Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK's teen mistress addresses relationship


Recommended Posts

What gets me is that she waited for anyone who could refute the book to die. Then she publishes the book why not publish the book years ago? That is a little fishy!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Robert Morrow

Does an anagram for Mimi Alford reveal who was behind the assassination?

Mad Oil Firm

Yes - mad oil executives who were close friends with LBJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

The kind of behavior that MiMi Alford (then MiMi Beardsley) describes in her book is very similar to what Secret Service agent Larry Newman and 3 other Secret Service agents told author Seymour Hersh: basically JFK was being very promiscuous as well as members of his entourage who joined in on the fun.

Remember, post assassination Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell were the ones who suppressed their knowledge of a shooter from the Grassy Knoll (I believe Powers and O'Donnell were traveling in the Secret Service car behind JFK, known as the Queen Mary.)

Kenny O'Donnell even went so far as to perjure himself, at the behest of the FBI, before the Warren Commission by saying he heard a shot from behind, NOT a shot from the front right Grassy Knoll. In a nutshell, Powers and O'Donnell, 2 of JFK's very closest aides, went along with the cover up of the JFK assassination. Why? Ask Robert Kennedy why - probably his political ambitions and the fact that he did not want to see the USA break out into a civil war, post JFK assassination. They knew there had been a coup d'etat - it just was not worth blood shed in the streets to stop it. They did not have full information about the perps in Nov/Dec 1963; just well informed opinions on WHO was responsible.

Here is very similar JFK sexual promiscuity as described by Larry Newman and other Secret Service agents and sources to Seymour Hersh. (Notice Gerald Blaine intentionally leaves out this stuff in his book ... but he does very softly allude to it.)

" 'What they saw', [according to Secret Service agent Larry Newman], 'was [JFK personal aide] Powers banging a girl on the edge of the pool. The president is sitting across the pool, having a drink and talking to some broads. Everybody was buckass naked.' "

- Hersch, p. 245, The Dark Side of Camelot

("Secret Service agent Larry Newman said:) 'You were on the most elite assignment in the Secret Service, and you were there watching an elevator or a door because the president was inside with two hookers. Your neighbours and everybody thought you were risking your life, and actually you were out there to see that he's not disturbed in the shower with two gals from Twelfth Avenue...Other times when we were in hotels around the country and Powers would bring these girls that we didn't know, we often said we would draw the black bean to see who got to testify before the House subcommittee (...) if the president received harm or was killed in the room by these two women. This was the President of the United States, and you felt impotent and you couldn't do your job. It was frustrating.' " - Hersch, p.230

"(...) 'You're going to see a lot of ____ around here. Stuff with the president. Just forget about it. Keep it to yourself. Don't even talk to your wife.' Over the next few days, McIntyre said, he saw 'girls coming in -- hookers.' (...) McIntyre recalled with a laugh, 'How the hell do you know what's going on? He could be hurt in there. What if one bites him' in a sensitive area? Despite such fears, McIntyre said, 'we would never stop them from going in if [JFK personal aide] Powers or [JFK personal aide] O'Donnell was with them. We wouldn't check them over.' " - Hersch, p. 246

("According to Secret Service agent Tony Sherman:) 'It was just not once every six months, not every New Year's Eve, but was a regular thing (...) I'm serious in my job. I didn't want a part of it. It's difficult to talk morally about other people, but we aren't talking about other people. We're talking about the President of the United States. We're talking about my country. And we're talking about people my age with wives and children who were willing to give their lives.' " - Hersch, p. 241

"At one point Peter Lawford brought along some amyl nitrate to the White House. Knowing that the drug, called 'Poppers', was supposed to increase the sexual experience, Jack wanted to try some. Lawford refused, citing the extreme danger involved and warning the president not to take the risk. So Jack gave the drug to Fiddle or Faddle, and both men watched with interest as the young woman fell under the drug's powerful influence, appearing for a time to be hyperventilating. Neither Kennedy nor Lawford worried about the health of the recipient; the experiment satisfied their curiosity." - Reeves, p. 242

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This news article brings to mind the story of my law client, Jack Worthington, who said that his mother told him as his putative father lay dying that his real father was JFK and that LBJ had arranged her one-time affair with JFK.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/jack200804

He looks a lot like JFK. Has he had his dna compared to that of the man he originally thought was his father? That would at least rule him out if there is not a match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me like they got the "Better red than dead' quote into a saucy book to paint President Kennedy as a soft on commies President just in time for the up coming anniversary, and made sure it was a steamy scandalous story to reach more of the masses.

That is a shocking statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"At one point Peter Lawford brought along some amyl nitrate to the White House. Knowing that the drug, called 'Poppers', was supposed to increase the sexual experience, Jack wanted to try some. Lawford refused, citing the extreme danger involved and warning the president not to take the risk. So Jack gave the drug to Fiddle or Faddle, and both men watched with interest as the young woman fell under the drug's powerful influence, appearing for a time to be hyperventilating. Neither Kennedy nor Lawford worried about the health of the recipient; the experiment satisfied their curiosity." - Reeves, p. 242

"Poppers" were a powerful emergency heart stimulant packaged for doctors' bags. A liquid form of amyl nitrate was enclosed in a crushable glass tube that was covered with absorbent woven straw. How did they become popular in the 1960s? Corrupt society doctors handed them out like party favors. Notoriety led hipster doctors everywhere to give or sell boxes of poppers to middle-class Playboy magazine-subscriber types, until the stuff got a deservedly bad rep and the medicinal-quality version began to disappear from bedrooms c. 1974. God knows what amyl nitrate would have done to JFK's adrenals.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me like they got the "Better red than dead' quote into a saucy book to paint President Kennedy as a soft on commies President just in time for the up coming anniversary, and made sure it was a steamy scandalous story to reach more of the masses.

That is a shocking statement.

I feel that every year the main stream media brings out a story to paint President Kennedy as a sexual deviant, soft on Communism, or a sickly drug addict that was selling the country down the river, to make it look like it was no great loss that he was assassinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kind of behavior that MiMi Alford (then MiMi Beardsley) describes in her book is very similar to what Secret Service agent Larry Newman and others told author Seymour Hersh: basically JFK was being very promiscuous as well as members of his entourage who joined in on the fun.

Remember, post assassination Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell were the ones who suppressed their knowledge of a shooter from the Grassy Knoll (I believe Powers and O'Donnell were traveling in the Secret Service car behind JFK, known as the Queen Mary.)

Kenny O'Donnell even went so far as to perjure himself, at the behest of the FBI, before the Warren Commission by saying he heard a shot from behind, NOT a shot from the front right Grassy Knoll. In a nutshell, Powers and O'Donnell, 2 of JFK's very closest aides, went along with the cover up of the JFK assassination. Why? Ask Robert Kennedy why - probably his political ambitions and the fact that he did not want to see the USA break out into a civil war, post JFK assassination. They knew their had been a coup d'etat - it just was not worth bloodshed in the streets to stop it. They did not have full information about the perps; just well informed opinions on WHO was responsible.

Here is very similar JFK sexual promiscuity as described by Larry Newman and other Secret Service agents and sources to Seymour Hersh. (Notice Gerald Blaine intentionally leaves out this stuff in his book ... but he does very softly allude to it.)

" 'What they saw', [according to Secret Service agent Larry Newman], 'was [JFK personal aide] Powers banging a girl on the edge of the pool. The president is sitting across the pool, having a drink and talking to some broads. Everybody was buckass naked.' "

- Hersch, p. 245, The Dark Side of Camelot

("Secret Service agent Larry Newman said:) 'You were on the most elite assignment in the Secret Service, and you were there watching an elevator or a door because the president was inside with two hookers. Your neighbours and everybody thought you were risking your life, and actually you were out there to see that he's not disturbed in the shower with two gals from Twelfth Avenue...Other times when we were in hotels around the country and Powers would bring these girls that we didn't know, we often said we would draw the black bean to see who got to testify before the House subcommittee (...) if the president received harm or was killed in the room by these two women. This was the President of the United States, and you felt impotent and you couldn't do your job. It was frustrating.' " - Hersch, p.230

"(...) 'You're going to see a lot of ____ around here. Stuff with the president. Just forget about it. Keep it to yourself. Don't even talk to your wife.' Over the next few days, McIntyre said, he saw 'girls coming in -- hookers.' (...) McIntyre recalled with a laugh, 'How the hell do you know what's going on? He could be hurt in there. What if one bites him' in a sensitive area? Despite such fears, McIntyre said, 'we would never stop them from going in if [JFK personal aide] Powers or [JFK personal aide] O'Donnell was with them. We wouldn't check them over.' " - Hersch, p. 246

("According to Secret Service agent Tony Sherman:) 'It was just not once every six months, not every New Year's Eve, but was a regular thing (...) I'm serious in my job. I didn't want a part of it. It's difficult to talk morally about other people, but we aren't talking about other people. We're talking about the President of the United States. We're talking about my country. And we're talking about people my age with wives and children who were willing to give their lives.' " - Hersch, p. 241

"At one point Peter Lawford brought along some amyl nitrate to the White House. Knowing that the drug, called 'Poppers', was supposed to increase the sexual experience, Jack wanted to try some. Lawford refused, citing the extreme danger involved and warning the president not to take the risk. So Jack gave the drug to Fiddle or Faddle, and both men watched with interest as the young woman fell under the drug's powerful influence, appearing for a time to be hyperventilating. Neither Kennedy nor Lawford worried about the health of the recipient; the experiment satisfied their curiosity." - Reeves, p. 242

-------

Robert how do you factor into your reading this, that it is written by Seymour Hersh? I am not saying it is all true or all false, I am simply asking how you factor in the variable that this comes from a book written by Sir Seymour of Langley, a man who quotes top media spinners of Richard Helms as if they were Jesus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David:

I never finished the RIchard Reeves book since about half way through I decided it was a piece of junk.

But you did read what I wrote about Heymann?

One of the things Heymann relies on in this Saturday Night Live chapter is an interview he says Peter Lawford gave him. Which is kind of weird. For two reasons. Apparently Lawford told him things he never told anyone else. Second, Heymann says he interviewed Lawford in 1983, which is the year before the actor died. It actually had to be that year. Why? Because Heymann's book on Barbara Hutton came out in 1983. And there was no point in interviewing Lawford for that book.

Reeves book came out in 1994.

Was Reeves working on his book for ten years?

I don't believe everything I footnote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

1) Frankie: "I feel that every year the main stream media brings out a story to paint President Kennedy as a sexual deviant, soft on Communism, or a sickly drug addict that was selling the country down the river, to make it look like it was no great loss that he was assassinated."

Yes, the media does do that. As Jim DiEugenio points out the media either 1) writes and publicizes all these salacious and unfavorable (and often TRUE) sex stories about the Kennedys or 2) they glorify and deify them as American royalty or talk about all the heartwarming and humanizing stories of JFK. (Anything to avoid talking about who killed JFK and why they did - imho LBJ and CIA).

The Republicans, hilariously, often give speeches about JFK and praise his tax cuts, calling him a friend of business and also play up his anti-communist creditials. As DiEugenio and others have pointed out JFK (and RFK) was hated by the (big) business community, in a feud with David Rockefeller for 3 years over public policy, obviously hated with purple passion by Texas oil and the military industrial complex and hated - yes "hated" - by his Vice President Lyndon Johnson, FBI director Hoover, Gen. Curtis LeMay and God knows how many more military/CIA guys.

The media and Republicans (and Chris Matthews notably) do this because it is still socially and politically impossible to discuss the ugly reality of a COUP D'ETAT IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION. And I think there are people alive today who I think might have liability in the JFK assassination: George Herbert Walker Bush and David Rockefeller come to mind. Bobby Baker obviously knows what happened. And Henry Kissinger has to know because he was so close to the intelligence connected Rockefellers, Nelson in particular.

2) Nathaniel and Jim,

Did it ever occur to you that the Secret Service agents could be completely truthful about JFK's rampant and well documented sexual promiscuity ... AND at the same time certain members of the Secret Service could have facilitated the JFK assassination? Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they could have even used JFK's lifestyle - perhaps drug use - as some sort of justification for killing him in the name of national security.

[Note: Lyndon Johnson was a notorious pill popper, absolutely raging alcoholic, wildly and riskily sexually promiscous and mentally unstable...Key book, Beyond Reason: The Mental Collapse of Lyndon Johnson: http://www.amazon.com/Power-Beyond-Reason-Collapse-Johnson/dp/1569802432/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328770557&sr=1-1 ]

(As for Seymour Hersh - went it comes to JFK's sex life - I think the man is close to 100% accurate. Many folks have confirmed JFK's behavior.)

The Dark Side of Camelot: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Camelot-Seymour-Hersh/dp/0316360678/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328769046&sr=8-1

Yes, I think that the same Secret Service who 1) hired the firefighters 2)covered up the Chicago Plot 3) confiscated the videos of the doctors who said JFK was shot from the front 4) stripped down security for the motorcade on 11/22/63 5)who hated JFK for many reasons ... yes I think that Secret Service is being completely accurate and truthful in describing JFK's rampant and wildly promiscuous sex life.

MiMi Alford is not CIA and not Secret Service and not Seymour Hersh and the stuff she talks about is almost identical to what Hersh describes in his book about JFK's extracurricular activities.

The Dark Side of Camelot is a very important book. If you will notice, I always recommend it as one of my top 5 books to read on the JFK assassination. And the fact that Seymour Hersh has such good CIA/ Secret Service ties is why it is so important. Thank-God for Seymour Hersh because Jim DiEugenio will never tell me about JFK's rampant and dysfunctional sex life. Hersh also has some extremely important passages about LBJ blackmailing his way onto the 1960 Democratic ticket (see Hy Raskin, Clark Clifford, Evelyn Lincoln). Hersh also illustrates just how close the Kennedys were to politically executing LBJ on 11/22/63 - literally at the time of JFK's death Don Reynolds is testifying to the Senate Rules Committee about kickbacks to LBJ and his corruption in general.

And please don't think the Democratic controlled Senate Rules Committee would be investigating Johnson if not with the express approval of RFK and by extension JFK. We now know as of 2007 that LIFE magazine was going to run a blockbuster expose on Lyndon Johnson and it was to come out on 11/29/63 exactly one week later (dated Dec. 6th issue).

In addition, The Dark Side of Camelot has some great anecdotes about CIA William King Harvey and how much he hated JFK and also Rockfeller minion Henry Kissinger has some snotty remarks to make about the Kennedys: calling them a King and his Duke eating soup while everyone else got nothing. It also has some good stuff on Gen. Ed Lansdale - that is the CIA Air Force General who was at TSBD supervising the JFK assassination.

That is not to say I agree with all aspects of the Dark Side of Camelot. I am undecided about a lot of it.

I think DiEugenio, bless his heart, is looking at John Kennedy and the Kennedy family in general with rose colored glasses. He and many others just can't come to grips with the unfavorable aspects of John Kennedy. That is okay. More importantly, DiEugenio makes a very strong case just how dovish (and more accomodative to Third World Nationalism than any president we have had - even Carter) JFK's foreign policy was. That is an incredibly important point and one big reason JFK was murdered.

I do agree the media and the JFK haters use JFK's promiscuous sex life as a diversionary tactic even as a smoke bomb to cover up having to talk about the ugly reality of the 1963 Coup d'Etat.

But the bottom line is that in this case I think MiMi Alford is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the true as far as her relations with John Kennedy.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim DiEugenio's work in this area has been superb; for those who haven't done so, please read his "Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy." This book is just the latest installment in the ongoing campaign to discredit JFK's memory in the public eye. It is done so with the intent, clearly, of robbing his death of any significance, since he was an immoral, reckless scoundrel.

JFK is still despised by those who run this world. The names may have changed, but the same forces remain in control. The establishment is notorious for protecting the reputations of those historical figures whom they wish to promote; you are unlikely to see, for instance, any scandalous books being published about FDR or Harry Truman. Certainly, no figure such as this woman could hope to come forth with some kind of decades old "tell all" book based upon sexcapades with politicians more favored by establishment historians. She would have been laughed out of any reputable publishing house in the world with this ridiculous story. The same publishers and news directors who scoff at any and all "conspiracy theories" have no trouble accepting the alleged personal anecdotal tales of the Judith Campbell Exners of the world. Why is that?

JFK (and RFK) threatened the establishment. They are still a threat to the establishment. Their reputations must be smeared, in order to prevent any future politicians like them (or those who might be interested in exposing the truth about their murders) from trying to follow in their footsteps.

Don't fall for this con job. The agenda is blatantly obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim DiEugenio's work in this area has been superb; for those who haven't done so, please read his "Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy." This book is just the latest installment in the ongoing campaign to discredit JFK's memory in the public eye. It is done so with the intent, clearly, of robbing his death of any significance, since he was an immoral, reckless scoundrel.

JFK is still despised by those who run this world. The names may have changed, but the same forces remain in control. The establishment is notorious for protecting the reputations of those historical figures whom they wish to promote; you are unlikely to see, for instance, any scandalous books being published about FDR or Harry Truman. Certainly, no figure such as this woman could hope to come forth with some kind of decades old "tell all" book based upon sexcapades with politicians more favored by establishment historians. She would have been laughed out of any reputable publishing house in the world with this ridiculous story. The same publishers and news directors who scoff at any and all "conspiracy theories" have no trouble accepting the alleged personal anecdotal tales of the Judith Campbell Exners of the world. Why is that?

JFK (and RFK) threatened the establishment. They are still a threat to the establishment. Their reputations must be smeared, in order to prevent any future politicians like them (or those who might be interested in exposing the truth about their murders) from trying to follow in their footsteps.

Don't fall for this con job. The agenda is blatantly obvious.

This was not a con job. It is real.

s

I don't understand why anyone find it difficult to hold in one's mind these two (apparently) contradictory ideas at the same time:

#1: That JFK fought off crazy proposals for preventive nuclear war (and other nutty advice, including knocking down the Berlin Wall, which could have led to a nuclear encounter in Europe), and. . .

#2: That JFK saw the world around him (and the White House) as some kind of sexual playpen.

Do you seriously believe that this woman made this up?

Or that Random House published it because they are anti-JFK??

I find neither of these propositions particularly reasonable or credible.

If anything, this woman was a complete innocent, compared to the other females we've heard about.

DSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim DiEugenio's work in this area has been superb; for those who haven't done so, please read his "Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy." This book is just the latest installment in the ongoing campaign to discredit JFK's memory in the public eye. It is done so with the intent, clearly, of robbing his death of any significance, since he was an immoral, reckless scoundrel.

JFK is still despised by those who run this world. The names may have changed, but the same forces remain in control. The establishment is notorious for protecting the reputations of those historical figures whom they wish to promote; you are unlikely to see, for instance, any scandalous books being published about FDR or Harry Truman. Certainly, no figure such as this woman could hope to come forth with some kind of decades old "tell all" book based upon sexcapades with politicians more favored by establishment historians. She would have been laughed out of any reputable publishing house in the world with this ridiculous story. The same publishers and news directors who scoff at any and all "conspiracy theories" have no trouble accepting the alleged personal anecdotal tales of the Judith Campbell Exners of the world. Why is that?

JFK (and RFK) threatened the establishment. They are still a threat to the establishment. Their reputations must be smeared, in order to prevent any future politicians like them (or those who might be interested in exposing the truth about their murders) from trying to follow in their footsteps.

Don't fall for this con job. The agenda is blatantly obvious.

This was not a con job. It is real.

s

I don't understand why anyone find it difficult to hold in one's mind these two (apparently) contradictory ideas at the same time:

#1: That JFK fought off crazy proposals for preventive nuclear war (and other nutty advice, including knocking down the Berlin Wall, which could have led to a nuclear encounter in Europe), and. . .

#2: That JFK saw the world around him (and the White House) as some kind of sexual playpen.

Do you seriously believe that this woman made this up?

Or that Random House published it because they are anti-JFK??

I find neither of these propositions particularly reasonable or credible.

If anything, this woman was a complete innocent, compared to the other females we've heard about.

DSL

I find it more interesting, that Lyndon Johnson was forcing Mac Bundy to discuss with him matters of national security while he (the commander in chief) was sitting on the toilet.

(source: Kai Bird, The color of truth...)

KK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...