siti ei ie nes a en as ia

| Travesty of justice in Peltier trial

Cont'd from pg. 1

criminal hoax that extradited

Itier,

Following Poor Bear’s testimony
to the Peltier trial that she had
been forced to sign the affidavit by
the FBI agents, Wood and Price,
defense — attorney Taikoff
demanded to know “who composed
the affidavits’. The prosecuting
attorney blurted out the response,

believe it was Halpren’’.
_Halpren was the Canadian of-
ficial who went to Rapid City
Where Poor Bear was being held in
Protective custody by the FBI and
brought the affidavits back with

iim to the extradition hearing in
ancouver,

If Halpren was the composer of
the false affidavits it would bear
out the suspicion of many that the
frame-up, arrest and extradition of
Peltier was the result of open
Collusion between the Canadian
Justice department and the FBI as
Part of their efforts to stem native
Militancy and to stamp out AIM.

Such collusion would un-
doubtedly involve top government
officials a situation which
demands not only an investigation
into the evidence submitted at the
extradition proceedings, but into
the role of the minister and his
department in the case.

“I was ashamed to be a
Canadian,” Clarke confided as she
described the incredible events of
the trial.

While Halpren was not present at
the trial to account for his in-
volvement, the two RCMP officers
Who arrested Peltier at Hinton,
Alberta, were called by the
Prosecution to inpune_ the
character of the native leader.

When defense attorneys pointed
out that the RCMP officers
detailed account of Peltier’s
alleged violent behaviour bore no
relation to the original police
report filed, the officers responded
with the statement, ‘“‘We have had

time to reminisce since the

arrest.”

In Liz Clarke’s view, that about
Sums up the trial. Three weeks of
fabricated and contrived evidence
by the prosecution failed to prove

crime — but insteadused a racist
hysteria campaign to wim-a cheap
conviction.

“It was stern in the courtroom,”
Clarke remembered, “if anyone
had anything in their mouth —
even a peppermint — they were
ejected from the room.

“Just to intimidate the sup-
porters, FBI agents would sit
beside Indians. They (the Indians)
knew that these were the same
agents who hadshot at them on the
reserve.”

Clarke too, had reason to feel the
intimidation. She helped out the
defense by delivering Peltier his
lunch during the trial. On one
occasion she was stopped by a FBI
agent, Dooley, who told her
bluntly, “I hope you realize you
will have a high price to pay for
this.”

On the days when key defense
testimony was to be given, the
gallery was filled with high school
students and native supporters
were turned away. Near the end,
the national guard surrounded the
courtroom; there was ‘“‘rumour’’ of
AIM violence. Before the jury
retired to make its decision, it
asked for transcripts of the trial.
The judge refused and told them to
hurry their decision because
violence was expected at any
moment. On the day the verdict
came down, no one was allowed in
the courtroom except for the
lawyers and court officials.
Secrecy and intimidation hung
over the trial from start to finish.

But what sealed Peltier’s fate
was neither the prosecution’s
evidence nor the oppressiveness of
the court. Rather it was the lack of
defense as witness after witness
was refused the right to testify.

“The defense had big gaps,”
Clarke explained, ‘‘because the
judge — a Nixon appointee —
would rule the evidence irrelevant.
Anything that showed U.S. or FBI
misconduct in the case was thrown
out as irrelevant.

“About 90 percent of the defense
evidence was given in the absence
of the jury. Benson (the judge)
would order them out and hear the
evidence himself. He ruled
practically all of it irrelevant and

the jury never heard it. Out of five.

wo bit

ELIZABETH CLARKE

eyewitness to Peltier trial

suggests

‘collusion in frame-up, arrest and conviction of the AIM leader.

days of defense, the jury only
heard two days.”

The key to the defense was the
Poor Bear revelations. Although
the prosecution offered the Poor
Bear affidavits as evidence against
Peltier, they claimed she was
unavailable to appear at the trial.

The defense had little problem
finding Poor Bear —she was at her
home — and they brought her as a
defense witness. ‘‘She was
emotional, upset,” Clarke
described the testimony given in
the absence of the jury, ‘“‘She said
she was afraid of the FBI and
“Dave and Bill” (FBI agents
Woods and Price).” )

But Poor Bear’s graphic de-

scription of her incarceration
under ‘‘protective custody” and
the intimidation of Woods and
Price that forced her to trade her

freedom for a false signature was’

ruled out of order by Benson. ‘‘He
said she was clearly irrational,”’
Clarke said.

The defense brought Poor Bear

back the next day. ‘It was over
Benson’s objections,’’ Clarke
continued, ‘‘but they got her on the
stand. She was completely dif-
ferent. She was calm and rational
and not. afraid. But Benson
wouldn’t move. He said the ‘court
had ruled’.”’ :

What the defense was not
allowed to say, however the
prosecution admitted as their
witnesses unexpectedly turne
against them. .

“There was disbelief — the
prosecution melted,” Clarke said,
when prosecution witness Norman
Brown told the court how he had
been picked up by FBI agents in a
shopping centre, taken to a police
station, and in the presence of his
hysterical mother, told that he
would have “a gun put to his
head”, that ‘the FBI can kill
people” and that he ‘‘will never
walk the earth again’’, unless he
repeated the FBI’s story.

Still another prosecution wit-
ness, Wilfred Draper, told a

similar story of being arrested and
tortured by FBI agents until he
agreed to give false testimony.
Draper claimed he was “‘spun in a
swivel chair for three hours’’.

“A series of FBI agents
testified,” Clarke went on, ‘“‘one
was a personal friend of the two
who died. By the end of his
testimony everyone was calling
him ‘‘Gary Adams - Gary Adams”,
after Mary Hartman - Mary
Hartman, because it was no better
than a soap opera.”’

The soap opera trial continued
with the distribution — over
defense objections — of gruesome
color photos of the dead officers,
but not taken at the supposed scene
of the crime, but rather after the
autopsy.

To complement the tragedy, the
national guard laid on the security
to underline for the jury how
dangerous the natives were.

But. still, there were not any
facts.

“It was all circumstantial
evidence,’’ Clarke insists, ‘‘Even
in -Crook’s (the prosecutor)
summary he admitted that they
had failed to prove that Peltier
actually killed the agents. Crook
said even without specific proof, it
was clear that, “this bloodthirsty
group” —he pointed at Leonard as
he said it— ‘‘are responsible’’. And
he said Leonard was guilty
because he was the oldest and
because he was the leader.

“T still “can’t understand how
they convicted him of first degree
murder. They didn’t prove it.’’

Clarke says that the struggle to
save Peltier’s life is not over. He is
due for sentencing on June 1 and an
application for an appeal will be
made.

Before the trial she sent U.S.
president Carter a letter asking the
venue to be moved away from the
Dakotas. Only recently she
received the laughable reply that
“‘thereis justice in every American
court’.

“A real education,’”’ is how she
describes the whole affair. i

There are a number of lessons
Canadians will learn if an in-
vestigation into Canadian collusion
in the Peltier frame-up is forced
into public view.

Peltier directly responsible for any

COPE conference links raci

“Tt is difficult to understand how
Some groups in B.C. can deny the
€xistence of racism in our schools.
Perhaps they are motivated by the
Concept that if we pay it no heed, it
Will somehow go away.
Historically, this type of answer to
a Problem led to the massacre of
baulions of our fellow human

ings. It is the responsibility of

ducation to confront racism
pauately and to actively do
it eens in its power to prevent
s oer Tooting itself either in the
; Col institution or in the per-

Onalities of its students.”’

With these words, Dr. Pauline

“instein opened an extraordinary

Conference — The Committee of

qostessive Electors’ panel

Soe — May 24 at Killarney
ol in south Vancouver.

sak discussion brought together
ete 300 people to hear seven
5 i Sts, including B.C. human
i ts director Kathleen Ruff,
oe on the COPE position

Per “Racism and the School’.
vi © conference also took time to
he controversial BCTF slide
Beat racism, banned by the
boar ver and Surrey School

Show

Between COPE’s position paper

Ussion on “Racism and the .

KATHLEEN RUFF
and the contributions of some of

the panelists, little doubt was left
of the existence of racism in B.C.
schools. But by the contributions of
some other panelists, neither could
there be any doubt that a lack of
understanding and sensitivity to
the problem permeates the ap-
proach of many administrators

and educators.

OPE paper, read by Dr.
dante called for the establish-
ment of a standing curriculum
conimittee to evaluate textbooks
used in schools. Those books that
contain racist references should be
sent back to the publisher, COPE

suggested, and totally new books.
should be commissioned to give
“up to date information on the
history and status of ethnic groups
in Canada”. ;

Other COPE recommendations
were for ‘‘in-service’’ training for
teachers so that ‘‘they can be made
conscious of the degree to which

they reflect the prejudices current -

in the province,’’ and for special
programs for immigrant children.

“We have large concentration
areas of immigrant children whose
mother tongue is not English,” Dr.
Weinstein explained, ‘These
children bear the brunt of many
racist attacks both verbally and
physically.”

In schools where the percentage
of “English as a second language

among students” is significant, she.

said, course material should
reflect the student’s own cultural
heritage and teachers should be
hired who are bilingual and
bicultural in the ethnic con-
centration of the school.

Feature panelist Kathleen Ruff

‘Jent general support to the COPE

paper and took a shot at school
board officials who have attempted
to keep the subject out of the
schools when she said, “‘If we can’t
face up to racism, we can’t face up

to a good education system — and
we will be left with a propaganda
system and hyprocrisy.”’

Ruff said the education system in
B.C. is behind the rest of Canada in
tackling racism. She called on
administrators to bring the subject
of racism “‘into the mainstream of
the education system.”’

Ed May of the B.C. Teachers
Federation’s ‘‘task force on
racism’’ suggested that many
trustees are sheltered from the
reality of racism in the school.
“When you wipe racist graffiti off
of desks every day you quickly
overcome your squeamishness
about the subject,” he said.

Dorothy Chapman, a Native
education student, and Dr. G. S.
Gill of the Canada East Indian
Friendship Association and
educator Betty Hood added their
first-hand observations on the
problem of racism.

Chapman recounted an incident
she encountered only days before.
A ‘‘resource person’’ in her
education class told the future
teachers that Indian children ‘‘are
different, are less disciplined —
and will always be that way.”

But far from the hard reality of
racism as it exists, some panelists
brought a shallow, liberal view of

sm and education

the problem to the conference.

Gerrold Coombs, a UBC
professor, opened the discussion on
a low note with his assertion that
the solution to racism is not to
“restrict racists’ but to empha-
size ‘“‘educative purposiveness’’.
Coombs’ entangled intellectualism
prevented him from offering any
practical suggestions to combat
racism. ee

Similarly, Vancouver School
Trustee David Pratt said the
“tone” of the COPE paper
“bothers me”. Pratt worried about
an “intolerant attitude’ against
demagogues, and further
disagreed with COPE’s contention -
that it is the duty of the school to
“correct historical inequality.”

Later, when asked by a woman
in’ the audience to explain the
Vancouver School Board’s position
on racism, Pratt could say only
that there was no position, only the
individual opinions of trustees.

Although no conclusions were’
made, the COPE conference was
successful in its aim of defining a
central problem for the education
system. Without intending to, the
conference gave the opportunity as
well for some educators and ad-
ministrators to admit that they are
a part of the problem.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MAY 27, 1977—Page 3