I was just reading Denise’s reply to a question posed concerning the perceived inaction on the part of the feds to discredit and “bring down” AIM related to the murder of Annie Mae.
While I agree with the majority of Denise’s response as related to the difficulty by authorities in getting people to step forward in the 70′s and readily acknowledge her superior access to all things related, that was then and this is now.
THEN and NOW- a huge difference in what is known and what has transpired in the ensuing decades, and despite the fact that the same difficulties remain my contention is that if enough testimony and evidence exists to secure the convictions that have occurred enough exists to pursue others.
What we routinely hear are rumors of pending indictments while time as a finite commodity marches inexorably on-these rumors have been floated for years, and yet none of the American Indian Mafia godfathers have been charged.
The lack of which understandably raises suspicions-suspicions I have no difficulty in admitting to.
A suspicion I have, and one that seems to be shared by others, is that the rumors are just that, rumors, meant to placate and keep dangling the carrot as the element of time is measured and squandered.
I suspect the “solution” to be that if enough time is spent circulating rumors and assurances the attrition of time will insure that in the passing of these individuals the public display of a trial will become unnecessary.
If that is the case questions will naturally arise about motivation-and they should.
The obvious one, though it must be classified as speculation at this point, is that within the AIM hierarchy there exists a protected informant, possibly more than one-and I don’t mean the usual suspects such as Harry David Hill who was outed long ago.
Such an existence would explain a lot of things, but could also air a lot of dirty laundry on both sides of the fence if exposed.
Before going any further I want to clarify that-I don’t now, nor have I ever believed the feds had anything to do with the murder of Annie Mae-that is singularly AIM bs -but if one examines the entirety of multiple events in the ’70s such as the murder of Williams and Coler other influences come into play.
The feds were on a mission to capture and prosecute any associated with their murder,and the heat was already on resulting from WK2, a given, and I in no way fault them for their fervor regarding Williams and Coler.
In the midst of this there would have been huge pressure on AIM, and more pointedly on it’s so called leadership. The greatest threat they apparently have had to face.
I don’t think it to be a stretch of the imagination to speculate that in feeling the heat one or more of these leaders would have become an informant in an effort to save themselves and their cash cow that AIM had become.
What would have been their bargaining chip? Perhaps rolling over on Peltier -not in the nature of public testimony but providing information as to his location, his movements, and his involvement.
Such an informant(s) would have had far a greater value in anonymity that in exposing to the glare of the media spotlight……and still would.
In the aftermath we’ve seen these leaders go and come at will, do and say pretty much as they damn well please, while continuing to enrich themselves.
We’ve got Russell attempting to sell a story that he was completely in the dark about Annie until ’99 when he overheard women talking about it-’99- which coincidently is when Branscombe entered the picture-Banks saying that he had the greatest of affection for Annie and basically has been deaf, dumb, and blind, regarding anything related to her murder.
I could be wrong in my suspicions and invite any with a conflicting opinion or opposing viewpoint to present it.
According to the pie patrol Blackhorse is the current villain of choice-the present “dirty little coward that shot Mr. Howard” (gave up Peltier), and he could have a level of involvement-but I see it mostly as another desperate attempt by them in a bag of dwindling tricks to exonerate Peltier.
Maybe what the pie patrol should be doing is asking themselves about the questions I have raised-asking how it is so few are routinely able to remain unscathed in the midst of what is known now?
But to do so would mean they would have to at least temporarily forgo braiding the hair, baking the pies, and risk having to admit maybe they personally aren’t the repository of “investigative” insight they would have others to believe-that perhaps they have been manipulated as a shill to bleat the party line-and in doing so have delayed and obstructed the very justice they claim to seek.
What always confuses me a little is the illogic that if players like Blackhorse or any other were “snitches” how in the hell does that alter the fact of who pulled the trigger? Quite simply, It doesn’t.
It is the identical shape shifting that attempts to mitigate the murder of Annie Mae in saying poor AIM was so paranoid their degree of guilt must be moderated and not singularly theirs.
So we are left with meaningless statements that although Frank DeLuca/Black Horse cannot be placed at the Jumping Bull compound by so much as a single account, a single INDIGENOUS witness, we shouldn’t make too much of that, we should allow the possibility.
Kind of a backhanded sleight that maybe indigenous people aren’t too aware of their surroundings-are prone to walk around in a daze and that should be taken into account. Or
maybe those in the area are feds themselves participating in the coverup.
I say if “allowing possibilities” is to be the way of it then the possibility that Peltier is the shooter must be equally allowed by them-and it doesn’t stop there.
They must then allow the “possibility” that Means, Banks, the Bellecourts, and even Mickey and Donald were there as well- that Graham is the shooter of Annie.
Hopefully in mentioning Mickey and Donald the pie patrol and Peltierites won’t seize upon them as suspects now-they have an air tight alibi… they were at Disney Land and seen by thousands-even countless photos and 8mm film attesting to that.


a few more points to consider , South Dakota Senator, James Abourezk invites Tetuwan Ceremonial Chief & Holy man, Frank Fools Crow to give a opening prayer before the Senate 1970
http://lookingbackwoman.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/south-dakota-senator-james-abourezk-invites-tetuwan-ceremonial-chief-holy-man-frank-fools-crow-to-give-a-opening-prayer-before-the-senate-1970/
” Each of us bears a responsibility to reject hate, whatever its form, whatever its justification.
A soul filled with hate can devastate a community.
A nation filled with hate can devastate a people.
It must start and end with each of us. ”
- George Takei
Exactly as you say Rezinate – THEN and NOW- a huge difference in what is known and what has transpired in the ensuing decades…
http://www.playingforchange.com/episodes/8
JP-Some serious points and questions raised by LBW-but like others
raised have been, and undoubtedly will continue to be studiously
ignored-truth is all too often an unwelcome guest at the liars
banquet, not only an embarrassment but a very real threat in the
bargain, and clearly illustrates that the square pegs AIM has
forcefully driven into round holes really don’t fit.
SF
The mere act of knowing isn’t enough-what is known must be faithfully
acted upon-neither people nor their individual lives are pawns to be
manipulated and moved about a chess board.
Well, fact about is that “knowing what responsibility is” turns ideas and words into direct action and hard work to make things happen- that’s what I mean.
First and main responsibility is to STOP haters and hate disease spread by liberators and liars – in aftrmath WE ALL hate lies and being lied … when we succeed in that part , to stop it first – it will be avalanche of FORTUNATE events to start winning and regaining unity, solidarity, sovereignty
And give financial, public and spiritual check mate …to opponents
SF-I understand and agree with your meaning- “peer pressure” to set the
responsibility and understanding aside is far from a valid reason to do so.
I go back to Part One-Wounded Knee of the Annie Mae timeline at NFIC. In the Editor’s Introduction it is noted that in the November 2000 CBC Fifth Estate special program, former FBI agent Norman Zegrossi says that Annie Mae was not working for the FBI as an informant. When asked how he knew, Zegrossi stated, “because he (the informant) was a friend of mine.”
We can deduce, then, it seems that the informant was (is) male. I don’t know why Zegrossi uses the past tense to describe the friendship. Perhaps only to refer to the time period of the occupations.
Too obvious a point Mary, and the reason why it has been ignored. I think the past
tense is a reference to the time period.
In discussing this with others a lot of names have been floated, even Durham’s and
Hill’s- with the “liberators” ranking higher than any other.
Durham and Hill are no brainers, known, and too obvious-some say Trudell- but my
belief is someone at the very top.
They have the most to gain or lose-and they seem to have the greatest immunity.
For these reasons and the way their welfare is linked to each other it makes the
most sense to me.
If a single one of them is an informant, to prosecute any makes it a near impossibility
to not prosecute all, and in the process out the the informer, which would blow a
lifetime spent crafting an image and tell a lot tales some might think better left untold.
We may never know, or maybe it’s one of those things that will be released decades
down the road.
Could be I’m way off base as well-but something isn’t right in the midst of all this.
Which takes me back to your post NOT EXACTLY SWEET LIKE SYRUP. And the comments there. I don’t think you are way off base at all.
At least if I am Mary-though I don’t believe so-then I am consistent.