The RFK Shooting: Eyewitness to Second Gunman - WhoWhatWhy

The RFK Shooting: Eyewitness to Second Gunman

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Recently, we wrote about the wrongheaded but endlessly repeated notion that not a single shooting of a major American political figure could have been the result of an organized plot…. because “someone would have talked.” Supposedly, no one credible ever talks.

That is total hogwash, as despite the risks, there has been a steady stream of credible witnesses to conspiracy. But don’t take our word for it.

Meet Nina Rhodes-Hughes. Tell us if she seems like a wacko. Her story is of being just feet away from Bobby Kennedy right as a second shooter pumped the candidate full of lead—from the opposite direction of where Sirhan Sirhan was, and after Sirhan had already been tackled.

It is no coincidence that this “someone who did talk” is living in Canada, and that her account is being provided by a Canadian paper. Imagine the Washington Post or New York Times treating her seriously.

Read all about it here.  To watch an interview with her, click on the image below. Then please come back here afterwards and use the SHARE buttons to tell your friends.


Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.


24 responses to “The RFK Shooting: Eyewitness to Second Gunman”

  1. Paul 'Sasquatch' Kuehne says:

    Interesting reporting, do keep it up. Or rather, DO keep up- please; do not allow your progressive slant of American socio/economic events to tint your supposedly objective view of the World and its’ denizens. What is most needful in these days of brinkmanship gone awry are objective and thoughtful voices, those directed toward answers, not acrimony. As one who remembers history to thusly not repeat it, I welcome sane journalism to aid in guiding all humanity through the shoals of a most perilous future…
    Good Day, Paul

  2. Aliamybraa says:

    The “Powers That Be” were no doubt involved. Their control has been refined, and financed through the decades. This gives them the maximum of both power and money, and us the least.

  3. Lisa says:

    My concern is similar to those expressed by others. Why does it take so very long for these people to come forward and why didn’t they scream from the top of their lungs to any and everyone who would listen at the time? I know I would have. I am really still holding out hope that there is someone out there who knows the actual truth behind the JFK assassination, because those who got away with it are still in power today. Most people surround that shooting are already dead and met with tragic ends but still, I know there are others. Keep on searching Russ, and thank you for keeping these Kennedy conversations alive. 

    • tony bonn says:

      the truth is available about the jfk assassination – see my blog posting and the backup evidence from occular politics –

      as for silence – there are many good reasons, not the least of which is fear and threats of murder. dorothy kilgallen (g00d guy) and george demorenschildt (bad guy) come to mind.

      in any event, even if she spoke earlier and wasn’t murdered, she would be dismissed as a nut case.

    • Guest says:

       SHE WAS NOT SILENT! The FBI distorted her testimony, given within a month of the murder. She later gave an interview, TEN YEARS AGO, with Philip Melanson, a Dartmouth Professor, who retrieved her testimony via the FOIA. What you don’t seem to understand is how thorough these coverups are, so that the general public isn’t even aware of what the witnesses actually testified to.

    • tony bonn says:

      i am not critical of nina, but in the sense of lisa’s remarks, nina was silent.

      she gave her fbi testimony and has not been heard of in any significant way, and certainly not with legal counsel or law enforcement as far as we know. and i can understand why she would not vocalize her objections to the official story – in part for the reason you gave and for the reasons i cited.

      so if the public is not aware of the actual witness testimony, it is proof of silence or being silenced.

      and please don’t lecture me about my understanding of cover-ups.

    • Guest says:

      SHE DIDN’T KNOW THE OFFICIAL STORY HAD MISREPRESENTED HER STATEMENT UNTIL INFORMED OF SUCH BY THE GOOD PROFESSOR. Come on fellow, this isn’t rocket science. The fault is with the L.A. police and the FBI, not with a woman who tried to do her civic duty.

      And, I might add, with the media. The reason this story just came to public attention is not because the witness was hiding under a rock. It was because the media continues, with rare exceptions, to make fun of anyone who is bright enough to understand what really happened in this country in the 1960s. And when they finally manage to get up the nerve to publish a story such as this, the consumers of that media act as if the fault was with the witness and not with the media who have helped to SUPPRESS the evidence for so long. This story has been accessible to anyone seriously interested enough in finding the truth to seek out the facts on their own without waiting for the media to spoon feed it to them for TEN years now.

    • A. Benway says:

       Witnessing a political murder and realizing that the people investigating the crime are trying to conceal or change or destroy evidence would, one might expect, cause the Nth witness to understand what’s going on, how serious and deep the matter is , and so on. The wisdom of a personal policy of silence would then be obvious.

    • Guest says:

      Len Osanic has reposted his interview with Scott Enyart from 2000 here:
      Enyart was the reporter for his school newspaper whose photographs of the RFK assassination were seized and held for 20 years by the L.A. police dept. After 20 years, he sued them to get his photos back. The case brought out a mass of evidence of misconduct on the part of the L.A. police. The photos, in the possession of a courier, were “stolen” before Enyart could finally get them back. Of particular interest is Enyart’s statement that 2400 photographs were burned in a hospital incinerator by the L.A. police BEFORE the Sirhan trial.

    • eddieleaks says:

       see “Paul Wellstone”

    • Guest says:

      The only thing that took “so very long” was the mainstream media figuring out who this woman was and what she testified to within a month of the assassination, testimony that was intentionally distorted by the FBI, a fact of which Ms. Rhodes-Hughes was not even aware until a Dartmouth professor made her aware of it TEN years ago:

      “But in the early ’90s, a Dartmouth professor, Phil Melanson,
      contacted her with a stunning revelation. He had obtained the FBI
      reports from the assassination, including her statement through an FOI
      request. She agreed to look it over.

      ” ‘I was flabbergasted. Devastated … I never said I saw red flashes. I never said eight shots.’ ”

      The above quote is from

      Please, please, try to distinguish between what is known and what is reported by our pathetic excuse for media (present company excepted).

  4. Rayeking says:

    tried to read more and see video–BLOCKED.

    • Russ Baker says:

      talk to someone who knows computers–problem with yours. or try restarting it. 

  5. Graeme Beard says:

    Why not before? Why now? 

    It’s always been quite obvious to me that RFK was the victim of a conspiratorial plot and that he was far too ‘dangerous’ to be allowed to become an American President. He threatened the establishment as his brother would have in a second term. 

    She says that she hopes that the second gunman is still alive and can now be brought to justice. That would have been far more likely if she had come forward 30/40 years ago.

  6. tony bonn says:

    there are some fabulous books and documentaries demonstrating with finality that rfk was murdered by someone other than sirhan sirhan who was an mkultra victim.

    it is possible that attached security guard murdered kennedy but it would not surprise me if a trained assassin handled the dirty work.

    i am absolutely convinced that the murder was planned and executed by the bush crime syndicate using elements of the cia among others. this assassination was way too sophisticated to be a small time operation as nina supposes.

    once you uncover the trigger pullers, a galaxy of america’s finest will start to wash ashore like so much gulf of mexico oil….

    • Just_Sayin' says:

       There may well have been a second gunman, but there is very little doubt but that Sirhan did shoot at RFK.   Too many people were at the scene, and one of those people, Rosey Greer, grabbed Sirhan after the shots.    On the 40th anniversary of the shooting, the CBC rebroadcast their tape of their reporter on the scene, yelling at someone to “Take the gun! Break his hand! Take it from him!”

    • Guest says:

       No one is questioning that Sirhan was present and shooting. What has been demonstrated is that he did not fire the fatal shot, nor any other of the three shots fired at point blank range into Kennedy’s back and neck. What is suspected is that Sirhan was in some kind of hypnotic state, induced by the real assassins in order to produce a distraction and allow them to get away free. Whether Sirhan was innocent or just a tool, the real bad guys are still walking around loose.

    • tony bonn says:

      there was at least one other gunman, crash override’s comments being correct. and while sirhan sirhan did shoot at kennedy, none of his bullets hit him – or if one did, it was non-lethal. the powder burns on the back of kennedy’s neck PROVE that there was more than one gunman because sirhan was no where near a position to inflict that kind of shot or leave that kind of residue.

      finally, the presence of at least 13 bullet holes is more PROOF of multiple gunmen. that is unless you want to apply the idiotic magic bullet theory to this story.

    • Len Robinson says:

      No doubt it is true that Sirhan fired his weapon in the pantry. And in fact I still believe it is more likely than not that he was the only to fire his gun in that pantry. However, just to clarify the reporter you quote as saying “Take the gun! Break his hand! Take it from him!” was actually Andrew West of Mutual Radio. The actual CBS film does capture the heartbreaking sound of their camera man, Jim Wilson, screaming and crying “Oh God Jesus! Why? Why?” while he continued to film the scene that was unfolding in front of him.

  7. A. Benway says:

    Simply to buttress what Russ wrote:  The MLK hit has, as everybody (ought to) know, has been to civil trial and the jury found conspiracy. That, of course, put to rest any wild claims that somebody would have talked or that there has never been a proved conspiracy to do domestic political murder. They did, and there is.

  8. Rob says:

    I don’t think anyone is going to confuse the Vancouver Sun with the New York Times any time soon, but its great to see any mainstream media coverage for stories like this. 

    It would also be great to see William Pepper get this case to trial while the defendant is still alive this time! 

    Thanks for posting this.

    • Russ Baker says:

       No one is going to confuse the Sun with the Times because at least the Sun isnt afraid of its shadow. LOL.

  9. Orangutan. says:

    Evidence of Revision – Part 4 – RFK: