LA, California, USA.
I do apply principles of American Common law, since as for penal procedure (penal trial), the two systems are similar, as for the accuse .
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The RFK Case in Court
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
LA, California, USA.
I do apply principles of American Common law, since as for penal procedure (penal trial), the two systems are similar, as for the accuse .
Me: Mr. Uecker, were you there at the time RFK was murdered?
Uecker: yes
Me: And did you the person that fired the .22 caliber Iver Johnson Cadet 55-A revolver?
Uecker: yes
Me: Can you identify the person who was shooting that gun if you were to see him again?
Uecker: yes
Me: Was that man, the defendant, Mr. Sirhan?
Uecker: yes
Me: Are you for certain that it was Mr. Sirhan?
Uecker: yes
Me: By your account, did Mr. Sirhan fired 8 shots from the gun that he was using?
Uecker: yes
Me: You are certain that 8 shots were fired by the defendant using his gun?
Uecker: yes
Me: No further questions your honor.
Uecker: yes
Me: And did you the person that fired the .22 caliber Iver Johnson Cadet 55-A revolver?
Uecker: yes
Me: Can you identify the person who was shooting that gun if you were to see him again?
Uecker: yes
Me: Was that man, the defendant, Mr. Sirhan?
Uecker: yes
Me: Are you for certain that it was Mr. Sirhan?
Uecker: yes
Me: By your account, did Mr. Sirhan fired 8 shots from the gun that he was using?
Uecker: yes
Me: You are certain that 8 shots were fired by the defendant using his gun?
Uecker: yes
Me: No further questions your honor.
Then you would know that it falls on the prosecutor to prove his/her case using evidence to support it.
So present your evidence indicating that there was a second shooter.
My aim is to prove that Sirhan did know in advance that RFK would go through the kitchen.
1) Because eyewitnesses say RFK was guided through the kitchen by omissis
2) Because very few seconds had passed since RFK left the podium and gained access to the serving kitchen (aka kitchen corridor, where the dishes used to be displayed before being served. A very narrow area).
3) Ergo. I have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Sirhan was already there, holding a gun, patiently waiting for his victim (RFK).
Mr. attorney, you who represent Sirhan in this trial have failed to explain:
1) why Sirhan was hiding behind the ice machine
2) what he was doing here with a revolver in his hands
3) how he knew that RFK, his victim would be going through that very narrow area.
It is to be put on record.
The circumstances of time and space indicate that it is impossible that Sirhan arrived on the crime scene before RFK. Unless he knew in advance that his accomplice would have guided RFK through that narrow place.
Conclusion: I have proved, your honor and dear jurors, that Sirhan had an accomplice.
An accomplice that brought RFK to the serving kitchen, so Sirhan would have killed him. By surprise.
Last edited:
Even the son is convinced that the deadly shot wasn't fired by Sirhan, even if he participated in the attack actively.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So what? He was not there. You are apparently trying to use him as a character witness. Impeaching his character is a valid technique in that case:
He appears to be a nut-burger. I can understand why. Having one's father assassinated at a young age can do that to a person. But the earlier posts refuted all of your claims and now you are going to people that have had nothing to do with the assassination itself.
One question: do you really think that those two murders (the JFK murder and the RFK murder) were unrelated?
That they were just two random murders which took place in the sixties?
Because I think it's obvious that behind these two murders there are the very same criminal masterminds.
One cannot deny the obvious.
Back to the topic, I have demonstrated that Sirhan could have never known that RFK would go through the pantry area. So he was already there, hidden behind the ice machine. He had an accomplice who betrayed RFK and told Sirhan to hide, and to shoot at the right moment.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There does not appear to be any evidence for the belief that they are related. The claims of the JFK conspiracy theories have all been debunked. And it appears to be the same for the RFK conspiracies. So why would any rational person think that they were connected?One question: do you really think that those two murders (the JFK murder and the RFK murder) were unrelated?
That they were just two random murders which took place in the sixties?
Because I think it's obvious that behind these two murders there are the very same criminal masterminds.
One cannot deny the obvious.
Back to the topic, I have demonstrated that Sirhan could have never known that RFK would go through the pantry area. So he was already there, hidden behind the ice machine. He had an accomplice who betrayed RFK and told Sirhan to hide, and to shoot at the right moment.
Well...I respect your opinion.
Nevertheless, I do believe they were related, especially because of all those elements that have transpired in the last sixty years.
Or shall I believe that every time a Kennedy either wins the presidency or runs for president, gets shot at a public event?
One question: do you really think that those two murders (the JFK murder and the RFK murder) were unrelated?
That they were just two random murders which took place in the sixties?
Because I think it's obvious that behind these two murders there are the very same criminal masterminds.
One cannot deny the obvious.
Back to the topic, I have demonstrated that Sirhan could have never known that RFK would go through the pantry area. So he was already there, hidden behind the ice machine. He had an accomplice who betrayed RFK and told Sirhan to hide, and to shoot at the right moment.
I suppose anything is possible, but it's still more in the realm of mystery. The Kennedys did have quite a few enemies, although that, in and of itself, wouldn't prove anything. J. Edgar Hoover hated the Kennedys, and he was friends with Nixon, who also hated the Kennedys. (Nixon felt he was robbed in the 1960 election, a familiar story.) They all had shady ties to unsavory characters.
One thing about U.S. politics is that many of them seem to pride themselves on having a certain degree of political "finesse," as opposed to using a bludgeon or overtly brutal tactics. If there were powerful political factions out to get the Kennedys, it seems the standard practice would be to try to discredit them, blacken their reputation, so as to undermine their popularity and cause the masses to hate them. To kill them makes them into martyrs, and it didn't really stop the US pursuing the same agenda that RFK supported, to end the war and support civil rights. Nixon's popularity went straight into the toilet.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So what? Compare the rate of being murdered of Presidents to the risks of an average person. It is much much higher. Politicians attract nutburgers. That is not the fault of politicians, but it is why we do have the Secret Service. And as attempts on Reagan long after the Kennedy examples show, that protection is not perfect.
Reagan survived though, which means his bodyguards' crew worked perfectly.
In both murders, (the Kennedys' murders) there was something wrong with the bodyguards. Something flawed.
And I explain it very clearly in this thread.
As for JFK...there is something weird caught on tape, just before the murder: the bodyguards strangely missing, all of a sudden.
rocala
Well-Known Member
I don't think the two murders were related. As to RFK, I was not familiar with it beyond the news of that time. A quick read of the account gives the surprising detail of the presence of SS in the kitchen area. One scenario springs to mind. It is quite usual in close protection to have alternative exits/escape routes. If there were conspirators as opposed to a lone gunman, it is possible that the bodyguards were overheard or even observed checking the routes. This would have given plotters the chance to cover more than one route.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that is called luck. And that is going to vary a lot based upon the crazies that are trying to kill the President. Oswald was a decent shot. He was very familiar with his firearm. I doubt if either Reagan or Ford's attackers were very familiar with their weapons.
Also you need reliable sources when you make any claims about your conspiracy theories. I can show you how Oswald had been in the military and had been rated as a "sharpshooter" and a "marksman". He had a slow moving target that was not very far away. It did not take a sniper to accomplish his shots. When his actions were reproduced it took a sniper to hit in the exact same place on a moving target, but hitting where someone else shot is much much harder than just hitting a large target. In fact here you go:
Lee Harvey Oswald - Wikipedia
I trust my eyes only. I don't trust any source, but my own eyes.No, that is called luck. And that is going to vary a lot based upon the crazies that are trying to kill the President. Oswald was a decent shot. He was very familiar with his firearm. I doubt if either Reagan or Ford's attackers were very familiar with their weapons.
Also you need reliable sources when you make any claims about your conspiracy theories. I can show you how Oswald had been in the military and had been rated as a "sharpshooter" and a "marksman". He had a slow moving target that was not very far away. It did not take a sniper to accomplish his shots. When his actions were reproduced it took a sniper to hit in the exact same place on a moving target, but hitting where someone else shot is much much harder than just hitting a large target. In fact here you go:
Lee Harvey Oswald - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In the Zapruder footage I can clearly see two shots hitting John F. Kennedy.
From two opposite directions.
The first from behind. The second from the front.
Nobody doubts Oswald fired the one from behind. I am just saying there were at least two shooters.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, but your "eyes" are of no value. The head action, the damage done to Kennedy, the wound to Connelly, everything, has been reproduced using only one shooter from that angle. All that you have are wild speculations. One shooter is the only theory that explains all of the evidence.I trust my eyes only. I don't trust any source, but my own eyes.
In the Zapruder footage I can clearly see two shots hitting John F. Kennedy.
From two opposite directions.
The first from behind. The second from the front.
Nobody doubts Oswald fired the one from behind. I am just saying there were at least two shooters.
Whenever these horrific things happen, it can't be just one perpetrator. I think it was all set-up and perfectly organized in advance.
James Files confessed he was the second shooter (there was a third called Nicoletti) at the crime scene.
Files fired the deadly shot (through the brain).
So tell me why a man should confess to something he did not do.
James Files - Wikipedia
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Fame, notoriety, mental illness, the list goes on and on. Read your own sources. He was already spending what amounted to a life sentence in prison. Instead of being a nobody that tried and failed to kill two policeman , he could claim to have killed the President. That would give him status in prison.Whenever these horrific things happen, it can't be just one perpetrator. I think it was all set-up and perfectly organized in advance.
James Files confessed he was the second shooter (there was a third called Nicoletti) at the crime scene.
Files fired the deadly shot (through the brain).
So tell me why a man should confess to something he did not do.
James Files - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Did you even read your source? Obviously not:
"In 1994, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was quoted as having investigated Files' allegation and found it "not to be credible".[3][6]"
"Vincent Bugliosi, author of Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, has characterized Files as "the Rodney Dangerfield of Kennedy assassins."[2] According to Bugliosi, very few within the majority of Americans (75%) who believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy respect him or his story.[2] However, psychology professor Jerome Kroth described Files as "surprisingly credible" and said his story "is the most believable and persuasive" about the assassination.[2]"
At the very best he is the most credible of a long line of loons that claimed to have shot JFK. His claims are simply another "So what?" claim.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
You should respect facts even more, since that what it was.
As for facts...it turns out that RFK Jr was in Milan, in 2021. The crowd applauded him, hugged him and kissed him.
.
Last edited: