MANHATTAN DA OFFICE TO OPEN INVESTIGATION OF CASE CONNECTED TO J.F.K. ...
The
old Chinese proverb says "May you live in interesting times," and they
are certainly that. In fact, I don't know about you, but I've never seen
things - such strange things - happen so quickly, and in such
immediate succession, one right after the other, like the rapid fire of a
machine gun. And this article, shared by Mr. S.F., is such a
strange one, with such huge implications, particularly in the present
political and cultural context, that it prompts all sorts of high octane
speculations. In fact, when I read it, I was frankly shocked.
But
first, a little background. I'm old enough not only to remember when
President Kennedy was brutally and unceremoniously gunned down in
Dallas, but I am also old enough to remember Dorothy Kilgallen, an
attractive woman, and certainly a sharp and dogged investigative
reporter, back in an age when we still had them. While I was too young
to have been a reader of her typically provocative columns (she was one
of the first in the major media to have the courage to give the UFO
serious, and non-debunking, coverage at a time when it was suicidal to
careers to do so), she was a regular panelist on the old CBS game show, What's my Line,
hosted by John Daly. I remember watching her, blindfolded like the
other panelists, trying to guess the identity of the guest, based on
questions. Typically, she was also able to zero in very quickly and
often correctly identified the guest.
Then,
Kilgallen wrote a column about the JFK assassination, expressing doubts
about the official story, and told friends - after visiting Jack Ruby
in his jail cell in Dallas, and traveling to New Orleans for more "field
investigation", that she was going to blow the whole assassination wide
open. And that before New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's now
famous trial of Clay Shaw. Indeed, there are some who believe, not
without some justification, that Ms. Kilgallen's investigations formed
some of the backdrop for Garrison's. It's a hypothesis I have
entertained, but we'll never know for sure. Then, before she could
publish anything, Ms. Kilgallen was found... dead in her apartment in
Manhattan.
This, too, prompts personal
memories for me, for I remember hearing the CBS news report the story of
her death. Walter Cronkite, in his distinctive monotone, delivered the
news. The story was she had mistakenly taken a barbituate and alcohol,
and died. Or choked to death. Or something. But... it clearly wasn't
murder. Nothing to see here, move along. While listening to Cronkite
monotone his way through the story, my father, ever skeptical of the
official explanation for the Kennedy assassination, grunted, made a
scatalogical and bovine reference, and muttered that she was killed to
silence her on the subject.
Which brings us to the article, and to my geosynchronous orbital speculations of the day.
Consider the bland report of FOX news on this story:
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office is looking into the mysterious death 51 years ago of newspaper writer and “What’s My Line?” star Dorothy Kilgallen, who was investigating the JFK assassination, The Post has learned.The stunning development comes after a new book, “The Reporter who Knew Too Much,” suggests Kilgallen was murdered to shut down her relentless pursuit of a Mafia don linked to JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald.Joan Vollero, a spokeswoman for DA Cyrus Vance Jr., confirmed that a staffer has read the book, and reviewed a letter from author Mark Shaw citing new leads, medical evidence, and witnesses overlooked when Kilgallen, 52, died suddenly on Nov. 8, 1965 at the peak of her career.
And that, as you can see, is indeed almost all of the article.
Ms. Kilgallen was found dead in her apartment 52 years ago.
So,
I am wondering, and probably you are too, why the Manhattan District
Attorney is "poking around" a "case" - if one can call it that - that
is fifty-two years old? I say "case" because no official finding of
murder was ever involved, so it's not even in a cold case file. So
again, why "poke around" 52 years later? The article would have us
believe that the Manhattan DA's office is responding to a certain amount
of pressure. Pause and consider that one for a moment: in one
of the busiest legal jurisdictions in the country, with real crimes to
investigate and adjudicate, with the perpetual problem of not enough
investigators and too many crimes, would Ms. Kilgallen's death be a
matter for poking around? On top of this, I don't recall seeing in any
lamestream corporate controlled media, nor in any free and independent
media, any stories of a sudden groundswell of pressure to
investigate Ms. Kilgallen's death. We're being asked to believe that
this is because a staffer read a recent book about the subject.In short, this is coming out of nowhere, and I strongly suspect that the idea of a request to examine the "case" is a cover for something far different.
So the question is why?
And herewith my high octane speculation of the day. One possibility is
that someone wants to send a message. What's the message? "We know
something about this, and could reveal it and make it a real case."
And that implies that there are people in positions of power that are
connected to "what Ms. Kilgallen was investigating" shortly before her
untimely death that would probably still not prefer that story to be
told. In short, I suspect this is a use of a "control file". This is
where is gets very interesting, for this investigation is coming out of
the same jurisdiction that many believe to have been crucial in exposing
Anthony Wiener's alleged activities, which at least cast a shadow of
suspicion on Huma Abedin, aid to Hillary Clinton. And if one pursues all
the dots of the Clinton network, one is inevitably led to...
...the
Bushes, and to all those allegations surrounding Iran-Contra, drug
running, Mena Arkansas, the allegations of Terry Reed (Comprised: Clinton, Bush, and the CIA),
and so on. And with the Bushes, and in particular, George Herbert
Walker Bush, there are CIA connections galore, including to Operation
Zapata and the infamous CIA plan to overthrow Castro; we're led back, in
other words, to a former CIA director, a former head of the Republican
national committee, to a man whose name, in the form of "George Bush"
appears in government documents connected with the assassination as
having attempted to warn of the assassination, and to a man whose story
about where he was on the day of the murder has flip-flopped more times
than a mackerel on a moonlit beach; the stories, like the mackerel, both
shine and stink. I've been maintaining for some time that I view the
election of Mr. Trump in a long historical arc, one that begins with the
Kennedy Administration, and his own attempts to rein in that most
dangerous element of the American deep state, that link between
intelligence and a certain type of "big business." The parallels are,
indeed, rather amazing when one ponders them: both Mr. Trump and Mr.
Kennedy are, or were, independently wealthy. Both, in my opinion, owe
their presidencies to the help of one faction of the deep state, namely,
the Mafia. Both are attempting to rein in the intelligence component.
The dissimilarities are equally interesting to ponder: Mr. Kennedy had
little support from anywhere in the American deep state; Mr. Trump
appears, on the contrary, to have the support of at least some
of it, and that too is interesting to ponder especially in the light of
his remarks about "no more columns in rooms" at the CIA.
To
put all this speculation in as short a way as possible: isn't it
interesting, with so much going on politically right now, that a major
district attorney's office would quietly announce that it is looking
into the death of a columnist and investigative journalist, fifty two
years ago, that was by her own admission digging into the Kennedy
assassination, and who threatened to blow it wide open? I don't know
about you, but I suspect the timing of all this is far from
coincidental.
No comments:
Post a Comment