JFK's teen mistress addresses relationship

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Well thanks for that one RObert.

Well, Jim, you are welcome. You and everyone else need to understand that *truth* (and lies) come from all parts of the political spectrum. Remember that the next time you call Seymour Hersh a "a CIA slut" who can't be trusted on anything.

Jack Wheeler is a very well known rightwinger and GOP insider: http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/1117/90/

Edited February 22, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Douglas Caddy]

It is good to see that Jefferson Morley has dealt with this book in a sensible and logical manner. It is a shame that other JFK researchers cannot do that. He rightly links it to the Mary Pinchot Meyer case:

In her grief over the murder of her lover, Alford confessed the affair to her fiancé. He felt hurt and humiliated and she felt a shame she could not voice; they eventually divorced. She says she wrote the book so her daughters would know the full story of her life.

“It’s sort of like closing a chapter on that 18 months,” she said, “and closing a chapter on keeping secrets.”

Mary Meyer was not so fortunate. In April 1964, she was shot and killed by homeless man as she walked along the C&O canal in Georgetown, the victim of what seems to have been a random street crime. Jim Angleton immediately went to Meyer’s house and seized (then later destroyed) her diary, which detailed her romance with the late president. The canny spymaster knew full well that the details of JFK’s relationships with other women were politically sensitive and historically important. Mimi Alford’s brave book confirms the point.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/20/jfk_better_red_than_dead/

I found the diverse comments of 50 readers appended at the end of Morley's article to be fascinating and informative. Whatever one may think of Alford's book (I believe her), the controversy that it engendered has served to focus the public's attention on aspects of JFK's administration and assassination that need to be studied and discussed. My guess is that only about 30 percent of Americans living today were alive when the assassination took place in 1963. The overwhelming majority of Americans at the present time believe a conspiracy was behind JFK being killed but their knowledge of what occurred beyond that general conclusion is severely limited. For a young person who had heard about Alford's book and by chance read Morley's article, the article and the comments of its readers opened up a whole new world as to what really happened in Dallas. The detailed knowledge possessed and expressed by members of this forum on a regular basis ensures that that while the killers of JFK may have gloated at their success, they failed to foresee that the admiration and love John Kennedy around the globe would only grow over the succeeding years. This must have proven to be most frustrating and upsetting to the conspirators, especially to key figures such as LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

During the course of this thread, Daniel Meyer, David Healey, Jim DiEugenio, Larry Hancock, Frankie Vegas, Mark Wengler, Don Jeffries, Tom Fairlie, Dawn Meredith, Robert Charles-Dunne, Tom Scully, and Greg Burnham

seem to have expressed the requisite skepticism for Alford's story.

Greg Parker (in absentia) seems to be one of the very few that actually bothered to go back and see what it is that Barbara Gamarekian really said in her oral history interview. When one does so, it is clear that

Robert Dallek's conclusion that Alford had an affair with President Kennedy is not borne out by what Gamarekian actually said. Yet it is remarkable how many journalists cited Dallek in their articles as if this made

Alford's entire story true. It speaks to the lazy state of journalism in today's internet world and it speaks poorly of Dallek that he would write what he did.

As far as I can tell, not one EF member that believes in toto what Alford wrote about President Kennedy has demonstrated any evidence of reading what Gamarekian said in 1964.

Here are a few statements she made in that interview:

....It could have been one of the special assistants who was interested in Mimi and flew her down to Nassau.

....Maybe he himself (JFK) wasn‘t implicated in it.

....I often liked to think that as far as the President was concerned, he indulged in this all sort of

vicariously

(bold added) and it was fun to have pretty girls around,

and it was fun to watch his staff sort of make fools of themselves, but I don‘t really know.

I must have read a hundred news articles on Alford's book and none of them mentioned any of Gamarekian's observations. Damning, as far as I'm concerned.

As some of the above members have pointed out, the issue is not really how much of Alford's book is true. The question is why it is accepted so readily in the absence of any factual corroboration.

I have a lot of respect for John Simkin, and I was quite surprised at the reason he gave for believing Alford.

The fact is, not one member of this forum knows whether or not Alford's account of her relationship with John Kennedy is entirely true. I don't know. It's impossible to know.

I do know that skepticism is both healthy and warranted, and I cast my lot in this topic with Jim DiEugenio, Larry Hancock, Don Jeffries, Dawn Meredith, Robert Charles-Dunne, and Greg Burnham.

I've read their posts for years and they've earned their insightful reputations here for good reasons. That's no slight of the other members I mentioned at the outset of this post.

I respect their input on this thread, as well.

You can add James Fetzer to the list of doubters of Mimi Alford's story - from his post over at Salon. (But not me... I think Mimi Alford's account is extremely credible and historically significant.)

Jim Fetzer:

"I lost faith in Jefferson Morley when he and David Talot blew their opportunity to out David Sanchez Morales as a participant in Bobby's assassination, as I have explained in "RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador". This piece is such a transparent smear as an attempt to tarnish his character that I can't believe anyone will take it seriously. Those who want to know what JFK stood for should review his speech at American University, not rubbish like this. He was a man of peace, to be sure, but also a man of principle, which are among the excellent reasons we have to honor his memory. For more on the disinformation campaign that continues to be run against his memory, see "Veterans Today, Jim Fetzer".

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/20/jfk_better_red_than_dead/singleton/#comments

[Michael Hogan]

You can add James Fetzer to the list of doubters of Mimi Alford's story - from his post over at Salon. (But not me... I think Mimi Alford's account is extremely credible and historically significant.)

Of course you do. You've said as much twenty times already. Maybe you can convince Bill O'Reilly.

Historically significant? It's clear you don't grasp what the phrase means.

At least you and Jim Fetzer can still break bread over Madeleine Brown and Judyth Baker's books.

You have written that Brown's story is the number one evidence of conspiracy. Number one!

You desperately wanted to believe that Jacqueline Kennedy implicated Johnson in her husband's murder. Based upon a tabloid story, of all things.

If the tapes hadn't been made public, you'd still be telling members they should believe it too.

You believe that Judyth Baker provides the proof that Lee Oswald worked for US intelligence.

Your list of participants and perpetrators is endless. You've infected threads with the same stuff over and over and over, often off-topic.

Keep skimming those books.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Michael Hogan

[Guest Robert Morrow]

You can add James Fetzer to the list of doubters of Mimi Alford's story - from his post over at Salon. (But not me... I think Mimi Alford's account is extremely credible and historically significant.)

Of course you do. You've said as much twenty times already. Maybe you can convince Bill O'Reilly.

Historically significant? It's clear you don't grasp what the phrase means.

At least you and Jim Fetzer can still break bread over Madeleine Brown and Judyth Baker's books.

You have written that Brown's story is the number one evidence of conspiracy. Number one!

You desperately wanted to believe that Jacqueline Kennedy implicated Johnson in her husband's murder. If the tapes hadn't been made public, you'd still be telling members they should believe it too.

You believe that Judyth Baker provides the proof that Lee Oswald worked for US intelligence.

Your list of participants and perpetrators is endless. You've infected threads with the same stuff over and over and over, often off-topic.

Keep skimming those books.

Maybe I should qualify my remarks on Madeleine Brown. I think Madeleine Brown, LBJ's longtime mistress, is the single greatest piece of evidence to understanding the JFK assassination: that it was Lyndon Johnson, his Texas oil men (presumably Clint Murchison, Sr. and H.L. Hunt) and the CIA who were behind the JFK assassination.

And I don't believe everything Madeleine says. For example I think she might be inserting herself into a party on 11/21/63 that may or may not have happened as she related. I am undecided on the Murchison party.

But what I DO think is that Lyndon Johnson called her from the Texas Hotel in Fort Worth on the morning of 11/22/63:

"His snarling voice jolted me as never before - "That son-of-a-bitch crazy Yarborough and that goddamn _____ Irish mafia bastard, Kennedy, will never embarass me again!"

I managed to say, "I'm looking forward to tonight," when he blasted out even louder, "I've got about a minute to get to the parking lot to hear that bastard!", and he slammed down the phone. I was startled ... an uneasiness gripped me over Lyndon's actions and temper." [Madeleine Duncan Brown, Texas in the Morning, p. 167]

Add to that what Lyndon Johnson told Madeleine at the Driskill Hotel on 12/31/63: that the Dallas, TX oil men she knew (read Murchison and H.L. Hunt) and the CIA were behind the JFK assassination. LBJ is confirmed at being at the Driskill that night. His sexual flings with Madeleine often would last just 5 minutes, 15 minutes or 30 minutes. Plenty of time for Johnson to tell her some critically important information. I think for a change he was honest, except that he only left himself out of the plot when in reality he was a driving force to murder JFK.

I think say that the greatest evidence of conspiracy - obvious by now - is the Zapruder Film, which clearly shows a shot from the front due to JFK's back and to the left head snap and combine that with just looking at the bullet hole on JFK's jacket and shirt, which show wounds too low for a bullet to exit from JFK's throat.

I think those 2 things are what Vincent Salandria said were the things that made it obvious there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination.

So let's summarize this:

1) The Zapruder Film and the bullet hole in JFK's jacket and shirt are the greatest example of conspiracy in the JFK assassination (because taken together they prove JFK was shot from the front and the back - that is multiple shooters, a conspiracy that was known by the authorities in real time).

2) The words of Lyndon Johnson, on both the morning of 11/22/63 and the night of 12/31/63, to Madeleine Brown are the greatest pieces of evidence to understanding the JFK assassination.

#1 proves a conspiracy; #2 lets you know who did it.

Here are some other jewels from Madeleine Brown:

H.L. Hunt:

“We may have lost a battle but we are going to win a war.” H.L. Hunt to Madeleine Brown, LBJ’s girlfriend, upon Lyndon Johnson losing the Democratic nomination to John Kennedy in 1960.

H.L. Hunt: “How long are we going to let this go on? Are we goin’ to have to shoot those mafia bastards to get them out of office?” [Texas in the Morning, p. 163]

Edited February 22, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Greg Burnham]

Robert Morrow said:

And I don't believe everything Madeleine says. For example I think she might be inserting herself into a party on 11/21/63 that may or may not have happened

as she related.

Robert,

Even though you don't believe everything she says, you are convinced that this "xxxx or embellisher" is a reliable witness. If you are correct and she is, in fact,

inserting herself into an alleged party, then the remainder of her testimony is forever tainted.

If we were on a jury and it came to be known that she had perjured herself in that instance the judge would instruct us that we could disregard the remainder

of her testimony--all of it--and reject her as a reliable witness.

In other words, the prosecution could never get a conviction if her testimony had been heavily relied upon before discovery of the fraud.

...

Edited February 22, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Robert Morrow said:

And I don't believe everything Madeleine says. For example I think she might be inserting herself into a party on 11/21/63 that may or may not have happened

as she related.

Robert,

Even though you don't believe everything she says, you are convinced that this "xxxx or embellisher" is a reliable witness. If you are correct and she is, in fact,

inserting herself into an alleged party, then the remainder of her testimony is forever tainted.

If we were on a jury and it came to be known that she had perjured herself in that instance the judge would instruct us that we could disregard the remainder

of her testimony--all of it--and reject her as a reliable witness.

In other words, the prosecution could never get a conviction if her testimony had been heavily relied upon before discovery of the fraud.

...

Greg, wouldn't life be so simple if everyone either told 100% truth or told 100% lies and no one had faulty memories and humans were as reliable as high end computers? People are not like that; life is not like that.

In reality, historical witnesses have varying degrees of accuracy and credibility. In the case of Mimi Aford - that is about as pristine of a witness as you will ever find.

Madeleine less so. I use common sense and logic when I try to determine whether what she is saying is true or not. Oftentimes with historical witnesses this is not easy to do. Lyndon Johnson is *confirmed* by his schedule as having been at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, TX on the night of 12/31/63. So I think Madeleine is probably one hundred percent right on that one. As for the Murchison Party, LBJ was photographed perhaps at 11:50PM at the Texas Hotel the night of 11/21/63 ... so perhaps he did not make it out to a party that night (or perhaps the manic Johnson, known to run on a few hours sleep, did). I do think LBJ called her in the morning of 11/22/63 with comments strongly suggesting that he had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination.

But back to your greater point: if someone lies or embellishes on one issue, can they be trusted on their other points/comments/statements/account? The answer is, yes, SOMETIMES they can and in the case of Madeleine Brown, based on her close association with Lyndon Johnson and the fact LBJ was INDEED at the Driskill Hotel on the night of 12/31/63, I do believe Madeleine.

At her original press conference, Madeleine said that Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn planned the JFK assassination. Since Sam Rayburn died in November, 1961, I think she is quite wrong on that point. I think the take away from that is she is telling us how close Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn were when Rayburn was alive. Madeleine was too close to LBJ for too long of a time for anything she says to be immediately discounted because of a few simple mistakes.

Another good witness example that a law enforcement guy like you could appreciate is the case of Mark Fuhrman, the detective in the O.J. Simpson case. He lied while under oath about not having EVER said the word "n." That impeached his credibility and the jury used that to acquit O.J. Simpson. (They also used the fact that O.J. could not put on a dried up leather glove on his hand.) But does it necessarily mean that Fuhrman was framing O.J. Simpson and planting evidence and bloody gloves all over Simpson's property? O.J. Simpson was about as guilty as a person could be - yet he got off the hook due to jury demographics and a cop lying for politically correct reasons.

A lot of times it involves determining "when and why" a witness is lying... and when they are probably telling the truth. A good case of this is Marina Oswald, who I think in 1963-1964 was telling a tremendous amount of lies about Lee Harvey Oswald. Marina at that time was young age 22, with 2 small children including a baby, could not speak English, had no money and the entire US government and US media were saying that her husband had murdered the president of the United States. In sum, Marina was terrified and also surrounded by U.S. intelligence, who I think murdered JFK, and she was a marionette doll in the hands of the murderers of JFK. So I don't attached too much credibility to what Marina was saying in 1963-64 or the immediate years post JFK assassination when she was associating with Priscilla McMillan.

The Marina Oswald of 2012 is a different story. She now thinks Oswald was innocent; the political and social pressure on her to lie is much, much less than it was in 1963-64. She asked Jesse Ventura in 2010- what's more important telling the truth or protecting one's children? to explain her behavior in 1963-64. I see her point clearly and I am much more able to believe her accounts in 2012 than in 1964 in her testimony to the Warren Commission or when she supposedly told Hugh Aynesworth that Oswald wanted to shoot Nixon but she had to lock him in the bathroom (that story is pure garbage designed to posthumously frame/slander Oswald).

Marina in 2010 was still saying she took the backyard photos of Oswald, which makes me think she really did do that. Surely, there is no reason to lie about that now?

Bottom line: I will not throw out the baby instead of the bath water when it comes to Madeleine Brown. Lyndon Johnson, through her, is telling us some key truth about the JFK assassination.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I was very surprised to see that Salon is now mimicking the MSM on this matter. I mean that article may have been written by say the likes of Howard Fineman. There was absolutely no analysis at all. Not even naming the lie right out of the blocks that her name had not been revealed until years later. When in fact, Dallek was so eager to sell his mediocre book that not only did he track down BG, he printed Mimi's name in the trade paper edition.

And then the way he somehow uses paranormal psychology to try and explain away something that Mimi, whatever her name is, obviously made up.

He also makes no mention as to why she waited nine years to do this, which is obviously important to how and when the book came about. I mean talk about softballs. Please.

Its not often I get to disagree with Mr. Dunne. But I do here. "Not a scintilla of evidence?' about Crump. Hmm. David Ferrie like, the guy goes fishing but forgets to bring his pole. This 'no scintilla' stuff is a myth created by people like Leary, Janney and Mr. Simkin. Mr. Crump did kill Mary M. Peope like Janney and Simkin have kept this "Crump the innocent prep boy" stuff alive because they do not tell the whole story about their put upon, innocent naif, Ray Crump. Even his fine lawyer had to admit that Crump did have a problem with breaking the law. Crump was just the opposite of Sirhan and Oswald. A real sociopath--not a Priscilla Johnson created one. If Crump's lawyer had not helped the fruticake cheat justice the first time, a lot of people would have been better off.

Read it and weep:

"But let's get to the Meyer case itself, specifically Ray Crump. This is the man who was apprehended about 500 feet from the towpath murder scene on October 12, 1964. Crump was apprehended by the police in a clearing area near a culvert that dropped into the Potomac River. He was soaking wet, with a bit of weed on him, torn pants, and a bloody hand and head. (Nina Burleigh, A Very Private Woman, pgs 233-34) As he was walked back toward the crime scene, one of the witnesses identified him as the man standing over Meyer's body. (Ibid.) When asked what he was doing there, Crump said he was fishing. But his fishing pole was found in a closet at home. Since it is difficult to go fishing without a pole, he later changed his story to having a date with a prostitute. (Ibid, p. 244) This also made his excuse for his bloody hand -- he cut it on a fishhook -- less than credible. (Ibid. p. 265) Later when his discarded torn jacket and tossed cap were found, he began weeping uncontrollably and saying, "Looks like you got a stacked deck." (Ibid. p. 234)

Prior to the Meyer murder, Crump had had a drinking problem and had been jailed because of it. In 1963 he did time for petit larceny. His drinking problems and a head injury caused him extreme headaches, and even blackouts. When intoxicated he had been violent toward the women in his life. (Ibid, p. 243)

Prior to Burleigh's book no one knew about this aspect of Crump's personality. Also, no one had done much work on Crump's trial. Crump was quite fortunate in that he secured the services of a very good attorney with a razor sharp legal mind, Dovey Roundtree. Like Crump, Roundtree was African-American. And from Burleigh's book it is hard not to conclude that this is one of the reasons she took the case. From Burleigh's description of the trial, it is pretty clear that she outlawyered and outprepared the prosecutor, Allan Hantman, who clearly underestimated her. For instance, Roundtree harped on a discrepancy by one of the witnesses who identified the assailant as being 5' 8" tall. Crump was 5'6". Hantman was so unprepared for this that he never countered it until his summation to the jury. And then he had to be prompted by journalists in the courtroom who realized it could allow Crump, who they felt was guilty, to walk. The rather small discrepancy was explained by the shoes Crump wore the day of the murder. They had two-inch heels. (Burleigh, p. 271) But it was too late. The jury acquitted Crump. (I should add here, that when one notes the fact that there were ten blacks and two whites on the jury, Simkin accuses one of racism. Like somehow this does not matter at all. )

Later in life, Roundtree's notes on the trial were shipped to Columbia University Law School where her tactics and strategy were taught to law students. (Ibid p. 275) But even she was later forced to admit, her defendant did get into a "little trouble" afterwards. The bright and adroit lawyer said that was really not her concern. She blamed Crump's later criminally violent behavior on the stress of the trial. As if there were no signs of it before. But one can see why Roundtree would want to minimize and rationalize Crump's later record. For it strongly suggests she helped a guilty man go free.

After he walked, Crump went on to be arrested 22 times. The most recurrent charges were arson and assault with a deadly weapon. (Ibid p. 278) His first wife left him before the trial. She fled the Washington area, went into hiding, and in 1998 Burleigh could not find her. She was so eager to be rid of her husband that she left their children with his mother. (Ibid. 278- 279) Crump remarried. And what he did next could explain his first wife's escape from the scene. In 1974 he doused his home with gasoline. With his family inside. He then set it afire. While out on probation, he assaulted a police officer. In 1972 he pointed a gun at his wife. She injured herself fleeing the home. From 1972-79, Crump was charged with assault, grand larceny and arson. His second wife left him.

In 1978 he set fire to an apartment building where his new girlfriend was living. Previously he had threatened to murder her. Several months later he took the 17-year-old daughter of a friend on a shopping tour in Arlington. Afterwards he took her to an apartment. There he raped her. Tried on the previous arson charge, he spent four years in jail. (Ibid. p. 280)

When he got out in 1983, he set fire to a neighbor's automobile. He was jailed again. He got out in 1989 and married his third wife in North Carolina. While living there he had a dispute over money with an auto mechanic. Crump tossed a gasoline bomb into the man's house. He was jailed again. (Ibid. p. 280) In the face of all this, it is not at all surprising that when Burleigh wanted to interview him about the Meyer case, he refused the opportunity to praise or defend the verdict. After her investigation of the man and his trial, Burleigh is now convinced to a 90% certainty that Crump committed the crime.

Simkin and Janney never mention the above. In fact, they actually compare Crump with Oswald! This is incredible. The Warren Commission tried to present Oswald as a lonely and violent sociopath. But as independent investigators delved into his background, they learned this was not true. This was a cover story to disguise the fact he was an intelligence operative. The opposite is true with Crump. The more one delves into his character, the more one begins to understand he actually is a violent sociopath! Except unlike Oswald with the Warren Commission, he had the services of a first rate lawyer at his inquest.

Let me conclude with another way Janney and Simkin try to create unwarranted intrigue about Crump. When Simkin started spouting all this stuff about the "true" killer actually being a CIA hit man stalking Mary etc etc. I began to think that they must have turned one of the witnesses into this mythological killer. And in fact, I later discovered this is what they had done. How was I able to predict this in advance? Easy. There is no other suspect! So they had to create this out of necessity.

In my original essay and in my review of Brothers, I showed in great detail that the witnesses that Simkin and Janney advised David Talbot to use -- Leary, James Angleton, Heymann, and James Truitt -- were, to put it mildly, lacking in credibility. With the above research on Crump and his trial by Burleigh, what is there left to the Meyer case? And let me stress here again, I actually used to believe this legerdemain. Not anymore. I don't like being snookered. Especially by the likes of James Angleton and Timothy Leary.

And neither should you."

Jim, that’s an interesting prosecutorial brief. However, it is also padded with irrelevant and anachronistic details to which you wouldn’t feel compelled to resort if you had the goods on Crump.. For example, prior bad acts would be inadmissible at trial, and subsequent bad acts cannot convict an accused retroactively. You would like to, but it’s just not legally possible. Nor is it persuasive, as we shall soon see.

For what your prosecutorial brief doesn’t contain, however, are key details that should and would be there if the state’s case held water. To wit: Crump tested negative for nitrates, demonstrating that he hadn’t fired a weapon. How one manages to shoot a person several times at point blank range and yet has no trace of nitrates on skin or clothing is something your may wish to consider. The very same reason you correctly cite to exonerate Oswald - the paraffin tests proved he didn’t fire a weapon - is somehow irrelevant to you in this instance with Crump. How convenient of you to ignore this most basic detail. It may not be hypocritical of you to do so, but it sure is inconsistent of you.

You also fail to mention that the prosecution, for whom you seem to harbour some kind of misguided sympathy, failed to produce the murder weapon, let alone any connection between it and the accused. The inability to locate the murder weapon certainly wasn’t due to any lack of effort on the part of police, as you’ll no doubt know if you’ve done your homework. Over the course of several days, more than three dozen police searched the immediate area and beyond, with a portion of the canal drained, and the remainder searched by scuba divers.

It is the prosecutor’s job to provide such hard evidence, yet the failure to do so in this instance is not, as you seem to allege, the result of some fancy lawyering by defense counsel. It was shoddiness in processing the case, not the result of snookering by Roundtree. Given that Crump couldn’t have left the crime scene area because it was cordoned off, how did he dispose of the weapon, swallow it?

Clearly, one can see why you chose not to address these key details, as they render your screed impotent.

As for Crump’s prior and subsequent bad acts, we again witness you indulging in a curious double standard. You are the first to insist - rightly - that allegations Oswald was a wife beater don’t bolster his guilt as Tippitt’s killer or JFK’s assassin. With Crump, however, you seem to take a polar opposite approach, insisting that because he was a drunkard who beat his wife, and quite likely a violent lunatic, he was obviously also guilty of murdering Mary Meyer. Yet a jury disagreed because this claim was not proved to its satisfaction, which takes precedence over yours.

Nevertheless, this doesn’t prevent your bald and baseless assertion “Mr. Crump did kill Mary M.” In order to imbue such an unfounded allegation with any credibility, you first have to prove it. A nation of laws requires that a certain legal standard be met in order to convict an accused. The prosecutor didn’t do that then, and you haven’t done it today. Simply repeating Jefferson Morley’s gross error is no substitute for proof, which you clearly do not possess.

You casually assert that the journalists covering the trial believed Crump to be guilty. So? Journalists for the past five decades have asserted the same about Oswald, starting with the New York Times branding him an “assassin” in a headline without any qualifier usually used by journalists, such as “alleged” or “accused.” Are journalists now to be the arbiters of who walks free and who is led to the gallows? If that’s not your contention, then who cares what they thought?

You asked: “With the above research on Crump and his trial by Burleigh, what is there left to the Meyer case?” Only this: How about reviewing the actual evidence the jury heard rather than itemizing what you wish they had been told? How about producing the murder weapon, and a reason to believe Crump was the one who used it? How about explaining how Crump killed Mary Meyer at close range, but walked away with no trace of gunshot residue on his person?

I trust you now have your answer.

As for your antipathy toward Messrs. Simkin, Janney, Leary, et al, in this regard, it does nothing to further your argument, and I think is misdirected. Reasonable people can disagree without being unreasonable or disagreeable. You may think them wrong on this topic, but you certainly haven’t proved it, and your snide tone towards them is unbecoming of you, not them.

Nothing personal, Jim, but your post is not up to your usual standard.

PS - As the Meyer case has no relevance to Mimi Alford's book, which is the topic of this thread, we should probably continue this discussion elsewhere. We each dislike seeing threads hijacked by such tangents.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Guest Robert Morrow]

DiEugenio: "BTW, the story that Morrow related about Cord Meyer saying that the same people who killed Mary killed JFK was proven by Burleigh also to be specious."

Jim, could you footnote that, give me a book or an article that debunks that story?

Also, do you even think Mary Meyer was having a sexual affair with JFK? I think her name appears often in the White House visitor logs.

[Bernice Moore]

BETTER RED THAN DEAD; Jefferson Morley

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/20/jfk_better_red_than_dead/

Edited February 23, 2012 by Bernice Moore

[Guest Robert Morrow]

DiEugenio: "BTW, the story that Morrow related about Cord Meyer saying that the same people who killed Mary killed JFK was proven by Burleigh also to be specious."

Jim, could you footnote that, give me a book or an article that debunks that story?

Also, do you even think Mary Meyer was having a sexual affair with JFK? I think her name appears often in the White House visitor logs.

At one time, Nina Burleigh was on this forum. She took this story to task by saying that Cord M was in some kind of very poor health condition at the time which affected his ability to speak.

As per Mary M and JFK, well my standard thing on this is, I don't really know. Maybe she was, maybe not. I mean Burleigh did come up with those visits to the WH.

But I am utterly convinced today that the drug angle was complete BS.

Thank-you.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Mimi Alford talks about swimming with JFK in the White House pool, along with "Fiddle" and "Faddle." JFK did more than that; he used to have naked pool parties at the White House.

Bobby Baker, that is LBJ's very close friend/virtual son/virtual brother, used to supply women to John Kennedy. What a fool John Kennedy was to let LBJ's people compromise him and gather all that dirt on him. He had no idea how dangerous those sharks ultimately were.

JFK and his naked pool parties in the White House:

“A lot of celebrities are chased by beautiful people,” Baker said and Jack Kennedy “loved it.” Baker told of one meeting early in the presidency when he was invited to the Oval Office to meet with Kennedy. “He really didn’t want to talk about the Senate,” Baker told me. “He just said, ‘You know, I get a migraine if I don’t get a strange piece of ____ every day.’”

Over the next few months, Ellen Rometsch helped Kennedy ward off headaches. And she gossiped to Baker about it. She described pool parties in the White House, Baker told me, where “everbody’s running around there naked.” There was one occasion, Baker told me without naming his source, “when Jackie came home and Bill Thompson had all these people “ in the pool….On May 18th, 1963, we [baker and Rometsch] were talking because we were seatmates,” Baker told me, “and she [Rometsch] had gone to the White House two nights before for a naked party in the swimming pool. I think there was like five guys and twelve girls in the White House indoor pool.” In all, Baker estimated, Rometsch visited Kennedy at least ten times in the spring and summer.”

[Hersh, The Dark Side of Camelot, p. 390]

Edited February 26, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Michael Hogan]

Mimi Alford talks about swimming with JFK in the White House pool, along with "Fiddle" and "Faddle."

Apparently Morrow doesn't entertain the possibility that Mimi Alford read The Dark Side of Camelot before she began her book.

Even if Seymour Hersh's book were 100% true, it cannot be offered as corroboration of Alford's story, as Morrow likes to do.

This thread shows that while Morrow considers himself an arbiter of Alford's credibility, he did zero research on Barbara Gamarekian's oral history and carefully avoided

any comment when it was brought to his attention. It reflects on Morrow's agenda and his credibility.

Jim DiEugenio has done a yeoman job of trying to educate Morrow when it comes to Hersh, but like so many other things with Morrow it just doesn't take.

Even someone like Edward Jay Epstein could figure it out. A couple of excerpts from his 1997 article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times:

But without it, the conclusions he drew about a sexual relationship between JFK and Monroe had no basis except for unsubstantiated celebrity rumors. Hersh's other discoveries

all involve recovering snatches of lost memories from distant or defective witnesses, a questionable technique of reporting that he pushes to the limit of credibility.

and:

....Hersh must have invented these facts (about RFK).

Such license may serve to expand the universe of creative journalism, but it unfortunately does not produce credible history. When the pretensions of "helping the nation reclaim some of its history"

fade away on scrutiny, this book turns out to be, alas, more about the deficiencies of investigative journalism than about the deficiencies of John F. Kennedy.

Morrow trots out Seymour Hersh as if it buttresses Mimi Alford's story. It doesn't. Such a strategy speaks to Morrow's acumen as a self-described "political researcher."

Most people do not tell 100% truth or 100 lies; we should use our "critical thinking skills" to examine them on a case by case method, statement by statement.

MiMi Alford is completely credible and she is as close to 100% true in a witness as you will get.

It's apparent that Morrow didn't bother to heed his own advice.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Let's be honest, Michael Hogan, you have not read Mimi Alford's book "Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John Kennedy and its Aftermath." (Her book is 198 pages long and well written.) Yet you feel uninhibited in rejecting it.

http://www.amazon.com/Once-Upon-Secret-President-Aftermath/dp/1400069106/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330284185&sr=1-1

No, I have not read all of Barbara Gamarekian's Oral History from 6/10/1964. Maybe you can please post a link to the entire oral history. I would love to read it. (I found it; here is the link: http://archive2.jfklibrary.org/JFKOH/Gamarekian,%20Barbara/JFKOH-BG-01/JFKOH-BG-01-TR.pdf )

I have read parts of it. It seems that Barbara Gamarekian was the classic case of the hard working woman employee who was seething with resentment that the new young girl, who in her words had "no skills" and could not type was given such access to the President. And Mimi Alford made all the presidential trips that she wanted to go on - as a presidential play thing a la Monica Lewinsky.

Gamarekian: "She made almost all of the interesting trips and the trips are normally rotated among the girls. We all went on trips one time or another, but Mimi who obviously couldn't perform any function at all made the trips!"

Perhaps, Michael Hogan, Mimi's function was to have sex with John Kennedy.

I think that Gamarekian asked that her oral history not be made public because she did not want to embarass the newly wed Mimi Alford or the Kennedy family in 1964.

Here are some juicy and relevant snippets to the Gamarekian Oral History:

http://mysteryromance.blogspot.com/2012/02/1964-barbara-gamarekian-oral-history.html

1964: BARBARA GAMAREKIAN ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW

Barbara Gamarekian Oral History Interview – JFK#1, 6/10/1964

(DIANE T.) MICHAELIS: How was it said that Mimi had met the President originally?

GAMAREKIAN: Well, she had graduated from—oh, dear, what is the school that Mrs.

Kennedy [Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy] graduated from? The

preparatory school? I can‘t think of the name of it. Mrs. Chapin‘s

school?

MICHAELIS: Chapin.

GAMAREKIAN: She was the editor of her school newspaper, and following the

campaign she thought it would be interesting to do an article on Mrs.

Kennedy, since Mrs. Kennedy was now in the White House and an alumna of the school, and had written Mrs. Kennedy about the possibility of coming and seeing her and Tish Baldrige [Letitia Baldrige] had apparently arranged for Mimi to come down and spend some time in Washington, but Mrs. Kennedy‘s schedule was such that she was not able to see her personally. I don‘t know if Tish was a graduate of Mrs. Chapin‘s but at any rate, Tish saw a good deal of Mimi and gave her a lot of background, enough material to do an article on Mrs. Kennedy, but apparently the President did meet her on this visit. He had more time than Mrs. Kennedy (chuckles). Barely. And she was brought over and met the President. I don‘t know how much she saw of him but at any rate, while she was there she also met Priscilla [Priscilla Wear] who worked in the President‘s office and who was one of the younger girls. And I think she may have stayed with Priscilla while she was down here for the weekend, but I don‘t know how the job came about. Mimi‘s story was that she had had a note from Priscilla asking her if she would like to come and work in the White House that summer and I don‘t know who suggested it or how she ended up there, but that was how she made the original contact.

MICHAELIS: The other thing that does strike one as being rather extraordinary is

why, of all places, to be in the Press Office which would presumably be the most conspicuous place to—

GAMAREKIAN: I suppose—

MICHAELIS: —be. Inside, the White House photographer—

GAMAREKIAN:Yes and you know a girl wasn‘t in the office very long before the press

began to ask why she was there and what she was doing because Mimi

had no skills. She couldn‘t type. She couldn‘t— She was a bright girl.

She could answer the phone and she could handle messages and things but she was not really a great asset to us. But there was great mobility in the Press Office. Whenever the President travelled, members of the press staff travelled as well. You always have a press secretary and a couple of girls travelling as well as a large contingent of newspaper people and it was, I think, easier. One of the other girls worked in our office and had been working there from the very beginning. She made almost all of the interesting trips and the trips are normally rotated among the girls. We all went on trips one time or another, but Mimi who obviously couldn‘t perform any function at all made all the trips! So it made it very easy for them to move around, although even if they worked in another office, they still would have been able to go on trips. I don‘t know. I just think that there was always one more desk that you could find in the Press Office, and it was a busy office. You could almost always use another person. If you were going to use a girl who didn‘t type or didn‘t have any skills, probably the Press Office was as good as any place because our phones are insane. All six lines ring at the same time and if nothing else, you can use someone just to take phone calls and look up things in the files, and cut the ticker and that sort of thing.

And this is what Mimi did. And in another office where you would have a lot more

substantive work I just don‘t know what she would have ended up doing.

MICHAELIS: Well, just one more obvious question that probably ought to go in the

record and maybe you have answered it already. Was the President

himself aware of the rumors in the White House press corps?

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

MICHAELIS: What happened to her?

GAMAREKIAN: She‘s married. Mimi‘s now married. She married a boy who graduated

from Williams College. I understand that people do want these interviews to be candid and to discuss all aspects of the presidency and his life and, although I don‘t know that much about this aspect, it certainly....

Edited March 8, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Michael Hogan]

Let's be honest, Michael Hogan, you have not read Mimi Alford's book "Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John Kennedy and its Aftermath." (Her book is 198 pages long and well written.) Yet you feel uninhibited in rejecting it.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

The fact is, not one member of this forum knows whether or not Alford's account of her relationship with John Kennedy is entirely true. I don't know. It's impossible to know.

I do know that skepticism is both healthy and warranted, and I cast my lot in this topic with Jim DiEugenio, Larry Hancock, Don Jeffries, Dawn Meredith, Robert Charles-Dunne, and Greg Burnham. I've read

their posts for years and they've earned their insightful reputations here for good reasons. That's no slight of the other members I mentioned at the outset of this post. I respect their input on this thread, as well.

What I do reject are your unprovable claims and your apparent lack of critical thinking when it comes to certain topics.