What Really Happened Between Marilyn Monroe and JFK?

[Cory Santos]

On 10/8/2022 at 4:51 PM, Cory Santos said:

That’s nice but not what I asked you.   If you feel it was him alone then based upon your prior posts it appears you feel this way based upon the “evidence”.   You mentioned the witnesses.   Would you agree that the witnesses do not all agree it was Sirhan?  Do you agree that a witness saw a woman going down stairs exclaiming I believe “we got him” or something to that affect?

Yes or no?

Still waiting David.  

[Ron Ecker]

21 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Lawford is good in THE LONGEST DAY too. And

he plays sort of a JFKish senator in Otto Preminger's

ADVISE AND CONSENT, one of the best American

movies about politics.

I saw Lawford recently in DEAD RINGER, in which he plays a real jerk who tries to blackmail Bette Davis, because he knows she murdered her twin sister. He played it well, but I don't remember what happened to him. Maybe I fell asleep.

 

  

[Pamela Brown]

5 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I saw Lawford recently in DEAD RINGER, in which he plays a real jerk who tries to blackmail Bette Davis, because he knows she murdered her twin sister. He played it well, but I don't remember what happened to him. Maybe I fell asleep.

 

  

How could you fall asleep on anything with Bette Davis in it?

I met her long ago, in the Hamptons...

[Ron Ecker]

57 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

How could you fall asleep on anything with Bette Davis in it?

 

I woke up in time to see her go to prison.

 

 

[Cory Santos]

13 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Still waiting David.  

Still waiting David come on. 

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

How could you fall asleep on anything with Bette Davis in it?

I agree, Pam!

http://DVP's Classic Movies Website / Actor Index---Bette Davis

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

So it seems I’m not getting a response so I’ll explain my thoughts on this.  With JFK, Warren Commission supporters jump all over the autopsy to prove the shots came from behind.  Yet with the RFK, they conveniently ignore the autopsy.    
With JFK, selective witnesses are accepted while others ignored.  Okay one says but they are not credible or are confused.  But, with RFK, again serious and credible witnesses such as Paul Schrade are ignored.

So I asked what evidence are you relying on that RFK was murdered.  You stated the witnesses.  Ok, fair answer but the witnesses do not all pin it on Sirhan alone.   Moreover, the RFK autopsy clearly shows the fatal shot was not fired from Sirhan revolver. 
Do kindly admit it is not “the evidence”-as if all the evidence leads to one conclusion-you rely on but rather, that limited and selective “evidence” which you alone have determined to be important. 
Considering the psychology people bring when looking at a problem, if you never see a conspiracy in the evidence you probably are judging the evidence with a biased perspective.  That applies to conspiracists as well, so it is fair to apply that logic to myself but David when I say I see no evidence that leads me to conclude Dorothy was killed I think I satisfy the neutral standard.  Do you satisfy that standard or do you lean biased to never finding a conspiracy.   To refute the actual RFK evidence seems odd if you are neutral. 

Edited October 11, 2022 by Cory Santos

[Denny Zartman]

This thread is thunderously depressing.

[Cory Santos]

So it seems I’m not getting a response so I’ll explain my thoughts on this.  With JFK, Warren Commission supporters jump all over the autopsy to prove the shots came from behind.  Yet with the RFK, they conveniently ignore the autopsy.    
With JFK, selective witnesses are accepted while others ignored.  Okay one says but they are not credible or are confused.  But, with RFK, again serious and credible witnesses such as Paul Schrade are ignored.

So I asked what evidence are you relying on that RFK was murdered.  You stated the witnesses.  Ok, fair answer but the witnesses do not all pin it on Sirhan alone.   Moreover, the RFK autopsy clearly shows the fatal shot was not fired from Sirhan revolver. 
Do kindly admit it is not “the evidence”-as if all the evidence leads to one conclusion-you rely on but rather, that limited and selective “evidence” which you alone have determined to be important. 
Considering the psychology people bring when looking at a problem, if you never see a conspiracy in the evidence you probably are judging the evidence with a biased perspective.  That applies to conspiracists as well, so it is fair to apply that logic to myself but David when I say I see no evidence that leads me to conclude Dorothy was killed I think I satisfy the neutral standard.  Do you satisfy that standard or do you lean biased to never finding a conspiracy.   To refute the actual RFK evidence seems odd if you are neutral. 

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

So I asked what evidence are you relying on that RFK was murdered.

And the witnesses who were there in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel most certainly provide the proof that RFK was, indeed, "murdered". The autopsy alone certainly doesn't PROVE he was "murdered".

And I never said the witnesses PROVED there was only one killer of RFK. I was just answering your initial inquiry, which was:

"Ah, so was RFK murdered, David?  In your opinion and if so based on what “evidence”?"

Edited October 11, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

And the witnesses who were there in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel most certainly provide the proof that RFK was, indeed, "murdered". The autopsy alone certainly doesn't PROVE he was "murdered".

And I never said the witnesses PROVED there was only one killer of RFK. I was just answering your initial inquiry, which was:

"Ah, so was RFK murdered, David?  In your opinion and if so based on what “evidence”?"

Let me refresh your memory.  
BEGIN QUOTE:

   On 10/8/2022 at 2:18 PM,  David Von Peinsaid: 

Sirhan killed RFK.....alone. (IMO.)

That’s nice but not what I asked you.   If you feel it was him alone then based upon your prior posts it appears you feel this way based upon the “evidence”.   You mentioned the witnesses.   Would you agree that the witnesses do not all agree it was Sirhan?  Do you agree that a witness saw a woman going down stairs exclaiming I believe “we got him” or something to that affect?

Yes or no?

 

[Pamela Brown]

23 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I woke up in time to see her go to prison.

 

 

Well then, I think you're forgiven...

BTW, I am just seeing that Angela Landsbury has passed away. What an incredible job she did in the original Man Can...not to mention all her other wonderful roles...

[James DiEugenio]

Some explications from our in house expert, Don McGovern.

1. The toxicology tests performed by Abernathy verified that she was not drunk, as alleged by Heymann and others: her blood did not contain any alcohol.

2. Someone mentioned an excerpt from one of MM’s journals published in 2010, Fragments. The Peter she is referring to is not Lawford but Peter Leonardi, a hairdresser and assistant with whom Marilyn became embroiled over an alleged promise to help him open a studio in NYC. Leonardi became very angry, sued Marilyn and then kidnapped her fur coats. All this happened in 1955 after she and Milton Greene started MM Productions. I have also read accounts in which Arthur Miller became involved in the dispute.  Apparently, the dispute was settled out of court, details undisclosed.

3. As an aside, according to Milo Speriglio, Leonardi asserted that Marilyn had surgery to remove one of her fallopian tubes; a complete fabrication disproven by Dr. Noguchi’s autopsy.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Some explications from our in house expert, Don McGovern.

1. The toxicology tests performed by Abernathy verified that she was not drunk, as alleged by Heymann and others: her blood did not contain any alcohol.

2. Someone mentioned an excerpt from one of MM’s journals published in 2010, Fragments. The Peter she is referring to is not Lawford but Peter Leonardi, a hairdresser and assistant with whom Marilyn became embroiled over an alleged promise to help him open a studio in NYC. Leonardi became very angry, sued Marilyn and then kidnapped her fur coats. All this happened in 1955 after she and Milton Greene started MM Productions. I have also read accounts in which Arthur Miller became involved in the dispute.  Apparently, the dispute was settled out of court, details undisclosed.

3. As an aside, according to Milo Speriglio, Leonardi asserted that Marilyn had surgery to remove one of her fallopian tubes; a complete fabrication disproven by Dr. Noguchi’s autopsy.

 

If you are going to say it as if it is a sure statement as to whom Marilyn was referring based on Don’s opinion, can you ask Don what proof does he have that she meant Leonardi as opposed to Lawford?  Outside of some bloggers suggesting on the internetit I fail to see any actual proof she meant him. 

2- Did Don know either MM and/or Lawford and or Leonardi?

Thank you   

Edited October 12, 2022 by Cory Santos

[Joe Bauer]

For what it's worth...

I recall an interview with a friend of Marilyn ( a very attractive woman herself at the time ) who recalled a similar account of Marilyn not wanting to go to Lawford's beach house party for similar reasons as mentioned here. Not wanting to be sexually presented.

I'll look again for the interview video.