I wonder how many people know about Dorothy Kilgallan. Her story really makes one think. She was a famous investigative reporter who got involved, contemporaneously, in trying to understand what happened after JFK's assassination. She told people she had a big file on what she was discovering. Then she died from an "overdose" of alcohol and barbiturates.
Told people and never shared anything? Look at modern news cycle and you'll see the same thing all the time. It's a pretty consistent story arc that every time a suspicious event occurs, someone will claim to have proof then never put up. I'm thinking in particular of Michael Avenatti who spent months very confidently asserting he was going to bury Donald Trump then getting fired and later arrested and jailed and never proving a damn thing.
She directly interviewed Jack Ruby and leaked information in the Warren Report before Congress could report it. They got mad. She had the credentials, and wasn't a flake like Avenatti.
of course, statistically, for everyone high-profile assassination there will be people who a. don't agree with the prevailing narrative and b. die under strange circumstances. but how would you determine the mean and variance for such a thing?
Why would somebody make loud claims they had something big without at the same time making use of that big thing? For a comparison, if you just brandish a gun without using it, you're just putting yourself in danger - which she likely did.
