In a television interview, A Current Affair, the mistress of Lyndon  Johnson, Madeleine Brown, described the meeting of 21st November, 1963, when she was at the home of Clint Murchison. Others at the meeting included Harold L. Hunt, J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson, John J. McCloy and Richard Nixon. At the end of the evening Lyndon B. Johnson arrived...

"Tension filled the room upon his arrival. The group immediately went behind closed doors. A short time later Lyndon, anxious and red-faced, reappeared... Squeezing my hand so hard, it felt crushed from the pressure, he spoke with a grating whisper, a quiet growl, into my ear, not a love message, but one I'll always remember: "After tomorrow those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again - that's no threat - that's a promise.".

It's important to note that John J. McCloy was a member of the now discredited Warren Commission which "investigated" the assassination, appointed by none other than Johnson. Nixon himself was in Dallas on the day of the assassination.

Dallas Morning News, November 22, 1963. The day of President Kennedy's assassination

The lead prosecutor in this so called investigation is Sen Arlen Specter. Today, he is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, insuring that while he is alive, the miscarriage of justice perpetrated on an American president will never be addressed.


The Coup

Sirhan Under Hypnosis

Click here to view media stream

"Master approached... let us do it..."

The Los Angeles Police Department Attempts to Find Sirhan's "Programmer"

Click to enlarge [IMAGE]
Here we see Sirhan mention the Illuminati three times; and also one "Master Kuthumi", which may be the pseudonym used by his hypnoconditioner; believed to be the late Dr. William Joseph Bryan.
[IMAGE] Sirhan Writes of the Illuminati

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge Click to enlarge
Sirhan Sirhan's notebook entries in the days prior to the murder of RFK. "Master", be it Grand Master or Worshipful Master, is a title used by the freemasons-- including the Scottish Rite, the Rosicrucians, and the Illuminati. Sirhan was himself a Rosicrucian freemason. Listen to the actual tapes of the LAPD hypnotist assigned to deprogram Sirhan Sirhan


The Programmer


Present at the LAPD deprogramming sessions was the hypnotist who claimed to have programmed James Earl Ray and Sirhan to forget their roles in the assassination of King and RFK. The  Los Angeles CIA consultant,  Dr. William Joseph Bryan, Jr.  

Interestingly, Bryan was also the technical consultant for the Sinatra film "The Manchurian Candidate". Soon after his visits with several Los Angeles hypnotists, one of which Bryan claimed was himself, Ray went to Memphis and allegedly killed King.


Dr. Bryan, like many other figures directly involved in the murders of the Kennedy brothers and King, would die under mysterious circumstances in the spring of 1977; this at a time when the JFK case was reopened and key witnesses and conspirators everywhere conveniently died (e.g. John Rosselli, Sam Giancana). In Bryan's case, the coroner determined he died of natural causes before any autopsy was performed.

The Trigger Mechanism

The trigger mechanism may be the phrase "port wine", since Sirhan was in the kichen of the Ambassador Hotel shortly before shooting at RFK. This cue Sirhan had scrawled into his diary numerous times, along with the unusual repitition of the lines "RFK must be assassinated", which was written over and over again until it filled the page. 

Evidence suggests Sirhan was hypnotized and practicing autohypnosis techniques in the days leading up to the assassinations. Sirhan, supplemented this hypnotic programming with LSD, which was given to him in ritual meetings "to expand his consciousness". To this end Sirhan used candles and mirrors, for instance, during self-hypnosis. And the trigger mechanism is almost certainly the words "port wine", since he was in the kichen of the Ambassador Hotel shortly before shooting RFK. This cue Sirhan had scrawled into his diary numerous times, along with the unusual repitition of the lines "RFK must be assassinated", which was written over and over again until it filled the page. 

Hypnocondtioning can not be more apparent. 

Thane Eugene Caesar

Click to enlarge

Close-up of coroner Noguchi's notes, path of bullets

Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge

Hated the Kennedys, but hired to guard RFK at the last minute.

LAPD diagram of RFK crime scene at time of shooting 

billsale.jpg (6216 bytes)

Thane Eugene Cesar's .22 Gun Found

Above, we see a bill of sale for a .22 caliber pistol sold by Caesar shortly after the assassination.

The Ballistic Evidence

rfkbullet2.jpg (8945 bytes)

Test firings from Sirhan's gun indicated at least two different guns were fired in the pantry.

rfkbullet.jpg (10177 bytes)

Evidence of Multiple Shooters Destroyed by Former LAPD Chief Daryl Gates

Click to enlarge

A. Close-up view of two bullet holes in kitchen door frame
B. Close-up up view of two bullet holes in in center of the door frame, inside the kitchen.
C. An investigator points out a bullet hole in a ceiling tile.
D. Coroner Thomas Noguchi, who was bold enough to announce the impossibility of one shooter, examines a bullet hole in a ceiling tile, later destroyed by then-Chief Daryl Gates around the time of the House Select Committee on Assassinations was investigating the link between the Kennedy and King murders.  Daryl Gates is an active Scottish Rite freemason.
E. Test firing showing the distinctive "tattooing" which proved the fatal shot was fired from one inch or less.
F. Door frame later set aflame and destroyed by Daryl Gates.  Embedded was a bullet that did not match Sirhan's pistol.

Sirhan fired from in a few feet in front of Kennedy-- missing him completely, but the actual killer fired at about one inch from the back of Kennedy's right ear, in fact leaving powder burns.  That man was a security guard hired at the last minute, Gene Caesar, a known to have ties to the Ku Klux Klan.  The LAPD would later find more than one gun was fired, and that on that day, Caesar was also in possession of another .22 caliber pistol almost identical  to Sirhan's. 



NBC Threatens Witnesses  in Garrison Trial- On Tape

In the Lincoln assassination, three conspirators were nationally known newspapermen. In the Kennedy assassination we had the same situation-- several newspaper publishers conspired to mislead the public-- particularly those publications and broadcast entities owned by billionaire H.L. Hunt, who was also a close friend of Johnson.

The attacks on Jim Garrison, however, came mostly from NBC. The words of Garrison then are applicable today, as well:

"It will be noticed that we are now experiencing two forms of counterattack from the forces defending continued concealment. There is a closely timed coalition of major news media and other cooperative agencies seeking to create the impression that the assassination is a closed matter and anyone who raises questions is either sinister or misguided."

Eventually, two NBC reporters were caught trying to influence the witnesses. On July 7, 1967 investigator Walter Sheridan was charged with four counts of public bribery consisting of offering witness Perry Raymond Russo lodging in California, payment of legal fees relating to extradition procedures, protection and immunity from the state of Louisiana and Garrison, and guaranteed employment in California with job security. Perry Russo told a New Orleans grand jury that [CIA agent David] Ferrie said [regarding the assassination of JFK] that "there would have to be a minimum of three people involved. Two of the persons would shoot diversionary shots and the third ... shot the good shot." Ferrie said that one of the three would have to be the "scapegoat." He also said that Ferrie discoursed on the availability of exit, saying that the sacrificed man would give the other two time to escape. (Quoted by W.H. Bowart in Operation Mind Control).

 Soviet Brainwashing Techniques 


19 JUN 1964 

(Commission No. 1131)

General Counsel
President's Commission on the
Assassination of President Kennedy

SUBJECT : Soviet Brainwashing Techniques 

1. Reference is made to your memorandum of 19 May 1964, requesting that materials relative to Soviet techniques in mind conditioning and brainwashing be made available to the Commission.

2. At my request, experts on these subjects within the CIA have prepared a brief survey of Soviet research in the direction and control of human behavior, a copy of which is attached. The Commission may retain this document. Please note that the use of certain sensitive materials requires that a sensitivity indicator be affixed.

3. In the immediate future, this Agency will make available to you a collection of overt and classified materials on these subjects, which the Commission may retain.

4. I hope that these documents will be responsive to the Commission's needs.

(DECLASSIFIED) Richard Helms
(By C.I.A.) Deputy Director for Plans
(letter of ___________)




SUBJECT: Soviet Research and Development in the Field of Direction and Control of Human Behavior. 

1. There are two major methods of altering or controlling human behavior, and the Soviets are interested in both. The first is psychological; the second, pharmacological. The two may be used as individual methods or for mutual reinforcement. For long-term control of large numbers of people, the former method is more promising than the latter. In dealing with individuals, the U.S. experience suggests the pharmacological approach (assisted by psychological techniques) would be the only effective method. Neither method would be very effective for single individuals on a long term basis.

2. Soviet research on the pharmacological agents producing behavioral effects has consistently lagged about five years behind Western research. They have been interested in such research, however, and are now pursuing research on such chemicals as LSD-25, amphetamines, tranquillizers, hypnotics, and similar materials. There is no present evidence that the Soviets have any singular, new, potent drugs to force a course of action on an individual. They are aware, however, of the tremendous drive produced by drug addiction, and PERHAPS could couple this with psychological direction to achieve control of an individual.

3. The psychological aspects of behavior control would include not only conditioning by repetition and training, but such things as hypnosis, deprivation, isolation, manipulation of guilt feelings, subtle or overt threats, social pressure, and so on. Some of the newer trends in the USSR are as follows:

a. The adoption of a multidisciplinary approach integrating biological,social and physical-mathematical research in attempts better to understand, and eventually, to control human behavior in a manner consonant with national plans.

b. The outstanding feature, in addition to the interdisciplinary approach, is a new concern for mathematical approaches to an understanding of behavior. Particularly notable are attempts to use modern information theory, automata theory, and feedback concepts in interpreting the mechanisms by which the "second signal system," i.e., speech and associated phenomena, affect human behavior. Implied by this "second signal system," using INFORMATION inputs as causative agents rather than chemical agents, electrodes or other more exotic techniques applicable, perhaps, to individuals rather than groups.

c. This new trend, observed in the early Post-Stalin Period, continues. By 1960 the word "cybernetics" was used by the Soviets to designate this new trend. This new science is considered by some as the key to understanding the human brain and the product of its functioning --psychic activity and personality--to the development of means for controlling it and to ways for molding the character of the "New Communist Man". As one Soviet author puts it: Cybernetics can be used in "molding of a child's character, the inculcation of knowledge and techniques, the amassing of experience, the establishment of social behavior patterns...all functions which can be summarized as 'control' of the growth process of the individual." 1/Students of particular disciplines in the USSR, such as psychologist and social scientists, also support the general cybernetic trend. 2/ (Blanked by CIA)

4. In summary, therefore, there is no evidence that the Soviets have any techniques or agents capable of producing particular behavioral patterns which are not available in the West. Current research indicates that the Soviets are attempting to develop a technology forcontrolling the development of behavioral patterns among the citizenry of the USSR in accordance with politically determined requirements of the system. Furthermore, the same technology can be applied to more sophisticated approaches to the "coding" of information for transmittal to population targets in the "battle for the minds of men." Some of the more esoteric techniques such as ESP or, as the Soviets call it, "biological radio-communication", and psychogenic agents such as LSD, are receiving some overt attention with, possibly, applications in mind for individual behavior control under clandestine conditions. However, we require more information than is currently available in order to establish or disprove planned or actual applications of various methodologies by Soviet scientists to the control of actions of articular individuals.


1. Itelson, Lev, "Pedagogy: An Exact Science?" USSR October 1963, p. 10.

2. Borzek, Joseph, "Recent Developments in Soviet Psychology," Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 15, 1964, p. 493-594.

A week later Richard Townley was charged with attempted bribery, the intimidation of one witness, and of the attempted intimidation of another. In Los Angeles, where Bobby died, the Mafia owned or heavily controlled the movie studios. This hasn't changed. How do you think the studios can vomit brainless $250 million dollar movies and inundate the market?

Hollywood is where the Mafia launders its drug profits through creative accounting, and the mob is now notorious for getting wealthy stars addicted to their product because they buy in quantity-- cocaine, heroin, speed, crack-- you name it.

In fact, John Rosselli, a conspirator in the JFK murder, made his money there extorting the stars and unions as the Chicago mob's representative. As a cover, he worked at the Eagle Lion Studios and actually worked on three movies: "He Walked by Night", "T-Men", and "Canyon City". They haven't left. Guess who's President of Hollywood's Motion Picture Association right now?

Lyndon Johnson's most trusted personal assistant-- Jack Valenti-- of whom it was said that if LBJ dropped an H-bomb, Valenti would call it an "urban renewal project."

Why is Hollywood so important? Propaganda. Because psychological operations on a global level can be performed through them; just like Hitler did with Leni Reifenstahl's "Triumph of the Will". A chillingly effective propaganda film, it glorified the Nazi cause like no film before or since.

The FCC: License to Kill

There are two types of subversive warfare employed by the media today: "white propaganda", which is based on facts but distorted to favor those disseminating it; and "black propaganda", which depends on lies and deceit. Both, however, are still lies.

An excellent example of black propaganda lies in the consistent ridicule and contempt of those who would insist Flight 800 was downed by a terrorist missile or even just friendly fire, even when there are radar logs, witnesses and pictures to prove it.

To illustrate how dangerous it is to abuse the airwaves by appealing to hate and fear, on September 25, 1996, a "Real Radio" station in Florida broadcast a $1,000 bounty for a convicted killer, Donald McDougall during a call-in talk show. Soon after the show McDougall was beaten to death in prison with a piece of steel bar. Polk County police are now investigating if the broadcast was a contributing factor; since it is established that the murderer, Arba Earl Barr, listened to the said broadcast (Los Angeles Times, October 3, 1996 pg. A16).

Because the man who was killed was the convicted murderer of a young girl, few will notice the critical implications that this incident presents to every one of us. What happens, for instance, when the airwaves are used to bash an innocent target-- be it a political figure or ethnic scapegoat?

In May of 1996, MIT Press published a massive study of internal wars since the end of the Cold War. In "The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict", it was determined that ethnic cleansing and race wars were not products of the irrational forces of history but of the premeditated decisions of rational, immoral leaders intent on political gain at any cost. Because such leaders rely on broadcasters to inflame and deceive the masses, and could not do it without them; such radio propaganda has been responsible for 23 of 34 major internal ethnic conflicts since the end of the Cold War.

That's two out of three civil wars since 1989.

In terms of black propaganda, talk radio has an insidious advantage-- unlike television, you can bring hate jocks into the workplace, or hear them in your car during peak stress hours; when you are most vulnerable to psychological operations. The driver, concentrating on the drive, is forced to split his attentive faculties between the broadcast and weaving through traffic. Psychologically speaking, because his attention is divided, he is in a dissociative state, and vulnerable, particularly if tuned to an "all news broadcast" or talk radio station; where such psychological operations are concentrated.

Adolf Hitler's Reichstag Fire, the burning of the German parliament building in Berlin on February 27, 1933, less than a month after he became chancellor, is probably the most infamous example of the dialectic in action.  The fire was started by the Nazis themselves, but three Bulgarians and a German were framed, indicted and tried in Leipzig, Germany (only a Dutch communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, was convicted.  The fire was used as a justification for the permanent suspension of many constitutional guarantees until 1945.

Germany was a democracy when Hitler came to power. Here in this  democracy, under a far more transparent and nefarious psychodrama,  the suspension of our Bill of Rights seems to have taken priority, with the Coulmbine massacre serving as the instigated chaos from which order will emerge.  Like the Reichstag Fire, Columbine has all the earmarks of a pyschodrama.  Those misled to believe autopsy reports are ever concealed for the public good deceive themselves and wrong the slain; whom will always know the truth, and cannot rest until we search diligently for it, bring it to light, and bring them justice.  There is no  evidence whatsoever Harris and Klebold acted alone.  But plenty of evidence to the contrary.  A third shooter in a white t-shirt, witnessed by several students, is now said to be one of the two dead suspects.  The inexplicable sealing of autopsy records which could conclusively demonstrate there was only two shooters involved would, it seem, be a  counterproductive evasion to those convinced only two shooters were involved.

We must keep in mind that the US has, in the past, resorted to such tactics. In the Gulf of Tonkin incident, under Lyndon Johnson,  we escalated the war in Vietnam over an attack on US gunboats which never took place.

Knowing the massacre took a year in planning, and that some authorities were even warned, one has to wonder if the Columbine massacre served one purpose and one purpose only-- to instigate an anti-gun hysteria that would influence the pending gun control legislation in Congress.  The media coverage certainly played into it and supports this notion, but  anyone even slightly versed in the nature of psy-ops, or military psychological operations, will recognize this as more than a massacre of innocents, but as a double-edged psychodrama with a calculated agenda.

From the May-June, 1998 issue (Vol. 5 No. 4)

The Girl in the Polka Dot Dress

"She practically stepped on me, and she said, "We?ve shot him. We?ve shot him." Then I said, "Who did you shoot?" And she said, "We shot Senator Kennedy." And I says, "Oh, sure." She came running down the stairs, very fast, and then the boy in the gold sweater came running down after her, and I walked down the stairs."

L.A.P.D Interview of Sandy Serrano, 2:35 a.m., June 5, 1968, p. 27.

The girl was described in the APB (All Points Bulletin) as follows: "Prior to the shooting, suspect observed with a female cauc., 23/27, 5-6, wearing a white viole dress, ? inch sleeves, with small black polka dots, dark shoes, bouffant type hair. This female not identified or in custody."

L.A.P.D. Sergeant Paul Shraga. APB from SUS files. This one was dated 6/5/68, and was not cancelled until 6/21/68

So Who was the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress?


Sirhan and the RFK Assassination Part II: Rubrick's Cube

By Lisa Pease,  (May-June 98 issue) Probe

The Girl Revealed?

A former New York Police Department detective named Sid Shepard, then working at CBS-TV in New York as Chris Borgen, happened upon Sander Vanocur?s 5:00 A.M. (Eastern time) interview of Sandy Serrano. He recalled a couple of people who seemed to fit the description of the polka dot dress girl. In fact, he had observed them at a protest demonstration in New York at the United Nations building which had been captured on 16mm film. He felt so strongly about the match that he put the film, along with a couple of blowups made from the film, onto a TWA flight for Martin Steadman of the WCBS-TV affiliate in Los Angeles. Steadman brought the film and two photos made to Rampart detectives L. J. Patterson and C. J. Hughes. These items were booked into evidence as items #69 and 70 in the evidence log for the case as follows:

#69 1 Film ? 16mm roll on gry plast reel

#70 1 Photo ? 8" x 10" of female (1) protest demo (taken from abv film)

Photo ? 3" x 4" of female "Shirin Khan" with writing on back "Shirin Khan DOB 4/22/50 daughter of Khaibar Khan Goodarzian, presented flowers & court order to Shah of Iran in NY 6/1964."

That Shepard/Borgen would identify Shirin Khan as a likely candidate for the girl was positively uncanny. He could hardly have known at that point that her father had reportedly been seen with Sirhan at Kennedy headquarters just two days before the assassination, and that some campaign workers had identified Khan as a suspicious person in the Kennedy camp.

Khaibar Khan at Kennedy Headquarters

Bernard Isackson, a Kennedy campaign volunteer, had been at the Ambassador in the Embassy room at the time of the shooting. His interview summary contains this interesting tidbit:

Mr. Isackson was asked if anything or anyone acted strange or out of place around the headquarters. He stated the only thing that stood out as being unusal [sic] was the actions and statements of Khaibar Khan (I216). He stated Khan would never fill out cards or write on anything from which the handwriting could be positively ID as Khan. He also stated to Mr. Isackson he was from Istanbul, Turkey and currently living in England. Mr. Isackson stated Khan was very overbearing when it came to the point of trying to impress someone.

Mr. Isackson recalled one incident when Khan asked one of the office girls if she had seen a [sic] unidentified volunteer, when the office girl started to page the volunteer Khan became very nervous and told the girl to never mind. Khan would often meet volunteers entering the headquarters and escort them to the information desk to register them as if they were personal friends of his; this was evidence[d] by many of them using his address and phone number.

Khan was from Iran, not Turkey, and had been living in New York before he came to Los Angeles. He filled out over 20 volunteer cards (present in the SUS files) with names of "friends", always using his own address as their contact information. For this, and a more sinister reason, Isackson was not the only one suspicious of Khan. Several campaign workers said they had seen him with Sirhan.

Eleanor Severson was a campaign worker for RFK. She told the LAPD that on May 30, 1968, a man named Khaibar Khan came into Headquarters to register for campaign work. Khan claimed to have come to California from back East to help the campaign. From that day, Khan came into Headquarters every day until the election. The Sunday before the election, June 2, he brought four other foreigners (of Middle Eastern extraction) in to work as volunteers. Severson and her husband both said that Sirhan was one of these men. She remembered this group in particular because while she was registering the men, Kennedy?s election day itinerary was taken from her desk. Her husband thought Sirhan may have taken it. Severson reported seeing Sirhan again early in the afternoon of June 3, standing near the coffee machine.

Larry Strick, another Kennedy worker, confirmed this account. He said he had spoken to Sirhan in the company of Khan. When Sirhan?s picture was finally shown on TV, he and Mrs. Severson called each other nearly at the same instant to talk about the fact that this was the man they both remembered from Headquarters. Strick positively ID?d Sirhan from photos as the same man he had seen on June 2nd to both the LAPD and the FBI in the days immediately following the assassination.

Estelle Sterns, yet another Kennedy volunteer, claimed to have seen Sirhan at Headquarters on Election Day itself. He was with three other men of Middle Eastern extraction and a female who was wearing a white coat or dress and who had dark hair that was nearly shoulder length. Sterns said Sirhan offered to buy her a cup of coffee (a typical Sirhan act), which Sterns declined. Sterns said that Sirhan and another of the men were carrying guns. The day after the assassination, Sterns claimed to have received a phone call from a man who sounded muffled, as though he was speaking through a towel, telling her "Under no circumstances give out any information to anybody as to the number of people or their activities at your desk on Tuesday."

The LAPD loved this. They "discredited" the whole Sirhan-at-headquarters sighting by focusing solely on Sterns? account. They even used Severson to discredit this story, although the LAPD buried Severson?s interview where she stated she too had seen Sirhan at Headquarters. The LAPD also claimed Strick had retracted his identification of Sirhan.

Surprisingly, Khan himself, as well as his "sister" (who was really his personal secretary/consort) Maryam Koucham both claimed they saw Sirhan at Headquarters. Khan claimed to have seen Sirhan standing in Headquarters on June 4th at around 5:00 p.m. in the company of a girl in a polka dot dress. The question is, did he really see a girl with Sirhan and was he trying to help, or was he instead helping to muddy the waters about a girl who may have been his own daughter? Khan also claimed to have seen Sirhan with the woman on June 3rd, the same day he brought his daughter Shirin Khan into headquarters. (On this day, he also met Walter Sheridan and Pierre Salinger at the Ambassador Hotel.) But did he bring his daughter Shirin into Headquarters, or his other daughter Rose, or some other woman, or no woman at all? Did he see a girl with Sirhan, or did Khan just say he did to deflect suspicion away from both himself and his daughter? How are we to know which statements of his are to be believed?

He refused to take a polygraph or to attend a showup to identify Sirhan more positively. He was illegally in the country, having overstayed his visa. He told the police he was on the run from the Shah of Iran?s goons. But Khan had previously had a working relationship with the Shah. Khan wasn?t using his real name, but was going by the alias of Goodarzian, as was his ex-wife and daughter Shirin. He had a prior arrest recorded with the LAPD (1/13/67), at which time he had been using the alias of Mohammad Ali. And when the LAPD checked the names of the volunteers whom he had registered under a single address, the LAPD stated that "Records show that none of these persons entered the U.S. between the period of June 1968 through December 1968."46 (As an aside, thirteen Iranians suspected of participating in a political assassination in 1990 came under suspicion when it was found that they had all listed the same personal address. The address in that case turned out to be an intelligence-ministry building.47)

The address Khan used belonged to Khan?s ex-wife and Shirin?s mother, Talat Khan. Talat had lived there with sons Mike and Todd and daughter "Sherry". (After the assassination, "Shirin Goodarzian" went by the name of "Sherry Khan".) Although housing three children and herself, according to the LAPD records Talat had no source of employment. Her son Mike was working as a manager at a small pizza outlet in Santa Monica. Her daughter Shirin showed two different places of employment for the same dates. She had only just graduated from University High and allegedly worked for either or both "University Ins. Co." and "Pacific Western Mtg. Co." in Los Angeles. Despite her working status, Sherry had no social security number.

Talat told the LAPD that she was divorced from Khan. She initially told them she did not know his whereabouts, but then was able to contact him to tell him the police wanted to talk to him. The LAPD recorded that Talat was not involved in politics. She may have been involved with Khan and Koucham in a bank fraud scheme in 1963, after having divorced Khan in 1961, but the evidence in that regard is far from clear.48 Khaibar Khan, Maryam Koucham and Talat Khan became political targets when Khaibar Khan brought some astounding information to the attention of Senator McClellan?s Committee on Government Operations in May of 1963. Khan had accused several prominent Americans, including David Rockefeller and Allen Dulles, of receiving payoff money from the Shah of Iran from funds received through an American aid program. In short, Khan was no ordinary Iranian. He was master over a powerful intelligence network that had worked for and against the Shah of Iran at various points in time.

Khaibar Khan?s father had been executed by the Shah when he was only a boy of eight. Khan might have been killed as well, but a British couple named Smiley, who worked for oil interests, had taken pity on him and removed him from the country. Khan was educated in Scotland, and in 1944 joined British military intelligence. In 1948 his Iranian title was restored, and he ran a fleet of taxicabs, trucks and operated a repair shop. He also worked for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and maintained ties with British and American missions there. Fred Cook, who wrote about Khan?s life in detail in The Nation (4/12/65 & 5/24/65), dropped this interesting piece of information:

The Khaibar Khan?s role in the counter-coup that toppled Mossadegh is not quite clear, but indications are that he helped.

Was Khan working with the CIA in that operation?

Despite the Shah?s role in his father?s death, Khan and the Shah became friends. The Shah even provided Khan a villa on the palace grounds. Their friendship took a turn for the worse, however, when Khan wanted to use some of the plentiful American foreign aid coming into the country for a sports arena. The Shah and his family, however, had other plans for the land and the money, leading to a falling out between Khan and the Shah. One day, the Shah discovered that Khan?s large and lavishly equipped Cadillac El Dorado was wiretapped to the hilt, and realized that he had a major spy in his midst. Khan was warned of the Shah?s discovery, and fled the country. But Khan had spent years building up a powerful spy network. As Khan later told the Supreme Court:

...we put engineers, doctors, gardeners and as servants and as storemen; all educated people working in several different places. And we put a lot of secretaries; a lot of people who was educated in England. And we put them as secretaries.

Through this network, Khan noticed something interesting. Some $7 million of the sports arena?s funds had been redirected to the Pahlavi Foundation, the Shah?s family?s personal fund. He directed his spies to find out where the money was going, to whom and what for. What his agents found was rather astonishing, and led to a most peculiar congressional investigation. He found that just days before the Shah was to have an audience with President Kennedy in the U.S., six and seven figure checks had been cut from the Pahlavi Foundation account to a number of prominent and influential Americans. Kennedy had no great love for the Shah or his operations, and was not planning on granting the largesse the Shah was seeking. Was the Shah feathering the nest before his arrival by spreading money around? Khan?s agents photocopied a batch of checks from the Shah?s safe. The checks included payments to the following:

Allen Dallas [sic]: $1,000,000
Henry Luce: $500,000
David Rockefeller: $2,000,000
Mrs. Loy Henderson: $1,000,000
George V. Allen: $1,000,000
Seldin Chapin: $1,000,000

Henderson, Allen and Chapin had all served at some point as Ambassador to Iran, a role Richard Helms would later play when removed from the CIA by Richard Nixon. (Richard Helms, by the way, had been a childhood friend of the Shah; they had attended the same Swiss school in their youth.) David Rockefeller, Allen Dulles and Henry Luce had contributed to Mossadegh?s overthrow, an effort double-headed by the CIA and British intelligence. The Shah?s family members also received checks ranging from six to eight figures in length, the highest being a $15,000,000 check paid to Princess Farah Pahlavi. Princess Ashraf, the Shah?s twin sister, came in second at $3,000,000. High level British officials were also on the list.

Needless to say, when this news was given to Congress, the earth began to rumble. According to Cook:

The Khaibar Khan?s disclosures [of May and June, 1963] were called to the attention of President Lyndon B. Johnson in late December by one of the President?s closest advisers, Washington attorney Abe Fortas. Since then, there have been these seemingly significant developments: the American Ambassador to Iran has been relieved of his duties; the Iranian Ambassador in Washington has been recalled?and for the past year there has been a stoppage on all economic (i.e. non-military) aid to Iran....49

From the look of it, it appeared Khan?s revelations were being taken seriously. Khan?s credibility was enhanced when a secret Treasury report provided solely to McClellan?s committee was photocopied from within the Iranian embassy and given to Khan, who showed the copy to the committee. His copy proved that 1) someone on McClellan?s committee was providing information to the Iranian embassy, and 2) Khan had agents so sensitively placed within the embassy as to be able to intercept this highly sensitive information. Khan?s credibility became something that needed to be destroyed at all costs. Who in Congress dared accuse David Rockefeller, Henry Luce and Allen Dulles of receiving payoffs from a foreign government? Someone had to be taken down, and the spotlight focused on Khan. An attempt was made to physically assault Khan, but the attempt was performed in a public arena and was quickly stopped. A more violent attack was made upon Maryam Koucham in an effort to scare her into revealing Khan?s sources within the Embassy.

The publication of Cook?s article about these events in The Nation seems to have been the impetus for a sudden and furious turnaround from McClellan?s committee. After two years of pursuing evidence of what the committee had termed "gross corruption" in the use of American aid money to Iran, the committee suddenly launched an all-out assault on Khan. McClellan suddenly surfaced a letter (dated a year earlier) from the bank in Geneva from which the records of payoffs had surfaced. The letter from the bank managers stated that the records Khan had submitted were false, citing typeface difference, differing account number systems and so forth. But were this true, why did McClellan?s committee continue to investigate Khan?s allegations for a full year? Clearly the committee knew no one would buy the letter, at least at that point. But once Cook made the issue public, then anything had to be used, no matter how ill-supported, to discredit Khan. It was at this point that Khan, his ex-wife and Koucham were accused of bank fraud.

What had started as Khan?s crusade to regain money that was to be used for Iran turned into an ugly, losing battle. Khan was a very resourceful man, and knew how to play on a winning team. It seems highly unlikely that he continued forever his fight against the Shah, and more likely that he gave in to the old adage of "if you can?t beat ?em, join ?em." And a man with Khan?s sources could not be allowed to become an enemy of American intelligence. He had too powerful a network. One can?t help but wonder if the CIA took an interest in protecting the actions of their own (Dulles, Rockefeller, the Shah et. al.) while using Khan for their own purposes.

Khan appeared out of the blue at RFK Headquarters, was seen with Sirhan, lied about his background, raised suspicion by his secretiveness, and may have fathered the girl in the polka dot dress. But perhaps his most suspicious act was giving a ride on election night to a man who was arrested while running out of the pantry immediately after the shots had been fired: Michael Wayne.

Michael Wayne

Mr. Wayne was in the kitchen when Kennedy was shot, and was the subject of reports by Patti Nelson, Tom Klein and Dennis Weaver of a man running through the lobby with a long object in his hand, which appeared to be a rifle.? SUS supplement to Wayne?s interview (I-1096)

Michael Wayne, whose real name was Wien, was a twenty-one year old from England who the LAPD wrote "professes to be of Jewish background, but not from the mid-east."50 Wayne worked at the Pickwick Bookstore on Sunset Boulevard. Wayne had gained entry to the pantry by obtaining a press button, and even managed to get into Kennedy?s suite on the 5th floor. When Kennedy went down to the Embassy room to make his speech, Wayne followed. He was loitering in the kitchen, was asked to leave, and returned shortly before the shooting took place. Cryptic references in the extant files on Wayne seem to indicate that Wayne made some comment indicating foreknowledge of the assassination to a man in the electrician?s booth shortly before the shooting. In fact, the first question on the proposed list of questions to be asked of Wayne under a polygraph was this:

Did you have prior knowledge that there might be an attempt on Senator Kennedy?s life?

Curiously, that question does not appear on the actual list of questions asked.51

Right after the shots were fired, Wayne, who bore a resemblance to Sirhan, although taller and with sideburns, ran out of the East end of the Pantry and then out through the Embassy room. William Singer described this event to the LAPD:

I was in the lobby of the Ambassador Hotel right next to the ballroom. Senator Kennedy had just walked away from the podium after his victory speech. Several moments before the commotion started a man came running and pushing his way out of the ballroom past where I was standing. I would describe this man as having Hebrew or some type mid-eastern features, he was approx 18/22 5-10 thin face, slim, drk swtr or jkt, drk slacks, no tie, firy [sic] neat in appearance, nice teeth, curly arab or hebrew type hair. He may have been wearing glasses, I?m not sure. I can ID him. He isn?t one of the men in the pictures you showed me (Saidallah B. Sirhan or Sirhan Sirhan) this man was in a big hurry and was saying, "Pardon me Please" as he pushed his way out of the crowded ballroom. He was carrying a rolled piece of cardboard, maybe a placard. This placard was approx 1? yards long and 4-6" in diameter. I think I saw something black inside. Just as he got pst [sic] me I heard screaming and shouting and I knew something bad had happened. Two men were shouting to "Stop that man." these two men were chasing the first man. I don?t know if they caught him.52

Gregory Ross Clayton also reported this incident to the LAPD, adding that it was a newsman who yelled "Stop him." Clayton then tackled the man and held him while a hotel security guard handcuffed and removed the man. Clayton reported having seen this man standing with a girl and three other men, one of which resembled Sirhan, earlier that night at the hotel.53 Clayton identified Michael Wayne as the man he had seen. The LAPD confirmed that Ace Security guard Augustus Mallard had arrested and handcuffed Wayne because of his suspicious behavior running from the scene of the shooting.

The press man was evidently Steve Fontanini, a photographer for the Los Angeles Times. Thinking Wayne was a suspect, he ran after him. Fontanini didn?t buy Wayne?s explanation that he was running to a telephone because he was running out of the press room (adjacent to the pantry), a room full of phones. That fact bothered neither the LAPD nor Robert Kaiser, who accepted Wayne?s explanation as the truth.

Joseph Thomas Klein, Patti Nelson and Dennis Weaver had seen Wayne run by with something rolled up in his hand. Klein originally described the roll as larger at one end than at the other. Weaver remembered Patti had yelled "He?s got a gun," although Weaver did not see a gun. Weaver said he only saw Wayne for several seconds. A month later, when questioned again, the LAPD recorded the following interesting comments, begging the question of what had given rise to them:

The man was carrying a blue poster, rolled up in his left hand. It could have been a cardboard tube, or rolled up posters. Mr. Weaver states he had a clear view of the object and states that there was no gun sticking out of the roll.

This investigator questioned Mr. Weaver additionally concerning the object being carried by the man crossing the lobby. Weaver states he is absolutely sure there was no gun protruding from the object. He states the object was blue, but was not wood colored at the one end, or even resembling a gun stock.

Patti Nelson?s interview appears to no longer exist. Joseph Klein?s, however, contained the interesting notation:

Klein states that as he pursued Wayne, he passed Nelson and Weaver and said, to them; "my God, he had a gun, and we let him get by." (Klein states this is the first time since the incident he can recall making the statement.)

What happened after Wayne was arrested and handcuffed by Ace Security Guard Mallard is unclear, and troubling. An LAPD supplemental report to Michael Wayne?s interview states:

This investigator received information that the business card of Keith Duane Gilbert was in the possession of Wayne, at the time of his apprehension after Sen. Kennedy was shot. Gilbert is reported to be an extremist and militant who has been involved in a dynamite theft, previously.

Wayne, however, denied any knowledge of Gilbert, and did not remember ever having his card. But in the SUS files, yet another problem cropped up. Gilbert?s file, when checked, contained a business card as well. The card belonged to Michael Wayne.

Sgt. Manual Gutierrez of SUS spent a great deal of time trying to find out whether there was some sinister association between Wayne and Gilbert, a radical Minuteman activist. Gutierrez did not believe Wayne?s denials of a relationship, and ultimately pushed to have Wayne polygraphed. Unfortunately, the polygraph was operated by Hernandez, whose record of truth in this case is so poor as to make his tests worthless. Not surprisingly, Hernandez determined Wayne was "truthful" about not knowing Gilbert. Gutierrez, a fitness buff, died in 1972 at the young age of forty. Turner and Christian wrote, "It was said that he [Gutierrez] had privately voiced doubts about the police conclusion [that Sirhan alone had killed Kennedy]." SUS ended up claiming that that the Michael Wayne card in Gilbert?s file referred to a different Michael Wayne. They never did explain the reverse possession.

Wayne is an interesting person. He was seen in a group that allegedly included Sirhan. He obtained a ride from the suspicious Khaibar Khan. A couple of people thought he had a gun as he ran out of the pantry. And he was apprehended by a guard from the service that employed one of the most famous alternate suspects in this case, Thane Eugene Cesar.

Thane Eugene Cesar

Thane Eugene Cesar was just behind and to the right of Kennedy at the time the shots were fired. If Cesar is telling the truth about his position, then either he was the shooter, or the shooter had to be between himself and Kennedy. Cesar denies that he shot Kennedy, and denies that anyone else in that position shot him either. Cesar?s proximity to Kennedy is graphically demonstrated by the presence of his clip-on tie just beyond Kennedy?s outstretched hand as he lay on the floor. Cesar has made many statements that he has later contradicted, adding to the suspicion of sinister involvement. For example, he told police he had sold his.22 before the assassination, and that he had lost the receipt. But the police found the receipt, and found that he had sold the gun after the assassination.

Cesar was also one of the first to accurately pinpoint where Kennedy was shot. Most people thought Kennedy was shot in the head. Cesar, on the other hand, in an interview immediately following the shooting, reported that Kennedy was shot in the head, the chest and the shoulder. He also said he was holding Kennedy?s arm when "they" shot him. Asked if Sirhan alone did all the shooting he said, "No, yeah. One man."54 Paul Hope of the Evening Star also obtained early comments from Cesar. Hope recorded Cesar?s comments as follows:

I fell back and pulled the Senator with me. He slumped to the floor on his back. I was off balance and fell down and when I looked up about 10 people already had grabbed the assailant.55

Cesar told the LAPD that he ducked and was knocked down at the first shot, hardly the same report he gave the press. Richard Drew witnessed something similar to Cesar?s original version, as he reported in a separate article in the Evening Star that same day (6/5/68):

As I looked up, Sen. Kennedy started to fall back and then was lowered to the floor by his aides.

In Drew?s LAPD interview, he reduced the plural to the singular, saying "Someone" had lowered Kennedy to the floor. Since Kennedy was shot in the back at a range of 1-2 inches, anyone lowering him to the floor should have been an immediate suspect.

Equally important was Eara Marchman?s report to the LAPD of what she witnessed prior to the assassination. Thane Eugene Cesar had been assigned to guard the pantry area that night. The LAPD recorded the following information from Marchman:

She walked out towards the kitchen area and observed a man in a blue coat, dark complexion, possibly about 5-3/6 wearing lt. colored pants, standing talking to, and possibly arguing with, a uniformed guard who was standing by swinging kitchen doors (after showing mugs susp Sirhan was pointed out, although she only saw the man from the side position).

Was Cesar arguing with Sirhan earlier that night? Cesar claims he never saw Sirhan in the pantry before the shooting, despite his having been sighted there by several other witnesses. But is Cesar to be believed?

Anyone wishing to look into the involvement of Cesar eventually runs into Dan Moldea. (See DiEugenio?s article on Moldea in this issue.) It?s almost as if Moldea has become Cesar?s handler, deciding who will get access to his prize.

Moldea spends a great deal of his book on the case discussing Cesar. Cesar was standing immediately behind and to the right of Kennedy?exactly the spot from which the gun had to have been fired, according to the autopsy report. While many researchers have felt (and continue to feel) that Cesar was the top suspect for the actual assassin of RFK, Moldea has not. Moldea, curiously, has been a defender. In his first published article on the case in Regardie?s, Moldea concluded with the following statement about Cesar:

Gene Cesar may be the classic example of a man caught at the wrong time in the wrong place with a gun in his hand and powder burns on his face?an innocent bystander caught in the cross fire of history.

Whatever Moldea?s motives may have been in 1987, when the above quotes were published, by 1997 he was singing an even more disturbing tune:

To sum up, Gene Cesar proved to be an innocent man who since 1969 has been wrongly accused of being involved in the murder of Senator Kennedy.

What would cause a man to state such a thing, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, some of which he dug up himself?

Moldea tells us that Cesar had secret clearance to work on projects at Lockheed?s Burbank facility, and at Hughes Aircraft. Note that Robert Maheu, Roselli?s partner in assassination plots, was overseeing a great deal of Hughes? operations in 1968. Note too that the CIA has had a long and admitted relationship with Hughes. A CIA document dated 1974 but not released until 1994 relates the following:

DCD [Domestic Contacts Division] has had close and continuing relationships with the Hughes Tool Company and Hughes Aircraft Company since 1948. Both companies have been completely cooperative and have provided a wealth of information over the years....It should be noted...that in the case of Hughes Aircraft, DCD has contacted over 250 individuals in the company since the start of our association and about 100 in Hughes Tool over the same period. The substance of the contacts ranged from FPI collection to sensitive operational proposals. In addition, there is some evidence in DCD files that both companies may have had contractual relationships with the Agency. In the context of such a broad range in Hughes/CIA relationships, it is difficult to state with certainty that the surfacing of the substance of a given action would not cause Congressional and/or media interest.56

He also reveals that at a lunch with Cesar, Cesar casually mentioned that he had purchased some diamonds from a businessman who was a Mafia associate. Despite these points, Moldea writes:

For years, numerous conspiracy theories have alleged that Cesar worked for the Mafia, the CIA, Howard Hughes, or even as a freelance bodyguard, leg breaker, and hit man.

There is no evidence to support any of these allegations.

While one could argue that there is no proof, there is plenty of evidence to support such allegations. Moldea even provided some of it, but did so in a sneaky fashion. For example, the Burbank Lockheed facility is the famous "Skunkworks" facility that housed the CIA?s U-2 program. And Howard Hughes owned Hughes Aircraft. The CIA also had a stake in Hughes Aircraft (and the entire Hughes operation), a non-secret at this point. Why did Moldea leave out such salient points?

The denouement of Moldea?s exploration of Cesar comes in the form of a much-touted polygraph test, which Cesar passed. Cesar had offered to take a polygraph in the past, but LAPD consistently avoided all opportunities to do so. Moldea claims that had Cesar failed his test, he would have pursued him to the ends of the earth. But since he passed, he concludes that Cesar is credible. He could have passed some of the questions he was asked whether he was the shooter or not. Consider the following:

Between the ages of twenty-eight and forty-five, other than your kids, did you ever hurt anyone?


One can?t help but wonder, from the wording, just what Cesar did do to his kids between those ages! But worse, Cesar was twenty-six at the time of RFK?s assassination, not twenty-eight! That question and a similar one had no relevance to June 5th at all!

Examine the semantic trick in the next question:

Did you fire a weapon the night Robert Kennedy was shot?


Kennedy was shot at about 12:15 AM in the morning, so "the night" he was shot would have been the night of the 5th, long past the point at which the shooting took place. No assassin fired a gun that "night".

The wording of this next question was interesting.

Were you involved in a plan to shoot Robert Kennedy?


Note how the question was limited specifically to shooting, and not to any other broader kind of involvement in a plan to kill Robert Kennedy. What if Cesar was not the shooter, but was protecting the shooter?s identity by saying he was the only one in the shooter?s position? He might do this if he knew it could never be proved that he was the shooter. And if he didn?t fire any shots into the Senator, it would be difficult, despite circumstantial evidence, to link him in a court of law to the crime. But by saying he was there and that no one was between them, possibly he could be lying to protect someone else. If that were true, his next answer could very well be true:

Regarding57 Robert Kennedy, did you fire any of the shots that hit him in June of ?68?


The following question and answer either supports this theory, or proves Cesar to be inaccurate or lying about his position relative to Kennedy:

Could you have fired at Kennedy if you wanted to?


By his own account, he had been practically touching Kennedy, and did have a gun with him that night. So it would seem that his answer is inaccurate, unless someone was physically between him and Kennedy.

There are, of course, other possibilities to the postulations I have just suggested. He might have truly had no involvement, and genuinely told the truth. Another possibility is that he faked his way through the test. No less than former CIA Director William Colby said this was doable if you knew the tricks of the trade. A third possibility is that the operator, Edward Gelb, altered the machine and/or results to achieve the desired results. And these suggestions are not mutually exclusive.

Whatever the results, Moldea was not justified in basing his sole conclusion as to the question of Cesar?s guilt or innocence upon a test that is not even admissible in court. Moldea?s unquestioning credence casts as many doubts about Moldea as Cesar?s conflicting statements continue to cast upon himself.

Lastly, there is the question of Ace Guard Services. Ace was only formed in the beginning of 1968 by Frank J. and Loretta M. Hendrix. And Cesar was only hired in May of 1968, just days before the assassination. Years after the assassination, DeWayne Wolfer, the criminalist in Sirhan?s case, became president of Ace under its newer name of Ace Security Services. Is this all just coincidence?

Lining Up the Squares

Like a Rubrick?s cube, this case seems to involve many small, separate players. But as you get closer to solving the puzzle, you find there are really only a few planes, all of which connect in a single, logical fashion. The conspiracy is obvious; the players semi-obvious; but the motive is considerably less obvious. The question of Cui Bono remains all-important: Who Benefits?

Once a supporter of Red hunter Joe McCarthy, Bobby had grown a great deal since his brother?s death. He became the champion of the disenfranchised. He marched for civil rights, and lashed out at the inefficiencies in our social system. He was not a supporter of welfare handouts but of jobs for all. He was often accused of being "angry", and retorted "I am impatient. I would hope everyone would be impatient." "I think people should be angry enough to speak out." Another favorite: "It is not enough to allow dissent. We must demand it." As Richard Goodwin has written, it was the very qualities that people most appreciated that caused the establishment to loathe and fear him. The people loved a Senator who would stand up and tell it like it was, without fear, without softening rhetoric. The establishment wanted him to go away.

Bobby Kennedy had more enemies it would seem then his brother. Where John Kennedy played the politician, Bobby Kennedy played the populist. A famous episode recounted by Richard Goodwin shows how radical Bobby had become. The State Department had threatened to cut off aid to Peru over a dispute Peru had with the International Petroleum Company, a Standard Oil subsidiary. Kennedy had been outraged at the State Department, saying, "Peru has a democratic government. We ought to be helping them succeed, not tearing them down just because some oil company doesn?t like their policies." But when Kennedy was confronted with what he considered excessive anti-Americanism from a Peruvian audience, Kennedy turned the tables on them. Goodwin recounts what transpired as follows:

Irritated by the attacks, Kennedy turned on his audience. "Well, if it?s so important to you, why don?t you just go ahead and nationalize the damn oil company? It?s your country. You can?t be both cursing the U.S., and then looking to it for permission to do what you want to do. The U.S. government isn?t going to send destroyers or anything like that. So if you want to assert your nationhood, why don?t you just do it?"

The Peruvians were stunned at the boldness of Kennedy?s suggestion. "Why, David Rockefeller has just been down here," they said, "and he told us there wouldn?t be any aid if anyone acted against International Petroleum."

"Oh, come on," said Kennedy, "David Rockefeller isn?t the government. We Kennedys eat Rockefellers for breakfast."

Bobby had outraged the CIA by exercising heavy oversight after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Richard Helms, the friend of the Shah and a key MKULTRA backer, held a special animosity for Bobby Kennedy. And Bobby was the one who asked, immediately after the assassination, if the CIA had killed his brother. What might Bobby have uncovered had he been allowed to reach the office of the Presidency? Powerful factions hoped they?d never have to find out.

Kennedy himself expected tragedy for his efforts. "I play Russian roulette every time I get up in the morning," he told friends. "But I just don?t care. There?s nothing I could do about it anyway," the fatalist explained, adding, "This isn?t really such a happy existence, is it?"58

The assassination of both Kennedys guaranteed the elongation of our involvement in Vietnam, a war that personally brought Howard Hughes and everyone involved in defense contracts loads of money. Killing Bobby prevented any effective return to the policies started under John Kennedy, and prevented Bobby from opening any doors to the truth about the murder of his brother. And killing Bobby removed a thorn in the side of many in the CIA who felt he had treated them unkindly and unfairly.

Who killed Bobby? One man gave me an answer to that. I interviewed John Meier, a former bagman for Hughes and by association the CIA. Meier was one of the tiny handful of people in direct contact with Howard Hughes himself. His position gave him entr?e to circles most people will never see.

Meier had worked for Hughes during the assassination, and saw enough dealings before and after the assassination to cause him to approach J. Edgar Hoover with what he knew. For example, he knew that Thane Eugene Cesar had an association with Maheu. (Maheu also had an extensive working relationship with the LAPD. This partnership produced a porno film pretending to show Indonesian president Sukarno in a compromising position with a Soviet agent.59) According to Meier, Hoover expressed his frustration, saying words to the effect of "Yes, we know this was a Maheu operation. People think I?m so powerful, but when it comes to the CIA, there?s nothing I can do."

People will choose what they will believe. But the evidence is still present, waiting to be followed, if any entity has the fortitude to pursue the truth in this case to wherever it leads. And so long as Sirhan remains in jail, the real assassins will never be sought. ?

Related links