Talk:James Earl Ray

What are Citations

Title says it all, am I missing something? Where's the actual reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoWikiFeedbackLoops (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

terminology

May I suggest that the term "sniper" be deleted and "single rifle shot" be substituted in? There is an honorable tradition in the US military for snipers, and an ex-con white supremacist shooting a civilian from across the street demeans that tradition, even if it happened as far back as 1968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.206.150.73 (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. An "honorable tradition in the US military" is not a good reason to remove the term, but Ray doesn't fit the Wikipedia definition of sniper, and there is no clear evidence against any other person.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

If one pleads guilty, if one does not need a trial. Adding that phrase is rather inflammatory. RickK 19:45 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I added some clarifying information: what Ray tried to do was withdraw his guilty plea. If that had been permitted, the trial would then have taken place. Ellsworth 17:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

---

This article should have information on James Earl Ray as a person, including his political beliefs, so that the reader can infer conclusions concerning his motives for assassinating Martin Luther King. - -NoPetrol 23:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to a Congressional committee that looked into this, he had no strong political beliefs and was not particularly racist. They believe he did it for money.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-2b.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.231.75.71 (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrial

Would it not be proper to mention in the "Retrial" section a significant implication of what was found in that 1999 retrial - namely that MLK was killed by James Earl Ray? http://www.thekingcenter.org/news/trial.html Rpawn (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

James Earl Ray Guilty Plea

Actually, James Earl Ray did not plead guilty to killing Martin Luther King Jr. Check it out yourself from what was said in the James Earl Ray guilty plea hearing. http://garyrevel.wordpress.com/jamesearlray_guiltyplea/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyrevel (talk • contribs) 07:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV notice

Additions to this article in the last few days appear to endorse Ray's claim about Raoul and his being framed for the murder. While the subject is encyclopaedic, its treatment here is far from neutral. David | Talk 14:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

While I believe in Rays innocence, he was not aquitted after his death. Lloyd Jowers, proprietor of jims grill was found guilty of conspiracy to murder in a civil case. -John Geraghty

I see factual material in this article. In fact I believe the POV tag should be removed. But I think the quote The King family does not believe Ray had anything to do with the murder of Martin Luther King is what brought you to bring the POV warning on this page. If this line was removed or a source cited would that suffice? If not then you need to point at the lines that are causing problems and offer suggestions as so that the warning can be removed.--Supercoop 20:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Time Travel?

Consider: "...confessing to the assassination on March 10, 1969, (though he recanted this confession three days later) and was sentenced to 99 years in prison. Ray, a presumed white supremacist and segregationist, had allegedy killed King because of the latter's extensive civil rights work. On the advice of his attorney Percy Foreman, Ray had taken a guilty plea to avoid a trial conviction and thus the definite possibility of receiving the death penalty although it was highly unlikely that he would have been executed even if he had been sentenced to death, as the US Supreme Court's 1972 decision in the case of Furman v. Georgia invalidated all state death penalty laws then in force."

How could the Supreme Court rule based on a precedent that hadn't even been set yet? Mike 02:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Being sentenced to death and being executed are different things. Generally it takes a good few years before the execution takes place.--Aim Here 18:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is well made, though. The commentary about the likelihood of execution is rather tangential. The issue is did Ray and his attorney believe he was likely to be executed. The commentary is even more irrelevant when it relies on subsequent developments which they didn't know about. Hence it has to go.--Jack Upland 01:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Was he a Bisexual?

http://www.nndb.com/people/682/000034580/

"Occupation - assassin" Wow. How factual. H7dders 14:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, we need a disambiguation:

James Earl

James Earl Jones

James Earl Carter

James Earl Ray bob the builder

Hopiakuta 21:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Confessed Assassin"?

I see what looks like a contradiction - it says that Ray appeared twice on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted List", the first time as number 351. Kazuba (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC) 69.134.203.4 22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this phrase from the article as it is simply and wilfully misleading. While it is obviously true that he did plead guilty, he spent the rest of his life denying this. His conviction is the important fact here.

I have also removed the comment that he was a 'presumed white supremacist'. Either claim - hopefully with citations - that he was or drop the topic.

The article implies that Ray's guilty plea is the main evidence against him. Obviously he was a suspect before this. His fingerprints were on the presumed murder weapon. This should be included in the article. The concentration on the retracted confession is illogical in that it bases everything on the word of an acknowledged liar and criminal!

On the other hand, Ray's claims about Raoul were more substantial than indicated in the article. They are dealt with at more length on the King page, which doesn't seem right since they are more relevant here.--Jack Upland 01:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lately I have seen on TV a black man I recognize from years ago. He mentions that Ray seemed to have the ability to travel all around the country and stay at fine hotels etc for some time while he trailed MLK. He also says that Ray hardly had the money to survive in one spot - any trth to this. More background on Ray personally would be nice also. If he was relatively poor and all of a sudden became a world traveller where did the money come from - this is how the cops catch most crooks or their handlers.

That's not particularly usefull information. Black people on TV are quite commonplace nowadays and without a name, I don't think there's any way of verifying the quote, let alone wether the information is true or not. H7dders 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ray certainly did not regularly stay in fine hotels. In Atlanta, Georgia between March 23, 1968 to March 30, 1968, Ray stayed at a rooming house for $10.50 a week. His room was eight by ten feet without a bathroom. He Slew the Dreamer: My search for the Truth about James Earl Ray and the Murder of Martin Luther King by William Bradford Huie, Delcorte press, 1968-1970, pages 107 & 108. As he tells it, Ray got $750. Kazuba (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've added rewrite tag to the article. This article is full of runon and disjointed sentences, and the references could use some cleanup. I'm going to look into rewriting it. /Blaxthos 23:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a horrible article. It tells the reader nothing about his life, the actual allegations, how he was supposed to have committed the act, his possible motivations, the evidence against him, nothing. I agree. It needs a serious rewrite.

Mister Jinxy 16:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't even include the assassination. It starts with his conviction. H7dders 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Kidneys & Liver

There seems to be a conflict over how he died. On the one hand he is said to have died of kidney disease, whereas there is an external link to "Autopsy confirms Ray died of liver failure". While I'm at it, how come there is no previous mention of a knife fight in the article, it's as if we just get "oh, by the way, he had a blood transfusion after a knife fight, I forgot to mention it earlier" added as an afterthought. H7dders 14:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Alias

James Earl Ray traveled under the name of Eric Stavros Gault. That fact needs to be added.64.49.3.135 (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Because its relevent information stupid - MrGuy.

Well, it seems rather trivial to me.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the alias seems to be a name often used for JER in Hampton Sides' new book, Hellhound on His Trail (except that it is spelled Galt without the U) — see Janet Maslin's New York Times article. Asteriks (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Plastic surgery

His facial plastic surgery one month before the King assassination should be mentioned. Badagnani (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

He only had the tip of his nose altered Kazuba (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Armed robberies

His criminal history of armed robberies should be mentioned. Badagnani (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - especially as his past as a career criminal with no political involvement casts doubt on his conviction as King's assassin.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ray's killing of King had nothing to do with politics. He wanted to keep those uppity negroes in their place and become famous. He deliberately left his finger prints on the rifle and its box which he left behind. Ray wanted to be identified. He thought he was too smart to get caught. Read He Slew the Dreamer: My Search for the Truth about James Earl Ray and the Murder of Martin Luther King by William Bradford Huie, Delacorte Press, 1968,1969,1970. Huie paid Ray to tell him his story in a day by day diary. (Ray used the money to pay for his defense.) Then Huie critically investigated each item in Ray's story. Ray was well remembered at the gun store. The FBI found Ray's finger prints on other rifles he had touched in the store and I think...the one he had brought back and exchanged for the murder weapon. Kazuba (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, putting down "uppity negroes" is politics. The argument that "Ray wanted to be identified" is important. It is hard to explain and requires the gymnastic pop psychology alluded to above. An alternative is that the escaped convict didn't want to be identified but wanted to make a crust and therefore was sucked into a phony gun-running scam. Hence his prints on the rifles. He didn't want to be identified: others wanted him to be. He was framed.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And Charles J. Stein, who was traveling with Ray until shortly before King was killed (Immunized testimony: MLK Document 160266, and this recording: http://www.archive.org/details/DeathbedConversationWithJamesEarlRayAssociateCharlesJ.Stein), identified "Raoul", as an FBI agent. Stein also stated that Ray purchased rifles with money supplied by Raoul, and delivered them to Raoul in New Orleans. This was all stated in court testimony that is now in the public domain - But it's become difficult to find on the web. BTW, this whole article totally sucks. What a mess.

Awarded $100

It says King family was awarded $100 thats pretty cheap don't you think--McNoddy (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC) It also needs to state in the 1999 civil trial James Earl Ray was exonerated of all charges. More information needs to be included about Lt. Earl Clark, of the Memphis Police Dept. and that it was ruled "An act of state." The 1999 court case was only about finding the truth and not about money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.248.12 (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Just Who Was Ray?

I'm ignorant of this topic and came here to learn more, yet this article tells almost nothing about Ray the man. Is he an engima, or do people know about his political beliefs, family background, etc.? I'm not as interested in the how of the assassination as in the WHY and I think this article does a very poor job of informing people in its present state. Can anyone provides answers?

Yes, this article lacks background information on Ray and this has been shown by previous discussions.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added some of that information here, and where to find more. Kazuba (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

James Earl Ray early life info

Ray was born and raised in Alton,Illinois

He worked for Hornsey Moving and Storage co. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.84.175 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is terribly written

It needs to be rewritten, per the notice at the top of the page. It's just awful. i kill ashanti at 35 Moncrief (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Who killed Martin Luther King Jr. No one knows ( Writers idea not real)

It wasn't James Earl Ray But the who could it be? I think FBI have been looking for that person for years. But there was no evidence of who killed him. The FBI is also trying to find out how he died. The murder is a question to every person. Who ever did such thing they will have a long penalty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.58.102 (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

How Was Ray Really Identified?

I know the short answer to the question is the FBI matched his fingerprints with those on the rifle. But the real question is why anyone would cross-check James Earl Ray's fingerprints with those on the rifle in the first place. There should be a separate section on this in the article because it is important because of what it implies.

Unlike today, there wasn't a computerized national fingerprint database in 1968 and all fingerprint cross-checking was done by individual inspection. Manually cross-checking the prints taken from the rifle against just 1,000 sets of fingerprints would take hundreds of hours. Of course, in the King assassination, it wasn't just 1,000 sets that needed to be checked but millions of prints which would be an impossible task. The FBI has stated they narrowed the list by only checking for escaped convicts but this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since no prior political assassin in U.S. history had been an escaped convict. Even granting the FBI did this, that still leaves 53,000 sets of prints, half a million fingerprints, to be checked since there were 53,000 fugitives in the U.S. at that time. The FBI announced they had matched Ray's fingerprints on file to the rifle's prints about 2 weeks later. Given their resources, they couldn't have possibly checked even 2,000 sets of prints in that amount of time.

What probably happened? An informer gave them James Earl Ray's name and the FBI chose to tell this story. There are at least 2 motives for the FBI to lie; 1) If there was an informer, that strongly suggests there is a conspiracy and 2) It gave the FBI a chance to boast once again about J. Edgar Hoover's crime-fighting ability. Press releases about the Ray fingerprint identification credited him with personally "ordering" the bureau to cross-check only the prints of escaped convicts and that the decision was based on Hoover's "keen insight from years of crime-fighting experience." Keen insight? Remember, for over three decades Hoover insisted there wasn't a Mafia in the U.S.--TL36 (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoover was openly hostile towards King. There is film footage of King going to and returning from a meeting with Hoover, and the marked change in King's demeanor between the entering and leaving Hoover's office is telling. Many years later, it was revealed that Hoover showed King film of King with his mistress, and threatened to expose King if he continued to agitate the black community to political action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

But wasn't the hotel room booked in under Ray's name?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The man identified as the shooter rented a room at a boardinghouse using the name John Willard. The shot that killed King was fired from this boardinghouse. James Earl Ray absolutely didn't rent a room using his own name or his primary alias at the time.--TL36 (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)--TL36 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hampton Sides' book

Please, everybody, read Hampton Sides' "Hellhound on his Trail." Sides provides the case against Ray compellingly and succinctly. 99.183.166.240 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it and it is pretty good fiction but from the beginning sets up James Earl Ray to take the fall again just like the US Government and their cohorts have been doing all along. I knew James Earl Ray and spent over 30 years investigating, re-investigating and researching the case against him and there is no doubt in my mind that he did not kill Martin Luther King Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyrevel (talk • contribs) 07:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

The text 'On January 19, 2002, a plaque in Lauderhill, Florida was unveiled in tribute to Martin Luther King's life. The text was supposed to read "Thank you James Earl Jones for keeping the dream alive." The name was instead that of James Earl Ray' is badly worded, confusing, and misleading. It might be rewritten as 'On Martin Luther King Day in 2002, a plaque intended to celebrate black heritage caused a scandal when unveiled in Lauderhill, Florida. The text, "Thank you James Earl Jones for keeping the dream alive," had been chosen to honor the actor, who attended the unveiling, but the name actually engraved on the plaque was that of James Earl Ray' Marcuszorro (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Poor Quality of This Article

I am deeply troubled by the general poor quality of this article, particularly the portion dealing with the assassination. No evidence is cited in the article that even links Ray to the assassination. The rifle with the fingerprints on it is only mentioned incidentally. What about the confession? Why are there no details of what he was asked and what he said in his confession? It appears to me that so much time and energy has been expended squabbling over the acuracy of little details, that the end result has become a gutted article that is very thin on information. If a fact is in dispute, or is speculation, whay can't it be stated as such? Why is it left out completely, with no mention of its relevance?

Speaking of relevance, Wikipedia is in danger of losing its relevance if it cannot get its act together and do the one thing that an encyclopedia is supposed to do: inform us. 69.143.84.116 (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's because Wikipedia is more about bias opinions made to sound like facts instead of the actual neutral truth. That is what happens when you have something anyone can edit, then you make those same people as editors. Just one of many reasons why Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information.95.170.209.138 (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to alleviate the "Poor Quality"

Several people have commented on what terrible shape this article is in. I'm addressing just one part of that in today's edit. I'm trying to clean up the appearance and style of "refs". The titles of the articles which were footnoted were hugely abbreviated and didn't reflect what the articles were all about. They were mostly correct in the "References" section below the footnotes, though. So I've tried to consolidate some of these by moving the CITE to the appropriate REF statement. How does it look? There's lots more to do, but I'm getting tired and am going to come back another day. One other thing I'd like to do is improve the "Chappaquiddick" REFs. The amount of information on Ray in each of them is minimal, sort of like an "oh by the way" after tons of verbiage on the Kennedy-Kopechne story. Can anybody provide some REFs which give us the intended source info without dragging in reams of unrelated data? DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am replacing the "Chappaquiddick" story, as the source of information about Ray's sentencing, with a "BBC on this day" article. There may be other, better, sources, but I trust this will serve for now as a reliable one. There is still much work to do! DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ian Smith's 'white supremicist government'

Ian Smith was not racist and Rhodesia was not an Apartheid state. 2/3's of Rhodesia's army were black. However there was no white's involved in the Marxist/Maoist rebellion, which caused the common misunderstanding that the war was a purely race motivated war please correct it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.49.248 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Can one of you put something about James Earl Ray being an American hero in the opening? Thanks- Uncle Ruckus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.71.104 (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The idea that Ian Smith's government wasn't racist is fringe. The existence of blacks in a country's army, especially when said country has a black majority as Rhodesia's obviously had, has little to do with racism (otherwise the US Army pre-60's or apartheid South Africa's army would demonstrate no racism, either.) In any case the assassin also expressed an interest in emigrating to South Africa or the then-Portuguese colony of Angola, so I rather doubt he wanted to go to countries where whites and blacks lived as equals. --Ismail (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the OP. I feel the reference is irrelevant. If anything is should be referred to as 'white minority controlled'. White supremacist conjured images of guys in white hoods burning crosse— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.205.241 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Except Rhodesia's laws didn't forbid black people from voting. It was called Qualified Franchise, and what it meant was you had to have a certain level of education and I believe property ownership as a requirement to vote. This was to make sure tribal blacks had civilized views and understood western culture before they were allowed to vote. If it was racist, then they would have just forbade any black person from voting period like South Africa. If you think about it, it makes sense even from a left-wing perspective to have such a law in such a situation. If you allow an uncivilized majority - of any race - to be given the vote before they are educated and westernized, then it is completely understandable why they would elect Mugabe, who then proceeded to ethnically cleanse members of the opposing Matabele tribe and rule as a dictator. The fact that this perspective is "fringe" when any bit of logic and cursory research would tell you otherwise, is rather unsettling if you ask me. --Kacen (talk) 7:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea that white people get to decide which black people are civilized enough to be allowed to vote is of course itself thoroughly racist, and clearly an example of white supremacist ideology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Straw man argument. It is civilized people deciding who can join their civilization - Smith called it 'Standards'. Rhodes, the founder of the place said 'equal rights for all civilized men' - partly because the tribes of Africa had no notion of rights for anyone outside their own group; joining the modern world was supposed to correct that. The place had racists in it, of course, but if they were dominant, they would have put an apartheid system in. Still, whites had power and influence out of proportion to their numbers, and that would have appealed to someone like Ray. 184.21.20.171 (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

One

The box on the top right says "Parents", although only one parent is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.13.46 (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

He probably had 2.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Note Number 19 is a bad link, I have a working one

This is the link to the full transcript: http://www.thekingcenter.org/civil-case-king-family-versus-jowers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.122.242 (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Danish or Irish?

The first sentence of the article says he is of danish descent. The last sentence says he is Irish. Is it both?Beach drifter (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Criminals get autobiography of themselves?

So you kill a prominent figure/celebrity and people will go ahead and create a Wikipedia about you. How pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.206.134 (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If you dispute that the man who assassinated King is notable enough for an encyclopedia article then you are welcome to nominate the article for deletion. Keep in mind it is not a show of support to give somebody an article, and I would certainly disagree that he is not notable, even if he is indeed himself pathetic. 75.156.68.21 (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

King family's position may be misrepresented

The author of this article states that "The King family has since concluded that Ray did not have anything to do with the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr.[21]" However,the artical cited makes no such statement. Rather, it indicates that the king family wanted a trial by jury because they suspected a conspiracy, as Ray had later claimed.. That is NOT the same thing as saying that Ray had nothing to do with the murder.71.61.70.92 (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. The King family has often stated they do not believe the official version.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal memory of UK court appearance

I had been arrested on a minor charge, as had Jenny Boyd (younger sister of Patty Boyd). We were due to appear at the Old Bailey and when we turned up the corridors were lined with police, shoulder-to-shoulder. We had the fanciful idea that it was because of the potential press coverage of the Boyd girls, but no - our cases were over with in a matter of minutes. It was only after we left the Old Bailey that we heard that the MLK assassin had been in court on that same day - so I assume the precautions were to protect him and make sure also that he didn't escape.86.22.64.191 (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing Talk:James Earl Ray (new section) - small correction

"Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Main article: Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

F.B.I. most wanted fugitive poster of James Earl Ray

The Lorraine Motel, now known as the National Civil Rights Museum, where King was assassinated Martin Luther King was shot and killed by a sniper on April 4, 1968, while standing on the second-floor balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. Capture and trial"

'...was shot and killed by a sniper on ...' - not true. guns do not independently kill. the gun was fired by a man. it should read ...'was shot and killed by a man with a sniper rifle..' [or thereabouts] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.148.172 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A sniper is a man.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:James Earl Ray/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article needs a complete rewrite. It's full of runon sentences and disjointed sentences. Beyond that, although many references are listed most of the information in the article is not WP:Verifiable. I think it would be best to do some basic research and rewrite teh complete article. I will try to dedicate some time over the next month to a rewrite. /Blaxthos 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 19:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Trial

There seems to be some confusion about this. If you plead guilty, as Ray did, you do NOT get a trial. A trial is a discussion of the evidence which leads to a verdict. If you plead guilty, you go straight to a sentencing hearing.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Earl Ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614140913/http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/assassins/ray/3.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/assassins/ray/3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: James Early Ray Being Guilty

Hello. I just wanted to point out that back in 1999 there was a trial held. On The King Center's website, part of what is said by Mrs. King is that in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of her husband. The jury also said that James Earl Ray was set up to take the blame and that James Earl Ray was not the shooter according to what the jury was presented. You can not only read the whole article there but you can download the trial transcripts.http://www.thekingcenter.org/assassination-conspiracy-trial 138.207.136.156 (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Lori Quaresimo

It wasn't a criminal trial though. It was a civil wrongful death suit in which no government entity or government employee was named (and therefore no government evidence was presented and scrutinized) and, per the rules of civil procedure, the standard of proof was only a preponderance of the evidence (rather than beyond a reasonable doubt). It stands to reason that under those one-sided terms, a jury is highly likely to support the plaintiff; they literally only heard half the story. It further stands to reason that the King Center website is going to portray the trial in a light most favorable to itself, which makes it a poor source to rely on for accuracy. -- Hux (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "government evidence". There were several police officers as witnesses. The trial is worth noting — and has been noted.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Apprehension at Heathrow Airport

According to this BBC News article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36434706) the ticket agent noticed that James Earl Ray had two Canadian passports and specifically stated that he was not on the Suspect Index. Perhaps this aspect of the article should be updated or credit should be given to the ambiguity of this information. Daja57 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)daja57

Activity in 1967

This section closes with the sentence: "The Rhodesian Government expressed its disapproval."

What in the world does this mean?2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

RE: Recanting of confession section

The Recanting of confession section says it needs more references... there are 3 books you can cite along with these two radio programs where William Pepper talks about the subject.

• Pepper, William; Gilardin, Maria (16 January 2018). "The Execution of Martin Luther King – William Pepper (ONE of TWO)". TUC Radio. Retrieved 11 February 2021.
• Pepper, William; Gilardin, Maria (23 January 2018). "The Execution of Martin Luther King, William Pepper (TWO of TWO)". TUC Radio. Retrieved 11 February 2021.

-- Ubh [talk... contribs...] 08:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong date Shown as 1568 on opening line of page

"James Earl Ray (March 10, 1928 – April 23, 1998) was an American man convicted for assassinating Martin Luther King Jr. at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 4, 1568." 81.174.158.84 (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It's fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

99 or 100 years imprisonment?

In the beginning of the text it says he was sentenced to 99 years of prison but in the template it says he was sentenced to 100 years... which one is it? 85.30.147.79 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

There was a later second prison break after being convicted for the assassination that added an additional year to his sentence, bringing it from 99 to 100. Mr.Pikachu The Madman (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Identifying Statement

At the moment, Ray is identified in the first sentence of the article as the assassin of King. However, a good deal of the article discusses his potential innocence and the legal case regarding the Memphis Police. Should he not be identified as the "American fugitive convicted of assassinating Martin Luther King Jr." instead of the "American fugitive who assassinated Martin Luther King Jr"? BakedintheHole (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit made.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)