Martin Luther King assassinated by US government: MLK civil trial decision

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by poncho, Oct 3, 2013.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Martin Luther King’s family and his attorney, William F. Pepper, won a civil trial that found US government agencies guilty in the wrongful death of Martin Luther King. The 1999 trial, King Family versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators, is the only trial ever conducted on the assassination of Dr. King. The King family’s attempts for a criminal trial were denied, as suspect James Ray’s recant of what he claimed was a false confession was denied.

    CONTINUE . . .
     
  2. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Let's say they did, and I'm not denying that they did, they wanted a high profile shooting. It made a martyr out of him created a swell of support and artificial moral authority for the Socialist agenda.
     
  3. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your article, written a full 12 and half years after the trial, certainly comes to a vastly different conclusion than did the New York Times, which wrote this article the next day.


    No mention of the government being found liable. No mention of the supposedly "overwhelming evidence of government complicity" stated in your article. No mention, in your article, of the fact that Jowers' statement that he was "paid to arrange the killing and had hired a gunman to do the deed" was found false by every lie detector test he took, that there was no evidence to back up the claim, first made in a television interview in 1993.

    The Times article sums up the case nicely: "In the Jowers case, there were no true combatants. The King family was interested only in the verdict of history, giving the defendant little incentive to defend himself. This skewed the judicial process and contributed very little to a fair historical judgment."

    There is no proof that the government, or elements of the government, conspired to kill King, just as there is no proof the government, or elements of the government, conspired to kill Kennedy*. There is no proof because there was no government conspiracy. End of story.

    *An aside here: Though I find the "magic bullet" in the Kennedy assassination impossible to reconcile with the facts, I believe any coverup that may exist was undertaken to bury the fact they missed another gunman, the one on the grassy knoll. But that was another fanatic, an accomplice to Oswald, who was seen fleeing Dealy Plaza in a Rambler station wagon with someone else inside with him, probably, from other eyewitness accounts, Jack Ruby, who was also seen in Dealy Plaza that day. The Warren Commission covered up incompetence, not a conspiracy.
     
    #3 thisnumbersdisconnected, Oct 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2013
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    So the NYTs dismissed the notion of a conspiracy by admitting the jury concluded there was a conspiracy?

    Gee how can I argue with that kind of logic? If anyone but you were to source a liberal newspaper you'd be calling them names and demonizing their source.

    Why does everyone but you have to live up to your standards?
     
    #4 poncho, Oct 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2013
  5. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your article has it wrong. There was no decision regarding conspiracy, other than that Jowers "conspired" with someone -- the jury did not find that it was the federal government -- to kill King, despite the fact that there was no evidence, and Jowers couldn't pass a lie detector test. Or rather, he could pass a lie detector test. He didn't conspire. The threshold of proof -- as I stated in the post (you did read the post, right?) -- for a civil trial is lower than that for a criminal trial, and the King family set the bar so low they knew they could convince a jury of anything they wanted it to say. The trial was a farce, the verdict totally out of touch with reality.

    You did read my post, correct? If you had, you would already know these things.
     
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Yes I read your post and as usual I am finding the evidence (transcripts and documents) to be more compelling than your analysis.

    In respect of the MLK case it may be useful for you to run thoughts by me since I still
    represent the family and monitor developments such as the recent allegations, regarding
    which the family asked me to respond to media queries. So far as we are concerned the truth
    about the assassination was fully revealed in court, under oath over a month long trial in late
    1999 in Memphis. In Kings v. Jowers, etal, some 70 witnesses completely set out the details
    and the range of the conspiracy which was coordinated by the US Government with the
    assistance of state and local officials and on the site implementation of local organized crime operatives


    The entire trial is on the web site of the King Center. It took the jury about one hour to find
    the Government liable through the actions of its agents. The identities of the shooter and
    James Earl Ray’s handler, Raul, were also established. I am disappointed, but not surprised
    that one as knowledgeable as yourself does not seem to be aware of the details of the trial. It
    was blacked out by all of the mainstream -- network and cable -- media. Court TV promised
    to cover it live but their team was ordered to stay in the hallway outside of the courtroom
    and
    only enter when Mrs King or members of the family took the stand. This was the demeanor

    of the rest of the press corps as well.
    My final book on the case is finished and it includes a
    critical
    analysis of the AG’s investigation and all of the government’s publicists over the 34
    year history
    of the case. It will be out within the year.
    he family believesthat they are completely vindicated.

    < snip >

    Even the New York Times in a front page piece (never again mentioned,
    by their local reporter)
    acknowledged that members of the jury were
    quoted as saying
    that the evidence -- never before seen or heard or tested under oath -- was
    overwhelming.

    http://www.thekingcenter.org/king-library-archive

    Where did you get your information from again?

     
    #6 poncho, Oct 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2013
  7. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    You said ...

    You then quote closing arguments from the King lawyer!!! His analysis of the "facts" hardly qualifies as veracious, representing his and the King family's view of "evidence," which, as I said, is non-existent.
     
  8. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    "You said", hardly qualifies as an authoritative analysis. Especially when what "you said" is based on one NYT article.

    I'm still reading the transcripts. AKA looking at all the evidence instead of just taking the word of a NYT "journalist" who in all probably was compromised or controlled by the CIA.

    You ever hear of Operation Mockingbird?

    The New York Times has a long history of acting subserviently to the powers that be, rather than holding them to account.

    Only last week we reported on the fact that the Times demonstratively scrubbed a passage in an article which revealed that the CIA was helping funnel arms to rebel groups that have aligned themselves with Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria.

    Just last month, it was revealed that the Times, as a matter of course, allows the Obama administration control over quotes from public officials that it can and cannot publish.

    It was The New York Times that was at the forefront of the dissemination of what turned out to be completely false intelligence pertaining to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Reporting that contributed to almost a decade of war and the deaths of thousands, if not millions of innocent Iraqi people.

    It was the New York Times that first learned of the NSA’s illegal wiretapping program aimed at innocent Americans in 2004. The paper sat on the story for a year after it was instructed to do so by the White House, in order not to affect the outcome of the election.

    The Times routinely allows the CIA to vet the details it plans to publish from Wikileaks’ obtained material.

    The Times obediently followed orders to conceal the identity of CIA spy Raymond Davis, when he was arrested by Pakistan. When Obama lied to the nation and described Davis as a US diplomat, the NYT printed his words as the truth, without question.

    Glenn Greenwald again:

    And that’s all independent of the chronic practice of the NYT to permit government officials to hide behind anonymity in order to disseminate government propaganda – or even to smear journalists as al-Qaida sympathizers for reporting critically on government actions – even when granting such anonymity violates its own publicly announced policies.


    What all of this behavior from the NYT has in common is clear: it demonstrates the extent to which it institutionally collaborates with and serves the interests of the nation’s most powerful factions, rather than act as an adversarial check on them. When he talks to the CIA spokesperson, Mazzetti sounds as if he’s talking to a close colleague working together on a joint project.

    It sounds that way because that’s what it is.

    CONTINUE . . .

    So bottom line here is you are basing your "analysis" on newspaper "evidence" that in all probably was a NYT article that was either written directly by the CIA or a Times "journalist" working with the CIA to put out a false narrative to cover up government complicity in MLK's assassination.



     
    #8 poncho, Oct 5, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2013
  9. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    "You said" refers to your faulty analysis. Just in case you failed to notice. Which you did.
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    No actually when I typed "you said" I was referring to everything YOU said.

    Which only amounts to "oh yeah? well the NYT's said this . . . so you are wrong". :tongue3:

    Not much of an argument when 70 eye witnesses, the King family and their lawyer are all telling a different story than you and one mockingbird NYT reporter.
     
    #10 poncho, Oct 5, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2013

Share This Page

Loading...