Talk about Newsnight

Latest programme

Monday, 20 November, 2006

  • Newsnight
  • 20 Nov 06, 05:16 PM

blairafgantroops_203.jpgTony Blair in Afghanistan talking to British troops; new evidence on the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 1968; and who might have wanted to poison Alexander Litvinenko? Plus, the first dispatch from Australia from the Ashes poet in residence.

Comment on Monday’s programme here.

Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 06:14 PM on 20 Nov 2006,
  • Bob Goodall wrote:

Dear Newsnight

re who might have wanted to poison Alexander Litvinenko?

The current reports are looking at Moscow at a culprit. If the evidence points that was and action is ruled out we should ask why?

More likely perhaps is anyone who would like to cause a rift between Russia and the West or perhaps to specifically undermine Putin. Perhaps we need to look who would gain from this?

Dissident intelligence officers, enemies of Russia, perhaps some of the people Putin has being giving a hard time?, not necessarily in the most likely order of who might do this.

I cant think what Moscow would gain from doing it so perhaps we need to track the more likely suspects who may have been in our country recently,
-and those who might be friendly or allied to them in some way, who may have acted on their behalf

Just a thought

Best wishes
Bob Goodall

Form testing

  • 3.
  • At 08:31 PM on 20 Nov 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

"More likely perhaps is anyone who would like to cause a rift between Russia and the West or perhaps to specifically undermine Putin"

Open to the idea

Q. who would stand to gain?


  • 4.
  • At 09:43 PM on 20 Nov 2006,
  • Scott wrote:

Looks like this could be a gritty Newsnight. Good! The Litvinenko package (and discussion I hope) will be very interesting.

In recent weeks we've had Newsnight does Panorama and Newsnight does Parkinson with a fawning interview of Madonna, and now I read there is more light entertainment on the way too.

Please leave out the lightweight interviews of psuedo-celebs.

  • 5.
  • At 11:02 PM on 20 Nov 2006,
  • Richard Koudry wrote:

Should more troupes be sent to Afghanistan?

The simple answer is that, no more troupes should be sent to Afghanistan. The troupes should not have been there in the first place and there should be plans to pull them out as soon as possible. There have already too many lives lost and the young men must be brought home for Christmas. This is a no-ending war and the strategy at this stage should be damage limitation. You cannot find an invisible enemy. I don't think the government are aware of the size of the problem ahead. Just like Iraq, the government have made a terrible misjudgment and they should send no more troupes eirher to Afghanistan or Iraq. They should be planning to pull them out as soon as possible.


Richard Koudry

In the RFK film, Shane O’Sullivan refers to the statement made by David Sanchez Morales in 1973 about John and Robert Kennedy: “I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard." This information was first obtained by Gaeton Fonzi, a staff investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), who interviewed two men who heard Morales make this statement, Robert Walton and Rueben Carbajal. What is more, recently declassified documents reveal that Morales was involved in a CIA assassination program in the 1960s.

It is also interesting that George Joannides was also at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of the assassination. Joannides was brought out of retirement to serve as the CIA liaison officer to the HSCA. The CIA did not tell the HSCA that in August 1963 Joannides had a professional responsibility to report on contacts between Lee Harvey Oswald and members of the Cuban Student Directorate (DRE). At the time, Joannides was secretly guiding and monitoring DRE’s leadership in Miami and providing them up to $25,000 a month.

When G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel of the HSCA, recently became aware of this fact, and he issued a statement where he said: "I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee.... I was not told of Joannides' background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents.” Blakey started a campaign with the Washington Post journalist, Jeff Morley, to persuade the CIA to release all the records Joannides generated in the summer of 1963. However, despite the passing of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Act, the CIA is still refusing to allow these documents to enter the public domain.

Shane O’Sullivan points out that one CIA agent, Tom Clines, denied that the photograph published in the Guardian was of George Joannides and Gordon Campbell. This is not surprising as Clines was a member of Ted Shackley’s Secret Team at JMWAVE in 1960s. I sent the photograph to two contacts. One worked with the men in Miami in 1963 and the other has access to the CIA photographic archives. Both said that they were nearly 100% certain that the photograph is of Joannides and Campbell.

  • 7.
  • At 11:24 PM on 20 Nov 2006,
  • Michael Miller wrote:

I wasn't convinced by the conspiracy theory about the death of Bobby Kennedy. As I understand it, the murder was witnessed and Sirhan Sirhan was immediately apprehended and confessed. These conspiracy theories are a distraction from a much more interesting issue - Sirhan Sirhan's motive. He gave it at the time and few people have taken much notice of how it ties in the geopolitcal history of the past 40 years. He was a Palestinian who was brought up to hate Jews. When Bobby, his former political hero in the USA turned to running for President he clearly started to court the Jewish vote. This infuriated Sirhan Sirhan who decided to kill him, symbolically on the first anniverary of the 6 Day War of June 1967. Subsequently, it is said, Yasser Arafat tried, unsuccesfully, to swap him for a US diplomatic hostage held by terrorists in the Sudan. If Sirhan Sirhan were ever released he would be greeted as a hero in Gaza - so he never will be.

  • 8.
  • At 11:35 PM on 20 Nov 2006,
  • Lesley Boatwright wrote:

Hi Vikingar, et al. Causing a nice handy rift between your own rivals is an elementary ploy in just about anyone's armoury these days. This devious world is fast degenerating into a Whodunnit, Whatwozdun and Whywozitdun. Truth may be the daughter of time, but she sure ain't born yet.

  • 9.
  • At 11:37 PM on 20 Nov 2006,
  • Aggie wrote:

Re. RFK assassination.

Unusual and very interesting feature.
Some serious research needs to be done into the anomalies of the autopsy results and obvious inability of Sirhan Sirhan to fire the fatal shots.

It is important researchers get the truth before all the evidence dies with the witnesses who were there that night.
Perhaps Kennedy hating CIA agents had a legitimate reason to be there - it's important to find out.

Murder for political expediency is not acceptable - whenever or wherever it happens.

  • 10.
  • At 11:59 PM on 20 Nov 2006,
  • A Anon wrote:

It is clear from the interviews regarding Afghanistan that more troops cannot be committed because there are no more available to commit in terms of resources and troops without exhausting the army even more. Clearly Italy Germany and Spain consider the lives of their soldiers to be more valuable than that of UK soldiers. How can the NATO alliance survive with this clear disparity of commitment? If the security of the 21st century is being decided in Afghanistan and it is so crucial to our survival why are the resources not being made available? I will believe what the politicians say when our forces are resourced properly. These actions do not sound like a nation or alliance fighting for its future and the Taliban know it.

  • 11.
  • At 12:20 AM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Les Cantlay wrote:

Both the RFK story and the Litvinenko story seem to be cases of political assasination carried out either by the powers that be or by rogue elements of security services. Unfortunately we will never know the truth because the truth will always be kept well buried by the same people we hire to protect our freedom. Conspiracy theories are themselves obfuscations designed to protect the conspiracy.

I have serious credibility issues with the identification of Morales and Joannides at the Ambassador Hotel. As a published author on the subject who strongly believes the CIA was, in fact, involved in the RFK assassination, I'd like to believe this, but I'd need more evidence. There's plenty of evidence on the record that the CIA was deeply involved in the coverup.

The man at LAPD assigned to cover the "Conspiracy" part of the investigation was Lt. Manny Pena, whose brother told on TV how "proud" his brother was of his service to the CIA. Pena had also retired(!) in a very public ceremony from the LAPD the year before, so his appearance in the halls of the LAPD in 1968 was a shock to some. His close associate, Enrique "Hank" Hernandes was the man doing the lie detector tests. Provably, he claims some people lied who we know from the documentary record told the truth, and provably, he made some liars into truthtellers. Both Pena and Hernandez worked for AID - a front agency for CIA operations in Latin America.

But for more re Morales and Joannides and why that makes no sense to me - see my blog (click my name).

  • 13.
  • At 12:41 AM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • John Geraghty wrote:

The RFK piece is good exposure for some of the sterling research that has been conducted in this field over many years. Segmemnts such as these give this study the legitimacy it deserves.

All too often historical analysis of assassination has cntered not upon the event itself, but upon its consequences, consequently no serious investigation of the crime is undertaken and the word of the police (in this case the LAPD) is taken as the last word in the matter.

Researchers of the JFK assassination are very familiar with the names Joannides and Morales and it comes as no suprise to many that these names crop up once again in the murder of Robert Kennedy.

There seems to be a resurgence in interest in both cases, with the recent article on researchers in the Times, this newsnight piece and the impendong release of David Talbots book about Kennedy reactions to JFK assassinations.

I highly reccommend John Simkins website, which goes to great lengths to set the record straight.

To disregard matters such as assassinations would be intellectual dishonesty and lazyness.

John Geraghty,
Dublin, Ireland

  • 14.
  • At 02:24 AM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Simon May wrote:

It's an interesting point in psychology when it comes to what we accept and reject in that area known as "conspiracy".

Jeremy Paxman sensibly introduced tonight's RFK piece with: "the violent deaths of prominent people...routinely attract conspircacy theories."

They do. It is also true that there is a tendency to do the reverse - routinely dismiss them. I confess to be among those who - perhaps like Jermemy - cringe at the very word "conspiracy", yet recognise that sometimes they happen.

Today we appear to be caught between these two competing mindsets: gravitating to conspiracy theories and avoiding them. Not surprisingly, in the world of journalism, the last thing you want is to be caught on the wrong side of a conspiracy argument, however much you mistrust your government.

I haven't forgotten that Gavin Estler narrated the JKF assasination documentary "Beyond Conspiracy" shown in 2003. Gavin covered himself quite well in this regard. You may remember that this program concluded that, when all was said and done, the Warren Commission had got it right. Without going into whether I agree with that conclusion, I will say that there was a lot missing from this documentary.

Gavin's program was an example of being psychologically immersed in the "avoid conspiracy" mindset. One question it asked was: "Is it conceivable, in an open democracy with such a free press, that we could not know the truth by now."

Again, this directly appealed to the side of us that cringes at the concept of conspiracy. By the end it left viewers with the impression that conspiracy nuts had got their way on JFK for so long that it was time to lay this to rest - and frankly used only evidence which could do this. In challenging the close-minded pro-conspiracy mindset - which also exists - we could almost forget that there ever was a genuine contraversy based on conflicts in evidence.

I'm curious whether Gavin has actually changed his mind since then.

Yes do I share Shane O'Sullivan's suspicions, both about Robert and John Kennedy's murders. If it comes to that, I might even share some of Oliver Stone's. At the same time I'm among those who don't wish to find themselves on the wrong side of a conspiracy theory.

The lesson here is to beware of the conspiracy mindset but also the anti-conspiracy mindset - both of which can have a tendency to dull our critical faculties. Discovering the truth of any event may mean setting aside psychological preference to confront what actually happened. It can also often mean accepting that we may never find out what happened.


  • 15.
  • At 06:38 AM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref , Lesley Boatwright #8

et al... indeed … )

'Oh grauniad Oh grauniad'

But ref potential RIFT, just wondering if some of the most likely contenders/candidates actually that sophisticated (given their track record)?

Most nasty things in Russia since the demise of USSR has been finance/business related - show me the money !


  • 16.
  • At 10:23 AM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Alexander wrote:

Re: Troop levels in Afganistan (and overstretch)

Jeremy Paxman's debate last night was a misssed opportunity to discuss the pitifull levels of defence spending.

It is time for the government to decide if they want to fund our armed forces properly once and for all. Manpower shortages, lack of proper operational equipment, helicopter shortages and lack of air support, inappropriate vehicles, and the ever dwindling size of our naval fleet are just some of the recent and, frankly, embarrassing examples of the ever increasing economic stranglehold that are armed forces have to operate under.

The armed forces don’t just protect the British people they continue to save thousands of lives around the world through the heroic peacekeeping duties that they undertake. The world is historically highly unstable and our armed forces should have the capability to operate anywhere in the world. At present they cannot - this is acutely demonstrated in Afghanistan as I write.

  • 17.
  • At 10:35 AM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Brian Kelly wrote:

I have heard enough about the Kennedy conspiracies...its expired...its been regurgitated so many times...forget it!!
Dr Liam Fox was correct to remind the panel & viewers that our partners?(some) in the Afghanistan NATO force ...are not pulling their fighting weight . Why doesn't someone Blair, grandstand on this issue, not give such a casual approach para phrased "as staying the course" to our troops on his flying visit for alleged media headlines? ... We cannot go it alone.
Or if he feels unable... give it to GB.(his 2nd in command)

  • 18.
  • At 11:31 AM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Alexander #16

Good post.

If any government wants to deploy our excellent armed forces, they ought to be mindful of the crucial long term investment required, behind such forces.

Effective soldiers, airman, sailors are not 'ACTION MEN - ESQUE' - they cannot be pulled out of a box at a moments notice or by political whim.

Some maybe born, but the majority are made, that takes funding, time & the right people & infrastructure in place (now more than ever in our technical age).

The old adage remains: the right people with the right kit to do the right job.

The professionalism of our armed forces, is a by product of national character, resilience, tenacity, sense of justice & adventure, history etc.

In our modern age, there are many competing avenues for talented & motivated Britons to go down, the armed forces are competing with that.

Ref two current commitments in Iraq & Afghanistan. Believe 'retention' of battle experienced personnel will be the greatest threat to medium to long term effectiveneess.

As people get the experience they joined for, experience too much risk in lieu of recognition & reward, feel they are not adequately supported, loose home/work balance - they understandably will move on.

Brits love a fight - but do not expected to get shafted by their own side, esp by politicians, whose record of expediency, bears few well.

Our armed forces cannot be taken for granted.



The BBC Newsnight story last night raised some interesting questions about Robert Kennedy’s death. Why were there three known CIA operatives present at the scene, especially when there were no police present? These were interesting questions. However, no attempt was made to answer the much bigger question: Who placed the contract for Kennedy to be hit?

The implication made by the programme seemingly was that it was the usual suspect, the CIA; which was always in the frame, after most people had begun to suspect its involvement in the killing of his brother.

On the other hand, by the time of Kennedy’s assassination the CIA would have been less exposed on the issues Jack Kennedy (but not necessarily Robert) was following up. This was especially true of the Cuban situation - the home base for the team from which the three operatives identified in the programme came - which had long been put to bed. Would the CIA, even if it wanted Kennedy dead (by then a dubious proposition) have parachuted in such well known operatives; especially where they had no local knowledge to offer.

Instead, it might be worthwhile looking for some other paymaster; one which had the considerable expertise, and substantial funds, to organize such a killing. The one which springs to mind is, of course, the mob – the Cosa Nostra. One rumour at the time was that the contract was laid by the Chicago Underworld kingpin, Sam "Momo" Giancana (

This has more of a ring of truth than the CIA, for Bobby had – when Attorney General under his brother’s presidency – done more damage to the Cosa Nostra than any of his predecessors; despite Jack Kennedy’s electoral deals with it (and, as such, a reneging on an agreement with the Cosa Nostra which, more than any other, might have – to them - justified the killing). Moreover, a major plank in Bobby’s presidential campaign was that he would go even further and destroy the Cos Nostra; a pledge no subsequent presidential candidate has dared to make.

My own contribution to this debate must rely on evidence received third, or even fourth, hand. In the 1970s I worked with a colleague who was just back from spending time working for our multi-national employer in New York. His neighbours there, with whom the family made friends (as usual through their children playing together) turned out to be one of the sons of the Genovese family. Amongst the many fascinating stories he regaled us with perhaps the most memorable was their claim that the Cosa Nostra had arranged the killing of Robert Kennedy. They did not specify exactly who had killed him - the professional hit-man whose expert close shot to the neck was fatal – or who made the arrangements, but they proudly stated the fact of their organization’s responsibility.

Even the presence of the three CIA operatives might be explained in this way. There was no reason for the CIA to have sent them there, but there was reason why their support might have been sought by the mob – who (with its interests in the Cuban casinos) had previously been heavily involved with their Bay of Pigs team!

Maybe it was just the mob wanting to claim the glory of the deed, but – at the same time – they denied having anything to do with the assassination of Jack Kennedy, which would have added even more luster to their image within the mob. So, as I have said, I for one, was convinced they were telling the truth.

Simon May’s post deserves serious consideration.

“It's an interesting point in psychology when it comes to what we accept and reject in that area known as "conspiracy". Jeremy Paxman sensibly introduced tonight's RFK piece with: "the violent deaths of prominent people...routinely attract conspiracy theories." They do. It is also true that there is a tendency to do the reverse - routinely dismiss them. I confess to be among those who - perhaps like Jeremy - cringe at the very word "conspiracy", yet recognise that sometimes they happen. Today we appear to be caught between these two competing mindsets: gravitating to conspiracy theories and avoiding them. Not surprisingly, in the world of journalism, the last thing you want is to be caught on the wrong side of a conspiracy argument, however much you mistrust your government.”

The media is aware that a large percentage of the population is interested in political conspiracies. They rightly believe that the people in power are willing to withhold information that suggests that we do not live in a free and open democracy. The media goes along with this conspiracy that dates back to the emergence of democracy in the 19th century. This is usually justified on the grounds of “national security” but in reality it is a much more complex issue than that. For example, see details of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird that has been running since the late 1940s:

The media in the UK and the US has always been willing to run stories of conspiracies based in foreign countries that don’t involve their own agents, for example the current Alexander Litvinenko case. That is not to say he was not poisoned but it does raise the question why the media has been less interested in exploring the deaths of those who were investigating the JFK assassination. See the following:

The same could be asked about the death of David Kelly. The available evidence suggests that it was highly unlikely he committed suicide but the media has largely ignored this story. Despite the media cover-up of these suspicious deaths, the public are not fooled. Public opinion polls since 1963 suggest that over 80% of the American people believe that John Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy. They also know that their government has consistently lied about the assassination and despite the passing of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Act, the CIA is still refusing to allow over a million relevant documents to enter the public domain. The justification of “national security” is hardly relevant when we are talking about an event that took place over 40 years ago.

BBC Newsnight is to be congratulated for running the Shane O’Sullivan’s piece. However, it is important to recognize that there were serious problems with this report. The identification of Gordon Campbell is highly dubious. Although the CIA does have photographs of Campbell, they have not entered the public domain. My sources, who have seen photographs of Campbell, say that the man in the picture shown on Newsnight looks like him, but they cannot be certain.

In the film Bradley Ayers and David Rabern suggest it is Campbell. Rabern is a new name to me and I found his testimony unconvincing. Ayers was definitely at JM-WAVE in 1963. His books, The War That Never Was (1976) and The Zenith Secret: A CIA Insider Exposes the Secret War Against Cuba and the Plot that Killed the Kennedy Brothers (2006) recount the rumours that were circulating about David Sanchez Morales in 1963. However, he is unable to provide any evidence that Morales was behind the assassination of either JFK or RFK.

But Campbell is a red herring. As a close colleague of Morales his presence in the Ambassador Hotel would have been interesting but not conclusive.

What is important is the testimony of two very respectable witnesses: Wayne Smith and Ed Lopez. They are convinced that the pictures show that David Sanchez Morales and George Joannides were both in the hotel on the day RFK was assassinated.

The CIA has managed to keep all photographs out of the public domain. However, thanks to the great work of James Richards, we do have several pictures of Morales.

In fact, the photograph and caption of the picture of Morales that appeared in the Phoenix newspaper in 1977 was the main reason he was murdered in 1978. It was also necessary because Gaeton Fonzi, chief investigator of the House Select Committee on Assassinations had discovered evidence of Morales’ role in the death of JFK and he had been ordered to appear before the HSCA.

Most people would find it difficult to believe that the men involved in the planning the assassinations of JFK and RFK would have wanted to be at the scene of the crime. However, you have to understand the arrogance of these men. They were working for the CIA and knew that they would be completely protected if any information came out about their involvement. Here for example here is a photograph of another CIA operative who worked closely with Morales at JMWAVE in 1963, Rip Robertson, at Dealey Plaza:

David Sanchez Morales was definitely involved in the assassination. According to a filmed interview with Gene Wheaton last year, Carl E. Jenkins and Rafael Quintero, two other CIA operatives at JMWAVE, were also involved in the killing of JFK. Jenkins and Quintero refused to answer my questions (via Don Bohning) about their involvement in the assassination. Quintero died last month but Jenkins is still alive and needs to be interviewed on camera.

Hopefully, the BBC will commission a follow-up documentary on Morales, Jenkins, Quintero and other members of Ted Shackley’s Secret Team (Tom Clines and Edwin Wilson who both refused to identify Morales in the Newsnight documentary were both members of Shackley’s team and were later sent to prison for their involvement in illegal contract work).

For more information on these characters who were not only involved in the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, also brought down Jimmy Carter and helped to make sure that Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush (Shakley even wrote some of his speeches) were elected, see:

If you want to provide me with information on this or any other political scandal, send me an email at:

  • 21.
  • At 04:08 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Jefferson Morley wrote:

Shane O'Sullivan's piece on Bobby Kennedy's assassination, at least as it relates to the late George Joannides, is unfounded and unfair.

O'Sullivan has accurately recounted my reporting in Salon and the New York Review of Books about George Joannides' still unexplained role in the JFK assassination story.

But I do not share O'Sullivan's thinly sourced, very subjective conclusion that Joannides was in Los Angles in June 1968, much less that he was involved in anyway in the RFK assassination. I see no evidence to support such a claim.

We spoke to Jefferson Morley while researching our film but he did not want to be interviewed on camera, citing a lack of knowledge of the RFK case.

Morley agreed that Ed Lopez was an extremely credible witness on Joannides and that his positive ID raises the serious possibility that Joannides is the man in the photograph - I see nothing "unfounded" about that. With his ten years of research into Joannides, Morley knows the implications if Joannides was at the hotel.

In 1963, Joannides was the case officer for the DRE, an anti-Castro group of Cuban exiles supported by the CIA. Joannides' primary contact was Dr Luis Fernandez-Rocha. When I showed Fernandez-Rocha the photograph, he said "I will neither confirm or deny that this is Joannides."

In the interest of balance, we asked Morley to suggest an equally credible witness to identify Joannides but so far, he has not done so.

  • 23.
  • At 11:31 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Penny Flynn wrote:

I found the report on the RFK assassination to be very interesting, but unfortunately too short and lacking in enough detail for someone like me, an ordinary citizen, who is not an expert on the subject, but interested to know more. The photographic evidence of the presence of Morales was more convincing than that of Campbell and Joannides - I can't remember any good comparison photographic evidence of the latter; maybe there is none available. I will take another look at the report in order to understand it better. Some posters have criticised those who are still interested in the era of political assassinations in the US; I think it is as important today as 40 years ago to keep looking for the truth (even if it is always elusive). Not only regarding this subject, obviously, but to look again at all major events such as this - otherwise all we will have is incorrect and biased versions of history. I would also say I am very disappointed that there are no programmes planned for broadcast this week on any channels that deal with the JFK assassination.......

  • 24.
  • At 10:23 AM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Benedict Aloysius wrote:

JFK shot in Dallas by Oscar from building facing back of cavalcade ... but shots came from front ... Jack Ruby silenced him.
RFK shot in hotel from front, but fatal shot in neck came from behind.
Marlyn Monroe blabbered about exposing the K brothers, Sargeant Shriver calls RFK desperately, she is found dead next day. A neighbour saw RFK entering her place that night but he denied and gave no evidence.
Will that unchartered helicopter flight explain?
A Pope lived for 32 days and died after ordering President of Vatican Bank and Foreign/State Secretary (equipollent designation) to resign.
All crimes shoukd be exposed and criminals severely punished irrespective of age or status for the good of the society and for truth to prevail for all times.
Will government protect and fund the individual investgators ... another Ken Clark and his millions? with his sexist exposures which all came to a sweet round zero around his neck in the end !!!

  • 25.
  • At 04:26 AM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • Michael Cakder wrote:

I interviewed Frank Burns two months ago at his house in Los Angeles. He was a lawyer involved in the RFK campaign. He was standing next to RFK when Sirhan fired two shots. Burns told me he tackled Sirhan around the waist and eventually had him pressed against a metal table.
Burns also looked me in the eyes and said, "Sirhan did not kill Robert Kennedy." He told me that Sirhan never got closer than two or three feet to the Senator and was always in front of him. The autopsy report determined that the gun that killed RFK was held one inch from the back of his head and the two shots in his back were fired from point blank range. As the author of JFK VS. CIA I say Shane O'Sullivan is a hero and has the proof we have been waiting for; CIA murder and treason.

  • 26.
  • At 05:29 AM on 29 Nov 2006,
  • Jigger B wrote:

Thane Eugene Cesar.

He killed RFK.

  • 27.
  • At 10:12 PM on 03 Dec 2006,
  • Theresa C. Mauro wrote:

Regardless of what Lisa Pease stated above, and I have the highest, utmost respect for her opinion, I find the connection between the I.D.'s made by those who worked with and for JM/WAVE those who had first hand knowledge of as well as acquaintance with Morales, Campbell, and Johnannides compelling enough in their interviews to be taken seriously. The fact that Georges Johannides was inadequately vetted by Blakey prior to Blakey's assigning him the position as CIA liason for the H.S.C.A., responsible for the flow of information from its headquarters at Langley, speaks volumes with regard to the ineptitude with which the U.S. gov. continually seeks to exculpate itself from having to assume responsibility for ensuring an unbiased, untainted, thorough investigation of these assassinations is allowed to be forthcoming. Those who continue to chide researchers for their undaunted efforts in exposing these travesties, or those who would ridicule them for not being willing to accept the status quo being presented by the media's [already compromised since 1947] "talking heads." And, I'm referring to those who are so quick on the draw as to deride anyone who might exercise their right to independent thought, not to mention logic and critical thinking skills. It's you I'm addressing, here. Because, it's YOUR knee-jerk acceptance of what the gov. be it U.K., or U.S., decides it wants YOU to believe, that relegates YOU to the status of an ostrich burying its head in the sand. Why? Because the naked truth assaults your idea of what a pampered, cozy, stress free, SUV, plasma-screen HDTV, ipod accessoried existence should be.

In his book, JFK: The Cuba Files, the Untold Story of the Plot to Kill Kennedy (2006), Fabian Escalante claims that the Cuban Department of State Security (DSE) Became aware of David Sanchez Morales activities in Cuba as early as 1958. He claims that “he was the officer who attended to Phillips and handled covert agents Frank Fiorini (Frank Sturges) and Gerry Patrick Hemming”. (page 22)

According to Escalante, in 1978, Rolando Cubela agreed to give evidence against CIA agents he worked with. Using photographic evidence, Cubela identified Morales as being his contact as early as 1960. Escalante said this news surprised the DSE. (page 70) Cubela also claimed that he met Morales in Paris in September 1963. (page 186)

Escalante also argues that Morales was “coordinator of Phillips’s actions in Mexico”. (page 70) Escalante is convinced that Morales played a major role in the assassination of JFK and argues “his description matches the person who picked up Lee Harvey Oswald at the exit to the book depository after the fatal shots”. (page 186)

It should interest your viewers that two journalists in America who have been researching the assassination of JFK and RFK for many years, David Talbot and Jefferson Morley, have shown that the three CIA operatives in the Shane O'Sullivan film, were not George Joannides, David Morales and Gordon Campbell.

However, Talbot and Morley do believe that George Joannides and David Morales were involved in the assassination of JFK.

This article, plus the photographs of these men, can be found here:

This post is closed to new comments.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites