Radical Priests v. the FBI

But here she was, on a November day in nineteen seventy, driving to her sister's house in Maryland, listening to a news broadcast in which Hoover discussed information that he could only have learned. McAllister thought from reading her private correspondence, I almost went into a stupor. McAllister remembered, I thought, what is this? My God, what is this? She kept the radio on for the rest of the three hour drive, listening to the story repeat over and over, talking back

at the broadcasters, trying to make sense of it. How else would an ordinary person react to something like this? Of course, there were a few ways in which McAllister was not an ordinary person. To start with, she was a nun, a member of the religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary. Plus the man she was writing love letters to, Philip Berrigan, was a priest, Okay, so these letters might be scandalous, But what made them so interesting

to Jay Edgar Hoover. Well, there was also the fact that Philip Barrigan and Elizabeth McAllister were both passionate anti war activists. Barrigin was so passionate that he'd ended up in jail for destroying Vietnam tree files. McAllister had been writing to him in the United States Penitentiary at Louisbourg, Pennsylvania. And then there was the content of this particular letter. Because McAllister hadn't just written to ber Agin about how much she cared for him or how much she missed him.

She had also written to ask his thoughts on a plan to kidnap Henry Kissinger, President Nixon's national security advisor and the future Secretary of State. How romantic. Now sitting in her car, McAllister was terrified. The letter, written three months earlier had been a thought exercise. She and bar Agin were always brainstorming new ways to draw attention to their anti war cause. He had replied to her letter with thoughts, suggestions, and concerns, but it had gone no further,

or so she thought. But now Hoover was claiming that she and her fellow activists were actively plotting to kidnap Kissinger. How had Hoover even heard about the idea? McAllister had a guess. To get private letters in and out of prison, She and Barrigin had trusted a fellow inmate of his, named boyd Douglas, who was on a study release program, to carry their mail. Douglas must have snitched, But why

McAllister had known him for months. He was just as opposed to the Vietnam War as she and Barrigin were, just as committed to the anti war movement. How could he have betrayed them? But those questions seemed small now. What mattered McAllister knew as she pulled up to her sister's house was that the United States government believed that she had planned to kidnap a White House official. The director of the FBI was calling her a threat to

now national security. Whatever was coming next, it would not be good. That was putting it lightly. Over the next year and a half, McAllister, Barrigan, and five of their anti war colleagues from the Catholic left would be investigated and put on trial for conspiracy. It would be a journey so filled with shocking revelations and twists and turns that hearing her love letters referenced on the radio would come to seem like a triviality. To Elizabeth McAllister, Welcome

to History on Trial. I'm your host, Mira Hayward. This week the United States v. The Harrisburg Seven. By the time he met sister Elizabeth McAllister in nineteen sixty six, father Philip Barrigan had made quite a name for himself in leftist political circles. An extroverted charismatic man, Berrigan and his older brother Daniel were vanguards of a mid century movement within the Catholic Church to liberalize the church and

make it more appealing and relevant to young people. The brothers were also known for their bold and often controversial stances on civil rights. More than simply taking stances, though, the Barrigins had reputations as doers, they planned sit ins in support of racial desegregation, traveled the world meeting activists, and organized protests. By the mid nineteen sixties, the attention of both Barrigan brothers had been drawn to the war

in Vietnam. In nineteen sixty five, Daniel founded the Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam, which became one of the largest anti war groups in the country. Meanwhile, became involved with the Baltimore Interfaith Peace Mission and organized pickets at the homes of the Secretaries of Defense and State. In nineteen sixty seven, Philip, feeling that more conventional methods of protest were not working quickly enough, decided to take a

more radical step. On October twenty seventh, he and three fellow anti war activists strode into the Selective Service office at the Baltimore Customs House and poured blood onto the draft records held there, destroying them. The group's bold actions inspired dozens of similar raids over the next four years, in which protesters, often members of the Catholic left, would

destroyed draft records. The raiders would normally wait outside the draft board offices until the police and the news media showed up, willingly going to jail as a show of their case commitment to the cause. Philip Berigan himself faced jail time for his actions in Baltimore, but while out on bail in the spring of nineteen sixty eight, he decided to double down and organize another Draft Board raid. This time, he convinced his brother Daniel to join him.

On May seventeenth, the Barrigins and seven others entered the Draft board offices in Catonsville, Maryland, and stuffed three hundred and seventy eight draft records into a trash bin. They brought the bin to the parking lot, where news crews recorded the group as they used homemade napalm to burn

the files. It was a highly symbolic action. Napalm is an extremely flammable compound that the American military was using as a weapon in Vietnam, and a photograph of the protesters praying for peace as they burned the files appeared in newspapers across the conry. In November nineteen sixty eight, the raiders, who had become known as the Catonsville Nine, were convicted and sentenced to various terms in prison for their actions. While the case was appealed, the nine remained

out on bail. While on bail, Philip Barrigan made two very important decisions. The first was personal. He and sister Elizabeth McAllister decided to get married. After meeting in nineteen sixty six, the pair had grown closer and closer they eventually realized that they were in love. It was not as simple for this couple to wed as it would

be for others. They were a priest and none after all, But by this time their commitment to each other and the anti war cause outweighed the rules of the church. They privately declared themselves married in nineteen sixty nine. The second big decision Philip Barrigin made was politic. After their appeals over the Catonsville convictions were rejected by the Supreme Court, the Berigin brothers were ordered to surrender themselves into custody

in April nineteen seventy. In the past, going to jail had been part of the process for draft board raiders, but the Bearrigins had begun to wonder if surrendering was the most effective tactic. I wanted to confront the mythology of the good guy, whose goodness depends on his willingness to go to jail. Daniel Berrigan said he thought he and his brother could be more useful to the movement on the outside, so they decided to run. For first

time fugitives. The Berigins were surprisingly successful at eluding capture. They moved from city to city, staying with sympathetic families or church colleagues. As the days went by and the FBI did not locate them, the brothers became bolder. They gave a number of lectures and sermons, always managing to slip out just before the FBI arrived. Finally, after twelve days on the run, Philip Barrigan was captured by the

FBI and brought to Louisbourg Federal Penitentiary in Pennsylvania. Daniel managed to stay out for another four months, during which he made his feelings on the FBI clear. You could say that my survival is a triumph of the love and humanity of the people who shelter me over the FBI, who are merciless but extraordinarily unimaginative men, he said in one interview in Washington. J Edgar Hoover fumed he took Barrigin's taunt personally and put the priest on the FBI's

ten most wanted list. Eventually, in August nineteen seventy, the FBI caught up with Daniel Berrigan, and he sent to the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut. While his brother had been underground, Philip Bregan had been adjusting to life at Louisbourg prison. It had not been easy. Louisbourg was a maximum security prison, and most non violent anti war protesters who ended up there for processing were quickly transferred

to a minimum security prison. For some reason, perhaps because of his time as a fugitive, Barrigin was not. Life at the prison was difficult for Barrigin. Prison officials and inmates alike were largely hostile to him, and he felt disconnected from his community. That isolation maybe why Brigin was so quick to trust a fellow inmate, Boyd Douglas. Douglas was the first participant in the prison's steady release program, which allowed him to attend nearby Bucknell University while he

completed his sentence. While at Bucknoll, Douglas had become involved in the anti war movement. In April nineteen seventy, a Bucknell professor who mentored Douglas mentioned to him that the famous anti war priest Philip Barrigan had been sent to Louisbourg and encouraged Douglas to connect with Barrigin. The two men quickly struck up a friendship, and Barrigin soon asked Douglas if he would be able to carry a message

for him out of the prison. Douglas happily agreed. Throughout the spring and summer of nineteen seventy, Douglas regularly carried letters in and out of Louisbourg. Many of these letters were between Philip Barrigan and Elizabeth McAllister. McAllister kept Barrigin updated on the movement's activities and their plans. She solicited his feedback on actions, encouraged him to keep his spirits up,

and passionately expressed her love to him. It was in one of those letters, dated August eighteenth, that McAllister raised the idea of conducting what she called a quote citizen's arrest on a prominent government official. The day before, McAllister and a group of like minded activists had discussed the idea as part of a brainstorming session. The citizen's arrest

had been proposed by Ekbal Ahmad. Ahmad was a Pakistani intellectual and activist who had helped coordinate the Barrigin's time underground. He now suggested kidnapping a prominent politician and holding them in exchange forgetting the US to stop bombing raids in Vietnam. The perfect candidate Ahmad proposed was Henry Kissinger, then the National Security Advisor, because Kissinger both had a lot of influence and also quote was a bachelor with girlfriends and

wouldn't want a lot of bodyguards around. The group had tossed the idea around for a while before dropping it and moving on. McAllister raised the kidnapping idea again in her letter to Berrigan, writing about the group's discussion and asking barrigin to think about it. She also seemingly unronically wrote that the idea was being shared in uttered confidence and should not be committed to paper. Douglas delivered this letter on August twentieth. Barrigan, in his reply, indicated interest

in the plan, but urged caution. He also mentioned that perhaps the kidnapping could be done in conjunction with another proposed action, which involved interrupting heat or power in Washington, d C. In order to impede government business. This letter, dated August twenty second, was the last written record of Barrigan, McAllister, and their activist cohort discussing plans to either kidnap Kissinger

or disrupt Dacey's power grids. Soon after Douglas smuggled this letter out of Louisbourg, Philip Berrigan was transferred to Danbury Prison, where his recently captured brother Daniel was now an inmate. Three months later, Elizabeth McAllister was driving to her sister's house in Maryland when the radio broadcaster announced that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had just revealed shocking news in

testimony to a Senate subcommittee. Hoover had stated that a quote militant group composed of Catholic priests and nuns, teachers, students, and former students, whose principal leaders are Philip and Daniel Berrigan, plan to blow up underground electric conduits and steam pipes serving the Washington, DC area in order to disrupt federal government operations. The plotters are also concocting a scheme to kidnap a highly placed government official. Hoover promised that quote

intensive investigation is being conducted concerning this matter. Like McAllister, Ekba Ahmad was shocked to hear Hoover's announcement. It sounded so ridiculous to me, he said later, I knew I had brought up the matter of a citizen's arrest. But the discussion came to nothing. We talked about a lot of ideas that were rejected. I was worried about Hoover's accusations,

but more amused than anything else. He became a lot more worried and a lot less amused when he learned that Elizabeth McAllister had written down the group's discussion in a letter that she had trusted a virtual stranger, boy Douglas, to smuggle into prison for her. Ahmad was right to be worried. Somehow or other, the FBI had obtained private correspondence from the group, and they weren't going to let the matter go. The barrigins had been thorns in the

FBI's side for years. Now might be the bureau's chance to strike back. J Edgar Hoover's declaration to his Senate subcommittee that Catholic anti war activists were planning a bombing attack and a kidnapping did not just come as a surprise to Elizabeth McAllister and Ekbal Ahmad. It also came as a surprise to Hoover's own Federal Bureau of Investigation. Before Hoover's testimony to Congress, his prepared remarks had gone to Charles Brennan, an assistant director of the FBI's Domestic

Intelligence Division, for review. Brennan had strongly encouraged Hoover to delete the section about the kidnapping and bombing plot, saying that revealing the FBI's knowledge of the potential plot could hurt an ongoing investigation. Hoover ignored Brennan's advice, discussing the alleged plot at least three times with government officials in

the fall of nineteen seventy. In speaking publicly about a case in which no charges had been brought, Hoover was also ignoring Department of Justice guidelines, which discouraged this kind of pre trial statement. Attorney General John Mitchell publicly said that he was surprised by Hoover's testimony and privately scolded the FBI director. Why had Hoover acted against the advice of the Justice Department and his own bureau and spoken

publicly about an ongoing investigation. Part of his motivation may have been personal. Hoover was seventy five years old in nineteen seventy, though he still enjoyed the staunch support of President Nixon. Public criticism of the longtime FBI director was growing as his reign entered its thirty fifth year. Hoover wanted to prove that he was still in control of his bureau's work. He may also have wanted to send a lesson to the Berrigan brothers, whose time on the

run had humiliated the FBI. Hoover also wanted to prove the necessity of his agency. His testimony to Congress about the alleged plot had been part of a larger campaign to get more funding for the FBI. By demonstrating that threats against the United States existed, Hoover could justify his requests for more money and more agents. His plan worked. Congress would soon authorize additional funding for the bureau, but Hoover's plan had perhaps worked too well. Discussions of the

alleged plot dominated the news cycle over Thanksgiving weekend. The FBI now needed to back up Hoover's claims, so a full blown investigation was launched. Hundreds of FBI agents from across the East Coast were reassigned to the case. Hoover reviewed all their reports, writing notes in the margins helpful things like pull out all stops and push this hard. An investigation alone was not enough for the hard charging Director.

Hoover was determined to see the case prosecuted. In early January nineteen seventy one, a grand jury in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, began hearing testimony on the case. Guy Goodwin, an attorney working in the Justice Department's Internal Security Division, ran the grand jury's investigation. On January twelfth, the Justice Department announced

an indictment in the case. Six people, Philip Berrigan, Elizabeth McAllister, Ekbaal Ahmad, Joseph Wenderroth, Neil McLoughlin, and Anthony Skoblick, were being charged with, quote, conspiring to blow up the heating systems of federal buildings in the nation's capital and also to kidnap presidential adviser Henry Kissinger. The conspiracy to commit

kidnapping charges carried a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. The indictment also listed several unindicted co conspiras, including Daniel Berrigan. The actual material of the indictment was thin, and the press noticed. The Saint Louis Post Dispatch called the indictment

quote one of the flimsiest on record. The Barrigans and their lawyers responded similarly, with one of their lawyers calling the charges quote a colossal blunder into which the government was stampeded after j Edgar Hoover concocted them to justify an appropriation for an additional thousand agents. Vice President Spiro Agnew, on the other hand, rebuked those who criticized the government's motives, saying impugning the motives of that grand jury and the

investigative agencies which brought the matter to their attention. In other words, popping off for political advantage prior to trial is nearly as reprehensible as finding the defendants guilty before they have been tried and convicted Privately, however, Justice Department officials were concerned about the strength of the case. Instead of shutting down the grand jury after issuing the indictment, Guy Goodwin kept the grand jury running and continued to

subpoena witnesses. Critics called it a phishing expedition. Goodwin responded that he was simply investigating the possibility of further indictments even as the prosecutors looked for more evidence. The government moved towards trial, arraigning the defendants on February eighth. In mid February, lead prosecutor Guy Goodwin was replaced by William S. Lynch. Lynch, the head of the Justice Department's Organized Crime and Racketeering Section,

had an excellent reputation. He took the files home and studied the case for five days. Lynch was deeply troubled by what he saw in his estimation the case that Goodwin had drawn up, a case that focused on Hoover's allegations of bombs and kidnapping, was untenable. There was simply not enough evidence. Instead, he urged his superiors the case needed to include a broader range of criminal activity. Lynch wanted to tie in charges about the rating of draft

board offices. That way, he believed he had a better chance of obtaining a conviction. Even more than that, he told colleagues he could avoid being laughed out of court. Lynch's superiors agreed, and he was given the go ahead to restructure the case. After another round of grand jury testimony, a new indictment was announced on April thirtieth. The new charges were subtly but crucially different from those in the January indictment. The indictment now included charges for draft board

raids and omitted the conspiracy to kidnap charge. Lynch had replaced the conspiracy to kidnap charge with a general conspiracy charge. It was a much easier case to prove, although the possible punishments were correspondingly lower. Lynch also gave up on trying to connect to Daniel Berrigan to the trial, removing his name from the list of unindicted co conspirators. There was one more change. The April indictment added two new defendants,

Mary kin Skoblick and John Theodore Glick. Glick's case would eventually be severed, leaving seven defendants to be tried together. Thus the group became known as the Harrisburg Seven. On May twenty fifth, the defendants were arraigned on the new charges. Each of them refused to enter a plea, citing their belief that the government was acting quote irregularly and extra judicially. Judge R. Dixon Hermann was uninterested in their speeches and

registered each defendant as having pled not guilty. A trial date was set nearly seventeen months after Elizabeth McAllister had written her fateful letter about Citizen's arrest, and more than a year after j. Edgar Hoover had discussed the plot in Congress the Harrisburg Seven would go on trial. The courtroom for the Harrisburg Seven trial had a singularly ugly paint job. Reporters described the paint color as oppressive, green, tired algae and mill pond scum. It was an unprepossessing

setting for such a dramatic case. After nearly three weeks of jury selection, opening statements took place on February twenty first, nineteen seventy two. As lead prosecutor William Lynch spoke to reporters outside the courtroom, it was clear that a change had come over the man in the year since he

had first come to the case. Yes, While he had taken the case reluctantly, write Jack Nelson and Ronald j Ostro in their book The FBI and the Barrigans, Lynch had psyched himself to the point that he seemed to loathe the defendants. He described the defendants to the media as naive attention seekers who believed themselves above the law. However, Lynch usually kept his personal opinions to himself inside the courtroom.

In his opening statement, he calmly laid out the government's case Philip Barrigan, Lynch said, was the ringleader of a group who quote hatched a conspiracy in January nineteen seventy to commit a series of illegal acts, the thrust of which was to disrupt governmental activities. These illegal acts included draft board raids in Philadelphia, which the defendant father Joseph Wenderoth,

among others, had public taken responsibility for. Lynch claimed that he would prove that Philip Barrigan and two other defendants, Anthony and Mary Skoblick, were involved in planning these raids. The next plan in the conspiracy, Lynch shed, was bombing heating pipes in Washington. He claimed that Wenderrath and Philip Barrigan had personally visited underground tunnels in DC with quote the intent of casing or assessing the feasibility of this

particular activity. Finally, Lynch shed the group planned to kidnap Henry Kissinger. Throughout his opening, Lynch buttressed his claims by saying that they would be supported by the testimony of the prosecution's star witness, boyd Douglas. Douglas was the inmate who had helped Philip Berrigan smuggle letters in and out

of Louisbourg prison. The defense had long suspected that Douglas was the source of the leak, but Lynch's opening confirmed it and revealed just how much the prosecution's case was based on Douglas's information. Douglas, Lynch said, in his opening argument, had become an FBI informant in June nineteen seventy, almost immediately after he had begun working with Berrigan. In his statement for the defense, attorney Ramsey Clark went on the attack.

The defendants had a whole cohort of lawyers representing them who would share responsibilities during the trial. Clark, the attorney General under President Johnson and Lynch's former boss, was chosen to deliver the rebuttal to Lynch's opening. Clark immediately went after the prosecution's motives and case. The charges, Clark said were only brought to quote, justify something j Edgar Hoover had done. He said that his clients were quote the

gentlest of people, not capable of injuring anyone. Any actions they had taken against the war had not been part of a conspiracy, but had been individual actions. This was a key point for the defense. All of the defendants except Elizabeth McAllister, and Ekba Ahmad had at some point publicly confessed to participating in draft board raids. Clark wanted to make the distinction that these raids had not been part of a larger plot or a conspiracy, which is

what the government was now charging the defendants with. Much of Clark's opening was devoted to attacking boy Douglas. You'll have to watch Boyd Douglas, see him, judge him, Clark said, He's made lying a way of life. It was clear from both the prosecution and the defense's opening statements that the trial would hinge on the testimony of Boyd Douglas. But who was Boyd Douglas exactly? This wasn't an easy

question to answer. Some people, including Philip Berrigan and his friends at Bucknell University, where Douglas had participated in a steady release program while still imprisoned, knew Douglas as a charismatic, complicated man with strong anti war sentiments. Douglas told them that he had fought in Vietnam and had been horrified by what he had seen there. Upon his return to America, Douglas said he had been caught trying to bomb trucks

carrying napalm to be shipped to Vietnam and jailed. While in jail, he volunteered for a medical study, which had left him with debilitating injuries. He had won a settlement from the government for his suffering, he told Bucknell friends, which was how he explained his ready supply of money, his ever stocked liquor cabinet, and his off campus apartment lavish living for anyone, especially a prisoner. Douglas could be insistent and arrogant, but most who him just thought he

was passionate. At the trial, a very different picture of Douglas emerged. On the stand, Douglas described himself as a Catholic who was concerned about Catholic priests and nuns getting involved in anti war activities. He discussed being worried about quote the threats of these people to the United States government.

He had gotten in over his head when he had agreed to help Philip Barrigan smuggle a letter out of prison, Douglas explained, and knowing that he would eventually be caught, decided to start copying out the contents of the letters in order to help the government. After a warden caught barrigin with a letter in June and realized that Douglas was helping him. The warden had put Douglas in touch

with the FBI. In his long answers to Lynch's questions, Douglas explained how he had gotten deeper and deeper into the movement as a way to aid his investigation. During Douglas's testimony, Lynch introduced the letters between Barrigan and McAllister, reading them aloud to the jury. Douglas corroborated references in the letters to real life conversations he said he had

with the defendants. Unfortunately for the prosecution, most of the letters were so dull and rambling that jurors literally fell asleep during Lynch's readings. However, two letters, those sent on August eighteenth and August twenty second by Elizabeth McAllister and Philip Berrigan, respectively, were much more exciting. These were the letters that discussed kidnapping Kissinger and alluded to a disruptive action against DC utilities. Douglas was key to bringing these

letters to life. His testimony alleged that the discussion of these crimes was not confined to these two letters, but had been an ongoing conversation in the summer of nineteen seventy. The prosecution would ultimately bring in sixty four witnesses, including FBI agents and police officers, but the only one whose testimonies supported the charges of bombing and kidnapping was Douglas.

Douglas testified to having discussed the details of the tunnel bombing project with Joseph Wenderoth, and to having conversations with Elizabeth McAllister and Ekba Ahmad about the kidnapping plot. Douglas's allegation that he had spoken to Ahmad on the phone about the kidnapping was hard to believe. Ahmad was the most cautious and savvy of all the defendants. He constantly bemoaned the others naivete saying, I am dealing with children.

Why would he discuss a sensitive matter like kidnapping over the phone with a stranger. Douglas claimed to have spoken to Ahmad twice, and said that he picked out Ahmud's voice from a tape recording the FBI played him. The tape, it turned out, was from a press conference that the defendants had given in which Ahmad, the only defendant with an accent, had literally identified himself by name. This identification of Ahmad's voice was so suspect that Judge Hermann decided

to strike it from the record. This was not the only issue with Douglas's testimony. At the end of his direct examination, Lynch was forced to raise a concerning matter, a letter from Douglas in which he had requested fifty thousand dollars from the FBI in exchange for his help with the case. The defense had told the press about the letter earlier that week, and Lynch was trying to get ahead of it. This figure may sound a little high, Douglas had written, but considering everything, I feel it is

worth it to the government. I will do all I can to help the government obtain enough evidence to prosecute these people. However, I don't want to feel that I am just being used. Lynch tried to move on from the letter quickly. Douglas explained that he had continued helping the FBI even after his money request was turned down, but the damage was done. Several jurors looked at each other and shook their heads. What came next was even

more troubling for the prosecution. The defense lawyers were unsure of their ability to shake Douglas from his story about the defendant's alleged crimes. He was a confident witness, with an excellent memory for dates and places, and was convincing in his recall. So the defense, on cross examination decided to instead go after Douglas's character, and it was here

that a third side of boy Douglas emerged. This version wasn't the anti war activist known by Barrigan and at Bucknell, or the patriot concerned with protecting his country portrayed by the prosecution. The boy Douglas who came out on cross examination was as Ramsey Clark had described him in his opening, someone who made lieing a way of life. Born in nineteen forty in Iowa, boyd Douglas had started committing crimes

at a young age. In nineteen fifty nine, he had enlisted in the military, likely as part of a deal to avoid jail time. After deserting the army multiple times. He was charged in nineteen sixty two with impersonating an army officer and passing bad checks. He pled guilty and was sentenced to jail in nineteen sixty three. While in jail, he had volunteered for a medical study at the National

Institutes of Health. It was true that he had incurred serious injuries during the study, but it's unclear whether those injuries were self inflicted or not. Douglas filed a two million dollar suit against the government, but eventually settled for fifteen thousand dollars after his lawyer informed him that the government suspected fraud. Paroled in nineteen sixty six, Douglas immediately

began forging checks again. After waiving a gun at a bank employee who confronted him and was conson, Douglas was apprehended and sentenced to an additional five years in prison. It was for these crimes that Douglas was in Louisbourg prison where he met Berrigin, not for bombing trucks carrying napalm like he claimed. Douglas also never served in Vietnam. Douglas's lies did not stop there. The defense revealed that Douglas had lied constantly to try to manipulate his friends

at Bucknell, even over personal matters. While at Bucknell, he had dated two roommates. He told one roommate, Jane Hoover, that he was dying of cancer and asked her to marry him. When she refused, he pleaded with her, telling her that she was the only girl he had ever loved, except for a childhood neighbor of his name, Nancy, who, like Jane, had beautiful blonde hair. After Jane once again rejected him, Douglas moved on to her roommate, Betsy Sandel.

He soon asked Betsy to marry him, movingly, declaring that she was the only girl he had ever loved, except for a childhood neighbor named Nancy, who, like Betsy, had beautiful red hair. It was a trivial lie, but it seemed to stick with the jurors. While Douglas was supposed to be gathering information for the FBI, he had instead spent his time manipulating young college students into becoming romantically

attached to him. Douglas's admission that he had flagged Betsy Sandel as an anti war activist to the FBI only after she had rejected his marriage proposal caused one jurors jaw to literally drop. With all that said, the defense had been right in fearing that they could not get Douglas to change his story about the crimes. He alleged the defendants had He consistently maintained that the defendants had

planned to kidnap Kissinger and bomb the capital. The cross examinations had certainly damaged Douglas's credibility, but had they damaged the prosecution's case. William Lynch didn't think so devastating cross examination, he laughed to a reporter. Lynch's real concern lay with what the defense would present during their own case. On March twenty third, after more than a month of testimony,

the prosecution rested. The defense had called witnesses from all over the country to testify, and people wondered exactly who would appear on the stand, which, if any, of the defendants would testify. On Friday, March twenty fourth, Ramsey Clark again rose for the defense, but instead of delivering a traditional opening statement, he shocked the courtroom by declaring, your honor, the defendants will always seek peace. The defendants continue to

proclaim their innocence, and the defense rests. No one knew quite what was happening. Had Clark said that the defense rested, they weren't going to present a case, Lynch was baffled, calling it some sort of trickery, some sort of fraud on the court, but the defense said that they had only decided to not present a case the night before. In a news conference, the defendants explained themselves it had

not been a unanimous decision. Barrigan, McAllister, and Ahmad had wanted to argue their case, but had been overruled by a majority of the defendants. The Skobliks, Joseph Wenderroth and Neil McLaughlin did not want to present a defense. McAllister had taken notes on their discussion the night before, writing quote, the response of silence seems the best response to the illegitimacy of this indictment of the process of this government.

By not present venting a defense, the defendants felt that they were refusing to engage in a process they saw as corrupt. The defendants had not forgone every aspect of a defense, however, they still wished for their lawyers to conduct closing arguments, which were duly completed by both sides.

No one added anything particularly novel. The defense lawyers argued that the case was politically motivated, poorly supported, and overblown, while Lynch contended that the defendants were wolves in clerical clothing. Formerly non violent activists who had graduated to violence and posed a genuine threat to the nation. On March thirtieth, the jury began their deliberations. They had to return to

the courtroom several times for clarification on the charges. It was a complicated set of interrelated charges, and the jury and Judge Hermann himself seemed unsure about just how to approach the law. Over the next week, the jury delivered several verdicts on a few of the more minor charges, finding Philip Berrigan and Elizabeth McAllister guilty of smuggling letters out of federal prison. But on April fifth, nineteen seventy two, the jury declared to Judge Herman that they were deadlocked

on the conspiracy charges. They could not reach a decision about the defendant's guilt or innocence in conspiring to raid draft board offices, kidnap Henry Kissinger, and baumb Washington, d C. In the case of the United States v. The Harrisburg Seven, Judge Herman declared a mistrial. The case might not have ended there. The government could still choose to retry the Harrisburg Seven, but it seemed extremely unlikely. Public opinion was

against the government. In this case. The local newspaper, a conservative journal called The Harrisburg Patriot, wrote, it must be evident that conspiracy is an elusive charge, that a principal witness, Douglas, whose testimony can be eroded as his motivation is revealed, is a very weak read, and that a faulty case is better left untried than subjected to pitiless media and public exposure. The jurors concurred with the Harrisburg Patriots conclusions.

Interviews with jurors after the verdict revealed that they had voted ten to two against convicting on the conspiracy charges, and that the two jurors who supported convictions had had their minds made up from the beginning of the trial. The jurors who voted for acquittal cited Boyd Douglas's lack

of credibility as a major reason for their decision. Any possibility of a retrial died along with the man who had pushed for the trial in the first place on May second, nineteen seventy two, j Edgar Hoover of a heart attack. A little more than a year later, on May twenty eighth, nineteen seventy three, Philip Barrigan and Elizabeth McAllister were legally married, given that they were still technically a priest and a nun. The couple were excommunicated from

the Catholic Church, but the excommunication was later lifted. Barrigan and McAllister had three children. They never gave up their activism work. In the early nineteen eighties, they along with Phillip's brother Daniel, turned their focus to protesting nuclear weapons. They employed many of the same tactics they had used for protesting the Vietnam War, including breaking into nuclear weapon

manufacturing facilities and pouring blood on equipment. Philip Barrigan died at age seventy nine on December sixth, two thousand and two. Daniel Berrigan died at age ninety four on April thirtieth, twenty sixteen. Elizabeth McAllister is still alive. Her last interaction with the legal system was her twenty nineteen conviction for breaking into a nuclear submarine base. Ekba Ahmah died on May eleventh, nineteen ninety nine, after a lifetime spent teaching

political science and speaking out against war and imperialism. His writings influenced other prominent thinkers, including Edward Sayid and Howard Zinn, father Joseph Wenderroth, and father Neil McLaughlin returned to Baltimore to continue their work as priests. They are both now retired. Anthony and Mary Skoblick seemed to have led more private lives after the trial. During the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies, the country struggled to figure out how to respond to

protests over the Vietnam War. America has long been a land of protesters. Some of the most famous acts of the country's founding were acts of civil disobedience, but exactly who is allowed to protest and how they are allowed to do so are hotly debated issues. I agree with the protesters, but not with how they're protesting is a

common refrain during fraught times. The theologian Robert McAfee brown, writing about the Barrigin's destruction of draft records in Catonsville, Maryland, said that the action was meant to be quote a vivid reminder of what has happened to the collective conscience

of our nation. We are outraged when paper is burned, and we are not outraged when children are burned, But the ethical stakes for burning paper are very different than those for kidnapping and bombing, and ethical considerations are often different than legal ones. Prosecuting protesters who commit illegal acts is as much an American tradition as protesting itself. The system must have integrity, said the Attorney General in the

nineteen sixties. It never seemed wrong to me that the rou and Gandhi weer prossecus, or that they went to jail. That was their point. They so disagreed with their government that they would sacrifice freedom itself to show their concern. The speaker there was none other than Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General and defense attorney for the Harrisburg Seven. The pattern of protest and prosecution, writes William O'Rourke in his book The Harrisburg Seven and the New Catholic Left, was

a symbolic one. Church and state are practitioners of myth and icon. The activists of the Catholic New Left carry out their symbolic acts of resistance. The government responds with its own. Each side used its own unique powers and tools to either upend or uphold the status quo. For the most part, each side understood the rules of the other.

The Barrigins had upended this balance by choosing to run instead of surrenders for their prison sentences in nineteen seventy, but the government in prosecuting the Harrisburg Seven committed an even graver violation. In this case, the government responded disproportionately to a basically non existent threat. There is no evidence that any of the defendants ever seriously planned to carry

out a kidnapping or a bombing. Had j Edgar Hoover not used the alleged threat of these attacks as leverage to get more funding from Congress, it's likely that no prosecution would have occurred. Hoover's power was so great that it subverted the rule of law right Jack Nelson and Ronald Astro quote. When a nation that prides itself on being a system of laws, not men, permits itself to be so corrupted, the portents are ominous. We often see

this issue on a smaller scale. The personal whims and biases of judges, attorneys, and jurors can radically shape the outcome of a trial, But rarely do we see this kind of personal influence on his grand or as a disturbing of a scale, as we do in the trial of the Harrisburg Seven. That's the story of the United States v. The Harrisburg Seven. Stick around to learn a fun fact about one of the Berrigan Brothers musical legacy.

In nineteen seventy one, Paul Simon was hard at work on his second solo album, best known at that point as a member of the duo Simon and Garfunkel. Simon's first solo album had only been released in England. This second album would be getting an American release, and it was Simon's chance to define his own voice outside of his partnership with Our Garfuncle had to make something good.

Fortunately for Simon, he did. The album, titled Paul Simon, debuted in January nineteen seventy two and was critically acclaimed. It took a little while for sales to catch up with the buzz, but the album made it to number four on the Billboard Pop Album chart. The album has remained a classic and was certified platinum in nineteen eighty six. One of the best known songs from Paul Simon is the album's second single, Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard.

The song tells the story of two boys breaking a law. What law exactly is never made clear, With Simon saying in a nineteen seventy two Rolling Stone interview, I have no idea what it is. Something sexual is what I imagine. After the boys are reported to the police by a woman called Mama, they are arrested. Fortunately a radical priest comes and gets them released, and they all end up on the cover of Newsweek. And yes, it was very hard to read that line without singing. But you don't

want to hear me sing. Some commentators have theorized that the song tells the story of two gay teens getting kicked out of their house, and they have also suggested that the radical priest who gets the pair released is none other than father Daniel Berrigan. The biggest hint is the line about ending up on the cover of Newsweek.

In nineteen seventy one, during both the Harrisburg seven fiasco and Paul Simon's album recording process, an image of Daniel and Philip Barrigan appeared on the cover of Time magazine, paired with the headline rebel Priests the Curious case of the Barrigins. The song may very well not be about gay men, and the radical priest may not be Daniel Berrigan.

Simon has never confirmed nor commented on either claim. But if these theories are true, the Me and Julio down at the Schoolyard, besides being a very catchy tune, is also nice foreshadowing for Daniel Berrigan's later career. In the nineteen eighties, in the midst of the AIDS epidemic, when the cause and treatment of AIDS was still unknown, and while those affected were largely shunned by society, Daniel Berrigan began volunteering at the aid's hospice program at Saint Vincent's

Hospital in New York City. He spent twelve years working with the sick and dying, treating them with love and compassion. In nineteen eighty nine, he wrote a book about his experiences, Sorrow Built a Bridge, Friendship and AIDS. At a time when so many, including the American government, wilfully ignored the crisis or blamed its victims for their fates, Daniel Berrigan once again turned his face towards suffering and did what he could to alleviate it. Thank you for listening to

History on Trial. My main source for this episode was Jack Nelson and Ronald j Astro's book The FBI and the Barrigans, the Making of a Conspiracy. For a full bibliography, as well as a transcript of this episode with citations, please visit our website History on Trial podcast dot com. History on Trial is written and hosted by me Mira Hayward. The show is edited and produced by Jesse Funk, with supervising producer Trevor Young and executive producers Dana Schwartz, Alexander Williams,

Matt Frederick, and Mira Hayward. Learn more about the show at History on Trial podcast dot com and follow us on Instagram at History on Trial and on Twitter at Underscore History on Trial. Find more podcasts from iHeartRadio by visiting the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.