View From the Inside: The Anna Mae Aquash Trial or Candy, Anyone?

Earlier this month, the unraveling continued in the Pennington County Courthouse concerning the AIM-led cabal that condemned Anna Mae Pictou Aquash to death in 1975. Before he seated the jury, Judge Jack Delaney opened with the words, “Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to begin this trial. It will proceed in this manner.” The judge spelled out how he expected us, the spectators and the families, to behave, and the strict prohibition against the mere possession of an electronic device. So much for the cell phone; I would have to run to the car if I needed it, then rush back so I wouldn’t lose my seat. For the third time since 2004, I had a close-up view of justice in this long overdue murder case, of feeling the emotional ups and downs, and of hearing guilty people lie in the continuing saga of conspiracy on display.

After 35 years, the man accused of actually pulling the trigger of the gun placed to the back of Anna Mae’s head was sitting a few feet away from me, on the other side of the courtroom railing. Defendant John Boy Graham appeared confident that his lawyer, John Murphy, would lay the ground work for a successful defense. In his opening statement, Murphy told the jury that there was “no evidence linking my client to the crime.” But over the course of the seven-day trial, the jury would hear plenty of evidence linking his client to the crime. Really, all the prosecution had to do was let the jury hear about Anna Mae’s final hours, and how John Boy, in the wee hours of December 12, 1975, allegedly shot Anna Mae in the head before pushing her over a 30-foot cliff near Wanblee, South Dakota. Graham faced two counts of aiding and abetting the murder; one as the result of kidnapping Anna Mae and the other as an accessory to pre-meditated murder.

Much of the testimony was rehash from the Arlo Looking Cloud trial of February 2004 and Richard Marshall’s trial of April, 2010. In fact, both men took the stand. It appeared Arlo told the truth and Richard committed perjury, presumably on the advice of counsel, about the murder weapon Marshall says he did not provide. Arlo testified that he was standing a few feet away when Graham pulled the trigger. Following the obligatory testimony from federal investigators concerning the crime scene, former AIM members told how they learned what happened to Anna Mae. Many of them, armed with coached testimony, walked a fine line between implicating others and implicating themselves.

Troy Lynn Yellow Wood, for example, forgot to mention that she provided the rope used to tie Anna Mae’s hands. She recalled, however, as did several follow-on witnesses, that John Boy, Arlo and mother hen Theda Clarke marched Anna Mae out the rear of Troy Lynn’s Denver apartment not long after Corky Gonzalez drew his finger across his throat. A dozen or so onlookers watched as a young woman with her hands bound was led away and loaded into the back of Theda’s red Ford Pinto hatchback. Not one of them called the police, not then or later when they learned how Anna Mae died. Today, each of these witnesses will tell you that they were Anna Mae’s friend.

On the third day, Friday, Judge Delaney ruled that witness Ka-Mook Ecoffey, the former common-law wife of AIM founder Dennis Banks, would not be allowed to tell the jury what convicted killer Leonard Peltier told her and Anna Mae about his role in the murder of two FBI Agents. This undoubtedly came as a disappointment to the prosecution. In his opening statement, US Attorney Marty Jackley (deputized by the state of South Dakota), had said that Peltier admitted murdering FBI Agent Ron Williams. This was one of the reasons Anna Mae posed a threat to those who thought she was an informant; she knew too much. Peltier’s boast might have been the last straw for Anna Mae’s accusers; now they had to get rid of her. As Jackley put it, “She now had seriously incriminating evidence against Leonard Peltier.” Late on Friday, however, Judge Delaney reversed himself and informed the attorneys he would allow Ka-Mook to say the words she had already mentioned under oath at the first two trials: “The mother---er was begging for his life, but I shot him anyway.”

Over the weekend, I was invited to a book signing at the Prairie Edge bookstore and museum, and then to a short trip to the Crazy Horse memorial. There in the gift shop, we found two stacks of American Indian Mafia, prophetically surrounding Russell Means’ Where White Men Fear To Tread. Since Russ and his AIM buddies were nowhere to been seen during the trial, perhaps they are the ones who are fearful now. They should fear, for their freedom. Justice will have its say. On Sunday, I was invited to a predawn ceremony atop the cliff where Anna Mae was left to die. It was deadly cold, much like that night when, as Arlo says, Anna Mae was still moving at the bottom of the ravine. Justice must prevail.

People often ask why it took so long to begin indicting those responsible. Another way of asking the question might be: How did the AIM leaders and their lawyers keep the troops in line all these years? Well, for starters, as one the members later recalled, “No one ever crossed Russell or Dennis.” The agreed-upon story, first aired in Peter Matthiessen’s somewhat farcical, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, was that the FBI was behind the murder. Former AIM legal aid Candy Hamilton likes to tell this story. In fact, she carried that chum bucket into the courtroom.

On the witness stand, Candy crowed that the FBI and their Agent David Price, one of the investigators who worked on the case, were perhaps more likely suspects than say, Dennis Banks, Russell Means, Clyde Bellecourt, Dave Hill, Bill Means, Ted Means, Lorelie DeCora Means, Madonna Gilbert, Angie Begay, Tom Poor Bear, Charlie Abourezk, Ken Tilsen, or the Pinto trio who simply followed orders. This would be the same Candy Hamilton who had fairly frequent contact with several of those involved; the same Candy Hamilton who forgot to mention that she saw AIM attorney Bruce Ellison waving a piece of paper and claiming it was proof that Anna Mae was a traitor. And later, when it was obvious that Anna Mae had been murdered by Candy’s associates, she showed no interest in contacting law enforcement. Candy says she didn’t know who to trust. Seriously? Was Candy really suggesting that her AIM pals conspired with the people trying to solve the murder? Gosh, I guess everyone was against Anna Mae, except Candy of course.

For the most part, Candy’s story fell on deaf ears. At one time, the “FBI did it” theory had more legs. Today, after so many revelations of AIM complicity, the old saw has dulled. And as I put it to the Rapid City Journal, which gave Candy’s cackling a headline, the wheel of justice looks momentarily, then plows right through the nonsense. Hamilton’s story is still embraced by many of the people involved in the conspiracy, however. Along with a long list of complaints about his extradition from Canada, poor John Boy wanted it known that he also believed the FBI was somehow complicit in the murder he stood accused of committing. You see, Graham’s story was that he dropped Anna Mae off at a friend’s house, not off a cliff.

On the sixth day of the trial, the government rested its case. Now it was up to counselor Murphy to undo the damage from ten witnesses, each of whom had tied his client to the kidnapping and subsequent ride into the wilderness. The next morning, when Judge Delaney asked him if he was ready to call his first witness, Murphy responded, “Judge, the defense rests.” Graham’s defender was perhaps acknowledging that he had no earthly idea how to present evidence that would bolster his client’s story about an AIM safe house where supposedly Anna Mae was let go.

Graham’s supporters might have wondered why he himself didn’t take the stand. Graham would have presumably told the jury all about that house somewhere on the Pine Ridge reservation and how, after talking it over with Arlo and Theda, he emancipated Anna Mae. Poor girl must have run into some bad luck that night. Some safe house, huh? The jury never heard Graham’s description of the building that otherwise had no address, no physical description, no identifying characteristics, no owner, no chain of title, no utility bills, no tax receipts, no records of any kind. Maybe the reason Graham was kept off the stand is that he simply couldn’t remember where this house of safety was, who was living there, or if it had running water and a welcome mat.

No defense was supposedly no problem, but how to explain it to the ignorant masses? Once again, it was the Rapid City Journal to the rescue. Quoting an expert on such matters, attorney Robert Van Norman, the Journal explained that defense witnesses might not hold up too well on cross-examination, that is, if the defense had any witnesses worth calling. Perhaps Murphy thought better about putting AIM supporter and Graham defender David Seals on the stand, the one person who might have endorsed Graham’s safe house story. But then, on cross-examination, the prosecution would have had the chance to question Seals about his abduction by aliens, a story he also swears is true. Maybe Van Norman has a point.

For some of us in the courtroom, Graham’s fate was foretold by his victim, observed during Arlo’s rather damning testimony. It began with a knock on the courtroom back door. When the bailiff answered, there was no one there. A few moments later, the projector came on, casting a white beam on the wall. I was sitting a few feet away from it when this happened, and no one touched the darn thing. The prosecutors had been using it to show evidentiary photographs and perhaps now it was showing the light of truth. And then, in the middle of Arlo’s testimony, Judge Delaney’s landline phone began ringing, and he could not turn it off. Perhaps this was Anna Mae’s way of saying that the jury should believe Arlo. Apparently, they did.

After closing arguments on Thursday, the case went to the jury. The last thing the jury heard was state prosecutor Rod Oswald telling them that Graham’s safe house idea was just plain stupid. The end came in a few tension-filled moments. Late in the afternoon, after being hung on one of the charges, the jury came back with a 1 and 1; not guilty on the pre-meditation count, guilty on the kidnapping and accessory to murder. Either one was a fatal defeat for the defense, and for the others involved. By taking his client to state court, Murphy may have blundered, perhaps thinking he would have an easier time raising reasonable doubt under state statute. Graham will get life and fare worse than the parole-eligible Arlo Looking Cloud, convicted in 2004 of aiding and abetting the murder. Because, under state sentencing rules, Graham’s life sentence comes wrapped in a no-parole blanket. Graham will live the rest of his life behind bars, forever wondering if he should have cooperated with investigators.

Leonard Peltier likewise cannot be happy about the verdict, or about what was said of him. Witness Yellow Wood had offered that Anna Mae was first interrogated by Peltier some six months before her death. After he put a gun in Anna Mae’s mouth, Yellow Wood testified that Peltier laughed it off, saying that he wanted to “…hear it from the horse’s mouth.” With each new revelation, it becomes clearer that Peltier was in consultation with Dennis Banks over the fate of Anna Mae. And like Banks, Peltier has a problem answering a question, as posed by Anna Mae’s daughter, Denise: “I’m interested to know how Peltier knew my mother was dead in December when her unidentified body wasn’t found until February 24, and our family wasn’t informed that my mother was dead until March 5?” A very good question, given Peltier’s admissions:.

“I wasn’t running to Canada just to hide. I spend most of my time in the United States.”

“I think it was around that December when I heard that Anna Mae was dead. I was in that jail over there in Canada right around whenever they exposed who she really was and what she died from, but I believe I didn’t hear about it until December.”

And then there’s Peltier’s mistaken belief that the two young investigators he shot to death were looking for him:

“I can’t tell the system I was shooting at their police officers that were trying to arrest me…”

If Graham flips, perhaps he will clarify all the above. There were, after all, a lot of people involved in Anna Mae’s thoroughly pre-meditated murder. As Graham was quoted as saying when he was fighting extradition from his native Canada, “When everything comes out, I’ll have a lot of people to go with me.” Candy, anyone?.

Marshall Trial, Part II – Winners and Losers

It took the jury less than two hours to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to find Dick Marshall guilty of aiding and abetting the 1975 murder of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash. Marshall stood accused of providing the never-recovered .38 special used to shoot the victim in the head, an increasingly difficult charge to prove once defense counselor Dana Hanna raised the possibility that any one of the three alleged killers, Theda, Arlo, or John Boy, could have been packing their own heat. Indeed, much of the testimony revolved around whether or not Dick and his then-wife, Cleo, took possession of the murder note, “Take care of the baggage.” Given the many shortcomings in this second courtroom attempt to bring justice to Anna Mae, the easily-confused jury might have been more convinced that the Marshalls kept note paper rather than guns, let alone the gun.

When the trial moved to the deliberation room on Thursday, it was clear that things were not going as well as hoped in a controversy that pitted one tribal clan against another. In a case where the word of one convicted killer, Arlo Looking Cloud, challenged the word of another convicted killer, Dick Marshall, identifying the good guy and the bad guy was admittedly problematic. The jury's body language said it all: they just weren’t getting it. Even if the facts had been presented in a meaningful and clear manner, it would have been an uphill battle to “prove it” to jury members who said they spend their free time watching CSI shows on TV.

For the casual observer, it seemed unfair that virtually all the evidence that would have made the case a slam-dunk was deemed prejudicial and was thrown out. Short of a major turnaround - a surprise witness or an effective closing statement, both equally unlikely - the odds were against the government overcoming the threshold of reasonable doubt and reasonable conclusions. Interminable cross examinations involving testimony having little or nothing to do with the case, and a strategy tied to a pile of hearsay evidence, all pointed to a hung jury as the best possible outcome.

From the start, government prosecutors had their hands tied, sort of like the victim’s, just before Arlo and John Boy Graham (to be tried in July) dragged her to a cliff near Wanblee, South Dakota and ended her life. Not only did the government need to show evidence that Dick and his ex-wife kept guns in their house, prosecutors needed to convert the only person convicted of aiding and abetting the murder, Arlo, into a credible star-witness. This was a hurdle made even higher by the sweeping evidence the jury was not allowed to hear. For openers, there was the unmentioned minor cache of weaponry taken from the Marshall household when Dick went on trial for the 1975 murder of Martin Montileaux. In fact, Dick was awaiting trial in that case when he briefly held Anna Mae against her will in his living room. The jury was not allowed to hear how Dick had put a gun to Montileaux’s neck, a few months earlier, and had pulled the trigger as AIM leader Russell Means stood by and watched. The jury was not allowed to hear how Dick later confessed to the crime, or about possible reasons Dick was bound to do Russell’s bidding as body guard and enforcer. How about first-hand evidence of the state of fear that still exists on the reservation should anyone publicly mention several AIM murders yet to be adjudicated, or even investigated?

Understandably, the jury had trouble believing Arlo’s testimony that he is not as afraid of prison gangs as he is of Russell’s people, and of what they might do to any one of hundreds of Arlo’s family members. The all-white jury had no concept of having approximately 500 relatives on the reservation, as Arlo truthfully testified, or the threat from those who may yet seek revenge from anyone testifying against an aging but still menacing AIM crime machine, with a long history of preying on reservation Indians.

Still, there were small signs of progress in the hunt for Anna Mae’s killers. One of the key government witnesses, journalist Serle Chapman, provided emotional and compelling testimony about how AIM lawyers Ken Tilsen and Bruce Ellison tried to con him into believing that anyone who viewed photographs of the victim could have easily recognized the face as Anna Mae’s. Eventually, Chapman saw through the ruse and demanded to see the photographs. This was when, as he recalled on the witness stand, Chapman sensed that not only were AIM lawyers misleading him, they were doing so to shield their own involvement in the murder conspiracy.

For over thirty years, Ellison has led efforts to cover up his questioning of Anna Mae as she sat tied up in his Rapid City office a few days before his friends conspired against her. In 2001, Ellison famously decried reservation murders, such as Anna Mae’s, in front of a UN Human Rights Commission in another farce where AIM lawyers alleged FBI involvement in AIM murders. Ellison’s claim that Anna Mae’s badly decomposed body was easily identifiable is also one of several planted stories passed on to Peter Matthiessen, author of the highly falsified yet critically acclaimed, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse. Matthiessen has been stuck defending a long series of lies designed to exonerate his book’s main subject, Leonard Peltier, another convicted AIM killer. In both the Anna Mae murder and the Peltier murders of FBI Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams, Matthiessen’s story attempts to implicate and blame the FBI in a vast conspiracy of shady characters and mining company executives. Today it seems almost comical that Matthiessen credits Ellison and Peltier for helping him write a book the media once described as “meticulously researched.”

Although Marshall got off, his trial revealed a bit more of the truth in a growing movement of outrage against AIM lawyers and a hoped-for backlash. Arlo’s testimony, you may recall, outed Rapid City counselor Charlie Abourezk for his role in the murder. Senator James Abourezk’s son rounds out the trifecta of legal expertise that still provides pro bono cover-up and explains why achieving justice for Anna Mae has been long in coming. As was the case in the razing of Wounded Knee village in 1973 and the legal defense that followed, when the lawyers are involved in the crime, it becomes that much more difficult to win the courtroom battle. The rules are designed to protect the innocent, not highlight guilty officers of the court who manipulate rules of evidence to help themselves avoid jail time.

Still, there is hope. Justice seekers look forward to future trials and the possibility of testimony regarding attorney Ken Tilsen, who says his office records from the period of Anna Mae’s interrogations and death have mysteriously disappeared, and who claims a mild stroke prevents him from remembering much else from those days. In a remarkable irony, Tilsen was recently given a lifetime achievement award by the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I am sure his family members are proud of his achievements in the area of “lifetime” accomplishments and defending people’s “civil liberties.” But I doubt Anna Mae’s daughter Denise, who spent much of the trial in tears, believes Tilsen is deserving of anything but swift justice with regard to her mother’s civil liberties.

Tales From the Courtroom: Arlo Takes the Fall, Once Again

It has been several years since I last entered the mahogany-lined courtroom on the third floor of the Federal Court Building in Rapid City, South Dakota. That trial, in February 2004, ended in door-opening justice. Despite a hazy murder timeline and a sometimes confused jury, Arlo Looking Cloud was found guilty of aiding and abetting the 1975 execution murder of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash. American Indian Movement (AIM) leaders mistakenly believed that Anna Mae was an FBI informant. Her punishment, allegedly sanctioned by AIM founder Dennis Banks, was death. Arlo’s conviction shed light on a murder conspiracy that involved at least 20 people, several of whom had testified in an effort to remove themselves from the line of fire. I remember seeing AIM leader Russell Means, sitting about four rows back on the right half of the courtroom. When Judge Piersol called for a recess, I watched a tall white man with a ponytail stand up and look around towards Russell. Figuring him for an Indian wannabe, I followed his eyes. He looked right at Russell, rolled his eyes and half-smiled as if to say, so far so good, pal. As it turned out, it was a good outcome for some, judging by the six-year lag in courtroom trials.

.

Now, in the year 2010, we’re back in the same courtroom with the same judge. Judge Piersol walks softly (and is sometimes difficult to hear) but carries a big gavel, as when he threatened to clear the courtroom if he hears another cell phone. One notable difference this time around: the big fish are nowhere to be found. However, the same AIM underlings are testifying, and once again demonstrating an acquired skill of prevarication under oath. And getting away with it quite nicely. There was Candy Hamilton, gaunt and stern-looking, staring intently, telling the same old story of being surrounded by Anna Mae’s killers but not having a clue as to what was about to happen. Same for Troy Lynn Yellow Wood, still unable to summon any remorse for hosting Anna Mae’s abduction party. And Cleo Gates, the ex-wife of the accused, Richard Vine Marshall, saying they never kept a gun in their house during the most violent period in AIM history. The defendant sits expressionless next to his baldheaded defender, Dana Hanna, who is ready to pounce on any perceived inequity shown towards his client. At issue is whether or not Marshall, Russell Means’s former bodyguard, provided the murder weapon used to shoot Anna Mae in the head at close range. Marshall had already served time and admitted guilt for doing one for Russ, a fact the jury was not supposed to hear. Marshall’s 1977 murder sentence was commuted after he admitted fatally shooting Martin Montileaux in a barroom bathroom in 1975, the same year the AIM leadership condemned Anna Mae. Rumor has it that Montileaux was threatening to go public with information about secret AIM murders dating back to the Wounded Knee takeover in 1973. Standing next to Marshall when he shot Montileaux in the neck was his boss, Russell Means. Tried separately, Means was found not guilty.

Unlike many victims from the 1970s, the legacy of AIM leaders getting away with it is alive and well. Even at the time of the first trial, we knew Arlo’s conviction would become a hollow victory if the others did not follow him. You see, he was supposed to take the fall for his AIM leaders and their lying enablers. So far, so good. As is usually the case when adjudicating AIM violence, the real culprits slip through their escape hatch, to the waiting arms of semi-ignorant supporters, political opportunists, and Hollywood Lefties.

So now we’re faced with a similar dilemma in the courtroom: a confused jury, several co-conspirators committing perjury, and another uncertain outcome. And to make matters worse for the prosecution, Arlo has now become their star witness. Worse because Arlo had to explain changes to his story, twists that have kept the jurors awake. One was Arlo’s justification for previously not mentioning the stop at the Marshall residence for fear of what Russell’s hit man might have done to Arlo’s many reservation relatives. It was not until 2008 that Arlo changed his story to include the stop in Allen, South Dakota, and the house where Cleo said her husband did not keep a gun of any description. Unfortunately, I think the jury buys it. If they only knew how poorly Arlo has been served by previous defense counsel, that is, until a conscientious attorney by the name of Barry Bachrach decided to help Arlo, rather than help him roll over. Bachrach used to be Leonard Peltier’s attorney, until he saw the light and was bothered by a conscience that would not let him represent an unrepentant killer who has bilked millions of dollars from well-intentioned supporters egged on by the media. (But that’s a whole’ nother story!) At least Arlo shows true remorse, although it is difficult for the jury to see. Bachrach hopes the judge will allow him to violate his attorney-client privilege so he can testify on behalf of his client. Somebody needs to resuscitate Arlo’s story and credibility, and it might as well be his own lawyer. The judge will announce his ruling on the matter first thing Monday morning, despite Hanna’s calling it “extremely irregular.” Hanna was calm compared to when he loudly objected to Arlo blurting out that Marshall was “Russell Means’s enforcer.” “Objection!” thundered Hannah. “I move for an immediate mistrial… this has poisoned any chance for a fair trial for my client.” It did not seem fair that Arlo was forbidden from explaining why he feared Dick Marshall and had left out the part about being in Dick’s bedroom on the night of the murder. That was when Dick was allegedly handed a note with the instructions, “take care of the baggage” a quote Cleo changed to “take care of the luggage” when she was under oath. Hanna protests that Arlo’s new version is simply an attempt to have his life sentence reduced. The judge ruled that the show must go on.

Arlo’s other alteration came as an even bigger shock. 2008 was also the first time he mentioned the name of the man who greeted him at the door at Bill Means’s house, the second-to-last stop on Anna Mae’s final ride into the wilderness. When Arlo needed to use the bathroom, he temporarily left his prisoner in the back of the Pinto hatchback. When Arlo knocked on Russell's brother's door, he says he was greeted by Charlie Abourezk, Russell’s other main AIM buddy at the time. Today, Charlie is known as a well-placed lawyer in Rapid City and the son of South Dakota’s former Senator, James Abourezk. Arlo wants the jury to believe that anyone powerful and closely associated with Russell Means could be viewed as a very serious threat. He might be right about that. For the fellow who I spied in the courtroom, the one who gave the nod to Russell in 2004, was the same man Arlo says he fears. And his name is Charlie Abourezk.

www.americanindianmafia.com

Expertclick.com keyword: Trimbach

Letter to Red Nation

Former FBI Agent in Charge Joseph H. Trimbach awaits a response from the group, Red Nation, following its decision to award Leonard Peltier their first ever humanitarian award. The Trimbachs would like Red Nation and its founder, Joanelle Romero, to explain how Peltier has, in the words of the group, "...helped focus world attention on government repression of Native resistance throughout the Americas." Here is the letter from Trimbach:

December 3, 2009

Joanelle Romero, Founder - Red Nation
9420 Reseda Blvd PMB 352
Northridge CA, 91324-2974

Dear Ms. Romero,

I was the FBI Agent in charge of South Dakota when, on June 26, 1975, Leonard Peltier gunned down two young Agents under my supervision. I have recently learned that your organization, Red Nation, has awarded Peltier your first annual humanitarian award. I can only surmise that your group is unaware of the facts of this double murder and Peltier’s continued efforts to deflect attention from his crimes by masquerading as an American Indian victim of persecution. My book, American Indian Mafia, sets the record straight regarding Peltier’s made-up persona as a political prisoner and exposes the true legacy of Peltier’s crime bosses, leaders of the American Indian Movement (AIM).

I was there that day, responding to the frantic radio calls from 27-year-old Ron Williams after he and his partner, 28-year-old Jack Coler, came under fire from shooters well outside the range of their service revolvers. Exposed in an open field, the men were caught virtually defenseless. Peltier, at the time a wanted fugitive, later admitted that he mistakenly believed the Agents were there to arrest him. The evidence shows that Peltier fired from a distance of over 200 yards from the cover of a large elm tree. At least a hundred shell casings matching Peltier’s assault rifle were found at the scene. Other shooters joined in, all aiming at Ron and Jack as they sought cover behind their vehicles. Over 125 bullet holes were found in their Bureau cars.

After both men were wounded, Peltier and two of his accomplices went down to the injured Agents and shot them both at point-blank range. We know this because of the evidence presented at Peltier's trial and because Peltier later bragged about shooting Ron Williams in the face as he sat pleading for his life. The autopsy report confirms that Ron died with his right hand raised in front of his face to ward off the blast from Peltier’s weapon. We learned about Peltier’s boast from testimony given at the 2004 trial of AIM member Arlo Looking Cloud, who was found guilty of murdering AIM activist Anna Mae Aquash. I attended that trial, where the former common-law wife of AIM founder Dennis Banks, Ka-Mook Nichols, recalled under oath how Peltier reenacted his crime with gestures and boasted, “The motherf—ker was begging for his life but I shot him anyway.”

Six months after the Agents’ murders, Peltier’s leaders ordered the execution-style murder of Aquash, the mother of two young girls, because they thought she was an FBI informant. She was never an informant. Once again, AIM thugs had acted on faulty assumptions. Looking Cloud and his accomplice dragged Anna Mae from a car, shot her in the head, and pushed her off a cliff. Peltier had earlier interrogated Anna Mae by putting a loaded gun in her mouth. He called this administering “truth serum.” Peltier may have sealed Anna Mae’s fate because she was also present when he boasted about shooting Agent Williams. Peltier had given his leaders another reason to eliminate her.

In July of this year, I sat a few feet away from inmate Peltier at his parole hearing, where I urged him to accept responsibility for his crimes and ask for forgiveness from his victims’ families. As I read my statement, he could only stare at the floor. The parole board found him to be undeserving, defiant, and completely without remorse. Like every judge who has reviewed the Peltier murder case, the board saw through his phony cloak of victimhood. Every one of Peltier’s alibis has been exposed as a cynical ruse directed against his supporters, whom he must surely regard as mindless tools.

For over 30 years, Peltier has relied on the ignorance of political organizations and well-intentioned human rights activists to sustain the myth of his innocence and the success of his illicit defense fund, now operating under a fraudulent non-profit corporation. Your group is just the latest to fall victim to the same old conspiracy theories and shameless lies of Peltier and his chief falsifiers, Peter Matthiessen, the author of In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, and Robert Redford, the producer of the documentary, Incident at Oglala. As my book documents, both of these media productions are full of distortions, falsehoods, and Peltier’s well-rehearsed fables.

It is time for all people who have been fooled by the Peltier propaganda machine to educate themselves on the facts and join Native American groups who rightly condemn Peltier and his misguided defenders. I urge Red Nation to rescind the award given this unrepentant killer and take a stand for Native American truth and virtue. It is not too late to restore dignity and honor to your humanitarian award. There are plenty of American Indians deserving of your accolades, but the pathetic manipulator who now serves two consecutive life sentences in a federal penitentiary is certainly not one of them.

Sincerely,


Joe Trimbach
www.americanindianmafia.com

Letter asks the National Museum of the American Indian to Support Truthful Indian History and Exposes Leonard Peltier Fund Fraud

In a letter to the Director of the National Museum of the American Indian, former FBI Agent in Charge Joseph H. Trimbach asks for the Director's help in supporting truthful Native American history. The letter also raises questions about the legality of Leonard Peltier's legal defense funds. On April 28, 2008, Peltier's sister, Betty Ann Solano, filed articles of incorporation for the Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee. The fund was previously known as the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee. Peltier's funds are filed under nonprofit corporations in possible violation of IRS tax regulations and disclosure requirements. Peltier has thus far refused to publicly disclose his financial records.

October 7, 2009

Mr. Kevin Gover, Director
National Museum of the American Indian
PO Box 23473
Washington, DC 20026

Dear Mr. Gover,

Congratulations on the fifth anniversary of the National Museum of the American Indian. The museum showcases a masterful display of Indian culture and artistry and has become a wonderful addition to the Smithsonian. It has come to my attention, however, that the museum bookstore sells a book that falsifies Indian history by depicting a murderer as an Indian hero. Peter Matthiessen’s In the Spirit of Crazy Horse glorifies convicted killer Leonard Peltier and places him on a pedestal alongside the brave and noble Chief Crazy Horse. My account of what happened, American Indian Mafia, takes issue with this attempt to portray Peltier’s cowardice and evil as Indian heroism and virtue. I cite several Native Americans who honor the truth and who contributed to setting the historical record straight. Award-winning Native journalist Tim Giago wrote that American Indian Mafia “takes apart” In the Spirit of Crazy Horse “and exposes it for the fraud that it is. It is refreshing to finally hear the other side of the story.” Paul DeMain, editor of News from Indian Country, says that my book helps expose Peltier’s foggy alibis and false cry for human rights.

Mr. Gover, I was the FBI Agent in Charge when, on June 26, 1975, Peltier gunned down two of my Agents on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. After the men were injured and disarmed, Peltier executed both of them with his assault rifle. We know this because of the evidence presented at his trial and because Peltier later boasted about shooting 28-year-old Ron Williams in the face at point-blank range as he sat pleading for his life and trying to save Jack Coler, his injured partner. Peltier’s recent parole board concluded that he is undeserving of parole based on his behavior behind bars. I read a statement to Peltier at his July 28 hearing; and I can assure you that he remains defiant, manipulative, and utterly unrepentant.

Despite losing all his appeals, Peltier and his lawyers have fooled many people into believing that he was framed for the murders. Rather than accept responsibility for his crimes, Peltier exploits his Indian ancestry by sponsoring a fraudulent defense fund under the shelter of a tax-exempt organization. Over the last 30 years, Peltier has collected millions of dollars abusing the charitable instincts of people who care about genuine Indian suffering and hardship. Donors have no idea that this money is doled out to Peltier’s friends and supporters. Proceeds from the sale of In the Spirit of Crazy Horse also go directly to Peltier’s not-for-profit corporation, with no accountability.

Mr. Gover, the National Museum of the American Indian is a cultural gem that has enlightened and educated millions of visitors, but having Matthiessen’s book on display in your bookstore is a conspicuous blot on an otherwise fine collection of Indian literature. It is bad enough to invoke the spirit of Crazy Horse in defense of a murderer, but it is even worse to profit from this charade under the guise of authentic Indian history.

I am not in favor of censorship, but I believe you owe it to your patrons to present “both sides of the story.” Please consider making my historical account available in your bookstore so that people will have access to a fact-based rebuttal to Peltier’s lies. I hope you will take the occasion of the museum’s gala celebration to allow me, as well as the Indian witnesses in American Indian Mafia, the opportunity to counter Peter Matthiessen’s unconscionable depiction of Leonard Peltier as an Indian hero.

Regards,

Joseph H. Trimbach

AmericanIndianMafia.com
Expertclick.com keyword: Trimbach

10 Reasons Why Leonard Peltier Should Never Be Freed

July 26, 2009 - For the last 33 years, Leonard Peltier supporters have called for his release from the confines of the federal penitentiary. That is where Peltier has resided all these years, save for a brief moment of freedom when Peltier engineered an armed escape in which another inmate was shot dead by prison guards. Peltier got away but was captured a few days later after his big white tennis shoes highlighted his hiding place in the bushes of Santa Maria, California. After being convicted of escaping and using a firearm to do so, Peltier received another seven years tacked on to his two consecutive life sentences.

For the record, Peltier objects to serving time for the execution-style murders of FBI Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams on June 26, 1975. Peltier has always claimed that the truth of his innocence has never had a chance to blossom. While truth, no doubt, plays a reassuring role in the quest for justice, it is not something that has been a friend to the infamous Native American cause célèbre. The truth is particularly harmful to Peltier this year because he comes up for a truth-detecting parole board hearing in two days, on July 28, his first since 1993. Some say this is his last chance to bamboozle the board with his version of the truth.

Nevertheless, Peltier's fans, at one time numbering in the millions, remain hopeful; people like Robert Redford, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and the fact finders at Amnesty International, all of whom have never been impressed by the mountain of evidence against their favorite felon. Even those who say Peltier may be guilty as charged argue that he should be freed for "humanitarian" reasons because he'll soon be 65-years-old.

Though most Peltier supporters are loath to admit it, the truth has never failed to surface about Peltier's role in the executions; first during his trial, and ever since, through old secrets revealed. Moreover, the evidence has always beaten a path to Peltier's cell door, most often by way of his own flawed thinking and verbal admissions. Peltier thought the Agents were there to arrest him (they weren't), that he was justified in shooting two men in the face at point-blank range (he wasn't), and that he can now lie his way to freedom before a parole board (he can't.)

But because Peltier says he didn't do it, his followers simply believe him. Not only do they believe him, they issue astounding proclamations in support of his innocence, his make-belief persona as "political prisoner," and his "human rights activist" nonsense. As one blogger recently swore, "Leonard Peltier is not in prison for killing the two Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Agents as is alleged, he has been incarcerated for 33 years because he belonged to a group (American Indian Movement) that dared to challenge the federal government and their lies. When one has the audacity to challenge the fedgov, he/she becomes a target for malicious prosecution, fabricated evidence, witness tampering and illegal imprisonment. Leonard Peltier has experienced all of these in the extreme. "

"Extreme" is certainly a word Peltier pushers are familiar with. "Extreme," as in not allowing the facts to get in the way of regurgitating fables and falsehoods. "Extreme," as in ignoring the Federal Register, the Federal Record, and the court testimony, all of which place Peltier at the scene of the crime, at the moment the killing shots were fired. And so in the spirit of Coler and Williams, here are ten truthful reasons why an unrepentant Peltier should never see the light of day as a free man:

1. Peltier was fairly tried and fairly convicted. This is the conclusion of every single federal judge who's reviewed the case. Since his conviction in 1977, the evidence against Peltier has been repeatedly confirmed, expanded, and corroborated. [See: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/585.html (Note FN 15: "The two witnesses testified outside the presence of the jury that after their testimony at trial, they had been threatened by Peltier himself that if they did not return to court and testify that their earlier testimony had been induced by F.B.I. threats, their lives would be in danger")]

2. Facts of the case prove that Peltier opened fire on the Agents from a distance of over 200 yards. Armed with only their side arms, both young men were soon wounded. After the initial shooting ended, Peltier, along with two other men, walked down to the wounded Agents and finished them off, shooting them both in the face at point-blank range.

3. A few months after the murders, Peltier bragged about killing Agent Ron Williams, as recalled by a witness in a separate murder trial in 2004. Under oath, the witness recalled Peltier's exact words: "The motherfu—er was begging for his life but I shot him anyway." (See: http://www.jfamr.org/doc/kmtest1.html.)

4. Peltier has parlayed his Native American ancestry into a successful defense fund, bilking millions of people out of their time and money. He has fooled Amnesty International, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, the Dali Lama, and people all over the world. Peltier is supported by Hollywood heavyweights such as David Geffen, Barbra Streisand, and Oliver Stone, all of whom have fallen prey to his propaganda machine. Robert Redford produced and narrated a documentary that relies on politics and propaganda to explain away Peltier's guilt, such as the Mr. X alibi concocted by Peltier's friends. The X story, promoted by author Peter Matthiessen in an effort to sell his book about Peltier, was later exposed as a complete hoax.

5. Freeing an unrepentant murderer runs contrary to all principles of parole and rehabilitation. A free Peltier would undermine law enforcement efforts, subvert the rule of law, and compound the anguish of the victims' families. Freeing the killer of two FBI Agents would be particularly devastating to other Federal Agents who risk their lives every day in pursuit of criminals. Parole to a remorseless killer would also be detrimental to American interests by giving ammunition to our enemies. They will point to our system of justice as obviously flawed, thus confirming their argument that Peltier was wrongfully convicted and that our court system is unfair. Worldwide media will parrot these conclusions as if they are fact-based.

6. Freeing a guilty killer like Peltier would undermine efforts to investigate crimes on Indian reservations. Many Indians would view his freedom as a sign that the FBI and the Justice Department had always tried to mislead Indian Country about the facts of the case. Many Indians would be more reluctant to cooperate with current investigations.

7. Peltier claimed his prison break in July 1979 was in response to being targeted for assassination by evil FBI Agents. The truth is that inmate Peltier had planned his escape for several years, and counted on help from outside contacts such as actor Max Gail. Peltier must be held responsible for the needless death he caused during his escape and for threatening a man from whom he stole a truck during his getaway.

8. If Peltier is freed, it will be more difficult to indict him on other murders in which he may have been involved. In one of these cases, Peltier interrogated a young woman, Anna Mae Aquash, by putting a loaded gun in her mouth. Aquash's execution was ordered by leaders of the American Indian Movement (AIM) because they mistakenly believed that she was an FBI informant. (See www.americanindianmafia.com/audio/GunInHerMouthReMix.wmv.)

9. Contrary to his claims, Peltier has always put himself above the welfare of Native Americans. One of his recent newsletters opened with the words, "May Death Be Upon You, FBI." These are not the thoughts of an innocent man, but rather the wish of someone wanting to incite violence. Even if Peltier did not author the message, he has not disavowed it, either. The truth is, Peltier would like nothing better than to agitate for criminal acts against Indians who oppose his freedom and who count on the FBI to apprehend evildoers on the reservation. Peltier has nothing but contempt for our system of justice.

10. Peltier's 1993 Parole Board recognized that he was convicted of aiding and abetting the murders. But then the Board went on to say: "... the greater probability is that you yourself fired the fatal shots... It would be unjust to treat the slaying of these F.B.I. agents, while they lay wounded and helpless, as if your actions had been part of a gun battle. Neither the state of relations between Native American militants and law enforcement at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation prior to June 26, 1975, nor the exchanges of gunfire between individuals at the Jumping Bull Compound and the law enforcement agents who arrived there during the hours after Agents Coler and Williams were murdered, explains or mitigates the crimes you committed... Your release on parole would promote disrespect for the law in contravention of 18 U.S.C..."

There is no question that Leonard Peltier is guilty. He has done nothing to earn his freedom. He has done nothing to show that he accepts responsibility for his crimes. To this day, he remains defiant, manipulative, and completely remorseless. Freeing this ruthless killer would be a terrible travesty of justice.

PBS Accused of Distorting Indian History; Falls Prey to Propaganda

Sometimes you have to take a stand against widely-accepted propaganda and defend unpopular truths. The last place we thought we would encounter resistance to the truth is the taxpayer-funded Public Broadcasting System. But now it appears that the bigwigs at PBS intend to dig in their heels. They insist that their recently released film, “Wounded Knee,” is a fair and balanced account of the takeover and destruction of the historic village in 1973. We beg to differ. To make our point, we formed a group, the Wounded Knee Victims and Veterans Association (WKVAVA.) Our group includes people who have either studied Wounded Knee or else have documented knowledge of what happened there. We stack up well against PBS’s “prominent scholars.” Unlike them, some of us were actual participants in the occupation and the efforts to end it peacefully. We therefore carry credibility of the sort that seems to be lacking at PBS HQ. Included in our group is JoAnn Gildersleeve Feraca (Chippewa), daughter of Agnes and Clive Gildersleeve, owners of the Wounded Knee Trading Post; Romona and Saunie Wilson (Lakota), daughters of Tribal Chairman Richard Wilson; Richard Two Elk (Lakota), Wounded Knee Veteran and former member, American Indian Movement; Patrick LeBeau, (Cheyenne River Sioux, Chippewa), Professor of Indian Studies, Michigan State University; Paul DeMain (Oneida-Ojibwe), Editor, News from Indian Country; and Shawn White Wolf (Northern Cheyenne), CEO, White Wolf Media Group. In addition to protecting the true story of Wounded Knee, our mission is to correct the historical record wherever we find evidence of distortion and propaganda with regard to the legacy of the American Indian Movement (AIM.) And we find much distortion and propaganda (and some backpedaling) from the folks at PBS. Here are excerpts from our first and second letters (May 10 and July 10, 2009) to PBS’s CEO, Paula Kerger.

Dear Ms. Kerger,

We wish to express our concerns about the PBS-backed production of “Wounded Knee,” the final installment of the “American Experience - We Shall Remain” series, which is scheduled to air on May 11, 2009. We believe that the producer, Stanley Nelson of Firelight Media, violates PBS’s own guidelines for editorial integrity, honesty, and fairness. PBS guidelines state: “When editing, producers of informational content must not sensationalize events or create a misleading or unfair version of what actually occurred” and that “(p)roducers must assure that edited material remains faithful in tone…” and is presented “…in a manner that fairly portrays reality.” “Wounded Knee” fails on all counts. This production employs distorted editing, deceptive statements, audience manipulation, and a propagandistic narrative that rationalizes the terror, violence, and murders perpetrated by members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) during the 1973 occupation of the historic Indian village of Wounded Knee.

This film attempts to explain away the destruction of the village by invoking historical issues (broken treaties, Indian boarding schools, government-sponsored relocation, etc.) and by rationalizing the criminality of the perpetrators. One of the film’s worst transgressions is its contemptible disregard for the real victims of Wounded Knee, the villagers who lived there. Aside from a brief statement from one of the Indian hostages, Agnes Gildersleeve, the villagers’ stories are virtually absent from this film. “Wounded Knee” does not even show how AIM systematically tore the village apart and reduced it to complete devastation. The film does not mention that AIM looted the town, stole people’s personal possessions, slaughtered cattle in their bedrooms, fire-bombed their homes and vehicles, and desecrated their churches. AIM occupiers stole or destroyed a collection of priceless Indian artifacts when they pillaged the Wounded Knee museum. Rather than condemn AIM violence, “Wounded Knee” serves as a mouthpiece for the perpetrators who spew their distortions and lies without challenge. To glorify AIM in this way is not only deceitful, it is offensive. This film cheapens genuine Indian valor and heroism.

For a documentary that purports to be about the armed takeover of a community and its consequences, these are serious shortcomings that demand a response. From a philosophical point of view, the argument that the terror, violence, theft, and loss of life associated with the razing of an Indian village were somehow justified is an argument that is fundamentally flawed and must be exposed.

Producer Nelson went to great lengths to tell only the perpetrators’ side of the story. He misled interviewees, such as Wounded Knee resident Walter Littlemoon, about what would be in the film. Nelson reneged on his agreement to interview Wounded Knee veteran Richard Two Elk, a condition agreed to in exchange for Joe Trimbach’s participation. Nelson used Trimbach’s interview anyway. Nelson or his surrogates omitted American Indian Mafia from the PBS bibliography. This book, which is supported by thorough documentation, is arguably the most complete and factual account of Wounded Knee’s destruction. After Joe Trimbach registered a complaint with your legal department, Mafia was added to the PBS list. One wonders if Mafia was initially excluded simply because it exposes several of the books in the same list as falsified and fraudulent accounts of AIM history and of Wounded Knee. Nelson relies on these falsified books to support his distorted version of what happened in the village. To reference only the falsified accounts is inexcusable. To use this tainted information to construct leading questions for the PBS-endorsed school curriculum is equally scandalous and must also be exposed. There is not one question, for example, that asks how the villagers lost everything they owned.

We believe that Nelson’s failure to interview Two Elk was partly due to the fact that he witnessed the Wounded Knee murder of Perry Ray Robinson, a topic Nelson shows no interest in pursuing. Robinson, the only black man seen inside the village during that period, was a civil rights activist and a colleague of Martin Luther King. Robinson was shot by an AIM leader during a heated argument. His death and burial near the village ruins is one of many AIM secrets that Nelson’s production has now helped cover up.

Another example of deception is the conspicuous absence of any footage showing Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, a prominent and highly visible AIM member at Wounded Knee. Aquash was murdered by AIM leaders in 1975 because they mistakenly believed that she was an FBI informant. Ironically, Wounded Knee warrior Madonna Thunder Hawk, featured throughout the film, is also implicated in Aquash’s murder and its subsequent cover-up. Carter Camp, another featured AIM leader, has been repeatedly caught in a lie about knowing Ray Robinson. Today, Camp denies ever meeting him. On camera, Camp has nothing to say about Anna Mae either. In fact, most of the AIM leaders interviewed for this film have been implicated in the Aquash and Robinson murders. Anna Mae likely knew about the Robinson shooting and her leaders’ attempts to keep his death a secret, and now it appears Nelson has joined the effort to write her out of existence as well. AIM leaders must surely approve.

Instead of documenting Indian history, "Wounded Knee" denigrates genuine Indian sacrifice and makes a mockery of true Indian heroism shown in previous segments. We intend to pursue every means available to expose this film for its dishonesty, its revisionist agenda, and its abject failure to tell a fact-based and fair-minded story of Wounded Knee. This production abuses the public trust by recycling and legitimizing what can only be described as vintage AIM propaganda. A PBS-sanctioned curriculum that indoctrinates our children must also be challenged. We therefore demand redress. We want equal time for rebuttal, balance, and clarification. The American public deserves better from our publicly-funded programming. We ask for your immediate response to our concerns.

PBS responded a few days later with a letter from PBS Executive Producer Mark Samels and with comments from some of their paid consultants. Here is our reply:

Dear Ms. Kerger,

This is in response to your letter of May 15 and to comments from the June 5 PBS mailbag in support of the American Experience film, “Wounded Knee.” In our letter of May 10, we expressed misgivings about the film and the manner in which it was produced. We believe that the points we raised deserve consideration and debate because they identify issues this film does not address but that are nevertheless central to its integrity and historical accuracy. As you know, we drew attention to a range of issues producer Stanley Nelson took pains to avoid, all of which would have undermined the credibility of AIM leaders Nelson interviewed for the film and whom he portrays as reliable sources. Our concerns focus on the film’s tendency to cover up serious crimes committed by these same AIM leaders during the occupation of Wounded Knee. We were also troubled by the explanation for why American Indian Mafia, the only book that mentions these crimes in detail, was initially dropped from the PBS bibliography. We had hoped PBS officials would respond in an honest and objective manner and perhaps offer insights unknown to us. After reading PBS’s official response, however, our concerns remain.

We do not agree with Executive Producer Mark Samels’s assessment that the film is “even-handed in the portrayal of the siege,” primarily because the film almost completely ignores the Indian victims of Wounded Knee. Nor is Samels correct when he claims that archival footage “clearly shows” the village devastation. In fact, the film does not show any of the fire-bombed homes or the mass vandalism that left most Indian residences completely uninhabitable. Tribal Chairman Dick Wilson was never the mayor of Pine Ridge, as Samels asserts, nor does the film follow through with what Samels says is its intent to show the effect the takeover had on Indians across the county. The film’s argument that Wounded Knee had a positive effect on Native Americans is almost entirely anecdotal and is offered by AIM supporters. There is hard evidence, as well, that suggests the takeover had a negative effect on Indians nationwide and on AIM. Just after Wounded Knee, AIM leaders drew less than 200 Indians to their national convention. The National Tribal Chairman’s Association condemned AIM for destroying the historic village; and when AIM took over a manufacturing plant in New Mexico the following year, hundreds of Navajos lost their jobs. Nelson’s film mentions none of this. On an empirical basis, it is easier to show that the destruction of an Indian village spelled the end of AIM as a credible organization formed to help other Indians. The producers are left with the shaky proposition that legal defense costs explain why AIM’s demise coincided with AIM’s greatest achievement.

Mr. Samels claims that American Experience has responded to our concerns “fully and responsibly,” but then he seems to contradict himself by saying that he does not feel it is “necessary or prudent” to respond point by point to our objections. It may not be prudent to admit the film’s shortcomings, but it is definitely necessary in the interest of portraying true Indian history. We are not persuaded by his assurances that the film was reviewed by “prominent scholars of Native American history,” especially when it appears that our first-hand insights into what really happened at Wounded Knee address the very questions these experts are unable to answer.

Film advisor Paul Chaat Smith admits he is unfamiliar with many of the issues we raised. That is understandable, but it is not a basis upon which to label them “extreme.” Reporting a myriad of sourced facts, as was done in American Indian Mafia, may be ground-breaking, even provocative; but it is surely not extreme. Furthermore, if Mr. Smith is going to make our argument for us, we wish he would do so accurately. Our concerns have always been with the corruption and criminality of the AIM leadership, not, as Mr. Smith suggests, with the membership or the ideals the Movement espoused. We do not accept the notion that “Wounded Knee” presents the “Native American perspective.” Rather, the film presents, very effectively, a dishonest “AIM leadership perspective”; and there’s a huge difference between the two. Then, as today, the leadership preyed on the membership, as evidenced by the distortions in this film. We agree with film adviser Robert Warrior’s assessment that, “…where AIM goes chaos often follows,” if “chaos” means violence, destruction, and murder perpetrated by the leaders. We do not see the need to parse words, however, or to provide cover to those who still wield power through fear and intimidation.

“Wounded Knee” strongly suggests that AIM “is responsible for many positive changes in Indian Country”; yet, like Mr. Smith, the film is short on evidence, aside from a hazy reference to Indians feeling good about being Indian and a hard-to-prove correlation to the revitalization of Indian culture. For example, the argument that the National Museum of the American Indian would not exist without AIM’s influence is more than problematic, especially considering that AIM is virtually absent from all exhibits. Mr. Smith raises some interesting issues, however, such as the phenomenon of an annual Pine Ridge celebration of the 1973 occupation, an event that left the reservation worse off in countless ways. How did the local history become so perverted? And how did national media coverage of the occupation color the way the history was recorded?

We find Professor R. David Edmunds’s comments particularly disappointing. He insists that a response to our concerns would be too lengthy to be of much use. How odd for an academic to make such an argument. He further states that he lacks a law degree that might otherwise enable him to answer a few questions of the sort that can be found through honest research. The professor might simply be unqualified to address the issues we raised. Perhaps this is why he fails to mention our primary complaint about the film, which is of course the lack of information about the real victims of Wounded Knee: the people who lived there and the people who died there. Why is it so difficult to address the charge that this film runs roughshod over the Oglala perspective in favor of AIM criminality?

Professor Edmunds concludes by referencing his vast experience as a basis for belittling our point of view as “the perspective of a very small group of people with a particular agenda, and will be generally ignored by almost everyone else.” He may hope so, but it appears the professor has an agenda of his own. We challenge him to debate us on the AIM lies and distortions in his book, The People: A History of Native America. A number of this book’s characterizations of AIM are easily exposed as propaganda that originated with AIM leaders and their lawyers. While there may be many fine attributes to the professor’s research in other areas, his AIM expertise is suspect; he seems threatened by the facts, especially the facts with which he is unfamiliar. This gets to the heart of our objections and the weaknesses inherent in the film’s premise of presenting AIM leaders as reliable sources and as righteous pioneers. This approach tied the hands of “Wounded Knee” producer, Stanley Nelson, as he avoided certain issues at all costs in order to advance his agenda of sanitizing the Wounded Knee historical record. We maintain that a more objective approach to Wounded Knee realities would have led to some very interesting questions.

Consider, for example, the death of Viet Nam veteran Buddy Lamont on April 27 of the occupation. As alluded to in the film, challenging AIM leader Dennis Banks’s authority was a very dangerous thing to do at Wounded Knee, even for a local Oglala leader like Lamont. The film has AIM member Beau Little Sky saying that, to him, Lamont’s death was a murder. It may very well have been a murder, since Lamont was shot in the back, and apparently from a much shorter range than the hundreds of yards that separated militant bunkers from government roadblocks. Why didn’t AIM leaders immediately call for a ceasefire when Lamont was hit, as they did when Frank Clearwater (the only other “official” death) was struck by a stray bullet ten days earlier? In fact, Dennis Banks rejected a government-offered ceasefire at about the time Lamont was shot, and AIM leader Carter Camp admits he left Lamont’s body where it lay for over two hours before staging a rescue. Why?

The same Carter Camp extolled in the film as he speaks of the “horror” of the 1890 massacre is not asked about murder victim Ray Robinson or the horror he surely experienced. Robinson bled to death after being shot by an AIM leader a few days before Lamont was killed. Why did Camp once claim that he had to leave Robinson after he was “shot through both legs” at Wounded Knee? Why does Camp now say he never met the man? What does Camp have to say about Robinson’s friend, Al Cooper, who was chained to a bed while Camp and other AIM leaders pondered his fate as a possible snitch? And what happened to the people who didn’t pass the spy test? We would like to see a film where narrator Benjamin Bratt asks these questions with the same serious tone as he uses when misstating what happened at Wounded Knee Creek in 1890. At the very least, these issues would lend new meaning to the PBS questions designed to “challenge students,” such as: “Who are some of the most successful Native American leaders at the beginning of the 21st century?”

To summarize, we are not satisfied by the responses to our concerns from the PBS experts and their paid consultants. We believe that any impartial examination of this film must acknowledge its tendency to promote distortions injurious to true Indian history. We will continue to press for a fair, impartial, and informed response to our concerns. PBS viewers should be presented a fuller picture of what happened at Wounded Knee than only the perspective of AIM leaders engaged in cover-up and the massaged story of a doomed village with no victims. That is why we are encouraged by the words of PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler. We agree with his conclusion that further discussion is warranted; the public interest is not well served by stifling debate and undercutting honest inquiry. We applaud his call for a group of scholars not connected to the program to take a second look at the film and possibly debate its merits. We can suggest a panel of experts such as Native publisher Tim Giago and former government administrator Dr. Jim Wilson, both of whom will challenge many of the film’s premises and claims. In the spirit of fairness and historical accuracy, we ask you to schedule a roundtable discussion of the issues we have raised. We look forward to PBS following through with what Mr. Getler agrees is the quintessential mandate of PBS: the pursuit of historical “authenticity.”