Posted on 04/30/2012 8:54:52 AM PDT by raulgomez05
As a federal court prepares to rule on a challenge to Sirhan Sirhan's conviction in the Robert F. Kennedy assassination, 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.
Nina Rhodes-Hughes wants the world to know that, despite what history says, Sirhan was not the only gunman firing shots when Kennedy was murdered a few feet away from her at a Los Angeles hotel.
"What has to come out is that there was another shooter to my right," Rhodes-Hughes said in an exclusive interview with CNN. "The truth has got to be told. No more cover-ups."
Her voice at times becoming emotional, Rhodes-Hughes described for CNN various details of the assassination, her long frustration with the official reporting of her account and her reasons for speaking out: "I think to assist me in healing -- although you're never 100% healed from that. But more important to bring justice."
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
Yes, I should have mentioned the Ben Bradlee connection.
All this took place back when the MSM allegedly was “honest,” and didn’t cover for the Democrats like they do today for Obama - or so some believe.
/sarc
The point is, the MSM has ALWAYS been in the tank for the Marxists/Bolsheviks/Democrats but we never had any alternative news-gathering/news-distribution systems like we have nowadays with the internet.
“A quick google search shows Sirhan was a Palestinian Christian.”
Hmmm. Apparently not a very good Christian at that moment in time and certainly not in a state of grace either.
Sirhan used a US made Iver Johnson Cadet 8 shot .22 cal revolver.
One web site claims it was made in Europe and was responsible for the 1968 Gun control law. I do not believe this unless I see an actual revolver with Made in Germany on it.
IJ continued to make these revolvers for years.
How about ties to the mafia? If so, that would likely explain alot.
Umm.... where the hell has she been the last forty-two years?
It's hard to believe now, but once upon a time in America the Left was pro-Israel and the Right was anti-Israel (though the Right on this issue most assuredly did not represent their Biblical Fundamentalist contingent). While pro-Israel liberals now cry like babies at the idea that conservatives are more pro-Israel than they are, the liberals of that era actually denied the right or claim of any conservative to support Israel. They claimed it as an absolute monopoly. No conservatives need apply. And unfortunately, not a lot of conservatives were applying.
Internationally, the Left had long rejected its very brief support of Zionism (in the late 1940's when they were looking for anything to hit the "British Empire" with), but in America the Left rallied around Israel and claimed it as their own. Israel, they claimed, was an island of liberalism and progressivism in a sea of Arab reaction. They even opposed the PLO, even as they supported the PLO's comrades in every corner of the globe (just as conservatives who opposed the PLO's comrades couldn't quite bring themselves to condemn the PLO).
Liberals like to remember that Fidel Castro refused to break off diplomatic relations with Israel in 1967 when the rest of the Communist bloc did. What they forget is that Castro did break diplomatic relations with Israel after the 1973 war and did a complete about-face without a single thought. Liberals also don't like to remember that as early as 1966--one year before the Six Day War provoked Communist condemnation of Israel--the "pro-Israel" Castro was hosting Yasser Arafat and other "palestinian" terrorists at the Tri-Continental Conference for Peace.
I have on several occasions in the past also pointed out that in 1982, when the Right Wing government of Menachem Begin sent the IDF into Lebanon to clear out the PLO, American ultra-leftists Jane Fonda and then husband Tom Hayden actually went to Lebanon to defend Israel's actions and entertain Israeli troops. They pointed out (quite correctly, as it was) that Israel was being attacked directly from Lebanon while North Vietnam and the Vietcong were not attacking American territory. However--they were being perfectly consistent with the then domestic American Leftist line that Israel was "the Cuba of the Middle East" (even under Begin) and that supporting North Vietnam and Israel was perfectly consistent (despite the fact that North Vietnam itself was vehemently anti-Israel and pro-Arab).
Now Jane Fonda has suddenly fallen in love with the "reactionary" Arabs and is assailing the former "Cuba of the Middle East." What happened?
The answer is very simple. The "line" changed. Unlike those of us on the Right, current fashion means everything to the Left. The fact that contemporary liberals can now not even remember ever having supported Israel to begin with merely illustrates this fact. When Israel was "cool," they were pro-Israel. When Israel became "un-cool" they did a complete about face without the slightest qualm because they apparently don't have any internal beliefs on anything; they merely seek to be "fashionable." How else to explain the Israeli Labour Party's going from hawkish David Ben Gurion and Golda Meir to its current self-hating "our country was a mistake" line?
Those of us on the Right who supported Israel back then didn't allow ourselves to be bullied by the predominant anti-Israel consensus on our side of the spectrum. And I highly suspect that those on the Right who remain anti-Israel also don't give a fig for current consensus. That is because whether people on the Right support or oppose Israel, they do so for deeply-held principals that cannot be compromised. Not so the Left.
To show you how far the domestic Left (again, as opposed to the International Left, which was always anti-Israel) has changed, even the alleged "pro-Israel" remarks of Martin Luther King Jr. are now being attacked because he was unfamiliar with the subject and didn't know what he was talking about. Martin, meet your replacement: the King of Saudi Arabia.
How long before RFK is either disowned for being pro-Israel or his pro-Israel position erased from history?
He was also, like an amazing number of "palestianian chrstians," a Communist.
Google Thane Eugene Cesar for the name and accounts of the actions of RFK’s security guard.
Also look into the coroner’s report, where Thomas Noguchi places Sirhan continually in front of RFK and unable to deliver the fatal bullet which was shot from behind.
The more important questions concern how Sirhan happened to get to a position where he could shoot RFK. Sirhan was not a criminal genius, so if you focus on who helped him to be in the right place at the right time then you are in a better position to conclude that he couldn’t have been acting alone.
* for later
Not to mention the 9-13 bullets that were fired and the six separate people who were shot.
I have always believed that Johnson was complicit in the JFK killing. He hated the Kennedy brothers because they thought he was a country rube and rubbed his nose in it. Lady Bird, naive as she was, when telling of waiting on Air Force One at Love Field in Dallas, was quoted as saying, “Lyndon was so upset that he wanted to know if Bobby should be called to quote the precise swearing-in verbage.”
I thing LBJ really wanted to call Bobby to say, “Ha, ha.”
"rhythm in my head". What do you make of that?
Most shooters in DGUs are unaware of the precise number of rounds fired. In many cases the gun is shot empty. (A citizen coming to the aid of an attempted assassination of the P.O. here in Phoenix in the mid nighties, emptied, then reloaded his Glock 32 in 357Sig. He fired two 13-round magazines, before he realized it. Of course he knew how many rounds he fired FROM the number of empty magazines. He wasn't counting.)
I find it hard to believe someone can count 12-14 shots by "keeping the rhythm in one's head". In Hollywood gun fights on TV, shooters seldom reload, but manage to put many more rounds down range than what is physically possible. Do viewers even know?
In a closed room can one really tell the origin of gun fire based upon sound?
What I was looking for in the article was whether Rhodes-Huges had any familiarity with weapons. Didn't see it.
Sirhan is a Christian Arab who was born in Jerusalem and who strongly opposed Israel. In 1989, he told David Frost “My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel and his deliberate attempt to send those 50 bombers to Israel to obviously do harm to the Palestinians”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan
Marilyn Monroe's BFF said MM’s diary was missing, too.
Oh, what capers these guys get into..../s
“how Sirhan happened to get to a position where he could shoot RFK”
He looked like a busboy to the Kennedy’s.
One of my relatives lived in Virginia and worked in DC. He said it was common knowledge - that EVERYONE knew about JFK and Marilyn Monroe.
He knew it, his friends knew it, the PRESS absolutely knew it.
When did the American press start with the lies?
Sorry state they are in now, but I wonder how far back it took for the press to go sour.
In the confusion of the moment, I doubt anyone could accurately remember how many shots they heard - only that they heard a bunch. Is there news reel footage of this? Surely, someone has tried to determine the number of shots from the tape.
Wow...thanks for the lesson!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.