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