[This was the very first story I wrote, back in January of 2003]
Arlo is Not Guilty of Killing Anna Mae
by
Janis Schmidt
Arlo Looking Cloud is not guilty of killing Anna Mae or any one else. The family and relatives of Arlo asked me to tell Arlo's side of the story which I promised faithfully to do to the best of my ability. I live on the Pine Ridge Reservation. I am friends with the family. I know many of them personally. I know how decent and totally dedicated to justice they are. I have glanced at the news stories rolling off the presses world wide, all seeking an angle, a one-ups-manship. But I have something that no one else has: first hand knowledge.
The media would have you believe this is a simple story. It is not. It is as complicated and complex as the story of the Indian dealing with the first white man. The truth has not come out yet. Even Arlo does not know the whole truth, who was really behind the murder of Anna Mae.
To quote Arthur Miller as a starting point: "I cannot conceive of guilt as having an existence without the existence of injustice. And injustice, like death itself, creates two opposing interests--one more or less profits from it, the other more or less is diminished by it...The good and evil are not compartments, but two elements of the same transaction...Is it too much to say that those who do not suffer injustice have a vested interest in injustice?...[it gets down to] our individual relationships with injustice and violence....We do not have many wills, but only one: it cannot be continuously compromised without atrophy setting in altogether....We do, after all, live in the century when more people have been killed by other people that at any other period. Perhaps the deepest respect we can pay the millions of innocent dead is to examine what we believe about murder, and our responsibility as survivors for the future."--Arthur Miller from "Echoes Down the Hallway."
Arlo has been tried and found guilty without evidence, without witnesses for the defense, including himself, was not allowed to testify. The State ramrodded through the verdict that is grossly inadequate both to Arlo and to Anna Mae. However, the State was successful in putting AIM on trial--their chief objective, unstated, of course. I propose that we give Arlo another trial, this time in the court of public opinion. I have, at my fingertips, almost all of the key players in this intriguing drama. I pass by Wounded Knee two or more times every week. I am friends with many of the AIM Indians who remember '73 vividly. Many of them have told me their story of Wounded Knee. I shall call as many witnesses as necessary to get at the truth.
I shall start with Arlo's story of the strange 2 days that led to Anna Mae's death. Like many Lakotas, Arlo like to drink. As a matter of fact, he already had a drinking problem back in '73 when he was only 18. In 1975, the year of Anna Mae's death, he was 20 years old and looking for another drink. Sure, he liked AIM and what they stood for.
Back then, you were either AIM or you were GOON. AIM meant that you were on the side of Indians fighting for land and for justice for Indians and for Indian pride, which had reached its lowest point since the beginning of the reservation. Usually you were full blood. GOON meant that you were part of the puppet government, BIA, corrupt, and bought off. GOON meant Tribal police, Tribal government, BIA, and FBI. They were all working hand in hand.
To read the misinformed news, one would think that Arlo was in on top level AIM plans and a key player. Nothing could be farther from the truth. At most, we could say, he was AIM because he is full blood. But like a full blood, he was and is shy. He was more interested in the next drink rather than any political deal. Full bloods shy away from political deals.
Someone here is guilty. Anna Mae is dead. These are facts. The someone or ones, are shadowy figures. They do not seek the light of publicity. They have secret agendas. This was beyond Arlo. We had a rigged trial, complete with rigged "justice." Arlo's attorney would not call witnesses for Arlo. He refused to except help from expert attorneys. He was rude to the family. He wouldn't even talk to Arlo. He refused to ask for a continuum so that Arlo could receive medical attention and he refused to prepare an adequate defense.
Right now, the family is desperately seeking a new attorney to appeal the decision. Any volunteers? We have just 7 days to file an appeal.
What I propose to do is to tell the story of Wounded Knee. Why things had so deteriorated on the Pine Ridge Reservation that people were willing to take up arms to defend their last little piece of ground from government takeover. We must set the stage for the story. Otherwise you will not understand, not really. Also, this is not the rush job. Since the lawyer failed to adequately represent his client, we, the people, must now represent him. Give him a fair trial in the court of public opinion. Every day, I will call forth witnesses and background. After all, the trail is a little cold, the murder having taken place 30 years ago. Tomorrow I will tell you the events that led up to the standoff at Wounded Knee, and why it was necessary. In the meantime, if you have any evidence you would like to present, contact me at 701-294-2196, or Lucy Bull Bear at 605-455-1138.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
THE TRIAL OF ARLO LOOKING CLOUD
by
Janis Schmidt
I have a couple of disclaimers. First, I have been asked by Lucy Bull Bear and Arlo Looking Cloud to tell his side of the story. I have known the Bull bear and American Horse Family for 12 years and I am a good friend of Lucy. Secondly, I do not speak for anyone else, including the daughters of Anna Mae who have their own opinions and statements which they will present for themselves. As I do not know the family of Anna Mae, I would not be able to speak for them. I respect their wishes.
It has come to my attention that some people, unknown to the family of Arlo, claim to be representing him. This is not true, and for these reasons: Arlo is not associated with John Graham. Graham was not a friend of Arlo’s. Arlo never knew him. I can say nothing about Graham, because we do not know who is he. That does not mean we think he is guilty. His guilt or innocence is up to a fair minded court devoted to justice, to find out. Thirdly, we do not have a close association with AIM. Although, generally speaking, we are sympathetic to AIM and believe in what it stands for, a true warrior society. Arlo was never a member of AIM, much less to know any of the inner workings. Fourthly, Arlo knows nothing of the incident of 2 FBI agents being shot in Oglala. And furthermore, he was not there at that time.
Seems like everyone wants to be an Indian these days. Yet no one is willing to live the life of poverty and misunderstanding, that is the Indian’s life. Some people like to jump in to try attract importance to themselves by saying things that are not true. This kind of behavior is not helpful. At the same time, we deeply appreciate those of you who have come forward with information and advice. Those of you who have sent e-mails and letters to Arlo, have been very much appreciated. Arlo Looking Cloud and Indians in general have always been placed at an extreme disadvantage when attempting to find justice from the U.S. government, who claims to be the protector of Indian rights, land, natural resources and property. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a little bit like the fox now guarding the hen house.
For anyone who has reviewed the transcript of the trial of Arlo Looking Cloud, one could only conclude that Arlo was convicted of first degree murder with no evidence presented by the State. Arlo was convicted by the prosecuting attorney, McMahaon, with 23 FBI agent testimony and a couple of documented paid snitches. Although there were eye witnesses, they were never called to the stand. The State appointed attorney, Rensch, did not offer any defense for Arlo. He never called any AIM members to testify, although AIM leaders during the ’73 Wounded Knee stand off, Russell Means and Vernon Belcourt were present during the trial. Rensch never rebutted any of the FBI testimony. An important witness for the defense, someone who had first hand knowledge of Anna Mae leaving Denver of her oun free will, was told by Rensch that she needn’t be at the trial. Rensch failed to inform Arlo of his legal rights, his right to choose his own attorney. In fact, Arlo fired Rensch in August of 2003 because Rensch refused to talk to Arlo, refused to talk with the family. Later he refused expert legal expertise of Terry Gilbert from the Center For Constitutional Rights, and refused expert legal assistance from Barry Bachrach, attorney for Leonard Peltier.
Rensch astutely reported to the Rapid City Journal that he had left the case, but later said differences were mended and he would defend Arlo. When in fact, he never defended Arlo. Arlo’s own words were used against him.
Agent Ecoffey scooped up Arlo on the streets of Denver, his home, in March of 2003. While Arlo was drunk, Eccofey videotaped a so-called confession, meaning Agent Eccofey told the concocted story, after Arlo had been badgered and manipulated into signing a Proffer Agreement, designed by Bob Ecoffey and U.S. Attorney, Karen Schreier. Arlo was drunk while Agent Eccofey meticulously read Arlo his miranda rights. The trial lasted only 3 days (actual testimony) because there was no defense. Arlo's own words were used against him in a devious plot hatched by the FBI and the Department of Justice to gain legal access to the Reservation. To accomplish this, they had to kill a couple of FBI agents in order to justify the continuing presence of the FBI on the Reservation. Then they had to blame this unto an AIM member, someone who was actually investigating the murder and mayhem going on, someone like Leonard Peltier.
Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, a devoted AIM leader, discovered the FBI plan and the FBI plants and infiltrators. So they snitch-jacketed her, and planned how to have her killed by the jealous-hearted Lakota women, who were fearful that Anna Mae was sleeping with their men. A story had to be devised to cover their tracks, and protect the guilty, the ones who really killed Anna Mae. And most of all, they had to frame up someone for the murder of Anna Mae, someone like Arlo Looking Cloud, who didn't really know what was going on and had a drinking problem--two factors that made him an ideal candidate for the frame job. Let's take a look at the trial transcript, at Bob Ecoffey's testimony. Afterall, he is the one responsible for setting Arlo up to be sent off:
Testimony of Robert Ecoffey in the Trial of Arlo Looking Cloud February, 2004
THE COURT: Bring in the jury, please. (Jury Enters).
THE COURT: Call your next witness.
MR. MANDEL: The United States would call Bob Ecoffey, Your Honor.
ROBERT ECOFFEY, called as a witness, being first duly sworn, testified and said as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MANDEL: Q. Sir, would you please state your name?
A. My name is Robert G. Ecoffey.
Q. Where are you from?
A. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Q. Is that where you are originally from, sir?
A. No, I am from Pine Ridge, South Dakota.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am the Deputy Director for the Office of Law Enforcement Services for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Q. How long have you held that position, sir?
A. Approximately three years.
Q. Can you give me a recap of your law enforcement background and training, sir?
A. Yes. I have approximately 28 years in law enforcement starting back in 1975, and I have a Bachelor of Arts degree in criminal justice from Chadron State College, graduate of FBI National Academy. I have hundreds of hours in terms of investigative homicide courses, in terms of forensic homicide investigations, crime scene investigations, and sex crimes investigations.
Q. Over the course of years what law enforcement positions have you held?
A. I first started my law enforcement career on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in 1975 as a law enforcement trainee working for the Tribe under the SETA program. I was assigned to work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs police department there in 1975. 1976 I started my official career with the Bureau of Indian Affairs as a supervisory guard at the Pine Ridge jail. From 1976 to 1977 I worked as a guard. From 1977 to 1981 the Oglala Sioux Tribe contracted the program there, I switched over from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, went to work for the Oglala Sioux Tribe where I served as the training officer and captain of police. From 1981 to 1983 I was a Special Agent with the Bureau of Indian Affairs on the Devil's Lake Sioux reservation in Fort Totten, North Dakota. From 1984 to 1986 as a Special Agent again on the Pine Ridge Reservation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, stationed there. Then from 1986 to I think 1989 I was a Special Agent with the United States Forest Service on the Black Hills National Forest and the Nebraska National Forest. Then in 1990 I got out of law enforcement for a couple of years, I went back to work on the Pine Ridge Reservation at the Pine Ridge agency as administrative manager for two years. Then in 1994 during President Clinton's first administration I had the opportunity to be appointed as the first Indian United States Marshal in the history of the Marshals service. I served in that position for two years. 1996 I left that position, returned back to Pine Ridge, and served as agency superintendent for five years on Pine Ridge until taking this job as the, originally was the Director of the Office of Law Enforcement Services until about two months ago the Bureau of Indian Affairs went through a reorganization and changed the title to Deputy Director.
Q. In terms of your current job, Mr. Ecoffey, do you supervise BIA law enforcement on reservations throughout the United States?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Have you, yourself, personally been involved in homicide investigations over the years?
A. Yes, I have. I have testified hundreds of times in Federal Court proceedings concerning homicide investigations throughout Indian country. Majority of those cases were on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.
Q. In particular did you become involved in an investigation into the death of Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Can you tell us, sir, what your first involvement in that investigation was?
A. My first involvement in the investigation actually began while I was stationed up in Devil's Lake, North Dakota. I got a call from the FBI and was asked for their assistance. They had picked up some information, or some leads, I led them down into the Denver area. I was asked by the FBI to come along and to assist in interviewing potential witnesses because of my expertise in dealing with Indian people and dealing in the area of homicide investigations.
Q. At that time did that pan out at all?
A. No, it didn't.
Ecoffey testified that he picked up some leads in Devil's Lake, North Dakota, but he doesn't say what those leads were, and Rensch doesn't ask. Ft. Totten is a long ways from Pine Ridge, even longer to Denver, two scenes mentioned in trial as to where Anna Mae had been. Devil's Lake was not mentioned. Could it be that Leonard Peltier has relatives living on Spirit Lake Reservationl?
Ecoffey states that his lucky break comes in 1993:
Q. When did you next get involved in the investigation?
A. Actually the information that really got me involved was in I believe in 1996, September. Look at my note here for a minute.
Q. That's fine. A. My actual involvement was in 1993 when I really got involved in the case when information came forward when I was the administrative manager at the Pine Ridge Agency.
Q. What type of information came forward at that time?
A. Individual by the name of Gladys Bissonette came to me at the agency, I was friends with her, had been friends with her for a number of years. She was heavily involved with the Wounded Knee occupation and with the American Indian Movement. I worked with her on some issues there at the agency, and then I had asked her if she had any information pertaining to the murder of Anna Mae Aquash. At that point in time she provided me with the name of an individual that would likely cooperate with me and come forward and provide additional information.
Q. Who was that individual?
A. Al Gates.
Q. Who is Al Gates?
A. Al Gates is a elderly gentleman who lives in Denver, Colorado. He was a family relative of Gladys Bissonette. He came forward, it was actually on June 11 of 1993 when Gladys came forward with the information. Then on June 18 I had asked her, I said will Mr. Gates cooperate with me and provide information about Anna Mae's murder? And she said yeah, I think he will. That was on June 11, 1993. On June 18, 1993 he showed up at my office at the Pine Ridge Agency.
Ecoffey is just an all-over kind of guy. What is not mentioned in all the stories is the proffer, and how Ecoffey, with the help of U.S. Attorney Karen Schreier, got Arlo to testify against himself.
From the transcript:
Q. I want to move onto the time -- sir, at the time you met with Al Gates, did the discussions you had with him lead you to another suspect in the matter?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Who was that suspect?
A. It actually led us to the defendant here, Mr. Arlo Looking Cloud, John Graham, John Boy Patton, and Theda Nelson, Theda Clark.
Q. Specifically as to the defendant Arlo Looking Cloud, did you take some actions to attempt to obtain information from him?
A. Yes, I did. [See the Proffer Agreement]
Q. Can you tell us initially what you did in that regard, sir?
A. My initial interview with him was conducted at the Denver County jail. I had contacted detective, or Detective Abe Alonzo from the Denver police department had contacted me and said that Mr. Looking Cloud was in custody on some local charges, and that he was being held. And at that point in time I had learned information through my investigation that Mr. Looking Cloud was either an adoptive relative of Theda Clark, Theda Nelson, in an Indian way that she at some point in time had said that she had adopted him and that he might have some information pertaining to the murder of Anna Mae Aquash.
Q. Did you make contact with Mr. Looking Cloud?
A. Yes, on September 6, 1994 was my first interview with Mr. Looking Cloud, and that was conducted by myself and Detective Abe Alonzo at the Denver County jail in Denver, Colorado.
Q. Mr. Looking Cloud was in custody at that time?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Was he informed of his rights?
A. Yes, he was. [Did he understand those rights?]
Q. Did he talk to you regarding this incident at that time?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Can you tell us what the conversation was, what you asked him and what the responses were?
A. Basically I introduced myself to Mr. Looking Cloud, I introduced Detective Abe Alonzo. I told him I was the United States Marshal for the Federal District of South Dakota, that I was conducting an investigation into the murdered of Anna Mae Aquash. I told him that the information had been obtained that he might have some knowledge as to, and some involvement pertaining to the case, and that I would like his cooperation in resolving the matter.
Q. Did he agree to speak to you?
A. Yes, he did. He said that he didn't know anything about Anna Mae Aquash. I told him that the murder occurred around the first or second week of December in 1975. He said he didn't know Anna Mae Aquash. Matter of fact, he said that he wasn't in Denver at the time, that he thought that he was in Florida during December of 1975. At that point in time I told him that I had information that I had seen at the Denver police intelligence section where police officers had stopped him outside of Troy Lynn Irving's residence on the night of September 13th, 1975. At that point in time he said he didn't know anything about it. I said if he was willing to cooperate, that maybe the local prosecutor would be willing to drop the local charges on him. He said that he would take it under consideration.
Q. That was the extent of that first discussion?
A. Yes.
Q. I want to jump ahead a bit [but we forgot about the Proffer Agreement] and ask you if you had another discussion with Mr. Looking Cloud at a later date that resulted in a trip up to South Dakota?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. If you could, can you tell us first of all how that contact came about, what happened?
A. Around July 24th of 1975 I got a call -- [an interesting freudian slip--about this time, quite possibly Ecoffey was involved in planning how Arlo would be in the car with Anna Mae when she would be murdered, thus placing him directly at the scene of the crime]
Q. Excuse me, '95?
A. 1995, excuse me. I got a call from Detective Abe Alonzo, and I also at that point in time had a deputy, United States Marshal by the name of Rick Iannucci working with me on the case. Detective Alonzo said Mr. Looking Cloud was again in jail serving some time on local charges in Denver and that he was in custody. At that point in time I asked him if they would go talk to him and see if he would cooperate, and take part in a trip back up to South Dakota here and to show us what happened to Anna Mae Aquash, the places they took her, and the places they held her, and what route they took out to the crime scene where she was killed. Detective Alonzo and Iannucci at that point in time talked with the defendant here, Mr. Looking Cloud, Mr. Looking Cloud agreed to come up here to South Dakota. He came up on the 25th of July. At that point in time on the 24th of July, on the 25th we picked him up here at the Pennington County jail. At that point in time I advised him of his rights again, [which he did not understand] asked him if he had representation from any attorney. And he said no, that he didn't, [not realizing that he was the prime suspect, and that he was aiding Ecoffey in setting himself up to be charged with murder], but he said he was willing to cooperate and to show us where they had Anna Mae Aquash prior to her murder.
Q. Just to clarify a couple of things. When you say he came up, he was in custody when he came up, is correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So he didn't come up on his own?
A. That's correct.
Q. Secondly, so we are certain, do you recognize Mr. Looking Cloud and see him in the courtroom today?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Could you describe where he is seated and what he is wearing?
A. Sitting right here with the sweater on and glasses.
MR. MANDEL: Ask the record reflect the witness has identified the defendant, Your Honor?
THE COURT: It may.
BY MR. MANDEL: Q. Now after you went through the procedure where you read him his rights and he agreed to cooperate with you, can you tell us what next took place?
A. Yes. After we talked to him at the Pennington County jail he agreed to cooperate. We read him his rights, I was in my vehicle which was the U.S. Marshal vehicle, Detective Alonzo and Deputy U.S. Marshal Iannucci. We loaded him up at the Pennington County jail and then took him around here. He agreed to take us around in Rapid City here and show us where they held her. We picked him up at the jail, he took us out in to North Rapid City at the Knollwood Apartment complex.
Q. You say Knollwood?
A. Yes. Apartment complex. He told us that he pulled up there with Theda Clark and John Boy Patton, that they had Anna Mae, that they had tied her up in Denver, Colorado, that they brought her up there, that they pulled in up at that apartment complex, and that at that point in time they went in to what was considered an apartment in which nobody was living at at the time, and they held her there when they got there.
Q. He take you to any other locations in Rapid City?
A. From there he said, well, we took her from there. And I asked him did you go to the Wounded Knee Legal Defense office here in Rapid City, and I told him that we had information pertaining to interrogation there of her, and he said no. He says that he wasn't involved in taking her to that house. Matter of fact, he said that he had left that apartment for a while and then he had returned.
Q. Did he indicate to you what happened after he had returned to the apartment?
A. He said Theda was very angry with him, screamed at him and chewed him out, wanted to know where he went. Then he said he stayed there for the rest of the day. And then he said that night when it got dark, then they left Rapid City, they tied her up, they put her in the back of the car, they left Rapid City and they took her down through the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation up through Wanblee.
Q. Did he tell you about any other place they traveled to?
A. He said that they had stopped at a residence, they were getting low on gas. He said they stopped at a residence which was a relative of his at the Potato Creek Housing on the Pine Ridge Reservation, they had borrowed some gas, and then after borrowing the gas they went on up through Wanblee.
Q. Did you travel to Wanblee with Mr. Looking Cloud?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Who was present when you did that?
A. Myself, Detective Abe Alonzo, and Deputy United States Marshal Rick Iannucci.
Q. Was one of the purposes out there to take some photographs of the scene where this happened?
A. Yes. Mr. Looking Cloud agreed to provide basically a reenactment of what had happened with Ms. Aquash at the crime scene there. (Exhibit 1, 2, 3 & 15 marked For identification.)
BY MR. MANDEL: Q. I have handed you what are marked Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 15. First of all, are those all photographs that were taken on that day?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Who actually took the photographs?
A. Detective Abe Alonzo.
Q. They show various views of the crime scene?
A. Yes, they do. MR. MANDEL: I offer Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 15, Your Honor.
MR. RENSCH: No objection.
THE COURT: Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 15 are received.
BY MR. MANDEL: Q. Sir, first showing you Exhibit 1, can you tell us what that shot is, where it is shot from at the scene?
A. Exhibit 1 was shot basically from the roadway, which would show the embankment that was being walked to.
Q. And the time these photographs were being taken, did Mr. Looking Cloud indicate to you anything about what had happened that night when they arrived there at the scene?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. He said that they went to junction 73 and 44, that they drove about three miles north of that junction down into the bottom of the Bad Lands there. He said that they pulled over along side of the road, said that, I believe he said he was sitting in the front on the passenger side, that Theda Nelson Clark was driving, and that John Boy was sitting in the back seat, and Anna Mae was tied up in the back. He said that Theda pulled over on the side of the road there. He had us pull over right about this location, which was actually about a hundred yards from the actual crime scene itself.
Q. Is Exhibit 2 another photograph that you took out there?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Who are the three individuals pictured in the photograph?
A. The person in the front is the defendant Arlo Looking Cloud.
Q. That's in the white T shirt?
A. That's correct. I am in the middle and Deputy United States Marshal Rick Iannucci is in the back.
Q. That's heading over toward the scene?
A. Yes. He was basically reenacting saying we got her out of the car, we took her and this is how we walked.
Q. Sir, taking a look at Exhibit No. 3, can you tell me about that photograph?
A. That photograph there is actually right near the crime scene there. At that point in time the defendant, Mr. Looking Cloud, was explaining what had happened as they got her up to the scene.
Q. What did he explain?
A. He said that they, after they got her out of the car, they walked her through the ditch as exhibited in the other photo. When they got her up here he said Anna Mae said that she wanted to pray first. She said that when she said that, said that she started to pray. He said John Boy pulled out the gun, put it at the back of her head and pulled the trigger.
Q. Are you standing there at the location where that happened according to Mr. Looking Cloud?
A. Yes.
Q. Then what about Exhibit 15?
A. Exhibit 15 is just a continuation of basically his reenactment. At that point in time he was telling the story, he said after John Boy shot Anna Mae in the back of the head, he said that he wasn't sure what was going to happen to him, so he asked John Boy for the gun. He says that John Boy handed him the gun, he thought he might be shot next, so he took the gun and he fired directly into the ground emptying the gun.
Q. Did he point to the location where he said he fired it into the ground?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Where was that?
A. Just basically straight down. Not down where Anna Mae fell, but on the top of the bank where they were, where we were standing. He said I fired into the ground, emptied the gun and handed it back and we walked back to the car.
Q. So up there on the top of that Bad Lands wall there?
A. That's correct.
Q. At some point as part of your investigation did you go out to that same crime scene with a metal detector?
A. I didn't go out to the crime scene with a metal detector, but I had a couple of my agents go out with a metal detector. After he gave the story, had them go out and go through this whole area, the location, and the exact location where Roger Amiotte pointed out where the body was found to see if they could recover any of these bullets the defendant said he fired into the ground.
Q. Were they able to do so, sir?
A. No, they weren't.
Q. After you took the photographs at the scene, did you have any more discussion with the defendant regarding this matter?
A. I asked him, I said now Arlo, you are telling me that John Boy handed you the gun? And he said yes. And you are telling that you fired into the ground? And he said yes. So I asked him, I said or is it, aren't you just trying to explain why your fingerprints would be on that weapon? And he said -- I said isn't it a possibility that you are the person who shot her. And he said no, I didn't shoot her, but I just fired the gun into the ground and then I handed the gun back to John Boy. [Arlo would not have to say any of this, had it not been true]
Q. As far as the journey you made with the defendant on that day, did you also attempt to locate the weapon? A. Yes, we did. Enroute back to Rapid City he claims that they buried the gun underneath a bridge between Interior and Wanblee, and we stopped at a location where there was a bridge on the BIA route there. He said they buried the weapon underneath that bridge. We got out with him, we went down underneath the bridge, and looked at the area and different things, and he could not at that point in time point out where the weapon was buried.
Q. Was there any further discussion on that day relative to this?
A. No, there wasn't.
What sitting duck, a prime goose, Arlo was for the wiley Mr. Ecoffey, and the South Dakota Department of Justice. Ecoffey failed to mention how he threatened Arlo with life in prison if he did not confess. Ecoffey and South Dakota U.S. Attorney Karen Schreier kept threatening Arlo until he signed a Proffer Agreement written by Schreier. They promised they would not prosecute him in exchange for his testimony, a promise they never intended to keep. Reproduced here is the trial testimony and the Proffer Agreement:
Q. (Rensch) When you spoke with Arlo Looking Cloud on this videotape that we just watched, did you ever lie to him?
A. (Ecoffey) No, I didn't.
Q. Is it your practice to lie during an interrogation?
A. No, it isn't.
Q. You thanked him at the end for his cooperation, didn't you, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you meant it, didn't you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now not only did he speak to you on July 25th of 1995, and on the time in 2003 when we just watched up here on the screen,
but you in fact had spoken to Mr. Looking Cloud about these events in November of 1994, is that not so?
A. I am not sure whether I can mention that.
Q. I am asking you?
MR. MANDEL: I ask that we approach on this matter.
THE COURT: Very well.
Bench Conference in the Trial of Arlo Looking Cloud February, 2004
(Bench Conference) MR. MANDEL: Your Honor, this refers to an interview that took place pursuant to a proffer that was made. We agreed it would not be used against the defendant. We did not use it. For the defendant to seek to put this in, it is hearsay evidence, it is not admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule. We have steered clear of it, because it wasn't usable, we agreed not to use kind of a queen for a day thing, we agreed not to use it, but I don't think we can have that turned back on us. And as I say, this at this point is straight hearsay testimony. He is seeking to offer it, we didn't offer that and it doesn't fall under any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
MR. RENSCH: It's my client's statement, the hearsay rule does not apply to it, and it is exculpatory.
THE COURT: We are going to have a hearing out of the presence of the jury on this one. (End Bench Conference).
THE COURT: We are going to have a hearing out of the presence of the jury, it is time for an afternoon recess anyway. So don't talk to each other about the case, we will be in recess maybe a little over fifteen minutes, I have to deal with an evidentiary matter. Please stand for the jury. (Jury Leaves).
THE COURT: Please be seated. Alright. Does Mr. Ecoffey need to remain on the stand for this hearing.
MR. MANDEL: I guess that all depends what comes up, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, okay, sit tight then. The government asked for the side bar so the government may proceed.
MR. MANDEL: Your Honor, under the rules of evidence the United States has the ability to bring in the defendant's statement as admissions against interest. The defense does not have the right to bring in other statements, and in fact these aren't admissions against interest. The defense claims the statement it wishes to bring in is exculpatory. What happened was in 1994, the defendant, represented by counsel, came in and agreed to use a proffer. The terms of that agreement were that we would not use the statement against him, we would not do so, we didn't proceed on the basis of that statement. As part of that agreement at that time he also took a polygraph test, and frankly that polygraph test came back showing deception on the issue of whether or not he fired the shot. Now this is stuff that we didn't go in, we couldn't go in, isn't properly admissible before the Court. Now the defense wants to go in to it and offer it. Our position is very simple, as to the statement there is not the, any basis for the defense to bring it in. Doesn't fall under any exception to the hearsay rule, and the fact that it is the defendant's statement as he asserted doesn't make it admissible, and the fact it is an exculpatory statement by the defendant doesn't make it admissible. What the difference between the government bringing it in and the defendant bringing it in, the answer is simply this. For us it becomes a hearsay statement that suffers the same problem as all hearsay statements, and why they don't get in, not subject to cross examination. Stuff we choose to bring in that is inculpatory, or exculpatory for that matter, that's our right, but not the defense's right to enter those hearsay statements into evidence.
MR. RENSCH: First of all, they are claiming that the statements that they have admitted thus far of my client are admissible as admissions against interest. They have said in part that the statements that are admissions against interest are consistent with the statement that was given in 1994.
THE COURT: Wait a minute.
MR. RENSCH: Hold on.
THE COURT: I want to ask you a question, so just a minute. That's the only way I can learn things, Counsel. Hold tight, I want to ask you questions. How is he saying that because the '94 statement isn't in evidence, how are they saying it was consistent.
MR. RENSCH: The reason I tried to interrupt is they have taken the position in the extradition proceedings in Canada against John Boy Patton that Arlo Looking Cloud has made statements about this matter involving John Graham, and I believe the extradition matter refers to three statements and says those statements are consistent. Now the point I was going to make was that they are saying that what they are introducing now would constitute an admission against interest, and that would be an exception to the hearsay rule. To the extent the '94 statements are consistent to these admissions against interest that the government is now placing before the jury, they are likewise an exception to the hearsay rule. Even separately and apart from that, separately and apart from that, while they try to say that the statements are generally consistent, I am talking about the 2003 statement and the statement in July of 1995 where he went out there to the scene. They have talked also about some minor in inconsistencies and he has testified about some minor inconsistencies, so to the extent the 1994 statement would buttress the consistencies with these statements, it should be allowed in to support the statements from '95 and 2003. The same way if he were on the stand and they were to come in and say, well, you have made this statement and it is inconsistent at such and such a time, and I could then bring in a previous or a prior consistent statement to buttress it, it's the same theory, even though he is not taking the stand. When they put his statement on the stand in evidence, and there is a prior consistent statement in certain respects, inconsistent in others to the extent that it would be against interest, it should come in through the hearsay rule, it should come in through buttressing the existence of these statements.
THE COURT: Just a minute. I am not familiar with anything coming in through the hearsay rule. It comes in either because it isn't in the hearsay rule or an exception to the hearsay rule, the hearsay rule keeps things out.
MR. RENSCH: I meant to say through the exceptions.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. RENSCH: That's my position. He made this statement with the government asking him a series of long questions back in 1994. It would be our position that to the extent they have attacked the statements of Mr. Looking Cloud that are in the record now, we are allowed to bring this up so that we can show that there is consistency. And to the extent that there is not consistency, so they are trying to say the statements are against interest, it shouldn't be admissible for that reason as well. If they talked to him in 1994 with this proffer agreement against him, but they won't use it, it doesn't mean he can't use it.
THE COURT: Do you have any authority, getting away from polygraphs, because that is something that I don't want to get in to. I just wanted to explore what does it mean, because I heard about it for the first time, but with regard to the statement position, do you have any authority you are urging.
MR. RENSCH: I don't have any with me, I would request an opportunity to look it up. My thinking is simply this, if it is a statement made by the defendant after being advised of his rights, then to that extent it would be admissible because of the statement of the government. The government, if -- oh, and another part of the proffer agreement was if he were to take the stand and testify, they would be able to utilize that for impeaching information. If they would be able to utilize it for impeaching information, and if they now bring statements that he has, they are going to claim in front of this jury they are inconsistent in certain respects, he should have the right to buttress his position with what was said to them back in 1994, but I do not have a case at my fingertips right now.
THE COURT: Thank you. I take it counsel for the government wants to say something before I rule.
MR. MANDEL: Start off with this, this is no surprise the defendant wants to use it, he knew it a long time ago, and he knew we weren't going to bring it in, that we couldn't use it because it was pursuant to that proffer. So it is not some big shock as we stand here today, and the rules of evidence as to hearsay are not because the defendant want's to put it in, or because it is helpful, or because the statement was given to a law enforcement officer that it then becomes admissible. Under rule 801 sub B sub 2, admission of a party opponent, the statement has to be offered against the party. Got to be offered by the opponents, he can't offer it himself. This is inadmissible hearsay. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let me see the proffer agreement and the, I assume there was a proffer statement that was reduced to writing.
MR. RENSCH: I do have one, it is in a blue notebook. I have lost an entire notebook. I don't have it with me, I took it back to my office to work on it over lunch.
THE COURT: Well, the government would have copies.
MR. McMAHON: You want the transcript, the letter and this transcript?
THE COURT: Yes, both, please. Well, instead of looking at the top of my head, you as well as the people in the audience might as well have a.break. So we will be in recess for fifteen minutes until I read this. Thank you.
MR. McMAHON: Your Honor, can we approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. McMAHON: I just wanted Tim to be aware that the only copy I have is one I have highlighted.
MR. RENSCH: I have copies that are blank.
THE COURT: Doesn't make any difference to me. I have got one, I will just read it.
( Recess at 3:35 to 4:00.)
THE COURT: So the objection is sustained, and I want to state for the record I reviewed the proffer agreement. The proffer agreement as well as the proffer itself in preparation for the ruling. Alright.
MR. RENSCH: At this point can I make an offer of proof? At this point if allowed we would have sought to introduce the transcript, and ask that it be marked and placed into the record as an offer of proof, and that I would have used it to try to fight the fact that the government is going to say and has said through their testimony that in 1994 when Mr. Looking Cloud was approached he denied being there, and then they brought in statements where he later said he was there and reenacted the events. And we would just request the Court utilize that as exculpatory hearsay, and that given the fact that that statement was made with the full knowledge and participation of the government, and with this man being subjected to questioning, and the fact it is consistent in a very good sense with the statements that have been offered by the government, that it would fall within the residual exception to the hearsay rule and would just request the Court reconsider its ruling.
THE COURT: So you want to have the proffer letter as well as the proffer made an Exhibit in the Court file?
MR. RENSCH: Just the transcript of the contents of the tape interview in 1994 when Mr. Looking Cloud told them essentially what he told them in 2003 so that there is some reference and I don't need to go through it all by way of an offer of proof. Not the proffer letter itself, the actual transcript of the event.
THE COURT: That's what I am talking about, because the proffer letter which is just two pages, that's the agreement, but then I read a cover sheet, and then I read 24 pages of transcript.
MR. RENSCH: Very well, I want to make sure that statement was included.
THE COURT: Yes, let's get a clean copy, because the one I have is marked up now.
MR. RENSCH: I have one here, I will give it to you so that you have it.
THE COURT: This doesn't have the proffer agreement.
MR. RENSCH: No, the Exhibit.
MR. McMAHON: Why don't you keep my letter of the proffer agreement. If I can just have my transcript.
THE COURT: I will attach the proffer agreement letter and then there is a cover sheet, so then this will become the Exhibit and you get your marked one back.
MR. McMAHON: Thank you.
THE COURT: Then I will give this to the clerk ultimately. This will be a defense hearing Exhibit, and of course one we don't send back to the jury. Alright, are we ready to proceed? (Exhibit F marked For identification.)
MR. RENSCH: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. MANDEL: Yes, Your Honor
Testimony of Robert Ecoffey (part two) in the Trial of Arlo Looking Cloud February, 2004
THE COURT: Alright. Bring in the jury, please. (Jury Enters)
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
November 3, 1994
Mr. Henry N. Mulvihill
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1111
Georgetown, CO 80444
Re: Fritz Arlo Looking Cloud
Dear Mr. Mulvihill:
This is to confirm our previous phone conversations in which you indicated that your client is willing to make a proffer of possible information and testimony that he could provide regarding the death of Anna Mae Aquash. The remainder of this letter constitutes the conditions under which this proffer is made and the aggreement of the parties to those conditions.
In order for the United States Attorney's Office to assess the credibility and value of the evidence, possible testimony and further cooperation of Fritz Arlo Looking Cloud, he agrees to provide a truthful and complete summary of all facts about which he is aware concerning his knowledge of the death of Anna Mae Aquash.
No statements made by or other information provided by Mr. Looking Cloud during the "off-the-record" proffer or dicussion will be used directly against your client in any criminal proceeding.
The government may make derivative use and may pursue any investigative leads suggested by any statements made by or other information provided by Mr. Looking Cloud. This provision is necessary to eliminate the nessity for a Fastiger hearing at which the government would have to prove that the evidence it would introduce at trial is not tainted by statements made by or other information provided by Mr. Looking Cloud during the "off-the-record" proffer or discussion.
In the event Mr. Looking Cloud is a witness at trial of this matter and offers testimony different from any statements made or any information provided during the "off-the-recored" proffer or discussion, the attorney for the government may cross-examine your client concerning any statements made or information provided during the "off-the-record" proffer or discussion. This provision is necessary in order to assure that your client does not abuse the opportunity for an "off-the-record" proffer or discussion, does not make materially false statements to a government agency, and does not commit perjury while testifying at trial.
It is further understood that this agreement is limited to the statements or other information provided at the time of the proffer and does not apply to any statements made by Mr. Looking Cloud at any other time, whether oral, written, or recorded. This United States Attorney's Office, as part of this agreement, is not obligated to make any specific plea offer regarding potential charges which may be brought against Mr. Looking Cloud as a result of his willingness to discuss matters within his knowledge that are relavant to the investigation being conducted by this office. This office has complete discretion to decide unilaterally, what if any, charges will be brought against Mr. Looking Cloud or whether immunity will be granted.
If you and your client are willing to provide a proffer to this office pursuant to these conditions, please affix your signatures to this letter and deliver it to the agent at the time of the proffer.
Sincerely,
Karen E. Schreier
United States Attorney
Dennis R. Holmes
Assistant U.S. Attorney
DRH:jf
cc: Robert Ecoffey
United States Marshal
Henry N. Mulvihill - Fritz Arlo Looking Cloud
They scared the hell out of poor Arlo, plied him with booze, and told him if he didn't cooperate, they would send him to prison forever. Most of all, convinced him he needed an attorney, Left on his own, Arlo would never have signed such an outrageous document, but his attorney steered him right into signing. By signing, he virtually guaranteed that he would be placed on trial for the murder of Anna Mae, without any defenses. And that is exactly what happened.
After the trial, Rensch said he would appeal. He told Arlo and the family that only he, Rensch could file the appeal, effectively blocking Arlo from obtaining competent legal assistence. One has to ask oneself, what was the point of this trial, this mockery of justice? (1) to manufacture evidence again AIM, American Indian Movement, (2) to have paid informant state that Leonard Peltier was guilty of killing 2 FBI agents, (this totally false and irrelevant evidence which was not refuted by Rensch), (3) to frame and blame yet another Indian to cover up crimes committed by the State.
It is the opinion of this writer, that we live in a Terrorist State run by huge corporations who want to control the world and all its resources. The number one obstacle to their goal is the American public, who must be stampeded into shredding the Bill of Rights. How can we get the public to do that? The right of free speech, of right to peaceful assembly, the right to trial, the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, all these rights are beloved by Americans. What would make Americans trash the Constitution so that the corporations can have a clear path to the world’s resources and power? Terrorists!! That’s the ticket! The world is now abounding with terrorists, just as the medieval world was abounding with witches, and for the same reasons. Curiously enough, the Terrorists are headquartered on top of the world’s largest oil reserves. I just now heard on the news that President Bush said he will chase down terrorists wherever they may be, and to instill democracy throughout the world. At first blush, that sounds like an admirable goal until we start defining terms. Who is a terrorist? A terrorist is anyone who opposes violations of human and civil rights committed by the State. Members of such organizations as Greenpeace, anti-war groups, and AIM (American Indian Movement) are considered terrorist organizations by the State . Democracy, as defined by the State, are compliant puppet operations who will allow the huge corporations to have a free hand in stealing any resources they deem necessary to maintain the glutton that they are. Usually the U.S. government, controlled by corporate interests, will destroy the local, native, or tribal government, and install the puppet government that will do the bidding of the State.
Examples of this can be found around the world, starting right here in America with all the Indian Tribes. The U.S. killed off all the Indian leaders when the reservations were formed and then stole the land and resources. Not satisfied with this, the U.S. government tried to destroy the Indian culture, and continued to attempt to kill off the Indians by starving them and allowing them to die of disease inflicted upon them by the white man. This is the government’s definition of “bringing democracy” to other nations.
The upshot of all this is that Arlo Looking Cloud is not the target in the State’s quest for so-called ‘justice.’ Arlo is just collateral damage. The real target is AIM, just as it was back in 1973. Just what happened back in 1973? Why did not the FBI investigate the 60-some murders at that time? Why just focus on one murder? These and other questions will be answered in forthcoming articles. For right now, we must think about Arlo. He needs a retrial where all the evidence will be presented, where he can be represented by a lawyer of his choosing. Should you have any questions or information, you may contact me, Janis Schmidt, at janis@lakotaperspectives.com or Lucy Bull Bear at 605-455-1138.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ARLO: THE RAILROAD JOB
by
Janis Schmidt
Arlo Looking Cloud is sitting in jail in Rapid City, awaiting sentencing for a heinous crime he did not commit. Tried and convicted for the murder of Anna Mae Pictou-Aguash, convicted with out evidence, convicted on hearsay, convicted with the help of court appointed attorney, Mr. Rensch, whom Arlo had fired, convicted with his letters to other attorneys never leaving the jail, convicted for a crime committed 28 years ago, a high profile case, convicted in less than a week’s time.
This example of justice in American leaves more questions than it answers. After 28 years, what’s the rush? Why were only FBI agents called to testify? Why was Arlo not told of his rights? The right to have an attorney of his choice? Why did Rensch lie to the newspapers about his firing? Why did Rensch not put Arlo on the stand? Why did Rensch instead use a videotaped ‘confession’ extracted from Arlo when he was not of sober mind? Why did Rensch play this for the jury when Arlo was sitting right there with a clear mind? Why did Rensch blow off expert legal assistance offered by Barry Bachrach, Leonard Peltier’s attorney? Why did Rensch tell the family and Arlo that they had no choice but to stay with himself (Rensch) , and that he would appeal? What is there to appeal, considering that no evidence was presented?
Arlo and the family have a lot of questions about the way Arlo’s trial was handled. The court has done everything possible to keep Arlo and the family misinformed as to what Arlo’s legal rights are. We live in very treacherous times, where we are being told that black is white, that right is wrong, that we are in eminent danger of being attacked by an onslaught of terrorists, that we need to trust Bush to ‘rid the world of these evildoers’, that America is the home of justice and democracy.
I just want to say that I, Janis Schmidt, have lived on the Pine Ridge Reservation for 12 years, and in that time I have suffered the loss of a job, have had all my belongings stolen, have been detained by the police for no reason, in short, I have been treated like any other Indian. I have become friends with many of the Lakotas. Some who are close relatives of Arlo have asked me to write in his defense, since no one else is doing that. I do not have any political connections, nor am I a journalist. I am an artist, a painter. As an artist, I promised I would do my best for Arlo, for justice, and that I would leave no stone unturned to find out the truth, no matter how long it takes. I will be taking my time. There is no rush job here.
I wish to thank everyone who has come forward with e-mails of support and information. Most of all, I want to thank the people on the Pine Ridge reservation, especially the unimportant people, the ones without the good jobs, the ones who are quietly upholding what little is left of the culture, the ones who have experienced the jails and the justice system, the ones who have been told to shut up and get out, that the justice system doesn’t have to listen to you, to these people, I say thank you. I am listening and in telling Arlo’s story, I realize I am telling your story, too, the story that the State and American history has swept under the rug, so as to sanitize the home of the free and the land of the brave, America, where the Indian has never been invited to sit at the table of justice. Arlo’s story has really struck a chord with some of you readers out there. I wish to thank Barbara who sent me this following e-mail. I think this is a good example of how justice works in America. Barbara told me that she was not afraid to come forward, that she just didn’t care anymore about the trying to protect herself from the corrupt system. The corrupt justice system is a sham and intended to grind the poor person further into the dirt. The following are her words: "I have been following the trial as much as possible and I am really concerned about the crookedness of this country. Living in America, a white female, I see it everyday. A judge comes to my home and threatens to lock me up for filing bankruptcy. (One of the businesses I filed on was his.) A man that raped his sister [I witnessed it, when we were kids] is a sheriff now. A judge threatened to lock me up for taking child support for the first 7 years of my daughters life, she is now 19, and she took her rich daddy back to court recently and she settled out of court because she was afraid I would get locked up for taking child support. He still owes her 100,000 dollars. The sheriff in my county was having an affair, his wife supposedly killed herself over it, and before the state investigator got there, the sheriff made prisoners in jail clean the scene up. A policeman is selling drugs out of his home and the chief of police knows it. A judge's grandson and the policeman take 15 year old girls to a house and show porno movies and get the girls drunk and have sex with them and the chief of police knows it. The FBI has been called and nothing has been and probably nothing will be done about it. I am one step from being homeless because I am disabled and can't find a home to rent. The Native Americans and poor white folks haven't got a chance. I sympathize with the Native Americans and wished I could help, but it's going to get worse I'm afraid." Thank you, Barbara for coming forward with that story. You are a brave woman. By speaking up, you are giving voice to all the poor people in America who are being oppressed by the corrupt system. What is being done to Arlo, is being done to the poor and downtrodden. Because you are a poor person who has been kicked around by the justice system, you have a good idea of the kind of justice Indian people are receiving. We thank you for standing up for Indians and objecting to their continued mistreatment by the Federal government. For the Lakotas living on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Arlo’s conviction without evidence is very personal. Everyone has been put through the humiliation of having their rights denied by the very authority who is supposed to protect those rights. I was talking with Tony Black Feather, respected Lakota elder and UN representative about Arlo’s trial. He said, “I knew John Looking Cloud, his father. He was deeply involved in Indian rights and Treaty law. He was a good man. The U.S. is the world problem. Everywhere in the world, there is fighting. People are fighting each other, killing each other. Everywhere there is killing, the U.S. is involved. The U.S. is master at turning one group of people against the other. Then, while people are busy killing each other, pointing fingers, the U.S. is busy stealing their resources. They think they have a right to kill anyone. They enjoy killing. Arlo was put in jail so that the U.S. can kill some more Indians and steal their land. The U.S. wants to fight Wounded Knee again. The 7th Cavalry still want revenge for Sitting Bull having defeated the U.S. military.” One big difference between Lakota culture and American culture, is the Lakota’s interest in relatives. It is very common for Lakotas to trace their ancestry back to prereservation days. Lucy Bull Bear told me that her grandfather, Thunder Bull, a medicine man, used to sundance with Sitting Bull. Thunder Bull is also Arlo’s grandfather. The family was always very important to the Lakotas, as it was to all Indian tribes. Aunts were considered mothers. Cousins were called sister or brother. All older relatives were called grandfather. Babes and children were sacred as were women, as was life itself. In the days before reservations, the Chief and his warriors would protect the Tribe, would provide for their needs. The greatest of warriors, did not kill his enemy--no, he touched his enemy, thereby showing that he could have killed him, but honored life more. How far would an American soldier get if he practiced this Lakota tradition? This and many other ways, make Indian tribes very different in their thinking from the American dominant society. Because it was not in the nature of the Lakota to be a cold-blooded killer, it made him an easy target for the white man to almost succeed in totally extinguishing the Indian off the face of the earth . To quote from the book , WHY DO PEOPLE HATE AMERICA? By Sardar and Davies , p. 158: ‘By the manipulation of old ideas, the New World could be brought within European conventions. The native peoples and their possessions could also be appropriated, subsumed and removed to create the actual, philosophic and legal space for the idea of America and its birth in innocence to be established. And then there was the most repugnant triumphalism of all. The pilgrim settlers soon found that native populations were dying at an alarming rate. The great pathogen invasion of new diseases-introduced by European settlers, and to which they had no natural resistance-devastated whole communities and peoples. Disease and death seemed to be opening up the country, making the land available. It was understood in the writing of the pilgrims as the Hand of Providence operating to advance the ‘zealous work’ of the ‘chosen people’. It has been estimated that at the time of first contact there were between 20 to 50 million native inhabitants of the land that became the United States. (Noam Chomsky puts that figure at 50 to 60 million.) By the 1890’s., at the end of the Indian wars and after the cataclysm of disease and the depredations of taming and settling the wilderness, the Native American population numbered 250,000." Kind of makes Hitler look like a boy scout, doesn’t it? What Sardar and Davies left up to the reader’s imagination is that the white man has declared a continual war on the Indian and his culture ever since Columbus first arrived. At one time, the U.S. government even put a bounty on Indians. All one had to do was bring in a scalp as proof for payment. It didn’t matter if it was man, woman, or child’s hair. Settlers liked to mutilate Indian bodies by cutting off their private parts and displaying them as souvenirs. Hitler only killed 9 million, whereas America killed over 30 million and called it Divine or Manifest Destiny that the white race should kill off the Indians and steal his land and resources. No wonder Americans have such a fascination with Hitler. They share a lot in common. If we are to understand anything at all, we must realize the American culture and Native culture are vastly different. There is no ‘melting pot’ possible here. And the sad truth is that America wanted to totally annihilate the Indian so as to steal his land and resources. When America couldn’t quite accomplish this goal, a massive attack was mounted against the Native culture. If all the Indians couldn’t be killed off, then the Native culture had to be assassinated until the Indian is finally assimilated into extinction, and American can finally lay that case to rest due to lack of evidence that the Indian even existed. It must get kind of embarrassing for America to set itself up to be the leader of democracy, the protector of human rights, the beacon of justice, when other countries question, how did you treat your Indians? America has a lot of blood on its hands, hands that will never be washed clean no matter how many people they kill. Just like the way Arlo was convicted without any evidence, so does America want to get rid of the Indian, put them away. The real tragedy is that Native peoples had a true democracy, a fair justice system, a strong sense of family, a religion that respected everyone’s right to life. This, most of all, is what America wants to destroy. Should you want to know how you can help, I say that you must first fight for your own freedom and dignity to live in peace upon this earth. Join civil rights groups. Don’t have one? Then, form one. It starts with 2 or 3 people getting together and asking themselves, what is the nature of a just society? Invite more people to join you. I am convinced that America is on the verge of a huge fall, and is now lashing out at everyone to prop up the corrupt system, the one that was flawed from the beginning. would encourage you to protest, ‘justice for Arlo’ ‘civil rights for Indians’ ‘civil rights begins with myself.’ Start having little house parties that spread into the streets. Start standing up for you rights, and the rights of others. Speak out against injustice. Should you have any information about Arlo, or the Wounded Knee of ’73, you may contact me at janis@lakotaperspectives.com phone 605-867-2413 or call Lucy Bull Bear at 605-455-1138. I When I first wrote this article so many months ago, little did I know that I would end up the victim of a vicious attack on myself, and my writing in an attempt to prevent me from saying anything further about Arlo or to comment on the injustice that Indian people receive. I was arrested , jailed, banned from the reservation, and had all my property and belongings confiscated. This crime was inflicted upon me through laws and the justice system. All authorities can do nothing about this. I am just supposed to accept the loss of everything I own and move on. But I didn't. I was brought back to the Reservation by the Indians, to whom I have devoted my life to fighting for their lives, their culture, and their way of life. The situation here is that BIA Tribal Police are setting up Lakota men, accusing them of a felony, taking it to the U.S. Attorney in Rapid City, who sends out the FBI to investigate, who just merely look at police reports, and suddenly another Indian is sitting Pennington County Jail awaiting sentencing for a crime he didn't commit, a crime that sometimes doesn't even exist. But the FBI has ways of making cartloads of "evidence" to prove a person's guilt. It is absolutely diabolical what is happening to the Indian today, and no one knows because of our controlled press. This is the main reason all you hear about Leonard Peltier and Arlo Looking Cloud, are the lies perpetuated by the FBI so that once and for all, America can lay the huge sin of genocide and theft of land to rest, when they bury the last warrior deep within the prison system. To quote Leonard Peltier's attorney, Barry Bachrach, "White society is now eliminating the Native Americans using the criminal justice system. Isn't that great?!!" Next
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BOB ECOFFEY HAS A DREAM
By
Janis Schmidt
Bob dreamed his way to the murderer of Anna Mae. Bob based a 10 year investigation on a dream. As a matter of fact, it was Bob’s dream that convicted Arlo Looking Cloud. It only goes to show that if you tell a lie long enough, everyone will believe you. Some of the most vicious battles have been fought over lies.
US News & World Report ran the story this way:
“WOUNDED KNEE, S.D.--Today, at 49, Bob Ecoffey is a big shot, a quietly confident bear of a man who runs the government's law enforcement programs for 635 Indian reservations nationwide. But back in January 1976, he was just a young Oglala Sioux who wanted to be a cop, going to college and working the night shift at the jail on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. It was there while on duty one night that he heard a young woman crying through the intercom. But when he searched the jail, he couldn't find anyone.”
Now, you have to ask yourself, what kind of Indian back in 1976 would want to be a cop? What kind of real Indian would want to be a cop so he could put away his Indian brothers? He heard a young woman crying through the intercom. Did he finally find this woman? Who was she, anyway? I think I found the answers to these puzzling questions.
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT: "He was haunted by the mysterious crying. Ecoffey respected Indian spirituality, but he had never experienced anything like this. So he went to talk to his grandfather, a medicine man. "What does it mean?" he asked. His grandfather performed a traditional Indian ceremony and told him: "A young woman was killed before her time, and it wasn't right. She came to you because you have a good heart. You don't understand it now, but one of these days, you'll be in a position to help her."
That Indian woman turned out to be Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash, and Bob Ecoffey was able to help her. He just didn't think it would take 27 years. Did the Indian woman really turn out to be Anna Mae? And who interpreted this dream for Bob? Also, Bob didn’t happen to say just who the medicine man was so therefore, we don’t know who was giving him this very erroneous advice. He tried to claim Selo Black Crow as his grandfather. However, Selo was Arlo’s grandfather, and did not claim Bob as his grandson. And there was no ceremony. There was only questioning. Selo said that Bob came around and asked a lot of questions, even accused him of killing Anna Mae. He even accused Roger Amiotte of killing Anna Mae. I guess he accused everyone, just to be sure. Was the woman really Anna Mae? The ghost of Anna Mae? Why was she haunting Bob? Was Bob having a bad dream?
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT: "In December 1975, Anna Mae was killed with a gunshot to the back of the head. And an enduring mystery was born. Today, for most of America, what happened at Wounded Knee is the stuff of yellowed newspaper clippings. But for those who lived through it, the violence, the grief, and the bitterness are still fresh. So even nearly 30 years later, "Who killed Anna Mae?" is a question that still matters. It matters to her two daughters, who lost a mother for reasons they don't understand. It matters to former FBI executives who believe they've unfairly suffered the ill will of the Indian community. It matters to Indian rights activists who say their work has been mistakenly tarnished. And it matters to Bob Ecoffey, who still hears his grandfather's words and that soft crying from the jail so many years ago."
Actually, most people are asking who killed Jeanette Waters Bissonette, and Pedro Bissonette, and more recently, Hard Heart and and Black Elk, and the 60 some other murders. Most people believe that the FBI are largely responsible for the murder and mayhem that took place back in 1973. In fact, the FBI are still sending off Lakota men to prison. Then they have the nerve to wonder why no one likes or respects them. And then there’s Bob, who is still claiming Selo as his grandfather. Who is interpreting Bob’s dreams? I wonder if Selo is haunting Bob’s dreams? And who is that woman? The woman of Bob’s dreams? And what does all this have to do with Arlo Looking Cloud? No good, as we have come to see.
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT: But in the long, hot summer of 1975, anyone involved with AIM was subject to scrutiny, and the FBI wanted to talk to Anna Mae about the murder of its agents. In September, FBI agents found her in a green tent with dynamite and a sawed-off, .30-caliber carbine. She told them she didn't know anything about the agents' murders.
And what about Doug Durham? It was about this time that Anna Mae started to suspect Doug as an FBI operative. Dougie boy was known to work with explosives. He must have attended FBI training classes in How To Make Your Own Bomb. Then, work your way into a group of people who are standing up for their rights, and plant a bomb or start lying little stories about people. The truth was that Anna Mae was scared because false rumors were flying within AIM that pegged her as an FBI informant.
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT: "An AIM activist and her husband took Anna Mae to a safe house--a squat, brick triplex in a gritty, Hispanic neighborhood of Denver. She stayed there for a few weeks until one night in early December when some AIM activists came for her. They drove her nearly eight hours to the Wounded Knee Legal Defense Committee office in Rapid City, where some female members of AIM questioned her for the better part of a day. Anna Mae's friend Candy Hamilton saw her crying there and argued that Anna Mae was not an informant. That was the last time Hamilton saw her friend alive."
The FBI wanted to talk with anyone about the murder of its agents, Coler and William, and were out to nail all of AIM, put an end to it. More likely, the truth was that Anna Mae was scared of the Feds, particularly Agent Price who threatened to kill her if she didn’t tell him where Leonard and Dennis were. The Feds had and still have no respect for Indians. Can we be sure what these women were questioning Anna Mae about? Maybe they were questioning her about whose man she was sleeping with. Was Kamook there? And did she question Anna Mae about her involvement with her husband, Dennis Banks? Or did she say she was Anna Mae’s best friend? Have you ever experienced a jealous hearted Lakota woman? Were they questioning Anna Mae as an informant or were they more concerned with who she was was sleeping with? And how was Bob involved? Bob. A spinner of dreams and stories. A storyteller. A woman was crying, or so he said. In his dreams.
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT "The investigation was stymied by intense suspicion and even animosity in the Indian community. "No one would talk to us," says Zigrossi, who left South Dakota in the late 1970s. "No one trusted us. A lot of people would say, `Get out of here.' You couldn't blame them. The innocent Native Americans on the Pine Ridge reservation got caught in all this political stuff. They were scared. They didn't want to be seen talking to us."
No one trusts the FBI. And no one wants to talk to them. Gee, I wonder why?
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT "And so, many Indians simply gave up on finding Anna Mae's killer, believing no one cared. But Bob Ecoffey couldn't escape the crying and his grandfather's words. As he learned more, he was moved by Anna Mae's quest for social justice. In turn, he wanted justice for her and her family. Oh, sure, Bob. Actually, Bob was still trying to claim Selo as his grandfather, but no one wanted to have anything to do the Feds. And who is this crying woman? For Ecoffey, the case has broad symbolism. "It's justice for Indian people as a whole," he says. So gradually, Anna Mae's murder became personal. And as he worked his way out of the grinding poverty of the reservation--he was the first in his family to attend college--and built his career as a police officer, first as a tribal cop, then as a BIA officer on the reservation, Ecoffey kept poking at the unsolved case. It was never easy. When he first called Anna Mae's friend Candy Hamilton in 1981, she hung up on him. Still, as an Indian, Ecoffey did have an advantage over the white agents at the FBI--and after a while, the FBI recognized that too. In 1981, Pine Ridge acquaintances shared a good tip that pointed to Denver. Anna Mae had been down in Denver, he learned, and somehow brought back to South Dakota. He passed it on to the FBI, and bureau officials suggested he work with them. Now, he was officially on the case. Ecoffey and now retired FBI case agent Al Garber checked out leads in Denver and confirmed Anna Mae had been taken from the safe house. But AIM supporters mostly refused to talk to them. They went home, frustrated."
So what Bob is saying here is that he discovered Anna Mae was hiding out in Denver, discovered this from his half-breed snitches living in Pine Ridge, which was the advantage Bob had over the other Feds, being part Indian and knowing which GOONs he could work with. He knew who could be leaned on to squeal. An enviable skill such as this does not go unnoticed by the FBI, and Bob was right in there with the FBI to cook up a scheme to get Anna Mae back to the Reservation. Agents Bob and Al check out leads, which led them to the jealous hearted women. I think this story was already in the making way back in 1975. A woman crying because another woman is sleeping with her man is an easy target, wouldn’t you say?
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Ecoffey worked for the U.S. Forest Service and as a BIA administrative manager at Pine Ridge. In that job, he befriended an elderly woman, a prominent AIM member who had been at Wounded Knee. In the early 1990s, he helped her with a right-of-way issue on her land and then pressed for a favor in return. "Do you have any information about Anna Mae's murder?" he asked. "There are people who know about it," she told him. "Do you think they'll talk to me?" he asked. "I'll contact them," she promised. Not long afterward, that conversation bore fruit when a man from Denver showed up unannounced at Ecoffey's office and provided key names and crucial information. It was the break Ecoffey had been waiting for. He then focused hard on two young AIM operatives who allegedly took Anna Mae from the Denver safe house to Rapid City: activist John Graham and AIM security guard Arlo Looking Cloud.
Who was this elderly women who was so eager to give names and numbers to Bob? One of the jealous hearted women maybe a little nervous about what they had done? Could it be Theda Nelson Clark? So Superintendent Bob helped out this old woman with her land problem in exchange for a favor. Isn’t it interesting that Bob knew exactly which old lady to hit on? And she provided him with information as to who killed Anna Mae?? How did she know who killed Anna Mae? Who provided Bob with key names and crucial information? What sort of Indian would go all the way to Denver to set up Arlo? What I wonder is why the identity of this woman was never brought out in Arlo’s trial? Why did Bob and the boys wait 10 years before they pressed murder charges on Arlo? The only other person who was a purported witness to the murder, who had a huge hand in setting up the murder was Theda Nelson Clark. Was Bob waiting until she was incapacitated or dead before he brought forth Arlo, as the psychologically abused lamb to send to the slaughter? Was this the favor? And who is this crying woman? What role did she have in Anna Mae’s death? The Saga of Bob’s troubled dreams to be continued next week.
Next
