Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Conspiracies to kill JFK & RFK

[Mark Stapleton]

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?

Ron, I don't know how they programmed Sirhan, but the 'official' explanation for Sirhan's 'action', keenly promoted by the media, is so transparently absurd, satirical really, that one wonders whether the entire US population was hypnotically programmed to accept whatever the media told them.

I agree with you about the ongoing tragedy of the Kennedy's. It's fear. Whoever killed Jack and Bobby have the morality of drug barons and the families of enemies are fair game.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[Don Jeffries]

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.

I have never known of another family that refused to discuss the death of a loved over forty years after it happened. Perhaps you can provide some notable examples. I have never known of another man whose death was still "too painful" for those who worked for him to discuss, over forty years later. Perhaps you can provide some notable examples.

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.

I am just as much an "expert" as you or anyone else here.

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?

So those who insist on investigating the deaths of their loved ones are not civilized? In my own state, there was a tragic case of a young college kid who was found shot to death in his home. The police claimed it was suicide, but all signs pointed to murder. His parents exposed the police cover up, formed the group Parents Against Police Corruption, and conducted their own thorough investigation, which included the exhumation of their son's body and a second autopsy. I guess they were being "uncivilized" in wanting to find out why their son died. Considering that lots of courageous private citizens did the investigating for them, I think it's reasonable to expect that at least a few Kennedy relatives might show some interest in what they found. At the very least, could they stop acting as if the mere mention of the subject was some kind of crime?

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

Who told you they do not?

Who told me? Uh, over forty years of their incomprehensible behavior told me.

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.

The Kennedy family doesn't owe any individual citizen like me anything. They do, however, have an obligation to history. At least that's what JFK and RFK believed.

No one admires the overall legacy of the Kennedy family more than I do. And, like Talbot says, it isn't up to them to solve the murders of JFK and RFK. However, there is no question that if Jackie had behaved more like Coretta Scott King, and publicly expressed her own doubts, or RFK had revealed in public what he was apparently expressing in private, then an honest re- investigation into the JFK assassination might have been possible in the mid-1960s. How many times did the lone nutters make the argument, "if there had been a conspiracy, no one would have investigated it more than Bobby Kennedy." Even the CIA's notorious memo about how to "handle" the assassination critics mentions this specifically.

What I am speaking about now, when I say their group behavior is inexplicable, is the fact that we are nearly 45 years removed from the first assassination. That's a very long time for a daughter, let alone nephews and nieces, to still glare at anyone daring to mention the subject. That's a very long time for a speech writer like Ted Sorensen to still find JFK's death "too painful" to discuss. Maybe they all need to re-read "Profiles In Courage."

[Shane O'Sullivan]

Just some background for the thread: The UPI report is based on this NY Daily News piece: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/07/...nedy_murde.html

It's great to see the Daily News showing such interest. Given the scant press coverage of the controversies in the RFK case over the years, it's perhaps not surprising that Bobby Kennedy Jr. seems to know so little about them. After the Daily News piece, my publisher sent him a copy of my book, so if he's skeptical about what happened in Dallas, I hope he'll consider the weight of evidence suggesting conspiracy in his father's death and support a reopening of the case.

Best,

Shane

Edited July 17, 2008 by Shane O'Sullivan

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I have never known of another family that refused to discuss the death of a loved over forty years after it happened.

That's because no other family in human history has had over 800 books and God alone knows how many billion stupid words printed and broadcast about the crime. Not to mention the stuff written by people like you who expect them to bercome vigilantes.

At the very least, could they stop acting as if the mere mention of the subject was some kind of crime?

[

/b]

Now that's just a BIG FAT LIE, if you are INSINUATING that the Kennedy family has ever tried to block inquiry into the JFK assassination.

No one admires the overall legacy of the Kennedy family more than I do.

Sounds like another BIG FAT ONE, if this thread is anything to go by.

there is no question that if Jackie had behaved more like Coretta Scott King,

Look where it got Coretta Scott King.

and publicly expressed her own doubts, or RFK had revealed in public what he was apparently expressing in private, then an honest re- investigation into the JFK assassination might have been possible in the mid-1960s.

Hasn't anyone told you that RFK was MURDERED? So please don't blame him if the case was not re-opened in the 1960's.

How many times did the lone nutters make the argument, "if there had been a conspiracy, no one would have investigated it more than Bobby Kennedy." Even the CIA's notorious memo about how to "handle" the assassination critics mentions this specifically.

See comment above. Again, for the record, only CIA stooges would make an argument like this, since everyone knows RFK was murdered.

What I am speaking about now, when I say their group behavior is inexplicable, is the fact that we are nearly 45 years removed from the first assassination. That's a very long time for a daughter, let alone nephews and nieces, to still glare at anyone daring to mention the subject.

Only a very uncivilized person would harass a Kennedy family member about this subject. I'm sure Kennedy family members have to deal with more than their fair share of Axxholes.

That's a very long time for a speech writer like Ted Sorensen to still find JFK's death "too painful" to discuss.

Leave Ted Sorensen alone. He has earned that right in his venerable years.

Maybe they all need to re-read "Profiles In Courage."

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.

[William Kelly]

Just some background for the thread: The UPI report is based on this NY Daily News piece: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/07/...nedy_murde.html

It's great to see the Daily News showing such interest. Given the scant press coverage of the controversies in the RFK case over the years, it's perhaps not surprising that Bobby Kennedy Jr. seems to know so little about them. After the Daily News piece, my publisher sent him a copy of my book, so if he's skeptical about what happened in Dallas, I hope he'll consider the weight of evidence suggesting conspiracy in his father's death and support a reopening of the case.

Best,

Shane

Thanks for that Shane,

I had missed that and didn't understand what all the recent interest in this topic stemmed from.

It isn't the Kennedy's responsiblity to resolve the murders of JFK and RFK, and I don't believe JFK ordered the SS off the back of his car, or motorcycles from beside it, or the family interfered with the autopsy, or JFK and RFK sanctioned the assassination plots against Castro.

While the Kennedy family has reserved the rights to certain medical records, I don't think they will interfere when a Federal Grand Jury eventually orders a proper forensic autopsy of the remains of the President.

BK

[Don Jeffries]

For the record, those that attempted to blame the Kennedys (Bobby in particular) for the shoddy, incomplete autopsy were not interested in the trurh. RFK signed the autopsy permission form and placed no restrictions upon it. I also find Judith Campbell Exner's tales to be dubious. I would urge everyone to read Jim DiEugenio's "The Posthumous Assassination Of John F. Kennedy" for an enlightening, detailed look at this topic.

The Kennedy family's attitude towards the subject of the assassination in general, and their seeming disinterest in the questions so many researchers have raised about the official findings, is a completely different subject.

[Don Jeffries]

quote name='J. Raymond Carroll' date='Jul 18 2008, 03:33 AM' post='149990']

I have never known of another family that refused to discuss the death of a loved over forty years after it happened.

That's because no other family in human history has had over 800 books and God alone knows how many billion stupid words printed and broadcast about the crime. Not to mention the stuff written by people like you who expect them to bercome vigilantes.

Most of the books written about the assassinations have not been "stupid." I agree that almost everything broadcast on television about the subject has been "stupid" because the networks have been covering up since November 22, 1963.

At the very least, could they stop acting as if the mere mention of the subject was some kind of crime?

[

/b]

Now that's just a BIG FAT LIE, if you are INSINUATING that the Kennedy family has ever tried to block inquiry into the JFK assassination.

I am not insinuating any such thing. I am simply stating that refusing to talk about the death of a loved one that occurred almost 45 years ago is very strange.

No one admires the overall legacy of the Kennedy family more than I do.

Sounds like another BIG FAT ONE, if this thread is anything to go by.

If I didn't admire and respect the Kennedys, I wouldn't be frequenting forums like this, or have spent so much time reading and writing about them for the past 35 years.

there is no question that if Jackie had behaved more like Coretta Scott King,

Look where it got Coretta Scott King.

What do you mean? Coretta Scott King died an elderly woman. She didn't suffer from her courageous efforts to assist James Earl Ray in getting a new trial. The Kennedys, on the other hand, continued to die unnatural deaths while keeping their silence.

and publicly expressed her own doubts, or RFK had revealed in public what he was apparently expressing in private, then an honest re- investigation into the JFK assassination might have been possible in the mid-1960s.

Hasn't anyone told you that RFK was MURDERED? So please don't blame him if the case was not re-opened in the 1960's.

Which proves my point- he kept silent and was still assassinated.

How many times did the lone nutters make the argument, "if there had been a conspiracy, no one would have investigated it more than Bobby Kennedy." Even the CIA's notorious memo about how to "handle" the assassination critics mentions this specifically.

See comment above. Again, for the record, only CIA stooges would make an argument like this, since everyone knows RFK was murdered.

So noiw I'm a CIA stooge? How do you arrive at a ridiculous conclusion like that? The CIA's advice in that memo was certainly heeded by almost everyone in the mainstream media, and the fact that RFK didn't speak out publicly about the subject is still used by lone nutters as an argument. At any rate, calling names is not an impressive debating technique.

What I am speaking about now, when I say their group behavior is inexplicable, is the fact that we are nearly 45 years removed from the first assassination. That's a very long time for a daughter, let alone nephews and nieces, to still glare at anyone daring to mention the subject.

Only a very uncivilized person would harass a Kennedy family member about this subject. I'm sure Kennedy family members have to deal with more than their fair share of Axxholes.

What "harrassment" has the Kennedy family faced from assassination researchers? Everyone is afraid to even mention the subject around them! From writers with an agenda to push the Exner/Mafia nonsense, yes. But certainly it isn't harrassment to broach the topic of JFK's (or RFK's) assassination with them.

That's a very long time for a speech writer like Ted Sorensen to still find JFK's death "too painful" to discuss.

Leave Ted Sorensen alone. He has earned that right in his venerable years.

Leave him alone? Look, I loved Sorensen's lofty rhetoric as much as anyone. He helped make JFK's speeches great. But I think it's laughable for any man to claim that the subject of his boss's death is still painful after almost 45 years.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Don Jeffries

[J. Raymond Carroll]

But I think it's laughable for any man to claim that the subject of his boss's death is still painful after almost 45 years.[/b]

You think it's laughable.

It's positively hilarious, isn't it?

So let's all have a good laugh at Ted Sorensen, shall we?

[John Simkin]

For the record, those that attempted to blame the Kennedys (Bobby in particular) for the shoddy, incomplete autopsy were not interested in the trurh. RFK signed the autopsy permission form and placed no restrictions upon it. I also find Judith Campbell Exner's tales to be dubious. I would urge everyone to read Jim DiEugenio's "The Posthumous Assassination Of John F. Kennedy" for an enlightening, detailed look at this topic.

The Kennedy family's attitude towards the subject of the assassination in general, and their seeming disinterest in the questions so many researchers have raised about the official findings, is a completely different subject.

I agree with you Don. One of the most interesting aspects of this case concerns Grant Stockdale. He was as business associate of Bobby Baker but was also close to JFK, who had appointed him as Ambassador to Ireland (March 1961 - July 1962).

On 26th November, Grant Stockdale flew to Washington and talked with Robert Kennedy and Edward Kennedy. On his return Stockdale told several of his friends that "the world was closing in." On 1st December, he spoke to his attorney, William Frates who later recalled: "He started talking. It didn't make much sense. He said something about 'those guys' trying to get him. Then about the assassination."

Grant Stockdale died on 2nd December, 1963 when he fell (or was pushed) from his office on the thirteenth story of the Dupont Building in Miami. Stockdale did not leave a suicide note but his friend, George Smathers, claimed that he had become depressed as a result of the death of JFK. Stockdale's daughter later said that he father had taken information to the Kennedy brothers about the assassination. However, they were not interested in the information. She believes that this got killed.

A journalist who has interviewed members of the Kennedy family has told me that RFK called a meeting a couple of days after the assassination with the news that he was being blackmailed into silence. He claimed that the full story would be revealed once he was in a position to control all the information. In other words, when he became president. That is of course the link between the deaths of JFK and RFK and the reason why Edward Kennedy had to be set-up over the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKstockdale.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKkopechne.htm

[Don Jeffries]

I really have become more disenchanted with the Kennedy family after reading "Brothers." I certainly don't think it was Talbot's intention to put the family (or JFK's ex-aides) in a bad light, but the book does so, nevertheless.

As Jim Garrison told Mort Sahl, "If my brother was killed, I'd be waiting for the guys that did it with a knife in an alley." (essential quote- might not be verbatim). Sahl agreed. While Bobby, Jackie, Teddy, etc., were glaring down anyone who dared even broach the subject, Mort Sahl was destroying his career by boldly speaking out about the JFK assassination conspiracy. No one killed him. No one killed any of the critics who dared to pore through all that meaningless stuff in the official record and expose the lies and cover up, either. Even Penn Jones lived to be an old man, and his specialty was in pointing out all the mysterious deaths. This doesn't mean that I don't believe the conspirators knocked off any witnesses- indeed, I do think they were responsible for the deaths of far too many people. However, clearly speaking out and writing books that were conspiracy-oriented was not some kind of automatic death sentence.

That's my biggest problem with the "fear" theory of why the Kennedys accepted such an obviously bogus verdict on their loved ones' deaths. I have a family, so I can certainly understand such concerns. I certainly wouldn't want to put my wife or children in any danger, and perhaps I wouldn't be brave enough to still seek the truth. However, I really do think that, while most of us might maintain a public silence for a while, few of us would still be afraid to discuss the subject over 45 years later. What is Ted Kennedy afraid of at this point? Even before the sad news about his brain tumor, Kennedy was a man in his mid-70s, with his children obviously fully grown. What does he think they could do to him?

I do think that JFK, Jr. was about to "turn" and, much like RFK, plan to look into his father's death once he had achieved power. It's too bad Caroline doesn't seem to have any curiosity about the assassination, whatsoever. It's also shameful, imho. I would certainly hope that my children cared enough about me to want to know the truth about my death, especially if there was such controversy swirling around it. If most families don't care about such things, why are autopsies even performed? How many of us have had a loved one murdered? I can't imagine how horrible that would be, but I do know that I wouldn't rest until I knew who had done it.

I think the Kennedys have, collectively, given us a tragedy worthy of the ancient Greeks. I certainly have a great deal of sympathy for, and astonishment over, all the untimely tragedies they've had to endure. Like Ted Sorensen, I think talk of a Kennedy "curse" is nonsense. Unlike him, I believe they offended some very powerful forces a long time ago (starting with Papa Joe), and that most of their unnatural deaths are a result of that.

Bottom line- if Ted, Bobby, Jr. and Caroline all came out together and expressed their dissatisfaction with the official explanations behind the assassinations, and demanded a real independent investigation, such a move would gain instant credibility.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I believe they offended some very powerful forces a long time ago (starting with Papa Joe), and that most of their unnatural deaths are a result of that.

Blaming Papa Joe now, are we?

Is that from your novel?

[Don Jeffries]

I believe they offended some very powerful forces a long time ago (starting with Papa Joe), and that most of their unnatural deaths are a result of that.

Blaming Papa Joe now, are we?

Is that from your novel?

You're misunderstanding things again. As a matter of fact, I think Joe Kennedy has been treated unfairly, and that, if he engaged in any shady activities at all, he was far less corrupt than any other man I can think of who amassed a comparable fortune (keeping in mind the old adage "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.")

I certainly don't blame him for anything, other than ruffling the feathers of some powerful people.

[Mark Stapleton]

Bottom line- if Ted, Bobby, Jr. and Caroline all came out together and expressed their dissatisfaction with the official explanations behind the assassinations, and demanded a real independent investigation, such a move would gain instant credibility.

I agree Don, and it would be great if they did.

Such an action would put the mainstream media in a very awkward position. They might be unable to prevent a groundswell of public support for a proper re-examination of the case. I expect they would wheel out the tired old line 'why can't we let the Kennedys rest in peace--let's not tarnish their memory' etc etc (which they have used to great effect in the past). But if it's the Kennedy family themselves calling for a new investigation, then the media's tired old line starts looking very lame.

Edited July 19, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Bottom line- if Ted, Bobby, Jr. and Caroline all came out together and expressed their dissatisfaction with the official explanations behind the assassinations, and demanded a real independent investigation, such a move would gain instant credibility.

I agree Don, and it would be great if they did.

Such an action would put the mainstream media in a very awkward position.

In that case you guys don't know the mainstream media very well. The mainstream media treats Coretta Scott King and members of her family as pitiable Looney Tunes ever since they got involved in re-opening the MLK case.

You think they couldn't make (what is left of) the Kennedy family look like Looney Tunes also?

Just look at the insults thrown at the Kennedy family by the amateurs on this thread, then imagine that amplified times 1 Million by PROFESSIONAL character assassins.

There are sound legal, moral and practical reasons why the family should stay clear of this subject (the JFK & RFK assassinations) given the present chaotic state of the inquiry.

[Maggie Hansen]

Bottom line- if Ted, Bobby, Jr. and Caroline all came out together and expressed their dissatisfaction with the official explanations behind the assassinations, and demanded a real independent investigation, such a move would gain instant credibility.

I agree Don, and it would be great if they did.

Such an action would put the mainstream media in a very awkward position.

In that case you guys don't know the mainstream media very well. The mainstream media treats Coretta Scott King and members of her family as pitiable Looney Tunes ever since they got involved in re-opening the MLK case.

You think they couldn't make (what is left of) the Kennedy family look like Looney Tunes also?

Just look at the insults thrown at the Kennedy family by the amateurs on this thread, then imagine that amplified times 1 Million by PROFESSIONAL character assassins.

There are sound legal, moral and practical reasons why the family should stay clear of this subject (the JFK & RFK assassinations) given the present chaotic state of the inquiry.

I am sure that you are right Raymond and the Kennedy's are under no obligation to anyone to publicly discuss any of the deaths in their family. They are after all a family even if a political dynasty. However, like others here I also find their silence and complete aversion to any mention of the deaths and investigations rather odd. Because the Kennedy's are not just any family but are a very political family. I also do not see (at least from Australian shores) that the King family has been made to look like 'looney tunes' for their involvement in the re-opening of the MLK case.

In my very brief contact with Aleida Guevarra (Ernesto Che Guevarra's daughter) she had no problem discussing her father's death (by some of the same forces that were involved with JFK's death) and nor does the rest of the Guevarra family in Cuba or Argentina. I believe that Aleida has even written a book about her father. Though there are lots of differences between the Kennedy and Guevarra assassinations and their families there are also many similarities but certainly different public positions to the events which affected them both.