Shane O'Sullivan

Hi John,

The DVD will be released in the UK by Soda Pictures next May, at the same time as the book.

Shane

Thanks very much, Michael. Great to hear your feedback. I hope more members will comment as they see the film. It would be great to get more discussion going on the RFK case in this section of the Forum and elsewhere online. There are big developments ahead in the lead-up to the fortieth anniversary next June and with Sirhan still in prison, a strong argument for reopening the case.

Best,

Shane

Thanks very much, Michael. Great to hear your feedback. I agree that these interviews are important for the JFK case, too. Whatever you feel about the IDs of the men at the Ambassador, they do not affect Morales' statement that he was in Dallas and Los Angeles for both assassinations.

While one of Morales' daughters told me her father was at home in Miami on the evening of Nov. 22, 1963, the family do not know for sure where he was on June 4-5, 1968.

Best,

Shane

Thanks very much, James and Peter. Onward and upward getting this case discussed more widely, especially as Arthur Bremer's just been released.

On the region question: the Dokument Films' US release is Region 1. Soda Pictures will release the film in the UK next Spring on Region 2, which would also work for Europe. 3DD represent the film for the rest of the world, so they're now starting to approach Australian distributors for a Region 4 release and TV exposure.

By the way, Dokument Films have just launched a microsite for the film with further clips at http://dokument-films.com/RFK/

Cheers,

Shane

Hello all,

I have just launched the website for my completed feature-length documentary at http://www.rfkmustdie.com with links to the trailer, a Kennedy campaign ad and a new Facebook discussion group I have started on the case.

RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy is released on DVD in the US on Tuesday - Robert Kennedy's 82nd birthday, had he lived. It updates my investigation into the three CIA agents at the Ambassador while revealing who "Gordon Campbell" actually was and containing extended interviews with Wayne Smith, Ruben Carbajal and Robert Walton on David Morales; Bradley Ayers and David Rabern on Morales and Campbell; and Ed Lopez on George Joannides.

The heart of the film is a thorough re-examination of the other controversies in the case. Sandra Serrano is interviewed for the first time since the night of the shooting about the girl in the polka dot dress. We also hear from Vincent Di Pierro, who saw a polka-dot dress girl standing next to Sirhan in the kitchen; eyewitnesses Frank Burns, Paul Schrade and Evan Freed; defense investigators Robert Blair Kaiser and Michael McCowan; Sirhan's brother Munir and late attorney Larry Teeter; Bay of Pigs historian Haynes Johnson; and Dr. Herbert Spiegel of Columbia University, a world authority on hypnosis, who believes Sirhan was hypnotically programmed.

There's rare archive footage from the hotel that night, with more clips of "Morales" and "Campbell" and security guard Thane Eugene Cesar. There's also previously unseen footage of Robert Kennedy and Richard Helms; and film and audio interviews with Sirhan, including the hypnotic sessions in which defense psychiatrist Dr. Diamond tried to re-enact the shooting.

It's been a really fascinating investigation and, with the fortieth anniversary next June and William Pepper on board to represent Sirhan, I hope next year will see major progress in the case. I am now completing a book on the case to be published by Union Square Press next May, which will hopefully help this process.

Thanks to John for such a fantastic resource in developing this research and also to James for photos, Bill for support and Peter Fokes who first pointed out the "Richard Helms lookalike" in the footage.

All the best,

Shane

Hello all,

I have just launched the website for my completed feature-length documentary at http://www.rfkmustdie.com with links to the trailer, a Kennedy campaign ad and a new Facebook discussion group I have started on the case.

RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy is released on DVD in the US on Tuesday - Robert Kennedy's 82nd birthday, had he lived. It updates my investigation into the three CIA agents at the Ambassador while revealing who "Gordon Campbell" actually was and containing extended interviews with Wayne Smith, Ruben Carbajal and Robert Walton on David Morales; Bradley Ayers and David Rabern on Morales and Campbell; and Ed Lopez on George Joannides.

The heart of the film is a thorough re-examination of the other controversies in the case. Sandra Serrano is interviewed for the first time since the night of the shooting about the girl in the polka dot dress. We also hear from Vincent Di Pierro, who saw a polka-dot dress girl standing next to Sirhan in the kitchen; eyewitnesses Frank Burns, Paul Schrade and Evan Freed; defense investigators Robert Blair Kaiser and Michael McCowan; Sirhan's brother Munir and late attorney Larry Teeter; Bay of Pigs historian Haynes Johnson; and Dr. Herbert Spiegel of Columbia University, a world authority on hypnosis, who believes Sirhan was hypnotically programmed.

There's rare archive footage from the hotel that night, with more clips of "Morales" and "Campbell" and security guard Thane Eugene Cesar. There's also previously unseen footage of Robert Kennedy and Richard Helms; and film and audio interviews with Sirhan, including the hypnotic sessions in which defense psychiatrist Dr. Diamond tried to re-enact the shooting.

It's been a really fascinating investigation and, with the fortieth anniversary next June and William Pepper on board to represent Sirhan, I hope next year will see major progress in the case. I am now completing a book on the case to be published by Union Square Press next May, which will hopefully help this process.

Thanks to John for such a fantastic resource in developing this research and also to James for photos, Bill for support and Peter Fokes who first pointed out the "Richard Helms lookalike" in the footage.

All the best,

Shane

Hello all,

I have just launched the website for my completed feature-length documentary at http://www.rfkmustdie.com with links to the trailer, a Kennedy campaign ad and a new Facebook discussion group I have started on the case.

RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy is released on DVD in the US on Tuesday - Robert Kennedy's 82nd birthday, had he lived. It updates my investigation into the three CIA agents at the Ambassador while revealing who "Gordon Campbell" actually was and containing extended interviews with Wayne Smith, Ruben Carbajal and Robert Walton on David Morales; Bradley Ayers and David Rabern on Morales and Campbell; and Ed Lopez on George Joannides.

The heart of the film is a thorough re-examination of the other controversies in the case. Sandra Serrano is interviewed for the first time since the night of the shooting about the girl in the polka dot dress. We also hear from Vincent Di Pierro, who saw a polka-dot dress girl standing next to Sirhan in the kitchen; eyewitnesses Frank Burns, Paul Schrade and Evan Freed; defense investigators Robert Blair Kaiser and Michael McCowan; Sirhan's brother Munir and late attorney Larry Teeter; Bay of Pigs historian Haynes Johnson; and Dr. Herbert Spiegel of Columbia University, a world authority on hypnosis, who believes Sirhan was hypnotically programmed.

There's rare archive footage from the hotel that night, with more clips of "Morales" and "Campbell" and security guard Thane Eugene Cesar. There's also previously unseen footage of Robert Kennedy and Richard Helms; and film and audio interviews with Sirhan, including the hypnotic sessions in which defense psychiatrist Dr. Diamond tried to re-enact the shooting.

It's been a really fascinating investigation and, with the fortieth anniversary next June and William Pepper on board to represent Sirhan, I hope next year will see major progress in the case. I am now completing a book on the case to be published by Union Square Press next May, which will hopefully help this process.

Thanks to John for such a fantastic resource in developing this research and also to James for photos, Bill for support and Peter Fokes who first pointed out the "Richard Helms lookalike" in the footage.

All the best,

Shane

Thanks, Michael. I have just launched the website for the film at http://www.rfkmustdie.com with links to the trailer, a Kennedy campaign ad and a new Facebook discussion group I have started on the case.

RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy is released on DVD in the US on Tuesday - Robert Kennedy's 82nd birthday, had he lived. It updates my investigation into the three CIA agents at the Ambassador while revealing who "Gordon Campbell" actually was and containing extended interviews with Wayne Smith, Ruben Carbajal and Robert Walton on David Morales; Bradley Ayers and David Rabern on Morales and Campbell; and Ed Lopez on George Joannides.

The heart of the film is a thorough re-examination of the other controversies in the case. Sandra Serrano is interviewed for the first time since the night of the shooting about the girl in the polka dot dress. We also hear from Vincent Di Pierro, who saw a polka-dot dress girl standing next to Sirhan in the kitchen; eyewitnesses Frank Burns, Paul Schrade and Evan Freed; defense investigators Robert Blair Kaiser and Michael McCowan; Sirhan's brother Munir and late attorney Larry Teeter; Bay of Pigs historian Haynes Johnson; and Dr. Herbert Spiegel of Columbia University, a world authority on hypnosis, who believes Sirhan was hypnotically programmed.

There's rare archive footage from the hotel that night, with more clips of "Morales" and "Campbell" and security guard Thane Eugene Cesar. There's also previously unseen footage of Robert Kennedy and Richard Helms; and film and audio interviews with Sirhan, including the hypnotic sessions in which defense psychiatrist Dr. Diamond tried to re-enact the shooting.

It's been a really fascinating investigation and, with the fortieth anniversary next June and William Pepper on board to represent Sirhan, I hope next year will see major progress in the case. I am now completing a book on the case to be published by Union Square Press next May, which will hopefully help this process.

Thanks to John for such a fantastic resource in developing this research and also to James for photos, Bill for support and Peter Fokes who first pointed out the "Richard Helms lookalike" in the footage.

All the best,

Shane

Bill, Brad's footnote references Don Bohning's book, 'The Castro Obsession', p. 162. Bohning interviewed Shackley and it would be fascinating to see a transcript but you'd have to ask Don about that. It's interesting that, in Bohning's response to David Talbot, he also sees no sense in linking the Campbell Brad knew in 1963 with a guy who died the year before. Talbot continues to evade this issue in his response to Bohning.

Shane

Hello all,

Shane, in your footnote #2, is Don Bohning's interview with Shackley available?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Bradley Ayers sworn statement.pdf

Hello all,

Bradley Ayers has today written a sworn statement clarifying his position on recent developments regarding David Morales and Gordon Campbell as they relate to his book 'The Zenith Secret' and his interview with me.

As Brad does not use the internet, he asked me to forward this to interested parties, so his thoughts on these matters can be noted for the record. I attach a PDF of his statement below. Brad's address is on there, so he's happy to hear from you if you have any questions or want to communicate with him about his book.

Cheers,

Shane

Bradley Ayers sworn statement.pdf

Hello all,

Bradley Ayers has today written a sworn statement clarifying his position on recent developments regarding David Morales and Gordon Campbell as they relate to his book 'The Zenith Secret' and his interview with me.

As Brad does not use the internet, he asked me to forward this to interested parties, so his thoughts on these matters can be noted for the record. I attach a PDF of his statement below. Brad's address is on there, so he's happy to hear from you if you have any questions or want to communicate with him about his book.

Cheers,

Shane

Bradley Ayers sworn statement.pdf

Hello all,

Bradley Ayers has today written a sworn statement clarifying his position on recent developments regarding David Morales and Gordon Campbell as they relate to his book 'The Zenith Secret' and his interview with me.

As Brad does not use the internet, he asked me to forward this to interested parties, so his thoughts on these matters can be noted for the record. I attach a PDF of his statement below. Brad's address is on there, so he's happy to hear from you if you have any questions or want to communicate with him about his book.

Cheers,

Shane

Hello all,

Bradley Ayers has today written a sworn statement clarifying his position on recent developments regarding David Morales and Gordon Campbell as they relate to his book 'The Zenith Secret' and his interview with me.

As Brad does not use the internet, he asked me to forward this to interested parties, so his thoughts on these matters can be noted for the record. I attach a PDF of his statement below. Brad's address is on there, so he's happy to hear from you if you have any questions or want to communicate with him about his book.

Cheers,

Shane

I welcome this new evidence and am sure researchers will make up their own minds about the photographs but it's a shame David and Jeff did not share everything they found. I interviewed the senior CIA official who supplied the Joannides photos and he still believes that the man at the Ambassador is 'not incompatible with Joannides'. For the record, Bradley Ayers has seen the new Morales photos and also stands by his identification of Morales at the Ambassador. I will respond to this new evidence fully in my film.

But I have to say I find the tone of this article absurdly pompous, pitching Morley and Talbot against the mighty BBC. This was one independent filmmaker on limited resources following the evidence and intriguing the BBC enough to give me twelve minutes of airtime to give an honest assessment of available evidence and ask for clarification from the CIA. It has stimulated great debate and helped generate a lot of new information on these guys.

David and Jeff loftily complain of editorial standards and 'titillating charges' when the fact is my story left them just as intrigued and titillated as the BBC and they put their reputations on the line to get the New Yorker to fund further investigation. I remember David telling me they felt like Woodward and Bernstein, ready to hit the road to crack open the Kennedy assassinations. They sought my cooperation and I supported them by sharing everything I had. Not a word about this in their article, of course.

Before my Newsnight story aired, I asked Morley to show the Ambassador photograph to Joannides' daughter. Her response was a frosty 'no comment', which Morley said he found 'telling'. He then slagged off my story publicly the day after broadcast - presumably to appease the Joannides family - before later admitting he spoke too soon and answering the call of the New Yorker.

I find a number of startling omissions in this article. Huge weight is given to the death of a 'Gordon Campbell' who is clearly not the man Bradley Ayers knew at JM/WAVE. Morley omits several new positive IDs of Joannides, then cites a negative ID by Timothy Kalaris without telling us that Timothy's father George was the successor to Angleton as the Head of Counterintelligence. It does make you wonder.

Many inaccuracies, too. David Rabern was not a CIA operations officer and never identified Morales by name. All in all, there's interesting new information here, but it's weirdly skewed. David and Jeff are great reporters but this is not the whole story, or even the whole of their story. My film will be released in the US and UK before the end of the year and will address these issues in more detail.

I welcome this new evidence and am sure researchers will make up their own minds about the photographs but it's a shame David and Jeff did not share everything they found. I interviewed the senior CIA official who supplied the Joannides photos and he still believes that the man at the Ambassador is 'not incompatible with Joannides'. For the record, Bradley Ayers has seen the new Morales photos and also stands by his identification of Morales at the Ambassador. I will respond to this new evidence fully in my film.

But I have to say I find the tone of this article absurdly pompous, pitching Morley and Talbot against the mighty BBC. This was one independent filmmaker on limited resources following the evidence and intriguing the BBC enough to give me twelve minutes of airtime to give an honest assessment of available evidence and ask for clarification from the CIA. It has stimulated great debate and helped generate a lot of new information on these guys.

David and Jeff loftily complain of editorial standards and 'titillating charges' when the fact is my story left them just as intrigued and titillated as the BBC and they put their reputations on the line to get the New Yorker to fund further investigation. I remember David telling me they felt like Woodward and Bernstein, ready to hit the road to crack open the Kennedy assassinations. They sought my cooperation and I supported them by sharing everything I had. Not a word about this in their article, of course.

Before my Newsnight story aired, I asked Morley to show the Ambassador photograph to Joannides' daughter. Her response was a frosty 'no comment', which Morley said he found 'telling'. He then slagged off my story publicly the day after broadcast - presumably to appease the Joannides family - before later admitting he spoke too soon and answering the call of the New Yorker.

I find a number of startling omissions in this article. Huge weight is given to the death of a 'Gordon Campbell' who is clearly not the man Bradley Ayers knew at JM/WAVE. Morley omits several new positive IDs of Joannides, then cites a negative ID by Timothy Kalaris without telling us that Timothy's father George was the successor to Angleton as the Head of Counterintelligence. It does make you wonder.

Many inaccuracies, too. David Rabern was not a CIA operations officer and never identified Morales by name. All in all, there's interesting new information here, but it's weirdly skewed. David and Jeff are great reporters but this is not the whole story, or even the whole of their story. My film will be released in the US and UK before the end of the year and will address these issues in more detail.

I welcome this new evidence and am sure researchers will make up their own minds about the photographs but it's a shame David and Jeff did not share everything they found. I interviewed the senior CIA official who supplied the Joannides photos and he still believes that the man at the Ambassador is 'not incompatible with Joannides'. For the record, Bradley Ayers has seen the new Morales photos and also stands by his identification of Morales at the Ambassador. I will respond to this new evidence fully in my film.

But I have to say I find the tone of this article absurdly pompous, pitching Morley and Talbot against the mighty BBC. This was one independent filmmaker on limited resources following the evidence and intriguing the BBC enough to give me twelve minutes of airtime to give an honest assessment of available evidence and ask for clarification from the CIA. It has stimulated great debate and helped generate a lot of new information on these guys.

David and Jeff loftily complain of editorial standards and 'titillating charges' when the fact is my story left them just as intrigued and titillated as the BBC and they put their reputations on the line to get the New Yorker to fund further investigation. I remember David telling me they felt like Woodward and Bernstein, ready to hit the road to crack open the Kennedy assassinations. They sought my cooperation and I supported them by sharing everything I had. Not a word about this in their article, of course.

Before my Newsnight story aired, I asked Morley to show the Ambassador photograph to Joannides' daughter. Her response was a frosty 'no comment', which Morley said he found 'telling'. He then slagged off my story publicly the day after broadcast - presumably to appease the Joannides family - before later admitting he spoke too soon and answering the call of the New Yorker.

I find a number of startling omissions in this article. Huge weight is given to the death of a 'Gordon Campbell' who is clearly not the man Bradley Ayers knew at JM/WAVE. Morley omits several new positive IDs of Joannides, then cites a negative ID by Timothy Kalaris without telling us that Timothy's father George was the successor to Angleton as the Head of Counterintelligence. It does make you wonder.

Many inaccuracies, too. David Rabern was not a CIA operations officer and never identified Morales by name. All in all, there's interesting new information here, but it's weirdly skewed. David and Jeff are great reporters but this is not the whole story, or even the whole of their story. My film will be released in the US and UK before the end of the year and will address these issues in more detail.

I welcome this new evidence and am sure researchers will make up their own minds about the photographs but it's a shame David and Jeff did not share everything they found. I interviewed the senior CIA official who supplied the Joannides photos and he still believes that the man at the Ambassador is 'not incompatible with Joannides'. For the record, Bradley Ayers has seen the new Morales photos and also stands by his identification of Morales at the Ambassador. I will respond to this new evidence fully in my film.

But I have to say I find the tone of this article absurdly pompous, pitching Morley and Talbot against the mighty BBC. This was one independent filmmaker on limited resources following the evidence and intriguing the BBC enough to give me twelve minutes of airtime to give an honest assessment of available evidence and ask for clarification from the CIA. It has stimulated great debate and helped generate a lot of new information on these guys.

David and Jeff loftily complain of editorial standards and 'titillating charges' when the fact is my story left them just as intrigued and titillated as the BBC and they put their reputations on the line to get the New Yorker to fund further investigation. I remember David telling me they felt like Woodward and Bernstein, ready to hit the road to crack open the Kennedy assassinations. They sought my cooperation and I supported them by sharing everything I had. Not a word about this in their article, of course.

Before my Newsnight story aired, I asked Morley to show the Ambassador photograph to Joannides' daughter. Her response was a frosty 'no comment', which Morley said he found 'telling'. He then slagged off my story publicly the day after broadcast - presumably to appease the Joannides family - before later admitting he spoke too soon and answering the call of the New Yorker.

I find a number of startling omissions in this article. Huge weight is given to the death of a 'Gordon Campbell' who is clearly not the man Bradley Ayers knew at JM/WAVE. Morley omits several new positive IDs of Joannides, then cites a negative ID by Timothy Kalaris without telling us that Timothy's father George was the successor to Angleton as the Head of Counterintelligence. It does make you wonder.

Many inaccuracies, too. David Rabern was not a CIA operations officer and never identified Morales by name. All in all, there's interesting new information here, but it's weirdly skewed. David and Jeff are great reporters but this is not the whole story, or even the whole of their story. My film will be released in the US and UK before the end of the year and will address these issues in more detail.

Shane: Someone has sent me a question for you: "Are you aware as to whether any of the key witnesses, Robert Walton, Ed Lopez, Wayne Smith, have put their recollections in the form of sworn affidavits?"

An excellent point. Sirhan will shortly have a new attorney and I'm sure this is one of the first things he will want to do. I have advised him of this new evidence and he is very interested.

Shane

Francesca,

I can't get any screen captures that reveal clear details. I think one has to do this off the original film itself.

BTW, I would like to congratulate Shane on this excellent piece of work. As to Gran, he will lead one on many a wild chase but it is worth the pursuit.

As for information on Morales, an attempt to track down Nester Moreno and Ramon Thomas Guin may bear fruit. I do not know if they are still alive. Also, there is a man by the name of Rafael Sanchez who I believe was at the Ambassador on the night. In the 1960's, his main connections were with Col. William Bishop and Rolando Masferrer. As of 3 years ago, he was still alive.

FWIW.

James

Thanks, James. Do you have any more information or images of Moreno, Guin or Sanchez? Can you explain why you think Sanchez may have been there that night?

Best,

Shane

I would also like to flag up my response to Jefferson Morley's initial comments on the film and his subsequent post on the BBC website. I have huge respect for the work Jeff has done on Joannides and hope to work with him to clarify Joannides' presence at the hotel.

At 01:49 PM on 22 Nov 2006, Shane O'Sullivan wrote:

We spoke to Jefferson Morley while researching our film but he did not want to be interviewed on camera, citing a lack of knowledge of the RFK case.

Morley agreed that Ed Lopez was an extremely credible witness on Joannides and that his positive ID raises the serious possibility that Joannides is the man in the photograph - I see nothing "unfounded" about that. With his ten years of research into Joannides, Morley knows the implications if Joannides was at the hotel that night.

We spoke to Chief Counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, G. Robert Blakey. He said he had limited contact with Joannides and suggested Ed Lopez and Dan Hardway as the two investigators who had the most contact with him. Hardway said "this could be him. Much younger in the picture than in the 70's and it's been a long time".

In 1963, Joannides was the case officer for the DRE, an anti-Castro group of Cuban exiles supported by the CIA. Joannides' primary contact was Dr Luis Fernandez-Rocha. When I showed Fernandez-Rocha the photograph, he said "This is very important (that I quote him directly) I will neither confirm or deny that this is Joannides".

Yes, the authentication of the photo is uncertain until we have further corroboration but look at the photo in context. The man I think is Joannides is pictured with a man positively ID'd as Gordon Campbell, a former JM-WAVE colleague, with a third JM-WAVE colleague, David Morales, positively ID'd nearby. Three lookalikes who happen to know each other, all behaving like law enforcement types? I thought it suspicious enough to warrant public discussion.

In the interest of balance, we asked Morley to suggest an equally credible witness to identify Joannides but so far, despite his acknowledged expertise on the subject, he has not done so.

His recent pronouncements on my film contradict what he has told me privately and I suggest he actually does some reporting of his own on this story to help us uncover the truth of the matter.

At 03:00 PM on 22 Nov 2006, Jefferson Morley wrote:

I'd like to add some balance to my earlier comments on Shane 'Sullivan's piece on the assasssination of Bobby Kennedy.

I criticized the story for being thinly sourced. But, it must be said, that thinly sourced stories can be true if the source is good.

Ed Lopez is a credible witness and his near certainty that Joannides appears in a photo apparently taken in Los Angeles on the night of June 6, 1968 has to be taken seriously. If Joannides was there, the implications are profound.

So O'Sullivan's piece, while open to criticism, underscores an important issue of JFK accountability for the new U.S. Congress: The CIA must be compelled to abandon its JFK stonewalling and disclose fully about George Joannides's actions and whereabouts in 1963 and 1968.

Thanks for all your comments on the BBC Newsnight film. It's great to see it provoke such a lively discussion. Hats off also to John and the team on the Forum. It has been an invaluable resource to me in researching this. Thanks also to James for his help in identifying the Latin man but he does not look to me like Julio Gran.

Apologies for the length of this posting but I thought I'd try to answer some questions raised here and on the BBC site, then add some information we couldn't fit in to the BBC story.

We only had 12 minutes, so we decided to focus on the new evidence of a CIA presence at the hotel, itself complex enough to get across in the time.

We sketched in some of the existing controversies because they are relevant and still unresolved and we shot a number of interviews we couldn't include in the final edit.

We interviewed Frank Burns, for instance. He was standing one foot behind and to the right of Kennedy. He re-enacted the shooting for us in his living room and placed Sirhan three feet away. On the BBC site, I asked Mel Ayton to provide a witness closer to Kennedy who can place Sirhan's gun one inch behind.

Mr. Ayton regularly trots out Boris Yaro, who was much further away, looking through a camera lens and admitted Kennedy was in silhouette. Yaro also describes Sirhan standing over Kennedy when he slumped to the floor, firing down, which makes no sense at all given the upward trajectory described in the autopsy.

A dozen witnesses place Sirhan's gun several feet away and in front of Kennedy, not one inch behind.

Sirhan's firing trajectory fits the wound patterns of the four other victims and other bullet-holes found in the pantry door-frames.

We did not have time in the film to go back into the ballistics of the case, but the autopsy results and witness testimony provide alarming contradictions, the coroner Dr Noguchi is unconvinced Sirhan acted alone and the fatal bullet has never been matched to Sirhan's gun.

I can suggest a number of possible motivations for these agents. Kennedy had promised to pull out of Vietnam, ending the War, military spending, CIA operations in the region involving Morales at the time and yielding S.E. Asia to the Communists. If elected President, Bobby Kennedy would either micro-manage the CIA as he had done in the secret war on Cuba in 1962-3 or "smash it into a thousand pieces" as his brother had once threatened. He could also use the Presidency to reopen the investigation into his brother's death - going by Morales' comment, these same men may have been involved.

If these are, indeed, CIA agents, what is their connection to Sirhan? Sirhan had no criminal history and no propensity for violence - hardly the ideal hired assassin. If we are to connect the two, from the available evidence, I believe the hypnotic programming of Sirhan to act as a decoy for the real assassin is the most likely explanation. Richard Helms, Director of CIA in 1968, initiated CIA experiments aimed at creating such a "Manchurian Candidate" in 1953.

We interviewed Dr Herbert Spiegel, a world authority on hypnosis at Columbia University. He has studied the case and believes that Sirhan, a highly hypnotisable subject, was programmed to fire at Kennedy using what he calls a "compulsive triad" - a compulsion to comply with the program, an amnesia regarding the programming itself and post-rationalisation - I don't remember shooting Kennedy but I was the only gunman witnesses saw and I was angry at Kennedy for promising to sell the bombers to Israel, so I must have killed him "with twenty years of malice aforethought", as Sirhan said in the trial.

All very complex stuff which we couldn't fit into the BBC piece but which will appear in a longer feature-length documentary on the case which will be available early next year.

I would also like to add some detail on the identifications which we did not have time to include in the film.

Tom Clines said the figure in the video looked like Morales but it wasn't him. He said the figure in the video was fatter and Morales walked with more of a slouch and his tie down, though to me, the figure in the video does walk with a slouch and his tie down. Clines also said he knew Campbell and Joannides and it wasn't them either. He was accompanied by a younger "friend" named Derek, who had worked with him at CIA. When I asked him about the "Secret War" (meaning Cuba), he said "Which one?" and laughed.

Ed Wilson said the guy in the video wasn't Morales but then said he didn't recognise the Morales in the 1959 photo either! My only explanation for this is that Wilson knew Morales from 1972-77, by which point Morales was ageing rapidly due to alcoholism. Wilson agreed it was possible he just wouldn't recognise a younger version of Morales. Wilson didn't know Campbell or Joannides but did recognise the figures in the Campbell-Joannides photographs as being men familiar to him from his Agency days.

We also interviewed Ruben Carbajal some time ago but left him out of the film due to time restrictions because we felt he gave the least credible identification on Morales. He gave us interesting anecdotes on Che Guevara, the Tupamaros and the ten million dollars David stole from the Chilean treasury but when we began to show him the video, he said "no, no, no" before we even came to the clip of Morales and then instantly dismissed him as not "Didi" in a way we found a little strange. He also seemed to change his statement on the line he heard David say in the hotel room in 1973. He told Noel Twyman he couldn't remember the line about Los Angeles and Robert Walton remembered it better. Walton reports hearing Morales say "I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got Bobby."

When I put this to Ruben, he said maybe that was Robert Walton's interpretation of what David said but that's not what he heard. He quotes it now as "I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when they got him." He said the only reason David would be in Los Angeles at the time was that he had a daughter living near there. Morales home from Laos to visit his daughter in Los Angeles the same night Bobby is assassinated across town? I found that difficult to believe.

Ruben is a generous host and a terrific character to talk to but both myself and my cameraman felt his statements relating to the Robert Kennedy assassination were out of kilter with the other things he had to say. He promised to dig out some photos of David the next morning but couldn't find them after a recent move.

When I spoke to Robert Walton about this, he felt asking Ruben to finger his best friend Morales at the scene of another assassination, with Morales' family still around, was a "tough assignment" for Ruben. Walton himself thought the man in the video could be Morales but with the blurry quality and his deteriorating eyesight, he couldn't be conclusive.

So, it's a complex picture but I place great faith in the positive IDs from Bradley Ayers, Ed Lopez and Wayne Smith, all independent of CIA, with no vested interest. David Rabern is also important in connecting Morales and Campbell on the night.

The BBC film is just the beginning in getting the story out there. I am now starting to edit a longer feature documentary on the case which will be released early next year. As well as extended interviews with Bradley Ayers, Ed Lopez, Wayne Smith, David Rabern and the late Lawrence Teeter, the longer film will also feature interviews with Ambassador Hotel eye-witnesses Frank Burns and Paul Schrade, Dr Herbert Spiegel on hypnotic programming, Antonio Veciana on Maurice Bishop and Cuban feelings about the Kennedys, Haynes Johnson on RFK and the Cubans, Ruben Carbajal and Robert Walton on Morales, Sirhan's original defense investigator Michael McCowan and others.

Finally, the BBC asked the CIA four questions in relation to the film:

Was there a CIA operation on the night of 4th/5th June 1968 in the Ambassador Hotel?

Did the CIA know that several of its employees were to attend the Kennedy rally that night?

Did the CIA become aware after the assassination of Robert Kennedy that some of its operatives were present in the Ambassador hotel?

Can the CIA confirm that the three named above (Morales, Joannides, Campbell) were your employees and match the photos that we've provided?

This was the response:

"It is CIA policy ---we do not confirm or deny employment of an individual.....so I could not possibly comment on the status of these individuals. Please also keep in mind that the CIA does not operate on domestic soil---our mission is focused abroad only. The FBI works on US soil."

Thanks again for your feedback. New leads have already emerged from the piece the other night and we will continue to pursue the story.

Thanks for the details on the biography and the photo, James. It seems Morales led an idyllic youth!

Your new leads sound fascinating. Are Paul Carbajal and Paul Ogg still alive? I'm trying to get a physical description of Morales for 1968 and what his movements were, so very interested in any colleagues of his in SE Asia. Look forward to hearing what you find out.

Shane

Hi James,

Great pictures of Morales, thanks. I can add one fuzzy one here, sorry for the quality, it's the one referred to in Fonzi's book where Morales identifies his job title in 1973.

The biography you posted was extremely interesting. I'd only read Carbajal and Walton's interviews in the books by Fonzi and Twyman. Interesting that Ruben seems to have changed his opinion of Morales' involvement in Dallas over time - he thought Morales was there in the interviews I read.

Do you know who wrote the biography and where and when it was published? I'd love to read more of Clines, Wilson and Wall on Morales. He's rarely covered except for the books I mentioned.

I'm also intrigued by Robert Walton's recollection in Twyman's book that Morales was in Los Angeles at the time of the Robert Kennedy assassination. Do you have any photos of Morales circa 1968?

Cheers,

Shane

Hi James,

Thanks for checking that out, it is a pity these photos are bound up with Time Life and all their associations over years and I can't be sure I'm not getting the 'party line' but the door there is now closed, I think. Like you say, onward, find more doors to try.

All the best for the New Year,

Shane

Hi James,

I got in touch with Getty Images who license all Time-Life images and they did a search for Joannides and Morales but 'didn't turn up anything on Mili shooting any CIA pictures (other than testimony at the Watergate hearings)' - these are the 1973 images on their website. 

They 'even tried searching for the CIA names without Mili but didn’t find anything. Time Life is not aware of anyone/anyplace else holding any of Mili’s material, but there was a fire in his studio some time ago and a lot of material was lost. This may have been where the material you’re after met its demise'.

Best

Shane