DA: ‘No evidence’ reporter investigating JFK assassination was murdered

[Micah Mileto]

https://nypost.com/2017/09/02/da-no-evidence-reporter-investigating-jfk-assassination-was-murdered/

 

 

[Ray Mitcham]

Note they didn't interview five important witnesses. I wonder why.

[Paul Brancato]

Typical continuing bs by the media. 

[James DiEugenio]

No evidence she was murdered?

Isn't that a stretch?

She was in the wrong bedroom, with a glass of a drink that appears to have been drugged on a tray beyond her reach.  She was sitting up in bed with her make up, false eyelashes, earrings and her hairpiece on.  A book she had finished reading months ago was laid out on her bed.  The AC was on yet it was about 45 degrees outside.  This is what I concluded about the above:

"The setting suggests that Kilgallen’s body was positioned both on a floor she did not sleep on and in a way that was completely artificial. In other words, it was posed. If this was done, it was performed by someone not familiar with her living routine and in a hurry to leave, probably for fear of awakening someone."

That morning, before the body was officially discovered, movie magazine editor Mary Branum got a phone call, the caller said, "Dorothy Kilgallen has been murdered." and hung up.  When her second hairdresser heard about the body being discovered in the wrong bedroom, he said, "“And I knew. The whole thing was just abnormal. The woman didn’t sleep in that bed, much less the room. It wasn’t her bed.” 

Or how about this: 

About a week after her death,

Luke (The pathologist)  determined that she was killed by “acute barbiturate and alcohol intoxication, circumstances undetermined.” (ibid, p. 22) Roughly speaking, this means she died of an overdose, but the examiners could not determine how the drugs were delivered. Usually, the examiner will write if the victim was killed by accident, suicide or homicide. That was not done in this case. The main reason it was not done is because there was no investigation of the crime scene, or of any witnesses who saw and had talked to her in the previous 24-48 hours. For example, phone calls were not traced, her home was not searched for drug containers, and there was no investigation as to how she arrived home that evening or if anyone was with her.

Lee Israel was shocked when she discovered this fact. She was looking through the Kilgallen police file for reports labeled DD 5 and DD 15. The former is a supplementary complaint report that records activities pursuant to a complaint. The latter is a request to the Medical Examiner for a Cause of Death notice. Israel said that, although the investigating detective said he saw this, it was missing from the file. (p. 428) Therefore, there appears to have been no investigation done to determine how the drugs were administered. This was so bewildering to Israel that she wrote that there may have been another, unofficial channel, of communication between the police department and the medical examiner’s office on the Kilgallen case.

Here is the money shot:

Broich told Jordan, as he told Israel, that he did new tests on the glasses, and tissue samples, both of which Umbarger had retained. He found traces of Nembutal on one of the glasses. The new tests discovered traces of Seconal, Nembutal and Tuilan in her brain.

This was an important discovery, for more than one reason. First, the police could not find any evidence of prescriptions for the last two drugs by Kilgallen. Her doctor only prescribed Seconal. Second, no doctor would prescribe all three to one patient at one time since the mix could very well be lethal. (Shaw, p. 116) Third, the prescription Kilgallen had for Seconal had run its course at the time of her death. Umbarger, of course, knew this. When Broich reported back to him about his new chemical discoveries, Umbarger had an unforgettable reaction. He grinned at his assistant, and then said the following: “Keep it under your hat. It was big.” (Jordan, p. 22)

No evidence of foul play?  What absolute malarkey.   And people wonder why the public does not believe the press anymore.

[James DiEugenio]

In this review, I discuss all three authors on the Kilgallen case and what Kilgallen had achieved on the JFK assassination.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/was-dorothy-kilgallen-murdered-over-the-jfk-case

The DA's office is afraid to take on the Kilgallen case.  Somebody got to them.

Edited September 3, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Joe Bauer]

With all the information regards the death scene alone anyone can see that Kilgallen was murdered.

Getting lethal doses of certain types of drugs that fall into so-called "accidental overdose"  categories into someone with or without a struggle was certainly a killing procedure that was very doable and used back in the early 1960's.

Maybe Kilgallen was slipped a previous mickey to make her more pliable for her last one?

Maybe a gun was put to her head with an order such as "drink this or I'll pull the trigger."?

Someone "dressed her" after she was unconscious.

And all Kilgallen's notes and files go missing immediately? Her close confidential friend dies soon after also?

Maybe Kilgallen's husband was involved? Here are just a few possible motives on his part:

Jealousy? Humiliation? ..... A younger man is squiring his wife. 

Greed?  He acquires all of their shared assets. 

Fear for his own safety and that of his children?  Perhaps he was also receiving death threats and was told that if his wife continued with her investigation he and his children would die?

And transferring the autopsy to the reportedly Mafia controlled "Brooklyn" Medical Examiners department when Kilgallen was from Manhattan and died there?  ... Please.

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[Andrew Prutsok]

Magic barbituates?

[James DiEugenio]

Good one Andrew.  

[Hugo Langendoen]

Too many inconsistencies... I think James named them perfectly!!

Main question: why didn't they interview all the suspects? If they wait too long all witnesses will be gone. Only explanation : maybe they are not really interested in the real story. 

[Cory Santos]

Do we know who the witnesses were?  Investigating a criminal case is not easy as one thinks. 

I can think of many reasons not to interview a witness.  First, a known credibility issue.  Second, maybe they interviewed the witness previously and saw no reason to interview them again.  Third, they probably asked what the alleged witness knew and then decided against interviewing them.  Perhaps, in reality, the witness knew nothing.  If they investigate some aspect of the case and decide it is not relevant and then someone offers information on that same aspect of the case, perhaps they did not feel it would produce anything.  

 

I think before jumping to conclusions as to what happened we need to know who the witnesses are, what information they can provide, and answer why they said nothing decades ago (assuming this is the first time they brought forward any information).

Simply saying they did not interview everyone and thus the investigation was somehow rigged, that is not a logical leap, at least, not in the legal system.  If this author feels he has such strong evidence, he has the ability to make his case, release the information and maybe the office will change its opinion.  I am not sure what young prosecuting attorney would not enjoy obtaining information on a high profile cold case and make the headlines by prosecuting it with solid evidence.  Makes no sense.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Cory Santos

[James DiEugenio]

If its the JFK case, the rules of normal logic do not abide.

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 3:08 PM, James DiEugenio said:

In this review, I discuss all three authors on the Kilgallen case and what Kilgallen had achieved on the JFK assassination.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/was-dorothy-kilgallen-murdered-over-the-jfk-case

The DA's office is afraid to take on the Kilgallen case.  Somebody got to them.

The same somebody that killed her?  Even if her story would not have "solved" the case, e.g. implicated any persons or organizations further up the chain, she was by all appearances murdered.  By who?  Why?  Her note's did disappear even if they didn't name a say Dulles or Angleton.  To shut her up before what she had found out led any further?  I take no issue on any point in your article, it is excellent, but these questions still exist for me.

[James DiEugenio]

Ron:

If you read my discussion of the JFK case through history over at David Giglio's site Our Hidden History  you will see that I touch on this subject of a continuing institutional memory, whose natural instinct is to cover up.  These exist in both the media and in the Justice Department and the FBI.  In my interview with John Barbour at that site I named a couple of examples in the media, one being Tom Brokaw.

If you recall, at the end of the HSCA, that committee sent a request to the DOJ about the Kennedy case.  We know what they did with it.  We also know what the status of the case is at the FBI, even though Hoover said it would remain open.  Its deader than a doornail.

Now if the DA said a few weeks ago they were going to investigate the Kilgallen case, and now they come out and say, there is no evidence she was murdered, that gives me pause.

Its one thing to say that there are no viable leads 52 years later in a cold case.  Its quite another to day there is no evidence she was murdered.  They chose to say the latter.  Which is a completely bogus statement.

[Joe Bauer]

Jim, I wish you would submit a rebuttal piece regards this DA's ridiculous claim of no evidence of murder in the Kilgallen case to some New York City centric magazine that might find it worth publishing, if in the least because the story involves one of the most famous high society residents in their semi-recent history.

There are millions of Americans still alive today who grew up watching Kilgallen on TV and many who may have read her so she and her suspicious murder are still relevant and of interest to those of our baby boomer generation.

 

 

[Joe Bauer]

Very hard to believe a major budget motion picture was never made of this iconic, super achieving, interesting and most famous highest society American woman and her suspicious middle age death under the most intriguing of circumstances.

What more could Hollywood want or need in justifying production of such a film?

Kilgallen's life and death was far more historically interesting, high society influential and wider sub-plot compelling than that of Dr. Sam Sheppard and yet that case spawned a famous TV show and an A-LIST  major budget film.

I wish I could initiate such a film...and let me tell you, Meryl Streep is at the perfect age to portray Kilgallen in her last years of life and activity.

And Streep somewhat resembles Kilgallen in enough facial ways I believe we movie goers would find her believable mesmerizing in that role.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Joe Bauer