Larry Hancock

John, as to the "fully rooted out", that was indeed an overstatement but I would say the details of the MIBIURN files I've seen and especially other details of the extensive informant files developed by the MIBURN initiative do identify a great number of members of the network involved in those crimes- although only a portion of them were successfully prosecuted. But the tremendous escalation in number of informants certainly did handicap them. In AGOG we note information about secret burial sites Alabama and Mississippi and networks of people like parts truck drivers who shuffled weapons and explosives around a mufti-state area while doing their "day jobs".. I certainly don't want to make it sound like a total success as even some of the White Knight inner circle members stayed operational to a certain extent but Bowers successor was nothing like Bowers and the organization as a whole was never the same again. Which of course doesn't mean that their beliefs changed or their cause went away - after some of the key Swift people founded Aryan Nations - and it goes on and on...

And I need to point out that Dan was very likely into this topic long before Stu and I arrived to study it in the context of the plots against MLK. As a side note to this article, its worth noting that the intensive Mississippi Burning FBI initiative i(an initiative Hoover was literally forced into by the President) was effective and eventually did fully root out the people behind the Neshoba country murders and neutered much of the network behind them. However, another brutal murder of a black military officer in Georgia was never solved nor was the network there "busted". The effectiveness of the full court FBI press in Mississippi testifies to a huge amount of manpower and effort, including some local law enforcement who jumped in after they themselves were targeted for murder by the White Knights. I'd recommend Don Whitehead's Attack on Terror for anyone who would really like to study the subject. -- Larry

Tommy, Oswald was being used as an intelligence dangle by both CIA and FBI, he was dangled in front of many types of people in New Orleans, in Mexico City and in Dallas....that included a variety of folks on both sides of the Cuban scene - anti Castro folks and pro Castro double agents. There is evidence of him providing information directly to the FBI and other indications that he was being monitored at more of a distance and in a very compartmentalized fashion by CIA officers. Eventually, in Dallas, he continued to be dangled in front of the same types of folks and in that role was a perfect, unwitting, patsy, since he had no real mission other than to maintain those sorts of contacts - observation and monitoring was left to the pros. He was quite literally hijacked by the conspiracy. He was also impersonated as part of the set up - if you look closely you find per-assassination appearances at a number of locations up and down Main street as well as out by the Trade Mart. If he had not been at the TSBD, he could have been set up elsewhere. Of course this is the sort of question that's impossible to deal with in any detail on forums - but since you asked - Oswald was there because it was convenient to his role - and once he was there, the set up went into play - check the Yates impersonation story for one of the more significant part of the set up, putting him outside the TSBD with a rilfe length package and making remarks about the Carousel Cub and the possibility of someone shooting JFK when he comes to Dallas. I'd also like to add a couple of comments that I really think are worth considering - it seems to me that we sometimes equate a good plan with tight, long range planning - when actually good operational plans evolve and allow for flexibility. And it's also tempting to look at what happened in an event and assume that it was all part of the plan - in reality, we can only know part of what happened and we have no way of knowing the total plan. I know that's probably not going to prevent anyone from driving themselves nuts trying to dope out the finite tactical details of the Dallas operation, but at least I tried... -- Larry

Thanks Anthony, actually that's even more frustrating - since Caro is obviously aware of Burris then he certainly should have come across the mystery of that last minute flight to Dallas. Burris' explanation implies a major policy issue between JFK and Johnson about to erupt over a clash on international affairs. If that were true it should have been very significant to Caro....if not....well the trip still should have been very significant to Caro.... Actually there are a number of memos from Burris to Johnson on international affairs available for the period, which would have been grist for Johnson's international policy stance, then there is the whole backchannel thing on Johnson's trip to Vietnam where he massively undercut JFK - against direct orders. I was a big fan of Caro's early work specifically because he was willing to dig deep - looks to me like he may have missed some real opportunities when he got this far...

Good suggestions Len, actually Stu has just visited several Congresspeople this week and will be active in DC this summer on several fronts. On the King family, that gets much more complex. First off, we are told that generally the family opposes release of the HSCA records due to the information collected by Hoover on Dr. King, material that was specifically collected and packaged to destroy not only his effectiveness but his reputation and relationship with his family....that would be in the King FBI personality files. Our response to that is that the HSCA files are categorized and what we need are investigative files, informant files, suspect files - materially having nothing to do with Dr King per se. Those categories could be pulled and released without dipping into the files relating directly to Dr King himself. Of course their are other issues including the legal representatives of the King family and where they may stand with advice on the issue. There is another element in play though and that would be the support of the family in backing a Justice move to re-invigorate the civil rights cold case effort by adding Dr. King to the list of such cases - his murder is not on it now as it is officially considered as solved with Ray's confession to the Memphis court and his sentencing. Given that time and resources are running out on the cold case initiative, this would be a major service by the family to all those other families who still have not reached closure on the crimes of the period. So to answer your question, we are pursuing both avenues, but the second is particular difficult because we ourselves have no particular access to the King family and that's making it very difficult to even register or proposals or deal with their concerns. We're on it though....its just particularly challenging for us... and that's probably all I better say about this subject at present.

The HSCA interviews and files are being held by the House; they could actually be released in full or in part by action of the Clerk of the House. What that takes is not exactly clear. Certainly a resolution or probably even a motion would do it. Its even possible a caucus group or individual house member could request release. The "personality" files we need on certain of the individuals should be at FBI HQ but cannot be released until the person dies or without there permission, which is not happening so no quick answer there. Field office files on several of the individuals would be invaluable but the responses to our request are that a good number of them have been destroyed based on standard destruction schedules. Others are still in the FOIA queue...some of our FBI requests are still one to three years out according to the notices we have been given. The quick solution would be to get Justice to declare the King murder a civil rights cold case and for them to call up the files and follow out some of the leads we suggest in the book. We are working on that but obviously our leverage as two private individuals is ....well lets just say its an up hill battle. In any event, we have a load of FOIA requests still in the queue and we won't even know how all those turn out for a couple of years...fortunately Stu is a lot younger than I am....

Also, responding to Jim on another thread made me recall some lines from the book I mentioned on Iran. In The Eagle and the Lion, James Bill makes the following remarks: "Johnson basked in the spotlight of power and was always impressed by those who maintained power monopolies in their own lands. The more power, pomp, and circumstance, the more impressed Johnson was. The shah of Iran, therefore, was an extremely attractive and important figure to Johnson...the shah was an ally...a tough one at that... ...."toughness" was important to LBJ , whose foreign policy rested ultimately on a ""mythical Alamo Syndrome" that guided America's actions in places like the Dominican Republic and Vietnam" Earlier Bill has stated that JFK considered the shah a corrupt and petty tyrant and considered attempting to force his abdication...his descriptions of JFK and RFK's views on the shah are diametrically opposed to Johnson's views and illustrate the differences between the two administrations cleanly. Those remarks about pomp, power and the Alamo syndrome seem so right on to me, and such a clear distinction between JFK and Johnson that I wonder if Caro captures the spirit of Bill's observations in discussing or comparing the two men and the two administrations?

I'm curious as to whether or not the book mentioned Howard Burris' association with LBJ or his role as Johnson's aide circa 1963? Beyond that, if Caro was unaware of or does not mention the rather mysterious last minute flight down to Texas by Burris at the time of the assassination, it suggests that Caro wasn't really digging....if he does and has a good explanation I'll be excited to hear it. Burris' own explanation would have suggested a high level international affairs confrontation between Johnson and JFK, at the ranch, something dramatic enough so Burris remarks should have hit Caro's radar. -- Larry

Len, both Tarrants and Ainsworth were considered outsiders to a certain extent, that was their real value. Part of the pattern by that time was to use such outsiders as most of the WK inner circle was under heavy FBI pressure and to some extent under surveillance. Tarrants and Ainsworth were described as "Swift's People". However, while there are certain incidents that would have made them suspicious of Tarrants as a potential informer, we find nothing like that for Ainsworth and when you get into the details of the attack you find she was a last minute substitution. Probably collateral damage but certainly none of the guys in the know aborted it to save her either... As to the quote, I don't think either of us have a solid opinion although I personally don't think Nelson was a person to make something like that up out of whole cloth, especially when he did nothing with it but mention it.. Stu did talk to Nelson about it - and we were amazed he didn't follow up on that thread with more questions, but apparently that was just not the story Nelson was writing. Nelson was going down hard on the FBI and the sting - that was his total focus. It remains an open question for us. It's very possible that Tarrant's HSCA testimony might help clear it up or certain of his FBI files, unfortunately we can't get to either at present.

We do Len, actually both brothers remained in Mississippi and there is no indication that any action at all was taken against them by their fellows or that they were at any particular risk. It was known locally that Tarrants had been set up in the bombing and a call came into law enforcement from an informant actually signaling he was on his way to the residence being targeted. Not only the two brothers but other inner circle members who would have been potential inner circle members in a position to make such a call all remained locally in Mississippi, some remaining active and none under any apparent risk.

Len, not sure who you meant was off the mark, as I said earlier, at the time of the King assassination, the main field office that was investigating the bombings that Tarrants was engaged in (Jackson) definitely had not identified him as their primary suspect or even as the major terrorist figure in Mississippi that he was at the time. As a side note, the bombing in which he was almost killed and Kathy Ainsworth was, was also a set up and was being leaked to local law enforcement by White Knight informants - another possible sign that Tarrants himself was being suspected of being a risk to the group and may have been viewed that way even prior to the King assassination.. However you really have to get into the details of the Bureau's operational mode to understand why one office (Atlanta or Birmingham) might have him as a primary King suspect when another office (Jackson) would not. There is no way this sort of complexity can be dealt with on a forum so I'm afraid I would have to refer you to the book for that dialog. I'm happy to answer questions from readers either by email, on my blog or on forums but there is no way I would attempt to replicate the level of detail AGOG here....

Dan, I certainly have to plead guilty to absentmindedness but its also probably aggravated by the number of subjects I've wrestled with over the past few years, often at the same time. First there was JFK, and then JFK on multiple tracks from the actual assassination through the coverup to related subjects like national security. Then there was a whole book on Johnson which I decided to pass on and what remained ended up as a couple of essays posted on this forum. Then the RFK thing which again ended up in a series of essays on MFF....and which I am returning to now in an extended fashion even as Stu and I continue on MLK aftter AGOG. At the same time we were finishing AGOG I also did Nexus - on the CIA and political assassination and that took me in a host of other directions. And on each and every one of these I had help and assistance from a bunch of researchers, some who wanted to be named and some who most definitely did not. I try to keep it all straight because several of them help/helped on multiple subjects. But obviously I fail rather embarrassingly at times. All of which is no excuse per se but perhaps establishes a bit of context. Sometimes I can't remember my relatives names either. All of which is why I do write essays and books because I just can't operated reliably off the top of my head and need to get things down in writing. I hope this at least offers some explanation to you and others who I may sometimes seem to misremember or even totally forget; its not intentional, I'm sure it can be really annoying though. Sorry to see you go, in truth there seems to be very little MLK interest here and in other places. I'll just slog on though, its pretty much what I do. Your advice is appreciated but I'm afraid I'm already in deep in a variety of swamps. -- Larry

Len, your first question gets into one of the real mysteries we are still researching (our book is not a "we have all the answers" book, its more "hey, look at this stuff that didn't get really investigated, it deserves some serious attention - this should be considered an open case" book). At the time Tarrants was being seriously investigated as one of the first suspects he had officially not been identified as even a significant terrorist - we have have that directly from FBI officers involved in his eventual capture. In fact they are as puzzled by the question as we were. We suspect that the plotters, who appear to have begun to mistrust him as a possible FBI informant, may have set him up before the fact by leaking a report to one of the Bureau field offices that he had obtained a rifle in California and was going after King. Unfortunately the field office files in question have largely been destroyed, his central file is unavailable since he is still living and the HSCA files that might have been collected are still being retained until the clerk of the house orders them released. On your second question, we suspect the same group of people who after the assassination appear to have passed a second series of leaks through known FBI informants fingering Tarrants for being involved in the attack in Memphis. This set of leaks occurred shortly after Tarrants had been taken into custody, after Ray was in custody and at a time when none of the bad guys could have known what and how much either might disclose. If nothing else the leak would have poisoned anything that Tarrants might say and we know from other leaks that the bad guys were really concerned about that. -- sorry if that is a bit vague, its really a very complex story, Larry

The FBI showed a series of mug shots to the gun shop owner, all were local folks with the exception of Thomas Tarrants. When the FBI traced "Galt" to California, they went there also showing Tarrants photo trying to figure out if he was "Galt". We go into considerable detail in the book on this because it may well be that Tarrants was being set up easy as an alternative patsy or to divert the investigation. Unfortunately some of the files we need to resolve it are still not available and others appear to have been routinely destroyed. Its a long story and includes Tarrants possession of a 30.06, as documented in FBI reports. What is clear is that in the very earliest days following the murder, Tarrants was being investigated in multiple places as a primary suspect - although all the other information available shows that the FBI had not yet even identified him as a major terrorist with the White Knights of Mississippi, that would come later. Like I said, its a long story but the particular 30.06 in question is of great interest - especially because at least one source reports Tarrants saying that he obtained a gun to kill King in California....something that Tarrants now adamantly denies.

As far as I know both the rifles purchased in Birmingham were brand new weapons, direct from the mfg...have seen no sign of them coming though any channel rather than standard commercial distribution. On the other hand, there are other 30.06 weapons that could relate to Memphis that most definitely came through White Supremacist channels. The owner of one of those guns was actually one of the very first suspects shown by the FBI in the Birmingham store, well before Ray had been identified. We've also discussed the originally belted, military ammo which appears to have come from some source than the Birmingham store.

Dan, certainly that's embarrassing, especially since you are in the acknowledgements pages in the book. My only excuses are that a) as I turn 65 I have to admit that both my short term and long term memory does fail me, that's one reason I don't often post things off the top of my head on forums and the way you posed your comment truly made me that that perhaps you were a different person than we had the dialogs with on the book. Its quite possible that I'm not quick enough these days for such remarks, I suppose the good news is that both witticisms and sarcasm can slide right past without me noticing. This seems to be a poor day for good if uniformed intentions on my part... My sincere apologies for the failure in memory - certainly I had no evil intent, purely a mistake on my part. I'd much prefer you stayed around to discuss the subject given your obvious abilities. But if an apology doesn't do it, thanks again for all the help, the work on MLK is far from done; we had hoped to open things up more but at this point that's beginning to look about as difficult as expecting any form of compromise in the US Congress. -- again, my apologies, Larry

Dan, that's pretty much what The Awful Grace of God is all about - Stu and I spent a bit over 5 years on it (and still have about four years of FOIA's in process) - so if you do want to look into it that might give you a bit of a start. Actually there was some white supremacist activity in Canada and there were Canadians involved with the National States Rights Party, some traveling to Birmingham for mentoring and connections it appears. Stu probably has more information on the Canadian connections if you wanted to pursue that. I've probably said all I can think of to say on the rifle thread in terms of talking specifically about the rifle directly associated with Ray. There's a bunch more to say about 30.06 weapons in general - although at this point most of the MLK past discussion seems to immediately divert to the possibility of a shooter at another location. What is interesting is that it immediately goes off in two tracks ie.. Other scenarios include Ray's which has somebody else shooting from the rooming house and framing him and an alternative track that has Ray in the rooming house and someone shooting from a location close to it, leaving him holding the bag (hey, I just couldn't resist that one). There a lot of iterations of this mix, some books present all of them. I'm not sure it would be that productive to wade into all that here, but one issue that is pretty interesting and might be worth discussing is the fingerprint issue - which Professor Melanson really did good work on and which actually has some headroom to do more solid work by submitting existing prints (many of which were left unidentified - shades of the TSBD) to the FBI computerized matching system.

The basics certainly suggest to me that there was no well thought out plan to shoot from the Lorraine, it would have been no great problem to check out the layout of the building in advance and for that matter to get Ray in there days or a week before, probably with an actual room facing the Lorraine. To me it appears that Ray is coming in cold, with none of the advance planning he demonstrated in certain of his earlier crimes such as the store robberies. Even his purchase of binoculars only that afternoon suggests a lack of preparation. Perhaps his commandeering the bathroom was not that great a risk, stashing the gun under the tub...interesting idea but if so we still have the single loaded round issue? And he's still leaving fingerprints. If he had not taken a load of personal effects, including his radio, into the place, if he had worn gloves and then just left the rifle in the bathroom with them, he could have been out and gone no sweat. So....I'm still thinking what we see is Ray acting without much forethought and little plan other than hauling stuff into the place for an overnight or longer stay, taking in the rifle and ammo and then taking over the bathroom after that....with no real idea of how long he is going to be in there....now that might be OK for some binocular surveillance, for one thing to see if he can identify Dr. King at that distance. I can see ducking out to get the gun and loading one round after the first appearance on the balcony. Still not sure I see him staying in there with one round in a weapon even if he could stash it under the tub and just taking the chance that nobody takes note when they come in and take a seat facing the tub. All in all, still doesn't sound like any sort of real plan for assassinating a major public figure - I've seen pick up ball games with more structure.

I think Daniel's point about the bathroom is a good one. Ray truly was a pretty cautious type and waiting in a bathroom with a rifle and the door locked for an hour or more.....in the common bathroom for a full rooming house...would make him the focus of some attention. The alternative would be a plan which has him locate himself in the bathroom and figure that when he sees Dr. King he will run next door for the rifle....but by that time there might be a line of unhappy folks outside the bathroom door. Just doesn't sound like a real plan. ........on a side note, that long wait in the bathroom seems to argue against any structured time table for the shooting. A compromise might be that Ray was simply observing the motel, with or without binoculars - up to the point where he saw Dr King just standing still on the balcony and talking...and then deciding to take the shot. Seems to me the fact that the shot was made on Dr. King's second appearance argues for that. On Len's point about the gun purchase, our view is that Ray was "loosely coupled" to the real plotters and made his own decision on the first gun, only to check in and be told something different. It's even possible that Ray wa given a gun type but to save money went for something cheaper (he had looked at 30.06 weapons earlier) and then was told in no uncertain terms what type of gun he had to have. I am open to the fact that Ray initially reacted after the shooting and thought taking the gun and his stuff was a good idea but changed his mind by the time he hit the street.....but again, that supports the "spontaneous" scenario rather than something well planned (or even not very well planned). Our problem with all this, to be repetitive, is that we cannot know what the real "plan" was vs. what actually seems to have happened.

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. .