Speaker 1: Now here's a highlight from Coast to coast AM on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: We were talking about, you know, the possibility that Sir Hans,
Speaker 2: Sirhan was programmed to be an assassin or programmed to
Speaker 2: be a patsy, and you were suggesting or asserting that
Speaker 2: in order for whoever these shadowy figures were that would
Speaker 2: do something like this, you know, to pick someone like
Speaker 2: Sir Han Surhan, they would have known how to have
Speaker 2: known about you know, his the trauma that he suffered
Speaker 2: back in in Jordan or Palestine from a very young age.
Speaker 2: So at all, it's very unlikely. Also the idea of
Speaker 2: creating these I don't know, super soldiers or programmed assassins.
Speaker 2: They just didn't have the sophistication to do that because
Speaker 2: while they might be able to implant other memories or
Speaker 2: other thoughts, they couldn't get the subject to do what
Speaker 2: they wanted them to do. Is that have I basically
Speaker 2: summed that up correctly?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Yeah, he did a good job with that. The
Speaker 3: difficulty after I reviewed the research on hypno program people
Speaker 3: is that, as I said with doctor Cameron, with the
Speaker 3: studies at Stanford, with the studies at Vacaville, diagnostic center,
Speaker 3: they really couldn't produce the directionality or the implanning of
Speaker 3: thoughts that would lead to the creation of a person
Speaker 3: that they wanted to create. Cameron was especially disappointed because
Speaker 3: he although he could ablate thoughts and he destroyed a
Speaker 3: lot of patients short term and remote memory. A lot
Speaker 3: of patients actually later sued him because of his malpractice.
Speaker 3: But he really couldn't replace the thoughts with his psychic
Speaker 3: driving program, even though he tried for a long time.
Speaker 3: The issue in terms of if it was possible, it
Speaker 3: would certainly take months and months of this kind of
Speaker 3: programming and a course of sensory deprivation where the individual
Speaker 3: would be sequestered somewhere, let's say at McGill University in
Speaker 3: Canada for months at a time. When Cameron engaged in
Speaker 3: his thought destruction program, he had these patients deconditioned, deprogrammed,
Speaker 3: and de patterned for six months to a year in
Speaker 3: order to achieve his thought reduction programer thought elimination program,
Speaker 3: and then his failed thought replacement program really didn't work
Speaker 3: or produce a person that he could say what was
Speaker 3: now self directed as he wanted that person to be
Speaker 3: with the marsh case that I illustrated before who or
Speaker 3: Marsh didn't really know what happened to him, but he
Speaker 3: was programmed by a fellow prisoner who was a hypnotist,
Speaker 3: and he arrived in southern California with no understanding of
Speaker 3: how he got there with with Sir An when he
Speaker 3: saw doctor Brown, he reported that doctor Brown saw him
Speaker 3: switch into a distinctly different personality in terms of a
Speaker 3: flashback that only under hypnosis could he elicit this individual
Speaker 3: personality that was the personality that he thought was responsible
Speaker 3: for killing Robert Kennedy. He called he called this particular
Speaker 3: situation or mental status range mode where Sir Hand would
Speaker 3: mimic having a gun in his hand like a flashback
Speaker 3: when he was at the firing range, when actually he
Speaker 3: was firing live bullets at Robert Kennedy. As you mentioned,
Speaker 3: not only was Robert Kennedy assassinated, but Paul Schrade was
Speaker 3: standing next to him. He was wounded as well as
Speaker 3: four other people. So there were six people that were
Speaker 3: wounded there. There's a a general theory concerning the number
Speaker 3: of bullets. There's acoustics stuff, uh recording more than more
Speaker 3: than eight shots, which which is beyond my UH my
Speaker 3: pay grade to understand how acoustics can account for these shots.
Speaker 3: My theory is essentially the same as doctor Diamonds, Doctor Brown's,
Speaker 3: and the other doctors who seem to agree that there
Speaker 3: was a disassociated state that Sir Hand had created over
Speaker 3: the years as a repository for this anger that he
Speaker 3: assimilated from the people, very people who persecuted him. So
Speaker 3: that's the Stockholm syndrome or the identification with the aggressor,
Speaker 3: and that's my particular theory.
Speaker 2: Okay. So then the question arises, why fifty six years later, is,
Speaker 2: for example, you know, John Hinckley, who attempted to assassinate
Speaker 2: Ronald Reagan has been out of prison for a number
Speaker 2: of years, maybe I don't know, ten years or something
Speaker 2: like that. Why is Sir Hans Sir Hand still behind bars?
Speaker 2: Is he, in your estimation as a forensic psychologist, still
Speaker 2: a threat? I mean, if he has this dissociative disorder
Speaker 2: that doesn't just go away, presumably could he be triggered
Speaker 2: into another violent act.
Speaker 3: Now? Not after the passage of time and the amount
Speaker 3: of therapy that he's undergone for fifty six years in
Speaker 3: prison is highly unlikely, especially with the reviews he's had
Speaker 3: by the forensic psychologists who were consistently evaluating him for
Speaker 3: fifty six years. There's no evidence that he has any
Speaker 3: violent tendencies at this time. My view is that he's
Speaker 3: being held now in San Diego in a state prison
Speaker 3: as purely as a political prisoner, based on the California
Speaker 3: Governor Newsom's belief that he is not remorseful for his
Speaker 3: particular act. Interesting enough, now his his appeals attorneys are
Speaker 3: trying to go to the file with the California Supreme
Speaker 3: Court to say that he was with a rid of
Speaker 3: habeas corpus. Why is he being held when the when
Speaker 3: the Parole Board on at least one occasion approved his parole,
Speaker 3: So it seems inconsistent with all the findings that he's
Speaker 3: still being held in prison. Leslie Van Houghton of the
Speaker 3: Manson family fame. She was paroled earlier this year after
Speaker 3: she committed a violent murder. She murdered Rosemary la Bianca,
Speaker 3: stabbed her fourteen times in the back, extremely violent act.
Speaker 3: Governor Newsom had no problem releasing her. I just think
Speaker 3: that that Sir hand is a is a hot potato,
Speaker 3: and the even though RFK Junior believes that Sir Hans
Speaker 3: should be paroled.
Speaker 2: Yes, right, Does Sir hann I believe he has another
Speaker 2: parole hearing coming up in this year?
Speaker 1: Is it?
Speaker 3: Is it?
Speaker 2: Next month?
Speaker 3: He has a parole hearing coming up. But there's also
Speaker 3: the legitimacy of why he's being held. That's the habeas
Speaker 3: corpus issue, and the Supreme Court of California they're going
Speaker 3: to file his attorneys are going to file with the
Speaker 3: state to say that he's being held illegitimately more or
Speaker 3: less as a political prisoner and not somebody who is
Speaker 3: a danger to future danger to society.
Speaker 2: If you were to appear at that parole hearing, what
Speaker 2: would you tell the board in your capacity as a
Speaker 2: forensic psychologist?
Speaker 3: There is no empirical evidence based on a long string
Speaker 3: of testing and assessment in the in the prison system
Speaker 3: by the psychologist who were who are hired to assess
Speaker 3: the suitability for these people to achieve parole. There there
Speaker 3: is not one assessment that says he's a danger anymore.
Speaker 3: When you when you look at violent behavior, it runs
Speaker 3: along the same graph as drug behavior. The older you get,
Speaker 3: the less frequency you're going to have of people acting
Speaker 3: out and or using drugs. So as you get older,
Speaker 3: these kinds of of inclinations towards aggressive behavior disappear. With
Speaker 3: with with sir hand that he did not one of
Speaker 3: his reviews shows that he has any any kind of
Speaker 3: a dangerous personality.
Speaker 2: H Does he understand you think that he according to
Speaker 2: your research, that he was in fact responsible, but that
Speaker 2: because he had had this dissociative disorder. Has he acknowledged
Speaker 2: that to your mind? Does he understand that's what happened?
Speaker 3: Yeah, he said. Let me read you a quote that
Speaker 3: he said. He said that I didn't know I had
Speaker 3: a gun at the time. There was a target like
Speaker 3: flashing in my face. I thought I was at the
Speaker 3: target range. I could be fantasizing or dreaming that I
Speaker 3: was at a gun range. I thought that I was
Speaker 3: at the gun range, and actually I was shooting at
Speaker 3: I didn't know I was shooting at a person, let
Speaker 3: alone Bobby Kennedy. So that addresses the amnesia part of it,
Speaker 3: that the separate personality was the one that was responsible
Speaker 3: for the homicide, not his ordinary person. As doctor Diamond said,
Speaker 3: you mentioned an interesting point before concerning his diary. Yes,
Speaker 3: the diary is and I'm glad you brought that up
Speaker 3: to the diary is really a very pivotal part of
Speaker 3: this particular case, especially leading to the conviction. In the
Speaker 3: diary that that's been labeled as as RFK must die.
Speaker 3: There are many inculpatory statements, guilty statements that he writes
Speaker 3: about Kennedy. This is pre assassination, which which necessitates premeditation
Speaker 3: or supports the notion of premeditation and planning. In the diary,
Speaker 3: he makes many references concerning RFK must die. If he
Speaker 3: was standing in front of me, I would blast him.
Speaker 3: Statements like this that were allowed into evidence at the
Speaker 3: trial by the prosecution. The judge allowed this evidence several
Speaker 3: pages of the diary. The diary runs twenty to thirty
Speaker 3: pages of sometimes incomprehensible writing, but the judge allowed twenty
Speaker 3: a few pages of the diary into evidence to be
Speaker 3: used against against Sir Hand. When the jury read these
Speaker 3: particular passages, they couldn't really fit together the pieces that
Speaker 3: they were not written by the ordinary sur hand. They
Speaker 3: were written by the altered sur hand the defense, and
Speaker 3: this is the key one of the key mistakes from
Speaker 3: the trial. The defense decided that this was a great
Speaker 3: idea to present this information of the premeditation and these
Speaker 3: negative statements, so they admitted the entire diary into evidence.
Speaker 3: Their theory being that these statements were so bizarre it
Speaker 3: would substantiate that Sir Hand was schizophrenic. It had a
Speaker 3: completely paradoxical effect that Jerry said, this is proof positive
Speaker 3: that this guy planned, premeditated, carried through, and murdered Robert Kennedy.
Speaker 3: He's going to the gas chamber. So the defense just
Speaker 3: made a really stupid air that's redundant. The defense made
Speaker 3: an air by allowing the preponderance of the diary into
Speaker 3: evidence when they didn't have to. They needed an alternative explanation,
Speaker 3: which was Sir Hand's references to the diary consistently throughout
Speaker 3: the trial transcript. The trial transcript that I read reads
Speaker 3: about six thousand pages. In his hit statements, many times
Speaker 3: he says, I don't know about this statement. I don't
Speaker 3: understand that. I didn't write that. That's not me who
Speaker 3: wrote that. Did somebody plant that in there? So in
Speaker 3: his ordinary state, he's completely unaware of what the altered
Speaker 3: personality did, which is very similar to what happened in
Speaker 3: the Three Phases of Eve where Eve Black, who was
Speaker 3: the evil twin was engaging in lots of questionable promiscuity behavior,
Speaker 3: and Eve White, the naive ordinary person, was completely unaware
Speaker 3: of it and shocked when she found out that these
Speaker 3: activities were going on within the same person.
Speaker 2: If you were sitting across from Sir hanser Hand, and
Speaker 2: I don't know if if you had any access to
Speaker 2: him when you were writing the book, but what would
Speaker 2: you ask him? What would be the number one question
Speaker 2: you'd want to ask Sir hanser Hand.
Speaker 3: The number one question would be too hypnotize him, first
Speaker 3: of all, to take him back in time to the
Speaker 3: the scene of the crime, and to to inform him
Speaker 3: or to to to bring him along into the notion
Speaker 3: of a disassociated personality, and that in his in his
Speaker 3: ordinary state of awareness, he had no understanding of what happened.
Speaker 3: And he's probably still confused as to what is the
Speaker 3: real ideology or the cause of me engaging this behavior.
Speaker 3: He says, yes, I was there, Yes they caught me,
Speaker 3: Yes I had a gun, but I don't remember anything
Speaker 3: because he was in a in an altered state when
Speaker 3: he committed this particular crime. I think that would be
Speaker 3: terribly insightful for him to be able to via hypnosis,
Speaker 3: to be able to to dis cover the roots of
Speaker 3: this this second personality, and that the second personality is
Speaker 3: the one who cru who shot Kennedy.
Speaker 1: Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
Speaker 1: one a m. Eastern and go to Coast to coastam
Speaker 1: dot com for more