Whenever there is a coverup, for example:

• of a murder of a prominent person

• or a crime like the anthrax letters,

• or the twin towers collapsing,

it is very hard to get the details straight unless you catch those details immediately. After a short time they are scrubbed and a single narrative is presented.

I wrote an article titled “In search of the anthrax attacker… valuable clues” (I forget part of the title) in February 2002 explaining the flaws and missed opportunities in the unsolved anthrax letters case, but neither Gemini nor Archive.org can find it, though Gemini found a dead URL for it: [http://www.redflagsweekly.com/nassanthrax3.html]

I was interviewed several times on Democracy Now! about the case, sometimes with Glenn Greenwald. I’m just saying this to let you know I have done credible investigations before.

I did not know much about Charlie Kirk, and since he was a prominent Republican, I was not anticipating a coverup when he was shot. So I did not pay close attention or save leads. Which means I am uncertain about many facts regarding his case, as I do not trust the information I can glean from the media at this point. However, I do have a few things to say about it that may help others untangle the mystery of who killed him, how and why.

Now we know that his alleged assassin is almost certainly a patsy, as the story of how he assembled and disassembled his grandfather’s rifle makes no sense, how he could jump off the building and run away with a rifle that he then hid, although video of him on the ground shows he carried no rifle—well, the story simply does not hold water.

But let me mention a few other strange facts.

1. There was no exit wound.

The lack of an exit wound is the incontrovertible clue that the weapon used did not have much force. In fact, I think what penetrated his neck may not have come from a gun. You don’t need a great deal of force to pierce a carotid artery, though you need something sharp if not forceful. The projectile almost certainly lodged in Charlie’s neck.

We heard a shot at the same time Charlie’s neck was pierced—but could that have been from a different source, fired at the same time or otherwise managed to produce the sound so everyone would think a rifle had been fired?

The one perfect shot more likely came from close by than on a roof. Maybe it came from Charlie’s microphone? Or someone standing nearby? Or another boobytrapped device? There was no second shot (unlike what happened to Trump in Butler, PA): the perpetrator knew the first and only attempt was fatal, which is much more likely if the perpetrator was very close to Charlie than on a distant rooftop.

2. The alleged gun used was too powerful to have left no exit wound nor much visible damage. Therefore this gun was NOT the murder weapon. Gemini notes this about the rifle and bullet (.30-06):

   Its versatility, accuracy, and power quickly made the .30-06 arguably the most popular big game hunting cartridge in North America for much of the last century. It is suitable for taking down nearly any medium to large game on the continent, including deer, elk, moose, and bear.

3. Charlie’s entourage (not all of them—one walked casually away) hustled his body into their waiting vehicle. Then he was driven to a local hospital and pronounced dead there.

   This is absolutely not what should be done at the scene. For all neck injuries, protocol is to splint the neck (and apply pressure to the wound if bleeding) and strap the head and torso to a rigid board to protect the spinal cord and nerves. You NEVER move a victim with a neck injury until their neck has been immobilized.

   If you are a bodyguard, you must have gone through simple training to learn this. He should have been supported in place until an ambulance arrived, and pressure applied to the wound. This absolute requirement was ignored for a reason.

   Did they want to be sure he was dead on arrival?

4. Did Charlie’s entourage want to control examination of his body, and possibly his mic or other recording equipment? A camera behind him was removed immediately after he was hit, and Candace Owens suggests its SIM card was removed. Did they want to make sure that only the medical examiner (and no onlookers or other medical personnel) would be able to assess the actual trajectory of the instrument that pierced his neck, which is essential to determining where it came from and what it was.

5. Recently a retired head of Mossad talked about the boobytrapped devices Mossad had developed, on Israeli TV. We already knew about the exploding pagers. Could a Mossad-designed device have pierced Charlie Kirk’s neck? Maybe other intelligence agencies have such devices.

   

6. Why has there been no autopsy report, no indication whether death was due to injury to the spinal cord or the base of the brain? Was a carotid artery or vein pierced? We could rule that rifle in or out for certain if we knew the extent of the injuries. Or if the bullet was found, lodged in Charlie’s body, it would confirm or deny that the rifle that is allegedly the murder weapon, really is. But so far, we have heard nothing about any of that. I wonder what was really found inside his neck.

7. Candace Owens has done the best investigating of the case so far, and I refer interested parties to her work. To my knowledge she has not covered most of these aspects of the case, but I could be wrong. Below I recap some of what she has discussed.

8. The Israelis published this piece in the Jerusalem Post, in an apparent attempt to shut (Catholic) Candace up. Seems a desperate ploy.

9. Netanyahu said twice that the Israelis didn’t do it. Charlie’s team immediately climbed on a chair and pulled down a camera that was located just behind Charlie, and might have contained useful footage. These behaviors are so odd they can only mean that members of Charlie’s entourage knew in advance what was to take place and what they were supposed to do when it happened.

10. There are claims that Charlie’s bodyguards were Israeli, and claims that he reported that he feared Israel, since he had recently begun to question the Gaza genocide and how Israel could possibly have failed to respond to the October 7 attack for 6 hours. He had previously been the recipient of $millions from Zionist donors, had met with Netanyahu multiple times, and until recently had been a strong supporter of Israel. I have no proof of these allegations.

There you have it. I just wanted to get this information out before I took off on vacation.