1074 users online (220 members and 854 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,020

    CA - Sirhan Sirhan & the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 1968

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/04/justic...html?hpt=ju_c2

    Los Angeles (CNN) -- A controversial assertion by convicted Robert F. Kennedy assassin Sirhan Sirhan to win his freedom was challenged this week by the California attorney general who said "overwhelming evidence" exists against Sirhan's claims.

    Sirhan's attorneys have said that a second gunman actually assassinated Kennedy in 1968 and that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to fire a gun as a diversion.
    -----

    "The mere possibility that more than one firearm was discharged during the assassination does not dismantle the prosecution's case" against Sirhan, the attorney general said in the latest court documents.

    Harris said Sirhan is relying on acoustic expert Philip Van Praag's analysis of a tape recording of the Kennedy shooting that concludes 13 shots were fired during the murder and "demonstrates the existence of a second shooter because (Sirhan) only fired eight shots."

    The attorney general argues that even if there were a second gunman involved in the Kennedy shooting, Sirhan hasn't proven his innocence.
    ------

    For his hypo-programming defense, Sirhan is relying on Daniel Brown, an associate clinical professor in psychology at Harvard Medical School who has interviewed Sirhan for 60 hours over a three-year period, according to defense attorneys.

    But the attorney general rejected the hypno-programming claim.


    More at link....

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    30,165
    Actually, an abundance of evidence exists to prove Sirhan did not fire the fatal shot at Senator Kennedy.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,020
    Quote Originally Posted by wfgodot View Post
    Actually, an abundance of evidence exists to prove Sirhan did not fire the fatal shot at Senator Kennedy.
    Don't leave us hanging!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    30,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Reader View Post
    Don't leave us hanging!
    Eyewitnesses and photographs prove Sirhan's gun never was within reach of the back of RFK's head, where the fatal shot struck.

    Actually I could expound upon the fact - a bit more complex, deserves a more thorough answer etc. etc. - but I'm too sleepy right now!

    Another reasonable certainty is that there were more shots fired in the Ambassador Hotel's kitchen than Sirhan's gun could hold.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,020
    Hope you will be able to tell the 'rest of the story' tomorrow...

    Yes, the article does mention the 13 shots and 2nd gun but they still say that doesn't make him innocent.

  6. #6
    essies's Avatar
    essies is offline "We're all just walking each other home." Ram Dass
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,261
    Personally, I've always thought Sirhan Sirhan was a Manchurian Candidate!

    Last edited by OkieGranny; 03-07-2016 at 04:13 AM. Reason: broken link

    "It's time to tell the story of a little girl named Caylee" Linda Drane Burdick
    The future has many names: for the fearful it's the unknown, for the reckless it's the adventure, for the pessimists it's the unattainable. For the brave, it is opportunity.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    I can't get the CNN link to open at the moment, but I hope wfgodot will answer a couple of questions when she returns:

    If someone was able to hypno-program Sirhan to go to the Ambassador and fire a gun, why not just hypno-program him to do the actual killing? Or was it just a matter of sending two killers in the hope that at least one would hit the target? (If so, that isn't much of an argument for releasing Sirhan.)

    Why shoot RFK? Johnson had already announced his retirement, hadn't he? On whose behalf and for what reason would the CIA shoot RFK? (I know we liked to blame everything on Nixon in those days, but Nixon didn't have the nomination yet and, though RFK had just won an important victory in CA, nobody knew for sure who would be the Democratic nominee.)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    9,086

    Thanks for those, I agree. Really makes you wonder what they're up to these days, doesn't it? Spooky.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    30,165
    Attorneys for RFK convicted killer Sirhan push 'second gunman' argument
    Los Angeles (CNN) -- If there was a second gunman in Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's assassination, who was it?

    Lawyers for convicted assassin Sirhan Sirhan claim their client did not fire any of the gunshots that struck the presidential candidate in 1968. And in their latest federal court filing, they also rule out another man some have considered a suspect -- a private security guard named Thane Eugene Cesar, who was escorting Kennedy at the time he was shot.

    Attorneys William Pepper and Laurie Dusek insist someone other than their client, Sirhan, fatally shot Kennedy. They now say the real killer was not Cesar, a part-time uniformed officer long suspected by some conspiracy theorists of playing a sinister role in the senator's murder.
    ---
    lengthy article at link above; ruling out Cesar is an interesting gambit

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Not to put you on the spot, godot, as one can believe the evidence shows two shooters were sent to kill RFK without knowing who masterminded the attack or why.

    But do you have opinions in response to my questions in post #7?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    30,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    Not to put you on the spot, godot, as one can believe the evidence shows two shooters were sent to kill RFK without knowing who masterminded the attack or why.

    But do you have opinions in response to my questions in post #7?
    Well, one would be: plenty of war left to profit from - eliminate Bobby and the military-industrial complex would breathe easier per Vietnam with two hawks then to run in November: Humphrey v. Nixon, neither of whom would end that war soon.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by wfgodot View Post
    Well, one would be: plenty of war left to profit from - eliminate Bobby and the military-industrial complex would breathe easier per Vietnam with two hawks then to run in November: Humphrey v. Nixon, neither of whom would end that war soon.
    I know that's Oliver Stone's theory re the JFK assassination. But five years later, hadn't military authorities already decided the war wasn't winnable?

    Losing Vietnam to Communism wouldn't have hurt the m-i complex's argument that the U.S. needed a big military. (Hell, even the end of Communism hasn't done much to hurt that industry.)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    30,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    I know that's Oliver Stone's theory re the JFK assassination. But five years later, hadn't military authorities already decided the war wasn't winnable?

    Losing Vietnam to Communism wouldn't have hurt the m-i complex's argument that the U.S. needed a big military. (Hell, even the end of Communism hasn't done much to hurt that industry.)
    Quite true. That's not the best of the theories, just one easily dealt out without looking stuff up, lol. I'm not sure what LBJ and the generals thought of the win-ability of that war in June 1968. Another branch of that particular theory is that Johnson thought if RFK were elected, he might get to the bottom of Dallas and, well, find LBJ there.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by wfgodot View Post
    Quite true. That's not the best of the theories, just one easily dealt out without looking stuff up, lol. I'm not sure what LBJ and the generals thought of the win-ability of that war in June 1968. Another branch of that particular theory is that Johnson thought if RFK were elected, he might get to the bottom of Dallas and, well, find LBJ there.
    I see. I think the big fuss with Robert McNamera a few years was that he admitted the Departments of State and Defense knew the war was unwinnable by the mid-60s. Tens of thousands of young men died after the war was known to be a lost cause.

    But of course an endless war that can't be won or lost isn't necessarily bad for industries that rely on military contracts. As George Orwell so notably pointed out. Nixon managed to prop up the South Vietnamese government until well into his second term (until after he'd resigned and left office, actually).

    I'm just not sure there's any widely accepted evidence that it is possible to "hypno-program" anybody to commit a murder (or even to just shoot at a presidential candidate). The professor whose theories are invoked to support the "hypno-programming" claim has gotten himself in trouble in other court cases with questionable testimony.

    And a public shooting just seems so messy, with a high probability of interference and failure, at a time when the KGB and the British SIS were quietly assassinating people with poisoned umbrella tips and the like.

    I think it's very disconcerting to think that our lives and world events can be completely changed by one angry man with a grievance. By comparison, grand conspiracies are sort of comforting. The world seems less fragile if it takes a widespread conspiracy to alter its course.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    30,165
    There's also the alternative, "Dick Nixon did it," theory, if one accepts certain premises of Nixon's role in the run-up to the Bay of Pigs failure (and dealing with nefarious characters who compromised his political future, involvement in gun-running, etc. etc., along the way). Some feel strongly that Nixon was the prime mover in the Dallas shooting as JFK would have had knowledge of this. And so would have Bobby. BONUS: an extra incentive - Nixon could not have beaten Bobby Kennedy, who had all but wrapped up the nomination in California that night, in November 1968. Especially if Kennedy revealed what he knew about Bay of Pigs's genesis during the last year of the Eisenhower administration.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. TX TX - President John F. Kennedy, 46, Dallas, 22 Nov 1963
    By Dark Knight in forum Cold Cases
    Replies: 161
    Last Post: 10-22-2017, 11:25 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-27-2017, 12:27 PM
  3. Mary Kennedy 52 found dead Estranged from Robert F Kennedy
    By passionflower in forum Celebrity and Entertainment News
    Replies: 225
    Last Post: 09-16-2015, 10:09 PM

Tags for this Thread