Clemency is being sought for Leoonard Peltier, a leader of the American Indian Movement, who was convicted of murder after a 1974 incident at Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The facts surrounding the incident can be found at: http://www.freepeltier.org
Was justice served in this case? Or was Peltier a scapegoat? Your opinion?
well, one set of facts anyway.
I think justice was served, hot and tasty…but after 26 years, clemency may not shatter the Republic. And Geraldo needs a new guest.
Estimated odds on Peltier clemency: 5-1.
Susan McDougal: even money.
Jonathan Pollard: 50:1.
My opinion is that this is one of those instances – the actual incident, the investigation, the arrest, the trial, and the publicity generated ever since – when just about everyone on both sides of the issue has made major mistakes and have created a huge amount of misinformation, both purposefully and unintentionally. I’ve pretty much thrown up my hands at the whole thing. If I was suddenly put in charge of the universe, and had to make a decision one way or the other, I would grant Peltier clemency because I believe he did not receive a fair trial, and that there no longer exists any means to prove either his guilt or innocence.
They werer discussing this yesterday on the radio. THe other side states that he admits to being there, that he was later found with one of the officer’s weapons, that he got in two subsequent shoot outs with law officers, that the indians fired something like 129 shots and the agents shot 5, that witnesses stated that they saw him with one of the weapons proved to fire fatal shots, that the officers were shot execution style…
Conspiracy theories aside, it does not look to me like the dude was clean. Has he ever denied firing at the officers?
Why is this such a cause celebre?
Out of 129 shots the only ones that hit were fired from ‘execution’ range ?
If 129 shots were fired then there must be others involved.Why have the ‘witnesses’ not named them ?
The FBI agents only returned 5 rounds ? During what must have been an quite a fusillade and then they just threw away their, presumably still loaded, weapons.
If the offenders could not hit with 129 shots why would the agents surrender when they obviously had extremely good cover ?
The Native Americans had been divided over the way money had been distributed to the reservations board and there had been several serious incidents between the factions.
There was a lot of high feeling with both sides being prepared to do whatever it took to neutralise the other, the anti-Peltier witnesses came from the opposing group.
I doubt that it would constitute reliable and unbiased sources.
The gun alleged to have killed the agents was found in a burned out pick up, the fire damaged it and the prosecution said that it could not be subjected to the full range of tests that it would normally undergo.
In fact inspection of the hammer marks revealed, in the original trial, that it was not the weapon used in the killings.
Later on appeal this was further confirmed when the bullet rifling marks did not match.
The FBI simply misled the jury about the possibility of testing the weapon, as was proven by the subsequent successful examinations.
Eyewitness statements about the pick up’s direction when leaving the scene conflict, it was placed at one location that would logically follow in time but was described as a minibus, not a pick up.
This may not have been the main evidence against Peltier but its importance was not acknowledged by the trial judge.
In the end he may be guilty as hell but there are some loose ends.
In this country, if there was a problem with the trial that was serious enough, then you walk, guilty or innocent. It is up to the state to try you again.
I’m pretty sure that Peltier wasn’t lily white in this thing, but it sure doesn’t sound like anyone else was either. In that case, the defendant gets the extra base.
How many times has this case been examined on appeal?
If the appeals have been exhausted with no contrary finding (and after 26 years, this might be the case), then he’s stuck unless some governer or chief executive wants to touch it, which I doubt will happen.
casdave wrote:
Ever gone target shooting at an infoor gun range?
You can go through 100 rounds of ammo pretty darned fast, particularly if you’re “rapid firing” with a semiautomatic (to say nothing of how fast you’ll burn up ammo with an assault rifle on full automatic!) – and still never hit the broad side of a barn.
Two FBI agents, with a warrant and reason to believe that a fugitive is in the AIM camp go there. They are fired on by numerous Indians, then executed:
that Peltier got into two subsequent fire fights seems to me to be fairly suspicious. But suspicion is not enough. He was tried, had numerous appeals, and was still convicted.
I think that it is the fact that he was a left wing indian activist that is getting him all of the attention from the left.
Not everything is a vast right wing conspiracy. If the FBI wanted to damage AIM, they would have sent in more than two offeicers to confront some 100 or so Indians.
One last thing, they found Peltier with the AR-15 used in the assault.
EJsGirl writes:
> In this country, if there was a problem with the trial
> that was serious enough, then you walk, guilty or
> innocent. It is up to the state to try you again.
Only if there was a problem with the technical details of the trial, not with the evidence. In many states, it’s not even allowed for the defendent’s lawyer to introduce new evidence that clears him after a certain period following the trial. In some states this period is as short as 21 days. After that point, a judge cannot order a new trial or release a person who has been convicted, even if he is convinced that the defendent is not guilty. The only way the defendent could be released would be for the governor to give him a pardon or to commute his sentence. I don’t know any cases where a governor simply ignored evidence that completely exonerated the defendent, although there’s nothing stopping that from happening. A governor in those states where a judge cannot order a new trial after a certain period can theoretically ignore any possible evidence. He could theoretically say, “I know this guy didn’t do it, but I’m going to let him be executed anyway.” Nothing could stop the execution at that point, except possibly the legislature voting to change the law or to impeach the governor.
I don’t know that anything quite this bad has happened yet, but there certainly are several cases where the governor has let an execution go forward even though the evidence presented at the trial had been shown to be worthless, so that there was no longer any evidence good enough that a prosecutor would have dared to bring the case to a jury.
Incident at Ogalala is a good documentary on the subject. It’s pretty clear the director was on the AIM side of things, but it got the point across. The Fed’s didn’t have much of a case against Peltier, but somebody had to go down.
This from the L.A. Times.
Note the term ‘exculpatory ballistics test’.