A Dougherty here and a Dougherty there!
Peter Fokes
Marilyn's first husband ... an expert sharpshooter btw.
Here's his obituary:
<quote on>
''He was a fantastic sharpshooter. He would hold a diamond ring in
front of him to use as a mirror, shoot backward over his shoulder, and
hit a target."
<quote off>
And there is this:
<quote on>
n the 2004 documentary Marilyn's Man, Dougherty made three new claims:
he was her Svengali and invented "Marilyn Monroe", Fox forced her to
divorce him, and he was her true love. The evidence does not support
this. When informed of her death, the New York Times reported he
replied "I'm sorry" and continued his LAPD patrol; he did not attend
her funeral. He admitted to A&E Network his mother asked him if he'd
marry Norma Jeane. Although he maintained in his books that he didn't
mind if she modeled, his sister wrote in the 12/1952 Modern Screen
Magazine he left Norma Jeane because she wanted to pursue modeling. He
admitted to Lifetime's "Intimate Portrait" that he cut off her monthly
allotment when he was served with divorce papers. More telling, the
1999 Christie's auction of Monroe's estate revealed that, while she
had kept items from Joe DiMaggio and Arthur Miller, she kept nothing
from Dougherty.
<quote off>
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/James+Dougherty
By coincidence, a James E. Dougherty flew to Mexico City on Sept. 18,
1963.
See this page in Oswald's 201 file:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95626&relPageId=71
Of course, there was a Jack E. Dougherty who worked in the TSBD.
"Edwin" that is ...
<quote on>
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County,
State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Jack E. Dougherty
w/m/40, 1827 So. Marsalis WH-6-7170 who, after being by me duly sworn,
on oath deposes and says:
I am employed at the Texas School Book Depository at 411 Elm and have
been since 1952. I was working on the sixth floor today. There was
[sic] six of us working on the floor. The others were Bill Lovelady,
William Shelby, Danny Arce, Bonnie Williams, and Charles Givens. I
went back to work at 12:45 p.m. I had already gone back to work and I
gone down on the fifth [sic] to get some stock when I heard a shot. It
sounded like it was coming from inside the building, but I couldn't
tell from where. I went down on the first floor, and asked a man named
Eddie Piper if he had heard anything and he said yes, that he had
heard three shots. I then went back on the sixth floor. I didn't see
anyone on the floor except the people I named. There was another
employee that is named Lee Oswald that I saw on the sixth floor. He
works all over the building, but I saw him on the sixth floor shortly
before noon. I didn't see Oswald in the building after lunch.
/s/ Jack E. Dougherty
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
<quote off>
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/05/0508-001.gif
Joe DiMaggio was no Dougherty. Bitter Joe died convinced JFK had
Monroe killed.
http://news.scotsman.com/marilynmonroe/Joe-DiMaggio-died-convinced-JFK.2401434.jp
<quote on>
DiMaggio, who organised Monroe�s funeral and, for the next 20 years,
had white roses delivered to her grave twice a week, refused to talk
publicly about what he thought happened. However, he appears to have
sanctioned his memoirs to come out after his death.
The Yankee Clipper, as he was known, claims to have read the Hollywood
star�s diary after her death.
Monroe�s journal disappeared shortly afterwards but, according to the
book DiMaggio: Setting the Record Straight, the star of The Seven Year
Itch had apparently noted her conversations with Robert Kennedy about
CIA plans to poison Fidel Castro with the aid of the Chicago gangster
Sam Giancana, and the government�s investigation into union leader
Jimmy Hoffa�s Mafia links.
Monroe met the Kennedys through Peter Lawford, their British
brother-in-law, and is believed to have passed on Robert�s pillow talk
to Frank Sinatra, who in turn reported to Giancana.
Engelberg and co-author Marv Schneider tell how Monroe spoke to
DiMaggio�s son, Joe Jnr, on the night she died saying she wanted to
set the record straight.
"She said she spoke with RFK [Robert Kennedy] three or four times a
week and he told her about the work he was doing," the book reveals.
"He mentioned which mobsters they were going after. Marilyn would pass
on some of those tidbits to Sinatra, according to Joe Jnr."
DiMaggio shed no tears when the Kennedys were assassinated. According
to the book, which contains a foreword by Henry Kissinger, DiMaggio
believed "they got what they deserved".
<quote off>
Wonder if Dimaggio and Dougherty ever shared a beer?
Uh oh ....
Fodder for a new conspiracy book:
The Secret Plot of Marilyn's Ex Hubbies: Revenge So Sweet.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
j leyden
Is there a point to this thing, Peter,and, if so, what? The guy has
been dead for four years. Why are you digging him up now?
JGL
> James Edward Dougherty
>
> Marilyn's first husband ... an expert sharpshooter btw.
>
> Here's his obituary:
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2005/08/19/james...
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=956...
> http://news.scotsman.com/marilynmonroe/Joe-DiMaggio-died-convinced-JF...
Dave Yandell
> James Edward Dougherty
>
> Marilyn's first husband ... an expert sharpshooter btw.
>
> Here's his obituary:
>
Is this a test for us, Peter?
First, Dougherty is a fairly common name, with about 30,000 reported
as of the 1990 US census (there are even more Daugherties). James and
John are the two most common first names for men, at close to 5
million each. They are especially common among Irish-Americans.
The Dougherty on the passenger list is James Dougherty, Jr., while
Marilyn's husband's father was named Edward, so her James was not a
Jr.
Jack is a nickname for John (usually) and isn't a nickname for James.
Marilyn's husband went by "Jim" or "Jimmie."
Do you have any reason to think that James (Jim / Jimmie) (not Jr.)
had any connection with either James, Jr., or Jack?
Best,
Dave
David Von Pein
David Wolper's excellent 1964 documentary ("The Legend Of Marilyn Monroe")
includes an on-camera interview with James Dougherty. Nothing really
"in-depth", but interesting anyway:
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Oh for heavens sake .....
I enjoyed reading classic literature as a child.
Surely you are not so easily flummoxed, but then again, what do I
know?
Sit ye down in a comfy chair and read the following and pretend ye can
ask the author a question: "Is this a test for us, Johnathan."
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
I verily doubt he would show you the same patience I have!
For goodness sake!
>Best,
>Dave
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
p.s. Norma Jean's first hubby was a sweetie pie, and was certain her
death was accidental. So if you ever see "The Secret Plot of Marilyn's
Ex Hubbies: Revenge So Sweet" in print, be sure to write the editor!
Dave Yandell
> On 12 Aug 2009 23:14:32 -0400, Dave Yandell <dyand...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter,
You posted a series of references to what appear to be 3 different men
named Dougherty. There were hundreds of James Dougherties and hundreds
of John Dougherties in the US at the time. One James married the
future Marilyn Monroe way back when. One James, Jr., flew to Mexico in
1963. One Jack (or John called Jack?) worked at the TSBD.
Do you have a point or are you just exercising your fingers?
I think Swift would have composed a very sweet addition to the JFK
conspiracy literature given the chance. Some CTs would even have
understood how he meant it. I'm sure he would have been less patient
with you than you expect us to be.
For the love of Mike!
Dave
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>On Aug 12, 11:52�pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
You catch on quick! Bravo. I suppose my helpful hints assisted you in
the process of determination.
>There were hundreds of James Dougherties and hundreds
>of John Dougherties in the US at the time
I am fortunate to have a surname much less common than Dougherty.
I'm not sure how your surname stacks up, but we would both agree, no
doubt, that Yandell and Fokes are less common than Dougherty.
>One James married the
>future Marilyn Monroe way back when.
He did indeed. You did check the URL I provided with his obituary (I
assume). Interestingly, he was assigned to protect Marilyn from the
throngs at the opening of one of her movies. He admits he didn't meet
her at that time, or for that matter at any time after she became a
super starlet.
>One James, Jr., flew to Mexico in
>1963.
Indeed he did. Again, you have wisely checked the URL I provided.
Shall we thank our lucky stars Mae Brussell did not know this fact?
>One Jack (or John called Jack?) worked at the TSBD.
Ah yes, and the subject of much debate here over the years. Definitely
not Marilyn's ex for a good number of startlingly obvious reasons.
Although he is more relevant to the assassination than .John's radio
station, would you not agree? Yet, I see you have been engaged in that
conversation here. To each there own. Let your fingers do the walking
.....
>Do you have a point or are you just exercising your fingers?
Oh no. Perhaps I gave you the benefit of the doubt too soon!
You still seem confused DESPITE all the clues. Let me read on to see
if my fears are true.
>I think Swift would have composed a very sweet addition to the JFK
>conspiracy literature given the chance.
An interesting speculation, Mr. Yandell. In the vein of A Modest
Proposal I suspect. He too would see the humour in the outrageous
displays of obtuseness on both sides of the debate. And I suspect also
he would grimly forecast to himself that the deadly earnest would fail
to see the motive of his purpose. Alas, tis human nature.
>Some CTs would even have
>understood how he meant it.
Agree. Some sophisticates on both sides would understand his intent,
but we are left with the nagging truth that some, despite all the
obviousness of his purpose, would still ask, "Jonathan, are you just
exercising your fingers or do you have a point?" Now I have given you
the benefit of the doubt and assume you are enquiring to satisfy your
quest for certainty beyond a reasonable doubt rather than any serious
need to really understand what you surely do understand.
>I'm sure he would have been less patient
>with you than you expect us to be.
Not at all. We would have got along splendidly!
And as for the patience of "us" rather than me, well, that is entirely
out of my hands. But there is no question my patience with you has
been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Of course, it is polite to
respond to an apparently rational poster who takes the time to ask a
simple question in a friendly manner. However, you are under no such
rules of etiquette, and must be responding based on another impulse.
It is up to you to control that impulse, not me. Therefore if you find
patience within yourself you shall alleviate any need to project your
lack thereof on Swift and Fokes who are simply engaged in a centuries
old genre of exposition! It is you who decide to spend time reading
what I write. No one, not even a Dougherty or two, is forcing you to
don your reading glasses to do so.
Anon.
>For the love of Mike!
>
>Dave
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Dave Yandell
> On 13 Aug 2009 10:11:06 -0400, Dave Yandell <dyand...@gmail.com>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Look, Peter, you posted the stuff about the Dougherties on a site
devoted to discussing issues about the Kennedy assassination.
If you weren't making a point about anything relating to the
assassination, could you at least do the group the favor of marking
your post OT?
Otherwise, the rational assumption is that you *do* think it is
relevant in some way.
As to which of us is being rude and who is being patient, you are the
one who has taken a tone of arrogant condescension (warranted by what,
I don't know) in this exchange.
On John's station, I have been pointing out the preposterous nature of
claims that it shows something about John that a group of CTs are
arguing impugns John's character and position in the discussion. I
didn't raise the OT subject, but it is *claimed in the thread* that it
has some relevance. If you think it is OT, colmplain to those who
raised it.
Swift's satires were valuable precisely *because* they had a point.
Unless you are offering a satire on CTs who argue based on coincidence
and free association (hardly a nice thing for a moderator to do), what
is your point?
Peace,
Dave