Larry Hancock

Well, I'm from Oklahoma so that would make too of us. On the first point, based on statements from the gun shop owners Ray had previously visited he asked a lot of questions about rifles he was considering - would seem a little out of line to not even ask how to load multiple rounds if you were into planning something serious (or even really going hunting). On the other hand, Ray did exchange the rifle with the one he had bought earlier and did so pretty quickly, perhaps he didn't ask the right questions - on the other hand that might suggest he truly was just being ordered to buy a gun and that's what he did, not expecting to fire it. If that were true and something made him take the shot without planning, then certainly he might not have cared about loading more than one shell. It would seem to me that carrying the rifle out on to the street and taking it in his car to dump somewhere else is pretty risky, again, if he gets stopped with it then the prosecution for first degree murder is pretty much a done deal. Turning the question around - why would anybody do that to him. Well if he had handled the rifle, and you have access to it, and are a reasonable shot - you take the shot and throw down the rifle and you are done. Of course if you are firing from the bathroom you could just leave the gun there, and there's no need to go the bundle route. -- can't say I like that last one much myself, Larry

OK Len, if we go with that, it takes out one scenario - so which one do you pick.......do you have Ray waiting in the bathroom for an extended time with a rifle with one shell, no gloves on and no apparent thought to any of the evidence he had laying around in various places....something spontaneous or perhaps another scenario?. Does anybody discuss these things here but you and Martin?

What is giving me fits is that there are problems with all three scenarios. In regard to the one you mentioned, what if it were Ray that left earlier in one Mustang and indeed someone else was in the rooming house, took the shot and then dumped the bundle as they took off? I follow your logic on the bundle being dumped if it was indeed Ray, as far as I'm concerned he might just have reacted after an unplanned shot) and realized that carrying the rifle with an expended shell in it during his flight out of town would be a death sentence - after all he would have had no idea that the police would not have set up enough blockades to catch him in Memphis. Irrespective of all that, we have the outstanding issue of the rifle with a single hull in the chamber and no more ammunition loaded in the weapons. That effectively makes the rifle a "throw down" since its of no further use yet ties by general ballistics to the King shooting regardless of anything else. If Ray used it under the circumstances in scenario one, it suggests absolutely no premeditation.and no planning at all - at least to me. It would also suggest an immense amount of risk in placing all his faith in a single shot.

As a continuation of the discussion about Ray's ammo, I'd like to offer the following for some positive dialog. The rifle purchased in Birmingham by Ray was recovered in Memphis with one expended round (hull) in the chamber and no other rounds loaded. The rifle could have held four additional rounds but none of the ammo recovered along with the rifle had been loaded. So where does that lead.....well if Ray had been planning to shoot Dr. King it means he had consciously decided that he would take only one shot, hit or miss and then toss down the weapon since it contained no other ammo. Now if he had consciously thought that out why would he not have worn gloves while handling the weapon, carried a bunch of other stuff traceable to him into the rooming house and done a number of other things to disassociate himself from that rifle and cover his trail. And with that careful forethought, why not just ditch the rifle in the bathroom, carrying it anywhere after the shooting is really high risk. Another option would be that Ray acted spontaneously, somehow deciding to take the shot after observing the Lorraine motel for some time from the common bathroom of the rooming house....taking no time to ensure no prints were on the rifle or to worry about his stuff in the room, the car, in Atlanta..etc. And yet another option is that somebody took the shot with a rifle Ray had handled (but only loaded one round to do so, leaving us still with this one shot, one hit or nothing scenario), pitched the rifle and other personal stuff from Ray's room into the street and made off in a second white mustang parked on the street in front of the rooming house. I have no vested interest in any of these options but it would be nice to see some constructive dialog and thinking on the issue...and some other scenarios if somebody has them. Personally I'm struck by the fact that someone used a rifle with only one round of ammo and killed Dr. King during what amounts to a three minute window of opportunity, largely due to the fact that Dr. King went back for a jacket rather than going directly downstairs after his first appearance on the hotel balcony when no shot was taken. -- Larry

Sorry Len, didn't mean to imply you sighted in the scope for a precise, exact range although that is true for competition shooting. Normally you sight in the weapon for the type of hunting you are doing and the general/ballpark range you expect to be shooting. But the point is that your scope cross hairs need to be accurate in terms of where the bullets are going to be hitting. Of course you adjust your shot by knowing how much your shell is going to fall over the range you are shooting...as I recall Ray asked that question about some of the guns he was looking at and even asked for mfg charts on that. As I understand it, at the distance of the shot in Memphis and with the power of the rifle ammo in question there would have been virtually no drop in the trajectory - if you do a good job with executing the shot, the bullet was going to hit where the cross hairs showed....if the rifle scope was still well aligned with the rifle itself. In general, its most important that your scope is aligned with your rifle shot - sort of like a finder scope on a telescope, if they are not aligned you can't match the viewing field of the main scope with what the finder is showing.

Certainly the point of practice with the weapon is relevant - probably even more relevant is whether that ammo was used to "sight in" the scope and what range was selected for that. The gun shop installed and mounted the scope but anybody wanting to be really certain about what they were doing would sight in the scope for the desired range and then carry it in a gun case or with some care so as not to jolt the scope out of position. Personally I've never considered that the Memphis shot was that difficult - given the scope was properly sighted in and with the power of that ammo at that range, you are not going to drop your shot very much. On the other hand, its helpful to be used to the recoil of the weapon and even the trigger pressure....for that you need to have done some firing. My point wasn't really about the issue of the missing ammo, certainly that could well indicate both of the above. It was more to raise questions about the military ammo and even to ponder why Ray would be carrying extra ammo around given the fact that with that sort of weapon (a pump action) you probably are not going to get many shots in.......at the moment I can't seem to recall if the rifle even had other rounds loaded, if not that would also be an interesting factor since it would not suggest preparation or premeditation. I've never fired a pump action rifle myself, only shotguns. .

Len, the quantity and type of bullets certainly raises several questions. Of course one would be in regard to Ray's explanation of why he bought the rifle in the first place - and that scenario doesn't support the need for much ammunition. On the other hand, a premeditated shooting with that sort of rifle doesn't really call for you bringing along all that ammo either.... However, equally interesting to us was something the FBI report really doesn't explore in much depth: -- four unfired ".30-06 Springfield caliber U. S. military cartridges containing full metal-jacketed bullets” We have attempted a bit of research based on the head stamp for that ammo, the goal being to determine when it was declared surplus and when it would have been put up for resale and through what outlets. So far we have not come up with satisfactory answers for that. Certainly the gun shop where Ray bought the rifle was adamant that they did not carry that sort of ammo. Perhaps even more interesting is that the military shells had marks on them suggesting that they had originally been "belted" military ammo for automatic weapons - with the shells later removed from the belts . That raises all sorts of interesting speculation about the theft of military ammo from national guard armories....who was stealing that stuff and for what purpose. In any event, how much target practice, or familiarization with a pump action rifle, that might have been done is actually only one ancillary question in regard to the recovered ammo.

Absolutely Martin, I think I promised not to pester you with MLK posts when the book came out but I have to admit that your remark to Joe B about the review being very critical and his liking it did trigger a bit of testosterone....I don't claim to be totally emotionless.. We will wait for your review and then simply post a point/counterpoint response. - that should allow anyone interested to reach their own conclusions. Beyond that, as with JFK, MLK and RFK both Stu and are very much involved in ongoing research on all three political assassinations so we need to be at that. -- Larry

Martin, I'm not going to jump into the middle of this other than to offer the following. First, we have no apprehension about the book an are happy to let it stand on its own - it has already been endorsed by a number of people familiar with the case including Gerald McKnight who wrote the forward and Peter Dale Scott who gave it a five star Amazon review and described it as the best book to date on the MLK assassination. What disturbs me is that fact that over the last decade or so we have become so polarized that it seems we are approaching the point to where we can't talk with each other, much list assist each other in research. Honestly, irrespective of your review it would have been educational to have your answer about Ray, you may very well have a better insight into that than we do. But when we all start talking about each other more than the events we research, I think we lose. I work by email with a lot of folks who have different opinions - even people who have written and writing books that are very much counter to my own views - I still answer their questions. I admit that a couple of years ago I began to avoid forums because they seem to have more heat than substance, looks like that hasn't changed since I was active before. I'll just leave it at that.

For those who read this in the MLK area, my apologies for the redundancy but I'm not sure how many folks actually go there. So...I'm going to issue (for the last time I promise) an invitation not only visit one or both of my relatively new blogs. And for anyone doing related research, I'm happy to consider posting it there for you. The focus of the blogs is not nearly as broad as the forum, but if you are digging into topics related to things I cover in the books, it might be a fit - for example on the JFK blog we have some good new research going on the January incident at Redbird and Bill Simpich is putting up some great posts on Spy games in Mexico City. www.larry-hancock.com The MLK blog is brand new and rather than getting stuck in all the standard debates about individual pieces of evidence or what sources to trust about which I'm trying to cultivate some thought on broader questions and problems in pursuing conspiracies - such as the FBI's tendency to clear anyone from involvement if they were not at the actual scene of the crime (sigh). Such issues with both the Bureau and the Justice Department are among the things we wrestle with in the our new MLK assassination book. You will find that blog at: http://theawfulgrace...03/hello-world/ If you have some new/related research on either topic you think might fit, email me at larryjoe@westok.net -- Larry

I'm not sure how much interest there is here in the MLK assassination, there seem to be lots of page views but few people actually posting. So...I'm going to issue (for the last time I promise) an invitation to take a look at our new blog http://theawfulgraceofgod.com/wordpress1/2012/02/03/hello-world/ Of course there is ample room on this forum to argue all the particular issues about James Earl Ray and evidence and who to believe and who not to - I've no urge to step in between Martin and Len on that. But one thing I have noticed in all three major political assassinations of the 60's is that we often seem to get totally hung up in issues of the personal guilt or innocence of Oswald, Ray or Sirhan. The discussion evolves into a version of the court room dialog that you might have expected in a good solid trial with an aggressive defense and prosecution (which none of them had actually). And often it leaves little time to do little more than offer personal opinions on a broader conspiracy (or ones personal favorite suspect/s). In the MLK blog (as in my JFK blog) I'm going to try to expand the dialog a bit and well as offer a platform for folks still doing novel ongoing research. The topics will be broader and delve into more period history than seems to happen here. So, if it sounds interesting to anyone, drop on in. I try to respond in a balanced way to comments and questions (as well as acknowledge mistakes...grin) and its even possible that we might kick off something new - the JFK blog has triggered some very interesting new research on the January/Red Bird airport incident. We take that sort of stuff private when it gets serious (meaning actual research is in progress) and sometimes that can take weeks or months. I try to get up a couple of posts a week on the blogs so a scan once or twice a week should tell you if there is anything new that might interest you. -- Larry --

Michael, Stu has been trying to get some attention to the following but not with much luck yet. In our quest for FBI and HSCA files, he had lots of conversations with NARA and was told that the files are simply there as the property of Congress. If the Clerk of the House were to direct their release, it would be a done deal. No legislation required. We are not certain of what that would take but it might be as simple as an individual Congress persons request to the clerk, or a caucus request, etc. The other good news is that in his digging, Stu determined that the FBI had lost track of the prints from the original investigation but he did manage to track them down - one of our major calls for action now is for Justice to obtain those and run them through the computerized matching system used by the FBI. There were a number of unidentified prints and that exercise could be very informative. The process would be inexpensive and not all that time consuming. -- Larry

Sorry to tease you out Martin... I think it certainly does raise a fine point on timing but I'd say its cutting things pretty close to have a plan in which your shooter shows up in place for something like a three minute window in time. We often debate what would have happened in Dallas if Lee Oswald had gotten sick on November 22, but here we have a situation where if the guys watch is off by two minutes the whole thing is blown, for that location at least and after that you begin to run into a daylight issue. I really did raise this as a thought exercise since I think the timing does have some serious implications. Beyond that I would say that in the grand scheme of things it could probably be assumed that Dr. King would be going out sometime in the evening but on the exact timing...heck, he could have gone directly downstairs the first time he was on the balcony, just to talk to the people without leaning over the railing...and that was at 5:09. Hopefully some other folks will chime in with thoughts....

For a change of pace, I'd like to introduce something different for discussion (although I have no idea how many folks are following this subject). It's a very tightly focused issue and I think its very significant - I just wish I could reach a conclusion on what it's really telling us. The following is an excerpt from a recent post on our MLK blog: While staying at the Lorraine motel, Dr. King, his associates and visitors were all under observation by the Memphis police, with an officer stationed across the street in a fire station performing surveillance and taking notes on comings and goings related to King's party. His notes of Dr. King's appearances on the balcony are quite specific and very interesting. Most people very probably assume that Dr. King came out on the balcony, on his way to dinner, and was shot at that time. That is true but the details are significant. King first came out on the balcony at 5:56 pm, spending approximately one minute talking to people below in the parking lot and re-entering his room. During that first full minute, nothing happened. If a shooter was in position, he would have no way of knowing that he was missing a perfect shot, with King standing in place. And 60 seconds in such a situation is actually a relatively long time (in Dallas a President was killed and a Governor seriously wounded in a tenth of that time). But then Dr. King came back out on the balcony at 5:59, remained in place talking to the people below and was murdered with a single shot at 6:01. Again, if the shooter was in place, he had just seen Dr. King and should have been ready for him to reappear. Yet he waited for something like two minutes more to make his shot, with King very liable to have begun walking away any second. Does this timing give the image of a trained shooter, in position, mentally prepared and waiting to kill Dr. King at the first opportunity? Something to ponder. Stu and I have speculated on it ourselves and have one scenario in mind but it would be good to see others thoughts....its even possible that its not significant but my gut says it is... .....and importantly, for readers of The Awful Grace of God, the timing discussed here is currently incorrect in the first printing of the book. On page 238 the book has the Dr. King's first appearance on the balcony as 5:06 rather than 5:56....we apologize for the error and the publisher has been advised, the Kindle version will be the first fixed.

Bill, I put a considerable amount of detail about the aircraft involved in the Ray January incident into SWHT, including its identification numbers, the company's involved etc. However the most recent work is on trying to identify the Cuban exile pilot who talked with January and the American officer with him. There are a couple of recent posts and discussion on that on my blog you might want to check out. http://larryhancock.wordpress.com/ -- Larry

Yep, I'm sure if I had tapes of that discussion with those individuals that I would "not" make copies of them and deliver then to a host of locations (starting with my local FBI office) but extending to a variety of media as well as my lawyer....to make sure I lived for the next 24 hours. I would give my master tape to one Congressman so only he and I knew about it (and I would not ask him for a receipt or letter acknowledging that he had them). And then I would be able to breath easy. Of course if I decided to write about it in a book I'd assume I would need to legally inform the FBI and Justice since I would be a personal witness after the fact to a conspiracy. We won't even go into the polygraph stage but such knowledge would impose a legal and moral obligation to pursue it beyond just content in a book. And Hoovers phone was tapped, would be interesting to know where the tap was placed and a few other little details. No doubt Hoover never worried about the security of telephone lines at FBI HQ. -- Sorry Robert, but I've got to go with Len, sometimes this stuff has to be sanity tested before its promoted.

Frankie, I'm definitely on the "rubbish" call with you. Actually it is even possible that Cuban intelligence had picked up on some of the talk against JFK circulating in Miami among certain of the exile community. And it would certainly have been visible to Cuban agents that security (and some exile hostility) on JFK's Miami trip was excessive (you had the Secret Service going to its exile contacts for assistance in identifying potential trouble makers and threats there). And you have the apparently impulsive visit by Castro to a foreign embassy in Havana to warn that some of the people the CIA is working with against him could be dangerous even back in the US, essentially warning that they are loose cannons. (now the Castro did it folks posture that as a threat from Castro but that is pretty silly given that he is in active back channel dialog with JFK at that point in time). Castro may have had nothing but rumor and gossip that JFK was at risk (if so clearly he would not have been the only one). And he might well have taken some small measures to look for more - think of the propaganda impact of his exposing exile plotting against the US President. I'm not sure the radio intercept part of this makes total sense to me but it makes no sense for Castro to be looking for traces of project he himself has to take out JFK. Not that the media would not play that old record once again - since it dates back to Nov. 23, 1963. ..................

Bill, I would sure be interested if someone could try such a search again; that was one of the first things I did after reading Vincents' book (well actually the first thing I tried to do was to catch his lawyer who literally sprinted out of the room and down the escalator after his presentation at Lancer - eventually I did exchange telephone calls and letters with him over several years and it was all very non-productive, and he would never let me talk directly to Vincent). Anyway, I looked up all the fronts and proprietaries I could find and started searching for photos - was unable to find anything even similar to that logo on any of them. But someone else could very possibly do better now. I will comment on two things, I took careful notes during the lawyers presentation of a video tape of Vincent which he showed at Dallas and there were inconsistencies between that and the book, nothing huge but enough to be a bit disconcerting. Also, its pretty clear that Vincent did not understand that his recruiting trips to the CIA as well as his security checks "could" have been a very routine part of his screening for the SR-71 assignment that he did get. All the mystery he describes was pretty much SOP for that CIA run program. Obviously I can't confirm it was but that would be a non-conspiratorial explanation. I'd sure be ready to revisit it if somebody would come up with a photo of that graphic on a CIA associated air transportation company. I'd also suggest that if anyone has any FAA contacts that a quick search there might do it as well, even proprietary and front companies have to register their companies and aircraft. -- Larry Well, Bill, in JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglas writes (on page 299), "Unlike all the other planes Vinson had hitched a ride on, the C-54 bore no military markings or serial numbers. Its only identification was on its tail--a rust brown graphic of an egg-shaped earth, crossed by white grid marks." (For this, Douglas cites Johnson and Roe, Flight From Dallas, page 23.) Then, on page 302, Douglas writes, "For the last year and a half of his Air Force enlistment, Vinson served as the administrative supervisor for base supply of the CIA's SR-71/Blackbird spy plane project at Site 51 (note: Site 51 is 40 miles north of Las Vegas, Nevada)." .... "While Vinson was working at Site 51, he saw a C-54 like the one that flew the second Oswald out of Dallas. On its tail was the same rust-brown graphic of an egg-shaped earth crossed by white grid marks, that he had seen on the C-54 he had boarded at Andrews (AFB near Washington, D.C.). An Air Force sergeant at Site 51 confirmed the source of the plane he was looking at. 'CIA,' he said." --here Douglas cites Flight From Dallas, page 68, as well as "Vinson's affidavit, page 43." --Odd Tommy For an interesting article about a CIA C-54 crash in Nevada on November 15, 1955, google "CIA C-54 Crash on Mt Charleston" If you read the CIAIR article - there were five CIA propriety airlines mentioned - all belonging to a group association, and I would bet that one of those airlines used the egg earth with white grids as a logo. BK

Hi Martin, the good news is that we can agree on that fundamental point - we see no proof that would conclusively confirm that Ray himself took the shot that killed Dr. King, nor to absolutely confirm that the rifle purchased in Birmingham was the weapon that made the fatal shot. Beyond that, we present considerable new information suggesting that some very specific parties were prepared to set up Ray as a patsy, and that their activities may well have extended beyond Ray. For that matter, we present a good deal of context which suggests that in no way was Ray proactively planning/preparing to personally kill King in Memphis prior to the time of the shooting (while others were). On the other hand, we see a great deal of evidence for a conspiracy going on around Ray and preceding him - the larger story of that conspiracy is the main theme of the book. As for remarks about Hanes, Huie and others I best leave that to the book. Hopefully at some point we can join in on the authors section to discuss yours and others remarks - as for me, I've never attempted to "evangelize" any of my books or writings or to beat anyone over the head with them. They are there to summarize my (and in this case Stu's as well) research, assessments and occasionally an insight or two. I do try to follow posts about them on forums and always welcome private emails but you won't be seeing me taking up all that much bandwidth on them in any general forum. I try to avoid that even in my blog. At this point, as those following the blog know, I'm already deep into another historical research project on covert warfare. -- regards, Larry We feel the larger story himsprobably agree on Larry, I appreciate your taking the time to respond. Obviously I have not read your book and so I'm not actually trying to discuss its content. What I have raised a question about is the comment made in pre-publicity for your book that Ray was stalking Dr. King. I don't need to have read your book to comment on this issue or to know that there is no credible evidence for this because I've been studying the record for myself since 2004. If you choose to believe Huie despite what the record reveals about his conduct and his integrity then that's up to you. And if you choose to believe that Ray began stalking King in Los Angeles despite the fact that Ray was there first and then left when King came into town then, again, that's up to you. Let me just point something out here though: Ray's credibility is a seperate issue to Huie's. You seem to be fixated on the idea of my being willing to accept everything Ray said. But I'm not. One would have to be very foolish indeed to believe every self-serving word coming out of the mouth of a career criminal. Nonetheless, I believe his word is worth as much as anybody else's until it can be proven that he's lying. And one cannot prove he lied by using unreliable sources. I must also point out that I am not "dead set on Ray's total innocence". I will, however, continue to treat Ray as innocent until proven guilty. The Memphis police, the FBI, the Justice Dept., and the HSCA all failed to provide convincing evidence of his guilt or his participation in a conspiracy. If you have it in your book, I'll accept it.

Martin, we refer ti Huie and a host of other sources, qualifying them with comments as we feel appropriate. However if you are willing to accept everything Ray said and exclude other sources totally then admittedly we have a problem with each others' standards of credibility. Plus this is one of the problems of trying to discuss a 400 page plus book with a few lines exchanged online - it removes all the context. I did want to respond to your question and give you a source as you had asked for it. There is much more to be addressed in regard to Ray "stalking" King than this one point (starting all the way back in Los Angeles), if that were all there was to it indeed it would be an issue. Corroboration is the name of the game, and that takes time and space. My intention in posting here was really not to discuss the book with anyone who has not read it, other than to communicate that it is a conspiracy book and to refute some of the statements that have been tossed around months before the book was available. I will defer further comment and suggest that we resume it in the authors thread once you and others have read the book. Still, I don't expect anyone who is dead set on Ray's total innocence to like the book, not a problem. Nor would I want to expect anyone dead set on Ray's total innocence or totally wedded to previous books on his innocence to positively engage with the book, trying to change someone fully committed to that view is not our goal. -- just trying to be honest, Larry

Martin, I've edited this because I did manage to find the citation. If you have He Slew The Dreamer by Huie, check on pages 98 and 99 where Huie discusses Ray's route from LA to Atlanta and his staying overnight in Selma - then on page 176 Huie discusses coming back to challenge Ray on the Selma stop because of the distance off freeways Ray would have been using to drive directly to Atlanta. At that point Ray admitted privately to Huie that he had gone to Selma and it wasn't simply a matter of getting lost, King was a factor. Depending on which edition of the book you have the page numbers might slide a page or two but Huie's reported conversation is the source. Again, to be up front, one of point of honest disagreement is that much that has been written to portray Ray strictly as a totally unwitting patsy assumes that he himself is a reliable source on his actions. Neither Stu nor I take that view, our view is much more like Huie's original attitude, if you can corroborate something Ray says it may be useful, otherwise its safer to assume that he would not admit to anything that would incriminate him, not only in the shooting but in any sort of conspiracy since that would bear its own charges. We feel that a close look at his behavior and statements during his earlier crimes and legal proceedings validates that attitude. -- Larry

Martin, there is a specific citation for the Selma trip in the book, can't give it to you off the top of my head - as I recall Ray's first explanation for being in Selma at the time King was supposed to speak there was that he got lost on the way to Atlanta, that didn't fly too well since Selma is about 60 miles off the interstate going to Atlanta. And King was definitely scheduled to speak there and changed his itinerary at the last minute, something he actually did pretty consistently, being a spontaneous person. He would have been killed years earlier in Birmingham if he had not decided to cancel a planned victory celebration and fly out of town early. On a broader note, its clear that Ray did make conflicting statements at different times, we review a number of those in the book. In the spirit of being upfront, I will state that neigher Stu nor I trust Ray on anything that cannot be independently corroborated, we are just too skeptical for that. In the earliest days Huie (who wrote a series of articles about Ray even before the trial) started out knowing that he would not expect a career criminal to say anything that would put himself at risk (and Ray was a sharp guy from that standpoint). Huie's own investigations (and he got many places before the FBI) confirmed that Ray would tell him some truth about places and facts but as he says, the closer he got to Atlanta and Memphis, the fewer details he could get and the less the corroboration. And of course it was Huie who dug up the receipt showing a dinner for two in Atlanta, which Ray would not even talk about. I don't want to mislead anyone, if you truly believe everything Ray said over many years, you likely will not be happy with our work or our book. -- Larry Can you provide a source for this? As far as I'm aware, Ray always denied going to Selma to see King. He certainly denied it in his book (and his HSCA testimony as I recall). Well, from a legal standpoint, it is.

Hi Martin, I will look at the copy again. We do take the position that Ray "stalked" King because Ray himself admitted that he had first lied about why he showed up in Selma when King was scheduled to be there and that he had gone there specifically because King was there. Beyond that point, I want to be very open about the book; we have made a real effort to be balanced on many subjects and present pros and cons - at one point one of the editors even pushed us to be more "absolute" on certain things but we pushed back. We are also cautious about calling out when we are speculating, which will be no surprise to anybody who knows my cautious side in regards to what I put in print (Stu's even worse...grin). We find no hard evidence to confirm that Ray took the shot, of course no proof of guilt is not proof of innocence - much of what was written about the evidence being solid early on is highly questionable and reminiscent of what the FBI experts gave the WC, of course its SOP for them to testify to support the prosecution. We spend a good deal of time going over problems with the evidence in the chapter on the murder, including evidence of conspiracy that we feel was bypassed - some of which can still be investigated further; we actually have a separate appendix on that as well. One of the reasons the web site reads as it does is that we are truly presenting new data, a new scenario and discussing things far beyond just the shooting in Memphis. We felt we had to let people know this was not just a revisit to what has been done before - we are presenting the results of something like six years of our own research, we started fresh. People may reject that or find it of value; its also important to communicate that we are declaring the case unsolved and calling on Justice to declare the King assassination a cold civil rights case and reopen the investigation based on what we are presenting. We also call out a number of points that should be addressed in that investigation. -- Larry

Actually what the book discusses is: There was a conspiracy to kill MLK James Earl Ray was initially set up as a patsy, he may not have been the only potential patsy. The forensics evidence in hand does not make a convincing case against Ray - yet the Judge allowed to be presented in court by the prosecution - after Ray had entered his guilty plea and the civil trial confirmed that the evidence was truly weak...as did the HSCA for that matter. The book is not a "lone nut" book, but it is also not a book which takes Ray on his own word about a great many things. The reader will make their own evaluation of the new information - as usual. Many people will undoubtedly trash the book if it does not match their per-conceived notion - as usual. People will judge it without reading it - as usual. For those who do read it, Stu and I will be perfectly happy to discuss our thoughts in detail - as usual. ...people who know me also know I don't "publish and run" Larry