Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Curious Case of George Estabrooks


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That is such a strange interview. I wish we had it unedited. It feels like a confession, but is it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

That is such a strange interview. I wish we had it unedited. It feels like a confession, but is it? 

Yes, it is strange Paul.  He says RFK was his hero.  20 years after the fact, and still today, he doesn't remember shooting at him though.  He was told he did, so he had to accept the fact.

I read a little about this today in Turner and Christian's 1978 book The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.  His first psychiatrist (for the defense), immediately before and during his trial, Dr. Bernard Diamond from UC Berkley hypnotized him and asked (pg. 106):

"Q.  Did anybody from the Arabs tell you to shoot Kennedy?  Any of your Arab friends (Chief defense attorney Grant Cooper supported the prosecution's belief that the young Palestinian was passionately attached to the Arab cause, and theorized that he might have been motivated by Kennedy's support for Israel.  No evidence exists that Sirhan belonged to any revolutionary Arab faction.)

A.  No. . . .

Q.  Did you think this up all by yourself?

There was a five second pause.

A.  Yes.  . . .

Q.  Are you the only person involved in Kennedy's shooting?

A three second pause.

A.  Yes."

From pg. 107:

""the pauses strongly point to what experts call "blocking," which occurs when a subject has been hypnoprogrammed to forget certain details, a process known as "artificial amnesia."  Diamond ignored this possibility.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 

For what it is worth....another Harvard expert in this one....

Thanks for sharing this breakdown, Ben. I have the following thoughts as a layman in the equation. 

- I have biases, I don't believe Sirhan fired the fatal shots and I do believe he was under hypnosis. 
- Why is it a Harvard psychiatrist and Sirhan's pro-bono lawyer can't get permission to shoot video whole Sirhan is in custody and David Frost can? I accept Frost had a huge international following but, what I am getting at is; were the questions he could ask screened before the interview? I think this is important. If you control what gets asked, you control the outcome. 
- It's clearly mentioned that at this point he is approaching a parole hearing. IMHO Sirhan has been coached and his saying what he thinks he needs to potentially obtain a release. The interview has been sold to him as an opportunity to play to the gallery, to alter his PR. Of course, he is unaware that Frost will look to condemn him, as opposed to assist him. Frost is desperate to put words in his mouth in the way a modern journalist would be proud. 
- The whole discussion around the Israel phantom jets provides a clear motive. Sirhan thinks admission and giving a plausible reason is his route out of jail and having a life again. He is wrong; as it still makes him a danger to society again. 
- It is said elsewhere that Sirhan cannot comprehend the idea that he is a Manchurian Candidate operating under hypnosis. 
- Even if he did believe he was hypnotised, he can't say that in the Frost interview, as it sounds like pure fantasy and someone not taking responsibility for the crime. It also makes him a potential; future danger to public safety. 
- Let's not forget, John Lennon, a peoples hero was shot dead 9 years previously. This killing characterised the assassin in a similar way. ie Sirhan's notebooks, Chapmans premeditated plans to attack and kill celebrities for fame. In the public consciousness, they both appear as nutters that society doesn't need on the loose. 
- Sirhan would have faced the reality that he was at the scene, he fired and emptied a gun at the scene, and was arrested at the scene with many witnesses seeing him fire. What should he say to the public to get him out of jail? He doesn't remember but, the notebooks are in his handwriting too. He is between a rock and hard place. 
- He presumably is crystal clear by 1989 that Nogucci has stated that RFK is shot from 3-4 inches behind his head, so, there is a second shooter. He can't point that out, as it looks like he is passing the blame, it ultimately turns the public off and still leaves him condemned. 
- I don't know what he can say. He doesn't have any evidence that exonerates him, or even diminishes his role.  
- Not that this is an apples for apples comparison but, I know a bloke who has been arrested a couple of times for fighting whilst drunk. He didn't remember the incidents either time. When you're sat with a lawyer, you are presented with the evidence that the defence has and you then concoct the best story you can to avoid punishment, or lessen the consequences. Having no memory, it's all you can do. Sirhan can't explain why he has done it, he can't remember it. 
- The TV company using a piece from the Manchurian Candidate soundtrack. You can't make this up. 
- They mentioned dissociative language. It's being alleged that the best candidates for hypnosis are people with Multiple Personality Disorder (Dissociative Identity Disorder). 
- With their conclusion, they pick up that Sirhan is frustrated and angry. It's incomplete as an analysis as this could be for many reasons, not least that he is in jail for something he doesn't remember doing. And he is a national pariah for it. The trouble is, the analysis is based on this contrived interview by Frost. 

One thing that is clear is; Sirhan was misadvised throughout this process. I hope this comes across and rational and logical. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Thanks for sharing this breakdown, Ben. I have the following thoughts as a layman in the equation. 

- I have biases, I don't believe Sirhan fired the fatal shots and I do believe he was under hypnosis. 
- Why is it a Harvard psychiatrist and Sirhan's pro-bono lawyer can't get permission to shoot video whole Sirhan is in custody and David Frost can? I accept Frost had a huge international following but, what I am getting at is; were the questions he could ask screened before the interview? I think this is important. If you control what gets asked, you control the outcome. 
- It's clearly mentioned that at this point he is approaching a parole hearing. IMHO Sirhan has been coached and his saying what he thinks he needs to potentially obtain a release. The interview has been sold to him as an opportunity to play to the gallery, to alter his PR. Of course, he is unaware that Frost will look to condemn him, as opposed to assist him. Frost is desperate to put words in his mouth in the way a modern journalist would be proud. 
- The whole discussion around the Israel phantom jets provides a clear motive. Sirhan thinks admission and giving a plausible reason is his route out of jail and having a life again. He is wrong; as it still makes him a danger to society again. 
- It is said elsewhere that Sirhan cannot comprehend the idea that he is a Manchurian Candidate operating under hypnosis. 
- Even if he did believe he was hypnotised, he can't say that in the Frost interview, as it sounds like pure fantasy and someone not taking responsibility for the crime. It also makes him a potential; future danger to public safety. 
- Let's not forget, John Lennon, a peoples hero was shot dead 9 years previously. This killing characterised the assassin in a similar way. ie Sirhan's notebooks, Chapmans premeditated plans to attack and kill celebrities for fame. In the public consciousness, they both appear as nutters that society doesn't need on the loose. 
- Sirhan would have faced the reality that he was at the scene, he fired and emptied a gun at the scene, and was arrested at the scene with many witnesses seeing him fire. What should he say to the public to get him out of jail? He doesn't remember but, the notebooks are in his handwriting too. He is between a rock and hard place. 
- He presumably is crystal clear by 1989 that Nogucci has stated that RFK is shot from 3-4 inches behind his head, so, there is a second shooter. He can't point that out, as it looks like he is passing the blame, it ultimately turns the public off and still leaves him condemned. 
- I don't know what he can say. He doesn't have any evidence that exonerates him, or even diminishes his role.  
- Not that this is an apples for apples comparison but, I know a bloke who has been arrested a couple of times for fighting whilst drunk. He didn't remember the incidents either time. When you're sat with a lawyer, you are presented with the evidence that the defence has and you then concoct the best story you can to avoid punishment, or lessen the consequences. Having no memory, it's all you can do. Sirhan can't explain why he has done it, he can't remember it. 
- The TV company using a piece from the Manchurian Candidate soundtrack. You can't make this up. 
- They mentioned dissociative language. It's being alleged that the best candidates for hypnosis are people with Multiple Personality Disorder (Dissociative Identity Disorder). 
- With their conclusion, they pick up that Sirhan is frustrated and angry. It's incomplete as an analysis as this could be for many reasons, not least that he is in jail for something he doesn't remember doing. And he is a national pariah for it. The trouble is, the analysis is based on this contrived interview by Frost. 

One thing that is clear is; Sirhan was misadvised throughout this process. I hope this comes across and rational and logical. 


 

Yes. I am only posting stuff I find, that may be of interest. 

My guess is somehow Sirhan was doped into what he did. Sheesh, he could have been programmed to eventually talk about the Palestinian stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Yes. I am only posting stuff I find, that may be of interest. 

My guess is somehow Sirhan was doped into what he did. Sheesh, he could have been programmed to eventually talk about the Palestinian stuff. 

I know you are on the fence, it's worth posting this stuff as it keeps us in check and gives balance. 

That's the most horrific part that occurred to me. That could have all been implanted. What can now be relied upon. Also, after long stints in solitary, nothing can be taken as gospel. Was he immediately put in solitary after his initial arrest? Or, only during the 9/11 period? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copy of e-mail sent to Dr Brown:

 

Dear Dr. Brown:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCU2MCxjAJ0

OK, right to it, in the above Youtube, just after the 47:00 mark, you mention Alan Scheflin, who obtained government records (under FOIA) regarding the successful use of Manchurian candidates against foreign officials. 

I have tried to reach Mr. Scheflin, but his listed e-mail is defunct (at Santa Clara University). 

So, do you have copies, preferably PDFs, of the documents Scheflin obtained? Could you send them to me?

Or, do you have a working e-mail for Mr. Scheflin? 

I am a JFK-RFK assassination researcher. 

Best regards—

Benjamin Cole 

---30---

Well, if there are such documents, and we can get ahold of them...I guess a bombshell story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Copy of e-mail sent to Dr Brown:

 

Dear Dr. Brown:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCU2MCxjAJ0

OK, right to it, in the above Youtube, just after the 47:00 mark, you mention Alan Scheflin, who obtained government records (under FOIA) regarding the successful use of Manchurian candidates against foreign officials. 

I have tried to reach Mr. Scheflin, but his listed e-mail is defunct (at Santa Clara University). 

So, do you have copies, preferably PDFs, of the documents Scheflin obtained? Could you send them to me?

Or, do you have a working e-mail for Mr. Scheflin? 

I am a JFK-RFK assassination researcher. 

Best regards—

Benjamin Cole 

---30---

Well, if there are such documents, and we can get ahold of them...I guess a bombshell story. 

It would be great if you get a response. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update.  So, I'm about halfway into John Marks' 1979 book, The Search For the Manchurian Candidate.

Marks wrote the book, after the Church Committee investigations, about some MK-ULTRA files that had escaped the Richard Helms shredder in 1973.  But his information about MK-ULTRA was incomplete.

Marks discussed Estabrooks' belief (in the 1940s and 50s) that a Manchurian candidate could be hypnotically programmed, but claims that the OSS (and, later, the CIA) did not take Estabrooks' theories seriously.

I'm skeptical, especially since Marks was relying on limited (and redacted) documents and CIA-affiliated testimony.

Here's the thing.  Dr. Daniel Brown clearly established in the Sirhan case that programming a Manchurian candidate was possible and had, in fact, happened in 1968.   We don't know all of the details, but Dr. William Joseph Bryan and Dr. Jolyon West were possible suspects in the programming of Sirhan, and both psychiatrists were affiliated with the U.S. military and/or CIA.

IMO, it is also revealing that Brown was systematically harassed during (and after) his investigation of Sirhan by high level U.S. government officials, including people in the IRS (U.S. Treasury) and, presumably, the FAA.  Brown, obviously, discovered something that people in the U.S. government didn't want the public to know about.

(When I heard Brown talking about this harassment in Shane O'Sullivan's documentary, it reminded me of Fletcher Prouty's observations in The Secret Team about government officials from various departments, including Treasury, secretly working for, and reporting to, the CIA.)

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Update.  So, I'm about halfway into John Marks' 1979 book, The Search For the Manchurian Candidate.

Marks wrote the book, after the Church Committee investigations, about some MK-ULTRA files that had escaped the Richard Helms shredder in 1973.  But his information about MK-ULTRA was incomplete.

Marks discussed Estabrooks' belief (in the 1940s and 50s) that a Manchurian candidate could be hypnotically programmed, but claims that the OSS (and, later, the CIA) did not take Estabrooks' theories seriously.

I'm skeptical, especially since Marks was relying on limited (and redacted) documents and CIA-affiliated testimony.

Here's the thing.  Dr. Daniel Brown clearly established in the Sirhan case that programming a Manchurian candidate was possible and had, in fact, happened in 1968.   We don't know all of the details, but Dr. William Joseph Bryan and Dr. Jolyon West were possible suspects in the programming of Sirhan, and both psychiatrists were affiliated with the U.S. military and/or CIA.

IMO, it is also revealing that Brown was systematically harassed during (and after) his investigation of Sirhan by high level U.S. government officials, including people in the IRS (U.S. Treasury) and, presumably, the FAA.  Brown, obviously, discovered something that people in the U.S. government didn't want the public to know about.

(When I heard Brown talking about this harassment in Shane O'Sullivan's documentary, it reminded me of Fletcher Prouty's observations in The Secret Team about government officials from various departments, including Treasury, secretly working for, and reporting to, the CIA.)

"Dr. Daniel Brown clearly established in the Sirhan case that programming a Manchurian candidate was possible and had, in fact, happened in 1968." 

The above is what Dr. Brown said. He is a persuasive and intelligent speaker. 

I rather suspect Sirhan was in fact programmed and doped in some way, and Brown is on to something. 

That said, we have very little confirmation, and evidently zero historical record of another individual (besides Sirhan) being hypnotized and then sent on a murder mission.  

Judging from Dr. Brown's website, there is a bit of the marketer in him, which is not comforting. 

Like I always say, my ire is not with Dr. Brown or JFK-RFK researchers, but with government opacity.

Let's have several skeptical people expert in the field of hypnosis review Sirhan, and be allowed to record proceedings. 

The government will not allow that to happen. That is suspicious, but conclusive. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

"Dr. Daniel Brown clearly established in the Sirhan case that programming a Manchurian candidate was possible and had, in fact, happened in 1968." 

The above is what Dr. Brown said. He is a persuasive and intelligent speaker. 

 

 

Ben,

    Brown is far more than a persuasive, intelligent speaker.  He is an extremely knowledgeable forensic psychologist.  His eloquence is a direct consequence of his knowledge.

    I studied the PDF of Brown's comprehensive 2016 forensic evaluation of Sirhan, which includes a battery of validated psychometric testing.

    His formulation of the case is precise and, frankly, brilliant in my opinion as an expert psychiatric witness here in the State of Colorado.

    It's also critically important for historians, because it establishes that Estabrooks' original theories about using hypnosis in "Manchurian candidate" type assassination ops were, in fact, actualized by people affiliated with the U.S. government.

    Why do I say, "the U.S. government?"  Because people in the U.S. government (Treasury, FAA) systematically harassed Brown during and after his evaluation of Sirhan.  He, evidently, discovered some things that were not supposed to be discovered.

1)  That it is possible to create Manchurian candidates for assassination ops.

2)  That people created a Manchurian candidate to murder the presumptive 1968 Democratic Presidential nominee.

That's huge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

    Brown is far more than a persuasive, intelligent speaker.  He is an extremely knowledgeable forensic psychologist.  His eloquence is a direct consequence of his knowledge.

    I studied the PDF of Brown's comprehensive 2016 forensic evaluation of Sirhan, which includes a battery of validated psychometric testing.

    His formulation of the case is precise and, frankly, brilliant in my opinion as an expert psychiatric witness here in the State of Colorado.

    It's also critically important for historians, because it establishes that Estabrooks' original theories about using hypnosis in "Manchurian candidate" type assassination ops were, in fact, actualized by people affiliated with the U.S. government.

    Why do I say, "the U.S. government?"  Because people in the U.S. government (Treasury, FAA) systematically harassed Brown during and after his evaluation of Sirhan.  He, evidently, discovered some things that were not supposed to be discovered.

1)  That it is possible to create Manchurian candidates for assassination ops.

2)  That people created a Manchurian candidate to murder the presumptive 1968 Democratic Presidential nominee.

That's huge.

W.-

Can you send the above PDF to me?

7continents7@gmail.com 

I am sure you would agree that no matter how great Dr. Brown's intellect and stature, we have not really seen verifiable, replicable experiments in this field. 

That does not rule out that Sirhan was perhaps even uniquely suited to be a Manchurian candidate, as suggested by Dr. Brown.  

It also well-known that convicts in prison are able to con outsiders.  For all we know, Sirhan (described as intelligent) read up on hypnosis literature, and "fed" Dr. Brown the cues and clues Dr. Brown was looking for.  

And there may be other individuals, equal to Dr Brown in his fields, who would draw different conclusions if they examined Sirhan. 

All that said, I find it curious that Sirhan would drink alcohol heavily on the night of the assassination, which was something he did rarely at all. Without any evidence, this makes me think Sirhan was already a bit doped up when he got to the Ambassador. 

But hey, let me read the PDF. My mind is open on this one. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Update.  So, I'm about halfway into John Marks' 1979 book, The Search For the Manchurian Candidate.

Marks wrote the book, after the Church Committee investigations, about some MK-ULTRA files that had escaped the Richard Helms shredder in 1973.  But his information about MK-ULTRA was incomplete.

Marks discussed Estabrooks' belief (in the 1940s and 50s) that a Manchurian candidate could be hypnotically programmed, but claims that the OSS (and, later, the CIA) did not take Estabrooks' theories seriously.

I'm skeptical, especially since Marks was relying on limited (and redacted) documents and CIA-affiliated testimony.

Here's the thing.  Dr. Daniel Brown clearly established in the Sirhan case that programming a Manchurian candidate was possible and had, in fact, happened in 1968.   We don't know all of the details, but Dr. William Joseph Bryan and Dr. Jolyon West were possible suspects in the programming of Sirhan, and both psychiatrists were affiliated with the U.S. military and/or CIA.

IMO, it is also revealing that Brown was systematically harassed during (and after) his investigation of Sirhan by high level U.S. government officials, including people in the IRS (U.S. Treasury) and, presumably, the FAA.  Brown, obviously, discovered something that people in the U.S. government didn't want the public to know about.

(When I heard Brown talking about this harassment in Shane O'Sullivan's documentary, it reminded me of Fletcher Prouty's observations in The Secret Team about government officials from various departments, including Treasury, secretly working for, and reporting to, the CIA.)

W., you mention (Dr.) Brown in Shane O'Sullivan's documentary.  I didn't know he did one or much about him.  I thought he had done some research on the assassination(s), written something, maybe had a pod cast.  Actually I believe he has posted here, in the not too distant past, a year, two, three.  I may have even commented on a post or two of his.

So I went looking on this here world wide web.  Seems he did a 15 minute report on the BBC in 2007.  Then the documentary you likely saw, RFK Must Die! (which I intend to watch, for Dr. Brown in particular).  Then he wrote the book Who Killed Bobby.  Along with another documentary, Killing Oswald.

The book is the best of them per Jim Di Eugenio.  This must be old hat for him by now.  He's not real keen on the documentary.  But the book, while lacking in some respects in his opinion is worth reading.  Shane, in addition to some of his own work seems to pull together and coalesce that of others.  From 13 years ago I stumbled across this early in my search.  Well worth the read.

Shane O'Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby? (kennedysandking.com)

Here's the actual book.

 Amazon.com: Who Killed Bobby?: The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy: 9781510729605: O'Sullivan, Shane: Books  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...