A. Raymond | Website
A. Raymond
Reviews
to load big map
23.01.2022 Thanks for sharing Louis.
20.01.2022 EXTRACT FROM THE FORTHCOMING NEW BOOK Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr.?: The Case Against Lyndon B. Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover, by Phil Nelson Pub. ...Date: April 17, 2018 Hello Folks, As per recent posts on same, here is the latest extract from Phil Nelson's soon-to-be-published book on the assassination of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. Greg Maybury, Editor/Publisher poxamerikana.com (Please note: All quotes and references herein have been properly attributed in the book. Pre-orders for the book can be placed now with the publisher, details of which are contained in the link herein). Firstly, this is what Dr William Pepper, attorney for James Earl Ray and author of several books on the assassination of Dr King, had to say about Nelson's book. ‘Phil Nelson, who has generously complimented my work on the King assassination, has also provided us with some valuable missing historical information about the complicated actions of Lyndon Johnson in the context of events in the 1960’s. I have long believed the detailed information given to me by my friend, Madeleine Brown, [LBJ’s mistress] about his knowing involvement and collusion in the assassination of JFK. Phillip Nelson’s research about Johnson’s collaboration and his support of the profoundly illegal and evil, public actions of J. Edgar Hoover [in relation to MLK's murder] fills in many blanks and is a highly valuable historical contribution. I urge, and hope, that this work will be widely read.’ -- Dr. William F. Pepper, Author, The Plot to Kill King ======= Dick Cavett: A lot of people in the legal profession were astounded at how you got [alleged assassin of Martin Luther King James Earl Ray] to change the plea [from ‘not guilty’ to ‘guilty’]. Percy Foreman (James Earl Ray’s lawyer): I didn’t get him to change the plea. [Laughing] I simply told him that I thought he would be executed if he didn’t. The Dick Cavett Show, August 9, 1969 ======== -- Preparing the Public Persona of James Earl Ray (or How to Create a Patsy 101) -- EXTRACT: 'A vigorous propaganda campaign was conducted immediately after the arrest of James Earl Ray, during the last half of 1968 and into 1969. It was a concerted effort by President Johnson axiomatically, it could have only existed through his creation and sustenance, whether directly ordered or by his acquiescence to the FBI’s initiative to instill a sense of finality in the public mind that the killer of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had been identified and justice would prevail. A large part of that message was devoted to convincing the public that there were no accomplices, that there was no high-level, organized collusion with other parties (the only exception was that advanced by William Bradford Huie, and subsequently by his fictional descendants, who charged that anonymous and amorphous racists might have offered a cash reward), and certainly no governmental resources involved in King’s murder. One example of this appeared when a major story titled Ray Alone Still Talks of a Plot was published in the Washington Post on Sunday, March 16, 1969, in the immediate aftermath of the mini-trial and in the midst of the vigorous public outcry that resulted from what was generally perceived by many as a great injustice, due to pervasive suspicions that others were involved in Dr. King’s murder. The front page of the National News section was dedicated to this story, with a large photo of the confessed murderer emblazoned in the middle. The lead paragraphs stated: The only person directly tied to the investigation of thecase who still insists there was a conspiracy to kill King is James Earl Ray himself. And Ray convicted thief, forger, prison escapee, user of countless aliases and possessor of an elaborate psychiatric recordhas what may charitably be called a credibility problem. In a later paragraph, the article names Huie as the ultimate authority the most knowledgeable person about the details of the alleged plot and the fact that he could not name one conspirator (despite the fact that Ray had repeatedly begged Huie to track down Raoul and had given him the necessary leads to do so). Yet the article then erroneously stated that He has never specified names, places or dates of any known consequence.A full trial of the case, contrary to what some critics feel, would not have revealed much more than what prosecutors presented at the guilty plea hearing. That statement is contradicted by what James wrote in his own book, that he had repeatedly given (or tried to in Foreman’s case) all of those details, complete with telephone numbers he still remembered. Given the beyond merely incompetent, purposefully conflicted lawyering that Ray had had, it should be clear to all by now that this wasn’t just some benign and misinformed effort by a newspaper editor to provide incisive analysis of the major story of the week. It was designed to instill another layer of mythology within the public mind about how James Earl Ray was not worth further discussion, that he had had his day in court and that justice had been served. --- The Manipulation of the Patsy --- The worst, most cunning, and successful manipulations of James Earl Ray came after the murder of Dr. King and were the result of a part of the plot that was supposed to have never been needed. If Ray had minded his handler Raul, he would not have left the crime scene fifteen minutes early to get his spare tire fixed and his gas tank refilled. That act saved his life but also made it necessary for some high-powered lawyering to ensure he would spend the rest of his life in prison. The story begins with the enigmatic way he was immediately hooked up with his first attorney, former FBI agent and CIA operative Arthur Hanes, who brought him documents to sign that had already been prepared by the checkbook journalist, Huie. Looking at these events in retrospect, they were occurring so rapidly that they had all the appearances of having been in the works for a considerable period of time; that they were possibly being set up in the weeks between the assassination and the arrest of Ray in London. There was, figuratively, a full-court press deployed by Tennessee and federal officials and by extension, through the FBI’s pressure on UK officials to ensure that Ray would either be executed for his alleged crime or that he would spend the rest of his life in prison. The latter course was finally selected because it offered the potential of avoiding a trial entirely, prompted by the possibility that Ray might be found not guilty by a jury due to the lack of physical evidence or credible witnesses to testify that he was the shooter. Among the first indications of the frailty of the legal case against Ray was that while still incarcerated in London, he was not permitted to consult with his chosen attorney, Arthur Hanes Sr., before the extradition hearing on July 2, 1968, despite the fact that Mr. Hanes had gone to London within ten days of his arrest for that very purpose. All of the evidence presented against him was in affidavit form and therefore not subject to cross-examination. The only witness from the United States was Mr. Arthur Bonebrake, an FBI special agent, who was not there to ensure that Ray’s legal interests were being protected. Ray might have avoided extradition altogether if he had been given sound legal advice, regardless of the charges and publicity, since the extant treaty between the US and the UK, dating from 1931, prohibited extradition for cases involving political crimes. Furthermore, just as in JFK’s murder where the use of the term conspiracy allowed President Johnson and FBI Director Hoover to have the FBI take jurisdiction away from local law enforcement agencies, and where the initial charging document was based upon that same term despite being dropped immediately afterwards the sole basis for Ray’s extradition from England was that he was allegedly acting as part of a conspiracy to murder Dr. King. That premise was dropped as soon as Ray was returned and put into the Shelby County jail, putting the legality of the extradition itself into question. Moreover, Ramsey Clark, the attorney general, refused to permit Ray’s lawyer to accompany Ray on the flight from London to Memphis, nor was Hanes present when Ray arrived in Memphis. All of these legal lapses were directed by the highest federal officials, indubitably from the man to whom Attorney General Ramsey Clark reported: President Johnson. -- Straight out of a Police State Handbook -- When Ray arrived back at the Shelby County jail, he was taken to a specially prepared cell, in which he was confined for over eight months as he awaited his day in court. It was a standard-sized cell, six by eight feet, with a bed in one corner and a toilet and sink in the opposite corner, located within a block of six cells. Ray described it as an environment straight out of a police state handbook. It was freshly painted to cover the walls and every window, which were fitted with steel plates to keep out any natural light. The lighting was provided by bright floodlights that burned twenty-four hours a day, causing him to lose all track of day or night. Two visible CCTV cameras monitored his movements in the cell and the surrounding cellblock, and live feeds were sent to two televisions within the cell block to allow guards to constantly surveil Ray’s every move within the cell, even when he was on the toilet and in the shower stalls in an adjoining area. Two guards, a city policeman, and a county deputy sheriff were also on constant duty to ensure that he wouldn’t attempt an escape. There was also a visible microphone aimed at his cell that the sheriff said was always turned off when his attorney met with him, although Ray did not believe that. Ray later testified that not only had the guards overheard his conversations with his attorneys, but that his lawyer Percy Foreman spoke very loudly during their conversations, as if to make sure his comments were recorded. But there was little need for that since, according to one of Ray’s metaphors, the microphones were so sensitive that the guards could hear a roach walk across the floor. After a couple of months of this treatment, Ray began to suffer insomnia, restlessness, fatigue, and nosebleeds due to the absence of fresh air and sunlight, so finally Hanes wrote to the judge, calling the conditions cruel and unusual punishment. The prosecutor told the court that all of it was necessary, and that according to the closed-circuit television feeds, the prisoner was getting eight and a half hours of sleep per night. As Ray observed, that finding was based upon the presumption that a person lying on his back motionless, trying to sleep, was actually asleep. Judge Battle found on November 22 that this treatment was reasonable, but he did allow that if the bright lights were an irritant, Ray could have a mask to wear to cover his eyes. Specifically, Judge Battle wrote in his decree that: [A] great percentage of the security complained of is for the benefit of the defendant to protect him, as well as preserve him, for attendance at his trial; that the measures taken for security and protection of the defendant are reasonable; The Court fails to find any evidence that anything is being done to the defendant that tends to upset his nervous system or his appetite or his ability to sleep; The Court further finds from the proof that the guards remove themselves some twenty-four to twenty-seven feet from the place where defendant and his counsel confer and they also turn off the microphone when Mr. Hanes enters the cell block; and the Court takes judicial knowledge that the defendant and his counsel can confer under such conditions without being overheard. In the unoccupied cell across the guard’s walkway from Ray’s own cell, a strange contraption was installed that looked to him like an old X-ray machine It spooked him such that he would sometimes make deliberately misleading statements to Hanes for the benefit of any eavesdroppers who might be connected to the machine. While speaking untruths, I wrote down the correct information on paper for Hanes to read. During this period, Ray had begun having doubts about Hanes’s dedication to his job of representing Ray’s interests. It began with the book contracts that Hanes had negotiated with Huie. They allowed Hanes to provide Huie with whatever information Ray had shared with him, and if he failed to do that, it would nullify the [writer’s] contract. Ray had never been comfortable with that, but since he did not expect Huie’s articles to be published before the trial, he had never made an issue of it. Days before the criminal trial was set to begin, the first of Huie’s articles appeared in the November 12, 1968, edition of Look magazine, giving his portrayal of the crime and the innocent until proven guilty suspect to a nationwide audience hungry for the slightest morsels of insider information about what was expected to be the murderer of a national martyr. Ray became angry with Hanes when he realized that Huie had proceeded to publish details that revealed too much of the defense. Also, the prosecution’s original list of sixty-seven witnesses suddenly ballooned to 377 as a result of that article. Ray felt that it looked foolish that his attorney had given away too many strategic details before his trial and that this would result in giving the prosecutors key information to use against him, and the opportunity to manipulate witnesses, providing them with a map to win a guilty verdict.....' END EXTRACT Stay tuned for the next posting on 1 April: http://skyhorsepublishing.com//13721-9781510731066-who-rea
13.01.2022 David Hogg's sister lost 4 friends in the shooting, no it was 3, wait it was 2. Lol
09.01.2022 Way to go George! #victoryforsyria
03.01.2022 G'day Folks, This is a most interesting dust-up. The New Zealand foreign minister and Australian opposition (Labor) foreign affairs spokesperson Penny Wong go '...toe to toe' over who was actually responsible for the downing of the MH17 Malaysian Airlines plane over eastern Ukraine in 2014. Thirty-eight Australians and one Kiwi perished in the crash when a missile -- either a surface to air or air to air and fired by as yet to be identified (i.e. proven) perpetrators -- hit the plane. In a classic "he said, she said" tit for tat over those responsible for the tragedy, this comes amid increasing tensions between the West -- especially the U.S. over the so-called "Russia-gate" brouhaha and now even more so with Britain over the U.K. based former Russian military scientist Sergei Skripal who, along with his daughter Yulia, 'fell victim' to a 'payback' nerve agent attack allegedly carried out by Kremlin agents -- and Moscow. (More on this later.) In my latest article published on several forums last week -- "All Fire and Fury in Ukraine" -- I 'revived' the story of MH17, reiterating the fact that after almost 4 years of investigation, no-one has produced hard evidence that the Kremlin was behind the attack. The late Robert Parry and many others -- mostly in the alternative, independent media space -- have always maintained that until and unless Washington ponies up with hard evidence as to the fate of the plane and its passengers, anyone alleging categorically that they know who did it is engaging in what Winston Churchill memorably called 'terminological inexactitude'. In fact my own very reliable sources tell me that the Americans have since released their satellite data to the investigation [team] but on condition [it] wasn’t published! My sources also went on to say the following: "If, as we suspect, the satellite data shown it was the Ukrainians who were responsible, it would account for the silence of the last few years." Bottom line is that releasing the data/evidence to the investigation team only yet embargoing it from public release is the same as witholding it, presumably "for reasons of national security". The investigation team, which as noted has been strangely, nay suspiciously, silent for some time now, still hasn't been able to establish whether the missile was a surface to air or air to air projectile, whether the plane was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or indeed was deliberately targeted, and if the latter, who actually had the capability (to say little of the motive) for carrying out such an attack. Put simply, was it a false-flag attack instigated by the West and carried out by the Ukrainian air force with a view to blaming the east Ukrainian, pro-Russian separatists, and from there attribute blame to the Russians? So many, many other questions remain unanswered. Here's one: Why would Putin -- or for that matter, the separatists themselves -- be inclined to deliberately shoot down a civilian airliner? For what purpose? To what end? The idea beggars belief! On the other hand, the Kiev regime, or some of the extreme elements therein, will have had plenty of motive, as would their backers back inside the Beltway. And now, we have this stoush unexpectedly erupt over the controversy. I will keep an eye on any further developments herein, but I smell a rat. The increasing hysteria and faux paranoia over Putin and all things Russia probably have nothing to do with this! (Yeah right!) Either way the Kiwi (NZ) foreign minister Winston Peters knows his shit from his shinola -- he's right in saying there is no compelling evidence Russia was directly responsible, or for that matter, the east Ukrainian separatists. Indeed, the U.S. installed, neo-Nazi backed Kiev regime had more of a motive for said attack, and it most certainly had both the means and opportunity to instigate it. And for her part Wong is simply parroting the Washington line, like they all do here in Australia -- regardless of which party they belong to. (The Kiwis generally have a much more ornery streak than us when it comes to dealing with Washington, for which we should forever be thankful, and from whose book we should take a leaf or three.) One thing needs be noted: It's the 'dog not barking question' of why Washington itself has never released the satellite imagery and related intelligence that could once and for all prove conclusively who shot this plane down. The Beltway Bedlamites and their minions in the imperial colonies prefer to leave this question hanging, and every now and then milk it for what it is worth. But this stoush is unlikely to change any of that. It's another example methinks of irresponsible, sycophantic Western politicians seeking to ingratiate themselves with the warmongers in Washington. One can only surmise that Ms Wong is either looking forward to being in government herself soon (and along with that becoming foreign minister, itself not an unreasonable expectation given how much the present mob is on the nose, and with that the possibility of an early election*), or maybe even has eye to her post-parliamentary career, possibly as an ambassador to the U.S. Or both of the above. Way to go 'Pens'. Long-term career planning?! I like that kinda forward thinking. For her part, the present Aussie FM (Mr Peters' counterpart) Julie Bishop appeared -- unusually for her -- more circumspect in her response: Drawing on the best PR prattle she had at her immediate disposal, she said 'all the evidence was not public and no conclusion could yet be made, but Australia would strongly support legal action after the investigation was complete.' All of which leads one to wonder 1) why all the evidence is "not public"; 2) why after 4 years of investigation no definite "conclusion" could be made; and 3) whether indeed if it is found that the Kiev regime was responsible, would this information be released and would Australia then in fact hold not just the regime to account for this tragedy, but the regime renovators in Washington as well for putting this reprehensible mob of yahoos into power in the first instance! Can anyone hear the dogs barking?......We live in interesting time indeed! [*Ed. Note: The earliest possible date for a simultaneous House/half-Senate election in Australia is 4 August 2018, but must be held no later that early November 2019. The point is that anything can happen in Aussie politics between now and November 2019, and given our recent leadership volatility and electoral unpredictability, is more likely than not.] -------- 'Australian Labor politician Penny Wong has contradicted New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters' claims there's no evidence Russia was behind the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. During an interview about foreign trade with Three's the Nation on Sunday, Mr Peters was drawn into an argument about how the plane was shot down in July, 2014. "You're saying the person that set that missile off was doing it at the direction of the Russians. Big problem: your argument legally collapses right there, because you've got no evidence of that," he said in reply to claims Russia was behind the attack. "It was a former Russian missile, yes, true. But who was responsible for setting it off?".....Read on....
02.01.2022 #victoryforsyria #SYRIA
