Kent State Continued

THE Ohio National Guardsmen who suddenly wheeled and fired into a crowd at Kent State University last May apparently fabricated their story of imminent danger after their volley killed four students. That damning statement, contained in a Justice Department summary of an exhaustive FBI investigation and read oh the Senate floor by Ohio Senator Stephen Young, directly contradicted the special state-appointed local grand jury that only three weeks ago completely exonerated the Guardsmen.

The grand jury, which had before it the entire FBI report as well as those of several other investigative bodies, nevertheless reported that the Guardsmen "logically" felt they faced "serious bodily injury" when they fired, and were "therefore" innocent of any crime under Ohio law. The guilt, said the grand jury, fell upon 25 persons, mostly students or former students, who were indicted on various counts of rioting, burning the university's ROTC building and interfering with firemen.

Rain of Rocks. The summary cited by Young was prepared by the Justice Department for internal use, interested Congressmen and state and local authorities. It constituted a forceful challenge of the basis for the jury's conclusion. Although the summary made it plain that there was great confusion both preceding and following the shooting, it contained the following findings:

>"There was no sniper ... At the time of the shooting, the National Guard clearly did not believe that they were being fired upon."

> "The Guardsmen were not surrounded . . . They could easily have continued in the direction in which they had been going [across the crest of the hill where, instead, they unexpectedly stopped, turned, and fired]."

>"No Guardsman claims he was hit with rocks immediately prior to the firing." The summary said that despite the great number of rocks and other missiles aimed at Guardsmen earlier in the melee, only a single soldier was hurt seriously enough to require medical attention, and one Guardsman specifically stated that at the time of the shooting, the rain of rocks had diminished.

>"There was no initial order to fire." After the firing began, "some Guardsmen had to be physically restrained from continuing to fire their weapons."

>Finally, the summary says that in the FBI interviews with Guardsmen, mention of imminent danger occurs "almost as an afterthought ... We have some reason to believe that the claim . . . that their lives were endangered by the students was fabricated subsequent to the event."

Shoot to Kill. The Justice Department report may well form the basis for a federal grand jury's re-examination of the case, a move being demanded by many at the university and elsewhere. That demand will undoubtedly receive impetus as the result of a startling interview given by Seabury Ford, Republican Party chairman of Portage County, where the grand jury met, and one of three special prosecutors in the case. His words provided substantial evidence for the charge by many at the university that the grand jury indictments and its sweeping condemnation of campus life reflected rabid political views.

In an interview in the Detroit Free Press, Ford said that the National Guardsmen on the campus last May "should have shot all" troublemakers, and that the incidents were Communist-inspired. "I think the whole damn country is not going to quiet down until the police are ordered to shoot to kill." Of the Kent shootings, he said: "The point is, it stopped the riot--you can't argue with that. It just stopped it flat." As Ford spoke, according to Reporter William Schmidt, he toyed with a .45-cal. pistol he keeps near his desk and kidded: "I could shoot you."

Strong Language. Ford had unintentionally placed himself in contempt of a court order directing more than 300 people who had played any role in the grand jury investigations to maintain complete public silence about the case. He said later he did not think he would be quoted by name, and suggested that he had been misquoted, although he did not say in what way. His bitter outburst brought a deliberately contemptuous statement from one of the most respected figures on the Kent State campus, Geology Professor Glenn W. Frank. In testimony given before the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, headed by William Scranton, Frank had expressed his abhorrence of student violence in strong terms. Within hours after Ford's statement became public he used equally strong language.

"I speak now in contempt of court," Frank said, "in contempt of the naive and stupid conclusions of the special grand jury, specifically as to their reasons for the May 4 disturbances; in contempt of Judge Edwin Jones for the gag rules . . . and in personal contempt for Lawyer Ford for his lack of understanding after 68 years of what I believe is a wasted life . . . It is my feeling that the Republican Party feels it must smash the student uprising to stay in power. I know that some people should be prosecuted for what they did in May. But that should not entitle the judge, a jury or a prosecutor to make a farce out of justice for their own gain or to gain favor with voters."

Both Ford and Frank pleaded guilty to contempt, but Judge Jones deferred sentencing until a federal court in Cleveland rules on whether his silencing order was constitutional.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.