"Raul" in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald,
New Orleans, Louisiana, August 9th, 1963
Lee Oswald was the treasurer and sole member of the New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee; the men with him have never been formally identified, acknowledged or investigated.
From the Court Transcript of King Family vs. Jowers et al., (1999)
Q. Now, he mentioned this figure, Raul, having picked up the money at one point in time and delivered a weapon. Did he identify a photo spread – of a photo spread did he identify a photograph of him for you?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. If we can put this up.
(Photographs displayed on an overhead projector.)
Q. We can see the photo spread that has been in evidence here in the Court. I don't know if you can see it. Which of these six individuals did he identify as Raul to you?
A. The second one down on the right in the middle.
Q. Here?
A. Yes.
Q. This picture here?
A. That's the one.
Q. He said this was the man who delivered the money and subsequently – I'm sorry, picked up –
A. Picked up.
Q. He picked up the money and then delivered the rifle?
A. Correct.
Q. Did he know anything else about this person or say anything else that you recall?
A. Well, he said something about, you know, he thought Mexican or wet-back or something, but he didn't want to – you know, he didn't know which nationality he was. But he was definitely, you know, of Spanish – he thought of Spanish descent.
Q. Did you come away with the belief that the fatal shot that killed your father was fired from the bushes, the brush area, behind the defendant's grill?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did he say what he did with the murder weapon, the actual murder weapon, not the throw-down gun, the actual murder weapon?
A. I believe he said he threw it in the – I'm sorry. That was another piece of that. That someone picked it up, and I believe he said he heard they threw it in the river. But I – I don't remember who, the details of who picked it up and how it got, you know, supposedly thrown in the river.
Q. Now, Dexter, at one point in time when the family had came out and started asking questions, being involved in this case, were you and the family contacted by a former FBI man?
A. Yes, we were.
Q. Who this was officer?
A. Donald Wilson.
Q. What did Mr. Wilson tell you, discuss with you, again, very contrary to his own professional and personal interests?
A. Well, he told me that he had received some evidence, actually obtained evidence from a crime scene dealing with the white Mustang which was alleged to have been James Earl Ray's vehicle and said that he had traveled to the crime scene along with a senior agent. He was essentially kind of a new rookie agent, if you will, and the veteran agent had him tag along to the crime scene.
And when he opened the door, these envelope or loose and fell out of the car?
A. Correct.
Q. And he picked them up and kept them?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Why did he hold on to them all these years?
A. Well, he tried to give me some history, which I thought was fairly interesting, because it speaks to his motive, but he talked about when he joined the Bureau fresh out of law school here in Tennessee, I think, where he went to school, and he saw working for the Federal Bureau as being a way to help with civil rights.
He really seemed to be committed to making a difference in the cause of justice in this country at that time. And he said the most incredible thing happened to him literally on his first day on the job, or let's say his first day in training, when he was going – or assigned to go to the academy.
He was assigned to a black rookie agent, I guess they were rookie agents when they were going through training, and they were in Virginia, I believe it was, at a rooming facility where they all stayed, and when they went to check in, his black roommate was denied admission.
He said he was just so sure that the brass, top brass, were going to really come down on these people, this resident manager, if you will. And he watched the way the situation was handled, and he said, you know, from that day forward, I knew I made the biggest mistake of my life.
What he was saying is that the black agent could not room with him, that Director Hoover and all the top brass didn't do anything about rectifying the situation. So – and he said when it just really hit him is a few years later the agent, the black agent, was killed in the line of duty, and at his funeral I believe in Chicago he was talking about how the director and everyone was there talking about how great this guy was, and all he could remember is when the guy really needed support, they were nowhere to be found.
He said once he started learning about the climate and the culture of the Bureau and how this type of thing would happen, he instinctively felt that if he had turned in that evidence, his superiors would have – it would have ended up missing.
And I don't remember, there was another incident, and I can't remember whether this happened before or after the Mustang was discovered, but he and his agent – I mean he and his partner happened to see a gentleman that fit the description of James Earl Ray somewhere in their travels, and they radioed into headquarters to ask what to do, whether to apprehend or to let him go, whatever, and they were told basically to come back immediately to headquarters and basically sign off.
He said again from that incident he knew that he was making the right decision, because he really believed this could have been the man, but they were told to not proceed.
Q. To your personal knowledge, what has happened to Agent Wilson since that time?
A. He has been character assassinated.
He has also said that his wife has been somewhat terrorized. Just different types of harassment tactics have been used to silence him, to intimidate him.
I witnessed for myself the way this whole thing was handled in the media, and the first knee-jerk response that came out was that this guy was not even an FBI agent. I watched literally the news cycle of how within minutes first he is not an agent, second, well, he wasn't on the crime scene detail – which is true technically, because the car was impounded and taken to the garage where it was taken apart by special agents to go over it with a fine-tooth comb, which he was not officially apart of that detachment, but he was definitely on the scene – and ultimately there were quotes from former FBI agents saying, well, whatever he has is fabricated.
Now, how can you make an unilateral statement when you haven't even seen what he has? So it amazed me to watch how this man was attacked for coming forward with something. And he really believed – the saddest thing about this whole episode is when I met this gentleman, I could see the sincerity. He was a man who was to me the epitome of a do-gooder government bureaucrat who really joined the service to do the right thing, who wanted to serve his country, who believed in the constitution.
And he was so shocked, I think almost naive, because he kept saying, I want to make sure that the Attorney General Janet Reno gets this information personally. And I remember thinking how, you know, maybe naive that he was, but he believed that if he forged ahead, that the right thing would be done. You know, I really feel sorry for him, to be honest with you, because I don't think he had a clue.
Q. There were a series of articles written by one local reporter who tried to get this story out and they were published and plaintiffs would like to move their admission into evidence at this time.
(The above-mentioned documents were marked Collective Exhibit 31.)
Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) I'll put up on the screen now a document or a piece of paper. It is not very clear, but what it is is a telephone directory page. Have you seen that before?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Do you see this writing up here?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you make that out from that distance?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. What does it say?
A. Raul.
Q. The name Raul?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recognize this as one of the – poor copy though it is, and we're only doing with a copy here, but do you recognize this as a copy of one of the pieces of paper that he found in the – that fell out of the Mustang?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. I'll put up a second photocopy of another document he gave you, another piece of paper. Do you recognize this piece of paper as one that you were shown by Agent Wilson?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What did you make of this? What did you think this was?
A. Payment, like a payment schedule or list of payments made.
Q. It looked like a schedule of some monies that were to be paid?
A. Yes.
Q. Does this appear to be some sort of list of payments or a payment sheet?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. You said he said this also came from the Mustang?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. This list of payments, at the bottom of it, do you see this writing here?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Can you make that name out?
A. I cannot. From here I cannot make it out. It is very –
Q. It is very fuzzy, isn't it?
A. It is very fuzzy.
MR. PEPPER: Let me do this, Your Honor. Let me make take the copy up and ask the witness to take a look at it closer.
Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Is that helpful at all?
A. I am still having a hard time.
Q. Then you should not identify it if you can't. That's fine.
MR. PEPPER: We will move the admission of both of these collectively as the next exhibit.
THE COURT: Did you identify that as one of the documents that was shown you to by the agent?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
(Whereupon, the above-mentioned document was marked as Exhibit 32.)
Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) At the time you met with Agent Wilson, did you also discuss another document that was in the car at the time that fell out and that he retrieved at the time?
A. Well, he talked about other information he had obtained, but he didn't go into detail at the time. I subsequently found out about the other information.
Q. How did you personally come to learn of this other piece of information?
A. I believe it was from a reporter with the Atlanta Journal Constitution and an article that actually he subsequently wrote about it, about the evidence, and the fact that the Justice Department I believe had subpoenaed that separate – that additional piece of evidence.
Q. What was that additional piece of evidence that the subpoena was issued for?
A. It was a piece of paper or a card, I don't remember the exact instrument, but it was paper or a card with the phone number to the Atlanta office of the FBI.
Q. The phone number of the Atlanta office of the FBI in James Earl Ray's Mustang?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did there come a time, Mr. King, as a result of all of this activity that you decided to meet with James Earl Ray?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you decide to take that step and meet with the man who had been accused of killing your father?
A. Well, first and foremost I didn't believe that he had actually pulled the trigger at the time. My feeling was even if he had, based on the upbringing that I have, that I've had and my family, that it would have been the right thing to do.
Being raised in a Judeo-Christian home or faith to practice what you preach in terms of forgiveness, if he didn't do it, then I felt, which I did feel, I was there on the grounds of this man has also suffered an injustice, but regardless of either scenario, somehow we both, victim/victimizer, both victims, however you look at it, had some type of commonality.
So for me spiritually meeting with the accused, if you will, was important for me to personally eye to eye meet this man and ask him did he do it while in my heart I did not believe that he did, but I needed to do that for the record, if you will.
I thought about the fact that – again, some people were really outraged. They were upset with me, why did you meet with him? As I said earlier, this has been an emotional issue and not an intellectual or logical issue, issue of logic. People just react to what they've been conditioned to.
Again, I've had to draw on my earliest experiences of dealing with an assassin when my grandmother was killed in 1973 – I'm sorry, in 1974. I was there with my grandfather when he forgave his wife's killer, my grandmother. And yet – of course, I knew about my father forgiving the woman who stabbed him and almost took his life.
So there was a precedent set growing up. In our home we were always taught don't hate white people, don't hate the person who did this. So I didn't see it as being out of character to meet with him.
Q. It was really a part of the family's practice and process, wasn't it? Did you go with your grandfather to visit your grandmother's killer in prison?
A. Well, no. Actually, while she was on the operating table we walked over to where he was being kept, because there was an altercation to apprehend him. He had to have treatment as well. We went over to meet with him.
My grandfather asked him why he did it. Essentially he said, I came to get you, and when I get out, I'm going to get you. My grandfather simply said, son, God bless you, and I'm going to pray for you and I'm going to forgive you for your sins.
Of course, standing there witnessing this at a very young age helped me to understand what forgiveness was all about, and having that strong spiritual foundation and base is really what has sustained us for all this time.
Q. So it is not just your father's example in life and times but your grandparents as well?
A. Yes, that's correct. When my father was killed, I remember a lot of things that happened, but I wasn't old enough to really understand, you know, the whole forgiveness concept. I do remember it was an ominous period.
I remember us really feeling very awkward about him coming back to Memphis that last time. For whatever reason, we felt something was going to happen. I know I felt that. It was very ominous. That was the extent of it. I didn't know why.
Q. Now, did there come a time when you progressed in your consideration of this case and the family's quest for answers and truth that you decided to ask the Justice Department or the President of the United States in the first instance to open an investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. What has happened with respect to that request and would you describe how it has proceeded?
A. Yes. Well, initially we had a meeting with President Clinton asking him to open an investigation. At that time we were requesting what we saw as a similar model to South Africa's Truth & Reconciliation Commission. We really felt if this truth was going to come out, it had to be done in the context of amnesty or immunity and a healing, a cleansing, that when there are crimes against the people, if you will, by the State, there has to be some type of process so that people can come forward without fear of reprisals.
So that was our first request. And that was not granted. What he said he would do is he would speak with the Attorney General, Janet Reno, and ultimately she made the decision that she would do what was called a limited investigation, which would focus on, quote, new evidence.
What we tried to explain to her is that we believe that while you can refer to the, quote, new evidence ala Donald Wilson, ala Loyd Jowers, the old evidence, quote, was flawed. In fact, it has not thoroughly been reviewed.
So to pigeonhole it into this, quote, new investigation or only focusing on new evidence, is probably not going to serve us because you are only going to be in effect drawing conclusions that don't deal with the a holistic picture.
In order to do this, and the last time I checked, there is no statute of limitations on murder, but the reality is that, you know, you have to deal with everything, and yet that request was not granted. So we were very disappointed. But we wanted to at least in the spirit of, you know, reconciliation, give the powers that be the benefit of the doubt to try and come up with something that made sense.
We still to this day don't know where that stands. But I can say that I'm not optimistic, because I just – the signs or the things that typically would point towards optimism have not been evident. This is totally a gut feeling.
I noted it is customary to be silent during an investigation until all facts are in, but the thing that has always been ironic to me is that if we're the victims of the family, then everyone from the DA locally to the Justice Department is supposed to represent our interest, at least that's what I thought growing up watching Perry Mason and everything and the like, but in this instance it seems like we have been put on the opposite side of State, and we've, rather than being embraced and our cause being supported and us getting equal justice and fighting for our rights, we've been almost summarily dismissed.
So I don't know. I mean, I always try to remain optimistic. I do believe there are things bigger than all of us that can intervene and ultimately in the end, as my father would say, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. To me I interpreted that as meaning it may not come out in your lifetime, but in time all things are revealed.
Q. But what about those who finally say that this is important for the family and it is important for you from a personal standpoint that the truth be developed and it emerge, but is it necessary for the nation, for this Republic, to go through this siege, this anguish, this torment again?
A. Oh, certainly. Anyone who says just let it go, I mean, let's face it, nothing is going to bring him back, the thing that will certainly resolve and allow for healing, closure and healing, is resolving it so it is not still in this land of uncertainty.
Anyone who has had a tragedy – certainly my family is high profile, but we're no different than any person who has lost a loved one and just simply want to know what happened, whether it is a car accident or anything. I mean, you want to know how your loved one left, if you will.
Certainly in this instance where there was so many questions that were not answered and this thing was put to bed so quickly, it is always inevitably going to come back up.
So what has been happening is that for whatever reason there are those who have tried to suppress it, don't want to deal with it, because it is a can of worms, but I have to say, like anything that has not been resolved, it will haunt you until it is resolved. And that's not just the victim. It is the victimizer. It is those who represent the victims and the victimizers, because we are all, as my father used to say, inextricably tied together by a garment of destiny.
You cannot separate and say, well, that happened then, so we shouldn't deal with it, because to me it is just like it was yesterday. I mean, I remember what I was doing when he was killed. I remember details of everything. And because that has not been resolved, I know for me personally it has affected me in so many ways didn't even realize until recently of thinking I had dealt with and I really had not.
So this in a real sense from a personal side but then from a holistic side, in terms of the people, in terms of the masses, yes, it has to be dealt with because it is not about who killed Martin Luther King, Jr., my father, it is not about necessarily all of those details, it is about why was he killed. Because if you answer the why, you will understand the same things are still happening. Until we address that, we're all in trouble, because if it could happen to him, certainly it can happen to – if it can happen to this family, it can happen to anybody.
Q. In his honor's courtroom here – this may be a court of last resort, Mr. King.
Q. – why should the nation, this Republic, be concerned about the why, about the why and the how of what happened to Martin Luther King, Jr., aside from the family interest, the nation, this Republic, why is it important to know?
A. Well, it is important to know so it will not be repeated. That's the injustice. It should not be repeated. That if we say we're true to our calling, as he talked about in the "I Have a Dream" speech, about the bad check, he talked about the importance of all Americans coming together, black, white, it didn't matter, but people of goodwill being given an opportunity to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that's what we're all here for, and how can you have that in a so-called democracy if the democracy, if the State, the Republic, do not like what you are saying and you are told from childhood that you have freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of all this, but the fact of the matter is if what you are saying goes against what certain people believe you should be saying, you will be dealt with, maybe not the way you are dealt with in China, which is over, but you will be dealt with covertly and in some way the same result. The result is the same.
Personally I would rather someone tell me you have no rights, you can't speak, than to think I have the rights and yet I'm in mental bondage because I'm thinking I'm free all along but there is a long leash that the minute I say something that doesn't fit with the elite or with the special interests, I'm in trouble.
That is what Martin Luther King, Jr., represented, someone who spoke for all of us, who spoke for the least of these who were not heard. That's why this is important, because this really opens the issue up of why he was taken from us in the first place.
Q. I'd like you to address two final issues, if you would. There has been evidence in these proceedings that photographs were in fact taken of the assassination by military personnel.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. They were on the roof of a fire station, no less. In all likelihood, those films, those photographs, of the entire event of the assassination of your father exist today in some archive, deeply buried, perhaps, but in some archive of the Pentagon.
What would you say to the Department of Defense, to the military intelligence structure of the United States, to the government of the United States that controls perhaps that photographic visual evidence of the truth in this case, what would you ask them to do with that information, those photographs?
A. I think the information should obviously, all of it, should come forth, should be brought out. I understand why it hasn't been.
There is fear, obviously, that if the truth were to come out, who would – what would that say? I mean, really, we are talking about, quote, a political assassination in modern-day times, a domestic political assassination.
Of course, it is ironic, but I was watching a special on the CIA, and they say, yes, we've participated in assassinations abroad but, no, we could never do anything like that domestically. Well, I don't know, but what's to say, you know, whether you call it CIA or some other innocuous acronym or agency, killing is killing.
The issue becomes what do we do about this? Do we endorse a policy in this country, in this life, that says if we don't agree with someone, the only means to deal with it is through elimination and termination? I think my father taught us the opposite, that you can overcome without violence, that there are ways, because when you use violence, you leave residue that the next generation will come back, and it is a vicious cycle. You never solve the problem.
So I would say that all information, evidence, should be – there should be full disclosure. To be honest, I mean, if the family of the victim – if you want to look at it in terms of first right, if there is a protocol, if we're saying we can forgive and let people off the hook, then why can't anybody else?
I mean, if you can measure suffrage, and technically we say, well, we suffered the greatest loss, if you can measure it that way – I'm not saying you can – but if we're saying we're willing to forgive and embark upon a process that allows for reconciliation, why can't others? That's all.
Q. This action – finally, this action is against Loyd Jowers as a defendant and other unknown conspirators. If evidence emerges at this trial in this civil courtroom that could or should result in the prosecution, the criminal prosecution of other individuals, is the family interested in pursuing criminal prosecution of others known and unknown involved in this assassination?
A. No. We have never been interested in criminal prosecution. As I stated before, this was not about and is not for us about retributive justice. We're not in this to make heads roll.
We're in this to use the teachings that my father taught us in terms of nonviolent reconciliation. It works. I mean, we're living together in the South today because of that great movement, black and white together, different types of advances that have occurred as a matter of a peaceful, nonviolent movement. We know that it works.
So, therefore, we have to be true to our cause. We have to practice what we preach. So what we're saying is that we're not looking to – we're not looking to put people in prison. What we're looking to do is get the truth out so that this nation can learn and know officially.
I frankly feel I already know the truth. And, I mean, if the world never finds out officially, it is never broadcast across the world, that's a tragedy. But I can move on with my life knowing that I now know what happened. I believe that in my heart.
So this proceeding is almost really technically our final legal remedy, and I think – I know it has been long and drawn out and the jury has had to do such a tedious task at deciphering all of this body of evidence, and I think – and testimony, and I think that that certainly has to be considered, that there was no other way to do it, this was a last resort, we tried everything, we did everything humanly possible.
We've not gained anything. We've lost financially. We've – I could spend days giving you countless examples of the agony and the defeat. And when people ask that question, are you in it for money, what money? People back away. Everybody I know who has been associated with this has been – has paid a price. You know, I don't – it is not a benefit.
The only benefit is that the truth has to ultimately come out, because that's what we all believe in. I believe we all stand for justice and want the right thing to happen. So ultimately as a last resort in this proceeding, to say that we're not looking for great remuneration, it is the total opposite, we're looking for nominal damages, but we're looking for the truth. And you can't put a price on the truth. So that hopefully answers your question.
Q. It goes a long way to it, but in terms of Mr. Jowers, and the final issue is an issue of damages, Mr. King, because this is a civil action, a wrongful death action against the defendant, and damages inevitably raises its head, and whilst you have said we're only interested in nominal damages, that needs in a plea to the jury to be spelled out with a degree of more specificity.
What would be in your mind an appropriate sort or type, quantity, number of damages and for what purpose would those damages be used if you were to ask this jury to award damages with a number figure, what would make sense to you and the family at this point in time?
A. Well, the number I'm a little bit fuzzy on because, you know, numbers are so subjective. But let's just say for the sake of this proceeding, let's say we were granted a hundred dollar –
Q. Suppose the request were to be framed in terms of a hundred dollars which would go toward the funeral expenses of your father. What would you do – if that were the case and you were given that award, what do you think you might appropriately do with that money?
A. I think it would only be fitting that any sum of money, no matter how small or large, go to benefit some cause that he would have wanted or been associated with. Because this is Memphis, because of what it represents, he was here supporting the sanitation workers for their plight, and I would certainly support and want to see some benefit, whether it be their welfare, the Sanitation Workers Union Welfare Fund or something along those lines that the family could contribute that sum to and even, you know, contribute more out of our pockets.
I just think that we need to bring closure to this. It something as minimal as the fact that even to this day I have awkward feelings when I come here. I'm still – it is not any reflection of the people, because the people are wonderful. Everybody rolls out the red carpet, bends over backwards to be hospitable.
But until this injustice is settled, then all we can really do is try to deal with what he would have done, and he was here to support a campaign that dealt with man's inhumanity to man, and now that we're rounding out and coming to the end of this journey, my hope is that this will be not an ending but a beginning, a launching pad, so that an example can be set here in this courthouse in this city and in this state to show people, to send a message that it does not always have to be the way that people think or what they assume, that impressions and opinions, no matter what anybody writes in a column or an editorial, that hopefully people's hearts have been moved and their heads have been dealt with and there will be a verdict that is one of fairness and justice.
MR. PEPPER: Mr. King. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Let's take a break before cross-examination.
(Jury out.)
(Short recess.)
