Tag: MARILYN MONROE

  • Maureen Callahan Goes over the Edge—Along with Megyn Kelly Pt 1

    Maureen Callahan Goes over the Edge—Along with Megyn Kelly Pt 1


    Many years ago, at the end of 1997 to be exact, I wrote a two part essay for Probe Magazine entitled “The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy.” This was done in reaction to the publication of Sy Hersh’s horrendous book on Kennedy, entitled the Dark Side of Camelot. That book was so bad, so intellectually problematic that it was almost universally panned; even in the MSM. The most notable instance was by Garry Wills in the New York Review of Books. And Wills was no fan of JFK.

    In that essay, I went through a collection of books that had arisen in what I called the anti-Kennedy category; thus tracing the origins of Hersh’s debacle. This included works by authors like, among others, John Davis, Thomas Reeves, and the writing duo of Peter Collier and David Horowitz. I stated that by the time of the Reeves book, A Question of Character, in 1991, the field had become voluminous enough that an author could just rely on the accumulated secondary sources to do a compendium styled book. Which is what Reeves did. Even to the point of including the utterly fatuous Kitty Kelley article in People magazine in 1988. In that piece, bylined by Kelley, Judith Exner said that she had been a messenger between the White House and Chicago Don Sam Giancana in the plots to kill Castro. For Hersh she said that Bobby Kennedy was cognizant of this and commented on it to her. (Hersh, pp. 307-08). Somehow Hersh missed the fact that on a 1992 program with Larry King, the fraudulent Exner said she never even talked to Bobby Kennedy, at the most she ran into him at a rally in LA. In other words, Exner uttered so many fabrications she could not keep track of them. This is just an inkling of the quicksand one can fall into by implicitly trusting the rabid anti-Kennedy literature.

    II

    Maureen Callahan had no inkling and no trepidations about what had happened to Hersh. After all, as she later reveals, her mother urged her on. Also perhaps because she worked for Rupert Murdoch at the New York Post for two decades. In fact, Callahan just leaped into the morass—headfirst. She has now pretty much done what Reeves did. And, unembarrassed, she includes both Reeves and Hersh in her bibliography. But, her volume more accurately resembles the Collier/Horowitz book, The Kennedys: An American Drama. Why? Because that book did not just focus on John Kennedy. It covered, in large part, the entire Kennedy clan. As I pointed out in my essay, Collier and Horowitz were migrating from the left—they had both worked at Ramparts in upper level positions—to the right. And their Kennedy book was so bad—in every way—that it seemed to provide their golden key to the conservative kingdom. And from all appearances, it did. In other words, theirs was really a political book. Which is why the two former journalists and scholars decided to use Kelley as a source. As we shall see, one can conclude the same for Callahan, who also uses Kelley.

    The title of Callahan’s book is Ask Not. And on the cover there is a set of three eye shots, easily discernible as Marilyn Monroe, Jackie Kennedy and Carolyn Bessette. I think this is supposed to do two things. First to suggest a “deer in the headlights” pose and second, of course, to mock Kennedy’s famous inaugural address. Since Bessette never knew JFK, and as we shall see, there is very little evidence for any kind of an affair between Monroe and JFK, that heavily suggestive cover and title is pretty much bombast. Let us take the three cases up in order.

    I would have thought that any serious author today would have known better than to jump into the Monroe mess using writers like Tony Summers and Donald Wolfe. Yet Callahan sources them, uses them and does not issue the unsuspecting reader any qualifications. Today that alone should put her book on the reject list. Why? Because both men not just trusted the proven liar Robert Slatzer but, according to Monroe scholar Don McGovern, both referenced Slatzer literally scores of times in their books. (McGovern, Murder Orthodoxies, p. 76) Why is that important in understanding Callahan?

    Because in order to sell a book Slatzer made up a story about being married to Monroe in Mexico. That story is so full of holes that it is hard to keep a straight face while reciting it. But McGovern spends 18 pages taking it apart piece by piece. (McGovern, pp. 48-66). Other writers, like April VeVea, have also shown that Monroe could not have been in Mexico at that time since it is proven through photographic and handwriting evidence that she was in Los Angeles. (McGovern, p. 48, p. 100) This fake marriage is just one of several inventions by Slatzer. Which includes bribing someone to lie for him about his manufactured wedding, namely boxer/actor Noble Kid Chissell. Slatzer then welshed on the bribe. Summers used Chissell to validate Slatzer. (McGovern, pp. 98-99)

    In addition, those books also utilized other dubious witnesses like the late wiretapper Bernie Spindel, detective Fred Otash, policeman Gary Wean, and trick golfer Jeanne Carmen. Like Spindel, Callahan says that Monroe’s house was bugged. (Callahan, p. 209; all references to E book version) This issue has been negated twice. The first time was by the 1982 Los Angeles DA Ron Carroll inquiry. (McGovern, p.445) The second source was author Gary Vitacco Robles who got access to the records from the phone company and devoted a whole chapter to this mythology, concluding there was no evidence of such tapping. (Icon, Chapter 24)

    Callahan uses the oft repeated cliché that Monroe’s phone records were somehow concealed. (Callahan, p. 208, p. 319, p. 353) Again, Vitacco Robles shows this was not true. The original LAPD inquiry had the Monroe records. And the Carroll inquiry in 1982 went even further by trying to find every phone Monroe could have possibly used in the last months of her life. (Icon, Chapter 24) All her calls to Bobby Kennedy went through the main switchboard at the Justice Department and were brief. As Gary points out, she was very likely seeking help for her termination by the studio at that time over her last film, Something’s Got to Give. RFK knew the chairman of the Board of Directors at Fox. There are documents and credible testimony from Monroe’s publicist, Rupert Allan, that indicate this point. (Icon, Pt 2 pp. 535-36)

    As one would suspect by now, Callahan also uses two other pernicious myths in her writing on Monroe and the Kennedys. The first is the idea of some kind of diary that went missing after her death.(Callahan, p. 320) Like the discredited wiretapping, this has also been exposed as a Robert Slatzer hoax. (McGovern, p. 558) Monroe did have an address book that was on a table next to her bed when she died. But it was Slatzer who invented the diary myth for his first book, The Life and Curious Death of Marilyn Monroe. There he has Monroe reading to him from it. Slatzer actually wrote that RFK was running the Bay of Pigs operation for his brother. Anyone can investigate—through authors like Peter Kornbluh– and find out that Bobby Kennedy had nothing to do with the execution of that operation. It was a CIA project from first to last, and the two men running it were Director of Plans Dick Bissell and Deputy Director Charles Cabell. As Don McGovern notes, and was proven later, what Monroe kept was not a diary but more like a set of notebooks that was found years after her death. It was published as a book called Fragments. And it does not at all resemble what Slatzer and others, like Lionel Grandison, describe. (Grandison is too ridiculous to even note, but for the curious reader see McGovern, p. 359, p. 560)

    As Don McGovern notes, President Kennedy and Monroe met, at the most four times.(McGovern, Murder Orthodoxies, pp 176-183) In only one instance is there any evidence of a dalliance, and Gary VItacco Robles has even brought that into question. Need I add that Callahan writes that Monroe had an abortion about a month before she died. (p. 319) Unbelievably, she even suggests it was Bobby Kennedy’s child. (Which, as we shall see, is impossible.) This is more mythology. Monroe pathologist Thomas Noguchi found no evidence of any recent abortion. And her gynecologist Leon Krohn said she never had one. (McGovern, pp. 523-24)

    One of the tawdriest aspects of this tawdry book is its use of Jeanne Carmen. And the use of her pretty much gives Callahan’s Machiavellian game away. Today, no rational, objective commentator can believe the deceased Carmen. She has been taken apart piece by piece by so many writers—April VeVea, Don McGovern, Gary VItacco Robles—that anyone who uses her today renders themselves the gravity of a SNL sketch. But this is how hellbent Callahan is to involve both Robert Kennedy and Peter Lawford in the death of Monroe, or to at least for them to be at her home on the day she died, manhandling her. (Callahan, pp. 209)

    Which is all provably false. Bobby Kennedy, a few members of his family, and several other people were all about 350 miles north, in the San Francisco area on the day Monroe died. This is proven by a series of pictures. The ten photographs cover the entire day. (Susan Bernard, Marilyn: Intimate Exposures, pp. 184-88). Those pictures, plus the matching testimony, are the kinds of evidence one can submit in court. Thus exposing Carmen as a liar. And blowing up Callahan’s credibility in the process.

    As per Lawford: again, the evidence is probative that he was not at Monroe’s home the day she died. He was trying to get her out of her house and to a dinner party at his Santa Monica home. The guests were talent manager George Durgom, and TV producer Joe Naar and his wife Dolores. She declined. (Vitacco Robles, Icon, Pt. 1, p. 394) But Lawford was worried because of her speech pattern, plus he was aware of her serious drug problem. Lawford called back but could not get through. He phoned his agent Milton Ebbins and told him to call Monroe’s lawyer Milton Rudin. This got through to Eunice Murray, Marilyn’s housekeeper who—not knowing about her slurred speech to Lawford—said Monroe was alright. (Ibid p. 398, p. 403) Lawford still wanted to go over and get her. But Ebbins told him not to, since Murray would say the same thing. Ebbins later revealed he had a secret agenda: he knew about Monroe’s drug problem and how bad it would look if the president’s brother in law, his client, was at her home when the paramedics arrived. Ebbins told Tony Summers that Lawford never mentioned Bobby Kennedy that evening or even after he told him she was dead. (ibid, p. 413)

    Randy Taraborrelli, a biographer of Marilyn Monroe, has written that the evidence indicates that the relationship between RFK and Monroe was platonic. In his work he found only three instances where they even met in person. And each time was in public. (McGovern, p. 237). Predictably, Callahan uses a very dubious witness, the late Jeanne Martin—Dean Martin’s former wife– to dispute this. Without saying what a wild outlier she is. None of the witnesses at the Lawford dinner parties corroborate her and its not even proven she was there when RFK was. And at one of those dinners, Bobby brought his wife. (McGovern, p. 181)

    Finally, as both San Francisco pathologist Boyd Stephens and the late Pittsburgh forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht agree, Marilyn Monroe was not murdered. The drugs she took were ingested, not injected. (Vitacco Robles, Icon Pt.2, pp 351-61; McGovern, pp. 494-95). Again, this blows Callahan’s ersatz witness Jeanne Carmen off the stand and into the Pacific Ocean. Which is where she belongs. (Carmen once said that Johnny Roselli killed Sam Giancana over Marilyn; 13 years later while Johnny was in retirement in Florida?)

    I could go on since I have rarely seen so much junk on Monroe piled into a relatively compact space. But I think the above is enough to show that, as far as the portentous shot of Marilyn’s eyes on the cover, Callahan has zero to back it up. In fact I would call it less than zero, since what she fails to reveal demolishes her own sources and statements.

    III

    The second set of eyes belongs to Jackie Kennedy, and this really puzzled me. Why? Because to anyone who reads any reputable biography of the woman, marrying John Kennedy was probably the best thing that ever happened to Jacqueline Bouvier. Before she married Kennedy she was working for $42.50 per week–about 650 dollars today–at a newspaper called the Washington Times Herald. She was doing man on the street interviews as a photojournalist. Questions being things like “Is your marriage a 50-50 partnership?” and “Would you like to crash high society?” (Donald Spoto, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onasis, p. 81). That newspaper was purchased in 1954 by the Washington Post and was then discontinued.

    After her husband was killed in 1963, Jackie had a trust fund that, in today’s dollars, was worth about two million per year. She then borrowed money from Robert Kennedy to buy a home in Georgetown. She then leveraged that into a New York City, 14 room townhouse on Fifth Avenue, and according to Bobby, she did not pay him back. (Randy Taraborrelli, Jackie: Public, Private Secret, p. 196).

    In 2006 that townhouse sold for 30 million.

    She deserved it all. Why? Because Jackie Kennedy revolutionized the office of First Lady. She took it to a point that, in my view, went even beyond Eleanor Roosevelt. As her stepbrother said about her, “Being the First Lady wasn’t just her job. It was who she was.” (Taraborrelli, p. 178) The woman spoke five languages. So when President Kennedy would visit Italy, France or South America, she would be voicing his message in those foreign tongues. In her own right, she was well read and intelligent. So she helped Senator Kennedy in the making of what I still think is his greatest speech: his 1957 Algeria address on Third World nationalism, which put him on the map for the 1960 election. (Spoto, p. 112) She, along with David Ormsby Gore of England, convinced Senator Kennedy that “tactical nuclear war was an illusion and that disarmament was the only sane road to lasting peace.” This was another policy that Kennedy then pursued in the White House. (ibid) After her husband’s death, Jackie took the notes of his last meeting, where he mentioned poverty six times, to Bobby Kennedy. RFK had them framed and put on his wall. (Edward R. Schmitt, President of the Other America, p.92, p. 96)

    The First Lady was well aware of the influence that Edmund Gullion, ambassador to Congo, had on her husband. It was Gullion who JFK tasked with stopping the secession of the breakaway Katanga state and keeping Congo one nation against the forces of European imperialism. (Monika Wiesak, America’s Last President, p. 40) She also understood what Kennedy was trying to do with his Alliance for Progress in Latin America. When the newspapers pictured her visit to an orphanage in Venezuela and wrote how she allowed the children to kiss her when she departed, both Kennedys despised the reporting. Since it indicated what an inferiority complex American policy had bestowed on the area. (ibid, pp. 63-64) When she visited Cambodia in 1967, Prince Sihanouk had written a speech to greet her which, in its original form, said the Vietnam War would not have happened if her husband had lived.

    And we know what happened when Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had dinner with her in New York. He notes how Jackie had become depressed and critical over the fact that Lyndon Johnson had altered Kennedy’s Indochina policy. In fact, she visited wounded Vietnam vets in hospitals. (Spoto p. 252) When discussing a poem by Gabriela Mistral–which reminded Jackie of her husband–she grew very tense and could barely speak. She suddenly exploded in rage. She then began to pound him across the chest “demanding that I do something to stop the slaughter.” (McNamara, In Retrospect, pp. 257-58). All of this, and more, indicates that the First Lady knew a lot about what her husband’s policies were, and how they were changed later.

    If any reader can find any of the above in Callahan’s book, please let me know.

    So what does Callahan give us instead? Well, what does one expect from a writer who relies on the likes of Sy Hersh and Jeanne Carmen? She uses the late David Heymann and Peter Evans. After the multiple exposes that have been done on the former this is simply fruity. As Donna Morel and David Cay Johnston have shown, Heymann was a pathological liar. He not only made up quotes, he made up people. And this was proven about one of the Heymann books she uses as a source. But further, in order to libel Bobby Kennedy, Heymann even made up police departments. (Click here).

    In Bobby and Jackie, a book Callahan sources in her bibliography, Morel discovered that Heymann likely made up Secret Service reports. (ibid) Lisa Pease did a coruscating review of that same book, in which the author claimed to have been nominated for a Pulitzer three times. He was never once nominated. He also claimed to have had a ten year long relationship with John Kennedy Jr. As Pease shows, this is another falsehood. Lisa also shows that, as Heymann was apt to do, he fabricated witness testimony after the witness was dead. Heymann had Mary Harrington, a neighbor, watch from above as Bobby had his hand on Jackie’s breast at the Kennedy Palm Beach estate. As a local real estate agent noted this was not possible as the entire estate was walled. (Click here).

    I won’t even go into the other book Callahan uses on Jackie. Suffice it to say that Lisa thinks that Nemesis may be a black book, inspired by Robert Maheu. (Click here).

    She even uses the Kitty Kelley story that somehow JFK’s affairs drove her to seek shock treatments in a sanitarium. (Callahan, p. 144) Which is ludicrous. As both Spoto and Taraborrelli note, Jackie did not seek any such counseling until after the assassination. And that was due to the fact that she was clearly suffering from PTSD. She also sent her daughter Caroline for counseling. (Spoto, p. 217, Taraborrelli, pp. 384-85)

    But Kitty Kelley is not the worst concerning Callahan and Jackie Kennedy. The author is intent on somehow demeaning Jackie’s admirable behavior after the assassination, both at Parkland Hospital and the return to Washington. So she has her performing fellatio on his corpse at Parkland. (p. 42) I actually wrote “WTF” in my notebook when I saw this. I could not find any reference to it in her notes section, which is very loose and would not pass muster in any history department. Not only is this not in either Spoto or Taraborrelli, but its not in the hour by hour chronicles of the assassination by either William Manchester or Jim Bishop. The Bishop book is actually a minute by minute account of the day of the murder, and he spends several pages on this Parkland episode in his chapter entitled “The Afternoon Hours”. And in his introduction, called “For the Record”, one can see that he is no big fan of either President Kennedy or his wife. In fact, Jackie did not want him to write the book.

    When I saw this, I dialed back to Callahan’s introductory notes. There she said that her subjectivity is no less or more than that of any other historian. (p. xi) She then said that she had taken some creative license in the book.(p. xv) Can the woman be real? As we shall see, the last thing anyone should characterize Callahan is as historian. Not with this kind of referencing. And historians do not use creative license.

    In sum, and in the real world, Jackie Kennedy became the most famous First Lady in history, a worldwide political symbol, a fashion icon, and ultimately a millionairess due to her wedding to John Kennedy.

    Second dud for Callahan

    IV

    In 1968, after Bobby Kennedy’s murder, which frightened and sickened her, Jackie agreed to marry Aristotle Onassis. He was a Greek shipping magnate who had his own island off the coast of Greece with a security detail. (Spoto, p. 236). But the problem was she wanted her children raised in New York. So she ended up splitting time between the two places.

    John Jr. understood his mother’s PTSD so he covered up pictures of her in Dallas before she could see them. (Taraborrelli, p. 401). He attended Brown University for his undergraduate degree and while there organized seminars on South African apartheid, a situation which horrified him. (Elaine Landau, John F. Kennedy Jr, p. 78). He then worked a year at the Office of Business Development in New York, becoming the deputy director of the 42nd Street Development Corporation in 1986. He was interacting with developers and city agencies. (Michael Gross, New York, 3/20/89) He did this for $20,000 a year. After this, he headed up a nonprofit group called Reaching Up which, among other things, provided education and other opportunities for workers who aided disabled persons. (Click here.) This last clearly reflects the things his father, his Aunt Eunice and his Uncle Robert were attempting to do. Which is probably why Callahan brushes it aside.

    He attended NYU Law school and passed the BAR on his third try. He was in the Manhattan DA’s office for four years. And according to those he worked with, he took cases no one else wanted, and then won them in court. (Michael Gross, in the A and E Biography, John F Kennedy Jr: The Death of an American Prince; Taraborrelli, p. 421). Contrary to what Callahan implies, his mother was not all that excited about JFK Jr starting George, his political/cultural magazine. She thought he should continue in his law career in which she saw him carving an estimable niche. (Taraborrelli, p. 421)

    In no uncertain terms Callahan tries to demean John’s work at George. Really? At its inception, in 1995, George was a startling success, achieving about a 500,000 circulation. What makes that even more remarkable is that this was when the online revolution in publishing was taking place. Yet George was a print magazine. For a point of comparison, David Talbot started Salon online that same year. It peaked at about 100,000 subscribers, 1/5 the circulation.

    So in light of all the above, for her to say that John Kennedy Jr was a middle aged man with no accomplishments, this says much more about Callahan and her agenda than it does Kennedy Jr. But that’s not all. Callahan is so monomaniacal, so freight train in her intent, she even trashes John’s wedding to Carolyn Bessette on Cumberland Island off the coast of Georgia. Callahan throws in a line criticizing Carolyn’s wedding gown and adds that the metaphoric picture of John kissing her gloved hand was a lie. (Callahan, p. 273, p. 275)

    Again, there are pictures and films of this wedding, and in her book Once Upon A Time, Elizabeth Beller spends ten pages describing what a joyous event this was and how exuberant everyone felt afterwards. (pp. 139-148) In honor of JFK’s and RFK’s work on civil rights it took place at the First African Baptist Church. The guest list was small and the couple tricked the media by saying they were going to Ireland. They did not want the paparazzi there, and they succeeded. In fact, there was only one phone at the inn they rented. People were dancing, singing and reciting poetry.

    But that is not the worst part. Apparently, Callahan wants to attack John Jr from beyond the grave. She writes that somehow Carolyn was going to be buried separately from John. This allows her to close a chapter with this: “In death, as in life, they never considered Carolyn Bessette a real Kennedy.” (p. 284 )Stunned, I wrote, “Look this up!’ Any junior high school student can google “ burial of John\ Kennedy Jr.” You will see that all three people who died in the plane crash of July 1999, that is John, his wife and his wife’s sister Lauren, were buried at sea.(Beller, p. 280). There was a very nice memorial service on July 23rd, no cameras allowed, and 315 people were invited. Then there was another the next day for all three in Greenwich. (Beller, p. 284) Can she really not have known about all of this? I find that very hard to believe.

    There was an incredible outpouring of grief exhibited by the enormous number of mourners who assembled outside the townhouse the couple lived in, with the flowers and gifts they brought to the curb. Maybe there was a subconscious reason for this remarkable display. As some writers have noted, and as revealed in JFK Jr. The Final Year, John was going to run for governor in 2002. But even further, as researcher Don Jeffries has written, John Jr, was an avid reader of books about his father’s murder. (Hidden History, Chapter 7)

    In fact, according to a high school girlfriend, Meg Azzoni, “His heartfelt quest was to expose and bring to trial those who killed his father and who covered it up.” Jeffries got corroboration for this from a second source who wished to remain anonymous. The message was that John “was keenly interested in and knowledgeable about his father’s assassination, and often talked about it privately.” According to Steven Gillon, John told him that Bobby knew everything. (People Weekly, 7/3/19, article by Liz McNeil)

    If so this may shed light on an enigma about the night of the crash. Although the story was that the weather was hazy, according to Jeffries, the last message that John conveyed about the conditions was that all was well. And the man assigned to write the FAA report, Edward Meyer, strongly disagreed with the weather conditions being depicted as hazy. (See Jeffries Substack of 7/18/24)

    Those people gathered outside the townhouse understood something that Callahan’s country mile agenda cannot bring herself to address. This tragedy deprived them of their hope for another JFK and Jackie.

    Read Part Two

    Read Part Three

  • Brad Pitt, Joyce Carol Oates and the Road to Blonde: Part 2/2

    Brad Pitt, Joyce Carol Oates and the Road to Blonde: Part 2/2


    As noted in Part 1, although Robert Slatzer was an utter and provable fraud, he clearly had an influence in the Marilyn Monroe field. People like Anthony Summers and Donald Wolfe used him quite often in their tomes. He influenced Fred Guiles also. In the revised version of his first book on Monroe—entitled Legend and published in 1984—he now seems to abide by the Slatzerian myth that Bobby Kennedy was having an affair with Monroe which President Kennedy encouraged. (pp. 24-25, reference on p. 479) This angle is absent from his first Monroe biography, Norma Jean, published in 1969. But it’s Guiles’ second book that Oates references in her notation section for Blonde. Summers also accents this RFK angle. And he uses a woman that Slatzer also used in his second book, The Marilyn FIles (1992). That woman was the late arriving Jeanne Carmen —who was nowhere to be seen prior to the eighties.

    I

    As Don McGovern astutely points out, it is quite revealing that Slatzer does not mention Carmen in his first book, published back in 1974. What makes this odd is that Slatzer claimed a years-on-end relationship with Monroe as her best male friend. Carmen claimed the same as her best female friend. Yet they never crossed paths? (McGovern, p. 131). This is a key point because as both Sarah Churchwell and McGovern comment, Carmen created most, if not all, the wild stories about Monroe’s alleged affair with the Attorney General. (McGovern, p. 132; Churchwell, The Many Lives of Marilyn Monroe, p. 293) Carmen also was influential in bringing the Mob into the Monroe field i.e. Johnny Roselli and Sam Giancana.

    But from the very beginning of her story, Carmen presents a plethora of problems that recall Slatzer. But, like Slatzer, she got a lot of exposure—31 TV appearances —for a very problematic witness. For instance, she says in her posthumously published book that she met Monroe at a bar near the Actor’s Studio in New York in the early fifties. But yet, as April VeVea points out, the first time Monroe met anyone connected to the Actor’s Studio was in late August of 1954 on the set of There’s No Business Like Show Business. Monroe then met stage producer Cheryl Crawford who introduced her to Actor’s Studio impresario Lee Strasberg. But this was in 1955 and that is when she enrolled in the famous school. Up until that point, Monroe relied on acting coach Natasha Lytess. (VeVea, “Classic Blondes”, 4/9/18)

    In the tabloid, Globe Carmen said she and Marilyn attended a pool party at Peter Lawford’s during the Democratic Convention of 1960 in LA. (1/17/95) Again, quite dubious, since Monroe was in New York at the time. (McGovern, p. 148)

    But the wildest, nuttiest stories that Carmen was responsible for were the associations between Monroe and the Mob. As VeVea noted in her posting, Carmen actually said that Sam Giancana was murdered by Roselli—over Marilyn! According to Carmen, right before he shot him Johnny said, “Sam, this is for Marilyn.” Which is preposterous. No responsible author on the Giancana case has ever intimated any such thing e.g. William Brashler or Bill Roemer. (Click here for an overview of Giancana) As VeVea notes there is no photographic evidence of any such Mafia association by Marilyn, no evidence of this in her address or phone logs, and no credible biography has ever had Monroe associated with any mobsters. But not only did Carmen know that Marilyn and Giancana were intimate, she even knew how Giancana fornicated with her. (For the prurient reader it was “doggie style”.)

    But if you can comprehend it, Carmen then got even wilder. She later told David Heymann that she herself had an affair with President Kennedy. (Icon, Part 1, p. 64) She also said that her apartment was ransacked the evening of Monroe’s death. Fred Otash then walked in and threw her to the floor. He pointed a gun at her and pulled the trigger, but it did not go off. He told her Giancana had Marilyn murdered by a team of assassins. They wanted to kill Carmen also, but he persuaded them not to do so. And, by the way, one of Sam’s four man hit team anally raped Eunice Murray. (McGovern, pp. 498-99).

    It is difficult to even write these things without suppressing a combination of laughter and disbelief at the circus the field had become. Yet these are the kinds of people who occupy the pages of Goddess (p. 238), and Slatzer’s The Marilyn FIles (pp. 30-33). For the record, Gary Vitacco Robles, Randy Taraborrelli and Don McGovern all agree that there was no romantic or sexual relationship between Monroe and RFK.

    II

    Before getting to the novelization of Monroe by Joyce Carol Oates, I would like to deal with two more stories about her death which many people also find dubious. First from a man named Jack Clemmons who was the first responding officer to arrive at Monroe’s home the night she passed. As April VeVea shows on her site, Clemmons was, to be frank, a dirty cop. (See Marilyn: A Day in the Life, “Jack Clemmons”.) Clemmons was another rightwing fanatic who let his ideology color his duties, or as his supervisor said, “His outside political interests distracted from his job interest.” (Icon, Vol. 2, p. 189) Predictably, he was close to the other rightwing extremist Frank Capell. As VeVea notes, Clemmons told Summers that Eunice Murray was using the washer/dryer on the sheets when he arrived. This was his first whopper. Because as Gary Vitacco Robles and Don McGovern show, and VeVea notes, Monroe did not have this unit, she sent everything out. He also said that he thought Monroe’s dead body was posed since drug overdose deaths usually end in convulsive spasms. (Slatzer, The Marilyn Files, p. 5) This is also not true, as pathologist Dr. Boyd Stephens told assistant DA Ron Carroll’s threshold inquiry in 1982. (Icon, Vol. 2, p.320) Clemmons told Slatzer that there was no drinking glass in Monroe’s bedroom. This was another whopper, as police photos from the scene showed there was one at the base of the nightstand. (McGovern, p. 547). Anyone can figure what Clemmons was doing by painting this false scenario. As McGovern notes, Clemmons had little problem corrupting the truth, and as Don points out, he did it in more than once instance.

    Finally, there is a former wife of Lawford. She said that Lawford went to Monroe’s house after her death to remove evidence of her association with the Kennedy family. (Icon, Part 1, p. 401; Summers pp. 361-62)

    The reason many people find this wanting is that the story did not surface until decades after Monroe’s death, from a wife who was not married to Lawford until 1976. And, according to Vitacco-Robles, they separated after 2-3 months of marriage. (Ibid) Yet all the witness testimony and evidence from the time—that is in 1962—conflicts with this visit happening. In fact, when one follows that testimony a quite different picture emerges.

    On the day she died, Lawford had invited Monroe to a dinner party at his home in Santa Monica. The guests there were talent manager George Durgom, and TV producer Joe Naar and his wife Dolores. (Icon, Pt. 1, p. 394). Lawford invited Monroe to this gathering but she ended up declining since she said she was tired. Lawford was worried because of the tone of her voice: she sounded despondent, her voice was slurred and he knew she had a drug problem. He tried to call back but could not get through. He then called his agent Milton Ebbins and told him to call Monroe’s attorney Milton Rudin. This resulted in a call to Eunice Murray who—not knowing about Monroe’s slurred tone to Lawford — said Monroe was alright. (Icon, Part 1, p. 398, p. 403) Even after he was notified of this, Lawford still wanted to check on Monroe himself; but Ebbins said Murray would tell him the same thing. Reluctantly, and arguing with Ebbins in still a later call, Lawford did not go. According to Ebbins, Lawford felt horrible about not trusting his instincts. It turns out that Ebbins had a hidden agenda. He knew that Monroe was a pill addict and therefore how bad it would look if his client, the president’s brother-in-law, was at her home when paramedics had to be called.

    There are about six corroborating witnesses to this, and Vitacco-Robles uses them all. Ebbins said that later, since he felt guilty, Lawford talked to Dr. Greenson about it. Greenson told the actor that this was just the most recent of five attempts by Monroe. No one could help the woman. (ibid, p. 408). Ebbins told Tony Summers that Lawford never mentioned the Attorney General during that evening, or after he told him she was dead. He concluded with: “If anyone thinks Marilyn killed herself over either one of the Kennedys, they’re crazy, they are absolutely insane.” In a long and comprehensive analysis which he ends by quoting this dialogue, Vitacco-Robles points out that Summers did not include this interview in his 2022 Netflix special about Monroe’s death. (ibid, p. 413)

    III

    With a menagerie like the above, the Summers/Slatzer/Wolfe axis resorted to cries of an official cover up in the Monroe case. For instance, Summers once wrote that the Ronald Carroll inquiry of 1982 did not even interview the first detective at the scene. According to Vitacco-Robles, they did interview Det. Byron who was the detective in charge. One of the things he told them was that there was no credible evidence that RFK was in LA that day. (Icon, Pt. 1, p. 393) If Summers means Clemmons, they talked to him also. (Icon Part 2, p. 184). In fact, they also talked to the con artist Slatzer, who Summers found so bracing. (ibid, p. 108) The difference being that questioners like attorney Carroll, and professional investigators Clayton Anderson and Al Tomich knew what standards meant in these types of investigations. And they understood how worthless witnesses like Slatzer and Clemmons would be before a grand jury. With people like Lionel Grandson one would be edging into the area of comedy. Grandison was a clerk in the coroner’s office who was fired for forgery and stealing credit cards from corpses. (Ibid, p. 211) This ended up being part of a ring to buy auto parts and he was later found guilty in court. It turned out that his eventual story about discovering Monroe’s diary was influenced by a meeting with Robert Slatzer. (ibid, p. 208) When asked to take a polygraph exam by Tomich he initially agreed but then backed out. He needed a lawyer’s advice.(ibid) As I have noted, Monroe did not have a diary. It was a notebook, which was not discovered until much later.

    Another aspect of the “cover-up” was the story that Police Chief William Parker seized the Monroe phone records and hid them since Bobby Kennedy had promised to make him head of the FBI. It turns out that the LAPD did have her phone records and they investigated them, and so did the Carroll inquiry. The calls made to the Justice Department went through the main switchboard. (Icon, Part 2, p. 592) The reason for these calls was very likely Monroe wanting Bobby Kennedy to help her in her dispute with Fox studios which had fired her over her absence from the set of Something’s Got to Give. There are both documents and credible testimony—from publicist Rupert Allan—on this point. (Ibid, p. 535)

    But Robert Slatzer never stopped crying cover up. Not happy with the results of the Carroll probe—which could find no reason for a new inquiry —he now tried to manipulate a grand jury into reopening the Monroe case. To put it mildly, the other jurors did not agree. They requested that Sam Cordova—the juror who Slatzer was working through—be removed. Superior Court Judge Robert Devich agreed to the request. (UPI story of October 29, 1985, by Michael Harris.). Then there was Roone Arledge at ABC News. He vetoed a 20/20 story that Geraldo Rivera and Sylvia Chase were promoting based on Summers’ book with Slatzer as a consultant. Arledge said it was “gossip column” stuff. (ibid) He was correct but maybe too kind. April VeVea has been more frank and calls Goddess an atrocious book. (VeVea, op. cit.). In his acknowledgements, Summers praised attorney Jim Lesar for attaining valuable FBI documents. But Randy Taraborrelli, who wrote a later biography, said the contrary. He said that the FBI files on Monroe were fascinating because they are just so untrue; they do not hold up to modern journalistic analysis. He concluded that J. Edgar Hoover had such animus against the Kennedys “that I think that he allowed a lot of information to be put into those files that just was not true.” (McGovern, p. 351)

    The above was what Joyce Carol Oates was working with when she arrived on the scene. She was going to do a roman a clef novel based on five books about Monroe. Three of them were Guiles’ Legend, Summers’ Goddess, and Marilyn, by Norman Mailer. But after reading Blonde, she seems to have gone to even further extremes than these men.

    IV

    Blonde has been filmed twice. The first version was aired by CBS in 2001, just a year after the book’s publication. That two-parter was directed by Joyce Chopra, and starred Poppy Montgomery as Marilyn. It landed a cover story for TV Guide. Chopra once made a good film, Smooth Talk in 1985. The picture was produced by Robert Greenwald, who is supposed to be an intelligent and discerning man and who I once talked to. The combination of the two make the dull and disappointing result a bit surprising.

    But considering the source material, perhaps that was inescapable. As Sarah Churchwell noted in her study of the field:

    As we shall see, biographies about Marilyn Monroe have a very problematic relationship to fiction. Although biography depends upon an implicit contract with the reader that documented fact is being accurately represented, in Monroe’s case this obligation is rarely, if ever met. (Churchwell, p. 69)

    Well, what happens if one takes it a step further and one makes a novelization of some of these books? As Churchwell notes about Oates: there are no entirely fictional major characters in the book. For example, The Playwright is obviously Arthur Miller, her third husband; Bucky Glazer is James Dougherty, her first husband. As she also observes, the portrait of Monroe drawn by Oates is so one dimensional that its artificial. Instead of an archetype we get a stereotype. She specifically writes about Oates, “Someone who skims across the surface of a life should not be surprised to find superficiality.” (Churchwell, pp. 120-21). Or as reviewer Michiko Kakutani wrote about the book:

    Now comes along Joyce Carol Oates to turn Marilyn’s life into the book equivalent of a tacky television mini-series…Playing the reader’s voyeuristic interest into a real-life story while using the liberties of a novel to tart up the facts. (ibid)

    In fact, one cannot fully blame the excesses of the more recent version of Blonde

    on Dominik and Pitt. Because, as Churchwell notes: 1.) the book depicts Daryl Zanuck sodomizing Monroe in his office 2.) a year’s long menage a trois affair between Monroe and the sons of Charlie Chaplin and Edward G Robinson and 3.) her sexual tryst with President Kennedy at the Carlyle Hotel in New York via Secret Service agents. (Churchwell, pp. 120-23; Oates, pp. 699-708)

    And she continues:

    Oates’ Blonde is one of the most gratuitously conspiratorial of all the Monroe texts, positing as it does a voyeuristic sniper/spy/spook who is at once an aberrant acting alone and the puppet of a governmental plot: the more fictional the take, the more it can toy with the pleasure of a conspiratorial ‘solution” to the mystery. (Churchwell, pp. 317-18)

    What Oates does here is to call this assassin a sharpshooter but he actually kills Monroe via hypodermic. (Oates, p. 737) As Churchwell points out, titling him a sharpshooter is clearly meant to recall the murder of John Kennedy.

    But even before that, Oates actually suggests that Monroe had a secret tryst with Achmed Sukarno of Indonesia for the Agency. (p. 735). With this kind of junk as part of the source material, what chance did these two films have? Not much, but they really did not try very hard to counter the excesses of Oates.

    The first version is not quite as offensive. Since it was a network broadcast it could not be as explicit as the Pitt/Dominik version. But still, overall, it’s a quite mediocre effort, both as written and as directed. The one exceptional aspect of the film is Ann Margaret’s performance as Marilyn’s grandmother. Everything else is pretty prosaic, and this includes the acting of Montgomery as Monroe and Griffin Dunne as Arthur Miller.

    Because of the lowbrow nature of the book, both films deal with the three-sided relationship that allegedly went on for years between Monroe, Chaplin III and Robinson Jr. Monroe authority Don McGovern read both of their books. Chaplin said he only went out with Norma Jean Baker (Monroe’s real name) early in her career. The relationship did not last once she ascended into the film world. (My Father, Charlie, Chaplin, p. 250) In Robinson’s book he never notes that he was romantically involved with Monroe. (My Father, My Son, Chapter 29) McGovern asks just how did this all materialize then? Because, according to Summers, Chaplin actually impregnated Monroe back in 1947 and she got an abortion. (Email of 2/11/23) The problem with this is that, according to her gynecologist, Leon Krohn, Marilyn never had an abortion. Yet both films, borrowing from Oates, play this threesome up to the hilt—and beyond. And both films show Monroe getting an abortion. In the Dominik version the CGI fetus actually talks to Monroe and blames her for getting past abortions! Talk about a cartoon.

    Both films begin with Monroe’s childhood relationship with her mentally unbalanced mother. How Gladys was so unstable that she had to be institutionalized and young Norma Jean was taken to an orphanage. (I should note here, the one exceptional aspect of the Dominik film is Lily Fisher’s convincing performance as the child Baker.). One major difference between the two is that Dominik’s film cuts almost everything that happened afterwards out — until Monroe started her Blue Book modeling career under Emmeline Snively. It then jumps to producer Daryl Zanuck and agent Johnny Hyde and we are rather quickly in the movie business.

    Both films use the Chaplin/Robinson nexus, and the Dominik film is pretty explicit about it. In both films her “abortion” causes her great psychic pain which the directors use as fantasy scenes to recall painful memories from her childhood, like sleeping in a dresser drawer. In both films the marriage to Joe DiMaggio is dealt with briefly and both include the passing of nude pictures of Marilyn to the athlete, and this precipitates serious problems—physical violence — in the ten-month marriage.

    Both films shift to Marilyn in New York trying to get away from Hollywood. Which leads to her meeting with Arthur Miller and taking classes at the Actor’s Studio. The Dominik film is much more explicit about her drug, pill and alcohol excesses. And her erratic behavior on film sets, the latter actually has her driving into a tree.

    The first film has her mentioning her “talks” with President Kennedy, if you can believe it, about Fidel Castro. The second film follows Oates in that it has her taking a plane ride back east, and she is escorted into a hotel room with JFK laying down in bed talking to J. Edgar Hoover, who is relaying him information about rumors of his affairs. There, after walking by a dozen people, she performs fellaltio on Kennedy while he is on the phone. To say this scene did not occur is putting it too mildly—it’s out of an Arthur Clarke novel.

    The first film ends with her singing performance of Happy Birthday to Kennedy at Madison Square Garden, leaving out the fact that there were 17 other performers there that night. The second film ends quite differently. It has Monroe being transported back to California after saying words to the effect, it was not just sexual. Alone in her home, Eddie Robinson calls to tell her Chaplin is dead. She gets a package that tells her that it was Chaplin writing letters from her father, who many think she never met. She starts taking pills, and the last scenes we see are the phone off the hook and her having a fantasy about her father. The camera pulls back from the bed and her dead body; fade to black.

    I should add, the Dominik film transitions from color to black and white quite often. And, for this viewer, I could not really figure any kind of logical or aesthetic scheme for it. Perhaps Mr. Dominik will call me and explain it.

    V

    The reaction to the Pitt/Dominik version was rather strongly negative. In fact, some called the film “unwatchable”. They could not view it for even 20 minutes. Critic Jessie Thompson called it degrading, exploitative and boring, while adding it had no idea as to what it was trying to say. Some commentators called it a “hate letter” to Monroe. Another begged: please leave Marilyn alone. (9/30/22, story by Louis Chilton, The Independent.)

    This is all quite justifiable about both films, but especially the second one. One has to wonder, did Pitt even read the script? I actually hope he did not. Since I think he is a brighter guy than to agree to such a ridiculously reductive film that is simply a caricature of both Monroe’s life and the woman herself. As Sarah Churchwell wrote, Dominik promoted his picture by saying that Monroe’s films are not worth watching. (The Atlantic, 10/21/22). Which is very odd since most critics consider Some Like It Hot to be one of the best American comedies of the sound era. About her modeling career, Emmeline Snively said:

    She started out with less than any girl I ever knew. But she worked the hardest. She wanted to learn, wanted to be somebody, more than anybody I ever saw before in my life. (ibid)

    As Churchwell adds, Monroe studied literature at UCLA at night, she really wanted to be a good actress, she supported racial and sexual equality, she despised McCarthyism and protested the House Un-American Activities Committee. Further, she disliked Richard Nixon who she called cowardly, and did not like Mailer because he was too impressed by power; she added you could not fool her about him. She admired the Kennedys because of their progressive agenda. She once even asked Robert Kennedy about his civil rights program vs Hoover. (Icon, Pt. 2, p. 565). But it is this Monroe who is now forgotten due to the likes of Oates and Dominik.

    The first film of Oates does not really deal with the circumstances of her death, while the second tries to say her house was being monitored for sound at that time. This is another urban legend which VItacco Robles has cast severe doubt upon. (Ibid, Chapter 24). With the work of Don McGovern and Gary VItacco Robles we can now see her tragic demise a lot more clearly. All of the sound and fury created by Slatzer and his followers served to disguise the fact that her death was really a harbinger. One that looked forward to the Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson cases.

    Slatzer did not give one iota about the true facts of her death. To him she was a meal ticket. The amount of drugs that were available to her in the last two months of her life are simply staggering. (ibid, pp. 452-457). And it’s clear that she had additional suppliers besides her own doctors e.g. Lee Siegel for one. The total amount is well over 800 pills. Which comes to over 13 pills per day. The combination of Nembutal (47) and Chloral hydrate (17) is what killed her, and these were ingested not injected, as pathologist Dr. Boyd Stephens described to Ronald Carroll. (McGovern, pp. 494-95, see also Icon Part 2, p. 620) As mentioned, she had tried to end her life 4-5 times previously. The most recent attempt being about ten months prior to August of 1962. (Icon, pt. 2, p. 443)

    As seems clear from the evidence, Dr. Engelberg lied about his prescriptions to Monroe, perhaps to cover up his own culpability. And Siegel’s prescriptions were not covered by the coroner’s office. (ibid, p. 458) Another illustrious pathologist, Cyril Wecht, agreed with all this. He dispelled certain disinformation about the autopsy spewed by Slatzer; saying for example that no, Nembutal does not leave a dye color, and that drugs dissolve much faster than food in the stomach, so the lack of dye and the stomach being empty was not at all odd. (Icon, Part 2, p. 351)

    But he further added that the amount of drugs Engelberg supplied were simply “out of the ballpark”. He also ridiculed the statement by Engelberg that he was weaning her off drugs. He then delivered the capper:

    I believe that he well could have been charged. It would be manslaughter. It could rise to third degree murder. But certainly manslaughter. Think about Conrad Murray in the Michael Jackson case….That is feeding an addiction…If it occurred today, a district attorney would make a move due to a celebrity involved and quantity of drugs involved. (ibid, p. 361)

    Wecht also disagreed with the combination of Nembutal and chloral hydrate. He did not think she should have been given both. When asked why her doctors were not charged, Wecht replied it was a different world back then and the media was much more quiet. He concluded by saying that he agrees with Thomas Noguchi’s finding, and the 1982 Ronald Carroll review: “I see no credible evidence to support a murder theory.” (Ibid, p. 367) When one has three pathologists the stature of Noguchi, Stephens and Wecht, with that much experience, I will take them any day over the likes of Slatzer, Mark Shaw and their ilk.

    Let me end with two quotes that sum up the Marilyn Monroe case and its aftermath. The first is by the estimable Don McGovern:

    While the initial motivation to engage in The Kennedys-Murdered-Marilyn farrago was a political one, it quickly transmogrified into a financial one, most certainly influenced, arguably even fomented by the financial success of Norman Mailer and Lawrence Schiller. There is little doubt that money motivated Robert Slatzer and Jeanne Carmen along with the obvious fact that both were camera and fame whores. (Icon, Vol. 2, p. 32)

    I don’t think one can get more accurate than that about what has become a continuous cesspool of character assassination. Therefore, let us give Marilyn, the victim of this constant calumny, the last word; since the public seems to prefer the voices of Oates and Slatzer to the real person.

    What I really want to say: that what the world really needs is a new feeling of kinship. Everybody: stars, laborers, Negroes, Jews, Arabs. We are all brothers…Please don’t make me a joke. End the interview with what I believe. (Marilyn Monroe, Graham McCann, p. 219)

    Maybe that quote is how we should remember her.


    Go to Part 1 of 2

  • Brad Pitt, Joyce Carol Oates and the Road to Blonde: Part 1/2

    Brad Pitt, Joyce Carol Oates and the Road to Blonde: Part 1/2


    How did the recent movie version of the Joyce Carol Oates novel Blonde ever materialize? A big part of the answer is Brad Pitt. The actor/producer had worked with film director Andrew Dominik on the 2007 western The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and again on the 2012 neo noir crime film, Killing Them Softly. It was around the time of the latter production that actor/producer Pitt decided to back Dominik in his attempt to make a film about Marilyn Monroe, based upon the best-selling Blonde, published in 2000. (LA Times, 6/3/2012). Pitt also showed up at the film’s premiere at the Venice Film Festival in September of 2022 to support the picture.

    Blonde is the first film with an NC-17 rating to be streamed by Netflix. No film submitted to the Motion Picture Association of America had received such a rating since 2013. (Time, September 9, 2022, story by Moises Mendez) After watching the film I can understand why, and its surprising that Netflix even financed the picture. Some commentators believe it was through the powerful status of Pitt that the film ultimately got distributed. But before we get to just how poor the picture is, I think it necessary to understand how the American cultural scene gave birth to a production that is not just an unmitigated piece of rubbish but is, in many ways, a warning signal as to what that culture has become.

    I

    By the time Oates came to write her novel, the field of Marilyn Monroe books and biographies was quite heavily populated. After Monroe’s death in 1962, the first substantial biography of Monroe was by Fred Lawrence Guiles entitled Norma Jean, published in 1969. Norman Mailer borrowed profusely from Guiles for his picture book, Marilyn, released in 1973. Originally, Mailer was supposed to write an introductory essay for a book of photos packaged by Lawrence Schiller. But the intro turned into a 90,000 word essay. Mailer included an additional chapter, a piece of cheap sensationalism which he later admitted he had appended for money. In that section he posited a diaphanous plot to murder Monroe by agents of the FBI and CIA due to her alleged affair with Attorney General Bobby Kennedy. (Sixty Minutes, July 13, 1973). Because the book became a huge best-seller, as John Gilmore pungently noted, it was Mailer who “originated the let’s trash Marilyn for a fast buck profit scenario.” (Don McGovern, Murder Orthodoxies, p. 36)

    Mailer inherited his flatulent RFK idea from a man named Frank Capell. Capell was a rightwing fruitcake who could have easily played General Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. In August of 1964, Capell published a pamphlet entitled The Strange Death of Marilyn Monroe. It was pure McCarthyite nonsense written solely with a propaganda purpose: to hurt Bobby Kennedy’s chances in his race for the senate in New York. Capell was later drawn up on charges for conspiracy to commit libel against California Senator Thomas Kuchel. (Chicago Tribune, February 25, 1965) This was not his first offense, as he had been indicted twice during World War 2 for accepting bribes while on the War Production Board. (NY Times, September 22, 1943). Capell did not like Kuchel since he was a moderate Republican who was backing Bobby Kennedy’s attempt to get his late brother’s civil rights bill through congress. Which tells the reader a lot about Capell and his poisonous pamphlet.

    The next step downward involves Mailer, overtly, and Capell, secretly. I am referring to the materialization of a figure who resembled the Antichrist in the Monroe field, the infamous Robert Slatzer. Slatzer originally had an idea to do an article about Monroe’s death from a conspiratorial angle before Mailer’s 1973 success. He approached a writer named Will Fowler who was unimpressed by the effort. He told Slatzer: Now had he been married to Monroe that would make a real story. Shortly after, Slatzer got in contact with Fowler again. He said he forgot to tell him, but he had been married to Monroe. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 362)

    The quite conservative Fowler then cooperated with Slatzer through Pinnacle Publishing Company out of New York. Capell was also brought in, but due to his past legal convictions, his cooperation was to be secret. (Notarized agreement of February 16, 1973). The best that can be deciphered through the discovery of the Fowler Papers at Cal State Northridge is this: Capell would contribute material on the RFK angle through his files; Slatzer would gather and deliver his Monroe personal letters, mementoes, and marriage license; and Fowler would write the first draft, with corrections and revisions by the other two. (McGovern, pp. 90-91)

    But in addition to Capell’s past offenses, another problem surfaced: Fowler soon concluded that Slatzer was a fraud, so he withdrew from the project. (LA Times, 9/20/91, article by Howard Rosenberg). The main reason Fowler withdrew is that Slatzer could not come up with anything tangible to prove any of his claims about his 15-year-long relationship, or his three day marriage, to Monroe. Several times in the Fowler Papers it is noted that Slatzer’s tales changed over time “as they also veered into implausibility”. As a result, Fowler started to question his writing partner’s honesty. (McGovern, p. 79) Consequently, other writers were called in to replace Fowler, like George Carpozi.

    II

    The subsequent book released in 1974 was entitled The Life and Curious Death of Marilyn Monroe. To my knowledge, it was the first book published by an alleged acquaintance of Monroe to question the coroner’s official verdict that Monroe’s death was a “probable suicide”.

    Whatever unjustified liberties Capell and Mailer took with the factual record, Slatzer left them in the dust. In addition to his –as we shall see– fictional wedding to Monroe, Slatzer also fabricated tales about forged autopsy reports, 700 pages of top-secret LAPD files, hidden Monroe diaries, inside informants, and perhaps the wildest whopper of all: a secret deposition by Attorney General Robert Kennedy. If ever there was a book that violated all the standards of both biography and nonfiction literature it was The Life and Curious Death of Marilyn Monroe. It was a no holds barred slander fest of both Monroe and Robert Kennedy.

    Slatzer claimed that he and Marilyn went to Tijuana, Mexico on October 3, 1952 and were married there on October 4th. After returning to LA, they had second thoughts about it, and they went back and got the proceeding annulled; actually the attorney who did the service just burned his certification document on October 6th. This tall tale has been demolished by two salient facts. First, there is documented proof produced by author April VeVea that Monroe was at a party for Photoplay Magazine on October 3rd. (See VeVea’s blog for April 10, 2018, “Classic Blondes”.) Secondly, Monroe wrote and signed a check while on a Beverly Hills shopping spree on October 4th. The address on the check is 2393 Castilian Dr., the location in Hollywood where she was living with Joe DiMaggio at the time. Monroe authority Don McGovern has literally torn to pieces every single aspect of Slatzer’s entire Mexican wedding confection. (McGovern, pp. 49-67, see also p. 100)

    Just how far would Slatzer go to string others along on his literary frauds? How about paying witnesses to lie for him? Noble “Kid” Chissell was a boxer and actor. According to Slatzer, he happened to be in Tijuana and acted as a witness to his Monroe wedding. Years later, when asked about it, Chissell recanted the whole affair to Marilyn photographer Joseph Jasgur. He said that there was no wedding between Slatzer and Marilyn. He went further and said he did not even think Slatzer knew Monroe. But Slatzer wanted Chissell as a back-up to his phony playlet and promised to pay him to go along. Which, by the way, he never did. Which makes him both a liar and a welsher. (McGovern, pp. 98-99). It also appears likely that Slatzer forged a letter saying that Fowler had actually seen the Slatzer/Monroe marriage license and Fowler met Monroe while with him. Fowler denied ever seeing such a document or having met Monroe. (McGovern, p. 81)

    III

    One would think that The Life and Curious Death of Marilyn Monroe could hardly get any worse. But it does. To add a layer of official intrigue inside the LAPD, Slatzer created a figure named “Jack Quinn”. Quinn had been an employee of LA County and he got in contact with Slatzer and informed him of a malignant cover up about the Monroe case inside City Hall, particularly the LAPD. (Slatzer, pp. 249-53) The enigmatic Mr. Quinn described a secret 723 page study of the Monroe case. That study stated that the original autopsy report had been deep sixed. Further, that Bobby Kennedy had been in LA at an official opening of a soccer field on August 4, 1962 and he had given a deposition in the case. In that deposition he said that he and his brother-in-law, Peter Lawford, had been at Marilyn’s house and they had a violent argument, to the point he had to bring in a doctor to inject her to calm her down.

    The above is why I and others consider Slatzer’s work a milestone in trashy tabloidism: the forerunner to the manufactures of David Heymann. The only thing worse than writing that RFK would submit to such a legal proceeding is postulating that the LAPD would have any reason to question him. In their official reporting, the first three people at Monroe’s home all said that Monroe was alone in her bedroom when she passed. This included her housekeeper Eunice Murray, her psychiatrist Robert Greenson, and her physician Hyman Engelberg. Engelberg made the call to the LAPD saying that she had taken her own life. (LA Times, 12/21/2005, story by Myrna Oliver) Later in this essay, I will explain why, if anyone should have known the cause of death, it was Engelberg.

    But complementary to this, Robert Kennedy was nowhere near Brentwood–where Monroe lived–at this time. Sue Bernard’s book, Marilyn: Intimate Exposures proves this beyond doubt, with hour by hour photographs and witness testimony. (pp. 184-87; see also, Gary Vitacco-Robles’ Icon, Pt. 2, p. 82) In fact, in his book Icon, VItacco Robles documents Bobby Kennedy’s four days in the Gilroy/San Francisco area from August 3-6th. (See Icon Part 2, pp. 82-83). Therefore, at both geographic ends, Slatzer’s “secret RFK deposition” is pure hogwash, an invention out of Capell.

    In 1982 Slatzer opined in public at the Greater Los Angeles Press Club that the Monroe case should be reopened. The DA’s office began a threshold type inquiry to see if there was just cause to do a full reopening. That inquiry was run by assistant DA Ron Carroll with investigators Clayton Anderson and Al Tomich (Icon Pt. 2, p. 108) They interviewed Slatzer about his “Quinn” angle. Very soon, problems emerged with his story. Allegedly, Quinn called Slatzer in 1972, saying he worked in the Hall of Records building and he had the entire 723 page original record of the case. He said he was leaving his position to move to San Mateo for a new job. Slatzer said he met Quinn, who had a badge on with his name, at Houston’s Barbeque Restaurant. Slatzer gave him 30 dollars to copy the file. Quinn said he would meet him at the Smokehouse Restaurant in Studio City for delivery. Quinn added that he lived in the Fair Oaks area of Glendale.

    Quinn did not show up. Slatzer went to the Hall of Records and found no employee by the name of Quinn, which should have been predictable to Carroll because The Smoke House is not in Studio City, it’s in Burbank. And Fair Oaks is a popular boulevard going from Altadena through Pasadena to South Pasadena, but not Glendale. Slatzer now added something just as sensational. Ed Davis, LA Chief of Police, flew to Washington a month later to ask questions about RFK’s relationship with Monroe. (Was this the secret deposition?) Davis replied that no such thing happened. (Icon, Pt. 2, p. 110) When Carroll began to go through databases of City Hall employees from 1914-82, he could find no Jack Quinn. He also found out that the files of the LAPD would, in all likelihood, not be stored at the Hall of Records. Like his Tijuana wedding, Slatzer’s “Jack Quinn” was another fictional creation from a con artist.

    With Carroll, Slatzer also tried to insert two other phony “clues”. First, that there was a three hour gap between when Monroe’s doctors were summoned and when the call to the police was made. Carroll discovered that the original LAPD inquiry by Sgt. Byron revealed that it was really more like a 45 minute delay. Eunice Murray did not call the doctors until about 3:30 AM. (Icon, Pt. 2, p. 110)

    Slatzer also tried to question the basis of Murray’s initial suspicions of something being wrong with Marilyn. In the original investigation, Murray told Byron that what puzzled her was the light being on in Monroe’s room through the night. She noticed this at about midnight but was not able to awaken Monroe. She then noticed it again at about 3:30 AM and this is when she made a call to Dr. Greenson. (Icon. Vol. 1, p. 278) Slatzer said this was wrong since the high pile carpeting prevented light being seen under the door. It turned out—no surprise– that this was another of Slatzer’s whoppers. With photos and witness testimony, Vitacco-Robles proves that one could see light under the door, and further there were locking mechanisms on the doors. (Icon, Pt. 1, p. 255, p. 380) Slatzer wanted to disguise this fact because it indicates that Monroe ingested the pills, 47 Nembutals and 17 chloral hydrates, and then slowly lost consciousness and slipped into a coma, in spite of the light being on—which normally she was quite sensitive to.

    I could go on and on about Slatzer’s malarkey. For instance, both Vitacco-Robles and Slatzer’s former wife clearly think that the whole years long Monroe relationship Slatzer writes about in his book is balderdash. Gary advances evidence that from 1947-57, Slatzer was not cavorting around LA with Monroe but lived in Ohio. (Icon, Vol. 2, p. 119) Slatzer’s Ohio wife, Kay Eicher, said Slatzer met Monroe exactly once, on a film set in Niagara Falls where Monroe—always kind to her fans- posed with him for impromptu pictures. She added about her former husband, “He’s been fooling people too long.” (ibid, p. 123) Which Slatzer also did with Allan Snyder, Monroe’s makeup artist. This again was supposed to show he knew Monroe. But Snyder later said he never heard of the man while Marilyn was alive. Slatzer just approached him to write up an intro and paid him for it. (ibid, p. 126)

    The reason I have spent a bit of time and space on slime like Slatzer is simple. If a figure like Slatzer had surfaced in the JFK critical community, his reputation would have been blasted to pieces in a week. But back in 1974, there was no such quality control in the Monroe field. Therefore, not only was his book a commercial success, he then went on to write another book, and marketed two TV films on the subject. But beyond that—and I wish I was kidding about this–Slatzer had a wide influence on the later literature. It was not until much later, with the arrival of people like Don McGovern, Gary Vitacco-Robles, April VeVea and Nina Boski that any kind of respectable quality control developed in the field.

    IV

    In the October, 1975 issue of Oui magazine, Tony Sciacca, real name Anthony Scaduto, wrote an essay called “Who Killed Marilyn Monroe.” That article was expanded into a book the next year, Who Killed Marilyn? This book owes much to Slatzer. Including lines and scenes seemingly pulled right out of his book. For example Monroe says that Bobby Kennedy had promised to marry her. ( p. 13). Another steal is Monroe’s red book diary. Where she wrote that RFK was running the Bay of Pigs invasion for his brother. (pp. 65-69). The idea that Bobby Kennedy was going to divorce his longtime wife Ethel, leave his eight children, resign his Attorney General’s position, and forego his future chance at the presidency—all for a woman he met socially four times—is, quite frankly, preposterous. Further, as the declassified record shows, Bobby Kennedy had nothing to do with managing the Bay of Pigs operation. That was being run by CIA Director of Plans Dick Bissell, along with Deputy Director Charles Cabell. (See, for example, Peter Kornbluh’s Bay of Pigs Declassified.) And it turns out that Monroe had no red book diary. What she kept were more properly called journals or notebooks which were found among her belongings decades after she died. These were then published under the title Fragments. And they contain nothing like what people like Slatzer, Scaduto, and later Lionel Grandison, said was in them. (McGovern, pp. 268-71)

    But incredibly, Slatzer lived on in the writings of Donald Wolfe, Milo Speriglio and Anthony Summers. Summers’ 1985 book Goddess became a best-seller. In the introductory notes to the Oates’ novel, she names Goddess as one of the references for her roman a clef. As Don McGovern observes, Summers references Slatzer early, by page 26—and then refers to him scores of times in Goddess, even using Chissell. But yet, Slatzer’s name, address and phone number never appeared in Monroe’s phone or address books. Would not someone so close to Monroe be in there? (McGovern, p. 102)

    But the belief in Slatzer is not unusual for Goddess. In fact, after reading the book a second time and taking plentiful notes, I would say it is more like par for the course. Let us take the case of Gary Wean. Because its largely with Wean that the book begins its character assault on both John Kennedy and Peter Lawford. (For example, see pgs. 221-224). The idea is that Lawford arranged wild parties with call girls, John Kennedy was there and Monroe was at one of them. Summers characterizes Lawford like this: “It was this sad Sybarite who played host to the Kennedy brothers when they sought relaxation in California…”. Geez, I thought JFK and RFK knew Lawford because he was married to their sister.

    These rather bizarre accusations made me curious. Who was Gary Wean and how credible was he? So I sent away for his book There’s a Fish in the Courthouse. Wean was a law enforcement officer in both Los Angeles and Ventura counties; he later became a small businessman. His book has two frames of focus. The first is on local corruption in Ventura County, California. Apparently realizing that this would have little broad appeal, Wean expands the frame to a national level with not just Monroe and Lawford, but also, get this, the JFK assassination! According to Wean, Sheriff Bill Decker and Senator John Tower explained the whole plot to his friend actor Audie Murphy. I don’t even want to go any further. But I will say that Wean’s tale says it was Jack Ruby who was going to kill Oswald, but when J. D. Tippit’s car pulled up, Ruby killed the policeman instead. (Wean, p. 588) Mobster Mickey Cohen got Ruby to now also kill Oswald, and somehow reporter Seth Kantor was tied in to the conspiracy since he could place Ruby at Parkland Hospital and he knew Cohen.

    The primacy of Cohen in this theory can be explained by the fact that Cohen was Jewish and Wean’s book is extremely anti-Semitic. In fact, he later called the JFK murder a Jewish plot. (Wean, p. 593) As we shall see, this directly relates to the accusations about Lawford and John Kennedy. Wean says that these wild parties were at Lawford’s Malibu beach house. (Wean, p. 567) This puzzled me since, from what I could find, Lawford owned homes in Santa Monica and Palm Springs, and no Southern Californian could confuse those places with Malibu. Wean also says that Monroe met JFK at such a party during the Democratic Convention in 1960. But Monroe was not in Los Angeles for the convention. She was in New York City with her then husband Arthur Miller and her friend and masseuse Ralph Roberts. She was working on preparations for the upcoming film The Misfits. (McGovern, pp. 147-48)

    But this is just the beginning of the problems with using Wean as a witness. Because in his book Wean says that it was really Joey Bishop who set up the wild call girl gatherings through Lawford. Why? Because Bishop, who was Jewish, was working with Cohen to get info on how Kennedy felt about Israel–through Monroe. (Wean, p. 567, p. 617). If that isn’t enough for you, how about this: Cohen was meeting with Menachem Begin at the Beverly Hills Hotel and there was plentiful talk about Cuba, military operations and the Kennedys. (Wean, p. 575). Further, Cohen had one of his mob associates at Marilyn’s home the night she died, at some time between 10-11 PM. (Wean p. 617) Wean calls this all part of the Jewish Mishpucka Plot. I could go even further with Wean, but I don’t think the reader would believe it.

    The capper to this is that Wean writes that Summers called Bishop and the comedian admitted the arrangements he made. (Wean, ibid). At this point I thought two things: 1.) Wean was so rightwing he was a bit off his rocker. 2.) Was there anyone Summers would not believe in his Ahab type pursuit of a Monroe/Kennedy plot? Because according to Wean, Summers wanted him to go on TV.

    But there is another Summers’ witness who was pushing the whole Lawford/Kennedy fable about call girl parties at the beach. This was Fred Otash. Otash was a former policeman turned detective who also worked for Confidential magazine, which was little more than a scandal sheet. He was once convicted for rigging horse races. After interviewing him for Sixty Minutes in 1973, Mike Wallace said he was the most amoral man he ever met. He once had his detective license indefinitely suspended.

    In 1960 the FBI found out something rather revealing about Otash. In July of 1960, while JFK was running for president, a high-priced LA call girl was contacted by Otash. He requested information on her participation in sex parties involving JFK and Lawford, plus Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis. The woman said she could not comply since she had no such knowledge. Otash then asked if she knew any girls who perhaps were there. She said she knew of no one. Otash then asked if she could be introduced to Kennedy, and if so, he could equip her with a tape recorder to take down any “indiscreet statements’ the senator might make. She refused to do so. (FBI Report of 7/26/60)

    The hooker had a higher moral code than the pimp. By those standards who could rely on Otash for anything?


    Go to Part 2 of 2

  • Mark Shaw Insults Allen, Texas: Part 2

    Mark Shaw Insults Allen, Texas: Part 2


    Two years ago, in a slightly agitated aftermath of reading Mark Shaw’s then new publication, Collateral Damage, I wrote a lengthy and critical review of his literary effort. I published that review on my website Marilyn From The 22nd Row; and Jim DiEugenio kindly published the review on his fine website, Kennedys and King. Recently, a video presentation that Shaw delivered at the Allen Public Library in Allen, Texas, appeared on my YouTube feed. Reluctantly, I watched and created a transcription of his presentation, primarily a commercial for his book. I was not quite as agitated by his Texas presentation as I was by his book; but that fact notwithstanding, in the name of historical and factual accuracy, I am compelled to offer a few comments.

    The first half of Shaw’s presentation focused on Dorothy Kilgallen. Shaw’s fanboy fascination with the star of What’s My Line crossed, at some point in time, into a goofy type of worship that approximates a goofy form of idolatry leading Shaw to engage in hyperbole. According to Shaw, Dorothy was quite possibly thegreatest journalist who ever lived […] Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley rolled into one.Shaw realized that Dorothy had, in fact, achieved the big time because the producers of The Flintstones featured her in an episode broadcast in 1961.And you know you’ve made it, Shaw opined, when you’re on a Flintstones episode. According to Shaw, Dorothy appeared in “The Little White Lie,” the title of the episode, as Dorothy Kilgranite. Not so. She appeared as Daisy Kilgranite, just one of several errors Shaw made regarding the Flintstone episode. Admittedly, it is possible that I am making a mountain out of a cartoon mole hill; but considering the errors Shaw made regarding a twenty-six minute cartoon, readily available for his review, is there any wonder that he made more than a few egregious errors regarding the complicated life of a person as complex as Marilyn Monroe?

    In my lengthy criticism of Collateral Damage, I identified most of Mark Shaw’s errors, but not all of them. I could list them here; but I think the better approach is simply to provide links to my original evaluation of Shaw’s publication: Marilyn From The 22nd Row; link to Kennedys and King.

    Still, there are a couple of assertions made by Shaw during his video presentation that I need to discuss directly: 1) the big clue that Shaw allegedly discovered; and 2) Shaw’s assertion that Collateral Damage does not contain any ofhis opinions or speculations.

    The Big Clue. What follows is what Shaw asserted:

    […] this is the big clue. What did I do here? Well, I was in trouble because I wanted to show that Bobby could have been involved in Marilyn’s death but he wasn’t in Los Angeles at the time. He had an alibi. He was in the San Francisco area, OK. But I just couldn’t believe that he was and so I started looking into things and I found this ledger [security log]at 20th Century-Fox. […] what does it say? That at 11 o’clock on August 4th, 1962, the same day that Marilyn died, Bobby Kennedy and Peter Lawford arrive in a helicopter there. Alright. So he’s in Los Angeles […].

    With the preceding, Mark Shaw clearly took credit; claimed that he and only he uncovered a document, an August the 4th Fox security ledger or log, which proved that Robert Kennedy and Peter Lawford landed at the studio in a helicopter at 11 AM; proved that the Attorney General was in Los Angeles; and by extension, this ledger proved that Robert Kennedy visited Marilyn on August the 4th and that he was, therefore, involved in her murder. But, and there always is, how did Collateral Damage report the explosive big clue?

    In his book, Shaw reported that Bobby had what appeared to be an airtight alibi, one which placed him in the San Francisco Bay Area at the time Marilyn died. Shaw even referenced an Associated Press story confirming that Robert, Ethel, his wife, and four of their children arrived in San Francisco on Friday afternoon, August the 3rd. He even admitted that the Kennedys traveled to the Bates Ranch. Even so, as he also admitted, Shaw did not believe any of the eye-witness, first hand testimony provided by the Bates family and others present that weekend. Shaw did not believe that the ten photographs taken throughout the day, published by Susan Bernard in 2011, proved anything about Robert Kennedy’s location on August the 4th. Shaw did not believe the AP story or a 1985 NYT interview with the senior John Bates, referenced by Shaw, which confirmed that the attorney general never left the Bates ranch. Instead, Shaw accepted the mysterious security log and the testimony of one Frank Neill.

    According to Shaw, the actual security log read as follows:

    Before 11 a.m. on August 4, 1962, a helicopter landed at the Twentieth Century Fox studio’s helipad near Stage 14. Studio publicist Frank Neill, working that Saturday morning, said he saw Robert Kennedy jump out of the helicopter and rush to a dark gray limousine waiting nearby. Neill said he got a glimpse of movie star Peter Lawford, brother-in-law to the Kennedys, sitting inside.

    To begin with, in his Texas presentation, Mark Shaw asserted that both Robert Kennedy and Peter Lawford arrived at Fox’s lots in a helicopter on August the 4th. The alleged security log, on the other hand, indicated that the attorney general arrived in a helicopter while his brother-in-law, Peter Lawford, waited in a nearby limo, a clear contradiction. Which account should we accept as factual?

    Additionally and obviously, the form and wording of the security log strikes the reader as a bit odd. Clearly, a person other than Frank Neill recorded what the studio publicist allegedly said; therefore, who actually wrote down what Neill said? Shaw’s big clue was actually hearsay.

    Why was it necessary to include that Neill was a studio employee; and, by the way, who and what was Frank Neill?

    While I was a practicing architect, I encountered many security offices and security logs at corporate offices, large building material manufacturers and security trailers at fenced, and sometimes guarded, construction sites. Usually, the exact time of one’s arrival had to be recorded. The indefinite arrival time stipulated in the text of the alleged security log confused me. Before 11 AM? Also, usually a precise purpose for one’s visit had to be declared on a security log, something omitted from the Fox log. Moreover, completing a security log is usually only required when a person actually enters secured areas. But evidently, Robert Kennedy never entered the actual Fox lot; at least, that is, Shaw’s log was rather vague on that particular point. The Attorney General entered an awaiting limo which then quickly drove away. Would this necessitate an entry in a security log? And when companies require security clearances, they issue a security badge to visitors and they require the visitor to return to the Security Office, to log out–to enter a precise departure time and to return the security badge. Shaw’s mysterious security log did not include a log out time.

    Finally, the wording of this security log surprised me. Security logs that I’ve encountered required brevity; but the text of Shaw’s security log read more like an excerpt or a description that was lifted, borrowed from a larger narrative.

    Why?

    Hoping to resolve at least some of the preceding issues, and answer some of my questions, while also identifying Frank Neill and clarifying his association with Marilyn Monroe, I spent several days reviewing more than a few pertinent publications. Within the text of Collateral Damage, Shaw was particularly laudatory about one biography, Marilyn: The Tragic Venus, written by Edwin P. Hoyt. Shaw wrote:

    Published in 1965, Hoyt’s biography of Marilyn was released at a time when facts about her life and times and death were not polluted with phony sensationalism, as would be the case with many articles and books in the future. His account certainly appears credible due to the large number of primary sources […] (85).

    I began my review of books about Marilyn with Edwin Hoyt’s biography: Frank Neill did not appear therein. In fact, two decades would elapse before Anthony Summers, in his Marilyn pathography Goddess, would finally mention Frank Neill. According to Summers’ 1985 source notes, Marilyn’s Irish pathographer actually interviewed Frank Neill. From the source notes:Landing at Fox: int. Frank Neill, 1983, and former policeman on pension, who requires anonymity. According to Summers:

    Two fragmentary reports, one from a police source, one from a former member of the Twentieth Century-Fox staff, Frank Neill, suggest Kennedy arrived in the city by helicopter, putting down near the studio’s Stage 18, in an open space then used by helicopters serving the area near the Beverly Hilton. According to these sources, the President’s brother arrived in the early afternoon (350).

    Summers’ 2012 update of Goddess repeats the preceding account verbatim; and nowhere in either version of Goddess did Summers even mention a security log! Also, Summers did not provide any biographical information regarding Fox’s former staff member, Frank Neill; and once again, we have encountered a few contradictions.

    According to Summers’ account of his interview with Frank Neill, the President’s brother did not arrive during the morning: he arrived in the early afternoon. Shaw’s alleged security log stated that Robert Kennedy’s whirlybird landed on a helipad near Stage 14 while Summers reported that the helicopter put down near Stage 18 in an open space […] near the Beverly Hilton. Why the contradictions? Besides, if Frank Neill was involved in the preparation of a security log in 1962, why oh why did he fail to mention that to Anthony Summers during their interview in 1983?

    In 1991, James Spada published The Man Who Kept the Secrets. This was a Peter Lawford biography, sprinkled liberally with the spice of Marilyn and the Kennedys along with many yarns pronounced by the pathological fantasists, Robert Slatzer and Jeanne Carmen. Spada’s literary effort reported the following account:

    Frank Neill, a former employee of Twentieth Century-Fox, later stated that Bobby arrived by helicopter at a landing pad near the studio’s stage eighteen, which was often used by the Beverly Hilton Hotel for that purpose. A confidential police source supports this story(353).

    Not quite identical to Summer’s account but eerily similar. Perhaps the similarity can be explained by Spada’s following admission in his source notes: I drew many of the details of Marilyn Monroe’s last few months from Anthony Summers’s superb investigatory biography of Monroe, Goddess (533). In short, James Spada simply rephrased Summers’ account.

    With the passing of two years, in 1993, Peter Brown and Patte Barham published Marilyn: The Last Take. The first mention of a security log appeared therein. The authors reported:

    On Saturday afternoon, August 4, a Fox security guard squinted through the morning fog to catch a glimpse of the huge government helicopter that hung in the sky above the studio. Waving a fluorescent orange flashlight, the guard directed the chopper toward some hastily drawn landing marks. […] The chopper had been approved to land at just after 11 A.M., as duly noted in the studio’s security log. A dark grey limousine was parked to the side, its driver standing at attention. Studio publicist, Frank Neill, whose office was near the landing pad, wasn’t surprised to see the familiar figure of Bobby Kennedy leap from the helicopter and dash to the limousine. […] Through the open door, Neill caught a glimpse of the carefully tanned face of Peter Lawford(349-350).

    In Brown and Barham’s account, their huge government helicopter landed just after 11 o’clock in the morning; and it landed on what was evidently a makeshift, hand drawn landing target, not a helipad. However, the authors must have been confused regarding the landing time: if the chopper landed just after eleven in a morning fog, how does “Saturday afternoon” fit in? Be that as it may, the authors’ source notes contained the following curiosity: The helicopter landing on the Fox lot was discussed by Robert Slatzer and Lee Hanna, who heard of it from Frank Neill (465). Evidently, Brown and Barham did not actually interview Frank Neill. The authors received their information from either the ubiquitous Robert Slatzer or Lee Hanna, a person with whom I am unfamiliar. If Brown and Barham did not interview Frank Neill, how did they know he was not surprised by the presence of Bobby Kennedy? Well, they could not have known.

    But here is what I find truly odd. If Slatzer knew that Robert Kennedy had landed on Fox’s lot in a helicopter, why did he withhold that information from Anthony Summers during all the interviews the author allegedly conducted with one of his primary sources? I reviewed Slatzer’s 1974 publication, The Life and Curious Death of Marilyn Monroe. There, Slatzer did not mention Kennedy’s arrival by helicopter. Slatzer mentioned Frank Neill with regard to topics unrelated to the topic of this article and asserted that he had met Neill in 1952 on the sets of Niagara. In Slatzer’s The Marilyn Files, published in 1993, Frank Neill likewise appeared with regard to topics unrelated to the topic of this article. Also, Slatzer thanked Neill, and many others, for their invaluable contribution over the years (n9). Slatzer left their contribution unspecified. I can only conclude that their invaluable contribution was their assistance with Slatzer’s masquerade as Marilyn Monroe’s faux second husband.

    Several additional publications that I reviewed did not invoke the name of Frank Neill, and several did. Donald Wolfe’s The Assassination of Marilyn Monroe, published in 1998, and his 2012 update, The Last Days of Marilyn Monroe, presented the following account:

    Early Saturday afternoon, the roar of a helicopter echoed off the sound-stage walls at the Fox studios. A Fox security guard squinted into the bright blue sky as it began its descent into the heliport near Stage 14 […]. As noted in the studio’s security log, the helicopter had received approval to land shortly after 11 a.m. A dark gray limousine waited in the shade as the helicopter touched down in a whirl of dust. Studio publicist Frank Neill, who was working on the lot that Saturday, […] was surprised to see Bobby Kennedy leap from the helicopter and dash to the limousine. As the limousine door opened and Bobby jumped in, Neill caught a glimpse of Peter Lawford (564).

    Wolfe magically transformed the chopper’s landing spot from an open space with some hastily drawn marks, not into just a helipad, but a full scale heliport. The landing transpired in different weather conditions than those mentioned by Brown and Barham. Obviously, Wolfe preferred to have the chopper land under a blue sky in bright sunlight, not a morning fog. And while in the Brown and Barham account, Neill was not surprised to see Bobby Kennedy, in Wolfe’s account the appearance of Bobby did surprise Neill. How did Wolfe know about Neill’s surprise? It is clear that Wolfe did not actually interview Frank Neill. According to his source notes pertaining to page 564: Roar of a helicopter: Summers, p. 350; Brown, p. 303. It is also clear that Wolfe combined the accounts in Goddess and Marilyn: The Last Take to create a hybrid that included a security log which Anthony Summers, who actually interviewed Frank Neill, did not mention.

    Finally, fifty years after Marilyn’s tragic death, Darwin Porter published Marilyn at Rainbow’s End. In Porter’s seamy literary effort, the author transfigured Frank Neill into an implied authority on Fox’s security:Frank Neill, a security guard at Fox,Porter declared, said he saw Bobby arriving by chopper at the helipad on the studio’s lot, which was often used by the Beverly Hilton Hotel for their VIPs (457). But Porter did not mention a security log.

    Returning to the questions that I posed earlier in this article, who and what was Frank Neill and what was his actual association with the world’s most famous blonde actress? Well, Neill was either a former newspaperman, a former police reporter, a garden variety Fox publicist or a unit publicity man for the film Niagara. Not one publication that I reviewed clarified who or what the man actually was, and not one of those publications clarified his association or relationship with Marilyn Monroe. Unfortunately, my efforts to determine the who, what and why of Frank Neill proved to be futile. I could not even locate an obituary.

    So, this question remains: did Mark Shaw uncover–did he and only he discover a mysterious security log or ledger which proved that Robert Kennedy was in Los Angeles on Saturday, August the 4th in 1962? Most certainly he did not. Many other writers have mentioned that mysterious security log; and Shaw did not offer any real proof that the log actually existed. He, like all the sensationalistic conspiracist writers before him, did not publish the actual log. And he did not display a photograph of it during his Texas presentation. A fact which leads me to conclude that he did not and does not possess the security log; and that fact leads me to the real difficulty with Shaw’s assertion.

    Considering that the log was created in 1962, virtually six decades prior to the publication of Collateral Damage, is it even remotely possible that such a document would have been retained by 20th Century-Fox, retained for fifty-nine years? Would such a document have survived to see the 21st century? Speaking only for me, of course, I think not. Taking into consideration all the contradictory accounts regarding the mysterious log, taking into consideration that the actual log has never been published, never been seen, I cannot stretch my gullibility, my credulity quite that far. Speaking only for me, of course, I do not believe Shaw’s story. In fact, I do not believe that the mysterious security log ever existed. I must repeat once again: Shaw’s ledger, the security log, the alleged document has never been published. What Shaw presented in Allen, Texas, was an amalgamation of the many stories written about Robert Kennedy’s whirlybird arrival at Fox studios, an arrival witnessed by a shadow named Frank Neill. Based on actual facts, based on firsthand testimony of persons who were with Bobby that Saturday and based on documentary evidence, we know that the Attorney General was not in Los Angeles on Saturday, August the 4th.

    And finally, to put a period on this philippic, Shaw’s contention that Collateral Damage did not contain any of his opinions or speculations just might be the most absurd conceit uttered by the self-proclaimed Marilyn historian. The text of Shaw’s publication is filled with opinion and speculation; it is also filled with innuendo. For example, on page 562, Shaw wrote:

    Basically a coward in the ilk of his father, RFK would never have had the guts to poison Marilyn on his own initiative. That meant he had, it would seem, two choices: either enlist operatives to do it or engage through an intermediary, perhaps Greenson of Engelberg to do it for him. […] RFK, either on his own or through intermediaries, could have “squeezed” Greenson […] into becoming an operative in the death of Marilyn.

    In Shaw’s goofy world, the preceding does not qualify as speculation. Truly amazing.

    I could present many more examples of Shaw’s opinionating and speculative prowess. But the most incredible example begins on page 613, Shaw’s contrived scenario of how Marilyn was possibly murdered, a scenario that is gross speculation of what most likely may have happened to Marilyn during the night of August the 4th.

    Accosted by two intruders sent by the attorney general, with the president’s approval, asserted Shaw, and stunned with a chloroform-sealed cloth, Marilyn was either dragged or carried into her bedroom, stripped, deposited nude on her newly carpeted floor and callously murdered by a rectal infusion of drugs using a bulb syringe of some sort. The attorney presented absolutely no evidence to support his contrived scenario; and Shaw excused his lack of evidence as follows:

    Of course, as with any theory like this based on circumstantial evidence after so many years have passed, questions will be asked, with answers unfortunately speculative in nature. […] Such observations about Marilyn’s death provide a stop-and-think, food-for-thought considerations as to how Marilyn met her maker and by whose actions […]. If Robert Kennedy’s complicity in Marilyn’s death, through whatever means, had been exposed, causing him to be charged in a court of law, there would never have been a JFK assassination by RFK’s enemies in 1963(624).

    There was not, and there is not, one shred of actual evidence proving that Robert Kennedy was romantically involved with Marilyn Monroe, or that he was involved in any way with her death. In fact, the available evidence proves that actress and attorney general were not involved romantically. Further, Marilyn’s autopsy proves that she was not killed with some sort of bulb syringe: she ingested the drugs that killed her.

    Mark Shaw’s gross speculation that John Kennedy’s assassination could have been prevented by bringing charges against his brother for killing Marilyn Monroe is absolute nonsense of the most preposterous sort. Perhaps Mark Shaw should have stopped and thought before writing a book like Collateral Damage. Perhaps he should have asked a few more questions, like he admonished his video audience to do, before putting his pen to paper.


    Go to Part 1

  • Mark Shaw Insults Allen, Texas: Part 1

    Mark Shaw Insults Allen, Texas: Part 1


    In 2021, author Mark Shaw visited the library at Allen, Texas. Allen is a town of about 100,000 located 20 miles north of the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex. This was an opportunity to publicize his book Collateral Damage. Some might say: but that was two years ago. Which is true. But for whatever reason, this talk has garnered millions of views on YouTube. Marilyn Monroe authority Don McGovern went ahead and transcribed it. It might be hard to believe, but in some ways this speech is even worse than the book.

    It is very important—actually it is integral—to understand that Shaw is a lawyer. And, as he has described in his prior books, he was a criminal defense attorney. In other words, Shaw is familiar with the rules of evidence and testimony in court. He therefore has to understand the concept of raising objections to such and how a judge can then rule on whether that evidence and testimony can be admitted to a jury. In fact, very often there are pre-trial evidentiary hearings so a judge can rule on these matters.

    What is shocking about Shaw’s presentation is this: there is barely anything in it that would not be challenged in court. And, as we shall see, most of those objections would likely be sustained. It’s quite a spectacle to see an attorney somehow forget the strictures he was taught in law school in order to present a case so diaphanous that it would likely never get out of the starter’s gate. This at a time when most of the JFK critical community is doing the contrary. That is, trying to present a case that would meet standards of proof.

    Mark Shaw is one of the very few in the critical field that still holds that somehow it was the Mafia that killed President Kennedy. What is so bizarre about this—actually it is almost shocking—is that he does not even seem aware of how the new evidence vitiates that conclusion. For instance, the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB,) declassified many documents from the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The pertinent HSCA records were from November, 1978 interviews with the family of Dutz Murrett, Oswald’s uncle in New Orleans. These showed that, contrary to what the likes of author John Davis had stated, Mr. Murrett was not working for Carlos Marcello in 1963. (Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, p. 305) He had resigned his bookmaking position at least two years earlier. This poked a serious lacunae into that theory—one that tangentially connected Oswald to the Mafia Don in New Orleans.

    Further, the famous Ed Becker anecdote about Marcello, which so many have used—including Shaw in this speech—has now also come into dispute. According to Becker, Marcello allegedly stated that soon “the stone” would be removed from his shoe. This meant Attorney General Bobby Kennedy. But he was going to do it by disposing of President Kennedy. (Benson, p. 34) Len Osanic of Black Op Radio has made contact with a witness who renders that whole conversation questionable. There is now a book in preparation on the subject. Yet, as author Michael Benson notes, the HSCA used both of these aspects to bolster their Mob oriented case. As explicated by the late Carol Oglesby in the Afterword to Jim Garrison’s On the Trail of the Assassins, that case was never very strong to begin with. It has now been severely weakened.

    Mark Shaw’s third overall rail of Mafia involvement on the JFK case was that Joe Kennedy had double crossed his backers in Chicago about how he could get RFK to go easy on the Outfit. In return for that, the 1960 mob—controlled wards in Chicago would throw their support to JFK. This point was also rendered moot when it was broken down by statistician John Binder. Binder did a complete study of the voting ratios in those wards. It was not what it should have been if the basis of the book Double Cross was true. Binder’s work pretty much blows up this old wives tale. (Click here)

    Since the Mob did not go along with Kennedy’s alleged wishes, this would indicate he did not have much pull in Chicago. Which indicates that the myth of Joe Kennedy the bootlegger was just that. A myth that emerged, not when Joe was under six federal investigations for positions in government; but arose after, when the underworld, and Jack Kennedy’s enemies—like Richard Nixon—wanted to spread rumors, thereby tarring JFK’s presidential nomination, and later, his reputation. This is the sensible and evidence backed thesis that author Dan Okrent came to in his fine volume on the subject of Prohibition, Last Call (p. 369)

    But in his 2022 book Fighting for Justice—a misnomer if there ever was one—Shaw stated that the Joe Kennedy bootleg charges were all over the HSCA volumes on organized crime (Shaw, p. 66). I read the HSCA volumes on crime, which were in Books 5 and 9. Shaw was passing gas; it’s not there. It is hard to imagine he did not even look at the volumes in advance. If he did, he would have found out that, contrary to any deal, the Kennedys’ strong pressure was collapsing the Mafia. (Vol. 5, p 455)

    In the talk under discussion, Shaw also brings in the 1960 West Virginia primary as another example of the Mob influencing an election at Joe Kennedy’s request. This one was promoted not just by that fatuous book Double Cross, but also by the late Judith Exner, a woman who told so many tall tales she could not keep them straight. (Michael O’Brien, Washington Monthly, December, 1999). As Dan Fleming wrote in his book on that primary, no subsequent study—by the FBI, by the state Attorney General, by Senator Barry Goldwater—ever produced any evidence that there was skullduggery that influenced that election outcome. (Fleming, Kennedy vs Humphrey, West Virginia 1960, pp. 107-12)

    One might point to another aspect of Shaw’s reliance on rather disreputable sources like Double Cross and Frank Ragano’s book Mob Lawyer. In the former book, the authors stated that the Outfit owned the contract of Marilyn Monroe. Since Monroe is a late arriving subject of Shaw’s one would think he would be aware that this is utterly false. And it would therefore touch on the credibility of his source. Either that or it indicates the fact that he has done very little work on Monroe. For as has been shown in the book Murder Orthodoxies, the two men who had control of Monroe’s early career were producer Joe Schenck and Hollywood agent Johnny Hyde. The Chicago Outfit influence on Monroe was simply more malarkey from a book that was full of it. (McGovern, pp. 394-427)

    What is one to think of a lawyer/author who uses these kinds of sources? And still insists on using them long after they have been discredited.

    In this speech Shaw states that he first discovered the subject of Dorothy Kilgallen while he was writing his book about attorney Melvin Belli. Which is kind of odd. Why? Because that book was published back in 2007. Which is ten years before he published his first book on Kilgallen. But further, in Shaw’s first two books dealing with the JFK case there is next to nothing about the reporter, a bit over two pages. His excuse for bringing in Marilyn Monroe is that he somehow discovered that Kilgallen was friends with Monroe. As Monroe biographer Gary Vitacco Robles has noted, there is no such evidence this was the case.

    In addition to these questionable origins, in Shaw’s speech there is his tendency to aggrandize himself. Early on he calls himself a historian. It’s pretty clear from his book that he has no such credentials in that field. And if there is a worse historian of the Kennedy years, I would like to know who it is. One thing a good historian does is sift through how reliable his sources are. As we have seen, Mark Shaw did not do that. Not even close.

    Right before this there is another instance of self-praise. Shaw says the relevance of Collateral Damage is that it shows that nobody asked questions at the time of these murders. To use just one example: Mark Lane was asking questions about the JFK case within hours of the president’s death. (Mark Lane, Plausible Denial, p. 14) When Jack Ruby shot Oswald, those questions exploded into a tidal wave. Because many assumed that the reason someone would shoot the defendant in public was to silence him. This caused Lane to assemble his legal brief for Oswald, which contained plenty of questions amid its ten thousand words. (Lane, pp. 18-19). The edition of The National Guardian where it first appeared sold 100,000 copies. (Author’s interview with Lane, November of 2013). As per Monroe, the first questions were asked very soon after her death also. By, for instance, the photography/reporter team—Bill Woodfield and Joe Hyams—that took the last nude photos of her, and this is in the Fred Guilles biography of Monroe. As per Kilgallen, at her funeral, her mother accused her husband Dick Kollmar of killing her. Experts inside the medical examiner’s office, like Charles Umbarger and John Broich also suspected foul play. Lee Israel, who wrote a biography of Kilgallen, was also onto this trail. All of these sources are in Sara Jordan’s fine online article “Who Killed Dorothy Kilgallen” at Midwest Today. And when one reads that article, the introduction states that this is how Shaw actually began his book.

    Shaw is an inveterate self—aggrandizer. For instance he likes to say, as he does here, that his work is not speculative. That it is based on solid sources like documents. How is the book Double Cross a document? It was not published until three decades after President Kennedy’s murder. As lawyer Shaw has to know, it is hearsay at best. And it is compromised by the fact that the authors clearly wrote it to take advantage of a timely commercial event: the unprecedented controversy over Oliver Stone’s JFK. As I have shown, factually, every major tenet in the book is dubious.

    But it’s even worse than that. Because, concerning the subject of that book, namely Chicago Don Sam Giancana, there are much more factually based sources. One would be FBI agent William Roemer and his book Man Against the Mob. In that book, Roemer describes the almost total surveillance that Bobby Kennedy and the FBI had on Giancana. As he was a major part of it. Roemer listened to all the surveillance tapes they had on Giancana. There was never any mention of any attempt on JFK or RFK. And after the fact, there was no such indication either. (Roemer, p. 188). In court, that would make Shaw’s case pretty vulnerable.

    But again, it’s really worse than that. Because there are now three different versions of the Giancana mythology. There is the version in the novel Double Cross. There is a newer version by another Giancana relative named Pepe as revealed by producer Ron Celozzi in the documentary film Momo: The Sam Giancana Story. The assassination teams differ significantly in the two works. But there is a third version, one which Celozzi is preparing for a projected upcoming feature film on the subject. Again, the hit team is now different than Celozzi’s earlier version. (Click here for the transformations)

    Again, can one imagine presenting all these alterations in court? Showing first how Double Cross is a fraud to begin with. Then following that up with the revisions to the original story? Then finalizing it all with Roemer? Shaw’s case would be decimated. So much for the “historian” not relying on speculation.

    This is the problem when an author depends on a source about which there is no adduced record. Since for all of Shaw’s boasting about his zealotry for Kilgallen, with Kilgallen as your pillar what do you have?. As Shaw has admitted in his works, no one knows what was in Kilgallen’s JFK file. It was allegedly lost after her death. Shaw assumes that since Kilgallen went to New Orleans before her death, that somehow she was on to Carlos Marcello. How does he know this? Again, there is no evidence for it. It is his opinion based on speculation. And this ignores the fact that Oswald was in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, and this might be the reason she went there—to check out what he was doing. In this speech Shaw even says that since Kilgallen had a book coming out based on some of the homicide cases she had investigated, that this is why Marcello had her killed! As a lawyer, how could Shaw back this up?


    Go to Part 2

  • Sy Hersh Falls on his Face Again, Pt. 2

    Sy Hersh Falls on his Face Again, Pt. 2


    On March 29th, Sy Hersh was at it again. He wrote about a split between the CIA and the Kennedy White House over the plans to do away with Fidel Castro. In a reversal of the factual record, he makes the Agency out to be reluctant to do such a thing, while the Kennedys were urging the plots forward.

    As I wrote in Part 1, this is utterly false. And both the Church Committee and the CIA’s own Inspector General Report proved it so. John Kennedy was so opposed to these kinds of plots that when Senator George Smathers proposed it to him, he literally broke a plate over a table and said he did not want to hear any of this anymore. (Alleged Assassination Plots, p. 124) Smathers also told the Church Committee that the Agency frequently did things Kennedy was not aware of and this troubled the president. He said that JFK thought that assassination was a stupid thing to do, and he wanted to get control of what the CIA was doing. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 329). When one combines this with the fact that the CIA’s own Inspector General Report—which is the most extensive study of the Castro plots—concluded that the Agency never had any presidential approval for the plots, that is the ultimate word. (See IG Report pgs. 132-33) Hersh can rattle on as much as he wants but it’s the equivalent of urinating into the wind.

    That IG report was filed for Director Richard Helms at the request of President Johnson. (Click here for it) The Church Committee heard testimony from FBI official Cartha Deloach that, after Johnson read the IG report he concluded that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination. (Washington Post 12/13/77) Until the Church Committee inquiry, Helms reportedly kept only one copy of this report stashed safely at CIA headquarters. Presumably because he did not want the word to get out that the Agency, under Dick Bissell and Allen Dulles, had sanctioned the plots and kept them secret from Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson. In an interview Helms did with Vincent Bugliosi for his book Reclaiming History, the former CIA director said that the Kennedys were not privy to the plots.

    All of which vitiates Hersh’s latest piece of nonsense concerning the plots themselves. He says that Richard Helms understood there was no turning down the mission. Since there was no request from the White House to do so, that statement is malarkey. But further, Helms had the plots ongoing on the very day JFK was killed. In preparation for a meeting with a proposed assassin in Paris, Helms cleared a CIA officer to invoke Bobby Kennedy’s name in conduct of the plots, knowing that RFK never granted such permission to do so! (IG Report, pp. 89-93) This would indicate to any objective person that Helms knew Bobby would never allow it and he would have stopped the plots, since he knew how his brother felt about such things. And also, as we shall see, after the CIA told Bobby they had been stopped.

    Further showing how wrong Hersh is, the plots did not stop with JFK’s death as he says they did. Helms full well knew they were continuing into 1966. That phase was called Project AM/LASH. And it is listed right in the Inspector General’s table of contents, dates and all. (See pp. 78-111) Therefore, the plots began in 1960, before JFK was president, and continued until 1966, encompassing three presidents who the CIA decided not to reveal them to. So everything that Hersh says in his first two paragraphs of his latest is wrong.

    Hersh then goes from just being wrong, to being ridiculous. He actually says he did not really understand this CIA/Kennedy dispute until he talked to—please sit down—CIA officer Sam Halpern. Hersh undermines himself by explaining about Halpern: “…the only reason he ever talked to a reporter was to spread a lie.” Hersh, never noted for his humor, misses the self-parodic overtones here. As Lisa Pease notes in her book, A Lie too Big to Fail, Halpern made sure that his version of the plots reached the media: “In fact, nearly every author that has claimed Robert Kennedy was in on the Castro assassination plots sources Halpern.” (p. 479) As Lisa points out, Halpern once gave his game away. Sam worked for CIA Officer Bill Harvey. Harvey and Halpern complained that the White House only used pinpricks against Castro. Sam, I hate to tell you, assassinating Castro is not a pinprick. (ibid) Needless to add, if you read the IG report, Halpern was in on the AM/LASH plots. As was Nestor Sanchez, assistant to Helms. (IG Report, p. 92)

    For any author today to use Sam Halpern in a discussion of this subject betrays a solipsistic bent. Because not only has Lisa Pease shown Halpern to be a liar, but so did David Talbot. (Brothers, pp. 105, 122-23). But beyond that, Halpern was demolished by John Newman with a completeness that was pretty much total. Let us review that demolition in order to understand just how bad Hersh is on this subject.

    II

    Newman published Into the Storm back in 2019, four years before Hersh penned his latest columns. I find it hard to comprehend that Hersh never heard of this book and never read it. For the simple reason that Newman, using declassified records, spent four chapters knocking the stuffings out of Hersh’s two sources on the Castro plots, namely Dick Bissell and Halpern.

    Sam Halpern was the executive assistant to Harvey, who was a major Agency player in the Cuba operations. It is not news to anyone that—for reasons stated above—Bobby Kennedy and Harvey shared a mutual animus. It also needs to be stated that when Bobby Kennedy was told about these Castro assassination plots, the CIA lied to him about their being discontinued. They were ongoing at the time of his May 1962 briefing and the Agency briefers knew they were lying to the Attorney General. (Newman, pp. 231, 242; Pease pp.481-83) This new phase of the plots was being run by Harvey and gangster John Roselli.

    Perhaps as early as 1967, but certainly by the time of the Church Committee, Halpern had created a cover story for the CIA. What is so odd about it is that Halpern’s phony story existed in a mythological netherworld, outside of what had really happened. Which the Church Committee revealed a good deal about.

    Sam’s fairy tale was arranged around a deceased CIA officer who Halpern knew and knew well. His name was Charles Ford. To understand what Halpern and Hersh did to him, one must review how and why Ford met Robert Kennedy. This was over two calls that the Attorney General received in the spring of 1962 about goings on in and around Cuba. One dealt with an attorney interested in the legal proceedings against the Bay of Pigs prisoners. The other concerned a group that was encouraging an uprising on the island. RFK called CIA Deputy Director Marshall Carter for assistance and advice on both issues. (Newman, pp. 260-64)

    Ford was chosen to consult with RFK on both assignments. On the former, Ford used the alias Charles Fiscalini, assigned by CIA; for the latter it was Don Barton, which was more or less chosen by him. Ford did a satisfactory job in investigating the two assignments. He concluded by telling the Attorney General that neither he, nor the CIA, should be involved in either endeavor. And here is where Newman exposed the Halpern mythology under stadium spotlights.

    In his book, The Dark Side of Camelot, Hersh quotes Halpern as saying that Ford went to places like Chicago, San Francisco , Miami and one trip to Canada. But Hersh then adds that Ford never delivered any paperwork as to what he was doing to Harvey’s office. Hersh then quotes Halpern to hammer this point home: “We never got a single solitary piece of written information.” Hersh then concludes by saying these must be in classified files on the RFK papers at the John F. Kennedy Library. (Hersh, p. 287) Under the hocus pocus of Hersh and Halpern, ipso facto, Ford was working with mobsters under Bobby’s orders in order to murder Fidel Castro. And that dirty rat Ford kept it all hidden from the CIA.

    Let us be plain: Everything in that above paragraph is false. As Newman discovered, for this assignment, Ford filed at least ten reports with CIA from March 30, 1962 to October 4, 1962. (Newman, pp. 258-260) Many of them went directly to Harvey’s office and Halpern signed off on at least one of them. Therefore, as Newman wrote, Halpern had to be aware of what Ford was actually doing. (Newman, p. 264) But further, Harvey wrote to the Attorney General twice about Ford’s negative conclusions. (ibid, p. 268). There was no secret since there was nothing to conceal.

    To any normal thinking person, the above would be enough to show that Halpern was an immoral con artist. But it’s even worse than that. Charles Ford did two interviews with the Church Committee. The first one is lost. (Newman, p. 270). Which is unfortunate since Ford refers to the first interview in the second surviving transcript five times. But in the second interview, Ford says he often got assignments from Halpern. Which is something Halpern never revealed. But further, Ford says that he worked for RFK on just the two assignments as outlined above. And he specifically said he was never directed to make contacts with the underworld. Further, that he never talked to anyone about plans to assassinate Castro. Finally, he reported to Bill Harvey at this time and his title was special assistant. (Newman, pp. 274-75)

    As Newman concluded, the idea that Hersh and Halpern were trying to convey—that Ford never told anyone about his work for RFK—is now exposed as simply wrong. Ford told everyone about his work for the Attorney General. As his reports were circulated to many inside the Agency. But because they did not say what Hersh and Halpern wanted them to say, they were useless to the con artist and his (rather easy) mark. Specifically, they would portray what was really happening and expose a fairy tale. And further and fatally: that Halpern knew the true facts all along.

    Let us recite a recurring refrain with Hersh: How bad is bad?

    III

    What necessitated Bobby Kennedy’s briefing on the CIA/Mafia plots in May 1962? This occurred because Sam Giancana asked a favor from the man the CIA used to recruit the Mob into the plot. That was Robert Maheu. Maheu decided to help Giancana. He found a wiretapper for a hotel room since Sam thought his girlfriend, Phyllis McGuire, was sleeping with comedian Dan Rowan in Vegas. This scheme was foiled by local authorities and the FBI found out about it. When Kennedy was briefed, he asked why Maheu was so interested in pleasing Giancana. This is when he learned about the CIA’s plots for the first time. (Talbot, Brothers, pp 85-86) The rather logical deduction is that the CIA would never have had to brief him if he or his brother had been in on the plots already.

    Since Giancana was a number one target for RFK as Attorney General, this made him even more angry at what the CIA had done. But unlike what Hersh suggegsts, Bobby did not stop pursuing Giancana. And Giancana eventually did go to jail for contempt in 1965. When he got out a year later, to avoid more prison time, he fled to Mexico.

    This takes us to the next—and most bizarre—part of Hersh’s 3/29 pile of sludge. I had to read this section over twice to really understand it since it was like reading science fiction. As most of us who follow the career of Robert Kennedy know, the AG took a goodwill tour in February of 1962. Hersh distorts this journey also. He tries to convey that it was only to Italy. Not even close. This was a world wide goodwill tour that began in the Far East, went through the Middle East and ended up in Europe. The main point of this long tour was not Italy. Two of the stops were in Indonesia and the Netherlands. RFK was in Jakarta to negotiate the release of CIA pilot Alan Pope, shot down during the failed Agency coup of 1958. He was in Netherlands to talk the Dutch into surrendering West Irian to their former colony Indonesia, since JFK was backing their nationalist leader Sukarno. That mission, which you will not read a word of from Hersh, was successful. The other main spot for Europe was West Germany, where Bobby actually said “Ich bin ein Berliner” before JFK did.

    From that mischaracterization, Hersh descends further into his own morass. He now says that RFK went to Italy in January—before the goodwill tour. This writer, and others, tried to find any notice of this January journey. I searched the following sources:

    • New York Times index
    • The Washington Post microfilm
    • Newspapers.com
    • RFK’s appointment book

    The last was done for me by Abigail Malangone, the archivist at the JFK Library. (E mail message of 4/10/23) It eludes me as to how the Attorney General could go to Italy without a trace left behind. And, recall, back then the major newspapers and syndicates had reporters assigned to the Justice Department, as some of them do today. Bobby lived in Virginia at the time. But no reporter or anyone else saw him leave for Italy? And I could find no story about anyone who saw him in Italy either.

    But Hersh now goes a step beyond. He says that Charley Ford was doing the same. John Newman got the records for what Ford was doing. There were none depicting any trip to Sicily. (Newman, pp. 258-60) Ford’s only trip out of the country was to Canada and that was not for RFK, but the CIA. If Hersh has evidence to counter this, I would like to see it. Because John was working with declassified files, the ones Hersh says are still hidden.

    Now, why does Hersh say this stuff in the first place? Please allow me to indulge in some informed speculation. But it is based on Hersh’s past record in the field—which goes way back to his Marilyn Monroe baloney. Hersh wants to somehow depict RFK and Ford as fomenting the first Mafia War that broke out in Sicily in January and February of 1962. He actually says as much. But according to the NY Times, Bobby did not get to Rome until late in February. (NY Times, 2/21/1962) Which was after the war began in earnest. (See John Dickie’s book, Cosa Nostra: A History of the Sicilian Mafia, pp. 241-57) Hersh pulls another one when he writes that RFK had two days of private meetings in Rome. RFK was only there for two days total. And the second day he met with Pope John XXIII. According to extant CIA records, Ford did not get there at all. Did Hersh take a page out of Sam Halpern’s book of fairy tales? But in this case, going even further than his mentor?

    On, lest I forget. Hersh always has sources on the inside. (David Talbot, Brothers, p. 123) We have seen how worthless those sources are in Bissell and Halpern. And we are also supposed to think that Hersh does not know how much the CIA did not like the Kennedys.

    IV

    To wrap up, on 3/29 Hersh again brings up the false info from the novel Double Cross about Joe Kennedy making a deal with Sam Giancana for the 1960 election. Again, this has been proven to be ersatz. (Click here)

    But let me conclude with some questions readers relayed me about the Nord Stream explosions, Hersh’s latest ‘scoop’. Apparently, people did not click through to the links I posted. These were by Rene Tebel, Russ Baker and Oliver Alexander. As Tebel notes, Hersh is again relying on his “sources inside the system” who he takes at face value to write his story, without doing any apparent hard questioning or cross checking. (Geopolitical Monitor, story by Rene Tebel, 3/2/2023) Tebel notes that Hersh insists that the explosives were dropped during a BALTOPS exercise, more than three months before the explosions detonated. Thus ignoring more than one opportunity to do so later without such a long wait time.

    For instance, during the Polish exercise Rekin-22 on September 16-18. But Tebel also notes that there were 25 ships passing in the direct or adjunct area of the explosions in the days preceding the detonations. Of those ships only two did not have transponders. These two ships were between 95 and 130 feet long and were within miles of the Nord Stream leak sites.

    Russ Baker noted how thinly sourced Hersh’s story was, a recurrent theme in a lot of Hersh’s later work. He later added that news organizations rarely publish such stories. The error rate risk is too high. But yet Hersh wrote as if the story was completely sound. The questions then abound: 1.) How did the source come into all this info?, and 2.) If it is so sound why tell Hersh for Substack, why not reveal it to a writer with a major news organization? When Baker emailed Hersh about this, the reply by Hersh was “Russ…I wrote what I wrote..not much I can add…sy”. Well, same thing applies to much of the above Substack stuff, which I already exposed as dubious.

    Baker went on to ask, the kind of high level source that actually knows about such things would likely not reveal it to anyone because of the huge penalties involved in being discovered. Finally, Russ pointed to how vapid the story really was. He quotes the following lines: “Nevertheless, in early 2022, the CIA working group reported back to [Jake] Sullivan’s interagency group: “We have a way to blow up the piplelines.” Russ writes that this sounds like inside info, but anyone could write such a thing not having any real knowledge. There was really very little detail, the kind of technical details that turn speculation into fact. (Russ Baker, “Nord Stream Explosion, Plenty of Gas, Not much Light” Who What Why, March 4, 2023)

    Oliver Alexander showed that even those details are simply not very sound. As I previously noted, there was no need to add mine searching to BALTOPS, as it had been a part of the programs since 2019. Hersh could have easily checked that one.

    Hersh said on a broadcast that the USA needed Norway in order to reveal the shallow part of the sea. So, the Pentagon had no such charts? Secondly, the Nord Stream 1 explosion was detonated in one of the deepest parts of the area.

    Hersh now says that the divers deployed off a Norwegian Alta class mine hunter. Yet no Alta class mine sweepers took part in that particular BALTOPs exercise. Also, Hersh wrote that the charges would be detonated by a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane with a sonar bouy. These planes were not active at that time. They were only in training usage in the northern part of Norway, many hundreds of kilometers away.

    When Hersh was confronted with the information about the Alta, he reacted the same way he did when confronted with the forged signature of Janet DeRosiers on the phony Marilyn Monroe trust documents. He lashed out at the source and called it a stupid lie. The problem is that the last time that ship moved under its own power was about ten years ago. It was towed for scrap iron on June of 2022.

    Even if Hersh made an error, not uncommon with him, ships close to that class were not in the area at the time or in a position to have planted the charges. (See Oliver Alexander’s “Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh’s Pipe Dream”.)

    Does all this mean that the USA had nothing to do with Nord Stream? No it does not. As I noted, Hersh would be a fine messenger for a faulty story. Since he has no pesky editor. Great way to distract from the real story. But I would also not rule out Ukraine or the Poles.

    V

    What I think Hersh is up to with his writings on Substack about the Kennedys is redemption. When The Dark Side of Camelot came out in 1997 it was roundly blasted by just about everyone. And this includes the LA Times, Newsweek, New York Review of Books etc. Most of the stories said that the book revealed more about the Dark Side of Hersh than Kennedy. Which is about the worst thing a critic can say about a book. What I think Hersh is trying to do is to appeal to the ignorance of a new generation of readers born in the Internet age. Whether it will work is up to those readers. And if they are willing to investigate beyond Substack, to see just how bad Sy Hersh is in that case, and some others.

    In my view, Hersh was never the ace reporter he was alleged to be. And I wrote at length about the reasons why many years ago. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pp. 367-70) In my view, the stellar reporter of that time period was Robert Parry. Parry ended up leaving MSM journalism and started his own publication, Consortium News.

    The problem with Substack is this: it’s too easy. There is no editor above you to check on the facts of your story. This is one reason that both Glenn Greenwald and Hersh are on it. Greenwald did not like being edited at The Intercept. Hersh could not get some of his stories through David Remnick at The New Yorker. As the reader can see, this article which you are reading—and which you do not pay for—is plentifully referenced with credible sources. I serve as my own editor, since I know from my graduate studies what the rules of scholarship are. This kind of work takes days, at times weeks, sometimes even months, to complete. It’s not something you can turn out every other day. This kind of writing means visiting certain libraries, placing books on Inter Library Loan, driving to distant research repositories—in this case the Young Library at UCLA. Which is about a 40 mile round trip. And I did it twice. I would like to send Hersh my invoice for all this, but I know he would never repay me. He would call me something like a Kennedy apologist, as he did Janet DeRosiers.

    The problem with that is simple: DeRosiers was correct. The Marilyn Monroe trust was a fraud. Do those people on Substack know that? I hope so. But I doubt it.

    ADDENDUM

    When I emailed Hersh about his source for Bobby Kennedy’s Italy trip in January of 1962, he asked who I was. He then said he was doing so because it was obvious from the article. I asked him if it was so obvious why could I find no source for it anywhere? That was the last communication we had. I guess this is one of those Russ Baker, “I wrote what I wrote” matters.


    Go to Part 1

  • Sy Hersh Falls On His Face Again, and Again, and Again

    Sy Hersh Falls On His Face Again, and Again, and Again


    Seymour Hersh likes to file what he considers scoops about highly controversial subjects. The doctrinaire left buys him as an investigative journalist so he manages to get air time for his “scoops” on their programs e.g. Democracy Now! The problem with this is simple: as time has gone on, intelligent people who have researched his “scoops” have found them to be rather problematic. In fact, in a few quarters, Hersh has become something of a punching bag.

    His latest is on the Nord Stream pipeline explosions of September 26, 2022. Hersh posted this on his Substack site, where people pay a monthly fee to read his stories. Almost immediately, a partner of mine, Rahul Arya, began to send me a series of e-mails pointing out errors in this so-called expose of how the USA and Norway exploded Nord Stream. For instance, Hersh claimed that the “supreme commander of NATO”, Jens Stoltenberg, was all for it since he “…had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War.”

    Rahul commented on this as such: Stoltenberg was born in March of 1959. President Johnson committed the first American combat troops to Indochina in 1965. President Nixon withdrew the last of the American forces in March of 1973. Are we to believe that Stoltenberg was an informant from the time he was 6 until the time he was 14? Kind of young, no?

    Rahul also pointed out that Hersh said that Norway’s navy “was quick to find the right spot”. Which made it sound like all the detonations took place in close vicinity to each other. When, in fact, the distance between where Nord Stream 1 and 2 were exploded was about 77 kilometers.

    Rahul also listened to Hersh on the accommodating Democracy Now! program for February 15, 2023. He pointed out some problems with that talk. Hersh said there were 19 signers to the 1949 NATO treaty. There were actually 12. In fact, even when the USSR dissolved in 1991 there were still just 16 nations in NATO. It was not until 1999 that the alliance would have 19 members. Hersh only missed it by a half century!

    On that program Hersh said the BALTOPs NATO naval exercises—the key to Hersh’s story—had been conducted for the last 22 years. One can go to a number of sources, including Wikipedia, and see that it began in 1971 and there have been over 50 of these. The Russians have been known to shadow the ships involved.

    So this is what makes, in Hersh’s terms, a beautiful cover story? Hersh also said that mine clearing and detection had not been part of the exercise before. Again, one can go to a number of sources and see that mine detection has been a part of BALTOPS before. Would it not be a giveaway to add that to the recent exercise if one was covering a covert operation involving deep diving?

    I am not going to go into all the other critiques of Hersh’s latest. As Aaron Good emailed me, it might be correct that America had a role in all this. But I will refer the reader to Oliver Alexander’s “Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh’s Pipe Dream”, Russ Baker’s Nord Stream Explosion: Plenty of Gas, Not Much Light and Rene Tebel’s “Seymour Hersh’s Nord Stream Theory: Fact or Fiction”. After reading through these, the best one can say is that if the USA and Norway did explode Nord Stream, Hersh’s story was a good way to disguise it. And, in fact, the newest explanation is that it was Ukraine who did the subterfuge.

    II

    Democracy Now!, Ralph Nader and others would have been wise to think back to Hersh’s last big “scoop”. This one was about the assassination of Osama bin Laden, the man accused of masterminding the 9-11 attacks. The reader will recall that bin Laden, the founder of Al-Qaeda, was killed as part of a raid by the Navy Seals of Seal Team 6. The operation was called Operation Neptune Spear. It was largely a CIA mission but had significant support from the military.

    The assault took place in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2, 2011. After the mission, the American forces returned to Afghanistan, identified the body, and then flew hundreds of miles to deposit the corpse in the Arabian Sea, since this was part of Islamic tradition. The Pakistani government was quite disturbed over what they considered a violation of their territory, since President Obama had decided not to consult with them for fear of a leak. The Pakistanis were so disturbed that they initiated a commission to investigate the episode. The result was called the Abbottabad Commission Report.

    There have been two popular accountings of the operation. Both of them released in 2012. There was a book called No Easy Day written by a Seal participant under the pen name Mark Owen (Matt Bissonnette). That book made the New York Times best seller list. There was also a film directed by Katherine Bigelow titled Zero Dark Thirty. That picture grossed well over a hundred million dollars.

    Hersh’s version of what happened first appeared in The London Review of Books; it was then published in a brief book version. His main thesis is that Obama’s refusal to inform Pakistan, and the bad relations between the two countries afterwards- e.g. the forming of the commission, well this was all a pose, something of a cover. Hersh postulated that, in reality, Pakistani intelligence captured bin Laden in 2006, and kept him prisoner with help from Saudi Arabia. He was their leverage against Al-Qaeda. In 2010, the Pakistanis agreed to sell their prisoner to America for increased military aid and a freer hand in Afghanistan. And they agreed to the staging of the elaborate raid by helicopter with Pakistani support. (See Vox, May 11, 2015, story by Max Fisher) In fact, forget about a fire fight, the Seals were escorted to bin Laden’s bedroom by an ISI officer.

    Hersh then adds two kickers. First, the intelligence materials discovered in the compound were manufactured to provide evidence after the fact. Secondly, there was no actual at-sea burial. The body was so decimated by rifle fire that pieces of the corpse were thrown out over the Hindu Kush mountains during the return flight. (ibid)

    Max Fisher notes that all of this is based upon two main sources. One was in Pakistan’s military intelligence from 1990-92. The other was a retired American intelligence officer who knew about the early information on bin Laden in Abbottabad. There are no supporting documents.

    The motivating force for Pakistan to cooperate was undermined by two facts. There was no increase in military aid to Pakistan, and the cooperation in Afghanistan plummeted because of the raid. (ibid).

    Peter Bergen of CNN also chimed in on this supposed trailblazing scoop. He asked: Why on earth would Saudi Arabia pay to upkeep bin Laden while living in Pakistan? One of his key aims was the overthrow of the Saudi family, which is why they revoked his citizenship back in 1994. (Bergen, CNN, May 20, 2015) Bergen asked, if he really was a prisoner of Pakistan, why would the Saudis not pay their allies to look the other way while they sent a hit team in to finish him off. We all remember Jamal Khashoggi, right?

    Bergen also undermined Hersh’s claim that the only shots fired that night were the ones that killed Bin Laden. Bergen blasted this, since he actually visited the compound before the Pakistanis leveled it. He said that, far from no evidence of a fire fight:

    The compound was trashed, littered almost everywhere with broken glass, and several areas of it were sprayed with bullet holes where the SEALS had fired at members of bin Laden’s entourage and family, or in one case exchanged fire with one of his bodyguards.

    Both Fisher and Bergen also questioned Hersh’s idea that the Pakistanis were in reality holding bin Laden, and the raid was really all a set up between them and America. Bergen, who wrote a book on the subject, said that American officials monitored Pakistan’s ISI communications the night of the raid. The top ISI officials were bewildered, since they had not a clue about bin Laden’s presence there.

    Fisher asked: Why would the Pakistanis allow a fake raid that would humiliate their country? If bin Laden was truly a prisoner there had to be other ways to get rid of him without such a spectacular violation of air and territorial space. In fact, when he was trying to sell the story to editor David Remnick at The New Yorker, Hersh was offering a drone strike outside of the compound. (Vox, ibid) As for the fake intel files, bin Laden’s second in command said they were real. (ibid) Was Ayman al-Zawahiri lying? Was he part of the cover-up?

    III

    Max Fisher ended his critique of Hersh’s theory by noting some of the other outlandish ideas Hersh had reported:

    1. An American prospective attack on Iran, perhaps with a nuclear warhead.
    2. In January 2011, Hersh said that top military and special forces leaders were all members or supporters of Knights of Malta, many of them were also Opus Dei. Vice President Cheney’s idea was to bring Christianity to the Middle East.
    3. In 2012, he reported in The New Yorker that the Bush administration was training members of the anti-Iran group MEK in Nevada. Although this was not discredited, it was also never confirmed.

    The above may be why Hersh had to publish his other ‘scoops” in England or on Substack.

    But for those in the JFK field, the reckoning for Sy Hersh came before all these stories. It was back in the nineties. At that time Hersh was working on what turned out to be one of the worst books ever written on John F. Kennedy or his assassination. That was 1997’s The Dark Side of Camelot. That book got into trouble even before it was published. For those knowledgeable about the JFK field and Hersh it was possible to see the origins of the volume.

    As we know from the late Jim Marrs, Random House editor Bob Loomis had convinced Gerald Posner to write a book on the JFK case in time for the 30th anniversary. Posner accommodated Loomis, his boss Harold Evans, and Random House with Case Closed in 1993. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 369). Well, Loomis also backed Sy Hersh in the early part of his career. (ibid) If one looks at the intent of the two books, they are complementary: one was to restore the Warren Report verdict, the other was to smear the image of JFK. Both men got massive media tours with no significant opponent to contest their message.

    But Hersh stumbled out of the starting gate. He encountered a man named Lex Cusack, who was a paralegal in a New York office firm founded by his father. A few years prior to their meeting, a woman named Nancy Greene (aka Maniscalco, aka Cusamano) had approached Lex at the New York firm of Cusack and Stiles. Lex’s father, Lawrence, had been appointed supervisor of the trust fund Marilyn Monroe had set up for her mother, Gladys Baker: “Nancy Greene laid out a tangled claim to the Monroe estate…” David Samuels in The New Yorker theorized that this may have been the germinating idea for Cusack to launch a huge hoax which Hersh fell for: headfirst. (Don McGovern, Murder Orthodoxies, pp. 220-26; New Yorker, Nov. 3, 1997) As Samuels wrote, Cusack now searched his father’s files, and this led to the discovery of what was later called the Monroe/JFK trust. Cusack then sold these documents to collectors for a dollar amount well into the seven figures.

    The documents purported to portray a trust agreement between the Kennedys, Monroe and her lawyer Aaron Frosch. The deal was for 600K, to be paid for Monroe’s mother’s upkeeping. In return Monroe would keep quiet about her relationship with JFK, and any Mob figures she observed in his presence. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 365). From reports by Robert Sam Anson, Hersh was overjoyed when he found the papers. He waved them over his head at a restaurant shouting, “The Kennedys were…the worst people!” (ibid, p. 366)

    Hersh had sold the TV rights to his book to ABC. And they had given him more money based on the documents. But when they began to run them by experts, the hoax collapsed. It is hard to understand why and how Hersh could have missed all the problems with the Cusack papers. For instance, Greg Schreiner, a Marilyn authority in North Hollywood, told me the first time he saw the Monroe signature he knew it was not hers. But its even worse than that. Janet DeRosiers was the last living signee to the “trust”. Hersh showed the papers to her and she said that was not her signature, and she never met Monroe. She warned Hersh and his publisher: they were dealing with forgeries. Hersh did what many of the Monroe zealots do: he termed her a Kennedy apologist. (McGovern, p. 224; Newsweek, 10/ 5/97, story by Mark Hosenball)

    But perhaps the worst aspect was this: typing corrections were made in a liftoff ribbon. This is so clear it was visible in the copies for the Samuels article. That ribbon was not available in 1960. And it was not sold until the seventies. How could Hersh, a man who made his living out of his typewriter, have missed something like that? (DiEugenio and Pease, p. 366)

    ABC’s Peter Jennings took the fiasco personally. After all, ABC had paid Hersh and his publisher before any forensic examination. Jennings hosted the Cusack expose program on 20/20 and did what he could to minimize Hersh’s failures in this regard. Jennings actually said that the idea that ABC saved Hersh on this was not really fair.(LA Times, 9/26/97, story by Eleanor Randolph) But if one adds in the above information, especially by DeRosiers, that appears to be what happened. The supposed “crack” reporter was taken for a ride.

    But Jennings and ABC went through with the program based on Hersh’s book. Sure enough, there was another Hersh styled custard pie awaiting on the program. Predictably, Hersh had fallen for the ever mutating stories of Judith Exner. Exner was someone who, by 1997, many in the know suspected of being another prevaricator in an ever expanding field of them. (DiEugenio and Pease, pp.329-38) Since her story about carrying messages between JFK and Chicago don Sam Giancana surfaced so late—well over a decade after her first questioning by the Church Committee—many observers raised their eyebrows at how Exner had radically changed her story for People magazine in 1988, who reportedly paid her the equivalent of well over $100,000 today. Turns out, she was one of those who told so many BS stories she could not keep them straight.

    For Hersh she indeed said that she carried messages back and forth between Kennedy and Giancana. She added that Bobby Kennedy was in on these secret communications. In fact Bobby would tap her on the shoulder and ask, “Are you still comfortable doing this? We want you to let us know if you don’t want to.” (Hersh, pp. 307-08)

    Apparently, ABC and Hersh knew how weak this would look with no corroborating witness: RFK, the Mafia’s living nightmare, sending messages to his number one target, Sam Giancana, who he had surveillance on! So Hersh got a man named Martin Underwood to back stop the tale. (Hersh, pp. 304-05) And Underwood was to appear on the Jennings program. He backed out. The story as to why he backed out did not emerge until the next year, 1998, with the Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board. (ARRB) When confronted with a legal body with subpoena power, Underwood, ”denied that he followed Judith Campbell Exner on a train and that he had no knowledge about her alleged role as a courier.” It turned out Underwood was involved in more than one instance of storytelling, used by both Hersh and Gus Russo. To be kind, they turned out to be flatulent. (ARRB Final Report, pgs. 112, 135, 136) Further—and this is really shocking—Hersh did not realize that on February 4, 1992, Exner appeared on Larry King’s show. When King asked her about any relationship with RFK, she replied with one word, “None.” King asked her to clarify that and she said she probably met him once or twice at a political fundraiser or a party in Los Angeles. That was it. So you had Hersh attaching one fairy tale (Underwood’s) to another fairy tale (Exner’s). Question: How bad is bad?

    IV

    Just because Hersh fell on his face with the Cusack documents, that did not mean he was going to leave the subject of JFK and Monroe alone. Nope, not by a long shot. As anyone can garner, Hersh was writing a hatchet job and the Monroe field is full of that material. But even for a hatchet job, Hersh was so extreme as to be sci-fi.

    Hersh wrote that there were accounts of Monroe being impregnated by Kennedy and having an abortion in Mexico. (Hersh, p. 103) Any hack can report ‘accounts’; but it was trashy so Hersh printed it. The problem is that according to Monroe’s gynecologist, Dr. Leon Krohn, Marilyn suffered two miscarriages and one ectopic pregnancy, which she had to terminate. She never submitted to an abortion. (Email communication with Marilyn author Don McGovern, 3/4/2023)

    Hersh also reported that Monroe was at Hyannis Port. (p. 103). Again, today we have both the president’s daily calendar and two Monroe day-to-day books, one by April VeVea and one by Carl Rollyson. That story is not credible either. (op. cit. McGovern) Finally, there is this humdinger: Monroe would call President Kennedy at the White House, with much explicit talk of a sexual nature. (Hersh, p. 454). Kennedy installed the taping system in July of 1962, and the first tapings are from July 30th. Monroe passed away on August 4th, 1962. (ibid). When I ran these by Gary Vitacco Robles, author of a three volume biography of Monroe, he replied that this all struck him as fantasy. (Email of March 4, 2023) It appears that Hersh never double checked anything.

    Why did Hersh insist on using Exner and her phony Washington/Chicago “courier” tall tales? Because he was intent on implicating the Kennedys in the CIA/Mafia plots to assassinate Castro. What Hersh does in this aspect of his book is a bit astonishing. The Church Committee had investigated this for months on end. They could not come up with any credible evidence that any president was aware of these plots. So Hersh decided to rely on someone the committee simply did not believe: Richard Bissell, CIA Director of Plans. When I say the committee did not buy Bissell, it was bipartisan, both Democrats and Republicans. (DiEugenio and Pease, p. 351) For one thing, he was asked six times who called him from the White House to develop such a deadly mechanism. Six times he could not recall. Someone at the White House calls you about a Castro termination project and you cannot recall who it was? (John Newman, Into the Storm, p. 182)

    So why did Bissell prevaricate before the committee? Because in the CIA’s internal report on the matter, it indicates that it was Bissell who initiated the project—before Kennedy was elected! (Inspector General Report, p. 14; Newman, p. 187) In other words, there would be no need for any such call, since Bissell had enacted it already; which was a question the Church Committee posed to Bissell. Hersh has to know this since he refers to the Inspector General report more than once. In other words, Bissell was practicing a CYA exercise, and the committee did not buy it since they knew he was lying. And Hersh keeps this all hush hush. Again, how bad is bad?

    But Hersh also wants to sell the reader on CIA officer Sam Halpern. Halpern was, even more than Bissell, the CIA’s most prolific cover-up artist on the Castro plots. Probably because he was assistant to William Harvey, and Harvey continued the second phase of the plots with help from Ted Shackley. To neutralize those facts, Halpern did something pretty despicable. He used one dead man, Charles Ford, to blame the plots on another dead man, Bobby Kennedy. Again, Hersh had no problem with that. (Hersh, pp. 286-292)

    He should have. For both David Talbot and John Newman have shown this to be another lie. Due to the ARRB—an agency that Hersh never mentions or writes about—we found out what Ford said about this Halpern accusation. When he was asked by the Church Committee to comment he said he had utterly nothing to do with contacting the Mob for any kind of Castro murder plots. He said that, as far as RFK went, his work for him was to try and organize Cuban exile groups in America and to retrieve prisoners from the Bay of Pigs operation. (Talbot, Brothers, pp. 122-23; Newman, pp. 260-67) As Newman shows, we have this information from both sides, RFK and Ford.

    Halpern knew he was lying to Hersh because he signed off on one of Ford’s memos, since Ford was working under Bill Harvey and Halpern in 1961 at CIA. So how could he have been working for RFK? One of the worst lies Halpern told Hersh was that Bobby was using Ford because Harvey could not find someone to help him kill Castro. Bobby was not doing any such thing, and Harvey had found someone, namely John Roselli. And the CIA had lied to Bobby about the existence of that plot. (Newman, p. 279)

    V

    As stated above, the Church Committee had access to the CIA’s IG Report on the Mafia plots to kill Castro. That 145 page document concludes that the CIA conducted the plots with no presidential approval. (pp. 132-33). If anyone can find where Hersh quotes that part of the report, please let me know.

    But Hersh performed a similar stunt with the milestone article “The Confessions of Allen Dulles” (Diplomatic History, Fall 1984). He placed it in an on page footnote, very vaguely described it, and said that the author buried the lead, namely that the Castro plots happened to be going on at the time of the Bay of Pigs invasion. (Hersh, pp. 203-04) That was old news since it had emerged with the Church Committee back in 1975. What Hersh did not tell the reader is what was startlingly new for 1984. In papers discovered at the Princeton library Dulles admitted that he knew the Bay of Pigs invasion would likely fail. Which was not what he was telling the president. In fact, the CIA kept this secret from Kennedy. (James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 14) Why? Because they thought that once Kennedy saw the invasion was lost “…any action required for success would be authorized rather than permit the enterprise to fail.” (Vandenbroucke, Diplomatic History.)

    In other words, it was Hersh who buried the lead. And by doing so, he kept hidden the reason that JFK fired Dulles, Bissell and Deputy Director Charles Cabell. Kennedy had been deliberately mislead about the prospects of Operation Zapata all along. And as the CIA internal review of the operation makes clear, assassination was not part of the actual invasion agenda. (James DiEugenio and Robert Parry, iF Magazine, May-June 1998, p. 5) Larry Hancock has informed me that it was never even orally discussed with the covert ops oversight group. (Hancock email of March 4th) . So when Hersh sources Robert Maheu that it was, he is using someone who was never part of the Bay of Pigs planning. (ibid) Again, with Hersh its one piece of malarkey stacked atop another.

    Hersh of course fell for the whole mythology of the Mob, especially Sam Giancana, helping secure the 1960 election for Kennedy. This idea was put to bed once and for all with a microanalysis by John Binder. (Click here) The raw numbers proved the opposite of what was needed for it to be true. There was no evidence in the Mob-oriented wards that Giancana delivered any advantage to Kennedy in 1960. In fact, the final numbers were below the average, which indicates that, if anything, the advice was to stop Kennedy.

    What about West Virginia? Well, the deal was to send Skinny D’Amato to West Virginia to help Kennedy win the primary there. (Giancana, Double Cross, p. 284; Hersh pp. 100-01) Attorney Dan Fleming searched high and low for any trace of D’Amato in West Virginia. He interviewed over 80 people, and went to some rather unsavory locales to find any evidence of his whereabouts. There were none. But further, there were three formal inquiries into that election. The last by Barry Goldwater who hired an FBI agent to conduct the inquiry. Nothing came up. I wonder why. Further, I wonder why Hersh does not mention any of this. (Fleming, Kennedy vs Humphrey, West Virginia, 1960, pp. 107-12; 170-71)

    Let me make one last comment about this whole Giancana Double Cross fable. As Garry Wills noted in his blistering review of The Dark Side of Camelot: Why can no one get their story straight about it? In Double Cross, the agreement was set up by Joe Kennedy calling Giancana directly. (Giancana pp. 267-69) As noted previously, according to Exner, it was she who was the messenger. As Wills pointed out, for Hersh it was done through a mob lawyer, Robert McDonnell, who set up a meeting with a since deceased judge named William Tuohy. But as Wills also pointed out, according to Tina Sinatra, the connection was through her father. Rummaging through all this, Wills noted: Was there anyone in America who was not involved in this alleged connection? (The New York Review of Books, 12/18/97)

    The reason no one can get it right is because, as with Underwood and Exner, it did not happen. Double Cross is a novel. The idea that Joe Kennedy needed help to win the election in as poor a state as West Virginia is ludicrous. Or that Richard Daley would not be enough to secure Chicago? It’s all as absurd as the multi-millionaire Joe Kennedy wanting to be a bootlegger. When in fact he made tens of millions in the movie business, real estate and stocks. So much that be bought the Merchandise Mart in Chicago. (Click here for details)

    As Wills summed up the book and Hersh:

    It is an astonishing spectacle, this book. In his mad zeal to destroy Camelot, to raze it down, dance on the rubble, and sow salt on the ground where it stood, Hersh has, with precision and method, disassembled and obliterated his own career and reputation.

    ADDENDUM

    On February 22nd, Hersh tried to paste his Nord Stream theorem back together in a rather outlandish way. On his Substack site he posed the question of: why Norway? And he replied that it was because that country had a “long and murky history of cooperation with American intelligence.” He then brings up the Gulf of Tonkin incident in relation to that “cooperation”.

    Cooperation? America purchased several Nasty class ships from Norway for one reason. They were larger than what the USA had and could therefore accommodate more men to perform the raids against the north. (Edwin Moise, Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War, p. 12) There were some sailors also recruited from Norway, but these were just one nation out of a rotating cast in order to keep Americans out of the direct line of fire. As Edwin Moise notes, one other country’s mercenaries were from Germany, another was China. Did China have a long history of cooperation with American intelligence?

    People who understand just what a bad reporter Hersh is have informed me of something that is startling. At his Substack site, Hersh is still writing about President Kennedy. And he is still trying to sustain his (proven) malarkey.

    On March 1st, Hersh wrote a column about Kennedy and Vietnam. Hersh writes that in 1962 Kennedy decided he had to take a stand in Indochina and “confront the spread of communism there.” He also writes that Kennedy increased the number of troops in Vietnam. Sy, there were no troops in Vietnam, only advisors.

    So what was really happening?

    In late 1961, Kennedy had sent John Kenneth Galbraith to Saigon to write a report countering the vociferous hawks who wanted him to send combat troops to Indochina. Galbraith wrote the report. When the ambassador to India was in Washington in April, Kennedy sent him to brief Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. (John Newman, JFK and Vietnam, 2017 edition, pp. 234-36) Kennedy and Galbraith got the message through and the next month McNamara met with General Harkins, the supreme commander in Vietnam. He called him aside after a meeting and told him to devise a plan to dismantle the American role in Vietnam. Reportedly, Harkins chin hit the table. This was the beginning of Kennedy’s withdrawal plan. (James Douglass, JFK and The Unspeakable, pp. 119-22)

    Can someone tell Hersh: This was in 1962.

    Hersh also tries to say that the strategic hamlet program was started by the Kennedy administration, specifically Roger Hilsman. It was actually begun by General Lionel McGarr and President Ngo Dinh Diem. (Newman, p. 179)

    The second column concerns his relationship with Dan Ellsberg. Ellsberg talks about his duty in Vietnam with Ed Lansdale. Hersh uses this to bring up the investigation of the Church Committee and Operation Mongoose. Hersh again writes that the orders to assassinate Fidel Castro “clearly came from Jack and Bobby Kennedy.” As we have proven this is utter cow dung. And the CIA admitted it in its own review of the matter. (IG Report, pp. 132-33)

    Further, as anyone who has read the declassified record on Mongoose knows, Castro’s assassination was never part of the program. In fact, when Senator George Smathers tried to bring the subject up with him, Kennedy exploded and smashed a dinner plate over the table. He then said he never wanted to hear that talk again. (Alleged Assassination Plots, p. 124)

    None of the above will stop shows like Democracy Now! from having Hersh on again. And they will not question him about any of the above.


    Go to Part 2

  • Mark Shaw’s Fighting for Justice

    Mark Shaw’s Fighting for Justice


    Mark Shaw has (ostensibly) written six books about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Four of those have been published in the last seven years. Which means his current output is one book on an average of less than two years. This reviewer has written, or co-written, four books on the case in thirty years. If Shaw wrote books based on the newly declassified documents that have been dripping out due to the strictures of the 1992 JFK Records Collection Act, then fine. But as we shall see, such is not the case.

    When I reviewed Shaw’s Denial of Justice, I noted that for all that was new in that book, Shaw could have simply written a long blog post on his website. (Click here for that review) To expand his parameters what Shaw has done is added another subject—which was hinted at in that book. So instead of Dorothy Kilgallen and John Kennedy, Shaw opened up a new area of inspection in his next book, Collateral Damage. That new area was Marilyn Monroe. As Don McGovern showed in his two part review, Shaw’s writing was remarkably unconvincing about the late film star. (Click here for that review) As Don demonstrated at length, not only did Shaw reveal a lack of analytical insight, he could not even interpret photographs accurately. His excuse for glomming on to Monroe was that she was allegedly a close friend of Kilgallen. As McGovern explained, among many others Shaw made, that statement was inaccurate.

    In his new book, inaptly named Fighting for Justice, Shaw now says he has gotten literally hundreds of letters asking if there was any connection between the deaths of JFK, Kilgallen and Monroe. (Shaw, p. 149) Which is an odd statement. For example, this reviewer has been researching the JFK case full time for the last three decades. I never got one such question, let alone a letter, asking me about that topic. I have attended literally dozens of conferences, and I never heard anyone from the audience ask anything like that. I have been a semi-regular on Len Osanic’s Black Op Radio program for over ten years, and have fielded hundreds of questions from the audience—but never that one. As we shall see—and as McGovern hinted—there appears to be another reason for Shaw’s insistence on now including the Monroe case in his writing.

    Some people like to hear themselves talk. Shaw apparently likes to type. But typing is not writing. About the first fifty pages of this book have little or nothing to do with the alleged subject matter. It is purely autobiographical. So if you want to hear about why Mark Shaw moved from Indiana to Colorado to California, this is your book. Since I was not interested, to me this was just filler.  

    The last part of the book, Chapters 20 and 21—where Shaw excerpts a long phone call between President Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover—could have been cut at least in half. And that is not all that should have been cut. For Shaw repeats much of his prior biographical work on Dorothy Kilgallen. He also recycles his half-baked—if that—ideas on the JFK assassination. For instance, he praises the HSCA for examining every nuance of the Kennedy and Oswald killings. (p. 65) Many would disagree. He then writes that there were three shots fired, with the second and third bullets hitting Kennedy. (p. 66) Yet everyone knows the HSCA concluded there were four shots, based upon the acoustics evidence. He now repeats an allegation he made in Denial of Justice that the HSCA report said the Kennedys went after organized crime because mobsters impinged on the success of their father’s bootlegging.(p. 66) I read the HSCA volumes on organized crime, Books 5 and 9, and found no such thing. Let me quote myself:

    If one goes through those volumes, especially volumes 5 and 9, where this Mafia angle is explored, the reader will find no mention of Joe Kennedy’s alleged bootlegging. But in book five, it is noted that, by 1963, the Mafia was falling apart due to Bobby Kennedy’s unrelenting pressure tactics. (HSCA, Vol. 5, p. 455) And make no mistake, the House Select Committee pulled out all the stops in investigating this Mob-did-it angle. They used all kinds of official records, not just in Washington, but also from various local police departments. Again, did no one do any editing of this book?

    So Shaw wanted to write another book. And apparently it did not matter how he filled in the pages. So how does he do it? He prints and then replies to questions and comments from people who read his books, or watched his online presentations. And from what I could discern, the quality of the comments did not matter. There is a letter from a man whose father knew Joe Cody, a former police officer in Dallas. It turns out that Cody bought Jack Ruby the revolver he used to kill Oswald. After relating this information, Shaw pats himself on the back for uncovering “an historical piece of evidence”. (p. 125)

    It would have been natural of Shaw to have clicked his search bar. If so he would have found out that this “historical’ piece of evidence has been around since at least 2008. Since it was described in two obituaries for Cody, one in the Dallas Morning News of July 7th and one at the TV site for KTBS on July 3rd.

    I don’t even want to talk about another one which features Carlos Marcello, Mac Wallace, and Jack Ruby in the same restaurant in Dallas in the summer of 1963. It then gets better. A show girl with Marcello calls Shaw’s witness later in 1977. She says she has a picture of the real JFK assassin emerging from a sewer. Uh, OK. (pp. 119-20).

    But it’s not just stuff like this that Shaw uses to fill in pages of what is supposed to be a book. He now goes back to older books and describes them. One of them is from 1973 and is called The Kennedy Neurosis by Nancy Clinch. If a negative book on the Kennedys gets blasted by The New York Times well, that is notable. (See review by Robert Claiborne of 2/25/73) The book is what Clinch called psychohistory. As Claiborne wrote, this is tough to do even when one has the credentials to do so. Clinch majored in Political Science and did studies of housing in South Korea while in Army intelligence. She tried to explain the Bay of Pigs fiasco by saying it was due to “psychic dynamics” and “unconscious motivations” were “a typically American overconfidence and a typically American indifference toward the responses of the enemy.”

    Claiborne properly labels this as nonsense. But we know what happened with the Bay of Pigs today. It had nothing to do with a “Kennedy neurosis”. It had everything to do with the president being deliberately lied to by the CIA, namely Director Allen Dulles and Director of Plans Dick Bissell. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, by James DiEugenio, pp. 34-56)

    But strangely, this is something that is almost off limits to Shaw. You will see very little, if anything, about Kennedy’s disputes with the Pentagon or the CIA in any of his books. Even though this particular deception by the CIA caused Kennedy to fire Dulles, Bissell and Charles Cabell, the Deputy Director. I would personally think that would be more important than an ancient story about Joe Cody. Especially when its combined with the fact that the CIA also betrayed Kennedy by assassinating Patrice Lumumba, and backing an overthrow of Charles DeGaulle in 1961. (See David Talbot, The Devil’s Chessboard, pp. 382-89; pp 412-24) This all gets the back of Shaw’s hand, rendered unimportant. Even though when Dulles was appointed to the Warren Commission, at their first executive session meeting, he passed out a book saying that all American presidential assassinations were the work of one man. (David Lifton, Document Addendum to the Warren Report, pp. 89-90)

    What is important to Shaw? Not the new documents. He sloughs those off in a couple of pages. And when I say slough, I mean it. He finds credible a CIA document saying that Sam Giancana was still running the Chicago outfit in December of 1977. Uh Mark, Giancana was killed in 1975. That is almost as bad as him buying into a CIA document from 1998 negating any connection of Oswald to the Agency’s “Office of Operations.” (pp. 106-07) Apparently Shaw is ignorant of what Malcolm Blount did with the papers of the HSCA’s Betsy Wolf. And how her work resulted in CIA officer Pete Bagley declaring that Oswald was a witting false defector in 1959. (Click here, and see John Newman’s speaking of Bagley in Oliver Stone’s JFK : Destiny Betrayed)

    As the reader can see, Shaw is not an astute or prolific researcher on the newly declassified documents. So what does he build his book around? Two things. First, what he broadcasts as an utterly momentous, earthquake type of discovery. It is this: he thinks that Warren Commissioner John Sherman Cooper gave Dorothy Kilgallen the Commission’s Ruby testimony in advance, which she printed in her newspaper. Shaw spends about a dozen pages on this toward the end. He has no direct source, its an inference and a circumstantial case through a man named Morris Wolff. He then uses this as some kind of springboard that Cooper did not buy the Warren Commission from the start.

    Mark we kind of knew that. And the work has been done through more than one person on Cooper’s cohort Senator Richard Russell. Russell, Cooper and Hale Boggs made up the southern wing of the Commission, as opposed to the Wall St./Washington troika of Dulles, Jerry Ford and John McCloy. I wrote about this at length many years ago. (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 315-320). This is why there was no stenographer at the last meeting of the Commission to record the southern wing’s dissent. And why Cooper said in a British documentary, way back in 1978, that he did not buy the Single Bullet Theory. Cooper as dissenter is not hot news. And I am still trying to figure out what the impact was of printing Ruby’s testimony early? As I am still trying to figure out how Kilgallen cracked the case if no one knows what she had in her files?

    Let us go to the other key point that Shaw insists on writing about. His new point of interest, which is really quite old: the alleged cover-up around the death of Marilyn Monroe. As Don McGovern showed in his review of Collateral Damage, Shaw went as far as misinterpreting photos implicating Bobby Kennedy in the death of Monroe. McGovern and Donna Morel pretty much wrecked Shaw’s new witness on the Monroe case: actor Gianni Russo. Russo had a hard time getting his age straight as to when he began his alleged relationship with Monroe—at first it was when he was about 12. This did not seem to bother Shaw. And neither did the problem of where Russo said Marilyn was living in 1959, Russo said it was the Waldorf Astoria. It was not.

    To put it mildly, Russo presented some problems for Collateral Damage. So now Shaw brings in writers like Sy Hersh and Frank Capell. But he does not give the reader the proper information about these two men. Hersh fell for a fraudulent legal document that was supposed to be signed by Marilyn and the Kennedys. More than one person said the signatures attached to the document were questionable. Hersh went forward with it anyway until it was shown that zip codes did not exist when the document was executed. (Click here)

    Frank Capell was brought up on charges, along with two other men, in a conspiracy to commit libel against Republican Senator Thomas Kuchel. Prior to that, Capell had been arrested twice for accepting bribes as a government employee. (Click here) I don’t recall Shaw writing about any of these compromising incidents in relation to Capell or Hersh. I find it hard to comprehend he would not know of them.

    But alas, Shaw uses the testimony of LAPD officer Jack Clemmons to say there was no drinking glass in Monroe’s room the night she overdosed. (Shaw, p. 156) As McGovern has proven there was such a glass in her room. (Click here for proof)

    Clemmons was an accomplice in the libel conspiracy charges that Capell was charged with and had to settle. As part of the settlement, Clemmons left the force. Again, this seems to me to be important information and Shaw should have revealed it before committing the factual error with the glass.

    But that is not all. Shaw continues to use a CIA memorandum allegedly signed off on by James Angleton concerning Marilyn, JFK and UFO’s. Many years ago, John Newman, a former intelligence officer, showed how that memo had to be a fake. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pp. 360-61). In his devastating critique of Collateral Damage, McGovern brought in another source, Nick Redfern, who also shows the document to be a forgery. So why is Shaw still using it? Or Russo for that matter?

    Another problem: Shaw says that years after Monroe’s death, when her dwelling was purchased by actress Veronica Hamel, it was discovered that the FBI had installed a listening system in the roof of the home. ( Shaw, p. 171) Don McGovern told me that Monroe’s home had no attic, so was the wiring in the walls? How could Marilyn have not known about it then? (Email of 2/24/23) I got in contact with Gary Vitacco Robles, one of the most credible biographers of Monroe. He informed me that in the third volume of his book Icon, which is coming out soon, he will show that this really was a rewiring of the home, due to the fact that the phone wires were antiquated. After all the house was built in the twenties. (Email communication with Gary, 2/24/23)

    I am not going into the scenario that Shaw puts together as to how Robert Kennedy was actually in Los Angeles the day Marilyn passed on. He was not, and this is provable. (Susan Bernard, Marilyn: Intimate Exposures, pp. 186-87) Neither will I critique his scenario about a rectal enema theory, which McGovern showed was simply not plausible. Or the accompanying “spillage” that Eunice Murray was busy machine washing when the police arrived. As McGovern showed, there was no washer/dryer in the home; Monroe sent everything out to be dry cleaned and pressed. (McGovern, Murder Orthodoxies, p. 550) When an author continually makes these kinds of factual errors, and then trusts unreliable sources and documents—I won’t even talk about the book by June DiMaggio that Shaw uses—one begins to wonder about what his true agenda is. Its pretty clear that Shaw has gone around the bend on the MM imbroglio. He has joined the ranks of Milo Speriglio, Robert Slatzer, and Jeanne Carmen.

    And for him to say that somehow Monroe would not have taken her life or not have died from an accidental overdose, this is more Slatzer-like fruitiness. (Shaw, pp. 280-83) As every serious biographer of Monroe has admitted, she tried to take her life at least four prior times. (McGovern, pp. 8-9) She was, plain and simple, a barbiturate abuser. In the less than 2 months before she died, she had gone through about 790 pills. (McGovern, p. 533) Including, among others, Seconal, Tuinal and Nembutal. Tuinal is not available in the USA today; and Nembutal is used for euthanasia by veterinarians. She had a blank check at Schwab’s so to speak. Monroe had been married and divorced three times before she was 35. She had been through three psychoanalysts in about five years. To put it mildly, she did not have an idyllic childhood: she never met her half-sister until she was 18, she likely never met her father, her mother was institutionalized. And she did not like Hollywood. Which is one reason she and her third husband, Arthur Miller, moved to the east coast. I fail to see how any of the above was due to Robert Kennedy.

    What one feels at the end of this book is not Shaw fighting for justice. If so, why did he leave out the above in lieu of a likely forged UFO document, Clemmons and Gianni Russo? An informed reader is disturbed at the almost boundless and unwarranted vitriol aimed at John and Robert Kennedy. Who cannot reply. But Shaw’s publisher at Post Hill, Anthony Ziccardi, was part of Newsmax Media. So Shaw has now found a home for his venom, and his all too frequent—and quite dubious—books.

    Update

    Mark Shaw’s latest is such a hapless effort that it made me go back and look at his career from the beginning. As we all know he has taken on the cause of Dorothy Kilgallen with all the fervor of a jihadic warrior. Exalting her to a degree so extreme that, at times, he seems just silly.

    But what is odd about all this sound and fury is this: Mark Shaw did nothing of the kind in his first two books, which, in their latest editions, amount to about 700 pages. In his first book, a biography of Melvin Belli, he hardly mentions her. (see page 148) What makes that unusual is that there, since Belli was his defense counsel, Shaw writes five chapters about the trial of Jack Ruby. Kilgallen attended that trial and met with Ruby twice privately. Yet Shaw could only muster 49 words on his (later) Joan of Arc journalist.

    In his next book on the case, there was a slight uptick. He devotes a bit more than two pages to Kilgallen—all of it from Lee Israel’s biography.

    This begs the question: What happened in Shaw’s writing career that made him, literally, alter course? The best and most logical answer I can come up with is this: the reprint of Sara Jordan’s long article on Kilgallen’s death in Midwest Today. That fine piece originally ran in 2007. But it was reprinted with a much more graphic, illustrative format in 2015 for the anniversary of Kilgallen’s death. (Click here for that essay) Jordan was assisted by investigator Kathryn Fauble in that version. By the end of the next year, Shaw began his four book series on the reporter. And in that first effort, The Reporter Who Knew Too Much, he gave Jordan and Fauble credit. As time has gone on, he does that less and less.

    With all this in mind, an incident of Shaw’s self-righteousness about Kilgallen stands out even more. Before his book came out, he appeared at a JFK Lancer Conference which I attended. I recall him saying how he thought Kilgallen had been ignored by the critics and he took a personal blast at Jim Douglass for not writing about her in his book. With what we know today, we could ask Mark: if not for Jordan and Fauble, would you have written books on Kilgallen? Your first two volumes do not indicate that.

    The problem with that subject though is this: Once you get outside the parameters of Kilgallen’s mysterious death, there just is not very much there. Shaw likes to say that when she went to New Orleans it was to investigate Carlos Marcello. This is just guesswork on his part. At the trial of Jack Ruby, Kilgallen wanted to know why there was so little being presented on Oswald. She complained about that in one of her columns. Since Oswald lived in New Orleans that summer of 1963, she could just have easily have been inquiring about what he was doing there.

    Realizing that he was at a cul de sac with Kilgallen, Shaw decided to add Marilyn Monroe to his mix. His excuse, that they were friends, has been undermined by Don McGovern and biographer Gary VItacco Robles. As McGovern noted at length, there are so many holes in Shaw’s work on Monroe that you could drive several 16 wheeled semis though it. (Click here) As I pointed out in my article on Sy Hersh, the whole Giancana election rigging scenario from Double Cross—which Shaw relies on– is so faulty that no one could keep their story straight about it. Plus it does not hold up by its own numbers.(Click here) If you add in what McGovern noted what was wrong about Monroe in that book—the Mob never owned her contract—Double Cross has been reduced to a novel.

    Between his reliance on that fairy tale book, his running out of gas on Kilgallen, and his appalling work on Monroe, what does Mark Shaw have to offer to the critical community? How can he say he is fighting for justice? That Coast to Coast maintains him as their semi regular guest on the JFK case is inexplicable. I, for one, think their 3 million listener audience deserves better. A lot better.

  • The Unheard Tapes: Part 2

    The Unheard Tapes: Part 2


    see Part 1

    Cassettes 37 & 45: Robin Thorne, George Cukor’s Nurse

    I must confess to a certain confusion regarding Robin Thorne’s testimony, both its content and its purpose. What does the testimony actually reveal? Additionally, the testimony is not exactly accurate.

    If George Cukor, who directed Let’s Make Love along with Marilyn’s final, but incomplete, movie, actually thought very highly of Marilyn, he chose an odd manner of exhibition. According to biographer Gary Vitacco-Robles, Cukor engaged in an act of sabotage while filming Something’s Got to Give. The director told Fox executives, after watching prints of Marilyn’s scenes, he considered her acting inferior. She absentmindedly floated through her performance, Cukor asserted, on a drug or an alcohol induced cloud, possibly both. Cukor’s sabotage, combined with Marilyn’s frequent absence from the set due to illness, and her appearance at President Kennedy’s May 1962 birthday gala, prompted Fox to terminate her employment. Citing breach of contract, the studio sued both Marilyn and Marilyn Monroe Productions for financial redress in the amount of $750K.

    What followed was a scorched earth attack by 20th Century-Fox Film Corporation against the movie star that had earned the movie makers many piles of money. And based on evi­dence that was hidden by Fox in a vault for practically four decades—nine hours of exposed film and production documents—the studio’s campaign to ruin Marilyn’s career, using any and all means available, including false accusations and labeling her completely insane, was unnecessary and unsupported by all the evidence available at that time. But following two weeks of defending their decision to fire Marilyn, Fox withdrew their lawsuit and quietly reinstated her, partly due to intervention by former studio head Darryl Zanuck, but primarily because Dean Martin, the male lead and Marilyn’s friend, refused to proceed without her. Martin would not make the movie with any other actress. Marilyn finally agreed to return to the movie set starting in October, for which the studio agreed to more than double her salary. She wanted George Cukor replaced with Jean Negulesco, who had directed How to Marry a Millionaire. The studio agreed; but unfortunately, due to Marilyn’s untimely death, she never returned to the set of Something’s Got to Give.

    Cassette 18B: Angie Novello

    According to the accepted mythology involving Marilyn and her telephones, the Attorney General, once he succumbed to romance, provided the actress with an exclusive telephone number: a private line directly into his office at the DOJ. They talked constantly, walking around with sixties vintage telephone receivers hooked to their mouths and their ears. As usual, not one tiny fragment of evidence ever existed that confirmed such silliness, but that fact did not matter to the many authors that promoted the private telephone line mythology. The well-known fact that Marilyn and Robert Kennedy conversed via the national telephone wires became proof that the celebrities were lovers and gave the conspiracist writers another way for a heartless Robert Kennedy to reject and humiliate his movie star paramour—he extinguished her private line—giving an angry Marilyn another reason to retaliate and, also to dramatically get back at the AG, to threaten his exposure in the press. Angie Novello’s twenty seconds worth of testimony established for Summers that the actress and attorney general communicated by telephone, but it should be noted that Angie intercepted the telephone calls routed to the attorney general through the DOJ’s switchboard, RE7-8200. If Marilyn knew Robert Kennedy’s private number, why didn’t she use it? That is an obvious question never posed by Summers or any other conspiracist.

    With the release of Marilyn’s 1962 telephone records for the months of April through July—the ones allegedly confiscated and then destroyed by the LAPD, the FBI, and the Secret Service—Marilyn placed a grand total of six telephone calls to Washington, DC, to the above noted Justice Department number. She called RE7-8200 initially on June the 25th, twice on July the 2nd, once on July the 16th and twice on July the 17th. Three of her conversations lasted one minute, two lasted two minutes, and one of her July the 2nd conversations lasted five minutes. According to Donald Spoto, Marilyn used the call of June the 25th to confirm that Robert Kennedy would be “at the Lawfords’ on Wednesday evening [June 27th] and to invite him and the Lawfords to visit her home for a drink before dinner.” During that call, Marilyn spoke with Angie Novello. Not one person alive today knows the identity of the person to whom Marilyn spoke during the other calls to the Justice Department.

    Many of Robert Kennedy’s friends and advisers over the years confirmed that the AG and Marilyn were telephone buddies. Edwin Guthman confirmed that Marilyn called the DOJ several times over the summer of 1962 and spoke with Robert Kennedy, who was interested in Marilyn’s life and her many problems. According to Guthman, the attorney general was not a man inclined to chit chat or idle talk with anybody; and so his tele­phone conversations with Marilyn were invariably short and concise. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. also confirmed that Marilyn called the attorney general, noting that Marilyn usually called Robert Kennedy when she was troubled and also noting that Angie Novello, who, I repeat, intercepted Marilyn’s telephone calls, talked to the actress more than the attorney general.

    During a 1984 interview, Angie stated that the AG, when he was unoccupied, always accepted Marilyn’s telephone calls. If he was occupied, he returned her calls as soon as he could, if time allowed. Marilyn was, after all, Marilyn! Angie also remarked dur­ing the interview that Robert Kennedy was a sympathetic person, aware of Marilyn’s many problems. He was also an excellent listener. In Angie’s opinion, that is exactly what Marilyn needed the most: a sympathetic ear. The content of those conversations between Marilyn and the attorney general remain unknown; but they are often characterized, by those with a vested interest, as impassioned conversations between impassioned lovers, as if those offering such a characterization actually know or knew. As if they, too, were involved in the dialogue flying with the speed of light from coast to coast.

    Finally, Angie also remarked that actress and singer Judy Garland was a close friend with whom RFK spoke frequently; but not one person has ever suggested that they were involved in a love affair. Why is that so? The answer is obvious.

    Cassette Unnumbered: Natalie Trundy

    The evening of August the 4th in 1962 was slightly cooler than normal. So, Arthur Jacobs, Marilyn’s publicist, along with his fiancé, the actress Natalie Trundy, attended a Ferrante and Teicher concert in the Hollywood Bowl. According to Natalie, just before the concert was scheduled to end at 11:00 PM, an usher arrived and informed Jacobs that Marilyn was either dead or close to death. Therefore, according to Natalie’s account, Marilyn died sometime prior to or slightly after 11:00 PM on August 4th.

    According to Natalie, Jacobs left almost immediately, drove to Fifth Helena Drive where he conferred with some persons who were already at the hacienda. Jacobs left the hacienda only after a few minutes of conversation. A few days later, Arthur told Natalie that the situation at Fifth Helena Drive was horrendous. Natalie admitted to Donald Spoto that Jacobs never provided any details, commenting only that it was too dreadful to discuss; and Natalie never asked for details: her knowledge of what transpired that morning was, therefore, limited, an inarguable fact.

    I would be remiss if I failed to note that Natalie Trundy’s testimony qualified as hearsay and it could not be corroborated by interviewing Arthur Jacobs. He died from a sudden heart attack in 1973.

    Cassette Unnumbered and 126A: Ken Hunter and Walt Schaefer (respectively)

    The tape recording of Ken Hunter was not the product of an interview conducted by Anthony Summers. The district attorney’s lead investigator, Al Tomich, conducted the Hunter interview; but Summers did not make that perfectly clear before he played the tape. The Hunter interview, and then Walt Schaefer’s interview generally began an unfolding of what has come to be designated “The Ambulance Theory.” During the years following Marilyn’s death, this theory has been continually retold—and has been reshaped with each retelling. It has appeared in many complex iterations, involving many persons: Peter Lawford, Pat Newcomb, Dr. Ralph Greenson, and, in one super imaginative scenario, the attorney general, who, along with Peter Law­ford, rode in the ambulance with the dying movie star, only to be returned, along with the movie star’s corpse, to Fifth Helena Drive.

    However, Summers’ presentation of The Ambulance Theory implied that Ken Hunter, the former ambulance man, contacted the Los Angeles County District Attorney. Ken Hunter, along with Walt Schaefer, became parts of the theory’s evolution, but Hunter was not the first former ambulance man to contact the district attorney—and, in fact, Ken Hunter himself did not contact the DA’s office. Though Summers did not provide any context relative to calendar dates, the initial contact with the LADA’s office arrived in 1982. This was at the start of the LADA’s threshold re-investigation into Marilyn’s death. The former ambulance man asserted that his name was Rick Stone. Even­tually, Stone revealed that his actual name was James Hall, a desperate man on a pecuniary mission. Hall needed to rescue his family from financial troubles by selling a Marilyn Monroe story that involved him and an ambulance. The former ambulance man asserted that he would share his astonishing ambulance story with the district attorney’s investigators only if appro­priately compensated for any incurred expenses. More about Ken Hunter and James Hall will appear later.

    Cassette HH: John Sherlock

    Evidently, John Sherlock was a reporter. In Goddess, Anthony Summers identified his source as such, “Significant corroboration that an ambulance was called came following the publication of this book’s first edition from reporter named John Sherlock.” Sherlock also appeared in the book that allegedly closed Marilyn’s case, written by Jay Margolis and Richard Buskin. They identified Sherlock as an American writer and noted that:

    a documentary featuring Anthony Summers surprisingly endorsed Walt Schaefer’s and Murray Leib’s original testimony via a key player the night [Marilyn] died. American writer John Sherlock relayed what his friend Dr. Greenson had told him.

    The television tabloid program, Hard Copy, known for its use of dubious material, produced the referenced “documentary” in 1992.

    Amazon lists four books written by a John Sherlock, published during a seven-year interval between 1981 and 1988. However, Amazon does not have any information about the writer. I have not been able to learn anything at all about John Sherlock, which means I have not been able to confirm, as alleged by Margolis and Buskin, that Sherlock was, in fact, Dr. Green­son’s friend. Despite the concussive quality of Sherlock’s testimony, it is gross hearsay. And Sherlock is not mentioned in any of the books about Marilyn in my possession other than the two mentioned above, not even Donald Wolfe, who often repeated hearsay testimony, mentioned Sherlock. Perhaps Sherlock’s hearsay was even out there for Wolfe.

    I admit that I am a skeptical person; and regarding stories about Marilyn Monroe’s death, I am a complete, almost a querulous cynic. Primarily because I have uncovered more fabrications, prevarications, con­tradictions, and downright lies about that sad event than Carter’s got little liver pills. So, I am more than incredulous when I read or hear secondhand, uncorroborated statements, particularly one purporting that Dr. Ralph Green­son, while seated at table during a luncheon in 1964, or thereabouts, simply volun­teered, admitted that he was in an ambulance transporting Marilyn to a hospital when she died. And that the ambulance merely reversed course and returned Marilyn’s corpse to her bed at 12305 Fifth Helena Drive, which is unquestionably a story that should have generated several hundred questions never asked by either Sherlock or Summers. I’ll pose but one: Did Dr. Greenson whisper his story to Sherlock so any person seated nearby would not hear it?

    Cassette 18A: Bill Woodfield

    Photojournalist Bill Woodfield was an acquaintance of Marilyn’s. She invited him to photograph the swimming pool scene on the set of Something’s Got to Give, Marilyn’s final but unfinished movie. Woodfield and another photojournalist, Joe Hyams, also an acquaintance of Marilyn’s, doubted that she had committed suicide, or Woodfield so alleged. As a result of their doubt, the photojournalists claimed that they investigated the circumstances surrounding the movie star’s death, an investigation that included a retired police officer. A rumor that a helicopter had been dispatched to and landed on Santa Monica beach early Sunday morning, August 5th, prompted the investigation, certainly an abbreviated one: the investigation endured for slightly more than three days.

    Woodfield claimed that he saw a helicopter log when, on August 8th, the day of Marilyn’s funeral, he visited Hal Conners’ Helicopter Service: a ser­vice frequently employed by Peter Lawford and other celebrities. The random act of journalism, for which Summers expressed his respect during Woodfield’s interview, was the purported discovery of that log. There is only one prob­lem: Woodfield did not obtain a copy of the mysterious log. It has never been published. It has never been seen by anyone other than Bill Woodfield. There is no tangible evidence or verifiable proof of any kind that this helicopter log ever existed.

    Additionally, in Goddess, Summers noted that the rented helicopter landed to collect a passenger and then to deliver that passenger to the main Los Angeles airport. According to Woodfield, the log confirmed Robert Kennedy’s presence in Los Angeles on August 4th and his departure from Santa Monica Beach by helicopter during the early morning hours of August 5th. Clearly confirmed? Precisely how? Not at any time did Summers or Woodfield, or anybody else for that matter, assert unequivocally that Robert Kennedy’s name was written on that helicopter log. It appears as if Woodfield or Summers made a quantum leap from “passenger” to Robert Kennedy. It appears that Woodfield, or someone conveying the story, simply assumed Robert Kennedy to be the passenger.

    Additionally, the testimony attributed to Woodfield in the 1985 version of Goddess is apprecia­bly different than the testimony attributed to Woodfield in the 2012 version. Also, none of Woodfield’s taped testimony, as presented in the Netflix movie, appeared in the 1985 version of Goddess. Yet, according to Summers’ source notes, he interviewed Woodfield in 1983 and 1984. Furthermore, based on Summers’ 2012 source notes, the investigative jour­nalist did not re-interview his photojournalist source following the original interviews. And Wood­field died twenty-one years ago.

    In the 1985 version of Goddess, Summers quoted Woodfield as follows:

    The time in the log was sometime after midnight—I think between midnight and two in the morning. The booking is a blur in my memory now, but it was definitely in the name of either Lawford or Kennedy. (emphasis mine)

    This is an odd use of the word definitely, at least in my opinion, considering that Woodfield’s recollection was definitely not definite. But then, according to Goddess 2012, Woodfield reported this: “The time in the log was sometime after midnight—I think between midnight and two in the morning. It showed clearly that a helicopter had picked up Robert Kennedy at the Santa Monica Beach.” Odd. Why the difference? No attempt to explain or account for the contradictory statements Summers attributed to Bill Woodfield. And I repeat: Woodfield died twenty-one years ago, before the revision. Furthermore, why did Summers exclude the testimony of Woodfield’s partner, Joe Hyams? The author’s source notes indicated that he interviewed Hyams in 1983, 1984, and 1985. Did Summers fail to tape record Woodfield’s partner? Likewise, Summers asserted in Goddess that he interviewed the retired policeman who assisted Woodfield and Hyams with their investigation. But Summers did not reveal anything about the policeman’s testimony, neither in Goddess nor the Netflix movie. We are left to speculate regarding why Summers excluded the policeman’s testimony.

    The story appertaining to Conners’ helicopter log is complex, convoluted, and lengthy. It involves two other chopper pilots who flew for Connors in 1962, James Zonlick and Ed Connelly. Zonlick was Conners’ chief pilot. During Summers’ interviews with both pilots, they repeated for Summers what they recalled Conners had told them in 1962. According to Zonlick, Conners stated that he had picked-up Robert Kennedy at Santa Monica Beach and delivered him to the Los Angeles International Airport. Ed Connelly testified only that Conners talked about landing on the beach without the aid of landing lights. Summers then reported that Zonlick could not remember the exact date of the Robert Kennedy flight Conners had mentioned. And likewise, Connelly could not pinpoint the date of the flight that Conners had mentioned to him. So, the exact dates of those flights have never been confirmed. And by the time Summers interviewed Zonlick and Connelly, Hal Conners was already dead. Zonlick believed, however, that the trip to collect and deliver Robert Kennedy occurred during the right time frame, probably during the latter half of 1962, meaning what, exactly? That Conners might have flown Robert Kennedy during the months of June, July, August, September, October, November, or December of the year? Not exactly compelling evidence or proof that the Conners’ flight with Robert Kennedy actually occurred on August 5th, 1962.

    At any rate, the pull quote from Woodfield’s taped testimony is this: “Find out where Bobby Kennedy was that weekend.” Well, in fact, Summers did find out where the attorney general was that weekend; but those niggling facts do not appear in the Netflix movie. Those facts will appear in this commentary later. But now, suffer a brief biography of Bill Woodfield.

    Woodfield’s first true love was magic, along with hypnosis. In 1946, at the age of eighteen, the fledgling magician and hypnotist founded a newsletter that he described as a trade paper for magicians, Woodfield’s Magicana. He only published two issues. In September of 1947, The Conjuror’s Magazine featured a condensed version of Woodfield’s first two issues. Then, from January of 1948 until April of 1949, Genii Magazine featured a total of sixteen articles written by Woodfield. It became painfully clear that he could not support himself with magic or hypnosis. He turned to photography as the mid-fifties approached, a profession he left in the mid-sixties when he began to write for several television series, the most important of which was Mission: Impossible. Along with his writing partner, Allan Balter, Woodfield has been credited with changing the story lines of Mission: Impossible, while also incorporating scams and complex cons into the methods used by agents of the Impossible Missions Force to defeat their adversaries. The Big Con, written by David Maurer, became a guide for Woodfield and Balter as they prepared plot lines and scripts. A con devotee, Woodfield often referred to him­self as an apprentice cheat, meaning a con artist in training. It is entirely possible, I would suggest, that Bill Woodfield’s helicopter log story was a scam, his version of the big con. Keeping in mind, once again, that the helicopter log has never been published, posted or—for the record—seen.

    Cassette 77: Harry Hall

    Summers identified Harry Hall as a Law Enforcement Informant, as if that title suggested a category of professional endeavor that a fellow might declare on a job application. Former Employer: Law Enforcement. Position: Informant. While at the Beverly Hilton Hotel on January 24th in 1984, Summers interviewed law enforcement’s informant. Summers wanted to learn if Hall had learned anything about Bobby Kennedy’s movements the weekend Marilyn died. Hall replied that he:

    had heard, on good authority, that the Saturday that this happened—the day Marilyn died—Bobby had come into town. Bobby was in town and supposedly left. And when I say I heard it, I heard it from a federal agent, an FBI agent that nei­ther Hall nor Summers deigned to identify. (emphasis mine)

    Summers questioned Hall regarding a possible FBI investigation into Marilyn’s death. Did the FBI investigate what actually happened? What the FBI performed, according to Hall, was not an investigation as much as it was a “hush-hush,” a cover-up orchestrated by Robert Kennedy: “He was the Attorney General of the United States,” Hall reported, “so he could have the FBI do anything.” Besides, the attorney general had to protect the president, and as a result, “they had done everything to hush this up.” One question: if Robert Kennedy could have FBI agents jump at his beck and call, do anything for him, why, then, did he and Pete Lawford need to rely on Fred Otash, as is often reported, to sweep clean, to sanitize Marilyn’s hacienda?

    Summers did this throughout Goddess; repeating hearsay testimony from Los Angeles Police Department informants while also relying on persons of authority: former mayors, for instance, police chiefs, or others identified as agents of various authorities, to re­peat hearsay testimony, such as Mayor Sam Yorty. And like the testimony offered by Harry Hall, none of Summers’ other testifiers could offer a firsthand sighting of Robert Kennedy in Los Angeles on August 4th, 1962. There is an invariably ignored, but nonetheless overwhelming, reason why this is so, which I will discuss later. Also, not only was the testimony offered by Harry Hall hearsay, but it also represents illogic, one that appeared in the testimony of both Reed Wilson and Jim Doyle, whose testimony will appear in sections following hereafter.

    Cassette 28: Reed Wilson

    The taped testimony of Reed Wilson was presented by Summers, and his Netflix producers, primarily to confirm two aspects pertaining to Marilyn’s purportedly mysterious case:

    1) Fred Otash procured dozens of salacious tape recordings on which Marilyn and the middle Kennedy brothers could be heard engaging in sexual activity; and

    2) Robert Kennedy traveled to Los Angeles on August 4th, 1962.

    According to Summers’ exposition, he was advised on more than one occasion that he needed to have to talk with Reed Wilson, “renowned in government and business circles as one” terrific snoop. And yet, Reed Wilson’s name does not appear anywhere in the Marilyn canon, not in her legitimate biographies and not in the many publications that promoted a murder orthodoxy—at least, perhaps I should clarify and qualify, not that I have been able to discover. For an example, Matthew Smith, wrote two books about Marilyn, and her secret tapes, and did not mention Reed Wilson. Additionally, and notably, in the 2012 Kindle edition of Goddess, Reed Wilson does not even receive a mention by Summers. We are left to ponder: why? To maintain secrecy? Reed Wilson was still among the living in 2012, living in Solvang, California, at the age of eighty-three years. By that time, Marilyn had been dead for fifty years, John Kennedy for forty-nine and Robert Kennedy for forty-four. Reed Wilson lived until 2015.

    Of course, the main problem with Wilson’s testimony is his assertion regarding Robert Kennedy’s location on that Saturday in 1962. While Wilson did not assert that the AG visited Marilyn, he asserted that Robert Kennedy telephoned Marilyn from Peter Lawford’s beach house. But then, the following question seems more than pertinent: why would Marilyn’s former lover travel to Los Angeles only to telephone her from Lawford’s beach house? He could have telephoned her from Washington or Hyannisport or Fairbanks, Alaska. At any rate, Robert Kennedy’s location on that Saturday is more than just a niggling issue for Anthony Summers and one he chose to ignore. That ignored issue will appear again later.

    Cassette 93B: Eunice Murray

    The taped testimony offered by Eunice Murray, at least the testimony included by Summers, appeared to confirm that Robert Kennedy visited Marilyn on August 4th. But, on the show, Summers did not ask Eunice if Robert Kennedy visited on August 4th: the term the author used was “that day,” along with “that afternoon.” We know that Robert Kennedy visited Marilyn, accompanied by Pat and Peter Lawford, on the 27th of June in 1962. Eunice Murray recounted the attorney general’s brief visit on that Wednesday for biographer Donald Spoto. The Lawfords arrived at Fifth Helena that afternoon to collect Marilyn, and Robert Kennedy was with them: Marilyn wanted them to see her new home. After a brief tour of Marilyn’s humble hacienda, the group proceeded to the Lawford’s beachside mansion for a dinner party. That June visit, residential tour and dinner party was the fourth and final meeting of Bobby and Marilyn. The rumor of a fifth meeting at Fifth Helena Drive, based on an unsubstantiated story by photographer Lawrence Schiller, has never been confirmed.

    Even though Mrs. Murray asserted that “the Kennedys were a very important part of Marilyn’s life,” an assessment that can be interpreted many ways, Mrs. Murray also admitted that she “wasn’t included in this information.” To what “information” was she referring? If she lacked information, how could she know just how important the middle Kennedy brothers were to Marilyn, despite being a witness to “what was happening.” And what exactly was happening? Evidently, Anthony Summers did not ask Mrs. Murray for any specifics and she did not volunteer any. Likewise, her comment pertaining to the activation of Robert Kennedy’s protectors was equally vague and lacked specificity. But it seems like vagueness was what Summers wanted. Additionally, the taped testimony offered by Summers did not represent the totality of Mrs. Murray’s statements about Marilyn and Robert Kennedy. Those specific declarations will appear later in this commentary.

    Cassette 106: Jim Doyle

    James Edward Doyle began his career with the FBI following WWII. He received special training at Quantico, Virginia, which prepared him to function as an Organized Crime Specialist. According to his obituary in the Capital Journal, Pierre, South Dakota, where Doyle was born and raised, he spent most of his FBI career in Indiana and Illinois, and then later, in Nevada and New Mexico. In 1979, while serving in the FBI’s Albuquerque Office, he retired from the FBI and founded his own investigative company, James Edward Doyle Investigation (JEDI). After operating JEDI for twenty-nine years, Doyle retired and relocated to Henderson, Nevada. He died in 2019 at the age of ninety-four. His obituary noted: “Jim’s FBI stories with the likes of Frank Sinatra, JFK, William Randolph Hearst, and Marilyn Monroe, to name a few, could be made into movies!” His friends considered Jim to be “the best storyteller ever.” Sadly, the forty seconds of Doyle’s taped testimony that Summers selectively included in his Marilyn movie did not include any of Doyle’s movie-worthy stories, the ones involving JFK and Marilyn. We are left to wonder about those stories: with what could the best storyteller ever have regaled us?

    Summers posed the following question to Doyle: “As far as the actual records being removed, you were aware of that from your colleagues (emphasis mine)?” Doyle answered: “O yeah. Yes. This happened.” Doyle did not offer any exposition and Summers did not ask about the nature of the removed records. Also, based on Summers’ question and Doyle’s response, it is clear that the FBI agent learned about the alleged record removal from his colleagues. Summers, therefore, passively accepted hearsay testimony, possibly even second or third hand hearsay; but Doyle’s closing statements raise many pertinent questions: “I was there at the time when she died,” an assertion that can only be interpreted one way. Jim Doyle was inside Marilyn’s hacienda at the moment of the movie star’s death, certainly an incredibly explosive assertion that Summers evidently did not even pursue. Why? But then Doyle reported an equally explosive occurrence: “There were some people there that normally wouldn’t have been there.” Agents, bureau people. Doyle did not mention any names and Summers did not pose any probing questions. Was J. Edgar Hoover there? Clyde Tolson? Who was there? Doyle then informed Summers that these Bureau people, who normally would not have been there, due to their elevated position in Hoover’s fiefdom, one assumes, arrived immediately, “before anybody even realized what had happened,” one of the more remarkable assertions I’ve ever heard about the night of Marilyn’s death; and I’ve heard some real doozies. Summers’ lack of curiosity re­garding what Doyle actually asserted was and is remarkable, to say the least.

    Summers included Doyle’s testimony as confirmation that agents, FBI people, materialized at Fifth Helena Drive in order to confiscate information that compromised the middle Kennedy brothers and proved that they were romantically and sexually involved with the World’s Sex Symbol. But a major illogic is lurking in the testimony of both James Doyle and Harry Hall.

    A Well-Known Fact and the FBI Protection Illogic

    Certainly, during the last nine months of her life, Marilyn associated with the middle Kennedy brothers and they with her. She initially met Robert Kennedy at a well-attended Lawford dinner party. As was well-known, Marilyn and the attorney general talked on the telephone several times during the summer of 1962. The actress initially met the president at a thousand dollar a plate fund raiser in Manhattan. Then, observed by Bing Crosby’s other guests and the Secret Service, for one night in late March of 1962, Marilyn and John Kennedy shared a bungalow on the crooner’s desert estate. Marilyn and the president met one last time in May at Madison Square Garden where Marilyn delivered her sultry rendition of “Happy Birthday to You.” Several members of the Kennedy clan attended the president’s birthday gala, including Robert and Ethel Kennedy, accompanied by a large live audience of fifteen thousand. Other celebrities also performed that Saturday night; members of the press were there; and more than a few television stations reported on the Manhattan event in real time. In short, Marilyn’s association with John Kennedy and his younger brother was a well-known fact. No amount of documentation could have been removed from Marilyn’s home after she died to alter that fact. Since rumors of romantic entanglements had already begun to circulate even before Marilyn’s death.

    As far as I know, the middle Kennedy brothers never commented publicly on Marilyn’s tragic end. Their silence has been used as evidence that each brother was guilty of having an affair with the world’s symbol of easy sex. But then, in 1962, the president’s job did not include acting as a bureaucratic ointment available to soothe the anxieties caused by every tragedy that occurred. Certainly, the president and the AG knew that anything they said about Marilyn’s death would have been promptly misconstrued, would only have served as a potent fertilizer fomenting more suspicion, speculation, and rumor. Besides, they and their advisors also must have known this old idiom: you cannot unring a bell.

    The fact that Tony Summers included the statements of Harry Hall and James Doyle about the FBI allegedly covering up Robert Kennedy’s part in the death of Marilyn Monroe showed a lack of balance; plus an eagerness to accept the most illogical and ahistorical kind of testimony. For instance, that somehow there were FBI agents on the scene of her home in the early morning hours of August 5th, which no credible author has ever noted. But the idea that J. Edgar Hoover would go to such lengths in order to protect the middle Kennedy brothers over something like a conspiracy to conceal a ruinous affair runs contra to just about all we know about Hoover. FBI Counter-intelligence chief William Sullivan, for one, said his boss, J. Edgar Hoover, tried to inflame rumors about an affair between Bobby Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe. The problem was, neither the boss nor his minions could find any evidence of an affair.

    Why did Hoover want to do this? Because Bobby Kennedy was the only attorney general who actually acted like he was Hoover’s boss. He could do so since his brother was the president and Hoover knew they did not want him there anyway. For instance, Hoover wanted to do next to nothing on civil rights, but Bobby Kennedy pushed that agenda. And even at that, Hoover would not reveal undercover information that could have prevented bloody violence during the Freedom Rides. (See Irving Bernstein, Promises Kept, p. 64) When Hoover tried to circulate a very negative memo about Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy ordered him to withdraw it.

    When President Kennedy went up against steel executives in 1962, FBI agents served the subpoenas in the wee hours of the morning, not because Bobby wanted them to, but because that was when he called Hoover. Finally, to say the least, Hoover was reluctant to pursue the Mob, whereas Bobby was obsessed with that cause. (David Talbot, Brothers, p. 141) Hoover would have performed none of these actions on his own. He was a racist, was unperturbed about Mob influence, and was beholden to wealthy patrons. Hoover got back at the Kennedys by doing things like spreading rumors about the president and Ellen Rometsch, a reputed East German spy working out of Washington. When ace researcher Peter Vea discovered the raw FBI reports on Rometsch, there was nothing in them about an affair between her and the president. Bobby Kennedy once said that he thought Hoover was something of a psycho. (Talbot, p. 143) The enmity was mutual. FBI official William Sullivan said the two people Hoover hated most were RFK and King, in that order. As Hoover biographer Curt Gentry has noted, if such information about Monroe was available, Hoover would have used it against Bobby. And what is the denouement to this tale? As everyone knows, once John Kennedy was assassinated, Hoover pulled the private telephone line out of Bobby’s office. The testimony of Hall and Doyle is rather at odds with this record.

    Rick Stone, Walt Schaefer, Ken Hunter and the Ambulance Yarn

    On an unlucky Friday in 1982, August the 13th, just as the LADA started its threshold re-investigation into Marilyn’s death, Deputy District Attorney, Ronald H. Carroll, received a telephone call from a man who called himself Rick Stone. “Rick” identified himself and inquired if the LADA might be interested in purchasing some information about the death of Marilyn Monroe. The re-investigation’s summary report, published in December of 1982, clarified that Stone initially contacted the district attorney’s office on Wednesday, August 11th; and thereafter, using the Rick Stone code name,

    he telephonically contacted this office several times. Ultimately, he attempted to sell information to the District Attorney’s Office relating to his observations at the death scene on the morning of August 5, 1962, at Marilyn Monroe’s home.

    Eventually, Rick Stone disclosed his actual name, James Hall, a former ambulance attendant who had driven for the Schaefer Am­bulance Service in 1962.

    According to Hall’s narrative, he and his partner, Murray Liebowitz had been dispatched to Marilyn’s during the early morning on August  5th, 20 years earlier, sometime between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 AM. When he and Liebowitz arrived, Hall informed Ronald Carroll, Marilyn was still alive, but very near eternity. Hall/Stone then said that as the two attendants began their resus­citation efforts, she started to respond. A doctor then appeared and ordered Hall and his partner to stop. From his black bag, the doctor produced a long hypodermic and injected Marilyn directly into her heart with an unknown liquid, which immediately killed her. Such was the mind-boggling story James Hall relayed to the deputy district attorney. But as explosive as it was, Carroll declined to pay Hall for his testimony. So, Hall sold his story to The Globe, a super­market tabloid, for $40K. In fact, obtaining payment for his ambulance yarn was Hall’s primary goal, a fact confirmed by recorded telephone conversations between Hall, Ronald Carroll, and Alan Tomich, Carroll’s lead investigator. As an aside, $40K is approximately equal to $123K in today’s currency.

    Walt Schaefer initially contradicted Hall’s story and denied that the attendant even worked for Schaefer Ambulance Service, but Walt eventually recanted his refusal and acknowledged Hall’s employment. He told the fib, he explained, because he feared the all-powerful Kennedy clan would retaliate and ruin his thriving ambulance business. The ambulance service owner also initially testified that the attendants dispatched that night in August were, in fact, Ken Hunter and Murray Liebowitz. Obviously hoping to unravel what was becoming a complicated tale, the LADA located Ken Hunter and obtained his testimony. According to the Summary Report:

    Since Mr. Hall’s statements have surfaced, another person, a Mr. Ken Hunter, has been located who claims to have been an ambulance driver who responded to the Monroe residence in the early morning hours of August 5, 1962.

    In the Netflix movie, Summers asserted that he had learned about Ken Hunter, “former ambulance man,” who had “contacted” the district attorney’s office, and “he said that he’d been aboard an ambulance that had gone to Marilyn Monroe’s house that night.” Hunter’s story appeared to corroborate Walt Schaefer’s story: one of Schaefer’s ambulances had transported a comatose Marilyn Monroe to Santa Monica Hospital during the early morning hours of August 5th. But, as I stated earlier, Ken Hunter was not the first “former ambulance man” to contact the district attorney; and in fact, Ken Hunter did not actually contact the district attorney’s office, as denoted by Summers—not ever. As I stated above, James Hall contacted Ronald Carroll. The film presented only a small fraction of the Hunter/LADA interview /conversation. What follows is a transcription of the interview as presented in the Netflix movie:

    LADA:  What happened?

    Hunter: What do you mean?

    LADA: Did you go into the house?

    Hunter: Yeah.

    LADA: Did you see Monroe’s body?

    Hunter: Yeah. She was on the bed.

    LADA: Do you recall if she was on her back or her stomach?

    Hunter: Side.

    LADA: She was on her side.

    Hunter: Yeah.

    What follows is a transcription of the actual Hunter/Tomich interview:

    Tomich: What happened?

    Hunter: What do you mean?

    Tomich: I mean what occurred?

    Hunter: Well, I don’t know. Nothing really occurred. She was dead and they wouldn’t let us take her. The morgue came and took her.

    Tomich: Did you go into the house?

    Hunter: Yeah. I believe so.

    Tomich: Did you see Monroe’s body?

    Hunter: Yeah.

    Tomich: Where was it at the time?

    Hunter: Umm. She was on the bed. Hanging off the bed…something…I don’t recall.

    Tomich: Do you recall if she was on her back or her stomach?

    Hunter: Side.

    Tomich: She was on her side.

    Hunter: Yeah. I believe she was on her side. Umm. Yeah, it seems to me she was on her side.

    Tomich: Did either one of you touch her body?

    Hunter: No, I didn’t.

    Tomich: Do you know if your partner did?

    Hunter: Seems to me he did.

    Tomich: Do you know what he did?

    Hunter: He checked her just to see if she was dead or what and I think she was…I think she was pretty cold at that time…Well, she was blue and then…the throat you know like she…like I said that she’d been laying there a while, you know what I mean?

    Tomich: She was blue. Any particular portion of her body?

    Hunter: Umm I think…I don’t…I don’t really remember if it was her neck or her side, you know. that she was laying on or what it…but it seemed to me like—well, let’s put it this way: I could stand across the room and tell that she was dead.

    Tomich: OK. Umm. Let me relate a story to you that we’ve received information from a person that…an ambulance attendant was summoned to the residence…when the ambulance attendant and his partner arrived the only person there was a female standing outside screaming and that the attendant went in and found Marilyn Monroe on the bed, removed her from the bed and began CPR or closed chest message and that in the process of doing this that she started to come around and, you know, regain consciousness and a doctor came in and plunged a needle into the area of her heart and thereafter pronounced her dead. Does that sound familiar at all?

    Hunter: Well, that’s bullshit.

    Tomich: OK.

    Obviously, the tape as presented was an edited version. Also, according to Hunter, the story related by James Hall and, by extension, also Walt Schaefer, was false. During his interview with Vernon Scott, published by the AP on October 5th, 1985, Milt Ebbins as­sert­ed that the story of an ambulance arriving which transported Marilyn to the hospital was a complete fiction. Even though Ken Hunter could not remember the exact time that he and Liebowitz arrived at Fifth Helena, when they did, the cops had already arrived and Marilyn had already expired. The police would not let them take Marilyn’s body. It is important to note here that California statute prohibits an am­bulance from transporting a corpse. And Hunter clearly stated that “the morgue came and took her.” Hunter’s reference to the morgue’s arrival suggests, that while he and his partner were there, morticians Don and Guy Hockett arrived to collect Marilyn’s body. Therefore, Hunter and his partner arrived at Fifth Helena either slightly before or slightly after 5:45 AM. Eventually, however, Ken Hunter and his partner departed in an empty ambulance.

    In the Netflix movie, Summers asserted: “And what’s more I found no less than seven members of Schaefer Ambulance who corroborated the notion that she had been carried that night.” (emphasis mine) Once again, the word notion suggests an imprecise recollection. And yet, Summers did not present the testimony of even one of the seven and did not reveal who those “seven members of Schaefer Ambulance” might have been. Meaning, of course, their al­leged corroborative statements about a “notion” could not be investigated.

    Finally, the “ambulance yarn” was the product of James Hall’s imagination, not the imagination of Ken Hunter, but, since Summers did not delve into Hall’s fabrication, neither will I. One significant fact should be clear, though, The Ambulance Theory as presented by Summers and Netflix was neither complete nor exactly accurate. In fact, the use of Hunter’s testimony to confirm Walt Schaefer’s assertion—that Marilyn’s body was removed from her house and transported to a local hospital by an ambulance that night—put an elliptical twist on the fact that Ken Hunter’s testimony directly contradicted James Hall’s testimony. But, if I might be allowed to employ a form of paralipsis, I will not mention that Hunter’s testimony directly contradicted Walt Schaefer’s testimony as well.

    The Kennedy Family at the Bates Ranch

    On Friday afternoon in Chicago, August 3rd, Robert Kennedy boarded an American Airlines flight connecting from Washington, DC. The attorney general joined his wife, Ethel, and his four eldest children, Kathleen, eleven years old, Joseph II, ten years old, Robert Jr., eight years old, and David, seven years old. The American flight proceeded to San Francisco where the Bates family awaited their weekend guests. John Bates, Sr. then drove the group southeast from San Francisco to Gilroy, a pleasant two hour and fifteen minute drive into the picturesque Santa Cruz Mountains. From Gilroy, they drove an additional twenty minutes west to the Bates Ranch located just north of Mount Madonna. The Ken­nedy family spent the entire weekend with the Bates family on their bucolic ranch. The preceding account is an irrefutable fact.

    Also on the flight was the FBI’s liaison to the attorney general, Courtney A. Evans. An FBI file no. 77-51387-300, written by Evans, memorialized the Kennedy’s weekend excursion:

    The Attorney General and his family spent the weekend at the Bates ranch located about sixty miles south of San Francisco. This was strictly a personal affair.

    Evans noted as well, that he continued into San Francisco once the attorney general and his family were on their way to Gilroy. How the Bates family and the Kennedy family occupied themselves during the remainder of Friday has never been revealed. Also, there are no indications that other FBI agents were on the American flight from Chicago to San Francisco.

    In the 1985 print version of Goddess, Summers mentioned the Kennedy family’s visit to the Gilroy ranch. But exactly how the families occupied themselves on Saturday, August 4th, would not be revealed for eight years, appearing finally in Donald Spoto’s 1993 Monroe biography. Individuals at the Bates ranch on Saturday testified that the families rose early; and after a hearty breakfast, a group that included Robert Kennedy occupied them­selves by riding horses to Mt. Madonna. That equine jaunt, according to John Bates, Sr., consumed most of the morning. They returned to the ranch, where the afternoon included a BBQ, swimming, and a game of touch football. Due to the ranch’s rolling, hilly terrain, the participants had to locate a spot with a relatively level topography. That search required a group hike up to the top of the ranch, which consumed two hours round trip. After the football contest, the group enjoyed more swimming; and then, after the children had been cleaned and dressed for dinner, as they appeared outside, the attorney general tossed each of them into the swimming pool, which, of course, required a drying and re-dressing. Once the children had been fed and put to bed, the adults enjoyed a peaceful dinner. The conversation during dinner focused predominantly on a speech the attorney general would deliver to the American Bar Association in San Francisco on Monday, August 6th. According to John and Nancy Bates, dinner ended at approximately 10:30 PM, after which the fatigued adults retired.

    John Bates, Sr. and Nancy along with John Bates, Jr. and Roland Snyder, the ranch foreman, testified on more than one occasion that Robert Kennedy never left the ranch during that fun-filled Saturday. More importantly, though, a group of ten photographs taken that day clearly depicted each activity as described by the Bates family and clearly confirmed that Rob­ert Kennedy was at the ranch all day. He was an active participant in all the day’s activities; therefore, how could Eunice Murray—how could anybody for that matter—contend that Robert Kennedy was in Brentwood on August 4th and visited Marilyn not once, but twice: In the afternoon and then later that night. It is mystifying indeed, since any absence by Robert Kennedy during that day would have been immediately noticed by any and all present, particularly Robert Kennedy’s children.

    During the years following Marilyn’s tragic death, Eunice Murray sat for several interviews pertaining to Marilyn’s life, her relationships, and the events of August 4th. Her interview with Anthony Summers was only one of several; and she often contradicted what she told Summers. She also published a memoir.

    In 1973, to the Ladies Home Journal and The Chicago Tribune, Eunice reported that Robert Kennedy did not appear at Fifth Helena on August 4th, a position that she also maintained in her 1975 memoir. During an interview with Maurice Zolotow, published by the Chicago Tribune on September 11th, 1973, Mrs. Murray asserted that the stories about Marilyn and Robert Kennedy were “the most evil gossip of all before declaring: It is not true that Marilyn had a secret love affair with Mr. Kennedy…and I would tell you if it were so.” She recalled the Wednesday visit in June of 1962, when the attorney general, accompanied by the Lawfords, “came to see the house,” finally adding that Marilyn “certainly didn’t go sneaking around with Mr. Kennedy and have a love affair with him.” When asked directly by Zolotow if Bobby Kennedy was “in the house that Saturday night,” Eunice answered: “No.” After Zolotow posed the same question about Peter Lawford and Pat Newcomb, Eunice answered:

    No. Absolutely not. There was nobody in the house that night except me and Marilyn. The doors were locked. The gate was shut. The windows locked. The French window in her room locked.

    Ten years later, however, with the arrival of Anthony Summers, and after several denials, somehow Mrs. Murray changed her story: the attorney general, she said, had been there that Saturday afternoon. Then, in 1986, Marilyn’s former housekeeper made a similar declaration to a Marilyn researcher by the name of Roy Turner.

    And yet, in the previously referenced 1985 article written by Vernon Scott, Lawford’s manager and friend, Milt Ebbins, shared the following:

    I talked to Peter on the telephone several times that night. He never left his beach house in Santa Monica…Bobby definitely was not in Southern California that night and neither man went to Marilyn’s house…How could Bobby be in town that night? He was in Northern California with his wife and children.

    And, yet again, on October 6th, 1985, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel published a UPI article that generally discussed Eunice Murray’s testimony to Anthony Summers during the original 1985 documentary based on Goddess. According to the article, however, during an interview with the magazine Picture Week, then a new weekly publication by TIME, Mrs. Murray, eighty-two years old at the time,

    refused to repeat her ac­count of Kennedy’s alleged presence in the house…According to the Sun-Sentinel article, Mrs. Murray admitted: Once in a while, everything becomes confused. I am confused.

    Is it not entirely possible that a confused Eunice Murray erroneously translated Rob­ert Kennedy’s 1962 June visit into August?

    However, the contingent at the Bates ranch that August weekend never expressed any type of confusion or changed their testimony. In fact, Roland Snyder stated emphatically:

    They were here all weekend, that’s certain. By God, he wasn’t anywhere near LA—he was here with us; and John Bates, Jr. recalled: I was fourteen at the time and was about to go off to boarding school. I remember Bob [Kennedy] teasing me about it, saying, “Oh, John, you’ll hate it!” The senior Bates told Spoto: I remember Bobby sitting with the children as they ate and telling them stories. He truly loved his children.

    Since Summers did not include the firsthand, consistent testimony of the Bates family and Roland Snyder in his Netflix movie, should we therefore assume that the investigative journalist never interviewed them? It is clear, however, that he did. In Goddess, Summers announced: “Questioning of the Bateses aside, further checks on Kennedy’s time at the ranch are difficult. The weekend arrangements were private.” Summers’ rather curious out-of-hand dismis­sal of the testimony from persons who were actually with Robert Kennedy that August week­end, simply because he could not, he insinuated, otherwise confirm Robert Kennedy’s real-time locations, is difficult to comprehend, even considering the author’s self-evident agenda. And without any hesitation, in an effort to prove Robert Kennedy traveled to Los Angeles on August 4th, Summers repeated more than a boatload of uncorroborated, hearsay testi­mony from more than a boatload of witnesses.

    Additionally, in Goddess, the author dampened the testimony offered by the senior John Bates—scant testimony that Summers only offered in paraphrase.

    Bates thought everyone went horseback riding together sometime on Saturday, Marilyn’s last day alive, Summers wrote and then offered some additional rephrasing: He [Bates] believed he would have known if Kennedy had left for long enough to reach Los Angeles and returned by the early hours of Sunday (emphasis mine)

    Of course, John Bates, Sr. would have known if Robert Kennedy left the ranch for several hours, just like everyone there would have known; and having Robert Kennedy return to the Bates Ranch by early Sunday morning, August 5th, was a significant requirement: the group attended an early morning Mass in Gilroy, an event on which the Gilroy Dispatch reported. On August 6th, the local newspaper printed a brief article entitled “Robert Kennedys Visit Local Ranch.” After commenting on the attorney general’s Monday speech, the article noted:

    Kennedy, his wife, and four oldest children have been the guests of Mr. and Mrs. Jack Bates of Piedmont at their Gilroy ranch on Sanders Rd. They are expected to leave tonight when they fly on to the Seattle World’s Fair. Sunday morning, the Kennedys attended 9 o’clock mass at St. Mary’s Church in Gilroy.

    In a letter that John Bates, Sr. wrote to Bruno Bernard in 1985 regarding the ten family photographs taken that Saturday, mentioned previously, and published by Susan Bernard in 2011, the senior Bates was very emphatic about what happened during that entire day. What about regarding the horseback jaunt that Summers insinuated the senior Bates was unsure had even happened? Well, a photograph of the group mounted on horses and his statement about the event clearly suggests that Summers was being—well, let us say, a bit obfuscatory? And it’s an obfuscation that is difficult to comprehend. For, the pictures on horseback are right there in Susan Bernard’s Marilyn: Intimate Exposures on page 186.

    The more significant issue is this: why did Anthony Summers exclude the firsthand testimony of John Bates, Sr., Nancy Bates, John Bates, Jr., and Roland Snyder? The parents that August weekend were still alive when the 1980s began. Since they did not appear in the Netflix movie, we can only assume that Summers did not bother to interview them. Or what about the Kennedy children? In late 1982, Kathleen would have been 31 years old, Joseph II would have been 30, the junior Robert 28, and David 27. The importance of what the Kennedy children could have clarified, before the passing of many more years like a cudgel blunted their memories, cannot be overstated. However, giving Summers the benefit of a doubt, should we conclude that the investigative journalist requested an interview, but all four of Robert Kennedy’s children refused? But then, Summers has never even mentioned the Kennedy children.

    To put an end to the discussion of where Robert Kennedy was on August 4th, 1962, if not to a moral certainty, then certainly beyond a reasonable doubt, Robert Kennedy did not visit Marilyn on August 4th, 1962. Not once, much less twice. The Bernard book proved that beyond question.

    But for a moment, let’s accept, as has been suggested by various conspiracist authors, that Robert Kennedy left Gilroy sometime after 10:30 PM, after he and his wife, Ethel, retired for the night. If Natalie Trundy’s account of that Saturday evening is factual, then Marilyn was either dying or already dead at 11:00 PM, most certainly by 12:00 AM. Ignoring all the various problems associated with Robert Kennedy’s departure from Gilroy, his travel time to 12305 Fifth Helena Drive would have required at least 3.5 hours by helicopter—considerably longer by car. He could not have appeared in Marilyn’s home before 2:00 AM on August 5th. That is, if he left immediately after dinner, which must be considered doubtful since his wife would have known about his departure. At any rate, Natalie Trundy’s testimony notwithstanding, forensic factors, like Marilyn’s liver temperature at autop­sy, indicated that Marilyn died before Robert Kennedy could have arrived at Fifth Helena. And if she was not dead, then she was certainly comatose, a nonresponsive body. Therefore, the assertions by many individuals regarding Robert Kennedy’s appearance at 12305 Fifth Helena Drive on the night of Marilyn’s death, regardless of the time asserted that the attorney general appeared, must be summarily dismissed. Robert Kennedy could not have telephoned Marilyn from Peter Law­ford’s beachside mansion; he could not have visited her and engaged her in some type of argument leading to a physical scuffle. The preceding facts are as clear as the water in an Irish mountain brook. Nothing could be more clear.

    On March 21st of this year, Megyn Kelly interviewed Robert Kennedy, Jr., a mere six decades after the events of 1962 and, to her credit, she broached the topic of Marilyn Monroe. Robert Jr. admitted: “There’s not much I can tell you about Marilyn Monroe.” But Megyn Kelly pressed the issue: “The rumors are that she had an affair with your dad, that she had an affair with your uncle, and even possibly that your dad was somehow there the night that she died out in California.”

    Robert Jr. responded as follows:

    Those are rumors that have been time and again proven completely untrue. There’s two days…my father’s schedule, every minute of his day is known. So people know where he was every moment of the day and it happens that the day that they say that my father, you know, that these people who are selling books and these things…the day that they say my father was with her he was with us at a camping trip up in Oregon and northern California and it would have been impossible for him to be there, though that was the day she died. O, and all the days that people, that these authors, who are just bogus authors, who have suggested, who are making money by, you know, saying these things, all the days that they claim my father could have been with Marilyn Monroe are days when we know exactly where he was, and he was on opposite sides of the country from Marilyn Monroe.

    Unfortunately, Megyn Kelly then lapsed into the same fallacious argument employed by many persons who suffer from faulty reasoning and engage in hasty generalizations based on weak analogies: since allegedly John Kennedy was an inveterate philanderer, then his brother must have been as well. But then, many of Robert Kennedy’s friends and associates have asserted over the years that he was disinclined to engage in extramarital activities, a fact about his character that I have already noted and will expand in the section following hereafter.

    The Devout Middle Kennedy Brother

    In 1973, Norman Mailer published his biographical novel starring Marilyn Monroe. Concealed within Mailer’s lavender prose and his frequent flights of whirligig rhetoric, he of­fered the following proclamation:

    If the thousand days of Jack Kennedy might yet be equally famous for its nights, the same cannot be said of Bobby. He was devout, well married, and pru­dent.

    An interesting but baffling defense of Robert Kennedy, considering that Mailer would then proceed to accuse the attorney general of spending time between Marilyn’s smooth satin sheets, imbibing in a heady, clandestine romance that would end in her death. Mailer insinuated that Robert Kennedy either sanctioned Marilyn’s murder or was involved in it. Still, and despite Mailer’s failure to explore it, an adjective in the quoted defense cannot be ignored: devout.

    Whatever one wishes to say about John Kennedy’s promiscuity today, his younger brother might be diagnosed a religion addict. Evidently, he and his wife, Ethel, displayed religious figurines throughout their McLean Virginia home: the Virgin Mary, for instance, and St. Francis, the saint from which Robert’s parents took his middle name. Also, Robert and Ethel not only prominently displayed the Catholic Bible at Hickory Hill, they actually read it, frequently aloud to their children, in whose bedrooms Ethel displayed crucifixes and holy water. The family prayed in the morning, before and after each meal and before bedtime, sometimes as a group and sometimes individually. Catholic custom and religious ritual was a significant part of family life within the home of Robert and Ethel Kennedy, even more significant than religious fealty and piety had been in the home of Rose and Joe Senior. But then, sixty years ago, religion, particularly Catholicism, was not the pariah it has become.

    Robert Kennedy’s faith and his religious beliefs often found its way into his speeches; and according to Paul Kengor, Robert Kennedy “was the most devout among the Kennedy boys. Those closest to him considered him a prayerful Catholic…” Biographer Ronald Steel speculated that if Robert Kennedy had been “born into a poor family without a power-hungry patriarch driving the boys into politics, he might have been a priest.” Steel described Robert Kennedy’s religious ideology as a “fierce brand of Irish Catholicism” and that the attorney general was in his heart—and always was—”a Catholic conservative deeply suspicious of the moral license of the radical left.” Robert Kennedy did not “embrace the drug culture and sexual permissiveness of the ‘60s.” Even Jacqueline Kennedy once commented that “Bobby never misses Mass and prays all the time.”

    Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. offered the following:

    [Robert Kennedy] lived through a time of unusual turbulence in American history; and he responded to that turbulence more directly and sensitively than any other political leader of that era. He was equipped with the certitudes of family and faith—certitudes that sustained him till his death. But they were the premises, not the conclusions, of his life.

    Finally, regarding the attorney general’s deportment, Ken O’Donnell and David Powers noted the following hallmark: “Always he was the kindest man we ever knew.”

    Certainly, I am not naïve enough to believe that being devoutly religious would preclude an occasional misstep, would preclude succumbing to a flirtation leading to a romantic temptation leading to a violation of a man’s marital vows. But certainly, also, devotion to one’s religion, devotion to one’s faith would engender a serious and effective internal argument against committing such transgressions, would diminish the inclination, perhaps even the desire, to engage in forbidden liaisons. According to several of Robert Kennedy’s friends, and Richard Goodwin, advisor to both John and Robert Kennedy, the attorney general, unlike the president, was temperamentally disinclined to engage in extramarital activities, even with the beautiful and sexy Marilyn Monroe. A fellow could advance the argument, then, that having an affair with a man disinclined to do so would have been virtually impossible, even for the one and only Miss Monroe. Robert Kennedy’s devotion to his religion, to his faith, is an inherent quality of his life-style, his personality, and character that cannot be ignored, even though the Marilyn Monroe conspiracists have, as they transmogrify the kindest man we ever knew into a philandering heartless man capable of suborning murderer.

    Final Comments

    The boast often proclaimed by Anthony Summers to extol his Marilyn pathography is this: his research for Goddess included one-thousand interviews, six-hundred and fifty of which Summers tape recorded. However, in his Netflix movie, Summers included a mere twenty-seven of the recorded interviews. Of the interviews Summers tape recorded, six-hundred and twenty-three, the vast majority, remain unheard. An inquiring mind would immediately ask several questions. What, for instance, is the testimony on the vast majority of the still unheard tapes? According to Marilyn biog­rapher Gary Vitacco-Robles:

    In Netflix, Summers omits interviews which contradict the interviews he chose to include…He uses interviews to support Kennedy was at Peter Lawford’s house on August 4th; however, he interviewed all of Lawford’s guests that night and all reported Kennedy was not there.

    A case in point is the tape recording of Summers’ interview with Milt Ebbins. That tape exists. Several persons have heard it. Along with all of Summers’ tapes, the Ebbins tape is housed at the Margaret Herrick Library in Beverly Hills, California. Why was that interview excluded from the Netflix flicker show? Also, it is painfully clear that at least one tape presented by Summers had been edited, and that tape was not the product of a Summers conducted interview. It was the product of an interview conducted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office. So, this imperative question follows: had any of the other tapes been edited especially for inclusion in the Netflix movie?

    Moreover, it should be obvious, and also troubling, that Summers withheld, excluded testimony from witnesses who actually knew Marilyn and, unlike Arthur James, could prove they knew her. Pat Newcomb would be a case in point. Others would be Ralph Roberts, Norman Rosten, and Whitey Snyder, Marilyn’s personal make-up artist. According to Summers’ source notes, he interviewed all of the preceding persons. Did he fail to tape record those interviews?

    But even more egregious than excluding the testimony of the preceding persons, and more than a few others, is the exclusion of the incredibly relevant, first-hand, eye-witness testimony of the Bates family and Roland Snyder, all of whom spent that early August weekend with the Kennedys. And dare I even mention the exclusion of the Bates family photographs, ten of them, that memorialized and created a historical record of what happened at the Bates Ranch on Saturday, August 4th. Thus creating a documentary record that Summers did not even deign to mention, much less pursue. Those photographs have been available since 1962; and Susan Bernard published them in 2011. Anthony Summers, investigative journalist, has had at least eleven years to locate those photographs and then disclose their existence to the public. Actually, he’s had a full four decades. If the purpose of the movie was to present the facts, then why was essential and pertinent information withheld?

    A fellow could accuse Summers of engaging in tactics that resemble a suppression of evidence fallacy regarding Robert Kennedy’s appearance at Fifth Helena Drive that tragic Saturday. Regarding that guileful legerdemain, he has been more than successful: every journalist and movie critic who reviewed the movie reported categorically that Robert Kennedy visited Marilyn on the day she died—when categorically he did not. But then, the media in general appears to have been completely confused by the Netflix movie: one journalist even asserted that the Los Angeles County District Attorney asked Summers to perform the threshold re-investigation into Marilyn’s death, a completely incorrect assertion.

    During the past few weeks, I have read a considerable amount of opinion about what a documentary should be, should encompass, and for what it should strive. Needless to say, I encountered several differing opinions. One commentator even rejected the precept that a documentary had to necessarily present the truth; but another noted:

    Within the context of wondering about the responsibility of filmmakers in delineating fact from fiction, the topic of documentary filmmaking itself ends up under fire. Documentaries, by definition, must be non-fiction. Commentary and opinions are allowed, but misrepresentation is not.

    Despite what some persons might think, the preceding definition is a self-evident requirement of a documentary film; but then the commentator added: “…some documentary film­makers now aim for commercial success when they create a film and their films are in fact fictionalized to some extent through misrep­resentation and omission.” In that case, any film or movie featuring “misrepresentation and omis­sion” cannot be labeled a documentary; and the preceding assessment leads to this assessment: The Mystery of Marilyn Monroe: The Unheard Tapes is not a true documentary. It is a sensationalized melodrama featuring dramatized pantomime by unidentified actors, a cheesy and distracting tactic one reviewer noted; and viewers are treated to maudlin music and grimy film-noir-like cinematography. The sensationalized melodrama is the result of Summers’ repeated suggestions that perhaps Marilyn’s death was the result of activi­ties much more diabolical than suicide—Question marks. Dig, dig, dig. Over two years. Hollywood, Los Angeles, the bugging, the eavesdropping. Had she been murdered? John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Jimmy Hoffa. Rumor. White House files, FBI files. Honesty. Minute after minute, Summers appeared to be building a prima facie case in preparation for the dramatic reveal: the dastardly and nefarious middle Kennedy brothers, but primarily Robert Kennedy, who visited Marilyn on the day she died, had her murdered to silence her: she simply knew too much.

    Then at the seventy-eight-minute mark, Summers announced: “So, I’m not at all of the mind of the loony people who write books saying she was murdered.” I must confess, when I heard Sum­mers’ reference to “loony people who write books,” my chin promptly thudded against my hardwood floor. And then Summers announced:

    There have been several conspiracy stories. There are people, on very thin evidence, I think largely made-up evidence, who suggest that people wanted to hide the precise circumstances of her death because Marilyn was murdered…I did not find out anything that convinced me that she had been deliberately killed.

    Summers certainly rivals Norman Mailer’s use of paralipsis on a narrative scale, in which the novelist indulged himself with insinuation and innuendo, theories of conspiracy to the point of tedium before finally admitting that Marilyn more than likely took her own life. And Mailer’s Kennedy narrative, like Summers’ Kennedy narrative, ends up fundamentally incidental, most certainly speculative with a foundation of paper mache—but created by whom? Anthony Summers has contributed a large volume of literary smog to the mythological legend of Marilyn Monroe, particularly to the mythology of her purported affairs with the middle Kennedy brothers, the mysterious tapes, helicopter logs and ambulances; and the dreary, dismal Netflix movie was yet another eruption of that smog.

    Even though one reviewer noted that the Netflix movie was just “too touch-and-go, too speculative about Marilyn Monroe’s life and mysterious death, to be of any genuine purpose,” I suggest the production had multiple purposes. Providing Anthony Summers’ with a stage to present his most recent version of the truth was a purpose; keeping the legend and the purported mystery of Marilyn Monroe extant, readily available, was also a purpose. But another purpose was allowing Summers to transform the narrative from one of murder into one of a hush-hush cover-up orchestrated by a reprehensible and morally bankrupt political royalty, the Kennedys. “The key to the events surrounding her end,” Summers wrote in Goddess, “lies in the word ‘scandal’”—and scandal is a gaping excavation from which the sparkly twinkly jewels of insinuation and speculation can be mined almost without end, the actual truth notwithstanding. But then, ironically, as Marilyn said at the beginning of the movie: “true things rarely get into circulation. It’s usually the false things.”


    Sources

    Barris, George. Marilyn: Her Life In Her Own Words. Citadel Press: Kensington Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition, 2012.

    Chaplin, Jr., Charlie. My Father Charlie Chaplin. New York: Random House, 1960.

    Churchwell, Sarah. The Many Lives of Marilyn Monroe. New York: Metropolitan Books. Kindle Edition, 2004.

    Guilaroff, Sydney, as told to Cathy Griffin. Crowning Glory: Reflections of Hollywood’s Favorite Confidant. Sydney Guilaroff Enterprises, 1996.

    Mailer, Norman. Marilyn: A Biography. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1973. Kindle Edition 2011.

    Marshall, David. The DD Group: An Online Investigation Into the Death of Marilyn Monroe. Lincoln: iUniverse. Kindle Edition, 2005.

    Monroe, Marilyn, with Ben Hecht. My Story. New York: Taylor Trade. Kindle Edition, 2007.

    Robinson, Jr., Edward G. My Father, My Son. New York: Frederick Fell, Inc. 1958.

    Rosten, Norman, Marilyn: An Untold Story. New York: Signet, 1973.

    Schlesinger, Jr., Arthur M. Robert Kennedy and His Times. New York: Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Fortieth Anniversary Kindle Edition, 2018.

    Spindel, Bernard. The Ominous Ear. New York: Award Books. 1968.

    Spoto, Donald. Marilyn Monroe: The Biography. New York: Harper Collins. Kindle Edition, 1993.

    Strasberg, Susan. Marilyn and Me: Sisters, Rivals, Friends. New York: Warner Books, 1992.

    Sullivan, William C. The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI. Toronto: George McLeod Limited, 1979.

    Summers, Anthony. Goddess: The Secret Lives of Marilyn Monroe. New York: Macmillan, 1985.

    —. Goddess: The Secret Lives of Marilyn Monroe. New York: Open Road Integrated Media. Kindle Edition, 2012.

    Taraborrelli, J. Randy. The Secret Life of Marilyn Monroe. New York: Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition, 2009.

    Vitacco-Robles, Gary. Icon: The Life, Times and Films of Marilyn Monroe, Volume 1, 1926 to 1956. Albany: BearManor Media. Kindle Edition, 2013.

    —. Icon: The Life, Times and Films of Marilyn Monroe, Volume 2, 1956 to 1962 & Beyond. Albany: BearManor Media, 2014.

    Wolfe, Donald H. The Assassination of Marilyn Monroe. London: Warner, 1998.

    —. The Last Days of Marilyn Monroe. New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc., 1998. Kindle Edition 2012.

    Wright, Peter. Coroner’s Cold Case #81128 : Marilyn Monroe. Kindle Edition, 2012.

    Zolotow, Maurice. Marilyn Monroe. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1960.

    Link to the taped interview with Ken Hunter:
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/monroe-investigation-interviews/

    Donald Spoto quoted the Tribune story in his Marilyn biography. From his source notes: P491: They all came over: Eunice Murray, quoted in the Chicago Tribune, Sept. 11, 1973, sec 2, p. 1. “They all came to see the house. She certainly didn’t go sneaking around with Mr. Kennedy and have a love affair with him.”

    RogerEbert.com article written by Nick Allen, 27 April 2022.

    “The 6 most heartbreaking Marilyn Monroe moments from Netflix’s ‘The Unheard Tapes’ documentary” by Joy Saha, 27 April 2022.

    “The Woman Mailer Forgot to Interview,” by Maurice Zolotow. Chicago Tribune. September 11, 1973.

    “Rumors of Plot in Marilyn Monroe Death Abound, But Proof Lacking,” by Vernon Scott. UPI Archives, October 5, 1985.

    “RFK Ended Affair with Marilyn Day She Died, Ex-Maid Says,” UPI. South Florida Sun-Sentinel, October 6, 1985.

    “What’s the difference between a documentary and a docudrama? Does either one have to be true?” by Julia Layton. https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/documentary.htm