Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
James Richards

Scott Enyart

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Michael Hogan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×