JFK's teen mistress addresses relationship

[Dawn Meredith]

She said Jackie was using her voice. When you hear Jackie speak, as Norman Mailer said, she sounded like Marilyn Monroe playing Ophelia.

THat's a good one.

It is a good one because it is true.

http://whitehousetap...queline-kennedy

Boy the hatred for Jack and Jackie astounds me. Her voice for God's sake? What do they attack next? JFK's eye color?

Dawn

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, I have no problem believing JFK had affairs. That some people are so addled they equate a man's fidelity with his qualifications as a leader is beside the point. If JFK slept with Judy and Marilyn and Angie and Mimi, while continuing to sleep with Jackie...well, more power to him. In that day and age--that is what manly men did. They played the field. There was no cable TV back then. There was no internet back then.

If historians can look at Lincoln's spending his nights with a soldier in context, and not judge him harshly, then why not JFK?

It should also be noted, should one think the media's fixation on Kennedy's sex life part of a deliberate ploy to de-legitimize his presidency, that it hasn't worked. As Kennedy's stature as a saint has dropped, his stature as a celebrity has only grown. And, guess what, people LIKE him, they REALLY like him, rascal that he was, much as they like Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Frank Sinatra.

No monk can compete with that.

P.S. One need not hate Jackie to observe that her voice often sounded contrived, much like Carol Channing's. Have you listened to the Schlesinger tapes? I have.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Jefferson Morley is not the topic of this thread. However he is a key variable in the legitimation of this narrative for the Ed Forum audience, because he has a reputation of being "between two worlds" i.e. open to the evidence that suggests conspiracy but also ...employed in big money journalism.

Recently I got around to reading Deborah Davis' book on Katherine Graham. I found it intriguing and very interesting, if, at times, uneven in the amount of evidence it offered for some of its assertions.

Kind of like my view of the Mary Meyer book. But here's the thing: when we are reading about the extremely guarded world of media elites and their alleged intelligence friends it's like trying to pluck lint from your own eye. Depth perception can be affected, and possible corroboration was long ago swallowed by Georgetown fondu. Which can get Jesuit. These problems of corroboration are there for all aspects of history but are unique for increasingly centralized Cold War Corporate media.

Therefor, it's important to remember the difference between journalism and history. Sometimes I think that critics judge some books AS IF those books were pretending to be history rather than its first draft. That is a feeling I had about how some individuals -- perhaps unduly influenced by elbows from New Zealand which might be redundant-- were too dismissive of the Russ Baker book on the Bushs. Recently I bumped into Baker, and he told me he did not even know who Hankey was. When asked about putting Bush higher on the food chain than Dulles he winced, and seemed shocked that anyone might in any way attribute such a view to his book.

I saw Baker's book as journalism, not history. It was asking questions, for further research. The Janney book has faults and a few of them are gaping. But it did not seem to me that it was assuming the air of history rather than new investigative journalism. If it did, my judgement of the book would have been vastly different.

Now re: Morley I was interested to learn that Jefferson is the grandson of 1930's and 40's WaPost op ed page editor Felix Morley who apparently was very tight with Philip Graham. Can this be verified from other sources besides the Davis book?

Lyndon Johnson was one of the early congressional overseers of the CIA. Both Lyndon Johnson and his chief of staff Walter Jenkins had "Q clearance" as well as an LBJ insider told me this year. Q clearance is an extremely high governmental clearance - you have access to the nation's atomic secrets.

LBJ was intimately acquainted with the key players in intelligence and military. LBJ was their #1 appropriator for about 10 years in the 1950's. LBJ had a personal friendship and working relationship with Eisenhower and LBJ was often referred to as the second most powerful man in Washington, DC by the late 1950's.

It seems obvious to me - based on that and at truckload of other incriminating information - that Lyndon Johnson - along with military intelligence, and anti-Castro Cuban operatives - was at the epicenter of the JFK assassination.

. Frank Wisner and Phil Graham were 2 of the key cogs of Operation Mockingbird, the vast CIA operation to manipulate the media. Phil Graham was also a significant LBJ supporter in 1960. - Robert

Author Deborah Davis, p. 141:

"The Graham salons were also, at times, purely social events. Katharine wrote her mother about one of these in the early fifties. The dinner had been given for John Stembler, a college friend of Phil's with whom he still kept in touch, and his wife Kate, who were in town from Atlanta. Katharine noted to Agnes that the occasion gave her an opportunity to repay sixteen obligations, so she hadn't minded the large group. The party included quite an assortment of people, from both journalism and government: Crosby Boyd, Philip Perlman, the U.S. solicitor general; George Neese Clark, the U.S. treasurer, who the next day sent Lally and Donny dollar bills that she had signed; the Drew Pearsons; the Frank Wisners; G. Frederick Reinhardt, from the Office of Eastern European Affairs at the State Department ; and his wife. Also present were Benjamin Bradlee, a young reporter at the Post whom Phil thought highly of, and his wife, Jean. Jean was a cousin of Senator Leverett Saltonstall, the former governor of Massachusetts, who had been appointed to the Senate in 1944 to fill the vacancy created when Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., joined the army. He was one of a very small and secret group of congressmen and senators who met informally to oversee the CIA, a group that included Richard Russell, Harry Byrd, and Lyndon Johnson, an opportunistic young senator from Texas whom Phil Graham was bothering about civil rights." [Deborah Davis, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and the Washington Post, p. 141]

[Douglas Caddy]

Two excerpts from a review in the July-August 2012 issue of The Atlantic magazine by Caitlin Flanagan of two books: “Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy” – interviews with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and “Once Upon A Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath” by Mimi Alford:

“JFK was a man who sexual life remained a central life of his existence, who did not allow it to be diminished by anything – not by his political ambitions, not issues of national security, not his Catholicism, not loyalty to his friends and his male relatives, not physical limitation or pain; not the risk of infecting any of his partners with the venereal disease that regularly plagued him, not fear of impregnating someone, not the potential for personal embarrassment, and certainly, certainly not his marriage….

“John F. Kennedy was the kind of guy who could get his PT boat rammed in half by a Japanese destroyer, losing two of his men, and end up not with a court martial but with a medal. He was a winner and we like winners. He’ll get out of every scrape history can serve up. All the aging hookers and cast-aside girlfriends with book contracts had better take notice: We don’t care about you. JFK is more important to us than you can ever be, so you might as well keep quiet. The cause endures, sweetheart. The hope still lives. And the dream with never die.”

Douglas,

it's impossible to read every post of every member, but from what I have observed of your posts, you seem to provide a lot of links to anti-Kennedy articles, without personal commentary as to where you stand on what you are inviting others to peruse. Is there a reason why you concentrate on anti-Kennedy material? Is there a reason why, even in your response to me here, you carefully avoid providing any personal position? Do you in fact agree with Ms Flanagan?

Greg:

I am attorney. Attorneys learn from experience that knowledge is power. To ignore what is being said or done by an adversary party is to put oneself at peril.

I agree, Douglas. That's why most here do keep an eye on what's being reported, and how it is. Where we digress is in the disseminating of the material. If I chose to provide a link to the same type of material you send readers to, I would flag the issues, and the possible motives for the piece - whereas you seem to be just helping to spread propaganda by your failure to flag the probable purpose of the material, its lack of objectivity, and etc. Every member here may know the Atlantic is anti-Kennedy, but not everyone reading your post knows it. Knowledge is power, but propaganda is subjugating. Are you really trying to empower here, or enslave?

I occasionally post articles that you and others in the forum may construe at being critical

"May construe"

of Kennedy because these adversary articles appear in mainstream and influential publications, such as The Atlantic. They provide necessary information and are helpful in gauging current public opinion.

What "necessary information" do they provide? That Kennedy was a sex fiend? "helpful in gauging public opinion"? No, Douglas. I think you mean "helpful in molding public opinion" as in "Kennedy was a sex fiend".

I seldom express my personal opinion.

But I note you did by when you declared you believed Mimi Alford was telling the truth. Yet you can't express an opinion to say a particular story on Kennedy is no more than a character assassination? Though that would be fair enough if you do not actually take such stories as Dear little Caitlin's to be character assassination pieces.

For example, if you read my last 12 postings in the Watergate Topic, all of these constitute important and vital information that anyone interested in that topic would want to know. In none of these postings did I express my personal opinion. Of course, I have a personal opinion about Watergate but why should I pontificate when the essential information appears in the article as posted.

What "vital information" was contained in the Cynthia Fagen story at the start of the thread? That JFK tried to pimp Mimi?

Please. What evidence convinces you that anything Ms Alford said is true - and more importantly, how would you present that evidence in a court of law to convince anyone of her story? She would be excoriated under cross examination by anyone who cared to do some fact checking, and you surely must now it.

I have posted hundreds of articles on Murdoch's hacking scandal in the Political Conspiracies Topic. I have almost never expressed a personal opinion about what I posted. John Simkin has written that more non-forum readers around the world are reading these postings than are forum members.

Exactly my point with your links to material which are JFK character assassination pieces. You are sending non-members to read that trash and it will be assumed by most, you endorse and recommend the material. That is unless you think those non-members are mind readers and therefore will know you are trying to empower them and not propagandize them.

Murdoch's hacking scandal is one of the great stories of our times and how it ends will shape future history.

He's our gift to you in return for your gifts of McDonald's, Pine Gap and the Brady Bunch. Suck it up.

My view of the JFK Assassination Topic is that it is a forum for exchange of information on the subject, not for JFK cult worshipping. Because it is a source of information, it is widely used by forum members and non-forum readers for research. If it were solely postings of cult worshipping, it would have zero credibility and not be the major force that it is.

I see. A simple call that we should be debating the quality of evidence being accepted for his alleged philandering is akin to "cult worship". Well, Douglas, I'm more than prepared to believe JFK is a baby-eating Nazi lizard-man if the evidence is convincing enough. Call me old fashioned, but faith, and a willingness to suspend disbelief are no substitutes for acceptable standards of evidence and fact-checking.

Please review of my posting above #237 that answered your previous inquiry. I think in that posting I made it clear that in my opinion The Atlantic in the essay by Flanagan is living up to its prior reputation of being biased against JFK in the articles it has published.

Yes, you did, and I thank you for that.

Numerous postings have been made by members about Robert Caro's new book that generally is considered to be critical of JFK. Should Caro's book be ignored and not mentioned in the forum because it is not laudatory about JFK? Of course not.

Not at all. And that is not what I have been suggesting should happen.

I hope that the above answers your inquiry.

Doug

Yes. But it's mostly written between the lines.

Greg, the solution to your discomfort with what I post is quite simple. Don't read anything I post. If you see my name attached to anything posted in the EF, skip over it. This will keep your stress level from rising and give you time to devote to more imporant things.

Doug

[Greg Parker]

Greg, the solution to your discomfort with what I post is quite simple. Don't read anything I post. If you see my name attached to anything posted in the EF, skip over it. This will keep your stress level from rising and give you time to devote to more imporant things.

Doug

My stress levels are fine thanks, Douglas. And I'll be gone for a while soon enough. In the meantime, I am still very interested in seeing how a man of your profession, knowledge and vast experience comes to believe the Mimi Alfords of this world. What evidence convinces you? Why would it be wrong for me to label it just a willful suspension of disbelief?

[Peter McGuire]

Greg, the solution to your discomfort with what I post is quite simple. Don't read anything I post. If you see my name attached to anything posted in the EF, skip over it. This will keep your stress level from rising and give you time to devote to more imporant things.

Doug

My stress levels are fine thanks, Douglas. And I'll be gone for a while soon enough. In the meantime, I am still very interested in seeing how a man of your profession, knowledge and vast experience comes to believe the Mimi Alfords of this world. What evidence convinces you? Why would it be wrong for me to label it just a willful suspension of disbelief?

Great post Pat and I hope you are right about JFK's stature as a celebrity growing. I also know what you mean about Mrs. Kennedy's voice. But while true, it is used in Alfords book to put her down.

With that being said, I am on the same page as Greg regarding keeping the pressure on those that promote desensitizing the public regarding Kennedy's death by assassinating his character. Anyway, who said it is not working? What evidence do you have of that? In my opinion, if they keep writing these books, it is working. In business, you keep promoting a product only when there are sales. Caddy also talks a clever game with no evidence and while I believe Alford had a consensual sexual relationship that got her on Air Force One and allowed her to live the high life for nearly two years, I have only her word that Kennedy never kissed her, or in The Dark Side nonsense, pimped her off to others.

All these things are important parts of the plot. Killing the President of the United States is serious business. The clean up is messy but must be done. Nothing is left to chance.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Peter McGuire

[Richard Hocking]

Greg, the solution to your discomfort with what I post is quite simple. Don't read anything I post. If you see my name attached to anything posted in the EF, skip over it. This will keep your stress level from rising and give you time to devote to more imporant things.

Doug

My stress levels are fine thanks, Douglas. And I'll be gone for a while soon enough. In the meantime, I am still very interested in seeing how a man of your profession, knowledge and vast experience comes to believe the Mimi Alfords of this world. What evidence convinces you? Why would it be wrong for me to label it just a willful suspension of disbelief?

Great post Pat and I hope you are right about JFK's stature as a celebrity growing. I also know what you mean about Mrs. Kennedy's voice. But while true, it is used in Alfords book to put her down.

With that being said, I am on the same page as Greg regarding keeping the pressure on those that promote desensitizing the public regarding Kennedy's death by assassinating his character. Anyway, who said it is not working? What evidence do you have of that? In my opinion, if they keep writing these books, it is working. In business, you keep promoting a product only when there are sales. Caddy also talks a clever game with no evidence and while I believe Alford had a consensual sexual relationship that got her on Air Force One and allowed her to live the high life for nearly two years, I have only her word that Kennedy never kissed her, or in The Dark Side nonsense, pimped her off to others.

All these things are important parts of the plot. Killing the President of the United States is serious business. The clean up is messy but must be done. Nothing is left to chance.

The on-going coverup of the JFK assassination 49 years later points us back to the very basic questions of who was involved, and why these entities took the radical step of publicly executing the POTUS. We can cite evidence involving individuals like Lyndon Johnson or Edwin Walker, but the continuing coverup, years after these men died, is unmistakeable proof that other forces had to be involved. Forces strong enough to protect the Intelligence agencies from scrutiny, and strong enough to mold the MSM coverage of that pivotal event in world history.

There are somethings in the assassination story that obviously need to be hidden from the public. One way to hide something is to withhold relevant information. Another way to hide something is to use diversion. Get people to focus on something that has no relevance to the real issue. TPTB do not want JFK to be remembered as a martyr, a man who stood in the way of a powerful group of people and lost his life at their hands. So the diversion is to portray JFK as a “Playboy” whose Presidency should be remembered primarily for the many scandalous affairs that occupied much of his time during those 1000 days. This fits in well with the limited attention span of an American public that derives much of its world view from a shallow palate of nightly TV entrees.

As you said, this is serious business and very little is left to chance.

[Peter McGuire]

The public at large is comfortable that there is a conspiracy ( note tense ) so diverting them from Stone's ( and others ) theory of the Military Industrial Complex killing Kennedy is a great plan of action.

After all, Kennedy was an effective president who made the right decision to blockade, not invade Cuba, which is the reason while we are all alive today to write on this forum. As you know, nuclear tipped warheads were at the ready had Kennedy invaded Cuba.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Peter McGuire

[Greg Parker]

Thanks Peter and Jim for the comments.

All I want is to get some debate going on the state and quality of the evidence, but so far, no one seems interested.

It is nothing short of disgusting that those who would demand the highest standards of integrity regarding evidence in other circumstances, are quite happy to drop the bar to ground level when it comes to JFK's alleged infidelities.

It is especially disturbing when Mockingbird is always invoked here in relation to standard JFK literature and media articles, but is peculiarly absent from the JFK-as-teen-predator discourse.

The invitation for one of Alford's supporters to step up and discuss the evidence remains open.

[Peter McGuire]

Thanks Peter and Jim for the comments.

All I want is to get some debate going on the state and quality of the evidence, but so far, no one seems interested.

It is nothing short of disgusting that those who would demand the highest standards of integrity regarding evidence in other circumstances, are quite happy to drop the bar to ground level when it comes to JFK's alleged infidelities.

It is especially disturbing when Mockingbird is always invoked here in relation to standard JFK literature and media articles, but is peculiarly absent from the JFK-as-teen-predator discourse.

The invitation for one of Alford's supporters to step up and discuss the evidence remains open.

This is serious business. And the cause needs level headed energetic people like you Greg.

They took my president - I was alive at the time, by public execution.

Do you all know public execution methods of other times? Ling chi ( death of a thousand cuts ) European methods - crucifixion - you think of the 'sanitized' version, where the crucified is clothed. Well let me tell you they were not, and their urine and feces spurt out and dropped onto the crowd as this humiliating death went on.

Kennedy was publically executed next to his wife in front of a live crowd ,and eventually his death was shown on video to this day. He is killed and the Secret Service just sits or stands there and watches! SHAME ON YOU SECRET SERVICE for publically executing my president.

[Kathleen Collins]

On 2/14/2012 at 2:22 AM, Don Jeffries said:

the same sources that allege JFK was having nonstop sex, also claim that there was a huge coverup about his health- usually centered around Addison's Disease --  I'm wondering how many here accept the notion that there was a coverup about JFK's health. This has also been used to explain away the incomplete and shoddy autopsy JFK received; according to these same sources, the Kennedy family "covered up" because they didn't want the public to know about his Addison's Disease. 

 

Kennedy never hid his Addison's Disease.  There is a conversation on tape between JFK and some reporters.  Here is the clip from January 1960 on youtube.

https://youtu.be/D84+32eP8cd?+=Jm42s

Kathy C

[Robert Morrow]

On 2/7/2012 at 9:10 PM, Douglas Caddy said:

I regret that you maintain the information in Spartacus to be inaccurate. I have always found the Spartacus profiles to be right on target.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhooverE.htm

This is an edited version of a recent email exchange I had with the JFK Library

Email from Robert Morrow, dated March 4, 2024

JFK Library archivist,

 

       Was Jackie Kennedy at the White House on the evening of October 27, 1962? This was at the absolute peak of the Cuban Missile Crisis:  October 27, 1962: The Most Dangerous Day in Human History | History News Network

 

        Does someone at the JFK Library know the answer to this question?

 

Sincerely,

 

Robert Morrow      Austin, TX

 

AND THE REPLY On March 4, 2024:

 

Dear Robert Morrow,

 

Jackie herself confirms that she was at the White House that day and evening, and beyond,  in the book Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy  see: https://www.amazon.com/Jacqueline-Kennedy-Conversations-Interview-Hardcover/dp/B0072XVTTE   The book contains the complete audio on CDs and complete transcripts of her interviews with Arthur Schlesinger in 1964.

 

This is the relevant audio of the interview with the transcript on p. 263 of the book:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAm5PHw_Wr4

 

She refers to the days- "were they eleven, ten something?"-  from the time President Kennedy asked her to come back to the White House with the children on October 20, 1962 from Glen Ora in Virginia.  The October 20 date is confirmed on page 262 of the book.

 

The tape with the relevant remarks #6, is here in the archives at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, as are the other six,  but they are closed:  https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkoh-jbk-06

 

JFK LIBRARY ARCHIVIST

 

Edited March 18 by Robert Morrow