In 1993, Loyd Jowers was interviewed on the ABC News program PrimeTime Live. He said he had been paid $100,000 by the alleged Memphis mobster Frank Liberto to help organize the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968.
Jowers owned a restaurant, Jim’s Grill, very near the Lorraine Motel, where King often stayed while in Memphis and where the assassination took place.
Jowers claimed that besides Liberto, a man named “Raoul” and several Memphis Police Department officers were also involved in the assassination planning and execution. Jowers identified Memphis Police Lieutenant Earl Clark as the shooter.
Martin Luther King Jr’s wife and children saw the interview, and sued Loyd Jowers… for $100. The trial occurred in late 1999.
William Pepper represented the King family. The three-and-one-half-week trial, referred to in U.S. government records as simply King v. Jowers, was conducted in Memphis in Shelby County Circuit Court with presiding Judge James E. Swearengen.
Thousands of documents were presented; over 70 witnesses took the stand or were cited by deposition, audiotape, videotape, or by other witnesses.
Some observers commented on what they perceived as a surprising lack of American media interest in the trial. Bárbara Reis was a correspondent for the Lisbon daily Público who attended several days of the proceedings. She was quoted as saying, “Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?”
The jury required only one hour of deliberations to reach a unanimous verdict that King was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. They found Jowers responsible, and also found that “government agencies” were among the co-conspirators.
The King family was granted the $100 they requested in damages, and they saw the verdict as vindication.
The day prior to his death, Martin Luther King Jr. seemed to prophetically refer to the threats on his life, in what would be his last speech:
We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! And so I’m happy, tonight; I’m not worried about anything; I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!
You should know this because those who do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it. You may have reason to be suspicious of high profile assassinations.
Missing context: this was a civil trial, not a criminal one, which means there doesn’t have to be evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt and the verdict doesn’t have to be unanimous from the jury. If marginally more evidence supports the plaintiff, they win the case.
Which isn’t to say any of the conclusions the jury reached are necessarily incorrect, just that a civil trial doesn’t have the same level of required evidence, and it doesn’t make a guilty/not guilty determination, just one of liability.
Also potentially relevant is that Jowers’ sister claimed he lied about it to make money off the media attention, and that she backed him up so that she could pay off back owed taxes.
Trump declassifying the files about the assassination earlier this year also doesn’t scream to me that the government definitely did it.
I mean I don’t even see where the government fits into the account outside of local cops.
Interesting. By couching your skepticism in very dull (but no doubt accurate) legalese, you managed to avoid getting brigaded for effectively dissenting from the (also very dull) jaded-US-progressive groupthink in this community.