Compare the following documentary with the one we watched in class. What are some of the differences?
http://youtu.be/yGfUzeZvKt0
I could not locate online (for free) the more recent documentary, RFK Must Die, which was released in 2007. You are certainly welcome to find it on your own. But the film above includes many of the anomalies in the assassination that have occupied conspiracists for decades.
Our midterm is on Tuesday this week. On Thursday, we begin discussing the JFK assassination. Please read the first chapter of The JFK Assassination Debates.
This film is much more heavily based on actual interview footage of eye witnesses and other key people involved in the assassination. The contrasting logistics of the assassination and evidence pertaining to Sirhan's mental state of hypnoses definitely raise more questions than answers. The medical report of gun shot wounds should not be difficult to figure out, yet the state of confusion from many differing opinions blurs the truth. If the official story is false, there has been a good job done of creating so much confusion about discrepancies and making everything quite unclear. What is referred to as "The most perfect autopsy in history" is a paradox in itself and the fact they wouldn't let people double check things can be construed as proof of something being hidden. Although people may be opposed to an age of constant surveillance, at least when there are cameras everywhere including on personal phones, usually someone catches what happens on film, making it much more difficult to get away with things. I don't claim to have known a lot about the assassination, but the fact I have never even heard about the security guard firing theory is astounding. Even if it isn't true, it is a major piece of the puzzle that could help us further understand the incident. The "magic bullet" which is now used to describe a kitchen tool that slices and dices is crazy. The amount of bullets, bullet holes, and victims is a simple matter of trajectory and shouldn't be a disputable matter. The fact that there are so many discrepancies and questions shows there is something not right. Forensics were on record that they couldn't identify the gun from which the bullet came, but it was accepted by the defense, was this jut to gain a plea bargain? Unfortunately we live in a world of lies and your word against someone else's proves nothing, and people know that. Why would they not want to re-fire the gun to prove indisputably it was Sirhan's gun that fired the shots? How did they get away with all of the discrepancies? It is now an ongoing mystery that may never be solved because even in when the classified files are released, they will likely be missing key pieces of evidence due to "lack of storage space".There needs to be increased transparency and full disclosure, but also more diverse group of and closely chosen investigators in cases of great impact.
ReplyDeleteIf we compare the two videos to each other, one can notice that there are some similarities as well as some differences. In both, the issue arises that there are several witnesses who provide alternative stories to what actually occurred the night that RFK had been assassinated. The video link above provides a whole new outlook on this assassination. There are several different insights which ultimately lead to more questions that require answering. There are many individuals with authority that mocked the idea that there will be future conspiracies that will arise from this event. This particular documentary places heavy emphasis on the discrepancy regarding which gun was used to kill RKF.
ReplyDeleteA man who identified himself as a person, who sold ammunition to Sirhan, stated that there were also two other people who were with him at the time. This fact was never brought up in the previous video. Further missing evidence was identified which included ceiling panels that had bullet holes shot through them. One interesting point was that the security guard was never portrayed as having a gun that possibly fired shots at Kennedy.
The fact that "the prosecution itself introduced physical evidence of involvement of a second gun" should have been enough to look into this matter further. The physical evidence arose from the bullets that were labeled as belonging to a gun with a different serial number than Sirhan’s gun. This was later justified as being an error made by authorities. It was not very convincing that a mistake was made in labeling the bullets since there was "no proof of any tampering with the evidence". Not examining the gun of the security officer left many questioning whether or not there was indeed a "second gun" that was involved. Seeing as the three defense attorneys and the judge disregarded this notion of there being "two guns involved", this leads one to question whether they are just purposely disregarding this clear fact.
This documentary mentions that the "JFK must die" note that was found at Sirhan's house, did not match Sirhan's handwriting at all. This fact was never mentioned in the previous video. Another revelation in this case is that the medical examiner was said to have performed a perfect autopsy but since the facts that he brought up did not match what the authorities had believed, the examiner was said to be incompetent.
Ultimately, both videos portray different perspectives on the RFK assassination and they both place emphasis on different evidence on this assassination. The video link above goes into much further detail and interviews individuals who provide insight and key observations as to whether or not Sirhan and Sirhan alone assassinated RFK.
This documentary did have some differences from the one we watched in class. One that I mainly noticed is there was less of a modern documentary-type of style throughout, and more a focus on raw footage, interviews, and audio clips, although we did see those blended into the first film as well. Oswald’s Ghost had more background music (sometimes to set the mood), and at times had more of an entertainment feel to it, while The Plot to kill Robert Kennedy had more of a direct feel to it, not really any music, just the footage of whoever was being interviewed or the audio clip of someone speaking for the viewer to digest.
ReplyDeleteAlso, perhaps due to the time period each film was made in, the RFK film had access to interview many eyewitnesses as well as people who were directly involved with the court case of Sirhan Sirhan. In contrast, the film we watched in class did have a few of the investigators involved interviewed, but was more focused on experts making observations in the matter of the JFK assassination and recreation of events that had happened, or speculation based on information that is known. Again, this is probably related to the time period that each film was created in; being that the event itself happened so long ago. There was a bit of speculation made in the RFK film also, but it more relied on witness and case testimony presenting itself for the viewer to decide.
Through the interviews and media interviews that were presented, I felt the RFK film presented a more in-depth analysis of the event itself because by providing these details mainly through direct witnesses of the event, I felt like it was more myself deciding on what was being presented, rather than listening to speculation of experts analyzing the event, which doesn’t allow one to make up their mind as easily because they are being told how to interpret it.
I thought a lot of the evidence presented was pretty amazing and found myself thinking to if this type of investigation was conducted today, would all of these factors be able to be seemingly overlooked or written off like they were? Particularly in the ballistics details that were presented near the end of the film: with more modern technology, would we have been able to prove that the bullet found in RFK, which according to the coroner at the time was too damaged to get the ballistics from, be able to be analyzed today? The bigger question of why the photographed rifling marks off each bullet recovered do not match each other also gets raised, although it is attempted to be explained by the angle that the gun was fired at. This brings up the question of a second and even a third gun involved. There is also the issue of the number of bullets fired and other questions as well. It’s quite interesting that in the second Kennedy assassination the same issue of where the shooter was standing and where the bullet entered the body is called into question yet again. I found at the end of the film myself questioning why a new investigation hasn’t been opened into this matter, or if it’s simply something “in the past” that no one wants to drudge up again, except for of course, Siran Siran, who is still in prison at this time and seems to be trying to get a new court case going, claiming conspiracy. Wouldn’t that be the event, to have this case be reopened so many years after it ended? That is, if the powers that be who orchestrated this assassination, if they exist, would allow it.
In the film we watched in class i found that it was more of a reflection upon the decisions made throughout the investigation. Where as the second video was more about the various accounts from people present on that night. Also much of the footage was clearly from that night. Both films for the most part seem to agree upon the discrepancies within the investigation. Such as the bad treatment and misrepresentation of witness accounts and the fact that evidence that didn't seem to support the official story were thrown out or forgotten. An aspect that seems to be repeated quite often is the woman in the polka dot dress which really seems to suggest it was someone else or at least that he wasn't acting alone. Something i found quite interesting in the second video was the fact that the security guard who was in possession of a gun was never checked out or even considered to be a witness at all.
ReplyDeleteBasically the big differences between the films is that the second one leaves it more up to you to decide what actually happened by providing you with more footage of that day rather than just telling you what happened. The first film felt much more like they were just picking apart the investigation and reflecting upon what mistakes were made back when the investigation took place. Both films provided a lot more information about the JFK assassination than i was previously aware of.
The documentary we watched in class focuses much more on RFK leading up to his death. This video gets right into the evidence five minutes in. Some evidence that is first discussed is the about the young man, Scott Inyard who took photos on this day. He explains how the police took the roll of film and when he got the film back 10 frames were missing. This video looks a lot at the witnesses view points and different opinions from them, most of which are very similar to each other. When the tape of when Sirhan Sirhan was hypnotized is listened to a psychiatrist mentions that his reactions to this procedure are not normal and that it sounds like it was scripted. In the video we talked about in class it also mentions similar attributes to this. Along with the eyewitness statement talking about the women in the polka dot dress, this opinion is given by two separate people then the girl who saw her in the video RFK must die. If this many people witnessed her being present in the senators shooting then why wasn’t this woman investigated further then the police simply stating they were unable to find her which was declared in both videos.
ReplyDeleteThis video is highly based on the evidence reports going back in fourth between what was announced to have happened and what medical reports or eyewitnesses said happened, much of which was not the same. Although the other video did go into some discussion that these two “sides” were not equal evidence was not concluded back and forth between different statements. Much of the evidence that was found by the doctor who performed the autopsy found that where he was shot was very close up, 1 – 3 inches, yet eyewitnesses declare that it was at least two feet. Another issue is where a bullet hole should have been found, in his jacket and shirt and two ceiling tiles were missing from the trial and declared as lost. These key points of evidence are one among many declared in this film.
Overall this video really makes you consider all the evidence, much more analyzed in this film than the first, and wonder if the conclusion that was given to Sirhan Sirhan is truly considerate of all evidence. It is clear that the police and government did not declare or show all evidence because there would not be so many contradictions between evidence declared and what the witnesses declared. Although both videos are similar as to what they expose, which is opposing sides to the RFK assassination and the fact that many answers will never be exposed.
Both videos were both very informative. The video that we watched in a class was different because it seems to have less actual witnesses and more analysts. The video posted above provides a great deal of evidence which allows it to be very believable. A strong difference between the films is, the film we watched in class uses a form of rhetoric speech to try and persuade the viewers to think in a certain way. The video posted in class seemed to just criticize the investigation of the assassination. I enjoyed the video posted above because it allows the viewer to take all the evidence and calculate a standpoint on the assassination. The video we watched in class didn't go far enough to convince me that Oswald was innocent.
ReplyDeleteThe major difference that I noticed between the two films was that the one shown in class had a heavy focus on interviewing a specific set of individuals and allowing those individuals to provide their insight and opinion on the assassination of RFK, where as in this video posted here, there seemed to be a larger focus on video clips from either witnesses or individuals very close to the case. This video posted here allowed the viewer to take the evidence and clips and, despite its heavy focus on the conspiracy side, make an informed decision on what they believe truly happened. I found the video in class conveyed a lot of similar information, but the views of the people interviewed were much more "in your face" so to speak. I also think that the fact that the people being interviewed in the video from class were doing so quite some time after the assassination had occurred. This could be both a positive and negative. On one hand they have clearly been able to gather, research and take in an abundance of information about the assassination and make an informed opinion. On the other hand, it has also given them more time to be influenced by the conspiracy theories that continued to surround RFK's assassination.
ReplyDeleteBoth videos brought into question the inconsistency of the evidence provided. Both films touched on the girl in the polka dot dress, the gun(s) and number of bullets, the missing roof tiles etc., but this video seemed to be definitely more evidence orientated. The video showed more of a court case perspective by outlining the evidence and then allowing the viewer to draw their own conclusions.
I personally found that the video that we watched in class did a much better job at providing the bigger picture of the assassination. While they certainty put a strong focus on the evidence and its inconsistencies, they also provided a better reasoning as to why this event could have occurred and who benefitted from this assassination taking place. By relating the events that took place to the broader picture, it made me really question the motives of highly ranked government officials. The most important part about the case was not the specific evidence that was possibly tampered with or overlooked, but the fact that there must have been a reason and motivation to ensure that the evidence was able to match with what they wanted the public to believe happened.
I found that the video that we watched in class focused more on Robert Kennedy himself, what he stood for and what he was campaigning for. It also focused very heavily on Sirhan Sirhan being the killer and the evidence surrounding that, it seemed to bring about more questions than definitive answers.
ReplyDeleteWatching the blog video gave a different point of view regarding the actual murder. It explored other angles to whom could have killed RFK and seemed to pull away from the Sirhan Sirhan angle. It felt more exploratory and more scientific it seemed to try answering more of the "holes" in the official investigation.
The in class video also seemed to try and discredit eyewitness accounts whereas the blog video seemed to rely more on eyewitnesses being correct. The in class video seemed to have officials discrediting anything that went against Sirhan being the murderer and passing it off as conspiracy theories. The blog featured seemingly credible eyewitness accounts and people who were against the officials and there stories.
Both videos seem from opposite ends of the spectrum; the in class video goes more on the "official story" side and the blog video seems more against that side. Also, the in class video is more condemning of eyewitness accounts and the blog video seems to exemplify them.
Also, what kind of agency incinerates or destroys evidence in a case of that importance because they "didn't have the storage space"?!?! Especially so soon after the incident!
These two similar films make it very clear that there are many questions unanswered. Everyone involved in prosecuting Sirhan seems clueless to how to properly investigate a case. I found the first video focused on RFK more before his death and why the shots were even taken. This more recent video jumps right into the evidence on how so much of the official story doesn’t add up. It was very interesting how Scott Inyard who took photos of the event had roughly 10 frames missing when he got his images back a year later. It is obvious that there is a master plan to cover up a certain amount of evidence for whatever reason. This is made even clearer when the couple says they will testify that Sirhan was with two other people buying ammunition and are not given the chance. The detail this documentary gets into only stirs up further questions; however, cannot provide us with any more answers, which is frustrating at times.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary then brings up the questionable hypnosis techniques used and how Sirhan was responding to the questions. He was not responding in a fashion that would show he had done any of these acts previously with content. It seemed they were trying to force thoughts into his head in order for him to repeat it under hypnosis. Next the pages found in Sirhan’s notebook saying, “JFK must die” do not match Sirhan’s handwriting indicating that the notebook was forged, leaving us with even more questions.
In this film the indication that the two bullets from another gun were just simply an investigation error also does not make sense. It just looks like a very poorly executed cover up. An assassination of JFK with many questions being asked would attract the best investigators. I doubt they would simply just make an error and list two bullets from another gun. Also the medical examiner that performed a perfect autopsy brought up different facts that did not match their conclusion, so the examiner was labeled incompetent and the test was thrown away.
Both videos provide a vast amount of evidence on how poorly this case was handled and how many questions were left unanswered. The videos gave interesting perspectives from different angles and gave us many interesting interviews. The detail this more recent video goes into on if Sirhan acted alone was very intriguing and made the people handling the case look incompetent.
This documentary is mostly footage whereas the video watched in class featured witnesses and shots of the investigations with more detail and thorough research. This documentary is also very old and difficult to see clearly. There were instances when there was only a blank screen and we have to guess what's going on. They showed news broadcasts and interviews but the video in class is so much more "involved" in the assassination.
ReplyDeleteBoth the documentaries were basically highlighting the fact that there too many "theories" and confusing evidences.
The video watched in class showed how the police investigated the bullets in the wall and the distance between Sirhan and Kennedy, yet this video was only relying on witnesses who saw the "the lady in the polka-dot dress" and what they heard her say. The same with JFK's assassination; evidence was weak and they used video cameras which are not modern or "clear" enough to understand.
In conclusion, there is still the case of "Who shot Kennedy?"
I feel this film shows more questions that regard to the RFK assassination still need to be addressed. Compare the video we watched in the class, I think this one gives the audiences more imaginary space to detect the truth depends on their judgment. The questions like the number of bullets have been found and the number of bullets holes on the wall don’t mach, the doctor Noguchi said the fatal injury wound showed RFK had been shot from his back within 1 or 2 inches, but the official investigation announced that Sirhan was in front of RFK when he conducted the assassination, and the hand writing on the notebook which is found in Sirhan’s house don’t match with Sirhan’s handwriting, etc. There are also a lot of ambiguities such as the lady in the polka-dot dress appeared during the assassination, the missing celling panel in the pantry, and the film had been taken away from the guy who took pictures of the assassination. The film shows more details of the case than the documentary we watched in the class, and shows the testimony from the witnesses and securities guards directly to the audiences in the way of interviews and tape records from the court.
ReplyDeleteThe similarities of these two videos are both of them showed the attitude of the officials which were trying to hide the truth of the assassination. They simply ignore the discrepancies emerged on the case and doubt the significance of the discrepancy. I feel that the faster they wanted to close the case, the more obviously they were trying to cover the truth.
The documentary we watched in class focused mainly on the official investigation. It acknowledged the fact that there was evidence that was disregarded and destroyed or simply forgotten in favour of the official report. The documentary however, tried to discredit most of the eye-witness accounts to favour the official story that was released by the LAPD. This included discrediting the possibility of the lady in the polka dot dress.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary however focuses on the witnesses. It listens to what they have to say and doesn't go out of its way to discredit them. It highlights the possibilities of the conspiracies such as there being other accomplices, whether or not Sirhan was actually the assassin or whether or not somebody else pulled the trigger on RFK. It questions the official report and leaves behind the same question as the first which is was Sirhan Sirhan the one who murdered RFK and if so, did he act alone?
I think that the two documentaries were really similar. Like most documentaries on a controversial subject, it picked everything apart to make you wonder. I think that both films did leave us thinking about what could have really happened, but i do believe that they may have left some information out on purpose.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that both stories included the lady in the polka dot dress. But i did find the first video to be more interesting. I think thats just because it was newer and told as a documentary rather than the older, more vintage appeal of the second video.
Both videos did really make me think. I can't help but wonder if maybe the police just weren't as advanced back then as they are today. If that were to happen today, would we be so quick to blame someone? Well.. yes, probably. But maybe the police did miss something then just because they were so eager to find someone to blame! Maybe if it was today, there would be new information..
The film we watched in class talk about the out comes of the assassination. The film presented the evidence to the public proving it was a straightforward chase. The film almost gave you the feeling that they had the right man responsible for the crime. Showing that a chase that seems so clean can easily be proven to be a real mess. The other video presented the assassination to the public by looking at the eyewitness’s statements from that day. Eyewitnesses are not always the best source to get the store from do to stress levels rising during the situation. In the video it showed a lot of film from that day showing what had occurred. Both of the videos look at all the evidence and explain how that store that was originally presented to the public could not of happened. The chain of evidence did not seem to be a very big thing back then due to the way the investigation was conducted. If the investigator’s came up or found with item’s that did not support the outcome they where looking for it was just thrown out and forgotten about.
ReplyDeleteWhen we watched the video in class I felt like they were just telling us what happened on that day and they wanted public to believe with no doubt that Sihan Sihan was behind the assassination of RFK. Then they go and take a part everything they just proved was true and show it could or is false. The second video shares more information on the investigation and the interviews that took place and video footage to help you make a personal opinion on what could have really occurred that day. The way the second video was created is more effective if you want the public to have their own opinion on the assassination because they shared all the information in depth. The first video pretty much told you what happened and what they want you to believe about who really committed the crime.
This film takes into account eyewitness testimonies. In each case, the investigators ignored parts of eyewitness testimony that contradicted the official account of the Robert Kennedy assassination. In one testimony, police confiscated photographs that could have been used as evidence in the investigation. The film suggests that once the investigators targeted Sirhan Sirhan as the main suspect, they disregarded everything that proved otherwise. Overall, the film questions the overall investigation of the RFK assassination, giving the viewer the sense that there are certain things are ignored and other things that are kept from the public.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary we watched in class was a more modern documentary dealing with the different conspiracies and ideas that arose from this assassination. The documentary from this blog post did deal with the same aspects, but they dealt with those aspects in depth. Both of the documentaries gave information about the mysterious lady in the polka dot dress, different testimonies from different people, Sirhan only being three feet away from Robert Kennedy and so on.
ReplyDeleteThe modern documentary mostly looked at one witness when it came to talking about the lady in the polka dot dress. This woman seemed to be at home during the time of the shooting and came across the mysterious lady when she came by. The mysterious lady claimed to have “killed” Kennedy, and the woman who witnessed this was the main point to the mysterious lady in the polka dot dress. They showed interviews and told information about this witness. In the older documentary posted in the blog, the video showed other witnesses who knew about the lady in the polka dot dress, and went into depth with how they were searching for her.
The older documentary also went into depth with what they did with Sirhan Sirhan. The documentary on the blog post gave information on what Sirhan said during the hypnosis and even mentioned that through all that, he still did not remember anything. There was even a doctor in the film who analyzed the notebook in Sirhan’s home (The one saying that RFK must die). He concluded that the handwriting was different and Sirhan could have been framed. This was not mentioned in the newer documentary. In fact, from my perspective, the newer documentary did not mention this information, so it made Sirhan look rather guiltier than what he should be.
Again, with Sirhan being only three feet away from Kennedy during the shooting, the documentary watched in class did not offer much information about it. The documentary on the blog post went into depth with an explanation.
Because the documentaries were made during different times, the people interviewed in each were different. The people in the modern documentary were mostly police officers who were a part of analyzing the scenes, and they would give their thoughts in what happened. The older documentary contained more interviews with witnesses and government officials. Also, the modern documentary was analyzing what happened from the past, and older one was looking at as what just happened.
The assassination of RFK undeniably has unanswered questions. Both this video as well as the one we watched in class in the aspect that they implement footage from the era. Both also highlight the disregard of eyewitness testimony. The assassination of RFK that we watched at home focuses more intensely on forensic evidence where as the video we watched in class had a higher focus on who RFK was as a person. The first film was a lot less critical of individual pieces of evidence but by providing a combination of current narrative with that of past instances.
ReplyDeleteThe assassination of RFK provides such an immense array of discrepancies. The focus on ballistics is extremely interesting. The acknowledgement of the three bullets in the envelope which were claimed to not have been analyzed on a proper ballistic level combined with the lack of a court order to examine Caesar’s gun to determine whether or not his gun was fired. A ‘clerical error’ is not a good enough answer in a case, which has such serious allegations and has greatly affected the American psyche. The assassination of RFK is a much colder aspect. It is less of an entertainment piece and more of a hard evidence directive.
The LAPD really dropped the ball on a multitude of things. By failing to do proper ballistic testing and subsequently destroying the test gun it makes room for speculation that has likely furthered the conspiracy theory regarding the RFK assassination. While I do have personal speculation about what has occurred I don’t feel either film validates a true conspiracy. The lone gunman clearly isn’t the case however I feel mistakes within the investigation, clerical mistakes and a strong desire to close the case in order to show the LAPD isn’t as hostile as their public opinion was at the time could be a plausible explanation.
I wonder why mythbusters hasn’t done a show on this….:)
I felt like both videos were pretty similar when it came to the information shared with the viewer, but some areas were focused on a little more in each video. The video we watched in class seemed like it was focusing on the history of what happened including why certain people might want RFK dead and a bit more on the actual politics during this time. The video in class also focused on the police investigation at the crime scene as they spent much more time on the lady who saw the lady in the polkadot dress and on the extra bullet holes in the door frame. This video, similarly to Youtube video, questioned the lack of questions that police asked about these pieces of evidence and how little they seemed to care about them.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Youtube video had a much larger focus on interviews with experts and witnesses not long after the RFK assassination. These interviews included a photographer who's pictures at the event RFK was assassinated at were confiscated by the LAPD, and when returned there were some picture that were missing, leading some people to believe that these photos had some kind of evidence about the assassination they were trying to hide. Another interview included the coroner who examined RFK after his death and apparently had too many questioned that were unanswered by the LAPD, and was later removed from the case and fired from his job.
Both videos are about investigation, but at the same time, they take different approach. I found that both videos were very ambiguous. Both videos left me thinking more and more about what did actually happen? Possibly because important pieces of information were left out from the investigation? or discredited? So I am led to believe the official reports.
ReplyDeleteLee Oswald's video was a good attempt at putting together an investigation but there were a lot of coincidences happening in the video. In my opinion 1 or 2 coincidences is believable but when you have misquotes, wrong pictures, camera's not working, rejection of identity of Lee Oswald by Soviet representative, tells me that there is something else going on behind the scenes.
This documentary, however, recounts actual witness interviews, and is more based on "facts". The witness recounts are treated as is, and they are not discredited in any way. I preferred this documentary over the previous one, because in the end, it leaves me with all the evidence and lets me create a standpoint on the assassination.
The Assassination of RKF video is very focused on Kennedy himself, and less so on the evidence to suggest that Sirhan shot the senator. There are many discrepancies in the investigation, mostly based on whom actually shot Senator Kennedy. One doctor says that the fatal shot came from the back of his head behind the right ear. He also says that the gun was about an inch away from the entry wound as there was gunshot residue around the bullet hole. Others claim that the fatal shot was administered from the front by Sirhan about 3 feet away. Yet there are more problems with this evidence in that there were two other shots taken at the senator from behind and below. The entry wounds on the senators back the angles were around 60 degrees upward, suggesting that someone shot from the ground, potentially a police officer, or that the senator was falling forward when the shots occurred. This was not the case because Kennedy was falling backward after being shot in the back of the head. Basically all of the evidence in this case are eyewitness accounts; almost completely excluding the forensic evidence all together.
ReplyDelete