Jump to content
The Education Forum

Madeleine Brown


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

We have discussed Madeleine Brown several times on the Forum. I thought she deserves her own thread.

Madeleine Brown was a businesswoman who worked for Glenn Advertising. Later she claimed she had an affair with LBJ. In 1988 she told Jack Anderson that: "In the fall of 1963 I was in the Carousel Club with other advertising people and Jack Ruby was saying that Lee Harvey Oswald had been in the club and he had been bragging that he had taken a shot at Major General Edwin Walker".

On 24th February, 1992, Brown gave an interview on the television show, A Current Affair. Brown claimed that on the 21st November, 1963, she was at the home of Clint Murchison. Others at the meeting included J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson, John J. McCloy, Richard Nixon, Harvey Bright and Haroldson L. Hunt. At the end of the evening LBJ arrived: "Tension filled the room upon his arrival. The group immediately went behind closed doors. A short time later Lyndon, anxious and red-faced, re-appeared. I knew how secretly Lyndon operated. Therefore I said nothing... not even that I was happy to see him. Squeezing my hand so hard, it felt crushed from the pressure, he spoke with a grating whisper, a quiet growl, into my ear, not a love message, but one I'll always remember: "After tomorrow those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again - that's no threat - that's a promise."

Brown claimed that LBJ was the father of her son, Steven Mark Brown. Barr McClellan later confirmed that Madeleine Brown received regular payments from Johnson via his Brazos-Tenth, his money-laundering corporation.

In 1987 Steven Mark Brown filed a lawsuit against the estate of his father. This was unsuccessful and in 1990 he died of cancer.

Brown published her autobiography, Texas in the Morning: The Love Story of Madeleine Brown and President Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1997. In the book she claimed that LBJ was involved in the assassination of JFK.

Madeleine Brown died on June 22, 2002.

Namebase entry for Madeleine Brown:

http://www.namebase.org/xbro/Madeleine-Brown.html

Davis,J. Mafia Kingfish. 1989 (604, 609)

Duffy,J. Ricci,V. The Assassination of John F. Kennedy. 1992 (96)

Marrs,J. Crossfire. 1990 (298, 386-7, 404)

Russell,D. The Man Who Knew Too Much. 1992 (605-6)

Summers,A. Official and Confidential. 1993 (330, 336-7)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In 1988 she told Jack Anderson that: "In the fall of 1963 I was in the Carousel Club with other advertising people and Jack Ruby was saying that Lee Harvey Oswald had been in the club and he had been bragging that he had taken a shot at Major General Edwin Walker".

I have not followed previous discussions about MS. Brown on this forum, but I can say that I do not believe word of her statement re Lee Oswald at the Carousel Club.

Madeleine Brown's credibility has been called into question by a number of serious researchers, including Dave Perry. Please see the following link

http://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/browns.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not followed previous discussions about MS. Brown on this forum, but I can say that I do not believe word of her statement re Lee Oswald at the Carousel Club.

I agree. Nor do I believe her story about Clint Murchison's party. I think she is another James Files. However, I thought I would give the opportunity to those members who believe Brown to argue the case for her reliability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1988 she told Jack Anderson that: "In the fall of 1963 I was in the Carousel Club with other advertising people and Jack Ruby was saying that Lee Harvey Oswald had been in the club and he had been bragging that he had taken a shot at Major General Edwin Walker".

I have not followed previous discussions about MS. Brown on this forum, but I can say that I do not believe word of her statement re Lee Oswald at the Carousel Club.

Madeleine Brown's credibility has been called into question by a number of serious researchers, including Dave Perry. Please see the following link

http://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/browns.html

Dave Perry a SERIOUS RESEARCHER? Are you serious?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

World of wonders! I agree with Jack White on Dave Perry! And if Madeleine Brown "ïs another James Files", then Madeleine Brown's story is worth a very close look.

By the way Jack, your dream of Hunt being the tramp with the hat, may evaporate soon: http://chaunceyholt.com/

Mark

Edited by Mark Johansson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the cast of the JFK affair that I have met and talked with at length, Madeleine Brown and Jean Hill are the most credible. Neither had any reason to fabricate stories. Their stories fit facts and "ring true".

On the other hand Chauncey Holt phoned me once and wrote me three letters. I found him to be a charming con man. Holt admitedly worked for intel agencies and was "too eager" to sell me his story. Photo comparisons show Holt was not one of the tramps.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the cast of the JFK affair that I have met and talked with at length, Madeleine Brown and Jean Hill are the most credible. Neither had any reason to fabricate stories. Their stories fit facts and "ring true".

On the other hand Chauncey Holt phoned me once and wrote me three letters. I found him to be a charming con man. Holt admitedly worked for intel agencies and was "too eager" to sell me his story. Photo comparisons show Holt was not one of the tramps.

Jack

No Jack, what you say is provably untrue. The truth is that YOU are too eager to discredit Chauncey Holt's story. I don't know what your reasons are, and I don't care. I DO know that you are deliberately diverting from the real evidence when it comes to Holt. The fact that you claim, as the great photographic expert, that you have no access to realplayer is the most laughable, especially knowing that you have seen all the overlays. Now, take a good advice from me: Hold off from any further remarks based on your ONE telephone call and the few letters from Chauncey Holt, until you see that website unfold, for your remarks will be on record and they will make you look stubbornly ridiculous. By the way, you don't need realpayer to start here: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/tramps.jpg Does that man with a face like he is xxxxting in his pants, look like Hunt? No he looks like a man distorting his face.

Twice I was successful in avoiding the cameras. On one occasion I purposely distorted my face so that I would not be recognizable in the photographs. The last thing in the world that a criminal—and this includes contract agents for the government—wants is to have his photograph taken, much less in compromising situations.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/trampear.JPG And what about this picture, Jack? Why do you always avoid that one? Because a child can see it is not Hunt? Or because it looks too much like Chaunecy Holt?

Mark

Edited by Mark Johansson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the cast of the JFK affair that I have met and talked with at length, Madeleine Brown and Jean Hill are the most credible. Neither had any reason to fabricate stories. Their stories fit facts and "ring true".

On the other hand Chauncey Holt phoned me once and wrote me three letters. I found him to be a charming con man. Holt admitedly worked for intel agencies and was "too eager" to sell me his story. Photo comparisons show Holt was not one of the tramps.

Jack

No Jack, what you say is provably untrue. The truth is that YOU are too eager to discredit Chauncey Holt's story. I don't know what your reasons are, and I don't care. I DO know that you are deliberately diverting from the real evidence when it comes to Holt. The fact that you claim, as the great photographic expert, that you have no access to realplayer is the most laughable, especially knowing that you have seen all the overlays. Now, take a good advice from me: Hold off from any further remarks based on your ONE telephone call and the few letters from Chauncey Holt, until you see that website unfold, for your remarks will be on record and they will make you look stubbornly ridiculous. By the way, you don't need realpayer to start here: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/tramps.jpg Does that man with a face like he is xxxxting in his pants, look like Hunt? No he looks like a man distorting his face.

Twice I was successful in avoiding the cameras. On one occasion I purposely distorted my face so that I would not be recognizable in the photographs. The last thing in the world that a criminal—and this includes contract agents for the government—wants is to have his photograph taken, much less in compromising situations.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/trampear.JPG And what about this picture, Jack? Why do you always avoid that one? Because a child can see it is not Hunt? Or because it looks too much like Chaunecy Holt?

Mark

I cannot see what this has to do with Madeleine Brown. Can we kept on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know Dave Perry. It’s my understanding (based on a recollection of reading it) that Perry was a CT who turned LNer. I would agree that such a conversion is odd if not inexplicable. That said, I have found articles by Perry, such as the one on Madeleine Brown, to be informative and, as far as I can tell, factual.

I recently read Perry's article on the Lee Bowers story. Perry went out and interviewed the surviving people involved. I assume this involved considerable time, effort, and expense. To me that qualifies as serious research, whatever Perry’s personal bias may be. I have a personal bias too, as I’m sure most of us do.

Jack White laughs at the idea of Perry being “a serious researcher.” Mark Johansson seconds that disparagement, with neither of them offering any reason for their contempt.

If the Brown, Bowers, or other articles are misleading or incorrect in the material Perry presents, I would appreciate knowing that, with particular examples cited by Jack, Mark, or anyone else, so that I and others can be on guard against Dave Perry disinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron...I know Perry. I don't trust him, if you know what I mean.

I have personal experience with him, Mark does not. I have

found him dishonest and untruthful. I could say more about

what others have told me about him, but I try to avoid unnecessary

xxxxfights. He specializes in disinformation.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, know Dave Perry, and my regard for him differs from Mr. White’s by 180 degrees. I find Mr. Perry remarkably intelligent, discerning, honest, and one who is open to where the evidence leads him. I was honored with the pleasure to visit many of the assassination related sites with Mr. Perry and other researchers, all who are far from being “disinformation” specialists. He has responded to my queries promptly and professionally since.

Mr. Perry’s efforts in retracing Oswald’s steps following the assassination must be applauded, whether one agrees or disagrees with what the reenactment revealed. He, Mr. Mack, and others at least made the effort to determine if Oswald could have made it to the Tippit murder site in the time stipulated by the evidence instead of relying on what others have written. The same can be said about Oswald’s ability to descend to the lunchroom in time to be observed by Officer Baker and Mr. Truly.

Mr. Perry has invested the legwork and sweat to determine if what certain witnesses said was, in fact, possible. Instead of dismissing his work through a condescending label, it needs to be displayed empirically where his research is flawed. So far, at least, I haven’t seen where anyone has accomplished that.

Last, I am more than mildly amused about how labels are assigned, as if being an LN or a CT gives anyone any particular ability to recognize the truth. Is the truth concerning the historical event about what happened or which camp one associates with? Does one camp has a particular dispensation that is superior to the other camp’s?

Challenging Mr. Perry’s work is acceptable; challenging his or anyone’s character through insinuation without indisputable evidence is not.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I become more and more involved in this, I am more and more aware of a phenomena within the research community: burnout. It seems that most of the long-time researchers reach a point where they are more disgusted by paranoids and newbies than they are by lone-nutters. I suspect this explains some of the behavior of Dave Perry, Gary Mack, and Josiah Thompson, all of whom have been accused of joining the LN camp. I suspect they all remain convinced of a conspiracy, but are equally convinced that most CTs are full of it. As for men like John McAdams, Gus Russo and Gerald Posner, it seems they have some distorted view of patriotism that leads them to believe that since there was no smoking gun stamped with LBJ's intials, then Oswald MUST have done it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect they all remain convinced of a conspiracy, but are equally convinced that most CTs are full of it.

Come to think of it, I may have Dave Perry confused with David Reitzes on the LN issue. I recall that one of them specifically wrote somewhere that he was no longer a CTer, and it may have been Reitzes. Which is not to say that it wasn't Perry or that it wasn't both of them. I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat raises a good point that the looney theories about the assassination can turn off serious assassination researchers. This is the point I have attempted to make when they have been entire threads trying to link people like William F. Buckley, Jr. and Douglas Dillon to the plot, without a shred of evidence to support such blood libel. Where do such postings get us? Absolutely no where. All they do is discredit the serious work done by some members of the Forum.

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...