“The Forgotten Terrorist: Sirhan Sirhan and the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy” By Mel Ayton
As the campaign motorcades and jets wiz in and out of cities and town across the U.S. this summer, there are hints and reminders of the campaign trail from 40 years ago. With arguable similarities to our current Democratic candidate, a candidate with a great vision for change and equality had managed to give a new generation of Americans hope after incredible tragedy. But too soon, here in our own fair city, Robert F. Kennedy’s life and work were tragically cut short by the hand of what some saw as a mad man.
In his book “The Forgotten Terrorist: Sirhan Sirhan and the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy”, Mel Ayton discusses Kennedy’s assassin Sirhan Sirhan, the evidence at the scene and the conspiracies surrounding the case. At the time, the Sirhan was seen as having no motive for the slaying of RFK. But with further investigation into his life, Sirhan is revealed as a young many with strong anti-Semitic views and blamed not only the U.S., but RFK himself for the plight of the Palestinian people. Putting conspiracy theorists to the test, Ayton reveals the political motivations behind Sirhan’s actions.
Mr. Ayton spoke with us about his research, the current campaign and what a modern investigation might reveal in the following interview.
LE: What reactions have you had from the book so far?
MA: I think my book has been well received especially by those journalists and writers who have some knowledge of this case. I am speaking particularly about writers like Dan Moldea, Pat Lambert, Gus Russo and Max Holland who are experts in their understanding of how JFK, RFK and MLK conspiracy writers have constructed their false theories through their use of poor research methods and abuse of the evidential record. Conspiracists, of course, will never accept Sirhan’s act was essentially terrorist in nature as they believe he was a ‘hypnotized patsy’ probably working for the CIA.
LE: How have people accepted or refuted your description of Sirhan as a “forgotten terrorist”?
MA: Aside from the conspiracy buffs, who believe Sirhan had no motive at all, there are some who believe that Sirhan’s crime solely had a personal dimension to it. His life was essentially a failure. He had tried to become a jockey but failed. He wanted a relationship with a woman but it appears he was hopeless at that too. And he wanted a job with status and wealth but his educational attainments were limited. All of these ambitions became beyond his reach and it sent him into a fit of depression and despair. His act can therefore be seen as a response to these failures â a disillusioned misfit who vented his anger on American society which he deplored. In other words, he wanted to show he could succeed at something and that Arabs had ‘guts’, as Dan Moldea described it.
However, there is a wealth of evidence to show that Sirhan was not faking when he insisted his act was political in nature. And his act of terrorism does not contradict the personal motive as terrorism experts like Steve K. Dubrow-Eichel recognize. Dubrow_Eichel stated: “Fanaticism .sometimes involves betrayals and deep disappointments at the hands of close friends, family, loved ones “.
Sirhan was a young man who became disillusioned with American society which he saw as racist and unfair to people like him at the bottom of the pile. He also blamed the United States for the plight of the Palestinians because, as he saw it, they supported the Israelis at the expense of the Palestinians. Sirhan’s belief in the Palestinian cause was inspired by his hero, Egypt’s President Nasser who exhorted his followers to revolutionary action. Sirhan’s friends, employers and acquaintances described the young Arab as ‘fanatical’ in his political views. He had been indoctrinated from a very early age to hate Jews, as were all Palestinian children who lived in the West Bank which was then controlled by Jordan. According to a number of friends and colleagues Sirhan’s anger and hatred for Israel and the country that gave its wholehearted support to it, the United States, came to a head in the year following the Six Day War and he became obsessed by Arab failure.
If Sirhan hadn’t held these fanatical views would he still have assassinated RFK? I don’t think so.
LE: Do you feel that the public, especially the American public, have a better understanding of what a terrorist act is and that RFK’s assassination was politically motivated?
MA: I believe that today the American people, through their experiences with terrorism on their own soil, have a better understanding of what motivates someone to commit an act of violence for a political/ideological/religious cause -Â however obscene or distorted that cause may be. Similarly, it was America’s intervention in the affairs of Northern Ireland that helped put an end to many Americans’ ‘romanticized’ version of IRA atrocities.
LE: You talk about RFK’s legacy and his impact on Democratic candidates over the last 40 years. Can you speak more about the current campaign and Senator Obama’s candidacy?
MA: 40 years after RFK’s candidacy we now have a similar charismatic and youthful candidate who is inspirational in his calls to higher ideals. However, America is essentially a conservative country. If Obama centers his campaign around a liberal agenda it is difficult to see how he can succeed. The Republicans will simply McGovernize him.
The recent media criticisms of Hillary Clinton, who raised the possibility of an assassination attempt against Barack Obama, will not end speculation about the danger he faces if he becomes President. And, if Obama does indeed become the victim of an assassination attempt, I don’t believe it will originate with Islamic fanaticism. The dangers to Obama will likely originate with America’s domestic terrorists, particularly those groups that are racist and anti-Semitic like the neo-Nazis, the KKK and the right-wing militias. I don’t believe these groups are plotting against Obama but I do believe there may be an ‘unaffiliated terrorist’ out there who is sympathetic to these groups and, like the lone wolf racist assassin Joseph Paul Franklin, are always a clear and present danger. (I am presently researching the life and crimes of former neo-Nazi and KKK member Joseph Paul Franklin who was the most prolific racist killer in US history.)
LE: Do you think a modern investigation would result in as much conspiracy speculation?
MA: The LAPD did a sloppy job in investigating RFK’s assassination. But it should be remembered that police forces did not have the technology they do today or the experience in properly controlling a crime scene. If the assassination were to happen today, however, these facts would be negligible as there would still be those who would put their own spin on the investigation. Conspiracists don’t allow facts to interfere with their prejudices.
LE: Which conspiracy theories would you like to see put to rest above all?
MA: Aside from the JFK, RFK, and MLK conspiracies what is especially disconcerting is the number of people who believe the Moon landings were a hoax. As someone who admired the Apollo astronauts I think it is quite appalling these people are given media exposure to air their ridiculous views. I also reject the notion that the American government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks but I am optimistic that most Americans will have no difficulty in placing that nonsense in the dustbin of history.
Some may simply respond with the refrain ‘well, that’s democracy at work’. But what I find happening with JFK, RFK and MLK conspiracy mongering is that the perpetrators are creating something quite different from exercising their right to free speech. They are, for the most part, abusing the evidential record to build their case. That’s wrong and it should be condemned. Additionally, irresponsible accusations against innocent people have been built around gossip, innuendo and pure speculation. The end result is that the spread of these lunatic views on the internet has a negative effect on the youth of today who are left wondering what is true and what is untrue. For example, many young people have used Wikipedia to access knowledge but the truth of the matter is that many entries on this site are made by anonymous people who put their own spin on historical events, particularly the assassinations of the 60s. Those entries seem to be controlled by committed conspiracists who, by the sins of omission and commission, have given an altogether cockeyed view of the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations.
It is this type of conspiracy lunacy that should be marginalized by the mainstream media. As Daniel Pipes observed, ” . nonsensical, ugly, and pernicious ideas do not fail of their own accord; they need to be fought against and rendered marginal. The task starts with recognizing that they exist, then arguing against them.” (As an example of my efforts to challenge these ‘pernicious ideas’ see: Review of Shane O’Sullivan’s ‘Who Killed Bobby’ and Did the CIA Kill Bobby? )
LE: Have any answers or conclusions been revealed from the questions about the original investigations, either from your own research or that of others?
MA: Initially, there were certain anomalies about the crime scene and the ballistics evidence in the case that gave cause for concern and those early writers who tried to clear them up should be praised for their work. However, there were many who could not simply accept the rational answers provided by the official investigations and by writers like acclaimed investigative journalist Dan Moldea who, essentially, answered all the questions about the crime scene evidence. It is this type of writer who sees a marketing opportunity in publishing works of conspiracy as they know there is a large audience out there who love the drama and intrigue these stories engender. It is also a lucrative industry.
I have taken Moldea’s research further and addressed some of the issues about the case that conspiracists have raised since Moldea’s book was published in 1995 including the mystery of the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress -Â which I believe is now solved â see http://hnn.us/articles/50532.html. I also believe I have provided incontrovertible evidence that puts to rest the idea that a second shooter had been seen in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel. I have also researched more fully Sirhan’s background and provided what I believe to be compelling evidence that Sirhan’s ulterior motive was striking out against Israel.
LE: You speak a lot of Sirhan’s political motivations, draw similarities to more modern acts of terrorism and talk about how references to Arab states were “down played” during the time of the investigation and trial. Do you think that this would be different if the investigation and trial took place today?Â
Educators, family members, and friends taught Sirhan, from an early age, that the Jews were treacherous, an evil enemy, and that it was his duty to rid Palestine of Jews. Sirhan’s generation was taught to hate and fear Jews, to believe not only that every self-respecting Arab had the right to fight the Jewish state but also that it was just and desirable to destroy it. Those sentiments are still at the centre of the crisis in the Middle East and are the root cause of terrorist acts within Israel. Add these factors to the belief of many Muslims that Islam is on the rise and their enemy is the West and you have an understanding of why America is the main target. The Arab/Israeli conflict has now developed into a conflict between Western and Islamic cultures.
As the events of September 11 revealed, America was hated throughout the Arab world. In 1968, however, most Americans had no conception of the complex nature of Arab-Israeli affairs and the intense hatred the Arab world had for the West. When Sirhan was arrested the media referred to him as a Jordanian citizen, and the source of his rage, bitterness, and anger at ‘Jews’ was not explained in most news stories. In those days most Americans had no idea what a ‘Palestinian’ was and even fewer understood their grievances. The 1967 Six Days’ War was barely a year old, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had not yet begun its terrorist campaign of bombings and hijackings that eventually brought Yasser Arafat to the attention of the world.
Most of the media outlets in the Arab world, even while condemning Robert Kennedy’s murder, nevertheless gave some level of justification for Sirhan’s act. Furthermore, the U.S. media not only downplayed the reality of Arab-Israeli tension but it was also enjoined by the American government, which had attempted to strike a balance in order not to offend Arab states while at the same time giving full support to the Israelis. (Commenting at the time of the murder, New York Times editorial columnist James Reston described Sirhan’s motive as ‘a wholly irrational act’Â devoid of political inspiration. The Boston Globe stated, “So now it develops that Sirhan Sirhan was a mad man.”)
It wasn’t until the late 80s and early 90s that the alarm bells rang. There were harbingers of the 9/11 attacks (the cases of Mir Aimal Kasi, Rashid Baz, Ali Abu Kamal, Ahmed Ressam, Abu Mezer and the Twin Towers bombing) but most Americans just couldn’t believe that the violence of the Middle East could be exported to American soil. In today’s America that type of denial would never happen as the American public have a much better understanding of events outside their own country and are not as insular as they once were. It would be impossible today, for example, to argue that Richard Reid, the airline shoe bomber committed his criminal act solely because he was mentally unstable.
There are similarities between Sirhan’s act and the terrorist act of Mir Aimal Kasi who killed two CIA employees and injured several others in a shooting spree near the entrance to the CIA headquarters in 1993.Like Sirhan, Kasi was an ‘estranged’ immigrant who loathed United States support for Israel. Like Sirhan he spent many hours watching television news about the Middle East and told a friend he was considering ‘doing something big’. However, most media outlets had become more sophisticated in their understanding of Middle Eastern affairs and saw him not as a deranged individual but a terrorist who had committed a political act.
There are also some similarities today in the way the American government takes a position on terrorist acts committed on American soil. The Bush administration, for example, tried to downplay the Saudi connection in the 9/11 attacks (15 out of the 19 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia) - allegedly because Saudi Arabia was an important ally in the Middle East, the fact it was one of the great oil producers and the Bush family’s ties to the Saudi royal family. Far from being a state that gives its wholehearted support for the War on Terror the Saudis are part of the problem by financing madrahas and semi-independent Muslim organizations around the world which give at least lip-service to extremism.
Thank you for your time!
Mel Ayton lives in Durhan, England with his wife Sheila and has three grown children. He has a B.A. Honours degree in Politics and History and an M.A. from Durham University where he specialized in historiography and the teaching of history in American schools. In 1988 he was selected as a Fulbright Teacher and taught in schools in Michigan, USA.
Mel Ayton’s first book, Questions of Conspiracy, was an examination of the claims made by JFK conspiracy theorists. He decided to write the book following a conversation in 1988 with US Senator Arlen Specter in which Specter expressed his dismay at the way the JFK conspiracists had misused the evidence in the case. The book was updated and revised and was published in 2002 as The JFK Assassination: Dispelling the Myths.
In 2003 Mr. Ayton acted as the historical adviser for the BBC’s television documentary, “The Kennedy Dynasty,” which was broadcast in the UK in November 2003. He has also written for Ireland’s leading history magazine, History Ireland.
Subscribe to our RSS Feed And checkout our coffee competition to win a $30 gift voucher to your favourite coffee shop : click here
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
11 responses so far ↓
1 Michael Calder // Jul 26, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Evan Freed Affidavit:
I saw the second man (wearing the darker clothing) who had been in the pantry with Sirhan during the speech pointing a gun in an upward angle at the Senator. Based on the sound I heard, I believe the first shot came from this man’s gun. In the background, about 6-8 feet from me, I could see Sirhan firing a revolver held in his right hand in the direction of the Senator. People in the crowd were screaming and grabbing Sirhan, and I remember they were holding his arm as he was shooting. I canot say how many shots were fired by Sirhan or by the second gunman.
2 Michael Calder // Jul 26, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Richard Helms & Sirhan Sirhan
Dec 17, 1963- Helms memo to Deputy Director CIA.
For over a decade the Clandestine Services has had the mission of maintaining a capability for influencing human behavior. The present investigation is concerned with chemical agents which are effective in modifying the behavior and function of the central nervous system.
(1) Materials which will render the induction of HYPNOSIS easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness.
(2) Materials and physical methods which will produce AMNESIA for events PRECEEDING and
DURING their use.
(3) Substances which alter personality structures in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.
p. 260 JFK VS. CIA
3 Michael Calder // Jul 27, 2008 at 11:01 am
Sirhan Sirhan is a Christian.
Charles Mitchell - LAPD report
Mr.Mitchell stated that he is a minister and the pastor of the Pasadena Seventh Day Adventist Church. Mitchell stated Mr. Henry Peters and Sirhan had been involved in a Bible Study program. He described Peters as being an enthusiastic and aggressive church member who was quite active in his religious endeavors. Prior to returning to Wisconsin, Peters informed Mitchell that he had been visiting Sirhan for the purpose of teaching Bible lessons and requested someone continue the program when he left. Mitchell asked Mr. G. Heacock to continue the lessons. Mr. Heacock was unable to undertake the assignment and his wife, Margaret Heacock.assumed the task.
4 Mel Ayton // Jul 31, 2008 at 9:27 am
It appears that not only has Michael Calder been spreading lies about me but also lied about Potomac Books, Evan Freed and Sirhan Sirhan.
In a Newsnight forum debate Calder accused me of having some connection to the CIA. Calder wrote,âCould it be the publisher of your book is not âPotomac Booksâ but in reality, âLangley Booksâ?âThere is also an inherent silliness to Calderâs accusations â had he taken the time to research Potomac Booksâ website he would have discovered they published Joan Mellenâs book âA Farewell To Justiceâ which accuses the CIA of assassinating JFK. http://www.bbc.co.uk (Post 92).
Calder, like most conspiracy theorists, manipulates everything about this case to suit his arguments purposes including the nonsense about Evan Freed.
In a June 14, 1968 interview with FBI agents Freed said he saw a two men and a woman leave the pantry in a hurry after the shooting. And in 1992 Freed reportedly signed a document to the effect that more than one gunman was present in the pantry and that he had observed another man who looked like Sirhan. However, Freed had inadvertantly sent an uncorrected draft of what he described as âa letterâ to lawyer Marilyn Barrett. He amended it to read, â At about the same time, I saw the âsecond manâ âŠ.who I described as resembling SirhanâŠ.it is possible he could have been holding a weapon, but I cannot be sureâŠ.I cannot say how many shots were fired by Sirhan Sirhan or whether any shots came from the âsecond man.â â
Freedâs comments made in 1992 were entirely consistent with his statement to FBI agents on September 11 1968. Furthermore, his 1992 comments about a âsecond manâ is entirely consistent with the preponderance of evidence which suggests Freedâs âsecond manâ was actually Michael Wayne - a Sirhan look-alike.
To this day Freed continues to insist he never saw a second gunman in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel when RFK was assassinated. His most recent denial was in the DVD documentary RFK Must Die. Freed said, â[In the early 1990s] I was asked a number of times did I see a second shooter? Are you sure you didnât? And I got the feeling that people were trying to convince me that I saw something that I didnât really see. My recollection is I only saw one person shooting that night and thatâs what I told the police when I was interviewed by the police. Thatâs what I told the FBI when I was interviewed by the FBI.â http://hnn.us/articles/50532.html
Calder also misrepresents Sirhanâs true âfaith Although nominally a Christian, Sirhan abandoned his faith long before June 1968 and became fascinated in the occult. An associate pastor at the Baptist Church in Pasadena who had several conversations with him described Sirhan as âa very intense atheist.â (LAPD Summary Report page 58)
5 Michael Calder // Aug 2, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Sirhan Sirhan- Christian!
Billy Mcginty - LAPD interview report
Mcginty stated that he first met Sirhan B. Sirhan approximately TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THE SHOOTING. He was attending the first Nazarene Church of Pasadena at 2495 Mountain Ave. He arrived at the church at 10:45 a.m. and observed a man standing near the church parking lot on the church’s property. Mcginty emerged from the church at 12:15 p.m. and observed the same man still standing in the same location. Mcginty and his brother, Daniel Mcginty, walked by the man and Mcginty noticed that his brother had stopped to converse with him. Mcginty walked back to where his brother was standing and his brother said, “Bill I want you to meet Sirhan Sirhan, he’s from Jordan.”
6 Michael Calder // Aug 2, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Evan Freed Affidavit II
As the crowd rushed towards Sirhan, they passed by the second gunman. He was backing away towards the east end of the pantry. I was shoved by the surge of the crowd back against the south wall of the pantry, where I was alone next to another door that exited into the Embassy Room.
At that time I observed the second gunman running in my direction. He was not holding a gun at that time. Another man was running behind him in the same direction yelling at me, “Stop that guy, stop him.” There was no one else other than the second gunman that he could have been yelling at.
I was eventually contacted by the FBI, who interviewed me at my home. They asked me specific questions, mainly about Sirhan. They seemed to be avoiding asking me questions about the second gunman, although I told them the same things I have stated above.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 13th day of May, 1992, at Los Angeles, California
Evan Phillip Freed
7 Mel Ayton // Aug 5, 2008 at 11:30 am
Excerpt from : http://hnn.us/articles/50532.html
RFK conspiracy advocates believe a second gunman (whom conspiracists claim was security guard Thane Cesar) had been present in the pantry when RFK was shot. They build their case on statements by witnesses who claim they saw someone other than Sirhan carrying a weapon and who fled the pantry before he could be apprehended.
Conspiracists cite the statements of Marcus McBroom, Evan Freed, Don Schulman, Booker Griffin, Patricia Nelson and Dennis Weaver as indicative of a second gunman firing in the pantry. However, as the FBI files show these statements have been misinterpreted, taken out of context or simply lack credibility due to inherent implausabilities within them.
Conspiracy writers have used these statements to infer that Thane Cesar or Michael Wayne or both men had been assisting Sirhan in the pantry. Conspiracy writer James DiEugenio recently named Michael Wayne and Thane Cesar as Sirhanâs accomplices and said they both participated in the shooting.
However, the FBI files reveal how conspiracy writers have manipulated the original statements of witnesses to claim there is evidence of a second gunman.
In 1986, nearly 20 years after the assassination, Marcus McBroom told a conspiracy writer that ââŠa man with a gun under his newspaper ran out in a very menacing way and myself and a man by the name of Sam Strain and the man running the ABC camera we drew back instinctively when we saw the gun.â
Marcus McBroomâs original interview with FBI agents reveals no mention of a second gun. And McBroomâs friend, Sam Strain, did not see a gun as his statement to the FBI demonstrates. Strain stated that the young man appeared to be carrying ââŠa package about two feet long and six inches wide which was wrapped in black paper of some type.â
Dr Fred S. Parrott told FBI agents that while he was standing outside the door to the Embassy Room, a man came by carrying a rolled up newspaper under his arm followed by men shouting âStop that man! Stop that man!â He described the man with the newspaper as a white male, dark complexion, dark hair, 25 to 27 years old, 5′7″ tall, medium build.
This description fits that of Michael Wayne who, at the time of the assassination, was a 21 year old clerk at the Pickwick Bookstore in Hollywood and an avid collector of political memorabilia. After the shooting Wayne ran out of the pantry area and because someone shouted âGet him, heâs getting awayâ security guard Augustus Mallard grabbed him then put him in handcuffs. Wayne told police he was only running for a telephone to tell friends to turn on their television sets. He was interviewed by the LAPD but was never considered a suspect.
Other witnesses have been used by conspiracists to show a second gunman had been present in the pantry. However, it is clear from the FBI files that the person who these witnesses believed had carried a gun that night was actually Michael Wayne. Patricia Nelson and Dennis Weaver told FBI agents they believed they saw a man with a rolled up newspaper or poster and that the wooden stock of a rifle had been protruding from it. However, they later stated they were likely mistaken and identified the man as Michael Wayne. Nelson later identified Wayne from film footage of the hotel shown to her. âThatâs him. Thatâs the same sweater, the same hair, the same sideburnsâ, she told agents. She also identified the package as the one she saw Weaver agreed with Nelson. Joseph Klein, who was with them at the time said, âThatâs him right there, Iâm positive.â
It is clear from these interviews that the man McBroom, Parrott, Strain, Weaver, Nelson and Klein had observed was Michael Wayne despite the differing descriptions given to agents.
Wayne had earlier in the evening been photographed by Bill Eppridge. Eppridgeâs photo shows RFK autographing Wayneâs poster as the Senator walked to the Embassy Room to give his speech. It is clear from Eppridgeâs photo that the poster in Wayneâs hand is too small to hold a pistol let alone a rifle.
Other initial sightings of a second gunman were later found to be the result of misidentification or misunderstanding - or a change of heart many years after the assassination which suggested some witnesses had been heavily influenced by conspiracy buffs. Booker Griffin, for example, told a conspiracy writer in 1987 that he had observed a second gunman. However, in his 1968 interviews with the LAPD he only said the sounds of the shooting appeared to suggest more than one gun.
Evan Freed and Don Schulman are cited by conspiracy writers as having observed a second gunman.
In a June 14, 1968 interview with FBI agents Freed said he saw a two men and a woman leave the pantry in a hurry after the shooting. And in 1992 Freed reportedly signed a document to the effect that more than one gunman was present in the pantry and that he had observed another man who looked like Sirhan. However, Freed had inadvertantly sent an uncorrected draft of what he described as âa letterâ to lawyer Marilyn Barrett. He amended it to read, â At about the same time, I saw the âsecond manâ âŠ.who I described as resembling SirhanâŠ.it is possible he could have been holding a weapon, but I cannot be sureâŠ.I cannot say how many shots were fired by Sirhan Sirhan or whether any shots came from the âsecond man.â â
Freedâs comments made in 1992 were entirely consistent with his statement to FBI agents on September 11 1968. Furthermore, his 1992 comments about a âsecond manâ is entirely consistent with the preponderance of evidence presented above which suggests Freedâs âsecond manâ was actually Michael Wayne - a Sirhan look-alike.
To this day Freed continues to insist he never saw a second gunman in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel when RFK was assassinated. His most recent denial was in the DVD documentary RFK Must Die. Freed said, â[In the early 1990s] I was asked a number of times did I see a second shooter? Are you sure you didnât? And I got the feeling that people were trying to convince me that I saw something that I didnât really see. My recollection is I only saw one person shooting that night and thatâs what I told the police when I was interviewed by the police. Thatâs what I told the FBI when I was interviewed by the FBI.â
However, the conspiracists favorite âsecond gunâ witness is Don Schulman, a KNXT â TV news runner. Statements made by Schulman have been used for decades in an attempt to prove Thane Cesar had fired the fatal shot that killed RFK.
Immediately following the shooting Don Schulman was interviewed by Jeff Brent of Continental Broadcasting and said a security guard âhad fired back.â In 1971 Schulman said he did not see Sirhan shoot Kennedy, but he insisted that he saw the âsecurity guardâ fire his gun. He also said he saw wounds erupting on Kennedyâs body but refused to make any connection to the two events.
However, Schulman later retracted his statement of having seen a second gunman citing his confusion during the chaotic moments of the shooting. In the mid-70s Schulman told the Kranz Investigation (which was set up by the Los Angeles authorities to look into allegations made by conspiracy theorists), that immediately following the shooting he was âtremendously confusedâ and that the words he used to describe the shooting to reporters in 1968 were the result of âconfusion.â Schulman reported that he meant to tell reporters that âKennedy had been hit three times, he had seen an arm fire, he had seen the security guards with guns, but he had never seen a security guard fire and hit Robert Kennedy.â
Furthermore, new ballistics evidence has eliminated the possibility Cesar had fired his .38 pistol that night. (33) And the idea that Thane Cesar had carried his .22 pistol — Sirhan used a .22 to kill Kennedy — and used it to shoot RFK cannot be supported by either hard evidence or logic.
Thane Cesar carried a .38 pistol on the night of the assassination but he owned an H and R .22 pistol. However, accusing Cesar of having used his .22 pistol to kill RFK appears ridiculous at the outset â why would a murderer, under threat of execution if caught, hang on to the purported murder weapon for 3 months before he got rid of it? Cesar sold his H&R .22 pistol in September 1968.
8 Michael Calder // Aug 5, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Michael Wayne was positioned at the opposite end of the pantry when Kennedy entered from the Embassy Room. On the other hand, the second gunman as witnessed by Evan Freed, had moved across from the metal serving tables just before Kennedy arrived. It is at the metal serving tables where Kennedy stopped to shake hands with the kitchen help and was shot in the back of the head. Evan Freed saw the shooter raise his gun to shoot Kennedy as Sirhan came from the front to do likewise. Meanwhile, Michael Wayne standing near an exit door to the hotel corridor and even farther away from Kennedy than Sirhan had been, fled out the door. The assassin dropped the gun and backed away from Kennedy as citizens rushed past him to get to Sirhan who was still firng his weapon. Because the second assassin looks almost identical to Sirhan, Sirhan is going to be identified as the assailant no matter what. If you are in front of Kennedy and see Sirhan shooting but don’t see the person behind Kennedy shooting, you are going to identify Sirhan. If you are behind the senator and see the second gunman shooting but don’t see Sirhan in front of Karl Uecker shooting, you are still going to identify Sirhan because the second gunman looks just like Sirhan. Diabolical. Classic Richard Helms. I
9 Mel Ayton // Aug 6, 2008 at 6:43 am
Calder is advised to read my HNN article again re: Michael Wayne. Calder just doesn’t get it.
He also needs to stop ranting about Evan Freed - see above.
Calder is also seriously wrong about Richard Helms and I challenge him to produce one iota of evidence to back up his claims - see THE JFK AND RFK ASSASSINATIONS AND THE BOGUS âMANCHURIAN CANDIDATEâ THEORIES
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/manchurian.htm
10 Michael Calder // Aug 7, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Evan Freed was an attorney when he wrote his affidavit. As an attorney, he knew full well the implications and importance of what he was attesting to. The four page affidavit so rich and full in detail forever condemns the conspirators and exonerates Sirhan.
Poor Mel Ayton. He loves to dazzle with bullshit. But if that’s all you got you have to use what you have.
Do the ghosts of the Kennedy brothers ever haunt Richard Helms in his dreams? Does Bobby ever come to him with those piercing eyes and ask,”Why?” Do the ghosts of Salvador Allende and of the dozens of Americans and thousands of Latins sent to early graves, in service to his homicidal passion, pass by him in bewilderment? Surely if there is a God, he has reserved a special place for him in hell. A traitor not just to America, but to mankind.
p.267 JFK VS. CIA
11 Michael Calder // Aug 7, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Richard Helms - Traitor
Two months after being appointed DDP, Helms ordered William Harvey to reactivate the CIA-Mafia connection to assassinate Fidel Castro. Harvey passed poison pills to the gangster Johnny Rosselli in April,1962. Equally incredible is the fact that John McCone,DCI, was never informed of the proceeedings. In 1975, Harvey testified before the Senate Select Committee on Governmental Relations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. He told the Committee that he RECEIVED HELM’S APPROVAL not to brief McCone about this resumption. “We agreed it was not necessary or advisable to brief him at this time.”
John McCone also testified. He said that as DCI he had never been briefed by Dulles, Bissel, Helms or anyone else about assassination plots; and if he had been, he would have disapproved. McCone also testified that he was never informed even of the CIA’s “Executive Action” capability. This ability included the CIA’s own assassination teams. It was not until August,1963, after reading an article in the Chicago Sun Times deatiling a CIA-Mafia link to an assassination attempt on Castro, that the DCI learmed what his agency was up to. After reading the article he ordered RICHARD HELMS to brief him. Helms told him the agency had considered the attempt, but discarded the idea.
p. 246 JFK VS. CIA and United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Resoect to Intelligence Activities, vol III, Alleged Assassination Plots involving Foreign Leaders
Leave a Comment