Assassination of Robert Kennedy

[Mel Ayton]

Mel. Welcome to the forum.

A thought provoking and original peice of work. I am in no way an

"Expert" on this subject, I originally came here to start a thread on

the east end Ripper murders of 1888,and got interested in the JFK

threads which has lead me to his brothers murder.

There is one question that I find strange however, conventional

wisdom dictates that Oswald assassinated  JFK for personal/ political

reasons (he wanted the stature that society unfairly witheld from him)

It appears that you belive Sirhan assassinated Bobby for almost

identical reasons. yet on arrest neither said "Yeah I killed the SOB

because of Cuba/ Palistine, thus denying their cause the "Oxygene of

publicity" the act was commited for.

I look foward to continued debate in this sad case.

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

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

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Mel.

Could you provide a reference for Sirhan's claim that he did it for his

country. It's not that I dont belive you, just as a newcomer to this case

any info is helpful.

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

Quote on.

Unruh asked the suspect, " Why did you shoot him?"

Sirhan replied " You think im crazy so you can use it as evidence against me."

Quote off.

Thanks in advance,Steve.

[Mel Ayton]

Stephen,

Jesse Unruh - Newsweek 17th June 1968 - it is not clear yet whether Unruh actually retracted his statement - the allegations come from a conspiracy advocate and I will check.However from memory I believe the statement was used by Unruh during the trial.

The doctor was Dr Marcus McBroom cited in UPI Archives (www.upi.com)

I will read the previous posts.So far I have just skimmed - but I spotted one mistake already - Sandra Serrano did not stick to her story all these years - in fact she retracted her story shortly after the assassination and admitted to Pena and Hernandez (who , by the way, do not have a sinister role in this whole affair - Anyone who claims otherwise is simply repeating the malevolent intent of Cts who have tried, but failed, to demonize them ) she had 'made stuff up'.It was only later when CT's got hold of her she retreated back to her original story.I can retrieve the full quotes from my files if you wish but this might take a day or two.I use some of these quotes in my manuscript but again I am trying to get something off to you as quickly as possible.

Conspiracy Theorists are able to twist any statement to their advantage as I have discovered over the years - including the inevitable confused reports which occur when an event so momentous takes place.

Will get back to you with further statements about previous posts.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Mel.

Thank you for the citation, Ido not consider myself either c/t or L/n

Just a humble seeker of the truth. some see conspiracy everywhere,

others nowhere. As I have indicated my main area of research

(20 years and counting) is the Whitechapel murders of 1888.

many times I, and other serious researchers have rebutted the

latest nonsence,Prince eddie,Sir William Gull,Walter Sickert,

did it, only to see it rehabilitated later as the next best seller.

I do however feel that those in power, are more than capable

of conspiring to ensure that the status quo remains in tact.

I look foward to your next post, Steve.

Edited April 14, 2005 by Stephen Turner

[Mark Stapleton]

Mel.

Thank you for the citation, Ido not consider myself either c/t or L/n

Just a humble seeker of the truth. some see conspiracy everywhere,

others nowhere. As I have indicated my main area of research

(20 years and counting) is the Whitechapel murders of 1888.

many times I, and other serious researchers have rebutted the

latest nonsence,Prince eddie,Sir William Gull,Walter Sickert,

did it, only to see it rehabilitated later as the next best seller.

I do however feel that those in power, are more than capable

of conspiring to ensure that the status quo remains in tact.

I look foward to your next post, Steve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stephen,

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

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Mel.

Thank you for the citation, Ido not consider myself either c/t or L/n

Just a humble seeker of the truth. some see conspiracy everywhere,

others nowhere. As I have indicated my main area of research

(20 years and counting) is the Whitechapel murders of 1888.

many times I, and other serious researchers have rebutted the

latest nonsence,Prince eddie,Sir William Gull,Walter Sickert,

did it, only to see it rehabilitated later as the next best seller.

I do however feel that those in power, are more than capable

of conspiring to ensure that the status quo remains in tact.

I look foward to your next post, Steve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stephen,

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark.

I fear you are correct,any way I could do with a break from Whitechapel

all that fog gets on the lungs!!!

[Pat Speer]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

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

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

Edited April 15, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Mel Ayton]

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

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

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A crime of this magnitude results in the following:

* Unstable individuals will always 'confess', present themselves as 'witnesses' who have observed nefaroius undertakings, and see it as a way to gain notoriety. ie Jerry Owen - who failed a polygraph and was discredited by many people who knew him.In other words people are willing to lie for their own ends.

*As Vincent Bugliosi has observed, there are always mistakes in the collation and collection of evidence.

*Because of the amount of material in these cases it is extremely difficult challenge charges resulting from a mispeak, mistake etc.Reporters have neither the time nor the energy to wade through the masses of material to find out whether or not a writer has got his facts right.

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

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

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

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

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html

[Norman T. Field]

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

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

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

[Pat Speer]

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

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

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Shanet Clark]

Remember the movie LA Confidential?

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

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

also

.... you have to pull pretty hard to get someone's necktie off of them.

Like in a death struggle with your assailant.

The photos of the necktie next to RFK

along the missing necktie on the officer

that pretty much tells the whole story.

[Norman T. Field]

Remember the movie LA Confidential?

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

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

also

.... you have to pull pretty hard to get someone's necktie off of them.

Like in a death struggle with your assailant.

The photos of the necktie next to RFK

along the missing necktie on the officer

that pretty much tells the whole story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And to whom did the LA mob report to? Chicago!

I strongly suspect that everything that LA Confidential protrayed is true and more. LA appears to have been totatlly controlled and corrupt. Remember 'In Like Flynn?'

[Mel Ayton]

Remember the movie LA Confidential?

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

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

also

.... you have to pull pretty hard to get someone's necktie off of them.

Like in a death struggle with your assailant.

The photos of the necktie next to RFK

along the missing necktie on the officer

that pretty much tells the whole story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And to whom did the LA mob report to? Chicago!

I strongly suspect that everything that LA Confidential protrayed is true and more. LA appears to have been totatlly controlled and corrupt. Remember 'In Like Flynn?'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Norman,

It was a clip-on necktie.

[Norman T. Field]

Remember the movie LA Confidential?

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

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

also

.... you have to pull pretty hard to get someone's necktie off of them.

Like in a death struggle with your assailant.

The photos of the necktie next to RFK

along the missing necktie on the officer

that pretty much tells the whole story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And to whom did the LA mob report to? Chicago!

I strongly suspect that everything that LA Confidential protrayed is true and more. LA appears to have been totatlly controlled and corrupt. Remember 'In Like Flynn?'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Norman,

It was a clip-on necktie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[James Richards]

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

James