Teeter is playing some Bach on the piano

"I think it's very interesting the way the history of his life is not adequately understood. It seems to me that - I recall reading someone who said that Bach's life was just his music. But Bach's life was a tremendous struggle against authority all of his life. And this it seems to me is not given wide circulation. The reason for that is because it's embarrassing to the existing class system that this is this kind of life he had. Even at the beginning for his first job in Arnstadt he was in a struggle with his employers over performance of duties which were not specified in his contract. Or in Weimar, he was thrown to jail for having had the nerve to ask for an increase in salary and for permission to go into another city to work."

"Bach was terribly abused. He wrote the "Musical Offering" (Das Musikalische Opfer) and never received either payment or even an acknowledgement from Frederick The Great. In fact, when I went to Potsdam, I was told by the museum's tour guide at the big palace on the hill (Schloss Sanssouci), that Bach was never allowed to visit that palace because he was just a composer writing in the German style. So Frederick came down the hill to the smaller palace, which was destroyed during the war. He wasn't good enough. And as I just said, he was never paid or even thanked for his work. And at the end, he died under very difficult circumstances. What seems to have happened is that, as his replacement was picked while he was still alive, he had to endure humiliation, and there were fights up till the end. And then when he died, his inventory of musical instruments did not even include a harpsichord, which indicates that he wasn't really well-off. Much of his music was sold by Carl-Philip Emanuel, so that Anna Magdalena could survive. This includes a bronze plate of "Die Kunst der Fuge" - gone forever. Even though it was in Bach's own hand, sold for the value of the copper itself, not for the music, but just for the value of the copper itself. I've read that when Bach died, his family was split up, his children were sent to other people in Bach's extended family. And Anna-Magdalena ultimately was so poor that she was left as a public charity case. So, this is a tremendous injustice and yet it gets suppressed, and nobody knows about it today because for this to be acknowledged, that certainly the greatest musician of all time and in my opinion the greatest mind of all time, for this to happen to him is a tremendous indictment of the way society is organised. I think that the way we look at history is very important because it tells us how we are going to look at the present - which is why I'm Sirhan's lawyer."

"In this particular case, my goal would be a new trial for Sirhan. On the basis of the fact that his constitutional rights were grievously violated during the course of his trial. The prosecution and the police suppressed and destroyed evidence to an extent that is really most remarkable. There is strong indication that false evidence was actually presented against Sirhan Sirhan in - at his trial. And furthermore, his attorneys were severely ineffective. However, it may be that that ineffectiveness was promoted or instigated by the prosecution. There are a number of voices to approach that. But overall, I'm convinced that his trial was grossly inconsistent with basic requirements of fairness. And the evidence really points to his innocence. I can say with reasonable confidence that Sirhan is not the person who shot RFK. But the official story is that he is. You see the difference between these official stories and reality. But the official story is the one that gets believed and has currency. It's the same with the stories about Mozart and Bach: there is a official image; and you really have to probe quite carefully to find out that the official image has been constructed to cover up a reality that's very embarrassing to the existing power structure. That's the same thing with the Sirhan Sirhan matter."

"The evidence overwhelmingly shows multiple assailants as having been responsible for the assassination of RFK - which means a conspiracy. But the official story is that one man acted alone. The evidence is totally inconsistent with the theory that Sirhan Sirhan fired a gun from which a bullet came that struck RFK. But the official story is that's all what happened. Really, those are the two main points: the evidence shows a conspiracy and it shows that Sirhan Sirhan was not the person who shot RFK. But you see, these are very disturbing conclusions, because once these conclusions are accepted, then the question is: well, what was the real motive of these conspirators, who were they and how were they able to accomplish a situation in which a person who did not commit the shooting would be convicted of it? And the District Attorney's office and the LAPD with combined forces do really cover up what happened - who were these people?"

What evidence is there for a conspiracy?

"Conspiracy is an unlawful agreement between two or more people to accomplish an unlawful objective. That's one definition. Proof of conspiracy consists, first of all, of proof that the number of bullets fired in the pantry that day exceeded the number of bullets that could have been fired by Sirhan Sirhan's gun. There is overwhelming proof of more than eight shots having been fired in the pantry. A number of bullet holes were observed in various portions of the pantry. There is a famous photograph of a bullet hole in a doorjamb, also ceiling panels appear to have holes. Officers who first arrived on the scene put circles around these."

"Bill Klaber interviewed Bill Bailey, the first FBI agent to arrive on the scene and who emphatically insisted that he saw a bullet in a doorjamb, and who said that anybody who denies it either did not see the bullet or has another agenda. Well, the LAPD quickly removed ceiling panels and doorjambs. Did they preserve this evidence? Not really. It was destroyed in the mid-Seventies under the rational that there wasn't enough room in the LAPD's lockers to store the material! Which is most extraordinary, because if any evidence deserves to be preserved it would be that from a case with this historical importance. But it was not even introduced at trial because Sirhan's lawyers conceded that Sirhan was the person who shot RFK, which is just amazing."

"(You asked...) how they could have done it? Well, there is some indication that they were misled. The best evidence that Sirhan Sirhan was not the shooter is the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Thomas Noguchi. That report clearly and categorically states that the shot which entered RFK's neck was fired from a distance no more than two inches from the rear and toward the left which means behind RFK's right ear. By every single account, Sirhan Sirhan's gun was separated from RFK's body by several feet, not one or two inches, several feet. Sirhan Sirhan was standing off in the front toward the right, but several feet away. Not one witness, either those at the trial or those interviewed or those came forward subsequently, has been able or willing to state that Sirhan Sirhan was standing sufficiently close to RFK to have afflicted the fatal wounds. By itself, this eliminates Sirhan Sirhan as a suspect in the actual shooting of RFK. It may not eliminate him as a suspect in the shooting of some of the other people who were shot there. But as to RFK, the bullet that hit RFK did not come from Sirhan Sirhan's gun, and the autopsy report proves that. The trial transcript shows that the autopsy report had not been made available to Sirhan's trial attorneys until very shortly before or actually during the trial. This is an extraordinary delay on the prosecution's part in turning over a potentially exonerating piece of material evidence."

The judge didn't realise this?

"It's not entirely clear whether Sirhan Sirhan's lawyers fully understood the meaning of it. No court dealt with the consequence of this (expert) delay regarding fairness towards Sirhan or doubted the competence of his lawyers. This is what I'm trying to get at: the prosecution had, probably enough, created a situation in which Sirhan's lawyers were purposefully prevented from discussing whether Sirhan was RFK's murderer in the first place. The defence was based purely on debating Sirhan's mental state, suggesting he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing."

"In addition, two bullets were found in RFK's body: one inside the head, really just bullet fragments. An identifiable bullet was recovered from RFK's neck and is described in the autopsy report:"

"A deformed bullet later identified as .22 calibre is recovered at the terminus of the woundpath just described at 8:40 a.m. on June 6, 1968. There is a unilateral transverse deformation. The contour of which is indicated on the accompanying diagram. The initials "TN" and the number 41 are placed on the base of the bullet for future identification."

"Now, this is a photo of the label on the envelope in which this bullet was placed. This exhibit is called PEOPLES 47, it was introduced to the trial as PEOPLES 47. You can see here a diagram, and you notice that the diagram shows a protrusion at the top of the bullet going off to one side, which corresponds with Dr. Noguchi's reference, "There is a unilateral transverse deformation." He also indicates that he put his initials "TN" on the base of the bullet as well as the number "41". For many years, this evidence was really unavailable. It was viewed by a few people, but the general public couldn't see it. After a huge campaign, the LAPD was forced under public pressure to release what it purported to be it's files to the State Archives in Sacramento. As was pointed out in Klaber's documentary, the research was really astonishing in showing how much was really missing. We recently had a chance to look at PEOPLES 47. We photographed PEOPLES 47. The diagram is there, and there is a reference to 5 grooves in the bullet. But when you look at the bullet inside the envelope, what you see is a bullet that does not have, as Dr. Noguchi called it, "a unilateral transverse deformation on the top". You see an essentially undeformed bullet. And when this bullet was examined by a firearms expert who was there at our request, it was noted to have 6 grooves and not 5."

The bullet was changed?

"It does not seem that the bullet which Dr. Noguchi withdrew from Kennedy's neck was the bullet that was shown to the jury. But the bullet that was shown to the jury was the bullet that the police expert DeWayne Wolfer said matched bullets test-fired from what was called Sirhan's gun. You realise, of course, the implication: what's being said here is that the evidence suggests that the neck bullet was removed and another bullet was put in its place. So the police expert could testify that there was a match between the so-called - that is, substituted - neckbullet and a test-fired bullet from Sirhan's gun. Which means - and this is the main point - that the prosecution's evidence against Sirhan Sirhan was a manufactured case, a made-up case, a phoney case for which Sirhan Sirhan was framed."

Who was responsible for this fraud?

"The bullets were in the custody of the police dept. It's much more difficult to identify who did this than to determine that it was done. But for Sirhan Sirhan's legal purposes the impact is clear. If we're right - and it seems that we are because the bullet inside that envelope does not in any way resemble this diagram or Dr. Noguchi's description of the bullet in his autopsy report - if we're right that the bullet was switched than the case against Sirhan was based upon manufactured evidence and the real bullet was destroyed. We didn't find any bullet in Sacramento which has this kind of deformation which resembles either the diagram or the autopsy description of the neck bullet. So where is the bullet? Was it discarded, was it destroyed? Destruction of evidence especially this kind of critical evidence is a complete violation of basic fairness and due-process. We will use this as the basis for our attempt to convince the courts first of the State of California, and if necessary the Federal Courts, to grant Sirhan Sirhan a new trial under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which contains the requirement of equal protection of the laws and to due process which means basic fairness in the conduct of relations between citizens and the government."

"My first contact with this case was seeing it on TV when it happened. I saw it, I assumed, "they have somebody, he was seen at the time, a gun was taken from his hands, it's an open-and-shut case, he did it", and I went back to studying for my exams. If somebody had told me in 1968 that I would one day be involved as a lawyer in what I had seen on TV, I would have thought they were mad. You see, I had no idea at the time that I was going to be a lawyer. When I had later read more and more about the JFK and Martin Luther King assassinations, and this case, I became more and more concerned about the existence of evidence pointing toward multiple gunmen, a conspiracy, a police cover-up and the rest. And recently when I was contacted and asked if I would agree to represent Mr. Sirhan, I said "Yes".

"I have handled criminal cases for a number of years and also cases involving the government. I have done a number of lawsuits against federal intelligence agencies, e.g. the FBI, the CIA, etc. But this is a very complex case. I'm not the only lawyer working on this case, I have another who works with me."

Why is this case so important for the American public?

"It's all a question of whether the government is telling us the truth or not. It's just as much a question of whether the political process is being manipulated by powerful agencies within the government, who intend to rob the American people of their right to choose a president. There is strong evidence that JFK intended to withdraw troops from Vietnam if he was re-elected to office in 1964. That would certainly have affected the Pentagon and the CIA's pet project, which would have poured millions into the coffers of the military industry complex. The evidence is not only strong but definite, that RFK intended to withdraw troops from Vietnam if he won the 1968 presidential election. It was certain that he would win the nomination of presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. The polls showed clearly that RFK was way ahead of his opponent, Richard Nixon. If he had not been murdered, we would have had President Robert F. Kennedy and the Vietnam war would have immediately ended by peaceful means.... and the history of the USA would have been quite different. JFK and his brother were much removed from the politics of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, who dedicated themselves to a policy of confrontation with the Soviet Union, the Arms Race, the profits for the arms industry, etc. It is not unthinkable that powerful forces in the USA felt threatened by the thought of a President Robert F. Kennedy. That explains who could have had a motive to kill him, in order to prevent his election. If RFK was really the victim of a conspiracy, organised by the intelligence agencies of the US government or by the power of the military industry complex, then the democratic process was manipulated by dark forces within the government; what do we have then? Do we have a democratic society, or something different? Everyone knows that military coups are nothing out of the ordinary in Latin-American countries. They shouldn't happen in the USA. If it could happen here, we have a right to know. We would have to accept that the government tries everything in it's power to prevent us from knowing. There's a disturbing story linked to that. Scott Enyart, then a teenager, was in the Ambassador Hotel with fake press identification and a camera. He was in the pantry during the RFK assassination, which he photographed. He testified that he had seen several armed men who had fired during the assassination and that he had photographed them. Shortly after the assassination he was taken in by the LAPD. His film was confiscated. He was released, but without the photographs taken in the pantry. Why those? Would one not expect the LAPD to proudly show this proof at the trial, showing Sirhan Sirhan firing a gun? One has to expect, though, that the LAPD would withhold evidence from us, if the evidence supported a theory that was different from their own..."

"Scott Enyard never got his film back. When the LAPD were finally forced to release their files to the public, not only was the majority of the lesser evidence missing, but also Scott Enyard's film, among other things. That was never publicised. LAPD ordered the stuff to be burned. For the LAPD to be involved in the destruction of evidence in a case of this magnitude is absolutely scandalous! Their usual excuse, that the photographs were duplicates - this behaviour is inexcusable. The burning of these photographs is the same as the destruction of material by those involved in Watergate or the Iran-Contra affair, to prevent Congress from getting hold of it. These photographs could have shown a series of events far removed from what the LAPD would like the general public to believe happened."

And Dr. Bryan?

"A question: is it possible to program a murderer as is shown in the film "The Manchurian Candidate"? The official answer is "No, you can't hypnotically program someone to do something which the moral beliefs of the concerned person would prevent." But some experts have contradicted this. If the hypnotised person can be made to imagine certain events, which would result in an action which, under normal circumstances, the moral beliefs of the person would prevent, then this person can be convinced to carry out an otherwise unthinkable action. The person need only strongly believe that the circumstances are justified. If someone, for example, is led to believe, through hypnosis, that a person is sitting in front of them with a gun and is going to shoot them, then it is theoretically possible to convince them to shoot the other person... The evidence supporting this theory is impressive. Phil Melanson wrote in his book ("The RFK Assassination")... It appears that the CIA carried out experiments in the Fifties, and also in the Sixties, to test the possibility of hypnotically programming murders. And that it had succeeded during the course of it's experiments in determining that people could be hypnotically induced to perform reprehensible acts without having any memory that they had committed these acts. If that's the case then it would have been possible for someone to program someone like Sirhan Sirhan or anybody else who is a suitable subject to walk into a pantry, pull out a gun and begin pulling the trigger. From the very beginning there had been powerful suggestions, advanced from a number of quarters, that Sirhan may had been in some sort of trance-like state. When driving to the police station, in Sirhan Sirhan's company, Sirhan Sirhan was observed by Jesse Unruh, a powerful Californian politician, who said that Sirhan Sirhan appeared to be in some sort of a trance. Once in police custody, he was placed under hypnosis later on by defense psychiatrist Dr. Diamond. And he behaved in a way to cause Dr. Diamond to conclude, that Sirhan Sirhan had been hypnotised."

Teeter brings out paper.

"A page from Sirhan Sirhan's diary, in which he or someone else has covered an entire page with "R-F-K MUST DIE!" Some people have taken this to be automatic writing, which shows that he was in a hypnotic trance. It would be best if you asked him yourself..."

"Sirhan Sirhan testified that he had no memory of the shooting. The last thing he remembered was sitting at the bar and being asked by a pretty girl: "Pour me a cup of coffee with plenty of milk and sugar!" And than he saw this shiny coffee urn. The next thing he remembered was being hit by someone and forced against the steam table in the pantry. Therefore, he maintains that he has absolutely no memory of any occurrence directly connected to the shooting. Some people have put forward the theory that this is due to his hypnotised state; this caused whole sections of his memory to be deleted and other memories to be put in, in which nothing occurred, more or less. Proof that Sirhan Sirhan was not self-hypnotised comes from the actual process of forgetting . The experts I have asked all state that in self-hypnosis, one always remembers at least the actual act of hypnotising oneself. Only when one is hypnotised by another person to carry out a specific action does the phenomena of memory gaps occur.

Everyone who I have asked has said that a suitable person can be programmed to carry out a criminal act and afterwards have no memory of the act, nor memory of the programmer nor the actual programming. That is alarming. We would prefer to believe that creating robotic murderers through hypnotic techniques is impossible. But this is exactly what appears to have happened in Sirhan Sirhan's case. The true culprits are those who hold this knowledge and who have used it. There is no question that the CIA possessed this information and were in a position to use it. At the time they were mixed up in the Vietnam War, which they didn't want to see ended. If you are searching for the guilty party, then the CIA must be near the top of the list. My job is to get Sirhan a re-trial, not to find out who is really guilty of the crime. I am trying to prove that his rights were infringed. And they were, of that I am convinced. I've mentioned some of the main reasons for that."

What's the main argument for reopening the case?

"We found out in the mid-Eighties, when the LAPD files were released after years of resistance, that an enormous amount of evidence which could be used in a defence case had been destroyed and had never been offered to the defence. I'm talking (now) about the destroyed photographs, the evidence from the crime scene itself, which was destroyed or altered. We discovered recently, as I mentioned earlier, that it is highly probable that the bullet, which Dr. Noguchi removed from RFK's body, was taken and replaced with a bullet that matched Sirhan's alleged weapon, so that Sirhan could be identified as the gunman. I would also say that the main points for a re-trial are: the case against him was fabricated, incorrect and a case in which Sirhan was wilfully framed. Evidence of Sirhan's innocence, and also evidence that other armed people were at the scene of the crime, was methodically and systematically withheld from the defence - another newly uncovered piece of evidence which supports his innocence. And finally the argument that Sirhan's right to fair trial was ignored as much by the defence itself as by the methods with which the police and the prosecution manipulated his lawyers and led them to believe that his guilt was undisputed. The delay in releasing the autopsy notes is a staggering event. That was never clarified. It would be interesting to hear what excuses they'd make about that."

When will the case be reopened?

"In order to get a re-trial, we need to submit a petition to the Supreme Court. Due to the amount of evidence, the court will have to rule that Sirhan's trial broke the basic rights of fair trial. If we lose, we will submit a similar petition to the Supreme Appeal Court of California and if necessary, to the Supreme Court of California. Again, if we lose we will apply to the US District Courts in LA. We hope, one way or another, to find one or more judges who have the courage to start a new trial for Sirhan Sirhan. Wenn das stattfindet, dann allerdings hat die Oeffentlichkeit die Chance, im Gerichtssaal selbst von den Beweisen zu erfahren und noch vieles mehr. We look forward to this day! This evidence has never been published."

"The jury which sentenced Sirhan Sirhan was never told what I am telling you here. None of it. Nothing. The jury was never told that the bullet presented at the trail and listed as entry "PEOPLES 47" - supposedly the back bullet - was not the bullet with the characteristic bulge that originated from RFK's back. The jury was never told that the police destroyed 1000 pictures in the LA County USC Medical Centre hospital's incinerator. They were never told anything about the arrest of Scott Eynard as they seized his film or about what he saw. The jury was never told that the autopsy report showed that the shots which killed RFK were fired from a distance of not more than 2 inches from his body (***). Neither were they told that according to several witnesses, Sirhan Sirhan was a fair distance from the Senator. Such significant evidence was never heard by the jury. There were never any expert witnesses who supported the theory that Sirhan Sirhan had been hypnotically programmed. The only defence brought against Sirhan Sirhan that he had no control over himself was because of alcohol abuse."

"This made his trail so unfair. Many pieces of evidence were even withheld from the defence. Whatever they had as evidence... We are concerned with the then manipulation of witness statements by the LAPD. There are indications that witness were beaten through the use of certain interview techniques, the alteration of their statements or somehow through the production of statements to suit the police. No doubt you have heard the Serrano tape. It is remarkable how it was finished and eventually broke. Writing about the case, Deputy Sheriff Houten proudly wrote in his book that the key to the case was the breaking of Sandra Serrano by Sergeant Enrique Hernandes. Serrano made a statement that contained very strong references to a conspiracy. She describes... (description of Serrano case follows ***). This could also have occurred with other witnesses, but all of the book have been destroyed. Only the Serrano book survives. Others may have been able to stand by their stories."

"A witness places Sirhan or somebody who looked like him in a weapons shop with others of Middle Eastern appearance before the assassination. One of the men was wearing clothing that looked similar to that of a member of hospital staff. The witness was never invited to the trial. However, she was interviewed by Mr Hernandez. The witness Mrs Donna Herrick - the store owner - never changed her story when put under pressure. With great surprise, she said that she had planned to be quoted in Houton's book as a woman who "could be broken as she admitted that she had not seen these men". This, according to her today, is completely untrue. She never said this in the interview and stands by her original statement. But where is this book? It is missing and unavailable."

Why has the Serrano tape survived?

"It is possible that it was a mistake. However, many have wondered how much is really missing: the pictures, tape recordings, pieces of evidence from the crime scene, the door*** -all pieces of evidence that should have been kept for historical reasons. There was another weapon that was fired - ***a test shooting during the preparation for the trial***. Although Mr Wolfer (the weapons expert for the prosecution) testified to the contrary, this weapon appears to have been destroyed shortly after the test shooting. Astonishing! A second weapon destroyed! We do not know if this weapon was used in the shooting - there are no indications of such - but a weapon that was used for test purposes should not be destroyed. Pictures from the crime scene should not really be destroyed! Some pieces of evidence disappeared deliberately from right under the noses of the investigation authorities. A security guard by the name of Thane Cesar was armed with a weapon and accompanied RFK into the pantry. He held Kennedy's arm. He stood on the place, where according to the autopsy, the shot originated. And this man had a weapon. One would expect that he [the gunman] would have been arrested and his weapon examined. But he was neither arrested nor questioned as a suspect nor - and this is particularly interesting - his weapon was never examined. Weeks after the assassination the FBI wanted to obtain his weapon for inspection. He told them that he had only carried a .38 and not a .22 and that he did not have this weapon anymore as he had sold it to somebody in the mid West (???). When the alleged buyer was questioned he said that the weapon had been stolen."

"The weapon that belonged to the security guard who actually lead RFK by the right arm into the pantry and who was standing on the spot where the shoots that killed RFK could have been, or probably were fired from, was never examined. This is quite astonishing! This seems to be nothing short of incompetence or pure stupidity. - it has a clear handprint (??). One must ask if a police authority can be so stupid to accidentally destroy photographs and material from the crime scene and not make to secure a weapon from the scene. They did arrest the photographer Scott Eynard though! One must surely think that if they are interested in Eynard's photographs that they would have confiscated Cesar's weapon. This would have been the least one would expect from any serious investigators. However it was not in the least bit of interest - the weapon could have left the room with Thane Cesar! But not the photographs. That would have been something!"

"The following hypotheses are possible: there were forces at work within the LAPD that, at the time of the murder, were already prepared to assume the role of a cover-up department. This is a possible theory. Some of these theories closely match the evidence. However, here it is my job to prepare a new trial for Sirhan Sirhan and therefore, to find legal arguments for which there is overwhelming support in the records. When the prosecution uses false evidence, an approximate wound to the throat is presented that isn't one, then it is a deceptive trial. When the prosecution destroys evidence which shows armed men, then it is a deceptive trial. They make the fairness of the trial impossible. When the prosecution withholds evidence until the last minute so that it cannot be appropriated, understood and recognised - material which shows that the person who shot RFK did not stand where Sirhan Sirhan stood - the process is unfair. There are a number of points here. The disturbing thing about it all however is how could this happen in LA?"

"You ask about parallels between this case and the murder of JFK. I have already named one: the military-industrial complex and the Vietnam war. There was a huge fight in the sixties surrounding this war. It began with a handful of demonstrators. In the end a massive movement grew out of it much like the Green Party in Germany. In 1968 the movement was so powerful that President Johnson - who was completely identifiable with the expansion of the war - was forced to announce that he would no longer stand for president. This was a powerful victory for the freedom movement. It was absolutely certain that regardless of which democratic candidate won a nomination, the Vietnam war would be ended. If it wasn't RFK then it would be McGovern, but most probably Kennedy. It did not matter, there would be a democratic "anti-war" candidate with an excellent chance to beat Nixon and become president. However, there was a group of people who were not so keen to see this happen."

Do you think you have a chance of being successful?

"There are powerful forces against the chances of success (in this matter). What for example, is with the attempts to move the LA County Grand Jury to reinvestigate the case? A particularly difficult and noble undertaking that should be made. But try and guess who the attorney for the LA County Grand Jury is? The LA County District attorney! He and he alone has access to the Grand Jury and can give them legal advice. One would think that the District Attorney's Office would be ashamed if it were to tell the Grand Jury how to conduct an investigation into the District Attorney's Office. One would like to assume that they tell them to seek another attorney who advises them to investigate their office. But they are not doing this. The District Attorney's Office has abused its privilege in the Grand Jury to, in my opinion, manipulate their case. This is only an example of the difficulties. The petition signed by Oliver Stone was a request for the Grand Jury to take the case on. To date they have not done so and the District Attorney acts as their advising lawyer - there must be a link here!"

The point which concerns me and the court here was never before discussed by the court.

"You asked about the difficulties. In general, the whole area of law is very conservative. Attorneys who are involved with cases of public interest must perform a never-ending task. I don't think that it would be easy to convince a judge to pass a new sentence which says that this particular case was legally mis-handled. If such a sentence was to be passed it would be an big surprise to the LAPD and the District Attorney. The concluding results of such a sentence - a new trail for Sirhan Sirhan - would reveal the truth in a complete and public discussion, but this time on the screens of the nation, whereas before television did not exist in the courts. If there was a new trial today then the whole world would be able to see what happened here! The whole world would learn that Sirhan never stood where it would have been possible for him to have shot RFK. The whole world would learn what happened with Scott Enyard! And the facts about the other weapons and shots. The whole world would learn all of this!"

How does the U.S. media treat the case today?

"In general this case is ignored..., because many reporters are ignorant of the facts. And this leads to more unsettling questions and conclusions. Many in the media would prefer not to stir things up and ask questions. They do not want to destroy the public's trust in the Government as this causes a lot of problems for us all. The European media is much more open and objective. I do not want biased reporting. I only hope for a fair recollection of the facts. In the duration of this case this has never happened. When Oliver Stone made the film "JFK" and the public saw it, they began to think about the real possibility of a CIA cover-up. Which I also believe to really be what happened. This however is not what the US Government is telling us happened. They cling to the fiction that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy on his own. The majority of the people do not believe this, but the Government clings to this stupid, sick fairytale version of the story like a pitbull. Because when just for a moment they backdown and admit to a cover-up, the people will also want to know who was responsible and why they [the Government] have lied to us for so long. And this is exactly the same for RFK. The Government is afraid to admit a cover-up because otherwise people will want to know why they have lied for so many years, who they are protecting and whose orders they have been listening to. And then people will suddenly start to wake up and ask questions about the basic nature of our existence. They would ask: hold on a moment, in school we are taught that we live in a democracy and now we suddenly discover that events in our lives are being manipulated by dark and secret forces ***. And then fantastic lies will be created that obscure the truth."

Are there really no journalists who are interested in this?

"There have been some programmes. In general, the District Attroney's Office deals contemptuosly with enquiries. Oh once again talk of conspiracy theories. This is how the federal Governement dealt with the JFK case. Sensationalism in order to sell their books. They just dismissed the critics. *** But who controls the media in the USA? The big corporations. It is understandable that they do not want to be asked unsettling questions. For example, one of the big TV institutions is NBC which is connected to General Electric who build atomic power plants and warheads. One can predict that such a TV instution does not, for example, want a serious discussion amongst economists about the arms race because the truth would create a public climate that could damage investments which the corporations in the nuclear weapons industry are involved in. This could be one explanation for the media's bias. I believe that both murder cases are completely linked with the fate of the military-industrial complex. This was the biggest winner for bothe Kennedy murders. Both of them allowed the Vietnam war to start. And this was particularly profitable for the weapons industry and high ranking CIA and Pentagon officials who were connected to the Vietnam war."

"Our hope is that the truth will come to light. The trial was a suppression of the truth. The LAPD has spent years sabotaging public access to the truth. That's very disturbing for everyone who believes in the democratic system. I just want to see the truth come out. As an attorney I want a trail to be carried out fairly and not corrupted. I believe that it has been systematically corrupted through the suppression and destruction of evidence and through the denial of Sirhan Sirhan's right to a fair trial because of the incompetence of his attorneys. I believe that evidence discovered recently really proves his innocence. Sirhan Sirhan has the right to see this evidence and the public has the right to learn about it. This trail has by far nothing to do with reality."