RFK Assassination of 1968: No Evidence of a Conspiracy -- Except for the Mountains of Disinformation; What is the Media up to?
|1.||Intro: not all assassinations were created equal|
|2.||Pruszynski recording: actually confirms the official story|
|3.||Original testimony: why it matters|
|4.||Original testimony: held only by the AFIO's Mary Farrell?|
|5.||Timeline of the evening and early Sirhan observations|
|6.||The shooting and its witnesses|
Debunking big media-backed disinformation
|7.||No extra bullet holes|
|8.||Police officer Thane Eugene Cesar: innocent|
|9.||The other "second assassin", Michael Wayne: innocent|
|10.||The "RFK-shot-from-one-inch" controversy|
|11.||The "RFK-shot-behind" controversy|
|12.||Polka Dot Dress Girl: likely did not exist|
|13.||Everett Buckner: another liar|
|14.||The first Arab terrorist|
|16.||"Liberal CIA"/antifa tie?|
Major RFK disinformers
|25.||Evidence of Revision (2006)|
|26.||RFK Must Die (2007)|
Intro: not all assassinations were created equal
The 1960s are notorious for the large number of prominent assassinations that took place: John F. Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm X in February 1965, Martin Luther King in April 1968, and Robert F. "Bobby" Kennedy in June 1968. Not all assassinations are equal, however. There are most certainly very serious questions with the JFK assassination that totally contradict the official story.
With Malcolm X this is not the case. He was murdered by his own Nation of Islam, a very extreme Jew- and white-hating Muslim cult today allied with large segments of the hip hop community. That having been said, today's Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, who back in the day called for the murder of Malcolm X, is a major promoter of the usual (Holocaust denial-linked) 9/11 disinformation. So in that sense there's still more to be found here than one might initially think.
Martin Luther King's assassination I never much looked into, although from limited research I most definitely got the impression that James Earl Ray pulled the trigger. With that, it's extremely odd that Martin Luther King, Jr. visited Ray in prison in 1997, shook his hand, and proclaimed his innocence. Keeping in mind that Martin Luther King received major Nelson Rockefeller and Rockefeller Brothers Fund funding, nothing seems impossible.
For the time being, the assassination of RFK has been heading into the same direction, with literally every single piece of evidence pointing to Sirhan Sirhan as the sole killer of RFK, with RFK, Jr. and an army of conspiracy disinformers actually suggesting that Sirhan was just an innocent, mind controlled patsy.
As usual, truth is proving to be stranger than fiction.
It must be said, fifteen years into ISGP and one of the most glaring conspiracies never discussed here must be this June 5, 1968 RFK assassination (he died on June 6). Over the years, I've regularly seen references to a conspiracy with regard to this assassination. Activist documentary maker John Pilger, 9/11 "Truth" lawyer William Pepper, and Michael Ruppert of From The Wilderness, all come to mind as individuals who represented the conspiracy point-of-view. The relatively prominent documentaries Evidence of Revision (2006) and RFK Must Die (2007) also made similar cases of conspiracy, always with roughly the same line of arguing: inconsistency among the testimonies, a second shooter, a woman in a polka dot dress, Sirhan being mind controlled, etc.
The problem has always been that vastly less information has been written about the RFK assassination than the one of his brother, 5 years earlier, in 1963. To this day, in 2019, the Wikipedia article on the RFK assassination is not particularly in-depth. Full, original testimonies were even tougher to find than was the case with JFK a few years back (until this article that is). In fact, the final January 1968 LAPD report on the RFK assassination - pretty much the Warren Commission of the RFK assassination - wasn't (easily) accessible through search engines until I compiled one for this article. I had to manually select the most relevant pages, turn it into a .pdf, and OCR it, just to have it readily available for readers of this article. It's not that this exactly is the hardest research ever done by this author, but it gives one an indication of the utter lack of attention the "conspiracy community" has given to the RFK assassination. Because of this lack of (original, official) information, I myself always went: "I don't know. RFK's death is suspicious, but I just don't know. I can't find anything and I have no time to look into it."
This line of thinking changed in January 2019 upon reading a 1998 statement of Michael Ruppert claiming "fifteen or more REAL shots were fired" during the RFK assassination. I did a brief search on this, noticed that in 2004 something called the "Pruszynski recording" had been released, capturing the shots fired that night, and went "Aha! Another point to determine once and for all if Ruppert was a disinformation artist!" Rest assured, he was. Not only does the Pruszynski recording confirm the official account of 8 shots fired, afterwards I dug into the RFK assassination for a full month, read all the original witness testimony, read the official report, went over all the supposed inconsistencies, and could only conclude one thing: the official account is true.
Yes, a few questions can be asked about one or two "liberal CIA", "new left" friends and associates of Sirhan Sirhan. But other than that, the assassination itself, was solely carried out by Sirhan. And most likely that explains the lack of official data available for all these years.
While this might be a bummer to many readers, it still remains extremely fascinating and important to discuss the extent and depth of conspiracy disinformation being spread in our society. For example, how on Earth can you ever explain that the son of RFK, RFK Jr., not only is a "liberal CIA"-type activist, but also actively supports the theory that Sirhan is a "patsy"? It's absolutely crazy. But it is reality nevertheless.
We will be discussing prominent elements of the assassination one by one. Or shall we say, we will be debunking them.
Pruszynski recording: confirms the official story
As said, the main thing that inspired the creation of this article, apart from random "second gunman" comments over the years, is learning about the existence of the Pruszynski recording in January 2019. For some reason, it wasn't until 2004 that this tape, which recorded the shots fired that killed RFK, became publicly available.
Looking up this tape online, red flags immediately started popping up in relation to big media. For some reason, media outlets as CNN and the Washington Post devoted a ton of time to conspiracy talk surrounding this tape when word of it spread. In particular, from the start these media outlets provided tons of attention to Dallas police-linked audio engineer Philip Van Praag and others who claimed that the tape contains evidence of as much as 13 shots. This should be impossible, because Sirhan's .22 revolver only contained 8 bullets. He fired all eight in short succession - so that leaves us with 5 unaccounted shots that would have to have been fired by a "second gunman". Making the case of a second gunman even stronger - supposedly - is the claim from these "experts" that some of the shots fired were only spaced just over 100 milliseconds apart. The realistic minimum for firing Sirhan's revolver from one bullet to the next approximately was 350 milliseconds, hence, "second gunman"!
Excited about the existence of this tape, I downloaded the CNN YouTube clip, extracted the Pruszynski tape section, turned this into an mp3 file and loaded it into Adobe Audition for analysis. Readers can do this themselves or download my mp3 file here. When doing this analysis, I purposely skipped any detailed discussions by Van Praag or others as to where exactly these shots are to be found. At the time I hadn't even checked if Sirhan really fired eight rounds according to the official story. I tried to analyze the tape as objective as possible.
So, with headphones, how many shots did I count? That would be 7, one less than Sirhan apparently fired. This is perfectly possible though, because there's a 0.8 second section in between the shots where a loud metallic-sounding "wiew" noise can be heard, with a woman loudly screaming right after the last audible shot. Thus, there's plenty of room for an additional shot having taking place.
Sure, theoretically 10 or even 13 shots in total could have been fired if we strictly listen to this tape. But the key point is that absolutely no 10 or 13 shots can be heard on this tape, as much as Van Praag and even big media have been pushing this narrative.
Of course, disinformers love to convey the notion that only "expert ears" can hear and interpret these additional gunshot noises. Rest assured though, they're simply not there. These "experts", as can be seen in the CNN video, used different software with different-looking waveform displays, so it's not the easiest to compare their analysis with my own, but it strongly looks as if Van Praag and allies labeled the "beep" sound and the ending of the "Gary!" scream as "shots". They also appear to have "found" two additional shots within the "wiew" noise. Readers who don't believe, can do the analysis themselves.
There's no science to this at all: these "experts" simply are lying and manipulating, like good little conspiracy disinformation assets. They're no different than the hordes of no-planers for 9/11 that the mainstream media has allowed on television and the radio over the years to represent 9/11 "Truth".
Original testimony: why it matters
With the Pruszynski recording clearly pointing in the direction of the official story that only one shooter - Sirhan Sirhan - was involved in killing RFK, it was time to start reading all the witness testimony. We're not talking here about anything or anyone that came out in the years after the shooting. That type of testimony simply cannot be trusted - at all.
To illustrate, various JFK assassination witnesses changed their testimonies or invented ones in later years. Examples of this include alleged grassy knoll shot "witness" Mike Browlow; Oswald "mistress" Judyth Baker; Dr. Charles A. Crenshaw, who was present at the Parkland Hospital where JFK was brought to; apparent mafia hitman James Files, who claimed to be the grassy knoll shooter; and FBI agent Zack Shelton, who pointed questionable investigators as Peter R. de Vries to James Files.
It's been the same thing with 9/11. Curious WTC janitor Willy Rodriguez, WTC 7 survivor Barry Jennings and firefighters as Louie Cacchioli and John Schroeder all produced post-9/11 witness statements that strongly contradicts either their original statements or all other testimony of that day. Often it's both.
We can cite many more examples from all kinds of Coast to Coast AM-related subject. All the Roswell crash witnesses, for example, despite living in the neighborhood at the time, continue to be organized in a very organized, systematic conspiracy to keep that alien crash myth going. They're surrounded by superclass financiers, but it remains an unbelievably curious saga. Individual fake witnesses on a million different subjects have been brought on the air on Coast to Coast AM on a continuous basis. It's extremely common.
With RFK we certainly have John Pilger later blatantly changing his original testimony to fit the "second gunman" theory. There are others, some of whom we will meet later on in this article. But the point is: as an investigator, you want to stick as closely as possible to testimonies from the day of an event. Early on, at least traditionally, ordinary witnesses receive unobstructed attention from the media, with police officers still doing their jobs unobstructed by higher officials. The longer investigations drag on and questions of conspiracy surface, the more time there is for the elites to start putting in their own people, insert false witnesses, and have corrupt "researchers" twist all the facts.
Original testimony is what enormously aided this author in determining that the JFK assassination involved two distinct pockets of gunfire (Oswald's "sniper's nest" and the grassy knoll) and that countless firefighters, journalists and ordinary witnesses during the World Trade Center collapses indeed were suspicious of bombs going off.
Original testimony also made it clear that claims of a second gunman with the 2002 Pim Fortuyn assassination in the Netherlands are totally bogus and part of a disinformation campaign that has seen the support of intelligence-tied individuals and the country's largest newspapers. With that, it very much appears that the RFK assassination falls into the exact same category as the Pim Fortuyn assassination.
Original testimony only held by AFIO member Mary Farrell
Literally the only place to find all the original testimony of the RFK assassination was in the files of the Mary Ferrell Foundation, which is primarily focused on the JFK assassination. Ferrell lived in Dallas, Texas when JFK was assassinated. Immediately, she began creating a large database on the assassination, which turned into a lifelong project. Bizarrely, Ferrell's name appears in a 1996 membership list of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO), along with much of the CIA leadership. This includes names as Ted Shackley, the primary CIA suspected in running Oswald and the JFK assassination as a whole.
Needless to say, articles published by the Mary Ferrell Foundation on JFK and RFK are riddles with key mistakes or manipulations, so maybe it's about time we extract individual RFK testimonies from very large official compilations to be found here and make them more readily available in this article. Due to time, size and bandwidth constraints it's not practical to add all of them, but we'll have enough for readers to get a good sense of what occurred during the shooting.
Timeline of the evening and early Sirhan observations
In total, about five full days were spent of reading the LAPD and FBI-gathered witness testimonies related to the RFK assassination. As usual - conspiracy or not - an extremely coherent story came out. Let's turn all the different testimonies into a basic timeline of what apparently happened that evening of June 4-5, 1968 at the Ambassador Hotel:
- April 1968: Reservations of RFK at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles are taken care of by Uno Timanson and head of security William Gardner.
- 7:15 p.m.: Security guards, 11 hotel guards and 6 extra guards from Ace Guard Service, all under the leadership of Gardner (apart from 8 police officers patrolling the compound), are instructed by RFK's people to only allow press and RFK staffers with badges into the Embassy Room, where RFK is expected to give a speech later that night. RFK staffers also help the guards screen other staffers and contributors get inside the Embassy Room. However, a good number of unauthorized people - mainly Kennedy supporters - manage to find their way into the Embassy Room by walking from the Colonial Room through the kitchen pantry. Guards say they don't have the capacity to do anything about it. 
- 8:45 p.m.: Ace Guard Service guard Jack Merritt is stationed at the main door of the Embassy Room. He suggests "to [hotel vice president Uno] TIMONSEN and [RFK press officer Hugh] MCDONALD that KENNEDY leave by a different exit than the one used to enter, for security reasons. They agreed this was a good idea and would be complied with. [But] I thought they would turn left from rear of the stage and go downstairs to Ambassador Ballroom." The location would be changed, however, to the Colonial Room.
- 9:35 p.m.: Ace guard Thane Eugene Cesar is posted as a guard at the east end of the kitchen pantry to keep unauthorized persons out. He can see the entire kitchen pantry area from here.
- 10:30 p.m.: Around this time, RFK campaigner Dr. Marcus McBroom enters the hotel through a back door and is surprised to see an unkempt person without a white kitchen uniform sitting on a table here. He later identifies this person as Sirhan Sirhan.
- 10:30 p.m.: Around this time, RFK-affiliated Negro leader Booker Griffin notices a person in the Embassy Room whom he later identifies as Sirhan Sirhan.
- 11:15 p.m.: Thane Eugene Cesar is informed by head of security William Gardner to protect the kitchen pantry door, as RFK will move through here after his speech is finished. The original idea is that RFK will walk to the main door of the Embassy Room through the crowd. The reason of the last-minute route change isn't clear. The crowd being too large, security reasons and RFK's wife "feeling faint" are among the recorded rumors in the days after the shooting.
- 11:30 p.m.: RFK staffer Booker Griffin notices a person in the kitchen pantry whom he later identifies as Sirhan Sirhan.
- 11:15 p.m.-0:00 a.m.: News of the route change is spread by the "Kennedy girls" and a handful of RFK staffers over the next 45 minutes. As a result, a number of journalists already begin moving towards the Colonial Room during RFK's speech. Many RFK staffers learn last-minute or don't learn this news at all, including makeshift bodyguard Rafer Johnson.
- 11:50 p.m.-0:00 a.m.: RFK gives his speech to a large crowd in the Embassy Room of the Ambassador Hotel.
- 11:50 p.m.-0:00 a.m.: RFK's bodyguard, former FBI agent Bill Barry, later tells friends that he kicked Sirhan off the stage two or three times while RFK was giving his speech, with another person hearing that Kennedy staffer Dick Ruck did too. These might be tall tales, or an indication that SIRHAN already tried to shoot RFK during his speech.
- 11:55 p.m.: Security man Fred Dutton scouts the kitchen route from the stage to the Colonial Room 5 minutes before RFK comes through. He later says to investigators: "The walk route was changed at the last minute, so the susp[ect] shouldn't have known what way we were going." Comments like this clearly prompted LAPD investigators to dig for answers, but it appears they never really got back to key individuals to get a very clear answer on this issue.
- 0:00 a.m.: When RFK's speech concludes, he moves to the hallway behind the stage. From here he is guided into the kitchen pantry area where Sirhan is waiting and kills him. Chaos ensues.
The shooting and its witnesses
If we wind back time a minute or so from the shooting, we can gather the following details as to who was escorting RFK and how exactly Sirhan shot the senator.
- RFK walks off-stage to the hallway behind the podium. He is followed by large crowd. Not too many people appear to have made it into the kitchen pantry before the ending of the speech, but it appears Sirhan picked up on the last-minute route change and is waiting for RFK at the narrowest section of the kitchen pantry. This is entirely possible, because Sirhan was seen trying to get up on the stage during the speech, with the so-called "Kennedy girls" passing out information on the route change to everyone in range.
- RFK is guided through the hotel by the maitre d'hotel, Vincent Di Pierro, and his assistants: Karl Uecker, the deputy maitre; catering staff member Edward Minasian; and Uno Timanson, a vice president of the hotel who walked ahead and won't see the initial shots being fired. Walking along with RFK at his immediate front-right, is LAPD officer Thane Eugene Cesar. Cesar holds RFK's right arm.
- The last person to shake RFK's hand is room service busboy Juan Romero, who is standing in front of the kitchen door with two other hotel employees. In order to shake Romero's hand, as well as the persons beside him, at the last moment RFK breaks loose from Cesar's grip and turns to his left.
- At this moment waiter Martin Patrusky sees Sirhan pushing himself through the crowd towards RFK from the front. He and others think little of it, assuming this person too wants to shake hands with the senator. At the last moment he tries to push aside Karl Uecker, who is standing in front of RFK, with his left arm, while raising a gun to RFK's head with his right arm. He "lunges" forward and fires two initial shots. One hits RFK behind his right ear - because the senator has turned to the left. The other moves through RFK's shoulder pad and hits Paul Schrade, a person standing behind Kennedy, in the top of his head. It instantly knocks Schrade out, who afterwards explains to have never even heard the initial shot or see Sirhan.
- While Sirhan is grabbed by various people around RFK - including makeshift bodyguards Rafer Johnson and Rosey Grier, soon followed by main bodyguard William Barry and CIA-tied journalist George Plimpton - he's able to hit Kennedy twice more under the armpit. The remaining four bullets are fired at random into the crowd, all towards the pantry doors, injuring four more people. Witness James Breslin provided among the more detailed accounts of this struggle. Boris Yaro, who temporarily grabbed the gun, also played a role in it.
- Paul Grieco kneels down and holds RFK's head while the senator is slipping into a coma.
- Sirhan, who resisted extremely heavily after the shooting, is questioned by persons around him about his motives. He doesn't say much. Only when taken away by car, according to Jesse Unruh, speaker of the California State Assembly, he briefly says, "I did it for my country. ... It's too late [now to talk about it?]. ... I can explain."
DEBUNKING CONTRIVED CONTROVERSY WITH THE RFK CASE
No extra bullet holes
Of the three weeks I spent reading the RFK assassination testimonies and the report, the last week was dominated by claims that additional bullets had been found in the walls surrounding the pantry doors. This is the direction that Sirhan emptied his gun towards. The problem here is that:
- Sirhan's .22 gun, which he emptied, contained 8 bullets;
- none of the witnesses reported more than one shooter;
- that on average, witnesses described hearing 6 or 7 shots;
- that the Pruszynski recording doesn't reveal more than 7 shots;
- the number of victims and their wounds correspond with one shooter and 8 bullets.
You look at this and wonder how on Earth it is possible that a whole bunch of RFK assassination "researchers" have been demonstrating small round holes in the pantry wall, behind many of the victims, which do not correspond with the bullet trajectories in the official report. Looking at medical reports of the victims it also quickly becomes clear that whole bullets were dug out of them, excluding the possibility that these extra bullet holes were the result of fracturing. Worse, seemingly credible authors as Vince Bugliosi and Dan Moldea (they are not) spent a lot of time in subsequent decades trying to explain this mystery. They interviewed all kinds of policemen and detectives involved in the case, with some claiming that bullets indeed were dug out of these walls. They also have shown us pictures of detectives having dug out these "bullet holes", with it being known that the entire door frame was removed by the police and taken away for analysis. Strangely, nothing was heard about the results of the subsequent analysis. Hence, it's all to easy to think there was a cover up about this aspect.
The thing is, there's not. Or, at least, there's no reason to believe this. A first good hint to this effect is that similar to the later-released Pruszynski recording, the mainstream media, including, as usual, the Washington Post, have been giving an usual amount of attention since at least the early 1990s to this "bullet holes theory". Former FBI agent William A. Baily, for example, has been quoted at length on this issue. Seeing how retired FBI agent Zack Shelton gave us the James Files disinformation on JFK; or how former leading FBI special agent Ted Gunderson has provided the world with conspiracy disinformation on everything else; this type of prominent whistleblowing means nothing. In fact, it is an instant red flag. Secondly, in 2000 Dan Moldea quoted RFK's coroner, Thomas Noguchi, as saying:
"I remember that I asked for photographs to be taken at each [reconstructed shooting] sequence so we could analyze the scene. One of the pictures was of a center door divider. I asked Mr. Wolfer [LAPD Officer DeWayne Wolfer of the Scientific Investigation Division], 'Is this a bullet hole?' And he said, 'No.' He said that they had done x-rays or something to that effect, and that no bullets were there. Of course, I have no reason to doubt that." 
Next, looking deeper at the different pictures of the kitchen pantry wall and doorframe, I realized that we're not talking about just one or two "bullet holes", but that the wall was riddled with all kinds of round holes of different shapes and sizes. Mainly five large ones are encircled, one of them is dug out, and the smaller ones are left alone. If one of these is a bullet, you'd have to assume at least 5 were. How do you fire 5 extra bullets in a room crammed by about 70 people, with no one witnessing these shots being fired by a second gunman? And no one getting hit? It absolutely makes zero sense. Also, if you can have pre-existing small round holes in the pantry walls, there's no reason you can't have 5 larger ones as well. Who knows how they got there? It really doesn't matter. It's impossible for them to have been bullet holes based on the extensive witness testimony alone.
Conclusion: Sirhan Sirhan remains the lone gunman that night. Widespread claims and "suspicions" of additional bullet holes in the pantry halls is nothing but alternative- and big media-pushed disinformation. The wall was analyzed by the police and discarded without additional reporting after suspicions of bullet holes were found to be unsubstantiated.
Police officer Thane Eugene Cesar is innocent
Even though we already extensively made the case that there was no second shooter during the RFK assassination, maybe we should still discuss the widely-pushed claim that it was police officer and Ace security guard officers Thane Eugene Cesar who was the secondary shooter. As mentioned, Cesar was walking alongside RFK's right-side during the final moments before the shooting.
If we ignore for a moment that this theory sounds about as unhinged as JFK's driver turning around and shooting the president in the head in full view of hundreds of people (or a painted up missile or drone hitting the Pentagon on 9/11), the fact is that this claim is based on a TV interview given by Don Schulman to KNXT's Ruth Ashton Taylor. In that, he can be heard saying:
"Well, I was standing behind [Kennedy]. I saw a man pull out a gun. It looked like he pulled it out from his pocket and shot three times. I saw all three shots hit the Senator. Then I saw the Senator fall and he was picked up and carried away. I saw the – also saw the security men pull out their weapons. After then it was very very fuzzy."
Where does Schulman say that police officer Thane Eugene Cesar shot RFK? Nowhere. There's some controversy in later years, in documentaries as Evidence of Revision, with Schulman claiming he also saw Cesar fire (he does not say at Kennedy or Sirhan), but the fact remains that no one else saw this. Also, conspiracy disinformers are experts at twisting people's beliefs and confusing and pressuring them into saying things that they never truly observed. It all doesn't matter. What matters is the original testimony in combination with all the other original testimony and evidence. And there's absolutely zero testimony to be found here that Cesar, or anyone else, fired a second gun that night. Even if they did, who is to say they didn't aim for Sirhan?
Eugene Cesar provided testimony of his own. In various statements he claimed to either have "ducked" or to have been hit to the ground after a spastic movement by one of the hotel staffers at the time of the shooting - and that by the time he was able to grab his gun, Sirhan already was being wrestled to the ground. True, he did have a Lockheed tie and he wasn't a fan of Kennedy, but there's zero credible evidence that he was the second gunman.
There have been claims that a certain Evan Freed "also" testified that there was a "second gunman". I have been unable to find any original testimony of this person, so cannot comment. All that can be said is that it doesn't fit with the original testimony.
The other "second assassin", Michael Wayne: innocent, with bizarre Nazi tie
Going through all the raw testimonies, the combined account of Dennis Weaver, Patricia Nelson and Joseph Klein also stood out. All three saw a young man running in the lobby immediately after the shooting, "carrying a three foot long circular blue roll of paper". They taught he had come out of the Embassy Room, but this appears to have been false (Venetian Room). Nelson claimed she "had seen the muzzle of a gun sticking out", but her two male associates had not seen such a thing. The earlier mentioned Marcus McBroom, who ran out of the kitchen to find a medical doctor, noticed this person too, but thought this man was carrying a "notebook". At this point McBroom ran into insurance broker Samuel Strain, who commented to him, "My God--he run [sic] right through our fingers." Strain later explained to the police that this man was carrying "a package about two feet long and six inches wide which was wrapped in black paper of some type", with seemingly "several persons chasing the young man." A handful of other random testimonies also point to this. The testimony of Thadis Heath, for example, reads, "When the shooting occurred, someone made the comment that either he, she, or they were getting away." All these testimonies have been grouped in a .pdf that can be downloaded here.
Turns out, from another backed up testimony, the person in question was Michael Wayne. He was able to get RFK to sign one of his posters. Seconds later, after the shooting took place, Gilbert first ran to the Press Room (Colonial Room), followed by the Gold Room and then through the Lobby to the Venetian Room, all in an effort to find a working from which to call an ambulance. Eventually he was apprehended by a security guard. Soon after, he was released. The testimony of Ted Charach makes it clear that this conclusion was already reached in the minutes and hours after the shooting:
"FRANK CONTE ... was relating [to TED CHARACH] he had seen a "wild eyed man" running out of the kitchen after the shooting. This statement apparently had no connection with revealing a possible suspect as it was later confirmed through statements made by persons present that the man running was attempting to get to a phone to call the ambulance."
The only odd - and seriously odd - thing about Michael Wayne is that he was carrying a business card of Keith Duane Gilbert, considered an "extremist" who had been arrested on February 25, 1965 when 1,400 pounds of stolen dynamite was located in his garage. The term "extremist" doesn't quite cut it. Gilbert was a Nazi who had been planning to use the dynamite to blow up Martin Luther King at a planned speech at the Hollywood Palladium. He later became a follower of Aryan Nation leader Richard Butler and eventually founded his own Socialist Nationalist Aryan People's Party. Very, very extreme. 
To the police Weaver claimed to not have a clue how he ended up with this business card. "Alternative researchers" have claimed that the police went soft on Wayne, even though he failed a polygraph test on his relations with Gilbert. I can't find anything in the official files of a polygraph test on Wayne, so let's leave it at this. I think anybody will agree that it's a peculiar tie, even more so because Wayne was making so many waves immediately in the aftermath of the RFK shooting. But for all we know, Wayne was just there as an informant of some sort and really tried to get an ambulance. Who really knows?
The "RFK-shot-from-one-inch" controversy
Among the most prominent of "controversies" for all these decades are claims that there is a major discrepancy between witness statements of the distance Sirhan was situated from RFK when he fired his first shot and coroner Thomas Noguchi's report that noted that the initial headshot was made from about 1 inch away. This supposed discrepancy even is mentioned in the January 1969 LAPD report on the assassination:
"The accounts of the distance from the suspect and Kennedy varied. A hotel busboy thought the gun was three feet from Kennedy's head. Another witness thought the first shot came from point blank range. Subsequent laboratory examination placed the distance of the first and fatal shot at one inch." 
The maximum distance given by Noguchi in the autopsy report actually was 3 inches (1/4th feet). Obviously, this alleged discrepancy has been used to make the case that there had to be a second gun in play. How realistic is this though, apart from the fact that there is absolutely zero witness testimony and physical evidence for a second shooter? What follows, are the original, initial witness testimonies of persons standing closest to RFK when he was shot:
- Freddie Plimpton (June 5, 1968): "I looked in the direction where I heard the shots and saw this man's hand up in the air, it was close to Senator Kennedy's head. ... My husband and Rayford Johnson and Roosevelt Greer were [soon] holding this man."
- Juan Romero (June 7, 1968, FBI): "[Sirhan] was smiling and ... appeared to be reaching over someone [Karl Uecker] in an effort to shake Senator KENNEDY's hand. I heard gunfire and I noticed that ... the gun was approximately one yard from Senator KENNEDY's head. I observed Senator KENNEDY placing his hands to his face and he staggered backwards a few steps and slumped to the floor."
- Ed Minasian (June 7, 1968, FBI): "[I] observed the Senator shaking hands with hotel employees on his left. My partner, Karl Uecker, was on the Senator's left, and about one or two steps in front of him. While the Senator was shaking hands I saw out of the right corner of my eyes someone darted behind my partner [Karl Uecker], and reached around him, with a gun in his right hand. Before I could react, he fired two shots. ... We could not control his gun until after he fired a number of [additional] shots in rapid succession."
- Vincent Di Pierro (June 7, 1968, FBI): "Senator Kennedy [went to his left] to shake hands with a hotel cook and a female... I saw this individual reach his right arm around Mr. Uecker and in his hand he had a revolver, which was pointed directly at Senator Kennedy's head. The revolver was about 3-5 feet from Senator Kennedy's head. This individual then shot at Senator Kennedy's head. Senator Kennedy at this time threw his hands and arms up, reeled backwards and fell to the floor. ... After the first shot was fired I heard 3 more rapidly fired shots."
- Karl Uecker (June 7, 1968, FBI): "Kennedy stopped to shake hands with two of the kitchen help [to his left]. While Kennedy was still observing the last individual he shook hands with, I took his hand to lead him along. [At that moment] somebody reached around me and before I knew what happened two shots were fired and the Senator fell to the ground. I immediately grabbed the gun hand of the assailant and pushed him onto the steam-table. [Sirhan] continued to fire the gun."
- Boris Yaro (June 7, 1968, FBI): "[I was] in full view of that was happening. ... The senator was backing up and putting both of his hands and arms in front of him in what be best described as a protective effort. The suspect appeared to be lunging at the senator... I felt powder from the weapon strike my face..."
So, where's the discrepancy? Yes, Vincent Di Pierro's description of "3-5 feet" or Juan Romero's "approximately one yard" for the revolver distance doesn't fit, but there is a possibility they provided the distance that Sirhan was away. In fact, for what it's worth, this is exactly what Di Pierro claimed in RFK Must Die (2007): "I think that was really mistaken. Sirhan was standing 3 to 5 feet away [not the gun]." Alternately, they weren't describing - or had missed - the initial split-second that Sirhan's gun was closest. In light of the other witnesses, this certainly is a possibility. Freddie Plimpton's account already might suggest that the gun was closer to RFK's head than Di Pierro described, but unfortunately was not specific enough to draw any conclusions from.
Much more telling, Karl Uecker says he was urging RFK along by grabbing his hand/arm right when Sirhan reached around him and shot RFK. This means Uecker was probably about three feet away, which amounts to 1 yard, or 0.9 meters. This fits perfectly with Ed Minasian's account that Uecker was "one or two steps in front of [RFK]." In fact, it indicates Uecker was closer to one step away; not two - considering it would be a bit rude to grab and pull on RFK's extended arm. Sirhan reached around Uecker, and "lunged", indicating that the gun was considerably closer to RFK's head than 3 feet. Quite possibly Sirhan was able to close the distance all the way, as the gun itself also covers about half a feet. Another quarter feet is provided in the coroner's report.
So yes, a distance of 1-3 inches, likely for only a split second, is entirely possible. In light of all the coherent testimony pointing to one shooter, this is a minor detail to focus on. Maybe Noguchi actually was wrong - on purpose or not - and the distance was 30, 40, 50 inches. After all, Noguchi shot 7 pigs' ears to try and come up with roughly similar powder burn marks that he spotted around RFK's head wound.  Who knows what elements he might not have been aware of in such a super-crowded space?
There's also always the possibility of disinformation. Remember how the bogus Pentagon impact "video" of 9/11 has been used to fuel the disinformation that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? This could well be an early version of this. Controversy about JFK's death was mounting. Creating non-existent controversy over the death of RFK wouldn't have been a bad idea. Noguchi also isn't just any coroner. He was Hollywood's coroner and carried out autopsies on the likes of Marilyn Monroe and Sharon Tate, whose deaths were both mired in controversy. Particularly suspicious is that Noguchi himself engaged in a very unhealthy and irrational dose of second gunman pushing in his 1983 best-selling biography Coroner, sold under the byline, "America's most controversial medical examiner explores the unanswered question surrounding the deaths of Marilyn Monroe, Robert F. Kennedy, Sharon Tate, Janis Joplin, William Holden, Natalie Wood, John Belushi, and many of his other important cases." On the RFK case, he wrote:
"I have always believed it is perfectly possible that Sirhan could have made that lunge back and forth without being seen by any of the witnesses. ...
"[But] the testimony of the most strategically placed witness is daunting. Karl Uecker [note: who changed his testimony] was the man actually standing between Sirhan and the Senator. ... "I told the authorities that Sirhan never got close enough for a point-blank shot. Never! ... It was decided long ago that it was to stop with Sirhan," he said, "and that is what will happen." If, in fact, Sirhan did not lunge at Kennedy, unseen by anyone, and then draw back to continue shooting, is it possible that there was a second gunman and that Sirhan, consumed with hatred for Kennedy, had agreed to jump into the middle of the room and start firing wildly to divert attention from the real killer?
"In 1970 ... my own attorney, Godfrey Isaac, to my surprise, represented Sirhan Sirhan in the judicial review of his conviction, the basis for which was summed up in the affidavit of an investigator Isaac hired, William W. Harper, a consulting criminologist to the Pasadena, California, Police Department and a former Naval Intelligence [ONI] officer. His affidavit's conclusion: "A strong conflict exists between the eyewitness accounts and the autopsy findings. ... The conflict can be eliminated if we consider that a second gun was being fired." ...
"Sirhan's conviction was upheld. But scientific evidence of soot and divergent bullet angles, and a host of witnesses who did not actually see Sirhan fire the fatal shot, all seemed to indicated there may have been a second gunman. Moreover, even the most sophisticated forensic techniques were unable to prove that the fatal bullet was fired from Sirhan's gun. Any yet... My own professional instinct instructs me that Sirhan somehow killed Senator Kennedy alone [and that this is] a classic example of "crowd psychology," where none of the eyewitnesses saw what actually happened." 
It's pretty clear that Noguchi is pushing the conspiracy point-of-view in a deniable form. Godfrey Isaac, the lawyer to Sirhan, Noguchi and various RFK assassination witnesses as Theodore Charach, is even more suspicious. He was on Sirhan's side when Sirhan's "I can't remember, I can't remember" argument was prominently turned into evidence of CIA mind control programs, which at the time were in the process of being exposed in all the controversy of the 1970s.  Very tellingly, Isaac was involved in conspiracy conferences all the way into the 2000s, along with (9/11-no-planer) Peter Dale Scott, Philip Van Praag, Sirhan lawyer William Pepper and other disinformers. 
Even Karl Uecker and his second gunman claims  should be under scrutiny, as he and his subordinates were yelling to RFK "Senator! Senator, this way!"  when his speech was finished, guiding him through kitchen pantry where Sirhan was waiting. Looking at all the available testimony, it appears that to this day it is not clear who and why this last-minute route change was put in place.
In any case, by itself (which it pretty much sits at), the distance issue with the first shot really is no reason - at all - to start claiming it constitutes evidence of a second shooter. Much more likely a few details were missed in the investigation, or Noguchi and allies purposely introduced the controversy to set the stage for a long-term disinformation campaign.
The "RFK-shot-behind" controversy
In line with the above non-"discrepancy" of a 1 inch shot, are claims of conspiracy related to the fact that "[Coroner] Noguchi's [found] that Kennedy had been shot from behind".  Believe it or not, this actually is a quote from a June 2018 Washington Post article on RFK, Jr. and "witness" Paul Schrade, making it clear that this theory hasn't died at all either.
This is probably the most easy to debunk theory of all: as readers can see in the original testimonies above, RFK was shaking hands with kitchen personnel on his left while Sirhan was approaching from the front. As a result, Sirhan's initial shot hit RFK roughly three inches behind his right ear. Technically, that's the back of the head, although it would be more honest to say that RFK was hit in the side of the head.
The above shot sequence has been taken from RFK Must Die (2007). I'm not sure if these drawings were part of the official investigation, as I can't find them in the original January 1969 LAPD report, but they are accurate representations of the official version of events that are described in there. The head wound was added to the pictures for sake of clarity.
As the witnesses also indicate, as a result of the first two shots RFK put up his arms. This exposed his right arm pit, in which Sirhan managed to fire another two bullets before his arm was diverted by the likes of Karl Uecker, Rafer Johnson, Rosey Grier, Bill Barry, George Plimpton and Boris Yaro. The final four bullets were fired towards the pantry doors, hitting several more individuals. Even if only for once, the official report actually is accurate on these details. Or at the very least accurate enough. Without video or photos being available of the first few seconds of the shooting, the small details are hard to reconstruct.
Polka Dot Dress Girl: likely did not exist
Extremely prominent in RFK assassination lore are the claims surrounding a "Polka Dot Dress Girl", as well as an unidentified man, who was continually in the presence of Sirhan on the night of the assassination, and quickly got out immediately after the shooting.
To prevent readers from wondering if I'm cutting corners or omitting anything while debunking this story, below a total of nine original testimonies can be found in which witnesses talk about having seen a "Polka Dot Dress Girl". Except for the first NBC comment by Sandra Serrano, which started the whole Polka Dot affair, I lifted these testimonies from the official compilations while reading them one by one. We'll discuss these excerpts afterwards.
- Sandra Serrano to NBC reporter Sander Vanocur (June 5, 1968, NBC): "[Early part not available] I was just standing there, just thinking, thinking about how many people there were and how wonderful it was. Then this girl came running down the stairs, in the back, came running down the stairs and says "We've shot him, we've shot him." And I says, "Who did you shoot?" And she said, "We shot Senator Kennedy." A boy came down with her. He was about 23 years old and he was Mexican-American. ... She was not of Mexican-American descent. She was not. She was Caucasian. ... She had on a white dress with polka dots. She was white-skinned. Dark hair. She has a funny nose. I thought it was funny. All my friends tell me I'm so observant."
Sandra Serrano, a RFK campaign worker (June 8, 1968, FBI): "At approximately 11:30 p.m., she walked out of the ballroom area to an outdoor terrace stairway because it had become too warm and crowded in the ballroom. She sat on the fifth or six step of the stairway which lead to an upstairs area. Miss SERRANO could not describe what this upper area was. Two or three minutes later, which SERRANO estimated to be approximately 11:35 p.m., three individuals approached her on the stairway, a woman and two men, and walked past her up the stairs. As the woman got to her, this woman said, "Excuse us" and Miss SERRANO moved to the side so they could pass. SERRANO said she felt these three people were together since they were walking together up the stairs and the woman had said, "Excuse us."
After approximately 20 to 25 minutes, which Miss SERRANO believed was shortly after midnight, she heard what she thought was six back fires from a car. Four or five were real close together. During this 20 or 25 minutes, no other person went up or down this stairway past her. Approximately 30 seconds after hearing what she thought was back fire, this same woman who had gone up the stairs came running down the stairs toward her, followed by one of the men who had gone up the stairs with her. Miss SERRANO stated that as this woman ran down the stairs toward her, the woman shouted, "We shot him - we shot him." Miss SERRANO said, "Who did you shoot?" to which this woman replied, "Senator KENNEDY." Miss SERRANO was asked if this woman could have said, "He shot him" or "They shot him" rather than "We shot him." SERRANO insisted the word was "We"...
[She] walked back just inside the hallway area. She met a gray uniformed security officer just inside the door and said to him, "Is it true they shot him?" This uniformed officer replied, "Shot who?" and she replied, "Senator KENNEDY." Miss SERRANO said at this point the uniformed police officer told her she must have had too much to drink. SERRANO commented she still held her drink glass.
A few minutes later a group of five or six people came towards her from the ballroom area and SERRANO said to them, "They have shot him." These people did not answer her but she heard one comment from the group, "Oh she's crazy" and another comment, "Oh my God." ...
She said at about 12:15 p.m. , she found a public phone [and soon after learned RFK indeed had been shot].
- Vincent Di Pierro, maitre de hotel (June 7, 1968, FBI): "DI PIERRO was asked if SIRHAN BISHARA SIRHAN was with anyone. DI PIERRO stated that when he first saw SIRHAN BISHARA SIRHAN he was standing next to a girl. DI PIERRO furnished the following description of the girl: ... 21 to 25 years of age ... 5'4" ... 100 to 105 pounds ... Shapely and attractive ... Hair: Dark brown or black... Clothing: White dress with black or purple polka dots on it. ... The above-described girl ... was leaning over SIRHAN standing next to him, and SIRHAN was smiling at her."
- Dr. Marcus McBroom, a member of the RFK campaign (June 11, 1968, FBI): "About 10:30 PM ... he observed SIRHAN sitting on a table in the kitchen. He stated he thought it was odd that SIRHAN was in the kitchen because he was not dressed as a kitchen employee [but] in "dirty" clothing. ...
It was his understanding that the Senator would leave through the crowd. Someone told him that Mrs. KENNEDY was feeling faint, so [Sen.] KENNEDY decided [beforehand] to leave through the back entrance and through the kitchen.
[He] was following [Kennedy] through the "pantry door" which led to the kitchen. ... He recalled hearing six (6) shots. He did not see any person firing...
While running in the Embassy Room [to find a doctor], he stated he remembered seeing a Caucasian female about twenty-five, 5'4", 126 pounds, moving towards the exit. This woman was wearing a white dress with black polka dots and definitely had dark hair. ... She appeared much calmer than anyone else in the room, and appeared to be trying to leave the room as soon as possible."
- Booker Griffin, director of the Negro Industrial and Economic Union LA (June 11, 1968, FBI): "[Around 10:30 p.m.] he saw an individual in the Ambassador Room whom he later saw shoot Senator Kennedy: ... shabbily dressed [and] stared back. Griffin stated he noticed a girl whose description he does not recall standing in close proximity to SIRHAN [and] had the feeling that they were together. ...
At about 11:30 p.m., he saw SIRHAN in the kitchen [where] Kennedy was shot. ...
During the time KENNEDY was speaking [around 11:55 p.m.], Griffin saw SIRHAN in the corridor and also saw a white male, about 6'2" [and] a white female, 5'5", with blond bouffant hair, dressed in a white flowing-type dress with colorations, standing in close proximity with SIRHAN. Neither of these individuals had press passes or KENNEDY buttons. He saw these three individuals at least two or three times in the corridor among numerous other individuals who were in the area."
- Jack Merritt, Ace security guard with Thane Cesar, standing outside the main Embassy Room door (June 21, 1968, LAPD): "When I entered the kitchen area [from the opposite site of where RFK entered] just after the shooting a woman and 2 men leaving the area... They seemed to be smiling. One was a M/C age unknown 6'-6'2 200 dk [dark] hair dk suit. One was M/C age unk. short, thin dk hair sk suit. The female was blond wearing white dress with dark polka dots. They went out of sight into the kitchen. I don't know if I would recognize them."
- Darnell Johnson (June 7, 1968, FBI): "[This person] advised SAS ... on June 6, 1968, that one of his field workers, DARNELL JOHNSON, had witnessed the shooting of Senator KENNEDY, and had seen a woman in a polka-dot dress at the scene.
JOHNSON walked around the platform to the narrow space in the serving area where the shooting took place and got there before KENNEDY. Already present in this area were five people described as follows:
(1) A white female wearing a white dress, with 25C size black polkadots... 23-25 years of age, tall, 5'8"... well built, 145 pounds, long light brown hair, carrying an all white sweater or jacket, pretty full face, stubby heel shoes...
(2) SIRHAN SIRHAN...
(3) A white male, wearing a light blue washable sport coat, white shirt and tie, 6'1", tall, slim, 30-35 years, blond hair parted far over on the left side.... outdoor type.
(4) A white male, 5'10" tall, 165 pounds, trim, 24-25 years of age, brown, long hair but not hippie, dark coat, dark trousers, white shirt and tie.
(5) A white male, 6'1", tall slim, darkish brown hair, shiny brown sport coat made of hopsacking, white shirt and tie.
These people were standing in a group between JOHNSON and the [pantry] door [and] is the same area where [RFK] was shot.
JOHNSON states these people were standing in proximity to each other; he says they were "together" but he states he has no knowledge they knew each other, were talking to each other or were members of the same party.
Just at this point, the woman in the polka dot dress and the three men in her area left and walked toward the ballroom where the KENNEDY party had just come [from]. ... While SIRHAN was being held and before police arrived, the girl in the polka dot dress and the one man in the light blue washable sport coat came back and looked, then both left again. ...
When he [later] got back to the ballroom, he saw the girl in the polka dot dress talking to a white female Mexican near the podium where KENNEDY had just been speaking."
- George Green, an RFK campaigner (June 7, 1968, FBI): "He heard popping sounds... The sound continued as he came through the [kitchen] doorway. ... Once inside the kitchen door, he noticed a woman in her 20's with long blond free flowing hair [wrong color] in a polka dot dress [which colors] and a light colored sweater and a man 5'11", thin build, black hair and in his 20's. GREEN stated that this man and woman were running with backs toward him [which would be the opposite direction of Darnell Johnson's or even Dr. McBroom's description]. ... They were the only ones who seemed to be trying to get out of the kitchen area while everyone else seemed to be trying to get into [it]."
- Paul Grieco, a local resident (June 17, 1968, FBI): "At about 11:45 p.m., GRIECO and FRANK came back to the main lobby of the hotel and learned from conversation with other people ... that a corridor from the main lobby would lead to the kitchen area through which Senator KENNEDY would pass... He finally found himself in a tight crowd about four or fives waves of people behind KENNEDY and about ten or twelve feet behind Senator KENNEDY. ... [Then] he heard several shots in rapid order... He held KENNEDY's head for about 1 to 2 minutes. ...
GRIECO said he did not observe SIRHAN in the kitchen area or elsewhere [but] GRIECO distinctly recalls standing next to a woman who was wearing a polka dot blouse, a white color with dark polka dots. ... [She] was wearing a black skirt and carrying a black purse. She had black hair... About 30 years old, 5'4" in height... A very attractive person. ... She seemed unusually removed from the general excitement..."
- Susan Locke, volunteer worker for RFK campaign (June 7, 1968, FBI): "[She] heard a total of about eight or ten shots. ... She recalls seeing a girl in the Embassy Room, just before Senator Kennedy entered the room to speak, stationed near her immediate vicinity wearing a white shift [shirt?] with blue polka dots. She observed that the girl was not wearing a yellow press badge and thought this to be very unusual since it was necessary to have such a badge to gain entry into the Embassy Room. She mentioned this to CAROL BRESHEARS who is in charge of the KENNEDY girls and Mrs. BRESHEARS pointed her out to a security guard nearby. The girl was expressionless and seemed somewhat out of place where she was standing. She was a Caucasian in her early twenties, well proportioned, with long brown hair... "
Many of these accounts seem fascinating. However, it shouldn't be ignored that once you organize and isolate the specific statements, there's considerable variance in the descriptions, time periods and exact locations. Sometimes the "polka dot girl" has black hair; other times blond or brown. The original testimony, of a certain Sandra Serrano, is about a girl in a white dress with black polka dots. Other testimonies mention this combination as well. But not all. One reports a white-black polka dot blouse on top of a black skirt. That's far from the same thing. Another testimony makes note of a girl in a green dress with golden polka dots. In addition, Sirhan is not always seen standing next to this woman. But he definitely is on more than one occasion.
When you look back at the statements of Sandra Serrano, which resulted in the LAPD throwing in questions of a "polka dot girl" in so many of their interviews (leading questions are tricky), you might notice that it isn't all too coherent. She talks about car backfires, but really insinuates these were shots. Police later determined she couldn't have heard the shots at her location, making it possible for her to backtrack a little from the original statement. Also, somehow, Serrano was the only one to "realize" for about 5 to 10 minutes that RFK had been shot. Others around her, including those inside, called her "crazy" in this brief time period. Despite nobody confirming the "we shot him" comment of the polka dot girl, she then talks to her mother outside on the pay phone, whom she supposedly tells the same thing: RFK has been shot (her mother would deny hearing her daughter say anything along the lines of "We shot him."). Only at that point someone else confirms the assassination to her. This account doesn't seem to make much sense. The second RFK was shot, there was huge consternation all over the place. In addition, according to the LAPD police reported, from her NBC interview to her police report Serrano "changed the location of the encounter with the couple from a corridor inside the hotel to an outside staircase." This is not clear from the limited quotes made available of Serrano's NBC interview.
Under pressure, Serrano later admitted she never saw a polka dot dress girl at all, explaining that soon ofter telling her story to a justice department official, she was surrounded by police officers who were taking in numerous potential leads to potential accomplices. Serrano started feeling uncomfortable that she had not witnessed anything out of the ordinary and basically made up a few statements, in no small part after overhearing comments of a kid talking about a polka dot dress girl: a white dress with black dots. Apparently, she saw a woman in a white dress and simply added the polka dots. This is what she admitted to in a June 20, 1968 recant, soon after failing a polygraph test. Conspiracy sources almost universally portray her backtracking as the result of "police intimidation". However, her recanting is very long and detailed and it seems clear that the LAPD had good reason to go a little rougher on her. Below readers can find the most relevant aspects of recant:
A. I never said I heard shots. ... I heard backfires of a car, and I know they were backfires from a car, I know they weren't gunshots. [note: she certainly indicated shots originally]...
Q. Okay, now, why had you before said that you hadn't been up to the Embassy Room?
A. I hadn't until ... the police took me up.
Q. And is that when your heard the kid say something?
Q. About a woman?
Q. In a white polka dot dress?
Q. So that's where that thing about--
A. I guess. I don't know.
Q. --the polka dot dress, that's where it was started?
A. I guess. ...
Q. Well, regardless of what was said before, now we know that it was a girl in a white dress that you saw?
Q. And then you heard the kid up in the Embassy Room after the police took you up there, you heard him say something about a girl with a black polka dot or white dress with black polka dots.
Q. That's the first time you saw or heard anything?
Q. About polka dots. Now, just to clarify your statement which is now a truthful statement; right?
Q. ... I don't know. Three or four [actually came down]
Q. Could it have been more than four?
A. Couldn't have been more than five, I know. ...
A. I just told [my parents on the phone] that he was shot. ... That nobody knew about it. I think I mentioned that to them that nobody knew that he was shot, or something. ...
Q. Why didn't you correct them at that time, Sandy?
A. I don't know. After--well, two reasons. So, I didn't want to look like a fool, which I look like now. Another reason, because everybody figures--everybody thinks--they say, "Yeah, let's go; that's right." You know, know-- I was sitting there hearing descriptions and descriptions of THESE people, of THESE people, of THESE people. Oh, God, no, maybe that's what I'm supposed to have seen. Did I see this woman? You know, I thought I was supposed to see more than--more than I did. I was really going to believe that. It messed me up, that's all; and I figured, well, they must know what they're doing...
Q. ... Now why, when I talked to you earlier this evening, in front of your Aunt Maggie, why didn't you tell me the truth?
A. Because I knew I was going to tell you later. ... Well, yes, I feel better. ...
A. It's not that ... the whole thing was a lie... I don't really feel it was my fault. That's ... that man in that interview tape. ... I didn't even know I was on television [when I talked about the polka dot dress]...
Q. Why didn't you correct it then? When you were shown the polka dot--
A. Because everybody was making me nervous. ...
A. ... I don't think I'm very decent.
Q. Well, you are being decent. You are telling me the truth now.
A. Yeah, in a way. You know what I think? Some changes should be made. ... when somebody sees something ... don't feed something to them which I really thought was being done to me. ... Keep them away from other people who have seen it. ... I'm really sorry that it happened."
In 1988 the mainstream media ran a story in which Sandra Serrano claimed to have never recanted her story, apart from inventing the black polka dots on a white dress a woman fleeing the scene was wearing.  As already mentioned, this is simply not true. She changed the locations of the encounter, made veiled remarks about "car backfires", and her mother couldn't remember Serrano talking to her about any "We shot him" remarks. So, what are we to do with Serrano's testimony? Well, just ignore it. It simply appears as if she is suffering from mental issues.
To make matters worse, Vincent di Pierro was also found to be lying during his polygraph test about seeing the "polka dot girl" standing next to Sirhan Sirhan at the time of the shooting. He admitted to have spoken to Serrano prior to giving his police testimony and apparently in an automatic process invented a few details he hadn't seen. I don't have the polygraph transcript in question, but this aspect in summarized in the official LAPD report on the assassination, p. 417.
True, there are additional reports of a (white-dressed) woman, apparently alongside a man, quickly leaving the scene of the shooting. It may well be that Serrano, and through her, Di Pierro, picked up on genuine rumors while staying put, surrounded by police officers. In addition, one account in the police files I failed to extract at the time was of a man and woman halting another couple some distance from the Ambassador Hotel. The woman kept walking, but the man made a few comments about RFK having been shot. The witnesses thought the couple odd enough to report them to the police a few minutes later, but they were never caught.
In the end, it's impossible to say for certain if a couple, and most prominently a woman, was there at the Ambassador with Sirhan. What we can tell with virtual certainty is that this woman was not wearing a polka dot dress. At most she was wearing a white dress. Serrano is just not credible by herself.
Similarly, a 1974 claim by retired LAPD officer Paul Shraga mirrored the one of Serrano. Shraga, as reported in UPI, claimed that on the night of the assassination he ran into an unknown older couple, which also stated to have run into a polka dot-dressed woman yelling "We shot him! We killed Kennedy!" Shraga claimed that his report on this couple disappeared.  However, let's face it, how much sense does this make? And hadn't Serrano already very clearly recanted the polka dot aspect of her testimony? Also take into account just how much disinformation has been spread over the decades surrounding a second shooter. Neither Serrano's nor Shraga's account, which came much later, is the least bit credible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and it's just not there.
One thing is absolutely certain though: Sirhan was the only one pulling the trigger.
Everett Buckner: another liar
Whenever conspiracy disinformers talk about the polka dot girl, generally the account of Everett Buckner is not far away. In the aftermath of the RFK shooting, he claimed that at a local gun range he'd seen an unknown woman yell to Sirhan Sirhan, "Get away, you son-of-a-bitch, someone will recognize us." It sounds exciting, but similar to Sandra Serrano, Buckner failed a subsequent polygraph test and on top of that admitted to have been lying. He was unable to recognize Sirhan out of 14 photos shown, with the polygraph showing he refused to acknowledge having seen an identified random women on the range that day.
Having gone through all the RFK assassination police files, it appears to be extremely common that whenever rumors start floating (in this case about a mysterious "polka dot girl") that the "crazies" and "attention seekers" come out of the woodwork and start dropping invented leads or even turning themselves in as the guilty party. Unfortunately, I did not back up the relevant documents describing these experiences.
The first Arab terrorist
Of course, even though there wasn't a second shooter, the RFK assassination could still have been part of a government-backed assassination. After all, president, or even vice president, RFK might just reopen the JFK assassination. At least, that has been a dominant line of thinking. In contrast to what the public has been told, RFK was very skeptical about his brother's death and privately kept prodding for answers.  Also not unimportant, this was still years away from the public leaking/showing of the notorious Zapruder film.
The only way to go from here is by asking the question: who was Sirhan Sirhan? Sirhan was a member of a Christian Palestinian-Jordanian family. They came over as refugees through what Munir Sirhan though was the Nazarene Church. Their Arab roots and hatred of Israel ran deep though. Family members had experienced the terror that (Israeli) airplane bombs bring with them. In addition, Sirhan had seen how one of his brothers was killed in Palestine during clashes with the Israelis. Sirhan had plenty of other brothers left: Adel, Saad Allah / Saidelah, Sharif and the youngest, Munir.
According to Munir, the Sirhans were a "normal Christian, God-fearing family".  Well, not really. Former neighbors, the Abbotts, from the early 1960s, one of whom was friends with Adel, explained that Saidelah and sister Aida "were always talking anti-U.S.", with Saidelah frequently saying "how the Russians were better." There were a lot of arguments in the family after Saidelah and Sharif came over "from Arabia", where some in the family preferred to return to.
Sharif had been arrested for attempted murder of an ex-girlfriend. She had called him and his brothers "sexist" before walking out. In retaliation, Sharif repeatedly tried to cut her car's fuel lines and tampered with the brakes. Apparently he was considered too disturbed for prison, so he was released on parole and told to find psychiatric treatment. After Sirhan murdered RFK, Sirhan's defense investigator Michael McCowan knocked Sharif unconscious, accusing him of tampering with his car as well. Saidelah had been arrested for disturbances, drunkenness and drunk driving. Munir came into contact with the police the most, including over complaints from neighbors, a high speed pursuit with the police, a pedophile homosexual investigation, and marijuana selling. Deportation proceedings were put in motion against him, but never forced through. 
Sirhan was generally seen as polite. In high school he did decent, was considered an introvert, but clashed with other students on occasion over his ethnic origin, cultural beliefs, and "extremely quick temper". He also argued a lot with teachers, often drawing comparisons between the U.S. and Jordan. At the time he was part of a Christian church called the Syrian Organization for Youth (SOFY), where he also went to see movies in Arabic. "Father Paul" and "Father John" were priests at SOFY whom he "may have confided in". Nothing seems to be really known about SOFY.
His employment reveals little out of the ordinary. According to Munir, Sirhan "wanted to be a UN interpreter at one time."  Most notably is that while training to be a jockey, Sirhan fell from his horse and injured his head quite severely. Tellingly, the doctor in question, Dr. Richard A. Miller, described him as one of the most difficult patients he'd ever had. A second doctor, Dr. Milton Miller, came to the conclusion that Sirhan exaggerated his injuries in order to receive financial compensations and ended up being threatened by him.  His skills already being sub-par before the accident, he was fired as a jockey in November 1966. Weeks later he was fired at his new job at the Del Mar Race Track, after his foreman saw him kicking a horse in the belly and became unruly when confronted about it. According to the foreman, Sirhan's temper was "unusually violent" when told he would never become a jockey. He stopped working for the next nine months, grew depressed with his outlooks in life, became increasingly critical of the U.S. and its support for Israel, and started dabbling more and more into mysticism.  Whether or not it is directly linked to the fall from his horse or not, after it happened, Sirhan was described by family members and acquaintances as having become more aloof, moody, tense and quiet, with a growing interest in mysticism. He started getting into Rosicrucianism, self-improvement and self-hypnosis, all of which he kept low-profile to his parents.
Most of his life, Sirhan did not talk much about politics. This changed over 1967 with the Six-Day War, in which Egypt, Syria and Jordan failed to conquer Israel. Sirhan became irate at U.S. support for Israel, and specifically at RFK after seeing a May 15, 1968-broadcasted documentary through which he found out that the senator had been a supporter of Israel since 1948.  Walter Crowe Jr., a communist who met Sirhan in a restaurant in Pasadena on May 2, 1968, reported that Sirhan was looking to become politically active. He also explained that Sirhan was "strongly anti-Jewish and made statements about considering Hitler a hero." Already back at Pasadena City College, realized that:
"being an Arab is worse than being a Negro. ... Oh, I worked hard, but I stood out in class. ... Just my name gave me away. I stood out for that teacher as an example to prove the points he wanted to make to the class about 'acculturation.' Once, during a discussion of adaptation, the problem, the issue of Palestine came up. This was my chance to speak. I really wanted to clobber this fellow, this blond son of a bitch and I did. I put him where he really belonged. I talked for one solid hour. There were two or three colored people in the class. They had to applaud. I was on their side when they got up to tell about their grievances. My argument? Well, I said that." 
Sirhan's hatred of Jews had been clear to those around for a long time. For a brief period, in 1963, Sirhan worked as a part-time gardener. He came to hate the Jews whose gardens he tended, regularly referring to them as those "fucking Jews", "goddamn Zionists" and "fucking Zionists". Also his love of Hitler was confirmed by others, including friend John Strathman, who said Sirhan had been impressed by Hitler's Mein Kampf and liked the German leader's solution to the "Jewish Problem". 
None of this behavior and belief will shock Westerners familiar with Arab immigration, especially not Palestinians who in 2000s fully supported Osama bin Laden to the tune of 56%. Jew-hating, frequent contact with the police and a generally antagonist attitude towards Western society is extremely common. In his diary, Sirhan wrote that "RFK must die" by June 5, 1968, which coincidentally was be the one-year anniversary of the invasion of Israel by Egypt, Jordan and Syria - known as the Six-Day war, which Israel eventually won. During hypnosis sessions soon after Sirhan's arrest, the phrase "He can't send those bombers" is mentioned repeatedly.  As he would later explain more publicly, Sirhan decided to kill RFK after seeing his support for sending 50 U.S. F-4 Phantom bombers to Israel. 
This makes Sirhan the first Arab terrorist. It's that simple.
Sirhan: Rosicrucian self-hypnotist
Skipped in the last section is that there are questions of hypnosis with Sirhan. His personal diary for May 18, 1968 showed that he over and over was obsessively writing sentences as "RFK must die. RFK must be assassinated." The same page included sentences as, "Please pay the order."
Then there was the issue that Sirhan looked extremely peaceful after the shooting that various people commented on, including George Plimpton. There was Mary Grohs statement that Sirhan kept staring incredibly intensely at her teleprompter in the hours before the attack in the Colonial Room. Maybe even more intriguing were all the (bogus) claims of a second shooter, the consistent "can't remember" statements of Sirhan, the post-arrest hypnosis sessions with Dr. Bernard L. Diamond in which it was indicated that Sirhan had been lured into a dark room by a pretty lady before forgetting everything [xx - RFK Must Die], and Dr. Diamond's statement at Sirhan's trial that "Mr. Sirhan had been in a self-induced trance at the time of the 1968 shooting." 
As said several times before, whatever happened in the weeks, months and years after the shooting is unimportant, because it seems quite clear that CIA-guided manipulators, including lawyers, swooped in to fabricate "evidence" of a second gunman. Dr. Diamond's hypnosis sessions with Sirhan might well be part of that. And Sirhan certainly had considerable interest in pretending that he was just a "patsy". While it is generally perceived as a "cover up" statement, Dr. Diamond's claim that Sirhan had engaged in a form of self-hypnosis actually is accurate.
On September 25, 1966, Sirhan, who was training to be a jockey, suffered severe head trauma after falling from a horse. This fall is often said to have been the cause of personality change, including an interest in the mystical. Maybe, partly, but it was at Santa Anita Racetrack, where he was hired in October 1965, where he met stable groom Walter Thomas "Tom" Rathke. It is this person who triggered Sirhan's interest in the mystical, including self-hypnosis, initially after Rathke commented on how Sirhan's "thought waves" calmed down the horses he was working with. In no time, Rathke had Sirhan researching, experimenting, and reading about subjects as psychokinesis, pendulums, voodoo, autosuggestion, etc. Among the books Rathke recommended to Sirhan was Cyclomancy: The Secret of Psychic Power Control (1967). In this period, the couple John and Patricia Strathman knew Sirhan. Sharing an interest in mysticism, they sometimes conversed with Sirhan about it. John explained:
"Sirhan used to talk about [Rathke] a lot. I think he was the guy who introduced Sirhan to the occult. He seemed to have Sirhan sort of transfixed. From what Sirhan told me, I got a sinister picture--of Sirhan and Rathke riding around in this old car. Rathke is driving and talking and Sirhan is listening and filling his head with all this junk on the occult. [Sirhan began saying he could see] mystical bodies [and started practicing] magic." 
The official LAPD report on the assassination doesn't mention Rathke, in whom the police seemed to have only minor interest. The report picks up the story from June 1966 on , when Sirhan became a member of the Ancient Mystical Order of the Rosy Cross (AMORC), a leading Rosicrucian organization. Through that he also automatically became a member of the Supreme Grand Lodge of San Jose. He subscribed after reading AMORC's book The Mastery of Life. He did not attend meetings, but received newsletters and ordered books. Among the books he read was At the Feet of the Master, linked to the Theosophical Society. After he was arrested for the assassination of RFK, Sirhan requested the books The Secret Doctrine by Madame Blavatsky and Talks on the Path of Occultism, Volume I - [A Commentary On] At the Feet of the Master by Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater. Additional pages from Sirhan's notebook reveal references to "Illuminati" and "Master Kuthumi". Sirhan was ready for an Art Bell / Coast to Coast AM appearance more than two decades before this (CIA-tied, conspiracy disinformation-riddled) radio show appeared.
Also not mentioned in the report is that the bizarre, repetitive May 18, 1968 entries in Sirhan's diary, "RFK must die, RFK must be assassinated," were based, at least in part, on an article released that month in the Rosicrucian Digest, entitled Put It in Writing. It was written by Arthur J. Fettig.  Apart from that, all the basic spiritual experiments and self-help courses Sirhan was doing, make it quite clear that the May 18, 1968 was some type of basic "manifestation" practice. Because he was also practicing self-hypnosis, he may have actually put himself into ever-deeper trance states.
That having been said, however unusual these practices might be for a political assassin, it proves nothing. It seems more than clear that Sirhan was "manifesting" his intent to kill RFK on the anniversary of the start of the Six-Day War. This still makes him America's first Arab terrorist. He may indeed have been in a self-induced hypnotic trance on the evening of the attack, but we also shouldn't forget that he claimed to have drank four Tom Collins drinks and was drunk and sleepy as a result.
The only way to turn this tie into a conspiracy is to figure out if his spiritual guru, Tom Rathke, had any CIA or "liberal CIA" (Rockefeller or Ford Foundation-funded NGOs, United Nations, etc.) ties. I doubt he was related to Wade Rathke (Students for a Democratic Society, Weathermen, later Soros ally) though. Or had any of the ties in question. The RFK conspiracy "researchers" really let us down on this one, that's for sure.
Sirhan Sirhan: "Liberal CIA"/antifa tie?
The only remaining fascinating link of Sirhan is the afore-mentioned Walter Crowe, Jr. I personally wondered what on Earth Sirhan was doing at a restaurant with a devout Marxist/communist a month before the assassination. The LAPD and FBI were thinking the same thing at the time. Turns out, Crowe was an old communist friend of Sirhan at Pasadena City College in the 1964-1965 period. In 1964, Crowe, who studied Arabic, attended a meeting of the Organization of Arab Students with Sirhan. In 1965 Sirhan told Crowe of his admiration for President Nasser and expressed the wish that the Arabs would some day rid Palestine of the Jews. Crowe was a "militant leftist" when in college in Pasadena, where - not mentioned in the final LAPD report - he was trying to get going a local chapter of Students for a Democratic Society.  Douglas Layfield, a more superficial friend of Sirhan, also was involved in Students for a Democratic Society, but it only was Crowe who tried to recruit Sirhan into it. Sirhan was not interested though.
Apparently in March 1968 they reconnected again through phone and then by visiting topless bars. This happened after the mothers of Sirhan and Crowe talked to each other and wondered why they were never seeing each other anymore. The last time Crowe saw Sirhan was on the Pasadena college campus on May 23, 1968. Later, to the FBI, he seemed to lie during a polygraph test when he said he had no idea Sirhan was going to murder RFK. From the official LAPD report:
"A confidential and reliable informant reported that a man named Walter Crowe, Jr. had been talking about his old acquaintance with Sirhan. ...
"The examination revealed that Crowe had been untruthful on three crucial questions. Two of the questions had to do with Crowe's knowledge of whether Sirhan intended to shoot Kennedy. Crowe's response of "NO" indicated that he was being untruthful. The results of this test caused investigators to believe that Crowe had knowledge of Sirhan's intention to kill Kennedy; however, it was considered improbable that Crowe could have influenced Sirhan, based on the conversations described by Crowe. ...
"The investigation into the relationship between Walter Crowe, Jr. and Sirhan remained open at the time of this report." 
The Students for a Democratic Society is an odd tie. It was a dominant groups within the "new left" movement of the 1960s - which really is code for "antifa". It was inspired and closely allied with Howard Zinn's Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which in turn grew out of Rockefeller-financed Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC) of Martin Luther King. Wade Rathke, later tied in with George Soros, was both involved in Students for a Democratic Society and the bizarre terrorist group the Weathermen. These groups were spied on by the CIA and FBI through programs as Operation CHAOS and COINTELPRO, but it has always been overlooked that these groups themselves are tied to major Eastern Establishment foundations, directly or indirectly. That's why they're "liberal CIA" and antifa. It's just a very odd network. And the fact that Sirhan was so closely tied to it through his communist friend Walter Crowe, Jr. ... is odd. In fact, while he may not have been as pure or consistent in his views as Crowe, Sirhan himself actually expressed serious sympathy with the communist cause in his (generally neglected) notebook. In it, for example, he wrote:
"I firmly support the Communist cause and its people--wether [sic] Russian, Chinese, Albanian, Hungarian or whatever--Workers of the world unite, You have nothing to loose [sic] but your chains, and a world to win. ...
I advocate the overthrow of the current president of the [obscenity] United States of America. The U.S. says that life in Russia is bad. Why? ... Isn't his gov't putting words in his mouth?" 
It seems obvious though that RFK's support for military assistance to Israel was the predominant reason that Sirhan carried out the assassination. Otherwise a Republican candidate would have been a better pick, certainly in that period when right-wing support for Israel was far from the norm.
We've gone through pretty much all the evidence here pointing to a conspiracy surrounding the RFK assassination. Literally the only conspiracy to be found is an army of conspiracy disinformers having surrounded Sirhan Sirhan and just twisting and fabricating evidence out of thin air. The assassination. of John F. Kennedy in 1963 genuinely involves a lot of unexplained angles, despite the fact that it is similarly hard to cut through all the disinformation. But with RFK, there's just nothing. Or close to nothing. If I were heading the investigation, there'd be several aspects I'd dig a little deeper into:
- The (antifa/"liberal CIA") communist and Students for a Democrat Society ties though Walter Crowe, Jr.
- The full identity of Tom Rathke, the person who mentored Sirhan from 1965 on new age, Rosicrucian-tied interests.
- Why RFK assassination witness Michael Wayne was carrying a business card of a Nazi who tried to blow up the Rockefeller-funded Martin Luther King with 1,400 pounds of dynamite.
- What were the exact reasons for the last-minute route change and who implemented it. Based on the available witness testimony, this aspect is not clear. There might be a perfectly innocent explanation - but for the time being I'm not aware of it. Not mentioned in the linked testimonies is that hotel supervisor Karl Uecker, who later spread second gunman disinformation, knew about the route change before RFK and guided him along it.
- The origin of all the conspiracy disinformation.
Arguably, the last point is by far the most important now. Much of our investigation should really be focused on who exactly has been sending this army of conspiracy disinformers into the Sirhan case. One assumes that a three-letter agency is responsible for that, but it would be nice who exactly these individuals take their marching orders from. The disinformation is far too similar and systematic for it to not have a common point of origin. This goes for a lot of different conspiracies, of course.
In the following chapters more evidence of this type manipulation within the RFK "research community" can be found.
MAJOR RFK DISINFORMERS
RFK disinformer 1: John Pilger
Not having researched a prominent conspiracy always can be a thorn in the eye, because it leaves one incredibly vulnerable to disinformation. A great example is ISGP's article on the 1963 JFK assassination. It's a very factual, very well researched article - which took a very long time to produce. But until recently the opening section contained a quote related to the RFK assassination. The only reason it was included was to make the case that there are questions too about the death of JFK's brother. The quote always gave me an uncomfortable feeling, but I kept it there all these, in no small part out of fear of losing it forever. The quote in question belongs to supposedly respectable Australian journalist John Pilger. He made the statement during an June 6, 2008 interview of Democracy Now!:
"As we waited for [Robert] Kennedy to appear on stage in the ballroom area of the Ambassador [Hotel in LA], one of the Kennedy workers came up to us and said to us: "There's a funny-looking guy in the kitchen. He's giving me the creeps." Well, that was Sirhan Sirhan. And I have to say, none of us, journalists as we were, went off and inquired.
"[Soon] Kennedy entered the kitchen. Sirhan leapt up on a serving area, pointed a gun at him and fired. Kennedy fell. [Sirhan] was wrestled to the ground and then there were other shots. There's no question there was another gunman, because one of the people who was hit - just grazed - was standing next to me and that happened when Sirhan Sirhan had been wrestled to the ground. ...
"The FBI interviewed quite a few of us. There were two people seen running from the Ambassador Hotel, including the famous woman in a polkadot dress. A number of us thought we saw those. We can't be absolutely sure about that."
Now that I have finally read all the original FBI and LAPD witness testimony of the people actually in the kitchen during the shooting of Bobby Kennedy, Pilger's point of view is absolutely fascinating. Why? Because Pilger's name wasn't among these kitchen witnesses. Looking a little deeper and it turns out that Pilger most certainly was present at the hotel during the shooting - except that he wasn't anywhere near the kitchen when the shooting transpired. He didn't even hear the shots! And it took minutes for him to even learn that there had been a shooting. 3.5 weeks later he was called by the LAPD about what he heard and saw that evening - which essentially comes down to nothing. Let's cite the LAPD's summary file of John Pilger's testimony at the time:
"When the Sen. left the stage and was proceeding towards the kitchen area Mr. Pilger proceeded towards main doors of the Embassy Ballroom. [Soon] he heard women crying, etc. Several minutes later [Pilger] heard that the Sen. had been shot. He was unable to get into the kitchen area because of the large crowd that had gathered... He stated that he di [sic] NOT hear any of the shots that were fired and that he could not recall any girl in particular that had been wearing a Polka Dot dress. Mr. Pilger has seen the photos of Sirhan and he has no recollection of seeing anyone resembling him..."
So much for "us" (witnesses) with Pilger. He wasn't in the kitchen observing the shooting. Isn't it amazing these blatant, outright lies these conspiracy disinformers throw out there like it's nothing? Let's discuss some of the curious statements Pilger made:
- Pilger's account of "us ... journalists" spreading stories about "a funny-looking guy in the kitchen" before the shooting is a lie as well. That's a spin on the witness account of Dr. Marcus McBroom, who one-and-a-half hours before the shooting entered the hotel through the kitchen and wondered about what a guy later identified as Sirhan was doing there, considering this person was hanging out here in shabby plain clothes, in contrast to the kitchen personnel that was wearing white uniforms. There's no indication though that Dr. McBroom informed anyone else about this "a funny-looking guy in the kitchen".
- Pilger's statement of Sirhan having "leapt up on a serving area" before the shooting may have been a spin on the witness statement of Mrs. Freddy Plimpton, wife of journalist and Eastern Establishment CIA frontman George Plimpton, who was among the half a dozen witnesses who actually wrestled with Sirhan. I remember scratching my head about Mrs. Plimpton's account that Sirhan "may have been sitting on a table [or pushed] against a table ... before the shooting" because, while short, she'd been able to him quite well. Who really knows, but reading the accounts of other witness standing right around RFK, Sirhan didn't leap up on anything. He just darted around Karl Uecker, who stood in front of RFK, raised his gun and fired at RFK's head. From there he was pushed into a serving table and continued to fire, but in all cases Sirhan did not jump an any kind of serving area to fire his gun, as Pilger stated.
- Also, Sirhan continued to fire his gun until it was empty, this while several people were trying to contain him. Thus, in contrast to what Pilger claims, there's no inconsistency between Sirhan having been "wrestled to the ground" and people still getting hit by bullets.
Fact is, John Pilger is a strange bird, even for someone in conspiracy land. On the one hand, he's in the pro-open borders, "anti-establishment", "liberal CIA" corner of journalism and documentary-making, similar to the Ford Foundation-funded Democracy Now! outlet that interviewed him while making the above statements. This network tends to avoid discussing the most important conspiracies: JFK and 9/11. In case of Democracy Now!, it actually aided in spreading disinformation on 9/11 by setting up a debate between the creators of Loose Change and engineers of Popular Mechanics who created an equally silly article debunking Loose Change.
On the other hand, Pilger has always tried to hold the balance between being a "respectable" anti-conspiracy "liberal CIA" documentary-maker and being an outright "deplorable" conspiracy theorist. He has done so, it appears, because deep conspiracy theory combined with "leftism" isn't really an organized political box by the elites. To the tune of 90% the powers that be have delegated hardcore conspiracy mongering to the anti-immigration libertarian and "alt-right" conspiracy network. And this network doesn't want to deal with Pilger much. Thus, the only way for him to make a living is to not antagonize the "liberal CIA" media too much by not pushing too much conspiracy theory.
However, whenever Pilger does push conspiracy theory, it appears to be of the disinformation kind. In December 2002 he clearly was skeptical of the 9/11 event with an article entitled Bush Terror Elite Wanted 9/11 to Happen , writing about the neocon Project for the New American Century and its pre-9/11 desire for a "new Pearl Harbor". That's all nice and well, but in the article he cites Richard Perle as having said, "If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war our children will sing great songs about us years from now." Richard Perle later claimed this quote was a total invention on the part of Pilger, with Pilger most certainly not offering any source.  When prodded about the issue on 9/11 in 2010, Pilger cautiously stated that the most likely 9/11 scenario is that the Bush administration "let it happen". However, Pilger also mentioned "the extraordinary inactivity by the NORAD aircraft on the day of September 11th [and] we know that Cheney was in charge of the White House on that day." 
These last two sentences are really questionable, especially the latter. The first sentence is very reminiscent of the popular-but-flawed stand-down theory. For example, Bush, Rumsfeld and the FAA were more to blame in the counter-terrorism response on 9/11 than NORAD. The second sentence indicates that Pilger's has gone with the Mike Ruppert version of 9/11.
RFK disinformer 2: Mike Ruppert
As mentioned at the beginning, in the end this entire article was inspired by claims of Mike Ruppert in the August/September 1998 issue of Eclectica Magazine (eclectica.org), in which he stated:
"Bobby Kennedy was not killed by Sirhan Sirhan. Out of 76 witnesses in the pantry that night, not one placed Sirhan in a position where he could've fired the shots which killed RFK. The autopsy was irrefutable in its findings that the fatal shots were fired from one to three inches behind RFK's right ear. Sirhan never got behind or close enough to accomplish that. ...
"Sirhan was a hypno-programmed patsy, firing loud blanks as a distraction from the real assassins, one of whom was Thane Cesar, a private security guard just hired out of Lockheed. ... The fact that Sirhan was firing blanks has nothing to do with the fact that probably fifteen or more REAL shots were fired. I am very familiar with the bullet holes in the door jams and the walls. Sirhan's gun held only eight rounds. Many more than that were fired and analysis of tape recordings proves that."
15 "real" shots, in addition to Sirhan's "blanks"? All fired by Thane Eugene Cesar with 76 witnesses around? Who never saw such a thing? What was Mike Ruppert smoking? What else is there to say? Famous Mike Ruppert is now infamous Mike Ruppert. He's just sucking all the usual disinformation - debunked in great detail in this article - out of this thumb here. That is nothing new though, even at the time. Mike Ruppert's disinformation on CIA drug trafficking and 9/11 has already been discussed in ISGP's Coast to Coast AM: 9/11 article. It has also been discussed in ISGP's A History of CIA Drug Trafficking article.
RFK disinformer 3: William Pepper
William Pepper is a lawyer who became allied with the Rockefeller-financed Martin Luther King in 1967. After King's murder by James Earl Ray, Pepper became Ray's lawyer and started claiming that his client was framed by the CIA, FBI, the Memphis police, etc. The son of Martin Luther King has taken the same position and in 1997 even shook Ray's hand, despite the fact that Ray was caught at the scene, along with a rifle. In 1998-1999 Pepper represented the King family in the rather questionable trial against Loyd Jowers. Next, Pepper went on to represent Sirhan Sirhan, locked up for killing Bobby Kennedy. Again Pepper began claiming that Sirhan was framed and therefore innocent, with this time RFK, Jr. supporting these claims of Pepper.
In more recent years, Pepper was hired by Richard Gage's Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (A & E), clearly in yet another very obvious effort to aid in a cover up. Until knowing all the details of the RFK assassination and seeing how Pepper has been twisting the truth, it was tough to use Pepper as an example of controlled opposition. It was suspected, but not (with virtual certainty) proved. Now it is proved and Pepper fits in well with the rest of the A & E crowd. Gage and almost all prominent and less prominent researchers of A & E have engaged in mixing truth with disinformation. There's no conspiracy this author knows all the nooks and crannies of more than 9/11, and thus this author is more than familiar with the practices of A & E. More has been written on A amp; E and Pepper in ISGP's New WTC 7 Findings article.
RFK disinformer 4: James DiEugenio
Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease were editors of Probe Magazine and have produced tons of work on the JFK assassination over the decades. They focused a lot on the parapolitics behind the assassination an, on the surface of things, appear to be among the most knowledgeable authors on this subject. That having been said, I'm not too familiar with DiEugenio's positions on the JFK case, mainly because I, at most, skim over the work of alternative authors. I stopped taking DiEugenio serious all together after seeing him support Jim Garrison, a super-prominent disinformer on the JFK case who made all kinds of bizarre claims, including the idea of a total of 7 shots from places as sewer drains and the Dal-Tex Building. Garrison's trial also included a total freakshow of bogus witnesses.
If time permits it, I might go back and check for some quotes of DiEugenio in the future. However, after running into a June 5, 2018 article of him on Robert Parry's Consortium News, entitled RFK and the End of an Era, it was a good opportunity to check for his basic positions on the RFK assassination.
In this article, DiEugenio accuses DeWayne Wolfer, the head of the LAPD crime lab at the time who analyzed the shooting, of pulling a Magic Bullet, because "in addition to the four shots that struck Kennedy there were five other victims" and "Sirhan's handgun held a maximum of eight shots." He agrees with Paul Schrade that it is not credible that the bullet that went through RFK's shoulder pad also struck Schrade. Fact is, the LAPD never claimed their sequence of shots was an absolute certainty, but it does explain all the witness accounts - no matter what Schrade, a leading disinformer, is claiming. There certainly is not a single credible reason to be talking about a second shooter.
Thus, in the article DiEugenio claims there were at least nine shots and, expectedly, from there agrees that there is "also evidence that there were bullets in door frames." To make this case he points, expectedly, to questionable FBI agent William Baily and all kinds of latter day statements of either new witnesses or persons who added to or changed their original testimony. For anyone still doubting DiEugenio's credibility, from there he repeats the claims of Philip Van Praag about the Pruszynski recording, namely that "there were at least 13 shots on the tape." That claims is the first we fully debunked in this article. Only 7 shots can be heard on this tape. That's it.
Conclusion? Forget about Jim DiEugenio. And know that you have to understand the limits of Consortium News. It produces good information, but disinforms on key conspiracies as JFK, RFK and 9/11. The "new left" site is a favorite of George Soros buddy Oliver Stone and is know to have received at least one donation from the "liberal CIA" Park Foundation. Hence, Consortium News is "liberal CIA" itself.
RFK disinformer 5: Paul Schrade
Since 1974, RFK assassination "witness" Paul Schrade "has led the crusade" for reopening the investigation , claiming there must have been a second gunman. He has been prominently part of RFK assassination conferences, of the RFK Must Die documentary (2007), brought RFK, Jr. over to the conspiracy side of things, and as late as 2018 was quoted in the Washington Post as saying:
"Yes, he did shoot me. Yes, he shot four other people and aimed at Kennedy. The important thing is he did not shoot Robert Kennedy. Why didn't they go after the second gunman? They knew about him right away. They didn't want to know who it was. They wanted a quickie." 
Couldn't get more irrational. Bizarrely, Schrade never saw anything at the time of the assassination. He was standing behind RFK during the shooting and was knocked out almost instantly when Sirhan's second shot hit him in the forehead. He saw so little that his testimony apparently wasn't even taken up in the now available published police files on the assassination. In a later affidavit he wrote, "I did not see the gun nor any person with a gun. I blacked out after I was shot." And here Schrade has become a leader of the "second gunman" theory, in complete opposition to literally all the people around him who weren't knocked out cold in the first second.
This phenomenon is not uncommon though. As already discussed, somehow the security state is always able to turn a few people that were witnesses to a major historical conspiracy.
RFK disinformer 6: Dan Moldea
Most recently Schrade has been debating Dan Moldea, an "alternative" researcher of JFK, RFK, the mafia, etc. with a surprising level of access who was steering the pot in the 1980s and early 1990s with his suspicions that a second shooter was involved. In 1990, for example, an article of his entitled RFK's Murder: A Second Gun? After 22 Years, the L.A. Police Talk About Extra Bullets was featured in the Washington Post. In 1995, with his book The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, Moldea abandoned these views, but continued to question the sequence of shots. Among Moldea's ideas has been that Schrade "fell forward into Kennedy" - after being shot in the forehead in the first second, photographed with his feet towards RFK, a good 10 feet away. Needless to say, Schrade disagrees with this idea.  So do all original witnesses it appears.
Tellingly, Moldea is a protege of Walter Sheridan, who supported him in the publication of his first book, The Hoffa Wars (1978). In the book Moldea tried to make the case that the mafia - without the aid of the CIA - killed JFK, a very similar conclusion to the 1979 final report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) , which drew a number of fascinating conclusions that rank-and-file investigators did not agree with.
Sheridan, who reportedly worked for ONI at one point, was an FBI and NSA investigator who first worked for RFK in 1957. When RFK was attorney general under the presidency of his brother in 1961-1963, Sheridan ran the investigation of mobster Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters for him. In 1972 he published a book on this: The Fall and Rise of Jimmy Hoffa. In the 1965-1970 period Sheridan worked as a special correspondent for NBC News, during which time the (fraudulent) Jim Garrison trial was accusing Sheridan of trying to infiltrate and destroy the (bogus) investigation. Alternatively, Sheridan had William Gurvich infiltrate the Garrison investigation on behalf of Senator Robert Kennedy to figure out if he actually had anything concrete. Gurvich reported back to (a reportedly confused) Kennedy that "Mr. Garrison will never shed any light on your brother's death."  At least in that respect he was right.
Without going any deeper for the time being, it looks as if Moldea continued the controlled opposition games that Sheridan also was involved in. Instead of Jim Garrison, Moldea's chief opponents included Jim DiEugenio and a variety of other leading conspiracy authors.
RFK disinformer 6: RFK, Jr.
As mentioned previously, RFK was very suspicious about the death of his brother, JFK, suspecting the CIA and right-wing allies as the anti-Castro Cuban exiles and the mafia. He kept most of these thoughts private , but what is primarily important here is that his ideas were far from irrational.
Enter his son, RFK, Jr., half a century later, who, without a doubt, has become the most bizarre disinformer on the RFK assassination. RFK, Jr. came out very prominently in support of a conspiracy surrounding the death of his father in the spring of 2018, amongst other media outlets, in the Washington Post. The Washington Post article in question is often described as "an interview", but RFK, Jr.'s words are only quoted sporadically. What he is quoted on is devastating to his credibility though:
"Once [Paul] Schrade showed me the autopsy report [with its "1 inch" and "back of the head" conclusions], then I didn't feel like it was something I could just dismiss. Which is what I wanted to do. ...
"[There are] glaring discrepancies in the narrative that Sirhan fired the shots that killed my father. ... There were too many bullets. You can't fire 13 shots out of an eight-shot gun. ... " 
RFK, Jr. has been getting more extreme and disinformative with his claims as time goes by. On September 12, 2019 he wrote on his Instagram (@robertfkennedyjr):
"Thane Eugene Cesar died today in the Philippines. Compelling evidence suggests that Cesar murdered my father.
"On June 5, 1968, Cesar, an employee in a classified section of Lockheed's Burbank facility, was moonlighting as a security guard at the Ambassador Hotel. He had landed the job about one week earlier. Cesar waited in the pantry as my father spoke in the ballroom, then grabbed my father by the elbow and guided him toward Sirhan.
"With 77 people in the pantry, every eyewitness said Sirhan was always in front on my father at a 3-6 feet distance. Sirhan fired two shots toward my father before he was tackled. From under the dog pile, Sirhan emptied his 8 chamber revolver firing 6 more shots in the opposite direction, 5 of them striking bystanders and one going wild.
"By his own account, Cesar was directly behind my dad holding his right elbow with his own gun drawn when my dad fell backwards on top of him. Cesar repeatedly changed his story about exactly when he drew his weapon.
"According to the Coroner, Dr. Thomas Noguchi, all 4 shots that struck my father were "contact" shots fired from behind my dad with the barrel touching or nearly touching his body. As my dad fell, he reached back and tore off Cesar's clip on tie.
"Cesar sold his .22 to a co-worker weeks after the assassination warning him that it had been used in a crime. Cesar lied to police claiming that he'd disposed of the gun months before the assassination.
"Cesar was a bigot who hated the Kennedys for their advocacy of Civil Rights for blacks. I had plans to meet Thane Eugene Cesar in the Philippines last June until he demanded a payment of $25,000 through his agent Dan Moldea. Ironically, Moldea penned a meticulous and compelling indictment of Cesar in a 1995 book and then suddenly exculpated him by fiat in a bizarre and nonsensical final chapter. Police have never seriously investigated Cesar's role in my father's killing."
As already discussed at length, the account provided here by RFK, Jr. is not compatible with any official testimony taken in de days and weeks after the shooting. RFK, Jr. accusing Dan Moldea of a cover up isn't anything unusual either, as it simply appears to be the usual controlled opposition arguments. We discussed what a strange character Moldea is in the previous chapter.
RFK, Jr.'s coming-out party, as described in the Washington Post, was the "culmination of months of research ... into the assassination, including speaking with witnesses and reading the autopsy and police reports."  Fascinating. I went over all the same research for about 3 weeks and after reading original testimonies for a few hours I already had a feeling that the official story was going to be true. Since then, the evidence has only continued to stack up in favor of the official version of events. So how did RFK, Jr. end up going into the exact opposite direction? A lot of that may have to do with the fact that he has been way too close to Paul Schrade, who explained to CBS:
"We've been talking about this a long time. I've been talking to other members of the family. One day, right here in this living room, he brought three of his youngest kids and he said, "Look Paul, you were there that night. They don't know what happened to their grandfather."" 
Ironically, RFK, Jr. already came up on ISGP's radar right when this interview was put out, this while preparing ISGP's "Liberal CIA": Hollywood article. As also the Washington Post mentions, RFK, Jr. teamed up with Hollywood stars in the fight against "mercury" (Thimerosal, which is a bio-degradable form of mercury in vaccines that can't be linked to autism - and on top of that has been used less and less), something you normally only see right-wing (CIA-tied) conspiracy disinformers as Alex Jones and Jeff Rense do. Why? Because the claim that Thimerosal is leading to autism is questionable at best. Whatever is the cause for the rise in autism, there's no research out there showing that it is related to Thimerosal.
Unsurprisingly, a June 2005 article entitled Deadly Immunity that RFK, Jr. wrote on the subject for Rolling Stone and Salon.com, over the years had to be corrected and eventually withdrawn.  RFK, Jr. still is on the same train though. He is chairman of "World Mercury Project" (WMP) and has received particular close support from Hollywood star Jim Carrey , as well as Robert De Niro.  In addition, Martin Sheen, the father of the more (in)famous Charlie Sheen, has been a good friend of the Kennedy family since even before RFK was assassinated. Fact is, Robert De Niro and Jim Carrey are totally unhinged and corrupt anti-Trump propagandists. You literally can't believe a word that comes out of their mouths. The same goes for Martin Sheen, whose son actually became a leading 9/11-no-plane disinformer and close Alex Jones ally.
Then again, RFK, Jr. has been a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council from 1986 to 2017.  The NRDC has been receiving millions upon millions every year from all the top "liberal CIA" foundations as Rockefeller, Ford, Open Society (Soros), Hewlett, etc. The unbelievably globalist-oriented Leonardo DiCaprio has been sitting on the board of trustees for the longest time, as has Laurance Rockefeller, Jr. It should be clear that only "liberal CIA"-type establishment insiders receive posts at the NRDC. In addition, RFK, Jr. has a long track record of environmentalist, anti-nuclear power and open borders propaganda. Already in 1974 he wrote an article in Atlantic Monthly entitled Poor Chile, in response to the CIA-backed Pinochet coup against the Marxist Salvador Allende. Not everybody gets to do that.
Anyway, the basic fact is RFK, Jr. is pushing disinfo and that he has long-standing "liberal CIA" ties. It's likely his biography will be a bit more expanded here in the future. We're rushing through these "disinformer" sections.
As for the additions, ironinally, RFK, Jr.'s son, RFK III, in 2018 married Amaryllis Fox, a former CIA covert operations officer who wrote an "unsanctioned" autobiograhy on her work for the CIA that is being promoted everywhere. In fact, this author learned about Fox through the website of the Dutch NGO "De Balie", headed for many years by Yoeri Albrecht, a member of the EU advisory board of George Soros' Open Society Foundations. Having been educated at Oxford University and Georgetown university, Fox has a considerable Eastern Establishment history, very similar to the Kennedys. By 2019 Fox was pregnant of Kennedy.
RFK disinformation 7: Evidence of Revision (2006)
Evidence of Revision is a roughly 9 hours long documentary. There's really no time at the moment to review it, but over the years this author has noticed on numerous occasions that the film has been pushing conspiracy disinformation. From memory, the idea that Malcolm Wallace was LBJ's personal JFK hitman struck me as that. And now also while doing research on the RFK assassination, Evidence of Revision regularly comes up as a pusher of Sandra Serrano / Polka Dot and "extra-bullet-holes-in-walls" theories.
A more extensive review, one day, if time permits it.
RFK disinformation 8: RFK Must Die (2007)
This 1 hour and 40 minute documentary was created by Shane O'Sullivan and accompanied by a book with the same title. It received a lot of attention not just in the alternative media, but also in mainstream media. The Guardian, the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New York Sun, Democracy Now!, etc. all are media outlets that discussed it.
The documentary repeats all the same points we've debunked here countless times already:
- Paul Schrade plays a hugely prominent role, in the opening section explaining: "We saw for the first time in Latino communities, people lined up at the polls, before the polls opened. And this happened in black communities in California as well."
- RFK aide Frank Burns, a person not in the available LAPD files, but who was standing right next to RFK when the shooting happened, is a really interesting addition. Initially he fully confirms the official story. Then it becomes clear why O'Sullivan put him in: Burns is convinced that the gun was 2-3 feet away from RFK's head when it went off, contradicting Coroner Noguchi's findings of a 1 to 3 inch distance for the fatal shot.
- Next, O'Sullivan brings up Vincent Di Pierro and starts trying to discredit him when he is of the opinion that Sirhan's gun was right next to RFK's head when it went off.
- The extra "bullet holes" are discussed.
- Sandra Serrano is fully absolved, with her polka dot girl account being presented as the absolute truth and her police interrogator as a person who was part of the cover up.
- Munir Sirhan, Sirhan Sirhan's last surviving brother, describes his home at the time as a "normal Christian, God-fearing family". Munir agrees with all the CIA-did-it-through-MKULTRA talk of O'Sullivan.
More uniquely, RFK Must Die very prominently adds the new "evidence" that veteran CIA officers David Morales, Gordon Campbell and George Joannides were present that night at the Ambassador Hotel. These CIA officers were involved with JM/WAVE, the Florida-based CIA base that was tasked with killing Castro and strongly suspected of being the origin of the JFK assassination. In fact, O'Sullivan even mentions how all these men tie back to former JM/WAVE head Ted Shackley, whom this author considers a key CIA suspect in the JFK assassination (similar to some HSCA investigators) and many other questionable CIA operations. Hence, O'Sullivan seemed to have virtual proof that this same CIA network was involved in the murder of RFK.
O'Sullivan spends half an hour building up a hype that it is indeed these CIA men that he found among the crowd of the Ambassador Hotel, including with the use of a number of former CIA officers and assets (whom basically are always lying and manipulating). While these claims never come across as too convincing, in the last 10 minutes of his video he, bizarrely, completely undermines his own findings, to the point you go: "Either do more research and fully confirm your findings. Or shut up and never air this material." The media didn't share this opinion. In November 20, 2006, before this CIA angle had even been fully researched, Campbell already appeared on BBC: Newsnight to promote his upcoming film.
Right around that time, Gordon Campbell turns out to have died in 1962. Makes things even worse, the 1968 person he suggests was Gordon Campbell, was identified in police files of the time as Michael D. Roman, vice president of Bulova Watch Company, who was present at the hotel with other company men for a sales meeting. Subsequently, O'Sullivan starts to speculate that there "may have been two Campbells" and wonders if "Michael D. Roman [was] Gordon Campbell's real identity." Next he goes on that "sources" - probably the same lying to him about various CIA identities in Ambassador film - told him that Bulova was a "CIA front". None of this even matters at this point. What matters is that O'Sullivan was totally wrong about Campbell's identify.
Next, family identifies "George Joannides", standing next to Michael D. Roman ("Gordon Campbell"), as Frank S. Owens, a regional sales manager for Bulova. O'Sullivan, apparently in a desperate move to save face, goes, "Did Roman and Owens double as Campbell and Joannides? It seems unlikely, but at this point I just don't know.".
It appears the actual name of "David Morales" wasn't figured out, but he appears to have been security or to have been present in some official capacity. Looking at the testimony of security chief William Gardner might be a good start, as in it he lists all the names of his security personnel present that night. Would notorious CIA operatives involved in the RFK assassination just pop their heads around corners where national television interviews are taking place? Unlikely.
Mind you, the David Morales claim at the center of RFK Must Die has been made since 1995 by former JM/WAVE operative Bradley Ayers, who features prominently is RFK Must Die. With that, it seems clear that RFK Must Die is little more than an extension of CIA propaganda. Apart from Bradley Ayers and a handful of other questionable associates, close friends and CIA veterans don't recognize Morales in the video at all. O'Sullivan then talks to controversial CIA veterans Ed Wilson and Thomas Clines (who are unlikely to talk to outsiders). According O'Sullivan, "[Ed] Wilson didn't recognize Morales. Clines said it looked like him, but walked with his tie down and walked more of a slough - which I found a little strange." This last addition, once again, is very unprofessional and makes it clear that O'Sullivan just didn't want to let go of his pet theory.
To summarize, "Gordon Campbell" was Michael D. Roman of Bulova and "George Joannides" was Frank S. Owens, a regional sales manager for Bulova. The identity of "David Morales" remains unknown it seems.
Sullivan should win an award for having produced the most retarded documentary of 2007. It says a lot that his documentary has been pushed by so many major media outlets. They are essentially doing the bidding of the CIA and allied intelligence services in the spreading of disinformation.