Friday, May 16, 2008
Vegan Terrorists - In preparation for the Republican National Convention, the FBI is soliciting informants to keep tabs on local protest groups
This article is from the May 14th issue of the City Pages.
"They were looking for an informant to show up at "vegan potlucks" throughout the Twin Cities and rub shoulders with RNC protestors."
Moles Wanted
By Matt Snyders
Paul Carroll was riding his bike when his cell phone vibrated.
Once he arrived home from the Hennepin County Courthouse, where he’d been served a gross misdemeanor for spray-painting the interior of a campus elevator, the lanky, wavy-haired University of Minnesota sophomore flipped open his phone and checked his messages. He was greeted by a voice he recognized immediately. It belonged to U of M Police Sgt. Erik Swanson, the officer to whom Carroll had turned himself in just three weeks earlier. When Carroll called back, Swanson asked him to meet at a coffee shop later that day, going on to assure a wary Carroll that he wasn’t in trouble.
Carroll, who requested that his real name not be used, showed up early and waited anxiously for Swanson’s arrival. Ten minutes later, he says, a casually dressed Swanson showed up, flanked by a woman whom he introduced as FBI Special Agent Maureen E. Mazzola. For the next 20 minutes, Mazzola would do most of the talking.
“She told me that I had the perfect ‘look,’” recalls Carroll. “And that I had the perfect personality—they kept saying I was friendly and personable—for what they were looking for.”
What they were looking for, Carroll says, was an informant—someone to show up at “vegan potlucks” throughout the Twin Cities and rub shoulders with RNC protestors, schmoozing his way into their inner circles, then reporting back to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, a partnership between multiple federal agencies and state and local law enforcement. The effort’s primary mission, according to the Minneapolis division’s website, is to “investigate terrorist acts carried out by groups or organizations which fall within the definition of terrorist groups as set forth in the current United States Attorney General Guidelines.”
Carroll would be compensated for his efforts, but only if his involvement yielded an arrest. No exact dollar figure was offered.
“I’ll pass,” said Carroll.
For 10 more minutes, Mazzola and Swanson tried to sway him. He remained obstinate.
“Well, if you change your mind, call this number,” said Mazzola, handing him her card with her cell phone number scribbled on the back.
(Mazzola, Swanson, and the FBI did not return numerous calls seeking comment.)
Carroll’s story echoes a familiar theme. During the lead-up the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, the NYPD’s Intelligence Division infiltrated and spied on protest groups across the country, as well as in Canada and Europe. The program’s scope extended to explicitly nonviolent groups, including street theater troupes and church organizations.
There were also two reported instances of police officers, dressed as protestors, purposefully instigating clashes. At the 2004 Republican National Convention, the NYPD orchestrated a fake arrest to incite protestors. When a blond man was “arrested,” nearby protestors began shouting, “Let him go!” The helmeted police proceeded to push back against the crowd with batons and arrested at least two. In a similar instance, during an April 29, 2005, Critical Mass bike ride in New York, video footage captured a “protestor”—in reality an undercover cop—telling his captor, “I’m on the job,” and being subsequently let go.
Minneapolis’s own recent Critical Mass skirmish was allegedly initiated by two unidentified stragglers in hoods—one wearing a handkerchief over his or her face—who “began to make aggressive moves” near the back of the pack. During that humid August 31 evening, officers went on to arrest 19 cyclists while unleashing pepper spray into the faces of bystanders. The hooded duo was never apprehended.
In the scuffle’s wake, conspiracy theories swirled that the unprecedented surveillance—squad cars from multiple agencies and a helicopter hovering overhead—was due to the presence of RNC protesters in the ride. The MPD publicly denied this. But during the trial of cyclist Gus Ganley, MPD Sgt. David Stichter testified that a task force had been created to monitor the August 31 ride and that the department knew that members of an RNC protest group would be along for the ride.
“This is all part of a larger government effort to quell political dissent,” says Jordan Kushner, an attorney who represented Ganley and other Critical Mass arrestees. “The Joint Terrorism Task Force is another example of using the buzzword ‘terrorism’ as a basis to clamp down on people’s freedoms and push forward a more authoritarian government.”
Bill O'Reilly Inside Edition Freak Out - Dance Remix
I never get tired of watching this one. I love the dismissive wave of the hand too. Classic!
Chris Matthews Rips Apart Right Wing Talk Show Host
Finally someone in the media stands up to this idiocy. And it's.....Chris Matthews? I guess the only mainstream news worth watching is MSNBC.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Emily Fox on ESPN E:60
Gotta give some love to The Fox. She's getting some national exposure on ESPN. Just make sure you focus on those basketball skills and don't get too caught up in the glamorous world of Speed Stacking!
Union Leaders' Clash Over Dem Endorsements A Sign Of Racial Polarization
Some black leaders within the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) are complaining that under Gerald McEntee, Hillary Clinton's strongest and most outspoken backer in the labor movement, union money is being spent to build white turnout for the New York Senator in what has become a racially polarized competition for the Democratic presidential nomination, according to a number of sources.
The conflict is emblematic of the intensifying hostility within Democratic ranks as the nomination fight slowly moves towards closure. The fact that the two leading candidates are a black and a woman has produced internal and external disputes involving civil rights, women's rights and a variety of other groups and leaders in the liberal wing of the party.
William Lucy, International Secretary-Treasurer of the 1.4 million member AFSCME, raised the issue of the union's spending on behalf of Clinton at a recent board meeting.
Lucy, according to sources, pointed out that Clinton is winning whites, while Obama is carrying blacks by 9-to-1 margins, forcing her supporters, including AFSCME, to concentrate on building white turnout.
In addition to his number two post at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Lucy is founder and president of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists.
Tensions between McEntee and Lucy have been simmering outside of public view for years, and the Clinton-Obama contest has forced these tensions closer to the surface. While AFSCME under McEntee's direction endorsed Clinton, Lucy has personally given Obama $2,300.
A spokesman for AFSCME, who asked not to be identified, said only: "We don't comment on board discussions."
Sources familiar with the internal dispute say McEntee, who has a temper and does not tolerate disagreement well, has voiced outrage over dissent within his union. His anger has been directed not only at Lucy, but also at the Oregon State AFSCME, which defied McEntee and endorsed Obama. Oregon holds a primary this coming Tuesday, May 20.
Attempts to reach Lucy by phone and email were unsuccessful.
Nationwide, of the 16.9 million workers who are members of all the nation's trade unions, 2.4 million are black, 1.9 million Hispanic, and 657,000 Asian American, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. AFSCME, according to a spokesman, is 15 percent black.
McEntee's political stature rose dramatically in 1992 when he was one of the few labor leaders to back Bill Clinton. After Clinton won, McEntee enjoyed access to the White House and his calls to the president were returned. After McEntee's ally, John Sweeney, was elected president of
the AFL-CIO in 1995, McEntee became chairman of the labor federation's political committee.
McEntee and many other union officials took a hit in 2004 after they endorsed Howard Dean and had to watch his candidacy implode during the Iowa caucuses.
In the current election, McEntee has pulled out the stops for Clinton. So far, according to the Federal Election Commission, AFSCME has spent $415,800 on television and radio advertising, and has invested much more, $2.45 million, in a group called the American Leadership Project,
which has run ads for Clinton and against Obama.
Clinton met earlier this week with McEntee and other labor leaders to discuss her prospects and choices in the closing weeks of the campaign. McEntee pledged to stick with her until the end.
The conflict is emblematic of the intensifying hostility within Democratic ranks as the nomination fight slowly moves towards closure. The fact that the two leading candidates are a black and a woman has produced internal and external disputes involving civil rights, women's rights and a variety of other groups and leaders in the liberal wing of the party.
William Lucy, International Secretary-Treasurer of the 1.4 million member AFSCME, raised the issue of the union's spending on behalf of Clinton at a recent board meeting.
Lucy, according to sources, pointed out that Clinton is winning whites, while Obama is carrying blacks by 9-to-1 margins, forcing her supporters, including AFSCME, to concentrate on building white turnout.
In addition to his number two post at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Lucy is founder and president of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists.
Tensions between McEntee and Lucy have been simmering outside of public view for years, and the Clinton-Obama contest has forced these tensions closer to the surface. While AFSCME under McEntee's direction endorsed Clinton, Lucy has personally given Obama $2,300.
A spokesman for AFSCME, who asked not to be identified, said only: "We don't comment on board discussions."
Sources familiar with the internal dispute say McEntee, who has a temper and does not tolerate disagreement well, has voiced outrage over dissent within his union. His anger has been directed not only at Lucy, but also at the Oregon State AFSCME, which defied McEntee and endorsed Obama. Oregon holds a primary this coming Tuesday, May 20.
Attempts to reach Lucy by phone and email were unsuccessful.
Nationwide, of the 16.9 million workers who are members of all the nation's trade unions, 2.4 million are black, 1.9 million Hispanic, and 657,000 Asian American, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. AFSCME, according to a spokesman, is 15 percent black.
McEntee's political stature rose dramatically in 1992 when he was one of the few labor leaders to back Bill Clinton. After Clinton won, McEntee enjoyed access to the White House and his calls to the president were returned. After McEntee's ally, John Sweeney, was elected president of
the AFL-CIO in 1995, McEntee became chairman of the labor federation's political committee.
McEntee and many other union officials took a hit in 2004 after they endorsed Howard Dean and had to watch his candidacy implode during the Iowa caucuses.
In the current election, McEntee has pulled out the stops for Clinton. So far, according to the Federal Election Commission, AFSCME has spent $415,800 on television and radio advertising, and has invested much more, $2.45 million, in a group called the American Leadership Project,
which has run ads for Clinton and against Obama.
Clinton met earlier this week with McEntee and other labor leaders to discuss her prospects and choices in the closing weeks of the campaign. McEntee pledged to stick with her until the end.
UCLA Students March Against War, 'Seize' Campus Building
By Fight Back staff
Los Angeles, CA - On April 17, a coalition of campus peace groups led by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) held a protest against the U.S. war on Iraq. After a spirited rally at the site of the 1969 assassination of Black Panthers Bunchy Carter and John Huggins, the crowd marched through the campus, chanting the slogan, "Iraq for Iraqis! Troops out now!" before symbolically 'seizing' the student union building. Once inside, onlookers gawked in astonishment or gave the thumbs-up, as the deafening sound of anti-imperialist chanting, accompanied by the stomps, whistles, cheers and claps of the crowd, filled up the enclosed space. Finally, the protesters rallied in front of the building for more than hour, giving speeches, performances and thought-provoking materials to the passers-by before dispersing.
For many of the organizers and participants of the event, it was their first time being involved in a mass anti-war event on campus. "Many haven't done this sort of thing before, but now they are inspired, and we are already talking about what to do next," said Eric Gardner, who is a campus employee as well as a member of SDS.
The protesters' principle demands were first of all for the immediate withdrawal of all the foreign troops from Iraq, and secondly the reallocation of the money and resources being spent for wars abroad to instead go towards education and other human needs at home. Several speakers also condemned the recruiting practices of the U.S. military, describing the targeting of immigrants, the poor and oppressed nationalities as exploitative and dishonest.
The timing of the event close to tax day was a deliberate choice. The organizers of the event say they sought to highlight the stark choice of jobs, education and health care on the one hand, versus bullets and bombs for occupation on the other. To publicize the event, on April 15 a team of students dressed up as IRS agents and handed people tax 'bills' for their 'share' of the cost of the war. Given the fact that the Regents of the university announced tuition increases only days before, the action sometimes elicited powerful reactions. Said one student, "Our hard earned tax dollars are going to fund a war for Bush's cronies, rather than the people's needs. If that isn't upside down, then I don't know what is!"
Los Angeles, CA - On April 17, a coalition of campus peace groups led by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) held a protest against the U.S. war on Iraq. After a spirited rally at the site of the 1969 assassination of Black Panthers Bunchy Carter and John Huggins, the crowd marched through the campus, chanting the slogan, "Iraq for Iraqis! Troops out now!" before symbolically 'seizing' the student union building. Once inside, onlookers gawked in astonishment or gave the thumbs-up, as the deafening sound of anti-imperialist chanting, accompanied by the stomps, whistles, cheers and claps of the crowd, filled up the enclosed space. Finally, the protesters rallied in front of the building for more than hour, giving speeches, performances and thought-provoking materials to the passers-by before dispersing.
For many of the organizers and participants of the event, it was their first time being involved in a mass anti-war event on campus. "Many haven't done this sort of thing before, but now they are inspired, and we are already talking about what to do next," said Eric Gardner, who is a campus employee as well as a member of SDS.
The protesters' principle demands were first of all for the immediate withdrawal of all the foreign troops from Iraq, and secondly the reallocation of the money and resources being spent for wars abroad to instead go towards education and other human needs at home. Several speakers also condemned the recruiting practices of the U.S. military, describing the targeting of immigrants, the poor and oppressed nationalities as exploitative and dishonest.
The timing of the event close to tax day was a deliberate choice. The organizers of the event say they sought to highlight the stark choice of jobs, education and health care on the one hand, versus bullets and bombs for occupation on the other. To publicize the event, on April 15 a team of students dressed up as IRS agents and handed people tax 'bills' for their 'share' of the cost of the war. Given the fact that the Regents of the university announced tuition increases only days before, the action sometimes elicited powerful reactions. Said one student, "Our hard earned tax dollars are going to fund a war for Bush's cronies, rather than the people's needs. If that isn't upside down, then I don't know what is!"
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Withheld in Full - Episode 1: Morley vs. CIA
“Who was Howard?”
17 months of missing progress reports, a mysterious name on cables and correspondence about and between the DRE, a Cuban exile group - who in 1963 had various interactions with Lee Harvey Oswald - sent former Washington Post reporter and editor Jefferson Morley on a decade-long investigative journey to find the answer to that very question...
“Who was Howard?”
First dismissed by the CIA as possibly a mere “routing indicator,” and after the Agency denied any affiliation with the DRE in 1963, “Howard” was revealed to be George Joannides, an experienced career CIA officer known at the time only as a liaison between the CIA and the House Select Committee on Assassinations during their late 1970s investigation into the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King.
Joannides kept his 1963 activities secret from the HSCA, in strict violation of the CIA’s agreement with the HSCA that no operational officer from the time of Kennedy’s murder would work with the HSCA.
Morley’s discovery provided proof that the CIA knowingly and willingly compromised the Committee’s investigation into the murders. This, prompted the HSCA’s Chief Counsel, G. Robert Blakey in 2003 to denounce his own committee’s findings about any CIA relation to Oswald, and remark that "I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity."
In 2003, after unsuccessfully attempting to seek interest in his Washington Post colleagues in the Joannides story, Morley and renowned FOIA attorney Jim Lesar sued the CIA for release of the Joannides records. In response, the Agency released approximately 100 pages of documents, including the revelation that, in April and May of 1964, Joannides traveled to New Orleans - coincidentally the same day (April 1) that the Warren Commission notified DRE leader Carlos Bringuier that the Commission wanted his testimony.
The purpose of Joannides’ trip to New Orleans remains a mystery.
In November, 2005, the CIA released a Vaughn Index of all secret Joannides documents in his administrative file, including 33 records that the CIA claims cannot be released in any form. In the index, it was revealed that Joannides received a Career Intelligence Medal in March, 1981 - with the reason for that award being “Denied in Full.”
The next month, in December of 2005, the Agency submitted the declaration of Marilyn Dorn, who justified the CIA’s refusal to search its records on Joannides’ secret activities in 1963, during the time of the DRE’s contact with Oswald. While her declaration reveals the existence of secret operational files on Joannides, it also says that the CIA retains 1,100 JFK assassination records that they plan to keep secret until at least 2017.
Morley responded the same month with a 10-page affidavit challenging the adequacy of the Agency’s search, which was met in September, 2006 with Judge Richard Leon’s decision that upheld the CIA’s position, and dismissed Morley’s case.
In July, 2007, Morley and Lesar appealed Judge Leon’s decision, and in December, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in Morley’s favor, overturning Judge Leon’s decision, and ordering the CIA to search its operational files for Joannides records, and explain the absence of monthly reports on the DRE from Joannides’ time with them. On February 27, 2008, CIA lawyers promised the Appeals court a response to their decision by April 30.
For more information, please follow the resource links below, containing Morley's writings on the case, Mary Ferrell Foundation Unredacted interviews, and documents from the Morley V. CIA lawsuit.
The RFK Assassination 40th Anniversary - Part I: Stalking RFK
This article is taken from maryferrel.com
Sirhan Sirhan's repetitive writing, his claimed failure to remember the events at the Ambassador hotel, the ease with which he could be hypnotized - for these reasons and more, many observers have speculated that Sirhan was some form of "Manchurian candidate," programmed via hypnosis to be the "patsy" in RFK's assassination.
However, there are several credible sightings of someone closely resembling Sirhan, in the company of others, apparently stalking RFK in the days leading up to June 5. Sirhan was seen in the company of a woman and at times other men, acting suspiciously and in some cases trying to get close to Kennedy or gain access to his schedule. Persons matching the same descriptions were seen in Sirhan's company on the evening of the assassination in the Ambassador hotel, and also fleeing the scene of the crime.
The LAPD eventually chose to repudiate, reject or filter all the witness observations suggesting that other individuals had any connection to Sirhan. But while even sincere eyewitnesses can and do make mistakes in details, what is noteworthy here is the consistent descriptions of physical appearance and aggressive demeanor in these independent accounts.
What is also noteworthy is the way in which the LAPD discounted these stories, in some cases justifying the rejection based on alleged retractions for which there is no record. Why weren't these witnesses afforded the standard police procedure of viewing a lineup including Sirhan, to see if they could make a positive id?
The earliest of these reports concerns an incident involving Sirhan and a young woman. at a campaign stop two weeks prior to RFK's murder. It was two days after Sirhan wrote in his notebook "my determination to eliminate RFK is become more the more [sic] of an unshakable obsession." Was this the start of the stalking of RFK?
Robbie's Restaurant, Pomona California, May 20
In Pomona, a 400-person campaign luncheon was being held for RFK in the second floor dining area of the restaurant. Bartender Albert LeBeau was called on duty to act as ticket screener on the staircase leading to the function. William Schneid, a Pomona police officer, was assigned to security duty in the restaurant.
Schneid encountered a young woman standing by the kitchen door of the restaurant, apparently trying to get inside through that door. He informed her that the door was locked and she then asked him which way Senator Kennedy would enter the luncheon. He told her that RFK “would probably go up the stairs to the second floor.”
Later, Schneid observed the same young woman, along with a young man, cross over a brick façade adjacent to the stairs, and then climb over the stair railing behind people checking tickets at the foot of the stairs. There, they were intercepted by LeBeau at his position further up the stairs. LeBeau, who heard a noise as the couple had apparently jumped over the banister. Le Beau challenged the pair, and the woman responded “we are with the Senator’s party.” LeBeau told them that they still needed tickets, and she replied, “we are part of the Senator’s party; he just waved us upstairs.” Since so many people were being allowed upstairs, Le Beau let them go at that point, only to encounter them again.
LeBeaus' interview by LAPD on June 26 has a wealth of detail about his interactions with the couple. He thought it "very odd" that the young man had a coat thrown over his arm even though it was a very warm May afternoon in southern California. When LeBeau encountered them on the second occasion he was made more suspicious because the couple were clearly not with the Seantor's party, and the man appeared to be in what amounted to be a “crouch”, his coat still over his arm. LeBeau began to confront them, saying "pardon me," at which point the young man turned on him and in a "surly" tone asked “Why should I?”
LAPD records show that LeBeau was fairly certain the young man was Sirhan but would not swear it under oath. That ended the LAPD investigation.
In his June 26 LAPD interview, LeBeau described the young man as "a male Latin type, 25 to 30 years, 5-5.....black hair, dark complected," and also successfully picked Sirhan’s photo from a sample set of 25 young dark skinned males (he also failed to pick out another photo of Sirhan taken from his Racing Commission ID). LeBeau described the girl thusly: "female Caucasian, 25-30 years, 5-4 to 5-6, trim nice figure, with shoulder length straight light brown hair," a good match for the "polka dot dress girl" seen in other circumstances.
While the final LAPD report asserts that LeBeau “initially stated the man was Sirhan, but later admitted he lied," there is nothing in the files to substantiate this alleged retraction.
Police officer Schneid apparently told the FBI that he "did not feel that the man observed by him on the stairs would have been Sirhan Sirhan," but the description he supplied fits Sirhan well - "Early 20's, 5'6" to 5'7", slender, dark curly hair, Latin or Mexican." His description of the girl also matches the "polka dot dress girl." LAPD records note the FBI interview but do not contain any LAPD interview with Schneid.
Kennedy Campaign headquarters, Azuza California, May 30
Ten days after the incident at Robbie's Restaurant, Laverne Botting, a 41 year old RFK campaign worker, observed a young woman and two young men enter the Azuza campaign office. One of the young men approached Botting at her desk and said that he was from the RFK headquarters in Pasadena (Sirhan lived in Pasadena at the time). He wanted to know if RFK would be visiting that area; Botting told the young man that the Senator would not. In an interview with the LAPD, Botting picked Sirhan out of a photo line up as closely resembling the man who spoke with her. She accurately described Sirhan’s height, black eyes and kinky black hair.
Independently of Botting, Ethel Crehan, another volunteer in the office, called police and told them that she was “fairly certain” that Sirhan had come into the office. She said she could be sure if she could see him in a line-up, as had Botting. Neither was offered the opportunity.
The police did check with the Pasadena RFK office staff and were told that no one had been sent from that office on that day. Thus, a potentially innocent explanation for this event does not appear to hold up.
No transcript exists of the Botting interview; the officer in charge closed out her file with the remark that she “had obviously made an honest mistake.” Although no one other than the police and FBI should have known of Botting’s report, she later received a threatening phone call at home – “I hear you think you saw Sirhan; you had better be sure of what you are saying!”
Crehan’s report was closed because the officer noted that her estimate of the man’s height was three to four inches above Sirhan’s actual height - although still relatively short at 5’8” - and despite her selecting his picture out. For this reason he felt “it was doubtful she observed Sirhan.” This dismissal seems premature at best, given the rest of her description and the corroborating account of Lavern Botting.
Santa Ana Mountains, South of Corona, California, June 1
Dean Pack, an insurance executive, was hiking with his son in a secluded part of the Santa Ana Mountains on June 1, two days after the Azuza visit. After the assassination, he recognized Sirhan as “strongly resembling” a young man whom they had encountered during their hike. The young man was shooting with a pistol at cans set up on a hillside. He was in the company of a girl in her early twenties with long brunet hair and another man who was around six feet tall, with sandy colored hair and a ruddy complexion.
According to a 1969 interview with author Jonn Christian, recounted in the book The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, the main thing that struck Pack “was how unfriendly they were.” Pack told Christian:
"The person who looked like Sirhan didn't say a word. He just stood there and glared at me. The other fellow was the only one who would talk."
Pack added:
"Sirhan was shooting a pistol.....As I walked away from them, you know, you get the funny sensation that it would be possible for them to put a bullet in your back. I was relieved to get out of their sight."
Pack reported the incident to the FBI, offering to take them to the spot to recover bullets or shell casings and look for fingerprints on the bottles and cans being handled by the three. The FBI was uninterested: "I got the attitude that they had their man so why spin wheels about anything else."
A two-sentence LAPD report on Pack states that he “viewed a photograph of Sirhan” and said that the man he saw “strongly resembled” the man he encountered with the pistol, but that he “could not be positive of the identification.” When interviewed by Christian in 1969, however, Pack stated that he had only talked to the police on the telephone, had been shown no picture and still felt that the young man he and his son had seen shooting with a pistol was Sirhan.
At the Ambassador, June 2
Karen Ross reported to the LAPD that, while attending a Kennedy rally at the Grove room in the Ambassador the Sunday before the assassination, she had observed a young woman in a polka dot dress at the rally. Her description of the dress matches that of witnesses to the girl at the assassination scene. The woman was medium height, somewhat “husky” with dark blond hair worn with a “short flip" and "puffy.” Ross thought there was something unusual about the girl's nose, possibly it had been “fixed”, another recurring feature of polka dot dress girl descriptions.
Sirhan was also at the Ambassador that evening. According to author and defense participant Robert Kaiser, who wrote the book RFK Must Die!, Sirhan told his attorney Grant Cooper that he had been to the hotel on June 2, "to hear him talk." He said the same thing to defense psychiatrist Dr. Bernard Diamond. He denied being in the kitchen that night, calling two individuals who had seen him there liars. Ultimately he testified at his trial about being at the Ambassador on June 2, though was not asked about being there in the presence of a girl. About seeing Kennedy there: "I was really thrilled, Sir.....he looked like a saint to me. I liked him.”
At the Ambassador, June 4/5
A girl in a polka dot dress, whose description matches that given by the witnesses previously noted, was seen at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of RFK's assassination by several witnesses. Some saw her in the company of Sirhan. She was even seen in the pantry where Kennedy was shot, and fleeing the scene in the company of another man.
Irene Gizzi of Students for Kennedy and a 14-year-old student named Katherine Keir noticed a group of three people who didn't seem to fit in with the exuberant crowd. The young woman in the group had on a polka dot dress and was with a young man with a dark complexion, dark hair and a gold colored shirt. Gizzi felt that the third man might well have been Sirhan. Katherine Keir even told police that later that evening, the woman had run by her saying "We shot Kennedy," but Keir revised her statement when re-interviewed in the presence of her parents (three fellow students who gave corroborating accounts were also re-interviewed in this manner).
During Kennedy’s speech, Roy Mills observed a group of five people (including a woman) in the hallway outside the Embassy room. He identified one as Sirhan, remembering him specifically for his baggy pants. Pauline Walker also saw a girl in the polka dot dress in this general area, in the company of a man (apparently not Sirhan).
Photographer Conrad Seim and other witnesses observed a girl with a "funny nose." Seim told the LAPD that the girl had asked him for his press pass and was "very persistent."
Darnell Johnson, one of the pantry shooting witnesses, described four men and a girl in the pantry as RFK was entering. One of the men was Sirhan. The girl was in a polka dot dress. The girl and the men walked out of the pantry as everyone was rushing to RFK and wrestling with Sirhan.
Several witnesses - George Green, Booker Griffin, Dr. Marcus McBroom, Jack Merritt - observed the young woman and man hurrying out of the pantry and corridor, through the Embassy room and out towards the rear stairs and parking lot.
Campaign worker Sandra Serrano, out at a staircase behind the hotel, later heard some "backfires," and then watched as a woman in a polka dot dress and a male companion burst out of the hotel shouting "we shot him, we shot him" Serrano asked who, and the woman replied "Senator Kennedy."
This incredible account was corroborated by LAPD Officer Paul Sharaga, who arrived quickly at the back lot of the hotel and set up a command post there. He was told a nearly identical story by an elderly couple named the Bernsteins, who told him that a man and a woman in a polka dot dress ran past them, gleefully shouting "We shot him! We shot him!" When queried, the girl replied, "Kennedy, we shot him! We killed him!"
An All Points Bulletin was issued by the Los Angeles police, looking for two additional suspects. A few hours later the APB was canceled by Acting Chief of LAPD Detectives John Powers. Powers is quoted on the LAPD radio logs: "don't want them to get anything started on a big conspiracy."
Coming soon: The Polka Dot Dress Girl expands on the sightings of Sirhan's accomplices at the Ambassador Hotel, and the manner by which the LAPD dealt with this stark evidence of a conspiracy involving Sirhan.
This article is adapted from an essay written by Larry Hancock, and is based on the research of Robert Kaiser, Dr. Philip Melanson, Jonn Christian, Lisa Pease, and others.
The article on the original Mary Ferrell page contains links to books and documents.
Sirhan Sirhan's repetitive writing, his claimed failure to remember the events at the Ambassador hotel, the ease with which he could be hypnotized - for these reasons and more, many observers have speculated that Sirhan was some form of "Manchurian candidate," programmed via hypnosis to be the "patsy" in RFK's assassination.
However, there are several credible sightings of someone closely resembling Sirhan, in the company of others, apparently stalking RFK in the days leading up to June 5. Sirhan was seen in the company of a woman and at times other men, acting suspiciously and in some cases trying to get close to Kennedy or gain access to his schedule. Persons matching the same descriptions were seen in Sirhan's company on the evening of the assassination in the Ambassador hotel, and also fleeing the scene of the crime.
The LAPD eventually chose to repudiate, reject or filter all the witness observations suggesting that other individuals had any connection to Sirhan. But while even sincere eyewitnesses can and do make mistakes in details, what is noteworthy here is the consistent descriptions of physical appearance and aggressive demeanor in these independent accounts.
What is also noteworthy is the way in which the LAPD discounted these stories, in some cases justifying the rejection based on alleged retractions for which there is no record. Why weren't these witnesses afforded the standard police procedure of viewing a lineup including Sirhan, to see if they could make a positive id?
The earliest of these reports concerns an incident involving Sirhan and a young woman. at a campaign stop two weeks prior to RFK's murder. It was two days after Sirhan wrote in his notebook "my determination to eliminate RFK is become more the more [sic] of an unshakable obsession." Was this the start of the stalking of RFK?
Robbie's Restaurant, Pomona California, May 20
In Pomona, a 400-person campaign luncheon was being held for RFK in the second floor dining area of the restaurant. Bartender Albert LeBeau was called on duty to act as ticket screener on the staircase leading to the function. William Schneid, a Pomona police officer, was assigned to security duty in the restaurant.
Schneid encountered a young woman standing by the kitchen door of the restaurant, apparently trying to get inside through that door. He informed her that the door was locked and she then asked him which way Senator Kennedy would enter the luncheon. He told her that RFK “would probably go up the stairs to the second floor.”
Later, Schneid observed the same young woman, along with a young man, cross over a brick façade adjacent to the stairs, and then climb over the stair railing behind people checking tickets at the foot of the stairs. There, they were intercepted by LeBeau at his position further up the stairs. LeBeau, who heard a noise as the couple had apparently jumped over the banister. Le Beau challenged the pair, and the woman responded “we are with the Senator’s party.” LeBeau told them that they still needed tickets, and she replied, “we are part of the Senator’s party; he just waved us upstairs.” Since so many people were being allowed upstairs, Le Beau let them go at that point, only to encounter them again.
LeBeaus' interview by LAPD on June 26 has a wealth of detail about his interactions with the couple. He thought it "very odd" that the young man had a coat thrown over his arm even though it was a very warm May afternoon in southern California. When LeBeau encountered them on the second occasion he was made more suspicious because the couple were clearly not with the Seantor's party, and the man appeared to be in what amounted to be a “crouch”, his coat still over his arm. LeBeau began to confront them, saying "pardon me," at which point the young man turned on him and in a "surly" tone asked “Why should I?”
LAPD records show that LeBeau was fairly certain the young man was Sirhan but would not swear it under oath. That ended the LAPD investigation.
In his June 26 LAPD interview, LeBeau described the young man as "a male Latin type, 25 to 30 years, 5-5.....black hair, dark complected," and also successfully picked Sirhan’s photo from a sample set of 25 young dark skinned males (he also failed to pick out another photo of Sirhan taken from his Racing Commission ID). LeBeau described the girl thusly: "female Caucasian, 25-30 years, 5-4 to 5-6, trim nice figure, with shoulder length straight light brown hair," a good match for the "polka dot dress girl" seen in other circumstances.
While the final LAPD report asserts that LeBeau “initially stated the man was Sirhan, but later admitted he lied," there is nothing in the files to substantiate this alleged retraction.
Police officer Schneid apparently told the FBI that he "did not feel that the man observed by him on the stairs would have been Sirhan Sirhan," but the description he supplied fits Sirhan well - "Early 20's, 5'6" to 5'7", slender, dark curly hair, Latin or Mexican." His description of the girl also matches the "polka dot dress girl." LAPD records note the FBI interview but do not contain any LAPD interview with Schneid.
Kennedy Campaign headquarters, Azuza California, May 30
Ten days after the incident at Robbie's Restaurant, Laverne Botting, a 41 year old RFK campaign worker, observed a young woman and two young men enter the Azuza campaign office. One of the young men approached Botting at her desk and said that he was from the RFK headquarters in Pasadena (Sirhan lived in Pasadena at the time). He wanted to know if RFK would be visiting that area; Botting told the young man that the Senator would not. In an interview with the LAPD, Botting picked Sirhan out of a photo line up as closely resembling the man who spoke with her. She accurately described Sirhan’s height, black eyes and kinky black hair.
Independently of Botting, Ethel Crehan, another volunteer in the office, called police and told them that she was “fairly certain” that Sirhan had come into the office. She said she could be sure if she could see him in a line-up, as had Botting. Neither was offered the opportunity.
The police did check with the Pasadena RFK office staff and were told that no one had been sent from that office on that day. Thus, a potentially innocent explanation for this event does not appear to hold up.
No transcript exists of the Botting interview; the officer in charge closed out her file with the remark that she “had obviously made an honest mistake.” Although no one other than the police and FBI should have known of Botting’s report, she later received a threatening phone call at home – “I hear you think you saw Sirhan; you had better be sure of what you are saying!”
Crehan’s report was closed because the officer noted that her estimate of the man’s height was three to four inches above Sirhan’s actual height - although still relatively short at 5’8” - and despite her selecting his picture out. For this reason he felt “it was doubtful she observed Sirhan.” This dismissal seems premature at best, given the rest of her description and the corroborating account of Lavern Botting.
Santa Ana Mountains, South of Corona, California, June 1
Dean Pack, an insurance executive, was hiking with his son in a secluded part of the Santa Ana Mountains on June 1, two days after the Azuza visit. After the assassination, he recognized Sirhan as “strongly resembling” a young man whom they had encountered during their hike. The young man was shooting with a pistol at cans set up on a hillside. He was in the company of a girl in her early twenties with long brunet hair and another man who was around six feet tall, with sandy colored hair and a ruddy complexion.
According to a 1969 interview with author Jonn Christian, recounted in the book The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, the main thing that struck Pack “was how unfriendly they were.” Pack told Christian:
"The person who looked like Sirhan didn't say a word. He just stood there and glared at me. The other fellow was the only one who would talk."
Pack added:
"Sirhan was shooting a pistol.....As I walked away from them, you know, you get the funny sensation that it would be possible for them to put a bullet in your back. I was relieved to get out of their sight."
Pack reported the incident to the FBI, offering to take them to the spot to recover bullets or shell casings and look for fingerprints on the bottles and cans being handled by the three. The FBI was uninterested: "I got the attitude that they had their man so why spin wheels about anything else."
A two-sentence LAPD report on Pack states that he “viewed a photograph of Sirhan” and said that the man he saw “strongly resembled” the man he encountered with the pistol, but that he “could not be positive of the identification.” When interviewed by Christian in 1969, however, Pack stated that he had only talked to the police on the telephone, had been shown no picture and still felt that the young man he and his son had seen shooting with a pistol was Sirhan.
At the Ambassador, June 2
Karen Ross reported to the LAPD that, while attending a Kennedy rally at the Grove room in the Ambassador the Sunday before the assassination, she had observed a young woman in a polka dot dress at the rally. Her description of the dress matches that of witnesses to the girl at the assassination scene. The woman was medium height, somewhat “husky” with dark blond hair worn with a “short flip" and "puffy.” Ross thought there was something unusual about the girl's nose, possibly it had been “fixed”, another recurring feature of polka dot dress girl descriptions.
Sirhan was also at the Ambassador that evening. According to author and defense participant Robert Kaiser, who wrote the book RFK Must Die!, Sirhan told his attorney Grant Cooper that he had been to the hotel on June 2, "to hear him talk." He said the same thing to defense psychiatrist Dr. Bernard Diamond. He denied being in the kitchen that night, calling two individuals who had seen him there liars. Ultimately he testified at his trial about being at the Ambassador on June 2, though was not asked about being there in the presence of a girl. About seeing Kennedy there: "I was really thrilled, Sir.....he looked like a saint to me. I liked him.”
At the Ambassador, June 4/5
A girl in a polka dot dress, whose description matches that given by the witnesses previously noted, was seen at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of RFK's assassination by several witnesses. Some saw her in the company of Sirhan. She was even seen in the pantry where Kennedy was shot, and fleeing the scene in the company of another man.
Irene Gizzi of Students for Kennedy and a 14-year-old student named Katherine Keir noticed a group of three people who didn't seem to fit in with the exuberant crowd. The young woman in the group had on a polka dot dress and was with a young man with a dark complexion, dark hair and a gold colored shirt. Gizzi felt that the third man might well have been Sirhan. Katherine Keir even told police that later that evening, the woman had run by her saying "We shot Kennedy," but Keir revised her statement when re-interviewed in the presence of her parents (three fellow students who gave corroborating accounts were also re-interviewed in this manner).
During Kennedy’s speech, Roy Mills observed a group of five people (including a woman) in the hallway outside the Embassy room. He identified one as Sirhan, remembering him specifically for his baggy pants. Pauline Walker also saw a girl in the polka dot dress in this general area, in the company of a man (apparently not Sirhan).
Photographer Conrad Seim and other witnesses observed a girl with a "funny nose." Seim told the LAPD that the girl had asked him for his press pass and was "very persistent."
Darnell Johnson, one of the pantry shooting witnesses, described four men and a girl in the pantry as RFK was entering. One of the men was Sirhan. The girl was in a polka dot dress. The girl and the men walked out of the pantry as everyone was rushing to RFK and wrestling with Sirhan.
Several witnesses - George Green, Booker Griffin, Dr. Marcus McBroom, Jack Merritt - observed the young woman and man hurrying out of the pantry and corridor, through the Embassy room and out towards the rear stairs and parking lot.
Campaign worker Sandra Serrano, out at a staircase behind the hotel, later heard some "backfires," and then watched as a woman in a polka dot dress and a male companion burst out of the hotel shouting "we shot him, we shot him" Serrano asked who, and the woman replied "Senator Kennedy."
This incredible account was corroborated by LAPD Officer Paul Sharaga, who arrived quickly at the back lot of the hotel and set up a command post there. He was told a nearly identical story by an elderly couple named the Bernsteins, who told him that a man and a woman in a polka dot dress ran past them, gleefully shouting "We shot him! We shot him!" When queried, the girl replied, "Kennedy, we shot him! We killed him!"
An All Points Bulletin was issued by the Los Angeles police, looking for two additional suspects. A few hours later the APB was canceled by Acting Chief of LAPD Detectives John Powers. Powers is quoted on the LAPD radio logs: "don't want them to get anything started on a big conspiracy."
Coming soon: The Polka Dot Dress Girl expands on the sightings of Sirhan's accomplices at the Ambassador Hotel, and the manner by which the LAPD dealt with this stark evidence of a conspiracy involving Sirhan.
This article is adapted from an essay written by Larry Hancock, and is based on the research of Robert Kaiser, Dr. Philip Melanson, Jonn Christian, Lisa Pease, and others.
The article on the original Mary Ferrell page contains links to books and documents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)