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.
![]() |
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
1) bought the Zapruder film, which was shown to have been tampered with, and
2) told Walter Cronkite to report that the JFK assassination was the work a lone gunman.
Simplest answers likely the correct ones. Either the opportunity to attempt assassination isn’t there in quiet security seclusion so n the perp must take what opportunity t gey have which may be noisy x and busy, and the noise and busyness of a crowd may help the killer to attempt escape in the mass confusion.
“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.”
Well DUH!
As far as I know Democrat Clinton was never shot at.
Non Democrat Trump almost was killed twice.
So who is the dangerous people?
Democrats are the problem!
They’re one part terrorism.
A clear public warning to discourage future disobedience of the true powers in control.
I think the simplest and most accurate answer is that most “major assassinations” (those carried out in public) reflects the killer’s true motive... whether it be to garner public attention (due to a deranged lack of it), or to inflict terror to advance a radical cause... both having absolutely nothing to do with the target, and everything to do with the perceived or anticipated reaction by the public to the crime.
Charlie Kirk’s assassin didn’t know him at all... only that the media had painted him as the biggest public enemy of all, next to Trump.
Ultimately, the real assassin behind every public murder is Satan himself... and the reason is simply hate with a purpose.
Most likely, the high profile assassinations you recall (JFK, RFK, MLK, Charlie Kirk) as well as high profile attempts (Ford, Reagan, Trump) happen in the presence of a large number of witnesses because it is precisely those times when the target is among a large number of people that a would-be assassin has the opportunity to get close enough to his target to perform the deed.
Public gatherings where politicians, religious leaders, celebrities from the arts, historically influential figures, leaders in business meet and greet people are good venues to target them.
These people want to talk, shake hands, and kiss the baby there.
Bulletproof glass walls and barriers discount them from the audience.
They often choose to accept risk in order to be accessible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Pope_John_Paul_II
So if I were a bad guy, that’s a venue where I would plan to make a move.
Ockham’s Razor.
Large crowds means public outdoor settings which offer more access and opportunity.
Sneaking into the White House is not really doable by a “lone wolf”. Nobody would buy that malarkey. It would so obviously be a conspiracy of insiders.
Which means regardless if the perp is a true lone wolf or a member or dupe of a conspiracy, it still needs to happen in a large outdoor venue full of people.
Simple Answer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
Excellent case-in-point being Charlie Kirk. Other than a brief moment of conservative outrage, after about a week, the MSM and the (Anti)Social Media as well as all the lefties loudly and ebulliently celebrating the “deserved” death of a “Fascist, who spread hate” were able to paint it as a “Blows Against The Empire” level of cultural victory. (or at least that’s what the loudest and most ubiquitous parts of our culture would have us believe).
Assassinations are meant to be a public statement. A repudiation of whatever the murdered individual believed in or was encouraging. The bigger crowd, the better in the assassins thinking.
CC
By definition “major assassinations” are those with many in attendance, so there is a certain selection bias inherent in your question. In comparison the many victims in Clinton’s body count list, some of whom might have died of natural causes, but, many certainly didn’t, were mostly just regular murders.
Not sure about *most* assassinations being done in front a lot of witnesses is true, but let’s assume it is.
My guess is that in order to get close to them the person has to be in public. It’s not like you’re going to sneak into the white house or Air Force 1 and attempt something like that on a President...or anyone in the white house.
So the best guess is they do it when there are out in public....and as such they always draw a crowd.
The simplest answer is infamy. No matter what happens, thousands of people saw you take a life.
There is no glory in the back alley.
If it was a conspiracy, it may also be a message that there is no protection in public if they want you killed.
MLK was a registered Republican.
Pour encourager les autres.
That is a myth, he wasn’t.
He was a communist in his belief systems. Liberals often register as Republicans to make the argument that socialism is a bipartisan issue.
The intelligence community orchestrates the major assassinations as a way to shape the political policy and the public minds of a country to fit their contrived agenda. This mind shaping and shifting is most effective when performed in the public arena. The operators are not elected and they act totally independent of the publics’ interest. Our elected representatives are unable to reign in the rogue actors and their activities because they are the darkest of the Deep State - a cadre of rogue outlaws who operate with impunity outside Congressional or Executive Branch oversight with their own funding stream obtained from illicit activities like drug running and human trafficking. They have stolen and appropriated for their own exclusive use secret aerospace technologies contracted and developed with taxpayer dollars from within the defense industrial complex which they use to conduct their illegal trafficking activities.
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.