|
Editor
Toronto Sun
333 King Street, E.
Toronto, ON M5A 3X5
CANADA
Dear Sir:
This letter is in response to a June 26, 2006, news article
by Peter Worthington concerning prosecutions in the death of Anna Mae
Pictou-Aquash.
I’m curious. Was it merely a coincidence that this article
was published on June 26, the anniversary of the 1975 shoot-out on the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation?
Specifically, as regards the trial of Arlo Looking Cloud in
2004, the article stated: "In that trial, it was claimed that Leonard Peltier,
now 30 years in Leavenworth prison for the murder of two FBI agents on the Pine
Ridge Reserve in 1975, gave orders that Anna Mae be ‘executed’ as a suspect
informer for the FBI."
First, might I say that an error was made as to Leonard Peltier’s current whereabouts? Nearly a year ago, Leonard Peltier was moved to the
United States penitentiary located in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.
Second, there was no evidence entered or witness testimony
given at the Looking Cloud trial that indicated Leonard Peltier was involved in the
murder of Anna Mae Aquash. This is merely a conclusion that the U.S. government
hoped the media, and the American public, would reach.
In fact, it was the Canadian media that first followed the
U.S. government down the garden path. On February 21, 2005, CBC News Online (Indepth:
Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash. Bury her heart at Wounded Knee) falsely reported that
"some in AIM suspected Pictou-Aquash was an informer and had to be silenced
because she had heard Peltier describe in detail how he had killed the two FBI
agents."
The CBC article went on to say,
"The suggestion was raised at the [Looking Cloud] trial that Peltier ordered the woman's execution
because of suspicions she was an FBI informer."
Peltier, of
course, adamantly denies these claims. And why wouldn’t he? He never believed
Aquash was an informant, for one thing. Peltier also had no decision making
powers or authority within AIM. More than that, he had nothing to
fear from any of the FBI’s numerous informants. Why? For one very good reason: Peltier is an innocent man.
We now know that the FBI, despite its claim to the contrary,
could and did conduct a firing pin test on the Wichita AR-15, the weapon
attributed to Peltier and which was alleged to have caused Agents Williams’ and Coler’s fatal injuries. That test proved conclusively that the shell casing
offered into evidence at Peltier’s 1977 trial was not fired by the Wichita
AR-15. This means only one thing… Peltier did not shoot the agents. (Editor's
Note: View
the FBI's own documents which clearly show that the shell casing did not match
the Wichita AR-15.)
And what’s the lesson to be learned? To understand the Aquash
prosecutions, one must also familiarize oneself with the specifics of the
Peltier case.
One must remember that, even today, the U.S. government
admits it "did not and cannot prove" Peltier’s guilt or what role he "may have
played" in the incident on June 26, 1975. Twice, before the Court of Appeals,
Prosecutor Lynn Crooks has stated, "We don't know who shot those agents."
Further, Crooks demonstrated his predisposition to achieve a
conviction even if based on false or fraudulent evidence when, in an 1992
interview conducted by Steve Kroft on the television show "West 57th Street," he
said, "It doesn't bother my conscience one bit... Doesn't bother my conscience
one whit. I don't agree that there's anything wrong with that, and I can tell
you, it don't bother my conscience if we did."
But as has happened since his 1976 arrest, the U.S.
government isn’t above manipulating the media to destroy public confidence in
Leonard Peltier. A
1993 FBI memorandum shows that the government developed a
media plan by which former and active agents of the FBI made scurrilous claims
in print and on radio and television programs throughout the United States with
the intent of preventing Peltier’s release through an award of Executive
Clemency.
These same agents also took the unprecedented step of engaging in a
political
protest, demonstrating in front of the White House—creating a media event, in
fact, and ensuring nighttime news coverage on every television network and
delivery of the "package" to every American home. Ultimately, their efforts were
successful. By their actions, however, these agents knowingly engaged in
politically motivated conduct in direct violation of the "Federal Bureau of
Investigation Manual of Administrative Policy" and "Manual of Investigative
Policy."
This is by no means a new weapon in the FBI’s arsenal.
Further evidence of such media activity can be found in the "Final Report of the
Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence
Activities," (United States Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1976), most
notably against the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
Media manipulation also was a key element of the FBI’s public
relations activities surrounding the prosecutions of other members of the
American Indian Movement during the 1970s.
For example, prior to the 1976 trial of Peltier’s
codefendants, Bob Robideau and Dino Butler, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the FBI
warned local police that carloads of AIM "terrorists" were descending on the
town.
On May 11, 1976, U.S. marshals visited every office in the
Federal Building (where the trial was to be held), telling folks to prepare for
shooting incidents and the seizure of hostages and advising them that marshals
on the roof would be on the lookout for marauding Indians.
Elsewhere, rumors about alleged renegade activity ran
rampant. A report allegedly emanating from Connecticut police intelligence, for
example, stated that a "terrorist" group affiliated with AIM had hatched a plan
"to kill a cop a day." The report failed to mention that the organization
referenced was defunct.
On June 22, the FBI released a teletype that was distributed
to law enforcement agencies throughout the country. It claimed that 2,000 AIM
"Dog Soldiers" trained in "the Northwest Territory" would fan out across South
Dakota and would kidnap, bomb, burn, and kill... all, it was alleged, to disrupt
the Bicentennial Celebration.
When the 2,000 "Dog Soldiers" didn't show up in South Dakota
and the rest of the FBI's scare
campaign was shown to be a lie, the Cedar Rapids community began to look at AIM
members, who had peaceably assembled there for the trial, with a fresh eye and
view the government's machinations with skepticism.
Such media activity on the part of the FBI necessitates
gaining newspaper editors’ confidence and support in disseminating media reports
favorable to the FBI and damaging to their targets while, at the same time,
thwarting efforts of such targets to publicly defend themselves.
Which brings us to the matter of Paul DeMain, the so-called
expert on the Aquash case. And now, according to your article, the
self-appointed spokesperson for Leonard Peltier?
Perhaps you and Mr. Worthington are unaware that on May 1,
2003, Leonard Peltier filed a civil complaint against Mr. DeMain, editor of
News From Indian Country. Statements that were authored by DeMain that were
false, defamatory, and malicious had been circulated by DeMain's newspaper with
reckless disregard and with the knowledge that they were false. In such
statements, DeMain had repeatedly implied Peltier's involvement in Anna Mae’s
death in 1976. As part of the settlement of the law suit, about three months
after the Looking Cloud trial, DeMain was forced to retract his published
claims. Specifically, he issued a
statement in which he said, "Nor do I believe,
according to the evidence and testimony I now have, that Leonard Peltier had any
involvement in the death of Anna Mae Aquash."
Since then, DeMain has operated underground and "taken to the
road," it is rumored, expressly to poison the reporting of other media outlets.
Along the way, DeMain has relied heavily on the uncorroborated testimony of Kamook Nichols Banks at
the Looking Cloud trial. He also has oversimplified the dispute over that
uncorroborated testimony.
The first consideration about much of the
testimony presented
at the Looking Cloud trial must be that, with time and age, memory fades. The
events in question happened over 30 years ago.
In addition, in 1975, Kamook Nichols Banks was quite young.
It is accepted knowledge within the legal profession that the perceptions of
teenagers are often inaccurate and their recollections too easily manipulated.
For that reason, their witness testimony is generally considered unreliable.
Recall also can and often is affected by a myriad of other
factors not the least of which is the witnesses’ emotional state during events
about which testimony is rendered. Kamook was not only young, but pregnant,
during the autumn of 1975. Only months before, she had learned that Anna Mae
Aquash and Kamook’s then husband, Dennis Banks, had formed an intimate
relationship. Kamook’s claim that she and Aquash remained close despite what
some might consider a very personal betrayal of friendship and trust suggests an
implausible level of maturity in one so young.
I’ve been given to understand that Kamook Nichols Banks is an
honest woman. I’m certain that she believes her recollections to be accurate,
but this simply may not be the case. In fact, there are many people who, had
they been called to testify at the Looking Cloud trial, would have refuted a
number of her claims.
Very troubling and also at issue is Kamook’s romantic relationship with Robert Ecoffey, an
investigator in the Peltier and Aquash cases—and one of a number of
investigators who have staked their reputations on the same.
Such relationships are deemed inappropriate and are generally forbidden
for the duration of a criminal investigation expressly because they can and
often do raise reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of a
witness’ testimony.
Why was this relationship not revealed at the Looking Cloud
trial? Presumably, this was done intentionally to avert questions as to the
influence Ecoffey may have exerted over Kamook’s uncorroborated testimony on behalf of the
prosecution. This would have been an appropriate path of inquiry, however, and a
legitimate issue to place before the jury. Note: Kamook Nichols Banks married
Robert Ecoffey soon after the end of the trial.
What is of most concern to many people, however, is the fact
that Kamook Nichols Banks is a paid informant. The question that always arises
in these situations is whether or not an informant has provided accurate
information or merely provided tall tales in sufficient quantity, frequency, and
detail to satisfy investigators’ theory of a crime so as to secure the promised
rewards.
But there’s far more at issue in this particular case. Read
the findings of the Church Committee referenced previously or consider the
affidavit by former FBI Special Agent John C. Ryan which was filed as Appendix C
to the Plaintiffs’ "Motion for Justice" filed in the successful Bari/Cherney civil rights
suit against the FBI and the Oakland (California) Police (http://www.judibari.org/Ryan050701.html):
"…it would come as no surprise that FBI agents in… any case,
would distort, exaggerate, misrepresent, falsify or otherwise manipulate
information about an informant, or about information supposedly received from an
informant, or meetings, or the contents of reports and files, etc., regardless
of the untruthfulness or unlawfulness of their actions. Anyone—supervisors,
bureau headquarters, a court or magistrate in a given case, prosecutors, city
police officers—might have been a target (victim) of such fraud and deception
regarding informants and informant information in the circumstances and
atmosphere I am describing."
The FBI has a long history of mishandling informants. For
many years, the FBI has not followed its own guidelines as regards the use of
confidential informants, including regulations regarding cash payments for
information. As late as 2005, despite attempts to remedy this situation, the
government found that the FBI continues to mishandle informants (see "FBI
violating informant guidelines: Inspector General finds 87 failure rate,"
Boston Globe, 13 Sep 2005).
FBI documents show that Kamook Nichols Banks’ cooperation was
sought as early as 1977 (as the Peltier trial was ongoing) for the purposes of
soliciting information about her estranged husband (co-founder of AIM, Dennis
Banks), and the death of Anna Mae Aquash (but, surprisingly, not about Peltier).
Much later, it is claimed, Kamook Nichols Banks was paid $42,000 (U.S. dollars)
by the FBI for "moving expenses."
Given the history of the FBI vis-à-vis
information on informants, as well as the elapse of some 27 years since the
events in question and the
Looking Cloud trial, the public simply has no way of knowing for certain
that Kamook Nichols Banks did not receive much more by way of remuneration.
All of the above conditions necessarily raise serious
questions as to the credibility of the uncorroborated testimony provided by Kamook Nichols
Banks at the Looking Cloud trial.
Let's not forget that even Appellate Judge Gerald Heaney (Eighth Circuit Court,
Retired) urged the United States government to "share in the responsibility for
the June 26 firefight" and the deaths of its agents. It appeared that the FBI
was equally to blame for the shootout, Heaney said.
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."
Still, the U.S. government refuses to accept responsibility for its role in the
tragic events on the Pine Ridge Reservation and steadfastly denies any
wrongdoing.
The U.S. government, however, has admitted that it
perpetrated a fraud on the Canadian people. Recall that, in 1976, the FBI
presented false affidavits to your courts so as to illegally extradite Leonard
Peltier from Canada to the United States.
Surely, if nothing else, the Peltier case has taught us the
need for vigilance? Forgive, if you will, but you must never forget.
The Lakota elders have a saying: "Memory is like riding a trail at night with a
lighted torch... The torch casts its light only so far, and beyond that is the
darkness."
In these times, as patterns of FBI misconduct reemerge (not only as regards
Peltier), caution is required as regards so-called "reliable" sources.
Turn a more critical eye to the information with which you are provided. Raise
your torch higher, that is to say. Shine the light further along the path.
Sincerely,
Delaney Bruce
USA
Reprinted With Permission of the Author
Return to
Op-Ed Menu
|
