Skip to comments.RFK assassination witness tells CNN: There was a second shooter
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 ...
all of us investigator knew RFK was shot by the security guard to his right who shot him in the back of the head....Sirhan was the diversion to give people someone top look at.....
And one day you will understand what happened to Andrew, and the coroner who figured it out
When did the American press start with the lies?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.
Sorry state they are in now, but I wonder how far back it took for the press to go sour.
I was already in my late 30s during the Carter Administration when I realized that journalism was systematically in the pocket of the Democratic Party. I am obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But after a year or two of reading the Accuracy In Media (AIM) Report, the question was no longer if that was true, but why. And I cogitated on that issue for a long time, and came up with the idea that journalism was left-oriented because journalism was entertainment, and its system for creating that entertainment was to stir up the reader with stories of how the people we rely on to provide our food, our water, whatever, could not be trusted and therefore we need the journalist to keep an eye on them for us.Fellow FReeper conservatism_IS_compassion places the time at or about when the telegraph was invented. "News" had to be condensed and edited to such a degree that one and only one "version" could be put out because of the technological constriction of the distribution method. I think his theory has merit.
I still believe that, but I also knew that journalism used to be competitive regarding ideology, and that has never been the case in living memory. I wondered about the possible effect of the high speed printing press, but I couldnt identify why that would have such a thoroughgoing effect. Then I saw the book, Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails, and instantly I knew that the telegraph was a possible culprit. I investigated by reading
by Menahem Blondheim
which is basically the story of the Associated Press. The AP traces back smack in the middle of the Nineteenth Century, which is the correct time frame. Before that, newspapers were notoriously opinionated and partisan, and you picked your poison. News Over the Wires says that when the AP came into being, the obvious concentration of propaganda power was questioned as it should have been. The AP pointed out that its member newspapers didnt agree on much of anything, so the AP itself was objective.
That argument had a seeming logic to it, except for one glaring problem:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam SmithIn that passage Adam Smith points out that it is impossible to completely isolate people of the same trade from communication with each other, but it is not in societys interest to promote such meetings. Well, guess what! The AP newswire puts all our major news organizations into constant communication with each other! De facto, the AP is a Borg. Membership in the AP means assimilation into it. There is no such thing as journalistic independence when it comes to the party line. And the party line of the AP is precisely the conceit that all journalists are objective. Now think about it: membership in an organization which says that all its members are objective is equivalent to a making the claim of your own objectivity. And claiming your own objectivity is inherently the most subjective thing you can do.
If you want to even attempt to be objective, you must be open about any and all interests and motives you have which might have a bearing on the issue you are analyzing/discussing. And claiming to actually be objective is the very opposite of that. So we can know beyond peradventure that journalists are not even trying to be objective.
So we have two effects: journalism has an entertainment imperative which requires it to emphasize bad news, which inherently means that journalism prospers from mishap/misfortune, and is therefore helped by what hurts America - and, journalism is actually a single entity with multiple fronts such as the New York Times, NBC News, et al.
So why is journalism in the pocket of the Democratic Party? The better way to look at it is that the Democratic Party is in the pocket of the journalism Borg. By choice. Because it inherently puts the APs propaganda wind at the back of the Democratic Party. The only difference between an objective journalist and a liberal or progressive politician is what hat they are wearing. As the example of George Stephanopolis exemplifies.
I went to New York City with Young Americans for Freedom to draft Barry Goldwater. I had been working under Dick Allen and found JFK to have mishandled the Cold War to a dangerous extent.
In the interim decades it's clear the world has been shaped by forces beneath the plausible denial, i.e., Oswald was an intelligence operative for CIA, FBI, ONI, and Sirhan was a hypnoprogrammed distraction.
In the case of this witness, her FBI deposition was in 1968. When she saw her testimony after alteration in 1992 she identified fifteen departures, most notably that she'd originally said there were fourteen shots not eight, and that they came from multiple directions, not the same direction.
At the time of the shooting the LAPD used Manny Pena and Hank Hernandez, officers trained by AID which was a front for CIA.
Hernandez bullied Sandy Serrano into rescinding her testimony the polkadot dress girl ran gleefully shouting, "We killed him!" Although other witnesses saw this woman shouting the same words.
The door jambs, ceiling panels and other physical evidence of additional bullets was destroyed, and of the thousands of depositions, any witness testimony of additional shooters or shots was ignored or suppressed.
The mention of photographer Scott Enyart is significant. He won his lawsuit after three decades only to find LAPD had destroyed most of his photos.
The acoustic test of the tape shows thirteen shots, eight with the signature of Sirhan's Iver Johnson, five of the H & R 922 owned by Ace Security Guard Thane Eugene Cesar.
Cesar said he'd sold the gun before that night, but that was not true. His clip-on is seen in photos by Robert Kennedy's outstretched hand.
Medical examiner Thomas Noguchi said the four shots which hit Kennedy were back-to-front, down-to-up, right-to-left, point-blank: within an inch.
Sirhan of course never occupied such a position. Witnesses pinned him and though he fired, his gun was not anywhere near the kill zone.
Sirhan did not remember his actions.
One sees the anger of a man like David Sanchez Morales. A key CIA officer at JM-WAVE, he vehemently boasted he'd taken care of the Kennedys.
I don't dispute that at all.
The danger lies in the use of intelligence for political rather than security purposes.
Recall that John Brennan was Barack Hussein Obama's first choice for Director of Central Intelligence.
And that President Obama has set out his authority to detain, or to assassinate any person on the basis of his finding.
Did the international left not even support Israel early on when it was pretty explicitly socialist?
From the very beginning the USSR banned Zionism as "reactionary." So far as I know, no distinction was ever made between left and right wing Zionism.
After World War II this line changed temporarily. Stalin wanted the British Empire destroyed and used every propaganda piece he could think of . . . including supporting Israel's anti-colonial war. With Stalin's permission, Communist Czechoslovakia sold weapons to the nascent state (though negotiations with that country had preceded the Communist coup d'etat) when no one else would. Even the US did nothing other than diplomatically recognize Israel, continuing to observe the arms embargo that was theoretically neutral but in fact favored the Arabs.
During this brief period, Stalin's minions began parroting the line and so for this brief moment the international left supported Israel, even suggesting that Israel and "anti-imperialist" Arab movements join together to throw Britain out of the Middle East.
However, in the early fifties the Communist line changed again and went right back to its original anti-Zionist position. Stalin saw "Zionists" and "cosmopolitans" everywhere, and thought they were agents of America. Anti-Semitism swept the Eastern Bloc (some writers have suggested that had Stalin not died on Purim 5713 there would have been a second Sho'ah, G-d forbid). Communist Czechoslovakia, again as Russian's client, began supplying the Arabs as it had once supplied Israel. Even the notorious "right wing" anti-Semite Francis Parker Yockey became pro-Communist, convinced that the reds were an ally in the war against Jewry. (As an aside, it is interesting to note that Israel's socialist Prime Minister David Ben Gurion actually offered to send troops to fight the Communists in Korea but was rebuffed.)
However, the reds maintained diplomatic relations with Israel in 1967 (as mentioned earlier, Castro continued to maintain relations until the 1973 war). Since that time at the latest the international Communist left has been 100% against Israel, always mentioning it in the same breath as Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa. I myself used to listen to short wave broadcasts in the Seventies and I had no idea whatsoever that any right wingers had ever been hostile to the Jewish state because I thought only Communists had ever opposed it.
However (and this is where things get hazy), while the international Communist left was hostile to Israel, the international socialist and social democratic left was pro-Israel (Israel's ruling Labor Party was a member of the Socialist International). This is needless to say a very strange situation.
But American domestic politics was completely unhinged from reality. Other than Biblical Fundamentalists the right was almost solidly anti-Israel (and not just the kooks) while almost the entire domestic left claimed an absolute monopoly on pro-Israel sentiment. And if the official Communist organizations toed the Soviet line in name, in fact they were very quiet about it. Though there were always exceptions to the "pro-Israel" consensus of the American left (Maoists, Trotskyists, Black nationalists).
This is what I gather from reading about this topic for many years. I apologize for my lack of documentation but hope this will help to at least begin to answer your question.
The Communists in Poland in 1968 used Anti-Zionism as an excuse to kick out most of the remaining Jews in Poland.
Regardless of what one thinks of the Kennedy’s..they clearly got in the way of what was to become GHWB’s New World Order....
So I have heard.
Thanks ZC — great info and well put.
“The danger lies in the use of intelligence for political rather than security purposes.”
You are absolutely right, and your Obama graphic speaks volumes.
“Recall that John Brennan was Barack Hussein Obama’s first choice for Director of Central Intelligence.
And that President Obama has set out his authority to detain, or to assassinate any person on the basis of his finding.”
Not a conspiracy theory...actually happened.