Several witnesses in the kitchen where Robert Kennedy was shot have identified Ace security guard Eugene Thane Cesar of shooting Robert Kennedy while Sirhan caused a distraction.

Cesar is still alive and if i am not mistaken Mel Ayton has spoken with him and is sure that he did not shoot Kennedy (I could be wrong on Mel meeting him).

Cesar told the LAPD that he had worked for the Ace Security Company for 6 months before the shooting, whereas in reality he had only worked three jobs for them before the ambassador and never before in that particular hotel, as he told the investigation.

He was also in possession of a .22 calliber gun at the time of the killing. He has stated that he sold the gun before the assassination but the buyers receipt clearly shows the sale happened some months after the assassination, the gun was later stolen and never seen again.

Are we to believe Cesar? Is is possible to build a case against him if he is guilty of the murder?

John Geraghty

Cesar gave an interview in 1987 or so where he admittted that he had his gun out and was immediately behind Robert Kennedy at the time of the shooting. This ties in with the wounds.

I always found it strange that Cesar lived to to tell this and that nothing has come of this information. Of course Cesar also said he did NOT fire his weapon.

Dawn

I believe Cesar's gun was recovered somewhere in the last ten or fifteen years. The teenagers who stole it from Cesar's friend came forward as adults and retrieved it from the woods where they'd left it many years before. My recollection is that the FBI tested it and compared it to the bullets taken from Kennedy and the tests were inconclusive.

Dan Moldea, who found and interviewed Cesar, mentioned in his book that Cesar was a long-time resident of Simi Valley, where my girlfriend lives and from which I'm writing. I probably passed him on the street about an hour ago.

And John, I believe Mel said he'd written a book on JFK and that there was no conspiracy, he'd written a book on RFK and that there was no conspiracy, and had written a book on MLK and that there was no conspiracy. It seems he specializes in telling everyone that there are no conspiracies and that the government doesn't make mistakes. Like a minor league Posner.

I asked Mel to read my seminar and get back to me and tell me where I'm wrong. He never came back. So much for those brave lone-nut theorists who are wiilling to admit when others have a point.

There are those who see conspiracies where they do not exist. But there are also thise who cannot see conspiracies which clearly exist!

Well said Tim and Pat. Mel is yet to respond to the thread on the assassination of MLK, I will email him and ask him to join the debate.

John, you can email him till the cows come home,he wont respond, I have tried on three seperate occasions, no reply, he's one gone dude

Wasn't the gun found in a Lousiana swamp, or am I imagining articles?

I have some pretty good quality scans relating to this case, I'll work on posting them later.

Eugene Thane Cesar, according to Dan Moldea now lives in the Phillippines.
Just for the record if anyone were to contact him.
John Geraghty

Dawn, you mentioned that Cesar "admitted" having his gun out. If I am remembering correctly, the LAPD ( in 1968) said that no guns were drawn. Do you know if this was the case? I am one who has always thought that this was in fact a "LONE NUT", but never could fit it into my thinking just how Sirhan could have possibly known that RFK would pass through that kitchen area. Also, any idea how this guy got into that closet without an employee not seeing him? Plus,I assume that he would have been waiting for some time for the Senator to pass in front of him, why was he not detectedRegards,
Terry

Terry, Cesar, a recently hired 26 year old, stood to the Senators right as the group passsed into the pantry. Cesar admitted to police that at the time of the assassination he was standing behind, and was in contact with Kennedy, and that when the shooting started he dropped down into a crouching position, and pulled out his gun. This , by his own admission, puts him in a much better position to have caused the upward angle of the wounds than Sirhan. The trajectories of these two bullets were nearly vertical, and the shot fired into Kennedy's brain was, at most, from a couple of inches behind him. A neat trick, considering Sirhan was firing at Kennedy from the front. Oh these magic bullets, is there nothing they cant do

Are you sure? Without having my books handy, I thought that it was a newsman standing behind Cesar who said Cesar had pulled his gun. I don't remember Cesar admitting to pulling his gun. If he did, which gun was it? A lot of the focus fell on Cesar, as I remember, after he admitted that he had a gun like the one taken from Sirhan, but said he'd sold it before the shooting. When someone followed up on it, however, they found he'd sold it just AFTER the shooting. When they talked to the man who bought it from Cesar, he said the gun had been stolen. In recent years, I believe, one of the kids who stole the gun learned of its importance, and arranged for its return. It was tested but the tests were inconclusive. What I remember Cesar admitting to is that he had an active dislike of the Kennedys. I suppose I need to dig out my moldy Moldea, and re-read the interview.

While some have tried to make something of Cesar's short employment at Lockheed Skunk Works, I've always considered that a non-issue. I grew up in an area (The San Fernando Valley) that was the home to thousands of Skunk Work employees, of all stripes (groan) and sizes. Two of these employees were my step-father (who helped build and paint the planes) and the father of one of my girlfriends (an engineer who helped develop stealth technology).

P.S. I spend most of my time these days in Simi Valley, a community where Cesar was living at the time of his Moldea interview. Evidently, he lived here awhile. If anyone can figure out his former address, I might just go over and talk to his neighbors to see what kind of guy he really was. Does anyone here know Dan Moldea?

Cesar gave an interview for a magazine in the mid 80's. Something to the effect of "Regaldies" was the magazine's title (I used to have it but can't seem to locate it at the moment) and in this inteview he said he'd had his gun out but was quick to say he did not fire it. Dan Moldea may have been the iterviewer.

Perhaps someone here remembers this interview. I was quite surprised that he was located, and more so that he agreed to an interview.

I just looked thru Phill Melanson's book on RFK thinking I might see a reference to this interview there,
but did not. (Tho he does mention an unpublished interview Moldea did of Cesar in 87).

Sorry this is not more helpful, trying to remember it from 20 years ago.

Dawn

From an interview given to police officers at rampart station shortly after the shooting..

Cesar, "Just as he (Kennedy) got to the steam table, I was up to him where I had ahold of his arm here. I was pushing people away with the other arm."

Officer " You were on which side of him?"

Cesar "I was on his right side, and the moment when we got on the edge of the steam table, he had reached out and sort of turned to shake hands with someone."

Officer " Turned to his left?"

Cesar " Well he was walking this way )East) and he turned just like this (North) and when he did, my hand broke loose, sort of away from his arm. and, of course I GRABBED IT AGAIN, because people were all over the place

Officer " People were pressing in prety close?"

Cesar " Right, now, at the time, I just happened to look up, and thats when I seen- all I could see was an arm, and a gun. And I REACHED FOR MINE, but it was too late.

I have just recently acquired a copy of Cyril Wecht's CAUSE OF DEATH, and seem to find proof that Sirhan could not have fired the fatal shot. Mr Karl Uecker, the hotel Maitre d, said that he had hold of both RFK and Ethel Kennedy as they moved through the kitchen. Mr Uecker said he saw Sirhan and thought that he was a houseman, an employee of the hotel. He said that the Kennedys were one step behind him and that Sirhan was ALWAYS in front of him, in fact he said that after the shooting started, he instinctively jumped FORWARD and grabbed the man with the gun by the neck. He further stated that he was between the two of them (RFK and Sirhan) the entire time, and that his eyes were on Sirhan the whole time, saying that Sirhan's gun never got closer to Senator Kennedy than a couple of feet. Some people have speculated that RFK was shoved by the crowd directly into Sirhan. This was physically impossible, IMO based on what Mr Uecker stated.
Regards,
Terry

Dan Moldea researched Cesar's background and interviewed him a number of times. He also got Cesar to take a polygraph (yes, I know there will be some forum members who reject polygraphs).Moldea exhonerates Cesar.Furthermore, it should also be remembered that Cesar volunteered his statement to police - he volunteered handing over his handgun to police.They ignored him.There is nothing in Cesar's background to warrant irresponsible charges against him.The statement about when he sold his .22 is a red herring.At any time during the investigation the police could have demanded to see Cesar's other guns. He had the .22 for quite some time following the assassination - a rather strange thing to do if you are involved in a conspiracy.


As Kennedy was led through the pantry by Ambassador hotel maitre’d , Karl Uecker, ‘Ace’ security guard Thane Cesar was waiting at the double swing doors.Uecker led Kennedy by the right wrist through the crowd which filled the pantry passageway.Cesar held RFK’s upper right arm.Kennedy moved through the pantry shaking hands with excited supporters and hotel workers occasionally breaking loose from his guides.Uecker said, “I took the Senator behind the stage.I was going to turn left to go to the Ambassador Ballroom and somebody said, ‘No.We’re going that way.We’re going to the press room (Colonial Room)’.I said, ‘This way, Senator….’ It was a last-minute decision.I don’t know who made it…The Senator was really happy, and he stopped again and again to shake hands…I got his hand, his right hand and I said ‘Senator. Let’s go now’. (A split second later I) felt something, somebody, moving in…the next thing I heard was a shot.It sounded like a firecracker.Then I heard a second shot.Senator Kennedy’s right arm flew up and he was TURNING (emphasis added)…it looked like the Senator saw what had happened.” The shot that killed Kennedy was fired from a distance of approximately one inch.

In front of Kennedy there were about 20 people.Kennedy was in the midst of about 50 people.As Cesar approached Kennedy when he came through the pantry doors people began pushing and shoving towards the Senator.Cesar began to push them away as Kennedy had difficulty moving forward.

Just before Uecker, Cesar and Kennedy reached the ice machine a couple of meters from the swinging doors.Cesar took Kennedy’s right arm at the elbow as Uecker kept hold of Kennedy’s right hand.Cesar let go as Kennedy began to shake hands with kitchen workers who were standing behind the serving tables.Cesar’s account is crucial because he was certain about how Kennedy was standing at the moments shots rang out. Cesar told Dan Moldea, “A lot of people testified that (Sirhan) was standing this way (with Kennedy facing his assailant).I know for a fact (that’s wrong), because I saw him (Kennedy) reach out there (to shake hands with a busboy) and which way he turned.And I told police about that.”

Although Cesar did not see Kennedy hit or fall he knew the Senator’s head had been turned away from Sirhan’s gun exposing the right rear of his head, the part of his body hit by the fatal bullet .Cesar did not draw his gun until both he and Kennedy had fallen to the floor (Cesar dropped to the floor to avoid being hit by bullets).Cesar’s gun was only out of his holster for about 30 seconds and was not drawn until he began to stand up.

Cesar was in shock.He also had powder burns in his eyes.He immediately ran out of the pantry when he saw Sirhan had been struggling with Kennedy’s aides and returned immediately with other Ace guards, Jack Merrit and Albert Stowers, who had been in the Embassy Room.Merrit entered the pantry with his gun drawn.

The official LAPD version of the shooting concluded that the sequence of shots were as follows:
*The first shot hit Kennedy in the head
*The second bullet went through Kennedy’s shoulder pad, did not harm him, and exited and hit Paul Schrade.
*The third bullet entered Kennedy’s right armpit and lodged in his neck.
*The fourth bullet entered Kennedy’s back and exited through his chest, traveling upwards to the ceiling where it was lost in the interspace.
*The remainder of the eight shots hit the other victims, some as ricochets off the ceiling and walls.
However, as Dan Moldea argued, the reliable witnesses to the shooting all said the distance from Kennedy to Sirhan’s gun was between 1 ½ to 3 feet.Boris Yaro, a photographer for the Los Angeles Times said the gun was within “a foot” of Kennedy’s head. Therefore the first bullet could not have hit Kennedy as his wounds displayed “scorch marks” which could only have resulted from the gun having been placed an inch or so from Kennedy’s head.

And, as Moldea explained, “All twelve of the eyewitness’ statements about muzzle distance is based on – and only on – their view of Sirhan’s first shot.After the first shot, their eyes were diverted as panic swept through the densely populated kitchen pantry.The seventy-seven people in the crowd began to run, duck for cover, and crash into each other.”

One of the most reliable witnesses, Lisa Urso, who was able to see both Kennedy and Sirhan, saw Kennedy’s hand move to his head behind his right ear.As the distance from Kennedy to the gun after the first ‘pop’ was three feet it is likely he had been simply reacting defensively to the first shot fired. Urso described Kennedy’s movements as “…(jerking) a little bit, like backwards and then forwards”.Moldea believes the backwards and forwards jerking, “….came as Kennedy had recoiled after the first shot; he was then accidently bumped forward, toward the steam table and into Sirhan’s gun where he was hit at point blank range.”

Dan Moldea believes the first shot hit Paul Schrade because the Kennedy aide’s last memory was of the Senator smiling and turning toward the steam table.Furthermore, in support of his thesis that the first shot hit Schrade, Moldea quotes ‘key witness’ Edward Minasian as saying, “I saw the fellow (Schrade) behind the Senator fall, then the Senator fell.” Kennedy probably saw Schrade hit because when he himself lay dying on the floor he asked, “Is Paul alright?” If Kennedy had indeed been hit by the first shot he would not have been standing, observing Schrade.The injury to Kennedy’s head was so severe he would not have been able to observe anything once the bullet struck.

Moldea’s thesis is supported by eyewitness Vincent DiPierro who told investigators, “….I stuck my hand out and he shook my hand and I tapped him on the shoulder and said, ‘Congratulations Mr Kennedy’. And I walked with him as far as I could…I stayed as close as I could to him…into what is the kitchen more or less …..and this guy,…he was in a kind of a funny position because he was kind of down…like if he were trying to protect himself from something…he tried to push the people away from his hand…and then he…swung round and he went up on his…tiptoes…and…he shot…and the first shot I don’t know where it went, but I know it was EITHER HIS SECOND OR THIRD ONE THAT HIT MR KENNEDY (emphasis added) and after that I had blood all over my face from where it hit his head, because my glasses…(Martin Patrusky) saw the blood all over my face.”

Moldea’s thesis is supported by one of the key witnesses, Frank Burns, who was identified as one of the five in the group (the others were Karl Uecker, Juan Romero, Jesus Perez, Martin Patrusky) that was closest to the Senator.Although Burns insisted the gun was never less than a foot or a foot and a half from Kennedy he nevertheless described the dynamics of the shooting in such a way to make it entirely feasible that Sirhan’s gun moved to an area inches away from the Senator.Burn’s had suffered a burn on his face which he thought was caused by a bullet passing near his cheek.It was likely a ‘powder burn’ from Sirhan’s pistol.Burns said:
“… I had just caught up with him (in the pantry), and he was a step or so past him.And I’d turned around facing the same way as he turned toward the busboys I was just off his right shoulder, a matter of inches behind him.” After Sirhan fired his gun Burns said, “The noise was like a string of firecrackers going off, it wasn’t in an even cadence.In the process, a bullet must have passed very close to my left cheek because I can remember the heat and a sort of burn.I remember an arm coming towards us, through the people, with a gun in it.I was putting together the burn across my cheek, the noise and the gun and I was thinking, ‘My God, it’s an assassination attempt’.I turned my head and saw the gun and quickly looked back to the Senator and realized he’d been shot because he’d thrown his hands up toward his head as if he was about to grab it at the line of his ears.He hadn’t quite done it.His arms were near his head and he was twisting to his left and falling back.And then I looked back at the gunman, and at that moment he was almost directly in front of me.He was still holding the gun and coming closer to the Senator, PURSUING THE BODY SO THAT THE ARC OF THE GUN WAS COMING DOWN TO THE FLOOR AS THE BODY WAS GOING DOWN.( Emphasis added)”

Burns’ description of the shooting may be the key to an understanding of how the angles of the bullet paths in Kennedy’s body were not consistent with the LAPD’s conclusions that Sirhan’s gun was extended horizontally.

Following the first shot, which hit Schrade, Kennedy was struck by bullets entering his shoulder pad as he was raising his arm to defend himself.Then two shots hit his right armpit – one bullet lodged in the back of his neck.Finally, according to coroner Thomas Noguchi in an interview with Dan Moldea, the fatal head shot occurred.Noguchi said he based part of his explanation on the fact that had Kennedy been hit in the head on the first shot he would not have been able to stand.The head shot would have taken him off his feet immediately. Noguchi told Dan Moldea, “So I believe there were four shots fired at (RFK) at least. The sequence? The shoulder pad shot as he was raising his arm, the two shots to his right armpit, in which one of the bullets lodged in the back of his neck, and , lastly, the shot to the mastoid. This was the shot that was fatal.” (Moldea p312)

Noguchi told Douglas Stein in 1986, “The senator had three gunshot wounds -- a head wound behind his right ear and two through the right armpit. To reconstruct a scenario of the shooting, the gunshot wound to the head wouldn't tell us much, except how close the assailant may have been. We must remember the body is constantly moving, with arms especially changing position. When you examine a body, it's in a horizontal state, so I had to physically and mentally place his body in an upright position to interpret the wound configurations. When a bullet penetrates the skin, it generally leaves a round hole. But the wound to the senator's armpit was not round. To make it round, I had to move the arm fifteen degrees forward after raising it to ninety degrees. I had to do that to understand the relation head wound came from a back-to-front direction; the second wound was on the side, and the third was slightly shifted, indicating he was turning clockwise. ……We know that the three gunshot wounds were at close range.”

Moldea places a lot of misunderstanding about the shooting on the general lack of knowledge about how crowds react during violent incidents.Both conspiracy advocates and official investigators did not understand the dynamics of crowd movement and of how crowds can rapidly change direction and positioning in an instant.This would have been especially true in the Kennedy case, after the first shot when people reacted out of fear, shock and perhaps defensively.People in the pantry were also turning their heads to look for the source of the sounds; on realizing a gun had been fired some would have stumbled, fallen and crashed into objects around them and clashed with others in the crowd.In such circumstances it is easy to see how only a few witnesses placed Sirhan’s gun within a foot or two of Kennedy’s head.It should be remembered that none of the LAPD ‘most credible’ witnesses actually saw Kennedy shot.

Moldea’s conclusions about the movement of the crowd is supported by a statement made by Dr Marcus McBroom to KABC TV Los Angeles reporter Carl George, immediately following the shooting. McBroom said, “I was 5 or 6 people behind him (RFK). He was moving and then stopping. Apparently a little…if I’m not mistaken….a man who was in a work shirt, his hair was all tossled. He sort of approached the Senator from the front and he was sort of smiling and then suddenly it seemed like there was one short and then five shots in quick succession. I do know the crowd panicked and I was thrown back into the ballroom…..”

Furthermore, as Dan Moldea points out, the estimates for the distance of the gun were based on when the first shot was fired.The estimates ranged from 1 ½ feet to 8 or 9 feet.In an instant, following the first shot, the whole dynamics of the crowd changed.As one LAPD detective told Dan Moldea, “…Eyewitness testimony? You talk about 77 people in a room and 12 actual eyewitnesses to the shooting.These are people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.You’re expecting accuracy in their statements? 12 different eyewitnesses will generally give you 12 different versions of a story…eyewitnesses are not trained or experienced or qualified to make judgements about what they see in such situations.” As Thomas Noguchi observed, “…I believe that the Kennedy assassination must go down in the history of forensic science as a classic example of ‘crowd psychology’, where none of the eyewitnesses saw what actually happened.”

It is unlikely that second-shooters in an elaborate conspiracy would have remained undetected.In addition, conspirators could not have known which route Kennedy was to take when he left the Embassy ballroom stage and entered the kitchen pantry.He was directed along that route by an aide.A number of other routes could have been taken.Conspiracy advocates find this fact irrelevant.They believe that multiple assassins may have been waiting at various locations on the possibility that RFK chose another route.However, there is a central weakness in their thesis.There has simply been no evidence which would have supported it.

Mel Ayton
http://crimemagazine.com/05/robertkennedy,0508-5.htm

Are you sure? Without having my books handy, I thought that it was a newsman standing behind Cesar who said Cesar had pulled his gun.

It was newsman Don Schulman who was standing behind Cesar.

BRENT:I’m talking to Don Schulman.Don can you give us a half-way decent report of what happened within all this chaos?
SCHULMAN;OK I was ..a…standing behind…a…Kennedy as he was taking his assigned route into the kitchen.A Caucasian gentleman stepped out and fired three times….the security guard…hit Kennedy all three times.Mr Kennedy slumped to the floor…they carried him away…the security guards fired back…As I saw…they shot the ….a…man who shot Kennedy…in the leg….he…a before they could get him he shot a ….it looked to me…he shot a woman…and he shot two other men.They then proceeded to carry Kennedy into the kitchen and …I don’t know how his condition is now.
BRENT: Was he grazed or did it appear to be a direct hit?Was it very serious from what you saw?
SCHULMAN:Well…from what I saw…it looked…fairly serious.He had …he was definitely hit three times.Things happened so quickly that…that…there was another eyewitness standing next to me and she is in shock now and very fuzzy…as I am…because it happened so quickly.
BRENT:Right.I was about six people behind the Senator, I heard six or seven shots in succession…Now…is this the security guard firing back?
SCHULMAN:Yes…a…the man who stepped out fired three times at Kennedy..hit him all three times….and the security guard then fired back….hitting…
BRENT: Right.
SCHULMAN:Hitting him, and he is in apprehension.

Minutes later Schulman was then interviewed by KNXT’s Ruth Ashton Taylor.and said ,”Well, I was standing behind him, directly behind him (RFK).I saw a man pull out a gun.It looked like he pulled it out from his pocket and shot three times.I saw all three shots hit the Senator.Then I saw the Senator fall and he was picked up and carried away.I saw the –also saw the security men pull out their weapons.After then it was very very fuzzy.”

In 1971 Schulman said he did not see Sirhan shoot Kennedy but he insisted that he saw the ‘security guard’ fire his gun and he also saw wounds erupting on Kennedy’s body but refused to make any connection to the two events.In subsequent years Schulman never again said he saw a security guard fire his weapon.

In the mid-70s Schulman was questioned by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Special Counsel Thomas Kranz, who had been appointed to independently investigate the assassination of RFK.Schulman told Kranz that immediately following the shooting he was ‘tremendously confused’ and that the words, he used to describe the shooting to reporters in 1968 were the result of ‘confusion’.Schulman reported that he meant to tell reporters that “Kennedy had been hit three times, he had seen an arm fire, he had seen the security guards with guns, but he had never seen a security guard fire and hit Robert Kennedy.”

From Schulman’s original reports conspiracy advocates began to construct a second-gun scenario, a scenario built on the confused statements made in the chaos that enveloped the pantry area the night of the shooting.It became plausible because film-maker Ted Charach had said that Cesar had pulled his gun before he fell to the ground during the shooting thus giving Schulman’s original statement that a guard had fired his gun some credibility.Yet Thane Cesar never said he had pulled his gun at that time .Cesar had drawn his pistol only after he had gotten off the ground.And there had been another guard who had drawn his gun in the pantry thus adding to Schulman’s confusion.Ace Security guard Jack Merritt entered the pantry after the shooting.He had been in the hall outside the Embassy Room when the shooting began and when he entered the pantry he could see Sirhan on a metal table being apprehended by Kennedy aides and RFK was lying on the floor.

To further add suspicion to Schulman’s ‘sightings’, Robert Blair Kaiser stated that Schulman had not even been in the pantry area at the time of the shooting.Kaiser quoted KNXT-TV employees, Frank Raciti and Dick Gaither, as saying that Schulman had been standing with them, inside the Embassy Room.

Hi Mel,
Nice to see you here again.
Did you by any chance see a programme made by the discovery channel titled 'Unsolved history'? Don Moldea and others attempt to recreate the assassination using actors that fit Ueckers, Sirhans and Kennedys measurements. They use a red beam on top of a gun to depict at what angle either Cesar or Sirhan would have had to have been standing at in order to make all the wounds to Kennedy.

The kitchen was remade in a studio, with exact measurements. It was excellently made.
They also conducted an experiment whereby they let actors walk into the Kitchen (they were unaware of the scenario about to unfold) and stand in the exact spot the actual witnesses were and played out 2 scenarios, 1. The Sirhan firing alone scenario, 2. Sirhan and Cesar both firing. The purpose of the experiment was to test peoples on the spot reactions with regards to the origin and number of the shots.

Most heard only three or four shots in both scenarios. Nobody noticed the actor playing Cesar taking three shots at kennedy as he was right beside him and there was a considerable amount of people who did not realise that there was a security guard or policeman in the room!
If you can I suggest that you try to obtain a copy. It is an excellent piece of recreationist History.

Alas they come away with no definite answer, they rule that either scenario was possible depending on Kennedys positioning, though Cesar looking the liklier option, having factored in witness, balistics and forensics evidence.

All the best
John Geraghty

Thank you John,
I recall we had a pleasant exchange of views about the MLK case. If only posters could adopt a civil attitude like yours forums like this would be able to operate effectively - without the invective that puts a lot of people off.

I haven't seen the History special but I correspond regularly with Dan Moldea.None of the scenarios was satisfying to him and will not likely satisfy me. Recreating the scene inside the pantry was, I believe, an exercise in futility, a little bit like asking historians to account for everyone's movement on the Titanic before it sank.However, there is something to be said for those who try.

Here's my take on the pantry scene and the dynamics of the shooting:

The LAPD re-enacted the crime on film – two reconstructions in 1968 and a third in 1977.Investigators concluded that Sirhan could have gotten his gun to within 1 to 3 inches from Kennedy’s head and fire 4 bullets at an upward-leftward angle.

However, their reports were dismissed by many researchers who provided a contradictory conclusion.They argued that witnesses provided information that indicated Sirhan’s position in the pantry made it impossible for him to shoot the Senator in the back of the head from a distance of an inch or so.No witness testified that the assailant had been less than a few feet away from Kennedy.Criminalist, William H. Harper, a critic of the LAPD investigation, concluded there had to be at least two firing positions to account for all the bullets and all the wounds.According to conspiracy writer Lisa Pease, “As you will recall five people were shot besides Kennedy, one of whom was shot twice; Kennedy himself was shot four times.Doesn’t that add up to ten bullets? Not if the LAPD could come up with some magic ones.The bullet that pierced Kennedy’s coat without entering him took a path of roughly 80 degrees upwards.The bullet was moving upwards in a back to front path (as were all of Kennedy’s wound paths).But the LAPD figures this must be the bullet that hit Paul Schrade.Had Schrade been facing Kennedy, he would still not be tall enough to receive a bullet near the top of his head from that angle.But he was not standing in front of Kennedy.He was behind him by all eyewitness accounts, and,as shown by the relative positions where the two fell after being hit.”

However, there are a number of possibilities that can be used to explain the trajectories of the shots without resorting to the possibility of a second gun.

Thomas Noguchi and Dan Moldea said there was no one who could positively say to a 100% degree of certainty how the bullets travelled. A number of possible explanations, which are contrary to the official version, can account for the paths of the bullets.
There were four stray bullets:
1. The bullet that passed through Kennedy’s jacket without striking him
2.The through and through bullet that exited from his chest.
3. The bullet that struck the ceiling and exited through one of the ceiling tiles.
4. The bullet that was supposedly lost in the ceiling interspace.

In its official inventory of the bullets fired by Sirhan the LAPD claimed that Schrade was wounded by the bullet that went harmlessly through the shoulder pad of RFK’s suit. Moldea maintains this is wrong. Moldea believes the first shot hit Paul Schrade. Moldea also believes that the shoulder pad bullet probably struck one of the four shooting victims and this is consistent with the fact that Sirhan’s revolver could only fire 8 shots.

The following scenario is entirely plausible, although there are other scenarios that could account for the 8 shots – as Vincent Bugliosi said, “If (Wolfer’s) report is in error, for whatever reason, then there might be an explanation for some of these things: ricochets, parts of bullets, fragments. This whole notion of a second gun is premised on the assumption (Wolfer’s) report is correct.”

BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead.
BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm – this bullet then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling upwards to the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is Evans. Evans was bending down at the time of the shooting – the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor then struck Evans in the head.This bullet could account for two of the ceiling tile holes, entry and exit.
BULLET 3 – The bullet that hit Kennedy in his right armpit and lodged in the back of his neck.This bullet was recovered.
BULLET 4 - The bullet that hit RFK in the mastoid. This was the shot that was fatal.Bullet fragments were recovered.
BULLET 5 – The bullet that went through Goldstein’s left pant leg without striking him – this bullet could have hit Stroll – the bullet was recovered during surgery.
BULLET 6 – The bullet that hit Weisal in the abdomen and which was recovered during surgery.
BULLET 7 – The bullet that was lost in the ceiling interspace.This may very well have been the bullet that entered then exited RFK’s chest and travelled upwards.
BULLET 8 – The bullet that hit Goldstein in the thigh and which was recovered.

Three ceiling tile holes are accounted for in the above ‘scenario’. The alleged bullet holes in the pantry door divider were too small to be made by .22 caliber bullets.In fact they were not made by bullets at all as Moldea ably demonstrates.

As Kennedy was led through the pantry by Ambassador hotel maitre’d , Karl Uecker, ‘Ace’ security guard Thane Cesar was waiting at the double swing doors.Uecker led Kennedy by the right wrist through the crowd which filled the pantry passageway.Cesar held RFK’s upper right arm.Kennedy moved through the pantry shaking hands with excited supporters and hotel workers occasionally breaking loose from his guides.Uecker said, “I took the Senator behind the stage.I was going to turn left to go to the Ambassador Ballroom and somebody said, ‘No.We’re going that way.We’re going to the press room (Colonial Room)’.I said, ‘This way, Senator….’ It was a last-minute decision.I don’t know who made it…The Senator was really happy, and he stopped again and again to shake hands…I got his hand, his right hand and I said ‘Senator. Let’s go now’. (A split second later I) felt something, somebody, moving in…the next thing I heard was a shot.It sounded like a firecracker.Then I heard a second shot.Senator Kennedy’s right arm flew up and he was TURNING (emphasis added)…it looked like the Senator saw what had happened.” The shot that killed Kennedy was fired from a distance of approximately one inch.

In front of Kennedy there were about 20 people in the pantry.Kennedy was in the midst of about 50 people.As Cesar approached Kennedy when he came through the pantry doors people began pushing and shoving towards the Senator.Cesar began to push them away as Kennedy had difficulty moving forward.
Just before Uecker, Cesar and Kennedy reached the ice machine a couple of metres from the swinging doors.Cesar took Kennedy’s right arm at the elbow as Uecker kept hold of Kennedy’s right hand.Cesar let go as Kennedy began to shake hands with kitchen workers who were standing behind the serving tables.Cesar’s account is crucial because he was certain about how Kennedy was standing at the moments shots rang out. Cesar told Dan Moldea, “A lot of people testified that (Sirhan) was standing this way (with Kennedy facing his assailant).I know for a fact (that’s wrong), because I saw him (Kennedy) reach out there (to shake hands with a busboy) and which way he turned.And I told police about that.”

Although Cesar did not see Kennedy hit or fall he knew the Senator’s head had been turned away from Sirhan’s gun exposing the right rear of his head, the part of his body hit by the fatal bullet .Cesar did not draw his gun until both he and Kennedy had fallen to the floor (Cesar dropped to the floor to avoid being hit by bullets).Cesar’s gun was only out of his holster for about 30 seconds and was not drawn until he began to stand up.

Cesar was in shock.He also had powder burns in his eyes.He immediately ran out of the pantry when he saw Sirhan had been struggling with Kennedy’s aides and returned immediately with other Ace guards, Jack Merrit and Albert Stowers, who had been in the Embassy Room.Merrit entered the pantry with his gun drawn.

As Moldea explained, “All twelve of the eyewitness’ statements about muzzle distance is based on – and only on – their view of Sirhan’s first shot.After the first shot, their eyes were diverted as panic swept through the densely populated kitchen pantry.The seventy-seven people in the crowd began to run, duck for cover, and crash into each other.”

One of the most reliable witnesses, Lisa Urso, who was able to see both Kennedy and Sirhan, saw Kennedy’s hand move to his head behind his right ear.As the distance from Kennedy to the gun after the first ‘pop’ was three feet it is likely he had been simply reacting defensively to the first shot fired. Urso described Kennedy’s movements as “…(jerking) a little bit, like backwards and then forwards”.Moldea believes the backwards and forwards jerking, “….came as Kennedy had recoiled after the first shot; he was then accidently bumped forward, toward the steam table and into Sirhan’s gun where he was hit at point blank range.”

Dan Moldea believes the first shot hit Paul Schrade because the Kennedy aide’s last memory was of the Senator smiling and turning toward the steam table.Furthermore, in support of his thesis that the first shot hit Schrade, Moldea quotes ‘key witness’ Edward Minasian as saying, “I saw the fellow (Schrade) behind the Senator fall, then the Senator fell.” Kennedy probably saw Schrade hit because when he himself lay dying on the floor he asked, “Is Paul alright?” If Kennedy had indeed been hit by the first shot he would not have been standing, observing Schrade.The injury to Kennedy’s head was so severe he would not have been able to observe anything once the bullet struck.

Moldea’s thesis is supported by eyewitness Vincent DiPierro who told investigators, “….I stuck my hand out and he shook my hand and I tapped him on the shoulder and said, ‘Congratulations Mr Kennedy’. And I walked with him as far as I could…I stayed as close as I could to him…into what is the kitchen more or less …..and this guy,…he was in a kind of a funny position because he was kind of down…like if he were trying to protect himself from something…he tried to push the people away from his hand…and then he…swung round and he went up on his…tiptoes…and…he shot…and the first shot I don’t know where it went, but I know it was EITHER HIS SECOND OR THIRD ONE THAT HIT MR KENNEDY (emphasis added) and after that I had blood all over my face from where it hit his head, because my glasses…(Martin Patrusky) saw the blood all over my face.”

Moldea’s thesis is also supported by a statement I found by one of the key witnesses, Frank Burns, some years after the assassination.Burns was identified as one of the five in the group (the others were Karl Uecker, Juan Romero, Jesus Perez, Martin Patrusky) that was closest to the Senator.Although Burns insisted the gun was never less than a foot or a foot and a half from Kennedy he nevertheless described the dynamics of the shooting in such a way to make it entirely feasible that Sirhan’s gun moved to an area inches away from the Senator.Burn’s had suffered a burn on his face which he thought was caused by a bullet passing near his cheek.It was likely a ‘powder burn’ from Sirhan’s pistol.

Burns said:
“… I had just caught up with him (in the pantry), and he was a step or so past him.And I’d turned around facing the same way as he turned toward the busboys I was just off his right shoulder, a matter of inches behind him.” After Sirhan fired his gun Burns said, “The noise was like a string of firecrackers going off, it wasn’t in an even cadence.In the process, a bullet must have passed very close to my left cheek because I can remember the heat and a sort of burn.I remember an arm coming towards us, through the people, with a gun in it.I was putting together the burn across my cheek, the noise and the gun and I was thinking, ‘My God, it’s an assassination attempt’.I turned my head and saw the gun and quickly looked back to the Senator and realized he’d been shot because he’d thrown his hands up toward his head as if he was about to grab it at the line of his ears.He hadn’t quite done it.His arms were near his head and he was twisting to his left and falling back.And then I looked back at the gunman, and at that moment he was almost directly in front of me.He was still holding the gun and coming closer to the Senator, PURSUING THE BODY SO THAT THE ARC OF THE GUN WAS COMING DOWN TO THE FLOOR AS THE BODY WAS GOING DOWN.( Emphasis added)”

Burns’ description of the shooting may be the key to an understanding of how the angles of the bullet paths in Kennedy’s body were not consistent with the LAPD’s conclusions that Sirhan’s gun was extended horizontally.

Following the first shot, which hit Schrade, Kennedy was struck by bullets entering his shoulder pad as he was raising his arm to defend himself.Then two shots hit his right armpit – one bullet lodged in the back of his neck.Finally, according to coroner Thomas Noguchi in an interview with Dan Moldea, the fatal head shot occurred.Noguchi said he based part of his explanation on the fact that had Kennedy been hit in the head on the first shot he would not have been able to stand.The head shot would have taken him off his feet immediately. Noguchi told Dan Moldea, “So I believe there were four shots fired at (RFK) at least. The sequence? The shoulder pad shot as he was raising his arm, the two shots to his right armpit, in which one of the bullets lodged in the back of his neck, and , lastly, the shot to the mastoid. This was the shot that was fatal.”

Moldea places a lot of misunderstanding about the shooting on the general lack of knowledge about how crowds react during violent incidents.Both conspiracy advocates and official investigators did not understand the dynamics of crowd movement and of how crowds can rapidly change direction and positioning in an instant.This would have been especially true in the Kennedy case, after the first shot when people reacted out of fear, shock and perhaps defensively.People in the pantry were also turning their heads to look for the source of the sounds; on realizing a gun had been fired some would have stumbled, fallen and crashed into objects around them and clashed with others in the crowd.In such circumstances it is easy to see how only a few witnesses placed Sirhan’s gun within a foot or two of Kennedy’s head.It should be remembered that none of the LAPD ‘most credible’ witnesses actually saw Kennedy shot.

Furthermore, as Dan Moldea points out, the estimates for the distance of the gun were based on when the first shot was fired.The estimates ranged from 1 ½ feet to 8 or 9 feet.In an instant, following the first shot, the whole dynamics of the crowd changed.As one LAPD detective told Dan Moldea, “…Eyewitness testimony? You talk about 77 people in a room and 12 actual eyewitnesses to the shooting.These are people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.You’re expecting accuracy in their statements? 12 different eyewitnesses will generally give you 12 different versions of a story…eyewitnesses are not trained or experienced or qualified to make judgements about what they see in such situations.” As Thomas Noguchi observed, “…I believe that the Kennedy assassination must go down in the history of forensic science as a classic example of ‘crowd psychology’, where none of the eyewitnesses saw what actually happened.”

It is unlikely that second-shooters in an elaborate conspiracy would have remained undetected.In addition, conspirators could not have known which route Kennedy was to take when he left the Embassy ballroom stage and entered the kitchen pantry.He was directed along that route by an aide.(Bill Barry had checked the route out with Fred Dutton before RFK finished his speech.) A number of other routes could have been taken.Conspiracy advocates find this fact irrelevant.They believe that multiple assassins may have been waiting at various locations on the possibility that RFK chose another route.However, there is a central weakness in their thesis.There has simply been no evidence which would have supported it.

Hi mel,
I find it a pity that i am not well versed enough in the RFK assassination, nor the MLK assassination to engage you in any real debate.
With regard to your statements about eyewitness testimony, i fully agree that in a scenario such as the one that played out in the Ambassador it would prove difficult to find very accurate testimony from witnesses in a very crowded and condensed area. This plays badly for all witnesses, both those used as examples of conspiracy and for Sirhans guilt.

Yesterday i listened to a speech larry teeter gave in 2003, giving a reasonable overview of his case for conspiracy, given that he only had an hour to do so. I don't know whether you have covered the hypnosis element of the case or not, but what do you make of the fact that psychologists and hypnosis experts deemed Sirhan programmable. There were instances where Sirhan was under hypnosis and was asked to write about RFK and he simply reproduced what was written in his diary 'RFK must die etc', in another instance he was told to climb the bars of his cell like a monkey, in both instances he had no recollection of who had told him what to do and had no memory of doing it.

Teeter also raised the point of people trying to railroad his investigation by opening him up to perjury and trying to set him up. In one instance he details how two men arranged to meet him so that they might give him information on an FBI agent in return for the film rights to Sirhans life.

I apologise for my lack of specific information, I have only articles, soundbites and a small Melanson book at my disposal at this moment in time.

I just bought William Bradford Huie's book on the King case, any reviews? Post it in the MLK section if you like and i can read it there.

All the best
John

Thanks John,
One of the reasons I researched the RFK case was to cover the controversies about Sirhan and hypnosis - Dan Moldea glossed over this issue, even though his work will probably remain the definitive book on the RFK assassination.I have interviewed a number of famous psychiatrists and psychologists in the UK and US and have thoroughly researched the CIA/Hypnosis material.I'm afraid I can't say more as my publishers will probably get rather antsy that I have given away too much already! My book will be published in the US, Spring 2007.
William Bradford Huie's book was, of course, excellent which is one of the reasons why some conspiracy advocates tried to brand him and smear him as a 'government tool'.
I am presently completing my book about the Bermuda Murders circa 72/73 so I don't think I will be able to afford much time on this forum - I have enjoyed our exchanges with you and others who give intelligent and civil replies - unlike others who aren't worth replying to.

Thanks Mel,
I will be able to get your book on the JFK assassination as it is in the library of Dealey Plaza Uk of which I am proud to say I am a member, so I hope to read that some time soon and give you my critique!
All the best,
John

Schulman declined to repeat his contemporaneous account that he had seen the security guard fire because h was browbeaten by the LAPD like Sandy Serrano.

Mel,
Much of the exoneration of Cesar's possible role assumes that Cesar is telling the truth about his role, which would be an unusual procedure ordinarily. There is a great deal of confusion about the firing of the shots and speculation about RFK's position relative to Sirhan as well as Cesar's misleading statements about his gun ownership. I accept that RFK did indeed turn to his left and was shaking hands as Sirhan began firing. I also accept that Cesar's ownership of a .22 revolver is not that important, since the fatal wound would seem more likely to have come from a .38 caliber bullet than a .22 (if one accepts John Hunt's analysis of the diameter of the wound path based on Noguchi's autopsy report). Of course, Cesar's service revolver was a .38, and it's not necessary to argue that RFK was facing Sirhan rather than turned with his right rear side exposed to him in order to raise questions about Cesar. What is necessary is to deal with Karl Uecker's statements that he moved to deflect Sirhan's shooting after the first couple of shots, that RFK was hit point-blank by 3 shots and had a 4th go through his suit jacket shoulder (without hitting him), and that the audio of film footage being taken in the Embassy ballroom at the time has 3 distinct sounds of gunfire rather than 8. All of that plus the unusual circumstances surrounding Enyart's photos should raise fairly severe questions in my opinion.

"Dan Moldea researched Cesar's background and interviewed him a number of times. He also got Cesar to take a polygraph (yes, I know there will be some forum members who reject polygraphs). Moldea exhonerates Cesar. Furthermore, it should also be remembered that Cesar volunteered his statement to police - he volunteered handing over his handgun to police. They ignored him. There is nothing in Cesar's background to warrant irresponsible charges against him. The statement about when he sold his .22 is a red herring. At any time during the investigation the police could have demanded to see Cesar's other guns. He had the .22 for quite some time following the assassination - a rather strange thing to do if you are involved in a conspiracy."

[We need something more than Dan Moldea’s word for it and judgement exonerating Cesar. It’s good that Cesar volunteered so much; the issue is whether he might have volunteered in any other circumstances previous to those occasions. Cesar’s .22 is not the issue, in my opinion, but at this point his service revolver .38 is.]

“Uecker said, ‘I took the Senator behind the stage. I was going to turn left to go to the Ambassador Ballroom and somebody said, “No. We’re going that way. We’re going to the press room (Colonial Room).” I said, “This way, Senator….” It was a last-minute decision. I don’t know who made it....’ [Fred Dutton made the decision, according to the report made by Thomas F. Kranz, Special Counsel to the LA DA’s office. This decision was the obvious one, since RFK was originally scheduled to speak to another overflowing crowd in another ballroom; but since it was around midnight California time, RFK would need to speak with the press to get any remarks out for newspapers in the eastern part of the country. The route he would need to take to get from the Embassy ballroom to the Colonial press room was through the pantry. Sirhan was observed two days earlier (June 2, 1968) seated in the same pantry area shortly after RFK had passed through the pantry from giving a speech and then going to speak with the press. An obvious route to take which had been known previously and could be surmised as being an eventual route RFK would take even had he gone to the other ballroom to speak to the other crowd.] The shot that killed Kennedy was fired from a distance of approximately one inch.”

“Cesar’s account is crucial because he was certain about how Kennedy was standing at the moments shots rang out. Cesar told Dan Moldea, ‘A lot of people testified that (Sirhan) was standing this way (with Kennedy facing his assailant). I know for a fact (that’s wrong), because I saw him (Kennedy) reach out there (to shake hands with a busboy) and which way he turned. And I told police about that.’”

“Although Cesar did not see Kennedy hit or fall [?! How could he have not seen such things, and if it’s true he didn’t, then how reliable is anything else he had to say about it?] he knew the Senator’s head had been turned away from Sirhan’s gun exposing the right rear of his head, the part of his body hit by the fatal bullet .Cesar did not draw his gun until both he and Kennedy had fallen to the floor (Cesar dropped to the floor to avoid being hit by bullets).Cesar’s gun was only out of his holster for about 30 seconds and was not drawn until he began to stand up.”

“However, as Dan Moldea argued, the reliable witnesses to the shooting all said the distance from Kennedy to Sirhan’s gun was between 1 ½ to 3 feet.”

“And, as Moldea explained, ‘All twelve of the eyewitness’ statements about muzzle distance is based on – and only on – their view of Sirhan’s first shot. After the first shot, their eyes were diverted as panic swept through the densely populated kitchen pantry....’”

“One of the...witnesses, Lisa Urso, who was able to see both Kennedy and Sirhan, saw Kennedy’s hand move to his head behind his right ear. As the distance from Kennedy to the gun after the first ‘pop’ was three feet it is likely he had been simply reacting defensively to the first shot fired. Urso described Kennedy’s movements as ‘…(jerking) a little bit, like backwards and then forwards’. Moldea believes the backwards and forwards jerking, ‘….came as Kennedy had recoiled after the first shot; he was then accidently bumped forward, toward the steam table and into Sirhan’s gun where he was hit at point blank range.’”

[A lot of this is noticeably relying on Cesar’s own account of the situation. And Moldea seems to have made an “inverted stretch” to get 1-3 feet to line up with 1 inch. Kranz did a better job, in 1977, by noting a witness’s statement that Sirhan was “stabbing” at Kennedy while firing; I can look this up if needed for a page reference from the Kranz report.]

Vincent DiPierro: “[Sirhan] swung round and he went up on his…tiptoes…and…he shot…and the first shot I don’t know where it went, but I know it was EITHER HIS SECOND OR THIRD ONE THAT HIT MR KENNEDY (emphasis added) and after that I had blood all over my face from where it hit his head, because my glasses…(Martin Patrusky) saw the blood all over my face.”

[Firing from one’s tiptoes is not exactly the best firing angle to accomplish anything; it is also unbalanced, and makes suspect any idea that a direct point-blank shot could have resulted after the first shot or two—again, consider Uecker’s account about his own reaction and moves to deflect Sirhan’s arm.]

“Moldea’s thesis is supported by one of the key witnesses, Frank Burns,....Burns said:
‘… I had just caught up with him (in the pantry), and he was a step or so past him. [Who was “a step or so past” who?] And I’d turned around facing the same way as he turned toward the busboys I was just off his right shoulder, a matter of inches behind him.’ After Sirhan fired his gun Burns said, ‘The noise was like a string of firecrackers going off, it wasn’t in an even cadence. In the process, a bullet must have passed very close to my left cheek because I can remember the heat and a sort of burn. I remember an arm coming towards us, through the people, with a gun in it. I was putting together the burn across my cheek, the noise and the gun and I was thinking, “My God, it’s an assassination attempt”. I turned my head and saw the gun and quickly looked back to the Senator and realized he’d been shot because he’d thrown his hands up toward his head as if he was about to grab it at the line of his ears. He hadn’t quite done it. His arms were near his head and he was twisting to his left and falling back. [Was RFK not already turned to his extreme left in order to shake hands with the kitchen help? Thus his right rear exposed to the assailant; any further twisting to his left would have put him facing right or forward. A little pedantic of me, I know.] And then I looked back at the gunman, and at that moment he was almost directly in front of me. He was still holding the gun and coming closer to the Senator, PURSUING THE BODY SO THAT THE ARC OF THE GUN WAS COMING DOWN TO THE FLOOR AS THE BODY WAS GOING DOWN.( Emphasis added)’”

“Burns’ description of the shooting may be the key to an understanding of how the angles of the bullet paths in Kennedy’s body were not consistent with the LAPD’s conclusions that Sirhan’s gun was extended horizontally.”

[However that may be, it’s hard to get any point-blank shot from such a proposed scenario. If the scenario is accepted, Sirhan would have had to have been directly on top of RFK to hit at point-blank range.]


“After the first shot, which hit Schrade, Kennedy was struck by bullets entering his shoulder pad as he was raising his arm to defend himself. Then two shots hit his right armpit – one bullet lodged in the back of his neck. Finally, according to coroner Thomas Noguchi in an interview with Dan Moldea, the fatal head shot occurred. Noguchi said he based part of his explanation on the fact that had Kennedy been hit in the head on the first shot he would not have been able to stand. The head shot would have taken him off his feet immediately. Noguchi told Dan Moldea, ‘So I believe there were four shots fired at (RFK) at least. The sequence? The shoulder pad shot as he was raising his arm, the two shots to his right armpit, in which one of the bullets lodged in the back of his neck, and , lastly, the shot to the mastoid. This was the shot that was fatal.’ (Moldea p312)”

[Again, how was Sirhan close enough on a proposed FOURTH shot to have inflicted a lethal wound from an inch away?]

Noguchi told Douglas Stein in 1986, “The senator had three gunshot wounds -- a head wound behind his right ear and two through the right armpit. To reconstruct a scenario of the shooting, the gunshot wound to the head wouldn't tell us much, except how close the assailant may have been. We must remember the body is constantly moving, with arms especially changing position. When you examine a body, it's in a horizontal state, so I had to physically and mentally place his body in an upright position to interpret the wound configurations. When a bullet penetrates the skin, it generally leaves a round hole. But the wound to the senator's armpit was not round. To make it round, I had to move the arm fifteen degrees forward after raising it to ninety degrees. I had to do that to understand the relation head wound came from a back-to-front direction; the second wound was on the side, and the third was slightly shifted, indicating he was turning clockwise. ……We know that the three gunshot wounds were at close range.”

[Agreed: the three gunshot wounds were at close range.]

“Moldea places a lot of misunderstanding about the shooting on the general lack of knowledge about how crowds react during violent incidents. Both conspiracy advocates and official investigators did not understand the dynamics of crowd movement and of how crowds can rapidly change direction and positioning in an instant. This would have been especially true in the Kennedy case, after the first shot when people reacted out of fear, shock and perhaps defensively. People in the pantry were also turning their heads to look for the source of the sounds; on realizing a gun had been fired some would have stumbled, fallen and crashed into objects around them and clashed with others in the crowd. In such circumstances it is easy to see how only a few witnesses placed Sirhan’s gun within a foot or two of Kennedy’s head. It should be remembered that none of the LAPD ‘most credible’ witnesses actually saw Kennedy shot.”

[It’s difficult to see what point is being made here. But conceding the premise, wouldn’t it be most likely that a general crowd reaction—like any individual reaction—would be to move away from the shooter, shots or sound of the shots? In which case RFK should have been protected simply by a general movement away from the maniac shooter, rather than that shooter somehow getting in at least 3 close-range shots (a possible 4th going through shoulder of suit-jacket). Again, consider Uecker’s own apparent reaction—one of a protective movement towards the shooter to deflect his arm as quickly as possible.]

“Moldea’s conclusions about the movement of the crowd is supported by a statement made by Dr Marcus McBroom....McBroom said, ‘I was 5 or 6 people behind him (RFK). He was moving and then stopping. Apparently a little…if I’m not mistaken….a man who was in a work shirt, his hair was all tossled. He sort of approached the Senator from the front and he was sort of smiling and then suddenly it seemed like there was one short and then five shots in quick succession. I do know the crowd panicked and I was thrown back into the ballroom…..’”

[McBroom was thrown backwards by the panicked crowd, which makes perfect sense; anyone who was not trying to protect RFK would have logically been moving away from the shooter.]

“Furthermore, as Dan Moldea points out, the estimates for the distance of the gun were based on when the first shot was fired. The estimates ranged from 1 ½ feet to 8 or 9 feet. In an instant, following the first shot, the whole dynamics of the crowd changed. As one LAPD detective told Dan Moldea, ‘…Eyewitness testimony? You talk about 77 people in a room and 12 actual eyewitnesses to the shooting. These are people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. You’re expecting accuracy in their statements? 12 different eyewitnesses will generally give you 12 different versions of a story…eyewitnesses are not trained or experienced or qualified to make judgements about what they see in such situations.’ As Thomas Noguchi observed, ‘…I believe that the Kennedy assassination must go down in the history of forensic science as a classic example of ‘crowd psychology’, where none of the eyewitnesses saw what actually happened.’”

[Then apparently the case is closed and there are no problems. But we’re not obligated to just accept an “argument from authority,” are we?]

“It is unlikely that second-shooters in an elaborate conspiracy would have remained undetected. In addition, conspirators could not have known which route Kennedy was to take when he left the Embassy ballroom stage and entered the kitchen pantry. He was directed along that route by an aide. A number of other routes could have been taken. Conspiracy advocates find this fact irrelevant. They believe that multiple assassins may have been waiting at various locations on the possibility that RFK chose another route. However, there is a central weakness in their thesis. There has simply been no evidence which would have supported it.”

[See above. I don’t believe in any “multiple assassins” waiting on various routes; but the most likely route to be taken in order to get to the press room was through the pantry—something which was observable as a previous routine, and something which was likely whether RFK had spoken to the other crowd in the other ballroom or not. Mel makes an important point here, as some people want to argue that RFK was “set up” by, for instance, Bill Barry in a “sudden change of plans” scenario. But Mel also uses the same basic idea to argue for the implausibility of a conspiracy with respect to a second gunman: “conspirators could not have known which route Kennedy was to take when he left the Embassy ballroom stage and entered the kitchen pantry.” This is demonstrably false, since 2 days prior to the actual assassination Sirhan was identified as sitting in that very same pantry area about 20 minutes after RFK had passed that way to the Colonial press room upon finishing a speech.................]

I'll get back to Daniel's points in the next few days - William Turner - I would have expected better from you- your statement about Schulman is ridiculous - an experienced reporter 'browbeaten' by the LAPD? Nonsense.
I will also post my answers which address Hunt's analysis of the ballistics evidence. Hunt is not a medical expert nor is he a ballistics expert. Larry Sturdivan is - and he domolishes Hunt's thesis. Be patient!

Of course, Thane Eugene Cesar knew that he was taking a short cut through the kitchen. It is true that Sirhan apparently did not know about this “new” route. However, that is a problem for the lone gunman as well as the conspiracy theorists.



Schulman gave several interviews on what he saw in the kitchen. The first interview he gave to Jeff Bent of Continental News Service straight after the shooting he clearly said that he saw “a security guard standing in back of the senator daw his gun and fire it.” (1) He did not say that Cesar shot Robert Kennedy. Only that he fired back at Shiran. This was accepted as being correct at the time. After all, why should he lie about this event?

The problem was that Los Angeles County coroner Thomas Noguchi, who performed the autopsy, claimed that all three bullets striking Kennedy entered from the rear, in a flight path from down to up, right to left. “Moreover, powder burns around the entry wound indicated that the fatal bullet was fired at less than one inch from the head and no more than two or three inches behind the right ear.” (2)

This was a problem for the LAPD. They now had two gunman involved in the killing (everybody agrees that Shiran had fired his gun). You now had a conspiracy as Shiran could not be portrayed like Lee Harvey Oswald and James Earl Ray as a lone nut. It was therefore necessary to get Schulman and Noguchi to change their testimony. Noguchi refused and so was not called to testify at Shiran’s trial. (Don’t you think that is a bit suspicious?)

Schulman was taking into custody and had to endure lengthy questioning. It was suggested that he was part of the conspiracy to kill Robert Kennedy. Finally, on 9th August, 1968, he told Paul E. O’Steen of the LAPD that he was outside the kitchen when the firing took place and when he rushed to the scene of the crime he might have been mistaken about which security guard had drawn his weapon.

As a result of this he was released as the LAPD went with the lone gunman theory. Schulman was no longer a suspect.

In 1971 the LAPD interviewed Schulman again. No longer under threat of arrest, he returned to his original story of Cesar firing his weapon. The transcript of this interview has been published (it goes on for 87 pages) and however much they try, the LAPD are unable to intimidate Schulman into withdrawing this statement.

The other problem you have your lone-gunman theory is that Thomas Noguchi’s views about the position of the gunman was backed up by other experts such as William W. Harper. He showed that not only was RFK shot from behind but that bullets removed from RFK and newsman William Weisel, were fired from two different guns. (3)

Schulman’s views were supported by Karl Uecker, who struggled with Sirhan when he was firing his gun, provided a written statement in 1975 about what he saw: “There was a distance of at least one and one-half feet between the muzzle of Sirhan’s gun and Senator Kennedy’s head. The revolver was directly in front of my nose. After Sirhan’s second shot, I pushed the hand that held the revolver down, and pushed him onto the steam table. There is no way that the shots described in the autopsy could have come from Sirhan’s gun. When I told this to the authorities, they told me that I was wrong. But I repeat now what I told them then: Sirhan never got close enough for a point-blank shot.” (4)

Another witness, Booker Griffin, also claimed that he saw two men firing guns at RFK. (5) He also saw Sirhan with a woman three times during that evening. (6)

There were other witnesses who provided information that suggested that Cesar lied about the time he drew his gun. Television producer Richard Lubic, saw Cesar with his “weapon in his hand and was pointing it down in Kennedy’s general direction”. Lubic gave this information to the police after the shooting, but he was never asked about it during his testimony in court. Kennedy’s official bodyguard, former FBI agent Bill Barry, also saw Cesar with his gun in his hand and told him to put it back in his holster. (7)

1. Dan E. Moldea, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, 1995 (page 146)

2. William Turner and Jonn Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: The Conspiracy and Coverup, 1993 (page 162)

3. William Turner, Rearview Mirror, 2001 (page 244)

4. Karl Uecker, written statement given to Allard K. Lowenstein in Dusseldorf, Germany (20th February, 1975)

5. Dan E. Moldea, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, 1995 (page 147)

6. William Klaber and Philip H. Melanson, Shadow Play: The Untold Story of the Robert F. Kennedy Assassination, 1997 (page 147)

7. Dan E. Moldea, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, 1995 (page 146)



I have listened to the interview and I am convinced that Scott Enyart is telling the truth. Your claim that he is obviously lying because his interview appeared on Black Op radio is daft. It is like saying that everything that appears in the New York Times is always true or always untrue. You have to apply a bit more intellectual discipline to dealing with the evidence that that? By the way, what is your academic background?

Mel you are very much like a poor man’s Gerald Posner. I don’t know why you have spent your time trying to convince the public that John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were killed by lone gunmen. Unlike Posner who has some sort of reputation to lose, I think it is highly unlikely that you have persuaded the FBI/CIA to pay you for this work. Nor would Sunderland Polytechnic Press (sorry University of Sunderland Press) have made much profit from your books. However, I suppose it helps to have someone arguing for the lone gunman theory. Even if it is you.

By the way, if John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were killed by lone gunman, why is it so important to keep classified so many documents relating to the case?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6187

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).

Another example of this process at work concerns the author Michael Eddowes. He gained a reputation for investigative research in the UK with the publication in 1955 of The Man on Your Conscience, an investigation into the murder trial and execution of Timothy Evans. The book caused renewed interest in the case and eventually Evans received a posthumous pardon by the Queen. This case played an important role in the subsequent abolition of capital punishment in Britain.

In his book, Khrushchev Killed Kennedy (1975), Eddowes argued that President John F. Kennedy was killed by a Soviet agent impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald. It was later revealed that the book had been financed by the Texas oil billionaire, Haroldson L. Hunt. I wonder why Hunt wanted to blame the Soviets for the assassination?

Put yourself in the position of the agency under attack for covering up a conspiracy. What is your ideal scenario? My one would be for a leading conspiracy theorist, with a reputation for integrity, to publish a book where he admits that after studying all the evidence he comes to the conclusion that the official version of the case was right. That is not difficult to achieve as long as you have the means to pay them a lot of money (a generous publisher's advance) and can guarantee them good reviews from the subservient press. I think this explains the work of both Gus Russo and Dan Moldea.

Moldea's "mea culpa"?

http://www.moldea.com/RFK4.html#muzzle

Sturdivan, expert that he is, made serious errors which I have already pointed out to you. Bring it on, Melvyn.


Joh Hunt

John,
I have to admit I'm getting a little impatient myself. But in the meantime, it might be helpful for interested viewers to know that it's a little misleading to call Schulman "an experienced reporter"; he was a newsrunner, a messenger for a TV news crew (according to Kranz Report, Section II, p. 3). This does mean he was more than a guy who gets coffee and doughnuts but he can hardly be equated with "an experienced reporter," even if we concede the premise that hard-boiled newsmen are immune to being leaned on. I don't agree that they are, but it's beside the point since Schulman was not one.
Dan

I posted - it wa staken off within the hour - ask John Simkin
Mel

This is a lie. I have never deleted any of Mel's postings. Why should I? They are so deeply flawed that they only add to the argument that JFK, MLK and RFK were killed as part of a conspiracy.

John,

I posted my response yesterday - it appeared on the forum site - within an hour it was gone - I was responding to your insulting remarks. Why did the post disappear?

As to your comments that my work is deeply flawed - it has been praised by Dan Moldea, Max Holland, Larry Sneed, Ron Rosenbaum (New Yorker), Anthony Summers, Patricia Lambert, HNN editor and presidential historian Richard Shenkman, Professor John McAdams, Professor Lonnie Athens, and JFK researcher and psychologist, Professor Martin J Kelly amongst many. Yet you, John, who as far as I can tell has never been published by any respectable publisher or university have the gall to make these remarks. I believe the only people you are capable of persuading are the likes of JFK Lancer who dismiss anything that spoils their money-making enterprise.

I have no idea. Did you check to make sure that it actually appeared on the Forum? Andy Walker and I are the only ones who have the power to delete other peoples’ postings. Unless you said anything racist, I can’t understand why Andy would have deleted your comments. I will ask him as you are obviously making a very serious charge against the administrators of the Forum.

Mel & John,

I read Mel's response, posted on the same 3-4 threads, and it is indeed gone. There was nothing so objectionable to warrant deletion, in my opinion, though it was feisty and seemed to be saying that Mel didn't intend to suffer further insult and referred readers to his own website for further info on his views. I would strongly defend Mel's right to speak his mind on this subject, including that posting. I think any such deletion would be unwarranted and hardly defensible not to mention being totally unnecessary. (On the other hand, if we delete our own posts in their entirety does this show up as "post deleted" without our adding that notice?)

I am sure your work has been praised by Max Holland and John McAdams. That is like Hitler saying that Mein Kampf was praised by Hermann Goering and Joseph Goebbels.



It is true that most of my work has been published by two small publishers (Tressell and Spartacus). Despite the problems of competing with the multinational corporations, they still managed to sell over 100,000 copies of my books.

The reason why I chose to go with small publishers is because they gave me the freedom to write what I wanted. As you probably know, mainstream publishers are usually unwilling to publish controversial books. This is especially true when you want to be critical of organizations like the CIA and the FBI.

Just because companies are small does not mean they are not “respectable”. What do you know about Tressell and Spartacus to question their respectability? Or is this just a smear that you are unable to back up?

Nor is it true that I have never been published by a large organization. When it suits me I have had work published in the Guardian, the TES, Teaching History, etc.

Except for the odd favour, I no longer write for the print media. All my work goes on my website. It currently gets over 6 million page impressions a month. That of course does not make it “good” or “right” but it does suggest that a lot of people want to read my work.



As I have explained I have not deleted Mel's posting? Why would I do that? The whole idea of this Forum is to have open debate.

Why does Mel not post it again if he is so proud of his work? John Hunt, a leading expert on the RFK assassination has offered to discuss this issue with him. I am looking forward to seeing this discussion. The new thread is here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6718

I can confirm that no posts or threads have been deleted in the time span outlined in this thread.
The deletion of posts is in fact extremely rare on this forum as both John and I are very committed to a free exchange of views and opinions.

John,
You wrote: 'As you probably know, mainstream publishers are usually unwilling to publish controversial books.This is especially true when you want to be critical of organizations like the CIA and the FBI.'

What absolute nonsense! I can't begin to list the numerous mainstream publishers who have been critical of the CIA/FBI - it would take forever. To name one or two - NYRB publications (Thomas Powers) and Shapolsky Publishers (David Scheim).

JFK conspiracy books have been published by Carroll and Graf, Mainstream Publishing(Citadel Press),Cumberland House, the list is endless. Let's face it - the reason why you haven't been published is because your writing is infused with paranoia.If you believe you have merit why not try those small to medium publishers which have published all the other conspiracy books - remember Jim Marrs? He managed to shift 250,000 copies.

What your responses tell us John is that you are building a smokesceen so your own shortcomings as an author(?) are overlooked.

You wrote 'Just because companies are small does not mean they are not “respectable”. What do you know about Tressell and Spartacus to question their respectability? Or is this just a smear that you are unable to back up?'.
Well, John, I looked Tressell and Spartacus up on google and came up with nil. Does the name Spartacus have anything to do with this website you run - did you self-publish? What are the titles of your books?Any small publisher that does not have a website should not even list itself in the small publishers index.

You wrote 'Nor is it true that I have never been published by a large organization. When it suits me I have had work published in the Guardian, the TES, Teaching History, etc.' Published by a large organisation? This is indeed risible - you are talking about a magazine/newspaper! 'When it suits me'? How pompous!

As far as John Hunt is concerned I have engaged with him in an exchange of views on the McAdams site - I spent some considerable time explaining things to him. Readers may wish to search that site for this exchange of views.I am certainly not going to spend hours repeating the previous exchange. As I said in the post that disappeared/removed from your site - there are a number of people in this forum who have behaved like mature adults.They are civil, polite and are open to each others' views - not so John Hunt, a crass and immature man who is beneath contempt. He thinks he can challenge ballistics experts like Larry Sturdivan (The JFK Myths). What a fool!

This recent exchange could have been avoided had you been a little civil in your replies to my posts.I suggest forum members who participate in this debate access the recent (2005) MLK assassination exchanges of views to see how civil discourse works.

What temerity! Challenging Larry Sturdivan, a ballistics expert! Surely, his credentials make up for any faults in his work.

Mr. Ayton,
Are you claiming that in your missing post you addressed the points I made, as well as "demolishing" John Hunt's thesis? If so, we both know better. Your missing post was entirely in response to John Simkin's post in your exchange which now continues in the vein of "who's got better publishers?" You took umbrage at John's insulting manner which you thought was unbecoming of a forum administrator/moderator and announced that you would be forwarding one of the most pathetic posts you'd ever read to the University of Sunderland and/or its Press. You seemed to argue that you did not intend to suffer further insult at the hands of rascals and that more reasonable forum members would agree with you and could decide for themselves by visiting your website for further elucidation of your views. I took this to mean that you did not intend to address the points I made or to demolish Mr. Hunt's thesis. I would much rather you stuck around and let's have a real discussion on this issue as there are many who would like to understand the issues better. Not least of which is the gentleman from Eire who started this thread in the first place.
Sincerely,
Dan

Dan,
I agree, a debate would benefit myself and many others in learning about and developing an opinion on the Robert Kennedy assassination and of course the Martin Luther King assassination should we have enough time. Perhaps Mel could invite a person of his choosing who shares his views so that there might be an even playing field?

John

Dan,
I never said I had addressed Hunt's posts. Where did this come from - Simkin?
I repeat - as far as John Hunt is concerned I have engaged with him in an exchange of views on the McAdams site - I spent some considerable time explaining things to him. Readers may wish to search that site for this exchange of views.I am certainly not going to spend hours repeating the previous exchange on that site. As I said in the post that disappeared/removed from your site - there are a number of people in this forum who have behaved like mature adults.They are civil, polite and are open to each others' views - not so John Hunt, a crass and immature man who is beneath contempt.Hunt, I repeat, has no credentials which anyone would find credible when discussing scientific issues like ballsitics and wounds ballistics.
You have to read the McAdams site to understand how wrong Hunt is. He has failed miserably and this is why he is rather peeved. There may be some of you out there - all conspiracy advicates as far as I can tell- who like to engage in childish discourse. I refuse - but what I will do, Dan, is to answer your questions if you contact me via my website. I will also address Hunt's points - point by point- but not in this forum and not with a person I have absolutely no respect for.
I am also busy completing the final draft of my book as well as writing articles for HNN , Frontpage magazine and Crime magazine. People like Hunt have only JFK lancer type articles to write. I challenge him to try and have his work published by a reputable media outlet - and, no, JFK Lancer is not one of them - they are in the business of promoting conspiracy theories which keeps their money-making enterprise afloat.

John,
You are the kind of forum member I was writing about in an earlier post. I was pleased to offer my views about the MLK assassination to you and others and it was civil discourse.
No, there won't be any of my colleagues participating in this forum - and for good reason they tell me. No matter how logical and rational the answers they give to people like Hunt and Simkins it will simply be twisted and distorted to the point where no rational debate can take place.In fact, acclaimed authors like Max Holland, Patricia Lambert and Dan Moldea believe what I have already contributed on this site and others is a futile exercise given the mind-set of many of the participants. There is no 'search for truth' - only a willingness to posit ridiculous theories based on 'suspicions'.
On the one hand we have acclaimed scientists like Larry Sturdivan , Norman Ramsey, Luis Alveraz and Vince DiMaio giving their scholarly opinions and then we have the likes of Hunt who uses alleged 'scientists' - 'scientists' whose work has come far short of having any respectability in the scientific community. We also have paranoids like John Simkins who believes he can't get published because the CIA and FBI won't let him. It is impossible to address such nonsense.And yes, the post was REMOVED - Dan put the lie to John's comments.
I offered Dan, another mature individual who refusee to engage in childish nitpicking. the opportunity to contact me via my website - you have done so in the past, John.The offer still stands.I think you will agree I have spent a considerable amount of my time posting on this site and at no benefit to myself, after all from what I see there are just a handful of committed conspiracists who participate, so seeking publicity for my work was never on the cards.I will send you a copy of Larry Sturidvan's examination of Hunt's ridiculous claims he makes in his JFK Lancer article.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/noncons/

[quote name='Mel Ayton' date='May 5 2006, 09:04 AM' post='61577']
[quote name='Daniel Wayne Dunn' post='61551' date='May 4 2006, 09:13 PM']
[quote name='Mel Ayton' post='61503' date='May 4 2006, 07:51 AM']
[quote name='Daniel Wayne Dunn' post='61496' date='May 4 2006, 02:49 AM']
[quote name='Mel Ayton' post='61354' date='May 1 2006, 10:42 PM']
[quote name='William Turner' post='60257' date='Apr 18 2006, 04:47 PM']
I'll get back to Daniel's points in the next few days - William Turner - I would have expected better from you-your statement about Schulman is ridiculous - an experienced reporter 'browbeaten' by the LAPD? Nonsense.
I will also post my answers which address Hunt's analysis of the ballistics evidence. Hunt is not a medical expert nor is he a ballistics expert. Larry Sturdivan is - and he domolishes Hunt's thesis. Be patient!
[/quote]
Dan
[/quote]
I posted - it wa staken off within the hour - ask John Simkin
Mel
[/quote]
Mr. Ayton,
Are you claiming that in your missing post you addressed the points I made, as well as "demolishing" John Hunt's thesis?
Sincerely,
Dan
[/quote]
Dan,
I never said I had addressed Hunt's posts. Where did this come from - Simkin?
I refuse - but what I will do, Dan, is to answer your questions if you contact me via my website.
[/quote]

Mr. Ayton,
I am sorry for the misunderstanding. This did not come from John Simkin, but was a possible conclusion to be drawn from your posting "I posted--it was taken off within the hour--ask John Simkin" as an apparent response to John Hunt and my own posts about your previous posts to "Be patient," that you would be addressing my points as well as refuting John Hunt's thesis; this seemed to mean that you were indicating that you had done the latter two things in a post now missing. (By the way, your missing post is still posted on the thread titled "Scott Enyart"---at least this was the original post that I recalled reading at the time.)

It's unfortunate that you do not want to continue further debate here. As I suggested, I think this would be helpful and beneficial for many people interested in the subject. Unfortunately, I myself have my hands pretty full these days and can only handle so many websites and email exchanges, but thank you for your offer to contact you via your website. It's possible that this situation could change in the near future, as I could very well be kicked out of the Lancer site for my over-posting and maniacal insistence on being right all the time, spreading my delusional ideas about Billy Lovelady being able to transform into the Incredible Hulk, and my trumpeting of Pat Speer's far-out notions about tangential gutter wounds which speak against arguments for a frontal head shot and Grassy Knoll shooter.
take care,
Dan

I never said that. What I did say is that authors have had difficulty getting their books published by the major corporations if they are too critical of the CIA or the FBI. For example, for the first three years after the assassination, authors who wanted to publish books that were critical of the Warren Commission had to go to Europe to get their books published. The CIA and FBI then put around stories that authors like Joachim Joesten and Thomas Buchanan were Soviet agents.

The situation changed briefly in 1966 when Rush to Judgement reached number one in the bestseller lists. For a short period publishers became interested in bringing out conspiracy books because it was good business to do so. However, it was not long before the intelligence agencies got it back under control (see my recent posting on the Jack Anderson thread).

See also accounts by Cord Meyer, E. Howard Hunt, Tom Braden and William Sullivan on how the publishing industry was kept under control. Even when books were published, the CIA often controlled the editing process (see my recent posting on Bradley Ayers) or the reviews they received (see Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial for an account of how this worked).



That is not true. As Dan pointed out in an email to me: "The post that is supposedly missing is still on the Scott Enyart thread, so I guess you can advise Mel that there's nothing to worry about in terms of censorship. He must've just hit the wrong button. The post on the Scott Enyart thread is exactly as he apparently tried posting on the others but it got lost. So there's no problem as far as I can see."







As someone who has met John Hunt and watched his outstanding presentation on the case at the JFK Lancer conference, I do not recognize the man you have described here. The truth is that you are not willing to engage in debate with people who know anything about the RFK assassination. You prefer one-way communication. The same is true of your mate John McAdams. That is why he uses newsletters, websites and blogs to present his views on the case. It is not conspiracy theorists who are afraid of debate.




One again you attack the brave small publisher who dares to take on media corporations. It is the "reputable media outlet" that have constantly lied to the public about the deaths of JFK, MLK and RFK.

What is wrong with JFK Lancer making profits out of their publications. Isn't the way the capitalist system works? Why is it acceptable for "reputable media outlet" to make profits but not alternative publishers?

Did you know that no "reputable media outlet" would publish Tom Paine's Rights of Man? He therefore published it himself in 1791 and then fled the country (it was a treasonable offence to publish the truth in the 18th century)? We still live in the same system where some truths are considered to be very dangerous. Thank goodness we have the internet to freely express our views.

AYTON : I will send you a copy of Larry Sturidvan's examination of Hunt's ridiculous claims he makes in his JFK Lancer article.

Daniel,

Melvyn (melvynayton@aol.com) posted redacted versions of Sturdivan's "take" on what I wrote on the aajfk newsgroup. I addressed what Sturdivan wrote in detail and Melvyn did not rebut a word of that. In fact, he never responded in any way. I will post my reply to Sturdivan later on tonight.

Melvyn is one of those types who believes the expert without looking at it in a critical fashion. Melvyn heard what we wanted and it was off to the races. Had Melvyn applied a little critical analysis, he might have recognized that Sturdivan's remarks are WAY off the mark. After I post the redacted quote posted by our own Melvyn, I will post my responses, which I sent to Sturdivan, with whom I am friendly. Sturdivan promised to address his misreading/mischaracterization of what I wrote. He never did.


John Hunt

I have had an email from Paul Schrade:

I am working to open a new investigation of the Robert Kennedy murder with Philip Van Praag and Dr. Robert Joling. Our hope is that appropriate local officials will consider and act on our new evidence. We are represented by a large and prestigious law firm Gibson Dunn and Crutcher.

Van Praag's discoveries from his tests on the only known recording of gunshots at the crime scene are compelling evidence that the second gunman was the one who fired the four pointblank shots into Robert Kennedy.

Many believe that Thane Eugene Cesar is the person of interest who fired those shots including the fatal one.

You have identified Cesar as a Cuban American. What is the basis for that?

We are drafting a list of all of the information that implicates him and would appreciate your help with this list.

Paul Schrade

Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I got this information from. Can any other member help with this?

Ask Dan Moldea,

He can answer the question.

He's Godfather to Cesar's kids.

BK

Apparently the source was page 244 of Bill Turner's Rearview Mirror

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry59320

I'd assume it would also be in Bill Turner's book about the assassination as well, and maybe in Moldea's book but I don't recall it.

Thank you for that. The actual quote is: "Cesar, it turned out, was a Cuban American who registered to vote with George Wallace's arch-Conservative American Independent Party."

Moldea provides the most detailed account of Cesar's background. On page 200 of "the Killing of Robert F. Kennedy" he says: "Cesar was born on February 28, 1942, in Kansas City, Missouri. He is a mixture of English, French and German stock".