Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK love letter to Mary Meyer unearthed


Recommended Posts

The comments on that link are far, far worst than the BS story on it and I'm kicking myself now for even going down there to read the rabble. I think it's safe to say, here, that if you're a real scholar of Kennedy (I like to think I am), you'll know what the man was about. If that note is genuine, then so what? The guy was human like everyone else. Not to get into it too much but his Vice President, in my opinion, was a far scarier person than Kennedy ever was. So where does the character judgement end? It never will.


Further, it's not been enough over the past 50 years for there to still be supporters of the official story of his assassination constantly defending that very flawed and shaky report. They figure that dragging him through the mud is part and parcel.


One final thought - the more you read comments on the blogosphere, the more you realize that what it all boils down to is this - if you "like" someone, you'll write great things about them. If you "hate" them, then you won't. I really believe this colors people's opinions about someone without them really knowing what the h&&& they're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to believe it is genuine. I'll avoid the comments - thanks Michael. Like you I don't judge him.

I'm sure Mary was far more interesting than Jackie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Married men of great financial means having sex with other women besides their one legal spouse is so common that to me it is a non-issue.

Unless you are a TV preacher/evangelist asking people to send in "donations" to help you in your moral crusade message cause.

I have wondered several times in my life what it must be like to have millions of dollars and a true love for women and intimacy with them and how hard it would be to not have at least "some" extra-marital affairs. That kind of temptation would be extremely hard to avoid under those circumstances.

I am sure that more than half of all married men of these common male traits would do this if they had the financial means.

I am brand new to the forum.

I joined out of desperation.

I am no writer.

I am not a person who has spent anything close to the "years" of incredibly hard work, time and even money the core group of contributing members here have in researching the JFK assassination.

For those two reasons I felt I didn't deserve to join the forum and post.

Until now.

I am getting up there in age and I am willing to risk some embarrassment to leave my deeply, deeply heart-felt JFK murder and cover-up injustice thoughts and feelings "somewhere more meaningful" than my own head and my poor suffering wife's head as she has truly earned martyrdom granting me a one person audience ( albeit with eyes rolled back in her head and her mouth agape ) listening to my long-winded and surely boring JFK assassination obsession rants ... for the last 34 years!

It is with a leap of faith that my personal passion for the JFK truth will somewhat balance my lack of research knowledge and writing skills and not lower this most prestigious JFK research and debate forum's standards when posting.

Quick JFK assassination historical interest synopsis:

I was 12 when a fellow student ran out on our junior high school football field and yelled "the president's been shot!"

We were sent home.

I watched TV every second for the next few days.

I watched Jack Ruby whack Lee Harvey Oswald live on TV.

It was Lee Harvey Oswald's incredible openness, lack of logical security and his killing inside the Dallas Police Department building with dozens of armed security looking on that instantly made me feel in my young gut...that the entire JFK affair was much more than one "Lone Nut" who wanted fame.

I lived ( and still do ) in the same small town area that Mae Brussells and I believe Harrison Livingstone lived. Monterey, Carmel and Carmel Valley, Calif.

I listened to Mae Brussell's radio broadcasts on KRML for years.

Clint Eastwood lives here.

In his film "Play Misty For Me, Eastwood's role is that of a radio DJ and the station he is broadcasting from is this same KRML.

I have always been deeply effected, saddened and curious about the killing of JFK and the falsehood of the official explanation of this event as stated in our MSM and accepted historical record.

I have read what I could regarding independent JFK research off-and-on while just living and scraping by and raising a family.

I feel Jim Garrison and Mark Lane and so many other investigators, researchers and writers are heroes in this regard, including many who post here currently.

You know who you are.

The work you have done for this cause is just incredible and invaluable and will never get the credit it deserves in your life times.

Just to mention one of many who are on my mind - Doug Caddy.

I know your background from reading your many postings and watching your interviews when I can.

I find it truly inspiring that someone of your first person republican political insider position back in the 60's and 70's would spend years of great time and effort on your part, trying to help everyone find the truth about not just the JFK affair but so many other important American secrets.

I hope to post my own thoughts of some areas of JFK study soon enough. Mostly just tid-bits to further the discourse.

My one claim to fame regards any input in the JFK discussion?

An e-mail I sent to Ian Punnit ( spelling? ) of Coast To Coast AM during his interview of David Talbot about his book "Brothers" was read in it's entirety while he and Talbot were in the middle of their interview...and given a positive acknowledgement by both.

The e-mail I sent to Punnit and Talbot expressed my thoughts that one thing we could all agree on regards JFK's assassination, was that America was a much more corrupt country than most of it's citizen's could ever imagine and that in fact, corruption was one of America's top 3 legacies of the 20th century.

Corruption in every area and level of government, corporate and organized crime importance.

An as Robert Kennedy said in his book "The Enemy Within" it was this corruption that was eating away at the core of America's societal soul.

And I believe it was this same great corruption that took out Robert Kennedy in 1968.

One of my favorite Dealey Plaza testimonies?

Julia Ann Mercer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the Russo episode that I referred to above. It was exposed in the ARRB Report. This fraud was about Exner.

Well, for Hersh, Exner added yet another appendage to her never-ending tale: this time she said that she had served as a courier for funds between Kennedy and Giancana (Hersh pp. 303-305). This new episode concerned a transferal of funds, a quarter of a million in hundred dollar bills, in a satchel with Exner delivering the bills via train. Kennedy told Exner that "someone will be looking out for you on the train." Exner was met in Chicago by Giancana who took the bag without saying a word. Hersh knew that this story was incredible on its face. That Giancana would himself meet a messenger and himself be seen taking a bag from her; that JFK would put himself in such an easy position to be blackmailed; and that Exner's story had now grown even beyond its already fantastic 1988 Kitty Kelley version for People.

Underwood and the ARRB

Apparently Hersh, and Russo, knew this would be a tough one to swallow. So they had to come up with a corroborating witness. It turned out to be a man Exner never referred to before, but who that master of intrigue, JFK, had referred to in his above quoted cryptic quote about providing a lookout on the train. The man who Hersh says "bolstered" Exner's new claim was Martin Underwood, a former employee of Chicago mayor Richard Daley who Daley had loaned to Kennedy as an advance man for the 1960 campaign. According to Hersh, Underwood was told to watch over Exner by Kennedy's trusted aide Ken O'Donnell. Significantly, Underwood refused to appear on the ABC special that producer Mark Obenhaus made out of Hersh's book. Yet, the host of that special, Peter Jennings, did not explain why.

With the issuance of the ARRB's Final Report, we now know why. We also have a better idea why Jennings didn't explain it and why ABC has not commented on it since. Under questioning by a legally constituted agency with subpoena and deposition power, the Hersh/Russo "bolstering" of Exner collapsed. Underwood "denied that he followed Judith Campbell Exner on a train and that he had no knowledge about her alleged role as a courier." (p. 136) And with the implosion of this story, Exner is now exposed as at least partly a creation of CIA friendly journalists in the media. This is the same Exner who in the January 1997 Vanity Fair, actually talked about the Review Board uncovering documents and tapes that would strengthen her story. There are a couple of questions still left about this new revelation of another Hersh deception. Did Underwood ever actually tell Hersh or Russo the tall-tale that is in the book? Did Underwood also actually deny the story to Jennings or Obenhaus? And if he did, and if this is the reason for Underwood's refusal to appear, did ABC keep this a secret in order to further protect Hersh and their investment? (As I noted in my discussion of ABC's exposure of the previous Monroe hoax, Jennings did a carefully constructed limited hangout to minimize the damage to Hersh in that scandal. See Probe Vol. 5 No. 1.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the precedent for the use of White House stationary, this time it was for Hersh and Russo to use for a Castro plot to kill JFK. Again, this was exposed by the ARRB.

But the Review Board's Final Report goes even further in its detailing of the Russo-Underwood association. (The report does not actually name Russo but it labels their source as a researcher working for Hersh, and the 12/7 issue of The Nation wrote that it was Russo who led Hersh and ABC to Underwood.) It appears that Russo went to the Board with a story that Underwood had gone to Mexico City in 1966 or 1967. He was on a mission for LBJ to find out what he could learn about the Kennedy assassination from station chief Win Scott. Russo presented the Board with handwritten notes detailing what Scott told Underwood while on his mission for Johnson. The ARRB writes this summary of the notes:

The notes state that Scott told Underwood that the CIA "blew it" in Dallas in November 1963. On the morning of November 22, the agency knew that a plane had arrived in Mexico City from Havana, and that one passenger got off the plane and boarded another one headed for Dallas. Underwood's notes state that Scott said that CIA identified the passenger as Fabian Escalante. (p. 135)

What an extraordinary story. Escalante was a former officer in Castro's internal security police who was responsible for protecting him against assassination plots. So if the Underwood story is true, it would neatly fit into the pattern of Russo's book i.e. that Castro killed Kennedy as retaliation for the CIA plots against himself.

The ARRB interviewed Underwood about his trip to Mexico. He said he took the trip but it was in his function as an advance man for Johnson, not to look into the Kennedy murder. When the Board asked him about any notes he had taken on the trip, he initially claimed to have no memory of any notes. When the Board showed him the copies of notes that Russo had given them, Underwood replied that he had written those notes especially for the use of Hersh in his book. In other words, they were written in this decade. They were composed on White House stationery because he had a lot of it still laying around from his White House days. But Underwood insisted that Scott had told him what Russo had said about Escalante. The problem was that Underwood could not even recall if he had contemporaneous notes from his talks with Scott. But later, he did forward a set of typewritten notes from his trip to Mexico. They only briefly mentioned his meeting with Win Scott. And there is no mention of the Kennedy assassination in them. Ultimately, the Board asked Underwood to testify about the Scott anecdote under oath. He begged off due to health problems.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many years ago I wrote a long two part essay on this subject.

The first two parts were about how this all started, and specifically Exner and Mary Meyer. The second part was about Monroe.

The more I dug into it, the smellier it all got.

I began to see that there was big money in all this.

Why?

Because it was the direct complement to the MSM's refusal to recognize that the WR was a pile of crap and there was a clear conspiracy to kill JFK. The MSM had bought into the first whole heartedly, and therefore refused to investigate the actual plot. It was a clear case of denial. And as the years went on it got to the point of being almost a psychotic obsession.

It was explained by the following theorem:

If we can make the case that Kennedy was really a wastrel, a drug dropping, mafia enlisting, LSD tripping philanderer, who was somehow involved with the deaths of Meyer and Monroe, then that gets us off the hook for not investigating his murder. And if we cover up all the revolutionary stuff he did in foreign policy, then that makes it easier still.

​Now, to go ahead and name all the participants in this industry would take a while. But in addition to the ones I named in my essay--John Davis, Tony Summers, Ben Bradlee, Sy Hersh, Norman Mailer--there was also the pathological xxxx, David Heymann. The Cusack case one would think, would have ended it.

It did not. As shown above by the ARRB exposures. And now this.

As I ended my essay back then, this all reveals a virulent strain of cultural schizophrenia by the MSM. One that exploded during the fiftieth anniversary. I have never seen anything like that in all my life--hour after hour of mass denial. To the point of Tom Hanks bringing out Vince Bugliosi on his virtual deathbed to smear the critics. Russo helping Tom Brokaw and bringing in Richard Reeves sputter a canard about JFK and Vietnam. And PBS using (geez) Dallek as an historian about JFK.

There is an upcoming book about all of this. Exposing its many aspects. Utterly fascinating as a cultural survey about how the MSM simply cannot deal with either the life or death of JFK.

Edited by James DiEugenio
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...