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