by Alan Gomez and Gregory Korte
At: USA Today
Blog
-
The Full Story of the Sirhan Sirhan Parole Hearing
by Shane O’Sullivan
At: Who.What.Why
-
Hillary Clinton vs JFK: An Addendum
Dr. Jeffrey Sachs has once again written a generally sound piece of criticism on this issue. And once again, he is to be saluted for it. It is indeed encouraging that he gets such pieces into the new MSM, represented by The Huffington Post.
But even if this editorial is actually better than the first, it still seemed to me fitting to remind our readers of what I originally posted back in November, when “Hillary Clinton and the ISIS mess” appeared. So CTKA has decided to repost it.
Like his book on Kennedy’s sponsorship of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban, it does not go quite far enough. (See our review)
He is correct about the CIA beginning its sponsorship of the mujahedeen in 1979 to battle the Soviets in Afghanistan. But he fails to add that one of the Moslem volunteers who went to Afghanistan to fight the Russians was Osama Bin Laden. And most commentators trace the beginning of the Al Qaeda movement from Bin Laden’s experience there. (See the sterling documentary on this subject, The Power of Nightmares.)
But beyond that, 1979 was the year of the first explosion of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. It took place in Iran. It was fueled by the brutal regime the CIA and Allen Dulles installed there when they overthrew the nationalist leader Mossadegh. Every American president — save one — coddled up to the Shah of Iran. All the way until the Islamic Revolution.
The man who paved the way for Sharia Law to take hold in Iran was none other than Warren Commissioner John McCloy. As Kai Bird noes in his book, The Chairman, President Jimmy Carter resisted letting the Shah into the country for medical purposes. When he did, David Rockefeller started a lobbying campaign, which was spearheaded by attorney John McCloy. McCloy knew he could not convert Carter. So, one by one, he picked off his advisors. Until finally, Carter was alone and cornered. But before he caved, he turned and asked: I wonder what you guys are going to advise me to do if they invade our embassy and take our employees hostage?
Therefore, it was McCloy who directly caused the Islamic Revolution to begin in the Middle East. And it was he who greatly influenced the coming to power of Ronald Reagan.
As noted above, there was one president who did not toady up to the Shah. As James Bill chronicles in his book, The Eagle and the Lion, the Kennedy administration actually commissioned a State Department paper on the costs and liabilities of returning Mossadegh to power in Iran. The Shah took this seriously and started the White Revolution in order to make his administration more progressive and egalitarian. Once Kennedy died, this did not continue. President Johnson was quite friendly with the Rockefeller brothers, and Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon’s National Security Adviser, owed his career to Nelson Rockefeller. Unlike these other presidents, Kennedy understood the dangers of an explosion of Islamic Fundamentalism. In fact, he had warned about it since 1957, and his famous speech encouraging the French to abandon their colonial empire in Algeria.
But there was one other element to this story of Carter changing his mind. During the revolution, before Carter allowed the Shah entry, he was in Los Angeles for a speaking engagement. Both the Secret Service and LAPD detected an assassination plot against him. One of the alleged plotters’ was named Raymond Lee Harvey. Raymond said an accomplice was named Osvaldo Espinoza Ortiz. No one as smart as Carter could have missed the significance of that. (See this Wikipedia article)
There is another point about the Sachs’ article and the Clinton agenda that needs to be elucidated. That is America’s growing coziness with Saudi Arabia. As scholar Philip Muehlenbeck noted, President Kennedy had little time or use for the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. He disdained its disregard of civil liberties, democracy and women’s rights. When King Saud flew to a Boston area hospital in 1961, Kennedy was urged to visit him by his State Department advisors. Not only did he not visit him, he avoided going to Boston and instead went to his vacation home in Palm Beach Florida. When the monarch was released and went to a convalescent home nearby, Kennedy finally relented. But on the way there, he muttered: Why am I seeing this guy? (Muehlenbeck, Betting on the Africans, p. 133)
Kennedy favored the country that DCI Allen Dulles and his brother, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, decided to abandon – Egypt – because its socialist leader, Nasser, would not toe the line on Red China during the Cold War. During the civil war in Yemen, where Saud backed the monarchy and Nasser backed the revolutionaries, Kennedy decided to back Nasser, at great political expense to himself — including the enmity of Israel’s foreign secretary Golda Meir. (See Muehlenbeck, pp. 132-37)
When John Kennedy was killed two things happened in the Middle East to create the mess that exists today. First, there was a tilt away from Egypt and pan Arabism; second, a bias toward Saudi Arabia and Israel began. As Stanford professor Robert Rakove notes in Kennedy, Johnson and the Nonaligned World, Nasser immediately understood what was happening. On November 23, 1963, Nasser declared a state of mourning. He then ordered Kennedy’s funeral to be shown on Egyptian television four times. One diplomat said Cairo was “overcome by a sense of universal tragedy.” Nasser eventually broke relations with the USA in 1967. (Rakove, pp. xvii ff)
Although Sachs’ article is good, the record of John Kennedy is even better. And, in fact, a piece like this one would probably not get past the moderators, especially in light of their decision to publish an utterly ignorant and repugnant article by Peter Dreier at around the same time. Arrogantly entitled “I Don’t Care who Killed JFK”, it did not mention one word about any of the history chronicled above. It did not mention any of the books I referenced. It did not refer to Nasser, the Iranian coup, John McCloy and the assassination attempt on Carter, or Kennedy’s disdain for Saudi Arabia. And since it did not mention any of those, it could not list the reversals that occurred in the Middle East afterwards.
Peter Dreier should stick to urban planning. His article on JFK proves that underneath arrogance there is always a whiff of stupidity.
(Originally posted November 23, 2015 Reposted February 15, 2016)
-
U.S. Postal Money Orders
U.S. POSTAL MONEY ORDERS
(An addendum to Mail Order Rifle)
Postal money orders have traditionally been manufactured at a printing facility in Washington, DC. On July 1, 1951 the post office announced the introduction of a new style money order (blue tinted color), to be issued on tabulating (punch) cards that can be processed by electronic machinery. During production the new money orders were imprinted with sequential serial numbers and rows of punched rectangular holes (Hollerith computer code) that identified the serial number. With the computer-coded punch holes the new money orders could be sorted with electronic machinery and, according to the post office, handled “like checks.” After being deposited or redeeemed for cash at a bank or post office, these “pre-punched” money orders were sent to a Federal Reserve Bank (or Branches) and then sent (returned) to one of 12 postal accounting offices throughout the US.
According to the Postal Department, “The new type of orders, whether cashed at post offices or cashed at or deposited with banks, will ultimately be deposited with a Federal Reserve Bank or branch which, after processing the orders, will charge them to the account of the Treasurer of the United States and turn them over to the regional accounting office of the Post Office Department in the Federal Reserve city of the district.” (July 1, 1951)
According to the post office, “Changes in the new system will make it possible to have a money order cashed at any of the nation’s post offices or it may be collected through any bank in the the same manner as the depositing or cashing of a check.” (July 2, 1951)
New Postal Money order, with rectangular holes (to identify serial
number by code); first used in July 1951IBM 808 PROOF MACHINES
Special punch-proof machines were developed and installed at each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks and branches for handling the new money orders. Researchers should remember that during the 1950’s and early 1960’s (prior to April, 1962) the only punched holes that appeared on postal money orders, at the time of purchase, were those that identified the serial number of the money order (by computer code). After a postal money order (or check, bank draft, etc.) was deposited to a bank, it was date stamped by the bank and credited to the customer’s account. The endorsed money order (check, draft, etc.), stamped with the bank’s ABA number, was then sent to a Federal Reserve Bank (or Branch) within the deposit bank’s district. All postal money orders had to be date stamped/endorsed by the bank receiving the deposit. Without the endorsement, the Federal Reserve would have no way of knowing to which bank the money order was to be credited. At the Federal Reserve Bank a second set of punched holes was stamped into each Postal Money order. In one operation the new machines (IBM 808 proof machines) would list the amount of the money order on paper tapes, punch (by machine code) the ink-printed/stamped amount paid for the money order as shown on the front side, and automatically sort the money orders according to the twelve Post Office regional accounting offices. After crediting each bank within their district for the money orders presented, the Federal Reserve bank returned the money order(s) to the regional postal accounting office (there were 12 offices nationwide). For this service (machine punching all US Postal Money orders), the Postal Department paid the Federal Reserve banks $600,000 yearly.
Old IBM Proof Machine, from July 1, 1951 thru July, 1962. Used to
manually punch holes in money orders (Hollerith code) to
identify the monetary amount of each money order.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 2001 N. Pearl St., Dallas, TXMoney orders, like checks, are routed thru the federal banking system by first depositing them to a financial institution (bank, savings and loan, credit union, etc.). The depositing bank “validates” money orders by date stamping the item for deposit to a customer’s account, and then imprints the bank’s name and A.B.A. routing number on the back side. (This imprint was required on both sides for a period of time, including the 1960s.) “Validated” money orders are then sent to regional Federal Reserve Banks (12 districts throughout the US) where they are processed. During the punch-card era, they were punched/read to identify the amount of the money order.
NOTE: Bank endorsements of postal money orders have always been required. In the early 20th century, postal money orders were used locally and could be deposited at many local banks. The 1925 edition of the United States Official Postal Guide, page 95, states the following: “Payments to Banks — When an [money] order purporting to have been properly receipted by the payee, or indorsee, is deposited in a bank for collection, the postmaster at the office drawn upon may effect payment to the bank, provided there be a guarantee on the part of the bank that the latter will refund the amount if it afterwards appear that the depositor was not the owner of the order. An order thus paid should bear upon its back the impression of the stamp of the bank.” CLICK TO VIEW 1925 POSTAL HANDBOOK
By the mid 20th century, the use of postal money orders had become commonplace. They could be deposited at virtually any bank nationwide and were routinely processed by Federal Reserve Banks. Regulations regarding bank endorsements on postal money orders were the same as those for checks, and were located in the Federal Reserve’s Regulation J. Banks were informed of these regulations through Federal Reserve Bank Operating Circulars. The Operating Circular 4928 of 1960, states: “The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides.” CLICK TO VIEW OPERATING CIRCULAR 4928In 1987 Congress passed the Expedited Funds Availability Act, in which the Uniform Endorsement Standard was defined. The purpose of the endorsement standard was to help expedite the processing of checks, postal money orders, and other deposited items. At that time, regulations regarding deposited items were made a part of Federal Reserve Regulation CC. The definitions section of Regulation CC (part 229.2), states that the word “check” as used in the regulation means, among other things, US Postal Service money orders. Appendix D (Indorsement Standards) states, “The depositary bank shall indorse a check according to the following specifications: The indorsement shall contain the bank’s nine-digit routing number, set off by arrows at each end of the number and pointing toward the number; the bank’s name/location; and the indorsement date. …. The indorsement shall be written in dark purple or black ink. The indorsement shall be placed on the back of the check so that the routing number is wholly contained in the area 3.0 inches from the leading edge of the check to 1.5 inches from the trailing edge of the check.” CLICK TO VIEW 2001 REGULATION CC (Courtesy of Sanford Larsen)
Postal money orders and checks may have to be sent to more than one Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) for clearing. A postal money order (or check) sent to a regional FRB is often forwarded to a FRB in a different region. For example, if a postal money order was purchased in Dallas, TX (circa 1963) and sent to a merchant in Chicago, it could be deposited to the First National Bank of Chicago (FNBC). The FNBC would endorse and stamp the money order and then send it to the FRB of Chicago (see #7 below) where it would again be stamped. In 1963 the postal money order would then be sent to the FRB of Richmond (see #5 below), where it would again be stamped, and then be returned to the postal accounting office in Washington, DC.
The FRB system “clears” a postal money order by debiting the amount shown on the money order from the account of the US Treasurer, and simultaneously crediting the sending bank, identified by the A.B.A. number stamped on the money order. After “clearing,” the FRB sends the money orders to a postal accounting office (prior to 1955 there were twelve regional postal accounting offices). The flow of a money order, or check, can be seen in the following diagram. In the case of postal money orders, the U.S. Treasury is National Bank A in this diagram.
In the case of the $21.45 postal money order, allegedly purchased by LHO….The Drawer is an individual or entity with a bank account. In our example the Drawer is the US Post Office which sells postal money orders against their account with the US Treasury. Oswald, who did not have a bank account, allegedly purchased a postal money order from the Dallas post office; the Payee is Klein’s, who allegedly received the postal money order in payment for a rifle; the postal money order is then deposited into bank “B” (FNB of Chicago) and is “validated”; the postal money order is then sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago for “clearing” (and forwarded to the FRB of Richmond). The FRB debits the account of “A,” the US Treasury (Postal Department), and simultaneously credits bank “B” (FNB Chicago) for the amount of the postal money order. The FRB then returns the “cleared” money order to the postal accounting office (Washington, DC). The “clearing” process is dependent upon each bank “validating” items of deposit (checks, money orders, drafts, etc.) with their ABA routing number on the front and back side of each item. Without an ABA routing number, a Federal Reserve Bank is unable to issue credit for the item, and the item will not “clear” their system.
This is really a very simple procedure. The Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) acts as a “middle man” and simply takes money from bank “A” and gives it to bank “B.” To accomplish this with hundreds of thousands of money orders/checks daily, it is absolutely essential that checks and money orders be accurately “validated” by the depositing bank. Validation occurs first when the check is presented for deposit and endorsed by the bank (banks name and date imprinted on the check or money order and on the customer’s deposit receipt). Validation is complete when the depositing bank prints/stamps their name and A.B.A. (American Bankers Association) on each and every check or money order. The validated check or money order is sent to the FRB, where it is “cleared” by crediting the depositing bank (“B”) according to the ABA number stamped/printed on the money order or check, and simultaneously debiting the bank on which the check was drawn or, in the case of a postal money order, the US Treasurer/Postal Dept.
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Prior to 1955 there were twelve regional postal accounting offices. In 1955 these accounting offices were replaced with a new postal facility in Kansas City, Missouri. The new facility, complete with automated sorting machines, was designed to receive all postal money orders, nationwide, directly from all 12 Federal Reserve Banks and Branches. The pre-punched computer-coded holes in each money order made it possible for large volumes of money orders (in 1955, 1.5 million per day) to be electronically sorted and arranged in a systematic way after being returned to a US Postal repository by Federal Reserve Banks.
NEW MACHINES FOR ALL POST OFFICES
In April, 1962 the Post Office announced that it had awarded a contract for the purchase of 59,000 business machines to the Friden Corporation, of San Leandro, CA. The new machines, to be installed in every US Post Office nationwide, allowed postal clerks to simultaneously ink-print and punch the amount of purchase on each money order with 5 rows of holes (Hollerith computer code). The 5 rows of round holes were punched simultaneously on the money order, a receipt stub for the purchaser and a receipt stub for the post office. In June, 1962 the new machines, and new yellow-tinted money orders, were tried out in 9 states (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina–all in the Atlanta Postal Region; and 5 states in the Denver Region). On November 29, 1962, a postal bulletin advised, “Money orders issued on yellow forms are audited at Washington, DC, rather than the Money Order Center at Kansas City, MO.”
New machines for all US post offices Machine both prints and punches holes in code On January 5, 1963 the blue-tinted money orders were discontinued and replaced by light yellow-tinted money orders. Serial numbers on the new money orders, like the former blue-tinted money orders, were pre-printed/ink-stamped (front side) and computer coded with rectangular holes when manufactured. But the round set of computer-coded holes, representing the amount and formerly “punched” by Federal Reserve Banks, were now punched with the new machines at post offices. Postal clerks used the new machines to simultaneously ink-stamp and punch-code the money orders when they were purchased by customers. The General Post Office (GPO) in Dallas received a batch of the new yellow-tinted money orders on January 5, 1963, probably beginning with serial # 2,202,000,000 (see below).
Yellow-tinted postal money order stubs (for customer), with
round holes punched by the post office. First introduced in 1962;
used exclusively after January 5, 1963. A similar stub was kept
by the post office. -
Shane O’Sullivan Letter Concerning Sirhan’s Parole
(Click here if your browser is having trouble loading the above.)
-
Sirhan Parole Board Transcript
(Click here if your browser is having trouble loading the above.)
-
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.
-
What the government is still hiding about the JFK assassination
by Brian Bender
At: Politico
-
List of Withheld JFK Documents Released
by Russ Baker
At: Who.What.Why