dirt on white house
Loved Ones…today the TV spewed it contents out like a squashed bug…messy stuff about

“why should the prez g.w…wasn’t upset about big dicks chief of staff…and his treasonous acts…placing all Americans at risk of wmd by outing one of the few expert deep cover wmd agents…brave American real hero helping protect you and me…and our children… Why g.w. ?

Why Was our president not righteously angry…outing a cia agent?….

putting the message out to all cia deep cover agents they too can be exposed/neutralized/have murdered….

if they dare inhibit the republican organization and its contractors…

Loved ones read these words directly from the White House home page….
10/31/05 2:43 P.M. EST
MR. MCCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everyone. I want to update you on the President's schedule, first of all. The President is meeting right about now with Burmese activist Charm Tong, a 23-year-old woman who has dedicated her life to helping those who suffer under the military rule in Rangoon, and to exposing the regime's abuses, particularly against women. The President is pleased to welcome such a courageous and compassionate woman to the White House, and I know he's been looking forward to that meeting since it was scheduled earlier this morning.
Q Spelling?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q The spelling?
MR. McCLELLAN: Charm, just like it sounds. And then Tong, T-o-n-g.
The President was pleased to announce Judge Alito to be his nominee to our nation's highest court. Judge Alito has a distinguished record of service. He is one of the nation's most respected and accomplished judges.
Judge Alito has extensive experience. He served 15 years on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. He has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the past 70 years. He has served 29 years as a public servant, including as a U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. He was unanimously confirmed to that position. He has served as an Assistant Solicitor General at the Department of Justice, where he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court and dozens more before the federal court of appeals.
He is someone who has provided constitutional advice to the President and executive branch as an attorney in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. And early in his career he served as a federal prosecutor, where he tried criminal and civil cases. He is someone who has a judicial philosophy that is based on strictly interpreting our Constitution and our laws, and not legislating from the bench. He has a deep commitment to the rule of law.
People have described him as someone who is thoughtful and fair-minded. He is someone who looks at the merits carefully and then applies the law. Judge Alito also understands that the proper role of the judicial branch is limited. The Supreme Court has a vital, but limited, role to play in our constitutional system. The President urges the Senate to move forward in a prompt manner to give him an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate. We believe this can be done by the end of the year, given his extensive public record and his 15 years on the bench for the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
And with that, I'll be glad to go to your questions.

Q Some Democrats say that the President should apologize for the role of some administration officials in the unmasking of the name of a CIA undercover operative. What's the White House reaction to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, there is a legal proceeding that continues right now, and under our legal system, there is a presumption of innocence. We need to let that legal process continue. If people want to try and politicize this process, that's their business.

Q Well, I think that the role of some administration officials in this, in the leaking of the person's name has been established.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you're presuming things in that question, and I don't think while this investigation and this legal proceeding is ongoing, that we should make such presumptions. We should let that process continue.

Q Another part of that is, some of the same Democrats are saying that the President should fire Karl Rove. What's your reaction to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there is an ongoing investigation; we need to let that investigation continue. We need to let the legal process work. As I indicated to you all on Friday, our Counsel's Office has directed us not to discuss this matter while it continues, and that means me not responding to questions about it from this podium. This is a process that we need to let continue. There is, as I said, a presumption of innocence in our legal system, and we don't want to do anything from here that could prejudice the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial trial. I think that's the basis of our legal system.
And in terms of comments that people are making, again, I think they're presuming things and trying to politicize the process. But that's their business. We're going to let the legal process work.
Q Let me just follow up on an aspect of this and try it again here. On October 7, 2003, you were asked about a couple of the key players here, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, as well as another administration official who has not figured in the investigation, so far as we know. And you said the following, "There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made, and that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals," including Rove and Libby. "They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved." You were wrong then, weren't you?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, it's not a question of whether or not I'd like to talk more about this. I think I've indicated to you all that I'd be glad to talk about this once this process is complete, and I look forward to that opportunity. But, again, we have been directed by the White House Counsel's Office not to discuss this matter or respond to questions about it.

Q That was a public representation that was made to the American people.
MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. We can have this conversation, but let me respond.
Q No, no, no, because it's such an artful dodge. Whether there's a question of legality --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree with you.
Q Whether there's a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations.
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's accurate.
Q So aside from the question of legality here, you were wrong, weren't you?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, if I were to get into commenting from this podium while this legal proceeding continues, I might be prejudicing the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial trial. And I'm just not going to do that. I know very --
Q You speak for the President. Your credibility and his credibility is not on criminal trial. But it may very well be on trial with the American public, don't you agree?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm very confident in the relationship that we have in this room, and the trust that has been established between us. This relationship --
Q See those cameras? It's not about us. It's about what the American people --
MR. McCLELLAN: This relationship is built on trust, and you know very well that I have worked hard to earn the trust of the people in this room, and I think I've earned it --
Q Is the President -- let me just follow up on one more thing.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and I think I've earned it with the American people.
Q Does the President think that Karl Rove did anything wrong?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think it would be good for you to allow me the opportunity to respond to your questions without jumping in. I'm glad to do that. I look forward to the opportunity --
Q I haven't heard a response.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, I have been responding to you, David, and there's no need -- you're a good reporter, there's no need to be rude or disrespectful. We can have a conversation and respond to these questions, if you'll just give me the opportunity to respond. I'm glad to do that.
We need to let this legal process continue. The special counsel indicated the other day that it is ongoing. And that's what we're going to do from this White House. That's the policy that we have set for quite some time now.
Q In the year 2000, the President said the following: "In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal, but what is right; not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves." Doesn't the American public deserve some answers from this President about the role of his Vice President in this story and what he knew and when he knew it, and how he feels about the conduct of his administration?
MR. McCLELLAN: The American people deserve a White House that is committed to doing their work. We are focused on the priorities of the American people. As the President indicated Friday, we've got a job to do, and we're going to do it. We're going to continue to focus on our efforts to protect the American people and to spread prosperity here at home. We're going to move forward on the Supreme Court nomination. ….
Loved ones…the media plays its part in this snow job…. where the media broadcast snowflakes are spotted with little red flecks of blood…blood of innocent babies and children…Iraqi children. And their mums and dads…the blood of an estimated 30 thousand civilians killed by American troops in the last 3 years…because of a lie…by g.w…his “smoking gun mushroom cloud”…. lie…on suggestion by his immediate handler Carl Rove…under agreement with the big dick & don and circus….
- posted by Samuel Bell @ 5:53 PM 0 comments

 
read first
Preface to the following Bloggs

Loved Ones…the United States of America is at present facing challenges from within and from without.

Our ability to weather these various tests will determine the quality of life for you and me…and will determine the quality of life for generations to follow.

You are mandated as responsible incarnates to respect the obligations accompanying our freedoms…Civic Responsibility…. and Civic Volunteerism…

As a Speech and Language Pathologist….I daily appreciate how Civic Volunteerism is the only true ethical and economical answer to our nations health care dilemmas …

How loving is it to manifest a system where we all are victims to a for-profit health delivery system…?

…Health care should be a right…Americans should all be provided comprehensive medical services…it would only make our country stronger…less money spent because we as a nation emphasized prevention and treatment…eliminating massive for profit entities paying stockholders dividends…with tax write offs…

If we can spend a billion dollars a day to take pretend WMD’s out of Iraq…we can pay for our own nations childhood immunizations….pregnancy care…pediatric and all health care….how can you profit from health Care? Who would do that?

Who controls American health care…the Republican…agenda…the source of monies to finance the Republican figurehead ….

The foundation of civic responsibility is the very real basis upon which our immediate society functions.

Senator John F. Kennedy, at the University of Michigan Challenged students to “serve their country” in the cause of peace by living and working in developing countries…. today an international organization (PEACE CORP) is devoted to world peace and friendship is living in harmony within our global home.

At present more than 100 countries and over 150,000 volunteers have lived unconditional love by helping thru efforts such as HIV/AIDS, information technology and environmental preservation…. without profit motive…

All of these types of endeavors run contrary to those with profit/greed goals…even home grown…murderers with profit/greed goals..

With intent to strengthen the peoples residing within the domestic borders of this our country…I provide the following information…. with the intent that we as a nation recognize. …

Continuing a national leadership failure…will only lead to the failure of the United States as we now know it….


Your acts of Civic Volunteerism are small steps. …And as each one each of us does our part the entire national load becomes lighter…making true solutions come about (not greed solutions)….

Take this day and after reading the following Bloggs go and provide a volunteer act which strengthens this our fine nation…your individual strength of mind and soul will only make this our young country healthier
- posted by Samuel Bell @ 11:02 AM 0 comments

 
minor details...
SIRHAN WAS SET UP AND IS COMPLETELY INNOCENT

Overwhelming evidence establishes that Sirhan was in a hypnotic trance during the assassination as a result of programming.

World renowned hypnosis expert Herbert Spiegel, M.D., a New York psychiatrist who teaches at Columbia University, has cited the following facts in support of this conclusion:

1. The trial record confirms that Sirhan was an outstanding hypnotic subject who had been extensively hypnotized before the assassination.

2. During pre-trial sessions in jail, Sirhan obeyed hypnotic commands to climb the bars of his cell like a monkey and had no memory of the programming which had just taken place in his cell.

3. During such pre-trial sessions, Sirhan was asked in trance to describe Robert Kennedy and wrote out repetitions of such phrases as "RFK must die"--language strikingly similar to similarly repetitious writing in a notebook found in Sirhan's room at home. Dr. Spiegel concludes that the seemingly damning notebook passage was also written under hypnosis before the assassination.

4. Sirhan shivered as though experiencing cold when coming out of trance in his cell, and he experienced the same symptoms immediately after the assassination.

5. Sirhan was unable to reenact the assassination under hypnosis in his cell, suggesting that he had been programmed to forget.

6. Although not a drinker, Sirhan inexplicably drank four Tom Collins hard liquor drinks right before the assassination and has continued to experience complete amnesia of the shooting in spite of hypnosis sessions to restore his memory. Use of alcohol in trance deepens the amnesia flowing from the trance experience.

7. Sirhan had no motive to kill RFK and declared before trial that he would have voted for him in the election.

8. Sirhan stated before trial that a girl had led him into a dark place at the hotel (the pantry assassination scene), at which time he blacked out and could remember nothing. When asked in trance whether anyone was with him, he wrote out, "girl the girl the girl" but then shut down when asked her name. A number of witnesses saw Sirhan with a young woman in a polka dot dress, and the LAPD intimidated the most notable of these witnesses into backing away from their observations. At trial, Sirhan testified that he met such a women at a coffee urn at the Ambassador Hotel and that she asked him to pour her a cup of coffee with a lot of cream and a lot of sugar. Sirhan then blacked out and regained consciousness when being attacked by enraged RFK supporters in the pantry after Kennedy's shooting. Sirhan has consistently maintained that he has no memory of having shot anyone.

9. Sirhan's lack of motive to kill RFK forced prosecutors and a cooperative defense to make up a motive. Prosecutors theorized that Sirhan came to hate RFK because of his support for President Johnson's plan to sell 50 U.S. Phantom jets to Israel. This theory was based upon the fact that the key notebook page containing the RFK Must Die language is dated May 18, 1968. Lawyers on both sides conceded that Sirhan heard a broadcast about RFK's support for the Phantom Jet sale on that date. In fact, the broadcast in the Los Angeles area referring to RFK's support for Israel came later, and it made no mention of the planned Phantom Jet sale. The Phantom Jet motive was in fact a phantom motive. All presidential candidates supported the planned jet sale. RFK and Nixon sharply differed on Vietnam, and this is where the RFK assassination actually changed the course of U.S. foreign policy by leading to Nixon's prolonged escalation and expansion instead of RFK's promised withdrawal.

10. Someone followed Sirhan into the Corona Police Department gun range on June 1, 1968, and signed Sirhan's name in the roster, creating a record that Sirhan was practicing before the assassination of June 5. The range master who observed this apparent "handler" was a Corona police officer who was not called by the prosecution at trial. The officer was purportedly out of town when the issue arose at trial, and the defense was never told about his observations.

11. On primary election day, June 4, 1968, Sirhan signed the roster of another gun range several names below the name of "LAPD Officer Lee"--an odd setting for a dry run of an assassination that night but an innocuous setting for what Sirhan regarded as recreational shooting. Sirhan would later state that he was climbing the bars of his cell like a monkey simply because he wanted to do so and rejected the suggestion that he was complying with a signal which he had just been instructed under hypnosis to obey by performing this act.

12. A stage hypnotist has advised that Sirhan volunteered to be a subject during a public demonstration two years before the assassination and that at that time, Sirhan appeared to have been hypnotized before and was an excellent hypnotic subject. Sirhan could have been spotted and targeted by this means.

Defenders of the prosecution assert that Sirhan admitted at trial to having shot RFK. Actually, Sirhan testified that he had no memory of having shot anyone but that he was told by his attorneys that this is what happened and that this is accordingly what must have happened. Incredibly, defense attorney Grant Cooper allowed prosecution psychiatrist Seymour Pollack to interview and hypnotize Sirhan both with and outside the presence of defense counsel! The tape of one such session discloses that psychiatrists attempted to coerce Sirhan into reenacting the RFK assassination under hypnosis. The attempt failed.

Defenders of the prosecution also point to Sirhan's "admission" at trial that he

"killed Robert Kennedy wilfully, premeditatively, with twenty years malice aforethought."

What they fail to mention is that this remark was simply an outburst by Sirhan during a dispute with defense attorney Grant Cooper about the calling of witnesses. When the judge admonished Sirhan that his attorney was in charge of the case, Sirhan purported to offer to plead guilty and made the above-quoted remark. Such an outburst proves nothing, of course.
In fact, Sirhan did not even know of Robert F. Kennedy twenty years before the trial and would have been a small child at the time.
- posted by Samuel Bell @ 9:08 PM 0 comments

 
sirhan sirhan...the hypnotized republican stooge
SIRHAN SIRHAN: A TRUE "MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE"
by Lawrence Teeter
Attorney for Sirhan Sirhan

Sirhan Sirhan was wrongfully convicted of the June 5, 1968 assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy ("RFK"). Sirhan was a true "Manchurian Candidate." He was programmed through hypnosis to fire shots in the presence of Senator Kennedy without knowing what he was doing and without being able to recall or explain his actions or the programming process. Operatives connected with the CIA's MKULTRA program and Operation Artichoke could well have accomplished this remarkable instance of life imitating film. What follows is a discussion of evidence demonstrating Sirhan's status as a true "Manchurian Candidate" and a discussion of why this exonerating information did not come out at trial.

I have represented Sirhan since 1994 in ongoing state and federal habeas corpus proceedings challenging his conviction along with efforts to obtain his release on parole. Sirhan Sirhan is innocent. He did not shoot Robert F. Kennedy, and he was set up to appear to be guilty. His trial was a show trial designed to cover up the vast right-wing conspiracy which staged what amounted to the forcible installation of a Republican president in 1968. Richard Nixon's presidency became possible because of the RFK assassination. It is generally agreed that but for his assassination, Senator Robert F. Kennedy would have won the Democratic Party nomination and would have defeated Richard Nixon in the general election. Senator Kennedy had promised to end the Vietnam war if elected to the presidency. The anti-war movement had forced President Johnson to withdraw as a candidate for reelection, and Johnson's Vice-President, Hubert Humphrey, almost defeated Nixon after the assassination once he began to distance himself from Johnson's pro-war policies. Once he was elected, Nixon escalated and expanded the war into other countries.

The trial of Sirhan was designed to conceal Sirhan's innocence. This was possible because prior to the trial, the prosecution blackmailed Sirhan's trial attorney into throwing the case. What followed was a classic show trial in which the prosecution and "defense" conspired to falsify reality and cover up a massive plot to block the election of Senator Robert F. Kennedy to the presidency. Two months before the RFK assassination, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed in Memphis after having announced opposition to the Vietnam war and vowing to unite the anti-war and civil rights movements.

FEDERAL AGENCIES BEGAN THE COVER-UP EVEN
BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION

The blackmailing of chief Sirhan defense attorney Grant Cooper arises from the pre-assassination activities of John Roselli, who was involved in the CIA's plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. The CIA recruited Roselli to involve other top Mafia figures in the plot to kill Castro so that the U.S. government could deny responsibility for the assassination, which was being orchestrated in response to Castro's nationalization of U.S. corporate and Mafia holdings in Cuba. In 1966, after those assassination operations were supposedly abandoned, FBI agents approached Roselli and confronted him with the fact that he and his mother had entered the United States under false names. Roselli was told that the FBI would keep this information secret if he would cooperate with that agency. Roselli's lawyer, James Cantillon, called the FBI agents and attempted to set up a meeting. Agents told Cantillon that they would not meet with Roselli if Cantillon were present and refused to tell Cantillon what they wished to discuss. Roselli then met with the FBI outside Cantillon's presence. In January of 1968, Roselli participated in bribing a court reporter and obtained secret grand jury transcripts in the then-pending Friars Club card cheating trial, in which Roselli was a defendant. Roselli then distributed these transcripts to defense counsel in the case, including his own lawyer, James Cantillon. Another attorney to whom the transcripts were illegally distributed as a direct result of actions by Roselli and his confederates was Grant Cooper.

After the RFK assassination on June 5, 1968, Grant Cooper agreed to represent Sirhan. (Cooper had been recommended by ACLU attorney A.L. Wirin, who had earlier publicly defended the Warren Commission Report--a document which asserted that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by one person acting alone and that no conspiracy was involved.) The prosecutor in the Friars Club case then promptly purported to discover one of these stolen transcripts lying atop Cooper's papers at counsel table--a location to which Roselli had access as a co-defendant of Cooper's client in that case. Documents available at the California State Archives include a December 23, 1968 LAPD memo stating that Cooper's indictment was anticipated within the next one or two days. Another such document is a January 3, 1969 memo reporting that a senior FBI agent was monitoring Cooper's "dilemma." On January 6, 1969, Cooper then advised the Sirhan trial judge that he might be indicted but that after speaking with U.S. Attorney William Matthew Byrne, Jr., he concluded that his indictment was inconceivable. (Byrne was part of an inter-agency task force on the RFK assassination case). Warren Commission apologist Wirin appeared in the judge's chambers that day to advise Sirhan that he should continue being represented by Cooper--even though Wirin would certainly have recognized that Cooper suffered from a dangerous conflict of interest because he faced possible indictment by an agency participating in the prosecution team. 1 Having avoided possible discharge by Sirhan with the help of Wirin and a silent trial judge, Cooper then threw the case (see below) and assisted the prosecution in covering up the RFK assassination conspiracy. After Sirhan's conviction and death verdict, Cooper was allowed to plead guilty to two counts of contempt, but U.S. Attorney Byrne wrote a sentencing memorandum stating that Cooper's crime was so serious that no sentencing recommendation would be made! Cooper was simply ordered to pay a $1000 fine. Roselli, a defendant in the Friars Club case and in an immigration fraud case, was not even indicted in the transcripts case and received a light sentence in the immigration matter involving his concealment of his true name upon entry into the country. Roselli remained in contact with CIA officials involved in the early 1960's plot to murder Fidel Castro even after the 1968 RFK assassination. Roselli lawyer James Cantillon, who could have defended himself by claiming that he was entrapped by the FBI and Roselli into taking the transcripts, was never charged with possessing them, and the far more limited case against him (failing to respond to the court's inquiry regarding the transcripts) was dismissed by the court.

THE MASSIVE OFFICIAL COVER-UP

As a result of both (1) the blackmailing of defense attorney Cooper and his resultant collaboration with the prosecution and (2) the systematic withholding and falsification of evidence by the prosecution, the jury which convicted Sirhan never knew the following:

1. Senator Kennedy was shot in the back and from behind. Yet all witnesses placed Sirhan as standing face-to-face in front of RFK.

2. Sirhan's gun was placed by all witnesses at between 2 and 5 feet from the victim, but the autopsy report states that the distance between the assailant's gun and the victim was between 1 and 2 inches.

3. The shots entering the victim's body were fired at a sharp upward angle, but the defendant was seen by all witnesses to hold his gun horizontally.

4. The autopsy report which exonerates the defendant was withheld from the court and the defense by prosecutors for at least four months, until after defense counsel had conceded to the jury that their client was the killer--something which the autopsy report demonstrates to be impossible.

5. Thane Eugene Cesar, a recently-hired part-time private security guard who worked full-time for Lockheed Aircraft, admitted to police that he was standing behind and in actual contact with Senator Kennedy, that he dropped down into a crouching position and that he pulled his gun when the shooting began. This account puts the security guard and not the defendant in position to have shot RFK.

6. Cesar falsely advised police that he had sold his .22 revolver before the crime. A receipt proves that it was actually sold after the crime. One witness, media assistant Don Schulman, stated that Cesar actually fired his gun during the assassination. The prosecution ignored and even pressured this witness along with others whose accounts suggested a conspiracy.

7. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) never test fired Cesar's gun or even asked to see it once Cesar admitted having been in position to have fired the shots which struck RFK. The FBI was later told that the gun had been stolen from the home of the person who purchased it from Cesar.

8. The police inventory accounted for eight .22 cal. bullets discharged at the crime scene. Seven were removed from victims, and the eighth was described as having been lost in the ceiling.
A police officer observed police criminalists dig two bullets out of a door frame in the pantry area within which the victim was killed, bringing to 10 the total number of shots that were fired during the attack.

9. These extra bullets were never disclosed to the defense or the court and were never mentioned in the police property report. The police and prosecution have continued to deny their existence.

10. FBI documents describe holes depicted in the pantry door frame as "bullet holes", and William Bailey, the first FBI agent on the scene, has stated that he saw a bullet in one such hole. An AP photograph shows a bullet lodged in a door frame.

11. The police continue to maintain that only one gun was fired during the attack. The FBI has never deviated from its endorsement of this view, which is inconsistent with its own photographs and inventory as well as the observations of the first FBI agent on the crime scene.

12. The police test fired two different weapons and obtained test shots from both but have continued to claim that only one gun was involved in the case.

13. A police photograph with the police "DR number" for this case shows a different weapon than the one introduced into evidence at trial.

14. The second gun that was test fired by police as though it had been recovered at the crime scene was in police custody even before the attack.

15. The police continued to claim that this gun was available to the defense during the trial. However, it was actually destroyed by police within less than 2 months after the assassination, long before the trial's commencement.

16. The police created a "comparison photomicrograph" ("Special Exhibit 10") which they claimed showed a match between a test bullet fired from the defendant's gun and the bullet that was removed from the murder victim's neck. In 1975, a panel of experts concluded that this photomicrograph showed a match between two different victim bullets. A report prepared during this 1975 examination proves that the bullets viewed by the experts at that time were actually different from the ones that were removed from the victims in this case. Thus, the police created a photograph showing a match between two fake victim bullets and then claimed that their exhibit proved the defendant's guilt. This photograph depicting fraudulent bullets was made less than 48 hours after the assassination.

17. Although security guards left the scene without their guns being checked, a 15 year old who photographed the attack was thrown to the ground and arrested at gun point. His camera and film were seized. No photographs of the attack were ever made available to the defense or the court. (When the photographer, James Scott Enyart, requested the return of his films from the State Archives 20 years later, he was told that his films were probably among 2,410 photographs connected with this case that were burned by police in a hospital incinerator less than 3 months after the attack. Enyart brought suit. Police investigators then claimed to have themselves found the young photographer's pictures at the Archives. Because these photographs did not show the shooting itself and were taken on film different from the film he used, the photographer requested their transport to Los Angeles so that they could be examined for possible signs of alteration or substitution. The suspect photographs then disappeared after supposedly being stolen from the car of a state-selected courier. A Los Angeles jury awarded the photographer over half a million dollars in a verdict. The verdict was successfully appealed, but the City settled rather than risk a retrial.)

Apologists for the prosecution like to assert that only honest mistakes were made. Yet our petitions and exhibits demonstrate a number of instances in which the prosecution and police engaged in demonstrably intentional misconduct. Here are some examples--in addition to the overriding fact that defense counsel was blackmailed by the prosecution and made a deal to save himself (see above):

1. Withholding a document showing that according to a police officer witness, someone followed Sirhan into a police firing range on June 1, 1968 (three days before election day) and signed Sirhan's name into the roster to show practice-firing by the fall-guy-to-be! In other words, Sirhan had a handler (see below). The defense never saw this document, which I found in 2002.

2. Concocting Special Exhibit 10; (See paragraph 16 above).

3. Withholding the autopsy report until after defense counsel had conceded Sirhan's status as the assassin--a concession that is refuted by the autopsy report itself;

4. Lying to the court in December of 1968 by falsely representing that the autopsy report, which was completed in September or October of 1968, was not yet available;

5. Incinerating 2,410 assassination-related photographs;

6. Suppressing a photograph of a second gun connected with this case;

7. Suppressing extra bullets removed from the crime scene door frames, door jam and possibly ceiling panels;

8. Destroying the pantry door frames, door jam and ceiling panels before Sirhan's appeal process even commenced;

9. After admitting in the judge's chambers that the prosecution could not authenticate the bullets supposedly involved in the crime, offering substitute bullets into evidence, without disclosing that they were fraudulent (see paragraph 16 above).

10. Destroying the second gun during the month after the assassination and then suppressing the fact of this destruction;

11. Test firing the second gun as a crime scene weapon and then suppressing the fact that test bullets used for police identification purposes were the result of this test firing.

12. Withholding the entire Sheriff's Department file on this case from the defense prior to and during the trial;

13. Withholding from the defense the vast bulk of the LAPD and FBI files on this case;

14. Offering into evidence a gun that was never identified as Sirhan's by any witness and which was materially different from the weapon observed in Sirhan's possession at a gun range on election day by the only witness to describe Sirhan's gun with any specificity.

I have listed only some of the instances in which the prosecution intentionally and deliberately suppressed, altered, destroyed or fabricated material evidence prior to, during or immediately following the trial. There are many acts of misconduct which have taken place during and since that time.
SIRHAN WAS SET UP AND IS COMPLETELY INNOCENT
Overwhelming evidence establishes that Sirhan was in a hypnotic trance during the assassination as a result of programming. World renowned hypnosis expert Herbert Spiegel, M.D., a New York psychiatrist who teaches at Columbia University, has cited the following facts in support of this conclusion:

1. The trial record confirms that Sirhan was an outstanding hypnotic subject who had been extensively hypnotized before the assassination.

2. During pre-trial sessions in jail, Sirhan obeyed hypnotic commands to climb the bars of his cell like a monkey and had no memory of the programming which had just taken place in his cell.

3. During such pre-trial sessions, Sirhan was asked in trance to describe Robert Kennedy and wrote out repetitions of such phrases as "RFK must die"--language strikingly similar to similarly repetitious writing in a notebook found in Sirhan's room at home. Dr. Spiegel concludes that the seemingly damning notebook passage was also written under hypnosis before the assassination.

4. Sirhan shivered as though experiencing cold when coming out of trance in his cell, and he experienced the same symptoms immediately after the assassination.

5. Sirhan was unable to reenact the assassination under hypnosis in his cell, suggesting that he had been programmed to forget.

6. Although not a drinker, Sirhan inexplicably drank four Tom Collins hard liquor drinks right before the assassination and has continued to experience complete amnesia of the shooting in spite of hypnosis sessions to restore his memory. Use of alcohol in trance deepens the amnesia flowing from the trance experience.

7. Sirhan had no motive to kill RFK and declared before trial that he would have voted for him in the election.

8. Sirhan stated before trial that a girl had led him into a dark place at the hotel (the pantry assassination scene), at which time he blacked out and could remember nothing. When asked in trance whether anyone was with him, he wrote out, "girl the girl the girl" but then shut down when asked her name. A number of witnesses saw Sirhan with a young woman in a polka dot dress, and the LAPD intimidated the most notable of these witnesses into backing away from their observations. At trial, Sirhan testified that he met such a women at a coffee urn at the Ambassador Hotel and that she asked him to pour her a cup of coffee with a lot of cream and a lot of sugar. Sirhan then blacked out and regained consciousness when being attacked by enraged RFK supporters in the pantry after Kennedy's shooting. Sirhan has consistently maintained that he has no memory of having shot anyone.

9. Sirhan's lack of motive to kill RFK forced prosecutors and a cooperative defense to make up a motive. Prosecutors theorized that Sirhan came to hate RFK because of his support for President Johnson's plan to sell 50 U.S. Phantom jets to Israel. This theory was based upon the fact that the key notebook page containing the RFK Must Die language is dated May 18, 1968. Lawyers on both sides conceded that Sirhan heard a broadcast about RFK's support for the Phantom Jet sale on that date. In fact, the broadcast in the Los Angeles area referring to RFK's support for Israel came later, and it made no mention of the planned Phantom Jet sale. The Phantom Jet motive was in fact a phantom motive. All presidential candidates supported the planned jet sale. RFK and Nixon sharply differed on Vietnam, and this is where the RFK assassination actually changed the course of U.S. foreign policy by leading to Nixon's prolonged escalation and expansion instead of RFK's promised withdrawal.

10. Someone followed Sirhan into the Corona Police Department gun range on June 1, 1968, and signed Sirhan's name in the roster, creating a record that Sirhan was practicing before the assassination of June 5. The range master who observed this apparent "handler" was a Corona police officer who was not called by the prosecution at trial. The officer was purportedly out of town when the issue arose at trial, and the defense was never told about his observations.

11. On primary election day, June 4, 1968, Sirhan signed the roster of another gun range several names below the name of "LAPD Officer Lee"--an odd setting for a dry run of an assassination that night but an innocuous setting for what Sirhan regarded as recreational shooting. Sirhan would later state that he was climbing the bars of his cell like a monkey simply because he wanted to do so and rejected the suggestion that he was complying with a signal which he had just been instructed under hypnosis to obey by performing this act.

12. A stage hypnotist has advised that Sirhan volunteered to be a subject during a public demonstration two years before the assassination and that at that time, Sirhan appeared to have been hypnotized before and was an excellent hypnotic subject. Sirhan could have been spotted and targeted by this means.

Defenders of the prosecution assert that Sirhan admitted at trial to having shot RFK. Actually, Sirhan testified that he had no memory of having shot anyone but that he was told by his attorneys that this is what happened and that this is accordingly what must have happened. Incredibly, defense attorney Grant Cooper allowed prosecution psychiatrist Seymour Pollack to interview and hypnotize Sirhan both with and outside the presence of defense counsel! The tape of one such session discloses that psychiatrists attempted to coerce Sirhan into reenacting the RFK assassination under hypnosis. The attempt failed.

Defenders of the prosecution also point to Sirhan's "admission" at trial that he "killed Robert Kennedy wilfully, premeditatively, with twenty years malice aforethought." What they fail to mention is that this remark was simply an outburst by Sirhan during a dispute with defense attorney Grant Cooper about the calling of witnesses. When the judge admonished Sirhan that his attorney was in charge of the case, Sirhan purported to offer to plead guilty and made the above-quoted remark. Such an outburst proves nothing, of course. In fact, Sirhan did not even know of Robert F. Kennedy twenty years before the trial and would have been a small child at the time.

DEFENSE COUNSEL'S ROLE AS A SECOND PROSECUTOR


1. Cooper advised the jury that Sirhan shot and killed RFK, thereby leaving Sirhan open to the death penalty. He did this even before he saw the autopsy report, which proved otherwise. Even after having finally been given the autopsy report, Cooper continued to concede that Sirhan was RFK's killer. The autopsy report establishes that Sirhan was out of position and out of range and could not have fired any of the shots which struck the Senator.
2. Aware of the autopsy report's contents long before revealing it to the defense, the prosecution knew that Sirhan was actually not even eligible for the death penalty under then-applicable law.
Prosecutors knew that a trial risked exposure of someone else's responsibility for the shooting and killing of RFK. Los Angeles County District Attorney Evelle Younger, whose office actually prosecuted Sirhan, therefore offered Sirhan a chance to plead guilty to murder without facing the risk of the death penalty.
Cooper told Sirhan, who knew nothing about the crime, that the prosecution had an open-and-shut case against him and that he should accept the prosecution's offer. When the judge advised that he would refuse to approve any such plea unless the prosecution remained free to ask for a death verdict, Cooper went on record as advising the court that he was in favor of a guilty plea even under such circumstances, which gave Sirhan nothing in exchange for pleading guilty to a murder he could not have committed.

3. Prosecutors told Cooper during a hearing in the judge's chambers that it was impossible to authenticate bullets in the case. Cooper responded that he had no objection to the use of such bullets as evidence. This cleared the way for the prosecution to present testimony by LAPD criminalist DeWayne Wolfer that test bullets from the so-called Sirhan revolver conclusively matched victim bullets in the case. Cooper could have blocked or at least countered such testimony by pointing out that the bullets were inauthentic.

4. Cooper ignored the avalanche of evidence pointing toward Sirhan's having been programmed through hypnosis to fire shots in an unconscious state without recalling anything, He also assisted the prosecution's presentation of its "phantom" motive and argued that Sirhan planned the attack but was a paranoid schizophrenic and deserved to be convicted of second degree murder. Sirhan Sirhan was convicted and sentenced to death by a jury which was told by the compromised "defense" team that Sirhan was a paranoid schizophrenic rather than a victim of mind-control manipulation by others. Schizophrenics have a very low level of hypnotizability, in dramatic contrast to Sirhan Sirhan, whom Dr. Spiegel describes as a "hypnosis virtuoso."

The California Supreme Court reversed the death verdict after having previously held in another case that California's then-pending death penalty statute was unconstitutional. However, the Court left intact Sirhan's conviction. Sirhan Sirhan has remained in custody since 1968, and his requests for release on parole have been consistently denied. Although a number of witnesses saw other guns and shooters at the time, the official version remains that the case is solved and closed. No one else has ever been arrested or considered a suspect by the police.

It should be noted that after Sirhan's conviction, William Matthew Byrne, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who participated in Sirhan's prosecution and whose office's actions relating to Cooper are described above, was nominated to the federal bench by President Nixon. 2 Judge Byrne remains a sitting senior judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where Sirhan's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus remains pending. As things stand now, Sirhan's extensive challenge to his conviction will be initially decided by a magistrate judge. All magistrate judges serve at the pleasure of the district judges, one of whom is Judge Byrne. Efforts to transfer the case in the interests of justice are continuing but have so far been unsuccessful.

Incredibly, the "Manchurian Candidate" aspect of the case was never presented on Sirhan's behalf in any proceeding until I became his attorney, years after his conviction and years after that conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. This is also true of most of the evidence discussed above, including the all-important role of the U.S. government in blackmailing Grant Cooper and turning him into a second prosecutor.

The fight to reopen Sirhan's case and win his freedom continues in ongoing legal proceedings. What you have just read is an extremely brief summary of points raised in Sirhan's case. These and other points are supported by documentary evidence on file with the California Supreme Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

I am frequently asked, "Who was behind the assassination?" First, it is well known that the CIA had perfected the technique of using hypnosis and drugs to program subjects to carry out criminal acts, including murder, without being able to recall the acts or the programming process. The CIA programs through which these techniques were perfected were MKULTRA and Operation Artichoke. The U.S. Military had similar programs in place at the time. The RFK assassination made possible a continuation of the Vietnam War, a pet project of the CIA and the Pentagon. Secondly, Sirhan's role as an innocent man was never brought out at trial due to the fact that Sirhan's chief lawyer had been blackmailed by federal agencies in a scheme which began even before the assassination. This is far more sinister than film fantasies which portray federal agencies as trying to stop a right wing coup. In the RFK case, federal agencies laid the foundations for a cover-up even before the assassination took place and then made certain--together with local "law enforcement"--that a trial would not expose the truth.

Footnotes:
1. A number of ACLU attorneys served as FBI informants, and one personally reported to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.
2. As a matter of historical interest, it is worthy of note that President Nixon then offered Judge Byrne the position of FBI Director. This job offer was extended during Judge Byrne's handling of the celebrated "Pentagon Papers"" case against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. The Pentagon Papers consisted of a secret study describing war crimes and extensive human rights abuses carried out by the United States in Vietnam, and their publication in the "New York Times" enraged Nixon and further discredited his attempt to justify his continuation, excalation and expansion of the Vietnam war. Accordingly, the administration charged Ellsberg and Russo with espionage for giving this study to the press. When the job offer and other acts of government misconduct were finally disclosed by the prosecution, the case was dismissed in response to a defense motion. Other acts of misconduct included White House involvement in a burglary targeting the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist and the cover-up of this burglary. The burglary and cover-up then became one basis for Articles of Impeachment adopted by the House Judiciary Committee forcing Nixon's resignation as president. Missing from both the Articles of Impeachment and Judge Byrne's order listing grounds for dismissing the Ellsberg-Russo indictment was Nixon's offer during the trial to appoint Judge Byrne to the position of Director of the FBI.
- posted by Samuel Bell @ 9:05 PM 0 comments

 
"a real manchurian candidate"
Loved Ones...my uncle was the host of the TODAY SHOW...Frank McGee...he was neutralized by Republican contractors because of his locating those contractors associated with the Bobby Kennedy murder and killing of Martin Luther King...please take the time to read this and learn about the Republican Party which at present protects big Dick and g.w.....

Reopen the RFK (Robert F. Kennedy) Assassination Case
Sirhan Sirhan is Not Guilty.

This is the official site of Lawrence Teeter, attorney for Sirhan Sirhan.
On June 5, 1968, United States Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy was murdered. Sirhan Sirhan was arrested and later wrongfully convicted for the murder. Lawrence Teeter became Sirhan Sirhan's attorney in 1994, over 25 years later.
Lawrence Teeter states:
"At first glance, the RFK case seems open and shut. After all, Sirhan Sirhan was arrested with a gun in hand at the scene. There the simplicity ends, however. There is an abundance of evidence which refutes the official version of this crime. The Sirhan Sirhan case should be reopened."
SIRHAN SIRHAN: A TRUE "MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE"
by Lawrence Teeter
Attorney for Sirhan Sirhan

Sirhan Sirhan was wrongfully convicted of the June 5, 1968 assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy ("RFK"). Sirhan was a true "Manchurian Candidate." He was programmed through hypnosis to fire shots in the presence of Senator Kennedy without knowing what he was doing and without being able to recall or explain his actions or the programming process. Operatives connected with the CIA's MKULTRA program and Operation Artichoke could well have accomplished this remarkable instance of life imitating film. What follows is a discussion of evidence demonstrating Sirhan's status as a true "Manchurian Candidate" and a discussion of why this exonerating information did not come out at trial.

I have represented Sirhan since 1994 in ongoing state and federal habeas corpus proceedings challenging his conviction along with efforts to obtain his release on parole. Sirhan Sirhan is innocent. He did not shoot Robert F. Kennedy, and he was set up to appear to be guilty. His trial was a show trial designed to cover up the vast right-wing conspiracy which staged what amounted to the forcible installation of a Republican president in 1968. Richard Nixon's presidency became possible because of the RFK assassination. It is generally agreed that but for his assassination, Senator Robert F. Kennedy would have won the Democratic Party nomination and would have defeated Richard Nixon in the general election. Senator Kennedy had promised to end the Vietnam war if elected to the presidency. The anti-war movement had forced President Johnson to withdraw as a candidate for reelection, and Johnson's Vice-President, Hubert Humphrey, almost defeated Nixon after the assassination once he began to distance himself from Johnson's pro-war policies. Once he was elected, Nixon escalated and expanded the war into other countries.

The trial of Sirhan was designed to conceal Sirhan's innocence. This was possible because prior to the trial, the prosecution blackmailed Sirhan's trial attorney into throwing the case. What followed was a classic show trial in which the prosecution and "defense" conspired to falsify reality and cover up a massive plot to block the election of Senator Robert F. Kennedy to the presidency. Two months before the RFK assassination, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed in Memphis after having announced opposition to the Vietnam war and vowing to unite the anti-war and civil rights movements.

FEDERAL AGENCIES BEGAN THE COVER-UP EVEN
BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION

The blackmailing of chief Sirhan defense attorney Grant Cooper arises from the pre-assassination activities of John Roselli, who was involved in the CIA's plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. The CIA recruited Roselli to involve other top Mafia figures in the plot to kill Castro so that the U.S. government could deny responsibility for the assassination, which was being orchestrated in response to Castro's nationalization of U.S. corporate and Mafia holdings in Cuba. In 1966, after those assassination operations were supposedly abandoned, FBI agents approached Roselli and confronted him with the fact that he and his mother had entered the United States under false names. Roselli was told that the FBI would keep this information secret if he would cooperate with that agency. Roselli's lawyer, James Cantillon, called the FBI agents and attempted to set up a meeting. Agents told Cantillon that they would not meet with Roselli if Cantillon were present and refused to tell Cantillon what they wished to discuss. Roselli then met with the FBI outside Cantillon's presence. In January of 1968, Roselli participated in bribing a court reporter and obtained secret grand jury transcripts in the then-pending Friars Club card cheating trial, in which Roselli was a defendant. Roselli then distributed these transcripts to defense counsel in the case, including his own lawyer, James Cantillon. Another attorney to whom the transcripts were illegally distributed as a direct result of actions by Roselli and his confederates was Grant Cooper.

After the RFK assassination on June 5, 1968, Grant Cooper agreed to represent Sirhan. (Cooper had been recommended by ACLU attorney A.L. Wirin, who had earlier publicly defended the Warren Commission Report--a document which asserted that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by one person acting alone and that no conspiracy was involved.) The prosecutor in the Friars Club case then promptly purported to discover one of these stolen transcripts lying atop Cooper's papers at counsel table--a location to which Roselli had access as a co-defendant of Cooper's client in that case. Documents available at the California State Archives include a December 23, 1968 LAPD memo stating that Cooper's indictment was anticipated within the next one or two days. Another such document is a January 3, 1969 memo reporting that a senior FBI agent was monitoring Cooper's "dilemma." On January 6, 1969, Cooper then advised the Sirhan trial judge that he might be indicted but that after speaking with U.S. Attorney William Matthew Byrne, Jr., he concluded that his indictment was inconceivable. (Byrne was part of an inter-agency task force on the RFK assassination case). Warren Commission apologist Wirin appeared in the judge's chambers that day to advise Sirhan that he should continue being represented by Cooper--even though Wirin would certainly have recognized that Cooper suffered from a dangerous conflict of interest because he faced possible indictment by an agency participating in the prosecution team. 1 Having avoided possible discharge by Sirhan with the help of Wirin and a silent trial judge, Cooper then threw the case (see below) and assisted the prosecution in covering up the RFK assassination conspiracy. After Sirhan's conviction and death verdict, Cooper was allowed to plead guilty to two counts of contempt, but U.S. Attorney Byrne wrote a sentencing memorandum stating that Cooper's crime was so serious that no sentencing recommendation would be made! Cooper was simply ordered to pay a $1000 fine. Roselli, a defendant in the Friars Club case and in an immigration fraud case, was not even indicted in the transcripts case and received a light sentence in the immigration matter involving his concealment of his true name upon entry into the country. Roselli remained in contact with CIA officials involved in the early 1960's plot to murder Fidel Castro even after the 1968 RFK assassination. Roselli lawyer James Cantillon, who could have defended himself by claiming that he was entrapped by the FBI and Roselli into taking the transcripts, was never charged with possessing them, and the far more limited case against him (failing to respond to the court's inquiry regarding the transcripts) was dismissed by the court.

THE MASSIVE OFFICIAL COVER-UP

As a result of both (1) the blackmailing of defense attorney Cooper and his resultant collaboration with the prosecution and (2) the systematic withholding and falsification of evidence by the prosecution, the jury which convicted Sirhan never knew the following:

1. Senator Kennedy was shot in the back and from behind. Yet all witnesses placed Sirhan as standing face-to-face in front of RFK.

2. Sirhan's gun was placed by all witnesses at between 2 and 5 feet from the victim, but the autopsy report states that the distance between the assailant's gun and the victim was between 1 and 2 inches.

3. The shots entering the victim's body were fired at a sharp upward angle, but the defendant was seen by all witnesses to hold his gun horizontally.

4. The autopsy report which exonerates the defendant was withheld from the court and the defense by prosecutors for at least four months, until after defense counsel had conceded to the jury that their client was the killer--something which the autopsy report demonstrates to be impossible.

5. Thane Eugene Cesar, a recently-hired part-time private security guard who worked full-time for Lockheed Aircraft, admitted to police that he was standing behind and in actual contact with Senator Kennedy, that he dropped down into a crouching position and that he pulled his gun when the shooting began. This account puts the security guard and not the defendant in position to have shot RFK.

6. Cesar falsely advised police that he had sold his .22 revolver before the crime. A receipt proves that it was actually sold after the crime. One witness, media assistant Don Schulman, stated that Cesar actually fired his gun during the assassination. The prosecution ignored and even pressured this witness along with others whose accounts suggested a conspiracy.

7. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) never test fired Cesar's gun or even asked to see it once Cesar admitted having been in position to have fired the shots which struck RFK. The FBI was later told that the gun had been stolen from the home of the person who purchased it from Cesar.

8. The police inventory accounted for eight .22 cal. bullets discharged at the crime scene. Seven were removed from victims, and the eighth was described as having been lost in the ceiling.
A police officer observed police criminalists dig two bullets out of a door frame in the pantry area within which the victim was killed, bringing to 10 the total number of shots that were fired during the attack.

9. These extra bullets were never disclosed to the defense or the court and were never mentioned in the police property report. The police and prosecution have continued to deny their existence.

10. FBI documents describe holes depicted in the pantry door frame as "bullet holes", and William Bailey, the first FBI agent on the scene, has stated that he saw a bullet in one such hole. An AP photograph shows a bullet lodged in a door frame.

11. The police continue to maintain that only one gun was fired during the attack. The FBI has never deviated from its endorsement of this view, which is inconsistent with its own photographs and inventory as well as the observations of the first FBI agent on the crime scene.

12. The police test fired two different weapons and obtained test shots from both but have continued to claim that only one gun was involved in the case.

13. A police photograph with the police "DR number" for this case shows a different weapon than the one introduced into evidence at trial.

14. The second gun that was test fired by police as though it had been recovered at the crime scene was in police custody even before the attack.

15. The police continued to claim that this gun was available to the defense during the trial. However, it was actually destroyed by police within less than 2 months after the assassination, long before the trial's commencement.

16. The police created a "comparison photomicrograph" ("Special Exhibit 10") which they claimed showed a match between a test bullet fired from the defendant's gun and the bullet that was removed from the murder victim's neck. In 1975, a panel of experts concluded that this photomicrograph showed a match between two different victim bullets. A report prepared during this 1975 examination proves that the bullets viewed by the experts at that time were actually different from the ones that were removed from the victims in this case. Thus, the police created a photograph showing a match between two fake victim bullets and then claimed that their exhibit proved the defendant's guilt. This photograph depicting fraudulent bullets was made less than 48 hours after the assassination.

17. Although security guards left the scene without their guns being checked, a 15 year old who photographed the attack was thrown to the ground and arrested at gun point. His camera and film were seized. No photographs of the attack were ever made available to the defense or the court. (When the photographer, James Scott Enyart, requested the return of his films from the State Archives 20 years later, he was told that his films were probably among 2,410 photographs connected with this case that were burned by police in a hospital incinerator less than 3 months after the attack. Enyart brought suit. Police investigators then claimed to have themselves found the young photographer's pictures at the Archives. Because these photographs did not show the shooting itself and were taken on film different from the film he used, the photographer requested their transport to Los Angeles so that they could be examined for possible signs of alteration or substitution. The suspect photographs then disappeared after supposedly being stolen from the car of a state-selected courier. A Los Angeles jury awarded the photographer over half a million dollars in a verdict. The verdict was successfully appealed, but the City settled rather than risk a retrial.)

Apologists for the prosecution like to assert that only honest mistakes were made. Yet our petitions and exhibits demonstrate a number of instances in which the prosecution and police engaged in demonstrably intentional misconduct. Here are some examples--in addition to the overriding fact that defense counsel was blackmailed by the prosecution and made a deal to save himself (see above):

1. Withholding a document showing that according to a police officer witness, someone followed Sirhan into a police firing range on June 1, 1968 (three days before election day) and signed Sirhan's name into the roster to show practice-firing by the fall-guy-to-be! In other words, Sirhan had a handler (see below). The defense never saw this document, which I found in 2002.

2. Concocting Special Exhibit 10; (See paragraph 16 above).

3. Withholding the autopsy report until after defense counsel had conceded Sirhan's status as the assassin--a concession that is refuted by the autopsy report itself;

4. Lying to the court in December of 1968 by falsely representing that the autopsy report, which was completed in September or October of 1968, was not yet available;

5. Incinerating 2,410 assassination-related photographs;

6. Suppressing a photograph of a second gun connected with this case;

7. Suppressing extra bullets removed from the crime scene door frames, door jam and possibly ceiling panels;

8. Destroying the pantry door frames, door jam and ceiling panels before Sirhan's appeal process even commenced;

9. After admitting in the judge's chambers that the prosecution could not authenticate the bullets supposedly involved in the crime, offering substitute bullets into evidence, without disclosing that they were fraudulent (see paragraph 16 above).

10. Destroying the second gun during the month after the assassination and then suppressing the fact of this destruction;

11. Test firing the second gun as a crime scene weapon and then suppressing the fact that test bullets used for police identification purposes were the result of this test firing.

12. Withholding the entire Sheriff's Department file on this case from the defense prior to and during the trial;

13. Withholding from the defense the vast bulk of the LAPD and FBI files on this case;

14. Offering into evidence a gun that was never identified as Sirhan's by any witness and which was materially different from the weapon observed in Sirhan's possession at a gun range on election day by the only witness to describe Sirhan's gun with any specificity.

I have listed only some of the instances in which the prosecution intentionally and deliberately suppressed, altered, destroyed or fabricated material evidence prior to, during or immediately following the trial. There are many acts of misconduct which have taken place during and since that time.
SIRHAN WAS SET UP AND IS COMPLETELY INNOCENT
Overwhelming evidence establishes that Sirhan was in a hypnotic trance during the assassination as a result of programming. World renowned hypnosis expert Herbert Spiegel, M.D., a New York psychiatrist who teaches at Columbia University, has cited the following facts in support of this conclusion:

1. The trial record confirms that Sirhan was an outstanding hypnotic subject who had been extensively hypnotized before the assassination.

2. During pre-trial sessions in jail, Sirhan obeyed hypnotic commands to climb the bars of his cell like a monkey and had no memory of the programming which had just taken place in his cell.

3. During such pre-trial sessions, Sirhan was asked in trance to describe Robert Kennedy and wrote out repetitions of such phrases as "RFK must die"--language strikingly similar to similarly repetitious writing in a notebook found in Sirhan's room at home. Dr. Spiegel concludes that the seemingly damning notebook passage was also written under hypnosis before the assassination.

4. Sirhan shivered as though experiencing cold when coming out of trance in his cell, and he experienced the same symptoms immediately after the assassination.

5. Sirhan was unable to reenact the assassination under hypnosis in his cell, suggesting that he had been programmed to forget.

6. Although not a drinker, Sirhan inexplicably drank four Tom Collins hard liquor drinks right before the assassination and has continued to experience complete amnesia of the shooting in spite of hypnosis sessions to restore his memory. Use of alcohol in trance deepens the amnesia flowing from the trance experience.

7. Sirhan had no motive to kill RFK and declared before trial that he would have voted for him in the election.

8. Sirhan stated before trial that a girl had led him into a dark place at the hotel (the pantry assassination scene), at which time he blacked out and could remember nothing. When asked in trance whether anyone was with him, he wrote out, "girl the girl the girl" but then shut down when asked her name. A number of witnesses saw Sirhan with a young woman in a polka dot dress, and the LAPD intimidated the most notable of these witnesses into backing away from their observations. At trial, Sirhan testified that he met such a women at a coffee urn at the Ambassador Hotel and that she asked him to pour her a cup of coffee with a lot of cream and a lot of sugar. Sirhan then blacked out and regained consciousness when being attacked by enraged RFK supporters in the pantry after Kennedy's shooting. Sirhan has consistently maintained that he has no memory of having shot anyone.

9. Sirhan's lack of motive to kill RFK forced prosecutors and a cooperative defense to make up a motive. Prosecutors theorized that Sirhan came to hate RFK because of his support for President Johnson's plan to sell 50 U.S. Phantom jets to Israel. This theory was based upon the fact that the key notebook page containing the RFK Must Die language is dated May 18, 1968. Lawyers on both sides conceded that Sirhan heard a broadcast about RFK's support for the Phantom Jet sale on that date. In fact, the broadcast in the Los Angeles area referring to RFK's support for Israel came later, and it made no mention of the planned Phantom Jet sale. The Phantom Jet motive was in fact a phantom motive. All presidential candidates supported the planned jet sale. RFK and Nixon sharply differed on Vietnam, and this is where the RFK assassination actually changed the course of U.S. foreign policy by leading to Nixon's prolonged escalation and expansion instead of RFK's promised withdrawal.

10. Someone followed Sirhan into the Corona Police Department gun range on June 1, 1968, and signed Sirhan's name in the roster, creating a record that Sirhan was practicing before the assassination of June 5. The range master who observed this apparent "handler" was a Corona police officer who was not called by the prosecution at trial. The officer was purportedly out of town when the issue arose at trial, and the defense was never told about his observations.

11. On primary election day, June 4, 1968, Sirhan signed the roster of another gun range several names below the name of "LAPD Officer Lee"--an odd setting for a dry run of an assassination that night but an innocuous setting for what Sirhan regarded as recreational shooting. Sirhan would later state that he was climbing the bars of his cell like a monkey simply because he wanted to do so and rejected the suggestion that he was complying with a signal which he had just been instructed under hypnosis to obey by performing this act.

12. A stage hypnotist has advised that Sirhan volunteered to be a subject during a public demonstration two years before the assassination and that at that time, Sirhan appeared to have been hypnotized before and was an excellent hypnotic subject. Sirhan could have been spotted and targeted by this means.

Defenders of the prosecution assert that Sirhan admitted at trial to having shot RFK. Actually, Sirhan testified that he had no memory of having shot anyone but that he was told by his attorneys that this is what happened and that this is accordingly what must have happened. Incredibly, defense attorney Grant Cooper allowed prosecution psychiatrist Seymour Pollack to interview and hypnotize Sirhan both with and outside the presence of defense counsel! The tape of one such session discloses that psychiatrists attempted to coerce Sirhan into reenacting the RFK assassination under hypnosis. The attempt failed.

Defenders of the prosecution also point to Sirhan's "admission" at trial that he "killed Robert Kennedy wilfully, premeditatively, with twenty years malice aforethought." What they fail to mention is that this remark was simply an outburst by Sirhan during a dispute with defense attorney Grant Cooper about the calling of witnesses. When the judge admonished Sirhan that his attorney was in charge of the case, Sirhan purported to offer to plead guilty and made the above-quoted remark. Such an outburst proves nothing, of course. In fact, Sirhan did not even know of Robert F. Kennedy twenty years before the trial and would have been a small child at the time.

DEFENSE COUNSEL'S ROLE AS A SECOND PROSECUTOR


1. Cooper advised the jury that Sirhan shot and killed RFK, thereby leaving Sirhan open to the death penalty. He did this even before he saw the autopsy report, which proved otherwise. Even after having finally been given the autopsy report, Cooper continued to concede that Sirhan was RFK's killer. The autopsy report establishes that Sirhan was out of position and out of range and could not have fired any of the shots which struck the Senator.
2. Aware of the autopsy report's contents long before revealing it to the defense, the prosecution knew that Sirhan was actually not even eligible for the death penalty under then-applicable law.
Prosecutors knew that a trial risked exposure of someone else's responsibility for the shooting and killing of RFK. Los Angeles County District Attorney Evelle Younger, whose office actually prosecuted Sirhan, therefore offered Sirhan a chance to plead guilty to murder without facing the risk of the death penalty.
Cooper told Sirhan, who knew nothing about the crime, that the prosecution had an open-and-shut case against him and that he should accept the prosecution's offer. When the judge advised that he would refuse to approve any such plea unless the prosecution remained free to ask for a death verdict, Cooper went on record as advising the court that he was in favor of a guilty plea even under such circumstances, which gave Sirhan nothing in exchange for pleading guilty to a murder he could not have committed.

3. Prosecutors told Cooper during a hearing in the judge's chambers that it was impossible to authenticate bullets in the case. Cooper responded that he had no objection to the use of such bullets as evidence. This cleared the way for the prosecution to present testimony by LAPD criminalist DeWayne Wolfer that test bullets from the so-called Sirhan revolver conclusively matched victim bullets in the case. Cooper could have blocked or at least countered such testimony by pointing out that the bullets were inauthentic.

4. Cooper ignored the avalanche of evidence pointing toward Sirhan's having been programmed through hypnosis to fire shots in an unconscious state without recalling anything, He also assisted the prosecution's presentation of its "phantom" motive and argued that Sirhan planned the attack but was a paranoid schizophrenic and deserved to be convicted of second degree murder. Sirhan Sirhan was convicted and sentenced to death by a jury which was told by the compromised "defense" team that Sirhan was a paranoid schizophrenic rather than a victim of mind-control manipulation by others. Schizophrenics have a very low level of hypnotizability, in dramatic contrast to Sirhan Sirhan, whom Dr. Spiegel describes as a "hypnosis virtuoso."

The California Supreme Court reversed the death verdict after having previously held in another case that California's then-pending death penalty statute was unconstitutional. However, the Court left intact Sirhan's conviction. Sirhan Sirhan has remained in custody since 1968, and his requests for release on parole have been consistently denied. Although a number of witnesses saw other guns and shooters at the time, the official version remains that the case is solved and closed. No one else has ever been arrested or considered a suspect by the police.

It should be noted that after Sirhan's conviction, William Matthew Byrne, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who participated in Sirhan's prosecution and whose office's actions relating to Cooper are described above, was nominated to the federal bench by President Nixon. 2 Judge Byrne remains a sitting senior judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where Sirhan's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus remains pending. As things stand now, Sirhan's extensive challenge to his conviction will be initially decided by a magistrate judge. All magistrate judges serve at the pleasure of the district judges, one of whom is Judge Byrne. Efforts to transfer the case in the interests of justice are continuing but have so far been unsuccessful.

Incredibly, the "Manchurian Candidate" aspect of the case was never presented on Sirhan's behalf in any proceeding until I became his attorney, years after his conviction and years after that conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. This is also true of most of the evidence discussed above, including the all-important role of the U.S. government in blackmailing Grant Cooper and turning him into a second prosecutor.

The fight to reopen Sirhan's case and win his freedom continues in ongoing legal proceedings. What you have just read is an extremely brief summary of points raised in Sirhan's case. These and other points are supported by documentary evidence on file with the California Supreme Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

I am frequently asked, "Who was behind the assassination?" First, it is well known that the CIA had perfected the technique of using hypnosis and drugs to program subjects to carry out criminal acts, including murder, without being able to recall the acts or the programming process. The CIA programs through which these techniques were perfected were MKULTRA and Operation Artichoke. The U.S. Military had similar programs in place at the time. The RFK assassination made possible a continuation of the Vietnam War, a pet project of the CIA and the Pentagon. Secondly, Sirhan's role as an innocent man was never brought out at trial due to the fact that Sirhan's chief lawyer had been blackmailed by federal agencies in a scheme which began even before the assassination. This is far more sinister than film fantasies which portray federal agencies as trying to stop a right wing coup. In the RFK case, federal agencies laid the foundations for a cover-up even before the assassination took place and then made certain--together with local "law enforcement"--that a trial would not expose the truth.

Footnotes:
1. A number of ACLU attorneys served as FBI informants, and one personally reported to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.
2. As a matter of historical interest, it is worthy of note that President Nixon then offered Judge Byrne the position of FBI Director. This job offer was extended during Judge Byrne's handling of the celebrated "Pentagon Papers"" case against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. The Pentagon Papers consisted of a secret study describing war crimes and extensive human rights abuses carried out by the United States in Vietnam, and their publication in the "New York Times" enraged Nixon and further discredited his attempt to justify his continuation, excalation and expansion of the Vietnam war. Accordingly, the administration charged Ellsberg and Russo with espionage for giving this study to the press. When the job offer and other acts of government misconduct were finally disclosed by the prosecution, the case was dismissed in response to a defense motion. Other acts of misconduct included White House involvement in a burglary targeting the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist and the cover-up of this burglary. The burglary and cover-up then became one basis for Articles of Impeachment adopted by the House Judiciary Committee forcing Nixon's resignation as president. Missing from both the Articles of Impeachment and Judge Byrne's order listing grounds for dismissing the Ellsberg-Russo indictment was Nixon's offer during the trial to appoint Judge Byrne to the position of Director of the FBI.
- posted by Samuel Bell @ 8:49 PM 0 comments

 
Host of NBC Today program is neutralized
Loved Ones...today your TV journalist is a covert military intelligence officer..stationed on state run media...ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC...before the complete take over of american media by conspiracy and murder Frank McGee was the host of the TODAY SHOW...after he began to reveal the hypnotized murderer of Bobby Kennedy he was neutralized...following is a actual transcript of one of Franks shows...shows which brought the wrath of Richard Nixon

The JFK Conspiracy: The Case of Jim Garrison
Transcribed and annotated by Dave Reitzes



This is a complete transcript of the NBC News White Paper on Jim Garrison's probe into the John F. Kennedy assassination, originally aired on June 19, 1967. Hosted by Frank McGee, the broadcast incorporated film footage edited from NBC's interviews with numerous witnesses, as well as footage from other sources, such as NBC's New Orleans affiliate, WDSU-TV, and a BBC television interview with Jim Garrison.



FRANK McGEE
Many Americans doubt the findings of the Warren Commission. Only one American has had and used legal powers to investigate these findings. That one is Jim Garrison, the District Attorney of New Orleans. His investigation has made headlines for four months. This is an examination of that investigation.



ANNOUNCER
The JFK Conspiracy: The Case of Jim Garrison. Reported by Frank McGee.



FRANK McGEE
Four months ago, Jim Garrison said he had positively solved the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He said a man named David Ferrie was under surveillance. When Ferrie died suddenly, he called him one of history's most important figures.

On March 1st he arrested a New Orleans businessman named Clay Shaw and charged him with participation in the conspiracy. He said there would be more arrests, a considerable number of them. He said the key to the case is through the looking glass; black is white, white is black.
We have no right to pre-judge Jim Garrison's case. We can legitimately examine his record up to now. Our starting point is the pre-trial hearing of Clay Shaw. Garrison had two key witnesses. The first was a twenty-six-year-old insurance salesman named Perry Raymond Russo. Russo testified that in September 1963, he'd gone to a party in David Ferrie's apartment. Among the guests were several Cubans, Ferrie's bearded roommate, and a man named Clay [sic] Bertrand. Later, when the other guests had left, he found himself alone with Ferrie, the roommate, who he identified as Lee Harvey Oswald, and Bertrand. But despite his presence, they began to discuss openly and in detail a plan to assassinate President Kennedy. Russo was asked if Bertrand was in the courtroom. He said, yes. He was asked to point out Bertrand. He got up from the witness chair, walked over to the defense table, and held his hand over the head of Clay Shaw.

Garrison's second key witness was Vernon Bundy, a twenty-nine-year-old narcotics addict. Mainly on the testimony of Russo and Bundy, a three-judge panel decided that there was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a crime had been committed.

In answer to criticism of his witnesses, Garrison pointed out that it was hard to find bank presidents at the scene of this conspiracy. He defended Vernon Bundy:




INTERVIEW OF JIM GARRISON (FILM)
The question is, is he telling the truth or not? There are many attorneys who are brilliant liars, and there are dope addicts who have never learned to lie. And that's the case here. The question is, was he telling the truth, and the answer is, obviously.



FRANK McGEE
Vernon Bundy has been a narcotics addict since he was thirteen. He has a police record. On March 4, 1967, according to Jim Garrison, Bundy turned himself in to New Orleans Parish Prison because he was back on the habit. Bundy says he was first interviewed by Garrison's men the day before he testified.(1)
Two former prisoners told NBC News Bundy had indicated to them that his testimony that he had seen Shaw and Oswald together was not true.

John Cancler, known as "John the Baptist":




INTERVIEW OF JOHN CANCLER (FILM)
Q. What is your profession, Mr. Cancler?
A. You mean, what was my profession?

Q. Yes.

A. I was a burglar.

Q. You were in Parish Prison on this burglary rap.

A. Right.

Q. And did you meet a man named Vernon Bundy there?

A. I found out later his name was Vernon Bundy. See, I didn't know what his name was until I read the paper. I only knew him as "Legs."

Q. What did "Legs" tell you up there?

A. He just said, "I wonder whether I should say I saw him on Esplanade or I saw him on the lakefront." I said, "Man, it's getting bad if you start talking to yourself, too." You know, like some of these guys will stir bug, you know. He said, "No, man." He said, "I'm talking about this cat, Shaw." I said, "What you talking about, man?" He said, "Man, I don't know whether it's best for me to say I saw him on Esplanade Street or the lakefront."

Q. Did Bundy indicate to you whether the story that he was going to tell in court was true?

A. Did he [indicate]? How could he indicate when he would ask me, should he say this or should he say that? If it was the truth, he would know what to say.

Q. It was obvious from what he told you that he was going to tell a lie then?

A. He told a lie.

Q. Did he tell you it was a lie?

A. Sure. I asked him, "Man, is this the truth?" He said, no. He said, "No, it's not the truth."(2)





FRANK McGEE
Also in Parish Prison at the time Bundy testified was Miguel Torres, serving a nine-year sentence for burglary. He met Bundy in a prison hospital.




INTERVIEW WITH MIGUEL TORRES (FILM)
Q. What did he tell you about his testimony that day?
A. He says, "Well, that's the only way that I can get cut loose." I asked him, how much time did he owe that state. He said he owed the state five years; he was out on five years probation. And then I said, "Well, that's a hell of a thing to be doing in order to do what you want to do." He says, "Well, the reason I am doing this is, it's the only way I can get cut loose."

Q. In other words, he said to you, in effect, that he was testifying as he was in the Shaw hearing in order to prevent his probation from being revoked, is that right?

A. From being violated, yes, sir.

Q. Did you get the impression that he knew that his testimony in the hearing had been false?

A. Well, just exactly how I said. He said, "The reason I am doing this is because it's the only way I can get cut loose." And the impression I got was that: that it was [an] out-front lie.(3)




FRANK McGEE
Jim Garrison told a BBC reporter he uses what he calls objectifying tests to make sure his witnesses are telling the truth. One such test is the polygraph, or lie detector. On the morning he testified, Vernon Bundy was given a lie detector test. NBC News has learned that the results of the test indicated that Bundy was lying.
Assistant District Attorney Charles Ward was informed of this, and Ward went to Garrison.

He told Garrison that in view of the outcome of the lie detector test, the indication that Bundy was lying, Bundy should not be allowed to testify. Despite this, Bundy was put on the witness stand by Garrison.

He testified against Shaw. Partly as a result of that testimony, Shaw was held for trial.
More important than Bundy was Perry Russo. He was, in fact, vital to Garrison's case. He linked Shaw, Ferrie, and Oswald; he involved them in the conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy. Well, how did he come into the case? By his own account, he wrote a letter to Jim Garrison, saying he had some information about David Ferrie's connection with the assassination of President Kennedy. This was on February 22, 1967. That same week he was interviewed by a reporter from the NBC affiliate in Baton Rouge:




INTERVIEW WITH PERRY RUSSO (FILM)
Q. What kind of remarks did David Ferrie make about the assassination to you?
A. Toward the end of September, October, I saw him on several occasions, and he brought out the fact, in passing remarks -- whether or not it had any real meaning, I don't know, and I'm not trying to add words to his meaning -- but he said that "we will get him," referring to the President, 'cause we were in elaborate discussions concerning the President. He said, "We will get the President," referring to Kennedy.




FRANK McGEE
In his first public interview, Russo mentioned no party at Ferrie's apartment, no assassination plot, no Clay Shaw or Clay Bertrand. Next he talked to a reporter from WDSU-TV:



INTERVIEW WITH PERRY RUSSO (FILM)
Q. [Fades in] . . . at all with the assassination in any way?
A. Well (clears throat), uh, see, that I don't know, and I, you know, it'd be just speculative, speculation.

Q. Did he ever mention Lee Harvey Oswald's name?

A. No.

Q. No conversation at all about --

A. No, I had never heard of Oswald until the television of the assassination.




FRANK McGEE
Two weeks later he would testify at the hearings. He would positively identify Lee Oswald and Clay Shaw. He would describe in detail the party which they were present. He would tell about a plot to kill the President. What had happened?
We know that Russo was visited in Baton Rouge by one of Garrison's assistants, Andrew Sciambra. We know that he spent time on at least three occasions with a man from Garrison's office. And we now know some additional facts. Jim Phelan covered the conspiracy story for the Saturday Evening Post. Nine days before the hearing he met Jim Garrison in Las Vegas. He spent ten hours with Garrison, discussing the case.




INTERVIEW WITH JIM PHELAN (FILM)
Q. Did he give you any documents to read in connection with this?
A. Yes, he gave me two documents. One of them was a long memorandum written by Mr. Garrison's first Assistant District Attorney, Andrew Sciambra, which recounted a[n] interview that he had had with Perry Russo in Baton Rouge. This is the first interview that anyone from the DA's office had had with Perry Russo.

Q. And what was the second document?

A. The second document was a hypnotic interrogation of Russo. I believe it was four days after the first interrogation.

Q. Did Russo tell the same story in both of these documents?

A. He did not.

Q. As a witness, Russo said he was at a party at David Ferrie's apartment, and present when Ferrie, Clay Shaw, and Lee Harvey Oswald plotted to kill President Kennedy. Did he tell this story in his first interview?

A. He said nothing whatever about a party or a plot in the first interview.

Q. Was he able to identify Oswald?

A. They made an identification after they sketched a series of beards on the picture of Lee Oswald. I think they drew eighteen or twenty of them before he finally came up with the identification.

Q. Was Russo shown a picture of Clay Shaw?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. Did he identify the picture of the man he knew to be Clay Shaw as Clay Bertrand?

A. He did not. He simply said he'd seen the man.

Q. How many times -- ?

A. He said he'd seen him twice.

Q. And where had he seen him?

A. He saw him once when Kennedy was visiting New Orleans to dedicate the Nashville Wharf, and the second time he said he saw this man was in a car with Dave Ferrie.

Q. Did he mention seeing him at a party in Ferrie's apartment, where people had plotted to kill Kennedy?

A. He said nothing about it. In fact, he said specifically that he had seen him twice, and he said specifically the two times.

Q. When did Russo first describe the details he testified to at the pre-trial hearing?

A. He first mentioned the plot and the party and the presence of Shaw, Oswald, and Ferrie in a deep hypnotic trance, when he was hypnotized by Dr. Esmond Fatter.

Q. Did he remember Shaw and an assassination plot immediately under hypnosis?

A. He did not. He volunteered no information about the party or the plot.

Q. When did he begin to remember?

A. He began to remember when Dr. Fatter asked him a series of leading questions. Well, I would say it went beyond that. Dr. Fatter set the stage for him. He told him that he would be present in Ferrie's' apartment, and that Shaw and Oswald would be there, and they would be discussing assassinating someone. And then Dr. Fatter says, now tell me about it.

Q. Am I correct in reading this from the record: Dr. Fatter saying, quote, "Anytime you want to you can permit yourself to become calm, cool, and collected. You will be amazed at how acute your memory will become in the next few weeks."

A. That is correct.

Q. How did Perry Russo appear when you saw him testify?

A. He was calm, cool, and collected.






INTERVIEW WITH JIM GARRISON (PANORAMA, BBC)
Q. Why do you feel that you had to use extraordinary methods like truth drugs and hypnotism to get these people to give their evidence?
A. We decided to give him objectifying machinery to make sure he's telling the truth. We gave him truth serum in order to make sure. Now, it seems to me that this is rather unusual, a prosecuting office which has a pretty good case, making its witness take objectifying tests to make sure they're telling the truth. We did it for this reason. We used hypnosis for the same thing. Just to make sure he's telling the truth.




FRANK McGEE
Dr. Jay Katz is Associate Professor of Law and Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology at Yale. We showed him the stenographic transcripts of two of Dr. Fatter's hypnotic sessions with Perry Russo.



INTERVIEW WITH DR. JAY KATZ (FILM)
Q. Doctor, how reliable, in your view, are sodium Pentathol and hypnotism as a means of reaching the truth?
A. There's a very widespread belief that under hypnosis and under sodium Amytol, subjects will tell the objective truth. But under hypnosis, at least a great many subjects mau have greater difficulty to differentiate between fact and fantasy.

Q. Dr. Katz, does it appear to you that some of the questions by the interviewer questioning Perry Russo suggest the answers?

A. I wondered about this, and I was very much struck that on many occasions, the hypnotist introduced very leading questions. This was most striking, if I can use one example, when he directly asked him, or, in fact, not even asked him, but told him to tell him about the conversation that took place with respect to an assassination plot.

Q. Would you comment on [whether] the manner in which the interviews with Perry Russo were conducted made it more rather than less difficult to separate fact from fantasy?

A. Yes, he made no attempt, as far as I can see, to press further, and at least attempt to find out what was fantasy and what was reality.

Q. Then you don't feel that there was sufficient questioning to find out whether Russo was, in fact, telling the truth, or was distorting the truth?

A. That is quite correct. This is also very, very difficult, but one at least can make an attempt, and this attempt was not made in this case.






INTERVIEW WITH JIM PHELAN (FILM)
Q. Did you ever talk to Garrison about the discrepancies in his reports?
A. After the hearing in which Mr. Shaw was held at trial, I called Garrison, and I said, "Jim, there's something bothering me deeply." So he said, "Well, I'll get Sciambra out here." And he called him right away on the phone, and he had him come out to his home. He also had his chief investigator, William Gurvich, and the four of us sat there in Garrison's study, and I put this to Sciambra. I said, "There's nothing in your original interrogation about, one, Shaw knowing Oswald, Shaw knowing Ferrie, about the man you identified as having seen, about knowing him as Bertrand, or about a party at Ferrie's apartment, in which they discussed the assassination. In fact, all of the things that were so damaging to Shaw were not in the original report."

Sciambra first told me that I didn't know what I was talking about, because Mr. Sciambra didn't know that I had a copy of this report. And then I told him that I had the copy of it, and I'd read it many times. And at this point, Mr. Sciambra changed his story, and he said, well, maybe he had left it out of the report. That he had written the report under trying circumstances, and he'd been doing a number of things, and he might have forgotten to put it in. And I told him I simply couldn't believe this.

The next day I thought, well, at least if Sciambra were telling a straightforward story, that he would have mention of the crime in his original notes. He might have left it out of the report, but he at least would have taken it down when he was talking to Russo, because he took detailed notes. So I went back to Sciambra, and I asked him, I said, "Where are your original notes? We can settle this quickly." Mr. Sciambra told me he had burned his notes.




FRANK McGEE
Sciambra says Phelan's story is incomplete and distorted.
To objectify the testimony of Perry Russo, whom Garrison described as a very stable young man, Russo was submitted to sodium Pentathol, hypnotism, and, on March 8th, six days before he testified, to a lie detector test. NBC News has learned the following facts about this test. Russo's answers to a series of questions indicate, in the language of the polygraph operator, deception criteria. He was asked if he knew Clay Shaw; he was asked if he knew Lee Harvey Oswald. His "yes" answers to both of these questions indicated deception criteria. Russo's general reaction to this series of questions led the polygraph operator to suspect a psychopathic personality. At least one investigator and one assistant district attorney in Garrison's office were present. The list of questions was taken away from the polygraph operator. He was told not to say anything.

Despite the incomplete test, the preliminary indications of deception criteria, six days later, Russo was put on the stand as the chief witness against Clay Shaw.

The core of his testimony was his description of a party sometime in September 1963. He said Ferrie, Oswald, and Shaw were there. Russo also said several of his friends were present in the early part of the evening: Sandra Moffett, Kenny Carter, Lefty Peterson. We talked with Lefty Peterson:




INTERVIEW WITH LEFTY PETERSON (FILM)
Q. [fades in] . . . David Ferrie?
A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. And how did you meet Ferrie?

A. I met him at Perry's house.

Q. Did you see David Ferrie at any other time?

A. I seen [sic] him twice since then. I seen [sic] him once on Louisiana Parkway. I went to his house with Perry and some other people. About four of us stopped in. We stayed for about 20 or 25 minutes and left.

Q. All of you left?

A. No, Perry stayed there, I think. He didn't leave.

Q. When was this?

A. September 1963.

Q. Describe that occurrence.

A. We was [sic] coming from some kind of sports event, football game, I think.

Q. Do you remember who played?

A. No, sir.

Q. Was it a Tulane game?

A. Yes, sir, a Tulane game, yes, sir.

Q. You're pretty sure it was a football game?

A. Positive.

Q. What makes you think it was September?

A. It was the first game of the season, either the first or second game of the season, one of the two.




FRANK McGEE
Tulane played two games that year, one October 4, the other September 20. Under hypnosis, Russo said the party took place September 16. Under oath, he said the party took place sometime, he wasn't sure when, in mid-September. Kenny Carter remembers going to a game with Russo, he thinks it was the Miami game on October 4th.
The date is crucial. Is it possible that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been present, wearing a beard and looking like a beatnik, on those dates? If not, Garrison's hearing case collapses. Where was Lee Harvey Oswald on September 20th?




INTERVIEW WITH RUTH PAINE (FILM)
Q. [When you] arrived in New Orleans, do you remember the date?
A. Yes, I think I do. I think it was the 20th of September. That would be, was a Friday.

Q. How long were you there?

A. Over the weekend, left Monday.

Q. Where did you stay when you were in New Orleans?

A. At their apartment [Lee and Marina's].

Q. And can you tell me whether or not Lee was living at home all of the time he was staying there, evenings?

A. Oh, yes, he was. He was there the entire time.






INTERVIEW WITH JESSE GARNER, OSWALD LANDLADY (FILM)
Q. In September of 1963, did you see Lee Harvey Oswald often or did you hear him in the house?
A. Well, I used to hear him in the house all the time. I mean, him and his wife used to do a lot of arguing, and the baby would start crying. That's how I knew he was home.

Q. When would you say Lee Harvey Oswald left the apartment?

A. Well, I know he left the same night that his wife left that day. Now, whether it was the 24th or the 25th, I don't remember exactly. But that same day his wife left, he left that night.




FRANK McGEE
Two witnesses say Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been living with David Ferrie on September 20th; Oswald was living at home in New Orleans on September 20th.
On October 4th, the date of the Miami-Tulane game, he was in Dallas. He registered with the YMCA. He called Ruth Paine on the telephone. At two in the afternoon, he was interviewed for a job by Ted Gangel of the Padgett Printing Corporation.

Could he have been Ferrie's roommate at any time in September 1963?




INTERVIEW WITH LEFTY PETERSON (FILM)
Q. You arrived at the party at David Ferrie's house. Who answered the door?
A. His roommate.

Q. Describe his height, his general build, and . . .

A. He's about 6 or 6'1", about 170 pounds, I'd say. 165, 170 pounds.

Q. Was he quite a bit taller than you?

A. Oh, yeah, he was taller than me, yeah.

Q. How tall are you?

A. 5'9".

Q. So how much taller than you would he have been?

A. About two or three inches.




FRANK McGEE
Lee Harvey Oswald was exactly five feet, nine inches tall, exactly as tall as Lefty Peterson.
Russo, in trying to identify the roommate with the beard, said Peterson, quote, "would know more about the roommate and be able to identify him."




INTERVIEW WITH LEFTY PETERSON (FILM)
Q. [fades in] . . . to you and I'm going to see if you think this fits the description of the man you saw in David Ferrie's apartment. I'm quoting Perry Russo. He said the roommate had sort of dirty blond hair and a husky beard, which appeared to be a little darker than his hair. He said the guy was a typical beatnik. He said the roommate appeared to be in his middle twenties. Would that description fit the man that you saw that night?
A. Just about, yes, sir.






INTERVIEW WITH JESSE GARNER (FILM)
Q. I'm going to read a description given by Perry Russo of a man that he saw in the apartment of David Ferrie. He described this man as having a bushy beard, being cruddy -- very, very dirty. In your opinion, could that description have fit the Lee Harvey Oswald that you knew?
A. I don't see how that would fit him, because I've never seen him like that."






INTERVIEW WITH RUTH PAINE (FILM)
Q. Perry Russo has described David Ferrie's roommate, whom he identified as a man he knew as "Leon Oswald," as very, very dirty, a typical beatnik, with a husky beard. Do you recall whether Lee Oswald was clean-shaven or had a beard?
A. When I came to New Orleans, about September 20th, he was clean-shaven then, and I never saw him with a beard. I don't believe he had one, to my knowledge. I think Marina would have mentioned it. And he was also neat when he dressed, and clean, it seemed to me. I just feel that Mr. Russo must have seen someone else that he thinks was Lee Oswald.






INTERVIEW WITH LAYTON MARTENS (FILM)
Q. You were, in 1963, from the period of at least September through November, closely associated with David Ferrie?
A. That's correct.

Q. You knew practically everyone associated with him at that time, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. If someone lived in his house for more than two or three days during that period of time, in other words, might have been there long enough to be considered a roommate, would you have known about it?

A. Yes, certainly.

Q. There has been testimony recently about a roommate of Ferrie's who was unkempt or wore a beard. Do any of the people you knew and who knew Ferrie fit this description?

A. James Lewallen could possibly fit that description very well. I remember at that time Lewallen did have some sort of beard, and I wouldn't necessarily call him unkempt, but to some people this might represent being unkempt. But one of the things I've noticed, remembering Lewallen, he bears a striking resemblance to this mock picture of Oswald [sketched by the NODA at Perry Russo's direction].

Q. Could he have been considered a roommate of Ferrie's?

A. Yes, he could have, possibly, I think he and Ferrie did room together sometime maybe prior to that, maybe around that time.

Q. Did you know anyone at the time associated with Ferrie by the name of Leon?

A. Well, Jim Lewallen's last name, sometimes people would address him as, "Hey, Lou," "Lee," or something like that.




FRANK McGEE
The facts are these. Russo said Oswald, dirty and with a beard, was at the party, that he was Ferrie's roommate. He said the party took place in mid-September. He said Lefty Peterson was there. The two possible dates Peterson gives for the party, November [sic] 20th and October 4th, make it impossible for the man to have been Oswald.
Russo speaks of the roommate's beard. People who knew Oswald say he never had a beard. Peterson says the roommate was at least two inches taller than he, which [sic] we knew Oswald was Peterson's height. And we know Russo denied knowing Oswald only three weeks before he testified.

Now, Clay Shaw is not an easy man to forget. If Clay Shaw had been present in a room with Perry Russo, Lee Oswald, and David Ferrie, it seems likely he would have been noticed.




INTERVIEW WITH LEFTY PETERSON (FILM)
Q. Did you notice a big man of any description, an older man there?
A. No, sir.

Q. There was no one over forty, say in his forties or fifties, something like that?

A. Just Ferrie.

Q. Did you ever hear the name Clay? First name, Clay?

A. No, sir. Never.

Q. Did you ever hear the name Bertrand dropped?

A. No, sir. Never.

Q. Have you seen Clay Shaw's picture?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was the man you saw in that picture, was he at that party that night?

A. What, Clay Shaw?

Q. Yes.

A. I didn't see him.






INTERVIEW WITH CLAY SHAW (FILM)
Q. Were you at the time or have you ever been in David Ferrie's apartment?
A. Never.

Q. You've heard of the name Clay Bertrand?

A. I have.

Q. Do you know any such person?

A. I do not.

Q. Can you state whether or not you are Clay Bertrand?

A. I am not Clay Bertrand.

Q. In 1963, did you ever have occasion to meet or know Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. Never.

Q. Did you ever have occasion to meet or know David W. Ferrie?

A. I did not.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of a plot to assassinate President Kennedy?

A. None whatsoever.




FRANK McGEE
Garrison has based his case on the certainty that he can prove Clay Shaw is Clay or Clem Bertrand. The name Clem [sic] Bertrand was first introduced by a lawyer named Dean Andrews, who told the Warren Commission a person by that name telephoned him, suggesting he provide legal defense for Lee Oswald. Three years later, Garrison suggested to Andrews that Andrews identify Shaw as Bertrand. Andrews said he told Garrison he wouldn't say if Shaw was or was not Clay Bertrand.



INTERVIEW WITH DEAN ANDREWS (FILM)
Q. [fades in] . . . the same as Clay Shaw?
A. You say I identified him. I don't know if I did or I did not.




FRANK McGEE
Since then, Garrison has taken his former friend, Dean Andrews, before the Grand Jury, where he's been indicted for perjury. Before that happened, Andrews talked with us.



INTERVIEW WITH DEAN ANDREWS (FILM)
A. Man, I wouldn't know Clay Shaw if I fell over him on the street dead.
Q. Has the occasion arisen for you to listen to Clay Shaw's voice?

A. Ah, yes, since all this popped up, they had him on TV, so I just shut my eyes and listened to the voice, and that's not the voice.

Q. In other words, you're saying that Clay Bertrand is not Clay Shaw?

A. I'm saying that the voice of Clay Shaw is not the voice that I identify as Clay Bertrand.

Q. Now, you have seen Clay Bertrand on two occasions?

A. Two times.

Q. You have seen Clay Shaw's picture?

A. Since this happened? Many times.

Q. Can you say positively that the person you know as Clay Bertrand is not the person you have seen as Clay Shaw?

A. Scout's honor, he is not.




FRANK McGEE
Clay or Clem Bertrand does exist. An NBC News reporter has seen him. Clem Bertrand is not his real name. It's a pseudonym used by a homosexual in New Orleans. For his own protection, we will not disclose the real name of the man Andrews knew as Clem Bertrand. His real name has been given to the Department of Justice. He is not Clay Shaw.(4)
What then of Perry Russo's testimony?




WALTER SHERIDAN, NEWS INVESTIGATOR (FILM)
In my conversations with Perry Russo, he has stated that his testimony against Clay Shaw may be a combination of truth, fantasy, and lies. He said he wishes he had never gotten into this, but now he feels he has no choice but to go through with it. He said that he's afraid if he changed his testimony, that Garrison might indict him for perjury. He said, suppose Clay Shaw is convicted and gets twenty years, and goes through his appeals, and he's sitting down there in prison. I might just call from wherever I am, and say, "Bring your film crews down; I've got something to say." On one occasion, Russo said, "The hell with truth, the hell with justice." He said, "You're asking me to sacrifice myself for Clay Shaw, and I won't do it."



ANNOUNCER
The JFK Conspiracy: The Case of Jim Garrison will continue after station identification.



(PART TWO)



FRANK McGEE
Only recently has Jim Garrison revealed the extent of the plot that he says brought about the murder of John F. Kennedy.



INTERVIEW WITH JIM GARRISON (FILM)
A. There was a plan in operation in the city of New Orleans, which had entirely different objectives than the killing of the President. That was the last thing on the minds of the people that caused this plan to begin. Lee Harvey Oswald was a part, assigned a role, essentially as decoy. I think I can tell you now that, I know, but I mean, I feel like saying for the first time that we've known for many months that Fair Play for Cuba, which he pretended to be so interested in, was a cover for the operation. Oswald was not a Communist. Oswald was not pro-Castro. And as a result of the operation, which was working here in the summer of 1963, a spinoff occurred, an unexpected change of direction occurred, which, in the fall of 1963, resulted in that lethal apparatus being turned against President Kennedy. And that's what happened, and that's the first time I've ever said it publicly.

FRANK McGEE
Can Jim Garrison prove his increasingly complicated and far-flung case? Until that case is brought to court before a jury, until the evidence is presented, no one can say. We're concerned here only with examining how Garrison has tried to put together that evidence.
On May 12th, Garrison announced he had discovered the same numbers in notebooks of Oswald and Shaw, which, decoded, was Jack Ruby's private telephone number. This is the number in Oswald's notebook, and this is the number in Clay Shaw's notebook [shown on-screen]. A WDSU reporter asked Garrison to explain the code.




INTERVIEW WITH JIM GARRISON (FILM)
Q. Mr. Garrison, in Lee Harvey Oswald's diary, the Warren Report says the number in there is DD 19106. However, you say it's PO [19106]. How do you determine that it's PO, sir?
A. Well, just more or less by looking at it.




FRANK McGEE
But Russian language experts looking at the page in Oswald's notebook said that what Garrison called an "O" was, in fact, a Russian "D." And the [name Lee] Odom in Shaw's notebook Garrison's office indicated was a CIA cover. But then a man named [Lee] Odom called Garrison from Irving, Texas. He said that he had business dealings with Clay Shaw. He said that this [PO 19106] was his post office box. He had rented it in 1966. He said that he had no connection with the CIA.



INTERVIEW WITH JIM GARRISON (FILM)
Q. Do you still think that the number in Lee Harvey Oswald's notebook is Jack Ruby's phone number?
A. If I thought it possible to communicate with you, I'd answer, but I don't think there's any way . . . [voice trails off]

Q. Well, Mr. Garrison, if the PO box didn't exist until late '65, how could it then be Jack Ruby's phone number?

A. Well, that's a problem for you to think over because you obviously missed the point.




FRANK McGEE
Irwin Mann is a cryptographer, a professor of mathematics at New York University.



INTERVIEW WITH IRWIN MANN (FILM)
Q. You've examined the numbers found in the notebooks of Lee Oswald and Clay Shaw by Jim Garrison's office, have you not?
A. Yes, I have.

Q. And you've seen the explanation given by Mr. Garrison that they are a code for Jack Ruby's private telephone number?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Based on your experience with codes and cryptography, how would you assess Mr. Garrison's explanation?

A. I would say that it's just a guess, but I really believe that this is not an encipherment of that telephone number.

Q. Have you ever seen an encipherment like this before?

A. No, I certainly have not. In particular, the reaching of the prefix "WH" from a prefix, "PO," is not even unique.

Q. What do you mean by not even unique?

A. I mean that the fact that the sum of the corresponding digits to the letters in the prefix, being thirtee