Jump to content

Evidence mounting of 2nd gunman in RFK assassination


Recommended Posts

Nina Rhodes-Hughes insists Sirhan was not the only gunman firing shots when Sen. Kennedy was murdered only a few feet away from her at a Los Angeles hotel. She says there were two guns firing from separate positions and that authorities altered her account of the crime.

 

In his analysis of the Pruszynski recording, Philip Van Praag found that some of the 13 shot sounds he located in the tape were fired too rapidly, at intervals too close together, for all of the shots fired in the pantry to have come from Sirhan's Iver Johnson revolver alone.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/08/justice/california-rfk-second-gun/index.html?c=&page=1

 

If its proven there was poor investigate work or worse a cover up here, this will reignite interest in the JFK assassination, the official account of which still seems suspicious to me given the magic bullet and Oswald being rubbed out by an organized crime figure before he could talk.

Edited by Joe_the_6_pack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had same thought but how come none of the experts raised it? Maybe they think the sounds are distinctive enough.

 

Some more food for thought: they say sirhan emptied his entire 8 round clip. 6 people were struck, RFK 3x, a 4th passing thru his jacket. That means the 5 bullets not striking him all struck one person each, including the one passed thru his jacket. Just seems a little odd.

 

Another question: didn't they perform analysis on the bullets to determine if they came from the same gun?

Edited by Joe_the_6_pack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the greatest tragedy of these is that with the real events not being known by all, we as a people are not able to learn lessons from them in terms of societal issues, makes changes and improvements that we be a better people. We as nation robbed in this way.

It all well and wonderful to obsess about the villains, it be a obvious essential they do be identified, but of greater value, it resolved as to how they came to be in the first place. The making and finding of villains, beating on them in some fashion as old as the hills and a device of those not wishing or having the courage or where with all to be circumspect and do better. imo

Edited by millbank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't grant a retrial. He was there and shot at Kennedy whether there was a second shooter or not. The dude was there shooting at Kennedy and presumably killed Kennedy. If there was a second shooter, are they going to catch him at this point even if he is alive? Why wouldn't SirHan name the second shooter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts:

 

- Even in the chaotic scene, how is it more people didn't see or hear another gunman? Including many press.

- Why didn't Sirhan even entertain the possibility of another gunman?

- Analysis of the each bullet should have put this to rest.

- People are prone to conspiracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How on earth would the bullets have not been analyzed? If there were a second gunman, we would assume he or she was in cahoots with Sirhan, and we haven't heard any such allegations from him. There's the "girl in the polka dot dress" the "CIA connection" and all that. I'm not buying a conspiracy on either RFK or JFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't grant a retrial. He was there and shot at Kennedy whether there was a second shooter or not. The dude was there shooting at Kennedy and presumably killed Kennedy. If there was a second shooter, are they going to catch him at this point even if he is alive? Why wouldn't SirHan name the second shooter?

Would be nice if defense was more clear on this. Are they making the fantastical claim the 2nd shooter was there by coincidence. Or it was security and in the chaos they fired the fatal shots? For his part, Sirhan has been inconsistent and downright incoherent at times, behavior that could be covering for someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't grant a retrial. He was there and shot at Kennedy whether there was a second shooter or not. The dude was there shooting at Kennedy and presumably killed Kennedy. If there was a second shooter, are they going to catch him at this point even if he is alive? Why wouldn't SirHan name the second shooter?

Even if the other guy was the one that connected it's still accomplice liability which is just as severe as if he were the primary actor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...