Approved streets can fit about 40,000, short of turnout estimates
By Jason Hoppin
An analysis of the route granted to protesters for marching at the Republican National Convention raises questions about whether it's large enough to contain a standing crowd of 50,000 comfortably, let alone a moving crowd of people carrying peace signs and chanting anti-war slogans.
The route, which runs from the Capitol to the Xcel Energy Center along Cedar and West Seventh streets, has a surface area of less than 400,000 square feet — enough for a loose crowd of 40,000, using standard crowd-estimation measures.
That's without factoring in medians, barriers, protest signs, strollers and other objects that might subtract from the space available to marchers.
The St. Paul Police Department expressed confidence that the route granted two weeks ago could accommodate the anticipated number of protesters. Spokesman Tom Walsh cited the June 1 Grand Old Day event in St. Paul as evidence of the route's adequacy.
"Look at what 300,000 people look like in a space about as long," Walsh said.
Walsh also noted that the protest will be staggered, with groups starting the march in succession. He stressed that he did not believe the route's length would be an issue.
But protesters said it verifies their concerns. Sarah Martin, with the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, said her group believes from past experience that the route is not adequate.
"The police are underestimating the effect of that many people in that small of an area," Martin said. "... Everybody seems to know it, actually. The instinct is it won't happen in an orderly way."
Protesters have questioned the route on several fronts and filed an unsuccessful appeal to the St. Paul City Council. They question the time frame — the march along the route is authorized by police to begin at noon Sept. 1 — and the fact that marchers are expected to retrace their steps along West Seventh Street once they reach the Xcel Energy Center.
"If the route has to double back on itself, then it means you can only fit about 20,000," said Sara Flounders, an organizer for the New York-based Troops Out Now Coalition, which plans to protest the convention.
The Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War is seeking an alternative route that crosses Interstate 94 along John Ireland Boulevard and arrives at the Xcel Energy Center via Kellogg Boulevard. While protesters prefer the route because of its visibility, it is not longer — at about three-quarters of a mile, it is identical in length to the route through downtown St. Paul.
The convention, where the Republican Party is expected to nominate John McCain as its presidential candidate, will run Sept. 1-4 at the Xcel Energy Center.
The Pioneer Press measured the distance of the march route and the varying width of the streets along the route. It also factored in a triangular block across from Xcel Energy Center that will be used as a free-speech area, along with the streets surrounding the triangle. The figure was then divided by 10 square feet, a standard area used, per person, for estimating the size of a crowd.
Whether the route's length is cause for concern also depends on whether protesters' predictions of 50,000 marchers are reasonable.
Gauging expected crowd size by looking at past conventions is difficult. While both Democratic and Republican conventions have been targeted, much of the anti-war movement's ire is directed at Republican lawmakers. The only Republican convention since the Iraq war began was in 2004 in New York City — and St. Paul is no New York.
There, an estimated 500,000 people marched the day before the convention. Local protest organizers have estimated a fraction of that number will be in St. Paul.
But there are reasons to believe the protesters' estimate of 50,000 is plausible.
Two years ago, police estimated a crowd of 30,000 for an immigrants' rights rally near the state Capitol. That was the largest crowd since 35,000 congregated outside the Capitol following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The Twin Cities also seem ripe to generate the kind of interest needed for a crowd that size. Both cities have reputations for being liberal, with former St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly suffering an overwhelming re-election defeat following his 2004 endorsement of President Bush.
Furthermore, there are dozens of colleges and universities in the two cities, with the 10 largest having a combined enrollment in excess of 100,000. Many students will have just begun a new academic year when the convention begins and will not be in class because of the Labor Day holiday Sept. 1.
"I think we have every reason to believe that the organizers of the march and rally have their finger on the pulse," said Judith LeBlanc, national organizer for New York-based United for Peace and Justice, an umbrella group that includes 1,400 left-leaning organizations. "From our vantage point, the mood out there is to be in the streets."
Teresa Nelson, a lawyer from the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union who represents the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, is conducting a similar analysis.
"We are looking at capacity," Nelson said, "but we haven't come to any conclusions yet."
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
U.S Out of Iraq: All Out for Sept. 1 RNC protest
Editorial by Freedom Road Socialist Organization
On Sept. 1, 2008 the Republican Party will hold its national convention at the Xcel Center in Saint Paul, Minnesota. They will be there to nominate John McCain for president, and justify the wars against - and occupations of - Iraq and Afghanistan. The Republicans will gather to celebrate economic policies that have brought riches to the few and foreclosures, homelessness and unemployment to the many. Republican delegates will cheer the anti-immigrant attacks as party leaders try to use racism to cement their reactionary supporters. We can also expect attacks from the podium on women's rights to control our own bodies and attacks on gay marriage.
The main thing the Republicans will be doing in Saint Paul is building support for John McCain in his bid to continue Bush's policies of the past eight years. John McCain has said that the U.S. occupation of Iraq could last for 100 years and that he wants to make sure the rich remain as wealthy as possible by keeping tax cuts and the cuts to healthcare and education that go with them. The Republican National Convention (RNC) will try to shore up support and U.S. national chauvinist fervor for the Iraq occupation throughout the convention. Five years of war is more than long enough. The troops need to come home now so that the Iraqi people can take control of and begin to rebuild their own country. The government needs to stop running up trillions in debt that our children and grandchildren will be paying off and that will lead to even more cuts in health care, education and other human needs in the name of a failed strategy to dominate the Middle East.
All of us know what is wrong with the politics and policies of the Republicans. Sept. 1 is the time to change knowing into doing. Bush, Cheney and the lesser-known but equally powerful will be together on location in Saint Paul. The RNC is a prime opportunity to bring our demands directly to the war-makers. Not only will the architects of the occupation be in Saint Paul, 10,000 journalists from around the world will be there as well. This is one of those rare times when the whole world really will be watching and we cannot allow the only message to be shiny happy Republicans dancing on the dead men, women and children of Iraq for their own political gain. We have a right to march against the war and the Republican agenda. The police are seeking impede that right by issuing a permit that makes it difficult for tens of thousands to march on the Xcel Center. Organizers in Minneapolis and Saint Paul need our support between now and September to win the battle for an acceptable permit.
Many people are planning many different activities that will send powerful messages to both the Republicans and the world. The permitted march on Sept. 1, organized by the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, is a very important event. In the course of the four days of the convention many movements with many tactics will be seeking to challenge the Republican agenda. While there may be differences of emphasis, issues or tactics, organizers are striving for a sense of unity and solidarity. Saint Paul police have already formed a special unit for the purpose of dividing us from each other. We can't allow them to succeed.
Organizers have come together around a number of important principles. These principles say in part that our solidarity will be based on respect for a diversity of tactics and the plans of other groups. That debates on tactics will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events. Another principle is opposition to state repression of dissent and a refusal to assist law enforcement actions against activists and others. Furthermore, a separation of time or space will be maintained to allow for different kinds of protests to take place. This set of principles is very good and is part of what will allow the largest and strongest demonstrations against the war and occupation.
The Republican Convention will come one week after the Democratic National Convention in Denver. The Denver convention will also see protests against the war. For too long the Democrats have been complicit in carrying out the occupation of Iraq and they should also be held accountable for empty promises to end the war.
Here is a promise that we know will be kept. On Sept. 1 a diverse coalition of activists will gather to March on the RNC. Tens of thousands will march from the State Capitol to the Xcel Center to stop the war and oppose the Republican agenda. Peace activists and anti-imperialists, veterans, trade union members, immigrant workers, low-income families, anti-police brutality and anti-globalization activists, communists and anarchists will march together. We will march to be heard, we will march to stop the war and we will march to show the world that real opposition exists to the Republican agenda.
U.S. out of Iraq now
Money for human needs, not for war
Say no to the Republican agenda
Demand peace, justice and equality
On Sept. 1, 2008 the Republican Party will hold its national convention at the Xcel Center in Saint Paul, Minnesota. They will be there to nominate John McCain for president, and justify the wars against - and occupations of - Iraq and Afghanistan. The Republicans will gather to celebrate economic policies that have brought riches to the few and foreclosures, homelessness and unemployment to the many. Republican delegates will cheer the anti-immigrant attacks as party leaders try to use racism to cement their reactionary supporters. We can also expect attacks from the podium on women's rights to control our own bodies and attacks on gay marriage.
The main thing the Republicans will be doing in Saint Paul is building support for John McCain in his bid to continue Bush's policies of the past eight years. John McCain has said that the U.S. occupation of Iraq could last for 100 years and that he wants to make sure the rich remain as wealthy as possible by keeping tax cuts and the cuts to healthcare and education that go with them. The Republican National Convention (RNC) will try to shore up support and U.S. national chauvinist fervor for the Iraq occupation throughout the convention. Five years of war is more than long enough. The troops need to come home now so that the Iraqi people can take control of and begin to rebuild their own country. The government needs to stop running up trillions in debt that our children and grandchildren will be paying off and that will lead to even more cuts in health care, education and other human needs in the name of a failed strategy to dominate the Middle East.
All of us know what is wrong with the politics and policies of the Republicans. Sept. 1 is the time to change knowing into doing. Bush, Cheney and the lesser-known but equally powerful will be together on location in Saint Paul. The RNC is a prime opportunity to bring our demands directly to the war-makers. Not only will the architects of the occupation be in Saint Paul, 10,000 journalists from around the world will be there as well. This is one of those rare times when the whole world really will be watching and we cannot allow the only message to be shiny happy Republicans dancing on the dead men, women and children of Iraq for their own political gain. We have a right to march against the war and the Republican agenda. The police are seeking impede that right by issuing a permit that makes it difficult for tens of thousands to march on the Xcel Center. Organizers in Minneapolis and Saint Paul need our support between now and September to win the battle for an acceptable permit.
Many people are planning many different activities that will send powerful messages to both the Republicans and the world. The permitted march on Sept. 1, organized by the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, is a very important event. In the course of the four days of the convention many movements with many tactics will be seeking to challenge the Republican agenda. While there may be differences of emphasis, issues or tactics, organizers are striving for a sense of unity and solidarity. Saint Paul police have already formed a special unit for the purpose of dividing us from each other. We can't allow them to succeed.
Organizers have come together around a number of important principles. These principles say in part that our solidarity will be based on respect for a diversity of tactics and the plans of other groups. That debates on tactics will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events. Another principle is opposition to state repression of dissent and a refusal to assist law enforcement actions against activists and others. Furthermore, a separation of time or space will be maintained to allow for different kinds of protests to take place. This set of principles is very good and is part of what will allow the largest and strongest demonstrations against the war and occupation.
The Republican Convention will come one week after the Democratic National Convention in Denver. The Denver convention will also see protests against the war. For too long the Democrats have been complicit in carrying out the occupation of Iraq and they should also be held accountable for empty promises to end the war.
Here is a promise that we know will be kept. On Sept. 1 a diverse coalition of activists will gather to March on the RNC. Tens of thousands will march from the State Capitol to the Xcel Center to stop the war and oppose the Republican agenda. Peace activists and anti-imperialists, veterans, trade union members, immigrant workers, low-income families, anti-police brutality and anti-globalization activists, communists and anarchists will march together. We will march to be heard, we will march to stop the war and we will march to show the world that real opposition exists to the Republican agenda.
U.S. out of Iraq now
Money for human needs, not for war
Say no to the Republican agenda
Demand peace, justice and equality
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Incomplete Justice - Part Two: Stalking RFK?
by Larry Hancock, 23 May 2008
The LAPD eventually chose to repudiate, reject or filter all the witness observations suggesting that other individuals (specifically a young woman and two men) were acting suspiciously and possibly in company with Sirhan Sirhan. Certainly even sincere eyewitnesses do make mistakes under stressful circumstances. But such mistakes normally involve the details of physical description and appearance. If we accept the LAPD conclusions, we are left with an entire series of witnesses who apparently created observations (including the wording of verbal exchanges) out of whole cloth - and somehow managed to independently place the individuals observed in a series of consistent locations and times.
In addition to the Bernsteins and Sandra Serrano, a considerable number of witnesses reported a specific combination of suspicious individuals around and in apparent contact with Sirhan that night at the Ambassador Hotel. Those observations become even more credible when placed in the context of reported observations of two men and a young woman in company with Sirhan during the two weeks prior to the murder of Senator Kennedy. In several cases those individuals appear to actually have been “stalking” the Senator.
Robbies Restaurant, Pomona California, May 20th 1968
A 400 person campaign luncheon was being held for RFK in the second floor dining area of the restaurant. Albert LeBeau, the night manager, 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, climb over the stair railing behind people checking tickets at the foot of the stairs – only to be intercepted by LeBeau at his position further up the stairs. LeBeau challenged the pair and the woman responded “we are with the Senator’s party.” LeBeau told her that they still needed tickets, to which she responded, “we are part of the Senator’s party; he just waved us upstairs.” Later, he observed them standing apart from the gathering, at the rear of the luncheon room on the second floor. [1]
At that point he was struck by the fact that the man had a coat over his arm, even though it was a very warm day, and he also appeared to be in what amounted to a “crouch”. LeBeau challenged them as to why they were at the back of the room if they were really with the party and the young man turned on him and angrily asked “what the hell is it to you?” [2]
In addition to LeBeau and Schneid, the owner of the restaurant, Mrs. Felicia Maas, also recalled the incident with the young couple. However, she had not been close enough to them to offer any identification.
LAPD records show that LeBeau was fairly certain the young man was Sirhan but would not swear it under oath. LeBeau had successfully picked Sirhan’s photo from a sample set of 25 young dark skinned males but failed to pick out another photo of Sirhan taken from his Racing Commission ID. Schneid apparently did not participate in any photo reviews. Although there is no supporting information in LeBeau’s files (portions of which are missing), the final LAPD report states LeBeau “initially stated the man was Sirhan, but later admitted he lied”. There is also no remark about the importance of the man being with a young woman or about corroboration of the incident from police office Schneid and the restaurant owner. [3]
Kennedy Campaign headquarters, Azuza California, May 30th 1968
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 RFK would not. In an interview with the LAPD, Botting picked Sirhan out of a photo display as closely resembling the man who had spoken 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 person, so was Botting. Neither women was offered the opportunity to view Sirhan in a line-up.
The police did check with the Pasadena RFK office staff and were told that there would have been no reason for that office to send anyone to Azuza to check a schedule. For some reason, that seems to have played a part in the police decision to discount the importance of Botting and Crehan’s observation.
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 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!” [4]
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”). For this reason he felt “it was doubtful she observed Sirhan.”
Santa Ana Mountains, south of Corona, California, June 1, 1968
Dean Pack, a Santa Ana insurance executive was hiking with his son in a secluded part of the Santa Ana Mountains. After the assassination, he recognized Sirhan as “strongly resembling” a young man whom they had encountered during their hike. The young man was shooting at cans set up on a hillside, shooting with a pistol. The young man 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.
The main thing that struck Pack “was how unfriendly they were.” The shooter refused to reply or talk to Pack, standing and glaring at him. The tall young man was the only one who would even acknowledge his greeting. Their hostility was so strong that Pack had the “funny sensation that it would be possible for them to put a bullet in your back” and was relived 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.
A two-sentence LAPD report on Pack states that he “was exhibited a photograph of Sirhan” and said that the man he saw “strongly resembled” Sirhan but that he “was not positive of the identification.” When interviewed by Christian in 1969, 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 was Sirhan. [5]
The lack of police interest in Pack’s report is particularly strange since they had developed considerable evidence that Sirhan was indeed in the Corona area on June 1, shooting his gun. Detective Chief Houghton described the “Corona Police Department Gun Range investigation” on pages 251 and 252 of Special Unit Senator. The range master, William Marks (a Corona policeman) identified Sirhan from a photo display, as did Harry Starr, the range assistant. In addition, the sign in log for the range contained Sirhan’s signature and the District Attorney’s handwriting expert gave an official opinion that it was indeed Sirhan’s.
The only issue with the Corona range sighting was that both men reported Sirhan in the company of another man and both apparently gave a description of Sirhan which would have had him a good deal too tall as well as too heavy (the height and weight of the second man would have been much closer to Sirhan). Because of the discrepancy in the descriptions, the police officially rejected the sighting. However, Chief Houghton himself seems to be of a different opinion on the incident, closing his own writing on the incident by stating that Sirhan probably had used up his bullets at the range, causing him to purchase the two boxes of ammunition that a sales receipt found in his car had recorded for that date. In fact, Houghton opens the third section of his book with a statement that Sirhan had spent time at the Corona practice range that day!
In addition to the incidents noted above, there is an ongoing pattern of Sirhan “stalking” RFK at other public appearances. That pattern will be discussed at more length in an essay on Sirhan. However, his association with others, specifically a young girl, continued on to repeated sightings at the Ambassador hotel.
At the Ambassador – Sunday evening
Karen Ross was interviewed by Ramparts Detectives on June 6, 1968. She stated that while attending a rally for RFK in the Coconut Grove room in the Ambassador Hotel, the Sunday before the assassination, she had observed a young woman in a polka dot dress at the rally. The woman was medium height, somewhat “husky” with dark blond hair worn with a “puff”. Ross thought there was something unusual about the girls nose, possibly it had been “fixed”.
Sirhan was also at the Ambassador that evening. He was positively identified as having been in the Coconut Grove room by Mrs. Susan Redding and later in the vicinity of the Embassy ballroom by Burt Blume. Blume knew Sirhan personally because he had worked next door from him and Sirhan had dropped by frequently, making small talk. In RFK Must Die!, Robert Kaiser wrote that at first Sirhan denied being at the Ambassador on Sunday, then admitted being at the hotel but specifically called two individuals who reported him in the area of the kitchen, liars.
At the Ambassador – election night
The evening of the primary election, Irene Gizzi noticed a group of three people “who just didn’t seem to be dressed properly for the occasion.” The individuals were talking amongst each other and didn’t 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. She felt that the third man might well have been Sirhan. [6]
Gizza was in the company of a friend, Katherine Keir, who corroborated her observation of the group and gave a very similar description of the individuals including the girl being in a polka dot dress and one man being in a gold colored shirt.
Later that night, 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. Mills had the impression that one of the men was a hotel employee. [7]
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. [8]
As previously related, witnesses observed the young woman and man hurrying out of the pantry and corridor after the shooting, their reports trace the couple moving through the Embassy room and out towards the rear stairs and parking lot.
Accessories?
A young woman, medium height, medium weight, good figure -“busty” - with dark (dishwater) blonde hair, with a puff (bouffant look) at the front. Seen with Sirhan in company with young men prior to election night, making inquiries into RFK’s movements and reportedly gleeful after the Senator’s shooting.
A young man, short to medium height, dark skinned, similar in appearance to Sirhan or to one of Sirhan’s brothers.
A young man, taller, possibly six feet, sandy colored hair and a ruddy complexion.
The young woman, the tall young man, Sirhan – all reported loitering in the vicinity of the corridor and pantry during RFK’s speech. Reported in the pantry corridor as Robert Kennedy exited after his speech. Reported fleeing the pantry corridor and Embassy room as the rest of the observers were in shock, wounded, assisting RFK or wrestling with Sirhan.
It would appear that within a few days of the assassination, LAPD had sufficient information to create a picture of a group of individuals associated with Sirhan Sirhan in the weeks prior to Senator Kennedy’s murder and in the Ambassador hotel, in contact with Sirhan prior the shooting and even at the scene of the crime. Even if they were not participants in the shooting itself, they were in contact with Sirhan, encouraging and apparently assisting him. But for all their charts, timelines and diagrams, this was clearly one series of dots not connected by Special Unit Senator. They did seem to develop a bit of an attitude about the whole subject though.
Next in the Incomplete Justice series - Part Three: "They are all fibbing..."
The LAPD eventually chose to repudiate, reject or filter all the witness observations suggesting that other individuals (specifically a young woman and two men) were acting suspiciously and possibly in company with Sirhan Sirhan. Certainly even sincere eyewitnesses do make mistakes under stressful circumstances. But such mistakes normally involve the details of physical description and appearance. If we accept the LAPD conclusions, we are left with an entire series of witnesses who apparently created observations (including the wording of verbal exchanges) out of whole cloth - and somehow managed to independently place the individuals observed in a series of consistent locations and times.
In addition to the Bernsteins and Sandra Serrano, a considerable number of witnesses reported a specific combination of suspicious individuals around and in apparent contact with Sirhan that night at the Ambassador Hotel. Those observations become even more credible when placed in the context of reported observations of two men and a young woman in company with Sirhan during the two weeks prior to the murder of Senator Kennedy. In several cases those individuals appear to actually have been “stalking” the Senator.
Robbies Restaurant, Pomona California, May 20th 1968
A 400 person campaign luncheon was being held for RFK in the second floor dining area of the restaurant. Albert LeBeau, the night manager, 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, climb over the stair railing behind people checking tickets at the foot of the stairs – only to be intercepted by LeBeau at his position further up the stairs. LeBeau challenged the pair and the woman responded “we are with the Senator’s party.” LeBeau told her that they still needed tickets, to which she responded, “we are part of the Senator’s party; he just waved us upstairs.” Later, he observed them standing apart from the gathering, at the rear of the luncheon room on the second floor. [1]
At that point he was struck by the fact that the man had a coat over his arm, even though it was a very warm day, and he also appeared to be in what amounted to a “crouch”. LeBeau challenged them as to why they were at the back of the room if they were really with the party and the young man turned on him and angrily asked “what the hell is it to you?” [2]
In addition to LeBeau and Schneid, the owner of the restaurant, Mrs. Felicia Maas, also recalled the incident with the young couple. However, she had not been close enough to them to offer any identification.
LAPD records show that LeBeau was fairly certain the young man was Sirhan but would not swear it under oath. LeBeau had successfully picked Sirhan’s photo from a sample set of 25 young dark skinned males but failed to pick out another photo of Sirhan taken from his Racing Commission ID. Schneid apparently did not participate in any photo reviews. Although there is no supporting information in LeBeau’s files (portions of which are missing), the final LAPD report states LeBeau “initially stated the man was Sirhan, but later admitted he lied”. There is also no remark about the importance of the man being with a young woman or about corroboration of the incident from police office Schneid and the restaurant owner. [3]
Kennedy Campaign headquarters, Azuza California, May 30th 1968
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 RFK would not. In an interview with the LAPD, Botting picked Sirhan out of a photo display as closely resembling the man who had spoken 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 person, so was Botting. Neither women was offered the opportunity to view Sirhan in a line-up.
The police did check with the Pasadena RFK office staff and were told that there would have been no reason for that office to send anyone to Azuza to check a schedule. For some reason, that seems to have played a part in the police decision to discount the importance of Botting and Crehan’s observation.
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 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!” [4]
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”). For this reason he felt “it was doubtful she observed Sirhan.”
Santa Ana Mountains, south of Corona, California, June 1, 1968
Dean Pack, a Santa Ana insurance executive was hiking with his son in a secluded part of the Santa Ana Mountains. After the assassination, he recognized Sirhan as “strongly resembling” a young man whom they had encountered during their hike. The young man was shooting at cans set up on a hillside, shooting with a pistol. The young man 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.
The main thing that struck Pack “was how unfriendly they were.” The shooter refused to reply or talk to Pack, standing and glaring at him. The tall young man was the only one who would even acknowledge his greeting. Their hostility was so strong that Pack had the “funny sensation that it would be possible for them to put a bullet in your back” and was relived 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.
A two-sentence LAPD report on Pack states that he “was exhibited a photograph of Sirhan” and said that the man he saw “strongly resembled” Sirhan but that he “was not positive of the identification.” When interviewed by Christian in 1969, 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 was Sirhan. [5]
The lack of police interest in Pack’s report is particularly strange since they had developed considerable evidence that Sirhan was indeed in the Corona area on June 1, shooting his gun. Detective Chief Houghton described the “Corona Police Department Gun Range investigation” on pages 251 and 252 of Special Unit Senator. The range master, William Marks (a Corona policeman) identified Sirhan from a photo display, as did Harry Starr, the range assistant. In addition, the sign in log for the range contained Sirhan’s signature and the District Attorney’s handwriting expert gave an official opinion that it was indeed Sirhan’s.
The only issue with the Corona range sighting was that both men reported Sirhan in the company of another man and both apparently gave a description of Sirhan which would have had him a good deal too tall as well as too heavy (the height and weight of the second man would have been much closer to Sirhan). Because of the discrepancy in the descriptions, the police officially rejected the sighting. However, Chief Houghton himself seems to be of a different opinion on the incident, closing his own writing on the incident by stating that Sirhan probably had used up his bullets at the range, causing him to purchase the two boxes of ammunition that a sales receipt found in his car had recorded for that date. In fact, Houghton opens the third section of his book with a statement that Sirhan had spent time at the Corona practice range that day!
In addition to the incidents noted above, there is an ongoing pattern of Sirhan “stalking” RFK at other public appearances. That pattern will be discussed at more length in an essay on Sirhan. However, his association with others, specifically a young girl, continued on to repeated sightings at the Ambassador hotel.
At the Ambassador – Sunday evening
Karen Ross was interviewed by Ramparts Detectives on June 6, 1968. She stated that while attending a rally for RFK in the Coconut Grove room in the Ambassador Hotel, the Sunday before the assassination, she had observed a young woman in a polka dot dress at the rally. The woman was medium height, somewhat “husky” with dark blond hair worn with a “puff”. Ross thought there was something unusual about the girls nose, possibly it had been “fixed”.
Sirhan was also at the Ambassador that evening. He was positively identified as having been in the Coconut Grove room by Mrs. Susan Redding and later in the vicinity of the Embassy ballroom by Burt Blume. Blume knew Sirhan personally because he had worked next door from him and Sirhan had dropped by frequently, making small talk. In RFK Must Die!, Robert Kaiser wrote that at first Sirhan denied being at the Ambassador on Sunday, then admitted being at the hotel but specifically called two individuals who reported him in the area of the kitchen, liars.
At the Ambassador – election night
The evening of the primary election, Irene Gizzi noticed a group of three people “who just didn’t seem to be dressed properly for the occasion.” The individuals were talking amongst each other and didn’t 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. She felt that the third man might well have been Sirhan. [6]
Gizza was in the company of a friend, Katherine Keir, who corroborated her observation of the group and gave a very similar description of the individuals including the girl being in a polka dot dress and one man being in a gold colored shirt.
Later that night, 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. Mills had the impression that one of the men was a hotel employee. [7]
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. [8]
As previously related, witnesses observed the young woman and man hurrying out of the pantry and corridor after the shooting, their reports trace the couple moving through the Embassy room and out towards the rear stairs and parking lot.
Accessories?
A young woman, medium height, medium weight, good figure -“busty” - with dark (dishwater) blonde hair, with a puff (bouffant look) at the front. Seen with Sirhan in company with young men prior to election night, making inquiries into RFK’s movements and reportedly gleeful after the Senator’s shooting.
A young man, short to medium height, dark skinned, similar in appearance to Sirhan or to one of Sirhan’s brothers.
A young man, taller, possibly six feet, sandy colored hair and a ruddy complexion.
The young woman, the tall young man, Sirhan – all reported loitering in the vicinity of the corridor and pantry during RFK’s speech. Reported in the pantry corridor as Robert Kennedy exited after his speech. Reported fleeing the pantry corridor and Embassy room as the rest of the observers were in shock, wounded, assisting RFK or wrestling with Sirhan.
It would appear that within a few days of the assassination, LAPD had sufficient information to create a picture of a group of individuals associated with Sirhan Sirhan in the weeks prior to Senator Kennedy’s murder and in the Ambassador hotel, in contact with Sirhan prior the shooting and even at the scene of the crime. Even if they were not participants in the shooting itself, they were in contact with Sirhan, encouraging and apparently assisting him. But for all their charts, timelines and diagrams, this was clearly one series of dots not connected by Special Unit Senator. They did seem to develop a bit of an attitude about the whole subject though.
Next in the Incomplete Justice series - Part Three: "They are all fibbing..."
Friday, May 23, 2008
RNC anti-war protests: Saint Paul city council rejects appeal, permit fight continues
By Mick Kelly
St. Paul, MN - Organizers of the massive anti-war march scheduled for Sept. 1, the opening day of the Republican National Convention, slammed the Saint Paul city council for turning down the permit appeal, May 21. By a six to one vote, the Council voted to uphold the unworkable permit that was issued for the protest on May 15.
"The permit issued by the city May 15 does not allow for the massive anti-war march that we are organizing for Sept. 1. People are coming from all over the country to protest the war on Iraq. Tens of thousands are expected to march on the Xcel Center. The permit issued by the city does not allow for that in practice," said Meredith Aby of the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War.
In testimony before the city council, Aby talked about the problems with the permit. She noted that the start and end times will not allow for many of the demonstrators to make it from the starting point at the Minnesota state capitol building to the Xcel Center. She also noted that the limited turnaround area at the Xcel Center and the expectation that demonstrators would march back on the same route that they came were unworkable.
Bruce Nestor of the National Lawyers Guild told the council that the permit did not meet the constitutional requirements for allowing free speech. Statements criticizing the city's permit - from Leslie Cagen, of United for Peace with Justice and Sara Flounders, of the Troops Out Now Coalition - were distributed to council members.
In a press conference before the city council meeting began, Deb Konechne of the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War stated that politicians who were interfering with the planned anti-war march were in fact complicit with the war in Iraq.
Organizers of the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War will continue the fight for permits that allow for a visible, mass protest as RNC opens Sept. 1.
St. Paul, MN - Organizers of the massive anti-war march scheduled for Sept. 1, the opening day of the Republican National Convention, slammed the Saint Paul city council for turning down the permit appeal, May 21. By a six to one vote, the Council voted to uphold the unworkable permit that was issued for the protest on May 15.
"The permit issued by the city May 15 does not allow for the massive anti-war march that we are organizing for Sept. 1. People are coming from all over the country to protest the war on Iraq. Tens of thousands are expected to march on the Xcel Center. The permit issued by the city does not allow for that in practice," said Meredith Aby of the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War.
In testimony before the city council, Aby talked about the problems with the permit. She noted that the start and end times will not allow for many of the demonstrators to make it from the starting point at the Minnesota state capitol building to the Xcel Center. She also noted that the limited turnaround area at the Xcel Center and the expectation that demonstrators would march back on the same route that they came were unworkable.
Bruce Nestor of the National Lawyers Guild told the council that the permit did not meet the constitutional requirements for allowing free speech. Statements criticizing the city's permit - from Leslie Cagen, of United for Peace with Justice and Sara Flounders, of the Troops Out Now Coalition - were distributed to council members.
In a press conference before the city council meeting began, Deb Konechne of the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War stated that politicians who were interfering with the planned anti-war march were in fact complicit with the war in Iraq.
Organizers of the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War will continue the fight for permits that allow for a visible, mass protest as RNC opens Sept. 1.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Incomplete Justice Part One: At the Ambassador Hotel
by Larry Hancock, 19 May 2008
The California campaign had been hard on the Senator. Everyone knew it was make or break for him. He had to win California to be able to have any chance of gaining the Democratic presidential nomination. Southern California had been especially difficult; he been unable to complete an election eve appearance in San Diego due to sheer exhaustion. [1]
But by late in the evening on June 4th, 1968, after watching election returns seemingly trickle in all evening, Robert Kennedy was in an upbeat mood, ready to claim victory. He would do so before a jam-packed crowd of campaign workers in the Embassy ballroom of the Ambassador Hotel. The crowd loved the short speech. They especially enjoyed a parting remark, directed towards Mayor Sam Yorty – “Mayor Yorty has just sent us a message that we’ve been here too long already!” [2]
Yorty, the outspoken right-wing mayor of Los Angeles, was no friend of the Senator. Kennedy had chided him for his racial insensitivity and his handling of the Watts riots during congressional hearings. The mayor, with his own presidential ambitions, had adamantly continued to support everything that RFK was opposed to in 1968 – and Yorty’s ultra-conservative power base in southern California was even more volatile than the mayor of Los Angeles. In the hours immediately following the Senator’s murder, Mayor Yorty made several efforts to focus the media on connecting Sirhan to Communists; he also revealed Sirhan’s private notebooks to the press. [3]
Security at the Ambassador
Whether or not Mayor Yorty’s attitude had anything to do with it, one thing was abundantly clear about the security surrounding Robert Kennedy that evening – the Los Angeles Police Department had no part in it. In fact, with over 1,800 Kennedy people packing into the Embassy ballroom and three other political functions going on in surrounding areas of the hotel, not a single LAPD officer was on the premises. A small number of hotel security, hired Ace Security guards and LA fire department personnel were trying to deal with the huge crowds in the hotel. [4] The only officers in the general area were driving their regular neighborhood patrols.
There remains considerable controversy about the lack of police involvement at the Ambassador Hotel. Following the assassination, un-named LAPD sources suggested off the record that the Kennedy staff had rejected offers of police security. In Special Unit Senator, Chief of Detectives Houghton writes that no protection had been requested; “in fact it had been discouraged.” [5] Kennedy staff members denied any security offers from the LAPD. William Turner relates that Mayor Yorty himself stressed that RFK had told LAPD that he wanted no protection in Los Angles and that Kennedy’s campaign staff refuted Yorty. [6]
There is further background to the controversy over security. The first LAPD officer to arrive at the Ambassador had been on local car patrol that evening and his encounter with witnesses in a rear parking lot of the hotel would become critically important in both implications of conspiracy and of suggestions of suppression of evidence by LAPD personnel. During a debriefing after his activities at the Ambassador, Sgt. Sharaga was told by Rampart Division Commander Capt. Floyd Phillips that the Kennedy’s and specifically Ethel Kennedy had violently rejected offers of LAPD security. More dramatically, Phillips seemed very agitated on the subject, remarking “the hell with them, they got just what they deserved!” [7]
Phillip’s remarks supported similar information that had been expressed to Sharaga in the Ambassador rear parking lot around 12:30 by Watch Commander Robert Sillings. Sillings had informed Sharaga that no police were stationed in the Ambassador because two days before (which could be interpreted as either been Saturday or Sunday) Sillings and Phillips had personally met with the Senator and his wife. The Kennedy’s had adamantly refused police security and Ethel Kennedy had insulted the officers, swearing at them as she rejected police security. Study of the trip schedule for the Senator has so far revealed no indication of a meeting between Ethel Kennedy and the LAPD, over that weekend or at any other time during the California campaign. And the RFK staff members most involved in the California campaign Jessie Unrah and Frank Burns adamantly denied any meetings or offer from LAPD. [8]
On August 29, 1976, the LA Herald-Examiner bannered a front page story under the title “Did RFK’s Order Seal His Death.” That story repeated the line that RFK ordered police bodyguards to stop protecting him. Turner and Christain interviewed retired LAPD security specialist Marion Hoover on the subject and quoted him as saying that LAPD had created a special “hot-squad” to guard Kennedy but they had been ordered off by the Senator. Hoover also described special Secret Service protection for the Senator and inferred that RFK preferred to depend on them over LAPD security.
That seems to be an elaboration of the story initially related to Sgt. Sharaga, but with the addition of the Secret Service element - which seems improbable since at that time the Secret Service was not legally authorized to provide security for Presidential candidates. That was only ordered and made into law after the Senator’s murder. SUS (Special Unit Senator, the LAPD murder investigation special group to investigate RFK’s murder) files obtained by Christian and Turner do reflect a pre-assassination meeting between Phillips and Sillings with two retired LAPD detectives, both of whom held key security positions at the Ambassador Hotel. [9]
RFK’s movements
Fortunately the crowds at the hotel were happy, enthusiastic and largely cooperative. Even so, the ten or so hotel security personnel and a handful of guards hired for the evening from the Ace Guard Service were stretched to the limit just controlling access at the main doors and hallways of the huge hotel. [10] Some of the Ace guards were at the public doors leading into the Embassy ballroom where Robert Kennedy was to speak to his presidential campaign supporters around midnight. But as with most hotel banquet rooms, there was easy access via service doors at the rear, doors normally used by catering and set-up staff. Few of these doors were secured and what guards were in those areas circulated from place to place throughout the evening.
The lack of effective security can be seen in the movements of one young man who had no press or Kennedy campaign connections. Evan so, Michael Wayne managed to enter not only the Embassy Room but also the Kennedy suite (Royal suite) on the fifth floor. He ordered a scotch and soda at the bar, and then followed the Kennedy party downstairs. [11]
As the party prepared to leave the suite, Robert Kennedy had expressed a desire not to have to cope with the crowds in the hotel lobby and corridors; in response, an Ambassador hotel manager led the party down in a freight elevator and then out through the kitchen. From there they moved into the service pantry and on through a corridor which led to the stage for the Embassy ballroom. The pantry and corridor were filled with people, and young Mr. Wayne managed to confront RFK and talk him into autographing a poster. Later, Wayne would end up standing in the pantry, immediately behind Sirhan Sirhan, as the Senator’s party left the stage via the service hallway. Wayne (whose real name was Wien) fled the pantry at the time of the shooting, claimed not to have seen neither either or the shooting and was dragged down by suspicious bystanders while running though the hotel.
It seems clear that anyone interested enough to monitor Kennedy’s movements might well have expected him to leave the Embassy ballroom the same way he had come in – via the service corridor and pantry area. The corridor also offered an alternative route to the adjacent Colonial Room, set up for the press contingent, in case Kennedy didn't want to move off the stage into a crowded and wildly celebrating room.
There has long been considerable controversy over the Senator’s departure through the service hall rather than through the crowd in the ballroom. Even Kennedy campaign staff members have claimed the plan was to exit though the crowd and that the exit though the service hall and pantry was a last minute decision. Given the crush of people in the room and the Senator’s earlier request, an exit to avoid the crowds does not seem terribly suspicious. After the assassination, the LAPD and the FBI interviewed security personnel who stated that Kennedy staff had told them, well before the Senator arrived to make his address, that RFK would be exiting though the pantry.
Fred Murphy (aka Pat Murphy) was interviewed by the FBI on June 13, 1968. Murphy, a retired LAPD Lt., was employed by the Ambassador as Hotel on its own security staff. He told the FBI that the evening of June 4, he had been stationed in the general area of the pantry during the Senator’s speech. He stated that he learned from an un-named female member of the Kennedy campaign staff that following the speech the Senator would exit from the rear of the stage, proceed through the service hall and pantry and go directly to the Colonial room which was being used as a press room. Murphy stated that this Security Officer William Gardner was present at the time he was given this information. Gardner was also identified as the head hotel security staffer by Thane Cesar, a part time Ace Security guard, who was to end up leading the Senator into the pantry and was holding his arm immediately prior to the shooting. [12]
In an LAPD interview, Cesar described getting his evening assignments from Mr. Gardner. Cesar also described being moved to the pantry area some time around 10 p.m. At that time he was told that Kennedy would be coming in the back entrance to the stage via the service pantry (this appears to be in direct contrast of most reports which state that the Senator only requested at the last moment that they not use the crowd packed main hallways into the ballroom). Cesar gave a more detailed description of his own movements, stating that at first (circa 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. or midnight) he had stayed near the doors which give access to the service hall and kitchen (these doors are adjacent to the side hall by the Colonial room which contains rest rooms and dead ends in the service hallway doors).
Cesar described stopping a number of people trying to use these doors to sneak into the Ambassador ballroom though the rear service entrances. Various individuals interviewed by police describe trying to go that route, some being stopped by security and some passing through. One witness describes an individual closely resembling Sirhan talking animatedly with a security guard in the vicinity of those doors.
Cesar described being moved further back in the service hall around 11 p.m. and being positioned by the double doors which are between the kitchen/serving pantry and the portion of the service hall which provides access to the rear of the Embassy ballroom stage. Cesar was there as RFK came into address the crowd and remained there until he exited after the speech, taking his arm as they moved forward into the serving pantry. In one police interview, Cesar went further, stating that the security officer had ordered him to “stay next to Bobby and try and clear the press so that they don’t gang up on him.” [13]
Fred Murphy’s own statement does not confirm these details from Cesar but does acknowledge being informed in advance of the Senator’s planned route after his speech. Murphy stated that about half way through the speech (circa 12:15 p.m.), he observed that there was not guard on the service hall doors (by the Colonial room) leading into the kitchen, so he stationed himself by those doors to prevent the crowd from rushing into the service hall and blocking the Senator. This does make some sense if Cesar was ordered off those doors and back further into the service hall by Gardner, or even if Cesar had moved at his own initiative. It also suggests that there was a window of about an hour when any number of people could, and apparently did, enter the service hall from the side hallway in front of the Colonial room. Just such a window of opportunity is confirmed by Leonore Moser, a student worker for Kennedy, who attempted to enter the main Embassy room door but was stopped; she in turn went into the kitchen hallway through the doors by the Colonial room and from there into the Embassy room through side doors in the service hall. She observed no uniformed guards or security personnel at the doors or in the kitchen hallway; this was only a few minutes prior to the beginning of the Senator’s speech.
However, about half way through the Senator’s speech, this access was blocked by Murphy positioning himself at the doors. [14] Judith Groves confirms Murphy’s position, describing how she and her husband were stopped from entering the kitchen hallway by a security guard after the Senator’s speech. [15]
All units, ambulances, shooting, 3400 Wilshire Blvd.
Sgt. Paul Sharaga had arrived at Rampart Station shortly before midnight on June 4th, 1968. By sheer coincidence he happened to be almost immediately across from the Ambassador when the all units message was broadcast. He immediately took the 8th street entrance and entered the rear parking lot; at approximately 12:21 he slammed on his breaks about 150 feet from the hotel complex. [16]
He had just stepped out of the police cruiser when a woman ran past him yelling “He’s been shot!” Sharaga turned to chase her down but at that point a middle aged couple ran up to him, also yelling that Senator Kennedy had been shot. Sharaga immediately asked them how they knew the Senator had been shot. The woman pointed toward the dimly lit backside of the hotel complex, to a fire escape ending in a concrete walkway. She said she and her husband had just come from the Embassy ballroom where Kennedy had spoken. They had taken a side door out and on to the fire escape balcony – where they encountered a young couple rushing out of the ballroom.
Accessories, first report – 12:23 a.m.
The young woman was yelling “We shot him! We shot him! The older couple was mystified, the wife asking “Who did you shoot?” The young man said nothing but the girl replied “Kennedy! We shot him! We shot him!”
The young people proceeded on down the fire escape stairs, leaving the older couple terrified and in shock.
Sharaga took notes on the couple (he recalled them saying they were the Bernsteins) and their basic descriptions of the young people, early 20’s, medium height and build, the girl wearing a black and white polka dotted dress. And the older couple were certain about what they had heard, as the girl was talking, both she and the young man had big smiles on their faces – they appeared absolutely gleeful. At 12:23 a.m. Sgt Sharaga radioed LAPD headquarters that Senator Kennedy had been shot at the Ambassador hotel, describing two suspects and calling available units to the rear parking lot.
Eventually Sharaga received word that a senior officer (Remparts Detective Sgt William Jordon) had taken charge of the crime scene in the kitchen pantry of the hotel. Sharaga tore out the notebook pages with the Bernstein information and sent it off to be hand carried by one of his own officers to Jordon. Shortly afterwards he was approached by Inspector John Powers who told him the shooting suspect was in custody so radio alerts for other suspects were unwarranted.
Sharaga didn’t really agree with that and discussed it with Captain Carroll Kirby; Kirby told him to go ahead and continue radio alerts every ten minutes. However, about half an hour later, Inspector Powers (Acting Chief of LAPD Detectives) contacted Sharaga, told him the shooter was in custody so there were no other suspects. Powers himself called Control, instructing them to disregard Sharaga’s earlier broadcasts – the radio log records Powers instruction that there was only one man “and we don’t want them to get anything started on a big conspiracy.”
Later, Powers would again call Sharaga, ordering him to return the officers that Sharaga had collected to active duty; Powers had brought his own personnel onto the scene. In the following days, Sharaga would hear more about the polka dot dress girl; he assumed the information he had passed to Sgt. Jordon that evening had become part of the suspect file on her.
Accessories, corroboration - 12:35 p.m.
John Ambrose, LA Deputy District Attorney, was in the area of the Ambassador hotel when he heard a news bulletin on the Kennedy shooting. He arrived at the hotel in approximately 15 minutes.
Upon entering the hotel’s main entrance, a young woman (Sandra Serrano) came running up to him and asked for his help in informing the proper authorities in regard to an encounter she had experienced. She described meeting two young people in the vicinity of the emergency stairway outside the Embassy ballroom at the rear of the hotel. In passing her, the girl had stated “We just shot him! When Serrano asked who had been shot the girl replied “We just shot Senator Kennedy!” [17]
Ambrose immediately asked Serrano if the woman could have actually said “They just shot Senator Kennedy” and Serrano replied that she was sure the girl said “we” and used the name “Kennedy”. Serrano gave Ambrose the following descriptions – the girl a Caucasian, early twenties, very “shapely”, wearing a black and white polka dot dress. The young man was Latin in appearance (Mexican-American as perceived by Serrano) with black hair and a gold sweater.
In his follow-on letter to the LAPD, Ambrose stated that Serrano impressed him as a very sincere person and although she was very alarmed and excited, Serrano was positive about the girl’s statements. Ambrose had taken down contact information on Serrano and had personally taken Serrano to the shooting scene and turned her over to investigation officers as a witness. Upon identifying himself to officers and presenting Serrano as a witness, the two were led to a room with LAPD detectives. The detectives talked with Serrano and another witness in the room (Vincent Diperro) listened to the conversation, Diperro commented that he had also seen a girl in a polka dot dress in the pantry at the time of the shooting. Not long after this, Serrano was interviewed on television by the press. Ambrose expressed his concern to the officers about this but they took the attitude that it was too late to do anything about it. [18]
Ambrose was informed by the police they were going to take Serranto to Ramparts for questioning; Serrano requested that Ambrose come along and he followed after calling her Aunt and Uncle with whom she lived. Upon arriving at Ramparts and identifying himself he was told he would not be needed; the following day he called Ramparts and gave detectives the information Serrano had given him. They took his number but made no further contact with him, resulting in his writing a letter to his supervisor on June 7th. In it he mentions being impressed by Serrano and felt that she was not at all impressed with publicity. He had called her at her home the following day and she had expressed regret that she had been interviewed on TV and was in fear for her safety. She told him she was actually about to leave the hotel when she saw him enter and felt compelled to tell someone her story. [19]
Over the next few days, additional witnesses would emerge. They would further corroborate the existence of this particular young woman in a polka dot dress. They would also place her in the vicinity of other people, including someone who looked a good deal like Sirhan Sirhan.
“Somewhat out of place”
Lonny Worthy had brought his wife and a friend to the Ambassador Hotel, hoping to join in the Kennedy victory celebration. Unable to enter the Embassy Room without official campaign or press credentials, they settled for mixing in a first floor room set apart for campaign workers. At about 10 p.m. Lonny went to the bar to get his wife a Coke and accidentally bumped into an individual he would later identify as Sirhan Sirhan. Lonny apologized but received no reply. Later he saw a young woman standing beside the same man; the two weren’t talking with each other, they weren’t talking with anyone.
Worthy described this encounter in an interview with the FBI on June 7, 1968, two days after the attack in which Robert F. Kennedy was fatally wounded. His and several other FBI witness interviews were included in an August 1969 FBI Summary Report – which remained classified until released after FOIA action in 1976. However, Worthy’s observation about the woman and identification of Sirhan didn’t make it into the LAPD’s own Summary Report.
Booker Griffin also lacked campaign credentials; he ended up in the same room as Worthy. Later Griffin recalled eventually noticing two people in the room who “seemed out of place…because everyone else but these two were celebrating.” One was a small, shabbily-dressed man that Griffin would identify to police as Sirhan Sirhan; the second was a girl slightly taller, in a white dress with designs of another color, possibly polka dots. Sirhan and the girl were in proximity to each other but not speaking; Griffin simply had the feeling that they might have been together. [20]
Outside the Colonial Room
As the evening progressed, George Green began to look for his friend Booker Griffin, who he thought would be able to come up with credentials or passes. He found Griffin, who had gotten a press pass, but Griffin was unable to get anything for Green. However, Griffin found that he could enter the Colonial (Press) room by going down the adjacent hall, though the service doors and into the kitchen service hall which ran behind both the Embassy ballroom and the Colonial room. While in the hallway, he observed a group of photographers and press interviewing Frank Mankiewicz; this would have been between 11 and 11:30 p.m.. At that time he noticed the young man whom he would later identify as Sirhan (wearing jeans, a shirt and jacket) standing at the edge of the crowd, along with a taller, thin Caucasian (about 22 years of age) and a female Caucasian (good figure, wearing a polka dot dress). [21]
By 11 p.m., Booker Griffin had managed to obtain a press pass from Pierre Salinger, an acquaintance, which gained him access to both the Embassy ballroom and the Colonial (Press) Room on the second floor. Due to the crowds and heat in the ballroom, Griffin made several trips to the Colonial room which was much cooler and less crowded – using the rear kitchen/service corridor to avoid the crowds trying to enter the ballroom. At around 11:30 he observed the same small man (Sirhan) in the kitchen corridor. [22]
Later, during the Senator’s speech, Griffin encountered Sirhan, a taller white male and a young, blonde haired woman, all standing in proximity to each other. There was now a third person with the two – a young man who was muscular and rather tall, over six feet tall. Griffin would notice Sirhan again a short while later and remark to a friend that he seemed to keep running across this same fellow.
Griffin, Green and Worthy weren’t the only ones that had noticed Sirhan that night – or the young woman. There were also witnesses to the young women in the company of other men, not identified as Sirhan. Pauline Walker tried unsuccessfully to enter the ballroom beginning around 10:30 p.m. When blocked there, she tried the rear kitchen access but was blocked by guards before she could enter the ballroom. Returning to the lobby outside the Embassy room, she waited some time until she recognized a friend who eventually managed to get her into the ballroom. Walker’s LAPD interview of June 6, 1968 relates that she observed a young woman in a polka dot dress, in the company of a young, dark skinned male. The woman was in her 20’s, hair a bit unkempt and described as “busty”. The man was in jeans, a windbreaker and sneakers – with dark hair that appeared greasy. Walker’s independent descriptions are noteworthy for being almost identical to those provided by Sandra Serrano.
Blocked in the service hall?
Griffin and Green’s observations suggests that Sirhan, the young woman in the polka dot dress and the young man were quite familiar with using the service hall. However, the movements of Cesar, Gardner and Murphy may not have allowed them simply to remain in the hallway. Eara Marchman reported to the LAPD that before the assassination, she observed a man in a short blue coat arguing with a uniformed guard who was standing by the swinging kitchen doors. She identified the man as Sirhan although she had only seen him in profile.
In the Embassy Ballroom
Just before RFK and his party entered the Embassy Room for his speech, campaign worker Suzanne Locke had noticed a young woman standing between the stage and the main door. She described the woman as "expressionless" and "somewhat out of place," noting that she had no badge and wore a white dress with blue polka dots. [23] Locke was concerned enough about the girl to report her to Carol Breshears, the woman in charge of the “Kennedy Girls” support organization. Breshears alerted a security guard on the matter, but there is no record that later investigators sought further information about the security guard and what he may or may not have done about this. [24] Locke’s observations on the polka dot dress girl, comprising about a third of her FBI interview, did not make it into the LAPD reports.
Although the girl observed by Susanne Locke might be considered suspicious, it appears that she is not the same girl observed in other locations, in proximity to Sirhan, the tall young man or the darker skinned young man. That girl is generally described as having dark “dishwater” blonde or light brown hair, with a bouffant appearance in the front, having a “good” figure and when seen up close, something “different” about her nose. The girl seen by Locke in the ballroom was described as having long brown hair, tied in the back.
TV footage from the Embassy ballroom and numerous other witness reports make it clear that there were multiple women in polka dotted dresses of various sorts in the hotel the evening of June 4th. Clearly this proved to be a distraction for the LAPD investigation, however there is also no indication that the police attempted to plot the observations, differentiate or collate them in any meaningful fashion. In fact, all follow-up of the various observations regarding a polka dot dressed girl were discounted from further investigation based on the highly questionable police rejection of a single witness – Sandra Serrano.
Outside the ballroom – on the rear stairs:
The next sighting of a suspicious “polka dot dress” girl (not in the company of Sirhan) was made by Sandra Serrano, a “Youth For Kennedy” volunteer. [25]
As previously mentioned, “Sandy” Serrano had been working as a Kennedy volunteer for some time. She had heard the Senator speak many times and had met him briefly in person. The Embassy ballroom was packed with people and extremely warm, so Serrano had left before the Senator arrived for his speech, going downstairs for a drink. While in the lower ballroom she saw the television monitors and realized his speech had begun.
At that point she went back upstairs but decided to wait by the outside stairs at the rear where it was cooler. In two separate police interviews between 2 and 4 am the morning of June 5th, Serrano was interrogated at length and provided a number of additional details. She stated that she had initially seen a three people come up the stairs and that within 15 to 20 minutes they returned.
The people seen going up the stairs included a girl in her 20’s, medium height, Caucasian, brown hair in a polka dot dress. The two men were both short and dark skinned (Serrano assumed they were Mexican). The young man had on a white shirt and gold sweater while the other man had “messed up” clothes and longer (greasy) hair. The girl and the man in the gold sweater came back to exit down the stairs later.
Serrano’s description of the young woman and man with greasy hair is corroborated by the LAPD June 6th interview with Pauline Walker. Mrs. Walker stated that about an hour before the Senator’s speech, prior to her entry into the Embassy room, she had observed a male accompanied by a woman in a polka dot dress. She described the woman as being in her early twenties, medium height and “busty”; the young man was short, dark skinned, and had dark hair slicked down with grease. He was wearing a windbreaker and faded jeans.
“They seemed to be smiling.”
In an FBI interview, RFK campaign worker George Green described following the Kennedy party into the service hall and pantry area. He had just entered the pantry as the shooting broke out, and immediately noticed a young woman in a polka dot dress and a man attempting to get out of the pantry area while everyone else was still moving in behind Senator Kennedy. The two were running away and had their backs to him at that point. Green’s observation was supported by Evan Freed, a press photographer. Freed also observed a young woman and man rush out of the pantry immediately after the shooting. [26]
Booker Griffin had also trailed the Kennedy party towards the pantry; as he entered the pantry itself, he too observed a girl and a man rush out together, followed by a second man who seemed to be chasing them. Griffin recognized the first man and the woman as the same individuals he had seen earlier in the evening, standing in the corridor between the Colonial and Embassy ballrooms - along the man he later identified as Sirhan Sirhan.
The LAPD Summary Report dismisses Griffin’s information by stating that “the story of a male and female escaping was a total fabrication on his part.” However, nothing in the tapes, transcripts or summaries of Griffin’s interviews mentions any indication of this. In 1987, Griffin was shown the statement in the Summary Report and angrily rejected the charge; he described being a trained newsperson and his ability to note details. Since the report was held secret for some twenty years, Griffin and many other witnesses were in no position to know what had been done with their information at the time; as far as they knew, each of their observations was unique. [27]
Dr. Marcus McBroom had been standing outside the access doors to the service pantry corridor when he heard the first couple of gunshots. A young woman immediately ran past him into the Embassy room; she was wearing a polka dot dress and shouting something as she passed. McBroom thought it sounded like “We got him!” or “We shot him!” but at that instant he was not certain. It became clearer to him as he saw the girl quickly followed by a young man. The man had a newspaper over his arm, but McBroom could see a pistol underneath. McBroom and an ABC cameraman both drew away upon seeing the gun. McBroom described the young man as an “Arab looking person” wearing a blue suit and sweating noticeably; when later shown some mug shots, McBroom actually picked out one of Sirhan’s brothers. [28] (Evan Freed had also noted that the man he saw was similar in appearance to Sirhan.)
The LAPD Summary Report does not mention McBroom’s observations about the girl, but does mention that he retracted all additional statements he made other than his noticing that Sirhan Sirhan seemed “out of place.” When interviewed in 1986 by Greg Stone, McBroom denied that he had ever retracted any statements and reviewed the details of the incident, including the partially hidden gun. [29]
Ace Guard Jack Merritt reported to both the LAPD and FBI that he had observed “two men and a woman leaving the kitchen,” the woman wearing a polka dot dress and both of the men in suits: “They seemed to be smiling.” [30]
Far from being unique to each witness, these observations about a young woman and other men were in fact very consistent and mutually corroborative. They appear to demonstrate an ongoing association of individuals with Sirhan Sirhan, and show their movements through the Ambassador Hotel.
After the attack on RFK, the movements of the young woman and at least one man are seem clear. They fled back out of the pantry as the crowd rushed towards Kennedy and other injured bystanders, then out towards the service hall corridor which provided access to the rear emergency stairs. It appears that as they moved down the hall, they first met the Bernstein’s and as they moved down the stairs they encountered Sandra Serrano.
Two days after the shooting, a woman whose called the police and told them she had found a brown paper shopping bag in an alley near her home in west Los Angeles. The bag contained a full set of brand-new women’s clothing: a bra and underpants, a slip, a pair of nylons, black shoes, a black purse with cosmetics and a nine-ounce can of hair spray, and a polka dot dress. An outfit seemingly worn only one time, never laundered. Of course this find may strictly have been a coincidence but the clothing sizes were described and they would be a good match the descriptions of the “well built” young woman seen at the Ambassador Hotel late on the night of June 4th, 1968.
Authors William Klaber and Philip Melanson have noted that the LAPD’s assertion, that in thousands of interviews they discovered no evidence to support the story of the polka dot dress woman, is clearly untrue. It is also apparent that neither the LAPD nor the FBI ever effectively consolidated their investigations, collated accounts, diagramed observations, or attempted to construct any patterns in these observations. When that is done, there is a clear suggestion is that there may well have been accessories to the murder of Senator Kennedy.
That suggestion becomes even stronger when individuals with the same descriptions are found to have been observed “stalking” the Senator in the weeks before the murder – and in company with an individual strongly resembling Sirhan.
Thanks to D.W. Dunn, Pat Speare, David Boylan, Alan Kent, Stu Wexler, and Sherry Fiester for their assistance in the development of this essay.
Next in the Incomplete Justice series - Part Two: Stalking RFK
The California campaign had been hard on the Senator. Everyone knew it was make or break for him. He had to win California to be able to have any chance of gaining the Democratic presidential nomination. Southern California had been especially difficult; he been unable to complete an election eve appearance in San Diego due to sheer exhaustion. [1]
But by late in the evening on June 4th, 1968, after watching election returns seemingly trickle in all evening, Robert Kennedy was in an upbeat mood, ready to claim victory. He would do so before a jam-packed crowd of campaign workers in the Embassy ballroom of the Ambassador Hotel. The crowd loved the short speech. They especially enjoyed a parting remark, directed towards Mayor Sam Yorty – “Mayor Yorty has just sent us a message that we’ve been here too long already!” [2]
Yorty, the outspoken right-wing mayor of Los Angeles, was no friend of the Senator. Kennedy had chided him for his racial insensitivity and his handling of the Watts riots during congressional hearings. The mayor, with his own presidential ambitions, had adamantly continued to support everything that RFK was opposed to in 1968 – and Yorty’s ultra-conservative power base in southern California was even more volatile than the mayor of Los Angeles. In the hours immediately following the Senator’s murder, Mayor Yorty made several efforts to focus the media on connecting Sirhan to Communists; he also revealed Sirhan’s private notebooks to the press. [3]
Security at the Ambassador
Whether or not Mayor Yorty’s attitude had anything to do with it, one thing was abundantly clear about the security surrounding Robert Kennedy that evening – the Los Angeles Police Department had no part in it. In fact, with over 1,800 Kennedy people packing into the Embassy ballroom and three other political functions going on in surrounding areas of the hotel, not a single LAPD officer was on the premises. A small number of hotel security, hired Ace Security guards and LA fire department personnel were trying to deal with the huge crowds in the hotel. [4] The only officers in the general area were driving their regular neighborhood patrols.
There remains considerable controversy about the lack of police involvement at the Ambassador Hotel. Following the assassination, un-named LAPD sources suggested off the record that the Kennedy staff had rejected offers of police security. In Special Unit Senator, Chief of Detectives Houghton writes that no protection had been requested; “in fact it had been discouraged.” [5] Kennedy staff members denied any security offers from the LAPD. William Turner relates that Mayor Yorty himself stressed that RFK had told LAPD that he wanted no protection in Los Angles and that Kennedy’s campaign staff refuted Yorty. [6]
There is further background to the controversy over security. The first LAPD officer to arrive at the Ambassador had been on local car patrol that evening and his encounter with witnesses in a rear parking lot of the hotel would become critically important in both implications of conspiracy and of suggestions of suppression of evidence by LAPD personnel. During a debriefing after his activities at the Ambassador, Sgt. Sharaga was told by Rampart Division Commander Capt. Floyd Phillips that the Kennedy’s and specifically Ethel Kennedy had violently rejected offers of LAPD security. More dramatically, Phillips seemed very agitated on the subject, remarking “the hell with them, they got just what they deserved!” [7]
Phillip’s remarks supported similar information that had been expressed to Sharaga in the Ambassador rear parking lot around 12:30 by Watch Commander Robert Sillings. Sillings had informed Sharaga that no police were stationed in the Ambassador because two days before (which could be interpreted as either been Saturday or Sunday) Sillings and Phillips had personally met with the Senator and his wife. The Kennedy’s had adamantly refused police security and Ethel Kennedy had insulted the officers, swearing at them as she rejected police security. Study of the trip schedule for the Senator has so far revealed no indication of a meeting between Ethel Kennedy and the LAPD, over that weekend or at any other time during the California campaign. And the RFK staff members most involved in the California campaign Jessie Unrah and Frank Burns adamantly denied any meetings or offer from LAPD. [8]
On August 29, 1976, the LA Herald-Examiner bannered a front page story under the title “Did RFK’s Order Seal His Death.” That story repeated the line that RFK ordered police bodyguards to stop protecting him. Turner and Christain interviewed retired LAPD security specialist Marion Hoover on the subject and quoted him as saying that LAPD had created a special “hot-squad” to guard Kennedy but they had been ordered off by the Senator. Hoover also described special Secret Service protection for the Senator and inferred that RFK preferred to depend on them over LAPD security.
That seems to be an elaboration of the story initially related to Sgt. Sharaga, but with the addition of the Secret Service element - which seems improbable since at that time the Secret Service was not legally authorized to provide security for Presidential candidates. That was only ordered and made into law after the Senator’s murder. SUS (Special Unit Senator, the LAPD murder investigation special group to investigate RFK’s murder) files obtained by Christian and Turner do reflect a pre-assassination meeting between Phillips and Sillings with two retired LAPD detectives, both of whom held key security positions at the Ambassador Hotel. [9]
RFK’s movements
Fortunately the crowds at the hotel were happy, enthusiastic and largely cooperative. Even so, the ten or so hotel security personnel and a handful of guards hired for the evening from the Ace Guard Service were stretched to the limit just controlling access at the main doors and hallways of the huge hotel. [10] Some of the Ace guards were at the public doors leading into the Embassy ballroom where Robert Kennedy was to speak to his presidential campaign supporters around midnight. But as with most hotel banquet rooms, there was easy access via service doors at the rear, doors normally used by catering and set-up staff. Few of these doors were secured and what guards were in those areas circulated from place to place throughout the evening.
The lack of effective security can be seen in the movements of one young man who had no press or Kennedy campaign connections. Evan so, Michael Wayne managed to enter not only the Embassy Room but also the Kennedy suite (Royal suite) on the fifth floor. He ordered a scotch and soda at the bar, and then followed the Kennedy party downstairs. [11]
As the party prepared to leave the suite, Robert Kennedy had expressed a desire not to have to cope with the crowds in the hotel lobby and corridors; in response, an Ambassador hotel manager led the party down in a freight elevator and then out through the kitchen. From there they moved into the service pantry and on through a corridor which led to the stage for the Embassy ballroom. The pantry and corridor were filled with people, and young Mr. Wayne managed to confront RFK and talk him into autographing a poster. Later, Wayne would end up standing in the pantry, immediately behind Sirhan Sirhan, as the Senator’s party left the stage via the service hallway. Wayne (whose real name was Wien) fled the pantry at the time of the shooting, claimed not to have seen neither either or the shooting and was dragged down by suspicious bystanders while running though the hotel.
It seems clear that anyone interested enough to monitor Kennedy’s movements might well have expected him to leave the Embassy ballroom the same way he had come in – via the service corridor and pantry area. The corridor also offered an alternative route to the adjacent Colonial Room, set up for the press contingent, in case Kennedy didn't want to move off the stage into a crowded and wildly celebrating room.
There has long been considerable controversy over the Senator’s departure through the service hall rather than through the crowd in the ballroom. Even Kennedy campaign staff members have claimed the plan was to exit though the crowd and that the exit though the service hall and pantry was a last minute decision. Given the crush of people in the room and the Senator’s earlier request, an exit to avoid the crowds does not seem terribly suspicious. After the assassination, the LAPD and the FBI interviewed security personnel who stated that Kennedy staff had told them, well before the Senator arrived to make his address, that RFK would be exiting though the pantry.
Fred Murphy (aka Pat Murphy) was interviewed by the FBI on June 13, 1968. Murphy, a retired LAPD Lt., was employed by the Ambassador as Hotel on its own security staff. He told the FBI that the evening of June 4, he had been stationed in the general area of the pantry during the Senator’s speech. He stated that he learned from an un-named female member of the Kennedy campaign staff that following the speech the Senator would exit from the rear of the stage, proceed through the service hall and pantry and go directly to the Colonial room which was being used as a press room. Murphy stated that this Security Officer William Gardner was present at the time he was given this information. Gardner was also identified as the head hotel security staffer by Thane Cesar, a part time Ace Security guard, who was to end up leading the Senator into the pantry and was holding his arm immediately prior to the shooting. [12]
In an LAPD interview, Cesar described getting his evening assignments from Mr. Gardner. Cesar also described being moved to the pantry area some time around 10 p.m. At that time he was told that Kennedy would be coming in the back entrance to the stage via the service pantry (this appears to be in direct contrast of most reports which state that the Senator only requested at the last moment that they not use the crowd packed main hallways into the ballroom). Cesar gave a more detailed description of his own movements, stating that at first (circa 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. or midnight) he had stayed near the doors which give access to the service hall and kitchen (these doors are adjacent to the side hall by the Colonial room which contains rest rooms and dead ends in the service hallway doors).
Cesar described stopping a number of people trying to use these doors to sneak into the Ambassador ballroom though the rear service entrances. Various individuals interviewed by police describe trying to go that route, some being stopped by security and some passing through. One witness describes an individual closely resembling Sirhan talking animatedly with a security guard in the vicinity of those doors.
Cesar described being moved further back in the service hall around 11 p.m. and being positioned by the double doors which are between the kitchen/serving pantry and the portion of the service hall which provides access to the rear of the Embassy ballroom stage. Cesar was there as RFK came into address the crowd and remained there until he exited after the speech, taking his arm as they moved forward into the serving pantry. In one police interview, Cesar went further, stating that the security officer had ordered him to “stay next to Bobby and try and clear the press so that they don’t gang up on him.” [13]
Fred Murphy’s own statement does not confirm these details from Cesar but does acknowledge being informed in advance of the Senator’s planned route after his speech. Murphy stated that about half way through the speech (circa 12:15 p.m.), he observed that there was not guard on the service hall doors (by the Colonial room) leading into the kitchen, so he stationed himself by those doors to prevent the crowd from rushing into the service hall and blocking the Senator. This does make some sense if Cesar was ordered off those doors and back further into the service hall by Gardner, or even if Cesar had moved at his own initiative. It also suggests that there was a window of about an hour when any number of people could, and apparently did, enter the service hall from the side hallway in front of the Colonial room. Just such a window of opportunity is confirmed by Leonore Moser, a student worker for Kennedy, who attempted to enter the main Embassy room door but was stopped; she in turn went into the kitchen hallway through the doors by the Colonial room and from there into the Embassy room through side doors in the service hall. She observed no uniformed guards or security personnel at the doors or in the kitchen hallway; this was only a few minutes prior to the beginning of the Senator’s speech.
However, about half way through the Senator’s speech, this access was blocked by Murphy positioning himself at the doors. [14] Judith Groves confirms Murphy’s position, describing how she and her husband were stopped from entering the kitchen hallway by a security guard after the Senator’s speech. [15]
All units, ambulances, shooting, 3400 Wilshire Blvd.
Sgt. Paul Sharaga had arrived at Rampart Station shortly before midnight on June 4th, 1968. By sheer coincidence he happened to be almost immediately across from the Ambassador when the all units message was broadcast. He immediately took the 8th street entrance and entered the rear parking lot; at approximately 12:21 he slammed on his breaks about 150 feet from the hotel complex. [16]
He had just stepped out of the police cruiser when a woman ran past him yelling “He’s been shot!” Sharaga turned to chase her down but at that point a middle aged couple ran up to him, also yelling that Senator Kennedy had been shot. Sharaga immediately asked them how they knew the Senator had been shot. The woman pointed toward the dimly lit backside of the hotel complex, to a fire escape ending in a concrete walkway. She said she and her husband had just come from the Embassy ballroom where Kennedy had spoken. They had taken a side door out and on to the fire escape balcony – where they encountered a young couple rushing out of the ballroom.
Accessories, first report – 12:23 a.m.
The young woman was yelling “We shot him! We shot him! The older couple was mystified, the wife asking “Who did you shoot?” The young man said nothing but the girl replied “Kennedy! We shot him! We shot him!”
The young people proceeded on down the fire escape stairs, leaving the older couple terrified and in shock.
Sharaga took notes on the couple (he recalled them saying they were the Bernsteins) and their basic descriptions of the young people, early 20’s, medium height and build, the girl wearing a black and white polka dotted dress. And the older couple were certain about what they had heard, as the girl was talking, both she and the young man had big smiles on their faces – they appeared absolutely gleeful. At 12:23 a.m. Sgt Sharaga radioed LAPD headquarters that Senator Kennedy had been shot at the Ambassador hotel, describing two suspects and calling available units to the rear parking lot.
Eventually Sharaga received word that a senior officer (Remparts Detective Sgt William Jordon) had taken charge of the crime scene in the kitchen pantry of the hotel. Sharaga tore out the notebook pages with the Bernstein information and sent it off to be hand carried by one of his own officers to Jordon. Shortly afterwards he was approached by Inspector John Powers who told him the shooting suspect was in custody so radio alerts for other suspects were unwarranted.
Sharaga didn’t really agree with that and discussed it with Captain Carroll Kirby; Kirby told him to go ahead and continue radio alerts every ten minutes. However, about half an hour later, Inspector Powers (Acting Chief of LAPD Detectives) contacted Sharaga, told him the shooter was in custody so there were no other suspects. Powers himself called Control, instructing them to disregard Sharaga’s earlier broadcasts – the radio log records Powers instruction that there was only one man “and we don’t want them to get anything started on a big conspiracy.”
Later, Powers would again call Sharaga, ordering him to return the officers that Sharaga had collected to active duty; Powers had brought his own personnel onto the scene. In the following days, Sharaga would hear more about the polka dot dress girl; he assumed the information he had passed to Sgt. Jordon that evening had become part of the suspect file on her.
Accessories, corroboration - 12:35 p.m.
John Ambrose, LA Deputy District Attorney, was in the area of the Ambassador hotel when he heard a news bulletin on the Kennedy shooting. He arrived at the hotel in approximately 15 minutes.
Upon entering the hotel’s main entrance, a young woman (Sandra Serrano) came running up to him and asked for his help in informing the proper authorities in regard to an encounter she had experienced. She described meeting two young people in the vicinity of the emergency stairway outside the Embassy ballroom at the rear of the hotel. In passing her, the girl had stated “We just shot him! When Serrano asked who had been shot the girl replied “We just shot Senator Kennedy!” [17]
Ambrose immediately asked Serrano if the woman could have actually said “They just shot Senator Kennedy” and Serrano replied that she was sure the girl said “we” and used the name “Kennedy”. Serrano gave Ambrose the following descriptions – the girl a Caucasian, early twenties, very “shapely”, wearing a black and white polka dot dress. The young man was Latin in appearance (Mexican-American as perceived by Serrano) with black hair and a gold sweater.
In his follow-on letter to the LAPD, Ambrose stated that Serrano impressed him as a very sincere person and although she was very alarmed and excited, Serrano was positive about the girl’s statements. Ambrose had taken down contact information on Serrano and had personally taken Serrano to the shooting scene and turned her over to investigation officers as a witness. Upon identifying himself to officers and presenting Serrano as a witness, the two were led to a room with LAPD detectives. The detectives talked with Serrano and another witness in the room (Vincent Diperro) listened to the conversation, Diperro commented that he had also seen a girl in a polka dot dress in the pantry at the time of the shooting. Not long after this, Serrano was interviewed on television by the press. Ambrose expressed his concern to the officers about this but they took the attitude that it was too late to do anything about it. [18]
Ambrose was informed by the police they were going to take Serranto to Ramparts for questioning; Serrano requested that Ambrose come along and he followed after calling her Aunt and Uncle with whom she lived. Upon arriving at Ramparts and identifying himself he was told he would not be needed; the following day he called Ramparts and gave detectives the information Serrano had given him. They took his number but made no further contact with him, resulting in his writing a letter to his supervisor on June 7th. In it he mentions being impressed by Serrano and felt that she was not at all impressed with publicity. He had called her at her home the following day and she had expressed regret that she had been interviewed on TV and was in fear for her safety. She told him she was actually about to leave the hotel when she saw him enter and felt compelled to tell someone her story. [19]
Over the next few days, additional witnesses would emerge. They would further corroborate the existence of this particular young woman in a polka dot dress. They would also place her in the vicinity of other people, including someone who looked a good deal like Sirhan Sirhan.
“Somewhat out of place”
Lonny Worthy had brought his wife and a friend to the Ambassador Hotel, hoping to join in the Kennedy victory celebration. Unable to enter the Embassy Room without official campaign or press credentials, they settled for mixing in a first floor room set apart for campaign workers. At about 10 p.m. Lonny went to the bar to get his wife a Coke and accidentally bumped into an individual he would later identify as Sirhan Sirhan. Lonny apologized but received no reply. Later he saw a young woman standing beside the same man; the two weren’t talking with each other, they weren’t talking with anyone.
Worthy described this encounter in an interview with the FBI on June 7, 1968, two days after the attack in which Robert F. Kennedy was fatally wounded. His and several other FBI witness interviews were included in an August 1969 FBI Summary Report – which remained classified until released after FOIA action in 1976. However, Worthy’s observation about the woman and identification of Sirhan didn’t make it into the LAPD’s own Summary Report.
Booker Griffin also lacked campaign credentials; he ended up in the same room as Worthy. Later Griffin recalled eventually noticing two people in the room who “seemed out of place…because everyone else but these two were celebrating.” One was a small, shabbily-dressed man that Griffin would identify to police as Sirhan Sirhan; the second was a girl slightly taller, in a white dress with designs of another color, possibly polka dots. Sirhan and the girl were in proximity to each other but not speaking; Griffin simply had the feeling that they might have been together. [20]
Outside the Colonial Room
As the evening progressed, George Green began to look for his friend Booker Griffin, who he thought would be able to come up with credentials or passes. He found Griffin, who had gotten a press pass, but Griffin was unable to get anything for Green. However, Griffin found that he could enter the Colonial (Press) room by going down the adjacent hall, though the service doors and into the kitchen service hall which ran behind both the Embassy ballroom and the Colonial room. While in the hallway, he observed a group of photographers and press interviewing Frank Mankiewicz; this would have been between 11 and 11:30 p.m.. At that time he noticed the young man whom he would later identify as Sirhan (wearing jeans, a shirt and jacket) standing at the edge of the crowd, along with a taller, thin Caucasian (about 22 years of age) and a female Caucasian (good figure, wearing a polka dot dress). [21]
By 11 p.m., Booker Griffin had managed to obtain a press pass from Pierre Salinger, an acquaintance, which gained him access to both the Embassy ballroom and the Colonial (Press) Room on the second floor. Due to the crowds and heat in the ballroom, Griffin made several trips to the Colonial room which was much cooler and less crowded – using the rear kitchen/service corridor to avoid the crowds trying to enter the ballroom. At around 11:30 he observed the same small man (Sirhan) in the kitchen corridor. [22]
Later, during the Senator’s speech, Griffin encountered Sirhan, a taller white male and a young, blonde haired woman, all standing in proximity to each other. There was now a third person with the two – a young man who was muscular and rather tall, over six feet tall. Griffin would notice Sirhan again a short while later and remark to a friend that he seemed to keep running across this same fellow.
Griffin, Green and Worthy weren’t the only ones that had noticed Sirhan that night – or the young woman. There were also witnesses to the young women in the company of other men, not identified as Sirhan. Pauline Walker tried unsuccessfully to enter the ballroom beginning around 10:30 p.m. When blocked there, she tried the rear kitchen access but was blocked by guards before she could enter the ballroom. Returning to the lobby outside the Embassy room, she waited some time until she recognized a friend who eventually managed to get her into the ballroom. Walker’s LAPD interview of June 6, 1968 relates that she observed a young woman in a polka dot dress, in the company of a young, dark skinned male. The woman was in her 20’s, hair a bit unkempt and described as “busty”. The man was in jeans, a windbreaker and sneakers – with dark hair that appeared greasy. Walker’s independent descriptions are noteworthy for being almost identical to those provided by Sandra Serrano.
Blocked in the service hall?
Griffin and Green’s observations suggests that Sirhan, the young woman in the polka dot dress and the young man were quite familiar with using the service hall. However, the movements of Cesar, Gardner and Murphy may not have allowed them simply to remain in the hallway. Eara Marchman reported to the LAPD that before the assassination, she observed a man in a short blue coat arguing with a uniformed guard who was standing by the swinging kitchen doors. She identified the man as Sirhan although she had only seen him in profile.
In the Embassy Ballroom
Just before RFK and his party entered the Embassy Room for his speech, campaign worker Suzanne Locke had noticed a young woman standing between the stage and the main door. She described the woman as "expressionless" and "somewhat out of place," noting that she had no badge and wore a white dress with blue polka dots. [23] Locke was concerned enough about the girl to report her to Carol Breshears, the woman in charge of the “Kennedy Girls” support organization. Breshears alerted a security guard on the matter, but there is no record that later investigators sought further information about the security guard and what he may or may not have done about this. [24] Locke’s observations on the polka dot dress girl, comprising about a third of her FBI interview, did not make it into the LAPD reports.
Although the girl observed by Susanne Locke might be considered suspicious, it appears that she is not the same girl observed in other locations, in proximity to Sirhan, the tall young man or the darker skinned young man. That girl is generally described as having dark “dishwater” blonde or light brown hair, with a bouffant appearance in the front, having a “good” figure and when seen up close, something “different” about her nose. The girl seen by Locke in the ballroom was described as having long brown hair, tied in the back.
TV footage from the Embassy ballroom and numerous other witness reports make it clear that there were multiple women in polka dotted dresses of various sorts in the hotel the evening of June 4th. Clearly this proved to be a distraction for the LAPD investigation, however there is also no indication that the police attempted to plot the observations, differentiate or collate them in any meaningful fashion. In fact, all follow-up of the various observations regarding a polka dot dressed girl were discounted from further investigation based on the highly questionable police rejection of a single witness – Sandra Serrano.
Outside the ballroom – on the rear stairs:
The next sighting of a suspicious “polka dot dress” girl (not in the company of Sirhan) was made by Sandra Serrano, a “Youth For Kennedy” volunteer. [25]
As previously mentioned, “Sandy” Serrano had been working as a Kennedy volunteer for some time. She had heard the Senator speak many times and had met him briefly in person. The Embassy ballroom was packed with people and extremely warm, so Serrano had left before the Senator arrived for his speech, going downstairs for a drink. While in the lower ballroom she saw the television monitors and realized his speech had begun.
At that point she went back upstairs but decided to wait by the outside stairs at the rear where it was cooler. In two separate police interviews between 2 and 4 am the morning of June 5th, Serrano was interrogated at length and provided a number of additional details. She stated that she had initially seen a three people come up the stairs and that within 15 to 20 minutes they returned.
The people seen going up the stairs included a girl in her 20’s, medium height, Caucasian, brown hair in a polka dot dress. The two men were both short and dark skinned (Serrano assumed they were Mexican). The young man had on a white shirt and gold sweater while the other man had “messed up” clothes and longer (greasy) hair. The girl and the man in the gold sweater came back to exit down the stairs later.
Serrano’s description of the young woman and man with greasy hair is corroborated by the LAPD June 6th interview with Pauline Walker. Mrs. Walker stated that about an hour before the Senator’s speech, prior to her entry into the Embassy room, she had observed a male accompanied by a woman in a polka dot dress. She described the woman as being in her early twenties, medium height and “busty”; the young man was short, dark skinned, and had dark hair slicked down with grease. He was wearing a windbreaker and faded jeans.
“They seemed to be smiling.”
In an FBI interview, RFK campaign worker George Green described following the Kennedy party into the service hall and pantry area. He had just entered the pantry as the shooting broke out, and immediately noticed a young woman in a polka dot dress and a man attempting to get out of the pantry area while everyone else was still moving in behind Senator Kennedy. The two were running away and had their backs to him at that point. Green’s observation was supported by Evan Freed, a press photographer. Freed also observed a young woman and man rush out of the pantry immediately after the shooting. [26]
Booker Griffin had also trailed the Kennedy party towards the pantry; as he entered the pantry itself, he too observed a girl and a man rush out together, followed by a second man who seemed to be chasing them. Griffin recognized the first man and the woman as the same individuals he had seen earlier in the evening, standing in the corridor between the Colonial and Embassy ballrooms - along the man he later identified as Sirhan Sirhan.
The LAPD Summary Report dismisses Griffin’s information by stating that “the story of a male and female escaping was a total fabrication on his part.” However, nothing in the tapes, transcripts or summaries of Griffin’s interviews mentions any indication of this. In 1987, Griffin was shown the statement in the Summary Report and angrily rejected the charge; he described being a trained newsperson and his ability to note details. Since the report was held secret for some twenty years, Griffin and many other witnesses were in no position to know what had been done with their information at the time; as far as they knew, each of their observations was unique. [27]
Dr. Marcus McBroom had been standing outside the access doors to the service pantry corridor when he heard the first couple of gunshots. A young woman immediately ran past him into the Embassy room; she was wearing a polka dot dress and shouting something as she passed. McBroom thought it sounded like “We got him!” or “We shot him!” but at that instant he was not certain. It became clearer to him as he saw the girl quickly followed by a young man. The man had a newspaper over his arm, but McBroom could see a pistol underneath. McBroom and an ABC cameraman both drew away upon seeing the gun. McBroom described the young man as an “Arab looking person” wearing a blue suit and sweating noticeably; when later shown some mug shots, McBroom actually picked out one of Sirhan’s brothers. [28] (Evan Freed had also noted that the man he saw was similar in appearance to Sirhan.)
The LAPD Summary Report does not mention McBroom’s observations about the girl, but does mention that he retracted all additional statements he made other than his noticing that Sirhan Sirhan seemed “out of place.” When interviewed in 1986 by Greg Stone, McBroom denied that he had ever retracted any statements and reviewed the details of the incident, including the partially hidden gun. [29]
Ace Guard Jack Merritt reported to both the LAPD and FBI that he had observed “two men and a woman leaving the kitchen,” the woman wearing a polka dot dress and both of the men in suits: “They seemed to be smiling.” [30]
Far from being unique to each witness, these observations about a young woman and other men were in fact very consistent and mutually corroborative. They appear to demonstrate an ongoing association of individuals with Sirhan Sirhan, and show their movements through the Ambassador Hotel.
After the attack on RFK, the movements of the young woman and at least one man are seem clear. They fled back out of the pantry as the crowd rushed towards Kennedy and other injured bystanders, then out towards the service hall corridor which provided access to the rear emergency stairs. It appears that as they moved down the hall, they first met the Bernstein’s and as they moved down the stairs they encountered Sandra Serrano.
Two days after the shooting, a woman whose called the police and told them she had found a brown paper shopping bag in an alley near her home in west Los Angeles. The bag contained a full set of brand-new women’s clothing: a bra and underpants, a slip, a pair of nylons, black shoes, a black purse with cosmetics and a nine-ounce can of hair spray, and a polka dot dress. An outfit seemingly worn only one time, never laundered. Of course this find may strictly have been a coincidence but the clothing sizes were described and they would be a good match the descriptions of the “well built” young woman seen at the Ambassador Hotel late on the night of June 4th, 1968.
Authors William Klaber and Philip Melanson have noted that the LAPD’s assertion, that in thousands of interviews they discovered no evidence to support the story of the polka dot dress woman, is clearly untrue. It is also apparent that neither the LAPD nor the FBI ever effectively consolidated their investigations, collated accounts, diagramed observations, or attempted to construct any patterns in these observations. When that is done, there is a clear suggestion is that there may well have been accessories to the murder of Senator Kennedy.
That suggestion becomes even stronger when individuals with the same descriptions are found to have been observed “stalking” the Senator in the weeks before the murder – and in company with an individual strongly resembling Sirhan.
Thanks to D.W. Dunn, Pat Speare, David Boylan, Alan Kent, Stu Wexler, and Sherry Fiester for their assistance in the development of this essay.
Next in the Incomplete Justice series - Part Two: Stalking RFK
16 Arrested at UCLA Protesting Fee Increase
By Eric Gardner
Los Angeles - Chanting, "Regents, regents, can't you see? You're creating poverty!" 16 student activists from UCLA Students for a Democratic Society, the UCLA Student Worker Front and other University of California campuses temporarily brought a meeting of the University of California Regents to a halt May 14 to protest a hike in student fees. The students locked arms and continued chanting until they were physically removed by UC police officers. All were charged with misdemeanor counts of failing to disperse.
Those arrested were part of a larger group of more than 100 student demonstrators from across the UC system that attended the meeting to protest the proposed fee increases.
"Every year that the UC regents increase student fees, thousands of low-income students, and especially students of color, are denied access to higher education," said David Chavez, a UCLA student among those arrested. "Myself and others are tired of the economic oppression that our communities face, which the regents take part in with their efforts to privatize the UCs. The levels of poverty and harm in our communities will not shrink so long as higher education continues on the current track towards a homogeneous and elitist institution."
From May 14-16 UCLA was host to a quarterly meeting of the UC regents - a group of ten people, appointed by the governor, which has final say over all decisions affecting the University of California. While the meeting took place, student activists at UCLA hosted a counter-meeting of their own to agitate for greater democracy in the UC system as well as an end to practices like investment in war profiteering, nuclear weapons research and the constant increasing of tuition and fees.
In a statement released after their arrest, the 16 said that the fee increase, "would mean more out-of-state students...because they bring more revenue for the school, thus limiting space for California residents. It would mean less diversity, as the poorest students - overwhelmingly of color - are effectively excluded from a public education because they simply can't afford it. It would mean families most vulnerable to fee increases would be forced into a false choice of accruing massive debt or not sending their children to school. It would mean pushing the California Dream farther and farther off the coast for much of the state's truly diverse population, as the UC student body becomes both richer and whiter."
The fee increase will raise costs for students by 7.4%, or about $500 per year for resident undergraduates. The slogan "7.4% = 1 month's rent!" could be seen at a display set up by some of the protesters on the UCLA quad.
Thirty years ago, resident students paid nominal registration costs and virtually no tuition, making the cost of a public education almost free. But all this has changed in the era of Republican cutbacks and Democrat 'reforms.' Under the new fees, in-state undergraduates will pay around $8000 each year, a cost that is already far out of reach for many working families in California who are struggling to cope with astronomical prices for rent, gas, food and healthcare.
The only beneficiaries of the constant UC fee increases (which have gone up 91% since 2001) are California's rich. By fighting tooth and nail against any taxes on their enormous incomes, the richest segment of California's population has worked to force the costs of public services on to those least able to afford them. This also pushes public institutions like the UC ever closer to full privatization, directly benefiting the same wealthy interests.
By voting in favor of continuing fee increases, the regents (with the exception of a small minority that opposed the hike) have embraced these trends and chosen to settle the university budget crisis on the backs of the students.
The May 14 civil disobedience action was one of many such actions that have interrupted recent meetings of the regents, as students continue to demand a say in the way their universities are run. In the face of such willful disregard for the needs of the people they are supposed to represent, the regents can expect more frequent - and more militant - actions in the future.
Los Angeles - Chanting, "Regents, regents, can't you see? You're creating poverty!" 16 student activists from UCLA Students for a Democratic Society, the UCLA Student Worker Front and other University of California campuses temporarily brought a meeting of the University of California Regents to a halt May 14 to protest a hike in student fees. The students locked arms and continued chanting until they were physically removed by UC police officers. All were charged with misdemeanor counts of failing to disperse.
Those arrested were part of a larger group of more than 100 student demonstrators from across the UC system that attended the meeting to protest the proposed fee increases.
"Every year that the UC regents increase student fees, thousands of low-income students, and especially students of color, are denied access to higher education," said David Chavez, a UCLA student among those arrested. "Myself and others are tired of the economic oppression that our communities face, which the regents take part in with their efforts to privatize the UCs. The levels of poverty and harm in our communities will not shrink so long as higher education continues on the current track towards a homogeneous and elitist institution."
From May 14-16 UCLA was host to a quarterly meeting of the UC regents - a group of ten people, appointed by the governor, which has final say over all decisions affecting the University of California. While the meeting took place, student activists at UCLA hosted a counter-meeting of their own to agitate for greater democracy in the UC system as well as an end to practices like investment in war profiteering, nuclear weapons research and the constant increasing of tuition and fees.
In a statement released after their arrest, the 16 said that the fee increase, "would mean more out-of-state students...because they bring more revenue for the school, thus limiting space for California residents. It would mean less diversity, as the poorest students - overwhelmingly of color - are effectively excluded from a public education because they simply can't afford it. It would mean families most vulnerable to fee increases would be forced into a false choice of accruing massive debt or not sending their children to school. It would mean pushing the California Dream farther and farther off the coast for much of the state's truly diverse population, as the UC student body becomes both richer and whiter."
The fee increase will raise costs for students by 7.4%, or about $500 per year for resident undergraduates. The slogan "7.4% = 1 month's rent!" could be seen at a display set up by some of the protesters on the UCLA quad.
Thirty years ago, resident students paid nominal registration costs and virtually no tuition, making the cost of a public education almost free. But all this has changed in the era of Republican cutbacks and Democrat 'reforms.' Under the new fees, in-state undergraduates will pay around $8000 each year, a cost that is already far out of reach for many working families in California who are struggling to cope with astronomical prices for rent, gas, food and healthcare.
The only beneficiaries of the constant UC fee increases (which have gone up 91% since 2001) are California's rich. By fighting tooth and nail against any taxes on their enormous incomes, the richest segment of California's population has worked to force the costs of public services on to those least able to afford them. This also pushes public institutions like the UC ever closer to full privatization, directly benefiting the same wealthy interests.
By voting in favor of continuing fee increases, the regents (with the exception of a small minority that opposed the hike) have embraced these trends and chosen to settle the university budget crisis on the backs of the students.
The May 14 civil disobedience action was one of many such actions that have interrupted recent meetings of the regents, as students continue to demand a say in the way their universities are run. In the face of such willful disregard for the needs of the people they are supposed to represent, the regents can expect more frequent - and more militant - actions in the future.
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!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
