History Podcasts

Robert F. Kennedy's Assassination

Robert F. Kennedy's Assassination

People who viewed this also viewed

I have been looking forward to the release of this book because I have been a fan of Lisa Pease's work for many years. However, while just browsing around the book before I read it from start to finish, I have come across two inexplicable errors. She has Jesse Unruh sitting in the back seat of the patrol car with Sirhan when he was transported to Rampart station (pg 23). Among all the LAPD files, FBI files, Grand Jury and trial testimony, and the numerous books and articles written about this event, I have not seen one account which puts Jesse Unruh in the back seat. This is not a trivial error. The details of the transport of Sirhan from the Ambassador Hotel to Rampart station were important enough to warrant the prosecution calling three witnesses at trial to cover it.

She also repeatedly relies upon the statements of alleged witness, Marcus McBroom. It can be easily demonstrated that McBroom is a liar, having made repeated false statements. If McBroom's statements were true, then he would be a very important witness, so it is essential for anyone doing in-depth research on this event to check out McBroom's claims. If one does that, it becomes clear McBroom is not being truthful.

*** EDIT 01/19/19: I will eventually post some thoughts in a comment to this review about the author’s treatment of Marcus McBroom (see comment 36). This is a serious error that raises questions about her investigative process. It incorporates flawed analysis, poor judgment, and at the very least, a biased presentation of the evidence, if not a deliberate attempt to deceive readers. Marcus McBroom is a liar, he is not credible, period. I challenge anyone to make a case to the contrary - it cannot be done. The case Lisa Pease tries to make has internal contradictions which she either ignores or cannot see, and omissions which could only have been deliberate. That being the case, one has to ask where else has she made such errors in this book? *** End of EDIT

*** EDIT 01/16/19: A third error I want to point out is the author has Kennedy’s “unofficial bodyguard” waiting “stage right” as Kennedy finishes speaking to the crowd in the Embassy ballroom. I know of no evidence to support that assertion. All of the trial testimony I have seen and at least two broadcast news cameras have the bodyguard, Bill Barry, stage left. Since Lisa Pease is a writer of screenplays, I must assume she knows the meaning of “stage left” and “stage right” and uses those terms carefully to make it clear to which side of the stage she refers. Since there was a last minute change of plan regarding where Senator Kennedy would go after finishing his speech, and this change led him directly to the assassin (ambush), it is basic investigative practice to ascertain the details of who made the change and why, and where were Kennedy’s security people before and after. Again, in my view this is an important detail. *** End of EDIT

*** EDIT 1/27/19: Unfortunately, the more I read, the more problems I find in this book. Lisa Pease relies heavily on eyewitness interviews and testimony to support her narrative. The eyewitness evidence in this case is difficult to sort out because there is a lot of it and it is rife with problems. In many cases, interrogators did an inadequate job of asking questions needed to clarify important details. There is also considerable contradictory testimony among witnesses, even some who were in the same place at the same time. Many witnesses’ stories changed over time, and there is substantial evidence that witnesses’ accounts were influenced by other witnesses and media reports. I am finding that Lisa Pease has provided misleading representations of some eyewitness accounts by including testimony that fits her agenda and leaving out that which does not. I am going to have to put the details in the comments to this thread otherwise this review is going to get way too long (if it isn’t already). Witnesses, George Green and Booker Griffin, are two more examples of the author's deliberate attempt to deceive her readers. (See comments 37 and 38) *** End of EDIT

How does Lisa Pease research the RFK assassination for decades and make such errors? For me, this creates the problem of no longer being able to trust Lisa. I am now going to have to vet everything in this book that I have not already researched in detail. I was hoping just to sit back and let Lisa do all the work for me. Oh well, not the first, nor will it be the last, time I have found myself in this position.

I have no doubt I will learn something from this book, and clearly Lisa Pease has done some excellent work in the past. But I am disappointed and puzzled to see such fundamental errors from Lisa Pease on this subject. It may be that this subject is just too much for one person to cover in a single volume. I may update/edit this commentary as I read the chapters in order.

First edit to my original post (above):
In the comments to this review, I have been accused of attacking and discrediting both the book and its author. Why? Because I pointed out two errors in the book, one of which the author had to concede after I provided documentation to confirm it. The other error is indefensible and she will have to concede it in time, and in any subsequent editions of her book. I was also accused of having an agenda, and it was suggested I was a rival author hiding behind an alias. All this because I dared to challenge the author. I will respond to all that in the comments thread. For now, I just want to add a couple points.

First, if you have an interest in the RFK assassination, I recommend you read this book because Lisa Pease is without question an important researcher of this event. However, I am cautioning any reader against simply accepting as fact everything she has in the book without scrutiny. My warning should not be controversial, people should employ such an approach generally. In this country, at this time, we can longer be uncritical consumers of information, there is too much at stake. This requires we not only scrutinize information which does not conform with our opinions, but also that which seems to be aligned with our opinions. No author's work should receive blind acceptance from readers. If one does not have time to do independent investigation, then one can at least read multiple authors on a subject in order to get as complete and accurate an understanding as possible.

Second, my "agenda" and purpose for reading and reviewing this book is nothing more than truth and justice. In my opinion, this requires careful and thorough investigation. I make no apology for scrutinizing and challenging this or any other author. I have all the important books on the RFK assassination and I have done considerable independent investigation of primary sources, including documents acquired through FOIA requests. Based on all I have seen, read and examined, I do not believe Sirhan killed RFK. As I make my way through this book, I’m sure I will encounter material I want to investigate myself. So my progress will be slow and deliberative. I hope to be back from time to time to edit or update this review, and will likely be responding to comments in the comment thread.

FYI: In order to make it easier to follow my responses to comments, I have edited all my comments as of 12/30/18 to include the comment to which I responded. However, I have not edited the content of my responses, I have simply pasted in the comment to which I responded. Unfortunately, I accidentally deleted my first comment, in which I replied to the author's first comment. In that comment, I merely pointed out that I never said Jesse Unruh was not in the patrol car. Her error was claiming Unruh jumped into back seat of the patrol with the suspect.

The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy and its effects on the modern world

Robert Francis Kennedy was born on November 20, 1925 in Brookline Massachusetts. He was the seventh child, and third son of Rose Fitzgerald and Joe Kennedy . “I was the seventh of nine children,” he later recalled, “and when you come from that far down you have to struggle to survive. “( Alden Whitman, 2001). Compared to his brothers, Robert or Bobby as they all called him, was smaller and he struggled to match his brothers athleticism. As a child Robert had a robust enthusiasm for history. It was his favorite subject in grammar school. At the age of 11, Robert wanted some independence so he got his own newspaper route.

Joe Geringer,1995). He had to get up early in the morning before school to deliver the daily paper. This grueling work schedule would prove to help him learn dedication that was needed to become a successful individual. After high school he attended Portsmouth Academy. After attending school there, he attended Milton Academy to better prepare him for Harvard . Before attending Harvard, he had to put in military service in the Navy during war time. In 1944, he began to attend Harvard University. In 1948 he received his degree in government. Three years later he earned his degree in law from University of Virginia.

Education was very important to to Kennedy family, his parents would dicuss history and education at the dinner table “I can hardly remember a mealtime,” Robert Kennedy said, “when the conversation was not dominated by what Franklin D. Roosevelt was doing or what was happening in the world. “(Alden Whitman, 2001) In 1950, Robert married Ethel Skakel of Greenwich, Connecticut she was the daughter of Ann and George Skakel, founder of Great Lakes Carbon Corporation. (Alden Whitman, 2001). The couple later had eleven children. In 1952, his brother John ran for Senate.

This is the year that Robert made his political debate as manager of his brother’s successful Senate campaign. In 1953 he briefly served on a Senate Subcommittee of Investigations. Thanks to his investigative skills Kennedy helped confirm that some United States allies during the war against communist China and Korea were shipping the countries goods. He resigned after six months because he didn’t approve of Joseph McCarthy’s tactics. (Alden Whitman, 2001). In 1960 he was the manager of his older brother’s presidential campaign After his brother won the election, Robert was appointed Attorney General . for President Kennedy’s cabinet.

During his stint as Attorney General he won praise for his effective and nonpartisan administration at the Department of Justice. He launched several successful investigations into organized crime. During his reign as Attorney General convictions for organized crime rose 800%. (Alden Whitman, 2001). He was an avid advocate for the rights of African Americans. He was very dedicated to making sure that African American had a right to vote, could use public facilities, and could attend public schools. During a speech in 1961, he committed to civil rights for all citizens of the United States. “We will not stand by or be aloof. We will move.

I happen to believe that the 1954 [Supreme Court school desegregation] decision was right. But my belief does not matter. It is the law. Some of you may believe the decision was wrong. That does not matter. It is the law. ” In 1962 he sent US Marshals to make sure that African American students could go to the University of Mississippi (Alden Whitman, 2001). The Civil Rights Act of 1964, that he helped create, was passed after his brother was slain. He was praised by the African American community and angered many white voters. After the death of his brother Robert resigned as Attorney General and successfully ran for the Senate.

As a Senator he established many programs for the needy. He created the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation to help living conditions and bring jobs to Brooklyn, a heavily populated African American city. (Alden Whitman, 2001) He wanted to bring the reality that poverty does exist into American homes. He often visited ghettos and migrant works camps. He wanted to help area in poverty by providing legislation and lure private industries to impoverished areas to provide jobs. He also stressed the importance of working and not simply relying on welfare, to the people. ( Joe Geringer,1995)

On March 18, 1968 he announced plans for running for the Democratic nomination for president. It was a campaign that was filled with enthusiasm much like those of his late brother. In his campaign he sought to bridge the gap between the American population. He won primaries in both Indiana and Nebraska and spoke to crowds all across the nation( Joe Geringer,1995). June 5,1968 was a very nerve wrecking day for Robert. The next day was the California primaries. After having taken a loss to Eugene McCarthy in the Oregon primaries he needed to win the California primaries to say in the running for president.

Many people thought that Robert had a good chance in winning California . While watching tv monitors for percentage of votes in the Ambassitor Hotel Robert’s spirit was lighted, he had a lead over Eugene. Even thought he had a lead, he remained watchful and cautious because he knew that any moment things could turn around for the worst. ( Joe Geringer,1995) By 11:30 he knew he had won. Along with his wife Ethel and his friends, he went to the ballroom where he was greeted. During his speech Robert addressed the fact that the United States needed to overcome racial diversity and other social evils.

He ended his speech by saying ” Now on to Chicago lets win there! ” There were no special security measures taken at the hotel, even though a political figure was there. While leaving the ballroom Robert Kennedy was fatally shot( Joe Geringer,1995). He was shot eight times by a . 22 caliber pistol. He died at 1:44 on June 6. Many Americans felt that his murder was the product of a conspiracy. His murderer was arrested but refused to give his name. The police had to transfer him through the back of the facility to the area prison where he was named prisoner “John Doe”.

The killers brothers having seen him on television, came forth to tell police his name. It was Sirhan B. Sirhan, a Jordan immigrant. Sirhan was charged with murder and attempted murder. When the police went through his belongings at his house they found several disturbing things. They included a notebook that stated “RFK MUST DIE! ” and other Anti-Jewish items. After the public was informed of this they couldn’t get the thought of conspiracy off the mind( Joe Geringer,1995). Sirhan did give a reason for the slaying. He said Kennedy was pro-Israeli and he feared that Kennedy would make change occur to his Arab nation.

Kennedy had made it very clear that he supported Israel so being an Arab Sirhan felt the only option he had was to kill him. ( Joe Geringer,1995) Sirhan had a swift trail and was sentenced to death. The world mourned the lost of an up and coming leader. Many felt that had he lived he would have become the next president of the United States. Many African Americans were deeply saddened because he had desperately fought for their rights. With the conviction of Sirhan many Americans felt that justice had been served. Yet some felt no sentence was good enough to make up for what he stole, a true American leader.

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Remembering Robert F. Kennedy and a time when political assassination was all the rage.

Fifty years ago, the third spectacular assassination that marked US history in the 1960s took place. Robert F. Kennedy was fatally wounded in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. This followed the assassination of John F. Kennedy and, only two months earlier, Martin Luther King Jr. In all three cases, the official account of the shooting by a lone wolf gunman has since been discredited, but history books and the media continue to repeat the standard account, with the occasional exception, such as this article from ABC News.

Here is today’s 3D definition:


The military-industrial complex’s most efficient means of eliminating political threats, providing the media will obediently repeat the official account to the point of drowning out the evidence obtained from other sources

Contextual note

Sirhan Sirhan apparently had a motive for killing Robert Kennedy. He didn’t, however, have the means of accomplishing the task. It required a weapon and the skill to use it effectively. Sirhan did have the weapon but not the skill. The team that staged the event apparently provided the skill and the supplementary weapon to get the job done. That, in any case, is what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Paul Schrade — who was wounded in the same attack — believe. Other witnesses and investigators have found evidence not presented in Sirhan’s trial that point in the same direction.

The pattern is clear in all three political celebrity assassinations of the 1960s. An official story accused an individual whose own testimony was never recorded or permitted to exist (Lee Harvey Oswald) or simply wasn’t taken into account. The justice system refused to pursue other leads, and the media — though occasionally mentioning sources of doubt — consistently maintained that the official account was the only one to be treated as “historical record.”

Historical note

It isn’t every day that, as author of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary, I can claim to have been a direct witness to history. On June 5, 1968, I was at a different hotel in Los Angeles, the Beverly Hilton, where the Eugene McCarthy campaign had organized its election night evening. I had worked for the Kennedy’s California campaign thanks to my mother, who was office manager of the campaign, but I was supporting the candidate I believed to be the more authentic “peace candidate.”

After Kennedy’s victory speech, I and the three friends I was with started walking through the corridors to go home when someone shouted that Kennedy had been shot. We returned to the main ballroom where there were TV sets so that we could watch the news. I was filmed by a television crew documenting the reaction of the McCarthy supporters. The footage appeared in the TV documentary, Making of the President 1968.

Robert F. Kennedy walks down the hallway on the fifth floor of the Ambassador Hotel. He is on his way to the Embassy Ballroom for his victory speech.

Photograph by Stanley Tretick#RFK50#TDIH pic.twitter.com/xyLYcvEmmy

— RFK50 (@RFK50th) June 5, 2018

Both Kennedy and McCarthy represented the anti-establishment and especially anti-war side of the Democratic Party, reacting against Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s commitment to prosecuting and intensifying the war in Vietnam. As former attorney general, and a member of a political dynasty, Kennedy was more establishment than McCarthy and some of us suspected not quite as committed to ending the war. But both candidates represented a similar political vision.

We expected Kennedy would win California and that a Democratic Convention in August would determine which of the peace candidates would get the nomination. France had just been through its May 1968 uprising, and the time was ripe in the US for our younger generation to make our mark on US politics, but in this case through a legitimate election. Needless to say, the very same vested interests that President Dwight Eisenhower warned about eight years earlier upon leaving office — the military-industrial complex — were not as eager as we were to accomplish that goal.

The authorities and the media convinced everyone, just as they had with the JFK assassination — that the killer had been identified and we could get on with our business. Many of us assumed that McCarthy was the remaining candidate who would represent the party and that the commitment to peace and reform would be at the heart of the convention’s new platform. The Kennedy campaign, instead of aligning behind McCarthy, immediately sought a replacement for the fallen senator: the relatively unknown George McGovern. And the party’s establishment fixed things so that, in the confusion, Vice President Hubert Humphrey would be the nominee, guaranteeing continuity with Johnson’s policies.

And, as everyone knows, the bitter divide of the Democratic Party that played out in spectacular riots at the Chicago convention ensured the victory in November of Republican Richard Nixon, leading to the further intensification of the Vietnam War.

Some people, looking back at the 1960s, can legitimately claim that the strategy of political celebrity assassination of the 1960s effectively assassinated democracy itself.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The Blatant Conspiracy behind Senator Robert F. Kennedy’s Assassination

Hidden History Center is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and presentation of little-known history. We depend on your tax-deductible contributions to continue our work.

Early in 1968, Clyde Tolson, F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover’s deputy and bosom buddy, a key player in the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., expressed both the hope and intent of those making sure that there would never be another president by the name Kennedy, when he said about RFK that “I hope someone shoots and kills the son of a bitch.” Earlier, as reported by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in his new book, American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family, the influential conservative Westbrook Pegler expressed this hope even more depravingly when he wished “that some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter [Robert Kennedy’s] spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies.”

These sick men were not alone. Senator Robert Kennedy was a marked man. And he knew it. That he was nevertheless willing to stand up to the forces of hate and violence that were killing innocents at home and abroad is a testimony to his incredible courage and love of country. To honor such a man requires that we discover and speak the truth about those who killed him. The propaganda that he was killed by a crazed young Arab needs exposure.

Robert F. Kennedy

Robert Francis "Bobby" Kennedy (November 20, 1925 – June 6, 1968), also referred to by his initials RFK, was an American politician. He was a younger brother of President John F. Kennedy and acted as one of his advisers during his presidency. From 1961 to 1964, he was the U.S. Attorney General.

Following his brother John's assassination in November 1963, Kennedy continued to serve as Attorney General under President Lyndon B. Johnson for nine months. In September 1964, Kennedy resigned to seek the U.S. Senate seat from New York, which he won in November. Within a few years, he publicly split with Johnson over the Vietnam War.

In March 1968, Kennedy began a campaign for the presidency and was the front-running candidate of the Democratic Party. In the California presidential primary on June 4, Kennedy defeated Eugene McCarthy, a fellow U.S. Senator from Minnesota. Following a brief victory speech delivered just past midnight on June 5 at The Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, Kennedy was shot. Fatally wounded, he survived for nearly 26 hours, dying early in the morning of June 6.

This is one of the few timelines in the multiverse where RFK was killed.

Throughout many timelines, however, he lived:

  • Robert Kennedy, Junior U.S. Senator from New York from 1965 to 1972 (JPK)
  • Robert Kennedy, 37th President of the United States (President Welles)
  • Robert Kennedy, Senator from Massachusetts from 1962 to 1998 (World War III-1956)
  • Robert Kennedy, 36th President of the United States (Nixon's America)

For a timeline involving Robert Kennedy surviving as its Point of Departure:

Very probably it refers to an entity that appears on several timelines.

CNN's Conspiracy Bias in the Robert F. Kennedy Assassination

Mel Ayton is a writer and author of books on the JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King Jr assassinations. In 2011 his "Dark Soul of the South: The Life and Times of Racist Killer Joseph Paul Franklin" (Potomac Books) was published. His latest book, "Justice Denied, Bermuda's Black Militants, the 'Third Man' and the Assassinations of a Police Chief and Governor" will be published late summer 2012.

Not so long ago the mainstream media dismissed far-fetched tales of conspiracy and marginalized conspiracy theorists to the outer reaches of news-land. News organizations knew that every now and then bogus "witnesses" would appear claiming to reveal low skullduggery in high places. Their stories nearly always lacked substance and corroborative proof and were rightly dismissed.

Now major news organizations appear to be leading the charge.

In 2006 the BBC’s flagship new program Newsnight ran a twelve-minute story about an Irish screenwriter’s expose of purported CIA involvement in the Robert Kennedy assassination. Despite numerous challenges from this author, it took the producers more than a year to finally produce a follow-up program that questioned Shane O’ Sullivan’s allegations.

It appears CNN are making the same type of mistake in publishing a story without verifying the true facts of the case. On April 30, 2012, CNN published a story about claims made by an RFK assassination "witness," Nina Rhodes-Hughes. The article was co-authored by Brad Johnson and Michael Martinez. The article stated that, “…a long overlooked witness to the murder is telling her story: She heard two guns firing during the 1968 shooting and authorities altered her account of the crime."

The CNN story also cited RFK assassin Sirhan Sirhan’s attorney, William Pepper, who said Rhodes-Hughes, “…actually had heard a total of twelve to fourteen shots fired”. Johnson and Martinez provided readers with additional statements from pro-conspiracy advocates who alleged more than thirteen shots were fired in the Ambassador Hotel pantry the night RFK was assassinated in Los Angeles.

Aside from the fact that Rhodes-Hughes’s story has never been "overlooked" and was recently examined in my book The Forgotten Terrorist, Johnson and Martinez have further muddied the waters by claiming “at least four other people told authorities in 1968 that they heard what could have been more than eight shots”.

Ear-witness testimony has never established a scenario in which thirteen shots were even possible. FBI files show all the pantry witnesses, with the exception of only a few, never heard more than eight shots and those few who guessed they heard further shots did not put the number beyond ten. The FBI files, furthermore, show that no one who had been in the pantry when Robert Kennedy was shot told the FBI or LAPD that anywhere near thirteen shots had been fired. Only one alleged pantry witness gave this number, Nina Rhodes-Hughes, but she never said this at the time she made her original statement in 1968. In 1968 she said she heard “eight distinct shots.” In 1992 Rhodes told conspiracy writers that she heard from ten to fourteen shots.

Rhodes-Hughes also made the allegation that the FBI had altered her 1968 statement, but the CNN reporters never questioned why the agency would alter her statement but leave intact the statements provided by a handful of other witnesses who guessed more than eight shots had been fired.

According to the FBI files most of the estimated seventy-seven witnesses in the pantry could not remember how many shots had been fired and described the gunshots in terms of "a number of shots," "a series of firecrackers," "several shots" or "a number of shots in rapid succession." However, of those witnesses amongst the seventy-seven who ventured an opinion about how many shots had been fired, all but a few put the number of shots at eight or less.

There is also a fair amount of consistency amongst many ear-witnesses as to the grouping of the shots -- first one, two or three shots then a pause followed by a rapid succession of shots. Kristi Witker said, “People were running in all directions. . . . There were two very distinct series of pop-pop-pop . . . pop-pop-pop-pop-pop. Three pops, then five - eight in all. . . . I saw the gunman standing, pointing the gun and firing.”

Bill Eppridge said he heard two shots in very rapid succession. According to the FBI report, “Eppridge at first thought these were fireworks as they had been in Chinatown, San Francisco, the day before and there were many fireworks there. There was a pause after the second shot and people were scattering. Eppridge realized that what he thought were fireworks were actually shots. He ran forward instinctively thinking he had better count the shots. He counted a total of six shots.”

The above reports indicating there were less than eight shots fired clearly outnumber the examples provided by Johnson and Martinez and it begs the question -- why would they choose to cite only a few witnesses who thought they heard more than eight shots against the host of examples above who put the number at eight or less?

In fact, two of the reporters’ four examples also do not indicate more than eight shots were fired and a third "witness" they cite has been inconsistent in his accounts of the assassination. Jesse Unruh was clearly confused when he stated, “….I don't really quite remember how many reports there were.” Unruh told the LAPD, “It sounded to me like somewhere between five and ten.” Frank Mankiewicz stated, “I probably would have said ten. But I'm sure it was less than that.” A third witness cited, Booker Griffin, told a conspiracy writer in 1987 that he had observed a second gunman. However, in his 1968 interviews with the LAPD he only said the sounds of the shooting appeared to suggest more than one gun.

Johnson and Martinez stated in their article that an audio expert, Philip Van Praag, told them he had examined a sound recording of the RFK assassination, the Pruszynski Tape, and that thirteen sounds had been electronically detected on the recording and they were "gunshots." The reporters, however, did not mention two examinations of the tape recording made by two other teams of experts. In their story Johnson and Martinez simply allow that Van Praag’s analysis, “….is not universally accepted by acoustic experts.”

Brad Johnson corresponded in 2006-2007 with me and RFK researcher Steve Barber with regard to the examination of the Pruszynski tape. Johnson was informed that two teams of experts had concluded there were no more than eight shots on the tape. The first team, based in the United States, was comprised of three people who have been recognized as audio experts -- Steve Barber, Dr. Chad Zimmerman, and Michael O’Dell. Steve Barber was nationally recognized as the person who first identified the flaws in the work of the acoustics team hired by the House Select Committee on Assassinations to investigate an audio tape of the JFK assassination. Barber’s findings led to a further examination of the JFK assassination tape by the National Academy of Sciences, a team of acoustics experts who found the HSCA team to be in error. Michael O’Dell was a technical analyst who worked with the Ramsay Panel when it examined the acoustics evidence in the JFK assassination.

Brad Johnson was also aware that the second team was made up of two employees of a British acoustics company based in York England, J.P French Associates. It is the United Kingdom’s longest established independent forensic speech and acoustics laboratory. The company prepares reports for the defense and prosecution in criminal cases on speaker identification, transcription, authentication and enhancement of recordings, acoustic investigation, and other related areas, including the analysis of recorded gun shots, and is regularly involved in some of the most important and high profile cases in the United Kingdom and around the world.

Philip Harrison led the British team comprised of himself and Professor Peter French, a colleague and lecturer in forensic speech and audio analysis at the University of York. Harrison has worked on over one thousand such cases.

Harrison analyzed the Pruszynski tape using three different methods, both independently and simultaneously. These involved (1) listening analytically to the recording via high quality headphones, (2) examining visual representations of the recording’s waveform (oscillographic displays), and (3) analyzing spectrograms (plots of sound energy across frequency over time), all using specialized computer software. Harrison’s findings were confirmed by Peter French. They found no more than eight shots were present on the recording.

Both the U.K. and U.S. teams had independently examined the tape, then Barber and Harrison consulted with each other.

Brad Johnson knew about the British and American acoustics teams yet failed to include the results of their research in his story. Furthermore, Johnson and Martinez were remiss in not informing their readers of the differences in the qualifications of the teams of "experts." Philip Van Praag is not an acoustics expert. He is an audio engineer. Acoustics and audio sciences are two totally different fields of study. In examining sounds, acoustics evidence always tops audio evidence. This is the reason the 1976-1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations hired acoustics experts and not audio engineers.

The CNN reporters also cite, without examination or criticism, a statement made by William Pepper, Sirhan’s attorney. Pepper said, “….the Senator was almost directly facing Sirhan just before he took three shots, from behind, in his back, and behind his right ear at powder burn range, making it impossible for Sirhan to have been Robert Kennedy's shooter…”

Johnson and Martinez do not provide the counter-arguments to this scenario which have been available for many years. Many of the twelve eyewitnesses who were close to RFK when he was shot did indeed state that Sirhan was anywhere from three to twelve feet away from RFK. However, as author Dan Moldea discovered in his book The Killing of Robert Kennedy, the majority of the 12 witnesses gave estimates of muzzle distance based only on the first shot and did not see Sirhan lunging at the Senator. Vincent DiPierro clearly saw Sirhan place his gun near the Senator’s head as he has often stated. “It would be impossible for there to be a second gun,” DiPierro told reporter Ron Kessler in 1974, “I saw the first shot. Kennedy fell at my feet. His blood splattered on me. I had a clear view of Kennedy and Sirhan.”

DiPierro also stated, “…Sirhan… was three feet away but the muzzle of the gun (in his outstretched arm) couldn’t be more than three to five inches away from his head.” According to DiPierro, Sirhan managed to stretch his arm around Karl Uecker who was escorting Kennedy through the pantry. Uecker was facing away from RFK when Sirhan reached around him to place the gun at RFK’s head.

DiPierro’s account is supported by other witness statements, particularly those of Boris Yaro and Juan Romero, who had been very close to RFK during the shooting. Boris Yaro stated RFK was shot at "point blank range." Romero, who had been shaking hands with RFK when the shots rang out initially said the gun was a "yard away" but in a 2003 Los Angeles Times interview he said, “(Sirhan) put out his hand to the Senator’s head. . . . Then I see the guy put a bullet in the senator’s head.…”

The statements of Yaro, Romero and DiPierro are supported by the wife of writer George Plimpton. Freddy Plimpton “….saw an arm go up towards Senator Kennedy’s head, but did not see a gun, heard shots and it was obvious to her that Senator Kennedy had been shot….She saw Sirhan very clearly. She saw his arm up toward Senator Kennedy’s head ….”

It is quite evident CNN’s sins of omission reveal the nature of their conspiracy bias and the reporting by Johnson and Martinez is clearly beneath the standards CNN purportedly uphold. The information provided above demonstrates CNN should now hold an internal investigation into why professional journalists on their staff have skewered an important historical story in the interests of sensationalism and of how they managed to do this without any apparent editorial oversight.

Why Was Robert F. Kennedy Assassinated?

The following article on Robert F. Kennedy assassinated is an excerpt from Mel Ayton’s Hunting the President: Threats, Plots, and Assassination Attempts—From FDR to Obama. It is available for order now from Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

The risk of assassination faced by Johnson diminished in his final two years as president. As opposition to the Vietnam War increased, the president eschewed public appearances apart from events at military bases and other “secure” areas. In 1968, when Johnson decided he would not run for a second elected term in office, the Secret Service breathed a collective sigh of relief that one of the most difficult presidents to guard was leaving office. However, they did not know that an assassin who went on to murder Senator Robert F. Kennedy first had Johnson in his sights. Sirhan Sirhan wrote in his diary of his “hatred” for Johnson and his desire to kill him. “Must begin work on . . . solving the problems and difficulties of assassinating the 36th president of the glorious United States . . . the so-called president of the United States must be advised of their punishments for their treasonable crimes against the state more over we believe that the glorious United States of America will eventually be felled by a blow of an assassin’s bullet. . . .”

Sirhan Sirhan, Robert F. Kennedy’s assassin, for example, was certainly motivated by political fanaticism but also by a deep desire for fame and notoriety. Singling out violent political fanatics is also problematic. Contrary to popular belief, most American assassins and would-be assassins are not motivated solely, or even primarily, by deep political convictions.

Many assassins and would-be assassins were “copycats,” obsessed with assassins from the past. Some borrowed books from libraries or visited the scenes of famous assassinations. Giuseppe Zangara kept a newspaper clipping of the Lincoln assassination in his hotel room. Lee Harvey Oswald read books about the assassination of Louisiana governor Huey Long. Sirhan Sirhan read books about Oswald and European assassinations.

This article on the issue of Robert F. Kennedy assassinated is from Mel Ayton’s Hunting the President: Threats, Plots, and Assassination Attempts—From FDR to Obama.. Please use this data for any reference citations. To order this book, please visit its online sales page at Amazon or Barnes & Noble.

You can also buy the book by clicking on the buttons to the left.

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy

On June 5, 1968, presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy was mortally wounded shortly after midnight at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. Earlier that evening, the 42-year-old junior senator from New York was declared the winner in the South Dakota and California 1968 Democratic Party presidential primaries during the 1968 United States presidential election. He was pronounced dead at 1:44 a.m. PDT on Juneن, about 26 hours after he had been shot. Α]

Following dual victories in the California and South Dakota primary elections for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, Senator Kennedy spoke to journalists and campaign workers at a live televised celebration from the stage of his headquarters at the Ambassador Hotel. Shortly after leaving the podium and exiting through a kitchen hallway, he was mortally wounded by multiple shots fired from a handgun. Kennedy died in the Good Samaritan Hospital 26 hours later. The shooter was 24-year-old Sirhan Sirhan. In 1969, Sirhan was convicted of murdering the senator and sentenced to death. His sentence was commuted to life in prison in 1972. A freelance newspaper reporter recorded the shooting on audiotape, and the aftermath was captured on film. Β]

Kennedy's remains were taken to St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York for two days of public viewing before a funeral Mass was held on June 8. His funeral train traveled from New York to Washington, D.C., and throngs of spectators lined the route to view the journey. Γ] His body was interred at night in Arlington National Cemetery near his brother John. Δ] His death prompted the United States Secret Service to protect presidential candidates. Vice President Hubert Humphrey was also a presidential candidate he went on to win the Democratic nomination but ultimately lost the election to Republican candidate Richard Nixon.

Much like his brother's assassination, Robert Kennedy's assassination has led to a number of conspiracy theories to date, no credible evidence has emerged that Sirhan was not the shooter, or that he did not act alone. Kennedy and Huey Long of Louisiana (in 1935) are the only two sitting United States Senators to be assassinated.

The Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy

“I think we can end the divisions within the United States. What I think is quite clear is that we can work together in the last analysis. In what has been going on with the United States over the period of the last three years – the divisions, the violence, the disenchantment with our society, the divisions, whether it’s between blacks and whites, between the poor and the more affluent, or between age groups, or over the war in Vietnam – that we can start to work together again. We are a great country, an unselfish country, and a compassionate country. I intend to make that my basis for running over the period of the next few months.

Even though fatally wounded, Robert F. Kennedy asks if anyone else is hurt. (The Sikh Archives)

“So my thanks to all of you, and on to Chicago, and let’s win there.” (1)

He flashed his smile that thousands fell in love with and help up his fingers in the familiar “V for victory” sign. He turned to exit the stage to the rear, jumping down through the gold curtains. The crowd surged forward, everyone anxious to have the chance to congratulate the Senator on his win and to shake his hand. The crowd caused the disbursement of the Senator’s men, including his wife, Ethel, and his bodyguard, Bill Barry. The Senator walked through the pantry doors and was greeted by a line of kitchen employees and cheering admirers. In the background, you could hear the crowd still chanting “We want Bobby! We want Bobby!”

Sirhan Bishara Sirhan walked towards the Senator from between the tray rack and the ice machine. He pulled out his pistol, cried “You son of a bitch,” raised it towards Robert F. Kennedy’s head and fired. It was 12:15 a.m., June 5, 1968. (2)

Special Unit Senator (SUS) was established on Sunday, June 9, 1968, as a unit completely detached from any other organizational branch of the Los Angeles Police Department. It’s goal was to make certain that “the investigation into the assassination would leave no questions unasked, no answers untested, no evidence unchecked, no possible conspiratorial door unopened.” (3) Special Unit Senator officially closed on July 25, 1969, after 4,818 separate interviews and interrogations a mountain of paper including the official correspondence, daily logs, section reports, case preparations and conspiracy-potential investigations 155 items of booked evidence 1,700 photographs 190 reels of tape and twenty reels of sixteen-millimeter film. SUS published its findings in a ten-volume report, keeping it confidential and released only to the Attorney General and two copies kept within the Los Angeles Police Department. The main conclusions presented were: ( 1 ) Sirhan Sirhan fired the fatal shots that killed Senator Robert F. Kennendy and wounded five others. ( 2 ) Sirhan fired those shots with the intent to kill Senator Kennedy and his act was premeditated. ( 3 ) Sirhan was not under the influence of a drug of intoxicant at the time of the shooting. ( 4 ) Sirhan was legally sane at the time of the incident. ( 5 ) There was no evidence of a conspiracy in the crime. (4)

Many people were uneasy with the findings of the Special Unit Senator, so on August 12, 1975, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors appointed Special Counsel Thomas F. Kranz to investigate independently the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. He conducted his research from January to March 1976. The conclusion Kranz came to sided with the work done by the Los Angeles Police Department and the Special Unit Senator. He stated that “there is always the remote possibility that Sirhan acted within a conspiracy, either overt or covert. But the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly against this possibility. Eyewitness testimony, ballistic and scientific evidence, and over six thousand separate interviews conducted by numerous police and intelligence agencies over the past eight years, all substantiate the fact that Sirhan acted alone.” (5)

The official diagram of Robert F. Kennedy’s gunshot wounds. (California State Archives)

X-rays performed on Robert F. Kennedy at the Good Samaritan Hospital revealed gunshot wounds to the head, neck, chest and right shoulder. Two bullet wounds were found in the right armpit region, within half an inch of each other. One exit wound was in front of the right shoulder while the other bullet entered the right shoulder and penetrated the posterior lower region of the neck. The last bullet entered Kennedy’s right mastoid, fragmenting the soft bone behind the ear and into the tissue of his brain. (6)

An autopsy was performed after his death, roughly twenty-six hours later, supervised by Dr. Thomas Noguchi, the chief medical examiner of Los Angeles County. It was determined that Kennedy died from the bullet that reached his brain through the right mastoid. (7)

DeWayne Wolfer, the Department’s ballistic expert, laid out the trajectory of the eight bullets from Sirhan’s gun as follows: ( 1 ) The first bullet entered Kennedy’s head behind the right ear. ( 2 ) The second bullet passed through the right shoulder pad of Kennedy’s coat and traveled upward, striking Paul Schrade in the center of his forehead. ( 3 ) The third bullet entered Kennedy’s right rear shoulder. ( 4 ) The fourth bullet entered Kennedy’s right rear back. It traveled upward and forward and exited in the right front chest. The bullet then passed through the ceiling tile. ( 5 ) The fifth bullet struck Ira Goldstein in the left rear buttock. ( 6 ) The sixth bullet passed through Ira Goldstein’s left pants leg and struck the cement floor and entered Irwin Stroll’s left leg. ( 7 ) The seventh bullet struck William Weisel in the left abdomen. ( 8 ) The eighth bullet struck the plaster ceiling and then struck Elizabeth Evans in the head. (8)

Infrared photograph of Senator Kennedy’s coat, showing the bullet holes and powder burns. (California State Archives)

Wolfer’s ballistic report confirms the autopsy report, except for one thing. Eyewitnesses that were in the pantry at the time of the shooting say Sirhan fired at Kennedy from the front and never got closer than two to three feet before he was grabbed. Noguchi said that all three of the bullets entered Kennedy from the rear, in a flight path from down to up, right to left. Power burns around the entry wound indicated that the fatal shot to the head was fired less than one inch from the head, and no more than two to three inches behind the right ear. This would make it impossible for Sirhan to have fired the shots that hit Kennedy. Even allowing for the slim possibility that Kennedy twisted completely around, which is contrary to witnesses’ accounts that he threw his arms in front of his face as protection before falling back onto the floor, there still remained the point-blank shot. (9)

Noguchi was never able to testify his actual findings of the autopsy in court. He later revealed that before he entered the Grand Jury room, he was approached by an unnamed Deputy District Attorney who solicited him to revise the distance from “one to three inches” to three feet. Noguchi refused to cooperate. When Noguchi took the stand, his answers were cut short, claiming that it was “not necessary to go into gory detail” about the nature and location of the various wounds. (10)

CBS news employee Donald Schulman was behind Kennedy in the pantry and had sight of Sirhan and a uniformed security guard. He told radio reporter Jeff Brandt moments after the shooting: “A Caucasian gentleman stepped out and fired three times, the security guard hit Kennedy all three times. Mr. Kennedy slumped to the floor. They carried him away. The security guard fired back. I heard about six or seven shots in succession. Is this the security guard firing back? Yes, the man who stepped out fired three times at Kennedy, hit him all three times, and the security guard fired back…hitting him.” Schulman believed the security guard was aiming for Sirhan, but accidentally hit Kennedy. Schulman was interviewed extensively by the LAPD, but no mention of him was ever put on a witness list, insisting that he was mistaken in what he saw. (11) But what if Schulman saw the man who actually killed Kennedy? Thane Cesar, a security guard by Kennedy’s elbow in the pantry, pulled out his .22 pistol to fire at Sirhan, but claimed he never fired. Cesar sold the pistol to a fellow employee, Jim Yoder, three months after the assassination. Yoder informed the LAPD about Cesar selling him the gun and around roughly the same time after talking with the police, Yoder’s house was burglarized and the gun was stolen. If Cesar was to Kennedy’s immediate right and rear, as he stated, the entry angle of the three bullets line up consistently with his position. (12)

The official diagram of the pantry at the time of the shooting. (California State Archives)

On June 20, 1968, Lieutenant Manuel Pena ordered sound-level tests to be conducted at the Ambassador. Wolfer conducted these tests with Sirhan’s gun, using the same caliber of mini-mag ammunition. Wolfer fired eight shots and found that the decibel reading registered no greater change than one-half decibel outside the pantry. (13) Late in 1970, after reading Wolfer’s findings, veteran criminalist William W. Harper obtained permission to examine the evidence bullets that were stored in the County Clerk’s office. Since the bullets could not be taken out, Harper used a portable Balliscan camera, which takes a series of photographs of a cylindrical object rotated in front of its lens. Harper focused on one bullet from the body of Kennedy and the other from Weisel. He concluded that he could not find any individual characteristics in common between the two bullets. Harper also compared the bullets to the ones Wolfer claimed to have test-fired from Sirhan’s gun. There was no match. Harpers’ findings contradicted Wolfer’s testimony that the bullets from the victims were fired from Sirhan’s gun “to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.” (14) In early August of 1971, District Attorney Joe Busch said that the bullets Harper examined was “tampered with” sometime after the close of the Sirhan trial, and that employees of the Clerk’s office allowed “unauthorized persons” access to the exhibits which resulted in “altered” and possibly even “switched” evidence. (15) The day before Harper was to appear before the Grand Jury to testify his “second gun” theory and present the evidence of the non-matching bullets, a strange event happened. As he was driving downtown to pick up his wife, he noticed a blue Buick following him. After some evasive turns, and after hitting a “deep dip” in the road, Harper heard a muffled explosion from the rear and the familiar slap of a bullet striking metal. He then proceeded to drive to another prominent criminalist, Raymond Pinker, and after examining the dent in the rear bumper, they agreed it had been caused by a slug from a high-powered gun. (16) Harper still appeared the next day and stuck to his conclusion. The DA was unwilling to produce the “altered” bullets for inspection, so the Grand Jury had no other choice than to refuse to return indictments. (17)

On September 18, 1975, the Superior Court ordered a re-examination of the firearms evidence and a seven-man panel of experts was named. Once the panel began its research, they ran into problems. For one, the LAPD could not produce the laboratory records supporting its claim that in 1968 it test-fired eight bullets from Sirhan’s gun. Secondly, Sirhan’s gun bore was heavily coated with lead, but if he allegedly fired the copper-jacketed bullets, it would have left a lead-free bore. Thirdly, they found in the SUS investigation that on June 4, 1968, Sirhan practiced rapid-shooting at the San Gabriel Valley Gun Club range, using unjacketed “wad cutter” target bullets which deposit lead in the bore. If this was the source of the leading, Sirhan could not have fired the copper-jacketed bullets, which matched the type of bullets recovered from the victims, and Wolfer could not have test-fired bullets of that type, for each of these would have cleaned out the bore. (18)

After the panel test-fired Sirhan’s gun, they found that the test bullets did not have the same microscopic indentations that appeared on the Kennedy and Weisel bullets as well as on a bullet Wolfer introduced at the trial of Sirhan as having been test-fired. The indentations also did not appear in the photographs Harper had taken in 1971. They were, however, visible on the photographs taken for Baxter Ward’s (elected county supervidor) 1974 hearing. The indentations seen could have been made with any sharp object, including the tip of a pencil. These markings coincided on each bullet to make it appear as matching marks. The tampering must have been done sometime after Harper’s examination. A clerk in the Exhibit Section of the Supreme Court stated that in July of 1971, a contingent from the District Attorney’s office, the LAPD and California Attorney General’s office visited the California Supreme Court’s offices, where the bullets were now in custody, and spent several hours alone examining the Sirhan gun and the evidence bullets. The panel found that three bullets, one each from Kennedy, Weisel and Goldstein, were sufficiently undamaged by impact to permit comparison. They determined all came from the same model gun, a .22-caliber Iver Johnson, like the one taken from Sirhan, but the model was a popular one. The panel’s report of October 6, 1975, stated: “There is no substantive or demonstrable evidence that more than one gun was used to fire any of the bullets examined.” (19)

LAPD officers Rozzi and Wright inspect a bullet hole discovered in a door frame in a kitchen corridor of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles near where Robert F. Kennedy was shot. A bullet is still in the wood. (California State Archives)

Looking back at the official LAPD ballistics report from Wolfer, the LAPD’s position was that “no bullets were found at the assassination scene” and other than the missing bullet that went through the ceiling, “there were no bullet holes on any of the doors or walls of the pantry.” Any bullets or holes observed other than the accounted eight would constitute evidence of a second gun, but the LAPD claimed Sirhan fired no more than eight bullets. Yet there is evidence to prove this wrong. Only hours after the assassination, the Associated Press showed a photograph of two LAPD officers inspecting an object embedded in a doorjamb behind the Embassy Room stage, located in a direct line from the pantry. Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi found the two officers in the photograph to be Sergeants Robert Rozzi and Charles Wright. Bugliosi visited Rozzi, who identified himself as the one holding the flashlight. Rozzi signed a statement saying that lodged in the hole was “the base of what appeared to be a small-caliber bullet.” Bugliosi then contacted Wright by phone and he declared that a bullet was in the hole and said that it was definitely removed by someone, but he was not sure who. Wright agreed to meet with Bugliosi the next day to sign a statement, but word got out and by the time he reached Wright, he said he was instructed not to give a statement and soon retreated from his original position and he wan not sure of what he saw. (20) In the spring of 1976, Bugliosi found more evidence of extra bullets from documents released by the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act. Photographs show different places in the pantry of possible and probable bullet holes. The score of bullets read:

FBI photograph – View taken inside the kitchen serving area showing doorway leading into the kitchen from the staging area. The lower right corner of the photograph shows two bullet holes, which are circled. The missing portion of the panel also reportedly contained a bullet. (California State Archives)

2 in a jamb of the swinging doors
2 in the center divider post of the swinging doors
1 in a jamb of the stage door

1 in the triangular piece of panel
1 that struck the hinge

2 removed from Kennedy
5 removed from surviving victims (21)

This makes for a total of between thirteen to fifteen bullets that were fired that night, five to seven more than the capacity of Sirhan’s gun, or for that matter, the amount accounted for by the LAPD. They tried to write off the bullet holes in the center divider as “dents caused by food carts.” (22)

It is almost an impossible task to find out if there were more than eight bullets in the pantry. The LAPD disposed of evidence shortly after Sirhan was convicted, even though his case was still under appeal. (23) Almost all of the physical evidence in the case was destroyed, including ceiling panels, the center divider between the swinging doors and the doorjamb on the left side. Curiously enough, the left sleeves of Kennedy’s coat and shirt are missing. The most mysterious of all, the LAPD scientific reports in the case were “either lost or destroyed.” These included the spectrograph report on all the victim bullets. The purpose of the spectrographic test was to determine the metallic and chemical constituency of the recovered bullet. Since the LAPD contended that all eight cartridges came from the same box of ammo, which was discovered in Sirhan’s car, the spectrograph report could not have supported their scientific case, but it could also have refuted it. (24)

But what if Sirhan never actually fired any bullets? Witnesses who saw Sirhan fire the first shot say the tongue of flame emitted from the gun’s muzzle was about six inches to more than a foot in length. Firearms experts say that a regular mini-mag load, with a bullet, gives off a tongue of only an inch or so, and that one as long as was described by witnesses is a characteristic of a slugless cartridge. If Sirhan truly was firing “blanks,” the only logical reason would be to attract the attention of the crowd while at the same time not hitting the actual killer gunman who would have been immediately behind Kennedy. (25) If this were to be proven true, then not only would this prove that there was another gunman, but it would also show that there was an additional one as well, bringing the total to three guns.

Taking just all the firearms evidence as a whole, it virtually shouts conspiracy and is reason enough to reopen the investigation. After presenting this overwhelming amount of evidence, the press asked Bugliosi if this meant Sirhan was innocent. Bugliosi replied, “No, not at all. Sirhan is as guilty as sin, and his conviction was a proper one. But just because Sirhan is guilty does not automatically exclude the possibility that more than one gun was fired at the assassination scene.” (26) Now, forty year later, the nation still does not have an answer to what truly happened that night. It is time for the American people to push for the reinvestigation into the murder of Robert F. Kennedy.

At 1:44 a.m., June 6, 1968, at the age of forty-two, Senator Robert Francis Kennedy was pronounced dead.

The words he spoke would forever be immortalized beyond his lifetime: “It measures neither our wit nor our courage neither our wisdom nor our learning neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.” (27)

Thousands of people lined the tracks from New York to Washington, D.C. to see Robert F. Kennedy’s funeral train. (NY Times)

On Saturday, June 8, millions of people watched as the funeral train carrying the body of Robert F. Kennedy made its way from New York to Washington, D.C. Thousands stood by the tracks in tribute as it passed by. The country looked on as the casket was lowered by torch light into Arlington soil, near the grave of his brother. (28) The dreams of thousands, of a better life and a better country, was shattered with his loss.

A nation’s loss was reflected in the words of his brother: “We loved him as a brother and a father and a son. From his parents, and from older brothers and sister – Joe, Kathleen and Jack – he received inspiration which he passed on to all of us. He gave us strength in time of trouble, wisdom in time of uncertainty, and sharing in time of happiness. He was always by our side.

“Love is not an easy feeling to put into words. Nor is loyalty, or trust of joy. But he was all of these. He loved life completely and lived it intensely.

“That is the way he lived. That is what he leaves us.

“My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good and 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 so many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to tough him:

‘Some men see things as they are and say why,

‘I dream things that never were and say why not.’” (29)

Senator Robert F. Kennedy (Robert F. Kennedy Biography)

(1) MacAfee, 148 (2) Houghton, 286-288 (3) Houghton, 93 (4) Houghton, 303-304 (5) Kranz, 59 (6) Houghton, 38 (7) Houghton, 81 (8) Kranz, 8 (9) Turner, 162 (10) Turner, 162-164 (11) Turner, 161-162 (12) Turner, 165-167 (13) Houghton, 118-119 (14) Turner, 159-160 (15) Turner, 168 (16) Turner, 157-158 (17) Turner, 170 (18) Turner, 172-173 (19) Turner, 173-174 (20) Turner, 178-181 (21) Turner, 186-187 (22) Turner, 182 (23) Conspiracy? (24) Turner, 179 (25) Turner, 190-191 (26) Turner, 191 (27) MacAfee, 41 (28) Houghton, 93 (29) Houghton, 90-93.


“Conspiracy? RFK Assassination.” Video by The History Channel

Houghton, Robert A. Special Unit Senator. New York, New York: Random House, 1970.

Kranz, Thomas F. Robert F. Kennedy Assassination (Summary). Federal Bureau of Investigation: Freedom of Information Act, 1977.

MacAfee, Norman. The Gospel According to RFK. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2004.

Turner, William W. and John G. Christian. The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. New York, New York: Random House, 1978.