Posted on 10/11/2025 2:02:35 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell
Of major assassinations in the past 65 years, JFK, RFK, Lee Harvey Oswald & Charlie Kirk were executed in the presence of large numbers of witnesses or with significant, direct media coverage of the assassinations.
The question, perhaps unanswerable, is, is there a message or effect intended here, with the high public exposure in those cases?
Jeffrey Epstein and, strangely, MLK, were either "suicided" or outright assassinated in a relatively confined environment, in the absence of a high number or witness or with only limited media exposure of the actual killings.
The determining issue about Epstein's secretive "suiciding" seems obvious. In MLK's case, there is permissible speculation that he could have coalesced significant opposition to the Viet Nam war, so that his killing in public highlight might have worked against the intended effect of dampening anti-war sentiment. As it was, his killing evoked minority riots in many major cities, but it has been argued that destabilizing the country was in line with high plans, so hard-nosed government authorities could continue doing what they wanted in the face of significant opposition--it pushed into majority public disfavor, African-Americans who had previously been sympathetically portrayed in the media earlier in the 1960s; but with the Black radical movement, there was a trend toward disfavoring "uppity" Blacks, that could have been exploited, even if this is not true.
Especially in the early years of the Vietnam War, African Americans were drafted and sent to combat at disproportionately high rates compared to their share of the U.S. population. If the MLK killing had been conducted in a high media exposure environment, garnering sympathy for Blacks, it could have caused blowback against agency plans that would have actually increased anti-war sentiment among the general public, out of sympathy with their earlier Civil Rights era conditioning. As it was, rioters' actions might be thought of as playing right into the hands of the authorities, whether or not this was a result of manipulation.
In the midst of the MLK hagiography, it isn't generally recognized that he was a far-radical leftist, perhaps virtually a Communist. (This is to steer clear of other personal foibles, which wouldn't tend to highlight the question.)
Regardless of how disputable these ideas are, it seems true that MLK's killing was not conducted in high public profile; it was only publicized in the aftermath, with a memorable photo of Andrew Young and Jesse Jackson present on a motel balcony. But that might have conformed perfectly with agency plans.
(It has been legitimately argued that there was a planned campaign of fostering drugs, sex and rock'n'roll among the 1960s students who could have formed a significant opposition to the Viet Nam war, as a 3-letter agency psy-op. A film titled "Berkeley in the Sixties" starts with neat, tie and jacket clad students being hosed down the UC Berkeley Administration steps by Police; but by the end of the film, it was the familiar hippie look. LSD had been fostered by an agency as a truth-serum; it failed in that but was ideally suited for provoking acting out to help delegitimize 1960s anti-war students in the minds of ordinary Americans, who overwhelmingly elected Nixon, especially in his second campaign against looney-left George McGovern. LSD chemist, Owsley Stanley, mentioned several times in Tom Wolfe’s 1968 book "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test", is supposed to have been an agency asset. It has been rumored that the parents of the Grateful Dead were agency assets. All disputable, of course; but if these assertions were remotely true, they wouldn't have been plastered at the top of CBS News, the Washington Post or the NY Times.)
The core of the question, "Why are major assassinations conducted in the presence of a large number of witnesses?", should be posed in opposition to the typical image of a secretive "hit", as thought of as being done nearly in complete isolation. And given that only about half of murders are solved, and that the actual moment of homicide is not witnessed in 60-75% of cases, it then seems, that when a major assassination occurs in high public visibility, there is a message or a manipulation of public opinion which is intended by the responsible authorities.
Opportunity and availability are the easiest reasons and random chance is another.
High profile or HVTs are usually only available in large open areas and large events.
Random chance is following, observing and an taking advantage of an uplanned opening.
I won't comment on the author's musing that public assassinations might be intended to achieve a different effect (e.g., sway public opinion and/or influence policy) except to say that I think that it's more likely that it's purely random and/or governed by purely practical considerations, and that the method of assassination (e.g., using a handgun in close quarters versus using a long-range rifle by a gunman hiding on a rooftop) doesn't necessary correlate to any particular program or intention on the part of the assassin.
However, I do definitely believe that a public assassination in front of rolling cameras will have a far-greater socio-political and psychological effect.
Regards,
assassin trying to get lost in a crowd
Currently, it’s easiest to have the greatest impact in the public mind if there is dramatic, gory film to show over and over and over again.
The presence of these victims at a given time and place was pre-announced. For would-be assassins, access is an issue. The pre-announcement provides that access. The earlier the pre-announcement, the longer the time period available to the plotter prepare for eventualities. Note that only when assassins strike, fail or are caught before striking is it known for a fact that they had plotted to kill. Aborted assassinations where the plotter backed out, for any number of reasons, including fear of personal consequences, don’t figure into the count, so long as they aren’t discovered.
Why not strike at his home? Because getting the address may not be possible. This is why public figures guard their home addresses jealously. Before Oswald struck JFK down, he went after an army general.
While initially skeptical about the photographic evidence provided by the FBI, the Warren Commission reported that Oswald photographed Walker’s Dallas home on the weekend of March 9–10, 1963.[28] Oswald’s friend, 51-year-old Russian émigré and petroleum geologist George de Mohrenschildt,[29] would later tell the Warren Commission that he “knew that Oswald disliked General Walker.”[30]
On April 10, 1963, as Walker was sitting at a desk in his dining room, a bullet struck the wooden frame of his dining-room window. Walker was injured in the forearm by fragments. Marina Oswald later testified that her husband had told her that he traveled by bus to General Walker’s house and shot at Walker with his rifle.[31][32] Marina said Oswald considered Walker to be the leader of a “fascist organization.”[33]
Police detective D. E. McElroy commented, “Whoever shot at the general was playing for keeps. The sniper wasn’t trying to scare him. He was shooting to kill.” The bullet was too badly damaged to provide conclusive ballistics tests, but neutron activation analysis tests later determined that it was “extremely likely” that the bullet was manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company and was the same type of ammunition as was used in the Kennedy assassination.[34]
A note that Oswald left for Marina on the night of the attempt with instructions for her should he not return was not found until ten days after the assassination.[35][36][37] Marina Oswald stated later that she had seen Oswald burn most of his plans in the bathtub, though she hid the note that he had left for her in a cookbook, with the intention of bringing it to the police should Oswald again attempt to kill Walker or anyone else. Marina later quoted her husband as saying, “Well, what would you say if somebody got rid of Hitler at the right time? So if you don’t know about General Walker, how can you speak up on his behalf?”[38]
The Warren Commission questioned Walker about an interview that he had granted on November 22 in Shreveport, Louisiana that appeared in the November 29, 1963 edition of the extreme-right German newspaper Deutsche National-Zeitung, in which Walker accused Oswald of having attempted to kill him.[39] Marina Oswald was asked about the report during a two-week-long detention in which she was interrogated by federal investigators, and she said that she believed that the report was true.]
This is why security consultants for public figures strive to avoid both open air events and open top convertibles. Open air events are cheap to mount, but care must be taken to monitor any high ground in the vicinity. No president has done an open top convertible motorcade since JFK even though it was routine (FDR, Truman, Eisenhower) prior to his demise.
Everything the left does is based on their feelings. Their feelings will not be validated by an anonymous poisoning or other similarly non-public activity. They need to have their feelings validated so they need the public reaction to their actions.
Yep, the two answers above:
1. Try getting into the White House to get Trump there and see what luck you have.
2. To send a message to the next Donald Trump to STAY IN YOUR LANE (which means that if you do go into politics, don’t go in to ‘change things’). No different than what we keep mocking Putin or She for doing...but don’t seem to mock EU leaders for also doing it.
I too thought this was the obvious - and correct - answer, but didn’t want to spoil the “ah-ha” moment for the OP.
Opportunity - and demoralization of victim’s adherents....
A loser nobody wants to become “somebody” by publicy changing the course of history with their despicable act.
They seek their toxic 15 minutes of fame.
Without interfacing with the public, without allowing people to come close to him to make it real, where would his whole method of engagement have left him?
Even dictators need their supporters and and have to let certain people have access to them.
But many people make their living from social engagement, or they're trying to jockey for a vote, or appear like a normal person and mingle among them.
People want to see these folks not on a TV screen, not hear them over a speaker. They want to touch these people:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/69797997-dsc0600.jpg?w=670&h=447
That makes them vulnerable.
I'm 100% sure Charlie Kirk knew he was risking his life. These people weight risk with benefit.
That is a myth, he wasn’t.
At the time, before the 1960’s most black people in the South, who were registered, were registered as Republicans.
It does not appear anyone has found documentation that he was registered in a political party.
Assassinations are essentially political acts. Many witnesses make for widespread impact.
It’s like robbing banks.
“That’s where the money is”.
“I’ll take ‘for the impact’ for $2,000, Alex”
The first answer to come to mind is that it’s easier to hide among thousands of people as opposed to being just one of a select few in a small room. Meaning there can only be so many security people, the more spectators there are to watch, the harder it is to spot a killer.
But the roof top guy that shot Trump and the roof top guy that killed Kirk were easy to spot, which is a major hole in my theory.
So yes, based on my ramblings, it’s unanswerable.
Very simple. They know where and when the target is available.
Attention.
Notoriety.
Orders?
That seems to be the clearest message of all.
*We can do it to (fill in the blank). We'll do it to you as well. NOBODY is safe from our reach.*
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
