Speaker 1: Welcome to the MLK Tapes, a production of I Heart
Speaker 1: Radio and Tenderfoot TV. The views and opinions expressed in
Speaker 1: this podcast are solely those of the podcast author or
Speaker 1: individuals participating in the podcast, and do not represent those
Speaker 1: of I Heart Media, Tenderfoot TV, or their employees. Listener
Speaker 1: discretion is advised. We had witness statements, outlines of arguments.
Speaker 1: I mean, we had a complete ready file. He came
Speaker 1: through Birmingham and we offered him that file. We offered
Speaker 1: to sit down with him, We offered to outline our
Speaker 1: defense with him, to give him the witness state, every
Speaker 1: everything that we had. All he wanted to do, and
Speaker 1: all we did was feeding steak and scotch whiskey at
Speaker 1: the club in Birmingham and hear him ramble on about
Speaker 1: what a fabulous lawyer he was. Truth of the matter is,
Speaker 1: Percy Form was the biggest fraud and blow hard I
Speaker 1: ever encountered in over fifty years of practicing law. I
Speaker 1: saw absolutely no evidence, ever, either directly or second hand,
Speaker 1: of any inclination or willingness on his part to defend
Speaker 1: that case as it should have been defended. I called
Speaker 1: the Union Hall. I said, it's a matter of life
Speaker 1: and death. I said, I think these people of planning
Speaker 1: to kill Dr King. The authorities were parade. Oh, we
Speaker 1: found a gun that James L. Ray bought in Birmingham
Speaker 1: that killed Dr King. Except it wasn't the gun that
Speaker 1: killed Dr King. James Lvy was upon or the official
Speaker 1: story from my Heart radio intended for TV. The plan
Speaker 1: was to get King to the city because they wanted
Speaker 1: it handled in Memphis for dead in them could hamon
Speaker 1: and I've lived with us alone, monsieur, and they skied
Speaker 1: for me. The Lord told me to not the word.
Speaker 1: I've been wanting to tell it all my life. I'm
Speaker 1: Bill Claybury and this is the MLK tapes, speaking from experience.
Speaker 1: When one tries to open a conversation about who shot
Speaker 1: Martin Luther King, if the person you're talking to knows
Speaker 1: anything at all about the case, they immediately come back
Speaker 1: with but the guy said he did it, And the
Speaker 1: answer to that is a patient no he didn't. He
Speaker 1: always denied it, but of course James Earl Ray did
Speaker 1: in the end plead guilty. So how did that plea
Speaker 1: come about? And what does it tell us about the murder?
Speaker 1: As we heard in the last episode. Arthur Haynes Junior
Speaker 1: and Senior were criminal defense attorneys who came to represent
Speaker 1: James Earl Ray, the man accused of killing Martin Luther Kane.
Speaker 1: Ray was an escaped con He had been in Memphis
Speaker 1: that day and there did seem to be some connection
Speaker 1: between him and the murderer, Dr. King. But despite all
Speaker 1: the public posturing by the prosecution, Ray's attorneys were surprised
Speaker 1: to find that the actual case against Ray was weak.
Speaker 1: It seemed to them that the connection to the murder
Speaker 1: was that their client had been set up. They investigated,
Speaker 1: interviewed witnesses, and worked on the case for four months.
Speaker 1: As the trial approached, they thought they had good chances
Speaker 1: for an acquittal. Then the night before the trial was
Speaker 1: to begin, they were handed a note that said they
Speaker 1: had been removed from the case. Why did Foreman push
Speaker 1: his way into the case? Did you ever wonder about that?
Speaker 1: Did we ever wonder why and how Foreman got in
Speaker 1: the case? Only every day from that day until the
Speaker 1: day my father died. When I sat down with Ark
Speaker 1: Haynes Jr. In Birmingham, he tried to explain how famous
Speaker 1: criminal defense attorney Percy Foreman had pushed them aside, there
Speaker 1: were pressure points. How to pay for the defense was
Speaker 1: one of them. Ray had no money, and Haines father
Speaker 1: and son could not afford to work for nothing and
Speaker 1: pay all the costs of the defense. As well. Haines
Speaker 1: knew a successful investigative writer named William Bradford Huey, who
Speaker 1: was also from Alabama and who was interested in writing
Speaker 1: about the King murder. Huey's books included The Americanization of Emily,
Speaker 1: The Execution of Priva Slavik, and The Revolt of Mami Stover,
Speaker 1: all of which were made into movies. He also wrote
Speaker 1: Wolf Whistle, the story of the murder of the young
Speaker 1: Emmett Till, and Three Live from Mississippi, which told of
Speaker 1: the murders of the three civil rights workers in Nashoba County.
Speaker 1: The forward to this book was written by Martin Luther King.
Speaker 1: No one at the time knew what the real story
Speaker 1: was with Ray and King, but Hughey sense there was
Speaker 1: a book there and possibly a movie, and he was
Speaker 1: willing to put money up front to get access money
Speaker 1: that was needed to fund the defense of James Earl
Speaker 1: Ray two Art Haynes. It seemed like a promising offer
Speaker 1: and he brought it to James William Bradford hue the
Speaker 1: author who was writing for Look magazine, whom we had
Speaker 1: encouraged Ray to hire. Because Hughie was was a noted
Speaker 1: uh anti George Wallace, he was in the middle of
Speaker 1: a series of articles for Esquire, he had every credential
Speaker 1: being in DUCTR. King's camp, and he was from Alabama
Speaker 1: and close to us, so we we encouraged him to
Speaker 1: hire Hughie Haines Sr. Brought a deal to Ray where
Speaker 1: in simple numbers, Ray would receive of whatever Huey's books
Speaker 1: and articles brought in, Hughie would get and Haynes Judge
Speaker 1: Preston Battle would not permit anyone besides his attorneys and
Speaker 1: his immediate family to visit it or talked to Ray.
Speaker 1: So the arrangement was made for Hughie to submit questions
Speaker 1: to Ray and for Ray to write out his answers
Speaker 1: in Longhand. All that summer I had carried questions from
Speaker 1: Hughie to Ray and raise handwritten answers back to Hughie.
Speaker 1: We had facilitated that all two hundred pages of Ray's
Speaker 1: answers to Hughie's questions have been preserved and make for
Speaker 1: an interesting read if you can decipher Ray's handwriting. It's
Speaker 1: the same story Ray has told before of his prison
Speaker 1: break and is moving about the country at the direction
Speaker 1: of a man named Raoul. Hughie took these notes and
Speaker 1: actually traced race travels and found the people Race that
Speaker 1: he had worked for or met along the way. The
Speaker 1: one exception was Raoul. This was not surprising because Ray
Speaker 1: didn't know Raoul's last name, his address, or even if
Speaker 1: Raoul was his real first name. Race spent a great
Speaker 1: deal of time writing these pages, and at first he
Speaker 1: was satisfied with how his attorneys were going about things,
Speaker 1: but not everyone was. I suppose we were naive and
Speaker 1: that we thought we were lawyers hired to defend a
Speaker 1: murder case and that's what we were doing. There were
Speaker 1: all kinds of reported witness hangers on and people involved
Speaker 1: who wanted to be a part of it. Well. Jerry
Speaker 1: Ray was one of those. He wanted to come to
Speaker 1: Birmingham and have us support him and let him be
Speaker 1: part of the defense. Truthfully, we didn't have time for that.
Speaker 1: We were trying to manage our practice at the same
Speaker 1: time get that case ready for trial, and we just
Speaker 1: didn't have time or inclination to food Jerry Ray. We
Speaker 1: were polite but not responsive to that. But Jerry Raid
Speaker 1: did get himself involved. He visited James in prison, his
Speaker 1: attorneys in Birmingham and author William Bradford, Huwey and Huntsville,
Speaker 1: and he was also in touch with a certain attorney
Speaker 1: in Texas who had soon arrived in Memphis. According to
Speaker 1: everyone close to the case, James Earl Ray very much
Speaker 1: wanted to go to trial. As Jerry Ray would say,
Speaker 1: he didn't kill King, and he wanted his chance to
Speaker 1: prove it in court. He need but this is where
Speaker 1: the trouble started. James imagined a trial where he would
Speaker 1: be able to tell his story, where he, James Earl Ray,
Speaker 1: would be able to look the jurors in the eye
Speaker 1: and have them believe that he did not shoot Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King. But Arthur Haynes Senior was an experienced attorney
Speaker 1: and he knew that great danger awaited a defendant when
Speaker 1: he took the witness stand, especially if the defendant had,
Speaker 1: like Ray, a long record of criminal conduct that the
Speaker 1: prosecution could explore in great detail until less pretty much
Speaker 1: all the jury would remember as they concluded that such
Speaker 1: an outlaw should get what he deserved. So, as Arthur
Speaker 1: Haynes explains, they were not ready to promise Ray that
Speaker 1: he would take the stand. Our view of it was
Speaker 1: that we wouldn't know whether Ray was gonna testify or
Speaker 1: need to testify until the end of the state's case. Obviously,
Speaker 1: if he had testified, that would have killed the value
Speaker 1: of Hughey's connection to him. This is how Jerry Ray
Speaker 1: saw it. On Whomber firston making is sistime, I blew
Speaker 1: out in the heart build Alabama and talked to you,
Speaker 1: you take my way down because he want another contact
Speaker 1: beside the journey. So he was showing these contracts and
Speaker 1: so I told he hope. He said only again, and
Speaker 1: now you go back and tell James. He's not about
Speaker 1: to understand. He doesn't go. So I went back and
Speaker 1: told James you on the phone hand because when he's
Speaker 1: running stas So with a little help from brother Jerry,
Speaker 1: James began to fear that the case was not being
Speaker 1: pursued with his best interests in mind. He wanted to testify,
Speaker 1: and it seemed that Huey and his book was now
Speaker 1: standing in the way. And then the weekend before his
Speaker 1: trial was to begin, he received a visit from a
Speaker 1: famous Texas lawyer named Percy Foreman. Foreman was six foot
Speaker 1: four and weighed two hundred and fifty pounds, and had
Speaker 1: a huge reputation to go with it. He had grown
Speaker 1: up poor in the wiles of East Texas, quit school
Speaker 1: when he was fifteen, and made something of himself because
Speaker 1: he had an agile mind and a quick tongue. He
Speaker 1: put himself through law school and came out ready for bear.
Speaker 1: He had a knack for talking in a way that
Speaker 1: juries liked, and he was especially good at representing people
Speaker 1: accused of murder. In his forty years a criminal law
Speaker 1: he claimed to have represented over one thousand of those.
Speaker 1: Only one, as the story goes, was ever executed, and
Speaker 1: according to Foreman, only sixty six of the thousand spent
Speaker 1: even a day in jail. The more obviously guilty, the
Speaker 1: easier it seemed for him to get them off for
Speaker 1: a price. He was hated by the prosecutors he faced,
Speaker 1: and also hated by his clients when they felt the
Speaker 1: most vulnerable, as when he could have them sign over
Speaker 1: every asset they had. I don't represent wealthy clients, he
Speaker 1: once said, if they aren't poor when they come to me,
Speaker 1: they are when they leave. Foreman had been talking to
Speaker 1: Jerry Ray, so he knew all the right buttons to push.
Speaker 1: He told James that Haynes should not have made a
Speaker 1: deal like that with Hughie. Who is Hughie to give
Speaker 1: advice to his attorney based on what might or might
Speaker 1: not be good for a book. Foreman talked about all
Speaker 1: the famous people he knew in all the cases he
Speaker 1: had won, and how James's case would be the easiest
Speaker 1: one he ever argued, and added to that, Foreman said
Speaker 1: that unlike the Haines defense team, he was wealthy, wealthy
Speaker 1: enough to move forward without any literary contracts, and they'd
Speaker 1: figure out how to pay his fee after the trial.
Speaker 1: But for a retainer, he had James sign over the
Speaker 1: title to his Mustang and the Remington thirty six that
Speaker 1: he purchased in Birmingham, the one that was said to
Speaker 1: have killed King. Here's Ray for King jail the same made.
Speaker 1: He told me that if I would just miss things
Speaker 1: and are him, he wouldn't get involved in literary contrast,
Speaker 1: he financed trow trows over and he would get used
Speaker 1: to be then, so I agreed, and I signed some
Speaker 1: time and paper decade just missing Haynes and all right
Speaker 1: him well. On one of the national herring for the
Speaker 1: trial work, Foreman promised Batting would get involved any litter contracts.
Speaker 1: At that time, I didn't know he was negotiating with
Speaker 1: Hie to think for Hayes interesting to contract and said
Speaker 1: that at that time so Foreman's big promise to Ray
Speaker 1: was the case would not be driven by literary contracts,
Speaker 1: that he Foreman was rich enough to defend Ray without them.
Speaker 1: But a week after he had taken over the case,
Speaker 1: Foreman and Huie for Luncheon dallas Key described that meeting
Speaker 1: in his book he slew the dreamer quote Mr Foreman,
Speaker 1: like my three way contract. All he wanted was for
Speaker 1: Mr Haynes to get out of the way so he
Speaker 1: could have what Mr Haynes had. So you get Haynes
Speaker 1: out of the way, he said, and then god damn it,
Speaker 1: get to work and write us a good book, make
Speaker 1: us a good movie, and make us some money. I
Speaker 1: didn't think him myself. And then subsequently, in January of
Speaker 1: nineteen six nine, he came up there with a literary contract.
Speaker 1: Yes idea, and I signed in fair Way third. Yes,
Speaker 1: signed a literary contracts A thing I got to go
Speaker 1: to him. The contracts that Foreman had Ray signed on
Speaker 1: January nine and February three essentially stripped Ray of every
Speaker 1: remaining asset he had or might have. So why did
Speaker 1: he sign them? As Ray would explain later, Foreman had
Speaker 1: come to see him in late January saying the case
Speaker 1: was going very well, but he needed to bring in
Speaker 1: another attorney, John J. Hooker, and that was going to
Speaker 1: cost money. So Ray, not really having a choice, signed
Speaker 1: everything over to Foreman. Now, a Foreman had been telling
Speaker 1: the truth about representing from the start that a plea
Speaker 1: bargain was their only option, there would have been no
Speaker 1: reason for Ray to enter into these contracts. So as
Speaker 1: late as February three, Foreman was saying that they were
Speaker 1: going to trial and things were looking good. But just
Speaker 1: ten days later, after Foreman had plucked his client clean,
Speaker 1: as Bradford Huey would describe it, Foreman came back with
Speaker 1: bad news where he had to plead guilty. Now, I
Speaker 1: want to think we're thirteen. He came into prisiness Jerman
Speaker 1: Heart Danton, and he uh suggested a human playing, he says,
Speaker 1: and there's me and don't in thankfully and well anyway,
Speaker 1: when he came back to see me next time, he
Speaker 1: was talking about he said they might prosecute my brother
Speaker 1: Jerry rag and expiracing words and also he said they
Speaker 1: might be pressed my father James brother Jerry tells the
Speaker 1: same story a forman's about face and the first before
Speaker 1: we gave it said it's little busy because he's I
Speaker 1: read a lot, I erst whoever they are followed it
Speaker 1: and he did that up until uh a month before
Speaker 1: the Guildy plays that he started cries that they're gonna
Speaker 1: acute and they're going to do this, but so Jade
Speaker 1: fans to read me paiously little problem nyway and it
Speaker 1: would resigned. At this point, James Earl Ray was boxed in.
Speaker 1: He was stuck with Foreman, and Foreman refused to perform.
Speaker 1: He kept telling Ray that the prosecution wanted to turn
Speaker 1: him into barbecue form his word. Then he told Ray
Speaker 1: that if he insisted on going to trial, they would
Speaker 1: put his father and brother in jail. When Ray said
Speaker 1: he still wanted to trial, Foreman said flat out that
Speaker 1: he wouldn't defend him. He didn't feel up to it.
Speaker 1: Here is an interchange between Bill Pepper and Jerry Ray
Speaker 1: at the nine civil trial, not invisibly. He told me
Speaker 1: to the last my sier he still had made up
Speaker 1: the money he's still to fight doing for and he
Speaker 1: he told he told me that foreman told him if
Speaker 1: he did both of my hand and my John Earl
Speaker 1: back in the twenties, and is both charged me being
Speaker 1: the assessed of the word, I'm pretty sure you left, Jerry.
Speaker 1: That's certainly the James little Ray Black versus Forman got
Speaker 1: all about. This is the day of a letter Archer
Speaker 1: that m March Watson Arch nine, nineteen fifty and when
Speaker 1: is it going to be played here? Uh? Right, right right?
Speaker 1: I was right, was March following that this is a
Speaker 1: letter from his council on the eve of trop and
Speaker 1: this letter offers you offers hand five hundred dollars. What
Speaker 1: conditions was the over five hundred dollars we have abdybe
Speaker 1: played to the lea built embarrassment in coort and it
Speaker 1: was agreed with We understand that five hundred dollars was
Speaker 1: to be taking the higher a new lawyer and her
Speaker 1: decided a sad Yet this agreement signed the day before
Speaker 1: Ray entered his guilty plea as a strange document. Foreman
Speaker 1: signs on for a fee of a hundred and sixty
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars if such is produced by books for movies,
Speaker 1: and Ray is handed five dollars. The purpose of the
Speaker 1: five hundred is not stated in the contract, but according
Speaker 1: to both James and Jerry, it was so Ray could
Speaker 1: go find a lawyer to overturn the plea, as if
Speaker 1: five dollars could accomplish such a thing. But Ray is
Speaker 1: to get the five hundred only if he meets to conditions.
Speaker 1: He enters a plea of guilty of murder in the
Speaker 1: first degree, and he doesn't make a scene of any
Speaker 1: kind at the proceeding. And that's what unfolds. Are you
Speaker 1: leading murder in the place degree in this case because
Speaker 1: you killed Dr Martin lives the king under sex secumstances,
Speaker 1: it would make you legally guilty. But in the place
Speaker 1: degree under the law is explained to you by your lawyer.
Speaker 1: Ray's answer was barely audible on the recording system used
Speaker 1: by the court. What he said was quote yes, legally guilty.
Speaker 1: According to attorney Mark Lane, who would later represent Ray,
Speaker 1: Ray told him that when Foreman was using every kind
Speaker 1: of argument to put him into a plea. Ray blurted
Speaker 1: out that he didn't want to plead guilty because he
Speaker 1: hadn't shot king. Doesn't matter, replied Foreman. If you were
Speaker 1: involved in any kind of illegal activity with those who did,
Speaker 1: you are legally guilty. You are as guilty as the
Speaker 1: man who pulled the trigger. Foreman was referring to the
Speaker 1: concept of felony murder, where if three people say agree
Speaker 1: to rob a store, and they all agree that no
Speaker 1: one is to be heard, but something goes wrong and
Speaker 1: one man pulls a gun and kills the store clerk,
Speaker 1: all three men are legally guilty of the murder. Most
Speaker 1: states have such laws, though it is far from clear
Speaker 1: that such a concept would apply in a case where
Speaker 1: one man is purposely deceived about the crime and brought
Speaker 1: along only for the purpose of taking the blame. But
Speaker 1: Foreman's little lesson was most likely how the phrase legally
Speaker 1: guilty became part of raise plea. After the plea was entered,
Speaker 1: Ray's attorney, Percy Foreman, was invited to speak. He stood
Speaker 1: up and addressed the court. This is what he had
Speaker 1: to say. It's an honor to appear in this court.
Speaker 1: I never expected or had any idea when I entered
Speaker 1: this case that I would be able to accomplish anything
Speaker 1: except perhaps save the defendant's life. All of us, all
Speaker 1: of you, were as well informed as I was about
Speaker 1: the facts of this case, due to the fact that
Speaker 1: we have such an effective news media. Took me a
Speaker 1: month that convinced myself of that which the Attorney General
Speaker 1: of the United States and Jed Grohover of the FBI
Speaker 1: announced last July that there was no conspiracy. After that
Speaker 1: bit of self congratulations from Percy Foreman, Ray asked Judge
Speaker 1: Battle if he might say something. The judge agreed, and
Speaker 1: I'll read a slightly edited version of what followed Ray.
Speaker 1: I don't want to change anything that I have said.
Speaker 1: I don't want to add anything onto it either. The
Speaker 1: only thing I have to say is I don't exactly
Speaker 1: accept the theories of Mr Clark. In other words, I'm
Speaker 1: not bound to accept the theories of Mr Clark. This
Speaker 1: is an aside. But Percy Foreman, who had just referred
Speaker 1: to Attorney General of the United States, doesn't know who
Speaker 1: Ray is speaking about, so he asked, who is Mr Clark?
Speaker 1: Ray Ramsey Clark Foreman Oh Ray and Mr Hoover Foreman
Speaker 1: Mr who Ray, Mr j Edgar Hoover. I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to change anything. I just want to add something onto it.
Speaker 1: Judge Battle, you don't agree with those theories, Ray, I
Speaker 1: mean on the conspiracy thing. There is a bit of
Speaker 1: cross talk, and no one seems inclined to ask Ray
Speaker 1: what it is he's trying to say. Judge Battle then
Speaker 1: asks if he is still pleading guilty to first degree murder,
Speaker 1: and Ray says that he is. It was a short,
Speaker 1: tense moment. Ray had gone off script, but he hadn't
Speaker 1: cost a huge scene, so he would still get his
Speaker 1: five dollars. Three days after recording his guilty plea, James
Speaker 1: Earl Ray wrote to Judge Preston Battle and asked to
Speaker 1: have the plea overturned and allow him to go to trial.
Speaker 1: A few days later, he wrote again asking for the
Speaker 1: same thing. It was not clear how Judge Battle was
Speaker 1: going to rule on raised petitions. Often, in the interests
Speaker 1: of justice, such petitions are granted. But before Battle could
Speaker 1: make a decision, he was found slumped over his desk,
Speaker 1: dead from an apparent heart attack, and according to various accounts,
Speaker 1: Battle was slumped over raised petitions on which he was
Speaker 1: to rule. A new judge replaced Battle, and he didn't
Speaker 1: allow Ray to reopen the case. So Ray was led
Speaker 1: off to prison no trial. But Percy Foreman's statement at
Speaker 1: the end of the trial is curious. If Foreman was
Speaker 1: so certain that Ray had to plead guilty, why did
Speaker 1: he connive to get himself into the case, And what
Speaker 1: was all this talk about the easiest case I've ever argued?
Speaker 1: Did you ever feel that you could ever do more
Speaker 1: than save his life? Never had any time, and so
Speaker 1: told him from the day I came here, and he
Speaker 1: never expected anything else from the first and I never
Speaker 1: expected to accomplish this. This statement by Percy Foreman, made
Speaker 1: out on the street after race so called trial, is
Speaker 1: most certainly a lie, and a big one. Foreman says
Speaker 1: here that he told Ray on the first day that
Speaker 1: they met, that his only hope was to plead guilty
Speaker 1: and take a life sentence. But if that were true,
Speaker 1: why would Ray need to change lawyers. Haines father and
Speaker 1: son already possessed a plea offer from the prosecution, as
Speaker 1: art Hands revealed to me when we spoke, we ever
Speaker 1: offered a plea bargain. Oh, absolutely, we were offered a
Speaker 1: better deal that he took. I think there was a
Speaker 1: little anxiety on the part of the prosecution is to
Speaker 1: the strength of the case. Haines said that the deal
Speaker 1: they had been offered was better than the one Ray
Speaker 1: finally had to settle for. But it was better only
Speaker 1: in that it allowed him an earlier date from which
Speaker 1: he would be eligible for parole. Not much of a difference,
Speaker 1: because no one was going to let the convicted murderer
Speaker 1: of Martin Luther King out on parole. But if Ray
Speaker 1: wished to take a guilty plea in exchange for life
Speaker 1: in prison, he already had that. He didn't need the
Speaker 1: services of some fancy outside lawyer. But Ray wasn't thinking
Speaker 1: plea bargain. He was thinking trial, and he went with
Speaker 1: Foreman because Foreman says his would be an easy case
Speaker 1: to win. So why was Foreman now saying that he
Speaker 1: had always told Ray that his only chance was to
Speaker 1: plead guilty. Some insights into this are provided by the
Speaker 1: House Select Committee on Assassinations, which published a deposition of
Speaker 1: Foreman pursuant to a lawsuit brought by Ray concerning the
Speaker 1: representation he received attorney James Lassar asked Foreman exactly what
Speaker 1: he had done on behalf of his client. Did he
Speaker 1: hire an investigator? Foreman said he hadn't. Then how did
Speaker 1: he investigate the case? Foreman fumbled about and then said
Speaker 1: he hired six or eight Memphis Law School students who
Speaker 1: worked for him. What did he ask them to do?
Speaker 1: Foreman couldn't quite remember now? What were their names? He
Speaker 1: couldn't remember that either. Well, surely their names could be
Speaker 1: found on their pace ups. Foreman said they had been
Speaker 1: paid in cash. Well, where would their work product be
Speaker 1: Foreman didn't know, but he probably had it somewhere. Foreman
Speaker 1: then said he owned eighty vacant houses which were all
Speaker 1: filled with his case records, but he kept no list
Speaker 1: of what was where. Foreman did say he interviewed some witnesses,
Speaker 1: but he couldn't say where the records of this might
Speaker 1: be found. And so it went. But from these questions
Speaker 1: and answers, it became apparent that Percy Foreman had nothing
Speaker 1: to show that he had done any work on behalf
Speaker 1: of his client, James Earl Ray. When Percy Foreman appeared
Speaker 1: before the House Select Committee, he was asked if he
Speaker 1: had ever compared notes with Ray's previous attorneys. Did you
Speaker 1: ever consult with Mr Haynes, who had also reviewed the evidence,
Speaker 1: to see whether he agreed with you? Did you ever
Speaker 1: consult with with Arthur Haynes? Well? I went to Birmingham
Speaker 1: from Atlanta in November within a week, at ten days
Speaker 1: of accepting the case, and Mr Haynes, his wife and
Speaker 1: brother in law and his wife took me to a club.
Speaker 1: We spent the evening together and we talked as to
Speaker 1: what we said. I don't temporary recall, but I had
Speaker 1: difficulty getting the any information from Mr Haynes. I had
Speaker 1: to have him sighted for contempted battle to get whatever
Speaker 1: I did get. Foreman was so full of the larky.
Speaker 1: This is Art Hanes Jr. Reacting to Foreman's charge that
Speaker 1: he and his father withheld their files from Foreman. It
Speaker 1: should be remembered that Foreman pushed his way into this
Speaker 1: case and was the reason Haynes was dismissed. But the
Speaker 1: four month work product of Haines father and son did
Speaker 1: not suddenly belong to Foreman because Ray was now his client.
Speaker 1: Even so, according to Art Haynes Jr. They were willing
Speaker 1: to share the work they had done. He came through
Speaker 1: Birmingham and we offered him that file. We offered to
Speaker 1: sit down with him, We offered to outline our defense
Speaker 1: with him. All he wanted to do, and all we
Speaker 1: did was feeding steak and Scotch whiskey at the club
Speaker 1: in Birmingham and hearing him rambalong about what a fabulous
Speaker 1: lawyer he was. I saw absolutely no evidence, ever, either
Speaker 1: directly or second hand, of any inclination or willingness on
Speaker 1: his part to defend that case as it should have
Speaker 1: been defended. Attorney Mark Lane, who represented James Earl Ray
Speaker 1: in the late nineteen seventies, sought out Arthur Haynes Sr.
Speaker 1: And was generously given access to his files, as Foreman
Speaker 1: would have been had he had the interest. While they
Speaker 1: were meeting, Lane asked Haynes what he thought of Foreman,
Speaker 1: especially after their meeting at the club in Birmingham. Mr
Speaker 1: Haynes replied, my judgment is that the man never considered
Speaker 1: trying the case. As far as I can ascertain, he
Speaker 1: never prepared and he never investigated. He never considered giving
Speaker 1: James Earl Ray a trial. For what reason, I don't know. Ye,
Speaker 1: so Foreman said that the Haynes boys would not give
Speaker 1: him anything, while Haynes Junior and Senior claimed they were
Speaker 1: shocked by Foreman's lack of interest in the case. So
Speaker 1: who was telling the truth? Smart money would be on
Speaker 1: art Haynes Sr. Because, first of all, Judge Preston Battle
Speaker 1: never cited him for contempt in this matter. And second,
Speaker 1: Haynes was upset enough about the whole thing that a
Speaker 1: few days later he felt compelled to take the unusual
Speaker 1: step to write a letter to Judge Battle, a letter
Speaker 1: that is still in the official files. It is my
Speaker 1: distinct impression, he wrote that Foreman is disinterested in making
Speaker 1: a genuine effort to obtain the benefit from the fruits
Speaker 1: of our labor. His brief visit from a layover between
Speaker 1: planes has been the only contact we've had with him.
Speaker 1: At the House Select Committee hearing Congressman McKinney of Connecticut
Speaker 1: question Foreman on his hard cell of the plea bargain
Speaker 1: to Ray, You had a government case where ballistics were weak,
Speaker 1: You had a key eye witness who was an alcoholic.
Speaker 1: You had testimonial conflicts on when the bundle was dropped
Speaker 1: in front of the store. There were no prints found
Speaker 1: in the rooming house or in the bathroom, Solomon Jones,
Speaker 1: for for one, place the shooter outside of the area
Speaker 1: at the time. And finally, Ray had never in his
Speaker 1: background had any history of quote unquote violence. Doesn't that
Speaker 1: bring the odds down to a little better than a
Speaker 1: d I mean, you're a pretty tough lawyer. I've reviewed
Speaker 1: some of the work you've done, and wouldn't that give
Speaker 1: you a fighting chance for a reasonable doubt? The Foreman disagreed.
Speaker 1: My experience in a half a century of defending criminal
Speaker 1: case makes me evaluate case of a lot of standpoints
Speaker 1: that is not available to the average this passionate observer.
Speaker 1: So Foreman pulled Frank and said his years in court
Speaker 1: gave him special insight into what was winnable and what wasn't,
Speaker 1: even though on many occasions he had gotten people way
Speaker 1: more guilty than Ray appeared to be off scott free.
Speaker 1: But what was missing here was the follow up question.
Speaker 1: Foreman was a busy guy. Why would he push his
Speaker 1: way into a case if he knew from the start
Speaker 1: that all he would do is oversee a plea bargain
Speaker 1: that the prosecution had already offered, and after that deed
Speaker 1: had been done publicly pat himself on the back for
Speaker 1: pulling off this miracle and saving this man's life. None
Speaker 1: of this rings true. Let's return to the House Committee Chairman.
Speaker 1: I wonder if you could ask the committee clerk to
Speaker 1: hand him this reform on a copy of Martin Luther
Speaker 1: King Shibit f Dash two fifty three. I'll describe this
Speaker 1: exhibit for the record. This is a copy of a
Speaker 1: Look magazine article. It's dated April. The title of the article,
Speaker 1: excuse me is against conspiracy. The author is Mr Foreman,
Speaker 1: the witness today captioned his attorney for James Earl Ray.
Speaker 1: Do you recognize the article? Mr Foreman, I do. Did
Speaker 1: you write the article? I wonder if I could direct
Speaker 1: your attention please to the second paragraph in the article,
Speaker 1: and if you'd follow along with me. I'll read that
Speaker 1: for the record. When last November the brothers of James L.
Speaker 1: Ray sought me out and handed me a letter from him,
Speaker 1: the seeching me to represent him. Now this article, that
Speaker 1: language is not mine, Mr. That language is Bradford. You
Speaker 1: he rewrote this. I wrote it all your good writing.
Speaker 1: The issue here is this James Earl Ray said he
Speaker 1: never invited Percy Foreman to visit him in jail, that
Speaker 1: he just appeared and was given entry, and then pitched
Speaker 1: Ray as to why he would be the better choice
Speaker 1: for an attorney. Ray liked the part where he said
Speaker 1: he was rich enough that he wouldn't need to depend
Speaker 1: on literary contracts and that he'd be able to testify
Speaker 1: at his own trial, which is what he wanted. But
Speaker 1: for the House Committee, the issue was whether Foreman had
Speaker 1: been asked to appear by Ray himself, not his brother,
Speaker 1: and if he had not, Foreman was on shaky legal ground.
Speaker 1: Foreman had responded that Ray had written him a letter
Speaker 1: at his office in Houston asking for him to enter
Speaker 1: the case. I did receive such a letter. It came
Speaker 1: to my office on the eighth of about the eighth
Speaker 1: seventh or eighth of November, and I was in Wakeo,
Speaker 1: or near Wakeo, trying a law shoot when the letter came.
Speaker 1: It was read to be over the fall who read
Speaker 1: the letters to you by secretary? Did you have an
Speaker 1: opportunity when you return to your office to see Mr.
Speaker 1: But James Earl Ray insisted that he hadn't written any
Speaker 1: such letter, and that would be a rather bold story
Speaker 1: to tell because if he had, all Foreman would have
Speaker 1: to do to prove him a liar was produce it.
Speaker 1: But Foreman couldn't, He said, the letter was apparently lost
Speaker 1: with all his other files on the case. Foreman was
Speaker 1: becoming visibly uncomfortable. He had begun this discussion by telling
Speaker 1: the House Committee that he wrote the article in Look magazine.
Speaker 1: Then the story was that Hughie had polished a sentence
Speaker 1: or two. Suddenly it seemed safer to say that none
Speaker 1: of the words were his. The entire article was rewritten,
Speaker 1: every line of it. I was right like a lawyer
Speaker 1: with long six cylinder Latin words. Hugh he writes for
Speaker 1: the public. He translated to make it readable. I do
Speaker 1: not speak literally when I when I say all of
Speaker 1: its mind, I meant the sense and the spirit of
Speaker 1: the article. I do not mean the literal word by word.
Speaker 1: So let's take this explanation. What is Foreman's sense and
Speaker 1: spirit of the article and Look magazine? What does it
Speaker 1: tell us? Remember raise guilty plea fixed in the public mind.
Speaker 1: If there had been any doubt that James Earl Ray
Speaker 1: and no one else had murdered Martin Luther King, But
Speaker 1: why that was still up for grabs, and who would
Speaker 1: know better than Percy Foreman raised attorney just so everyone
Speaker 1: would understand what a regular guy he was. Foreman said
Speaker 1: early in the article that he always assumed that Ray
Speaker 1: was guilty, but that he took the case to save
Speaker 1: Rai's life. This is most certainly a lie, because, as
Speaker 1: Attorney Art Haines has told us, Ray already had a
Speaker 1: plea offer before Foreman showed up. In the article, Foreman
Speaker 1: goes on to group Ray with Oswald and her Hand,
Speaker 1: the alleged killers of John and Robert Kennedy, respectively, all
Speaker 1: of whom wanted, according to Foreman, a shortcut to fame.
Speaker 1: They wanted credit he wrote, top billing headlines, front page pictures.
Speaker 1: But Oswald, just before he was murdered, said he was
Speaker 1: a patsy. Sir Hands said he couldn't remember the crime,
Speaker 1: and Ray said he didn't shoot Martin Luther King. So
Speaker 1: whatever they did or didn't do, it doesn't seem as
Speaker 1: though any of them was looking for fame. But according
Speaker 1: to Foreman, Ray made special efforts to make sure that
Speaker 1: he got credit for this crime before he fled the
Speaker 1: murder scene. Foreman wrote, James Earl Ray carefully deposited on
Speaker 1: the sidewalk the murder weapon that he had wrapped in
Speaker 1: his own bed cover to protect his fingerprints on the
Speaker 1: rifle from being obliterated. Ray thought a war between the
Speaker 1: racest was imminent and he wanted to fire the first shot.
Speaker 1: The shooting of doctor King was to him the pearl
Speaker 1: harbor of that war. The presumption here is that because
Speaker 1: Foreman was Ray's attorney, he knew these damning things about
Speaker 1: Ray because Ray had told him. But Ray always said
Speaker 1: he had nothing to do with the package wrapped in
Speaker 1: the bedspread found on the street. He never told Foreman
Speaker 1: that he placed the package there, or that he wrapped
Speaker 1: it carefully so as not to erase his fingerprints. This
Speaker 1: is Foreman's invention. And of course, if Ray had wanted
Speaker 1: the rifle to point back to him so we would
Speaker 1: get credit for the crime, as Foreman was now saying,
Speaker 1: he could have just left it in his room and
Speaker 1: gotten a better start out of town. And Ray never
Speaker 1: said to anyone, much less Foreman, that he wanted to
Speaker 1: fire the first shot in a race war that he
Speaker 1: was trying to start. These are lies, rather vicious lies,
Speaker 1: vicious because they would shape the way people all over
Speaker 1: America would see Ray as a ruthless killer driven by hatred,
Speaker 1: So Percy Foreman pushed his way into the case, talking
Speaker 1: about what an easy when it would be, made himself
Speaker 1: scarce as he attended to other business, and then showed
Speaker 1: up one day saying that Ray had to plead guilty.
Speaker 1: And after Ray made the plea, Foreman published an article
Speaker 1: where he congratulated himself for saving Ray's life and then
Speaker 1: went on to assassinate his character. What was he doing here?
Speaker 1: Who was he working for? Is there anything in Foreman's
Speaker 1: subsequent history that might give us a clue? Turns out
Speaker 1: there is. In nineteen seventy five, Percy Foreman received a
Speaker 1: felony indictment for obstruction of justice from a federal grand
Speaker 1: jury in Texas. What did he do? In nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: just one year after Foreman leaned on Ray to plead guilty,
Speaker 1: Herbert and Nelson bunker Hunt, the sons of Texas billionaire H. L. Hunt,
Speaker 1: hired private detective John Kelly to do some illegal wire tapping,
Speaker 1: but he got caught. The Hunt brothers didn't want to
Speaker 1: go to jail, so they offered Kelly money if he
Speaker 1: would not testify against them, but Kelly didn't want to
Speaker 1: go to jail either. Then Percy Foreman shows up, offers
Speaker 1: his services to Kelly and promises to keep him out
Speaker 1: of jail. Kelly pays Foreman a retainer of one thousand dollars,
Speaker 1: but as soon as the ink is dry on their contract,
Speaker 1: Foreman approaches the Hunt brothers and says that he has
Speaker 1: Kelly Quote under control, and if the Hunts will give
Speaker 1: Foreman fifty thousand dollars, he will guarantee that Kelly will
Speaker 1: not incriminate them, As the indictment tells us. Foreman has
Speaker 1: paid his money and then goes back to Kelly, acting
Speaker 1: all concerned, and reminds him that the Hunts are very
Speaker 1: rich with mob connections and they would think nothing of
Speaker 1: killing him. So it's Foreman's recommendation as his lawyer, that
Speaker 1: Kelly go to jail and say nothing about the Hunts.
Speaker 1: After all, says Foreman, according to the indictment, the government
Speaker 1: can't help you a whole lot if you're dead. But
Speaker 1: by sheer acts sit in, Kelly finds out about the
Speaker 1: double cross, and Foreman and the Hunt Brothers are indicted
Speaker 1: for obstruction of justice, a crime that might well have
Speaker 1: cost Foreman a license to practice law, But the people
Speaker 1: Foreman is in trouble with are very wealthy and connected.
Speaker 1: There are negotiations, time goes by, and the charges are
Speaker 1: quietly dropped, but the facts are really not in dispute.
Speaker 1: Foreman found a weak client with powerful people on the
Speaker 1: other side. He signed up the client, chopped him around,
Speaker 1: and received fifty dollars for making sure the client pled
Speaker 1: guilty and didn't involve anyone else. Does that storyline sound familiar?
Speaker 1: Did Foreman do something of the same with James Earl Ray? Well,
Speaker 1: we think he did, and we think we have the
Speaker 1: evidence to prove it. So we will come back to
Speaker 1: this story later in the podcast and take a trip
Speaker 1: to Mr Foreman's office in Houston next time. On the
Speaker 1: Emilk tapes, Showers was in the frame right from the beginning,
Speaker 1: because he was the one who run Jim Squirrel. He
Speaker 1: looked back, he has stuck his frame in his socket.
Speaker 1: Lord hair was standing up and he like somebody had
Speaker 1: drained all the good d He was so white. Oh
Speaker 1: you're so r I said, Lord. I said, you know,
Speaker 1: they've been a lot of discussion about the fact you
Speaker 1: may have been involved in the Martin Luth King assassination.
Speaker 1: And he said, well, a lot of people talking about
Speaker 1: he said it. One thing, saure that blanket back is
Speaker 1: not coming back. But he said when he went to
Speaker 1: the back door, just as he got to the door,
Speaker 1: shot right now, and somebody came out of the bushes
Speaker 1: and handed him smoking rifle. He wanted me to tell
Speaker 1: the truth about seeing him with the rifle. He just
Speaker 1: wanted me change just a little bit by saying I
Speaker 1: saw him standing in the back door and a black man.
Speaker 1: Hey in my righte. Did James Earl Ray killed Dr
Speaker 1: Mark Luther King? No, they did not. Do you know
Speaker 1: who killed Dr King? I know who paid to do
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the m l K Tapes a
Speaker 1: production of I Heart Radio and Tenderfoot TV. This podcast
Speaker 1: is not specifically endorsed by the King Family or the
Speaker 1: King of State. D email KA Tapes is written and
Speaker 1: hosted by Bill Claper. Matt Frederick and Alex Williams are
Speaker 1: executive producers on behalf of I Heart Radio with producers
Speaker 1: Trevor Young and ben Keebrick. Donald Albright and Payne Lindsay
Speaker 1: are executive producers on behalf of Tenderfoot TV with producers
Speaker 1: Jamie Albright and Meredith Steadman. Original music by Makeup and
Speaker 1: Vanity Said. Cover art by Mr Soul two six with
Speaker 1: photography by Artemis Jenkins. Special thanks to Owen Rosenbaum and
Speaker 1: Grace Royer at U t A, The Nord Group, back
Speaker 1: Median Marketing, Envisioned Business Management, and Station sixteen. If you
Speaker 1: have questions, you can visit our website, the email k
Speaker 1: tapes dot com. We posted photos and videos related to
Speaker 1: the podcast on our social media accounts. You can check
Speaker 1: them out at the email k Tapes. For more podcasts
Speaker 1: from I Heart Radio and Tenderfoot TV, please visit the
Speaker 1: I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows,