NO PAROLE PELTIER...22 YEARS LATER

Dear Supporters:

Today, April 30, 2022 marks twenty-two years since the creation of the No Parole Peltier Association and its related website, that also added the NPPA blog in 2009 reporting on timely developments in the Peltier matter.

Much has happened over the past year as Peltier believes his best chance of commutation is at hand. 

That remains to be seen as America witnesses a disturbing rise in violent crime and an increase in law enforcement officers injured or killed in the line of duty. 

The Attorney General and the Department of Justice recognize this alarming trend and are certainly sensitive that an unrepentant convicted murderer received a fair trial and a just sentence. Notwithstanding the Peltier myth, the courts have repeatedly confirmed this basic fact.

Please see the past eighteen blogs that review in detail the past year, especially the more recent ones regarding former U. S. Attorney James Reynolds and current Peltier attorney, Kevin Sharp, for some telling and certainly challenged comments, and Huffpost articles that are totally detached from the facts and reality and lost in the Peltier folklore weeds.

"In the Spirit of Coler and Williams"

Ed

 To all the officers killed in the line of duty, 

 And in 2021, FBI Agents Daniel Alfin and Laura Schwartzenberger

 

HUFFPOST/JENNIFER BENDERY...BOGUS "REPORTING"

Dear Supporters:

Bendery tells us that Huffpost has been reporting on Peltier for months, but she still hasn’t gotten it right. Apparently, Bendery was absent from Journalism 101 the day it was explained that when using quotes, one has to be both accurate and put a little effort into corroboration. Bendery references a recent FBI letter to the U.S. Pardon Attorney, as ‘bogus.’ 

 

Bendery’s April 20, 2022, “The FBI says…” article is so rife with factual errors that it would take days to correct all the inaccuracies, but here is just a sample of what is truly “bogus,” one-sided references that amount to no more than a Peltier press release. 

 

Bendery claims that the “FBI’s statement is outdated, misleading or flat-out wrong.” But accusing the FBI of what this article purports as factual, is precisely what she is doing. 

 

Bendery feebly alleges that Peltier’s FOIPA receipt of an October 2, 1975, FBI Laboratory Teletype somehow “…had unequivocally ruled out Peltier’s gun as the murder weapon.” Yet, Bendery deliberately ignores a 1984, three-day evidentiary (ballistics) hearing that when it reached the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals (9/11/86, Judges’ Heaney, Ross and Gibson) concurred:

 

“That 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.” (Throughout Peltier’s trial and numerous appeals, the Wichita AR-15 was identified as Peltier’s weapon.)

 

In other words, Bendery’s ‘unequivocally’ statement is false and Peltier had nowhere to go with what he imagined the Teletype meant. 

 

Aiding and Abetting:

 

Bendery repeats the falsity that the government changed its theory from one of murder to aiding and abetting. This fiction, also promoted by former (South Dakota—Peltier was prosecuted in North Dakota), U.S. Attorney, James H. Reynolds, and current Peltier attorney, Kevin H. Sharp, totally ignores that this issue had been thoroughly discredited in a clearly definitive appellate decision (8^th Circuit, 7/7/93), that read, in part: 

 

“It is impossible to conclude that (AUSA) Crooks…abandon(ed) one of the two theories upon which the government had tried the case and upon which the case was submitted to the jury.” “Peltier’s arguments fail because their underlying premises are fatally flawed. (A) The Government tried the case on the alternative theories; it asserted that Peltier personally killed the agents, but that if he had not done so, then he was equally guilty of their murders as an aider and abettor.” 

 

What part of “impossible” and “fatally flawed” for Bendery, and for that matter, Reynolds and Sharp, is so difficult to understand? The legal conclusion and language are clear enough. No one at Huffpost should be confused on that point.

 

Bendery attempts to claim that “…there was never evidence that Peltier aided and abetted anyone.” 

 

Really, is that so? Then Peltier must have been in Seattle that June day. 

 

Testimony placed Peltier at the crime scene with Robideau and Butler, but even if Bendery wants to discount that, there’s Peltier’s own statement to Peter Matthiessen (Spirit p. 552). “’I seen Joe when he pulled it out of the trunk (of Agent Coler’s vehicle) and I looked at him when he put it on (Agent Coler’s FBI jacket) and he gave me a smile.’ Leonard remembers. ‘I didn’t think much of it at the time; and all I could think of was, we got to get out of here.’”

 

There’s Peltier, in his own words—at the crime scene—with at least one other person, Joe Stuntz. This, while two dead, mutilated and manhandled bodies lay at their feet. (More on that follows.)

 

It’s Bagley, not Brady.

 

Bendery confuses the issue and misses the final conclusions regarding recovered shell casings and Peltier’s ‘Wichita AR-15.’

 

The October 2, 1975 Teletype was appealed on the basis of a discovery issue, Brady v. Maryland. (The Government considered the teletype a preliminary document and had provided complete Laboratory Reports to the Defense. The District of North Dakota Court {12/30/82} concurred that the teletype was cumulative in light of trial testimony.) Nevertheless, this unanimous decision, authored by Judge Heaney (8^th Circuit. 9/11/86), rested on U.S. v. Bagley.

 

Bendery claimed that “…the court ruled it was possible that a jury would have come to a different conclusion but could not say definitively yes.” 

 

So much for journalistic research to determine the facts. That’s not how it ended. 

 

Although Judge Heaney said this was a difficult decision, he made it based on the law, concluding “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. 

 

What part of ‘entire record’ and ‘We have not been so convinced’ is so difficult to comprehend? (The “We” of course, were Judges’ Heaney, Ross and Gibson.) This conclusion, contrary to Bendery’s imagination that the court “could not say definitively yes,” was very much a definitive, yes.

 

Quoting Justin Mazzola of Amnesty International, without even the slightest effort to verify its accuracy, is another example of Bendery’s Peltier press release reporting. 

 

Mazzola references Peltier’s extradition from Canada (relating to the Myrtle Poor Bear affidavits), and in the FBI’s letter that “It denies the FBI’s own role in using perjured testimony to secure his extradition from Canada…”

 

News Flash: This is pure Peltier folklore. For one, Myrtle Poor Bear never testified. 

 

A simple review of the Canadian Government’s position on Peltier’s extradition makes this issue crystal clear (Canadian Minister of Justice, A. Anne McLellan’s letter to A.G. Janet Reno, 10/12/99).

 

The Canadian Government was fully aware of the three Myrtle Poor Bear affidavits and determined, “I have concluded that Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States. In my opinion, given the test for committal for extradition referred to above, the circumstantial evidence, taken alone, constituted sufficient evidence to justify Mr. Peltier’s committal on the two murder charges.

Bendery misses even more readily available evidence that places the Poor Bear issue in its proper perspective. During Peltier’s trial, when the defense believed the Government may have planned calling Poor Bear as a witness, Peltier’s own attorney, John Lowe, had this to say “…a witness whose mental imbalance is so gross as to render her testimony unbelievable.” 

 

Anyone missing the point here? Mazzola’s erroneous statement, and Bendery’s lack of any research, failed to show that Peltier certainly didn’t want Poor Bear to testify, either for or against him at trial. This was the conclusive ending to the Poor Bear saga.

 

As anyone familiar with this case understands, Judge Heaney, a respected jurist, played a critical role in the Peltier matter. 

 

Bendery editorializes Judge Heaney’s 4/18/91 letter (important to note it was written eight years before the Canadian Government’s affirmation of Peltier’s extradition), and although Judge Heaney felt very strongly about Native American issues and the Peltier case, he nevertheless and honorably, made his decisions based on the law. 

 

In Judge Heaney’s letter, Bendery didn’t note or share that “No new evidence has been called to my attention which would cause me to change the conclusions reached in this case.” Nor, that he stood firm on Peltier’s guilt, “…the record persuades me that more than one person was involved in the shooting of the FBI Agents. Again, this fact is not a justification for Peltier’s actions, but is a mitigating circumstance.”

 

Bendery, Reynolds and Sharp: Do you comprehend the subtle irony here?

 

Judge Heaney, perhaps inadvertently, we will never know for certain, fortified the notion of Peltier’s aiding and abetting charge, “…more than one person was involved.” 

 

Further, in a televised interview Judge Heaney was asked if Peltier received a fair trial; “He got a fair trial, not a perfect trial, but a fair trial.” Anyone even remotely familiar with the criminal justice system recognizes that ‘perfect’ trials are indeed rare.

 

Citing erroneous statements could go much further, however, just a couple more points:

 

Bendery, from the entire history of the Peltier legal process, ironically quoted one of only two negative comments from the courts (the one other was relegated to the status of a footnote, along with a clarification and explanation). This decision was unrelated to Peltier’s murder conviction but addressed a parole appeal issue.   

 

“Much of the government’s behavior at the Pine Ridge reservation and in its prosecution is to be condemned. The government withheld evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed.”

 

This gratuitous comment aside, the government did dispute these allegations during hearings and motions to the courts. 

 

Bendery casually acknowledges that this court ruled against Peltier on the parole question, but she didn’t, and likely would not include, the court’s preceding review and conclusion of the record regarding Peltier’s actual guilt and conviction:

 

“Previous federal court decisions provided the (Parole) Commission with ample facts to support its conviction that Peltier personally shot Agents Coler and Williams.” 

 

To place a finer point on this, here is a court that criticized the government but after reviewing the legal history had no difficulty expressing Peltier’s guilt.

 

Bendery references, but does not understand that the public statements by former (South Dakota) U.S. Attorney, James H. Reynolds and his outlandish public comments and claims of involvement in the Peltier matter have been completely discredited. (AUSA Lynn Crooks, the attorney who managed the Peltier appellate process: “This claim is a gross misstatement of the record.” “To the best of my knowledge, he {Reynolds} contributed nothing what-so-ever to what went into the final brief on Direct Appeal or into any of the subsequent government briefs resisting Peltier’s numerous attempts to obtain Post Conviction Relief.”)

 

For Reynolds to publicly claim that, “We were not able to prove that Mr. Peltier personally committed any offense on the Pine Ridge Reservation,” is sadly disturbing and only demonstrates an overwhelming lack of understanding of the Peltier trial and voluminous appellate history. His motivation for such a provably false claim (Was Peltier not convicted of murder and aiding and abetting?) is suspect at best, and troubling at worst. 

 

Finally, Kevin H. Sharp, as quoted by Bendery, has made a number of claims that cannot be supported by the record, yet recently, in a public radio interview, he ventured well into the realm of libel. Sharp casts serious aspersions and allegations on the integrity, competence and fidelity to their judicial oath, against all the judges and jurists, some twenty or more, who rendered decisions in the Peltier case. This would also include sullying the memory of war hero and respected jurist, Gerald Heaney.

 

It's apparent that Ms. Bendery has no interest in the facts, record, or truth, but rather subscribes to, and promotes the Peltier myth and folklore—folklore decades in the making and manufactured on a mountain of falsehoods and provable lies. Perhaps she should write Leonard and ask him to explain what Mr. X was all about. 

 

Reality check: June 26, 1975 was a purely criminal act. 

 

If Peltier’s name was James Maloney, and the murders occurred in, let’s say, El Centro, California, no one would know his name, or for that matter, care. But for the fact that Peltier is what he is, and where it happened, is the only difference. Nevertheless, after numerous appeals, the courts upheld Peltier’s conviction for being guilty of wanton and unprovoked murder.

 

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

 

Bendery article: 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fbi-leonard-peltier-clemency-biden_n_62473d07e4b0587dee695e6e/amp

 

The Beginning:

       

The End:

Jack is on the left, Ron on the right. Both shot in the face. Ron was alive and faced Peltier, a hand raised against the muzzle of an AR-15, blowing his fingers through the back of his head. Yet, here they are, faces destroyed, lying face down. Ask Peltier which one of the cowards that day manhandled the mutilated bodies, perhaps ending their final deadly act with callous insult by counting coup. Odds are, they all did.

PELTIER: JUDGE KEVIN H. SHARP, PART 3

Dear Supporters:

The following email was sent to Peltier's attorney, Kevin Sharp, responding to a March 10th radio interview.

Dear Judge Sharp:

 

I listened to your March 10^th interview on K103.7, KAHNAWAKE Radio and found it compelling. Of the many topics you discussed, there are several that beg for a response:

 

1) 60 Murders of AIM members and supporters “that were not investigated by the FBI.”

 

Actually, they were, and they were not all AIM members or supporters. 

 

In July 2000 the FBI responded to allegations from the original Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC) claiming, at that time, 64 ‘murders’ on Pine Ridge were never investigated, although then, 10 were not even named by Peltier or the LPDC. (The Peltier ‘committees’ number of ‘murders’ has varied over the years.)

 

In any event, of the 57 named victims provided to the FBI, the deaths included: Child abuse 3, domestic violence 4, alcohol related 5, robbery 2, fights/personal disputes 14, vehicular homicide 4, accidental shooting 2, health reasons 2, suicide 1, accidental 2, and no record, 1. 

 

Of those named; 21 resulted in federal convictions and/or trials, 1 in a local conviction, 22 were investigated but did not result in convictions for a number of valid reasons and 11 were not within FBI jurisdiction. One very important name, Anna Mae Aquash, who was murdered in December 1975 (the same Anna Mae who Leonard stuck a gun in her mouth accusing her of being an informant—she wasn’t—but AIM ordered her execution anyway). Decades later, AIM members, Arlo Looking Cloud (2004) and John Graham (2014) were convicted of her murder. 

 

During the interview you claimed that these “murders” were of “AIM members or supporters.” 

 

Clearly, these should not include; Michelle Linda Tobacco, age nine months, Floyd Sherman Binals, age sixteen months and Yvette Loraine Lone Hill, age seven; especially considering how they died. 

 

However, what this comes down to is that the Peltier “murders never investigated” claim, is fiction. 

 

Mr. Sharp, as a former federal judge, and now Peltier attorney, who undoubtedly desires to preserve your reputation, have you verified whether Peltier’s claims are true? If you haven’t been able to, then this is promoting a false narrative and supporting more Peltier myth and folklore. 

 

Please take a moment and review the names and circumstances of their deaths that—were investigated; http://www.noparolepeltier.com/response.html#7

Attached for further reference is the May 2000 FBI booklet; Accounting for Native American Deaths, Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota.

 

Now that you have the opportunity to research and determine the truth, I would hope that this Peltier fable can be put to rest. 

 

Please feel free to challenge—or debate, any of the findings. As we both know and understand, in some investigations, especially involving situations where tensions are high, that securing cooperation and corroborating and supporting evidence, is very challenging. No excuse, just a realistic fact.

 

2) “Why did he shoot him?” Well, Joe (Killsright) Stuntz (who was still wearing the FBI jacket he stole from the trunk of Agent Coler’s vehicle—as he gave Leonard a smile), was shooting at responding Agents and law enforcement. 

 

Peter Matthiessen can help you understand this unfolding event. 

 

After the Agents were murdered and Peltier and the others were making their getaway “…Peltier, Robideau, and Butler returned to the camp to load Sam Loud Hawks’ red and white van for an escape: they left Joe Killsright and Norman Charles as a rear guard in the compound to delay anyone who tried to approach.” “…Wish Draper went back up the hill to tell Joe to hurry up. He returned with Norman Charles, followed by Anderson and Brown: Charles told the older men that Joe was dead.” (Crazy Horse, p. 159-160)

 

“Delay anyone” didn’t mean that Stuntz and Charles would greet responding Agents and Police with casual conversation. They were armed and the “delay” meant using their rifles.

 

“Why did he shoot him?” It's a fairly simple premise that if you shoot at law enforcement, chances are pretty strong they will shoot back. Hence, the defensive shooting of Joe Stuntz.

 

3) “Not extradited because there was no evidence.” This was your discussion concerning the Myrtle Poor Bear affidavits. 

 

Actually, the Canadian Government was pretty clear about Peltier’s extradition. I would offer for you to read what the Canadian Department of Justice stated about this matter, in case the Peltier committee didn’t share it with you, (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, A. Anne McLellan, 10/12/99): 

 

“As I indicated above, I have concluded that Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States. In my opinion, given the test for committal for extradition referred to above, the circumstantial evidence, taken alone, constituted sufficient evidence to justify Mr. Peltier’s committal on the two murder charges.” “Further, the third Poor Bear affidavit was considered by the Federal Court of Appeal and the Minister of Justice before Mr. Peltier was extradited to the United States. Subsequently, further submissions respecting the third Poor Bear affidavit were made to the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the appellate courts in the United States.” http://www.noparolepeltier.com/canadaletter.html

 

During your interview, the sole inferred conclusion that Poor Bear was “…how they got extradition,” is incorrect. 

 

Exactly what part of ‘taken alone’ and ‘further submissions’ is so difficult for Peltier and his supporters to understand?

 

Further, regarding Myrtle Poor Bear, Peltier’s own attorney, John Lowe, believing the Government may have planned calling her as a witness at Peltier’s trial, said “…a witness whose mental imbalance is so gross as to render her testimony unbelievable.” In other words, the affidavits notwithstanding, Peltier certainly didn’t want her to testify, for or against him, at his trial.  

 

4) The critical shell casing and the 10/2/1975 FBI Laboratory teletype: 

 

The government did not believe the teletype was part of the discovery process because it was a preliminary document, rather than the final lab ‘reports.’  Eighth Circuit Court Judge Gerald Heaney disagreed and sent Peltier’s appeal back to the District Court for a 1984, 3-day evidentiary (ballistics) hearing. The District Court denied, and Peltier appealed again to the Eighth Circuit and we all know what happened then. Judge Heaney, with a majority opinion, denied Peltier’s motion for a new trial based on the Bagley test, “…that we be convinced, from a review of the entire record, that the jury probably would have reached a different result. We have not been so convinced.” 

 

Exactly what part of ‘entire record’ and ‘not convinced’ is so difficult for Peltier and his supporters to comprehend?

 

Any thorough discussion regarding the ballistics evidence must include that it was resolved. 

 

It was obvious that Judge Heaney felt strongly about Native American issues and the Peltier case. However, he made his decision based on the law and in his letters, recommending clemency, he never suggested that Peltier was not guilty. He also stated in a television interview “He got a fair trial, not a perfect trial, but a fair trial” 

 

5) Judge Sharp, respectfully, even just a mention of James H. Reynolds weakens any support of Peltier. Reynolds’s claims in letters and an interview are unsupportable. Reynolds has no credibility regarding Peltier’s conviction or appellate process. If there is any doubt, please read what follows and give him a call:  http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2022/01/peltier-president-biden-james-reynolds.html Further references regarding James H. Reynolds are included here in footnotes: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2021/06/peltier-is-forgotten-story-james.html

 

6) You stated during the interview that “We know they were not in the pickup.” 

 

This presumes you reference the government’s position that Peltier, Norman Charles and Joe Stuntz were in Sam Loud Hawk’s suburban (alternately describe as a van, and known to be used regularly by Peltier after he repaired it), and this was the vehicle followed by Agents’ Coler and Williams and the same vehicle and occupants from which (according to eyewitness Ron Williams on the FBI radio), started the unprovoked attack on the Agents. 

I would be very interested in seeing the origin and proof of where “We Know” comes from.

Could it be from Peltier himself, who has repeatedly changed his version of events and has a proven track record of lies? 

As a former federal judge, now defending Peltier, his lack of consistency over the years regarding the facts makes your advocacy very difficult. Passions aside, your position carries the ethical duty of not misrepresenting the facts, while endeavoring to vigorously defend your client. This is made all the more difficult because there are no remaining legal avenues to pursue; only commutation or parole. In the light of day, however, the truth and facts weigh heavily against your client.

Peltier claimed he was in the AIM camp about to eat pancakes and have some hot black coffee that “…was cut short by the staccato sound of gunfire” (Prison Writings, p. 121). That’s what he claimed anyway. Remember too, for nearly two decades Peltier also promoted the lie of Mr. X as the killer.

Yet, according to Peltier’s defense team, Angie Long Visitor was characterized as a “critical and material” witness. Angie testified to seeing the red and white (1966 Chevrolet) van, owned by Sam Loud Hawk, but used by Peltier, at the “Y” fork on the Jumping Bull property. (Testimony & Matthiessen’s, Crazy Horse, p. 332) (The location of the van at the “Y” fork is significant to the unfolding events. Please, at least view Matthiessen’s map of the Jumping Bull property; in the Crazy Horse-Introduction.) 

A shell, or bullet, casing located in this van, (along with the shell casing from the trunk of Agent Coler’s vehicle) were referenced in a court decision as a result of the three-day ‘ballistics’ hearing: “Later examination of the remaining .223 bullet casings submitted in connection with

 {F. Supp. 1159} the RESMURS case, resulted in approximately 114 positive identifications with the Wichita AR-15.” (U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, May 22, 1985)

 

The location of Peltier’s red and white van at the “Y” fork on the Jumping Bull property, and a hundred and fourteen (114) shell casings matched with Peltier’s AR-15, could certainly account for a number of the bullet holes in the Agents’ vehicles, along with Peltier’s location at the time of the unprovoked attack.

 

AND HERE ARE MORE, IMPORTANT POINTS:

 

7) The Oath:

 

You made the analogy that several times in your life, the Navy, the Bar, the federal bench, you took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and repeated at least twice, that in Peltier’s case “Constitutional violations were open and obvious,” and that were “committed by others who took the same oath.” 

 

Judge Sharp, I’m certain you recognize that this is a seriously consequential accusation. 

 

We both understand the emotional nexus in the Peltier saga. However, by implying that the justice system, and those jurists involved, ruled against Peltier with deliberate malice, may tarnish your reputation through overzealous advocacy. 

 

I have not tallied all of Peltier’s motions and appeals, only those related to Peltier’s conviction and appeals. I am aware that there were many others, including at least parole and FOIPA issues. As a result, the Peltier matter has been before a number of judges. The total could reach twenty or even more over the years, and yet you imply that these judges all missed or allowed open and obvious Constitutional violations to occur.

 

Would all those Judges who served, arguably many decades of professional judicial service, with dignity and honor, have deliberately violated their oath to the Constitution in the Peltier case? Certainly, one would hope you are not implying (as Peltier has repeatedly) some grand, over-arching conspiracy against Peltier, or perhaps rampant judicial incompetence and possible misconduct. There are significant odds that those jurists would find your characterization offensive, or worse. 

 

By your own implication, one of those who failed their oath would include Judge Gerald Heaney; certainly, someone who played a critical role in the Peltier matter. 

 

To place this in its proper perspective, this is how the Honorable Gerald Heaney, (May he Rest in Peace), was described in www.noparolepeltier.com:

 

“Gerald Heaney was truly one of America’s Greatest Generation. At the outbreak of WWII, as a young lawyer, he could have avoided the heat of battle and used his legal qualifications in a safe stateside, or behind the front-lines, assignment. Instead, he enlisted as a private and then sought a U.S. Army commission and became a young infantry officer, qualified as a prestigious Army Ranger and participated in the D-Day invasion. He earned a Silver Star, and fought in several battles through the end of war in Europe. His courage can neither be denied nor ignored. Judge Heaney was also a jurist of impeccable reputation and experience”—obviously, by upholding the oath he swore to. 

 

Yet, you apparently appear to so casually demean, and dismiss his character and years of judicial service. 

 

Can either of us, with our predictable human faults and personal achievements, measure up to such an incredible person as Judge Heaney? As for myself, I would be humble and suggest not.

 

As you described your judicial quest, you had met the professional traits necessary to become a judge, acknowledging your own temperament, integrity and judgement; qualifications you ascribe for yourself but apparently and openly deny to others.

 

8) Changed Theory:

 

It is bewildering that an attorney and former federal judge, who has purportedly reviewed the Peltier matter, the trial transcript and multiple appellate decisions, can continue the false narrative that the government changed its theory of the prosecution. 

 

Judge Sharp, you have repeatedly made this claim but have not provided specifics as to how this actually occurred. As a former federal judge, you certainly understand that broad and sweeping claims are just not sufficient and now only echo Peltier’s fabrications regarding his conviction and appeals. 

 

As previously mentioned, aiding and abetting was on the table from day one. That bears repeating; aiding and abetting was integral to Peltier’s prosecution from the very beginning. 

 

Peltier was indicted on November 17, 1975 for ‘murder’ and ‘aiding and abetting’ and warrants were issued based on those charges: And, at the conclusion of Peltier’s trial, even jury instructions that included aiding and abetting were agreed upon by the government and defense. 

 

No mystery, no secrets, no magic, yet the provable falsehood is repeated as if saying it enough times will make it true. 

 

This “fatally flawed” conclusion was rejected by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1993:

“It is impossible to conclude that, in all the circumstances, (AUSA) Crooks…intended…to abandon one of the two theories upon which the government had tried the case and upon which the case was submitted to the jury.” (i.e., aiding and abetting)

 

What part of ‘impossible’ and ‘upon which’ are such a challenge for Peltier supporters to grasp?

                                                             * * *

 

I have not seen the latest clemency petition, but would certainly like to. I can’t imagine that it contains anything new or exceptional but would like the opportunity to respond to the issues it offers. I would appreciate a copy. Previously, Peltier posted the petitions on his website.

 

It would be encouraging if any future media statements included more elements of the actual record. However, removing ‘contested facts’' from the Peltier narrative would result in a very short interview. 

 

Most respectfully, for your reputation and posterity, I would urge you to review the facts in greater detail, contrasting the entire record with Peltier’s public statements, feigned innocence, years of fabrications and an alleged wrongful conviction. On balance, you may just find the actual truth disturbing. 

 

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams
Ed Woods

The Beginning:  

                       

 

The End: Jack is on the left, Ron on the right.

The Interview, March 10, 2022:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tuMvVGP3TyFwvKGtvQnvN68n5YX59DN6/view?fbclid=IwAR3PjYxZ84wPWCE0XZUnjttY1x3ETl2IEZJfBSgEqjoElGCaBCJ7EkM7ceA