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.
See you on the flip side...