Review of a new book that appeared in today's Independent

Was Robert Kennedy killed by a real 'Manchurian candidate'-style assassin?
A new book claims to reveal evidence that the CIA, FBI and Aristotle Onassis hypnotised a Palestinian man into assassinating Robert Kennedy. John Hiscock reports

18 January 2005

It happened nearly 38 years ago, but doubts and suspicions have lingered on. Now the circumstances surrounding the assassination of Robert Kennedy are being resurrected and re-examined in an attempt to establish the truth of what happened that night in the cramped pantry of a Los Angeles hotel.

New evidence has emerged and pressure is mounting on authorities to reopen the case of Sirhan Sirhan, who was convicted of the assassination and who remains in the California state prison in Corcoran.

Celebrities and journalists are joining the campaign for a federal investigation, which has been sparked in part by a new book, Nemesis, by the British author Peter Evans. Evans, who spent 10 years researching the book, has unearthed evidence to support Sirhan's contention that he was hypnotised into being the "fall guy" for the murder. Evans identifies the hypnotist, who had worked on CIA mind control programmes and who was later found dead in mysterious circumstances.

In another move to reopen the case, a lawsuit has been filed in Los Angeles Superior Court to stop the pantry at the Ambassador Hotel being destroyed with the rest of the hotel because, it is claimed, bullet holes in the walls and ceiling demonstrate conclusively that more than one gunman fired shots at Senator Kennedy.

Both Evans and Sirhan's lawyer, Larry Teeter, are convinced that the Palestinian activist was chosen to be a Manchurian Candidate-style assassin. In the 1962 film, remade last year, and based on a novel by Richard Condon, a former prisoner of war from the Korean conflict is brainwashed by Communists into becoming a political assassin.

Evans and Teeter believe that while Sirhan fired several shots, none of them hit Kennedy. The assassination, they say, was carried out by a professional hitman who fled immediately, leaving Sirhan to take the blame.

It was only because Kennedy had dismissed his Los Angeles police bodyguards that Sirhan survived and was not gunned down on the spot as his controllers had intended, reports Evans.

The actor Robert Vaughn, who starred in the long-running television series The Man From U.N.C.L.E and who was a good friend of Robert Kennedy's, has sent a copy of Evans' book to Sirhan and his lawyers. In his letter to Sirhan, Vaughn wrote: "It contains important new information about your case that I believe substantiates your claims of having been hypnotised at the time of the shooting and also produces the first credible evidence of motivation and method. I can tell you that, like me, important people in the US media are persuaded by Mr Evans' revelations; some are talking of it opening the door to a long overdue federal investigation into the assassination. I also believe that it could give you the grounds for a new appeal."

The author Dominick Dunne, in his Vanity Fair column last month, described Nemesis as presenting "a startling revision of American history".

Robert Kennedy was the senator for New York, the head of the Kennedy clan and, according to Evans, the occasional lover of his sister-in-law, Jackie Kennedy, when his snowballing presidential campaign rolled into California. He triumphed in the California primary, and around midnight on 5 June 1968 in the Embassy Room of the Ambassador Hotel he thanked his supporters. Then, surrounded by aides, hotel employees and newsmen, with his wife, Ethel, a few yards behind and with the cheers still ringing in his ears, he left for a press conference in the Colonial Room on the other side of the hotel.

The route they took, from the stage to an anteroom and into the service corridors, led them through a narrow serving-kitchen known as the pantry. As the senator approached, a dark, slim young man stepped from behind a tray rack. He raised a .22 calibre revolver and squeezed the trigger. The gunman continued firing, wounding five other people as Kennedy aides and hotel employees wrestled him down on to a table for steaming food, where he was held until police arrived.

On 17 April 1969, after 64 sequestered days and nights, and 16 and a half hours of deliberation, the jury of seven men and five women found Sirhan "alone and not in concert with anyone else" guilty of murder in the first degree. He was sentenced to death in the gas chamber, but the sentence was reduced to life imprisonment when the United States Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional.

Those facts are not in dispute. Nearly everything else is.

"There was no way Sirhan Sirhan killed Kennedy," says Teeter, who has filed the lawsuit to preserve the pantry for further forensic examination. "He was the fall guy. His job was to get busted while the trigger man walked out. He wasn't consciously involved in any plot. He was a patsy. He was unconscious and unaware of what was happening - he was the true Manchurian Candidate.

"He is absolutely innocent. He is not the person who did the shooting. He was out of position and out of range and he couldn't have done it."

Teeter does not know for certain who hypnotised Sirhan, but, he said: "I know it was done. It was consistent with the US government's programme developed by the CIA and Military Intelligence to enable handlers to get people to commit crimes with no knowledge of what they are doing."

Evans goes further and names the hypnotist as a Dr William Joseph Bryan Jnr. He had worked on a CIA mind-control programme called MKULTRA and claimed to have moonlighted as a technical adviser on The Manchurian Candidate. The hypnosis, says Evans, had been done over three months, a period known as the "white fog" when the Los Angeles police task force later investigating the assassination - and trying to construct a meticulous timetable of Sirhan's activities up to the shooting - lost track of him.

Sergeant Bill Jordan, the detective who was Sirhan's first interrogator, told Evans: "We took him back for more than a year with some intensity - where he'd been, what he'd been doing, who he'd been seeing. But there was this 10- or 12-week gap, like a blanket of white fog we could never penetrate, and which Sirhan himself appeared to have a complete amnesia about."

Dr Bryan was found dead in a Las Vegas hotel room in 1978. He had either shot himself or was murdered. The case remains unsolved.

Evans agrees that Sirhan could not have killed Kennedy. "He got off a lot of shots and the panic in the pantry that night was extraordinary. But the angle of the bullet holes are against Sirhan having pulled the trigger," he said. "Sirhan Sirhan was very volatile, very visible and the perfect patsy.

"Unfortunately, some of the physical evidence was destroyed almost immediately because the Los Angeles police department burned the doors to the pantry, which was an extraordinary thing to do."

The recollections of a waiter at the Ambassador at the time add weight to the theories that Sirhan was not the assassin. Phil Elwell, who owns the popular King's Head pub and restaurant in Santa Monica, recalls that his friend and fellow waiter Carl Ucker was in the pantry that night and grabbed Sirhan's gun hand. "He was holding Sirhan Sirhan's wrist, and although Sirhan was firing the gun, Carl said that there was no way that any of the bullets could have hit Kennedy," said Elwell. "Carl told the police this and went on a lot of talk shows saying the same thing, but nobody seemed to take much notice."

Where Evans and Teeter differ is on the question of motive, and there they are at loggerheads.

"The assassination was staged by US intelligence for the purpose of continuing the war against Vietnam and putting the Republican Party in the White House," said Teeter. "The assassination was arranged with the CIA, the FBI and the LAPD. There was a massive cover-up. If he had lived and been allowed to run, Bobby Kennedy would have been elected president and this was a multi-agency task force to make sure that the Democrats didn't take the White House again."

In Nemesis, Evans gives a totally different motive. He has unearthed startling evidence that the assassination was carried out by a Palestinian terrorist named Mahmoud Hamshari.

Evans quotes sources as saying that Hamshari was receiving protection money from Aristotle Onassis to prevent attacks on his Olympic Airlines. Onassis, says Evans, had hated Bobby Kennedy since 1953, when Kennedy was one of the prime movers in scuppering a major deal Onassis was pushing through in Saudi Arabia. In addition, Kennedy stood in the way of his marriage to Jackie. She had promised her brother-in-law not to wed Onassis until after the 1968 election because they both knew how the American public would have reacted. She married Onassis in October 1968.

Dr Bryan was chosen to hypnotise Sirhan because he had links to both Hamshari and Onassis. Hamshari had visited him seeking a cure for migraine headaches, while Onassis had called on the doctor in an attempt to cure his sexual dysfunction, says Evans. It was Onassis's money, says Evans, that financed both the hypnotism of Sirhan and the assassination.

He says that Onassis confessed his complicity in the assassination to one of his lovers, Helen Gaillet De Neergaard, when she was his guest on his private island, Skorpios, in 1974. She confirms this in a letter to Vanity Fair, published in the February issue. "Thank God the truth has finally been told for posterity," she writes.

Teeter scoffs at Evans' research and describes the book as "a soap opera". Said Evans: "I can see Mr Teeter's nervousness about my book because I have shown that Sirhan Sirhan was there, he had a gun and he pulled the trigger. My book is about the conspiracy to murder Bobby Kennedy and it is putting a lot of pressure on authorities to reopen the case. The point of the assassination is not who fired the gun, but who paid for the bullets. Aristotle Onassis paid for the bullets."

The 84-year-old, 500-room Ambassador Hotel, which was the site of six Academy Awards ceremonies and where many celebrities, including the aviator and movie producer Howard Hughes, had permanent suites, was never the same after the assassination. Many believe it died with Robert Kennedy. It became more run down year by year, closing floor by floor until it finally shut its doors to the public on 3 January 1989. Its contents were auctioned off in the 1990s and it now stands empty and derelict behind a chain-link fence on Wilshire Boulevard.

Los Angeles officials want to tear it down and build three schools on the site, while the Los Angeles Conservancy is fighting to save the hotel because of its architectural value and historic significance.

The Kennedy family has argued forcefully against saving the hotel, saying that new schools would make the most fitting memorial to Bobby's life.

The pantry remains in the bowels of the building, a decaying space with bullet holes in the wall and ceiling. An ice machine still drips. Pending the outcome of Teeter's lawsuit, a panel of historians will be appointed to consider if the room ought to be sliced out and shipped whole to another site, preserved as it is, or destroyed along with the hotel.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...sp?story=601960

Fascinating stuff here, John.

Somebody had argued that Onassis was also behind the JFK assassination because he loved Jackie but to posit that he would orchestrate an assassination in which the lady he loved was sitting next to JFK in the motorcade makes as much sense as saying John Connally was involved in the assassination and rode in the same cae.

Onassis-JFK? Ridiculous.

Onassis-RFK? Maybe. I want to read the book.

Mark would like to hear your opinions about the death of Princess DI, by the way. Do you think that was a conspiracy rather than an accident?

Personally, I think this book is a load of BS - I was excited to read it, but since 98% of the stuff published in "Vanity Fair" magazine is BS, I shouldn't have expected more from this. Has some good pictures, though.

I read Philip Melansons book on the RFK assassination and it is quite fascinating stuff, it seems to be nearly as shabby a case as the JFK assassination. Hypotists have been denied access to sirhan for years now, hypnosis could awaken some of his memories. I know this sounds wacko but as we have all found out over the last few years of research it is very possible that sirhan was hypnotized, hypnotism of this kind was in its infancy so another shooter, possibly two had to carry out the actual job while Sirhan was left to burn. The CIAs leading hypnotist once confessed to a girl that he had hypnotised Sirhan, he was more bragging than confessing.

John,

I've never researched the RFK murder because I always thought it was an open and shut lone nut case (just the way the MIC/Agencies like it). However, in view of all that has been disclosed on the JFK threads about Governments, Agencies and power groups and their convoluted workings, nothing at all would surprise.

I seem to recall a doco I saw on TV where RFK was asked, just prior to his assassination, whether, if he was to win the nomination and presidency, he would revisit the assassination of his brother. I think his answer was something like, "I'll be in a great position to do that". Another observation that can be made about these things, IMO, is that when the authorities say "look left" it is usually best to look right and vice versa. Immediately after JFK was murdered, everyone from LBJ down was trying to persuade the public that it was communist(s) responsible when, in reality, Castro or Kruschev would have no reason to murder a President who was attempting to normalise relations and enter treaty negotiations with them, against the advice of many in his own forces. So when a Palestinian, lone nut assassin materialises as if by magic, I start to look in the opposite direction, irredeemable cynic that I am.

The Israeli Government of the 1960's was an aggressive, bellicose force. The terrible memories of the holocaust were less than two decades old and they were determined, with justification, that it should never be repeated. Their behavior during the Suez crisis and their attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 recieves scant media analysis. The Liberty coverup was another of LBJ's dubious legacies to his people, where sailors on that ship were threatened with court martial if they spoke out, despite the fact that 34 American servicemen were killed. I also have never seen it mentioned on this forum.

Finally, this is in the realm of pure speculation, but it's curious that by the time of the MLK and RFK assassinations, most people were skeptical about the WC findings and the LNT in general. Suddenly, two nice, pat, lone nut assassinations occur as if to lend some kind of post facto reinforcement to the WC findings. I can visualise the LNT supporters telling their friends, "see, I told ya'---this place is full of 'em". How's that for cynical?

For those not in the know, the RFK autopsy info is even crazier than the JFK info. The coroner Noguchi concluded that the lethal bullet was fired point blank from behind, while not one of the dozens of witnesses saw Sirhan get closer than 2-3 feet in front of Kennedy, nor saw RFK turn his back. The only thing that's stopped this from being all over the internet is that the LAPD locked up all the records until recently, and there was not an Earl Warren involved who thought he could put it all out there and that suspicion would die.

The people who killed JFK would have had an even more of a reason to kill RFK.

It doesn't take a genius to see that if five people were wounded and bullets went into the woodwork and the waiters got a hold of the pistol during the barrage, then a point blank shot to the back of the head is not really possible from Sirhan Sirhan.

I suspect this has quite a bit to do with DARYL GATES and the LAPD intelligence squad, tactically, and CIA/MI joint agencies, strategically.

Whatever problems Jack had with the security clearance agencies,
Bobbie had worse problems.

We have to see that the reactionaries like Curtis LeMay and Richard Helms saw both of the Kennedys as pacifist, communist, pro-black and drug-using scum.

They took it upon themselves to "protect" the US from the executives they were electing......

Who killed the Psychiatrist? Why?

Define "point blank" from a medical examiners perspective. to my mind it means touching or nearly so (12" or less) but could his perspective be different?

Wasn't there a suspicious RFK bodyguard in a position to fire close in from the rear?

Hi Shanet,

I believe that security guard Eugene Thane Cesar fired the lethal shot from behind.

This montage below shows Thane Cesar on the right in the group shot apparently without his tie. The image of a dying RFK shows a clip-on neck tie lying next to him.

One could assume that RFK grabbed for something during the mayhem which suggests that Thane Cesar was right in the thick of the action.

James

This is from memory, so please forgive any mistakes. Ceaser was working part-time for a company called,"Ace Security" (OH THE IRONY) He recived a call from his boss asking him to provide cover at the rally, due to sickness. At the time of the shooting, Ceaser was behind Kennedy within touching distance & so in a much better position than Sirhan, to have done the shooting.

He sold the gun to a work-mate within days of the assassination, which then convienently went missing for 20 years. He was questioned by LAPD, but in a very laid back manner. He is still alive today, & works in the Aerospace industry, in California.

In 1968 Ceaser was a strong Wallace supporter.

Your info is pretty much right on. The Cesar angle is a bit odd. Dan Moldea was able to track him down and come away completely convinced of the man's innocence. Still, it's mighty suspicious that the man sold his .22 right after the assassination and lied about it. (The .22 by the way was stolen by some kids and was not recovered until sometime in the last ten years I believe when the kids read about the significance of the weapon. I'm pretty sure it was tested, but the tests were inconclusive, as I remember.) Anyhow, much of the LAPD's behavior is a bit odd. I read Daryl Gates' book and was surprised to find that he liked JFK, respected RFK, hated Hoover, and thought LBJ was low-class. So I'm undecided on this issue. Unfortunately, for Larry Teeter, Sirhan's lawyer, the one thing I'm pretty sure about is that Sirhan is a liar, and that he remembers a lot more than he's ever told..

My suspicion is the mob did it. Maybe they were hired by the CIA, but they were behind it. Sirhan worked at a track and knew some heavies; maybe he got himself into debt and was made an offer you can't refuse. What feeds this suspicion is that Sirhan's trial lawyer Grant Cooper was in hot water due to the shenanigans of Johnny Roselli, and conveniently never brought up the smelly medical evidence at trial. He then got way with a handslap on the Roselli matter--which was over some stolen Grand Jury testimony. Teeter of course claims the Roselli/Cooper incident was a set-up to railroad Sirhan--like James Earl Ray, Sirhan's case was never really argued. Another obscure fact that points to possible mob involvement is that Sirhan was reported to have hitch-hiked with a man named Jerry Owen, who never tried to sell his story, and who tried to disappear after telling his story to the cops. Owen's alibi for the night of the assassination was Slapsie Maxie Rosenbloom, a business partner of the mobster Mickey Cohen's and a buddy of L.A. Mayor Sam Yorty. Cohen was also pals with Jack Ruby's lawyer Melvin Belli. Something's just fishy. It just smells to high heaven that RFK would get killed by a Palestinian--if ever there was a sure way to make sure that the critics of the Warren Commission wouldn't get all hot and bothered over RFK's death, it would be by setting up a Palestinian. Even a Christian Palestinian would do.

Thanks for tidying that up Pat. Was polka-dot dress girl(we killed kennedy)
ever explained, or the Hippie couple with the "Kennedy must die",car
sticker outside the Hotel?

Ok... Found this while searching for "polka-dot dress girl"

William J Bryan, who boasted he had hypnotised Sirhan, also worked
in the Albert DeSalvo (Boston strangler) case. He was responsible for
deprogramming DeSalvo though hypnosis.

In Sirhan's notebook of automatic writting,which contains the trance-like
repeated phrase,"Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated",There is also
a most peculiar passage,"God help me,please help me Salvo di di salvo
DIE S SALVO".

Hi Stephen,

The girl in the polka dot dress is a curious aspect to this. If you Google Kathy Ainsworth, you will find some interesting information to consider.

James

James - So this women is the women in the polka dot dress ?


Terror in the Night: The Klan's Campaign Against the Jews, by Jack Nelson. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1996. 287 pp. $16.00.

THIS FAST-PACED NARRATIVE BY A PULITZER-PRIZE WINNING journalist focuses on the violence aimed at Mississippi's Jews during the late 1960s, on the role of a youthful zealot, Thomas Albert Tarrants, III, on the awakening of "assimilationist" Jews, and on how a few courageous Mississippi lawmen and FBI agents stopped the terrorism.

Tarrants, a bright high-school drop-out who loved weapons and explosives and Sam Bowers, the imperial wizard of Mississippi's super-secret Klan, the White Knights, believed that an international cabal of Communists and Jews had instigated the civil rights movement and brought turmoil to the state. Hence, Tarrants and Bowers conspired to conduct a campaign of violence against Mississippi's Jews.

On the evening of September 18, 1967, Tarrants struck. With an accomplice, Kathy Ainsworth-a pretty, married school-teacher by day and an anti-Semitic terrorist by night-Tarrants used dynamite to bomb Temple Beth Israel in Jackson, the synagogue of Rabbi Perry Nussbaum, one of Mississippi's most outspoken Jews on civil rights issues. The bombing prompted new counterintelligence measures by the local FBI.

In October and November, Tarrants bombed the homes of black and white civil rights activists in and around Jackson and the residence of Rabbi Nussbaum. Miraculously, no one was killed. Washington rushed additional FBI agents to Mississippi; Roy Moore, head of the Jackson Bureau, stepped up his recruitment of Klan informants; and prominent Jewish segregationists experienced a transformation in their thinking.

In 1968 the Klan, feeling pressure from the FBI, shifted its terrorism campaign to Meridian. The White Knights burned black churches, and Tarrants, then unknown to the FBI, fired into the home of a black female activist in Meridian, The local chief of police, Roy Gunn, a one-time segregationist now working with the FBI, vowed war on the Klan to end the violence. Jackson Jews warned Meridian's Jews to be on the alert, but most remained complacent until May 28 when dynamite planted by Tarrants and Danny Joe Hawkins destroyed the local synagogue.

After the bombing, the FBI and Chief Gunn used intimidation and harassment to enlist as informants Meridian's two most feared Klan members, brothers Raymond and Alton Wayne Roberts. The latter, like Sam Bowers, was free on bond after conviction in connection with the murder in 1964 of civil rights workers Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman. Harassed for months, the two brothers decided finally to cooperate for money, which was raised by Mississippi's Jews who now recognized that generations of assimilation had not made them immune from Klan violence. The Roberts brothers soon confirmed the suspicions of the FBI that Tarrants and Hawkins had bombed the Meridian synagogue.

By mid-June Raymond and Alton Wayne had covertly arranged an ambush for Tarrants and Hawkins by assisting them in their plan to bomb the home of Meyer Davidson, one of Meridian's prominent Jews. The FBI, state police, and local lawmen agreed that the nightriders would not leave the scene alive.

On the night of June 28, Kathy Ainsworth rather than Hawkins accompanied Tarrants to Meridian, where they pulled to the curb in front of the Davidson house. As Tarrants went to place the bomb, the hidden lawmen called on him to halt. When he did not, the police opened fire. Tarrants was severely wounded and Kathy was shot dead while attempting to retrieve a weapon under the seat.

Tarrants survived his wounds to stand trial. Unrepentant, he was sentenced to serve a thirty-year term in Mississippi 's tough Parchman prison. After an escape and recapture, he underwent a dramatic religious conversion and after eight years in prison was paroled to enter the University of Mississippi. In 1992 he was training missionaries in North Carolina and married to the daughter of prominent North Carolinians.

For years Jack Nelson agonized over the ambush of Tarrants and Ainsworth, which the FBI claimed was good law enforcement, not entrapment. Nelson thought otherwise. He wrote an article about the trap set for the terrorists for the Los Angeles Times, after which J. Edgar Hoover smeared him as an alcoholic. This book apparently served as a catharsis of sorts for the author.

Nelson tells an extraordinary story based on extraordinary investigative journalism. Heretofore, books about the Klan in Mississippi and elsewhere have focused usually on the violence carried out against African Americans, but this book makes the reader aware that as recently as the 1960s, the Klan targeted Jews. Today the conspiracy-minded, mean-spirited, and paranoid have refocused their hostility. The government of the United States and sometimes the universities and big business have become targets of terrorism by loners and occasionally militia members. In a free society there always will be aberrant, demented individuals who will find scapegoats for their hostilities or delusions and carry out acts of violence. But to maintain its freedom, a society needs to remain vigilant and monitor such persons and organizations as closely as the FBI and Mississippi lawmen watched the White Knights in the 1960s.

Copyright Mississippi Quarterly Winter 1997/1998Provided by ProQuest

James - So this women is the women in the polka dot dress ? (Shanet Clark)

Hi Shanet,

It has been proposed that she was and Tarrants was the guy with her. Jury is still out for me but there just might be something to it.

This is something that people need to research for themselves as it may prove to be a contentious issue.

This is Tarrants below.

James

James, I have been looking at where the original reports of this lady
& her male partner came from,here's what i've got.

At 12-20am,Sergeant Paul Sharaga, heard the ambulance "shooting
call"on his police radio. Sharaga remembers"I was directly across
the street from the Ambassador on Fedora.All I had to do was make a
U turn & I was in the back parking lot." I arrived at the hotel & there
was mass confusion."Right away an older Jewish couple ran up to me
They were hysterical, I asked them what happened? The woman said
they were coming out of the Embassy room when a young couple in
their early twenties,well dressed came running past them. They were
very happy,shouting,"weshot him,weshot him" the older woman asked
"Who did you shoot" The girl said "Kennedy, we killed him."
I said can you describe them The lady described the girl as"Female
caucasian, early twenties,light hair,wearing a polka dot dress. Male
caucasion, early twenties,well dressed. no further description.

Sharaga also said "These were spontaneous remarks,not colored by
imagination. That was the most valid description avaiable.

Sergeant Sharaga's notes are missing from LAPD files,after he handed
them to detectives at the scene.

I'm not in research mode, right now, but as I remember it, the LAPD dismissed the story of the polka dot dress woman altogether, claiming there was no such woman. Years later a researcher, however, maybe it was Turner or maybe even Melanson, was able to show there were several witnesses to the polka dot dress woman and that all the police reports on her disappeared or were ignored.

The LAPD doesn't like loose ends, so they just ignore them.

Hi Stephen,

RFK campaign aide Sandra Serrano was one who saw the woman in the polka dot dress exit the Ambassador Hotel. Serrano was unwavering in her account of what happened. She was also the subject of some heavy-handed bullying by Hank Hernandez who on behalf of the LAPD administered a polygraph test. I fear the truth was not being sought here but for Serrano to recant. Hernandez is an interesting character on his own and a search into his background will turn up some curious information.

The couple that also witnessed the escape of the woman in the polka dot dress were referred to as 'The Bernsteins' but as Pat said, these reports all went missing.

It was later claimed that Valerie Schulte, a coed from Santa Barbara was the woman in the polka dot dress. Trouble is the dress was the wrong type and with different dots, and she also didn't go running from the building yelling "we killed him".

Schulte below.

James

Right, let's just remind ourselves what were actually saying.

The LAPD were in possestion of Sharaga's note's,which were
taken shortly after the shooting.The report given by a couple,
who claimed to have witnessed the self confessed assassins
leaving the scene. Notes which contained good, solid eyewitness
accounts of the suspects.BUT THEY LOST THEM!!!!!

This evidence related to the murder of A presidential candidate,
who's brother had been brutally slain, in a highly controversial
manner only 5 years before. BUT THEY LOST THEM!!!!

Perhaps it got thrown out with all those ceiling tiles & door frames

James.

here's some of that heavy handed bullying.
Interview of Sandy Serrano, Official Transcript.

Hernandez.."I think you owe it to senator Kennedy to come forth, be
a woman about this. He's a witness in this room, right now. Dont shame
his death by keeping this thing up. I have compassion for you. I want
to know why. I want to know why you did what you did, this is a very
serious thing."

Serrano.." I seen those people".

Hernandez.."No,no,no,no,Sandy. Remember what I told you about
that. You can't say you saw something when you didnt see it.

Serrano.."Well I dont feel i'm doing any thing wrong. I remember
seeing that girl.

Hernandez.."(Angry!) NO,NO,Im talking about you seeing a person
tell you(sic) "We shot Kennedy". And thats wrong.

Serrano.." Thats what she said"

Hernandez.."Look it, look it, I love this man"

Serrano.." So do I"

Hernandez.."And your shaming him"

Serrano.." Dont shout at me"...

Hernandez.."Well, Im trying not to shout, but this is a very emotional
thing for me too...If you love this man the least you owe him is to let
him rest in peace.......!!!

This went on for more than an hour. after which Hernandez administered
a polygraph test, which he said Serrano failed....

" WE HAVE THREE SHOTS & THATS ALL WERE ADMITTING TO"...........

FURTHER DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE BY LAPD.

...2,400,Photographs burned because they were"Dulicates" in fact,
there were no lists precise enough to show that all the photo's
destroyed were indeed duplicates.


...Ceiling tiles & door frames from the pantry destroyed, because
according to then assistant chief Daryl Gates, they would'nt fit
into card files.

...In addition, LAPD records showed that they had recorded 3,470
interviews during the course of the investigation. only 301 interviews
were released. Examination by researchers showed that for 501
key " conspiracy" witnesses there were no interviews.

The LAPD were not alone in this cover up. The L.A. District Attorney's
office was also involved. The scope of this involvement was seen in
the files released in 1985, due mainly to the inclusion of a box of tapes,
videos & documents sent from the LAPD branch at Van Nuys. This box
contained evidence which went against the official version. The most
graphic examples were the video reconstructions from 1968 & 1977,
which prove that Sirhan could not have inflicted the wounds on Senator
Kennedy. However, by using selected stills from the recon's the official
version was supported......

Source The Cover Up...http//homepages.tcp.co.uk/~dlewis/coverup.htm

Hi Stephen,

It's enough to make one very angry, isn't it?

The other guy who we haven't mentioned yet was the one running the investigation, Manny Pena. This guy was brought out of retirement and is a curious individual to say the least. Background on him suggests that CIA wanted their man at the helm of the investigation.

James

James.
Be interested to hear what you've got on Mr Pena.
Ive been looking into the discrepancy between Noguchi's autopsy
conclusions, & eyewitness accounts. Will post on this soon.
(Just back from a long W/E in Paris ,25th wedding aniversary
so please put any mistakes down to vast ammounts of vino
drunk.)

Be interested to hear what you've got on Mr Pena. (Stephen Turner)

Stephen,

If my memory serves me correctly, there was some work done on Pena by Lisa Pease which included that he served in the Navy during WW2, the Army during the Korean War, and counterintelligence in France.

I will have to dig amongst my notes for specific details. I'm sure a Google search will offer plenty.

Cheers,

James

Thanks James.

I will give Mr Pena a good "Googling" when time permits.

Hi Stephen,

This link is to a pretty good piece on the RFK assassination. It gives some brief background on Hank Hernandez and Manuel Pena.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/rfkplot.htm

James

My article on the RFK assassination was published on History News Network last month.It provoked a reply from Peter Evans as you can see.There are numerous other issues to consider about this case as I see from your forum posts- 'polka dot girl', ballistics etc and I am willing to discuss them all.

DID THE PLO MURDER ROBERT KENNEDY?
BY MEL AYTON

(www.melayton.co.uk)
The issue of a possible conspiracy in the murder of Senator Robert F Kennedy in 1968 has once again been resurrected with the publication of Peter Evans’ book ‘Nemesis’ and the recent calls from Hollywood celebrities and magazine writers to re-open the case - (see John Hiscock’s ‘Was Robert Kennedy Killed By A Real Manchurian Candidate Style Assassin?’, The Independent, January 18th 2005 and Dominick Dunne’s article in Vanity Fair, December 2004 issue)
The principal discrepancy which led to charges of conspiracy turned on the number of shots fired. Conspiracy researchers alleged they were more than the number of bullets Sirhan’s gun could hold. However, in 1995 investigative reporter Dan Moldea, a former conspiracy advocate, published the results of his investigation into the murder of Robert Kennedy in “The Killing Of Robert Kennedy - An Investigation into Motive, Means and Opportunity” (1995). Moldea poured over the mountain of evidence in the case. He studied the forensic and ballistic reports and interviewed scores of witnesses, including many of the police officers involved who had never been interviewed previously. What he found suggested a botched investigation involving the mishandling of physical evidence in the case, the failure to correctly interview some witnesses, the premature (but non-sinister) destruction of key pieces of physical evidence and the lack of proper procedures in securing and investigating the crime scene. Moldea successfully addressed the issues of alleged bullet holes in door frames (too small to be made by bullets) and the number of shots fired (8, not 10 as conspiracy advocates allege).
Amongst conspiracy advocates, only Peter Evans supported the argument that Sirhan likely fired the gun that killed Kennedy. Yet his allegation that Aristotle Onassis ordered the assassination is flawed. Evans alleged that Sirhan had been ordered to kill RFK by PLO official Mahmoud Hamshari. He claims to have unearthed evidence that Aristotle Onassis had given Hamshari money to direct his PLO terrorists away from his Olympic Airways airlines at a time when planes were being hijacked and that some of the money was used to hire Sirhan to kill RFK. Evans claimed that Onassis was aware of the plot and, indeed, wanted RFK eliminated so the New York Senator would not stand in the way of his marrying JFK’s widow, Jacqueline Kennedy.

In fact there many inconsistencies in Evans’ theory. Although the author accepts the statements made by Onassis’ friends and relatives that the shipping tycoon admitted he had been responsible for RFK’s murder, he contradicts himself by quoting close Onassis aides as having had trouble sorting out their bosses’ “exaggerations, half-truths and lies”.

Central to Evans’ thesis are entries in Sirhan’s notebooks which purportedly connected Aristotle Onassis to the assassin. Evans alleges Sirhan’s notebooks make reference to Alexander Onassis’s girlfriend Fiona who his father detested and Stavros Niarchos, his shipping rival whom he also hated.However, Evans’ juxtaposition of names to prove Sirhan wrote about killing Onassis’ ‘enemies’ is misleading. Sirhan had placed the name FIONA in a list of racehorse names – Fiona, Jet-Spec, Kings Abbey and Prince Khaled. The Arabic script consists of one sentence “He should be killed” (not “They should be killed” as Evans alleges) and does not refer to either ‘Niarkos’ or ‘Fiona’. The diary entry ‘Niarkos’ remains unexplained, as do many other entries in Sirhan’s notebooks, but there is no indication it refers to anyone on a ‘Sirhan Death List’. The words in Sirhan’s notebooks were the result of simple ‘stream-of-consciousness’ ramblings he learned from Rosicrucian literature as ways to improve his life. The notebooks are filled with names of people Sirhan knew – Bert Altfillisch, Peggy Osterkamp and Gwen Gum for example, and people he didn’t know like Garner Ted Armstrong. The entries which refer to ‘$100,000’ were simply Sirhan’s obsessions about wealth and appear a number of times in the notebooks.

Central to Evans’ thesis was the implication that Sirhan had spent a ‘three month’ period before the assassination being trained by terrorists or undergoing hypnotic indoctrination. Evans was wrong in stating Sirhan’s movements were unaccounted for, or ‘a blanket of white fog’ as he put it. Sirhan’s movements in the year prior to the assassination leave no unaccountable period allegedly spent ‘terrorist training’ or ‘hypnotically indoctrinated’.

The LAPD investigative team, SUS, gave no credence to the idea that Sirhan had been ‘missing’ during any period from June 1967 to June 1968 despite the comments of an Evans source, LAPD Officer Jordan. In the year prior to the assassination he was seen frequently in Pasadena’s Hi-Life bar by waitress Marilyn Hunt.He was also observed in Shap’s Bar during this time.In July 1967 Sirhan filed a disability complaint for workmen’s compensation. Between July and September 1967 Sirhan’s mother and brother Munir said Sirhan went often to the Pasadena library.Library records confirm he borrowed books during this period. Sirhan’s mother said her son ‘..stayed at home for over a year (sic) with no job’(October 1966 to September 1967). Also during this period Sirhan, by his mother’s account, often drove her to work. On 9th September 1967 Sirhan began work at John Weidner’s health food store.Weidner reported no long periods of absence up to the time Sirhan left his employ in March 1968. So how did Sirhan ‘emerge(ed) from this ‘white fog’ in March 1968, (and) joined the (Rosicrucians)’ as Evans states? (Author’s note: Sirhan actually joined the Rosicrucians in June 1966.).

The three month period immediately prior to the assassination was also examined and left no unaccounted time when the assassin could have participated in terrorist training or hynosis indoctrination. On March 7th Sirhan left his job at a Pasadena health food store. Following Martin Luther King’s assassination on April 4th 1968, he discussed the murder with Alvin Clark, a Pasadena garbage collector. Sirhan’s friend, Walter Crowe, met him in Pasadena on the night of May 2nd 1968 when they discussed politics. The last time he saw Sirhan was on the Pasadena college campus on May 23rd 1968. He was in Denny’s restaurant when Sirhan entered with a group of friends. This leaves only a two week period not accounted for. But Sirhan refers to local newspaper and local radio reports throughout the month of May which he could not have accessed if he had been out of the country. Besides, Sirhan was living at 696 E. Howard Street, Pasadena. Family and friends have never suggested he was missing during this period.

Conspiracy advocates, including Evans, who want to see the case re-examined allege that Sirhan’s staring at a teletype machine on the night of the murder is proof that he had been ‘hypnotised’. Yet Sirhan frequently became entranced by things around him. This was part of his make-up. In fact, this would not be the first time Sirhan had experienced ‘trance-like states’. He experienced them as a boy growing up in Jerusalem, according to his mother.

A majority of hypnosis and mind-control experts within the scientific community dismiss the notion that subjects can be hypnotised to commit murder.They maintain that such a possibility of programming an unwitting and unwilling subject is not possible. Furthermore, there would be no guarantee of success for a ‘robotic assassin’; it is an erratic tool.A hypnotist can plant a suggestion in the subject’s mind and ask him to forget that suggestion but there is no foolproof way of preventing another hypnotist coming along and recovering that memory.
Additionally, there is evidence, not presented at the trial, which proves that Sirhan had been feigning amnesia. Sirhan has always proclaimed that he could not remember writing in his notebooks, “RFK must die” nor could he remember shooting Kennedy. There is , however, compelling evidence that Sirhan knew what he had done. He confessed to ACLU lawyer Abraham Lincoln Wirin that he “…did it, I shot him”. And he also told defence investigator Michael McCowan that he remembered shooting Kennedy.
Michael McCowan was a private detective who assisted Sirhan lawyers. In the pre-trial period McCowan had been talking to Sirhan about the shooting. Sirhan had responded to a question asked by McCowan. McCowan had been startled to hear how Sirhan’s eyes had met Kennedy’s in the moment just before he shot him and before Kennedy had fully turned to his left at the time he was shaking hands with the Ambassador Hotel kitchen staff. McCowan asked Sirhan, “Then why, Sirhan, didn’t you shoot him between the eyes?” Without hesitating, Sirhan replied, “Because that son-of-a-bitch turned his head at the last second”.
If Sirhan had been lying then how was the ‘hypnotic defense’ and Sirhan’s ‘amnesia defense’ constructed in the first place?
Sirhan claimed his lawyers had first put forward the idea that he had been in a ‘hypnotic trance-like’ state when he shot Kennedy. But there is evidence that Sirhan had foreknowledge of ‘amnesiac and disassociative states’ before he committed the murder. Sirhan had read Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood”, a book about the multiple murders of a Kansas farmer, his wife and two teenage children. The murders were committed by Perry Smith and Richard Hickock in 1959 and Capote’s book of the murder, manhunt , trial and executions of the murderers was published in 1965. Sirhan identified with the short and stocky Perry Smith. He felt great empathy for Smith. Smith, a small statured man who had suffered a deprived childhood, had bouts of shivering and trance-like states and he believed in mysticism and fate. According to Capote, Perry Smith, “….had many methods of passing (time)….among them, MIRROR GAZING…EVERY TIME (HE SAW) A MIRROR (HE WOULD) GO INTO A TRANCE” (emphasis added)
At the conclusion of Capote’s book the author quotes a team of psychiatrists who found a number of similarities in their subjects; “(The murderers) were puzzled as to why they killed their victims, who were relatively unknown to them, and in each instance the murderer appears to have lapsed into a DREAMLIKE DISSASSOCIATIVE TRANCE (Emphasis added) from which he awakened to suddenly discover himself assaulting the victim…..Two of the men reported severe disassociative trancelike states during which violent and bizarre behaviour was seen, while the other two reported less severe and perhaps less well-organised, AMNESIAC EPISODES (emphasis added)….”. It is therefore likely Sirhan had used his knowledge of how murderers behave to construct a possible ‘diminished capacity’ defense.
Intriguing as Evans’ thesis is, there is no credible evidence that a ‘hypnotised’ Sirhan had been directed to kill Kennedy by the PLO - apart from hearsay and second-hand accounts by a number of individuals who were close to Onassis. The record indicates that Sirhan was indeed motivated by political considerations but he was an ‘unaffiliated terrorist’ rather than someone who had plotted with a terrorist group.

Sirhan may have been mentally unstable and angry at a society that had relegated him to the bottom of the heap but there is sufficient evidence, originating years before the shooting, that Sirhan clearly saw himself, like today’s suicide bombers, as an Arab hero. The PLO and most Palestinians certainly judged him this way. And Sirhan’s lack of remorse is entirely in keeping with the terrorist way of rationalising political murder.
Sirhan and his brothers could not, or would not, assimilate into American society. They abhorred US culture, disliked the mores of the American people and, most importantly, hated the support Americans gave to the state of Israel. The family felt they were part of a minority group ‘alienated’ and ‘misunderstood’ within the larger community.
As most Americans were unaware of the Palestinian issue in 1968 very few journalists examined Sirhan’s background as a Palestinian Arab in an attempt to explain the tragedy. Instead, commentators wrote Sirhan off as yet another ‘misfit’ with a gun who stalks and then murders a leading public official with no apparent motive except his own demons.
The Palestinian/Arab cause is the sine que non of the assassination. As a poor working class immigrant Sirhan identified with his downtrodden people living as refugees in Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The period 1967-68, the year following the Six Day War, became a crucial time in Sirhan’s life because it was the time when Israel became dominant in the region having successfully defended itself against Arab aggression. Having failed to eject the Jews from Israel/Palestine, Arabs throughout the world felt powerless and weak and Arab pride had been severely damaged. Their condition exaggerated Sirhan’s feelings of inadequacy even though he lived thousands of miles away from the conflict. Many ‘exiled’ Palestinians, like Sirhan, sought retribution and began to formulate plans to kill innocent civilians and hi-jack planes. Sirhan’s answer to these problems took the form of killing a major American politician who advocated support for Israel. Sirhan said, “…this momentum just took hold of me and by June 5th 1968 (The first anniversary of the Six day War) I couldn’t control it (anger) anymore.”
To the Western mind terrorists are ‘deranged’ and ‘evil’. However, their acts are not the product of ‘insanity’ but possess a logic all their own. Terrorists have ‘rational’, if sometimes bizarre, motives. It is also true that many terrorists (like Al Qaeda’s Ramzi Youssef) display symptoms of a psychopathic nature – they are cold blooded and carry out their acts of terror unremorseful. But their acts are not the products of ‘delusional’ or ‘irrational’ minds. Nor was Sirhan’s. He did indeed crave attention and success. He was depressed that society had relegated him to the bottom of the heap.He felt an allegiance and empathy with assassins of the past. And he dreamed of infamy. But without his sense of ‘Arabness’ and without his hatred towards Jews that had their roots in his childhood indoctrination, it is unlikely Sirhan would have assassinated Robert Kennedy. All the hatred that spewed forth from Sirhan’s gun can ultimately be traced back to three sources – Anti-Americanism, Palestinian nationalism and anti-Semitism. And this may have been the first act in an international political drama that culminated in 9/11.

[Peter Evans Responds (#58060)
by Editor on April 4, 2005 at 8:55 PM
Editor's Note: HNN received this email on 4-4-05:


As the author of Nemesis, the story of Aristotle Onassis's complicity in Senator Robert F. Kennedy's assassination in 1968, I read Mel Ayton's article (Did the PLO Kill RFK?) with interest and surprise at his distortion of the facts so carefully set out in my book.

Since he has gone to such lengths to point out what he believes are fatal flaws in my investigation, permit me to correct just one of the more flagrant inaccuracies upon which he has constructed his criticism of my book, and the more than ten years of research that went into it.

At the heart of Mr. Ayton's criticism is his perverse and totally untrue statement that I claim that Sirhan Sirhan left the United States "in the months prior to the assassination ... to travel to the Middle East for terrorist training." This, he declares, is "central to Evans's thesis."

Yet I make no such claim. Indeed, I do not suggest even the possibility that Sirhan left California, let alone the United States, during this or any other time in the twelve years he lived in Pasadena after fleeing with his family from West Jerusalem in 1956.

But based on his extraordinary fabrication, Mr. Ayton continues to make points — e.g. Sirhan referring to "local newspaper and radio reports throughout the month of May which he could not have accessed if he had been out of the country" — that he claims demolish the credibility of my book.

Since he is plain flat-out wrong about matters so fundamental to his criticism of Nemesis, I will not waste readers' time deconstructing the rest of his arguments, which similarly collapse like a house of cards.

Of course, the truth about the assassination of Robert Kennedy and the degree of Aristotle Onassis's villainy are not neutral subjects. Although I have no idea where Mr. Ayton is coming from, his skewed attack on my book sounds very similar to the vociferous lobby that continues to argue that the CIA masterminded Senator Kennedy's killing — a conviction it finds hard to reconcile with the facts I reveal in Nemesis — and dismisses me as a Company dupe.

Peter Evans

[ Reply ]

Re: Peter Evans Responds (#58190)
by Mel Ayton on April 7, 2005 at 11:35 AM
Mr Evans does not demonstrate that my argument ‘collapses like a house of cards’.He merely states it. As he should be aware, accusation without confirmation is worthless.

Mr Evans accepts that, in a three month period in the year before the assassination, Sirhan had been wrapped in a ‘blanket of white fog’.The implication is clear – Sirhan had been manipulated by terrorists to murder Robert Kennedy.Although Evans makes no claims that Sirhan had been spirited away to the Middle East for terrorist training it is logical for his readers to assume Sirhan was somewhere during his period of ‘indoctrination’. It is also logical for his readers to assume Sirhan had to be somewhere other than his home in Pasadena – either within the United States at a terrorist ‘safe house’ or at a terrorist training camp in the Middle East. Where else could he be if he was undergoing ‘hypnotic indoctrination’ and/or terrorist training?

I did not state that Evans claimed Sirhan had been in the Middle East for terrorist training. I wrote, “Central to Evans’s thesis was the implication that Sirhan had spent a three month period before the assassination being trained by terrorists or undergoing hypnotic indoctrination.” Later in the paragraph I wrote that, “Sirhan’s movements in the months prior to the assassination leave no unaccountable period when the assassin could have left the country to travel to the Middle East for terrorist training or have spent a considerable amount of time being ‘hypnotically indoctrinated’”. These are clearly my words and conclusions - an attempt to show the reader that there was no mystery in Sirhan’s movements in the three month so-called ‘mystery’ period prior to the assassination. However, I omitted to explain there was also no mystery about Sirhan’s movements in the year prior to the assassination. Furthermore, I did not say that Evans claimed “Sirhan Sirhan left the United States in the months prior to the assassination…to travel to the Middle East for terrorist training”. This is a juxtaposition of phrases designed to mislead.

Why did Evans claim Sirhan was, effectively, missing during this period? If he has no proof of Sirhan’s whereabouts why speculate the assassin may have been undergoing hypnotic indoctrination or terrorist training? In fact this is symptomatic of Evans’s methods – raising issues with a question then directing the reader to a conclusion that suggests a sinister interpretation.

The ‘heart’ of my criticism is not the spurious allegation that I believed Evans claimed Sirhan was in the Middle East .The heart of my criticism lies in the fact that Evans has used speculation and innuendo to claim that Sirhan had been in a ‘blanket of white fog’ undergoing some kind of ‘training’. Simply stated, Evans is wrong.

The LAPD investigative team, SUS, gave no credence to the idea that Sirhan had been ‘missing’ during any period from June 1967 to June 1968 despite the comments of LAPD Officer Jordan.In the year preceding the assassination he was seen frequently in the Hi-Life bar in Pasadena by waitress Marilyn Hunt.He was also seen in Shap’s Bar during this period. In July 1967 Sirhan filed a disability complaint for workmen’s compensation. Between July and September 1967 Sirhan’s mother and brother Munir said Sirhan went often to the Pasadena library.Library records confirm he borrowed books during the so-called 'white fog' period. Sirhan’s mother said her son ‘..stayed at home for over a year (sic) with no job’(October 1966 to September 1967). Sirhan, by his mother’s account, often drove her to work during the time he was unemployed. On 9th September 1967 Sirhan began work at John Weidner’s health food store.Weidner reported no long periods of absence up to the time Sirhan left his employ in March 1968. So how did Sirhan ‘emerge(ed) from this ‘white fog’ in March 1968, (and) joined the (Rosicrucians)’ as Evans states? (Author’s note: Sirhan actually joined the Rosicrucians in June 1966.) And, as I point out in my article, Sirhan’s movements in the three month period before the assassination leave no time unaccounted for.

Evans’s speculations do not end with Sirhan’s ‘white fog’. He also goes to great lengths to imply that Sirhan was likely hypnotised to kill RFK. He gives credence to the claims of conspiracy advocates that William Bryan was Sirhan’s ‘controller’. Bryan was famous for having hypnotised the ‘Boston Strangler’, Albert DeSalvo. Bryan also claimed he had worked for the CIA and bragged to two prostitutes he had hypnotised Sirhan to kill Kennedy. Bryan’s credibility was damaged, however, when it was discovered he had a history of ‘bragging’, consorted with prostitutes and used unethical practices including having sexual relationships with some of his patients. He was described by one associate as a ‘sexual pervert’. And there is no credible evidence whatsoever to support Bryan’s claims he was Sirhan’s ‘controller’ or the claims of one of Evans’s ‘unnamed’ sources that Bryan had worked for the CIA’s hypnosis expert Sidney Gottlieb.

This is not the only occasion Evans accepts the statements of unreliable sources. He gives credence to the gossip that RFK had sexual relationships with his martyred brother’s widow, Jackie, and Marilyn Monroe.The majority of RFK biographers reject these conclusions.

Evans quotes from John Marks’s book “The Search For The Manchurian Candidate” and cites the experiments conducted by CIA scientist Morse Allen who conspiracy advocates allege was ‘successful’ in programming an assassin. Allen hypnotised his secretary, who had a fear and loathing of guns, to pick up a pistol and ‘shoot’ another secretary.The gun, of course, was unloaded. After Allen brought the secretary out of the trance she had no memory of what she had done.

However, conspiracy advocates, including Evans, who promote this episode as proof the CIA were successful in developing ‘programmed assassins’ fail to mention that Allen did not give much credibility to his own experiment. Allen believed that all that happened was that an impressionable young woman volunteer had accepted orders from a legitimate ‘authority’ figure to carry out an order she likely knew would not end in tragedy. Allen also believed there were too many variables in hypnosis for it to be a reliable ‘weapon’. And all the participants in such trials knew they were involved in a scientific experiment. There was always an ‘authority figure’ present to remind the subject or some part of the subject’s mind that it was only an experiment.

Evans’ scenario is fundamentally implausible. How could plotters, for example, be sure that Sirhan would not suddenly ‘remember’ his contacts, following his arrest, turned ‘state’s evidence’ and kept in a ‘safe house’ by the District Attorney? And if the plotters believed Sirhan would be killed by Kennedy’s security it had to have been the least thought-out plot conceivable.

Furthermore, had Sirhan suddenly ‘remembered’ he would not have thrown away the chance to save his own life by telling investigators of his ‘involvement’ with Hamshari. His lawyers could also have built a strong case around the ‘paid assassin’ theory arguing against the imposition of the death penalty which was eventually handed down.

Evans’s thesis can also be clearly shown to be flawed when he addresses the issue of why Sirhan targeted RFK. Evans wrote, “And why had he (Sirhan) turned his rage on Robert Kennedy when other candidates….had been far more outspoken in their support for Israel?” If Evans had researched the statements made by Sirhan he would have discovered why RFK became the target. Initially, Sirhan would likely have been satisfied with any opportunity to kill a leading American politician. At one point he even had UN Ambassador Goldberg in his sights. Sirhan said he first considered killing Vice President Hubert Humphrey, “It might not even have been just Kennedy”, Sirhan told Robert Kaiser, “ ….. Somebody who was big, tough, somebody who was – it wasn’t necessarily Kennedy – it could have been somebody else but someone who would still represent American policy that was pro-Israel. In fact, it – for example - might have been Humphrey. Because Humphrey was a person you didn’t particularly like either.”

However, in the years between 1963 and 1968 American political culture had been dominated by the idea of a ‘Kennedy Dynasty’ and myths surrounding JFK’s assassination. Year after year books, movies, television documentaries and political news stories gave a cult-like status to JFK’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Sirhan, too, desired fame. Killing any of the other candidates would certainly have given him status throughout the Arab world. But his true target had an even greater symbolism attached to it. Sirhan would become the ‘Second Kennedy Assassin’. He knew that killing RFK would give him greater world exposure the other candidates could not provide. It was no accident that Sirhan set his sights on the candidate who was the brother of the martyred president. It was no accident that Sirhan chose the candidate who was most likely to become the next president.

Evans disingenuously implies that my criticism is aligned with that of conspiracy advocates who claim the CIA was behind the murder. Evans wrote, “Although I have no idea where Mr Ayton is coming from, his skewed attack on my book sounds very similar to the vociferous lobby that continues to argue that the CIA masterminded Senator Kennedy’s killing….and dismisses me as a Company Dupe.” If Evans had taken the time to carry out a simple ‘Google search’ he would have realised that my previous books expose most conspiracy advocates as nothing more than charlatans and profiteers who have falsely accused the CIA and others in the intelligence community of participating in the murders of JFK and MLK. If Evans is so dismissive of conspiracy advocates who claim the CIA was behind the murder then why does he accept, without criticism, the claims made by conspiracists Philip Melanson, Jonn Christian and William Turner which he uses in his book to construct his theory? All three conspiracy advocates have, at one point or another, alleged involvement of the US Intelligence community in the murder of RFK.
Mel Ayton
www.melayton.co.uk




[ Reply ]

Mel. Welcome to the forum.

A thought provoking and original peice of work. I am in no way an
"Expert" on this subject, I originally came here to start a thread on
the east end Ripper murders of 1888,and got interested in the JFK
threads which has lead me to his brothers murder.
There is one question that I find strange however, conventional
wisdom dictates that Oswald assassinated JFK for personal/ political
reasons (he wanted the stature that society unfairly witheld from him)
It appears that you belive Sirhan assassinated Bobby for almost
identical reasons. yet on arrest neither said "Yeah I killed the SOB
because of Cuba/ Palistine, thus denying their cause the "Oxygene of
publicity" the act was commited for.
I look foward to continued debate in this sad case.

PS The Ripper threads can be found in the History Debates section)

Thank you Stephen,and thank you for the kind comments about my article.There is a longer version on : http://www.middleeastfacts.com/guests/ayton_25mar05a.php

I see we are not too distant from each other, by American standards, of course Durham and Cambridge.Yes, Sirhan did indeed proclaim that he did it for his 'country' ie Palestine.Jesse Unruh first reported this but later denied it.However, a psychiatrist who was nearby confirmed this is what Sirhan shouted following the shooting.My research has concentrated on many aspects of the case but I give credit to Dan Moldea who, I believe, has satisfied me as to the crime scene anomalies.His book is excellent.I have concentrated on Sirhan's background, his motive and the possibility of a conspiracy.

Mel.

Could you provide a reference for Sirhan's claim that he did it for his
country. It's not that I dont belive you, just as a newcomer to this case
any info is helpful.

I did a quick search and all i could find is this.

Quote on.
Unruh asked the suspect, " Why did you shoot him?"
Sirhan replied " You think im crazy so you can use it as evidence against me."
Quote off.

Thanks in advance,Steve.

Stephen,

Jesse Unruh - Newsweek 17th June 1968 - it is not clear yet whether Unruh actually retracted his statement - the allegations come from a conspiracy advocate and I will check.However from memory I believe the statement was used by Unruh during the trial.
The doctor was Dr Marcus McBroom cited in UPI Archives (www.upi.com)

I will read the previous posts.So far I have just skimmed - but I spotted one mistake already - Sandra Serrano did not stick to her story all these years - in fact she retracted her story shortly after the assassination and admitted to Pena and Hernandez (who , by the way, do not have a sinister role in this whole affair - Anyone who claims otherwise is simply repeating the malevolent intent of Cts who have tried, but failed, to demonize them ) she had 'made stuff up'.It was only later when CT's got hold of her she retreated back to her original story.I can retrieve the full quotes from my files if you wish but this might take a day or two.I use some of these quotes in my manuscript but again I am trying to get something off to you as quickly as possible.
Conspiracy Theorists are able to twist any statement to their advantage as I have discovered over the years - including the inevitable confused reports which occur when an event so momentous takes place.
Will get back to you with further statements about previous posts.

Mel.

Thank you for the citation, Ido not consider myself either c/t or L/n
Just a humble seeker of the truth. some see conspiracy everywhere,
others nowhere. As I have indicated my main area of research
(20 years and counting) is the Whitechapel murders of 1888.
many times I, and other serious researchers have rebutted the
latest nonsence,Prince eddie,Sir William Gull,Walter Sickert,
did it, only to see it rehabilitated later as the next best seller.

I do however feel that those in power, are more than capable
of conspiring to ensure that the status quo remains in tact.


I look foward to your next post, Steve.

Stephen,

You might have started as a Ripper man, but once assassinology gets in your blood, you're hooked. We're all slaves now.

Mark.
I fear you are correct,any way I could do with a break from Whitechapel
all that fog gets on the lungs!!!

Mel, I read the Moldea book, and while I think it's possible he's right about a lot of stuff, he doesn't come close to explaining how Sirhan could shoot Kennedy point blank from BEHIND in front of numerous witnesses, and have no one see it. He also makes an ENORMOUS leap at the end of the book; once he concludes that Sirhan is a liar, he jumps to the conclusion that Sirhan acted alone, ignoring the equal or greater likelihood that Sirhan was lying in order to protect himself or his family. After all, at this point, Sirhan's quickest route to getting released would be to admit he acted alone for political reasons, claim he now sees the error of his ways, and become the poster boy for mid-east peace. That he hasn't done this, and has been kept isolated as a possible terrorist since 9/11, is indicative that either he IS a current supporter of terrorism, or that he simply doesn't remember what happened.

While it's pefectly possible the guy just got drunk one night and decided to kill someone famous, it's equally likely someone put him up to it. Your efforts to stifle dissent sound suspiciously like the workings of a well-intentioned, but ultimately wrong individual, a la former WC counsel David Belin. Your choosing to accept the words of Serrano after she came under pressure from the detectives over Serrano's original words or her words once she escaped the pressure of the detectives, reveals your bias.

There's just a stank about both Kennedy assassinations that isn't there in most homicides. Even with a lack of absolute proof, which rarely comes in a homicide of this size and scope, it's reasonable and correct to suspect a conspiracy.

[Mel, I read the Moldea book, and while I think it's possible he's right about a lot of stuff, he doesn't come close to explaining how Sirhan could shoot Kennedy point blank from BEHIND in front of numerous witnesses, and have no one see it. He also makes an ENORMOUS leap at the end of the book; once he concludes that Sirhan is a liar, he jumps to the conclusion that Sirhan acted alone, ignoring the equal or greater likelihood that Sirhan was lying in order to protect himself or his family. After all, at this point, Sirhan's quickest route to getting released would be to admit he acted alone for political reasons, claim he now sees the error of his ways, and become the poster boy for mid-east peace. That he hasn't done this, and has been kept isolated as a possible terrorist since 9/11, is indicative that either he IS a current supporter of terrorism, or that he simply doesn't remember what happened.

While it's pefectly possible the guy just got drunk one night and decided to kill someone famous, it's equally likely someone put him up to it. Your efforts to stifle dissent sound suspiciously like the workings of a well-intentioned, but ultimately wrong individual, a la former WC counsel David Belin. Your choosing to accept the words of Serrano after she came under pressure from the detectives over Serrano's original words or her words once she escaped the pressure of the detectives, reveals your bias.

There's just a stank about both Kennedy assassinations that isn't there in most homicides. Even with a lack of absolute proof, which rarely comes in a homicide of this size and scope, it's reasonable and correct to suspect a conspiracy.

[/quote]


Thank you, Pat.I'm pleased to make your acquaintance.

You are correct in stating that Moldea did not satisfactorily explain how Sirhan shot RFK when witnesses placed the gunman no less than 3 feet from Kennedy.However, I believe I have provided an answer (in my forthcoming book)after wading through the LAPD Summary report and witness statements - a number of witnesses have been overlooked, not only by Moldea, but also conspiracy advocates.

In a post like this one I cannot set out all the complex scenario facts about positioning in the pantry etc. but what I can say, in a succint way, is that a close witness "saw" Sirhan's gun hand make an "arc" placing the weapon at Kennedy's head.As you are probably aware writers do not want to reveal everything about their work as publishers do become upset when they find they have nothing to release to the press when the book is published.What I can say is that the witness confirmed what he saw thirty years after the event and was "certain". Place this evidence alongside what Moldea correctly explained - ie the shooting occurred in a few short moments in a pantry full of people (I believe 77 or so) - and it is logical to assume witnesses who were a short distance from RFK did not see the same things as the witnesses who were right next to Kennedy.(Ask any police officer and he will tell you that witness statements are notoriously unreliable unless they are considered alongside physical evidence).

In my forthcoming book I also explain WHY Sirhan lied and I give a different but plausible explanation to that provided by Moldea - although I do not disagree with him.

There is no evidence whatsoever to say Sirhan had been lying to protect others and therefore I cannot agree with you there was an " equal or greater likelihood Sirhan was lying to protect himself or his family".In fact I do not fully understand why you would say this.There is a wealth of evidence which I partly present in my article which proves Sirhan did indeed remember shooting Kennedy.He actually told two people who he knew well - conspiracy advocates, whether it be JFK, MLK or RFK always try to destroy their credibility as happened with Michael McCowan - they would rather believe Sirhan.When McCowan passed his polygraph conspiracy advocates then changed tack and started on about the unreliability of such investigative tools.Conspiracy advocates have a mind-set.When the facts don't fit they blame everyone - which is why conspiracists always arrive at the charge which cannot be challenged - the government did it, therefore we will never find out what really happened....Ergo - Mark Lane, William Pepper, etc.


As far as the point about Sirhan's accepting guilt as his 'quickest' route to release - he has been manipulated and trapped by conspiracy advocates (including Moldea at one time) who have persuaded him to stick to his story as a way towards a new trial and a possible acquital. He must also have been aware of the public loathing for him and each LA DA's attempts to make sure he stayed inside, even if he did admit guilt.I'm sure he has been aware over the years that even if he admitted guilt the horrendous nature of his crime would not ensure his release in the same way a 'normal' murderer gets parole after 7, 8 or 9 years.

It was part of Sirhan's make-up not to show remorse and, as each DA has explained to the parole board, the assassin has vented his hatred for his victim many times since the assassination - despite his post-trial television interview in which he expressed a 'love' for RFK and a wish that it hadn't happened.

You say it is "equally likely someone put him up to it" - Who? How? Why? When?

A crime of this magnitude results in the following:
* Unstable individuals will always 'confess', present themselves as 'witnesses' who have observed nefaroius undertakings, and see it as a way to gain notoriety. ie Jerry Owen - who failed a polygraph and was discredited by many people who knew him.In other words people are willing to lie for their own ends.
*As Vincent Bugliosi has observed, there are always mistakes in the collation and collection of evidence.
*Because of the amount of material in these cases it is extremely difficult challenge charges resulting from a mispeak, mistake etc.Reporters have neither the time nor the energy to wade through the masses of material to find out whether or not a writer has got his facts right.

You say david Belin was wrong but you don't say why.David Belin was not wrong. Everything he set out in his book was correct except his speculation about Oswald's motives, an area that no-one can be sure of.It is evident you say belin was wrong because you believe a conspiracy killed JFK - neitjher my book 'The JFK Assassination- Dispelling The Myths' nor anything else is unlikely to dissuade you of this.With all due respect, unless you demonstrate why Belin was wrong you cannot make such a sweeping statement.

As to the point about Serrano - a Fire Inspector swore Serrano was not on the outside stairs at the Ambassador at the time she stated - please don't say he was part of the conspiracy!

Although the LAPD maintained Serrano retracted her story under intense questioning conspiracy theorists said she had been bullied into saying her story was false.Serrano had been given a polygraph test by Sergeant Hernandez on June 20th 1968.Asked if she sat down on the stairway at the time of the shooting she replied, “Yeah, I think I did…people messed me up…stupid people…just in all the commotion and everything…I was supposed to know more than I knew…I told (DA staffer John Ambrose) I heard the people say ‘We shot him’ or ‘They shot him’ or something.And I remember telling him that I had seen these people on the …on the stairway.” According to the LAPD Summary Report, “Polygraph examination disclosed that Serrano has never seen Sirhan Sirhan in person;further, that Miss Serrano fabricated, for some unknown reason, the story about the girl in the polka dot dress.Responses to relevant questions indicate that no one made statements to Miss Serrano telling her that they had shot Kennedy or that she heard any gunshots during the late evening of June 4 or early morning of June 5, 1968.Miss Serrano was informed of the results of the polygraph examination.”

With regard to your comments about the JFK assassination may I direct you to Ken Rahn's JFK 'Academic' site and a group, including myself , 'Non Conspiracists United'. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/noncons/
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html

Sirhan worked as a groom at a racetrack, know who owned the track? Mickey Cohen.


And then there is the owner of the hotel where RFK was shot, owned by ..... Mickey Cohen! I dunno about an Ari connection, but there sure seems to be an organized crime connection.

I believe that Sirhan told the truth, he was a hynotized Manchurian Candidate.

Norman, I am intrigued by your statements. I thought Cohen had lost his money and power by 66. Mickey Cohen was also friends with Ruby's attorney, Belli. Sirhan's attorney was involved with fellow L.A. mobster Johnny Rosselli. Additionally, the man who admitted to police that he'd given Sirhan a ride, Gerry Owen, used a business partner of Cohen's as his alibi for the night of the shooting. Coincidence?

Remember the movie LA Confidential?

Apparently NOTHING went down in L.A. without the knowledge of Mickey Cohen.

The infamous LA organized crime intelligence squad probably acted in a similar manner to the Feds, i.e., get lots of information, but prosecute only sparingly and protect certain guilty "assets"



also

.... you have to pull pretty hard to get someone's necktie off of them.
Like in a death struggle with your assailant.

The photos of the necktie next to RFK
along the missing necktie on the officer
that pretty much tells the whole story.

Norman,
It was a clip-on necktie.

Yeah, that was me copying someone else's quote. LA law enforcement apparently was and still is a cesspool. There is a story that the Black Dahlia killer was known to police who were paid off to cover it up. Right nasty.

I thought forum members might be interested in this dramatic image of Juan Romero, the busboy who came to RFK's aid after he was shot.

James

Norman [<especially] and Pat,

Do you have any evidence to support these claims?

Cohen was in various Federal maximum security prisons from 1961 - 1972*. Even if he did own the track and hotel, it seems doubtful he had contact with Sirhan or could have been anyway involved in the murder.

Also why would the hotel owner have to be in on the murder?

Len


* http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/new_s...6&showgroup=593

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Cohen

Perhaps RFK refused to stump up for the bill.

Steve there are no sources listed for this information on the site. I imagine that most of it is true but we have no way of know what is and what isn't.

Mel,

There is a giant whole in Evans' theory





The first time that Palestinians hijacked a plane was, July 23, 1968 - an El Al flight from Rome to Tel Aviv, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front...on_of_Palestine

The first hijacking of a non-Israeli plane was a TWA flight from LA to Athens, August 29, 1969. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc.../incidents.html

The terrorist believed incorrectly that Yitzak Rabin then Israel's ambassador to the US was on board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840

The first attack against an airliner with no connection to Israel was some time between December 1969 and January 1970 [ http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc.../incidents.html see incidents 9, 11 & 12]

It seems highly unlikely that Onassis would be paying protection money for a type of crime that had not yet taken place. The El Al incident is what kicked off airline hijacking as a political tool.



The Jackie angle doesn't make sense. Onassis would risk being executed and having to keep a secret like that from his wife so he could marry her a few months earlier?!?!

One wonders with such poor research and reasoning if anything in his book should be taken seriously. [It probably deserves a place along side another CT book about the death of another liberal Senator] I am also skeptical about the sunk shipping deal angle. How does Evans allege that happened? In 1953 RFK, 2 years out of law school, was a Senate staff attorney either for McCarthy or Kefauver [sp?] and Onassis was already one of the biggest shipping magnates in the World

So the Mickey Cohen and Aristotle Onassis theories don't hold any water. The idea that Nixon or some ultra-right wing types would want to kill him seems more plausible.

"My most enjoyable time was when I went to Muehlhausen in East-Germany and had a chance to play an organ in Bach's church where he had his second job... I have been to all of the cities he worked in. It's a hobby of mine."
Larry Teeter , Sirhan Sirhan's lawyer http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~ dlewis /teeter.htm

My dad was born in Muhlhausen [that's the correct spelling]. The house he grew up in, which is now the post office, is across the street from "Bach's church where he had his second job". My grandfather was friends with the deacon and was allowed to play the organ there when the church was closed.