JFK Teen Mistress?

[John McAdams]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/inside_my_teen_affair_with_jfk_FGF4aS7OdoQozP4tyySsmK

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

I find a lot of Mimi's story just a tad hard to believe (to say the
least).

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Feb 5, 8:20 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/inside_my_teen_affair_with_jfk_...


Consider the source, the NY Post, owned by Faux.

-Ramon

"Those afraid of offending are not interested in the truth"

[Ramon F. Herrera]

This was published in 2003:

"Ms Lewinsky levered her fame into a tell-all book written by the
British author and Princess Diana confidant, Andrew Morton, a handbag
business, and most recently a television job as hostess of Mr
Personality a dating show.

"Mrs Fahnestock, now aged 60, revealed no such ambitions yesterday.
She issued a curt statement saying: "From June 1962 to November 1963,
I was involved in a sexual relationship with President Kennedy. For
the last 41 years, it is a subject that I have not discussed.

"In view of the recent media coverage, I have now discussed the
relationship with my children and my family, and they are completely
supportive."

Family privacy

"I will have no further comment on this subject, period. I would
request that the media respect my privacy and the privacy of my family
in this matter," the statement concluded.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/16/usa.julianborger

-Ramon

-------------------------------------------------------

"Those afraid to offend are not interested in the truth"

[John McAdams]

On 5 Feb 2012 14:09:43 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

>
>I find a lot of Mimi's story just a tad hard to believe (to say the
>least).

Most of it I don't find implausible (giving Dave Powers a blow job
seemed a bit much, but maybe not).

It's true, however, that people come forward very late and claim
things that didn't happen, apparently for the money or the attention.

So is she like Jean Hill or Beverly Oliver or Judyth Baker, but just
smart enough to avoid the howlers in their accounts? In other words,
has she read the standard accounts of Kennedy's sexual adventures and
inserted herself into them?

Or did it really happen?

Not that it matters much, but I would like to know if it can be
established that she really was a press intern at the White House.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 5 Feb 2012 14:09:53 -0500, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net>
wrote:

>On Feb 5, 8:20 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/inside_my_teen_affair_with_jfk_...
>
>
>Consider the source, the NY Post, owned by Faux.
>

If she was on MSNBC would you believe it?

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Feb 5, 1:09 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I find a lot of Mimi's story just a tad hard to believe
> (to say the least).

It is not the story per se. I give it the benefit of the doubt.

What is almost impossible is that, with so many people looking, and
NOBODY saw anything!?

I mean, if you ever walked the pony Macaroni, you get to have your own
book!

-Ramon

[slats]

John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in
news:rrlti71cn8fakaqmv...@4ax.com:

As I recall, she was "outed" by a researcher who heard about a "JFK-
teenager" rumor and then tracked her down by a process of elimination.
Absent that, she probably would have sat on the story for the rest of her
life. In other words, she wasn't seeking publicity or looking to "cash in"
on her dalliance. But if the cat's out of the bag, might as well tell the
whole story.

[John McAdams]

Apparently, the story has a lot of credibility:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/books/23jfk.html

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/02/05/mimi_alford_jfk_pressured_19_year_old_mistress_to_perform_oral_sex_do_drugs_.html

.John


The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[slats]

john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote in
news:4f2edfe...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:

Also, whether she "serviced" him or not, Dave Powers was little more than
a glorified pimp. He'd procure "working girls" for JFK all the time. The
sleazy party at Bing Crosby's house was long ago confirmed by ex-SS agents
in Seymour Hersh's "Dark Side of Camelot."

[Anthony Marsh]

Well I guess you non-researchers finally got too bored with Judyth so you
need some new distraction. Anything to avoid discussing the evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/5/2012 2:55 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 1:09 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I find a lot of Mimi's story just a tad hard to believe
> > (to say the least).
>
> It is not the story per se. I give it the benefit of the doubt.
>
> What is almost impossible is that, with so many people looking, and
> NOBODY saw anything!?
>

A lot of people saw it, including Jackie. But no one would dare to print
it. The last guy who started to talk about it was put in a straightjacket
and whisked off to an insane asylum.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/5/2012 2:29 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2012 14:09:43 -0500, David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I find a lot of Mimi's story just a tad hard to believe (to say the
>> least).
>
> Most of it I don't find implausible (giving Dave Powers a blow job
> seemed a bit much, but maybe not).
>

As I said before a few times, it is usually adding an unnecessary detail
which tells you the person is lying.

> It's true, however, that people come forward very late and claim
> things that didn't happen, apparently for the money or the attention.
>

Get with the program. Your fellow Kennedy haters claim she is telling the
truth BECAUSE she did not come forward, but had to be dragged out by a
researcher. So according to your criteria this means that whenever anyone
writes a book for money that is proof that the person is lying? Therefore
we must conclude that you took the money for your book and gave it all to
Planned Parenthood?

> So is she like Jean Hill or Beverly Oliver or Judyth Baker, but just
> smart enough to avoid the howlers in their accounts? In other words,
> has she read the standard accounts of Kennedy's sexual adventures and
> inserted herself into them?
>

Are you really that clueless? Why of course you are. Jean Hill did not
READ about the assassination. She was there, unlike you. She lived through
it and saw it happen.

She told her story within minutes and wasn't paid for it.

> Or did it really happen?
>
> Not that it matters much, but I would like to know if it can be
> established that she really was a press intern at the White House.
>

What difference would that make to the discussion that the name of this
newsgroup is supposed to be about? Unless you want to change the name to
alt.assassination.character.jfk.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

On Feb 5, 2:09 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I find a lot of Mimi's story just a tad hard to believe (to say the
> least).

Rings true to me. She gives a lot of information that can be checked.
This isn`t like that phony Hunt "confession", where nothing is really
presented, she gives details.

[Anthony Marsh]

So if these SS agents tell stories to cash in or gain fame that's ok with
you and they must be telling the truth. Especially when they waited so
many years to come forward and had to be paid.

And it doesn't bother you that the CIA derailed Seymour Hersh's book which
was originally supposed to be about the JFK assassination conspiracy by
feeding him rumors about JFK's sex life?

[slats]

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:4f2f1a20$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:

What proof do you have that they were compensated financially? What other
SS agents who were on duty during the Crosby party have publicly called
them liars? Was Judith Exner lying? Do you think Kennedy was a faithful
husband or something? Hell, even his staunchest admirers concede that he
was pond scum. The SS agents and the naive intern were there; you weren't.
Advantage: them.

> And it doesn't bother you that the CIA derailed Seymour Hersh's book
> which was originally supposed to be about the JFK assassination
> conspiracy by feeding him rumors about JFK's sex life?

To borrow a phrase from McAdams, "Citation"?

Sorry, but unlike yourself, I don't see the CIA under every bed.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4f2f1a20$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Alas, I knew you weren?t going to like this one. Kind of puts JFK in the
same moral plane as John Paul Vann doesn?t it.

Bill Clarke

[Greg Jaynes]

On Feb 5, 8:20 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/inside_my_teen_affair_with_jfk_...
>

> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I could accept that this happened like she say's.
Except for this part :

“I’d rather my children red than dead,” he told her.

I simply do not believe that President Kennedy said this.
I do not believe that he thought this way. She might have
gotten this backwards.

Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes

[David Von Pein]

>>> "She [Jean Hill] told her story within minutes and wasn't paid for it." <<<

And, within minutes of the shooting, she said she didn't see any
gunman. Which means she LIED later on.

Or do you just want to forget about that little insignificant detail,
Tony?

[David Von Pein]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/inside_my_teen_affair_with_jfk_FGF4aS7OdoQozP4tyySsmK

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I find a lot of Mimi's story [in the above-linked New York Post
article] just a tad hard to believe (to say the least).


BUD SAID:

>>> "Rings true to me. She [Mimi Alford] gives a lot of information that can be checked. This isn't like that phony Hunt "confession", where nothing is really presented, she gives details." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

And she is giving some details that just don't ring true, IMO. The
excerpt below is particularly unbelievable (plus the part about Mimi
"servicing" Dave Powers):

"Mimi, why don’t you take care of my baby brother [Teddy]? He
could stand a little relaxation."

JFK supposedly said the above words to Mimi Alford.

Come on. How much of this should we swallow? (Oops...bad choice of
words there.) :-)

Plus:

According to some sources, JFK was ALSO supposedly having extended
flings with several other women/girls during this period when he was
President ('61-'63). We've all heard about his sexual antics with
"Frick & Frack" (a couple of White House secretaries), plus Judith
Exner, plus Marilyn Monroe, plus Angie Dickinson, plus God knows how
many others. And then there's his wife, Jackie. Surely, she wasn't
left out in the cold entirely when it came to Jack's attention in the
bedroom.

So, I'm just asking myself the logical question: How many mistresses
does one President really NEED in order to keep himself satisfied?

Was it just a game to JFK? Was he trying to see how many girls he
could "service" (right in the White House itself) without getting
caught?

And while I was reading Mimi Alford's sordid account of her supposed
sexual affair with President Kennedy, I kept asking myself another
question (which may not be an intelligent question to ask, because I
have not memorized the First Lady's travel schedule for the White
House years), but I kept asking myself: My gosh, is Jackie ALWAYS gone
on a trip? Isn't she ever around at all?

Of course, whenever a member of JFK's innermost "inner circle" has
ever commented on Kennedy's rumored trysts and affairs, they have
always denied them -- from Pierre Salinger on down.

Now I realize that Salinger would have certainly wanted to keep a lid
on any of JFK's sexual freelancing when Pierre talked to the press
during the time when Kennedy was actually the President. But Salinger
has appeared on many TV documentaries since JFK's death, and I don't
seem to recall him ever coming out and admitting that he was aware of
any sexual flings that the President might have been having.

It could be, of course, that Salinger, even if he did know about
Kennedy's affairs, was so close to JFK that he didn't want to tarnish
his reputation--even decades after his assassination.

But if JFK had really engaged in all of the sordid sexual antics that
he was rumored to have engaged in, it's hard for me to believe that
Mr. Salinger wouldn't have been aware of them. (If only to keep the
press at bay and play down the whole thing in front of the reporters,
which he did do at one point when a newsman asked him about the
rumors.)

In my opinion (without having read all of Mimi Alford's explosive new
"tell-all" book), I think John F. Kennedy almost certainly did engage
in some extramarital affairs during his 1,037 days as the 35th U.S.
President. There are many accounts by various people (including Secret
Service agents) which pretty much corroborate each other on that
point. So, JFK was almost certainly a person who didn't give a damn
about remaining faithful to his wife.

But I'm just wondering HOW MUCH of it is true? Some of it is almost
certainly true. But was JFK really such a sex maniac that he was
tossing girls onto Jackie's bed every time the First Lady left the
house? And was he really so starved for sex that he would literally
get headaches if he didn't get some new trim every night (or every
third or fourth night, or whatever), as one person has suggested in
the past?

I'm not saying that Jack wasn't a sex maniac. I'm just dubious about
the frequency of such dalliances. And I'm certainly dubious about some
of the details revealed by Ms. Alford in the New York Post article.

But, then again, maybe she's telling the 100% truth. I have no idea.
But, as most people will acknowledge, the word "Kennedy" has a way of
bringing people out of the woodwork to spin all kinds of tales that
are not the complete truth.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

[David Von Pein]

Another part of Mimi's story that is not at all believable to me is
when she says that JFK said this to her on November 15, 1963, seven
days before Kennedy was killed:

"I wish you were coming with me to Texas."

That quote above sounds to me like a manufactured quotation, which was
inserted into Mimi's story in order to place a melancholy note of
sadness on the President's fateful trip to Dallas on November 22nd.

Plus, why in the world would JFK have said such a thing to Mimi about
the Texas trip anyway--from the standpoint of the LENGTH of Kennedy's
Texas excursion? The Texas trip was only a two-day trip for the
President. He was scheduled to return to Washington sometime on
Saturday, November 23rd. My gosh, couldn't Kennedy get along without
his 19-year-old sweetheart for just two days? IMO, it's just silly to
think that President Kennedy uttered those above words to Mimi.

Mimi, however, is definitely correct about JFK being in New York City
on the date she mentioned (11/15/63). And she is also correct about
Kennedy being at the Carlyle Hotel on that exact date too (see JFK's
Appointments Calendar for that day, linked below). So that part of her
story checks out. Therefore, I suppose it would have been physically
possible for Mimi to have seen JFK in Manhattan on November 15th:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-P09aQojDXUU/Ty-c2qI3UdI/AAAAAAAAEUg/vE__entZ1cI/s1600/JFK-White-House-Diary-11-15-63.png

[Ace Kefford]

On Feb 5, 9:20 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/inside_my_teen_affair_with_jfk_...
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Unless this is a different "Mimi" my recollection is that this is an
old story. Maybe some of the details are new, but I recall a woman
coming forward a few years back named Mimi. By the way, she seemed
like a nice elderly woman.

[Questionin]

"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:rrlti71cn8fakaqmv...@4ax.com...

> On 5 Feb 2012 14:09:43 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I find a lot of Mimi's story just a tad hard to believe (to say the
>>least).
>
> Most of it I don't find implausible (giving Dave Powers a blow job
> seemed a bit much, but maybe not).
>
> It's true, however, that people come forward very late and claim
> things that didn't happen, apparently for the money or the attention.
>
> So is she like Jean Hill or Beverly Oliver or Judyth Baker, but just
> smart enough to avoid the howlers in their accounts? In other words,
> has she read the standard accounts of Kennedy's sexual adventures and
> inserted herself into them?
>
> Or did it really happen?

If YOU believe this crap? Then ask her to reach into her closet and pull
out the dress!!!

>
> Not that it matters much, but I would like to know if it can be
> established that she really was a press intern at the White House.

Even so that don't prove anything. Kennedy was a lot of things. But I
can't believe he was a purvert. But there are a lot of teachers and
policemen and preachers being procuted these days for just such a thing.
Where is our country's morals? This is nothing more than mud.

>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[claviger]

slats,

> What proof do you have that they were compensated financially? What other
> SS agents who were on duty during the Crosby party have publicly called
> them liars? Was Judith Exner lying? Do you think Kennedy was a faithful
> husband or something? Hell, even his staunchest admirers concede that he
> was pond scum. The SS agents and the naive intern were there; you weren't.
> Advantage: them.

I prefer to think of JFK as a horny, fun-loving Irishman who realized he
may die young from Addison's disease or an assassin's bullet, therefore
decided to enjoy life's pleasures at every opportunity, never knowing if
it could be his last day of earth.

[claviger]

On Feb 5, 8:20 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/inside_my_teen_affair_with_jfk_...
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

.John,

This is not new news. She was interviewed a year ago IIRC.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/6/2012 8:06 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/inside_my_teen_affair_with_jfk_FGF4aS7OdoQozP4tyySsmK
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I find a lot of Mimi's story [in the above-linked New York Post
> article] just a tad hard to believe (to say the least).
>

Consider the source: The New York Post, the flagship rag of proto-Nazi
Rupert Murdoch, whose only goal in life is to put Liberals into
concentration camps.
Where else would you expect to find such a Kennedy bashing article full
of lies?

>
> BUD SAID:
>
>>>> "Rings true to me. She [Mimi Alford] gives a lot of information that can be checked. This isn't like that phony Hunt "confession", where nothing is really presented, she gives details."<<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> And she is giving some details that just don't ring true, IMO. The
> excerpt below is particularly unbelievable (plus the part about Mimi
> "servicing" Dave Powers):
>

> "Mimi, why don?t you take care of my baby brother [Teddy]? He

> could stand a little relaxation."
>
> JFK supposedly said the above words to Mimi Alford.
>
> Come on. How much of this should we swallow? (Oops...bad choice of
> words there.) :-)
>
> Plus:
>
> According to some sources, JFK was ALSO supposedly having extended
> flings with several other women/girls during this period when he was
> President ('61-'63). We've all heard about his sexual antics with

> "Frick& Frack" (a couple of White House secretaries), plus Judith

> Exner, plus Marilyn Monroe, plus Angie Dickinson, plus God knows how
> many others. And then there's his wife, Jackie. Surely, she wasn't
> left out in the cold entirely when it came to Jack's attention in the
> bedroom.
>
> So, I'm just asking myself the logical question: How many mistresses
> does one President really NEED in order to keep himself satisfied?
>

One per day. Or he'd get terrible headaches as he told to a fellow world
leader.

> Was it just a game to JFK? Was he trying to see how many girls he
> could "service" (right in the White House itself) without getting
> caught?
>

No, it was physical therapy.

> And while I was reading Mimi Alford's sordid account of her supposed
> sexual affair with President Kennedy, I kept asking myself another
> question (which may not be an intelligent question to ask, because I
> have not memorized the First Lady's travel schedule for the White
> House years), but I kept asking myself: My gosh, is Jackie ALWAYS gone
> on a trip? Isn't she ever around at all?
>

As primary pimp Dave Powers had to coordinate this carefully. Occasionally
the SS would be whisking women out of the pool at the last possible
second.

> Of course, whenever a member of JFK's innermost "inner circle" has
> ever commented on Kennedy's rumored trysts and affairs, they have
> always denied them -- from Pierre Salinger on down.
>

Show me one politician who immediately admitted an affair even before
confronted. Newt Gingrich?

> Now I realize that Salinger would have certainly wanted to keep a lid
> on any of JFK's sexual freelancing when Pierre talked to the press
> during the time when Kennedy was actually the President. But Salinger
> has appeared on many TV documentaries since JFK's death, and I don't
> seem to recall him ever coming out and admitting that he was aware of
> any sexual flings that the President might have been having.
>

Salinger was often kept uninformed on purpose. During the Cuban Missile
Crisis he was not told about the Russians putting missiles in Cuba, but
was told that in a couple of days the President would have a cold and
would have to cancel a trip to stay in the White House.

> It could be, of course, that Salinger, even if he did know about
> Kennedy's affairs, was so close to JFK that he didn't want to tarnish
> his reputation--even decades after his assassination.
>

Salinger had a nasty habit of telling the truth, which is why the kept
him out of the loop.

> But if JFK had really engaged in all of the sordid sexual antics that
> he was rumored to have engaged in, it's hard for me to believe that
> Mr. Salinger wouldn't have been aware of them. (If only to keep the
> press at bay and play down the whole thing in front of the reporters,
> which he did do at one point when a newsman asked him about the
> rumors.)
>

Salinger never went swimming in the pool with the President. Ben Bradlee
did and never reported anything.

> In my opinion (without having read all of Mimi Alford's explosive new
> "tell-all" book), I think John F. Kennedy almost certainly did engage
> in some extramarital affairs during his 1,037 days as the 35th U.S.

Wow! And you think he was the only President to fool around? Guess
you've never read any history books.

> President. There are many accounts by various people (including Secret
> Service agents) which pretty much corroborate each other on that
> point. So, JFK was almost certainly a person who didn't give a damn
> about remaining faithful to his wife.
>

His wife said as much to the French ambassador.

> But I'm just wondering HOW MUCH of it is true? Some of it is almost
> certainly true. But was JFK really such a sex maniac that he was
> tossing girls onto Jackie's bed every time the First Lady left the

Never onto Jackie's bed. Bad for his back.

> house? And was he really so starved for sex that he would literally
> get headaches if he didn't get some new trim every night (or every
> third or fourth night, or whatever), as one person has suggested in
> the past?
>

Ever go to the Deli to buy some meat? Notice that machine that dispenses
numbers? Take your number and wait for your number to be called.

> I'm not saying that Jack wasn't a sex maniac. I'm just dubious about
> the frequency of such dalliances. And I'm certainly dubious about some
> of the details revealed by Ms. Alford in the New York Post article.
>

Even if she didn't get paid a lot for it, someone did.

> But, then again, maybe she's telling the 100% truth. I have no idea.
> But, as most people will acknowledge, the word "Kennedy" has a way of
> bringing people out of the woodwork to spin all kinds of tales that
> are not the complete truth.
>

Especially when Murdoch and the CIA have billions of dollars to spread
around.

> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, I've only mentioned it about 8,000 times.

And as Loftus points out this is one reason to go to the earliest
statements. But you ignore that and claim that she was always lying. When
did she say she saw the gunman firing the head shot? Or did she just see a
man running away and assume he was the shooter? Like Price.

[Anthony Marsh]

Consider the source. Murdoch is a hate monger.

[Anthony Marsh]

That is how you can tell than she is a liar. When she makes up
unnecessary details.

[Anthony Marsh]

Supposed to be on Inside Edition tonight.

[Canuck]

See my article "Jean Hill - The Lady In Red" at
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/Critical_thinking/Lady_In_Red.html, for a
detailed analysis of Jean's evolving recollections from Nov. 22, 1963
up to the publication and promotion of her book, THE LAST DISSENTING
WITNESS. I met Jean at the 1991 Dallas conference, having spoken to
her on the phone as well as writing to her several times. My article
started out as a respone to a letter from Jean wondering what I
thought of her book. I also saw her again at the Sudbury, Ontario
conference in 1993, but by then she wouldn't speak to me, presumably
having read my article, or heard about it, which I had sent to a dozen
researchers. It's a shame she was unable to stick with her original
eyewitness account, initially provided to a local tv station and later
in the day to an NBC reporter. Of course, if we are to believe
Beverly Oliver's allegations of being the "Babushka Lady", why didn't
she speak to a reporter, like virtually every eyewitness did? She
claimed in her book NIGHTMARE IN DALLAS (she mailed me a copy with a
note inside after I met her in Sudbury) that she was terrified and ran
home, although footage shows the "Babushka Lady" mingling with the
crowd and walking up the grassy knoll, apparently not in fear for her
safety. - prwhitmey

[claviger]

She also thought a SS Agent fired back at the sniper.

[Anthony Marsh]

In her original statement? The initial news reports said a SS agent had
been killed.

[timstter]

On Feb 6, 12:13 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 2/5/2012 6:12 PM, slats wrote:
>
>
>

> > john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote in
> >news:4f2edfe...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:
>
> >> On 5 Feb 2012 14:55:32 -0500, slats<o...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu>  wrote in
> >>>news:rrlti71cn8fakaqmv...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> On 5 Feb 2012 14:09:43 -0500, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com>

Where's your proof that THAT was the case, Marsh?

My understanding is that his book got derailed by a hoaxer, not the
CIA.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[Anthony Marsh]

You have half of the story. He fell for the Cusack fake Marilyn letters.
But that was only half of his book. The book was originally going to be
about the JFK assassination and the CIA theory that Castro put the hit on
JFK because JFK ordered the hit on him. He went to confirm that fact with
a CIA officer who said that the best way to find out what the atmosphere
in the White House then was to talk to the SS agents. He meant about JFK's
determination to get rid of Castro. But that is NOT what the SS agents
talked to him about. They fed him stories about the sex life and drugs.
Something they swore to never talk about.

I already posted many sources, including Hersh himself. I many have to
scan in some more if they are not online already.

[claviger]

Yes.

> The initial news reports said a SS agent had been killed.

Yes.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, here we go again with false claims about what Jean Hill said that day.
Here are her two interviews as close to verbatim as we can get:

WBAP-TV (Fort Worth/Dallas NBC affiliate) Interviews

FIRST JEAN HILL INTERVIEW - WBAP-TV (FT. WORTH)
Broadcast over NBC at 1:11 p.m. C.S.T.

Q. "What is your name ma'am?''

A. "Jean Hill.''

Q. "From Dallas?"

A. "That's right."

Q. "Did you hear the shooting, Miss?"

A. "Yes sir."

Q. "Could you describe what happened?"

A. "Yes Sir.''

Q. "Will you do that now?"

"Ah...They were driving along...ah...and we were the only people in this
area, on our side and the shots came from directly across the street from
us, and just as the president's car became directly even with us, we...we
took one look at him and he was sitting there - he and Jackie were looking
at a dog that was in the middle of the...seat, and about that time two
shots rang out just as he looked up - just as the president looked up -
and these two shots rang out, as he grabbed his chest, and... looked like
he was in pain, and he fell over the seat, and Jackie fell over on him and
said, 'My God he's been, shot!"

Q. "Ah..have.."

A. "...And after that more shots rang out and the car sped away."

Q. "What kind of car was that?"

A. "What kind of car was it? The president's car.'

Q. "Well, no...Where did the shots come from?"

A. "The shots came from the hill."

Q. "From the hill?"

A. "Yes..ah..It was just east of the underpass ... and we were on the
south side."

Q. "Did you see..could you..did you look up there where the shots came
from, ma'am?"

A. "Yes Sir.''

Q. "Could you see anyone?"

A. "I thought I saw this man running, but I looked at the president, you
know, for a while, and I looked up there and I thought I saw a man running
and so, right after that, I guess I didn't have any better sense, I
started running up there too." (Note: along with many others.)

Q. "Ah, huh. And what is your name?"

A. "Jean Hill."

Q. "G-E-A-N?"

A. "J-E-A-N."

Q. "J-E-A-N ... And what is your address?"

A. "9402 Bluffcreek."

SECOND JEAN HILL INTERVIEW - WBAP/NBC-TV
(Film interview shown on Nov. 22, 1963)

"...Just as Mary started to take the picture (shown), and the president
became..came right even with us, two shots - we looked at him and he was
looking at a dog in the middle of the seat two shots rang out and he
grabbed his chest, and a look of pain on his face, and fell across towards
Jackie, and she..ah..fell over on him and said, "My God, he's shot!"
and..ah..there was an interval and then three or more shots rang out..by
that time, the motorcade had sped away."

(Note: Mary Moorman asked why she took the picture "at that particular
instance" and whether she knew the president had been shot - she didn't.)

Q. "Did you see..were you a witness..did you see the person who..who fired
the..?"

A. "No, not..I didn't see any person fire the weapon."

Q. "You only heard it."

A. "I only heard it..and I looked up and I saw a man running up this
hill."

Q. "Ah..you had no idea ... you couldn't...

A. "No..I had no idea..and nothing to go by..I mean, I do n't think it
dawned on me for an instance that the president had been shot..I mean, I
knew, and yet it just didn't register."

(Note: Mary is asked if she got a look at the fence - she didn't; she also
indicated having dropped to the ground immediately.)


Show me where in those first two statements that she saw a SS agent firing
back.

Here is the affidavit she gave to the Sheriff's department:

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November
A.D. 1963 personally appeared Jean Hill, Address 9402 Bluffcreek, Dallas
27, Texas Age 32 , Phone No. EV1-7419
Deposes and says:

Mary and I were wanting to take some pictures of the President so we
purposely tried to find a place that was open where no people was around
and we had been standing half way down toward the underpass on Elm
Street on the south side. We were the only people in that area and we
were standing right at the curb. The Presidents [sic] car came around
the corner and it was over on our side of the street. Just as Mary
Moorman started to take a picture we were looking at the president and
Jackie in the back seat and they were looking at a little dog between
them. Just as the president looked up toward us two shots rang out and I
saw the President grab his chest and fall forward across Jackies [sic]
lap and she fell across his back and said "My God he has been shot".
Three was an instant pause between the first two shots and the motorcade
seemingly halted for an instant and three or four more shots rang out
and the motorcade sped away. I thought I saw some men in plain clothes
shooting back but everything was such a blur and Mary was pulling on my
leg saying "Get down thery [sic] are shooting". I looked across the
street and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monument and I
started running over there. By the time I got up to the rail road tracks
some policeman that I suppose were [sic] in the motorcade or near by had
also arrived and was turning us back and as I came back down the hill
Mr. Featherstone of the Times Herald had gotten to Mary and ask her for
her picture she had taken of the President, and he brought us to the
press room downn [sic] at the Sheriffs office and ask to stay.

/s/ Jean Hill

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963

/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

Again, point out where she said she saw a SECRET SERVICE agent shooting
back. You can't. Because you are confused as usual. She said "some men in
plain clothes" not "Secret Service agents."

[claviger]

Anthony,

Thank you for making my point !

"I thought I saw some men in plain clothes shooting back but everything
was such a blur and Mary was pulling on my leg saying "Get down thery
[sic] are shooting".

What part of "some men in plain clothes shooting back" did you not
understand? SS Agents wear plain clothes and carry guns. You thought
spectators in the crowd were shooting back at the GK?

[timstter]

Well, Tony, if you have PROOF for your CIA claims, why not post a link to
your files?

That seems like a better idea than playing hide and seek here.

The idea that Hersh would pass up a scoop like that (Castro conspired with
Oswald to kill Kennedy) for JFK sleaze seems remote to me.

BTW, a lot of what Hersh wrote was quite believable, like his handling of
JFK's first marriage, for example.

He pretty much demolished the idea that that was simply a rumour.

[Anthony Marsh]

I already did.

> That seems like a better idea than playing hide and seek here.
>
> The idea that Hersh would pass up a scoop like that (Castro conspired with
> Oswald to kill Kennedy) for JFK sleaze seems remote to me.
>

Again you don't seem to be able to follow the sequence. Hersh started
out to write a book about the JFK assassination and then got sidetracked
by a CIA officer who pointed him to the SS agents who changed the
subject to sex and drugs. Sex and drugs had nothing to do with the JFK
assassination, the original subject of his book.

> BTW, a lot of what Hersh wrote was quite believable, like his handling of
> JFK's first marriage, for example.
>

Irrelevant.

> He pretty much demolished the idea that that was simply a rumour.
>

What was a rumor? It was a known fact.

[timstter]

Your reply is nonsense, Marsh.

Once again you REFUSE to link to something you claim you have already
posted.

Simply looks like Hide & Seek to me.

As for your nonsense re JFK's first marriage, Hersh was the FIRST
person to get a JFK insider (in the form of Chuck Spalding) to go on
record that it was true.

Prior to that it WAS a rumour, and one successfully denied by the
Kennedy administration at the time.

Read a decent history book, like Herbert S. Parmet's one, Marsh, would
be my advice.

You appear to have SCANT interest in backing up what you say with
verifiable facts, Marsh.

Informative Regards,

[Anthony Marsh]

> Simply looks like Hide& Seek to me.

>
> As for your nonsense re JFK's first marriage, Hersh was the FIRST
> person to get a JFK insider (in the form of Chuck Spalding) to go on
> record that it was true.
>

More nonsense. It was well known in the Boston area and even a story in
Yankee magazine.

The story goes that during the time Durie Malcolm and Jack Kennedy
dated, they also for a bit of fun had a quickie marriage in front of a
Justice of the Peace on January 24, 1947. Once that news was received by
Jack’s father, Joseph Sr., he was going to see that marriage was ended
immediately. Durie was a divorcee and totally not acceptable as a wife
of a future president.

Joseph had Cardinal Cushing of the Roman Catholic Church quietly grant
an annulment, which both Durie and Jack agreed to. To avoid any
publicity, no public or civil divorce was done. Instead, the marriage
portray was removed and destroyed from the Palm Beach County courthouse.

To insure Durie’s silence, she was paid a sum of money by the Kennedys
and then arranged in a speedy marriage to Thomas H. Shevlin in July 1947
in Fort Lee, New Jersey. He was a sports enthusiast and big game hunter.
Durie and Tom Shevlin later owned a white colonial mansion on North
Ocean Boulevard in Palm Beach near the Kennedy estate. They remained
married for years and were a popular couple in the social circles of
Palm Beach.

While Kennedy was president the reference to a 1947 marriage of Jack and
Durie surfaced again. Both Durie Shevlin and the Kennedy family denied
any such event occurred. The families knew each other and Durie had
dated a couple times two of the Kennedy sons and that was all.

Jim Bishop, in the forward to his book The Day Kennedy Was Shot.
referred to JFK's first wife but did not name her or the dates of their
marriage or divorce.
But you have never read any history books.
Maybe it's illegal to import them into Australia.

> Prior to that it WAS a rumour, and one successfully denied by the
> Kennedy administration at the time.
>

So was the Addison's Disease, but we knew it was a fact.

> Read a decent history book, like Herbert S. Parmet's one, Marsh, would
> be my advice.
>

I believe I am one of the few people to have corrected Parmet and
received a reply acknowledging that I am correct.

> You appear to have SCANT interest in backing up what you say with
> verifiable facts, Marsh.
>

You refuse to pay attention.

[Robert Harris]

In article <9s3ti7d8n9lre4lp5...@4ax.com>,
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:

> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/inside_my_teen_affair_with_jfk_FGF4aS7Od
> oQozP4tyySsmK
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

What is revealing is, that whenever something comes out like this which
demeans JFK, nutters instantly presume that it is true, without even a
hint of skepticism or demand for corroborating evidence.

I watched Mimi's interview with Meredith Vieira and I would certainly
agree that she was convincing - but so were all all those tearful
characters on TMWKK:-)

And this lady will make a LOT of money from that book. She will very
likely, also make a bundle on the movie rights. Perhaps it was quite
appropriate to have her interviewed by the hostess of "Who Wants to be a
Millionaire" :-)

So tell me John, why aren't you as skeptical about Mimi as you are about
Judyth? Why does she get a free pass?

She has zero corroborating witnesses and she says she gave away or
hocked all the gifts that JFK gave her. Or, as you would put it, "the
dog ate her evidence." :-)

Is it possible that your real message is that we shouldn't research the
assassination, because JFK was not worthy of the trouble?

What other explanation is there for your eagerness to blithely accept
anything and everything that attacks Kennedy's reputation?






Robert Harris