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.
That’s a myth.
The only Trump rally that CNN covered was in Butler, Pennsylvania, where the photographer just happened to have a very high speed camera (8k frames per second).
But I’m sure that was just a coincidence.
“It pays to advertise!”
Attention Seeking disorder.
A rhetorical question. /s
Pour encourager les autres, of course.
“And the assassin wants to get caught and have fame and notoriety.”
Thus bringing attention to the assassins personal or political views.
It’s truly perverse.
CC
The security setup at the Utah college venue where the shooting took place was much less than other schools he had visited. Having campus police fly a drone to monitor rooftops or coordinate with local law enforcement to secure the event would not have prevented anyone from shaking his hand but it would have saved his life.
Your personal home? "Properties" is vague.
Paralegals.
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.