Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Conspiracies to kill JFK & RFK

[John Simkin]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/14/Som...97711216070029/

LOS ANGELES, July 14 (UPI) -- There are valid reasons to re-examine the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy to determine if Sirhan Sirhan really acted alone, conspiracy proponents say.

Paul Schrade, the labor adviser to Kennedy's presidential campaign who also was wounded in the shooting that left Kennedy dead in Los Angeles 40 years ago, said today's technology can help prove others were involved, the New York Daily News reported Monday.

"I'm convinced we can make the case," said Schrade, who is assembling a legal team to challenge the verdict that put Sirhan, now 64, behind bars.

Shane O'Sullivan, author of "Who Killed Bobby?," questions the verdict based on evidence he says shows multiple shots came from more than one direction. A security guard implicated by audio analysis of the shots has denied he shot Kennedy, the Daily News said.

The Kennedy clan is reluctant to push to have the case reopened. Bobby Kennedy Jr. told the News that while he suspects the assassination of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, may have been a conspiracy, he has "never seen particularly compelling evidence" that was the case in his father's death.

Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, said while she didn't know if prosecutors knew of the recent analyses, they "believe Sirhan's conviction is valid and supported by the evidence presented to a jury at trial."

[Ron Ecker]

I can only assume that Kennedys like Bobby Jr. live in fear of speaking out. Fear for themselves or their families. And I also assume, even after all these years, that there is reason to fear. It's the only justifiable explanation for Bobby Jr.'s bilge about there being no compelling evidence of conspiracy in his father's murder.

[Tim Gratz]

"I'm convinced we can make the case," said Schrade, who is assembling a legal team to challenge the verdict that put Sirhan, now 64, behind bars.

From what I have read, Sirhan Sirhan probably did not fire the shots that killed RFK. Nevertheless there seems to be no question whatsover that he was in possession of a gun and had fired multiple shots at the same time that RFK was killed. So he is hardly an innocent man. Situation far different than that of LHO who may have been as he declared "a patsy". No one grabbed LHO in the sixth floor window and took a rifle away from him.

[Mark Stapleton]

"I'm convinced we can make the case," said Schrade, who is assembling a legal team to challenge the verdict that put Sirhan, now 64, behind bars.

From what I have read, Sirhan Sirhan probably did not fire the shots that killed RFK. Nevertheless there seems to be no question whatsover that he was in possession of a gun and had fired multiple shots at the same time that RFK was killed. So he is hardly an innocent man. Situation far different than that of LHO who may have been as he declared "a patsy". No one grabbed LHO in the sixth floor window and took a rifle away from him.

What are you clinging to, Tim?

Both LHO and SS were patsies. The media has lied its head off for forty years. The mainstream media controlled everything the public saw or heard in the 60's.

[Mark Knight]

Gratz has a valid point here. Sirhan WAS firing a gun in the pantry where RFK was shot; it's simply an impossibility for a bullet fired from in front of RFK to have entered the right mastoid process from the rear [talk about yer "magic bullet!!!]. Yet in LHO's case, even the Dallas police chief concluded that no one could definitively place Oswald in the sixth floor window with a rifle--either firing left-handed OR right-handed--at the exact moment shots were fired at JFK.

[Ron Ecker]

Yes, Sirhan fired his gun, but there's a question of how much a hypnotically programmed patsy can be considered guilty, when his handlers are not even pursued. (How different would a hypnotically programmed state be from insanity?) You can lock such a person up for life like Sirhan (who says he doesn't even remember the crime), but is it right? Why is John Hinckley free, but Sirhan is not? Because Sirhan isn't "white" and from a well-to-do family?

Edited July 16, 2008 by Ron Ecker

[Pat Speer]

Yes, Sirhan fired his gun, but there's a question of how much a hypnotically programmed patsy can be considered guilty, when his handlers are not even pursued. (How different would a hypnotically programmed state be from insanity?) You can lock such a person up for life like Sirhan (who says he doesn't even remember the crime), but is it right? Why is John Hinckley free, but Sirhan is not? Because Sirhan isn't "white" and from a well-to-do family?

There are a number of differences between the two cases. Hinkley didn't kill anyone, and went straight to the wacko bin. Sirhan pled guilty. That said, Sirhan certainly deserves the opportunity to undergo hypnosis and see if it will help him remember what happened.

[Gene Kelly]

Too many bullets that night for one gun. Autopsy shows a Sirhan shot would not have killed RFK. Blatant LAPD complicity and coverup. Witnesses were intimidated and stage-managed, using flimsy lie-detector trickery. Film and useful pictures were destroyed. The trial was disgraceful. Conspirators and accomplices were evident, and observed by many. Records withheld from public for 20 years. Cutouts, subterfuge and distractive head-fakes employed. Motive was flimsy and half-baked. Gardner (Hotel security chief and former LAPD) set up the kill zone (and killed himself the following year). Sirhan was a young enigmatic alien, with a manufactured Diary... possibly shooting blanks (a smoking gun) for distraction, far too 'pat' for an open & shut case. He doesn't fit the mold of a killer, or even violent... all of the hoopla about mind control, hypnotism, right-wing terrorists and polka dot dresses appears to be diversion and sleight-of-hand for the real professionals to get in and out. Half-baked investigation never explored key questions, like Sirhan's activities in the previous 3-6 months, ballistic details, and stalking observed in the weeks prior. Accomplices (like Jerry Owen and Thane Cesar) were shielded and protected (by the court, no less) from later inquiries. Classic plausible deniability. Guess who...?

[Michael Hogan]

There are a number of differences between the two cases. Hinkley didn't kill anyone, and went straight to the wacko bin. Sirhan pled guilty. That said, Sirhan certainly deserves the opportunity to undergo hypnosis and see if it will help him remember what happened.

Sirhan originally entered a plea of not guilty. His attorneys planned to argue diminished capacity.

When the defense attorneys began presenting their case Sirhan had wanted to prevent them from calling a dozen witnesses. Sirhan abruptly stood up during an early witness' testimony about his high school grades and IQ.

As Shane O'Sullivan describes it, Sirhan "flipped out," and told the judge he wanted to change his plea and have his attorneys "disassociated from the case completely."

The judge refused Sirhan's demand.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Michael Hogan

[William Kelly]

The question isn't who killed RFK or how they did it, but why have the Kennedy family taken such a perplexing stance on the murders of JFK and RFK?

BK

[Don Jeffries]

Bill,

You are exactly right- that is the real question.

After reading "Brothers" by David Talbot, I am even more perplexed than I was before about the incomprehensible attitude of the entire Kennedy family on this subject. Talbot reported that, when he set up the interview with Ted Kennedy, he was warned that if the assassination was mentioned, the interview would be terminated immediately. Huh? Remember, Teddy was JFK's much younger brother, with almost enough years seperating them that he could have been his son. They couldn't have been that close, with that kind of age difference. And yet, over FORTY years after the death of this much older brother, he threatens to end an interview if the subject is even mentioned? At least Bobby, Jr. will allow the subject to be broached- as lame as his response was, among his family members, he appears to be comparatively reasonable. Talbot also mentions the assassination still being a touchy subject with JFK's surviving aides, such as Ted Sorensen. That is really ridiculous- how could a man who merely worked for someone else, four decades ago, still be so upset over his death that it's painful for him to discuss it?

I've gone through this before, but it bears repeating. The Kennedy family's refusal to address the unnatural deaths of JFK and RFK (not to mention JFK, Jr.) represents one of the most curious group behaviors imaginable. We all lose loved ones- how many of us glare at someone (as apparently Caroline will do, if anyone dared to mention "it") or refuse to comment, if someone brings up the subject of ANY relative that died over FORTY years ago? Their total lack of interest in the violent murders of their father/husband/brother, especially when so much controversy about them has raged in public, truly contradicts all we know about human behavior. Most people naturally WANT to know the reassons behind the deaths of their loved ones. How many families spend years investigating the deaths of their loved ones, desperately trying to seek closure? Why doesn't the Kennedy family want closure on this subject? As Talbot says, we can't expect the Kennedys to solve the mysteries behind the assassinations. We can, however, expect them to want to know the trurh and at least have some interest in the subject.

[Ron Ecker]

To repeat, fear is the only justifiable explanation for the Kennedys' attitude toward the assassinations. Based on that fear, perhaps they avoid the subject like the plague lest they slip up and say something truthful.

[Don Jeffries]

The problem with ascribing the Kennedy family's apparent disinterest in the subject to fear is that, if that was/is indeed the reason for their silence, it hasn't worked at all. Bobby kept his silence publicly, and was assassinated himself. Teddy kept his silence and was (imho) framed and politically assassinated (at least in terms of any presidential aspirations) at Chappaquidick. Two of Bobby's kids- all of them remaining dutifully silent about the assassinations- died unnatural deaths (David and Michael). Finally, John F. Kennedy, Jr. was killed in a suspicious plane crash. So the string of unnatural Kennedy deaths has continued, amidst all the silence. If they were afraid to speak out, maybe they ought to rethink their strategy.

* Btw, I'm not suggesting that either David or Michael Kennedy was murdered, although I believe Penn Jones, Jr. thought David's alleged drug overdose had questionable elements about it.*

One would think that, in a family that large, there would be at least a few renegade members interested in the subject.

[Ron Ecker]

Ted and John Jr. may have been victims of the silencers for other reasons than silence. Ted had presidential aspirations, which Chappaquiddick nipped in the bud (though even after that he eventually and inexplicably tried to run). I have read that John Jr. was planning to run for public office. If true, that was promptly nipped in the bud too, for the sake of whatever opponent would face almost certain defeat, and/or lest John Jr. as a high-profile politician stop being so silent.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I've gone through this before, but it bears repeating. The Kennedy family's refusal to address the unnatural deaths of JFK and RFK (not to mention JFK, Jr.) represents one of the most curious group behaviors imaginable.

I've gone through this before too -- and it bears repeating -- that there is absolutely nothing unnatural about the behaviour of the Kennedy family.

However there is something unnatural about people who insist on denigrating the family of a crime victim, as though somehow it is the fault of the victim's family that the crime remains unsolved.

Their total lack of interest in the violent murders of their father/husband/brother, especially when so much controversy about them has raged in public, truly contradicts all we know about human behavior.

Prithee tell us about your EXPERTISE in dealing with the families of crime victims.

How many families spend years investigating the deaths of their loved ones, desperately trying to seek closure?

You tell us. There are thousands of unsolved murders in America EVERY YEAR. Would you care to tell us how many thousands of families are out there trying to solve these crimes, as opposed to those who behave in a civilized manner and leave crime detection and punishment to the proper authorities?

Why doesn't the Kennedy family want closure on this subject?

Who told you they do not?

As Talbot says, we can't expect the Kennedys to solve the mysteries behind the assassinations.

The only sensible statement in your post. Of course it contradicts everything else you say.

We can, however, expect them to want to know the trurh and at least have some interest in the subject.

I don't think you are entitled to expect anything whatsoever. The Kennedy family doesn't owe you one damn thing.