Tag Archives: Homicide

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.

WAS PRINCESS DIANA’S DEATH REALLY A HOMICIDE?

It’s been 27 years since Diana, the Princess of Wales, was killed in a horrific car crash. This tragic event ended the life of one of the world’s most famous people. It shocked everyone. Millions lined London streets paying respect to her procession. Over 2 billion watched her funeral on TV. But Princess Diana’s death was far more than a loss to the world. It left her two young boys, William and Harry, without a mother to raise them.

Circumstances surrounding Diana’s death were exhaustively investigated. Everyone knows the basic facts that Diana and her new boyfriend, Dodi al-Fayed, were leaving a Paris hotel for a private apartment and trying to avoid the ever-present Paparazzi. They got in the back seat of a Mercedes sedan driven by Henri Paul—a hotel security agent. Diana’s bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, rode shotgun in the passenger front.

But exactly what happened next is still cloudy. To escape prying eyes and cameras out front of the Ritz Hotel, the four used a rear escape route—sneaking away to the apartment. Several Paparazzi members clued in. They raced to follow. As the Mercedes entered the Pont de l’Alma road tunnel along the Seine River in central Paris, Henri Paul somehow lost control and smashed head-on into a solid concrete column.

The car was destroyed. Henri Paul and Dodi al-Fayed were dead at the scene. Princess Diana passed away from massive internal injuries two hours later. Only Rees-Jones survived. However, he had no recollection of what happened.

Those are the bare case facts. There were two extensive investigations. One by the French police, and one by the British authorities who held a public inquest. Both inquiries concluded Diana’s death was from her fatal injuries—the result of a drunk-driver, motor vehicle incident with excessive speed a contributing factor. So was Diana’s neglect to wear her seat belt.

And both inquiries viewed the pursuing Paparazzi as a non-direct, contributing factor despite five photographers charged with manslaughter and three others prosecuted for obstructing justice and violating human rights. No one was convicted. But that didn’t end speculation that Princess Diana was murdered. In fact, Lord Stevens who oversaw the British inquest stated, This case is substantially more complicated than once thought.”

Rumors ran rampant. There were stories of Paparazzi intentionally overtaking the Mercedes and cutting it off into the column. There’s an unresolved issue of a notorious white Fiat that’s never been found. The Royal Family were accused of masterminding Diana’s murder because she’d been impregnated by a Muslim foreigner. Even the British SAS and MI6 were implicated. And most accusatory was Dodi’s father, Egyptian billionaire Mohammed al-Fayed.

But where’s proof that the Peoples’ Princess really was a homicide victim? Well, twenty-seven years later it turns out that the homicide declaration was right all along. And the evidence—the undisputed truth that Princess Diana was a homicide victim—is absolutely clear. But it comes down to the legal definition of homicide.

Facts Surrounding Diana’s Car Crash

Although Princess Diana and Dodi al-Fayed were officially an item, they’d only been seeing each other just over a month. That’s hardly enough time to get engaged let alone planning a pregnancy. Diana was far too smart than getting accidentally knocked-up, never mind rashly getting married. Both of those stories are blatantly false. These two were just beginning to have fun.

They rendezvoused on Mohammed al-Fayed’s yacht before arriving by private jet into Paris on August 31, 1997. Then dined at a popular restaurant before dropping by the Ritz Hotel where the Paparazzi laid in wait. Diana and Dodi had a nightcap. Rees-Jones was nearby. Henri Paul made a plan to bring the staff Mercedes around to the rear door where the celebrity couple could quietly slip out. Then, Paul would chauffeur the group to a private apartment that Mohammed al-Fayed kept in the heart of Paris.

The plan almost worked. Unfortunately, the Paparazzi were crafty. They set several sentries out back. Diana and her entourage were spotted as they sped away. The time was approximately 12:20 am Paris time. Three minutes later, at 12:23, the Mercedes entered the Alma tunnel. Henri lost control and the Mercedes swerved to the left or driver’s side. It hit a concrete column support with such force the engine was shattered and the radiator shoved through to the front seat.

The Mercedes rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise and rocketed backward into the right tunnel wall. It came to rest but was so severely damaged that emergency responders had to cut off the roof in order to extract the crash victims. It was 20 minutes before Diana was freed.

By this time, the Paparazzi were present in full force. Some were arrested. Some had their cameras confiscated after taking gruesome victim death photos. The scene was nearly impossible to control, especially as word spread about who the famous victims were.

Emergency personnel reported that Princess Diana was semi-conscious when they arrived. She softly cried, “Oh my God”—repeatedly—and said, “Leave me alone.” By the time Diana was pulled from the wreckage, she’d gone unconscious. Then she suffered acute cardiac arrest when laid on a stretcher. Her heart was restarted by manual resuscitation however her blood pressure severely dropped on route to the hospital.

Diana arrived at the emergency department approximately 2:06 am. That was an hour and a half after impact. She was still breathing and displayed a weak pulse. X-rays immediately determined she had massive internal bleeding. A thoracic surgeon incised her interior to drain the blood then found her heart’s left ventricle was lacerated. While suturing this main blood vessel, Diana went into full cardiac arrest. Extensive resuscitation efforts by the trauma team failed to revive her.

Diana—the Peoples’ Princess—was Declared Dead at 4:00 am.

The bodies of Henri Paul and Dodi al-Fayed were taken to the city morgue. It was a separate building adjacent to Diana’s emergency ward. Because of the massive crowd now assembling outside the hospital, the Paris coroner felt disrespectful removing Diana’s body past the crowd. He conducted an external examination in a private hospital room but didn’t order a full autopsy. The medical cause of Diana’s death was abundantly clear.

This left the problem of keeping Diana’s now-decomposing body in a warm room. The ER had no cooler. Pursuant to French law, the coroner legally authorized Diana’s embalming to retard decomposition while transportation arrangements were made to take her body to England. This was the right thing to do but led to fuel conspiracy theories, some which abound today.

Full autopsies were conducted on Dodi al-Fayed and Henri Paul. Both clearly died of internal injuries—suffering severed aortic arteries which are immediately fatal. They had both been on the driver’s side which absorbed more of the impact. This explains why Diana was not killed instantly and why Rees-Jones walked away. His front airbag deployed but there was none in the back to protect the Princess.

Toxicology Testing on Henri Paul Found Interesting Results.

These are Henri Paul’s official and reliable toxicology results. They were later confirmed to be his through DNA testing to dispell accusations of evidence tampering.

Blood Alcohol Count (BAC) — 174 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood or commonly termed a BAC of 0.174% (This was corroborated by his vitreous humor or eye fluid count being 0.173%, his urine being 0.218% and his stomach BAC being 0.191%.)

The legal BAC limit for impaired driving in France is 0.05% making Henri Paul 3 times over the drunk driving tolerance limit which is a criminal offense.

Small traces of the anti-anxiety medication fluoxetine were noted but were well within the therapeutic range. So was the medication tiapride. Carboxyhemoglobin and nicotine levels proved Paul was a heavy smoker.

Examination of the Wrecked Mercedes

Although the Mercedes was a total write-off, it was sufficiently sound to inspect. There were no mechanical defects found mechanically contributing to the crash. One tire was punctured but wasn’t a blowout. It happened because of impact. The brakes and steering were sound and the car was only two years old with low mileage.

Thorough testing was done on the seatbelts. All were in perfect operation. It was obvious none of the occupants were wearing their restraints, however, it’s questionable if Paul or al-Fayed would have been saved given the massive force of the left side impact. Overall, there was nothing mechanically wrong with this vehicle that made it veer hard so hard to the left.

So what caused the Mercedes to spin out of control? Did the Paparazzi cut it off? Did the mysterious white Fiat force it into the column? Why did a perfectly good car fail and, by the way, just how fast was the Mercedes traveling?

Totally fraudulent information circulated for years about the Mercedes traveling at 120 mph (190 kph) when it hit the column. Proof of this—they said—was the car’s speedometer sticking at that measurement. That’s rubbish. Total bullshit, like so many myths surrounding Princess Diana’s death. Truth is the Mercedes was doing 65 mph (120 kph), +/- 5 mph, when it hit the column. This was established by a meticulous accident reconstruction conducted by the French police.

Still, this is a significant velocity given the Mercedes’ gross vehicle weight with 4 passengers being over 4,000 lbs (1815 kg). The kinetic energy transfer of this weight multiplied by high speed resulted in Diana’s heart being—literally—ripped inside her chest. It’s surprising Diana lived as long as she did.

The real reason Henri Paul lost control is hidden in the details of the accident reconstruction report. It’s written in technical jargon but clearly understandable. There were no skid marks indicating pre-braking. No out of control swerve. One moment the car was going fast and straight. The next it cut sideways.

The Answer is in Tunnel Design and Vehicle Dynamics.

The Alma tunnel has a posted speed of 20 mph (30 kph). That’s for a good reason. The tunnel is low and narrow. It also sharply dips at the entry and is protected by a perpendicular drainage grate to keep the flat area from flooding with water.

The collision reconstruction analyst deduced when Paul declined the entry ramp and struck the bumpy metal grate at 65 mph, the Mercedes reacted by going slightly airborne. This reduced the road surface friction adhered by the tires, effectively causing a dry hydroplane incident. The analyst surmised that Paul, in his impaired state, never braked but misjudged an overcorrection and simply steered the fast-moving Mercedes into the column.

The Operation Paget Report

Many people who followed Princess Diana’s death story don’t know about Operation Paget and its incredibly detailed 871-page report. Operation Paget was a London Metropolitan Police special task force detailed to investigate conspiracy and murder allegations involving the Princess’ tragic end. They also addressed cover-ups. You can download it here.

The British inquest overseen by Lord Stevens relied heavily on the brilliant work uncovered in Project Paget. The police went to amazing lengths dealing with every listed allegation. They fairly answered with truth. They dispelled insinuations of government plots and sinister cover ups.

They established a fact—there were no credible eye witnesses to the crash and pursuing Paparazzi were nowhere in sight when the impact occurred. They even dealt with the white Fiat nonsense by pointing out white paint on the Mercedes door was probably from a previous parking lot incident.

As much as everyone wants to blame the Paparazzi for killing Princess Diana—well, that’s just plain wrong. Certainly, Paparazzi presence was a contributing factor as Paul was no doubt driving this speed to evade them. One can’t blame the Spencer family and Diana’s two sons, Princes William and Harry, holding the Paparazzi responsible for essentially murdering their beloved Diana. That’s a natural emotional response. But the Paparazzi, as individuals or as a  group, are innocent.

The truth is Diana, the Princess of Wales, was no accident victim. Her death was clearly a homicide. Let me explain.

On April 7, 2008 Lord Stevens’ inquest returned a verdict. They ruled Princess Diana was the victim of an unlawful killing by the grossly negligent chauffeur, Henri Paul, who’s driving ability and judgment were severely impaired by alcohol. The secondary contributor to Diana’s death was her failure to buckle up. Not the Paparazzi.

The jury made no mention of Diana’s death being an accident. That’s because they couldn’t rule it an accident. Death classifications are universal throughout the civilized world. Coroners and their juries have only five classifications to choose from: Natural, Accidental, Suicide, Homicide, and Undetermined.

You can immediately rule out Princess Diana’s death as natural, suicide and undetermined. The cause and means of Diana’s death are clear. She died because of internal bleeding and hypovolemic shock resulting from injuries received in her car crash. That’s clear. What’s not clear to most people is why this can’t be classified as an accidental death. It’s because of the legal definition of homicide.

Homicide means a person dies because of direct actions by another person. A homicide classification doesn’t necessarily mean a culpable or intentional killing of one person by another. It includes lesser degrees of acts like manslaughter and criminal negligence that cause death. Homicide also includes deaths that result from any form of a criminal act including impaired driving. Henri Paul was criminally drunk and grossly negligent. He directly caused Princess Diana’s death.

That makes Princess Diana’s death a homicide.

*   *   *

THE BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

Russia’s parliament recently voted 380 to 3 favoring decriminalization of domestic violence against women where it doesn’t cause “substantial bodily harm” and occurs “not more than once per year”. So… in Russia—once again—it’s socially acceptable to beat the wife. Makes you wonder how the United States Violence Against Women Act will stand given the Trump administration’s apparent admiration for how Vladimir Putin does business, never mind Donald Trump’s personal treatment of women.

Intimate Partner Violence is the politically correct term for wife-beating. It’s a serious and common criminal offense. For years physical, emotional, sexual and financial abuse of female spouses was conveniently overlooked because what went on in private homes was supposed to be no one else’s business. That’s until women fought back and killed their spouses. Then they were prosecuted for murder with all the zeal reserved for serial killers.

Many battered women were convicted of murder and given lengthy jail sentences. There was no regard for the big picture of what created intimate partner violence, how it led to homicidal acts, and what effect it had on entire families—especially children—as well as society in general.

But some women were acquitted of criminal culpability for killing their partners.

They invoked self-defense because they suffered years of cyclic abuse and finally fought back in order to prevent themselves and their children from the imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or being murder victims themselves. These women weren’t claiming temporary insanity or a moment of heated passion. They were telling the truth about years of mental torture that drove them to commit the ultimate act of violent response because they were suffering from the Battered Woman Syndrome.

Battered Woman Syndrome is not a recognized medical or mental disorder according to the psychiatric profession’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Battered Woman Syndrome is a contributing factor to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder but they are two separate issues. On its own, Battered Woman Syndrome is not a specifically accepted defense in most courts. Battered Woman Syndrome is part of an overall defense to criminal accusations. It’s a clinical explanation for using violence to proactively defend one’s self and it’s supported by expert testimony that encompasses the entire case facts. That includes the history of the intimate partner relationship, the mechanism of the killing, and the aftermath that followed.

The battered woman defense component is widely used to establish diminished responsibility of a woman accused of killing her husband under circumstances where he was incapacitated and not able to defend himself nor be an immediate physical threat. The battered woman defense is highly successful in many cases.

The highest-profile battered woman case was portrayed in The Burning Bed, a true-crime movie from 1984 where Farrah Fawcett played Francine Hughes, a severely battered woman who killed her husband in Dansville, Michigan, by setting him on fire while he slept. Francine was charged with first-degree murder and acquitted by a jury who found her not guilty by her having to use a temporary insanity defense.

Thirty-three years ago, the Battered Woman Syndrome was starting to be explored by the courts. There was little psychiatric or psychological science available to establish the reliability of this murder defense tactic. Today, much more is known about the patterns causing intimate partner violence and how they inescapably lead to defensive killings, even when the deceased spouse was incapacitated and not an apparent immediate danger.

Thirty-one years ago, I was lead investigator where a battered woman shot and killed her abusive husband while he slept. Deeana Bingingham suffered years of domestic cruelty at the hands, feet, words, wallet and penis of Lyle (Bing) Bingingham—much of it watched and heard by their 10-year-old son, Logan, and 8-year-old daughter, Kiley.

Bing was on the run from ripping a criminal organization and moved the family to an isolated cabin in the Pacific Northwest. He came home one snowy, stormy night—drunk—as usual—and attacked Deeana. He beat her with his fists and boots, sexually assaulted Deeana in front of their children, then threatened to shoot the family with a 30/30 Winchester. Bing passed out. Deeana took the rifle. She shot Bing in the head.

The first bullet didn’t kill Bing. It tore off his jaw and ripped out an eye. Bing rose in a rage—thrashing—ki-yiiing—gurgling—spewing blood everywhere. He clawed to get up… folded… stood… lunged… then fell and crawled to get at her. Vibrating, gasping and backing away, Deeana levered the gun to reload. It jammed. She threw it. Ran to the closet. And grabbed a 30.06 bolt-action. Deeana scrambled for cartridges, pleading to little Logan for help while Kiley cringed in a corner. The boy loaded the second rifle. The tiny girl watched. As a family… they finished Bing off.

Deeana Bingingham’s children were apprehended. She was jailed on second-degree (non-capital) murder charges—the prosecutor deeming killing Bing was intentionally committed but not premeditated. Deeana spent 2 years on remand while her kids bounced between foster homes and her family abandoned her. She invoked battered woman syndrome in defense and her story was a nightmare to hear. Deeana was offered a plea bargain to manslaughter or an accepted defense of temporary insanity with a compromised offer of family counseling for rehabilitation rather than risking a convict’s chance at parole. Deeana refused. She chose to stay in jail, waiting her chance to tell the court—and other battered women—her plight.

The jury heard a shocking story. A sickening story. A story of horrific psychological, financial, sexual abuse and extreme, prolonged physical violence. The jury acquitted Deeana. They reasoned Deeana was a provoked, trapped and helpless victim of ritualistic domestic violence. They found proactively killing her intimate partner was Deeana’s only reasonable recourse—Deeana ultimately protected herself and her children.

Deeana Bingingham’s case never left my mind. I got a tremendous education into what causes an intimate partner killing that has a legitimate spousal homicide defense. Today, a lot more is known about battered women behavior and the psychological syndrome surrounding their necessary violent acts of defense.

The primary legal principle applied to Battered Woman Syndrome homicide defense is the accused woman being constantly subjected to severe domestic abuse making her unable to take independent action in conventionally leaving the relationship and a firm belief the escalating pattern of violence would end with her death and/or that of her children. Eventually, the situation explodes and the battered woman—hopelessly affected by a clearly-defined, state-of-mind syndrome—takes an immediate opportunity to protect herself by proactively killing her husband through whatever available means.

On its own, Battered Woman Syndrome is part of a self-defense argument and used to explain a battered woman’s experiences that caused her to commit proactive homicide. A crucial part of having Battered Woman Syndrome admitted as trial defense evidence is the case facts being examined by a professional who specializes in the psychiatric and psychological elements of the syndrome and introduces their opinion of the accused’s mental state through expert testimony.

The American legal precedent in having Battered Woman Syndrome admitted as a contributing factor to homicide defense is called the Dyas Standard from the case Dyas v. the United States. It’s simple, yet complicated. First, the defense team must establish the accused is a battered woman within the accepted behavior parameters of the syndrome. Second, they must persuade a court the jury would be aided by expert testimony that Battered Woman Syndrome is relevant to explaining her behavior.

Once Battered Woman Syndrome because of Intimate Partner Violence is determined relevant, it has two more legal hurdles to jump. Expert testimony must be admissible, then it has to show a probative value that outweighs prejudicial impact. Making matters more complicated, Dyas Standard admissibility has a three-pronged test.

  1. The testimony’s subject matter “must be so distinctly related to some science, profession, business or occupation as to be beyond the ken of the average layman (layperson).”
  2. The witness “must have sufficient skill, knowledge or experience in that field or calling as to make it appear that his (her) opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his (her) search for truth”.
  3. Expert testimony is inadmissible if “the state of the pertinent art or scientific knowledge does not permit a reasonable opinion to be asserted even by an expert”.

This might sound like a bunch of masculine, legal mumbo-jumbo but it says a recognized and reliable expert opinion about how a history of spousal abuse led to the accused’s perceptionat the time of the act they had no other recourse than to ultimately defend themselves by killing their intimate partner—is valid evidence that may help a jury deciding if the accused was criminally culpable. Perception in the accused’s mind—at the time of the act—is central to a self-defense claim and Battered Woman Syndrome testimony is meant to educate the jury about the realities of intimate partner violence.

Presenting a spousal abuse history proving Battered Woman Syndrome is difficult. This defense requires detailed investigation into years of abuse that’s often not documented or credibly supported by independent observations or interventions by other family members, friends, acquaintances and support professionals like social workers, medical responders, police officers, and court records.

Sadly, the reality of intimate partner violence or spousal abuse is specific incidents are seldom recorded or reported. Battered Woman Syndrome is based on a cumulative pattern of countless small and large incidents of verbal, mental, financial, mental, physical and sexual assaults that build up to a point of explosion, ending in death. So many cases have mitigating circumstances where the woman victim didn’t report most incidents, many peripheral witnesses have convenient lapses of memory, and responsible professionals fail to intervene.

Battered Woman Syndrome is based on a known, cyclical pattern of abusive behavior and response first identified by Dr. Lenore Walker who is known as the mother of Battered Woman Syndrome. Dr. Walker conducted extensive research into intimate partner violence and established theories of victim’s psychological responses to spousal violence including a behavior called “learned helplessness” and a pattern of violence cycles.

Learned helplessness is a state of mind where the woman has been long subjected to so much abuse that they feel totally incapable of defending themselves or voluntarily leaving the relationship. The emotional, financial, physical and entire realm of abuse causes the woman to lose any motivation to change their situation and they submit, rather than fight. Learned helplessness is a core element of Battered Woman Syndrome and it manifests in all cases.

Cycle theory encompasses the entire relationship period and has various degrees of severity and intervals. Cycle theory is another core element of Battered Woman Syndrome and it, too, manifest in all cases. There are three recognized violence cycles.

  1. Tension building is a phase where minor abuse incidents like emotional outbursts, verbal threats, and subtle punishments cause the woman to become hyper-vigilant to her partner’s cues and changes her behavior accordingly to diffuse them.
  2. Acute battering incidents are the second escalation. These are violent episodes where physical harm or severe emotional damage occurs.
  3. Reconciliation is the third cycle phase. It’s a loving contrition where the batterer claims to be remorseful, is charming, and promises never to harm the woman again. Invariably, the abuser blames his actions on outside influences like impairment substances, financial difficulty, or employment stress.

Battered Woman Syndrome becomes a vicious circle where the violence cycles repeat and become more frequent, making learned helplessness further entrenched. Over time, the tension-building and honeymoon stages get shorter and battering increases. This pattern results in battering incidents that become increasingly longer and more severe. The cycle works to wear women down and to keep them in a toxic relationship by controlling them, chipping away at their feeling of self-worth and independence.

Abused partners hope their abusers will change. They falsely believe the batterer doesn’t mean to harm them, rather somehow they brought it on themselves. Secrecy, fear, lack of opportunity and low self-esteem combine to make leaving an abusive relationship extremely difficult—if not impossible.

Ultimately, the heated cycle boils over and the helpless woman snaps. She takes a spontaneous and opportune, final defensive action without regard to repercussions. In her perception—at the time of the act—she has no recourse than to kill her partner. Otherwise, it’s inevitable she’ll die and so will her children. In law, this establishes a legitimate defense for homicide.

At the core of Battered Woman Syndrome lies a severe psychiatric impact that has four psychological stages.

DENIAL: The woman refuses to admit—even to herself—that she’s been beaten or that there’s a “problem” in her marriage. She may call each incident an “accident”. She offers excuses for her husband’s violence and each time firmly believes it’ll never happen again.

GUILT: She now acknowledges there’s a problem but considers herself responsible for it. She “deserves” to be beaten—she feels—because she has defects in her character and isn’t living up to her husband’s expectations.

ENLIGHTENMENT: The woman no longer assumes responsibility for her husband’s abusive treatment, recognizing that no one “deserves” to be beaten. She’s still committed to her relationship, though, and stays with her husband—hoping they can work things out.

RESPONSIBILITY: Accepting the fact that her husband will not—or cannot—stop his violent behavior, the battered woman decides she’ll no longer submit and takes self-defensive action. That can be leaving the relationship, seeking help and intervention, or taking termination matters into her own hands.

The Battered Woman Syndrome is an ugly reality in many relationships. It may not occur in your intimacy but you can be sure it’s happening in a home near you. You probably know the symptoms of an abuser and recognize the behavior of a decent and loving partner. Here are the character traits of abusive and non-abusive men, irrespective of being physically violent.

An abusive man:

  • Shouts
  • Sulks
  • Smashes things
  • Glares
  • Calls you names
  • Makes you feel ugly and useless
  • Cuts you off from your friends
  • Stops you from working
  • Never admits he’s wrong
  • Blames you, drugs, alcohol, work, stress
  • Turns the children against you
  • Uses the children to control you
  • Never does his share of  the housework
  • Never looks after the children
  • Expects sex on demand
  • Controls the money
  • Threatens or coerces you to get his way
  • Seduces those close to you
  • Expects you to be responsible for his well-being

A non-abusive man:

  • Is cheerful
  • Is consistent
  • Is supportive
  • Tells you that you look good
  • Tells you you’re competent
  • Uses your right name or pet name
  • Trusts you
  • Trusts your judgment
  • Respects you, your dignity, and your body
  • Welcomes your family and your friends
  • Encourages you to be independent
  • Supports your higher learning and career
  • Takes personal responsibility
  • Admits to being wrong
  • Is a responsible parent
  • Is an equal parent
  • Is a role model for the children
  • Is faithful
  • Shares money and assets
  • Does his share of the housework

Statistics show one in four women are—or have been—subjected to some form of intimate partner violence. That includes psychological battering. Much is subtle abuse with a long, dominant pattern of financial control, suggestive degradation, humiliation, unreasonable expectations and emotional blackmail as well as sexual overbearing and verbal assaults. Some abuse progresses to violent sexual and physical aggression.

If you’re in an abuse relationship, take action to stop it. If you recognize others in an abusive relationship, take action to help them. Don’t wait till there’s another battered woman case like Deeana Bingingham who—in my opinion, as well as a jury’s—was fully justified in taking proactive, lethal action to defend herself and her children.

*   *   *

Please Share This Post!

Domestic abuse and battered woman syndrome are huge social problems worldwide. Please help spread awareness of this unacceptable violent behavior by sharing this post on social media and with your sphere of influence. The only way intimate partner violence is going to be reduced is by supporting victims and encouraging them to safely disclose their plight.