By Jean Duffey
One thing that makes me think the media's role in this conspiracy may be
more than mere laziness or negligence is their reluctance to report
information that is contrary to the government's "official" position, no
matter how verifiable the contrary information may be. Case in point: The
Arkansas media was supportive of the homicide investigation of Kevin Ives
and Don Henry for years and reported every newly discovered detail, no
matter how insignificant. There were many hundreds of newspaper articles
written in the early years. This was when the "official" position of the
state's special prosecutor was that the boys had been murdered and their
bodies placed in front of an on-coming train to cover the crime. Eight
years after the murders, in spite of overwhelming evidence implicating
public officials in the murders and a perpetuated cover-up, there have
been no articles - zero, absolutely none. In November, 1995, the FBI shut
down its investigation when evidence linked the crimes to the Mena
drug-smuggling operation. FBI Special Agent Bill Temple told the Ives'
they "should consider the fact that no crime was committed." (See Linda
Ives' Time-Line under the
Topic: The FBI). The Arkansas media has, of course, accepted that position
and without questioning the obvious contradictions, we can expect nothing
more to be reported.
Fed up with the cover-up, I revealed on a Little Rock TV talk show that
three witnesses place Prosecutor Dan Harmon on the railroad tracks with
Kevin and Don the night they were murdered (transcription of that talk
show coming soon). This information came from state police reports of two
eye-witnesses, and an FBI witness who passed a polygraph test. The radio
host was so excited about the news, he immediately sent out a news release
to the Arkansas media reporting what I said. However, the story was
ignored by every news source except the small daily paper in my hometown
of Malvern.
Think about this a minute. I am a former deputy prosecutor and director of
a drug task force disclosing documents of three eye-witnesses who place a
state prosecuting attorney at the scene of two brutal murders, yet I am
ignored by Arkansas's news media. They, of course, do not want to be in
conflict with the government's "official" position, which includes U.S.
Attorney Chuck Banks clearing Dan Harmon in June, 1991, of all allegations
of wrong-doing. The media also ignored my report that the FBI recommended
Banks be charged with obstruction of justice for shutting down that
federal investigation of Harmon - the FBI won't confirm that, but they
won't deny it either, which is a red flag also being ignored.
When the state's only daily newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette,
refused to print a letter to the editor my brother, Mark Keesee, wrote
asking them to cover this story of great public interest and concern,
Linda Ives and I decided to not let this go by unchallenged. We went to
the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette office and asked to speak with the state
news editor, Roger Hedges. It was July 2, 1996, at about 10:30 a m. The
previous week, my brother, Mark Keesee, sent Hedges a packet of
information to make certain he was apprised of the issues which concerned
us. (The Benton Courier interview of I.C. Smith, the Courier article of
Linda's response, my letter to Smith, Mark's letter to the Courier editor,
the Courier article about missing money from Harmon's task force evidence
locker, a Democrat-Gazette article on the missing money, the Malvern Daily
Record article reporting Harmon on the tracks with Kevin and Don the night
they were murdered, and a copy of the video Obstruction of Justice. The
articles about the missing money and Mark's letter to the Courier editor
were intended to show media bias. The rest was to show there is a very
good story the Democrat-Gazette is missing.)
When Linda and I arrived at the paper office, we were directed to Hedges.
As soon as we introduced ourselves to him, he immediately became
defensive. He said he had to get ready to go to a meeting, so we asked if
we could make an appointment to talk with him at his convenience. Hedges
said "What about?"
I told him we wanted to know why his paper was treating the new
information we had on Dan Harmon like it was a "non-story." I specifically
asked why they hadn't pursued a story on the eye-witnesses who place
Harmon on the tracks with Kevin and Don the night they were murdered.
Hedges asked who the witnesses are, so I began telling him that a witness
came forward in 1993 who was placed in protective custody by the FBI. This
witness's information was credible enough for the FBI to open its own
investigation of the "train deaths." Then I began telling him about
Sharline Wilson, who is a confessed ex-drug dealer and cohort of Harmon.
Sharline claims to have actually ridden with Harmon to the tracks that
night.
Hedges interrupted me and said in an inappropriately condescending tone,
"Well, look at the kind of people you have accusing a prosecuting
attorney". He placed great emphasis on "prosecuting attorney."
Let's examine that statement - it has three very revealing points. First
point: Hedges either ignored me when I told him about the FBI witness who
prompted a new investigation, or Hedges took exception to the FBl's
assessment of the witness's worth by placing the witness in the category
of "the kind of people" who have no business accusing a public official of
a crime. It couldn't be the latter, since Hedges knows nothing about this
witness, including the fact the witness passed an FBI polygraph test.
Hedges was,therefore, ignoring the very existence of this particular
witness since the information does not fit his agenda - a well-established
practice of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Second point: Hedges clearly asserted his opinion that Sharline Wilson is
an unfit witness by placing her in the category of "the kind of people"
who have no business accusing the likes of Dan Harmon. But wait a minute.
Just who are the best witnesses against drug dealers? Could it perhaps be
those who know about drug dealing? And who knows about drug dealing better
than drug dealers? Not only does Sharline know about Harmon from first
hand experience with him, she paid a heavy price for testifying against
him. After Harmon was cleared by U.S. Attorney Chuck Banks (in spite of
the federal grand jury unanimously wanting to indict him after hearing
testimony from Sharline and many other witnesses), Harmon had Sharline
arrested by his drug task force. Harmon then teamed up with his buddy,
Circuit Judge John Cole, and railroaded a jury into convicting her. As an
ex-prosecuting attorney and head of a drug task force, it is my opinion
that Sharline's history with Harmon, coupled with Harmon's retaliation
against her, makes her a compelling witness. I feel certain prosecutors
will not be lining up to get advice from Hedges about how to get drug
dealers convicted.
Third point: Hedges was apparently offended by the witnesses who were
"accusing a prosecuting attorney." Wait another minute. Never mind the
prosecuting attorney we're talking about is Dan Harmon, who was the
subject of more than a hundred newspaper articles in the last year
chronicling his bizarre, illegal, and violent behavior. Never mind that
Harmon was so discredited the voters of Saline County dealt him an
embarrassing and overwhelming defeat in the 1996 primary elections. Never
mind that Harmon later resigned from office as part of a plea agreement on
five felony charges. Hedges considers Dan Harmon to be worthy of a higher
class of witnesses than the average criminal by virtue of his position as
a prosecuting attorney. But mainstream media is notorious for holding
public officials to a lower sandard rather than a highter standard, even
criminals according to Hedges.
Hedges had cut me off before I told him about a third witness - it was
quite evident that he had an attitude problem about Linda and me. We
offered again to come back another time, hoping he wouldn't be so
irritated with us if we had an appointment, but he asked why we wanted to
meet again with him. Linda said we wanted to know why the paper has never
run a story on the six witnesses who have turned up dead in Kevin and
Don's case.
Hedges looked at me and said, "Your brother, (emphasizing "brother" in a
hateful tone) told me there were six jurors that turned up dead.
Linda said, "No, they were witnesses."
Hedges said, "I was told they were jurors."
This was the only time during our visit Linda or I were anything other
than very cordial, but Linda was obviously irritated with Hedges. It was
an insult for him to think we would suggest that grand jurors were being
murdered, and it was ridiculous for him to think Mark would be mistaken
about such a thing. Hedges was calling us liars, and we take serious
offense to that.
Linda responded sternly, "You obviously misunderstood. I can assure you
Mark did not say jurors were turning up dead. He would never have said
something like that."
Hedges responded by saying something like, "Anyway, there is no evidence
that the deaths were related to the case," and he didn't think the
coincidence made much of a story.
Linda said, "The Democrat ran a story when three of the witnesses turned
up dead. It seems to me that six dead witnesses is twice the story."
Hedges acted ticked but didn't have a response, so Linda continued. She
reminded Hedges how angry the Democrat-Gazette was when the Benton Courier
had written an article the previous month allowing Harmon to explain why
he assaulted a Democrat-Gazette reporter. The Courier printed very ugly
things Harmon had to say about the reporter, but didn't call the reporter
to respond or tell his side. Linda said the Democrat did the same thing to
me back in 1990, time and time and time again. They printed whatever lie
Harmon wanted to mouth about me, but rarely gave me the opportunity to
respond.
Hedges tried to cop out by saying that was before his time at the paper.
"Besides," he said, "that was Doug Thompson who wrote those stories, and
Thompson is now in the business section and doesn't have anything to do
with the Benton bureau anymore."
Linda quickly reminded Hedges that when Harmon was on his "hunger strike"
in the hospital, a few weeks earlier, Harmon refused to talk to any
reporter but Thompson, so, of course, the Democrat-Gazette complied with
Harmon's wish.
Hedges had no choice but to admit it and said, "Well, yes, that's right."
Yes, that is right. Anytime Harmon wanted to mouth off to the press, they
rushed the reporter of his choice to him. With this, Hedges looked at the
clock and said in an accusatory tone, "Now I'm late for my meeting," as if
it was our fault. I asked him if we could arrange to meet with him some
other time, and he said he would be in touch. We've never heard from him.