Customer Reviews

The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy: An Investigation of Motive, Means, and Opportunity

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

This book begins as a fascinating saga of a rational man dedicated to determining the truth of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination. It develops into a real-life detective thriller, posing many provocative questions that challenge the official theory that Sirhan Sirhan acted alone.

Then, inexiplicably and incredibly, the author finishes his account with an assertion that Sirhan DID act alone, based only on his 3rd conversation with Sirhan, who evidently is no role-model for sound-mindedness. Mr. Moldea appears to just "give up" at this point, and offers only vague "explanations" as to why he resigns himself to Sirhan's complete responsibility for the assassination. What haunts the reader here is that the author's formerly penetrating, precise methodolgy DISAPPEARS, and we are abandoned to an implausible dismissal of the woman in the polka-dot dress and her companion (Mr. Moldea now asserts that he doesn't believe any of that now, though he certainly made a convincing case earlier in this book). Mr. Moldea then offers an embarrassingly weak theory of how Sirhan could have gotten to within 2 inches of RFK, after virtually proving -earlier in this book- that this was impossible!. Finally, the author too easily absolves Thane Eugene Cesar complicity in RFK's murder, largely on the basis of a polygraph (so-called "lie detector") examination, administered many years after the event. Polygraph "tests" are hardly reliable, as their inadmissability in court demonstrates. Mr. Moldea's entire book COLLAPSES as he contradicts himself on the "more than 8 bullets" evidence and other previously-presented indications of others' involvement in the assassination. I read this volume late into the night, only to be profoundly disappointed by the author's sudden change of character. His almost bizarre, bland ending must be the reason that this hardcover book is now available on bargain shelves for around $4.00. Readers desiring a sincere effort to investigate RFK's tragic death will need to consult other authors than Dan E. Moldea!

Moldea writes 304 pages explaining the problems such as coroners finding that RFK was shot from the right rear, more shots fired than Sirhan's gun held, etc., etc.

Then in the last chapter he concludes that Sirhan acted alone and fired the shots that killed RFK. He doesn't give any new evidence to support this claim. Oh, he charges the LAPD with botching every aspect of the case but says they got it right for the wrong reasons.

Don't waste your time on this book. If you support the original findings you won't like the charges of incompetence. If you are looking for a book to support a second gunman theory this isn't it.

My first adventure in investigative journalism, I was immediately captivated by the beginning: cast of characters, general overviews, and the excitement that, based on the overview of how the book was to go, it was worth reading. The material was well written in that Mr. Moldea went into fine and captivating detail asto what the investigators were thinking, what EVERYONE was thinking. I was a little suspicious of the passage where he describes visiting with Sirhan Sirhan, and given the result of the encounter, maybe made the author a little biased asto how his investigation would lead to. The ending left me in a completely different place, where I believe the author's evidence lead me to. His conclusions were not anything I had agreed with. I feel he made the evidence ultimately fit the official version of the tragic downfall of RFK that fateful June evening in 1968.

This book begins as a fascinating look at the serious inconsistensies in the investigation of a horrific crime. Then, it's as if the writer goes blind in the light of potential discovery.. A very confusing conclusion considering the early questions and concerns brought to light.

The writer certainly has a right to his own opinion. However, if he had nothing new to contribute, why not just publish a short editorial stating that he believes that the investigations and conclusions of the past were spot-on and save the reader both time and money!!

Basically he painstakingly makes you go through a tremendous amount of information just to discover that Sirhan-Sirhan is guilty. The gunpowder burns that the coroner says could only have happened if someone shot right up against the Senator is explained very creatively. It's like reading a tiny Warren Commision and having to buy into the single bullet theory again. Really a waste of time and money.

i picked up The Killing of Robert Kennedy not knowing whether the book was a single gunman or conspiracy book. Looking back now and seeing that little Gerald Posner's endorsement of the book pretty much cemented what i should have known.....single gunman.

but i gave this book a chance, and it's a solid well researched book. Dan Moldea was hired by Philip Melanson to help research the RFK Assassination. Moldea, who at first believed in the second gunman theory, through his research, comes to the simple conclusion that Sirhan Sirhan did in fact, committ the murder of Senator Kennedy.

The book recants the timeline's of Sirhan, Paul Schrade, and Eugene Cesar, who was working security for the hotel on the night of the assassination. Cesar was the closest person to Robert Kennedy at the time of the shooting.

Interviewing witnesses such as Cesar, Thomas Noguchi-Chief Medical Examiner, Assistant DAs, LAPD officers, and Sirhan himself, Moldea learns about evidence destoryed such as the door frame possibly containing 2 bullet holes, the ceiling tiles above Kennedy with a bullet hole, Sirhan's Iver Johnson .22 caliber pistol, and 2400 of the 2500 photos taken at the crime scene 3 months after the assassination and prior to the trial of Sirhan.

Moldea's interviews with key figures from that night help him conclude that:

1- RFK's head shot (behind his right ear) was at contact to near contact range (point blank)
2- Paul Schrade was shot first (RFK asked "is everyone alright? Is Paul alright?")
3- 8 shots were in Sirhan's gun, all shots accounted (3 in Kennedy, 5 in victims)
4- some witnesses saw a 2nd gun (belonging to Cesar, but he never fired a shot even though LAPD never took custdy of the gun)
5- Sirhan wasn't drinking nor was he under the influence of anything
6- Sirhan made up the "i don't remember anything"
7- Sirhan stalked Kennedy after he arrived at the Ambassador hotel (Sirhan only remembers going to the hotel for coffee)
8- there were no bullets or bullet holes in the door frame, hence the destruction of the door frame 1 year after murder
9- Serrano's statment of polka dot "we shot Kennedy" was correct, but not in context (anti-Kennedy in crowd was happy he was shot, but not part of conspiracy)

to explain that Sirhan killed Kennedy, Moldea cites his notes taken from interviews with Sirhan, where he concluded that Sirhan did kill RFK and he did it because he wanted to be a somebody, and in his mind, Sirhan erased the actual moments of the murder.

Moldea did write about an interview that Sirhan did where when asked why he didn't shoot RFK between the eyes, Sirhan responded "because he turned around". (oddly enough, there is no footnote to back this statement up...i'm just sayin'.....)

All of these circumstanial statments lead Moldea to turn on Melanson and conclude that Sirhan and only Sirhan did it.

However, the truth isn't that easy. Several key facts still exist, such as:

1- Sirhan's gun was never at point-blank range, which still doens't explain the "point-blank" powder burns
2- RFK never gave Sirhan his back, which still doesn't explain RFK's point blank behind his right ear head shot
3- LAPD destoryed evidence prior to Sirhan's trial and 1 year after the murder

overall, Modela's conclusion still is based too much on circumstancial evidence and doesn't hold water in court.

i would take Modlea's research and come up to your own common sense conclusion. Point-blank range head shot to the back of RFK, yet Sirhan was never point blank range and RFK never gave his back to Sirhan.

those are the facts.

The author of this very readable book has specialized in reporting on organized crime since 1974. He re-investigated the assassination in 1987, and began to accumulate evidence from the police investigators. Robert Francis Kennedy earned a reputation as an enemy of mobsters and labor racketeers while chief counsel of the Senate Rackets Committee (p.17). No one has ever prosecuted organized crime more than RFK did while Attorney General.

June 4, 1968 was primary day in California. At first RFK was trailing, then he and his friends went to the Ambassador Hotel to await results. When the results showed RFK ahead, he went to the Embassy Room to make his victory speech. They then retraced the same route to return to the hotel suite. Sirhan was able to get into the kitchen although he didn't belong there. When RFK walked there, Sirhan opened fire. None of those shot admitted to seeing the gunman (p.43)!

Pages 85-89 discuss the 8 shots, and the other five victims. RFK was shot from a gun at his right rear side angled upwards, not from his front at 1 to 3 feet away. The fatal wound behind his right ear came from a one inch distance. There are discrepancies between the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the coroner's analysis from the autopsy (p.91). This is critical evidence (pp.95-98). The history of Sirhan is on pages 101-109. Two weeks after the shooting Sirhan was represented by a lawyer who formerly represented mobsters (p.116). The Defense and the Prosecution agreed to a guilty plea and a life sentence (p.120). The judge wouldn't allow this. Sirhan was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death (p.123).

The next month the 'Los Angeles Free Press' printed an article that cast doubt on the official theory (p.13). Extra bullet holes suggested a second gunman. There was a discrepancy between eyewitness testimony and the muzzle distance. A criminalist and firearms expert disputed the claim of a lone gunman (pp.138-9). The Coroner said there was no eyewitness to testify Sirhan fired at point-blank range (p.159). The American Academy of Forensic Sciences recommended a re-examination of the physical evidence (p.170). A court-authorized study concluded the original bullets were matches, but could not be matched to Sirhan's gun (p.175)! Note 123 tells about the traces of wood found on spent bullets in Sirhan's car (p.176). Chapter 19 says the case was badly mishandled by the LAPD in regard to physical evidence (p.192). There was a report of removing two bullets from a strip of molding (p.263). A former FBI special agent said he saw two bullet holes in the center divider (p.269).

A polygraph test was administered to the guard; he passed and could not have been involved (p.290). DEM interviewed Sirhan" he doesn't remember the shooting, only what happened after (p.299).

What really happened? "Complicated investigations sometimes have very simple solutions" (p.305). DEM thinks the LAPD and FBI erred in not thoroughly investigating organized crime as a possibility; they had the strongest motive, means, and opportunity (p.307). Chapter 30 provides his answer: Sirhan alone did it. DEM acknowledges the LAPD's error of omissions, and tries to explain the discrepancies between the eyewitnesses and the physical evidence. Sirhan's story of drinking and of amnesia are just a way to escape responsibility.

Page 313 claims there were no bullet holes in the door frames; those who say different were mistaken. But earlier DEM wrote of bullets with traces of wood on them (p.176); could the many police officers there have all been mistaken?

The author has done his homework but then asks the reader to accept what he believes really happened. The book contains a lot of evidence. It also mentions missing physical evidence, tape recordings and reports. But the reader is asked to join the author in assuming that Robert Kennedy was somehow pushed forward, putting him into the point-blank range required to match the powder burn evidence to his jacket and head. He decides to dismiss photographs and at least one credible statement of two additional bullets being found in the pantry center divider. The former is an imagined scenario, the latter is assigned to a mistake, a misinterpretation. I would have given this book zero stars if I could.

The book to get is The Assassination of Robert Kennedy by Philip Melanson. The conclusions drawn in that book are based on the evidence, and do not include wishful thinking.

Moldea's study is a valuable contribution to the dialogue surrounding the RFK murder. Prodigiously researched and devoid of ludicrous speculation, the book possesses an extra layer of credibility, written as it was by someone who revisited the subject after initially subscribing to a conspiracy scenario. He supports his conclusions with extensive interviews of relevant subjects and a clear-eyed examination of the record. He's genuinely fascinated by the murder and it shows in his balanced, careful approach.

My complaints are relatively minor. The prose, while generally spare and reportorial, is stilted and clumsy in places. The unfortunate selection of the footnoting system disrupts the narrative flow, with many pages consumed almost entirely by the footnotes themselves. There are too many photographs of secondary figures in the event (police officers, officials, researchers) which don't add anything of importance to the reader's experience - additional photos of the crime scene and the immediate aftermath of the assassination would have been more compelling. I think in the end he devotes perhaps too much energy to convincing us of what we already know - the LAPD's sloppy handling of and destruction of evidence.

Definitely worth reading for anyone who can accept the possibility that unanswered questions and lingering discrepancies don't always have to be interpreted in a paranoid and sinister fashion.

Although I found this book a fascinating account of the assassination of Robert Kennedy, I did feel that the author was so bound and determined to make all answers fit the questions regarding the Senator's death regardless of the presentation. In reading this account, one gets the feeling that the author is so firmly bound to his view that he has narrowed his vision to only one path.