Dear Joni Miller,
RE: Your recent e-mails to our spokeswoman.
On behalf of the Indigenous Women for Justice (IWJ) I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the misconceptions you have in the hope that this will save you from wasting any more of your time, or ours. Firstly, you are incorrect regarding the tape we have of John Boy; it would be admissible in court. As and when John Boy goes into a US federal court to face trial for the murder of Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash, if the tape is subpoenaed and any debate occurs as to the admissibility of the tape, it would be resolved there. We are not the US Attorney's office, and neither are we covert FBI agents as your supporters like to suggest - if we were, we would know the rationalization and strategy as to what was included in the extradition summary and what was omitted. However, we are conversant with the law and, like us, you must surely be aware that in matters of extradition the US does not have to present everything it has, or has the capability of acquiring - they only need to meet the evidentiary standard required for extradition; if they believe they can do that without showing all of their cards then that is presumably what they will do. An extradition hearing is not a trial.
If you persist in e-mailing messages which accuse us of lying about what we have and have not, particularly regarding the tape of John Boy, we will have no choice but to simply give the press access to the tape of John Boy - but I caution you that doing so will be damaging to your friend who you believe to be innocent. Until now, we have left the decision as to whether the content of the tape is aired or not with him, all John Boy has to do is call our spokeswoman in person and ask that the tape be aired, along with any others we have that he may believe we have not. Under the circumstances, you may wish to discuss with him whether or not he wishes you to proceed in this manner regarding the tape. You may wish to reflect on the fact that, regarding the veracity of what is on our website, sworn testimony in the Arlo Looking Cloud trial corroborates a good deal of what we presented about Anna Mae's murder before Looking Cloud was found guilty.
The IWJ's official position regarding John Boy's refusal to take a polygraph, etc. is detailed in our press release of March 2 , which is posted on our site. That press release answers many of your earlier points. So far as one of your comments about John Boy once being involved with Dino and John Trudell, we already know about all of that, and had you read "The Lies of John Graham " on our site, you would have seen that. Here is a segment of an interview Dino recorded in which he reflects on John Boy's interaction with him at that time (it is has been posted on our site for weeks):
We would remind you that your reference to John Boy's ability as a babysitter for Kelly White's kids has nothing to do with what he is charged with: the first-degree murder of Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash. Your comment about Bob Robideau being "forced out. As he knows. And as we know. And as you know," is down to the standard of the Vernon Bellecourt phrase book, and Bob is more than capable of responding to that himself.
Finally, whatever your fixation is with Paul DeMain, you should take it up directly with him: Paul DeMain does not write for us, and is not one of our members . . . so far as I know, he has not even left a support message on our site. You have made your decision to support John Boy and that is your choice; no doubt what he has told you has influenced that choice. In that regard we have commonality, because what we have of him on tape has influenced our decision, along with all of the other people we have taped interviews of - and due to the testimonials of some of our members and supporters who were in AIM and who were close to this situation in December 1975. You are entitled to your opinion, as are we, but be clear about this - we have nothing to hide and therefore we have no reason to fabricate; we have what we say we have, otherwise we wouldn't say it. If he was innocent, we'd be supporting you. His refusal to take a polygraph is a further demonstration of his consciousness of guilt; he would fail a lie-detector and he knows it. Polygraph test results aren't even admissible in court and so he really has nothing to lose by taking the polygraph, does he? As one who thinks he is innocent you should be encouraging John Boy to take the polygraph, as you must surely think that he would pass, and a positive result would aid your quest to keep him from being tried for the first-degree murder of Anna Mae. However, the reality "As he knows. And as we know. And as you know" is that he would fail the polygraph, and that is why he won't take one.I reiterate that if John Boy wants us to air the content of the tape to the press all he has to do is call our spokeswoman in person. We will not be entering into any further correspondence with you about it, but if you feel the need to keep wasting your time by sending us fatuous e-mails go ahead as it will take you about twenty minutes to write one, and it will take us less than twenty seconds to delete it.
We await John Boy's phone call.
Anne Gilbert on behalf of the Indigenous Women for Justice.
cc. Denise Maloney-Pictou, Executive Director of the Indigenous Women for Justice
In the spirit of Anna Mae Pictou, Marley Shebala (Navajo/Zuni) — Spokeswoman-Indigenous Women for Justice — email@example.com
We are no longer silenced by fear
The IWJ is a unity sisterhood of women from indigenous nations located