Assassination of Robert Kennedy

[Guest Stephen Turner]

(California State Archives)

When questioned by reporters about the brutal interrogation tactics practiced on the girl by Hernandez, the police defended them as normal routine.

[

Manny Pena, watch commander. Quote on "Thats just interrogating, I dont see anything wrong with those words to draw out compassion(HUH!!) Its an interrogative technique." Quote off.

[Sid Walker]

Daniel Wayne Dunn @ Jan 16 2007, 02:40 AM)

...today people who are sympathetic to the goals and ideology of the racist right may be trying to spread misinformation about the Robert Kennedy assassination, arguing that not only was it a "black op" of Israeli intelligence, but that RFK's press secretary, the Jewish Frank Mankiewizc, was involved in setting up Robert Kennedy for the murder. While the allegation against Mankiewizc is pathetic and ridiculous enough, we should note that this is being spread by people who would have been sympathetic to the very people who most would have wanted Robert F. Kennedy out of the way in 1968.

(Sid Walker)

Are you implying that the Barnes Review folk are sympathetic to COINTELPRO?

Or to the Ku Klux Klan and violent racist whites?

That's drawing rather a long bow, Daniel, from my observation of the contents of that journal.

You may not like Barnes Review (I have little doubt you don't).

But have the decency to charactize its views with accuracy.

Actually and initially, by mentioning "people who are sympathetic to the goals and ideology of the racist right" spreading misinformation, I had in mind the forum member who was posting the same.

But as long as we're on the subject, since Willis Carto is the publisher of Barnes Review, and since Carto has been actively involved in promoting an antisemitic agenda for a half century, I would say "the Barnes Review folk" most definitely are more than "sympathetic" to the Ku Klux Klan and "violent racist whites."

And the forum member who vouches for "the Barnes Review folk" and pleads for "decency" in characterizing them? He is transparent in promoting a Holocaust denial agenda, under the guise of "free speech issues" and "the tradition of the Enlightenment." But this isn't really about Holocaust denial; it's not about trying to "get the numbers right" or any other "niceties," or even whether David Irving should have been jailed for spreading the same chit. This is about people trying to rehabilitate the reputation of Adolf Hitler and Nazism in the process of promoting larger agendas. It's been going on for quite some time now. Wonder who will "win"?

Ah, so it's me you had in mind, Daniel.

So I'm the one you believe is "sympathetic to the goals and ideology of the racist right"!

Just a couple of points in reply.

1/ Having given the matter considerable thought over many years (and along the line tucking an anthropology degree under my belt). I don't believe the concept of race has any merit at all.

What's more, I believe the term racist (a relative newcomer to the English language that apparently dates only from the 1930s) is usually used carelessly and in ignorance - or with deliberate malevolent intent. I am pushed to think of a single case where use of the term 'racist' helps clarify the issues at stake. It almost always, in my observation, muddies the waters.

'Race', 'racism' and 'racist' are therefore very useful terms for those in effective control of public discourse. They are ideal for the application of divide and rule policies.

I don't believe there's any such thing as a 'white race', a 'black race', a Chinese or an English race. Even Australian Aborigines are likely to have had multiple orgins and are genetically (and in many other ways) heterogenous.

Now, if that sounds to you like the belief system of someone "sympathetic to the goals and ideology of the racist right" - well, I can't do anything about that, Daniel. But don't expect me to be impressed with your analytic powers or intellectual honesty.

2/ I am well aware of longstanding efforts to brand The Barnes Review, the American Free Press - and its forerunner The Spotlight - as 'racist'.

I am no apologist for the publisher Willis Carto. You may, Danel, be able to dig out unsavoury remarks attributed to him, dating back over decades - comments I'd not make myself nor wish to endorse.

However, all three publications, IMO, have contained some excellent content over the years.

For instance, it was The Spotlight that published Victor Marchetti's article about CIA involvement in the killing of JFK - prompting Howard Hunt to sue unsuccessfully in a landmark case described by Mark Lane in Plausible Denial.

So, while you attempt to reduce Willis Carto's work to "(promotion of) an antisemitic agenda for a half century" and claim "'the Barnes Review folk' most definitely are more than 'sympathetic' to the Ku Klux Klan and 'violent racist whites'", I'd say the situation is considerably more nuanced.

And that, in essence, was my comment - the comment to which you objected so strongly.

Here's what I said:

"Are you implying that the Barnes Review folk are sympathetic to COINTELPRO?

Or to the Ku Klux Klan and violent racist whites?

That's drawing rather a long bow, Daniel, from my observation of the contents of that journal.

You may not like Barnes Review (I have little doubt you don't).

But have the decency to charactize its views with accuracy."

I stand by those comments.

Go to The Barnes Review website and check it out for yourself. I don't think you can support your vicious assault on my comments with specific references. But if you can, why not share them? You seem to imagine that merely repeating your complaint in a louder tone is the way to convince. Well, it doesn't work for me.

I have no doubt that the real objection of most who profess disgust with Willis Carto, The Spotlight, AFP and The Barnes Review, is that they are frequently critical of (a) the State of Israel and its activities ( the Zionist Lobby, within the USA and elsewhere, and its activities, and © the power and activities of organized Jewry, in the USA and elsewhere.

That objection, of course, has nothing to do with opposition to so-called 'racism' - if 'racism' means the vilification of a group of people because of their ethnicity, language, culure or religion.

If 'racism' was your real concern, Daniel, you'd attack folk such as David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes and other Zionist ideologues who have so much to say that's truly hateful about others, especially Muslims and Arabs. Strangely, Jewish 'racism' never seems to be much of a concern for those who wail about the evils of Willis Carto and his associates. It must be their blind spot.

No-one should be above criticism - especially people and groups with plenty of wealth and power. That proposition is fundamental to to notion of a functioning democratic society. Deny it - or arbitrarily limit its application - and democracy itself cannot long survive.

With so much of the mass media 'friendly terrain' for the Israel Lobby, one wonders why it feels the need to attack - with such venom - the handful of media outlets that are not?

Edited January 21, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Pat Speer]

Sid, whether or not you're a racist is beside the point. What I want to know is have you conducted any research on Mankiewicz beyond studying his heritage? If you had, you'd see he was a Kennedy loyalist extraordinaire. Accusing him of complicity in RFK's murder is as ridiculous as accusing Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell of killing JFK. It flat out didn't happen that way and anyone who convinces themselves it did happen that way, simply because Mankiewicz was a Jew, is cognitively challenged. Mankiewicz was extremely close to RFK; Bobby's death robbed Mankiewicz of his opportunity to make a difference. You can't really believe he'd throw it out the window so that Sirhan could be used for propaganda purposes, could you?

[Sid Walker]

Sid, whether or not you're a racist is beside the point. What I want to know is have you conducted any research on Mankiewicz beyond studying his heritage? If you had, you'd see he was a Kennedy loyalist extraordinaire. Accusing him of complicity in RFK's murder is as ridiculous as accusing Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell of killing JFK. It flat out didn't happen that way and anyone who convinces themselves it did happen that way, simply because Mankiewicz was a Jew, is cognitively challenged. Mankiewicz was extremely close to RFK; Bobby's death robbed Mankiewicz of his opportunity to make a difference. You can't really believe he'd throw it out the window so that Sirhan could be used for propaganda purposes, could you?

Sid, whether or not you're a racist is beside the point.

You are right about that Pat.

Whether other folk will chuck around unpleasant insinuations they are not willing or able to justify is more to the point.

have you conducted any research on Mankiewicz beyond studying his heritage?

Not a large amount, Pat. I'd certainly like to learn more.

If you had, you'd see he was a Kennedy loyalist extraordinaire.

References would be helpful.

It flat out didn't happen that way

Oh dear, here I am again - an agnostic in the presence of someone who KNOWS the truth and gets hot under the collar at any suggestion they might be missing the whole story.

anyone who convinces themselves it did happen that way, simply because Mankiewicz was a Jew, is cognitively challenged.

That's not the claim I made. It's a straw man argument.

If Mankiewicz was involved, his (alleged) associations with the ADL were more significant, I'd suggest, than his parents' religion.

Mankiewicz was extremely close to RFK

References would be more persuasive than assertion.

Bobby's death robbed Mankiewicz of his opportunity to make a difference.

His career did not exactly come to an end at that time, Pat.

You can't really believe he'd throw it out the window so that Sirhan could be used for propaganda purposes, could you?

Of course not. You can't really believe that's my argument, can you Pat?

Sirhan Sirhan, poor guy, was a patsy. Like LHO, I suspect that even his survival may not have been part of the original plan.

As you are probably aware, the hypothesis that the slaying of RFK was orchestrated by Israeli-backed networks is really an extension of the thesis expounded in Final Judgement by Michael Collins Piper.

If Piper is right about the JFK murder, the same players would have had a strong motive to stop RFK becoming President.

They would have known that, as CEO of America Inc, he'd pose a grave threat to their freedom and prosperity.

[Sid Walker]

Ah, so it's me you had in mind, Daniel.

So I'm the one you believe is "sympathetic to the goals and ideology of the racist right"!

Just a couple of points in reply.

1/ Having given the matter considerable thought over many years (and along the line tucking an anthropology degree under my belt). I don't believe the concept of race has any merit at all.

What's more, I believe the term racist (a relative newcomer to the English language that apparently dates only from the 1930s) is usually used carelessly and in ignorance - or with deliberate malevolent intent. I am pushed to think of a single case where use of the term 'racist' helps clarify the issues at stake. It almost always, in my observation, muddies the waters.

'Race', 'racism' and 'racist' are therefore very useful terms for those in effective control of public discourse. They are ideal for the application of divide and rule policies.

I don't believe there's any such thing as a 'white race', a 'black race', a Chinese or an English race. Even Australian Aborigines are likely to have had multiple orgins and are genetically (and in many other ways) heterogenous.

Now, if that sounds to you like the belief system of someone "sympathetic to the goals and ideology of the racist right" - well, I can't do anything about that, Daniel. But don't expect me to be impressed with your analytic powers or intellectual honesty.

This is really sad. You are directly insulted and instead of going off and replying in kind, you take a circuitous route full of rationalizations about "what does race/racist/racism really mean." And you actually seem more offended by what I had to say about your preferred sources than about what I am suggesting about you. I wish you would stand up for yourself more. To hell with those guys at Antisemitic Agenda Central and what they've prescribed as "the proper and appropriate modes of public discourse"; they're not the one's sticking their necks out -- you are.

But anyway, I think what you've written above is a pretty good example of what Andy Walker (no relation) has previously referred to as "intellectual masturbation." You claim to reject the entire concept of "race," which sounds like it should do you credit -- very forward-thinking of you. But it seems more like an intellectual subterfuge to try to gain support for your overall arguments. You reject the concept of race; therefore you cannot be sympathetic to racists. And since you reject the concept of race, there can be no discussion about racism, nicht wahr?

But even if I take you at your word, instead of just noting the rationalizing character of all you've written above, you (typically) reveal more than you seem to realize you're revealing. Evidently "the term racist...dates only from the 1930s" in the English language? You've made this point before, as I recall. It once again raises the issue of your raison d' etre, as it seems: you want to rehabilitate your heroes of the 1930s by throwing some onus on those who "first" described Nazism in terms of "racism." In other words, Nazis have gotten a bad press in history because "those in effective control of public discourse" have unfairly associated Nazism with the epithets of "racist" and "racism"? ("Help, help, I'm being repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!")

Your degree in anthropology and your evaluation of my analytic powers or intellectual honesty or lack of decency are no great concern to me. Even I have a degree -- as did Joe Goebbels, PhD -- and it's not you (or, of course, your ilk) I think about in terms of whether what I write has or will have any relevance or value, or how it will ultimately reflect on me. That will be decided by others, most probably long after I'm gone.

2/ I am well aware of longstanding efforts to brand The Barnes Review, the American Free Press - and its forerunner The Spotlight - as 'racist'.

I am no apologist for the publisher Willis Carto. You may, Danel, be able to dig out unsavoury remarks attributed to him, dating back over decades - comments I'd not make myself nor wish to endorse.

However, all three publications, IMO, have contained some excellent content over the years.

For instance, it was The Spotlight that published Victor Marchetti's article about CIA involvement in the killing of JFK - prompting Howard Hunt to sue unsuccessfully in a landmark case described by Mark Lane in Plausible Denial.

So, while you attempt to reduce Willis Carto's work to "(promotion of) an antisemitic agenda for a half century" and claim "'the Barnes Review folk' most definitely are more than 'sympathetic' to the Ku Klux Klan and 'violent racist whites'", I'd say the situation is considerably more nuanced.

No doubt the Marchetti article and the libel suit brought by Hunt are "landmarks"; and everyone who has some interest in seeing justice be done and for the truth to come out has much reason to be pissed that this all had to come in the form of an association with Willis Carto and Liberty Lobby.... It's somewhat like the Wernerhoff article, since he posits an FBI/ADL conspiracy angle behind Robert Kennedy's murder and the subsequent rubbing out of two possible suspects. But I assume you're aware that originally it was supposed to be Danny Joe Hawkins accompanying Tarrants on the bombing mission, and that Ainsworth was a last-minute replacement. Some people might look at that and say it was the man giving them their orders who made the arrangements to eliminate the two suspects....but instead we're asked to subscribe to the idea that it was the ADL (or World Jewry As Such?) that was behind it all. So just as in the case with Hunt and the Liberty Lobby, I think there's reason to ask whether this is not counterproductive if not in fact of a piece with a strategy of disinformation.... If there's something to Hunt's involvement in JFK's murder, fine; but it hasn't exactly been helpful to have an association with Carto et al in trying to get the word out to the larger public, has it?

More to the point, I don't doubt that for you such publications "have contained some excellent content over the years." They cater to a particular audience, an audience inclined to believe in a Big Jew Threat, and I'm sure that audience has found them fulfilling in many ways.

Go to The Barnes Review website and check it out for yourself. I don't think you can support your vicious assault on my comments with specific references. But if you can, why not share them? You seem to imagine that merely repeating your complaint in a louder tone is the way to convince. Well, it doesn't work for me.

I don't expect that anything I have to say will "work for" you. I believe you are serving as a shill and mouthpiece for these interests, trying to gain respectability for them. Whether you do so "on your own recognizance" or as an employee I have no idea. But I will waste no more of my time than I have to, and I will not engage with you in extended debate about the merits of such sources. When I visited that site the first thing I saw was the nature of the literature it was selling; then I saw that Carto was the publisher. I then understood why you thought so highly of it, but I've seen more than enough of that type of propaganda the past several months...so naturally I'm not going to presume that a grain of sand (myself) can do anything about an ocean....

I have no doubt that the real objection of most who profess disgust with Willis Carto, The Spotlight, AFP and The Barnes Review, is that they are frequently critical of (a) the State of Israel and its activities, the Zionist Lobby, within the USA and elsewhere, and its activities, and ( the power and activities of organized Jewry, in the USA and elsewhere.

That objection, of course, has nothing to do with opposition to so-called 'racism' - if 'racism' means the vilification of a group of people because of their ethnicity, language, culure or religion.

If 'racism' was your real concern, Daniel, you'd attack folk such as David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes and other Zionist ideologues who have so much to say that's truly hateful about others, especially Muslims and Arabs. Strangely, Jewish 'racism' never seems to be much of a concern for those who wail about the evils of Willis Carto and his associates. It must be their blind spot.

Once again, more than revealing enough: "organized Jewry." But it's nice to see some progress in that you're now using the term "Muslim" instead of "Moslem," as you've previously always referred to those who follow the Islamic faith. Like most people, I have plenty of blind spots. But not being "sensitive" to or knowledgeable about the issue of racism can hardly be considered one of them. I believe I may be one of the only members of this forum, for instance, who has commented upon the predominantly white look of the membership. And in my youth many years ago I spent plenty of time learning about the history of my country, something which would be hard to do without also considering issues of racism, white supremacy, slavery, segregation, bigotry, etc, etc, etc....

A few weeks ago I was going to respond to one of your friends with a brand new thread. I decided against it, but I did then share my comments with him in a PM. In his post he had made an assertion about me being annoyed because you and he do such a remarkable job in being tough on Israel. This was my response:

QUOTE ON

I'm not "annoyed because [you] seem to team up with Sid Walker to give Israel a regular shellacking." For one thing, I believe that apologists for the Israeli government are more than happy to be given "shellackings" by critics whose anti-Semitism is suspected or apparent. This is a God-send, in fact, because they can say that criticism is being promoted by anti-Semites. Not much of a "shellacking," if you think about it....maybe even a little counter-productive, isn't it?

No one who's ever read a single thing that I've had to say about Israel's policies could remotely think that my attitude is apologetic, or anything but critical. I'd be glad to provide you with plenty of evidence for that by a simple use of this forum's search function....but there's no need to do that for you, is there? You know very damned well what I've had to say on the subject(s), don't you?

You know, for instance, that I regard Israel as having developed into a semi-fascist state wherein militarism, xenophobia and the promotion of the "organic unity" of the State as the highest value is rampant. You know that I have commented on the irony of this occurring for a nation established as a direct result of people fleeing from the fascist regimes of Europe in the 1930s and 40s. You know that I have commented on the similar irony of Israeli occupation and subjugation of the Palestinians in terms of a betrayal of the foundational event of Judaism, the Exodus from "bondage in Egypt." To put it succinctly, I decry what Israel has become as it represents a betrayal of ancient Jewish tradition as well as the entire rationale for the establishment of Israel in the first place. If Israel holds territories and the people within them under military rule, this is a betrayal of what all Jews must hold in common as the most meaningful foundation of their own identity, the Exodus. And if Israelis have learned to think of themselves as superior in contrast to Arabs who are regarded as inferior, while also upholding the values of militarism and allegiance to the State, then as I've often asked, what has Israel become....except the very damned thing that one would think it should never have become?

But you already know all that, and you know all of that is true as to what I've had to say on the subject(s). And yet, like some others in this forum, you just assert what you want, even if it is a lie that can be proven to be a lie...and then you protest at being called dishonest and hypocritical.

QUOTE OFF

The problem is, even those of us who are inclined to be very critical of Israel have to think seriously about getting tied up with those whose larger agenda is noticeably antisemitic. I'll be no party to that, and I will make my opposition to that as clearly as I possibly can. As I've said before, the Nazi New Order that Adolf Hitler attempted to impose on Europe was not an "aberration" in the history of western civilization: it was the ultimate logical result of the darkest heritage of that civilization. And all the dead bodies, all the human lives snuffed out as if they were no more than bugs, might just as well have been Africans, Native Americans or Aborigines as they were Jews or Gypsies or Slavs.

I'm real sure I'm not on the wrong side on this. And I believe "the real objection of most who profess disgust with Willis Carto et al" has to do with a sincere disgust with the lies and subterfuges and the overall agenda being promoted. And whether that agenda should be called racism or antisemitism or bigotry or simple hate is not a "nuance" that means much outside of the needs of its apologists to make it appear respectable and reasonable in public debate.

No-one should be above criticism - especially people and groups with plenty of wealth and power. That proposition is fundamental to to notion of a functioning democratic society. Deny it - or arbitrarily limit its application - and democracy itself cannot long survive.

Thank you, Thomas Paine. I'll try to remember this since, being an American, I'm not used to that kind of talk.

With so much of the mass media 'friendly terrain' for the Israel Lobby, one wonders why it feels the need to attack - with such venom - the handful of media outlets that are not?

Because the media outlets in question are so blatantly and pathetically devoted to the theme of a Jew Threat that even those few people who are somehow able to stand outside the vast power wielded by "the Israel Lobby" find that what your media outlets have to sell is reprehensible as such? This would help to explain why the media outlets you find so intellectually stimulating are attacked; there is some consensus about their character. I recognize you don't share such a nuanced view....because in your judgement it's all a question of an International Jewish Danger-Menace that controls most everything in existence. But not everyone is so blinkered or shares your premises, so some people might actually regard opposing the damn things as something of a moral responsibility....that is, at least when they can spare the time to do so. (Also, how can any of us expect to get elected unless we cater to Jewish interests?)

Daniel

You invite me to "stand up for myself" so I shall.

I'll reply only to the part of your post that engages in the substantive issue discussed on this thread.

The rest of your post is, IMO, verbiage and doesn't merit response.

Here's the bit you wrote that has some relevance:

No doubt the Marchetti article and the libel suit brought by Hunt are "landmarks"; and everyone who has some interest in seeing justice be done and for the truth to come out has much reason to be pissed that this all had to come in the form of an association with Willis Carto and Liberty Lobby.... It's somewhat like the Wernerhoff article, since he posits an FBI/ADL conspiracy angle behind Robert Kennedy's murder and the subsequent rubbing out of two possible suspects. But I assume you're aware that originally it was supposed to be Danny Joe Hawkins accompanying Tarrants on the bombing mission, and that Ainsworth was a last-minute replacement. Some people might look at that and say it was the man giving them their orders who made the arrangements to eliminate the two suspects....but instead we're asked to subscribe to the idea that it was the ADL (or World Jewry As Such?) that was behind it all. So just as in the case with Hunt and the Liberty Lobby, I think there's reason to ask whether this is not counterproductive if not in fact of a piece with a strategy of disinformation.... If there's something to Hunt's involvement in JFK's murder, fine; but it hasn't exactly been helpful to have an association with Carto et al in trying to get the word out to the larger public, has it?

I bolded the only part that's truly relevant.

There. Not much, is it?

If I missed anything else, please excuse me and do let me know what it is.

Now, in response, I can say that I have read Wernerhoff's articles.

Whether he's right or wrong I don't know - but he does give an explanation for the last minute 'switch' that put Ainsworth on the same outing (outrage) as Tarrants - an adventure that turned out to be a de facto suicide mission for Ainsworth.

Here's the story he gives (most of it, of course and by his own acknowlegdement, based on Jack Nelson's Terror in the Night (1993)::

The date for the bombing was changed to the night of June 29, a change that apparently obliged Hawkins to drop out of the operation. One of the most serious weaknesses of Terror In The Night is that it glosses over the apparently last minute change of plan that guaranteed Ainsworth's involvement. Quite simply, Danny Joe Hawkins' departure obliged Tarrants to rely on his other partner, Kathy Ainsworth. Curiously, Tarrants was still able to use Hawkins' vehicle - a green Buick Electra - as he had on many earlier occasions. So whatever it was that precluded Hawkins' participation in the June 29 bombing attempt, it was obviously something that did not require him to have his own vehicle.

Although the FBI and the Meridian police officers who took part in the shootout that ended with her death claimed to have had no idea until shortly before the shooting that Tarrants' partner that night was 'a woman,' this is probably a cover story. By removing Hawkins from the picture, it had to have been a foregone conclusion that Ainsworth would take his place.If the set up was Hoover's plan to eliminate Ainsworth and Tarrants, as I believe, then Hawkins' abstention was preordained.

Finally, on the night of June 29, as the Roberts brothers made for a bar attached to the Meridian Motel (where they planned to stage a fight to draw attention to themselves), Tarrants and Ainsworth made their final preparations in a secluded wood several miles north of Meridian. After Tarrants had checked the circuitry and set the detonator for 2 am, the pair drove to Meyer Davidson's house on the corner of 29th Avenue and 36th Street. Hawkins' Buick was laden with 29 sticks of dynamite and a detonator. Tarrants was armed with a 9mm Browning automatic pistol and a German Schmeisser submachine gun, while Ainsworth had a Belgian-made .25 calibre automatic pistol hidden inside her purse. What they did not know, as they drove back into Meridian at about 12.30 am, was that, several hours earlier, Davidson and his family had been moved to the local Holiday Inn. They were walking into a trap.

So, who orchestrated the departure of Danny Joe Hawkins? It doesn't seem anyone really knows (no-one is telling, anyhow).

Is the overall scenario outlined by Wernerhoff inconceivable? That is, could the shooting of Tarrants and Ainsworth have been an ADL/FBI setup - and a crucial part of their plan was to make sure Ainsworth was on the 'outing'?

You apparently believe it is inconceivable, Daniel - but you don't say why.

I'll be honest. I don't know the truth about this. I don't even know for sure that Wernerhoff exists.

But it seems to me an angle worth exploring on the RFK assassination.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Pat Speer]

Sid, before you explore the possible ADL connection to the Robert Kennedy assassination, you should read up a little on RFK and Mankiewicz, his friend and spokesman. I recently read some articles from June 68 on the assassination. Kennedy was led to the pantry by the Ambassador Hotel's Security. Not by Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz was RFK's appointed eyes and ears regarding the JFK assassination, and has assured every historian who's asked him that RFK would most definitely have re-opened the JFK assassination should he have been elected. I don't see an outspoken conspiracist being part of the conspiracy. I've also read a number of books by Mankiewicz on Nixon. He resented Nixon for filling the historical void left by RFK and dragging out the war. He was (quite justifiably in my opinion) vicious towards Nixon. Nixon was, of course, secretly affiliated with Meyer Lansky and the other culprits in Piper's book. I don't see Mankiewicz putting Nixon into office only to turn around and help boot him out. If you're as open-minded as you claim I'm sure you'll come to a similar conclusion.

P.S. what was Sirhan's role, in your proposed scenario, if NOT to be a patsy? I'm confused. Was Sirhan secretly pro-Israel?

[Sid Walker]

Sid, before you explore the possible ADL connection to the Robert Kennedy assassination, you should read up a little on RFK and Mankiewicz, his friend and spokesman. I recently read some articles from June 68 on the assassination. Kennedy was led to the pantry by the Ambassador Hotel's Security. Not by Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz was RFK's appointed eyes and ears regarding the JFK assassination, and has assured every historian who's asked him that RFK would most definitely have re-opened the JFK assassination should he have been elected. I don't see an outspoken conspiracist being part of the conspiracy. I've also read a number of books by Mankiewicz on Nixon. He resented Nixon for filling the historical void left by RFK and dragging out the war. He was (quite justifiably in my opinion) vicious towards Nixon. Nixon was, of course, secretly affiliated with Meyer Lansky and the other culprits in Piper's book. I don't see Mankiewicz putting Nixon into office only to turn around and help boot him out. If you're as open-minded as you claim I'm sure you'll come to a similar conclusion.

P.S. what was Sirhan's role, in your proposed scenario, if NOT to be a patsy? I'm confused. Was Sirhan secretly pro-Israel?

Pat

Thanks for a much more civil post.

Not quite sure what gave rise to your PS... to be clear, yes I do believe Sirhan Sirhan was the designated patsy. I believe he may have fires shots as some kind of Manchurian candidate. But he was clearly not alone in shooting. And he was no 'lone nut', as the official story would have us believe.

The references you cite are of interest. It'd be great if you were more specific. But allow me some scepticism.

Mankiewicz is very smart. If he'd been the full quid, IMO, he'd have pursued the anomalies of the RFK assassination case in later life - whistleblowing, in the manner, for instance, of Mark Lane.

To my knowledge, he didn't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's been a consistent apologist for the official story.

The picture you paint of Mankiewicz is of a rather saintly, idealistic left-winger, commited to the anti-war movement. That doesn't fit, for me, with his lengthy and very senior role at Hill & Knowlton.

You are quick to come to Mankiewicz's defence, Pat - but what about the other victims here?

Do you believe Sirhan Sirhan should still be in jail?

He's been incarcerated since 1968!

IMO, even if he was guilty, he should be out by now.

But the indications are he was framed - while the criminals who pulled off this disgusting murder/frame-up have been living like Lords ever since.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Kathleen Collins]

For those not in the know, the RFK autopsy info is even crazier than the JFK info. The coroner Noguchi concluded that the lethal bullet was fired point blank from behind, while not one of the dozens of witnesses saw Sirhan get closer than 2-3 feet in front of Kennedy, nor saw RFK turn his back.

It was obvious that Robert was shot in the back of his head. If you look at the footage, someone lifts his head a bit and there's a puddle of blood underneath his head.

Kathy

[Pat Speer]

For those not in the know, the RFK autopsy info is even crazier than the JFK info. The coroner Noguchi concluded that the lethal bullet was fired point blank from behind, while not one of the dozens of witnesses saw Sirhan get closer than 2-3 feet in front of Kennedy, nor saw RFK turn his back.

It was obvious that Robert was shot in the back of his head. If you look at the footage, someone lifts his head a bit and there's a puddle of blood underneath his head.

Kathy

I'm not sure if you're contradicting me here or not, but the point I was making is that, if Sirhan was in front of Kennedy, as reported by ALL the witnesses, who fired the fatal shot? For years there has been speculation that the bodyguard behind Kennedy, Thane Cesar, was responsible.

[Sid Walker]

John Pilger was interviewed by Phillip Adams on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Late Night Live earlier this week on the topic of RFK.

Pilger apparently was present at the time of Bobby Kennedy's shooting.

He talks about that - and the Kennedys - in this interview. He saw Sirhan fire a shot, or so he says. He also says he saw the polka dot girl and her consort run away.

It is an interesting account.

As you will hear, he is no fan of RFK or the Kennedys.

His views are roughly where mine were at until late 2001. In fact, John Pilger was probably a significant ideological influence for me until that time.

I don't know whether John Pilger is a gatekeeper or a fool.

How he can believe there was a second assassin of RFK (ie. it was a conspiracy) - yet treat this as though it's a not very remarkable manifestation of "violent America" (nothing much going on here folks, don't look too deeply) - is quite beyond me.

Adams, I feel quite sure is a 'left gatekeeper'. I corresponded with him directly some years ago about a few topics (eg. 9-11, David Irving) and found him to dissemble without any apparent scruples.

He commands considerable respect here in Australia as a 'left wing intellectual'.

That makes him quite dangerous, IMO.

Occasionally Adams makes the claim his show covers all sides of the debate about the middle east.

What a fibber.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Sid Walker