Who is Sirhan Sirhan?
Officially, he is the person solely convicted of the murder of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the injuries of five others in June 1968.
Unofficially (and truthfully), I have determined that he fired shots at several people but did not kill anyone. I document my case in my essay HERE.
Why did he act the way that he did?
If we asked him, we might get a variety of answers. Here are some of his statements over the years, as noted in Governor Gavin Newsom’s statement rejecting Sirhan’s bid for parole in 2022:
• At his trial, which began in February 1969, Mr. Sirhan testified that he shot Senator Kennedy but was drunk and could not remember his actions. Later during his trial, when the jury was not present, Mr. Sirhan exclaimed, “I killed Robert Kennedy willfully, premeditatively, with twenty years of malice aforethought.” He later said that he made this statement to get attention.
…
• At his 1987 parole hearing, Mr. Sirhan admitted that he shot Senator Kennedy but denied shooting the other victims. He said that he committed the crimes in retaliation for Senator Kennedy’s statements of support for the United States’ military aid to Israel. At the same time, Mr. Sirhan claimed that his memories were vague. He told the Board that he suspected he had blocked the shooting from his memory for his self-preservation.
…
• Later in 1989, at his parole hearing, Mr. Sirhan told the Board that he could not remember the details of the crimes.
…
• In 1997, Mr. Sirhan began reporting his belief that he did not commit the crimes and was innocent.
…
• In 2021, Mr. Sirhan told a Board psychologist that he was innocent of the crimes and “was in the wrong spot at the wrong time,” portraying himself as the victim.
In short, Sirhan has shifted from “I did it” to “I did it but I have an excuse” to “I did it but I do not remember it” to “I didn’t do it.” In short, it is hard to take him at his word.
What are facts about Sirhan that might help is to understand who he was at the time or the incident?
He emigrated to the United States but never became a citizen.
He lacked much of a formal education.
He bounced around from one job to another.
He ran into serious debt, largely due to gambling issues.
He practiced his gun shooting frequently.
(Note: these facts have been mentioned in a variety of sources and are not in serious dispute).
What do these facts suggest?
They suggest a person marginalized in society. A person who fears they do not have much of a future. A person who feels they have little to lose and thus is vulnerable to outside pressure. A “gun for hire.”
What do we know about the facts of the incident, per my aforementioned essay?
He fired a warning shot before wounding people with bullets, indicating intent to warn.
He was apprehended immediately, indicating a lack of plan to escape.
No one else fired any shots, indicating sole acting.
The alleged fatal bullet could not have come from his gun, indicating an event staging.
Many theories have been offered to explain Sirhan’s actions:
He was a decoy. But with no one else shooting, this theory makes no sense.
He was brainwashed or programmed like the character in the movie “Manchurian Candidate.” But why would the “brainwashers” trust such a person? (Recall that in the movie, the character changed his mind at the last second and fired at a different target). Also, the “Manchurian” theory has been offered so often in the mainstream press that it resembles a “controlled opposition” theory.
He was a terrorist. But terrorists typically don’t warn their victims of what is coming. They also tend to keep talking about their causes and they usually do not claim innocence.
The facts read as though the incident was planned out. The candidate appears, the shooter arrives on time (apparently at precisely 12:15 am), shots are fired, people panic, the candidate gets whisked off and the shooter gets apprehended on the scene. No further investigation needed.
There is also, again per my essay, reason to believe that this scene was rehearsed ahead of time. Not with the principals but with stand-ins posing to allow the producers to make sure no one got killed. I suggest Tommy Lasorda, who later gained fame as manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, as the stand in for RFK.
It should become apparent that Sirhan was simply an actor. Someone approached him about a “role” and made a deal with him. Someone who understood Sirhan was not going anywhere in life and craved a little attention. Someone with the leverage of the threat of deportation (he was, after all, involved in an illegal purchase of the gun in question), or the lure of releasing him from the embarrassment of his debt.
Someone not stupid enough to allow themselves to be identified.
As for Sirhan, he made a deal with the devil and now must live with it. He has made too many contradictory statements to be believed if he did suddenly speak the truth. California governors have no incentive to release a person thoroughly vilified by a myth most believe.
Like Sirhan, those who believe the official story have been played.
Officially, he is the person solely convicted of the murder of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the injuries of five others in June 1968.
Unofficially (and truthfully), I have determined that he fired shots at several people but did not kill anyone. I document my case in my essay HERE.
Why did he act the way that he did?
If we asked him, we might get a variety of answers. Here are some of his statements over the years, as noted in Governor Gavin Newsom’s statement rejecting Sirhan’s bid for parole in 2022:
• At his trial, which began in February 1969, Mr. Sirhan testified that he shot Senator Kennedy but was drunk and could not remember his actions. Later during his trial, when the jury was not present, Mr. Sirhan exclaimed, “I killed Robert Kennedy willfully, premeditatively, with twenty years of malice aforethought.” He later said that he made this statement to get attention.
…
• At his 1987 parole hearing, Mr. Sirhan admitted that he shot Senator Kennedy but denied shooting the other victims. He said that he committed the crimes in retaliation for Senator Kennedy’s statements of support for the United States’ military aid to Israel. At the same time, Mr. Sirhan claimed that his memories were vague. He told the Board that he suspected he had blocked the shooting from his memory for his self-preservation.
…
• Later in 1989, at his parole hearing, Mr. Sirhan told the Board that he could not remember the details of the crimes.
…
• In 1997, Mr. Sirhan began reporting his belief that he did not commit the crimes and was innocent.
…
• In 2021, Mr. Sirhan told a Board psychologist that he was innocent of the crimes and “was in the wrong spot at the wrong time,” portraying himself as the victim.
In short, Sirhan has shifted from “I did it” to “I did it but I have an excuse” to “I did it but I do not remember it” to “I didn’t do it.” In short, it is hard to take him at his word.
What are facts about Sirhan that might help is to understand who he was at the time or the incident?
He emigrated to the United States but never became a citizen.
He lacked much of a formal education.
He bounced around from one job to another.
He ran into serious debt, largely due to gambling issues.
He practiced his gun shooting frequently.
(Note: these facts have been mentioned in a variety of sources and are not in serious dispute).
What do these facts suggest?
They suggest a person marginalized in society. A person who fears they do not have much of a future. A person who feels they have little to lose and thus is vulnerable to outside pressure. A “gun for hire.”
What do we know about the facts of the incident, per my aforementioned essay?
He fired a warning shot before wounding people with bullets, indicating intent to warn.
He was apprehended immediately, indicating a lack of plan to escape.
No one else fired any shots, indicating sole acting.
The alleged fatal bullet could not have come from his gun, indicating an event staging.
Many theories have been offered to explain Sirhan’s actions:
He was a decoy. But with no one else shooting, this theory makes no sense.
He was brainwashed or programmed like the character in the movie “Manchurian Candidate.” But why would the “brainwashers” trust such a person? (Recall that in the movie, the character changed his mind at the last second and fired at a different target). Also, the “Manchurian” theory has been offered so often in the mainstream press that it resembles a “controlled opposition” theory.
He was a terrorist. But terrorists typically don’t warn their victims of what is coming. They also tend to keep talking about their causes and they usually do not claim innocence.
The facts read as though the incident was planned out. The candidate appears, the shooter arrives on time (apparently at precisely 12:15 am), shots are fired, people panic, the candidate gets whisked off and the shooter gets apprehended on the scene. No further investigation needed.
There is also, again per my essay, reason to believe that this scene was rehearsed ahead of time. Not with the principals but with stand-ins posing to allow the producers to make sure no one got killed. I suggest Tommy Lasorda, who later gained fame as manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, as the stand in for RFK.
It should become apparent that Sirhan was simply an actor. Someone approached him about a “role” and made a deal with him. Someone who understood Sirhan was not going anywhere in life and craved a little attention. Someone with the leverage of the threat of deportation (he was, after all, involved in an illegal purchase of the gun in question), or the lure of releasing him from the embarrassment of his debt.
Someone not stupid enough to allow themselves to be identified.
As for Sirhan, he made a deal with the devil and now must live with it. He has made too many contradictory statements to be believed if he did suddenly speak the truth. California governors have no incentive to release a person thoroughly vilified by a myth most believe.
Like Sirhan, those who believe the official story have been played.
RSS Feed