Sirhan Sirhan may be released tomorrow

[Charles Collins]

It’s not part of Sirhan’s legal defense. His attorneys are arguing that he should be released because he’s no longer a threat to society.

I’ve raised the conspiracy stuff to give context to why some friends and family members of RFK support parole for Sirhan (aside from the fact that they accept that Sirhan is remorseful for whatever role he played).

As I noted earlier, the Medical Examiner who conducted RFK’s autopsy concluded that Sirhan likely didn’t kill RFK:

Noguchi found that four shots had been fired at Kennedy from at most three inches away. Three shots appeared to be in contact with Kennedy’s back and shoulder, based on powder burns to his jacket, Noguchi said, with one shot passing through the jacket’s shoulder pad and not touching Kennedy. All three were fired sharply upward. The fourth shot was fired into the back of Kennedy’s head from three inches away, Noguchi concluded, by test-firing a similar gun to determine how much gunpowder sprayed at various distances.

“Thus I have never said,” Noguchi wrote in his autobiography, “that Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/06/05/did-l-a-police-and-prosecutors-bungle-the-bobby-kennedy-assassination/

What some friends and family might believe might have happened isn’t relevant. If the medical examiner had evidence that indicates his conclusion is correct, why hasn’t that evidence been presented as grounds for a new trial? There has been ample time for such an appeal.

[Jon Banks]

What some friends and family might believe might have happened isn’t relevant. If the medical examiner had evidence that indicates his conclusion is correct, why hasn’t that evidence been presented as grounds for a new trial? There has been ample time for such an appeal.

Kamala Harris denied a new trial for Sirhan years ago before she became a Senator.

You're asking why CA officials won't reopen a case that implicates themselves in a coverup of Bobby Kennedy's assassination?

What's the innocent explanation for destroying key evidence? And why would they discuss these matters if they don't have to?


• Prosecutors withheld the autopsy report from Sirhan’s defense lawyers until six weeks into the trial, showing that Kennedy had been shot at point-blank range from behind. Five other people in the hotel pantry standing behind Kennedy, including Schrade, were hit by bullets fired from in front of them.

• Police officers and FBI agents identified apparent bullet holes in two door frames of the pantry, indicating more than eight shots were fired. But no evidence of those holes was presented at trial, and the Los Angeles police destroyed the door frames shortly after the trial.

• The lead crime-scene investigator testified at trial that bullets from the wounded victims matched a bullet from Kennedy, but presented no photos or evidence to support that. When two ballistics experts examined the bullets after the trial, they found the bullets didn’t match. Subsequent investigations couldn’t match any of the bullets to Sirhan’s gun. The crime-scene investigator was subsequently criticized even by prosecutors for sloppy work in the case, by a judge for seeming perjury in another high-profile murder, and later suspended by his own police chief.

• Los Angeles police bullied or ignored witnesses whose stories did not match the lone gunman scenario, records show, particularly people who claimed they saw Sirhan with a dark-haired woman in a white polka-dot dress. Then at trial, prosecutors brought in a blonde-haired woman with a green polka-dot dress and claimed she was the mysterious woman in question. Sirhan’s lawyers, focusing on a mental health defense, did not challenge that, either.

https://aarclibrary.org/did-l-a-police-and-prosecutors-bungle-the-bobby-kennedy-assassination-probe/

[Charles Collins]

Kamala Harris denied a new trial for Sirhan years ago before she became a Senator.

You're asking why CA officials won't reopen a case that implicates themselves in a coverup of Bobby Kennedy's assassination?

What's the innocent explanation for destroying key evidence? And why would they discuss these matters if they don't have to?


• Prosecutors withheld the autopsy report from Sirhan’s defense lawyers until six weeks into the trial, showing that Kennedy had been shot at point-blank range from behind. Five other people in the hotel pantry standing behind Kennedy, including Schrade, were hit by bullets fired from in front of them.

• Police officers and FBI agents identified apparent bullet holes in two door frames of the pantry, indicating more than eight shots were fired. But no evidence of those holes was presented at trial, and the Los Angeles police destroyed the door frames shortly after the trial.

• The lead crime-scene investigator testified at trial that bullets from the wounded victims matched a bullet from Kennedy, but presented no photos or evidence to support that. When two ballistics experts examined the bullets after the trial, they found the bullets didn’t match. Subsequent investigations couldn’t match any of the bullets to Sirhan’s gun. The crime-scene investigator was subsequently criticized even by prosecutors for sloppy work in the case, by a judge for seeming perjury in another high-profile murder, and later suspended by his own police chief.

• Los Angeles police bullied or ignored witnesses whose stories did not match the lone gunman scenario, records show, particularly people who claimed they saw Sirhan with a dark-haired woman in a white polka-dot dress. Then at trial, prosecutors brought in a blonde-haired woman with a green polka-dot dress and claimed she was the mysterious woman in question. Sirhan’s lawyers, focusing on a mental health defense, did not challenge that, either.

https://aarclibrary.org/did-l-a-police-and-prosecutors-bungle-the-bobby-kennedy-assassination-probe/

If any of the innuendos had any credible evidence to support them, an appeal to higher courts for a new trial would have been made by now. The original defense lawyers were right. An argument for a conspiracy wouldn’t have helped Sirhan.

[Jon Banks]

If any of the innuendos had any credible evidence to support them, an appeal to higher courts for a new trial would have been made by now. The original defense lawyers were right. An argument for a conspiracy wouldn’t have helped Sirhan.

Again, a new trial based on the conspiratorial evidence that has surfaced since Sirhan's 1969 trial was denied in 2012:

"Sirhan, the sole person convicted of killing Kennedy, is seeking a new trial or freedom from his life sentence based on “formidable evidence” asserting his innocence and “horrendous violations” of his rights, defense attorneys said in federal court papers filed last year.

Harris, who is asking a federal court in Los Angeles to dismiss Sirhan’s request, conceded in court papers filed Wednesday that his lawyers may be able to show two guns were involved in Kennedy’s assassination. Kennedy was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination when he was killed.

But even if Sirhan’s lawyers can show 13 shots were fired in the Kennedy shooting, Sirhan shouldn’t be released from prison, Harris said.

“The mere possibility that more than one firearm was discharged during the assassination does not dismantle the prosecution’s case” against Sirhan, the attorney general said in the latest court documents.

Harris said Sirhan is relying on acoustic expert Philip Van Praag’s analysis of a tape recording of the Kennedy shooting that concludes 13 shots were fired during the murder and “demonstrates the existence of a second shooter because (Sirhan) only fired eight shots.”

The attorney general argues that even if there were a second gunman involved in the Kennedy shooting, Sirhan hasn’t proven his innocence."

https://www.cnn.com/2012/02/04/justice/california-sirhan-rfk/index.html

So Kamala Harris pretty much agreed with Sirhan's original lawyers who in 1969 concluded that the conspiracy evidence wouldn't have gotten him off the hook legally.

There's no way to prove that Sirhan was under hypnosis at the time of RFK's assassination so that theory doesn't help at all. The second-shooter argument is very plausible but not enough to exonerate Sirhan. 


Since the last attempt at a new trial, his lawyers have focused their efforts on Parole.

[Charles Collins]

Again, a new trial based on the conspiratorial evidence that has surfaced since Sirhan's 1969 trial was denied in 2012:

"Sirhan, the sole person convicted of killing Kennedy, is seeking a new trial or freedom from his life sentence based on “formidable evidence” asserting his innocence and “horrendous violations” of his rights, defense attorneys said in federal court papers filed last year.

Harris, who is asking a federal court in Los Angeles to dismiss Sirhan’s request, conceded in court papers filed Wednesday that his lawyers may be able to show two guns were involved in Kennedy’s assassination. Kennedy was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination when he was killed.

But even if Sirhan’s lawyers can show 13 shots were fired in the Kennedy shooting, Sirhan shouldn’t be released from prison, Harris said.

“The mere possibility that more than one firearm was discharged during the assassination does not dismantle the prosecution’s case” against Sirhan, the attorney general said in the latest court documents.

Harris said Sirhan is relying on acoustic expert Philip Van Praag’s analysis of a tape recording of the Kennedy shooting that concludes 13 shots were fired during the murder and “demonstrates the existence of a second shooter because (Sirhan) only fired eight shots.”

The attorney general argues that even if there were a second gunman involved in the Kennedy shooting, Sirhan hasn’t proven his innocence."

https://www.cnn.com/2012/02/04/justice/california-sirhan-rfk/index.html

So Kamala Harris pretty much agreed with Sirhan's original lawyers who in 1969 concluded that the conspiracy evidence wouldn't have gotten him off the hook legally.

There's no way to prove that Sirhan was under hypnosis at the time of RFK's assassination so that theory doesn't help at all. The second-shooter argument is very plausible but not enough to exonerate Sirhan. 


Since the last attempt at a new trial, his lawyers have focused their efforts on Parole.

Conceded what? That:

“his lawyers MAY be able to show two guns were involved”

That’s not really conceding anything!


“ The mere POSSIBILITY that…”

No concession there either!

“ the attorney general argues that EVEN IF there…”

or there!

All your post shows is that my point is correct.

[Jon Banks]

Conceded what? That:

“his lawyers MAY be able to show two guns were involved”

That’s not really conceding anything!


“ The mere POSSIBILITY that…”

No concession there either!

“ the attorney general argues that EVEN IF there…”

or there!

All your post shows is that my point is correct.

She conceded that there “may” have been a conspiracy. That’s kind of a big deal.

Not even Harris is as dismissive of the second shooter evidence as you and Richard are. Her argument was that there’s no point in having a new trial because Sirhan would still be guilty even if there was a conspiracy.

[Mitch Todd]

Again, a new trial based on the conspiratorial evidence that has surfaced since Sirhan's 1969 trial was denied in 2012:

"Sirhan, the sole person convicted of killing Kennedy, is seeking a new trial or freedom from his life sentence based on “formidable evidence” asserting his innocence and “horrendous violations” of his rights, defense attorneys said in federal court papers filed last year.

Harris, who is asking a federal court in Los Angeles to dismiss Sirhan’s request, conceded in court papers filed Wednesday that his lawyers may be able to show two guns were involved in Kennedy’s assassination. Kennedy was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination when he was killed.

But even if Sirhan’s lawyers can show 13 shots were fired in the Kennedy shooting, Sirhan shouldn’t be released from prison, Harris said.

“The mere possibility that more than one firearm was discharged during the assassination does not dismantle the prosecution’s case” against Sirhan, the attorney general said in the latest court documents.

Harris said Sirhan is relying on acoustic expert Philip Van Praag’s analysis of a tape recording of the Kennedy shooting that concludes 13 shots were fired during the murder and “demonstrates the existence of a second shooter because (Sirhan) only fired eight shots.”

The attorney general argues that even if there were a second gunman involved in the Kennedy shooting, Sirhan hasn’t proven his innocence."

https://www.cnn.com/2012/02/04/justice/california-sirhan-rfk/index.html

So Kamala Harris pretty much agreed with Sirhan's original lawyers who in 1969 concluded that the conspiracy evidence wouldn't have gotten him off the hook legally.

There's no way to prove that Sirhan was under hypnosis at the time of RFK's assassination so that theory doesn't help at all. The second-shooter argument is very plausible but not enough to exonerate Sirhan. 


Since the last attempt at a new trial, his lawyers have focused their efforts on Parole.

You misunderstand Harris' argument. She isn't conceding anything. She says that the existence of a second gunman, had there been one, would still not itself exonerate Sirhan. It's an 'even if we assume for the sake of argument....' thing. As the CNN article quoted her:

"Harris said that even if it could be proven 'that a second gunman successfully shot Senator Kennedy, (Sirhan) would still be guilty of the charged crimes.'"

[Charles Collins]

She conceded that there “may” have been a conspiracy. That’s kind of a big deal.

Not even Harris is as dismissive of the second shooter evidence as you and Richard are. Her argument was that there’s no point in having a new trial because Sirhan would still be guilty even if there was a conspiracy.

She conceded that there “may” have been a conspiracy. That’s kind of a big deal.

I don’t believe that she conceded anything. Where did you get the sentence that contains the word conceded? From a conspiracy book? Was it Harris’ word? If it was from a conspiracy book or news article the author chose to use the word conceded. And in that case it was, in my opinion, purposely chosen to be a misleading word. That is how those folks sell their works, playing on the emotions of the suseptable and trying to be sensational. So that is my opinion of your “big deal”.