A Paradox about the RFK Assassination

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I wonder if anyone has had a thought similar to the following:

The RFK Assassination seems the easiest to prove, so why does it get so little attention?

The easiest to prove?

Yes that is certainly open to debate. What I'm getting at here is primarily the sheer amount of evidence tampered with and or destoryed by the LAPD, and the amount of testimony that was changed, as compared with what the witnesses later said.

Debateable for sure, but the case just does not seem to involve all the variables and points on which those who disagree with the official government narrative are themselves divided over.

So wouldn't it make sense that there would be more attention given to this case, if one wanted to prove that such a high level political conspiracy was possible?

Might there be any efforts to emphsize the JFK assassination as a means of giving short shrift to the RFK and MKL assassinations? It could be argued that because of the time of the MLK and RFK assassinations that the immediate threat that they posed to US policies in Vietnam and US domestic priorities was greater than JFK, given JFK s political context of only just emerging from the McCarthy years.

Just trying to make sense of why nobody seems to care much about the RFK assassination. For anyone who has ever read the book by Turner and Christian-- which cannot be praised highly enough--and also the one by Melanson and Klaber it seems virtually impossible to believe that there was no conspiracy. This belief is stregnthened when you compare the political speeches of RFK in 1968 with the Democrats of today.

I know there are those who are quite cynical about RFK given his snotty younger years, many of which were merely almost-young. However, I think that a look at the evolution of his speeches betweeen 1965 and 1968-- together with the domestic political context in which these speeches were given--will force one to the conclusion that RFK's campaign in 1968 was A VERY REAL THREAT TO THE TRAJECTORY IN US HISTORY THAT HAS BROUGHT US WHERE WE ARE TODAY. To deny this is, I think, to overemphasize the politics of personality and individualistic sincerity at the expense of historical context

All the more wonder at the lack of attention that this assassination receives. I almost didn't want to put it here, in the RFK ghetto.

Edited April 13, 2008 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[John Geraghty]

I too would agree that the RFK case would be the easiest to prove and to secure documentary release. The JFK case encompasses so many elements that may not see the light of day due to reasons of national security. I also feel that the physical evidence, at this stage, is the most compelling and provable.

In terms of securing documentary release, it should, in theory, prove to be an easier exercise, simply because RFK was a senator, not the president and was not directly in control of secretive foreign policy or privy to extremely sensitive information.

[Michael G. Smith]

All, I too was a long time believer that the RFK assassination was the one to work on and solve, to get to the final end to the JFK issue, as Peter stated. It only makes sense that there is much less involved compared to the JFK issue, and to finally solve that would eventually lead to finally putting to rest the other. A great read on these subjects was done in "Assassinations" by James DiEugenio and Linda Pease. A very good book on all of the 60's conspiracys. I think the problem is, that its not so much that people arent looking to solve the RFK issue, its that they run into the same "power control group" that contols the same things involved in the JFK case. Information, evidence, witness tampering, etc....... are almost identical to the other. We can be assured the same group, and people involved are the same that were used in both cases. When you have powerful people in the government working against you, it gets very hard to break through and get what you need to get access to evidence, [if its still there!], witnesses to speak up, and other things needed to keep going on to work on solving any case. The LA county and PD did their best to make sure that things were so badly handled, that it would take Houdini to figure them out. Considering the Marilyn Monroe, and RFK cases, the only person who stands out in my mind is Dr. Noguchi. He seems to be the only one who stood by his guns, under intense pressure from others, while everyone else just went with the flow and did what they were told. Perfect example: Can you say Scott Enyarts photos?.

jmo fwiw- smitty

[Mark Stapleton]

We can be assured the same group, and people involved are the same that were used in both cases.

Agreed. The same group planned both assassinations. This is almost a certainty.

IMO, the reason for more focus on JFK is because the events panned out over three days--with two others being assassinated--and consequently the JFK case has more complexity and intrigue than the killing of Bobby (equally tragic that it was). Moreover, there is also the multitude of suspicious deaths which followed DP, a vast array of film and photo evidence and there were more official inquiries. Understandable because JFK was President.

The conspirators learnt a valuable lesson from DP, imo. This time the patsy was carefully groomed to take the fall quietly. Killing LHO was a massive risk they had to take because the stakes were so high. They must have had disturbing memories of that Friday night through Sunday morning.