Dear
Supporters:
While
preparing a previous Blog I once again picked up Peter Matthiessen’s, In the
Spirit of Crazy Horse The story of
Leonard Peltier and the FBI’s war on the American Indian Movement. This
tome is the proverbial Bible, the touted bedrock of source material (along with
the film, Incident at Oglala) by the LPDOC and a must read for anyone in
Peltier’s camp. (My copy has been read at least a half-dozen times and referenced
hundreds more. It’s dog-eared, with dozens of page markers, highlighted passages
and marginal notes; it more resembles an old fringed pillow than a book at this
point. It has been well examined.)
When
I came across another familiar ITSOCH reference it begged for a formal reply.
Matthiessen
was making the case for a new trial and supporting this he summarizes the
defense issue surrounding the “Wichita AR-15” (trial Exhibit 34A) and the .223
shell casing found in the trunk of agent Coler’s vehicle (trial exhibit 34B). These
were crucial pieces of Government evidence against Peltier. The AR-15 had been
badly damaged when Robideau’s station wagon blew up on a Wichita Turnpike while
he and others made their escape from Pine Ridge after the killings. The bolt
mechanism, however, was functional and tested at the FBI’s Washington
Laboratory in another similar weapon to determine if the “extractor” marks
(those left on the ejected shell casing after the bullet is either fired or ejected) matched the
casing from Agent Coler’s trunk. It did. The other essential step was to
connect Peltier to this particular weapon at Jumping Bull and the point-blank
murders of Agents Coler and Williams.
To
support this premise Matthiessen states the following:
“The documents cited above
are by no means the only ones that would justify an appeal for a new trial.
Others cast light on the disputed contention between the damaged AR-15 rifle
recovered from Robideau’s exploded station wagon on the Kansas Turnpike and the
.223 shell casing allegedly found in the trunk of Coler’s car, which—keeping in
mind that no evidence or testimony
associated Peltier with that particular AR-15 in the first place and that even
FBI expert Evan Hodge acknowledged that at
least three AR-15s were involved in the shoot-out—represented the sum total
of the ballistics evidence against him.” (p.484; Emphasis added)
Well,
not quite.
So,
we have two basic questions: Was there evidence or testimony connecting Peltier
to this particular (essentially his) AR-15 at Jumping Bull? And did FBI
firearms expert Evan Hodge testify that “at least three AR-15s were involved in
the shoot-out?”
FBI
Laboratory firearms expert, Special Agent Evan Hodge’s testimony at Peltier’s 1977
Fargo, ND trial is contained within 145 pages of trial transcript amounting to over
48,000 words.
It
should come as no surprise that Agent Hodge never testified as Matthiessen
claimed.
At
no time does Agent Hodge make a statement in any manner that “at least three
AR-15s” were involved at Jumping Bull. Defense attorney Lowe never posed that
question to Hodge nor was it the subject of the many sidebar arguments before
the Court. There was much direct and cross-examination of Hodge about a number
of weapons and shell casings recovered both at Jumping Bull and other locations;
none of which included another AR-15.
The
closest these 145 pages of testimony came to the possible existence of any other
AR-15s that day was the recovery of a total of fourteen, (two groups of seven),
.223 shell casings (Lab items Q100-Q105, and Q130 located by the “green house”
at Jumping Bull and Q2513-Q2519 located in the “tent city” area) that were
eliminated as “not” being “extracted” from Peltier’s Wichita AR-15. (Trial Transcript
3323)
However,
seven of those (Q100-105 and Q130) were identified as being military type ammunition
and stamped with “LC” for “Lake City Arsenal,” a military manufacturer. This is the same type ammunition issued
to FBI agents and used after the shooting of Coler and Williams when other
agents and law enforcement responded to Jumping Bull and engaged in fire-fight
skirmishes as Peltier and others made their escape. (Trial transcript, 3320,
3384, 3389) In other words, the other AR-15s were brought there after the killings
of Agents’ Coler and Williams—by FBI personnel.
(Correctly
so, that does not account for the other seven .223 shell casings, which were
not further identified during Hodge’s testimony or during the trial; however,
that still doesn’t negate Matthiessen’s error. These other casings may be the subject
of a subsequent NPPA Blog.)
To
make it absolutely clear, defense attorney Lowe never asked Agent Hodge whether
there were “at least three (or any other number of) AR-15s” at Jumping Bull,
nor did Agent Hodge testify to that effect.
However,
as a finding of fact, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 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.” (Eighth Circuit, September 11, 1986)
Thus,
Matthiessen reinforces the folklore with just another erroneous myth of
Peltier’s feigned innocence.
Also,
contrary to Matthiessen’s claim, it was established during the trial and
recognized by the Eighth Circuit Court that among the AIM participants during the
shooting that morning Peltier was the only one with an AR-15, a weapon he was
known to carry. (Eighth Circuit Court, September 11, 1986; see also NPPA
Editorial Essay #55 Critical Witnesses against Peltier.)
(It
would be fair to point out, yet again, that Matthiessen’s reporting was biased
from the beginning because he was on Peltier’s payroll when doing his extensive
research for the book. In exchange for full access to Peltier and the many
others involved, Matthiessen had agreed to share the profits.)
HAVING
IT BOTH WAYS: It is reasonable for
Peltier supporters to make an observation, or criticism, that the NPPA wants it
both ways; at once attacking Matthiessen’s reporting and then using ITSOCH to
provide proof of Peltier’s guilt.
But
that wouldn’t be a fair criticism. Here we point out a deliberate falsehood…not
just an error of fact or sloppy reporting from the trial transcript, but that
Matthiessen was completely wrong: Possibly deliberately so. This is an entirely
different scenario when, during the lengthy research for his book and his
access to Peltier and many others, Matthiessen “quotes” Peltier and others. For
an author to “quote” someone he has interviewed is more than merely significant,
it provides first-hand proof.
That’s
precisely why we can have it both
ways, pinpointing Mathiessen’s errors of fact and then throwing at Peltier some
of his own significant statements. And we are grateful to Matthiessen for providing
perhaps the most critical quote from Peltier in the entire 600-plus pages of
ITSOCH:
“I
seen Joe when he pulled it out of the trunk and I looked at him when he put it
on, and he gave me a smile.” (See July 8, 2012 Blog for complete details.)
And
for that we thank Peter Matthiessen for helping everyone understand Peltier’s
guilt beyond any doubt.
“In
the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed
Woods
(P.S. All references are
available on the No Parole Peltier website; the trial transcript is available
on Peltier’s website, whoisleonardpeltier.info.)
