Whenever a great individual is assassinated, almost as sure as the sun will rise comes speculation that their death was a result of a conspiracy. Sadly, it has not been any different for Charlie Kirk, who was not assassinated as a result of a well-oiled conspiracy from those with whom he surrounded himself. The emotional pull of conspiracy theories is strong, which forces us to look even more to evidence and take a hard look at ourselves and the standards we apply to others.
First, it is important to note that, among ordinary people, there is no doubt that much conspiracy belief is driven by deep love for that person. After the assassination of President Kennedy, so many more people claimed to have voted for him than actually did. A conspiracy supposedly gives their death even greater meaning and helps us make sense of a murder instead of seeing a stark, awful reality that one single person with a huge sin problem can change the world. It is unfair. It is not right.
Conspiracy theories also help keep the person’s memory alive in seemingly greater ways, and give their death more meaning and purpose than some random act (theological arguments about death, dying and God’s will notwithstanding).
There is no doubt that many people who believe in conspiracies are coming from a place of love, ultimately, for Charlie Kirk. Part of me would want someone in the conspiracy crowd fighting for justice if something were to happen to me. But the truth is, if we are looking at a conspiracy, we have to use the same burden of proof that we would want applied to us if we were accused, or if our mothers were accused.
Political assassination conspiracies are difficult to pull off and even more difficult to keep under wraps. The cover-up almost always gets exposed, whether it be the second-rate Watergate burglary, Russia Gate, and Arctic Frost…the last of which is the most egregious of them all.
Recommended
For years, whenever visiting the picket fence in front of the Grassy Knoll in Dallas, there was almost always a man out there. I challenged him each time, years apart, on a videotape he would show/sell to people where he would say “Look at the light from the Grassy Knoll,” suggesting, without saying it, that the light may have been a shot towards JFK. He failed to point out that the video was taken 30 seconds after JFK’s motorcade had already passed (you can see the press vehicles being the ones passing in front of the Knoll when the flash is apparent). When I mentioned this to him, all he kept saying, each time (and years apart without his previously remembering me), “Well, you can’t deny there is something there.” He peddled a lie to pilgrims visiting the site.
Seriously, is this the kind of person we would want on your jury? But his devotion to the memory of John Kennedy, however misguided the conspiracy notion was, or the money he was making, kept him from seeing the truth of what he was peddling. In the Kirk Assassination, there are already individuals who have been falsely accused of being involved or acting suspiciously in actions directly related to Charlie’s death; people who loved Charlie Kirk, such as Mikey McCoy and Frank Turek, one of the humblest public people in the Christian circuit. Real people get hurt by this garbage. They are not the only ones who get hurt.
There was another man at the bottom of the Grassy Knoll, there nearly every day, almost on the street, also giving out conspiracy information. He frankly looked destitute, with poorly fitting clothes and likely health problems. This man likely gave up his entire life for this belief. In a way there was something admirable about this, but it was also extremely sad that he sat each day at the location that he felt was the spiritual inflection point of American history; giving up his life and prosperity for a lie.
One of the biggest mistakes the Warren Commission made was not actively defending its report, but rather, individual members responded piecemeal to attacks, always falling behind the game. Lee Harvey Oswald unquestionably killed John Kennedy, but the public consciousness will never believe that.
However, the assassination of Charlie Kirk has something that Lee Harvey Oswald did not have. It will have a trial that comes. The defense has every motive to show that their client, who was turned in by his own father, and likely more than a fair share of DNA evidence, is not guilty.
Anyone with half a brain regarding the legal system understands that the prosecution generally does not share its evidence publicly, as it would be in a trial or a preliminary hearing.
So, expect the defenses’ arguments and see how those arguments stand up in front of a citizen jury. The prosecution has a burden to prove in a case where they are seeking the death penalty. Let it play out in court, for if, in this skeptical internet age, a unanimous decision of a jury in a very public case finds the defendant guilty, that’s the ballgame. And if the prosecution loses, that’s the end of their career.
*Views expressed in this article are those of the author and not any government agency
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member