Friday, July 31, 2020


Special Agent Ronald A. Williams, July 30, 1947 – June 26, 1975. Rest in Peace.


Dear Ron:


Today you would be turning seventy-three.


Looking down on everything that is happening around us you must wonder why and how things seem to have become so out of control. A nation horribly divided, lawlessness, rioting and destruction and respect for the rule of law and law-enforcement at a bewildering low point.


Those, like you and your partner, Jack Coler, who took an oath to uphold and enforce the laws of this nation, and the brave men and women in Blue who put themselves in harms way every day to protect its citizens are under relentless attack. A festering anarchy, fueled by ignorance, intolerance and disrespect for common decency and civility seems to be growing. All of this fueled from the disruption caused by a worldwide pandemic.*


Birthdays are an earthly event as one day to the next we are simply just another year older. 


For us who remain, you are ageless. You are still the same vibrant, intelligent, dedicated and handsome young and proud FBI Agent that those who knew you personally still remember. To us, you are still that same wonderful person when your mortal birthdays stopped being counted.


Ron, as you can see, you and all the FBI Service Martyrs have not been, and never will be, forgotten. 


But for the actions of the cowards of Jumping Bull your productive life was cut short, while those remaining here deal with even the remote possibility of inmate #89637-132’s freedom, you have the omniscience and understanding to know that we will ensure justice prevails.**


Ron, I know we do not have to ask, but look after us as we remember you on this day.


“In the Spirit…


** Recently an ardent Peltier supporter offered the following observation regarding Peltier’s prison artwork and by inference, his character: I have spent my entire adult life in the art world and I can tell you that I have a clear window into who Leonard Peltier is as a human being.  What is expressed through a work of art cannot be faked.”

Well, yes it can. One would think that Peltier has mastered the art of not being branded as a fake when in fact he has succeeded in disguising who he really is by building a reputation upon a mountain of lies. One fabrication after another, incessantly repeated, has convinced some that he is innocent. All it takes is a little effort to counter the claims through which he has created the myth of innocence and shallow folklore: Folklore that can easily be countered with actual facts. Setting aside for a moment that for years—even admitting as much on film—that someone else, the infamous Mr. X, killed FBI Agents Coler and Williams, there is still so much more to easily dismantle the faux legend.  That lie—Peltier’s only real alibi—was put to rest by one of his own cowardly co-conspirators and even by his former ‘committee’ and one of his own attorneys. But his supporters want to forget this and avoid the obvious conclusion that an innocent person doesn’t have to lie about what actually happened. Just a casual review of his own autobiography, replete with easily disproven fabrications, bolsters the premise that Peltier is indeed faking it.  The window that the supporter is looking through isn’t really glass but perhaps just a mirror. Even recently, in response to a simple question about a significant detail of his own conviction, Peltier lied to the interviewer, and that lie was easily laid bare.

(This blog was was scheduled to be posted on July 30th but due to a server issue was published on July 31st.)

Saturday, July 11, 2020


Dear Supporters:

A recent article entitled “The Pine Ridge Reservation, Prisoner of War Camp #344” on the website for the publication, New Observations, referenced Leonard Peltier and his artwork. (Footnote 1)

The article covered several topics and lauds Peltier’s artwork for its representation of Native life and culture, joy and despair. It also takes a giant leap of faith presuming that Peltier can stand beside the likes of “Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr. and others who has inspired us to strive to become our best selves.” However, this was preceded with a factually incorrect statement that only serves to perpetuate Peltier’s long-standing myth and folklore. 

The article states:

Ballistic evidence that proves Leonard Peltier’s gun was not used in the death of two FBI agents on Pine Ridge on June 26, 1975 was not allowed to be presented during his appeals trial. In any other country, he would have been released by now. (Emphasis added)

(The source of this statement comes from Peltier himself during an interview for New Observations. Response to a question about his conviction, Peltier erroneously claimed, “The prosecutors, with the assistance of the FBI, hid ballistics testing that showed the weapon prosecutors tried to link to me was not the weapon used to kill the agents.” This is just one of countless examples of Peltier either forgetting the history of his case or more likely offering another frequent fabrication that people will just accept it at face value or fail to thoroughly research Peltier’s claims.) 

(Actually, “any other country” ignores a stark reality. In many other countries, once ‘convicted,’ the likes of Leonard Peltier would be taken out back and shot. Here, however, he received due process and was well represented through multiple appeals.) 

The factual errors in the New Observations quote are:   

            -There was no proof of ballistics evidence that proved Peltier’s “gun” was not used in the murder of FBI Agents Coler and Williams.

            -It is incorrect to claim that ballistics evidence was not allowed to be presented.

            -The referenced “appeals trial” is inaccurate; it was a court-ordered hearing, not a trial. 

The ballistics issue relates to the crime scene and a .223 shell casing located in the trunk of Agent Coler’s government vehicle and Peltier’s rifle (referred to in appellate filings as the “Wichita AR-15”) that was recovered in a burned-out station wagon on a Kansas turnpike as AIM protagonist, Bob Robideau, and others, were making their escape from the carnage at Jumping Bull.

After his conviction, Peltier received government documents through the Freedom of Information Act. One of those documents was an October 2, 1975 FBI Laboratory Teletype regarding ballistics examination of Peltier’s AR-15 and the recovered shell casing.

Based on the belief that this Teletype represented “new evidence,” Peltier made a series of appeals claiming he was entitled to have his conviction vacated and was entitled to a new trial based on a Constitutional violation related to Brady v. Maryland (a prosecution discovery requirement). The appeals resulted in a three-day (ballistics) hearing.

The timeline of Peltier’s appeal on the ballistics evidence (Teletype) follows:

1) Peltier appealed to the District Court (the court in which he was tried and convicted). That court denied this motion adding, “As noted by the Court of Appealsthe evidence of Peltier’s guilt was strong.” This decision further reviewed the prior direct appeal decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which stated, as a finding of fact based on the complete trial record, that Peltier was the only one among the AIM members possessing an AR-15 and who had fled Pine ridge with that weapon.  The Government’s position was that the Teletype did not constitute new evidence and was not Brady material. (Fn. 2)

2) Peltier appealed the lower court’s denial to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that stated in part: “After a careful review of the decision below and the records on appeal, we find no error in the district court’s decision to dismiss without a hearing all allegations of purported prejudicial concealment by the government save the one example detailed in Peltier’s brief and specifically argued to this Court. That example concerns the validity of the FBI ballistics tests linking a .223 caliber bullet casing found during the investigation of the murders in questions to an AR-15 rifle attributed to Peltier on the day of the killings.”  “…we remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. At this hearing the court shall limit its consideration to any testimony of documentary evidence relevant to the meaning of the October 2, 1975, Teletype and its relation to the ballistics evidence introduced at Peltier’s trial.” (Fn. 3*)

3) October 1 – 3, 1984, Evidentiary (ballistics) hearing: The entire sequence of events concerning submissions (total of three) of hundreds of items of evidence to the FBI Laboratory and the timing of the examination of the “Wichita AR-15” and the .223 shell casing was explored at great length. The court concluded, as a finding of fact what the word “different” in the October 2, 1975 Teletype meant and denied Peltier’s  ¶2255 motion based on an alleged Brady violation. The court noted that “Defendant had an independent firearms expert present in the courtroom at the hearing, but he was not called to testify.” (Fn. 4)

4) Peltier appealed this denial to the Eighth Circuit. That court addressed prior filings and decisions, stating, “We then held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Peltier responsible for the murders.” At considerable length the court reviewed the evidentiary issues relating to the Brady material and the application of Bagley (U.S. v. Bagley) legal standards. Regarding Brady, the court stated, “Constitutional error occurs, and the conviction must be reversed, only if the evidence is material in the sense that its suppression undermined confidence in the outcome of the trial.”  Although critical of some aspects of Peltier’s conviction, the court concluded, “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. 5*)   

Further, “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. That point was not disputed; although the defense had its own ballistics expert, it offered no contrary evidence.” (Fn. 6*)

* * *

The inaccurate statement by New Observations (sourced to Peltier) that there was evidence proving that Peltier’s weapon was not used in the murder of Agents’ Coler and Williams and that Peltier was not allowed to present such evidence is simply not true and only serves to reinforce the decades-long false narrative of innocence and manufactured myth and folklore surrounding Leonard Peltier. 

Contrary to Peltier’s claims, there were no Constitutional violations regarding his conviction. Had there been just one, any discussion regarding Peltier would have evaporated long ago. After numerous appeals by many competent attorneys Peltier’s conviction and sentence have stood the test of time. As well, over the years, Peltier’s public and written statements only serve to highlight his unrepentant guilt and where reality is finally showing itself.**

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

2) Title 28 U.S.C. ¶2255motion to the U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota:
 3) Appeal to the Eighth Circuit: remanded back to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing.*
4) Evidentiary (ballistics) hearing:
5) Eighth Circuit Decision; denied re Brady (Brady v. Maryland) and Bagley (U.S. v. Bagley).*
6)  “                                                                      “ (“The .223 casing” section)
*Hon. Gerald Heaney (Rest in Peace), Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, played a crucial role in the Peltier saga. Notwithstanding his own personal feelings regarding Native American issues he made his decisions based on the law. In a televised interview Judge Heaney was asked if Peltier received a fair trial. His response, “He received a fair trial. Not a perfect trial, but a fair trial.”
**Peltier supporters must be constantly reminded of Peltier’s second biggest lie (the first of claims of innocence); the false alibi of the phantom Mr. X. Peltier claimed as much on film, “This story is true.” It wasn’t then or now, but only another fabrication that never existed.