It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Re: The 1999 civil case concerning MLK's assassination

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
(Continuation of an argument on the "Top Ten Real Conspiracies" thread)

If anyone cares, it involves a 1999 lawsuit in which the King family sued elderly Memphis ne'er-do-well Loyd Jowers for his role in murdering Dr King. This was based on Jowers' own "confession" of involvement.

The case was prosecuted by civil rights activist and attorney Bill Pepper. The King family won the case, and were awarded the symbolic damages they had requested: $100

Since then, the entire trial has become the subject of controversy.




posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

OK, I guess we're starting over here. This is the reply I had left in the previous thread (which I will now go edit):



I will focus on the trial, since we've gone to the trouble of discrediting Posner and Pepper. It was a civil trial for the sum of $100. Jowers never even appeared at the trial, so he did not testify.

The verdict that 'government agencies' (anonymous) were involved proves absolutely nothing, except that a jury found the accusations against Jowers and references made to government accomplices were more than likely true, when the only side that presented a case at all was the prosecution. Since Jowers was severely ill, and the 'government agencies' were not named, the defense was essentially zero.

If a case finds defendants guilty who weren't even named, nor allowed to defend themselves as a result of not being named - then the verdict is highly suspect, because why would a juror find for the defense if the defendant wasn't named and therefore received no proper legal representation?

Here is the close of the opening statement by the DEFENSE ATTORNEY - notice that he is encouraging the jurors to find multiple people / parties as guilty, because he's only trying to defend Jowers. He literally encourages the jury to find the U.S. Government guilty.

"Please give it serious consideration and please think about a judgment against others besides Mr. Jowers. He played a very small part, you know he did, in this case. Think about the other part that Mr. Ray played, Mr. Liberto played. You’ve got testimony here from a witness that is uncontradicted saying that Mr. Liberto told me he had Martin Luther King assassinated. Go over it. Think about it. Read over it. There is only one thing to do, that’s to say that we the jury find that the United States government, FBI, State of Tennessee, Mr. Liberto, Mr. James Earl Ray, they were all involved in a conspiracy to murder Dr. Martin Luther King. That’s the only decision can you make."

So not only was there no defense of these unnamed defendants, but the only defense attorney present actually encouraged the jury to find unnamed defendants guilty, so he could try to save the only person he was representing - Jowers.
edit on 22-9-2017 by blackaspirin because: italics and bolding



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
"We" have not "discredited Pepper", that's an untrue statement.

I have shown you that Gerald Posner is a journalistic fraud who had to resign in disgrace for systematic plagiarism and falsification. By contrast, Pepper was found to have committed libel, which is not something one does deliberately, and it was separate from the trial.

Also, you haven't even read the remarks by the defence attorney before quoting them. He specifically names someone: "Mr Liberto."

That's Frank Liberto, a local businessman with ties to the Marcello family branch of the Mafia, who was investigated by HSCA in the 1970s. Well, actually, the informant who named him was investigated. You can read about it here. Liberto was named separately by three witnesses who independently related that Liberto had stated that he was involved in the MLK murder (they were John McFerren, Jowers himself, and Nathan Whitlock).

Whitlock hmself is an interesting character. Liberto told Whitlock that he was involved in killing MLK. Whitlock later managed to get Liberto to repeat this in the presence of Whitlock's own mother. Mrs Whitlock conformed to the DOJ's questioners that Liberto had indeed admitted his involvement. Unable to discredit the combined testimonies of the Whitlocks, the DOJ wrote off Liberto's confession to Mrs Whitlock as "a macho boast."
edit on 22-9-2017 by audubon because: clarification



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

We are discussing the trial.

If you want to bring up the trial and claim it results in some sort of proof of a conspiracy, then you have to deal with the fact that the defense attorney did not defend the unnamed defendants, and even encouraged the jury to find them guilty. They were not represented at all. They were not defended at all. Both the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney were attempting to implicate the US Government, but they weren't named or defended by anyone.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin
a reply to: audubon

We are discussing the trial.


Yes; and how you had just quoted a chunk of text that named one of Jowers' co-conspirators, and then claimed that no other conspirators had been identified.

Don't worry. I've noticed your tendency to kick over your tracks by kicking up a cloud of dust about something else.


If you want to bring up the trial and claim it results in some sort of proof of a conspiracy, then you have to deal with the fact that the defense attorney did not defend the unnamed defendants, and even encouraged the jury to find them guilty. They were not represented at all. They were not defended at all. Both the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney were attempting to implicate the US Government, but they weren't named or defended by anyone.


Yet the trial went ahead anyway, despite your objections. And even the DOJ didn't make the point you are now making when they tried to discredit the verdict.

That must tell you, surely, that the Tennesseean justice system knows something you don't. Perhaps, who knows, even the Attorney-General knows something you don't.

And, as I'll say again, no-one has attempted to overturn the verdict via the appeals process, which is the normal means of redress for those wrongfully convicted or held liable. To be quite clear: The DOJ (annual budget: >$20 billion) has not spent one brass farthing on appealing a case in which the US Government was ruled to have assassinated a civil rights leader.

I mean, I know bureaucrats and penpushers have a lot of stuff going on, and need to keep the stationery cupboard stocked with treasury tags and biros, but you'd think that at some stage someone would have pointed out that the US Government had just been ruled responsible for a nationally-notorious murder in a farce of a trial, and that perhaps DOJ could have a whip-round for small change to fund an appeal attorney or two.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
If you want to return to the Posner and Pepper stuff, we can do that. I don't need to rely on Posner for anything, but you seem to have a little salt in your eye at this point, so I'll follow your lead on how it's gonna go.

You brought up this case as some sort of proof of conspiracy. I've now pointed out that the defendants you claimed were proved to be part of it were not named, and had no legal representation.

That alone makes this case a terrible thing to point to as 'proof'. I don't imagine you would admit you're guilty of something after you had been found as an accomplice in a trial you weren't even named in, and had no legal representation. "Mr. LIberto" was mentioned by Jowers' defense attorney in the trial, but he was not named as a defendant, and thus - also had no legal representation.

And now the argument has shifted that since the government never went through the motions of refuting this civil trial for $100, then that constitutes some sort of further evidence of guilt, despite the fact that they weren't represented in the first place.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin
If you want to return to the Posner and Pepper stuff, we can do that. I don't need to rely on Posner for anything, but you seem to have a little salt in your eye at this point, so I'll follow your lead on how it's gonna go.


Posner is a discredited journalistic fraud, Pepper is a practising attorney. That is the end of the argument as far as I am concerned, and your little show of strutting about with your chest puffed out won't change that.


And now the argument has shifted that since the government never went through the motions of refuting this civil trial for $100, then that constitutes some sort of further evidence of guilt, despite the fact that they weren't represented in the first place.


One thing is becoming clear very rapidly in this conversation. You know nothing about how courts work, but think that your lack of knowledge signifies native honesty. It's a bit cringey, to be frank.

You don't have to be represented in a court case to be found liable. If you are found liable, you can appeal it. Since the US Government was found liable, it suprises me that the the DOJ has never appealed the verdict, especially since the verdict tarnishes the public perception of the government.

I don't have to bother refuting stuff you're just plucking out of thin air. The court case happened, the judge overseeing it conducted it to its conclusion, damages were awarded, the DOJ did not appeal, and the verdict stands. Those are the facts. You ought to deal with them for a change.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Of course 'that's the end of the argument' as far as you're concerned - you still want Pepper's $11 million libel conviction to be some sort of happy accident - it involved his claims about this subject, and he lost because he was really careless with the facts. Here:

Billy Ray Eidson sued London lawyer William F. Pepper and his publishers in 1997 for writing that Eidson was part of a Special Forces unit sent to Memphis on April 4, 1968, to kill King. Eidson was a firefighter in Birmingham, Ala., at the time and said in a deposition he had never been to Memphis and was working in the fire station the day King was slain.

Winner By Default In court documents, Pepper denied Eidson’s allegations that he was negligent in his research. Pepper was later found in default for failing to appear after receiving notice of Eidson’s deposition and the damages hearing.


abcnews.go.com...

Yeah, he's a swell guy and that totally doesn't count against him, right? And then he goes on to become a 9/11 Truther too, but that also isn't representative of a conspiracy nut that gets his facts wrong in the course of his connect-the-dots pattern seeking.

To recap, Pepper's book and this case were used as some sort of proof of a conspiracy. Pepper was successfully sued for libel. As for the case, the jury was subject to the arguments brought by the prosecution and defense, BOTH OF WHOM encouraged the jury to find unnamed defendants as guilty. The DEFENSE ATTORNEY encouraged the jury to blame unnamed conspirators in an attempt to save his own client.

Those unnamed defendants, the ones you are claiming have been proven to be involved - were never given legal representation. Any testimony against them in the course of the trial went unchallenged, because no one is there to represent them, so of course the jury has to play along.

I fully understand that the court can issue a verdict in a civil trial that finds unnamed defendants guilty, but I also understand what constitutes 'proof', and that isn't it.

Your condescension and apparent anger about being challenged on the matter don't count for anything, by the way.
edit on 23-9-2017 by blackaspirin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin
Of course 'that's the end of the argument' as far as you're concerned - you still want Pepper's $11 million libel conviction to be some sort of happy accident - it involved his claims about this subject, and he lost because he was really careless with the facts. Here:

Billy Ray Eidson sued London lawyer William F. Pepper and his publishers in 1997 for writing that Eidson was part of a Special Forces unit sent to Memphis on April 4, 1968, to kill King. Eidson was a firefighter in Birmingham, Ala., at the time and said in a deposition he had never been to Memphis and was working in the fire station the day King was slain.

Winner By Default In court documents, Pepper denied Eidson’s allegations that he was negligent in his research. Pepper was later found in default for failing to appear after receiving notice of Eidson’s deposition and the damages hearing.


abcnews.go.com...

Yeah, he's a swell guy and that totally doesn't count against him, right? And then he goes on to become a 9/11 Truther too, but that also isn't representative of a conspiracy nut that gets his facts wrong in the course of his connect-the-dots pattern seeking.


So what? Leonardo Da Vinci thought that penile erections were caused by air-channels leading from the lungs in male humans. That doesn't mean he didn't invent the helicopter or the articulated chain.

Most writers have committed libel once or twice in their career. It happens a lot. Seriously, Eidson deserved and got a big payout for Pepper's carelessness.

About six years after toppling Nixon, the Washington Post had to hand back a Pulitzer Prize for a front page story they ran, which turned out to be a complete fiction by the 26-year-old reporter they had just hired. Does that mean Nixon was unfairly pressurised to resign? No, of course it doesn't.


To recap, Pepper's book and this case were used as some sort of proof of a conspiracy. Pepper was successfully sued for libel. As for the case, the jury was subject to the arguments brought by the prosecution and defense, BOTH OF WHOM encouraged the jury to find unnamed defendants as guilty. The DEFENSE ATTORNEY encouraged the jury to blame unnamed conspirators in an attempt to save his own client.


I'm not sure why you are typing this in capitals. It doesn't prove anything at all, except your ignorance of how court cases proceed.

And, since you appear to be avoiding the obvious, Pepper was sued for libel before the 1999 civil case against Jowers et al. If Pepper's libel case so seriously undermined the case he was putting forward in 1999, why didn't the defense attorney use that fact to undermine Pepper's presentation of the case?

I'd like an answer to this question please.

But I don't think I'm going to get one, because you're all hat and no cattle.


Those unnamed defendants, the ones you are claiming have been proven to be involved - were never given legal representation. Any testimony against them in the course of the trial went unchallenged, because no one is there to represent them, so of course the jury has to play along.


I've been through this with you already, and so am not bothering to do it again.


I fully understand that the court can issue a verdict in a civil trial that finds unnamed defendants guilty, but I also understand what constitutes 'proof', and that isn't it.


Shame you weren't the judge or a member of the jury then, isn't it. If only they had all had the benefit of your wisdom.


Your condescension and apparent anger about being challenged on the matter


Hahaha, you wish. You are not a mind-reader. You are transparently attempting to manipulate reader perceptions, and have done so in several posts already.
edit on 23-9-2017 by audubon because: typo and clarification



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon

So what? Leonardo Da Vinci thought that penile erections were caused by air-channels leading from the lungs in male humans. That doesn't mean he didn't invent the helicopter or the articulated chain.

Most writers have committed libel once or twice in their career. It happens a lot. Seriously, Eidson deserved and got a big payout for Pepper's carelessness.

About six years after toppling Nixon, the Washington Post had to hand back a Pulitzer Prize for a front page story they ran, which turned out to be a complete fiction by the 26-year-old reporter they had just hired. Does that mean Nixon was unfairly pressurised to resign? No, of course it doesn't.


No, no - Pepper was successfully sued for libel in matters regarding to the MLK Conspiracy theory he promoted - I'm not suggesting it was part of the actual trial (I don't know either, the timing is close). But the point is that his book, which you used as evidence of proof of a conspiracy - was patently false in its claim about Eidson, and Pepper refused to admit the charge against Eidson was false. He just didn't show up to face the music, and got slapped with the libel conviction. That's no 'accident' of libel. He said he stood by his reporting.

Does this necessarily prove that all of his other claims in the book were false? Of course not. Neither does a later scandal of plagiarism refute any points that Posner made, particularly if they're confirmed elsewhere anyway. We can move on from this if you like, I'm just not agreeing to your attempt to hold a double-standard.



originally posted by: audubonI'm not sure why you are typing this in capitals. It doesn't prove anything at all, except your ignorance of how court cases proceed.

And, since you appear to be avoiding the obvious, Pepper was sued for libel before the 1999 civil case against Jowers et al. If Pepper's libel case so seriously undermined the case he was putting forward in 1999, why didn't the defense attorney use that fact to undermine Pepper's presentation of the case?

I'd like an answer to this question please.

But I don't think I'm going to get one, because you're all hat and no cattle.


"All hat and no cattle?" What next, "don't bring a knife to a gunfight?" Save your silly debate rhetoric, you're trying too hard.

The answer to your question, as I've already explained - is that the defense attorney has a vested interest in getting the 'various conspirators' found guilty, because his goal is to get Jowers off the hook by way of implicating others - he encouraged the jury to find them guilty in his opening statement. So as I have pointed out, in regard to the unnamed defendants - the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney have the same goal in regard to everyone but James Earl Ray and Jowers - they want the unnamed defendants found guilty, because it helps both of them in regard to their respective clients.

He's not about to attack Pepper's reasoning for including unnamed defendants, he needs that stuff just as much as the prosecuting attorney. I don't know if Eidson was brought up in the trial or not, because the libel verdict wasn't handed down until 2000. If Eidson WAS brought up, though - and I think the transcript of the case is available online - then a defense attorney, who wants the 'unnamed defendants' found guilty, is not about to attack any of the reasoning from Pepper's book that helps implicate those accused parties. That would undermine his own goals.
edit on 23-9-2017 by blackaspirin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin
No, no - Pepper was successfully sued for libel in matters regarding to the MLK Conspiracy theory he promoted - I'm not suggesting it was part of the actual trial (I don't know either, the timing is close). But the point is that his book, which you used as evidence of proof of a conspiracy - was patently false in its claim about Eidson, and Pepper refused to admit the charge against Eidson was false. He just didn't show up to face the music, and got slapped with the libel conviction. That's no 'accident' of libel. He said he stood by his reporting.


See that bit in italics? It's not true. Which is why the rest of this post of yours is just key-pecking.


Does this necessarily prove that all of his other claims in the book were false? Of course not. Neither does a later scandal of plagiarism refute any points that Posner made, particularly if they're confirmed elsewhere anyway. We can move on from this if you like, I'm just not agreeing to your attempt to hold a double-standard.


It's not an "attempt to hold a double standard." You are unable to see that you are talking about two different things.

It is quiet easy to libel someone by accident. It is less easy to type made-up lies and copy other people's work by accident.

Anyway, this little to-and-fro started because you relied on Posner. Who is a fraud. You've side-stepped that, and well done too.


"All hat and no cattle?" What next, "don't bring a knife to a gunfight?" Save your silly debate rhetoric, you're trying too hard.


Since you dislike figures of speech (God knows why, but there's no accounting for taste) I shall state it more simply next time. More or less in these words: "You are pretending to have more evidence than you really have."

Or to put it another way, "You are full of..." Well, I'll have to find a way past the ATS filter to do that justice.


The answer to your question, as I've already explained - is that the defense attorney has a vested interest in getting the 'various conspirators' found guilty, because his goal is to get Jowers off the hook by way of implicating others - he encouraged the jury to find them guilty in his opening statement. So as I have pointed out, in regard to the unnamed defendants - the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney have the same goal in regard to everyone but James Earl Ray and Jowers - they want the unnamed defendants found guilty, because it helps both of them in regard to their respective clients.


And indeed, he was somewhat successful. The apportionment of blame subsequently found the "unknown others" to be 70 per cent responsible, and Jowers to be only 30 per cent responsible.

Do you actually have a point here? Because I'm damned if I can see what it is. And to be honest, I wonder whether you can.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: blackaspirin
But the point is that his book, which you used as evidence of proof of a conspiracy


See that bit in italics? It's not true. Which is why the rest of this post of yours is just key-pecking.


Sigh. I'm quoting you.


originally posted by: audubonYou can read the account of how the case was solved in the book "An Act of State" by William Pepper, the Attorney who solved the case. (Link is to Amazon.com - I have no financial interest in sales of the book).

So yes, we can now say that one of the 'big three' assassinations of the 1960s was a proven domestic conspiracy.




originally posted by: audubonIt is quiet easy to libel someone by accident. It is less easy to type made-up lies and copy other people's work by accident.

Anyway, this little to-and-fro started because you relied on Posner. Who is a fraud. You've side-stepped that, and well done too.


I already noted that Pepper did not retract the claim, so that's no accident. He was surprised that the dead man was still alive, but he did not retract the claim about being part of a murder squad, and he was found guilty of libel, to the tune of $11 million. Keep trying to spin it.





originally posted by: audubonAnd indeed, he was somewhat successful. The apportionment of blame subsequently found the "unknown others" to be 70 per cent responsible, and Jowers to be only 30 per cent responsible.

Do you actually have a point here? Because I'm damned if I can see what it is. And to be honest, I wonder whether you can.


Personally, I think you're playing dumb. The standard of proof in a civil case is preponderance of evidence - I've already pointed out that both the prosecution AND the defense encouraged the jury to find the unnamed defendants guilty, so the jury never heard evidence to the contrary.

Of COURSE they'll find a preponderance of evidence that the unnamed defendants were involved, because that's all they heard. And you used this, along with the book, as proof that it was a conspiracy.

Go ahead and pretend you don't understand the point, I think it's kind of entertaining to watch.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin
Sigh. I'm quoting you.


Protip: No you're not.



originally posted by: audubonYou can read the account of how the case was solved in the book "An Act of State" by William Pepper, the Attorney who solved the case. (Link is to Amazon.com - I have no financial interest in sales of the book).

So yes, we can now say that one of the 'big three' assassinations of the 1960s was a proven domestic conspiracy.


Yes, and I stand by that. Something is wrong in your reasoning. Why don't you check and see what it is?


I already noted that Pepper did not retract the claim, so that's no accident. He was surprised that the dead man was still alive, but he did not retract the claim about being part of a murder squad, and he was found guilty of libel, to the tune of $11 million. Keep trying to spin it.


Please stop with your silly remarks about my motivations. You may not be sincere, but that's your own business.

It really doesn't bother me how Pepper treated his libel defeat. It's not relevant.


Personally, I think you're playing dumb. The standard of proof in a civil case is preponderance of evidence - I've already pointed out that both the prosecution AND the defense encouraged the jury to find the unnamed defendants guilty, so the jury never heard evidence to the contrary.


Every time you post, you demonstrate how little you understand. No-one was "found guilty", this was a civil trial. However, the default position is to presume the person charged with an offence is innocent.

If Pepper hadn't established his case, Jowers would have been cleared.


Of COURSE they'll find a preponderance of evidence that the unnamed defendants were involved, because that's all they heard. And you used this, along with the book, as proof that it was a conspiracy.


The underlined words are not truthful.

As for the court verdict, yes, gosh, imagine how irresponsible it must be to cite a jury decision as any kind of proof of anything. I mean it's only a one-thousand-year-old process that has never been improved upon. What the judge should have done is rung you up and let you decide.


Go ahead and pretend you don't understand the point, I think it's kind of entertaining to watch.


You: *something irrelevant*
Me: I don't see why you say that.
You: You're just playing dumb.

Have you ever thought that perhaps you're not a very good communicator? You don't understand court procedure, but keep on as if you are Perry Mason come to life; you misunderstand things I've said, but keep asking me to explain why I've said things that I haven't said; and you make gigantic misunderstandings, and then expect me to address the consequences of those misunderstandings.

Case in point. You're claiming that I proposed, as proof of a conspiracy, a book by William Pepper in which he libelled an innocent man as a conspirator in the MLK murder. This is all kinds of wrong. It's so wrong that I'm asking you to go back and check how you arrived at this position. But you appear to be incapable of spotting the fatal errors you have made.

Is it dishonesty, or incompetence? Well, I'm not sure, but I do know that you're talking nonsense as a result.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
The error is that they're different books written by Pepper, fair enough. I sincerely apologize for that.

However, when you say that it's 'not relevant' if Pepper did not retract his erroneous claim about Eidsel, then the claim of 'accidental' libel is a red herring. An accident would entail an admission of error, if we're actually judging the character of a person.



originally posted by: audubon

Every time you post, you demonstrate how little you understand. No-one was "found guilty", this was a civil trial. However, the default position is to presume the person charged with an offence is innocent.

If Pepper hadn't established his case, Jowers would have been cleared.


If you're using it as proof of a conspiracy, I don't care if you use the word 'liable' or 'guilty'. The problem is the same:

We're not talking about Jowers - we're talking about the unnamed defendants. Pepper is not the only one who attempted to establish a case against them, the defense attorney tried to do the same thing - they both wanted the unnamed defendants found 'liable'. That's why it's not proof of anything, other than the prosecution and defense assisted each other in their goal of tarnishing the unnamed defendants.



originally posted by: audubonAs for the court verdict, yes, gosh, imagine how irresponsible it must be to cite a jury decision as any kind of proof of anything. I mean it's only a one-thousand-year-old process that has never been improved upon. What the judge should have done is rung you up and let you decide.


No, a finding of liability in a civil trial is not 'proof' in any real world sense - the standard is only for a preponderance of evidence, and is highly suspect in a trial where the prosecution and defense are both accusing unnamed defendants of the same thing - there is literally nobody there who is interested in contradicting that stance.

O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in his criminal trial, and 'liable' in the civil trial. Which one offers proof about whether or not he killed Ron and Nicole?



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin
The error is that they're different books written by Pepper, fair enough. I sincerely apologize for that.


I respect your admission of that error. And I don't like to dwell on such things, because we all make mistakes. But - before we move on - I would like to point out that if you had bothered to check this one basic not-at-all-concealed fact, right back at the start, you would have saved us both a lot of time and effort. And that I identified and pointed out your error some posts ago, but you completely ignored it.

We can take it as read that a significant number of the points you have posted as a result of that error have now been rendered totally irrelevant. You might cast your eye back on the misplaced confidence with which you stated those points.


If you're using it as proof of a conspiracy, I don't care if you use the word 'liable' or 'guilty'. The problem is the same:

We're not talking about Jowers - we're talking about the unnamed defendants. Pepper is not the only one who attempted to establish a case against them, the defense attorney tried to do the same thing - they both wanted the unnamed defendants found 'liable'. That's why it's not proof of anything, other than the prosecution and defense assisted each other in their goal of tarnishing the unnamed defendants.


This is blithering nonsense. Nothing prevented Jowers' attorney from rejecting the case in its entirety. Nothing forced him to try to shift the blame to the "unnamed others." He could have said: "Jowers is a nutcase and the "unnamed others" don't exist. Throw this case out, ladies and gentlemen of the Jury."

But he didn't do that. Why do you suppose that might be?


No, a finding of liability in a civil trial is not 'proof' in any real world sense - the standard is only for a preponderance of evidence, and is highly suspect in a trial where the prosecution and defense are both accusing unnamed defendants of the same thing - there is literally nobody there who is interested in contradicting that stance.

O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in his criminal trial, and 'liable' in the civil trial. Which one offers proof about whether or not he killed Ron and Nicole?


There you go again, running round in circles so fast that you disappear up your own fundament.

Courts do not deal in "proof" they deal in verdicts and rulings. Evidence can constitute proof, but a verdict is something based on evidence. In the Jowers case a preponderance of evidence led the Jury to decide that it was more likely than not that a conspiracy involving Loyd Jowers killed MLK.

What your point is about the OJ civil case, I have no idea and frankly don't give a button anyway at this stage. As far as I can see you are holding up the OJ civil verdict as proof that civil courts can't be relied upon. But that's such a daft position to adopt that I can't see why anyone would do it.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: audubon

We can take it as read that a significant number of the points you have posted as a result of that error have now been rendered totally irrelevant. You might cast your eye back on the misplaced confidence with which you stated those points.


Except for the part about Pepper's character in relation to admitting error, which is particularly highlighted by the fact that I just admitted mine - which was truly accidental. I'm not holding Pepper to a higher standard than I hold myself. He had the opportunity to say it was an accident - he did not do so.



originally posted by: audubon
This is blithering nonsense. Nothing prevented Jowers' attorney from rejecting the case in its entirety. Nothing forced him to try to shift the blame to the "unnamed others." He could have said: "Jowers is a nutcase and the "unnamed others" don't exist. Throw this case out, ladies and gentlemen of the Jury."

But he didn't do that. Why do you suppose that might be?


Garrison had known Jowers for years, having represented him many years earlier. It is not controversial to say that Garrison believed some of what Jowers had said about the MLK assassination, although it's not entirely clear which parts he believed and which he did not. He definitely believed there was involvement by the US Government and Memphis Police.

That does not alter the point I've been making, it is support - that Garrison assisted much of Pepper's case in pointing the finger at the unnamed defendants. Their only source of disagreement was over James Earl Ray, and the amount of involvement Jowers had. Here, this is from the closing statements, Garrison speaking:

"Mr. Jowers played a very, very insignificant and minor role in this if he played anything at all. He stated because of who he has come forth and said, that he has lost his wife, everything he has and his health. So he played a very insignificant, very small role, if anything in this thing. It was much bigger than Mr. Jowers, who owned a little greasy-spoon restaurant there and happened to be at the location that he was. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I guess the area of disagreement between Dr. Pepper and myself for the most part is this: It is Mr. James Earl Ray's part in this case."

This part comes later, Garrison still speaking:

"I think the testimony here that you've heard and the proof that you've heard indicates clearly there is more than just Mr. Jowers involved. He was a small-time greasy-spoon cafe operator who played a very small insignificant part in this case, if anything. If you will study over the reports I've provided for you and the exhibits, think about all the testimony that has been given here and what really happened, ladies and gentlemen, your verdict would have to be that the United States government, the FBI, the Memphis Police Department and others were involved in this conspiracy to murder Dr. King."

www.thekingcenter.org...


I don't know how many times I need to make this point - Pepper and Garrison are both trying to get unnamed defendants found liable. Those unnamed defendants had no representation in the trial. The jury is being led in the same direction by both attorneys in regard to the unnamed defendants. Nobody is challenging any of it, in a case where preponderance of evidence is the standard. Of course the jury found them liable.


originally posted by: audubon
There you go again, running round in circles so fast that you disappear up your own fundament.

Courts do not deal in "proof" they deal in verdicts and rulings. Evidence can constitute proof, but a verdict is something based on evidence. In the Jowers case a preponderance of evidence led the Jury to decide that it was more likely than not that a conspiracy involving Loyd Jowers killed MLK.

What your point is about the OJ civil case, I have no idea and frankly don't give a button anyway at this stage. As far as I can see you are holding up the OJ civil verdict as proof that civil courts can't be relied upon. But that's such a daft position to adopt that I can't see why anyone would do it.


The whole point of our disagreement is whether the case 'proved' there was a conspiracy - and I agree, courts do not deal in 'proof', so what's the confusion? I disagreed with your original statement from the very beginning.

The OJ Simpson situation highlights this - you have two cases with two different results (and two different standards). What does that tell us about whether or not OJ did or did not kill Ron and Nicole? Which case do we point to in the manner that you're pointing to the MLK case?



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Here's Pepper appearing in a video, along with Garrison, who just verbally signs off in support of what Pepper says - both still promoting the idea of a vast conspiracy in 2011.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin
Garrison had known Jowers for years, having represented him many years earlier. It is not controversial to say that Garrison believed some of what Jowers had said about the MLK assassination, although it's not entirely clear which parts he believed and which he did not. He definitely believed there was involvement by the US Government and Memphis Police. snip I don't know how many times I need to make this point - Pepper and Garrison are both trying to get unnamed defendants found liable. Those unnamed defendants had no representation in the trial. The jury is being led in the same direction by both attorneys in regard to the unnamed defendants. Nobody is challenging any of it, in a case where preponderance of evidence is the standard. Of course the jury found them liable.


Then why didn't Jowers' attorney call representatives from the bodies that were being accused? It's not Pepper's job to argue against his own prosecution case.


The whole point of our disagreement is whether the case 'proved' there was a conspiracy - and I agree, courts do not deal in 'proof', so what's the confusion? I disagreed with your original statement from the very beginning.


You twist and turn like Ike and Tina Turner doing the Twist. It was proven to the satisfaction of a civil jury that there was a conspiracy and that Loyd Jowers was part of it. Jowers was on trial, not the notion of the conspiracy. If the conspiracy had not been proven (to the satisfaction of the Jury) Jowers would have not been found liable, because there was no other charge against him.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
Then why didn't Jowers' attorney call representatives from the bodies that were being accused? It's not Pepper's job to argue against his own prosecution case.


It's like you didn't even read the part you quoted, and replied to someone else's quote instead. Here, I'll say it again:

"He definitely believed there was involvement by the US Government and Memphis Police."

That's the problem. The prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney are on the same side in regard to the unnamed defendants. No one is representing them. Why would Garrison call them to help them refute charges he wants the jury to find them liable for?

It's really no different than asking, "Why didn't PEPPER call them, then?" - because he believed they were liable, too. He has the same goal. I even quoted Garrison on the matter, directly from the trial.



originally posted by: audubon
You twist and turn like Ike and Tina Turner doing the Twist. It was proven to the satisfaction of a civil jury that there was a conspiracy and that Loyd Jowers was part of it. Jowers was on trial, not the notion of the conspiracy. If the conspiracy had not been proven (to the satisfaction of the Jury) Jowers would have not been found liable, because there was no other charge against him.


It's not twisting and turning on my part, you simply won't deal with the fact that both attorneys had the goal of getting the unnamed defendants found liable, and no attorney to defend them, because they weren't named in the lawsuit.

So yes, a jury that had only heard evidence that the unnamed defendants were involved - decided there was a preponderance of evidence that they were involved. Gee, what were the odds?



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
You're just repeating the same points over and over now, and I'm going to reiterate my points just once more. After that, I'll only respond when you bring something substantive to the table. Please note, I have answered all your complaints at least once already.

1) The job of a defence attorney is to present the case for the defence. Pepper's case for the prosecution had so many moving parts that Garrison could have attacked any of them with great effect. He didn't. And he could have done, if he wanted to shift the blame away from his client.

2) This was a fair trial, no procedural irregularities occurred, the DOJ has never appealed it, the decision was reached by a unanimous Jury decision, and it stands.

In a nutshell, your position is that the Jury was swayed because they only heard evidence for a conspiracy and not against it. Even if that were true, the Jury still had to consider the credibility of that evidence, and they specifically stated that they had.

So, if you think this was a 'show trial', please demonstrate the ways in which the Jury was misled by bad evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join