One, because at first glance, RFK's assassination seems so straightforward, simple, and open-and-shut. Two, because JFK was president, whereas RFK was an attorney general and then a senator.
Interesting. "A lie too big to fail?" Hold my beer.
On the surface, RFK's murder seems like more of an open and shut case due to his assassin being arrested, prosecuted, and found Guilty. But the evidence pointing to a Conspiracy seems far more convincing. - Based on audio and the FBI's reports, there were more than 8 shots fired. At least 13 shots based on an audio recording. - Sirhan never got close enough to RFK to have fired the fatal head shot from behind his ear- Dozens of witnesses saw Sirhan accompanied by an unidentified young woman and a man on the night of RFK's murder and at several places, including shooting ranges, days prior to the murder - Sirhan is easily hypnotized and showed signs of hypnosis the night of RFK's murder. He also has no memory of shooting RFKGiven brief overview above, why is it that there is significantly less attention paid to the RFK assassination compared to the JFK assassination?
It is not lack of evidence of a conspiracy that is the problem. Neither case has any evidence of a conspiracy. It just doesn't makes sense in RFK's case.A conspiracy with multiple shooters is much easier to conjure up when the shooter is hidden, the target is a very powerful person, the target's location is known days in advance so plans can be made, and the perpetrator(s) can escape from the scene ie. the JFK assassination. The RFK assassination took place in a location - a hotel kitchen - that absolutely no one could have predicted and planned for let alone chosen as a good one with low probability of escape for the perpetrator. RFK was not in a position of power and his opponents were not of a different mind on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There is not a compelling reason for others to share Sirhan's political reason. Possible conspirators, such as the mob, would be unlikely to conspire with someone like Sirhan. And if they had, it is even more unlikely that they would let him get captured alive let alone live for 52 years and counting afterward. The possibility of a conspiracy in RFK's assassination is just not very compelling.
The actual Forensic evidence proves Sirhan couldn't have fired the shots that killed RFK. It's not speculation that there was more than one shooter. There's proof. Prosecutors withheld the autopsy report from Sirhan’s defense lawyers until six weeks into the trial, showing that Kennedy had been shot at point-blank range from behind. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/06/05/did-l-a-police-and-prosecutors-bungle-the-bobby-kennedy-assassination/He also couldn't have fired more than 8 shots yet there's evidence that as many as 13 shots were fired...
RFK was not hit in the head by the first bullet. Paul Schrade was. And he has always maintained that he was shot by Sirhan. Lately, Schrade has come to believe that there was another shooter who killed RFK. I am not sure what that is based on but if it is based on what happened after the first shot, Schrade was not in the best position to know. He was hit in the head by the first shot and immediately collapsed on the floor. The idea that Sirhan who approached RFK from the front could not have shot fired the bullet that entered behind RFK's right ear is not very persuasive. There was a lot of commotion when he started firing and heads and bodies no doubt changed relative positions and orientations. Sirhan unloaded his .22 handgun injuring several others as well as RFK. No one can make a credible claim that Sirhan did not fire shots. But it has been suggested that he may have been hypnotized by his conspirators. I don't doubt that Sirhan would have been in a bit of a detached mental state - that would almost be necessary in order for him to have done what he admitted to doing. But to assert without evidence that he was hypnotized and programmed to do the assassination is fanciful.
