Disturbing History - Who Killed Martin Luther King Jr?

Episode Date: March 8, 2026

On April 4th, 1968, a single rifle shot ended the life of Doctor Martin Luther King Junior on the second-floor balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. He was thirty-nine years old. The official story has always been simple: a lone escaped convict named James Earl Ray, acting out of personal racial hatred, pulled the trigger and was caught sixty-five days later in London. Case closed. Except it wasn't. And it isn't.In this episode of Disturbing History, we go deep into one of the most consequential and most deliberately obscured murders in American history. We trace Doctor King's life from his Atlanta childhood through the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Birmingham campaign, the March on Washington, and his evolution from civil rights leader into something the American power structure found genuinely terrifying — a man demanding the economic restructuring of the entire country, calling the United States government the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, and building an interracial coalition of the poor to march on Washington and force a reckoning.We dig into J. Edgar Hoover's decade-long COINTELPRO campaign against King — the illegal wiretaps, the forged letters, the blackmail attempts, the anonymous package urging him to kill himself, and the internal FBI memo identifying King as "the most dangerous Negro in America." None of this is conspiracy theory. All of it is documented in the Bureau's own declassified files.We walk through what happened in Memphis — the sanitation workers strike, the disrupted March twenty-eighth demonstration, the Mountaintop speech, and the events of April fourth itself. And then we go where the official account refuses to go: the removal of King's police bodyguards the morning of the assassination, the military intelligence operatives on the ground in Memphis, the destruction of physical evidence the morning after, the pressured guilty plea that denied Ray a trial, and the witnesses whose testimony has spent decades being ignored.Most importantly, we cover the nineteen ninety-nine civil trial that most Americans have never heard of — in which a Memphis jury, after four weeks of testimony from over seventy witnesses, found that Loyd Jowers and others including governmental agencies were part of a conspiracy to murder Doctor King. The King family was awarded one hundred dollars. The country barely noticed.The files are still partially classified. The questions are still unanswered. And the truth about what happened on that balcony is still waiting for the country to decide whether it's ready to look at it honestly.This is Disturbing History. We look at it honestly.New episodes drop every week. If this episode moved you, share it with someone who needs to hear it. And if you have a story of your own — a personal encounter, a piece of history that haunts you — reach out to us at [e-mail] a forgotten historical mystery, disturbing event, unsolved crime, or hidden conspiracy you think deserves investigation?Send your suggestions to [e-mail] History is a dark history podcast exploring unsolved mysteries, secret societies, historical conspiracies, lost civilizations, and the shadowy stories buried beneath the surface of the past.Follow the show and enable automatic downloads so you never miss a deep dive into history’s most unsettling secrets.Because sometimes the truth is darker than fiction.

In every corner of the United Kingdom and in every shadowed place across the world, there are stories the daylight can't explain. Whispers of figures that vanish into thin air, footsteps that follow when you're alone, and encounters with the paranormal that leave the living forever changed. On the Haunted UK podcast, we journey into these mysteries, exploring chilling accounts of hauntings, terrifying paranormal events and real stories,

from listeners who've witnessed the impossible. Each episode is crafted with immersive soundscapes, meticulous research and storytelling that pulls you straight into the dark. So if you're captivated by the unexplained, if you seek the truth behind the world's most haunting experiences, then follow us, carefully, because once you begin listening, you may start to hear things too.

The Haunted UK podcast. Available now on all major podcast platforms. Ever wonder how dark the world can really get? Well, we dive into the twisted, the terrifying, and the true stories behind some of the world's most chilling crimes. Hi, I'm Ben. And I'm Nicole. Together we host Wicked and Grim,

a true crime podcast that unpacks real-life horrors one case at a time. With deep research, dark storytelling, and the occasional drink to take the edge of, off. We're here to explore the wicked and reveal the grim. We are wicked and grim. Follow and listen on your favorite podcast platform. Some stories were never meant to be told. Others were buried on purpose. This podcast digs them all up. Disturbing history peels back the layers of the past to uncover the strange, the sinister, and the stories that were never supposed to survive. From shadowy presidential secrets to government experiments that sound more.

like fiction than fact. This is history they hoped you'd forget. I'm Brian, investigator, author, and your guide through the dark corners of our collective memory. Each week I'll narrate some of the most chilling and little-known tales from history that will make you question everything you thought you knew. And here's the twist. Sometimes the history is disturbing to us. And sometimes, we have to disturb history itself, just to get to the truth. If you like your facts with the side of fear, if you're not afraid to pull at threads, others leave alone. You're in the right place. History isn't just written by the victors. Sometimes, it's rewritten by the disturbed. Welcome back to disturbing history. Before we get into today's episode, I need you to understand

something. What you're about to hear is not a simple story. It's not the kind of history they handed you in a textbook with clean edges and a tidy moral. It's the kind of history that gets messier the closer you look the kind that makes you question what you were told what you were taught and what powerful institutions decided you needed to believe today we're talking about the assassination of dr martin Luther King Jr one of the most consequential most debated and most deliberately obscured murders in American history now some of you might be thinking we know this story James Earl Ray the Lorraine Motel Memphis Tennessee April 4th

Fourth, 1968. And you're right that those are the facts on the surface. But the surface is exactly where this story gets dangerous. Because the moment you start diving deeper, the moment you start pulling at the threads that the official narrative left dangling, you find yourself in a place that is far darker than any lone gunman story. You find government agencies that openly admitted they wanted this man destroyed. You find surveillance, sabotage, and psychological warfare

waged against a Baptist preacher by the most powerful intelligence apparatus in the free world. You find a shooter whose history doesn't add up. You find witnesses who were silenced, evidence that disappeared, and a family that went to court not to prove James Earl Ray was innocent, but to prove that the United States government was complicit in the murder of their father, their husband, their son. And they won. Let me say that again so it sinks in.

In 1999, a civil jury in Memphis, Tennessee, found in favor of the King family and concluded that a conspiracy involving government and private parties contributed to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. That verdict didn't make the front page in most newspapers. It didn't lead the evening news. And 30 years later, most Americans have never heard about it. Think about that for a moment. A jury of American citizens, chosen through the same process

we use to determine guilt and innocence in every other criminal and civil matter in this country, heard four weeks of evidence and reached a unanimous verdict that the murder of America's most celebrated civil rights leader involved a conspiracy that included government actors. This was not a fringe verdict delivered by a fringe court. It was a verdict rendered under the rules of evidence that govern every civil proceeding in the American legal system. And the country essentially ignored it.

The media coverage of the verdict, was, by any reasonable standard, a journalistic failure of historic proportions. The Associated Press ran a brief story. A handful of newspapers ran it on inside pages. The television networks gave it minimal time. In the weeks and months that followed, no major investigative journalism outlet mounted a serious effort to follow up on the implications of the verdict, to investigate the witnesses whose testimony had led to it,

or to challenge the Department of Justice to respond substantively, to what the jury had found. It was, in effect, buried, not through a dramatic act of suppression, but through the far more effective mechanism of simple institutional indifference. That indifference is its own kind of statement. It says,

this verdict does not fit within the story we have already decided to tell about this chapter of American history. The story we have decided to tell ends with James Earl Ray, alone in his cell, representing the last gasp of an American racism that the country has since moved beyond. The story we have decided to tell

celebrates Martin Luther King as a dreamer, a gentle prophet, a moral exemplar whose legacy the nation has embraced. That story cannot accommodate a jury finding that the government helped kill him. So the jury's finding was quietly set aside and the story continued. That's why this story must be told.

That's why we're here today. Not because we can prove every detail of what happened in the shadows. Not because I'm asking you to wrap yourself in tinfoil and distrust everything, but because the documented facts, the things we know with absolute certainty, are disturbing enough on their own. And when you line them up side by side with everything that's been suppressed and hidden and buried, the picture that emerges is not the comfortable story of a lone racist with a rifle.

The picture that emerges is something that should make every single one of us deeply permanently unsettled about the nature of power in this country. So get comfortable, because this is going to take a while. This is disturbing history, and today we are going into the darkness at the center of the American story. To understand why Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed, you have to understand what he meant. Not just to Black America, not just to the civil rights movement, but to the existing power structure of the United States. Because the man who was shot on that balcony in Memphis in 1968 was not the same man who had delivered the eyes. I have a dream speech five years earlier.

He had grown into something far more threatening, something that the people running this country found genuinely terrifying. And to understand how he got there, we have to go back to the beginning. Michael King Jr. was born on January 15, 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia. His father, the Reverend Michael King, Sr., was a Baptist minister, a man of immense spiritual authority within his community, and a fierce, unyielding presence in a world designed to make black men small.

His mother, Alberta Williams King, was the daughter of the Reverend Adam Daniel Williams, who had founded Ebenezer Baptist Church and built it into one of the most respected congregations in Atlanta. Martin Luther King, Jr., the name would come later, chosen by his father after a transformative trip to Germany in 1934, to honor the great reformer Martin Luther, grew up surrounded by the church, by scripture, by music, and by the bone-deep understanding that the world outside his family's walls was built on a foundation of racial hatred, so pervasive and so institutionalized, that it had become simply the water black Americans were forced to swim in. Atlanta in the 1930s and 40s was a city of rigid, violent, and legally enforced segregation.

It was a city where a black man could be lynched for looking at a white woman, where black children attended schools with no heat, no books and no expectation that their futures mattered, where the law itself, the police, the courts, the entire machinery of the state, was not a protector of black lives, but a weapon deployed against them. Young Michael, who by his teenage years had become Martin,

absorbed all of this. He felt it personally when he was forced to stand on a segregated bus. He felt it when a white shoe salesman refused to serve him. He felt it every single day of his life. and rather than breaking him, it built in him a burning, clarifying fury that he spent the rest of his life channeling into something the world had rarely seen. He was precocious in a way that bordered on uncanny. He skipped two grades and entered Morehouse College in Atlanta at the age of 15. There, under the influence of its president, Dr. Benjamin Mays, he began to wrestle seriously with the intersection of faith and justice.

Mays was a towering intellectual who believed that the black church had a responsibility not just to save souls but to transform society, and that belief took root in Martin King and never let go. He went on to Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania, where he excelled academically and began his deep engagement with the philosophy of nonviolent resistance. Reading Thoreau's essay on civil disobedience, studying the social gospel movement, and most critically,

encountering the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi's successful campaign against British colonial rule in India through organized, disciplined, nonviolent mass protest became the philosophical spine of everything Martin Luther King Jr. would do for the rest of his life. He earned his doctorate in systematic theology from Boston University in 1955. He was 26 years old. He had met and married Coretta Scott, a brilliant, beautiful woman from Alabama, who had her own artistic gifts and her own fierce convictions about justice. And when a young pastor in Montgomery, Alabama, reached out and offered him the pulpit at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. went south. He had no idea he was walking into the moment that would change the country.

The Montgomery bus boycott began on December 1, 1955, when Rosa Parks, a longtime N-A-C-P activist and seamstress, refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a city bus and was arrested. Parks was not, as the comfortable myth has it, simply a tired old woman who didn't want to move. She was a trained activist who had attended the Highlander Folk School, a center for civil rights organizing in Tennessee. Her arrest was the spark, but the fire had been carefully prepared. Black community leaders in Montgomery had been waiting for exactly the right case to launch a major boycott campaign. And when Parks was arrested, the women's political council distributed

50,000 flyers within a day, calling on black residents to stay off the buses. The young Reverend King was chosen to lead the Montgomery Improvement Association, partly because he was new in town and hadn't yet accumulated enemies among the established leadership. And partly because even at 26, the force of his personality and the power of his oratory were simply impossible to ignore. The boycott lasted 381 days. It was an extraordinary feat of organized collective action. 50,000 black residents of Montgomery walking, carpooling, riding mules, doing absolutely anything but riding those buses, and doing it for over a year, through economic pressure, through terrorist bombings of their homes, through arrests and intimidation, all the way to

the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled in November of 1956 that segregation on public buses was unconstitutional. Martin Luther King Jr. emerged from Montgomery as the most recognizable face of the American Civil Rights Movement. He was on the cover of Time magazine. He was invited to meet with President Dwight Eisenhower. He had founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,

the SCLC, to coordinate civil rights activism across the South with himself as its president. And somewhere in a building in Washington District of Columbia, a man named Jay Edgar Hoover was watching. Jay Edgar Hoover had run the Federal Bureau of Investigation since 1924. By the time Martin Luther King emerged onto the national stage, Hoover had been the director for 30 years, and in that time, he had transformed the Bureau from a relatively minor federal agency

into the most powerful domestic intelligence operation in the country. Hoover's Bureau was his personal fiefdom. He used it to spy on politicians, to gather blackmail material on presidents, to destroy people he considered threats to what he called, the American way of life. And J. Edgar Hoover had a particular, visceral, personal obsession with anyone he perceived as a radical threat to the social order,

most especially black civil rights leaders. Hoover had been surveilling civil rights organizations since the 1920s. He believed, with the paranoid fervor of a man who had turned his obsessions into policy, that the civil rights movement was a front for communist infiltration of the United States. This was, to be absolutely clear, not true, but it gave Hoover the ideological justification he needed to do what he wanted to do anyway, which was destroy the movement and the people who led it. And nobody, nobody, consumed more of Hoover's attention,

more of his fury, more of his resources, than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Hoover's surveillance of King began in earnest around 1957, shortly after the Montgomery boycott ended. It accelerated dramatically in the early 1960s. The Bureau had planted an informant inside the SCLC named Stanley Levison, a New York attorney and businessman who had indeed had passed ties to the Communist Party, though by the time he became King's close friend and advisor, those ties were long severed. The Bureau also leveraged another informant.

James Harrison, who had been recruited from inside the SCLC's own staff. And they were everywhere all the time, monitoring King's phone calls, reading his mail, bugging his hotel rooms, tracking his movements across the country. In October of 1963, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who was no great civil rights champion himself, whatever his later reputation may suggest, signed off on a request from Hoover to wiretap Martin Luther King Jr.'s home phone and the SCLC offices. Kennedy would later claim he only approved a limited wiretap and that he didn't know the full scope of what Hoover was doing.

Whether that's true is a matter of significant historical debate. What is not in debate is what the Bureau did with the access Kennedy gave them. What followed was one of the most comprehensive, sustained, and outright criminal surveillance operations ever conducted by the United States government against one of its own citizens. Stay tuned for more disturbing history. We'll be back after these messages. The FBI bugged hotel rooms across the country wherever King was scheduled to stay.

They recorded his private conversations. They recorded his intimate relationships. And what they gathered, including recordings of King having extramarital affairs, they used as weapons. They sent tapes and transcripts to King's wife, Coretta. They sent materials to newspaper editors, trying to get journalists to run stories that would destroy his reputation. They sent packages to universities that had offered King honorary degrees, hoping to get the offers rescinded. They pressured politicians to distance themselves from King.

They fed information to King's enemies within the civil rights movement itself, trying to sow division and discord. None of this is speculation. None of this is conspiracy theory. It is documented historical fact, confirmed by congressional investigations, by declassified FBI documents, by the Church Committee hearings of 1975, and by the Bureau's own records. The FBI's campaign against King had an official name. It was part of Cointel Pro, which stood for Counterintelligence Program, and it was run out of the director's office with Hoover's explicit personal involvement and approval. In January of 1964, Hoover's domestic intelligence chief, William Sullivan, wrote an internal memo calling King, the most dangerous Negro in America.

In November of that same year, the Bureau mailed King a package containing a composite tape of audio recordings and an anonymous letter. The letter told King that he was a colossal fraud, that the recordings revealed his true nature and that his exposure was imminent. The letter then strongly implied that King's only way out was to kill himself. It said, quote, There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal, fraudulent self is bared to the nation. The package arrived weeks after King had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The Bureau's sabotage operation continued without pause.

Hoover publicly called King the most notorious liar in the country in a press conference in 1964. He called him a tom cat with obsessive degenerate sexual urges. He described him as a communist, a moral degenerate, and a fraud. These were not the words of a bureaucrat managing a law enforcement agency. They were the words of a man consumed by hatred for a man he could not control, and whose growing power he found genuinely threatening. And here is where you need to understand something critical.

When J. Edgar Hoover said Martin Luther King was dangerous, he wasn't just talking about King's race. He was talking about something much more fundamental. He was talking about what King represented, the idea that ordinary people, organized and disciplined and committed to justice, could challenge the fundamental arrangements of power in American society. That idea was, to Hoover and to the men who thought the way Hoover thought, genuinely revolutionary. And by the mid-1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. had become something far more revolutionary than even they had initially feared. Let me take you to Washington District of Columbia on August 28, 1963.

250,000 people have gathered on the National Mall for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. It is the largest political demonstration in American history to that point. People have come from every corner of the country, by bus, by train, on foot, to demand an end to racial discrimination and economic exploitation. The Lincoln Memorial rises behind the speaker's platform, and the reflecting pool stretches out before a sea of faces that represents every race and background in America. Toward the end of the day, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. steps to the microphone. What happens in the next 16 minutes is one of the most transcendent moments in the history of human oratory.

He begins with his prepared remarks, a carefully crafted speech about promissory notes and bad checks, the gap between the promise of the Declaration of Independence and the reality of Black Life in America. And then, about two-thirds of the way through, the gospel singer Mahalia Jackson, who is standing nearby, calls out to him. Tell them about the dream, Martin, and he pushes his prepared text aside and begins to preach. I have a dream, he says, that one day this nation will read. rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. The crowd responds. He keeps going. The dream cascades forward, children of former slaves and former slave owners sitting down together at the table of brotherhood,

freedom ringing from every mountainside, every valley exalted. By the time he finishes, there is not a dry eye on the mall. And across the country, millions of Americans watch watching on television have been irrevocably moved. Jay Edgar Hoover watched the speech. The morning after he ordered his staff to develop a plan to quote, neutralize King as an effective Negro leader. He called the march demagogic. He wrote that King was the most dangerous Negro in the future of this nation,

and he intensified the Bureau's operations against him. But the speech, for all its magnificent poetry, was only the beginning of what made King dangerous. King dangerous. Because the I Have a Dream speech was in many ways the most palatable version of Martin Luther King, the version that could be absorbed into the American mythological framework without too much discomfort. The dream was about moral equality. It was about brotherhood. It was in its essential structure and appeal to the best of America's stated values. It was the kind of thing that could eventually be sanitized and turned into a national holiday and put on

classroom posters. What King was becoming in the years between 1963 and 1968 was something else entirely. And it was something far more threatening to the power structure of the United States than any dream about children holding hands across racial lines. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were extraordinary legislative victories, the culmination of a decade of sacrifice, courage, and bloodshed by hundreds of thousands of ordinary black Americans and their allies. But they were not the end of the story. They were barely the beginning. Because passing a law and transforming a society are two entirely different things. And as King moved through the mid-1960s, he was confronting a reality that formal legal equality

had done almost nothing to change. The grinding, structural, economic poverty in which the majority of black Americans still lived. You could sit at a lunch counter now. You could vote in Mississippi. And yet you still lived in a crumbling apartment in Chicago's west side with rats in the walls and a landlord who hadn't fixed the heat

since October and a police force that treated your neighborhood like an occupied territory. You still couldn't get a bank loan. You still couldn't get hired for the better paying jobs. Your schools were still underfunded. Your streets still unrepaired.

Your community still starved of the investment and infrastructure that white neighborhoods took for granted. The formal legal architecture of segregation had been partially dismantled, but the economic and social architecture, the real mechanism through which racial hierarchy was maintained, that was still fully intact. King understood this with a depth and clarity that his public image has since been stripped of. He understood that the next phase of the movement had to go beyond asking white America

to include black people in its existing system. He understood that the system itself, the economic arrangement of American capitalism, the distribution of wealth and power, had to be fundamentally restructured. And that understanding put him on a collision course not just with southern racists, but with the entire political and economic establishment

of the United States. In 1966, King took the SCLC north to Chicago, launching an open housing campaign to choose, challenged residential segregation in one of America's most rigidly divided cities. What he found there shook him. He marched through Marquette Park on the southwest side with hundreds of demonstrators, and the reaction from white residents was more vicious, more primal than anything he'd encountered in Birmingham or Selma. Bricks and bottles and cherry bombs rained down on the marchers. Swastika-bearing counter-protesters screamed racial epithets. King was struck on the head by a brick,

and went to one knee. He said afterward that he had never, in the deep south, seen hatred as naked and as ugly as what he witnessed in Chicago. And the political establishment, the famous Daly machine, Mayor Richard J. Daly, the consummate Democratic boss, didn't want King there either. Daly performed the ritual of engagement while doing absolutely nothing substantive.

The Chicago campaign ended in a weak agreement that was quickly abandoned, and King came away with a harder, clearer-eyed understanding of what he was really up against. It wasn't the George Wallace's of the world. It was the Richard Daly's. It was the liberal establishment that talked about racial progress while maintaining every structural mechanism of racial inequality. It was the entire interlock of political, economic, and institutional power in America.

His evolution continued. In April of 1967, exactly one year before his death, King delivered what is arguably the most important and certainly the most suppressed, speech of his career. He called it Beyond Vietnam, a time to break silence. He delivered it at the Riverside Church in New York City. And in it, he said things that crossed every line that the establishment had previously allowed him to approach,

but never quite cross. He called the United States government the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. He connected the war in Vietnam, which was by then consuming $50 billion a year and killing tens of thousands of people, directly to the failure to address poverty at home. He said the poor of America, disproportionately black and brown, were being sent to fight and die in a war 10,000 miles away

for freedoms they had never been permitted to enjoy at home. He said the movement had to broaden its scope beyond civil rights to encompass a fundamental challenge to militarism, to materialism, and to racism as the three intertwined, evils at the heart of American society. He described American foreign policy in Southeast Asia and elsewhere with a searing moral precision that left his audience not with a dream, but with a diagnosis, and a demand for revolution in values. The response was swift and overwhelming in its condemnation. The Washington Post, not exactly a right-wing newspaper, published an editorial saying

King had done a grave disservice to both the civil rights movement and the peace movement by linking them. Life magazine called it demagogic slander. The New York Times said it was a disservice to himself, to his cause, to his country, and to his hope for peace. President Lyndon Johnson, who had signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, was furious. He reportedly had King's name removed from invitation lists for White House events. And the FBI added the Riverside speech to its growing file on King and intensified its operations accordingly. But King didn't retreat. He doubled down. By the fall of 1967, he was planning the poor people's campaign,

an interracial coalition of the poor, including black Americans, poor whites from Appalachia, Latino farm workers, and Native Americans who would march on Washington and occupy the National Mall in a massive tent city called Resurrection City, demanding not just political rights, but economic rights, guaranteed income, housing, health care, an end to poverty as a structural reality in the wealthiest nation on earth. He was talking about taking on American capitalism itself. He was talking about forcing a redistribution of wealth and power so fundamental that it would require,

as he put it, restructuring the whole of American society. This was not a man asking to be included at the table. This was a man saying the table needed to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch. And that, more than anything else, is why the people who wanted him gone, wanted him gone so badly. Before we can fully understand the weight of what happened in Memphis, we need to go to Birmingham, Alabama in 1963. Because Birmingham is where the moral stakes of this story were established with absolute undeniable clarity.

And where the forces of violent repression first demonstrated, on a national stage, what they were willing to do to stop Martin Luther King. Project C. The C stood for confrontation. Was the SCLC's campaign to desegregate Birmingham, one of the most thoroughly and violently segregated cities in America. Birmingham was the city of Bull Connor, the public safety commissioner who had spent decades enforcing racial segregation with a combination of legal authority and outright terrorism.

Birmingham had been bombed so many times, churches, homes, businesses, and black neighborhoods that residents had taken to calling it bombingham. The Ku Klux Klan operated there almost openly, with police protection that was in some cases literal and official. King and the SCLC chose Birmingham deliberately, as a pressure point, a place where the brutality of American apartheid was so naked and so well documented that forcing a confrontation there would make it impossible for the rest of the country to look away. The campaign began in April of 1963 with a series of marches, sit-ins, and boycotts. Connor responded with mass arrests.

The city's jails filled up with demonstrators. And then King made one of the most morally complex and deeply strategic decisions of his career. He authorized children to march. On May 2nd, 1963, a day that would be called D-Day in movement circles, stay tuned for more disturbing history. We'll be back after these months. messages. More than a thousand black children, some as young as six years old, marched out of 16th Street Baptist Church singing freedom songs. Bull Connor ordered his officers to arrest them.

More than a thousand children were loaded into paddy wagons and taken to jail. The next day, even more children marched. And this time, Connor lost whatever remained of his self-control. He ordered his officers to deploy fire hoses, the kind used to fight industrial blazes. capable of stripping bark from trees, against the marching children. He ordered the police attack dogs released. The photographs and television footage of Birmingham Police, turning fire hoses and attack dogs against singing, praying non-violent black children, went around the world in hours.

President Kennedy, who had been studiously cautious about committing himself to the civil rights cause, was reportedly nauseated by what he saw and called King to express his support. The Kennedy administration intervened to negotiate an agreement with Birmingham's business community. Connor was removed from office, and the conscience of a watching nation was, for a brief and transformative moment, genuinely moved. But the forces that Connor represented didn't disappear. On September 15, 1963, four months after the Birmingham campaign ended in the movement's triumph, two weeks after the march on Washington, members of the Ku Klux Klan planted. a bomb in the basement of the 16th Street Baptist Church, the same church from which those children

had marched in May. The bomb detonated during Sunday morning services and killed four little girls. Addie Mae Collins, who was 14, Cynthia Wesley 14, Carol Robertson 14, and Carol Denise McNair, who was 11 years old. The bombing was a warning, a message written in the blood of children. The message said, We will not be moved by your nonviolence. by your moral witness, by the sympathy of the watching world, we will not stop. King gave the eulogy for three of the four girls. He stood in the ruins of that church and told the mourners that these young women had not died in vain, that their deaths could not be suffered to have been in vain,

that the movement would carry their names forward and the country would have to reckon with what it had done. He was composed at the podium. His aides said later that in private he wept for hours. The Selma campaign of 1965, two years later, produced its own defining atrocity. This one broadcast live on American television. On March 7th, a day that would forever be known as Bloody Sunday, 600 marchers set out across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, headed for Montgomery in a voting rights demonstration.

They were met on the far side of the bridge by Alabama state troopers and sheriff Jim Clark's posse, many of them on horseback. The troopers gave the marchers two minutes to disperse. Less than one minute later, without warning, they charged. What happened on the Edmund Pettus Bridge was a massacre. Troopers wielding billy clubs and cattle prods waded into the crowd of peaceful marchers, beating men, women, and children indiscriminately. The mounted members of Clark's posse charged with horses into the scattering, screaming crowd,

trampling and clubbing anyone who didn't move fast enough. Amelia Boynton Robinson, one of the leading organizers of the Selma campaign, was beaten unconscious. She was photographed lying crumpled on the bridge in her Sunday coat, blood on her face, and that photograph appeared on the front page of newspapers around the world the next day. ABC interrupted its primetime broadcast of a film called Judgment at Nuremberg, a film about Nazi war crimes, to show footage of the attack at Selma. The juxtaposition was not lost on anyone. The Voting Rights Act became law five months later on August 6, 1965.

President Lyndon Johnson signed it in the same room where Abraham Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation. And in his speech, he used the movement's own language telling Congress and the nation that we shall overcome. King watched Johnson's speech on television surrounded by friends and colleagues. and when Johnson spoke those words, King wept. It was one of the few times that those close to him saw him cry in public. It was the high watermark, and even as the movement celebrated the Voting Rights Act, the forces that were working against it, in the FBI's Cointel Pro Operations,

in the backlash politics already being organized by figures who would form the skeleton of the modern American right, in the mob-connected and law enforcement adjacent networks that had been watching and waiting, were regrouping and recalibrating. The full scope of Cointel Pro, the FBI's counterintelligence program, is something that most Americans have only a partial picture of, because the full picture is staggering in its breadth and its criminality. The program wasn't just about Martin Luther King,

though he was its primary target. It was a systematic, years-long, illegal campaign to surveil, infiltrate, disrupt, defame and destroy every major left-wing, civil rights, and activist organization in the United States. The Black Panther Party was targeted so aggressively that Hoover described their destruction as the Bureau's highest domestic priority in 1968. FBI agents forged letters between black nationalist groups designed to provoke violent confrontations. They planted fabricated evidence to get leaders imprisoned on false charges. They leaked information to local police that led directly to violent raids, most notoriously the raid on December 4, 1969,

in which Chicago police, acting on information provided by an FBI informant, stormed the apartment of Black Panther leader Fred Hampton at 4.30 in the morning and shot him to death in his bed. Hampton was 21 years old. He had been drugged by the FBI informant, who had slipped Seca Barbital into his dinner. He could barely be roused when the police. bullets came. The student nonviolent coordinating committee, SNCC, was infiltrated and disrupted.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, King's own organization, was riddled with FBI informants. The Bureau worked to prevent King from building coalitions with other movement leaders, feeding each side information designed to generate distrust and conflict. It fed similar material to local police departments across the country, creating an environment in which civil rights workers were routinely harassed, beaten, and arrested by law enforcement acting on FBI intelligence. The domestic intelligence apparatus that Hoover had built was, by the mid-1960s, so pervasive and so deeply embedded in American institutions, in police departments, in political offices, in the press, in community organizations, that it could reach into virtually any

corner of American civil society. It had successfully manufactured crises, destroyed careers, ended relationships, and in some cases contributed to deaths. And all of it was done in service of Hoover's fundamental conviction that the status quo must be preserved, that the social hierarchy he had grown up with and was dedicated to protecting must not be fundamentally disturbed. What this means in the context of the King assassination is that the institutional apparatus capable of identifying, planning, facilitating, and covering up the murder of a major public figure existed, was operational, had both the motive and the means, and had demonstrated its willingness to use every available tool, including lethal force,

against the people it considered threats. Fred Hampton's murder in Chicago showed that federal intelligence working with local law enforcement could coordinate the killing of a movement leader and face essentially no legal consequences. The documented history of Cointel Pro does not prove that the FBI ordered King's assassination. But it demonstrates, with absolute conclusiveness, that the question is not paranoid or unreasonable. The only paranoid or unreasonable thing, given what we know about what this government was doing during this period, would be to simply assume that its most powerful and obsessively dedicated enemy was not involved in some way with the removal of the one man it had

identified above all others as the greatest threat to the existing order. Now let's go to Memphis, Tennessee. Memphis is where the last chapter was written, and it didn't begin on April 4, 1968. It began months earlier, in the middle of a bitter, frigid February. On February 1, 1968, two black sanitation workers named Echle Cole and Robert Walker were crushed to death by a malfunctioning garbage truck compactor. They had taken shelter inside the truck during a rainstorm because black workers were not permitted to wait inside the brake facility available to white workers. Their death was, in every meaningful sense, a direct product of the racial hierarchy that governed Memphis, and it lit the fuse.

On February 12, 1,200 black sanitation workers went on strike. They carried signs that read, I am a man, four words that contained the entire history of American racism in their insistence on a dignity so basic, so elemental, that having to demand it was itself an indictment of the civilization that made such demands necessary. Memphis Mayor Henry Loeb was a hardliner who refused to recognize the union, refused to negotiate, and deployed police in riot gear to suppress the strikers. He made it clear that he intended to break the strike, break the union, and break the men. The strike became a national cause. Black clergy, civil rights leaders, and labor activists flooded into Memphis.

On March 28, Dr. King came to Memphis to lead a demonstration march. It was supposed to be a powerful show of solidarity. Instead, it became a catastrophe. Elements of a youth gang called the invaders, who had been in conflict with the established civil rights leadership, and were, some evidence later suggested, partly influenced by FBI provocateurs, began breaking windows and looting stores along the march route.

Police responded with massive force, using tear gas and clubs. One 16-year-old Larry Payne was shot. shot and killed by police. 180 people were arrested. King was devastated. He was rushed away from the chaos by AIDS and was physically ill afterward. The press had a field day. Columnists and editorials across the country used the violence in Memphis to undermine King

to suggest that his commitment to nonviolence was hollow, that his movement was losing control, that he was a failing force. The FBI was particularly active in planting an animal. amplifying this narrative. Hoover's men were monitoring the Memphis situation closely and feeding material to friendly journalists. An internal FBI memo from this period proposed exploiting the Memphis riot to discredit King nationally and destroy his plans for the poor people's campaign. King was genuinely shaken. His aides later said he had been in a period of deep depression in the weeks before Memphis, wrestling with the violent direction that parts of the movement seemed to be taking.

with the devastating persistence of poverty and injustice, despite everything the movement had accomplished, and with the death threats that had been following him for years, and had in recent months, intensified dramatically. His longtime friend and advisor Ralph Abernathy described him as a man carrying an almost unbearable weight. He wasn't sleeping. He was having headaches. He had moments of profound despair. We need to talk about the invaders because their role in the Memphis story is one of the most instructive examples of how Cointel Pro operated in practice. The invaders were a Memphis Black Youth Organization founded by Charles Cabbage and John Burrell Smith. Young men who had come up through the civil rights movement and had been radicalized by the grinding poverty of Memphis's

black neighborhoods and the city's refusal to take the sanitation workers' grievances seriously. They were not, by any stretch, advocates of nonviolence. They were influenced by the black power movement, by the rhetoric of the Black Panther Party, and by a genuine and understandable rage at the conditions of their community. The SCLC had been trying with difficulty to build a working relationship with the invaders in the weeks before the March 28th demonstration. The invaders wanted resources from the SCLC, money for their community organizing work. King's team was cautious but willing to discuss it. The negotiations were ongoing and unresolved when the march happened, and elements affiliated with the invaders began breaking windows. What emerged later,

and this is documented, is that the invaders had been infiltrated by law enforcement informants, including Morel McCalla, the undercover officer who would later be confirmed as a CIA employee, and who was photographed kneeling over King's body on the balcony within seconds of the shooting. McCalla had been embedded in the invaders for months before the assassination. In that role, he was in a position to observe and report on the invaders' internal dynamics, their relationship with the SCLC, and their plans for any upcoming demonstrations. The standard Cointel Pro playbook for this kind of situation, and this has been documented in cases involving the Black Panthers, the SNCC, and other organizations, involved not just passive intelligence gathering, but active

provocation. FBI and police informants embedded in radical organizations were instructed in some cases to encourage more aggressive and confrontational tactics, to deepen divisions between moderate and radical factions, and to help manufacture the kind of violence and disorder that could then be used to discredit the broader movement. Whether McCalla or other informants played an active role in encouraging the window breaking on March 28th is not definitively established. But the pattern of behavior is consistent with documented Cointel Pro operations elsewhere. What is documented is that the violence on March 28th, severely damaged King's standing, gave his critics in the press enormous ammunition, and created the narrative pressure that required him to return to Memphis for

the April 3rd and 4th visit, the visit from which he did not return alive. Stay tuned for more disturbing history. We'll be back after these messages. If the disruption of the march was manufactured or facilitated by law enforcement intelligence. Then the events of March 28th were not just a setback for King. They were a mechanism for luring him back to Memphis under precisely the conditions, a need to prove himself, a crowded itinerary, heightened tension, compromised security, that would make him most vulnerable. That may sound like speculation.

But when you map it against the documented Cointel Pro playbook, against the confirmed presence of law enforcement intelligence assets, in the invaders. Against the removal of King's police bodyguards on April 4th, against the destruction of physical evidence the morning after, and against the complete failure of the most extensive domestic intelligence operation in American history, to find an escaped convict for 65 days after he allegedly shot the country's most closely monitored black leader. The pattern is not random. Patterns that look like this don't emerge from coincidence. They emerged from planning, but he was also in the way that characterized his entire

life, determined. He would not abandon Memphis. He would not let the violence of March 28th define the movement. He would return to the city, lead a peaceful march, demonstrate that nonviolent mass action was still the path forward, and then take that determination to Washington for the poor people's campaign. He flew back to Memphis in early April. On the night of April, on the night of April 3rd, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood at the pulpit of Mason Temple, the world headquarters of the Church of God in Christ, the largest black church in America. He was tired. He had nearly not come. A bomb threat against his plane had delayed his departure from Atlanta, and he had been fighting a sore throat and the fatigue of a man running on nothing but conviction.

Ralph Abernathy later said King had asked him to speak in his place that night, that he wasn't sure he was up to it. but he went. And what he delivered that evening was one of the most haunting pieces of oratory in human history. Not because of its content alone, but because of what happened the next day. He spoke about the violence and the uncertainty of the times. He spoke about the sanitation workers and their dignity and their cause. And then he began to speak in a voice that was by turns exultant and elegiac, as if he was speaking from someplace that had already moved beyond the present moment.

He told the congregation that he had been to the mountaintop. He said he didn't fear any man. He said God had allowed him to go up to the mountain and look over and see the promised land. And then he said, 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. His voice broke, his eyes filled with tears.

He stepped back from the microphone and nearly collapsed into Ralph Abernathy's arms. The congregation was on its feet. many of them weeping. Nobody who was in that room that night ever forgot what they felt in that moment. The speech carried within it the unmistakable quality of a man who knew, in whatever way human beings know the deepest things, that his time was almost gone. The next day was April 4th, 1968. It was a warm spring Thursday in Memphis, Tennessee, and by 601 in the evening, the world would be changed forever. Dr. King spent most of April 4th in room 306 of the Lorraine Motel, a black-owned establishment on Mulberry Street in downtown Memphis that had been a gathering

place for black performers and civil rights workers for years. Ray Charles had stayed there, Aretha Franklin had stayed there, Cab Calloway, Count Basie, Otis Redding. The Lorraine was a place where black excellence and dignity were not just tolerated, but celebrated. That day, King met with advisors, talked with attorneys about the injunction that had been placed against the upcoming march, and had lengthy phone conversations with his mother and with various movement leaders. He was in a better mood than he had been in weeks, laughing, joking, engaged. Those who were with him that day described a man who seemed lighter somehow, as if the act of returning to Memphis had resolved some internal conflict he'd been wrestling with.

Around six o'clock in the evening, King was getting dressed. for dinner. The group was headed to the home of Reverend Billy Kyle's for a home-cooked meal, and there was a lot of happy chatter about the food that awaited them. King stepped out onto the second floor balcony of the Lorraine Motel, Room 306. Below him in the parking lot, his driver Solomon Jones called up that he should bring a coat, that the temperature was dropping. Ralph Abernathy was inside the room, finishing getting ready. Jesse Jackson was down in the parking lot, and he called up to introduce King to Ben Branch, a musician who was scheduled to play at a rally that evening.

King leaned over the balcony railing. He said, Ben, make sure you play, take my hand, precious Lord, tonight. Play it real pretty. Those were the last words he ever spoke. At 6.01 p.m., a single shot rang out from the direction of a rooming house across the street at 422.5 South Main Street. The bullet struck Martin Luther King, Jr., on the right,

side of his face, entering just below the right cheek and tearing through his neck and severing his spinal cord. The force of it threw him backward against the wall of the motel. He was dead before the ambulance arrived, though he was rushed to St. Joseph's Hospital and declared dead at 705 p.m. In the parking lot below, Solomon Jones pointed toward the rooming house across the street and said he thought the shot had come from the bushes behind it. Jesse Jackson cradled King's head in his arms as the blood pooled on the concrete of the balcony. Ralph Abernathy rushed out of the room at the sound of the shot and found his best friend of 15 years lying in his blood, still and motionless.

He held King's hand and prayed. Within hours, cities across America were burning. The news spread with the speed of horror, and the grief and rage that detonated across Black America and across the conscience of the nation consumed entire neighborhoods. Washington District of Colon. Columbia, Chicago, Illinois, Baltimore, Maryland, Louisville, Kentucky, Kansas City, Missouri. Over a hundred cities erupted in the days following King's assassination.

The National Guard was deployed in 30 states. More than 20,000 people were arrested. 46 people died in the riots. Thousands of buildings were burned. The smoke rising from the blocks surrounding the United States Capitol was visible from the White House lawn. In Indianapolis, Indiana, a senator named Robert F. Kennedy had been scheduled to address a black neighborhood crowd when word reached him of the assassination. Against his staff's advice, he went. Standing on the back of a flatbed truck in the cold night air, without notes, speaking directly

from the grief of a man who had himself lost a brother to an assassin's bullet, Kennedy told the crowd what had happened. The neighborhood he stood in did not burn that night. Kennedy was dead himself within two months. Now let's talk about James Earl Ray, because James Earl Ray is the official story. James Earl Ray is what the government said happened, and if the official story is all you've got, there are problems with it almost everywhere you look. James Earl Ray was born on March 10th, 1928, in Alton, Illinois, a river town just north of St. Louis that was in the 1930s and 40s, a rough, poor, segregated place. Ray grew up in genuine poverty. in a family plagued by alcoholism, petty crime and instability.

His father was a forger and petty criminal who used multiple aliases throughout his life. A habit his son would later emulate. His mother was a woman who did what she could in circumstances that offered very little. His brothers, John and Jerry, both drifted into small-time crime. The entire Ray family occupied that stratum of poor white America that had been told its entire life that whatever else it had lost, at least it wasn't black. And that fragile, false superiority was the only piece of social capital it possessed.

Ray himself was not, by the accounts of those who knew him, a particularly ideological man. He was a small-time criminal whose career consisted of armed robberies, burglaries, and forged checks. He had done time in federal prison for a postal robbery, and in the Missouri State Penitentiary at Jefferson City for armed robbery. In April of 1967, less than a year before the assassination, he escaped from the Missouri State Penitentiary by hiding in a breadbox on a truck leaving the prison.

He was a fugitive from that moment forward. What happened in the 13 months between Ray's escape and King's assassination is the part of the story that has never been satisfactorily explained by the official version of events. A man who was, by every account, a nickel and dime criminal with no demonstrated political motivation, and no money, suddenly became a well-funded, well-traveled international figure. After his escape from Missouri, Ray went to Chicago, then Montreal, Canada. From Montreal, he traveled to Birmingham, Alabama, where he purchased a car and enrolled in a bartending school and a dancing school. He traveled to Porto Vallarda, Mexico, and to Acapulco.

He went to Los Angeles, where he took a self-fellar. improvement course in locksmithing and enrolled in acting classes. He traveled to New Orleans. He went to Atlanta. He was in Birmingham again in March of 1968, where he purchased the Remington Model 760 Game Master Rifle that would be found outside the rooming house on South Main Street after the shooting. Where did a broke, escaped convict with no employment history and no visible means of support get the money for all of this? The official story has never answered that question. Ray himself claimed in various statements over the years that a man he knew only as Raoul, a mysterious figure he described as a gunrunner with connections to various criminal enterprises,

had been funding his travels and promising him a large payday in exchange for various services, the nature of which were never entirely clear to Ray himself. This Raoul figure, Ray said, was the one who directed him to Memphis, who told him what Motel King would be staying at, who set up the rifle purchase and directed Ray's movements in the days leading up to the shooting. The government dismissed the Raoul story entirely. Hoover's FBI declared within days of the assassination that Ray was a lone gunman, acting out of personal racial hatred, and that is the story they have largely stuck with ever since.

Raul, they said, did not exist, except that evidence has accumulated over the decades, suggesting that something very much like the Raul's story is real. We'll come back to that. James Earl Ray was arrested on June 8, 1968, 65 days after the assassination. He was caught at Heathrow Airport in London, England, traveling under a false passport in the name of Ramon George Snad, attempting to board a flight to Brussels. He had, in the period following the assassination,

traveled to Atlanta, then to Toronto, Canada, then to Lisbon, Portugal, then to London. For a man with no money and no money, international connections. His ability to travel across multiple countries on forged documents with apparent ease has always raised serious questions. He was extradited to the United States and charged with the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and here the official story takes its strangest and most consequential turn. On March 10th, 1969, his 41st birthday, James Earl Ray pled guilty to the assassination. He was sentenced to 99 years.

in prison. Three days later, he recanted. Ray said he had been pressured by his attorney, Percy Foreman, to enter the guilty plea. He said Foreman had told him that if he went to trial, he would get the death penalty, and that the guilty plea was his only option for survival. He spent the rest of his life insisting that while he had been involved in some peripheral way, that he had indeed been in Memphis, that he had indeed been near the scene. He had not pulled the trigger. He said Raoul had set him up. He filed motion after motion seeking a trial. He was denied every time. Ray died in prison on April 23rd, 1998 of kidney failure related to hepatitis C. He was 70 years old. He never had a trial. The state of Tennessee and the federal government maintained their position

that James Earl Ray had acted alone, motivated by personal racial animus, and that the case was closed. The King family disagreed. Let's talk about what the King family did. Because this is the part of the story that most people have never heard, and it is the part that should, by any rational standard, have been front-page news from coast to coast. In the 1990s, Coretta Scott King and her children, working with a Memphis attorney named William Pepper, who had spent decades investigating the assassination, brought a civil lawsuit. Not against James Earl Ray. He was already in prison, and by this point, dying. They brought the lawsuit against Lloyd Jowers, a retired restaurant owner who had operated a diner called Jim's Grill on the ground floor of the rooming house at 422 South Main Street.

Right below the bathroom window from which the official story said, James Earl Ray fired his rifle. Lloyd Jowers in the 1990s made statements to a producer at ABC News and then to others in which he claimed that he had been approached before the assassination by a produce dealer named Frank Liberto who had connected. to the Memphis Mafia, specifically to the New Orleans mob figure Carlos Marcello, one of the most powerful organized crime bosses in America. Jowers claimed that Liberto had paid him to assist in the assassination. He claimed that a Memphis police officer had come to his diner with the murder weapon after the shooting, and that Jowers had concealed the rifle before it could be linked back to the actual shooter. He claimed the shooter was not James Earl Ray, who he said was a patsy, but someone else.

entirely, a man who fired from the bushes behind the rooming house, as some witnesses at the scene had indeed reported. Stay tuned for more disturbing history. We'll be back after these messages. The civil trial in Memphis in November of 1999 lasted four weeks. The jury heard testimony from over 70 witnesses, including former military intelligence operatives, former Memphis police officers, and individuals with direct knowledge of the events surrounding the assassination. Among the most explosive testimony was that of a man named James Milner, who claimed to have been a courier between criminal and government interests in Memphis, and who corroborated key elements of the conspiracy narrative.

A former CIA contract agent named J.D. Tippett, not to be confused with the Dallas police officer of the same name, killed after the Kennedy assassination, was also referenced in testimony connecting intelligence community operatives to the operation. The jury deliberated for about an hour. They returned a verdict in favor of the King family. They found that Lloyd Jowers had been part of a conspiracy to murder Martin Luther King Jr. And that this conspiracy also involved others including governmental agencies.

The damages awarded were $100, a symbolic amount that reflected the fact that the King family hadn't sued for money, but for truth. $100. A jury of American citizens presented with four. weeks of evidence concluded that the government of the United States had been involved in the murder of one of its most celebrated citizens, and the country barely noticed. The Department of Justice conducted its own review of the case in 2000, concluding that there was no credible evidence of a wider conspiracy and affirming the conclusion that Ray had acted alone. The King family, William Pepper, and a significant number of historians and investigators have rejected that conclusion.

And when you look at what we actually know, what the documented record actually shows, their rejection seems not just reasonable, but necessary. Let me tell you about William Pepper, because he deserves more than a passing mention. Pepper was a lawyer and author who became convinced of Ray's innocence after spending years investigating the assassination, and who ultimately served as Ray's attorney in the final years before Ray's death. His investigation, conducted over more than three decades, is one of the most extensive private investigations of a political assassination in American history. His 1995 book Orders to Kill and his later work, The Plot to Kill King,

represent an encyclopedic marshalling of witness testimony, documentary evidence, and investigative finding that challenges virtually every element of the official account. What Pepper found, through interviews with more than 200 witnesses, was a convergence of evidence pointing toward a conspiracy involving local and federal law enforcement, military intelligence, and organized crime operating through the same channels that connected the Marcello crime family to various political operations across the South. Among the witnesses Pepper interviewed were people who claimed direct knowledge of pre-assassination planning meetings, people who said they had seen a shooter different from Ray in the vicinity of the bushes behind the rooming house,

people who had been silenced or threatened after coming forward with information in the period immediately after the assassination, and former law enforcement and intelligence operatives, who, decades later and often on their deathbeds, were willing to say things they had not been willing to say when the relevant institutional powers were at their strongest. One of the most significant witnesses in Pepper's investigation was a man named John McFerrin, a Memphis produce dealer who had done business with Frank Laberto, the same man. man Lloyd Jowers named as the organizer of the conspiracy. McFerrin said that in the hours before the assassination, he had overheard Leberto on a phone call at Leberto's Memphis Warehouse, in which

Liberto said, quote, shoot the son of a bitch on the balcony, end quote. McFerrin went to the FBI with this information in the hours after the assassination. The Bureau took his statement, thanked him, and apparently did nothing with it. His account never made it into the official investigative record in any meaningful way. It was only through Pepper's independent investigation, decades later, that McFerrin's testimony became part of the public record. There was also a man named Earl Caldwell, a New York Times reporter who was staying at the Lorraine Motel on April 4th

to cover King's return to Memphis. Caldwell was positioned at the motel in such a way that he witnessed the immediate aftermath of the shooting, and he has said repeatedly and consistently over the years that the evidence at the scene, the direction from which witnesses said they heard the shot, the physical arrangement of the crime scene, was inconsistent with the official account that the shot came from the bathroom window of the rooming house. Caldwell is not a conspiracy theorist. He is a highly respected journalist with a 50-year career. His account of what he observed has never been satisfactorily addressed in the official record.

And then there is the matter of Nathan Whitlock, a Memphis man whose father, had been connected to Liberto's business network. Whitlock told investigators that his father had confided in him that the killing of King had been arranged through Laberto's network, that Laverto had boasted about it after the fact, that it was known in certain circles exactly what had happened and who had arranged it. Whitlock's testimony was part of the record in the civil trial. What you have, when you put all of this together, is not one suspicious witness or one suspicious piece of evidence. You have dozens of independent witnesses across multiple decades with no apparent motive to fabricate, all pointing in the same general direction. The official account requires you to

dismiss all of them. The conspiratorial account requires only that you take seriously what they said. Let's talk about what we actually know, not theories, not speculation, documented, confirmed, verifiable fact. We know that the FBI, under J.I. Edgar Hoover ran a decade-long campaign to destroy Dr. King, including explicit attempts to drive him to suicide, to destroy his marriage, to undermine his credibility, and two, in Hoover's own documented words, prevent the rise of a black Messiah who could unify and electrify the movement. An internal FBI memo from 1967 identified the prevention of the rise of a black Messiah as an explicit goal of Cointel Pro.

Martin Luther King was identified in subsequent internal documents as the most likely candidate to become that Messiah. This is not interpretation. This is from the FBI's own files. We know that the Memphis Police Department had an intelligence unit called the Memphis Police Department Intelligence Bureau that was monitoring King's activities in Memphis in the days before the assassination.

We know that two black police officers who had been assigned to King's protective detail were pulled off that detail the morning of April 4, 1968, for reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained. We know that King's usual room at the Lorraine Motel, a less exposed interior room, was changed to the second floor balcony room, and that the change was communicated to someone in advance,

because the room change was reported on a Memphis radio station before King arrived at the hotel. We know that there were Memphis Police Department officers stationed at a fire station directly adjacent to the Lorraine Motel, who were in a position to observe King's movements on the balcony. We know that some of those officers were members of an undercover intelligence unit. We know that some of their surveillance records from that day have never been fully accounted for. We know that Army intelligence had been conducting its own surveillance of King for years. We know that on the day of the assassination, there were military intelligence

operatives in Memphis. A man named Marell McCalla, who was working undercover in Memphis ostensibly as a member of the invaders gang, was photographed crouching over King's body on the balcony within seconds of the shooting. McCalla was later confirmed to have been an undercover Memphis police officer and subsequently an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. His presence at the precise moment of the assassination and his membership in the invaders, The same group whose agitation had disrupted the March 28th March and provided the pretext for criticizing King has never been fully explained.

We know that multiple witnesses at the scene, including cab driver Solomon Jones, who was directly below the balcony, reported that the shot appeared to come not from the rooming house bathroom window identified in the official account, but from the bushes below and to the side of the rooming house. We know that the bushes in question were cut down by city workers, the morning after the assassination before investigators could examine them.

The destruction of a potential crime scene the morning after one of the most significant assassinations in American history was never satisfactorily explained. We know that the crime scene investigation was by any professional standard, shockingly deficient. The bathroom window identified as the point of origin for the shot was not tested for fingerprints in a timely and systematic way. The physical evidence. The rifle, the bag in which it was found, the binoculars wrapped in the bag, was handled in ways that contaminated the chain of evidence.

The fingerprint evidence linking Ray to the rifle and the bathroom window was developed after significant delay and under circumstances that have been questioned by forensic experts. We know that James Earl Ray, in the period between his prison escape and the assassination, lived a lifestyle that his known financial resources could not have supported. Yet the source of his funding was never seriously investigated by the FBI. We know that Percy Foreman, the attorney who persuaded Ray to plead guilty, had unusual connections to the Texas political establishment, and had previously represented Jack Ruby, the man who shot Lee Harvey Oswald.

We know that Ray's original attorney, a man named Arthur Haynes, was actually making progress in building a defense, and that Foreman came in and replaced him in circumstances that remained murky. We know that the HSCA, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which reinvestigated both the Kennedy and King assassinations in the late 1970s, concluded that there had been a likelihood of conspiracy in the King assassination, and that the FBI's original investigation had been inadequate. The HSC specifically cited the Bureau's institutional bias against King,

its years of trying to destroy him, as a factor that fundamentally compromised its ability. to conduct a credible investigation of his murder. And we know this is the thing that makes the hair stand up, that in the two months between the assassination and Ray's capture, as he traveled from Memphis to Atlanta to Toronto to Lisbon to London, on forged documents and apparently without financial difficulties, nobody in the extensive FBI apparatus that had spent a decade monitoring this man's every move,

managed to find him. The same bureau that had bugged his hotel rooms, wiretapped his phones, and tracked his movements for years, couldn't locate him for 65 days after he allegedly shot him. Now let's talk about what the conspiracy evidence actually points toward, because saying there was a conspiracy without naming the nature of that conspiracy is intellectually unsatisfying, and the evidence taken as a whole does suggest a particular shape. But first, let's spend more time on James Earl Ray's 13 months as a fugitive, because those

months deserve more scrutiny than they typically get in the standard telling of this story. After escaping from the Missouri State Penitentiary in April of 1967, Ray made his way to Chicago, and then, oddly and specifically, to Montreal, Canada. Montreal is not the obvious destination for an escaped American convict looking to lie low, but Montreal had, in the mid-1960s, a particular kind of underground economy in the supply of false documents. Canadian passports that could be obtained through certain contacts for the right price. Ray, according to his own account, was directed to Montreal by someone he'd met through prison contacts. He obtained a passport there in the name of Eric S. Galt, a name that turned out

to belong to a real Canadian citizen living in the Toronto area, a fact that itself suggests something more sophisticated than a random fugitive improvising his way through the criminal underworld. The Eric Galt identity is worth dwelling on, because the choice of it may not have been random. Eric St. Vincent Galt was a real person, a white man of roughly Ray's age, build, and general physical description, living in Toronto, who had some connection to Canadian defense industry contracts. Investigators looking into the Galt identity found suggestive but not conclusive evidence that the name had been selected for Ray, rather than discovered by him, independently. If someone with connections to intelligence networks provided Ray with a workable false

identity, they needed someone who could do background research on viable candidates. That's not something an escaped convict from Missouri ordinarily has access to. From Montreal, Ray traveled to Birmingham, Alabama, where he bought a car and began living what appeared to be a relatively comfortable lower middle class life for a man with no employment and no visible income. He took a bartending course. He took a dance class. He corresponded with a lonely hearts agency. He traveled to Puerto Vallarda and Acapulco. He spent time in Los Angeles where he took a self-hypnosis course from a practitioner named Xavier von Berg, worked briefly as an extra on a movie set, and enrolled in the international school of bartending. None of this is the behavior of a man on the run with

limited resources. All of it costs money. Ray claimed in his various statements that he had met the man he called Raul in a Montreal bar in the summer of 1967, and that Raul, who presented himself as a gunrunner with connections to Latin America, had offered to pay Ray's expenses and eventually arranged for him to get to a country without extradition agreements with the United States, in exchange for Ray's assistance with certain tasks that Raul never fully specified. Ray said he understood these tasks to involve at various points, driving a car with packages across the border, delivering items whose nature he was told not to inquire about, and eventually traveling to Memphis and purchasing a rifle at Raoul's direction. He said he understood that

something was going to happen in Memphis, but that he did not know it was an assassination, and that when the shot was fired, he panicked and ran. Stay tuned for more disturbing history. We'll be back after these messages. This account has been dismissed as a fabrication by the official investigators. It is certainly convenient. story tailor made to give Ray plausible deniability without requiring him to name anyone specific who could be verified or confronted. But William Pepper and the King family's investigators did over the years develop what appeared to be evidence that a man matching Raoul's description existed and had operated in the circles Ray described. A composite portrait of Raoul developed from Ray's

descriptions was identified by multiple witnesses as matching a real individual. A man whose name Pepper eventually concluded was Raul Coelho, a Portuguese immigrant who had connections to various criminal and intelligence networks. The Department of Justice investigation in 2000 reviewed the evidence regarding Raul and concluded it was not credible. Pepper and the King family's team disputed that conclusion. Here is what is undeniable. The money question has never been answered. Nobody in the official investigation ever satisfactorily explained were James Earl Ray's money came from. Nobody ever explained how an escaped convict with a ninth grade education and a history of nickel and dime crimes managed to move through multiple countries, maintain

false identities, and live above subsistence level for 13 months without a job, a bank account, or any documented source of income. Either someone was financing him, or he robbed banks that nobody has ever been able to identify. The official account offers neither explanation nor acknowledgement of the problem. The most credible version of events that has emerged from decades of investigation and testimony is something like this. James Earl Ray was recruited, likely in his travels between prison and Memphis, by individuals connected to a network that spanned organized crime,

white supremacist groups, and elements of law enforcement and intelligence. He was, as he always claimed, partly a patsy, moved into position in Memphis, directed toward the Lorraine Motel, set up as the designated fall guy for a conspiracy that had its operational center somewhere else. Whether Ray actually fired a shot or not, and there is genuine debate about this. The real direction and coordination of the operation came from somewhere else. The organized crime connection runs through the testimony of multiple witnesses to figures in Carlos Marcello's network. Marcello was the most powerful mob boss in the south, headquartered in New Orleans, with deep connections in Memphis through a man named Frank Laberto.

Leberto is the figure Lloyd Jowers named as the person who paid him to facilitate the assassination. Liberto, for his part, was overheard by a witness named Lovada Addison, making statements in the days after King's assassination that he had, had King killed. Addison testified to this. Leberto died in 1978 before investigators could fully pursue the lead. The government connection runs through multiple channels. The documented cooperation between Jay Edgar Hoover's FBI and local police departments and the systematic harassment of civil rights workers is not in question.

The question is whether that cooperation extended to facilitating or enabling an assassination. The removal of King's police bodyguards the morning of April 4th. The military intelligence presence in Memphis. The destruction of physical evidence the morning after. the shockingly inadequate investigation, the pressure on Ray to plead guilty before he could have a trial, the refusal over more than five decades to fully open the relevant classified files. None of this constitutes proof of a government-directed assassination. Let me be clear about that.

What we have is a documented record of institutional hostility toward King so profound and so sustained that it created the conditions in which his murder could occur. and then a documented record of institutional behavior in the aftermath that looks in every meaningful way, like a cover-up. Whether that cover-up was covering up direct government involvement or was simply covering up the embarrassment of a decade of illegal surveillance and politically motivated sabotage, we do not know for certain. But here's what I want you to sit with. The United States government spent 10 years using illegal means to destroy a man who was preaching

nonviolence and economic justice. It compiled files on his private life. It tried to drive him to suicide. It planted informants in his organization. It worked to undermine his reputation, his marriage, his relationships with other leaders, his funding sources. It identified him in its own internal documents as the single greatest threat to the existing social order. And then, when he was shot to death on a motel balcony at the age of 39, it conducted a half a hasty investigation, destroyed physical evidence, pressured the only suspect into a guilty plea that foreclosed any possibility of a trial, and maintained for decades that the case was closed by a lone racist with a rifle. That is the official story. You're allowed to believe it, but you should know

what it's asking you to believe. And there's more. There's always more when you start pulling these threads. In 1980, a man named Donald Wilson, a former FBI, agent, claimed that he had found papers in James Earl Ray's abandoned car in Atlanta after the assassination. Papers that contained the name Raoul, a phone number and other identifying information that would have corroborated Ray's account of being directed by an external handler. Wilson said he had kept these papers hidden for years out of fear, but eventually came forward and turned them over to William Pepper and the King family legal team. The Department of Justice dismissed the documents as forgeries. Pepper and the King family's

forensic experts, maintained they were authentic. There is also the matter of the Reverend James Orange, a senior SCLC staffer who was in Memphis with King, and who has said in various interviews over the years that he believes the assassination was coordinated, that King was deliberately exposed on that balcony, and that the people who wanted King dead were not just in the South and not just among the ranks of obvious white supremacists, but within the establishment of American political power itself. And then there is this. In 2021, under the provisions of the JFK Records Collection Act,

additional government documents were released related to the King assassination. Among those documents were FBI records showing the extent of the Bureau's informant network within King's immediate circle. People he trusted, people who were with him in Memphis, people who were in a position to report his exact movements, his room assignment, his plan, for the evening of April 4th. The documents confirmed what the Church Committee had established decades earlier

that the Bureau's penetration of the SCLC was far deeper than had ever been publicly acknowledged, which means that whoever wanted to know where Martin Luther King Jr. would be standing at 6 o'clock on the evening of April 4th, 1968, had multiple ways of finding out. And the same Bureau that had all of that information conducted the investigation of his murder. Let me say that plainly. The organization that had spent a decade trying to destroy Martin Luther King Jr. was the lead investigative agency in determining who killed him. There has never been an independent investigation.

There has never been a full public accounting. The relevant classified files have been only partially released and in some cases remain withheld on national security grounds. A designation applied, half a century after the fact, to the files related to the assassination of the crime. a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Baptist minister. What exactly does national security require us not to know about who killed Martin Luther King? Let's talk about what Dr. King's legacy actually is.

Not the sanitized poster version legacy, but the real one. Because part of what has been done to his memory in the decades since his death is itself a form of the same suppression that defined his life. The country that killed him, or at minimum, the country that faced. failed to honestly investigate his killing, has worked very hard to make him safe, to sand off the edges, to transform the man who called the United States government the greatest purveyor of violence in the world into a gentle dreamer who just wanted everyone to get along. The version of Martin Luther King that is taught in American schools is carefully curated to end somewhere around 1963, with the dream speech on the mall, with the children holding

hands across racial lines. The version that had evolved by 1968, the king who was demanding a guaranteed income for all Americans, the king who was building an interracial coalition of the poor to occupy the nation's capital, the king who was calling out the military industrial complex, and the economic arrangements of American capitalism as fundamental sources of human suffering. That king makes people uncomfortable. That king is harder to put on a poster. And that perhaps, is the truest measure of how threatening he was. Because you don't spend 10 years trying to destroy someone and then build a federal holiday in their honor

unless you're trying to manage their legacy. Unless you're trying to contain what they represented within a frame that serves the status quo rather than challenging it. The Martin Luther King who gets celebrated on the third Monday of every January is the Martin Luther King that America decided it could live with. Which is to say, the Martin Luther King that America domesticated

in death in a way it couldn't manage in life. Koretta Scott King spent the rest of her life. She died in 2006, fighting for the full truth about her husband's assassination. She was convinced, as were her children, that James Earl Ray did not act alone, and that elements of the United States government bore direct or indirect responsibility for her husband's death. Her son, Dexter King, met with James Earl Ray in prison in 1997, one of the most extraordinary, and moving meetings in modern American history, and publicly stated his belief that Ray was not the shooter. Martin Luther King III has made similar statements. Bernice King, the youngest daughter,

has been more guarded but has supported calls for a full independent reinvestigation. The question of who killed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has never been definitively resolved in the way the official account would have us believe. And the effort to keep it unresolved, the sealed files, the dismissed testimony, the institutional resistance to a real accounting, is itself part of the story. Perhaps the most disturbing part. Here's what I want you to take away from today's episode, not just the facts of the assassination, the where and the when and the who of the official narrative, but the larger picture, the context that the official narrative was always designed to obscure. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the most prominent and effective leader of what was, by the mid-1960s,

an existential challenge to the arrangements of power in the United States. He was not just asking for black people to be treated as equal under the law, though that was necessary and urgent and right. He was asking for a fundamental restructuring of the economic and social relationships that defined American life. He was asking for the poor to have power. He was asking for workers to have dignity. He was asking the United States government to stop killing people in Southeast Asia and spend that money on housing and health care and schools in the cities

where its own citizens were dying of poverty and despair. He was asking for things that the people who ran this country, not just the racists in white hoods, but the men in suits who made the real decisions were not willing to give. And they had every institutional means available to them to stop him. They used those means, openly and illegally, for over a decade. And when he was finally shot dead on a motel balcony at 39 years old, they made sure that the investigation would not reveal more than they were willing to reveal,

that the man they presented as the lone shooter would never have a trial, and that the questions that would have been asked at that trial would remain unanswered. The jury in Memphis in 1999 heard the evidence that a proper investigation should have developed in 1968. They didn't need long to reach their verdict. James Earl Ray may have been in Memphis. He may have purchased the rifle. He may have been used wittingly or unwittingly as part of an operation whose full dimensions he never understood.

But the weight of the evidence, the documented FBI campaign to destroy King, the removal of his bodyguards, the military intelligence presence in Memphis, the destruction of physical evidence, the pressured guilty plea, the witness test, testimony and the civil trial. The verdict of the jury, the refusal to fully disclose the relevant

records, points towards something far larger and far more deeply embedded in the institutions of American power than one escaped convict from Missouri with a bad history and a cheap rifle. That is not a comfortable truth. It's not supposed to be. The truth about power rarely is. Martin Luther King Jr. was 39 years old when he died. He had been leading the movement since he was 26. He had spent 13 years being surveilled, threatened, bombed, stabbed, harassed, betrayed, defamed, and driven to the edge of despair by the full apparatus of the most powerful government in the world. And he had kept going. He had kept his commitment to nonviolence even as violence was used against him in every possible way. He had kept expanding the scope of his vision,

even as the consequences of that expansion made him more dangerous and therefore more vulnerable. He had gone back to Memphis even when he didn't have to, even when it was risky, because the men carrying those I am a man signs needed him there. The last photograph taken of him alive shows him standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel, leaning over the railing to talk to friends in the parking lot below, laughing. He looks like a man who is exactly where he wants to be. He was murdered 60 seconds later. The men who wanted him gone got what they wanted, at least in the short term.

The poor people's campaign went forward without him, but it never had the force it would have had under his leadership. The movement fractured, the backlash that had been building against civil rights, the white flight, the law and order politics, the southern strategy that Richard Nixon rode to the White House, arrived with devastating force. The economic justice agenda that King had been building toward

was buried under decades of political reaction. But here's the thing about trying to kill an idea. You can kill the man. You cannot kill what he said in motion. The sanitation workers in Memphis eventually won their strike. The voting rights that King and so many others died for have been exercised by millions of Americans who never would have had them without the movement.

The conversation about economic inequality and racial justice that King elevated to the center of American political life has never been fully suppressed, no matter how hard the forces arrayed against it have tried. The dream did not die on that balcony. They made sure of that. But the truth about who killed the dreamer that is still waiting to be fully told.

The files are still classified. The full story is still locked away. And the official account, the clean, simple, comfortable account of the lone gunman acting alone in his racial hatred is still the version that most Americans have been given and have accepted. Consider what a real independent investigation might have yielded.

Consider what a full trial. The trial that James Earl Ray was denied when Percy Foreman persuaded him to plead guilty might have produced. The rules of discovery in a criminal trial would have compelled the government to turn over its surveillance records of King in Memphis in the days before the assassination. They would have compelled disclosure of the FBI's informant files, the names, the reports, the instructions given to the people embedded in King's own organization and in the organizations around him. They would have put witnesses on the stand under oath, subject to cross-examination,

required to answer specific questions about specific events with the threat of perjury hanging over every answer. None of that happened. The guilty plea foreclosed all of it, and whoever benefited from foreclosing it, whether by design or by fortunate coincidence, benefited enormously. 57 years have now passed since the shot on that Memphis balcony. The men who were King's contemporaries The men who might have known the full truth, who might have had direct knowledge of what was planned and by whom, are almost all dead. J. Edgar Hoover died in 1972. James Earl Ray died in 1998. Lloyd Jowers died in 2000.

Frank Leberto died in 1978. Carlos Marcello died in 1993. The window of accountability has narrowed to almost nothing. What remains is the documentary record. the FBI files that have been partially released and partially withheld, the court records of the civil trial, the Church Committee findings, the HSC conclusions, and the decades of investigative work by Pepper and others. What remains is the testimony of people who are still alive and willing to speak.

What remains is the verdict of that Memphis jury in 1999, sitting in the record, waiting for the country to decide whether it's going to look at it honestly. This is disturbing history. Our job is not to give you comfortable accounts. Our job is to tell you what actually happened, as close as the available evidence allows us to get, and to name what was done and who did it and why they needed it done. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered,

almost certainly not by one man acting alone. Almost certainly with some degree of knowledge and facilitation from within the very institutions that were supposed to protect him. Certainly in the after, of a decade of government persecution that constitutes one of the greatest abuses of state power in American history. And the country that celebrates him now, that puts his face on stamps and named streets after him and teaches school children the dream speech, has never fully accounted for what was done to him, what it was afraid of, and who made sure that he would never get to

the other side of that mountain. That's the story. That's the part they don't put on the posters. Don't let it be forgotten. Your skin off gone is out