PELTIER: SHARP’S DISINFORMATION….#4
Unprovoked Attack
Dear Supporters:
As a further follow up to the February 15, 2023 Native America Calling podcast, Peltier pro bono attorney, Kevin Sharp, responded to a statement from Ed Woods.[i]
It is apparent that the more Sharp promotes the Peltier agenda, built on a foundation of myths, folklore, fabrications and provable falsehoods, he only further reinforces Peltier’s unquestioned and remorseless guilt.
Responding to a question from the moderator if anything would change the NPPA’s position, Ed Woods replied; “No, and let me tell you why. This was an unprovoked attack…”
Sharp responded with; “Well, it’s not accurate, right, it’s inconsistent with the evidence in this case. That, that there began a shootout. Now we know Peltier was part of that.”
Inconsistent? Let’s visit that again counselor. Since Sharp claims to know the evidence, his statement must be intentionally false while providing his own further proof supporting Peltier’s conviction.
From the very first day of testimony in the Peltier trial, there is absolutely no dispute that there was, as a factual matter, an eyewitness to exactly how the unprovoked attack began against the Agents.
Hearing the radio transmission from Agent Williams that morning, Agent Gary Adams testified:
“Then he (Williams) said, ‘Looks like they’re going to shoot at us.” Then he said, “We’ve been hit.” “There was sounds of gunfire over the Bureau radio.” Agent Adams was questioned; “How long was it from the time that he said, “It looks like they’re going to shoot at us” to “we’ve been hit?” Answer: “It was just one communication after the other.”
To any sensible person, ignoring the disinformation campaign, it is without question that Agent Williams, transmitting on the Bureau radio, established that Peltier and the others fired the first shots.
However, Sharp makes another admission contrary to his previous statements and against his client’s best interests. Obviously, it is impossible to remove Peltier from the scene, but when Sharp publicly states “Now we know Peltier was part of that,” clearly establishes one of the two theories upon which Peltier was tried and convicted; murder, and Aiding and Abetting. Thanks to Mr. Sharp, Peltier’s attorney, for clarifying that. [ii]
Yet, there is another significant piece of Peltier history supporting this wanton violence.
Since the beginning of the Peltier Committee and his website—perhaps three decades now, they have proclaimed on the homepage that Peter Matthiessen is the foundational source of Peltier’s history and innocence. Matthiessen, in his book, weaves his own suspicions and narrative throughout the Peltier and the American Indian Movement saga, but nonetheless makes some telling revelations and conclusions that cannot be ignored.
To this very day, the homepage of Peltier’s website carries this proclamation:
Note: Much of the information contained on this site is derived from “In the Spirit of Crazy Horse” by renowned author Peter Matthiessen. The book is the definitive work on the American Indian Movement and the Peltier case…As acknowledged by the courts, Matthiessen’s reputation for not being sensationalistic or scandalous is well known. He is a highly respected author and his works have received wide acclaim.” [iii]
In a moment of honesty, what was Matthiessen’s assessment of the unprovoked attack?
“On the other hand, the evidence suggests – to me at least – that Coler and Williams had indeed been chasing one or more vehicles…the agents pulled up in that vulnerable place down in the pasture because they heard a warning shot or came under fire; if there is another persuasive explanation of the location and position of their cars, I cannot find it.” (p.544) [iv]
Contrary to Sharp’s blather, even Peltier’s Peter Matthiessen supports the fact of Agent Williams’s radio call and the unprovoked attack.
When asked about who killed the Agents, Sharp responded: “So, should somebody be behind bars for it, you know go find out who did it.”
Sharp would be hard pressed to answer a very simple question.
If, as he feebly attempts to cloak Peltier with innocence, then why, for the better part of two decades, did Peltier lie about his only alibi: that the phantom Mr. X killed the Agents, and then added the red-herring of the infamous red pickup? Does former judge Sharp understand that an innocent man does not have to lie about his facts, lie about the truth that is, or have to keep track of the lies? Nevertheless, Peltier said, “This story is true.” Of course, it wasn’t. Peltier has altered his claims about Jumping Bull many times over the years, only to be called out by one of his own people, Dino Butler, and later by one of his own attorneys.[v]
Sharp’s agenda-driven disinformation advocacy is a shameless ploy, repeating, adnauseam, the same talking points and court motions of previous, and unsuccessful, Peltier attorneys. This is all the more apparent by his blatant public defamation of the many Peltier-related federal judges, implying that he is much smarter than more than seventeen of them, and their decisions were corrupt.[vi]
More to follow.
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
[iii] This has been brought to Peltier’s attention previously: Matthiessen passed away in 2014.
[iv] However, notwithstanding Peltier’s website statement: Harvard Law professor, Alan Dershowitz on Peter Matthiessen; The New York Times Book Review, March 6, 1983: “Mr. Matthiessen is at his worst when he becomes a polemicist for his journalistic clients.* He is utterly unconvincing-indeed embarrassingly sophomoric-when he pleas the legal innocence of individual Indian criminals.” “Mr. Matthiessen not only fails to convince; he inadvertently makes a strong case for Mr. Peltier’s guilt. Invoking the cliches of the radical left, Mr. Matthiessen takes at face value nearly every conspiratorial claim of the movement, no matter how unfounded or preposterous.”
*Matthiessen was essentially on Peltier’s royalty payroll and being provided with unencumbered access to Peltier and others involved in the murder of the Agents.
[vi] Kevin H. Sharp, public statement 2/15/2023, “There were evidentiary rulings that appear to be, from someone who made a lot of evidentiary rulings from the federal bench (referring to his own six years as a federal judge), slanted so that the prosecutor got the upper edge.” Sharp does not qualify his public statement. He is stating that the judges’ decisions were deliberately made to favor the government over Peltier’s interests. There is no other way to interpret or lessen his traduced plain language; “slanted so that the prosecutors got the upper edge.”
For further background see NPPA Blogs, available from the homepage, www.noparolepeltier.com : 1/31/22, 2/21/22, 4/2/22, 8/14/22, 10/7/22, 11/26/22, 3/11/23, 3/22/23, 3/24/23, 3/31/23
See also, erroneous and unsupported statements by former U.S. Attorney, James H. Reynolds;
1/5/17, 12/2/17, 1/1/18, 6/26/21, 1/20/22, 2/7/22
