KEYWORDS: Leonard Peltier, Arlo Looking Cloud, Annie Mae Pictou-Aquash, Anna May Pictou, AIM, FBI, AIM leadership, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Wounded Knee of 1973, GOONs, Pineridge Reservation, Indian activist Leonard Peltier, activists, Myrtle Poor Bear, Barry Bachrach, Attorney at Law, Leonard Peltier defense
AUTHOR: Barry Bachrach, Attorney representing Leonard Peltier
In the wake of the trial of Arlo Looking Cloud in Rapid City, South Dakota, concerning the murder of Annie Mae Pictou-Aquash, Barry Bachrach, attorney for Leonard Peltier, has released a statement raising serious concerns about the direction and focus of the proceedings. Bachrach’s statement highlights what he perceives as a disturbing trend: the trial becoming a platform to indirectly indict Leonard Peltier and the American Indian Movement (AIM), despite the lack of direct charges or evidence against them in the Aquash case.
The trial, ostensibly focused on Arlo Looking Cloud, a man accused in the decades-old murder, seemed to Bachrach to be a stage for revisiting old grievances and perpetuating unsubstantiated allegations against prominent AIM members and Leonard Peltier. He questions the relevance of much of the testimony presented, arguing that it veered sharply away from the defendant at hand and served primarily to cast suspicion on individuals not formally implicated in the crime.
Bachrach emphasizes the absence of concrete proof linking Leonard Peltier or the AIM leadership to the murder of Annie Mae Pictou-Aquash. He asserts that the prosecution’s case rested heavily on "rumor, conjecture, and innuendo," rather than tangible evidence. This, he argues, is a recurring pattern in the narrative surrounding Leonard Peltier and AIM, a narrative often fueled by biased sources and a history of questionable investigative practices.
The statement points to the existence of alternative narratives, ones that challenge the prosecution’s portrayal of Annie Mae Pictou-Aquash’s relationship with AIM. Bachrach suggests that numerous individuals could testify that Aquash harbored fears not of AIM, but of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He claims that Aquash had expressed these fears in writing, stating that she had been warned by investigators that her life would be in danger if she did not cooperate with the FBI in framing AIM leaders and Leonard Peltier.
Bachrach raises serious questions about the credibility of witnesses presented during the trial. He singles out paid informants, whose motivations and testimonies are inherently suspect, and individuals with a history of fabricating evidence in the Leonard Peltier case or who are alleged to have played a role in the Aquash murder. The statement implies that the trial selectively presented information, omitting crucial context and perspectives that would paint a more complete and nuanced picture of the events surrounding Aquash’s death.
A significant portion of Bachrach’s statement is dedicated to outlining the historical context of the FBI’s relationship with AIM during the 1970s. He refers to the Bureau’s documented intent to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the AIM organization. This policy, he argues, stemmed from the FBI’s perception of Native Americans committed to unity, cultural pride, and sovereignty as "enemies of the State."
Bachrach cites the mass incarcerations of AIM leaders following the 1973 siege of Wounded Knee as evidence of the FBI’s systematic targeting of the organization. He notes that despite the filing of hundreds of charges against AIM members, only a small fraction resulted in convictions, and those convictions were often for minor or fabricated offenses. He further alleges that the high bail amounts required to release incarcerated AIM members placed a significant strain on the organization’s resources and ability to function effectively.
The statement details the volatile atmosphere on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the years following Wounded Knee. Bachrach describes a "Reign of Terror" during which AIM members and supporters were subjected to violence, intimidation, and harassment. He accuses Dick Wilson, the then-Tribal Chairman, of hiring vigilantes known as the Guardians of the Oglala Nation (GOONs) to enforce restrictions on AIM activities and suppress traditionalist practices.
Bachrach claims that the FBI, the agency responsible for investigating the violence on Pine Ridge, instead provided the GOONs with weaponry and intelligence, effectively turning a blind eye to their crimes against AIM members and supporters. He highlights the disproportionate number of unsolved murders of traditionalists during this period, questioning whether their lives are somehow considered less significant than that of Anna Mae Aquash.
The statement criticizes the FBI’s investigation into Aquash’s death, pointing to the 28-year delay in bringing anyone to trial as evidence of incompetence or deliberate obstruction. Bachrach questions why the FBI failed to discover the bullet hole in the back of Aquash’s head or the blood on her jacket, details that were immediately apparent during an independent autopsy. He also challenges the FBI’s initial ruling of "exposure" as the cause of death, suggesting a possible cover-up.
A particularly disturbing allegation raised by Bachrach concerns the FBI’s decision to sever Aquash’s hands. He questions the necessity of this action, given that agents on the scene were reportedly well-acquainted with Aquash and should have been able to identify her body. Furthermore, he alleges that a photograph of Aquash’s severed hands was later used to intimidate another Indian woman, Myrtle Poor Bear, into signing false affidavits against Leonard Peltier.
Bachrach highlights the repercussions of these fabricated affidavits, which were used to convince a Canadian court to extradite Leonard Peltier to the United States for trial. He cites the regrets of Bob Newbrook, a retired police officer who arrested Peltier in Alberta, who now believes that Canada should not trust U.S. evidence presented against American Indian activists. Bachrach also mentions that Warren Allmand, a former Canadian justice minister, and the judge who extradited Peltier have stated that they would have never agreed to his extradition had they known the evidence presented by the U.S. was false.
Bachrach argues that the FBI, despite its carefully cultivated image, has historically functioned as America’s "political police," engaging in intelligence gathering and counterintelligence operations to suppress political dissidents and groups. He claims that these activities have included intimidation, harassment, discrediting, and "snitch jacketing," tactics designed to isolate and alienate important leaders and sow fear and factionalism within targeted groups.
The statement concludes by asserting that the Arlo Looking Cloud trial was "well-orchestrated" not to convict the defendant, but to "convict AIM activists and prosecute Leonard Peltier all over again" in the court of public opinion. Bachrach draws parallels between the media coverage of the trial and the campaign in 2001 to influence President Clinton’s decision on Peltier‘s petition for Executive Clemency. He emphasizes that Leonard Peltier has filed a civil suit against the FBI, alleging the dissemination of knowingly false accusations designed to deny him due process.
Bachrach urges the media to remain independent observers and to guard against manipulation by the FBI and government prosecutors. He reminds them of their responsibility to tell the truth, the whole truth, and to ensure that justice, not merely victory, is the ultimate goal. The statement serves as a powerful indictment of the tactics employed by the FBI and a passionate defense of Leonard Peltier and the American Indian Movement.