Re: RFK Assassination

qualitygal · ‎10-04-2010

I highly doubt Ethel wants to relive that horrible time in her life, with all this.

Ptaz · ‎05-05-2010

This is most likely something to generate hype for new book being released.

lulu1 · ‎03-29-2011

@Isobel Archer wrote:
RFK Jr. is saying that Sirhan Sirhan didn't kill his father. Wants the investigation reopened.

Apparently, there is evidence that contradicts the conclusion - too many bullets fired (13 - and Sirhan's gun only held 8), the bullets in RFK may not match Sirhan's gun, fatal bullet came from behind and Sirhan was facing him.

Wow. Really makes me wonder if I can believe anything we are told anymore.

@Isobel Archer

I read this too. It is puzzling that SS's gun held only 8 bullets (and his hand was restrained after the 2nd shot) and they count at least 13 shots. Then there's the fact RFK's mortal wounds were from the back and SS faced RFK and was never behind him.

There's is no doubt SS shot RFK but it appears he did not fire the fatal shots.

lulu1 · ‎03-29-2011

@cherry wrote:
I think that Skakel guy is a guilty as sin. I don't recall enough about Sirhan to have an opinion

@cherry

SS has no recollection of shooting RFK, or why he'd shoot him. Some believe he was a real life Manchurian Candidate and was trained to fire when he heard a certain word.

The autopsy does show RFK was shot in the back more than once.

shopperqvc · ‎03-10-2010

For whatever reason the Government had, they buried the results of any police work on both of the Kennedy's. We will never know the why or how or who in those 2 cases. Was it a hit because of Robert Kennedy's investigations into organized crime? Maybe. How about the Cuba invasion? Maybe. Hoover hated both men did he have something to do with it? Maybe. Was it Lyndon Johnson behind it? Maybe. No one will ever tell. There has been theories ever since November 1963. Oswald was killed before he could be on trial. How did Jack Ruby know the route he would be taken to get him moved since the decision was made just before moving him? Too many questions and there will never be any answers. Everything was hidden from the public. We weren't to be told and the answers will stay hidden. Did Oswald kill JFK? Did Sirhan kill RFK? Did both men take the fall for someone else? We can guess all we want, but it will stay a guess.

MarcyG72 · ‎08-20-2012

Maybe Marilyn Monroe's entourage know the real story.

Cakers3 · ‎06-17-2015

We have seen "evidence" presented from time to time regarding JFK, RFK, MLK and Ted Kennedy with Mary Jo's death. Even the moon landing is subject to suspicion.

Seems the 60's brought about so much societal disturbances that perhaps people are still trying to push ideas because they cannot accept finality. I may not agree with everything we were fed during that time but I cannot prove nor disprove what the courts have handed down.

Conspiracy theories are not a bad thing; unless they are so far off the wall (aliens killed RFK) they can be good points of discussion by we the little people.

Sirhan declared his innocence a long time ago. Oswald did too for the brief time he was alive.

And of course according to the X-Files everyone knows it was the smoking man on the grassy knoll.

"" Compassion is a verb."-Thich Nhat Hanh

Isobel Archer · ‎04-04-2015

@Cakers3 wrote:
We have seen "evidence" presented from time to time regarding JFK, RFK, MLK and Ted Kennedy with Mary Jo's death. Even the moon landing is subject to suspicion.

Seems the 60's brought about so much societal disturbances that perhaps people are still trying to push ideas because they cannot accept finality. I may not agree with everything we were fed during that time but I cannot prove nor disprove what the courts have handed down.

Conspiracy theories are not a bad thing; unless they are so far off the wall (aliens killed RFK) they can be good points of discussion by we the little people.

Sirhan declared his innocence a long time ago. Oswald did too for the brief time he was alive.

And of course according to the X-Files everyone knows it was the smoking man on the grassy knoll.

I agree - except. Either the autopsy report says he was shot at point blank range in the back of the head - or it doesn't.

If it does, then clearly Sirhan didn't kill him.

If it doesn't - then where does the Washington Post get off saying it does? Now I admit this is not my favorite newspaper as they frequently confuse opinion with fact, but since they don't really have a dog in this fight (as opposted to current news), I'd think they'd be careful stating what the autopsy report says if they really don't know.