Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Convicted RFK assassin Sirhan Sirhan seeks prison release

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 01:55 AM
Original message
Convicted RFK assassin Sirhan Sirhan seeks prison release
Source: CNN

Sirhan Sirhan, convicted of the 1968 assassination of presidential candidate Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, should be freed from prison or granted a new trial based on "formidable evidence" asserting his innocence and "horrendous violations" of his rights, defense attorneys said in federal court papers filed this week.

In a U.S. District Court brief, Sirhan's lawyers also say that an expert analysis of recently uncovered evidence shows two guns were fired in the assassination and that Sirhan's revolver was not the gun that shot Kennedy.

Attorneys William F. Pepper and Laurie D. Dusek also allege that fraud was committed in Sirhan's 1969 trial when the court allowed a substitute bullet to be admitted as evidence for a real bullet removed from Kennedy's neck.

The attorneys further assert that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to be a diversion for the real assassin and allege that Sirhan would be easily blamed for the assassination because he is an Arab. Sirhan, 67, is a Christian Palestinian born in Jerusalem whose parents brought him and his siblings to America in the 1950s.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/26/justice/california-sirhan... /
Refresh | +19 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. Uh huh
Fuck him.
He knew exactly what he was doing.
Let him rot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. So, even if there is evidence of another assassin, we should just let it go? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. If there was evidence, there would be evidence. There isn't.
The JFK assassination theories are bad enough, but RFK was shot in the middle of a pretty crowded room, where Sirhan walked up and put a gun to his head. It's not like there was room for a black ops team to hide in the corner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Apparently there is evidence, a sound recording surfaced that clearly shows 13 shots fired...

undoubtedly, you will claim they are echoes or something. We'll see if the court accepts the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
44. In no telling of the assassination did Sirhan "put a gun to RFK's head."
Maybe you need to inform yourself before posting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
57. The autopsy says the bullet hit RFK an inch behind his right ear &
was fired from a distance of no more than three inches. No eye witness nor photographic evidence puts Sirhan in a position to fire that bullet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #57
79. Where does it says that in the report?? I can not find it
Here is the autopsy report:

http://www.sirhansresearcher.com/i.pdf

Bullet wound #1 showed no powder present, but Bullet Wound #2 does show some powder residue, all consistent with a pistol fired three feet away.

The fatal bullet is reported to have entered the Right Mastoid region, Two additional bullets entered Right Axillary region,

The Mastoid region is just around the ear, the Axillary area is the medical term for Armpit.

Sorry, all that implies a bullet from the front, that hit Kennedy as he was turning his head. Politicians do this all the time as they reach out to shake people's hands. Thus the three bullets could have come from the front (Where all the eyewitnesses report it came from).

As to the audio report of 14 gunshots, another expert hearing the same tapes, said they were only 8 (Sirhan used a 8 round pistol). Thus not conclusive evidence of anything except that bullets were fired on that day.

Sorry, the evidence, not speculation or analysis of the evidence, tend to show one thing, Sirhan acted alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
73. You think the JFK assassination has been explained?
If so, that's amazing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
81. witness testimony places him no closer than 3-6 feet away. RFK was shot point blank...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
84. Is there any conspiracy, no matter how much proof, you will at least look into?
Not all things are what they seem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zentrum Donating Member (125 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. Regardless of how much he was
...or was not involved, I'm glad the assassination is getting a second investigation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
4. Hmm... no. Fuck him. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
5. The 1% would *never* conspire to assassinate a Kennedy
or a King -- or stage a false flag "attack" against the US to get their wars on. Nope, they'd never do that.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Oh yes, those poor, humble, working-man Kennedys.
Of course, if your point is that the 1% are greedy bastards who conspire against themselves, well, that I'd agree with, but the Kennedy's weren't exactly part of the 99%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #8
29. Straw man. The issue posed was the 1%ers might well assassinate Kennedys. No one said Kennedys were
99%ers.

All 1%ers are not equal to each other, either.

For example, Prescott Bush and FDR were very different from each other, vis a vis 99%ers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #8
31. Julius Caesar was not exactly the 99% look what happened to him.
Edited on Sun Nov-27-11 08:15 AM by gordianot
Oh for the good old days when the rich did their own dirty work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
37. Actually, the Kennedys were nouveau riche, not to mention Irish Catholic.
So, although Joe had earned his millions selling hooch during prohibition, he wasn't exactly a member of the 1% of the 1% club. Just so ya know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #5
35. Fallacy Alert! Fallacy Alert!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
7. "hypno-programmed"?
Yeahbutno. You're still delusional, and a danger to society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Fantastic Anarchist Donating Member (953 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. How do you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Because people using dog-whistle terms of the cold war are not sane.
"Mind Control" is propaganda, to all but the mentally ill, who believe it is real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. So Victor Marchetti...

a former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA, was mentally ill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Marchetti
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. Yes.
Next question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Then what about when the Church Committee investigated MKULTRA...

was that just a mass delusion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #25
65. No, but wild outlandish claims about MKULTRA certainly seem to be.
I've used most of the "mind control" drugs that came out of it. For fun.

The claims made about it are sometimes mis-leading at best, and often symptoms of delusion. Wikipedia has a pretty good take on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA

In short, people who are mentally ill often assume that all drugs which affect their illness are some form of conspiracy, because their thinking patterns are altered when they are medicated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. ok, so I can understand why Sirhan may be paranoid, if he was subjected to certain drugs...

but in fact "mind control" for the purpose of assassination was one of the objectives during the earlier Project Artichoke, as is documented in my other post. We can't find out that much about MKULTRA because Richard Helms destroyed most of the documentation, other than what can be gained by talking to witnesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. Artichoke has an article as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE

The "assassination" angle is Hollywood bullshit, though. It's much easier, cheaper, and simpler to pay (or otherwise support) an adversary. I can see how some folks would think that it's "brainwashing", to find some disgruntled nut and give them a gun, but disgruntled nuts are everywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. Mentioned in the wiki article:

"the scope of the project was outlined in a memo dated January 1952 that stated, "Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self-preservation?"<3><4><5><6><7>"

The assassination angle is indicated in the declassified document of an experiment I linked to in the post below.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #69
71. Idiots can be placebo-effect convinced into being idiots.
Yeah, no new science there.

Your link is to *known* scam science.

Sure, any country, nation, whatever, can use it, but it's still a scam, bullshit.

Humans are facile things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #71
74. It sounds like you don't believe in hypnosis...

some people are more susceptible to hypnosis than others, but I wouldn't qualify them all as idiots, and I've seen some very impressive demonstrations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #74
180. I have never in my life seen a credible demonstration.
However, I will reserve judgment until it has been applied to me, in a controlled experiment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #68
77. I think the point was to be able to frame a "lone wolf"...

with a paid adversary the money could be tracked down or the adversary may eventually talk. The last thing they want is any hint of a conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. I suppose this declassified document is a figment of my imagination...

http://www.wanttoknow.info/mind_control/foia_mind_contr...

Most of what we know about seems to come from Project Artichoke which eventually turned into Project MKULTRA. Unfortunately Richard Helms had most of the documents destroyed that dealt wih MKULTRA, prior to the Church Committee. Why were Richard Helms and Richard Nixon so paranoid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Fantastic Anarchist Donating Member (953 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. That's a non-sequitur and red herring.
I'd like to know how you know that he's still delusional and a danger to society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. He thinks he is real.
That's a place to start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CEO Watson Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 04:54 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. darren brown did a cool show about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. meh, lame.
"I can talk an idiot into being stupid" is not mind control.

If you are suffering from "mind control", you are a moron, or mentally ill. Pick one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #24
47. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SoDesuKa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
9. Forty-Three Years Is Plenty
Sirhan Sirhan has served 43 years in prison. That's plenty of punishment for any crime, especially a political assassination in the middle of a war.

I don't believe the cause of equality is served by keeping the killers of celebrities in prison longer than the killers of ordinary people. Sirhan would have been released years ago if his victim had not been a Kennedy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. An iniquity, yes.
But I don't think I would rectify it in the direction you are hoping.

Things are not precious. Human life is. It should be protected accordingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. He could have gotten the death penalty in many states.
He belongs where he is. Kennedy wasn't just a "celebrity." His death wasn't just loss to his family; it was a loss to the whole political system -- and the penalty should be commensurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #15
42. Sirhan was, in fact, sentenced to death
His sentence was commuted to life with the possibility of parole when the Supreme Court of California ruled the death sentence unconstitutional (as were all people then on death row in California).

Given the commuted sentence, he should have the same possibility of parole as others charged in similar cases (i.e., first degree murder of one person).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. What was his reasoning?
I've never really followed it. Was he upset about Vietnam, something else? was he just nuts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
83. MKULTRA
Look it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
21. Charles Manson is still in prison
His followers murdered Sharon Tate and others a little more than a year after the RFK assassination, in the same state, same city.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #21
41. Charles Manson
was convicted of conspiracy in more than seven murders. He also had an extensive criminal record at the time of the crime (he was a predicate felon), and clearly remains a danger to society by any definition. Finally, Manson is not an appropriate comparison because the Manson crimes are similarly notorious.

A much better argument would be to find a person with no criminal record (like Sirhan) who shot and killed one person in 1968, and assume that the crime did not receive much notoriety. If you find somebody like that still in prison in California, then you'd have a point. I suspect you wouldn't. Manson is not a strong support for your implied argument here, if you're attempting to dispute the fact that Sirhan's length of time served is unusual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #9
32. I believe killing a Presidential candidate should be punished more than other killings.
Someone who is desperate might take, say, twenty million bucks in exchange for spending 20 years in prison.

It is a less likely that someone who knows he or she will be in prison for life would assassinate a candidate for money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #32
43. You might believe that, but Sirhan was convicted of first degree murder
not some special crime of murdering a presidential candidate.

His sentence is for a specific instance of that crime, and should therefore be viewed the same as sentences of others charged and sentenced for the same crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
40. Agreed
The same is true of "celebrity" killers. if they are not predicate felons or a danger to society, the notoriety of their crimes should not be a factor in parole. Leslie Van Houten would also be on this list of people serving far longer sentence than they otherwise would had their crimes not become notorious through the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
54. There's a difference between 'celebrities' and politicians - either running for office or in office
Edited on Sun Nov-27-11 07:04 PM by nini
Of course the punishment should be more severe or else it's open season on democracy and there's already enough corruption in the process as it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #9
63. He might as well have been convicted of Treason. A capital crime. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 03:46 AM
Response to Original message
14. He put a gun to Kennedy's head and pulled the trigger.
I don't care who else may have been involved. He belongs in prison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
45. In no telling of the assassination did Sirhan "put a gun to Kennedy's head."
Where did this come from, that it should appear twice in this thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
unionworks Donating Member (967 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 05:21 AM
Response to Original message
20. "get the gun"!!!
"Break his arm if you have to"!!! I can hear it like it was yesterday. Fuck him. Let him rot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Politicalboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
26. Sirhan was shooting the gun while
Rosie Grear was holding him down on the table. They never checked the gun of the security guard behind RFK. They had too many bullet holes compared to how many bullets could have been fired from gun. But I doubt anything will come of this. Just as fire takes down 110 story building at 10 stories a second with no resistance. Nothing to see here. Just us nuts again questioning our governments "story".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
unionworks Donating Member (967 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. I went to look up "conspiracy"
In the dictionary. It wasn't in there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
30. Who changed RFK's route, so that he passed through the kitchen, where Sirhan was?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
33. never. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
34. Forget about it, Sirhan. You deserve to DIE in that prison cell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MurrayDelph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
36. I can't remember which of his parole appeals it was
where he tried to use the line that Bobby Kennedy would not approve of him being held in prison for so long.


Well, tell you what, Sirhan, let's ask him. Oh, yeah. We can't. Because you FUCKIN' KILLED HIM!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #36
67. Talk about an unlucky guy
There's only one person in America who wants him freed, and talk about bad luck -- he killed him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
38. There are many very serious questions about the RFK assassination
and I hope that this lawsuit helps to inform and educate the general public about them, and prompts more investigation and deeper thinking about our political system.

We are obviously stuck in war mode--as a society, as a country. Like a broken record, we keep finding ourselves in wars that we oppose--unjust wars, horrible wars. Why?

To my mind, it is just too much of a coincidence that three charismatic leaders who opposed war were assassinated within the space of five years--thence to Vietnam and TWO MILLION Southeast Asians and more than 55,000 U.S. soldiers killed.

That alone cries out for better investigations of those assassinations. And when you look into the investigations, you don't go far before you realize that all three investigations were botched--full of holes, full of malfeasance, full of blatant anomalies.

In June 1968, when he was assassinated, RFK was leading a political campaign to end the Vietnam War and had just that day won the California primary and was headed to the presidency. RFK was even more charismatic than his brother and would have won that election hands down. MLK, who was assassinated a few months before Bobby, in March 1968, had made the decision to openly oppose the Vietnam War, against advice of his counselors (who told him to stick to "civil rights'). This was VERY IMPORTANT opposition to the war--bringing together the huge civil rights movement, supported by many white "northerners" and religious and human rights groups, and, not incidentally, many black soldiers, recruits and draftees, with the growing anti-war movement. RFK (big supporter of the civil rights movement) and MLK (leader of the civil rights movement) were IN ACCORD on opposing the Vietnam War and bringing these issues together to stop what was palpably a racist war in Vietnam (against "the gooks") and egregious racism at home against Black Americans.

JFK (assassinated five years earlier)--as meticulously documented by James Douglass (in his recent book, "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters")--had fired the CIA Director over the invasion of Cuba, had struggled alone (except for Bobby) against nuking the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis, had opened backchannels to Nikita Krushchev (to get around the CIA) to avert Armageddon and to begin nuclear disarmament (with the "Nuclear Test Ban Treaty"), had signed orders to de-escalate the U.S. military presence in Vietnam just before he was killed and was planning to run on a platform of world peace in the 1964 election. He had judged that the American people were ready for world peace and would support such a platform. To superficial appearances, in that era (early 1960s), this was a "pie in the sky" misjudgment--but he was absolutely correct. A year after his assassination, LBJ won one of the biggest presidential landslides in history on exactly that platform: Peace! I remember this well--it was my first vote for president. LBJ sold himself as the candidate of peace (against "trigger happy" Goldwater). And I voted for LBJ because of that. I voted for peace--as did something like 60% of the American people. Most of us didn't know that he was lying and was already planning escalation of Vietnam into a major war.

What Douglass establishes beyond question is that JFK--if he had lived to run in that election--would NOT have been lying. He intended to turn the United States away from war. He intended to END the "Cold War"--both the constant threat of Armageddon and all the "local" wars associated with it. Though he had been a "Cold Warrior" himself, he CHANGED. (And so did his brother.) JFK was the first--and has been the only-- president to face Armageddon (decision whether or not to trigger an all-out nuclear war). ALL of his advisors (except Bobby)--the Joint Chiefs--wanted to nuke the Soviet Union while they had missile superiority. They thought they could "win" such a war, though it meant hundreds of thousands of casualties here. JFK judged them to be mad. He refused, sought peace with Krushchev outside of CIA channels and thus signed his own death warrant.

Douglass also meticulously unravels the murder itself and gets as high as Richard Helms as to direct finger-pointing. He pulls together all existing research and his own original research and convincingly nails the CIA for organizing and carrying out the assassination. In addition, he unravels the coverup of the CIA's guilt. He explains why LBJ (whom he doesn't believe was involved in the assassination) agreed to the coverup. The assassination was designed to force his hand to nuke Russia in retaliation. The false trail led through Mexico back to Russia. Hoover (FBI) stumbled upon it and informed LBJ who immediately saw the need for a coverup, for two reasons: 1) So that he would not come under public pressure to nuke Russia for something Russia didn't do; and 2) to protect the "military-industrial" complex and an already war-dependent economy from scandal, so that the war in Vietnam could commence. Three days after JFK was killed, LBJ stated the following: "Now they can have their war." He was speaking of the CIA and Vietnam.

(Note: The CIA in cahoots with U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge had been ignoring and defying JFK's orders in Vietnam and assassinated the South Vietnamese leader who was leaning toward "neutrality" (i.e., peace with the North) in favor of leaders who wanted the U.S. military to fight a war on their behalf. This had been a CIA creation from the beginning--the division into South and North and the prep for war. JFK only gradually began to understand this, ended up opposing it and this became one more reason to remove him.)

"Now they can have their war"--with no peace-minded president to obstruct them. "Now they can have their war"--as a war profiteer/"patriot" substitute for wiping Russia off the face of the earth.

As Douglass points out, some of those involved in the assassination and some of those who favored war were "patriots" who genuinely considered JFK to be a "traitor"--however insane that may seem to us today. That is true to the tenor of the times as to "military-industrial" complex. Some MIC leaders were cynical, some were venal (greedy), some were near psychotic in their hated of communism and some were simply wrong in their equation of war with patriotism. That is how a number of people were lured into looking the other way, as to the coverup. They thought it essential for the country to maintain a war footing and to "fight communism" as a war. They thought that our civilization was at risk. It is very important to understand this, in looking back fifty years to these events. Good people were sucked into tolerating an assassination--to asking no questions about it, to ignoring a pretty obvious coverup. That this was mental illness--a sickness that poisoned our society to this day--did not occur to them. Having lived through those times, I know exactly what Douglass means by this. Many of those who tolerated the coverup, and even some of those involved in the assassination, could not see the evil in this act and the evil lurking in the shadows behind it.

"JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died And Why It Matters." He died because, though a "Cold Warrior" to begin with, he ended opposing war and he was so popular by the middle of his first term, he would have won the 1964 election in an overwhelming vote for peace and would have started leading the U.S. toward peace, with the people behind him. The "unspeakable" is nuclear annihilation (death of the planet), which he almost single-handedly averted and the "unspeakable" consequence of his own death at the hands of those who disagreed. "Why It Matters" is something for us to consider, today. I will explore this in a moment.

Douglass is writing a trilogy. His next two books will be about the RFK and MLK assassinations.

Looking at these three assassinations, it is my own intuition that they are connected. The three events are quite different in their details but what stands out, in hindsight, is motive--the motive of the assassins in the first one ("to have their war") and their having gotten away with it, which may have prompted them to treat similar threats in the same way--that is, remove the next two charismatic leaders who opposed the Vietnam War and favored peace and justice. I don't know if this will be Douglass' conclusion--but he is such an awesome researcher and writer that, if the trail leads back to those first assassins and is a recoverable trail, I trust that he will find it.

Sirhan Sirhan had no discernible motive to kill RFK and there is strong evidence that he was "programmed." In addition, there were numerous anomalies in that investigation that point the involvement of others. James Earl Ray had racist motives to kill MLK, who was of course hated by those who profited from segregation and black inequality. It is intriguing, though, that MLK led the civil rights movement for well over a decade, with no racist bullet finding him. There were numerous opportunities. MLK was out there "in the streets." Only after he had declared his opposition to the Vietnam War was he murdered. Ray later recanted his confession and MLK's family and others believe that Ray did not fire the bullet that killed King.

At the least, these two successive assassinations--following upon the first--were crushing blows to the progressive movement in the country which opposed unjust war and sought social justice. That fearsome, triple demoralization of our people led like a straight and ugly arrow to the horrendous war on Iraq and to the Forever War that the U.S. is now engaged in.

There is a coda to "Follow the money," and it is "Who benefits?" That is not the best place to start an investigation ("follow the motive") but, in the face of doctored evidence and coverups, it can be a helpful guide. That is where I am with the latter two assassinations. As to JFK, after reading Douglass, there is no question in my mind who did it--the CIA, on behalf of the MIC. Douglass is utterly convincing on this point. Did that motive carry over, five years later, to finish off the anti-war movement for good? It seems quite likely to me--but I will need more information on the connective tissue (if there is such) to be as convinced as I am about JFK's murder. I hope Sirhan Sirhan's request for a new trial is successful and sheds new light on these terrible events. And I very much look forward to Douglass' next two books. We need to do some tough thinking about the second part of his title, "Why It Matters."

JFK faced "the unspeakable" in war (nuclear Armageddon) and suffered the "unspeakable" of politics (assassination by those who had sworn to be loyal). It may not seem to matter all these years later and especially to the young who did not live through those events. But, look around you. Do you see a political establishment committed to ideals of peace, social justice. openness and truth? Do you see a people who have the democratic power to stop unjust war? Do you see a democratic people who can even stop the looting of Social Security and Medicare and all public services? In my opinion, everything that we see that is wrong can be traced back to that stunning injustice on Nov. 22, 1963, when the American people were denied their vote on a genuine platform of peace, followed, five years later, by two more nails in the coffin of peace. We are now on a permanent war footing. It started there--with those unspeakable rips in the fabric of democracy. To me, that is "why it matters." We need to speak them now. We need to put our shredded democracy back together. We need to understand what was done and we need to gather our strength to put our country on a better path.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bitchkitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Awesome post!
I've come to expect nothing less from you. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #38
46. This should be an OP.
You put a great deal of thought into it, and I hate to see it get lost here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
red dog 1 Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #38
49. K & R See Post # 48
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #38
50. +1, the role played by Nixon should not be overlooked...

even before he ran against JFK in 1960 Nixon was setting up Operation 40, and who knows how many other secret black ops programs aimed at protecting the port of New Orleans and invading Cuba. The neocons of the time wanted to start a full on war with the Soviet Union. Nixon assumed he would win the election, but when JFK won and became so popular he and his supporters then dreaded the thought of a decade or more of presidencies under the Kennedy brothers.

As you pointed out, when JFK worked with the Soviet leader behind the backs of the CIA this was viewed as traitorous. Later, RFK began a secret investigation involving French intelligence and the KGB examining the very forces, all surrounding Nixon, who were responsible for the assassination. A book was set to be published about this to help his run for president in 1968. RFK was likely the very first conspiracy theorist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Thanks for the info! I didn't know about RFK's secret investigation.
Could you point me to the source or sources?

Very intriguing. What happened to the book? Was it ever published?

As for Nixon, I think he knew something about JFK's assassination (he refers to it in one of the Watergate tapes) and he and his crowd surely hated the Kennedy brothers but I am not sure what to think of Nixon, lo these many years later (lots of hindsight). What gives me pause is Watergate. I was completely wrapped up in it at the time that it happened and was overjoyed when Nixon resigned. Forty years later--and especially having watched the utter manipulation, lies and propaganda that goes on at the Washington Post now and throughout the corporate media--I'm wondering WHY they let their boy, Nixon, go down.

I'm extrapolating the thorough corruption of the press now, to then; and I'm also seeing the press now--especially the Washington Post (also the Associated Press and others) as mere copiers and pasters of faxes from Langley, and projecting this back to that time. Maybe this is a mistake. Maybe the press was better then. This is true on the matter of Vietnam and on the civil rights movement. The press was better than it is now. But it is not true on the assassinations. Was it true on Watergate? Was Watergate the righteous event that it appeared to be--or was it a palace coup of some kind, for reasons that are not obvious?

What was really going on with Watergate is my question now. I'm not saying that Nixon was a "good guy." He clearly wasn't. And as the launcher of the careers of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, he was a bloody menace to our democracy. Lord, what evil they have wrought! He also doubled the carnage in Southeast Asia before he was through. These are very damning facts. But was the relatively minor corruption of the Watergate incident the real reason that he was removed?

Perhaps I should word that a little differently: Was the breakin and the coverup--which were NOTHING compared to what was going on in Vietnam--the horrendous war profiteering, the horrendous slaughter--just an excuse with which to orchestrate his demise? When you think of what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did, Nixon's Watergate crimes seem very small, indeed. That is one problem of hindsight--perspective. But what may be far important than what Nixon did (re Watergate) are the reasons for and manner of its disclosure. Did that occur as narrated by the press and by Watergate investigators? Or was a decision made, by powerful parties, to oust Nixon, THEN the disclosures were arranged? (Or, was his removal decided upon mid-scandal because of something lurking in the shadows behind Watergate that was threatening to come out--say a trail to one of the assassinations, likely JFK's given Howard Hunt's involvement in Watergate?)

In summary, Nixon's "evil crowd" may have been just one faction--maybe not even a central faction--of the "secret government" that took over on Nov. 23, 1963. If that "secret government" could get away with assassinating the President, then the President's brother and MLK, could they not have protected Nixon if they'd wanted to--and why didn't they? For instance, they could have left John Dean "twisting slowly, slowly in the wind" (his word against Nixon, Ehrlichman and Haldeman) by stopping the disclosure about the tapes. Almost nobody knew that Nixon was being taped. (I'm wondering right now if Nixon even knew--or just pretended that he knew because he would have looked so powerless if he hadn't known.) Was the disclosure of the tapes orchestrated? Was someone or some group pulling the strings?

I just don't buy the notion that those who assassinated JFK, listening to Nixon's tapes, would have at all been "scandalized" by a president arranging "hush money." That kind of information is power. That is how it is seen and that is how it is used. Ousting a president has nothing to do with his breaking the law. Those who assassinated JFK routinely broke the law and their successors still do, even more blatantly. But that is how Watergate was played: Nixon broke the law and therefore had to resign. The more I think about it, the more I think it's bullshit.

One motive that springs to mind is what Nixon may have known about the assassinations. Was Nixon judged to be unstable enough to use that information in a way that it could leak out? Was he blackmailing the CIA with that information? That seems like the "hottest" issue that could have alarmed the CIA, for instance, and prompted a decision to oust another president.

Another possibility is his trips to the Soviet Union and to what was then called "Red China." Both were completely closed off to the West until Nixon visited. Nixon's state visits were enormously important events to those countries. (I was lucky enough to visit Soviet Russia in 1972, just after Nixon visited, and saw and heard for myself what it meant to Russians, who couldn't understand why I and those with me opposed Nixon. They thought he was a great peacemaker!) On the surface anyway, Nixon was accomplishing what JFK was prevented from accomplishment--detente with the Communist East. Was that contrary to CIA and MiC purposes? (It certainly was when JFK tried it.)

I trust the Corporate Press NOT AT ALL, at this point. But I don't know to what extent to project that onto the past. Was the Washington Post just playacting at being real journalists? (Bob Woodward's recent book on Bush Jr makes me think so--among other things.) And my main question: Why wasn't Nixon protected, like all the other agents of the MIC in the White House who have committed horrendous crimes--far worse than Watergate (if spying on the Democrats and trying to cover it up was all that was about)? Reagan oversaw both a patently illegal war (expressly forbidden by Congress) on Nicaragua and horrendous genocide in Guatemala. Virtually every president since Nixon (possibly excepting Jimmy Carter) has had trails of corruption surrounding him and likely committed large and small crimes for which he could have been "gotten." And, of course, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld top them all for blatant crime. All have had immunity. Why not Nixon? Was the Watergate scandal and Nixon's resignation the "last hurrah" for our democracy--a grand triumph of our legal system, proving that no one is above the law (something we are not likely to ever seen again), or was it just another manipulated event and coverup?

I have a lot of serious questions about it now that I didn't have then. What has happened since then profoundly influences my view of it. The thing that disturbs me most is that it did no good--none at all. The presidency just got more and more imperial; the war machine just got more and more powerful; corporations have become countries unto themselves and our political establishment has gone far toward the brink of outright fascism. The "secret government" that assassinated JFK, and probably also RFK and MLK, is still in charge. That is very obvious. And I can't help but think--looking back--that Nixon did something or threatened to do something, that they didn't like. It wasn't likely anything good but it was enough for them to remove their protection. Furthermore, by making Gerald Ford president (a key player in the coverup of JFK's assassination) they may have been putting the final lid on that crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Yes, the book was only allowed to be distributed in the US in 2002...

the title is "Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK". It was originally only published in France, after RFK's death, under the title "America is Burning". The investigation was allegedly sponsored by Jackie and Robert Kennedy with the help of Senator Moynihan. They are all no longer with us, and it's not surprising that the remaining Kennedys remain silent.

Much of the intrigue surrounding plots to kill Castro have been kept secret for national security reasons, and RFK was well aware of this need. Still, he must have had tremendous balls.

Also, HR Haldeman writes that Nixon may have attempted to blackmail Richard Helms with exposing his involvement in the "Bay of Pigs thing". Nixon wanted to have complete control over the CIA because he felt that there were too many liberal factions controlling operations. It's interesting to consider that perhaps those liberal factions may have been involved in ultimately bringing Nixon down, while skillfully keeping any mention of the CIA or "the Bay of Pigs thing" out of the Watergate investigations altogether.

"Farewell America" is available on Amazon.

Info on HR Haldeman:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhaldeman.htm

"In the book he disclosed information on the assassination of John F. Kennedy: "After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic cover-up. The CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA... in fact, Counter intelligence Chief James Angleton of the CIA called Bill Sullivan of the FBI and rehearsed the questions and answers they would give to the Warren Commission investigators.""
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #38
51. A Couple of problems with your thread
The first problem is the significance of RFK's win in California. One of the "Reforms" of the 1968 Democratic Convention was that in future conventions (1972 and afterward) the primary method of delegate selection would be in primaries, but that was NOT the case in 1968. RFK could have won every primary in 1968 and still be denied the nomination. The actual Nominee, Humphrey, Johnson's VP, did not even run in ANY PRIMARIES in 1968m yet won the nomination (The main reason was LBJ wanted Humphrey and at that time that was all the nominee needed to get the nomination, it would have been hard to name as a nominee anyone a Seating President of the US and of the same party did not want, the last time that happened was 1896). Thus RFK win could not propel him to the nomination, LBJ opposed RFK and that was enough to deny RFK any chance at the nomination (LBJ still had massive support within the Democratic Party in 1968, something Cleveland did NOT have in 1896 when the Democratic Nomination went to Bryan against the wishes of the then Sitting Democratic President Cleveland).

A second problem is JFK did agree to the overthrow of Diem. Anyone who looked into Vietnam was that Diem understood what was needed to defeat the Viet Cong, but that included NO US TROOPS, even at the increase possibility of the Viet Cong winning the war. The Military situation was deteriorating in Viet Nam, Diem policy was to strengthen his supporters, attack both the Communists and any other opponents (including the Buddhists) and thus survive till a better situation develops. The CIA just saw a Viet Cong Victory without massive US intervention. JFK agreed to the over throw of Diem, only LBJ opposed it (On the ground one does NOT kill a friend, given the hatred the Kennedys and LBJ shared to each other, LBJ's opinion was ignored). With Diem's overthrow the US was going into Vietnam after the 1864 election no matter who won the Presidency.

LBJ was a constant poll watcher, when the Majority of Americans, for the first time, started to believe it would be better to pull out of Vietnam, LBJ actually started to pull troops out. LBJ still viewed Viet Nam as his "Who Lost China" issue and thus wanted to show he did all he could to win the war ("Who Lost China", was the slogan used in the 1950s by the GOP against the Democratic Party, blaming Truman and the Democrats for the Red Chinese taking over China in 1949, it was still the Slogan of choice even during the 1968 campaign, it was 1972 when Nixon went to China and killed the slogan he had run on for over 20 years by that date).

Thus LBJ was trying to resolve a problem even Solomon would have had a problem resolving, how do you get US troops out of Vietnam (as the Majority of Americans wanted by the Summer of 1968) while staying in power so his Great Society programs could be maintained and expanded AND not be blamed for losing Vietnam? IF RFK had won the Presidency he would have had the same problem (Through RFK;s commitment to the Great Society Program was less then Nixon's). How do you solve that problem? LBJ saw the demand for withdraw from Viet Nam as a sure sign of Defeat for the Democratic Party. LBJ appears to have accepted as early as 1963 that Vietnam was un-winnable, but in 1963 the vast Majority of Americans were still following JFK's call to fight communism every where including Viet Nam.

Thus the dilemma, any President who won in 1968 would have faced. Nixon ended up winning the Presidency, but LBJ was able to keep the House and Senate solidly Democratic. This saved the "Great Society Program" till Reagan. When Nixon had to make a choice, end the war in Viet Nam or let the US Dollar go above $35 to an ounce of gold (The price since 1934), Nixon decided Viet Nam as worth it, thus you had the inflation of the 1970s, do to Nixon's refusal to keep LBJ's last year tax increase (Which balanced the budget) and went into deficient spending (Which had the side affect of strengthening the Presidency as oppose to Congress).

Second problem is the number of "bullets" fired. Glass reflects sounds thus some of the bullets heard and recorded could be echos of earlier firings (i.e. within seconds hearing two or three firing when only one round was fired do to echos). The weapon used was NOT a Magnum, thus some of the so call "bullet holes" reported could be from other causes, i.e. some one used a pencil to make a similar holes. Some of the "Bullet holes" could be just defective parts of the wood the holes were found in. Thus the number of bullets fired is hard to determined by mere sound or holes, actual bullets would have to be recovered. Thus no conclusive evidence has come out to show that Shooter could NOT have fired ALL of the bullets.

Furthermore all of this is a minor issue as to this shooter, for under California law, even if a Victim, acting in self defense, shots and kills an attacker, any co-attacker is guilty of that other attacker's murder. i.e. you and your partner robs a place, and your partner gets shot by the owner, you can be tried and convicted of Murder of your partner in California, even if neither of you fired a single shot. Thus if the gun that actually killed RFK had been the gun of one of his body guards, Sirhan would still have been guilty of murder under California law. California has one of the broadest reaching Felony-Murder rule in the Nation.






Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
red dog 1 Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. A Couple of Problems with YOUR Thread!
Edited on Sun Nov-27-11 06:42 PM by red dog 1
1) You stated "thus RFK win could not propel him to the nomination, LBJ opposed RFK, and that was enough to deny RFK any chance at the nomination (LBJ still had massive support within the Democratic Party in 1968)"
What is your source for this statement?

LBJ did NOT have "massive support within the Democratic Party"; ; in fact, in 1968
The Democratic Party was deeply divided regarding the War in Vietnam.

"In the New Hampshire Primary, when Senator Eugene McCarthy scored 42% to Johnson's
49% in the popular vote (and 20 of the 24 New Hampshire delegates to the Democratic National Convention) it was clear that deep division existed among Democrats on the war issue." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McCarthy

2) You stated "JFK agreed with the overthrow of Diem, only LBJ opposed it."
Again I ask, what is your source for this?

In his book, The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond...by Peter Dale Scott,
Scott writes "On November 20, 1963, the Kennedy Administration publicly announced plans to WITHDRAW between 1000 and 1300 troops from Vietnam by year's end.
After JFK was killed, the Johnson Administration not only quietly canceled these plans, but also replaced them with high-level planning for covert ESCALATION and EXPANSION of the war into North Vietnam."

3) On the Robert F. Kennedy assassination,
you stated "No conclusive evidence has come out to show that shooter could NOT have fired ALL of the bullets."
For a third time I ask "What is your source for this?

"There is no doubt in our minds that no fewer than 14 shots were fired in the pantry on that evening; and that Sirhan did not in fact kill Senator Kennedy," said Robert Joling, a forensic scientist who has been involved in the RFK case for over 40 years. He and acoustic forensic expert Philip Van Praag have published a book on the subject called "An Open and Shut Case."
http://anopenandshutcase.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Humphrey still had more delegates then Kennedy even after California,
Here is the map of 1968 Primaries, notice 36 of the 50 states (72%) did NOT have a primary in 1968:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_ (United_States)_presidential_primaries,_1968

Robert Kennedy had won four traditionally REPUBLICAN states (California, Nebraska, Indiana and South Dakota, Yes, California was a traditional GOP state at that time, just as Texas was a traditional Democratic State. in fact in the fall election Nixon would win California AND Humphrey would win Texas in 1968).

Kennedy was already behind Humphrey in the number of delegates even AFTER California, that is how much support Humphrey had in the Caucus states.

The biggest problem was Robert Kennedy's lack of support in DEMOCRATIC leaning states, of the 14 states having primaries in 1968, California,Oregon, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Florida, Nixon in the fall election would win all but Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Thus the 1968 primaries were a better indicator of how the GOP would do in the fall election then any Democratic candidate.

A similar situation developed in 1972, McGovern won the Nomination via the Primaries, but then lost every state in the Union except Massachusetts to Nixon in 1972, my Father noted that in some voting districts in Pittsburgh Pa, Nixon received almost 1/2 of the votes, something unheard of before or since, that is how much McGovern was opposed among Democrats in the Mid-West. One of the the old joke about Pittsburgh is that it is a Mid-West City located in an Eastern State. The primary reason for this is that do to the Appalachian Mountains, it is easier and often faster to go to Chicago then go to Philadelphia from Pittsburgh, yet Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are in the same state. This division was best seen in the 1980 Pennsylvania Primary, every group that went for Edward Kennedy in 1980 in the Eastern half of Pennsylvania, went for Jimmy Carter in the west. Kennedy had way less support in the Mid-West (Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, Minneapolis/St Paul) then he had on the Coasts, and that was a problem he could NOT find a way around.

My favorite observation was the report of Robert Kennedy's campaign manager, Larry O'Brien, who thought even after the win in California Robert Kennedy's chance of winning the nomination was slim. (His observation is reported in the Wikipedia report reference above).

Sorry, Robert Kennedy was BEHIND in the delegate count even with his win in California, and Humphrey was winning because the key to the Nomination in 1968 was still the Caucuses, and Kennedy was losing the fights in the Caucuses.

2. I use the term "CONCLUSIVE" deliberately for a mere opinion, even based on the evidence is NOT enough, you have to SHOW with CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence that anyone but Sirhan did the shooting AND NO SUCH EVIDENCE IS KNOWN. All of the evidence can be explained by Sirhan being the only shooter, this includes dismissing the "14" shots as echos and/or holes in the plaster/Wood do to other causes. You may not LIKE that standard of review, but it is the standard the courts would demand in any trial as the one Sirhan is seeking (Remember Sirhan was CONVICTED and the appeals of that conviction was done decades ago, thus the burden to re-open the trial is on him to show he is innocent NOT on the state to show he is guilty. That is the standard of review as Sirhan's case stands today.)

Given that level of "proof" I have NOT seen any "Conclusive" evidence to show someone else did the shooting. You may NOT like that explanation of the evidence, you may reject that explanation of the evidence, but it is explanation accepted by the Courts and the one that must be disproved.

Side note, while I use the term "Disprove" it is not quite the legal test at this type of trial. Given this is a request for a new trial based on new evidence the Court and the Prosecution can also reject the above explanation. At this type of trial the burden in on Sirhan to show he did NOT commit the crime or could not have committed the crime, i.e. he is innocent, which is a much harder burden of proof then he had when first arrested, when the burden was on the STATE to show Sirhan was guilty of the crime. Given that the evidence can be explained with Sirhan being the sole shooter, it is a tough burden of evidence to show and more likely then not the Court will uphold the Conviction based on the unpleasant fact the evidence CAN be explained by Sirhan being the single Shooter. If the Court finds that the evidence can be explained by whatever theory the court wants to adopt and that theory includes Sirhan being a Shooter, then his conviction must be upheld. This is why he has sat in a California Jail since 1968, hard to prove he is innocent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
red dog 1 Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #56
61. Humphrey had more delegates, so fucking what? Poimt is, Caesar Killed RFK!
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 01:07 AM by red dog 1
Caesar had been employed by the Ace Guard Service to protect Robert Kennedy at the Ambassador Hotel.

Google:....THANE EUGENE CAESAR......

Also..
See Posts 48 and 53

"The Court allowed a substitute bullet to be admitted as evidence for a real bullet from Kennedy's neck." ...(From Article at top of this thread)

"Substitute bullet"?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
red dog 1 Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #61
64. POINT is, Thane Eugene Caesar Killed RFK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #51
72. Apparently the CIA didn't get the message that Humphrey was a shoo-in.
In 1964, LBJ promised peace. He was lying. He won by baldfaced lying, and by 1968, everybody knew it. The American people wanted peace and they would have gotten it, in 1964, had JFK not been assassinated. By 1968, the country was in flames over the Vietnam War. Look what happened in Chicago around the 1968 Democratic Convention when pro-war Humphrey was given the nomination after Bobby was assassinated (three months before in June). The rage against these events--the war, Bobby's assassination following King's assassination following JFK's assassination--was huge. The country was exploding! That was WHY LBJ quit the presidency. The carnage in Vietnam--a war with no purpose, a racist war, a war profiteer's war--was already horrendous. LBJ could not even convincingly win his own party primary in New Hampshire. Eugene McCarthy--with no money and no serious backing--nearly won it, and his sole platform was ending the war.

It is absurd to assert that LBJ was trying to stop the war. That is the reverse of the truth. And that is why people turned against him--he was totally committed to that insane war--a war invented by the CIA that led to the slaughter of TWO MILLION people and the deaths of over 55,000 U.S. soldiers.

Humphrey was no shoo-in! And that was the problem for the CIA and the MIC. An anti-war candidate with the charisma to win--JFK's brother and successor in wanting world peace--had just won the California primary, one of the most populated, richest and progressive states in the country (where even the Republicans had to act like liberals) and, believe me, he was a threat to Humphrey. The Democratic Party was torn asunder over the war and the only way to heal it was to nominate Bobby. It didn't matter how many delegates Humphrey had in a party that was ripping itself apart. A SURGE was happening--a "draft" as they used to call in the old-fashioned party conventions of the past, where last minute decisions could be made precisely because most delegates were not bound by primary elections. (They could change their minds and often did.) If Bobby had come to the convention with any delegates at all, and with the youth of the country and the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement behind him, it is VERY LIKELY that he would have been nominated and the war-rigged convention of 1968 could not have happened. The "old pols" at that convention were not stupid. Their president had abandoned them, in a sulk over the war. His VP Humphrey was extremely divisive because, though a progressive in other ways, he supported the war. And there was Bobby: The Answer! A man with even more charisma than his brother now leading the peace movement that his brother died for. He would have blown Nixon out of the water in the 1968 election!

But that was not to be. Bang-bang, shoot-shoot.

It is one of the most compelling arguments that RFK was taken down, just like his brother, by the CIA on behalf of the MIC. It is of course not evidence. But as to "who benefits?", it is overwhelming. And, lo and behold, the investigation of RFK's murder stinks to high heaven, just like the investigation of his brother's murder. In dismissing all the huge failures of that investigation, you sound just like the liars of the Warren Commission. And your take on the political climate in this country in 1968 is so off-base that your easy dismissal of the deep investigatory flaws around one of the most important events in our history--the second Kennedy assassination--does not surprise.

There is one other thing to consider, as to 1968. Bobby, dead, could not run in 1972 either. Say the "old pols" had made the stupid decision to go with Humphrey--VP of a discredited and hated president--and rejected the charismatic Bobby. Whether Humphrey or Nixon had then won that hairsbreadth election in 1968, Bobby remained a threat to the war profiteer forces slaughtering people in Vietnam for no good reason. The hope for world peace was cut down indefinitely, by Bobby's murder, and we just witnessed the horrible ripple effect of that act this last decade. No beloved leader of world peace in 1968. No beloved leader of world peace in 1972. No beloved leader of world peace, in the U.S. presidency, ever again, as the war machine solidified its grip on our government. (Carter made some limited world peace moves--i.e., Israel/Palestine--and look what happened to him. All other presidents since Bobby'a assassination have been "war presidents.)

Bobby's murder was a profoundly important event and the slapdash, Warren Commission-like investigation of it a disgrace to this country. I hope Sirhan Sirhan's appeal helps to right that wrong but I don't have much hope that it will. I have more hope in James Douglass to ferret out the truth.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Matilda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #38
58. What you said.
All of them were prepared to rock the boat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #38
59. You certainly raise an interesting debate over motive...
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
red dog 1 Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
48. Thane Eugene Cesar, security guard behnd Bobby, lied about firing his gun, and more.
Edited on Sun Nov-27-11 03:58 PM by red dog 1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/22/kennedy.a... /

The lone gunman explanation has always looked shaky. The autopsy of Kennedy's body suggested that all four shots that hit him came from behind and powder marks on his skin
showed they must have been from close range.
But Sirhan was in front of Kennedy when he fired, and after shooting two shots was overcome by hotel staff, who pinned him to a table. Also, Sirhan fired eight shots in total, yet 14 were found lodged around the room and victim.

"There is no doubt in our minds that no fewer than 14 shots were fired in the pantry on that evening and that Sirhan did not in fact kill Senator Kennedy", said Robert Joling, a forensic scientist who has been involved in the Kennedy case for over 40 years.
He and acoustic forensic expert Philip Van Praag have published a book on the subject called "An Open and Shut Case".
http://www.anopenandshutcase.com

So, if Sirhan didn't kill RFK, who did?

"Thane Eugene Cesar has been consistently cited as the most likely candidate for a second gunman in the RFK assassination."
"Cesar admitted that he did own a 22-caliber H & R pistol, and he showed it to LAPD Sergeant P.E. O'Steen on June 24, 1068.
When the LAPD interviewed Cesar three years later,however, he claimed he had sold the gun before the assassination to a man named Jim Yoder.
William W. Turner tracked down Yoder on October 1972. Yoder still had the receipt for the H & R pistol, which was dated September 6, 1968, and bore Cesar's signature.
Cesar, therefore, had sold the pistol to Yoder three months after Kennedy's assassination despite Cesar's claim in 1971 that he had sold the weapon months before the murder."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert-F-Kennedy-assassina...

See also, "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: The Conspiracy and Cover-up" by William Turner and John Christian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #48
62. wiki articles use underscores as spaces
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
red dog 1 Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #48
70. In Post # 48, Wikipedia link is broken.....Google "Thane Eugene Caesar"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Zorro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
60. Sirhan Sirhan shot RFK merely to gain fame and notoriety
and he achieved his objective.

He will die in prison -- and deservedly so, despite whatever the latest ludicrous claims his attorneys may make.

They are attention whores, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
red dog 1 Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #60
75. Sirhan shot his gun, but did not shoot RFK.
From the article at the top of this thread:

"Attorneys William F. Pepper and Laurie D. Dusek also allege that fraud was committed in Sirhan's 1969 trial when the court allowed a substitute bullet to be admitted as evidence for a real bullet removed from Kennedy's neck.
The substitute bullet was introduced as the actual bullet removed from Kennedy's neck and alleged to have been matched to Sirhan's gun", Pepper said.


From OpEdNews.com, 11/21/06

"Leading RFK Researcher Died With Unanswered Questions"

"Philip Melanson, respected scholar and Chair of the Political Science Department at University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, died of cancer."

"During his career, Professor Melanson authored a dozen books on government secrecy and the assassinations of Martin Luther King and brothers John and Robert Kennedy.
Melanson amassed over 200,000 pages of secret government documents with Freedom Of Information requests over the years and was instrumental in making available to the public the files of the Los Angeles Police Department concerning Robert Kennedy's killing."

"After Melanson got through combing his treasure trove of police reports, he discovered the LAPD had destroyed physical evidence, destroyed 2,400 photographs, destroyed 3,100 taped interviews, and that ballistics tests on the recovered bullets were flawed.
Thane Eugene Cesar, an armed part-time security guard, was standing immediately behind Senator Kennedy at the time of the shooting. Cesar, who owned a .22 caliber pistol, the same caliber as Sirhan's weapon, was not interviewed as a suspect, only as a witness.Cesar's gun was never tested."
Google.."leading RFK assassination researcher Died with unanswered questions"


From Global Research.ca....November 22,2006
"Re-Open RFK Assassination"

"On Monday night, BBC broadcast Shane O'Sullivan's Report on the Robert Kennedy Assassination on their high-profile program 'Newsnight'
Working through an exhaustive analysis of videotape made at the Ambassador Hotel
on the night of RFK's assassination, O'Sullivan identified three figures as former agents of the CIA. Two of the agents O'Sullivan identified could be seen moving away from the hotel pantry shortly after the shooting of RFK.
Following his preliminary identifications,O'Sullivan presented the video images to more authoritative sources, men who knew the three agents personally...
While there was a slender degree of uncertainty (5-10%) the men in the videos were positively identified as David Sanchez Morales, Gordon Campbell and George Joannides.
O'Sullivan interviewed Bradley Ayers, US Army Captain retired, who had been stationed at JM-WAVE, the Miami base for the CIA. In 1963, David Morales was the Chief of Operations at JM-WAVE.
A former researcher with the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Ed Lopez identified Joannides as the person in the Ambassador Hotel video with what he described on camera as 99% accuracy. More, Lopez recalled Joannides' obstructive practice of denying the H.S.C.A. access to crucial documents in the re-investigation of the assassination of JFK.
O'Sullivan did not stop there. Moving to Washington, he met Wayne Smith, a veteran State Department official who had worked with Morales at the US Embassy in Havana in the final year of the Batista regime through the Cuban Revolution in 1959 and 1960. When O'Sullivan asked him to respond to the Ambassador Hotel video, Smith immediately stated "That's him, that's Morales."
From a conversation in 1975, Smith recalled that "Morales stated that JFK deserved to be assassinated". From Smith's testimony, O'Sullivan learned that Morales "hated the Kennedys--because of their cancellation of the air-support for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961"
Google "Re-Open RFK Assassination"..Global Research.ca

Also see Post # 38 by Peace Patriot
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #75
78. George Joannides should also have been a person of interest in the JFK case...

the counter-intelligence division of the CIA helped sponsor the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (via Joannides), the same group that Oswald was affiliated with. The plan may have been to frame Oswald as an agent of Castro in the JFK assassination, so that the American public would then be highly motivated to invade and conquer Cuba.

Here's a taste of the propaganda still going around:

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/23/did-castro-get-kenne... /

For 15 years of my life at the top of the Soviet bloc intelligence community, I was involved in a world-wide disinformation effort aimed at diverting attention away from the KGBs involvement with Lee Harvey Oswald. The Kennedy assassination conspiracy was bornand it never died (Ion Pacepa​, the highest ranking intelligence official ever to defect from the Soviet bloc.)"

We can probably thank RFK for this original conspiracy theory (see my posts above about RFK's secret investigation), and perhaps saving the US from invading Cuba and going to war with the Soviets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
red dog 1 Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. As well as David Morales, and the entire CIA-JM WAVE crew in Florida.
There are many excellent books written on the JFK assassination, including
"With Malice" by Dale Myers, about the shooting of Officer Tippet
"Cover Up", by Stewart Galanor
"Jack Ruby", by Garry Wills & Ovid Demaris
"Deep Politics & the Death of JFK" and "The Assassinations: Dallas & Beyond" by
Peter Dale Scott, often called the "dean" of JFK assassination work, has written
many books on the subject.
"Assassination Chronicles", by Edward J. Epstein

There are other books by people like Jim Marrs' "Crossfire" and Robert Groden's
"The Killing of s President" ...but they contain some material that is pretty wacky.

One of the earliest JFK Assassination researchers was Mae Brussel, who was the first person to categorize the complete 24 volumes of The Warren Commission Report.

She died of Cancer, after receiving many death threats, but her work lives on.
A website dedicated to her work is http://www.prouty.org/brussel /

Lastly, there is a Bay Area researcher named Dave Emory who has hours and hours of taped readings of excellent books on the subject which he presented for years on a public radio station in Los Altos Hills called KFJC-FM..the show was called
"One Step Beyond", and I taped many hours of the show myaself back in the 1980s, when I lived in San Jose......On one of his radio shows, he was talking about the JFK assassination, and got a phone call from someone he had just mentioned on the show,
Gordon Novel, who Jim Garrison tried to extradite from California, but then- Governor Ronald Reagan refused; and also the Republican governor of Ohio refused to extradite another key witness that Garrison wanted to testify; and then Garrison's case lost it's steam...........but tapes from Dave Emory's radio show collection are an excellent source of info on both the JFK and RFK assassinations
The JFK assassination tapes are called "The Guns of November" (Google Dave Emory)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. Another interesting piece of research is...

"What Jane Roman Said" by Jefferson Morley, http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morley1.htm

It seems to provide evidence that the CIA had a keen interest in Oswald prior to the assassination on a need to know basis, with document co-signers all the way up the chain of command to someone who reported directly to Richard Helms.

...

"Convicted of misleading Congress in 1977, Helms spent his retirement seeking to rebut the agencys critics, rehabilitate his reputation, and avoid serious questions about the Kennedy assassination. Helms did his best to make sure none of the details of his own staffs handling (or mishandling) of information about Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 ever leaked out, not to the press, not to the Congress, not even, as we shall see, to a trusted colleague."

...

"The agency's keen interest in Oswald in late 1963, Roman explained, was the result of his involvement with the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee, often known by its acronym, FPCC. The agency had wiretap transcripts proving that the FPCC was funded by the Cuban government, via Castro's delegation at the United Nations in New York. It was Oswald's FPCC activities that most interested the counterintelligence staff in 1963, she said."

...

"Of course, none of this was in the FBI records. At the time of our interview with Jane Roman, Newman and I knew only that the Directorate had received funding from the CIA under a program with the code name of AMSPELL. There was, it turns out, much more to know. All we had was the FBI report on the arrest of Oswald and his antagonists in the Cuban Student Directorate that was forwarded to the CIA. The routing slip showed that Roman signed for it on October 4, 1963."

...

"Castro's grip on power was stronger than ever. There was a consensus in Washington that Operation Mongoose, the Kennedy brothers' first covert program to oust the charismatic communist, was going nowhere. The SAS was created in January 1963 to take over the job. As for tactics, the Kennedy brothers didn't care what SAS did as long as the White House had plausible deniability. The SAS operatives tried everything from assassination conspiracies to propaganda to political action to "psychological warfare," the contemporary term of art for espionage that deceived and disoriented and divided the communists. Along the way, some of the SAS men became interested in the very obscure character named Lee Harvey Oswald."



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
red dog 1 Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #82
183. Oswald was the only member of the New Orleans' chapter ofFair Play for Cuba"
Fair Play for Cuba" was a legitimate pro Castro organization; but they had no New Orleans "Fair Play For Cuba" chapter, and they didn't know Oswald.

Oswald WAS the New Orleans Fair Play For Cuba chapter...no other members, only Oswald.

Dave Emory, the radio "conspiracy journalist" claims Oswald was CIA & that his CIA number was 114669
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
76. Excellent discussion all!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vminfla Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
85. Bullet Was Switched at Sirhan Sirhan Trial, Lawyers Say
Source: KABC

COALINGA, Calif. (KABC) -- Attorneys for Sirhan Sirhan said new evidence proves he did not assassinate Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in Los Angeles in 1968.

The lawyers representing the convicted assassin said in new court documents that a bullet was switched in evidence at trial and new forensic tests show Sirhan is innocent.

They said sophisticated audio tests recently conducted on recordings from the assassination night show 13 shots from multiple guns were fired - five more than Sirhan could have fired from his small pistol.

They are calling for Sirhan to be released from prison or granted a new trial. The state attorney general's office had no comment.



Read more: http://www.kabc.com/Article.asp?id=2343972&spid=38628



I guess his lawyers are giving up on the hypnotism and brainwashing defenses. No doubt Sirhan Sirhan is a fine upstanding citizen and his gun found in his possession at the scene, after it was discharged was just an unfortunate coincidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. Incredible. Talk about a desperation appeal. I doubt it will work. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #86
92. Sirhan was in front of Bobby and his gun was at least three feet away
Bobby was shot from behind and at point-blank range, according to the autopsy report.

Nobody here has any good reason to defend the "Sirhan acted alone" thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. He was there with a gun. Who here said he acted alone? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. That's what all the derisive posts in this thread are implying.
And, again, Sirhan was IN FRONT of Bobby and his gun, according to ALL witnesses, was at least three feet away from Bobby's head. The fatal shot was fired FROM BEHIND and at point-blank range, according to the autopsy report.

And, if you're admitting others were involved, why, then were you one of the people mocking those who believe there was a conspiracy?

You don't have to like Sirhan Sirhan(and I personally don't)to accept the fact that the autopsy report proves that, even if he wanted to shoot Bobby Kennedy(and he may well have wanted to, though the passage in his diary that speaks of killing RFK was in a different handwriting than every other diary entry) he simply couldn't have done so.

We need a REAL investigation of this...and nobody here has any good reason to defend the old explanation, which was obviously based on flawed premises.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #96
101. A conspiracy that he didn't do it and was being "wrongfully accused."
You know, I was watching TV that night, and RFK was turning and talking to people and shaking hands. I have no idea what direction he was facing when the gun went off, frankly, so it doesn't matter if he was "in front" or behind." We know which way RFK was heading, but I don't know for certain what way he was facing.

Sirhan could solve a lot of his problems by naming a few names. Wonder why he doesn't do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #101
112. It's entirely possible that doing that would get his family killed.
You don't think he'd be able to testify with no retribution on any of that, do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #112
115. Maybe--but he could also have let investigators know that, and I'm quite sure they
could have found a way to round up the "real killers" and spare him any involvement....or spirit his family away before his confession was made public.

We do have a witness protection program in this country, and you don't think Israel would not have lent us a hand on that end to make his family disappear? Of course they would have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #115
118. Sirhan may also believe he killed RFK
That belief, however, is irrelevant to the question of whether he actually did so.

There are many reasonable explanations as to why Sirhan wouldn't have named others.

It's also possible, for example(likely, actually)that others who were involved with this wouldn't actually have TOLD Sirhan their names. That would be the logical choice for people involved in such an endeavor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #118
129. You haven't come up with a single reasonable explanation why he would not have named others.
And surely, enough of those "others" are dead by now that he could start chatting?

And you are now suggesting that Sirhan would have blithely entered into a conspiracy to murder the iconic brother of a WORLD icon, with people he didn't even know?

I'm sorry--you're getting further and further into Unlikely Land.

Sirhan was pissed to the extreme about RFK's Israel/Palestine stance. That's what floated his boat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #129
131. The only entry in Sirhan's diary that referenced the "RFK must DIE" idea
was in a DIFFERENT handwriting than EVERY other entry in his journal. Doesn't that strike you as suspicious at all?

Why are you so invested in defending a flawed investigation?

It's not as though taking a new look at this would harm Obama's chances in 2012.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #131
136. Oh, really? You're a handwriting expert, now?
Let's see a link to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #136
148. The links are out there, and it wasn't me making the observation about the handwriting.
You are really obsessed with shutting down any challenges to the official rigged investigation for some reason. There's no reason you should be. It clearly wasn't an open-and-shut case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #148
158. "The links are out there." Is that a riff on that old TV show about aliens?
Your repetitive use of the word "obsessed" doesn't make your assertion true.

Ever hear the expression "Put up or shut up?" It's appropriate to you in this instance. You spout opinions and insults, and call people 'obsessed. mocking LAPD Republicans' if they refuse to hop down the Yellow Brick Road of conspiracy and off-kilter supposition with you.

I'm not taking your proclamations on faith, particularly in light of your conduct on this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #129
132. I made several reasonable explanations
If he didn't know the names of others(which is common in conspiratorial events)he couldn't have given the names. Why do you find THAT so unreasonable? It's not as if they'd want to make it easy for their identities to be revealed, you know.

Do you work for the LAPD or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #132
142. You aren't offering any proof of your suppositions.
He didn't offer up any people, because there weren't any. He surely could have described a few people, at the very least.

Why do you find it "reasonable" that SS becomes a moronic mute after being arrested, unable to tell the police anything to clear himself?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a pissed off Palestinian who kills a Presidential candidate from an iconic American family is just a pissed off Palestinian.

AND....there you go again!! You're getting an F MINUS for "Do you work for the LAPD or something?"

You're entirely incapable of having a conversation without making an asinine accusation about people who don't share your views. You might want to think about that rather unattractive trait of yours, and what it says about you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #96
107. Three feet IS "point blank range."
And none of the actual investigations, by anyone, support your apparent beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #107
111. Wrong.
There was gun shot residue in the hair shavings from Bobby's head. GSR only travels one to three inches out of the barrel of a gun. This proves that the gun HAD to be within one to three inches of Bobby's head.

And the recordings that include thirteen gunshots prove that Sirhan was not the only person in the Ambassador pantry shooting a gun at that moment.

And none of the investigations had serious intent. The police and the feds had already decided that it had to be Sirhan, so they didn't make any real effort to prove anything.

Why are you defending LAPD bullshit from forty-three years ago? This was the Joe Friday "Red Squad" era. Those guys WANTED Bobby dead because he stood up for "N----s" and Chicanos.

There needs to be a new and independent investigation.

The tone of derisiveness, contempt and attempted intimidation in this thread is disgusting. Nobody on OUR side of the spectrum has any good reason to defend the official ruling in the RFK case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #111
117. Attempted intimidation? You were the one who raised the "Only a Republican" flag!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #117
119. Wrong.
The derisive tone of those who were mocking people who have real questions about the official ruling in this case was the attempted intimidation.

Why are you so invested in mocking people who have raised REAL issues and real questions about what happened that night?

It's not an open-and-shut case, and it never was.

Why defend sloppy policework and premature investigative conclusions?

Does it do any harm to want a new, independent investigation into Bobby's murder?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #119
135. No--not wrong. You said it--now own it. Your view is the only one that matters--to you.
And you have no problem calling people names when they don't agree with your POV. When people disagree with you, that doesn't mean they are "mocking" you. "Mock" is not a synonym for "disagree."

Read what you're writing to people. You are the rude and dismissive one. You're using loaded words, and insisting that people are "invested in mocking" and "Only Republicans" every time they challenge your beliefs--and all you've come up with are beliefs and opinions--no facts. You deny that "point blank" range cannot be accomplished from as close as SS was (I don't buy your assertion, either), you treat RFK like an immobile block of wood on wheels when opining about trajectory of bullets, and you ignore eyewitness accounts of "conspirators" like Rosie Grier and the others who subdued SS in the seconds following the shooting.

You respond to none of these rebuttals of your thesis, save to whine "Mock!" and "Republican!" and "Rightwing Police/Shoddy policework!" without offering a shred of actual proof.

That's an "F" for you in DU Debate Class.

Go ahead and make your contribution to SS's legal defense, if you'd like--ask them to put your lucre towards a new investigation, if you feel so strongly about it. Just don't run around insulting people when they won't cheerlead your opinions, and expect anyone to take your arguments seriously with that kind of attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #135
139. You were being derisive before I posted anything
Your whole attitude towards this discussion was that it was silly for anyone to question the infallibility of the original verdict.

Why can't you accept that there ARE legitimate questions here? And why raise the "poor Sirhan" canard when the issue isn't how anyone feels about Sirhan as a human being?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #139
145. Nonsense. You are having as much trouble with the word "derisive" as you were with
"mock."

I can't accept a single, solitary thing you are saying, because you are spouting opinions without offering any proof, inventing scenarios out of your head about families being threatened, and mysterious conspirators who don't bother to use any names, and you are insulting everyone who disagrees with you. That is not how a reasonable person advances a point of view.

The only opinion of value here, in your mind, is yours.

Read what you've written and how you've presented yourself and your opinions. You're the one with the problem, here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #135
144. The reference to Republicans is off the point
You are belaboring it for no reason, as it has no relevance.

This was NOT an open-and-shut case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #144
154. It is not "off the point." It IS the point. You throw an insult when challenged.
It's like flinging shit to distract from a failure to make a point.

I am not "belaboring it," just pointing it out for posterity because you are apparently so blinkered that you are unable to see your bad behavior for what it is.

There is no justification for flinging accusations like "Republican" or "you must work for the LAPD" just because people don't agree with you.

It's a lame, childish practice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #154
157. What was lame was acting as if it is silly to question the flawed investigation
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 05:15 PM by Ken Burch
that led to the flawed verdict in this case.

There's no reason to accept the official result as authoritative or to belittle those who question it. And nobody is guilty of saying or thinking anything remotely similar to "poor Sirhan", and nobody ever was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #157
160. I've invited you to prove your assertions. You answered "The links are out there."
Don't make claims without at least trying to back them up.

What's silly is expecting people to believe your claims just on your say-so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #111
140. Not wrong. You simply have no clue what you're talking about.
The distance that gun shot residue travels outside the barrel depends on the gun, but ranges up to five feet. You also simply don't know the definition of "point blank range," because it has nothing to do with gunshot residue.

And you keep asserting these supposed "facts" which "prove" a big conspiracy, but are unable to cite them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #111
184. "GSR only travels one to three inches out of the barrel of a gun"? Utterly false.
I mean come on now.

Btw, have you ever turned your head?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #96
109. Behind the right ear is not "from behind".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #109
116. It's also based on the path the bullet took inside of Bobby's head
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 04:39 PM by Ken Burch
inside the skull, the bullet fragments traveled upwards and forwards, a direction they could not have taken had Bobby been shot from in front and from a gun fired horizontally or in a slightly-downward direction(since Sirhan was jumping off a steam table when he fired, he would have been forcing the gun down in order to make sure he wasn't firing over everybody's heads).

And actually, a wound being behind the ear would indicate directionality. If a shot was fired from in front of a person and hit that person behind the ear, it would pass through the ear lobe. No damage was done to Bobby's earlobe by the fatal shot.

The coroner was the one who said the shot was from behind and from between one and three inches-not me. There was gun shot residue in the hair shaved from around Bobby's ear-GSR would ONLY be present if the shot was fired from within three inches of the head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #116
134. A coroner is not necessarily a ballistics expert.
That there was powder residue is not terribly surprising, even if 2-3 feet was the distance of the shot. We're talking about a handgun, in .22 caliber. I haven't looked this up, but I'm willing to guess that Sirhan used the most popular .22 cartridge avalable: .22 LR or Long Rifle. You can certainly fire it from a pistol, and there will be material propelled from the barrel, possibly even a fireball visible in low light.

So the powder, and even burns, if present, are not unexpected from 3 feet.

On to the directionality. If you fire from BEHIND a person, and hit them behind the right ear, the bullet will likely not penetrate the skull (remember, this is a sub-50 grain bullet)and will probably cause considerable, painful injury, but not a life threatening wound. If you imagine a compass, from the top down of RFK's head, one would have to fire from 50, to 150 degrees, to produce a wound, behind the ear, that would penetrate significant brain matter. Granted, the .22 can produce 'squirrely' results after penetrating bone as thick and hard as the skull, but there were fragments only, penetrating into the brain. Not a coherent mass.

It is entirely possible, and two investigations have affirmed, RFK was shot by Sirhan.

He can rot in jail for his brutal crime, and we are wasting both time, and electrons discussing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #134
138. The bullet passed through the mastoid process
a porous area of the skull behind the ear, and fragmented as it passed through.

You have also, inadvertently, raised a different point:

If a .22 bullet couldn't have inflicted the head wound, Sirhan couldn't have killed Bobby. Sirhan didn't have any OTHER guns with him that night.

And look, I don't like Sirhan. There is no such thing as a "poor Sirhan" person. I just don't believe, based on the evidence, that he could have succeeded in killing Bobby. Can you not accept THAT as a reasonable position?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #138
143. I didn't say "couldn't have inflicted the head wound"
I said not from BEHIND. I then specified the shot must have come from the side, as his head turned to reportedly shake hands with someone. (I believe the woman pictured holding him on the floor, very shortly after the shooting)

A .22 absolutely can inflict a lethal wound to the head. What it cannot do, is inflict a lethal wound if it doesn't penetrate the skull. Simple geometry. If the impact is behind the ear, you have ruled out someone BEHIND RFK, and no other explanation than someone attacking from the side, relative to his head, will explain it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
udbcrzy2 Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #134
152. Stippling can occur within 3 feet
Sooting can only occur when it's very close (point blank). There would also be abrasion marks (burning into the skin) at both ranges.

If I were shot anywhere, would I be able to stand upright after that shot? I think that I would fall forward or backward but certainly not standing upright after taking a hit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #152
155. Depends on too many factors to list.
People certainly have remained standing, after receiving a gunshot. From larger calibers even.

RFK was able to speak after the wound was inflicted, so I would assume it possible he retained at least some motor control after the hit.


Had he been shot today, I am entirely confident he would have survived, due to our improved understanding of traumatic brain injury. Granted, different region of the brain, but Giffords was hit with a 9mm, which is considerably larger than a .22.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #116
137. And quelle surprise...
"Similarly we find concatenated evidence, some of it apparently false, concerning Sirhan Sirhan and his unusual ammunition at rifle ranges near Los Angeles. Repeatedly Sirhan is said to have talked obsessively with fellow-shooters about his use of high-velocity Mini-mags for target shooting the type of bullet whose casings were extracted from the gun he used at the Ambassador Hotel. Sirhan allegedly told Ronald Williams, These Mini-mags are real good. You should get some of these. <7> Sirhan advised another shooter, David Montellano, that the mini-mags he was firing cost more, but they were hollow points and spread out more upon impact. <8> Michael Saccoman stated that Sirhan brought him over some bullets. They were `mini mags. Hollow points extremely high velocity. <9>

\As in the case of Oswald, there was abundant, almost over-determined corroboration for these claims. Michael Saccoman said Sirhan told him he had bought his mini-mags at the Lock Stock N Barrel store. Larry Arnot at Lock Stock N Barrel confirmed that a sales slip for mini-mags found in Sirhans car (along with an empty box of hollow point mini-mag bullets) was in his handwriting. <10> In addition, Everett C. Buckner, the owner of one range, allegedly said he sold Sirhan a box of fifty .22 caliber Imperial Brand long-rifle mini-mags, made by Canadian Industries of Montreal."

So yes, fired from a pistol, these rounds can deposit both powder, and powder burns from a distance.

I am SHOCKED to discover these were .22 long rifle cartridges. Shocked I tell you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #116
149. I think you may mean "gunpowder residue" rather than
"gunshot residue." Accuracy matters in discussions like this, you know. I'm not even sure what "gunshot residue" might be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #149
151. A bullet!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #149
153. Gunpowder residue is what I meant...but my impression was that
"gunshot residue" was the currently accepted term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #153
156. I don't believe so. Generally terminology used in courtrooms is
accurate in its details. I've never heard "gunshot residue" so used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #156
159. Consider it amended to gunpowder, for whatever it's worth.
The exact terminology I used in this thread has nothing to do with the merits of the issue.

Can we move on now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #159
162. If you're imprecise in one thing, why should I assume that you are
any more precise in others? You've presented no actual evidence - just your view of it.

I'm done with this conspiracy theory discussion anyhow. Do your worst...you're well on your way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #162
164. It's not just "conspiracy theory"
Sirhan couldn't have fired the shot, and no one here has any reason to believe the original verdict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #164
177. In your opinion, Sirhan couldn't have fired the shot.
Fixed your statement for accuracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #162
165. you seriously are trying to destroy that poster's credibility
this case seems very important to you. You obviously can't challenge anything but semantics. Very transparent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #165
168. It just doesn't make sense that anyone on OUR side of the political spectrum
would believe the original verdict, does it?

Why would anyone be this fixated with shutting down discussion?

They've personally attacked me here, and I'm not the issue here at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #168
170. Yeah, I thought of that too
it's why I chimed in... Iyou can see the tactics they use to shut you down, or to try to make you look silly. It's incredibly dishonest and disengenuous. You raise good points, and due to this thread, I will be reading more on this very subject.

So, don't let them get to you. Just keep speaking to people who aren't using FOX news debating tactics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #170
171. I will
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #170
179. "You raise good points"
No, he made unqualified, unsourced statements as if they were self-evident fact.

To re-state, 'raising a point' might be expressing doubt that powder burns or powder residue would be present on RFK's head, from a 3-foot-away shot, not stating as if fact that Sirhan COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SHOOTER PERIOD, because eyewitnesses placed his firearm no closer than 3 feet.

Powder and burns can be projected, and do not require contact. (Also, the coroner could have been mistaken in his distance estimate)
Human memory/testimony is reconstructive, and often flawed. He may have been closer than 3 feet. (He may also have been further away than 3 feet)

Listing sources that contain credible evidence that finds not in favor of the official interpretation of the event, and asking for an independent investigation, is not the same as declaring that so and so COULD NOT have done X.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #168
178. You have made overbroad statements, and several errors thus far, stated as fact.
This is highly annoying, and abrasive to people accustomed to seeking truth.

If you really believe in this cause of yours, it does it no service for you to commit errors in pursuing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #156
163. oh brother
facepalm
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #94
128. If you have been turned into a Manchurian Candidate, and kill someone,
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 04:31 PM by truedelphi
Are you personally guilty?

Of course, in Sirhan's case, we will probably (To quote Janet Reno on every substantive circumstance she answered for during her reign with Clinton): "We will probably never ever know."

But what if it could be proven? Then what?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Ah, conspiracy theory at its very, very best.
Booga-booga!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #87
100. No...hard evidence...
Sirhan's gun, according to all the witnesses, was at least three feet away from Bobby Kennedy's head when the shots were fired. Sirhan was also IN FRONT of Bobby, and cried out "Kennedy, you son of a bitch!" before shooting, an act which would have caused Bobby to look in Sirhan's direction to see who the was cursing at him.

The fatal shot, according to the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Thomas Noguchi, the Los Angeles County Coroner, was fired FROM BEHIND, at POINT-BLANK range(within three inches)of the senator's head.

Everyone else who was wounded was hit from the front, and from several feet away, and thus the wounds of everyone else were likely inflicted by Sirhan.

OK?

No conspiracy theory. Just hard evidence.

What possible reason would you have to defend the official interpretation of the events of that night, when that interpretation is obviously fatally flawed?

You don't have to like or defend Sirhan Sirhan(I certainly don't) to point out the obvious here: while he did wound the others, it was physically impossible for Sirhan to have fired the shot that killed Robert Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #100
110. Cite credible sources for your claims.
Otherwise, you're just portraying fifth-hand hearsay as "evidence."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #110
133. Dr. Noguchi's autopsy report is a credible source.
Noguchi told the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #133
141. Provide a link to a reputable source showing the complete text.
Also, show Noguchi's proof of expertise in ballistics analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #141
175. I hate skeptics more than anything in life
This has MKULTRA written all over it, just like with Ronald Reagan and John Lennon's shooters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #175
185. You seem extremely skeptical of skepticism for some reason.
Check out the link in my sig.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. Hmm, Rosie Grier grabbed the wrong 'guy with a revolver in his hand'?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. Well, natch. It is a wonder how much can be ignored when
a good conspiracy theory is on the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #90
95. Sirhan was in front of Bobby and his gun was at least three feet away from Bobby.
The fatal shot was fired from behind the senator and at point-blank range.

Therefore, Sirhan couldn't have killed Bobby, much as he may have wished to.

There's no good reason for anyone here to defend the "Sirhan acted alone" myth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #95
146. Did Bobby Kennedy have a stiff neck? I hadn't heard that.
If he was unable to turn his head that day, you could have a point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #146
147. Turning his head wouldn't have accounted for Sirhan getting close enough to fire the shot
All the witnesses said his gun was at least three feet away. You can't explain that one away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #147
150. .22 long rifle ammo used in a short barrel pistol.
Can account for both powder burns and powder presence, from a distance.

(also, humans don't have geometrically calibrated eyeballs, and likely are somewhat mistaken at the distance which the shot was fired. A half foot in either direction makes a significant difference)

(to say nothing of, humans have perception and memory issues that come into play for things where, for instance a first gunshot is fired, in which the shot was unexpected, as well as adrenaline response to an incident like an assassination.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #147
161. I don't have to explain anything away. There was a trial involved.
Evidence was presented at that trial. If you want to present something else, please feel free, but you really need to document it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #161
166. Sirhan's lawyers at the original trial made no real defense.
The original evidence was never seriously examined during the trial.

THAT is why we need an independent investigation...and what Sirhan was or is like as a person is totally irrelevant to the need for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #88
93. Sirhan did have the gun, and probably did inflict the non-lethal wounds on the other four people.
The issue is, solely, whether or not he could have killed Bobby. And, according to the autopsy report, Sirhan COULDN'T have killed Bobby, because he was in front of Bobby and his gun, according to all the witnesses, was at least three feet away from Bobby. The shot that killed Bobby was fired from behind and at point-blank range, according to the autopsy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
red dog 1 Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #93
186. The only person directly behind RFK was security guard Thane E. Cesar, who had a .22
Edited on Wed Nov-30-11 02:56 AM by red dog 1
caliber H & R pistol.

Sirhan at no time was behind RFK......none of his shots hit Bobby, he was 4 to 6 feet in FRONT of Bobby at his closest.

Thane Eugene Cesar, part-time security guard, was directly behind RFK in the pantry, with a K & R .22 caliber gun. LAPD treated Cesar as an eyewitness, not a suspect.

When LAPD did interview Cesar three years later, he told them that he'd sold the gun before the assassination to a man named Jim Yoder.

RFK Assassination researcher William W Turner tracked down Yoder in October, 1972.
Yoder still had the receipt for the H & R .22 caliber pistol, which was dated September 6, 1968, and bore Cesar's signature.
Cesar therefore had sold the pistol to Yoder 3 months AFTER Kennedy's assassination,
despite his claim in 1971 that he had sold the weapon months before the murder.

Google THANE EUGENE CESAR
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #88
98. A hot revolver too.....but hey, whatever!! Cue the "Poor Sirhan" crowd!
Ignore all logical conclusions, because conspiracies are just so much more fun...

At trial, Sirhan took the witness stand and said he had killed Kennedy "with 20 years of malice aforethought." He later recanted the confession. Prosecutors introduced in evidence handwritten diaries in which he wrote: "RFK must die."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/28/sirhan-sirhan-...




...After helping Ethel Kennedy from the stage, Grier said in a recent interview with the AARP Bulletin, he heard gunfire and ran toward the kitchen and saw Sirhan Sirhan waving a gun."

"I got his gun and his leg and pulled him up on this table," Grier said. "George Plimpton was trying to wrestle the gun out of his hand, but George couldn't do it. He wasn't strong enough. And so I had my hand covering George's hand, and so I just kind of put my finger under the hammer so it couldn't fire."

Grier wrenched the gun from Sirhan and put it in his pocket. As an angry crowd approached, Grier fended it off. He believes that otherwise Sirhan now serving a life sentence in California would have been killed that night.

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/history/info-06-20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #98
104. Nobody is saying Sirhan didn't harm anyone that night
He did likely wound the other four people.

But the fact remains...Sirhan COULD NOT HAVE INFLICTED THE WOUND THAT KILLED BOBBY KENNEDY from where he was standing in the room.

Sirhan was in front of Bobby. His gun, according to ALL the witnesses, was three feet away from Bobby. The shot that killed Bobby(according to the autopsy report, whose findings have never been seriously challenged) was fired FROM BEHIND, from slightly below, and at POINT-BLANK range.

Sirhan may well think he killed Bobby(although it's rather strange that he would have acted "with twenty years malice aforethought", given that twenty years early it was 1948, Bobby was only twenty-three years old at the time and nobody outside of his own family would have heard of him, and Sirhan himself would have been only four).

Why are you so obsessed with defending a flawed investigation and a highly questionable verdict? What possible harm could it do to re-open this and find out how many people were involved with this?

And why the derisiveness about those who have real questions as to the events of June 5, 1968?

Only Republicans benefit from any defense of the official conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #104
113. I am not "obsessed with defending a flawed investigation" but I am intent on
slapping down any silly inferences that poor widdle Sirhan was innocent or railroaded.

And again--people have feet, and they can use them to turn around, presenting their back to a shooter. They can also use them to step backward after firing a weapon. Arms can extend one's reach and put a weapon a few feet closer to a person than the shooter's body. Bobby wasn't a giant, but neither was Sirhan--he was a short shit.

The "only Republicans" comment at the end of your post is really the lamest "Shut the fuck up" attempt I have seen here in awhile.

Why didn't you just say "Waaah--you are a Republican, because you aren't agreeing with meeeeeeee?" It would have been more honest. For shame.

You don't have to agree with anything I say, but you can't pull that "Only Republicans" shit and not get called on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #113
122. I didn't say Sirhan was innocent of ALL wrongdoing
Almost everyone who has studied this agrees that Sirhan DID likely fire the shots that inflicted non-lethal wounds on the other shooting victims.

The point is, he couldn't have shot Bobby. That's the bone of contention.

Nobody here is saying that Sirhan is a saint...ok?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #98
123. Aren't you conflating the "poor Sirhan" crowd with those who suspect a conspiracy?

As far as I'm concerned, Sirhan may still be a danger to society and I'll leave his decision to the courts. What is much more interesting is the question of whether there was a second shooter, and was he acting alone? (not likely). Of course, the court case itself is all about Sirhan and these other questions likely will not be investigated further unless there is public pressure to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #123
130. Plus, you don't have to be a "poor Sirhan" type(btw, is ANYONE really a "poor Sirhan" type?)
to want to make sure that evidence tampering is investigated in any criminal case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #123
174. Let's hope his defense is vigorous, then, and we can put an end to some of this halfassed
speculation without evidence.

Plenty of conspiracy theorists are also in the "poor Sirhan" camp...he was being threatened, he was a patsy, who knows what else. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #88
181. Nobody said SIrhan was innocent of ALL wrongdoing.
He did have a gun in his hand, likely shot the others, and Rosey was still right to restrain him. Nobody said otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #85
89. he's being a "Manchurian assassin" has nothing to do with bullets being switched
Obviously, if you have a patsy, you want the case to stick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. It's also amazing how far a conspiracy theory can be stretched.
The thread is vanishingly thin at this point. But CT can be stretched to almost infinite thinness. It has the most wonderful properties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #91
97. This isn't "conspiracy theory", it's the hard facts of the case
It's THIS simple:

Sirhan was in front of Bobby when he fired, and every witness placed his gun at least three feet away from Bobby's head. The shot that killed Bobby was fired from behind and at point-blank range.

Why are you defending right-wing LAPD bullshit from forty-three years ago?

Sirhan could NOT have fired the fatal shot, according to the autopsy report. It really IS that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #97
103. Bobby could not have turned around to greet someone? He was on wheels?
Sirhan could not have taken a step back (three to five feet right there) as he shot?

Come on.

If there were others, why didn't Sirhan cut a deal to save his ass? You aren't explaining that well at all.

Oh wait...he was "hypnotized!!!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #103
108. Sirhan would have had to take several steps FORWARD, not back
He was too far away to have fired the shot even if Bobby did turn to greet someone. The shot was fired at point-blank range and NOBODY saw Sirhan get anywhere near close enough.

And it's entirely possible that Sirhan faced and continues to face threats against his life if he implicated anyone else.

Also, he may genuinely believe he killed Bobby. In and of itself, his belief in that proves nothing. A lot of people believe delusional things about themselves.

Why are you being so derisive and contemptuous about all of this?

Nobody here is saying that Sirhan deserves the Nobel Peace Prize...just that he didn't succeed in killing Bobby. Why is it so threatening to you for anyone to be questioning the official ruling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #108
121. Shoot first, step back--that puts three feet between Sirhan and RFK.
I am not buying your "Oooh, they threatened his family!" line. If I were in jail, wrongly accused, and some bozo managed to get to me while incarcerated (and in a post-Oswald world, how easy would that be?) after I killed a frigging Kennedy, saying "I'm a-gonna git yer family" the FIRST thing I would do is tell the FBI. Yes, FIRST THING. I'd say "Get my family to a safe house and I'll sing like a bird. I want proof they are safe before I talk."

Now you're saying he "may have believed" he killed Bobby? First, he's a patsy, next, he's brainwashed?

You're shifting the goalposts. He probably did believe it, because he probably did do it.

I'm not the one calling people who disagree with me Republicans. If anyone is being "derisive and contemptuous" you are. Check your mirror, there, pal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #121
125. Nobody ever saw him get close enough to fire a shot from one inch away from Bobby
And he didn't "shoot, then step back". He jumped off a steam table and fired as he was landing. He had nowhere to step back TO.

There was also a security guard, Thane Cesar, who was right behind Bobby to Bobby's right, who admitted to drawing and firing his gun, and who was in perfect condition to fire the fatal shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #125
173. Well, given that your point-blank theory has been raked over the coals, how would that matter,
anyway?

You don't think they tested that guard's gun? Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jazzgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #97
105. Ken, I've read extensively on the assasination as I was only
14 at the time. I knew it was no coincidence that his brother, MLK and he were ALL assasinated so close together. I also read the autopsy report to and saw the drawing of the entry wound. No way could Sirhan (as ditzy as he might be) have shot RFK where he stood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #105
120. Thank you for that post
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #97
106. Yawn.
Second gunman theory

The location of Kennedy's wounds suggested that his assailant had stood behind him, but some witnesses said that Sirhan faced west as Kennedy moved through the pantry facing east.<51> This has led to the suggestion that a second gunman actually fired the fatal shot, a possibility supported by coroner Thomas Noguchi who stated that the fatal shot was behind Kennedy's right ear and had been fired at a distance of approximately one inch.<52> Other witnesses, though, said that as Sirhan approached, Kennedy was turning to his left shaking hands, facing north and so exposing his right side.<53> As recently as 2008, eyewitness John Pilger asserted his belief that there must have been a second gunman.<54> During a re-examination of the case in 1975, the Los Angeles Superior Court ordered expert examination of the possibility of a second gun having been used, and the conclusion of the experts was that there was little or no evidence to support this theory.<53>

In 2007, analysis of an audio tape recording of the shooting made by freelance reporter Stanislaw Pruszynski appeared to indicate, according to forensic expert Philip Van Praag, that thirteen shots were fired, even though Sirhan's gun held only eight rounds.<51><55> Van Praag states that the recording also reveals at least two cases where the timing between shots was shorter than physically possible. The presence of more than eight shots on the tape was corroborated by forensic audio specialists Wes Dooley and Paul Pegas of Audio Engineering Associates in Pasadena, California, forensic audio and ballistics expert Eddy B. Brixen in Copenhagen, Denmark,<56><57> and audio specialist Phil Spencer Whitehead of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia.<58> Some other acoustic experts, however, have stated that no more than eight shots were recorded on the audio tape.<59>
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #97
182. "This isn't "conspiracy theory", it's the hard facts of the case"
LOL!
Welcome to the dungeon where this shit belongs!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #91
102. Bwahaha....I don't see a conspiracy theory in this thread....

why aren't you posting in the other thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #91
124. It's also kind of amazing how different kinds of evidence can be ignored
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 04:29 PM by villager
Especially when one is desperate to sign off on the FBI/LAPD version of events...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #124
127. Indeed.
Why would anybody here be defending an investigation led by people who themselves WANTED Bobby dead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #124
167. very weird that evidence is being ignored...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #85
99. Duplicate Topic from Monday
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #85
114. RFK Must Die Movie
This is a repost from another thread. IMO Sirhan Sirhan is not a symnpathetic figure except perhaps as a patsy. If facts are that Sirhan Sirhan was only part of a plot, this is important history and there are those still alive that know the real event.

I watched this a year or so ago on satelite TV and considered RFK's death a straightforward case closed event. I was the most involved in that election cycle, 1968, than any until POTUS Obama. I started out for McCarthy but ended up for RFK but was too young to vote.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1047517 /

Speculation about the 1968 assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy is fueled by the new documentary RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy by Shane O'Sullivan, an independent researcher. The film is an expansion of a BBC broadcast in 2006 by Mr. Sullivan attempting to prove that CIA operatives were present at the Ambassador the night of the assassination and may have been involved in the events that took place that horrible night. Sullivan believes that the CIA targeted Kennedy because of his role in the Bay of Pigs invasion, his pledge to end the War in Vietnam, and his vow to reopen the investigation into the murder of his brother if he became President.

Though Sirhan Sirhan was arrested, tried, and convicted for the RFK killing and is now serving a life sentence for murder, he still maintains that he has no recollection of the shooting and his easy susceptibility to hypnosis has led to speculation that he may have been a programmed "Manchurian Candidate". Additionally, other tantalizing facts have emerged that raise questions as to whether or not others may have been involved in the shooting. Seven bullets were removed from bodies, an eighth bullet was traced through two ceilings, and two more bullets (labeled as such on FBI photographs) were identified as lodged in the door frame of the pantry by both LAPD and FBI personnel, yet Sirhan's gun could hold only eight bullets. Astonishingly, these door frames and ceiling tiles containing bullet holes were destroyed by the LAPD shortly before the trial of Sirhan Sirhan along with 2,410 photographs taken during the investigation.

This information is doubly disturbing fact in light of the subsequent coroners report that declared that all three of the bullets striking Kennedy entered from the rear and no more than one to three inches from Kennedy's ear (Sirhan was estimated to be between three to six feet in front of the Senator). The three senior CIA officials identified in the film are David Morales, Gordon Campbell, and George Joannides and two of them can be seen moving away from the hotel pantry shortly after the shooting. Morales was known to be a violent and ruthless man with an explosive temper. He was involved in the capture and killing of Ch Guevara and had boasted to friends after both Kennedy brothers had been killed, "I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard."

Also site for the movie and book plus updates.

http://www.rfkmustdie.com /

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tom Ripley Donating Member (418 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #85
126. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #85
169. WOW... very Interesting
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #85
172. Gosh, if he is innocent, how does the government ever make it up to him?
Money certainly isn't a substitute for love, but can it compensate for unjust and extreme hatred?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #85
176. I LOVE the sound of knickers twisting in the evening!
A laurel and hearty handshake to The Usual Suspects for making this the most entertaining thread of the day.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 28th 2014, 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC