The RFK Case in Court

[Estro Felino]

This thread is in Law because I have decided, as a jurist to analyze this case as if I were a procurator.
So analyzing all the evidence against the defendant (Sirhan Bishara Sirhan) as I have been taught to by my professors and colleagues.
The opinion of jurists is highly appreciated. But anyone can participate, as long as the arguments are presented logically and through juridical reasonings, as if we were in Court.

 

[Estro Felino]

The facts

RFK had just given a speech at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. In the Embassy room, actually a ballroom used as conference hall.
He was supposed to meet the journalists in a press room nearby. But instead of going through the ballroom, his campaign employees suggested him to go through the kitchens. Escorted by the hotel maître Uecker, he went through the kitchens, the pantry area.
All of a sudden, a person (Sirhan) who was hiding behind a ice machine in the hallway kitchen, came out and started shooting at RFK.
RFK fainted right away.

1) The decision to go through the kitchens had not been taken by RFK.
2) He was shot as soon as he entered the hallway kitchen. Very little time had passed since he had left the ballroom.
3) Ergo: Sirhan was already there, waiting for him with a gun.
4) Sirhan did know RFK would have gone through that hallway.

 

[Estro Felino]

The autopsy

Performed by dr. Noguchi. He declares that three were the deadly shots.
The fatal shot, he declares, had an upward direction, from right to left.
The shot was fired behind the ear, at a distance of 1 to 3 inches from RFK.

1) According to all witnesses, Sirhan was in front of RFK. He was blocked immediately by Uecker, so he was prevented from going near/behind RFK. He remained before him, at a distance of 3 ft.
2) Sirhan shot multiple times, he wounded several people, who were all in front of him.
But he was not him who fired the deadly shot, behind RFK's ear.
3) The presence of a second gunman is highly probable.

 

[Estro Felino]

The culprit

Sirhan has always declared that he doesn't remember shooting at RFK.
Nevertheless so many witnesses testified he came out of the ice machine, he had a gun, he started shooting at RFK.
He was blocked immediately. They desperately tried to take the gun from him, but when they succeeded, he had already fired multiple shots at an incredible speed. As recordings clearly prove (evidence brought in court).

1) The defendant has never explained how he knew RFK would go through the pantry area.
2) The defendant even declares he does not remember what he did. Yet he clearly remembers what he did before and after the shooting.
3) The defendant is not credible.
4) The defendant refuses to cooperate.

 

[Estro Felino]

Ballistics

Sirhan's gun was a revolver Iver Johnson cal. 22. Which can fire 8 shots at most.
11 bullets were found on the crime scene.
This is confirmed by a tape which was analyzed by many experts. All experts agree on the fact that at least 10 shots can be heard. And probably they are up to 13 gunshots.

1) Witnesses claim Sirhan shot two times toward RFK...but the other six were shot randomly because he had been already blocked by Uecker and others.
2) We do not know whether other people in that corridor fired shots, but they were surely armed.
3) To conclude, we know for certain that Sirhan was not the only one who fired gunshots in that room, because he could fire 8 shots only.

 

[Estro Felino]

Uecker's testimony

He escorted RFK and his staff and bodyguards through the serving kitchen to reach the press room.
He testified he saw Sirhan coming out of nowhere, he was hiding behind the ice machine (see picture #2). Sirhan shot two times at RFK when he was in front of him.
Uecker and two other people blocked him. They blocked his hands, trying to prevent him from firing shots. It was useless.
Sirhan had an incredibly superhuman strength. He succeeded in firing the remaining shots randomly, even if he could not see anything, having three people on his body and face.

1) Sirhan was freezed and blocked when he was in front of RFK
2) He never went behind/right RFK
3) It was not Sirhan who fired the deadly shot behind RFK's ear.

 

[night912]

The autopsy

Performed by dr. Noguchi. He declares that three were the deadly shots.
The fatal shot, he declares, had an upward direction, from right to left.
The shot was fired behind the ear, at a distance of 1 to 3 inches from RFK.

View attachment 54510

Cross examination

There are important information which Estro Felino deliberately left out. This information will show that there is strong evidence against the claim of there being a second shooter.

The most significant eyewitness testimony would be that of Vincent DiPierro, the witness who was the closest to both RFK and SS, and the only person to have seen the first shot fired. His account of what happened will show that what transpired is consistent with the data gathered from the autopsy performed by Dr. Noguchi, and that it's strong evidence against the claim of there being a second shooter.

‎Frank Buckley Interviews: Vincent DiPierro, RFK Assassination Witness on Apple Podcasts

1) According to all witnesses, Sirhan was in front of RFK. He was blocked immediately by Uecker, so he was prevented from going near/behind RFK. He remained before him, at a distance of 3 ft.
2) Sirhan shot multiple times, he wounded several people, who were all in front of him.
But he was not him who fired the deadly shot, behind RFK's ear.
3) The presence of a second gunman is highly probable.

View attachment 54512

(Paraphrasing)

1. SS was indeed directly in front of the other people, but in regards to RFK and DiPierro, he wasn't directly in front of them. In accordance with being directly in front of a person based on the direction the person is facing, SS was in fact, directly to the side of RFK. And the first shot was aimed at his head. The upward trajectory of the projectile in his head was due to the height difference in the shooter and the victim. RFK is 5'9" compared to a 5'5" SS. With 4" in height difference and the shooter extending his arm forward, it explains the upward direction of the bullet wound to the head. All this is consistent with the results of the autopsy.

2. The results of this important testimony that was deliberately left out, shows that there was no need to for SS to get behind RFK nor the need for a second shooter from behind or underneath.

 

[night912]

The culprit

Sirhan has always declared that he doesn't remember shooting at RFK.
Nevertheless so many witnesses testified he came out of the ice machine, he had a gun, he started shooting at RFK.
He was blocked immediately. They desperately tried to take the gun from him, but when they succeeded, he had already fired multiple shots at an incredible speed. As recordings clearly prove (evidence brought in court).

1) The defendant has never explained how he knew RFK would go through the pantry area.
2) The defendant even declares he does not remember what he did. Yet he clearly remembers what he did before and after the shooting.
3) The defendant is not credible.
4) The defendant refuses to cooperate.

All of this is irrelevant and shows no indication of there being a second shooter. It's nothing more than making a conclusion through speculation. It is not evidence, therefore is discarded.

 

[Estro Felino]

Cross examination

There are important information which Estro Felino deliberately left out. This information will show that there is strong evidence against the claim of there being a second shooter.

The most significant eyewitness testimony would be that of Vincent DiPierro, the witness who was the closest to both RFK and SS, and the only person to have seen the first shot fired. His account of what happened will show that what transpired is consistent with the data gathered from the autopsy performed by Dr. Noguchi, and that it's strong evidence against the claim of there being a second shooter.

‎Frank Buckley Interviews: Vincent DiPierro, RFK Assassination Witness on Apple Podcasts


(Paraphrasing)

1. SS was indeed directly in front of the other people, but in regards to RFK and DiPierro, he wasn't directly in front of them. In accordance with being directly in front of a person based on the direction the person is facing, SS was in fact, directly to the side of RFK. And the first shot was aimed at his head. The upward trajectory of the projectile in his head was due to the height difference in the shooter and the victim. RFK is 5'9" compared to a 5'5" SS. With 4" in height difference and the shooter extending his arm forward, it explains the upward direction of the bullet wound to the head. All this is consistent with the results of the autopsy.

2. The results of this important testimony that was deliberately left out, shows that there was no need to for SS to get behind RFK nor the need for a second shooter from behind or underneath.

This is not impossible.
This is clearly interesting, because RFK must have turned around.
The truth is that dr. Noguchi was the best of the best, at that particular moment, in LA.
And he clearly described a very weird trajectory.
That is a trajectory possible with the gun pointed upward, from right to left. Distance: no more than 2 inches.

But this is all secondary...because on the crime scene at least 11 bullets were found and Sirhan's revolver coould have fired 8 bullets at most.

1) The presence of a second shooter is absolutely a scientiphical given.
2) The persons injured were all in front of Sirhan
3) It is absolutely probable if not certain that all the shots that Sirhan fired randomly hit these prople.


Look at post #5 about Ballistics.

 

[Estro Felino]

All of this is irrelevant and shows no indication of there being a second shooter. It's nothing more than making a conclusion through speculation. It is not evidence, therefore is discarded.

I am sorry. But since you defend Sirhan in this trial, you need to provide me with a incontradictible valid reason why Sirhan was hiding behind a ice machine. With a gun.
What he was doing there.
And you need to indicate me looking at the map (post #2) how he got there.

 

[night912]

OBJECTION!!! False information.

Ballistics

Sirhan's gun was a revolver Iver Johnson cal. 22. Which can fire 8 shots at most.
11 bullets were found on the crime scene.
This is confirmed by a tape which was analyzed by many experts. All experts agree on the fact that at least 10 shots can be heard. And probably they are up to 13 gunshots.

This is nothing more than an attempt to mislead the audience through the use of misinformation.

1. The official report states that only 8 projectiles of a .22 cal were found at the murder scene. All of them with similar ballistic markings and 3 of them are for certain that they were shot from the gun used by SS, via ballistic investigation.

2. The claim of there being 11 found was due to misinformation of the press. The news report speculated that there were 11, when in fact it was only that of all potential bullet holes.

3. And it's a false claim made by Estro Felino, saying that "all" experts agreed that 10 shots were heard from the audio tape. Audio engineer Philip Van Praag, claimed to have heard 13 shots fired in the tape, but many experts disagree with that assessment. In fact, forensic acoustics engineer Philip Harrison said, “I can’t find any more than the seven shots that are there.”



OBJECTION!!!!! Speculation.

1) Witnesses claim Sirhan shot two times toward RFK...but the other six were shot randomly because he had been already blocked by Uecker and others.

This only shows that he fired 8 shots, no more no less .

2) We do not know whether other people in that corridor fired shots, but they were surely armed.

Yes, we don't know whether other people fired any shots, therefore we cannot speculate if they did or not. And if they were armed, being bodyguards and/or security guards, it almost a certainty that they would not have been carrying a .22 cal pistol. The caliber is too small for security, not to mention it being a rimfire ammunition. Rimfire ammunition are not that reliable, that's why security personnels carry a firearm that uses centerfire cartridge.

3) To conclude, we know for certain that Sirhan was not the only one who fired gunshots in that room, because he could fire 8 shots only.

To conclude, no we don't know for certain that SS was not the only one who fired gunshots in that room. What we do know is that for certain, 8 shots were fired by SS, with all 8 projectiles accounted for.

 

[night912]

OBJECTION!!!!! Speculation as I already shown above, while providing evidence in support of it.

Uecker's testimony

He escorted RFK and his staff and bodyguards through the serving kitchen to reach the press room.
He testified he saw Sirhan coming out of nowhere, he was hiding behind the ice machine (see picture #2). Sirhan shot two times at RFK when he was in front of him.
Uecker and two other people blocked him. They blocked his hands, trying to prevent him from firing shots. It was useless.
Sirhan had an incredibly superhuman strength. He succeeded in firing the remaining shots randomly, even if he could not see anything, having three people on his body and face.

1) Sirhan was freezed and blocked when he was in front of RFK
2) He never went behind/right RFK
3) It was not Sirhan who fired the deadly shot behind RFK's ear.

 

[night912]

OBJECTION!!!!! Strawman argument and shifting the burden of proof in use.

I argued that Sirhan was the shooter and that there were no evidence indicating that there was a second shooter.

Nice try. Did you pick up that tactic from your professor?

Case closed.

I am sorry. But since you defend Sirhan in this trial, you need to provide me with a incontradictible valid reason why Sirhan was hiding behind a ice machine. With a gun.
What he was doing there.
And you need to indicate me looking at the map (post #2) how he got there.

 

[Estro Felino]

OBJECTION!!!!! Strawman argument and shifting the burden of proof in use.

I argued that Sirhan was the shooter and that there were no evidence indicating that there was a second shooter.

Nice try. Did you pick up that tactic from your professor?

Case closed.

Since you are Sirhan's attorney here, you need to understand that you didn't answer my question.
And in an Italian penal trial, accusing a procurator of presenting a strawman argument (which does not exist in any penal procedure code) is not allowed.
On the record it is to be put : Sirhan's defense didn't answer the accuse's question.


My question was: Looking at the hotel map, indicate how Sirhan got there. How he went from the Embassy Room to the serving kitchen, hiding behind the ice machine with a gun in his hands.

 

[Estro Felino]

Your honor, I call Paul Schrade as my first witness, to the stand.

 

[night912]

Since you are Sirhan's attorney here, you need to understand that you didn't answer my question.
And in an Italian penal trial, accusing a procurator of presenting a strawman argument (which does not exist in any penal procedure code) is not allowed.
On the record it is to be put : Sirhan's defense didn't answer the accuse's question.


My question was: Looking at the hotel map, indicate how Sirhan got there. How he went from the Embassy Room to the serving kitchen, hiding behind the ice machine with a gun in his hands.

I wasn't objecting your strawman as if it's a court case. I object in the same way as you are asking your question.

Okay, if you really want it to be accurate, here you go. In the USA, Italian laws are most definitely, not allowed to dictate the US judicial system. Since the USA law is based on the notion of, innocent until proven guilty. In other words, it's the prosecutor that must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty through the use of evidence. Speculation is not evidence. Hearsay is not evidence. Repeating misinformation, is not evidence, especially when it has already been determined to be certainly false. I've already called my expert witness, which I argue to having a testimony that has more weight. This is due to him being an expert, not only as an acoustic engineer, but a forensic acoustic engineer who specializes in analyzing data such as this.

Sirhan is not here today on trial for the charge of murder. The defendant is on trial for the charge of conspiracy to commit murder. So present your evidence for the charge of conspiracy. Show this court that there are substantial evidence proving that there was a second shooter. Present the 11 projectiles found at the scene of the murder. News reports of there being "11 bullets," are not admissible in the United States of America Judicial Court System.

 

[Estro Felino]

I wasn't objecting your strawman as if it's a court case. I object in the same way as you are asking your question.

Okay, if you really want it to be accurate, here you go. In the USA, Italian laws are most definitely, not allowed to dictate the US judicial system. Since the USA law is based on the notion of, innocent until proven guilty. In other words, it's the prosecutor that must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty through the use of evidence. Speculation is not evidence. Hearsay is not evidence. Repeating misinformation, is not evidence, especially when it has already been determined to be certainly false. I've already called my expert witness, which I argue to having a testimony that has more weight. This is due to him being an expert, not only as an acoustic engineer, but a forensic acoustic engineer who specializes in analyzing data such as this.

Sirhan is not here today on trial for the charge of murder. The defendant is on trial for the charge of conspiracy to commit murder. So present your evidence for the charge of conspiracy. Show this court that there are substantial evidence proving that there was a second shooter. Present the 11 projectiles found at the scene of the murder. News reports of there being "11 bullets," are not admissible in the United States of America Judicial Court System.

We do have a code of penal procedure which is absolutely modern (1989). And it has fixed, stable articles of law which prevent any penal trial from being arbitrary.
In other words, the judge's hands are tied. He cannot but apply the law codified in that code.

I know that RFK's children want to reopen the investigations based on the evidence I have listed in this thread.
They are according to the Italian CPP the person injured by the crime.
They have the right to ask for further investigations.
That said, in both legislations (American and Italian) the parole can be granted only and when the culprit cooperates with justice.
1) Sirhan has never confessed
2) Sirhan has never cooperated
3) ergo He deserves no parole.

 

[night912]

Your honor, I call Paul Schrade as my first witness, to the stand.

Me: Mr. Schrade, you had testified that just moments before the first shot was fired, your mind was not fully attentive to what was actually happening. That you were thinking about RFK in your head thinking to yourself saying, and I quote, "this is what the campaign is all about..... We've got a president." Is this correct?

Schrade: yes

Me: You also testified that, immediately after that thought, you were shot in the head. Is this correct?

Schrade: yes

Me: You also testified that, being shot in the head resulted in you being in and out of consciousness. Is this correct?

Schrade: yes

Me: Immediately after the moment that you realized that you were shot, were you aware of what was happening around you?

Schrade: No.

Me: Were you aware of anyone else getting shot?

Schrade: No.

Me: No further questions your honor.

 

[night912]

We do have a code of penal procedure which is absolutely modern (1989). And it has fixed, stable articles of law which prevent any penal trial from being arbitrary.
In other words, the judge's hands are tied. He cannot but apply the law codified in that code.

I know that RFK's children want to reopen the investigations based on the evidence I have listed in this thread.
They are according to the Italian CPP the person injured by the crime.
They have the right to ask for further investigations.
That said, in both legislations (American and Italian) the parole can be granted only and when the culprit cooperates with justice.
1) Sirhan has never confessed
2) Sirhan has never cooperated
3) ergo He deserves no parole.

The defendant ask the prosecutor to address the court as to where the murder had taken. Please be specific as to name the city, state and country.

 

[Estro Felino]

Your honor, I call Karl Uecker as my second witness, to the stand

Video (at 33:29 34:41)

Karl Uecker was conscious and aware all the time, on the crime scene.