Who killed Bobby Kennedy? His son, RFK Jr., doesn't believe Sirhan acted alone (WAPO)

[hlthe2b]

Last edited Sun May 27, 2018, 11:47 PM - Edit history (3)

NOTE: this post is NOT conspiracy theory but rather a MSM report on RFK JR's FIRST, and ONLY visit to Sirhan Sirhan and represents CURRENT news via WAPO. Edited to clarify for those who may not read the actual article--this is not a question of Sirhan's guilt, but rather whether he acted alone



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/05/26/who-killed-bobby-kennedy-his-son-rfk-jr-doesnt-believe-it-was-sirhan-sirhan/?utm_term=.0140526cf7a2

LOS ANGELES — Just before Christmas, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pulled up to the massive Richard J. Donovan Correctional Center, a California state prison complex in the desert outside San Diego that holds nearly 4,000 inmates. Kennedy was there to visit Sirhan B. Sirhan, the man convicted of killing his father, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, nearly 50 years ago.

While his wife, the actress Cheryl Hines, waited in the car, Robert Kennedy Jr. met with Sirhan for three hours, he revealed to The Washington Post last week. It was the culmination of months of research by Kennedy into the assassination, including speaking with witnesses and reading the autopsy and police reports.

“I got to a place where I had to see Sirhan,” Kennedy said. He would not discuss the specifics of their conversation. But when it was over, Kennedy had joined those who believe there was a second gunman, and that it was not Sirhan who killed his father.

“I went there because I was curious and disturbed by what I had seen in the evidence,” said Kennedy, an environmental lawyer and the third oldest of his father’s 11 children. “I was disturbed that the wrong person might have been convicted of killing my father. My father was the chief law enforcement officer in this country. I think it would have disturbed him if somebody was put in jail for a crime they didn’t commit.”

more at link above

[RockRaven]

1. Isn't he an anti-vaxxer?

He may be a lawyer, but his critical thinking skills are poor. Why should I believe he's employing clear-eyed, sharp thinking on this matter when he fails on other matters?

[hlthe2b]

4. Read the article. It is Schrade that I find compelling. This has nothing to do with vaccines.

[Maeve]

9. More than that, I'd want more on the ballistics

If the bullets and the gun don't match....and there is some question.
People can be wrong, memories can fade or alter. But bullets are more objective.

[exboyfil]

31. The LAPD lost or threw away

Critical pieces of evidence. The most important being that which showed the number of shots. The highest profile murder in California history.

[mythology]

62. I generally find that if somebody believes something utterly incompetent

they usually believe other utterly incompetent things.

There's no evidence in the article. Just suppositions and maybes. I mean it would be just as valid to say maybe martians did it. There would be just as much actual evidence.

There's a reason Sirhan's attorneys are down to "he was hypnotised" level theories. Because there's no evidence that says he didn't do it.

[pnwmom]

84. This is an article from the Guardian ten years ago and RFK jr. isn't part of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/22/kennedy.assassination

Now Van Praag has added new weight to the 'two shooters' theory. He reanalysed the only audio recording of the shooting, which was made by an independent journalist, Stanislaw Pruszynski. "At the time Pruszynski was not even aware that his recorder was still on," said Van Praag.

The recording quality is poor, but it is possible to make out 13 shots over the course of just over 5 seconds, before what Van Praag describes as "blood-curdling screams" obscure the sound. That is more than the eight rounds that Sirhan's cheap Iver Johnson Cadet 55 revolver carried.

Also, there are two pairs of double shots that occurred so close together it is inconceivable that Sirhan could have fired them all. The third and fourth shots and the seventh and eighth were separated by 122 and 149 milliseconds respectively. In tests, a trained firearms expert firing under ideal conditions could only manage 366 milliseconds between shots using the same weapon. And he was not being pinned to a table at the time.

Frequency anomalies

Lastly, five of the shots - 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 in the sequence - were found to have odd acoustic characteristics when specific frequencies were analysed separately. Van Praag thinks this is because they came from a different gun pointing away from Pruszynski's microphone.

[hlthe2b]

94. No one is saying Sirhan didn't "do it"...

That is NO what is being suggested, but the article details, for the first time afaik, the son of RFK's doubts as to whether or not Sirhan acted alone--and that IS a question that has lingered for decades. I realize the WAPO headline (which I used to be authentic to the article) is misleading, but that is NOT what is being said in the actual article. I think, no matter how one feels about it, that to have a son of RFK voicing his thoughts (whatever they might be) for the first time is news worthy. I think his views on vaccines are ridiculous, but that is not what is being discussed here. While I can not show him respect for his anti-vax views, I have no problem extending him the courtesy of listening to his concerns re: perceived gaps in his father's assassination investigation. He certainly lost enough to have earned that, IMO.

[DemoHack]

6. But to answer your question...

Yes, he is.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-distorted-vaccine-science1/

[pnwmom]

23. He is also the person who saw the gross defects in the state's case against

Michael Skakel, and fought to get his conviction overturned, and won.

[ucrdem]

53. +1

so glad he's speaking out and that WaPo is reporting it

[mythology]

77. Except the conviction wasn't overturned on the basis of the state's case

It was overturned because his defense counsel was found to be inept. That's fundamentally different from what you said.

Specifically the Connecticut Supreme Court in 2006 rejected claims of prosecutorial misconduct.

It isn't even remotely accurate to say that Kennedy seeing "gross defects in the state's case" had anything to do with the conviction being overturned.

Michael Skakel lied about his alibi and admitted he was in the trees playing with himself. He was infatuated with the victim and upset that his brother was dating her.

He confessed to the murder to multiple people at different times.

[saidsimplesimon]

35. So sad to learn this, for me

antivaxxers are no better than the palin religious crazies. Thanks for the heads up

[womanofthehills]

105. Give me a break - JFK Jr. is a great environmental lawyer and activist

He is a progressive dem and to compare him to Palin makes no f**king sense.

[pnwmom]

59. If you don't read the article you won't know what his criticisms are of the earlier investigation.

And you won't know that one of the men who was shot that day has been trying to get the police for decades to reopen the investigation.

The article addresses several questions about the evidence.

For example, there were 13 shots fired, but SS's gun only held 8 bullets -- and he had no chance to reload.

The men who tackled him said he fired only 2 or 3 shots (after which he was shooting wildly) before they took him down; and they said SS was in front of RFK -- but the autopsy said all 4 of the bullets struck him from behind.

And a police report said that the bullets were different kinds of bullets shot from different guns.

Also from the article, one of the men who was shot that day believes -- based on the evidence he's seen -- that there was a second shooter and the police failed to act on the evidence:

Schrade believes that Sirhan shot him and the others who were wounded but that he did not kill Kennedy. Since 1974, Schrade has led the crusade to try to persuade authorities — the police, prosecutors, the feds, anyone — to reinvestigate the case and identify the second gunman.

“Yes, he did shoot me. Yes, he shot four other people and aimed at Kennedy,” Schrade said in an interview at his Laurel Canyon home. “The important thing is he did not shoot Robert Kennedy. Why didn’t they go after the second gunman? They knew about him right away. They didn’t want to know who it was. They wanted a quickie.”

[AndJusticeForSome]

61. The article is not clear on at least one point for me

We're 13 bullets recovered?

[pnwmom]

65. This other article from 10 years ago says 14 bullets were found.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/22/kennedy.assassination

But Sirhan was in front of Kennedy when he fired, and after shooting two shots was overcome by hotel staff, who pinned him to a table. Also, Sirhan fired eight shots in total, yet 14 were found lodged around the room and in the victims.

"There is no doubt in our minds that no fewer than 14 shots were fired in the pantry on that evening and that Sirhan did not in fact kill Senator Kennedy," said Robert Joling, a forensic scientist who has been involved with the Kennedy case for nearly 40 years. He and Van Praag have published a book on the killing this week entitled "An Open and Shut Case".

And there is an audio recording providing additional evidence:

Now Van Praag has added new weight to the 'two shooters' theory. He reanalysed the only audio recording of the shooting, which was made by an independent journalist, Stanislaw Pruszynski. "At the time Pruszynski was not even aware that his recorder was still on," said Van Praag.

The recording quality is poor, but it is possible to make out 13 shots over the course of just over 5 seconds, before what Van Praag describes as "blood-curdling screams" obscure the sound. That is more than the eight rounds that Sirhan's cheap Iver Johnson Cadet 55 revolver carried.

Also, there are two pairs of double shots that occurred so close together it is inconceivable that Sirhan could have fired them all. The third and fourth shots and the seventh and eighth were separated by 122 and 149 milliseconds respectively. In tests, a trained firearms expert firing under ideal conditions could only manage 366 milliseconds between shots using the same weapon. And he was not being pinned to a table at the time.

Frequency anomalies

Lastly, five of the shots - 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 in the sequence - were found to have odd acoustic characteristics when specific frequencies were analysed separately. Van Praag thinks this is because they came from a different gun pointing away from Pruszynski's microphone.

[AndJusticeForSome]

93. So, they have possession of more than 8 bullets?

Like, there is a photo of 9 or more bullets, side-by-side? If so, how is that explained, if the gun only holds 8 bullets? I don't understand.

[pnwmom]

108. No. They haven't explained it. That's why there are questions.

There was testimony at at least one trial that no bullets were recovered at the scene -- only in the bodies.But there are numerous reports from police witnesses about bullet holes and fragments they observed at the scene.

These are just a couple examples. The article details many more.

FBI Special Agent William A. Bailey, who also signed an affidavit in 1976, which stated, "At one point . . . . I (and several other agents) noted at least two (2) small-caliber bullet holes in the center post of the two doors leading from the preparation room {the pantry}. There was no question in any of our minds as to the fact that they were bullet holes."

Bailey told me, "I am absolutely certain that I saw bullet holes. And when I inspected those bullet holes, I clearly saw the bases of two .22 caliber bullets in those holes."

FBI Special Agent Alfred C. Greiner, who conducted a survey of the crime scene two days after the shooting. He filed a report, accompanied by captioned photographs, taken by FBI photographer Richard Fernandez, identifying four "bullet holes" in the door frames of the pantry. Greiner declined to be interviewed for this story. Fernandez, still employed by the FBI, did not have permission to speak about the case, according to Fred Reagan, an FBI spokesman in Los Angeles. The FBI has refused to respond to any direct questions about its own official report.

Roger LaJeunesse, the principal FBI special agent assigned to the case, said last week that he hadn't previously recognized the significance of the FBI photographs. "I didn't pay any particular attention to them, because I knew that the pictures Fernandez took and Greiner supervised were for the purpose of witness orientation," he said in an interview. "The SID had the responsibility for preserving crime-scene evidence. If these are, in fact, bullet holes, their origin should have been determined."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1990/05/13/rfks-murder-a-second-gun/9248e988-9fff-4366-b3e3-2849420b9bf9/?utm_term=.f6b6187aae11

[RockRaven]

68. Well, I did read the article [edit: before my initial response, that is], and it reads like

a moon-landing denier piece. What do I mean by that? It catalogues apparent anomalies in the "official story" as if that proves some other series of events is what actually occurred. One does not need to make sense of every supposedly known fact/figure/image/sound to make a judgment about whether or not the moon landings occurred as generally understood.

Eyewitness accounts, especially when stress/adrenaline/injury/trauma/passage-of-time are involved, are notoriously unreliable. This does not mean their stories are completely ignored, but it does mean not to accept anything an eyewitness says like a piece of gospel truth.

That 13 shot figure factors heavily into the story, and is treated as true fact, when it is anything but. Other analysis of that audio referred to later in the story says there were 8 shots. I've never heard the audio, and it isn't my area of expertise in any case, so I have no reason to believe one over the other except as they coherently/incoherently fit into the other available evidence. Much is made about Kennedy being shot in the front or back, with claims that this proves a second shooter, and only later is it pointed out that "yeah, he could have turned to flee/avoid the shooter."

The whole piece presents RFK Jr's theory as fact first, and alludes to counter evidence as a throw-away aside, which is a style of journalism that does not inspire confidence. The piece also contains a lot of lawyerly and journalisticly weasel maneuvers like conflations between a) assertion of a positive and absence of a negative and b) assertion of a negative and absence of a positive.

RFK Jr might be right, but I'm not going to take it on his say so, and nobody has demonstrated it yet IMO.

[womanofthehills]

106. When Schrade came face to face with Sirhan at parole hearing, he argued Schrade was not K's killer

After decades of investigation, Paul Schrade has no doubt about the identity of the man who shot him in the head shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968, in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel:

It was Sirhan Sirhan, the same gunman convicted of assassinating Robert F. Kennedy.

And yet, when Schrade came face to face with Sirhan for the first time in nearly 50 years, at a parole hearing in San Diego on Wednesday, he argued that the notorious gunman wasn’t Kennedy’s killer.

Schrade told the Saratogian last year that even all these decades later, each anniversary of Kennedy’s death renews his stubborn resolve to seek justice.

“The truth is in the prosecution’s own records and the autopsy,” Schrade told the New York newspaper. “It says Sirhan couldn’t have shot Robert Kennedy and didn’t. He was out of position.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/10/this-kennedy-confidant-has-spent-decades-calling-for-the-release-of-rfks-killer/?utm_term=.92636d07c649

[womanofthehills]

95. He is not anti-vax, he is for improving vaccines

Until a few yrs ago, Norvartis was making half our vaccines till they sold their vaccine business for millions. We just heard how upstanding Norvartis is.

[hlthe2b]

96. He seems to have evolved a little bit from earlier stances that were clearly more anti-vax

[SidDithers]

97. Yes he is...

he's a fucking loon about vaccines. His entirely discredited "Deadly Immunity" article provided, and still provides, respectable cover for much of the anti-vax industry.

ETA: https://www.salon.com/2011/01/16/dangerous_immunity/


Sid

[womanofthehills]

100. Hello.... you can thank him for helping take mercury out of most of our vaccines

[SidDithers]

103. Wrong...

but wouldn't expect anything different from you, given your own anti-vaccine views.

Sid

[cilla4progress]

2. Bit of a

Kook...

[dawg day]

3. He's sort of off the rails

It happened in front of a dozen witnesses. Rosey Grier (the great NFL player) tackled Sirhan right after the shooting. There are photos taken immediately after.
It could be he was hired by someone, but if there was a second gunman, where was he?

RFK, Jr., doesn't seem to have his father's incisive brain, that's for sure. It must be difficult, however, to realize how much longer you've lived than your dad, but how much more he accomplished.

[hlthe2b]

5. Paul Schrade (also shot) was not and is not a kook. I find him compelling

[pnwmom]

24. He's saying there was a second shooter. In that crowded space, I think it's possible. n/t

[womanofthehills]

102. RFK Jr. has been a great activist & environmentalist

Do your research...........

[colsohlibgal]

8. I Agree With Him

It was a mob scene where the shooting took place. The shot that killed Bobby was fired right up against his head, Sirhan never got that close.

Then there is this....the plan was for Bobby to leave in a different direction. That got changed on the spot right after the speech, by someone in his campaign. So how would they have known he was going through the kitchen? Did they have people multiple places?

There are more clues that point in another direction.

[EffieBlack]

14. If it was such a mob scene, how does anyone know Sirhan didn't get that close

All credible evidence points in one direction - right at Sirhan Sirhan.

[pnwmom]

25. Not all the evidence points at Sirhan Sirhan. Some points away from him.

All RFK is calling for is re-opening the case. He's not certain of anything except that the evidence isn't as clear cut as most people think it is.

And midway through Sirhan’s trial, prosecutors provided his lawyers with an autopsy report that launched five decades of controversy: Kennedy was shot four times at point-blank range from behind, including the fatal shot behind his ear. But Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian immigrant, was standing in front of him.

[womanofthehills]

107. Also, both RFK Jr. & Schrade do not believe Sirhan killed Kennedy after meeting Sirhan in person

I find that very interesting.

[H2O Man]

55. Not true.

First, if we consider just those around Senator Kennedy at the time -- especially those between him and Sirhan -- rather than focusing on those far away (none of whom have gone on record anyway), we can get a very good idea.

Second, Vince Bugliosi -- the famous DA who wrote a book opposing a conspiracy in the JFK case -- won a civil case that concluded there was a conspiracy.

I could go on and on. But I suspect that I've made my point.

[EffieBlack]

69. Your reference to Bugliosi isn't accurate

Bugliosi was never involved in any civil case that determined there was a conspiracy. He did represent a television statement in a wrongful termination and defamation lawsuit brought by Jerry Owen, an evangelical minister whose show was cancelled. In defending the station. Bugliosi used an affirmative defense, claiming that there was evidence that Owen may have conspired with Sirhan to kill RFK and therefore, the termination was justified. The court ruled in Owen’s favor - obviously rejecting Bugliosi’s conspiracy claim.

And despite his obvious interest in the JFK assassination, Bugliosi never took up any further investigation into RFK’s death, suggesting that he didn’t really believe the conspiracy theory he’d posed in defense of his client back in the 1970s.

As for the rest, we’ll just have to agree to disagree since I learned a long time ago not to argue against a conspiracy theory with anyone who believes it.

[H2O Man]

109. That's inaccurate.

The case was far more than that. Luckily, I have most of the trial transcripts here, and will refer to those in a moment. But let's start with Vince's 1972 run for DA, in which he lost by one quarter of one percent of the vote. In his letter of acceptance of the case, Vince noted that he understood its "enormous implications ....It was common knowledge that had I been elected, I intended to reopen the investigation of the Kennedy assassination. I am still of the same frame of mind."

On his first day in court, Vince opened with, "Your Honor, as I understand it -- I am just new on the case -- one of the allegations by the plaintiff is that Mr. Hopkins accused Mr. Owen of somehow being involved in Senator Kennedy's assassination. I believe then that there is an affirmative defense on our part to prove the truthfulness of that charge."

I could go on and on, though I wanted to respond in a timely fashion, and have only found some of these files this afternoon. (Being old, I slept until after noon.) But Vince won, and that is a court case, not a silly conspiracy theory.

I'll add one question: Trump is charging a conspiracy theory that the Mueller probe is a witch hunt, carried on by the "deep state" to discredit him. Team Mueller is pursuing an investigation of a conspiracy between Trump's campaign with Russian intelligence. In this instance, do you simply avoid discussing -- perhaps even arguing -- that one of the two might be correct?

[EffieBlack]

111. Regardless what Bugliosi said during the trial, the court did NOT find there was a conspiracy

That was Bugliosi's affirmative defense on behalf of the defendant, which the court rejected in ruling on behalf of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued KCOP for defamation and wrongful termination. Bugliosi presented an affirmative defense which said essentially "Yes, they fired him and criticized him, but they had a good reason. They did it because there was evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy to kill RFK." The Court did not rule on whether there was a conspiracy. Instead, it rejected Bugliosi's defense and found for the plaintiff.

Bugliosi did NOT win. He represented the defendant. The plaintiff won. Bugliosi lost the case.

An attorney saying he believed something happened is not evidence and it's certainly not a court ruling - especially when the court rules against him. Whatever you think of what Bugliosi said during the trial, the court did NOT find that there was a conspiracy.

[H2O Man]

120. Two important things:

(1) You are right; and

(2) I was wrong.


Although it will be no surprise to you, after reading through, I found my memory of the case was incorrect. This, too, I attribute to being old, human, and stubborn.

It was an important case. Vince did have some success with it -- the ex-boxer/"street minister" wasn't awarded but a fraction of what he requested, and at least one defendant was dropped from the case. Plus the plaintiff had to pay the court costs. But that does not change the fact that you were right and I was wrong.

I thank you for correcting me, and apologize for being an ass.

[EffieBlack]

121. One thing

You're a straight-up class act.

[H2O Man]

122. Thank you!

If I find it annoying when others deny being wrong, or making a mistake, then it is important for me to openly admit when I am wrong -- which is all too often!

I had hoped to expand upon a response to one of your OPs a week or so ago. It had to do with interactions with people from different backgrounds from your own. I believe I posted that I had a guest here at my house, for a week, who was from the Middle East. Now, my extended family includes individuals from all of what Rubin called "the tribes of humanity," commonly referred to as "races." But in terms of the Middle East, one would have to go back a couple generations. So it was fascinating to converse with a college student, the daughter of a diplomat, who came to the US to attend college. Our conversations reinforced my belief that there is no "military solution" to the conflicts there. I told her about Rubin calling me, while there with Mandela, in the early 2000s. Both of them, of course, were advocating non-violent resolutions.

[hlthe2b]

123. Pardon my interjection, but he certainly is (a class act)... I only know Bugliosi's work

as prosecutor on the Manson trial (and his books on OJ trial and GW Bush*)...but I learned quite a bit that I had never heard from your discussion/subthread.


for the constructive "back and forth" discussion.

[MiniMe]

10. Interesting read

I just haave a hard time believing that none of this came up for the last 50 years.

[hlthe2b]

11. It has come up... Particularly the ballistics and the failure to keep some of the evidence

e.g., door jams with bullet holes.

[pnwmom]

66. It has -- and more. Like audio recordings, for example. But it keeps getting dismissed,

just as people did here today.

When you read this, keep in mind that SS's gun only held 8 bullets, and several men tackled him after he got off 2 or 3 shots (he continued to shoot, but wildly). And yet 14 bullets were found at the scene and in the body.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/22/kennedy.assassination

This is from The Guardian 10 years ago:

Now Van Praag has added new weight to the 'two shooters' theory. He reanalysed the only audio recording of the shooting, which was made by an independent journalist, Stanislaw Pruszynski. "At the time Pruszynski was not even aware that his recorder was still on," said Van Praag.

The recording quality is poor, but it is possible to make out 13 shots over the course of just over 5 seconds, before what Van Praag describes as "blood-curdling screams" obscure the sound. That is more than the eight rounds that Sirhan's cheap Iver Johnson Cadet 55 revolver carried.

Also, there are two pairs of double shots that occurred so close together it is inconceivable that Sirhan could have fired them all. The third and fourth shots and the seventh and eighth were separated by 122 and 149 milliseconds respectively. In tests, a trained firearms expert firing under ideal conditions could only manage 366 milliseconds between shots using the same weapon. And he was not being pinned to a table at the time.

Frequency anomalies

Lastly, five of the shots - 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 in the sequence - were found to have odd acoustic characteristics when specific frequencies were analysed separately. Van Praag thinks this is because they came from a different gun pointing away from Pruszynski's microphone.

[struggle4progress]

12. Sirhan Sirhan was there with a 22 pistol that he fired repeatedly

Several eyewitnesses saw him shoot at point blank range

Fifty years later, there may still be inconsistencies in witness statements, but no clear credible evidence of a conspiracy has emerged

[EffieBlack]

13. True

And no one has ever come up with an answer for the fact that Sirhan had a gun, he fired it, and it t was wrestled from him.

It's often hard for people to accept that our icons were taken down by seemingly random attacks, but it happens.

[struggle4progress]

17. Sometimes we just can't understand the crazy acts of crazy people unless we're crazy too

[pnwmom]

38. The question is if there was a 2nd shooter as well.

There were as many as 13 bullets fired, but his gun only held 8.

And he was standing in front of RFK, but the bullets that killed RFK came from behind him, including one behind his ear at point blank range.

And the men who took SS down said they stopped him after only 2 or 3 shots, but 4 shots were found in his body.

A second shooter could explain this.

[pnwmom]

26. Right, but he was shooting from in front of RFK, and the autopsy says

the shots came from the back. This is what has caused some people to posit a 2 shooter theory.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

15. This isn't a conspiracy theory, just an MSM report about what a kooky

conspiracy theorist thinks.

[grantcart]

16. Not only did Sirhan confess, not only did he have notebooks talking about it

he openly admitted it court and asked to change his plea from not guild to guilty:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/3182/Sirhan-Bishara-Sirhan-Trial-1969-Murder-Plan.html

Just two nights before the attack, he was seen at the Ambassador Hotel, apparently attempting to learn the building's layout, and he visited a gun range on June 4 to polish his already considerable skills with the pistol. However, the testimony of one prosecution eyewitness to the attack, author George Plimpton, backfired when he described Sirhan as looking, "… enormously composed. He seemed—purged," a statement which dovetailed neatly with the defense assertion that Sirhan had shot Kennedy while in some kind of trance. More on track was the testimony of Alvin Clark, Sirhan's garbage collector, who claimed that Sirhan had told him a month before the attack of his intention to shoot Kennedy.

. . .

Defense hopes of proving that this killing had been the spontaneous act of a deranged mind received a severe setback when Judge Walker admitted into testimony pages from three notebooks that Sirhan had kept. They revealed a mind seriously troubled, but quite calculating and willful. One entry written May 18, 1968, read: "My determination to eliminate R.F.K. is becoming the more and more [sic] of an unshakable obsession.… Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated before June 5, 1968."

Sirhan's behavior throughout the trial, always bizarre, reached a self-destructive zenith during some unwelcome testimony about his childhood. He raged: "I … withdraw my original pleas of not guilty and submit the plea of guilty as charged on all counts. I also request that my counsel disassociate themselves from this case completely."

Defense lawyer Grant Cooper didn't mince any words. "Did you shoot Robert F. Kennedy?"

"Yes, sir."

"Did you bear any ill will towards Senator Kennedy?"

"No."

"Do you doubt you shot him?"

"No, sir, I don't."

Cooper then steered Sirhan into the reasons for his attack on Kennedy, a vicious diatribe about the Middle East conflict between Arab and Jew. So impassioned was Sirhan's anti-Zionist rhetoric that one of his own lawyers, Emile Berman, a Jew, felt compelled to offer his resignation from the defense team. Only soothing words from Cooper made him stay.

So despite the fact that witnesses had heard him talk about shooting Kennedy, recovering detailed rants in his notebooks about killing Kennedy, having been observed casing the hotel before the shooting and having been clearly observed by numerous well known public and private figures who were next to Bobby including George Plimpton, Rosie Grier, Pete Hamill and Olympic Gold Medalist Rafer Johnson who not only saw the attack but wrestled Sirhan to the ground and took the weapon from his hand, Sirhan didn't do it. Right.

I just have one question, why do the historical revisionists think Sirhan was there, to get an autograph?

Too bad they don't have a vaccine against stupid.

[hlthe2b]

18. This has nothing to do with Sirhan's guilt--clearly established, but a second shooter. n/t

[LarryNM]

39. Thanks for Posting the Article. There is a lot of Evidence

with unanswered questions still remaining. Amazing how so many
"Progressives" are so closed minded and rude about these matters.

[hlthe2b]

41. thank you for that...

I was thinking about self-deleting because it seemed some were coming awfully close to deriding those who found there might be any unanswered questions and it was not my intent to present a "battle field"....

[grantcart]

45. And the reason that all of the other Kennedy's and well known

People who were standing inches from Bobby don't agree with the second shooter theory and the only Kennedy that does us the one that also grasps to a completely absurd theory of vaccines is because. . . ?

Oh and labelling it "not a conspiracy theory" doesn't change the fact that it is in fact a conspiracy that would have knowingly or unknowingly involved Sirhan as well as many others. It also requires that dozens of people who loved Bobby and were literally inches away from him were completely clueless about what was happening in one of the most exposed and crowded political murders in history. You would think that the conspirators wouldn't risk dozens of people spontaneously losing their cognitive skills and would have picked a more discreet location.

[hlthe2b]

48. It is a WAPO article...

I had to put that in there for those who might be interested so that no one would mistakenly alert it as other than a mainstream news article. Seems from your comment, I was right to be concerned. Seems there are some that don't even want OTHERs to read, if they themselves do not agree with an article's point or content.

[pnwmom]

57. We don't know what ALL the other Kennedy's think today, in light of evidence

that has come out during intervening years.

For example, there were 13 shots fired, but SS's gun only held 8 bullets -- and he had no chance to reload.

The men who tackled him said he fired only 2 or 3 shots (after which he was shooting wildly) before they took him down; and they said SS was in front of RFK -- but the autopsy said all 4 of the bullets struck him from behind.

And a police report said that the bullets were different kinds of bullets shot from different guns.

[Cha]

88. That seems to be a strong selling point for

another shooter right there.

"13 bullets" or 14 fired and SS only fired 8".. something fishy for sure.

14 shots as this article from 2008 says..

Forensic science

New evidence challenges official picture of Kennedy shooting

snip//

Close range

But the lone gunman explanation has always looked shaky. The autopsy of Kennedy's body suggested that all four shots that hit him came from behind, and powder marks on his skin showed they must have been from close range.

But Sirhan was in front of Kennedy when he fired, and after shooting two shots was overcome by hotel staff, who pinned him to a table. Also, Sirhan fired eight shots in total, yet 14 were found lodged around the room and in the victims.

More..
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/22/kennedy.assassination

[pnwmom]

89. Yes -- I keep looking for an explanation for that, and all I find are people dismissing it

as a conspiracy theory.

No, it's a question of logic. Where did the other 5 or 6 extra bullets come from?

[pnwmom]

58. Not true. One of the men who was shot that day is the biggest proponent of the 2nd shooter theory

and finally got RFK to listen.

From the link at the OP:

Schrade believes that Sirhan shot him and the others who were wounded but that he did not kill Kennedy. Since 1974, Schrade has led the crusade to try to persuade authorities — the police, prosecutors, the feds, anyone — to reinvestigate the case and identify the second gunman.

“Yes, he did shoot me. Yes, he shot four other people and aimed at Kennedy,” Schrade said in an interview at his Laurel Canyon home. “The important thing is he did not shoot Robert Kennedy. Why didn’t they go after the second gunman? They knew about him right away. They didn’t want to know who it was. They wanted a quickie.”

[struggle4progress]

19. The revisionists think there was a conspiracy or a coverup, claim

too many shots were fired to have come from Sirhan's 8-bullet gun, and hold some other (undetermined) person responsible for the fatal shots

The witnesses don't always agree, and some have made conflicting statements over the years; moreover, there might be indications that some evidence was mishandled or improperly labelled

Inconsistencies and irregularities always open avenues for argument, and (unsurprisingly) such arguments have followed

But we try to tell the story that we can tell, that seems to fit the available evidence as simply and as well as any incomplete story could; and we call that our understanding of the situation

[madamesilverspurs]

37. Wasn't there an effort to prevent those diaries being presented as evidence?

Not on the basis of their content, but because Sam Yorty blabbed about them to the press?


.

[tonyt53]

40. Try as you might with facts, you still can't convince some people.

All of those people were in very close proximity of RFK and none heard a second shooter and none of them were shot accidentally. I agree with you, too bad about the lack of a certain vaccine. Oh yeah, I was 16 and had gotten very interested in politics by that time.

[pnwmom]

60. Not true. One of the men who was shot is convinced there was a second shooter.

The article addresses some of the evidence.

There were 13 shots fired, but SS's gun only held 8 bullets -- and he had no chance to reload.

The men who tackled him said he fired only 2 or 3 shots (after which he was shooting wildly) before they took him down; and they said SS was in front of RFK -- but the autopsy said all 4 of the bullets struck him from behind.

And a police report said that the bullets were different kinds of bullets shot from different guns.

Also from the article, one of the men who was shot that day believes -- based on the evidence he's seen -- that there was a second shooter and the police failed to act on the evidence:

Schrade believes that Sirhan shot him and the others who were wounded but that he did not kill Kennedy. Since 1974, Schrade has led the crusade to try to persuade authorities — the police, prosecutors, the feds, anyone — to reinvestigate the case and identify the second gunman.

“Yes, he did shoot me. Yes, he shot four other people and aimed at Kennedy,” Schrade said in an interview at his Laurel Canyon home. “The important thing is he did not shoot Robert Kennedy. Why didn’t they go after the second gunman? They knew about him right away. They didn’t want to know who it was. They wanted a quickie.”

[tonyt53]

101. There is ZERO evidence of a second shooter. There are a gazillion conspiracy theories though.

Every acoustics analysis done have said the same thing - 8 shots were fired. There wasn't a person near RFK that would not have tackled the second shooter. Rafer Johnson was asked about this conspiracy a few years afterwards. He said there was a single shooter. Time to give the conspiracy a break, or better yet, take out shovel and bury it at the landfill.

[pnwmom]

104. No, they recovered 13-14 bullets in the bodies or in the site

and an acoustic analysis reported by the Guardian 10 years ago detected 13 shots fired.

An independent journalist was at the shooting, not even aware he was recording at the time.

Also,all the shooting took place within 5 seconds, during which the men who were tackling SS were busy with him, and he continued to shoot wildly. Under the circumstances, it is plausible to think that someone else could have pulled out the handgun that got shot at point blank distance to the back of RFK's head.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/22/kennedy.assassination

But Sirhan was in front of Kennedy when he fired, and after shooting two shots was overcome by hotel staff, who pinned him to a table. Also, Sirhan fired eight shots in total, yet 14 were found lodged around the room and in the victims.

"There is no doubt in our minds that no fewer than 14 shots were fired in the pantry on that evening and that Sirhan did not in fact kill Senator Kennedy," said Robert Joling, a forensic scientist who has been involved with the Kennedy case for nearly 40 years. He and Van Praag have published a book on the killing this week entitled "An Open and Shut Case".


Now Van Praag has added new weight to the 'two shooters' theory. He reanalysed the only audio recording of the shooting, which was made by an independent journalist, Stanislaw Pruszynski. "At the time Pruszynski was not even aware that his recorder was still on," said Van Praag.

The recording quality is poor, but it is possible to make out 13 shots over the course of just over 5 seconds, before what Van Praag describes as "blood-curdling screams" obscure the sound. That is more than the eight rounds that Sirhan's cheap Iver Johnson Cadet 55 revolver carried.

Also, there are two pairs of double shots that occurred so close together it is inconceivable that Sirhan could have fired them all. The third and fourth shots and the seventh and eighth were separated by 122 and 149 milliseconds respectively. In tests, a trained firearms expert firing under ideal conditions could only manage 366 milliseconds between shots using the same weapon. And he was not being pinned to a table at the time.

Frequency anomalies

Lastly, five of the shots - 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 in the sequence - were found to have odd acoustic characteristics when specific frequencies were analysed separately. Van Praag thinks this is because they came from a different gun pointing away from Pruszynski's microphone.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/05/26/who-killed-bobby-kennedy-his-son-rfk-jr-doesnt-believe-it-was-sirhan-sirhan/?utm_term=.0012e49fc988

But questions about the case arose almost immediately in Los Angeles, resulting in hearings and reinvestigations as early as 1971 by the district attorney, the police chief, the county board of supervisors and the county superior court. Many of them focused on the ballistics of the case, starting with Noguchi’s finding that Kennedy had been shot from behind, which Sirhan’s lawyer didn’t raise in his defense.

In addition, lead crime scene investigator DeWayne Wolfer testified at trial that a bullet taken from Kennedy’s body and bullets from two of the wounded victims all matched Sirhan’s gun.

But other experts who examined the three bullets said they had markings from different guns and different bullet manufacturers. An internal police document concluded that “Kennedy and Weisel bullets not fired from same gun” — Weisel was the wounded ABC News producer — and “Kennedy bullet not fired from Sirhan’s revolver.”

SNIP

This prompted a Los Angeles judge in 1975 to convene a panel of seven forensic experts, who examined the three bullets and refired Sirhan’s gun. The panel said no match could be made between the three bullets, which appeared to be fired from the same gun, and Sirhan’s revolver. They found Wolfer had done a sloppy job with the ballistics evidence and urged further investigation.

[tonyt53]

112. "The Guardian" is your source of info??? There was no such document.

[pnwmom]

113. What do you mean by "there was no such document"? And the Guardian is not a tabloid.

It's a well-respected progressive paper in the UK.

[kcr]

75. There's no conspiracy theory too whacky, either.

They'll buy it every time, no matter what. This crap with the RFK shooting is utterly ridiculous, but the conspiracy-minded still jump right on board.

[Kentonio]

86. There was lots of extremely questionable evidence

And the behavior of the police was downright bizarre. Writing it off as a crazy conspiracy theory is a bit lazy. Irish investigative journalist Shane O’Sullivan made a documentary for the BBC called ‘RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy’ where he dug into the evidence. It’s well worth a watch.

[Demsrule86]

20. They caught the guy at the time...give me a break from all these conspiracy theories.

[hlthe2b]

21. No one is saying Sirhan wasn't guilty. The issue is if there was a second shooter. READ the article

or not, it really doesn't matter to me.

[Demsrule86]

22. It doesn't matter to me either.

I did read the article...there is no evidence of a second shooter.

[pnwmom]

27. There is autopsy evidence that would support a second shooter theory.

Sirhan Sirhan was shooting from in front of RFK. The autopsy says the shots came from behind.

From the article you read:

And midway through Sirhan’s trial, prosecutors provided his lawyers with an autopsy report that launched five decades of controversy: Kennedy was shot four times at point-blank range from behind, including the fatal shot behind his ear. But Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian immigrant, was standing in front of him.

[Liberty Belle]

33. Could RFK simply have turned his head, which would make shots from front appear to be from behind?

[pnwmom]

34. That wouldn't explain the shot delivered behind his ear at point blank range.

Last edited Sat May 26, 2018, 03:42 PM - Edit history (2)

SS didn't get that close.

Or the fact that as many as 13 bullets were fired but SS's gun held only 8. He didn't have a chance to reload -- men were tackling him.

From the link at the OP:

Sirhan was captured immediately; he had a .22-caliber revolver in his hand. Karl Uecker, an Ambassador Hotel maitre d’ who was escorting Kennedy through the pantry, testified that he grabbed Sirhan’s wrist and pinned it down after two shots and that Sirhan continued to fire wildly while being held down, never getting close to Kennedy. An Ambassador waiter and a Kennedy aide also said they tackled Sirhan after two or three shots.


Several other witnesses also said he was not close enough to place the gun against Kennedy’s back, where famed Los Angeles coroner Thomas Noguchi found powder burns on the senator’s jacket and on his hair, indicating shots fired at close contact. These witnesses provided more proof for those who insist a second gunman was involved.

. . . . An internal police document concluded that “Kennedy and Weisel bullets not fired from same gun,” (Weisel was the wounded ABC news producer) and “Kennedy bullet not fired from Sirhan’s revolver.”

[dflprincess]

67. The coroner (Thomas Noguchi) put the said the bullet that caused

the wound behind RFK's right ear was fired from 3-4 inches. No reports put Sirhan that close and Noguchi himself has wondered about a second gun man though he found no evidence that proves or disproves that.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

28. I saw Bobby Kennedy the day before.......

I still can hear his voice in my head 50 years later.

[madville]

29. Even if there was a second shooter

It really doesn't change anything at this point, same outcome.

[pnwmom]

30. If there was a second shooter, that person should be found and convicted also.

Would you want a killer of your father to be out there, free?

[madville]

32. Of course not

But perpetuating conspiracy theories can be just as or even more painful and distressing to the other family members who just want to let it rest.

[pnwmom]

36. Sometimes conspiracies actually happened. We are seeing that right now

Last edited Sun May 27, 2018, 01:23 AM - Edit history (1)

and we saw it in Watergate.

It doesn't work to me to dismiss something merely on the basis that it theorizes a conspiracy to have taken place.

OTOH, I don't think this is a Watergate-style conspiracy, organized by some larger, secret group.

I just think there's some evidence that more than one shooter was involved.

[EffieBlack]

70. And sometimes they don't

[EffieBlack]

71. RFK's widow, brother, sisters, and the rest of his children all believed/believe Sirhan acted alone

Dredging this up again because one family member doesn’t believe it must be excruciating for Ethel and their other children

[pnwmom]

72. I haven't read that anywhere. And I know that one of the men who was shot

is certain there was a second shooter. He was there -- RFK's children weren't.

He is the one who made the case to RFK, that RFK decided was worth considering.

From the link in the OP:

Schrade believes that Sirhan shot him and the others who were wounded but that he did not kill Kennedy. Since 1974, Schrade has led the crusade to try to persuade authorities — the police, prosecutors, the feds, anyone — to reinvestigate the case and identify the second gunman.

“Yes, he did shoot me. Yes, he shot four other people and aimed at Kennedy,” Schrade said in an interview at his Laurel Canyon home. “The important thing is he did not shoot Robert Kennedy. Why didn’t they go after the second gunman? They knew about him right away. They didn’t want to know who it was. They wanted a quickie.”

Also, there was a Canadian woman who was a witness, who said the FBI misreported her testimony.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-witness-to-rfk-assassination-claims-there-was-2nd-shooter

Following Sirhan’s conviction, Rhodes-Hughes said she felt she was “not in a position of power or influence” to raise questions about a single-killer theory. Then, years after she’d moved to British Columbia in 1987 and become a Canadian citizen, she was contacted by University of Massachusetts professor and freedom-of-information advocate Philip Melanson, who was writing a book raising questions about the RFK assassination — including various threads of evidence pointing to more than eight gunshots and a possible second assassin.

She recalls Melanson showing her a transcript of her 1968 interview with FBI detectives.

There were more than a dozen errors in the document, she said, “and they credited me with saying there were eight shots — which I never said.”

Her eyewitness account of Kennedy’s murder “was completely misconstrued and misrepresented,” she added, vividly recalling details of where people were standing and what happened on the night of the assassination.

Below is an article from 10 years ago, that discusses evidence that came to light after the conviction. For example, SS's gun only held 8 bullets, and multiple men tackled him after he got only 2 or 3 shots off (the rest of his shots were shot wildly.) So how come 14 bullets were found in the bodies or at the site, and the audio recording picked up 13 of them?


https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/22/kennedy.assassination

Now Van Praag has added new weight to the 'two shooters' theory. He reanalysed the only audio recording of the shooting, which was made by an independent journalist, Stanislaw Pruszynski. "At the time Pruszynski was not even aware that his recorder was still on," said Van Praag.

The recording quality is poor, but it is possible to make out 13 shots over the course of just over 5 seconds, before what Van Praag describes as "blood-curdling screams" obscure the sound. That is more than the eight rounds that Sirhan's cheap Iver Johnson Cadet 55 revolver carried.

Also, there are two pairs of double shots that occurred so close together it is inconceivable that Sirhan could have fired them all. The third and fourth shots and the seventh and eighth were separated by 122 and 149 milliseconds respectively. In tests, a trained firearms expert firing under ideal conditions could only manage 366 milliseconds between shots using the same weapon. And he was not being pinned to a table at the time.

Frequency anomalies

Lastly, five of the shots - 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 in the sequence - were found to have odd acoustic characteristics when specific frequencies were analysed separately. Van Praag thinks this is because they came from a different gun pointing away from Pruszynski's microphone.

[EffieBlack]

79. Plenty more other people who were also there - and who weren't distracted by being shot -

thought there was only one shooter.

But as I said elsewhere, we’ll have to agree to disagree since I find it a complete waste of time to argue with people who believe a conspiracy theory. We never convince each other.

[pnwmom]

80. I'm just curious. What do you think about the fact that 14 bullets were found

and SS's gun only held 8 bullets? Do you have to believe in a conspiracy to think that's strange?

[EffieBlack]

82. I told you I'm not engaging in this discussion

[pnwmom]

83. I don't believe in a conspiracy theory with regard to the RFK assassination.

con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry
noun
a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.

I just think there is evidence that more than one shooter was involved.

[IADEMO2004]

42. Benjamins

[YOHABLO]

43. I really don't know what to believe. Recently a program aired about Sirhan being ''programmed''.

That perhaps, he had been under 'mind-control' methods practiced by the CIA. Bobby had a lot of enemies, as did his brother. He was fiercely going after organized crime. A ''Manchurian Candidate'' if you will.

[grantcart]

46. You can say that again

[Dr Hobbitstein]

47. CIA mind control...

[Kirk Lover]

73. If there were two shooters that would of been very easily discerned by the eyewitnesses

present. That's all I need to know.

[YOHABLO]

44. I really don't know what to believe. Recently a program aired about Sirhan being ''programmed''.

That perhaps, he had been under 'mind-control' methods practiced by the CIA. Bobby had a lot of enemies, as did his brother. He was fiercely going after organized crime. A ''Manchurian Candidate'' if you will?

[still_one]

49. I don't care if it comes from the WP, it is still bullshit. Mr. anti-vaxer has seen the evidence

don't make me laugh

Not only did Sirhan/Sirhan admit to killing Bobby Kennedy, but others in LA were also shot.

He is right where he belongs, in prison

[hlthe2b]

50. The article does not say Sirhan was not guilty. You missed the point or did not read the article

It is the question of whether or not there was a second shooter and whether all the questions have been answered. Please don't insult others who are interested in reading the article. They should have that opportunity without your personal derision.

While I doubt there is anyone here who does not find RFK's anti-vaxer views despicable--certainly not me, this is, from what I can tell, the first time he's spoken out on his views on his father's assassination and any questions he still may have. AND THAT makes it newsworthy.

[pnwmom]

56. There is actually some substantial evidence for the 2nd shooter theory, which is what

RFK has been discussing.

For example, there were 13 shots fired, but SS's gun only held 8 bullets -- and he had no chance to reload.

The men who tackled him after only 2 or 3 shots (after which he was shooting wildly) said SS was in front of RFK -- but the autopsy said the bullets struck him from behind.

And a police report said that the bullets were different kinds of bullets shot from different guns.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss a lawyer who is concerned that his father's murderers be correctly identified as "Mr. Anti-Vaxer."

If there was a 2nd shooter, shouldn't that person also be in prison?

ON UPDATE:

RFK isn't the only one who thinks there was a second shooter. Another man who was shot that day has been trying to prove this for years.

From the link at the OP:

Schrade believes that Sirhan shot him and the others who were wounded but that he did not kill Kennedy. Since 1974, Schrade has led the crusade to try to persuade authorities — the police, prosecutors, the feds, anyone — to reinvestigate the case and identify the second gunman.

“Yes, he did shoot me. Yes, he shot four other people and aimed at Kennedy,” Schrade said in an interview at his Laurel Canyon home. “The important thing is he did not shoot Robert Kennedy. Why didn’t they go after the second gunman? They knew about him right away. They didn’t want to know who it was. They wanted a quickie.”

[left-of-center2012]

51. More correctly ...

Instead of "RFK Jr., doesn't believe it was Sirhan Sirhan"
it's that Sirhan Sirhan didn't act alone?

[hlthe2b]

52. Yes... this is the article title, but should have been "RFK doesn't believe Sirhan acted alone" OR

delivered the (ultimate) "kill shot"

[Cha]

91. Yes, that would have been better.. less confusing.

Though this article from 2008 does say..

Forensic science

New evidence challenges official picture of Kennedy shooting

snip//

Close range

But the lone gunman explanation has always looked shaky. The autopsy of Kennedy's body suggested that all four shots that hit him came from behind, and powder marks on his skin showed they must have been from close range.

But Sirhan was in front of Kennedy when he fired, and after shooting two shots was overcome by hotel staff, who pinned him to a table. Also, Sirhan fired eight shots in total, yet 14 were found lodged around the room and in the victims.

More..
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/22/kennedy.assassination

Very Strange.

[ucrdem]

54. K'n'R

No minds will be changed I imagine but injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere and this one has always stood out as being especially problematic.

[aikoaiko]

63. meh. I'll let the historians figure it out.

[kcr]

64. I miss the old DU n/t

[saidsimplesimon]

81. I will take the plunge.

However, until the claims are proven, it remains a conspiracy theory, imo.

[pnwmom]

90. No, it might be a simple mistake, borne out of the desire to get the matter over with.

The whole country was traumatized by RFK's murder. The whole country saw SS with a gun in his hand. Case closed.

What no one has ever been able to explain is how 13 or 14 bullets (recovered in bodies or at the scene) were shot out of a single gun that only held 8 bullets? And that wasn't reloaded because several men tackled SS after he got off 2 or 3 shots (the rest being shot wildly in the scuffle.)

[roamer65]

85. This country is reaping what is has sown.

A lot of our ills today can be traced back to the coup d’etat of 1963.

[Kentonio]

87. So much strangeness around this case

The evidence didn’t seem to stack up (the stuff with the coroner was frankly bizarre), the police acted extremely oddly, and this was right in the middle of a period where the intelligence agencies were wildly out of control.

Does this mean a conspiracy happened? Not necessarily, and maybe not at all, but writing it off as ridiculous seems silly considering we know that around this time the CIA were engaging in activities like giving unsuspecting Americans LSD without their consent (which led to at least one murder), and carrying out all sorts of deeply bizarre and illegal activities without any congressional or presidential oversight.

Things that sounded like completely nutjob conspiracy theories turned out to be plain historical facts. That doesn’t mean of course that every off the wall conspiracy theory is true, but it does mean that when there’s questionable evidence around something, that deserves to be properly investigated and questioned.

[SidDithers]

98. Anti-vaxxer Kennedy also believes conspiracy theory about RFK...

Crank magnetism on full display.

Sid

[Rustynaerduwell]

99. In five short years

we had four assassinations that thwarted the arc of justice and changed our history. Every victim had threatened the continued growth of the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about. Every death benefited the same select few. Every assassination left us with more questions than answers. Without exception, every piece of new information that comes out about them adds doubt to the "official" story. Never does it add credence. Still we can't discuss any of this anywhere, even DU. And after being forced to the fringes of journalism, those that continue to question these deaths are called fringe dwellers. I'm guessing even this post will be removed.

[Mc Mike]

110. I'm glad some Dems said something. 50th anniversary, and all.

I miss Octa.

Thane Cesar's clip on tie, right by Bobby's right hand on the floor.

[LAS14]

114. I appreciate the opening "NOTE", but the subject is the same kind of...

...click bait used by the MSM. Can you edit it to be more responsible?

[hlthe2b]

116. I used the actual title as we are SUPPOSED to.

If they would just read the article....

[LAS14]

117. You can use your own title. You don't have to copy the misleading...

... title of the article. The NOTE at the beginning is terribly important and contradicts the title.

[hlthe2b]

118. I guess it is only LBN where you can't edit the title... DONE (though I doubt it will make

a big difference to some, who seem to be responding to something they "WANT" to read in there...

[LAS14]

119. Thanks so much!! This kind of thinking I believe (hope?) separates us...

... from right wing forums. (Along with a bunch of other stuff, of course )

[LAS14]

115. It's amazing and depressing how many of these replies...

.... show that the writer didn't read the opening "NOTE" in the OP.

[ck4829]

124. Kick