Sirhan Sirhan’s legal team is responding to claims made by Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman about the assassin’s parole denial and its connection to the Menendez brothers. Sirhan’s attorney, Angela Berry, is calling out Hochman for perpetuating misconceptions about her client’s role in the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, and she disputes comparisons made between Sirhan’s case and that of Erik and Lyle Menendez.
Parole Denial and Hochman’s Comments:
Hochman recently stated that Governor Gavin Newsom took into account several factors when denying Sirhan Sirhan’s parole, including his age at the time of the crime, his rehabilitation efforts, and his health. Despite these positive factors, Newsom concluded that Sirhan still posed an unreasonable risk to public safety due to his lack of full insight into his actions. Hochman used Sirhan’s case to highlight the Menendez brothers’ lack of acceptance for their past lies about their self-defense defense, suggesting that if Sirhan remains a danger, the Menendez brothers should too.
Sirhan’s Lawyer Responds:
Berry disputes this comparison, saying that Hochman is misinformed about the facts of Sirhan’s case. According to Berry, Sirhan has never fully admitted to shooting RFK. While he does remember being present at the scene of the shooting and holding a gun, he has always maintained his innocence, with gaps in his memory attributed to PTSD from his childhood in war-torn Palestine.
Sirhan’s Confusion About the Shooting:
Berry pointed out that Sirhan’s parole transcripts reflect a lack of clear memory regarding the details of the shooting, which contradicts Hochman’s assertions. Sirhan’s legal team argues that the D.A.’s comparison to the Menendez brothers is flawed, as the brothers’ case involves their fabricated self-defense story, while Sirhan has never admitted to the crime in a clear and definitive way.
Legal Teams Respond to the Comparison:
While Hochman continues to draw parallels between the two cases, Sirhan’s legal team, along with the Menendez brothers’ lawyers, argue that comparing the cases is unfair. The discrepancies between the details of the crimes, as well as the various legal arguments, make it difficult to treat them as the same.
