
9) 8th Circuit Bagley decision: http://noparolepeltier.com/800.html
10) 10th Circuit decision, See II: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/tenth_circuit.html