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

[Cory Santos]

41 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Too many illogical aspects to MM's death, death scene and the persons there and soon showing up there and who waited so long before they even called the police to not rationally suspect something much more nefarious than the simple story she just wanted to end it all "on her own" and did.

One might also consider the fact that people who overdose often may not realize how many pills they have actually taken, due to the impaired effect of the first handful they take, and in so doing in a way, debatably, accidentally kill themselves.

Is that what happened to MM?

I don't want to believe RFK would ever do anything as diabolical as okaying the killing of a woman he and/or his brother may have had sexual relations with. 

For "any" reason.

It would be the ultimate cynicism on top of so much already regards the killings of JFK, RFK and MLK.

 

Why is it not a possibility she was killed by someone else?

[James DiEugenio]

Joe:

If you had been the doctors who allowed MM to take so many pills, something like 746 in 50 days--just do the arithmetic as to how many per day-- do you think you would have been in any hurry to let the authorities know about what your negligence led to?

As Don McGovern has written, if MM's death would have taken place in the modern era with more medical oversight, her doctors would have likely  been severely disciplined by their medical boards, probably suspended, or even placed on trial.  Especially because of the empty bottle of nembutals--a very powerful drug.  MM was a pill addict, there is no way around that.  There is even evidence that she went to the black market for more.

It is not my opinion that RFK had nothing to do with MM's death.  It is an established fact that he was in Gilroy about 350 miles away at the time. And there is a plethora of evidence, including a series of photographs in time sequence, that demonstrate this beyond doubt.

For many years on end, actually decades, cheapjack writers like Robert Slatzer and David Heymann simply manufactured a mythology that had no basis in fact in order to sell their pulpy books to an all too willing populace.  Then that ridiculous novel Double Cross came out and the tabloid cable media jumped on board. In the former case, the clown Slatzer actually said that RFK had promised to marry MM?  And he also spilled out the secrets of MONGOOSE to her!  And he had been part of Murder Inc??  I mean please with this BS.

Heymann actually wrote that RFK was in Brentwood at her house not once but twice that day.  Which we now know, through Susan Bernard, and other evidence, was not possible.  And by the way, I would put the work of Summers and Shaw about one notch below those two clowns.  One of the worst things you can do as a non fiction author is to have your thesis in sight before you start your research and writing.   Summers, for example, actually bought into that con man Slatzer, who made a career out of this BS.  But further, he was actually played by Slatzer who promised to pay a friend of his to lie for him and Summers bought that also. And as more than one author has shown, MM's contract was never controlled by The Outfit. 

A writer without confirmation bias could have seen through  a con artist like Slatzer.   For example, Don McGovern utterly destroyed Slatzer. What Don did was to carefully analyze the information in these books, compare them to each other, and compare them to the adduced record. The pills MM took were ingested, they were not injected or supplied by enema. And Don proves this scientifically.  The mixture she took of Nembutal and Chloral Hydrate should have never been allowed by her doctors.  Especially since she had tried to take her life four times previously.  There have been many critiques of what Greenson was doing with MM, since as anyone can see, his treatment was not successful. And he was the third psychiatrist MM employed in something like 6 years.

it is almost impossible to overestimate the influence of Slatzer and Heymann on both the public and in the literature. Slatzer wrote two books and had two films made.  He made many appearances on TV talk shows masquerading as MM's 48 hour husband. Which is one of the most ridiculous BS stories ever postulated.  But yet, Summers references his name literally scores of times in his book Goddess, and Donald Wolfe does the same. This tsunami of utter hooey ended up with MM being consulted by Bob Maheu and attending meetings of MONGOOSE, and being employed as a honey pot in the Castro plots.  I wish I was kidding but I am not.  This stuff actually got published. It should make the people on this board cringe. This is what the subject of my multi part essay will be.  How this nuttiness ended up damaging literary and cultural standards.  Ending up with that debacle by Seymour Hersh about a signed trust agreement between MM and the Kennedys, in which Hersh was also played by a con artist who made lots of  money off his fraud.

And that is what, due to Slatzer, this became: a business dealing in fraud.  A fraud which distorts and defiles the  people being used in the money making process. And it also distracts from the factual record. Which Mike is trying to do with the heading of this thread.  The people in the JFK field--who have dealt with many such instances-- should be sensitive to it

 

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Pamela Brown]

Joe,

Methinks Jim doth protest too much...

[James DiEugenio]

No Pamela, Jim has done a lot of reading on this subject in books that no one else here has apparently read.

And I also understand just what Sy Hersh was up to and why.

And how when that blew up in his face, ABC and Jennings still supported him and protected him.

That will be a major part of my upcoming essay.

[Sandy Larsen]

Jim,

Just want to let you know that I appreciate all the work you do to correct the damage done to the (supposed) record, due to people's greed, laziness, and gullibility. Not just in the case of MM, but in general.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 10/8/2023 at 8:29 AM, Pamela Brown said:

Your opinion, (to Jim). You are entitled. I think you are mistaken. Nothing has been "proved".  Positions are being asserted. That's all.  Claiming those in the opposite camp are greedy or 'goofy' is ineffective, imo...

Jim: MM did not have "affairs" with either JFK or RFK!

Yeah easy for you to say Pam! But just  think if Jim, after 100's and 100's of hours research only was to find out that either of the Kennedy brothers had sex with Marilyn Monroe.? I can't imagine a more profound disappointment in the Kennedy's for Jim. I'd say it's probably historically tantamount to the profound sense disappointment, and even revulsion that Cassidy Hutchinson felt toward Trump after the 1/6 insurrection.  

It would take awhile to sink in, as Jim would have to grapple with the 7 stages of grief!

 

heh heh

 

Well, First of all I  don't believe the Kennedy's killed MM.

Of course, if the Kennedy' killed MM that would have been the scandal of the Century. But it falls into that category here where no one will have definitive proof but people do  push their credibility and parade their list of credited sources. Let everybody try to assemble facts that support their conclusions But IMO it's important that people don't take their conclusions quite so seriously. Jim has spent so much time and emotional energy defending the Kennedys, I'm afraid he's going to have a heart attack!

 

But this idea that Michael pushes that Rothmiller  makes `these horrendous allegations of the Kennedy's but somehow it's mitigated because he thinks the Kennedys "did many great things" and he speaks favorably about their policies and achievements, doesn't make him any more credible in my eyes, in fact he sounds more like a con to me..

 

Writers do project different credibility to different readers. Once a reader has established an acceptance of an author to the point he has invested his time in reading, and when readers are persuaded by a perceived credibility of an author that also may confirm their possible biases, it's my observation here, that they may never come back to a neutral position. Of course you can't blame the author, because isn't that what they are supposed to do?

 

It's just my opinion It's not impossible, but I'm not near believing the  Kennedy's were behind the death of MM. Particularly with her history and susceptibility to drugs. But I would never put it beyond Bobby to use his position as AG to say, first sweep the Monroe premises of any trace of Kennedy presence if there was. And it's not impossible IMO that the mob or someone else wanted to get rid of her. And I'm content to occasionally tune in but probably not too intently. I'll never be an expert  because in my mind , unlike the JFKA and RFKA, the ship has passed. IMO

 

 

[Cory Santos]

12 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jim: MM did not have "affairs" with either JFK or RFK!

Yeah easy for you to say Pam! But just  think if Jim, after 100's and 100's of hours research only was to find out that either of the Kennedy brothers had sex with Marilyn Monroe.? I can't imagine a more profound disappointment in the Kennedy's for Jim. I'd say it's probably historically tantamount to the profound sense disappointment, and even revulsion that Cassidy Hutchinson felt toward Trump after the 1/6 insurrection.  

It would take awhile to sink in, as Jim would have to grapple with the 7 stages of grief!

 

heh heh

 

Well, First of all I  don't believe the Kennedy's killed MM.

Of course, if the Kennedy' killed MM that would have been the scandal of the Century. But it falls into that category here where no one will have definitive proof but people do  push their credibility and parade their list of credited sources. Let everybody try to assemble facts that support their conclusions But IMO it's important that people don't take their conclusions quite so seriously. Jim has spent so much time and emotional energy defending the Kennedys, I'm afraid he's going to have a heart attack!

 

But this idea that Michael pushes that Rothmiller  makes `these horrendous allegations of the Kennedy's but somehow it's mitigated because he thinks the Kennedys "did many great things" and he speaks favorably about their policies and achievements, doesn't make him any more credible in my eyes, in fact he sounds more like a con to me..

 

Writers do project different credibility to different readers. Once a reader has established an acceptance of an author to the point he has invested his time in reading, and when readers are persuaded by a perceived credibility of an author that also may confirm their possible biases, it's my observation here, that they may never come back to a neutral position. Of course you can't blame the author, because isn't that what they are supposed to do?

 

It's just my opinion It's not impossible, but I'm not near believing the  Kennedy's were behind the death of MM. Particularly with her history and susceptibility to drugs. But I would never put it beyond Bobby to use his position as AG to say, first sweep the Monroe premises of any trace of Kennedy presence if there was. And it's not impossible IMO that the mob or someone else wanted to get rid of her. And I'm content to occasionally tune in but probably not too intently. I'll never be an expert  because in my mind , unlike the JFKA and RFKA, the ship has passed. IMO

 

 

Who killed Mary Pinchot Meyer?

Also, no one seems to ask whether anyone else had a reason to kill MM.   if yes, who cares where the Kennedy’s were?   The questions are has MM’s demise conclusively been determined to be a suicide?    I say no.  Then ask if anyone else could have had a reason to kill her.   Hint, there was.  

[Joe Bauer]

I believe Joe DiMaggio loved Marilyn Monroe in the deepest sense of the word.

More than any man who had ever married her.

Even after their divorce.

It was so obvious. She truly WAS the love of his life.

The man left flowers on her grave twice a week for 20 years!

Dimaggio took charge of MM's funeral and burial service. Paid for everything.

And, it is common knowledge he refused to allow Frank Sinatra anywhere near MM's funeral service.  Keep your a$$ away from her Frank! 

There was something very powerful in that action on DiMaggio's part imo.

You don't tell the most famous American crooner and Mafia connected " Chairman Of The Board" to take a hike like that. That took guts on DiMaggio's part.

MM was the most famous sex symbol movie star ever.

Sinatra probably wanted to be a part of her service.

And he couldn't have been more disrespected than to be told " stay away" by ole Joltin' Joe.

Even if DiMaggio felt the Kennedy's were somehow connected to MM's death, he also knew how Marilyn M. was used and abused by people in the organized crime world. And he hated them for it.

Just my theory.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/8/2023 at 1:55 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Joe:

If you had been the doctors who allowed MM to take so many pills, something like 746 in 50 days--just do the arithmetic as to how many per day-- do you think you would have been in any hurry to let the authorities know about what your negligence led to?

As Don McGovern has written, if MM's death would have taken place in the modern era with more medical oversight, her doctors would have likely  been severely disciplined by their medical boards, probably suspended, or even placed on trial.  Especially because of the empty bottle of nembutals--a very powerful drug.  MM was a pill addict, there is no way around that.  There is even evidence that she went to the black market for more.

It is not my opinion that RFK had nothing to do with MM's death.  It is an established fact that he was in Gilroy about 350 miles away at the time. And there is a plethora of evidence, including a series of photographs in time sequence, that demonstrate this beyond doubt.

For many years on end, actually decades, cheapjack writers like Robert Slatzer and David Heymann simply manufactured a mythology that had no basis in fact in order to sell their pulpy books to an all too willing populace.  Then that ridiculous novel Double Cross came out and the tabloid cable media jumped on board. In the former case, the clown Slatzer actually said that RFK had promised to marry MM?  And he also spilled out the secrets of MONGOOSE to her!  And he had been part of Murder Inc??  I mean please with this BS.

Heymann actually wrote that RFK was in Brentwood at her house not once but twice that day.  Which we now know, through Susan Bernard, and other evidence, was not possible.  And by the way, I would put the work of Summers and Shaw about one notch below those two clowns.  One of the worst things you can do as a non fiction author is to have your thesis in sight before you start your research and writing.   Summers, for example, actually bought into that con man Slatzer, who made a career out of this BS.  But further, he was actually played by Slatzer who promised to pay a friend of his to lie for him and Summers bought that also. And as more than one author has shown, MM's contract was never controlled by The Outfit. 

A writer without confirmation bias could have seen through  a con artist like Slatzer.   For example, Don McGovern utterly destroyed Slatzer. What Don did was to carefully analyze the information in these books, compare them to each other, and compare them to the adduced record. The pills MM took were ingested, they were not injected or supplied by enema. And Don proves this scientifically.  The mixture she took of Nembutal and Chloral Hydrate should have never been allowed by her doctors.  Especially since she had tried to take her life four times previously.  There have been many critiques of what Greenson was doing with MM, since as anyone can see, his treatment was not successful. And he was the third psychiatrist MM employed in something like 6 years.

it is almost impossible to overestimate the influence of Slatzer and Heymann on both the public and in the literature. Slatzer wrote two books and had two films made.  He made many appearances on TV talk shows masquerading as MM's 48 hour husband. Which is one of the most ridiculous BS stories ever postulated.  But yet, Summers references his name literally scores of times in his book Goddess, and Donald Wolfe does the same. This tsunami of utter hooey ended up with MM being consulted by Bob Maheu and attending meetings of MONGOOSE, and being employed as a honey pot in the Castro plots.  I wish I was kidding but I am not.  This stuff actually got published. It should make the people on this board cringe. This is what the subject of my multi part essay will be.  How this nuttiness ended up damaging literary and cultural standards.  Ending up with that debacle by Seymour Hersh about a signed trust agreement between MM and the Kennedys, in which Hersh was also played by a con artist who made lots of  money off his fraud.

And that is what, due to Slatzer, this became: a business dealing in fraud.  A fraud which distorts and defiles the  people being used in the money making process. And it also distracts from the factual record. Which Mike is trying to do with the heading of this thread.  The people in the JFK field--who have dealt with many such instances-- should be sensitive to it.

You still have not laid a finger on most of the evidence that Thompson and Rothmiller present. As usual, you vehemently pretend that you've refuted an account when in fact you haven't even addressed most of the evidence for that account.

And now I see that, incredibly, you are attacking the research of Anthony Summers, who has arguably done more to make the case for conspiracy respectable and believable than any other researcher. A great deal of the key information that we know about the JFKA plot has come from the historic interviews that Summers conducted. 

But you, a Fletcher Prouty believer, say that Summers' books are worse than Heymann's and Slatzer's books!  Is this because Summers is willing to admit that RFK visited Marilyn on the day she died?

I see in another reply that you call Mark Shaw's research "goofy." His research is head and shoulders better than yours. Oh, yes, his research is not perfect, and, yes, he does make some mistakes. But your research is not perfect either, and your mistakes have been much more severe than his.

No, it is not an "established fact" that RFK was in Gilroy, anymore than your discredited fringe myth that JFK was determined to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam is an "established fact." Two LAPD sources later independently confirmed RFK's presence in LA on the day Marilyn died, and Marilyn's own housekeeper later, and with some reluctance, also confirmed this. But you brush aside all this evidence, and other evidence, and proclaim that it's an "established fact" that RFK was not in LA that day. 

This is an appropriate point to mention that your research skills and objectivity have been found to be sorely lacking on several issues. You continue to defend the disgraced crackpot Fletcher Prouty and his nutty, bizarre claims. If you cannot acknowledge the indisputable evidence that Prouty was a fraud and a crackpot, you have no business passing judgment on the research of others.

And then there is your embarrassing "review" of Dr. Marc Selverstone's book The Kennedy Withdrawal, in which you simply ignore most of the evidence he presents and then pretend that you've refuted his research. When I documented that Selverstone's book has been praised by scholars from both sides of the spectrum, you cited Mike Swanson in your defense. When I pointed out the numerous egregious errors in Swanson's book Why the Vietnam War?, including embarrassing grammatical errors, you ignored this and kept on insisting that you had "debunked" Selverstone's book. 

It bears repeating that even the vast majority of liberal scholars reject your claim that JFK was going to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam, yet you keep repeating this myth as if it were an established fact.

Finally, I would just note, again, that your main anti-Rothmiller source is McGovern, a love-struck Marilyn Monroe fan who can't even admit that Marilyn had affairs with RFK and JFK, or that she was even promiscuous. No serious student of Marilyn Monroe's life denies that she was promiscuous. But McGovern insists that Marilyn was not promiscuous and that she did not have affairs with RFK and JFK. 

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

DiMaggio and MM were reconciling at the time of her death.  

He rescued her from an asylum that her previous psychiatrist had mistakenly placed her in. That is the main reason she fired her and replaced her with Greenson..  If I recall correctly, there were only 24 people at the funeral ceremony as Joe D  controlled the list.  

There is no evidence that there was anything at all between RFK and MM.  There is evidence that there was a one shot encounter between JFK and MM, back in 1961 IIRC.  There was not any continuing affair. And MM was not at the White House during the JFK years.  

The work that has been done on this by skilled and professional writers uses the calendars that are demanded of the AG and POTUS, with the MM day books by Rollyson and Vevea.  April Vevea has become a really good and valuable writer and blogger on the subject.  And she has been one of the most proficient sources to effectively counter all the crapola that came from people like Slatzer and Mailer and Carmen. The difference being she does some careful and logical and fact based work. Her expose of Carmen was bracing.

Just recall, Summers used both Slatzer and Carmen in his book. Whew.

 

PS And thanks Sandy.

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Pamela Brown]

22 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You still have not laid a finger on most of the evidence that Thompson and Rothmiller present. As usual, you vehemently pretend that you're refuted an account when in fact you haven't even addressed most of the evidence for that account.

And now I see that, incredibly, you are attacking the research of Anthony Summers, who has arguably done more to make the case for conspiracy respectable and believable than any other researcher. A great deal of the key information that we know about the JFKA plot has come from the historic interviews that Summers conducted. 

But you, a Fletcher Prouty believer, say that Summers' books are worse than Heymann's and Slatzer's books!  Is this because Summers is willing to admit that RFK visited Marilyn on the day she died?

I see in another reply that you call Mark Shaw's research "goofy." His research is head and shoulders better than yours. Oh, yes, his research is not perfect, and, yes, he does make some mistakes. But your research is not perfect either, and your mistakes have been much more severe than his.

No, it is not an "established fact" that RFK was in Gilroy, anymore than your discredited fringe myth that JFK was determined to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam is an "established fact." Two LAPD sources later independently confirmed RFK's presence in LA on the day Marilyn died, and Marilyn's own housekeeper later, and with some reluctance, also confirmed this. But you brush aside all this evidence, and other evidence, and proclaim that it's an "established fact" that RFK was not in LA that day. 

This is an appropriate point to mention that your research skills and objectivity have been found to be sorely lacking on several issues. You continue to defend the disgraced crackpot Fletcher Prouty and his nutty, bizarre claims. If you cannot acknowledge the indisputable evidence that Prouty was a fraud and a crackpot, you have no business passing judgment on the research of others.

And then there is your embarrassing "review" of Dr. Marc Selverstone's book The Kennedy Withdrawal, in which you simply ignore most of the evidence he presents and then pretend that you've refuted his research. When I documented that Selverstone's book has been praised by scholars from both sides of the spectrum, you cited Mike Swanson in your defense. When I pointed out the numerous egregious errors in Swanson's book Why the Vietnam War?, including embarrassing grammatical errors, you ignored this and kept on insisting that you had "debunked" Selverstone's book. 

It bears repeating that even the vast majority of liberal scholars reject your claim that JFK was going to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam, yet you keep repeating this myth as if it were an established fact.

Finally, I would juIst note, again, that your main anti-Rothmiller source is McGovern, a love-struck Marilyn Monroe fan who can't even admit that Marilyn had affairs with RFK and JFK, or that she was even promiscuous. No serious student of Marilyn Monroe's life denies that she was promiscuous. But McGovern insists that Marilyn was not promiscuous and that she did not have affairs with RFK and JFK. 

 

It seems to me that Jim is trying to shut down conversation on this topic by using absolutes, such as 'proven', etc, and ad hominem attacks such as 'greedy', etc. And let's not forget that the 'opposition is lying' ...

And, of course, we can add into this toxic mix the 'let's blame the victim' tactic...too many drugs, 'unstable', etc, etc...

I am starting to wonder if we are supposed to let Jim do our thinking for us.  

Edited October 11, 2023 by Pamela Brown

[Pamela Brown]

On 10/9/2023 at 1:30 PM, James DiEugenio said:

No Pamela, Jim has done a lot of reading on this subject in books that no one else here has apparently read.

And I also understand just what Sy Hersh was up to and why.

And how when that blew up in his face, ABC and Jennings still supported him and protected him.

That will be a major part of my upcoming essay.

So have I.  So have others. 

Are you trying to posit an appeal to authority? 

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

It seems to me that Jim is trying to shut down conversation on this topic by using absolutes, such as 'proven', etc, and ad hominem attacks such as 'greedy', etc. And let's not forget that the 'opposition is lying' ...

And, of course, we can add into this toxic mix the 'let's blame the victim' tactic...too many drugs, 'unstable', etc, etc...

I am starting to wonder if we are supposed to let Jim do our thinking for us.  

I have trouble trusting the judgment and research of anyone who continues to defend and cite Fletcher Prouty after all we now know about him. Prouty was an anti-Semitic crackpot who made numerous bogus claims and some downright nutty claims. Prouty spent years palling around with notorious anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, and white supremacists, speaking at their conferences, praising their journals (in writing), appearing numerous times on their radio programs, praising the likes of Carto and Marcellus, blaming Israel for high oil prices and complaining about "usury" (a favorite dog whistle of anti-Semites), and expressing concern about Jewish sergeants operating targeting computers during military operations, among many other things that could be mentioned.

It is hard to fathom how someone could accept Prouty's bizarre bunk and then turn around and attack Mike Rothmiller. Rothmiller has a sterling record as an anti-corruption whistleblower. He has exposed CIA penetration of the LAPD. His testimony before the LA Police Commission led to badly needed reforms of the LAPD. He has also revealed that OCID files contained evidence that more shots were fired at RFK than Sirhan could have fired. And on and on I could go. Yet, Jim and his allies reject and attack Rothmiller.

Here is the core problem that Jim and his allies have with Rothmiller: Rothmiller's disclosures contradict their ahistorical, untenable view of the Kennedys and their version of the JFK assassination. This is also why they attack Mark Shaw, even though Shaw has uncovered historic new evidence of conspiracy and cover-up in the JFK case. Both Rothmiller and Shaw make it clear that they believe JFK and RFK did many good things, but this is not good enough for Jim and his allies.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

Michael has a tendency to resort to smears and also to unrelated subject matters when he starts to lose an argument.  It really gets kind of tedious to listen to.

I replied to Rothmiller's claims about a diary in more ways than one.  I also replied to the claim that RFK was in LA that day.

As per my references to "authority", April VeVea authored  a book that reconstructed what MM's day to day life consisted of.  It was the kind of book that although it does not make a lot of waves, is a valuable piece of work.  Because you can match it up with the calendars of both RFK and JFK. (There is a second book like this by Rollyson.)

This is how one can prove things.

As per RFK and Gilroy, how much evidence do you want? Pictures, testimony, newspaper stories.  

As per Summers and Shaw, what I said was this:  their books, for me, are like one step below people like Slatzer.  

Just take a look at how much Summers relies on Slatzer, Carmen and Smathers.  And I should also add Gary Wean. I actually sent away for Wean's book.  I had to do an ILL and it cost me about 20 bucks.  But it was worth it.  Because what Summers left out about this guy is, I think, the real story.  And you will hear it soon.

As per Mark Shaw, I mean sheesh. What are we to make of a person who presents photographic evidence to suggest that somehow Bobby Kennedy's car was in Brentwood, when a.) it was not, and b.) it was not his car.  That is, unless Bobby drove to San Francisco. Or that the two men from the mortuary were actually bringing a stretcher back into Monroe's home, when in fact, the building was not her home!  Or do you even want to talk about Gianni Russo, who Donna Morel exposed as another witness out of Aesop's fables. Or Shaw's so called Fox  "security log" which neither he nor anyone else around has seen.

If this were the JFK case, these guys would be torn limb from limb.  But the MM field, for years, was different since there was no cross checking, quality control apparatus.  Therefore people like Slatzer and Wolfe were allowed to basically run amok with these fables.  Today there is something like this with people like Morel, McGovern, Gary VItacco Robles and Nina Boski.  Thanks for them. Because MM, JFK and RFK deserved much better.

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Leslie Sharp]

Can EF experts on the topic comment on this infamous photo and the circumstances?  

https://time.com/5354958/marilyn-monroe-john-f-kennedy-photo/

Edited October 11, 2023 by Leslie Sharp