NOW that the full truth is known about the assassination of President Kennedy and controversy and doubt no longer beset historians, we can turn our attention to recent revelations concerning the assassination of President William McKinley and we can now disclose the real facts.

IT is popularly supposed that McKinley was shot by a lone assassin by the name of Leon Czolgosz, whom we shall call Leon, or "Lee" for convenience. Mark the name Czolgosz well, dear reader, for it recurs in this narrative in various guises and in various forms. Recently discovered documents, found in an obscure corner of the basement of the National Archives Building during the course of the move to the new Archives Building, make it abundantly clear that neither Lee nor his wife had anything to do with the death of McKinley. In fact, Lee was not married and that fact certainly exonerates his wife. The most compelling fact is that Lee was such a lousy shot that, although he was aiming at Huey Long, he hit the Archduke Francis Ferdinand who was riding in the car with Long. This upset many people in Europe and violence erupted. But that is another story, best saved for another day.

CURRENTLY, the preponderance of the evidence points to Sitting Bull who, at the time of the incident, was seen by some to be standing and by others to be squatting. But history could not tolerate such a remarkable figure if he had a name such as "Squatting Bull". But if Sitting Bull was standing, what would account for the three arrows found in McKinley's anatomy in such a place that if his name had been Sitting McKinley, he would have been compelled to change it to Standing McKinley?

Here the story begins to become complicated and leads to some rather bizarre conclusions. Sitting Bull, you see, was not at the Little Bighorn on the day of the battle. It was a Deputy Assistant Chief named Gooseneck who produced and directed the fight. Here, then, is the second appearance of Gooseneck, for you will recall the name Czolgosz which appeared earlier herein. By all accounts, Sitting Bull and his colleague, Crazy Joe, slipped away the night before the battle. This tactic was known to military men at that time as a battleslip. That it was Bull on the lam was verified by several warriors who saw Bull run.

WITH plots and counterplots and intrigue and extrigue, why was Sitting Bull's wife, Lotta, never interviewed? She had been seen with certain unindicted co-conspirators at the grassless knoll shortly after she overheard her husband, Sitting, discussing the plot with a former prominent actor. This actor, it seems, enjoyed a reputation for unerring accuracy with the crossbow, which would explain the presence of the 11 arrows in McKinley's body. Moreover, the investigation disclosed traces of poison in McKinley's body, which supports the intoxication theory but does not answer the burning questions of who was drunk and why. We do know, however, that Lee had been trained in Cuba in the uses of snake venom. Just what this has to do with the assassination has never been made clear. The fact is that it has nothing to do with anything.

Usually reliable witnesses have testified variously that six (some say up to thirty) arrows were fired and at least four witnesses noticed that McKinley was being stabbed by an Albanian by the name of Czffrwyu Gooznik. Ah ha! Gooseneck again, this time in the disguise of an assassin. Why has this remained concealed all of these years? Careful study of the post mortem proceedings compels the conclusion that the facts were covered up by the presiding officer at the inquest. That officer had previously earned his livelihood as a gravedigger and had acquired a reputation for his ability to cover up.

Up to this point, no serious questions have been raised about Crazy Joe's role in this affair. You will recall that the last we heard of Crazy Joe was that he had slipped out of camp on the night before the battle which, if you think about it, was not such a crazy thing to do and resurrects the old feeling that perhaps he was misnamed. In any event, whenever he was questioned, he insisted that, in the battle, he was so badly wounded in his knee that they named the battle after it. But Crazy Joe is confused because that was an entirely different battle. The fact is that Crazy Joe simply fought in the wrong battle! How can you depend on the testimony of a guy who got so mixed up that he fought in the wrong brawl? No, we will find no satisfactory solution by pursuing that line of inquiry.

WITH some of the undisputed testimony suggesting that McKinley died by his own hand, why didn't the authorities discuss the matter with McKinley? In fact, McKinley's whole role in this matter is rather suspect. For example, if McKinley died by his own hand, why hadn't the Secret Service assigned somebody to hold his hand? Furthermore, McKinley's wife could have told the authorities, had they asked, that she had heard certain officials, high in the Government and frequently high elsewhere, conspiring together. They had a rope with them which, the Attorney General of Louisiana explained, was used for stringing up hams. This was, without doubt, a veiled reference to the actor whom Mrs. Bull heard talking to Sitting. In any event, it is clear that this was one of the reasons that the investigation was hamstrung.

BUT there remain a number of unanswered questions. For example, whatever became of Sitting Bull's brother, Terry Bull? Some insist that he was on the grassless knoll immediately prior to the shooting; others contend that he was inside the Capital building and yet others find no difficulty in reconciling this apparent discrepancy because they subscribe to the "inside job" theory which holds that the grassless knoll was, in fact, inside of the Capital building. This might account for the popular view that McKinley ran a pretty dirty administration. Such a position would, of course, require a re-examination of the former gravedigger-cum-inquest official's part in this affair. One may, of course, take issue with the conclusion of the Inquest that Terry might truly have been Mrs. Bull in disguise, but if this is so, what, then, becomes of the testimony of those who swear that they saw Mrs. Bull talking to Terry behind the bullboard? billboard?

Finally, why is there not even a vague allusion to the guy who shot the guy who shot Czolgosz like a partridge in a pear tree? The grassless knoll was, we know, grassless, but nobody has seriously urged that it was pear treeless. We need not dwell on the question of the identity of the person who, disguised as a partridge, concealed himself or herself in a pear tree, for who could be demented enough to perch in a pear tree on a cold winter day? Obviously, most of the characters named in this exposé would qualify.

SO there, my friends, is where the matter stands, or sits, if you are inclined toward the view that Sitting Bull was doing anything but squatting, unless, of course, you are inclined to the point of appearing to be inebriated1 or are inclined for any other reason. Nevertheless, the Government apparently expects the citizenry to believe the facts as the Government has found them to be, but you cannot always believe what Washington tells you, despite the fact that it is bruited about that he never told a lie. This episode, then, rests in the shadow of doubt, speculation, and conjecture and who really knows the truth? The Shadow knows.

Notes:
1. Could this be the genesis of the intoxication theory?

return to top