Author Archives: Garry Rodgers

About Garry Rodgers

After three decades as a Royal Canadian Mounted Police homicide detective and British Columbia coroner, International Best Selling author and blogger Garry Rodgers has an expertise in death and the craft of writing on it. Now retired, he wants to provoke your thoughts about death and help authors give life to their words.

SECRETS OF WRITING BESTSELLING CRIME THRILLERS WITH SUE COLETTA

Every once in a while a bright star emerges—no matter what writing galaxy you’re in. But, they’re never overnight stellars. They’re self-made products with years in craft study, committed practice, unswerving belief in themselves, refusal to give up and respectful networking with humble appreciation. And a few have God-given talent. They make it all work. That’s the secret successful combination bestselling author Sue Coletta tells you about in her travel toward the top of the crime thriller genre.

I met Sue Coletta three years ago—just before her first published book. Sue shipped me a draft of MARRED for my thoughts. I was a page in and stopped. I backed up. Read it again. And I thought, My God! Can this writer write! Today, Sue and I are professional colleagues and personal friends. I watch her progress with awe.

In a short span, Sue Coletta’s produced five fantastic novels and several stand-alones. She’s slain story structure, captured book marketing and mastered social media. Through her plotting, penning and promoting, Sue’s stayed down-to-earth and kept her wicked sense of humor. And despite demands, Sue Coletta still makes time to selflessly share her secrets of writing bestselling crime thrillers—Sue was silly enough to drop in for a DyingWords chat.

*   *   *

Hey, Sue! Great having you back in the DyingWords shack. *locks door* What a coincidence—it happens to jive with the release of your new crime thriller, SCATHED, the Grafton County Series, Book #3. I just finished a non-stop SCATHED read, and I gotta say, “Wow!” I didn’t think it possible to exceed your other novels, but you’re becoming a better writer all the time. *disconnects phone* Tell us about SCATHED. *draws curtains* What’s in it? How’d it come to be?

What’s SCATHED about?

On a picturesque fall morning in Grafton County, New Hampshire, a brutal murder rocks the small town of Alexandria. In the backyard of a weekend getaway cabin, a dead woman is posed in red-satin, with two full-bloomed roses in place of eyes.

In her hand she holds a mysterious envelope addressed to Sheriff Niko Quintano. Inside, Paradox vows to kill again if his riddle isn’t solved within 24 hours.

With so little time and not enough manpower, Niko asks his wife for help. But Crime Writer Sage Quintano is dealing with her own private nightmare. Not only did she find massive amounts of blood on the mountain where she and her family reside, but a phone call from the past threatens her future—the creepy mechanical voice of John Doe, the serial killer who murdered her twin sister.

Together, can Niko and Sage solve the riddle in time to save the next victim? Or will the killer win this deadly game of survival?

—   —   —

The book description doesn’t match the initial story idea. It all started with the Tim McGraw song, “Live Like You Were Dying.” All writers have a weird and wonderful way of coming up with story ideas. This post gives readers a peek into my thought process for SCATHED. Which made perfect sense to me at the time. Not sure anyone who reads the post would agree, but it all worked out in the end.

You flesh your characters so well. In SCATHED, you put Sage and Niko through the wringer, and Paradox is quite the enigma. Your plotting is outstanding. I’m not going to do a spoiler alert about the finale, but I did not see that coming. How do you do such a good job of character and plot building?

I studied story structure for years, and I put that knowledge to work. Here’s a quick overview of the milestones all stories must hit in order to work, regardless of genre …

Hook: Open the novel with a bang. In other words, hook the reader and don’t let go. Force them to flip the page, then the next, and the next after that. The hook is something that creates a question the reader wants answered; doesn’t need context with protagonist’s needs or stakes.

Inciting Incident (optional, but I include it): Game-changing event occurring during Part 1, often leading to a decision at the First Plot Point.

First Plot Point (20% – 25% into the novel): The most important moment in the story, because it kicks off the quest. Something forces the protagonist to act.

First Pinch Point (about 37.5% into the novel): Reminder of the story’s antagonist, not filtered by narrative or protagonist’s description, but directly visible to the reader.

Midpoint (at 50%): New information or awareness that changes the experience or understanding of context for the protagonist and/or reader; a catalyst activating new decisions/actions.

Second Pinch Point (at roughly 62.5%): Reminder of the story’s antagonist, as the antagonist ups the game against the protagonist’s attacks.

All is Lost Moment (optional): A slower paced, all-hope-is-lost lull before the Second Plot Point, where the protagonist feels gutted.

Second Plot Point (placed at 75%): The final injection of new information into the story (doesn’t need to be fully understood by the protagonist yet); protagonist’s quest is accelerated.

As for characterization, the best advice I can give is to slip into your character’s skin. Know your character as well as yourself, then ask three questions …

What’s their public persona? (1st dimension of character; the face they show to the world)

How do they act with friends and family? (2nd dimension of character; the face they show to those closest to them)

If they were trapped in a movie theatre during a fire, would they elbow their way through the crowd, or would they help others escape the blaze? (3rd dimension of character; their true character — who they are when the shit hits the fan.)

This is called the three dimensions of character. By fleshing out these questions, we’re able to create living, breathing human beings, with hopes, fears, worldviews, religious beliefs, phobias, dreams, plans for the future, etc. We don’t show all these things of course, but we should still know the answers. I even listen to their favorite music to help get into character.

No doubt you’ve got a Grafton County Series #4 in mind. What’s happening on that front?

Book 4 is all planned out. It’s sitting on the back burner to cool while I finish writing Silent Mayhem, Mayhem Series, Book 3.

Okay. Let’s talk shop, and hear some crafty wisdom from crime writer Sue Coletta. I know you’re a big plotster rather than a pantster. Tell us about your story structure philosophy.

Whoops. Jumped the gun on this question. It’s answered above.

“Point of View”. We could go on all day about POV techniques. I see you used two POVs in SCATHED. Sage Qunitano, your protagonist, is in 1st, and the other POV characters are in 3rd. How did you get the combination to work so well?

Point of View is another style choice. I’ve always written my stories with dueling protagonists, so it’s become second nature. The main squeeze, so to speak, I write in 1st person. The others I write in deep 3rd. How do I get the combination to work? Practice makes perfect. Hahaha.

Okay, serious answer… By narrowing my focus to one POV character per scene — which is a writing “rule” — I experience their surroundings as if I’m inside their body. Anything they can’t hear, see, taste, smell, feel, must go. No exceptions. When we ground the reader in the character’s point of view, it doesn’t matter if we write in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or a combination of all three. They’ll go along for the ride.

While we’re on the POV subject, you use a lot of what’s called “Deep Point of View”. Tell us how you pull that off.

Asked and answered, Your Honor.

What’s your thoughts about how important “Show vs Tell” is? After all, most people would say you actually tell a story rather than show it.

Actually, we show and tell a story. Showing comes into play when we write from one character’s perspective and only one character’s perspective per scene. A new scene means we can switch to a different character’s perspective as long as we remain consistent. I should add, it’s best not to have too many POV characters to avoid confusion. I usually limit mine to three, rotating the POV characters between chapters to create a rhythm to the overall story.

Telling also has its place in a story. If we showed each and every detail, the final page count would grow exponentially. Let’s say we need to transition through time. After all, if nothing interesting happens, then there’s no need to bore the reader.

Example: Three hours later, I was on my knees in the driveway, scrubbing blood off the bumper of my 1967 Corvette.

Voice. I think your voice is so strong in your writing. How would you describe “Voice”, and how do you know when you’ve found it?

*blush* Thank you. Voice is one of those elusive things that’s almost impossible to define. A writer’s voice is as unique as their fingerprints. Voice is the combination of syntax, diction, punctuation, dialogue, sentence rhythm, and character development across their entire body of work. Just as a flute doesn’t sound like a clarinet, neither does one writer from another.

But it’s more than that.

By remaining true to our characters in dialogue as well as in the narrative, by our use of syntax, diction, punctuation, dialogue, pace, and sentence rhythm, combined with our ability to write beyond our comfort level and share our demons, our past, our life experience as a whole, by writing “in the zone” with authenticity and honesty throughout our career, with consistency, by daring to reach into the darkest recesses of our soul and spill our darkest fears, joy, sorrow, pain, hopes and dreams on the page, our distinct writing voice blossoms. Thus, voice is an extension of our truest self.

How about the black cloud of “Head-Hopping”? Does the average reader really recognize it, or is head-hopping one of those rules that gurus, rather than writers, preach?

It depends on if we’re talking true head-hopping or an omniscient POV. Which is an important distinction, I think. Head-hopping causes confusion, because the reader doesn’t know whose head they’re in half the time. With an omniscient POV, the character who’s thinking, hearing, seeing, smelling, feeling, is clear. Years ago, I went to a Mystery Writers of America conference and the class instructor insisted omniscient POV was the only way to tell the full story. Not true. There’s no right or wrong way to tell a story. Years ago, most writers used omniscient narrators, so I’m not about to critique the classics. I will say, writers do need to learn the “rules” of storytelling before we break them, though.

Head-hopping is problematic for several reasons …

  • It confuses the reader;
  • The storyline doesn’t focus on one character at a time;
  • Tends to go hand-in-hand with on-the-nose dialogue;
  • It distances the reader from the character;
  • Lacks emotion;
  • Often there’s author intrusion, where the author inserts facts that haven’t been unearthed in a natural way.

An omniscient narrator has two main problem areas …

  • It distances the reader from the character;
  • If not done well, it slips into head-hopping.

You effectively used a prologue in SCATHED. *Reader Alert* (Once you get to the end, you’ll see how important the SCATHED prologue is.) Like you, I’ve read all kinds of pros & cons about prologues. Personally, I have no problem with a good prologue like you used in SCATHED. What’s the trick or tricks to making a prologue effective?

Ah, prologues … I love ‘em. Here again, there are “rules” to follow so the reader doesn’t read the word “prologue” and think it’s all backstory. One of my favorite ways to use a prologue is called a jump cut or scene cut. The prologue starts a scene that takes place later in the story. Chapter One then backtracks — example: three days earlier — and the story unfolds. This device is effective, because the reader gets a peek at what’s in store for the protagonist. The anticipation is almost palpable as they flip pages, waiting to see how it all plays out.

Another great way to use a prologue is by showing the villain killing the first victim. By giving readers a peek at the antagonist and what he or she is capable of, they fear for the protagonist’s safety.

The final way to use a prologue is to show an event that occurred at a different place or time, but only if the past event impacts the present. An example of this is the prologue of MARRED, where I showed Sage and Niko at their baby’s funeral. It’s a gut-wrenching prologue, but it was important to show, as readers soon find out in Chapter One. For those who don’t understand what I mean, read the sample on Amazon.

Date & time prompts and sub-heads. SCATHED is full of them, and I like it. But, many writing wizards scathe others for using prompts. Your view is…?

The gurus say not to date your book, and I agree, unless the date impacts the story in some way. In MARRED, the date was an important factor. For this reason, in subsequent books in the series, I made the date important to the storyline in some way. For example, in SCATHED, the date shows why Sage is overly suspicious, because only months earlier (in CLEAVED) she fell victim to a vicious serial killer. A traumatic experience impacts not only the victim’s life but the victim’s family, as well. The passage of time needed to reflect that.

Now, I’ll always have to use dates in order to remain consistent throughout the Grafton County Series. The biggest problem I’ll face is how to age the dogs, Colt and Ruger. Ruger’s already of advanced age, and limps from arthritis in his wrist. Over time, climbing stairs became difficult for him. Showing the progression of the arthritis isn’t the problem. My biggest obstacle is myself. I adore Ruger — or as Sage calls him, Rugey. The thought of losing him kills me, so he may end up being the oldest living English Mastiff in history. 😉

In my Mayhem Series, I included a date line in Wings of Mayhem before my views changed. But the date wasn’t important to the series as a whole, so I didn’t include a date line in Blessed Mayhem or Silent Mayhem (which I’m still writing). Instead, I wrote, Tuesday, 10 p.m. (no month or year). I do the same with the new series I’m working on.

Pet words or tics. All of us are guilty of this and I make no apology. Something that jumped out in SCATHED was you used the word “hinky”. Where’d you get that? You been hanging around with a bunch of cops, or what? I tried to get away with “hinky’ once, and my editor made me change it to “kinky” — said no one would understand what I meant by “hinky”. But we die-hard crime writers know there’s a big difference. It’s like hinky is using a feather and kinky is using the whole f’n bird, right?

Hahahahahaha! I’d love to tell you a fascinating story behind that word choice, but there isn’t one. My parents used the word a lot — “there’s something hinky going on in that house” — and I’ve been known to toss it around as well, so “hinky” was a natural fit for Sage when a moving truck sputtered past her bedroom window after midnight.

Profanity. *Spoiler Alert* (If the F-Bomb offends you, SCATHED might not be your thing.) You’re no stranger to profanity but, it’s not like your use of profanity is flagrant or inappropriate. IMO, your dialogue is realistic for the genre and characters. Cops, crooks and writers swear all the time. In fact, one Sergeant I worked with made a perfectly grammatically correct sentence using a series of F’s with one conjunction and a noun. IYO, when is profanity acceptable?

Tough question! Dropping the F-bomb is a tricky subject. Like you, I portray my characters as real cops and real killers. To think a cop wouldn’t swear is ridiculous. That said, I do try to keep it to a minimum wherever possible. There isn’t much I can do about Deputy Frankie Campanelli. She’s her own woman. To censor her would ruin her characterization. Although I do try to offset her more colorful language with “effin’” or “frickin’.”

Sage rarely swears. She’s only dropped the F-bomb one time in all three books, and that happened in SCATHED. It wasn’t an easy decision, either, but I did it to show her level of frustration. The F-bomb acted as a slap across her husband’s face. When Niko heard his wife use the F-bomb, it forced him to pay attention.

Sex Scenes. Okay, you caught Frankie Campanelli in the act. What’s your take on writing appropriate sex scenes?

Oy. You had to go there. Thanks, buddy. Here’s my take on sex scenes. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. If a sex scene fits with the storyline, crime writers can’t skip over it. But we can get in and out, so to speak, as quickly and painlessly as possible. Next question?

*blush* Ah, yeah, okay, so, ah, like we’ve covered the dirty stuff. Now let’s, let’s tackle some clean shit like… like editing and formatting. What’s your editing process? Who do you have help from? Is it ever okay to self-edit?

Confession time. I have no idea how to format for Kindle vs. print. That’s one of the reasons I wouldn’t be any good at self-publishing. In fact, didn’t you have to write me step-by-step instructions on how to format my 60 Ways to Murder guide in order for me to muddle through it? My publishers handle that aspect for my novels and novellas, thank God.

Self-editing? Absolutely! I’m an edit-as-I-go type of writer. Meaning, I start the day by editing what I wrote the day before. It may not be the popular choice, but I don’t believe our first draft needs to be a mess. Besides, I’d rather not rewrite a gazillion times before the manuscript is ready for submission.

After the initial draft, I use a few different tricks to search for typos and such.

  • Read the work out loud;
  • Change the format; meaning, change the Word doc to pdf and upload to the Kindle app. By changing the format, it tricks the eye to catch words we’d normally miss.
  • Change the font and point. I like to make the font so large that I don’t need to wear reading glasses. Some writers even change the color.

Even with self-editing, my editor catches things I’ve missed. Sometimes even the proofreader misses things as well, and a typo or two will end up in the final version. Eh, what can ya do? We’re only human.

Commas. For the life of me I can, never get comma use right. How about some tips? And, what’s your view of the Oxford/Serial comma?

For those who don’t know, let’s clarify what the Oxford comma is. When used in a list, the comma before the conjunction “and” is called the serial comma aka the Oxford comma or Harvard comma.

Example: The fair served fried dough, corndogs, ice cream, and watermelon. The comma before “and” is the serial comma aka Oxford or Harvard comma.

I’m a fan of the Oxford comma, because it leaves little confusion as to what the writer meant. The Elements of Style and The Chicago Manual of Style are both pro-Oxford comma. As far as I know, its use is also the industry standard. Well, that’s what my editors tell me anyway. As with most things writing, whether to use an Oxford comma is a style choice. The most important thing is consistency.

Comma Tips from a Crime Writer

I use that title because I don’t claim to know all the rules. Hence why we love our editors. Comma use comes naturally after a while, but it does take manuscripts full of red ink in order for the “rules” to sink in. At least it did for me.

For non-lists, add the Oxford comma if the phrase after the conjunction reflects an emotion or reaction. Example: The bear huffed, and I screamed.
Could we skip the comma before “and” and still be clear? Sure. But it reads better with the comma, by inserting a natural pause.
Leave it out when the subject is doing more than one thing. Example: The bear huffed and stomped the ground.
Gerund clauses at the beginning of a sentence need a comma. Example: Judging by his appearance, he didn’t sleep well last night.
Use a comma after an introductory phrase. Example: When he delivered the speech, he held his chin high.
After a clause that begins with “If.” Example: If I keep adding comma tips, this post will be nine pages long. Same rule applies to clauses that begin with “Because” and “Since.”
Add comma before “then.” Example: He read the post, then needed a nap.
Add comma after a phrase that begins with “After.” Example: After he woke from his afternoon nap, he added a shot of whiskey to his coffee.
Add comma before gerund clause. Example: She skipped past the school, whistling at the boys on the jungle gym.
Use a comma to offset a name or title for clarity. Name example: My landlord, Mr. Edwards, peeks through my bedroom window at night. Title example: I loved your new psychological thriller, SCATHED. J

Dialog Tags/Speech Attributes. Looking back through SCATHED, I don’t see many (or maybe any) dialogue tags. What’s your recommendation about how authors should mark who’s saying what?

I use dialogue tags only when I want to show how the character said something, i.e. “he warned.” I also use tags when I want to show how the POV character interpreted what someone else said.

Example from SCATHED …

A switch clicked in my brain as the connection to the hacker became clear. In slow motion, I shielded my gaping mouth. “You don’t think—”

“No, I don’t,” he countered, reading my mind. “And neither should you.”

In the above example, “countered” indicates a quick response; “reading my mind” after the tag shows how Sage, the POV character of the scene, interpreted Niko’s response.

Otherwise, I prefer a body cue or inner dialogue. My advice is to mix it up. Too much of one or the other can ruin the story rhythm. Ultimately, it’s another style choice.

Also, my personal rule for rapid-fire dialogue between two people is to leave out the tag as well as the body cue. But, and this is important, we can’t go too long without either the tag or body cue, or we risk confusing the reader. (ß notice the serial comma before the last “or”? A comma is used because the phrase that follows is a reaction/emotion) To avoid confusion, my personal preference is three or four lines, tops.

Example of rapid-fire dialogue in SCATHED:

Mind whirling with endless possibilities, Niko raised his gaze to Dr. Gaines. [ßbody cue to ground the reader; with this one body cue it’s clear the conversation that follows will be between Niko and Dr. Gaines, with Niko speaking first] “Sorry. What?”

“I said, is the card an invitation of some sort?”

“You could say that, yeah.”

“To where, if I may ask?”

“Nowhere good, Doc. Nowhere good.”

Fonts. Maybe this is a self-pub choice or handled by your traditional publisher, but I noticed my ARC of SCATHED is printed in sans serif. I think most TPs get printed in a serif font like Times New Roman where many SPs have a sans serif font like Ariel. What say you on font effects?

Sorry. That’s out of my wheelhouse. My publisher decides, not me. Interesting question, though. I never noticed SPs had different fonts from TP books. Hmm, I wonder why. Let’s ask the Dying Words community to weigh in on this question. Do you prefer one font over another?

Covers. You have amazing covers thanks to the magnificent Elle J. Rossi (EJR Digital Art). What do you think makes for a great cover?

Isn’t she amazing? She’s done some awesome covers for you, as well.

I’ve learned a lot about covers through trial and error. Mostly, what not to do. For example, CLEAVED’s cover is one of my favorites, but the book doesn’t sell as well as the others at book signings. Why? Even if a reader is die-hard crime thriller fan, there’s something about blood on a cover that turns people off. Go figure.

Covers in a series need to resemble each other. At the same time, they need to be different enough from the other books in the series. This was a hard lesson to learn. Our view of the cover might not match the average reader’s view. The perfect example of this is Wings of Mayhem and Blessed Mayhem. To me, they’re very different covers, but because the colors match, many readers think they’re the same book. At signings, I need to point out that they aren’t. Ah, well. Live and learn.

The sweet spot is the Grafton County Series. Even with the blood on CLEAVED’s cover, a reader can tell right away that the books belong together, yet each cover is distinct.

And then there’s marketing. It strikes me that today, unless you’re a big established name, you’re responsible for your own marketing. What really pays off in book marketing and what’s a waste of time and money?

BookBub is the ultimate. Their email list is so huge that they guarantee a certain number of sales. It’s not cheap. There’s also no guarantee that you’ll score a featured deal. But if you do, it’s well worth the money.

ENT is another great site for sales.

I don’t bother with the nickel-and-dime sites. They’re cheap and sometimes they pay off, but the majority of the time we don’t make our investment back.

Facebook ads work, if you include detailed targeting. Same with BookBub ads, but I haven’t figured out the best way to target their audience. Their algorithm works differently than Facebook. I’ve heard good things about Amazon ads but haven’t tried them yet. Posting to Facebook groups is a PITA, but it’s free and sometimes works for sales. Personally, I limit my posting to Facebook groups so I don’t come off as a spammer. Three groups a couple times per week is enough, IMO. Same with Twitter. I leave a promo post pinned to my timeline, but I may only tweet it once a day. With all social media, we need to follow the 80/20 rule — 80% non-book related; 20% promo. I lean more toward 90/10.

If you have a large marketing budget, International Thriller Writers offers various advertising options, and recommends several crime magazines. Taking out an ad in your local paper works, too, especially if you’ve got a signing coming up in the area.

What can we expect from Sue Coletta in the future? Right now, you have the Mayhem Series and the Grafton County Series. Are you sticking with those books? Or have you some other shive up your sleeve?

I’ll continue to write both series. I’m also adding another series, which I’m really excited about. The series is set in Africa, specifically on the savannah. Can’t say more than that right now. I’d hate to ruin the surprise.

I recall you did some children’s writing some time ago. Ever think of doing true crime, non-fiction or even poetry? I tried poetry once, and it turned out as a limerick about a man from Nantucket that was too vulgar for even Chuck Wendig of Terrible Minds to run. What about doing some script or screenplay writing? Co-writing, maybe?

Over the winter I was offered a co-authored project, but honestly, I doubt I’ll be able to squeeze in another project this year. If Patterson asked, I may be more apt to clear my schedule.

While watching the wildlife play in my yard, I’ve written about nine children’s books in my head. Someday I’ll take the time to write the stories for my grandchildren. As for true crime, I’ve mulled over the possibility. Only time will tell.

I’m no poet, so that’s not in my future. I may do another non-fiction project, though.

Finally, where can DyingWords followers and others find your work?

Probably the best place is my website: https://suecoletta.com. From there, readers can choose their preferred format to fit any device, read samples of all my books, and/or request autographed paperbacks.

*   *   *

Sue Coletta’s bio includes Member of Mystery Writers of America, Sisters in Crime, International Thriller Writers, and NH Writers Project, Sue Coletta is an award-winning, bestselling, multi-published crime writer. Sue’s also a proud member of the Kill Zone, an award-winning writing blog, where she posts every other Monday. In 2017, Feedspot honored her Murder Blog with the Top 50 Crime Blogs on the Net Award. She’s also the communications manager for the Serial Killer Project and Forensic Science and founder of #ACrimeChat on Twitter.

Join Sue’s Crime Lover’s Lounge and be the first to know about giveaways, contests, and have inside access to deleted scenes (when available). Your secret key code will unlock the virtual door. Or follow the blog. Either way, you’ll score two free killer reads!

Sue lives in northern New Hampshire with her husband, who deals with a crazy crime writer feeding circus peanuts to crows named Poe and Edgar (and family), her favorite squirrels, Shawnee and Monny, and a special chipmunk dubbed “Hip” for his enthusiasm and excited leaps each time he scores a peanut … “Hip, hip, hooray!” Under no circumstances can the other 11 chippies find out she plays favorites, or they may retaliate.

Get SCATHED, Sue Coletta’s newest crime thriller at Amazon

WHAT REALLY CAUSED THE SALEM WITCH HUNTS

The Salem witch hunts and mass executions of innocent victims falsely accused of sorcery is an American historical black mark. Through June to October of 1692, Puritan authorities in Salem, Massachusetts hung nineteen citizens after trying and convicting them for witchcraft. They crushed another man to death with heavy stones, and let five others perish—shackled in chains. Two imprisoned souls were mere children.

Today, all Salem witch hunt victims are officially exonerated. This terrible debacle became the poster case for trumped-up accusations and wrongful convictions. In fact, the term “witch hunt” is symbolic for going after those profiled for a vengeance need or paranoid forces “out to get someone”. Even the current United States president Twitters-on about witch hunts.

This horrific travesty of malicious injustice was an American turning point. Historians call the Salem witch trials the rock upon which theocracy shattered. They were the perfect storm of isolationism, religious extremism, fanaticism and divided socio-economic structure. The witch trials were also unprecedented as bad jurisprudence and a miscarriage of justice.

Today, few educated or rational people believe in evil witchcraft or black magic. (Modern peaceful Wiccan practitioners are a different matter.) That old destructive medieval and ignorant mindset sieved from America after the Salem witch trials. But, for over three centuries, few people understood why the disaster happened. Various theories suggested Freudian mass-hysterics, a widespread fungus causing mind-altering behavior and even meddling by alien forces aligned with the dark side.

Now the truth is out there. A meticulous, scientific study by two American academics published in the book Salem Possessed wraps up the witch hunt reason. It’s not some supernatural power or psychedelic drug. The answer lies in a complex mix of sociology, geography, demography, human psychology and forensic pathology. Something far more sinister than sorcery really caused the Salem witch hunts.

History of the Salem Witch Hunts

It trigged with teenagers. In January 1692, three bored girls played a game similar to today’s Ouija Board. They cracked eggs and separated the whites in a pan of cold water, then used imagination to decipher patterns divulging hidden secrets and foretelling future events. They got carried away. Soon they were writhing in fits and cramping into twisted contortions.

The girls were relatives of Salem Village vicar Samuel Parris, a Massachusetts Bay Puritan parishioner who referred the distorted girls to a local physician. The doctor found no medical cause for the girls’ discomfort. He suggested it was work of witchcraft and turned it back to the minister. The reverend sided with Satanic superstition and went about extracting accusations from the young girls.

They implicated three Salem women for bewitching and causing their erratic behavior—Sarah Good, Sarah Osborne, and Tituba. Good was known for tardy church attendance. Osborne was a loose-moraled beggar. And Tituba was a Carib slave house servant. The trio were hardly credible to Salem’s upper crust and certainly suitable scapegoats not equipped to defend themselves.

Good and Osborne fervently denied being witches. Despite intensive interrogation in magistrate’s court, they held to their denials. Tituba, on the other hand, confessed. She gave wild accounts of signing Satan’s book and offered crazy tales of human hogs, great black dogs, red cats and yellow birds. Tituba also named of other Salem witches.

From there, everyone got carried away. Authorities rounded-up scores of witch suspects, hauling them before interrogatories. More people—women and men—confessed under duress and named more names. In a few months, nearly two hundred “witches” were accused, hunted down and arrested in Salem and neighboring communities. Quickly, the arrests turned to trials and mass hangings began.

The 17th Century Salem Legal System

1692 was an important year in 17th Century Salem’s legal system. It coincided with a new charter for the Province of Massachusetts Bay following the 1680s King William War. The colonists were deeply divided in Salem and the surrounding area’s social structure. It was protective Puritism vs. progressive private enterprise. The King’s newly-appointed Governor, William Phip, arrived with the charter in January,1692—just as the witchcraft accusations arose.

The spiraling sequence of accusations, arrests and confession led to mass hysteria and a “thronged” legal system. To accommodate justice, Governor Phip convened a Special Court of Oyer (hearing) and Terminer (deciding). He appointed magistrates, judges and sheriffs based on local recommendations by powerful people in the religious sphere.

The Salem witch trials occurred long before the United States Constitution was a gleam in revolutionary eyes. Rules of evidence stemmed from English common law and principles based on religious doctrine. For witchcraft cases, evidence came from accusatory mouths of uneducated and manipulated common folk, not from corroborated independent and credible witnesses.

Once a citizen claimed their loss or discomfort was witchcraft caused, they laid a complaint against the accused before an appointed magistrate. If the complaint appeared credible by the magistrate’s standard, the accused was arrested and brought in for mandatory interrogation. This was well before the right to remain silent.

Interrogations were public events. Open questions by a panel and audience members given standing were standard procedure. Every effort pressed the accused to confess and reveal other witches. It was a Puritanical purging of Salem’s evils and a chance to rid society of undesirables. Once a grand jury heard interrogation evidence, they preferred an indictment and the ‘witch” was set on trial.

Witch trials depended on what’s called “spectral evidence”. This was testimony of the afflicted who claimed to see the apparition of the accused witch appear in a ghostly form while performing witchcraft upon them. Theologically, the court evidence relied on whether or not the accused gave the Devil permission to use their shape. The Salem witch courts contended the Devil could not perform evil acts using a person’s shape without that person’s expressed permission—therefore, if the afflicted complainant had seen the accused’s shape—it was in facto proof the accused was guilty of witchcraft and complicit with the Devil. According to Puritan law, the witch must die.

This convoluted logic resulted in immediate hangings and a compression death through layered stoning. It also caused deaths of those awaiting trial while shackled in dungeons. In three months, twenty-four innocent people were dead and many more awaited similar fates. That’s until someone accused Governor Phip’s wife of being a witch.

Suddenly, the executions stopped. Phip ordered an evidentiary review. It determined spectral evidence was inadmissible, noting it was not credible and highly prejudicial to the accused. Phip stayed the remaining execution warrants and commuted sentences, essentially freeing all those facing witchcraft allegations. Within three years, the Province of Massachusetts Bay officially exonerated all accused witches and ordered a consolidating day of fast and remembrance.

Cause of the Salem Witch Hunts

Many historians and writers pondered how normally rational people got so swept by the wind of witchcraft craze. Certainly, there was a mass psychological hysteria and paranoia. But the actual reason—the root cause—of why so many witch accusers and so many accused witches behaved so bizarrely was unknown. For years, suspected causes for bewitched symptoms like convulsing and hallucinating fell on the Claviceps purpurea fungus found in Puritan bread. It’s known for LSD-like side effects.

But a bread acid trip didn’t cut current standards, even though the mass hysteria was long-explained by archaic superstitions of wanton witchcraft and the Devil’s demons. Everybody ate Puritan bread in Salem, and only a few presented weird symptoms. No, a rational look at the Salem witch hunts needed further investigation by reasonable and independent thinkers.

That rationality came from two Harvard-educated history professors at the University of Massachusetts who wrote the intriguing book Salem Possessed. Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum’s work took an in-depth look at the social, economic and geographical factors affecting Salem’s citizens back when the witch hunts started. They also took a forensic approach to the psychological and pathological influences causing the complainant’s symptoms.

Boyer and Nissenbaum came to an astounding social conclusion. However, they weren’t the first to arrive there. In 1867, New England historian Charles W. Upham produced an accurate map of how Salem Village appeared in 1692. Then he plotted the houses where witch accusers and accused witches lived. Astonishingly, almost all accusers lived on the west side of Salem Village. The accused lived on the east side.

Salem Possessed’s authors concluded that if the Devil had come to Salem, he was being very choosy about which homes he visited. No, they concluded. The reason for the witch hunts had to lie in Salem’s history, and they were right.

Salem is one of the oldest European settlements in North America’s New England region. As the crow flies, it’s less than twenty miles northeast of downtown Boston. English immigrants of the Puritan faith first occupied Salem to establish a community based on their conservative views to protect old ways threatened by the age of Enlightenment and the then-liberal Anglican Church.

The Puritans were agricultural people. Naturally, they chose to settle in the best farmland which lay to the west of Massachusetts Bay. Over the course of eighty years—roughly four generations back then—the Puritans built a religious and agricultural society centered around what they called Salem Village. Today, the area is known as Danvers, Massachusetts which is a different jurisdiction from present-day Salem.

During the mid-1600s, a harbor community developed on Massachusetts Bay, east of the village. It became known as Salem Town. Commercially progressive settlers occupied Salem Town and focused on making money rather than praising the Lord and preserving old ways. As Salem Town grew, it pressed westward and crossed the border into the village. That didn’t sit well with the Puritan villagers.

Boyer and Nissenbaum uncovered a tangled history of feuds, jealousy, mistrust and hostility between the west Salem villagers and their eastern invaders. West Salem had two tightly-knit prominent families who married within. The easterners were a mix of newcomers who married outside family lines. For some reason, everyone who displayed physical symptoms of being witch victims came from the two prominent Puritan families.

From a socio-economic and religious point, it’s clear the impact of commercial capitalism and the shifting role of the church left the backward Puritans threatened by their modern newcomers. It led to unbearable tensions which broke once the first bewitched symptoms showed in January of 1692. That opened a floodgate of superstitious opportunity to kill the eastern Salem villagers.

Salem Possessed makes a powerful argument that human personality partially caused the Salem witch hunts. If that be the Devil in humanity, then so be it. However, the Devil isn’t a good forensic reason for why the teen girls experienced peculiar symptoms like mood swings, cramps and hysterical contortions. Something else was at work, and the pathology points at genetics.

Putting it bluntly, the Puritans were inbred. Their closed circle was more than religious and economic. They married within and secluded their gene pool. Huntington’s Chorea or Huntington’s Disease is common in people with dysfunctional genes. It’s a hereditary neurodegenerative illness with physical, cognitive and emotional symptoms exactly like the west Salem village girls experienced. The gene mutation creates a protein that kills cells in the brain’s cerebral cortex.

Many adults in the Puritan community already had some stage of Huntington’s Disease. That impaired their thought processes as well as their offspring’s. Because of longevity in the Salem region and that power still clung to the Puritan Church in the late 1600s, Puritans made up the judicial force that persecuted the alleged witches. Their personality and pathology dysfunction is what really caused the Salem witch hunts.

For three centuries, lore held that the witches of Salem were hung from scaffolding in the center of today’s Gallows Park. That’s not correct. Several years ago, the Gallows Project funded by the University of Massachusetts did a thorough research based on historical records and advanced forensic techniques like GPS analyzation and ground penetrating radar. They conclusively identified the execution spot as a tree at Proctor’s Ledge. It’s right beside a Walgreens and the community built a small memorial honoring the wrongfully-accused witches of Salem.

RFK ASSASSINATION — THE SECOND GUNMAN EVIDENCE

It’s been 50 years since United States Senator Robert Francis (Bobby) Kennedy’s murder in the kitchen of Los Angeles’ Ambassador Hotel. Bobby Kennedy just won the California Democratic nomination as their presidential candidate. Kennedy left the hotel ballroom after his acceptance speech and cut through the pantry where he suffered three bullet wounds, one of them fatal. Caught red-handed—holding a smoking gun—was Christian Palestinian immigrant Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, later convicted of RFK’s assassination.

Despite overwhelming evidence that Sirhan intentionally shot at Bobby Kennedy, there’re dark doubt shadows looming over the case. They indicate Sirhan didn’t act alone. Problems with witness statements, autopsy findings and ballistic testing suggest evidence that a second gunman conspired in RFK’s shooting. Mistakes and incompetence in the original police investigation also amplify suspicion of a second gunman accomplice.

A highly-credible medical team recently reviewed the original RFK medical and autopsy evidence. For the first time in history, independent professionals looked at the facts and circumstances surrounding Kennedy’s injuries and treatment. In June 2018, they published findings in a medical field’s leading gazette, the Journal of Neuroscience. This clear and concise report examines what happened from a medical perspective and whether there’s any pathological basis providing evidence that a second gunman helped shoot Bobby Kennedy to death.

RFK’s Deadly Road Towards the Presidency

In 1968, Bobby Kennedy seemed certain to win the Democratic Party’s nomination for United States President. Riding on his experience as his brother John F. Kennedy’s attorney general, sympathy over JFK’s assassination and the famous Kennedy name, RFK was well on his road to winning the American presidency. Lyndon Johnson declined a second term, and other Democratic candidates ran a distant second to RFK’s popularity.

Despite being admired, Bobby Kennedy had his enemies. As AG, RFK took on the mob and the communists as well as volatile groups like the Teamsters Union and the Ku Klux Klan. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover hated the Kennedys, and the high profile name made Bobby a target for right-wing activists and lefty nut cases alike. Without a doubt, there were many sights gunning for Robert F. Kennedy.

Unlike today’s tight reins, there was little security for presidential primary candidates back in 1968. The Secret Service had no detail for political candidates, and they did little or no threat assessment or background checks on anyone thought dangerous to candidates. RFK’s security team consisted of a retired NFL linebacker, a former Olympic Medalist and a hired part-time security guard carrying a .38 Special. That’s all the protection Bobby Kennedy had when he arrived at the Ambassador Hotel in downtown LA.

Securing the California primary significantly strengthened RFK’s run for the White House. Democratic runner-up, Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, fell further behind as did former Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon seemed certain to be Kennedy’s challenge for the Oval Office. Had Kennedy lived, Nixon might have lost, and Watergate would never have happened.

That’s not how history went down. On June 4, 1968 Bobby Kennedy won the California Democratic nomination and gave a rousing acceptance speech to a packed house of enthusiastic supporters. Just after midnight, at 12:15 am on June 5, Kennedy stepped from the podium and exited to the kitchen where a smaller crowd of hotel staff and assistants wished him well. RFK moved through the packed pantry, shaking hands and acknowledging folks.

Sirhan laid in wait at the galley’s west end. As Kennedy approached, Sirhan whipped out a .22 caliber, 8-shot Iver Johnson Cadet revolver and emptied it towards RFK. Bullets struck Kennedy three times and collaterally wounded five bystanders. Bobby Kennedy fell to the floor, semi-conscious but mortally wounded with a gunshot wound to the brain. Kitchen staff jumped Sirhan. They wrested the now-empty gun from his hand.

RFK lay motionless for 17 minutes before first responders arrived. A dispatch communication mistakenly sent Kennedy to the nearby Central Receiving Hospital instead of the larger Good Samaritan Hospital which was far better equipped to handle cranial gunshot wounds. Assessing Kennedy’s grave condition, Central’s staff transferred him directly to Samaritan. The delay took nearly an hour post-shooting, however, the 2018 medical review determined it made no difference to RFK’s fate. Despite heroic surgery attempts, his brain wound was untreatable.

Robert Francis Kennedy died at 1:44 am on June 6, 1968. The nation mourned another Kennedy assassination. RFK’s road to the presidency ended in violence, and his dream of furthering civil rights and middle-class prosperity died with him. Sirhan stood trial as the lone gunman. He was convicted, sentenced to death, but later commuted to life in prison. Today, Bobby Kennedy rests under the grounds of Arlington and Sirhan sits behind bars in San Diego.

The RFK Conspiracy Theories Start

Like most high-profile deaths, there are those refusing to buy official conclusions despite how solid evidence seems. John Kennedy’s assassination is the mother of all conspiracy theories, but little brother Bobby’s fate is no exclusion. In fact, there are three deeply disturbing discrepancies in the RFK murder worth investigating.

The big problems with the RFK assassination lie in the true number of shots fired as well as the position and distance of Sirhan relative to Kennedy in the kitchen. Officially, Sirhan fired all 8 shots in his revolver from the front and approximately 2 to 3 feet ahead of RFK. Unofficially, more than 8 shots went off with some bullets allegedly fired from behind Robert Kennedy. That suggests a second gunman.

Further, the eye-witness evidence appears clear that Sirhan maintained some distance, firing from the front on a level and downward angle. The medical and autopsy evidence seems clear that RFK’s fatal brain wound came from a near point-blank gunshot occurring behind his right ear and from an upward angle. Again, that suggests a second gunman.

On the surface, this conflicting evidence is more than troubling. There was also trouble during Sirhan’s trail with inaccurate testimony and confusion by police forensic experts over identifying the RFK murder weapon. There were so many errant issues raised that the United States government appointed a 1975 commission to reinvestigate the RFK assassination. It was supported by the FBI who took no role in the original murder case as the Los Angeles Police Department maintained primary jurisdiction.

The RFK reinvestigation struggled with inconsistent witness statements, confusing forensic evidence and now-missing pieces to the puzzle. Despite perceived problems with proof and procedure, the commission ruled Sirhan Bishara Sirhan acted alone. They found no credible evidence of a second gunman. That was despite being unable to explain a few troubling issues.

Many people don’t accept Sirhan’s original trial verdict or the commission conclusions. This takes in members of the Kennedy family like Robert F. Kennedy, Junior. As well, some of the victims wounded in the Ambassador Hotel shooting and various eyewitnesses present at the time are convinced of a second gunman. Like other conspiracy theorists, they point to the perceptual problems associated with the number of shots and the location of RFK’s fatal wound.

No sensible spectator or serious student of the RFK assassination suggests Sirhan didn’t fire 8 shots. That evidence is overwhelming. But, there’s a lot of information published pointing to more than eight bullet strikes in the Ambassador kitchen. How credible that information is—is the question.

The other major issue—according to conspiracy promoters—is the head wound. By all official accounts, Sirhan never got within a few feet of RFK and remained facing him from the front. The medical and autopsy evidence clearly shows stippling from gunpowder residue burns on Kennedy’s skin and hair at the bullet entrance wound. That evidence seems consistent with the fatal firearm being discharged within inches of RFK’s head, not several feet.

The 2018 independent review published in the Journal of Neurosurgery examined RFK’s hospital treatment and autopsy evidence. They didn’t deal with the “more-than-8-shots” issue. The expert panel left that for the conspiracy theorists and those wanting to research RFK crime scene examination evidence.

The 2018 Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) Review

Three prominent neurosurgeons and trauma practitioners privately reviewed RFK’s medical records and autopsy report. This was independent of any government agency or special interest group. First, they outlined the history of Robert Kennedy’s campaign and the circumstances bringing him in contact with Sirhan.

Next, the review panel outlined RFK’s emergency treatment and follow-up surgery as well as post-op care. Then, the panel focused on the so-called “perfect autopsy” performed by the famous Los Angeles coroner and forensic pathologist, Dr. Thomas Noguchi. Finally, the experts reassessed Kennedy’s medical care to see if anything more could have been done to save RFK’s life.

Robert F. Kennedy suffered 3 separate .22 caliber gunshot wounds. Two were superficial and non-life-threatening. The third was ultimately fatal. One entered the right side of his back. This bullet was recovered intact inside RFK’s body. The second non-lethal bullet entered his right armpit and exited his shoulder. It was not recovered. The fatal bullet entered RFK’s skull behind his right ear. It fragmented, sending lead shrapnel and bone chips deep into RFK’s brain, remaining in the gray matter.

The JNS report outlines the brain injury and medical treatment in impressive detail. The doctor panel concludes so much cranial damage occurred that it was a miracle RFK lived as long as he did. They credit the 1968 medical intervention as first-rate. They report even with today’s medical advancements, if RFK was shot this way in 2018, no modern trauma team would be able to save him.

The JNS panel confirmed Dr. Noguchi’s autopsy findings of close-contact gunshot residue (GSR) stippling identified at RFK’s headshot entrance wound. They correctly observed in the autopsy report Noguchi made no reference to the distance the firearm’s muzzle was from RFK’s skin at discharge. Rather, they reported “a discrepancy between eyewitness reports that Sirhan came no closer than 12 to 18 inches from Kennedy when the shooting occurred and Noguchi’s later writings, stating the gun was no more than 3 inches of the right ear when fired”.

The JNS team also referenced a public Noguchi quote where he made clear his autopsy report didn’t imply Sirhan was the lone shooter. That early quote forever fueled conspiracy fires and formed the foundation for those purporting the second gunman claim. On the record, Noguchi always maintained whoever fired the fatal gunshot into Bobby Kennedy was slightly behind him and in very close quarters.

The More-Than-8-Shots Issue

The JNS doctors steered clear of this positioning can of worms. Rightfully so. This wasn’t their field of expertise. That evidence belongs in the police and forensic investigation wheelhouse. Arm-chair detectives with a half-century of hindsight picked the position puzzle apart from every angle. So they’ve done with the number of shots.

Essentially, the Los Angeles police investigators accounted for eight crime scene bullets. They also tested Sirhan’s .22 caliber, 8-shot revolver and ballistically linked the recovered bullets to Sirhan’s gun—except for the fatal bullet from RFK’s brain. It was too fragmented to identify microscopic striations unique to Sirhan’s firearm.

Most of the “evidence” for the more-than-8-shot theory came from news media reports focused on a photo apparently displaying two bullet holes in a door frame in the Ambassador kitchen. Conspiracy theorists used the logic that if eight bullets were already accounted for, then two extra holes formed positive proof of a second gunman. After all, Sirhan’s revolver contained 8 empty shell casings. He did not have time to reload.

Conspiracy theorists also rely on varying eye and ear witnesses to support their more-than-8-shot suspicions. Many in the kitchen reported hearing 10, 12 and as many as 15 shots blasting off. The RFK case even took a scientific sound step where a media recording allegedly taken during the assassination captured the shots on audio. Various forensic experts extensively analyzed the audio but can’t conclusively agree there were more than 8 shots fired.

There’s a rabbit hole of hints, innuendo and suggestions of extra shots out there in the RFK assassination world. But, there’s one true fact not resolved by the official investigation. That’s that the fatal fragments from RFK’s brain have not been forensically linked to Sirhan’s revolver. It leaves the suspicion door open that it’s physically possible for a second gunman being involved.

Nowhere in the documented RFK assassination evidence is there any reference to forensic authorities trying other tests on the brain bullet fragments than examining for microscopic striations. Bullet lead composition analysis (BLCA) and neutron activation analysis (NAA) techniques were available in 1968. In fact, the John F. Kennedy assassination investigators employed both scientific processes. BCLA and NAA became a ballistic cornerstone establishing Lee Harvey Oswald as JFK’s lone assassin.

Every experienced forensic investigator realizes that BLCA and NAA analysis are indicative or exclusive tests rather than conclusive evidence like tool markings left by firearm rifling engravings. That means running BLCA and NAA tests on RFK’s brain fragments and comparing them to groups analyzed from the known Sirhan bullets would either eliminate or associate them as originating from the same ammunition source.

Unfortunately, there’s no record of anyone conducting these two important forensic examinations. Assuming the RFK bullet exhibits are still available, there’s no reason they couldn’t be done today. That could establish or further rule out the second gunman theory. But, there’s no apparent appetite for any official review, regardless of requests from Kennedy family members to reopen the case.

Sirhan Bishara Sirhan’s Background and Motive

Every homicide investigation team looks at their suspect’s motive and associates. It’s always necessary to establish or rule out accessories to the crime. The RFK murder is no different for investigating who Sirhan was, why he did it and if he had help.

Sirhan originated in the Middle East’s Palestinian region. He was a Christian, not a Muslim as many believe. Sirhan immigrated to America in 1956 when he was 12. His family settled in Pasadena, California where he matured. Little in Sirhan’s history shows him as a potential political assassin.

Investigation after RFK’s murder found Sirhan’s diary which was full of apparently psychotic references repeating “Bobby Kennedy Must Die”. It seems Sirhan, in some twisted way, fixated on killing RFK and sought an opportunity. That presented at the 1968 Democratic convention when Sirhan simply walked into the Ambassador kitchen through an unlocked door, hung around and then opened fire.

Nothing in Sirhan’s background found him politically linked or motivated by terrorist agenda. He seemed an immigrant Arabic lone wolf version of the All-American psychopath. Like Oswald, Sirhan gained fame by shooting someone famous.

Sirhan was a rubber ball of confessions, recantations and failed recollections. Initially, Sirhan told police investigators he shot RFK because of Kennedy’s policy of arming Israelis with Phantom fighter jets to bomb Palestinian people. At trial, Sirhan denied this motive but admitted being the shooter. Later, he totally recanted his testimony. Over the decades, Sirhan molded himself into a self-serving position of failed memory due to some form of external hypnosis influence during RFK’s shooting.

One thing’s consistent about Sirhan’s statements. Although his motive remains questionable, he never outwardly accused anyone of being his accomplice. Sirhan never said there was a second gunman—at least to his knowledge. He leaves it to conspiracy theorists and authorities to explain inconsistencies like the number of shots fired, the gunshot residue, the distance from the muzzle to RFK’s skin and the relative positions while Bobby Kennedy was shot.

Reconciling the RFK Assassination Discrepancies

And, every murder investigation has evidentiary discrepancies being tough to reconcile. There’s no reason RFK’s assassination should be the exception. Experienced homicide investigators understand a value found in Occam ’s Razor. That’s the age-old problem-solving principle—when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem—one selects the answer making the fewest assumptions. Usually, the simplest answer to reconciling a discrepancy is the best and proper answer.

The JNS review panel dealt with Sirhan’s position relative to Bobby Kennedy’s gunshot entrance wounds with a simple observation. While eyewitnesses varied about distances between the shooter and victim, they agreed on body positions. Yes, Sirhan was to the west and ahead of RFK, but Kennedy was turned to his left, exposing his right side to Sirhan. The right side and behind the ear hits were a matter of predetermined physical geometry. So was the apparent upward angle of the fatal brain shot. Kennedy was aside of Sirhan and bent over talking to a busboy.

The JNS reviewers were cautious about distance reports. They note Noguchi made no distance reference in his postmortem exam report. He only verified gunshot residue presence on RFK’s skin and hair. It’s later media recorded comments from Noguchi that committed his estimating an RFK muzzle distance of 3 or less inches.

Again, Occam’s Razor applies to assess Noguchi’s statements. Although Dr. Noguchi was an experienced pathologist, he wasn’t necessarily an expert in GSR distances and patterns. Noguchi’s credibility has to be questioned in this case. He had a reputation as being an egotist thriving on his fame as the “coroner to the stars”.

Thomas Noguchi performed autopsies on celebrities like Marilyn Monroe, Natalie Wood, John Belushi and Sharon Tate. Some suggest Noguchi loved the limelight and extended his realm of expertise with unqualified opinions. Interpreting gunshot residue patterns may be beyond Noguchi’s talent. He might simply be wrong about estimating GSR discharge distance in RFK’s case.

Plenty of forensic science literature in murder investigations show GSR patterns present from muzzle distances of 1 or more feet. There’s no reason GSR from a short-barreled .22 Iver Johnson revolver couldn’t have produced stippled powder burns on RFK’s skin and hair from several feet away. Note the only link with the RFK-GSR second gunman theory comes from Noguchi’s belated media opinion. There’s no other source qualifying maximum muzzle measurement.

With gunshot angles and distance discrepancies reasonably rectified, the only remaining trouble area is the number of shots fired. Again, all RFK crime scene investigation evidence accounts for 8 fired bullets. There’s no credible case for more than 8 shots in RFK’s murder. There’s only speculation based on unsupported information.

Applying Occam ’s Razor to conspiracy theories in Robert F. Kennedy case concludes Sirhan Sirhan fired all shots. He acted alone without an accomplice. There’s no credible evidence otherwise, and that’s because non-events leave no evidence. It never happened any other way.

There was no second gunman in the RFK assassination.