PELTIER: 20 YEARS LATER

No Parole Peltier Association (NPPA)

Twenty Years Later

April 3^rd 2000 marked a significant date in the saga of convicted murderer Leonard Peltier. 

On that day there was a chance meeting with FBI Agent Coler’s son. Paul was but one and a half when his father, Special Agent Jack R. Coler was brutally murdered along with his partner, Ronald A. Williams, in a desolate corner of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota on June 26, 1975.

The brief encounter led to a greater interest in Leonard Peltier and that evening an Internet search revealed a host of websites and references demanding the parole, pardon or clemency of political prisoner Leonard Peltier. 

Every page of Peltier’s website was downloaded and reviewed. Peltier’s “defense committee” directed its supporters to read In the Spirit of Crazy Horse (ITSOCH) by Peter Matthiessen and watch the “documentary,” Incident at Oglala by Robert Redford. 

At that time Peltier had the Internet to himself except for a section of the FBI Minneapolis website entitled RESMURS (Reservation Murders). That detailed and factual account was also thoroughly reviewed.

However, the problem was that the FBI was not in a position to challenge Peltier in the public domain.

Watching “Incident” nine times (a screenplay of Matthiessen’s book; certainly not a documentary), and focusing on every word in the 634 pages of ITSOCH along with the unbelievable and outrageous claims made in Peltier’s own book, Prison Writings, left no doubt that the myth and folklore surrounding Peltier was unmistakable. These resources provided the public with a skewed and inaccurate scenario, faux facts as it were. There were numerous contradictions, fabrications and some transparent lies of what actually happened that sultry June day on the Jumping Bull property.

The next step was to secure all the appellate filings and decisions, nearly two dozen in all, to factually refute Peltier’s feigned claims of innocence and an alleged wrongful conviction.

What followed was a decision to go public and just twenty-seven days later, on April 30^th the No Parole Peltier Association and its companion website were launched.

It was evident that Peltier was incapable of accurately reciting details of his own conviction and appellate history while he changed his account of what happened and fabricated a nearly two-decades-long lie (his alibi) that the phantom “Mr. X” was the one who killed the Agents, driving off in the infamous red pickup. This fiction was publically refuted by another protagonist, Dino Butler, who participated in the carnage that fateful day. Nevertheless, in one of several filmed media interviews Peltier said, “This story is true.” Well, it wasn’t. It remains a lie. A lie Peltier and his supporters try desperately to ignore.

The goal of the NPPA was apparent; to never forget, and to honor the sacrifice in the line-of-duty murders of FBI Agents’ Jack Coler and Ron Williams and to confront—head on—Peltier’s alleged innocence and offensive claims. Claims that Peltier supporters accept without a second thought.

Early on, a logo for the NPPA was created:

Heraldry of the NPPA logo: The colors, deep black contrasted with bright and shining gold represent the divergence of opinions of those on each side of the Peltier issue. Within the logo are two circles representing the narrow and continuous path followed by those in the law enforcement profession as they set aside personal interests in favor of the common good and protecting the life and liberty of the citizenry. A simple, “In Memory” to honor all those who have given their lives in the line-of-duty. The badge, worn proudly by those who raised their right hand and took a solemn oath. A banner, reaching out to touch both sides of the inner circle representing the camaraderie of those who have chosen to be part of a special calling. And, the date, June 26, 1975, of the End-of-Watch of two brave young men carrying out their sworn and lawful duties who were wounded, murdered, and left in an isolated corner of South Dakota.

The first public challenge to Peltier was met with their filing of a federal civil suit naming FBI Director Freeh and others, which would be repeated again along with more threats of court action as well as personal and slanderous anti-NPPA Internet attacks, and the launching of a counterfeit NPPA website. Peltier, his “defense committee” and sycophantic followers had no tolerance to having exposed, or to defend, their erroneous facts. The NPPA prevailed against the federal suits. They were summarily dismissed, the second one with prejudice.

Among many of Peltier’s outrageous claims was:

 “I can’t believe that the FBI intended the deaths of their own agents…nor does it jibe with the fact that scores, even hundreds, of FBI agents, marshals, BIA police…were all lying in wait in the immediate vicinity…they’d barge in on that phony pretext, draw some show of resistance…then pounce on the compound with massive force.” 

On another occasion Peltier claimed that the Agents were shooting when they came onto the Jumping Bull property. Another falsehood.

Over the years Peltier has gone to great lengths to denigrate the memory and sacrifice of Agents’ Coler and Williams. 

But Peltier, as he is wont to do, with a predictably skewed and selective memory ignores the irrefutable fact that there was an eyewitness to exactly how the shooting began. Ron Williams was overheard on the FBI radio that he and Jack Coler were following a vehicle, that it had stopped and the occupants were getting out and appeared to be preparing to shoot at them. They heard Ron’s call for assistance. They heard him say that if they didn’t get there soon they would be dead. They heard him get shot. The transmission ended.

Peltier has feigned innocence and remains wholly unrepentant. These are just a few of his shallow public statements:

“And really, if necessary, I’d do it all over again because it was the right thing to do.” (Leonard Peltier, February 2010)

“I don’t regret any of this for a minute.” (Leonard Peltier, August 2014)

These statements are not taken out of context. They were made without any exceptions or qualifications and relate directly to the events of June 26, 1975.

As incredible as it may seem, Peltier’s attorneys allowed him to make this startling admission in his latest bid for clemency:

“I did not wake up on that June 26 planning to injure or shoot federal agents, and did not gain anything from participating in the incident.” (Emphasis added)

Peltier has offered numerous statements against his own self-interests. One, among many, was made to his biographer Peter Matthiessen:   

“I seen Joe (Joe Stuntz) when he pulled it out of the trunk (Agent Coler’s FBI jacket) and I looked at him when he put it on, and he gave me a smile.”

Really? A smile? While two dead and mutilated human beings lay at their feet.

That is the Leonard Peltier everyone must remember.

In 2004 the NPPA made a “Pilgrimage to Pine Ridge.” It was an effort to see where Peltier’s infamy began and life ended for two outstanding young men.

Peltier made a pathetic attempt at an apology to the Agents’ families that was, at best, self-centered, and as the families related, thoroughly insulting.

“You, the agents’ families, certainly weren’t at fault that day in 1975, any more than my family was…Let those prayers be the balm for your sorrow, not an innocent man’s continuous imprisonment…I cannot see how my being here, torn from my own grandchildren, can possibly mend your loss. I swear to you, I am guilty only of being an Indian. That’s why I’m here. Being who I am, being who you are—that’s Aboriginal Sin.”

Need anymore be said?

Peltier’s conviction and sentence have been upheld during nearly two-dozen appeals, twice reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied certiorari. Among many other court findings is:

“The record as a whole leaves no doubt that the jury accepted the government’s theory that Peltier had personally killed the two agents, after they were seriously wounded by shooting them at point blank range with an AR-15 rifle.” (Rule 35 Motion, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, December 18, 2002) (Emphasis added)

Along with shallow claims of philanthropic activities, suspicious attempts to claim tax-deductible donations, shameless efforts to raise money for his ‘defense fund,’ seeking special treatment and probably running an illegal business within the prison system, along with other aspects, are the foundation of Peltier’s perpetual myth and folklore. There are additional elements of the Peltier saga and efforts by the NPPA: Presidents’ Clinton and Obama both saw through the ruse and denied clemency, Peltier’s 2009 parole hearing resulted in him being flopped for another fifteen years, along with failed attempts for (an undeserved) compassionate release. 

Peltier’s loathsome and cowardly act makes him no more than a tired metaphor who can be likened to an overripe onion where each layer of myth and folklore hides what lies beneath. But peal away each successive layer until they are all removed and what is left? Nothing. Nothing but a brutal convicted double-murderer; so concluded the Fargo jury and every subsequent court reviewing his conviction and sentence.

Peltier’s repeated response to challenges are convoluted. He at once plays the victim and victor: The innocent Indian who had to pay the government’s price for the Agents’ deaths, or likewise, the wannabe Warrior who stood up for his people. Both claims are meaningless drivel.

The successful objective of the NPPA has been to thoroughly debunk the spurious, disingenuous and often fraudulent claims made by Leonard Peltier concerning his trial, conviction, sentence, the events on Pine Ridge, and beyond.

Peltier will remain serving his justified sentence as the No Parole Peltier Association continues its mission to remember the sacrifice of Jack and Ron and follow any developments relating to the principal coward of Jumping Bull.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

 

PELTIER: AND ROBERT REDFORD; Repost

REPOSTED FROM REZINATE:
https://rezinate.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/raising-ones-voice/

"I am very hopeful and will raise my voice in any way." Robert Redford

The above statement by Redford in 2014 related to clemency for Leonard Peltier.

I am an advocate for raising one’s voice, in taking a stand, but I also believe in doing so it should be for valid reasons.

The media characterized this statement along with others made by Redford in an op ed as a renewal of commitment - but I question such a commitment when it fails to acknowledge additional issues surrounding Peltier and incriminating statements made by Peltier himself over the years.

In Redford’s “documentary” titled Incident at Oglala much was made in part of “conspiracies” and the now infamous Mr.X - both presented as fact, and yet the years have shown X was an outright fabrication.

A fabrication perpetuated both by Redford’s unwillingness to address it and Peltier’s historical references to the “truth” of X and what a standup “brother” he was.
If in fact X did exist, which former Peltier attorney Kuzma publicly admitted he did not, the question could only arise how could a stand up brother allow a person who is “innocent” to remain imprisoned and do the time for them?

Then there’s the story about a warrant fthat led to agents Williams and Coler being on the rez that was about the theft of an “old pair of boots” as though the feds have jurisdiction over what would amount to a misdemeanor or low grade felony when they did not.

Indeed a pair of boots was stolen, but the warrant was about much more than that, it was about assault and unlawful detention among other things.

I don’t believe Redford has ever addressed the Peltier at gunpoint interrogation of Annie Mae Pictou Aquash or the high probably of her murder being related to Peltier’s boasting in front of her that he had indeed executed at close range at least one of the agents.

No mention was made either of the arrest Wisconsin warrant for Peltier I am convinced led Peltier to believe when Williams and Coler showed up they were after him and precipitated their murder, certainly such things as mentioned would be germane to character.

Nothing, not a single shred of evidence has ever emerged either they or the feds were aware of Peltier’s presence.

If Redford sees himself as a documentarian an obvious subject would be the murder of Annie, Perry Ray Robinson jr. or the destruction of WK2 - but then such a documentary would seriously devalue his previous effort and raise a lot questions.

It would be one thing if Redford or other Peltier supporters acknowledged the discrepancies in the midst of their support, failing to do so could easily be interpreted as indifference, or an effort to save face.

If the latter, better I think to maintain the distance and silence.

PELTIER: HORRIBLE PARENTS

HORRIBLE PARENTS:

AND WHAT THEY TEACH THEIR CHILDREN

“We Will Too” Part Two

Dear Supporters:

The December 15, 2014* NPPA Blog editorialized the “I Will” Clemency Campaign, YouTube video (Footnote 1) describing that the participants are being scammed by the Peltier myth and supporting the disproven folklore by participating in a process that is all passion with no substance. All the supporters are either blind to Peltier’s guilt or clueless about the facts, or, if they do understand what actually happened, could care less, which is even worse (Fn.2).

However, even if we do accept that at least the Native American children being used as sympathetic props have a vested interest in their own history, shame on those adults and parents who pushed their smiling faces into the camera to support cold-blooded murder.

The most offensive segment of the video comes at two minutes and fifty-three seconds when the handsome, smiling, white couple, holding their beautiful young daughter, proclaim, in unison, “We will” (Fn.3)

If we had the parents’ names, they would be identified here.

However, let’s give their daughter a name; let’s call her, “Annie.”

Annie, in memory of Anna Mae Aquash who had a gun stuck in her mouth by Leonard Peltier trying to force her to admit she was an FBI informant. She did not admit it. History proved she was not. Anna Mae, during their escape from Pine Ridge after the agents’ murders was unfortunate enough to have heard, along with others, Peltier’s confession that he killed the agents; “The M’Fer begged for his life, but I shot him anyway” (Fn.4). However, that didn’t deter the American Indian Movement (AIM) leadership from believing otherwise that Anna Mae was an informant—and at that point—she knew too much. It is strongly speculated that Peltier, in order to protect himself, certainly acquiesced to the final decision. Anna Mae was kidnapped, (concurrent with the assistance and knowledge of AIM attorney, Bruce Ellison), raped, shot in the head and dumped in a ravine on the Reservation. The nobility of AIM is almost as great a fallacy as Peltier’s, and using his own self-descriptor, being a brave warrior (Fn.5). Nonsense to both.

So, this white couple, for now lets call them, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who have no apparent personal investment in Native American history are showing the world what truly horrible parents they are. Their parenting skills are not just absent, they are destructive.

This is the lesson young Annie is beginning to learn and will, no doubt, grow up with:

— Annie, it’s OK to express your anger and dissatisfaction with a situation involving law enforcement officials and to shoot them, whether or not they are in a position to defend themselves.

— Annie, we, your parents, want you to understand that it isn’t important to know the facts and the truth of a situation before you speak-up about something you feel is an injustice.

— Annie, we want you to follow us, and our beliefs. We don’t want you to be able to thoughtfully analyze an important issue and come to an informed decision based on the truth and facts, but instead, just go with the emotions that we’re imparting to you.

— Annie, in a situation where police officers, or in this instance, FBI agents, are mortally wounded, it’s permissible to shoot them in the face, instantly killing them. Understand, as Leonard taught us; dead men make poor witnesses.

— Annie, it’s really all right, if after you murder two human beings, in this case, federal agents, to steal their weapons, make an escape and later claim that you were brave and did it for ‘your people.’

— Annie, it’s certainly permissible to have sympathy for the First Americans by lionizing someone who has hijacked that storied heritage for his own fraudulent and twisted benefit. Really, it’s OK that Leonard did that.

— Annie, when someone has admitted that he has absolutely no remorse for killing two human beings, and has said publically “I never thought my commitment would mean sacrificing like this, but I was willing to do so nonetheless. And really, if necessary, I’d do it all over again, because it was the right thing to do.” And, “I don’t regret any of this for a minute,” your mother and I are telling you that this is acceptable behavior. That’s right, Annie, no matter how vile and criminal someone’s actions may be, it doesn’t matter at all whether they have the least bit of remorse or conscience. Society’s mores just don’t matter to you or us as long as it makes us feel better (Fn.6).

— Annie, just so you know, those FBI agents who were murdered, their names were Jack Coler and Ron Williams by the way, had families of their own. Matter of fact, Jack had two young sons; they were one and a half and three, close to your age now. Those two children grew up never knowing their own father. But, sweetie, it doesn’t matter that much because it’s been nearly forty years and those boys are all grown up now anyway. Besides, Leonard has been in jail for thirty-nine years and that’s long enough. You see he is a Native American and because America treated the First Americans so badly, you, your father, and I, must ignore and forget what Leonard did.

— Annie, what may be fun for us to do, if Leonard gets out he will no doubt be asked to speak about his long incarceration and we’ll gladly pay to hear him. Maybe we can get him to autograph his book for you. See, sweetie, it will be just fine for Leonard to tell the fables we have accepted and make money from the murder of those two young men. After all, honey, that’s what free speech is all about, and what’s wrong with a little capitalism along the way and Leonard makes some money in the process.

— Annie, you have to understand that the FBI says Leonard has told many lies, changed his version of what happened that day on the Reservation and has made self-incriminating public statements that prove his guilt beyond all doubt. (Sweetie, “self-incriminating” means that Leonard has said things to many other people that prove he is guilty and did kill those two FBI agents.) We know he has said those things and that many judges reviewed his case, but we don’t care. He’s a poor persecuted Indian and we have to forget all that and just support him. That would make us, and you, feel much better. Then we don’t have to worry about that white-man’s guilt stuff because we helped a convicted murderer go free.

* * *

Mr. and Mrs. Jones are guilty of the worst kind of child abuse; emotional abuse of their little Annie by fostering a pattern of behavior that will seriously interfere or completely destroy her cognitive, emotional, psychological and social development. They are engaged in emotional child manipulation by exploiting and corrupting, where the child is being taught, encouraged, or maybe even forced to develop inappropriate or illegal behavior. They are laying the groundwork for future destructive or antisocial acts and that criminal behavior—in this instance cold-blooded murder—is socially acceptable and that she should laud and celebrate a killer.

Mr. and Mrs. Jones need some serious education on the realities and facts of the Incident at Oglala along with some intense counseling on how to intelligently and responsibly raise a thoughtful and socially balanced child.

So far, they are doing a horrible job**.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

* December 15, coincidentally the 14^th anniversary of the dignified procession to the White House: see paragraph #59 http://www.noparolepeltier.com/pine.html and for more details http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#1

**aka Mr. and Mrs. Jones are welcomed, at any time, to contact justice@noparolepeltier.com to learn the truth about Peltier, his conviction, denied appeals and public statements. The challenge is there to go beyond the Peltier rhetoric and lies and understand that you are on a fool’s errand. Leonard Peltier is the last Indian to assuage the treatment of First Americans…but you are too blind to see it. The challenge is given. Odds are, you have neither the courage of your convictions nor the intellect to seek the answers to the questions you’re really afraid to ask. So, no, like other Peltierites, I don’t expect to hear from either of you. It wouldn’t fit the liberal Peltier narrative.

Footnotes:

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBPfEHhFJ-0

2) Weslie Studie, Jackson Browne, Carlos Santana, Sheila Tousey, Tom Morello, Peter Gabriel, Thomas Poor Bear, Peter Coyote, Harry Belafonte, Michael Moore, Pamela Anderson, Nelson Mandella, Robert Redford, Hanoi Jane, aka Mr. & Mrs. Jones,

ET. AL.

3) “Mr. Jones” appears with his daughter at 3:03, “Mrs. Jones” appears also at 3:42.

4) http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2015/02/peltier-i-am-reporter.html

5) Regarding Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash: http://www.americanindianmafia.com/audio/GunInHerMouthReMix.wmv

Regarding AIM attorney Bruce Ellison:

https://rezinate.wordpress.com/tag/bruce-ellison/

6) http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2015/02/peltier-i-am-reporter.html

https://rezinate.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/justice-for-leonard-peltier/

Dear Mr. Redford; Re: Leonard Peltier

Edward Woods

P.O. Box 54667

Cincinnati, Ohio 45254-0667

April 20, 2014

Mr. Robert Redford

Sundance Institute

180 Varick Street, Suite 1330

New York, New York 10014

                                                                                              Re: Leonard Peltier

                                                                                                     CBC Interview
                                                                                                     April 4, 2014

Dear Mr. Redford:

It was with great interest that I listened to your recent CBC radio interview with Michael Enright.

I found it compelling for the many points raised regarding Leonard Peltier’s conviction and subsequent incarceration. Since his arrest on February 6, 1976, his trial in Fargo in 1977 and your visit with him at Marion in 1980, the facts surrounding his case have been lost or adulterated during thirty-eight years of evolving myth and folklore about who Leonard Peltier actually is, the details of June 26, 1975 and his subsequent conviction and appeals.

I would first like to address just one of the many areas you and Mr. Enright discussed,

“…that of illegality involved in his extradition.”

Please find enclosed a very telling document dated October 12, 1999 from the Canadian Minister of Justice to U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno. The review and details included are clear and concise, along with its conclusion that “…Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States.”

Since the radio interview emphasized your concern regarding the facts, I would hope that you would take the time to review the enclosed letter and perhaps respond so we can have a meaningful dialogue. There were many other points where the details are available and clarification necessary.

Sincerely,

Edw. Woods

Edward Woods

(See Minister of Justice letter at: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/canadaletter.html)

ROBERT REDFORD...RE PELTIER; TRANSCRIPT, April 4, 2014

TRANSCRIPT

Robert Redford

Radio Interview; April 4 2014

INTRODUCTION:

1) Commentary on Robert Redford’s interview is available on the No Parole Peltier Association blog available from the homepage, www.noparolepleltier.com.

2) What follows is the transcript of an interview of Robert Redford on April 4, 2014 with the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC podcast and Sirius XM Radio), narrated by Michael Enright.

3) The reference to the 1988 Redford film Incident at Oglala (copyright 1992 Miramax Films release) contains the follow advertising for the DVD version:

“A Murder. A mystery. A mockery of justice? What are the facts? And what is the truth?  In 1975, armed FBI agents illegally entered the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Gunfire erupted—a Native American and two FBI agents fell dead. After the largest manhunt in FBI history, three men were apprehended—only one, Leonard Peltier, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. This is his story.

From the very beginning, Peltier’s case has been dogged with controversy. Were the charges trumped up? Was the evidence falsified? Were witnesses pressured to change their testimony? Many people, including some of today’s greatest legal minds, believe that Peltier is an innocent man.

Twelve years ago, Robert Redford visited Leonard Peltier in prison. Today, after years of struggle with the FBI and the prison system, he and director Michael Apted (Gorillas in the Mist, Coal Miner’s Daughter) are able to present INCIDENT AT OGLALA—a riveting examination of the case and the real story of what may be one of the most outrageous abuses of justice in American history.”

* * *

CBC program entitled:  “Robert Redford on Leonard Peltier: Robert Redford discusses why he supports the release of imprisoned American Indian Movement leader Leonard Peltier. Peltier was illegally extradited from Canada in 1977 and was convicted of the murder of two FBI agents in what many call an unfair trial.

* * *

(Program begins with a voiceover excerpt of Dino Butler from the Redford produced and narrated film Incident at Oglala.)

Enright:   The story of what happened that day in 1975 when FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams were shot and killed on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, has been told. In the 1992 award-winning documentary Incident at Oglala, which was produced and narrated by Robert Redford, three men were charged in the killings and two men were found not guilty. Leonard Peltier, a leading member of the American Indian Movement was extradited from Canada in 1977 and was convicted of killing both Coler and Williams. He was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. For 38 years he has been moved from prison to prison around the United States. He is currently in the high security Coleman Penitentiary in Florida.  He and his many supporters who have included Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and Harry Bellefonte have always maintained that he was illegally extradited and convicted in an unfair trial. All of his legal appeals have been exhausted and he has been denied parole. His next parole hearing will not be until 2024 when he will be 79 years old. Leonard Peltier is in failing health. In a letter written in February he has said he wants to go home to die.

Robert Redford is in New York this morning. Mr. Redford, welcome to the program.

Redford: My pleasure, thank you.

Enright: This concern about Mr. Peltier’s health, you know he has diabetes, he’s had prostate problems, can you tell us anything now about the state of his physical health?

Redford: No, I think you’ve just underlined it pretty well, I think over time, I think the incarceration, the stress of that, the confinement of that, I don’t think that’s good for anybody’s health. I can tell you this, that I visited him in 1980 shortly after he was incarcerated…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: When I visited…well first of all my, um, my personal history of this…let me be...starting with the fact that for many, many years since I was quite young, I’ve been interested in Indian history and Indian affairs, so I think that leads into this…

Enright: Right.

Redford: This happened, I was obviously, I was pre…predisposed to be interested in it. Now, I had just made a film in 1979 called Brubaker, about a warden. And what I heard was, I heard about the incident at Oglala, and I’d heard a lot about it…ah, and what came to me was, if you could get to this prison, the security prison in Illinois…um, the word is that he’d been transferred to this prison, but his life was in danger…

Enright: Right.

Redford: There were people who would like to see him taken out. And his life was in danger in prison. And he’s so deeply confining, he’s so much down in the bottom of the barrel so to speak inside the jail. Maybe if you drew attention to him being there, it might save his life. Now that’s how it was presented to me, whether that was true or not, I don’t know. But because of the possibility, I said yes, I’ll go. So I went to Illinois in 1980…

Enright: This is in Marion.

Redford: Marion.

Redford: …and I went there to see him and I remember the feeling I had, and I can only project that onto what he must feeling after 38 years, and that is, as you go into a prison and they slam doors behind you get deeper, deeper into this confined area. And it gets pretty spooky…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …because you realize that for each door that slams that you’re further away from freedom. And so when I finally got to see him, apparently I was told I was the first person that could see him live, even his own family has not been allowed to see him…he had to be…there was a glass…was a glass thing that separated them…

Enright: Really?

Redford: And so, maybe they were trying to put on their best behavior, I don’t know,  the prison, I don’t know, but I remember the feeling I had when I went to see him. And he looked at me and there was something so forlorn…now mind you this was only a few years after he had been imprisoned so he was still in reasonable health. He had a bad eye, I remember that.

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: Um, but he was in reasonable health, and he was mixed in terms of his optimism, he was hopefully optimistic, but also realistic at the same time. So we talked. I felt, obviously, I was trying to be neutral in my feelings about him…because I thought that…I didn’t want to be taken in by anything…

Enright: Right.

Redford: I did feel that, um, of course there’s going to be desperation to a person in prison trying to get the word out and maybe use another person to get it out, I appreciate that. But I came out of it very sympathetic to him and I felt that he did not receive a fair trial and the other two that were involved in the same incident went to trial and were acquitted. And I think that that leads us to another area here and I think that is this whole business that involves the FBI.

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: The FBI, cause I was told, I got pretty involved in exploring this and interviewing people and going to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, speaking to people there and it was pretty clear that the FBI has very strong feelings about an eye-for-an-eye. So these two agents had been murdered, somebody had to pay. And the question is who, and is he really guilty? Well, that’s never been truly established. But I think the FBI were being pretty determined that somebody had to pay for this. So somebody was going to pay for this, no matter what. That’s the impression I had then…I think I still have.

Enright: That’s what I don’t understand, the due process went right off the rails in this. In the Fargo trial, for example, the jury was not allowed to hear about other cases where the FBI had tampered with evidence and with witnesses and so on.

Redford: Well, there you have it, in other words, I, looking at this…if you can take a bird’s eye view of this and look at the whole picture you begin to see it’s a sketchy situation…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …and it does point a finger at the FBI and the fact that they would withhold something or not want certain records, no want certain people’s voices to be heard. Points again to the business of fairness.

Enright: But even at, even at the appellate hearing for Leonard Peltier. The U.S. Attorney himself, after going through the case, said, I’m quoting now, “We do not know who shot the agents.”

Redford: Right.

Enright: But that’s an extraordinary exculpatory statement, isn’t it?

Redford: Well it is, I mean, absolutely, so why is he being in prison?

Enright: Yeah..

Redford: They don’t know, then why is he in prison. Look, I made the documentary because I wanted to present the facts and let the audience make up their own minds. I was not advocating his innocence…

Enright: Right.

Redford: …as much as, because I don’t know. I don’t have that right to know. I wasn’t there. I felt that was going to be my contribution to the situation. I didn’t realize at the time it would take so much to get true information out and that’s made me very sad. And that at one time, you know what was disappointing about then President Clinton. I really felt that he was not gonna to get a fair trial, it was just going to happen…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …with the FBI involved and whatever the FBI’s involvement with our government…whatever that connection was probably would not permit him a fair trial. So I thought well then the only thing is to hope for a pardon, because I think he deserved that. And we went to Clinton and said look when you get to run for the pardoning time this is a clear case of…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …a guy’s been there so long and he’s suffering, this would be a good reason for pardon.  And when he chose not to pardon him, and pardoned Marc Rich.

Enright: The industrialist, yeah.

Redford: That tells you a whole lot, maybe it tells you stuff you don’t’ want to know. But, I thought that was such an incredible blow. So I think that Leonard had a pretty rough time of it and I feel sorry about that. So what do we do about this, what do we do about the fact…well we, there’s nothing I can do. But what does one do in the interest of fairness, in the interest of justice, and the interest of our government, commitment to justice? What do we do about evidence piling up over and over and over again that his man was not treated fairly? That this was not a fair trial, there was ever…even some illegality involved in his extradition. What does one do about that?  No a whole lot you can do as a citizen except try to raise a voice to it, draw attention to it. I’ve been to congress, I’ve been to lobby, and I’ve tried a lot of things. Obviously, there’s something very stuck here, really deeply stuck.

Enright: Tell me what the opposition of this group called the retired FBI agents association, they seem to be quite prominent every time a situation comes up where Leonard Peltier applies for parole or commutation or something, these ex-FBI agents swing into action.

Redford: Well, I mean, that I think that you can look at that as some kind of a club, I think it’s a club of very…there’s an ideology connected to that and they’re going to stick that no matter what. They’re going to stick to their case, their cause, which is their own organization even though their retired, they’re going to stick to that because loyalists to the cause, they’re loyalists to the organization. Even if facts dictate otherwise they’re going to stick to their, their story. I think that’s what we’re seeing probably.

Enright: What was your initial reaction, I mean, I’m imagining that you must have gone through a series of responses to what you learned as you learned it. Did you, were you angry, were you frustrated, what went through your head with all this?

Redford: What went through my head was first is what is the situation, what was the reality here, what are we really dealing with and that had to be supported by facts. So, the question first was to get as many facts as you could and once I got those facts it led me to believe that there was an unfairness here, and that was maybe there was something I could do to help that get turned around. And so, as I started to work on it and wasn’t really getting anywhere, there was frustration. And that frustration I think led to finally to anger when I realized that there’s just, life is, life is not fair and…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …whether we like it or not it just isn’t and this is one of the instances that no matter what did, no mater how you tried, things were not going to be fair here and that left me angry.

Enright:  What comes through in the documentary, among many other elements, is that Pine Ridge was a very violent place in those days.

Redford: Oh God, there were drive-by shootings, they were happening all the time. It was a very, very violent place. And it was a violent time because you had the traditional Native Americans clashing with the more modernized, you know the Americanized Native Americans…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …and there was a clash there, historical, almost tribal, and then there was there was just the fact that you had alcohol, you had, there’s just a whole lot of problems of deprivation and poverty on the Ridge…of course, I go back in history and I think my, my support of Native Americans and their culture goes back to the very beginning of, I think what we call Manifest Destiny, when we, in the interest of taking whatever we could back in the 1800s, in the interest of taking whatever we could by whatever means…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …and then, and then, deserving to own it, we created Manifest Destiny which pretty well wiped out that whole culture, and I, I think there’s a lot of value in that culture, so I’ve always felt that way and I’ve always felt very sympathetic to the cause of them fighting this injustice.

Enright: What was the reaction, immediate and latterly after the Incident at Oglala came out?

Redford: I remember that we weren’t getting much traction. I tried to screen it at various places. It wasn’t getting a whole lot of traction so I thought that well maybe we can use the Sundance Festival…

Enright: Right.

Redford: …to promote it because at that time the festival was only about four or five years old and it was still kind of struggling along but it was getting some traction and because it was creating a platform for new work to be seen, I wanted to push documentaries. Because I always felt that documentaries were very, very powerful and they were essentially kinda like long form journalism and then I thought that had value. So, I was pushing documentaries and when we did this film, I decided well maybe we could put this documentary in the festival and that…

Enright: Right.

Redford: …and maybe that exposure will help it along. I did that, but I’m not sure it did. I remember going there, announcing it and kind of presenting it, but I’m not sure. Had it been a public outcry, had there been a rolling out outcry, where the populace had such a strong voice it would force government into action…

Enright: Uh, um…

Redford: …it would have happened by now, I think it just never, I’m afraid that the situation and the documentary never really got to that point of traction where it created a kind of ah, a uproar to create a movement to free him, yet individuals like the one’s you’ve mentioned, but I’m not sure there was enough to create a movement…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …for justice.

Enright: My guest this morning is Robert Redford, he is in New York, we’re talking a about Leonard Peltier. Let me ask you just a couple of quick questions. The man is going to be 70 next year. Is it the government’s intention, do you think, to keep him in prison until he dies?

Redford: Based on evidence, so far, that yes I believe that, I believe that business of an eye-for-an-eye still holds, and I think I was told in fact, over time that’s probably what was going to happen, that he would never get a fair trial, he was going to stay there, they were not gonna, they would make sure that he would not get out. I was told that, now that does not make it true…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …I just remember being told that by a number of people at the time. And it certainly looks that way.

Enright: Up to now President Obama has signed 52 pardons and commuted one sentence. Have representations been made to the President and are you hopeful that he might pardon Leonard Peltier?

Redford: I don’t know whether other representations have been made but certainly I’m hopeful. I was disappointed in Clinton, and I’m hopeful for Obama to see it differently and see the injustice here. Yeah, I’m very, very hopeful and I will raise my voice in whatever way I can. Not so much whether innocence or guilt but…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …fair trial. And for that reason, because he’s done his time, he’s paid his dues. I think he deserves a pardon.

Enright: What have you learned, let me ask you finally, what have you learned about due process, the Constitution, the American criminal justice system, aboriginals?

Redford: What I guess I’ve learned, is it, we got the constitution. That’s all we’ve got and it’s the strongest (unintelligible), and we should adhere to it and make sure certain people don’t try to change it. I know there’s been some talk about certain justices wanting to reorder it or redefine it, so I hope not. I think that would be a big mistake. It’s the only thing we got that leads us towards fairness, but there’s always going to be unfairness, I mean that’s just the way it is. But because we have this law, we have this document that gives us a chance for fairness I think we have to do whatever we can to uphold it.

Enright: Mr. Redford it’s a pleasure to meet you on the radio sir, thank you.

Redford: Thank you.

Enright: Robert Redford, narrative and produced the 1992 documentary, Incident at Oglala, this morning he was in his Sundance offices in New York. You’re listening to the Sunday edition of Across Canada on CBC Radio One and across North American on Sirius XM radio. My name is Michael Enright.

* * *

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods