Jump to content


Spartacus

John Kennedy's First Wife


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Kathleen Collins

Kathleen Collins

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 27 April 2007 - 03:49 AM

During Kennedy's presidency, there were many potential scandals that didn't erupt. One that almost did was JFK's first marriage. John Kennedy secretly wed Palm Beach socialite Durie Malcolm in early 1947 before his high-society wedding to Jacqueline Bouvier in 1953. Joe Kennedy was livid about his son's non-Catholic wedding to a twice divorced woman and he had the marriage papers removed from courthouse records. Though close family and friends knew of the wedding, no one has reported knowing of any divorce. Evidently JFK and Malcolm, who would marry twice more, were bigamists. Rumors of his first marriage broke in 1957 and persisted into his presidency. They were finally put to bed when journalist Ben Bradlee, trying to ingratiate himself with the Kennedys, agreed to collaborate with the White House in "debunking" the Durie Malcolm marriage story once and for all. His widely published story repudiated the rumor and exposed the hate groups and gossip columnists who were continuing to spread it.

I haven't found much information about Kennedy being married before Jackie. But I picked up on the rumor. I wonder if someone can evaluate this item from Seymour Hersh's book: The Dark Side of Camelot.

http://www.geocities...oughts/jfk.html

#2 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 27 April 2007 - 04:23 AM

The following passage clearly suggests that you can't believe anything in Hersch's book or "Curt's notes," whichever one is lying:

"In September 1963, while frolicking poolside with one of his sexual partners, JFK tore a groin muscle. He had to wear a stiff shoulder-to-groin brace that locked his body in a rigid upright position. It was far more constraining than his usual back brace, which he continued to wear. The two braces made it impossible for JFK to bend in reflex when he was struck in the neck by a bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald."

JFK was not wearing any "shoulder-to-groin brace" when he was shot. And I'm sick and tired of reading that "he was struck in the neck by a bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald."

#3 Myra Bronstein

Myra Bronstein

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,895 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 April 2007 - 04:52 AM

The following passage clearly suggests that you can't believe anything in Hersch's book or "Curt's notes," whichever one is lying:

"In September 1963, while frolicking poolside with one of his sexual partners, JFK tore a groin muscle. He had to wear a stiff shoulder-to-groin brace that locked his body in a rigid upright position. It was far more constraining than his usual back brace, which he continued to wear. The two braces made it impossible for JFK to bend in reflex when he was struck in the neck by a bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald."

JFK was not wearing any "shoulder-to-groin brace" when he was shot. And I'm sick and tired of reading that "he was struck in the neck by a bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald."


Hersh was a paid hatchet man when he wrote that book as part of the orchestrated eternal post assassination character assassination of President Kennedy. He has no credibility, and is pretty much a waste of skin.

#4 Bernice Moore

Bernice Moore

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,939 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted 27 April 2007 - 07:18 AM

Where is the proof that they were ever married, and the proof that they were ever bigamists......?

Documentation, please....

B....

Edited by Bernice Moore, 27 April 2007 - 07:18 AM.


#5 Harry J.Dean

Harry J.Dean

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 687 posts

Posted 28 April 2007 - 12:07 AM

Where is the proof that they were ever married, and the proof that they were ever bigamists......?

Documentation, please....

B....

Hi,Bernice
"RID" Research Intelligence Department, of The John Birch Society, from it's begining, through their "MMM" Members Monthly Message Publication, and other literature, as part of their 'First Five Year Plan' aimed at destroying the reputation of JFK even before he declaired for the Presidency, and moreso during his term in office. These publications were also available to the public.
Another important example of JBS/RID destroying work is the Robert Surrey/General Walker/JBS,
JFK WANTED FOR TREASON, Dallas poster, followed by assassination and Coup d'e-tat.

Harry

#6 Kathleen Collins

Kathleen Collins

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 28 April 2007 - 02:35 AM

Where is the proof that they were ever married, and the proof that they were ever bigamists......?

Documentation, please....

B....


Bernice, I agree with you. I've been trying to find proof. Supposedly there's some guest list or pamphlet at the time where there's a mention of their names -- apparently, she as "Mrs. John F. Kennedy." Probably some other books mention this rumor.

Kathy

#7 Bernice Moore

Bernice Moore

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,939 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted 28 April 2007 - 03:49 AM

Hi Harry:

Yes, the Treason poster is a prime example...they had to get rid of him one way or another.....
...in whatever way......and known now, that the smearing of
at least of his reputation was in full steam ahead ..and coming from all sides.....

..Hoover and or the Nixon people, which is gone right now....perhaps both, made sure that they
informed LBJ and his cronies, of JFKs addisons desease hopefully, to be used to destroy his winning the nomination
at the convention, that also comes to mind...

Since his murder the smearing Killing Kennedy books have kept on coming..The range of what the
gov. flunkies, were up to was by the use of a Pulitzer prize winner such as Seymour M. Hersh......now that had to have
been some pay off....... In reality it also shows us to what extent the media contacts and all were controlled. ..as he was a reporter..
it still keeps coming all these years later....many....Thanks....

Katheeen:

Perhaps next time it may be a good idea to wait till that proof is found, or having something in hand,before posting the accusations..just a thought...

I have read some information on these accusations in the past, from memory, it seems that someone said their names were written down
in a family bible, as being married.. but that has never been forthcoming....it was also stated that ole Joe, had the marriage
annulled, when the documentation could not be found, the story then became well ole Joe, controlled all and paid someone to
have the records destroyed...so the accusations were based on something that someone said they saw, in a family bible that
was never available, and someones guess that docs were trashed....This is far from the only book that has tried to sully all,
again and again, there are quite a few....I checked the book, quickly, and there is not one piece of documentation....you may be interested
in this article below....

By David R. Wrone when he states that the real reason that Hersh wrote this "door stopper" was to use
the personal information, made up if needed, and not sourced, nor documented.....to present a false impression of JFKs foreign policys...
to trash his Presidency, and it continues.....he calls it using the " honey trap."..

B.........

Seymour Hersh, THE DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT
Little, Brown and Co.; 1997; 498 pages, $26.96



SHAME ON YOU, SY, FOR THAT AWFUL BOOK ON JFK
By David R. Wrone (CAPITAL TIMES OF MADISON, WI, 16 January 1998).



In an interview given on publication of his alleged expose of John F. Kennedy's private life and public policies, the famed investigative reporter Sy Hersh said he wanted to make "a big score" and retire.

To this end the Pulitzer prize winner has prostituted his nation's history and, at the same time, sustained the intelligence and military forces that bitterly opposed JFK--those who among other infamies sunk us in Vietnam and who tried and failed to initiate nulcear war over Cuba. Hersh does it with a corruption of scholarship perhaps unequalled in recent times.

He uses not a single source note, but employs caption notes that refer to many books and no pages, so a reader cannot easily check his truthfulness. Hersh has corrupted the facts. On major issues he is coy, strongly using suggestive language with a statement of fact where none exists. Sources are often made up to fit his perceived beliefs. In addition he relies on interviews with people bitterly opposed to JFK's policies and usually not identified as such.

Hersh reviews JFK's rise to power and then largely concentrates on the foreign policies of his presidency, alleging that the crude principles of his reckless and corrupt personal life--astutely masked during his lifetime by his power and friends--led the United States into one disaster after the other.

Hersh suffuses the book with putative accounts of JFK's sex scampers but these are a honey trap to snare a reader into accepting Hersh's false presentation of his foreign policy--which is the true intent of the book.

How bad is Hersh's scholarship? Consider the Section of THE DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT in which Hersh states that JFK "endorsed" the CIA assassination of Lumumba of the Congo. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since CIA thugs beat Lumumba to death on January 17 and JFK was sworn in on January 20, Hersh must overcome a serious chronologial problem. He does this by baldly asserting Kennedy vigorously supported and emphatically agreed to Eisenhower's policy to kill the African leader.

Hersh carries this subterfuge off by only quoting former CIA men who were ideologically opposed to JFK's policies, by refusing to cite the copious well-known record affirming an opposite interpretation, and by not interviewing the numerous individuals who would have provided a true picture.

Early in January 1961, Kenedy's staff and special Congo study group had alerted the CIA that American reactionary policies in the Congo would change and that a JFK emissary had warned Belgium intelligence services not to "liquidate" Lumumba. By February 2, Kennedy had devised a plan for a new Congo policy that would ultimately include Lumumba. He did not learn of the murder of Lumumba until February 13; a famous photograph depicts him receiving the news, his head bowed in anguish.

Hersh also devotes much attention to "proving" JFK tried to assassination Castro using the CIA and Mafia. In the course of this effort, he asserts that President Kennedy used Judy Exner, a sex partner, to carry cash to the mob bosses to pay for making the hit.

A key document of the Castro murder attempts is a 1962 Department of Justice memorandum by the CIA's inspector general Sheffield Edwards. Hersh uses parts of the document in other contexts, but when he comes to the attempts on Castro's life he carefully omits what it says about them, since the document's contents would destroy his framing of JFK.

The CIA-Mafia attempts on Castro began in August 1960 and ended in November 1960, before JFK took office in 1961. Only six people knew of it, all CIA men, and they only orally. No one else knew--not Ike, not JFK--until many months after the fact when the FBI stumbled onto a bungled CIA phone tap for a mobster and it exposed the affair. A shocked Robert Kennedy ordered a complete explanation.

As it turns out, the CIA had set aside $150,000 for the job, but the Mafia said no and refused to accept any money. EXner could not have carried money, as she told Hersh; there was none to carry and the affair had occurred and was over before he entered office. There were, in fact, no JFK directed or encouraged attempts on Castro's life.

Hersh frequently castigates JFK for using private back channels to negotiate a secret deal with Khruschev to end the Cuba missile crisis--a deal Hersh suggests Kennedy pursued in order to improve his standing with the American people. The fact is back channels worked and, after the crisis, the executive branch institutionalized it with direct phone lines and other systems, which later presidents have found to be quite useful.

The real reason JFK kept the pact secret was spelled out in Khrushchev's memoirs, KHRUSHSCHEV REMEMBERS, and in Robert Kennedy's writings on the subject. It had nothing to do with self-promotion. The Kennedys were intensely afraid of an American military coup d'etat and overthrow of the U.S. govenment accompanied by a launching of a massive nuclear strike against the whole of the communist world. Only through this private method could and did JFK hold the irate military in check.

It can be argued today that nuclear war was avoided by President Kennedy's unparalleled action.

Even in the minor themes of THE DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT, Hersh perverts our history. He states a high-ranking Navy officer told him that, "at the request of Robert Kennedy", the notes containing vital information about JFK's postmortem were not published. By exclusively relying on that prejudiced source, Hersh sustains the generation-old effort of many federal officials to blame the failed inquiry into JFK's death upon his brother's refusal to give them access to key medical records.

But in well-known sources, which were spurned by Hersh, we know RFK by letter gave explicit permission to use all autopsy materials. The same definitive sources also show it was the FBI that, after realizing the materials might hold data incompatible with its invented lone assassin theory, manufactured the libel that Robert Kennedy had denied access.

Significantly, prosecutors did take the critical notes. They were not destroyed and were, in fact, placed in Navy hands. They were released by the Navy for Arlen Specter, Warren Commission counsel, who used them to examine the autopsy doctors. They were supposed to be part of Exhibit 397 of the Warren Commission, but it does not contain them. They are not in any archive or known agency files. On this serious issue--which genuinely is worthy of discussion--Hersh is embarrassingly silent.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DAVID R. WRONE taught history at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point for thirty years before retiring in 1994. One of his primary areas of academic specialty was the presidency and the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

http://www.assassina...com/wrone2.html

Edited by Bernice Moore, 28 April 2007 - 03:55 AM.


#8 Kathleen Collins

Kathleen Collins

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 28 April 2007 - 04:02 AM

Where is the proof that they were ever married, and the proof that they were ever bigamists......?

Documentation, please....

B....


Bernice, I agree with you. I've been trying to find proof. Supposedly there's some guest list or pamphlet at the time where there's a mention of their names -- apparently, she as "Mrs. John F. Kennedy." Probably some other books mention this rumor.

Kathy


Here is more info on President Kennedy's alleged marriage to Durie Malcolm.

"Consider, for example, Hersh's finding that JFK was a bigamist. The rumor began circulating in the extreme right-wing press in 1961 that in 1947, JFK, then a congressman, had secretly married Durie Malcolm, a Palm Beach socialite. Both JFK and Malcolm denied the story, and when it persisted, JFK asked Ben Bradlee, then at Newsweek, to investigate it. Bradlee determined it was a false story emanating from an error in a flawed book of genealogy (which even spelled Malcolm's name incorrectly). Some 35 years later, Hersh resurrected the story, not on the basis of any witness or document to the alleged marriage but on the basis of a piece of conversation that he managed to elicit from a 79-year-old Palm Beach resident, Charles Spalding. Spalding, who, though interviewed many times before over 50 years, never before claimed a role, now told Hersh that he knew about the supposed first marriage because he had himself eliminated the record of it ! at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, saying, according to Hersh! , "I went out there and removed the papers." Presumably, in previous interviews after JFK's death, he had not remembered this extraordinary (and criminal) act.

But how reliable is Spalding's new 1997 memory of this incident that supposedly happened in 1947? Before Hersh interviewed him, Spalding had problems with his ability to recall routine information, which Hersh generously describes as an "impairment of his short-term memory." Such a deficiency notwithstanding, this piece of recovered memory about JFK stands or falls on a simple test. If the 1947 marriage registry in Palm Beach County, which was then handwritten and bound, was marred or missing a page, Spalding's story could be valid. If on the other hand the registry was intact and the entries consecutive, Spalding's memory of removing the papers could not be any more valid than the forged archive of Monroe letters. As it turned out, Hersh and his investigators were unable to find any such gap in the marriage records nor, for that matter, any record of a marriage application, which had to be made three days before the ceremony. Nevertheless, on this piece of recovered memory ! from a person who Hersh knew suffered memory lapses and whose recollection was impeached by an investigation of the records, he asserts in "The Dark Side of Camelot," as established fact, that both JFK and his brother Robert "had lied in their denials to newspapermen and the public about Jack Kennedy's long-rumored first marriage to a Palm Beach socialite," that JFK's marriage to Jackie was not a legal union and that his children were born out of wedlock."
-- from Edward Jay Epstein's review of Hersh's book.

www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/hersh.htm

For the record, Durie Malcolm has always denied any veracity of the rumor.

Kathy

#9 James Richards

James Richards

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,288 posts
  • Location:The Gold Coast, Australia

Posted 28 April 2007 - 04:59 AM

FWIW.

BTW, the attachments posted in the wrong order. Page 2 is first. D'oh!

I have no idea why this happened.

James

Edited by James Richards, 28 April 2007 - 05:00 AM.


#10 Peter McGuire

Peter McGuire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 April 2007 - 03:38 PM

The following passage clearly suggests that you can't believe anything in Hersch's book or "Curt's notes," whichever one is lying:

"In September 1963, while frolicking poolside with one of his sexual partners, JFK tore a groin muscle. He had to wear a stiff shoulder-to-groin brace that locked his body in a rigid upright position. It was far more constraining than his usual back brace, which he continued to wear. The two braces made it impossible for JFK to bend in reflex when he was struck in the neck by a bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald."

JFK was not wearing any "shoulder-to-groin brace" when he was shot. And I'm sick and tired of reading that "he was struck in the neck by a bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald."


Somebody is using that on an Amazon comment.


http://www.amazon.co...Mx3M3QHQ5I79DD6

#11 Terry Mauro

Terry Mauro

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Culver City, CA USA
  • Interests:JFK Assassination Research student since 1964
    Nuclear Medicine Technologist since 1976
    The study of Positron Emission Technology since 1976
    The study of Computerized Axial Tomography since 1976
    The study of PET-CT combined since 2004
    Presently employed as a Senior Staff Nuclear Medicine Technologist and Bone Densitometry Technologist at Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital since July 2006.
    Music
    Dance
    Journalism
    Lippit Morgan horses

Posted 28 April 2007 - 05:26 PM

Where is the proof that they were ever married, and the proof that they were ever bigamists......?

Documentation, please....

B....


Bernice, I agree with you. I've been trying to find proof. Supposedly there's some guest list or pamphlet at the time where there's a mention of their names -- apparently, she as "Mrs. John F. Kennedy." Probably some other books mention this rumor.

Kathy


Here is more info on President Kennedy's alleged marriage to Durie Malcolm.

"Consider, for example, Hersh's finding that JFK was a bigamist. The rumor began circulating in the extreme right-wing press in 1961 that in 1947, JFK, then a congressman, had secretly married Durie Malcolm, a Palm Beach socialite. Both JFK and Malcolm denied the story, and when it persisted, JFK asked Ben Bradlee, then at Newsweek, to investigate it. Bradlee determined it was a false story emanating from an error in a flawed book of genealogy (which even spelled Malcolm's name incorrectly). Some 35 years later, Hersh resurrected the story, not on the basis of any witness or document to the alleged marriage but on the basis of a piece of conversation that he managed to elicit from a 79-year-old Palm Beach resident, Charles Spalding. Spalding, who, though interviewed many times before over 50 years, never before claimed a role, now told Hersh that he knew about the supposed first marriage because he had himself eliminated the record of it ! at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, saying, according to Hersh! , "I went out there and removed the papers." Presumably, in previous interviews after JFK's death, he had not remembered this extraordinary (and criminal) act.

But how reliable is Spalding's new 1997 memory of this incident that supposedly happened in 1947? Before Hersh interviewed him, Spalding had problems with his ability to recall routine information, which Hersh generously describes as an "impairment of his short-term memory." Such a deficiency notwithstanding, this piece of recovered memory about JFK stands or falls on a simple test. If the 1947 marriage registry in Palm Beach County, which was then handwritten and bound, was marred or missing a page, Spalding's story could be valid. If on the other hand the registry was intact and the entries consecutive, Spalding's memory of removing the papers could not be any more valid than the forged archive of Monroe letters. As it turned out, Hersh and his investigators were unable to find any such gap in the marriage records nor, for that matter, any record of a marriage application, which had to be made three days before the ceremony. Nevertheless, on this piece of recovered memory ! from a person who Hersh knew suffered memory lapses and whose recollection was impeached by an investigation of the records, he asserts in "The Dark Side of Camelot," as established fact, that both JFK and his brother Robert "had lied in their denials to newspapermen and the public about Jack Kennedy's long-rumored first marriage to a Palm Beach socialite," that JFK's marriage to Jackie was not a legal union and that his children were born out of wedlock."
-- from Edward Jay Epstein's review of Hersh's book.

www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/hersh.htm

For the record, Durie Malcolm has always denied any veracity of the rumor.

Kathy


**********************************************************************

"For the record, Durie Malcolm has always denied any veracity of the rumor."

Shouldn't that carry a modicum of weight, considering the circumstances? Or, are you simply suggesting we go along with some purported story, on behalf of the press, that Malcolm might have been paid off by the Kennedys to say just that?

"Consider, for example, Hersh's finding that JFK was a bigamist. The rumor began circulating in the extreme right-wing press in 1961 that in 1947, JFK, then a congressman, had secretly married Durie Malcolm, a Palm Beach socialite. Both JFK and Malcolm denied the story, and when it persisted, JFK asked Ben Bradlee, then at Newsweek, to investigate it. Bradlee determined it was a false story emanating from an error in a flawed book of genealogy (which even spelled Malcolm's name incorrectly). Some 35 years later, Hersh resurrected the story, not on the basis of any witness or document to the alleged marriage but on the basis of a piece of conversation that he managed to elicit from a 79-year-old Palm Beach resident, Charles Spalding. Spalding, who, though interviewed many times before over 50 years, never before claimed a role, now told Hersh that he knew about the supposed first marriage because he had himself eliminated the record of it ! at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, saying, according to Hersh! , "I went out there and removed the papers." Presumably, in previous interviews after JFK's death, he had not remembered this extraordinary (and criminal) act.

But how reliable is Spalding's new 1997 memory of this incident that supposedly happened in 1947? Before Hersh interviewed him, Spalding had problems with his ability to recall routine information, which Hersh generously describes as an "impairment of his short-term memory." Such a deficiency notwithstanding, this piece of recovered memory about JFK stands or falls on a simple test. If the 1947 marriage registry in Palm Beach County, which was then handwritten and bound, was marred or missing a page, Spalding's story could be valid. If on the other hand the registry was intact and the entries consecutive, Spalding's memory of removing the papers could not be any more valid than the forged archive of Monroe letters. As it turned out, Hersh and his investigators were unable to find any such gap in the marriage records nor, for that matter, any record of a marriage application, which had to be made three days before the ceremony. Nevertheless, on this piece of recovered memory ! from a person who Hersh knew suffered memory lapses and whose recollection was impeached by an investigation of the records, he asserts in "The Dark Side of Camelot," as established fact, that both JFK and his brother Robert "had lied in their denials to newspapermen and the public about Jack Kennedy's long-rumored first marriage to a Palm Beach socialite," that JFK's marriage to Jackie was not a legal union and that his children were born out of wedlock." -- from Edward Jay Epstein's review of Hersh's book."



Kathy. All you've managed to do here is to paraphase a re-hash of the same thing you posted above, which is nothing more that a hearsay smear. This is sensationalism at its worst and most incidious, on the part of an Operation Mockingbird "dupe," which is all Hersh apparently does for a living, Nobel Prize winner, not withstanding. You see, when you continue to post these smears it makes you appear as no better than they are. Why? Because all you're seemingly serving to do is parrot their lies, and tending to lend credibility to their insinuations by asking us to prove them wrong, for you.

You should take Bernice's advice about finding some substantiated proof to counter these attacks, instead of repeating the same allegations, which only serves to make you seem like a synchophant of these harpies. Remember the old adage, "Don't be part of the problem. Be part of the solution." In other words, why continually present the problem, without offering a solution? Which is how it appears to some folks, here. And, this is not meant to be taken as any kind of an attack, mind you. Just a suggestion.

Edited by Terry Mauro, 28 April 2007 - 05:35 PM.


#12 Kathleen Collins

Kathleen Collins

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 29 April 2007 - 02:57 AM

Where is the proof that they were ever married, and the proof that they were ever bigamists......?

Documentation, please....

B....


Bernice, I agree with you. I've been trying to find proof. Supposedly there's some guest list or pamphlet at the time where there's a mention of their names -- apparently, she as "Mrs. John F. Kennedy." Probably some other books mention this rumor.

Kathy


Here is more info on President Kennedy's alleged marriage to Durie Malcolm.

"Consider, for example, Hersh's finding that JFK was a bigamist. The rumor began circulating in the extreme right-wing press in 1961 that in 1947, JFK, then a congressman, had secretly married Durie Malcolm, a Palm Beach socialite. Both JFK and Malcolm denied the story, and when it persisted, JFK asked Ben Bradlee, then at Newsweek, to investigate it. Bradlee determined it was a false story emanating from an error in a flawed book of genealogy (which even spelled Malcolm's name incorrectly). Some 35 years later, Hersh resurrected the story, not on the basis of any witness or document to the alleged marriage but on the basis of a piece of conversation that he managed to elicit from a 79-year-old Palm Beach resident, Charles Spalding. Spalding, who, though interviewed many times before over 50 years, never before claimed a role, now told Hersh that he knew about the supposed first marriage because he had himself eliminated the record of it ! at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, saying, according to Hersh! , "I went out there and removed the papers." Presumably, in previous interviews after JFK's death, he had not remembered this extraordinary (and criminal) act.

But how reliable is Spalding's new 1997 memory of this incident that supposedly happened in 1947? Before Hersh interviewed him, Spalding had problems with his ability to recall routine information, which Hersh generously describes as an "impairment of his short-term memory." Such a deficiency notwithstanding, this piece of recovered memory about JFK stands or falls on a simple test. If the 1947 marriage registry in Palm Beach County, which was then handwritten and bound, was marred or missing a page, Spalding's story could be valid. If on the other hand the registry was intact and the entries consecutive, Spalding's memory of removing the papers could not be any more valid than the forged archive of Monroe letters. As it turned out, Hersh and his investigators were unable to find any such gap in the marriage records nor, for that matter, any record of a marriage application, which had to be made three days before the ceremony. Nevertheless, on this piece of recovered memory ! from a person who Hersh knew suffered memory lapses and whose recollection was impeached by an investigation of the records, he asserts in "The Dark Side of Camelot," as established fact, that both JFK and his brother Robert "had lied in their denials to newspapermen and the public about Jack Kennedy's long-rumored first marriage to a Palm Beach socialite," that JFK's marriage to Jackie was not a legal union and that his children were born out of wedlock."
-- from Edward Jay Epstein's review of Hersh's book.

www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/hersh.htm

For the record, Durie Malcolm has always denied any veracity of the rumor.

Kathy


**********************************************************************

"For the record, Durie Malcolm has always denied any veracity of the rumor."

Shouldn't that carry a modicum of weight, considering the circumstances? Or, are you simply suggesting we go along with some purported story, on behalf of the press, that Malcolm might have been paid off by the Kennedys to say just that?

"Consider, for example, Hersh's finding that JFK was a bigamist. The rumor began circulating in the extreme right-wing press in 1961 that in 1947, JFK, then a congressman, had secretly married Durie Malcolm, a Palm Beach socialite. Both JFK and Malcolm denied the story, and when it persisted, JFK asked Ben Bradlee, then at Newsweek, to investigate it. Bradlee determined it was a false story emanating from an error in a flawed book of genealogy (which even spelled Malcolm's name incorrectly). Some 35 years later, Hersh resurrected the story, not on the basis of any witness or document to the alleged marriage but on the basis of a piece of conversation that he managed to elicit from a 79-year-old Palm Beach resident, Charles Spalding. Spalding, who, though interviewed many times before over 50 years, never before claimed a role, now told Hersh that he knew about the supposed first marriage because he had himself eliminated the record of it ! at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, saying, according to Hersh! , "I went out there and removed the papers." Presumably, in previous interviews after JFK's death, he had not remembered this extraordinary (and criminal) act.

But how reliable is Spalding's new 1997 memory of this incident that supposedly happened in 1947? Before Hersh interviewed him, Spalding had problems with his ability to recall routine information, which Hersh generously describes as an "impairment of his short-term memory." Such a deficiency notwithstanding, this piece of recovered memory about JFK stands or falls on a simple test. If the 1947 marriage registry in Palm Beach County, which was then handwritten and bound, was marred or missing a page, Spalding's story could be valid. If on the other hand the registry was intact and the entries consecutive, Spalding's memory of removing the papers could not be any more valid than the forged archive of Monroe letters. As it turned out, Hersh and his investigators were unable to find any such gap in the marriage records nor, for that matter, any record of a marriage application, which had to be made three days before the ceremony. Nevertheless, on this piece of recovered memory ! from a person who Hersh knew suffered memory lapses and whose recollection was impeached by an investigation of the records, he asserts in "The Dark Side of Camelot," as established fact, that both JFK and his brother Robert "had lied in their denials to newspapermen and the public about Jack Kennedy's long-rumored first marriage to a Palm Beach socialite," that JFK's marriage to Jackie was not a legal union and that his children were born out of wedlock." -- from Edward Jay Epstein's review of Hersh's book."



Kathy. All you've managed to do here is to paraphase a re-hash of the same thing you posted above, which is nothing more that a hearsay smear. This is sensationalism at its worst and most incidious, on the part of an Operation Mockingbird "dupe," which is all Hersh apparently does for a living, Nobel Prize winner, not withstanding. You see, when you continue to post these smears it makes you appear as no better than they are. Why? Because all you're seemingly serving to do is parrot their lies, and tending to lend credibility to their insinuations by asking us to prove them wrong, for you.

You should take Bernice's advice about finding some substantiated proof to counter these attacks, instead of repeating the same allegations, which only serves to make you seem like a synchophant of these harpies. Remember the old adage, "Don't be part of the problem. Be part of the solution." In other words, why continually present the problem, without offering a solution? Which is how it appears to some folks, here. And, this is not meant to be taken as any kind of an attack, mind you. Just a suggestion.


Terry and Bernice: I wasn't attacking President Kennedy. I was trying to find a source for the marriage of John rumor. I have never made any accusations against Kennedy. Never, never, never. I have said things about his brother, Bobby, namely that imo he was his brother's worst enemy. I could go into further detail, but I will refrain, although I cared for that man very much. Why would I be on this Forum everyday?

For instance, I have searched, requested on eBay's Want It Now, and have asked if someone on this Forum knows where I may find a specific photo of Robert Kennedy, which I saw in the past. That's the photo of he and his wife and some children, going to church, taken at 9:30 am, in Gilroy, CA. This picture was taken on the morning it was made known, around dawn PT, that Marilyn Monroe died. I have searched the Internet and cannot find that picture, or haven't as yet.

I didn't come on and say "John Kennedy was married before he married Jackie." Did I? I wanted to know if someone knew about this. I kept getting the one source re Hersh. Do I still have to walk on eggshells around here? Bill Kelly asked me in so many words to lay off Donald O. Norton, the man who claimed he was Lee Oswald, which would help substantiate the Harvey and Lee theory. I have done a lot of research on Norton, but John Armstrong has done a lot more and will not release what his evidence suggests. I have 3 main areas here: Donald O. Norton, who supposedly lives 2 hours away from me; the unsolved murder of Karyn Kupcinet, who was grabbed from behind and had her carotid artery blocked till she suffocated; And Marilyn Monroe, whose death was highly suspicious.

I don't know what you people want from me, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone bully me out of here. You call my interests "sensationalism." Being as interested in President Kennedy's assassination as we all are is sensational enough. At least that's what people think when they learn of my interest.

You have a science background. I have a literary one. We're coming from different arenas. I don't need you, Terry, or you, Bernice, to tell me what to post or be interested in. This harkens back to an earlier time. I feel like I'm surrounded by sharks. The only way to handle a shark is to belt it in the head.

Kathy

#13 Terry Mauro

Terry Mauro

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Culver City, CA USA
  • Interests:JFK Assassination Research student since 1964
    Nuclear Medicine Technologist since 1976
    The study of Positron Emission Technology since 1976
    The study of Computerized Axial Tomography since 1976
    The study of PET-CT combined since 2004
    Presently employed as a Senior Staff Nuclear Medicine Technologist and Bone Densitometry Technologist at Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital since July 2006.
    Music
    Dance
    Journalism
    Lippit Morgan horses

Posted 29 April 2007 - 06:27 PM

Here is more info on President Kennedy's alleged marriage to Durie Malcolm.

"Consider, for example, Hersh's finding that JFK was a bigamist. The rumor began circulating in the extreme right-wing press in 1961 that in 1947, JFK, then a congressman, had secretly married Durie Malcolm, a Palm Beach socialite. Both JFK and Malcolm denied the story, and when it persisted, JFK asked Ben Bradlee, then at Newsweek, to investigate it. Bradlee determined it was a false story emanating from an error in a flawed book of genealogy (which even spelled Malcolm's name incorrectly). Some 35 years later, Hersh resurrected the story, not on the basis of any witness or document to the alleged marriage but on the basis of a piece of conversation that he managed to elicit from a 79-year-old Palm Beach resident, Charles Spalding. Spalding, who, though interviewed many times before over 50 years, never before claimed a role, now told Hersh that he knew about the supposed first marriage because he had himself eliminated the record of it ! at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, saying, according to Hersh! , "I went out there and removed the papers." Presumably, in previous interviews after JFK's death, he had not remembered this extraordinary (and criminal) act.

But how reliable is Spalding's new 1997 memory of this incident that supposedly happened in 1947? Before Hersh interviewed him, Spalding had problems with his ability to recall routine information, which Hersh generously describes as an "impairment of his short-term memory." Such a deficiency notwithstanding, this piece of recovered memory about JFK stands or falls on a simple test. If the 1947 marriage registry in Palm Beach County, which was then handwritten and bound, was marred or missing a page, Spalding's story could be valid. If on the other hand the registry was intact and the entries consecutive, Spalding's memory of removing the papers could not be any more valid than the forged archive of Monroe letters. As it turned out, Hersh and his investigators were unable to find any such gap in the marriage records nor, for that matter, any record of a marriage application, which had to be made three days before the ceremony. Nevertheless, on this piece of recovered memory ! from a person who Hersh knew suffered memory lapses and whose recollection was impeached by an investigation of the records, he asserts in "The Dark Side of Camelot," as established fact, that both JFK and his brother Robert "had lied in their denials to newspapermen and the public about Jack Kennedy's long-rumored first marriage to a Palm Beach socialite," that JFK's marriage to Jackie was not a legal union and that his children were born out of wedlock."
-- from Edward Jay Epstein's review of Hersh's book.

www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/hersh.htm

For the record, Durie Malcolm has always denied any veracity of the rumor.

Kathy
[/quote]

**********************************************************************

"For the record, Durie Malcolm has always denied any veracity of the rumor."

Shouldn't that carry a modicum of weight, considering the circumstances? Or, are you simply suggesting we go along with some purported story, on behalf of the press, that Malcolm might have been paid off by the Kennedys to say just that?

"Consider, for example, Hersh's finding that JFK was a bigamist. The rumor began circulating in the extreme right-wing press in 1961 that in 1947, JFK, then a congressman, had secretly married Durie Malcolm, a Palm Beach socialite. Both JFK and Malcolm denied the story, and when it persisted, JFK asked Ben Bradlee, then at Newsweek, to investigate it. Bradlee determined it was a false story emanating from an error in a flawed book of genealogy (which even spelled Malcolm's name incorrectly). Some 35 years later, Hersh resurrected the story, not on the basis of any witness or document to the alleged marriage but on the basis of a piece of conversation that he managed to elicit from a 79-year-old Palm Beach resident, Charles Spalding. Spalding, who, though interviewed many times before over 50 years, never before claimed a role, now told Hersh that he knew about the supposed first marriage because he had himself eliminated the record of it ! at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, saying, according to Hersh! , "I went out there and removed the papers." Presumably, in previous interviews after JFK's death, he had not remembered this extraordinary (and criminal) act.

But how reliable is Spalding's new 1997 memory of this incident that supposedly happened in 1947? Before Hersh interviewed him, Spalding had problems with his ability to recall routine information, which Hersh generously describes as an "impairment of his short-term memory." Such a deficiency notwithstanding, this piece of recovered memory about JFK stands or falls on a simple test. If the 1947 marriage registry in Palm Beach County, which was then handwritten and bound, was marred or missing a page, Spalding's story could be valid. If on the other hand the registry was intact and the entries consecutive, Spalding's memory of removing the papers could not be any more valid than the forged archive of Monroe letters. As it turned out, Hersh and his investigators were unable to find any such gap in the marriage records nor, for that matter, any record of a marriage application, which had to be made three days before the ceremony. Nevertheless, on this piece of recovered memory ! from a person who Hersh knew suffered memory lapses and whose recollection was impeached by an investigation of the records, he asserts in "The Dark Side of Camelot," as established fact, that both JFK and his brother Robert "had lied in their denials to newspapermen and the public about Jack Kennedy's long-rumored first marriage to a Palm Beach socialite," that JFK's marriage to Jackie was not a legal union and that his children were born out of wedlock." -- from Edward Jay Epstein's review of Hersh's book."



Kathy. All you've managed to do here is to paraphase a re-hash of the same thing you posted above, which is nothing more that a hearsay smear. This is sensationalism at its worst and most incidious, on the part of an Operation Mockingbird "dupe," which is all Hersh apparently does for a living, Nobel Prize winner, not withstanding. You see, when you continue to post these smears it makes you appear as no better than they are. Why? Because all you're seemingly serving to do is parrot their lies, and tending to lend credibility to their insinuations by asking us to prove them wrong, for you.

You should take Bernice's advice about finding some substantiated proof to counter these attacks, instead of repeating the same allegations, which only serves to make you seem like a synchophant of these harpies. Remember the old adage, "Don't be part of the problem. Be part of the solution." In other words, why continually present the problem, without offering a solution? Which is how it appears to some folks, here. And, this is not meant to be taken as any kind of an attack, mind you. Just a suggestion.
[/quote]

Terry and Bernice: I wasn't attacking President Kennedy. I was trying to find a source for the marriage of John rumor. I have never made any accusations against Kennedy. Never, never, never. I have said things about his brother, Bobby, namely that imo he was his brother's worst enemy. I could go into further detail, but I will refrain, although I cared for that man very much. Why would I be on this Forum everyday?

For instance, I have searched, requested on eBay's Want It Now, and have asked if someone on this Forum knows where I may find a specific photo of Robert Kennedy, which I saw in the past. That's the photo of he and his wife and some children, going to church, taken at 9:30 am, in Gilroy, CA. This picture was taken on the morning it was made known, around dawn PT, that Marilyn Monroe died. I have searched the Internet and cannot find that picture, or haven't as yet.

I didn't come on and say "John Kennedy was married before he married Jackie." Did I? I wanted to know if someone knew about this. I kept getting the one source re Hersh. Do I still have to walk on eggshells around here? Bill Kelly asked me in so many words to lay off Donald O. Norton, the man who claimed he was Lee Oswald, which would help substantiate the Harvey and Lee theory. I have done a lot of research on Norton, but John Armstrong has done a lot more and will not release what his evidence suggests. I have 3 main areas here: Donald O. Norton, who supposedly lives 2 hours away from me; the unsolved murder of Karyn Kupcinet, who was grabbed from behind and had her carotid artery blocked till she suffocated; And Marilyn Monroe, whose death was highly suspicious.

I don't know what you people want from me, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone bully me out of here. You call my interests "sensationalism." Being as interested in President Kennedy's assassination as we all are is sensational enough. At least that's what people think when they learn of my interest.

You have a science background. I have a literary one. We're coming from different arenas. I don't need you, Terry, or you, Bernice, to tell me what to post or be interested in. This harkens back to an earlier time. I feel like I'm surrounded by sharks. The only way to handle a shark is to belt it in the head.

Kathy
[/quote]

****************************************************************

"I didn't come on and say "John Kennedy was married before he married Jackie." Did I? I wanted to know if someone knew about this. I kept getting the one source re Hersh. Do I still have to walk on eggshells around here? Bill Kelly asked me in so many words to lay off Donald O. Norton, the man who claimed he was Lee Oswald, which would help substantiate the Harvey and Lee theory. I have done a lot of research on Norton, but John Armstrong has done a lot more and will not release what his evidence suggests. I have 3 main areas here: Donald O. Norton, who supposedly lives 2 hours away from me; the unsolved murder of Karyn Kupcinet, who was grabbed from behind and had her carotid artery blocked till she suffocated; And Marilyn Monroe, whose death was highly suspicious."

And that, should have been suffice to say that Hersh was the perpetrator of the rumor. Shouldn't that alone have made it crystal clear? When the same person's name keeps coming back at you?

And, the simple reason that all of these theories of yours smack of sensationalism is merely due to the way you insist on clinging to the explanations afforded you, yet have somehow managed to misinterpret, through your own skewed use of methodology and logistical processing. Though I loathe to bring this up, sources from which you've already overstepped your bounds, and continue to misuse any information they've been generous enough to have shared, and I'm not referring to tabloid journalism here, either.

Now with regard to your Armstrong/Norton theories, let me ask you this. Armstrong did not make any mention of Norton in his book even though he probably has researched Norton more than anyone. Have you ever discussed Norton with John Armstrong via email, telephone, or have you ever met him?? You have made several references to his Norton research. If you didn't get it directly from him, then you must have obtained it from someone with first-hand contact with Armstrong. But -- to you that would amount to unproven, unvetted hearsay information. An individual who passes off such hearsay information to unsuspecting readers as first-hand research is incredibly irresponsible -- sensationalistic, even. But you consistently lack proof and when asked to substantiate your "research" you simply ignore the request or feign indignation at being regarded as a sensationalist rumor monger.

"I don't know what you people want from me, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone bully me out of here. You call my interests "sensationalism." Being as interested in President Kennedy's assassination as we all are is sensational enough. At least that's what people think when they learn of my interest."

We don't want anything from you. All we want is substantiated data, not idle speculation bordering on lewd and lascivious gossip. There are times when you've posted interesting material, which you've obviously taken from a documented source or article, and cited it as such. But, for the most part, you have a tendency to harp on certain areas that have been already been beaten to death years ago, and by more experienced and seasoned researchers. You have a consistent need to bring up the most irrelevant aspects of the case, that had you taken the time to use the SEARCH modality on this forum, would have assuredly answered any and all of your queries on the subject.

If you consider researching the assassinations as "sensationalistic" you're definitely in the wrong playing field, and your intentions on insisting that a murder investigation take on the cloak of madness attributed to a common unsolved case such as the "Black Dahlia" or some cheap Sam Spade novel is nothing short of disingenuous. And, I cited those examples in order to indicate the style of which your approach to "research" becomes more apparent, over time.

No one's trying to bully you, Kathy. But, that seems to be the way you tend to misinterpret any kind of constructive form of criticism. It's the standard knee-jerk reaction people who know you have come to expect from you.

#14 Kathleen Collins

Kathleen Collins

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 30 April 2007 - 03:23 AM

[quote name='Terry Mauro' date='Apr 29 2007, 07:27 PM' post='101129']
[quote name='Kathy Collins'...]

"I didn't come on and say "John Kennedy was married before he married Jackie." Did I? I wanted to know if someone knew about this. I kept getting the one source re Hersh. Do I still have to walk on eggshells around here? Bill Kelly asked me in so many words to lay off Donald O. Norton, the man who claimed he was Lee Oswald, which would help substantiate the Harvey and Lee theory. I have done a lot of research on Norton, but John Armstrong has done a lot more and will not release what his evidence suggests. I have 3 main areas here: Donald O. Norton, who supposedly lives 2 hours away from me; the unsolved murder of Karyn Kupcinet, who was grabbed from behind and had her carotid artery blocked till she suffocated; And Marilyn Monroe, whose death was highly suspicious."

And that, should have been suffice to say that Hersh was the perpetrator of the rumor.

Hersh wasn't the perpetrator of the rumor; rather, he was the perpetuator. I couldn't find anything else. Furthermore, I didn't smear Kennedy whether he married before or not. Actually, given his sex drive and a good Catholic upbringing, he may have married her and, as someone suggested, Joe paid the Catholic Church to annul it. Where's the smear? The accusation? Why does this matter to you so much? Did someone die because of this? You and I are interested in different things. You're only placing value judgements on me. As for researching, I guess I should get in my car and drive to Donald Norton's town to see his properties, which I've already been castigated for. With the help of Google's Earth, I presented public record photos of his properties. Two people here grew indignant. So how can I research something without angering people? And if he still owns charter boats, maybe I could pay him to take me for an outing and find stuff out about him and look at him carefully. It was "you know who" who told me about Donald Norton. We were going to take a drive there. Now I'm not allowed to speak his hallowed name.

Shouldn't that alone have made it crystal clear? When the same person's name keeps coming back at you?

But where did he get it from? I heard this story long ago.

And, the simple reason that all of these theories of yours smack of sensationalism is merely due to the way you insist on clinging to the explanations afforded you, yet have somehow managed to misinterpret, through your own skewed use of methodology and logistical processing. Though I loathe to bring this up, sources from which you've already overstepped your bounds, and continue to misuse any information they've been generous enough to have shared, and I'm not referring to tabloid journalism here, either.

You know, it takes two to tango. I didn't misuse any of his information. And, believe me, it was always "sensational." I had a friendship with him. It was different than being a moderator. He took more than he gave. Don't fall for his bs.

Kathy
Edited language.

Edited by Antti Hynonen, 02 May 2007 - 07:13 AM.


#15 Terry Mauro

Terry Mauro

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Culver City, CA USA
  • Interests:JFK Assassination Research student since 1964
    Nuclear Medicine Technologist since 1976
    The study of Positron Emission Technology since 1976
    The study of Computerized Axial Tomography since 1976
    The study of PET-CT combined since 2004
    Presently employed as a Senior Staff Nuclear Medicine Technologist and Bone Densitometry Technologist at Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital since July 2006.
    Music
    Dance
    Journalism
    Lippit Morgan horses

Posted 30 April 2007 - 05:17 AM

[quote name='Kathleen Collins' post='101152' date='Apr 30 2007, 02:23 AM'][quote name='Terry Mauro' post='101129' date='Apr 29 2007, 07:27 PM']
[quote name='Kathy Collins']

"I didn't come on and say "John Kennedy was married before he married Jackie." Did I? I wanted to know if someone knew about this. I kept getting the one source re Hersh. Do I still have to walk on eggshells around here? Bill Kelly asked me in so many words to lay off Donald O. Norton, the man who claimed he was Lee Oswald, which would help substantiate the Harvey and Lee theory. I have done a lot of research on Norton, but John Armstrong has done a lot more and will not release what his evidence suggests. I have 3 main areas here: Donald O. Norton, who supposedly lives 2 hours away from me; the unsolved murder of Karyn Kupcinet, who was grabbed from behind and had her carotid artery blocked till she suffocated; And Marilyn Monroe, whose death was highly suspicious."

And that, should have been suffice to say that Hersh was the perpetrator of the rumor.

Hersh wasn't the perpetrator of the rumor; rather, he was the perpetuator. I couldn't find anything else. Furthermore, I didn't smear Kennedy whether he married before or not. Actually, given his sex drive and a good Catholic upbringing, he may have married her and, as someone suggested, Joe paid the Catholic Church to annul it. Where's the smear? The accusation? Why does this matter to you so much? Did someone die because of this? You and I are interested in different things. You're only placing value judgements on me. As for researching, I guess I should get in my car and drive to Donald Norton's town to see his properties, which I've already been castigated for. With the help of Google's Earth, I presented public record photos of his properties. Two people here grew indignant. So how can I research something without angering people? And if he still owns charter boats, maybe I could pay him to take me for an outing and find stuff out about him and look at him carefully. It was "you know who" who told me about Donald Norton. We were going to take a drive there. Now I'm not allowed to speak his hallowed name.

Shouldn't that alone have made it crystal clear? When the same person's name keeps coming back at you?

But where did he get it from? I heard this story long ago.

And, the simple reason that all of these theories of yours smack of sensationalism is merely due to the way you insist on clinging to the explanations afforded you, yet have somehow managed to misinterpret, through your own skewed use of methodology and logistical processing. Though I loathe to bring this up, sources from which you've already overstepped your bounds, and continue to misuse any information they've been generous enough to have shared, and I'm not referring to tabloid journalism here, either.

You know, it takes two to tango. I didn't misuse any of his information. And, believe me, it was always "sensational." I had a friendship with him. It was different than being a moderator. He took more than he gave. Don't fall for his bs.

Kathy[/quote]

*******************************************************

"I didn't misuse any of his information. And, believe me, it was always "sensational." I had a friendship with him. It was different than being a moderator. He took more than he gave. Don't fall for his bs."

Excuse me, Kathy. But, I wasn't making inferences to any singular individual, here. You've obviously collaborated with other people in your arena of research, haven't you? I'm sorry if I didn't make myself absolutely clear on this because it seems to me that you've mentioned quite a few other sources you've tracked, placed calls to, or sought out for clarification at some point along the way. Is that not true? Therefore, to assume otherwise, or to miscontrue my line of inquiry as some sort of isolated incident involving a mutual acquaintance, is presumptuous on your part, and the furthest thing from which I had originally intended. In fact, I find it out of line to continually refer to this person out of context, as you seem wont to do here on this forum.

Edited by Antti Hynonen, 02 May 2007 - 07:15 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users