Assassination of Robert Kennedy

[Shanet Clark]

Hi Stephen,

The girl in the polka dot dress is a curious aspect to this. If you Google Kathy Ainsworth, you will find some interesting information to consider.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

James - So this women is the women in the polka dot dress ?

Terror in the Night: The Klan's Campaign Against the Jews, by Jack Nelson. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1996. 287 pp. $16.00.

THIS FAST-PACED NARRATIVE BY A PULITZER-PRIZE WINNING journalist focuses on the violence aimed at Mississippi's Jews during the late 1960s, on the role of a youthful zealot, Thomas Albert Tarrants, III, on the awakening of "assimilationist" Jews, and on how a few courageous Mississippi lawmen and FBI agents stopped the terrorism.

Tarrants, a bright high-school drop-out who loved weapons and explosives and Sam Bowers, the imperial wizard of Mississippi's super-secret Klan, the White Knights, believed that an international cabal of Communists and Jews had instigated the civil rights movement and brought turmoil to the state. Hence, Tarrants and Bowers conspired to conduct a campaign of violence against Mississippi's Jews.

On the evening of September 18, 1967, Tarrants struck. With an accomplice, Kathy Ainsworth-a pretty, married school-teacher by day and an anti-Semitic terrorist by night-Tarrants used dynamite to bomb Temple Beth Israel in Jackson, the synagogue of Rabbi Perry Nussbaum, one of Mississippi's most outspoken Jews on civil rights issues. The bombing prompted new counterintelligence measures by the local FBI.

In October and November, Tarrants bombed the homes of black and white civil rights activists in and around Jackson and the residence of Rabbi Nussbaum. Miraculously, no one was killed. Washington rushed additional FBI agents to Mississippi; Roy Moore, head of the Jackson Bureau, stepped up his recruitment of Klan informants; and prominent Jewish segregationists experienced a transformation in their thinking.

In 1968 the Klan, feeling pressure from the FBI, shifted its terrorism campaign to Meridian. The White Knights burned black churches, and Tarrants, then unknown to the FBI, fired into the home of a black female activist in Meridian, The local chief of police, Roy Gunn, a one-time segregationist now working with the FBI, vowed war on the Klan to end the violence. Jackson Jews warned Meridian's Jews to be on the alert, but most remained complacent until May 28 when dynamite planted by Tarrants and Danny Joe Hawkins destroyed the local synagogue.

After the bombing, the FBI and Chief Gunn used intimidation and harassment to enlist as informants Meridian's two most feared Klan members, brothers Raymond and Alton Wayne Roberts. The latter, like Sam Bowers, was free on bond after conviction in connection with the murder in 1964 of civil rights workers Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman. Harassed for months, the two brothers decided finally to cooperate for money, which was raised by Mississippi's Jews who now recognized that generations of assimilation had not made them immune from Klan violence. The Roberts brothers soon confirmed the suspicions of the FBI that Tarrants and Hawkins had bombed the Meridian synagogue.

By mid-June Raymond and Alton Wayne had covertly arranged an ambush for Tarrants and Hawkins by assisting them in their plan to bomb the home of Meyer Davidson, one of Meridian's prominent Jews. The FBI, state police, and local lawmen agreed that the nightriders would not leave the scene alive.

On the night of June 28, Kathy Ainsworth rather than Hawkins accompanied Tarrants to Meridian, where they pulled to the curb in front of the Davidson house. As Tarrants went to place the bomb, the hidden lawmen called on him to halt. When he did not, the police opened fire. Tarrants was severely wounded and Kathy was shot dead while attempting to retrieve a weapon under the seat.

Tarrants survived his wounds to stand trial. Unrepentant, he was sentenced to serve a thirty-year term in Mississippi 's tough Parchman prison. After an escape and recapture, he underwent a dramatic religious conversion and after eight years in prison was paroled to enter the University of Mississippi. In 1992 he was training missionaries in North Carolina and married to the daughter of prominent North Carolinians.

For years Jack Nelson agonized over the ambush of Tarrants and Ainsworth, which the FBI claimed was good law enforcement, not entrapment. Nelson thought otherwise. He wrote an article about the trap set for the terrorists for the Los Angeles Times, after which J. Edgar Hoover smeared him as an alcoholic. This book apparently served as a catharsis of sorts for the author.

Nelson tells an extraordinary story based on extraordinary investigative journalism. Heretofore, books about the Klan in Mississippi and elsewhere have focused usually on the violence carried out against African Americans, but this book makes the reader aware that as recently as the 1960s, the Klan targeted Jews. Today the conspiracy-minded, mean-spirited, and paranoid have refocused their hostility. The government of the United States and sometimes the universities and big business have become targets of terrorism by loners and occasionally militia members. In a free society there always will be aberrant, demented individuals who will find scapegoats for their hostilities or delusions and carry out acts of violence. But to maintain its freedom, a society needs to remain vigilant and monitor such persons and organizations as closely as the FBI and Mississippi lawmen watched the White Knights in the 1960s.

Copyright Mississippi Quarterly Winter 1997/1998Provided by ProQuest

[James Richards]

James - So this women is the women in the polka dot dress ? (Shanet Clark)

Hi Shanet,

It has been proposed that she was and Tarrants was the guy with her. Jury is still out for me but there just might be something to it.

This is something that people need to research for themselves as it may prove to be a contentious issue.

This is Tarrants below.

James

Edited April 7, 2005 by James Richards

[Guest Stephen Turner]

James, I have been looking at where the original reports of this lady

& her male partner came from,here's what i've got.

At 12-20am,Sergeant Paul Sharaga, heard the ambulance "shooting

call"on his police radio. Sharaga remembers"I was directly across

the street from the Ambassador on Fedora.All I had to do was make a

U turn & I was in the back parking lot." I arrived at the hotel & there

was mass confusion."Right away an older Jewish couple ran up to me

They were hysterical, I asked them what happened? The woman said

they were coming out of the Embassy room when a young couple in

their early twenties,well dressed came running past them. They were

very happy,shouting,"weshot him,weshot him" the older woman asked

"Who did you shoot" The girl said "Kennedy, we killed him."

I said can you describe them The lady described the girl as"Female

caucasian, early twenties,light hair,wearing a polka dot dress. Male

caucasion, early twenties,well dressed. no further description.

Sharaga also said "These were spontaneous remarks,not colored by

imagination. That was the most valid description avaiable.

Sergeant Sharaga's notes are missing from LAPD files,after he handed

them to detectives at the scene.

[Pat Speer]

James, I have been looking at where the original reports of this lady

& her male partner came from,here's what i've got.

At 12-20am,Sergeant Paul Sharaga, heard the ambulance "shooting

call"on his police radio. Sharaga remembers"I was directly across

the street from the Ambassador on Fedora.All I had to do was make a

U turn & I was in the back parking lot." I arrived at the hotel & there

was mass confusion."Right away an older Jewish couple ran up to me

They were hysterical, I asked them what happened? The woman said

they were coming out of the Embassy room when a young couple in

their early twenties,well dressed came running past them. They were

very happy,shouting,"weshot him,weshot him" the older woman asked

"Who did you shoot" The girl said "Kennedy, we killed him."

I said can you describe them The lady described the girl as"Female

caucasian, early twenties,light hair,wearing a polka dot dress. Male

caucasion, early twenties,well dressed. no further description.

Sharaga also said "These were spontaneous remarks,not colored by

imagination. That was the most valid description avaiable.

Sergeant Sharaga's notes are missing from LAPD files,after he handed

them to detectives at the scene.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not in research mode, right now, but as I remember it, the LAPD dismissed the story of the polka dot dress woman altogether, claiming there was no such woman. Years later a researcher, however, maybe it was Turner or maybe even Melanson, was able to show there were several witnesses to the polka dot dress woman and that all the police reports on her disappeared or were ignored.

The LAPD doesn't like loose ends, so they just ignore them.

[James Richards]

James, I have been looking at where the original reports of this lady

& her male partner came from,here's what i've got.

At 12-20am,Sergeant Paul Sharaga, heard the ambulance "shooting

call"on his police radio. Sharaga remembers"I was directly across

the street from the Ambassador on Fedora.All I had to do was make a

U turn & I was in the back parking lot." I arrived at the hotel & there

was mass confusion."Right away an older Jewish couple ran up to me

They were hysterical, I asked them what happened? The woman said

they were coming out of the Embassy room when a young couple in

their early twenties,well dressed came running past them. They were

very happy,shouting,"weshot him,weshot him" the older woman asked

"Who did you shoot" The girl said "Kennedy, we killed him."

I said can you describe them The lady described the girl as"Female

caucasian, early twenties,light hair,wearing a polka dot dress. Male

caucasion, early twenties,well dressed. no further description.

Sharaga also said "These were spontaneous remarks,not colored by

imagination. That was the most valid description avaiable.

Sergeant Sharaga's notes are missing from LAPD files,after he handed

them to detectives at the scene.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Stephen,

RFK campaign aide Sandra Serrano was one who saw the woman in the polka dot dress exit the Ambassador Hotel. Serrano was unwavering in her account of what happened. She was also the subject of some heavy-handed bullying by Hank Hernandez who on behalf of the LAPD administered a polygraph test. I fear the truth was not being sought here but for Serrano to recant. Hernandez is an interesting character on his own and a search into his background will turn up some curious information.

The couple that also witnessed the escape of the woman in the polka dot dress were referred to as 'The Bernsteins' but as Pat said, these reports all went missing.

It was later claimed that Valerie Schulte, a coed from Santa Barbara was the woman in the polka dot dress. Trouble is the dress was the wrong type and with different dots, and she also didn't go running from the building yelling "we killed him".

Schulte below.

James

Edited April 8, 2005 by James Richards

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Right, let's just remind ourselves what were actually saying.

The LAPD were in possestion of Sharaga's note's,which were

taken shortly after the shooting.The report given by a couple,

who claimed to have witnessed the self confessed assassins

leaving the scene. Notes which contained good, solid eyewitness

accounts of the suspects.BUT THEY LOST THEM!!!!!

This evidence related to the murder of A presidential candidate,

who's brother had been brutally slain, in a highly controversial

manner only 5 years before. BUT THEY LOST THEM!!!!

Perhaps it got thrown out with all those ceiling tiles & door frames

Edited April 8, 2005 by Stephen Turner

[Guest Stephen Turner]

James.

here's some of that heavy handed bullying.

Interview of Sandy Serrano, Official Transcript.

Hernandez.."I think you owe it to senator Kennedy to come forth, be

a woman about this. He's a witness in this room, right now. Dont shame

his death by keeping this thing up. I have compassion for you. I want

to know why. I want to know why you did what you did, this is a very

serious thing."

Serrano.." I seen those people".

Hernandez.."No,no,no,no,Sandy. Remember what I told you about

that. You can't say you saw something when you didnt see it.

Serrano.."Well I dont feel i'm doing any thing wrong. I remember

seeing that girl.

Hernandez.."(Angry!) NO,NO,Im talking about you seeing a person

tell you(sic) "We shot Kennedy". And thats wrong.

Serrano.." Thats what she said"

Hernandez.."Look it, look it, I love this man"

Serrano.." So do I"

Hernandez.."And your shaming him"

Serrano.." Dont shout at me"...

Hernandez.."Well, Im trying not to shout, but this is a very emotional

thing for me too...If you love this man the least you owe him is to let

him rest in peace.......!!!

This went on for more than an hour. after which Hernandez administered

a polygraph test, which he said Serrano failed....

" WE HAVE THREE SHOTS & THATS ALL WERE ADMITTING TO"...........

[Guest Stephen Turner]

FURTHER DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE BY LAPD.

...2,400,Photographs burned because they were"Dulicates" in fact,

there were no lists precise enough to show that all the photo's

destroyed were indeed duplicates.

...Ceiling tiles & door frames from the pantry destroyed, because

according to then assistant chief Daryl Gates, they would'nt fit

into card files.

...In addition, LAPD records showed that they had recorded 3,470

interviews during the course of the investigation. only 301 interviews

were released. Examination by researchers showed that for 501

key " conspiracy" witnesses there were no interviews.

The LAPD were not alone in this cover up. The L.A. District Attorney's

office was also involved. The scope of this involvement was seen in

the files released in 1985, due mainly to the inclusion of a box of tapes,

videos & documents sent from the LAPD branch at Van Nuys. This box

contained evidence which went against the official version. The most

graphic examples were the video reconstructions from 1968 & 1977,

which prove that Sirhan could not have inflicted the wounds on Senator

Kennedy. However, by using selected stills from the recon's the official

version was supported......

Source The Cover Up...http//homepages.tcp.co.uk/~dlewis/coverup.htm

[James Richards]

Hi Stephen,

It's enough to make one very angry, isn't it?

The other guy who we haven't mentioned yet was the one running the investigation, Manny Pena. This guy was brought out of retirement and is a curious individual to say the least. Background on him suggests that CIA wanted their man at the helm of the investigation.

James

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Hi Stephen,

It's enough to make one very angry, isn't it?

The other guy who we haven't mentioned yet was the one running the investigation, Manny Pena. This guy was brought out of retirement and is a curious individual to say the least. Background on him suggests that CIA wanted their man at the helm of the investigation.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

James.

Be interested to hear what you've got on Mr Pena.

Ive been looking into the discrepancy between Noguchi's autopsy

conclusions, & eyewitness accounts. Will post on this soon.

(Just back from a long W/E in Paris ,25th wedding aniversary

so please put any mistakes down to vast ammounts of vino

drunk.)

Edited April 11, 2005 by Stephen Turner

[James Richards]

Be interested to hear what you've got on Mr Pena. (Stephen Turner)

Stephen,

If my memory serves me correctly, there was some work done on Pena by Lisa Pease which included that he served in the Navy during WW2, the Army during the Korean War, and counterintelligence in France.

I will have to dig amongst my notes for specific details. I'm sure a Google search will offer plenty.

Cheers,

James

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Thanks James.

I will give Mr Pena a good "Googling" when time permits.

[James Richards]

Thanks James.

I will give Mr Pena a good "Googling" when time permits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Stephen,

This link is to a pretty good piece on the RFK assassination. It gives some brief background on Hank Hernandez and Manuel Pena.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/rfkplot.htm

James

[Mel Ayton]

My article on the RFK assassination was published on History News Network last month.It provoked a reply from Peter Evans as you can see.There are numerous other issues to consider about this case as I see from your forum posts- 'polka dot girl', ballistics etc and I am willing to discuss them all.

DID THE PLO MURDER ROBERT KENNEDY?

BY MEL AYTON

(www.melayton.co.uk)

The issue of a possible conspiracy in the murder of Senator Robert F Kennedy in 1968 has once again been resurrected with the publication of Peter Evans’ book ‘Nemesis’ and the recent calls from Hollywood celebrities and magazine writers to re-open the case - (see John Hiscock’s ‘Was Robert Kennedy Killed By A Real Manchurian Candidate Style Assassin?’, The Independent, January 18th 2005 and Dominick Dunne’s article in Vanity Fair, December 2004 issue)

The principal discrepancy which led to charges of conspiracy turned on the number of shots fired. Conspiracy researchers alleged they were more than the number of bullets Sirhan’s gun could hold. However, in 1995 investigative reporter Dan Moldea, a former conspiracy advocate, published the results of his investigation into the murder of Robert Kennedy in “The Killing Of Robert Kennedy - An Investigation into Motive, Means and Opportunity” (1995). Moldea poured over the mountain of evidence in the case. He studied the forensic and ballistic reports and interviewed scores of witnesses, including many of the police officers involved who had never been interviewed previously. What he found suggested a botched investigation involving the mishandling of physical evidence in the case, the failure to correctly interview some witnesses, the premature (but non-sinister) destruction of key pieces of physical evidence and the lack of proper procedures in securing and investigating the crime scene. Moldea successfully addressed the issues of alleged bullet holes in door frames (too small to be made by bullets) and the number of shots fired (8, not 10 as conspiracy advocates allege).

Amongst conspiracy advocates, only Peter Evans supported the argument that Sirhan likely fired the gun that killed Kennedy. Yet his allegation that Aristotle Onassis ordered the assassination is flawed. Evans alleged that Sirhan had been ordered to kill RFK by PLO official Mahmoud Hamshari. He claims to have unearthed evidence that Aristotle Onassis had given Hamshari money to direct his PLO terrorists away from his Olympic Airways airlines at a time when planes were being hijacked and that some of the money was used to hire Sirhan to kill RFK. Evans claimed that Onassis was aware of the plot and, indeed, wanted RFK eliminated so the New York Senator would not stand in the way of his marrying JFK’s widow, Jacqueline Kennedy.

In fact there many inconsistencies in Evans’ theory. Although the author accepts the statements made by Onassis’ friends and relatives that the shipping tycoon admitted he had been responsible for RFK’s murder, he contradicts himself by quoting close Onassis aides as having had trouble sorting out their bosses’ “exaggerations, half-truths and lies”.

Central to Evans’ thesis are entries in Sirhan’s notebooks which purportedly connected Aristotle Onassis to the assassin. Evans alleges Sirhan’s notebooks make reference to Alexander Onassis’s girlfriend Fiona who his father detested and Stavros Niarchos, his shipping rival whom he also hated.However, Evans’ juxtaposition of names to prove Sirhan wrote about killing Onassis’ ‘enemies’ is misleading. Sirhan had placed the name FIONA in a list of racehorse names – Fiona, Jet-Spec, Kings Abbey and Prince Khaled. The Arabic script consists of one sentence “He should be killed” (not “They should be killed” as Evans alleges) and does not refer to either ‘Niarkos’ or ‘Fiona’. The diary entry ‘Niarkos’ remains unexplained, as do many other entries in Sirhan’s notebooks, but there is no indication it refers to anyone on a ‘Sirhan Death List’. The words in Sirhan’s notebooks were the result of simple ‘stream-of-consciousness’ ramblings he learned from Rosicrucian literature as ways to improve his life. The notebooks are filled with names of people Sirhan knew – Bert Altfillisch, Peggy Osterkamp and Gwen Gum for example, and people he didn’t know like Garner Ted Armstrong. The entries which refer to ‘$100,000’ were simply Sirhan’s obsessions about wealth and appear a number of times in the notebooks.

Central to Evans’ thesis was the implication that Sirhan had spent a ‘three month’ period before the assassination being trained by terrorists or undergoing hypnotic indoctrination. Evans was wrong in stating Sirhan’s movements were unaccounted for, or ‘a blanket of white fog’ as he put it. Sirhan’s movements in the year prior to the assassination leave no unaccountable period allegedly spent ‘terrorist training’ or ‘hypnotically indoctrinated’.

The LAPD investigative team, SUS, gave no credence to the idea that Sirhan had been ‘missing’ during any period from June 1967 to June 1968 despite the comments of an Evans source, LAPD Officer Jordan. In the year prior to the assassination he was seen frequently in Pasadena’s Hi-Life bar by waitress Marilyn Hunt.He was also observed in Shap’s Bar during this time.In July 1967 Sirhan filed a disability complaint for workmen’s compensation. Between July and September 1967 Sirhan’s mother and brother Munir said Sirhan went often to the Pasadena library.Library records confirm he borrowed books during this period. Sirhan’s mother said her son ‘..stayed at home for over a year (sic) with no job’(October 1966 to September 1967). Also during this period Sirhan, by his mother’s account, often drove her to work. On 9th September 1967 Sirhan began work at John Weidner’s health food store.Weidner reported no long periods of absence up to the time Sirhan left his employ in March 1968. So how did Sirhan ‘emerge(ed) from this ‘white fog’ in March 1968, (and) joined the (Rosicrucians)’ as Evans states? (Author’s note: Sirhan actually joined the Rosicrucians in June 1966.).

The three month period immediately prior to the assassination was also examined and left no unaccounted time when the assassin could have participated in terrorist training or hynosis indoctrination. On March 7th Sirhan left his job at a Pasadena health food store. Following Martin Luther King’s assassination on April 4th 1968, he discussed the murder with Alvin Clark, a Pasadena garbage collector. Sirhan’s friend, Walter Crowe, met him in Pasadena on the night of May 2nd 1968 when they discussed politics. The last time he saw Sirhan was on the Pasadena college campus on May 23rd 1968. He was in Denny’s restaurant when Sirhan entered with a group of friends. This leaves only a two week period not accounted for. But Sirhan refers to local newspaper and local radio reports throughout the month of May which he could not have accessed if he had been out of the country. Besides, Sirhan was living at 696 E. Howard Street, Pasadena. Family and friends have never suggested he was missing during this period.

Conspiracy advocates, including Evans, who want to see the case re-examined allege that Sirhan’s staring at a teletype machine on the night of the murder is proof that he had been ‘hypnotised’. Yet Sirhan frequently became entranced by things around him. This was part of his make-up. In fact, this would not be the first time Sirhan had experienced ‘trance-like states’. He experienced them as a boy growing up in Jerusalem, according to his mother.

A majority of hypnosis and mind-control experts within the scientific community dismiss the notion that subjects can be hypnotised to commit murder.They maintain that such a possibility of programming an unwitting and unwilling subject is not possible. Furthermore, there would be no guarantee of success for a ‘robotic assassin’; it is an erratic tool.A hypnotist can plant a suggestion in the subject’s mind and ask him to forget that suggestion but there is no foolproof way of preventing another hypnotist coming along and recovering that memory.

Additionally, there is evidence, not presented at the trial, which proves that Sirhan had been feigning amnesia. Sirhan has always proclaimed that he could not remember writing in his notebooks, “RFK must die” nor could he remember shooting Kennedy. There is , however, compelling evidence that Sirhan knew what he had done. He confessed to ACLU lawyer Abraham Lincoln Wirin that he “…did it, I shot him”. And he also told defence investigator Michael McCowan that he remembered shooting Kennedy.

Michael McCowan was a private detective who assisted Sirhan lawyers. In the pre-trial period McCowan had been talking to Sirhan about the shooting. Sirhan had responded to a question asked by McCowan. McCowan had been startled to hear how Sirhan’s eyes had met Kennedy’s in the moment just before he shot him and before Kennedy had fully turned to his left at the time he was shaking hands with the Ambassador Hotel kitchen staff. McCowan asked Sirhan, “Then why, Sirhan, didn’t you shoot him between the eyes?” Without hesitating, Sirhan replied, “Because that son-of-a-bitch turned his head at the last second”.

If Sirhan had been lying then how was the ‘hypnotic defense’ and Sirhan’s ‘amnesia defense’ constructed in the first place?

Sirhan claimed his lawyers had first put forward the idea that he had been in a ‘hypnotic trance-like’ state when he shot Kennedy. But there is evidence that Sirhan had foreknowledge of ‘amnesiac and disassociative states’ before he committed the murder. Sirhan had read Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood”, a book about the multiple murders of a Kansas farmer, his wife and two teenage children. The murders were committed by Perry Smith and Richard Hickock in 1959 and Capote’s book of the murder, manhunt , trial and executions of the murderers was published in 1965. Sirhan identified with the short and stocky Perry Smith. He felt great empathy for Smith. Smith, a small statured man who had suffered a deprived childhood, had bouts of shivering and trance-like states and he believed in mysticism and fate. According to Capote, Perry Smith, “….had many methods of passing (time)….among them, MIRROR GAZING…EVERY TIME (HE SAW) A MIRROR (HE WOULD) GO INTO A TRANCE” (emphasis added)

At the conclusion of Capote’s book the author quotes a team of psychiatrists who found a number of similarities in their subjects; “(The murderers) were puzzled as to why they killed their victims, who were relatively unknown to them, and in each instance the murderer appears to have lapsed into a DREAMLIKE DISSASSOCIATIVE TRANCE (Emphasis added) from which he awakened to suddenly discover himself assaulting the victim…..Two of the men reported severe disassociative trancelike states during which violent and bizarre behaviour was seen, while the other two reported less severe and perhaps less well-organised, AMNESIAC EPISODES (emphasis added)….”. It is therefore likely Sirhan had used his knowledge of how murderers behave to construct a possible ‘diminished capacity’ defense.

Intriguing as Evans’ thesis is, there is no credible evidence that a ‘hypnotised’ Sirhan had been directed to kill Kennedy by the PLO - apart from hearsay and second-hand accounts by a number of individuals who were close to Onassis. The record indicates that Sirhan was indeed motivated by political considerations but he was an ‘unaffiliated terrorist’ rather than someone who had plotted with a terrorist group.

Sirhan may have been mentally unstable and angry at a society that had relegated him to the bottom of the heap but there is sufficient evidence, originating years before the shooting, that Sirhan clearly saw himself, like today’s suicide bombers, as an Arab hero. The PLO and most Palestinians certainly judged him this way. And Sirhan’s lack of remorse is entirely in keeping with the terrorist way of rationalising political murder.

Sirhan and his brothers could not, or would not, assimilate into American society. They abhorred US culture, disliked the mores of the American people and, most importantly, hated the support Americans gave to the state of Israel. The family felt they were part of a minority group ‘alienated’ and ‘misunderstood’ within the larger community.

As most Americans were unaware of the Palestinian issue in 1968 very few journalists examined Sirhan’s background as a Palestinian Arab in an attempt to explain the tragedy. Instead, commentators wrote Sirhan off as yet another ‘misfit’ with a gun who stalks and then murders a leading public official with no apparent motive except his own demons.

The Palestinian/Arab cause is the sine que non of the assassination. As a poor working class immigrant Sirhan identified with his downtrodden people living as refugees in Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The period 1967-68, the year following the Six Day War, became a crucial time in Sirhan’s life because it was the time when Israel became dominant in the region having successfully defended itself against Arab aggression. Having failed to eject the Jews from Israel/Palestine, Arabs throughout the world felt powerless and weak and Arab pride had been severely damaged. Their condition exaggerated Sirhan’s feelings of inadequacy even though he lived thousands of miles away from the conflict. Many ‘exiled’ Palestinians, like Sirhan, sought retribution and began to formulate plans to kill innocent civilians and hi-jack planes. Sirhan’s answer to these problems took the form of killing a major American politician who advocated support for Israel. Sirhan said, “…this momentum just took hold of me and by June 5th 1968 (The first anniversary of the Six day War) I couldn’t control it (anger) anymore.”

To the Western mind terrorists are ‘deranged’ and ‘evil’. However, their acts are not the product of ‘insanity’ but possess a logic all their own. Terrorists have ‘rational’, if sometimes bizarre, motives. It is also true that many terrorists (like Al Qaeda’s Ramzi Youssef) display symptoms of a psychopathic nature – they are cold blooded and carry out their acts of terror unremorseful. But their acts are not the products of ‘delusional’ or ‘irrational’ minds. Nor was Sirhan’s. He did indeed crave attention and success. He was depressed that society had relegated him to the bottom of the heap.He felt an allegiance and empathy with assassins of the past. And he dreamed of infamy. But without his sense of ‘Arabness’ and without his hatred towards Jews that had their roots in his childhood indoctrination, it is unlikely Sirhan would have assassinated Robert Kennedy. All the hatred that spewed forth from Sirhan’s gun can ultimately be traced back to three sources – Anti-Americanism, Palestinian nationalism and anti-Semitism. And this may have been the first act in an international political drama that culminated in 9/11.

[Peter Evans Responds (#58060)

by Editor on April 4, 2005 at 8:55 PM

Editor's Note: HNN received this email on 4-4-05:

As the author of Nemesis, the story of Aristotle Onassis's complicity in Senator Robert F. Kennedy's assassination in 1968, I read Mel Ayton's article (Did the PLO Kill RFK?) with interest and surprise at his distortion of the facts so carefully set out in my book.

Since he has gone to such lengths to point out what he believes are fatal flaws in my investigation, permit me to correct just one of the more flagrant inaccuracies upon which he has constructed his criticism of my book, and the more than ten years of research that went into it.

At the heart of Mr. Ayton's criticism is his perverse and totally untrue statement that I claim that Sirhan Sirhan left the United States "in the months prior to the assassination ... to travel to the Middle East for terrorist training." This, he declares, is "central to Evans's thesis."

Yet I make no such claim. Indeed, I do not suggest even the possibility that Sirhan left California, let alone the United States, during this or any other time in the twelve years he lived in Pasadena after fleeing with his family from West Jerusalem in 1956.

But based on his extraordinary fabrication, Mr. Ayton continues to make points — e.g. Sirhan referring to "local newspaper and radio reports throughout the month of May which he could not have accessed if he had been out of the country" — that he claims demolish the credibility of my book.

Since he is plain flat-out wrong about matters so fundamental to his criticism of Nemesis, I will not waste readers' time deconstructing the rest of his arguments, which similarly collapse like a house of cards.

Of course, the truth about the assassination of Robert Kennedy and the degree of Aristotle Onassis's villainy are not neutral subjects. Although I have no idea where Mr. Ayton is coming from, his skewed attack on my book sounds very similar to the vociferous lobby that continues to argue that the CIA masterminded Senator Kennedy's killing — a conviction it finds hard to reconcile with the facts I reveal in Nemesis — and dismisses me as a Company dupe.

Peter Evans

[ Reply ]

Re: Peter Evans Responds (#58190)

by Mel Ayton on April 7, 2005 at 11:35 AM

Mr Evans does not demonstrate that my argument ‘collapses like a house of cards’.He merely states it. As he should be aware, accusation without confirmation is worthless.

Mr Evans accepts that, in a three month period in the year before the assassination, Sirhan had been wrapped in a ‘blanket of white fog’.The implication is clear – Sirhan had been manipulated by terrorists to murder Robert Kennedy.Although Evans makes no claims that Sirhan had been spirited away to the Middle East for terrorist training it is logical for his readers to assume Sirhan was somewhere during his period of ‘indoctrination’. It is also logical for his readers to assume Sirhan had to be somewhere other than his home in Pasadena – either within the United States at a terrorist ‘safe house’ or at a terrorist training camp in the Middle East. Where else could he be if he was undergoing ‘hypnotic indoctrination’ and/or terrorist training?

I did not state that Evans claimed Sirhan had been in the Middle East for terrorist training. I wrote, “Central to Evans’s thesis was the implication that Sirhan had spent a three month period before the assassination being trained by terrorists or undergoing hypnotic indoctrination.” Later in the paragraph I wrote that, “Sirhan’s movements in the months prior to the assassination leave no unaccountable period when the assassin could have left the country to travel to the Middle East for terrorist training or have spent a considerable amount of time being ‘hypnotically indoctrinated’”. These are clearly my words and conclusions - an attempt to show the reader that there was no mystery in Sirhan’s movements in the three month so-called ‘mystery’ period prior to the assassination. However, I omitted to explain there was also no mystery about Sirhan’s movements in the year prior to the assassination. Furthermore, I did not say that Evans claimed “Sirhan Sirhan left the United States in the months prior to the assassination…to travel to the Middle East for terrorist training”. This is a juxtaposition of phrases designed to mislead.

Why did Evans claim Sirhan was, effectively, missing during this period? If he has no proof of Sirhan’s whereabouts why speculate the assassin may have been undergoing hypnotic indoctrination or terrorist training? In fact this is symptomatic of Evans’s methods – raising issues with a question then directing the reader to a conclusion that suggests a sinister interpretation.

The ‘heart’ of my criticism is not the spurious allegation that I believed Evans claimed Sirhan was in the Middle East .The heart of my criticism lies in the fact that Evans has used speculation and innuendo to claim that Sirhan had been in a ‘blanket of white fog’ undergoing some kind of ‘training’. Simply stated, Evans is wrong.

The LAPD investigative team, SUS, gave no credence to the idea that Sirhan had been ‘missing’ during any period from June 1967 to June 1968 despite the comments of LAPD Officer Jordan.In the year preceding the assassination he was seen frequently in the Hi-Life bar in Pasadena by waitress Marilyn Hunt.He was also seen in Shap’s Bar during this period. In July 1967 Sirhan filed a disability complaint for workmen’s compensation. Between July and September 1967 Sirhan’s mother and brother Munir said Sirhan went often to the Pasadena library.Library records confirm he borrowed books during the so-called 'white fog' period. Sirhan’s mother said her son ‘..stayed at home for over a year (sic) with no job’(October 1966 to September 1967). Sirhan, by his mother’s account, often drove her to work during the time he was unemployed. On 9th September 1967 Sirhan began work at John Weidner’s health food store.Weidner reported no long periods of absence up to the time Sirhan left his employ in March 1968. So how did Sirhan ‘emerge(ed) from this ‘white fog’ in March 1968, (and) joined the (Rosicrucians)’ as Evans states? (Author’s note: Sirhan actually joined the Rosicrucians in June 1966.) And, as I point out in my article, Sirhan’s movements in the three month period before the assassination leave no time unaccounted for.

Evans’s speculations do not end with Sirhan’s ‘white fog’. He also goes to great lengths to imply that Sirhan was likely hypnotised to kill RFK. He gives credence to the claims of conspiracy advocates that William Bryan was Sirhan’s ‘controller’. Bryan was famous for having hypnotised the ‘Boston Strangler’, Albert DeSalvo. Bryan also claimed he had worked for the CIA and bragged to two prostitutes he had hypnotised Sirhan to kill Kennedy. Bryan’s credibility was damaged, however, when it was discovered he had a history of ‘bragging’, consorted with prostitutes and used unethical practices including having sexual relationships with some of his patients. He was described by one associate as a ‘sexual pervert’. And there is no credible evidence whatsoever to support Bryan’s claims he was Sirhan’s ‘controller’ or the claims of one of Evans’s ‘unnamed’ sources that Bryan had worked for the CIA’s hypnosis expert Sidney Gottlieb.

This is not the only occasion Evans accepts the statements of unreliable sources. He gives credence to the gossip that RFK had sexual relationships with his martyred brother’s widow, Jackie, and Marilyn Monroe.The majority of RFK biographers reject these conclusions.

Evans quotes from John Marks’s book “The Search For The Manchurian Candidate” and cites the experiments conducted by CIA scientist Morse Allen who conspiracy advocates allege was ‘successful’ in programming an assassin. Allen hypnotised his secretary, who had a fear and loathing of guns, to pick up a pistol and ‘shoot’ another secretary.The gun, of course, was unloaded. After Allen brought the secretary out of the trance she had no memory of what she had done.

However, conspiracy advocates, including Evans, who promote this episode as proof the CIA were successful in developing ‘programmed assassins’ fail to mention that Allen did not give much credibility to his own experiment. Allen believed that all that happened was that an impressionable young woman volunteer had accepted orders from a legitimate ‘authority’ figure to carry out an order she likely knew would not end in tragedy. Allen also believed there were too many variables in hypnosis for it to be a reliable ‘weapon’. And all the participants in such trials knew they were involved in a scientific experiment. There was always an ‘authority figure’ present to remind the subject or some part of the subject’s mind that it was only an experiment.

Evans’ scenario is fundamentally implausible. How could plotters, for example, be sure that Sirhan would not suddenly ‘remember’ his contacts, following his arrest, turned ‘state’s evidence’ and kept in a ‘safe house’ by the District Attorney? And if the plotters believed Sirhan would be killed by Kennedy’s security it had to have been the least thought-out plot conceivable.

Furthermore, had Sirhan suddenly ‘remembered’ he would not have thrown away the chance to save his own life by telling investigators of his ‘involvement’ with Hamshari. His lawyers could also have built a strong case around the ‘paid assassin’ theory arguing against the imposition of the death penalty which was eventually handed down.

Evans’s thesis can also be clearly shown to be flawed when he addresses the issue of why Sirhan targeted RFK. Evans wrote, “And why had he (Sirhan) turned his rage on Robert Kennedy when other candidates….had been far more outspoken in their support for Israel?” If Evans had researched the statements made by Sirhan he would have discovered why RFK became the target. Initially, Sirhan would likely have been satisfied with any opportunity to kill a leading American politician. At one point he even had UN Ambassador Goldberg in his sights. Sirhan said he first considered killing Vice President Hubert Humphrey, “It might not even have been just Kennedy”, Sirhan told Robert Kaiser, “ ….. Somebody who was big, tough, somebody who was – it wasn’t necessarily Kennedy – it could have been somebody else but someone who would still represent American policy that was pro-Israel. In fact, it – for example - might have been Humphrey. Because Humphrey was a person you didn’t particularly like either.”

However, in the years between 1963 and 1968 American political culture had been dominated by the idea of a ‘Kennedy Dynasty’ and myths surrounding JFK’s assassination. Year after year books, movies, television documentaries and political news stories gave a cult-like status to JFK’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Sirhan, too, desired fame. Killing any of the other candidates would certainly have given him status throughout the Arab world. But his true target had an even greater symbolism attached to it. Sirhan would become the ‘Second Kennedy Assassin’. He knew that killing RFK would give him greater world exposure the other candidates could not provide. It was no accident that Sirhan set his sights on the candidate who was the brother of the martyred president. It was no accident that Sirhan chose the candidate who was most likely to become the next president.

Evans disingenuously implies that my criticism is aligned with that of conspiracy advocates who claim the CIA was behind the murder. Evans wrote, “Although I have no idea where Mr Ayton is coming from, his skewed attack on my book sounds very similar to the vociferous lobby that continues to argue that the CIA masterminded Senator Kennedy’s killing….and dismisses me as a Company Dupe.” If Evans had taken the time to carry out a simple ‘Google search’ he would have realised that my previous books expose most conspiracy advocates as nothing more than charlatans and profiteers who have falsely accused the CIA and others in the intelligence community of participating in the murders of JFK and MLK. If Evans is so dismissive of conspiracy advocates who claim the CIA was behind the murder then why does he accept, without criticism, the claims made by conspiracists Philip Melanson, Jonn Christian and William Turner which he uses in his book to construct his theory? All three conspiracy advocates have, at one point or another, alleged involvement of the US Intelligence community in the murder of RFK.

Mel Ayton

www.melayton.co.uk

[ Reply ]

Edited April 14, 2005 by Mel Ayton

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Mel. Welcome to the forum.

A thought provoking and original peice of work. I am in no way an

"Expert" on this subject, I originally came here to start a thread on

the east end Ripper murders of 1888,and got interested in the JFK

threads which has lead me to his brothers murder.

There is one question that I find strange however, conventional

wisdom dictates that Oswald assassinated JFK for personal/ political

reasons (he wanted the stature that society unfairly witheld from him)

It appears that you belive Sirhan assassinated Bobby for almost

identical reasons. yet on arrest neither said "Yeah I killed the SOB

because of Cuba/ Palistine, thus denying their cause the "Oxygene of

publicity" the act was commited for.

I look foward to continued debate in this sad case.

PS The Ripper threads can be found in the History Debates section)