by Mark Shaw
Sinclaire believed he was invited to people’s homes, “…to try to pump me. Find out what they could find out from me. I wouldn’t say anything about Dorothy and I knew Donnell wouldn’t. We were very close-mouthed on it.” Regarding Phyllis Cerf, Bennett’s wife, Sinclaire added, “...I did her hair. I didn’t like her very much. She was always asking me how Dorothy died.” Asked what he said, Sinclaire replied, “I never told anyone until now. Not even Lee Israel.”
Kilgallen’s friend, Marlon Swing, agreed Kilgallen had learned a great deal from the Ruby testimony and was targeted for doing so. “That’s when the phones were tapped,” he said, “when they were trying to figure out how she had gotten her information.”57
* * * * *
According to the two hairdressers, Kilgallen believed that the information she had learned placed her life in danger. And, according to what one man told another, she was right.
The person who corroborates Kilgallen’s statement is surprising: Jack Ruby’s attorney Melvin Belli. While researching my biography of Belli, Dr. Martin Schorr,58 a good friend of Belli’s, told me he spoke with him within days of Kilgallen’s death. Dr. Schorr, a noted clinical psychologist on staff at several San Diego county hospitals, recalled Belli saying, “They’ve killed Dorothy; now they’ll go after Ruby.” Dr. Schorr said he was shocked by the statement but did not follow up with any questions.
Fifteen months later, after Ruby died on January 3, 1967, Belli added to the intrigue of what he knew about the assassinations scenario. Office manager Carol Ann Lind told this author Belli said, “Something’s not right. Maybe they injected Ruby with cancer cells.” Others including Belli’s law partner Seymour Ellison, told this author Belli said the same thing to him “many times.” All wondered what Ruby’s attorney knew that no one else did.
These two statements, never part of the mix into any evidentiary investigation of Kilgallen’s death, shed new light on what happened to her in 1965. Questions abound such as whether the “they” Belli mentioned regarding “they’ve killed Dorothy,” and “they injected Ruby,” were the same “they” Robert Kennedy noted shortly after learning of JFK’s death: “I thought they would get one of us: I thought it would be me.” Or the “They should’ve killed me,” part of the statement RFK made to presidential confidante Ken O’Donnell.
Who were the “they”? Who were those, or perhaps one person among them, who most benefited from Kilgallen’s murder? Was it the same man, or men, who Kilgallen suspected may have masterminded the assassinations of JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald?
While assessing the plausibility of these men, or one in particular, being responsible for Kilgallen’s death, her haunting words to friends and colleagues are important. Recall Kilgallen told her make-up assistant Carmen Gebbia that she was “all excited” about something. Knowing of her interest in the assassinations, Gebbia asked, “Is it Kennedy?” Kilgallen replied: “Yes, and it’s very cloak and daggerish.”
Asked by Gebbia to elaborate, Kilgallen said she was going to visit New Orleans.
There she was going to meet someone who was going to give her “information on the case.” It would happen in a “designated area” where “she doesn’t know the man but she’d recognize him.” Gebbia also said Kilgallen explained several times, “If it’s the last thing I do, I’m going to break this case.”
Kilgallen made similar comments to close friends, the ones who called her “Dolly Mae” or “Dot.” They included Johnnie Ray, WML? producer Bob Bach, and author Mark Lane. They realized Kilgallen had long ago discarded the “Oswald Alone” theory. Now she was on the last leg of her long journey toward discovering the truth. She expected to expose anyone who had thus far escaped responsibility for the murder of her beloved president.
Without doubt, “they” were watching her every move. Dorothy Kilgallen had put herself in peril. She exposed herself to danger from dangerous men, ones who gave no thought to eliminating the enemy. “They” had learned what Bennett Cerf proclaimed: “When Dorothy went after a story, nothing could get in her way.”
54 The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976. Its purpose was to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. by considering new evidence that had appeared since 1963. The HSCA completed its investigation in 1978. One year later, its final report was issued.
55 Further evidence regarding whether the CIA, other governmental agencies, or individuals who could have harmed Kilgallen may be exposed in October 2017. This is the date the government releases more than 3000 documents relating to the JFK assassination as part of the 25th anniversary of the JFK Records Act since Congress mandated that all efforts be made to release everything in the government’s possession unless an overriding case can be made for withholding them in the national interest. This author’s examination of the pending document list indicates no specific reference to Kilgallen.
56 During the audiotaped interview of John Broich, the interviewer told him, “Mark Sinclaire was very frightened when I contacted him. I had to calm him down.” During another interview, the interviewer stated, “Sinclaire told me a very frightening story in which people threatened his life and he had to keep quiet.”
57 In an October 5, 1995 letter to researcher Kathryn Fauble’s assistant from Walter Cronkite’s assistant, Cronkite was quoted as saying, “I have known Marlon Swing for many years and am certain that he is highly credible and honest although I have never discussed with him and know nothing of his experiences or theories regarding the Kilgallen death.”
58 Dr. Martin Schorr was a controversial witness during the 1969 trial of Sirhan Sirhan for the murder of Robert F. Kennedy. Dr. Schorr testified for the defense regarding Sirhan’s mental capacity at the time of the shooting.
CHAPTER 26
Without doubt, two men had stronger motive to see Dorothy Kilgallen eliminated than any of the suspects considered thus far.
Ironically, the men sharing this dubious bond operated on an opposite sides of the law: FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and New Orleans Mafia Don Carlos Marcello. The common thread is the plausibility that both of them would have suffered if Kilgallen’s investigation resulted in a grand jury probe of JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald’s assassinations.
Regarding Hoover, there is no question he detested the feisty investigative reporter. He believed that Kilgallen illegally obtained, and then exposed, Jack Ruby’s testimony at the Warren Commission before the official report’s release. This action, Hoover might have called it betrayal, on Kilgallen’s part embarrassed Hoover as he monitored the Commission’s secret investigation. He was not one to be embarrassed.
To Hoover’s way of thinking, Kilgallen had stolen government secrets, perhaps akin in modern day to Edward Snowden’s leaking classified information from the United States National Security Agency. Hoover believed Kilgallen had betrayed her country and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Why he did not file charges against the insubordinate reporter speaks volumes about why Hoover feared whatever evidence Kilgallen might disclose in her defense.
Worse, Hoover, despite the vast resources of the Bureau, could not discover the mole at the Warren Commission who leaked to Kilgallen Ruby’s testimony. This added to his anger toward the famous columnist. Instead of being in prison where Hoover believed Kilgallen belonged, she was the star of the show. Instead of ridicule coming her way for the illegal actions, praise followed her “exclusive,” one printed in newspapers not only in the U.S. but around the world through the Associated Press. On a daily basis, Hoover was bombarded with questions about how the leak happened. Congress even considered an investigation with Hoover as the potential scapegoat.
Brushing over the powerful, vindictive FBI director’s fury would be a mistake. One may only imagine the anger Hoover exhibited. Kilgallen, the woman described in an FBI
file as, “flighty and irresponsible” had outwitted him.
Kilgallen’s refusal to name her source was bad enough but more important the famous journalist represented a threat if she discovered new evidence contrary to that collected by the Warren Commission. This was something Hoover could not permit to happen.
Why? From the moment of JFK’s assassination, Hoover was the main advocate for the “Oswald Alone” theory. Recall his memos directing every investigation toward that end. Selling the theory to everyone including the public, the media, Dallas police investigators, and the Warren Commission was essential. Fortunately, the Commission bought Hoover’s version of the facts and conclusions meaning the Bureau had no responsibility for Oswald, a lone “nut,” having killed President Kennedy.
The sales pitch had worked across the board with one, and amazingly enough, only one notable exception among the hundreds of journalists covering the assassinations: Dorothy Kilgallen. Her friend Mark Lane may have been suspect of Hoover’s proclamations, but the Director knew Kilgallen had been on the prowl for more than a year. Instead of calling it quits, it was full speed ahead. From Kilgallen’s early columns to her revealing Ruby’s Warren Commission testimony, Hoover knew she was a powerful force on all fronts.
In effect, Hoover was “all in” with the “Oswald Alone” theory. Proof of his intent comes from the Director’s actions on November 25, 1963. First, he forced the Dallas Police Department to forward all files to the Bureau in Washington. This prevented any investigation on its part. Hoover also told White House aide Walter Jenkins it was critical to have “something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”
Recall that Hoover then instructed aide Clyde Tolson to write memo to the Attorney General setting out the evidence that Oswald was responsible for the shooting that killed the president. The order came despite there being little evidence of any credible motive on Oswald’s part for assassinating JFK.
Hoover’s reputation certainly was in jeopardy if Kilgallen caused trouble for him and the Bureau. He knew she was an immediate threat due to the “Oswald File Must Not Close” column the star reporter published on November 29, 1963. Recall several of her words clearly indicating she believed there was more to the assassinations than disclosed [bold print added].
If Oswald was President Kennedy’s assassin, the case was closed, was it? Well, I’d like to know how, in a big, smart town like Dallas, a man like Jack Ruby—owner of a strip tease honky tonk—could stroll in and out of police headquarters as if it were a health club at a time when a small army of law enforcers was keeping a “tight security guard” on Oswald. Security! What a word for it.
…so many people were saying there was “something queer” about the killing of Oswald, something strange about the way his case was handled, a great deal missing in the official account of his crime.
The American people have just lost a beloved President. It was a dark CHAPTER in our history, but we have the right to read every word of it. It cannot be kept locked in a file in Dallas.
Kilgallen’s message certainly signaled her discord with the “Oswald Alone” theory butadding, “Justice is a big rug. When you pull it out from under one man, a lot of others fall too,” must have caused Hoover sleepless night since the Director was on notice just seven days after JFK was killed, and only five days after Ruby murdered Oswald, that the famous crime reporter was on the job. Later, recall that that the incensed Hoover had taken the time to scribble “WRONG” in his handwriting on an FBI memo beside conclusions Kilgallen had reached based on secret Dallas Police Department records.
From the date of the “Oswald File Must Close” column release, it makes sense to believe Kilgallen was under FBI surveillance. This continued on through 1964 as her Journal-American columns and articles lambasted the assassinations investigation. Then she added the coup de grace, exposure of Ruby’s Warren Commission testimony before its release date.
In fact, based on a Bureau memorandum dated September 30, 1964, there is no question the FBI was investigating Kilgallen. Agents, according to the memo, were acting, “In connection with our inquiry regarding Kilgallen specifically requested by the President’s Commission to determine where she obtained the verbatim testimony of Jack Ruby’s interview in Dallas.” Proof Kilgallen knew the FBI represented the Commission is a given with a further post reading, “Kilgallen is fully aware that our inquiry is based on a specific Commission request.”
New Orleans Don Carlos Marcello being deported by U.S. Immigration under orders from Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy
Adding to Hoover’s fury toward Kilgallen had to be the response she printed after being contacted in an attempt to disclose the source of the Warren Commission leak. As noted, Kilgallen wrote in a column entitled, “Maybe You Didn’t Know,” “I’m inclined to believe that the FBI might be more profitably employed in probing the facts of the case [JFK assassination] rather than how I got them which does seems a waste of time to me.” Again, one may only imagine the tough guy Hoover’s toxic reaction to Kilgallen mocking his beloved Bureau.
Most disturbing is that Kilgallen had been under close surveillance five years earlier according to an FBI Memorandum to Hoover dated September 17, 1959 obtained by this author under the Freedom of Information Act. This was apparently a clandestine operation since an informant was assigned to infiltrate the lives of both Kilgallen and husband Richard. Regarding him, the memo stated, “DICK KOLLMAR operates the Left Bank Restaurant on West 50th Street. The informant advised [Kilgallen] goes there about once or twice a week and that KOLLMAR has been dating other women. He has his own private apartment on the third floor of the building...” Further, the Memo stated, “KOLLMAR is or has been interested in both sexes” and that “KOLLMAR showed interest in the informant…Informant stated under the pretext of discussing the presentation of her art work [in the Left Bank], he induced her to go to his private room at the Left Bank and there, attempted to make intimate advances.”
Concerning Kilgallen, the Memo stated, “DOROTHY KILGALLEN and her husband RICHARD KOLLMAR…have their own private lives” and “KILGALLEN is active in a group called the ‘Science Club,’ which meets on Mondays for luncheon at P. J. Clarke’s Bar. The informant has attended several of these meetings....” Added was information the informant “advised that Miss KILGALLEN has been extremely attracted to the singer JOHNNY RAY....”
Whether Kilgallen knew the FBI had her in its sights is unknown but it makes sense to believe she did. Recall that she had told author Mark Lane, “Intelligence agencies will be watching us. We’ll have to be very careful.”
Through any surveillance, including that of the informant, Hoover and his operatives were knowledgeable of Kilgallen’s drinking habits, and, arguably her drug habits as well. Weary of what she might uncover through her continuing investigation, is it plausible that the Director with his reputation at stake had a hand in Kilgallen’s death? Had he assigned rogue agents to the task? And then had those agents stage the death scene to make it appear that she died accidently.
Under this theory, Hoover prevented the dogged reporter from any opportunity to cause the director damage from her disclosures, the fresh evidence she had uncovered that could destroy Hoover reputation and even topple him from power. If so, perhaps he was the one who ended up with Kilgallen’s assassination file, destroyed at first chance.
Curiously, the FBI contacted Richard “Dickie” Kollmar, Dorothy’s son, in 1975 searching for his mother’s assassination file. Why this happened 10 years after her death is unknown.59 What is known or at least suspected, is the potential there exists Kilgallen FBI files never revealed. Attempts by this author to discover the files has been unfruitful but perhaps in the future, a fresh investigation into Kilgallen’s death will result in disclosure. If so, the question of whether J. Edgar Hoover, whose motive to eliminate Kilgallen cannot be underestimated, was complicit in his archenemy’s tragic de
mise may be answered.
* * * * *
Aside from J. Edgar Hoover, there is one man who shared the risk her search for the truth could trigger a grand jury investigation. Arguably, he may have had a stronger motive to eliminate Kilgallen based on all of the facts and circumstances surrounding her mysterious death.
That man is New Orleans Don Carlos Marcello. While many in the Mafia had good reason to be afraid of what Kilgallen might uncover, Marcello had the most to lose.
To target Marcello as a suspect, a bit of history is required. It focuses on the actions of Robert Kennedy and Joseph Kennedy instead of JFK. It also asks the question: Why wasn’t Bobby killed in 1963 instead of JFK?60
It is undisputed that well before the 1960 presidential election, RFK, a member of the McClellan Committee investigating organized crime, focused on several Mafioso’s as targets for deportation or imprisonment. During the hearings, Bobby’s anger roared when he confronted many of America’s crime bosses. They included Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Mickey Cohen61 and Santo Trafficante. Each invoked the 5th Amendment. Frank Costello also appeared at the hearings.
RFK particularly insulted Sam Giancana62 but Carlos Marcello was also embarrassed during Bobby’s intense questioning. It was clear Bobby hated the underworld figures with a passion. When he released his book, The Enemy Within, RFK wrote, “They have the look of [Al] Capone’s men. They are sleek, often bilious and fat, or lean and cold and hard. They have the smooth faces and cruel eyes of gangsters; they wear the same rich clothes, the diamond ring, the jeweled watch, the strong, sickly-sweet-smelling perfume.”