Speaker 1: You're listening to History on Trial, a production of iHeart Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Listener discretion advised. Like most of us, Elizabeth McAllister never
Speaker 1: expected to hear her love letters discussed on the radio.
Speaker 1: She certainly didn't imagine that the person doing the discussing
Speaker 1: would be the director of the FBI, Jay Edgar Hoover.
Speaker 1: But here she was, on a November day in nineteen seventy,
Speaker 1: driving to her sister's house in Maryland, listening to a
Speaker 1: news broadcast in which Hoover discussed information that he could
Speaker 1: only have learned. McAllister thought from reading her private correspondence,
Speaker 1: I almost went into a stupor. McAllister remembered, I thought,
Speaker 1: what is this? My God, what is this? She kept
Speaker 1: the radio on for the rest of the three hour drive,
Speaker 1: listening to the story repeat over and over, talking back
Speaker 1: at the broadcasters, trying to make sense of it. How
Speaker 1: else would an ordinary person react to something like this?
Speaker 1: Of course, there were a few ways in which McAllister
Speaker 1: was not an ordinary person. To start with, she was
Speaker 1: a nun, a member of the religious of the Sacred
Speaker 1: Heart of Mary. Plus the man she was writing love
Speaker 1: letters to, Philip Berrigan, was a priest, Okay, so these
Speaker 1: letters might be scandalous, But what made them so interesting
Speaker 1: to Jay Edgar Hoover. Well, there was also the fact
Speaker 1: that Philip Barrigan and Elizabeth McAllister were both passionate anti
Speaker 1: war activists. Barrigin was so passionate that he'd ended up
Speaker 1: in jail for destroying Vietnam tree files. McAllister had been
Speaker 1: writing to him in the United States Penitentiary at Louisbourg, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: And then there was the content of this particular letter.
Speaker 1: Because McAllister hadn't just written to ber Agin about how
Speaker 1: much she cared for him or how much she missed him.
Speaker 1: She had also written to ask his thoughts on a
Speaker 1: plan to kidnap Henry Kissinger, President Nixon's national security advisor
Speaker 1: and the future Secretary of State. How romantic. Now sitting
Speaker 1: in her car, McAllister was terrified. The letter, written three
Speaker 1: months earlier had been a thought exercise. She and bar
Speaker 1: Agin were always brainstorming new ways to draw attention to
Speaker 1: their anti war cause. He had replied to her letter
Speaker 1: with thoughts, suggestions, and concerns, but it had gone no further,
Speaker 1: or so she thought. But now Hoover was claiming that
Speaker 1: she and her fellow activists were actively plotting to kidnap Kissinger.
Speaker 1: How had Hoover even heard about the idea? McAllister had
Speaker 1: a guess. To get private letters in and out of prison,
Speaker 1: She and Barrigin had trusted a fellow inmate of his,
Speaker 1: named boyd Douglas, who was on a study release program,
Speaker 1: to carry their mail. Douglas must have snitched, But why
Speaker 1: McAllister had known him for months. He was just as
Speaker 1: opposed to the Vietnam War as she and Barrigin were,
Speaker 1: just as committed to the anti war movement. How could
Speaker 1: he have betrayed them? But those questions seemed small now.
Speaker 1: What mattered McAllister knew as she pulled up to her
Speaker 1: sister's house was that the United States government believed that
Speaker 1: she had planned to kidnap a White House official. The
Speaker 1: director of the FBI was calling her a threat to
Speaker 1: now national security. Whatever was coming next, it would not
Speaker 1: be good. That was putting it lightly. Over the next
Speaker 1: year and a half, McAllister, Barrigan, and five of their
Speaker 1: anti war colleagues from the Catholic left would be investigated
Speaker 1: and put on trial for conspiracy. It would be a
Speaker 1: journey so filled with shocking revelations and twists and turns
Speaker 1: that hearing her love letters referenced on the radio would
Speaker 1: come to seem like a triviality. To Elizabeth McAllister, Welcome
Speaker 1: to History on Trial. I'm your host, Mira Hayward. This
Speaker 1: week the United States v. The Harrisburg Seven. By the
Speaker 1: time he met sister Elizabeth McAllister in nineteen sixty six,
Speaker 1: father Philip Barrigan had made quite a name for himself
Speaker 1: in leftist political circles. An extroverted charismatic man, Berrigan and
Speaker 1: his older brother Daniel were vanguards of a mid century
Speaker 1: movement within the Catholic Church to liberalize the church and
Speaker 1: make it more appealing and relevant to young people. The
Speaker 1: brothers were also known for their bold and often controversial
Speaker 1: stances on civil rights. More than simply taking stances, though,
Speaker 1: the Barrigins had reputations as doers, they planned sit ins
Speaker 1: in support of racial desegregation, traveled the world meeting activists,
Speaker 1: and organized protests. By the mid nineteen sixties, the attention
Speaker 1: of both Barrigan brothers had been drawn to the war
Speaker 1: in Vietnam. In nineteen sixty five, Daniel founded the Clergy
Speaker 1: and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam, which became one of the
Speaker 1: largest anti war groups in the country. Meanwhile, became involved
Speaker 1: with the Baltimore Interfaith Peace Mission and organized pickets at
Speaker 1: the homes of the Secretaries of Defense and State. In
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty seven, Philip, feeling that more conventional methods of
Speaker 1: protest were not working quickly enough, decided to take a
Speaker 1: more radical step. On October twenty seventh, he and three
Speaker 1: fellow anti war activists strode into the Selective Service office
Speaker 1: at the Baltimore Customs House and poured blood onto the
Speaker 1: draft records held there, destroying them. The group's bold actions
Speaker 1: inspired dozens of similar raids over the next four years,
Speaker 1: in which protesters, often members of the Catholic left, would
Speaker 1: destroyed draft records. The raiders would normally wait outside the
Speaker 1: draft board offices until the police and the news media
Speaker 1: showed up, willingly going to jail as a show of
Speaker 1: their case commitment to the cause. Philip Berigan himself faced
Speaker 1: jail time for his actions in Baltimore, but while out
Speaker 1: on bail in the spring of nineteen sixty eight, he
Speaker 1: decided to double down and organize another Draft Board raid.
Speaker 1: This time, he convinced his brother Daniel to join him.
Speaker 1: On May seventeenth, the Barrigins and seven others entered the
Speaker 1: Draft board offices in Catonsville, Maryland, and stuffed three hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy eight draft records into a trash bin. They
Speaker 1: brought the bin to the parking lot, where news crews
Speaker 1: recorded the group as they used homemade napalm to burn
Speaker 1: the files. It was a highly symbolic action. Napalm is
Speaker 1: an extremely flammable compound that the American military was using
Speaker 1: as a weapon in Vietnam, and a photograph of the
Speaker 1: protesters praying for peace as they burned the files appeared
Speaker 1: in newspapers across the conry. In November nineteen sixty eight,
Speaker 1: the raiders, who had become known as the Catonsville Nine,
Speaker 1: were convicted and sentenced to various terms in prison for
Speaker 1: their actions. While the case was appealed, the nine remained
Speaker 1: out on bail. While on bail, Philip Barrigan made two
Speaker 1: very important decisions. The first was personal. He and sister
Speaker 1: Elizabeth McAllister decided to get married. After meeting in nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty six, the pair had grown closer and closer they
Speaker 1: eventually realized that they were in love. It was not
Speaker 1: as simple for this couple to wed as it would
Speaker 1: be for others. They were a priest and none after all,
Speaker 1: But by this time their commitment to each other and
Speaker 1: the anti war cause outweighed the rules of the church.
Speaker 1: They privately declared themselves married in nineteen sixty nine. The
Speaker 1: second big decision Philip Barrigin made was politic. After their
Speaker 1: appeals over the Catonsville convictions were rejected by the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: the Berigin brothers were ordered to surrender themselves into custody
Speaker 1: in April nineteen seventy. In the past, going to jail
Speaker 1: had been part of the process for draft board raiders,
Speaker 1: but the Bearrigins had begun to wonder if surrendering was
Speaker 1: the most effective tactic. I wanted to confront the mythology
Speaker 1: of the good guy, whose goodness depends on his willingness
Speaker 1: to go to jail. Daniel Berrigan said he thought he
Speaker 1: and his brother could be more useful to the movement
Speaker 1: on the outside, so they decided to run. For first
Speaker 1: time fugitives. The Berigins were surprisingly successful at eluding capture.
Speaker 1: They moved from city to city, staying with sympathetic families
Speaker 1: or church colleagues. As the days went by and the
Speaker 1: FBI did not locate them, the brothers became bolder. They
Speaker 1: gave a number of lectures and sermons, always managing to
Speaker 1: slip out just before the FBI arrived. Finally, after twelve
Speaker 1: days on the run, Philip Barrigan was captured by the
Speaker 1: FBI and brought to Louisbourg Federal Penitentiary in Pennsylvania. Daniel
Speaker 1: managed to stay out for another four months, during which
Speaker 1: he made his feelings on the FBI clear. You could
Speaker 1: say that my survival is a triumph of the love
Speaker 1: and humanity of the people who shelter me over the FBI,
Speaker 1: who are merciless but extraordinarily unimaginative men, he said in
Speaker 1: one interview in Washington. J Edgar Hoover fumed he took
Speaker 1: Barrigin's taunt personally and put the priest on the FBI's
Speaker 1: ten most wanted list. Eventually, in August nineteen seventy, the
Speaker 1: FBI caught up with Daniel Berrigan, and he sent to
Speaker 1: the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut. While his brother
Speaker 1: had been underground, Philip Bregan had been adjusting to life
Speaker 1: at Louisbourg prison. It had not been easy. Louisbourg was
Speaker 1: a maximum security prison, and most non violent anti war
Speaker 1: protesters who ended up there for processing were quickly transferred
Speaker 1: to a minimum security prison. For some reason, perhaps because
Speaker 1: of his time as a fugitive, Barrigin was not. Life
Speaker 1: at the prison was difficult for Barrigin. Prison officials and
Speaker 1: inmates alike were largely hostile to him, and he felt
Speaker 1: disconnected from his community. That isolation maybe why Brigin was
Speaker 1: so quick to trust a fellow inmate, Boyd Douglas. Douglas
Speaker 1: was the first participant in the prison's steady release program,
Speaker 1: which allowed him to attend nearby Bucknell University while he
Speaker 1: completed his sentence. While at Bucknoll, Douglas had become involved
Speaker 1: in the anti war movement. In April nineteen seventy, a
Speaker 1: Bucknell professor who mentored Douglas mentioned to him that the
Speaker 1: famous anti war priest Philip Barrigan had been sent to
Speaker 1: Louisbourg and encouraged Douglas to connect with Barrigin. The two
Speaker 1: men quickly struck up a friendship, and Barrigin soon asked
Speaker 1: Douglas if he would be able to carry a message
Speaker 1: for him out of the prison. Douglas happily agreed. Throughout
Speaker 1: the spring and summer of nineteen seventy, Douglas regularly carried
Speaker 1: letters in and out of Louisbourg. Many of these letters
Speaker 1: were between Philip Barrigan and Elizabeth McAllister. McAllister kept Barrigin
Speaker 1: updated on the movement's activities and their plans. She solicited
Speaker 1: his feedback on actions, encouraged him to keep his spirits up,
Speaker 1: and passionately expressed her love to him. It was in
Speaker 1: one of those letters, dated August eighteenth, that McAllister raised
Speaker 1: the idea of conducting what she called a quote citizen's
Speaker 1: arrest on a prominent government official. The day before, McAllister
Speaker 1: and a group of like minded activists had discussed the
Speaker 1: idea as part of a brainstorming session. The citizen's arrest
Speaker 1: had been proposed by Ekbal Ahmad. Ahmad was a Pakistani
Speaker 1: intellectual and activist who had helped coordinate the Barrigin's time underground.
Speaker 1: He now suggested kidnapping a prominent politician and holding them
Speaker 1: in exchange forgetting the US to stop bombing raids in Vietnam.
Speaker 1: The perfect candidate Ahmad proposed was Henry Kissinger, then the
Speaker 1: National Security Advisor, because Kissinger both had a lot of
Speaker 1: influence and also quote was a bachelor with girlfriends and
Speaker 1: wouldn't want a lot of bodyguards around. The group had
Speaker 1: tossed the idea around for a while before dropping it
Speaker 1: and moving on. McAllister raised the kidnapping idea again in
Speaker 1: her letter to Berrigan, writing about the group's discussion and
Speaker 1: asking barrigin to think about it. She also seemingly unronically
Speaker 1: wrote that the idea was being shared in uttered confidence
Speaker 1: and should not be committed to paper. Douglas delivered this
Speaker 1: letter on August twentieth. Barrigan, in his reply, indicated interest
Speaker 1: in the plan, but urged caution. He also mentioned that
Speaker 1: perhaps the kidnapping could be done in conjunction with another
Speaker 1: proposed action, which involved interrupting heat or power in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. In order to impede government business. This letter,
Speaker 1: dated August twenty second, was the last written record of Barrigan, McAllister,
Speaker 1: and their activist cohort discussing plans to either kidnap Kissinger
Speaker 1: or disrupt Dacey's power grids. Soon after Douglas smuggled this
Speaker 1: letter out of Louisbourg, Philip Berrigan was transferred to Danbury Prison,
Speaker 1: where his recently captured brother Daniel was now an inmate.
Speaker 1: Three months later, Elizabeth McAllister was driving to her sister's
Speaker 1: house in Maryland when the radio broadcaster announced that FBI
Speaker 1: Director J. Edgar Hoover had just revealed shocking news in
Speaker 1: testimony to a Senate subcommittee. Hoover had stated that a
Speaker 1: quote militant group composed of Catholic priests and nuns, teachers, students,
Speaker 1: and former students, whose principal leaders are Philip and Daniel Berrigan,
Speaker 1: plan to blow up underground electric conduits and steam pipes
Speaker 1: serving the Washington, DC area in order to disrupt federal
Speaker 1: government operations. The plotters are also concocting a scheme to
Speaker 1: kidnap a highly placed government official. Hoover promised that quote
Speaker 1: intensive investigation is being conducted concerning this matter. Like McAllister,
Speaker 1: Ekba Ahmad was shocked to hear Hoover's announcement. It sounded
Speaker 1: so ridiculous to me, he said later, I knew I
Speaker 1: had brought up the matter of a citizen's arrest. But
Speaker 1: the discussion came to nothing. We talked about a lot
Speaker 1: of ideas that were rejected. I was worried about Hoover's accusations,
Speaker 1: but more amused than anything else. He became a lot
Speaker 1: more worried and a lot less amused when he learned
Speaker 1: that Elizabeth McAllister had written down the group's discussion in
Speaker 1: a letter that she had trusted a virtual stranger, boy Douglas,
Speaker 1: to smuggle into prison for her. Ahmad was right to
Speaker 1: be worried. Somehow or other, the FBI had obtained private
Speaker 1: correspondence from the group, and they weren't going to let
Speaker 1: the matter go. The barrigins had been thorns in the
Speaker 1: FBI's side for years. Now might be the bureau's chance
Speaker 1: to strike back. J Edgar Hoover's declaration to his Senate
Speaker 1: subcommittee that Catholic anti war activists were planning a bombing
Speaker 1: attack and a kidnapping did not just come as a
Speaker 1: surprise to Elizabeth McAllister and Ekbal Ahmad. It also came
Speaker 1: as a surprise to Hoover's own Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Speaker 1: Before Hoover's testimony to Congress, his prepared remarks had gone
Speaker 1: to Charles Brennan, an assistant director of the FBI's Domestic
Speaker 1: Intelligence Division, for review. Brennan had strongly encouraged Hoover to
Speaker 1: delete the section about the kidnapping and bombing plot, saying
Speaker 1: that revealing the FBI's knowledge of the potential plot could
Speaker 1: hurt an ongoing investigation. Hoover ignored Brennan's advice, discussing the
Speaker 1: alleged plot at least three times with government officials in
Speaker 1: the fall of nineteen seventy. In speaking publicly about a
Speaker 1: case in which no charges had been brought, Hoover was
Speaker 1: also ignoring Department of Justice guidelines, which discouraged this kind
Speaker 1: of pre trial statement. Attorney General John Mitchell publicly said
Speaker 1: that he was surprised by Hoover's testimony and privately scolded
Speaker 1: the FBI director. Why had Hoover acted against the advice
Speaker 1: of the Justice Department and his own bureau and spoken
Speaker 1: publicly about an ongoing investigation. Part of his motivation may
Speaker 1: have been personal. Hoover was seventy five years old in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy, though he still enjoyed the staunch support of
Speaker 1: President Nixon. Public criticism of the longtime FBI director was
Speaker 1: growing as his reign entered its thirty fifth year. Hoover
Speaker 1: wanted to prove that he was still in control of
Speaker 1: his bureau's work. He may also have wanted to send
Speaker 1: a lesson to the Berrigan brothers, whose time on the
Speaker 1: run had humiliated the FBI. Hoover also wanted to prove
Speaker 1: the necessity of his agency. His testimony to Congress about
Speaker 1: the alleged plot had been part of a larger campaign
Speaker 1: to get more funding for the FBI. By demonstrating that
Speaker 1: threats against the United States existed, Hoover could justify his
Speaker 1: requests for more money and more agents. His plan worked.
Speaker 1: Congress would soon authorize additional funding for the bureau, but
Speaker 1: Hoover's plan had perhaps worked too well. Discussions of the
Speaker 1: alleged plot dominated the news cycle over Thanksgiving weekend. The
Speaker 1: FBI now needed to back up Hoover's claims, so a
Speaker 1: full blown investigation was launched. Hundreds of FBI agents from
Speaker 1: across the East Coast were reassigned to the case. Hoover
Speaker 1: reviewed all their reports, writing notes in the margins helpful
Speaker 1: things like pull out all stops and push this hard.
Speaker 1: An investigation alone was not enough for the hard charging Director.
Speaker 1: Hoover was determined to see the case prosecuted. In early
Speaker 1: January nineteen seventy one, a grand jury in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: began hearing testimony on the case. Guy Goodwin, an attorney
Speaker 1: working in the Justice Department's Internal Security Division, ran the
Speaker 1: grand jury's investigation. On January twelfth, the Justice Department announced
Speaker 1: an indictment in the case. Six people, Philip Berrigan, Elizabeth McAllister,
Speaker 1: Ekbaal Ahmad, Joseph Wenderroth, Neil McLoughlin, and Anthony Skoblick, were
Speaker 1: being charged with, quote, conspiring to blow up the heating
Speaker 1: systems of federal buildings in the nation's capital and also
Speaker 1: to kidnap presidential adviser Henry Kissinger. The conspiracy to commit
Speaker 1: kidnapping charges carried a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. The
Speaker 1: indictment also listed several unindicted co conspiras, including Daniel Berrigan.
Speaker 1: The actual material of the indictment was thin, and the
Speaker 1: press noticed. The Saint Louis Post Dispatch called the indictment
Speaker 1: quote one of the flimsiest on record. The Barrigans and
Speaker 1: their lawyers responded similarly, with one of their lawyers calling
Speaker 1: the charges quote a colossal blunder into which the government
Speaker 1: was stampeded after j Edgar Hoover concocted them to justify
Speaker 1: an appropriation for an additional thousand agents. Vice President Spiro Agnew,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, rebuked those who criticized the government's motives,
Speaker 1: saying impugning the motives of that grand jury and the
Speaker 1: investigative agencies which brought the matter to their attention. In
Speaker 1: other words, popping off for political advantage prior to trial
Speaker 1: is nearly as reprehensible as finding the defendants guilty before
Speaker 1: they have been tried and convicted Privately, however, Justice Department
Speaker 1: officials were concerned about the strength of the case. Instead
Speaker 1: of shutting down the grand jury after issuing the indictment,
Speaker 1: Guy Goodwin kept the grand jury running and continued to
Speaker 1: subpoena witnesses. Critics called it a phishing expedition. Goodwin responded
Speaker 1: that he was simply investigating the possibility of further indictments
Speaker 1: even as the prosecutors looked for more evidence. The government
Speaker 1: moved towards trial, arraigning the defendants on February eighth. In
Speaker 1: mid February, lead prosecutor Guy Goodwin was replaced by William S. Lynch. Lynch,
Speaker 1: the head of the Justice Department's Organized Crime and Racketeering Section,
Speaker 1: had an excellent reputation. He took the files home and
Speaker 1: studied the case for five days. Lynch was deeply troubled
Speaker 1: by what he saw in his estimation the case that
Speaker 1: Goodwin had drawn up, a case that focused on Hoover's
Speaker 1: allegations of bombs and kidnapping, was untenable. There was simply
Speaker 1: not enough evidence. Instead, he urged his superiors the case
Speaker 1: needed to include a broader range of criminal activity. Lynch
Speaker 1: wanted to tie in charges about the rating of draft
Speaker 1: board offices. That way, he believed he had a better
Speaker 1: chance of obtaining a conviction. Even more than that, he
Speaker 1: told colleagues he could avoid being laughed out of court.
Speaker 1: Lynch's superiors agreed, and he was given the go ahead
Speaker 1: to restructure the case. After another round of grand jury testimony,
Speaker 1: a new indictment was announced on April thirtieth. The new
Speaker 1: charges were subtly but crucially different from those in the
Speaker 1: January indictment. The indictment now included charges for draft board
Speaker 1: raids and omitted the conspiracy to kidnap charge. Lynch had
Speaker 1: replaced the conspiracy to kidnap charge with a general conspiracy charge.
Speaker 1: It was a much easier case to prove, although the
Speaker 1: possible punishments were correspondingly lower. Lynch also gave up on
Speaker 1: trying to connect to Daniel Berrigan to the trial, removing
Speaker 1: his name from the list of unindicted co conspirators. There
Speaker 1: was one more change. The April indictment added two new defendants,
Speaker 1: Mary kin Skoblick and John Theodore Glick. Glick's case would
Speaker 1: eventually be severed, leaving seven defendants to be tried together.
Speaker 1: Thus the group became known as the Harrisburg Seven. On
Speaker 1: May twenty fifth, the defendants were arraigned on the new charges.
Speaker 1: Each of them refused to enter a plea, citing their
Speaker 1: belief that the government was acting quote irregularly and extra judicially.
Speaker 1: Judge R. Dixon Hermann was uninterested in their speeches and
Speaker 1: registered each defendant as having pled not guilty. A trial
Speaker 1: date was set nearly seventeen months after Elizabeth McAllister had
Speaker 1: written her fateful letter about Citizen's arrest, and more than
Speaker 1: a year after j. Edgar Hoover had discussed the plot
Speaker 1: in Congress the Harrisburg Seven would go on trial. The
Speaker 1: courtroom for the Harrisburg Seven trial had a singularly ugly
Speaker 1: paint job. Reporters described the paint color as oppressive, green,
Speaker 1: tired algae and mill pond scum. It was an unprepossessing
Speaker 1: setting for such a dramatic case. After nearly three weeks
Speaker 1: of jury selection, opening statements took place on February twenty first,
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy two. As lead prosecutor William Lynch spoke to
Speaker 1: reporters outside the courtroom, it was clear that a change
Speaker 1: had come over the man in the year since he
Speaker 1: had first come to the case. Yes, While he had
Speaker 1: taken the case reluctantly, write Jack Nelson and Ronald j
Speaker 1: Ostro in their book The FBI and the Barrigans, Lynch
Speaker 1: had psyched himself to the point that he seemed to
Speaker 1: loathe the defendants. He described the defendants to the media
Speaker 1: as naive attention seekers who believed themselves above the law. However,
Speaker 1: Lynch usually kept his personal opinions to himself inside the courtroom.
Speaker 1: In his opening statement, he calmly laid out the government's
Speaker 1: case Philip Barrigan, Lynch said, was the ringleader of a
Speaker 1: group who quote hatched a conspiracy in January nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: to commit a series of illegal acts, the thrust of
Speaker 1: which was to disrupt governmental activities. These illegal acts included
Speaker 1: draft board raids in Philadelphia, which the defendant father Joseph Wenderoth,
Speaker 1: among others, had public taken responsibility for. Lynch claimed that
Speaker 1: he would prove that Philip Barrigan and two other defendants,
Speaker 1: Anthony and Mary Skoblick, were involved in planning these raids.
Speaker 1: The next plan in the conspiracy, Lynch shed, was bombing
Speaker 1: heating pipes in Washington. He claimed that Wenderrath and Philip
Speaker 1: Barrigan had personally visited underground tunnels in DC with quote
Speaker 1: the intent of casing or assessing the feasibility of this
Speaker 1: particular activity. Finally, Lynch shed the group planned to kidnap
Speaker 1: Henry Kissinger. Throughout his opening, Lynch buttressed his claims by
Speaker 1: saying that they would be supported by the testimony of
Speaker 1: the prosecution's star witness, boyd Douglas. Douglas was the inmate
Speaker 1: who had helped Philip Berrigan smuggle letters in and out
Speaker 1: of Louisbourg prison. The defense had long suspected that Douglas
Speaker 1: was the source of the leak, but Lynch's opening confirmed
Speaker 1: it and revealed just how much the prosecution's case was
Speaker 1: based on Douglas's information. Douglas, Lynch said, in his opening argument,
Speaker 1: had become an FBI informant in June nineteen seventy, almost
Speaker 1: immediately after he had begun working with Berrigan. In his
Speaker 1: statement for the defense, attorney Ramsey Clark went on the attack.
Speaker 1: The defendants had a whole cohort of lawyers representing them
Speaker 1: who would share responsibilities during the trial. Clark, the attorney
Speaker 1: General under President Johnson and Lynch's former boss, was chosen
Speaker 1: to deliver the rebuttal to Lynch's opening. Clark immediately went
Speaker 1: after the prosecution's motives and case. The charges, Clark said
Speaker 1: were only brought to quote, justify something j Edgar Hoover
Speaker 1: had done. He said that his clients were quote the
Speaker 1: gentlest of people, not capable of injuring anyone. Any actions
Speaker 1: they had taken against the war had not been part
Speaker 1: of a conspiracy, but had been individual actions. This was
Speaker 1: a key point for the defense. All of the defendants
Speaker 1: except Elizabeth McAllister, and Ekba Ahmad had at some point
Speaker 1: publicly confessed to participating in draft board raids. Clark wanted
Speaker 1: to make the distinction that these raids had not been
Speaker 1: part of a larger plot or a conspiracy, which is
Speaker 1: what the government was now charging the defendants with. Much
Speaker 1: of Clark's opening was devoted to attacking boy Douglas. You'll
Speaker 1: have to watch Boyd Douglas, see him, judge him, Clark said,
Speaker 1: He's made lying a way of life. It was clear
Speaker 1: from both the prosecution and the defense's opening statements that
Speaker 1: the trial would hinge on the testimony of Boyd Douglas.
Speaker 1: But who was Boyd Douglas exactly? This wasn't an easy
Speaker 1: question to answer. Some people, including Philip Berrigan and his
Speaker 1: friends at Bucknell University, where Douglas had participated in a
Speaker 1: steady release program while still imprisoned, knew Douglas as a charismatic,
Speaker 1: complicated man with strong anti war sentiments. Douglas told them
Speaker 1: that he had fought in Vietnam and had been horrified
Speaker 1: by what he had seen there. Upon his return to America,
Speaker 1: Douglas said he had been caught trying to bomb trucks
Speaker 1: carrying napalm to be shipped to Vietnam and jailed. While
Speaker 1: in jail, he volunteered for a medical study, which had
Speaker 1: left him with debilitating injuries. He had won a settlement
Speaker 1: from the government for his suffering, he told Bucknell friends,
Speaker 1: which was how he explained his ready supply of money,
Speaker 1: his ever stocked liquor cabinet, and his off campus apartment
Speaker 1: lavish living for anyone, especially a prisoner. Douglas could be
Speaker 1: insistent and arrogant, but most who him just thought he
Speaker 1: was passionate. At the trial, a very different picture of
Speaker 1: Douglas emerged. On the stand, Douglas described himself as a
Speaker 1: Catholic who was concerned about Catholic priests and nuns getting
Speaker 1: involved in anti war activities. He discussed being worried about
Speaker 1: quote the threats of these people to the United States government.
Speaker 1: He had gotten in over his head when he had
Speaker 1: agreed to help Philip Barrigan smuggle a letter out of prison,
Speaker 1: Douglas explained, and knowing that he would eventually be caught,
Speaker 1: decided to start copying out the contents of the letters
Speaker 1: in order to help the government. After a warden caught
Speaker 1: barrigin with a letter in June and realized that Douglas
Speaker 1: was helping him. The warden had put Douglas in touch
Speaker 1: with the FBI. In his long answers to Lynch's questions,
Speaker 1: Douglas explained how he had gotten deeper and deeper into
Speaker 1: the movement as a way to aid his investigation. During
Speaker 1: Douglas's testimony, Lynch introduced the letters between Barrigan and McAllister,
Speaker 1: reading them aloud to the jury. Douglas corroborated references in
Speaker 1: the letters to real life conversations he said he had
Speaker 1: with the defendants. Unfortunately for the prosecution, most of the
Speaker 1: letters were so dull and rambling that jurors literally fell
Speaker 1: asleep during Lynch's readings. However, two letters, those sent on
Speaker 1: August eighteenth and August twenty second by Elizabeth McAllister and
Speaker 1: Philip Berrigan, respectively, were much more exciting. These were the
Speaker 1: letters that discussed kidnapping Kissinger and alluded to a disruptive
Speaker 1: action against DC utilities. Douglas was key to bringing these
Speaker 1: letters to life. His testimony alleged that the discussion of
Speaker 1: these crimes was not confined to these two letters, but
Speaker 1: had been an ongoing conversation in the summer of nineteen seventy.
Speaker 1: The prosecution would ultimately bring in sixty four witnesses, including
Speaker 1: FBI agents and police officers, but the only one whose
Speaker 1: testimonies supported the charges of bombing and kidnapping was Douglas.
Speaker 1: Douglas testified to having discussed the details of the tunnel
Speaker 1: bombing project with Joseph Wenderoth, and to having conversations with
Speaker 1: Elizabeth McAllister and Ekba Ahmad about the kidnapping plot. Douglas's
Speaker 1: allegation that he had spoken to Ahmad on the phone
Speaker 1: about the kidnapping was hard to believe. Ahmad was the
Speaker 1: most cautious and savvy of all the defendants. He constantly
Speaker 1: bemoaned the others naivete saying, I am dealing with children.
Speaker 1: Why would he discuss a sensitive matter like kidnapping over
Speaker 1: the phone with a stranger. Douglas claimed to have spoken
Speaker 1: to Ahmad twice, and said that he picked out Ahmud's
Speaker 1: voice from a tape recording the FBI played him. The tape,
Speaker 1: it turned out, was from a press conference that the
Speaker 1: defendants had given in which Ahmad, the only defendant with
Speaker 1: an accent, had literally identified himself by name. This identification
Speaker 1: of Ahmad's voice was so suspect that Judge Hermann decided
Speaker 1: to strike it from the record. This was not the
Speaker 1: only issue with Douglas's testimony. At the end of his
Speaker 1: direct examination, Lynch was forced to raise a concerning matter,
Speaker 1: a letter from Douglas in which he had requested fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars from the FBI in exchange for his help
Speaker 1: with the case. The defense had told the press about
Speaker 1: the letter earlier that week, and Lynch was trying to
Speaker 1: get ahead of it. This figure may sound a little high,
Speaker 1: Douglas had written, but considering everything, I feel it is
Speaker 1: worth it to the government. I will do all I
Speaker 1: can to help the government obtain enough evidence to prosecute
Speaker 1: these people. However, I don't want to feel that I
Speaker 1: am just being used. Lynch tried to move on from
Speaker 1: the letter quickly. Douglas explained that he had continued helping
Speaker 1: the FBI even after his money request was turned down,
Speaker 1: but the damage was done. Several jurors looked at each
Speaker 1: other and shook their heads. What came next was even
Speaker 1: more troubling for the prosecution. The defense lawyers were unsure
Speaker 1: of their ability to shake Douglas from his story about
Speaker 1: the defendant's alleged crimes. He was a confident witness, with
Speaker 1: an excellent memory for dates and places, and was convincing
Speaker 1: in his recall. So the defense, on cross examination decided
Speaker 1: to instead go after Douglas's character, and it was here
Speaker 1: that a third side of boy Douglas emerged. This version
Speaker 1: wasn't the anti war activist known by Barrigan and at Bucknell,
Speaker 1: or the patriot concerned with protecting his country portrayed by
Speaker 1: the prosecution. The boy Douglas who came out on cross
Speaker 1: examination was as Ramsey Clark had described him in his opening,
Speaker 1: someone who made lieing a way of life. Born in
Speaker 1: nineteen forty in Iowa, boyd Douglas had started committing crimes
Speaker 1: at a young age. In nineteen fifty nine, he had
Speaker 1: enlisted in the military, likely as part of a deal
Speaker 1: to avoid jail time. After deserting the army multiple times.
Speaker 1: He was charged in nineteen sixty two with impersonating an
Speaker 1: army officer and passing bad checks. He pled guilty and
Speaker 1: was sentenced to jail in nineteen sixty three. While in jail,
Speaker 1: he had volunteered for a medical study at the National
Speaker 1: Institutes of Health. It was true that he had incurred
Speaker 1: serious injuries during the study, but it's unclear whether those
Speaker 1: injuries were self inflicted or not. Douglas filed a two
Speaker 1: million dollar suit against the government, but eventually settled for
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand dollars after his lawyer informed him that the
Speaker 1: government suspected fraud. Paroled in nineteen sixty six, Douglas immediately
Speaker 1: began forging checks again. After waiving a gun at a
Speaker 1: bank employee who confronted him and was conson, Douglas was
Speaker 1: apprehended and sentenced to an additional five years in prison.
Speaker 1: It was for these crimes that Douglas was in Louisbourg
Speaker 1: prison where he met Berrigin, not for bombing trucks carrying
Speaker 1: napalm like he claimed. Douglas also never served in Vietnam.
Speaker 1: Douglas's lies did not stop there. The defense revealed that
Speaker 1: Douglas had lied constantly to try to manipulate his friends
Speaker 1: at Bucknell, even over personal matters. While at Bucknell, he
Speaker 1: had dated two roommates. He told one roommate, Jane Hoover,
Speaker 1: that he was dying of cancer and asked her to
Speaker 1: marry him. When she refused, he pleaded with her, telling
Speaker 1: her that she was the only girl he had ever loved,
Speaker 1: except for a childhood neighbor of his name, Nancy, who,
Speaker 1: like Jane, had beautiful blonde hair. After Jane once again
Speaker 1: rejected him, Douglas moved on to her roommate, Betsy Sandel.
Speaker 1: He soon asked Betsy to marry him, movingly, declaring that
Speaker 1: she was the only girl he had ever loved, except
Speaker 1: for a childhood neighbor named Nancy, who, like Betsy, had
Speaker 1: beautiful red hair. It was a trivial lie, but it
Speaker 1: seemed to stick with the jurors. While Douglas was supposed
Speaker 1: to be gathering information for the FBI, he had instead
Speaker 1: spent his time manipulating young college students into becoming romantically
Speaker 1: attached to him. Douglas's admission that he had flagged Betsy
Speaker 1: Sandel as an anti war activist to the FBI only
Speaker 1: after she had rejected his marriage proposal caused one jurors
Speaker 1: jaw to literally drop. With all that said, the defense
Speaker 1: had been right in fearing that they could not get
Speaker 1: Douglas to change his story about the crimes. He alleged
Speaker 1: the defendants had He consistently maintained that the defendants had
Speaker 1: planned to kidnap Kissinger and bomb the capital. The cross
Speaker 1: examinations had certainly damaged Douglas's credibility, but had they damaged
Speaker 1: the prosecution's case. William Lynch didn't think so devastating cross examination,
Speaker 1: he laughed to a reporter. Lynch's real concern lay with
Speaker 1: what the defense would present during their own case. On
Speaker 1: March twenty third, after more than a month of testimony,
Speaker 1: the prosecution rested. The defense had called witnesses from all
Speaker 1: over the country to testify, and people wondered exactly who
Speaker 1: would appear on the stand, which, if any, of the
Speaker 1: defendants would testify. On Friday, March twenty fourth, Ramsey Clark
Speaker 1: again rose for the defense, but instead of delivering a
Speaker 1: traditional opening statement, he shocked the courtroom by declaring, your honor,
Speaker 1: the defendants will always seek peace. The defendants continue to
Speaker 1: proclaim their innocence, and the defense rests. No one knew
Speaker 1: quite what was happening. Had Clark said that the defense rested,
Speaker 1: they weren't going to present a case, Lynch was baffled,
Speaker 1: calling it some sort of trickery, some sort of fraud
Speaker 1: on the court, but the defense said that they had
Speaker 1: only decided to not present a case the night before.
Speaker 1: In a news conference, the defendants explained themselves it had
Speaker 1: not been a unanimous decision. Barrigan, McAllister, and Ahmad had
Speaker 1: wanted to argue their case, but had been overruled by
Speaker 1: a majority of the defendants. The Skobliks, Joseph Wenderroth and
Speaker 1: Neil McLaughlin did not want to present a defense. McAllister
Speaker 1: had taken notes on their discussion the night before, writing quote,
Speaker 1: the response of silence seems the best response to the
Speaker 1: illegitimacy of this indictment of the process of this government.
Speaker 1: By not present venting a defense, the defendants felt that
Speaker 1: they were refusing to engage in a process they saw
Speaker 1: as corrupt. The defendants had not forgone every aspect of
Speaker 1: a defense, however, they still wished for their lawyers to
Speaker 1: conduct closing arguments, which were duly completed by both sides.
Speaker 1: No one added anything particularly novel. The defense lawyers argued
Speaker 1: that the case was politically motivated, poorly supported, and overblown,
Speaker 1: while Lynch contended that the defendants were wolves in clerical clothing.
Speaker 1: Formerly non violent activists who had graduated to violence and
Speaker 1: posed a genuine threat to the nation. On March thirtieth,
Speaker 1: the jury began their deliberations. They had to return to
Speaker 1: the courtroom several times for clarification on the charges. It
Speaker 1: was a complicated set of interrelated charges, and the jury
Speaker 1: and Judge Hermann himself seemed unsure about just how to
Speaker 1: approach the law. Over the next week, the jury delivered
Speaker 1: several verdicts on a few of the more minor charges,
Speaker 1: finding Philip Berrigan and Elizabeth McAllister guilty of smuggling letters
Speaker 1: out of federal prison. But on April fifth, nineteen seventy two,
Speaker 1: the jury declared to Judge Herman that they were deadlocked
Speaker 1: on the conspiracy charges. They could not reach a decision
Speaker 1: about the defendant's guilt or innocence in conspiring to raid
Speaker 1: draft board offices, kidnap Henry Kissinger, and baumb Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: In the case of the United States v. The Harrisburg Seven,
Speaker 1: Judge Herman declared a mistrial. The case might not have
Speaker 1: ended there. The government could still choose to retry the
Speaker 1: Harrisburg Seven, but it seemed extremely unlikely. Public opinion was
Speaker 1: against the government. In this case. The local newspaper, a
Speaker 1: conservative journal called The Harrisburg Patriot, wrote, it must be
Speaker 1: evident that conspiracy is an elusive charge, that a principal witness, Douglas,
Speaker 1: whose testimony can be eroded as his motivation is revealed,
Speaker 1: is a very weak read, and that a faulty case
Speaker 1: is better left untried than subjected to pitiless media and
Speaker 1: public exposure. The jurors concurred with the Harrisburg Patriots conclusions.
Speaker 1: Interviews with jurors after the verdict revealed that they had
Speaker 1: voted ten to two against convicting on the conspiracy charges,
Speaker 1: and that the two jurors who supported convictions had had
Speaker 1: their minds made up from the beginning of the trial.
Speaker 1: The jurors who voted for acquittal cited Boyd Douglas's lack
Speaker 1: of credibility as a major reason for their decision. Any
Speaker 1: possibility of a retrial died along with the man who
Speaker 1: had pushed for the trial in the first place on
Speaker 1: May second, nineteen seventy two, j Edgar Hoover of a
Speaker 1: heart attack. A little more than a year later, on
Speaker 1: May twenty eighth, nineteen seventy three, Philip Barrigan and Elizabeth
Speaker 1: McAllister were legally married, given that they were still technically
Speaker 1: a priest and a nun. The couple were excommunicated from
Speaker 1: the Catholic Church, but the excommunication was later lifted. Barrigan
Speaker 1: and McAllister had three children. They never gave up their
Speaker 1: activism work. In the early nineteen eighties, they along with
Speaker 1: Phillip's brother Daniel, turned their focus to protesting nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: They employed many of the same tactics they had used
Speaker 1: for protesting the Vietnam War, including breaking into nuclear weapon
Speaker 1: manufacturing facilities and pouring blood on equipment. Philip Barrigan died
Speaker 1: at age seventy nine on December sixth, two thousand and two.
Speaker 1: Daniel Berrigan died at age ninety four on April thirtieth,
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. Elizabeth McAllister is still alive. Her last interaction
Speaker 1: with the legal system was her twenty nineteen conviction for
Speaker 1: breaking into a nuclear submarine base. Ekba Ahmah died on
Speaker 1: May eleventh, nineteen ninety nine, after a lifetime spent teaching
Speaker 1: political science and speaking out against war and imperialism. His
Speaker 1: writings influenced other prominent thinkers, including Edward Sayid and Howard Zinn,
Speaker 1: father Joseph Wenderroth, and father Neil McLaughlin returned to Baltimore
Speaker 1: to continue their work as priests. They are both now retired.
Speaker 1: Anthony and Mary Skoblick seemed to have led more private
Speaker 1: lives after the trial. During the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: the country struggled to figure out how to respond to
Speaker 1: protests over the Vietnam War. America has long been a
Speaker 1: land of protesters. Some of the most famous acts of
Speaker 1: the country's founding were acts of civil disobedience, but exactly
Speaker 1: who is allowed to protest and how they are allowed
Speaker 1: to do so are hotly debated issues. I agree with
Speaker 1: the protesters, but not with how they're protesting is a
Speaker 1: common refrain during fraught times. The theologian Robert McAfee brown,
Speaker 1: writing about the Barrigin's destruction of draft records in Catonsville, Maryland,
Speaker 1: said that the action was meant to be quote a
Speaker 1: vivid reminder of what has happened to the collective conscience
Speaker 1: of our nation. We are outraged when paper is burned,
Speaker 1: and we are not outraged when children are burned, But
Speaker 1: the ethical stakes for burning paper are very different than
Speaker 1: those for kidnapping and bombing, and ethical considerations are often
Speaker 1: different than legal ones. Prosecuting protesters who commit illegal acts
Speaker 1: is as much an American tradition as protesting itself. The
Speaker 1: system must have integrity, said the Attorney General in the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties. It never seemed wrong to me that the
Speaker 1: rou and Gandhi weer prossecus, or that they went to jail.
Speaker 1: That was their point. They so disagreed with their government
Speaker 1: that they would sacrifice freedom itself to show their concern.
Speaker 1: The speaker there was none other than Ramsey Clark, former
Speaker 1: Attorney General and defense attorney for the Harrisburg Seven. The
Speaker 1: pattern of protest and prosecution, writes William O'Rourke in his
Speaker 1: book The Harrisburg Seven and the New Catholic Left, was
Speaker 1: a symbolic one. Church and state are practitioners of myth
Speaker 1: and icon. The activists of the Catholic New Left carry
Speaker 1: out their symbolic acts of resistance. The government responds with
Speaker 1: its own. Each side used its own unique powers and
Speaker 1: tools to either upend or uphold the status quo. For
Speaker 1: the most part, each side understood the rules of the other.
Speaker 1: The Barrigins had upended this balance by choosing to run
Speaker 1: instead of surrenders for their prison sentences in nineteen seventy,
Speaker 1: but the government in prosecuting the Harrisburg Seven committed an
Speaker 1: even graver violation. In this case, the government responded disproportionately
Speaker 1: to a basically non existent threat. There is no evidence
Speaker 1: that any of the defendants ever seriously planned to carry
Speaker 1: out a kidnapping or a bombing. Had j Edgar Hoover
Speaker 1: not used the alleged threat of these attacks as leverage
Speaker 1: to get more funding from Congress, it's likely that no
Speaker 1: prosecution would have occurred. Hoover's power was so great that
Speaker 1: it subverted the rule of law right Jack Nelson and
Speaker 1: Ronald Astro quote. When a nation that prides itself on
Speaker 1: being a system of laws, not men, permits itself to
Speaker 1: be so corrupted, the portents are ominous. We often see
Speaker 1: this issue on a smaller scale. The personal whims and
Speaker 1: biases of judges, attorneys, and jurors can radically shape the
Speaker 1: outcome of a trial, But rarely do we see this
Speaker 1: kind of personal influence on his grand or as a
Speaker 1: disturbing of a scale, as we do in the trial
Speaker 1: of the Harrisburg Seven. That's the story of the United
Speaker 1: States v. The Harrisburg Seven. Stick around to learn a
Speaker 1: fun fact about one of the Berrigan Brothers musical legacy.
Speaker 1: In nineteen seventy one, Paul Simon was hard at work
Speaker 1: on his second solo album, best known at that point
Speaker 1: as a member of the duo Simon and Garfunkel. Simon's
Speaker 1: first solo album had only been released in England. This
Speaker 1: second album would be getting an American release, and it
Speaker 1: was Simon's chance to define his own voice outside of
Speaker 1: his partnership with Our Garfuncle had to make something good.
Speaker 1: Fortunately for Simon, he did. The album, titled Paul Simon,
Speaker 1: debuted in January nineteen seventy two and was critically acclaimed.
Speaker 1: It took a little while for sales to catch up
Speaker 1: with the buzz, but the album made it to number
Speaker 1: four on the Billboard Pop Album chart. The album has
Speaker 1: remained a classic and was certified platinum in nineteen eighty six.
Speaker 1: One of the best known songs from Paul Simon is
Speaker 1: the album's second single, Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard.
Speaker 1: The song tells the story of two boys breaking a law.
Speaker 1: What law exactly is never made clear, With Simon saying
Speaker 1: in a nineteen seventy two Rolling Stone interview, I have
Speaker 1: no idea what it is. Something sexual is what I imagine.
Speaker 1: After the boys are reported to the police by a
Speaker 1: woman called Mama, they are arrested. Fortunately a radical priest
Speaker 1: comes and gets them released, and they all end up
Speaker 1: on the cover of Newsweek. And yes, it was very
Speaker 1: hard to read that line without singing. But you don't
Speaker 1: want to hear me sing. Some commentators have theorized that
Speaker 1: the song tells the story of two gay teens getting
Speaker 1: kicked out of their house, and they have also suggested
Speaker 1: that the radical priest who gets the pair released is
Speaker 1: none other than father Daniel Berrigan. The biggest hint is
Speaker 1: the line about ending up on the cover of Newsweek.
Speaker 1: In nineteen seventy one, during both the Harrisburg seven fiasco
Speaker 1: and Paul Simon's album recording process, an image of Daniel
Speaker 1: and Philip Barrigan appeared on the cover of Time magazine,
Speaker 1: paired with the headline rebel Priests the Curious case of
Speaker 1: the Barrigins. The song may very well not be about
Speaker 1: gay men, and the radical priest may not be Daniel Berrigan.
Speaker 1: Simon has never confirmed nor commented on either claim. But
Speaker 1: if these theories are true, the Me and Julio down
Speaker 1: at the Schoolyard, besides being a very catchy tune, is
Speaker 1: also nice foreshadowing for Daniel Berrigan's later career. In the
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties, in the midst of the AIDS epidemic, when
Speaker 1: the cause and treatment of AIDS was still unknown, and
Speaker 1: while those affected were largely shunned by society, Daniel Berrigan
Speaker 1: began volunteering at the aid's hospice program at Saint Vincent's
Speaker 1: Hospital in New York City. He spent twelve years working
Speaker 1: with the sick and dying, treating them with love and compassion.
Speaker 1: In nineteen eighty nine, he wrote a book about his experiences,
Speaker 1: Sorrow Built a Bridge, Friendship and AIDS. At a time
Speaker 1: when so many, including the American government, wilfully ignored the
Speaker 1: crisis or blamed its victims for their fates, Daniel Berrigan
Speaker 1: once again turned his face towards suffering and did what
Speaker 1: he could to alleviate it. Thank you for listening to
Speaker 1: History on Trial. My main source for this episode was
Speaker 1: Jack Nelson and Ronald j Astro's book The FBI and
Speaker 1: the Barrigans, the Making of a Conspiracy. For a full bibliography,
Speaker 1: as well as a transcript of this episode with citations,
Speaker 1: please visit our website History on Trial podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: History on Trial is written and hosted by me Mira Hayward.
Speaker 1: The show is edited and produced by Jesse Funk, with
Speaker 1: supervising producer Trevor Young and executive producers Dana Schwartz, Alexander Williams,
Speaker 1: Matt Frederick, and Mira Hayward. Learn more about the show
Speaker 1: at History on Trial podcast dot com and follow us
Speaker 1: on Instagram at History on Trial and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Underscore History on Trial. Find more podcasts from iHeartRadio by
Speaker 1: visiting the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.