Many people, including me (in my 2021 book, Diary of Secrets), have addressed the still-controversial death of Marilyn Monroe. There are a lot of claims, whispers, friend-of-a-friend-type tales and so on. But, I think that what I’m going to share with you today takes things to a higher level. As you’ll see now. Some years ago, and thanks to the provisions of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, I found what may have been the answer to the Marilyn controversy. It was in the pages of a CIA document titled A Study of Assassination. The story it tells is both amazing and disturbing. Many might balk, and roll their eyes at the idea that rogue elements of “the government” might have found a way to snuff the life out of Marilyn Monroe – or to deliberately let her die with her secrets. Such a thing, however, just might have taken place. Basically, the document is a guide designed to teach CIA agents how to kill by assassination and make it look like something else, entirely. Surely, it’s one of the most unique official CIA documents ever constructed. The unknown agent that worked on the program – whose name is carefully blacked-out on the file – says: “Assassination is a term thought to be derived from ‘Hashish,’ a drug similar to marijuana, said to have been used by Hasan-i-Sabah to induce motivation in his followers, who were assigned to carry out political and other murders, usually at the cost of their lives. It is here used to describe the planned killing of a person who is not under the legal jurisdiction of the killer, who is not physically in the hands of the killer, who has been selected by a resistance organization for death, and whose death provides positive advantages to that organization.”
The document continues: “Assassination is an extreme measure not normally used in clandestine operations. It should be assumed that it will never be ordered or authorized by any U.S. Headquarters, though the latter may in rare instances agree to its execution by members of an associated foreign service. This reticence is partly due to the necessity for committing communications to paper. No assassination instructions should ever be written or recorded. Consequently, the decision to employ this technique must nearly always be reached in the field, at the area where the act will take place. Decision and instructions should be confined to an absolute minimum of persons. Ideally, only one person will be involved. No report may be made, but usually the act will be properly covered by normal news services, whose output is available to all concerned.”
And, there’s this, too, from the CIA: “Murder is not morally justifiable. Self-defense may be argued if the victim has knowledge which may destroy the resistance organization if divulged. Assassination of persons responsible for atrocities or reprisals may be regarded as just punishment. Killing a political leader whose burgeoning career is a clear and present danger to the cause of freedom may be held necessary. But assassination can seldom be employed with a clear conscience. Persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it. The techniques employed will vary according to whether the subject is unaware of his danger, aware but unguarded, or guarded. They will also be affected by whether or not the assassin is to be killed with the subject hereafter, assassinations in which the subject is unaware will be termed ‘simple;’ those where the subject is aware but unguarded will be termed ‘chase;’ those where the victim is guarded will be termed ‘guarded.’ If the assassin is to die with the subject, the act will be called ‘lost.'”
And here’s another extract from the CIA file: “If the assassin is to escape, the adjective will be ‘safe.’ It should be noted that no compromises should exist here. The assassin must not fall alive into enemy hands. A further type division is caused by the need to conceal the fact that the subject was actually the victim of assassination, rather than an accident or natural causes. If such concealment is desirable the operation will be called ‘secret;’ if concealment is immaterial, the act will be called ‘open;’ while if the assassination requires publicity to be effective it will be termed ‘terroristic.'” Now, we come to the most important – and undeniably relevant – section of the CIA’s “How-to-Kill” document. It highlights the ways and means by which alcohol and medication can be used to make a murder look like an accidental death. Or, like a case of planned suicide. We’ve seen how those two, powerful ingredients – pills and booze – almost certainly claimed Marilyn’s life by someone with a deadly, covert agenda. The CIA also wrote:
“In all types of assassination except terroristic, drugs can be very effective. If the assassin is trained as a doctor or nurse and the subject is under medical care, this is an easy and rare method. An overdose of morphine administered as a sedative will cause death without disturbance and is difficult to detect. The size of the dose will depend upon whether the subject has been using narcotics regularly. If not, two grains will suffice. If the subject drinks heavily, morphine or a similar narcotic can be injected at the passing out stage, and the cause of death will often be held to be acute alcoholism.” Compare the following with that extract from the CIA document directly above: Marilyn was a heavy drinker. Marilyn was addicted to prescription drugs. Marilyn had a doctor – psychiatrist Ralph Greenson – who visited her on the night/early morning her life began to spiral into nothing, but unending oblivion. Marilyn had a trained nurse, Eunice Murray [italics mine].
Read the paragraph directly above one more time and compare it to what the CIA had to say, in the early 1950s, about killing – and the ideal types of people to perform such a deadly act. If all of that doesn’t send shivers up your spine, nothing will: (1) Booze, (2) drugs, (3) a doctor, and (4) a nurse were all key issues in the death of Marilyn Monroe. But, far more significantly, those 4-points are all a part of the A Study of Assassination document on how to take a life.