Thursday, 18th April, 2002

Did James Earl Ray Kill Martin Luther King?

When Truth And Justice Are Forced To Travel At The Speed of A Sloth

There is ample evidence that the truth when related to justice is deliberately made to travel at the speed of the sloth.

In all cases in England where there has been injustice that has caused innocent people to lose many precious years of their liberty through being incarcerated in prison for a crime they did not commit before the truth has finally established their innocence there is no doubt that a person wrongly convicted on manufactured evidence, or any other reason, is denied speedy justice.

Even when there is an obvious serious doubt of the guilt of a person the machinery of bureaucracy is allowed to slowly grind on at the pleasure of the civil servants or politicians.

There is nothing more precious than personal liberty. To steal just one day of an innocent person's liberty is a grave crime. Therefore, it is beholden upon the authorities to immediately set in motion a fast lane in the justice administration to deal with cases in which there a judicial review is required on the guilt or otherwise of a convicted person.

The Establishment is always desperate to hold on to anyone, man or woman, once they are convicted, and the authorities have a 'legal' right to keep them locked up in prison. No reasonable minded person would suggest that immediately there is real doubt on the conviction of a person found guilty of a serious crime should be released immediately pending the judicial or Home Office review of the case, however, the matter should be processed without delay.

Whilst the jury system is absolutely essential in the search for justice no right-minded person would deny that it is flawless. Any system that is obliged to rely upon human opinion automatically comes with frailties. With this understood if The Establishment were dedicated to justice they would tread wearily in cases where real doubt was evident and do their utmost to ensure that no time was lost in seeking the truth.


It must be said that today because of a variety of reasons including the almost immediate speed of communication via the Internet, and other hi-tech facilities, the situation has improved since the days of the alleged 'Torture Trial', and before that time.

The introduction of the Internet and the facility of a web site are truly great weapons in the quest for justice.

Had an Internet web site been available at the time of the Mr. Smith's alleged affray, and the ridiculous 'Torture Trial' I have no doubt that the revelations that could have been brought into the public domain would have proved decisive for the defence.

It is my sincere belief that today the Crown Prosecution Service would have grave doubts of even prosecuting in the alleged 'Torture Trial'.

Despite the mass media propaganda centred upon the emotive horror title of: 'The Torture Trial' it is more than likely that they would have refused to take the case into a court-of-law. However, in the 1960's the police decided upon the merits of a prosecution, a scandalous recipe for abuse.

It is too late for the truth relating to the injustice in the 'Torture Trial', and the Mr. Smith's alleged affray, to have any benefit for the people, including me, that were convicted on the ludicrous 'evidence' of professional liars. Of this, I am fully aware, and that my protestations have no hope of benefiting those who were shamelessly made sacrificial victims by the evil corrupt members of the police who were aided and abetted by The Establishment, and its cohorts.

Nevertheless, I will not refrain from condemning these two bad examples of injustice that were allowed to take place in English courts-of-law in the name of the people.

I shall not cease to ridicule the trials, and condemn those responsible for the deliberate destruction of the lives of people that were innocent of the charges. It was blatant injustice of the worst kind; a criminal and deliberate reprehensible manipulation of the justice system ruined the lives of good people, and their families.

If you believe in ethics and integrity, and study the discreditable evidence that was put before the jury's in both the alleged affray trial, and 'Torture Trial' you will understand my deep feelings and determination to refuse to accept the vicious abuse of justice that resulted in Charles Richardson being sentenced to 25 years in prison, and four others, including me, being sentenced to a total of 48 years in prison.

The abuse did not end there. There were other despicable perversions of the course of injustice involving others in matters relating to the two trials.


Even when there was serious doubt with regard to a person charged and convicted of murder in England The Establishment have always wantonly ignored the pleas of uncertainty with regard to the conviction, and carried out the sentence of hanging by the neck until dead.

Derek Bentley who was convicted of killing a policeman was innocent. Ruth Ellis should not have been hanged for killing her two-timing lover. Ronnie Marwood convicted of murdering a policeman was innocent .A guiltless mentally impaired Timothy Evans who was convicted of murdering his wife and child on the testimony of the real murderer, a former special policeman, John Christie who was also eventually hanged for serial murders, are just four glaring examples of people who were killed' by the State in the name of justice.

The real number of people who lost their lives through being falsely convicted of murder is a dreadfully high figure. However, if there were just one miscarriage of justice that resulted in the taking of the life of an innocent person by the State then that is more than sufficient reason to deny capital punishment a place in a democratic society.

Why, why, why, was it necessary to take the lives of these people when there was the alternative of a safer form of punishment, and I use that word advisedly, which was not so lethal and irreversible?

The answer is that demonstrably arrogant and insidious people whose evil instincts disqualify them from being called human beings believed that they had a duty to scorn human rights, and impose their amoral reasoning as a warning, and deterrent, to others. There was also the reason that it satisfied their lust for power over the individual.


Presently there is an investigation that James Earl Ray, who was adjudged by an American court-of -law to have murdered Martin Luther King, was not the killer.

A statement by Reverend Ronald Denton Wilson claims that his father Henry Clay Wilson a Klu Klax Klan member was the murderer of the civic rights leader because "Mr. King was a communist and was intent in causing an uprising among the black people.

"My father pulled the trigger of the gun that killed Martin Luther King. Two fellow co-conspirators are now also dead," added Reverend Wilson.

I am not surprised by the claim that James Earl Ray was not the killer because I was in Brixton prison with James Earl Ray, and mainly through my not accepting the circumstances of the conviction of Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole murderer of President John F. Kennedy plus my inquisitiveness, and that Ray had no friends in the prison, we spent time together.

We were really not supposed to mix, but the 'screws' were anxious not to spark off 'aggro' with me so for the sake of peace they turned a blind-eye to our associating together.


James Earl Ray was a reticent person, and kept his own counsel. Eventually, when he knew of my background, and principles he slowly opened up, and told me he was not responsible for killing Martin Luther King, or anyone else for that matter. I was not easily fooled by a denial or admitted guilt by anyone that I met in prison, but I have to say that I believed Ray.

He made no secret of the fact that he was proud to be a racist, and claimed that Martin Luther King was also a racist who was determined to ferment racial trouble between black and white people.

I have to admit that at that time black racist ill behaviour was something of which I pesonally had no experience. I knew that some of my Jewish friends had experienced racism but they made little fuss with regard to it, and I admired the way that they would make jokes about racism, and laugh at them selves.

When I think back this was shrewd psychology. Had they driven me 'mad' with a continual barrage of moaning and groaning who is able to say with certainty that my exasperated reaction would not have perverted me a racist?

By this refusal of the Jewish people with whom I came into contact to be non-stop whiners, I was very much an anti-racist, and thereby I was able to judge, and still do today, people only for that which they did or do, and not because of their race or religion.

There were Jews who did things of which I did not approve, and I made this known.


When the call came through to Scotland Yard from the FBI asking for help with regard to Earl Ray, the Yard immediately nominated the notorious Chief Superintendent Tom Butler to take charge of the matter. Butler was a master at manufacturing crooked evidence, and he was the senior police officer that tried to pervert the course of justice to falsely secure my conviction for the murder of Dickie Hart in Mr. Smith's nightclub.

When Butler came to interview Earl Ray I saw him, and while I could not get at him, Ray heard the abuse that I shouted at Butler.

Earl Ray proved a little too wily for Butler, and the crooked Butler could make no headway with him.

When Earl Ray was finally extradited to the USA the policeman that accompanied him was Detective Inspector Alec Eist. Now Eist was a policeman with a chequered past, and for quite some time was based at Leman Street police station in Aldgate, in the East End of London.

He was an 'accommodating' policemen in that he was prepared to do 'business' with the right people that had a problem with a police matter. George Cornell, and his friends, had many 'trades' with Eist.

However, he did not have a reputation of being a 'dog' in that he would take a bung and then go crooked in court. He also would not accept a bung for certain types of taboo offences.

Had muggers been around they would have had no chance with Eist. However, the rumours of his extra income from bungs came to the notice of the 'Rubber Heel' mob (the nickname for the police internal investigators because of their silent approach), and he was under investigation.

Therefore his appointment as head of the detail that took Earl Ray back to the United States to face a charge of murdering such a high profile figure as Martin Luther King was very surprising - or was it?

I knew that with Butler in charge there had to be an evil reason for the appointment of D/I Eist, but at the time I could not think what it could be. However, when Earl Ray appeared in court, and a witness was called to say that Earl Ray had admitted in an aeroplane over the Atlantic to killing Martin Luther King, the penny dropped.

Who was the witness? Yes, you've got it right it was D/I Alec Eist. For this service rendered Eist was allowed to retire on full pension and bought a pub in, I believe, Hertfordshire.


When the target of racists in this country was the Jews I formed a friendship with a Jewish bookmaker named Moshe Cohen. Moshe was a real gentleman. Had anybody taken a liberty with Moshe then I would have viewed that as taking a liberty with me, or a member of my family. Moshe was not aware of the depth of my feelings towards him, and I had no need to tell him.

I will tell you of two incidents that will enable you to appreciate the quality of my friend Moshe Cohen.

When we launched our jukebox and fruit machine business, and established ourselves as a company that was reliable and gave good service, the word spread, and we received inquiries from clubs that were tired of dealing with 'cowboys' who gave a poor maintenance service. This neglect of maintenance of the fruit machines and jukebox caused breakdowns that were costly to the clubs because it meant lost revenue.

They were also appreciative of the fact that wherever our clubs were installed it meant that anyone that caused trouble in the club would deny our company the opportunity to make money from the machines we had installed. This, in turn, meant that we too would lose revenue. Therefore we made it known that this would not be tolerated. So it was good insurance for the club that man from the Pru Insurance Company, or any other insurance company, could not match.

If the owners of a club approached us to install machines and did not come through a respected introduction we always insisted that they first had to cancel their agreement with the people that operated the machines and/or juke box that were installed in the club, and that these machines were removed before we would install our machines. The reason for this was to negate any complaints against us of the use of 'strong-arm' tactics.

Our promise was that before the club opened for daily business, in London it was usually within one hour of the machines of the 'cowboy' company being taken, away we would install new, or newly serviced machines to replace those that had been taken away.


One afternoon I was sitting in our office with my two partners and Moshe Cohen, 'with such a name do I have to tell you his religion or race'. I don't think so. Moshe was a regular and welcome visitor, and we were, probably, discussing general or sports matters when a telephone call came through from the owner of two London clubs where we had promised to install machines.

The owner said that at 10 o'clock the next morning the machines now in the clubs would be taken away, and we could now install our machines as we had promised.

My partner who had responsibility for the day-to-day running of the business was taken by surprise, and crestfallen. The reason for this was that we had no spare machines available, and the cost to install machines in a new site was something like 1,500.

Nearly 40 years ago this was a lot of money, and while we reinvested back into the business almost very penny made by the company we did not have a spare 3,000 available at such short notice.

Wise Moshe knew there was a problem when we were not elated that another two good sites had become available to us. In his diplomatic manner he managed to prise from us the problem. He said that by making the promise we had to honour it otherwise there would be a serious loss of face, and the word would quickly spread. I have to say this only added to our problem.

However, Moshe was not content with merely giving advice. Without any prompting he said he would go to his bank and come back with the 3,000, so order the new machines for collection early the next morning.

I have to say we were flabbergasted. 3,000 nearly 40 years ago was in no way small change, but Moshe made no fuss. He just got up and left. I remember we were so surprised at his generous offer that we just sat there, and not one of us even said thank you to him.

True to his word Moshe returned with the 3,000. With pride I am able to say that we paid him back every penny of his loan by way of instalments. Moshe respected this, not only because he had his money back but also because we were honourable.

The kindness of Moshe did not end there. While the alleged 'Torture Trial' was in progress Moshe was on his deathbed, and my lawyers needed a statement from him. Of course I was very reluctant to burden this good man with such a request in view of his very poor health condition. However, the statement was considered to be very necessary, so my then wife Doreen went to see him.

Despite the pain caused by the health crisis he agreed without hesitation to make the statement before independent witnesses, and sign it although he was barely able to write his signature.

The lesson to be learnt from these two highly charged incidents of kindness is that had I been a racist I would have been deprived of the friendship of a fine, loyal man.

Rest in peace, good friend.