• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cover-up of the century, who killed MLK?

Thoreau72

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,644
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In the spirit of the MLK holiday, a little bit of truth discovered by the barrister William Peppers, and the only jury to ever hear the case against James Earl Ray.

The jury found that Ray did NOT kill MLK.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-killed-martin-luther-king-the-cover-up-of-the-century/5502343

For some who cannot tolerate the truth presented by Global Research this will be offensive, and I'm sorry.

For others curious about the truth, this article is a good condensation of William Peppers' book "Enemy Of The State".

Yes it was a conspiracy. I hope this is in the right section.
 
Link wouldn't work for me. I remember this as history.
403.2 error
 
DaveFagan said:
Link wouldn't work for me. I remember this as history.
403.2 error
Click to expand...

No understanding of the big picture is complete without reading Pepper's book, "Enemy Of The State", and it's been about 10 years since I read it.

The link in this thread worked OK for me.

The details are really interesting, all the stuff that Pepper discovered, but the bigger point is that the only jury to ever hear the case found that James Earl Ray did not do it.
 
Interesting thread T

What I found was it was a civil trial not a criminal one.

Conspiracy Trial | The Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change

Which court finding to believe? Like the case of OJ, the criminal case found him not guilty but the civil case found him guilty. As far as James Earl Ray, the criminal case found him guilty and the civil case found him not guilty.

One source that provides a different take on the civil trial. Maybe the govt. was involved. Maybe it wasn't.

https://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/mlktrial.asp

https://www.justice.gov/crt/vii-king-v-jowers-conspiracy-allegations

It is interesting how both sides spin a tragic event.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...i131i46k1j46i131k1j0i22i10i30k1.0.2-MqXWiHScQ
 
Thoreau72 said:
No understanding of the big picture is complete without reading Pepper's book, "Enemy Of The State", and it's been about 10 years since I read it.

The link in this thread worked OK for me.

The details are really interesting, all the stuff that Pepper discovered, but the bigger point is that the only jury to ever hear the case found that James Earl Ray did not do it.
Click to expand...

I have not read the book but I have never heard of a jury reaching a conclusion 'did not do it' I have never even heard a finding of 'innocent'. I have only heard guilty or not guilty.
 
Thoreau72 said:
In the spirit of the MLK holiday, a little bit of truth discovered by the barrister William Peppers, and the only jury to ever hear the case against James Earl Ray.

The jury found that Ray did NOT kill MLK.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-killed-martin-luther-king-the-cover-up-of-the-century/5502343

For some who cannot tolerate the truth presented by Global Research this will be offensive, and I'm sorry.

For others curious about the truth, this article is a good condensation of William Peppers' book "Enemy Of The State".

Yes it was a conspiracy. I hope this is in the right section.
Click to expand...

No doubt the murder of MLK was among the great false flag crimes of the century .... but the JFK murder has generated even more books and a few movies.

To people who bother to pay attention to what is going on,
it's becoming more and more obvious that many big crimes are being committed by people working for such as the CIA-FBI.

Also becoming more and more obvious that the CIA-FBI are minions of Satan's Pope led Globalist cabal
that has been working for decades to bring down all the "sovereign" nations in order to install the One World Government
that the Beast will rule for 3.5 years.

https://i.imgur.com/lCS5j1E.png

1 z BUSH POPE GLOBALIST SHITHOLE.jpg
 
IMO JER pulled the trigger, but he had help leaving the country. Whether or not he had help before pulling the trigger is completely unknown, but it would not surprise me is he did have help.
 
rjay said:
I have not read the book but I have never heard of a jury reaching a conclusion 'did not do it' I have never even heard a finding of 'innocent'. I have only heard guilty or not guilty.
Click to expand...

It was a civil trial, NOT a criminal trial. Long story there, so if you're really interested consider reading the book for the details.

The King family paid William Peppers for his time and effort. In part because Tennessee authorities were in on the scam, no criminal trial ever happened. Ray had several different lawyers, and the first one got him to plead guilty.

The only jury to ever hear the case found that Ray did not do the killing. Some other interesting details related to Jack Ruby too.
 
calamity said:
IMO JER pulled the trigger, but he had help leaving the country. Whether or not he had help before pulling the trigger is completely unknown, but it would not surprise me is he did have help.
Click to expand...

Sure, and in your opinion JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and Osama bin Laden was killed by Seal Team 6 and Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. I get it, you mostly believe what your government tells you to believe.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Sure, and in your opinion JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and Osama bin Laden was killed by Seal Team 6 and Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. I get it, you mostly believe what your government tells you to believe.
Click to expand...


Which trail to believe? The criminal or the civil?

Not to derail, but explain how the criminal trial of OJ Simson came to a verdict of not guilty, while the civil trail came to a verdict of guilty? What I am asking is relevant to the discussion regarding the murder of MLK. We have two different verdicts as was in the case of OJ.

See post 4 for links regarding the civil trial regarding the murder of MLK.
 
mike2810 said:
Which trail to believe? The criminal or the civil?

Not to derail, but explain how the criminal trial of OJ Simson came to a verdict of not guilty, while the civil trail came to a verdict of guilty? What I am asking is relevant to the discussion regarding the murder of MLK. We have two different verdicts as was in the case of OJ.

See post 4 for links regarding the civil trial regarding the murder of MLK.
Click to expand...

No Mike, we don't have 2 verdicts in the Ray case. That's the point. He pleaded guilty, but there was no trial by jury, just a pleading. The ONLY jury to hear the facts in the Ray case found that Ray did not do the killing.

Simpson's cases were 2, a criminal trial brought by the State which led to acquittal, and a subsequent civil trial brought by the family.
 
Thoreau72 said:
No Mike, we don't have 2 verdicts in the Ray case. That's the point. He pleaded guilty, but there was no trial by jury, just a pleading. The ONLY jury to hear the facts in the Ray case found that Ray did not do the killing.

Simpson's cases were 2, a criminal trial brought by the State which led to acquittal, and a subsequent civil trial brought by the family.
Click to expand...

Your correct as far as the Ray pleading guilty.The court accepted the guilty plea.
What is a finding of guilt?
A “finding of guilt” is a ruling by the judge. It occurs after the facts have been read out, and the accused agrees with the facts that amount to a criminal offence.
After hearing the facts read out, if the judge is satisfied that those facts amount to a criminal offence (or offences), the judge will ask you if you agree with the facts. If you indicate “yes,” the judge will then say “I find you guilty of the offence of ….”

Guilty pleas | LawFacts


So my question remains then with the clarification.
In the OJ case one jury for the criminal trial found him not guilty. In the civil case the jury found OJ guilty.
In the case of MLK murder, Ray pleaded guilty. In the civil case they found him not guilty.

As no surprise you ignored the links I provided
 
Thoreau72 said:
Sure, and in your opinion JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and Osama bin Laden was killed by Seal Team 6 and Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. I get it, you mostly believe what your government tells you to believe.
Click to expand...

JFK? Not buying that one. OBL. Sure. Why not. RFK? Not buying the Siran Siran thing.
 
mike2810 said:
Your correct as far as the Ray pleading guilty.The court accepted the guilty plea.
What is a finding of guilt?
A “finding of guilt” is a ruling by the judge. It occurs after the facts have been read out, and the accused agrees with the facts that amount to a criminal offence.
After hearing the facts read out, if the judge is satisfied that those facts amount to a criminal offence (or offences), the judge will ask you if you agree with the facts. If you indicate “yes,” the judge will then say “I find you guilty of the offence of ….”

Guilty pleas | LawFacts


So my question remains then with the clarification.
In the OJ case one jury for the criminal trial found him not guilty. In the civil case the jury found OJ guilty.
In the case of MLK murder, Ray pleaded guilty. In the civil case they found him not guilty.

As no surprise you ignored the links I provided
Click to expand...

You need to do some more reading Mike.

In civil proceedings, one party sues another. The plaintiff sues the defendant. The jury finds for the plaintiff or against him. They buy his claims or reject his claims, and I'm no lawyer but I think the jury can come in with a mixed verdict, especially regarding sums of money.

I guess the point is that the term "guilty" and "innocent" are not often, if ever, used in civil proceedings. In the Ray case, the jury simply found that yes, somebody killed MLK, but that somebody was not Ray. You could certainly imply a finding of "not guilty" but I'm pretty sure those were not the terms used. It's been about 10 years since I read Peppers' book.
 
calamity said:
JFK? Not buying that one. OBL. Sure. Why not. RFK? Not buying the Siran Siran thing.
Click to expand...

So if it turned out that numerous newspapers in that part of the world wrote about OBL's death in December 2001, and that Bill O'Reilly himself noted OBL's death at about the same time, you would still believe what the talking heads and Hollywood told you in Zero Dark Thirty? Got it!
 
Thoreau72 said:
You need to do some more reading Mike.

In civil proceedings, one party sues another. The plaintiff sues the defendant. The jury finds for the plaintiff or against him. They buy his claims or reject his claims, and I'm no lawyer but I think the jury can come in with a mixed verdict, especially regarding sums of money.

I guess the point is that the term "guilty" and "innocent" are not often, if ever, used in civil proceedings. In the Ray case, the jury simply found that yes, somebody killed MLK, but that somebody was not Ray. You could certainly imply a finding of "not guilty" but I'm pretty sure those were not the terms used. It's been about 10 years since I read Peppers' book.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the links I provided that question the testimony of the civil trial is bunk?
 
Thoreau72 said:
In the spirit of the MLK holiday, a little bit of truth discovered by the barrister William Peppers, and the only jury to ever hear the case against James Earl Ray.

The jury found that Ray did NOT kill MLK.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-killed-martin-luther-king-the-cover-up-of-the-century/5502343

For some who cannot tolerate the truth presented by Global Research this will be offensive, and I'm sorry.

For others curious about the truth, this article is a good condensation of William Peppers' book "Enemy Of The State".

Yes it was a conspiracy. I hope this is in the right section.
Click to expand...

Global Research is a pro North Korea, Holocaust denying, moronic CT website which claims the US used nukes in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is zero evidence to your claims, and frankly you couldn't pick a worse source if you'd tried.
 
Thoreau72 said:
So if it turned out that numerous newspapers in that part of the world wrote about OBL's death in December 2001, and that Bill O'Reilly himself noted OBL's death at about the same time, you would still believe what the talking heads and Hollywood told you in Zero Dark Thirty? Got it!
Click to expand...

Zero what?
 
Thoreau72 said:
So if it turned out that numerous newspapers in that part of the world wrote about OBL's death in December 2001, and that Bill O'Reilly himself noted OBL's death at about the same time, you would still believe what the talking heads and Hollywood told you in Zero Dark Thirty? Got it!
Click to expand...

Except you don’t seem to comprehend the fact that 1) for a time we’d thought we had gotten OBL in the strikes at Tora Bora before realizing he’d escaped; 2) your knee jerk belief in conspiracy theories with no evidence is deeply amusing
 
mike2810 said:
Are you saying the links I provided that question the testimony of the civil trial is bunk?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying there is a difference between civil procedures and criminal procedures, that there was never a criminal trial in the case of James Earl Ray, but there was a civil trial held in that regard. I'm saying that the jury, under the US system, is the arbiter of facts and law, and their purpose is to find the truth as best they can.
 
calamity said:
Zero what?
Click to expand...

Zero Dark Thirty was the Hollywood movie made by Kathryn Bigelow with great assistance from the CIA. She was given access to certain classified information so that the movie could be made, revealing that the CIA had a vested interest in the success of the movie, that interest being the writing of history.

In truth, OBL died a natural death in his part of the world in December 2001.
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying there is a difference between civil procedures and criminal procedures, that there was never a criminal trial in the case of James Earl Ray, but there was a civil trial held in that regard. I'm saying that the jury, under the US system, is the arbiter of facts and law, and their purpose is to find the truth as best they can.
Click to expand...

I agree the standard is different between criminal and civil cases. In the case of MLK, the Judge accepted the plea because of the known evidence. There was no need to go to a jury.

This difference in procedures is highlighted by the OJ case. OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trail by a jury, but found guilty in the civil trial by a jury. So was the criminal trail jury incompetent in reaching the decision?
 
mike2810 said:
I agree the standard is different between criminal and civil cases. In the case of MLK, the Judge accepted the plea because of the known evidence. There was no need to go to a jury.

This difference in procedures is highlighted by the OJ case. OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trail by a jury, but found guilty in the civil trial by a jury. So was the criminal trail jury incompetent in reaching the decision?
Click to expand...

So what? There are many examples of utterly corrupt judges, not just on the federal bench.

Just within the last year or 1 a Pennsylvania judge was sentenced for having grossly miscarried justice dozens of times regarding juveniles.

The judge accepted the plea? Duh, it's a rare judge that does not accept a plea. FYI I am aware of a federal case from years ago where a conscientious judge rejected a plea, ordered the prosecutors to get honest, and they did. That is a rare case IMO.

The bulk of the evidence was contrived, and remained hidden for long years until Peppers found it through hard work.

Read the book Mike, and if you prefer not to, just "man-up" and say so. I don't care either way. :peace
 
Zionism killed MLK for protesting the 'nam war, which Zionism/Israel/LBJ wanted to go on forever so that Zionist Traitor LBJ could run US war factories and siphon off our best weapons and give them to Israel free of charge.

Dexter Scott King knows LBJ was behind it....

Son of Dr. King Asserts L.B.J. Role in Plot - The New York Times


"Three months ago, Dexter Scott King declared that he and his family believed that James Earl Ray was not guilty of the murder of his father, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Tonight, in a televised interview, Mr. King asserted that President Lyndon B. Johnson must have been part of a military and governmental conspiracy to kill Dr. King.

''Based on the evidence that I've been shown, I would think that it would be very difficult for something of that magnitude to occur on his watch and he not be privy to it,'' Mr. King said on the ABC News program ''Turning Point.''

Mr. King, who heads the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta, suggested that the Army and Federal intelligence agencies were involved in his father's assassination, in Memphis on April 4, 1968.

''I am told that it was part and parcel Army intelligence, C.I.A., F.B.I.,'' he said in the interview. ''I think we knew it all along.''"





LBJ was just a really awful human being, a liar, a kleptocrat, a murderer, and one of the worst Zionist Traitors....
 
This is the CIA write-up on the 67 war where Israel grabbed the Heights, the Bank, and the Strip. LBJ claimed on TV that Israel was attacked....

That was a typical lie from a Zionist Traitor. This is what LBJ was all about...



https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...s/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html


Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) President Johnson was gratified that because of CIA analyses and Helms's tip, he could inform congressional leaders later in the day that he had been expecting Israel's move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom