Years ago when I first saw this case come out, the security guard who the segment did not name was mentioned as having pulled his gun, but I kind of dismissed it at the time.

Now I am kind of convinced he may have done it. Because it does seem the witnesses are adamant Sirhan didn't get close enough to Kennedy, since Kennedy was shot at point blank range.

Apparently Cesar was a supporter of George Wallace too as he was politically inclined and did not like the Kennedys. And that Sirhan may have been a decoy. However no connection between Sirhan and Cesar was ever established, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one. Obviously two men wanting to kill RFK in the pantry at the same time who were not connected would have been a pretty huge coincidence. But whether they were connected or not may not even matter, multiple witnesses ascertain two things, Sirhan never got that close, and Cesar did pull his gun and pointed it at Kennedy rather than Sirhan, why?

The one problem however is the gun Cesar had that night. Some reports indicate Cesar had a .38 caliber weapon on him that night, others that it was a .22 like Sirhan's. I'm assuming we know for a fact that it was a .22 that killed Kennedy. Cesar did own a .22, but its unclear if that is actually the gun he had and pulled that night. Security guards and law enforcement typically carried .38 caliber weapons then, or above. And you can't always tell the caliber of a weapon just by looking at it.

I'm getting more convinced it was in fact Cesar. It had to be him or Sirhan, I can't imagine how anyone else could have gotten that close to Kennedy with a gun and not one person in the pantry saw them.

What do you all think?

I think Sirhan Sirhan shot and killed RFK.

There was plenty of motive as evidenced by Sirhan's writings about the Arab-Israeli conflict and Kennedy's role prior to shooting; in fact, he outrightly states in a diary entry about a month prior to the event that "Kennedy must die." Those writings are concrete, actual evidence that can speak to his state of mind around the time Kennedy was assassinated. Perhaps Cesar wasn't exactly a Kennedy fan at best, but it was Sirhan discovered to have actually and actively advocated for the man to meet his death.

As far as the forensics go--long story short--the medical examiner who performed RFK's autopsy had a controversial career and was demoted in the wake of Natalie Woods' suspicious death in 1981 (one which he ruled accidental, which was later changed to undetermined decades later). This unfortunately calls into question the veracity and accuracy of his determination that the fatal wound was fired within an inch or less of Kennedy's body.

Finally, I'm not saying that any eyewitness isn't telling the truth as they understand it, but sudden shootings are quick and stressful enough to greatly obscure what might have actually happened in the minds of people who experience them.

I think the authorities got it right on this one.

It absolutely was Sirhan Sirhan. No questions asked.

I think Sirhan Sirhan shot and killed RFK.

There was plenty of motive as evidenced by Sirhan's writings about the Arab-Israeli conflict and Kennedy's role prior to shooting; in fact, he outrightly states in a diary entry about a month prior to the event that "Kennedy must die." Those writings are concrete, actual evidence that can speak to his state of mind around the time Kennedy was assassinated. Perhaps Cesar wasn't exactly a Kennedy fan at best, but it was Sirhan discovered to have actually and actively advocated for the man to meet his death.

As far as the forensics go--long story short--the medical examiner who performed RFK's autopsy had a controversial career and was demoted in the wake of Natalie Woods' suspicious death in 1981 (one which he ruled accidental, which was later changed to undetermined decades later). This unfortunately calls into question the veracity and accuracy of his determination that the fatal wound was fired within an inch or less of Kennedy's body.

Finally, I'm not saying that any eyewitness isn't telling the truth as they understand it, but sudden shootings are quick and stressful enough to greatly obscure what might have actually happened in the minds of people who experience them.

I think the authorities got it right on this one.

Thanks for the response. Though we may have gotten off to a rocky start I have come to respect your opinion over the years.

And to be clear, I have always somewhat questioned the science of determining how far away a gun was for a particular gunshot wound, its always seemed to me that given how powerful a gunshot discharge is, will there be a lot of difference between two feet away and five feet away? Although as best as I can tell, you seem to be questioning the medical examiner individually rather than the science itself, which is valid. I admit I was not aware of those things about the medical examiner in this case and it does merit consideration.

Also to be clear, I'm not disputing Sirhan had a motive, or even that he wasn't guilty. He obviously was trying to kill RFK even if it was not his bullet that killed him and he could have been a decoy.

But my thing is, it does seem in this case that RFK apparently had gun powder around his fatal wound, which to my understanding generally only happens if its point blank range. And when you have a guy in that close of proximity who also not only had a gun but also had possible motives to kill RFK, I think there is at least room for reasonable doubt.

It does seem both Sirhan and Cesar had beef with RFK, but for very different reasons. Cesar was seen as a right wing extremist who supported George Wallace. Of course over the years the definition of right wing has sort of evolved, as a modern Conservative I can say I wouldn't have supported someone like George Wallace, but that's a discussion for another day.

Sirhan on the other hand, was a Palestinian sympathizer and anti Israel, a position not generally associated with the right. So its unlikely these two would have been working together.

I'm not definitively saying it was not Sirhan's bullet that killed RFK, but I do think its something that still merits discussion. Its noteworthy Cesar possessed a .22 caliber pistol which he sold shortly after the assassination, but its not clear if this is the weapon he had on him that night.

I personally think its cloudier than JFK's assassination, which I still think was Oswald though not sure he acted alone. In fact I'm almost convinced he didn't.

I have a reasonably solid theory on JFK, but when it comes to RFK I can't really get further than the obvious that the official version that Sirhan did it alone is obvious nonsense.

Certainly he could have, in that he was there and had a firearm. But there are at least a half dozen other parties that meet the same description.

As with JFK, its difficult to know what exactly happened since much of the forensics related to the shooting has been obfuscated and intentionally withheld.

Thanks for the response. Though we may have gotten off to a rocky start I have come to respect your opinion over the years.

Thank you for the kind words and likewise! I always enjoy your posts whether I agree or disagree with your ultimate conclusions because it's clear to me you put a lot of consideration into them.

I AM you know who I am all will be