--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > In other words, Ayers was not *applauding* the > > assassination of RFK by including Sirhan in the > > list of people to whom the book was dedicated, > > but rather condemning the U.S. government for > > having convicted him of a crime he did not > > commit, presumably to conceal the identity of > > the real killer. > > I remember the Manchurian candidate story. Regardless, > Sirhan pulled trigger and many witnessed it. The far left, > and the likes of Ayers, used Sirhan's lack of memory of > his crime to manufacture a conspiracy theory, casting > suspicion on the rightwing of our government who they > feared would win the election.
All true, although the conspiracy theories were quite sincerely held, at least on the part of most. But there are still some questions about whether Sirhan actually fired the shots that killed RFK. His guilt is likely but not a slam-dunk. In any case, my point was that *Ayers* at that time almost certainly believed Sirhan was not the killer, and did not include him in the list of people to whom the book was dedicated because he approved of RFK's assassination, contrary to Hannity's suggestion, but because he thought Sirhan had been railroaded to hide the identity of the real assassins. Basically, the dedication of Ayers's book as Hannity portrays it is a red herring.
