Who Killed Dorothy Kilgallen?

I was searching for other news and stumbled upon this fascinating article on the life and mysterious death of Dorothy Killgallen in 1965

She was investigating the JFK assassination when she died under strange circumstances.

I heard a litlle about this in the past but have never seen her story presented as completely as the writer of this piece does.

WHO KILLED DOROTHY KILGALLEN?

During her 35-year career as a gossip columnist, crime reporter and panelist on the weekly TV game show, "What's My Line?," Dorothy Kilgallen ("Dolly Mae" to her friends), was a fearless journalist who broke major stories, and was the only reporter to interview Lee Harvey Oswald's killer, Jack Ruby. Her biggest case yet -- investigating President John F. Kennedy's assassination, and finding fault with the official story -- became the last one she ever pursued. She died mysteriously in November 1965, after being threatened, but the cops never probed further. Thanks to reruns on the Game Show Network, fans are still talking about Dorothy, including Larry King of CNN, and Dominick Dunne, who wrote about her in Vanity Fair. Now, shocking new information has emerged.

I wanted to share this with the members who are interested in this story.

Sounds like murder to me. Though a lot of people with info on the JFK case died premature deaths. Like JFK Jr.

[edit on 21-10-2007 by starviego]

reply to post by starviego


Definitely something that raises the conspiracy antenna,

She was deeply involved in conspiracies of the day, Sinatra/Mafia, helping to get Sam Shepard a retrial, and CIA involvement in trying to overthrow Castro in Cuba.

I think it is safe to say she had enemies who wanted her silenced.

According to this, she was a sloppy journalist who had alcohol and barbituate addictions...

mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

A different perspective for you all to consider.

alcohol and barbituates--the old standby story. Move over Marilyn Monroe--meet Dorothy.

reply to post by rdubb4


And you're a sloppy researcher.

Rather than attacking her for being an alcoholic, and claiming she was a sloppy journalist, perhaps you can offer some insight in to how her claims that the official story of the JFK assassination were false?

Offer that different perspective instead of trying the old tiresome diversion tactics that people, who don't know how to debate, use.

From the link,

"This story isn't going to die as long as there's a real reporter
alive---and there are a lot of them."

The story never did die, and since then there aren't many left who believe in the official theory. The conspirators may have gotton away, but their victory was a phyrric one. Since Dallas, Vietnam, and Watergate, the gub'mint simply lost the credibility it used to have.

The weird thing of this story is that none of Kilgallens files,including the transcripts of her interview with Jack Ruby as well as the information she gleaned from New Orleans have ever been released to the media....also Kilgallens close friend Mrs. Earl T Smith also died mysteriously a short time later... i beleive this woman snubbed her nose at Hoover one to many times and we all know [Hoover was a body remover]!!!

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by rdubb4

 

And you're a sloppy researcher.

Rather than attacking her for being an alcoholic, and claiming she was a sloppy journalist, perhaps you can offer some insight in to how her claims that the official story of the JFK assassination were false?

Offer that different perspective instead of trying the old tiresome diversion tactics that people, who don't know how to debate, use.

Give me a break. I merely posted a link to a story that gives an alternate viewpoint about this women and if you actually read the story, you would know that she supposedly had drug and alcohol addictions, and some of her methods, like the way she recreated the shooting on an NYC street instead of at Dealey Plaza, suggests that she was a sloppy journalist. Diversionary tactics? I dont see why the original article is of any higher merit than the one I posted. Dont shoot the messenger...

[edit on 22-10-2007 by rdubb4]

[edit on 22-10-2007 by rdubb4]

reply to post by rdubb4



NovusOrdoMundi, how about you post some research yourself before you put someone down.

The guy was merely trying to throw some interesting facts into the mix to challenge Kilgallen's credibilty and such.




ignorant....


Rdubb, I believe your post did provide a different perspective. Although I personally believe that the official story does not add up, your perspective makes you wonder if her addictions caused something to happen. Nice post

Originally posted by rdubb4

Give me a break. I merely posted a link to a story that gives an alternate viewpoint about this women...

You provided a link to a website centered around debunking the JFK conspiracies.

I invite the members to visit the site, not just the piece linked.

I checked it out, and it was obvious what this site's intention is.

Check it out for yourself and you decide.

The Kennedy
Assassination

It's the most controversial case in modern American history. Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill John Kennedy by himself, or did a conspiracy do it? And if a conspiracy did it, did the conspiracy include Oswald?
If you are like most Americans, you believe that a conspiracy killed Kennedy. And if you are like most Americans, you have heard a vast number of bogus factoids about the case.

This web site is dedicated to debunking the mass of misinformation and disinformation surrounding the murder of JFK. If you are believer in Oswald as a lone gunman, you are likely to enjoy this web site, since most of that misinformation and disinformation has come from conspiracists. But if you are a sophisticated conspiracist, you likely understand that the mass of silly nonsense in conspiracy books and documentaries does no service to the cause of truth in the assassination, and simply buries the "case for conspiracy" under layers of bunk.

Jackat, and you posted a link to an article that has very heavy conspiracy theory leanings,while leaving out some very important points from the second article. I dont find it to be an article written from an objective viewpoint. However, I dont think either article is the pure truth as neither site any kind of sources for their claims.

I read the original article, found it fascinating, google'd her name and found a counter argument to get people thinking about what happened to this women in an objective way.

[edit on 22-10-2007 by rdubb4]

reply to post by rdubb4


I did the same, and like you I don't know the truth myself,

I am fascinated, but like to keep an open mind.

I did some searching myself and found some interesting TIME mag articles from the era.

Google news archive is a great tool, but most of the pieces from back then are pay per view so I only read those I can access for free.

Nowhere did I find anything to suggest that Dorothy Kilgallen was a sloppy journalist

In the article I posted it discussed the alcohol/barbituates as the cause but cited mysterious circumstances and conspiracies as well.

The piece you linked to was biased and resorted to defaming the reporter which makes me wonder why?

I have no problem with the site you used for your contribution.

I just question their intentions.

Yes, she wrote some columns. But there is no evidence that Dorothy was writing a book on the Kennedy assassination. The pages that she showed Bennet Serf were for an upcoming book called "Murder One" which had nothing to do with Kennedy.

Pataky has no information other than that she was interested in the topic. Perhaps someone, somewhere, thought that Dorothy was writing an "expose'" on the Kennedy assassination. But the remains don't bear that out.

She was a petite and delicate woman with a taste for inoculants, and who partied 'til a bit too late at night.

Let me put it this way: Dorothy Kilgallen didn't know, in 1965, anything that Jim Marrs (and a host of others) didn't know at about the same time. And Jim Marrs is alive and well and Free to post his hypothoses to this very day, right here on ATS.

Dorothy died, untimely, from a drunken and, thereby, ill-conceived ingestion of sleeping pills. There was/is no physical evidence to suggest otherwise.

reply to post by rdubb4


Don't shoot the messenger? What are you doing to her?

You're making generalizations about her for being an alcoholic. You knew exactly what you were implying when you said that, because it really has nothing to do with whether she's right or wrong about her theories.

reply to post by xlc sil3nce


Being an alcoholic means you're not credible?

Better let Bush know that.

He called her a sloppy journalist, so I called him a sloppy researcher. Don't put someone else down if you don't expect to be put down as well.

It would have been much wiser to challenge her facts rather than making generalizations about her.

Dorothy Kilgallen drunk again and, ever graciously, trying to hide it:

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 22-10-2007 by Tuning Spork]

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Dorothy Kilgallen drunk again and, ever graciously, trying to hide it:

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 22-10-2007 by Tuning Spork]

Whoa, she was wasted.

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Dorothy died, untimely, from a drunken and, thereby, ill-conceived ingestion of sleeping pills. There was/is no physical evidence to suggest otherwise.

Were prescriptions for the three different types of barbiturates found amongst her belongings? Were undigested pills of same found in her stomach? Where is your evidence?

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by rdubb4

 

I did the same, and like you I don't know the truth myself,

I am fascinated, but like to keep an open mind.

I did some searching myself and found some interesting TIME mag articles from the era.

Google news archive is a great tool, but most of the pieces from back then are pay per view so I only read those I can access for free.

Nowhere did I find anything to suggest that Dorothy Kilgallen was a sloppy journalist

In the article I posted it discussed the alcohol/barbituates as the cause but cited mysterious circumstances and conspiracies as well.

The piece you linked to was biased and resorted to defaming the reporter which makes me wonder why?

I have no problem with the site you used for your contribution.

I just question their intentions.

What time articles did you find?

I mainly called her a sloppy journalist because of the supposed reenactment of the assassination that she did from her 68th street NYC apartment.