FBI ARKANSAS BUREAU
FBI ARKANSAS BUREAU
All investigations of the murders of Kevin and Don have been shut down, and nobody has been indicted for anything. Along the way, several witnesses were murdered, many more were threatened, intimidated, and even imprisoned. Legitimate investigators were discredited and fired while those who participated in the coverups were protected, rewarded, and promoted. Then, FBI Special Agent Phyllis Cournan, was put in charge of investigating the murders and all previous shutdown investigations. Linda and I worked with Cournan for a year, and although she was careful to stay within guidelines of working with civilians, we had reasons to believe that she had made the case we had been waiting for. Somebody really messed up by letting Cournan do her job. Around this time, I.C. Smith, a high-level agent from D.C. was brought in, and it wasn’t long before Linda and I recognized another shutdown coming. The archives below is the documented story of our clash with the FBI and Smith. In the end, Phyllis was fired, Smith was forced into early retirement, and the FBI closed its investigation. This was number 6. Note that no investigation that we know of looked at the Mean connection to the murders, which supports our believe that Mena was the reason the murders of Kevin and Don would never be solved. It’s interesting to note that 7 such investigations of Mena drug smuggling suffered similar fates.
The end of the FBI’s investigation of the murders was not the end of our challenging the FBI. It been a 2-decades-long, ongoing challenge, but the FBI has been exposed for what it is. Replying to an FOIA request for documents, they claimed they had zero, but after an inquiry from Senator Vic Snyder they admitted to having 17,000. To date, we have received about 2000 heavily redacted pages, but they tell more than the FBI intended. See the collage our researcher made from a few of the documents from those 2000.
January 20, 1996
Bill Temple, Assistant Special Agent in Charge
Federal Bureau of Investigation
10825 Financial Center Parkway
Little Rock, AR 72211
Dear Mr. Temple,
I have given a lot of thought and consideration to the meeting that my husband and I had with, agent Phyllis Cournan and your legal counsel, John Kelly on November 29, 1996. Upon reflection, two things are crystal clear. There was a lot of lying going on, on you part, and it was your intention from the outset to anger and insult.
As was obvious by my stomping out of the meeting in tears, you did, indeed, succeed in angering me and insulting my intelligence with your asinine statement that “in light of the fact that there is no evidence of anything, it is time that you considered the fact that a crime was never committed.”
As we both know, there is overwhelming evidence that two children have been murdered, but of who the murderers are, and of a huge conspiracy by officials to cover up the murders.
The following is a quote which I think is quite appropriate. “Nothing works against the success of a conspiracy so much as the wish to make it wholly secure and certain to succeed. Such an attempt requires many men, much time, and very favorable conditions. And all these in turn heighten the risk of being discovered. You see therefore, how dangerous conspiracies are.”
Francesco Guicciardini, 1528
Attachment: page 24, Dr. Joseph Burton’s autopsy report
To : I. C. Smith
Special Agent in Charge Arkansas FBI
From : Jean Duffey
Re : Attached:
Benton Courier article
Dear Mr. Smith:
It is certainly not my intention to make an enemy of the FBI, but I cannot let yesterday’s Benton Courier article go unchallenged. I understand that you were not in the Little Rock office during the time I communicated with your agent, Phyllis Cournan, for over a year, so I will give you some background information about my involvement with “the train deaths” case.
When I was administrator of the Seventh Judicial District Drug Task Force in 1990, one of my agents and I visited at length with then U.S. Attorney Chuck Banks about “the train deaths” and the information we had linking the case to drugs and public officials. My agent and I expressed our strong belief that drugs were being dropped in the area from small, low-flying planes in the middle of the night, and that the boys were killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The plane-drop theory, which has now been confirmed, apparently sent up a red flag to Banks. Although he promised he would get my agent and I before a grand jury, that never happened, and it was from that point Banks began dismantling the Saline County investigation all together. There are many incidents which support my believe that I will not detail in this writing.
After Banks closed the Saline County investigation and held a press conference in June of 1991 to clear all public officials of any wrong-doing, I was not involved again until March of 1994, when Phyllis Cournan contacted my brother. I had refused to respond to many such calls through the years and did not respond to Phyllis until a couple of weeks later when she called my brother again. This time she said to let me know the FBI had recommended that Chuck Banks be charged with obstructing justice. Hearing that, I made the assumption there was going to be a serious investigation into “the train deaths” and into Banks’ actions, and I began communicating with Phyllis on a very frequent basis.
Over the course of the next year, Linda Ives and I were regularly involved in exchanging information from many different sources. Because the sharing of information is crucial when developing a complex case, Phyllis confided when information we generated was verified, sometimes through polygraphs. I have no doubt that Linda and I both know more about Phyllis’s investigation than you would like, but it is for that reason we do not accept that there is “no evidence.” What other explanation is there, but here is another cover-up?
The statements I made on the Pat Lynch Show were based on Linda’s account of the meeting she and her husband, Larry, had with Bill Temple, John Kelly, and Phyllis Cournan. Although Linda’s word is enough for me, I realize it may not be enough for everybody, so I made certain I had independent verification of what was said at that meeting. You are quoted in the Benton Courier saying Temple “has been very concerned, because he has been so badly misquoted.” However, Phyllis verified in a taped telephone conversation that Temple said, “verbatim,” that Larry and Linda should consider the fact that a crime was never committed.
Again, it is not my intention to cause us to become adversaries, but you must understand that after surviving a massive smear campaign, I am not going to make false statements or loose allegations. There is open season on anything I say publicly, so I am not about to say anything that will cause me to lose my newly regained credibility. Because of this, I cannot allow the Benton Courier article to go unanswered.
If you wish to speak with me, I am at the above number which is for phone and fax. I feel certain Linda will also be contacting you.
cc : Arkansas Democrat Gazette
Malvern Daily Record
KTHV NEWS CHANNEL 11
KARN NEWS RADIO 920
Update: June 29, 1997
Public Enemy No. 1
BY: Jean Duffey
“Our worst enemies here are not the ignorant and the simple, however cruel; our worst enemies are the intelligent and the corrupt.” -Graham Greene
AN ENEMY HAS BEEN CLEARLY DEFINED
Many visitors to our website have taken it upon themselves to contact several of the public officials involved with the train deaths case. One of those officials sometimes contacted is I.C. Smith, who is the head of the Arkansas FBI office. Some who have spoken with Smith were so appalled by what he said, they have called or e-mailed to tell us. To begin with, Smith purports that the FBI is “NOT CONVINCED THE BOYS WERE MURDERED.”
Is this stupidity or what? From January of 1994 to well into 1995, the FBI had an agent assigned full-time to investigate the murders. The investigation was shut down, not because there was a sudden determination that the boys weren’t murdered after all, but because it became impossible to ignore the Mena connection. Is Smith really expecting, or even wanting, us to believe that the FBI conducted an eighteen-month-long murder investigation before they determined there even was a murder? Rather than exposing the Mena drug-smuggling operation, the FBI wants us to believe that their incompetence amounts to idiocy.
Even if the boys’ bodies were never exhumed, and second autopsies were never performed, and a team of seven forensic experts did not agree and report that the signs of murder were clear, questions surrounding the case cries COVER-UP, and accidents are not covered up.
If the boys had accidentally laid down on the tracks and gotten themselves run over by a train, why have local, state, and federal agencies put money and manpower into seven seperate investigations spanning nearly a decade? What other accidental deaths have received that kind of attention? Why have these investigations been allowed to go forward just to be shut down suddenly when the inevitable connection to the Mena drug-smuggling operation is made?
How did Dan Harmon, now known to have been involved in the murders, just happen to be appointed by Judge John Cole to head the Saline County grand jury investigation of the murders? Why did Cole refuse to hear the complaints of the grand jurors that Harmon would not allow them to see the evidence and hear the witnesses they wanted? Why did at least seven witnesses turn up dead?
Why did U.S. Attorney Chuck Banks shut down a federal investigation after I took him information connecting the murders to a major drug operation involving public officials? Why did Banks clear Harmon when federal grand jurors were unanimously ready to indict him on drug-related charges? Why did Harmon’s RICO indictment exclude his involvement in the murders even though the FBI have three eye witnesses placing Harmon at the scene? Why have I been able to locate a fourth eye-witness that the FBI says they can’t find?
ENOUGH! We know why. It’s because those who have the power to call the shots do not want the crimes of Mena exposed. So, it has become I.C. Smith’s assignment to dispel any such notion that a crime was even committed. Lot’s of luck. Smith has got to be feeling like an imbecile for even making such a suggestion. That must be why he has other suggestions up his sleeve. Like, the boys were not all that wholesome, and the parents were not all that attentive.
I’m not making this up. I’m just repeating what sources have told me Smith said to them. And I can tell you, I am personally more offended by such slurs against Kevin and Don and their parents, than I am by Smith’s asinine statement that they were not murdered. For argument’s sake, let’s say the boys had been very troubled teens and that their parents did not supervise them properly. What is Smith’s point? Is he saying this somehow justifies their deaths?
Smith has been caught in numerous lies, he has attempted to generate bias against the parents of murdered children, and he has hinted that Kevin had a criminal record – if that was true, Smith would be breaking the law for disclosing a juvenile criminal record. Since it isn’t true, Smith is telling a slanderous, bald-faced lie.
Why do our tax dollars have to pay the salary of the likes of I.C. Smith? Fax or mail this update to Smith and FBI Director Louis Freeh. We have the right to let them know how we feel about such behavior from a high-ranking, high-salaried public official.
Do not doubt that each of you who takes the time to express your concerns can make a difference.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” -Margaret Mead
Update: July 2, 1997
We’re Having An Effect
BY: Jean Duffey
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead
Until now, government officials have never had to deal with an informed public – the internet generation. Arkansas FBI Head Agent, I.C. Smith, is being put on the hot seat by readers of my latest update, “Public Enemy No. 1.” Smith doesn’t understand that, unlike talking to mainstream media, the internet medium will challenge his lies and half truths. If you missed it, you may read that update at http://www.idfiles.com/enemy-no-1.htm. The statements Smith made to internet comrade Chris Blau in a thirty-five minute telephone conversation yesterday are in response to that update. My comments follow Smith’s statements.
* Smith says, there are only one or two witnesses placing Harmon on the tracks with the boys the night they were murdered, and one of them failed four or five polygraphs.
ONLY one or two witnesses! What does he mean, ONLY? Well, anyway, which is it – one or two? Neither, there are five witnesses that I know Smith knows about. Two of them are in prison. And guess who prosecuted them. Dan Harmon. Can you beat that? After U.S. Attorney Chucks Banks shut down the 1990 federal grand jury that was unanimously ready to indict Harmon, Harmon went after those two witnesses.
A third eye witness came forward to Linda Ives in 1993, was taken to the FBI, and passed a polygraph test. The FBI said the witness corroborated what they already knew, and a case file was opened. During that investigation, the agent in charge told Linda of a fourth witness; an ex-cop who participated in placing the bodies on the tracks. The fifth witness is one the FBI said they could not locate. I recently found out where he is, though, so how hard could it be?
Now, about the witness Smith says failed a polygraph four or five times. Well, which is it – four or five? Neither, it’s two. Smith is talking about Sharline Wilson, one of the two witnesses Harmon prosecuted after he was cleared by Banks.
Sharline, a confessed cocaine dealer, dated Harmon several years in the 1980’s. When Sharline lost custody of her son (by a previous marriage), she began to clean up her life. She gave testimony to the 1990 federal grand jury against Harmon, and later, she tells about driving Harmon to the tracks the night the boys were murdered. According to Sharline, Harmon left her with an eight-ball of cocaine which kept her high for several hours while she sat waiting in the car. Sharline says she knew the area was a drop zone for drugs but says she didn’t know what had happened that night until she heard about the boys the next morning.
After Banks cleared Harmon in June, 1991 of “all wrong-doing,” Harmon was not the only one still interested in Sharline. She was interrogated by several agencies, including the FBI, and says she often felt like she was being badgered and harassed. She volunteered to be polygraphed but became so upset during the pretest interview, the polygrapher said he couldn’t even get a positive reading when she stated her name. Failed polygraph number one.
The next time she was polygraphed was after she had been arrested by Harmon’s drug task force for what she says was “a set up.” She had been terrorized by Harmon and had been sitting in jail for months. The night before the test, she was transported to another facility where she spent the night in isolation. By then she was an emotional wreck, and claims she told them what they wanted to hear. She “confessed” to killing the boys herself. Failed polygraph number two.
It’s amazing that Smith would use those bogus test results to discredit a witness against Dan Harmon.
* Smith says he is responsible for Dan Harmon’s conviction and is not being given credit.
Fine, if he wants credit for Harmon’s conviction, he’s got some explaining to do. Two of his own agents, one in a taped telephone conversation, said the FBI has known about Harmon’s illegal activities for years. Why did they wait to do anything about it until a small-town newspaper ran a story about Harmon’s ex-wife being caught with cocaine packages from his district’s evidence locker? The answer is in the question – it was reported in the newspaper. The feds (Smith, since he wants the credit) were forced to do something. They conducted an eighteen-month-long showy investigation which resulted in an eleven count indictment, but a conviction on only five counts. The government (Smith, since he wants the credit) should have asked for indictments for Harmon’s criminal activity ten years back which is allowed under federal RICO law. This would have given the case the strength of a mountain of evidence my task force had against Harmon. No excuse or explanation has been given for cutting Harmon’s indictment off at August of 1991, just a month after Banks held a press conference announcing there were no dirty public officials in Saline County.
* Smith says he doesn’t doubt there was or is drug activity around Mena.
So, what is he doing about it?
* Smith says he is not sure the FBI has the jurisdiction to investigate the murders.
This is one of the most incredible statements Smith makes repeatedly. The FBI has jurisdiction over any drug-related/public official-related crime. If the FBI’s jurisdiction was questionable, why was an agent assigned to work the case full-time for more than eighteen months? It wasn’t lack of jurisdiction that stopped the investigation. It was the link to the Mena drug-smuggling operation that caused that shut-down as well as six previous investigations of the murders, and is likely the real reason Harmon’s indictment didn’t include his involvement in the murders. (Smith can have credit for that, too.)
The tragedy of Kevin and Don’s murders is compounded by the government’s cover-up to hide it’s involvement in the drug trade. The tragedy is further compounded because it is far from being an isolated incident. Another of many is the murder of Tommy Burkett . If you aren’t familiar with Tommy’s story, please visit this website at http://www.clark.net/pub/tburkett/pacc/PACC.html. Their own struggle with the FBI to expose the truth has given them insight into an agency that most Americans still trust and value. Tom Burkett says: “The FBI is not in the business of truth; it is in the business of control.”
I believe, however, that we can force change. We must arm citizens with truth and confront officials with knowledge. Our public officials can no longer be sheltered by corporate media. They are having to face us, the internet generation. We’re on a roll, so we can’t stop now. Go to “Congress E-Mail” at http://www.idfiles.com/congr-list.htm and send the Senators and Representatives of your choice (all of them would be better) a copy of “Public Enemy No. 1” and my responses to I.C. Smith in this update. John F. Williams, an internet comrade, provided us with Congress’s E-mail list. He has already sent out “Public Enemy No. 1” with this message to our illustrious leaders: “For those of you who think that a conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory, wake up, before it is too late.”
“Corruption flourishes in an atmosphere of tolerance that allows it to prevail.” – Capt. Frank Furillo
Update: August 2, 1997
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.
Update: September 10,1997
Good News Bad News
BY: Jean Duffey
It was a busy summer, and there’s much to report. This update has some “good” news and some “bad” news.
The “good” news: Arkansas’s chief FBI agent, I.C. Smith, plans to file a complaint against U.S. Attorney Paula Casey for not using all the information his office developed against Dan Harmon. This claim has renewed some folks’ faith in the FBI.
The “bad” news: Barry Seal’s brother-in-law, Billy Bottoms, claims to have testimony that will cause problems in the lawsuit Linda Ives plans to file against those responsible for the murder of her son. This has worried some folks who are hoping Linda will see justice served before another ten years passes.
The truth: I.C. Smith and Billy Bottoms are habitual liars; that’s apparently what they get paid for. They’re in the business of disinformation, and they might be successful if it weren’t for the exchange of information via the internet. For the many of you who are new to our website and update list, here’s a synopsis.
On August 23, 1987, Kevin Ives, 17, and Don Henry, 16, were murdered after stumbling upon a remote drug-drop zone in Saline County, Arkansas, near the city limits of Little Rock. The drugs were flown in from South/Central America in planes that were modified, repaired, and housed at the Mena, Arkansas Airport. Some solid facts: Modifications and repairs were paid for by the DEA, at least one plane belonged to the CIA, and some of the pilots have been verified or admit to being CIA operatives.
By the time the FBI officially opened it’s own case-file on the murders in early 1994, there had been six thwarted investigations (a county grand jury, two county sheriff’s departments under different administrations, the state police, a district drug task force, and a federal grand jury).
Linda Ives and I worked with the FBI for over a year in a truly forthright investigation, but when the inevitable connection to the Mena/CIA drug smuggling operation was made, I predicted another shut-down which came in Nov. of 1995. Linda and her husband Larry demanded a meeting with the FBI during which Agent Bill Temple told them there was no evidence and they should consider that a crime had not been committed.
This was when Linda and I went public. We authorized the documentary “Obstruction of Justice” and began promoting its sales to raise money for a civil suit. We developed our website, www.idfiles.com, and we use it, the internet, and talk-radio/television to confront government officials with every lie they utter. We began with the FBI.
Following the first public challenge I made against the FBI, I.C. Smith gave a newspaper interview on January 31, 1996, denying Temple told Linda and Larry that the FBI’s position was “no crime had been committed.” In essence, Smith called Linda a liar. Not a good move. Linda fired back, and Smith has been on the defense ever since.
Unfortunately for Smith, he frequently contradicts himself and his position vacillates constantly. He has been back and forth since the 1996 interview on whether the boys were even murdered and if they were, whether the FBI has jurisdiction to investigate. Smith has finally abandoned the utterly stupid suggestion that Kevin and Don’s deaths were accidental, but according to what we are hearing from those of you who have contacted him, Smith is still expressing doubts about jurisdiction. As I’ve said before, not even Smith is incompetent enough to allow an agent on a case full-time for over a year when there is no jurisdiction.
In some of his responses to you, Smith asks that you seek information about him and his position on this case from sources other than the internet (our website and updates). If he says this to any of you again, let him know that every public statement he has ever made about this case is on our website and ask him to to be specific about “other sources.”
Now, about his complaint against Paula Casey. Hog-wash. My source’s source supposedly got this information directly from Smith, but I don’t believe it’s true. I wouldn’t ordinarily pass along information that is from a second-hand source, but the complaint claim is the perfect example of how some people are sucked in by disinformation.
The complaint is supposed to be against Casey for not using all the information the FBI provided against Dan Harmon. I certainly agree there was much more, but a mountain of evidence against Harmon could have come from Linda Ives and me. There may not be two other people on earth who collectively know more about Harmon than we do, but Smith didn’t bother to send anybody to interview either of us. So where does he have the room to complain about the lack of evidence against Harmon?
Also, there is a tremendous amount of prosecutoral discretion involved in what evidence is used in a criminal case. Casey discarded and ignored evidence, but there isn’t much recourse. If there was, Linda and I would have been the first to file a complaint against her for not having Harmon indicted for his crimes all the way back to Kevin and Don’s murders. Our only recourse is public exposure. This is not to be confused with the obstruction of justice Casey’s predecessor, Chuck Banks, committed by shutting down a grand jury who had already heard enough evidence via Assistant U.S. Attorney Bob Govar to indict Harmon in 1990, and was unanimously ready to do so.
So, what’s the deal with the bogus complaint claim? Just what I said. There are people who are gullible (actually ignorant) enough to believe Smith is trying to do the right thing. It’s part of his disinformation campaign, although I don’t believe he intended this to go public. He perhaps said it in private to pull a doubter back into the fold. And guess what. It worked. Some people never learn – even after 10 years.
Now, what about Billy Bottoms? There’s really not much I can say about “Da Bear” as my internet comrade, Larry, calls him. While Linda and I keep FBI Disinformant Smith in check, Larry and others like comrade Michael Rivero and Daniel Hopsicker, keep Disinformant Bottoms in check, and that is a massive undertaking. While Smith has other duties to perform, Bottoms has no other duty aside from writing volumes of disinformation and posting it to news groups on the internet.
Larry, nearly singled handedly discredited Bottoms to the point of Bottoms being of little or no concern to truth-seekers. It’s amazing that Bottoms still has the audacity to suggest he has information that will be a problem for Linda’s civil suit. I am so absolutely certain Bottoms has nothing – zilch, zero, zip – that I will personally see to it Bottoms gets the name, address, and phone number, of the defense attorney for whomever Linda sues. It will give me great pleasure to see Bottoms wasting their time with his tales. When Linda is ready to file her suit, it will not be too weak to withstand the lies of a pathetic, has-been, disinformant. It will have to have, and will have, the strength to withstand the lies of government authorities.
If you’re new to our update list, I welcome you and thank you for your interest and concern. If you’re an old friend, thanks for being patient. I’m weeks behind on reading and answering e-mail and on writing up-dates. As I settle back into my teaching schedule, I’ll catch you all up on what Linda and I accomplished this summer.
A special hello to my new Texan family. You know who you are.
Update: Tuesday, June 30, 1998
A Familiar Pattern
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.
* * *
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.
Jean K. Duffey
Upate: July 30, 1998
BY: Jean Duffey
I wrote an update Saturday night about I.C. Smith’s sudden and unexpected resignation from the FBI. It began:
On May 29, 1998, Linda Ives and I met with I.C. Smith, director of the Arkansas FBI. We addressed three issues: perjury charges against John Brown; obstruction of justice charges against Chuck Banks; and new evidence in the “train deaths” case.
Smith made some promises, some excuses, and some revealing statements during that meeting which I recounted in a letter to him on June 29. The letter was posted on our website and sent out as an update.
On July 23, Smith announced his retirement from the FBI.
I offered no explanations for Smith throwing in the towel but had to wonder if it was something I said. I elaborated for several more paragraphs, sent the final draft to our webmaster, Mark, who is also my brother, and went to bed, satisfied that I was continuing to keep our readers informed about the behavior of government officials involved in covering up the “train deaths” case.
Sunday morning, I had a rude awakening. Mark called at 7:00 to catch me before my family and I left town for two weeks. His voice was so calm, there was a momentary delay in my reaction to his words. After a cordial greeting, he said, “I was emailed a death-threat this morning. I believe it originated in Thailand.” The threat actually consisted of three emails, which Mark forwarded to me.
Mark and I have both received various threats before, but there is something very chilling in the phrasing of this message. Worse still, the sender is apparently not concerned that the email can be traced; perhaps even counting on it, which sounds to me like a drug-mob-type warning.
Mark refused to let me push the panic button. He insisted that we wait for his internet provider to verify the message origin. While we waited I did a lot of thinking.
Although Linda and I are the public voices for our website, we would be absolutely nowhere without Mark. His efforts are tireless, and he is relentless in his search for the truth. His command of information and his ability to make logical connections are amazing. It is Mark who keeps our message alive. He often carries the ball alone, and he has never faltered or fumbled.
If this death-threat is serious, and something in my gut tells me it is, I vow that if any harm comes to my brother, I will forge ahead with great vengeance.
After waiting two days, Mark received the following message from his provider:
“Unfortunately, I have very little information to add beyond what you have already discovered: the messages originated from hatyai.inet.co.th, a domain in Thailand. I looked at the domain’s web page, and it seems that the domain is a regional ISP serving southern Thailand. The corporate entity behind the domain was identified (sic)as follows:
“TAKSIN CYBERNET CORPORATION LIMITED
72/20 Niphatsongkraw 3 Rd., Hatyai Songkhla 90110 Telephone : 66-(074) 367456-7 Fax : 66-(074) 367457
“The APNIC registry lists the following contacts for that domain: Passakon Prathombutr mailto:email@example.com Wasan Pattara-atikom mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
“In any event, Southwestern Bell Internet does not have any information on users at the domain in Thailand.”
I convinced Mark to report the threat to the authorities but had a sinking feeling when I realized who he would have to contact. We are going to have to rely on the FBI to investigate the threat and to provide Mark protection. The best way I know to assure Mark gets competent service from the FBI is to keep you, our readers, informed of every move they make – or don’t make.
I feel extremely fortunate to have the encouragement, support and prayers of friends I have made through our website. Now, more than ever, I need all of the above. I will not be on-line again until I return home next month, so it will take me awhile to catch up on replying to my email, but I will. I cherish every one I receive.
Update: September 22, 1998
The FBI Stays True-To-Form
BY: Jean Duffey
Please forgive the tardiness of this update, but our kids needed attention this summer. Our daughter moved to Colorado and bought a run-down house, on which we spent the summer performing a miracle. When we got home, we had to get both of our sons enrolled in college. We have just now caught our breaths.
As to the business at hand, a lot and, at the same time, nothing has happened since Mark received his death threat. Thank God, there has been no sign of the threat being carried out. The reasons may be:
1) The threat was a hoax;
2) The threat was only intended to frighten us (it did), and to intimidate Mark to abandon our website (it did not);
3) Plans to carry out the threat were withdrawn because of the immediate and vast exposure it received on the internet;*
4) The power of your prayers protected Mark.**
One thing is certain, asking the Little Rock FBI to help was a waste of time. They have declined to investigate, seek prosecution, or offer Mark protection. But, why? Mark received an unequivocal death threat via an e-mail from Thailand – clearly a crime under FBI jurisdiction, and having the e-mail traced would take little more than a phone call to the FBI field office in Bangkok. Yet, in a letter to Mark, FBI Agent Brenton L. Mosher says the FBI will do nothing to investigate or seek prosecution of the threat.
The reason, of course, is that ANY CRIME CONNECTED IN ANY MANNER, EVEN DISTANTLY, TO THE MURDERS OF KEVIN AND DON WILL BE IGNORED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Although Linda and I are careful not to make statements that could discredit us, there is no other reasonable explanation for the continued cover-up of the murders and protection of the killers – an assumption we have made based on circumstances. Now, however, we have confirmation, in writing, from the FBI.
Agent Mosher wrote to Mark: “The threats you received, from Thailand via the Internet e-mail, based upon your theory that the Kevin Ives and Don Henry murders were connected to a major drug smuggling operation was presented to the United States Attorney’s Office. The United States Attorney has declined prosecution in this matter. As a consequence, the FBI will not be conducting an investigation in this matter.”
There it is – in black and white – from the FBI – the mere theory that Mark’s death threat is connected to the murders of Kevin and Don prevents an investigation by the FBI and prosecution by U.S. Attorney Paula Casey. The written communications between Mark and the FBI can be read in their entirety at the below links.
After receiving Mosher’s letter, Mark called the FBI office in Houston and spoke with an investigative analyst who said it is not normal procedure to go to the U.S. Attorney before a case has been investigated. An FBI agent in Sacramento agreed. Both offices concurred that an investigation is normally conducted before a case is presented to the U.S. Attorney’s office. After acquiring this information, Mark called Mosher and requested an explanation for the statements in his letter. Mosher could not come up with an explanation, got irritated, acted unprofessional, and hung up on Mark. Mark recorded the conversation, and for your added entertainment, you can listen to Mosher blowing his cool at the audio link below.
Our victories may be small, but the least we can accomplish through our website is to expose the injustices issued by our government and the jerks who are its representatives. Agent Mosher is this update’s feature jerk. You may want to send him a congratulatory fax at 501-228-8509.
* I was astonished by the speed and volume of posts throughout the internet of my July 30, update about Mark’s death threat. It exhibited an overwhelming united front that would cause anyone pause before carrying out the threat.
** Mark and I were both deluged with e-mails of support and prayers. It will be impossible to reply to them all, but we want every single person who took the time to write to know that we felt the depth of your concern and derived strength from your encouragement.
By Linda Ives
DECEMBER, 1993: I was contacted by a witness who claimed to have been present at the tracks the night Kevin and Don were murdered. Although it had long been rumored that our local prosecutor Dan Harmon was involved, I was stunned when the witness placed Harmon on the tracks with the boys the night they were murdered. The eyewitness (hereafter referred to as EW for eyewitness) was extremely reluctant to trust any law enforcement officer of any kind, but I convinced EW to meet with Saline County Detective John Brown who had been working the case for about a year. Brown took EW to the Little Rock FBI office where EW was interrogated and immediately placed into protective custody. Surprised by the FBI’s drastic action based on one interview, Brown was told by FBI officials that EW’s testimony confirmed information that they already had. Several days later EW passed an FBI polygraph test.
FEBRUARY, 1994: The Little Rock FBI officially “took control” of the case. When John Brown informed me that the FBI had instructed him to turn over all evidence in the case, I was immediately outraged, and after having witnessed the 1990 federal investigation manipulated and shut down by Chuck Banks, I was suspicious of their motive.
FEBRUARY 28, 1994: I called the ranking FBI official Brown had been dealing with — Administrative Special Agent Al Finch. When I voiced my suspicions and objections to the FBI’s sudden interest in the case, my fear was heightened by Finch’s untruthful response. He stated that the FBI was only an assisting agency and their role was very minor. According to Finch, the FBI was simply conducting some forensic tests for Saline County Sheriff’s Office. I called his hand and told him I knew they had ordered Brown to turn over all evidence in the case. Finch then told me that if I would “sit back and let the FBI do their job, the case will be solved by the end of the year”. My detailed notes made of that conversation state: “this was not a pleasant conversation”.
MARCH 1, 1994: Al Finch called me back and told me he thought I had misunderstood what he had told me the day before. I told him that I hadn’t misunderstood anything and that I hoped he had not misunderstood me. I might have to sit back and watch another investigation of my son’s murder be shut down, but I would not sit quietly this time. He again told me that the case would be solved by the end of the year. My notes of this conversation state: “Finch’s call was as close as you could get to an apology without being one.”
EARLY MARCH, 1994: My husband, Larry, and I began communicating with Phyllis Cournan, the FBI agent assigned to the case, and were told that the Little Rock FBI had recommended to the Justice Department in Washington that Chuck Banks be charged with obstruction of justice for shutting down the 1990 federal investigation. Also in early March, Phyllis called Jean Duffey’s brother, David Keesee, asking for Jean’s assistance. When Jean had not returned her call in a couple of weeks, Phyllis called David back and asked him to “at least tell Jean that the Little Rock FBI office has recommended that Chuck Banks be charged with obstruction of justice.” This information pursuaded Jean to get involved in the case again.
MARCH 18, 1994: Jean made contact with Phyllis. They spent many, many hours talking on the phone over the next several months. Although Jean and I had not yet met, we were both exchanging information with Phyllis. At one point, Phyllis told me that “no one was failing polygraphs but cops”.
SUMMER, 1994: By this time, Jean and I both had developed a great deal of confidence and respect for Phyllis. Jean had come to Arkansas during the summer, and we exchanged files, interviews, documents, and names of informants. Jean had also met with John Brown, and when all the information was put together, it became clear that Kevin and Don were murdered over a drug drop connected to the Mena drug smuggling operation. It wasn’t until then we understood why federal and state officials participated in the coverup of Kevin and Don’s murder. Jean had been discredited, her task force dismantled, and the 1990 federal grand jury investigation shut down, all to prevent exposure of the Mena drug smuggling operation. To prevent the same thing from happening to Phyllis’s investigation, Jean urged her to keep the scope of her investigation local which was very frustrating, but it also seemed to be working. We were assured by Phyliis repeatedly, and it was obviouos from the information we were receiving from her, that the case was progressing very well.
1995: Despite Al Finch’s promise that the case would be solved by the end of the year, 1994 came and went with no arrests in the case, and by mid 1995, the familiar signs of another shut down were developing. One clue was when FBI agent and Harmon buddy, Floyd Hayes, (who Jean and other investigators familiar with the case and the Mena investigation, had reason not to trust) was assigned an “offshoot” case to look into public corruption in Saline County. Sick at heart, we asked Phyllis if Hayes would have access to the files on Kevin and Don. He would. Jean told Phyllis, “this is the beginning of the end.” Phyllis was also very concerned about this, but assured us that steps had been taken that would make shutting the case down impossible. She was wrong.
NOVEMBER, 1995: After Phyllis failed to return several phone calls, I called FBI headquarters and requested a meeting with Al Finch. I was told that Finch was out of the country and they didn’t know when he would return. I was also told that the number two man in the Arkansas FBI, Bill Temple, was who I needed to see. A meeting with Temple was scheduled.
NOVEMBER 29, 1995: Larry and I met with Temple and Phyllis. Temple stated he thought he knew why we were there, but why didn’t we start by telling him. I began by reading him my notes of my two conversations with Al Finch in 1994 and asked for an explanation as to why the case was dragging on. We were suddenly joined by John Kelly, an attorney for the FBI. I continued and asked Temple about the three eyewitnesses I knew of who placed Dan Harmon on the tracks the night of the murders. He claimed they had no credibility. I asked him about certain physical evidence that I knew about — he dismissed them as unimportant. I asked him about DNA results from blood and semen found on the boys clothing — he claimed they were unable to extract DNA for testing. Temple then told us that the “FBI has no evidence of anything, including evidence that a crime had been committed” and that “it is time for you to consider the fact that a crime has not been committed.” Stunned and devastated, I walked out of the meeting in tears.
ABOUT ONE WEEK LATER: Jean and I then began making good on my promise to Finch in 1994 that while I might have to watch another federal investigation be shut down, I would not do it quietly this time. That old hammer they had always used – “DON’T DO ANYTHING TO JEOPARDIZE THE CASE” – didn’t work anymore. Jean and I started talking to anyone and everyone who would listen – no holds barred.
DECEMBER 10, 1995: The Pitsburgh Tribune-Review printed an article about the shut down of the case in which I quoted Temple’s statement that a crime had not been committed. A few days later, Jean taped a telephone conversation with Phyllis. Phyllis stated she was disappointed that the meeting had been reported to the media. Jean asked if there was anything in the article that was inaccurate and Phyllis said there wasn’t. In fact, referring to my quote in The Tribune explaining Temple’s statement that a crime had not been committed, Phyllis verified that’s what Temple said. Phyllis stated that I had “quoted the ASAC (assistant special agent in charge) verbatim.”
“1995 ended on the lowest note ever for me.”
JANUARY 20, 1996: I got back on track and fired off an angry letter to Bill Temple.
JANUARY 25, 1996: Jean was a guest on The Pat Lynch Radio Show on KARN in Little Rock. Lynch, who has the largest radio audience in Arkansas, has been a champion of this story in spite of his political views and support of the Clinton’s against suggestions they are involved in any kind of conspiracy, like the Mena coverup. Jean read portions of my letter repeating Temple’s asinine quote. Publicly exposing what went on in that November 29th meeting set off a controversy which was the beginning of the next phase of my dealings with the FBI.
JANUARY 31, 1996: I.C. Smith, the head of the FBI in Arkansas, gave an interview to The Benton Courier, the small local paper which was instrumental in the smear campaign on Jean. Smith told The Courier that “Temple is ‘a caring individual who has been very concerned because, he has been so badly misquoted'”. The Courier article says that Smith “is convinced Temple said nothing to Ives in such a ‘cold-hearted’ manner.”
FEBRUARY 1, 1996: Because The Courier printed Smith’s statements without giving me an opportunity to respond to Smith, in essence, calling me a liar, I responded in a letter distributed as a news release. The same day, Jean wrote a letter to I.C. Smith informing him she had his own agent who was a witness to Temple’s statement on audio tape verifying that I had quoted Temple correctly.
FIRST WEEK OF FEBRUARY, 1996: Since Smith said in his interview to The Courier that he “would be willing to meet personally with Mrs. Ives and discuss the case,” I called to request an appointment for Larry and me. A meeting was scheduled for February 8, 1996 at 2:00 p.m.
FEBRUARY 8, 1996: As time for our appointment with Smith drew near, Larry, who has an irregular work schedule as a locomotive engineer, had not yet gotten in from work. After the recent events and Smith’s obvious lack of regard for the truth, I was reluctant, and in fact, unwilling to meet with Smith without a witness to whatever might transpire or what might be said at our meeting. I called Smith to ask if we could delay the meeting until the following morning so that Larry could be there. I was quite surprised at Smith’s obvious anger and reaction to my simple request. Smith made several remarks about my “behavior in the press” which he felt was inappropriate. He then asked why I wanted to meet with him and stated he didn’t see any reason for us to meet. I reminded him that it was he who suggested a meeting in his statements to The Courier. At that point, the conversation literally turned into a screaming match before I hung up on him.
LATE MARCH, 1996: Obstruction of Justice was released. Jean and I devoted thousands of hours to researching and editing the video in an effort to make it factual and informative. We began making appearances via telephone on talk-radio throughout the country in an effort to expose the corruption surrounding Kevin and Don’s murders. We made no bones about the FBI’s participation in the cover-up and, in fact, frequently detail my meeting with Bill Temple and I.C. Smith’s response in The Courier.
JUNE 7, 1996: Two Houston FBI agents interviewed Jean at her home in Pasadena, Texas. An internal investigation is being conducted on Phyllis. The reason: She did her job too well. There is ample evidence that a crime was committed and, in fact, the FBI knows who committed it. However, the investigation that uncovered the truth must be discredited and what better way to discredit an investigation than to discredit the investigator. Jean can testify to that.
“I have no doubt this story is not over yet.”
Two Questions Put To The FBI By Website Visitors
- If the FBI confirmed the murders, how can they also hold that no crime was committed?
- Who in the FBI confirmed the murders and the relationship to Mena and when?
The answer to the first question: That’s what we would like to know, but then the contradiction isn’t all that big of a deal – not to the media anyway. A summary of other inconsistent statements made to the media by FBI Little Rock Director I.C. Smith: Smith says he doesn’t know whether or not the boys were murdered, but he says the FBI did conduct a thorough investigation of the murders, though he says he doesn’t think they have jurisdiction to investigate the murders, yet he says their investigation of the murders is still open. So which is it, Smith? Murders or no murders? Jurisdiction or no jurisdiction? Case open or case closed? What is even more disgusting than Smith making such asinine statements is that the media allowed him to get by with it.
To answer the second question: During the eighteen months Linda and I worked with Agent Phyllis Cournan, she made many comments to us that lead us to believe the FBI had the murders solved and knew the government had participated in a cover-up. Examples:
In late fall, 1994, I passed information on to Cournan from a pilot who claims to have been a CIA operative and says he flew the Saline County drop on occasion. The pilot told me the Saline County drop was part of the Mena drug smuggling operation and that after one of the drops came up missing, those responsible for protecting it hid out to ambush whoever might show up for another drop. The pilot said that Kevin and Don showed up, were beaten and killed, and were laid on the tracks to cover the signs of murder. Cournan had been involved in polygraphing witnesses and suspects during this time period, and several weeks after I passed on the pilot’s story, she told me she had verified the story through polygraph tests.
Cournan told Linda that they had polygraphed Danny Allen, a city cop at the time of the murders, and the FBI could prove, at the very least, that Allen helped lay the bodies on the tracks.
The first face to face meeting I had with Cournan, she slipped me a note in her handwriting that says “Lib Carlisle (state Democratic Party chairman) was supposedly responsible for calling the capital in LR (Little Rock) to back the state police off (the train deaths case).”
Cournan told Linda and I on several occasions late in the investigation that Linda should file a civil suit, and that we would have no problem proving government official cover-up of the murders. Cournan said we should subpoena her and the FBI files.
Throughout the investigation, Cournan repeatedly told Linda and me that the investigation was going very well. During one of the last communications Linda had with Cournan, Cournan told her they had one more person to polygraph which should bring the investigation to a close. (That is apparently exactly what happened.)
Cournan was not the only one assuring Linda that the case was going well. Cournan’s supervisor, Al Finch, told Linda that she should sit back and let the FBI do its job, and that she would be very pleased with the outcome.
Although Linda and I felt that Cournan was very forthright during her eighteen-month-long investigation, signs began to appear that caused us concern. We recorded telephone conversations that will prove several lies the FBI has told. We’ll, of course, be passing those on to you.
Thanks for your support and your prayers. Both help to keep us going.
Collage Created From Redacted FBI Files
Ron created this collage from about 1000 pages of FBI documents
Federal Bureau of Investigation Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts
Subject: Kevin Ives/Don Henry File Number: 166C−LR−3538
Section 1−175 pages released, 82 pageswithheld
Section 2−122 pages released, 198 pageswithheld
Sub A Section 1−2 pages released, 383 pageswithheld
Sub A Section 2 − 3−11 pages released, 747 pageswithheld
Sub A Section 4−8 pages released, 265pages withheld
Sub A Section 5−3 pages released, 1 pagewithheld
Sub A Section 6−7 pages released, 0 pageswithheld
Sub A Section 7−5 pages released, 549 pageswithheld
Sub A Section 8−3 pages released, 378 pageswithheld
Sub B Section 1−233 pages released, newspaperarticles
Sub B Section 1 ii−55 pages released, newspaperarticles
Sub B Section 2−200 pages released, newspaperarticles
Sub B Section 2 ii−124 pages released, newspaper articles
Sub C−78 pages released, 6 pageswithheld
Sub D−5 pages released, 450 pageswithheld