<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br><br>
Subject: Barry Bacharach Speaks out about the Trial and Conviction of
Arlo<br>
Looking Cloud in the Murder of Anna Mae Aquash<br>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:04:44 -0500<br><br>
From: info@leonardpeltier.org<br><br>
Ladies and Gentleman of the Press,<br><br>
A major occurrence in Rapid City last week. A trial, if that's what
you<br>
want to call it. Many of you covered the murder trial of Arlo
Looking<br>
Cloud. A 10-minute defense? Pretty sensational stuff.<br><br>
You didn't find what you were witnessing at all strange? I did. I
mean,<br>
who was on trial?<br><br>
The majority of the testimony presented had nothing whatsoever to
do<br>
with Arlo Looking Cloud, but prominent members of the American
Indian<br>
Movement<br><br>
(AIM) and my client, Leonard Peltier, in particular. Leonard Peltier
or<br>
the AIM leadership, I would remind you, are not on trial for the
1975<br>
murder of Annie Mae Aquash. They have not been charged with the
crime,<br>
either, simply because there is no evidence against them. Only
rumor,<br>
conjecture, and innuendo.<br><br>
And that's all you were treated to in that courtroom this week.
There<br>
was not one iota of proof presented to support many witnesses'<br>
"beliefs". And for every witness presented, there are any
number of<br>
other individuals who could be called to appear and who would tell
very<br>
different stories - that Annie Mae wasn't afraid of AIM, but the
Federal<br>
Bureau of Investigation (FBI); she had stated this to various<br>
individuals on numerous occasions; and she had actually put such
fears<br>
in writing. In 1975, she said she'd been told by investigators that
she<br>
would be dead within the year if she didn't cooperate with FBI agents
in<br>
framing AIM leaders and Leonard Peltier.<br><br>
How credible are the witnesses in this case? Paid informants, for<br>
example, must immediately be called into question, as must others
who<br>
have long been accused of fabricating evidence in the Peltier case<br>
and/or of playing some part in the murder of Ms. Aquash.<br><br>
Ask yourself, too, what didn't come out at this trial.<br><br>
During the 1970s, the AIM leadership was targeted by the FBI much
like,<br>
as we have seen this week, they are targeted now. The Bureau's<br>
documented intent was to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit,
or<br>
otherwise neutralize" the AIM organization. The FBI had decided
that<br>
Native Americans who were committed to uniting all Native Peoples in
an<br>
effort to uplift their communities and promote cultural pride and<br>
sovereignty were "enemies of the State". Fact, not
fiction.<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
Virtually every known AIM leader in the United States was
incarcerated<br>
in either state or federal prisons since (or even before) the<br>
organization's formal emergence in 1968, some repeatedly. After the
1973<br>
siege of Wounded Knee (SD), for example, the FBI caused 542
separate<br>
charges to be filed against those it identified as "key AIM
leaders".<br>
This resulted in only 15 convictions, all on such petty or
contrived<br>
offenses as "interfering with a federal officer in the performance
of<br>
his duty". Organization members often languished in jail for months
as<br>
the cumulative bail required to free them<br><br>
outstripped resource capabilities of AIM and supporting groups.
Fact,<br>
not fiction.<br><br>
After Wounded Knee, AIM activities were forbidden on the Pine Ridge<br>
Indian reservation by the then Tribal Chairman Dick Wilson.<br>
Traditionalists were not allowed to meet or attend traditional<br>
ceremonies. Wilson hired vigilantes who called themselves Guardians
of<br>
the Oglala Nation (GOONs) to enforce his rules. Fact, not
fiction.<br><br>
The three years following Wounded Knee are often referred to as the
Pine<br>
Ridge "Reign of Terror" because anyone associated with AIM was
targeted<br>
for violence. Their homes were burned and their cars were run off
the<br>
road. They were struck by cars, shot in drive-by shootings, and
beaten.<br>
Between 1973 and 1976, over 60 traditionalists were murdered. Pine
Ridge<br>
had the highest murder rate in the United States, people! Fact, not<br>
fiction.<br><br>
And now we're supposed to believe, I take it, that the lives of these
60<br>
or more human beings are somehow less significant than that of Anna
Mae<br>
Aquash? Yes, we want justice for Anna Mae, but what about the many<br>
others? Don't they deserve justice, too?<br><br>
In almost every case of violence, witness accounts indicated GOON<br>
responsibility, but nothing was done to stop these bloody events. On
the<br>
contrary the FBI, the agency responsible for investigating such<br>
violence, supplied the GOONs with weaponry and intelligence on AIM.
The<br>
FBI, in fact, looked the other way as the GOONs committed crime
after<br>
crime against members as well as supporters of AIM. Fact, not
fiction.<br><br>
Yet, there was no mention of these facts during last week's trial.
That<br>
means only part of the story was told. A very small part.<br><br>
The public didn't hear about the shoddy investigation the FBI
conducted<br>
into the death of Anna Mae Aquash, either. It took them 28 years to<br>
bring someone - anyone - to trial? The FBI is better than that.<br>
Everybody knows it.<br><br>
Why did the FBI not find the bullet hole in the back of Anna Mae's
head,<br>
or the blood on the back of her jacket? These things were
immediately<br>
discovered by means of an independent autopsy. Fact, not
fiction.<br><br>
Why did the FBI rule the cause of death instead as "exposure"?
Fact, not<br>
fiction.<br><br>
Why did the FBI find it necessary to sever Anna Mae's hands, when
the<br>
agents on the scene - in particular, David Price, who testified
this<br>
week - should have been able to identify the body of a woman with
whom<br>
they were well acquainted? Anna Mae's body lay frozen in a gully
when<br>
found. Winter in South Dakota. The body was too decomposed, they
say.<br>
"Unidentifiable." Fact, not fiction.<br><br>
And why then was a photo of Anna Mae's severed hands later used to<br>
frighten another Indian woman into signing several false affidavits<br>
against Leonard Peltier? Why was Myrtle Poor Bear told that the
same<br>
would happen to her if she failed to cooperate with the FBI and the<br>
federal prosecutors? Fact, not fiction.<br><br>
On the basis of these fabricated affidavits, a Canadian court was<br>
convinced to extradite Peltier to the U.S. for trial. Bob Newbrook,
a<br>
retired police officer who arrested Peltier in Alberta in 1976
recently<br>
stated, "Canada should have learned from the Peltier case that it
cannot<br>
trust U.S. evidence presented against American Indian
activists."<br>
Newbrook said he has thoroughly investigated the Peltier and Aquash<br>
cases and has come to regret his role. "I'm haunted by the fact that
I<br>
now think we seized an innocent man, with no valid Canadian arrest<br>
warrant, based on false evidence from the U.S.," he said.<br><br>
Warren Allmand, a former Canadian justice minister, and the judge
who<br>
later extradited Peltier said they would never have agreed to his<br>
extradition had they known affidavits and evidence presented by the
U.S.<br>
were false.<br><br>
Despite its carefully contrived image as the nation's premier crime<br>
fighting agency, the FBI then as now (and you have only to look at
the<br>
U.S. Patriot Act to know this is true) functioned primarily as
America's<br>
political police. This role includes not only the collection of<br>
intelligence on the activities of political dissidents and groups,
but<br>
often counterintelligence operations to thwart those activities. At
its<br>
most extreme dimension, political dissidents have been eliminated<br>
outright or sent to prison for the rest of their lives. These
activities<br>
are well documented. Fact, not fiction.<br><br>
Many activists were "neutralized" by intimidation,
harassment,<br>
discrediting, and a whole assortment of tactics, including
"snitch<br>
jacketing" where the FBI made the target look like a police
informant or<br>
a federal agent. This served the dual purposes of isolating and<br>
alienating important leaders, as well as increasing the general level
of<br>
fear and factionalism in the group. Just like the fear described in
that<br>
courtroom last week. Yet, you heard agents of the FBI, deny there
ever<br>
was such a thing as snitch jacketing, didn't you? This and other
tactics<br>
used by the FBI also are well-documented. Fact, not fiction.<br><br>
The trial was well-orchestrated - not to convict the man on trial,
but<br>
to convict AIM activists and prosecute Leonard Peltier all over
again<br>
(another violation of his constitutional rights, I would argue) in
the<br>
court of public opinion.<br><br>
The style and content of the articles being published last week<br>
(machine-gun-toting Indians?) focused on Peltier, specifically, who
is<br>
due for a full parole hearing in 2008. These articles were
reminiscent<br>
of articles published at the request of particular FBI agents during
the<br>
campaign in 2001 to convince President Clinton to grant Mr.
Peltier's<br>
petition for Executive Clemency. This is why Leonard Peltier has filed
a<br>
civil suit against the FBI, naming former director Louis Freeh,
current<br>
director Robert S. Mueller, and a dozen or so active and retired
agents<br>
of the Bureau. Allegations contained in the suit include providing
to<br>
the media as fact "numerous [...] knowingly false and
unsupported<br>
accusations [...] against the Plaintiff designed solely to deny him
the<br>
right to due process both before the [U.S.] Parole Commission and
in<br>
petitions for Executive Clemency".<br><br>
Nothing has changed, it seems. The only difference now is that the
FBI<br>
and federal prosecutors are using a court of law to advance these
false<br>
and unsupported accusations - when they know and have admitted
twice<br>
before the appellate bench that they can't prove Peltier's guilt.
They<br>
believe they're not culpable now because they are only indirectly<br>
providing false information to the press.<br><br>
In our system of justice, trials are open and public. This is, in
part,<br>
to guard against official misconduct and to ensure that only justice
is<br>
done. In our mature society, this means that the print and
electronic<br>
media are the witnesses to due process - the public's eyes and ears,
so<br>
to speak. This means that you have the responsibility to tell the
truth,<br>
the whole truth. This means you must remain independent observers
and<br>
guard against manipulation by the FBI and government prosecutors
who<br>
fight only to win, not for the sake of justice. Might does not make<br>
right, ladies and gentlemen. And the end does not justify the
means.<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
Barry Bachrach<br><br>
Attorney at Law<br><br>
<br>
<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3><a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>