The Mammoth Book of Celebrity Murders (63 page)

In due course Sirhan was charged with first-degree murder and his defence team constructed a “diminished responsibility” plea as their main defensive argument. In doing so they
entirely overlooked the opportunity for a defence based on the evidence supporting a conspiracy, one which would have claimed that although Sirhan was involved, it was not his weapon that ended
Senator Kennedy’s life.

There is something quite unique about a crime involving a high-profile celebrity. If the criminal investigation itself had been wanting then the trial of Sirhan would prove equally perplexing.
Following his arraignment Sirhan requested to see a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); renowned for their championing of minority causes, they also came with the added benefit
of providing their services free. After consultation with Sirhan 65-year-old Grant Cooper was appointed as his defence counsel; he was a former president of the Los Angeles Bar Association.

Heading the team for the prosecution was Lynn “Buck” Compton, Chief Deputy District Attorney. Supported by two assistant DAs, Compton made it clear he was looking to restore the
trust in American law enforcement.

To get the proceedings underway Sirhan pleaded not guilty at a hearing on 2 August held on the second floor of the Hall of Justice. With many political and judicial cogs now turning the clocked
ticked on to October before Herbert V. Walker was appointed as magistrate. Coming to the end of a long and impressive career Walker was known amongst his colleagues as a hard but fair man: hard
because of his track record in handing down 19 death sentences; fair because of his reputation for sticking to the letter of the law.

As pre-trial proceedings began Sirhan was already looking at a predetermined outcome. In mid-October the defence and the prosecution agreed, based on the findings of the LAPD’s
investigation into Kennedy’s assassination, that Sirhan had acted alone in the shooting. With this prior agreement in place the respective teams entered the court.

After a small delay whilst the court decided if the diary obtained from Sirhan’s house could be submitted as evidence, due to a question of whether the LAPD had been granted appropriate
authority to enter the house, the trial eventually opened on 7 January 1969. It was held on the eighth floor of the Hall of Justice in a packed 75-seater court. Security was placed on maximum
alert.

When the court proceedings finally commenced there was doubt as to whether there would be any need for a trial as the defence and the prosecution had agreed a plea bargain. Sirhan would plead
guilty in exchange for immunity from the death penalty, which on the face of it would seem a fair outcome, given the defence had done little to establish an alternative story to the one commonly
presented in the papers or suggested by the LAPD.

Judge Walker however would not agree to the plea bargain, in this instance – saving the taxpayer the cost of an expensive trial was significantly less important than demonstrating to an
extremely eager public that justice would be fairly dispensed. It was a sensible decision given that Lee Harvey Oswald had never been brought to book for his alleged role in the assassination of
John Kennedy. The prosecution, however, did not necessarily have the public purse in mind when they agreed the position with the defence. The prosecution’s own psychiatric assessment of
Sirhan had concluded that he was psychotic and therefore not medically liable for his crime, which would mean that they were much less likely to win the ultimate outcome.

In February of the same year the prosecution produced the first of its witnesses, including those members of the senator’s group who sustained injury on the night. Forensic experts, gun
experts, the arresting police officers and William Jordan, who first interviewed Sirhan after his arrest, were all called to give testimony to the events that evening. Neighbours who thought they
had heard Sirhan say negative things about Kennedy were called and a damning entry from Sirhan’s diary was read aloud to the court before being interpreted by the prosecution.

The media continued to present the case for the prosecution, feeding it to an eager public who had no reason to question any aspect of the LAPD’s findings – after all, why would they
wish to ignore evidence of there being anyone else involved?

By late February 1969, the defence commenced its counter-attack by trying to establish Sirhan’s unbalanced state of mind. They started by defining Sirhan’s rough childhood in
war-torn Palestine, and described the abuse he suffered at the hands of his uncaring father. Psychiatrists proclaimed that he was of unsound mind and therefore not capable of committing a
premeditated murder. They pointed to a horse-riding accident which had resulted in a severe head injury, ending Sirhan’s hopes of becoming a professional jockey and contributing to his
present muddled state of mind.

Sat in the dock, Sirhan could only watch and listen whilst his defence team declared him almost insane. Looking distinctly uncomfortable with the assertion that he was completely mad, he at one
point jumped up out of his chair and shouted towards the Judge, “I withdraw my original plea of not guilty and submit a plea of guilty as charged . . . just execute me.”

After the defence team managed to calm him down, the part of the trial that everyone had been waiting for had finally arrived – Sirhan was now to take the stand and act in his own defence.
Those who waited with baited breath were to be disappointed. When Sirhan was questioned about his role in the assassination of Kennedy he claimed, as he had done to the LAPD, that he could not
remember any details at all about the night in question. When pushed to at least offer some explanation as to his alleged role in the shooting, he simply suggested that he must have either been
intoxicated or had suffered a temporary bout of insanity, brought on by his severe anger at Kennedy’s apparent support for the Israelis.

The case which had been classed as “open and shut” by the LAPD had lost none of its appeal in the courthouse. When the trial was brought to a close on 14 April, after 15 weeks of
battle and having had the benefit of 89 testimonies, there seemed little doubt as to the outcome. The three-day recess as the jury considered its verdict seemed excessive to most people but when
they eventually emerged to give their decision there was little surprise when they announced that they found Sirhan guilty of first-degree murder. Everyone seemed pleased, the court, the LAPD, the
media and the public – they would all have their revenge and no one seemed too concerned with the evidence which had not been aired in court.

When Judge Walker passed sentence on 21 May, there was little surprise again when Sirhan was condemned to death in the gas chamber. The only voice to spring to the defence of Sirhan was that of
his mother, Mary Sirhan, who claimed that her son had not received a fair trial. If the death penalty seemed harsh given the actual evidence, then at least some degree of justice was dispensed when
California declared the death penalty no longer legal, and with this Sirhan’s sentence was commuted to life.

He was sent to serve his sentence in California’s Corcoran State Prison, where it is assumed he will remain for the balance of his life. Now in his sixties time is running out if Sirhan
harbours any hope of winning a retrial.

Those whose voices were absent during the trial in respect of the real facts surrounding Kennedy’s death soon emerged after Sirhan had been sentenced. The conspiracy theorists began to
examine the facts and wrote volumes in support of an official investigation. When someone of Kennedy’s celebrity status is murdered there are many agendas at work. The need to satisfy the
public’s desire for retribution may be the reason why the LAPD overlooked the obvious contradictions in the evidence and if this is so then we must assume that their ultimate destruction of
much of the evidence was motivated by the same thoughts. Photos, files and the door frame, along with many other items of evidence have been destroyed, apparently taking up room that is needed for
more current investigations. Much of the information though does still exist and there is now a swell of public desire to explore the case further and maybe even review Sirhan’s prison term.
Vincent Bugliosi, famed for his prosecution of the Manson gang, was retained by Sirhan in 1975 to peruse the LAPD over additional bullet holes that were found on the door frame, as shown on X-rays
taken of the wood. The LAPD had by then disposed of the door frame and the X-rays could no longer be found – another dead end and once again the District Attorney’s office could see no
reason to reopen the case.

This case, like many other high-profile events, lives on through the continued attention it is given by the media, who have u-turned to some extent. They were happy for Sirhan to be given the
death sentence at his trial but now present the shortcomings of the case. During a June 1998 press conference held outside the Pasadena home of Sirhan’s sister Adel, the press turned out in
force to hear her defending her brother, stating the inconsistencies in the evidence that had been aired some 30 years earlier, but without effect.

Sirhan has always claimed he could not remember any of the events that occurred on the evening of the assassination, a fact which has driven the conspiracy theorists to suggest that he was under
hypnosis at the time. In June 1997 Sirhan attended his tenth parole board hearing and declared that he thought he was innocent of the crime. He pointed out the conflicting evidence that has been
mentioned and then suggested that he thought he had been used by others who had directed him whilst he was in some sort of trance. The prosecutor assigned to the hearing, Thomas L. Trapp, called
Sirhan’s claim “preposterous”. He was denied parole.

In March 2003 Sirhan was again turned down for parole on what was his twelfth hearing, still declaring his innocence and with a model prisoner record. A senior commentator from the Loyola
University Law School commented, “Parole hearings for such high-profile prisoners are not intended to consider their eligibility for release, but to let justice be seen to be done, for the
public’s sake.”

The press, who were so keen to declare him guilty at the time, are now probably the only people who have a powerful enough voice to demand a review of the second Kennedy murder to shock the
nation.

With remarkable insight, or some deeper knowledge, Jackie Kennedy had predicted the demise of Robert Kennedy during a conversation with a friend: “Do you know what I think will happen to
Bobby? The same thing that happened to Jack.” Sadly she was proved to be correct.

Justice for all, except if you are a celebrity. These words could have been Roscoe Arbuckle’s epitaph. He was cruelly hounded by the press, who, when they get the sniff
of a celebrity scandal, let alone a suspicious death, are determined to prove that it’s the media who make a killing.

Roscoe was initially charged with first-degree murder of a young girl who died at one of his parties, although by the time the case went to trial the charge had been reduced to manslaughter. In
what can only be described as a farce of a trial, the first jury failed to reach a firm agreement on his guilt, or indeed innocence, although the majority sought his acquittal. The second time
round the jury were still unable to come to an agreement, although strangely this time they favoured finding him guilty. By the third and final time they found him not guilty and even prepared a
statement to apologize to the now totally humiliated and depressed accused. But by now the damage was done, the press had had their pound of flesh and had managed to stir up so much public
animosity towards Roscoe prior to the trial, that everybody had already formed their own opinion as regards his guilt. The jury obviously struggled to reach their verdict, but truth will out and
Roscoe was deemed a free man.

Sadly though it would be many years before he would be able to take up his acting career. His name had been well and truly dragged through the mud and was considered to be the proverbial hot
potato; nobody therefore wanted to be associated with his name, worried that the public would boycott any production that he was involved with. Amazingly, after he had been acquitted, people were
still very suspicious of his guilt. It’s probably true to say that if you read a scandal in the press about a celebrity, you tend to remember it (whether it’s true or not) rather than a
favourable review of a movie.

From the moment of his birth on 24 March 1887 Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle was no lightweight – reportedly weighing in excess of 13lb on delivery this was to prove something of a
shock to his slim mother and father. Indeed the large birth weight of her child did in fact cause his mother health problems which troubled her until her death some 12 years later. His father,
William Goodrich Arbuckle, was suspicious of the size of “his offspring”; considering his wife’s and his build, there was always a niggling doubt that he may have not fathered the
child. He was unable to prove such, but did make life hard for Roscoe, who was aware that his father was unduly harsh on him, although unable to guess the reasons for his behaviour. He was born in
Smith Centre, Kansas, but while he was an infant, his parents, by now with nine children, moved to California.

Unfortunately for Roscoe he became the butt of many childhood jokes and was often taunted and bullied by the other children. It was at a young age that he was given the nickname of
“Fatty”, which stayed with him until his death. Like many large children who find themselves in this situation, he sought comfort in food which only compounded his problems and his
weight continued to soar in this cruel vicious circle. As a result of being bullied, Roscoe became a self-conscious, shy and quiet child who tried his best to blend into the background, and not
bring unwanted attention to himself.

Extraordinarily, Roscoe found his confidence would soar when he took to the stage to perform in front of an audience. He was found to have a wonderful singing voice and was extremely agile in
spite of his large size. He performed on stage from the age of eight, thoroughly enjoying the applause and adulation from the audience. His mother was immensely proud of her son’s hidden
talents and often came to the theatre to enjoy his performances.