Dan E. Moldea

[Len Colby]

I apologize, Stephen, for appearing to insult your "collective intelligence," but consider what I wrote in context with what Sirhan actually said: "They can gas me, but I am famous. I have achieved in one day what it took Robert Kennedy all his life to do." (Quoted in Time magazine, April 13, 1981)

Dan, you are forgiven, but rest assured that I do not posess a "collective intelligence" indeed some assert that I barely posess one at all..I still find this weak though, I mean he certainly didnt claim this at the time, what he says in the Time interview sounds like bravado, said in a very different time (Chapman-Lennon) and place from 1968...Regards, Steve.

Steve, I don't get your comparison of Sirhan to LHO. Oswald denied he was involved from the moment he was areested till he was killed two days later, Sirham proudly declared his guilt until a few years ago.

Len

[Pat Speer]

Steve, I don't get your comparison of Sirhan to LHO. Oswald denied he was involved from the moment he was areested till he was killed two days later, Sirham proudly declared his guilt until a few years ago.

Len

This is simply not so. If you look through the thirty-year-old books of Robert Blair Kaiser and Godfrey Isaacs you'll see that Sirhan was either confused about his role or pretending to be confused almost from the beginning. I believe Moldea ultimately concluded that Sirhan's confusion was a ruse.

As I've pointed out many times, if Sirhan's confusion is a ruse, he's not very bright. The most likely avenue for his release is for him to embrace his Christianity, blame his crime on drug use, denounce Palestinian terrorists, etc... The "I don't know what happened--maybe I was hypnotized or set up" gambit has clearly failed him.

[John Hunt]

Steve, I don't get your comparison of Sirhan to LHO. Oswald denied he was involved from the moment he was areested till he was killed two days later, Sirham proudly declared his guilt until a few years ago.

Len

This is simply not so. If you look through the thirty-year-old books of Robert Blair Kaiser and Godfrey Isaacs you'll see that Sirhan was either confused about his role or pretending to be confused almost from the beginning. I believe Moldea ultimately concluded that Sirhan's confusion was a ruse.

As I've pointed out many times, if Sirhan's confusion is a ruse, he's not very bright. The most likely avenue for his release is for him to embrace his Christianity, blame his crime on drug use, denounce Palestinian terrorists, etc... The "I don't know what happened--maybe I was hypnotized or set up" gambit has clearly failed him.

Pat,

One problem I have with Sirhan’s not being able to remember the crime is his complete lack of interest in what occurred as witnessed by the tapes of his post-assassination police interview.

Perhaps it is unfair to make the comparison, but if I was in Sirhan’s shoes and really could not remember what happened, I would want to know “Who did I shoot and how are they doing??”

John Hunt

[Dan E. Moldea]

To Michael Hogan:

Just to be clear, I only used Sirhan's quote from Time magazine in response to Stephen Turner's specific remarks about assassins who kill "for infamy."

With regard to the murder of Senator Kennedy's brother, President John Kennedy, I still believe, as I wrote in The Hoffa Wars, which was published in August 1978, that Jimmy Hoffa, Carlos Marcello, and Santo Trafficante arranged and executed it. Mercifully, as I'm sure you'll agree, I'm not here to discuss that case.

Concerning "simple answers," I was referring only to the Senator Kennedy murder case--not the JFK assassination or any other major investigation. I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear.

To Pat Speer (1):

Of course, you're free to support John Hunt's Quixotic search for a second gunman in the RFK case. He's not the first, and he certainly won't be the last. Proving that there was a second shooter is now central to everything he believes about this case. But he's not going to find one--because there wasn't one. Sadly, I see him as just another burn-out in the making.

Respectfully, with regard to your belief that Sirhan participated in a conspiracy, you certainly can't prove anything. But don't feel badly--no one else can either. As you already know, it's not what we believe to be true, rather it's what we can prove to be true.

To John Hunt:

In my response to your earlier question on this thread, I said that no one can know for sure the exact flight paths of the bullets at this particular crime scene. I added that neither you nor I were qualified as experts to make these determinations. And I'm not interested in making any wild guesses for your entertainment, especially since I am convinced that Sirhan acted alone. Consequently, I wanted to leave this issue to minds greater than mine, hoping that this entire investigation would be reopened someday.

In your remarkable reply to that, you insisted:

"The matter is one of math, geometry, and the ingredients (the official evidence) with which to cook the stew. Being an expert in anything is not requisite for the thinking man. . . . Busting you making an error that destroys the conclusion in your book is not minutia. . . .

"It is my conclusion that Sirhan shot RFK twice in the armpit, with the one that left the chest hitting Schrade in the forehead. I also believe Sirhan put a bullet in Wiesel and probably Goldstein as well. Sirhan does not get a free pass with me. Having said that, the evidence indicates the round that hit RFK in the head was larger than a .22."

My response? Wow! That's amazing! You have come to a conclusion that differs from that of every single world-renowned expert who has ever investigated this very well-researched case. Despite your acknowledged lack of education and experience, you believe that you have somehow morphed into a forensics genius without peer. Either that or you are really nothing more than a complete blowhard--and a very arrogant and rude one to boot.

Since you obviously believe that you are endowed with Absolute Truth, I will eagerly await the moment when a responsible publication or publishing house publishes your mindless speculations, half-baked opinions, and poorly-sourced facts. And, then, I might consider sitting down with you--as I have with so many others with legitimate credentials--and debate your bad manners and screwball beliefs. To date, despite your delusions, you haven't laid a glove on anything I wrote in my book.

I have seen people, like you, come and go in this case for many years. My advice to you--and I mean this sincerely after watching you flail away for the past several months--is to save yourself and to get a life.

To John Geraghty:

Thank you for the information about the Harry Benson photograph. I'll be very interested to see it.

Yes, I took part in that program to which you referred. I really don't remember the name of the production company, but it had a fairly sophisticated crime-scene reenactment, using high-tech devices.

With regard to the producers' use of lasers to plot the flight paths of the bullets, I refused to speculate on camera about the exact trajectories of all eight bullets fired--because, once again, I'm just not qualified as an expert in either ballistics and firearms identification. However, based on the experiences and opinions I collected from my sources in the law-enforcement community, I did agree to demonstrate how Senator Kennedy could've been hit by three bullets at contact or near-contact range--and why I believe that Paul Schrade was hit by the first shot. Of course, I stand by that scenario, which I articulated in my 1995 book.

Also on the program, I debated an old friend of mine, Dr. Robert Joling, the former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Bob attempted to show how the security guard, Gene Cesar, could've fired those same shots. I know that scenario all too well, and Bob did a great job in his presentation.

Regardless of which of us offered the most convincing case, the simple fact is that Cesar didn't fire his weapon that night. I have spent hundreds of hours with this guy and even polygraphed him, as I described in my book. (For whatever it's worth, he passed the lie-detector test with flying colors.) I am absolutely convinced that Cesar is an innocent man, who has been wrongly accused of murder for nearly forty years.

Once again, my three interviews with Sirhan played no small role in forming my final conclusion. After talking with Sirhan, I was absolutely convinced that he had committed the murder--not Gene Cesar--and that he had acted alone.

To Len Colby:

Good point. Indeed, no one saw the muzzle of Sirhan's .22 get that close--but no one saw the Senator get shot either. All of the eyewitness testimony is based on Sirhan's location, relative to Senator Kennedy's, at the moment of the first shot--which, I believe, missed the Senator and struck Paul Schrade, who was standing several feet in back of him. Therefore, in my opinion, the issue of muzzle distance for that first shot is moot. After the shooting started, the crime scene became chaotic. The eyewitnesses were busy covering up and falling all over each other. Yet, we know from Noguchi's excellent autopsy--not from any of the eyewitnesses--that the Senator was hit three times by contact or near-contact shots, along with a fourth shot that went harmlessly through the shoulder pad of his suit jacket.

I explained all of this on pages 310-313 of my book.

To Pat Speer (2):

Yes, you are right. I believe that Sirhan's claimed confusion was and always has been a ruse. During my interviews with him, each and every time he insisted that he had a memory lapse, it was in response to one of my questions about his motive, means, or opportunity.

You are also correct that this lame defense has not served him well.

To Daniel Wayne Dunn:

You wrote: "Sirhan has been and remains a perpetual xxxx and 'people manipulator.'"

I couldn't agree more. He is exactly where he belongs--in prison for the rest of his life.

To All:

Thank you for your kind attention.

Dan E. Moldea

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Dan, A question if I may.Having interviewed Sirhan on more than one occasion do you believe that he suffers from any kind of psychotic dissorder, either now, or in 1968. I realise this is a big ask but I would be very interested in your opinion. regards, Steve.

[John Hunt]

To all,

I confronted Moldea with facts and analysis demonstrating that his “Schrade Conclusion” left him with a 9 shot RFK shooting scenario at a minimum. In “response,” we get Moldea refusing to directly respond to, or refute anything I wrote. Moldea refuses to defend himself. Sadder still, he absolutely refuses to offer an 8 shot scenario starting with his “Schrade Conclusion.” In place of discourse, we get Moldea calling me names.

> To John Hunt:

>

> In my response to your earlier question on this thread, I said that no one

> can know for sure the exact flight paths of the bullets at this particular

> crime scene. I added that neither you nor I were qualified as experts to

> make these determinations.

And that is still garbage. The official list of damage remains undisputed. That you beg off having to back up your version of the crime tell us a lot about your “investigative” verve.

> And I'm not interested in making any wild guesses

> for your entertainment,

If you worked your trajectory out in advance, as you claim, then why on Earth would you need to resort to wild guesses?? You are making this too easy.

especially since I am convinced that Sirhan acted

> alone. Consequently, I wanted to leave this issue to minds greater than

> mine, hoping that this entire investigation would be reopened someday.

>

> In your remarkable reply to that, you insisted:

>

> QUOTING HUNT: "The matter is one of math, geometry, and the ingredients (the official > evidence) with which to cook the stew. Being an expert in anything is not

> requisite for the thinking man. . . . Busting you making an error that

> destroys the conclusion in your book is not minutia. . . .

>

> "It is my conclusion that Sirhan shot RFK twice in the armpit, with the

> one that left the chest hitting Schrade in the forehead. I also believe

> Sirhan put a bullet in Wiesel [sic] and probably Goldstein as well. Sirhan does

> not get a free pass with me. Having said that, the evidence indicates the

> round that hit RFK in the head was larger than a .22."

QUOTE OFF

> My response? Wow! That's amazing! You have come to a conclusion that differs

> from that of every single world-renowned expert who has ever investigated

> this very well-researched case.

Exactly. Like yourself, they all got it wrong. See if you can follow along; The 59-degree upward chest shot comes from taking ONE triangulation measurement out of context from the autopsy report (See panel 1 in the attached illustration). This is what Noguchi wrote:

QUOTE ON

Autopsy measurements indicate an angle of 35 degrees counterclockwise from he transverse plane as viewed frontally. Triangulation measurements from photographs give an angle of 33.

Autopsy measurements indicate that an angle of 59 degrees counterclockwise from the transverse plane as viewed laterally from the right. Measurements from photographs also indicate an angle of 59 degrees.

Autopsy measurements indicate an angle of 25 degrees measured clockwise from the coronal plane (anteriorly) as viewed from the vertex.

[AR25]

QUOTE OFF

What you and others have done is take the 59-degree number and run with it. A more careful researcher would realize that the trajectory must be arrived at using ALL the components. That is what I did. But first, I investigated the issue. Sure enough, Noguchi testified that the overall path through the chest was 35 degrees upward (See panel 2 in the attached illustration, pageS 4528-4529 Sirhan trial transcript).

I put Noguchi’s testimony to the test by re-creating the wound path as described in the autopsy report 3-dimensional space (See panel 3 in the attached illustration). Sure enough, the trajectory was quite close to what Noguchi testified to; 33 degrees upward anatomically. Fancy that. You should have seen the look on Phil’s face when I gave him an in-person demonstration with my “Noguchi rig” in his office at UMASS three years ago.

Panel 3 in the attached illustration (page 57 of the SUS Report) demonstrates what I proved live in Dallas; when the arm is raised, the trajectory flattens even further. This is all new to you, and “every single world-renowned expert who has ever investigated this very well-researched case.” You guys missed the boat.

There is no question, but that the illustration in your book is wrong (See panel 4 in the attached illustration). The chest shot was not nearly as steep as represented.

There is likewise no question that you were wrong when you wrote, “Another shot had penetrated Kennedy’s right rear armpit, ****traveled sharply upward at a 59-degree angle,***…” it did no such thing, a fact that remained unappreciated until I figured it out.

> Despite your acknowledged lack of education

> and experience,

Why did you just make that up??

> you believe that you have somehow morphed into a forensics

> genius without peer.

Hyperbole in place of an argument does not cut it, Dan. See above.

Either that or you are really nothing more than a

> complete blowhard--and a very arrogant and rude one to boot.

See panels 1-5. I was smart enough to figure out what all you geniuses missed for forty years.

>

> Since you obviously believe that you are endowed with Absolute Truth, I will

> eagerly await the moment when a responsible publication or publishing house

> publishes your mindless speculations, half-baked opinions, and

> poorly-sourced facts.

Again, with the ad-hominum attacks.

“mindless speculations” Back up your words, Dan. Point out ONE instance.

“half-baked opinions” Back up your words, Dan. Point out ONE instance.

“poorly-sourced facts” Back up your words, Dan. Point out ONE instance.

You have not written a single word in rebuttal. Then, in place of discourse, you spew baseless accusations, and then have the temerity to call me rude. Go figure.

And, then, I might consider sitting down with you--as

> I have with so many others with legitimate credentials--and debate your bad

> manners and screwball beliefs. To date, despite your delusions, you haven't

> laid a glove on anything I wrote in my book.

“There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home.”

>

> I have seen people, like you, come and go in this case for many years. My

> advice to you--and I mean this sincerely after watching you flail away for

> the past several months--is to save yourself and to get a life.

You came to this forum, and have not spent two words discussing the evidence. All you do is proclaim victory and say mean things about me (which is OK with me, because I’ve been called worse things by folks who are not effete pantywaists).

That you failed to put up a fight has not gone unnoticed. I’ll debate you on the evidence anywhere, anytime. And I will eat your lunch using facts and evidence. Just like I did on the chest shot in this post.

John Hunt

[Ron Ecker]

With regard to the murder of Senator Kennedy's brother, President John Kennedy, I still believe, as I wrote in The Hoffa Wars, which was published in August 1978, that Jimmy Hoffa, Carlos Marcello, and Santo Trafficante arranged and executed it.

Dan,

Since you still believe this, do you really think that Hoffa, Marcello, and Trafficante would allow Robert to become president? Wouldn't it be logical to suspect these same mobsters of being behind the assassination of a man whom they were trying to get rid of indirectly in Dallas, and who once elected would probably reopen that case? And wouldn't these guys have no more trouble setting up a patsy (Sirhan) in LA than you believe they did with Oswald in Dallas?

Ron

[Pat Speer]

To John Hunt;

In my response to your earlier question on this thread, I said that no one can know for sure the exact flight paths of the bullets at this particular crime scene. I added that neither you nor I were qualified as experts to make these determinations. And I'm not interested in making any wild guesses for your entertainment, especially since I am convinced that Sirhan acted alone. Consequently, I wanted to leave this issue to minds greater than mine, hoping that this entire investigation would be reopened someday.

In your remarkable reply to that, you insisted:

"The matter is one of math, geometry, and the ingredients (the official evidence) with which to cook the stew. Being an expert in anything is not requisite for the thinking man. . . . Busting you making an error that destroys the conclusion in your book is not minutia. . . .

"It is my conclusion that Sirhan shot RFK twice in the armpit, with the one that left the chest hitting Schrade in the forehead. I also believe Sirhan put a bullet in Wiesel and probably Goldstein as well. Sirhan does not get a free pass with me. Having said that, the evidence indicates the round that hit RFK in the head was larger than a .22."

My response? Wow! That's amazing! You have come to a conclusion that differs from that of every single world-renowned expert who has ever investigated this very well-researched case. Despite your acknowledged lack of education and experience, you believe that you have somehow morphed into a forensics genius without peer. Either that or you are really nothing more than a complete blowhard--and a very arrogant and rude one to boot.

Since you obviously believe that you are endowed with Absolute Truth, I will eagerly await the moment when a responsible publication or publishing house publishes your mindless speculations, half-baked opinions, and poorly-sourced facts. And, then, I might consider sitting down with you--as I have with so many others with legitimate credentials--and debate your bad manners and screwball beliefs. To date, despite your delusions, you haven't laid a glove on anything I wrote in my book.

I have seen people, like you, come and go in this case for many years. My advice to you--and I mean this sincerely after watching you flail away for the past several months--is to save yourself and to get a life.

To John Geraghty:

Thank you for the information about the Harry Benson photograph. I'll be very interested to see it.

Yes, I took part in that program to which you referred. I really don't remember the name of the production company, but it had a fairly sophisticated crime-scene reenactment, using high-tech devices.

With regard to the producers' use of lasers to plot the flight paths of the bullets, I refused to speculate on camera about the exact trajectories of all eight bullets fired--because, once again, I'm just not qualified as an expert in either ballistics and firearms identification. However, based on the experiences and opinions I collected from my sources in the law-enforcement community, I did agree to demonstrate how Senator Kennedy could've been hit by three bullets at contact or near-contact range--and why I believe that Paul Schrade was hit by the first shot. Of course, I stand by that scenario, which I articulated in my 1995 book.

Also on the program, I debated an old friend of mine, Dr. Robert Joling, the former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Bob attempted to show how the security guard, Gene Cesar, could've fired those same shots. I know that scenario all too well, and Bob did a great job in his presentation.

Regardless of which of us offered the most convincing case, the simple fact is that Cesar didn't fire his weapon that night. I have spent hundreds of hours with this guy and even polygraphed him, as I described in my book. (For whatever it's worth, he passed the lie-detector test with flying colors.) I am absolutely convinced that Cesar is an innocent man, who has been wrongly accused of murder for nearly forty years.

Once again, my three interviews with Sirhan played no small role in forming my final conclusion. After talking with Sirhan, I was absolutely convinced that he had committed the murder--not Gene Cesar--and that he had acted alone.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Dan E. Moldea

Mr. Moldea, I believe you're being inconsistent. In your book, you offered an interpretation of the bullet trajectories which differed from that of the "experts,' did you not? So, how is what Hunt is doing any different? Was your re-interpretation okay because it cleared Cesar, and his not okay because it re-opens the door as to Cesar's involvement? While I can understand your dislike for Hunt's abrasive approach I think you under-estimate him a bit. He is a determined man who has spent years researching both Kennedy assassinations. He has spent more time in the Archives than the bulk of the research community combined. There is reason to believe his research will lead to one or more published works. (If one is not forthcoming, John, will you pretty please with sugar on top put your image files online?)

As far as the "cult of expertise" you seem to be promoting, if you study the John F. Kennedy assassination medical evidence you will come away realizing that this cult is pretty much the Moonies. It's BS. The "experts" have repeatedly blown smoke, and this can be proved. (And is in my presentation: http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html). The scientific interpretation of gunshot wounds and trajectories is based upon a few principles; these principles are not impossible to learn, and are widely debated even among the "experts" (e.g. the wounding mechanism involved in temporary cavities). Mr. Hunt has concluded that the entrance hole for the head wound is abnormally large, and has received confirmation on this from several sources. While there may be another explanation other than the one he's offered, the "experts" are yet to offer such an explanation. Questions can only be answered when they are asked.

That said, I appreciate your coming to this forum. I take your comments about the RFK trajectories to mean that you are not 100% confident about the accuracy of your trajectories. Which is the sign of a healthy mind. You have also admitted that your judgment on the case has been influenced by your extensive contact with Cesar and Sirhan. Which is the sign of an honest man. Any new books on the horizon?

Edited May 13, 2006 by Pat Speer

[John Hunt]

"Mr. Moldea, I believe you're being inconsistent. In your book, you offered an interpretation of the bullet trajectories which differed from that of the "experts,' did you not?"

Pat,

That’s the problem. Nowhere in his book does Moldea actually spell out his scenario. He simply concluded that Sirhan acted alone and that Schrade was hit in the head by a shot that hit nothing else. That is all he gave us.

Here is a question Moldea will never answer: “Do you think Elizabeth Evan was hit in the head by the shot that went through a tile, struck the ceiling, then re-entered the pantry through the second tile??”

The conventional wisdom holds that Evans was bent over searching for her errant shot when she was shot in the head.

The bullet entered slightly below the hairline and came to rest several inches closer to the back of the head. The question has been, how does a bullet that is heading downward from the ceiling hit her head and go upward when she was bent over??

On page 86 Moldea writes:

Quote on

The flight paths of the bullets are difficult to match with medical

records, particularly in the cases of Evans and Schrade. According to

Wolfer's reconstruction, the Evans bullet penetrated a thick acoustic

ceiling die, ricocheted off the ceiling, exited through a second tile, and

then struck Evans, who was fifteen feet away, with enough force to lodge

in her forehead. This description contradicts the official medical of her

wound, which says, "The bullet entered the scalp of the forehead just

below the hairline, off center to the right and traveled upward to

approximately one inch above the hair line" (emphasis added by Moldea).

Quote off

Here Moldea merely quotes from Wolfer's trajectory accounting and then

tells us that the shot was supposed to hit Evans in the forehead, but that

the upward path in her head "contradicted" Wolfer's assertion. In the only

words by Moldea himself on the subject of the ceiling tile trajectories, he casts doubt on the official version!!

As I wrote to Moldea, if you divorce the ceiling shot from Evans’ wounds, you add another shot to the list. And…that is one too many on top of Moldea’s 9-shot scenario.

Moldea’s response?? Silence.

What he does not realize is that, as with his pro forma acceptance of the “sharply” upward path of the shot that transited RFK’s chest, Moldea should have looked deeper. Had he done so, he might have found something (two somethings, actually) that helps to link Evans’ head shot to Sirhan’s gun. I’ll be outlining that at Lancer next November.

John Hunt

[Dan E. Moldea]

To Stephen Turner:

You asked me whether I believe that Sirhan suffered from a psychotic disorder.

I'm sorry, but I just have no way of knowing. I'm not qualified to judge. I'm just a grunt crime reporter.

However, I did provide my impressions of Sirhan when I first met him on page 292 of my book. He was very polite, well-spoken, and intelligent. My interview with him is in Chapter 29, "Confronting Sirhan," pages 291-304.

To John Hunt:

On another thread you created, you asked me to answer this "simple question": "As a matter of clarification, when you say 'the bullet that was supposedly lost in the ceiling interspace,' are you saying you have doubts about whether or not that really was a bullet hole?"

My response? All of the crime-scene evidence stems from the investigation of the very controversial Dwayne Wolfer of the LAPD/SID. No, I do not necessarily accept all of his work at the crime scene. However, as I have said before, I am not an expert on ballistics and firearms identification. I am not qualified to make an independent judgment about what he did right and what he did wrong. Therefore, I am hoping that the case will be reopened, so that the crime-scene evidence can be reexamined.

Still, I am not alarmed by any of this--because I am convinced that Sirhan committed the murder, and that he acted alone.

To Ron Ecker:

Did I suspect Hoffa, Marcello, and Trafficante--whom I believe arranged the assassination of President Kennedy--of being behind the murder of Senator Kennedy? During the period of time that I thought that a second gunman had fired a weapon at the Ambassador Hotel crime scene, you bet I did. I described these suspicions on pages 191-193 of my book. In addition, I discussed Hoffa's specific plots against Robert Kennedy on pages 116-118, which also noted the Russell Parsons-Mickey Cohen connection.

Remember, too, that Robert Kennedy believed that Hoffa and his allies in the Mafia were behind the murder of his brother. (See page 18.)

In addition, I questioned Sirhan about such characters as Henry Ramistella, aka Frank Donnarumma, as well as John Alessio. (See pages 294-297.) But there is no evidence that anything nefarious had happened between or among them. Further, I jumped all over Gene Cesar repeatedly about his connection to an associate of the Chicago Outfit. (See page 281.) But, once again, I couldn't take that relationship and find the evidence to turn it into a provable murder conspiracy.

To Pat Speer:

The only portion of the LAPD's bullet inventory I really made an issue of in my book was with regard to the shot that hit Paul Schrade. DeWayne Wolfer suggested that the first shot went harmlessly through the shoulder pad of Senator Kennedy's jacket and hit Paul Schrade, who was standing several feet behind Kennedy. I disagreed, insisting that the first shot simply missed Kennedy and hit Schrade.

John Hunt claims that my conclusion that Schrade was hit by a bullet that didn't hit anything else proves that a ninth bullet was fired at the crime scene. Of course, that's nonsense. I simply believe that the bullet that passed through Kennedy's shoulder pad simply hit someone or something other than Schrade. Thus, the eight-bullet reality remains in tact. But, as I've said over and over again, I'm not an expert on bullet flight paths. I cannot say for sure what exactly happened, and, unlike Hunt, I'm not interested in making any wild guesses.

With regard to the value of Hunt's work in the RFK case, I can't believe that any legitimate publisher would even consider publishing the garbage he's been peddling. There is no one I know and respect who takes anything he says or writes seriously.

Believe me, I was very nice to this kid when he first contacted me several years ago. Then, in 2005, he responded with a shameless all-out attack on me over the Schrade-shot issue in some little-known online publication--without ever giving me the opportunity to respond to his screwball charges before publication. Then, after the release of his article, he trashed me in various Usernet forums for refusing to react to what he had already published. It was a cheap tactic, and I really objected to it.

As you can see from Hunt's behavior on this main thread on which John Simkin asked me to respond to questions from your membership, as well as on the multiple threads that Hunt has created to divert attention away from my responses, his dirty tricks continue.

Finally, thank you for your kind words in your final paragraph--although I disagree with the premises upon which those compliments were based.

To John Hunt (2):

You wrote: "Here is a question Moldea will never answer: 'Do you think Elizabeth Evan was hit in the head by the shot that went through a tile, struck the ceiling, then re-entered the pantry through the second tile?"

With regard to which bullet struck Elizabeth Evans, I have no way of knowing for sure--and neither do you.

To Pat Speer (2):

On another thread, you wrote: "I mean, when is the last time a published writer on a controversial event admitted he was wrong in his overall conclusions? It doesn't happen. EGOs always seem to get in the way."

My response? I am one of those published writers.. After years of believing that a second gun had been fired at the RFK crime scene and making no secret of it, I admitted that I was wrong. And I did it in my book.

A lot of people, including John Simkin, have flat-out accused me of succumbing to pressure from my publisher to conclude that Sirhan did it and did it alone. That's simply not true. The proposal I submitted to my publisher--the basis for my book deal--guaranteed delivery of a pro-conspiracy manuscript. And my editor was absolutely furious with me in the wake of my interviews with Sirhan when I told him that, in good conscience, I could no longer support a conspiracy theory in the Senator Kennedy murder case. My publisher actually considered killing the book because of this.

Consequently, with the advice of my editor, we decided to incorporate my turnaround in the final manuscript.

To Daniel Wayne Dunn:

You asked: "On page 303 of your book in the chapter 'Confronting Sirhan,' you recount that you were suddenly and angrily aware that Sirhan had been lying to you in the possible belief that as long as he could keep stringing researchers like yourself along, then he would continue to have hope for clemency. I guess the first thing that strikes me about this is, what did you expect?"

My response? When I walked into my first interview with Sirhan, I still believed that a second gun had been fired at the crime scene, either accidentally or intentionally. The lies he told me--especially those about his memory lapses with regard to matters that went to motive, means, and opportunity--were what convinced me that he had committed the murder and acted alone.

You asked: "s it possible that you are quite happy to lay sole blame upon Sirhan in large part because of your resentment over 'being used'”?

My response: That's a fair question. But the answer is "no"--for the reasons I explained on pages 305-309.

With regard to your questions about my discussion with Sirhan about a possible conspiracy, my conclusions were not solely based on his responses.

Further, if you have evidence that adds to the credibility of the accounts by Larry Arnot or Booker Griffin, feel free to pursue them. Based on interviews with my sources in the law-enforcement community and others, I decided not to. With regard to the scenarios about Sirhan's alleged "giddy" accomplices--such as the so-called "polka-dot dress girl"--it is no secret that I dismissed these theories and explained why in my book.

In short, during the eleven years since the publication of my 1995 book, I haven't seen anything that causes me to regret what I wrote and/or what I concluded. Clearly, you disagree with my final conclusions. And I respect your opinion.

To Len Colby and Mike Perez:

Regarding what you wrote on other threads, thank you for being fair-minded people who defended me when I refused to be dragged into debates on multiple threads, created only to divert attention away from my responses on this main thread. I predict that it will happen again.

To John Simkin and All:

Thank you again for your invitation to participate in this interesting forum.

Dan E. Moldea

[John Hunt]

> To John Hunt:

>

> On another thread you created, you asked me to answer this "simple

> question": "As a matter of clarification, when you say 'the bullet that was

> supposedly lost in the ceiling interspace,' are you saying you have doubts

> about whether or not that really was a bullet hole?"

>

> My response? All of the crime-scene evidence stems from the investigation of

> the very controversial Dwayne Wolfer of the LAPD/SID. No, I do not

> necessarily accept all of his work at the crime scene.

However, as I have

> said before, I am not an expert on ballistics and firearms identification. I

> am not qualified to make an independent judgment about what he did right and

> what he did wrong. Therefore, I am hoping that the case will be reopened, so

> that the crime-scene evidence can be reexamined.

So the short answer is: “I’m not sure about anything, John.” I can live with that.

> To Pat Speer:

>

> The only portion of the LAPD's bullet inventory I really made an issue of in

> my book was with regard to the shot that hit Paul Schrade. DeWayne Wolfer

> suggested that the first shot went harmlessly through the shoulder pad of

> Senator Kennedy's jacket and hit Paul Schrade, who was standing several feet

> behind Kennedy. I disagreed, insisting that the first shot simply missed

> Kennedy and hit Schrade.

>

> John Hunt claims that my conclusion that Schrade was hit by a bullet that

> didn't hit anything else proves that a ninth bullet was fired at the crime

> scene. Of course, that's nonsense.

That is what you keep telling us. Perhaps you’ll prove it out someday. The fact that you continue to simply tell us that I’m wrong with out lifting a finger to demonstrate that is not lost on those lurking.

I simply believe that the bullet that

> passed through Kennedy's shoulder pad simply hit someone or something other

> than Schrade. Thus, the eight-bullet reality remains in tact.

No, it does not. Firstly, the scenario requires you to get a horizontal shot out of a jacket shot that screamed upward. You have not lifted a finger to do that. You simply tell us that it might have happened. I cannot believe that you still haven’t done the math. Below is your shoulder pad/Schrade strung out into the pantry. You completely ignored it the first time. I defy you to refute any part of it:

QUOTE ON

Firstly, the shot through the shoulder pad went upward at a severe angle. In order for that shot to have struck another victim, the holes in RFK’s jacket would have to aligned along the horizontal. (See attached graphic.) If RFK was pushed up against the steam table as you concluded, that didn’t happen.

And even if it did, that still leaves you with nine shots. To wit:

Bullet # 1 – Paul Schrade (Forehead).

Bullet # 2 – RFK (Through and through bullet hole in jacket, striking Goldstein (for instance)).

Bullet # 3 – RFK (Headshot, non-transiting).

Bullet # 4 – RFK (Armpit, non-transiting).

Bullet # 5 – RFK (Armpit, transiting upward).

Bullet # 6 – Goldstein pants (Transiting, ricocheting, and striking Stroll in the shin (non-transiting).

Bullet # 7 – Evans (For the sake of the argument we will say that she was struck in the head by the bullet which entered a ceiling tile, ricocheted of the ceiling, and reentered thorough the ceiling tiles (non-transiting))

Bullet # 8 –. Weisel (Abdomen (non-transiting)

Bullet # 9 – Hole in the ceiling tile, (Sharply upward, not recovered).

Marrying the RFK shoulder pad shot to any victim does not negate the necessity of a ninth shot if you conclude (as you have) that Schrade was hit by a shot unto itself.

Additionally, if we divorce the ceiling re-entry bullet from Elizabeth Evans’ headwound, that puts the bullet count at 10.

QUOTE OFF

But, as I've

> said over and over again, I'm not an expert on bullet flight paths. I cannot

> say for sure what exactly happened, and, unlike Hunt, I'm not interested in

> making any wild guesses.

Apparently, you are not prepared to back up what you wrote in the book. That is your choice.

>

> With regard to the value of Hunt's work in the RFK case, I can't believe

> that any legitimate publisher would even consider publishing the garbage

> he's been peddling.

Here again we find Moldea hurling demeaning insults (“the garbage

he's been peddling”) without have written one word to support his accusations.

That is the best Moldea can do.

There is no one I know and respect who takes anything he

> says or writes seriously.

>

> Believe me, I was very nice to this kid when he first contacted me several

> years ago. Then, in 2005, he responded with a shameless all-out attack on me

“a shameless all-out attack on me” Oooh!! How dramatic…and wrong. What I did was attack your work, which is faulty. A justified attack you have not refuted, except to pontificate on how right you are, of course.

> over the Schrade-shot issue in some little-known online publication--without

> ever giving me the opportunity to respond to his screwball charges before

> publication.

Again, Moldea is not telling the truth. I informed his of his Schrade error and its implications on the phone. and Moldea tossed it off, refusing to discusss that matter...just like here. Then, two years later, we find Moldea peddling the same faulty analysis on TV. That is why I exposed him.

> To John Hunt (2):

>

> You wrote: "Here is a question Moldea will never answer: 'Do you think

> Elizabeth Evan was hit in the head by the shot that went through a tile,

> struck the ceiling, then re-entered the pantry through the second tile?"

>

> With regard to which bullet struck Elizabeth Evans, I have no way of knowing

> for sure--and neither do you.

Wrong again. Have you ever heard of someone creating a scale model of the pantry ***including*** the holes in the ceiling tiles and the cracks in the floor?? Well, I have. That accomplished, two pieces of evidence fit perfectly:

The entry wound in Evans’ forehead was stellate (operative report “stellate”, and testimony “cruciform”). That tells us that the bullet that struck Evans in the head hit something prior to hitting her. We have two choices: the ceiling or the floor. Can’t be the floor because that adds yet another shot to the pile. So I speculated that it was the ceiling shot.

Evans was supposed to have been bent over and so the shot from the ceiling would not seem to work. So I took a look at her June 15 LAPD interview. She never said she was shot while bent over. She was not sure. So, she might have been upright and not realized that she’d been shot until she bent over. Her memory had improved by the time of the trial.

And so I uprighted Evans in the scale drawing my model was based upon and to my amazement, the ceiling shot hit her right in the head. (See attached photo of the working version of the scale map.) That is what lead me to believe that Evan’s was struck in the head by the shot that came back down into the pantry. For the second time, the evidence had lead me to conclude that Sirhan could well have made a shot that conventional wisdom told us he could not. Contrary to what you probably think, I have conducted a “let the chips fall where they may” investigation of the RFK case. Some of my conclusions help to explain just how Sirhan could be responsible for the wounds of the victims…and one particularly important discovery indicates that the bullet that took RFK’s life was larger than a .22. Here is the opening of my presentation at Lancer:

QUOTE ON

I had no interest in the RFK assassination. In fact, I knew no more about the case than the average person. I was aware that RFK was said to have received the Cadillac of autopsies, as opposed to his bother’s famously inadequate post-mortem. The incompleteness of JFK’s post mortem would forever leave room for doubt just how he was killed. Not so the RFK autopsy.

In early 2003 I became interested in comparing Robert Kennedy’s autopsy report to John’s. I conducted an internet search for RFK’s 62-page report, but my efforts proved fruitless as the report was not (and is still not) available online.

The 2003 Cyril Wecht JFK Conference in Pittsburgh loomed large on the horizon at that time. I was due to present some of my FBI /Ballistics evidence, so my interest in RFK’s wounds took a backseat to my work on the JFK case.

Shortly afterward, I learned that the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth (UMASS) houses an RFK Assassination Archive that is a virtual duplicate of the original at the California State Archives. In addition, it houses the personal collections of individuals who’ve conducted private investigations into the RFK assassination.

SLIDE

The UMASS RFK Archive was the brainchild of Professor Philip Melanson, who taught political science at UMASS, and has authored excellent books on the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations.

The UMASS RFK Archive, it turned out, was less than thirty miles from my home in Rhode Island. One day I took off early from work and paid the UMASS archive the first of what would turn out to be many visits.

SLIDE

There I finally located and photocopied RFK’s autopsy report. I took it home and read the 62-page document. I was utterly fascinated. I was also very troubled, both by what I’d found and what I’d not found. I read the report again and again, and, over a short period of time, the depth of the “sleight-of-hand” revealed itself. Less than two months after reading the report I had become convinced that Sirhan Bishara Sirhan did shoot RFK in the head.

QUOTE OFF

>

> To Pat Speer (2):

>

> On another thread, you wrote: "I mean, when is the last time a published

> writer on a controversial event admitted he was wrong in his overall

> conclusions? It doesn't happen. EGOs always seem to get in the way."

>

> My response? I am one of those published writers..

You sure are. And you got the angle of the shot through RFK’s chest wrong and cannot admit it. (See attachment 2.)

John Hunt

>

>

> Dan E. Moldea

[John Simkin]

To John Simkin:

On May 3 at 7:55 A.M., in your post about my book on Senator Kennedy's murder, you flat-out accused me of being corrupted by a publisher's advance and suggested that I was controlled by the CIA and/or the FBI. I can assure you both of these allegations are not true.

Dan E. Moldea’s, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy (1995), is indeed an amazing book. The first 29 chapters provide a comprehensive, logical account of the assassination. However, in the last chapter he completely changes his mind and accepts the official version of events. He even admits that this might surprise his readers as he first entered the case in 1987 with an article arguing that RFK had been the victim of a conspiracy.

Moldea claims that the reason for this change of mind was Gene Cesar’s polygraph test. According to the test, Cesar was telling the truth and therefore Sirhan was the lone gunman. Moldea explains the ballistic evidence by suggesting that the witnesses were mistaken and that Sirhan must have been pushed into RFK allowing his to fire at point-blank range.

If one reads between the lines of the last chapter you can work out why Moldea appears to change his mind about the case. He admits that for many years he believed passionately that there had been a conspiracy. However, he argues he could not afford to spend as much time as he liked researching and writing the book because of financial constraints. He was unable to persuade a publisher to fund this book. It was not until he “received the backing of a major publisher, W. W. Norton & Company” that he could complete the book. In other words, write the last chapter.

Now we know from the testimony of people like Cord Meyer, Tom Braden and William Sullivan that both the CIA and the FBI could arrange with certain companies to get certain books published. They could also make sure other books were not published by major publishers. E. Howard Hunt has also testified that the CIA was able to arrange the “right” reviews for books about certain subjects. (See also Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial for how this system worked).

Dan Moldea has complained about the comments above. It is of course pure speculation on my part and I have no evidence that anybody put him under pressure to change his mind about the assassination of Robert Kennedy. From the email exchanges I have had with Dan I am now convinced that I made a false assumption and I would like to apologise for questioning his integrity.

[John Simkin]

we need a true picture of Thane Eugene Cesar, his age, any nicks, aliases, aka's anything at all. (imho)

Ask investigative reporter Dan Moldea, who wrote a book concluding SBS did it. Dan is the godfather to Cesar's kids.

BK

Bill,

Where does that info come from??

John Hunt

Hi John,

That info comes from my exchanges of emails with Dan. We go back a long way, at least to the American U. Cinema and Politics forum he sat on with John Judge and a half dozen others who evaluated the impact of Ollie Stone's JFK on real life politics - it helped pass the JFK Act, a considerable achievement.

Dan was one of the first to promote the theory that the mafia was responsible for the assassination of JFK, and John Judge and Dan's banter about it - as seen on CSPAN, is now YouTube lore.

We've remained in periodic contact over the years, and he has used some of the Jim Braden material I dug up as evidence tha mob killed Kennedy, and he continues to maintain this theory today, and has been supported by other heavyweights since then - G. R. Blakey, Hartman/Waldron, (Ultimate Sac/Legacy of Secrety) Kaiser (Road to Dallas), all of whom summon the facts to support their theory but ignore other, more pertinent facts that lean towards the real truth.

Although I viametly disagree and in some cases despise these people for what they promote, I also have actually met some of them (Moldea, Blakey) and have maintained communication and an exchange of ideas with them. While John Judge is more quick to judge and condemn, and as a gatekeeper at COPA conferences, tired to keep out the riff-raff and interlopers, I have been more open to discussion with those I disagree with.

Dan and I came together with Jim Braden, who I had developed original research on, and shared with the first chief counsel to the HSCA Richard Sprague. When Dan's mob did it theory was adopted by the second chief counsel, G. R. Blakey, there was a sudden emphesis on all things that pointed to the mob, and Braden was a natural.

I shared everything I had on Braden with everybody and everybody, and still want desperately to interview Braden, but have been unable to locate him.

Dan however, says he got a phone call from Braden, which he tape recorded, and excerpted in his book on J. E. Hover (Which I haven't been able to get), in which Braden says a lot of interesting things. I offered to transcribe this tape for Dan, and he said he would get back to me on it but never has).

In any case, with the recent resurgence of interest in the RFK assassination, I had an exchange of emils with Dan in which he told me that he met Cesar in the course of his research for his book on the RFK assassination, and got to know him personally, and is honored to be the godfather of Cesar's kids.

Now I don't believe a lot of what Dan Moleda says about the mob, but I do believe that he's the godfather to TECJr., and there may be a mention of this on his web site.

It's not uncommon for reporters and investigative journalists to become personally involved with the subjects of thier stories.

BK

Hey, I found it in one Google:

http://www.moldea.com/Response-SOS.html

DEM: "With regard to the “godfather” issue, Cesar was so grateful to me for clearing him in my 1995 book that he asked me to be the godfather of his youngest child in 1999. Knowing that I was never going to write another book about Senator Kennedy's murder, I accepted this honor from the Cesar family without any fear of a conflict of interest."

[Duke Lane]

Dan, I lay no claim to such expertise in RFK's murder as I might in JFK's (or rather, as others may ascribe to me!), but cannot help but add my own two cents' worth of questions and comments to this thread.

The first curiosity is how and if the LA County Coroner (Dr. Thomas Noguchi, as I remember) had gotten it so wrong in his "excellent autopsy" and its corresponding trajectory analysis of the shots that killed RFK. The trajectory, along with tattooing, seems to point toward an origin below and to the right of RFK at a steep upward angle. If Sirhan was in front of RFK at all times, even pressed up against a steam table while continuing to shoot, how did he manage to make the shots that Noguchi described?

Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann cite your 1995 work The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy (pp. 93, 312 and 313) as follows:

The only explanation that accounted for how Sirhan could have fired the fatal shot was offered by Dan Moldea, who wasn't a witness but [who] developed his teory in the 1990s after years of research. Moldea speculated that the witnesses saw only the first shot and, in the panic that followed, didn't realize that Bobby had been pushed (by the crowd behindhim) closer to Sirhan – who, in this scenario, fired as Bobby turned away from him. However, with all those witnesses in a corridor that was little more than six feet wide, no one there reported seeing that happen.

You note here (above):

Indeed, no one saw the muzzle of Sirhan's .22 get that close--but no one saw the Senator get shot either. All of the eyewitness testimony is based on Sirhan's location, relative to Senator Kennedy's, at the moment of the first shot--which, I believe, missed the Senator and struck Paul Schrade, who was standing several feet in back of him. Therefore, in my opinion, the issue of muzzle distance for that first shot is moot. After the shooting started, the crime scene became chaotic. The eyewitnesses were busy covering up and falling all over each other. Yet, we know from Noguchi's excellent autopsy--not from any of the eyewitnesses--that the Senator was hit three times by contact or near-contact shots, along with a fourth shot that went harmlessly through the shoulder pad of his suit jacket.

and

... [it is a mistake] to characterize "the people at the crime scene, including Senator Kennedy and the other five victims, as being stick figures, standing tall and upright throughout the incident. Many of us failed to consider realistically the kinetic movement of the crowd, that everyone in that room must have been in motion after the first or second shot."

and finally,

... Proving that there was a second shooter is now central to everything he believes about this case. But he's not going to find one--because there wasn't one. ... with regard to your belief that Sirhan participated in a conspiracy, you certainly can't prove anything. But don't feel badly--no one else can either. As you already know, it's not what we believe to be true, rather it's what we can prove to be true.[emphasis added]

Does it not follow that you cannot prove that Sirhan was the lone gunman based upon your beliefs about what occurred and when, since there is no apparent (or firm) corroboration of the explanation ascribed to you? Indeed, lacking the proof as to RFK was, in fact, "pushed ... closer to Sirhan" or even that "after the shooting started, the crime scene became chaotic," considering "realistically the movement of the crowd, that everyone in that room must have been in motion after the first or second shot" ... that without those things being true, the evidence is that Kennedy was shot from behind whether or not we can identify the shooter that evidence otherwise does prove existed.

Failure or inability to identify a second person involved does not negate the possibility or likelihood that one was involved, any more than suggesting possibilities (what I call the "if-then-because" syndrome), however sensible they may seem or be, proves any other scenario. Was it not explained at one time, for example, that JFK was shot in the throat when he turned around in the limo, looking nearly behind him? It fit the theory nicely, but unfortunately turned out not to be fact and therefore not an explanation of a shot in front.

("If-then-because" is shorthand for the predilection of some writers to suggest that "if this occurred, then it is also possible that the other thing occurred, and those things being true, it proves this because of that.")

The through-and-through postulated for JFK's neck/throat stands only to prop up the theory of one gunman from behind, and there is no absolute, scientific proof that the front and rear wounds occurred in one way or another. Noguchi's "excellent autopsy" proves that the shots that hit RFK came from behind him and, absent any known or observed facts to the contrary, likewise proves that someone other than Sirhan inflicted those wounds. Your "speculation" that RFK was "pushed ... closer to Sirhan" and the unobserved suggestion that the "[realistic] kinetic movement" including that those in the room "must have been in motion after the first or second shot," while seemingly explaining Noguchi's observed phenomenon, likewise fails to prove that Sirhan fired those shots.

If the shots came from from RFK's rear and if either Sirhan did not provably somehow get behind RFK, or RKF did not provably get pushed toward Sirhan or did not somehow provably get turned around before getting struck in the back by Sirhan's bullets, then the preponderance of evidence is that there was a second gunman. If, as is said, the bullets could not be provably and solely tied ballistically to Sirhan's gun (or any single gun at all), then that possibility remains viable (or possible proof that it wasn't Sirhan's gun that fired the rear shots).

Even if we accept that Sirhan somehow fired all of the shots and that there were only eight of them, it still does not rule out the possibility of a conspiracy since it is not necessary for more than one person to have performed the ultimate act if there were others who conspired with him in advance of or up to the point of commission. If there was no conspiracy, what then of the polka-dot girl and her compatriot, said to have been seen by several people before knowledge of the claim of seeing her had become common knowledge? Why on earth would she want to be telling people that "we killed him?" She needn't have had any part in pulling the trigger, and even if all she did was accompany Shirhan to shore up his flagging confidence until the deed was done, she would still be part of a "conspiracy" by its definition. A denial by a conspirator that there "were no others involved" does not prove there weren't, any more than other appearances prove that there was.

I might finally note the irony in your statement:

... then, I might consider sitting down with you--as I have with so many others with legitimate credentials--and debate ....

"Irony" in that, even lacking "legitimate credentials" in a field as ballistics, you will dispute those with such credentials over the conclusions they'd drawn, such as the number of bullets and/or bullet holes, and likewise that those who do have such credentials are willing to sit with someone who does not have any to debate those topics. Not only do you seem to think that you're qualified to debate technical issues with those who are qualified in those areas while you are admittedly not, you seem to be conveying that, even despite your own lack of "legitimate credentials" that you are somehow qualified to debate those issues with those who have them, while others similarly lacking in them are not qualified to debate them even with you.

That's an especially curious position for someone who is most often referred to as a "journalist," a profession that has no "credentials" other than the fact of writing something, having it published, and actually getting paid for it. As pointed out by fellow journalist and author Barbie Zelizer in her accepted doctoral thesis, journalism has no trade or professional associations, no minimum education requirements, no continuing education (required or otherwise), no specialties or levels of proficiency, and no testing or licensing or background requirements. If those who have "legitimate credentials" were themselves willing only to discuss or debate with those who have "legitimate credentials" of their own, journalists would be non-existent since nobody'd talk with them!

It all comes down, then, to a layperson laying out theory as fact using "the science of making sense" without resorting to either provable or observed facts in order to "prove" his own beliefs as fact, does it not?

[Micah Mileto]

 

Speculation about shot sequences must take into account the true location of Paul Schrade's head wound.

Lisa Pease on Black Op Radio show #581 from June 7, 2012, timestamp 19:19:

 

"Interestingly enough, Paul Schrade was hit on the top of his head at a downward angle. And I did not know until just a few months ago, I see Paul Schrade fairly regularly, he and I are both big liberal activists and we often cross paths at events. In fact, I saw him last night, there was a gathering at the RFK inspiration park to honor Robert Kennedy's memory and I talked to him there. So, at one of these recent meetings I asked him 'can I feel your wound? I wanna feel where the shot went in' and I expected- cause I always read he was shot in the forehead, I expected he would point to somewhere below his hairline, and instead he pointed to a spot about two or three inches above his hairline near the top of his head, and I'm like 'how could a bullet enter from that angle?' If it came from Sirhan and Sirhan's firing straight ahead- and, of course, he had no answer for that and I said 'could you have been looking down?' and he said 'No, I wasn't looking down, I was looking straight ahead'."