I posted this at the JFK forum but I guess it really belongs here.

The link below contains a very interesting interview with Scott Enyart and the trials and tribulations of trying to retrieve photographs he took that might have actually shown who shot RFK.

http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_favorite.html

James

Anybody else having trouble listening to the files?
John

John,

There does seem to be a problem at the moment. It was playing fine the other day. Hopefully this is just a temporary glitch.

James

Enyart claimed police confiscated his photographs as evidence – he said there were 3 , 36 exposure rolls – and was interviewed at Ramparts police station.

Enyart received about two dozen prints/xeroxes from the police all of which showed either the speech or the ballroom after the assassination, according to Enyart. None of what he considered the important ones were returned to him. Told that the evidence in the case had been sealed for 20 years Enyart waited until the late 1980s then requested the police to return all of his photos. At first the authorities said they did not have the negatives, saying they destroyed them in August 1968. Later they said they had been misfiled and would be returned to him. Enyart hired a lawyer and sued the LAPD seeking $2 million in damages for the loss or destruction of his photographs. Following years of legal battles his case finally came to fruition in 1996 when a jury ruled in his favour. However, the negatives were stolen as a courier delivered them to Enyart. He was awarded damages of $450,600.

The verdict was a blow to the LAPD which had come under constant accusations that they had covered up the ‘RFK conspiracy’. However, there was sufficient suspicions about Enyart’s claims. Skip Miller, who argued the case for the DA’s office said that Enyart’s claims that he took important photographs in the hotel pantry at the time RFK was shot, “were just wishful thinking”. Miller said that Enyart took only one roll of film and, more importantly, he was not in the pantry in the first place. To prove his allegations Miller called as a witness one of two Enyart friends who had been with him on the night of the shooting. Brent Gold said Enyart never walked into the pantry following RFK’s speech but instead they were both in the hotel lobby when the shooting occurred. Furthermore, said Miller, Bill Eppridge, a LIFE photographer said Enyart’s claim that he was the person in his photographs was untrue and that the person standing on the steam table was instead Harry Benson. In fact Enyart does not appear in any of Eppridge's photos which are published in his book 'Robert Kennedy - The Last Campaign'.

According to the DA’s office Enyart was awarded $625,600 because the jury was allowed to hear witnesses who had misled and inflamed them with allegations of a purported conspiracy. Miller also believed that jury misconduct occurred and that some jurors expressed hatred of the LAPD and a belief in conspiracy theories juring their deliberations.

This is a very selective account of the Scott Enyart case.

Scott Enyart, a high-school student, was taking photographs of Robert Kennedy as he was walking from the ballroom of the Ambassador Hotel to the Colonial Room where the press conference was due to take place. Enyart was standing slightly behind Kennedy when the shooting began and snapped as fast as he could. As Enyart was leaving the pantry, two LAPD officers accosted him at gunpoint and seized his film. Later, he was told by Detective Dudley Varney that the photographs were needed as evidence in the Sirhan trial. The photographs were not presented as evidence but the court ordered that all evidential materials had to be sealed for twenty years. (It was later discovered that this was a lie).

In 1988 Enyart requested that his photographs should be returned. At first the State Archives claimed they could not find them and that they must have been destroyed by mistake. Enyart filed a lawsuit which finally came to trial in 1996. During the trial the Los Angeles city attorney announced that the photos had been found in its Sacramento office and would be brought to the courthouse by the courier retained by the State Archives. The following day it was announced that the courier’s briefcase, that contained the photographs, had been stolen from the car he rented at the airport. The photographs have never been recovered and the jury subsequently awarded Scott Enyart $450,000 in damages.

However, the LAPD appealed against this decision and this money has not been paid. Much to his credit, Scott Enyart, has refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to get his money.

If Scott Enyart had not really photographed the assassination, why did the LAPD take his film? Why did they lie to him about being used in court and then being sealed for 20 years? Why did they not give him the photographs back after the 20 years? Why did the LAPD want to know the full details of the car the courier would be using to bring the photographs to the courtroom? Don’t you find it suspicious that the photographs were stolen on the way to the courtroom? Don’t these events suggest to you that the Enyart photographs provided evidence that someone else was also firing bullets at Robert Kennedy?

Dan Muldea was his agent for contact with the media. He wanted $35,000 for an interrview. Muldea wrote the book saying Sirhan did it, a flip-flop on his original position (I was on an LA radio station with him when he was in his conspriracy mode). I always thought it was the money.

John,
You wrote, "Scott Enyart, a high-school student, was taking photographs of Robert Kennedy as he was walking from the ballroom of the Ambassador Hotel to the Colonial Room where the press conference was due to take place. Enyart was standing slightly behind Kennedy when the shooting began and snapped as fast as he could."

We only have Enyart's word for this. Please give a citation for your statement that Enyart was 'accosted' by two officers at gunpoint 'AS HE WAS LEAVING THE PANTRY'. Or are you relying solely on Enyart's story, parts of which were challenged by one of his friends.

"If Scott Enyart had not really photographed the assassination, why did the LAPD take his film?" - they took film belonging to others who were at the scene including some people in the Ballroom - see list of physical evidence in CSA Archives lists.

"Don’t these events suggest to you that the Enyart photographs provided evidence that someone else was also firing bullets at Robert Kennedy?" - Suspicious?, perhaps - Proof that the photographs contained incriminating evidence? No.Enyart's friend, who had nothing to gain by his statements said Enyart wasn't there. Eppridge exposed Enyart's lies.

Running on memory here but didn't Muldea promise to crack the case in a year? I feel that with his deadline approaching he plumped for the easy option, ie Sirhan did it...

Mel,
With no disrespect I fail to see why we should be able to take Eugene Thane Cesars account of his actions at face value, while not doing the same for Scott Enyart, a highschool student at the time.
John

Mel, the best account can be found in this interview with Scott Enyart.

http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_favorite.html

For references to where I got my information on Enyart see this thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6487

Now what about some references from you. What was the name of the person who said Enyart was lying?

If Enyart was lying, why did the LAPD not use the photographs to expose his false story? The LAPD admitted they took the film from Enyart’s camera. They even handed back those photographs that were not of the assassination. Detective Dudley Varney said photographs were needed as evidence in the Sirhan trial. The photographs were not presented as evidence but Enyart was told by Varney that the court had ordered that all evidential materials had to be sealed for twenty years. This was a lie.

In 1988 Enyart requested that his photographs should be returned. Why should he do this if they proved that he had lied about taking pictures of the assassination?

At first the State Archives claimed they could not find them and that they must have been destroyed by mistake. Enyart filed a lawsuit which finally came to trial in 1996. During the trial the Los Angeles city attorney announced that the photos had been found in its Sacramento office. Once again the LAPD had the opportunity to expose Enyart as a liar. However, they did not do this. Instead they were brought to the courthouse by the courier retained by the State Archives. The following day it was announced that the courier’s briefcase, that contained the photographs, had been stolen from the car he rented at the airport. The courier later reported that he had been contacted by the LAPD who wanting to know details about the car he was driving from the airport. He thought this was very suspicious because nothing like this had ever happened before.

The photographs have never been recovered and the jury subsequently awarded Scott Enyart $450,000 in damages. However, the LAPD challenged this ruling and he was instead offered an out of court settlement. Part of the deal involves a promise never to talk about the case again. He has refused this offer and is still waiting for his money.

Scott Enyart is clearly telling the truth in this matter. I wonder what your motivations are for spreading stories that he is lying.

John Simkin wrote: ‘Someone suggested that Kennedy should take a short cut through the kitchen’
John, You are obviously unaware that both Fred Dutton and Bill Barry chose the route but did not inform RFK’s other aides.I thought I had informed you of that in a previous post – have you simply chosen to ignore it?

‘An eyewitness, Donald Schulman, went on CBS News to say that Sirhan stepped out and fired three times; the security guard hit Kennedy three times.
Don Schulman retracted his story. 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 at the time 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.


As Dan Moldea pointed out: “The autopsy showed that three bullets had struck Kennedy from the right rear side, traveling at upward angles – shots that Shiran was never in a position to fire.”
Dan Moldea’s description of the dynamics of the shooting states that Sirhan had, indeed, positioned himself to allow for the shots to go upwards through RFK’s body.



‘None of the eyewitness claim that Sirhan was able to fire his gun from close-range.’
Simply not true – see
http://www.crimemagazine.com/05/robertkennedy,0508-5.htm

In 1988 Enyart requested that his photographs should be returned. Why should he do this if they proved that he had lied about taking pictures of the assassination?
Had Enyart got back the full series of film there would have been no story and no one to claim ‘cover-up’.


As William Turner has pointed out, the Enyart photographs are the "RFK version of the Zapruder film" (Rearview Mirror).It provides conclusive evidence of the conspiracy and the cover-up.
CONCLUSIVE evidence? Hardly. If no one has seen them, including Enyart, how on earth can this be true?

John,
To characterise Enyart’s account as ‘the best’ is risible. Enyart provides no corroboration whatsoever in his account – not even his two friends at the time who were with him at the Ambassador would back him up.
You have accused me of ‘spreading stories that Enyart was lying.’ What kind of MOTIVES are you suggesting? Two people said Enyart was lying. Are you saying these two people – LIFE photographer Bill Eppridge AND Enyart’s friend, Brent Gold, are lying? And what motives would they possibly have? Part of the ‘conspiracy’, perhaps? It appears you would rather believe Enyart – who had a vested financial interest in suing the LAPD – rather than Gold and Eppridge. Brent Gold said Enyart NEVER walked into the pantry following RFK’s speech but instead they were both in the hotel lobby when the shooting occurred. Furthermore, Bill Eppridge, a LIFE photographer, said Enyart’s claim that he was the person in his photographs standing on a steam table was UNTRUE and that the person standing on the steam table was instead Harry Benson. In fact, Enyart does not appear in any of Eppridge's photos which are published in his book 'Robert Kennedy - The Last Campaign'. On the basis of this testimony Enyart was indeed ‘lying’ so your accusation that I am ‘spreading lies’ is not only wrong but also insulting. Furthermore, I’m sure the rational members of this forum will agree that Black Op radio never presents objective views or any views which are opposed to their myriad of ridiculous conspiracy theories

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

That's consistent with my recollection that Moldea pretty well proved in his book that Sirhan couldn't have done it, then on the last page he concluded that Sirhan did it. What an intellectual feat!

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.

Simkin:"Your claim that he is obviously lying because his interview appeared on Black Op radio is daft." Ayton: Another attempt to twist my words (Are you realy allowed to teach?) There were no opposing views in the programme. You say you have listened to the interview and believe Enyart - not so much objectivity in that is there? Black Op radio is an organisation dedicated to 'exposing' conspiracies and does not consider other viewpoints - as happened in this case.I accuse Enyart of lying because two people gave testimony in a court of law that this is indeed what he was doing. Yet you choose to believe Enyart.Amazing!

You are supposed to be a forum moderator - where is the objectivity in your attempts to ridicule me or in your comments that I may have attempted to gain financial reward from the FBI/CIA? Have you no shame in using these disingenuous smear tactics? And please don't reply that you said the opposite - reasonable forum members will know what you have been up to. Have you ever questioned the motives - or indeed, the qualifications - of other members - particularly the ones who agree with your views?I sincerely doubt it.

I will pass on your remarks about the University of Sunderland Press to the Chairman, the Deputy Vice Chancellor Jeff Brown. This is indeed one of the most immature and rather pathetic posts I have ever read.
I suggest you attempt to have your own research published, especially by a University press who pass on the manuscripts they select, as Sunderland University does, to experts who teach at Universities around the country and abroad.The University of Sunderland Press pass on their manuscripts to experts at Edinburgh University, Leeds University and Nottingham University.Perhaps you would now like to ridicule these institutions?

John, you are very good at presenting facts but cannot remove yourself from your self-imposed conspiracy mind-set; a mind -set that is an intellectual trap. All you really do is posit questions - Isn't this suspicious?, isn't that suspicious? I told you that Don Schulman retracted his original story yet you still harp on about it. You have command of the facts but are unable to use them for any rational discourse.It is because ytou are a convinced 'conspiracist' which, we all know, is a kind of 'religion'.

I knew I took a risk in joining this forum to express my views about the MLK, JFK and RFK assassinations - I knew I would be outnumbered. Yet, despite this, I have spent some considerable time posting my comments which have not ridiculed other forum members and I have treat everyone with respect.There may be some brave forum members out there who will confirm these facts.

Those forum members who wish to continue to read my research can access my website - my book about the assassination of RFK, (which has received favourable reviews from Dan Moldea and Anthony Summers who have read the pre-publication manuscript) will be published later this year or early 2007. My book includes photographic evidence which explains why Sirhan had been seen with a girl in a Polka dot dress in the Embassy Ballroom and provides CONCLUSIVE acoustics evidence that only 8 shots were fired in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel.

Moldea's "mea culpa"?

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

I uploaded the transcript. Click on the liknks:


http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-5/1178...NYART_LAPD1.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-5/1178...NYART_LAPD2.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-5/1178...NYART_LAPD3.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-5/1178...NYART_LAPD4.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-5/1178...NYART_LAPD5.jpg



John Hunt

Thank you for doing that. It makes no sense at all that Scott would lie about this incident when the police already had possession of his film. I see that Mel Ayton has disappeared from this Forum since he made this accusation. He clearly is not keen to enter into a discussion with you about these issues.

Exactly.


I see that Mel Ayton has disappeared from this Forum since he made this accusation. He clearly is not keen to enter into a discussion with you about these issues.


Melvyn Ayton was never looking for meaningful discussion of any kind. He came here to pontificate. Once his errors were pointed out, he vanished. I doubt that is lost on those who are lurking.

John Hunt

In his 1996 civil suit against the City of Los Angeles, Scott Enyart testified that he had taken three rolls of film that were taken for use as possible evidence.

In that 1968 police transcript that John Hunt provided, nowhere did Enyart refer to rolls of film in the plural. For example:

Q) You were just taking pictures of everything and everybody?

A) Yeah. And I took a picture of a boy come running back. His face was bleeding rather bad, and he came running back. I got a picture of that. There are miscellaneous pictures on the roll (emphasis mine)

And later:

Q) I think you've already given the film to--

A) One of your officers has taken it (emphasis mine)

I'm not saying I disbelieve Scott Enyart. I listened to parts two and three of his interview on Black Op Radio.
Like others, I could not download part one. In that interview, Scott Enyart seems quite credible. However, there is nothing in this 1968 transcript that indicates to me that he used more than one roll of film.

There is precious little on the internet about the Scott Enyart vs City of Los Angeles trial. I found one good article by Dave Manning (Part 1) written for Probe Magazine. (See excerpt below) I searched for the promised Part 2 to no avail.

Elsewhere, I learned that the high powered attorney (He has been involved in many high profile cases) for the City of Los Angeles, Skip Miller was later tried and censured by the California Bar Association for improper conduct with a dismissed juror during the trial. Of course, Mel Ayton never mentioned this.

Mr. Ayton attempted to discredit Scott Enyart and bolster Ayton's claim that Enyart was not in the pantry at the time of shooting by writing:

Furthermore, said Miller, Bill Eppridge (sic), a LIFE photographer said Enyart’s claim that he was the person in his photographs was untrue and that the person standing on the steam table was instead Harry Benson. In fact Enyart does not appear in any of Eppridge's(sic) photos which are published in his book 'Robert Kennedy - The Last Campaign'.

Here in what Dave Manning said in his Probe article:

Enyart replied, “What I described seeing [on direct testimony] is what I have vivid memories about seeing in the pantry that night.” Miller (Attorney for the City of Los Angeles) responded by shouting, “Isn’t it true Mr. Enyart, that you didn’t actually see what happened [at the moment of the shooting] but just read about it?” It was clear that Miller believed this approach would break down Enyart’s story and convince the jury that Enyart was really a fraud. But Enyart’s testimony under cross-examination convinced the jury that he was genuine.

The one trial exhibit that Miller entered into evidence during his cross examination served to corroborate Enyart’s claim that he was the lone photographer in the pantry. And further, that he was behind RFK and atop a steam table at the time of the shooting before being shoved off. This photo was taken from in front of RFK by a young, amateur photographer named Richard E. Harrison. In the foreground of the photo, the struggle with Sirhan ensues. In the background, alone atop a steam table, taking pictures, is 15-year old Scott Enyart, just as he has described himself. The Harrison photo is taken from Sirhan’s perspective right after the shots have been fired.

A seeming contradiction in Enyart’s testimony arose when, during direct examination, he identified himself as the person on a steam table taking pictures in a photograph taken by Time-Life photographer, Bill Epperidge. Enyart stated he first made the identification when he saw the picture in a book Epperidge had published in 1988. The exhibit used during this trial was a two foot square blow-up of the same Epperidge photo. Enyart had never seen this picture blown up before he saw it in court. The person in the picture looked similar, but it was clear that it was not 15-year old Scott Enyart. He had felt for a number of years, that the Epperidge picture helped to corroborate his story. Yet, bravely, he recanted his earlier assertion that he felt it was him in the picture.

In trying to make hay from the inconsistency of Enyart’s testimony and prove that Enyart was never in the pantry, Miller put photographer Epperidge on the stand, as well as another person in the photograph, photographer Harry Benson.

But the testimony of both Epperidge and Benson proved negligible and later backfired. For on the issue of whether they remembered seeing a 15-year old boy in the pantry, up on a steam table taking pictures, both admitted to: (1) Not coming into the pantry until well after the shooting and (2) Once inside, focusing all their attention on the area where Robert Kennedy lay mortally wounded and taking picture after picture. Both also stated that their only other concern was positioning themselves to get good shots and this was accomplished by elbowing and shoving their way into position. This rang true because Enyart recalled being shoved off the table by a number of photographers who, after rushing into the pantry, jumped up onto the table to get better shots. Enyart was actually out of the pantry completely when Epperidge took the picture which showed Benson in the background. What this exchange proved was that it was Enyart in the Richard Harrison photo taken right after the shots rang out and it was someone else in the Epperidge blow-up. Enyart had always insisted that he was shoved off the steam table right after the shooting by other photographers. The two photographs seemed to illustrate his point quite vividly.

In Part 2, Dave Manning details the last two weeks of testimony, including the three witnesses who had the most profound impact on the jurors: the plaintiff’s witnesses who virtually won the case for Scott Enyart—Ted Charach and Rose Lynn Magdan—and the behind-the-scenes story of how they almost did not testify. And the defense’s star witness—Enyart “friend” Brent Gold, who accompanied Enyart to the Ambassador Hotel that night. Also, more insight into the jury deliberations and the possible effect of jury foreman Robert Pinger.

I've got nothing against Mel Ayton per se, but his research always seems superficial, incomplete, and one sided to me. And coupled with his obvious bias against anything conspiratorially oriented such as Black Op Radio (Daft, as John Simkin so eloquently put it) renders many of his arguments quite weak when exposed to opposing points of view by informed individuals.

Even if one acknowledges that most guests on Black Op are making cases for conspiracy, it seems that any thinking person would concede that there is a wealth of information to be found there. One just has to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

Mike Hogan

Michael,

It was not possible for me to tell whether or not Enyart’s said roll or rolls on the copy of the interview at UMASS.
It is possible that he said rolls and the transcript is wrong.


John Hunt

Len Osanic will be interviewing Scott Enyart again on Black Op Radio on May 25th. Len has offered to ask Scott questions that we submit. Please post any questions you have for him and I will make sure Len gets them.

Mel, I will agree that you have conducted yourself well, and have often made excellent points. But I too have occasional doubts about your intentions. I mean, what is it about conspiracy talk that rubs you so wrong? Because the conspiracies didn't occur? Or because maybe they did?

If you cite one possible conspiracy then you would have more credibility.

Possible U.S. conspiracies since WWII.

The sudden death of Warren G. Harding.
The murder of Anton Cermak.
The murder of Huey Long.
The murder of John F. Kennedy.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The murder of Malcom X.
The murder of Martin Luther King.
The murder of Robert F. Kennedy
The sudden death of J. Edgar Hoover.
The Watergate break-in.
The CIA connection to the Watergate scandal.
The "October Surprise."
The Savings and Loan fiasco.
The Iran-Contra scandal.
The CIA's complicity in the drug trade.
The death of Paul Wellstone.
The invasion of Iraq due to "faulty intelligence."

Is it your contention that we were told the whole truth about all these incidents, and that there was no conspiracy to cover-up or conceal the truth about any of these events? Just as some people will fall for anything and therefore have no credibility, others refuse to be suspicious about anything and therefore have no credibility.

According to Len Osanic, Scott Enyart will be interviewed on Black Op Radio tonight at 9pm, EST.

I asked Mr. Osanic if Scott Enyart would be willing to share his views on the assassination of RFK's brother.

http://www.blackopradio.com/

It has been mentioned that two people in RFK's entourage knew that the Senator was to go through the kitchen. Apparently though, they forgot to tell RFK, because someone said "This way Senator". And, as John pointed out, how on earth would Sirhan know this? This fact alone says conspiracy, whether or not there were two shooters ( Although, I believe Cesar was the killer of Robert F. Kennedy.
Terry