47 thoughts on “What RFK Jr. said about the murder of his uncle”

      1. Mr. McAdams has very exacting evidentiary standards, doesn’t he? (Except when he doesn’t.)

        Of course any prediction must by necessity predate the event being predicted. Likewise the source of the prediction would also predate the prediction and the event, otherwise there would be no source or prediction.

        Mr. McAdams probably meant a published source prior to RFK’s assassination. All I know is that on one of Mr. McAdams’ colleague’s youtube page, DVP, Larry King says Garrison predicted that privately to him before the event. But the interview itself was decades after the fact.

        Was King telling the truth? I don’t know. I’m more interested in Mr. McAdams’ demand from the poster. Mr. McAdams has a low opinion of opinions – other than those that agree with his opinion.

        But this isn’t opinion evidence. It’s King’s recollection of a conversation with a deceased person.
        It may not be admissible in the court of Mr. McAdams’ opinion. But guess what? A court of law would
        view it differently. Declarant unavailable.

        1. Well on a different but related note, we have the predictions of Rose Cheramie and Joseph Milteer, but the lone-assassin proponents will conveniently dismiss these as lone nuts too.

  1. Walter Sheridan was RFK’s guy. Why did Sheridan go to such lengths to sabotage Garrison’s investigation?
    Garrison himself wondered about that. Was Sheridan free-lancing? Would he completely disregard his old boss’s interests in the case?

    Maybe RFK thought he would live long enough to be elected President and could investigate it while in office?
    I don’t know about that. RFK was no help to Garrison though. That’s what the record shows. And one of his trusted guys was down in New Orleans trying to ruin Garrison.

    A note: RFK’s unrelenting persecution of Marcello and Hoffa may have weighed on his conscience. He might have felt somewhat responsible IF a mob connection had been uncovered. But that is apparently not where Garrison’s case was going.

    Even if I agree w/RFK Jr. I have to wonder about Sheridan, RFK and Garrison.

    1. Simple. Garrison’s prosecution was a travesty, and Sheridan knew that. Clay Shaw was the victim of a reckless and irresponsible DA, and of course Sheridan, who was a decent fellow, opposed Garrison.

      Here is some information on Sheridan:

      Perhaps the most bizarre claim of all was the one against Walter Sheridan. A trusted Kennedy family operative, loyalist, and staffer for three decades, Sheridan went to work for Chief Counsel Robert Kennedy on the McClellan Committee in 1957. In 1960, Sheridan served as a regional coordinator for John Kennedy’s presidential campaign, and he later played key roles in the senate and presidential campaigns of Robert Kennedy and Edward M. Kennedy. When Bobby became Attorney General, Sheridan went to work for his “Get Hoffa” task force.(37) After the Garrison investigation broke, Bobby sent Sheridan down to New Orleans to find out whether Garrison had any actual evidence that a conspiracy killed his brother. After Sheridan reported back, Bobby dismissed the Garrison investigation to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. by saying “Sheridan is satisfied that Garrison is a fraud.”(38)

      In the 1980s, Sheridan again served a Kennedy brother, this time Edward, as a congressional staffer for the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. When Sheridan died in 1995, Edward Kennedy issued a statement calling him “an extraordinary investigator and an extraordinary human being. His courage and dedication to justice and the public interest were unmatched by anyone.”(39) But the Garrisonites think he conspired to protect John Kennedy’s murderers.


      1. Well, Prof. McAdams and I agree on something. We both agree Sheridan went to great lengths to sabotage Garrison’s investigation.

        I asked the question:

        ” Why did Sheridan go to such lengths to sabotage Garrison’s investigation?”
        McAdams replied,

        “Simple. Garrison’s prosecution was a travesty, and Sheridan knew that. Clay Shaw was the victim of a reckless and irresponsible DA, and of course Sheridan, who was a decent fellow, opposed Garrison.”

        So we agree that Sheridan tried very hard to wreck Garrison’s investigation. And Mr. McAdams gives us his “opinion” that Sheridan did it all because he was such a “decent fellow”.

        How’s that for a persuasive fact-based analysis?

        It brings to mind Professor McAdams’ admonition to us all on opinion-based evidence…(his opinion of opinions, so-to-speak).
        John McAdams wrote:

        “This page is a response to the frequent conspiracist argument that the mere opinion of this or that person is evidence.”


      1. Perhaps.

        Well, no doubt you’ve conclusively solved another mystery!

        Perhaps, anyway.

        I love how those who criticize the majority of posters here for making inferences and demand evidence from them are so quick to substitute evidence for their own inferences when it suits their own purposes.

          1. John, as usual you avoid the point.

            The point is that you and photon have no evidence to back up your assertions. How do you guys know what Sheridan was thinking?

          2. John, why don’t you ever answer my questions? You like to quibble with a lot of people.

            How do you know what Sheridan was thinking? Do you have any evidence in that regard or are you making stuff up?

      2. Photon,

        You assert Garrison was a charlatan.

        If I were to interview you, I’d ask:

        WHAT is your real name?

        WHERE do you reside?

        HOW do you come to know about the JFK assassination?

        WHEN were you born?

        WHY do you care about the JFK assassination?

        Based on your responses, I’d ask other basic inquiries.

          1. Photon called Garrison a charlatan, an accusation that Photon does not support. I played fair’s fair.

            I don’t care to debate the merits of Jim Garrison. I think he and the Clay Shaw trial are a distraction for the most part.

            Garrison did have one prescient thing to say, though: individuals who had first-hand knowledge in the JFK case were poor insurance risks.

          2. Photon, one of your three character witnesses has flipped on you. In his endorsement of “Destiny Betrayed (2d ed.)” Cyril Wecht acknowledges that both Oswald and Garrison were set up to look like bad guys.

            For all here who want to know about Garrison the man I recommend the Playboy interview, in which he is adversarially questioned about his prosecution of Clay Shaw.

          1. Photon, no luck. The magazine you cite is online and in D.C. hotels but doesn’t identify you.

            I can tell you are a minimally trained medical person and someone who knows a little about electronics.

            I can tell you’ve bumped up against intelligence officers but don’t know anything about intelligence.

            I can tell you’ve witnessed combat but never have participated in it.

            I believe you draw from your friends in the FBI, SS, and CIA. To which I say, good for you.

            I don’t believe you are a truth-seeker. You reflect lies that have been told by the U.S. government to the American people.

          2. Actually I have been mentioned in at least three articles
            I have witnessed combat but I was legally prohibited from participating in it.
            My “minimal” medical training still matches or exceeds that of anybody else posting on this blog. Do you believe that vaccinations cause autism?
            I have ” bumped” into a few intelligence Officers. Probably the closest was an individual at the center of the most dangerous episode of the Cold War. He told me once that when JFK gave his Cuban Missle speech, ” it made everything that I had done worth it”. His unit was the source of much of the info used in the speech.

    2. Nathaniel Heidenheimer

      I would recommend the excellent book Destiny Betrayed, Second edition, for a relook at the Sheridan-RFK relationship. The book traces Sheridan’s evolution from the NSA in the early 50s.

      1. I read it. Nathaniel. Good book, but I think ‘Reclaiming Parkland’ is much better. And I very much look forward to reading Mssrs. McAdams’ and Photon’s detailed reviews of ‘Reclaiming Parkland’, after they have each made the effort to read the book, of course.

    3. I have given some thought to Sheridan and RFK’s actions with respect to Garrison’s investigation.

      I think there was some really bad dirt on the Kennedy’s involving sexual affairs, and maybe even some questionable activity around Marilyn Monroe’s “suicide” (which may or may not have been one). Perhaps Robert Kennedy knew a lot about leads to pursue in his own private investigation of his brother’s murder and felt that Garrison was a threat as an independent researcher, in that he might find some embarrassing things about the Kennedy’s that would make any findings leading to a conspiracy to be a “mixed bag”. Perhaps RFK wanted his own investigation which would filter out the negative things that the Kennedy’s were doing while JFK was alive, which I’m sure J. Edgar Hoover (and his close friend LBJ) might have known, and which was being held up as blackmail over RFK’s head if he went public with any of his conspiracy suspicions (or findings through Sheridan). Just a guess, but it might help to explain the confusing manner in which Garrison’s work was not welcomed by RFK with open arms.

      1. I think you’re on to something, JSA. RFK had in my estimation plenty of reasons (women) not to want a full-fledged investigation of his brother’s death and life. Nor his, RFK’s, either.

        The thing is, Garrison clearly wasn’t going there. Even if Garrison had satisfied the jury that Shaw was working for the CIA at the time of the assassination and had one a conviction, it’s most likely I believe the MSM would have downplayed the conviction, and no other prosecutor around the country would have dared to pick up where Garrison left off. I think RFK the insider knew this.

        I’ve a much more cynical view of RFK, who I never much liked until the very end of his life, when I began to gain respect for a politician who I believed had evolved in a very hot cauldron. My cynical view is that RFK wanted to control the uncovering of the truth. For the reasons you say. But also to renew the Kennedy dynasty.

        RFK was much more a hardball player — for example, on Cuba, organized crime, his enemies — than JFK.

      2. Thanks for your link Mr. McAdams. I’d already read it too. And as usual, it is not responsive to the question I asked, “Was Sheridan free-lancing?” Or was he protecting his old boss from something? I am thinking along the lines of Jonathan’s post below. That makes sense to me.

        I’ll give your link some credit though Mr. McAdams. That page and your ‘opinions’ expressed on it, (I use that word deliberately), are not as nearly lame as your non-explanation of why LHO stamped 544 Camp Street on FPCC leaflets in August, 1963.

        I am not a ‘buff’, ‘conspiracist’ or – while we’re in the ad hominem mode – a member of the ‘Crazy Kid Oswald Cult’. I just ask questions. And I tend to prefer answers that make sense.

        1. And as usual, it is not responsive to the question I asked, “Was Sheridan free-lancing?” Or was he protecting his old boss from something?

          False choice.

          He was assigned to Bobby to see if Garrison had anything. He concluded that Garrison was a fraud and a charlatan.

      3. I suspect you are right. I thought ‘Destiny Betrayed’ was an excellent book in other areas. But it led me to a contrary conclusion to the author’s about Sheridan’s sabotaging Garrison’s probe. I also think he was trying to protect his old boss from something.

        1. We’re looking into a possible crime here which violates the fundamentals of the US Constitution, the possible murder and cover up of a chief executive by officials (bureaucrats) within the government. We’re not here to polish the Kennedy Legacy, but to seek the truth, whether one’s leanings trend Left, Right, Moderate or somewhere in between. The fact that the Kennedy’s as a political family had their own scandals (which for some reason many Warren Commission apologists seem quick to accept, such as JFK’s sexual affairs) is another set of facts which historians can use to draw a more complete picture of what happened. Whether or not you like John F. Kennedy or despise his policies, or maybe are on the fence about his political legacy, everyone should be concerned about whether a domestic coup took place, because it would transcend party politics.

          I personally liked JFK as a president, despite his obvious flaws, just as I still like Thomas Jefferson, despite his Sally Hemings affair and just as I still like Alexander Hamilton despite his petty personal attacks and personal vanity. They both contributed to the country in profound ways. I put John Kennedy in that “profound” category, even though I think the Kennedy family tries to whitewash or ignore the sexual scandals and the vicious attack style politics of say, JFK in the West VA primary (what he did to Hubert Humphrey).

          This case is about a major crime, not whether you liked JFK or not.

    4. I think RFK and other Warren Commission skeptics feared that Garrison had a weak case against Clay Shaw(which he did) and that he would hurt the credibility further investigations into JFK’s assassination.

      Garrison’s investigative methods and treatment of witnesses was criticized by many of his peers in the JFK assassination research community. Few of his contemporaries viewed him as a hero. Some thought he was a fraud.

      1. There’s evidence that Garrison didn’t have at the time which was only revealed later.

        So he perhaps was aggressive in his approach.

        But he was on the right track.

    1. Nathaniel Heidenheimer

      Remember when, during the Cold War, Soviet use of mental hospitals for political deviants was denounced as… a bad thing?

      Lately more and more words have been minted which attribute political dissidence to mental conditions.

      The word “conspiricist” is short, and seems to guarantee the user’s being quoted in Time Magazine while everyone else in the room is ignored.

      1. I don’t think any responsible person is saying that someone’s opinion is necessarily evidence (though of course expert opinion is evidence). But when insiders profess conspiracy minded opinions, it does reinforce the contention that this point of view is not just the realm of the tin-foil hat wearers, at a minimum.

        I believe it lends weight to the conspiracy point of view when lots of insiders familiar with the political milieu of the times believed there was some kind of conspiracy. These people were often “experts” who probably would know, even if they don’t have the smoking gun on the who or the how.

    2. OTOH:

      Bugliosi and others in his camp, are ‘guilty’ of opining on many facets of the assassination.

      As a prosecutor, he is trained to show his case in a different light.

      I call it prosecutorial spin.

  2. Does anyone have any thoughts on “The Last Words Of Lee Harvey Oswald”, Compiled by Mae Brussell? She quotes an awful lot of dialogue which is attributed to Oswald. These 1st generation researchers for the most part seemed to be more closely dialed in on the truth of the matter than many today.


    NOV. 23, 1963

    5:30 – 5:35 P.M. Visit with H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar Association

    “Well, I really don’t know what this is all about, that I have been kept incarcerated and kept incommunicado. . . . Do you know a lawyer in New York named John Abt? I believe in New York City.”

    6:00 – 6:30 P.M. Interrogation, Captain Fritz’s Office

    “In time I will be able to show you that this is not my picture, but I don’t want to answer any more questions. . . . I will not discuss this photograph [which was used on the cover of Feb. 21, 1964 Life magazine] without advice of an attorney. . . . There was another rifle in the building. I have seen it. Warren Caster had two rifles, a 30.06 Mauser and a .22 for his son. . . . That picture is not mine, but the face is mine.”


    1. Shane, before I contribute much detail to your observation, I can say I’m relieved to read this from you:

      “These 1st generation researchers for the most part seemed to be more closely dialed in on the truth of the matter than many today.”

      Following that, a portion of the Brussell research has evidently been housed at Baylor University; John Judge RIP was a conduit for that transfer; Baylor as you know has been a topic of some discussion in recent days on this site relative to the transfer of research from the MFF to the Waco, TX based/Baptist affiliated institution.

      I hope that those alleged experts on Oswald who participate here will weigh in on this:

      “In time I will be able to show you that this is not my picture, but I don’t want to answer any more questions. . . . I will not discuss this photograph [which was used on the cover of Feb. 21, 1964 Life magazine] without advice of an attorney. . . . There was another rifle in the building. I have seen it. Warren Caster had two rifles, a 30.06 Mauser and a .22 for his son. . . . That picture is not mine, but the face is mine.”

      The Warren Caster episode has been buried. It involves the (possible) infiltration of several rifles into the Texas School Book Depository only hours before the assassination, Roy Truly and all that represents. If my research is correct, Caster has ties in Coral Gables FL and was the representative of publishers of textbooks distributed from a facility in a State that virtually controlled the national selection of school books – History of the US – at the time. History Is Written By The Victors.

  3. It would be a good gesture to see RFK Jr., Caroline Kennedy & Ethyl Kennedy spearheading the Kennedy family in supporting Jeff Morley & JFK Facts with financially. Money is no obstacle for the Kennedy dynasty survivors. To do nothing indicates a lack of concern while others have devoted a major portion of their lives seeking justice & closure for President Kennedy while struggling with little or no financial help. It just isn’t right.

    1. Mr. Joseph, the late JFK researcher Mae Brussell had some good advice for those who do not get involved in events that beg for individual citizen response & participation: “Don’t die before you’re dead”. I suspect the Kennedys mentioned have convinced themselves that contributing to the JFK library covers the bases for them but I believe they are foolishly wrong. Offspring & relatives often take a selfish path in life; Mickey Rooney provided for all 9 of his kids (bought them houses, put them thru college, gave them money) and none of them immediately claimed his body after Mickey recently died. The last I read some or all are involved in a lawsuit over Mickey’s meager estate. Some rich people stay rich because they won’t part with a penny, not even for a father, brother in law or uncle.

      1. Brad, insightful. “Offspring & relatives often take a selfish path.”

        Hopefully “Security Drop” and other similar venues will provide a vehicle for those that are carrying highly personal information to unburden themselves.

        My take on the Kennedy family’s responses over the decades is that they were so very proud of the strides they had made as immigrants, survivors of a history of British domination – halving of the population of their native Ireland through genocide – so enamored with the romance of American Democracy, that they would submerge their personal, familial losses rather than divide the country. It is a romantic notion of Camelot, I realize.

  4. The video clip includes a segment in which Robert Dallek asserts the assassination was investigated again and again.

    The W.C. surely didn’t investigate the murder. The Clark Panel didn’t investigate either. The Church Committee uncovered some good dirt on the CIA but didn’t investigate the assassination. The HSCA covered pretty much the same ground as the W.C. To the extent the HSCA investigated through Gaeton Fonzi, some doors were opened; otherwise the HSCA, undermined, headed by biased Robert Blakey, can’t be said to have investigated the murder. The ARRB’s charter expressly provided that it was not to investigate.

    So Dallek is wrong about investigations by the U.S. government. There just weren’t any to speak of.

    The only real investigation into JFK’s death was carried out by Jim Garrison. He of course got a big helping hand from the federal government.

    1. Dallek has said publicly(as have many who don’t think it was a conspiracy)that no one has been able to prove a conspiracy. There’s one reason for that-the Warren Commission, on orders from the FBI and perhaps LBJ himself(as President)failed to take seriously those who suspected there was more than one shooter. I’m sickened each time I read where they would say “it couldn’t happened that way….you must be imagining things” to a witness who was right there in front of the killing.

      1. Only circumstantial evidence is required to prove a conspiracy. We don’t need to know who the shooters are.

        The circumstantial evidence, inconsistencies or contradictory facts and findings, not to mention admissions and confessions, can reasonably lead to conspiracy when all summed up.

        Nobody will find another shooter with a smoking gun – which was the whole point of the conspiracy that was successfully executed for the most part.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top