Don Jeffries

More madness. What has Libya ever done to the U.S.? Iraq? Afghanistan?

We are increasingly entrenched around the world, bombing largely innocent people into accepting what we call "freedom." Where was Quadaffi for the past 20 years or so? I thought he was the ultimate boogeyman way back in the early to mid-80s. Reagan quelled that threat to our freedom, however, by killing his little daughter with one of aerial assaults. Made us all proud.

And all of this is being done with an allegedly "peace" Democrat as President. What happened to the promises about complete withdrawal from Iraq? Isn't being at "war" with THREE tiny nations who represent absolutely no threat to us just a bit much, even for our fearless leaders?

Lee and Greg,

Great replies. You guys said much of what I intended to say.

David,

I realize that, unlike most of us on this forum, you know Marina personally. However, like many critics, I cannot place much credence in anything she says at this point. Her WC testimony was laughable. The first generation of critics, most notably Weisberg, analyzed all this in great detail. Like Jim D., I find it hard to believe you would accept Marina's accusation that LHO shot at Walker (if indeed you do).

There is no reason to accept the Walker shooting, the backyard photos, or any other "incriminating" evidence against LHO that emanated from Marina, the Paines or the DeMohrenschildts. This is part and parcel of what I've termed the "neo-con" or neo-conspiracy platform; a gradual dilution of the evidence that first attracted most of us to this case, and led to our disbelief in the official story. The mysterious deaths of witnesses and the umbrella man are a few other aspects of this case that fall into this category.

David, I respect you very much and value your presence on this forum. However, on this point I think you're being way too kind to the sources you cite. Oswald may have owned a rifle, but that has not been conclusively proven. All the evidence linking him to the alleged murder weapons is tainted and questionable. Why start at point C- acknowledging that he owned a rifle- if points A and B are flawed?

The DeMohrenschildts told the WC that Marina said "That crazy idiot is target shooting all the time," and that he would go to the park and shoot at leaves. Do you really believe that sort of testimony is credible?

So many inaccurate myths surround Joe Kennedy. The "bootlegger" tag has been used so often that no one even asks for an original source about it. One of the cruelest snipes against him is the charge that he was willfully neglient in having daughter Rosemary undergo a lobotomy. In reality, Joe was trying to do what a loving father of his means would have done at that time; frontal lobotomies were a new procedure and considered a possible "miracle" cure for "slow" people like Rosemary. I'm sure no one was more devastated that her father when the operation backfired so cruelly.

If you admire anything about the Kennedy children, you need to credit old Joe for that. He was the alpha parent; Rose was pretty much a remote figure in their upbringing. Joe was about as proactive as a parent can be, and he instilled the idea in all of them that it was noble to serve the public, in order to pay back the good fortune bestowed upon them. Kind of like Spiderman's uncle would say, "To whom much is given, much is expected" a little later on. The children learned that lesson well, and consistently made lemonade from lemons. Consider the impact of daughter Eunice, who was motivated by her sister Rosemary to found the Special Olympics.

This man lost two children to seperate plane crashes. Another two were murdered. Yet another survived a plane crash. And, of course, he lost Rosemary for all intents and purposes after the lobotomy. It's doubtful whether another man of such affluence has ever come close to approximating that kind of enormous tragedy. FOUR seperate unnatural deaths of your children? THREE seperate plane crashes? Four, if you include grandson John-John. The poorest parent in a ghetto or trailer park, with a family full of drugged out gang members, would be hard pressed to approach that. Very wealthy people simply don't normally face this extreme amount of adversity.

As very wealthy men go, I think Joe Kennedy had an unusually honest and exceptional character.

The girl in the Taylor case admitted to being a prostitute and said she told him she was 19. I doubt the DA had evidence he knew she was underage. Apparently he provided information against her pimp. Can you point to any cases where a man did prison time for having sex with an underage prostitute when there is no evidence he knew she was underage. Taylor was washed up when he was arrested and had previous legal and drug problems on his resume, it makes little sense to think was let off easy

Cases when a man has sex with an underage girl he knows are different because it is hard to deny her knew her true age.

I'm sure there are thousands of males in prison all over the world who would love to use the "she said she was 19" excuse. That has never been a viable defense in the United States, unless you are wealthy and/or famous. There have been numerous cases of 18 year old males given prison sentences for having sex with 16 or 17 year old girls who told them they were 18. And if you think that women's groups wouldn't have objected to any underage girl being referred to as a "prostitute," if the accused had been an average Joe Pack, then you don't know much about American culture. It's the same way with drunk drivers- M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) is responsible for making the DWI laws much tougher, but is always silent when a pro athlete or other celebrity is the one driving drunk, and invariably gets off with no real punishment.

Are you sure that wasn't just a figment of your imagination. I found no trace of this on the net. Foster studied at Yale and before that at a fancy high school in LA, her father came from money and her mom who was pushing her career.

All I remember is reading a blurb about it, in some fluff magazine (probably People).

Pete Townsend of the Who is another rock star, who was caught with a ton of child porn on his computer. He came up with the novel defense that he was "researching" the subject. Again, there are countless men in prison who would love to use that defense.

You're right, Bill. An oversight on my part.

However, at least in his case (which happened back when very young girls were openly being marketed as sex objects in Hollywood), he had to flee the country and didn't return.

The fact that so many in Hollywood still defend Polanski is exactly what I'm talking about; the rich and famous are above the law and most of the sheeple shrug and say, "Well, I do love his films/music/athletic skills."

America has undergone a real transformation on this issue over the past 30 years or so. In the late 1970s, some of the leading "sex symbols" in Hollywood were 12/13 year olds Jodie Foster and Brooke Shields. The acclaimed movie Pretty Baby, made in 1978 and starred a then 12 year old Shields. It featured her fully nude. While it was heralded as great art and played at Cannes, today it would be labeled child porn.

There is a tremendous double standard under the law regarding underage sex. There are far too many young males in prison for long sentences in America, whose only "crime" was having sex with a 15-16-17 year old girl when they were 18 or 19. Meanwhile, athletes and other celebrities are given a pass on this issue. Recently, former New York Giant linebacker Lawrence Taylor was arrested and charged with soliciting sex from a 16 year old prostitute. The media continuously referred to her as a "prostitute," much as Len referred to an underage girl earlier in this thread. However, when a male from the unwashed masses finds himself in such a situation, the girl is referred to only as a "victim" or "runaway." Any mention of "prostitute" would bring down the wrath of women's groups.

Because of the media's predictably slanted coverage of the Taylor case, the great football hero was allowed to plead guilty to two lesser misdemeanor charges and avoid prison, as those in his exalted social class invariably do. I cannot imagine that there is any similar case on the record books over the past 25 years, of a 51 year old man having sex with a 16 year old girl, and dodging prison time altogether. I'm sure the situation in England (and the rest of the world, for that matter) is much the same. I remember vividly reading a blurb in some fluff magazine, circa 1980, about Rolling Stone Mick Jagger's plans to spend the summer in Paris, accompanied only by 15 year old Jodie Foster. Jagger must have been 40 or so at the time. Imagine a construction worker that age being permitted to take a 15 year old girl alone to Paris for the summer. The rich and famous can pretty much do what they want- laws are for the riff raff.

The Franklin Scandal and other cases reveal quite clearly that the elite have an appetite for this sort of thing. Whatever happens in this latest scandal, I don't think Prince Andrew or Epstein will be punished whatsoever. We have our figurative royalty, while England still has her literal royals.

Len,

Your Google links are long after-the-fact "reporting" that Sirhan said "I did it for my country." In my study of the RFK assassination, which goes back over 30 years, I have not seen contemporaneous accounts to this effect. The link to his trial just shows what a farce it was; Grant Cooper, like the attorneys variously assigned to James Earl Ray, was working hand in hand with the prosecution. He never had an interest in the truth about what happened at the Ambassador Hotel.

Sirhan has always acted, and still sometimes does, like a textbook example of a Manchurian Candidate. No one disputes that he was in the pantry, firing a gun. Many of us do dispute that he fired the fatal shot that killed RFK. If you don't think there is evidence of a second gun, you haven't researched this case.

As for the DNA cases, study the files of The Innocence Project. It's a national disgrace.

I'm glad to know you think Oswald didn't act alone. I look forward to reading your pro-conspiracy contributions on that subject in the JFK assassination forum.

DVP's point about the stupidity of any alleged conspirators has some merit to it. That's why I have long subscribed to Vince Salandria's thesis that the murderers of JFK willfully set up an easily transparent conspiracy and coverup. They WANTED the public to know what they did. Apparently they like playing mind games.

Obviously, these powerful conspirators were sophisticated enough to know that if one plants a bullet that supposedly caused seven wounds to two victims, then one ought to plant something that looks as if it could have done just that. You wouldn't plant a pristine bullet, unless you wanted to advertise what you were doing. The same goes for any body alteration theory; of course it sounds ridiculous, but it's par for the course for the official story.

Look at how obviously shadowy Oswald's background was. How his lack of marksmanship was readily discoverable. Look at the weapon they chose- cheap, defective shims, etc. Look at the Hidell alias, especially; the phony Select Service card alone gives the game away immediately. How could any conspirator think that anyone, anywhere, would accept a fake card with a photograph on it, when legitimate Select Service cards didn't feature photographs?

They clearly could have done a much, much better job. They didn't want to, for their own reasons.

Ray, here's a chance for you to explain your unique "Oswald was innocent but I will develop an incomprehensible argument that those who think he didn't shoot JFK are accusing him of something."

Michael quoted your rather curious statement regarding DVP. We'd all love an explanation.

Hey Scott- it's great to have you here! Hope you start posting.

Mark Oakes- another great guy who's done some important work, especially on the Murray "bullet in the grass" photos. He's also one of the nicest guys around. I still watch the DVDs he put together of the witness interviews he conducted every so often.

I will always be in your debt, Scott, for the VHS tape you sent me several years ago, featuring live local TV coverage of the search for JFK, Jr. Maybe you could post your thoughts about that case here on the forum if you get a chance.

I will never forget the original JFK Research Forum that Rich ran. What a place that was! You could argue with Gary Mack personally, because he was a prolific poster there. It was also exciting to be able to communicate directly with Jack White, whose work I had long admired. Also, it featured so many great researchers who have disappeared from online forums; Scott Myers, Jim Hargrove, many others I can't recall off hand.

It was there that I was first exposed to the contributions of Greg "Monk" Burnham and Robert Charles-Dunne- both of them then, as now, consistently outstanding in their posts.

Rich is definitely missed by all, and we owe a great debt to him.

DVP actually makes a good point (stop the presses!) regarding Jackie's hat. Yeah, that's one of the really important mysteries in this case....

Do you really think a major publisher is giving a 7 figure book deal to someone who is going to postulate conspiracy? The reality in the publishing world, for a long time now, is that the big companies are just as solidly pro-Warren Commission as the national television networks have always been. The days when a Mark Lane can have a best seller exposing the official lies about the Kennedy assassination are long gone.

This is just another reason for us to try and come together, so that the inevitable 50th anniversary lone assassin propaganda onslought can be countered effectively.

Hardly surprising. It's illuminating to read the words of those who determined Sirhan's fate. These are the same sorts of legal "scholars" who run our horrendous U.S. system of injustice. They are also known to respond to DNA findings, which belatedly vindicate far too many poor souls who have been imprisoned for years or even decades for crimes they didn't commit, by sadistically manipulating that awful system and delaying the release of these innocent people even longer. They simply don't care about justice, and yet they are the ones entrusted to administer it.

Btw, I've never heard anything about Sirhan proclaiming he "did it for my country" at any point. To my knowledge, he was nonresponsive when arrested, and wouldn't even give authorities his name. Is there a source for this supposed quote, or is it just the usual mainstream media disinformation?

Recently, the great writer G. William Domhoff (author of the classic Who Rules America) wrote an online article, addressing the unequal distribution of wealth in America. Here's the link:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Just one important (and frightening) fact from this article; while the top 1% of all Americans possess nearly 35% of all real wealth in the country, and the top 20% possess 85% of the wealth, the bottom 40% have less than 1% of real wealth. Think about that; nearly half of all Americans have virtually no wealth, while the top 20% has 85%. Wow.

Peter,

I assume you're talking about the "home movies of the Kennedys" program last night. While it was nice to see some rare footage of the family, there was the typical msm spin throughout. Oswald was referred to as "the assassin," and there was a followup statement that the Warren Commission concluded there was no conspiracy. Nothing about all the decades of controversy, or the fact that public opinion polls have consistently show 3/4 or more of all Americans believe there was a conspiracy.

Meanwhile, JFK's alleged affair with Marilyn Monroe was referenced as an indisputed historical fact. There is a clear double standard here, which the msm has always adopted regarding the Kennedys. The allegations about JFK's "reckless" sex life have been accepted at face value by the same suspects who demand "concrete proof" of a conspiracy before they will even mention all the impossibilities in the official story.

These shows about the Kennedys are worth watching for one reason; they remind us of just how many tragedies this one family weathered. FOUR seperate unnatural deaths of their children? That's really impossible, from any actuarial standard. The Greeks would have been hard pressed to adequately chronicle their story.

Martin,

You ask a very logical question. I have brought this subject up a few times here. I tend to believe that the whole "Cuban" connection to JFK's assassination was designed to be a false trail, much like "the mafia did it" theories, which tend to overlap with it.

As you note, if the anti-Castro forces were such a significant part of the conspiracy to kill JFK, they certainly didn't achieve their ultimate goal, which was the ouster of Castro. In fact, Cuba as an American political issue for all intents and purposes died with JFK in Dallas. LBJ did nothing to appease the anti-Castroites, and Goldwater (the ultimate antt-communist candidate) didn't raise it as a campaign issue in 1964. Nixon would have been expected to be friendly to these supposedly powerful forces, but he too ignored Cuba during his years in the White House.

I suppose one could say the anti-Castro people were used by the conspirators, and then discarded after the assassination. Maybe so. Still, as you mention they don't seem like the type to go down without a protacted fight, and while they certainly cheered the assassination, in the aftermath they couldn't have been too happy.

I find the death of Porter Bledsoe, as it seems as if he must have been Mary's son, to be very interesting. How many people are murdered by an axe? Yet another brutal, quite unnatural death, for someone who is at least tangentially related to the JFK assassination. Could be a coincidence, but it certainly provides food for thought.

Yeah, I know, the general trend among assassination researchers is that all those deaths connected in some manner to the events in Dealey Plaza are much ado about nothing. Some of us still think they are significant.

I recently watched this film on the Documentary Channel. Overall, I was impressed. There isn't any literal statement that JFK's assassination was connected to his Viet Nam policy, but the inference is fairly clear, imho.

JFK's taped telephone conversation with McNamara, where he declares that it is best, for political reasons, to simply pull gradually out of Viet Nam without a public press release, is emphasized, as is JFK's acknowledgement (at I believe his last press conference) that the first 1000 Americans will be withdrawn by the end of 1963. When we combine this with the powerful evidence of NSAM 263, I don't see how anyone, not even deluded "leftists" like Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn, can persist in maintaining that our policy in Viet Nam wouldn't have changed, even if JFK had not been assassinated.

This film also boasts a large number of JFK's patented witty quips at his various press conferences. That alone makes it entertaining, imho. For those who haven't seen Virtual JFK- I think you will enjoy it.

David,

With all due respect, I think your interpretation of Kerry Thornley's history in connection with Oswald is a bit naive. While Oswald was of notoriety to the U.S. Govt. because of his defection to Russia, I don't believe he was a celebrated public figure at all until the assassination. As such, many of us find it extremely odd that Thornley would be moved to write a book about him before he became undeservedly infamous. As a writer, I can certainly understand the allure of eccentric personalities in terms of developing interesting fictional characters, but when I couple his book on Oswald with other known facts about Thornley, I become much more skeptical than you.

Thornley was a unique, interesting and yes- suspicious character. As I noted, he was the co-founder and primary advocate for a nearly incomprehensible philosophy he coined discordianism. The authors of Illuminatus knew Thornley, and Robert Anton Wilson continued to parrot and admire his thoughts and words in several more books about the Illuminati and political conspiracies in general. Wilson was also very close to LSD guru/almost certain CIA asset Timothy Leary at this same time, so it's not unlikely that Thornley knew Leary as well, or at least crossed paths with this celebrated pop culture figure. And we must not forget Thornley's own publicly expressed belief that he had been a part of the MK-ULTRA program.

There is no denying that Thornley's WC testimony was markedly different from the others who'd served with Oswald in the Marines. His view of Oswald came to be an accepted part of historical lore, and as such I place him firmly in the category of Ruth Paine, for instance, whose recollections proved so damaging to LHO and again, have become accepted at face value by far too many critics, imho.

I'm not delcaring with certainty that Thornley was a conspirator, or involved in any way with JFK's assassination. You may very well be right in your assumptions about him. However, I think that his background and associations make him a figure that is definitely worth further study.

This has been a very interesting thread. I read Best Evidence shortly after it was released. I found it be one of the most provocative books on the assassination ever written. David Lifton made me look at the medical evidence in a different light. However, I had trouble, and still have trouble, understanding why conspirators would literally alter JFK's wounds when it would be so much easier to simply enlist all the necessary parties (Humes, Boswell, Finck, etc.) in the coverup. In fact, I strongly believe that those running and performing the autopsy were willfully dishonest, and Mr. Lifton's theory tends to convert them into innocent dupes.

I compare David Lifton's research to John Armstrong's; both men undeniably unearthed crucial and valuable information, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to accept the theories they constructed from all that data. I also think this is analogous to the work of Jack White, Jim Fetzer and other film alterationists. We can question any of Lifton's body alteration thesis, or any of John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" thesis, or any of Jack White's and Jim Fetzer's film alteration studies, but I don't think anyone has the right to question their sincerity or deny that they've raised valid points and produced some invaluable research.

To those who may not know, Kerry Thornley in later life because a rather bizarre inspiration to sci-fi writers Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, who utilized his nearly incomprehensible, wildly eccentric philosophy of "discordianism" to fuel their classic trilogy Illuminatus. I wouldn't suggest that Thornley was a conspirator by any means, but anyone who was writing a book about Lee Harvey Oswald BEFORE the JFK assassination has to arouse the interest of assassination researchers. Then there is the fact that his WC testimony was much more extensive than that of Oswald's other Marine Corps. peers, and conflicted with most of their recollections. Finally, Thornley himself came to believe he'd been a part of the MK-ULTRA program.

Sounding again like a broken record, let me bemoan the continuous state of feuding that seems to exist between good and honest people who've devoted so much time and effort to exposing the truth about this subject. I like the way Cliff Varnell wrote, earlier in this thread, about any perceived differences he had with Jim Fetzer. If only others could have the same attitude. The 50th anniversary of the assassination is fast approaching, and we need to stop the internal bickering and ego posturing and concentrate on the big picture.

Len,

Not suggesting that there are two different people being represented as Loughner, but your assertion that the court drawing shows the same head that the mug shot does just a day or two before is way off base. There is unquestionably a full head of short hair on the guy in the drawing, while the mug shot shows a shaved head (and eyebrows). Whatever that means, it is very odd and doesn't make sense to me. No one's hair grows THAT fast. And I don't think any courtroom artist would keep his job very long if he mistook a shaved head for the one he drew.

Loughner may well be just an incredibly disturbed young man, but if so then his numerous online rants and ravings are being very selectively utilized by the mainstream media (and politicians) to paint him as a political "extremist" and lover of conspiracies. At the same time, there is tne underlying inference that the Republicans, or Sarah Palin in particular, are somehow responsible for his lunacy. This is ridiculous; as I pointed out, he had severe gender identification issues, was an outspoken atheist and had an occult alter in his back yard. Wonder why none of those "journalists" are blaming any of THAT for his alleged actions? Somehow, I can't see this guy fitting into any part of the Republican party.

You are right- I am unquestionably predisposed to doubt almost all "official" stories, and with good reason. You, on the other hand, are just as unquestionably predisposed to defend them. It comes down to the simple reality that I don't trust the kinds of establishment sources you find credible. What concerns me most here is that this tragedy, already being exploited by nearly everyone in public life, will result in more onerous leglislation like the Patriot Act being passed. We have already lost far too many of our liberties.

Okay, have now started independently looking at news reports and internet postings about this tragedy. I'm starting to have a lot of questions about this....

There is the 911 recording, on which the person describes the shooter as running "north" from the scene. Seems hard to make a mistake like that- as it's been widely reported that Jared Loughner was tackled at the scene of the crime by 2-3 people. Then there is that disquieting photo of a bald Loughner, including no eyebrows (shades of David Ferrie). If you've seen the artist's renderings of Loughner in court, you know that he is depicted with a full head of short hair. I think it's been established that the monstrous bald photo was taken BEFORE Loughner's appearance in court.

So...he was bald and then grew a full head of hair the next day in court?

Lots of strange aspects to this story.

Again, the response to this tragedy is as predictable as it is disturbing. Loughner was a strident atheist. He was also an avowed homosexual, who hoped one day to become a woman. Finally, he had an occult alter in his back yard, complete with a human skull. So, did perhaps those beliefs cause him to open fire on a crowd of people?

Loughner mentioned various conspiracies, the fed, Alex Jones, etc. in some of his endless, often incomprehensible diatribes. In no way, shape or form can he be connected to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or "the right" in general. Yet the estabishment persists in painting him this way. Why? To ban guns? To ban "hatred," or at least their definition of that? To cut down on the "ugly political rhetoric" they keep bemoaning?

The mainstream media and politicians from both parties are exploiting this tragedy, and especically the little girl who lost her life in it, for their own partisan purposes. The message we are getting constantly from all these sources is: the "hate" and "ugly discourse" must stop, or be curtailed. While very few of our elected representatives have ever had any affection for our Bill of Rights, in this case they are using human tragedy to try and cut back on our dwindling civil liberties, much as they did after the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11.

Loughner should be studied intently, but I suspect he will be summarily convicted and executed, much like McVeigh was. Whatever happens, we cannot continue to permit our odious leaders to use every horrific public tragedy to enact leglislation that diminishes our freedom.

Thanks, Mike, for sharing that.

This Blaine is a real piece of work. So the agents saw "all three bullets hit their mark?" So they never took their eyes off the limousine? So it is acknowledged that they were only 12 feet from the limo at the time of the shots? Did this disgraceful man even do any basic research about the assassination? Like Gov. Connally, he appears oblivious to the fact that the "three bullets hit their mark" assertion, and the dismissal of the SBT, alone repudiates the lone assassin thesis he is so beligerantly defending.

WHY is anyone defending trained professionals, who never moved a muscle towards the man they were sworn to protect, during the app. six seconds from first shot to last? Blaine is admitting they were only 12 feet from the limo; does anyone honestly think that none of these agents could traversed that distance before the head shot? Without realizing it, Blaine is condemning these agents for, at best, utter dereliction of duty. If they never took their eyes off the limo, and were only 12 feet away, they directly allowed the head shot to end the life of John F. Kennedy.

It's a real shame that the attention we've paid to this worthless book has helped it sell so well.

Sorry to make Craig fall off his chair again, but the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox News, which has a different agenda) invariably react in the same simplistic way to these terrible tragedies. The mantra is: "how could HE have obtained a gun so easily?" As I understand it, Loughner had a clean record, and passed a background check. Yes, now there are kids coming out of the woodwork who reported he was "weird," "strange," etc., but it's kind of hard to legislate against eccentricity. He wasn't kicked out of college for any specific act, so that wouldn't have been on his "record" anyway.

The media and public reaction to the shootings in Arizona interest me more than the crime itself. On the surface, Rep. Giffords was a middle of the roader, who was not controversial in the least. I don't see a good reason for a conspiracy here, but as always there are lingering questions. For instance, the older guy seen with Loughner; once questions were raised about him, the authorities claimed he'd been investigated and was the taxi driver who brought Loughner to the scene of the crime. When it was then pointed out, by intrepid souls on the internet, that taxi drivers don't normally remain with their fare after they've reached their destination, they quickly amended that to say that he was there to get change for a 20 dollar bill. The same inquisitive voices on the net followed up with- don't cabbies always carry plenty of change with them? No reply yet to that one from the authorities.

Loughner was not referred to as a stereotypical "three namer" right away, but now all mainstream media reports refer to him as Jared Lee Loughner. How many people have you ever known who go by all three names? This goes back a long way- I recall reading about Richard Hauptman protesting in vain over the constant references to him as "Bruno Richard Hauptman," when he'd never gone by his first name in his life. What is it about this three name thing- do they think it makes the suspect sound more like a lone nut?

Loughner's eccentric ideology and/or untreated psychotic nature don't appear to fit into any conventional "left" or "right" categories. He was also apparently strident about his homosexuality and his atheism. However, I don't expect anyone to try and connect that with his violent act. Instead, it will be his supposed interest in "conspiracy theories" and any other kind of anti-government ranting they can find that will make the headlines. However you look at it, these kinds of tragedies continue to be milked for whatever political value they have, by the mainstream media and politicians from both major parties.