OT: Exclusive: Photo and Full Article on Front Page of Globe & Mail on "Man Who Says He's JFK's Son"
Peter Fokes
Front page of Canada's Respected National Newspaper ...
...would be similar to Washington Post or N.Y. Times running this
story on front page in U.S.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Peter Fokes
Peter Fokes
wrote:
He was born on November 22, 1961 .... based on his U.S. passport,
Canada's visitor visa and driver's licence.
PF
yeuhd
whereabouts:
Feb. 8, 9, 10 -- Washington, DC.
Feb. 11 -- Washington, DC, and weekend stay with Mrs. Kennedy at their
home in Middleburg, VA
Feb. 12 -- Middleburg, VA
Feb. 13 -- Middleburg, VA, and Washington, DC.
Feb. 14, 15 -- Washington, DC.
Feb. 16 -- Washington, DC, and inspecting a facility in nearby
Germantown, MD
Feb. 17, 18 -- Washington, D.C.
Feb. 19 -- Washington, D.C., and overnight stay with Mrs. Kennedy at
their home in Middleburg, VA
Feb. 20 -- Middleburg, VA, and Washington, DC.
Feb. 21 -- Washington, DC.
Feb. 22 -- Washington, DC, and golfing in Chevy Chase, MD
Feb. 23, 24 -- Washington, DC.
Feb. 25 -- Washington, DC, and speech at Williamsburg, VA
Feb. 26 -- Washington, DC, and overnight stay with Mrs. Kennedy at
their home in Middleburg, VA
Feb. 27 -- Middleburg, VA, and Washington, DC.
Feb. 28, March 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 -- Washington, DC.
yeuhd
Name: Jack Rodney Worthington, II
Date of Birth: 22 Nov 1961
Gender: Male
Birth County: Maverick
Father's Name: Jack Rodney Worthington
Mother's Name: Mary Evelyn Bibb
Peter Fokes
Yes, he goes by the name Worthington.
Perhaps these are his adoptive parents.
I don't know.
PF
>
yeuhd
Jack Rodney Worthington
Houston-- Jack Rodney Worthington, coach and high school administrator,
went to be with the Lord on May 19, 2007. He was born in Gatesville on
Aug. 18, 1937. He was a graduate of Irving High School and received
his degree in Education from Southwest Texas University. While at SWT
he was a member of the National Championship Basketball Team of 1961.
He was a member of the college athletes T-Association and a member of
the Athletes Hall of Honor.
He spent many years coaching basketball teams in the state of Texas
and ended his career in education at Cypress Creek High School as an
administrator.
Jack was a loving, kind, compassionate individual who always put the
needs of others before his own. He was a wonderful husband and a
loving father and grandfather. He gave a lifetime of joy to family and
friends. He stood for principle, integrity, love, kindness, generosity
and goodness. He loved others in such a way that others will never
stop loving him. He loved his God and inspired others to possess the
same unfailing love for the Supreme Creator.
Jack is preceded in death by his parents Raymond Dodson and Lucile
Brazzil Worthington. He is survived by his wife of 47 years Evelyn
Bibb Worthington and his son Jack II along with his wife Heidi and his
daughter Nancy Littlejohn and her husband Erik and his granddaughters
Isabella, Elizabeth, Caroline and Brooke.
Visitation will be held from 9 until 10 a.m. and funeral services at
10 a.m. Wednesday at Champion Forest Baptist Church, 15555 Stuebner
Airline Road in Houston. Interment will follow Thursday at 2 p.m. in
Flat, Texas.
-----------------------------
Meaning Jack Sr. and wife Evelyn were married between May 1959 and May
1960.
Peter Fokes
>San Marcos Daily Record, San Marcos, Texas (May/23/2007)
>
>Jack Rodney Worthington
>
>Houston-- Jack Rodney Worthington, coach and high school administrator,
>went to be with the Lord on May 19, 2007.
He mentions the death of his father in another Globe and Mail article
published today (Feb 14th):
"The death of Mr. Worthington's father last May could have been a
factor in his decision to go public. Jack Worthington Senior was a
basketball coach and high-school administrator in Houston."
See
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080214.wjack14/BNStory/specialComment/
PF
tims...@gmail.com
Hmm, say, that's interesting. Thanks for providing it.
So was Mary Evelyn Bibb or Mary Bibb Worthington a known associate of
LBJ or JFK does anyone know?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
yeuhd
> So was Mary Evelyn Bibb or Mary Bibb Worthington a known associate of
> LBJ or JFK does anyone know?
That is what I would like to know, too. Her son claims that his mother's
father's family were associates of LBJ in Texas. In any case, Mary Evelyn
Worthington was 20 years old and married, and her husband Jack Rodney
Worthington was an undergraduate at Southwest Texas State College (now
Texas State University-San Marcos), when her son was conceived circa
February 1961. We know that JFK was not in Texas around that time; he was
in Washington, D.C. and Virginia (and Jacqueline was always with him at
their home in Virginia).
So, why would Mary Evelyn have been in Washington at that time? Was she
also an undergraduate at Southwest Texas at that time?
Also: it would have been fairly easy for Jack Worthington II to take a DNA
sample from his late father to see if they were biologically related --
did he?
yeuhd
Peter Fokes
>On Feb 16, 7:46 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> So was Mary Evelyn Bibb or Mary Bibb Worthington a known associate of
>> LBJ or JFK does anyone know?
>
>That is what I would like to know, too. Her son claims that his mother's
>father's family were associates of LBJ in Texas. In any case, Mary Evelyn
>Worthington was 20 years old and married, and her husband Jack Rodney
>Worthington was an undergraduate at Southwest Texas State College (now
>Texas State University-San Marcos), when her son was conceived circa
>February 1961. We know that JFK was not in Texas around that time; he was
>in Washington, D.C. and Virginia (and Jacqueline was always with him at
>their home in Virginia).
Always with him?
I think you need to read a few more biographies of Jackie and Jack.
>So, why would Mary Evelyn have been in Washington at that time? Was she
>also an undergraduate at Southwest Texas at that time?
>
>Also: it would have been fairly easy for Jack Worthington II to take a DNA
>sample from his late father to see if they were biologically related --
>did he?
Did Worthington's mother tell her son this secret before Worthington
II died?
Also, although testing a DNA sample from Worthington II and comparing
to Worthington Jr. could prove they were biologically related, if the
sampes did not match, this test would not confirm or disprove the
possibility JFK was his real father.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=311294
PF
yeuhd
> >We know that JFK was not in Texas around that time; he was
> >in Washington, D.C. and Virginia (and Jacqueline was always with him at
> >their home in Virginia).
>
> Always with him?
>
> I think you need to read a few more biographies of Jackie and Jack.
>
I think you need to read the press coverage of them in February-March
1961. Jackie was always with JFK when he visited at their home in
Virginia. The press was virtually camped outside and reported daily on
their activities: the president took Caroline for a ride in a
wheelbarrow today, Jackie has a cold, etc.
Notice, however, that I did *not* say that Jackie was always with JFK
in *Washington* in that period. Twice she lingered on for a day or two
more at their home in Virginia after JFK returned to DC, and she also
went down to Florida.
The point being: if JFK had a tryst during that period, it had to have
been in Washington, not Texas or Virginia.
Peter Fokes
>On Feb 17, 12:50 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>> >We know that JFK was not in Texas around that time; he was
>> >in Washington, D.C. and Virginia (and Jacqueline was always with him at
>> >their home in Virginia).
>>
>> Always with him?
>>
>> I think you need to read a few more biographies of Jackie and Jack.
>>
>
>I think you need to read the press coverage of them in February-March
>1961. Jackie was always with JFK when he visited at their home in
>Virginia.
And that proves absolutely nothing.
And when he wasn't at their home?
The press was virtually camped outside and reported daily on
>their activities: the president took Caroline for a ride in a
>wheelbarrow today, Jackie has a cold, etc.
So the press reported on when JFK had sex and with whom?
>
>Notice, however, that I did *not* say that Jackie was always with JFK
>in *Washington* in that period. Twice she lingered on for a day or two
>more at their home in Virginia after JFK returned to DC, and she also
>went down to Florida.
>
>The point being: if JFK had a tryst during that period, it had to have
>been in Washington, not Texas or Virginia.
OR anywhere else he happened to be .... or she happened to be.
It's fun to speculate but meaningless when it comes to determining the
truth.
PF
yeuhd
> It's fun to speculate but meaningless when it comes to determining the
> truth.
Where the President of the United States was Feb. 8--March 8, 1963 is
known fact, not speculation.
Anthony Marsh
> On 17 Feb 2008 14:13:18 -0500, yeuhd <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 17, 12:50 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>>>> We know that JFK was not in Texas around that time; he was
>>>> in Washington, D.C. and Virginia (and Jacqueline was always with him at
>>>> their home in Virginia).
>>> Always with him?
>>>
>>> I think you need to read a few more biographies of Jackie and Jack.
>>>
>> I think you need to read the press coverage of them in February-March
>> 1961. Jackie was always with JFK when he visited at their home in
>> Virginia.
>
> And that proves absolutely nothing.
>
> And when he wasn't at their home?
>
It's a fact that JFK had extramarital affairs.
It's a fact that the press knew about them and did not report them.
It's a fact that the SS knew about and did not report his activities.
It's a fact that Jackie knew about his extramarital affairs.
It's a fact that anyone can make up a story and sell it.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 17, 12:50 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>>> We know that JFK was not in Texas around that time; he was
>>> in Washington, D.C. and Virginia (and Jacqueline was always with him at
>>> their home in Virginia).
>> Always with him?
>>
>> I think you need to read a few more biographies of Jackie and Jack.
>>
>
> I think you need to read the press coverage of them in February-March
> 1961. Jackie was always with JFK when he visited at their home in
> Virginia. The press was virtually camped outside and reported daily on
> their activities: the president took Caroline for a ride in a
> wheelbarrow today, Jackie has a cold, etc.
>
Jackie knew that he husband was having sex with other women. But he had
the good taste to not do it right in front of her.
yeuhd
"Part of [Vanity Fair's] research focuses on my mother's paternal
family and their history as lifelong political allies of [Lyndon
Johnson] in South Texas."
No one named Bibb (his mother's paternal family) is mentioned anywhere
in the first three volumes, going through November 1960, of Robert A.
Caro's projected four-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson.
yeuhd
> II died?
He reportedly learned it from his mother several years ago.
Peter Fokes
Yes, most of us are already aware his mother told him this secret.
See link posted several days ago:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=311294
However, the nature of Worthington Sr.'s knowledge of this information
is not known yet.
PF
Peter Fokes
Are you really so naive to believe that every one of LBJ's political
allies are mentioned in the first three volumes of Caro's volumes?
Your reasoning is nonsensical.
PF
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>yeuhd wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 12:50 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>>>> We know that JFK was not in Texas around that time; he was
>>>> in Washington, D.C. and Virginia (and Jacqueline was always with him at
>>>> their home in Virginia).
>>> Always with him?
>>>
>>> I think you need to read a few more biographies of Jackie and Jack.
>>>
>>
>> I think you need to read the press coverage of them in February-March
>> 1961. Jackie was always with JFK when he visited at their home in
>> Virginia. The press was virtually camped outside and reported daily on
>> their activities: the president took Caroline for a ride in a
>> wheelbarrow today, Jackie has a cold, etc.
>>
>
>Jackie knew that he husband was having sex with other women. But he had
>the good taste to not do it right in front of her.
Lol.
Well, some might define that as "partial" good taste!
>
>> Notice, however, that I did *not* say that Jackie was always with JFK
>> in *Washington* in that period. Twice she lingered on for a day or two
>> more at their home in Virginia after JFK returned to DC, and she also
>> went down to Florida.
>>
>> The point being: if JFK had a tryst during that period, it had to have
>> been in Washington, not Texas or Virginia.
And you don't have a clue whether he did or did not have such a tryst.
PF
Peter Fokes
Wrong.
Ok, when and where did he have sex and with whom?
List here:
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Probably too few lines above!
PF
Peter Fokes
>So he was conceived circa late February 1961. President Kennedy's
>whereabouts:
>
>Feb. 8, 9, 10 -- Washington, DC.
Feb 10
<quote on>
Even as he made it clear that he loved his wife, she knew he would
take advantage of her absence ... To his way of thinking, once the
helicopter was gone [with Jackie], anything that followed was strictly
sex -- "unrelated and impersonal," as one friend put it. The sweetness
and gentleness with which he saw her off made it frighteningly clear
that his capacity for denial was greater than hers.
<quote off>
Jackie flew to Virginia alone.
<quote on>
As such, her view of the house was fraught with contradictions. On the
one hand, it would be her retreat while Jack betrayed her.
<quote off>
<quote on>
As she well knew, in her absence Jack would not have to look far for
female companions.... the moment her helicopter or car left he would
head to the pool or the family quarters with one or more women. I
cannot have been easy to live with this knowledge that whatever went
on at the White House in her absence she herself had made possible.
<quote off>
Feb 12
<quote on>
After Jack's conspicuous refusal to take communion, she could not
pretend to herself that nothing had happened at the White House.
<quote off>
JFK returned to WH on Monday.
Jackie on Tuesday, and she left again for Virginia a few days later
and was ALONE until FEB 26.
<quote on>
When by Feb 26 Jackie showed no sign of returning [to the WH], Jack
flew down from the WH with Dr. Travell ....
<quote off>
Jack headed back to WH on Monday morning. Jackie came to WH on Tuesday
to drop off kids and then left for Florida.
With Jackie gone to Florida on the 26th, Lem Billings played a key
role as organizer in the WH.
<quote on>
Lem turned a blind eye when his friend brought women upstairs.
<quote off>
Want more?
Try Mrs. Kennedy: The Missing History of the Kennedy Years.
Perhaps I will post a bit more later ....
PF
yeuhd
> II died?
Jack Worthington II is the son.
Peter Fokes
Correct.
See my post a moment ago, detailing whereabouts of Jack and Jackie in
Feb 1961.
You'll be surprised.
PF
yeuhd
> Are you really so naive to believe that every one of LBJ's political
> allies are mentioned in the first three volumes of Caro's volumes?
> Your reasoning is nonsensical.
You are inferring things that I am not implying. I never said that all
of LBJ's political allies are mentioned in three first three volumes
of Caro's biography. But the lack of any mention of a Bibb does
suggest that no Bibb was a close or prominent ally of LBJ.
yeuhd
> >> The point being: if JFK had a tryst during that period, it had to have
> >> been in Washington, not Texas or Virginia.
>
> And you don't have a clue whether he did or did not have such a tryst.
>
Yes, we do have a clue whether he did or did not have such a tryst. It is
built up by pieces of evidence, none of which by themselves give an
answer, but which when assembled give a better picture of the *likelihood*
of such a tryst happening. None of the evidence so far can prove it did or
did not.
Repeat: None of the evidence so far can prove it did or did not.
Third time: None of the evidence so far can prove it did or did not.
But the evidence, connected, *suggests the probability* of such a thing
happening.
When researching the credibility of such a tryst, one must first establish
certain facts of where the parties where, and when. First, we establish
the whereabouts of JFK, which is fairly easy. We know that he was not in
Texas in the period February 8-March 8, 1961. Then we establish the
whereabouts of Worthington's mother. As it turns out, she was an
undergraduate at Southwest Texas State College at the time. Then we try to
find out if she might have gone to Washington, D.C. at this time, and why.
The fact that JFK did not visit Texas at the time, and that Worthington's
mother was married and in college at the time in Texas, makes it *less
likely* that a tryst happened, even though (pay attention here) *it does
not rule it out.*
One would also think that if Jack Worthington II wanted to know if he was
biologically related to the father who raised him, he would have had a DNA
comparison test done after the latter's death last May (Jack II was
reportedly told he was JFK's son years ago). Test results showing no
relationship would add credibility to his story, and perhaps persuade
cooperation from the Kennedy family.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
By the way, the book's author is Barbara Leaming. 2001 I believe.
<quote on>
As Jackie had known he would, the moment she left him alone Jack had
resumed what was essentially a continuation of the sex life he had
conducted on the campaign trial.
<quote off>
Jackie returned March 8.
PF
Peter Fokes
>On Feb 18, 11:12 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>> >> The point being: if JFK had a tryst during that period, it had to have
>> >> been in Washington, not Texas or Virginia.
>>
>> And you don't have a clue whether he did or did not have such a tryst.
>>
>
>
>Yes, we do have a clue whether he did or did not have such a tryst.
What is the clue?
He had "many" trysts. And we do have evidence of that fact.
Feb 10
<quote on>
<quote off>
<quote on>
<quote off>
<quote on>
<quote off>
Feb 12
<quote on>
<quote off>
<quote on>
<quote off>
<quote on>
<quote off>
Want more?
By the way, the book's author is Barbara Leaming. 2001 I believe.
<quote on>
As Jackie had known he would, the moment she left him alone Jack had
resumed what was essentially a continuation of the sex life he had
conducted on the campaign trial.
<quote off>
Jackie returned March 8.
>It is
>built up by pieces of evidence, none of which by themselves give an
>answer, but which when assembled give a better picture of the *likelihood*
>of such a tryst happening.
What pieces of evidence are you talking about? A list of dates with
no details?
How about a DNA test?
At least, I have provided some details of Jack and Jackie's activities
via Leaming's meticulous research.
>None of the evidence so far can prove it did or
>did not.
He did have trysts. But we do not know if he had "that" tryst, or if
an adoption occurred and records were created.
>Repeat: None of the evidence so far can prove it did or did not.
But unlike your prior speculation, he did have trysts, correct?
>Third time: None of the evidence so far can prove it did or did not.
With "that" woman ... even though the news reports (often inaccurate)
suggest she told her son who her father was ..... By the way, does
that mean "she" was the mother or just "adoptive" mother?
If just the adoptive mother, then her whereabouts irrelevant, correct?
>But the evidence, connected, *suggests the probability* of such a thing
>happening.
>When researching the credibility of such a tryst, one must first establish
>certain facts of where the parties where, and when. First, we establish
>the whereabouts of JFK, which is fairly easy. We know that he was not in
>Texas in the period February 8-March 8, 1961. Then we establish the
>whereabouts of Worthington's mother.
Agree. If she is the biological mother and not the adoptive mother.
>As it turns out, she was an
>undergraduate at Southwest Texas State College at the time. Then we try to
>find out if she might have gone to Washington, D.C. at this time, and why.
That might solve one question.
>
>The fact that JFK did not visit Texas at the time, and that Worthington's
>mother was married and in college at the time in Texas, makes it *less
>likely* that a tryst happened, even though (pay attention here) *it does
>not rule it out.*
They had to get it together if she is the biological mother.
Not if she is adoptive mother. Leaving aside the legitamacy of the
records in this case for a moment ....
>One would also think that if Jack Worthington II wanted to know if he was
>biologically related to the father who raised him, he would have had a DNA
>comparison test done after the latter's death last May (Jack II was
>reportedly told he was JFK's son years ago). Test results showing no
>relationship would add credibility to his story, and perhaps persuade
>cooperation from the Kennedy family.
Again, such a test could not prove he was related to JFK.
It could only prove he was related to Worthington II.
PF
yeuhd
Mary Evelyn Bibb Worthington, as friends and relatives (e.g., her
cousin) have attested to reporters who have flocked to Texas in the
wake of this breaking story.
> Again, such a test could not prove he was related to JFK.
> It could only prove he was related to Worthington II.
Thanks for stating the obvious.
The question remains: why is Jack Worthington II asking the Kennedy
family do something which he himself has apparently failed to do in
relation to his own father of record -- do a DNA match? If the match
was positive (i.e., he was the biological son of Jack Worthington),
that would end the question right there. Ruling out a biological
relationship between him and his father of record should have been the
first step he took. It would have been simple -- and within his rights
under Texas paternity law -- to have a DNA sample taken after his
father's death and before his burial.
By the way, you seem to be trying to set up a strawman argument here,
implying that I am claiming that JFK didn't have trysts and affairs
with other women. JFK's infidelities have been well known for decades
now.
The question is: did JFK have a tryst with Worthington's mother? So
far, evidence is lacking. JFK was in DC and Virginia at the time. She
and her husband were in college in southwest Texas. No evidence so far
that she and JFK ever met.
Anthony Marsh
> Jack Worthington II was not adopted. He was the natural born child of
> Mary Evelyn Bibb Worthington, as friends and relatives (e.g., her
> cousin) have attested to reporters who have flocked to Texas in the
> wake of this breaking story.
>
>> Again, such a test could not prove he was related to JFK.
>> It could only prove he was related to Worthington II.
>
> Thanks for stating the obvious.
>
> The question remains: why is Jack Worthington II asking the Kennedy
> family do something which he himself has apparently failed to do in
> relation to his own father of record -- do a DNA match? If the match
He can't do a DNA match all by himself. He wants to see if his DNA
matches the Kennedy family. If he is not the biologic son of Jack
Worthington as he suspects.
> was positive (i.e., he was the biological son of Jack Worthington),
> that would end the question right there. Ruling out a biological
> relationship between him and his father of record should have been the
> first step he took. It would have been simple -- and within his rights
Explain exactly how that paternity test would have been done.
> under Texas paternity law -- to have a DNA sample taken after his
> father's death and before his burial.
>
Court order?
> By the way, you seem to be trying to set up a strawman argument here,
> implying that I am claiming that JFK didn't have trysts and affairs
> with other women. JFK's infidelities have been well known for decades
> now.
>
It's called mud slinging. You throw as much mud as you can and hope that
something sticks. We all know that JFK had some extramarital affairs.
Kennedy's aides knew that. The SS knew that. Jackie knew that. The rest
is just defamation.
yeuhd
> > Ruling out a biological
> > relationship between him and his father of record should have been the
> > first step he took. It would have been simple -- and within his rights
>
> Explain exactly how that paternity test would have been done.
A moistened cotton swab is run on the inside of the cheek. That's it.
Also usable are hairs with the hair root. The results are 99.99%
accurate. More here:
http://www.dnanow.com/paternity-test.htm
> > under Texas paternity law -- to have a DNA sample taken after his
> > father's death and before his burial.
>
> Court order?
If it came to that, yes. But I am assuming that Mary Worthington,
already having told her son years ago that the man who raised him was
not his biological father, would not have been adverse to her son
establishing that as a matter of scientific fact.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 20, 8:48 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Ruling out a biological
>>> relationship between him and his father of record should have been the
>>> first step he took. It would have been simple -- and within his rights
>> Explain exactly how that paternity test would have been done.
>
> A moistened cotton swab is run on the inside of the cheek. That's it.
> Also usable are hairs with the hair root. The results are 99.99%
> accurate. More here:
> http://www.dnanow.com/paternity-test.htm
>
Whose cheek? Not just one person. You have to compare his DNA to someone
else's DNA. Obviously he would match himself. He might even match his
biological mother. That does not settle anything. You need to compare it
to the suspected father.
>>> under Texas paternity law -- to have a DNA sample taken after his
>>> father's death and before his burial.
>> Court order?
>
> If it came to that, yes. But I am assuming that Mary Worthington,
> already having told her son years ago that the man who raised him was
> not his biological father, would not have been adverse to her son
> establishing that as a matter of scientific fact.
>
You are going to take her word on it? So, you take Judyth's word on
everything?
yeuhd
> yeuhd wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 8:48 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Ruling out a biological
> >>> relationship between him and his father of record should have been the
> >>> first step he took. It would have been simple -- and within his rights
> >> Explain exactly how that paternity test would have been done.
>
> > A moistened cotton swab is run on the inside of the cheek. That's it.
> > Also usable are hairs with the hair root. The results are 99.99%
> > accurate. More here:
> >http://www.dnanow.com/paternity-test.htm
>
> Whose cheek? Not just one person. You have to compare his DNA to someone
> else's DNA. Obviously he would match himself. He might even match his
> biological mother. That does not settle anything. You need to compare it
> to the suspected father.
Thanks for stating the obvious. I *am* talking about running a
moistened cotton swab inside the cheek of the body of Jack
Worthington, the deceased father of record, or puling out hairs with
root cells attached. Either of these would have been easy to perform
on his body after his death and before his burial.
> >>> under Texas paternity law -- to have a DNA sample taken after his
> >>> father's death and before his burial.
> >> Court order?
>
> > If it came to that, yes. But I am assuming that Mary Worthington,
> > already having told her son years ago that the man who raised him was
> > not his biological father, would not have been adverse to her son
> > establishing that as a matter of scientific fact.
>
> You are going to take her word on it? So, you take Judyth's word on
> everything?
No, it's precisely because I am *not* taking Mary Evelyn Worthington's
word on it that I think Jack Worthington II should have first had a
DNA comparison done with his father of record, before he attempted to
impinge on the Kennedy family.
Just what is it with your crankiness? Why do you feel so compelled to
be a contrarian on every topic?
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 22, 12:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> yeuhd wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 8:48 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Ruling out a biological
>>>>> relationship between him and his father of record should have been the
>>>>> first step he took. It would have been simple -- and within his rights
>>>> Explain exactly how that paternity test would have been done.
>>> A moistened cotton swab is run on the inside of the cheek. That's it.
>>> Also usable are hairs with the hair root. The results are 99.99%
>>> accurate. More here:
>>> http://www.dnanow.com/paternity-test.htm
>> Whose cheek? Not just one person. You have to compare his DNA to someone
>> else's DNA. Obviously he would match himself. He might even match his
>> biological mother. That does not settle anything. You need to compare it
>> to the suspected father.
>
> Thanks for stating the obvious. I *am* talking about running a
> moistened cotton swab inside the cheek of the body of Jack
> Worthington, the deceased father of record, or puling out hairs with
> root cells attached. Either of these would have been easy to perform
> on his body after his death and before his burial.
>
How can you do that without a court order, without an exhumation? That
would be illegal.
>
>>>>> under Texas paternity law -- to have a DNA sample taken after his
>>>>> father's death and before his burial.
>>>> Court order?
>>> If it came to that, yes. But I am assuming that Mary Worthington,
>>> already having told her son years ago that the man who raised him was
>>> not his biological father, would not have been adverse to her son
>>> establishing that as a matter of scientific fact.
>> You are going to take her word on it? So, you take Judyth's word on
>> everything?
>
> No, it's precisely because I am *not* taking Mary Evelyn Worthington's
> word on it that I think Jack Worthington II should have first had a
> DNA comparison done with his father of record, before he attempted to
> impinge on the Kennedy family.
>
How could he legally do that?
> Just what is it with your crankiness? Why do you feel so compelled to
> be a contrarian on every topic?
>
Because you keep posting nonsense.
Peter Fokes
>Jack Worthington II was not adopted. He was the natural born child of
>Mary Evelyn Bibb Worthington, as friends and relatives (e.g., her
>cousin) have attested to reporters who have flocked to Texas in the
>wake of this breaking story.
Good. So, we can assume she was the mother.
Who was the father?
>> Again, such a test could not prove he was related to JFK.
>> It could only prove he was related to Worthington II.
>
>Thanks for stating the obvious.
You are welcome. You overlooked it.
>The question remains: why is Jack Worthington II asking the Kennedy
>family do something which he himself has apparently failed to do in
>relation to his own father of record -- do a DNA match?
He has requested DNA testing to prove he is the son of John Kennedy.
Isn't that obvious? Why should he "disbelieve" his own mother?
>If the match
>was positive (i.e., he was the biological son of Jack Worthington),
>that would end the question right there.
And if it didn't match, he would be in the same spot.
And he also would have insulted his mother. Perhaps his mother wants
the truth of this story to remain a secret.
Ever think of that? She will not discuss the alleged Kennedy liaison.
>Ruling out a biological
>relationship between him and his father of record should have been the
>first step he took.
Why do you insist this fellow should have no trust and faith in his
own mother?
>It would have been simple -- and within his rights
>under Texas paternity law -- to have a DNA sample taken after his
>father's death and before his burial.
You are repeating the same thing. His reason for not doing so is
unknown. So what is your point? Why didn't his mother pay for such
testing? Why doesn't she deny the allegation? Who knows? Maybe she
prefers to keep the truth secret. One should not leap to the
conclusion Worthington and his mother did not do such testing because
they thought it would discredit their claims.
>By the way, you seem to be trying to set up a strawman argument here,
>implying that I am claiming that JFK didn't have trysts and affairs
>with other women. JFK's infidelities have been well known for decades
>now.
Good.
LBJ provided him with women too.
LBJ and Judge Bibb were good friends. Ms. Worthington is Judge Bibb's
neice.
>The question is: did JFK have a tryst with Worthington's mother? So
>far, evidence is lacking.
Lol.
That's why Worthington is requesting DNA testing. Duh!
> JFK was in DC and Virginia at the time.
Which is nice but proves nothing.
>She
>and her husband were in college in southwest Texas. No evidence so far
>that she and JFK ever met.
And that proves exactly what?
Nothing.
Perhaps she feels ashamed by her alleged adultery. Apparently
Worthington was conceived after the couple were married.
Of course, she could just deny the whole thing.
She hasn't.
PF
Peter Fokes
Why make such an assumption?
You have no idea of her motivation for anything.
PF
yeuhd
> > Thanks for stating the obvious. I *am* talking about running a
> > moistened cotton swab inside the cheek of the body of Jack
> > Worthington, the deceased father of record, or puling out hairs with
> > root cells attached. Either of these would have been easy to perform
> > on his body after his death and before his burial.
>
> How can you do that without a court order, without an exhumation? That
> would be illegal.
As I have said several times, a DNA sample should have been taken after
the death of the father of record, Jack Worthington, and *before his
burial*. So -- no exhumation necessary. And no court order would be
necessary with the permission of his widow, Jack Worthington II's mother.
Given that she had (allegedly) already told her son years earlier that
Jack Worthington I was *not* his biological father, she should have had no
objection to his proving it scientifically, especially given the
simplicity of taking a DNA sample from the corpse before burial.
But let's say that his mother did object for some reason to a DNA sample
being taken from her husband's corpse before burial. Jack Worthington II
could have gotten a court order, which is within his rights under Texas
law, for a DNA sample to be taken. (54 Tex.Civ.App. 148, 117 S.W. 870)
Even now he has the right to get an exhumation for that purpose. (28 Tex.
Jur. 3d Dead Bodies § 24)
Even without an exhumation, there are still other ways Jack II could rule
out a biological relationship to Jack I. He could have a DNA comparison
done between himself with any male line descendants of Jack I's father,
grandfather, or great-grandfather.
That should have been Jack Worthington II's first step: scientifically
ruling out Jack Worthington as his biological father. He has apparently
not done that. Why?
yeuhd
> >The question remains: why is Jack Worthington II asking the Kennedy
> >family do something which he himself has apparently failed to do in
> >relation to his own father of record -- do a DNA match?
>
> He has requested DNA testing to prove he is the son of John Kennedy.
>
> Isn't that obvious? Why should he "disbelieve" his own mother?
Because sometimes people lie. Mary Evelyn Worthington may have lied to
her son, for reasons unknown.
Or Jack Worthington II may be the person who is making this whole
thing up, and his mother never made any such claim about his
parentage.
But it's a little disingenuous to speculate that Jack II "would have
insulted his mother" by quietly having a DNA comparison done between
himself and his father of record, when he has gone public worldwide
with the claim that his mother committed adultery.
yeuhd
> >> Again, such a test could not prove he was related to JFK.
> >> It could only prove he was related to Worthington II.
>
> >Thanks for stating the obvious.
>
> You are welcome. You overlooked it.
>
No, I didn't overlook it, but if you want to pretend that I did, who's to
stop you.
I clearly wrote above, "One would also think that if Jack Worthington II
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 23, 10:55 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Thanks for stating the obvious. I *am* talking about running a
>>> moistened cotton swab inside the cheek of the body of Jack
>>> Worthington, the deceased father of record, or puling out hairs with
>>> root cells attached. Either of these would have been easy to perform
>>> on his body after his death and before his burial.
>> How can you do that without a court order, without an exhumation? That
>> would be illegal.
>
> As I have said several times, a DNA sample should have been taken after
> the death of the father of record, Jack Worthington, and *before his
WHY? Is this routinely done, or ever done in other cases?
> burial*. So -- no exhumation necessary. And no court order would be
> necessary with the permission of his widow, Jack Worthington II's mother.
Prove that. That all you need is the permission of the widow to exhume
the body without a court order.
> Given that she had (allegedly) already told her son years earlier that
> Jack Worthington I was *not* his biological father, she should have had no
> objection to his proving it scientifically, especially given the
> simplicity of taking a DNA sample from the corpse before burial.
>
Why should they prove it scientifically. This was long before Maury.
> But let's say that his mother did object for some reason to a DNA sample
> being taken from her husband's corpse before burial. Jack Worthington II
> could have gotten a court order, which is within his rights under Texas
> law, for a DNA sample to be taken. (54 Tex.Civ.App. 148, 117 S.W. 870)
> Even now he has the right to get an exhumation for that purpose. (28 Tex.
> Jur. 3d Dead Bodies § 24)
>
And why hasn't he? I think the answer is clear. It would not prove what
he wants to prove.
> Even without an exhumation, there are still other ways Jack II could rule
> out a biological relationship to Jack I. He could have a DNA comparison
> done between himself with any male line descendants of Jack I's father,
> grandfather, or great-grandfather.
>
You are assuming things not in evidence.
> That should have been Jack Worthington II's first step: scientifically
> ruling out Jack Worthington as his biological father. He has apparently
> not done that. Why?
>
You mean you can't figure it out??
yeuhd
> > Just what is it with your crankiness? Why do you feel so compelled to
> > be a contrarian on every topic?
>
> Because you keep posting nonsense.
I wrote above, "The question remains: why is Jack Worthington II asking
the Kennedy family do something which he himself has apparently failed to
do in relation to his own father of record -- do a DNA match? If the match
was positive (i.e., he was the biological son of Jack Worthington), that
would end the question right there. Ruling out a biological relationship
between him and his father of record should have been the first step he
took. It would have been simple -- and within his rights under Texas
paternity law -- to have a DNA sample taken after his father's death and
before his burial," and that a DNA sample could have been taken simply
with a moistened cotton swab rubbed inside the cheek, or with a sample of
hair including root cells."
You wrote, "Whose cheek? Not just one person. You have to compare his DNA
to someone else's DNA. Obviously he would match himself. He might even
match his biological mother. That does not settle anything. You need to
compare it."
What part of "DNA sample taken after his father's death and before his
burial" do you not understand?
And when I wrote, "But I am assuming that Mary Worthington, already having
told her son years ago that the man who raised him was not his biological
father, would not have been adverse to her son establishing that as a
matter of scientific fact."
You characterized it as the exact opposite of what I wrote: "You are going
to take her word on it?"
If we could take her word on it, there would be *no need* for a DNA
comparison, would there?
Then, after I wrote above that a DNA sample of Jack Worthington I should
have been taken "after his death and before his burial," you wrote, "How
can you do that without a court order, without an exhumation?"
What part of the words "before burial" do you not understand?
You then added, "That would be illegal", after I had addressed that issue
*twice*: that it was within Jack Worthington II's rights under Texas
paternity law to have this done, and that he could have gotten a court
order.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:5f68cc0f-4e50-4453...@t66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were ALL waiting for you to show us the stamps on Oswald's Passport from
Sweden or Denmark.
Or, tell us that he trasvelled from London to helsinki via Militaty Flight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 23, 10:55 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Just what is it with your crankiness? Why do you feel so compelled to
>>> be a contrarian on every topic?
>> Because you keep posting nonsense.
>
>
> I wrote above, "The question remains: why is Jack Worthington II asking
> the Kennedy family do something which he himself has apparently failed to
> do in relation to his own father of record -- do a DNA match? If the match
> was positive (i.e., he was the biological son of Jack Worthington), that
> would end the question right there. Ruling out a biological relationship
> between him and his father of record should have been the first step he
> took. It would have been simple -- and within his rights under Texas
> paternity law -- to have a DNA sample taken after his father's death and
> before his burial," and that a DNA sample could have been taken simply
> with a moistened cotton swab rubbed inside the cheek, or with a sample of
> hair including root cells."
>
> You wrote, "Whose cheek? Not just one person. You have to compare his DNA
> to someone else's DNA. Obviously he would match himself. He might even
> match his biological mother. That does not settle anything. You need to
> compare it."
>
> What part of "DNA sample taken after his father's death and before his
> burial" do you not understand?
>
Why would anyone have done it then and why do you assume it could be
done post mortem?
> And when I wrote, "But I am assuming that Mary Worthington, already having
> told her son years ago that the man who raised him was not his biological
> father, would not have been adverse to her son establishing that as a
> matter of scientific fact."
>
Why would the mother want to do that?
> You characterized it as the exact opposite of what I wrote: "You are going
> to take her word on it?"
>
You were taking her word on it that her husband was not the biological
father just because she said so. Just as you take Judyth's word on
everything because she said so. Not a very good way to evaluate claims.
> If we could take her word on it, there would be *no need* for a DNA
> comparison, would there?
>
Yes, for the DNA comparison to try to prove that he is JFK's son.
> Then, after I wrote above that a DNA sample of Jack Worthington I should
> have been taken "after his death and before his burial," you wrote, "How
> can you do that without a court order, without an exhumation?"
>
> What part of the words "before burial" do you not understand?
>
> You then added, "That would be illegal", after I had addressed that issue
> *twice*: that it was within Jack Worthington II's rights under Texas
> paternity law to have this done, and that he could have gotten a court
> order.
>
No, you are guessing.
yeuhd
> > What part of "DNA sample taken after his father's death and before his
> > burial" do you not understand?
>
> Why would anyone have done it then and why do you assume it could be
> done post mortem?
Jack II had allegedly been told years ago by his mother that JFK was
his biological father. And of course DNA samples can be taken post
mortem. They're taking DNA samples from mummies thousands of years
old. I've already explained to you twice how easy it is to take a post-
mortem DNA sample before burial.
> > And when I wrote, "But I am assuming that Mary Worthington, already having
> > told her son years ago that the man who raised him was not his biological
> > father, would not have been adverse to her son establishing that as a
> > matter of scientific fact."
>
> Why would the mother want to do that?
>
> > You characterized it as the exact opposite of what I wrote: "You are going
> > to take her word on it?"
>
> You were taking her word on it that her husband was not the biological
> father just because she said so. Just as you take Judyth's word on
> everything because she said so. Not a very good way to evaluate claims.
Judyth who? You are obviously confused. I've never written anything in
this forum about anyone named Judyth.
> > You then added, "That would be illegal", after I had addressed that issue
> > *twice*: that it was within Jack Worthington II's rights under Texas
> > paternity law to have this done, and that he could have gotten a court
> > order.
>
> No, you are guessing.
No, this is a matter of law, and I gave the legal citations above for
Jack II's right to have paternity testing done on his father of record
-- before or after burial.
Peter Fokes
>Jack II had allegedly been told years ago by his mother that JFK was
>his biological father.
Exactly when did she tell him?
PF
yeuhd
Genetic Testing:
(a) An order for genetic testing is enforceable by contempt.
(b) A court may adjudicate parentage contrary to the position of an
individual whose paternity is being determined on the grounds that the
individual declines to submit to genetic testing as ordered by the
court.
(c) Genetic testing of the mother of a child is not a prerequisite to
testing the child and a man whose paternity is being determined. If
the mother is unavailable or declines to submit to genetic testing,
the court may order the testing of the child and each man whose
paternity is being adjudicated.
28 Tex. Jur. 3d Dead Bodies § 24:
Neither the right of sepulture nor the right to have the body remain
unmolested is absolute. These rights must yield when the demands of
justice so require.
Anthony Marsh
Great, so you are citing a 2001 law. BTW it is Texas FAMILY code:
XII. Voluntary or Court-Ordered Testing.
Provisions for genetic testing are set out
in Subchapter F, chapter 160, Family Code.
These provisions govern testing whether it is
done voluntarily, by court order or by order of a
support enforcement agency. Tex. Fam. Code
§ 160.501.
The court must order genetic testing if
requested to do so by a party to the proceeding.
Tex. Fam. Code § 160.502 (a). There are,
however, some restrictions on the right of a
party to get court-ordered genetic testing, as
discussed above. There is no longer a
requirement that the court order genetic testing
before making an adjudication of parentage.
If a court does order parentage testing,
the order for parentage testing is enforceable by
contempt. Tex. Fam. Code § 160.622 (a). In
addition, if an individual whose paternity is
being determined, that is, an alleged father or a
presumed father seeking to rebut the
presumption, refuses to submit to genetic testing
as ordered by the court, the court may adjudicate
parentage contrary to the position of that party.
Tex. Fam. Code § 160.622 (b).
Testing of the mother is not a
prerequisite to testing the child and the man
whose paternity is being determined. If the
mother is unavailable or declines to submit to
genetic testing, the court may order the testing of
the child and each man whose paternity is being
adjudicated. Tex. Fam. Code § 160.622 (c).
However, the provisions relating to the
determination of paternity also apply to a
determination of maternity. Tex. Fam. Code
§ 160.106. Presumably, if the mother was the
party denying her relationship to the child, or
denying that the alleged father was the father of
the child, the court could adjudicate either
paternity or maternity contrary to her position if
she failed to submit to genetic testing.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 26, 2:12 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> What part of "DNA sample taken after his father's death and before his
>>> burial" do you not understand?
>> Why would anyone have done it then and why do you assume it could be
>> done post mortem?
>
> Jack II had allegedly been told years ago by his mother that JFK was
> his biological father. And of course DNA samples can be taken post
> mortem. They're taking DNA samples from mummies thousands of years
> old. I've already explained to you twice how easy it is to take a post-
> mortem DNA sample before burial.
>
It's illegal to do that if you don't get a court order and no court is
going to allow that to JFK's body.
>
>>> And when I wrote, "But I am assuming that Mary Worthington, already having
>>> told her son years ago that the man who raised him was not his biological
>>> father, would not have been adverse to her son establishing that as a
>>> matter of scientific fact."
>> Why would the mother want to do that?
>>
>>> You characterized it as the exact opposite of what I wrote: "You are going
>>> to take her word on it?"
>> You were taking her word on it that her husband was not the biological
>> father just because she said so. Just as you take Judyth's word on
>> everything because she said so. Not a very good way to evaluate claims.
>
> Judyth who? You are obviously confused. I've never written anything in
> this forum about anyone named Judyth.
>
Comparison. Just as you take Judyth's word because she says something.
>
>>> You then added, "That would be illegal", after I had addressed that issue
>>> *twice*: that it was within Jack Worthington II's rights under Texas
>>> paternity law to have this done, and that he could have gotten a court
>>> order.
>> No, you are guessing.
>
> No, this is a matter of law, and I gave the legal citations above for
> Jack II's right to have paternity testing done on his father of record
> -- before or after burial.
>
No, wrong citation, wrong law, wrong venue, inapplicable.
yeuhd
> yeuhd wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 2:12 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> What part of "DNA sample taken after his father's death and before his
> >>> burial" do you not understand?
> >> Why would anyone have done it then and why do you assume it could be
> >> done post mortem?
>
> > Jack II had allegedly been told years ago by his mother that JFK was
> > his biological father. And of course DNA samples can be taken post
> > mortem. They're taking DNA samples from mummies thousands of years
> > old. I've already explained to you twice how easy it is to take a post-
> > mortem DNA sample before burial.
>
> It's illegal to do that if you don't get a court order and no court is
> going to allow that to JFK's body.
>
I have repeatedly -- and only -- talked about how Jack Worthington II
should have gotten a DNA sample from Jack Worthington I *before he was
buried*, to rule him out as his biological father. I have never --
never -- said anything about exhuming JFK's body.
It is neither illegal, nor is a court order necessary, to get a DNA
sample from a deceased person's corpse before burial (repeat: before
burial) (third time: before burial) if you have the permission
(repeat: if you have the permission) of the next of kin. In this case,
the next of kin was Jack II's mother, Mary Evelyn Worthington. If she,
for some reason, did not want to give permission for a DNA sample of
her husband to be taken before his burial (repeat: before his burial),
Jack II could have gotten a court order to have a DNA sample taken
from Jack I's corpse before Jack I's burial (repeat: before his
burial).
Even after the burial of Jack I, Jack II could request a court order
to have Jack I exhumed for a DNA sample to be taken. 28 Tex. Jur. 3d
Dead Bodies § 24: "Neither the right of sepulture nor the right to
have the body remain unmolested is absolute. These rights must yield
when the demands of justice so require."
Let's say none of those three options came to pass. Jack II could
still rule out Jack I as his biological father by having a DNA
comparison done between Jack II's DNA and the DNA of any cooperative
living male line descendant of Jack I's father, grandfather, or great-
grandfather.
(Let me guess how you'll misunderstand that: "Are you saying that he
could have his great-grandfather exhumed without a court order?")
Why has Jack II apparently not done any of those options to rule out
Jack I as his biological father? DNA comparison between Jack II and
Jack I could have been done privately and discreetly. If the DNA
comparison showed positive results (i.e., that Jack II is the
biological son of Jack I), that would have ended the question then and
there. If the DNA comparison showed negative results, Jack II would at
least have a better case for getting the Kennedy family involved.
No, of course ruling out Jack I as his biological father would not
establish whether he is the son of JFK. But the Kennedy family has no
obligation to submit itself to the claims of a stranger who comes out
of the woodwork with no physical evidence to support his claim. They
have had more than their share of impositions by nut jobs.
Instead, Jack II has chosen to all but declare to the world that his
mother was an adulterer. And he has impinged on the Kennedy family,
expecting them to come to his aide to prove his claim.
> >> You were taking her word on it that her husband was not the biological
> >> father just because she said so. Just as you take Judyth's word on
> >> everything because she said so. Not a very good way to evaluate claims.
>
> > Judyth who? You are obviously confused. I've never written anything in
> > this forum about anyone named Judyth.
>
> Comparison. Just as you take Judyth's word because she says something.
You are confused. To repeat: I have never written anything about
anyone named "Judyth" in this forum.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>On 26 Feb 2008 18:50:40 -0500, yeuhd <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote:
Perhaps I missed your answer to the above question?
Do you know? I assume you do since you state "allegedly told years
ago".
Do we know it was "years ago" ... before the elder Mr. Worthington
passed away?
PF
>
>
>PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
He'll never get a DNA sample from this source:
from an article in the Oakland Tribune by Della Rios in Nov. 2003:
<quote on>
NOT long after that terrible day in Dallas -- no one knows exactly
when -- a brown paper box arrived at the National Archives.
The return address was on O Street, the Georgetown home of Jacqueline
Kennedy's mother. Packed inside was the pink Chanel suit first
glimpsed Nov. 22, 1963, when the first lady joined JFK at a Fort Worth
breakfast, and which, covered in his blood, she still wore the next
morning to escort the slain president's casket into the White House.
There in the Archives, the suit remains. Stored in a custom- designed
corrugated board box, it rests on a gray steel shelf in a secured area
of a suburban warehouse. It has never been cleaned. The wool skirt and
jacket lie flat, with a suggestion of human form created by acid-free
tissue paper folded inside the sleeves.
Only recently was a deed of gift obtained from the Kennedys' sole
surviving child, Caroline. But 100 years will have to pass before the
suit can again come before the American public. This condition is
consistent with Mrs. Kennedy's determination to balance her
obligations to history with her family's privacy. Archivists'
interests, moreover, are not only the past and present, but the
future.
<quote off>
PF
>
>
>PF
>>
>>
>>PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
I read this tidbit on another forum:
<quote on>
"I saw on Fox this morning that the reason Worthington started this
whole thing is, his father had some sort of genetic disorder and he
wanted to see if it was passed on. His mother then had to spill the
beans.
<quote off>
Yeuhd has still not informed me when she did spill the beans.
Do ya know?
PF
>
>
>PF
>>
>>
>>PF
Peter Fokes
Peter Fokes
"Jack Worthington" is the name of a character in Oscar Wilde's The
Importance of Being Earnest.
Mmm
PF
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:29:57 -0500, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
yeuhd
> Do we know it was "years ago" ... before the elder Mr. Worthington
> passed away?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23438627-details
JFK'S 'SECRET LOVE CHILD' HAD AFFAIR WITH PRESIDENT BUSH'S SISTER-IN-
LAW
The Texas tycoon who claims to be John F Kennedy's secret love child
had an affair with President Bush's sister-in-law, The Mail on Sunday
can reveal....
She [Sharon Bush] says he [Jack R. Worthington II] was brought up to
believe his father was the respected Houston school administrator to
whom his mother was married for 47 years.
But then his mother allegedly told him his real father was America's
assassinated 35th President, to whom Mrs Bush says he bears a
"stunning" physical resemblance.
"When his mother gave him the information, just a few years ago, he
was shell-shocked," Mrs Bush said.
--------------------
Jack R. Worthington died on 19 May 2007.