Mel Ayton

see previous posts - stick to one so people don't have to jump around - and don't be so silly.

Pat, Thank you for your sensible input. I have respected your views in the past and will continue to do so. I agree that the circumstances of the shooting should be investigated further by, perhaps, a distinguished panel of experts, even though I believe Sirhan killed RFK and acted alone. I have accumulated evidence that points to this conclusion but I would not be foolish enough to say ‘Case Closed’. In fact, as there are anomalies in most murders one can never be 100% positive about any murder case. I also believe the House Assassinations Committee should have re-investigated the RFK murder in the late 1970s. Neither you nor I really know the postures of the victims when the bullets hit or the angle of the gun when Sirhan fired. As soon as Sirhan reached RFK he was, of course, tackled by Karl Uecker who attempted to grab the gun – by this time Sirhan could have gotten off his first shot which hit Schrade. Sirhan then fired and hit RFK. Lisa Urso, who was able to see both Kennedy and Sirhan, saw Kennedy’s hand move to his head behind his right ear. As the distance from Kennedy to the gun after the first “pop” was three feet, it is likely he had been simply reacting defensively to the first shot fired. Urso described Kennedy’s movements as “… (jerking) a little bit, like backwards and then forwards.” Moldea believes the backwards and forwards jerking occurred when Kennedy recoiled at the explosion of the first shot. As RFK was turning, raising his arm and bending a little to protect himself, and reacting to the shot fired, he could then have been hit in the right armpit and the bullet lodged in his neck. RFK may then have been hit in the back and the bullet exited through his chest, traveling upwards to the ceiling where it was lost in the interspace. The next Kennedy bullet went through his shoulder pad but did not harm him. Where did this bullet go? Nobody can be sure – it purportedly went in an upward angle but - ergo my statement about the positioning of the victims and the angle of Sirhan’s gun when it was fired - if RFK was bent over and turning it may have hit another victim - Weisal for example. In an instant RFK’s posture could have changed as he began to collapse after being hit twice. In the intense struggle with Uecker and others Sirhan’s gun could then have reached RFK’s head. Also, Sirhan’s gun was still firing as his hand was slammed on the serving table after having been grabbed by RFK’s friends, the gun was therefore positioned low. No witness saw RFK actually being shot. If you factor in these plausibilities then 8 shots are still accounted for. P.s. Let’s stick to the post ‘A Word From Melvyn’ – that way posters do not have to jump around.

You are also still putting across your points in an angry and immature manner. Calm down and post sensibly, please. I assure you, your credibility will improve. You will recall that Dan Moldea and Thomas Noguchi believed that no one could determine, for sure, the paths of the bullets or the exact positioning or angle of Sirhan’s gun relative to the paths.The crowd was in motion before and after the first shot. In all your previous diagrams you have made ASSUMPTIONS in the form of 'stick figures' which does not do justice to the dynamics of the shooting and the positioning of Sirhan. You have all victims standing upright as if there is evidence that shows this. There isn’t. No one can reconstruct the location and posture of each person in the pantry at any given second. This is why I have only posited a ‘scenario’, one amongst many that can account for the victims’ wounds and the damage to the ceiling tiles. As Sirhan started firing the crowd was moving, people were jerking backwards and forwards, some pantry witnesses were even pushed out of the swinging doors. There is no one who can give a precise diagram showing the positioning and angle of Sirhan's gun for all 8 shots - it is therefore impossible to show in which direction Sirhan's gun had been pointing by reference to the angle of the bullet entries to the victims, including RFK. Remember Frank Burns’ statement in which he said Sirhan’s gun was ‘pursuing’ RFK as the Senator was going down? If Sirhan fired at this moment described by Burns angles of bullet paths gauged with reference to RFK’s clothes and wounds would be meaningless. For example, as Noguchi said, “The senator had three gunshot wounds - a head wound behind his right ear and two through the right armpit. To reconstruct a scenario of the shooting, the gunshot wound to the head wouldn't tell us much, except how close the assailant may have been. We must remember the body is constantly moving, with arms, especially, changing position”. A lot of the misunderstanding about the shooting rests on your general lack of knowledge about how crowds react during violent incidents. You do not factor in the dynamics of crowd movement and of how crowds can rapidly change direction and positioning in an instant (nor did the official investigators for that matter). This would have been especially true in the pantry shooting after the first shot when people reacted out of fear, shock and perhaps defensively. People in the pantry were also turning their heads to look for the source of the sounds; on realizing a gun had been fired some would have stumbled, fallen and crashed into objects around them and clashed with others in the crowd. The eyewitnesses and victims were busy covering up and falling all over each other. We only have Elizabeth Evans’ guesses about her positioning when the first shot was fired. We do not know if her head had been tilted or if she had been pushed backwards following the first shot.There are any number of ways in which she could have been positioned which allowed the bullet to go ‘upwards’ through her scalp. I could have added in my post: “….or as Sirhan was grabbed by Uecker his gun could have been in an area below the waist and if Evans had been standing up or moving upwards when she was wounded this could have accounted for the angle of the bullet wound.” You have, once more, engaged in a disingenuous ‘multiple postings routine’. I'm curious as to why the moderator would have allowed you to do that.Please stick to the original post so readers will not have to jump around.And please revise your stick figure diagrams – perhaps another diagram will show the victims in alternative positions to match the angles of the entry wounds.

You are also still putting across your points in an angry and immature manner. Calm down and post sensibly, please. I assure you, your credibility will improve. You will recall that Dan Moldea and Thomas Noguchi believed that no one could determine, for sure, the paths of the bullets or the exact positioning or angle of Sirhan’s gun relative to the paths.The crowd was in motion before and after the first shot. In all your previous diagrams you have made ASSUMPTIONS in the form of 'stick figures' which does not do justice to the dynamics of the shooting and the positioning of Sirhan. You have all victims standing upright as if there is evidence that shows this. There isn’t. No one can reconstruct the location and posture of each person in the pantry at any given second. This is why I have only posited a ‘scenario’, one amongst many that can account for the victims’ wounds and the damage to the ceiling tiles. As Sirhan started firing the crowd was moving, people were jerking backwards and forwards, some pantry witnesses were even pushed out of the swinging doors. There is no one who can give a precise diagram showing the positioning and angle of Sirhan's gun for all 8 shots - it is therefore impossible to show in which direction Sirhan's gun had been pointing by reference to the angle of the bullet entries to the victims, including RFK. Remember Frank Burns’ statement in which he said Sirhan’s gun was ‘pursuing’ RFK as the Senator was going down? If Sirhan fired at this moment described by Burns angles of bullet paths gauged with reference to RFK’s clothes and wounds would be meaningless. For example, as Noguchi said, “The senator had three gunshot wounds - a head wound behind his right ear and two through the right armpit. To reconstruct a scenario of the shooting, the gunshot wound to the head wouldn't tell us much, except how close the assailant may have been. We must remember the body is constantly moving, with arms, especially, changing position”. A lot of the misunderstanding about the shooting rests on your general lack of knowledge about how crowds react during violent incidents. You do not factor in the dynamics of crowd movement and of how crowds can rapidly change direction and positioning in an instant (nor did the official investigators for that matter). This would have been especially true in the pantry shooting after the first shot when people reacted out of fear, shock and perhaps defensively. People in the pantry were also turning their heads to look for the source of the sounds; on realizing a gun had been fired some would have stumbled, fallen and crashed into objects around them and clashed with others in the crowd. The eyewitnesses and victims were busy covering up and falling all over each other. We only have Elizabeth Evans’ guesses about her positioning when the first shot was fired. We do not know if her head had been tilted or if she had been pushed backwards following the first shot.There are any number of ways in which she could have been positioned which allowed the bullet to go ‘upwards’ through her scalp. I could have added in my post: “….or as Sirhan was grabbed by Uecker his gun could have been in an area below the waist and if Evans had been standing up or moving upwards when she was wounded this could have accounted for the angle of the bullet wound.” You have, once more, engaged in a disingenuous ‘multiple postings routine’. I'm curious as to why the moderator would have allowed you to do that.Please stick to the original post so readers will not have to jump around.And please revise your stick figure diagrams – perhaps another diagram will show the victims in alternative positions to match the angles of the entry wounds.

John Simkin still allows Hunt to call me 'Melvyn' without my permission - he apparently thinks this name is a little effete and that he is being 'witty' when it is really schoolyard taunting. Hunt, please use mature language - it will enhance your credibility. I have been called Mel professionally and privately for the last 50 odd years - in the same way that people choose to be called Tom, Steve, Dan etc. In future, please address me by this name and I ask the moderator John Simkin to ensure this happens. I'm sure he doesn't wish forum members to exchange insulting, personal remarks to one another. Start here, Mr Simkin. Readers beware - Hunt has constructed this scenario through one error I made in a previous post when I left out a short phrase. As you will see from the following 'scenario' 8 shots account for all wounds and bullet holes: There are a number of possibilities that can explain the trajectories of the shots without resorting to the possibility of a second gun. Thomas Noguchi and Dan Moldea concluded there was no one who could positively say to a 100% degree of certainty how the bullets travelled. A number of possible explanations, which are contrary to the official version, can account for the paths of the bullets. There were four stray bullets: 1. The bullet that passed through Kennedy’s jacket without striking him 2. The through-and-through bullet that exited from Kennedy’s chest. 3. The bullet that struck the pantry ceiling and exited through one of the ceiling tiles. 4. The bullet that was supposedly lost in the pantry ceiling interspace. There are other scenarios that could account for the 8 shots – as Vincent Bugliosi said, “If (Wolfer’s) report is in error, for whatever reason, then there might be an explanation for some of these things: ricochets, parts of bullets, fragments. This whole notion of a second gun is premised on the assumption (Wolfer’s) report is correct.” BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead. BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm – this bullet then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling upwards to the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is Elizabeth Evans. Evans believed she was bending down at the time of the shooting – the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor, then struck Evans in the head - or, she could have been standing upright when the bullet ricocheted a second time off the floor. This bullet could account for two of the ceiling tile holes, entry and exit. BULLET 3 – The bullet that hit Kennedy in his right armpit and lodged in the back of his neck. This bullet was recovered. BULLET 4 - The bullet that hit RFK in the mastoid. This was the shot that was fatal. Bullet fragments were recovered. BULLET 5 – The bullet that went through Ira Goldstein’s left pant leg without striking him – this bullet could have hit Irwin Stroll – the bullet was recovered during surgery. BULLET 6 – The bullet that hit William Weisel in the abdomen and was recovered during surgery. BULLET 7 – The bullet that was lost in the ceiling interspace. This may very well have been the bullet that entered then exited RFK’s chest and travelled upwards. BULLET 8 – The bullet that hit Goldstein in the thigh and was recovered. Three ceiling tile holes are accounted for in the above scenario. The alleged bullet holes in the pantry door were too small to be made by .22 caliber bullets. In fact they were not made by bullets at all as Moldea discovered.

Do you dispute that any of these four points of damage existed?? As a matter of clarification, when you say “the bullet that was supposedly lost in the ceiling interspace,” are you saying you have doubts about whether or not that really was a bullet hole?? Nor I. Firstly, the shot through the shoulder pad went upward at a severe angle. In order for that shot to have struck another victim, the holes in RFK’s jacket would have to aligned along the horizontal. (See attached graphic.) If RFK was pushed up against the steam table as you concluded, that didn’t happen. And even if it did, that still leaves you with nine shots. To wit: Bullet # 1 – Paul Schrade (Forehead). Bullet # 2 – RFK (Through and through bullet hole in jacket, striking Goldstein (for instance)). Bullet # 3 – RFK (Headshot, non-transiting). Bullet # 4 – RFK (Armpit, non-transiting). Bullet # 5 – RFK (Armpit, transiting upward). Bullet # 6 – Goldstein pants (Transiting, ricocheting, and striking Stroll in the shin (non-transiting). Bullet # 7 – Evans (For the sake of the argument we will say that she was struck in the head by the bullet which entered a ceiling tile, ricocheted of the ceiling, and reentered thorough the ceiling tiles (non-transiting)) Bullet # 8 –. Weisel (Abdomen (non-transiting) Bullet # 9 – Hole in the ceiling tile, (Sharply upward, not recovered). Marrying the RFK shoulder pad shot to any victim does not negate the necessity of a ninth shot if you conclude (as you have) that Schrade was hit by a shot unto itself. Additionally, if we divorce the ceiling re-entry bullet from Elizabeth Evans’ headwound, that puts the bullet count at 10. Outline the plausible scenario for us. I understand what you are saying, but you haven’t yet given us a plausible explanation. If you are correct in this matter, then you should be able to come up with an eight shot scenario using this “Official” evidence: 1. RFK - Shot in the head, no exit. 2. RFK - Shot in the right rear armpit, with the bullet coming to rest in the flesh beneath the skin at the base of the back of the neck. The bullet was recovered at autopsy. 3. RFK - Shot in the right rear armpit one inch above shot No. 2. The bullet exited through right front chest below the clavicle. 4. RFK - Entry and exit of a bullet which passed through the rear right shoulder of RFK’s suit jacket. The entry and exit were both behind the yolk seam at the top of the shoulder, and penetrated only the outermost layer of fabric. 5. Paul Schrade - Shot in the forehead above hairline near the apex of the head. Bullet fragments remained in the head, with a majority exiting through an exit defect several centimeters behind the entry point. 6. Ira Goldstein - Shot in the left buttock/thigh. The bullet was recovered during surgery. 7. Ira Goldstein - Entry and exit of a bullet that passed cleanly through his left pant leg without striking him. 8. Irwin Stroll - Shot in the left shin. The bullet was recovered during surgery. 9. Elizabeth Evans - Shot in the center of the forehead one inch below the hairline. Fragments of a bullet recovered during surgery were too light to comprise a full .22 round. There was no exit point in the scalp. 10. William Weisel - Shot in the left abdomen. The bullet was recovered near the spine during surgery. 11. Ceiling Tile Hole #1 - A bullet penetrated an acoustic ceiling tile (A), proceeding into the drop-ceiling interspace. 12. Ceiling Tile Hole #2 - That bullet (No. 11) struck the concrete ceiling above the tiles, and ricocheted back down into the pantry through a second ceiling tile (. 13. Ceiling Tile Hole #3 - A bullet entered the same tile as No. 11 above (A), but, we are told, did not exit back down into pantry. That bullet was “lost in the ceiling interspace,” and apparently never recovered. John Hunt Readers beware - Hunt has constructed this scenario through one error I made in a previous post when I left out a short phrase. As you will see from the following 'scenario' 8 shots account for all wounds and bullet holes: There are a number of possibilities that can explain the trajectories of the shots without resorting to the possibility of a second gun. Thomas Noguchi and Dan Moldea concluded there was no one who could positively say to a 100% degree of certainty how the bullets travelled. A number of possible explanations, which are contrary to the official version, can account for the paths of the bullets. There were four stray bullets: 1. The bullet that passed through Kennedy’s jacket without striking him 2. The through-and-through bullet that exited from Kennedy’s chest. 3. The bullet that struck the pantry ceiling and exited through one of the ceiling tiles. 4. The bullet that was supposedly lost in the pantry ceiling interspace. There are other scenarios that could account for the 8 shots – as Vincent Bugliosi said, “If (Wolfer’s) report is in error, for whatever reason, then there might be an explanation for some of these things: ricochets, parts of bullets, fragments. This whole notion of a second gun is premised on the assumption (Wolfer’s) report is correct.” BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead. BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm – this bullet then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling upwards to the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is Elizabeth Evans. Evans believed she was bending down at the time of the shooting – the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor, then struck Evans in the head - or, she could have been standing upright when the bullet ricocheted a second time off the floor. This bullet could account for two of the ceiling tile holes, entry and exit. BULLET 3 – The bullet that hit Kennedy in his right armpit and lodged in the back of his neck. This bullet was recovered. BULLET 4 - The bullet that hit RFK in the mastoid. This was the shot that was fatal. Bullet fragments were recovered. BULLET 5 – The bullet that went through Ira Goldstein’s left pant leg without striking him – this bullet could have hit Irwin Stroll – the bullet was recovered during surgery. BULLET 6 – The bullet that hit William Weisel in the abdomen and was recovered during surgery. BULLET 7 – The bullet that was lost in the ceiling interspace. This may very well have been the bullet that entered then exited RFK’s chest and travelled upwards. BULLET 8 – The bullet that hit Goldstein in the thigh and was recovered. Three ceiling tile holes are accounted for in the above scenario. The alleged bullet holes in the pantry door were too small to be made by .22 caliber bullets. In fact they were not made by bullets at all as Moldea discovered.

This was private corresponence with Hunt after receiving a number of insulting emails from him. Your readers, of course will be unaware of this.This is what Damn Moldea had to say about Hunt in one of Hunt's disingenuous 'multiple postings': "With regard to the value of Hunt's work in the RFK case, I can't believe that any legitimate publisher would even consider publishing the garbage he's been peddling. There is no one I know and respect who takes anything he says or writes seriously. Believe me, I was very nice to this kid when he first contacted me several years ago. Then, in 2005, he responded with a shameless all-out attack on me over the Schrade-shot issue in some little-known online publication--without ever giving me the opportunity to respond to his screwball charges before publication. Then, after the release of his article, he trashed me in various Usernet forums for refusing to react to what he had already published. It was a cheap tactic, and I really objected to it. As you can see from Hunt's behavior on this main thread on which John Simkin asked me to respond to questions from your membership, as well as on the multiple threads that Hunt has created to divert attention away from my responses, his dirty tricks continue. "

John, You are the kind of forum member I was writing about in an earlier post. I was pleased to offer my views about the MLK assassination to you and others and it was civil discourse. No, there won't be any of my colleagues participating in this forum - and for good reason they tell me. No matter how logical and rational the answers they give to people like Hunt and Simkins it will simply be twisted and distorted to the point where no rational debate can take place.In fact, acclaimed authors like Max Holland, Patricia Lambert and Dan Moldea believe what I have already contributed on this site and others is a futile exercise given the mind-set of many of the participants. There is no 'search for truth' - only a willingness to posit ridiculous theories based on 'suspicions'. On the one hand we have acclaimed scientists like Larry Sturdivan , Norman Ramsey, Luis Alveraz and Vince DiMaio giving their scholarly opinions and then we have the likes of Hunt who uses alleged 'scientists' - 'scientists' whose work has come far short of having any respectability in the scientific community. We also have paranoids like John Simkins who believes he can't get published because the CIA and FBI won't let him. It is impossible to address such nonsense.And yes, the post was REMOVED - Dan put the lie to John's comments. I offered Dan, another mature individual who refusee to engage in childish nitpicking. the opportunity to contact me via my website - you have done so in the past, John.The offer still stands.I think you will agree I have spent a considerable amount of my time posting on this site and at no benefit to myself, after all from what I see there are just a handful of committed conspiracists who participate, so seeking publicity for my work was never on the cards.I will send you a copy of Larry Sturidvan's examination of Hunt's ridiculous claims he makes in his JFK Lancer article. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/noncons/

I'll get back to Daniel's points in the next few days - William Turner - I would have expected better from you- your statement about Schulman is ridiculous - an experienced reporter 'browbeaten' by the LAPD? Nonsense. I will also post my answers which address Hunt's analysis of the ballistics evidence. Hunt is not a medical expert nor is he a ballistics expert. Larry Sturdivan is - and he domolishes Hunt's thesis. Be patient! John, I have to admit I'm getting a little impatient myself. But in the meantime, it might be helpful for interested viewers to know that it's a little misleading to call Schulman "an experienced reporter"; he was a newsrunner, a messenger for a TV news crew (according to Kranz Report, Section II, p. 3). This does mean he was more than a guy who gets coffee and doughnuts but he can hardly be equated with "an experienced reporter," even if we concede the premise that hard-boiled newsmen are immune to being leaned on. I don't agree that they are, but it's beside the point since Schulman was not one. Dan I posted - it wa staken off within the hour - ask John Simkin Mel Mr. Ayton, Are you claiming that in your missing post you addressed the points I made, as well as "demolishing" John Hunt's thesis? If so, we both know better. Your missing post was entirely in response to John Simkin's post in your exchange which now continues in the vein of "who's got better publishers?" You took umbrage at John's insulting manner which you thought was unbecoming of a forum administrator/moderator and announced that you would be forwarding one of the most pathetic posts you'd ever read to the University of Sunderland and/or its Press. You seemed to argue that you did not intend to suffer further insult at the hands of rascals and that more reasonable forum members would agree with you and could decide for themselves by visiting your website for further elucidation of your views. I took this to mean that you did not intend to address the points I made or to demolish Mr. Hunt's thesis. I would much rather you stuck around and let's have a real discussion on this issue as there are many who would like to understand the issues better. Not least of which is the gentleman from Eire who started this thread in the first place. Sincerely, Dan Dan, I never said I had addressed Hunt's posts. Where did this come from - Simkin? I repeat - as far as John Hunt is concerned I have engaged with him in an exchange of views on the McAdams site - I spent some considerable time explaining things to him. Readers may wish to search that site for this exchange of views.I am certainly not going to spend hours repeating the previous exchange on that site. As I said in the post that disappeared/removed from your site - there are a number of people in this forum who have behaved like mature adults.They are civil, polite and are open to each others' views - not so John Hunt, a crass and immature man who is beneath contempt.Hunt, I repeat, has no credentials which anyone would find credible when discussing scientific issues like ballsitics and wounds ballistics. You have to read the McAdams site to understand how wrong Hunt is. He has failed miserably and this is why he is rather peeved. There may be some of you out there - all conspiracy advicates as far as I can tell- who like to engage in childish discourse. I refuse - but what I will do, Dan, is to answer your questions if you contact me via my website. I will also address Hunt's points - point by point- but not in this forum and not with a person I have absolutely no respect for. I am also busy completing the final draft of my book as well as writing articles for HNN , Frontpage magazine and Crime magazine. People like Hunt have only JFK lancer type articles to write. I challenge him to try and have his work published by a reputable media outlet - and, no, JFK Lancer is not one of them - they are in the business of promoting conspiracy theories which keeps their money-making enterprise afloat.

John, You wrote: 'As you probably know, mainstream publishers are usually unwilling to publish controversial books.This is especially true when you want to be critical of organizations like the CIA and the FBI.' What absolute nonsense! I can't begin to list the numerous mainstream publishers who have been critical of the CIA/FBI - it would take forever. To name one or two - NYRB publications (Thomas Powers) and Shapolsky Publishers (David Scheim). JFK conspiracy books have been published by Carroll and Graf, Mainstream Publishing(Citadel Press),Cumberland House, the list is endless. Let's face it - the reason why you haven't been published is because your writing is infused with paranoia.If you believe you have merit why not try those small to medium publishers which have published all the other conspiracy books - remember Jim Marrs? He managed to shift 250,000 copies. What your responses tell us John is that you are building a smokesceen so your own shortcomings as an author(?) are overlooked. You wrote 'Just because companies are small does not mean they are not “respectable”. What do you know about Tressell and Spartacus to question their respectability? Or is this just a smear that you are unable to back up?'. Well, John, I looked Tressell and Spartacus up on google and came up with nil. Does the name Spartacus have anything to do with this website you run - did you self-publish? What are the titles of your books?Any small publisher that does not have a website should not even list itself in the small publishers index. You wrote 'Nor is it true that I have never been published by a large organization. When it suits me I have had work published in the Guardian, the TES, Teaching History, etc.' Published by a large organisation? This is indeed risible - you are talking about a magazine/newspaper! 'When it suits me'? How pompous! As far as John Hunt is concerned I have engaged with him in an exchange of views on the McAdams site - I spent some considerable time explaining things to him. Readers may wish to search that site for this exchange of views.I am certainly not going to spend hours repeating the previous exchange. As I said in the post that disappeared/removed from your site - there are a number of people in this forum who have behaved like mature adults.They are civil, polite and are open to each others' views - not so John Hunt, a crass and immature man who is beneath contempt. He thinks he can challenge ballistics experts like Larry Sturdivan (The JFK Myths). What a fool! This recent exchange could have been avoided had you been a little civil in your replies to my posts.I suggest forum members who participate in this debate access the recent (2005) MLK assassination exchanges of views to see how civil discourse works.

This is a lie. I have never deleted any of Mel's postings. Why should I? They are so deeply flawed that they only add to the argument that JFK, MLK and RFK were killed as part of a conspiracy. John, I posted my response yesterday - it appeared on the forum site - within an hour it was gone - I was responding to your insulting remarks. Why did the post disappear? As to your comments that my work is deeply flawed - it has been praised by Dan Moldea, Max Holland, Larry Sneed, Ron Rosenbaum (New Yorker), Anthony Summers, Patricia Lambert, HNN editor and presidential historian Richard Shenkman, Professor John McAdams, Professor Lonnie Athens, and JFK researcher and psychologist, Professor Martin J Kelly amongst many. Yet you, John, who as far as I can tell has never been published by any respectable publisher or university have the gall to make these remarks. I believe the only people you are capable of persuading are the likes of JFK Lancer who dismiss anything that spoils their money-making enterprise.

I'll get back to Daniel's points in the next few days - William Turner - I would have expected better from you- your statement about Schulman is ridiculous - an experienced reporter 'browbeaten' by the LAPD? Nonsense. I will also post my answers which address Hunt's analysis of the ballistics evidence. Hunt is not a medical expert nor is he a ballistics expert. Larry Sturdivan is - and he domolishes Hunt's thesis. Be patient! John, I have to admit I'm getting a little impatient myself. But in the meantime, it might be helpful for interested viewers to know that it's a little misleading to call Schulman "an experienced reporter"; he was a newsrunner, a messenger for a TV news crew (according to Kranz Report, Section II, p. 3). This does mean he was more than a guy who gets coffee and doughnuts but he can hardly be equated with "an experienced reporter," even if we concede the premise that hard-boiled newsmen are immune to being leaned on. I don't agree that they are, but it's beside the point since Schulman was not one. Dan I posted - it wa staken off within the hour - ask John Simkin Mel

Of course, Thane Eugene Cesar knew that he was taking a short cut through the kitchen. It is true that Sirhan apparently did not know about this “new” route. However, that is a problem for the lone gunman as well as the conspiracy theorists. Schulman gave several interviews on what he saw in the kitchen. The first interview he gave to Jeff Bent of Continental News Service straight after the shooting he clearly said that he saw “a security guard standing in back of the senator daw his gun and fire it.” (1) He did not say that Cesar shot Robert Kennedy. Only that he fired back at Shiran. This was accepted as being correct at the time. After all, why should he lie about this event? The problem was that Los Angeles County coroner Thomas Noguchi, who performed the autopsy, claimed that all three bullets striking Kennedy entered from the rear, in a flight path from down to up, right to left. “Moreover, powder burns around the entry wound indicated that the fatal bullet was fired at less than one inch from the head and no more than two or three inches behind the right ear.” (2) This was a problem for the LAPD. They now had two gunman involved in the killing (everybody agrees that Shiran had fired his gun). You now had a conspiracy as Shiran could not be portrayed like Lee Harvey Oswald and James Earl Ray as a lone nut. It was therefore necessary to get Schulman and Noguchi to change their testimony. Noguchi refused and so was not called to testify at Shiran’s trial. (Don’t you think that is a bit suspicious?) Schulman was taking into custody and had to endure lengthy questioning. It was suggested that he was part of the conspiracy to kill Robert Kennedy. Finally, on 9th August, 1968, he told Paul E. O’Steen of the LAPD that he was outside the kitchen when the firing took place and when he rushed to the scene of the crime he might have been mistaken about which security guard had drawn his weapon. As a result of this he was released as the LAPD went with the lone gunman theory. Schulman was no longer a suspect. In 1971 the LAPD interviewed Schulman again. No longer under threat of arrest, he returned to his original story of Cesar firing his weapon. The transcript of this interview has been published (it goes on for 87 pages) and however much they try, the LAPD are unable to intimidate Schulman into withdrawing this statement. The other problem you have your lone-gunman theory is that Thomas Noguchi’s views about the position of the gunman was backed up by other experts such as William W. Harper. He showed that not only was RFK shot from behind but that bullets removed from RFK and newsman William Weisel, were fired from two different guns. (3) Schulman’s views were supported by Karl Uecker, who struggled with Sirhan when he was firing his gun, provided a written statement in 1975 about what he saw: “There was a distance of at least one and one-half feet between the muzzle of Sirhan’s gun and Senator Kennedy’s head. The revolver was directly in front of my nose. After Sirhan’s second shot, I pushed the hand that held the revolver down, and pushed him onto the steam table. There is no way that the shots described in the autopsy could have come from Sirhan’s gun. When I told this to the authorities, they told me that I was wrong. But I repeat now what I told them then: Sirhan never got close enough for a point-blank shot.” (4) Another witness, Booker Griffin, also claimed that he saw two men firing guns at RFK. (5) He also saw Sirhan with a woman three times during that evening. (6) There were other witnesses who provided information that suggested that Cesar lied about the time he drew his gun. Television producer Richard Lubic, saw Cesar with his “weapon in his hand and was pointing it down in Kennedy’s general direction”. Lubic gave this information to the police after the shooting, but he was never asked about it during his testimony in court. Kennedy’s official bodyguard, former FBI agent Bill Barry, also saw Cesar with his gun in his hand and told him to put it back in his holster. (7) 1. Dan E. Moldea, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, 1995 (page 146) 2. William Turner and Jonn Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: The Conspiracy and Coverup, 1993 (page 162) 3. William Turner, Rearview Mirror, 2001 (page 244) 4. Karl Uecker, written statement given to Allard K. Lowenstein in Dusseldorf, Germany (20th February, 1975) 5. Dan E. Moldea, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, 1995 (page 147) 6. William Klaber and Philip H. Melanson, Shadow Play: The Untold Story of the Robert F. Kennedy Assassination, 1997 (page 147) 7. Dan E. Moldea, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, 1995 (page 146) I have listened to the interview and I am convinced that Scott Enyart is telling the truth. Your claim that he is obviously lying because his interview appeared on Black Op radio is daft. It is like saying that everything that appears in the New York Times is always true or always untrue. You have to apply a bit more intellectual discipline to dealing with the evidence that that? By the way, what is your academic background? Mel you are very much like a poor man’s Gerald Posner. I don’t know why you have spent your time trying to convince the public that John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were killed by lone gunmen. Unlike Posner who has some sort of reputation to lose, I think it is highly unlikely that you have persuaded the FBI/CIA to pay you for this work. Nor would Sunderland Polytechnic Press (sorry University of Sunderland Press) have made much profit from your books. However, I suppose it helps to have someone arguing for the lone gunman theory. Even if it is you. By the way, if John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were killed by lone gunman, why is it so important to keep classified so many documents relating to the case? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6187 Simkin:"Your claim that he is obviously lying because his interview appeared on Black Op radio is daft." Ayton: Another attempt to twist my words (Are you realy allowed to teach?) There were no opposing views in the programme. You say you have listened to the interview and believe Enyart - not so much objectivity in that is there? Black Op radio is an organisation dedicated to 'exposing' conspiracies and does not consider other viewpoints - as happened in this case.I accuse Enyart of lying because two people gave testimony in a court of law that this is indeed what he was doing. Yet you choose to believe Enyart.Amazing! You are supposed to be a forum moderator - where is the objectivity in your attempts to ridicule me or in your comments that I may have attempted to gain financial reward from the FBI/CIA? Have you no shame in using these disingenuous smear tactics? And please don't reply that you said the opposite - reasonable forum members will know what you have been up to. Have you ever questioned the motives - or indeed, the qualifications - of other members - particularly the ones who agree with your views?I sincerely doubt it. I will pass on your remarks about the University of Sunderland Press to the Chairman, the Deputy Vice Chancellor Jeff Brown. This is indeed one of the most immature and rather pathetic posts I have ever read. I suggest you attempt to have your own research published, especially by a University press who pass on the manuscripts they select, as Sunderland University does, to experts who teach at Universities around the country and abroad.The University of Sunderland Press pass on their manuscripts to experts at Edinburgh University, Leeds University and Nottingham University.Perhaps you would now like to ridicule these institutions? John, you are very good at presenting facts but cannot remove yourself from your self-imposed conspiracy mind-set; a mind -set that is an intellectual trap. All you really do is posit questions - Isn't this suspicious?, isn't that suspicious? I told you that Don Schulman retracted his original story yet you still harp on about it. You have command of the facts but are unable to use them for any rational discourse.It is because ytou are a convinced 'conspiracist' which, we all know, is a kind of 'religion'. I knew I took a risk in joining this forum to express my views about the MLK, JFK and RFK assassinations - I knew I would be outnumbered. Yet, despite this, I have spent some considerable time posting my comments which have not ridiculed other forum members and I have treat everyone with respect.There may be some brave forum members out there who will confirm these facts. Those forum members who wish to continue to read my research can access my website - my book about the assassination of RFK, (which has received favourable reviews from Dan Moldea and Anthony Summers who have read the pre-publication manuscript) will be published later this year or early 2007. My book includes photographic evidence which explains why Sirhan had been seen with a girl in a Polka dot dress in the Embassy Ballroom and provides CONCLUSIVE acoustics evidence that only 8 shots were fired in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel.

Schulman declined to repeat his contemporaneous account that he had seen the security guard fire because h was browbeaten by the LAPD like Sandy Serrano. I'll get back to Daniel's points in the next few days - William Turner - I would have expected better from you- your statement about Schulman is ridiculous - an experienced reporter 'browbeaten' by the LAPD? Nonsense. I will also post my answers which address Hunt's analysis of the ballistics evidence. Hunt is not a medical expert nor is he a ballistics expert. Larry Sturdivan is - and he domolishes Hunt's thesis. Be patient!

John Simkin wrote: ‘Someone suggested that Kennedy should take a short cut through the kitchen’ John, You are obviously unaware that both Fred Dutton and Bill Barry chose the route but did not inform RFK’s other aides.I thought I had informed you of that in a previous post – have you simply chosen to ignore it? ‘An eyewitness, Donald Schulman, went on CBS News to say that Sirhan stepped out and fired three times; the security guard hit Kennedy three times. Don Schulman retracted his story. In 1971 Schulman said he did not see Sirhan shoot Kennedy but he insisted that he saw the ‘security guard’ fire his gun and he also saw wounds erupting on Kennedy’s body but refused to make any connection to the two events. In subsequent years Schulman never again said he saw a security guard fire his weapon. In the mid-70s Schulman was questioned by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Special Counsel Thomas Kranz, who had been appointed to independently investigate the assassination of RFK. Schulman told Kranz that immediately following the shooting he was ‘tremendously confused’ and that the words he used to describe the shooting to reporters in 1968 were the result of ‘confusion’. Schulman reported that he MEANT to tell reporters that, “Kennedy had been hit three times, he had seen an arm fire, he had seen the security guards with guns, but he had never seen a security guard fire and hit Robert Kennedy.” From Schulman’s original reports conspiracy advocates began to construct a second-gun scenario; a scenario built on the confused statements made in the chaos that enveloped the pantry area at the time of the shooting.It became plausible because film-maker Ted Charach had said that Cesar had pulled his gun before he fell to the ground during the shooting thus giving Schulman’s original statement that a guard had fired his gun some credibility.Yet Thane Cesar never said he had pulled his gun at that time .Cesar had drawn his pistol only after he had gotten off the ground. And there had been another guard who had drawn his gun in the pantry thus adding to Schulman’s confusion. Ace Security guard Jack Merritt entered the pantry after the shooting. He had been in the hall outside the Embassy Room when the shooting began and when he entered the pantry he could see Sirhan on a metal table being apprehended by Kennedy aides and RFK was lying on the floor. To further add suspicion to Schulman’s ‘sightings’, Robert Blair Kaiser stated that Schulman had not even been in the pantry area at the time of the shooting. Kaiser quoted KNXT-TV employees, Frank Raciti and Dick Gaither, as saying that Schulman had been standing with them, inside the Embassy Room. As Dan Moldea pointed out: “The autopsy showed that three bullets had struck Kennedy from the right rear side, traveling at upward angles – shots that Shiran was never in a position to fire.” Dan Moldea’s description of the dynamics of the shooting states that Sirhan had, indeed, positioned himself to allow for the shots to go upwards through RFK’s body. ‘None of the eyewitness claim that Sirhan was able to fire his gun from close-range.’ Simply not true – see http://www.crimemagazine.com/05/robertkennedy,0508-5.htm In 1988 Enyart requested that his photographs should be returned. Why should he do this if they proved that he had lied about taking pictures of the assassination? Had Enyart got back the full series of film there would have been no story and no one to claim ‘cover-up’. As William Turner has pointed out, the Enyart photographs are the "RFK version of the Zapruder film" (Rearview Mirror).It provides conclusive evidence of the conspiracy and the cover-up. CONCLUSIVE evidence? Hardly. If no one has seen them, including Enyart, how on earth can this be true? John, To characterise Enyart’s account as ‘the best’ is risible. Enyart provides no corroboration whatsoever in his account – not even his two friends at the time who were with him at the Ambassador would back him up. You have accused me of ‘spreading stories that Enyart was lying.’ What kind of MOTIVES are you suggesting? Two people said Enyart was lying. Are you saying these two people – LIFE photographer Bill Eppridge AND Enyart’s friend, Brent Gold, are lying? And what motives would they possibly have? Part of the ‘conspiracy’, perhaps? It appears you would rather believe Enyart – who had a vested financial interest in suing the LAPD – rather than Gold and Eppridge. Brent Gold said Enyart NEVER walked into the pantry following RFK’s speech but instead they were both in the hotel lobby when the shooting occurred. Furthermore, Bill Eppridge, a LIFE photographer, said Enyart’s claim that he was the person in his photographs standing on a steam table was UNTRUE and that the person standing on the steam table was instead Harry Benson. In fact, Enyart does not appear in any of Eppridge's photos which are published in his book 'Robert Kennedy - The Last Campaign'. On the basis of this testimony Enyart was indeed ‘lying’ so your accusation that I am ‘spreading lies’ is not only wrong but also insulting. Furthermore, I’m sure the rational members of this forum will agree that Black Op radio never presents objective views or any views which are opposed to their myriad of ridiculous conspiracy theories

Mel, the best account can be found in this interview with Scott Enyart. http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_favorite.html For references to where I got my information on Enyart see the early part of this thread. Now what about some references from you. What was the name of the person who said Enyart was lying? If Enyart was lying, why did the LAPD not use the photographs to expose his false story? The LAPD admitted they took the film from Enyart’s camera. They even handed back those photographs that were not of the assassination. Detective Dudley Varney said photographs were needed as evidence in the Sirhan trial. The photographs were not presented as evidence but Enyart was told by Varney that the court had ordered that all evidential materials had to be sealed for twenty years. This was a lie. In 1988 Enyart requested that his photographs should be returned. Why should he do this if they proved that he had lied about taking pictures of the assassination? At first the State Archives claimed they could not find them and that they must have been destroyed by mistake. Enyart filed a lawsuit which finally came to trial in 1996. During the trial the Los Angeles city attorney announced that the photos had been found in its Sacramento office. Once again the LAPD had the opportunity to expose Enyart as a xxxx. However, they did not do this. Instead they were brought to the courthouse by the courier retained by the State Archives. The following day it was announced that the courier’s briefcase, that contained the photographs, had been stolen from the car he rented at the airport. The courier later reported that he had been contacted by the LAPD who wanting to know details about the car he was driving from the airport. He thought this was very suspicious because nothing like this had ever happened before. The photographs have never been recovered and the jury subsequently awarded Scott Enyart $450,000 in damages. However, the LAPD challenged this ruling and he was instead offered an out of court settlement. Part of the deal involves a promise never to talk about the case again. He has refused this offer and is still waiting for his money. Scott Enyart is clearly telling the truth in this matter. I wonder what your motivations are for spreading stories that he is lying. SIMKIN: ‘Someone suggested that Kennedy should take a short cut through the kitchen’ AYTON:John, You are obviously unaware that both Fred Dutton and Bill Barry chose the route but did not inform RFK’s other aides.I thought I had informed you of that in a previous post – have you simply chosen to ignore it? SIMKIN:‘An eyewitness, Donald Schulman, went on CBS News to say that Sirhan stepped out and fired three times; the security guard hit Kennedy three times. AYTON:Don Schulman retracted his story. In 1971 Schulman said he did not see Sirhan shoot Kennedy but he insisted that he saw the ‘security guard’ fire his gun and he also saw wounds erupting on Kennedy’s body but refused to make any connection to the two events. In subsequent years Schulman never again said he saw a security guard fire his weapon. In the mid-70s Schulman was questioned by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Special Counsel Thomas Kranz, who had been appointed to independently investigate the assassination of RFK. Schulman told Kranz that immediately following the shooting he was ‘tremendously confused’ and that the words he used to describe the shooting to reporters in 1968 were the result of ‘confusion’. Schulman reported that he MEANT to tell reporters that, “Kennedy had been hit three times, he had seen an arm fire, he had seen the security guards with guns, but he had never seen a security guard fire and hit Robert Kennedy.” From Schulman’s original reports conspiracy advocates began to construct a second-gun scenario; a scenario built on the confused statements made in the chaos that enveloped the pantry area at the time of the shooting.It became plausible because film-maker Ted Charach had said that Cesar had pulled his gun before he fell to the ground during the shooting thus giving Schulman’s original statement that a guard had fired his gun some credibility.Yet Thane Cesar never said he had pulled his gun at that time .Cesar had drawn his pistol only after he had gotten off the ground. And there had been another guard who had drawn his gun in the pantry thus adding to Schulman’s confusion. Ace Security guard Jack Merritt entered the pantry after the shooting. He had been in the hall outside the Embassy Room when the shooting began and when he entered the pantry he could see Sirhan on a metal table being apprehended by Kennedy aides and RFK was lying on the floor. To further add suspicion to Schulman’s ‘sightings’, Robert Blair Kaiser stated that Schulman had not even been in the pantry area at the time of the shooting. Kaiser quoted KNXT-TV employees, Frank Raciti and Dick Gaither, as saying that Schulman had been standing with them, inside the Embassy Room. SIMKIN:"As Dan Moldea pointed out: “The autopsy showed that three bullets had struck Kennedy from the right rear side, traveling at upward angles – shots that Shiran was never in a position to fire.” AYTON:Dan Moldea’s description of the dynamics of the shooting states that Sirhan had, indeed, positioned himself to allow for the shots to go upwards through RFK’s body. SIMKIN:‘None of the eyewitness claim that Sirhan was able to fire his gun from close-range.’ AYTON: Simply not true – see http://www.crimemagazine.com/05/robertkennedy,0508-5.htm SIMKIN:In 1988 Enyart requested that his photographs should be returned. Why should he do this if they proved that he had lied about taking pictures of the assassination? AYTON:Had Enyart got back the full series of film there would have been no story and no one to claim ‘cover-up’. SIMKIN:As William Turner has pointed out, the Enyart photographs are the "RFK version of the Zapruder film" (Rearview Mirror).It provides conclusive evidence of the conspiracy and the cover-up. AYTON: CONCLUSIVE evidence? Hardly. If no one has seen them, including Enyart, how on earth can this be true? John, To characterise Enyart’s account as ‘the best’ is risible. Enyart provides no corroboration whatsoever in his account – not even his two friends at the time who were with him at the Ambassador would back him up. You have accused me of ‘spreading stories that Enyart was lying.’ What kind of MOTIVES are you suggesting? Two people said Enyart was lying. Are you saying these two people – LIFE photographer Bill Eppridge AND Enyart’s friend, Brent Gold, are lying? And what motives would they possibly have? Part of the ‘conspiracy’, perhaps? It appears you would rather believe Enyart – who had a vested financial interest in suing the LAPD – rather than Gold and Eppridge. Brent Gold said Enyart NEVER walked into the pantry following RFK’s speech but instead they were both in the hotel lobby when the shooting occurred. Furthermore, Bill Eppridge, a LIFE photographer, said Enyart’s claim that he was the person in his photographs standing on a steam table was UNTRUE and that the person standing on the steam table was instead Harry Benson. In fact, Enyart does not appear in any of Eppridge's photos which are published in his book 'Robert Kennedy - The Last Campaign'. On the basis of this testimony Enyart was indeed ‘lying’ so your accusation that I am ‘spreading lies’ is not only wrong but also insulting. Furthermore, I’m sure the rational members of this forum will agree that Black Op radio never presents objective views or any views which are opposed to their myriad of ridiculous conspiracy theories

John, You wrote, "Scott Enyart, a high-school student, was taking photographs of Robert Kennedy as he was walking from the ballroom of the Ambassador Hotel to the Colonial Room where the press conference was due to take place. Enyart was standing slightly behind Kennedy when the shooting began and snapped as fast as he could." We only have Enyart's word for this. Please give a citation for your statement that Enyart was 'accosted' by two officers at gunpoint 'AS HE WAS LEAVING THE PANTRY'. Or are you relying solely on Enyart's story, parts of which were challenged by one of his friends. "If Scott Enyart had not really photographed the assassination, why did the LAPD take his film?" - they took film belonging to others who were at the scene including some people in the Ballroom - see list of physical evidence in CSA Archives lists. "Don’t these events suggest to you that the Enyart photographs provided evidence that someone else was also firing bullets at Robert Kennedy?" - Suspicious?, perhaps - Proof that the photographs contained incriminating evidence? No.Enyart's friend, who had nothing to gain by his statements said Enyart wasn't there. Eppridge exposed Enyart's lies.

The Martin Luther King Jr. Assassination: What Really Happened? by Mel Ayton More than 35 years after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. polls continue to indicate that the truth about the murder is still unclear for the majority of Americans. Despite government investigations and extensive research by writers who have concluded that no evidence is available to support the claims made by the conspiracy advocates, the case remains one of America's great whodunits. Doubts about James Earl Ray, Dr. King's lone assassin, arose almost immediately after the civil rights leader was fatally shot on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis on April 4, 1968. From the start, during King's funeral, his aides voiced suspicions that a conspiracy was responsible for their leader's death. The political culture of America in the late 1960s and 1970s was very favorable to any theory that gave credence to government- oriented murder plots against public figures who challenged the authority of the establishment. The U.S. public, confronted with a litany of stories about the Kennedy assassinations, CIA plots against foreign leaders, and the scandalous reports about J. Edgar Hoover's FBI domestic spying activities, were ready to believe that a pathetic individual like James Earl Ray must have received some kind of assistance from sophisticated plotters -- most likely in the pay of the government. There were no witnesses who saw Ray kill King. The government relied on circumstantial evidence, albeit evidence that strongly indicated Ray's guilt. Scrutinizing the King murder case carefully, citizens on both sides of the conspiracy debate found many puzzling anomalies that were hard to explain. This is typical of most murder cases that are based entirely on circumstantial evidence where the accused denies guilt. There are loose ends that are never tied up. This was true of the Kennedy assassinations no less than the King assassination. Law enforcement officials know that all the pieces of evidence will not always tie up. There will always be mysteries and even after a murder is "solved" there will be evidence that just doesn't fit. That Ray did not go to trial was, in some part, his own fault. On Nov. 10, 1968, two days before his trial was originally scheduled, Ray fired his first defense lawyer, Arthur Haynes, who had already plead Ray not guilty to the charge of murdering King. Ray, convinced by his brother Jerry that famous Houston lawyer Percy Foreman could provide him with a better defense, fired Haynes and took on Foreman. Soon after Foreman took over the case, the state's prosecutors made Ray an offer: in exchange for a guilty plea, the state would not ask for the death penalty. After considering the case against his client, Foreman spelled it out to Ray: He did not stand a chance of being found not guilty and in Tennessee stiff penalties were given even for men with previously spotless records -- and for accomplices as well as killers. Furthermore, Foreman told Ray, Memphis juries had been hard on first-degree murder defendants. Foreman told him he would probably receive a long sentence -- 99 years -- if he pled guilty, but this would not be a real problem for Ray. If Ray had received the minimum sentence for murder, 20 years for the State of Tennessee, this would effectively have meant that Ray would serve the rest of his life in prison. Once that sentence was over, he would be arrested immediately and extradited to Missouri to complete his original 20-year sentence. On the March 6, 1969, Ray signed a 55-paragraph confession. As a result of Ray's guilty plea, the trial became a simple procedure to present the evidence of Ray's guilt to the court. The jury was provided with information of a deal between the defense and the prosecution and the prosecution provided the court with the brief and essential elements of the case against Ray. The judge, W. Preston Battle, then issued the agreed upon sentence. There was nothing sinister in the arrangement. Similar agreements had been made thousands of times in courts across the nation. Prosecution and defense deals were designed to save the state the costs of a trial and to save the time of court officials. In addition, guilty pleas guaranteed the prosecution a conviction. After Ray was sentenced, he retracted his confession, claiming he was forced to plead guilty by Foreman. There developed a feeling that the American people had been robbed of a proper trial in which all issues surrounding the tragedy had been thoroughly examined. There were some witnesses who were not consistent with their stories. The bullet that killed King could not be matched to the Remington rifle found at the scene of the crime. And the circumstantial and ballistics evidence provided opportunities for Ray's defenders to claim that there was reasonable doubt as to the alleged assassin's guilt. Enough unanswered questions existed to allow conspiracy theorists to present doubt about the prosecution's case. The U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations Investigation In the mid-1970s, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a Congressional investigation (HSCA) into the assassination of Dr. King and concluded, in 1979, that Ray had been the assassin but there was a likelihood he had been part of a conspiracy that had been planned by a group of right-wing Southerners. Justice Department officials, responding to the HSCA's investigation, could find no solid evidence with which to charge any suspects. The two suspects who were named by the HSCA, St. Louis businessmen John Sutherland and John Kauffmann, who the HSCA said were racially inspired to offer a bounty on King's head, had died of natural causes in the early 1970s. The HSCA investigation found that Kauffmann had numerous links to the Missouri State Penitentiary where Ray had been incarcerated before his 1967 escape. Kauffmann was a friend of the prison doctor, Hugh Maxey, who had treated Ray at the prison. It was also believed that Kauffman, who would later be tried for drug dealing, supplied illegal drugs to the prison through an accomplice. However, it was the 1968 Wallace presidential campaign that provided the likely conduit for the bounty offer. Kauffmann's associate, wealthy businessman John Sutherland, helped finance the campaign and Kauffman was actively involved as a campaign worker. The HSCA was unable to establish conclusively the truth about the St. Louis-based conspiracy. In 1998 the chief counsel for the HSCA, G. Robert Blakey, said, "What we came up with was the possibility of a race-based conspiracy in St. Louis where a $50,000 bounty had been offered on Dr. King's life involving two men, Sutherland and Kauffman. It was only a possibility; we couldn't prove it and both of them were dead before our investigation started. But we were able to trace Kauffman to the Grapevine Tavern in St. Louis, where he used to hold meetings of the American Party. James Earl Ray's brother, John, owned the tavern. Was it possible that the $50,000 bounty was discussed in the tavern and heard by John Ray, and that John Ray then conveyed it to James Earl? Yes. Were we ever able to say definitively that John Ray was the conduit from the Kauffman group to James Earl? No." Credible and substantial evidence that would confirm any direct link between Ray and individuals or groups who had offered a bounty has never been found. Nonetheless, the strands of various witness statements gathered by government investigations and independent researchers have provided a likely scenario of how Ray had been inspired by offers of a bounty on King. From the evidence provided by the FBI files and the HSCA report, it appears likely that Ray did have specific knowledge of money being offered by one or more groups to anyone who would kill King. There is no evidence to suggest an offer was made to Ray personally or that promises were made to deliver any money to him. There is credible evidence that one or both of Ray's brothers aided him in the assassination, and the three of them had discussed the murder of King. Both Jerry and John Ray were in communication with their brother James before and following his escape from Missouri State Penitentiary in April 1967. John Ray was operating the Grapevine Tavern in St. Louis during this period and, like every habitual criminal, James Earl Ray was looking for the big score. John Ray was in continual association with workers for George Wallace's presidential campaign. They often frequented his establishment because their headquarters were in the same block as the Grapevine Tavern. Sutherland, a committed racist who often dressed in Confederate regalia, participated actively in the White Citizens Council of St. Louis and began holding meetings in a building not far from the Grapevine. When the meetings finished, some members would go over to the Grapevine and socialize with campaign workers. Others would engage John Ray in conversation. Given the nature of John and Jerry Ray's extremist right-wing politics, it is plausible that the subject of Martin Luther King had been discussed. It is also possible individuals in Kauffman's group discussed the idea of a bounty. During John's prison visits he may have told James about his conversations at the Grapevine and that an offer of a bounty had been discussed. If a bounty was offered and taken up by the Ray brothers, it was never collected. The source of James Earl Ray's traveling money, following his 1967 escape from Missouri State Penitentiary, was probably his prison savings -- money accrued through his "merchant" activities in prison and, as the HSCA suspected, the proceeds from the robbery of an Alton, Ill., bank. Author George McMillan provided some evidence to support the idea that no money had been collected from alleged conspirators. McMillan said that some time following Ray's capture and extradition to Memphis, Jerry Ray approached Kent Courtney, leader of a right-wing political organization in New Orleans. James Earl Ray had read about the conservative lawyer in a newspaper, The American Independent. Jerry wanted help for his brother but was unable to pay for it. Courtney had recorded the conversation with Jerry and a copy of the tape was handed over to the HSCA in the late 1970's. As McMillan argued, if James Earl Ray had been paid for killing King, the solicitation of funds would have been unnecessary. The HSCA suspected that Ray's mysterious co-conspirator Raoul was, in fact, Jerry Ray (James Earl Ray has never provided any concrete proof that Raoul actually existed). Although the HSCA could never prove it, there were many signs that Jerry Ray had assisted his brother prior to and following the assassination. The HSCA did not believe there was sufficient evidence to profer any charges against either of Ray's brothers, even though G. Robert Blakey thought John Ray should have been at least charged with perjury for falsely testifying at the committee hearings. Before his trial James Earl Ray spoke to Dr. McCarthy DeMere, who examined him in the Shelby County Jail. DeMere asked Ray, "Did you really do it"? Instead of denying guilt or relating how he was an innocent patsy, Ray said, "Well, let's put it this way, I wasn't in it by myself." Conspiracy advocates would naturally point to this story to show how Ray admitted a widespread conspiracy, yet there is another interpretation: One or both of his brothers had assisted Ray. At the very least, DeMere's testimony eliminates the possibility Ray was a patsy. And, according to Ray's lawyer, Percy Foreman, in sworn testimony before the HSCA, the lawyer "…cross-examined James Earl Ray for hours and the only name that he ever mentioned other than his own at any phase of his preparation for the killing…was his brother Jerry…Jerry was with him when he bought the rifle in Birmingham, the one he did not use because it was low caliber. He took it back…and Jerry was not with him…but he was with him the day before at the same place where he bought another rifle for (the purposes of killing King)." Although Ray's fingerprints were on the rifle, the HSCA could not determine whether or not the slug found in King's body could be matched directly with the Remington found at the scene of the crime. Conspiracy buffs pointed to this fact as proof that another weapon was used to kill King. (There is a common misperception that if a bullet is fired from a gun it can always be matched to the weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons. Some guns do not leave distinctive marks on bullets. Furthermore, it had always been Ray's contention that Raoul shot King with the rifle found in Canipe's doorway; in other words if the 1997 tests had indeed been correct in establishing it was not the rifle that killed King, Raoul planted the wrong rifle.) What the 1997 tests did establish was that the rifle found at the scene of the King assassination cannot be excluded as the murder weapon. Its barrel does not possess any consistent distinguishing marks and it has the same general characteristics as the markings left on the death slug. General rifling characteristics are the consistent features inside the barrel of all rifles of the same make and model. All tests carried out on the rifle, including those experts retained by Ray's attorney, found that the bullet and the test fires shared the same rifling characteristics. The 1999 Conspiracy Trial In 1995 Ray's London-based attorney, William Pepper, asserted that his client was innocent. The conspiracy to kill King, Pepper claimed, was organized by the U.S. government. Pepper alleged that government agents gave the contract to the head of organized crime in New Orleans who, in turn, solicited the assistance of a Mafia member in Memphis to handle the arrangements. The Memphis Mafia boss then hired Loyd Jowers, owner/operator of Jim's Grill beneath Ray's rooming house, to handle the payoff and dispose of the murder weapon. A U.S. Army sniper squad was in place to shoot King if the Mafia hit failed. Pepper alleged that the FBI, CIA, the media, Army Intelligence, and state and city officials helped cover up the assassination. In the late '90s Pepper claimed to have found Ray's handler, the mysterious Raoul (now re-named Raul by Pepper). Raul was allegedly a Portuguese immigrant living in New York State. During the period when the Justice Department had been investigating these new allegations of conspiracy, the King family, represented by Pepper, sued Loyd Jowers in a wrongful-death lawsuit. They believed Jowers's 1993 televised admission that he had participated in a "conspiracy" to kill King gave King's family sufficient grounds to initiate a private law suit. During the 1999 four-week civil trial, which was held in a Shelby County Court House in Memphis, Pepper repeated the claims he had made in his 1995 book, Orders To Kill. Pepper had no interest in seeing Loyd Jowers go to jail. The whole thrust of Pepper's efforts was in trying to prove that Jowers was merely a tool in a larger conspiracy involving the FBI, the Military, the CIA, and the Mafia. Pepper's thesis centered on the reasons why the government wanted to eliminate the civil rights leader. From the start, Pepper's courtroom allegations were viewed by many commentators as ludicrous, dependent as they were on the stories of many discredited witnesses who did not reveal their far-fetched tales until many years after the assassination. The jury, which consisted of six blacks and six whites, took three hours to reach its verdict of conspiracy involving Jowers. The King family received a token $100 award. The guilty verdict was hardly surprising, considering that Jowers's lawyer never disputed the contentions of the King lawyers. As the jury heard no evidence to rebut the conspiracy theory, it was inevitable it would return a verdict favorable to Pepper and the King family. The trial was, effectively, bogus. The DOJ team of investigators (appointed by U.S. Atty. Gen. Janet Reno and which had no connection to the FBI) released its report in June 2000. The report rejected all of Pepper's conspiracy claims that had been made during the conspiracy trial, and provided evidentiary proof to support the team's conclusions. Pepper never presented any credible evidence that would have supported his allegations, especially those of FBI involvement in the murder, or the allegation that the bureau never looked for a conspiracy in the first place. Contrary to the claims made by conspiracy advocates, it is clear that FBI senior officials kept an open mind during their assassination investigation. An FBI memo written by FBI Supervisor John S. Temple supports this conclusion. Temple wrote, "Supervisor Long also advised that Assistant Director DeLoach told Assistant Director Rosen that Los Angeles should keep in mind that King may have been killed by a hired assassin." Another memo, written by J. Edgar Hoover, corroborates this finding. The memo states, "I said (to Atty. Gen. Ramsay Clark)...there will be efforts to kill (Ray) if there is a conspiracy and if there is no conspiracy, the supporters of Dr. King will do everything in their power to kill him...I said I think he acted entirely alone but we are not closing our minds that others might be associated with him and we have to run down every lead." Historian Gerald McKnight believes there is no evidence to support the allegations the FBI was involved in King's killing and, furthermore, such ideas were far-fetched and illogical. McKnight wrote, "...there is nothing in the released documents to support, and persuasive evidence to reject, assertions that the FBI and Memphis Police Department conspired to assassinate King." Additionally, if Hoover had planned to neutralize King by killing him he would have first destroyed the COINTELPRO records that contained evidence of the FBI's illegal surveillance of the civil rights leader. It is also rational to conclude that the bureau would never conspire with organizations or individuals outside the bureau for such a risky undertaking. After all, the FBI maintained its power by acting as a state within a state. Any knowledge of its activities by outsiders would have left the bureau extremely vulnerable. As FBI profiler John Douglas wrote, "...anyone who's worked in the government, even in the intelligence community, will tell you that NOTHING that big or well publicized stays secret for long. The big bureaucracy is fundamentally incapable of carrying out a conspiracy and keeping it under wraps." Conveniently, much of the evidence Pepper presented at the 1999 conspiracy trial was curiously absent -- including the real rifle alleged to shoot King (at the bottom of the Mississippi River), the Memphis Police Department shooter (dead before his accusers went public), the Mafia organizer of the conspiracy (dead before his accusers "found" evidence of his role in the crime), photographs showing Ray did not shoot King (they have never surfaced), members of an Army sniper team (anonymous and "living in another country"), and their purported leader, whom Pepper mistakenly named. Innocent events -- the so-called "second Mustang" (it was likely another white car of a different make, parked nearby or witnesses became confused when Ray left the rooming house then parked in a different spot when he returned), the damaged scope on the rifle found at the scene of the crime, policemen dropping from the wall opposite the Lorraine Motel, Rev. Kyles's poor choice of words to describe his actions shortly before King was killed on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel ("Only as I moved away so he could have a clear shot…"), the innocent statements made by the Portuguese immigrant's daughter that the "government" had helped her family -- all became part of Pepper's malevolent conspiracy jigsaw puzzle that distorted the truth about the assassination. As visiting scholar at the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, David Greenburg, wrote, "Despite multiple debunking these (conspiracy) fantasies endure…a crackpot named William F. Pepper has convinced King's entire family that the U.S. Government, including President Lyndon Johnson, was responsible for his death…Conspiracists adopt the trappings of scholarship, touting irrelevant titles and credentials. They burrow into the arcana of their topics and inundate potential acolytes with a barrage of pedantic detail. Rather than build a case from evidence, conspiracists deny the available evidence, maintaining that appearances deceive. Rather than admit to inconvenient facts, they dismiss them as lies, making their own theories irrefutable." Gerald Posner looked into the background of Pepper's Raul and discovered that the Portuguese immigrant had nothing to do with the assassination. In 2000, the DOJ investigators found proof within the FBI files that the car radio in Ray's Mustang did not work at the time of the assassination, thereby putting to lie Ray's story that he first heard about King's assassination when he drove away from the scene of the crime. The DOJ investigators also proved that many of the Jowers's trial witnesses were motivated by financial gain, documents provided by an ex-FBI agent, allegedly proving the existence of Ray's handler, Raoul, were bogus and the allegations of U.S. Army involvement in the murder were fabricated lies. During my own research I discovered that Ray was an occasional smoker. It is an issue that addresses the myth, propagated over the years, that Ray had an accomplice who left cigarette butts in the Mustang's ashtray. What became unfortunate about this case was the way in which Pepper stopped at nothing to malign innocent participants who had been caught up in his quest to prove a non-existent and far-fetched conspiracy organized by the U.S. government. He disgracefully pointed the finger of guilt at not only Rev. Kyles but also accused the widow of a Memphis Police Department "conspirator" of having lied about her husband's role in the conspiracy. Raul, the innocent Portuguese immigrant, had his life turned upside down by Pepper's desire to implicate him in a plot. Pepper displayed no guilt in accusing each of his targets of criminal acts, perjury in the first instance and murder in the second. He also accused King assassination authors Gerold Frank and George McMillan of having sinister ties to the FBI and/or CIA, implying they conspired with the government to hide the truth or simply were duped when they investigated the King murder. He even gave credence to one of his star witnesses, Glenda Grabow, a JFK conspiracy fantasist who maligned the character of LBJ aide Jack Valenti by describing him as a pornographer. Instead of showing her the door, he enlisted her as a Jowers trial witness. As Pepper's former investigator, Ken Herman, told BBC documentary makers, "Pepper is the most gullible person I have ever met in my life". Pepper's thesis is manifestly absurd. The idea that the U.S. government had King executed means that high officials of the Johnson administration were prepared to risk riot and arson in order to attain the elimination of a single individual. It is inconceivable that Johnson officials would have failed to see that the murder of a prominent African-American leader would have led to this inevitable outcome. Considering all that had happened in the previous four years, including the terrible destruction and rioting that occurred in major cities across the United States, his allegations become preposterous. The true facts about the assassination are far removed from the exaggerations and speculative accounts of the conspiracy-minded. Ray made every decision and took every action leading up to the assassination. No credible evidence exists that would indicate he was used as a patsy or was instructed to participate in the crime. Ray researched the rifle, the ammunition, and the telescopic sight. Ray bought the Mustang, had it serviced, rented the rooms on his journeys, made his own telephone calls, bought his own clothes, and had them laundered. Ray was identified by landlady Bessie Brewer as the person who rented Room 5B of the South Main Street rooming house, and he was also identified by lodger Charles Q. Stephens, as the man who left the bathroom of the rooming house following the shooting. (Despite attempts by conspiracy advocates to claim Stephens was drunk at the time Ray left the bathroom and therefore could not be a credible witness, police officers have testified under oath that Stephens was "intoxicated but in full control of himself.") Ray's fingerprints proved that he owned the bundle that was dropped in the doorway of Canipe's Amusement store shortly after the shooting. The bundle contained the rifle used to shoot King. Ray had expressed hatred for African-Americans. Ray lied time and time again about his movements when he fled the scene of the crime. Incontrovertible and overwhelming evidence exists to prove these facts. The Motive Many investigators and researchers have provided proof of Ray's underlying motive for the crime, but conspiracy advocates refuse to accept the results of their research. George McMillan's interviews with Jerry and John Ray in the early 1970s and Gerald Posner's excellent research in the 1990s proved that Ray did indeed harbor racist sentiments. During the FBI's 1968 investigation of the assassination, agents interviewed practically everyone who had known James Earl Ray from the time he was a young boy. It had over 3,000 agents at one time or another working on the case. They asked those who had known Ray if the assassin had ever expressed racial hatred towards African-Americans and Martin Luther King Jr. in particular. Literally dozens of people, who lived far apart from one another, testified that Ray harbored a deep hatred for African-Americans and had expressed that hatred frequently up to the time he committed his deadly act. Typical of the associates of Ray who were interviewed was Ray's uncle, William E. Maher. Maher told FBI agents that, prior to Ray's entry into the Army, Ray worked at a shoe tannery in Hartford, Ill., where he became associated with an individual who had pro-Nazi leanings; Ray became anti-Negro and anti-Jewish as a result. Maher also said that, while in military service, Ray was stationed in Germany where his anti-Negro and anti-Jewish opinions crystallized. Another close associate of Ray's was Walter Rife. Ex-convict Rife had known Ray since he was a teenager in Quincy, Ill. They were close friends in the 1950s, and Ray and Rife were also colleagues in crime. Rife said, "Yeah, Jimmy was a little outraged about Negroes. He didn't care for them at all. There was nothing particular he had against them, nothing they had done to him. He said once they ought to be put out of the country. Once he said, ‘Well, we ought to kill them, kill them all...He was unreasonable in his hatred for niggers. He hated to see them breathe. If you pressed it, he'd get violent in a conversation about it. He hated them! I never did know why..." Following Ray's April 1967 escape from the Missouri State Penitentiary, he spent time in Chicago (April/June 1967), Canada (July/August 1967), Birmingham, Ala., (September/October 1967), Mexico (October/November 1967) and Los Angeles (November 1967- March 1968). Many people who crossed paths with Ray during his post-prison escape travels corroborate his hatred of African-Americans. Ray first fled to Canada where he spent some time at a ski resort, Grey Rocks. There he met a woman he liked but he may have been using her to secure a passport. The divorced woman, Claire Keating, was a Canadian civil servant. She told author, William Bradford Huie, "I can't remember how the subject came up but he said something like, ‘You got to live near niggers to know ‘em.' He meant that he had no patience with the racial views of people like me who don't ‘know niggers' and that all people who ‘know niggers' hate them." During Ray's stay in Mexico he became acquainted with a number of bar girls, one of whom related a telling example of Ray's anger towards African-Americans. Manuela Aguirre Medrano (known as "Irma La Douce") worked at the Casa Susana, a brothel in Peurto Vallarta. She said that Ray told her he "hated niggers" and he said many insulting things about African-Americans. Medrano observed how Ray's personality changed as the conversation turned to the issue of civil rights and that, during one date with Medrano, Ray grew angry at four African-Americans sailors who had been sitting at the bar. Medrano could not understand why Ray became angry with them but did say that at one point Ray went to his car to get his pistol. According to Medrano he wanted to follow them out of the bar with his pistol but she stopped him. Ten years later Medrano was interviewed by the HSCA and denied Ray's reactions to the African-American sailor's remarks was "racist." However, as Gerald Posner concluded, "…it is…likely that the sailor's race incited (Ray), more so than someone accidentally touching his $8-a-day prostitute." Another racial incident involving Ray occurred in Los Angeles where the fugitive went following his short stay in Mexico. Bob Del Monte, a bartender at the Rabbit's Foot Club, said Ray became involved in a heated discussion about race with one of the bar's women patrons, Pat Goodsell. Evidently, Goodsell had spotted Ray's Mustang that was always parked outside the club when Ray visited the establishment. The car showed Alabama license plates. Goodsell berated Ray for the way people in Alabama treated African-Americans. Ray ended up dragging Goodsell to the bar's door saying, "I'll drop you off in Watts and we'll see how you like it there." Del Monte also recalled that shortly after this incident an African-American patron of the Rabbit's Foot was struck on the head by a rock or brick while in the nearby parking lot. He suspected Ray threw the rock. Deputy Sheriff William DuFour guarded Ray following the assassin's capture and extradition to Memphis. DuFour had been one of the TACT force officers near the Lorraine Motel when King was shot. He reached King as he lay dying. DuFour helped to carry King down to the ambulance, drenching himself with King's blood. DuFour would play card games and watch television with Ray during his shifts and developed a close relationship with the accused assassin. DuFour said that Ray had pet names for people including the man he was accused of murdering. Ray often referred to Martin Luther King as "Martin Lucifer King". On the evening following Ray's guilty plea his brothers said, "All his life Jimmy has been wild on two subjects. He's been wild against niggers, and he's wild on politics. He's wild against any politician who's for niggers, and he's wild for any politician who's against niggers. Nobody can reason with Jimmy on the two subjects of niggers and politics." James Earl Ray told his lawyer Percy Foreman that he did not have to be afraid of a death sentence for killing King, "(because) no white man has ever been executed in Tennessee for killing a n." It was only later that Ray realized that prosecutors would indeed push for the death sentence. Foreman persuaded Ray that the case was too big to rely on local prejudices and that he would be found guilty and executed. Ray's racist sentiments were confirmed when his papers, including 400 letters to his brothers written between 1969 and 1997, were acquired by Boston University in 2000. In none of the letters did Ray confess to the murder of King. However, the letters reveal a startling lack of empathy with the slain civil-rights leader. It was the central event in Ray's life, yet whenever he mentioned King it was only in the context of his attempts to get a new trial. The letters revealed his bigotry and hatred for African-Americans. They also show how he became a fan of an all-night "Whitepower" radio station. Among his papers is a newspaper clip that chronicles the rise of racist politicians David Duke and J.B Stoner, who figure prominently in the letters. Stoner's letters to Ray conclude "With Best Racist Wishes." In one letter Ray gave Stoner legal advice on how to escape culpability for a racist bombing. It didn't prevent the rabid racist from finally being brought to justice for his crimes. The "Illogical" Conspiracy Conspiracy buffs have, for years, pointed to the fact that Ray secured false passports to enable him to flee the country. They have determined that the assassin must have received assistance in obtaining the passports from a sophisticated group of conspirators, most likely the government. However, the process of obtaining false identity documentation in the 1960s was not difficult. Following the abandonment of the getaway car in Atlanta, Ray made his way to Toronto where he easily obtained a passport – in much the same way many U.S. fugitives obtained their false passports. Canadian bureaucracy at the time made it easy to obtain a false birth certificate and the travel agencies there did all the work in obtaining passports for their customers. An appearance before a government official was not a requirement. Ray's movements following the assassination also leave no room for sinister interpretation. He flew to London's Heathrow Airport, then immediately caught a flight to Lisbon. It was an attempt to find a mercenary organization and safe passage to southern Africa. But he was running out of money and thought it would be easier to commit robberies in London where he could speak the language, so he returned. A phone call to a London reporter gave him the information that mercenary groups were established in Brussels. He made his way to the airport but the FBI had, by now, discovered the truth about Ray's movements and the issue of a false Canadian passport in the name of Ramon George Sneyd. The FBI tipped off Scotland Yard, which issued an all-points-bulletin for police and customs officers to be on the alert for Ray. Ray was arrested before he could board his flight to Brussels. From the start Ray adopted an improvisational approach to his alibi. When researchers discovered new information that purportedly supported Ray, he would change his story to accommodate the new possibilities. There is no evidence that Ray met with a mysterious Raoul or had any conspiratorial contact with anyone except his family following his escape from the Missouri State Penitentiary. It was evident that Ray was able to convince himself that he had a plausible case to make. In 1959 Ray had told an arresting police officer, "I cannot deny it and I won't admit it." During the late 1970s his lawyer, Mark Lane, had put in Ray's mind the difference between "truth" and "legal truth." Ray could therefore persuade himself that he was really innocent because the courts had not established the full circumstances of the crime. He knew that the assistance given to him by his brothers established, to his own satisfaction, a case for conspiracy. The state had not proven a conspiracy had existed therefore he had been telling the "truth." In fact Ray had been manipulating reality to suit his own version of the truth. This was the reason why the polygraph results were inconclusive when Ray answered questions about a conspiracy. The same polygraph examiner determined Ray had been lying when he denied killing King. It is likely Ray's resolve in sticking to his story would have dissipated had it not been for the support he was given by conspiracy writers. According to Douglas and Anne Brinkley, who examined the prison letters Ray wrote over a period of 30 years, "Ray exploited the fact that foreign journalists with an anti-American sensibility had no trouble accepting his story that the White House and the FBI had ordered King's assassination." For each and every fact about the King case that provides some suspicion, conspiracy writers are prone to deliver their own biased interpretation. Conspiracy writers who investigated Ray's finances, for example, concluded that Ray must have received funds from conspirators. They did not consider the possibility that Ray committed robberies during his time on the run or that he had made money in prison as a drug dealer. As his brother John told FBI agents, "(James never had) any real need for money as he was always able to pick it up by ways of burglaries or robberies during his travels." In all the states Ray traveled, following his escape from prison, the FBI carried out inquiries. There were numerous unsolved robberies of banks, stores, gas stations, and liquor stores. The FBI assassination investigation, however, did not consider robberies that had a value of less than $5,000. There is a wealth of evidence, never presented by conspiracy advocates, that Ray was an habitual user of drugs and sold them to fellow inmates. From defenders and adversaries alike, Ray emerges from the FBI reports as a loner with few friends; a prisoner who was always devising some scheme to break out of prison; a schemer who was involved in various money-making ventures, including buying and selling amphetamines, and lending money to other prisoners. Ray's drug use was confirmed by a family friend of the Rays, his uncle, Jack Gawron. He told agents that he supplied Ray with inhalers, and that he believed Ray trafficked in amphetamines while in prison. Ray's fluctuating weight in prison added to the suspicions of investigators. Additional support that Ray was a drug user was discovered in the Scotland Yard files. In one of Ray's London rooming houses a hypodermic needle had been found. Because Ray had proclaimed the existence of a conspiracy during his trial, it is far-fetched that conspirators would have allowed him to remain alive during the three decades he spent in prison prior to his death. There were simply too many risks attached to this scenario. If conspirators, especially government-led killers, could successfully murder America's foremost civil-rights leader and then cover up the circumstances surrounding the act, they would assuredly have had little problem in eliminating Ray. If Ray had indeed been aided by co-conspirators, they would have spirited him away and placed him in hiding as soon as the murder had been carried out. They would not have allowed him to be exposed so many times during his two months on the run. Conspirators would not have put themselves in jeopardy by allowing Ray the opportunity to identify fellow conspirators. And, if Ray had been an unwilling patsy, conspirators could not have been certain that Ray would flee the scene of the crime. Under these circumstances, had Ray stayed put, the whole conspiracy may have collapsed. Why would the government employ so many people in the conspiracy when the risk of leakage would have been so much greater? Had President Johnson wanted to eliminate King all that was required was for him to request the CIA Director or private parties to arrange a contract and that would have been the end of it. This was no sophisticated murder, as conspiracy advocates maintain. King was an easy target for any killer bent on eliminating him. King did not have an armed guard; he frequently left his home on foot; and his travel arrangements were well publicized. The government could also have destroyed King by simply arranging for all the scandal-filled surveillance tapes to be released to a friendly journalist to publicize them. This would not have been at all unusual. In the 1960s, the CIA enlisted the assistance of journalists and student groups to promote the government's policies. What Really Happened? When Ray escaped from the Missouri State Penitentiary in 1967 he knew that if he continued with his lifetime career of robbing banks it would guarantee a return to prison sooner or later. The porno business or drug smuggling he discussed with his brothers seemed to offer great financial rewards. Ray abandoned the idea, likely realizing he didn't have the skills or contacts required for those criminal enterprises. He would also risk exposure. Feeling trapped and nowhere else to go, he decided to return to his long held idea of the big score. From the accumulated evidence in the case it can be concluded that Ray believed the bounty on King was genuine, although there is no credible evidence that he made arrangements to collect it prior to or following the assassination. It is reasonable to assume that Ray may have wanted to collect whatever money was on offer through his brothers, at some future date. It is also plausible Ray took photographs of the crime scene as proof he had murdered King. However, as Ray admitted, he threw the camera equipment away, probably in a state of panic, as he fled Memphis. Ray's plan was to go to a country that did not have extradition arrangements with the United States. Perhaps at some date in the future a President George Wallace would pardon him. It is also clear that Ray's actions were not predicated on the provision of a bounty. Ray knew that his crime was of such overwhelming proportions that publicity generated by the murder would never die, especially in a country like the United States that makes celebrities of famous murderers. He was also fully aware that the killers of civil-rights workers Medgar Evers and Viola Liuzzo had been treated leniently by Southern courts. Book, magazine, and television contracts would always be on offer to pay for defense lawyers and financial provision for his brothers. If he had been lucky enough to escape to a foreign country, he could have sold his story. He would also have been aware that racist right-wing organizations and a large body of American public opinion would be behind him. He told fellow inmates about the big score, aware that his burglaries, bank robberies, and petty crimes had amounted to little. Psychologically, James Earl Ray wanted to become what his parents had always known -- he was the child who was smarter and more resourceful than the rest. But he had chosen a life where success is not measured by conventional standards. Success to Ray was attaining respect from his peers, the criminal fraternity, making the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list. And, contrary to ideas held by some conspiracy advocates, Ray had nerves of steel, especially when amphetamines hyped him up. According to his brother John, "(James has) steel nerves -- he just walks in (to the bank) like it's an everyday thing, gets the money, and walks out." Stalking and then killing King would give him the status he craved and, if caught, he could enjoy the high esteem that goes with this type of crime. Believing that if he killed King in the Deep South a white jury would acquit him, Ray knew that in time he would be able to collect his reward if not as a free man then certainly through his brothers. Ray had practiced deception all his life. A psychiatrist employed by the Missouri State prison system had been convinced that Ray was capable of murder. Rather than the bumbling crook he is portrayed by his defenders, Ray was instead, cunning, crafty, and manipulative. Ray's ex-wife, Anna Sandhu, recognized these qualities. Some of his lawyers have spoken of how Ray would manipulate them. He was an astute jailhouse lawyer who had spent years learning the fine points of the law, especially with respect to appeals procedure and how the law applied to the lawyer/client relationship. He knew how to keep his hopes for freedom alive. These realities are consistent with Ray's cryptic reply to Dexter King in 1997 when the civil rights leader's son asked him if he had killed his father - "No, I didn't, no, no, but sometimes you have to make your own evaluation and maybe come to that conclusion. I think that could be done today, but not 30 years ago." In the real world accusation without confirmation is worthless. During his trial, Ray knew he had introduced enough doubt as to stimulate future public examinations of his case. He knew the idea of conspiracy would keep his case alive in the public eye. Had there not been a climate of conspiratorial thinking engendered by the public doubt about Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt, it is unlikely the King case would have been intensely scrutinized for the past 30 years. And keeping the real truth about the assassination hidden would not have been difficult for a man like Ray. He had always been a loner who never fully revealed himself to anyone -- not his brothers, his family, his fellow prisoners, his acquaintances or his lawyers. It is unlikely the factual evidence about the King murder case will persuade the American public of Ray's guilt. American society has been influenced too much by the conspiracy theorists' world-view and the sub-text that underlies the promotion of conspiracy stories that are predicated on disillusionment with the institutions of American government. In 1963, 75 percent of the American population trusted the federal government. Today that figure has diminished to 25 percent. Ray served his sentence in Tennessee prisons, mixing with the inmate population, working on his appeals, and staying in contact with his brothers. The end came nearly 30 years after the King murder when he succumbed to liver disease. He had been admitted to Columbia Nashville Memorial Hospital, his 16th hospitalisation since December 1996. Ray was stabbed more than 20 times by four inmates at Brushy Mountain Prison in 1981, and he may have developed hepatitis from a blood transfusion. The death of James Earl Ray in 1998 added to the discontent and dissatisfaction many people felt at the many attempts to establish the whole truth about the King killing. Ray left no deathbed confession nor did he retract the numerous claims he made about the mysterious Raoul. By keeping silent, Ray was effectively thumbing his nose at a society that had relegated him to the bottom of the heap. Government files on the King slaying are sealed until 2029. Opening these documents will only reveal why investigators have been so convinced of Ray's guilt and why they have always rejected a wider conspiracy. Obfuscation, manipulation, lies, greed, and distortion of the facts have characterized this case, allowing Ray to escape blame. The truth of the matter is that Ray murdered King and he acted alone when he shot him, but one or both of his brothers before and/or after the fact possibly aided him. As Anna Ray, the assassin's wife, told television talk-show host Geraldo Rivera in the 1990s, "(James told me) ‘Yeah I did it, so what'?…James will never admit to the killing again – he'll carry his secret to the grave. He's created a mystique by recanting his original confession. He doesn't want to go down in history as the killer of Martin Luther King Jr., so he'll deny it to his death." The New York Times did carry one story on April 4 about Martin Luther King - sort of. Buried deep in the paper, the Times reported the following "news": the autopsy videotape of King's assassin, James Earl Ray, is for sale. Ray's brother, Jerry Ray, is selling the taped autopsy of his brother - some two hours long - for $400,000. With an eye to gruesome irony, Jerry Ray even made his sales pitch for the tape on the anniversary of King's death - while standing near the site of King's assassination. WASHINGTON POST "MLK Jr.: The Killing, The Family Despite recent court findings, the conspiracy theory is not credible." By Gerald Posner Monday, December 13, 1999; Page A25 Last week the family of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. celebrated a favorable Memphis jury verdict in a wrongful death lawsuit against Loyd Jowers, a man the Kings charge was part of a conspiracy behind the 1968 murder of the civil rights leader. To those unfamiliar with the case, the verdict seemed an important culmination of a long effort by the King family to determine who was behind the assassination. But to others who have followed the case, the Memphis trial was not about seeking the truth but a ploy to obtain a judicial sanction for a convoluted conspiracy theory embraced by the King family. How did the King family end up in a courtroom -- represented by the attorney for the case's confessed assassin, James Earl Ray -- suing Jowers, a man considered to lack credibility by every local, state and federal prosecutor who has looked at the matter? This trial had its genesis in a 1993 television interview given by Jowers, the owner of a bar and grill next to the flophouse from which King's assassin fired the fatal shot. Jowers said that at the request of a local produce dealer he had hired the assassin. Subsequently, he refused to say much more unless he was granted immunity. Fast-forward two years, and Jowers's story -- still unsupported by any independent evidence -- became a linchpin in a book -- "Orders to Kill" -- by William Pepper, the latest lawyer for the assassin. Pepper's book set forth a mammoth conspiracy theory involving the White House, the CIA, the FBI, Canadian and British intelligence, the Memphis police, military intelligence, Green Berets, the National Guard and the Mafia. It might have become a humorous footnote to the assassination if it had not caught the attention of the King family, particularly King's younger son, Dexter. The family quickly was persuaded that Pepper's theory was right. It was Pepper who persuaded Dexter King to make his highly publicized March 1997 prison visit to James Earl Ray, a meeting at which Dexter embraced Ray and announced that he and his family believed Ray's claim of innocence. The King family's involvement, and their repeated calls for a new investigation, prompted the Memphis prosecutors to reopen the case. The conclusions of the prosecutors' two-year probe were released in a 1998 report: Ray was the assassin, and there was no larger conspiracy. As for Jowers's claim, the district attorney not only dismissed it as false -- pointing out many inconsistent changes in his story over time -- but determined that Jowers's most likely motivation was cashing in on a lucrative Hollywood sale. As part of the investigation, the district attorney also developed overwhelming evidence that invalidated almost every claim Pepper had advanced in his book. Those official results, however, did not dissuade the Kings from investing their faith in Pepper's and Jowers's tale. When Ray died in March 1998, Pepper and the Kings looked for other ways to keep their theory alive. The family already had sold the film rights on King's life and death to film director Oliver Stone, whose "JFK" embraced a similarly widespread government murder plot. But the Kings wanted something separate from Stone's project. Although they demanded, and received, a new federal investigation into the case (which is still underway), they also sued Loyd Jowers for wrongful death. Their lawyer was none other than Pepper. The civil standard is only a "preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" of a criminal trial. And in the four-week trial that just finished in Memphis, Pepper had a field day. With a hands-off judge who allowed almost everything to come into the record, coupled with an astonishingly lethargic defense offered by Jowers, Pepper essentially had an uncontested month to argue the theory set forth in his book. At times, the proceedings bordered on the absurd. The case's "ballistics expert," who testified that the rifle bought by Ray could not have been the murder weapon, was none other than Judge Joe Brown, the syndicated television jurist. His qualifications? He had been the judge who presided over James Earl Ray's final legal machinations and is evidently an avid hunter with a large collection of rifles. At other points, "trial testimony" from television mock trials was introduced as though it had the weight of authentic sworn courtroom testimony. And during all of this, the man being sued, Loyd Jowers, never took the stand, claiming that he was too ill. His lawyer, Lewis Garrison, incredibly told the jury that his client was indeed part of a conspiracy, albeit a small cog. Little wonder that the jury deliberated for only an hour before rubber-stamping a conspiracy theory that had been presented unchallenged. After the verdict, a jubilant Dexter King told reporters, "This is the period at the end of the sentence. . . . This is the end of it." Dexter King is wrong. The verdict in Memphis is not the end of anything. But since the trial was not a search for the truth but rather a cynical scheme to give some official sanction to the discredited theory that the Kings enthusiastically endorse, it means little for history. It will not ultimately change the official view that James Earl Ray was the assassin. Rather, the persistent effort of the Kings to help Pepper exonerate Ray and to charge instead that much of the federal government killed Dr. King, will only diminish their standing as the first family of civil rights and permanently damage their credibility. The writer is the author of "Killing the Dream: James Earl Ray and the Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr."

Thanks John, One of the reasons I researched the RFK case was to cover the controversies about Sirhan and hypnosis - Dan Moldea glossed over this issue, even though his work will probably remain the definitive book on the RFK assassination.I have interviewed a number of famous psychiatrists and psychologists in the UK and US and have thoroughly researched the CIA/Hypnosis material.I'm afraid I can't say more as my publishers will probably get rather antsy that I have given away too much already! My book will be published in the US, Spring 2007. William Bradford Huie's book was, of course, excellent which is one of the reasons why some conspiracy advocates tried to brand him and smear him as a 'government tool'. I am presently completing my book about the Bermuda Murders circa 72/73 so I don't think I will be able to afford much time on this forum - I have enjoyed our exchanges with you and others who give intelligent and civil replies - unlike others who aren't worth replying to.

Hi John, No I have not read that book, Been meaning to. Dr. Phil Melanson's "The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination- New Revelations of the Conspiracy and Cover-Up", is a pretty definitive book I believe. Does Marrow deal with the MC issue? (I hope). I have long thought this is the easiest case to "solve". But with Larry Teeter gone, I wonder who will step in to speak for Sirhan. He had the most amazing "trial" I have ever heard of: The DA and defense "STIPULATED" that Sirhan's gun had killed RFK!! I noted in another thread that John was taking issue with Tim Gratz insinuating that lawyers are honorable, and abide by attorney/client privilege. Not the ones in these cases. (Until Teeter and and James Earl Ray's atty. Dr. Pepper). Dawn Dawn, "Stipulations" is a legal term which has nothing to do with interpretation of it. William Pepper did a great diservice to the MLK case - see the MLK links on this forum. As far as Morrow's book is concerned, it is one of the most ridiculous I have ever read. The information below needs to be read by everyone before they start to grasp Morrow's silly theories: In its issue of April 4th 1989 Globe magazine published a story which implicated Khalid Khawar in the assassination of Robert Kennedy.The article gave an abbreviated summary of Robert Morrow’s book “The Senator Must Die” (1988) in which the author accused Khawar of having been an Iranian intelligence agent who had been present at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of June 5th and who assisted conspirators in killing Kennedy.The Globe article included a photograph from the Morrow book showing a group of men standing near Kennedy as the Senator gave his victory speech in the Embassy Ballroom.Globe enlarged the image of these men and added an arrow to one of them identifying him as the assassin Ali Ahmand. In August 1989 Khalid Khawar sued the Globe and Morrow alleging he was the person depicted in the photographs and identified by Morrow as Ali Ahmand.The evidence at the trial showed that in June 1968 when Kennedy was assassinated Khawar was a Pakistani citizen and a free-lance photojournalist on assignment for a Pakistani magazine.At the Ambassador Hotel’s Embassy Room he stood on the podium near RFK so that a friend could photograph him with Kennedy.When Kennedy left the podium Khawar did not follow him and was still in the Embassy Room when Kennedy was shot.Both the FBI and the LAPD questioned Khawar about the assassination but neither agency ever regarded him as a suspect. In 1989 when the Globe published its article, Khawar was a naturalised American citizen living with his wife and children in Bakersfield, California where he owned and operated a farm.After Khawar read the article he became angry he had been implicated in the assassination.Khawar even received threatening phone calls and his property was vandalised. The trial soon revealed that Morrow’s allegations were false and that the Globe’s article was not ‘an accurate and neutral report of the statements and charges made in the Morrow book’.Khawar was awarded damages of $1.2 million.

Thank you John, I recall we had a pleasant exchange of views about the MLK case. If only posters could adopt a civil attitude like yours forums like this would be able to operate effectively - without the invective that puts a lot of people off. I haven't seen the History special but I correspond regularly with Dan Moldea.None of the scenarios was satisfying to him and will not likely satisfy me. Recreating the scene inside the pantry was, I believe, an exercise in futility, a little bit like asking historians to account for everyone's movement on the Titanic before it sank.However, there is something to be said for those who try. Here's my take on the pantry scene and the dynamics of the shooting: The LAPD re-enacted the crime on film – two reconstructions in 1968 and a third in 1977.Investigators concluded that Sirhan could have gotten his gun to within 1 to 3 inches from Kennedy’s head and fire 4 bullets at an upward-leftward angle. However, their reports were dismissed by many researchers who provided a contradictory conclusion.They argued that witnesses provided information that indicated Sirhan’s position in the pantry made it impossible for him to shoot the Senator in the back of the head from a distance of an inch or so.No witness testified that the assailant had been less than a few feet away from Kennedy.Criminalist, William H. Harper, a critic of the LAPD investigation, concluded there had to be at least two firing positions to account for all the bullets and all the wounds.According to conspiracy writer Lisa Pease, “As you will recall five people were shot besides Kennedy, one of whom was shot twice; Kennedy himself was shot four times.Doesn’t that add up to ten bullets? Not if the LAPD could come up with some magic ones.The bullet that pierced Kennedy’s coat without entering him took a path of roughly 80 degrees upwards.The bullet was moving upwards in a back to front path (as were all of Kennedy’s wound paths).But the LAPD figures this must be the bullet that hit Paul Schrade.Had Schrade been facing Kennedy, he would still not be tall enough to receive a bullet near the top of his head from that angle.But he was not standing in front of Kennedy.He was behind him by all eyewitness accounts, and,as shown by the relative positions where the two fell after being hit.” However, there are a number of possibilities that can be used to explain the trajectories of the shots without resorting to the possibility of a second gun. Thomas Noguchi and Dan Moldea said there was no one who could positively say to a 100% degree of certainty how the bullets travelled. A number of possible explanations, which are contrary to the official version, can account for the paths of the bullets. There were four stray bullets: 1. The bullet that passed through Kennedy’s jacket without striking him 2.The through and through bullet that exited from his chest. 3. The bullet that struck the ceiling and exited through one of the ceiling tiles. 4. The bullet that was supposedly lost in the ceiling interspace. In its official inventory of the bullets fired by Sirhan the LAPD claimed that Schrade was wounded by the bullet that went harmlessly through the shoulder pad of RFK’s suit. Moldea maintains this is wrong. Moldea believes the first shot hit Paul Schrade. Moldea also believes that the shoulder pad bullet probably struck one of the four shooting victims and this is consistent with the fact that Sirhan’s revolver could only fire 8 shots. The following scenario is entirely plausible, although there are other scenarios that could account for the 8 shots – as Vincent Bugliosi said, “If (Wolfer’s) report is in error, for whatever reason, then there might be an explanation for some of these things: ricochets, parts of bullets, fragments. This whole notion of a second gun is premised on the assumption (Wolfer’s) report is correct.” BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead. BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm – this bullet then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling upwards to the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is Evans. Evans was bending down at the time of the shooting – the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor then struck Evans in the head.This bullet could account for two of the ceiling tile holes, entry and exit. BULLET 3 – The bullet that hit Kennedy in his right armpit and lodged in the back of his neck.This bullet was recovered. BULLET 4 - The bullet that hit RFK in the mastoid. This was the shot that was fatal.Bullet fragments were recovered. BULLET 5 – The bullet that went through Goldstein’s left pant leg without striking him – this bullet could have hit Stroll – the bullet was recovered during surgery. BULLET 6 – The bullet that hit Weisal in the abdomen and which was recovered during surgery. BULLET 7 – The bullet that was lost in the ceiling interspace.This may very well have been the bullet that entered then exited RFK’s chest and travelled upwards. BULLET 8 – The bullet that hit Goldstein in the thigh and which was recovered. Three ceiling tile holes are accounted for in the above ‘scenario’. The alleged bullet holes in the pantry door divider were too small to be made by .22 caliber bullets.In fact they were not made by bullets at all as Moldea ably demonstrates. As Kennedy was led through the pantry by Ambassador hotel maitre’d , Karl Uecker, ‘Ace’ security guard Thane Cesar was waiting at the double swing doors.Uecker led Kennedy by the right wrist through the crowd which filled the pantry passageway.Cesar held RFK’s upper right arm.Kennedy moved through the pantry shaking hands with excited supporters and hotel workers occasionally breaking loose from his guides.Uecker said, “I took the Senator behind the stage.I was going to turn left to go to the Ambassador Ballroom and somebody said, ‘No.We’re going that way.We’re going to the press room (Colonial Room)’.I said, ‘This way, Senator….’ It was a last-minute decision.I don’t know who made it…The Senator was really happy, and he stopped again and again to shake hands…I got his hand, his right hand and I said ‘Senator. Let’s go now’. (A split second later I) felt something, somebody, moving in…the next thing I heard was a shot.It sounded like a firecracker.Then I heard a second shot.Senator Kennedy’s right arm flew up and he was TURNING (emphasis added)…it looked like the Senator saw what had happened.” The shot that killed Kennedy was fired from a distance of approximately one inch. In front of Kennedy there were about 20 people in the pantry.Kennedy was in the midst of about 50 people.As Cesar approached Kennedy when he came through the pantry doors people began pushing and shoving towards the Senator.Cesar began to push them away as Kennedy had difficulty moving forward. Just before Uecker, Cesar and Kennedy reached the ice machine a couple of metres from the swinging doors.Cesar took Kennedy’s right arm at the elbow as Uecker kept hold of Kennedy’s right hand.Cesar let go as Kennedy began to shake hands with kitchen workers who were standing behind the serving tables.Cesar’s account is crucial because he was certain about how Kennedy was standing at the moments shots rang out. Cesar told Dan Moldea, “A lot of people testified that (Sirhan) was standing this way (with Kennedy facing his assailant).I know for a fact (that’s wrong), because I saw him (Kennedy) reach out there (to shake hands with a busboy) and which way he turned.And I told police about that.” Although Cesar did not see Kennedy hit or fall he knew the Senator’s head had been turned away from Sirhan’s gun exposing the right rear of his head, the part of his body hit by the fatal bullet .Cesar did not draw his gun until both he and Kennedy had fallen to the floor (Cesar dropped to the floor to avoid being hit by bullets).Cesar’s gun was only out of his holster for about 30 seconds and was not drawn until he began to stand up. Cesar was in shock.He also had powder burns in his eyes.He immediately ran out of the pantry when he saw Sirhan had been struggling with Kennedy’s aides and returned immediately with other Ace guards, Jack Merrit and Albert Stowers, who had been in the Embassy Room.Merrit entered the pantry with his gun drawn. As Moldea explained, “All twelve of the eyewitness’ statements about muzzle distance is based on – and only on – their view of Sirhan’s first shot.After the first shot, their eyes were diverted as panic swept through the densely populated kitchen pantry.The seventy-seven people in the crowd began to run, duck for cover, and crash into each other.” One of the most reliable witnesses, Lisa Urso, who was able to see both Kennedy and Sirhan, saw Kennedy’s hand move to his head behind his right ear.As the distance from Kennedy to the gun after the first ‘pop’ was three feet it is likely he had been simply reacting defensively to the first shot fired. Urso described Kennedy’s movements as “…(jerking) a little bit, like backwards and then forwards”.Moldea believes the backwards and forwards jerking, “….came as Kennedy had recoiled after the first shot; he was then accidently bumped forward, toward the steam table and into Sirhan’s gun where he was hit at point blank range.” Dan Moldea believes the first shot hit Paul Schrade because the Kennedy aide’s last memory was of the Senator smiling and turning toward the steam table.Furthermore, in support of his thesis that the first shot hit Schrade, Moldea quotes ‘key witness’ Edward Minasian as saying, “I saw the fellow (Schrade) behind the Senator fall, then the Senator fell.” Kennedy probably saw Schrade hit because when he himself lay dying on the floor he asked, “Is Paul alright?” If Kennedy had indeed been hit by the first shot he would not have been standing, observing Schrade.The injury to Kennedy’s head was so severe he would not have been able to observe anything once the bullet struck. Moldea’s thesis is supported by eyewitness Vincent DiPierro who told investigators, “….I stuck my hand out and he shook my hand and I tapped him on the shoulder and said, ‘Congratulations Mr Kennedy’. And I walked with him as far as I could…I stayed as close as I could to him…into what is the kitchen more or less …..and this guy,…he was in a kind of a funny position because he was kind of down…like if he were trying to protect himself from something…he tried to push the people away from his hand…and then he…swung round and he went up on his…tiptoes…and…he shot…and the first shot I don’t know where it went, but I know it was EITHER HIS SECOND OR THIRD ONE THAT HIT MR KENNEDY (emphasis added) and after that I had blood all over my face from where it hit his head, because my glasses…(Martin Patrusky) saw the blood all over my face.” Moldea’s thesis is also supported by a statement I found by one of the key witnesses, Frank Burns, some years after the assassination.Burns was identified as one of the five in the group (the others were Karl Uecker, Juan Romero, Jesus Perez, Martin Patrusky) that was closest to the Senator.Although Burns insisted the gun was never less than a foot or a foot and a half from Kennedy he nevertheless described the dynamics of the shooting in such a way to make it entirely feasible that Sirhan’s gun moved to an area inches away from the Senator.Burn’s had suffered a burn on his face which he thought was caused by a bullet passing near his cheek.It was likely a ‘powder burn’ from Sirhan’s pistol. Burns said: “… I had just caught up with him (in the pantry), and he was a step or so past him.And I’d turned around facing the same way as he turned toward the busboys I was just off his right shoulder, a matter of inches behind him.” After Sirhan fired his gun Burns said, “The noise was like a string of firecrackers going off, it wasn’t in an even cadence.In the process, a bullet must have passed very close to my left cheek because I can remember the heat and a sort of burn.I remember an arm coming towards us, through the people, with a gun in it.I was putting together the burn across my cheek, the noise and the gun and I was thinking, ‘My God, it’s an assassination attempt’.I turned my head and saw the gun and quickly looked back to the Senator and realized he’d been shot because he’d thrown his hands up toward his head as if he was about to grab it at the line of his ears.He hadn’t quite done it.His arms were near his head and he was twisting to his left and falling back.And then I looked back at the gunman, and at that moment he was almost directly in front of me.He was still holding the gun and coming closer to the Senator, PURSUING THE BODY SO THAT THE ARC OF THE GUN WAS COMING DOWN TO THE FLOOR AS THE BODY WAS GOING DOWN.( Emphasis added)” Burns’ description of the shooting may be the key to an understanding of how the angles of the bullet paths in Kennedy’s body were not consistent with the LAPD’s conclusions that Sirhan’s gun was extended horizontally. Following the first shot, which hit Schrade, Kennedy was struck by bullets entering his shoulder pad as he was raising his arm to defend himself.Then two shots hit his right armpit – one bullet lodged in the back of his neck.Finally, according to coroner Thomas Noguchi in an interview with Dan Moldea, the fatal head shot occurred.Noguchi said he based part of his explanation on the fact that had Kennedy been hit in the head on the first shot he would not have been able to stand.The head shot would have taken him off his feet immediately. Noguchi told Dan Moldea, “So I believe there were four shots fired at (RFK) at least. The sequence? The shoulder pad shot as he was raising his arm, the two shots to his right armpit, in which one of the bullets lodged in the back of his neck, and , lastly, the shot to the mastoid. This was the shot that was fatal.” Moldea places a lot of misunderstanding about the shooting on the general lack of knowledge about how crowds react during violent incidents.Both conspiracy advocates and official investigators did not understand the dynamics of crowd movement and of how crowds can rapidly change direction and positioning in an instant.This would have been especially true in the Kennedy case, after the first shot when people reacted out of fear, shock and perhaps defensively.People in the pantry were also turning their heads to look for the source of the sounds; on realizing a gun had been fired some would have stumbled, fallen and crashed into objects around them and clashed with others in the crowd.In such circumstances it is easy to see how only a few witnesses placed Sirhan’s gun within a foot or two of Kennedy’s head.It should be remembered that none of the LAPD ‘most credible’ witnesses actually saw Kennedy shot. Furthermore, as Dan Moldea points out, the estimates for the distance of the gun were based on when the first shot was fired.The estimates ranged from 1 ½ feet to 8 or 9 feet.In an instant, following the first shot, the whole dynamics of the crowd changed.As one LAPD detective told Dan Moldea, “…Eyewitness testimony? You talk about 77 people in a room and 12 actual eyewitnesses to the shooting.These are people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.You’re expecting accuracy in their statements? 12 different eyewitnesses will generally give you 12 different versions of a story…eyewitnesses are not trained or experienced or qualified to make judgements about what they see in such situations.” As Thomas Noguchi observed, “…I believe that the Kennedy assassination must go down in the history of forensic science as a classic example of ‘crowd psychology’, where none of the eyewitnesses saw what actually happened.” It is unlikely that second-shooters in an elaborate conspiracy would have remained undetected.In addition, conspirators could not have known which route Kennedy was to take when he left the Embassy ballroom stage and entered the kitchen pantry.He was directed along that route by an aide.(Bill Barry had checked the route out with Fred Dutton before RFK finished his speech.) A number of other routes could have been taken.Conspiracy advocates find this fact irrelevant.They believe that multiple assassins may have been waiting at various locations on the possibility that RFK chose another route.However, there is a central weakness in their thesis.There has simply been no evidence which would have supported it.

Sirhan was niether a Muslim nor a Christian. He was born into a Palestinian Christian family but rejected the notion of God in a number of conversations he had with a Christian Minister some years before the assasination. He turned to the occult for spiritual insight.

Enyart claimed police confiscated his photographs as evidence – he said there were 3 , 36 exposure rolls – and was interviewed at Ramparts police station. Enyart received about two dozen prints/xeroxes from the police all of which showed either the speech or the ballroom after the assassination, according to Enyart. None of what he considered the important ones were returned to him. Told that the evidence in the case had been sealed for 20 years Enyart waited until the late 1980s then requested the police to return all of his photos. At first the authorities said they did not have the negatives, saying they destroyed them in August 1968. Later they said they had been misfiled and would be returned to him. Enyart hired a lawyer and sued the LAPD seeking $2 million in damages for the loss or destruction of his photographs. Following years of legal battles his case finally came to fruition in 1996 when a jury ruled in his favour. However, the negatives were stolen as a courier delivered them to Enyart. He was awarded damages of $450,600. The verdict was a blow to the LAPD which had come under constant accusations that they had covered up the ‘RFK conspiracy’. However, there was sufficient suspicions about Enyart’s claims. Skip Miller, who argued the case for the DA’s office said that Enyart’s claims that he took important photographs in the hotel pantry at the time RFK was shot, “were just wishful thinking”. Miller said that Enyart took only one roll of film and, more importantly, he was not in the pantry in the first place. To prove his allegations Miller called as a witness one of two Enyart friends who had been with him on the night of the shooting. Brent Gold said Enyart never walked into the pantry following RFK’s speech but instead they were both in the hotel lobby when the shooting occurred. Furthermore, said Miller, Bill Eppridge, a LIFE photographer said Enyart’s claim that he was the person in his photographs was untrue and that the person standing on the steam table was instead Harry Benson. In fact Enyart does not appear in any of Eppridge's photos which are published in his book 'Robert Kennedy - The Last Campaign'. According to the DA’s office Enyart was awarded $625,600 because the jury was allowed to hear witnesses who had misled and inflamed them with allegations of a purported conspiracy. Miller also believed that jury misconduct occurred and that some jurors expressed hatred of the LAPD and a belief in conspiracy theories juring their deliberations.

Are you sure? Without having my books handy, I thought that it was a newsman standing behind Cesar who said Cesar had pulled his gun. It was newsman Don Schulman who was standing behind Cesar. BRENT:I’m talking to Don Schulman.Don can you give us a half-way decent report of what happened within all this chaos? SCHULMAN;OK I was ..a…standing behind…a…Kennedy as he was taking his assigned route into the kitchen.A Caucasian gentleman stepped out and fired three times….the security guard…hit Kennedy all three times.Mr Kennedy slumped to the floor…they carried him away…the security guards fired back…As I saw…they shot the ….a…man who shot Kennedy…in the leg….he…a before they could get him he shot a ….it looked to me…he shot a woman…and he shot two other men.They then proceeded to carry Kennedy into the kitchen and …I don’t know how his condition is now. BRENT: Was he grazed or did it appear to be a direct hit?Was it very serious from what you saw? SCHULMAN:Well…from what I saw…it looked…fairly serious.He had …he was definitely hit three times.Things happened so quickly that…that…there was another eyewitness standing next to me and she is in shock now and very fuzzy…as I am…because it happened so quickly. BRENT:Right.I was about six people behind the Senator, I heard six or seven shots in succession…Now…is this the security guard firing back? SCHULMAN:Yes…a…the man who stepped out fired three times at Kennedy..hit him all three times….and the security guard then fired back….hitting… BRENT: Right. SCHULMAN:Hitting him, and he is in apprehension. Minutes later Schulman was then interviewed by KNXT’s Ruth Ashton Taylor.and said ,”Well, I was standing behind him, directly behind him (RFK).I saw a man pull out a gun.It looked like he pulled it out from his pocket and shot three times.I saw all three shots hit the Senator.Then I saw the Senator fall and he was picked up and carried away.I saw the –also saw the security men pull out their weapons.After then it was very very fuzzy.” In 1971 Schulman said he did not see Sirhan shoot Kennedy but he insisted that he saw the ‘security guard’ fire his gun and he also saw wounds erupting on Kennedy’s body but refused to make any connection to the two events.In subsequent years Schulman never again said he saw a security guard fire his weapon. In the mid-70s Schulman was questioned by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Special Counsel Thomas Kranz, who had been appointed to independently investigate the assassination of RFK.Schulman told Kranz that immediately following the shooting he was ‘tremendously confused’ and that the words, he used to describe the shooting to reporters in 1968 were the result of ‘confusion’.Schulman reported that he meant to tell reporters that “Kennedy had been hit three times, he had seen an arm fire, he had seen the security guards with guns, but he had never seen a security guard fire and hit Robert Kennedy.” From Schulman’s original reports conspiracy advocates began to construct a second-gun scenario, a scenario built on the confused statements made in the chaos that enveloped the pantry area the night of the shooting.It became plausible because film-maker Ted Charach had said that Cesar had pulled his gun before he fell to the ground during the shooting thus giving Schulman’s original statement that a guard had fired his gun some credibility.Yet Thane Cesar never said he had pulled his gun at that time .Cesar had drawn his pistol only after he had gotten off the ground.And there had been another guard who had drawn his gun in the pantry thus adding to Schulman’s confusion.Ace Security guard Jack Merritt entered the pantry after the shooting.He had been in the hall outside the Embassy Room when the shooting began and when he entered the pantry he could see Sirhan on a metal table being apprehended by Kennedy aides and RFK was lying on the floor. To further add suspicion to Schulman’s ‘sightings’, Robert Blair Kaiser stated that Schulman had not even been in the pantry area at the time of the shooting.Kaiser quoted KNXT-TV employees, Frank Raciti and Dick Gaither, as saying that Schulman had been standing with them, inside the Embassy Room.