Talk about Newsnight


Who shot Bobby Kennedy?

  • Newsnight
  • 21 Nov 06, 11:48 AM

kennedy_203.jpgFilm-maker Shane O'Sullivan has uncovered new footage showing that at least three CIA agents were present on the night Robert Kennedy was murdered.

O'Sullivan believes these men are connected with the assassination. Are you convinced by the new evidence in his report?

Click here to watch the report

Click here to read 'CIA role claim in Kennedy killing'

Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 12:57 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Katy, NL wrote:

Thanks for emailing it to me!

I was very interested in watching this but I was actually flying back from the UK last night and missed it!

This way I had the chance to see it!

Wonderful idea to give us a chance to see reports like this the next day!

Thanks, again!

Katy, NL

  • 2.
  • At 12:57 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Simon J George wrote:

Oh please, I know people find it hard to accept that 'unbalanced' people with guns all of there own decision kill people, and sometimes they are important people, but are Newsnight really going to start reporting each "new" piece of evedence in the Kennedy assassinations that comes along. Wake me up if you get a signed confession, otherwise stick to reporting current affairs.

  • 3.
  • At 12:59 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Dr Sibani Roy wrote:

Yes, I firmly believe in the report and suspected the same all along

  • 4.
  • At 01:01 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Jeff Phillips wrote:

A couple of points: O'Sullivan (and Sirhan Sirhan's lawyer)quoted a number of eye-witnesses as saying that Sirhan did fire at Bobby Kennedy, albeit from a position that did not fit the apparent trajectory of the fatal bullet(s). If that is the case, what happened to the bullets that Sirhan fired? 2. If Sirhan fired but did not fire the fatal bullets, are we expected to believe that -- by amazing coincident!! -- he fired his shot(s) at precisely the same time as the shots that did indeed kill Kennedy? 3. Did the FBI carry out any ballistics tests to see whether the bullets that killed Kennedy came from the same (or same kind of) gun that Sirhan used? 4. Are there no eye-witness accounts of the (non-Sirhan) firing? If not, how would O'Sullivan explain that? 5.Why didn't Jeremy Paxman ask questions about the ballistics?


Jeff Phillips

  • 5.
  • At 01:09 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Cloe Lowery wrote:

Although the evidence shown was compelling enough with regard to the identities of the CIA agents, O'Sullivan could no little more than extrapolate upon the operatives personal dislike of the Kennedy family, and the Bay of Pigs link. This was less of a theory, and more a CIA version of Friends Reunited.

  • 6.
  • At 01:09 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Matt Everett wrote:

This was a fascinating report. Considering the official explanation of RFK's assassination--that he was shot in the back of the head by a man who was in front of him--is impossible, it's quite right that people should be asking the questions that O'Sullivan does. Excellent!

  • 7.
  • At 01:12 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • david jones wrote:

Shane O'Sullivan highlighted the point that three FBI men, certainly not friendly to Kennedy, were present. The ease of highlighting his 'lacking in any real understanding of this event' surely rests with explaining what they were doing there.
It would appear that the background research on this event has been very detailed. It must therefore be fair to assume that the presence of these men has also been suitably explained - so what's the answer?

  • 8.
  • At 01:14 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • William Small wrote:

Shane, you silly!

  • 9.
  • At 01:23 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • MARCUS wrote:

With the evidence and the presence of the two CIA agents it is compelling. The CIA will of course deny it. An anology would be a small child found next to a broken vase claiming it was like that when they found it. We all know the kids lying but the child we never admit it. Not unless the kid is George Washington and let's face it how many poeple in US govt are as honest as that old boy.

  • 10.
  • At 01:23 PM 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 don't wish to find myself 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.


  • 11.
  • At 01:24 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Allan Craig wrote:

Everything is possible in the third dimension.

The bay of pigs fiasco was of the (Kennedy's) making and left a lot of sour grapes amongst the security services and the Cuban refugee groups in Miami.

  • 12.
  • At 01:28 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • MARCUS wrote:

OH and by the way. The original assasin had been hired, issued with a gun firing blanks which he was not aware of, thereby not putting the real assasin at risk of injury and bobs your uncle.

  • 13.
  • At 01:30 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Allan Craig wrote:

Everything is possible in the third dimension.

The events concerning the "Bay of Pigs" fiasco, was as a result of the Kennedy about face on policy, which was never forgiven by certain sectors of the American security services and not forgetting the Cuban refugee movement based in Miami.

So yes I believe the report you refer to could well be factual

  • 14.
  • At 01:31 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Tom Gill wrote:

I am not convinced as to Shane O'Sullivan's 'new' evidence, for example he did not mention any conspiricy between Siran-Siran and the two CIA agents. Where was the connection? Even if like Oswald, Siran was a 'patsy', there would have to be some sort of communication between the three of them (Siran & agents).
I do however believe, again like his brother, Bobby Kennedy did not die at the hand of a lone palestinian nutter, for of all the American politicians of that era, Robert Kennedy was surely a friend of Palestine.
It also beggars belief that at the beginning of the 1960s, three of the most radical men in American politics were young and very much alive namely, John F Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther king. All three were murdered before the decade was complete. Coincidence? Please don't insult my intelligence.

The Gnomes of Zürich was the reason of the death of all Kennedy family members

The plot to the assasination of President John F Kennedy started with the Missile situation in CUBA.
Bobby had the same attitude as his brother John, reason why his elimination too.

Undersigned was the first to ever send color pictures taken of the site in the Nort/Western part of CUBA with already assembled missiles and these were forwarded to CIA through a third person I met while travelling to New York.

Be advised that I was then a Purser on board and did many flights with a good friend Captain, called FARO and he was the one who called me to take a look at the Bases and have my camera ready.
I had to hide the camera in the Convair 340 which we normally flew over to CUBA to take out the elderly and the children who wished to leave to other countries, such as Spain, the USA and others....

A shot in the head is a way to kill someone instantly and make sure he's not going to survive and several shots is to be damn sure he's dead and both happened to the Kennedy's.
Mafiosi, no, CIA and/or High Ranking Military, YES.

They did not want for Kennedy to act on the Russian situation but permit this to escalate more.
Just look at Irak, Afghanistan and others and the way the WORLD is controlled nowadays. ILLUMINATI inflitration, not from now but for many years now. WORLD POWER and that's where the investigation should continue, CIA and the High Ranking Military as thse are the ones involved with the assasination and anyone ever thought about the name FORD????

MARCUS wrote:
"OH and by the way. The original assasin had been hired, issued with a gun firing blanks which he was not aware of, thereby not putting the real assasin at risk of injury and bobs your uncle".

Bullets removed from RFK and the other victims were matched to Sirhan's gun 'to the exclusion of any other weapon in the world'.The head wound bullet was too damaged for a postive match.The gun was immediately handed to Rafer Johnson, a friend of RFK's. Johnson then gave it to the LAPD police - the provenance of the weapon is not in doubt.

I really do suggest that bloggers read some of the literature about this case before they post ridiculous nonsense like this.

  • 18.
  • At 02:23 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Keith Douglas wrote:

Thr report by Shane O'Sullivan giving revelations of the presence of three CIA Agents at the scene of Robert Kennedy's assasination adds to the mounting eveidence that it is certainly NOT conspiratorial to suggest the complicity obvious to many of us from the outset of the US Establishment - namely the giant US Corporations and the Military/Industrial Complex in the assasinations of both Jack and Bobby Kennedy.
History will no doubt reveal that US Corporate Power will stop at nothing in their goal of total global US hegemony. Assasinations are just the 'tip of the iceburg' - just look at the killings of innocent people all over the globe - starting with Middle East and Afganistan. As always it is about the control of people economicaaly for their resources. Look at the history of Latin America where once it was the European powers, it has been from the beggining of the 20th Century the U.S.A.
When the "bogey man" of the U.S.S.R was no more they had to create a new bogey man given to them on a plate by Islamic fundamentalism. These two forces are feeding off eachother with even the possibility of working together - as US involvement in 9/11 has yet to be revealed.

It is interesting how the so called "war on terror" conveniently overlooks the U.S.'s own terrorists such as Louis Passada Carrilles a former CIA Agent fomenting terrorism in the sovereign states of Cuba and Venezuela - and who is now being protected by the US government.
Then there was the CIA sponsered assasination of Salvador Allende in Chile - the list is endless.
Am I anti-American ? Certainly not.
The people of the USA are mainly good people as are all of mankind. Their government however is particularly nasty and dangerous.
When the US people finally throw off their system of society - and they will - they will be doing themselves and mankind a very great service !

  • 19.
  • At 03:48 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Stephen Birch wrote:

I do believe I spotted quite a few in the crowd with crooked fourth fingers, and whilst not 100% sure I do believe I also spotted someone who looks like architect David Vincent, or was it Roy Thinnes !
Let JF and Bobby finally rest in peace, PLEASE.

  • 20.
  • At 03:54 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Tim Cleary wrote:

Why is the idea that Robert Kennedy was murdered by his own people such a surprise! Even the US Governments Warren Commission admitted that his brother was murdered as a result of a conspiracy! And now, we have an even greater problem where the powers that be demolish sky scrapers in the middle of New York - and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary all we get is a conspiracy of silence. No wonder people are wandering away from the mainstream media in order to source current events/News!

  • 21.
  • At 03:59 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Gary Naylor wrote:

From this distance it seems impossible that a person with the characteristics, policies and morality of Richard Nixon was elected President of the United States. In one way or another, quite a few contenders must have been cleared out of his path.

Surely the biggest contender to Nixon was RFK - then, within the blink of an eye, he wasn't.

Conspiracy or not, the questions are worth asking and Shane's film deserves a response. It won't get it of course.

  • 22.
  • At 04:06 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Sj Phillips wrote:

There's nothing better than a good old conspiracy yarn.

How long until we see a report on the death of John Kennedy Jr?

Go know you want to !

Well done least it made a change from your usual content of hum drum politics, economic forecasts and social commentary.

This is yet another of the Great Crimes committed by the "American Establishment" against it's people! Although the BBC recently did a "The magic bullet theory is correct" documentary(sic), it is conclusive that "they" killed him! Similarly RFK was gunned down by an establishment that could not tolerate a man of morals and ethics at the heart of it's government(sic)!Now, hands up all those who believe the twin towers was Al-Qaeeda--- MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

  • 24.
  • At 04:24 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • John Mcrorie wrote:

I have read a couple of biographies on the life of RFK and it is obvious that he made a number of enemies throughout his years as Attorney General serving for his brother JFK. I have always firmly believed that there was no lone shooter involved and this very insightful report gives an indication that all was not quite what it seemed that fateful night in the Ambassador Hotel. My belief is that the war mongers needed to make sure that RFK would not set foot in the office of the presidency or there may have been an earlier withdrawal from Vietnam. This would have meant the loss of $billions in war contracts.
RFK also made enemies in those who did not favour equality between black and white americans. I hope there is a follow up documentary on the subject. I agree that RFK had his faults like any man, but he would have made a great President and would have brought about the kind of change that Americans would still be benefitting from today.

  • 25.
  • At 04:26 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • BigBadAl wrote:

I'm a conspiracy theory beleiver with regard to JFK. I have studied much of the evidence and read many of the books. I don't think there's a sane person alive who given the wealth of evidence can deny that Oswald was assisted in his assasination plot. Gavin Estlers anti conspiracy program was a poor attempt at scotching theories that are now accepted as fact by many of those who have studied the material.

With RFK I have more difficulty. The nub of the conspiracy theorists case, as I understand it, is that Sirhan was hypnotised into a trance like state. He then fired blanks at RFK to cover shots, possibly from a silenced gun, by the real assasin.

Big hole there, if you've got him hypnotised, why risk an important man with a silencer when Sirhan could do the job with real bullets? Now if the theory was just that I could accept it. It's accepted that both JFK and RFK were a thorn in the side of the FBI, Christian right wing America, the Rebublican Party, corporate America, the Mafia and the arms trade. They had few friends in the establishment.

Oliver Stones film, whilst widely criticised even by ardent conspiracy theorists at least comes to the right conclusion. It's not important that there was another gunman at the JFK assasination, it's why there was and who put him there. The same is true with RFK's murder. It doesn't matter that Sirhan did it, the question more importantly is why.

  • 26.
  • At 04:28 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • John wrote:

Get real. The people in charge and a part of our "intelligence services" don't give a damn about human life, they are all psycopathic killers, ..... 007 doesn't have any qualms about killing and neither does 001. Why anyone should doubt that both Kennedy killings were instigated by the US government simply astounds me. If they treat Iraqis or "slope heads" or any of the others with contempt do you really think they'd treat you any differently unless you could do the same to them 10,000 times over, ...... an adult knows the world they live in. As the "Prime Minister" in "Love Actually" said "The SAS are absolutely charming, ..... ruthless trained killers are only a phone-call away", ..... or a wish away.

  • 27.
  • At 04:30 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Richard Gillies wrote:

Seeing it is the conspiracy season again how about LBJ (ask your father) or if that doesn't suit what about his dog Yuki. I mean did anybody do a background check on that dog? It raises a lot of questions as yet unanswered.

Yours Richard

TIM CLEARY WROTE:"Even the US Governments Warren Commission admitted that his brother was murdered as a result of a conspiracy!"

If this is a reason to avoid mainstream news I'll pass. It was the House Assassinations Committee, based on flawed acoustics evidence, that concluded JFK was murdered by a conspiracy - not the Warren Commission. As I suggested before - start reading - you won't learn anything by obsessing with the internet which is full of disgraceful misinformation.(Not Newsnight's, however!)

  • 29.
  • At 04:38 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Ian wrote:

Well done the BBC for airing the piece! It goes some way to redressing belief in a broadcaster that lost its balance when screening the weak 'documentary' narrated by Gavin Esler on the JFK murder.
In response to #22 above, it wasn't the Warren Commission that concluded "probable conspiracy" in relation to JFK, but the House Select Committe on Assassinations.

  • 30.
  • At 04:52 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Ian wrote:

Mel Ayton obviously has much more knowledge on this subject than most, but whatever the flaws and assumptions put forward in Shane O'Sullivan's film, does he dismiss the central premise of the film? To my mind, O'Sullivan hasn't said that a CIA operative shot and killed RFK. He simply has said that he has a positive ID on three CIA men who were in the building that night - the public, including conspiracy theorists, will draw their own conclusions. Mel - are you saying that those operatives were not there, or that they have been mis-identified?

  • 31.
  • At 05:13 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Dee wrote:

The assassination of the Kennedy brother's are both tainted with the federal government involvement. This looks particularly bad for a nation that pride itself on liberty and democracy. I think that American needs to wake up to a new reality and understand what is actually happening in their backyard.

However, all nations need to unite but with a deferred judgement, so that we do not polarize our views about race and religion.

Peace and freedom.


  • 32.
  • At 05:17 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Colin Crichton-Turley wrote:

Conspiracy theories have long been with us. In Britain,I am Scottish, the babes in the tower killings come to my mind. Like most people, I hope, I found this interesting, but my problem is that these sort of things tend always to deal with "celebrity killings".
Yes, there should possibly be a thorough investigation of the possibilities, but, would not there also be a strong case for investigating all those on death row who avow their innocence? Yes, I know, if you strike lucky, it would make you famous/rich. Investigating "Celebrity deaths", whatever the outcome, gets you instant attention.
It is laudable that this investigator works so hard.
Even more laudable were they to work on non-celebrities.
Such is life

  • 33.
  • At 05:20 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Dee wrote:

The assassination of the Kennedy brother's are both tainted with the federal government involvement. This looks particularly bad for a nation that pride itself on liberty and democracy. I think that American needs to wake up to a new reality and understand what is actually happening in their backyard.

However, all nations need to unite but with a deferred judgement, so that we do not polarize our views about race and religion.

Peace and freedom.


  • 34.
  • At 05:22 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Jeremy Langlands wrote:

If RFK was hit by a bullet which could not have come from Sirhan, then I am convinced further explanations need seeking out. The leading question seems to be to confirm the identity of the 3 alleged CIA agents and find out why they were there.

  • 35.
  • At 05:28 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Mongo wrote:

I am always puzzled at the Kennedy family in this regard. They must have disgust at the exploitative sicko tendencies. But when there seems to be autopsy evidence to clear Sirhan and suspicious circumstances you would have thought they would want to flush out the truth as they are still players.

I seem to remember Newsnight rubbishing a US ex-intelligence Major (nice guy met him in Liverpool) on JFK some years ago. Time for an apology?

  • 36.
  • At 05:43 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • PETER EMERSON wrote:

Could this be YET ANOTHER hard-up journalist trying to make a quick name for himself? He IS entitled to his opinions, but, should investigate deeper BEFORE making allegations of wrongdoing, especially the ballistic evidence.

Watch the programme again, Ian -Shane O'Sullivan states it is his belief the CIA were 'involved'in the assassination.He states this in a scene outside the Ambassador Hotel and in the interview with Paxman.

Yes, I believe David Morales has been mis-identified. I have ran the LAPD film footage through numerous times since last night's programme. I believe it is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination to take O'Sullivan's clips, match it with the only photo of Morales available, which O'Sullivan referenced, then conclude it is Morales.In fact, when I blew the thing up from the original footage he looked like OJ Simpson.O'Sullivan's 'witnesses' don't seem that sure of themselves -quite rightly too, as the footage is blurred.

Furthermore, O'Sullivan has discredited himself by manipulating the film footage he has of 'Campbell' and the 'Latin Man'.Anyone who views the footage will only conclude that the 'Latin Man' is clearly showing the palm of his hand, moving it backwards and forwards, waving it through the air as he warns the crowd to keep away. O'Sullivan's conclusion that the 'Latin man' is pointing in the direction of an exit for 'Agent No 2' Campbell is purely and simply - wrong!.

Newsnight were extremely remiss in not checking O'Sullivan's research. Did they know for example that Bradley Ayers had written a JFK conspiracy book and that he has been peddling his wares for years? And why didn't Newsnight's editors demand that its journalists solicit the opinions of non-conspiracists?

  • 38.
  • At 05:48 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Susanna wrote:

The first thing RFK would have done as President, would have been a root and branch investigation into the circumstances behind his brother's death, and, as President he'd have had the authority to get to the bottom of it.

JFK was assasinated 3 weeks after he signalled that the Vietnam conflict was not going to be escalated, RFK as soon as his nomination as the Democrat Presidential candidate was confirmed, and that he would similarly find a way to stop the war.

The question, then as now, everyone should ask is "Who benefits?"

  • 39.
  • At 06:02 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Jason Dack wrote:

Shane O'Sullivan's report was a shoddy piece of work which had no place on Newsnight. There wasn't a single piece of evidence in his report and he even had the cheek to reheat the "conspiracy" of JFK's assasination. The BBC showed an excellent documentary on JFK's killing last year in which every conspiracy claim was knocked down. It was a lone gunman afterall. Don't think Mr O'Sullivan has much of a future in investigative journalism if this is the best he can do.

  • 40.
  • At 06:19 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • MikeH wrote:

The jar that the CIA guy was carrying was probably the bullets from Kennedy

  • 41.
  • At 06:41 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Bedd Gelert wrote:

I am not convinced that a second man was involved in the Bobby Kennedy assassination, but I am convinced there needs to be more investigation.

However, as the CIA are involved, I am not sure how much that would achieve. My question is more around why both Kennedy assassinations would appear to have such wasteful duplication of effort, if I can put it in such a glib way.

Why have the coincidences of the same person being killed in the same time and place by different persons?

Isn't the real issue here using 3rd parties to do the security forces' dirty work for them ? If the CIA could manipulate someone to shoot Bobby Kennedy then they wouldn't need to risk getting personally involved in the shooting. Isn't that the real story which needs to be looked into here, rather than the possible presence of a 2nd gunman?

Even if there were a second gun, my view is that the real story is who was really behind pulling the first gun's trigger. It is that issue which Shane O'Sullivan's film has really highlighted, by showing very convincing evidence that the CIA were present - even if he cannot prove [to my mind] that they were the murderers of Bobby Kennedy.

  • 42.
  • At 08:20 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Ian Wright wrote:

It seems odd how often there is some sort of alleged conspiracy, over the Kennedy family. All the furore over JFK and his death, and now the killing of his brother. The evidence shown in this report, does seem a bit sketchy, I mean how do we know so much about the three guys in the frame. Is this yet another opportunity for someone to make a film on the back of this information. I have no doubt there will be no conclusion to this story, it will disappear into histroy as have many other versions.

  • 43.
  • At 09:02 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • AKBER A. KASSAM. wrote:

I believe that one of the CIA agent killed Robert Kennedy, during that time United States government and CIA were against Kennedy's family because Kennedy's were always supporting African Americans and other minorities groups for their values, freedom, justice and human rights.!!!!

  • 44.
  • At 09:32 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Chris wrote:

There seems to be an awful lot of muddled thinking on this blog.
The JFK programme fronted by Gavin Essler was an absolute travesty of evidence with reheated stuff from the earliest days following the JFK assassination that has long since been discredited by hard evidence. Take, for example, the proposition that John Connally's lapel flips open as the bullet strikes, thus "proving" that the magic bullet was possible. Look at JC's jacket (it's still around), the bullet hole is nowhere near the lapel. This was just one of dozens of hopeless claims made in the film.

It has also been written that JFK did a volte face on the Bay of Pigs and this brought him the emnity of the military, the Cuban exiles and every element of the right. He never did. He was always entirely consistent on insisting that there would be no air support from the US for the plan. Further, the plan was conceived during Eisenhower's presidency by...Richard Nixon! Kennedy was a couple of months in office and had been assured by the CIA that it would work, even though they knew American air support was essential to success. He trusted them and they let him down. When it failed he stood up in front of the press and took the responsiblity (imagine Blair doing that!). Only in private did he seek to sort out the CIA, thus creating another enemy.

Another post states that the accoustic evidence that led the House Select Committee on Assassinations to conclude that JFK died as a result of a conspiracy was "flawed". The evidence was not flawed at all. It was later discovered that there was the possibility that the sounds heard on the dictabelt could have been over dubbed by a jumpy recording needle, or "crosstalk" on the tape, but this did not invalidate the original conclusions, it merely gave other possible, very unlikely explanations for why the belt apparently recorded more than three shots. Dr James Barger, the original accoustics expert, stood by everything that he first claimed in giving 95% certainty that there were more than three shots.

What hasn't been mentioned is that the HSCA was just about hijacked by the CIA. Richard Sprague was hounded out of the Committee and his replacement, Robert Blakey, was little more than a stooge. He even admitted as much years later, claiming he had been too trusting with the CIA. Only a few years before the HSCA reported, Robert Helms, head of the CIA in the early seventies, had perjured himself before the Church Committee. He was convicted, fined, set free and treated as a hero by his fellow operatives. Blakey's HSCA lame conclusions that the JFK assassination was a result of a mob led conspiracy in which Oswald fired the only target hitting shots was laughable in the face of so much evidence that points to other conclusions, but it put paid to proper investigation of the sixties assassinations for ever. Now it is probably too late to get to the real truth about JFK, RFK and MLK, just about everyone involved has died.

This is not a post to convince anyone about conspiracy, it is put up to make clear that, on evidence, so much of what we were told by the Warren Commission and the HSCA just doesn't add up. Everytime a new programme or book comes out from some nutter who claims he pulled the trigger or witnessed the killing or overheard something in a bar somewhere we get another conspiracy theory that takes us further from the truth and does a little more to discredit those intelligent, hard working individuals who know we have not been told correctly about these events and who try, against the odds to get official channels to look properly at the cases. Equally, everytime we get a Posner or an Essler type production that confirms the nonsense of Warren and Blakey, we move further away from the truth.

No doubt Shane O'Sullivan is doing his best to a) get to the truth and b) make a living, but like all the scenarios put forward by private investigators, his evidence is framentary and open to interpretation. I wish him well, I really do, but only an official investigation will ever properly explain what happened in the sixties.

  • 45.
  • At 10:59 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • John Geraghty wrote:

A great deal of misunderstanding occurs on both sides of this case stemming from either a lack of knowledge or an unwillingness to relinquish preconceived notions of what occured in the ambassador hotel.

As some previous posts have shown many are not well versed in the facts surrounding the case and make out of hand statements in a somewhat willy nilly fashion. This said however the fact of the matter is that sufficient evidence or lack thereof relevant to this case means that it is far from an open and shut case .

The evidence presented by Mr.O'Sullivan should be given due consideration and this is by no means the end of the matter. Clarification of the identifications will be sought by other former CIA affiliates in order to prove or disprove the ids provided.

With regards to Mel Aytons remarks on the matter I echo his sentiments that people need to gain a more in depth understanding of the matter. I do feel that Mr.Ayton may be basing his assertions that these are not the CIA agents in question. It should be noted that the identifications are made by associates of the men and not photographic analysis by outsiders.

I would hope that the bbc will commission another documentary by Shane O'Sullivan in order to give clarification on the matter.

John Geraghty

  • 46.
  • At 11:47 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • tony rome wrote:

I was a student during the 1960's heavily involved in world affairs. My ability to form my own views also stood proud above the repetitious material taught at college. I can remember where I was standing when JFK was shot but I cannot remember where I was when Bobby became the target. I blame their father for their deaths because it is known that the father's wealth came from the underworld dealings and when the Kennedy family sought to and did change their clothes for a cleaner America, the underworld and agents from within America's own Central Government agencies set course to destroy the Kennedys. The Warren Commission was a white wash. Whilst I thought Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for JFK's killing (I believe mass produced by the USA) for many, many years I have held Central Government agencies and the underworld for JFK's death, for Bobby's death, for the assassination of Martin Luther King and for the murder of Oswald. I have many videos on the Kennedys including the Z Tape of the moment of JFK's assassination. End.

Even though Noguchi remained tight-lipped and diplomatic at the time, in his biography that he penned a decade later – entitled Coroner -- he wrote, "Until more is precisely known…the existence of a second gunman remains a possibility. Thus, I have never said that Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy."

  • 48.
  • At 01:30 AM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Jassim Al-Kanani wrote:

I believe that Robert Kennedy was the great political figure of the past 50 years. Despite enduring the pain of the death of his brother, and, he offered people the hope of a new form of politics - compassion for our fellow human beings. A tragic figure, he can hardly be painted as anything but flawed - but he realised that he had the propensity to be wrong. He demonstrated this with his changed perception of the problems facing America in Vietnam. He was a political rarity in that in word and in deed you sensed the man truly cared about the plight of the underprivilaged and discarded souls of humanity.

It is for that reason that whoever was complicit in his death should hang their head in shame.

  • 49.
  • At 02:52 AM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Rob Sloane wrote:

CIA would probably routinely keep tabs on senior political figures. It's not beyond belief to think that they were complicit in one way or another, but the evidence, especially as obfuscated by 40 years of rumour, speculation, and conspiracy, is circumstantial, and sadly, 40 years too late in the presenting.

  • 50.
  • At 04:15 AM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Bandu G wrote:

It is quite possible that the CIA was behind the assasination of Kennedy as CIA is just as unscrupulous as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam - LTTE - of Sri Lanka. They would not hesitate to bump off their own if it helps the cause as shown by the recent assasination of MP Nadarajah Raviraj and some years ago the PM of India, Rajiv Gandhi who vehemently supported them and who was the son of Indira Gandhi whio spawned them to destabalise the Sri Lankan Govt.

  • 51.
  • At 04:31 AM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • karl wrote:

How strange to think that Bobby K and his brother would be in their 80's now.
Watching the footage, the man makes Bush look like one of the pilgrim fathers.
Imagine the free world churning out leaders so forward and bold thinking today!
I think the ghost of Marylin Monroe shot him - my book is coming out for Christmas!
I hope for an investigation all the same.

  • 52.
  • At 05:20 AM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Paul wrote:

We will never know the absolute truth so to completely deny the conspiracy theory or lone gunman explanation regarding the deaths of JFK, RFK and MLK is wrong. But on balance which is more likely? If say the CIA/Texas oil men/mafia/Cuban exiles (whoever you want) killed one it makes it more likely that they killed more than one (if you kill JFK why not RFK also).
So Jack Ruby, a member of the mafia, (who knew Oswald) killed him because he wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy the trauma of a trial (PLEASE).
Oswald learnt Russian in the Marines, worked in Japan on U2s, defected telling the Americans he would tell the Russians all he knew, becomes disillusioned with communism receives money from the US government to return with Russian wife (with an uncle in the KGB). He is not charged with high treason. Associates with known exCIA members and right wing organizations, whilst pretending to be a supporter of Castro et c.

Putting to one side the crime scene evidence this "lone" gunman has a remarkably colourful past. This isn't like Regan's attempted assassin who did it to try and impress Jodie Foster. Now that is a good old fashioned lone gunman. If JFK was killed by a carpet salesman who did it to impress Marilyn Monroe I could buy that much more easily.

Well, it's hard to say this but three-times congratulations are due to the Newsnight team for three very different, groundbreaking investigations brought before the UK public (and the world, via the net) in one week. I expressed a little appreciation about the other two last night:

And now, indeed, for something completely different.

Firstly, the instant critics, in either direction - how dare the Beeb give too much credence to ridiculous conspiracy theories or not nearly enough to obviously true ones - should take in three aspects of what seems to be going on here:

1. Genuinely new and apparently significant evidence is uncovered on the RFK assassination 38 years ago and is shown on Newsnight ahead of any other outlet. (Could even make you proud to be British but let's not stretch the point as yet.)

2. Jeremy Paxman, rightly, puts the young film-maker responsible under the spotlight in the studio, questioning whether he has proved very much at all

3. Mel Ayton, a real expert on RFK's death who doesn't believe any of the existing conspiracy theories of 38 years, is tipped off about the blog post, making a major contribution to the ensuing debate here.

That is amazing stuff. Excellent. Though by no means end of story. I hope.

The Guardian of course had taken the trailer article by Shane O'Sullivan the day that the trailblazing video report - well, we can all hope - was to appear:,,1952379,00.html

It's worth checking the article as well as the video if you're really concerned about the truth in this instance.

Of course, like any proponent of a CT or indeed any theory of history at all, I've made a few assumptions already, notably that Ayton being the first poster was not accidental. Plaudits to everyone concerned, if I'm right. Just what was needed, in the service of the truth.

But I don't think Mel has done justice to O'Sullivan's findings. Three different, respected people - none of them previously known to be conspiracy nuts - who knew the subjects well have provided positive ID that three senior CIA operatives were in the Ambassador Hotel that night:

1. Bradley Ayers on Sanchez Morales and Gordon Campbell

2. Wayne Smith on Sanchez Morales

3. Ed Lopez, on George Joannides, seen with the man Ayers had previously identified as Gordon Campbell.

In addition, a freelance covert operative who didn't know who any of these people were (and whose own reasons for being at the hotel were unexplained) confirmed that he saw them that night and that from their behaviour he assumed them to be covert operatives engaged in the protection of RFK (until meeting O'Sullivan and learning that they belonged to a part of the CIA that hated the Kennedys).

On the other hand, two old CIA agents who worked closely with Morales and the other men denied that any of the identifications made by the three other, non-CIA people were correct.

Rob Sloane is surely not facing the full facts of the matter in saying that the CIA would probably routinely keep tabs on senior political figures. How often would three senior people be in the one place at the one time, all from a group reputed to hate the man in question? To do nothing to prevent his killing and to be walking around calmly and purposefully in its aftermath?

What was weak for me (inevitably) was the setting of the scene of why some people in the CIA - and perhaps other members of the US business or political or intelligence establishments much more important than the three men identified - might want RFK dead. That is a very big one to explain.

But the existing, known problem with the official version of the death of 'Bobbie' - who could possibly have fired the bullet that killed him, going right back to the dispute between the very experienced coroner and the LAPD - was to me fairly stated in a short time. On that see the well-written and concise summary in

But I no doubt need to read Ayton in detail on that point. For that is all old hat, whichever way one reads it.

What Ayton couldn't have known until this week was the verifiable presence of three senior CIA operatives at the scene of the murder.

Not that he sees the facts that way as yet. But I do. Thanks to the steady and properly sceptical hand of good old Newsnight.

It was good to see the subject mentioned on Newsnight (thank God for Newsnight, who else would go there?) The CIA was behind both assassinations as it suited US foreign policy to have hawks in the White House than doves. Fifty years later the US is still hung up on Cuba and it is strange Bush has not made a move on Castro. Bpbby Kennedy upset organised crime and the mafia, the CIA and disgruntled Cubans were all up for it. Sirhan was the ideal Patsy. Steven Calrow

American journalist Jefferson Morley, who writes for the New York Review Of Books, had this to say about O'Sullivan's reporting:

"When it comes to the late George Joannides, the BBC story is unfounded and unfair. Its evidence is weak, its conclusions unwarranted. The story accurately quotes my reporting in Salon, the New York Review of Books and elsewhere about Joannides' still unexplained roles in the JFK assassination story but I see no basis for author Shane O'Sullivan's extrapolation that Joannides had some role in the RFK story. Specifically, there is no evidence to corroborate Ed Lopez's claim that
the man in the photo is Joannides'- the authentication of the photo is
uncertain. There is no other evidence that Joannides was in Los Angeles in June 1968, much less than Joannides was involved in RFK's assassination. To make sure serious allegations on such flimsy evidence is irresponsible."

  • 56.
  • At 12:50 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • adrian wrote:

I believe he's onto something. The CIA could have been in the grip of a rogue element in the 60s, I wouldn't be suprised if it was them. The elite had much to lose if R.Kennedy was president.
Follow the money? No, follow the motive?
Great piece of journalism by the way, let's hope they see this in the USA.

  • 57.
  • At 12:50 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Bob wrote:

Those who love to hate the Kennedys will pooh-pooh the CIA involvement theory. They'll say how forthright America and its agencies are and how arrogant it is of the BBC to run articles suggesting otherwise. To those who saw hope in what the Kennedys could do for America – regardless of conduct in their personal lives – CIA involvement has been suspected all along. America is a republic driven by fierce capitalism and the military-industrial complex has always threatened the county's precarious balance of democratic power. Somewhere behind Kennedy's assassination there is a money trail and I don't find it hard to believe the CIA helped out. Bottom line is the event was a terrible national tragedy despite what the JFK & RFK haters say.

  • 58.
  • At 12:53 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Sion Hughes wrote:

Who cares? We'll never know for sure.

That may seem harsh, but really, are you surprised that governments might kill people they don't like. I'm not.
And if they wanted to get away with it they certainly have the resources.
There are plenty of nutters out there too who'll kill people for ludicrous reasons.
As if any conspirator will ever be found out and tried 40 years or more after the event!

Am I too cynical?

  • 59.
  • At 12:58 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Nigel Edwards wrote:

Yes, well done indeed Newsnight. Part of the reason these deaths still fascinate so many is not just the circumstances (though they are intriguing), nor the Camelot personalities or the much-hyped Sixties.Despite the cries that we should let the Kennedys rest in peace and concentrate our attention on more current affairs, the simple truth is that affairs today are shaped significantly by the impact of those bullets.
It is argued convincingly that RFK would have gone on to win the Presidency and would,in all probability, have been a two-term leader. So... no Nixon, no Watergate, no Ford, no Carter, no Reagan ( and Thatcher`s longevity?)
All speculation and not a little chaos theory it must be admitted. But the impact of a bullet... remember Sarajevo and a certain Archduke!

  • 60.
  • At 01:06 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • NAB wrote:

Yeah i think that may be right. I have seen documentaries about John F Kennedy on Discovery. He seemed to be a nice man UNLIKE BUSH THE TERRORIST. When i lived in MidEast, i found a common notion among the people there that actually Kennedy took a Strong Stand against Israel's Nuclear Weapons, how they were transferred to Israel? and thats why he was killed by the Jews.

I dont know whether this is true, but one thing i know and am amazed is that US spends its taxpayers' money on saving and helping Israel and supports Israel, Vetoes every resolution condemning Israel's attacks, on even Lebanon in case of a few mths back where it almost destroyed Lebanon and most important of all gives it yearly TWO BILLION DOLLAR AID UNCONDITIONALLY.

One has to think are they elected to be US leaders or Israels leader?

  • 61.
  • At 01:49 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Shane O'Sullivan wrote:

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 that night.

We spoke to Chief Counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, G. Robert Blakey. He said he had limited contact with Joannides and suggested Ed Lopez and Dan Hardway as the two investigators who had the most contact with him. Hardway said "this could be him. Much younger in the picture than in the 70's and it's been a long time".

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 "This is very important (that I quote him directly) I will neither confirm or deny that this is Joannides".

Yes, the authentication of the photo is uncertain until we have further corroboration but look at the photo in context. The man I think is Joannides is pictured with a man positively ID'd as Gordon Campbell, a former JM-WAVE colleague, with a third JM-WAVE colleague, David Morales, positively ID'd nearby. Three lookalikes who happen to know each other, all behaving like law enforcement types? I thought it suspicious enough to warrant public discussion.

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

His recent pronouncements on my film contradict what he has told me privately and I suggest he actually does some reporting of his own on this story to help us uncover the truth of the matter.

  • 62.
  • At 01:51 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • MALIK wrote:

Ofcourse, this documentary evidence proves that CIA was involved in ruthless killings of both Kennedies. The brutal and shameful history of CIA covert operations during this century is enough to make us believe that it was their plot and coverup as well. This is the part of their hidden agenda to fantasize anything as a conpiracy theory which could leak out and make American public throw all of them out of their Langley Headquarters. So, they are playing the same game here and media is supporting them in every way possible, as it can, to put in the minds of people that yet this another documentary evidence is nothing more than "Yet One More Conspiracy Theory". But People have come to realise now the secret agenda of CIA and their supportive media and they are trying to dig the truth themselves in every case i.e., from Keneddy assasination to shameful event of 9/11, which is still a mind boggling mystery in the minds of millions of people.

  • 63.
  • At 01:59 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Louis Massano wrote:

Bear in mind that there were dozens of people surrounding Bobby Kennedy the night he was killed, including his bodyguard, the American football player Rosie Greer. Even though Bobby, like his brother Jack had personal security, he, also like his brother, thrived on direct contact with people, unlike today's important politicians who ride or walk around cities with the way cleared for them.

So, if anyone should be convinced that the account of events which finally put Sirhan Sirhan in prison for life was a false one, it would have been the people who were, quite literally, "close" to Bobby Kennedy that night in LA. Many of these people are still alive; none have ever come forward questioning the conclusion that Sirhan Sirhan was solely responsible for Robert Kennedy's assassination.

And, in the immediate days, months and years after Bobby Kennedy's death in the crowded kitchen of a hotel's ballroom, no one seriously questioned who the killer was. It was in the seventies, with the revelations of the crimes of Watergate, that the conspiracy books (always mentioning a mysterious "woman in a polka dot dress") came out in sizable numbers - usually connecting the killing of the two Kennedys and Martin Luther King with a grand conspiracy -- impossible for the putative conspirators, inept at they were at just about everything they did, to bring off - to direct America down a reactionary, militaristic path. Example: Carl Oglesby's "The Yankees and Cowboys War."

If any observer with an unconventional viewpoint on American political and social life could be expected to give an account of Bobby Kennedy's killing implicating a conspiracy, that person would be the Australian journalist John Pilger, who was in that Los Angeles kitchen that horrible night . But the vivid and brilliantly written eyewitness account Pilger gives of Bobby Kennedy's death in his book "Heros" mentions no conspiratorial angle at all.

It is certainly interesting that CIA agents were near Bobby Kennedy on the night of his death, and this new addition to the account of that night's events should be investigated further.

But the CIA is much too clumsy an organization to pull off an assassination like this one -- in broad daylight, using a putatively "brainwashed" "fall-guy," Sirhan Sirhan, misdirecting the attention of dozens with a patsy who could, unstable man that he was, have behaved erratically even under hypnosis. The expert mentioned in this interesting segment does not give a single example in history of an assassin programmed successfully, without agreeing in advance, to kill -- or to "take the rap" for a killing. Some experts in hypnosis, like the famous American hypnotist Andrew Salter (1914-1996)have also claimed that with the right suggestible subject, a skilled hypnotist could get a person to do just about anything - and to forget about it after the fact. But people do "hysterically" forget or deny crimes they have committed as a way of avoiding guilt, shame, etc.

It was Oliver Stone's film on the Kennedy assassination which has given us a generation of young people who believe in what have been found to be totally implausible grand conspiracy theories about the killing of the Kennedy brothers, or Martin Luther King. Bertrand Russell put forward his own version of Locke's principle of sane rational judgement found in the latter's chapter on "Degrees of Assent" in Locke's "Essay on Human Understanding": "Give to any hypothesis which is worth your while to consider just that degree of credence which the evidence warrants." And there is conclusive evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald and only Lee Harvey Oswald, killed John F. Kennedy, and that Sirhan Sirhan alone killed Robert Kennedy.

I will not say who killed Bobby Kennedy. I will say that as a 6 years old in Kindergarten [1968] in Ohio, I still remember the day he was killed like yesterday.
There was a fire siren wailing throughout the school doors. Everyone thought there was a fire but the teachers and the loudspeakers blaring from the walls were saying "The Enemy is Attacking Us Go To The Gymnasium Single File".
Since the Gymnasium was huge, all of the students from Kindergarten to 6th Grade were in the gymnasium. So that there was no pandemonium, [and to calm us down] we saw Mr. Magoo, The Three Stooges, The Archies. Some of the older grades entertained the younger grades with music, sports, and electronics.

Mel Ayton might appear to be knowledgeable about the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy but this is not the case. Or if he is knowledgeable, he does not share it will his readers. I hear he has recently been promoted and like Gerry P. Hemmings now gets paid by the word.
For example, Ayton argues that: “I believe David Morales has been misidentified. I have run the LAPD film footage through numerous times since last night's programme. I believe it is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination to take O'Sullivan's clips, match it with the only photo of Morales available, which O'Sullivan referenced, then conclude it is Morales.”
For a start, there is not only one photograph of Morales available. See the following photographs here:

On the far left of the bottom picture is Robert Walton, one of those in Shane O’Sullivan’s film who helped to identify Morales. Details of the rest of the people in the photograph can be found here:

Walton was not the only one. Wayne S. Smith, who worked with Morales in the American Embassy in Havana in 1960 also identified Morales from the film. So did Bradley Ayers who knew him at JMWAVE in 1963.

The most important result of Shane’s film is that he has helped to publicize the existence of Morales. Unlike other CIA agents, Morales, did not keep his secrets. The problem for Morales was that he was indiscrete when drunk. In 1960 Wayne Smith was a State Department officer in the American Embassy in Havana whereas Morales was stationed there as an undercover CIA agent. Wayne tells the story of being in a bar in Havana with Morales. After a heavy drinking session Morales began talking about the CIA’s secret operations that involved frog men operating out of Guantanamo Bay.

Another example of Morales indiscretion was allowing his photograph to be taken by Kevin Schofield at the El Molino restaurant on 4th August, 1973. The picture appeared in the Arizona Republic with the following text: “Feted by friends at a fiesta Saturday was former American counsul to Cuba, David Sanchez, left, who was in that country when Castro took over… In government service for 28 years, Sanchez is now consultant in the office of deputy director for Operations Counter-insurgency and Special Activities in Washington.”

This was the greatest crime any CIA agent can commit and as a result he was forced to resign from the agency. However, he continued to make regular trips to Washington. When asked about this by his friend Ruben Carbajal, Morales replied: “Oh, they run into some problems, I have to go up there and take care of them. These people never let go of you.”

Morales built a new house at El Frita, which is about half-way between Willcox and the Mexican border. Morales told another friend, Bob Walton, that he had put in the best security system in the United States. Walton said, “What do you need so much security for? You're still thirty miles from the Mexican border.” Morales replied, “I'm not worried about those people, I'm worried about my own."

Morales had lots of enemies within and without the CIA. According to fellow CIA agent, Robert N. Wall: "He (Morales) was a rough-neck. He was a bully, a hard-drinker and big enough to get away with a lot of stuff other people couldn't get away with.” During the 1950s and 1960s Morales became known as the CIA's top assassin in Latin America.

According to CIA agent Tom Clines, Morales helped Felix Rodriguez capture Che Guevara in 1965. "We all admired the hell out of the guy. He drank like crazy, but he was bright as hell. He could fool people into thinking he was stupid by acting stupid, but he knew about cultural things all over the world. People were afraid of him. He was big and aggressive, and he had this mystique. Stories about him permeated the Agency. If the Agency needed someone action-oriented, he was at the top of the list. If the U.S. government as a matter of policy needed someone or something neutralized, Dave would do it, including things that were repugnant to a lot of people.”

Morales moved to Chile in 1970. He was a member of the team that used $10 million in order to undermine left-wing forces in the country. Morales told friends that he had personally eliminated several political figures. He was also involved in helping Augusto Pinochet overthrow Salvador Allende in September, 1973.

After arriving back in the United States Morales moved to Washington where he became Consultant to the Deputy Director for Operations Counter Insurgency and Special Activities. Larry Hancock has recently found evidence that indicates that during this period he provided advice to right-wing governments involved in Operation Condor (Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil and Argentina).

Gaeton Fonzi, staff investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HUCA) found out about Morales from CIA asset, Paul Bethel, who worked for David Atlee Phillips. It was suggested that Morales might have been the “Latin-looking” man seen with Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans during the summer of 1963.

Fonzi had also read David Phillips’s autobiography, ‘The Night Watch’. It includes a reference to a CIA agent who used the code-name Hector (Rip Robertson) and his “sidekick ‘El Indio’, a massive American of Mexican and Indian extraction I had seen only briefly during the revolt (the CIA-stage 1954 Guatemala coup) but was to work with in other operations over the years.” El Indio was of course Morales.

When Fonzi interviewed Phillips on behalf of the HSCA he asked him about Morales. Phillips said that Morales was an unimportant figure in the CIA and suggested that he might have died as a result of his heavy drinking. At this stage Morales was still alive. What is more, Morales was far from being an important figure, he had in fact been Chief of Operations at JM/WAVE in 1963 and at the centre of the operation to kill Fidel Castro. The operation that was later turned to kill John F. Kennedy. Fonzi also discovered that Morales had worked very closely with John Rosselli, who also played a key role in the plots against Castro. Rosselli was to be one of the first people to be interviewed by the HSCA but went missing in July 1976. His body was later discovered in the Intracoastal Waterway in North Miami. He had been cut up and stuffed into a 55-gallon steel drum.

No wonder that Morales was worried about his own health during the HSCA investigations. Rip Robertson had died in 1970 and could not be interviewed. William Pawley had committed suicide in 1977. The other key figure, Carl E. Jenkins, had remained deeply undercover and was not being investigated by the HSCA.

Morales made his last trip to Washington in early May, 1978. Ruben Carbajal had a drink with Morales a few days later. Carbajal told him he looked unwell. He replied: “I don’t know what’s wrong with me. Ever since I left Washington I haven’t been feeling very comfortable”. That night he was taken to hospital. Carbajal went to visit him the next morning. As Carbajal later recalled: “They wouldn’t let no one in, they had his room surrounded by sheriff’s deputies.” Later that day (8th May) the decision was taken to withdraw life support. Morales’s wife, Joanne, requested that there should not be an autopsy. The CIA took good care of her and she moved to a fine house in Boston and according to Fonzi spent her time “pursuing her studies in Chinese antiquities”.

Fonzi never got the chance to interview Morales. Unlike, the recent case of Alexander Litvinenko, the poisoning of Morales received no publicity. After all, it is only the Russians who kill people who pose a threat to the stability of the state.

  • 66.
  • At 02:56 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • David wrote:

Interesting but not conclusive.

If those men were there, what was their motivation? (Being sore about the failure of the Bay of Pigs, alone could not be enough). Concern that RFK might uncover some hidden truth about his brother's past? (Possibly enough to scare them to act if they might be implicated). Further pay-offs for their financial backers? (If indeed the conspiracy lead that far). Men have sold their souls and done worse for less.

Incidently, does anyone else see the similarity between O'Sullivan's conspiracy and the plot of James Ellroy's novel "The Cold Six Thousand"? (Surely worth producing - along with its prequal "American Tabloid")??

  • 67.
  • At 03:00 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Jefferson Morley wrote:

I'd like to add some balance to my earlier comments on Shane 'Sullivan's piece on the assasssination of Bobby Kennedy.

I criticized the story for being thinly sourced. But, it must be said, that thinly sourced stories can be true if the source is good.

Ed Lopez is a credible witness and his near certainty that Joannides appears in a photo apparently taken in Los Angeles on the night of June 6, 1968 has to be taken seriously.

If Joannides was there, the implications are profound.

So O'Sullivan's piece, while open to criticism, underscores an important issue of JFK accountability for the new U.S. Congress:

The CIA must be compelled to abandon its JFK stonewalling and disclose fully about George Joannides's actions and whereabouts in 1963 and 1968.

  • 68.
  • At 03:17 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Bill Isenberger wrote:

Assassinations of politicians has always been a source of morbid fascination for many. To this day some historians are coming up with new theories about Abraham Lincoln's murder.

In the case of Robert Kennedy, he was a politican who touched many people of that generation. Yes, he had many enemies, from the Mafia to Cuban exiles to Fidel Castro, any and all could have had a hand in Kennedy's death.

The fact that one twisted individual could have committed this act is something many cannot accept. Strangely though they can accept a twisted indivudal could attempt to take the life of another President, Ronald Reagan.

  • 69.
  • At 03:24 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Kay Kepner wrote:

I'm sorry to have missed this presentation and hope it is repeated soon.

Having always subscribed to the conspriracy theory of JFK, this latest accusation doesn't surprise me in the least and I can't believe that any right-minded person would think otherwise.

Political intrigue aside, you have the JFK, RFK, MLK and even the MM deaths that don't 'sit right' and then your straight forward 'unhinged' assasination, eg John Lennon. Why is it so difficult for some to see the bigger picture?

The real issue is that we can readily see and deal with the up-front megalomanics of this world. The faceless world shapers are the more frightening ones. KK

  • 70.
  • At 03:31 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Marcos wrote:

Another magic bullet? C'mon?! RFK was shot from the front but the bullet that killed him clearly came from behind. This is the work of the Republicans, who murdered JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcolm X. They also had a hand in toppling governments all over Latin America.

  • 71.
  • At 03:44 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Angelo wrote:

Of course it's true.

Look if George Bush Sr. was head of the CIA, not at the time but at any time. This makes it a no brainer. The CIA needs to be dismantled and rebuilt with OVERSIGHT, OVERSIGHT, OVERSIGHT!! There should be at least 3 heads of the CIA a REB a DEM and IND. This is the only way it can be trusted.

They can not be trusted in it's current form. They turn on their own (Valerie Plame). They take the law into their own hands (both Kennedy assanations)as they have many, many times already.

This is a question for the misinformed and brainwashed Fox viewers.

  • 72.
  • At 03:54 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Allan Clyde wrote:

I agree with this report and it needs investigated

David wrote: “Interesting but not conclusive. If those men were there, what was their motivation? (Being sore about the failure of the Bay of Pigs, alone could not be enough). Concern that RFK might uncover some hidden truth about his brother's past?”

The first thing that has to be remembered is that Robert Kennedy played a significant role in the cover-up. This included denying access to JFK’s brain and the autopsy photos.

Why did the Robert and Edward Kennedy respond to the death of Grant Stockdale in the way that they did?

Soon after the assassination RFK told other members of the Kennedy family that he believed that senior members of the CIA organized his brother’s assassination. However, he was not willing to disclose this at that stage because he was being blackmailed. The information that the CIA had would destroy the reputation of JFK. His plan was to go along with the cover-up.

The “Camelot Myth” would enable him to be elected in 1968. He would then appoint Ted Sorenson as head of the CIA. Sorenson would carry out an investigation into the assassination. In this way, the CIA would be exposed and the reputation of JFK and RFK would be protected.

This was why the CIA leaked the story in 1967 that JFK and RFK were involved in assassination plots against Fidel Castro. When this did not work the same men who assassinated JFK had no option but to take out RFK.

That left Edward Kennedy to become president in 1972. He would then follow the strategy of RFK. He assumed that they would not kill a third Kennedy. They didn’t. Instead they set him up at Chappaquiddick. Game, set and match.

  • 74.
  • At 08:01 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Dave wrote:

The fact that they're saying that Sirhan Sirhan couldn't remember the shooting "even under hypnosis" undermines the credibility of this report from the get-go. Hypnosis is not a reliable method for recalling so-called "repressed memories," which is why hypnosis-induced testimony is no longer allowed in US courts of law.

I can't speak for the rest of the report, but nothing says "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory" like junk science five paragraphs into an article.

Further reading, for those who are interested:

  • 75.
  • At 08:12 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Shane O'Sullivan wrote:

Thank you all for contributing to the debate about the film. I would like to clarify my position regarding various points mentioned above.

We only had 12 minutes, so we decided to focus on the new evidence of a CIA presence at the hotel, itself complex enough to get across in the time.

We sketched in some of the existing controversies because they are relevant and still unresolved and we shot a number of interviews we couldn't include in the final edit.

We interviewed Frank Burns, for instance. He was standing one foot behind and to the right of Kennedy. He re-enacted the shooting for us in his living room and placed Sirhan three feet away. I would ask Mr Ayton to provide a witness closer to Kennedy who can place Sirhan's gun one inch behind.

Mr. Ayton regularly trots out Boris Yaro, who was much further away, looking through a camera lens and admitted Kennedy was in silhouette. Yaro also describes Sirhan standing over Kennedy when he slumped to the floor, firing down, which makes no sense at all given the upward trajectory described in the autopsy.

A dozen witnesses place Sirhan's gun several feet away and in front of Kennedy, not one inch behind.
Sirhan's firing trajectory fits the wound patterns of the four other victims and other bullet-holes found in the pantry door-frames.

We did not have time in the film to go back into the ballistics of the case, but the autopsy results and witness testimony provide alarming contradictions, the coroner Dr Noguchi is unconvinced Sirhan acted alone and the fatal bullet has never been matched to Sirhan's gun.

I can suggest a number of possible motivations for these agents. Kennedy had promised to pull out of Vietnam, ending the War, military spending, CIA operations in the region involving Morales at the time and yielding S.E. Asia to the Communists. If elected President, Bobby Kennedy would either micro-manage the CIA as he had done in the secret war on Cuba in 1962-3 or "smash it into a thousand pieces" as his brother had once threatened. He could also use the Presidency to reopen the investigation into his brother's death - going by Morales' comment, these same men may have been involved.

Friends of Kennedy have questioned the conclusion that Sirhan acted alone. Paul Schrade has led the campaign to reopen the investigation for over thirty years and Bob Kennedy's press secretary Frank Mankiewicz supported a campaign to reopen the case in 1992. Most aren't publicly vocal about it because, as many of them told us, their lives stopped that night and it's simply too painful to revisit the subject.

Finally, if these are, indeed, CIA agents, what is their connection to Sirhan? Sirhan had no criminal history and no propensity for violence - hardly the ideal hired assassin. If we are to connect the two, from the available evidence, I believe the hypnotic programming of Sirhan to act as a decoy for the real assassin is the most likely explanation. Richard Helms, Director of CIA in 1968, initiated CIA experiments aimed at creating such a "Manchurian Candidate" in 1953.

We interviewed Dr Herbert Spiegel, a world authority on hypnosis at Columbia University. He has studied the case and believes that Sirhan, a highly hypnotisable subject, was programmed to fire at Kennedy using what he calls a "compulsive triad" - a compulsion to comply with the program, an amnesia regarding the programming itself and post-rationalisation - I don't remember shooting Kennedy but I was the only gunman witnesses saw and I was angry at Kennedy for promising to sell the bombers to Israel, so I must have killed him "with twenty years of malice aforethought", as Sirhan said in the trial.

All very complex stuff which we couldn't fit in here but the interviews we couldn't include in this film will form part of a longer feature-length documentary on the case which will be available early next year. You can monitor its progress at

Thanks again for your opinions. New leads have already emerged from the piece the other night and we will continue to pursue the story.

John Simkin wrote: "I hear he (Ayton) has recently been promoted and like Gerry P. Hemmings now gets paid by the word."

I really haven't been promoted to anything - so what is this man trying to say? I am surprised that the website moderators allowed these kinds of remarks to mar what had previously been a rational debate about O'Sullivan's story.

In addressing O'Sullivan's remarks about how I 'trot out' Yaro - (once in my Crime Magazine article as far as I can see) I would like to add the following:

If O'Sullivan had indeed researched this case he would have read Dan Moldea's book which explains in detail how Yaro 'makes sense'of RFK's movements in his description of the shooting.Witness statements should be considered as a whole and not in part.

O'Sullivan quotes Frank Burns who has apparently given a different description of the shooting from that which he provided to author C. David Heymann in the late 1990s.See,0508-5.htm

In order to understand the positioning of Sirhan relevant to RFK a reading of Moldea's research is vital.He explains the dynamics of the crowd and the witness testimony extremely well. This positioning of the shooter will, in any case, become a moot point when new evidence is published next Spring - evidence which decisively eleiminates Thane Cesar as the second gunman (or anyone else for that matter).

Lastly, O'Sullivan is wrong about Sirhan's purported non-violent ways -see part two of the Crime magazine article mentioned above.

Shane (63), congratulations for this breakthrough in JFK/RFK research. May you go far, in the very best sense!

John (67), thank you for the help I gather that you've given. And for a clear account of the motivations as you see them (76). I reserve the right to some scepticism, if only from ignorance. But it strikes me as the best informed narrative I've read so far of the two killings, that takes seriously the CIA involvement and the strange public attitude of the Kennedys themselves. (I take it that you meant 'The information that the CIA had would destroy the reputation of RFK,' not JFK, in the fourth paragraph.)

Jefferson (70), I'm new to this but your campaign for the CIA to release all the documents on Joannides is clearly absolutely vital. Thank you for everything you've done in the last fifteen years to keep these issues alive in the mainstream media in Washington.

Lastly, an answer to Sion (60) who asked: "Am I too cynical?"

The answer, as for so many Brits, has to be yes. Even forty years later this stuff really matters. What these three guys we're sharing this blog with today have been working towards - starting from very different hypotheses - will make a real difference. In fact, it is already making a difference. You and I can be part of that.

  • 78.
  • At 09:20 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Marc Whittemore wrote:

Once again - this new evidence brings ROARING BACK to the suface all the deep distrust, UTTER and ABSOLUTE OVERWHELMING DISGUST, I have for the "American government". For God's sake get your head out of your ass America! OF COURSE the CIA was involved!!!! - JUST as it was involved with the assination - COLD BLOODED MURDER -- of his brother Robert and JUST as it was involved in the death Martin Luther King as well. HELLLOOOO? anybody home?! PEOPLE!!! -- WAKE. THE. HELL. UP. Our government IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN what they appear and pass themselves off to be. "Government" is nothing more than a diabolical machine run by a few elite good old boys who plot and kill to keep their control, their power and their (OUR) money. DEMAND ANSWERS! DEMAND - HEAR ME PEOPLE DEMAND THAT THE FILES ON JFK and MLK ARE RELEASED - UNALTERED, UNCENSORED and there you will find your answers. Yeah - RIGHT. Sure. Like "that" will ever happen!!!!

  • 79.
  • At 10:23 PM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Ronald L. (Ron) Buckles wrote:

The kill shot still was not Sirhan's, no matter what other points O'Sullivan makes are explained away.
I've always thought that some wealthy people in the United States and around the world used U.S. government resources to assassinate the Kennedys and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. because they stood in the way of the Vietnam war. It was a coup d'etat.

  • 80.
  • At 12:17 AM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • tim m wrote:

It is amazing how many of the posts apparently think it was ok for the govt to kill JFK and RFK because of their past sins. Not to sound like an old guy, but I lived through it and worked for Bobby as a 14 year old. I still miss him!

  • 81.
  • At 02:13 AM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • win m wrote:

Both sides of conspiracy or not have valid arguments in RFKs death. I've read through enough to say that some of the arguments on both sides are pretty loopy too.

The crux of it is, that the CIA is perfectly capable, able, and willing to do things like this. That is a fact that has been documented and proven.

As long as they are allowed and continue to behave the way they do and have historically, I am not going to trust them. So any evidence the provide, or those working with them provides, lacks credibility.

Really reading what I could find of the RFK case, the conspirators have the more reasonable argument. There is alot of info and you kind of have to sift it since there are a quite a few theories that really reach on both sides.

As far as the person that wondered about hypnosis and why not just have Sirhan shoot the bullets. You have to know how hypnosis works in that situation before you can understand that. There is a reason, read up on hypnosis, especially involving situations like doing something bad like killing etc.

  • 82.
  • At 03:43 AM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • Chuck W wrote:

One thing has become eminently clear over the last several years is that people in the US government cannot keep secrets. If there was a government conspiracy to kill Bobby Kennedy it would have been leaked several years ago. The same is true of JFK. Somebody always talks. If, on the other hand, it was a Mafia conspiracy, I can see that secret being kept to the grave.

Richard Drake wrote: “John (67), thank you for the help I gather that you've given. And for a clear account of the motivations as you see them (76). I reserve the right to some scepticism, if only from ignorance. But it strikes me as the best informed narrative I've read so far of the two killings, that takes seriously the CIA involvement and the strange public attitude of the Kennedys themselves. (I take it that you meant 'The information that the CIA had would destroy the reputation of RFK,' not JFK, in the fourth paragraph.)”

RFK was concerned about the reputation of the Kennedy family. He knew that any attempt he made in the future to become president, the reputation of his brother would play a significant role.

It has to be remembered that when JFK was elected in 1960 he was judged to be more right-wing that Richard Nixon on foreign policy issues. For example, John Foster Dulles and Richard Bissell both provided JFK information about the proposed invasion of Cuba during the election campaign. As a result, JFK was able to attack Nixon for being soft on communism as the Eisenhower administration had done nothing to get rid of Castro. Nixon was of course unable to reveal what was really going on behind the scenes.
Nixon believed that the CIA leadership played a vital role in his defeat in 1960. He never forgave the CIA for this treachery and this is why he attempted to sort out the agency when he became president in 1968. The CIA fought back and set up Nixon over Watergate. When Richard Helms, refused to help him cover-up Watergate, he threatened Helms with exposing him for the role he played in the cover-up of the JFK assassination.

Richard Helms was in overall control of the CIA investigation into Oswald and replaced John Whitten as chief investigator with James Jesus Angleton when he got too close to the truth.

William Sullivan, the man who carried out the FBI investigation into Oswald, worked for the Nixon administration and had told him the full story of the Warren Commission cover-up. Sullivan was murdered before he could appear before the House Select Committee on Assassinations but his heavily censored autobiography, that were published after his death, makes clear that in his opinion Oswald was not a lone gunman.

When Helms refused to help, Nixon sacked him and replaced him with James Schlesinger. On 9th May, 1973, Schlesinger issued a directive to all CIA employees: “I have ordered all senior operating officials of this Agency to report to me immediately on any activities now going on, or might have gone on in the past, which might be considered to be outside the legislative charter of this Agency. I hereby direct every person presently employed by CIA to report to me on any such activities of which he has knowledge. I invite all ex-employees to do the same. Anyone who has such information should call my secretary and say that he wishes to talk to me about activities outside the CIA’s charter.

This was dynamite and the CIA now had to destroy Nixon before he destroyed them. This is why the CIA, in the form of Richard Ober (Deep Throat), provided information on Watergate to Bob Woodward at the Washington Post.

This is why the CIA felt so betrayed by JFK over the Bay of Pigs. Before his election he had assured Dulles he would fully support the plan. Not only did he not do this, he punished the CIA by sacking Dulles and Bissell for trying to carry out a plan he approved.

An important ingredient of the Bay of Pigs plan was the assassination of Fidel Castro. In fact, without the death of Castro, the plan stood no chance of success. JFK allowed these assassination plots to go ahead. In fact, he put RFK in charge of them. As CIA officers testified later, RFK put them under a great deal of pressure to carry out this assassination. However, this was called off by JFK after the Cuban Missile Crisis. One of the reasons that JFK was assassinated was because in 1963 he was carrying out secret negotiations with Castro via Lisa Howard. She was murdered in 1965 but the documents about these secret talks have now been released:

This was one of the stories that RFK was being blackmailed with. The original plan was to blame Castro for the assassination (motivation – retaliation against JFK for the attempts on his life) in order to trigger an invasion of Cuba. This would have got rid of Castro and blackened the reputation of the Kennedys.

The other thing RFK was being blackmailed over was the death of Marilyn Monroe. Of course, he had nothing to do with it, but they had collected a great deal of evidence to suggest that RFK had organized the killing. For example, see Dorothy Kilgallen’s report in the New York Journal American the day before Monroe died. Kilgallen was murdered in 1965.

  • 84.
  • At 08:06 AM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • Heinrich Khunrath wrote:

All Shane O'Sullivan is asking is why these CIA operatives were apparently at the Ambassador hotel that evening... it's a perfectly legitimate question, and no amount of scoffing at conspiracy theories negates the value of his contribution. Nor is he claiming that any of these operatives were a supposed 'second shooter'. The fact that Joannides was the CIA liaison for the 1978 Congressional investigation is also intriguing and calls for a clear explanation - which I dare say will never be forthcoming.

Melvyn wrote: "O'Sullivan's Newsnight report was also flawed in that he sought out scientific evidence about the actual shooting only from committed conspiracists like Lawrence Teeter, Sirhan's former lawyer.Anyone studying this case should make reference to Dan Moldea's excellent study of the dynamics of the shooting and the collation and collection of evidence by the LAPD - 'The Killing Of Robert F Kennedy' (1995). Failure to do so has left O'Sullivan sadly lacking in any real understanding of this event."

Moldea gaffed badly. Go here:

John Hunt

  • 86.
  • At 03:29 PM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • maddy wong wrote:

Yeah,right. The CIA plotted the murder of Kennedy,then sent a few CIA guys to watch( and be filmed)to make sure it happened? Hey, there were some football players there too.Maybe it was a plot by the National Football League. And the Ford Theater was full of actors when Lincoln was shot. Maybe it was an Actor's Equity conspiracy! And,of course,the Mafia leaders had JFK shot,then let this maniac Oswald on his own to roam the streets of Dallas and get caught just as they always do after a Mafia gun down!And, of course,FDR invited the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor ad nauseum....

John (85), thank you for such a full response. I get the idea. I think the broad outline of the Kennedy's versus Nixon and the relationship of both with the CIA is pretty fair and gets in some, maybe a lot of the pertinent facts. (I will learn more no doubt in due course. I've benefited from the pages you've prepared in the past but I can't say that I've clicked further today.)

I guess though that you may have meant Allen Dulles in your third paragraph, rather than John Foster? By 5th May 1959 Winston Churchill, writing to his wife on a friendly visit to the Eisenhower White House, explains that he is going to visit John Foster, who is already retired as Secretary of State and seriously ill with cancer. (I was struck with Churchill's characteristic compassion or largesse there, for someone whom he had loathed as a politician, and with all kinds of good reasons.) The elder Dulles was of course dead by 24th of that month. [p633, Speaking for Themselves ed Mary Soames, Doubleday 1998]

I seem to be making a habit of questioning which brother of a famous twosome you can mean. Maybe John Foster had taken Kennedy under his wing on Cuba prior to this. Either way, we'd surely both agree on the centrality of the Dulles to some of the very worst of what became the US foreign policy establishment from the Armenian genocide onwards.

Where I have spent a little time, to reduce my ignorance of the detailed issues with RFK, are John Hunt's pages on the subject (prompted by 87).

It's a strange thing, vicariously becoming an expert in ballistics or whatever the subject may be. But I greatly enjoyed a very instructive ride, thank you.

One paragraph in particular showed up the general problem of thinking straight when the dreaded phrase conspiracy theory has been widely and gratuitously applied to the subject in question. I'll quote out of context but I thoroughly recommend the whole paper:

'In the interim between the Burris and Pacheco conversations [also experts], I ran the information by a renowned ballistics expert. This expert had helped confirm my understanding of wound ballistics over the course of many conversations. He listened to the particulars at issue then commented blindly on the evidence. His conclusions were identical to Burris and Pacheco's—even taking into account the mushrooming effect, a .22 caliber CCI mini-mag round could not have created the entry hole and brain damage as described in the autopsy report. When I informed the level-headed expert the particulars were from the RFK case, his attitude changed. He began offering highly implausible speculations to account for the damage to the skull and brain having been caused by a .22 mini-mag. I called him on it, and with a chuckle he admitted that his proposed explanations were "highly remote."'

Forgive me for mentioning, but I have had this feeling that God is bringing hidden things to the light at present. Finding such compelling proof of the fact of two kinds of bullets and thus two gunmen in RFK's OFFICIAL AUTOPSY, evidence which nobody else had spotted for 38 years ... well, it hasn't made the feeling any less!

Well done. Has anyone mounted any kind of defence on this? Or, (maybe always the best question) what's the best defence of the official view that you've seen that faces up to this new [sic] evidence?

  • 88.
  • At 05:07 PM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • megan sweet wrote:

This does not come as a real surprise. This sort of action by the government agencies is not unknown and can be expected when the U.S. keeps always interfering in other countries - Cuba is evidently in this with the CIA given carte blanche by certain of the governmental people. What a shame. What on earth is the country doing? Where has the country gone?

Normally I wouldn't be such a conspiracy theorist, but after this presidency and all the suspect activity, I would have to say that I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the CIA was involved in someway. I don't know enough to make a judgement call, but I would say it would be foolish to rule it out based on the fact that they're a government agency.

  • 90.
  • At 08:58 PM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • Brian Dooley wrote:

I'm the author of a political biography of Bobby Kennedy, which also includes a chapter on his assassination ("Robert Kennedy: The Final Years," St Martin's Press, New York). I've just seen the Newsnight story and yes, it opens new questions.

It doesn't prove anything (and am not sure O'Sullivan is claiming it does) but there are several things about the assassination which simply don't add up, not least of which is the position of the gun which killed Kennedy (very close and behind him) compared with the position of Sirhan (in front and several feet or yards away).

Newsnight should be congratulated for broadcasting the piece, and O'Sullivan should too.

  • 91.
  • At 10:25 PM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • Linda Wainwright wrote:

Odd this come out around the same time as a movie which is set at the time of murder?

  • 92.
  • At 11:25 PM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • Michael Calder wrote:

Mel Ayton said that he could provide clips from the LAPD footage. Really? How did you get those clips Mr. Ayton? I've been trying for two months to get the local television stations (LA) to let me have access to their unedited footage of that night to no avail. But you have no trouble getting LAPD footage. How interesting. Could it be the publisher of your book is not "Potomac Books" but in reality,"Langley Books."

  • 93.
  • At 11:41 PM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • Michael Calder wrote:

From the MKULTRA documents Richard Helms, Deputy Director of Plans argued for the continuation of the project. Here are three aspects that Helms was excited about. (1) Materials which will render the induction of HYPNOSIS easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness. (2) Materials and physical methods which will produce AMNESIA for events PRECEEDING and DURING their use. (3) Substances which alter personality structures in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependant upon another person is enhanced. - Gee, sound like anyone we know.

  • 94.
  • At 03:50 AM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • mary wrote:

Has anyone checked the conspiracy theory of Teddy Kennedy's escape from the car that left MaryJo Copechnie to drown or the conspiracy of the Kennedy involvement in Marilyn Monroe's "suicide"? Most of us are tired of so-called conspiracy theories, including the World Trade Center tragedy. Please let the world move on. I compare them to an old Benny Hill show when a commentater asked Hill, a would be film director why he changed from coloured film to black and white film, was it a new form of filming, Benny Hill replied that they ran out of the coloured film!!! Enough.

  • 95.
  • At 06:13 AM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • Kelly wrote:

This article intrigues me. I would like to see more of this sort of thing.

RFK is a hero of mine.

An interesting article on Shane's film can be found here:

  • 97.
  • At 08:25 AM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • Bill T. wrote:

Mind control is is very much a part of the Black Ops and has been hugely perfected.Snipers J.Mahammad & L.Malvo sent several letters to the authorities saying they would keep killing until the words "The Duck is in the noose like the sniper is in our trap" was broadcast over the media airwaves.Finally all kinds of high ranking officials in the goverment went on T.V. and repeated the phrase constantly all day.Only a few hours later the shooters were found in a rest area,parked under a streetlamp,rifle laying on the backseat and one of their wallets on the hood and were taken into custody without incident.I have often wondered how nobody ever picked up on this as it seemed to me the perfect case to expose MK-ULTRA and the case of a operative out of control and was only exposed because he got to close to D.C.Or just maybe that was the plan.I realize this was off th RFK subject but thought this might provoke some thought among those that think all thought of conspiracy is some form of madness.
g.w.bush,9-12-01 "Pay no attention to the conspiracy theorists of which there will be many".With vision like that you would think he would have seen Iraq coming.Keep up the good work,we are listening.Peace

  • 98.
  • At 10:41 AM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • Mark wrote:

Watch cherachs 1972 golden globe winning documentary RFK on google video . Its a great documentary .

  • 99.
  • At 01:04 PM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • Max wrote:

The question is not who killed Robert, but who sent the killers there? I was there that night...I saw him being put in the ambulance...I cried for our country.

  • 100.
  • At 01:41 PM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • kol wrote:

Strange inconsistencies in factual accounts, as well as peculiar scenarios surrounding three particular deaths -- Robert Kennedy, John Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe -- resound much too loudly.

  • 101.
  • At 04:13 PM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • Penny wrote:

Why is it that the news media is always looking for an even more stimulating story ? Bobby Kennedy is dead; please let him rest in piece. Sometimes the truth really is simply the truth.

Very interesting post by Shane O’Sullivan on his BBC Newsnight film about David Morales, Gordon Campbell and George Joannides:

  • 103.
  • At 08:25 PM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • Griz Taylor wrote:

As an American who remembers both assassinations AND, from my roof deck, watched the Pentagon burn for three days in 2001, I'm certain that the US government and the reactionaries who control it are capable of absolutely anything.

The USA was founded on the principles of liberty, justice, slavery, and genocide. We need psychopathic mass murderers in postions of power. Not that we're alone in these matters.

Disagree? Look it up. It's a matter of public record.

Nobody in the US reads anymore... ignorance IS bliss.

  • 104.
  • At 08:30 PM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • Robin Sears wrote:

The clip is interesting. More believable than LA police. I'm hard pressed to believe anything from the government today. So why should I believe the lies I've read in the past?
Amazing that Bobby was shot in the back of the head by a man in front of him and that Jack was shot in the front of the head from a man behind him.

  • 105.
  • At 10:29 PM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • Robert Moir wrote:

It is a matter of the highest national interest for their to be an immediate investigation of the question as to why CIA operatives were at the site of the RFK assassination. The new majority in the Congress must pursue this matter promptly and vigorously.

  • 106.
  • At 12:41 AM on 25 Nov 2006,
  • David wrote:

RFK (my hero since childhood) was killed by a lone nut who thus caused the deaths of two of my cousins in Vietnam, in a war which would never have continued had RFK been elected.

Sirhan Sirhan is responsible for the deaths of over 20,000 young men who never had the chance at life because he stole it from them by his evil actions.

What an absolute tragedy that the last great American radical with compassion and heart died because some nutjob believed RFK supported Israel.

Requiescat in pace, Robert.

  • 107.
  • At 12:45 AM on 25 Nov 2006,
  • sarah wrote:

one program should send shivers down any spine: MK Ultra. a secret [at the time] program dedicated to brainwashing and the darker side of hypnosis and psychological warfare.

Excerpt from wikipedia>
also known as MK-ULTRA) was the code name for a CIA mind-control research program that began in the 1950s.[1][2] There is much published evidence that the project involved not only the use of drugs to manipulate persons, but also the use of electronic signals to alter brain functioning.[3]

It was first brought to wide public attention by the U.S. Congress (in the form of the Church Committee) and a presidential commission (known as the Rockefeller Commission) (see Revelation below) and also to the U.S. Senate.

under Dulles, Dr, Gottlieb and the boys did things that could make your soul shreik in horror.

they were looking to take thins manchurian canidade crap to the next level. Of the documents not destroyed by Gottlieb. the last project mentioned wa acquiring a Middle Eastern person to hard wire as an assassin or patsy.

dont believe me google it.

the CIA has had its hands in coke and
guns and tainted black gold Im sure that reguardless of where these agents were " legitimately" stationed it is likely they played a peripheral role. its the lady in the polka dotted dress Im interested in, these men and sirhan have been unearthed. Why hasnt this woman been found? usually at her age she may want to coem forward for a book deal. But it seems she ahs dissapeared in the sands of time, a shame really.

but those men and the CIA's activities in the fifities and sixties were some of the darkest. I wouldnt doubt for a moment if they were side contract to the MKultra program. with Sirhan and a gun with blanks, and they packing the heat.

You see the prgram found a way to hynotize a person and have a "controller" be the only person to acces the part of the mind they "split" and squirrelled away. no matter how an enemy try to crack it they cant. this may have happened to Sirhan, which explains the lack of recall.

It got sosophisitcated to the point where they could reate an entire personality with in a person that is contaray to their normal character.

  • 108.
  • At 01:16 AM on 25 Nov 2006,
  • John Geraghty wrote:

It may not be known to Shane O'Sullivan or even to many posting here that some new photographs of the night RFK was killed have emerged in recent months, though they are not widely available. They are the photographs of Harry Benson, whose exhibition has been running in Edinburgh recently. It will be interesting to see, when they become more widely available, whether they can in any way contribute to either the placing of a gunman or the identification of any background figures.

Food for thought.

  • 109.
  • At 01:43 AM on 25 Nov 2006,
  • Clark Stiles wrote:

During the Kennedy administration, Atty Genl Robert Kennedy had mafia boss Carlos Marcello arrested and deported under the criminal's phony passport (Costa Rica I think it was). That one event led to both Kennedy assassinations, and nothing else.

  • 110.
  • At 02:29 AM on 25 Nov 2006,
  • Barbara wrote:

A&E/History Channel, at the time they were calling themselves the "Network for the New Millennia,"
ran a one-hour documentary featuring the Panel members of the JFK assassinations Record Act of 1992.

The Panel was headed by John Tunnheim.

Their conclusion was that:


Wouldn't we all like to see this documentary again -- !!!

The documentary ran reliably for a few months and then a counter-documentary appeared for three or four viewings that I noted. It was obviously very hastily put together and laughable.

Evidently John Tunnheim gave confidential testimony to the Senate upon completion of their work. I can't find any record of this in the open records.

However, the film did exist and presume many viewers saw it.

And -- Tunnheim clearly states . . . with the text written at the botttom of the screeen -- at least twice -- that . . .


Journalists at the time of the JFK assassination repeatedly asked for Oswald's employment records and tax records and they were denied.

The conspiracy in this nation -- the conspiracy of capitalism, itself -- is based on control of the wealth and resources of America. The ruling class have that control and do not plan on losing it.

Ergo: Global Warming is now a more serious threat to the planet and humanity that any other threat and it is compounding rapidly. The effects we are feeling now are based on our activities of 50 years ago -- i.e., 1956 -- the beginning of the huge increase in cars as the population increased and the move to the suburbs began.

Only fools never doubt.
And this is certainly not conspiracy-free-America.

  • 111.
  • At 03:46 AM on 25 Nov 2006,
  • Dave wrote:

Didn't see the article on TV but have been aware of the CIA involvement for many years. Interesting that there was no mention of MK ULTRA in regard to Sirhan Sirhan. Well done BBC, well done Shane, well done Jeremy Paxman. How about going one stage further and interviewing Alex Jones about 9/11 and the complicity of government officials?

  • 112.
  • At 07:51 AM on 25 Nov 2006,
  • Daryl wrote:

The comment was made that the CIA
men being there could be "explained".
I am afraid the explanation, if it were ever uncovered, might put the CIA, certain members of organized crime, and other persons, some still living, in a VERY bad light.

I don't recall any "explanation" of this type being presented about any case such as this in my lifetime or before. If someone can dig one up within the last 200 years, please
post it here.

Ayton and Shane O Sullivan in the ring here:

In my opinion Mel Ayton is disinfo like McAdams, Posner and Myer.


  • 114.
  • At 10:53 AM on 25 Nov 2006,
  • Jan wrote:

Great thread! You're right Wim, it's funny to see the disinfo machine in action. I'm calling post 7 and 25, trying to spin CIA towards FBI.

Several contributors have criticised Shane O’Sullivan for bringing up the death of Robert Kennedy. There have even been comments about letting him rest in peace. Would RFK have wanted this? If he had been murdered because he posed a threat to the status quo, would he not have wanted us to get this out into the public domain? Remember what Edward Kennedy said at RFK’s funeral on 8th June, 1968:

“My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.

Those of us, who loved him and who take him to his rest today pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will someday come to pass for all the world.

As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not."

Several contributors have criticised Shane O’Sullivan for bringing up the death of Robert Kennedy. There have even been comments about letting him rest in peace. Would RFK have wanted this? If he had been murdered because he posed a threat to the status quo, would he not have wanted us to get this out into the public domain? Remember what Edward Kennedy said at RFK’s funeral on 8th June, 1968:

“My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.

Those of us, who loved him and who take him to his rest today pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will someday come to pass for all the world.

As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not."

  • 117.
  • At 05:52 PM on 25 Nov 2006,
  • jummy wrote:

it was the hollow-earthers.

i mean, you have to ask: "who benefits?


  • 118.
  • At 06:30 PM on 25 Nov 2006,
  • CB wrote:

Yes, I have always believed the CIA killed the Kennedy's and MLK and etc (including JFK JR)...

While the truth is the same it's nice to see new evidence. As time goes on it matters less on who fired the shots. What really matters is WHO CALLED SHOTS. Those powers are still in control of our two countries.

Yamamoto once said at the time of Pearl Harbor "I'm afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant", well the "sleeping giant" is once again beginning to awake. WAKE UP AMERICA.

  • 119.
  • At 09:48 PM on 25 Nov 2006,
  • Barbara wrote:

Where will all of this go? I believe they had something to do with it, also how could Sirhan have shot him in the back of the head? Impossible, yet we have known that for years and nothing has ever been done about it... My whole point! I am very discouraged by the lack of a complete investigation into the REAL facts such as this. WHY were these men there if they were not on RFK detail?

  • 120.
  • At 10:21 PM on 25 Nov 2006,
  • Sandie wrote:

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but then again, neither am I a big believer in coincidences.

There are too many coincidences in this report to ignore. The older we get, the more we see and hear of things unimaginable, but nevertheless true.

It doesn't surprise me a bit that this evidence has now come to light, or that it could have been suppressed for all these decades.

As an American looking back upon our political history, I can very much see how our country took a turn down the wrong path, and how very different our path might have been if either Kennedy had lived.

Now, look at who/what stood to benefit from their deaths.

Conspiracy theory no longer seems quite so implausible....

I hope this isn't the end of this investigation. It's just so sad that it comes from our "mother" country - perhaps evidence that "we" Americans have not yet quite grown up.

  • 121.
  • At 12:31 AM on 26 Nov 2006,
  • Ryan wrote:

Did I miss the fact that LBJ Democratic President was THE MAN during all the "Coincidences"

The current U.S. President is to blame for all of the CIA's activities over the past six years...right? Stands to reason that LBJ approved the assassinations of MLK and RFK. The 1960's were clearly the darkest period in US history and we can put our finger on one MAN fro the reason.

  • 122.
  • At 01:07 AM on 26 Nov 2006,
  • ATylinski wrote:

It's a shame good men die this way and their deaths go unexplained.

It's also a shame the majority of Americans are still unable to believe that their government is capable of actions like these. Until they do, this invisible hand of sorts, will decide the fate of the country. The events of the past century are too suspect not to admit a deeper agenda at hand and it does not have the peoples interests at heart.

  • 123.
  • At 03:01 AM on 26 Nov 2006,
  • NT from NY wrote:

Keith Douglas wrote, "Am I anti-American ? Certainly not.
The people of the USA are mainly good people as are all of mankind. Their government however is particularly nasty and dangerous.
When the US people finally throw off their system of society - and they will - they will be doing themselves and mankind a very great service!"

Thank you, Keith. I am always relieved to hear that some people realize that 49% of us do not support the current administration.

I would not put anything past the U.S. government... not during the Kennedy years, and certainly not now.

NT from NY

  • 124.
  • At 06:19 AM on 26 Nov 2006,
  • dave wrote:

It goes on and on.... Recall, please, the targets of the anthrax letters, and the source of the "weaponized anthrax".

These many deaths (and attempts) of political personalities who were wildly popular among the citizenry, should be continually scrutinized and reviewed by Historians, as well as scientists and hopefully, law enforcement people.

I understand Mike Rupert, of FROM THE WILDERNESS was fearful for his after publishing Crossing the Rubicon. I further understand that he's quite mysteriously ill, and no longer in the USA.

Keep informed, and follow your hunches. Disregard nothing, and above all use your common sense.


I hope 30 years from now people are still concerned with the radiation assassination on that Russian spy.

Please work on correcting current situations and not poking at some old news headline that, believe it or not, not many people currently are concerned about in this conflicted modern world. Save this LSD flashback story for the movies and the past please. People are dying everyday from plain old hate, forget this conspiracy nonsense, you watch too much TV.

  • 126.
  • At 02:54 PM on 26 Nov 2006,
  • Jean Desjardins wrote:

It seems pretty obvious that CIA involvement in all Kennedy assassinations is very highly likely. The lone nut assassin was the terrorist of the sixties. The lone-nut assassin and the muslim terroristof today are scapegoats fabricated inside the CIA's stink factory. These US Intelligence Apparatus fabricated monsters are always easy to recognise in the sense that they always defy what your brains normally concieves as plausible. The Watergate burglars were the same CIA men who fired shots on the grassy knoll in 1963. Reporters in DC all know that, regardless of the conspiracy of silence surrounding all illegal activities of the CIA. CIA is a club used by the ultra rich to conduct their dirty business illegaly, all conveniently under the cover of secrecy granted by the CIA's "National Security" mandate. Everybody knows that although few will come forward and admit it to you.

  • 127.
  • At 03:36 PM on 26 Nov 2006,
  • Ian Young wrote:

Conspiracy theorists have far too much faith in the abilities of the powerful.

They can fake moon landings, murder presidents/presdential candidates and mastermind terrorist atrocities to blame islamic extremists.

But how come they can't even manage to bury a few weapons in the sands of Iraq to cover up their lies?

  • 128.
  • At 06:16 PM on 26 Nov 2006,
  • David Carter wrote:

The possible involvement of CIA personnel in Robert Kennedy's assassination is not new. Bill Kurtis did an "Investigative Reports" presentation on the A&E network about 14 years ago where he brings up the presence of CIA "investigators" who happened to be right on the scene as it occurred and one of them intimidating a witness about who she saw and what she heard. They were there to control the evidence of course. In all that time, nothing has been done to re-open the investigation by an independent body (surely not the FBI, CIA or any U.S. government agency). The two Kennedy assassinations were carried out on the orders of high level people within the CIA bureaucracy using low level agents and "patsies" to minimize their involvement. These people and their backers have too much power to ever worry about being brought to justice. They will die of old age before anyone in the U.S. wakes up to the fact that their government is in the hands of an elite right-wing cabal and always will be.

  • 129.
  • At 08:56 PM on 26 Nov 2006,
  • Sheik Territo wrote:

Took me twelve hours to read all this.

You are all right. The Yanks did it.

They will continue.

I was disappointed to learn that Dan Hardway, who worked shoulder to shoulder with Ed Lopez and had just as many interactions with Joannides, was not able to identify Joannides in the same photo Ed did identify when Shane showed the picture to Dan.

That lessens greatly the credibility of Ed's identification, and lessens the credibility of Shane for not fully disclosing exactly who did and did not support the identifications he showed onscreen. If he has three solid identifications, what does that matter if he has 20 others who say, with equal certainty, those weren't the men he claims?

As a published author on this case, I have more to say on this subject, which you can read at

  • 131.
  • At 04:05 AM on 27 Nov 2006,
  • Paul Gibson wrote:

Something is not right with these interviews.

Since when do CIA agents give interviews to discuss the identify of other agents?

They are a little too compliant, too helpful.

Why is the media who stonewalled all such information for 40 years suddenly willing to "discover" that there is evidence of CIA involvement?

  • 132.
  • At 12:50 PM on 27 Nov 2006,
  • David Drha wrote:

If you want more information like additional interview with O'Sullivan
and other experts on the case visit the BlackOp Radio archive.

- Lynn Mangan, Sirhan's official researcher she basically is the major expert on the evidence destruction and coverup (link to her archive on the web)

- O'Sullivan - the BBC guy mentioned in this thread who now found Morales and other CIA guys (Joannides who later compromised HSCA) in the Ambassador Hotel TV footage and photos

- Jamie Scott Enyart, the famous Ambassador Hotel pantry photographer

- late Prof. Phil Melanson - the major official scholar working on the case

- late Lawrence Teeter - Sirhan's last lawyer

All here:

This is my second attempt to post this message. The first time was 10.00 am Monday 27th November.

My post of last Tuesday morning was No. 1 on the blog for four days and then it was removed - if you read some of the other posts this will be confirmed.The criticisms in that post have been incoprporated in an article I wrote for History News Network:

I have written to the BBC to ask why they censored my first posting.

  • 134.
  • At 04:25 PM on 27 Nov 2006,
  • Jan wrote:

I think you are being overly paranoid Mel. Next thing you'll be claiming that the BBC is conspiring against you! The truth will come out in the end.

First of all Jan, pointing out the removal of a post is not 'paranoid' -secondly don't predict my future responses - this is altogether silly. Now - if you have anything to contribute to this discussion please do - if not, don't post such ridiculous statements.

  • 136.
  • At 05:31 PM on 27 Nov 2006,
  • Smedley Butler wrote:

If rougues in the CIA did take out the Kennedy's - our elected managers in this thing we call a republic, then they did an end around on accountability and democratic principles. Those here who dismiss the seriousness of this old issue with far reaching tentacles, need to reconsider their ideas on what it means to be a law abiding person of due process and democratic participation. Otherwise, we should just go back to benevolent fiefdoms and forget about the middle class, such as it is.

When the will of the greater majority is abbrogated by the elite minority, then we have tyranny. It's a simple concept surely understood by even the most hard headed among us. Iraq is a living example of what happens when the priviledged few make boneheaded selfish decisions for the rest of us without our approval.

hey mel,

maybe your post here was knocked off, i don't know. but i do know that my comment on your website was definitely deleted. maybe i was just a little too close to the truth about you, no?

it is so obvious that the whole point of your work is to discredit truthseekers and convince the public not to be skeptical of their government and media. why else would you write several books solely propping up the flimsy cover stories of these assassinations and completely dismissing/ignoring the clear and significant contradictory evidence.

i'm sure you know that most of the public does not read books on these subjects. but they do listen when they hear an interview with a supposed expert who has written such books. therefore it doesn't really matter how shoddy your "debunking" is; it only matters that the public debate is muddied by your side of the "debate" and with titles such as ‘The JFK Assassination : Dispelling The Myths’ and 'A Racial Crime – James Earl Ray And The Murder Of Dr Martin Luther King Jr.’

seems clear: you're a liar, to yourself and/or to your readers. you don't believe in truth or justice but rather domination, deception, and death. as i said before, history will judge you. i'm sure it's not easy on the soul to play your role, even if you are a psychopath.

sorry mel, we're smarter than you, and we have the truth on our side. it's only a matter of time. think the reign of these elites will go on forever? nah, they're just a blip in history. maybe they can claim dominion for a few more years but don't get too comfortable. history will judge and it will not judge you kindly.


The Truth Movement

  • 138.
  • At 06:09 PM on 27 Nov 2006,
  • m.davies wrote:

If there was a conspiracy it was probably the angry hotel and motel owners RFK stiffed. It is common knowledge that he walked out without paying his bill in over 1500 establishments. When asked the comment he made was "they (the hotel owners) should be proud that I stayed there."

He also double crossed the Organized crime family that saw to his brother's election. Perhaps not quite the icon he has been protrayed, is he?

How do crazies like this get past the moderators?
Truthmove:"seems clear: you're a liar, to yourself and/or to your readers. you don't believe in truth or justice but rather domination, deception, and death. as i said before, history will judge you. i'm sure it's not easy on the soul to play your role, even if you are a psychopath."

  • 140.
  • At 09:53 PM on 27 Nov 2006,
  • Brian M. Cox wrote:

Mr. O'Sullivan is on the trail of truth.

First - The physical evidence, the gun shot woulnd to the head, proves the "official" story isn't reliable.

Second - If it's not reliable, and obviously so, then who would be in a position to cover it up and why?


To understand this you have to understand JFK's assassination and that of his son, JFK Jr., and yes, he was murdered.

I encourage anyone interested in this to watch the following on Google Video or Youtube:

JFK 2: The Bush Connection
Who Murdered JFK Jr.

The father was murdered because he was on to the secret governments ways, the second was murdered for fear that he would deal with his brother's murderers, once in power, and the son - the son was murdered because he didn't accept the Warren Commission. And in an America where star power can get you elected..JFK Jr. was a real star...the murderers realized that he had to be dealt with.

This has been an ongoing thing for quite sometime and has a great deal to do with one world government.

If you don't believe that, then you are bling.

America is an evil and corrupt empire; run by closeted homosexuals, pedophiles and satanists.

I know that all sounds out there, but the evidence is also out there, and unfortunately...the evidence is overwhelming and damning.

Watch a movie on GV or YT called:

Conspiracy of Silence or Google Kay Griggs and read or watch her interviews.

We are being lied to on a massive scale and it's time we all realize that fact. And for the most part our media lies to us or hides it, either way they are not to be trusted.

If you want the real truth go to www. - you will find it there.

Hats of to Newsnight for having this on, though.

Oh, and yes, 911 was done by the US government - 19 illtrained Muslims, none of who could fly, put the a multi-trillion dollar defense system to sleep for over 2

And yes, the London Bombings also. It's all a fraud; every last bit of it.


Loose Change /911 Demolition Mysteries / 911 Press for Truth / Terror Storm

You will see that what I am telling you is the truth.

All these films are available on Google.

Proverbs 18:13

"To speak truth in a time of universal deceit, is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

  • 141.
  • At 12:35 AM on 28 Nov 2006,
  • Glen Allen wrote:

I feel grateful for people like Brian (and George Orwell) who are not satisfied to simply accept the "news" we are continually fed. Many of us have unknowingly discarded our freedom to think freely. If you want to "wake up" to what's REALLY going on, please explore the recommendations of Brian and those who have posted before us. I would like to add "9/11 and American Empire" is a fantastic book, as well. Ladies and gentlemen, free thinking people of the world...Truth is our ally. Much love.

  • 142.
  • At 06:42 AM on 28 Nov 2006,
  • jerry hill wrote:

Provocative article and commentary: very good. Just because one believes conspiracies might exist doesn't automatically qualify one as unbalanced, paranoid, or on the lunatic fringe. Conspiracies DO exist! "They" don't want us to know about them, want to discredit those who theorize about them. Of course!

A little internet research found the following interesting information about George Joannides. This information builds further on Shane's revelations.

"The Chief Counsel of the Committee [The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations] later changed his views that the CIA was being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation when he learned that the CIA's special liaison to the Committee researchers, George Joannides, was actually involved with some of the organizations that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with in the months leading up to the assassination, including an anti-Castro group, the DRE, which was linked to the CIA, where the liaison, Joannides, worked in 1963. Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides, instead, should have been interviewed by the Committee, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA's evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA's statements and representations to the Committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice."

I want to speak in support of Mel Ayton (133) that his was the first post of this blog on 21st November, around midday, ahead of the one by 'Katy, NL', when I first edited here the following morning (53). Mel's thoughtful and informed contribution - perhaps mistaken, but that's the whole point of open debate, to seek to show that through reasoned argument - remained in place much later than 22nd. I'm very surprised to see that it is no longer here.

In three or four months I've never known any Newsnight blog remove a foundational post for any discussion before. If I knew that this might happen again (whatever side of the argument was represented by the post in question) I'd never post here again.

I can only assume that this is a technical error. But a full public explanation from whoever is responsible for moderation or administration is called for right away.

I also deplore the ad hominen attacks on Mr Ayton, such as the recent ones he points to from Jan and truthmove. Even if this writer is in the pay of the CIA - as many people were in the days of Operation Mockingbird, even such a great scholar as Isaiah Berlin, unknowingly (he was furious to learn later) - trying to assert this with no evidence to back it up only deflects from the substantive issues under discussion. As does expansion from the narrow (but intensely important and complex) forensic issues of the death of RFK to the mega-conspiracy or anti-American beliefs of truthmove and many others.

I'm not saying that such beliefs are wrong or that they should never be expressed.

I am saying that without proper attention to the evidence in each individual case such beliefs are not founded in any kind of reality but in prejudice. And that makes any of us very susceptible to manipulation by the very forces of evil we most fear.

Let's learn from the example of John Hunt (85), who disagrees fundamentally with Ayton about vital ballistic details of 6th June 1968, or of jerry hill just now (142), who has added to the sum of relevant knowledge with his post on Joannides, both of whom have managed to enhance the discussion without resorting to personal attacks or sweeping statements that are so wide as to be unarguable.

  • 144.
  • At 09:43 AM on 28 Nov 2006,
  • Jan wrote:

I think there is a good reason his post got deleted. On his own site there seems to be an explanation:

In the comments we read:

"The agents, O’Sullivan claimed, had been responsible for the assassination. Newsnight editors believe O’Sullivan is correct in his assumptions. A related article on their website states, “[O’Sullivan’s investigation] reveals that the operatives and four unidentified associates were at the Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles in the moments before and after the shooting on 5 June, 1968.”

Where is your evidence that "Newsnight editors believe O’Sullivan is correct in his assumptions" that rogue CIA agents were responsible for RFK's assassination? The BBC editors made no such declaration, as well you know.

end of comment

A false accusation like this one against the host of this site could be a big enough reason to delete someone's post. It's strange that his post stayed up for 4 days.

Jan - post 144 - The editors should have used the term 'purportedly reveals' or 'allegedly reveals' which would have been an improvement on their 'definitive' statement.

  • 146.
  • At 03:28 PM on 28 Nov 2006,
  • tom kiehl wrote:

Has anyone seen a special interest film titled confessions of an assassin?....I watched it approx.....10 years ago and can not find it was an inmate being interviewed about the jfk murder and he seemed to have details.....thanks....tom

  • 147.
  • At 05:04 PM on 28 Nov 2006,
  • Eliot wrote:

Sirhan Sirhan had an attorney, Lawrence Teeter, who worked for many years on his case until dying of cancer just a year or so ago, who had the same theory that is expressed in this article, but with additional allegations with regard to how the trial proceedings were manipulated to convict him. I wonder if the author of this article interviewed Teeter.

  • 148.
  • At 05:15 PM on 28 Nov 2006,
  • Winston Smith wrote:

Let me get this straight. Sirhan shot Kennedy in the back of the head with the barrel 3 inches away while standing 3 feet in front of him? Sirhan Fired 10 bullets from an 8 shot gun? He cannot remember the shooting even under hypnosis by experts? There is now video evidence of cia agents and the director of psychological warfare present?

Yes, that's right Winston. Kind of boggles the mind, doesn't it. I would add:

And the story has been blacked out of the US media? And people who write books entitled 'The JFK Assassination : Dispelling The Myths’ and 'A Racial Crime – James Earl Ray And The Murder Of Dr Martin Luther King Jr.’ are criticizing the BBC for running it?

Anyone who minimizes or dismisses these "inconsistencies" is clearly being deceptive.

  • 150.
  • At 05:17 AM on 29 Nov 2006,
  • Joe G wrote:

Pay attention.

Sirhan was on hypno dugs which were used alot by the CIA. The dirty LAPD were involved an are still heavy drug traffickers. There was a 9 min radio blackout to prevent any officers from radioing a description of suspects fleeing. Thane Eugene Cesar killed RFK. Others were there to fire random shots to throw people off. It was actually a sloppy job. There are those, like Mike Ruppert, who were interned there and has had an inside look at what happened. All witnesses stories contradict the official RP. There's always a Bush around during an assasination, and LA and DALLAS have the 2 dirtiest police departments in the country.

  • 151.
  • At 11:41 AM on 29 Nov 2006,
  • O'Brien wrote:

That's right Winston. In the future
"There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face …for ever."

Ok, let's take this spooky theme of George Orwell's 1984 out for a further spin.

1948: he wrote it (reversing the last two digits to come up with the date for his fictional dystopia, where three 'rival' totalitarian systems dominate the whole world, staging fake conflicts to keep everyone as effective slaves)

1963: JFK assassinated

1968: RFK assassinated

1984: er, came and went, with Ronald Reagan in the White House and Margaret Thatcher in Downing Street

So that's yearly gaps of

15 years
5 years
16 years

Near enough to a pattern. So let's try projecting further into the future:

1989-90: anything significant happen then, anyone?

2006: here we all are now

Hmm. Give you a clue. Orwell also wrote a book called Animal Farm. It was a savage satire of a certain kind of totalitarian system that he was very concerned that some people were very deceived about, that wasn't fascism or Naziism.

So now we're really living in exactly the global dystopia he warned about, 43 years after JFK, 22 years after 1984? And complaining about the fact openly on the internet, huh?

What about the one absolutely incredible piece of good geopolitical news in this 58 years?

What bothers me most about current conspiracist types is that they never seem to even mention it.

But then the good news just doesn't fit the theory, does it?

  • 153.
  • At 04:09 PM on 29 Nov 2006,
  • Muriel wrote:

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

  • 154.
  • At 04:32 PM on 29 Nov 2006,
  • Jan wrote:

That's because 1984 is just a number, you can't predict when this future will become fact. I think the people you refer to as the conspiracists feel that a lot of restrictive laws and amendments are being put in place not to make us safer but to increase control over our lives. George Orwell warned us for global dystopia and predicted the tools of this machine.

Mr. Ayton is mistaken in his claims that the BBC did not contact any anti-conspiracy investigators. Dan E. Moldea was contacted and refused to comment on this report as he found it's claim that the CIA was involved in the assassination completely ludicrous.

Jan (154), I guess that we both agree on one thing, that 'the price of freedom is eternal vigilence'.

But I'd still like someone to show me how the forces of darkness and control gained by the almost completely unpredicted collapse of communism in 1989-90 (with the important exceptions of China, which has taken a different route away from the same collectivist economics but has remained politicall oppressive, and North Korea).

That was a great day for freedom and shows that gloom has not been unrelenting since Orwell picked up his pen in 1948. For which I thank God. And maybe that is the biggest distinction, even among those who strongly doubt that we've been told the full story of the deaths of J&RFK.

  • 157.
  • At 09:46 PM on 29 Nov 2006,
  • Rafiq Hajat wrote:

This whole saga is indicative of the "rogue state' mentality that seems to have had a pervasive, yet insiduous influence within this supposed 'bastion of freedom'. I believe that this report warrants deeper investigation and a closer analytical scrutiny of all the facts that emerge from the slimy ooze that has been uncovered. This may well be the soul cleansing catharsis that America needs to exorcise its demons.

  • 158.
  • At 12:50 AM on 30 Nov 2006,
  • Kevin Donnelly wrote:

A further complication of the 'conspiracy theories' is what was revealed during the US Congress hearings on the JFK assassination in the mid-1970s. Within days of the assassination the CIA advised its editorial assets in Europe, ie, editors of Europian newsmedia it had on retainer, to print articles dismissing any notion of a conspiracy involved in the killing. The way to do this was to link any questioning of a particular conspiracy to this particular event with general conspiracy theories of history. In the 1960 assassinations in the US this worked very well, the King and Kennedy killings.
Yet in the killing of a political figure it is extremely reasonable to asked who benefits from the death and whether it was a murder committed for political gain.
The recent killings in Lebanon, Russia and London have all raised this question, legitimatly enough, I think.
However that someone benefits does not mean they did it. You still need evidence.

Sorry if I'm gushing here but thanks Kevin Donnelly (158) for avoiding the extremes (the very extremes that the CIA cynically used in 1963 to smear and discredit more cautious sceptics of the official story) and calmly pointing to one of the most crucial pieces of information that suggests something very fishy was going on, right from the word go.

Think about it. The US President had just been murdered. Wasn't it the duty of any patriotic American, let alone a government agency charged with the protection of all US citizens, to follow the evidence wherever it might lead - just as we've been told, quite rightly, that the Met is doing in the tragic case of Litvinenko?

At this point the use of Operation Mockingbird (the programme by which the CIA controlled journalists) was indeed a mockery of everything that the CIA or the US democratic system as whole was meant to stand for.

That in itself is substantial evidence of something deeply wrong with the system. Put it together with the fact that the same CIA brought George Joaniddes, of all people, out of retirement to be the point of contact for the same Congressional investigation - a man that it much later transpired should himself be giving evidence, under oath, because in late 1963 he was the link man with the anti-Castro organization that was in direct contact with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination on 22nd November ... then I say that any sceptic has every right to want much better answers as to what really happened.

  • 160.
  • At 05:20 AM on 03 Dec 2006,
  • Michael Calder wrote:

It has now been over a week since Shane O'Sullivan's promo appeared on the BBC. Yet not one word of it in the U.S. media. Not one word out of ABC,NBC,CBS, CNN or any local television stations. Not one word from the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times or any mainstream publications. No debate. No info. These guys are good. To block all information in themainstrem media in a country as big as the U.S. These guys are good. Need any more proof that Mr.O'Sullivan has the goods? Michael Calder

  • 161.
  • At 05:55 AM on 03 Dec 2006,
  • mike wrote:

David Lifton solved the jfk case in his book. {best evidence} we will never get the truth from our government because they controlled and still control all the evidence in the case. Lifton will go down in history as the man who solved the jfk murder. As for bobby, the fatal shot was fired from no more than 1 and 1/2 inches from his head and not 1 witness to the murder has ever said sirhan got that close. in the jfk case we have the magic bullet that was fired from behind but entered from the front, and in bobby's case we have the 3 magic bullets fired from in front but entering from behind.

Yes, we now have the internet, and it is good news. But it's sort of like being given a new insight or psychological tool of analyses--it is a new way to step out of an old reality and see all the problems and deceptions for what they are. Therefore, the internet is acting as a disruptive but necessary cleansing force. It feels like free information is finally allowing us to see a fairly clear picture of who we and our society really are.

It's not easy to look at yourself clearly when you've been lying to yourself your whole life.

(160) Yeah, you got the real story of this story. I've been regularly searching Google news to see if the story get's picked up. But as I expected, no US media will touch it.
Don't you think the American people would be mad if they knew what they were not being told? But of course, this is America, we have a free press and democracy; nothing can be hidden. Sorry America, you swallowed it and here we are now in quite a predicament.

The fight for truth will go on. Do all you can, and take heart in the fact that more people than ever are waking up.

  • 163.
  • At 03:22 PM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • Barbara wrote:

Thanks to the BBC for the video and discussion.
We've had a long string of violence in America killing progressives.
I agree, the evidence is still being controlled and would add that the media is not freely able to investigate and report; on much of anything these days.

What a jewish scholar thinks of the difference between milan micci's "Christ Code" and dan brown's "da vinci code"

I have been a student of the Jewish traditions and the Kabbalah for most of my life. It began at the knee of my father, a rabbi. now i teach physics.

When you ask me what do i think of the difference it is oranges and apples. they are completely different. Dan brown is an entertaining novelist. micci studies are as a researcher, astronomer, archeologist , astrophysicist, anthropologist , and israel antiquities authority.

Can she write a novel? who knows? one of the first i ever encountered was years ago about the ark of the covenant . She made Graham Hancock look like a idiot.

Now i heard she is coming out with a star trilogy "The Christ Code" the book is about a star apocalypse , knights templar , ancient legend , and sacred Holy Book mysteries from moses to modern times. I for one, am on the advanced purchase list.

I have liked every article she has written. She writes very carefully not to take sides or offend. here is the link.


Mr. Ayton is the author of ‘The JFK Assassination : Dispelling The Myths’, ‘A Racial Crime – James Earl Ray And The Murder Of Dr Martin Luther King Jr’ and ‘Questions Of Controversy – The Kennedy Brothers’. He has worked as an historical consultant for the BBC and has written articles for UK newspapers, David Horowitz’s Frontpage magazine, History Ireland, Crime Magazine and History News Network. In 2006 he was interviewed about his latest book, ‘The Forgotten Terrorist - Sirhan Sirhan and the Murder of Senator Robert F. Kennedy’, for the NBC television documentary ‘Conspiracy: Mind Control’. ‘The Forgotten Terrorist’ will be published by Potomac Books in April 2007.

Since the BBC broadcast a story by Irish screenwriter Shane O’Sullivan that CIA agents had been present in the Ambassador Hotel the night Robert Kennedy was assassinated, I have discovered further evidence which shows that O’Sullivan’s research was misleading and flimsy.
From the new evidence presented in this article it is now clear that his allegations are unfounded.Friends of CIA agents David Sanchez Morales and a colleague of Gordon Campbell have now established that the O’Sullivan identifications are unsound. The George Joannides identification remains in question.
George Joannides: Ed Lopez made a positive identification of Joannides, the CIA liasion to the House Assassinations Committee. HSCA investigator Dan Hardway, who had spent the same amount of time with Joannides as Lopez, failed to identify the agent from the photos.
Gordon Campbell: Campbell was identified by Bradley Ayers, an army captain attached to the Miamai CIA station JM/WAVE, and purported freelance CIA operative David Rabern. Don Bohning, a former leading reporter for the Miami Herald who spent years interviewing participants in the War On Castro wrote about Ayers in his book ‘The Castro Obsession’. The information about Ayers was based on an interview with JM/WAVE Station Chief Ted Shackley. Bohning wrote, “Ayers was to become so emotionally involved, both in the Cuban exile cause and with a Cuban refugee woman, that (Ted Shackley) terminated him. Shackley, in an interview, recalled Ayers as a 'strange guy' although acknowledging Ayers’ portrayal of the station activities was generally accurate as far as it went. (Shackley said) ‘He (Ayers) was assigned to do training...real gung ho. He came with the impression he was going to train and then lead a team into Cuba. That was always a problem with the Special Forces. When they found they were not going to lead a team they became enamored of the Cuban cause. He started messing around with some female down there. We could see problems and ordered him to return to his parent unit. He was basically a good guy, but they go native.' Shackley said that the station had ‘maybe fifteen or so military trainers at any one time.’” (See: )

However, it is the statement made by Grayston Lynch to this author that eliminates the possibility that the man observed in the LAPD film footage and photos supplied by O’Sullivan is Gordon Campbell. Lynch is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces captain and former CIA intelligence officer. His awards include three Purple Hearts, two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star with V for valor, and the CIA's most coveted award, the Intelligence Star, for heroism at the Bay of Pigs ‘above and beyond the call of duty’. When a force of U.S. trained Cuban exiles invaded Castro's Cuba in 1961, Lynch was the CIA's case officer, their point man, on the command ship, Blagar. He handled every communication between Washington and the beachhead and led the first combat team ashore. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh described Lynch as the man who was , “….there at the Bay of Pigs and was in the perfect position to write the definitive ground-level account of what went right and what went wrong”. According to Lynch the man in the LAPD film footage is not Campbell and that he “…knew Gordon Campbell.”

David Sanchez Morales: Bradley Ayers, diplomat Wayne Smith and David Rabern positively identified Morales, although their initial responses to O’Sullivan’s grainy photos were hesitant. As an 'objective seeker of truth' O’Sullivan should have presented his television audience with research which showed how two of his Morales ‘witnesses’ had a bias for JFK conspiracy theories. Since the first part of this article was published further information has come to light which shows that Bradey Ayers was a committed conspiracist for years. (See:;s=books Readers will recall that in part one of this article I quoted Eric Hamburg as identifying Wayne Smith as a believer in CIA-linked JFK assassination theories without providing any evidence whatsoever that this was true.
Two former agents, Thomas Clines and Ed Wilson failed to identify David Morales from the photographs shown them.In fact they said it wasn’t Morales.The veracity of Clines and Wilson can now be supported by statements made to this author by CIA operatives Grayston Lynch and Lt. Col. Manuel Chavez.
Manny Chavez is a former air force intelligence officer who served in Venezuela as a military attaché in Venezuela during 1957 -1959 while Dave Morales was assigned to the CIA office for a year during the period 1957-58. After examining the photo clips of the LAPD film footage used by O’Sullivan Chavez stated, “I was assigned to the CIA Office in Miami from 1960 to 1964. Dave Morales worked in my office (we shared desks) during a 4 month period (1961), until they moved to their own JMWave location in Southwest Miami. We often socialized.….. the tall dark man (in the LAPD film footage) does not look like Dave Morales… (He) looks like a young, late 30s early 40s, Afro-American…I worked on the photo to make it clearer and am more convinced that the person in the photos is not Dave Morales as I knew him up until 1963.” Manny Chavez’s wife also knew Morales well. She denied the man in the film clip was Morales.
In fact I have captured from the LAPD film footage what I believe to be O’Sullivan’s ‘Morales’ standing amongst a group of African American males who are assisting one of the shooting victims into an ambulance.
In his Guardian article O’Sullivan wrote, “In person, Ayers positively identified Morales and Campbell and introduced me to David Rabern, a freelance operative who was part of the Bay of Pigs invasion force in 1961 and was at the Ambassador hotel that night. He did not know Morales and Campbell by name but saw them talking to each other out in the lobby before the shooting and assumed they were Kennedy's security people. He also saw Campbell around police stations three or four times in the year before Robert Kennedy was shot.”

However, according to Don Bohning, his ‘pretty thorough research’ and friendship with the late Jake Esterline, the CIA's project director for the Bay of Pigs, and Marine Col. Jack Hawkins, the paramilitary chief for the project, indicated there were no such ‘freelance operatives’ as part of the invasion force. Don Bohning said, “….This reference to David Rabern… intrigued me. I called Jack Hawkins, the Marine Colonel in charge of the paramilitary side of the Bay of Pigs …... He said what I thought: the only two American CIA contract employees who even made it to the beach during the invasion - and then against orders - were Rip Robertson, now dead, and Grayston Lynch…Hawkins seemed quite certain Rabern was not part of the invasion force itself. ”. Bohning said he was “99.9 per cent certain that David Rabern was not a part of the Bay of Pigs invasion force, as O'Sullivan identifies him”. In fact, Bohning had never heard of a David Rabern and said there were no Americans who participated in the invasion itself; all were Cuban exiles. According to Bohning, “The only other Americans directly involved in the invasion were those contracted pilots from the Alabama National Guard. And all the trainers in Guatemala were American military personnel….. if he had a role in the Bay of Pigs invasion it is not part of the recorded history of the event. While a small thing, it does tend to discredit O'Sullivan's account; and Ayers, who presumably introduced Rabern to O'Sullivan.”

Bohning allows for the fact that it may have been possible that Rabern had been involved in the Guatemala training of the force, “…but most if not all the trainers at the beginning were foreigners and later US military personnel, led by Lt. Col. Frank Egan. I have never heard the name David Rabern associated with the Bay of Pigs in any context.” Grayston Lynch’s wife told this author, “My husband said to tell you that the only two Americans involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion were he and his CIA partner William "Rip" Robertson. Anyone else that tells you they were there, or says they can vouch for someone being there, is a... in no uncertain terms...liar.There have been, over the years, a whole raft of wanna be Bay of Pig invaders both American and Cuban”.

It should be recalled that Rabern did not know David Morales or Campbell or Joannides. Lynch and Chavez did. It should be obvious to most historians and researchers that Chavez’s and Lynch’s identifications must take precedent over Rabern’s.

It is clear from this new evidence that O’Sullivan’s ‘witnesses’ have now been discredited.However, it is the most incredible part of O’Sullivan’s story that renders his theory suspect - the premise that CIA agents, bent on killing a political opponent would allow themselves to be photographed at the scene of the crime.As RFK assassination expert Dan Moldea told this author, “ I couldn't agree more with your analysis. Why in God's name would these guys be there and allow themselves to be photographed if they were part of a plot to kill Senator Kennedy? That would make as much sense as a woman with a polka-dot dress running out of the crime scene, gleefully shouting, ‘We shot him. We shot him.’ It sort of defeats the goal of getting away after successfully executing a complicated conspiracy”.
There were a number of Kennedy aides present that night who had been close to the Senator when he was Attorney General in his brothers’ administration. RFK was given the task of overseeing the War on Castro and during his period in the JFK administration he paid a number of visits to CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia and the CIA station in Miami accompanied by aides. Some RFK aides present in the Embassy Ballroom of the Ambasador Hotel were therefore in a position to recognize CIA agents who they may have come into contact with during RFK’s trips to the CIA establishments.Any identification of agents at this time would have given grave cause for concern particularly as this was just a year after the Jim Garrison New Orleans investigation in which charges had been made that Cuban exiles and rogue CIA agents had conspired to murder JFK. It thus becomes highly implausible that CIA agents would expose themselves at the risk a Kennedy aide might recognize them or allow themselves to be photographed at the scene of a major assassination they had purportedly organized.
The BBC blunder did not end with the broadcast of O’Sullivan’s report. On the Tuesday morning following the Newsnight programme I posted criticisms of the Newsnight story on their web blog – it was registered as “No:1”. The post contained criticisms of the program which were eventually incorporated in Part 1 of this article. It contained no libellous, slanderous, provocative or obscene material.The post remained there for 4 or 5 days and was then removed. Such censorship is not worthy of a great news corporation that has a long history of integrity; a corporation that has prided itself on the free dissemination of news and ideas.

  • 166.
  • At 04:56 PM on 07 Dec 2006,
  • Richard Clare wrote:

The definitive analysis of the JFK assassination is in The Onion

"Kennedy Slain By CIA, Mafia, Castro, LBJ, Teamsters, Freemasons...."

  • 167.
  • At 09:42 AM on 08 Dec 2006,
  • Richard wrote:


I was reading recently Deep Politics III by Peter Dale Scott where the following is information is given,

"From other sources, we learn more about the autonomy of these kryptocracies, especially the CIA. It was almost by accident that the public learned of a secret agreement, in violation of a Congressional statute, whereby the CIA was exempted from reporting crimes of which it was aware to the Justice Department. This agreement was so secret that for almost two decades successive Attorneys General were unaware of it.[17] (My understanding is that the agreement arose from a "flap" in Thailand, where a CIA officer who was about to report on the local drug traffic was murdered by another, who was working with it.)[18]"

If this is true can one realistically expect that the CIA is going to come forward and tell what it know ? :-)


  • 168.
  • At 08:33 PM on 08 Dec 2006,
  • Jonn G. Christian, LV wrote:

Special Attention by Shane
O'Sullivan, "BBC Overnight"

CNN's Brad Johnson has been
in touch with me of recent,
seeking my input on their
RFK Assassination Project. Vanity aside, I'm generally
regarded to be "the leading
authority" on the RFK case.
I've not yet viewed your tv
program, but have the story
in written form.

For now, based on my book's
content (just re-published
by Carroll & Graf 11-06), a
CIA-FBI "presence" was pre- eminent before, during and
after RFK's murder via long
time clandestine alignments
within LAPD, which is STILL
the case, if not MUCH worse
since 9/11 & "Patriot Act"
excesses. Hopefully, we can
arrive at a mutually-useful
line of solid communication
(confidentially of course). Please advise, accordingly.


Jonn G. Christian, Author, The Assassination of Robert
Kennedy/The Conspiracy, The
Cover-Up/Foreword by Oliver


Jonn G. Christian - the same author who attempted to prove that Jerry Owen was involved in the 'RFK conspiracy'.

Owen was 55 at the time of the RFK assassination. He was born in Ohio and after leaving UCLA he became a sparring partner for ex-heavyweight boxer Max Baer. He claimed he had been an ordained minister since 1937 yet retracted this statement when interviewed by San Francisco Police.

He said he had gone into a hotel room for a couple of days during which time he “prayed.” This constituted to Owen his “ordainment.”
Police soon discovered he had a criminal record. He had been arrested on suspicion of robbery in 1930 but released. However, over the years he chalked up a record for “various suspicious and illegal activities,” according to the police reports. He had been involved in making insurance claims for six fires in his “church” properties and was involved in several paternity and extra-marital investigations.

One insurance claim was denied because of fraud. In 1963 he was arrested in Cosa Mesa, California, on a fugitive warrant from Tucson, Arizona, for arson with the intent to defraud an insurance company. He was convicted of three counts of arson and sentenced to serve 8-10 years in prison. His case was successfully appealed in 1966.

Several police informants called him a “confidence man” and he had used his evangelical position to seduce a number of women over the years.

Jerry Owen volunteered information to the LAPD that he had met Sirhan, with "another Mexican-looking kid" hitch-hiking a ride in downtown Los Angeles at 6pm on Monday June 3rd.Owen said he took them up Wilshire Boulevard to Vermont where they got out of the car and spoke to a tall dark man and a 19- or 20-year-old girl with long dirty blonde hair. Sirhan purportedly returned to the vehicle and asked to go to Hollywood. Sirhan allegedly told Owen he was an exercise boy and wanted to buy a horse. Owen then purportedly agreed a sale price - $300.

During the journey Sirhan was dropped off at the Ambassador for 10 minutes and then headed for the Hollywood Ranch market. Sirhan promised to pay Owen the money, but Sirhan’s “friends” turned up instead to give Owen a down payment. The rest of the money would be given to Owen at a meeting behind the Ambassador Hotel the following night – Tuesday, June 4th. In interviews with police officers in San Francisco and Los Angeles, Owen lied about his prison record and failed to identify Sirhan in a group of 10 photographs. He also failed a polygraph test administered not by the “suspicious” LAPD but by the San Francisco Police Department.

Apart from lying about his prison record Owen made frequent embellishments to his story, including the idea that his horse trailer was to be used as the conspirators’ “getaway vehicle.”

According to SUS member Gordon McDevitt, “When Owen said ‘I picked Sirhan up,’ we couldn’t ignore a statement like that. We had to run it down. Time and again, we picked away at every detail of everything Owen said, and anyone who saw him or said they saw him. The investigation of his story finally petered out. We just concluded that this guy was full of bullshit. He was a terrible waste of time that we couldn’t ignore, because he was saying sensational things. We couldn’t just say, ‘This guy’s a nut’ and then ignore him.”

The SUS eventually found witnesses who challenged Owen’s story. According to the LAPD Summary Report they proved he had not only been inconsistent with his story but lied about many events that allegedly occurred. The SUS finally concluded that Owen, for one reason or another, was a confabulator, liar and a publicity seeker.

Yet another friend of Dave Morales has put the lie to the allegation that Morales is the man in the LAPD film footage. Manny Chavez sent this email to me this morning: "Mel,I told you many days ago that I sent a copy of the photo (of Morales) to Luis Rodriguez, the Army Rep. in the Miami CIA office who worked side by side with Dave Morales and me. Rodriguez’s reply today. 'That is definitely not Dave Morales.' Although a little late for your article it is another 'Slam Dunk'."

  • 171.
  • At 07:15 AM on 14 Dec 2006,
  • jan wrote:

well, i read from a biography of Ms. Marilyn Monroe that he and the latter has a secret relationship and one thing more they are connected to Mafia. Isn't it?

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)

  • 173.
  • At 03:10 AM on 18 Dec 2006,
  • rustam katranov wrote:

well, Onasis might have killed him as well, he had an affair with his wife Jacqueline Kennedy

Interesting article about this film in Gramma (December 22, 2006)

see post 174 - in fact there is nothing interesting about the Granma article at all. It is a simple regurgitation of O'Sullivan's now discredited tale.Of course, Cuba would not want O'Sullivan's work to be debunked or to make reference to my article - it takes the heat off Castro and on to their nemesis, the CIA.Those who believe stories eminating from communist government news organizations are oracles of truth are desperately in need of enlightnment.

  • 176.
  • At 07:59 PM on 26 Dec 2006,
  • David Carter wrote:

Those who believe friends of the three CIA men who say it wasn't them at the Ambassador Hotel should re-enter reality. Of course friends would not implicate each other in something like an assassination. How about some independent verification? Regardless of the outcome, there will always be defenders of the CIA who will tell you they are clean, truthful, law-abiding and peaceful. The truth is whatever they can get you to believe.

Post 176 - it will be quite obvious to most educated and rational people that this poster is using silly logic to make his case. He is quite willing and eager to endorse the erroneous identifications CIA operatives Ayers and Rabern made but rejects the testimony of those who knew Morales well - Lynch, Rodriguez and Chavez.

  • 178.
  • At 02:06 PM on 29 Dec 2006,
  • Jim wrote:

I tried to use the link on the BBC website to show the video to my son last night, and it did not work. The windows media choice showed a 3 second video an then stopped. The realplayer choice sent me to a page not found error. Could someone get this fixed or tell me a different way/place to see it?

  • 179.
  • At 02:24 PM on 29 Dec 2006,
  • Jim wrote:

Sometime in the late 80s or early 90s (I forget exactly when), WGBH in Boston showed a documentary, I think as part of their Frontline series, produced independently about the JFK assassination. The independent producer was a former aide to JFK; I believe he was said to be a friend of the family. The program concerned a man who claimed to be a longtime lawyer for the mafia who came forward to tell a tale about how certain mafia bosses told him information that revealed that they had been involved in killing JFK in order to stop Bobby. The lawyer was interviewed and the producer of the documentary said that many of the claims he made that could be checked up on held up on investigation. Even though it was just hearsay evidence, I thought at the time that surely something more would come of this documentary, especially being shown on a major TV station (and, I believed, nationally). Yet I never heard of it again.

Does anyone know anything about this documentary? Does it still exist? Did the person who produced it continue to investigate? Did anyone else actually see it? I'd appreciate any information.

I hope Shane is able to finally break through the fog concerning these cases and make something happen to re-open them.

  • 180.
  • At 02:30 AM on 01 Jan 2007,
  • rustam katranov wrote:


  • 181.
  • At 02:06 AM on 03 Jan 2007,
  • karin brothters wrote:

This confirms in part the efforts of US activist Allard Lowenstein, a famous lawyer and activist who was shot on Valentines Day in the late 1970's. He was trying to get the RFK case reopened but having problems with the LAPD, which was refusing to reopen ballistics testing. He made the point that the body guard, standing behind RFK with a gun at the time of the assassination, had been hired that morning and not seen since. (also, there was the matter of too many bullets around for Sirhan's gun.)
The CIA's psychological warfare agent ties in with observations about Sirhan Sirhan....

RFK's statements about Palestinians were outrageous at the time; it sppeared as if poor Sirhan would have had a motive because of RFK's insults.

It's good to see this coverage after all of these years of silence.

Personally, although I always start out believing (most of) the official version of these shocking events, I have come to think that the opposite of "conspiracy theorist" is "naive".

  • 182.
  • At 08:14 AM on 03 Jan 2007,
  • shannon wrote:

Americans have spent 40 years trying very hard not to know the truth about the Kennedy assissanations.


If someone proves it to them, first they will be very angry that someone is making them admit what they knew all along, and secondly, they would have to actually confront their worst fear which is that there government is far and above the most evil on the planet. It would crush them in their false patriotism to have to admit it to themselves, but even harder, to have to admit it to the world.

  • 184.
  • At 05:47 AM on 07 Jan 2007,
  • Len Robinson wrote:

Setting aside the whole CIA angle, those who argue that Sirhan did not do it always point to the fact that Sirhan approached RFK from the front, while the bullet wound entered from behind at a difference of one inch. What they never provide is a viable alternative suspect. If not Sirhan, then who? Who else was seen firing a 22 caliber revolver at the senator from anywhere near an inch away? It is not enough to point out seeming discrepencies or unanswered questions--you must also provide a believable, logical alternative to the the currently accepted version of events. In this case, any legitimate theory regarding the assassination must include a plausible argument regarding the shooter, including an explanation for how that shooter managed to get himself in a position to shoot Bobby from very close range.

  • 185.
  • At 09:28 PM on 13 Jan 2007,
  • jane doe wrote:

It's simple, he's 81 years old and alive and well, his son David is too. David used his social security number three times after 1984 and before the advent of the internet. A private investigator, found that David's death was never reported to the Social security administration, that there was no other identity attached to David's ssn (119-36-5905) so it wasn't someone trying to falsely obtain credit by using his identity and concluded in the end that he was most likely alive. Can you view David's autopsy photos?...No...Can you view his father's autopsy photos?...No. Follow the yellow brick road. Why would I know this? Close relation.

  • 186.
  • At 08:28 PM on 26 Jan 2007,
  • Eamonn Jackson wrote:

With regard to the bullets, some of them were lodged in wood around a door and in the ceiling. The LAPD removed all this evidence and then 'lost' it. Thane Caeser may have been involved (the hotel security guard) but I do believe what was shown on this programme. How could 'they'allow Bobby to be elected and then end the Vietnam war and perhaps use the power of the Presidency to investigate his brother's death?

  • 187.
  • At 08:37 PM on 26 Jan 2007,
  • Eamonn Jackson wrote:

Bobby Kennedy I recall said that America's commitment was to Israel in 1967. This was a referred to in Sirhan's diary. You have to remember what America was like in the 60's as it is now, right wing with a capital R! Sirhan was the perfect patsy, better than LHO.

  • 188.
  • At 02:24 AM on 25 Mar 2007,
  • karen williamson wrote:

I'm interested in the other people who were wounded on the night in question. I understand that none of them died, but does anyone know their names or where they are TODAY?

Thank you
Karen Williamson

  • 189.
  • At 10:59 AM on 25 Mar 2007,
  • Mitchell Frawley wrote:

For the people complaining about no hard facts, here's some to consider.
Autopsy states that wounds were inflicted from a muzzle distance of no more than 1-3 inches from the wounds and from behind RK (due to tattoing), but no eyewitness placed sirhan's gun closer than one and a half feet to the aproacing or side-on RK.
Listen to the opinion of San Quentin Psychologist DR. Eduard Simpson.
Research the absurdity of the Jets deal being the supposed motive and the flawed evidence that was used to prove that.
Why did the LAPD/FBI continually ignore numerous accounts of the PDW and several other men being seen with sirhan on and in the days leading up to the shooting day.
Research sirhan's behaviour changes, 10.oopm normal, 10.30pm fixedly staring at a teletype, 11.45pm looking very tired on pantry table, 12.15am it takes 3o secs for angry crowd to disloge gun, approx 2.00am mumbling under distress to officers, approx 3.45am lively chatting to officers, june 5 during daylight - shivering on a warm june california day.
Like Charles Mansion prosecutor Vince Bugliosi said "The RFK case makes Watergate look like a one-roach marijuana bust"
As rediculous as it sounds, nothing can more adequatley explain the RFK shooting than the notion that sirhan was hypnotically programmed to shoot RK and then have no memory of shooting or the programming.
If you think I'm nuts, the official version is that sirhan programmed himself in front of a mirror to shoot RK and then have no memory of shooting or the programming.
1975 Firearms Panel found no evidence that any of the pantry bullets could be scientifically linked to sirhan's gun, they also found out that during the sirhan trial, the LAPD had compared and matched the pantry bullets to a LAPD test gun - not sirhan's gun.
The sirhan trial was only about determining the sentence, not guilt. The LAPD files weren't released until 1988. At least 3 other witnesses reported at least 3 other gunmen (none of who were SG Cesar). Forget ideological debates and look at the hard evidence and truth, essentially this is just a murder case. If I thought sirhan did in fact fire the shots that killed RK, I would want a screwdriver shoved down his throat. There's a real possibility that sirhan has been siiting in jail for nearly 39 years, when he had no knowlingly part in the shooting - something the RK would be very disappointed about.

  • 190.
  • At 06:08 PM on 26 Apr 2007,
  • Deeper Throat wrote:

With regard to the Warren Commission, I suggest you listen to the following tape of a conversation between then President Johnson and Senator Russell.
President Johnson informs Senator Russell that after Chief Justice Warren twice refused his request to serve on the "Warren" Commission, he told Warren he would release tapes given to him by Director Hoover regarding activities by Warren in Mexico City. (This violates several U.S. laws, including blackmail by the President and Director and the illegal activity of the FBI, a domestic agency, in Mexico.) The tape also reveals that the FBI wrote the Warren Report and the Commission was a cover to prevent a public hearing into the truth.
Also important is the connection between Hoover and the FBI and the CIA. The tapes came to Hoover from the CIA. CIA had a very active station in Mexico City. They had a tap on the Russian Embassy at the time. They knew Oswald was there and had been paid to assassinate Kennedy.
Plainly, the CIA and the FBI engaged in illegal activities in this period of time. Hoover had no business in assisting a President to blackmail. He had no right to prevent the administration of justice by the creation of a "commission" to avoid a resposible prosecutor. The CIA had no business being in LA around Bobby.
Ever wonder who was the CIA station chief in Miami at this period of time? George Bush senior. Enough for now.

One more clue - the boys who were caught in the Watergate hotel, and those running them, were in Dallas.

  • 191.
  • At 07:14 PM on 07 May 2007,
  • Eamonn Jackson wrote:

Karen Williamson

Point taken, but their wounds did not affect the course of history in the way that RFK's death did. As Deeper Throat reveals, the CIA and the FBI were involved in the most undemocratic practices in the 1960's. When JFK was eliminated in '63 the office of President was taken over by people who will always pull the strings. The cover of Mario Puzos novel seems a perverse paradox now.

  • 192.
  • At 04:06 PM on 20 Jun 2007,
  • harry wrote:

I believe Kennedy was killed by the CIA. it is that simple.

  • 193.
  • At 08:16 AM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • Johnny Fonzarelli wrote:

The man seen in your RFK-CIA segment number 1, at the above link on your site, escorting the man (holding something in his hand and hiding it inside of his suit jacket), is this man named below, one Virgilio Gonzalez of Watergate fame. Incidentally, David Morales was one of the Watergaters as well, right along with Virgilio Gonzalez.

See the resemblance of him at the below link.

I am convinced it is actually him. Stop the segment of the tape right after Virgilio waves his right hand as he is escorting the man concealing something in his jacket while leaving out of the Ambassador, and then compare to the 1972 mugshot and the sideview shot of Virgilio Gonzalez at the provided link and you shall see that it is indeed him.

-Gordon Campbell

-George Joannides

-David Morales

-Virgilio Gonzalez


These are but four, not three (as the BBC reported in their Newsnight segment) - CIA Operatives filmed that night at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles the night Bobby Kennedy was killed.


Virgilio Gonzalez


The story on BBC Newsnight


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:

  • 195.
  • At 03:32 AM on 25 Jul 2007,
  • Richwell Goodlett wrote:

After much digging, I have found in my personal photo collection, given to me from my late father in law, a photo of one George Joannides taken in Jack Rubys Carousel nightclub.

And yep you guessed it, Jack Ruby is in the very same photo with George Joannides. And more interestingly than that, one Lee Harvey Oswald appears in the very same photo with the both of them.

Any ideas from anyone as to what should be done with this photo? Whom to contact I mean? I have been told it is a very rare and inportant photo.

I am however stumped as to what to do next with it.

Any help would be appreciated.

Richwell Goodlett

  • 196.
  • At 04:33 AM on 27 Jul 2007,
  • chris venes wrote:

Are you kidding, Rich? To my knowledge, there has never been a photo of LHO and Ruby together, although there had been many to testify that they saw them together.
You should contact Debra Conway at, the most comprehensive, credible, and supportive websites on the JFK Assassination. She would point you in the safest direction. And for God sakes--don't lose that photo!

  • 197.
  • At 12:08 AM on 01 Aug 2007,
  • Richwell Goodlett wrote:

I do not know how, but I do know why this happened (now), but I had some "suits" visit my home two days ago and needless to say, they "confiscated" my photo and sent me to the hospital for two days.

I refused to let these "insurance salesman" into my home but I was overpowered and after twenty minutes of "smalltalk" they tired of me and came right out with it (what "they" wanted) and they physically got me and but good. Along with my photo.

They must have been monitoring? the BBC? Or this forum? Somehow they "found me" and got what they wanted. I have no idea who they were as they didn`t properly introduce themselves to me.

I thought they were going to kill me. At least "they" told me they were. I was in the process of following another posters advice and was going to email Debra Conway at JFK-Lancer and a knock came at my door as I was finishing the email, but I did not get it sent unfortunately.

"They" were driving a black Ford Explorer SUV and then helped themselves into my home.

I live in Missouri, in St Louis should I turn up "missing" for reporting this to this forum.

Please,let the story be told.

  • 198.
  • At 08:50 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Reah wrote:

Ever hear of Jimmy Hoffa?

  • 199.
  • At 12:56 PM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • Ivor wrote:

"What a Cover up!" How on earth could the World's 'Super Power' allow there own president, JFK, to be assinated (in such a way)? Where was the security procedures to protect JFK through ALL of the diversions he made in person (and open-top car???). Why wasn't the grassy area's that he would of been traveling by protected by his security? All these questions and more failed to be answered. Yes, it was in deed a cover up - by his own people. Bobby Kennedy was obviously part of the same fate to get the Kennedy's out of the White House - and by any means. It is not believed that the secret service and other USA Government authorities could NOT of had any input in these assinations.

It seems amazing to me that anything that cannot be backed up with hard evidence is given the lable conspiracy theory.The satanic link between the rolling stones and others is common knowledge but if you where to accuse say John Lennon of the Beatles (R.I.P.)of supporting satanist dogma there are many who ywould call this a conspirac theory although i can be back thiis up with hard evidence.

  • 201.
  • At 09:55 PM on 08 Aug 2007,
  • Tim B wrote:

Ivor, it comes with the territory of riding in an open top car in front of the public that you can't cover every possible point from which someone could shoot. After all, Reagan was shot too - are you saying that was a conspiracy by the CIA too?

  • 202.
  • At 02:16 AM on 30 Aug 2007,
  • karin bros wrote:

I haven't seem BBC material yet.
The famous US activist Allard Lowenstein was onto this in the mid 1970s, when he went public with the evidence that he saw and tried to have the case reopened.
Specifically, he wanted the LAPD to fire the supposed gun used to kill RFK to check the ballistics; they refused at that time.

Lowenstein noted that RFK's recently hired guard was armed and standing behind RFK where the shot came from and hadn't been seen since. Spent bullets could not have (all) come from Sirhan's weapon.

Next thing we knew, Lowenstein was shot dead at his law office.

  • 203.
  • At 03:12 AM on 30 Aug 2007,
  • karin brothers wrote:

I haven't been able to see the film, but it appears that Shane O'Sullivan's material supports the earlier investigation of Allard Lowenstein.
The famous US activist Allard Lowenstein was onto this in the mid 1970s, when he went public with the evidence that he saw and tried to have the case reopened.
Specifically, he wanted the LAPD to fire the supposed gun used to kill RFK to check the ballistics; they refused at that time.

Lowenstein noted that RFK's recently hired guard was armed and standing behind RFK where the shot came from and hadn't been seen since. Spent bullets could not have (all) come from Sirhan's weapon.

Next thing we knew, Lowenstein was shot dead at his law office.

  • 204.
  • At 06:31 PM on 30 Aug 2007,
  • Eugene wrote:

As most James Bond movies clearly prove, the KGB was obviously behind the entire thing.

  • 205.
  • At 09:49 PM on 10 Sep 2007,
  • Henry wrote:

Richwell Goodlett are you being serious? If so you have scared the life out of me just for posting my opinion on the assassination. These sites could have career damaging consequences at the very least as I was directed to my comment by Google.

Read "The Dark Side of Camelot" by Seymour M. Hersh, a seemingly credible bit of investigative journalim on the Kennedy family. Some of the details in the BBC2 report on the assination of Bobby Kennedy are not far fetched. pooky!

Richwell (195) Send us a copy and we'll see what we can do with it - sounds fascinating.

or Newsnight, TVC Centre, London W12 7RJ

Thanks for all your comments. My feature documentary based on this story, "RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy" has just been released on DVD in the US and contains updates and further clips on the three men at the Ambassador as well as a comprehensive look at the all the other controversies in this case.

The website - - has links to the trailer, various clips, a new Facebook discussion group I've started on the case and how to get the DVD.

The film will be released in the UK next Spring.


  • 209.
  • At 09:55 PM on 20 Dec 2007,
  • Ross Nicholson wrote:

You might consider that disinformation and misinformation being provided here may be by interested parties, i.e. the members or directors of the Plumbers--the republican secret team. The more illiterate scoffing probably comes from Bush's Cubans.

If you can find a photograph of Martinez, one of the Watergate Burglars, notice that his strange hair cut didn't change from the do he sports in his 1963 photograph of him sitting down on the grass of Dealy Plaza next to George H.W. "umbrellaman" Bush on Nov. 22nd 1963.

  • 210.
  • At 01:40 PM on 27 Mar 2008,
  • drawlr wrote:

The bullet that killed Robert Kennedy was of a different caliber than Sirhan's anemic .22 revolver. Explain that.

  • 211.
  • At 01:46 PM on 27 Mar 2008,
  • drawlr wrote:

The bullet that killed Robert Kennedy was of a different caliber than Sirhan's anemic .22 revolver. Explain that.

  • 212.
  • At 08:57 PM on 02 Apr 2008,
  • Dan from Canada wrote:

Well, something has gone wrong, because the link to the video simply brings up the player and the video does not play. Looks like the video has been removed (censured?). The campain videos do play, though...

Very peculiar...

This post is closed to new comments.

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