Category: Robert Francis Kennedy

Original essays treating the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, its historical and political context and aftermath, and the investigations conducted.

  • Through a Glass Darkly: An MK-ULTRA Primer

    Through a Glass Darkly: An MK-ULTRA Primer

    mk ultra


    “What is heroic in combat is criminal in peace. Just as combat sanctions physical violence, so espionage grants license to moral violence. It is trite but true to say that they did what they did for the good of their country. Unfortunately, it is also true that it frequently didn’t work out that way.”

    ~David C. Martin, Wilderness of Mirrors


    Origins

    If I were to tell you that the United States government has performed—and is likely still performing—bizarre, mind-altering experiments on its own unwitting citizens, whose results are often catastrophically damaging and sometimes fatal, with the goal of creating pawns for its intelligence chess board, I would expect you to stop listening to me. That’s what most people do in any case. And yet the United States has a long and storied history of medical and scientific abuses against its own population which bear repeating to place its later mind-control experiments in context. Following is a cursory overview culled from a 2002 Health News Net post entitled “A History of Secret Human Experimentation”:

    In 1931, Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infected human subjects with cancer cells. He later established the U.S. Army Biological Warfare centers in Maryland, Utah, and Panama. Rhoads was also responsible for a battery of radiation exposure experiments perpetrated on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.

    In 1932, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study began in segregated Alabama. Two hundred black men diagnosed with syphilis were never told about their condition, were denied treatment, and were subjected to a covert longitudinal study on the effects of the disease that lasted forty years until a local newspaper broke the story. They all subsequently died from syphilis, and their wives and children, who also became infected, were never told that they could have been treated.

    In 1935, after millions of individuals died from Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stop the disease. The director of the agency admitted that researchers had known for at least twenty years that Pellagra was primarily caused by a niacin deficiency, but failed to address this since most of the deaths occurred in poverty-stricken black populations.

    In 1940, 400 prisoners in Chicago were purposely infected with malaria in order to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to combat the disease. Ironically, Nazi doctors later on trial at Nuremberg cite this American study to defend their own actions during the Holocaust.

    The United States of the late 1940s and 1950s was a product not only of unprecedented postwar power and security afforded the nation in the wake of the German and Japanese defeats, but also of the scientific proclivities of the time. We forget, I feel, just how jarringly different society was only seventy years ago. Much of the nation was still segregated, with anti-miscegenation laws firmly in place to prevent interracial couples from marrying; the sick and infirm, particularly those with mental deficiencies, were often viewed with disdain. Indeed, the words “moron” and “idiot” were both official psychiatric terms of mental competence from the postwar American eugenics movement, which remained a popular field of study among the psychological circles of the white elite. Books like B. F. Skinner’s Walden Two, published in 1948, were quite popular among America’s social planners. Preaching a rejection of any immanent extra-material element to consciousness and human emotion, Skinner believed that once certain environmental factors were correctly manipulated, human beings, and by extension, whole cultures, might be fundamentally changed. In this utopian novel, the characters behaved much the way Skinner’s rats did in his predictable laboratory experiments.

    This reductionist worldview was a major contributing factor, in my opinion, to both the prevalence and the tacit acceptance of what amounts to decades of crimes perpetrated against both domestic and foreign target populations. Figures like Skinner, Aldous Huxley, and later Robert Shockley, the Stanford professor and Bell Labs inventor of the transistor—who as late as the early 1970s was calling for a concerted reduction of the African-American population due to their “dysgenic” makeup—held the imagination of policy planners and the power elite. As Hank Albarelli Jr. notes:

    Here it should be emphasized that inevitably lurking within, near, and around all of the CIA’s early mind-control experiments was a strong element of racism that generally manifested itself through the Agency’s principle objective of establishing control over the perceived “weaker” and “less intelligent” segments of society. That the CIA’s initial mind control activities show a close kinship with many prominent characters within the racist and anti-immigration eugenics movement is no coincidence.


    Iterations and Victims

    From as early as WWII, “programmed operatives” had been an objective (though limited) of military and government intelligence agencies for a variety of reasons. Initially, from available evidence, much of which still remains redacted, we see that during the Allied struggle against Hitler’s Germany, the OSS and British intelligence were both interested in the potential to send “programmed” agents into occupied Europe. These agents, both witting and unwitting, would then deliver a predetermined message which could only be unlocked by their receiver upon the specifically encoded posthypnotic verbal or visual cue: I touch my right temple or say a phrase, and my subject divulges the message, only to then possess entirely no memory of the exchange. This ensured both that any intercepted agent placed under torture or interrogation would have no “real” memory of their intended communiqué or mission beyond their ostensible one. It also removed the threat of telegraphic or radio-transmitted communications being intercepted by Axis listening posts.

    Clark Hull, a Yale hypnosis expert, described such a process in his 1933 book, Hypnosis and Suggestibility:

    A youth of eighteen or nineteen years is brought in by my assistant. He has consented to act as subject in a research project. I stand before him and look directly into his eyes. As he tilts his head backward to look into my eyes I observe as usual the sign of considerable emotional disturbance in the beating of his carotid artery … I direct him to look steadily into my eyes and to think of nothing but sleep, to relax his muscles all over, even so much that his knees bend a little and his legs scarcely hold him up. After three or four minutes his eyes close, his head nods forward, and his breathing becomes heavy. I say, ‘Now you are falling toward me, you can’t help yourself … I catch him when well off his balance. Upon inquiry he states, in a drowsy tone, that he could not help falling forward but that he isn’t sound asleep ‘because I know everything that is going on.’

    I suspect that he is mistaken and employ the following objective test. I give him a posthypnotic suggestion that after waking he shall pick up and examine a book on my desk when I sit down in a chair, but that he won’t recall anything about why he did it. I wake him as usual with a snap of my finger … A few minutes later I sit down in the chair. He casually walks over to my desk, picks up the book, and after glancing at its title lays it down. I say, ‘Why did you look at the book?’ He answers that he just happened to notice it lying there and wondered what it was about. (Hull, Hypnosis and Suggestibility, p. 32)

    Early pioneers of this form of hypnosis included the esteemed Dr. George Estabrooks, chair of Colgate University’s department of psychology, whose 1943 book Hypnosis remains worth reading for anyone interested in the technical mechanisms whereby human beings can be unwittingly placed in a post-hypnotic suggestive state. As Estabrooks notes, there are five basic steps to the process:

    1. Covertly identify a specimen of the 20% of persons who are genetic somnambulists and easily can go to an amnesic depth of trance. Induct by a “disguised” method.
    2. While the subject is in trance, give a posthypnotic suggestion for him to become deeply hypnotized again whenever the hypnotist gives a certain cue (such as tugging the left ear lobe with the right hand).
    3. Also, give a posthypnotic suggestion which will deny the subject any conscious knowledge of this hypnosis, or any subsequent one. That causes an artificial, selective amnesia for all hypnosis events.
    4. Give a posthypnotic suggestion that nobody else can hypnotize this subject (called sealing).
    5. Give a suggestion under hypnosis that the subject will act in trance just as if awake (called waking hypnosis). (G.A. Estabrooks, Hypnosis, p. 200)

    Dr. Estabrooks also devised a means by which an individual’s personality might be altered, going so far as to insist he could warp someone’s entire convictions and political leanings for a desired result:

    We will use hypnotism to induce multiple personality. Hypnotism is the means to an end, though the technique would be impossible did we not have hypnotism at our disposal. In his normal waking state, which we will call Personality A, or PA, this individual will become a rabid communist. He will join the party, follow the party line and make himself as objectionable as possible to the authorities.

    Then we develop Personality B (PB), the secondary personality, the unconscious personality … is rabidly American and anti-communist. It has all the information possessed by Personality A, the normal personality, whereas PA does not have this advantage. My super spy plays his role as a communist in the waking state, aggressively, consistently, fearlessly. But his PB is a loyal American, and PB has all the memories of PA. As a loyal American, he will not hesitate to divulge these memories. (Estabrooks, p. 200)

    While these WWII dabblings proved interesting to those observing their curious results, it wasn’t until the early days of the Cold War that the United States government, and specifically the Central Intelligence Agency, became truly interested in the potential of harnessing the minds of both its assets and soldiers, and often its private citizenry. The United States Navy had already, as early as 1947, begun its own Project Chatter, which lasted for six years and which involved subjecting “volunteer” sailors, along with animals, to substances like the incredibly dangerous scopolamine, whose effects range from permanent dissociation and vivid recurring night terrors to complete submission to the commands and whims of a subject’s controller. As naval intelligence personnel got wind of the Nazi experiments on Jewish captives at places like the Dachau concentration camp, which involved heavy doses of mescaline and other mind-bending substances, they sought to both replicate the studies and push the investigations of their former enemies, who only two years earlier had surrendered to the Allies in the summer of 1945.

    Headed by Dr. Charles Savage, a graduate of both Yale and the Pritzker Medical School of the University of Chicago, the team used LSD procured by Swiss manufacturer Sandoz in attempts to induce psychic transformations. As Prince Ray notes in his book, Project Chatter and the Betrayal of My Father, “In one experiment Savage used five “normal” persons and fifteen depressed patients. In his report, LSD-25 a Clinical-Psychological Study (1951), he provided detailed descriptions: Case II was a 20-year-old man who was admitted to the hospital with depression. He tearfully told psychologists that his mother was going to lose her home, his sister would lose her job, and he felt useless because he couldn’t help them. He was given LSD, the dosage increased to 100 mcg.; the end result was that the patients suffered from a “schizophrenic reaction.”

    In late 1945, Operation Paperclip, the United States’ covert importation of Nazi war criminals, scientists, medical researchers, and intelligence operatives, provided a treasure trove of first-hand experience with such matters. Some were brought directly into the CIA’s payroll, like war-criminal Reinhard Gehlen, chief of the Wehrmacht’s Foreign Armies East (FHO) military intelligence unit, whose knowledge of Soviet intelligence services was sought by figures like Allen Dulles. Quite remarkable is the fact that Gehlen—who met with both President Truman and “Wild Bill” Donovan, the former head of the OSS during WWII—was instrumental in convincing the United States to pass the National Security Act of 1947, whose charter essentially laid the groundwork for the surveillance state we currently maintain. In its clauses, clandestine activities were allowed to begin without the approval of Congress or even the President, and reporting and evaluations were permitted to be indefinitely withheld if such disclosure could potentially compromise “national security.” In effect, it gave the newly christened CIA, and related agencies, almost unlimited freedom of action and partial legal immunity. And it gave Gehlen and his Nazi consorts access to millions of dollars, United States military support, and sustained their desperate hopes of finally destroying their dreaded Bolshevik nemesis, the Soviet Union. I would argue that the creation of the Cold War was in many ways as much an extension of unfulfilled Nazi aims, as it was a pragmatic Allied reaction to the realities of the postwar Manichean divide between capitalism and communism. We now know, for example, that Gehlen’s intelligence was almost entirely worthless; he vastly exaggerated Soviet intentions, underestimated their agents’ ability to penetrate West German intelligence, and personally helped escalate tensions between the burgeoning NATO countries and the Eastern bloc.

    While Gehlen and others were smuggled across the Atlantic, both by the US intelligence agencies and the Vatican—who disguised many high-level Nazi party members as Catholic priests for safe exit to places like Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina—others remained in Europe, with many setting up shop in West Germany. At these early black sites, as author Annie Jacobsen notes:

    … the CIA teamed up with Army, Air Force and Naval Intelligence to run one of the most nefarious, classified, enhanced interrogation programs of the Cold War. The work took place inside a clandestine facility in the American zone of occupied Germany, called Camp King. The facility’s chief medical doctor was … Dr. Walter Schreiber, the former Surgeon General of the Third Reich. The activities that went on at Camp King between 1946 and the late 1950s have never been fully accounted for by either the Department of Defense or the CIA. (Lazar Berman, “CIA techniques developed by ex-Nazi doctors, author claims,” Times of Israel, 3/12/2014)


    Evolutions

    The Central Intelligence Agency, which itself had only emerged as an autonomous organization in 1947 from the remains of the OSS, didn’t waste much time in getting on the mind-altering bandwagon. In an April, 1950 memo to Rear Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, then Director of the CIA, Sheffield Edwards, Chief of the Inspection and Security Staff Sheffield Edwards stressed, “In view of the extreme sensitivity of this project and its covert nature, it is deemed advisable to submit this document directly to you, rather than through the channel of the Projects Review Committee.” He continues:

    The immediate purpose of the program (Project Bluebird) is to provide interrogation teams using the cover of polygraph interrogation to provide bona fides of high potential defectors and agents, and also for the collection of incidental intelligence from such projects. A team is to be composed of three persons consisting of a doctor/psychiatrist, a polygraph/hypnotist, and a technician. (Sheffield Edwards, “Office Memorandum, Subject: Project Bluebird,” CIA-RDP83-01042R000800010003)

    Hearing rumors in the early 1950s that American prisoners of war who had returned to the United States from the Korean War were allegedly subjected to Chinese and Soviet brainwashing, the CIA was concerned that some of their nation’s military and strategic secrets could be revealed under interrogation. While much of this was anecdotal, and driven to near-hysterical levels in this height of the McCarthy Era and the Red Scare, a genuine curiosity about human nature and the limits of the mind seemed to drive some of the officers of the Central Intelligence Agency. It should be noted that later congressional probes determined this rationale was largely a cover should the program ever be exposed to the public. (“Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations, U.S. Senate, April 1976”) Like the Navy’s Project Chatter, team members of Bluebird frequently subjected their human guinea pigs to acid trips, mescaline dosing, and amphetamine overloads to test the limits of the human will. One of their favorites was a combination of hallucinogens and amphetamines they nicknamed “Smasher.”

    Morse Allen was one of these initial pioneers of the CIA’s exploits in psychic investigations. While pharmaceutical applications had their place, officers like Morse were interested in more esoteric means by which the human will could be bent. From 1951 onward, he took it upon himself to survey the OSS’s remaining files from the Second World War. Securing funding for a four-month crash course in the field from his superiors in the CIA’s SRS (Security Research Section). He began his apprenticeship with figures around New York like Milton Erickson, a famous stage hypnotist. Bluebird was renamed Artichoke (after the street-handle of New York gangster Ciro Terranova, the “Artichoke King”), and from August 1951 onward, this program’s controllers began testing their hypno-suggestive procedures on some of the CIA’s volunteer support staff. Walter Bedell-Smith, Eisenhower’s trusted Chief of Staff and aide de camp in WWII and now the Director of the CIA, signed off on it, along with Dr. H. Marshall Chadwell, the CIA’s Scientific Intelligence Director. Morse Allen remained in de facto control of day-by-day operations. Most, if not all, of his early test subjects were women. Hypnotizing secretaries and female aides, the architects of Artichoke were quick to extend their bizarre methods into sexually abusive favors, going so far in some cases as hypnotizing these women and post-hypnotically suggesting that they perform sexual acts on complete strangers in Washington D.C. hotel rooms and CIA office suites. (H. Albarelli Jr., A Secret Order, chapter 7) In one encounter, Morse Allen hypnotized his personal secretary and programmed her to pick up a pistol and shoot another secretary. When she came out of her hypnosis and Allen gave the post-hypnotic cue, she picked up his service pistol on his desk, turned to the other girl, without expression, and fired. The receiver slammed home with a sharp click; the gun was of course unloaded. Allen was thrilled with the potential for this exciting new technique.

    Begun officially in 1953, while Artichoke was fully operational, the CIA’s MK-ULTRA/MK-DELTA was the brainchild of Richard Helms, and served as yet another tentacle of the mind-control octopus that had gripped the imaginations of our nation’s intelligence officers. Its ostensible goals were the harassment, intimidation, and coercion of domestic (ULTRA) and foreign (DELTA) populations through the use of sociology, anthropology, radiation exposure, graphology, chemical triggering, paramilitary means, and psychiatry. (Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations, U.S. Senate, April 1976) Helms appointed the CIA’s notorious chief chemist, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, as head of field operations. Gottlieb was nicknamed the Black Sorcerer by colleagues because of his obsession with concocting a plethora of exotic poisons, delivery devices, and other murderous schemes to eliminate world leaders and rival military figures. Gottlieb crafted the tube of poisoned toothpaste sent to the CIA’s station chief Larry Devlin in Leopoldville when President Eisenhower ordered the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the progressive anti-colonial leader of the Congo. Instead, the CIA ended up kidnapping him, with the aid of Belgian intelligence and local rebels. He was later shot and dissolved in sulfuric acid. Gottlieb also designed the exploding cigars and explosive seashells which were unsuccessfully deployed—amid the dozens of other plots—to kill Fidel Castro as he partook in his two favorite leisure activities, puffing on Cohibas and free-diving on shallow reefs. As Castro once said, “If surviving assassination attempts were an Olympic event, I would win the gold medal.” (Patrick Oppmann, “Fidel Castro survived 600 assassination attempts, officials say,” CNN, 11/26/2016)

    Canada also played a tertiary role in the CIA’s burgeoning MK-ULTRA research. The CIA-sponsored and Rockefeller-funded Allen Memorial Hospital in Montreal, Quebec, was the home of one Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, and his Subproject-68. Cameron was the one-time President of both the American Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Psychiatric Association, and eventually held the title of President of the World Psychiatric Association. He delivered addresses to a global audience, was a lecturer at numerous universities and medical schools, and was considered a preeminent authority on the human psyche. Cameron was present at the Nuremberg trials, and wrote a treatise which surmised that the inherent personality of the German people was incapable of submitting to defeat and incapable of living peacefully in a post-war environment. He called for a social reconditioning of their collective psyche in order to transform their next generation into a more docile group. In a strange twist, the anecdotal testimony of former CIA pilot and intelligence officer L. Fletcher Prouty notes that Cameron later became personally acquainted with numerous Nazi exiles, whose brains he picked for medical and psychiatric advice. (Marshall Thomas, Monarch: The New Phoenix Program, chapter 16)

    Receiving personal funding from the CIA and Allen Dulles through their front organization, the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, Cameron became infamous for his “psychic driving” sessions. These consisted of unwitting mentally distraught patients—many were innocent housewives and children sent in for treatment of depression—being sedated and strapped into isolated gurneys on a secure upper floor of the facility, where they were not told for how long they were being detained. Then the doctor went to work in earnest; Cameron describes the process in his essay, “The Effects Upon Human Behavior of the Repetition of Verbal Signals:”

    1. The breaking down of ongoing patterns of the patient’s behavior by means of particularly intensive electroshocks (depatterning).
    2. The intensive repetition (16 hours a day for 6-7 days) of the prearranged verbal signal.
    3. During this period of intensive repetition the patient is kept in partial sensory isolation.
    4. Repression of the driving period is carried out by putting the patient, after the conclusion of the period, into continuous sleep for 7-10 days

    Cameron’s goal was to attempt a full swipe of a patient’s memory, resulting in a blank slate, which only in physical form bore any resemblance to the former person. Initially, “psychic driving” was intended to erase the memories of incurable schizophrenic patients, but the CIA saw its potential in the intelligence world and ended up paying Cameron $69,000 to further their ends from 1957-1964. In one especially severe case, a woman who was released had to be taught how to use the toilet and tie her shoes, even though she was a formerly accomplished thirty-something mother of three. She never regained her memory and only realized what had happened and who was responsible when she saw a picture of Dr. Cameron in a library book decades later, which triggered a post-traumatic breakdown and an eventual lawsuit.

    In another “treatment,” Phyllis Goldberg, a charming, attractive young nurse of nineteen, who was admitted to the Allen Memorial and Dr. Cameron, suffered an irreversible trauma that friends and family say utterly destroyed her life:

    “When she would be with us, on weekends and so on, she didn’t communicate. She laughed for no reason. Her gait was very different,” Levenson explained. “She couldn’t dress herself—she couldn’t do anything for herself.” Small moments of affection—a pat on the head between aunt and niece, for example—elicited painful reactions from Goldberg. “When you went to pat her, just as a gesture, she would cringe,” Levenson said. “That bewildered me—not realizing, or understanding, she had electric shock equipment put on her head so many times that it [remained] in her subconscious.” (Lindsay Richardson, “Their Lives were Ruined: Families of MK-ULTRA survivors planning class-action lawsuit,” Montreal CTV, 5/20/2018)

    As things progressed and more funding was secured, even stranger experiments unfolded, some bordering on the absurd. From 1955 to the mid 1960s, the CIA, using its own agents as well as assets from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, dosed unknowing subjects in San Francisco brothels and clubs—notably in the Telegraph Hill area near North Beach—with LSD-laced cocktails. Codenamed Midnight Climax, the project was one of the dozens of subprojects under the MK-ULTRA umbrella. As part of this operation the CIA sent agent George White, who used the name “Morgan Hall” when interacting with neighbors, to San Francisco and set him up in a duplex near the bay, at 2250 Chestnut Street. They paid for him to furnish the apartment with French erotic art, lurid posters, and other enticing trinkets, and tasked him with finding a suitable accomplice to lure men in for observation. An alcoholic who kept a pitcher of martinis in his refrigerator, Hall then hired a local electronics firm to install audio bugs in the electrical outlets to complete his voyeuristic suite. “For hours Hall would sit perched on a portable toilet watching behind a two-way mirror while his employee, a drug-addicted prostitute, entertained unsuspecting visitors and slipped each one an exotic chemical or biological agent.” (John Jacobs and Bill Richards, “The Bizarre Tale of a CIA Operation,” Washington Post, 8/26/1977)

    Another notable case was the 1951 “Pont St. Esprit Incident.” Here, in a quaint French country village near the Swiss border, hundreds of people went completely insane, with an onset that was both rapid and violent. One man tried to drown himself, screaming that snakes were eating his belly. An 11-year-old tried to strangle his grandmother. Another man shouted: “I am a plane”, before jumping out of a second-floor window, breaking his legs. He then got up and carried on for 50 yards. Another saw his heart escaping through his feet and begged a doctor to put it back. Many were taken to the local asylum in straight jackets. Time Magazine wrote at the time: “Among the stricken, delirium rose: patients thrashed wildly on their beds, screaming that red flowers were blossoming from their bodies, that their heads had turned to molten lead.” (Henry Samuel, “French bread spiked with LSD in CIA experiment,” Daily Telegraph, 3/11/2010)

    Officially, the narrative involved a contaminated batch of baguettes from Roch Briand, the local bakery. Ergot, a hallucinogenic mold that develops when rye spoils—and which had been used as far back as the Eleusinian Mysteries ritual at Delphi in Ancient Greece—was blamed. Curiously, however, Pont St. Esprit was only a few miles from the world’s only manufacturing plant that produced high-grade LSD at the time: Sandoz. And also curious is a memorandum that was discovered, dating to 1975 during the Rockefeller Commission’s review of the CIA’s clandestine abuses, and which read, “Re: Pont-Saint-Esprit and F. Olson Files. SO Span/France Operation file, inclusive Olson. Intel files. Hand carry to Belin—tell him to see to it that these are buried.” (Mike Thomson, “Pont-Saint-Esprit poisoning: Did the CIA spread LSD?” BBC News, 8/23/2010)

    Frank Olson headed the CIA’s overseas experiments involving mind-altering substances. And of course “Belin” refers to David Belin, the high-profile attorney who sat on both the Warren and Rockefeller Commissions. In 1953, a CIA agent dosed Olson’s cocktail at a local bar with LSD. Two days later, Olson “jumped or fell” out of a window on the thirteenth-floor of his Manhattan hotel suite. (David Remnick, “25 Years of Nightmares,” Washington Post, 7/28/1985) Author and former Canadian Liberal Party leader, Michael Ignatieff, among others, like Olson’s son, believe Allen Dulles and Richard Helms ordered his murder, since Olson had voiced reservations about and objections to the ethics of his missions.

    Of no small concern is the fact that “since early 1954, following the death of Olson, a secret agreement between the CIA and the U.S. Department of Justice had been put in place whereby the violation of “criminal statutes” by CIA personnel would not result in Department of Justice prosecutions, if “highly classified and complex covert operations” were threatened with exposure. The agreement had been struck between CIA Chief Counsel Larry Houston and Deputy Attorney General William P. Rogers in February 1954, not long after Frank Olson’s death, and still remained solidly in place.” (H. Albarelli Jr., “Cries from the Past: Torture’s Ugly Echoes,” Truthout.org, 5/23/2010) With this agreement essentially sealing the agency from any remaining legal responsibilities following the creation and signing of the National Security Act of 1947, they were now totally exempt from oversight, and during the late 1950s and early 1960s, branched out into even weirder fields of inquiry and research. Their inquiries into the pure occult and spiritual realms of human consciousness were perhaps the most bizarre iteration of the mind-control explorations. MK-OFTEN, a still-secret and barely traceable sub-file buried in the MK-ULTRA files, mentions the Department of Defense’s use of mediums, clairvoyants, and even voodoo and Satanism. As researcher Peter Levenda notes:

    Initially, Operation MK-OFTEN was a joint CIA/Army Chemical Corps drug project, based out of Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland and using inmates of the Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia as test subjects. It came under the aegis of the CIA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), which was concerned with parapsychology and the application of supernatural powers for military purposes. Later, OFTEN would become a kind of grab bag of CIA investigations into the paranormal, and would include everything from séances and witchcraft to remote viewing and exotic drugs. (Levenda, Sinister Forces, chapter 4)

    MKNAOMI, the CIA’s joint venture with the Army’s biological warfare division at Fort Detrick, which ran roughly from 1958 to the early 1970s, was the MK-digram’s final major iteration. In this program, scientists and technicians honed their abilities to deliver exotic and untraceable toxins and biological agents to unknowing victims, with a focus on agricultural poisoning, some of which likely was intended for Operation Mongoose, the CIA’s terror campaign against Cuba.

    The Agency was estimated to have spent over 3 million dollars. Items developed ranged from attaché cases rigged to disseminate an agent in the air, a cigarette rigged to disseminate an agent when lighted, a fountain pen dart launcher, an engine head bolt designed to release an agent when heated, a fluorescent light starter to activate the light and then release an agent, etc. (“Cryptonym: MKNAOMI,” Mary Ferrell Foundation)

    While Richard Nixon banned biological testing in November 1969, it is purported that substantial amounts of stockpiled neurotoxins and aggressive nerve agents were stashed away in secure facilities for years after MKNAOMI was officially terminated. (AP, “US Continues Defensive Germ Warfare Research,” New York Times, 9/7/1982)


    Revelations and Implications

    The late 1970s saw the rise of more Congressional probing into the clandestine activities of American intelligence agencies in the wake of the tumultuous 60s and the Vietnam War. When Seymour Hersh broke the story to the nation in 1975 that James Angleton’s counterintelligence outfit at the CIA had been routinely mass-surveilling American citizens’ mail, people were outraged. In the context of such probes as the Church Committee (1975), the Rockefeller Commission (1975), the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1976) and other notable, if problematic and incomplete investigations, Americans finally got a peek at the dirty deeds of their flagship intelligence agency. As the New York Times noted:

    There seemed to be nothing the Central Intelligence Agency had not considered: lobotomies, powerful drugs, hypnosis, mental telepathy, deprivation of sleep and food, subliminal suggestion, isolation, ultra-sonic sound, flashing stroboscopic lights. The agency even considered magicians and prostitutes.” (Joseph Treaster, “CIA Mind Probes Now More Benign,” New York Times, 8/71977)

    Little came of these probes, besides sensational headlines and James Angleton’s forced “retirement.” No one, to my knowledge, was charged with anything appropriate to the crimes committed, and the nation, while briefly outraged, moved on, as if they were watching a dramatic but ultimately irrelevant soap opera. In many ways, the Watergate break-in overshadowed the decades of abuse the CIA had been accused of.

    MK-ULTRA shut down “officially” in 1972. No one knows how many total victims were abused or killed, because in 1973, then-Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms ordered all files pertaining to MK-ULTRA shredded after getting tipped off of a coming congressional interest in the project. A few boxes were not located in time, and are the sole sources we have for review. Shortly thereafter, Helms was appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to Iran, where he served for four years, only returning reluctantly in 1977 to further testify—and commit perjury—to the CIA’s role in overthrowing the government of Chile and installing the brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet. Sydney Gottlieb, MK-ULTRA’s field-coordinator, also left the United States; he took up a humanitarian position in rural India, studying leprosy among the destitute.

    The relevance of these revelations should be clear to anyone seriously interested in the Robert Kennedy assassination—to name but one bizarre case that continues to puzzle those unfamiliar with the facts surrounding the mind-control saga. Indeed, with Robert Kennedy Jr.’s now-public admission that he does not endorse the official story surrounding his father’s murder, the Washington Post recently published a piece whose headline ran, “The assassination of Bobby Kennedy: Was Sirhan hypnotized to be the fall guy?” It only took the MSM fifty years to consider this, but I suppose any progress is a positive thing in cases this sensitive.

    The official story has Senator Kennedy giving his June 5th, 1968 primary victory speech in the Embassy Room of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. He was then escorted through a hallway offstage and hurried into a large kitchen pantry to make his way into an adjacent room for a press conference. As he finished shaking hands with a busboy, 24-year old Jordanian national, Sirhan Sirhan, emerged from beside a steam-table in a crowded corner and fired a .22 caliber pistol at the senator, mortally wounding him before being restrained and arrested. He was sentenced to death, but because California overturned the death penalty, his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

    The problem with the story, of course, is that when Thomas Noguchi, the chief coroner for L.A. county, performed his autopsy, he determined that all four shots that struck Kennedy (one passed through his suit jacket without hitting him) came from behind, at sharp upward angles. None came from the front, which is where every single witness places Sirhan. Similarly, the fatal shot, which entered just below and behind his right ear—due to tell-tale powder burn patterns—could only have been fired from between one to a maximum three inches from the senator. This is demonstrably provable and incontrovertibly invalidates the eventual verdict of the court, which of course was based on the fact that Sirhan’s hapless defense attorney—perhaps compromised by the CIA—chose to avoid an actual examination and stipulated to the prosecution’s deeply flawed evidence. Sirhan was never closer to RFK than three feet. When he was detained, LAPD officers noted his strange calm, his glassy, placid eyes, and inability to recall anything that had just transpired. Later, during his prison visits by psychiatrists who attempted to hypnotize him, they noticed that he ranked with the most extreme strata of persons susceptible to both auto-suggestive and trance states, and would immediately become hypnotized. In one instance, he was given the posthypnotic command to climb the prison bars like a monkey once the cue was given. When awoken, and cued, he did just that, to the astonishment of his psychiatrist.

    Sirhan is not alone in the short but fascinating cases involving wrongfully accused, post-hypnotically activated victims. I will conclude with the notorious, sensational, but factually proven case involving one Palle Hardrup. Hardrup was a thirty-year old Danish man who walked into a bank in Copenhagen, robbed the teller at gunpoint, shot him when he refused to hand over the money, shot the bank manager, then:

    stood staring at his victims for a few moments as if trying to puzzle out what he had done. After putting his gun into his raincoat pocket, he unhurriedly sauntered out of the bank and rode his bicycle to his aunt’s house where he sat waiting for the police. (Perrot Phillips, “Now Go Out and Kill,” from Out of This World, vol. 6, 1978, pp. 74-5)

    The author then notes that, “The case would have ended there—if it had not been for police psychiatrist Dr. Max Schmidt. Hardrup, in his opinion, did not really fit into the accepted pattern of a murder-mad gunman. He was a weak man, certainly, and a man who could easily be led. But he did not have a strong enough killer instinct to have murdered the two men at the bank—not unless he had been influenced by some other, unknown, factor.” Dr. Schmidt pursued his investigation and discovered that Hardrup had robbed another bank for $2,000 that he had given to a man by the name of Bjorn Nielsen, who Hardrup referred to as his “guiding spirit”. Nielsen had told Hardrup that he needed the money to fund a new Danish Nazi Party.

    Nielsen was a ruthless confidence trickster who was known to have dabbled in hypnotism and the occult. He denied knowledge of Hardrup’s bank raids. But Schmidt was suspicious. Dr. Schmidt eventually administered a truth serum to Hardrup and an amazing story began to unfold. Suddenly Hardrup was describing in great detail how Nielsen had taken possession of him by hypnosis and had then manipulated him into murder. It happened that Nielsen and Hardrup had shared a cell together sometime after the end of WWII. In the spartan privacy of their cell he [Nielsen] subjected Hardrup to hypnosis and so started turning him into a robot.

    But without a confession by Nielsen it would be difficult to prove in court. Dr. Paul Rieter, chief of the psychiatric department of Copenhagen City Hospital, eventually told investigators that, in his view, Hardrup had behaved in “an abnormal, insane-like condition while deprived of his own free will by hypnotic suggestive influence.” He added, “The impulse of the criminal acts came from without.”

    To prove to the jury that this could actually happen, Dr. Rieter set up an amazing demonstration. He selected “a perfectly ordinary and gentle married woman—one of the last people who could be suspected of being capable of any crime of violence. Then, with permission from her and from the court, Rieter hypnotized her and showed the jury how it was possible to turn her into a “killer”. He kept his voice soothingly soft as he told her that her marriage was being destroyed because her husband was having an affair with another woman. But he kept repeating that her husband was in no way to blame, that he had been tricked and seduced by a viciously perverted woman.

    Dr. Rieter continued to suggest to the hypnotized woman that she would be doing a great service to the world if she eliminated this evil woman and that it would not be considered a crime at all. Rieter even suggested that the hypnotized woman would be helping to protect other innocent people from the harm done by this evil woman. Also in the courtroom was another volunteer—a woman who had agreed to act as the “evil seductress”. Rieter told his guinea pig where to find her, and he handed her a gun loaded with blanks. “You know what to do and why you have to do it,” he said. “So now wake up …”

    When the woman awoke from the trance she was obviously bewildered. She immediately stood up and searched the rows of people until she spotted the woman she had been told was the “evil seductress”. She walked over to the woman, raised the gun and fired. If the gun had been loaded with real bullets the “seductress” would have been dead.

    The jury was convinced. Nielsen was sentenced to life in prison and Hardrup was sent to a “home for psychopaths.” After a few years he was released.” (Phillips, vol. 6)

    As Lisa Pease notes in her masterful essay, “Sirhan and the RFK Assassination, Part I: The Grand Illusion”:

    Have you ever seen a master magician? Have you found yourself gasping in amazement asking half-aloud, “How did he do that?” You see a man step into a box on a hollow platform immediately hoisted into the air. Within seconds, the man you saw get into a box that still hangs in front of you appears from behind you in the audience, walking down the aisle. Your eyes have convinced you this is not possible, because you saw the man get into the box. Yet there he is, the impossible made real. The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy is also a carefully constructed illusion, designed to confuse and obfuscate. Imagine what the eyewitnesses in the crowded pantry saw. Robert Kennedy had obviously been shot, and Sirhan was firing a weapon. Sirhan must have killed Kennedy. And yet, the physical evidence does not support this conclusion. Sirhan cannot have killed Kennedy any more than the magician could be both in the box and in the audience.

    Without belaboring the point and reiterating what many have surmised, it seems almost beyond argument at this juncture in the research that Sirhan was programmed to serve as a distraction for the real assassin(s) of Senator Kennedy. Multiple eyewitnesses saw him throughout the night with the suspicious girl in the polka-dot dress, who lured him into the pantry just moments before Kennedy arrived. She was also sighted with him on numerous occasions at local gun ranges, and famously fled the scene in a hysterical giddy state with another man, shouting, “We shot him! We shot Senator Kennedy!” To this day, Sirhan continues to state he has no memory of the act, with his last conscious recollection being following the woman into the pantry and her pinching him sharply before he entered “range mode”. There, he claims, individual faces and bodies morphed into paper targets. Then he goes blank. As Pease notes, it’s possible Sirhan was firing blanks, since numerous witnesses observed burnt wads of paper being expelled from his gun and hanging in the still air.

    Thane Eugene Cesar, a young employee for Lockheed who had ties to Robert Maheu—Howard Hughes’ CIA liaison and Vegas manager—was hired only weeks before the event by Ace Security, and left in January of 1969, a month before Sirhan’s trial began. Cesar was an avowed racist and George Wallace supporter who believed Kennedy was “giving the country over to the blacks”, to paraphrase his eerie interview with Ted Charach in the 1970s. He also owned a nine-shot .22 caliber Harrington and Richardson revolver, which he falsely claimed he sold before the assassination, but which was recovered in a muddy Arkansas pond years later and matched to his receipt of sale dated after the RFK murder. (Bill Turner and Jonn Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, p. 166) What is remarkable about this piece of evidence is that the man who purchased the gun, Jim Yoder, told the LA police this exact story, namely that Cesar had the .22 model after the Kennedy murder, during a re-inquiry by the LAPD in 1974. In other words, the security guard following the senator into the pantry, and positioned to his right and rear, holding his arm, owned a gun almost identical to Sirhan’s. And he had misrepresented that fact. (ibid, p. 167)

    As to the other assassins, or perhaps a third gun, it is anyone’s guess. Twenty-one year old “memorabilia collector” Michael Wayne, who possessed ultra-right wing California Minuteman Keith Gilbert’s business card when later interrogated, is a person of interest. (An already-incarcerated Gilbert coincidentally had Wayne’s business card when his prison effects were examined.) As are a few other individuals who lurked in the Ambassador that day. But it’s irrelevant to the main revelation that one of the CIA’s dirty tricks from its MK-ULTRA days very likely changed the course of world history that fateful night. And the people truly behind Robert Kennedy’s death were never identified, let alone prosecuted.

    Most of the American population has never considered that night as a transformative and disturbing episode in U.S. political history. They are content to believe that, well, only crazy people who’ve watched silly movies like Conspiracy Theory and The Manchurian Candidate and even Zoolander (“Kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia Derek!”) believe in hypno-programmed assassins and mind control. If that really took place, we’d hear about it on CNN or the Rachel Maddow Show. Which truly goes to show that in the end, the nation’s own self-reinforcing ignorance has been the CIA’s supreme accomplishment. No one really needs to be implanted with electrodes or “psychically driven” these days, so complete is the deception, so smooth and without discernible facets or seams. Today, the wholesale vertical integration of the military-industrial-psychosocial control apparatus has become as polished as a diamond. In a way, the pioneers in social engineering gave the American public far too much credit; it turns out that if you give the average citizen a cell phone that lights up and beeps every half hour, a Facebook feed, and an endless stream of sensational headlines and celebrity drama, you can get away with anything, up to and including the complete and utter erosion of our democracy.

  • Ted Charach, The Second Gun

    Ted Charach, The Second Gun

    rfkcharach

    During this, the 50th anniversary of Senator Robert Kennedy’s assassination, we wish to raise awareness of his life and death. We thus follow our posting of Joseph Palermo’s interview with a link to  Ted Charach’s The Second Gun.

    (Click image for video link)

  • Reopening the R.F.K. investigation: Paul Schrade and Congressman Allard Lowenstein (1973)

    Reopening the R.F.K. investigation: Paul Schrade and Congressman Allard Lowenstein (1973)


    rfk assassinationOnce again, we thank David Giglio for his help in unearthing this fascinating interview between Paul Schrade and Allard Lowenstein given over KPFK radio in early 1973.

    Paul Schrade needs no introduction. He was a very effective labor leader of that era who was one of the people shot that night with Bobby Kennedy at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. Schrade has worked for decades to get the RFK case reopened, and he is still at it today. He even showed up at the latest parole hearing for Sirhan Sirhan and pleaded with the board to release the alleged assassin.

    Unlike for Schrade, the modern readers probably does need an introduction to Allard Lowenstein. Lowenstein graduated from Yale Law School in 1954. He worked on Capitol Hill for Hubert Humphrey as a foreign policy advisor and then volunteered for the civil rights movement during Freedom Summer in Mississippi. One of his many other achievements: he toured southwest Africa in 1959 taking testimony about the reach and deeds of the Union of South Africa. He then wrote a book on the subject entitled Brutal Mandate. Because of that experience, he was called on to help Senator Robert Kennedy compose his landmark address given to the National Union of South African Students at the University of Capetown in 1966.

    Sickened by the Vietnam War, Lowenstein started his remarkably successful “Dump Johnson” movement in 1967. He attempted to get both Kennedy and Senator George McGovern to run in the primaries against President Lyndon Johnson. When they both refused, he enlisted Senator Eugene McCarthy to run. After McCarthy nearly defeated the president in the New Hampshire primary, Johnson decided to drop out of the race.

    After Kennedy was killed in Los Angeles, Lowenstein successfully ran for Congress in New York. After serving one term he was gerrymandered out of his seat by the Republicans in the state. It was about three years later that Lowenstein decided to listen to some of the complaints being first addressed about the questionable evidence in the RFK assassination. These were first surfaced by a small group of people mostly located in the LA area: Floyd Nelson, Lillian Castellano, Ted Charach. The more he listened, the more he became convinced that there really was something wrong with the official verdict in the case. He therefore became a species of a rare bird: an elected official who actually became an outspoken critic of the authorities in one of the major assassinations of the Sixties. When I say outspoken, I mean outspoken. For instance, in a speech he gave at Stanford in 1975, Lowenstein stated: “We have carried the investigation as far as we can without help.” He then named the DA’s office, the Attorney General of California, the Los Angeles Times and the LAPD as being obstructions in the search for the facts.

    Lowenstein’s courageous stand helped inspire other young people to get involved in the RFK case, people like the late Greg Stone. Stone helped Lowenstein write one of the earliest essays to appear in a mainstream journal on the Robert Kennedy assassination. This was his essay in the February 19, 1977 issue of The Saturday Review, entitled “The Murder of Robert Kennedy: Suppressed Evidence of More than one Assassin”. It’s hard to believe, but that essay was the cover story for that issue, something that would seem almost unimaginable today. It is even harder to believe the following: in 1975 he appeared on PBS with William F. Buckley to address these questions about the RFK case.

    Lowenstein had nothing but admiration for Bobby Kennedy. In 1971 he called him the greatest leader of the era, someone who every one else who followed would have to subconsciously be measured against. But he then sadly concluded, “We’re not going to get anyone of that quality or capacity again…” He later said something even more prescient, something which characterized the entire end of the decade of the Sixties, and all four assassinations:

    Robert Kennedy’s death, like the President’s, was mourned as an extension of the evils of senseless violence; events moved on, and the profound alterations that these deaths … brought in the equation of power in America was perceived as random …. What is odd is not that some people thought it was all random, but that so many intelligent people refused to believe that it might be anything else. Nothing can measure more graphically how limited was the general understanding of what is possible in America.

    ~ Jim DiEugenio


    Transcribed from Pacifica Radio Archives. PRA Archive #BC2125

    (Scroll to the bottom for a recent interview of Paul Schade by Len Osanic on BlackOp Radio.)

    REOPENING THE R.F.K. INVESTIGATION

    Paul Schrade and Allard Lowenstein interviewed by Jim Berland

     

    Jim Berland:

    Godfrey Issacs, the attorney for Sirhan Sirhan has made a motion for a new trial in the case of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. He’s not the only one interested in that matter. With me this evening are Paul Schrade, who does labor commentary for KPFK, and Allard Lowenstein, former congressman from New York. They have also taken an interest in the case and, as a matter of fact, have recently issued a statement calling for certain steps to be taken to look into the investigation, which has resulted in a good deal of confusion, perhaps more in the Los Angeles media than in any place else as the assassination took place in Los Angeles.

    One of those confusing episodes was the contradictory statements by Thomas Noguchi, the coroner in the case, at one point saying that the bullet that issued from Sirhan’s gun could not have killed Robert Kennedy, and then a couple of years later saying that Sirhan was the only one who could have killed Robert Kennedy. What other contradictions are you pointing to, and what would you like to see done about it?

    Paul Schrade:

    Well, the contradiction that worries me most, because I was directly involved, is that the Los Angeles Police Department has made an inventory of the eight bullets fired by Sirhan, by his gun. And that inventory says that the bullet that wounded me in the head passed through the right shoulder of Robert Kennedy’s coat. That bullet didn’t wound him, but it passed through from back to front.

    I recall that I was standing behind Robert Kennedy observing him shaking hands with the workers in the Ambassador Hotel kitchen, and was to his left behind him. I cannot, in my own mind, reconcile the passage of that bullet from back to front through Kennedy’s coat and winding up in my head. He would have had to been completely turned around facing me in a totally different direction. When I was shot and became unconscious as a result of it, at no time had he moved to that position. If that’s the case, then, if we can’t reconcile that part of the inventory at the Los Angeles Police Department, then we have a ninth bullet. So, that’s one of the major contradictions that appears based upon the evidence provided by the Los Angeles Police Department and the prosecution.

    Jim Berland:

    What other kinds of contradictions? I know that Issacs has said in his motion that he feels that it was physically improbable, if not impossible, for Sirhan to have fired the bullet that killed Robert Kennedy.

    Allard Lowenstein:

    The central fact, which some how or other gets lost when you listen to Chief Davis or Mr. Busch, is that the bullet that killed Robert Kennedy went in at one inch, and the it is impossible to find any of all those people who were in that kitchen that, in fact, testified that the gun that was supposed to have fired that bullet was anywhere near one inch from Senator Kennedy’s head. Now, I find that compelling, not because eyewitness testimony is reliable. It is not and everyone knows that, but it clearly is difficult to say that a bullet that killed Robert Kennedy at a distance of one inch was fired from a gun which is variously placed at anywhere up to six feet away from him.

    And when the police and the district attorney try to get past that by saying, “Nobody saw another gun, therefore it’s clear that it was Sirhan’s gun,” what they’re doing is taking the position that there are none so blind as those who will not see what the Los Angeles Police want them to see. Because in fact everyone has testified the same central fact that has to be faced, which is that Sirhan was in front of Kennedy, that even if Kennedy had turned, and he had, and had not turned back, and that’s in dispute, it is impossible for a gun to fire a bullet point blank into Kennedy’s head if that gun was feet away from him.

    Now, I think that if that can’t be reconciled, if we can’t find some way to square that, that we then must go beyond our fantasy, which has always been mine particularly, and I’m talking out of a sense of my own guilt and negligence, not pointing fingers at anyone else. But we ought to get past the fantasy that’s gripped us all these years that somehow or another there was nothing here except Sirhan. What there was beyond Sirhan, I don’t know, but I’m saying that we mustn’t fantasize answers. We must try to find facts and then decide from those facts what, in fact, occurred.

    So, I start with a very real concern that we not let the continual misstatement of the eyewitness testimony confuse us. The eyewitness testimony is the main basis on which Davis and Busch and these other people insist that the case is closed. They say, “Everyone saw Sirhan shooting Kennedy.” Well, everyone saw Sirhan shooting. The issue of whether they saw them shooting Kennedy has to do with where the bullet entered Kennedy, or bullets entered Kennedy, and where the people put the gun that was shooting. And so they quite intentionally turn around what the eyewitness testimony is to try to make it say what they want it to say, and it says the opposite.

    So, while I have problems about the number of bullets, I think that’s the central question. Paul mentioned one of the explanations that the authorities have given for the fact that there are so many mores holes than there are bullets. They give others, of course, when they find these don’t stand up. I have problems about that, and I have problems about the fact that the bullet in Senator Kennedy’s neck appears not to be from the same gun as the bullet in the walls of his stomach. I say “appears” because we’re not making any definitive statements about that either. But what troubles me the most is when you take everyone’s view of what they saw, and you take the statistics that have been compiled about those bullets and you take the autopsy report and you add it together you have a probability factor that says, “Something is rotten in the way this thing was explained to the public.”

    It’s at that point that we say, “Answer these questions,” and what we get when we raise these questions is even more troublesome because what we get is a combination of suppressing our position so that, in fact, it’s impossible to find out what it is. As for instance the Los Angeles Times, which has twice declined to report extensive statements that Paul and I have made about the facts and about our questions. Never have those questions that we’ve raised appeared, but instead of that they have taken out of context and distorted what we said and then attacked us for saying things we didn’t say.

    And the same has been done now to Mr. Harper, the ballistics man in Pasadena whose affidavit has been, I think, as careful and thorough as any man’s could be on the basis of what he’s been allowed to study. And yet the papers that have reported what he has said have alleged that he has repudiated what he said without ever reporting what he said, and, in fact, what he said was that the evidence is not definitive, that the questions are serious and can be determined if we will go through certain procedures so that we have some idea of what the facts are. That, they say, is repudiation of something without ever reporting what it is he said they say he’s now repudiating.

    So I get troubled about the effort to distort what we’re saying and then to discredit us. I heard poor Chief Davis saying the other day that the people on lecture tours are doing all this. That’s a sad thing for the man to say. He knows perfectly well that not only am I not on a lecture tour and not only is Paul not on a lecture tour, but beyond that all the expenses that are involved, considerable expenses, have been paid out of my rather limited pocket and out of Paul’s. We don’t get subsidized, we don’t want to get subsidized.

    For a man in Chief Davis’ position to be that careless about his statements about people who are earnestly trying to get to the facts, who have met with him, never questioned his motives, never imputed Mr. Busch’s motives, we’ve tried very hard to work with them cooperatively, is disturbing because if they’re that careless about this how do I know that they can be trusted in what they say about anything else? So there’s a whole pattern that I believe has emerged since our pubic statement of distortion and of an effort to discredit, of a failure to deal with the questions we’ve raised, which has intensified our sense that there has to be an investigation.

    Jim Berland:

    What are the ballistic things that Mr. Harper has referred to that should be tested in order to clarify what he calls, now, an unclear situation?

    Paul Schrade:

    Well, one of the most important things that he discovered was the question of the cannelure. A cannelure is a neuraled ring on the bullet itself, and the reason this becomes significant is that on the whole bullet that’s in evidence that was pulled from the stomach of Billy Weisel, who was the ABC Television producer wounded that night, that bullet in comparison with the bullet that was fired into Kennedy’s back that was recovered and is still in evidence, those two bullets differ in the number of cannelures they have. Those on the Weisel bullet, there are two stripes or cannelures. On the Kennedy bullet there’s only one. That becomes important because the manufacturer of the bullets in the Sirhan gun never made more than a two-cannelure bullet, so the one-cannelure bullet coming out of Kennedy then becomes important in raising doubts that Sirhan was the only person firing a gun in there that night.

    Now, the prosecution, again, raised questions about this. They say the bullets in evidence have been tampered with or damaged, yet two sets of photographs of those two bullets, one was made in 1970 under the auspices of William Harper. The other set was made through a court order received by county supervisor Baxter Ward. That second set was made April of ’74. Those two photographs, when you look at them, show no damage to the bullets, and no deterioration as Busch and Davis charge, or at least they raise that question.

    Allard Lowenstein:

    Hint.

    Paul Schrade:

    They hint that that’s the case, yet they never say, “Let’s take a look at them to find out if they’ve been damaged or there is deterioration.” So, the cannelure question becomes important because if these are two different manufacturers then Sirhan could not have fired that one bullet into the back because that bullet would have had to come from a different manufacturer. Now, the Los Angeles Police Department and the prosecution confirm that Sirhan’s gun carried the bullets of only one manufacturer, Cascade Cartridge Company. So, that’s one part of the ballistics on it.

    The other is that both Harper and McDonald and, by the way, a third ballistics expert or forensic expert as they’re called, have checked out the photographs and have determined that the rifling angle and the barrel markings are significantly different. This could, then, be the basis of finding another gun involved rather than just the Sirhan gun. So, we’re asking that the gun be re-fired, these comparisons be made, that all of the bullets in evidence, seven of the eight, portions of which, or all of which, were collected by the Los Angeles Police Department. That the ballistics experts have a chance to take a look at those barrel markings and riflings and check out the manufacturer.

    There’s one very good test that was canceled by coroner Noguchi on the basis of advice from the LAPD’s expert, DeWayne Wolfer. That test was called a neutron activation test. That test can determine the content of the bullets or the bullet fragments still in evidence and go a long way in determining the manufacturer. Again, if variations in manufacture show up in those tests, then we’re on the road to determining there was a second gun. So, all of these tests can be made and should be made.

    It’s really very difficult to understand why Chief Davis and District Attorney Busch refuse to do this. We know that Sirhan’s moving to get a new trial. We think the issues and the questions in this case are much more compelling than anything Sirhan wants to do, and this is why we’re carrying on our independent investigation and presentation of information to the pubic because there are broader issues involved than just Sirhan’s welfare, and this is why we’re so concerned and why we raised these questions in our statement last December 15th.

    Jim Berland:

    I noticed that you talk about the nature of Sirhan’s trial and explain the fact that it was not a trial of fact. Could you explain that to our listeners? What actually happened at Sirhan’s trial the first time around?

    Allard Lowenstein:

    The defense position was that Sirhan had, in fact, killed Kennedy, but that he was of diminished mental capacity and, therefore, should not get the gas chamber. His lawyer then, his chief counsel, Grant Cooper, who’s a very distinguished member of the Los Angeles bar says now that if he’d known then what he knows now he would have had a different defense. And, in fact, one of the questions that’s disturbing is why some of the information that is clearly pertinent wasn’t available to the defense at that time, and that’s a question that, I believe, may account for some of the nervousness of the authorities.

    The authorities acted at that time, I want to give the most generous interpretation I can to what’s happened on their side, they acted on the knowledge, which appeared total, and which I shared, which that is to say all of us shared. I think very few people questioned the certainty that Sirhan had killed Robert Kennedy, and acting on that certainty as it appeared then, the trial was not a trial as it would have normally been in determining the facts of what occurred. But, giving that generous interpretation of what happened, and I think it’s a fair assumption that the authorities could have believed that and therefore have assumed that anything to the contrary was confusion, giving that interpretation to it would require them now to say, “Look, in view of what has become clear we want to cooperate in finding out what did happen because this is not a matter of intentional deception or anything at the time of the murder. What this is is a question of what occurred at one of the turning points in recent American history.” Robert Kennedy was a person so potential, so beloved, really so unique for this country at that time that his demise, then, scooped out the country from its chin to its knees. It left us with a sense that almost has gotten worse with time, which is unusual with a death of a person. That that should be treated as something where it is only a historical footnote to know how it came about, understanding the impact of that death and understanding the potential lesson for the future that may or not lurk in it as to how that happened and what it portends, there is no way that a person who loves the United States and cares about what happens now can say that this has to be considered closed.

    It isn’t closed, it will not be closed. It will be closed only when these tests have been conducted, and if these tests are not decisive, then so be it. Let’s at least find that out, but don’t say we won’t conduct tests because the results of those tests may not be decisive. That’s simply using an excuse to prevent trying to find out something which we have a right to try to find out. If in the end we can’t find it out, at least let it be not that we never tried, but that having tried we failed and then we have to live with it. I believe we can find out a great deal by these tests, and that what the authorities ought to be doing is to move quickly to cooperate in bringing those tests about in order that we know all that we possibly can know, and then develop from there the kind of investigation that that may dictate.

    If it turns out those bullets match, if it turns out the eyewitness testimony can be reconciled, if it turns out that when the gun is test fired there is no problem of matching that with the bullet from Senator Kennedy’s neck, if the neutron activation analysis supports the theory that Sirhan’s gun did in fact, then I would say, “All right, the trajectory problem remains, but let’s accept the fact that the preponderance of evidence is that, even though it’s hard to understand, that those eight bullets did inflict those bullet holes.”

    Do you see what I’m saying? Is that if any major chunk of these doubts can be allayed, as I believe they can, if they’re allayable, then the other questions, some of which we haven’t even mentioned today because they’re so numerous that they could take hours to list, we would, I think both of us, be prepared to say, “Well, we will accept as nearly definitive we can these answers.” But it’s the concealment and the dishonesty and the effort to discredit the questions. It’s the fact that when people give information from official positions they’ve told me repeatedly things which were not true, which doesn’t make me feel that they’re interested in getting to the bottom of the case. These kinds of things make what are doubts become more persistent doubts, not less.

    Jim Berland:

    Now, you’ve called for the release of a 10-volume report of the official investigation and of the official trajectory study. Does that include the information from the coroner’s office, and what kind of things do you expect there, or what are you hoping for? Is it common for this kind of material to be released?

    Allard Lowenstein:

    Well, it’s difficult to know what’s in it since we haven’t had access to it. It’s also difficult to know why we can’t have access to it since there seems to be no reason why if the information there sustains the verdict it should be kept secret. There’s no rule that requires that information of an investigation of this kind be, in effect, classified. There’s no suggestion that the national security is involved or that the foreign policy of the United States would be compromised or any of the things that would may be be used as a justification for preventing the public from having access to information which is of public concern. So, I don’t know why it’s not made available.

    The kinds of information that I would like to see available to the public include, for instance, the issue of what happened to Senator Kennedy’s clothes. The reason I’m pausing is I’m trying to take examples which are not so complicated that it takes longer to explain why it’s crucial than it’s worth. Take this, one of the bullets that Paul referred to the peculiar course of the bullet that was supposed to have hit him. There was another bullet that was supposed to have gone through Senator Kennedy’s chest, hit a ceiling panel, which was an inch thick, gone through that to the ceiling above, that is the floor above, bounced off that, come back through another ceiling panel, also approximately an inch thick, and then taken off down the pantry 20 feet to hit Mrs. Evans in the head. Mrs. Evans was, at the time, troubling over her shoe, which had fallen off, and she was hit in a direction that went up, not down in her head.

    One of the things that I would like to find out is what the evidence is on those ceiling panels. I’d like to see, as I’m told it can be done, which bullet holes in those ceiling panels are entry holes, where the bullets went up and where they came down. Then you understand, you find something out. If the bullet didn’t go up through one panel and down through the next, then we have to have another bullet. Furthermore, I’d like to find out whether firing a bullet through someone’s simulated chest and then through two ceiling panels that are almost an inch thick each, and then having it go 20 feet and hit a lady in another simulated head, whether there would be 31 grains left of that bullet out of the 39 that it had when it started. If so, I’d like to know that, but if not I think the police ought to want to know that because that means that their explanation of that bullet doesn’t stand up.

    Now, there are a lot of other questions like that. I’m afraid I’m going on at length, and I didn’t intend to. What I’m suggesting to you is that that we submitted 23 questions over a year ago to the authorities. They could be expanded probably three or four times as much. But those 23 questions are questions which, presumably, this 10-volume report should be able to answer one way or another. I can’t believe that these questions didn’t occur to anyone til we came along. That seems to me to assume almost an arrogant attitude about the wisdom and the intelligence of the people dealing with the case. If these questions were dealt with there’s got to be some way that we can find out what the answers were to these questions, and so far the authorities have not either been able or have been willing to give us those answers. I’ll give you one other example. No, I won’t. I’ve talked too long on that question.

    Jim Berland:

    Well, the interesting thing is that there has been some investigation done, and the existence of a second gun is not just a matter of conjecture. What of the second gun? How did that come about? How did that discovery take place? Is there, in fact, a real second gun, or is it the figment of some other biased investigator’s imagination? Is that [inaudible 00:21:23]?

    Paul Schrade:

    There’s been a lot of private investigation going on over the years. Both Al and I share guilt in not recognizing there were serious questions before this. But those of us who were friends of Robert Kennedy felt very deeply about his death and it was very painful for us to even consider there was anything else involved than the one-gun, lone assassin theory because that’s what obvious was before the public. It was presented in the trial and so forth. But there were people who were diligently working at finding out more information because there were questions in people’s minds right from the beginning. One film I’ve seen on the second gun, I’m displeased with the film itself because I think that it’s not well-done. It does raise very important information, and should be seen. Although, my criticisms, I believe, are valid of that film.

    Ted Chirac, who did the film, did discover something that the Los Angeles Police Department with all of their investigators and the tens of thousands of hours of investigations they claim they made, and probably did, they were not able to discover, that an armed guard in that room was carrying a gun, had pulled that gun during the assassination, although he himself said that he didn’t fire it. I’m not charging he fired it or is even a suspect in this case, but there’s some other things about him that were discovered by a private investigation. One is that he owned a 22 caliber pistol that he claimed he sold in February of ’68, months before the assassination. Well, private investigator, Ted Chirac, found out that that gun actually had been purchased by a person in September of ’68, after the assassination. So, most likely it was in the possession of this guard during the period of the assassination. Now, on the record he said he sold it beforehand.

    So, that question was never explored by the Los Angeles Police. They never confiscated the gun that he said he had in the room that night, which he claims was his 38 pistol that he carried as a guard. So, the police didn’t get into this question. The police did say that they checked out everybody in the kitchen area that night who might possibly have been present during the assassination to check political background. They said nobody of extremist views or antagonistic to Kennedy was in that room that night. Yet, this same guard testified that he raised money, a small amount, for George Wallace and distributed leaflets for him. The same guard considered both Robert Kennedy and John Kennedy enemies who were selling out the country to the commies and to the blacks, and so here is a man of very extreme political views present there. Yet, the LA Police Department investigation did not discover that, or discovered it and didn’t say anything about it. So, that man ought to be checked out.

    There’s one other thing that the police didn’t discover, and that is that there was a man working for the Ambassador Hotel in the kitchen who was listed by the Secret Service, according to Metro Media, listed by the Secret Service as a man dangerous to presidents. Now, I would think that man had some extreme views, and, yet, the Los Angeles Police Department never mentioned that in the investigation.

    Allard Lowenstein:

    Nor the fact that in Sirhan’s pocket the night he was arrested was found the key to a car and that when Sirhan refused to reveal his name and the police dispatched two detectives to the Ambassador Hotel with instructions to find a car that that key fitted so they could find out who they had at Rampart, the key fitted the car of this individual that Paul is talking about. The explanation given is that this man’s ignition was lose, and that’s why Sirhan had a key in his pocket that fitted that car. Now, one of the questions I asked a year ago, to which there may be a simple answer, is did the key that was found in Sirhan’s pocket fit Sirhan’s car?

    I’m not interested in the excuse or the fact that the ignition was lose. What I’m interested in was he carrying the key to another man’s car, and if so what connection does that indicate existed between these people? These questions are among that sea or that web that I mentioned earlier on, are answerable questions, and may not indicate anything at all. But, because of the central circumstance there have to be some concern about the failure to investigate thoroughly or to answer accurately these kinds of questions.

    There’s an extraordinary woman that lives in Los Angeles called Lillian Castellano who has a whole, literally an attic filled with documentation of inconsistencies in official positions. Most of those inconsistencies, if you could square the central facts, one could accept is the result of haste or bungling or human failure. But, failing to get those kinds of central questions answered, when you find that the police are saying that witnesses said things which are literally the reverse of what they said, you get troubled. I think what we’re suggesting today, as we’ve been suggesting for some time, is that if these questions can be answered, so much the better. But, if they can’t isn’t it urgently needed to find out some facts from which we can then try to understand what damaged us so much that night?

    Paul Schrade:

    And here the authorities have a very important responsibility in getting to the truth in this matter because there are serious doubts about the case now, and I’m sure many people agree with us on it. Yet, we find the authorities most reluctant to do anything but slam the door on us and not answer any questions. The authorities are really responsible, in great part, for the doubt, for the gaps in the evidence that we’ve discussed here this evening, and are doing nothing to allay those doubts, and therefore they have some responsibility in this. And this is why I get very, very concerned when the authorities tell us, “Well, let Sirhan take the initiative. Let Sirhan go to court. Join Sirhan in what he’s trying to do.”

    Well, I’m unwilling to do that. First of all, my own personal feelings are most likely evident to most people why I wouldn’t want to do that. But just on the more serious question of the truth in this case, it’s more important that the authorities and concerned citizens get involved and try to solve these problems rather than leaving it to a person who, obviously, was there intending to kill Robert Kennedy, who said on the witness stand that he did kill Kennedy. I don’t see why the authorities allow the initiative to remain in Sirhan’s hands. And this is why we’re going to continue to insist that the authorities who, in great part, are responsible for the doubts, for the lack of a competent investigation, or their keeping information from the public, that they have an initiative in this one, too, and have a greater responsibility than anyone to get to the bottom of these questions.

    Allard Lowenstein:

    And since we’re recording in Los Angeles may I just say that I would hope that the citizens of this city, if nothing more came of listening to us, would insist that the Los Angeles Times, which has pretenses of being a national newspaper of quality, and has prospects of that, which I’ve admired for years as a paper that one can rely on ahead of so many other papers because of its thoroughness and fairness, that the Los Angeles Times explain to the citizens of Los Angeles what conceivable circumstance justifies refusing to report accurately questions raised by responsible people about a murder that occurred in this city. And then distorting those questions and attacking the people who raised them in a way which makes it impossible for the people of this city even to know what the issues are. I think that question ought to be put to the Los Angeles Times by the citizens of this community until an answer is obtained.

    Jim Berland:

    Have you received any positive response from public officials, anyone associated with the City of Los Angeles, with the congressional or senatorial delegation in California, with other public figures in the United States?

    Allard Lowenstein:

    Yes, I would say that there is overwhelming support, sympathy, interest from public people and that if it gets to the point to where we have to join in this kind of public, I hate even to contemplate it, of a public argument going on, that that will be marshaled. We have not asked, nor do we now want, to try to get into that situation. We still hope that there will be through the channels that are appropriate and without a political battle that there will be cooperation. But if that doesn’t happen, I can assure you that the information that is necessary to bring about major support from political and other influential people around the country will occur.

    Jim Berland:

    One last question, how is it that not only this assassination, but the assassination of John Kennedy should become embroiled in this kind of confusion? What is it about assassination, do you think, that leads the local authorities to apparently fix on a target as the criminal involved and be so reluctant to expand their investigation?

    Allard Lowenstein:

    I wouldn’t want to say something about that that I’m not sure Paul would agree with. We haven’t really talked this through, and I’m not speaking for anyone but myself. I am not now prepared to generalize about the assassinations. I am only prepared now to generalize about questions about assassinations. I’m no longer prepared to believe automatically, as I did for many years, that the Warren Commission was correct. Obviously, that seems to me now to be subject to reexamination also. But it may very well be that there were in each of these assassinations separate circumstances that produced these assassinations. They may not be at all interlocked. The circumstances attending the investigations may all be separate, even though there were similar difficulties, so that I would say first that it’s possible that the bedlam that’s caused and the horror that’s caused induces a kind of momentary incompetence among people who then cover up their own incompetence out of human concerns for their careers. That’s very possible.

    I would want to expressly state that it seems to me as injudicious to go from where we are now to a conclusion that there is a pattern in these assassinations that interlocks them in either investigation or in cause, as it was as injudicious before to conclude that only loose nuts could have done these things. The one thing that I most want to do, and pledge that I will try for myself to do, is to come to no conclusions until we have facts on which we can make reasonable conclusions.

    But, obviously, if we now let Los Angeles sit in its present state without understanding what the evidence is that we can get, then we are going to, I believe as Paul said before, multiply the doubts about everything because people are going to say, “Well, my goodness, if they won’t even take, the authorities, that is, won’t even take these simple steps. Why can’t they test-fire a gun? Is there a rational person who can understand why a gun can’t be test-fired? Why it should take a court fight to test-fire a gun?” There isn’t anyone who can understand that once you understand that we don’t even know if the gun was ever test-fired because the authorities say that when they test-fired it last time and they introduced the bullets into evidence they put on the exhibit, exhibit 55, the number of a different gun. We didn’t do it, they did it, and why they don’t want to clarify what may have been a clerical error by test-firing that gun and answering that question is baffling.

    And so, we come back to your question, why these things occur? Maybe because there were separate circumstances that overlapped by coincidence, maybe not. But, if we don’t start to get answers to these questions, the sense that there’s something more that leads people to stonewall, which is the thing most Americans learned most clearly in the last two years, is that when authorities stonewall there’s something they don’t to have people know, and people are not accepting that any longer, I believe, in the United States. Now, if Paul wants to separate his view on that I’d be glad to yield to that.

    Paul Schrade:

    Well, it’s similar to that, and it raises a question of why the men who’ve been assassinated in this country are those who are in some way dealing with very serious problems Americans have, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King. You can even include the contract out on Cesar Chavez’s life that was discovered a couple of years ago. Why are these persons the targets of assassins? That question comes in very strongly in this case and has to be dealt with.

    One of the convincing things that has come, to me, is that even though I knew Richard Nixon when he first began running for office and knew how corrupt he was, I still had a very difficult time believing that he would do the kinds of things and abusing the power of the presidency that he did while he was in office. And when you take that into account, plus the revelations now about the CIA being involved in domestic activities, the FBI and the military being involved in the campuses during the periods of demonstrations in the last several years, are totally corrupting the democratic system. And, using burglary and surveillance and murder as tactics in maintaining their particular form of control over the population, those things strongly motivate me in getting to the bottom of these questions.

    But, this is why we also have to exercise a great deal of discipline and self control. We’ve got to get at the bottom of these kinds of questions on the basis of the evidence, and we’ve got to do it based upon what we think is a system of justice so that we get to the bottom of these questions based upon the questions we’ve raised and the answers to them. I’m willing to back away from this whole thing if the serious questions we’ve raised with the authorities are reconciled in some intelligent, rational way. And, yet, all we’re getting is stonewalling, suppressing of information, questioning of people’s motives and no real objective consideration of these questions, and this is what we’re demanding of the authorities. And, we’re going to continue demanding answers to those questions, and I’m sure the public will support us on those.

    Jim Berland:

    Paul Schrade and Allard Lowenstein, thank you very much. For KPFK in Los Angeles this is Jim Berland.


    Written by OurHiddenHistory on Monday February 20, 2017


    Interview of Paul Schrade by Len Osanic, BlackOp Radio, March 2, 2017

    (If your browser is taking too much time to load the above, try clicking here.)

  • Robert Scheer can’t help himself


    Back in 1997, Seymour Hersh released his horrendous hatchet job of a book on John F. Kennedy, The Dark Side of Camelot. In discussing the book back then, I wrote that it was best perceived as the follow-up reaction to Oliver Stone’s film about the Kennedy murder case, JFK. The first part of the Establishment’s reaction to Stone’s film had been Gerald Posner’s 1993 book Case Closed. That error-riddled propaganda manifesto was meant to confuse the public as to how President Kennedy was killed. Maybe Oswald did it after all? Hersh’s book was the right cross to Posner’s left hook. It was meant to deflate the image of Kennedy as presented by Stone. He really was not all he was cracked up to be. So, go back to sleep Mr. John Q. Public, nothing was lost with Kennedy’s death anyway.

    But there was a problem with Hersh’s pile of rubbish. Namely, it was so bad that even much of the MSM would not approve it. The book got many more negative reviews than it did positive ones, e.g. Newsweek. Some commentators even wrote that Hersh had stooped so low that the volume would be better titled “The Dark Side of Seymour Hersh”.

    Up until that time, Hersh had been praised by much of the Left as being some kind of journalistic paragon. He had made his name as one of the men who had publicized the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. And he had written an expose about Henry Kissinger called The Price of Power. Because of this inflated record, some on the Left decided that Hersh needed to be protected from the pummeling he was taking over his Kennedy book. Bob Scheer was one of those who came to his aid.

    Scheer, who had previously worked at Ramparts, was now working for the Los Angeles Times. The column he wrote back in 1997 for his former employer has now been recycled and reprinted at his web site “truthdig”. (click here)

    In that column he writes that the CIA had recruited Chicago Mafia chief Sam Giancana to help eliminate Fidel Castro. That is true and is contained in his source, the 1967 CIA Inspector General Report on the plots. Scheer then writes that Attorney General Robert Kennedy knew all about this attempt with Giancana since he was briefed on it in May of 1962 by the Agency.

    To read something like that makes me think of the famous response by attorney Joseph Welch to the demagogue Senator Joe McCarthy in 1954, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” It is true that Kennedy was briefed in May of 1962. But Scheer jerks it out of context so jarringly that the whole affair is denied its true meaning.

    The truth is that the CIA had to brief Kennedy about the first phase of the plots. Not because he was in on them, but for the precise reason he was not. What had happened to cause this reluctant briefing is all in the IG Report. In the first phase of the CIA-Mafia plots, CIA asset Robert Maheu had recruited mobsters Giancana, Johnny Roselli and Santo Trafficante. That recruitment had begun in August of 1960, before John Kennedy’s inauguration, under Eisenhower. (IG Report, p. 16) The idea was that the CIA wished to know if the Mafia still had any associates on the island that could get close enough to Castro to slip him some form of poisonous toxins. These would be supplied in more than one possible form, as dreamed up by the CIA’s technical division. (ibid, p. 23) Giancana actually opposed the use of firearms since it would be hard to find someone to volunteer for such an assignment since the escape would be difficult. (ibid) These plots, which featured things like poison pills and exploding cigars, all failed.

    In the IG Report, these were termed the first phase of the Gambling Syndicate plots. They seem to have been closed down around April or May of 1961. This was after the failure at the Bay of Pigs. In their report, the authors make an inventory about who was knowledgeable about this phase of the plots. The Kennedys are not on that list. (ibid, p. 35) So why did RFK have to be briefed about it?

    Because in late 1961, or early 1962, Giancana called in a favor from Maheu. The windy city mobster was having an affair with singer Phyllis McGuire. But he suspected that she was two-timing him with comedian Dan Rowan. So he requested Maheu arrange to wiretap her room. Maheu was reluctant, but Giancana reminded him that he owed him one for the outreach on the Castro plots. (ibid, p. 57) Maheu then complied. But the local police in Las Vegas discovered the attempt in process. The actual wiretapper then called Maheu in the presence of the authorities. And this information was now relayed to the FBI. (ibid, p. 59) In late March of 1962, his former employers at the FBI called Maheu for clarification as to why they should not prosecute the perpetrator. Maheu referred the Bureau to the CIA.

    Since the FBI worked under the Justice Department, a lawyer from Justice, Herbert Miller, got in contact with the Agency. So now, the Attorney General had to be formally briefed on the whole affair, one of the reasons being that Giancana was one of the mobsters that Robert Kennedy was pursuing by all legal means at his disposal.

    In early May of 1962, RFK was briefed on how Maheu got involved with the wiretapping, and why Giancana felt he could call on him. (IG Report, pp. 62-63) The obvious question Scheer avoids is this: Why would RFK have to be briefed on the matter if he had known about it in advance?

    But that’s not the worst part of what Scheer leaves out. RFK made it clear to both the CIA and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover that he was very upset that the Agency would deal with these kinds of people at all. And that this now endangered the case he had against Giancana. He made it clear that he wanted to hear no more about the CIA reaching out to the Mafia. In fact, as the Church Committee noted, one of the CIA briefers said: ”If you have seen Mr. Kennedy’s eyes get steely and his jaw set and his voice get low and precise, you get a definite feeling of unhappiness.” (Probe, Volume 4, No. 6, p. 7) According to John Siegenthaler, as noted in Ronald Goldfarb’s book Perfect Villains, Imperfect Heroes, RFK called CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms into his office and reamed him over this.

    But none of this mattered. For, as the report makes clear, CIA officer William Harvey was already working on Phase 2 of the plots with John Roselli. And Kennedy’s briefers did not tell him about it. (IG Report, p. 64) In fact, Harvey and CIA Officer Sheffield Edwards agreed to falsify the internal record by saying CIA Director John McCone—Kennedy’s appointee—had authorized Phase 2, when he had not. (op. cit., Probe) Why and how Scheer could discard all of this is kind of puzzling. But there is still more Scheer leaves out.

    When the Harvey-Roselli plots also came to naught, the CIA then recruited a Cuban national named Rolando Cubela to continue the plots. They gave him the code name AM/LASH. This phase of the Castro murder attempts went on from 1963-65; in other words, well into the Johnson administration. When Cubela asked for proof of high-level authorization inside the government, Richard Helms advised against telling Robert Kennedy about it. (ibid, pp. 88-89) But he decided to send CIA Officer Desmond Fitzgerald to see Cubela under a false name and say he was representing Kennedy. To make this plain: At every major step of the CIA plots to kill Castro, the Agency decided not just to keep RFK in the dark about them; but to lie to him, and then misrepresent him.

    In 1967, when the IG Report was commissioned, the reason was that newspaper columnist Drew Pearson had gotten wind of the plots and was publishing a much-mangled version of them. It was clear he did not have all the information that the CIA did. And the IG Report speculates that either Maheu or Roselli was leaking. (ibid, p. 122) Near the end of that report, in summarizing the Pearson stories, the authors of the IG Report declare that it is simply not true that Robert Kennedy may have approved of the plots. (p. 130) To make it even more obvious: the authors then postulate, in a limited hangout mode, if it were possible for the Agency to say it was “merely an instrument of policy?” Their own reply, in black and white, is: “Not in this case” (p. 131) In the report, that question is underlined and is typed all the way across the page, in spite of margins. How the heck Scheer could have missed it is simply stunning.

    Scheer also relies on a State Department meeting that General Ed Lansdale had convened about Operation Mongoose. The report makes clear that Robert Kennedy was not at the meeting. (IG Report, p. 112) There was some kind of general talk about eliminating Castro, which John McCone quickly neutered, later telling the authors of the IG Report that those terms were used in the context of overthrowing Castro’s government, not assassinating him. Afterwards, Lansdale inquired to Harvey about it. But Harvey did not want to disclose anything about his association with Roselli at the time. (ibid, pp. 114-15) But further, the records of Mongoose have been largely declassified today, and there is no mention of any such assassination plots in them, just as there is no mention of such plots in any of the Bay of Pigs declassifications. Scheer also left out the fact that every administration official the Church Committee interviewed said that JFK never knew about any such ongoing plots. (Alleged Assassination Plots, pp. 154-161) This included National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy. If that isn’t enough, then how about Helms and Harvey also saying it? (ibid, pp. 148-52, 153-54)

    Could it get any worse for Scheer? Yes. As noted, this incredibly shallow and slanted column first appeared in the LA Times back in 1997. Probe Magazine replied to it back then. The LA Times printed that reply in its correspondence section. Did Scheer miss a correction to his own column? Or did he just ignore it?

    The occasion for Scheer recycling his worthless column is the visit by President Obama to Cuba. Needless to say, Scheer leaves out the diplomatic back channel to Castro that President Kennedy had set up in 1963 after the resolution of the Missile Crisis. As Jim Douglass so thoroughly described in JFK and The Unspeakable, that back channel—conducted through proxies like journalists Lisa Howard, Jean Daniel and diplomat William Attwood—likely would have resulted in diplomatic relations being restored between Cuba and the USA.

    In fact, Castro was jubilant about that possibility after Daniel’s visit in November of 1963. He then got the news of Kennedy’s assassination. He said first, “This is bad news … this is bad news … this is bad news.” He then turned to Daniel and said that everything was going to change now. Which it did. For over fifty years.

    Barack Obama is doing what John Kennedy would have done in a second term—had he not been assassinated. And the authority for that is Fidel Castro. In fact, Castro was so sold on this cooperation that he told Jean Daniel that, if need be, he would endorse Barry Goldwater in 1964 to guarantee Kennedy’s re-election. (Jim Douglass, JFK and The Unspeakable, pp. 84-90)

    Someone go tell Bob Scheer about all this—before he plants another custard pie on his face again.


    Addendum: Jim DiEugenio’s letter to the LA Times from November 11, 1997

    Letters to the Editor
    Los Angeles Times
    Times Mirror Square
    Los Angeles, CA 90053

    Dear Editors:

    In his column of November 11, 1997, Robert Scheer wrote that there is no question that Sy Hersh was correct in writing that John Kennedy ordered Castro’s assassination. Scheer cites as support the CIA’s 1967 Inspector General report on the Castro Assassination Plots.

    Unfortunately for Mr. Scheer, he is not the only person in LA with a copy of the CIA’s Inspector General report on the Castro Assassination Plots. The report states the opposite of what Mssrs. Scheer and Hersh proclaim. I have attached copies of the pages from which the following quotes are taken so there can be no doubt as to their authenticity. In the report, we find the following explicit, unequivocal statement:

    Former Attorney General Robert Kennedy was fully briefed by Houston and Edwards on 7 May 1962. A memorandum confirming the oral briefing was forwarded to Kennedy on 14 May 1962. The memorandum does not use the word “assassinate,” but there is little room for misinterpretation of what was meant. Presumably the original of that memorandum is still in the files of the Justice Department. It should be noted that the briefing of Kennedy was restricted to Phase One of the operation, which had ended a year earlier. Phase Two was already under way at the time of the briefing, but Kennedy was not told of it. [CIA IG Report, p. 130, emphasis added.]

    Phase One and Two refer to separate prongs of the assassination attempts against Castro. In other words, Robert Kennedy was told only after such plots, which had been ongoing during President John Kennedy’s tenure, had ended. Why would he need to be briefed on these plots after they had ended if he was aware of them while they were taking place? Note too that RFK was not told that new efforts were underway to kill Castro. Two pages after this admission, we find the next interesting and quite explicit question asked and answered by the CIA itself:

    Can CIA state or imply that it was merely an instrument of policy?

    Not in this case.

    [CIA IG Report, p. 132]

    The CIA has admitted flatly, for the record, in their own report, that they had no authorization for these plots; that they were not following any expressed policy. I hope you can express this correction in your paper.

    Sincerely,

    James DiEugenio
    Chairman, Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination
    Author of Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba and the Garrison Case (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1992)

  • This is the Washington Post?


    Remarks on the February 11, 2016 article by Peter Holley

    This article by Peter Holley about Paul Schrade’s epochal appearance at the parole hearing for Sirhan Sirhan is well worth reading in its own right. But it is exceptional in another sense. It appeared in the Washington Post. As readers of this site, and of any literature on how the media deals with the assassinations of the sixties will know, the Post has a terrible record in dealing with the assassinations of the sixties. That record began in 1963 and went all the way up to, at least, the reception given Oliver Stone’s film JFK. If one recalls the latter, reporter George Lardner got hold of a renegade early draft of the script for Stone’s film and he used that to attack the picture—six months in advance of the movie’s premiere. In fairness, Stone then asked for space to reply. This was refused. So Stone then said he was going to buy a full page ad and use that to reply. The Post then relented. Stone and screenwriter Zach Sklar were allowed to publish a reply; but Lardner got the last word.

    That attack by the Post launched something that was pretty much unprecedented in the history of both cinema and the press. Lardner’s article began a 180-day campaign to infest the public with a jaundiced view of a film that they would not see for at least a half-year. This writer has never seen anything like that campaign: either before or since. Then, the week Stone’s film premiered, the Post’s sister publication, Newsweek, smeared the picture on its cover. That cover story was headlined, “The Twisted Truth of JFK: Why Oliver Stone’s New Movie Can’t be Trusted.” The periodical used perennial and reliable Jim Garrison critics like Hugh Aynesworth and Rosemary James to pummel the film. The magazine also hired four ancillary writers to contribute to that issue so they could get as much negative publicity out as soon as possible.

    That particular Post attack was carried out under the auspices of Len Downie. In 1991, Downie took over the executive editorship of the Post as Ben Bradlee’s successor. As this author has written, Bradlee had a very curious relationship with his alleged friend John F. Kennedy. (See this two-part article) Because throughout his long reign as a chief editor at the Post, from about 1965-1991, Bradlee never allowed any critical discussion of the JFK case to enter his pages. For instance, when Anthony Summers called Bradlee to tip him off about the whole Antonio Veciana/David Phillips meeting at the Southland Center in Dallas, Bradlee put a British intern on the story by the name of David Leigh. What Leigh did not know is that Phillips had called Bradlee about the story also. When Leigh came back and said the story looked real to him, that did not matter. Because of his relationship with the CIA and Phillips, Bradlee would spike the story anyway. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, pp. 363-64)

    Bradlee’s obstinate attitude on the JFK case extended to the Robert Kennedy assassination. In the mid-seventies, through the efforts of people like LA county supervisor Baxter Ward, and film-maker Ted Charach, there was an effort to reopen the RFK case. A high level Democratic Party political operative, attorney Lester Hyman, decided to call Bradlee. He told the editor about certain elements of the crime that had now come out into the open, e.g., the second gun controversy. That is, there was a second gun firing in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel in addition to Sirhan’s. He also mentioned some work done on the RFK case by Ramparts contributing editor William W. Turner. Bradlee told Hyman he would put someone on the assignment.

    Unfortunately, but predictably, Bradlee placed Ron Kessler on the story. At that time, Kessler had been with the Post for about five years. He ended up being one of the many reporters and journalists Bradlee hired that turned the Post into an almost civilian outpost of the intelligence community. Suffice it to say, Kessler would later write a terrible book about the Kennedys called The Sins of the Father; even later he became a mainstay at Chris Ruddy’s online Newsmax. Ruddy was the journalistic hit man on the Clintons for the late multi-millionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.

    As Turner related in his book, Kessler asked him who he should talk to about the case first. Turner said he should talk to criminalist William Harper, and then Jonn Christian. Harper would explain to him how Sirhan Sirhan could not have killed Bobby Kennedy. Christian could then give him some leads about what actually did happen. (The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, by William Turner and Jonn Christian, pp. 311-13)

    To put it simply, Kessler did not follow Turner’s leads. Once he arrived in Los Angeles, he immediately met up with local police and FBI agents who all backed the official story of Sirhan being the only person firing that night. . He also met with writer Robert Blair Kaiser who had written a book on the case that said that Sirhan was the sole assassin. It was only after these meetings that Kessler met with Harper. Harper told Turner that Kessler was so obtuse about the case that he gave up trying to educate him. He stood up and handed him his short essay on the ballistics of the murder—which Kessler refused to accept. Kessler never got in contact with Christian. But he told Turner that Bradlee had given him an open-ended schedule for the story and, although he was headed back to Washington, he would soon return.

    Kessler did not come back. Three days after telling Turner about Bradlee’s open-ended schedule, his story on the RFK case appeared on the front page of the Washington Post. It was titled “Ballistics Expert Discounts RFK 2nd Gun Theory.” The first sentence of the 12/18/74 story was, “The nationally recognized ballistics expert whose claim gave rise to a theory that Robert F. Kennedy was not killed by Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, this week admitted there is no evidence to support his contention.” As Turner notes, Kessler’s story was picked up by nearly every newspaper outlet in the nation. (ibid, p. 312)

    This is not what Harper told Kessler. And it is not what was in Harper’s synopsis—which is why Kessler refused to accept it. When Hyman called Bradlee to ask for a right to reply, as with Stone, he got a refusal. As Turner writes, “Despite persistent requests, Bradlee refused to print a correction, retraction or Harper’s version.” (ibid) Kessler’s article was so bad, the Columbia Review of Journalism singled it out as an object lesson in unfair reporting. (ibid, p. 313)

    With all that—and much more—in mind, the story that ran in the Post on February 11th of last week, which we linked to in our news section, is a bit stunning. Written by one Peter Holley, it is actually a fair and objective account of Sirhan’s latest parole hearing. That story focuses on the appearance of former labor leader Paul Schrade before the panel. Schrade, an RFK campaign worker, was at the Ambassador Hotel the night RFK was killed. He was actually walking through the hotel pantry behind the senator when both he and Kennedy were struck by bullets. The forensic problem which arises is that although they were walking in the same direction, Schrade was hit from the front and RFK from behind. As Schrade is quoted by Holley, “The truth is in the prosecutions’s own records and the autopsy. It says Sirhan couldn’t have shot Robert Kennedy and didn’t. He was out of position.”

    The story then gets better. Holley now quotes Schrade’s words to author Shane O’Sullivan: “The LAPD and LA DA knew two hours after the fatal shooting of Robert Kennedy that he was shot by a second gunman and they had conclusive evidence that Sirhan Bishara Sirhan could not and did not do it.” The story also delves into the problem of the number of shots that could be fired from Sirhan’s gun, versus the number of wounds in both Kennedy and the five other victims. It even includes the revolutionary audio analysis made in 2007 by technician Phil Von Praag of a tape recording of the shooting recovered from the California archives which reveals at least 13 shots being fired that night. Yet Sirhan’s revolver carried a maximum of eight cartridges.

    Can anyone imagine this kind of stuff being written in the Post under Bradlee or Downie? What makes it even more startling is that Holley didn’t even go to the other side, e.g., Dan Moldea or Mel Ayton, to counter these arguments.

    As everyone knows, Amazon.com owner and founder Jeff Bezos purchased the Post several years ago for a shockingly low figure of 250 million. He kept most of the editorial page in place. But he has hired new reporters, and also Ryan Kellett, who is the “audience and engagement editor”, a title that had to come from Bezos’ management style at Amazon.com. Holley came from Texas where he worked for Houstonian Magazine and the San Antonio Express-News. This is unlike Bradlee who hired either from New York or in the Beltway area.

    Let us keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best with this rather refreshing new take on the RFK case by the Post. Meanwhile, we all owe thanks to Schrade for showing up at the hearing. And we should also congratulate Holley, which you can do by emailing him at his byline. Tell him to keep up the fine work. No more Kesslers.

  • Full text of Paul Schrade’s statement before Sirhan’s parole board

    Full text of Paul Schrade’s statement before Sirhan’s parole board


    Wednesday, February 10, 2016, at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility

    I am Paul Schrade of Los Angeles. I am 91-years-old. And back when I was 43, I was among six persons shot at the old Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles at just after Midnight on June 5th, 1968.

    I was shot along with Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who had just won California’s Democratic Primary Election for the Presidency of the United States. Five of us survived our wounds. And as history knows, Senator Kennedy was fatally wounded.

           I am here to speak for myself, a shooting victim, and to bear witness for my friend, Bob Kennedy.

    Kennedy was a man of justice. But, so far, justice has not been served in this case. And I feel obliged as both a shooting victim and as an American to speak out about this – and to honor the memory of the greatest American I’ve ever known, Robert Francis Kennedy.

    Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was originally scheduled for release in 1984 but, after intense political pressure, his parole date was rescinded and he has since been denied 14 times.

    In order for you to make an accurate determination of Sirhan Sirhan’s parole, you need to know my feelings on this case and the full picture of what actually happened.

    Sirhan, I forgive you.

    The evidence clearly shows you were not the gunman who shot Robert Kennedy. There is clear evidence of a second gunman in that kitchen pantry who shot Robert Kennedy. One of the bullets – the fatal bullet – struck Bob in the back of the head. Two bullets struck Bob literally in his back. A fourth bullet struck the back of his coat’s upper right seam and passed harmlessly through his coat. I believe all four of those bullets were fired from a second gunman standing behind Bob. You were never behind Bob, nor was Bob’s back ever exposed to you.

    Indeed, Sirhan, the evidence not only shows that you did not shoot Robert Kennedy but it shows that you could not have shot Robert Kennedy.

    Gentlemen, the evidence clearly shows that Sirhan Sirhan could not and did not shoot Senator Bob Kennedy.

    Several days ago, I made sure that several documents were submitted to this board for you to review. If you have not done so as yet, I would ask you to please review them very carefully during your deliberation. I will be glad to re-submit these documents to you, here today.

    I believe, after you review these documents, that it should become clear to you that Sirhan Sirhan did not shoot – and could not have shot – Robert Kennedy. What I am saying to you is that Sirhan himself was a victim.

    Obviously there was someone else there in that pantry also firing a gun. While Sirhan was standing in front of Bob Kennedy and his shots were creating a distraction, the other shooter secretly fired at the senator from behind and fatally wounded him. Bob died 25 hours later.

    Gentlemen, I believe you should grant Sirhan Sirhan parole. And I ask you to do that today.

    Along with what Sirhan’s lawyers have submitted to you, the following are the documents that I made sure were submitted to you and which should also be factored into your decision today.

    First, I want to show you this. It’s a letter written in 2012 by my good friend, Robert F. Kennedy Junior. Bobby wrote this letter to Eric Holder, who was then the Attorney General of the United States. In his letter to Mr. Holder, Bobby requests that federal authorities examine the Pruszynski Recording, the only known audio recording made of his father’s assassination at the Ambassador Hotel. The recording was uncovered in 2004 at the California State Archives by CNN International senior writer Brad Johnson.

    This next document is a federal court declaration from audio expert Philip Van Praag, who Johnson recruited to analyze the Pruszynski Recording.

    In this document, Van Praag declares that his analysis of the recording concludes that two guns were fired in the Robert Kennedy shooting.

    Van Praag found a total of 13 gunshots in the Pruszynski Recording. Sirhan’s one and only gun at the crime scene held no more than eight bullets and Sirhan had no opportunity to reload it.

    Van Praag also found what he calls “double-shots” – meaning two gunshots fired so close together that they could not both have come from Sirhan’s Iver Johnson Cadet revolver. Van Praag actually found two sets of these “double-shots”.

    Additionally, he found that five of the 13 gunshots featured a unique audio resonance characteristic that could not have been produced by Sirhan’s gun model, meaning those five shots were fired from a second gun of a different make.

    Van Praag further found that those five gunshots were fired in a direction heading away from Pruszynski’s microphone. Since the microphone was about 40 feet west of the Kennedy shooting, those five shots were fired in an eastward direction, which was opposite the westward direction that Sirhan is known to have fired his eight-shot Iver Johnson Cadet.

    These documents are statements from two witnesses to the Robert Kennedy shooting, both of them assistant maître d’s for the Ambassador Hotel. These two men, Karl Uecker and Edward Minasian, escorted Robert Kennedy into the kitchen pantry immediately after the Senator delivered his victory speech in a hotel ballroom for having won the California Primary. Both Uecker and Minasian say Sirhan was in front of Bob Kennedy as the Senator walked toward Sirhan, meaning that Bob and Sirhan were facing each other. Both witnesses say Sirhan was still in front of Bob as Sirhan fired his gun. And both say that after Sirhan fired his first two shots, Uecker quickly pushed Sirhan against a steam table, placing Sirhan in a headlock while grabbing hold of Sirhan’s firing arm, forcing the tip of Sirhan’s gun to point away from where Bob Kennedy was and causing Sirhan to fire blindly his remaining six bullets.

    In other words, Sirhan only had full control of his gun at the beginning, when he fired his first two shots, one of which hit me. Sirhan had no opportunity to fire four precisely-placed, point-blank bullets into the back of Bob Kennedy’s head or body while he was pinned against that steam table and while he and Bob were facing each other.

    This document is the official Robert Kennedy autopsy report summary. It shows that all bullets directed at Senator Kennedy were fired from behind him at point-blank range. As the autopsy states, and as these drawings show, the bullets traveled from back-to-front at steep upward trajectories. One bullet struck Senator Kennedy at the back of the head, two bullets at the right rear armpit and a fourth bullet at the right rear shoulder of his jacket, which passed harmlessly through his jacket.

    Again, Sirhan’s bullets could not have struck the back of Bob Kennedy’s head or the back of his body or the back of his jacket’s right shoulder, as the autopsy clear shows took place, because Sirhan was never in a position to administer any of those four Kennedy shots. The prosecution never placed Sirhan in that location and position.

    These are documents from the Los Angeles Police Department that reveal LAPD misconduct in the police investigation of the Robert Kennedy murder. They detail evidence that was destroyed while Sirhan’s appeal was still pending as well as a photograph that was acknowledged by the LAPD to be “effective rebuttal” but was withheld from the defense team.

    Indeed, the LAPD and L.A. County District Attorney knew two hours after the shooting of Senator Kennedy that he was shot by a second gunman and they had conclusive evidence that Sirhan could not – and did not – do it. The official record shows that the prosecution at Sirhan’s trial never had one witness – and had no physical nor ballistic evidence – to prove Sirhan shot Bob Kennedy. Evidence locked up for 20 years shows that the LAPD destroyed physical evidence and hid ballistic evidence exonerating Sirhan – and covered up conclusive evidence that a second gunman fatally wounded Robert Kennedy.

    This document is a memo written by Criminalist Larry Baggett, who investigated the Robert Kennedy shooting for the LAPD. The Baggett memo states that the bullets that hit Senator Kennedy and William Weisel, another shooting victim in the pantry, were not fired from the same gun. The memo also states that the bullet that traveled upward through Bob Kennedy’s body and into his neck was not fired from Sirhan’s revolver. Such a finding would be proof that Sirhan did not shoot Robert Kennedy.

    Mr. Deputy District Attorney, based on all of this information and more, I ask that you inform Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey that I am formally requesting her to order a new investigation of the Robert F. Kennedy assassination. I will also be making the same request of Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck.

    Please note, Mr. Deputy District Attorney, that I am using the word “new” here. I am not requesting that the old investigation simply be re-opened. For that would only lead to the same old wrong conclusions. I am requesting a new investigation so that after nearly 50 years, justice finally can be served for me as a shooting victim; for the four other shooting victims who also survived their wounds; for Bob Kennedy who did not survive his wounds because his were the most grievously suffered in that kitchen pantry; for the people of the United States who Bob loved so much and had hoped to lead, just as his brother, President John F. Kennedy, had led only a few years before; and of course for justice, to which Bob Kennedy devoted his life.

    Furthermore, Mr. Deputy District Attorney, I ask that you please also tell the District Attorney, Ms. Lacey, that I would appreciate the opportunity to personally meet with her in Los Angeles at her earliest convenience. Would you please convey my message to her?

    I hope you will consider all of the accurate details of this crime that I have presented in order for you to accurately determine Sirhan Sirhan’s eligibility for parole. If you do this the right way and the just way, I believe you will come to the same conclusion I have: that Sirhan should be released. If justice is not your aim, then of course you will not.

    Again, Sirhan was originally scheduled for release in 1984 but after intense political pressure, his parole date was rescinded and he has since been denied 14 times.

    The best example of this can be found in this statement of Los Angeles District Attorney John Van de Kamp.

    Again, gentlemen, I believe you should grant Sirhan Sirhan parole. And I ask you to do that today in the name of Robert F. Kennedy and in the name of justice.

    Thank you. That concludes my remarks.

  • RFK-Pruszynski Press Conference


    Two researchers have unveiled what they are calling a major breakthrough in the investigation of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

    Philip Van Praag, an expert in the forensic analysis of magnetic audio tape, says his analysis of the only known tape recording of the June 1968 assassination shows there were thirteen gunshots fired in the space of about five seconds – five more than the weapon allegedly used by Sirhan Sirhan could hold.

    Van Praag’s findings were revealed at a news conference in Washington DC on February 21, 2008 during the 60th annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

    Also present at the news conference was RFK shooting victim Paul Schrade, and Dr. Robert J. Joling, J.D., past AAFS president. After Schrade and Joling briefly described the assassination and some of the controversies stemming from it, they brought on Van Praag to, as Schrade put it, “talk about the new evidence that we have … new evidence (which) is scientific.” Said Schrade further: “We of course see this as a major breakthrough after nearly 40 years of studying this case.”

    Van Praag explained that key among the new evidence are three discoveries made from examinations of the tape recording of the assassination made by a Polish freelance newspaper reporter Stanislaw Pruszynski, which surfaced decades later when Pruszynski’s audio recording was discovered by an American journalist in 2004:

    1. The Pruszynski recording captured the sounds of at least 13 gunshots fired inside the Ambassador Hotel kitchen pantry at 12:16 am PDT on June 5, 1968. While 13 shots were captured in Pruszynski’s tape, physical evidence points to at least 14 bullets fired in the shooting (a 14th shot could have been obscured in the Pruszynski recording by the sound of screaming 5-to-6 seconds after the shooting started). More than eight shots means a second gunman was firing during the assassination, given that convicted gunman Sirhan Sirhan’s weapon only carried eight shots in its chamber.
    2. The Pruszynski recording also captured two sets of “double shots”. (One set of double shots consists of two shots fired too closely together to have been fired by the same gun). Sequentially, in Van Praag’s 13-shot finding, these two sets of double shots were Shots 3 & 4 as one set and Shots 7 3 & 8 as the second set. The capture of just one set of double shots (let alone two sets, as in this case) by itself supercedes the necessity to count the number of shots fired in the RFK shooting. Because the presence of only one set of double shots reveals a second gun was firing during the assassination. When you add to this the fact that Sirhan possessed only one gun in the pantry, obviously it’s abundantly clear that this second gun must have been fired by someone other than Sirhan.
    3. The Pruszynski recording also captured odd acoustic characteristics in five of the shots, which is evident when specific frequencies are analyzed separately. Sequentially, these were Shots 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 in Van Praag’s 13-shot finding. These shots apparently came from a second gun that was pointing away from Pruszynski’s microphone at the north side of the Embassy Room ballroom as his microphone recorded the sounds that were coming from the kitchen pantry.
    4. The first two of these three discoveries were mentioned in last year’s Discovery Times documentary, “Conspiracy Test: The RFK Assassination”. However the third discovery was not made until after that documentary was produced and premiered on June 6, 2007.

    During the presentation, one reporter asked a question which was incorrectly worded (a question based entirely on a false premise). He asked the following: “ABC News did an extensive analysis of this recording a few years ago and it said it had conclusive proof that there were no more than eight gunshots fired. Would you say that their analysis was incorrect?”

    Following their conference, Van Praag, Joling and Schrade learned of the reporter’s mistake and that the reporter had even acknowledged his error-laden question. Essentially what the reporter had done was mix up the Pruszynski recording with three other recordings (the West, Brent and Smith/ABC recordings) that had been analyzed by Dr. Michael Hecker for ABC’s “20-20” program during the early 1980s. Hecker had examined the Andy West and Jeff Brent sound recordings as well as sound from ABC TV’s own videotape of the Embassy Room (during which anchorman Howard K. Smith’s voice is heard in a playback of the videotape) and had concluded the three recordings showed 10 shots had been fired in the RFK shooting. ABC eventually decided against doing the proposed 20-20 segment for reasons never clearly stated but Kennedy family pressure was rumored (in any case, no one ever suggested the network had concluded anything, one way or the other, from the three recordings). Decades later, it was determined that none of the three recordings had captured the RFK shots (that sounds in the three recordings which some had assumed were shots actually were caused by other things). For example, the West and Brent tape-recorders actually were not recording at the moment of the shooting. Both West and Brent had their recorders stopped — or paused — at that crucial moment and when both the West and Brent machines finally resumed recording, both already had missed capturing the shots. Recently, Dr. Joling, and even Hecker himself, confirmed that the Hecker conclusions about the West, Brent and Smith/ABC recordings were wrong. This is stated on pages 255-256 of the first printing of Joling’s and Van Praag’s book, An Open and Shut Case.

    So the reporter’s question at the 2/21/08 DC press conference was heavily laden with error. To re-cap: ABC (and this goes for CBS and NBC as well) has never done any kind of analysis of the Pruszynski recording at any time ever. Instead, ABC attempted to do an extensive analysis of the West, Brent and Smith/ABC recordings more than 25 years ago (as opposed to “a few years ago”) but then suddenly canceled the early 1980s project before the analysis could be completed… and ABC never concluded anything about any RFK recordings whatsoever. The presser panel was informed that before he left the presser, the reporter had acknowledged his error concerning ABC.

    “The one other thing that’s very interesting about Phil’s findings,” said Joling at the presser, “is that it substantiates to a ‘T’ the actual factual background (in the RFK shooting).” Although not pointed out at the presser itself, the panel is acutely aware that the pattern of the 13 shots captured by Pruszynski eerily follows the pattern most often cited by assassination witnesses. Witnesses differed in their accounts as to the number of shots they remembered hearing and as to the pattern of the shots. However, among the witnesses, the most frequently cited pattern for the shots was that first there were two shots fired in quick succession, then there was a brief pause in the firing (during which it is believed assistant hotel maitre d’ Karl Uecker grabbed Sirhan’s firing wrist while placing him in a headlock), and then there was a string of very rapidly firing shots. This, in fact, is the very pattern of shots captured by the Pruszynski recording.

    The AAFS will be publishing Van Praag’s paper on the Pruszynski recording when it next publishes its scientific papers. No date is set yet, but it could be by mid-year or the fall.

  • Romer’s Disgrace

    Romer’s Disgrace


    Before retiring, one of the last things Los Angeles School District Superintendent Roy Romer did was to push a plan through the school board to first purchase and then raze the site of the Ambassador Hotel. Romer had been quite an experienced politician. Before becoming the superintendent in LA he had been governor of Colorado for a number of years. Once he gained his new position, he made it his number one priority to build enough new schools to accommodate the district’s high growth rate. Romer backed putting a number of large bond issues on the ballot in order to purchase new land for construction and to renovate older schools.

    rom
    Roy Romer

    Clearly, one of Romer’s pet projects was the purchase of the Ambassador Hotel, the location where Robert Kennedy was murdered in June of 1968. The district had brought the site out of a bankruptcy sale since it had been a failed project of Donald Trump. Since the Ambassador Hotel had a long and storied history there was bound to be controversy around Romer’s plans to create a huge multi-grade complex on the grounds. A historical landmark society called The Conservancy wanted the district to preserve as much as possible of the legendary hotel i.e. things like tennis courts, and the Cocoanut Grove, the posh restaurant inside the hotel. Some even argued for preserving the integrity of the famous hotel rooms where artists and scientists like Scott Fitzgerald and Albert Einstein had stayed. The argument being that it would be inspiring for young people to study English in the same room Fitzgerald had lived and worked in; or science in the same confines that Einstein had inhabited. And what could have been more thrilling than to have a U.S. History class walk down the storied corridor and into the kitchen pantry where Robert Kennedy was killed. What a dramatic way to cap a chapter about that fateful year of 1968.

    For however extreme Romer’s plans and ambitions were, surely he would leave the RFK assassination site intact. After all, this has been done with dignity in both Dallas and Memphis, so the public could revisit and reeducate itself about the tragic murders of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King. The sites had been preserved pretty much as they were in order to commemorate the fact that turning points in history — the unsolved murders of two hugely important men — had taken place there. And in fact, in the three plans presented at public hearings, this seemed to be the case.

    Romer himself was present at these hearings in September and October of 2004. And although he clearly backed the most extreme plan, he tried to present a neutral and objective face over the whole enterprise. But if one was watching closely, one could see that the fix was in.

    First, Romer had his chief construction engineer testify that the actual hotel rooms could not be preserved. Why? Because they could not accommodate the ceiling height that engineering needed for central air units. The ceilings would have to be dropped below the standard ten feet. Well, what about room air conditioning then? Those would be too noisy the man replied. Romer’s idea of compromise with The Conservancy was a bit one sided. As one of their representatives testified, they were never consulted before any of the three plans was devised. So Romer had tilted the three options so far away from the idea of renovation and toward complete reconstruction that they had no interest in backing any of the three options. Finally, politician Romer had cleverly used Kennedy’s ties to Cesar Chavez and his own friendship with a Hispanic member of the board to inject the ethnic issue into the debate. Because of the overcrowding at a neighboring school and the ethnic make up of the area, most of the students attending would be Hispanic. Therefore if you opposed Romer’s concept, you were then seen as depriving disadvantaged minority students of a huge new school complex named after Chavez’ friend and colleague in their struggle. And predictably, Romer had a flock of young Hispanic youth file into the hearing on cue and speak their mind through their spokesperson.

    Lisa Pease, Larry Teeter (Sirhan’s late attorney), and myself attended one of the two public hearings on the issue. There were so many people who wanted to testify that witnesses were allowed only three minutes, a limit that was vigorously enforced. When Romer flashed the three general plans on the overhead, it seemed that in all of them the kitchen pantry would be preserved. I commented on that satisfying contingency to Lisa. She said, “Jim you’re not reading the fine print.” And she pointed out to me that in the third plan presented, the most extreme one and Romer’s clear preference, it appeared as if the pantry could be deconstructed — that is literally taken apart. And then a committee would decided which of those parts would be preserved and how. Needless to say, the board and the superintendent would appoint that committee.

    To make a long, sad story short, Romer convinced the school board to side with his radical plan. Larry Teeter decided to file a lawsuit to preserve the Cocoanut Grove and the pantry in deference to the possibility of a new trial for his client. Unfortunately, Teeter passed away in 2005 before he could actually record the complaint. The demolition balls then went to work. In a matter of months the Ambassador Hotel was being knocked to the ground. They saved the Grove and the pantry for last. But in September the pantry was razed. ( Los Angeles Times, 11/30/07) Certain artifacts were saved, e.g. an ice machine, and 3D imagery was taken of the room. The Conservancy finally sued over these two issues: the destruction of the Grove, and the preservation of the artifacts. But the fact is, with the pantry now demolished, Sirhan can never really have his true day in court. And Los Angeles now becomes the one site of the three great assassinations of the sixties where you cannot see or touch the place where a great leader was struck down. How a school superintendent and his board, supposedly dedicated to the education of youth, could have been involved in a decision like that is inexplicable. What a lesson for the students of Los Angeles. If they want to visit the place where RFK was murdered, well here is a 3D photo. Courtesy of Mr. Romer.


    Click here to see how the site of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. has been preserved.

  • BBC RFK Update


    June 2007

    In David Talbot’s new book Brothers he reveals that both he and Jefferson Morley of the Washington Post Online did a follow up inquiry on the Shane O’Sullivan report with the BBC. The investigation was commissioned by The New Yorker. According to Talbot’s book, the pair traveled widely, “interviewing dozens of relatives, friends and former colleagues” of their principal subjects (p. 397). They discovered that Gordon Campbell “died in 1962, making it impossible for him to have been filmed in 1968 at the Ambassador Hotel” (Ibid). In an interview with Rex Bradford Talbot revealed that they had also attained good photos of both Morales and Joannides taken around the 1968 time period. When they were compared to the BBC Ambassador Hotel footage, it was evident that they did not match. Or as Talbot told Bradford, “…it’s simply not the man caught on camera at the Ambassador.”

    Interestingly, the New Yorker decided against publishing an article based on this work. Talbot, as of yet, has not revealed the reasons behind this curious decision.


    The BBC RFK Report

    February 2007

    On November 20, 2006, the British Broadcasting Corporation showed a 15-minute report about the Robert Kennedy assassination. Put together by Shane O’Sullivan, it is supposed to be part of a longer documentary work-in-progress.

    The BBC report began with the late Larry Teeter, former attorney for Sirhan Sirhan, going over the autopsy evidence in the Robert Kennedy case. As most people know, this evidence strongly indicates a conspiracy. The report then used some photographs and films to present the case that there were three CIA officers at the Ambassador Hotel the night RFK was killed. They were identified as David Morales, Gordon Campbell, and George Joannides. All three men are known to have worked out of the infamous Miami CIA station codenamed JM/WAVE in the sixties.

    The basis for the photo identifications were four men who had interacted with the trio in the sixties and seventies. Wayne Smith, a former State Department employee, worked with Morales when Smith was stationed in Cuba in the late fifties and sixties. Ed Lopez, a former investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, interacted with Joannides in the seventies when the latter was the CIA liaison to the Committee. Brad Ayers, who worked out of JM/WAVE in the early sixites, identified Campbell and Morales. And another CIA operative, David Rabern, also identified Morales since he knew him at that same time. Rabern says he was actually at the Ambassador that night and added that he recalled Morales talking to Campbell, even though he did not know who Campbell was at the time.

    The BBC special is designed to give the impression that O’Sullivan discovered these photos and put together this evidence. But if you take a look at the entry for Brad Ayers on the JFK Research Forum on the Spartacus school.net site, you will learn that Ayers told Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board back in 1995 that he had a “credible witness who can put David Morales inside the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on the night of June 5, 1968.” It seems that Ayers is clearly referring to Rabern here. O’Sullivan does not make it clear that he knew this in advance. He seems to indicate that Ayers led him to Rabern. But if that is the case then Ayers already knew that Rabern would make the ID. Further, Ayers was predisposed to making the Morales ID himself since he found Rabern credible at the much earlier date. The Campbell identification is totally reliant on Ayers, since Rabern did not seem to know who he was in 1968.

    The BBC report also included a short interview with Robert Walton. Walton first appeared in Gaeton Fonzi’s memoir about his HSCA experience entitled The Last Investigation. And for all intents and purposes that book, published in 1993, is where Morales first figured in any significant way in the JFK case. Fonzi mentions Ayers there and talks about some investigatory work Ayers did on his former colleague Morales. Fonzi concluded his section on Morales by introducing Walton. Walton, who did some legal work for Morales, related a story in which he was drinking with Morales one night. President Kennedy’s name came up and Morales exploded in anger at what Kennedy had done to the Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs. The tirade concluded with the following line: “Well, we took care of that son of a bitch, didn’t we?” (Fonzi, p. 390)

    The source given by Fonzi for this quote is Walton. But in the BBC special this quote is now expanded in both length and reference points. Walton now states that Morales said he was in Dallas when “we got that mother fucker and in LA when we got that little fucker.” This is a serious revision of the original comment since it now means that Morales was actually on the scene in not just one place for one assassination but in both. It is hard to believe that Fonzi would not have recorded and printed the much more specific quote back in 1993. But the altered quote does jibe with what the BBC report is now saying.

    Ever since Fonzi’s book came out, the Morales angle has had a strong influence on the literature. For example, Noel Twyman in Bloody Treason spent a lot of time examining what Morales did with the CIA. And Morales is also mentioned a lot in that bloated piece of pap, Ultimate Sacrifice. But this is the first time in a printed or broadcast report that a named witness connected him to the RFK case.

    Ayers has been obsessed with Morales for a long time. As Lisa Pease notes on her Real History blog, he once tried to convince her and myself that Morales was involved in the MLK case. But he did not tell us at the time about Morales and the RFK case and he never mentioned David Rabern. If one believes Ayers, then Morales was somehow involved with the murders of JFK, MLK, and RFK. He told us that he thought Morales actually ran the street operation in Dealey Plaza. But, strangely, it was not for the CIA. Back then he thought it was for Barry Goldwater and he linked this to the notorious 1976 murder of Arizona reporter Don Bolles. It was somehow a way for Goldwater to get elected in 1964.

    An interesting question is why was Rabern at the Ambassador that night? If he was a covert operator, was he from the liberal wing of the CIA who supported RFK? And how does he remember Campbell so clearly talking to Morales if he did not know who Campbell was back in 1968? If one takes this report at face value, there were four CIA operatives at the Ambassador that night. All out in the open in the midst of cameras, film equipment, and tape recorders. And if Rabern recognized Morales, didn’t Morales recognize Rabern? If so, what did he say to him?

    Now, the BBC report has stirred at least two reactions. Mel Ayton, a British anti-conspiracy author, wrote up a reply about a week later, and updated it a week after that. The first part of his response is worthless since it uses the shameful work of Dan Moldea to respond to the points made by Teeter. But he does bring up some notable disagreement with the photo identifications. For instance, Dan Hardway who worked with Lopez at the HSCA did not identify Joannides in the pictures. He said his encounter with him was too long ago for him to venture an opinion on the matter. Ayton says he talked to Grayston Lynch, who also worked out of JM/WAVE and knew Campbell. Ayton writes, “According to Lynch the man in the LAPD film footage is not Campbell.” Ayton also quotes a man named Col. Manuel Chavez who worked with Morales for a period of time in 1964. Chavez says the man depicted in the special “does not look like Dave Morales.”

    Now the above does not mean that the BBC special is wrong, but it does point up the problems with using photo identification as a tool to solve a crime. Tony Summers chimed in on this point by saying, “Photographs and photographic recognition are infamously unreliable, especially coming from witnesses so long after an event.” I should point out that in the JFK case, the photo identifications of the three tramps in Dealey Plaza have been a continual source of error and embarrassment. As has the alleged identification of Joseph Milteer along the motorcade route.

    In speaking with author David Talbot, he and Jefferson Morley were commissioned by The New Yorker to do a follow up story on the BBC report. Talbot has been working for years on a book about Robert Kennedy. The New Yorker got hold of a galley proof of his long-awaited book and they were impressed. They are going to excerpt the book and also do a supplementary report on this alleged identification. This report is scheduled to run in May. Hopefully Morley and Talbot will be able to do more ground work on the matter. Like, for example, finding the three CIA officers next of kin and asking if they were with them on that rather memorable night.