By Andy Thibault, At: Country Times
Tag: RFK ASSASSINATION
-
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.
-
The Full Story of the Sirhan Sirhan Parole Hearing
by Shane O’Sullivan
At: Who.What.Why
-
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.
-
William W. Turner: In Memoriam
William Turner passed away a few days ago. The brief obituary in our news section at the right does not do his writing career justice. So let us elaborate a bit on his achievements.Bill Turner was originally an FBI agent. He decided to break from the FBI and began to write letters to certain congressmen complaining about certain practices by Director J. Edgar Hoover; e.g., his failure to go after, or even recognize, the Mob’s influence in America. For this, he was drummed out of the Bureau.
Thus began his writing career. One of the first notable books he wrote was called Hoover’s FBI. According to Bill, he had a hard time publishing this volume. He later found out the reason. It was that the Bureau, specifically Cartha DeLoach, had visited the publishing houses it was at and discouraged them from releasing it. When it appeared, it was one of the first major assaults on Hoover’s credibility and the Bureau’s reputation.
Turner also wrote The Police Establishment, and Power on the Right. These volumes, especially the latter, finely examined two bastions of the establishment that few writers wanted to tangle with. But Turner did; and he showed how pernicious both groups were.
The latter book came out of some research Turner did for the late, great Ramparts magazine. And make no mistake, Ramparts was the last great glossy magazine this country ever had. Along with Art Kunkin’s tabloid newspaper, the LA Free Press, it formed the pinnacle of American journalism in the sixties and early seventies.
But not only were these two periodicals journalistically exceptional, they both had large circulations.
Therefore, they were difficult for the establishment to ignore. In fact, as investigative journalist Angus McKenzie later discovered, Ramparts was a big worry for the CIA, because editor Warren Hinckle was not afraid of exposing covert operations, like the Agency’s infiltration of the National Students Association. And Hinckle was a fierce critic of America’s growing involvement in the Vietnam War. (For a riveting chronicle of the halcyon days of this magnificent magazine, see Hinckle’s beautifully written memoir, If You Have a Lemon Make Lemonade.) Angus McKenzie, who was stricken and died of cancer at the young age of 54, posthumously published his book called Secrets. There he revealed that the CIA’s covert operation MH CHAOS began as a way of monitoring and infiltrating the underground press, specifically Ramparts. Later, as Lisa Pease and myself were editing and publishing Probe Magazine, a subscriber sent us documents revealing the names of two infiltrators into Ramparts.
As Hinckle notes in his book, Ramparts was also not afraid to address the assassinations of the sixties. And since, at its peak, it had a circulation of 250,000 and was sold on newsstands all over America, those stories reached a lot of people. In January of 1967, Hinckle published a disturbing, well-documented essay by David Welsh and David Lifton entitled, “The Case for Three Assassins”. That memorable essay began with this sentence, “No less than three gunmen fired on the presidential motorcade in Dallas on November 22, 1963….” One can imagine why the CIA would be upset. I mean, they had to realize that over 250,000 Americans per month were reading this incendiary stuff.
But what must have disturbed the Agency even more was this: Ramparts was actually covering the investigation of Jim Garrison in New Orleans. Further, unlike the hatchet jobs unleashed by the MSM, Hinckle was treating that inquiry fairly and objectively. In the space of seven months, Hinckle had published two long articles about Garrison, one in June of 1967, and the other in January of 1968. Bill Turner wrote them both.
Off of these articles, Turner had become an investigator for Garrison. They were two of the very few objective pieces written in any print media about the DA. For as Hinckle wrote about Garrison in his book, “…no man I have known had more legitimate reasons to become paranoid than Garrison; there actually were people constantly plotting against him.” (p. 209) Covering Garrison fairly was not a popular decision inside the magazine. For as Hinckle notes, there were people firmly opposed to delving into the JFK case, e.g. Bob Scheer. (Turner once told me that Scheer called his JFK investigations a form of mental masturbation.)
But both Hinckle and Turner viewed it differently. Hinckle saw the sudden outburst of a re-investigation into the Warren Commission’s tenets as “an extraordinary phenomenon of an extraordinary decade.” (p. 215) But also, Hinckle had read the Warren Report and most of the volumes. He called it “impossible to believe.” He then added that anyone could see that the Commission was not out to uncover the truth about Kennedy’s murder. But to deliver a syringe of amnesia medication to the collective conscience of America. (ibid, p. 217) Or to put it another way, the Commission was the equivalent of Leslie Nielson in one of the “Naked Gun” films reciting the mantra: “Nothing to see here, run along.” As explosion after explosion is taking place in the warehouse behind him.
Turner was already familiar with that terrain. He told me that a couple of years after the assassination, Saga asked him to do an article on the JFK case. As a former FBI man, he talked to some of the agents who worked on the case. They also managed to smuggle some documents to him. After looking at these, Turner came to the conclusion that someone in a high position had deliberately short-circuited the FBI inquiry into the JFK case. As he explained to me in the living room of his Marin County, San Rafael home, there were three steps in each FBI inquiry. These were:
- The collection of all relevant leads,
- The following out of all leads to their final conclusion, and
- The collation of this information into a comprehensive report.
Turner said, obviously, you could not do step three if step two was aborted. And that is what he concluded had happened from talking to these agents and looking at their documents. (James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 219)
As a result of their mutual efforts and beliefs, in 1981, Hinckle and Turner wrote a good book pertaining to the JFK case from the Cuban exile angle. It was called The Fish is Red. This was, in large part, based on information that Turner had uncovered as an investigator for Jim Garrison. That volume was later updated and reissued in 1992 as Deadly Secrets. That reissue was timed for the release of Oliver Stone’s film JFK, which was based on Jim Garrison’s book, On the Trail of the Assassins. Later on, Turner published his career memoir entitled Rearview Mirror, which devotes a long section to his service as an investigator for Garrison.
But in spite of all the above, in this author’s view, Turner should be most remembered for the book he co-wrote with Jonn Christian on the Bobby Kennedy assassination. It is called simply, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Originally issued in 1978, it was republished twice: once in 1993 and once in 2006. In my opinion, it remains the best book ever written on that case. And it will likely remain so until Lisa Pease’s long awaited and much anticipated volume is published.
A division of Random House originally issued that book. It was commissioned by illustrious editor Jason Epstein, with the encouragement of Vincent Bugliosi, who figures in the narrative. This book, perhaps more than any other, exhibits what a good writer Turner was. It is not only enlightening, but also a pleasure to read. In fact, Epstein insisted that Turner write every paragraph of the book., since he did not trust Christian’s judgment. I know this for a fact since Turner showed me the memos between him and Epstein. When Christian tried to get in a chapter on his own, Epstein immediately recognized it and said it had to be rewritten.
That book is a milestone in the field. It was so compelling that, in a power struggle at Random House between Epstein and Robert Loomis—which Epstein lost—it was withdrawn and pulped. For, several years earlier, Loomis had brought out Robert Houghton’s official LAPD statement on the RFK case, Special Unit Senator. Which the later book completely harpooned.
On the occasion of Bill Turner’s death, I can think of no better compliment to his spirit than to read that book.
-
Sirhan Sirhan, convicted in Robert F Kennedy death, denied freedom
by Jonathan Stempel