Monday, February 7, 2011

"The Ten Points of Light"

Dear Supporters:

Peltier’s (the LPDOC’s) recent 2/1/11 newsletter “35 Years is (NOT) to Long” was interesting in part because they perhaps took some advice and posted the entire Peltier trial transcript on their website. But they did so at their own peril.

Aside from having the court decisions posted on the website from the beginning, the NPPA focused on the transcripts and provided a straightforward, unvarnished review of the “Critical Witnesses Against Peltier” (Editorial Essay #55: Anderson, Brown, Draper and Long Visitor), including direct and cross-examination and opening and closing arguments. These were the critical witnesses the jury had to weigh most heavily…testimony that placed Peltier at the scene of his crimes. Interested researchers are invited to review the transcripts and the summaries and decide for themselves.

Now included on Peltier’s website is an interesting and compelling legal discussion (The Ten Points of Light), but—only to the uninformed, because none of this is new and includes irrelevant, erroneous and out-of-context material within their highlighted references (the Wounded Knee trials and the 10th Circuit decision for example); none of which address Peltier’s actual guilt. Bringing up…yet again…for instance, the 10/2/75 teletype (ballistics report) without…yet again…presenting the rest of the facts; the three-day evidentiary hearing and subsequent appeal, or pointing out that Peltier had his own ballistics expert in the courtroom but chose—not—to call him as a witness. If that teletype was really so compelling…why didn’t their own witness attack it?

Every one of the Ten-points-of-Light have been analyzed and explained in detail over the past decade by the NPPA, but just for another example, how about point #3? Number three begins ““The first appeal of Peltier’s conviction occurred in 1977 before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Donald Ross stated: “But can’t you see…that what happened happened in such a way that it gives some credence…” and #3 continues…

However, the first appeal to the 8th Circuit was rendered in 1978 (585 F.2nd 314, 1978 U.S. App. Decision, September 14, 1978, Decided {read the entire decision here:}).

But would it come as a surprise that the alleged quote from the LPDOC’s Point #3, does not appear in that decision? It shouldn’t, and doesn’t…Peltier and the LPDOC are wont to continue the folklore. Whether they are deliberately disingenuous remains to be seen…but they have a track record that the myth is more important than the truth. The real record speaks for itself, and any oral arguments before the courts are the prelude to the ultimate and final published court decisions.

Would it come as another surprise that this very decision stated “Secondly, the direct and circumstantial evidence of Peltier’s guilt was strong…” (I.B.4).
It shouldn’t.

Notice too that the LPDOC has a habit of not taking ownership of its work product…presented, unsigned by amorphous, phantom and ill-informed authors hiding behind the LPDOC. Apparently they have little pride in their efforts.

Please utilize the NPPA search feature to remove the out-of-context spin…don’t take either side’s version…explore and make an informed decision based on the record, because here again, it is not just a curious but deliberate omission of facts by Peltier and the LPDOC. The legal issues have been litigated to death…there are no other avenues to pursue…they have been either waived or decided against Peltier’s interests…try as they may to manufacture more. If they expect the further FOIPA results to magically produce “a smoking gun” (certainly no pun intended), they are mistaken.

So, posting the trail transcripts (which is a good move) creates a problem for Peltier. For those die-hards the transcripts are irrelevant because they wouldn’t read them anyway (they would prefer the LPDOC CliffsNotes version), but for those who want to know what really happened during the trial and have the energy to critically review a fairly large volume of material, they would ultimately agree with the jury’s verdict.

But, of course, re-litigating is just an exercise because Peltier’s guilt is beyond any doubt. Please see, and include the footnotes as well because those concerned are encouraged to research all the facts

Re-litigating, or pretending that this is a viable option is just another way for Peltier to further demean an otherwise proud First American heritage. The vast majority of Native Americans see Peltier and AIM for what they really were, a genuine setback for native rights. That’s another reason why Peltier’s popularity has long since ebbed and he is in a constant mode of continuing to scam people that he’s in it for “his people.”

If Peltier had some courage he would not be afraid to post the finances, link to the NPPA and stop kicking this writer off the LPDOC mail list. The NPPA maintains three large lists, one of them certainly has a number of Peltier supporters, and that’s a good thing as well because no one has ever been removed from those lists. Besides, really, wouldn’t you think there are NPPA supporters on Peltier’s list and they forward the LPDOC material along anyway? But it’s a matter of principle…sorely lacking in the Peltier camp. So, LPDOC and Peltier, show some backbone and the strength of your own convictions (e.g. rhetoric) and come clean about the money you’ve taken in over the years and where it went and provide a link to the other side of the story…that’s what the NPPA did for your side almost eleven years ago.

The LPDOC’s Ten Points of Light—try as they may to create a diversion from the factual history of Peltier’s conviction—ignore the unquestioned basis of his continued actual and factual guilt. If there’s any doubt about that, just contact Mr. X.

Peltier now finds himself in the absurd position of the dog who, having caught the car he was so frantically chasing, has no idea what to do with it—so he looks around guiltily and then slinks away while he diminishes a proud Native American heritage in the process.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods