While many books about the King assassination have followed Frame-Up, this work remains unrivaled in its retelling of the circumstances which led Ray to plead guilty in a grossly inadequate “mini trial,” and Ray’s almost immediate failed attempt to retract this confession.
Weisberg also dissects the evidence in the case, and concludes that while Ray was a part of the conspiracy, he did not shoot Dr. King, serving as another “patsy” in the troubling assassinations of the 1960s.
While many books about the King assassination have followed Frame-Up, this work remains unrivaled in its retelling of the circumstances which led Ray to plead guilty in a grossly inadequate “mini trial,” and Ray’s almost immediate failed attempt to retract this confession.
Weisberg also dissects the evidence in the case, and concludes that while Ray was a part of the conspiracy, he did not shoot Dr. King, serving as another “patsy” in the troubling assassinations of the 1960s.
Frame-Up: The Assassination of Martin Luther King
560
Frame-Up: The Assassination of Martin Luther King
560eBookProprietary (Proprietary)
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
While many books about the King assassination have followed Frame-Up, this work remains unrivaled in its retelling of the circumstances which led Ray to plead guilty in a grossly inadequate “mini trial,” and Ray’s almost immediate failed attempt to retract this confession.
Weisberg also dissects the evidence in the case, and concludes that while Ray was a part of the conspiracy, he did not shoot Dr. King, serving as another “patsy” in the troubling assassinations of the 1960s.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781628734737 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Skyhorse |
| Publication date: | 09/01/2013 |
| Sold by: | SIMON & SCHUSTER |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 560 |
| File size: | 2 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Will the Real James Earl Ray/Ramon George Sneyd Please Stand Up?
Of these two high-priced writers who commercialized the King assassination, one without disguise, the other with lofty pretensions, Clay Blair, Jr., abandons his bête noir at the moment of capture, June 8 at Heathrow Airport, and then jumps to Ray's minitrial in Memphis nine months later.
I mean abandons him the very moment of capture. He doesn't even take the reader to jail with the accused. He has written the "complete story" in the "complete book" without a word on the extradition proceedings in London's Bow Street Court or the legal manipulations following it. Blair had ample time to include the proceedings in England — to digest and understand them — and to compare them with the Memphis farce. His reason for not doing it can be conjectured. It is consistent with commercialism and with contempt for his task and his craft, and for the reader. Omitting a discussion of the extradition proceedings also facilitated the basic dishonesty of the work, as will become clear immediately and on subsequent occasions.
The minitrial, for its part, is neatly tucked in, uncomprehendingly but authoritatively, both at the end, to lend an air of completeness and reliability, and hastily, inadequately, and with scholarly misrepresentation, is also slipped in, out of place, in the form of a scanty condensation, at the beginning, to con the reader into crediting the work.
Blair treats Ray in London in a brief eight pages. He is able to achieve even this minichapter semi-nakedness only by prejudicial padding. He uses the alleged opinions of those who saw Ray — and here it is not unwise to add "or the alleged Ray" — and disliked him, with that fine and precise instant dislike that is so often facilitated by hindsight.
Blair has Ray in London continuously from June 4 on. On page 201, in his brief eight pages on this, he (like the FBI in a "leak" to Drew Pearson) has Ray engaging in petty crime in England. Blair is unequivocal: "On the same fateful June 4 [that is, of "the assassination of Robert Kennedy" — which was June 5], Ray, who now was apparently very low on cash, entered the Trustee Savings Bank in the Fulham District" and robbed it of "60 pounds, or about $144 U.S. currency."
On the same page: "On the afternoon of Wednesday June 5 ... Ray abruptly departed the New Earl's Court Hotel" (where he had been staying). On the same day (and the next page), "Ray appeared at the YWCA Hostel on Warwick Way in Pimlico. It had rooms for men but they were all filled." Same paragraph: "Ray appeared at the Pax [a hotel three doors down the street] during a violent thunderstorm." He "looked very tired." No doubt from this exhausting physical effort, walking three doors down the street.
Foregoing other minor delights, which do not remove Ray from London or the Pax, we learn (page 204), "That Saturday morning — June 8 — Ray checked out of the Pax Hotel early." As we shall see, it certainly had to be very early for the rest of his hegira to have been possible.
On the next — and next to the last — page, Blair has Ray arrested at Heathrow Airport by the very polite Detective Sergeant Philip F. Burch, with the gentleness so typically British, "Would you please step into our office, Mr. Sneyd [Ray's alias]?"
All the detail is there. "At 11:30 on the morning of Saturday, June 8, Birch was at his post, standing by the immigration counter at building #2 ... checking passports." Ray was "wearing a light-colored raincoat, a burgundy sports jacket, gray trousers and horn-rimmed glasses" as he "approached the desk," when "he took out his wallet and displayed his two Canadian passports." He had about $168 and a snubnosed .38-caliber "Liberty Chief' revolver loaded with five bullets when searched.
The detail is there, but the necessary explanation is not. What was Ray doing at the airport immigration desk — which is for those entering the country only — at 11:30 A.M. (which we shall see may even be the wrong time) when he had left his London room so "early" apparently no one saw him?
Don't ask Blair. He doesn't say. In fact, he in no way indicates anything unusual about a man on the lam going to an airport immigration desk and up to a policeman, for no apparent reason. He could not and still have written his book.
All of this information Blair could have had from a selective reading of the newspapers. But he could not have read them, as without doubt he did, and not known the rest of the story all of whose perplexities are missing from the book.
The arrest was put at 11:15 A.M. London-time by the newspapers and was in plenty of time for the evening papers in the United States. The Associated Press story begins with the terse reporting of Ray's arrest, then says, "The announcement was issued under the names of Attorney General Ramsey Clark and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, but neither was present when it was given to newsmen at the Justice Department. Other FBI officials declined to elaborate on it or answer any questions. The announcement said Ray, using the name Ramon George Sneyd, was passing through England, on two Canadian passports, en route to Brussels" — and so presumably had not been in England from June 4 on.
Later in the story this is repeated, "Ray was reported to have been arrested at Heathrow Airport as he was going through immigration procedures on arrival from Lisbon, Portugal."
Blair's use of the 11:30 hour may be a misinterpretation of a too hastily read story appearing the next day in a paper to his liking, the Washington Post [1]. There the lead says, "The Justice Department announced the arrest at 11:30 A.M., Washington time [that is, the announcement was made at 11:30]. Ray, who was carrying a fully loaded pistol when apprehended, was taken into custody at 6:15 A.M. (EDT), 11:15 A.M. London time." (A point that may confuse readers is that Ray had been held by the police for five hours before being placed under arrest. He had been picked up at 6:15 London time, which should not be confused with the 6:15 Washington time equivalent to the London time of his arrest, 11:15.) Again, the same information on Ray's itinerary: "Ray ... was passing through immigration control at the airport, on his way to take a flight to Brussels ... Scotland Yard said that Ray arrived back in London on a flight from Lisbon yesterday and was going to travel on to Brussels."
The Associated Press story for June 9 morning papers, under a Washington date line, repeats this still another time in the first paragraph, " ... arrested in London Saturday as he was about to fly to Belgium, the FBI announced." Several paragraphs later, "FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover said Ray ... was seized before he could reboard a plane bound from Lisbon, Portugal, to Brussels." Still later, this added detail, "He had checked his luggage through to Brussels when he boarded the plane in Lisbon but got off when the aircraft made a refueling stop in London."
We never hear of that checked-through luggage again.
All the early stories say, "Hoover praised the cooperation of the Canadian police and Scotland Yard." In the United States, Hoover's turf, this was taken to mean the FBI did the job, with slight help from its Canadian and British counterparts. Considering that, between them, they did all of it, the Mounties identifying and fingering Ray as Sneyd and Scotland Yard, unassisted, except by Ray, arresting him, could Hoover have done less than "praise their cooperation"?
By the next day's papers, questions were being asked. Assistant Attorney General Fred Vinson, Jr., had arrived in London to take charge of getting Ray back. As soon as AP reported this, it got to one of the already perplexing questions:
Airport sources said that Ray, seized Saturday while trying to board a flight for Brussels, could have gone from the Lisbon plane that brought him to London directly to the transit lounge, and thus avoided immigration officers. His capture indicated he left the transit lounge — either to meet someone or possibly to kill time — and consequently got caught.
The perplexities mount. A Reuters dispatch from Lisbon, dated June 9, beginning, "James Earl Ray spent nine days at a third class hotel here last month," also quotes Portuguese police as saying that the nine days had been May 8-17. (The police were told to look for Ray under the name "Sneyd" by the FBI "after May 17"; in short, too late. Is it not a good thing the fabled FBI has "cooperators"?) Further, the Portuguese police "had no information Ray was here Saturday, and airlines officials said the flight to Brussels carried no mention of the name Sneyd on its passenger list." We shall see even this is understated.
For morning papers of Monday, June 10, AP had what might then have been thought clarification. Its correspondent, Michael R. Codel, wrote from London,
Ray was seized by immigration officials at Heathrow Airport after he stopped over at 6:10 A.M. Saturday on a British European Airways jet from Lisbon. He was headed for Brussels ... Police made their formal arrest at 11:15 A.M. five hours after Ray's arrival. But they kept a close security check on him and repeatedly denied they were holding him even after the announcement of his arrest came from Washington.
Then this paragraph:
The Daily Express said Monday Ray had been living in London since mid-May, contrary to the official reports that he arrived in London from Lisbon Saturday.
The Express also said, "Scotland Yard detectives believe Ray flew here from Lisbon between May 16 and May 20." But,
Scotland Yard refused to confirm or deny the Express report ... declined to go beyond a reconfirmation that Ray was arrested here Saturday as he was about to board a plane for Brussels.
And the Daily Telegraph rather authoritatively placed Ray in London from May 17 until at least June 6. They were then in touch with him.
By now it should be apparent that Ray could not have flown to London from Lisbon on June 8 without a ticket and a passport. If there is no record of "Sneyd" booking and using such passage on this date, it must be obvious that he either used other means, had another passport under still another name, or wasn't in Lisbon to begin with.
Or: there is a record — and official silence about it.
For at least another day, Scotland Yard was badgered and held to to its story. This paragraph is from the June 10 story of the New York Times' London bureau, published the morning of the 11th:
Scotland Yard officials continued today to maintain that Ray was arrested here on Saturday morning following his arrival from Portugal, when he attempted to pass through immigration while in transit to Brussels. However, there were reports indicating that Ray may have been in London for some time before his arrest on Saturday.
On that same day, June 10, Karl Meyer wrote an account that could hardly have been more explicit. It appeared in the next morning's Washington Post:
Contrary to previous reports, James Earl Ray, the fugitive wanted in the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, had not just arrived from Lisbon when he was picked up at London airport last Saturday.
Instead, Ray had been in this city for at least 11 days, moving from one nondescript tourist hotel to another and making telephone calls to a London newspaperman in an effort to find out how to join white mercenaries in Africa.
Why Scotland Yard and airport officials allowed the initial false impression to stand must be counted as a further minor mystery in the greatest manhunt of modern times.
Telephone Calls
Ray's presence in London under the alias of Ramon George Sneyd might have gone unreported, for a while at least, but for two telephone calls that Ray made last week to Ian Colvin of The London Daily Telegraph.
On Tuesday, the 40-year-old fugitive called the Telegraph foreign desk and said that he wanted to talk with someone who knew about foreign mercenaries. The desk referred Ray to Colvin, author of a recent book on Moise Tshombe and the Congo, and of several articles last month dealing with Maj. Alistair Wicks, a British mercenary officer.
As Colvin reported in Monday's Telegraph, "When we first spoke, a Canadian or perhaps American voice said to me: 'This is Ramon Sneyd. I want to join my brother who has been in Angola.'"
Toward the end of this dispatch:
Mrs. Thomas [owner-manager of the Pax Hotel] said she passed on messages to him about postponed reservations on flights from London on Thursday and Friday. But finally he booked a seat on a Saturday flight to Brussels and when he turned up at the departure lounge he was stopped and arrested.
There it is, explicit and undenied. Ray had not been on the Lisbon plane, had been in London "for at least 11 days."
If this was a "minor mystery" then, what is it now with Ray sentenced to lifetime incarceration and denied access to the outside world (even a lawyer required a court order to see him)? Despite all the marvels attributed to him, no one has yet seriously suggested he could have been in both London and Lisbon at the same time.
In the July 5 story by Karl Meyer, which Blair has followed so closely in his book, Meyer reported that fingerprints found on a bag at the Trustee Savings Bank robbery of June 4 matched Ray's. If the language is imprecise, the import is not. Ray was then in England.
Going along with this are consistently different descriptions of what cannot be a single James Earl Ray.
Eyewitnesses often confabulate. That is, their minds later fill in gaps, resolve contradictions and anomalies, and in time what was not seen is fixed in the mind as having been seen. Also, observations that later have significance seem innocent at the time they are made and there is no reason for them to be fixed in mind. Oft-times, the most sincere eyewitnesses are the least dependable sources of information. However, sometimes they are the only sources, as in attempting to determine the appearance of someone at a certain time and place. It is not unusual, then, for there to be different descriptions of one man, in this case, of the man said to have been James Earl Ray.
Still, what tends to put the inconsistent descriptions of the London James Earl Ray into a different category is the consistency in the descriptions by the persons who report seeing him at different places. Descriptions of the Ray at the New Earl's Court Hotel from different people who saw him there, for example, are in general agreement. And these witnesses say he looked like the published pictures of Ray. This man, however, does not fit the description of the man at the Pax Hotel. And neither description of this or these men is really consistent with descriptions of the man observed in Toronto.
The differences noted by various people are in height, size, and other physical characteristics and features.
If this is considered alone, it is, I think, of some significance. But when combined with the other deeply vexing questions, as it is here, I think it can be granted more significance. Particularly when authorities ignore them, leave them entirely unexplained. If these discrepancies could be easily explained, it would seem that officials, already beset with more than an adequate set of troubles, would have done so, if not to ease their own burden, then at least to ease public disquiet.
With the absolute certainty that a single "Ray" could not simultaneously have been on the British European Airways plane arriving from Lisbon at about 6:10 A.M. and in London all the while, reported leaving the Pax Hotel at 9:30 A.M. (it was not "very early," as Blair says) — the one "Ray" in custody by 6:15 A.M. and the other still at the hotel — and with authorities not only failing to resolve this impossibility but, more, refusing to address it in any way, the credibility of all official accounts is in question.
More doubt is cast upon officials and their accounts by independent investigations. Peter Dawnay in England tried to resolve the extant questions and found instead ample cause for less trust in both officials and their stories. Mrs. Anna Thomas, of the Pax, told him she was first approached by the press, which "swarmed around her like flies round a honey pot." The police did not approach her "until four days after the story had broken in the papers that Ray had stayed at" the Pax. Then they asked her "only routine questions."
She had no listing for the hotel telephone. It was explained that she didn't need a listing, all her rooms being full, and avoiding the listing eliminated late-night telephoned inquiries. Her explanation to Dawnay is that she had, in the past, been leaned on rather heavily by the police, the inference being blackmail, that they had framed her with a minor offense when she didn't accede, and that thereafter she had trouble with "obscene telephone calls and things like that." When "Sneyd" walked in, her rooms were not all engaged. There was one for him.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Frame-Up"
by .
Copyright © 1993 Harold Weisberg.
Excerpted by permission of Skyhorse Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Introduction,
1. Will the Real Janies Earl Ray/Ramon George Sneyd Please Stand Up?,
2. An "Ordinary Visitor",
3. Dry Run for the Minitrial: The Automatic Decision,
4. Orwell, 1969,
5. Arthur Hanes Loves the Gatlinburg Ski Slope and Defends Communist Dupes,
6. William Bradford Huie: "I Cannot Reveal All That I Have Found To Be True ... I Know ... I Have Learned ... the Features of the Plot",
7. Percy Foreman: "I've Given Away $300,000 This Year",
8. The Deal,
9. The Minitrial,
10. Would Ray Have Been Executed?,
11. The Minitestimony,
12. The Mini-Narration,
13. "This Is Your FBI",
14. Look and You Will See,
15. Between Frying Pans and Fires,
16. "More Than a Whiff of Conspiracy",
17. Getting the Truth,
Notes,
Appendix,
Postscript by James Earl Ray,
Index,