Search the Community

https://medium.com/@pazmarverde/laurie-dusek-sirhans-lawyer-explains-that-even-rfk-jr-believes-in-sirhan-s-innocence-dbbbf2e02119 Please, note: original of an article by Michele Metta also published in Italian here My today’s article is a conversation with Laurie Dusek. She is the lawyer of Sirhan Sirhan, the presumed assassin of RFK. Laurie, let me please thank you, since I am really glad you accepted to answer my questions. The first one of them is why you decided to become Sirhan’s lawyer. Robert Kennedy has been a hero of mine since I was a kid. In the very beginning, I thought Sirhan was guilty, as I saw him on TV with a gun in his hand but, the more I read over the years the more I became convinced that there was a lot more to the story. When I met Bill Pepper I was impressed with his knowledge of the 60s and when he asked if I would be interested in helping him represent Sirhan I jumped at the chance. 50 years later and the words, concerns and hopes of RFK are still relevant today! We, as a country, NEED to find the truth behind his death. When people question my dedication and determination to this case all I can say is we as a country, need to learn from our past, our history, but we can’t do that by hiding from it or ignoring it. Today, as a country we are questioning how we got where we are -politically, economically, ethically and morally. We hear about “Russian” interference in our last election but forgot about the “interference” in the election of 1968. In 1968 the leading candidate of the Democratic party was killed and the media and the masses turned their heads and refused to address the issue of who was responsible… RFK was not Killed by Russians, he was not killed by Sirhan B. Sirhan, he was Killed by forces from within our country and those forces are still active today. RFK wanted to help the poor and the disenfranchised. He wanted to stop the violence within this country and around the world. These are issues that have been largely ignored and thus still face us today. RFK was not a saint, he was a statesman who cared about our country and cared about those who were less fortunate. Let us honor his memory by helping those that are less fortunate and by finding the truth behind his death. As RFK said so eloquently, in a speech in S. Africa, “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can strike down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” Let’s send forth as many ripples as we can!!! Have you ever received threats, or insults, for being Sirhan’s legal representative? I personally have not received a threat. I can’t say that Bill Pepper or Dan Brown have been physically threatened but they have been subjected to harassment -especially Dan. Both Dan and Bill have had issues with the IRS after they started working on the case. Dan has been audited for 4 or 5 times and even though nothing is ever found they keep auditing him. He has a very interesting story regarding the audits… Dan also has an issue with his luggage when he flies. His problems started right after his first visit with Sirhan. In one incident Dan noticed an airline official taking his luggage from the baggage area and when Dan questioned them he was told by the person holding his luggage “I have instructions to take all luggage from the Kennedy party” to which Dan replied “I am not part of any Kennedy party… “and demanded his suitcases. Similar incidents have happened to him on subsequent occasions. Our phones were tapped for a while… As far as being insulted- people either think what I’m doing is great or they look at me as if I’m crazy and so I pay no attention. Which evidence exist that he is innocent? a. Eye-witnesses never put Sirhan close enough to the Senator to be responsible for the fatal shot, which was 1.5 to 2 inches from the Senator’s head when fired. Distance is known due to gunpowder residue on the Senators hair and clothing as stated in autopsy report. b. Sirhan was pinned to the steam table and his hand was held down after he fired 2 shots. Impossible for him to have shot the Senator. c. Witnesses placed Sirhan in front of the Senator but all wounds sustained by RFK were shot from behind him at an upward trajectory. d. The Pruszynsky tape (recorded by Stanislaw Pruszynski, a Polish reporter covering the Presidential election and overlooked for 40 years) shows there was a 2nd gun as 13 shots are heard on that tape. Shots 3 & 4 and 7 & 8 are too close to each other to have been fired from the same gun. Numerous tests were conducted on 22 caliber pistols and it’s physically impossible for 1 person to shoot 2 shots from the same gun in that time span. Said test were conducted by Phil Van Praag, an electrical engineer with over 35 years of experience. e. Too many victims (besides the Senator, 5 other people were wounded) and too many bullet holes in door jams and ceiling tiles to have been caused by Sirhan’s gun which could hold only 8 bullets. A lot, if not all of the tiles and doors with bullet holes were destroyed by the LAPD. And there are all the actions taken by the LAPD- destruction of evidence, Scott Enyart’s photos being taken from him, switching of bullets at trial (the bullet taken from RFK’s neck -Peoples exhibit 47- was marked “TN 31” by Dr. Noguchi when he removed the bullet but in 1975 in front of the Wenke Commission, Peoples exhibit #47 had “TNDW” as a marking…) The miss-conduct of DeWayne Wolfer, the chief criminalist at the LAPD Scientific Investigation Division who was put in charge of the investigation of the ballistics. Right after the shooting- a couple who identified themselves as the Bernsteins were outside the Ambassador hotel and they saw a young woman and a man run by them shouting “we shot him” and when the Bernsteins asked “shot who?” the young woman replied “Kennedy; we shot him…” The Bernsteins reported this to LAPD Sergeant Sharaga who put out an APB (all point bulletin) only to be told by higher ups to retract the APB… What are Sirhan’s inside feelings today about the assassination of RFK? Sirhan’s feelings regarding the assassination in many ways have remained the same over the past 50 years. He has always stated that he liked RFK and wished what happened hadn’t. He now knows he did not kill the Senator, as for years he was told by his attorneys he was the killer, and that offers him some comfort and yet if he didn’t do it why is he still in jail??? When I went with RFK Jr. last December to see Sirhan, Sirhan expressed his shame about being associated with the death of Bobby’s father and Bobby patted Sirhan’s hand and told him “I know you did not kill my father.” I believe this gave Sirhan some comfort. Sirhan also told Bobby “Innocent or not, inside I feel guilty as your Dad should not have experienced that nor your family, it pains me…” We all for sure know Sirhan because of what happened in 1968. I would instead like to please know from you who intimately is the Sirhan you personally have known through these years of contacts with him. Sirhan is a kind, quite man who stays to himself inside prison. He’s articulate and stays abreast of current matters by listening to the radio. He used to read newspapers etc. but now says he has “lost interest” in reading. I like Sirhan and over the past 11 years I have become somewhat protective of him — especially the more I learn about how he and his family were taken advantage of by Grant Cooper and other legal officials who said they were there to help… What does he feel for still being in prison in spite of his innocence? Sirhan is very religious but in a quiet, personal way. I feel compelled to say Sirhan is a Christian, as many people believe he’s a Muslim and therefore a terrorist. I don’t understand that rationale but I have encountered it over the years that I have worked on the case. I believe it’s Sirhan’s strong religious faith that has sustained him over the past 50 years. The first time I met Sirhan, (June 6, 2007), he told me “if anything happens to me in here I didn’t do it…”. I am amazed at Sirhan’s inner strength and sometimes when I feel overwhelmed I think of him and my mind set changes. Sirhan is a Palestinian. Do you believe that who framed him chose Sirhan exactly because of his roots? Sirhan was a distraction that night-he caught the public’s attention and everyone focused on him and paid no attention to anyone else. It reminds me of a magician who tells the audience he’s going to make an elephant disappear and calls on an assistant to help. Well, we all know you can’t make an elephant disappear but you can distract the audience and divert their attention to a different part of the stage. Sirhan’s being a Palestinian was important and was successfully used by those in power against him. His being a Palestinian was offered as a reason behind his motive to kill the Senator. It made good reading and the media covered that aspect but failed to actually cover the real story. I find a lot of fault with the media for the way the public sees Sirhan — he was portrayed as a terrorist, as a deranged person and from the very beginning as the ‘SOLE’ gunman. The media helped cover up the truth. During my recent interview of Stephen Jaffe, a really preeminent member of Garrison’s staff, the DA thanks whose courage in 1967 the investigation on the assassination of JFK revived, Jaffe reveled that he was the organizer of an astonishing, secret rendezvous between RFK and Garrison himself, adding: “Before that meeting, I had a contact from a close friend of the Kennedy family who asked me to arrange the meeting. We also had help from another US Senator. RFK told Garrison in New York, at this very confidential meeting, that he was going to reopen the investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy but only after he was elected President. Only with that power, he explained, could he do so.” Please, Laurie, what do you think about this revelation? I believe one of the main reasons Senator Kennedy was killed is because if elected President he would have reopened the investigation of the assassination of his brother, JFK. Those involved in Dallas couldn’t let that happen. You should read David Talbot’s book “Brothers” which goes into detail about this. I remember when I went with RFK Jr to see Sirhan, Bobby asked me what I thought happened that night and I told him “I don’t think it mattered what route your Father took that night as I believe as soon as he won the Democratic primary he was a marked man and he wasn’t going to leave there alive…” I have kept quiet for the past 11 years regarding who I thought was responsible for the death of RFK as it is my job as Sirhan’s attorney to show how he could not have committed the crime; it is NOT my job to prove who did do it. Being solo practitioners and working on the case pro-bono, Bill Pepper and I did not have the finances to do any investigative work with the exception of the work done by Dan Brown. We focused on the legal documents filed by other attorneys on Sirhans behalf (which wasn’t always the truth as Grant Cooper did nothing on Sirhan’s behalf whereas Larry Teeter did an incredible job on Sirhans behalf) the LAPD and FBI files as well as numerous books on the subject. I thought it was extremely important NOT to say who I thought was responsible as I felt we were on shaky ground and 1 incorrect statement could negate years of hard work… I was pissed when the State of California in one of their replies to a Court submission by Bill and I, said we should the possibility of a second gunman but didn’t show who it was. In the same Court filing they said we also should the possibility of mind control but didn’t show who did it…. It’s our job to show how and why Sirhan could not have killed the Senator- it is NOT our job to find or name the killer(s). You just reiterated that RFK Jr. himself too started to believe in Sirhan’s innocence. A fact that also emerges from the appreciation he gave to the really talented Shane O’Sullivan for his documentary on the assassination of RFK. What does this documentary tell, and why it matters? Shane’s documentary is important because it shines a light on the many different aspects of this case. Shane is the only journalist who has focused on the work of Dr. Dan Brown and his efforts to de-program Sirhan. The concept of a Manchurian Candidate is met with total disbelief even though we have submitted credible documentation of studies conducted by the CIA showing this was something our government did. We relied on declarations submitted by Dan Brown and Alan Scheflin which detailed the history of the CIA’s involvement with the Manchurian Candidate. This is extremely important as it goes to whether Sirhan acted alone, whether Sirhan acted “under free will” and if the Manchurian Candidate theory is proved it shows government involvement… Another factor that Shane focuses on is how the LAPD miss-handled the case. From the very beginning evidence and eye-witnesses were ignored, evidence was destroyed prior to the trial and more evidence was destroyed after the trial and that same evidence should have been preserved for an appeal. Key pieces of evidence (autopsy report) were kept from the Defense team for weeks. Eyewitnesses were not interviewed by the LAPD- they were interrogated in an effort to get them to change their statements. Shane has taken an objective view of the case and by doing so he has exposed a lot of the inconsistencies by the LAPD, the District Attorney’s office, and the FBI. I do not believe the inconsistencies were innocent oversights or due to negligence- I believe they were deliberate. I say that as 50 years later I still face obstacles in Court and with the prison system.

https://medium.com/@pazmarverde/a-conversation-with-shane-osullivan-c059aa736d56 A conversation with Shane O’Sullivan. The portrait of an excellent researcher giving us an astonishing scoop: RFK Jr. is writing a book on both Kennedy assassinations NOTE: This is the translation of an Italian article by Michele Metta. Original here Today, I am going to interview Shane O’Sullivan. He is an Irish talented writer and filmmaker. He is in fact the author of a very important documentary, The Real Manchurian Candidate, on the assassination of Robert Kennedy. This movie received an endorsement by RFK Jr., son of RFK. O’Sullivan also wrote a very well-made book, Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy. So, I am deeply honored he accepted to answer some questions. Let’s start. When and why did you decide to investigate the assassination of RFK? I first heard about the case in 2004 and intended to adapt the story of two guns, a mysterious girl in a polka dress and a Manchurian Candidate assassin into a screenplay for a film. While researching the story, I discovered new evidence that led me to write a book and make a documentary instead. Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian, was the man caught in the afterwards of RFK’s killing, and the one declared guilty of the assassination. Anyway, if we do examine all the evidence, we realize facts are very different from what they seem. Which was Sirhan’s position at the moment of the shooting? Witnesses placed the barrel of Sirhan’s gun between one and a half to five feet in front of Kennedy. And which was Sirhan arm position? I mean: its angle, its elevation. Most witnesses, like Frank Burns, who was standing between Sirhan and Kennedy, described it as level with the ground. After how much time was Sirhan blocked? Ambassador Hotel maître d’ Karl Uecker said he diverted Sirhan’s gun hand away from Kennedy after the second shot. Sirhan continued firing as Uecker slammed his gun hand against the steam table, trying to disarm him. The kind of gun used to kill RFK is so little it can easily disappear in a palm. Is this important, and why? It may explain why the second gunman, with a similar small-gauge model to Sirhan’s Iver Johnson .22-caliber Cadet, could fire the fatal shot and escape, relatively undetected. What about the kind of bullets used that fatal night? They were CCI Mini-Mag Hollow Point .22-caliber bullets. These hollow points were high-velocity bullets, which mushroomed on impact, expanding to cause maximum damage, explaining the devastation in the senator’s brain. What does the autopsy on RFK exactly establish? The fatal shot was fired from an inch behind Kennedy’s right ear. Three other shots were fired from the same firing position. Two penetrated Kennedy’s right armpit. One of these lodged in his neck, the other exited his body and was lost in the ceiling interspace. A fourth shot entered and exited through the shoulder-pad of his coat without entering his body. All four shots were from a sharp upward angle, back-to-front, from behind and to the right. What can you tell us about Thane Eugene Cesar? He was an Ace security guard hired to supplement the hotel security team that evening. He was behind Kennedy and to his right, holding the senator by the right elbow as he made his way through the pantry to a late-night press conference. At the time of the shots, he was in the firing position of the fatal shot described in the autopsy. He ducked, lost his balance, and fell back against the ice machines. He looked up to see the senator lying on his back right in front of him. During his fall, he lost his bow-tie, which can be seen beside Kennedy as he lies bleeding on the pantry floor. Cesar scrambled to his feet, pulled his gun, and moved to Kennedy’s side “to protect him from further attack.” Cesar claimed he was carrying a .38, not a .22, that night but his gun was never checked by the police. He had racist views and hated the Kennedys. Cesar stated that he sold his .22 you just talk about in your answer. A gun that we can all in all describe as an exact copy of Sirhan’s gun. There are various problems about his statement, are there not? Cesar owned a H&R .22 caliber revolver that was a different model to Sirhan’s but was a similar size and had the same “rifling characteristics,” which means it was compatible with the key victim bullets in the case. Cesar said he sold this gun three months before the Kennedy shooting. In fact, he sold it three months after and told the buyer it had “been involved in a police shooting.” Witnesses exist stating that a security guard fired; that there was a “second gun” involved that night. Don Schulman is the main witness to this. Ten minutes after the shooting, he gave his witness account to Jeff Brent, a friend of his, who was just outside the pantry when the shooting happened, reporting for Continental News Service. When you listen to it at first, Schulman actually seems to say that the security guard hit Kennedy all three times, but later he stated that the Caucasian man who stepped out fired three times at Kennedy, hitting Kennedy all three times, and then the security guards fired back. This is how the “second gun” theory whose first father was a researcher called Ted Charach, was born: from this ninety-second recording. Who talked about a girl in a polka dot dress, and why this does matter? Around eleven thirty, young Mexican American campaign worker Sandra Serrano went to sit outside on a fire escape to escape the heat of the lower ballroom. While she was out there, a man resembling Sirhan climbed the stairs past her with a pretty girl in a polka-dot dress and a Mexican American man in a gold sweater. “Excuse us,” the girl said, and Sandra made way as the three went up the stairs to the Embassy Ballroom. Shortly after the shooting, Serrano was still sitting on the fire escape below the southwest corner of the Embassy Ballroom. She heard what she thought was a car backfire six times; then the girl in the polka-dot dress and the Mexican American man in the gold sweater burst out onto the hotel fire escape and ran down the stairs, almost stepping on her. “We’ve shot him! We’ve shot him!” the girl exclaimed. “Who did you shoot?” asked Sandra. “We’ve shot Senator Kennedy!” The girl seemed so excited about shooting Kennedy, Sandra went back inside in a state of shock. Just over an hour later, she told her story live on NBC television and in the weeks that followed, was bullied by Hernandez, LAPD polygraph officer, into retracting her story. She never did and stands by her statement today. And we also have Di Pierro’s words. Yes. Teenage waiter Vincent Di Pierro was in the pantry shortly before the shooting, standing level with the ice machines, five feet to the right of Kennedy. He noticed Sirhan in a powder blue jacket, white shirt, and light blue pants at the opposite end of the ice machine, twelve to fifteen feet away. He was standing up on a tray stacker “in a kind of funny position . . . like in a crouch — like if he were trying to protect himself from something. . . . I thought he was sick.” “When I first saw him there was a girl behind him, too; I don’t know if you need that. There were two people that I saw.” In fact, the only reason Di Pierro noticed Sirhan in the first place “was because there was this good-looking girl in the crowd there.” The girl and Shiran were really close each other, and Sirhan turned and smiled and seemed to say something to her or flirt with her, the waiter remembered. Di Pierro described the girl as Caucasian, between twenty and twenty-four years old, at approximately the same eye level as Sirhan on the tray stacker, with dark brown hair to just above the shoulders, a little puffed up on one side, and a short, “pug” nose. She wore a white dress with black or dark violet polka dots on it and a bib collar made of the same material as the dress. Her face wasn’t that pretty, “but I would never forget what she looked like because she had a very good-looking figure — and the dress was kind of lousy.” He didn’t see her after the shooting. The accounts of Serrano and Di Pierro establish that an attractive female “handler” in a white dress with black polka dots led Sirhan to the hotel, positioned him in the pantry, triggered him to start firing and then disappeared down the fire escape and has never been found. Rather than admit that, Hank Hernandez bullied Di Pierro into retracting his statement and closed the polka-dot dress investigation. These facts induce me to ask: how do you judge the police behavior in this case? The LAPD desperately wanted to avoid the national embarrassment the Dallas Police Department had suffered after the deaths of JFK and Oswald in 1963. They shut down all leads suggesting a conspiracy by getting witnesses to undertake a polygraph examination with Lt. Enrique “Hank” Hernandez, who browbeat witnesses into retracting their statements. The LAPD suppressed their investigation files for twenty years and destroyed important evidence. LAPD criminalist Dewayne Wolfer was later harshly criticized for his work on the firearms evidence in the case. He claimed he matched the key victim bullets to Sirhan’s gun but this conclusion and the evidence he based it on were later found to be false. Paul Schrade was also hit along with Robert Kennedy, but he survived. Who is Schrade, what does he say now, and why is it so important? Paul Schrade was a close friend of Bobby Kennedy and labor chair for his 1968 campaign. Schrade was walking six to eight feet behind Robert Kennedy when he was shot in the head by the first bullet (probably by Sirhan). He fell to the floor and was knocked out as the shooting continued but from 1974 onwards, he has called for a reinvestigation of the case because he believes more bullets were fired that night than Sirhan’s gun could hold. In 2016, he attended Sirhan’s parole hearing and apologized to the man who shot him for not supporting his release sooner. He believes Sirhan did not kill Bobby Kennedy and should be released. I recently interviewed Stephen Jaffe, a really preeminent member of Garrison’s staff, the New Orleans DA thanks whose courage in 1967 the investigation on the assassination of JFK revived. Answering to my questions, he reveled that he was the organizer of a very special secret rendezvousbetween RFK and Garrison himself, adding: “Before that meeting, I had a contact from a close friend of the Kennedy family who asked me to arrange the meeting. We also had help from another US Senator. RFK told Garrison in New York, at this very confidential meeting, that he was going to reopen the investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy but only after he was elected President. Only with that power, he explained, could he do so.” This very well pairs with a statement by RFK Jr. This one: “My father believed the Warren Report was a shoddy piece of craftsmanship. He publicly supported the Warren Commission report but privately he was dismissive of it. My father thought that somebody [else] was involved. The evidence at this point I think is very, very convincing that it was not a lone gunman.” Please, what do you think about this meeting and about this revelation by RFK Jr.? This provides one of the motives for why he was killed. As I said in the beginning introducing you, your documentary received an endorsement by RFK Jr., a clear demonstration of how much important your work is. Did you also have any opportunity to talk with him directly? No, but I’m in touch with people who are close to him. He’s writing a new book on both Kennedy assassinations that I hope will keep media attention on the RFK assassination and Sirhan’s case.

Resounding revelations on the assassination of John Kennedy. A conversation with Stephen Jaffe, member of the Garrison’s team that reopened the investigation in 1967 Note: This is a translation of an Italian article by Michele Metta. Original here A large amount of years from now, the Italian version of Farewell America was published. The story of this book — it will be even more self-evident thanks to the exclusive revelations that I am going to give now to the L’AntiDiplomatico’s readers — is extremely peculiar, and in many ways very similar to that of another volume: Questo è Cefis (This is Cefis), a book published by a mysterious publishing house, apparently written by a likewise mysterious Giorgio Steimetz, and victim of a fast and furious disappearance due to the enormous and compromising revelations on Eugenio Cefis and the assassination of Enrico Mattei it contains. Farewell America too, with the title of L’America brucia (America burns), was here published by a mysterious publishing house, apparently written by a likewise mysterious James Hepburn, was full of astonishing revelations on the assassination of John Kennedy, and almost immediately disappeared from every Italian bookshop. So here it is the necessity to republish it in 2012, thanks to the essayist Stefania Limiti, who in fact is also the author of an appendix containing a beautiful interview to William Turner. He was — please, pay attention — a member of Jim Garrison’s team, the New Orleans DA thanks whose courage, in 1967, the investigation on the assassination of JFK was reopened, coming to so important results that it was the subject for a very appreciated and excellent Oliver Stone’s movie. Interview where Turner confided to Limiti that Farewell America was read by Garrison himself, and that at the end of his reading, a request came from France, asking for someone of the DA staff to travel to Paris in order to apprehend some very important news. Turner would have loved to go, but he absolutely cannot. So, another Garrison’s collaborator was chosen instead: Stephen Jaffe. Jaffe that I was able to reach and that after watching my documentary on the assassination of JFK, has kindly accepted to answer some questions. An even more appreciable decision, given that the revelations contained in his answers will be the subject of a still unpublished work he is writing. A first step was to ask him about a fascinating moment described by Turner of that Parisian travel: de Gaulle in person, the celebrated President of France, gave a card to Jaffe, with written on it: Je suis très sensible a la confiance que vous m’exprimez. Words undoubtedly of appreciation towards both Jaffe and Garrison. Here it is Jaffe’s answer: The story is true. Gen. De Gaulle personally gave me his card with those words written on it. He did so in response to my request for some evidence that we met. I needed to prove that to my boss, Garrison. A journey, that made by Jaffe, besides extremely risky and adventurous: We were being closely watched by our own CIA. They were watching my movements but had trouble keeping up with me in Paris. Nevertheless, Jaffe as a very positive memory of his European experience: It was a trip during which I secured some valuable evidence for our investigation. At talking about Farewell America, Jaffe’s story has become even richer in really fascinating details. Here they are: I was asked to help with the publication of that book, Farewell America, which was previously to be called, “America Burns.” I suggested the title, “Farewell America” to the person who was the editor, which Garrison was going to use for his own book. The author was actually a composite of people working together for French Intelligence. They offered to appoint me the US publisher but I refused to be involved because it would have been unethical for me, as a representative of the New Orleans District Attorney, Garrison, to assist in such a commercial venture. I recommended the publisher for whom Turner worked, Ramparts Magazine. That’s how the book was published in the US but I refused any money from it on ethical grounds. They had sent me 10,000 copies of the book but I refused to even pick them up at the dock in Long Beach. That’s how careful I was as a member of Garrison’s staff. But the most shaking element undoubtedly arrives commenting Turner’s allusion to Limiti on a top-secret meeting between Garrison and Robert Kennedy. Jaffe gave me far more than a confirmation: it was Jaffe himself to organize this extraordinary rendezvous, whose goal for sure opens new scenarios about the assassination of RFK’s motive. Here they are his words: Before that meeting, I had a contact from a close friend of the Kennedy family who asked me to arrange the meeting. We also had help from another US Senator. RFK told Garrison in New York, at this very confidential meeting, that he was going to reopen the investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy but only after he was elected President. Only with that power, he explained, could he do so. A phrase, this latest, able to give a deep thrill when put together what the activist and environmentalist RFK Jr., son of Robert Kennedy, declared on the fiftieth anniversary of Dallas: My father believed the Warren Report was a shoddy piece of craftsmanship. He publicly supported the Warren Commission report but privately he was dismissive of it. My father thought that somebody [else] was involved. The evidence at this point I think is very, very convincing that it was not a lone gunman. A thrill which becomes even deeper when we add also what written once again by JFK’s nephew inside his latest book, American values: [CIA agent] Howard Hunt told his son that he met with the CIA’s leading anti-Castro operatives Frank Sturgis and David Morales in a CIA safe house in Miami to discuss the “big event” shortly beforehand –a plan to kill Jack. On the day Uncle Jack was assassinated, Fidel Castro was meeting with Jean Daniel at his summer presidential palace in Varadero Beach. At one p.m. they received a phone call with news that Jack had been shot. “Es una mala noticia,” Castro said to himself. Then, turning to Daniel, “There is the end to your mission of peace. Everything is going to change.” When the news came twenty minutes later that Jack was dead, Castro called it “a catastrophe.” Then he asked Daniel: “Who is Lyndon Johnson? What authority does he have over the CIA?” Hearing that American authorities were in hot pursuit of a suspect, Castro told Daniel, “You watch and see–I know them–they will try to put the blame on us for this thing.” And he was right. According to investigators on the House Select Committee on Assassinations, immediately following Jack’s assassination, operatives in the CIA’s Western Hemisphere Division promoted evidence–later proven false–suggesting that Castro had orchestrated President Kennedy’s assassination. The Senate’s Church Committee, which investigated the assassination for two years from 1975 to ’77, concluded that Cuba had nothing to do with Jack’s murder. Dan Hardway, an attorney who served as investigator for the House Committee, told me that the source of virtually every story blaming Castro was connected to the CIA’s Western Hemisphere chief and propaganda guru, David Atlee Phillips. This really means that Robert Kennedy’s son is pointing his finger towards the CIA about the assassination of JFK. CIA which comes back in another point of American values. This one: [Former CIA head] Allen Dulles told a young writer in 1965, “That little Kennedy, he thought he was a god.” LBJ would later appoint Dulles to the Warren Commission investigating Jack’s assassination, a curious choice at a time when some Americans, including my father, suspected the CIA’s involvement in JFK’s murder. CIA that –I’m concluding– comes back also in another phrase by Jaffe, this time commenting my documentary I made to synthesize my inquest. Inquest that undoubtedly shows the links between the CIA and Centro MondialeCommerciale, the Italian company Clay Shaw, incriminated by Garrison as a conspirator to kill John Kennedy, worked for; but it also shows, thanks to my exclusive papers, the connections between CMC and the subsequent Italian Strategy of Tension. Here it is his phrase, for which I absolutely thank him: It has a number of very interesting points in it, particularly regarding Clay Shaw, who’s connection with the CIA has now been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Please, any evidence of collaboration between Garrison and RFK? Thanks in advance for your help

RFK refused the invite by JFK to become the head of the CIA. Sounds interesting to imagine what would have happened if RFK had accepted

Has anyone else read this book? "Written as a fast-moving novel, Charles W. Weaver writes with more than a casual observer's perspective. From a young radio salesman dispatched to collect the monthly advertising revenue from Jack Ruby's SILVER SPUR in Dallas, to overseeing a ship docked in international waters of the Baltic Sea that may have been doing more than just playing Rock 'n Roll, Weaver's fictionalized web of conspiracies will leave the reader with little doubt about the men who killed Kennedy." Triple Double Cross: The Story Behind the Conspiracies to Murder John F. Kennedy Hardcover – June 10, 2008 by Charles W. Weaver (Author) In the 1970s I met and talked with Bill Weaver before he wrote this book. I was investigating the bogus claims made about the start of Radio Caroline in the UK during 1964. What I learned from Bill Weaver all checked out as true. I recently bought a copy of this book he privately published. He had boxes of books delivered to his garage, only to have them wiped out by Hurricane Ike flooding. Meantime, Bill had died following a long physical illness. The book falls into four sections. One part is based upon input from Jones Harris; another part centers around Phillip de Vosjoli; another part deals with the offshore 'pirate' radio ship Bon Jour which Weaver claims was chartered to the CIA and anchored off Stockholm as a listening post to KGB transmissions in the Baltic Sea. The ship station called Radio Nord lasted only a brief time and was allegedly the work of Clint Murchison and Gordon McLendon with management by Robert Thompson. Weaver claims that Radio Nord was a 'cover' for the CIA listening post on board ship. Weaver worked in management for McLendon at Houston and he did have custody of the vessel when it berthed at Galveston in March 1963, and remained there until December 1963. That part I have verified. But Weaver claims and his wife who I have spoken to confirms, that Weaver was sent to Stockholm to close Radio Nord down after it had served its CIA purpose. That was in the summer of 1961. The last part of the book appears to have been written hastily by someone else after Weaver died - because it is poorly written and total fiction. There are only a few copies of this book still available. After I bought a used copy at exorbitant price, others came forward to offer copies at a reasonable price. I am working on a research project for publication and I would like feedback from anyone who has read this book.

A quick question about RFK - if this photograph is supposed to be a bullet hole in the door frame, why does it look like this? Shouldn't it just be a small gaping hole?

I heard an audio clip by Robert Kennedy made about the time he was running for President, wherein he stated something like this, "There are two ways to get elected President. One, is through the political process, and two is through the people." This is from my recollection of the statement. I may be somewhat close? I cannot find the clip or the source after searching for about two weeks. It may have been on the Shaun O'Sullivan documentary that was on the BBC, however it was deleted from YouTube. Might anyone have any recollection or knowledge of this statement or source? Does anyone know what speech or interview it came from?

Sirhan Life Threat and Request for Certificate of Appealability

Good Day.... FYI.... http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/judicial-watch-files-foia-lawsuit-against-national-archives-challenging-withholding-1761009.htm <QUOTE> SOURCE: Judicial Watch February 25, 2013 13:51 ET Judicial Watch Files FOIA Lawsuit Against National Archives Challenging the Withholding of RFK Department of Justice Records Kennedy Family Continues to Keep Secret Government Records in Violation of the Freedom of Information Act WASHINGTON, DC--(Marketwire - Feb 25, 2013) - On February 12, 2013, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of author/historian Max Holland against the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The suit challenges the withholding of Robert F. Kennedy's records while he served as Attorney General, including "assassination records" relevant to the November 22, 1963 murder of his brother, former President John F. Kennedy (Holland v. National Archives and Records Administration (No. 13-00185)). These records are currently under control of the Kennedy family under the auspices of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Dorchester, Massachusetts. Judicial Watch filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests in fall 2012 with NARA after press outlets reported that the JFK Library was in possession of more than 60 boxes of records from Robert F. Kennedy's tenure as the U.S. Attorney General. Contained in these boxes are diaries, notes, phone logs, messages, trip files, memoranda, reports, and other records concerning the Cuban missile crisis, the war in Vietnam, the civil rights movement, and law enforcement activities of both the FBI and Justice Department. Although it has been reported that numerous government archivists and historians believe these records -- an undetermined number of which are government records -- should be made publicly available, none of the records are available for review and they remain under control of the Kennedy family. In response to Judicial Watch's September 26, 2012, FOIA request, NARA produced a list describing a group of records that were referenced by the press reports, including records involving the JFK assassination. Judicial Watch subsequently filed a FOIA request with NARA on December 5, 2012, on behalf of author/historian Max Holland seeking access to the following records: Copies of the seven records identified in the enclosed "Documents from the Robert F. Kennedy Papers: Attorney General's Confidential File which have been identified by the JFK Assassination Records Review Board as 'assassination records.'" NARA was required by law to respond to Judicial Watch's FOIA request by January 9, 2013. However, as of the date of Judicial Watch's complaint, NARA has failed to provide any records responsive to the request or indicate when any responsive records will be produced. NARA has also failed to demonstrate that responsive records are exempt from production, prompting Judicial Watch's lawsuit. November 22, 2013, will mark the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy. The circumstances surrounding his assassination have been a source of controversy and public fascination for decades. To complete the public record on the Kennedy assassination, Congress established the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), an independent agency, to "gather and open" all "assassination records" concerned with Kennedy's death, as mandated under the President John F. Kennedy Records Collection Act of 1992, 44 U.S.C.§ 2107 (Supp. V 1994). According to Judicial Watch's FOIA lawsuit, seven records deemed to be "assassination records" by the ARRB, which issued its final report in 1998, remain secret to this day. They include some of the president's personal records; documents describing Central Intelligence Activities in Cuba; a Cuban Information Service message dated 1/26/63 entitled, "THE PLANES THAT WERE NOT THERE;" a State Department incoming cable from Mexico; and a document entitled, "Information on Lincoln Bubble Top Automobile sinse [sic] returning from Dallas." (A Lincoln Continental with a removable bubble top was the presidential limousine used by President Kennedy). Judicial Watch and its client, author/historian Max Holland, have requested all of these records be disclosed pursuant to FOIA law. "Over a six-year period in the 1990s, the U.S. government spent millions of tax dollars and untold man-hours in an effort to gather in one place all assassination-related documents," Holland said. "It was and remains outrageous that relevant government documents in the papers of the attorney general at the time are somehow out of reach." "The JFK records are clearly government records and they should be disclosed in accordance with FOIA law," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This lawsuit is about much more than the Kennedy assassination. It goes to the heart of how much control a presidential family may assert over public records. These records do not belong to the Kennedy family -- the records belong to the American people." Holland, a 1972 graduate of Antioch College, is author and editor of Washington Decoded, an online publication. He is writing a history of the Warren Commission for Alfred A. Knopf publishers, a manuscript which received the J. Anthony Lukas Work in Progress award in 2001. He is a contributing editor to The Nation and the Wilson Quarterly, and sits on the editorial advisory board of the International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence. Holland is also the author, editor, or co-author of six books, most recently Leak: Why Mark Felt Became Deep Throat (University Press of Kansas, March 2012) and Blind over Cuba: The Photo Gap and the Missile Crisis (Texas A&M University Press, September 2012). Visit www.judicialwatch.org <END QUOTE> Best Regards in Research +++Don Donald Roberdeau United States Navy U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly For your key considerations and independent determinations.... Homepage: President KENNEDY "Men of Courage" speech, and Assassination Evidence, Witnesses, Suspects + Outstanding Researchers Discoveries and Considerations.... http://droberdeau.bl...ination_09.html The Dealey Plaza Map Detailing 11-22-63 Victims precise locations, Witnesses, Films & Photos, Evidence, Suspected bullet trajectories, Important information & Considerations, in One Convenient Resource.... http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3966/dppluschartsupdated1111.gif (new info, 2012 updated map) Visual Report: The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: while JFK was Still Hidden Under the "Magic-limbed-ricochet-tree".... http://img504.images...k1102308ms8.gif Visual Report: Reality versus C.A.D. : the Real World, versus, Garbage-in, Garbage-out....http://img248.images...ealityvscad.gif Discovery: "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Headsnap: West, Ultrafast, and Directly Towards the Grassy Knoll".... http://educationforu...?showtopic=2394 T ogether E veryone A chieves M ore For the United States: http://www.dhs.gov

“Mary’s Mosaic”: A litmus test of JFK research integrity Jim Fetzer “There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.” – Anis Nin Some issues within JFK research represent litmus tests that separate the competent from the frivolous, the courageous from the cowardly, and the honest from the dishonest, where some estimates have gone so far as to suggest that as much as 95% of members of the JFK research community are promoting an agenda to sow confusion and uncertainty, even in those cases where the evidence for a conclusion has made the question beyond reasonable doubt, precisely because, once the evidence has been properly understood, no alternative explanation is reasonable. That, I submit, is the case in relation to the fabrication of the Zapruder film and the other home movies, as I have documented over and over again. The 60 witnesses to the limo stop, a series of actions taken by Clint Hill, Officer James Chaney’s motoring forward (none of which are present in the extant film) and the blacking out of the fist-sized wound at the back of JFK’s head in frames after 313(but where the wound itself can actually be seen in later frames such as 374)–serves as a litmus test that differentiates between researchers who are competent, courageous and honest from those who are not. Another now appears to be the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer, where the evidence of CIA complicity in her death, as in the assassination of JFK, persuasively presented by Peter Janney in Mary’s Mosaic (2012), is simply overwhelming. I submit that anyone who reads this book is going to be astonished at the depth, the passion and the intelligence with which it has been written–and the rigor and detail with which it explains her assassination by the CIA. Mary was the former wife of Cord Meyer, who began his career dedicated to the promotion of world peace but ended it working for the military-industrial-intelligence complex as the Director of Plans for the CIA. In his “Last Confessions”, E. Howard Hunt confided in his son, St. John, that those who had been responsible for the death of JFK had included Lyndon B. Johnson, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, David Sanchez Morales and Frank Sturgis, among others. Cord Meyer and John F. Kennedy had both enjoyed enormous success early in their careers, where JFK would enter the political arena as a candidate for office, first as Senator from Massachusetts, later as President of the United States, while Cord would by induced by Allan Dulles to join the CIA. Mary Pinchot was a remarkable woman who fascinated them both, where she would marry Cord Meyer but later divorce him and subsequently become involved with JFK in what was far more than an affair, where she appears to have become enormously important to him as he became a statesman for peace. In the aftermath of his assassination, she became determined to expose those who had been responsible for his death, which led to her death, in turn, which, as Peter Janney explains, involved high-level officials of the CIA, including his own father, Wistar Janney, and James Jesus Angleton (who apparently authorized her murder), but where even Ben Bradlee, who was married to Mary’s sister, helped to cover it up. Mary was found on a towpath adjacent to a pond on 12 October 1964, which she used to walk from her Georgetown home to her artist’s studio, where she had been apprehended and, after a brief struggle, during which she cried out for help, was shot in the left temple. Remarkably, the bullet did not kill her outright. She crawled to a nearby tree and tried to regain her footing, but was dragged back to the path and shot again, this time through her back and into her heart, killing her instantly. Her cry for help had brought Henry Wiggins, who had come to fix a faux stalled Nash Rambler on the roadway above the crime scene, to look over the wall and observe a man standing over her, whom he described (and as was broadcast by the police) as a Negro male wearing a dark baseball cap, light-colored jacket and dark shoes, who appeared to be five feet eight or ten inches tall and weighing about 185 pounds (Mary’s Mosaic, p. 42). When he was apprehended in the vicinity, however, Ray Crump was only partially attired as the person Wiggins had described. He was weighed in at five foot, five and a half inches tall and weighed 145 pounds, which may have been exaggerations, because his driver’s license showed him to be only five foot three and a half inches tall and weighing only 130 pounds (Mary’s Mosaic, p. 51). Subsequently, a man who identified himself as “Lt. William L. Mitchell”, who claimed to have been jogging on the towpath and to have passed by a person fitting the description that Wiggins had provided (but whose name and identity would turn out to be fabrications), likewise described him as a Negro male, wearing a baseball cap, a light-colored jacked and dark shoes (Mary’s Mosaic, pp. 61-62). When Ray Crump was apprehended, soaking wet, with his fly still open (from the sexual escapade he had been engaged in with “Vivian”, a married woman, who confirmed their tryst on the rocks not long before the murder in a sworn affidavit, but was unwilling to testify because she feared her husband would kill her if he found out; Mary’s Mosaic, pp. 95-96), he was wearing neither the baseball cap nor the light-colored jacket, which had been temporarily lost when he had fallen into the water upon awakening on the rocks. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that both Wiggins and “Mitchell” are describing someone other than Ray Crump, who was not only substantially shorter and far lighter in weight than the man Wiggins, in particular, had described, but could not have been wearing the dark baseball cap or the light-colored jacket at the time. As “Vivian” had confirmed, they had been having a sexual dalliance on the rocks. He had fallen asleep and she had departed, where he lost them both in the water when he awakened disoriented and fell into the pond. The police and the DA’s Office realized that they had a weak case, where there was no forensic evidence that tied Ray Crump to the crime: there was no weapon; he did not own a gun; his height and weight did not match; even the jacket, when recovered from the water, had no signs of blood, even though they believed the killer would have been coated with it. While there was a trace of lipstick on his jacket (which was no doubt Vivian’s or even Ray’s wife’s), they did not pursue it–and even acknowledged in a memorandum that their case against Ray Crump “was very weak” (Mary’s Mosaic, p. 398). Nevertheless, they assigned their strongest, most aggressive prosecutor, Al Huntman, Assistant Chief of the Criminal Division, US Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, to the case. While Ray Crump was defended by a brilliant attorney, Dovey Roundtree, who emphasized the kinds of discrepancies that I have noted here, it is difficult to believe that anyone today, unless they have either an inadequate understanding of the evidence or a powerful bias against truth and justice, would continue to maintain Ray Crump had actually committed the crime (CTKA review). Even then, in the highly impoverished state of the evidence, Dovey was able to create sufficient reasonable doubt that Ray Crump was unanimously acquitted at trial. And, as readers will discover for themselves, the additional evidence that Peter Janney was able to uncover makes the case for Ray Crump’s innocence simply overwhelming and beyond reasonable doubt. I am aghast at the dimensions of the distortions in this review. Lisa Pease, the closest collaborator of Jim DiEugenio, begins her review as follows: “Peter Janney wrote a book entitled Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and their Vision for World Peace. “From the subtitle, researchers can be forgiven for thinking that Janney’s book is a serious contribution to our side, as many of us believe that the CIA killed John Kennedy in part because he was trying to end the Cold War and rein in covert operations. “But Janney’s book is such a frustrating mix of fact, fiction, speculation and unverifiable data that I (Lisa Pease) cannot recommend this book. Indeed, I’d rather it came with a warning label attached” (CTKA review). However, having investigated more than one strange death myself, I (Jim Fetzer) must say that I find these introductory passages both grotesque and irresponsible. Given the consideration that, by the end of Mary’s Mosaic, the actual assassin had actually confessed and explained in detail how it had been done and that Peter Janney has convincingly established the complicity of the CIA–which had to silence Mary Meyer, because she was uncovering its role in the assassination of JFK and was in a position to do something about it–I find her complaints to be virtually incomprehensible. While Lisa Pease does her very best to create the impression that Ray Crump (who had no motive) could actually have committed the crime, the kinds of things she says about Peter Janney’s brilliant book (where Peter had known Mary in his childhood and whose research would lead led him to the agonizing realization that his own father had been complicit), which is a completely unwarranted characterization of Mary’s Mosaic, appear to me to be completely justified in relation to her own review, where I (Jim Fetzer) would fashion a parallel complaint about her review as follows: “Researchers can be forgiven for thinking that Lisa Pease’s CTKA review is a serious contribution to JFK research. Mary’s Mosaic provides ample substantiation that the CIA killed John Kennedy in part because he was trying to end the Cold War and rein in covert operations. But her review of Peter Janney’s book is such a frustrating mix of fact, fiction, speculation and unverifiable data I cannot recommend it. I’d rather that it came with a warning label attached”. Indeed, it is inconceivable to me that anyone who has actually read the book completely to its end, where crucial aspects of what Peter Janney reports there about uncovering the actual plot to murder Mary Pinchot Meyer are presented, could continue to regard Ray Crump as anyone other than the “patsy”. Since those include the detailed confession of the actual assassin, who was the very “Lt. William L. Mitchell”, who explains how it had been done, including the use of spotters and luring the auto repair man to the scene to witness Mary’s screams, I am baffled how anyone could entertain reasonable doubts about it. There is no reasonable alternative explanation for what happened to Mary and, instead of attempting to debunk his landmark research, she and her associate ought to be touting it as a major contribution to JFK research, which I would liken to an insider’s view that confirms the findings of Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997). What also stuns me is that I find a pattern emerging from the work of Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugeio. I have had several encounters with Jim over the years, one of which occurred some time back on an extended thread devoted to Judyth Vary Baker, who has authored Me & Lee (2010). Jim DiEugenio sought to debunk a fascinating report of a woman who remained sitting in a car during the visit of Lee Oswald to State Representative Reeves Morgan–whom Judyth claims to have been herself–whose presence was witnessed by his daughter, Mary, where Mary’s report surfaced during the trial of Clay Shaw. Jim DiEugenio attempted to debunk Mary’s corroborating testimony on the ground that she had later repudiated it, which, as I observed to him at the time, was a violation of the principle that earlier testimony is preferable to later, especially when witnesses have been subjected to pressure to change it. And, in another case, I faulted the biased research of Jefferson Morley and David Talbot related to the presence of CIA officials at the Ambassador Hotel at the time of Bobby’s shooting–he would die the following day–where I had to reprimand Jim for his irresponsible acceptance of their shameless efforts to whitewash the identifications, which was supported by overwhelmingly more evidence than they produced against it. Why Lisa Pease would attempt to cast doubt on Peter Janney’s thoroughly researched and meticulously documented study, which carefully ties together the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer, the CIA and the assassination of JFK, is difficult to fathom. But there is a troubling pattern here, which suggests to me that, whatever their motives may be, Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugenio, who has been praising Lisa’s review, appear to be undermining research (and not in this case only) concerning major advances in our understanding of the modus operandi of the CIA in events of this kind.