Jump to content
The Education Forum

Joan Mellen did not debunk LBJ’s complicity in JFK’s murder


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

RE:  Faustian Bargains.  Joan Mellen did not debunk LBJ's complicity in JFK's assassination.  No, she did not.  It is entirely possible, if not likely,  LBJ had prior knowledge of the assassination and was complicit with it, if not a participatory role in the set up.  However, she pretty much destroys the theory that LBJ orchestrated it and that his supposed hit man Mac Wallace did the deed (all by himself while LHO was out on the front steps with Bill Shelly). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with almost all of David Denton's essay points.

I totally believe Murchison maid Mae Newman's story about the 11, 21,1963 Murchison meet up where J.Edgar Hoover flew in and was picked up by Newman's fellow Murchison house staff employee Jules Feiffer ( spelling?).

Newman also mentioned the main Murchison family cook by name and recounted one-on-one conversations she had with both her and Feiffer concerning Hoover specifically,  with Hoover's name ( and even Hoover's nickname "Bulldog" ) clearly mentioned that evening. 

I also believe Newman's recounting of how the cavier and champagne flowed in the Murchison household for a week after JFK's slaughter. And how it seemed to her that she ( Newman ) was the only one grieving for JFK and his family during all that celebrating. Newman choked up a bit and her speech was halted and she glanced away for a second when she recounted the grief she alone felt for JFK. 

If Newman's story ( and her emotions while sharing it ) in that documentary interview were contrived. the woman missed her calling in the career department. She should have been in British theater. 

Newman's story and emotion demeanor in sharing it in the TMWKK interview comes across to me as one of the most sincere and honest and least contrived I have seen in this whole affair. 

Ms. Newman remained as a domestic employee for Virginia Murchison for decades after this event. She didn't give up what she saw, heard and knew about the Murchison get together, with Hoover as a guest, on 11, 21,1963 until she was retired and Virginia Murchison had passed away.

Her revealing her remarkable story at a much later date made perfect sense for someone who was obviously very dependent on the income she made working for this wealthy family ( I wonder how poor and maybe uneducated Newman may have been as a child in Ireland ) and one could imagine her probably liking her job and maybe Virginia Murchison personally?

But imagine if Newman's story is true. Hoover and the Murchison's ( and possibly LBJ also ) secretly meeting in person in the Dallas area the night before JFK is killed there?  

The implications are staggering and could answer some of the main JFK truth questions.

LBJ and Hoover were like brothers ( LBJ's own words to Hoover in that famous White House taped call between the two discussing the creation of the Warren Commission ) and close socializing neighbors for years.  It is so obvious that these two watched out for each other for decades and one can imagine how much and in what nefarious and blackmailing ways they were bonded and colluded to benefit each others positions, power and influence.

I believe it is this relationship ( they both hated and were threatened by JFK and RFK ) is one of the keystones of understanding how the JFK assassination and it's cover-up could be pulled off.

That and LBJ's other close relationship to other JFK and RFK hating powers to be such as you-know-who and even the Mafia.

I believe working people any day over professional and practiced and corrupted and compromised long time politicians and bureaucrats like LBJ, Hoover, Nixon, etc. 

For these same reasons I also believe Madeline Brown and her story regarding the 11, 21,1963 Murchison meet up and LBJ's presence there and his ( Those SOB Kennedy's will never embarrass me again ) comments to her following this.

Would like to comment further on Denton's piece later.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I agree with almost all of David Denton's essay points.

I totally believe Murchison maid Mae Newman's story about the 11, 21,1963 Murchison meet up where J.Edgar Hoover flew in and was picked up by Newman's fellow Murchison house staff employee Jules Feiffer ( spelling?).

Newman also mentioned the main Murchison family cook by name and recounted one-on-one conversations she had with both her and Feiffer concerning Hoover specifically,  with Hoover's name ( and even Hoover's nickname "Bulldog" ) clearly mentioned that evening. 

I also believe Newman's recounting of how the cavier and champagne flowed in the Murchison household for a week after JFK's slaughter. And how it seemed to her that she ( Newman ) was the only one grieving for JFK and his family during all that celebrating. Newman choked up a bit and her speech was halted and she glanced away for a second when she recounted the grief she alone felt for JFK. 

If Newman's story ( and her emotions while sharing it ) in that documentary interview were contrived. the woman missed her calling in the career department. She should have been in British theater. 

Newman's story and emotion demeanor in sharing it in the TMWKK interview comes across to me as one of the most sincere and honest and least contrived I have seen in this whole affair. 

Ms. Newman remained as a domestic employee for Virginia Murchison for decades after this event. She didn't give up what she saw, heard and knew about the Murchison get together, with Hoover as a guest, on 11, 21,1963 until she was retired and Virginia Murchison had passed away.

Her revealing her remarkable story at a much later date made perfect sense for someone who was obviously very dependent on the income she made working for this wealthy family ( I wonder how poor and maybe uneducated Newman may have been as a child in Ireland ) and one could imagine her probably liking her job and maybe Virginia Murchison personally?

But imagine if Newman's story is true. Hoover and the Murchison's ( and possibly LBJ also ) secretly meeting in person in the Dallas area the night before JFK is killed there?  

The implications are staggering and could answer some of the main JFK truth questions.

LBJ and Hoover were like brothers ( LBJ's own words to Hoover in that famous White House taped call between the two discussing the creation of the Warren Commission ) and close socializing neighbors for years.  It is so obvious that these two watched out for each other for decades and one can imagine how much and in what nefarious and blackmailing ways they were bonded and colluded to benefit each others positions, power and influence.

I believe it is this relationship ( they both hated and were threatened by JFK and RFK ) is one of the keystones of understanding how the JFK assassination and it's cover-up could be pulled off.

That and LBJ's other close relationship to other JFK and RFK hating powers to be such as you-know-who and even the Mafia.

I believe working people any day over professional and practiced and corrupted and compromised long time politicians and bureaucrats like LBJ, Hoover, Nixon, etc. 

For these same reasons I also believe Madeline Brown and her story regarding the 11, 21,1963 Murchison meet up and LBJ's presence there and his ( Those SOB Kennedy's will never embarrass me again ) comments to her following this.

Would like to comment further on Denton's piece later.

Well stated, Joe.

I've always thought Newman was sincere, her mannerisms and way of speaking don't show me otherwise.

With LBJ in the position he was, with a close friend like Hoover, it was like a fox guarding the henhouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really a silly thesis. Taking down a president is a very high risk action. If LBJ really wanted to eliminate JFK for the 1964 election, all he had to do was get his buddy Hoover to release the damaging info he had on JFK's womanizing and his health issues. this would have mortally wounded him in 1964. LBJ was too shrew a politician to engage in such a high risk tactic with no assurance it could be pulled off.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

This is really a silly thesis. Taking down a president is a very high risk action. If LBJ really wanted to eliminate JFK for the 1964 election, all he had to do was get his buddy Hoover to release the damaging info he had on JFK's womanizing and his health issues. this would have mortally wounded him in 1964. LBJ was too shrew a politician to engage in such a high risk tactic with no assurance it could be pulled off.    

Brilliant Lawrence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

lThis is really a silly thesis. Taking down a president is a very high risk action. If LBJ really wanted to eliminate JFK for the 1964 election, all he had to do was get his buddy Hoover to release the damaging info he had on JFK's womanizing and his health issues. this would have mortally wounded him in 1964. LBJ was too shrew a politician to engage in such a high risk tactic with no assurance it could be pulled off.    

It would have also mortally wounded LBJ and the rest of the Democratic Party.  He was too shrewd for that too.  But he would have cooperated with others seeking his desired results, especially if they had power over him.  Forgive my poor memory.  Did not Henry Luce pull the planned Time Magazine cover/edition from the next weeks publication immediately after the assassination that featured LBJ and  Bobby Baker (all screwed up I'm sure)?

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

This is really a silly thesis. Taking down a president is a very high risk action. If LBJ really wanted to eliminate JFK for the 1964 election, all he had to do was get his buddy Hoover to release the damaging info he had on JFK's womanizing and his health issues. this would have mortally wounded him in 1964. LBJ was too shrew a politician to engage in such a high risk tactic with no assurance it could be pulled off.    


And then in return, all JFK had to do was have LBJ indicted for illegal activities, thus destroying his career and possibly landing him in prison.

From the blog of James Wagenvoord, assistant to Life Magazine's executive editor at the time of the assassination:

A story that would have forced Johnson off the Democrats 1964 presidential election ticket had been slated to publish in the first December issue of [Life] magazine. For weeks the Kennedy Justice Department had been a rich source of confidential information concerning money allegedly funneled to Johnson from lobbyists and contractors during his years as Senate Majority Leader, through his senior aide, Bobby Baker. Tension between the President and the Vice President had been widely reported since the early days of the administration. Exposure would mean that Johnson would have effectively taken himself off the ticket and likely out of politics sparing President Kennedy the controversy that might arise if he announced that simply wanted a different Vice-President. Two articles, the first a general bad guy picture essay detailed the opening of Baker’s Carousel Hotel on Maryland’s eastern shore and showed Baker in a glaringly negative light. My boss headed the reporting team and the material, kept under wraps for weeks, now being readied to be shredded, would if published tie Lyndon Johnson directly to illegal compromises and graft.

It didn’t matter anymore. Now the story was the violent death of a President. And a smooth transition


As a shrewd politician, LBJ knew that exposing JFK's weaknesses would have led to his own demise. Knowing that Kennedy was in the process of exposing his scandals, LBJ had every reason for wanting Kennedy dead.

 

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I agree with almost all of David Denton's essay points.

I totally believe Murchison maid Mae Newman's story about the 11, 21,1963 Murchison meet up where J.Edgar Hoover flew in and was picked up by Newman's fellow Murchison house staff employee Jules Feiffer ( spelling?).

Newman also mentioned the main Murchison family cook by name and recounted one-on-one conversations she had with both her and Feiffer concerning Hoover specifically,  with Hoover's name ( and even Hoover's nickname "Bulldog" ) clearly mentioned that evening. 

I also believe Newman's recounting of how the cavier and champagne flowed in the Murchison household for a week after JFK's slaughter. And how it seemed to her that she ( Newman ) was the only one grieving for JFK and his family during all that celebrating. Newman choked up a bit and her speech was halted and she glanced away for a second when she recounted the grief she alone felt for JFK. 

If Newman's story ( and her emotions while sharing it ) in that documentary interview were contrived. the woman missed her calling in the career department. She should have been in British theater. 

Newman's story and emotion demeanor in sharing it in the TMWKK interview comes across to me as one of the most sincere and honest and least contrived I have seen in this whole affair. 

Ms. Newman remained as a domestic employee for Virginia Murchison for decades after this event. She didn't give up what she saw, heard and knew about the Murchison get together, with Hoover as a guest, on 11, 21,1963 until she was retired and Virginia Murchison had passed away.

Her revealing her remarkable story at a much later date made perfect sense for someone who was obviously very dependent on the income she made working for this wealthy family ( I wonder how poor and maybe uneducated Newman may have been as a child in Ireland ) and one could imagine her probably liking her job and maybe Virginia Murchison personally?

But imagine if Newman's story is true. Hoover and the Murchison's ( and possibly LBJ also ) secretly meeting in person in the Dallas area the night before JFK is killed there?  

The implications are staggering and could answer some of the main JFK truth questions.

LBJ and Hoover were like brothers ( LBJ's own words to Hoover in that famous White House taped call between the two discussing the creation of the Warren Commission ) and close socializing neighbors for years.  It is so obvious that these two watched out for each other for decades and one can imagine how much and in what nefarious and blackmailing ways they were bonded and colluded to benefit each others positions, power and influence.

I believe it is this relationship ( they both hated and were threatened by JFK and RFK ) is one of the keystones of understanding how the JFK assassination and it's cover-up could be pulled off.

That and LBJ's other close relationship to other JFK and RFK hating powers to be such as you-know-who and even the Mafia.

I believe working people any day over professional and practiced and corrupted and compromised long time politicians and bureaucrats like LBJ, Hoover, Nixon, etc. 

For these same reasons I also believe Madeline Brown and her story regarding the 11, 21,1963 Murchison meet up and LBJ's presence there and his ( Those SOB Kennedy's will never embarrass me again ) comments to her following this.

Would like to comment further on Denton's piece later.

Joe, I agree May Newmann sounded credible. However it is important to note she did not attend the meeting, because there weren't any "Hollywood stars" to be present and is going on an account from Feifer, who drove in J. Edgar from the airport. But was it established in that MWKK Kennedy segment  that J. Edgar came to the Murchinson's the night before the assassination?

As far as Madeleine Brown is concerned, I can believe  she was LBJ's mistress because I've seen her  son in an interview, and he looks just like LBJ'. There's little doubt in mind about that. To Denton's credibility, he does mention the inconsistencies in Brown's account of the meeting over the years.It was certainly a star studded event of the who's who of Kennedy Assassination conspirators to hear her tell it. There was LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, John J. Mac Cloy, H. Lamar Hunt, (reportedly the richest person in the world at that time.)George Brown of Brown and Root, now known CIA agent, Mayor Earl Cabelle, from our friends in the Mafia there was Carlos Marcello, Joe Civiello, and of course Jack Ruby who she has said she's known since 1953. Johnson cronies, Cliff Carter and Malcolm Wallace.

One person she said was present that I'd like to hear from Doug about was Clint Peoples. Wasn't Clint Peoples the man who approached Billy Sol Estes about confessing all he knew about LBJ? You'd think he'd worry about being  incriminated.This would have to be such a brazen group of people who obviously were confident that they could pull this off with impunity. But then, why so many of them?, Why would more than a handful need to be present? They were obviously very confident no one would ever talk about their presence there. And yet there's only one first hand witness and that's Madeleine Brown!

It was like a Kennedy assassination convention. A story as big as all Texas! If they could have held it in that big, bright shiny new Astrodome, they would have, but it was too far away. 

These people were certainly loose, just like the Malcolm Wallace connection , you'd think these well connected people could hire professional people that so weren't so immediately tied to them.

As has been said, Later in life without financial support from LBJ she was forced to do a lot of dubious things to support herself, such as passing off bad checks.

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

This is really a silly thesis. Taking down a president is a very high risk action. If LBJ really wanted to eliminate JFK for the 1964 election, all he had to do was get his buddy Hoover to release the damaging info he had on JFK's womanizing and his health issues. this would have mortally wounded him in 1964. LBJ was too shrew a politician to engage in such a high risk tactic with no assurance it could be pulled off.    

A silly thesis?

Of course I disagree.

If LBJ and his "like a brother" compatriot Hoover had done what you suggest they could have done to take down JFK without a public execution ( all of the sexual stuff )  do you really think the Kennedy's would have taken this laying down and without a massive retaliatory blow back?

It would have been an all out political and character assassination war. And Hoover and LBJ weren't the only ones with dirt on their adversaries.

Imagine RFK unleashing the full folder of information he had ( to every media outlet in the nation ) on LBJ's massive corruption doings and connections and Johnson's own alpha lion extra-marital sexual exploits ( including two children out of wedlock?)  And I believe that Hoover was himself totally paranoid about his own sexual deviant shenanigans being released to the public as well.

And how can anyone think the Kennedy family still didn't have great power and influence and a huge base of extremely influential loyalists?

The outrage over LBJ and Hoover doing something like you say they could to JFK would have triggered a worldwide backlash against them on all the highest levels. Great authors would have trashed them for years. Investigative journalists would have dug for years. Foreign political leaders would have shut down relationships.  And again, it would mean LBJ would never be president himself before he was simply too old to run.

I believe the Kennedy's and their loyalists may have had their own political war "fail safe" system in place had Hoover and LBJ tried something as you suggest.

And both LBJ and Hoover were smart enough to contemplate all this and the damages to themselves if they triggered this scenario with Hoover's tapes and videos.

Imagine JFK losing to Goldwater in 1964. Where would this have placed LBJ relative to his "maniacal desire" (E. Howard Hunt ) to be President?

The "Executive Action" solution was the best possible one for LBJ to immediately assume the presidency himself and then as soon as he had this position he could control the official investigations and any other cover up influence that was needed. Basically control everything including RFK himself and the justice department investigations into his own criminal doings.

I also feel that certain highest ranks of the military and the secret agencies and JFK's own security had to be on board ( to relax security) and control the situation on the ground ( hence Lansdale? ) in Dallas that day.

If our top military leaders actually believed that a foreign power was behind the JFK event alone, do you really think they would have allowed them to do this without some equally damaging retaliatory action?  The fact that nothing like this ever occurred is a logical tip off that they didn't think this was the case.

So, my opinion is that a character assassination scenario to bring down JFK and RFK is the true silly thesis here.

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Joe, I agree May Newmann sounded credible. However it is important to note she did not attend the meeting, because there weren't any "Hollywood stars" to be present and is going on an account from Feifer, who drove in J. Edgar from the airport.  

Kirk, if you agree that Newman sounded credible, what is less credible about what she recounts of what driver Jules Feifer told her regarding his picking up and driving back Hoover that evening?

Same with the main Murchison family cook and the cook asking Newman if she wanted to come help with staff duties to see J.Edgar Hoover when they served them all quail for dinner?

Newman not only shares multiple first hand accounts of discussions with her fellow Murchison domestic staff workers about Hoover coming to the Murchison house that evening , but also Hoover leaving that same evening when Jules Feifer returns after taking Hoover back to where he picked him up.  That's a lot of made up ( or mistaken identity ) Hoover stuff all in one story about one evening's doings.

Newman's recollection of Feifer's irritation at not being tipped by the well known cheap Hoover just adds to the credibility of her story.  

The fact that Newman wasn't actually at this main Murchison house get together on 11,21,1963 does lessen the proof factor, but sometimes you just have to determine what you choose to believe from what is offered to you in the way of testimony etc.  I believe Newman and her recollections, therefore, I believe Hoover was in the Murchison house that evening.

As far as Madeline Brown, yes, she did make many statements that seemed made up for exaggerations sake. And of course she had vengeance for being cut off and especially for the way her son was treated resulting in his early death which she blamed on LBJ and his cronies.

In her case however, I still believe much of what she claims about LBJ and his comments to her as being true.  She was one of his closest and long time  mistresses...that is a fact. Mistresses who are abandoned ( financially cut off ) often say untruthful things as well as many truthful things about the men who do this to them. 

Again, I guess one just has to determine what sounds the most truthful to them in considering these kinds of former lover's stories.

Madeline Brown wasn't a sophisticated xxxx.  She did exaggerate some and I think with older age got confused with different recollections, but she did give birth to LBJ's son Steven...and that alone separates her from the average dumped girlfriend in the credibility department in my opinion.

 

 

 

Quote

 

But was it established in that MWKK Kennedy segment  that J. Edgar came to the Murchinson's the night before the assassination?

As far as Madeleine Brown is concerned, I can believe  she was LBJ's mistress because I've seen her  son in an interview, and he looks just like LBJ'. There's little doubt in mind about that. To Denton's credibility, he does mention the inconsistencies in Brown's account of the meeting over the years.It was certainly a star studded event of the who's who of Kennedy Assassination conspirators to hear her tell it. There was LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, John J. Mac Cloy, H. Lamar Hunt, (reportedly the richest person in the world at that time.)George Brown of Brown and Root, now known CIA agent, Mayor Earl Cabelle, from our friends in the Mafia there was Carlos Marcello, Joe Civiello, and of course Jack Ruby who she has said she's known since 1953. Johnson cronies, Cliff Carter and Malcolm Wallace.

One person she said was present that I'd like to hear from Doug about was Clint Peoples. Wasn't Clint Peoples the man who approached Billy Sol Estes about confessing all he knew about LBJ? You'd think he'd worry about being  incriminated.This would have to be such a brazen group of people who obviously were confident that they could pull this off with impunity. But then, why so many of them?, Why would more than a handful need to be present? They were obviously very confident no one would ever talk about their presence there. And yet there's only one first hand witness and that's Madeleine Brown!

It was like a Kennedy assassination convention. A story as big as all Texas! If they could have held it in that big, bright shiny new Astrodome, they would have, but it was too far away. 

These people were certainly loose, just like the Malcolm Wallace connection , you'd think these well connected people could hire professional people that so weren't so immediately tied to them.

As has been said, Later in life without financial support from LBJ she was forced to do a lot of dubious things to support herself, such as passing off bad checks.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think, despite the credibility of May Newman, her testimony is immaterial, as she was not present. Madeleine Brown has a child by LBJ but that does nothing for her credibility. No doubt Murchison and friends were delighted after the fact, but this doesn't mean they did it. Who is Pfeiffer? Why didn't he come forward later, like Newmann?

LBJ had motive aplenty of course. And if there was a meeting of sorts the night before the assassination, it certainly wasn't about planning the assassination, though it may have been to plan the aftermath. I'm no fan of LBJ or Hoover, but I think it more likely that it was the Nixon/Bush/Dulles group that arranged it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joan Mellen may not have "killed" the LBJ-did-it theory, but she sure landed a huge blow to it. LBJ was a bastard and DEFINITELY a part of the cover-up...but Joan's book destroys the Mac-Wallace-as-assassin idea, among other things. I was at the 2016 conference with R. Stone and company and they had 0.0 substantive to refute Mellen's book; as if they never read it. The crowd booed Mellen "in absentia" (it was clear they were rankled that she would dare dispute the theory) but, again, no one refuted her evidence. Read it (with an open mind).

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...