Did the CIA Kill Kennedy? Latest Hot News By Chris Knight (Florida)
The case surrounding John Garrett Underhill Jr. (often referred to as Gary Underhill) and his alleged statements about CIA involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has long been a point of intrigue among those questioning the official narrative. Underhill, a former military intelligence officer and CIA-connected individual, reportedly claimed that a rogue faction within the CIA was responsible for Kennedy's death. His comments, combined with his suspicious demise, have fuelled arguments that the CIA—or at least elements within it—played a role in the November 22, 1963, assassination.
Underhill's background lends some credibility to his claims. He was a Harvard graduate, a World War II military intelligence captain, and later a self-taught expert on small arms and limited warfare. After the war, he worked as a military affairs editor for Life magazine and had documented ties to the CIA, including intermittent contact with the agency's Domestic Contact Service from 1949 to the mid-1950s. He was described as one of the CIA's "un-people," performing special assignments, and was reportedly on a first-name basis with high-ranking Pentagon and CIA officials. This insider status suggests he could have had access to sensitive information, making his allegations worth considering.
The core of the argument stems from what Underhill allegedly said the day after Kennedy's assassination. According to a 1967 CIA memo (released in later declassifications), Underhill left Washington, D.C., in a hurry on November 23, 1963, and appeared at a friend's home in New Jersey, visibly shaken. He confided that "a small clique within the CIA was responsible for the assassination," claiming this group was involved in a "lucrative racket" of gun-running, narcotics, and political manipulation. He reportedly believed Kennedy had uncovered this scheme and was killed before he could expose it. Underhill's fear was palpable—he told his friends he was in danger and might need to flee the country. Less than six months later, on May 8, 1964, he was found dead in his Washington apartment with a bullet wound behind his left ear, a death officially ruled as suicide.
The suspicious nature of Underhill's death amplifies the argument. He was right-handed, yet the fatal shot was behind his left ear, an awkward angle for a self-inflicted wound. A writing collaborator, Asher Brynes, found the body and noted an automatic pistol under Underhill's left side, possibly fitted with a silencer, as no neighbors reported hearing a shot. This has led some to question whether his death was staged to silence him, especially given his earlier fears and claims about CIA involvement. The timing—mere months after his alleged revelations—adds to the perception that he may have known too much.
Underhill's story also intersects with broader conspiracy narratives. He reportedly linked the CIA clique to Interarms, an arms-trading company founded by Samuel Cummings, which had ties to the agency. Intriguingly, Interarms was connected to Klein's Sporting Goods, the Chicago store from which Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly mail-ordered the Carcano rifle used in the assassination. While this connection is circumstantial, it raises questions about whether Underhill's knowledge of CIA gun-running operations implicated the agency in equipping or framing Oswald, whom Underhill called a "patsy" set up by the real culprits.
The attention on Underhill's comments, especially in recent declassifications like those from March 2025, strengthens the case. These documents, including the 1967 memo titled "Ramparts: John Garrett Underhill Jr., Samuel George Cummings, and Interarmco," have reignited public and scholarly interest. They don't prove CIA involvement outright but preserve Underhill's allegations as part of the historical record, suggesting the agency itself found them noteworthy enough to document. Critics of the official narrative—established by the 1964 Warren Commission, which concluded Oswald acted alone—point to Underhill as an insider whistleblower whose fate mirrors others (like Dorothy Kilgallen or David Ferrie) who died mysteriously after probing the assassination.
However, there are weaknesses to consider. Underhill's claims remain unverified hearsay, relayed second-hand by friends and later reported in outlets like Ramparts magazine. No hard evidence—documents, recordings, or corroborating witnesses—directly ties the CIA to the assassination based on his statements alone. His death, while suspicious, was officially deemed a suicide, and personal troubles (he was reportedly under psychiatric care) could explain it without invoking a conspiracy. Additionally, his role as a peripheral CIA asset rather than a high-level operative might limit the depth of his knowledge, casting doubt on whether he truly understood the full scope of any alleged plot.
Despite these counterpoints, the case for CIA involvement, as highlighted by Underhill's comments, persists because it fits a larger pattern of distrust. Kennedy's tense relationship with the CIA—after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, his firing of Director Allen Dulles, and rumoured plans to curb the agency's power—provides a motive. The CIA's documented covert operations, including anti-Castro plots and domestic surveillance, show it was capable of rogue action. Underhill's story, with its mix of insider perspective, fear, and untimely death, keeps the argument alive by suggesting that the truth might have been buried with him.
In conclusion, the attention on John Garrett Underhill's comments bolsters the case that the CIA, or a faction within it, killed JFK. His insider status, specific allegations, and mysterious death create a compelling narrative that challenges the lone-gunman theory. While not definitive proof, the unease surrounding his story—amplified by declassified files—ensures it remains a cornerstone of the argument that the agency had a hand in one of America's most enduring mysteries.
Comments