US Government Found GUILTY Of Murdering Martin Luther King Jr.

2

Comments

  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ReppinTime wrote: »
    They did the same exact routine when they instigated and finally let 2pac get killed. Which of course was more important than Mlk's assassination.

    Hip-Hop did more for Civil Rights then Civil Rights leaders did true but 2pac's killing was more important then MLK's death bruh?
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A government might admit to being involved in x,y,z crimes, but NO government is going to actually convict itself. That would make no sense.

    The only ones who can convict a government are the people/citizens of that nation.
    But of course that would ultimately mean revolution, and a complete overthrowing of those in power.

    Keep your guns people. Keep your guns.

    YES SIR........
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Keep your guns people. Keep your guns.
    of course, a lot of people mistrustful of the government are going to thus need to stop voting for people who want to take your guns. i've never understood this, but here we are.

  • mc317
    mc317 Members Posts: 5,548 ✭✭✭✭✭
    E howard hunt and Ted Shackley killed him
  • aladdin1978
    aladdin1978 Members Posts: 4,609 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Watch the ? Gregory video on YouTube talking about this.
  • bbwthick23
    bbwthick23 Members Posts: 954 ✭✭✭
    And it matters now why?
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2013
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Lol, c'mon. Admittedly, everything that you said was right, but you're just scratching the surface. The government was not convicted itself, but it was found to be actively involved in the murder.
    no, a civil court --which, let's remember, has a lower standard of proof to meet-- said this guy may have been connected to the government. was anyone else specifically even found liable?

    Lower standard of proof to meet? C'mawwn. You're really grabbing at straws to deny this. But why?

    This guy was connected to the government. This is an insightful article: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/MLKconExp.html

    Said article says:
    According to a Memphis jury’s verdict on December 8, 1999, in the wrongful death lawsuit of the King family versus Loyd Jowers “and other unknown co-conspirators,” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agencies of his own government. Almost 32 years after King’s murder at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis on April 4, 1968, a court extended the circle of responsibility for the assassination beyond the late scapegoat James Earl Ray to the United States government.

    ...
    The jury also heard a tape recording of a two-hour-long confession Jowers made at a fall 1998 meeting with Martin Luther King’s son Dexter and former UN Ambassador Andrew Young. On the tape Jowers says that meetings to plan the assassination occurred at Jim’s Grill. He said planners included undercover Memphis Police Department officer Marrell McCollough (who now works for the Central Intelligence Agency, and who is referenced in the trial transcript as Merrell McCullough), MPD Lieutentant Earl Clark (who died in 1987), a third police officer, and two men Jowers did not know but thought were federal agents.

    ...
    James Lawson, King’s friend and an organizer with SCLC, testified that King’s stands on Vietnam and the Poor People’s Campaign had created enemies in Washington. He said King’s speech at New York’s Riverside Church on April 4, 1967, which condemned the Vietnam War and identified the U.S. government as "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today," provoked intense hostility in the White House and FBI.

    ...
    The judge continued: “Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant?’ Your answer to that one is also ‘Yes.’” An even more heartfelt whisper: “Thank you, Jesus!”

    And in regards of your previous argument:
    Many qualifiers have been attached to the verdict in the King case. It came not in criminal court but in civil court, where the standards of evidence are much lower than in criminal court. (For example, the plaintiffs used unsworn testimony made on audiotapes and videotapes.) Furthermore, the King family as plaintiffs and Jowers as defendant agreed ahead of time on much of the evidence.


    But these observations are not entirely to the point. Because of the government’s “sovereign immunity,” it is not possible to put a U.S. intelligence agency in the dock of a U.S. criminal court. Such a step would require authorization by the federal government, which is not likely to indict itself. Thanks to the conjunction of a civil court, an independent judge with a sense of history, and a courageous family and lawyer, a spiritual breakthrough to an unspeakable truth occurred in Memphis. It allowed at least a few people (and hopefully many more through them) to see the forces behind King’s martyrdom and to feel the responsibility we all share for it through our government. In the end, twelve jurors, six black and six white, said to everyone willing to hear: guilty as charged.

    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    And just because Ray pleaded guilty doesn't mean that he did it. He was set up to be the scapegoat.
    or he actually did it. you're saying that the plea doesn't mean he did it and then immediately taking it as a given that he was set up as a scapegoat.

    False. I never stated or implied that, and still would not state or imply that. You're the one who seems to be making the rash and naive judgement that the Ray trial was an open and shut case for sure and that he did it for sure. Like I said, just because someone admitted a crime doesnt mean that they did it, and we all know that. It was also said that Ray was tricked into taking a plea bargain. Ray did recant. And MLK's own family didn't even believe he did it.

    My claim that Ray was set up to be the scapegoat is one that isn't so much based on the claim that Ray might've not done it. Just because those two claims happened to have been right next to each other doesn't mean that one was based on the other. They're both just independent and hypothetical premises that lead to the same hypothetical conclusion that Ray most likely did not do it.
    janklow wrote: »
    also, the original reason provided for his plea was to avoid the death penalty, and this is, in fact, a common reason why people accept plea deals.

    Hm. So what you're saying is that the original reason for the plea bargain was to avoid the death penalty, so the original reason for the plea bargain very well might've had nothing to do with actually admitting to the crime but instead everything to do with plain old fear? Doesn't that kind of support my argument?
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I'm sure that you don't deny that that bastard J. Edgar Hoover had it in him to support and execute such a planned assassination, right?
    he's known to have planned other assassinations?

    Huh? I'm sure you know about the Black Panthers at least. Fred Hampton and co.?
  • And_So_It_Burns
    And_So_It_Burns Members Posts: 921 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Wouldn't suprise me they were murdering our leaders left and right back then.
  • marc123
    marc123 Members Posts: 16,999 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2013
    i remember hearin about the trial a couple years back. never really checked for it tho. cuz imo its pretty much knowledge James Earl Ray DID NOT ? MLK. and alotta shady ? went down. and I dont put anything past the US government.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Lower standard of proof to meet? C'mawwn. You're really grabbing at straws to deny this.
    first off, it's not grabbing at straws. it's a FACT, and this was a civil trial. frankly, calling this verdict "US Government Found GUILTY Of Murdering Martin Luther King Jr" is what seems like straw-grasping to me.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    This guy was connected to the government.
    okay, so we have Jowers claiming in 1998 that three Memphis police officers were involved (note: not the federal government) and two mysteriously men WHO HE DID NOT KNOW who he identifies as federal. seems, well, flimsy.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    And in regards of your previous argument:
    Many qualifiers have been attached to the verdict in the King case. It came not in criminal court but in civil court, where the standards of evidence are much lower than in criminal court. (For example, the plaintiffs used unsworn testimony made on audiotapes and videotapes.) Furthermore, the King family as plaintiffs and Jowers as defendant agreed ahead of time on much of the evidence.
    or, in other words, even your article takes it as a fact that the standards of proof are lower --something you call "grabbing at straws" if it's not said by an article you agree with, i guess-- but says it's fine because it lets people "see the forces behind King’s martyrdom." the thing is, this could ALSO be people hearing what they want to hear because "proof" of a conspiracy makes them feel better about MLK's tragic murder.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    False. I never stated or implied that, and still would not state or imply that.
    excuse me? let me quote you directly:
    "And just because Ray pleaded guilty doesn't mean that he did it. He was set up to be the scapegoat."

    so again, you start by saying the guilty plea doesn't mean he did it, and then declare him to be the scapegoat. and here, you go on about it being "rash and naive" to consider Ray's trial open and shut (and here's a good question: for all your outrage, when did i call it open and shut), and give a laundry list of reasons why you don't think Ray did it. so please, don't act outraged when someone says you said something you said.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Hm. So what you're saying is that the original reason for the plea bargain was to avoid the death penalty, so the original reason for the plea bargain very well might've had nothing to do with actually admitting to the crime but instead everything to do with plain old fear? Doesn't that kind of support my argument?
    let me restate, since you have your set belief in mind: people who have ACTUALLY COMMITTED the crimes in question will plead to them to avoid death penalties. this is not something that i am saying Ray alone could have done.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Huh? I'm sure you know about the Black Panthers at least. Fred Hampton and co.?
    and it's established that J.Edgar planned these assassinations?

  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    ]and it's established that J.Edgar planned these assassinations?

    Most definitely. If you read the cointelpro papers, the Bureau which he was over were given the OK to forment division and even facilitate killings among different nationalists group using nefarious methods. This edicts came out of his office and were set in motion by many of his aides with his full knowledge and consent. He personally had beef with Dr. King and considered the Black Panthers the most dangerous group in terms of civil unrest.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    And Step wrote: »
    Most definitely. If you read the cointelpro papers, the Bureau which he was over were given the OK to forment division and even facilitate killings among different nationalists group using nefarious methods.
    if you want be to believe it's established that J.Edgar PLANNED these assassinations, i need more than COINTELPRO indicates he wanted to foment division. i'm not disputing he did some underhanded ? , but i don't think this assassination stuff is as supported as we're claiming here.

  • mc317
    mc317 Members Posts: 5,548 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Gary Revel: My music career and investigation into the killing of Martin Luther King | 16/05/2009

    By Gary Revel, musician and MLK asassination researcher -

    As negotiations for the making of a movie about my investigation of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. proceed I have taken a moment to do some reflection. I ask myself, 'How did I get entangled in this highly controversial and emotionally impacting subject?'.

    When I was a teenager my primary goal in life was to write songs and play music for other's entertainment. I had written my first song when I was ten years old, my divorced mother bought me a guitar when I was fifteen, I taught myself to play it and formed my first rock and roll band when I was sixteen. With two brothers serving in the United States Navy and our nation at war, I also enlisted in the Navy after graduating high school. I had no idea at the time where life would take me or about the dangerous journey I would take.

    I was singing in a night club in San Diego, California one night and during a break a man approached me and began a conversation. He ended it by handing me his business card and asking me to come to see him when I got out of the Navy. I looked at the card and he was with a big talent agency in Hollywood, California.

    After I was honorably discharged from the Navy I went to Hollywood and lived with a friend. One night we were walking to an audition that I had read about in The Hollywood Reporter, when a Rolls Royce pulled over and the man in the driver's seat said, "Do you need a ride?" I was running late so I quickly accepted the ride and told the driver that I was going to an audition and I was running late. There were two men in the car, one was a Vice President of a major movie studio and the other was an entertainment attorney. I played them a song on the way to the audition and they told me that I was going to be a star. I didn't go to that audition, instead we all went to a party at the Vice President's huge mansion in the Hollywood hills where the VP asked me to play some more songs for everyone.

    A few days later my first recording session was in the famed Capitol Records studios on Hollywood and Vine in the midst of the glamor and excitement of the movie capital of the world.

    My music was a hybrid of rock, pop, funk, country and things in between that I still have trouble describing. I recorded a lot of songs, but when I was offered a contract with Capitol Records I did not go through with it. We have all heard about the sex, drugs, and rock & roll associated with the music industry and Hollywood. It was very true and at that time it was just so much a part of that lifestyle that I could not see how anyone got their job done. So, Instead of taking their offer, I released my own singles on small independent labels. I also wrote and recorded songs for a soundtrack album for a movie called ,"The Last of the American Hobos".
  • mc317
    mc317 Members Posts: 5,548 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A few years later I was offered a job in New York City to collaborate on some songs and I took it. While there a friend of mine, Jud Phillips, asked me to come to Memphis, Tennessee. I soon found myself writing songs for the number one country music publisher of that time, Acuff-Rose Music, in Nashville, Tennessee.

    It was there that I began an association with a lawyer, Jack Kershaw, that would change my life and the lives of my wife and children. He was hired by James Earl Ray, the convicted killer of Martin Luther King Jr. to be his legal counsel during the US Government House Select Committee on Assassination Investigations. I had done some private investigative work for him and he asked me to help him with the investigation. It was agreed that my work on the case would be top secret and when I met with HSCA Chief Counsel Richard Sprague he agreed that the government would never release information on my role in the case. Later I would learn that the government didn't stand by it's duty to keep my job confidential.

    As far as the public was to know I was a singer/songwriter who happened to be a friend of James Earl Ray's attorney Jack Kershaw and that was all. Still it became clear that great risk to myself and my family had developed because of my work on the case.

    It didn't take very long for me to attain secret documents that proved to me the innocence of James Earl Ray. I wrote a song titled, "They Slew the Dreamer" released it as a single on a small independent label. The song told the story of how they slew the dreamer instead of he slew the dreamer. I had come to believe that a great injustice had been done to Martin Luther King Jr. and James Earl Ray also the truth was covered up and hidden from the American people. Disturbing events began to take place in my life that I had never experienced or ever imagined could happen.

    At that point my chances of ever having a successful music career were very slim. I had gotten entangled in a big political controversial mess. I had stood up for something I believed in and tried to bring attention to it with my song only to be knocked down and trampled over by the powers that existed at that time. They wanted to hide the truth and bury it, but I survived the cover-up and I think the time is right to bring this to light. I have met many people that even to this very day want to know the truth about MLK's murder; who did it, how they did it, and why. The Government does not want to say that they had any part in it, they would rather blame rogue CIA or FBI agents who conspired with the Mafia. The best chance they had was to blame it on a convict and torture him with psychological pressure to make him confess. However, James Earl Ray never confessed and never had a fair trial. Supposedly in our country one is innocent until proven guilty, but James Earl Ray died in prison trying to prove his innocence.

    I disentangled myself from the investigation and moved back to Hollywood California to continue my music career without the complication of dangerous part-time jobs. Now a movie about the story of my investigation is being developed for film and my music is finally distributed around the world through iTunes, Rhapsody, Emusic and other distributors. I feel like times are changing in a good way, controversial subjects are talked about in the media and debated more today than before. If they are not talked about they are easier to hide and easier to forget. I think the US Government owes it to everyone to confess to their role in this cover up. That will give new hope that tragedies like this will never happen again and it will restore trust in the US Government. The most important thing about my story is that it is true. Unfortunately, young people can t read about it in their history books, but I hope someday it will be brought to light.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2013
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Lower standard of proof to meet? C'mawwn. You're really grabbing at straws to deny this.
    first off, it's not grabbing at straws. it's a FACT, and this was a civil trial. frankly, calling this verdict "US Government Found GUILTY Of Murdering Martin Luther King Jr" is what seems like straw-grasping to me.

    Lol, okay I used the wrong phrase. “Grabbing at straws” wasn’t accurate. I couldn’t think of the right phrase to represent what I saw as you going through any and every possibility to suggest or prove that the government did not have a hand in MLK’s death. And yes, I agree that the thread title (or rather the youtube video title that the thread title is based on) is a bit inaccurate, but I chalk that up to journalistic tactics.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    This guy was connected to the government.
    okay, so we have Jowers claiming in 1998 that three Memphis police officers were involved (note: not the federal government) and two mysteriously men WHO HE DID NOT KNOW who he identifies as federal. seems, well, flimsy.

    Okay, then I presume that we can first at least agree that the local and/or state government was most likely involved. Are you willing to go further and say that there is a possibility that the federal government was involved? It’s clear that you don’t think that the federal government was involved, but I’m not sure whether you are saying that the federal government certainly wasn’t involved or saying that the federal government most likely wasn’t involved. But just because Jowers didn’t personally know the men (which would make sense, since they wouldn’t want to be known if they were federal agents), doesn’t necessarily mean that they weren’t federal agents. Of course, this doesn’t mean the opposite as well, but why and how do you think he came to the conclusion that they were federal agents? It could very well have been badges that he saw, standard uniforms that they wore, things that they did or day, etc. Isn’t it at least possible that they were federal agents? Doesn’t seem far-fetched to me.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    And in regards of your previous argument:
    Many qualifiers have been attached to the verdict in the King case. It came not in criminal court but in civil court, where the standards of evidence are much lower than in criminal court. (For example, the plaintiffs used unsworn testimony made on audiotapes and videotapes.) Furthermore, the King family as plaintiffs and Jowers as defendant agreed ahead of time on much of the evidence.
    or, in other words, even your article takes it as a fact that the standards of proof are lower --something you call "grabbing at straws" if it's not said by an article you agree with, i guess-- but says it's fine because it lets people "see the forces behind King’s martyrdom." the thing is, this could ALSO be people hearing what they want to hear because "proof" of a conspiracy makes them feel better about MLK's tragic murder.

    I cited the article precisely because it said the same thing that you said, but it also provided a counterclaim to that point – a counterclaim that I share. That counterclaim is, first, that the trial was fair and just and, second, that part of the reason why the trial was a civil case in the first place was because the federal government would never indict itself for the death of MLK. Regardless of whether or not a conspiracy brings closure to people, the fact that there is suggestive evidence is sufficient enough to at least strongly consider the possibility that a conspiracy is true.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    False. I never stated or implied that, and still would not state or imply that.
    excuse me? let me quote you directly:
    "And just because Ray pleaded guilty doesn't mean that he did it. He was set up to be the scapegoat."

    so again, you start by saying the guilty plea doesn't mean he did it, and then declare him to be the scapegoat. and here, you go on about it being "rash and naive" to consider Ray's trial open and shut (and here's a good question: for all your outrage, when did i call it open and shut), and give a laundry list of reasons why you don't think Ray did it. so please, don't act outraged when someone says you said something you said.

    Ok, let’s back up here.
    1. I don’t think that this is a big deal, but let me again first restate my original claim, your initial “accusation,” and then my response:
    Plutarch wrote: »
    And just because Ray pleaded guilty doesn't mean that he did it. He was set up to be the scapegoat.
    janklow wrote: »
    or he actually did it. you're saying that the plea doesn't mean he did it and then immediately taking it as a given that he was set up as a scapegoat.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    My claim that Ray was set up to be the scapegoat is one that isn't so much based on the claim that Ray might've not done it. Just because those two claims happened to have been right next to each other doesn't mean that one was based on the other. They're both just independent and hypothetical premises that lead to the same hypothetical conclusion that Ray most likely did not do it.
    Hopefully, this makes sense, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Basically, I’m saying that the fact/idea that Ray was scapegoated comes doesn’t come from my claim that Ray’s plea bargain doesn’t necessarily prove his guilt. The fact/ idea that Ray was scapegoated also doesn’t come from thin air or from some “given” fact that is arbitrarily established.
    2. Chill out, I was never, am not, and will not be outraged. Don’t take it so personal.
    3. Of course you didn’t call it an “open and shut” case. But the quote below and some of your other claims made it seem to me like you implied as much. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. My bad.
    janklow wrote: »
    whatever you think happened, we know Ray pled guilty. so there's no need to make it sound like nothing else ever happened regarding the case.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Hm. So what you're saying is that the original reason for the plea bargain was to avoid the death penalty, so the original reason for the plea bargain very well might've had nothing to do with actually admitting to the crime but instead everything to do with plain old fear? Doesn't that kind of support my argument?
    let me restate, since you have your set belief in mind: people who have ACTUALLY COMMITTED the crimes in question will plead to them to avoid death penalties. this is not something that i am saying Ray alone could have done.

    One clarification: I have a belief but it’s not “set.” Anyways, so you are saying that people who commit crimes plead guilty. Ok. Doesn’t the fact that people who also don’t commit crimes plead guilty make the previous fact a little less relevant?
    I’m not sure I quite understand your last sentence, whether you’re saying that it’s possible that Ray might’ve not committed the crime or whether you’re saying that Ray might’ve committed the crime but possibly not as a lone actor.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Huh? I'm sure you know about the Black Panthers at least. Fred Hampton and co.?
    and it's established that J.Edgar planned these assassinations?

    No, not officially, but, as others have pointed out, there is some very incriminating evidence out there. Fred Hampton is probably the most exemplary case. And his murder was just the year after MLK’s own.

  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Okay, then I presume that we can first at least agree that the local and/or state government was most likely involved.
    no, we can agree that members of the local/state government might have been involved. i think there's a distinction between individuals acting on their own behalf but abusing their powers and individuals acting in an official capacity. it might be a fine line, but it's also there. and i say might because as far as verifying anything goes, a civil trial doesn't mean ? to me. okay, that's a little harsh, but still.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Are you willing to go further and say that there is a possibility that the federal government was involved?
    many things are possible IN THEORY. communism works IN THEORY. but look how hard you're having to work to run with the possibility. why don't we focus on definitive known stuff, or trying to prove the conjecture, rather than just running with the latter?
    Plutarch wrote: »
    That counterclaim is, first, that the trial was fair and just and, second, that part of the reason why the trial was a civil case in the first place was because the federal government would never indict itself for the death of MLK. Regardless of whether or not a conspiracy brings closure to people, the fact that there is suggestive evidence is sufficient enough to at least strongly consider the possibility that a conspiracy is true.
    the issue is not that the trial is "fair," it's that it's a lower standard. and it's not irrelevant if a conspiracy brings closure to people if the reason the trial/verdict happens is because that's what they want to believe.

  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Hopefully, this makes sense, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Basically, I’m saying that the fact/idea that Ray was scapegoated comes doesn’t come from my claim that Ray’s plea bargain doesn’t necessarily prove his guilt. The fact/ idea that Ray was scapegoated also doesn’t come from thin air or from some “given” fact that is arbitrarily established.
    first, it's not a fact that Ray was scapegoated. whatever. second, what i'm saying is that you've come off as very dismissive of the fact that he could have plead guilty because he IS guilty. now, i get that you may really not believe he did it, and that's fine. but we should be considering the possibility that Ray shot MLK and/or that there wasn't a conspiracy.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    2. Chill out, I was never, am not, and will not be outraged. Don’t take it so personal.
    it may be possible that internet forum posts lose some nuance in translation, but this -"False. I never stated or implied that, and still would not state or imply that. You're the one who seems to be making the rash and naive judgement that the Ray trial was an open and shut case for sure and that he did it for sure."- seems a little outraged to me. but maybe that's just how i take it.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    3. Of course you didn’t call it an “open and shut” case. But the quote below and some of your other claims made it seem to me like you implied as much. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. My bad.
    well, damn, man, make up your mind!
    Plutarch wrote: »
    One clarification: I have a belief but it’s not “set.” Anyways, so you are saying that people who commit crimes plead guilty. Ok. Doesn’t the fact that people who also don’t commit crimes plead guilty make the previous fact a little less relevant?
    true, Ray pleading guilty does not mean that he did it. however, note that the article/thread has started from the position of "Ray's plea is ? ." so i presume that argument's already out there, and your posting has seemed to go along with that. but yes, by itself his plea is not proof of guilt. it is not, however, proof of anything else.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I’m not sure I quite understand your last sentence, whether you’re saying that it’s possible that Ray might’ve not committed the crime or whether you’re saying that Ray might’ve committed the crime but possibly not as a lone actor.
    let me restate: i am saying the idea of pleading guilty to something to mitigate your punishment is not something only Ray has done.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    No, not officially, but, as others have pointed out, there is some very incriminating evidence out there. Fred Hampton is probably the most exemplary case. And his murder was just the year after MLK’s own.
    stop telling me that Fred Hampton was killed and start telling me what about it means that J. Edgar planned his assassination. that's all i ask!
  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    if you want be to believe it's established that J.Edgar PLANNED these assassinations, i need more than COINTELPRO indicates he wanted to foment division. i'm not disputing he did some underhanded ? , but i don't think this assassination stuff is as supported as we're claiming here.

    [/quote]

    I don't have to believe it. They admitted such.They wanted to do more than forment division. They called for neutralization and had many of their agents incite physical violence. They sent letters to Dr. King suggesting he ? himself before he was exposed. That's waaaaaaaay more than formenting division. They wanted him dead because he was speaking out against the war machine that Eisenhower had warned about that was taking over governmental affairs from a distance.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    And Step wrote: »
    I don't have to believe it. They admitted such.They wanted to do more than forment division. They called for neutralization and had many of their agents incite physical violence. They sent letters to Dr. King suggesting he ? himself before he was exposed. That's waaaaaaaay more than formenting division. They wanted him dead because he was speaking out against the war machine that Eisenhower had warned about that was taking over governmental affairs from a distance.
    wait, they admitted J.Edgar PLANNED ASSASSINATIONS? or they admitted some other shady ? that came out? because i think we're talking about the former here.

    sending letters to MLK implying he should ? himself before being exposed? underhanded as ? , but not an assassination plot.

  • water ur seeds
    water ur seeds Members Posts: 17,667 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2013
    i only just found out now... the fact people suspected the government did it wasnt shocking, but the fact the courts have actually ruled they did it is crazy... shows how corrupt they are, if they did this, they are capable of anything...

    i wouldnt wanna live in america after something this big, its disgraceful, took him away from his family for preaching peace...

    although its not being proven in court (like his case) it means they almost certainly killed malcolm x...
  • water ur seeds
    water ur seeds Members Posts: 17,667 ✭✭✭✭✭
    bbwthick23 wrote: »
    And it matters now why?

    to show people (mostly older and middle aged people) who dismiss conspiracy theories against the government and believe what they and media say, that actually, the government are corrupt and capable of murdering someone they find a threat to their regime... and to also help find some closer for martin's family, so they can say to people without sounding crazy, that he was killed by government...
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Conspiracy theories....boy I tell ya.@Janklow pretty much said what I would say on this subject.

    You certainly are going to have to prove that somebody in an official capacity either sent the shooter or shot him personally in order to come to this kind of decision.


    The whole "MLK had enemies in the Federal government" argument is moot, MLK had enemies EVERYWHERE. Its not like he had to go far to find and enemy, nor is it likely that somebody HAD TO BE attached to the government and wanted to ? him. More than enough average rifle carrying joes were mad at King. Medgar Evers was shot in the back by one, not hard to see that average racists looking to take down an agitator happened. Sometime those average racists wore badges and its not difficult to say that some even were federal officers but to say that their official job was to eliminate MLK is a tough road to hoe.


    Its a civil trial also, so its little more than a symbolic victory for conspiracy theorists anyway. The fed was guilty in the eyes of public opinion back when it happened, nothing has changed since then. I still haven't seen proof that anyone working in any official capacity had a hand in King's assassination.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Hopefully, this makes sense, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Basically, I’m saying that the fact/idea that Ray was scapegoated comes doesn’t come from my claim that Ray’s plea bargain doesn’t necessarily prove his guilt. The fact/ idea that Ray was scapegoated also doesn’t come from thin air or from some “given” fact that is arbitrarily established.
    first, it's not a fact that Ray was scapegoated. whatever. second, what i'm saying is that you've come off as very dismissive of the fact that he could have plead guilty because he IS guilty. now, i get that you may really not believe he did it, and that's fine. but we should be considering the possibility that Ray shot MLK and/or that there wasn't a conspiracy.

    Yes, you are right. I am inclined to think that there is a “conspiracy,” but it’s certainly possible that Ray acted alone and shot MLK, and I do consider that possibility; however, I just find that possibility improbable and flawed because of several legitimate reasons and because of new evidence that has recently surfaced. I think that we really should be considering the possibility of the “conspiracy” rather than the opposite because the opposite is already considered the official story. I’m the one with the burden of proof, and I think that I have been brought up some evidence that should be considered.

    I think that I also need to clarify that I am not saying that the federal government killed MLK. I cannot know that for sure. What I am arguing for is the relatively likelihood that the federal government did have a hand in the assassination of MLK. And I think there is legitimate evidence to support that argument.

    I don’t think that you ever answered my question(s) though: Do you think that it’s possible that the federal government had a hand in MLK’s death? To what extent do you think this possibility may be true, especially in light of old and new suggestive evidence?
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    2. Chill out, I was never, am not, and will not be outraged. Don’t take it so personal.
    it may be possible that internet forum posts lose some nuance in translation, but this -"False. I never stated or implied that, and still would not state or imply that. You're the one who seems to be making the rash and naive judgement that the Ray trial was an open and shut case for sure and that he did it for sure."- seems a little outraged to me. but maybe that's just how i take it.

    Yeah, I think that I can see that. Just know that I’m not an emotional person. I don’t get mad or outraged, especially over the internet. I’m honestly a “cold” person, and I’m an ? but a respectful ? .
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    3. Of course you didn’t call it an “open and shut” case. But the quote below and some of your other claims made it seem to me like you implied as much. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. My bad.
    well, damn, man, make up your mind!

    No, I stand by what I said. It did seem like you were implying that. You just didn’t say it literally. But if you weren’t implying that, then I just misunderstood you. And if that’s the case, then I was wrong and that’s my bad.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    One clarification: I have a belief but it’s not “set.” Anyways, so you are saying that people who commit crimes plead guilty. Ok. Doesn’t the fact that people who also don’t commit crimes plead guilty make the previous fact a little less relevant?
    true, Ray pleading guilty does not mean that he did it. however, note that the article/thread has started from the position of "Ray's plea is ? ." so i presume that argument's already out there, and your posting has seemed to go along with that. but yes, by itself his plea is not proof of guilt. it is not, however, proof of anything else.

    True. Again, I think it’s possible that Ray did it all by his lonesome and that he is guilty, but I just find that less credible than the opposite claim.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I’m not sure I quite understand your last sentence, whether you’re saying that it’s possible that Ray might’ve not committed the crime or whether you’re saying that Ray might’ve committed the crime but possibly not as a lone actor.
    let me restate: i am saying the idea of pleading guilty to something to mitigate your punishment is not something only Ray has done.

    I’m assuming that you’re talking about pleading guilty to something to mitigate your punishment because you are, in fact, guilty? Ok, but I don’t see how that can be a strong argument for the case that Ray was guilty for sure, especially in light of other relevant facts.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    No, not officially, but, as others have pointed out, there is some very incriminating evidence out there. Fred Hampton is probably the most exemplary case. And his murder was just the year after MLK’s own.
    stop telling me that Fred Hampton was killed and start telling me what about it means that J. Edgar planned his assassination. that's all i ask!

    I can’t give you the hard evidence that you’re probably asking for that will tell you for sure that Hoover planned MLK’s assassination. My intent was to show you that Hoover was not above being involved in terminating his enemies. Factual documents have proven this. Hampton is a prime example of this. And we all know how powerful Hoover was, and we all know how much he hated MLK, and we all should know that the very moment that MLK marched against the war was the very moment that he lost the greatest government ally and protection that he ever had in President Johnson. I’m not saying that Hoover directly ordered the assassination. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t be too dismissive of that idea.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I know that this wasn't directed at me, but I think that it applies to me, so I'm going to just add my two cents.
    jono wrote: »
    Conspiracy theories....boy I tell ya.@Janklow pretty much said what I would say on this subject.

    Lol. I’m certainly no conspiracy theorist nutjob, but there can be a thin line between conspiracy theories and truths that just happen to be unimaginable and/or secretive. Some truths only become “official” truths decades later for whatever reason. I’m sure the Iran-Contra affair might’ve been a conspiracy theory at some point. I mean, is it really that far-fetched to think that the federal government (an entity that has historically been responsible for many assassinations even around the world) had a direct hand in the assassination of MLK? Really?
    jono wrote: »
    You certainly are going to have to prove that somebody in an official capacity either sent the shooter or shot him personally in order to come to this kind of decision.

    Perhaps that proof will never come to light either because there is no such proof or because the truth is obscured and not cared for.
    jono wrote: »
    The whole "MLK had enemies in the Federal government" argument is moot, MLK had enemies EVERYWHERE. Its not like he had to go far to find and enemy, nor is it likely that somebody HAD TO BE attached to the government and wanted to ? him. More than enough average rifle carrying joes were mad at King. Medgar Evers was shot in the back by one, not hard to see that average racists looking to take down an agitator happened. Sometime those average racists wore badges and its not difficult to say that some even were federal officers but to say that their official job was to eliminate MLK is a tough road to hoe.

    This is somewhat confusing. So you are saying that it is not difficult to say that federal agents might’ve been looking to deal with their enemies (like MLK) in the same way that Medgar Evers was? Isn’t that what I’m saying? I’m not exactly sure what “official job” is supposed to mean, but I’m NOT suggesting that federal agents had a mandate to directly ? MLK as if he was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. Though COINTELPRO makes you take a double take.
    jono wrote: »
    Its a civil trial also, so its little more than a symbolic victory for conspiracy theorists anyway. The fed was guilty in the eyes of public opinion back when it happened, nothing has changed since then. I still haven't seen proof that anyone working in any official capacity had a hand in King's assassination.

    We’ll just have to patiently wait for more researchers, investigators, documentarians, retired agents, unclassified documents, etc.