Progressive Racism. David Horowitz
direction. In the sealed letter, Butler wrote:
During the year of 1969 I began to notice the party changing its direction from that set forth by Huey P. Newton, and dissented with some theorys [sic] and practices of the So. Calif. Leadership. During the months of June and July 1969 I more strongly critisized [sic] these Leaders, because I felt they were carelessly, and foolishly doing things that didn’t have a direction benificial [sic] for the people. I also critisized [sic] the Physical Actions or threats to Party members who were attempting to sincerly [sic] impliment [sic] programs that oppressed people could respond to.44
Ibid.
The incident that most depressed Butler was the pistol-whipping of a 17-year-old Panther named Ollie Taylor, who was suspected of working for Karenga’s gang. The incident led to “false imprisonment” and “assault with a deadly weapon” charges against Butler, Geronimo Pratt and Roger Lewis. Butler’s feelings about this incident were so regretful that he pled guilty to the charges in the case. Pratt was also tried but the juries were hung 10–2 and 11–1 for conviction.
According to Butler, Pratt masterminded the torture-interrogation of Taylor, holding a cocked weapon at Butler’s head while ordering him to beat the suspect. Under oath at his own trial, Pratt not only denied leading the interrogation but claimed that the beating had taken place before he arrived and that he reprimanded Butler, telling him this wasn’t the Panther way to deal with suspects. He then relieved Butler of his position in the Party’s security force and placed him under house arrest. At trial, the victim Ollie Taylor confirmed Butler’s version of the events and flatly contradicted Pratt’s story.
Reading Butler’s testimony about the Ollie Taylor incident, I had a jolt of recognition that resolved any remaining doubt I may have had as to the integrity of Butler’s account, not only of these matters but of those regarding the behavior and guilt of Geronimo Pratt. For it was in examining Butler’s testimony that Huey’s story about the eroticism of violence in Pratt’s psyche resurfaced with riveting force:
Q. Was Ollie Taylor in the room at this time?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. Ollie Taylor was sitting in the middle of the room, and I was sitting next to Ollie Taylor, and I was trying to talk to Ollie Taylor on the basis of ‘Give as much information about yourself to clear yourself,’ and Geronimo stated to me that the shit he was talking was a bunch of bull shit, and I looked over and he cocked the hammer on the pistol.
Q. Where was the pistol pointed, if at all?
A. It was actually right between me and Ollie Taylor, because I was sitting side-by-side with Ollie Taylor.
Then I noticed that Geronimo had an erection, and he stated, “If you don’t move, I’ll blow your head off,” and he said “Furthermore, I think maybe you’re siding with him,” so he told me to slap Ollie Taylor.
He say, “You interrogate,” so I did it in the pretense of trying to—at that time I was frightened of Geronimo’s behavior, very seriously frightened. I had never seen a man with an erection. . . . (emphasis added)55
Ibid.
Before Butler could complete the sentence, his attorney interrupted with an objection that the course of inquiry was irrelevant. But as far as I was concerned, the sentence didn’t need to be finished. Here were two different figures, both close to Pratt but otherwise far separated by distance, status, and motivation, who remarked on the erotic charge that violence had for him.
Despite the persuasive evidence of Pratt’s guilt as contained in the sealed letter, and despite the persuasive evidence in the handling of the letter showing that Butler was not part of a police or FBI conspiracy to frame Pratt, Cochran’s conspiracy theory prevailed. On May 29, 1997, Judge Dickey granted Pratt a new trial and immediate release from his current confinement. Dickey concluded that “this was not a strong case for the prosecution without the testimony of [Julius] Butler,” and that it was reasonably probable that Pratt could have obtained a different result “in the entire absence of Butler’s testimony,” or had the prosecution revealed Butler’s contacts with law enforcement.
Reading Judge Dickey’s opinion is a depressing experience for anyone concerned about American justice. The salient reason cited for overturning the original verdict is that the prosecution concealed the “fact” that “[Butler] had been, for at least three years before the trial, providing information about the Black Panther Party and individuals associated with it to law enforcement agencies on a confidential basis.” On the evidence provided in the court records, this statement by the Judge is misleading and irrelevant. Julius Butler had absolutely no contact with the FBI or law enforcement prior to his delivery of the sealed letter to Sgt. Rice on August 10, 1969, seven months after the murder and less than two years before the trial. The letter’s identification of Pratt as the killer of Caroline Olsen was available to the jury and was a centerpiece of the court proceeding, a fact not even addressed in Dickey’s opinion. Nor is the whole history of Butler’s withholding of the incriminating document despite efforts by the FBI and the police to pry it from him. These would seem to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Julius Butler was not an informant and was not cooperating with the FBI, the police, or the prosecutors of Geronimo Pratt prior to Pratt’s arraignment for the murder. Moreover, Butler’s testimony at the trial is entirely consistent with the information contained in the incriminating letter and with his behavior throughout the case.
Why didn’t justice prevail in this matter? Why was a murderer set free? The answer lies in the tenor of the times, in which the testimony of officers of the law has become more readily impeachable than the testimony of criminals. As in the O.J. Simpson trial, the appeals process in the Pratt case was turned by Johnnie Cochran into a class action libel against the FBI, the police, the prosecution and its chief witness. And as in the Simpson case, Johnnie Cochran’s fictional melodrama won out over the politically incorrect truth.
September 1, 1997, http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=22335.
1 In Re Pratt, Docket No. 37534, Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One, Leagle, December 3, 1980, http://www.leagle.com/decision/1980907112CalApp3d795_1840.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
When “Civil Rights” Become Civil Wrongs
During the darkest days of the Cold War, the Italian writer Ignazio Silone predicted the final struggle would be between the communist believers and the ex-believers. A similar conflict seems to be shaping up among civil rights activists. Last month, Jesse Jackson chose the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous 1963 March on Washington to lead a march across the Golden Gate Bridge against California’s Proposition 209. Passed last year, Prop. 209 prohibits race-based hiring and recruiting in government jobs and state colleges. Jackson’s symbolism was clear: support for race-based regulations is now the focus of the civil rights cause.
One immediate problem for this stance is that the architect and principal spokesman for Prop. 209, Ward Connerly, is also a veteran of King’s movement. It is no mere coincidence that Connerly’s measure is called “The California Civil Rights Initiative,” or that its text is carefully constructed to conform to both the letter and spirit of the landmark Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965.
The