Experts: Sirhan Sirhan Did Not Kill RFK

[Vegas]

http://www.nbc30.com/news/15712020/detail.html

New forensics evidence presented Tuesday during a symposium at Foxwoods suggests Sirhan Sirhan did not fire the fatal shots that killed Sen. Robert Kennedy in 1968. Experts from all over the world met Wednesday to discuss problems in crime solving during the annual symposium, hosted by the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science. This year’s event was about conspiracies and solving complex crimes.

[MTVike]

http://www.nbc30.com/news/15712020/detail.html

New forensics evidence presented Tuesday during a symposium at Foxwoods suggests Sirhan Sirhan did not fire the fatal shots that killed Sen. Robert Kennedy in 1968. Experts from all over the world met Wednesday to discuss problems in crime solving during the annual symposium, hosted by the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science. This year’s event was about conspiracies and solving complex crimes.


Hmm, don't you think the witnesses in that crowded room would have noticed multiple muzzle flashes from different areas of the scene?

Not to mention Sirhan's confession or obsession with R. Kennedy.

Goofballs.

[swordfish]

Hmm, don't you think the witnesses in that crowded room would have noticed multiple muzzle flashes from different areas of the scene?

Not to mention Sirhan's confession or obsession with R. Kennedy.

Goofballs.

Flash suppressor?
Silencer?

Conspiracies?

[LionFanFormerlyInLA]

Well he may not have fired the fatal shots, but this does not disprove the murder attempt on his part and as it was successful, he is fully culpable.

[residenceevil]

Hmm, don't you think the witnesses in that crowded room would have noticed multiple muzzle flashes from different areas of the scene?

Not to mention Sirhan's confession or obsession with R. Kennedy.

Goofballs.

I'm too young to really know anything about the situation...but aside from that, I did learn in Psyhcology class that an eye witness is pretty useless unless you get to them within like the first 30 seconds of something happening. People forget or missee things very easily. It's very easy to go with the majority on things too, especially if there was the slightest doubt in your mind about something.

[thrasymachus]

I'm too young to really know anything about the situation...but aside from that, I did learn in Psyhcology class that an eye witness is pretty useless unless you get to them within like the first 30 seconds of something happening. People forget or missee things very easily. It's very easy to go with the majority on things too, especially if there was the slightest doubt in your mind about something.
I've learned something like that in Psych 101 too but "pretty useless" is a poor choice of words. Eye witnesses often times don't remember an event exactly how it happened. However, that doesn't mean they don't remember anything about the incident. It's usually the case that the details are just screwed up...which sometimes can make them useless while other times certain details are irrelevant.