◆ SpookStack

"nae : 2 Co F. X. O'Brien Memo to Mr. Moore . _ AEE, RE: WEARNAP | : oo - = mg@chine gun bullets, in Englewood, California “after shop-. 1§fting an 89¢ pair of socks. Police on 5/17/74 ah FBI. |S Agents, acting on information developed from parking , tickets left in an abandoned van surrounded the;SUA‘in a*pouse in Los Angeles, California. After numerous warnings t6x/ surrender, tear gas canisters were fired into the ‘house and, & gun battle followed. A fire broke out in the house,’ and when it was finally controlled six bodies were found “in the rubble, all of whom had died of gunshot wounds, burns, or smoke | inhalation. On 5/20/74 a Federal complaint and warrant were. issued in Los Angeles, Californias’ for Hearst's arrest for violation of the National FirearmszActsand on 6/6/74 a Federal Grand Jury at San Francisco, Califorfia} returned an indictment against her for bank robbery at ‘which’ time.a warrant was _ issued for her arrest. These warrants<remained in effect until they were executed by FBI Agents Om, 9/22/74. —_ : BP _ The Department of Justice had under consideration the possible prosecution of Jack and Micki Scott and others for violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1071 {(Concealing a Person From Arrest;*smore commonly known as the Federal Harboring Statute) basedk,upon their harboring Patricia Hearst at a farm near Lake Ariel %.Pennsylvania, in the Middle Dis- trict of Pennsylvania duningsthe summer of 1974 while she was a Federal fugitive. Whilésin a fugitive status she was — harbored by Jack Scott and his wife, Micki, in various lo- cations from Berkeley, California, to New York City, New York, to South Caanan, Wayne County, Pennsylvania, to Las Vegas, Nevada. As in most harboring cases, the difficult elements -to prove relate to the knowledge of the suspects of the exis-~ tence of? the Federal warrant. ‘The Department of Justice felt that intorder. toxsuccessfully prosecute this matter that there must be Strong independent evidence to corroborate the Ys, testimony ‘of Patricia Hearst, the principal witness, and who would be partictilarly vulnerable on cross-examination. They _ also advised that’ this prosecution would not be routine in that they could expect that Attorneys William Kuntsler and Margaret Ratnor would represent the Scotts and that they would present a very vocal litigious and vexatious defense. In an effort to secure strong corroborating evidence, numerous interviews were conducted, however, sufficiently hard evidence to “.Stiecessfully prosecute was not obtained. — a . , . . antes 13 ae Be a enna) RR Gee Ye PEE gh MT PaO pe age ee Re ee ng nays Pig aan te ay PS EEE alin rg TS te Sa vk a St ata Rae ete Sika Rent es ea 5 Be See CEST Rig Ma ig te ing ; Fe