Did the Plotters View RFK's Murder of Marilyn Monroe as Justification for Killing JFK?

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

I like you And often have to defend you over drinks with Cliff

Thanks for the late night laugh.

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Thanks for the late night laugh.

Quite welcome.  

[Joe Bauer]

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Joe:

There was nothing like what you allude to at the beginning of your post between MM and JFK.  

There was perhaps a one off encounter and that was it.

And as I have shown at length, there was no such thing as a diary of secrets, it was invented by Slatzer 11 years later.

MM was a really liberal person who was all for civil rights.  That is what she would talk to RFK about and that is why she would call him at the DOJ.  According to people who knew Bobby, he would dutifully take her calls, like he would take Judy Garland's also.  RFK understood that you could use celebrities in PR terms--like filling MSG-- and also as sources of inspiration for the underprivileged. I wrote about how he did this with Dave Hackett in New York City.

I admit I have never put much time into studying the relationship between Monroe and the Kennedy brothers outside of reading what has been posted here from time to time and viewing some interviews of M&M's close lady friend Ms. Carmen and a few others who knew her beyond the many pathetically insecure men who boastingly claimed to have slept with her...even once.

The world famous videotaped scene of MM singing "Happy Birthday Mr. President" to JFK in the most exaggerated breathily sexy voice and seductive half-closed eyes and adorned in an equally sexy, body hugging, shimmering sequined dress couldn't help but plant in the minds of millions who watched that at least a seed of wonder whether she was either half out-of-it on drugs or booze, or perhaps even whether there might be something more between them than just innocent political admiration ... imo anyways.

Whether MM came up with her extremely seductive theatrical performance ( almost laughable in it's exaggeration) in singing "Happy Birthday Mr. President" to JFK on her own ( and what motivated her to do so ) or was put up to it by others, that worldwide viewed scene will forever be one of the most powerful seed of suspicion planting ones regarding even the rumors surrounding the true private life of JFK unfortunately.

And I can't believe class act bred Jackie Kennedy was anything "but" livid at MM forever after watching her sing "Happy Birthday Mr. President" to her husband in the most sexually suggestive voice and dress way possible in view of millions worldwide.

Something akin to JFK going to Jack Ruby's sleazy Carousel Club on his birthday night and having hot blooded "Jada" do an all off strip routine just for him. With his boozed-up buddies cheering, yelling "YEAH BABY" and slapping him on the back throughout?

 

 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

I don't have two standards.

I try and evaluate the credibility of people who say they are witnesses and find evidence to corroborate their stories.

Joe just mentioned the utterly preposterous Jeanne Carmen.  Carmen actually said that Johnny Rosselli murdered Giancana over Monroe!!!!  I am not kidding you can look it up.

But this is the kind of thing that Summers began by giving an utter screwball like Carmen space in his book.

As for this Bday party, I mean how often do I have to prove it? She came with her former father in law.  She rented a limo and drove him home to Brooklyn. She actually wanted him to return to LA with her, but he refused.  She then went back to her apartment where a fan of hers was waiting on her front step.  She talked to him. She then went upstairs, got a massage by her personal masseuse and retired.  

This is all proven.  Therefore the stories made up by the likes of Mark Shaw, and I think Blaine etc are all counter factual.

As you can see, this is the same method I use for JFK.  Credibility and corroboration.

[James DiEugenio]

Let me explain how I got interested in this.  It was when I first read about Sy Hersh and the so called Kennedy/Monroe trust agreement.  I was wondering, why would a liberal MSM journalist take part in something that was so clearly a fraud?  Why do I say that?  Because one of the so called signees to the trust, Janet Des Rossiers, told Hersh that was not her signature on the documents, it was forged.  When I interviewed Greg Schreiner, a MM authority in LA  he told me it was not MM's signature either, it was a forgery. 

Hersh marched on anyway.  Why?  As is the usual case in these matters, it was for money.  He had gotten a million dollar advance for the book.  He then sold the TV rights to ABC.  But ABC did something that Hersh did not do:  they hired three experts to forensically test the documents.  It turned out that Des Rossiers and Schreiner were correct.  The documents were forged on a typewriter that did not exist in the early sixties.  And the signatures showed signs of tracing, that is stopping and starting in mid stroke. (There is an excellent article by David Samuels in The New Yorker on this subject.) Now if you got a million bucks, would you not pay a few quid to do the testing before you fell on your face? But not only did ABC get taken, since they bought the rights before testing, the originator of the documents, Lex Cusack, had made tons of money by suckering rich collectors. As anyone can see, there is money in sensationalistic fraud.

Again though, why would Hersh take part in something like this?  I later learned that Hersh was on a mission. His career was jump started by Bob Loomis, the big time editor who ended up at Random House.  And I guess it was just a coincidence that Loomis is the one who originated Posner's book Case Closed? And he gave Posner a PR tour that was unprecedented, and only rivaled by the one Hersh got for his POS book. When I tried to call Loomis, his secretary said he was not in his New York office.  He spent three days a week in Washington.  Hm, I wonder where?

So as any can see, the two are related.  The aim was dual: 1.) Snuff out any kind of conspiracy ideas through Posner, and 2.) VIa Hersh: JFK was not worth worrying about anyway.  

Doing that work on Hersh  flashed a huge light bulb off in my head.  I realized then that there was really a big industry in this "trash JFK and MM" field and publishers and TV impressarios would pay money for it.  And its the way people like David Heymann, a total fraud if there ever was one, made money. If you read up on how Robert Slatzer's crappy book originated, you will see more of the same. Slatzer was a walking phony; with his 48 hour marriage to MM in Mexico.  Well, Summers gave him a lot of space also.

So no I have no double standard. As an historian, I use the same methods I was taught by my professors Koistenon and Davis at CSUN.  Look for the original, primary source, seek corroboration, and then see if this pattern was followed or diverted.  That will tell you something.  With Monroe, witnesses like Carmen, Slatzer, and Smathers are not original, consistent sources, and their stories do not stand up under scrutiny.

So that is my consistent methodology and anyone can see it at work. Its my job to unearth events the public does not have the time to excavate or understand.  The Hersh/MM fiasco was an event which provided a portal into what causes these mega events.  And it should be noted, Hersh went onward and downward after.  To the point that The New Yorker would not publish him anymore.

Edited October 13, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Leslie Sharp]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me explain how I got interested in this.  It was when I first read about Sy Hersh and the so called Kennedy/Monroe trust agreement.  I was wondering, why would a liberal MSM journalist take part in something that was so clearly a fraud?  Why do I say that?  Because one of the so called signees to the trust, Janet Des Rossiers, told Hersh that was not her signature on the documents, it was forged.  When I interviewed Greg Schreiner, a MM authority in LA  he told me it was not MM's signature either, it was a forgery. 

Hersh marched on anyway.  Why?  As is the usual case in these matters, it was for money.  He had gotten a million dollar advance for the book.  He then sold the TV rights to ABC.  But ABC did something that Hersh did not do:  they hired three experts to forensically test the documents.  It turned out that Des Rossiers and Schreiner were correct.  The documents were forged on a typewriter that did not exist in the early sixties.  And the signatures showed signs of tracing, that is stopping and starting in mid stroke. (There is an excellent article by David Samuels in The New Yorker on this subject.) Now if you got a million bucks, would you not pay a few quid to do the testing before you fell on your face? But not only did ABC get taken, since they bought the rights before testing, the originator of the documents, Lex Cusack, had made tons of money by suckering rich collectors. As anyone can see, there is money in sensationalistic fraud.

Again though, why would Hersh take part in something like this?  I later learned that Hersh was on a mission. His career was jump started by Bob Loomis, the big time editor who ended up at Random House.  And I guess it was just a coincidence that Loomis is the one who originated Posner's book Case Closed? And he gave Posner a PR tour that was unprecedented, and only rivaled by the one Hersh got for his POS book. When I tried to call Loomis, his secretary said he was not in his New York office.  He spent three days a week in Washington.  Hm, I wonder where?

So as any can see, the two are related.  The aim was dual: 1.) Snuff out any kind of conspiracy ideas through Posner, and 2.) VIa Hersh: JFK was not worth worrying about anyway.  

Doing that work on Hersh  flashed a huge light bulb off in my head.  I realized then that there was really a big industry in this "trash JFK and MM" field and publishers and TV impressarios would pay money for it.  And its the way people like David Heymann, a total fraud if there ever was one, made money. If you read up on how Robert Slatzer's crappy book originated, you will see more of the same. Slatzer was a walking phony; with his 48 hour marriage to MM in Mexico.  Well, Summers gave him a lot of space also.

So no I have no double standard. As an historian, I use the same methods I was taught by my professors Koistenon and Davis at CSUN.  Look for the original, primary source, seek corroboration, and then see if this pattern was followed or diverted.  That will tell you something.  With Monroe, witnesses like Carmen, Slatzer, and Smathers are not original, consistent sources, and their stories do not stand up under scrutiny.

So that is my consistent methodology and anyone can see it at work. Its my job to unearth events the public does not have the time to excavate or understand.  The Hersh/MM fiasco was an event which provided a portal into what causes these mega events.  And it should be noted, Hersh went onward and downward after.  To the point that The New Yorker would not publish him anymore.

I believe Hersh acknowledged that he had been duped. Are you arguing that the fraudulent documents are evidence Kennedy did not have sexual encounter(s) with Marilyn Monroe?   
 

[James DiEugenio]

This is from Don McGovern:

Hi, Jim,

A People magazine article, published on 16 October 2022, written by Tierney McAfee, reported the following about Jerry Blaine’s MM and JFK statements:

Jerry Blaine, a former Secret Service agent in the Kennedy detail, told PEOPLE that he was with JFK during two known encounters the president had with Monroe — one at Lawford's Santa Monica home in 1961 and another at the party in New York following the "Happy Birthday" performance.

"He probably thanked her for singing. But they weren't alone," said Blaine, who added that he "never saw any evidence of an affair … but I don't know what happened behind closed doors."

It appears that Cory Santos wasn’t exactly correct about what Blaine actually said. 

Edited October 15, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Cory Santos]

13 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is from Don McGovern:

Hi, Jim,

A People magazine article, published on 16 October 2022, written by Tierney McAfee, reported the following about Jerry Blaine’s MM and JFK statements:

Jerry Blaine, a former Secret Service agent in the Kennedy detail, told PEOPLE that he was with JFK during two known encounters the president had with Monroe — one at Lawford's Santa Monica home in 1961 and another at the party in New York following the "Happy Birthday" performance.

"He probably thanked her for singing. But they weren't alone," said Blaine, who added that he "never saw any evidence of an affair … but I don't know what happened behind closed doors."

It appears that Cory Santos wasn’t exactly correct about what Blaine actually said. 

Lol, Jim you could not be more wrong on this.   Maybe Cliff is right?    That quote is well known.  If you look at what I said I noted he could not speak about what happened behind closed doors.   It’s too bad you have zip from first hand sources as I do.   Perhaps if you did you might think differently.   As I said previously, I don’t rely on books in this matter.   Nevertheless, your above proves that you believe JFK had at least two encounters with MM.  Now, how many people did you interview or know who went to these parties?   If the answer is zip then you are using a double standard on this situation.   It is okay to admit it.  

[James DiEugenio]

Now let me finish the ABC story to show how the two subjects are related.

Once Hersh an dhis phony documents were exposed, it turned out to be even worse than we thought. Why?

Because Hersh did not even have to hire any forensic experts.  All he head to do was call the post office.  Because at the time of the document signings, zip codes--which were in the papers--were not in use. This is the jihad that Hersh was on in the writing of this book.  

Obviously if he had printed the documents in the book, many people would have noticed this, and he and the book would have been exposed ersatz.  Now, ABC still did look foolish since they had bought the book without doing due diligence.  But now Peter Jennings was saying that ABC had not really saved Hersh, when in fact they had done just that. 

Jennings now decided to revenge ABC for this colossal Hershian error.  He did three things.

First, for the only time I can recall, Jennings devoted a segment of the nightly news to say a president did have an affair, this time it was JFK and MM.  The collection of witnesses he used was a truly motley crew, including the "mayor of Hollywood".  (Try and find that office anywhere.)

Second, Jennings fell for another Hershian fable:  this time that somehow JFK was messaging Giancana through Judy Exner.  Except that his witness would not appear on camera.  And, in fact, he said he did no such thing before the ARRB when asked about it.

Third he decided do an anniversary special on the JFK case.  Who was going to be his lead reporter?  none other than a guy who worked for Hersh, Gus Russo.  Gus got his buddy Dale Myers a gig and that is how we got Dale and his mythological Single Bullet Fact. 

 

 

[Cory Santos]

1 minute ago, Cory Santos said:

Lol, Jim you could not be more wrong on this.   Maybe Cliff is right?    That quote is well known.  If you look at what I said I noted he could not speak about what happened behind closed doors.   It’s too bad you have zip from first hand sources as I do.   Perhaps if you did you might think differently.   As I said previously, I don’t rely on books in this matter.   Nevertheless, your above proves that you believe JFK had at least two encounters with MM.  Now, how many people did you interview or know who went to these parties?   If the answer is zip then you are using a double standard on this situation.   It is okay to admit it.  

Let me clarify one thing.   If he said he could not comment on what went on behind closed doors then it is logical that they were together behind closed doors.  

[James DiEugenio]

2 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Lol, Jim you could not be more wrong on this.   Maybe Cliff is right?    That quote is well known.  If you look at what I said I noted he could not speak about what happened behind closed doors.   It’s too bad you have zip from first hand sources as I do.   Perhaps if you did you might think differently.   As I said previously, I don’t rely on books in this matter.   Nevertheless, your above proves that you believe JFK had at least two encounters with MM.  Now, how many people did you interview or know who went to these parties?   If the answer is zip then you are using a double standard on this situation.   It is okay to admit it.  

This is what you wrote Cory:  So I see your Clint Hill and raise you Agent Gerald Blaine who said MM and JFK had two encounters to his knowledge and apparently one was behind closed doors.   

You left out the part where Blaine said he never saw any evidence of an affair.  

 

[Cory Santos]

Just now, James DiEugenio said:

This is what you wrote Cory:  So I see your Clint Hill and raise you Agent Gerald Blaine who said MM and JFK had two encounters to his knowledge and apparently one was behind closed doors.   

You left out the part where Blaine said he never saw any evidence of an affair.  

 

See above.  

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Lol, Jim you could not be more wrong on this.   Maybe Cliff is right?  

I don’t have a dog in this fight.

I have a problem with “historians” spending copious amounts of time examining admittedly fake physical evidence (CE399) while completely ignoring the physical evidence recovered from the victim (bullet holes in the clothes).  It’s not just Jim.

[Joe Bauer]

Why would MM get up in front of hundreds of tux and gown high society set people ( millions more soon afterwards in news reels) and sing her "Happy Birth...Day...Mr. President" song in such an exaggerated, boozy eyed seductive way that it was like a Billy Wilder film comedy performance?

It really did seem awkwardly out of place and over the top.

Even JFK himself seemed somewhat embarrassed by it.

If JFK and the boys had a cowboy boots, beer and barbeque bonfire stag party at someone's ranch I could see someone hiring a sex pot to sing HB to JFK like Marilyn M. did.

But high society set Madison Square Garden?

I liked MM's super sultry sexy voice and skin tight dress singing. Even loved it!

However, I imagine many would say she looked kind of out-of-it as it seemed just a tad too exaggerated.

Not quite Judy Garland in London in her last days but I think MM's public image actually took a hit with her hugely seen breathy hot sexy MSG ditty.

And in real life and her last years (including during this JFK BD MSG party time) even the studio publicists couldn't successfully cover up her sad addiction to pills and erratic behavior any longer.

Whoever put MM up to this embarrassing MSG side show was a GD bastard imo.

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Pamela Brown]

14 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Why would MM get up in front of hundreds of tux and gown high society set people ( millions more soon afterwards in news reels) and sing her "Happy Birth...Day...Mr. President" song in such an exaggerated, boozy eyed seductive way that it was like a Billy Wilder film comedy performance?

It really did seem awkwardly out of place and over the top.

Even JFK himself seemed somewhat embarrassed by it.

If JFK and the boys had a cowboy boots, beer and barbeque bonfire stag party at someone's ranch I could see someone hiring a sex pot to sing HB to JFK like Marilyn M. did.

But high society set Madison Square Garden?

I liked MM's super sultry sexy voice and skin tight dress singing. Even loved it!

However, I imagine many would say she looked kind of out-of-it as it seemed just a tad too exaggerated.

Not quite Judy Garland in London in her last days but I think MM's public image actually took a hit with her hugely seen breathy hot sexy MSG ditty.

And in real life and her last years (including during this JFK BD MSG party time) even the studio publicists couldn't successfully cover up her sad addiction to pills and erratic behavior any longer.

Whoever put MM up to this embarrassing MSG side show was a GD bastard imo.

 

I agree. Whoever lured Marilyn into doing this performance was signing her death warrant, imo...