Dear Supporters:
Referencing the previous NPPA Blog, Peltier’s paintings have
been removed from display at the Washington State Department of Labor and
Industries, Tumwater, Washington. (Footnote #1)
Peltier’s response was predictable, the quintessential
one-trick-pony, repeating ad nauseam the same worn-out rhetoric of
out-of-context quotes without proper attributions, half-truths and outright
fabrications that have been the mainstay of the Peltier myth for decades. (Fn.
2)
This is stereotypical Peltier, the Peltier Paradox: A position Peltier takes that, despite the
apparently sound or legitimate reasoning from acceptable premises, when
examined in its entirety leads to senseless, illogical, and contradictory
conclusions. In other words, the paradox sounds good, even logical at times,
but the truth destroyed Peltier a long time ago.
For example, in the November 14th “Press Release”
Peltier claims (through the ill-informed Peter Clark, ILPDC) are the following
inaccuracies and errors:
--Logic:
Peltier became confused over the misplaced logic of his own argument by correctly
stating, “former agents of the FBI” (in other words, citizens legally
expressing their First Amendment rights to free speech and expression) that somehow
morphs into “government
censorship.” When brought to their attention, it was patently obvious to the
State of Washington that providing a free venue at taxpayer’s expense and
promoting the sale of a felon’s artwork was inappropriate, immoral, and
arguably illegal. That’s what led to the state, along with a public apology, to
remove those paintings. (Fn. 3)
--Acquittal:
Had Peltier been tried with his co-defendants he would have been acquitted:
Well, close, and we’ll have to concede that possibility.
However, the Butler/Robideau trial did not allow the government to properly
present a fair case. It was forced to trial early and critical witnesses
couldn’t be located in time. The jury deliberated for five days and twice
reported it was deadlocked before reaching a verdict, so it wasn’t a foregone
conclusion by any means. Also, in an unprecedented and wholly inappropriate
move (one which, if the government had such an advantage, would have resulted
in a mistrial), the trial judge took a ten-day recess allowing the defense an
inordinate amount of time to prepare after the government’s case was presented
to the jury. However, we have to live
with that verdict…just as Peltier must live with his. (Fn. 4)
Other points raised in the “press release,” made without
specific attributions and proper quoting, have long since been discredited:
---Ballistics
evidence reflecting his innocence:
Innocence? Hardly. This had nothing to do with innocence but
the meaning of the October 2, 1975 FBI Laboratory teletype that was examined
and clarified during a three-day October 1984 hearing, after which, the 8th
Circuit Court of Appeals, (authored by Judge Gerald Heaney), concluded:
“When all is said and done, however, a
few simple but very important facts remain. The casing introduced into evidence
had in fact been extracted from the Wichita AR-15. This point was not disputed;
although the defense had its own ballistics expert, it offered no contrary
evidence.” (Fn. 5)
---Extradition
from Canada:
In spite of earlier criticism, the final word from the Canadian Government in 1999 was that “…Mr.
Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States.” (Fn. 6)
---Witnesses
lied at trial:
During the Direct Appeal, the 8th Circuit Court
stated:
“However, upon further questioning at
the trial by the government attorney, they (the witnesses) stated that the
testimony they gave at the trial was the truth, as best they remembered it. Thus,
their testimony provided no support for the proposed defense instruction that
the government induced them to testify falsely in this trial or in a related
trial.” (Fn. 7)
Also, let’s remind Peltier, Clark or any of the others to remember
another important aspect of what
Norman Brown said regarding the shootings and his recanted testimony at
Peltier's trial. During the October 17, 2000, Arts and Entertainment (A&E)
documentary entitled "Murder on a Reservation," this is what Brown
said about when he was brought into the courtroom to testify against Peltier:
“They
marched me in. This whole crowd of native people. As I was walking down the aisle
there, I heard words spoken to me. "There's that sell out."
"There's that pig, there's that little asshole, " and you know,
"That's him." "Hey asshole, like little whisper.”
It is clear from
this public admission that Norman Brown, although he blamed his initial change
of testimony on his interrogation by the FBI, was clearly in fear for his
safety, and perhaps even his life (remember: Anna Mae Aquash, and Perry Ray
Robinson if there is any doubt), from his own People, particularly AIM members.
---The
federal prosecutor has twice (twice?…there was only one court statement)
admitted that the government “can’t prove who shot those agents.”
What AUSA Lynn Crooks actually said during an appellate
hearing was:
”Well, undoubtedly it wouldn’t, but no
doubt whatsoever that we would have convicted him. I think the best precedent
that one can point to is the recent murder of our two marshals. We have exactly
the same kind of situation. But we can’t prove who shot those agents.”
Based on this ‘inartful’ statement, Peltier tried to claim
that the government changed its theory of the prosecution, to which, the 8th
Circuit Court replied:
“Peltier’s arguments fail because their
underlying premises are fatally flawed.”
(Fn. 8) (So you see Leonard, when the facts are disclosed, the paradox is self-evident.)
---“there
is a possibility that a jury would have acquitted Leonard Peltier.”
However, prior to this statement in the 8th
Circuit Court of Appeals decision (Judges, Heaney, Ross and Gibson) stated:
“We affirmed the conviction on
September 4, 1978. In Affirming, we too accepted the government’s theory
that both agents had been killed with a high-velocity small-caliber weapon
fired at point-blank range at a time when the men were seriously wounded and
unable to defend themselves. We then held that the evidence was sufficient
for the jury to find Peltier responsible for the murders.”
And, from the same 8th Circuit decision (again,
Judge Gerald Heaney), was:
“The question now before us is whether
the newly-discovered evidence (the October 2, 1975 teletype) indicating Hodge (FBI
Laboratory examiner) may have not been telling the truth, considered in the
light of the evidence the jury had before it, would have caused the jury to
reach a different result. While that possibility exists, Bagley requires more.”
“There is a possibility that the jury would have acquitted Leonard Peltier had
the records and data improperly withheld from the defense been made available
to him in order to better exploit and reinforce the inconsistencies casting
strong doubts upon the government’s case. 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.
9)
In other words, Leonard, Peter, et. al., No matter what
Judge Heaney’s personal feelings may have been, he, and Judges Ross and Gibson,
made their decision based on the law.
---As
late as November 2003, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that
“…Much of the government’s behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation and its
prosecution of Leonard Peltier is to be condemned. The government withheld
evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed.”
(This decision and remark had nothing to do with Peltier’s conviction but a challenge by
Peltier to the U.S. parole commission.)
But, isn’t it interesting to note that just prior to, and after this comment,
conveniently omitted from the 11/14/15 “Press Release,” the same appellate
court said:
"Previous federal court decisions provided the (Parole) Commission with
ample facts to support its conviction that Peltier personally shot Agent Coler
and Williams." And further, "While Mr. Peltier, asserts 'the
Commission identified no plausible evidence that [he] shot the agents after
they were incapacitated,' this statement is simply not true. The evidence
linking Mr. Peltier to these crimes is enumerated above.”
“Because we hold the Commission’s
finding that Mr. Peltier shot and killed Agents Coler and Williams was
rational, we need not address the Commission’s implication that the same
disposition is supportable if Mr. Peltier only aided and abetted at the murder
scene. As such, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of relief.” (Fn. 10)
* * *
In a subsequent November 16th “press release” a
desperate Peltier laments that this event was picked up by many news organizations
across the nation and ended with:
“This attack will not be the last. Be on the alert and always
respond to negative press. Use the facts presented at www.whoisleonardpeltier.info as
your talking points.”
These ILPDC “talking points” is the paradox described above
and it’s evident that Peltier felt the sting of an immediate and effective reaction
to the Washington State situation.
Peltier press releases always begin with the solicitations
to participate in the ongoing dirty little secret, the money; “Leonard counts
on supporters like you! Make a donation online/Pledge to Donate Monthly. Mail
donations to ILPDC, Hillsboro, Oregon.” It’s bewildering that Peltierites
remain blind to the realities of the Peltier scam. (Fn. 11)
Understand this:
First, the President’s guidelines for clemency consideration;
long incarcerations for minor drug offenses and excluding crimes of violence,
does not include the likes of Leonard Peltier. (Fn. 12)
Secondly, it’s not just
the family of Jack Coler and Ron Williams, or their friends and co-workers, nor
the hundreds of agents who worked the Reservation Murders (RESMURS)
investigation, nor the thousands of former and retired FBI agents, nor the tens
of thousands of former and retired federal, state and local law enforcement, or
the hundreds of thousands of current law enforcement officers and officials,
and not even just the millions of law-abiding citizens, but it is these groups,
collectively, who will make their voices heard if there is even a hint of consideration
for a cold-blooded, remorseless killer.
Peltier should be shown the same compassion he gave to the
wounded and murdered agents, Jack Coler and Ron Williams. And that would be
none…
Clemency is as dead as parole. Deal with it.
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
Footnotes:
1) Darren Smith article, last accessed 11/21/15:
2) Peter Clark, ILPDC, last accessed 11/21/15:
3) King5 coverage, last accessed 11/21/15:
4) Trials and critical witnesses:
5) Ballistics conclusion; page 5, first paragraph. (Also in
re Bagley….)
6) Canadian letter: http://noparolepeltier.com/canadaletter.html
7) Witnesses lied at trial, Direct Appeal, Section IIA http://noparolepeltier.com/585.html
8) Prosecutor admitted & Fatally flawed: http://noparolepeltier.com/997.html
9) 8th Circuit Bagley decision: http://noparolepeltier.com/800.html
10) 10th Circuit decision, See II: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/tenth_circuit.html
11) Peltier donations: http://noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#fraud
12) Blog reference re clemency criteria: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2015/08/peltier-scam-contiuessend-money-here.html
