Update: Tuesday, June 30, 1998
A Familiar Pattern- Ignore evidence
- Investigate the whistle-blower
- Protect the criminals
Linda Ives and Jean Duffey recently met with I.C. Smith,
Chief of Arkansas’ FBI. The following letter from Jean Duffey to Smith
describes the meeting and expresses her disgust.
(See Related links below)
* * *
Jean K. Duffey
2908 Blueberry Lane
Pasadena, Texas 77502
713-943-1030 (phone/fax)
June 29, 1998
I.C. Smith, Special Agent in Charge
Arkansas Federal Bureau of Investigation
Suite 200, Two Financial Centre
10825 Financial Centre Parkway
Little Rock, AR. 72211-3552
Dear Mr. Smith:
On Friday, May 29, Linda Ives and I visited you and Agent Michael Smith
in your office. We wanted perjury charges filed against John Brown and
were advised by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bob Govar to request an FBI
investigation. Although Linda and I discussed the probability that our
request to you would be a waste of time, we decided to comply with the
recommended procedure.
Our accusation of perjury stems from a sworn affidavit signed by John
Brown and used by the attorney for Jay Campbell and Kirk Lane in their
defamation suit against Pat Matrisciana, the producer of the Obstruction
of Justice video. All the elements of perjury are clear. The affidavit
contained several lies that are materially detrimental to Matrisciana's
defense, and there is indisputable proof of the falsity of Brown's
statements. You did not ask for the production of our proof but said
you would take our request to U.S. Attorney Paula Casey. You promised
us a reply by early the next week, but we have not heard from you to
date. Interestingly, however, you admitted that John Brown had called
earlier and discussed the affidavit incident with you. Did you already
have your mind made up to ignore our request?
While there, Linda and I advised you of new evidence in the murders of
Don Henry and Linda's son, Kevin. Although, I was miffed at your lack
of interest at the time, I have become incensed upon reflection. When
Linda and I explained that an eyewitness's account has been
corroborated, your response was, "I have difficulty with the second
autopsy [performed by Dr. Joseph Burton], and I'm not convinced it
sufficiently proves the boys were murdered." To reiterate, we offered
to lay out corroborated evidence of an eyewitness to murder, and you
said you are not convinced a crime was committed. You further noted
your "concern" that a jury would rely on the findings of Fahmy Malak's
autopsy. In the first place, Mr. Smith, Burton's autopsy report
reflects the determination of a team of expert forensic pathologists
that the boys were murdered; in the second place, the deaths have been
officially ruled homicides by a grand jury; in the third place, the
asinine opinion of Malak has been completely destroyed. How dare you
ignore the existence of an eyewitness, because, against all reason, you
think Burton's autopsy is not credible. Where, in God's name, did you
and Fahmy Malak receive your training?
I then took the opportunity to ask you the status of the FBI's request
that former U.S. Attorney Chuck Banks be charged with obstruction of
justice for preventing Dan Harmon's indictment by the 1990 federal grand
jury. You were not in the Little Rock office in early 1994, when I
learned of the recommendation, and you avoided a direct answer to my
inquiry by claiming you have not seen anything about it "in writing,"
but I pressed for an explanation. There was ample evidence against
Harmon when Banks announced to the media that no evidence existed, and
Bob Govar, who headed the 1990 investigation, has said he would testify
that Banks lied. Linda and I were amazed at your response that "Mr.
Govar should be investigated for failing to report a crime." Then, as
our conversation progressed, you admitted the FBI is also aware of
evidence that Harmon has run a criminal enterprise since 1984. So, why
do you suggest Govar be investigated for failing to report a crime of
which you are also aware? We asked that question in the meeting, but
you didn't answer. Do you care to answer now?
Harmon's April, 1997, indictment was under RICO, so he could have been
charged with crimes ten years back, including his involvement in the
August 23, 1987 murders of Kevin and Don. Even though an eyewitness
came forward in 1993 and passed an FBI polygraph test placing Harmon on
the tracks with the boys that night, Harmon's indictment did not include
any crime prior to August of 1991. I have always suspected the reason
was to protect Banks, and you confirmed that to me. You said, "Paula
Casey made the decision to not include the crimes for which Banks had
already cleared Harmon, because Harmon would use that as a defense."
I resent the excuses you and Paula Casey use to protect criminals, and
the hammer you hold over the head of a whistle-blower. Bob Govar is
willing to give testimony that Chuck Banks obstructed justice, and you
want Govar investigated. How typical. Govar gets investigated, but
Banks is protected. And, even though you have evidence that Harmon has
been committing crimes since 1984, Paula Casey chose to ignore that
evidence and protect Banks for providing Harmon with a defense. That
defense, however, would not be available to Harmon if Banks were
indicted. Harmon and Banks are both criminals and are both being
protected.
You expressed concern that I might post on our website things you do or
say that I don't like. Since the purpose of our website is to expose
the cover-up of the murders of Kevin and Don, you can be assured that
your participation in protecting the criminals involved will be
reported. You and Paula Casey have the power of the federal government
behind you. You can decide who is to be punished and who is to be
protected. I, however, have the power of the internet behind me, and I
can report the truth in spite of attempts by the government to cover it
up. Our website is making a record, and the truth will be accurately
assessed by history.
If you wish to reply, I will be glad to have our webmaster post your
response.
Sincerely,
Jean K. Duffey
