As with the other political assassinations of the 1960’s, there are a number of reasons why the murder of Robert Kennedy – and the conspiracy associated with it – are still relevant.  In this interview we begin by exploring those reasons and then move on to more specific subjects.  The first interview dealt with the indications of conspiracy, and the premise that Sirhan Sirhan was associated with other parties, and other shooters. In part 2 we begin with the fact that the attack at the Ambassador followed the stalking of RFK, and very possibly other attempts to kill him. However all indications are that the individuals involved were anything but experienced assassins, no more than Sirhan himself.  We proceed with that line of thought, discussing points of leverage over Sirhan and the question of his own knowledge – both before and during the shooting.  Finally we circle back to the polka dot dress girl, and the importance of her identification in confirming the motives behind the conspiracy. We do have a third RFK interview scheduled at the end of June, in it we will examine the question of motive and the possibility that both the LAPD and the FBI actually were on the trail of key suspects, at least for a time.

 

http://www.blackkatenterprises.com/archives/Ochelli-Effect-32k-060916.mp3

 

 

Advertisements

About Larry Hancock

Larry Hancock is a leading historian-researcher in the JFK assassination. Co-author with Connie Kritzberg of November Patriots and author of the 2003 research analysis publication titled also Someone Would Have Talked. In addition, Hancock has published several document collections addressing the 112th Army Intelligence Group, John Martino, and Richard Case Nagell. In 2000, Hancock received the prestigious Mary Ferrell New Frontier Award for the contribution of new evidence in the Kennedy assassination case. In 2001, he was also awarded the Mary Ferrell Legacy Award for his contributions of documents released under the JFK Act.

2 responses »

  1. roadryder says:

    I find the assessment that the assassins were inexperienced, Masnon-family style killers to be a bit naive. First of all, neither Sirhan nor the girl in the polka-dot dress were the actual assassins. They were merely props and their rookie mistakes provided a convenient cover for the the real professional killers that did in RFK. In fact, the actions of the girl (proclaiming “We killed him” in front of witnesses) could well be those of some one manipulated by experienced black operators into playing a role – just like Sirhan did. Or it could be that the real perps behind the assassination found that the girl and Sirhan naturally behaved in such amateurish ways and though them useful, controllable fools for covering their own involvement.

    • If you look strictly at the shooting in the pantry at the Ambassador I can follow that reasoning – although why even introduce such ploys if you have Sirhan willingly or under control enough to be the highly visible shooter and to offer nothing in his own defense. Given that, it just adds complexity to what is a simply act of a single shooter – which prosecutions love. Apart from that though, there was a much longer association between the individuals and Sirhan including not just witnesses for several hours before the shooting but a number of other incidents including that at Robbies restaurant which has all the appearances of an actual attempted shooting…and which involved the two people going behind the security guard and climbing up a banister to gain access to the meeting room – not all that professional since they were in view of the security guard who had turned them away. My comments on their lack of experience are based in having a visible association with Sirhan, or someone who was enough like him to be a brother, extending over some weeks of association before the actual shooting. That even includes other people apparently involved in the purchase of the ammunition Sirhan bought. If your plan is to have Sirhan as a Lone Nut, then there were just far too many witnesses to other people being involved with him when there was no real need and that suggests inexperience to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s