by Mark Shaw
The first is called Never Trust A Stiff At A Typewriter. It included the stanza:
There’s a way to quench a gossip’s stench
That never fails
One cannot write if zippered “tight”
Somebody who’s dead could “tell no tales.”
Is the “stiff” at the typewriter Kilgallen? Is the “gossip” with the “stench” the famous columnist? Is the way to “quench” the “stench” to kill her so that she was “zippered tight” and could “tell no tales”? Most curious, if the poem wasn’t about Kilgallen, why the reference to the “gossip’s” typewriter when, by the time this poem was written, computers were the call of the day?
A second poem from Pataky’s hand, Vodka Roulette Seen As Relief Possibility adds to the intrigue. Typed alongside a color image of what appears to be a bartender mixing drinks, it reads:
While I’m spilling my guts
She’s driving me nuts
Please fetch us two drinks
On the run.
Just skip all the noise’n
Make one of ‘em poison
And don’t even tell me
Which one!
Is this poem a confessional of sorts, a subconscious attempt at cleansing for Ron Pataky? Was he attempting to admit guilt, to display his guilty conscience, to admit that he played “Vodka Roulette,” that he somehow doctored Dorothy Kilgallen’s drink with “poison” (Seconal, Tuinal and Nembutal ) as part of a plan to kill her? Are the words, “While I’m spilling my guts” a reference to Pataky informing on Kilgallen? Does this mean he was leaking critical information to those who feared her getting too close to the truth and triggering a grand jury investigation?
Are the words, “She is driving me nuts,” a reference to Kilgallen finally realizing that Pataky was the one responsible for the “strange events” in her life just before she died? Does Pataky mean by these words that Kilgallen was threatening to expose him for being the “snitch,” the one who leaked her JFK assassination investigation evidence?
Regarding “Please fetch us two drinks on the run,” do the words “on the run” mean Pataky asked the Regency Hotel bartender for “to go” cups. Then he and Kilgallen could have taken the drinks with them when they left. If so, might the words, “Just skip all the noise’n” and “Make one of ‘em poison” refer to Pataky poisoning her drink after which he would have accompanied her to the townhouse to make sure the barbiturates did their job? This would have eliminated Kilgallen’s threat to expose him as a snitch as referenced in the first poem when he wrote, “tell no tales.”
Certainly the words “Make one of ‘em poison and don’t even tell me Which One!” appear to indicate the plausibility that somehow, some way, Pataky could have poisoned Kilgallen’s drink. If this happened, only he knows—unless he confided in someone who has never come forward—the truth as to how the spiking took place.
CHAPTER 35
During this author’s October 22, 2014 interview with Ron Pataky, he acknowledged writing the poem “Never Trust a Stiff at a Typewriter.”
Pataky, clearly irritated, said, “I didn’t write that until, the bulk of the material I wrote, until after about 1998. It wouldn’t be to reflect back, [about] one person, even Dorothy at that late date when I’m writing thousands. You know there are over 3000 poems in my books.” Asked if he understood why the lyrics compelled people to believe the poem was about Kilgallen, Pataky replied, “Well, no, I can’t. I can see why a certain breed of people would, but it would never occur to me to have it associated with Dorothy.”
Pataky was then asked about the poem “Vodka Roulette Seen As Relief Possibility.” Before this author could mention that of all the drinks he could have written about, Pataky had chosen vodka, Kilgallen’s drink of choice mixed with tonic water, he asked, “Is that the one that begins, ‘Just skip all the noise’n, make one of ‘em poison and don’t even tell me which one?’” Assured that it was, Pataky was silent for a few moments. When told that certain people believe the poem is about Kilgallen and the possible cause of her death, Pataky replied, “Do you understand how silly that sounds to me? The friends I have known throughout my life would put no more stock in anything we’ve discussed today or Lee Israel than flying a kite to the moon.”
Asked again if Pataky understood why others might still feel the poems related to Kilgallen’s death due to the mention of “poison,” he became quite agitated. “TWO SHORT POEMS OUT OF 3000,” he said, “and you’re trying to hatch an egg. I THINK STUPID PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE TO WEAR SIGNS THOUGH IT MIGHT BE A TURN-OFF TO CUBANS.” Pataky answered the follow-up question, “Well, then what inspired the poems?” by saying, “I don’t get inspired to write a poem. It is work. I do it for a living.”
Continuing to avoid direct questions about whether the two poems focused on Kilgallen, Pataky roared, “IT’S SILLY. HOW WOULD THEY, WHOEVER ‘THEY’ IS, FIND THOSE TWO POEMS OUT OF 3000?” Regarding the artwork of the bartender serving drinks posted with the “Vodka Roulette” poem, Pataky said it was from a “service” and that the poem was “about alcoholic drinks.”
Asked directly if he had any direct involvement in Kilgallen’s death, Pataky replied, “Absolutely nothing.” Then he said, “Listen, I’m going to make a statement. Only a damn fool would read either of the poems you pointed out and think they had something to do with Dorothy’s death. Number one, they were done 40 years later or more [after her death], and they make no hint of Dorothy. One is about poison…40 years later. You’re on the wrong track in my book. I cannot conceive of a kind of mind that would take those two out of thousands and put that [connecting Kilgallen] together.”
When this author suggested that Kilgallen was too close to the truth concerning solving the JFK and Oswald assassinations, and had to be stopped, Pataky paused before speaking. He then said, “Of course, it’s plausible. She HAD enemies. She HAD enemies. Is it plausible one of them wanted her dead?” Pataky then added, “One or more? She was a brash writer. She made a lot of enemies. Not everyone adored Dorothy.” Asked about danger to Kilgallen’s life, Pataky stated, “She told me. She said, ‘I get threats.’ I said, ‘anything we can talk about?’ She said ‘no.’”
Most curious is why Pataky, while discounting the importance of the “Vodka Roulette Seen as Relief Possibility” poem, could recite the few stanzas verbatim, one that featured “vodka,” Kilgallen’s drink of choice instead a multitude of other choices. He did this without any hesitation by blurting them out the moment this author mentioned the name of the poem. Had he indeed experienced “relief” once Kilgallen was dead? She was certainly unable to soil his reputation by circulating to the entertainment world and to friends that he could not be trusted, that in fact, Pataky was a snitch.
That Pataky might have been the “mystery man” who was somehow involved in Kilgallen’s death is subject to conjecture; but there is no question that Kilgallen ended up being “somebody who’s dead” who “could ‘tell no tales.”
* * * * *
If Ron Pataky was indeed the “mystery man” who met Kilgallen on the weekend of her death, what is the rest of the story?
Did those who feared Kilgallen order Pataky to monitor the famous journalist, and then report the evidence she had discovered? When it became apparent she was too close to the truth, did those threatened inform Pataky Kilgallen must be stopped? Did Pataky, somehow vulnerable due to a threat on his own life of some sort, or perhaps money considerations, agree to betray Kilgallen through complicity in her death?
While Pataky’s motive to eliminate Kilgallen is subject to conjecture, there is no question that he was not a stranger to violence. Recall he told this author he was “laid back,” had the nickname “The Happy Hungarian.” This is the side of his personality that he apparently showcased for the entertainment industry. However, there was a dark side to this outsider, trapped in Columbus, Ohio, far from the bright
lights of New York City, the Pataky involved in violent altercations with Anna Maria Alberghetti and the NFL football player Jim Otis. Recall Alberghetti noted Pataky being “violent and nutsy.”
If Pataky was indeed the “mystery man” and somehow was involved in Kilgallen’s death or knows who was, his motive will always be a question mark. In addition, it is difficult with a cold case 50 years old to determine exactly how Pataky may have carried out Kilgallen’s elimination. If Kilgallen “confronted” him as Marc Sinclaire had suggested during a phone call before she left for the What’s My Line? program, and he agreed to meet at the Regency, then the nature of the serious conversation eyewitness Katherine Stone described between Kilgallen and the “mystery man” in the corner booth makes sense. During that conversation, the decision could have been made for Pataky to accompany Kilgallen back to her townhouse.
If Pataky had indeed poisoned her vodka and tonic at the bar, then he could have escorted her to the townhouse front entrance and left her to die from the overdose. Or, more likely, since confiscating the JFK assassination file would have been a priority, he could have accompanied her inside the townhouse to the third floor as she experienced dizziness and an unsteady gait. When Kilgallen finally collapsed, he could have carried her to the bedroom not knowing she never slept in it and left her to be found by Richard or Marie, the maid.
Before leaving the townhouse, Pataky, who arguably knew more about her JFK assassination investigation than anyone else, could have then taken her file and either destroyed it or gave it to those who, for their own reasons, wanted her dead. If so, Pataky—who had conveniently entered Kilgallen’s life closely following her investigative work during the Jack Ruby trial—would have fulfilled any promise he may have made to those who had orchestrated his being a “plant” in Kilgallen’s life. He had also eliminated any possibility that she could ruin his life through her poison pen.
If Pataky, on the other hand, merely set up Kilgallen for the kill, then any accomplices, the “employer’s” Marc Sinclaire mentioned, could have awaited her at the townhouse entrance and forced Kilgallen to let them in with her. Poisoning her drink could then have happened, as previously described, with capture of the assassination investigation file as the priority.
Whatever the motive, whatever the means, Dorothy Kilgallen was indeed “zippered tight.” The courageous journalist’s typewriter had been silenced forever.
CHAPTER 36
In an attempt to provide Ron Pataky with a fair opportunity to clear up inconsistent statements through the years, this author interviewed the former newspaper columnist during the early days of September 2015.
After a preliminary discussion about his being the one person still living who knew Kilgallen best during the months before she died, he answered several questions dealing with his potential involvement in her death. During the course of the back and forth discussion, he continued to deny:
•Any romantic relationship with Kilgallen during their two-year relationship. (“…I don’t believe I ever kissed her [on the mouth]; just on the cheek. And there was love. There was a deep love. A friendship love but we were just never sexually involved at all.”)
•That Kilgallen told anyone, including her best friends, she was in love with him or had a sexual relationship. (“I don’t believe that
for one second. With her pride, she would have never said that.
If we were hot and heavy for ten years, she would never say that to anyone including the hairdressers who she did not trust. She was a married woman with children.”)
•That he never sent Kilgallen valentines “cut-outs.” (“I don’t believe I’ve ever sent a valentine in my life. I’m not a valentine kind of guy.”)
•That he was in NYC on the weekend of Kilgallen’s death. (“I was in Columbus…that was established by [NYC] police, investigators and the reason they contacted me was that I was very prominent in her life at the time.”) (Note: as mentioned, there is no evidence in any report of investigations that police ever contacted Pataky.)
•Leaking any information about Kilgallen’s JFK and Oswald assassination investigation to anyone. (“She told me someone had leaked information but she didn’t know who it was, never never gave me any names.”)
•That either of the two poems he wrote had anything to do with Kilgallen. (“The first book of rhymes was over 800 pages…for [people] to pick out some silly ass rhymes and try to make something real out it is just asinine, beyond my comprehension…it’s just silliness, it’s just humor.”)
•That the poems were in any way a subconscious effort to cleanse a guilty conscience regarding his involvement in her death. (“The bottom line is I am utterly…my conscience is clear. I have no part in anything involving Dorothy’s death.”)
•Accusations by “those people” who suspect him of being involved in Kilgallen’s death. (“You’ve got a bunch of people out there who started all of this, these are the same people who believe in Bigfoot…they just get a hint of a rumor and they run with it with no thought as to the outcome.”)
•That he knew anything about her death. (“I still believe she died of an overdose and drinking.”)
•The need to respond to “those people” accusing him of wrongdoing. (“I don’t want to lower myself to deal with despicable people.”)
Regarding new information Pataky provided, the following were of interest:
•Concerning Kilgallen’s husband, he said, “[Richard] was a terrible mess.”
•When he spoke to Kilgallen the night before she died, “There was no hint of depression.”
•Kilgallen never knew Ruby before the assassinations: “I am quite sure she did not know him.”
•Kilgallen “told me she was afraid” of those who feared her JFK and Oswald investigation and her writing a book but she “never gave me any names, never told me whom.”
•He did not attend Kilgallen’s funeral because “I didn’t like the people [in NYC] and most of them didn’t like me. They felt I had taken over a lot of Dorothy’s life and social life.”
•Regarding Kilgallen’s trip to New Orleans shortly before she died and who she may have intended to meet there, he said, “I remember Dorothy mentioning the name of Jim Garrison. She must have told me that.”119
•Concerning Jack Ruby’s testimony before the Warren Commission, he stated, “Do you know what, for about six months I had the second copy of [his testimony] before it was released [publically]. She sent it to me.”
•Asked “why” Kilgallen sent it to him, he said, “I don’t know. She probably sent along a note and asked, ‘what do you think of this? There was nothing sinister about it. It’s hard for me in any way to be sinister about Dorothy.”
•Regarding NYC gangster Frank Costello, he said, “I knew who he was. I met him a couple of times.”
As the interview ended, this author attempted to persuade Pataky to divulge any further important information about Kilgallen’s JFK and Oswald investigation, or her death. I noted Kilgallen’s love for him and my intention to restore her reputation following no real investigation of her death resulting in the conclusion that she had died of a drug overdose combined with alcohol. I also told Pataky that based on my research, Kilgallen did not die accidentally or by suicide, but that given fresh facts and an apparent cover-up by the NYC medical examiner’s office, foul play was apparent. “I’ve never heard that before,” he roared and then returned to his belief that she did, in fact, die by accident. He exhibited no shock, no anger, no emotion whatsoever about Kilgallen having potentially been murdered.
Pataky then refused to provide any new information about Kilgallen’s death based on faulty memory and his intention to stick with the accounts provided to this author and the other interviewers despite the conflicts. Of special interest was Pataky’s first mention of Kilgallen having trusted him with a “the second copy” of the Jack Ruby Warre
n Commission testimony before it was released to the public. When asked why she did this, he quickly answered, “I don’t know,” before realizing he had admitted Kilgallen did in fact share vital information about her investigations once again conflicting previous statements about the matter.
Nevertheless, fifty years after Dorothy Kilgallen died, despite possessing motive, there is no conclusive proof she was murdered by Pataky on his own or as an operative of underworld figures. Only Pataky knows whether he is responsible for her death. To give him the benefit of the doubt, his inconsistent statements may be perfectly reasonable since the events he was questioned about happened in the 1960s, nearly 15 years separated from the Lee Israel interview, and four decades from interviews with Larry Jordan and Kathryn Fauble’s associate. This author’s interviews happened 50+ years after Kilgallen died.120 Memory fades and Pataky’s recollections may simply be faulty as to many aspects of his relationship with Kilgallen and the circumstances surrounding her death. This means he was not lying to protect himself but merely mistaken about what he told the various interviewers, including me.
In addition, Pataky’s incidents of violence, as disturbing as they are, do not prove he was capable of murder. Moreover, while he disputes any true love affair with Kilgallen to the extent of a sexual relationship, his denial he harmed her is reasonable regarding a woman he certainly cared about. Whether, as noted, Pataky may have been pressured by underworld figures he boasted of knowing to “set up” Kilgallen by leaking information to them and then providing facts about her personal life aiding a killer, or was paid to provide inside information about her (Marc Sinclaire said Kilgallen told him Pataky “didn’t have any money at all. She said, ‘small newspaper, small job.’”), is perhaps more logical but no concrete facts point to this happening.