Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK's teen mistress addresses relationship


Recommended Posts

He probably told himself that he was not being unfaithful as long as he did not kiss the women. He might have been an above average president but he was a lousy human being.

I'm glad you articulated what I, with some discomfort, felt. It was a different time back then, with a different moral compass. I suspect that his friends and family probably felt somewhat proud and even envious of his ability to seduce women, and to get away with it. It would be later, toward the end of the 60s, that American men first started to catch on to the concept that promiscuity and cheating were immoral and demeaning. One could argue that his marriage may not have been mutually satisfactory, that it was maintained only for "show," but it appears that he was still having some marital relations and children even while cheating. It almost seems to have been something of a game.

As I admire President Kennedy, I was willing to overlook an incident or two of infidelity, but the the slow trickle of names and stories, some of which are probably true, makes it a lot harder to excuse or ignore. What was he thinking?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think he was a normal human male of the time that simply had more opportunities and a more liberal attitude which is typical of the left (rather red than dead is probably one of the more interesting statements). His 'flirting' with the immoral which he justified to himself and through his apologies indicate a sense of correct morals simply, imo, makes him normal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's going a bit far to say that he was "a lousy human being" based entirely on his sexual activities, John.

A better description, for my money, would be a "lousy husband".

I mean, Adolph Hitler was a lousy human being. J. Edgar Hoover was a lousy human being. Robert Mugabe is a lousy human being.

JFK does not belong in the same category as these men.

The evidence suggests that he used the power of office to seduce, young innocent women. That is more than just being a "lousy husband".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's going a bit far to say that he was "a lousy human being" based entirely on his sexual activities, John.

A better description, for my money, would be a "lousy husband".

I mean, Adolph Hitler was a lousy human being. J. Edgar Hoover was a lousy human being. Robert Mugabe is a lousy human being.

JFK does not belong in the same category as these men.

The evidence suggests that he used the power of office to seduce, young innocent women. That is more than just being a "lousy husband".

John,

Don't you get the impression that he'd be doing that whether he was POTUS or a shoe salesman... Of course there is a difference with access, power, etc... but he was ALWAYS a cheating husband...

That was what you did in the early 60's... if you were powerful... part of that power is the conquest of women... turn it around for a second..

Why would JFK even bother? What do you suppose HE got out of these little trysts... some offering so much - like this one - he couldn't bear to lose it... in fact he pursued it when he could have anyone in the world, practically...

Does this make Jackie and idiot for allowing it and standing by her man? or is that WHAT WAS DONE in those days...?

Were our founding fathers who had slaves any less effective as leaders and framers of the USA? Of course not... that was what was DONE at that time...\\Kinda strange that the loose morality of today condemns the man for activities that, at the time, were almost considered the RIGHT of the powerful....

and as you hear her words... the attention of the POTUS was a bit much to turn down... and now she has a story for the centuries

He was obviously not afraid of death, not afriad of his administration hawks, not afraid of the public, and was at the very seat of power at the moment of shift in the times and morality....

The most dangerous person is one not afraid of any consequences... and I simply believe that JFK epitomize the men of the times... the mafia bosses were doing it, the hollywood stars were doing it... I am NOT making excuses...

Yet I have to believe his being on massive pain killers, cortesone, and all the other fun things he took was much more of a threat to the US than his womanizing...

Besides, he made it the the POTUS... you don't think his moral center was a bit off to begin with?

Edited by David Josephs
Link to post
Share on other sites

That was what you did in the early 60's... if you were powerful... part of that power is the conquest of women...

In terms of powerful men and the conquest of women, how were the early 60s different from today (or, for that matter, from the early 60s B.C.)? Has there ever been a time when power hasn't corrupted (or simply added to the corruption)? What about Gary Hart and the Monkey Business, Bill Clinton and his bimbo eruptions, John Edwards (who cheated just once that we know of, but he made it a biggie), or Newt Gingrich with his mistresses or wives-in-waiting? Were these exceptions to the rule or just guys who got caught (or in Gingrich's case, why even try to hide it, like Rudy Giuliani, kicking his wife out of the governor's mansion to make room for his lover)?

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's going a bit far to say that he was "a lousy human being" based entirely on his sexual activities, John.

A better description, for my money, would be a "lousy husband".

I mean, Adolph Hitler was a lousy human being. J. Edgar Hoover was a lousy human being. Robert Mugabe is a lousy human being.

JFK does not belong in the same category as these men.

The evidence suggests that he used the power of office to seduce, young innocent women. That is more than just being a "lousy husband".

Did this lady receive an advance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt President would confide that sort of thing to someone he was apparently using just for physical sex, without enough emotional intimacy to kiss.

But there was also distance. “There was always a layer of reserve between us, which may explain why we never kissed,” she writes. “The wide gulf between us — the age, the power, the experience — guaranteed that our affair wouldn’t evolve into anything more serious.”

It is this passage that makes me believe the story. All the evidence suggests that he had a very unhealthy attitude towards sex. This is reflected in his unwillingness to become emotionally involved with his girlfriends. Why would she make up the fact that he did not kiss her? I once heard a prostitute say that she never kissed her clients because she did not want to become emotionally involved with them. It is the same attitude that JFK had. He probably told himself that he was not being unfaithful as long as he did not kiss the women. He might have been an above average president but he was a lousy human being.

I believe MiMi Alford. This is one of those rare witnesses where you can probably believe everything she says from the sex stuff to the JFK quote "I had rather my children red than dead."

Could you EVER imagine Lyndon Johnson saying something like that? Or Allen Dulles? Or Curtis LeMay? or the Texas oil men? or Nelson Rockefeller? Nope.

doubt your belief in Alford is a ringing endorsement... Rings loud and clear, an Alford mea-culpa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was what you did in the early 60's... if you were powerful... part of that power is the conquest of women...

In terms of powerful men and the conquest of women, how were the early 60s different from today (or, for that matter, from the early 60s B.C.)? Has there ever been a time when power hasn't corrupted (or simply added to the corruption)? What about Gary Hart and the Monkey Business, Bill Clinton and his bimbo eruptions, John Edwards (who cheated just once that we know of, but he made it a biggie), or Newt Gingrich with his mistresses or wives-in-waiting? Were these exceptions to the rule or just guys who got caught (or in Gingrich's case, why even try to hide it, like Rudy Giuliani, kicking his wife out of the governor's mansion to make room for his lover)?

IMHO... there is a big difference between today and 1960. In 1960 you were EXPECTED to behave this way... it was acknowledged with a wink and a a nod... the women themselves were almost apologetic about it... there was no such thing as Politically Incorrect....

It still happens today but there is the sense of righteous indignation surrounding it... That we are SUPPOSED to behave better... just cause.

Sexual repression was the order of the day... and in today's world the person is judged more by their non-political activities than their record...

Does the common person know how Newt voted on key issues... what he really stands for... or is all about the personal life?

Whatever it was that occurred in JFK's pants is his business...

Until there is a direct relationship between these activities and the day to day running of the country.. what's to be gained by condemning the man for being a man?

Are any one of us in a position to claim such moral superiority throughout our lives that we can dictate this morality to others?

Given the atrocities that US Presidents have fostered upon the US and the World... it amazes me the human obsession with SEX has created such a negative connotation... while WAR and the wholesale slaughter of innocent men, women and children is not even met with half the outcry this "situation" created.

JFK was THE man of his time... and instead of attacking him for this stupidity... how about we remember who he took on and how badly he lost...

and how his loss has rippled thru time, thru today.

MAKE LOVE NOT WAR... so far I don't remember reading a single thing about "no consent" among ANY of these cases you named...

Now, if he was pulling a PENN STATE... that's a different thing... but he wasn't...

JFK was no saint... but then again... can you name a single president who was?

Link to post
Share on other sites

MAKE LOVE NOT WAR... so far I don't remember reading a single thing about "no consent" among ANY of these cases you named...

Bill Clinton has been accused of rape by more than one woman.

JFK could be considered a rapist though without use of violence. The story of JFK and Mimi is very similar to the story of David and Bathsheba, which some commentators call a story of rape. David saw Bathsheba bathing and desired her. JFK saw Mimi swimming and desired her. David called for Bathsheba. JFK called for Mimi. Bathsheba could not say no to the king. Mimi could not say no to the president. David lost a child by Bathsheba and comforted her. JFK lost a child and was comforted by Mimi. But one thing is reversed in the stories. David arranged the death of a warrior (Bathsheba's husband). Warriors arranged the death of JFK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

“J. Edgar Hoover received information that President John F. Kennedy was having a relationship with Ellen Rometsch. In July 1963 Federal Bureau of Investigation agents questioned Romesch about her past. They came to the conclusion that she was probably a Soviet spy. Hoover actually leaked information to the journalist, Courtney Evans, that Romesch worked for Walter Ulbricht, the communist leader of East Germany. When Robert Kennedy was told about this information, he ordered her to be deported.

“The FBI had discovered that there were several women at the Quorum Club who had been involved in relationships with leading politicians. This included both John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. It was particularly worrying that this included Mariella Novotny and Suzy Chang. This was a problem because they both had connections to communist countries and had been named as part of the spy ring that had trapped John Profumo, the British war minister, a few months earlier. President Kennedy told J. Edgar Hoover that he 'personally interested in having this story killed'.

“Hoover refused and leaked the information to Clark Mollenhoff. On 26th October he wrote an article in The Des Moines Register claiming that the FBI had "established that the beautiful brunette had been attending parties with congressional leaders and some prominent New Frontiersmen from the executive branch of Government... The possibility that her activity might be connected with espionage was of some concern, because of the high rank of her male companions". Mollenhoff claimed that John Williams "had obtained an account" of Rometsch's activity and planned to pass this information to the Senate Rules Committee.”

Source: The above is quoted verbatim from:

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

One cannot help but wonder if the archives of the KGB contain information about JFK being compromised because of his womanizing of communist agents or whether a female communist may someday write a book about her relations with a promiscuous JFK.

As John Simkin rightfully acknowledges, JFK was an above average U.S. President. We all recognize this. But he by nature suffered from sexual addiction, an obsession that may have led him as its leader to potentially put the Free World in harm’s way.

It will be interesting to see what additional new information is contained in Ms. Alford’s book, to be officially released today, that has not been covered in the media reports to date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to chime in with Jim on this folks. Let's display some critical skills one this one. There are so many inconsistencies its almost laughable. I mean do we really think JFK took time off during the missile crisis to visit an intern? Is that better dead than red thing reflected anywhere else in JFK's verbiage? So much of this appears totally derivative - plus why right now?

Didn't we just get blasted with the "anonymous" book abut the college kid being recruited to kill JFK...the detailed story of a CIA plot that he won't support in public but just let his lawyer submit to the publisher and film industry for him, the fiction story that's supposed to be really true and has already been optioned for a movie. As no doubt this will be.

-- OK, I'm done.. Larry

Beyond that is there anything at all solid to confirm her story - if so can someone please post it.

LOL, ROF

This is ridiculous.

I mean this woman had what, nine years to write a book.

She waits until now, the year before the anniversary.

And who brings it out? Random House. Can anyone recall Bob Loomis? I sure can.

Kennedy saying, "Better red than dead?" And communicating with her during the Missile Crisis?

I mean c'mon, please.

And the xxxx about Powers and the drugs, I mean geez, how short of a memory do people have? Those are the exact things that Exner used in her goofy tale, and the lying TIm Leary in his tall tales about Mary Meyer. And no one draws the parallel? Or how about Priscilla Johnson, who forgot JFK made a pass at her for fifteen years.

Again, ROTFLMAO.

And he continues to call her up to Dallas? And leaves the oh so sweet message about returning. Shades of Judy Baker.

I mean I am surprised she didn't use the device that crazy Dave Heymann used: MM disguising herself to get on board AF 1. But I am sure then someone here would say, "Oh MM was good at make up, yeah that has the smell of truth to me." And then someone would chime in, "Yep, me too."

I really wish I was still doing this investigatory stuff today. God would I have fun ripping this story to pieces. And I would sure go after who brought her to Random House and when, what the contract was, and who was in on the writing of this piece of tripe, and the release to Murdoch's fish wrap newspaper. I think this would be even worse than Worthington, Exner and Meyer. Which is saying something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The title is "The Man on the Grassy Knoll", by "anonymous". You can find it on Amazon at:

http://www.amazon.com/Man-Grassy-Knoll/dp/0615531555/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328667395&sr=1-2

Capital pictures has supposedly optioned it and I had some exchanges with the screen writer - who seemed like a nice

fellow. The position he has been given is that it is actually factual. I scanned a Kindle version and told him there

were lots of issues - it could easily have been written with what info is pretty widely available these days but the inconsistencies

are pretty obvious if you look at it closely (most of them having to do with the CIA and Cuban operations circa 62/63).

We really didn't have much dialog after that exchange.

Actually its well written fiction and all in all a pretty good story. Of course its the same story that has been told time

and again in fiction. It's getting sort of boring; for my money Assassins from Tomorrow is a lot more fun if you are going

that route...well and of course November Patriots...grin.

-- Larry

LH:Didn't we just get blasted with the "anonymous" book abut the college kid being recruited to kill JFK...the detailed story of a CIA plot that he won't support in public but just let his lawyer submit to the publisher and film industry for him, the fiction story that's supposed to be really true and has already been optioned for a movie.

Larry, I missed this one.

Can you give us a link to it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Robert Morrow

I have to chime in with Jim on this folks. Let's display some critical skills one this one. There are so many inconsistencies its almost laughable. I mean do we really think JFK took time off during the missile crisis to visit an intern? Is that better dead than red thing reflected anywhere else in JFK's verbiage? So much of this appears totally derivative - plus why right now?

Didn't we just get blasted with the "anonymous" book abut the college kid being recruited to kill JFK...the detailed story of a CIA plot that he won't support in public but just let his lawyer submit to the publisher and film industry for him, the fiction story that's supposed to be really true and has already been optioned for a movie. As no doubt this will be.

-- OK, I'm done.. Larry

Beyond that is there anything at all solid to confirm her story - if so can someone please post it.

LOL, ROF

This is ridiculous.

I mean this woman had what, nine years to write a book.

She waits until now, the year before the anniversary.

And who brings it out? Random House. Can anyone recall Bob Loomis? I sure can.

Kennedy saying, "Better red than dead?" And communicating with her during the Missile Crisis?

I mean c'mon, please.

And the xxxx about Powers and the drugs, I mean geez, how short of a memory do people have? Those are the exact things that Exner used in her goofy tale, and the lying TIm Leary in his tall tales about Mary Meyer. And no one draws the parallel? Or how about Priscilla Johnson, who forgot JFK made a pass at her for fifteen years.

Again, ROTFLMAO.

And he continues to call her up to Dallas? And leaves the oh so sweet message about returning. Shades of Judy Baker.

I mean I am surprised she didn't use the device that crazy Dave Heymann used: MM disguising herself to get on board AF 1. But I am sure then someone here would say, "Oh MM was good at make up, yeah that has the smell of truth to me." And then someone would chime in, "Yep, me too."

I really wish I was still doing this investigatory stuff today. God would I have fun ripping this story to pieces. And I would sure go after who brought her to Random House and when, what the contract was, and who was in on the writing of this piece of tripe, and the release to Murdoch's fish wrap newspaper. I think this would be even worse than Worthington, Exner and Meyer. Which is saying something.

The evidence just keeps stacking up about John Kennedy's rampant and promiscuous lifestyle. I have done a lot of research on both Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton and they were identical in this regard.

"Critical thinking skills" tells me this MiMi Beardsley story is probably true. Maybe Larry Hancock has personal moral values and would not behave in the way of JFK, LBJ or Bill Clinton. But I can easily see John Kennedy - based on the literal MOUNTAIN of evidence that we have about his rampant sexual promiscuity - taking time off from the Cuban Missile Crisis when Curtis LeMay, the JCS and the other cabinet members were trying to blow up the world - I could easily seeing John Kennedy finding a spot in his schedule for some *special time* with (one of his) fetching young mistresses and confidant. When it came to JFK, LBJ and Bill Clinton, when the door closed with them and a woman it was GAME ON!

There is no doubt that the Kennedy haters and those who want to cover up the ugly reality of the JFK assassination use John Kennedy's dysfunctional and over-the-top promiscuous sexual lifestyle as a diversionary tactic from much more important issues.

I agree with that. But - just as in the case of the right wing trying to nail Clinton on his sex life - the reality of JFK's and Clinton's (and LBJ's... and name 10 other politicians, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich) is often real. Oops did not mean to leave out John Edwards and his mistress and love child (a story completely ignored by the national media while the National Enquirer was scooping them for 6 months).

I am at the point where I believe almost ALL of the sex stories about Kennedy - Inga Avard, Judith Exner, Ellen Rometsch, MiMi Beardsley, Mary Meyer, the case of his son Jack Worthington (whose mother was provided to JFK by Lyndon Johnson). Marilyn Monroe - of course. Jayne Mansfield - absolutely. Angie Dickinson - no doubt. The only "story" I am suspending belief on for now is the Timothy Leary-Mary Meyer-LSD story. Well, everything else is true, so why not that one? I am not there yet, but I am headed that way. Dr. Feelgood Max Jacobson certainly had JFK flying high as a kite on amphetamines and God knows what else he put in those shots- "amphetamines, vitamins, painkillers, and human placenta."

Max Jacobson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Jacobson

One more thing, I bet John Kennedy was having a sexual affair with ABC reporter Lisa Howard, too. Isn't she on the record as admitting to an affair with Fidel Castro? I bet Lisa Howard was probably doing some sexual diplomacy with both JFK and Castro. Any CIA spies and eavesdroppers would NOT have liked that development; I could seem them using that to justify further actions against JFK.

Lisa Howard & Castro: http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lo1sgoPPor1qbpo86o1_500.jpg

There is a whole gynasium full of mistresses, stories, documentation, re-confirmation about the rampant sexual promiscuity of John Kennedy (and Bill Clinton), yet some folks just don't want to *believe.* Well, it's a free country and you don't have to believe.

I personally have a fascination with the truth, even if it's the ugly truth. Oftentimes the hidden truth is an ugly truth.

Here is what George Smathers, a close friend of JFK who was considering along with Sen. Terry Sanford of NC as a replacement for Lyndon Johnson on the 1964 Democrat ticket, has to say:

According to Smathers, “No one was off limits to Jack – not your wife, your mother, your sister.” During their Senate days, Kennedy and Smathers shared a pied-a-terre where they could carry on discreet affairs. Once, when Smathers was called away to the Senate, leaving Kennedy with both of their dates, he returned to find the ambitious senator chasing both girls around the apartment. Having two girls at once was one of Kennedy’s favorite pastimes,” Smathers said.

George Smathers said that “just in terms of the time he spent with a woman, he was a lousy lover. He went in more for the quantity than quality.”

[irving Wallace, Amy Wallace, David Wallechinsky, Sylvia Wallace, The Intimate Sex Lives of Famous People, p. 362]

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to chime in with Jim on this folks. Let's display some critical skills one this one. There are so many inconsistencies its almost laughable. I mean do we really think JFK took time off during the missile crisis to visit an intern? Is that better dead than red thing reflected anywhere else in JFK's verbiage? So much of this appears totally derivative - plus why right now?

Didn't we just get blasted with the "anonymous" book abut the college kid being recruited to kill JFK...the detailed story of a CIA plot that he won't support in public but just let his lawyer submit to the publisher and film industry for him, the fiction story that's supposed to be really true and has already been optioned for a movie. As no doubt this will be.

-- OK, I'm done.. Larry

Beyond that is there anything at all solid to confirm her story - if so can someone please post it.

LOL, ROF

This is ridiculous.

I mean this woman had what, nine years to write a book.

She waits until now, the year before the anniversary.

And who brings it out? Random House. Can anyone recall Bob Loomis? I sure can.

Kennedy saying, "Better red than dead?" And communicating with her during the Missile Crisis?

I mean c'mon, please.

And the xxxx about Powers and the drugs, I mean geez, how short of a memory do people have? Those are the exact things that Exner used in her goofy tale, and the lying TIm Leary in his tall tales about Mary Meyer. And no one draws the parallel? Or how about Priscilla Johnson, who forgot JFK made a pass at her for fifteen years.

Again, ROTFLMAO.

And he continues to call her up to Dallas? And leaves the oh so sweet message about returning. Shades of Judy Baker.

I mean I am surprised she didn't use the device that crazy Dave Heymann used: MM disguising herself to get on board AF 1. But I am sure then someone here would say, "Oh MM was good at make up, yeah that has the smell of truth to me." And then someone would chime in, "Yep, me too."

I really wish I was still doing this investigatory stuff today. God would I have fun ripping this story to pieces. And I would sure go after who brought her to Random House and when, what the contract was, and who was in on the writing of this piece of tripe, and the release to Murdoch's fish wrap newspaper. I think this would be even worse than Worthington, Exner and Meyer. Which is saying something.

The evidence just keeps stacking up about John Kennedy's rampant and promiscuous lifestyle. I have done a lot of research on both Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton and they were identical in this regard.

"Critical thinking skills" tells me this MiMi Beardsley story is probably true. Maybe Larry Hancock has personal moral values and would not behave in the way of JFK, LBJ or Bill Clinton. But I can easily see John Kennedy - based on the literal MOUNTAIN of evidence that we have about his rampant sexual promiscuity - taking time off from the Cuban Missile Crisis when Curtis LeMay, the JCS and the other cabinet members were trying to blow up the world - I could easily seeing John Kennedy finding a spot in his schedule for some *special time* with (one of his) fetching young mistresses and confidant. When it came to JFK, LBJ and Bill Clinton, when the door closed with them and a woman it was GAME ON!

There is no doubt that the Kennedy haters and those who want to cover up the ugly reality of the JFK assassination use John Kennedy's dysfunctional and over-the-top promiscuous sexual lifestyle as a diversionary tactic from much more important issues.

I agree with that. But - just as in the case of the right wing trying to nail Clinton on his sex life - the reality of JFK's and Clinton's (and LBJ's... and name 10 other politicians, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich) is often real. Oops did not mean to leave out John Edwards and his mistress and love child (a story completely ignored by the national media while the National Enquirer was scooping them for 6 months).

I am at the point where I believe almost ALL of the sex stories about Kennedy - Inga Avard, Judith Exner, Ellen Rometsch, MiMi Beardsley, Mary Meyer, the case of his son Jack Worthington (whose mother was provided to JFK by Lyndon Johnson). Marilyn Monroe - of course. Jayne Mansfield - absolutely. Angie Dickinson - no doubt. The only "story" I am suspending belief on for now is the Timothy Leary-Mary Meyer-LSD story. Well, everything else is true, so why not that one? I am not there yet, but I am headed that way. Dr. Feelgood Max Jacobson certainly had JFK flying high as a kite on amphetamines and God knows what else he put in those shots- "amphetamines, vitamins, painkillers, and human placenta."

Max Jacobson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Jacobson

One more thing, I bet John Kennedy was having a sexual affair with ABC reporter Lisa Howard, too. Isn't she on the record as admitting to an affair with Fidel Castro? I bet Lisa Howard was probably doing some sexual diplomacy with both JFK and Castro. Any CIA spies and eavesdroppers would NOT have liked that development; I could seem them using that to justify further actions against JFK.

Lisa Howard & Castro: http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lo1sgoPPor1qbpo86o1_500.jpg

There is a whole gynasium full of mistresses, stories, documentation, re-confirmation about the rampant sexual promiscuity of John Kennedy (and Bill Clinton), yet some folks just don't want to *believe.* Well, it's a free country and you don't have to believe.

I personally have a fascination with the truth, even if it's the ugly truth. Oftentimes the hidden truth is an ugly truth.

Here is what George Smathers, a close friend of JFK who was considering along with Sen. Terry Sanford of NC as a replacement for Lyndon Johnson on the 1964 Democrat ticket, has to say:

According to Smathers, “No one was off limits to Jack – not your wife, your mother, your sister.” During their Senate days, Kennedy and Smathers shared a pied-a-terre where they could carry on discreet affairs. Once, when Smathers was called away to the Senate, leaving Kennedy with both of their dates, he returned to find the ambitious senator chasing both girls around the apartment. Having two girls at once was one of Kennedy’s favorite pastimes,” Smathers said.

George Smathers said that “just in terms of the time he spent with a woman, he was a lousy lover. He went in more for the quantity than quality.”

[irving Wallace, Amy Wallace, David Wallechinsky, Sylvia Wallace, The Intimate Sex Lives of Famous People, p. 362]

Angie Dickinson said that sex with JFK was "the most exciting 15 seconds" in her life. She also said that for JFK, having sex was just like having a cup of coffee.

I remember a dinner in the 1960's in NYC with newspaper columnist Alice Widener and Robert Bleiberg, the editor of Barron's Financial Weekly, and several other persons in which the discussion turned to the interim period between JFK's election and his inauguration, and someone remarked that JFK was then known as the president-erect rather than the president-elect.

Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try Caddy.

I especially like the "endangered the world stuff".

But the problem with the Rometsch stuff is threefold.

First, Peter Vea actually saw the raw FBI reports on this stuff. Not what crazy Hoover leaked to some dumb reporter. The actual originating reports. He said there is not one credible accusation in them about anything between the two.

Second, you should know better than to use Hoover because he was always pulling this kind of crap on everyone. I mean, if you read Sullivan's book he states that Hoover would plant two agents on RFK all night at a party. They would come back and report that he sipped exactly two drinks and drove home alone. Well that would not do, so what did nutty Hoover do? He got in with his mouthpiece Walter WInchell and put together this fabricated story about RFK and MM. And BTW, if you listen to Heymann, its even worse than that. RFK had affairs with Jayne Mansfield and a male ballet dancer also. Sullivan said, all this was Hoover created BS. RFK was a puritan when it came to drinking, drugs, and extramarital affairs.

Third, a lot of the Rometsch stuff came from Bobby Baker. Because in late 1963, RFK was trying to push LBJ off the ticket because of Baker's shenanigans in the senate. Where he allegedly did do some of this pimping for others. Therefore Baker fought back with these kinds of rumors. Which he probably got from Hoover via Hoover's pal LBJ.

I mean the day we rely on people like Hoover--one of the truly evil public servants of the American 20th century--for info on John Kennedy's life or death, is the day we should all quit, go over to McAdams' forum and say the WC got it right.

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...