WHO IS I.C. SMITH: G-man, PR man OR Con Man?

By Linda Ives

It seems that neither I nor anyone I know remembers who was head of the FBI in Arkansas before I.C. Smith. That is because, historically, Arkansans never heard or read anything about the head of the FBI -- they kept a low profile. They did not grant media interviews, appear in photo ops and fluff newspaper pieces, nor pen guest writer articles in the newspaper. Not until Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc., and the case closest to my heart, the "Train Deaths", and not until I.C. Smith came to Arkansas. Smith is obviously waging a very public and private PR campaign which includes lies and innuendoes about me and my dead child, Kevin Ives. It is evident from the smear campaign that Smith has launched against me that he considers me a grave threat, as well he should. There is no greater foe than a mother whose child has been mistreated. Smith's strategy is strikingly similar to that of a sleazy criminal defense attorney who has no defense for their client -- so they assassinate the character of the victim insinuating they got just what they deserved.

After being led to believe that arrests for the murder of my son were coming, I was outraged after my meeting in November, 1995 with Bill Temple, # 2 man in charge of the FBI in Arkansas who told my husband and I that "it was time we considered the fact that a crime had not been committed". I decided to go public with the story and discussed the events with Chris Ruddy, a national reporter who did a story on it. Obviously smarting over the bad press, Smith, who had never even spoken with me, granted an interview with the Benton Courier, our little local newspaper, and stated that Temple "would never have made such a cold hearted statement" to me. This is the same thing as calling me a liar. Amazingly, Smith now routinely makes that same "cold hearted" statement to callers who have visited our website and then call him to demand action on the case.

Unfortunately for Smith, we got over the accidental ruling hurdle 9 years ago after a second autopsy was performed and a county grand jury ruled the deaths murders. Smith certainly has no medical credentials, so who is he to question the findings of three forensic pathologists and 7 forensic homicide investigators with an accumulation of over 100 years experience in homicides who all agreed it was clearly murder?

In that same Benton Courier newspaper article, Smith claimed that the FBI had not decided whether or not to open a case file on Kevin and Don because they did not know whether or not the FBI had jurisdiction in the case. The truth is, the FBI began investigating the case in December, 1993, if not sooner, when an eyewitness came forward placing Dan Harmon on the tracks the night of the murders. The FBI immediately placed the witness in protective custody and told John Brown that the witness' testimony corroborated part of what they already knew. They also instructed John Brown to turn over his entire case file to the FBI, which he did. So who is the liar? Does Smith really expect the public to believe that the FBI would spend nearly two years investigating a case when they didn't know whether or not they had jurisdiction? In a direct contradiction to his own previous statements, he now claims that the case is still on-going, but in the next breath, tells people he is not convinced the boys were murdered! So why would the FBI investigate an accident for nearly four years? Obviously Smith is not accustomed to dealing with an informed public. Thankfully, the internet has armed the American people with the powerful weapon of knowledge.

In conversations with some of my supporters, Smith has made outrageous statements for which he is going to have to answer for. For example, he claims that I have accused Curtis Henry, Don's dad, of being involved in the murders. That is an outrageous LIE. I have NEVER stated that and do not believe that to be the case. Despite some very troubling questions in my own mind for years about Curtis Henry, I can unequivocally state that I have never, ever talked publicly or even privately, about Curtis Henry until he testified as a character witness FOR Dan Harmon in his recent trial. After his testimony, many people were puzzled about Curtis Henry's support of Harmon and have questioned me about it. My response is that there are many disturbing connections and unanswered questions that need to be resolved. I happen to know that even the FBI was alarmed about Curtis' public support of Harmon. Perhaps now the FBI will finally ask some questions they should have been asking years ago! Needless to say, I am not going to hold my breath.

Smith also claimed that Larry and I were lax in our supervision of Kevin. I can state with absolute certainty that if you talked to anyone who knows Larry and I, they would tell you that "lax" does not accurately describe our supervision of Kevin. I can also state with certainty that I.C. Smith has no statements or evidence to support his claims. Even if he did, what is Smith's point? Kevin didn't deserve to be murdered and my family doesn't deserve the added trauma of Smith's mudslinging.

In a recent telephone call responding to a radio station's request for an interview about the case, Smith stated that he wasn't going to talk about two little dead boys on a railroad track. When asked about an interview in regard to Mena drug smuggling, Smith stated that he wasn't interested in doing an interview about that either because " he wanted to live for a long time".

My mistakes are many -- at the top of the list was letting Kevin spend the night with Don, but I have no reason to lie. I certainly have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. So who is I.C. Smith? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and most importantly, quacks like a duck, it usually is one. I.C. Smith is a common con-man masquerading as a G-man. I will be filing a formal ethics complaint against him with Washington in the very near future.