Tag: MARILYN MONROE

  • The Unheard Tapes: Part 1

    The Unheard Tapes: Part 1


    On several occasions, Marilyn Monroe commented on her friendship scarcity, a sad state of her existence that contributed to her deep, chronic feelings of loneliness. “Alone!” she wrote in a small black notebook, circa 1951, “I am alone—I am always alone, no matter what.” In the recently aired Netflix production starring Marilyn, twenty-eight minutes and thirty seconds into the proceedings, she declared, during a taped interview, that she did not enjoy many friendships. “It’s just that…I like people,” she ex­plained, “but for friends, I like few people.”

    And yet, evidently, the movie star was friends with practically every human being walking the streets of Earth; and not just the nondescript garden variety sort of friend, but the variety of friend with whom she felt comfortable sharing the intimate secrets and details of her life, odd, to say the least. Marilyn was usually reticent about her personal life. She was not inclined to share intimate secrets with anyone. Marilyn was a very private woman. Pat Newcomb, arguably the dearest of Marilyn’s few female friends, commented on at least one occasion that Marilyn was acutely guarded; and it is a well-known fact that she scrupulously defended her privacy. As an example, the photographer Douglas Kirkland, accompanied by two of his assistants, met with Marilyn prior to his late November 1961 photographic session with her. “She seemed to be paranoid about her privacy,” Kirkland reported to biographer Donald Spoto. Marilyn compelled each man to vow that they “would never divulge where she lived.” So, if Marilyn did not maintain many friendships, as she herself confirmed, particularly intimate ones, how does the Netflix movie explain the multitude of purported intimate friends who offered testimony to author Anthony Summers? Well, the movie’s producers simply ignore the problem, the obvious discrepancy and contradiction, and remain mute, no explanation, a common malady with The Mystery of Marilyn Monroe: The Unheard Tapes. The movie and the tapes actually explain precious little.

    Complex is the best adjective to describe Marilyn Monroe’s short life. But as short as her life was, it still consumed thirty-six years and sixty-five days, or three-hundred thousand long hours. The notion that a made for television film with a run-time of one and three-quarter hours might be able to clarify that life, reveal the facts and the truth about it, certainly suggests a certain conceit. Besides, calling a Netflix produced true crime, intended-to-be-a-shock movie, calling such a production a documentary should sound various warn­ing alarms. As one reviewer commented:

    The gigantic streaming service did not invent scandalous or salacious entertainment, but they have the authorship of a content company that churns out such provocative reflections on reality, week by week. Its latest slop, served for an audience of armchair detectives, [is] a special kind of gross.

    The problem is you have to be familiar with the subject matter. Ninety-nine percent of the public which watches this will not be.

    When I first learned that Netflix would be airing a film that intended to reveal some previously unheard tapes obtained by Summers, I assumed the tapes would only be the interviews of this or that testifier obtained by the author during his research prior to writing Goddess. But I also recognized the remote possibility that Summers just might have uncovered and procured one of the missing and mysterious secret tapes: the ones purportedly made by private detectives Fred Otash, Bernard Spindel, and/or Barney Ruditsky, all three of questionable character and honesty. So, in another article that I wrote commenting on an article Summers wrote about his upcoming Netflix flix, I questioned what tapes Summers intended to expose to the public. Would Summers intone, “here are the recordings of real-time conversations between Monroe, JFK, and RFK?” Or would he exclaim, “here are the recordings of real-time love making sessions involving Monroe, JFK, and RFK?” Or would he announce, perhaps, “here is an actual recording of Monroe’s murder?” Unfortunately, I remarked, neither I nor the reader would know the answers to those pertinent questions until Netflix unveiled their new Marilyn flick. Well, the flick has been unveiled, and we now have the answers to those questions.

    The structure of the Netflix movie is relatively simple and straightforward. Anthony Summers played his tapes as actors, dressed in nineteen-eighties style clothes, with appropriate coiffures, pretended to be the person being interviewed and lip synced their testimony. Intercut with the masquerading actors, the director included archival newsreel footage of Marilyn at various events and scenes from selected movies along with some direct quotations from the few interviews Marilyn gave. Of course, Summers offered some commentary about his investigation into Marilyn’s life and her death, but primarily her death and her sex life. Some of the interviewees knew Marilyn, or alleged they knew her anyway; but most of the persons that Summers interviewed, or at least the tapes of interviews that he included in the movie, occupied and operated on the periphery of Marilyn’s life. Several persons who were actually an integral part of her life, Pat Newcomb and Susan Strasberg for instance, persons that Summers interviewed just to mention two, did not receive any airtime, did not even receive a mention. Marilyn’s three husbands, Jimmie Dougherty, Joe DiMaggio, and Arthur Miller did not appear. Finally, of the persons whose testimony Summers presented, only two remain among the living: Arthur James and Joan Greenson Aebi.

    The movie opens on a narrow, lonely stretch of highway as it curves and bends alongside a mountain stream as it cascades and carves a path through the damp and mist laden hills of Ireland. Odd, and even odder still, we are eventually treated to shots of Summers as he plods through the many boxes of stuff he accumulated during his research for his book Goddess. Should I prepare to watch a movie about Marilyn Monroe or Anthony Summers? At least one reviewer perceived the oddity and commented that:

    The narrative within this documentary is more about Summers, to show off the tapes that helped him write his Monroe book…And in terms as crude as this doc is, it’s more or less about getting him on camera to talk about this before he is unable to do so himself…

    “O, uh, I’d like to ask you,” Marilyn inquires of an unknown individual as the movie proper begins, “how do you go about writing a life story?” Summers did not provide any context for her question. Did she ask that question of the author and playwright Ben Hecht, who ghost wrote Marilyn’s unfinished memoir, My Story? The clever editing implies that Marilyn might have phoned and spoke with Summers. Not impossible, I suppose, since Summers was the age of nineteen when Marilyn died, but most certainly an event that did not happen.

    Then Marilyn comments prophetically and explains: “Because…the true things rarely get into circulation. It’s usually the false things.” But Anthony Summers certainly could not be interested in false things, could he? So, like the prophet Daniel, the Irishman strode bravely into the lion’s den with the goal of learning the true things about Marilyn’s life and death, strode bravely into that chatterbox of a place called Hollywood to dig, dig, dig. He did not encounter any fierce lions, though, just a thick brick wall and his digging produced little because the chatterbox of Hollywood was not chattering. So, instead, he tells us: “I did what you always have to do if you reach a dead end: I went back to the beginning.” At this point, Summers begins to—selectively—release his heretofore unheard mélange of tapes.

    Cassette 71A: Al Rosen

    Evidently, Al Rosen was a big-shot Hollywood agent who founded the eponymous Al Rosen Agency. Rosen also advised Summers that he knew Marilyn “very well—that is, in the beginning, you know, when she was a kid.” Marilyn signed her initial Fox contract on the 26th of August in 1946 at the tender age of twenty years. At that time, she was still legally a minor in California, but she had been a wife for four years, recently divorced. Besides, Al Rosen never represented Marilyn, a fact that did not, of course, preclude a possible acquaintanceship. Still, Summers did not tell his audience that Rosen was not Marilyn’s agent.

    Rosen confirmed for Summers that Marilyn and the powerful movie mogul, Joseph Schneck, were lovers. After all, Rosen assured Summers, “Schneck was a human being;” and Schneck was not alone. He was just one of Marilyn’s many human being lovers. Of course, Summers did not report that both Marilyn and Joe Schneck denied that they were lovers. Each maintained steadfastly that their relationship was strictly platonic. Marilyn denounced the rumors circulating through Hollywood that she was Mr. Schenck’s paramour. She called the rumors scurrilous lies. According to Marilyn, the aging producer never solicited her for sex. According to Albert Broccoli, who later produced nine 007 movies, Schneck had kind feelings for Marilyn. She was, after all, a sweet and giving creature. Broccoli also asserted that Marilyn’s wonderful laughter invigorated Schneck: his face brightened when he saw her. All Joe Schneck wanted from Marilyn, according to Broccoli, was her friendship.  But according to Rosen, Marilyn’s name was one of many in the little black books of Hollywood moguls, the names of ambitious starlets who could be had. The reason Summers and Netflix positioned Rosen’s interview at the start of their flick is painfully clear: it’s all about the voyeurism: it’s all about the sex. Still, just how well Al Rosen actually knew Marilyn and when he actually knew her is certainly open to debate. Not one of the many Marilyn biographies that I consulted even mentioned Al Rosen. Hmm.

    Cassette 50A: Gloria Romanoff

    Married to restaurateur Michael Romanoff, Gloria informed Summers that she and her husband knew Marilyn in the beginning, her husband initially during the early forties, a problematic declaration captured by Summers’ cassette recorder. Here’s why. In the early 1940s, Marilyn Monroe did not exist. On June the 1st in 1940, Norma Jeane became a fourteen-year-old junior high school student living with Ana Lower on Nebraska Avenue on Sawtelle. The following year, she became a fifteen-year-old adolescent. At that time, Norma was four years away from Hollywood.

    According to my research, Michael Romanoff was born in Lithuania in 1890 as Hershel Geguzin, but he adopted the name, Harry F. Gerguson. After Gerguson immigrated to NYC, he assumed the flamboyant but fraudulent nom de guerre of Prince Michael Alexandrovitch Dmitry Obolensky Romanoff. During his residency in The Big Apple, according to the New York Times, who labeled Romanoff a peddler and charmer, he wrote a fortune in bad checks, occasionally found himself incarcerated and in Dutch with the INS; but after relocating to Hollywood, Prince Michael became the favorite companion of various movie stars, primarily because of the faux prince’s many vivid and colorful stories, most of which were untrue. Certainly, his famous friends knew that Michael Romanoff was a fraud. In 1941, the peddling charmer opened his eponymous restaurant, seven years before he wed Gloria Lister. We can logically assume, I think, that the faux prince told his new wife Gloria that he knew Marilyn in the early 1940s, and the new wife simply believed her new husband.

    Gloria informed Summers that Marilyn was a generous girl, warm girl, really rather lovable, and one who availed herself of the club and restaurant scene in Hollywood; and Romanoff’s was the place where all the pretty girls hung out. However, according to Marilyn’s unfinished memoir, after she signed her contract with Fox, she spent all of her time and money attending acting classes and several undergraduate classes at UCLA. She hoped to improve her mind; she had precious little time for nightclubs and parties and no money available for restaurants, especially expensive ones like Romanoff’s. The most important endeavor in her life at that time was learning the craft of acting.

    When this Summers’ account of Marilyn’s life arrived at the mid­dle Kennedy brothers, the author asked Gloria if she could recall “just how early she started hearing…about Marilyn and the Kennedys?” Gloria did not exactly answer Summers’ question. John Kennedy spent time in California, she said, “on and off all through the 50s ’cause he had lots of friends here, you know, spending lots of time, you know.” Gloria never said that she actually heard anything at all about John Kennedy and Marilyn. Gloria only confirmed that then US Representative Kennedy spent a considerable amount of time in California with his many friends. John Kennedy’s allegedly frequent visits to California during the fifties proved exactly nothing about him or his younger brother, especially relative to Marilyn, their puta­tive relationships with her, or their putative involvement in her death.

    Gloria briefly mentioned the Lawfords’ 1962 dinner party, which Marilyn and Robert Kennedy attended on the 1st of February, along with many other guests, including Robert Kennedy’s wife, Ethel, Pat Newcomb, Edwin Guthman, and John Seigenthaler. Tony Curtis and his wife, Janet Leigh, also attended, along with members of the media. As Gloria noted, during the dinner party, Robert Kennedy telephoned his father, who had recently suffered a serious stroke; and Marilyn spoke to the aging patriarch. During the course of that same evening, Gloria reported, Marilyn actually danced with the attorney general. John Seigenthaler, Robert Kennedy’s administrative assistant and his friend for most of his political life, noted in a newspaper article: “Yes, Robert Kennedy danced with Marilyn Monroe. So what? I danced with Janet Leigh. Ethel Kennedy danced with Tony Curtis and Bobby danced with Ethel. It was dinner, dancing, conversation—and that was it;” and according to Seigenthaler, Robert Kennedy’s social encounters with Marilyn were just that and nothing more. Besides, Marilyn’s friendly conversation with the ailing Joe Kennedy, Sr., who could barely speak, and her dance with Bobby, proved nothing, except this: any activity, regardless of its innocence, can be transformed into innuendo and used to suggest an ill intent; especially when one is looking for it.

    Cassette 84: John Huston

    In late 1949, John Huston directed Marilyn in The Asphalt Jungle; and the gritty noir officially launched her cinematic career. Eleven years later, he directed The Misfits, Marilyn’s last completed film. During his interview with Summers, the auteur did not provide any new information pertaining to Marilyn’s career, her life, or her death.

    Marilyn and Johnny Hyde were involved in a sexual relationship, Huston confirmed, a well-known fact. Huston confirmed another well-known fact: Johnny was in love with Marilyn. Of course, Summers reduced the relationship to its most ignoble form by asserting that Johnny Hyde was Marilyn’s sugar daddy, a label with a pejorative connotation suggesting that a heartless, gold-digging woman has become in­volved in a sexual relationship with an older man only for the financial benefits. Certainly, Marilyn received some benefits during the year she was with Johnny Hyde; but the main benefit was Johnny’s ability to advance her career: something he wanted to accomplish, to make Marilyn a star.

    Johnny left his family hoping Marilyn would marry him; and he enticed her with his considerable wealth. Suffering from heart disease, Johnny knew that his days on Earth would soon end; and he enticed Marilyn with the promise of a large inheritance. Even though Marilyn often stated that she loved Johnny, she also admitted honestly that she was not in love with him. She also felt sorry for Johnny. And she did not consider her sexual submission to be a transgression: “The sex meant so much to him,” she confessed, “but not much to me.” Guided by her moral compass, she could not marry a man with whom she was not in love. And she also realized that she could not give Johnny the love that he desperately wanted. Joseph Schneck advised Marilyn to marry Johnny for the financial security the wealthy agent could provide. But she ignored Schneck’s advice and refused Johnny’s entreaties and proposals. As the biographer Donald Spoto recognized, this is hardly the behavior of a heartless, gold-digging predator. It seems wrong and unfair to tag Marilyn with such a label. But that is the kind of show this is.

    Summers asked Huston about Marilyn’s decline during The Misfits’ filming. “Very soon we were aware that she was a problem,” Huston asserted. “She’d be late on the set always. Sometimes the whole morning would go by. Sometimes she’d be alright.” Of course, Huston’s comments were but a small part of the actual picture that Summers left unexplored and incomplete. Marilyn endured some hellish conditions while she filmed The Misfits: the oppressive mid-summer heat of the Nevada desert, writer Arthur Miller’s constant script changes, and Huston’s deplorable shenanigans.

    Their marriage essentially over, Miller used the character Rosalyn as an outlet for his bitterness, as a weapon to bludgeon Marilyn and her cinematic career. As these feelings increased, so did his frequent script alterations, often requiring Marilyn to spend many of her nights memorizing new lines of dialogue. Is it not possible that Marilyn’s tardiness could have been caused, on occasion at least, by Miller’s last-minute script re-writes?  Miller’s alterations became so frequent that Clark Gable eventually refused to accept any more of them. And often her director would occupy the director’s chair when he was drunk. Even if relatively sober, he was frequently hung over, resulting in either directorial napping, disinterest, or a display of what his daughter, Angelica, admitted was her father’s mean streak. He would often mistreat his cast. Huston often asked for dozens of retakes, despite the oppressive desert heat and even after Marilyn and other members of the cast were satisfied; but arguably the worst charge attached to Marilyn and The Misfits is the egregious prevarication that her pill addiction and pill abuse alone caused all the production’s problems and a complete shutdown: she had to be hospitalized for detoxification.

    Even before Marilyn arrived in Reno, Huston was already using a credit line established with the Mapes Hotel Casino. In his memoir, Huston soft-pedaled his gambling addiction. He gambled practically every night, he admitted. Huston also admitted that he liked to gamble, to lose, and then recover his losses the following night. But evidently, Huston lost considerably more than he ever won, frequently gambling all night, frequently traveling to shooting locations straight from the casino. Huston amassed a gambling debt of $50K—about a half million today—far in excess of what the casino agreed to allow in terms of credit for not only Huston, but the entire company. In late August, the Mapes Hotel and Harrah’s called the debt. Not long thereafter, the vice-president of United Artists informed Huston that the production’s bank account was empty and ordered the production stopped immediately.

    Recognizing an opportunity to solve his financial problems, Huston telephoned Marilyn’s doctors, alerted them to her pill problem, what Huston termed her precarious behavior and asked them to intervene. On Sunday, August the 28th, her doctors notified Marilyn that production on The Misfits had been discontinued for a week and suggested that she would benefit from a week’s rest, not at her hotel, however, but at a restful private hospital. She agreed and that evening, her doctors admitted Marilyn to the Westside Hospital in Los Angeles. Apparently, Arthur Miller and the movie crew in Nevada were unaware of the unfolding machinations until Frank Taylor, the movie’s producer, convened a meeting Monday morning for the entire production company. During the meeting, Taylor announced that Marilyn was in the hospital after suffering a breakdown. Even Arthur Miller, according to Evelyn Moriarty, Marilyn’s stand-in, was infuriated by the subterfuge. He knew, as they all did, what had transpired. “Of course, she had troubles,” Evelyn admitted: “We knew that, but Marilyn was being blamed for everything.” Huston had exaggerated Marilyn’s condition to cover for his excessive drinking, profligate gambling, and general wastefulness. Evelyn added that, “It was so easy for her to be made the scapegoat.” During the production respite, Huston was able to negotiate for more money.

    Huston’s assertion that he chastised Arthur Miller for allowing Marilyn’s drug abuse appears to be primarily self-serving, if not a fabrication. As an inveterate philanderer, he often twisted the truth to cover his behavior. How could Arthur Miller prevent Marilyn’s drug abuse, considering that her doctors prescribed the pills for her. Besides, it is painfully clear that John Huston did not really care about saving Marilyn Monroe. What he cared about was saving himself. Had Anthony Summers revealed Huston’s contribution to The Misfits’ production problems, then he would have actually revealed some relatively new information. And it would have made Monroe a sympathetic character.

    Cassette 96: Jane Russell

    In 1953, Jane Russell co-starred alongside Marilyn in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. Jane told Summers that Marilyn was very bright and she wanted to learn. Marilyn also worked constantly, Jane reported. Even after long days on set filming, Marilyn would work tirelessly with her dramatic coach: Marilyn wanted to be as good as she could possibly be.

    Jane noted that the co-stars considered themselves to be friends while they filmed Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. But when filming ended, Marilyn departed to create a new group of temporal relationships. Even though Jane would not associate with Marilyn during the nine years preceding Marilyn’s tragic death, her brunette co-star has invariably received the identifier as Mari­lyn’s good friend, certainly an amplification of Jane Russell’s relationship with Marilyn if not an aggrandizement. I’m not sure why Summers included Jane’s testimony. The brunette did not reveal anything new. If anything, she confirmed that Marilyn did not maintain prolonged friendships. But she was a movie star.

    Cassette 92A: Danny Greenson

    Dr. Ralph Greenson was Marilyn’s West Coast psychiatrist and Danny was the good doctor’s only son. While Dr. Greenson treated and enjoyed associations with many of Hollywood’s biggest stars and moguls, by his own admission, Danny was not fond of Hollywood and the people associated with cinema. Danny considered them to be “phonies and narcissistic char­acters.” And he admitted to Summers that he hated them.

    Born in August of 1937, Danny was twenty-three years old when, in early January of 1960, his father began his frequent sessions with Marilyn. When he heard his father was treating Monroe, Danny admitted to Summers, he “was not jumping up and down and cheering.” Due to Marilyn’s inordinate fame, Dr. Greenson had to see her at the Greenson home; and Danny considered that arrangement to be a “bunch of bullshit.” However, after he began to talk to Marilyn, and he began to know her, his opinion of her changed. A friendship developed.

    Danny confirmed for Summers that Marilyn was frequently depressed, a woman with practically no self-esteem, a woman who constantly referred to herself as a lonely waif that nobody liked and about whom nobody cared. Marilyn felt her emptiness as a severe loneliness; and evidently her loneliness and her depressive thoughts were so deeply ingrained that they could not be dis­lodged from Marilyn’s mind, not even by Dr. Greenson or his family. Still, Marilyn was happy on occasion. A photograph of Marilyn with Arthur Miller’s father, Isadore, prompted her to confide in Danny: “this is my happiest period. I was pregnant then.”

    Eventually, Danny recounted how Marilyn had been invited to a Lawford dinner party that would also be attended by Robert Kennedy and other luminaries. Danny recalled Marilyn commenting that she wanted “to have something to talk to him about,” meaning the AG. Danny must have been referring to Marilyn and Robert Kennedy’s second meeting, which occurred on February the 1st in 1962. Danny helped Marilyn develop some questions that she jotted down on a piece of paper and put in her purse. At that dinner party, she posed those questions to the AG while seated beside him at the dinner table. Everyone present heard the questions and the conversation that ensued, including the actress Kim Novak. She discussed the event briefly during an interview with Larry King eighteen years ago. Kim recalled that “she had on, of course, a wonderful low gown. And so, she got caught in the plate several times,” a comment that elicited laughter from the television crew. Kim continued and informed King that Marilyn had a list of questions to ask the attorney general, “political things and all. It was really interesting and fascinating.” Certain members of the press also attended the dinner party and reported that the actress and the politician spent what they, the reporters, considered to be an inordinate amount of time conversing; and thus, a few imaginative authors have speculated that Marilyn and Bobby discussed more titillating topics that night. In his memoir, Norman Rosten, Marilyn’s New York poet friend, remarked: “Romantic overtones were undoubtedly read into the prolonged tête-á-tête by the movie colony, whose greatest indoor game is to create imaginary infidelities… carnality in the eye of the beholder, civil rights in the hushed voices of Bobby and Marilyn.” Also, Pat Newcomb, a friend of both Marilyn and Robert Kennedy, testified unequivocally that the conversation between the movie star and the attorney general focused on his civil rights ideology and agenda.

    Danny acknowledged that his father’s method of treating Marilyn was unorthodox. But his father realized, Danny explained, because of who Marilyn was, because of her unrestrained fame, “she could never be hospitalized,” which led to her “hanging with the family.” In fact, Dr. Milton Wexler, another therapist who shared Dr. Greenson’s office, suggested that Dr. Greenson and his wife, Hildi, should allow Marilyn access to their home as a method of re-parenting her. Dr. Wexler believed that having a “place to return to would alleviate her separation anxiety,” a treatment modality considered controversial then and now.

    The testimony Summers elicited from Danny Greenson repeated information that has been known for decades. Marilyn’s psychological difficulties have been discussed and written about frequently; her personality and her behavior have been analyzed by psychologist and psychiatrist alike. Leading to diagnoses that Marilyn possibly struggled with a bipolar disorder along with a borderline personality. Her mood swings and her feelings could be extreme. Her thoughts generally focused on her profound unhappiness.

    Cassette 56: Joan and Hildi Greenson

    Born in 1941, Joan Greenson, now Aebi, was twenty years old when her father began treating Marilyn Monroe. Joan was forty-two years old when Summers interviewed her for the first time in 1983. According to his source notes, he re-interviewed Joan in 1986, virtually four decades ago. Joan is now an octogenarian.

    Joan’s mother lived to the advanced age of ninety-nine. She died in 2013. According to her obituary Hildi Greenson was a remarkable woman. She and her husband, Dr. Ralph Greenson, transformed their home into a “haven for exchanging ideas and a refuge for all from the world’s cold winds. An insightful, inquisitive, and generous woman, Hildi had a passion for justice and beauty which found expression in her paintings.” Evidently, Hildi was also an artist.

    In May of this year, I contacted Joan via email. I hoped she would agree to open a dialogue with me, during which we could discuss Marilyn along with the Greenson family’s association with Anthony Summers. The Greenson family, I had been warned by Donna Morel, felt that they had been misled by Summers about the kind of book he was writing. I have read transcripts of taped interviews with Joan and Danny, her brother, during which both said as much.

    Each complained, but especially Danny, that Summers did not exactly write Marilyn’s biography. Summers wrote a pathography, condensed the first thirty years of Marilyn’s life into a single chapter, and then he concentrated primarily on the final two years of her life and her association with the middle Kennedy brothers. Summers had led them to believe that he was only marginally interested in Marilyn’s involvement with John and Robert Kennedy.

    While Donna spoke to Joan several years ago, Gary Vitacco-Robles informed me that he never received any response to his requests for an interview. According to Gary, Joan gave Donald Spoto full access to her father’s archives regarding Marilyn, and then the biographer accused Dr. Greenson of prescribing a fatal enema that killed his most famous client. Gary also expressed the belief that Joan, understandably, no longer trusted biographers.

    After I emailed Joan, a couple of days passed before I received a succinct response: she appreciated my interest, she wrote, but she could not provide any answers to my inquiry. In a second email, I asked Joan if she was under the constraint of a non-disclosure agreement, and if so, who or what entity held the agreement. To date, I have not received a response. Evidently, I should have been more clear about myself: I am not a biographer.

    The testimony that Summers elicited from Joan Greenson and her mother was exactly like the testimony that he elicited from other interviewees: neither Joan nor Hildi revealed anything new or secret. They did not reveal anything remotely earth shattering. Even Joan Greenson’s comment about Marilyn calling the new man in her life “the General” was nothing new, despite Summers’ exposition about that moniker. Thirty-seven years ago, in the 1985 version of Goddess, Summers noted: “She [Marilyn] told me,” said Joan Greenson, “that she was seeing somebody, but she didn’t want to burden me with the responsibility of knowing who it was, because he was well known. So, she said she was going to call him ‘the General’.” In later editions of Goddess, Summers repeated Joan’s testimony. In fact, mythologizing authors have often repeated that quotation and pointed to Marilyn’s use of the esoteric moniker as proof that she and the attorney general were involved in a romantic affair.

    But Marilyn denied that she and the attorney general were romantically involved. Marilyn asked both Rupert Allan and Ralph Roberts if they had heard the rumors regarding a romance between her and Robert Kennedy. When each man responded affirmatively, she responded emphatically that the rumors were false. Marilyn posed the same question to Susan Strasberg, according to the latter’s memoir: She asked me if I’d heard the rumors about Bobby and her. She said: “It isn’t true.” Marilyn confided in both Allan and Roberts, along with Susan Strasberg, to whom she described Robert Kennedy as so puny, that she did not find Bobby physically appealing. She liked him, just not physically. The attorney general was not Marilyn’s preferred physical type. Marilyn preferred older men, tall, thin men who wore glasses. Even Peter Law­ford testified to the LAPD that what had been written by various authors about Marilyn and the middle Kennedy brothers was pure fantasy. And Lawford reported to Randy Taraborrelli: “All of this business about Marilyn and JFK and Bobby is pure crap. I think maybe—and I’m saying maybe—she had one or two dates with JFK. Not a single date with Bobby, though…” At any rate, I have a notion that a sardonically playful Marilyn was toying with Joan Greenson, and her mother, because Marilyn knew the two women would, as Hildi even admitted on tape, find the prospect of such a romance titillating. Marilyn could also have simply been engaging in what amounted to girlish one-upmanship.

    Cassette 52A: Peggy Feury

    Margaret Feury, known as Peggy, was primarily a stage actor and a highly regarded acting teacher who also appeared in several films. She was a charter member of the Actors Studio; and when Lee Strasberg was unavailable, she managed the studio’s acting sessions. In 1978, she and her family moved to Los Angeles where she taught at the Actors and Directors Lab before helping Lee Strasberg establish his Theatre Institute on the West Coast. Eventually, she and her husband, William Traylor, founded the Loft Studio where she taught acting classes whose participants included James Cromwell, Lou Gossett, Jr., Sean Penn, and Johnny Depp.

    According to Peggy’s taped testimony, she saw Marilyn frequently at several Strasberg parties and they would talk a lot. Peggy said that Monroe “had very strong goals for herself,” and she was very “bright about acting.” During their conversations at the Actors Studio, Marilyn would discuss how she intended to approach her performance. In Peggy’s estimation, Marilyn really cared. But Peggy also informed Summers that they conversed about Marilyn’s childhood memories of being molested. Marilyn “felt that she had avoided…that she knew people who were psychotic from such episodes and she felt that at least she’d survived that.” Summers seemed nonplussed: “She was talking about that as late as then?” An expression of a certain dismay seemed prompted by his incredulity. Besides, Summers was primarily interested in Marilyn’s decline, a topic about which he often asked his interviewees; and he asked if Peggy saw Marilyn “in the time of her deterioration?” Apparently, Peggy did not respond.

    Peggy Feury appeared in Summers’ print versions of Goddess. But the author did not include the testimony offered by Peggy that was included in his Netflix movie. Summers apparently doubted the veracity of Norma Jeane’s childhood molestation story, an event that Marilyn reported in her incomplete memoir. Summers wrote: “She claimed early on that she had been sexually molested as a child, and it was a theme she harped on obsessively throughout her life. Was it a real event?” Summers tended to dismiss Norma Jeane’s molestation story as a yarn with merely “a core of the truth…not the only episode of fantasy [and] self-serving exaggeration.” As Sarah Churchwell noted in her 2004 publication, Summers considered Marilyn’s memoir nothing but “a pack of self-serving lies” reported by a “pathological liar” and a “fantasist.” Summers decided that he would still rely on Marilyn’s unfinished memoir for information pertaining to Norma Jeane’s childhood, even though he had already dismissed the memoir as primarily an “unreliable” work of fiction. So, did Peggy Feury change Summers’ opinion? Had he grown to finally believe that Norma had, in fact, endured a childhood molestation? Summers left that question unanswered.

    Cassette 98: Henry Rosenfeld

    Known as the Henry Ford of dress makers, Henry Rosenfeld manufactured low cost dresses whose designs were chic enough to satisfy the uber wealthy, posh women of Manhattan. He made it socially acceptable for them to buy clothes off the rack; and as a result, he became wealthy himself. Yet another man who claimed to be Marilyn’s friend and intimate confidant for her entire adult life, he confirmed for Summers that Marilyn was, in fact, pregnant while she filmed Some Like It Hot, certainly not a globe rattling revelation. And Rosenfeld’s comment that Marilyn’s Happy Birthday performance for President Kennedy “was one of the most exciting things in her life” made him a master of the obvious. Certainly, any sentient person asked to perform at a president’s birthday gala would be excited; and by all accounts, Marilyn was not only excited, she was also unnerved, worried about her performance. But perhaps more importantly, Marilyn would later remark that she was honored by the invitation to perform at President Kennedy’s birthday gala. Again, who wouldn’t be?

    Rosenfeld, on the other hand, used Marilyn’s understandable feelings about appearing at John Kennedy’s birthday celebration as an example of a flaw, a crack in her character: “Just being the one to sing. She was picked. The one.” But then, Marilyn was not the only person picked to perform that evening; many other stars also performed. In all, nineteen celebrities performed for the President of the United States. Are we to assume that all the other performers were nonchalant or apathetic about their performance for President Kennedy?

    But―Rosenfeld’s testimony regarding what Marilyn wanted most in the world was categorically outrageous. And to contend that she would openly reveal such a grotesque fantasy at a party, borders on buffoonery. Evidently, Summers did not pursue that buffoonery or even ask any probing questions. For instance: where did this party transpire? Who threw it? Who else attended? Did Summers even attempt to locate a person who could corroborate Henry Rosenfeld’s ludicrous assertion? Apparently not: the print version of Goddess did not include a corroborating statement from anyone. We are left to conclude that the investigative journalist merely accepted what Rosenfeld said simply because the dress manufacturer said that he was Marilyn’s friend and confidant. In the end, though, why would Summers repeat Marilyn’s alleged sex-with-her-father-fantasy without any real evidence that she had actually admitted to that fantasy, admitted to it publicly? Perhaps to confirm Marilyn’s fundamental immorality along with her evident mental illness? But then, why would Rosenfeld make such a sad and grotesque accusation?

    According to Scott Fortner, a recognized Marilyn expert, she rejected Rosenfeld’s proposal of marriage: “As it turns out,” Fortner revealed, “[Rosenfeld] proposed to Marilyn and was clearly in love with her based on letters he sent. Could this incredibly ridiculous statement about Marilyn wanting to sleep with her father be in retaliation for her unreturned affection?” Seems plausible, at least to me. With Rosenfeld’s sad but silly testimony in place, and Summers’ overriding point made, he proceeded to the next life-long confidant and intimate friend of the world’s most famous woman.

    Cassette 97B: Arthur James

    Just like many other men have declared, and even a few women, Arthur James also stated that he was Marilyn’s intimate confidant and friend for most of her adult life. In James’ case, he testified to Summers that they met many years before her 1954 wedding to Joe DiMaggio. I usually start with the quantity of ten to represent many. Certainly, Arthur James did not know Marilyn Monroe in 1944: she was persona nonexistent at that time.

    Referring to the print version of Goddess, evidently James met Marilyn through Charlie Chaplin Jr., who began an alleged affair with the starlet in 1948.  However, on the 9th of March in 1948, Marilyn signed her six-month contract with Columbia Pictures. Almost immediately she fell in love with and became intimately involved with the studio’s musical director, and Marilyn’s vocal coach, Fred Karger. Marilyn even lived briefly with Fred’s mother, Anne, and his sister, Mary. Her relationship with Karger lasted until the end of 1948 and led directly to her monogamous relationship with Johnny Hyde; which ended with Hyde’s death in mid-December of 1950.

    In the print version of Goddess, Summers quoted Arthur James frequently, and most of his testimony focused on Marilyn’s putative sexual relationships with Edward G. Robinson, Jr. and Charlie Chaplin, Jr., along with her sexual relationships with the middle Kennedy brothers. But since the Netflix testimony presented by Summers did not mention either junior, neither Edward G nor Chaplin, I will not excavate into that mound of problems. Still, each man left behind a memoir. Edward G. Robinson Jr. published his memoir in 1958; and Charlie Chaplin Jr. published his in 1960. Robinson mentioned only that he landed a tiny part in Marilyn’s movie, Bus Stop; primarily because his father knew Joshua Logan, the movie’s director. Chaplin junior mentioned that he briefly dated Norma Jean Dougherty, who, he reported:

    started going to the top [of the movie world] fast, and it was the duty of her studio publicity department to keep her name in the papers by dating her here and there with other eligible young men. So, she and I drifted apart and I haven’t seen her for years.

    Neither of the juniors, in their memoirs, mentioned Arthur James. In her memoir, Marilyn mentioned her romances with Fred Karger, Johnny Hyde, and Joe DiMaggio. But she did not acknowledge either Chaplin Jr. nor Robinson, neither friendship nor romance. And she did not acknow­ledge Arthur James. His name did not appear in My Story.

    I have several serious issues with James’ testimony. But for the sake of brevity, I’ll discuss only one at this time: the assertion that Marilyn spent a weekend with her alleged good friend and confidant in Laguna Beach. James says that, “We met in Laguna a month before she died. She came down for the weekend and she told us…what had really taken place with the Kennedys.” There are only two weekends during which this purported visit to Laguna Beach could have occurred within a month of her death:

    1. the last Saturday in June and the first Sunday in July (June 30th and July 1st), or
    2. the first weekend in July (July the 7th and 8th)

    I can only surmise that Marilyn did not inform James of any other life altering events that she had recently endured, at least not on the tape Netflix and Summers shared, just her alleged shattering break-up with the middle Kennedy boys. However, significant events that transpired during the month of June, prior to Marilyn’s reported trip to Laguna, suggests that several of those events just might have been weighing on her mind.

    On Friday, June the 1st, Marilyn and the film crew celebrated the star’s thirty-sixth birthday on the set of Something’s Got to Give. Her co-stars Dean Martin and Wally Cox attended along with photographer George Barris, Eunice Murray, and Evelyn Moriarty, Marilyn’s stand-in. On Thursday, June 7, Fox sued Marilyn Monroe Productions and Marilyn Monroe for breach of contract. The suit asked for $500K in damages, effectively ended Marilyn’s employment and jeopardized her career, which caused her, quite understandably, to vacillate between utter depression and undiluted anger. Later, she would express her disbelief that Fox had actually fired her, the studio for which she had made twenty movies and earned tens of millions of dollars.

    On the same day Fox filed their lawsuit, Dr. Greenson took Marilyn for an examination by Dr. Michael Gurdin, the eminent Beverly Hills plastic surgeon. Marilyn’s eyes were black and blue and swollen. According to Dr. Greenson, Marilyn sustained the injuries when she slipped and fell while taking a shower. Even though Marilyn’s nose was not broken, she retreated to her Fifth Helena Drive hacienda where she sequestered herself for sixteen days. She could not be seen in public with a bruised, discolored face. Then, on Monday, June the 11th, Fox officially suspended production on Something’s Got to Give and filed an amended lawsuit that raised the amount of requested redress to $750K.

    Due to Marilyn’s bruised face, she declined several invitations to attend social events, including an invitation from Ethel and Robert Kennedy to attend a party honoring Pat and Peter Lawford at Hickory Hill, the Kennedy’s Virginia home. Marilyn dispatched her regrets in the now famous telegram to the Kennedys regarding her fight for minority rights and her right, as an earthbound star, to twinkle.

    Fox planned to replace Marilyn and continue filming Something’s Got to Give with the actress Lee Remick. But the executives at the studio did not foresee Dean Martin’s reaction: he had co-star approval. He refused to accept Lee Remick and summarized his position succinctly: no Marilyn, no movie. Marilyn was completely gratified by Martin’s loyalty. In utter disarray by this time, on June 19th, Fox sued Dean Martin and Claude Productions, Martin’s production company, for $3M, prompting Martin to counter sue for $6.8M.

    By June 23rd, Marilyn’s facial injuries had healed: the bruises were gone. Beginning on the 23rd, Marilyn posed for Bert Stern, whose intermittent sessions for Vogue magazine ended on July 12th. Marilyn also posed for George Barris at Santa Monica Beach during Friday the 29th, Saturday the 30th, and Sunday July 1st. According to Barris and his memoir, each session took the entirety of each day. Barris mentioned the Sunday session particularly, noting that he and Marilyn worked until the sunlight began to fade to silver. Finally, on the 4th, 5th, 7th and 9th of July, she gave Richard Meryman what would be her last interview for Life magazine.

    Clearly, a considerable number of life changing events had prevailed upon Marilyn during the month of June in 1962. I, for one, find it difficult to believe that the middle Kennedy brothers would have been the only topic occupying her thoughts. “As a person, my work is important to me,” she once commented during an interview. “My work is the only ground I’ve ever had to stand on.” Considering that her profession was in serious peril at that time, surely she would have mentioned that fact to her dear friend, Arthur James; and too, clearly there are calendar date conflicts. She could not have been in Laguna Beach if she was with George Barris at Santa Monica Beach or with Richard Meryman at Fifth Helena Drive giving an interview.

    Arthur James also testified that Marilyn “was hurt, terribly hurt when she was told directly never to call or contact” the Kennedy boys again. An order that arrived from both the president and the AG: “That’s it. No more. That’s—that’s the end of it.” Then James informed Summers: “And that’s what killed her.” Curious. If Robert Kennedy abruptly dispatched Marilyn and ordered her not to contact him ever again, why did he and his wife invite Marilyn to attend a party at their Virginia mansion? Under the circumstances described by Arthur James, for Robert Kennedy to have extended that invitation was certainly nonsensical, not to even mention connubially dangerous.

    Donna Morel, arguably one of the best, if not the best researcher on the planet, used Facebook to locate one of James’ relatives, who then arranged for Donna to interview James. Fre­quently lifted aloft by flights of fantasy, according to his relative, Arthur could lapse into episodes of yarn weaving. Even so, Donna talked with James on May 1st of this year. They discussed Goddess primarily and James disputed several assertions that Summers attributed to him; but I will let those sleeping hounds continue to sleep―at least for the time being.

    Of importance to note is this: Donna asked Arthur James if he had “any letters, photos or any type of evidence to substantiate his relationship with Monroe.” James admitted, just like Jeanne Carmen, Robert Slatzer, and Ted Jordan, that he likewise had no evidence, no proof that he even knew the world’s most famous movie star, much less that he was one of her most trusted confidants. But of even more importance is this: James denied asserting that Marilyn visited him at Laguna Beach in 1962, a month before she died. He reported to Donna that Marilyn’s weekend visit occurred “at least a year earlier than that. Then he seemed to indicate this happened in the early 1950s and she would stay at an apartment building he owned.” So, James denied saying what he had clearly said on tape; at least the tape that Summers unveiled for his Netflix movie. Such a conundrum: what to believe: what James said or what James said and then denied he said. When evaluating the testimony of any person, their credibility is the key. The question is, all things considered, particularly the information I have presented herein, does Arthur James have any real credibility? And why did Summers not cross check any of this?  Why leave it to Donna Morel and myself?

    Cassette 81A: Milton Greene

    In September of 1949, Marilyn attended a party at the residence of Rupert Allan and Frank McCarthy. While there, she met a rising star in the world of photography, Milton Greene. She spent most of the evening talking with and listening to the young and handsome New Yorker as he spoke about using the camera like a painter uses a brush. Milton soon returned to the East Coast and Marilyn returned to the travails of movie making. Four years would pass before Marilyn reunited with the photographer in October of 1953. By that time, the world of film and cameras had anointed Milton the Wonder Boy of Color Photography and Marilyn had become Marilyn. The photographer and the movie star became dear friends and Marilyn frequently posed for Milton’s photo­graphic paint brush. Between them a strong nexus formed, rather like the odd connection shared by identical twins. And even Milton’s wife, Amy, recognized and accepted that her husband and Marilyn could communicate using a shorthand that only they understood.

    For Summers, Milton confirmed that he and Marilyn loved each other, period, that they shared a close relationship. Summers, however, was primarily interested in Marilyn’s sexual shenanigans while she was married. He asked Milton if a married Marilyn Monroe “was pretty much of a good, faithful wife?” Milton responded that Marilyn was and what she wanted most of all was a baby. That’s odd: didn’t Henry Rosenfeld say what she wanted most in life was to trick her father into seducing her? If Monroe had “a choice between children and stardom, Milton commented, it would have been children. Without question.” Summers could only manage a “Hmmmm.” He must have expected to learn some-thing completely different.

    Cassette 1: Sydney Guilaroff

    So far, two men have asserted that each was Marilyn’s most intimate friend and confidant from the beginning of her Hollywood career until her death. Sydney Guilaroff becomes the third. Still, and despite the fact that Guilaroff obviously knew Marilyn, several Marilyn historians have expressed doubts regarding the veracity of Guilaroff’s anecdotes about his relationship with the blonde movie star. According to David Marshall, Guilaroff was the guest speaker at one of the annual August assemblies to commemorate Marilyn’s death held at the Pierce Brothers Cemetery. Evidently, during his speech, Guilaroff recounted a few memories of Marilyn and referred to his association with her as merely “brief.” During that appearance, a few of Marilyn’s fans asked Guilaroff if he planned to write a book about his relationship with Marilyn. According to Marshall, Guilaroff declared that he “loved Marilyn dearly but he had nothing at all exciting to write about.”

    But wait. In 1996, Guilaroff published his memoir filled with braggadocio, and he suddenly remembered:

    1. that he actually directed Marilyn’s MGM screen test which secured for the blonde starlet the part of Angela Phinlay in John Huston’s The Asphalt Jungle; and
    2. a frantic telephone call from Marilyn on the night of August 4th regarding a visit by Robert Kennedy and a physical altercation with the attorney general, which caused Marilyn to fear for her life.

    Both John Huston, who directed, and Arthur Hornblow, who produced, told differing stories about Marilyn’s casting in their noir heist movie.  Lucile Ryman, MGM’s casting director at that time, told another story which included Louis Mayer. The stories told by Huston, Hornblow, and Ryman did not include Guilaroff in any capacity other than Marilyn’s hairdresser. And as far as the frantic telephone call from Marilyn is concerned, Guilaroff is just one of many persons who asserted that they spoke to Marilyn on the night she died. None of those assertions have been or can be verified. Guilaroff gave several interviews with various authors; and during those interviews, he gave conflicting accounts regarding his purported telephone encounter with Marilyn. In one interview, he actually claimed that he spoke to her twice that Saturday.

    The testimony that Anthony Summers elicited from Guilaroff included some laudatory comments about Marilyn, her naiveté, her soft and gentle quality. Guilaroff specifically noted that Marilyn was often unhappy; but he declined to say anything else, noting for Summers that Marilyn had been “gone for twenty years.” He then added: “It makes me unhappy to talk about it. It really does. I can’t bring myself to talk about it.”

    Cassette (Unnumbered): Billy Wilder

    Many cinephiles consider Billy Wilder to be the greatest Hollywood screenwriter and director of all time.  He either wrote or co-wrote and directed many movies that appear on various Greatest of All Time lists. Wilder directed Marilyn twice. In 1954, he directed The Seven Year Itch; and then four years later, he directed Some Like It Hot. Wilder’s list of accolades and awards is virtually endless. But when he received the American Film Institute’s Lifetime Achievement Award in 1986, he thanked ten individuals by name, movie stars that had directly contributed to his legacy. Wilder included Marilyn Monroe on that list. During a party for Marilyn following the completion of The Seven Year Itch, the actress attributed her memorable performance to Billy Wilder, who was then directing The Spirit of St. Louis. She wanted Billy to direct her again, she commented and then added humorously: “but he wouldn’t let me play Charles Lindbergh.”

    The celebrated director often spoke about Marilyn. He spoke about her on-set problems, her lack of confidence, her inability to memorize simple lines of dialogue, and her tardiness. He once commented, however, that he had an aging aunt in Germany who was always on time and could probably memorize her lines; but “nobody would want to see her in a picture.” Invariably, Wilder followed his criticisms of Marilyn with statements extolling her on-screen magic and her unique abilities. Marilyn, he testified, “was slightly discombobulated at all times”; but despite her often aggravating idiosyncrasies and need for multiple takes, Marilyn always deliv­ered “something absolutely unique that cannot be … that cannot be duplicated. I had no prob­lems with Monroe.” Wilder informed Summers: “Monroe had problems with Monroe. She had problems with herself.” Wilder once admitted, during an emotional interview about Marilyn, that he missed her like Hell. But once again, Wilder’s testimony revealed absolutely nothing new. But he was a big-name movie director.

    Cassette 80: Jeanne Martin

    Born Dorothy Jean Biegger in Coral Gables, Florida, Dorothy began a modeling career sometime around 1946 and she adopted the moniker of Jeanne. A year after she won the title of Orange Bowl Queen, Jeanne attended a New Year’s Eve show featuring the comedy team of Martin and Lewis. Evidently, after seeing each other, both Jeanne and Dean were immediately smitten. Dean filed for a divorce from his first wife, and only one week after the court granted that divorce, Jeanne and Dean wed in the Beverly Hills home of a friend. According to Jeanne’s obituary, the general public viewed the Martins “as one of Hollywood’s happiest couples until on Dec. 10, 1969, the date that Jeanne issued a statement announcing that she and Dean were parting ways.” The divorce was finalized in 1972. Jeanne and Dean remained friendly because of their seven children, even after he married for a third time in 1973. The former Mrs. Dean Martin never remarried.

    Jeanne Martin’s testimony to Anthony Summers focused on the middle Kennedy brothers’ sexual predation.  Primarily the predatory behavior of John Kennedy, which, according to Jeanne’s testimony, she experienced firsthand. When Summers asked her if she was present at the Lawford’s beach house when Marilyn cavorted with either of the middle Kennedy brothers, Jeanne never directly responded. But she blamed Joe, Sr. for his son’s behavior, described by her as tacky and corny bad boy antics: “they were chips off the old block,” she editorialized. Then Summers asked if Bobby was a “grabber?” Jeanne answered: “Yeah. Not in the terms that Jack was.” She did not elaborate and Summers, of course, did not pursue any additional details or an explanation.

    A considerable amount of testimony pertaining to Robert Kennedy’s somewhat Puritanical attitude and behavior has been offered over the years. Testimony from acquaintances, friends, and even FBI agents dispatched by J. Edgar Hoover with the expressed mission of mining muck on one of Hoover’s archenemies. In his posthumously published memoir, William Sullivan, who was Deputy Director of the FBI under Hoover, asserted that the boss desperately wanted and attempted to catch Robert Kennedy in compromising situations. But the FBI director never did because Robert Kennedy “was almost a Puritan.” Agents of the FBI often observed him at parties during which the attorney general “would order one glass of scotch and still be sipping from the same glass two hours later,” Sullivan asserted. The stories involving a love affair between Bobby Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe were just that, stories started by Frank Capell, “a right-wing zealot who had a history of spinning wild yarns.” According to many persons who knew Robert Kennedy, he was a devout Catholic. And regarding whether or not Marilyn was under the influence of a “Bobby thing” or a “Jack thing,” Jeanne recalled that her impression was both (emphasis mine). Miriam-Webster Dictionary defines impression as follows: “an often indistinct or imprecise notion or remembrance.”

    Cassette 33: Fred Otash and John Danoff

    Private investigator Fred Otash was a muckraker for the gossip magazine Confidential. He actively searched for compromising information about movie stars, their sex lives, and their spouse’s sex lives. He often targeted the friends of celebrities. Otash was the most disreputable private detective that ever haunted the dimly lit streets and dark alleys of Hollywood. He was a cold damp mist.

    Mike Wallace interviewed Otash for Sixty Minutes in 1973. Following that interview, Wallace announced that Otash was the most amoral man that he, Wallace, had ever interviewed. Convicted of a criminal conspiracy to defraud for financial gain, offering a bribe, and also doping a horse, Otash had his license indefinitely suspended by state authorities. Otash was a recognized prevaricator at best and, at worst, an incorrigible liar. He appeared in Goddess and the Netflix movie to confirm that the umpteen secret tapes of Marilyn and the middle Kennedy brothers actually existed: Otash made and actually heard them.  But wait, there is even more. Otash actually listened as someone killed Marilyn Monroe, he listened to her die. Summers expected his audience just to accept the testimony of a known criminal and liar, a horrid man who, if you believe him, listened to Marilyn’s murder but did nothing to stop it. John Danoff, an Otash employee, functioned as a form of dubious corroboration for the Otash testimony.

    There is only one problem. During the six decades since Fred Otash purportedly obtained the tape recordings involving Marilyn, John and Robert Kennedy, not one tape has ever surfaced. Not one has ever been heard by the public. In six decades. Imagine their monetary worth.

    Furthermore, why should I—or anyone else—just accept the testimony of a man as degenerate and corrupt as Fred Otash. Many authors, including Summers, have invoked Otash’s name and invoked the specter of his unheard tapes as a form of proof, a form of confirmation that the lurid and salacious stories about Marilyn and the middle Kennedy brothers are factual, which is, frankly ludicrous. And those author’s expectations that I will accept testimony from a man like Otash insults my intelligence and my humanity, as it should us all. To even consider Otash’s testimony after the passing of sixty years, without any tangible evidence that the obscure and farcical tapes ever existed is ridiculous.

    One final word about the purported secret tapes. During his interview, Otash noted: “And someone wired up Marilyn’s house on behalf of Hoffa.” (emphasis mine) The photographs that flashed on screen during that piece of Otash testimony were of Bernard Spindel, which Summers did not reveal. Spindel was Hoffa’s ally, his telephone tapper and bedroom bugger. Both Hoffa and Spindel were indicted for illegally tapping the telephones of the teamsters’ union headquarters in 1957. Two years later, Spindel became embroiled, due to his Hoffa association, with Robert Kennedy, then an attorney for the McClelland Investigating Committee on Labor Racketeering. This, of course, involved both Jimmy Hoffa and Bernard Spindel. In December of 1966, New York police and special agents from the telephone company, raided Spindel’s New York home and laboratory. The officers confiscated all of Spindel’s equipment, files, and tape recordings. The New York State District Attorney’s investigators reported to the Los Angeles DA in 1982, as noted in the LADA’s Summary Report, that “none of the tapes contained anything relating to Marilyn Monroe.” Like his pal Fred Otash, Spindel was “a known boaster” and frequently alluded to having knowledge of a number of secrets.

    Yech.

    see Part 2

  • Marilyn, Tony Summers, and his Paper Tiger

    Marilyn, Tony Summers, and his Paper Tiger


    June 1st of this year will mark the 96th anniversary of the uncelebrated birth of Norma Jeane Mortenson. The inevitable passing of sixty plus five days will lead to August the 4th, a date that will mark the 60th anniversary of the tragic and untimely death of Norma Jeane’s unforgettable creation, Marilyn Monroe. Due to Marilyn’s exorbitant fame, the entertainment industry will undoubtedly use the occasion of her birth and her death to recycle and sell what Sarah Churchwell, eighteen years ago, correctly called the same bromides. Authors and producers that have already been involved in the Marilyn industry, have started to queue at the head of Marilyn’s Pierce Brothers Cemetery crypt. One such entrant is Anthony Summers: he has an updated publication to sell.

    In 1985, the BBC used Summers’ then recently published pathography, Goddess: The Secret Lives of Marilyn Monroe, as the basis for a documentary entitled Say Goodbye to the President. Consequently, based on the updated version of that pathography, on April the 27th, Netflix plans to broadcast a brand spanking new documentary pertaining to Marilyn’s invariably labeled mysterious death, a documentary entitled The Mystery of Marilyn Monroe: The Unheard Tapes.

    The unheard tapes. Entire books have been written about the numerous tapes allegedly obtained by all the BIG letter agencies, bureaus, and sundry criminals: CIA, FBI, KGB, MOB, Hoffa, Giancana, Marcello, Trafficante, obtained surreptitiously by the MOB’s slimy shamus henchmen: Barney Ruditsky, Bernard Spindel, and the slimiest of them all, Fred Otash. The documentary’s title, selected I assume by Netflix in consult with Summers, suggests that tape recordings heretofore never played for the public will be drawn through analogue playback heads during the Netflix documentary. Naturally, a few pertinent questions follow. Are these heretofore unheard tapes:

    1. Of Marilyn actually speaking with the middle Kennedy brothers during the many telephone and face to face conversations in which they purportedly engaged and all of which were purportedly taped by the previously mentioned agencies, criminals and slimy private-eyes;

    2. Of Marilyn actually making love with the middle Kennedy Brothers, perhaps the alleged to have occurred titillating JFK/RFK/MM threesome;

    3. Of Marilyn actually being murdered; or just

    4. Of Summers interviewing this or that testifier during the past four decades that he has pursued the facts and the truth about Marilyn’s many secret lives?

    Unfortunately, I—unfortunately we—will not know the answer to those questions until Netflix unveils their new documentary, however, like a bookish carnival barker hawking the publication of his updated Marilyn pathography and the new Netflix documentary, Summers wrote an article for Vanity Fair, a slick glossy that never passes on a juicy yarn involving Marilyn. Published two weeks ago on March the 23rd, Summers’ article collided against several topics regarding his updated version of Goddess and the Netflix documentary.  And the Irish name-dropper mentioned a few new names that he has evidently added to his inordinately long list of dropped names. Those topics and persons, their alleged names, may or may not be relevant, may or may not add any verity to testimony previously presented by Summers as issuing from anonymous sources. The alleged associations of the testifiers with Marilyn, their alleged relationships with her, and the context of their testimony, can only be evaluated after watching the documentary. However, in his Vanity Fair article, Summers repeated an anecdote that also ap­peared in his 1985 version of Goddess; and Summers’ treatment of the anecdote exemplifies his modus operandi: after analysis, and to quote the Bard, it is sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Agnes Flanagan and the Toy Tiger

    According to Summers, Agnes Flanagan, one of Marilyn’s many hairdressers, visited the actress at Fifth Helena on August the 4th, probably in the late morning. Not long after Agnes arrived, a messenger appeared and delivered a mysterious and unidentified package. Marilyn opened it and walked out to the pool carrying its contents, Summers divulged. And he then revealed the contents of the package: a stuffed toy tiger. Marilyn did not utter a word as she sat down by the pool, holding the tiger and Agnes thought that Marilyn appeared to be “terribly, terribly depressed.” Summers set off the preceding three words in quotation marks, as if the hairdresser had uttered those words to the author. However, Agnes did not offer any type of explanation, did not say why she thought the delivery of the toy tiger had abruptly depressed Marilyn; and since her host had lapsed into a sullen silence, Agnes, “wholly at a loss, got up and left.”

    Summers then began to speculate about what he labeled one of the bizarre incidents of a most mysterious weekend; and he wondered if Marilyn possibly discovered a written, devastating message that arrived with the toy tiger—or was the stuffed object itself the message? Summers then disclosed that an actual, full-size “stuffed tiger had pride of place in Robert Kennedy’s office,” not an irrelevant fact, he noted. Summers then informed his readers: Marilyn, at all events, now lost control, an odd declaration.[1] Since Marilyn would be dead a few hours later, to what events was Summers referring? But then, I digress.

    Sunday morning, August the 5th. Many photographers descended on Marilyn’s property and snapped many photographs of both the interior and the exterior of Fifth Helena Drive. One such photograph, as denoted by Summers in both Goddess and his Vanity Fair article, depicted two small stuffed animals abandoned near Marilyn’s swimming pool. “One of them could be a tiger,” Summers asserted.[2]

    More than a few writers have accepted Summers’ stuffed tiger tale. In his goofy 2012 publication about Marilyn’s life and death, Coroner’s Cold Case #81128: Marilyn Monroe, Peter Wright wrote:

    […] Marilyn received a present by messenger. It was a small, stuffed toy tiger that meant nothing to anyone except Marilyn, for its message was very special, and very dark. That present crashed her world (KE:34).

    Wright did not mention a visit by Agnes Flanagan or offer any explanation regarding why the toy animal represented a special and dark message to Marilyn, a message that destroyed her world. Six years earlier, in her wild 2006 memoir, My Wild Wild Life, Jeanne Carmen alleged that she received her account of the toy tiger anecdote directly from Marilyn during a telephone call with the actress on the evening of August the 4th. Jeanne then used the tiger tale to fabricate an elaborate and humorous yarn about a love quadrangle involving Marilyn and her publicist, Pat Newcomb, Robert Kennedy, and Ethel Kennedy. Additionally, in the globally connected world of the 21st century, Summers’ stuffed tiger tale has appeared regularly on Marilyn Monroe websites, with variations, of course. Those websites often feature wildly inaccurate articles written by journalists who play fast and loose with the truth by ignoring the facts.

    But then: What is the truth and what are the facts?

    I’ll start with this: there is no evidence at all that Agnes Flanagan visited Marilyn on the morning of August the 4th in 1962, not at any time. Donald Spoto, who comments on Agnes’ interactions with Marilyn more than a few times, does not mention a Saturday morning visit by the hairdresser or the stuffed tiger tale. Other legitimate biographers and conspiracists authors mention the Summers’ anecdote and others do not.

    But wait. We have Summers’ written account, a firsthand account delivered to Summers by the hairdresser herself who witnessed the delivery of the package and Marilyn’s obvious negative reaction. Right? Well, not exactly. Summers implied that he interviewed Agnes Flanagan and even used quotation marks which would indicate testimony that Summers actually heard, but plainly, based on Summers’ own source notes, that implication is simply not supported by the record, Summers’ own record. According to the source notes for Chapter 43, page 443, Summers interviewed a man by the name of Don Feld: Flanagan visit: int. Don Feld, 1985 (638). Therefore, Feld’s testimony was hearsay; and his story, once repeated by Summers, fell into the category of third hand hearsay. Furthermore, Summers does not stipulate that Feld’s original source was Agnes Flanagan. Don Feld possibly repeated testimony from an acquaintance who had a friend with a cousin who knew and received the story from Agnes Flanagan’s podiatrist.

    But wait. We have the photograph mentioned by Summers which depicts the stuffed tiger abandoned by Marilyn’s swimming pool. Right? Well, again not really. As verified by the photograph below, the stuffed animals were not anywhere near Marilyn’s swimming pool.


    Also, the stuffed animals can be easily identified as a dog’s chew toys: a lamb in the foreground and another stuffed animal slightly up, an obvious declination away from Marilyn’s swimming pool. That animal, which Summers asserted could be a tiger, was most certainly a floppy-eared dog, not a tiger.[3] A member of David Marshall’s DD Group, Sabine Grella, attended a Christie’s auction (possibly the 1999 event) that sold the stuffed animals appearing in the above photograph. Sabine testified that the animals sold at auction were a stuffed lamb and a dog and each was “heavily worn and gnawed.”[4] David and his investigative group finally concluded that the stuffed toys depicted in the above photograph “had been at the house long before” August the 4th; and they were not a secret message that depressed Marilyn immediately; they were nothing more than dog toys. “[…] like so many other stories that have cropped up concerning Marilyn’s last days,” David asserted, “the Stuffed Animal story is likely fiction.”[5]

    But what about the stuffed toy tiger? Should we conclude, along the lines of the DD Group’s conclusion, that the mysterious tiger did not even exist? And if it did exist at that time, from where and from whom did it cometh? And also, what about Robert Kennedy’s stuffed tiger mentioned by Anthony Summers, the one that possessed Pride of Place?

    Even though I have not been able to find photographic evidence that a stuffed toy tiger actually existed, a receipt from Vicente Pharmacy conclusively proves that Marilyn, for the huge sum of $2.08, purchased a toy tiger on April the 2nd in 1962.[6]


    Of course, the receipt does not tell us why Marilyn purchased the toy tiger; and the sum she paid in 1962 equals approximately $20 US in today’s currency, a sum that could purchase a stuffed tiger larger than her small dog. Also, the receipt does not tell us what happened to the toy. Should we follow Anthony Summers’ lead and speculate? If Marilyn bought the tiger as a chew toy for her Maltese Terrier, Maf, perhaps he destroyed the tiger during the four months leading to August; but, then again, perhaps Marilyn did not purchase the toy for Maf. Perhaps she invested the equivalent of $20 US for a gift that she gave to the child of an acquaintance or a friend, a large and plush stuffed animal, which her $2 could have purchased. Regardless of where the toy tiger landed, it was not a sinister message dispatched to Marilyn by John or Robert Kennedy, Ethel Kennedy, or Pat Newcomb. In her memoir, Jeanne Carmen suggested that the stuffed tiger could have been dispatched by Pat Newcomb who, according to Jeanne according to Marilyn, also liked Robert Kennedy.

    Summers referenced Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. as the source for the existence of Robert Kennedy’s life-size stuffed tiger. Over the years, the Kennedy biographer noted, the attorney general cluttered his justice department office with many objects, one of which was a life-size taxidermied big cat; but, Schlesinger noted, the Attorney General carefully explained to a foreign newspaperman that he had not shot the tiger himself (239).[7] In fact, Indonesian President Sukarno presented the stuffed Sumatran tiger to Robert Kennedy as an expression of gratitude and appreciation from the Indonesian government: the attorney general had helped resolve a tense territorial conflict between Indonesia and the Dutch, and the resolution generally favored Indonesia.

    Along with the Sumatran tiger, President Sukarno sent Robert Kennedy, Jr. two living Komodo dragons; but when the carnivorous lizards grew to a dangerous size, they were given to a nearby zoo. According to an article written by Kathleen O’Brien for Inside Jersey, Robert Kennedy, Jr. reported that the attorney general displayed the life-size tiger in his office only briefly before the tiger was transferred to Hickory Hill and given to the junior Robert Kennedy: I think my father gave me the tiger as a consolation. The photograph displayed below depicts a taxidermist, also named Robert Kennedy, restoring the worn and aging trophy.[8]


    If Robert Kennedy willingly gave the stuffed tiger to his son, should we therefore conclude that Anthony Summers’ comment regarding the stuffed tiger’s pride of place in the attorney general’s office was nothing more than pointed speculation. Or that he really did not know of what he spoke at all?

    As many have pointed out it is all too easy for authors to distort and misrepresent the facts pertaining to Marilyn Monroe and Robert Kennedy, particularly if the author has an agenda  to fulfill. Obviously the anecdote about the mysterious stuffed toy tiger was not presented with all of its factual background intact by Mr. Summers.  He did not present firsthand testimony obtained by interviewing Agnes Flanagan; a fact one has to dig into his footnotes to detect; and he did not present the actual facts about Robert Kennedy’s stuffed Sumatran tiger; or the provenance of the stuffed tiger that Marilyn purchased.

    When all the facts are presented, it becomes dubious as to whether the event happened. Why Vanity Fair never fact checked the article or called in a neutral outside expert to play the judge is quite puzzling, because, as of now, due to any lack of rigor the Monroe field has become a veritable cesspool.

    But at least we have a warning. As you watch the upcoming Netflix documentary, I hope you will keep this example of Summer’s Monroe journalism in mind.

    (More to follow after the documentary has been aired by Netflix.)


    [1] All quotations unless noted otherwise can be found on pages 442 and 443 in Chapter 43 of Goddess: The Secret Lives of Marilyn Monroe, published by Open Road Integrated Media, New York, 2012. According to Sarah Churchwell’s scholarly analysis of Marilyn’s many lives, in the 1985 edition of Goddess, the toy tiger anecdote, and Summers deft presentation of it, appeared on pages 350 through 352.

    [2] “Marilyn Monroe’s Final Hours: Nuke Fears, Mob Spies, and a Secret Kennedy Visitor” by Anthony Summers, Vanity Fair, March 23, 2022.

    [3] A caption that I cropped from the photograph, indentified that animal as a teddy bear, also clearly an incorrect identification.

    [4] Marshall, David. The DD Group: An Online Investigation into the Death of Marilyn Monroe. Lincoln: iUniverse. Kindle Edition, 2005. Chapter: “Timeline: The Morning of Saturday, August 4, 1962 8:00 AM to Noon.” Section: “Interlude: The Stuffed Animal Story.”

    [5] Ibid.

    [6] Receipt provided by Gary Vitacco-Robles.

    [7] Schlesinger, Jr., Arthur M. Robert Kennedy and His Times. New York: Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 1978. Kindle Edition, 2002.

    [8]Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s tiger being restored by a familiar name,” by Kathleen O’Brien, Inside Jersey, May 6. 2013.

  • Collateral Damage: Mark Shaw’s Public Atrocity, Part 2

    Collateral Damage: Mark Shaw’s Public Atrocity, Part 2


    Read Part 1

    I. Odd Photographic Evidence

    Within the pages of his book, Mark Shaw incorporates several photographs and he offers explanatory comments pertaining to each. However, his analysis is erroneous and, therefore, his comments about the photo depictions is seriously flawed. Of course, he trotted out the now famous photograph of Marilyn flanked by John and Robert Kennedy following the 1962 event at Madison Square Garden. This photo was taken during the after-party at Arthur Krim’s Manhattan penthouse. Shaw publishes the cropped version of the photograph, the usual tactic of cheapjack writers. Invariably, the photograph has also been darkened, suggesting that the famous trio engaged in a secretive and a serious discussion of such import they did not want to be overheard, but Shaw’s commentary about the photograph soars to an unprecedented level of misrepresentation and distortion. After implying that Cecil Stoughton, the White House photographer, actually timed taking the photograph so that the full faces of John and Robert would be hidden from view, Shaw declared: “Within moments, JFK, by all credible accounts, asked Marilyn to step into the shadows where RFK stood, and the three of them spoke for more than ten minutes.” (Shaw, p. 397) Shaw did not divulge exactly who delivered the alleged “credible accounts” or who conscientiously timed the conversation. At any rate, the actual photograph reveals a much less sinister looking encounter between Marilyn and the middle Kennedy brothers. The left-hand photograph in the panel displayed below is the cropped version used by Shaw, but the right-hand photograph is the actual snapshot as taken by Stoughton.


    Obviously, the movie star and the politicians did not huddle alone in the shadows for ten minutes: they were, in fact, surrounded by many other guests who attended the Krims’ after-party. Another photograph taken at the after-party clearly indicated the number of people surrounding and touching Marilyn. Steven Smith, married to the Kennedy sister, Jean, and thus a Kennedy brother-in-law, wrapped his arm around Marilyn’s waist, displayed below on the left of the double panel; and many additional photographs indicated the crowded conditions as President Kennedy tried to converse with many of the Krim’s guests, including Jack Benny, displayed below on the right of the double panel. The bespectacled elder man in the background of the left-hand photograph was Marilyn’s escort for the evening, her former father-in-law, Isadore Miller.


    Isadore’s presence did not prevent Shaw from reporting yet another falsity about that historic event. He asserted that the Secret Service escorted President Kennedy and Marilyn from the Krims’ penthouse “to the Carlyle Hotel, where JFK maintained a penthouse.” Then Shaw quoted gossip columnist Earl Wilson, who later alleged, following Marilyn’s death: “It was the last pro­longed encounter between them.” (p. 397) Neither Wilson nor Shaw recounted what actually happened following the Krim’s after party. They simply ignored it, disregarding the testimony of the persons actually involved in the events.

    During the small morning hours, both Marilyn and Isadore Miller climbed aboard Marilyn’s rented limousine and headed to Brooklyn. She dutifully delivered her former father-in-law to his front door steps. According to Gary Vitacco-Robles, Marilyn implored Isadore to return to the west coast with her, when she returned to LA the following day; but he declined and replied: “Maybe in November.” (Kindle V.2:25) After a brief conversation, Isadore exited the limousine. Marilyn blew her former father-in-law a kiss and then she returned to her 57th Street apartment, where she exited the limousine, barefooted, her shoes in hand, and engaged in a brief curbside conversation with one of her ardent fans, James Haspiel. He testified on more than one occasion that Marilyn told him she was exhausted. “I can tell you with authority,” he later wrote in a publication about his association with her, “that I was with Marilyn at her apartment ten minutes to four in the morning. Categorically, Marilyn was not asleep at the Carlyle Hotel, and I didn’t notice the President anywhere nearby us.” (Vitacco-Robles, ibid)

    After leaving her fan standing on the sidewalk, she proceeded upstairs to her apartment, where Ralph Roberts met her. Ralph testified repeatedly that he massaged Marilyn during that early morning until she fell asleep. Even so, Shaw asserts that Marilyn and the president had a “brief sexual encounter” after the Madison Square Garden celebration, simply not the case. Even J. Randy Taraborrelli admitted: His years of research and investigation clearly indicated that such an encounter did not occur. But, once again, the facts do not matter in the world of Marilyn apocrypha. And Mark Shaw is just getting started.

    The exact location of Robert Kennedy during the 1962 weekend of Marilyn’s death, specifically on Saturday, August 4th, has been debated for decades. Where was the evil attorney general? Was he, along with his wife Ethel and four of his then seven offspring, in Gilroy, California, southeast of San Francisco, visiting John and Nancy Bates, their family and ranch? Or, was he in Brentwood visiting and murdering his rejected and distraught lover? Just where the hell was he? The answer: Robert Kennedy and a portion of his family were in Gilroy, California and according to 1.) John Bates, Sr., 2) his wife, Nancy, 3.) their eldest son, John Bates, Jr., and 4.) the ranch foreman, Roland Snyder, Robert Kennedy did not leave the ranch during Friday or Saturday.

    Regarding the Attorney General’s location that weekend in August of 1962, Shaw equivocated. He wrote:

    […] there have been suspicions that the last person to see or hear from Marilyn may have been Robert Kennedy, and whomever may have joined him at her new home. While the accounts differ as to the exact time and duration of the potential visit, if true, RFK could have had a confrontational conversation with Marilyn regarding her going to the media and telling secrets threatening him and his family (p. 477, emphasis mine)

    It is apparent that Shaw could not simply out-of-hand dismiss the Bates family’s testimony regarding that weekend and, even though he appeared to accept that Robert Kennedy visited Brentwood that Saturday, despite differing accounts regarding that visit, he also equivocated and employed phrases like “may have been.” But intent on having his cake and eating it, Shaw devises a truly bizarre tactic. Bear with me as it unfolds.

    II. Wrong Car in the Wrong place

    Early on Sunday morning, August 5th, after the group attended church in Gilroy, John Bates Sr. drove his visitors back to San Francisco and delivered them to the home of Paul Fay. The Kennedy family visited the Fays until the Attorney General delivered his speech to the American Bar Association on Monday, August 6th. Shaw publishes a Bates family photograph, displayed below. It depicts the Kennedy family just as they were starting to pile into the Bates family station wagon, preparing to leave Gilroy and the Bates Ranch.


    Mark Shaw holds that he obtained the Bates family photograph from Troy Vaughn, a former deputy sheriff and forensics expert from South Carolina, thus implying that the photograph had been kept hidden and was a deep and dark secret for nearly six decades until Shaw discovered it. This is a false implication. Susan Bernard, the daughter of the famous photographer Bruno Bernard of Hollywood, published not only the above photograph, but nine other photographs snapped by the Bates family during the Kennedy’s visit to their ranch that August weekend. Susan’s famous father not only photographed Marilyn on numerous occasions, he was also the movie star’s close friend. Susan included the Bates photographs in her 2011 photo journal, Marilyn: Intimate Exposures, which featured her father’s work with the movie star. Therefore, the photograph’s existence has been known for at least a decade, but, actually, much longer than that. Still, those facts did not interest Shaw. He called his reader’s attention to “the automobile with the driver’s side door open and the wood paneling beneath the window.” (p. 485) Was the paneling actually wood?’—but then, I digress.

    Shaw now begins in earnest: after the photograph of the Bates’ station wagon, he publishes the photograph on the left, displayed below. Shaw failed to publish the photograph on the right, which also occurred on Sunday morning, August 5th.


    Shaw’s analysis of this tragic scene is a remarkable example of a literary mischaracterization. He writes that the photo “depicts two men, perhaps from the mortuary, wheeling Marilyn’s covered body not out of, for whatever reason, but into her home on the day she died.” Shaw then calls the reader’s attention to the station wagon pictured in the distance and adds that it “appears to be a duplicate of the car RFK and his family were standing by at the Bates ranch.” Shaw conceded, however, that the presence of the automobile might simply be coincidental. O really?! But he then speculated that “somehow the car was driven from Gilroy to Los Angeles and then appeared at Marilyn’s death scene.” He bemoaned the unfortunate reality that the individual who drove the car that eventful Saturday—which required a time investment of at least ten hours round trip—”will never be known.” For more information on Mark Shaw’s treatment of John Bates, Sr., read the sidebar, Mark Shaw Transformed John Bates, Sr. into Frank Ragano.

    Mark Shaw Transforms John Bates into Frank Ragano

    During WWII, John Bates, Sr. served in the United States Navy. While serving, the young sailor met and befriended the future President of the United States. Both Johns, Bates and Kennedy, became members of a San Franciscan host committee to assist with the formation of the United Nations. Although the senior Bates was a Republican, his character was such that, after America elected John Kennedy its 35th president, the new Commander in Chief invited his attorney friend to serve as an assistant to the Attorney General. The senior Bates declined: he was deeply committed to the prestigious law firm of Pillsbury Madison and Sutro. Still, Bates, Sr. remained friends with John and Robert Kennedy and the entire Kennedy clan.

    The preceding small amount of biography leads to this: the exact location of Robert Kennedy during the 1962 weekend of Marilyn’s death. While there has been some pseudo-debate about the issue, on Saturday, August 4th, it has been well known that Robert Kennedy and a portion of his family were in Gilroy, California, visiting the John Bates family at their ranch. The Kennedy visit began on Friday afternoon, the 3rd of August, and ended on Sunday morning, August 5th. What I just stated is an established fact, but over the passing years, many conspir­acist writers have questioned the validity of Robert Kennedy’s alibi along with the validity of the first-hand, eye-witness testimony provided by John Bates, Sr. and his wife, Nancy. My research into the lives of both John and his wife confirmed that they were exemplary individuals with impeccable reputations. I asked Donna Morel, herself a licensed California attorney, if she knew any­thing about attorney Bates. Only, she replied, that he had an outstanding reputation. Despite that stellar reputation, following the lead of his conspiracist brethren, Mark Shaw doubted the senior Bates’ honesty. The author based his doubt on a false allegation. According to Shaw, during the 1957 McClellan hearings, John Bates, Sr. represented the mobster, Sam Giancana. Thus, Shaw proclaimed:

    Muddying the waters regarding RFK’s alibi on the 4th of August is the fact that John Bates served as an attorney for mobster Sam Giancana, RFK’s mortal enemy, during the same McClellan hearings where RFK served as chief counsel. That Bates covered up the truth as to Bobby’s whereabouts on the day Marilyn died would have certainly crossed the mind of Dorothy Kilgallen. (p. 484)

    The McClellan Senate hearings included both Robert and his brother, then Senator John Kennedy. Robert was lead counsel, which Shaw correctly notes, but he failed to note the following: the interaction between RFK and various mobsters who testified—including Giancana—can best be described as acutely adversarial. In fact, Robert Kennedy ridi­culed Giancana, needled him, referred to the dangerous mobster as a “little girl,” which must have humiliated the Mafioso. That being the case, if John Bates, Sr. was Giancana’s attorney, had allied himself with the Mob against his Kennedy friends, and in so doing, had betrayed them, this leads to an obvious question: Why would John Kennedy then immediately invite that attorney to join and serve in a Kennedy Administration, invite an unprincipled and untrustworthy Mob lawyer to work alongside his brother, the Attorney General? What illogical nonsense to even suggest that this is what transpired.

    Again, with assistance from Donna Morel, I contacted John Bates, Jr. on July 26th via email and posed this question: was your father ever associated with Sam Giancana or the Mob in any capacity? He responded as follows:

    Thank you for your inquiry. My father was a civil attorney. My father never practiced criminal law. At all times, he was exclusively a civil trial lawyer. His entire career was with the prestigious San Francisco law firm of Pillsbury, Madison, & Sutro, where he ultimately rose to managing partner. Never during his legal career did he appear before any legislative committee for anyone. He never represented a member of the Mob, organized crime, or Sam Giancana. Any assertions to the contrary are incorrect.

    Mark Shaw failed to provide a source for his accusation about the senior Bates’ involvement with Sam Giancana. In his source notes for the chapter in which that accusation appeared—Chapter 32—Shaw vaguely referenced a 1985 New York Times interview with John Bates, Sr. During my research into the character of the senior Bates and the issue of Robert Kennedy’s location on August 4th, I located only one New York Times article involving John Bates, Sr. That article did not contain a single word about Sam Giancana or the senior Bates’ involvement with the mobster. Moreover, Mark Shaw did not provide any additional information or evidence to support his transformation of John Bates, Sr. into Frank Ragano, none whatsoever. Very odd, but also revealing. A reasonable person could only conclude that Mark Shaw did not know anything at all about John Bates, Sr. and he did not endeavor to learn anything about the respected attorney, either.

    Still, Shaw covered himself and asserted that the Attorney General’s appearance in Brentwood at Marilyn’s hacienda was not the important issue. Oh, no? The important issue, what really mattered, was Bobby’s dumping rejection of Marilyn, just like JFK’s rejection, and if the second rejection by Bobby caused a confrontation and Marilyn’s threat to reveal their affairs publicly. Shaw then noted: “If he [Robert Kennedy] was truly in the San Francisco area, arguably the second most powerful man in America could have orchestrated her death with a telephone call from afar.” (p. 485) Interesting, is it not, even if Robert Kennedy was not in Brentwood, and even if he did not visit Marilyn that Saturday’—and he obviously was not and did not’—he still killed the world’s most famous actress with a lethal telephone call.

    But what is really happening in the photograph that Shaw published, the one on the left in the two photo panel above? It depicts Pierce Brothers Cemetery and Mortuary employees wheeling Marilyn into that facility after her body had been delivered by Don and Guy Hockett; not into her house at Fifth Helena Drive.  How can one do something like that by accident? Also, the photograph on the right side of the panel depicts coroner employees removing Marilyn’s body from the cemetery mortuary for its transportation to downtown Los Angeles for autopsy. Often, writers have erroneously asserted that the men in the snapshot are policemen.

    Please return briefly to the first photograph of the Kennedy family preparing to leave the Bates ranch. You will note that the pictured station wagon had been equipped with a roof-mounted luggage rack. The distant station wagon in the left hand photograph above does not have a luggage rack. Also, since that photograph is black and white, we have no way of comparing the automobile’s colors and, too, please note the amount of open space, open land in the receding distance beyond the duplicate station wagon and also note the slender palm trees. Below is an aerial view of Marilyn’s cramped property with its kidney-shaped swimming pool, left side, combined with a photograph of Pierce Brothers Westwood Village Cemetery, right side.


    III. More Wrong Depictions

    Clearly, the photograph of the two men wheeling Marilyn’s body into the mortuary was not taken at Marilyn’s hacienda on Fifth Helena. It was taken at the Pierce Brother’s Westwood Village Cemetery and Mortuary, where Joe DiMaggio had Marilyn interred on August 8th. Additionally, Marilyn’s hacienda did not have French doors, a fact confirmed by the floor plan of the hacienda as it actually existed in 1962, displayed below.


    Like most dutiful conspiracists, Shaw published the police photograph of Marilyn’s bedside table and, like his conspiracist compatriots, he published a cropped version, included below. Dutifully, he also noted that a drinking glass was not on Marilyn’s bedside table and one could not be found, neither in her bedroom nor her adjoining bathroom.


    Displayed below is the actual, uncropped photograph taken that Sunday morning by police combined with an enlargement of the trash can area. Please note the drinking glass to the right of the trash can on the floor and to the left of Marilyn’s bed, a clearly visible drinking glass.


    Following the photograph of the bedside table, Shaw published another police photograph of Marilyn’s bedroom, looking at her bedroom door, displayed below. While a policeman looked at the cluttered bedroom, beyond him was a woman with her back to the camera. Shaw labeled that woman as unidentified.  In fact, a comparison of other photographs taken that morning would have confirmed her identity if Shaw actually did not recognize her: Eunice Murray, Marilyn’s housekeeper.


    Regarding a related matter, Shaw included what he asserted was the bedroom wing layout of Marilyn’s hacienda and he paraphrased Eunice Murray’s testimony about that tragic Sunday morning: “while on the way to her bathroom,” Shaw noted, “she [Mrs. Murray] noticed light visible beneath Marilyn’s door, causing her to become suspicious that something could be wrong.” (p. 597) However, Shaw doubted that testimony, calling it inconsistent and apparently a lie. The layout of Marilyn’s home, he asserted, rendered her testimony unlikely or even impossible: Mrs. Murray had to leave her bedroom and walk into the hall in order to notice “a light under Marilyn’s bedroom door.” (p. 597) Displayed below is the drawing that Shaw used to confirm his assertion.


    However, there is a major problem with that drawing: it is grossly inaccurate. Where are the clothes closets between the bedrooms, the linen closet, and where is the corner fireplace in Marilyn’s bedroom? Plus, the room denoted as “Murray Bedroom” was actually a bedroom Marilyn had reconfigured into her dressing room. Displayed below is the correct bedroom wing floor plan as it was in 1962.


    On the night of August 4th, Eunice Murray slept in the smaller bedroom where Marilyn had positioned a cot, identified on the floor plan as “Guest Sleeping.” Pat Newcomb had slept in the same bedroom on the same cot when she spent Friday night with Marilyn. It is apparent that Mrs. Murray could have noticed light emanating from Marilyn’s bedroom on her way to the Jack and Jill bathroom and considering the arrangement of the bedroom’s doors, she could have stood at her bedroom door and easily observed Marilyn’s bedroom door. In the police photograph of Marilyn’s bedroom, looking across her disheveled bed at the opposing wall, clearly Mrs. Murray was preparing to enter the bedroom where she had slept, clearly visible from Marilyn’s bedroom door.

    On page 515, Shaw published a photograph of Marilyn with her arm around the neck of a young fan, taken either preceding or following the premier of How to Marry a Millionaire on November 4th in 1953. Shaw identified that young man as Joe DiMaggio, Jr. Odd. Where is Joe DiMaggio, Sr.?’—an important consideration left unconsidered by Mark Shaw.

    Born on October 23rd in 1941, the junior DiMaggio was twelve years old when How to Marry a Millionaire premiered in 1953 and, considering that his mother, Dorothy Arnold, took her ex-husband to court in an attempt to keep the youngster away from Marilyn’—Dorothy cited Marilyn’s unsavory vulgar character and her potential negative influence’—it is more than highly unlikely that Dorothy would have allowed her twelve-year-old son to attend a movie premiere with the disreputable movie star. Besides, the young fellow in the photograph published by Shaw appears to be at least 14 years-old and possibly even older.

    The combined photographs below prove as much. To the left is the cropped version of Marilyn and her young fan as published by Shaw. To the right is a photograph of the junior Joe taken with the senior Joe at Ebbets Field on October 9th in 1953, approximately 30 days before the premiere of How to Marry a Millionaire.  The lucky young man who received that hug from Marilyn was not Joe DiMaggio, Jr.


    Finally, Shaw trotted out the famous thank-you note from Jean Kennedy Smith to Marilyn. During the Lawford’s 1962 February dinner party, Marilyn spoke to the ailing Kennedy clan patriarch via a telephone call instigated by Robert Kennedy. Joe Kennedy had suffered a serious stroke on December 19th in 1961, but he had yet to recover: he could barely speak. Robert must have felt that hearing Marilyn’s incredible voice would bolster the old man’s spirits. Sometime later, Marilyn sent a kind note to the senior Kennedy. In response to Marilyn’s kindness and her note, Jean Kennedy Smith wrote and sent Marilyn the aforementioned thank-you note. Both pages of the actual note follow.


    An innocent note, written and sent in response to a note that Marilyn sent to Joe Kennedy, Sr. It has always been of particular interest to conspiracists, including Shaw.  But in his book, he published the note’s second page only, which begins with: “understand you and Bobby are the new item!” Clearly, Shaw did not publish the first page of the note for obvious reasons. Like conspiracists before him, Shaw breathlessly pointed to the thank-you note as evidence and proof that Marilyn and Robert Kennedy were involved in an affair and the invitation extended by Jean Smith for Marilyn to join Bobby when he returned to the east has been used by the conspiracists as evidence that Robert Kennedy’s extramarital relationship with Marilyn had been accepted by the Kennedy clan, specifically the Kennedy women. Should we assume, then, that both Ethel Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy had also accepted Bobby’s extramarital relationship with Marilyn?

    Since Shaw ignored the first page of the thank you note, he was able to write the following ridiculous assertion: “Whatever Kennedy Smith knew’—whether from the mouth of her brother or through perhaps Peter Lawford, married to Pat Kennedy’—had triggered the letter.” (p. 572) As the first sentence of the thank-you note clearly stated, Rose Kennedy asked her daughter to write and thank Marilyn. That request “triggered the letter,” not something nefarious.

    During the decades since the note was sent to Marilyn by Jean Smith, its context has been completely disregarded by the conspiracists, including Mark Shaw. Obviously, the comment about Marilyn and Bobby being “the new item” was meant as a tongue-in-cheek reference to Marilyn’s twist teaching efforts during the Lawford’s February dinner party and the uproarious scene caused by Robert Kennedy attempting to dance with Marilyn Monroe. Evidently, Ethel constantly teased the Attorney General over that humorous scene, as frequently noted by John Seigenthaler, Robert Kennedy’s friend and assistant.

    That Jean Smith would invite Marilyn to visit Hyannisport seems only natural: who would not want Marilyn Monroe in their home for a visit? In point of fact, the lack of an invitation for Marilyn to visit would have appeared suspicious.

    The conspiracist’s efforts to use that innocent note as proof of not only a romantic affair but the affair’s acceptance by the Kennedy clan and the Kennedy women is preposterous. That attempt should be viewed as manufactured since Sgt. Jack Clemmons, Frank Capell, Robert Slatzer, and Jeane Carmen were all complicit in it. For an author—who is also an attorney—to place himself in such a dubious crowd is: well, its mystifying.

    IV: A Contrived Murder Scenario

    Near the end of Collateral Damage, Mark Shaw revealed his hypothetical Marilyn murder scenario. But before I launch into my analysis of his hypothesis, let me briefly discuss what the Hollywood Godfather has asserted to be factual.

    According to Gianni Russo, Robert Kennedy hired a Mob assassin to eliminate  his rejected lover. “A guy known as The Doctor murdered Marilyn,” Russo testified to Michael Kaplan for a 3/2/19 New York Post article. The Doctor was a killer for hire and an actual MD who performed “major hits for the mob […].” This unnamed doctor “injected air into the vein near Marilyn’s pubic region,” which rendered the injection site invisible, Russo reported to Kaplan. Although Russo did not specify which vein or which part of Marilyn’s anatomy received the injection. How near is near?

    In Russo’s aberrant world, Marilyn “died of an embolism, but it looked like drugs to the coroner,” just a garden variety overdose. I am not being the least bit facetious. While possibly the most inventive of Marilyn’s Murder Orthodoxies, Russo’s embolism tarradiddle is also certainly the most ludicrous. At any rate, I give him an A for Amagination and an F for Foolishness. How could a venous gas embolism create the lethal concentrations of Chloral hydrate and pentobarbital in Marilyn’s blood and liver? How could that air bubble deceive the tests per­formed by the head toxicologist and, further, trick him into interpreting the tests as indicating the presence of drugs, marking a massive overdose, when, in fact, the drugs did not even exist? That is, according to Gianni Russo. I assume every death from an embolism has been misdiagnosed as a drug overdose. Despite the ludicrous nature of Russo’s fairy tale, it has been reported by many newspapers, magazines, and Internet articles as the absolute truth. Yet, the most remarkable aspect of this curiosity is that Mark Shaw actually asserts that Russo’s incredibly imbecilic fairy tale has some credence. Once again, I am not being the least bit facetious.

    An insane number of theories about the death of Marilyn Monroe have been developed and presented as fact during the past fifty-nine years: at least 12. The conspiracist authors who developed and presented those theories invariably contended that theirs was factual: the Last Word regarding the who, when, how, and why of Marilyn’s perceived mysterious death, her murder. Still, all of those theories did not satisfy Mark Shaw. Therefore, he developed one of his own. Let’s call his new theory Number 13. According to Shaw, Number 13 proceeds as follows.

    Sometime near midnight, unable to sleep, Marilyn “heard a noise at her front door.” Upon opening the door, two gloved men assaulted her and “stunned” her by placing “a chloroform-sealed cloth over her nose and mouth.” Once stunned, the two men either dragged or carried Marilyn into her bedroom and, during that relocation, the men hit her lower body against a sturdy piece of furniture, or the open door’s edge or the doorknob. That inadvertent whack bruised Marilyn’s left hip. Once in her bedroom, the murderers removed any outer “clothing she was wearing such as a robe or panties” and they then carefully “positioned her nude body on the floor face down.” At this point, one of the men switched on the light and then locked the door, so they would not be disturbed. Water “secured from the bedroom faucet,” mixed with a lethal dose of both the Chloral hydrate and Nembutal became the ammunition for the murder weapon.

    The murderers then “dipped a bulb syringe of some sort into” the drug mixture and then “inserted the tip into Marilyn’s rectum, with some spillage possible. Quickly, the lethal dose would have infiltrated her blood system and begun the march to her death.” Her murderers then placed Marilyn’s body face down on her bed and placed the telephone receiver “in her hand for effect.” After cleaning up “as best they could,” the two murderers “quietly left the home through the bedroom door,” which they locked on the way out. (pp. 612–613)

    There are numerous problems with the preceding theoretical scenario. I’ll begin with time.

    The alleged time that the murderers began the gruesome process of murdering Marilyn, midnight on August 4th, creates a serious issue for Shaw. According to Don and Guy Hockett—who collected Marilyn’s body at Fifth Helena and took her to the Pierce Brothers Mortuary, where she stayed briefly—her body was so rigid, they had trouble placing her on the gurney. They asserted, based on the degree of rigor mortis and the presence of fixed lividity, that Marilyn had passed on at about 10 PM.  Natalie Trundy, later said that she and her fiancé Arthur Jacobs attended a concert that night. At approximately 11:00 PM, an usher arrived and informed Jacobs, then Marilyn’s publicist, that she was either nearly dead or already dead.

    The temperature of Marilyn’s liver at 10:30 AM on August 5th, the time that Dr. Noguchi began her autopsy, as noted on her autopsy report, was 89°F, 9.6°F below what is considered normal. Virtually all the conspiracist writers have ignored that fact, including Shaw. According to the Glaister Equation, a formula used to calculate a person’s possible time of death, using a temperature differential from normal of 9.6°F, Marilyn could have died between the hours of 9:30 PM on the 4th of August and 2:30 AM on the 5th of August with a mean time of 12:30 AM on the 5th. Regardless of what time Marilyn’s essential bodily functions ceased (i.e. the exact time she actually died), it is evident that she became an unresponsive, comatose body at some point prior to 12:00 midnight: an essential detail. Therefore, Shaw’s murderers would not have encountered a conscious Marilyn near midnight on August 4th.

    Consider the “chloroform-sealed cloth” that the murderers pressed against Marilyn’s nose and mouth. Did Shaw mean chloroform-soaked? At any rate, the use of chloroform to render a person unconscious is a myth started and perpetuated by Hollywood moviemakers. Evidently, the time required to knock-out a person using a chloroformed rag varies between five and ten minutes and, since liquid chloroform quickly evaporates into a gas when exposed to air, fresh liquid chloroform must be constantly added to the rag. Also, for the person to remain unconscious for an extended period of time, a freshly chloroformed rag must be held continually against the person’s nose and mouth. But then, Shaw alleged, that the chloroform “stunned” Marilyn. A stunned person would be groggy or dizzy, dazed. If Marilyn was only dazed by the chloroform, according to my research into the longevity of its effects, Marilyn would have regained her senses rather quickly: the effects of chloroform, in its gaseous state, diminish and disappear rapidly.

    Shaw’s assertion that the murderers left the home “through the bedroom door” is an odd statement. As indicated by the floor plan of Marilyn’s hacienda, her bedroom did not have a door allowing access to the exterior. That is why Dr. Green­son had to enter Marilyn’s bedroom through one of the casement windows. I have concluded that Shaw’s assertion about the murderers’ getaway route is just another example of his many misstatements.

    V. Shaw’s Bulb Syringe Murder Weapon

    A major problem with Shaw’s contrived murder scenario resides in his vague description of how the assassins actually killed the movie star. They used a “bulb syringe of some sort,” which they dipped into a drug solution and then they inserted bulb syringe’s tip “into Marilyn’s rectum.” By bulb syringe, did Shaw mean the type of syringe often used to remove ear wax, irrigate sinuses, and remove mucous from the nostrils of infants? Certainly the killers drew a quantity of the drug solution into the bulb syringe, which they then injected into Marilyn’s rectum, but Shaw did not actually say that. Still, Marilyn could not have been killed with a normal size bulb syringe, one that could have dispensed two, maybe three ounces of the drug solution.

    The largest bulb syringe I located could have dispensed twenty ounces, or 2½ cups, of the drug solution. But using a bulb syringe that large would have created its own set of problems. Shaw admitted that “some spillage” would have been possible, but certainly trying to infuse Marilyn’s rectum with 2½ cups of liquid using a large bulb syringe would have resulted in more than just some spillage. In fact, I contend, if she was unconscious, the spillage would have been considerable and would have stained Marilyn’s new white wool carpet.

    More importantly, there are significant scientific problems with Shaw’s contrived murder scenario.

    According to my research, while killing a person with an enema is possible, doing so is not that simple or easy. It requires an infusion of the descending colon with a large quantity of a lethal solution. It would be virtually impossible to murder a person by simply injecting a lethal solution into his or her rectum.

    In Murder Orthodoxies, I wrote extensively about a similar situation, using the rectum as the route to murder Marilyn using a drug infused suppository. Chuck Giancana, Sam Giancana’s stepbrother, stated in his novel, Double Cross, that his stepbrother deployed suppository wielding assassins to murder Marilyn. Since killing with a bulb syringe would be similarly problematic, allow me to touch upon the significant points here. Keep in mind Shaw’s contention that the lethal solution “quickly infiltrated” Marilyn’s “blood system,” which led to her death.

    The human rectum is primarily a storage chamber, a vertical section of the large intestine approximately 4½ inches long; therefore, it provides only about 50 square inches of an absorptive surface. Since the lining of the rectum is smooth, meaning devoid of the finger-like protrusions known as villi, absorption through it is neither efficient nor speedy. The International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Review and Research noted that both the degree and the speed of drug absorption from the human rectum is both lower and slower than absorption from the gastrointestinal tract. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that the lethal solution proposed by Shaw quickly infiltrated Marilyn’s blood system. Additionally, blood circulation to and from the rectum is unusual. A list of various points follow.

    • The inferior mesenteric and the internal iliac arteries supply the rectum with blood.
    • The superior rectal vein, the middle rectal vein, and the inferior rectal vein along with anastomoses or venous plexus return blood from the rectum.
    • The superior rectal vein connects to the portal system and directly to the liver, where it undergoes a degree of first pass metabolism.
    • The inferior and middle rectal veins connect directly to the systemic circulation system, which delivers blood to the heart through the inferior vena cava and then throughout the body before reaching the liver.
    • The anastomoses or venous plexus connect to both the portal and the systemic venous systems.
    • The anal canal, which measures 1±½ inches in length, is the final part of the human digestive system and the inferior rectal artery delivers blood to the anal canal.
    • The inferior rectal vein accepts blood from the anal canal and delivers it to the internal iliac vein and then to the systemic circulation.

    Many studies have been performed to determine the bioavailability of drugs administered rectally. The percentages vary considerably with time and drug. A consensus does not exist regarding just how much of a rectally absorbed drug enters the portal venous system, gets delivered to the liver, where it is subjected to first pass metabolism, and just how much bypasses the liver on its initial trip through the body. Certainly, based on the anatomy of the rectum, which varies from person to person, as does each person’s physiology, the only reasonable position to assume, for the purpose of this discussion, is that 50% of an absorbed drug enters the portal venous system and then the liver, where a portion of it will be metabolized and 50% of an absorbed drug does not enter the liver on its initial trip through the body. Additionally, assuming that 50% of the absorbed drug passed through Marilyn’s liver initially and 50% did not, I suggest that more of the absorbed drug would have been found in Marilyn’s blood stream than is indicated. And that scientific fact leads me to this.

    Shaw noted that the amount of chloral hydrate in Marilyn’s blood was 8.0 percent and the amount of pentobarbital in her liver was 13.0 percent, suggesting that the volume of blood in Marilyn’s body was 8% Chloral hydrate and 13% pentobarbital which, of course, was not the case at all. What Shaw actually meant was not a raw percentage but milligram percent or mg%, a measure of concentration; the mass of a chemical, given in milligrams, that is present in one-hundred milliliters of a solution, blood for instance. Also, Shaw failed to mention the concentration of pentobarbital in Marilyn’s blood, 4.5 mg%, quite a significant omission and a prime example of cherry picking in order to exclude relevant but unwanted evidence.

    Abernathy’s tests indicated a concentration of pentobarbital in Marilyn’s liver three times as high as the concentration in her blood. Explained by a branch of pharmacology called pharmacokinetics, that relationship is consistent with ingesting a large overdose and proves beyond a reasonable doubt and to a scientific certainty that the drugs were ingested. The drugs were not injected into Marilyn’s body, she did not receive a hot shot, and she was not murdered with a bulb syringe, regardless of its size.

    Finally, while Shaw’s hypothetical murderers killed the world’s most famous woman on that night, where was Eunice Murray? She does not appear in Shaw’s scenario, but we know she was in the house that night with Marilyn, asleep on a cot in the small bedroom very near Marilyn’s bedroom. Certainly, Mrs. Murray would have heard any noises caused by Marilyn’s struggle with the murderers. Once again, Shaw attempted to diminish his problem with Eunice Murray’s known presence that night. He opined:

    Of course, as with any theory like this based on circumstantial evidence after so many years have passed, questions will be raised, with answers unfortunately somewhat speculative in nature. (p. 612)

    Amazing. Shaw began to question his own theory, his own explanation of what happened to Marilyn and led to her death. What time did the killers arrive? he questioned. Where was Mrs. Murray when the killers arrived and enacted the gruesome scene in Marilyn’s bedroom? Shaw speculates that the murder possibly occurred between midnight and 3:00 AM, contradicting his proclamation that the murderers arrived “at some point close to midnight.” (p. 612) Then, regarding the bruise on Marilyn’s hip, Shaw admitted that “other explanations exist as to how Marilyn could have bruised her left hip.” (p. 612) However, if that bruise was caused as he speculated, then obviously foul play had been involved in Marilyn’s death. He then wondered if Mrs. Murray had “knowledge of the attempt on Marilyn’s life,” which he admits could not be known. (p. 615) He then speculates that Mrs. Murray became spooked by “hearing noise near Marilyn’s bedroom,” which caused “Murray to wonder if Marilyn was in distress” and prompted her “to call either Greenson or Engelberg.” (p. 615) Eventually, Shaw’s speculations centered on Dr. Greenson, Dr. Engelberg, and Eunice Murray and their possible complicity with Robert Kennedy who “orchestrated Marilyn’s death via operatives sent to her home.” (p. 617) Frankly, it became self-evident as I read Shaw’s speculations and strange contradictions, that he likely did not even believe Number 13, which he himself formulated. So why should I? Besides, I know Shaw’s Number 13 is a fantasy founded on sensationalism. Marilyn was dead before midnight. Evidence, not speculation, confirms that and confirms that Marilyn certainly was not alive at 3:00 AM on August 5th. Unlike Mark Shaw, rigor mortis and fixed lividity do not speculate.

    VI: A Brief Summation

    Before ending with a brief summary, I would be remiss if I did not note the following. During a recent interview with Heather McDonald, Mark Shaw asserted that he wrote Collateral Damage because he “never bought the idea that Marilyn committed suicide.” The author then added: “When I heard about it I didn’t believe it and I still don’t and I’ve proven in the new book that it didn’t happen.” Shaw proceeded to add: “In this particular book I did not use any sources with books or anything else from 1965 on. They [Shaw’s sources] were all before sixty-five.”

    Remarkable. Shaw brazenly admitted that he began writing with an occluded mind based on a foregone conclusion. Most certainly, as he wrote, he was afflicted with an idée fixe and a form of group think, leading him to engage in cherry picking, confirmation bias, belief perseverance, illusory correlation, and fallacious reasoning.

    Why would an author in search of the facts, in search of the truth, deny the validity of all the valuable research into Marilyn’s life and her relationships after 1965, not only with the middle Kennedy brothers, but her other relationships as well? Why would he deny all of the valuable research into the circumstances surrounding her death that has transpired during the past 59 years? Why would he limit his source material to only the 3 years following her tragic death? And finally, why would he evoke discredited men like Frank Capell, Sgt. Jack Clemmons, and many others, including both C. David Heymann and the incorrigible fabulist, Gianni Russo, who did not appear with his Marilyn fantasy until 2005 and his book was not published until 2019—both dates decades beyond 1965. Using Russo as a source is a contradictory reversal of Shaw’s source edict and why would Shaw present those men as reliable sources? The answer is obvious: Shaw wanted and needed sources that confirmed his foregone conclusion, not unlike every conspiracist author who has written about Marilyn Monroe’s life and her death.

    Shaw calls Senator Joe McCarthy a despicable man whose heart was filled with hate.  But the author himself engages in a despicable form of McCarthyism, because of the apparent hatred in his heart for Robert Kennedy. Referencing the Chappaquiddick tragedy, Shaw asserted that Teddy Kennedy’s conduct, how he handled the drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne “was symbolic of the selfish ‘me first’ mentality of the Kennedys, especially RFK.” (p. 558) Robert Kennedy was already killed at that time. Even so, guilt by familial association is Shaw’s assessment. Robert was even more selfish and uncaring than the youngest Kennedy brother.

    Within the text of Collateral Damage, Mark Shaw devoted many words and pages to the exceptional investigative prowess of Dorothy Kilgallen, who constantly searched for the facts in every significant story or case, searched for the truth and justice. Based on comments within her published articles, Shaw asserted, Dorothy suspected that her “friend” did not commit suicide, suspected that her friend was romantically involved with Robert Kennedy, and suspected that her friend’s death involved the attorney general. Shaw knew without debate, all the unsolved mysteries surrounding and all the unanswered questions left in the wake of Marilyn’s mysterious death would have been solved and answered after an investigation by the incredible Dorothy Kilgallen. Since Marilyn died in early August of 1962, what prevented Dorothy from focusing her investigative spotlights and powers on her “friend’s” mysterious death? Of course, 16 months after Marilyn’s death, Dorothy became embroiled in the president’s assassination, the murder of Oswald, and then the sensational trial of Jack Ruby, but she had at least 16 months during which she could have investigated Marilyn’s suspected murder. Again, what prevented her?

    Shaw must have realized that the absence of any investigation by Dorothy Kilgallen was a problem for him, so he proffered an explanation. During the October missile crisis, with humanity on the precipice of nuclear war, possibly annihilation, “in perhaps his finest hour, RFK stood tall and helped his brother quell the threat.” Dorothy Kilgallen, Shaw presumed, because of her integrity—and the fact that Robert Kennedy had helped save humanity—“could not in good conscience go forward, and this stifled any further probe involving RFK.” (p. 600) According to Shaw, Dorothy Kilgallen’s integrity actually prevented her from exposing the murderer of her “friend,” the most famous actress in the world. Truly amazing conjecture based on absolutely nothing. There was no credible evidence Robert Kennedy and Marilyn were ever romantically involved, less that he was part of her murder.

    In fact, Dorothy Kilgallen’s columns following Marilyn’s death had been based on rumor and gossip, innuendo and sensationalism.  All advanced by other luminaries in the gossip mongering field: Walter Winchell, Earl Wilson, Louella Parsons, and James Bacon. As of right now in America, rumor, gossip, and innuendo do not qualify as evidence.

    Still, Shaw promised his readers that he would reveal new and compelling evidence regarding Marilyn’s death. He didn’t. He merely recited, right on cue, what Sarah Churchwell accurately identified as the same tales and bromides.

    For example, he resurrected the CIA-UFO-Memo as evidence that Marilyn was possibly murdered, because she knew about the existence of little green men. Shaw insinuated that the memorandum was new evidence, when it was, in fact, inordinately old news.

    Twenty-six years ago in 1995, Milo Speriglio introduced the memorandum to the world during a press conference and, since that time, the document has been evaluated and analyzed innumerable times. Nick Redfern just published a book that yet again evaluated that dubious memorandum. Many UFOlogists and impresarios in the odd world of flying silver discs generally agree on this: that document is a hoax, a crafty forgery.

    Shaw, however, interjected a new wrinkle: he asserted that the one of the telephone conversations mentioned in the memorandum occurred between Dorothy Kilgallen and Marilyn who “told Kilgallen that JFK had told her of his visit to a secret air base where he viewed ‘things’ from outer space.” (p. 386) I have read that memorandum at least two dozen times and it does not state that Marilyn revealed to Dorothy Kilgallen anything heard from the lips of or otherwise learned from President Kennedy. Clearly, according to the memorandum, Howard Rothberg imparted hearsay evidence to Dorothy involving some secrets Marilyn allegedly knew, one of which involved the president, a secret air base, and things from outer space. Still, regardless of what the CIA-UFO-Memo alleged, I repeat, that document is now recognized to be a forgery.

    In 2006, on the CBS program, 48 Hours, Peter Van Sant and Anthony Summers presented and generally discussed an FBI file that Mark Shaw also resurrected. Sent from Mexico City and dated the 13th of July in 1962, number 105-40698-3, the file referenced a

    luncheon at the Peter Lawfords with President Kennedy just a few days previously. She [Marilyn] was very pleased, as she asked the President a lot of socially significant questions concerning the morality of atomic testing and the future of the youth of America.

    According to my research and according to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum along with the website, History’s Home on the Web, President Kennedy was either in the nation’s capital, Camp David, or Hyannis Port throughout the month of July in 1962, except when he delivered a 4th of July speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Even though, during that CBS program, Summers presented the now 59-year-old FBI document as being factual, 21 years earlier, Summers admitted in his pathography, Goddess, that his investigation regarding that alleged meeting revealed “no day in the relevant time-frame when John Kennedy could have been in Los Angeles’—he made an official visit to Mexico at the end of June.” (Summers, p. 577) Obviously and evidently, President Kennedy did not travel to California in July of 1962, which leads to an obvious conclusion: President Kennedy did not meet Marilyn at the Lawford’s beach house for a luncheon.

    But then, throughout Collateral Damage, Mark Shaw followed along the well-worn path created by the footfall of an almost endless parade of conspiracists who have preceded him. He, like they, promised his readers he would prove with new and compelling evidence that Marilyn Monroe did not commit suicide.  Yet, he merely engaged in not only rumor, opinion, gossip, and innuendo; he also engaged in the worst form of gross speculation and evidence creation. While presenting testimony lacking any evidentiary value whatsoever, he also presented testimony from two sources whose verity has been questioned repeatedly and from one source whose testimony has obviously been manufactured. Additionally, he otherwise twisted the facts to fit his foregone conclusion: Marilyn Monroe was murdered, not only murdered, but murdered by Robert Kennedy.

    Oddly though, Shaw asserted as his text approached its conclusion: “it appears that Marilyn Monroe had been right, as noted, when she wrote in My Story, ‘Yes, there was something special about me, and I knew what it was. I was the kind of girl they found dead in a hall bedroom with an empty bottle of sleeping pills in her hand.’” (p. 600) Did Mark Shaw fail to realize that Marilyn was referring to her death by overdose, her death by suicide?

    If Mark Shaw really wanted justice for Marilyn, which, considering his use of Gianni Russo, I doubt, then Shaw would have let her rest in peace. But evidently that would be an empathetic compassion beyond a conspiracist’s comprehension.

    Addendum

    The other material about Dorothy Kilgallen and JFK in Shaw’s book is largely repetitive of his earlier works.  Since it is such, we refer the reader to Jim DiEugenio’s reviews of The Reporter Who Knew Too Much and Denial of Justice.

  • Collateral Damage: Mark Shaw’s Public Atrocity, Part 1

    Collateral Damage: Mark Shaw’s Public Atrocity, Part 1


    It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has

    data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit

    theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

    Sherlock Holmes

    The preceding admonition by Sir Conan Doyle’s famous, fictional crime investigator expresses an important maxim: theories should be crafted to incorporate acquired facts. All too often, however, conspiracist authors in the Marilyn-Was-Murdered-World have violated and continue to violate Holmes’ maxim. In some cases, they have twisted the facts; and, in some cases, too often they have created facts to fit their preconceived conclusion about Marilyn’s death. And all too often, the conspiracist authors have engaged in false logic, which has been, and still is, often expressed by this fallacious proclamation: since Marilyn Monroe would never have committed suicide, she must have been murdered. Those authors ignore the fact that Marilyn attempted suicide four known times during her life; before proceeding to craft an illogical and often convoluted path to their foregone conclusion. In Mark Shaw’s recent publication, Collateral Damage, largely about the deaths of Marilyn Monroe and Dorothy Kilgallen, the author recklessly engaged in what Sherlock Holmes calls a capital mistake. Shaw does exactly what the detective admonished investigators to avoid.

    I. A Fabricated Friendship

    An important foundational premise posited by Shaw in Collateral Damage is that some type of lengthy and abiding friendship existed between the film star and the gossip columnist. Kilgallen’s friends, Shaw asserts, “included stars from stage and screen like Marilyn.” (p. 51) Yet, the author does not offer any tangible evidence to conclusively establish this putative friendship.

    Sixty-eight pages following the preceding assertion, Shaw introduces a woman named Brenda DeJourdan, the daughter of Kilgallen’s deceased butler, James Clement. Evidently Shaw interviewed her; but the author’s source notes did not reveal anything about the interview or his source, a glaring but typical omission.

    Brenda informed Shaw that Dorothy Kilgallen often hosted fabulous parties. Presumably following one of those many parties, Brenda’s father assisted Marilyn “to her car because she was intoxicated.” (p. 120) In Shaw’s opinion, that statement “cemented” that the two famous women were friends, certainly a quantum leap considering that Brenda’s testimony was not very specific. Was the referenced car Marilyn’s personal car or a rented limousine? And if not a limousine, why would Dorothy allow her intoxicated friend to drive on the streets of Manhattan? Certainly the gossip columnist would have instructed her butler to call or hail a taxi cab for her good friend. Furthermore, Brenda does not assert that she actually witnessed her father assisting the actress. Did the butler’s daughter simply recall a story that her father had related to her? A significant difference; and since we do not know the calendar date when this party occurred, judging Brenda’s statement becomes even more difficult. Then Shaw makes an interesting comment: Dorothy “would have had to approve” Marilyn’s party invitation. (p. 120) Why? If Dorothy and Marilyn were such great pals, why didn’t Dorothy just give her actress pal a jingle and invite her? At any rate, other than Brenda DeJourdan’s anecdotal testimony, thin at best, possibly even hearsay, Shaw does not offer any additional evidence pertaining to the purported friendship between the two famous women.

    Oddly enough, Shaw himself actually undermines his friendship premise. He admitted that Dorothy occasionally fired “potshots” at Marilyn, “but usually in jest.” (p. 94) Shaw also notes: Dorothy once compared Marilyn’s appearance to “an unmade bed.” (p. 95) I’m not exactly sure how Shaw knew, or could even assert, that Dorothy fired her potshots at Marilyn simply for comic effect. He certainly could not have interviewed her. Still, it must be noted that Marilyn did not take insults of any type, particularly those regarding her appearance, lightly or in stride.

    Then, remarkably enough, Shaw contradicts his assertion that Dorothy took potshots at Marilyn and declares: “Kilgallen always spoke highly of Marilyn.” (p. 422) Really? Then he quotes a 1955 Playboy interview with the writer, Truman Capote, during which Capote shared an anecdote involving Marilyn, a NYC saloon, and his friend Dorothy Kilgallen. Allegedly as Capote and Marilyn neared the saloon, he suggested that they duck inside and refresh themselves. “It’s full of advertising creeps,” Marilyn responded according to Capote. Then she added: “And that bitch Dorothy Kilgallen, she’s always in there getting bombed.” Even as Capote tried to defend his journalist friend, according to him, Marilyn commented that Dorothy had “written some bitchy stuff about me.” (p. 422) Shaw soft-pedals Marilyn’s comments, called them merely “misgivings” about Dorothy; but Marilyn’s comments do not sound like mere misgivings: they sounded like well-founded hostility. Therefore, in view of the preceding, what exactly are the facts about any relationship shared by Marilyn Monroe and Dorothy Kilgallen?

    Of course, since Dorothy was an important member of the press, Marilyn was obligated to associate with the gossip columnist; and she evidently did so, but only to a point. Dorothy often published unsubstantiated and false gossip about Marilyn, which the actress neither understood nor appreciated. Even Shaw notes that many press agents considered Dorothy to be “a ‘sucker’ for an unsubstantiated story about a personality and thus didn’t do her homework to confirm” a story’s validity before it appeared in her gossip column. (p. 127) That troubling fact leads me directly to Robert Slatzer.

    Dorothy apparently knew Slatzer; and she mentioned him in one of her columns as a dark horse in the Marilyn Monroe romance derby. Slatzer, Dorothy asserted, was a generous soul who gave Marilyn books, her favorite gift. Unquestionably, Slatzer fed Dorothy that morsel of gossip. Additionally, during Dorothy’s vacation in 1952, Slatzer wrote her gossip column, which he proceeded to use as a forum to begin his literary fraud and construct his fantasy relationship and marriage to the famous actress.

    Marilyn researcher and blogger, April VeVea, noted on her blog site, Unraveling the Slander of Marilyn Monroe, that Dorothy often displayed animosity toward Marilyn for no apparent reason. She frequently reported on Marilyn’s romances, alleging that the blonde actress was involved romantically with many men. Even so, the actress and gossip columnist evidently enjoyed a fair relationship until 1953, when Marilyn ceased giving Dorothy exclusives. It must be noted: Marilyn would immediately forsake persons who had spoken indiscreetly about her private life, persons who had criticized her, or persons who she felt had betrayed her. Such must have been the case with Miss Kilgallen and her gossip column. Certainly, then, after 1953, Marilyn considered Dorothy unworthy of her trust.

    April VeVea also noted: Dorothy Kilgallen and Walter Winchell were the only two journalists who did not receive an invitation to the 1955 event during which Marilyn announced the formation of Marilyn Monroe Productions. Marilyn biographer, Donald Spoto, also noted: “Every Manhattan columnist and every reporter of any status was present except Dorothy Kilgallen and Walter Winchell, both of whom had been excluded by Milton [Greene] because of their general hostility toward Marilyn” (Kindle Edition: Ch.14); and finally, Dorothy did not receive an invitation to attend Marilyn’s funeral while Walter Winchell did: he was Joe DiMaggio’s friend.

    In an email communication with me regarding the Marilyn–Dorothy friendship alleged by Shaw, Marilyn biographer, Gary Vitacco-Robles, noted that he was “only aware of DK attending the event to promote” the romantic comedy, Let’s Make Love, released in September of 1960. Extant photographs depict Marilyn, her costar, Yves Montand, and Arthur Miller with Dorothy Kilgallen. But an unbiased and forthright analysis of those photographs will lead to this conclusion: while Marilyn and Dorothy were together during that publicity event, they were not being friendly. In fact, Marilyn appeared to be completely disinterested in Dorothy’s presence, as the photographs below reveal.


    Gary also commented: “I wouldn’t consider them good friends. As a member of the press, MM had no choice but to cooperate with DK. There is no known personal correspondence between them.” Gary offered to search Marilyn’s address books for Dorothy’s name. But even Shaw admitted that the journalist’s name did not appear therein, an important omission that Shaw does not explain. Being absent from Marilyn’s books of important names, addresses, and telephone numbers meant that she did not consider the missing person an important part of her life. Worse still, she did not consider the missing person a friend.

    Did Marilyn know Dorothy Kilgallen? Of course. But were they good friends or even friends at all? No evidence exists that would lead a reasonable person to conclude they were even friends, much less good friends. In fact, the actual evidence suggests just the contrary: Marilyn and Dorothy were not friends.

    II. Peculiar and Unreliable Sources

    When considering any literary effort pertaining to Marilyn Monroe, it is important to consider the author’s sources. More often than not, it is equally as important to consider the sources of the author’s sources, in other words if it is a secondary source, where did the author get the info? This is a near impossibility regarding Collateral Damage due to the author’s paucity of information about his sources. At any rate, Mark Shaw relied on an odd group of peculiar and unreliable sources.

    During his opening “Author’s Note,” Shaw declared the following purpose relative to Marilyn Monroe: “most people look at the movie star with a stereotypical perception that she was a sexpot who became a star only because of that appeal instead of her being what she really was: an accomplished actress and a very caring and intelligent human being, as will be presented here;” a laudable purpose. (p. 9) Yet, nineteen pages later, Shaw calls upon a woman named Cara Williams as a source and for insights regarding Marilyn Monroe’s persona.

    Evidently Shaw interviewed Cara, then 94 years old, during May of 2020. According to Shaw according to Cara, she worked briefly with Marilyn during the 1940s while both women were employed by Fox. Therefore, Cara’s association with Marilyn must have occurred between late 1946 and late 1947, at the beginning of Marilyn’s movie career. With that fact established, consider the information Cara shared with Shaw.

    Cara and Marilyn infrequently shared the mirror in what one assumes was Fox’s community make-up room. Marilyn constantly practiced making various expressions during those beautification sessions, according to Cara. She concluded that Marilyn wanted “to see what particular face would look best in the film she was working on,” certainly an odd conclusion. (p. 29) During her initial tenure with Fox, Marilyn appeared on-screen in only two films: for 4 seconds during Scudda Hoo! Scudda Hay! and for 56 seconds in Dangerous Years. Neither film required her to perform any unusual or abnormal expressions, at least not expressions for which she would need to rehearse. Also, Cara announced, Marilyn simply could not act. Why? The blonde was just too concerned with her self-image, meaning, I assume, her appearance. Should we conclude, then, that Cara was not concerned with her appearance?

    Evidently, Cara was acutely aware of Marilyn’s reputation and condemned her promiscuous behavior. Cara knew that Marilyn “slept around with this executive and that,” meaning, of course, that the movie star simply fornicated her way to the top. (p. 29) Just how she actually knew about Marilyn’s bed hopping, neither Cara nor Shaw explains. Cara also informed Shaw that she, like Marilyn, had posed for the photographer Tom Kelley; but she did not pose in just her skin. She would never have done such a thing. And finally, even though Marilyn was always nice to Shaw’s source she was not interested in being Marilyn’s friend. Obviously, Cara Williams did not like Marilyn Monroe.

    The opinions offered by Cara Williams clearly undermined Shaw’s expressed purpose: to present Marilyn as more than just a sexpot, but to present her as an accomplished actress who reached the top on her talent; to present her as a woman of intelligence and humanity. Cara’s opinions pertaining to Marilyn did not provide Shaw’s readers with an insight into Marilyn’s life or her death. In fact, Cara’s opinions did not provide evidence of anything.

    Jane Russell, Marilyn’s Gentlemen Prefer Blondes co-star, appears as one of Shaw’s sources at approximately the midpoint of his book. Unlike Cara Williams, at least Jane had some feelings for Marilyn and often referred to the blonde movie star as her little sister. According to his source notes, Shaw did not interview Jane. Instead, he relied on quotations from a biography written by Edwin P. Hoyt, Marilyn: The Tragic Venus, published in 1965; quotations which Shaw does not properly source, a common occurrence for him. According to Shaw, Jane informed Hoyt that her co-star “was always sweet and friendly [with] the stagehands and the crew” along with also being “a thoughtful person, a searching person.” (p. 388) Shaw then referenced a 2007 Daily Mail article in which Jane expressed her opinion regarding Marilyn’s death: her friend did not commit suicide, so sayeth Jane. “Someone did it for her,” Jane opined in the article. “There were dirty tricks somewhere.” Wendy Leigh, the interviewer and the article’s author, asked Jane if she believed that the middle Kennedy brothers were involved in Marilyn’s death, meaning, of course, her murder. Jane nodded her head in agreement. Certainly Jane Russell was entitled to her opinion, but that is all it was: her opinion. Then Jane Russell the actress suddenly became Jane Russell the expert mind reader; she informed Wendy Leigh: “Soon after Marilyn died I met Bobby Kennedy, and he looked at me as if to say, ‘I am your enemy.’” Unquestionably, Jane’s assessment of Robert Kennedy’s expression, or what she assumed was a glaring threat, was likely colored by her opinion and belief that he was involved in Marilyn’s death; and since Jane’s anecdote starring Robert Kennedy cannot be confirmed, her assessment of how the attorney general looked at her was merely her biased opinion. Like Cara Williams, Jane Russell’s opinions did not provide evidence of anything, except Jane’s prejudice.

    But Shaw is not finished in this suspect vein. He offers a woman named Janet Peters, the daughter of Marlowe C. Hodge, the real estate agent who allegedly sold Marilyn’s hacienda after her death. The name Marlowe Hodge does not appear anywhere in the Marilyn canon. Some quick research uncovered an obituary for Marlowe C. Hodge dated July 14, 1996, published by Desert News, Salt Lake City, Utah, a Mormon newspaper. The obituary noted that Mr. Hodge’s daughter, Janet Peters, survived him. The obit’s biographical information mentioned that Hodge was the president of Hodge Sheet Metal, “a company which was involved with many heating and air conditioning and fascia projects in the greater Los Angeles area.” Evidently, he was also the Sheet Metal and Air-Conditioning Association of America’s president; and he often delivered speeches “in his usual articulate manner in many cities at conventions.” If the late Mr. Hodge was a real-estate agent, his obituary did not so state. I suppose the referenced death notice could have been for another Marlowe Hodge with a daughter named Janet Peters, but that probability seems minuscule.

    But according to Janet Peters, her father related a story to her involving Eunice Murray. “My dad came home one day and told me,” Ms. Peters informed Shaw, “I just sold Marilyn Monroe’s house.” Evidently, Mr. Hodge encountered Eunice Murray who told him “Marilyn was murdered, said it was the Kennedys, Bobby Kennedy, not a suicide at all.” (p. 481) Mr. Hodge revealed that Mrs. Murray was adamant about Marilyn’s murder, meaning what exactly? Odd how Shaw, on one page of his publication could accuse Eunice Murray of complicity in concealing the facts about Marilyn’s death, accuse her of being a liar, and then on another page offer testimony pertaining to her opinion about Marilyn’s murder at the hands of the evil Kennedys. Shaw admitted that Janet Peters’ testimony was “secondhand,” a weakness that he simply ignored, and announced that her statements and her recollections appeared to be “genuine.” Surely, as a lawyer, Shaw realized that the statement by Janet Peters was gross double hearsay, possibly even grosser triple hearsay, and despite her genuineness, offered no evidentiary value at all.

    Before I leave Mr. Hodge and his daughter behind, I would be remiss if I did not note the following: the sale of Marilyn’s home became embroiled in court due to multiple offers to purchase the house. By that time, Eunice Murray was no longer involved. Designated by the probate court, Inez Melson took over the sale of Marilyn’s hacienda and the liquidation of Marilyn’s possessions. The home would not be sold until September of 1963. Also, Gary Vitacco-Robles informed me that Mrs. Murray only returned to the hacienda on one occasion: with Marilyn’s sister, Berniece, and Inez Melson to select a burial dress for Marilyn. Shaw appears not to have done his homework on this.

    III. Mark Shaw Meets Mario Puzo

    Gianni Russo portrayed Carlo Rizzi in the 1972 movie, The Godfather. He reprised his portrayal in the movie’s 1974 sequel. Thereafter, Russo appeared in twenty-five movies, most of which were either critical or financial failures. Still, his appearance in the two Godfather movies, considering his lack of any acting experience or formal training, afforded Russo a certain amount of fame; however, three decades plus would arrive and depart before Russo appeared on the Howard Stern Show, during which he imparted an amazing story: one that involved the former thespian, famous mobsters and the world’s most famous actress, Marilyn Monroe. In Collateral Damage, Mark Shaw presented Russo as a reliable source and a man that his readers should believe. As the reader will see, this is amazing.

    Tracing the development of Russo’s yarn in the ever accommodating media has been humorous, but also informative. The edges of his MM narrative changed constantly over the years, not unlike the edges of an amoeba.

    In 2006, for example, Russo announced on the Howard Stern Show that Marilyn was in her 20s when he first encountered her and their affair began. Shall we engage in some simple arithmetic? When Russo was born, Norma Jeane was 17. On June 1, 1946, Norma turned twenty. At that time, Russo was two-years-old, still in diapers no doubt and pulling on a pacifier. A decade later, Marilyn started her thirties on June 1,1956, and she attended the premiere of The Seven Year Itch in Manhattan with Joe DiMaggio. At that time, Russo was a twelve-year-old boy. So, at the age of 12, he was taking on Joe D? Would Mario Puzo even write that? There’s more. For the entertainment website FactsVerse, Russo declared that his affair with Marilyn actually began when he was 16 and she was 23. Marilyn was 23 in 1949. Russo must have become an extremely advanced six-year-old in December of that year. But this is obvious: neither Norma Jeane nor Marilyn Monroe had an affair with Gianni Russo while they navigated through their twenties and most certainly not when Russo was six years old.

    The former pizza clerk and brick mason must have realized his errors or a friend advised him that he appeared and sounded foolish. So, in 2019, he began to alter his story. In March of 2019, he told The Sun that his Marilyn affair really began when he was 15 years old and she was 33. But then, in a 2020 article published by the website IrishCentral, he revised his age upward to 16. But he left Marilyn’s age at 33. At least the arithmetic worked in Russo’s favor.

    During an interview, Russo reported to Mark Shaw that he first encountered Marilyn “one day in 1959” when he was working as a shampoo boy for the hairstylist Marc Sinclaire. One of his “lovely customers,” who he had yet to recognize, “began moaning as he messaged her head. She thanked him for ‘being good at this,’” before, as he said, “It hit me. I was shampooing Marilyn Monroe.” (p. 160) Shaw can believe Russo’s ridiculous anecdote; but speaking for myself, I do not believe for one minute that he was allowed to shampoo the hair of the world’s most famous actress without being told her identity beforehand; or that he did not immediately recognized her, particularly since Some Like It Hot had been released with considerable fanfare in mid-March of that year. (For more information about Gianni Russo’s incredible tale, read the sidebar: Did Mark Shaw Reveal Everything About Gianni Russo?)

    Sidebar: Did Mark Shaw Reveal Everything About Gianni Russo?

    In 1972, following The Godfather’s release, and its resultant acclaim, Gianni Russo began to receive some media attention. Donna Morel, a California attorney and incredible researcher, provided me with two newspaper articles about the unknown and inexperienced actor. What the articles revealed is both curious and puzzling.

    According to a Thursday, March 23, 1972, Akron Beacon Journal newspaper article, written by Jerry Parker, Russo reported that he spent most of his adolescence, his teenage years, working long hours, both during the work week and on weekends, behind a Staten Island pizza counter. Parker then added: “At 18, by his own account, he was a $10-an-hour bricklayer.” Since Russo was born December 12, 1943, he must have stacking bricks in late 1961. Please note: Russo never mentioned his relationship with Marilyn Monroe to Jerry Parker. Why?

    In another 1972 newspaper article written by Margo Coleman, featured in both the Oil City, PA, Derrick, on Friday, December 22nd, and the St. Cloud Daily Times on Wednesday, December 27th, Russo asserted that his air-conditioning company had won the contracts to install $9M worth of air-conditioning in the new MGM Hotel in Las Vegas. Evidently, the newspaper fact-checked Russo and learned that those contracts “had been let to a Dallas Firm called Continental Mechanical which, alas, has never heard of Russo.” Similarly, Russo mentioned his olive oil company and Russo Pasta Products, both of which, he announced, had been purchased, evidently from a man named Vincenzo La Rosa. However, Miss Coleman humorously noted: “This will no doubt come as a surprise to Mr. V. La Rosa and his sons who are unaware of having sold their pasta company to Russo—or anyone else.” Please note again: Russo never mentioned his relationship with Marilyn to Margo Coleman, either. Why?

    To close the loop on Russo’s pasta company, according to my research, V. La Rosa and Sons Macaroni Company began operating in Brooklyn in 1914. Evidently, the American Italian Pasta Company (AIPC) eventually acquired La Rosa’s macaroni operation. Then, in 2010, Ralcorp Holdings acquired AIPC followed by ConAgra Food’s acquisition of Ralcorp in 2013. All of the preceding companies are now a part of the multinational corporation, Tree House Foods.

    Continuing with the balderdash, Russo has asserted that his affair with Marilyn actually began while he was working in Manhattan as a shampoo boy for the hairstylist Marc Sinclaire. The year was 1959. Considering what Russo told the Akron Beacon’s Jerry Parker in 1972, the fifteen-year-old must have toiled all those long hours behind the pizzeria’s counter in Staten Island and then headed to Manhattan and his hair washing gig. Marilyn Monroe, he alleged, was a regular customer who appreciated his hair washing skills. At any rate, Russo asserted that Marilyn “summoned” him to the “Waldorf Astoria hotel” for a “private shampooing” during September of 1959, approximately three months before his 16th birthday. That slice of baloney created yet another problem for Russo: his assertion about Marilyn’s residence did not intersect with reality.

    After Marilyn left the Greene’s Connecticut farmhouse in early 1955, she moved into Manhattan’s Gladstone Hotel; but she soon relocated into a more elegant one-bedroom suite in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. That suite proved to be too expensive for Marilyn Monroe Productions; so, in late 1955, Marilyn relocated her residence again: she moved into a five-room apartment at 2 Sutton Place South. Additionally, after she married Arthur Miller in June of 1956, the newlyweds purchased a luxury apartment located at 444 East 57th Street. She maintained that apartment even after she and Miller separated in 1959 and then divorced. Obviously, then, in 1959 Marilyn did not summon Gianni Russo unto her for a private shampoo at her Waldorf-Astoria residence: she was not living there.

    Certainly Mark Shaw’s source, while being imbued with braggadocio, also has a real aversion about facts. Shaw did not tell his readers the full truth about Gianni Russo, because he never fact-checked his own source.

    During his February 2005 appearance on Howard Stern’s program, and in various Internet articles, Russo asserted that his sexual cavorting with Marilyn lasted for only a weekend. But evidently, a brief cavort with her was not sensational enough. So, he began to report that the relationship lasted off and on for four years. If Marilyn was 33 years old when the affair began, she must have been 37 when the four-year affair ended. Not possible, of course: Marilyn died at the age of 36.

    Additionally, Russo reported to Mark Shaw that Marilyn was “as beautiful as ever at age 33.” (p. 161) Similarly, in various articles and interviews, Russo reported that the movie star was a great lover—the best, he often asserted: she simply wanted to please her partner. But then, during a 2020 Howard Stern interview on October the 6th, Russo told the vulgar shock jock that Marilyn was not really a good lover because “she was like a baby.” He also reported to Stern that Marilyn was in her mid-20s during their affair and did not have a great body: she was slightly fat. He also told Stern during that interview: “I was with her for three days.” Wait a minute: I thought the affair with his slightly fat, rotten lover lasted four years. Like most inveterate fabulists who frequently create anecdotes from the whole cloth of their imaginations, he simply could not keep his fabrications aligned. As I have already demonstrated, Gianni Russo was still a youngster when Marilyn was in her mid-20s. Besides, any man who alleged that Marilyn in her mid-20s was unattractive is—well, pick any pejorative you like.

    Like the inveterate fabulist Robert Slatzer, Russo claims a photograph proved his purported relationship with Marilyn. In the photographic panel displayed below, on the left is the aging, former actor seated beside his cropped photograph; and on the right is the actual photograph which includes another unidentified man also looking sideways at Marilyn. Russo has invariably asserted the following about that photograph:

    1. The shirtless man facing away from the camera, looking sideways at Marilyn, is him.
    2. Mafia don Sam Giancana snapped the photograph.
    3. Giancana took the photograph at Cal-Neva Lodge in July of 1962 during Marilyn’s purported Weekend from Hell, the now infamous weekend of July 28th.

    In July of 1962, Russo was 18 years old and he would not leave his teenage years until mid-December of 1963. By his own admission, at age 18, Russo was building masonry walls in the Greater New York Area. So, how could he also have been in California cavorting with a ganglord and the world’s most famous actress? Besides, the man in the photograph appears to be older than eighteen, possibly in his mid to late twenties, and his face cannot be seen. Plainly, then, the man in the photograph could be almost any man, and the photographer could have been anybody; but the real problem with that snapshot follows the photograph.


    After the publication of Russo’s book by St. Martin’s Press in 2019, lawyer Donna Morel began to investigate Russo, specifically, his sensational revelations about Marilyn Monroe, his alleged relationship with the actress, and his assertions about her death. Donna uncovered two newspaper articles that she provided to me along with a press release pertaining to a series of photographs that had been taken at Cal-Neva Lodge that infamous July weekend; and the press release appeared to contradict several of Russo’s assertions. After diligent hunting and research, Donna located an individual who was a guest at the Cal-Neva Lodge the weekend of July the 28th in 1962 and was also married to one of the entertainers who performed briefly at the lodge that weekend. The source Donna located, now past the age of 85, requested anonymity; therefore, hereafter I will refer to that individual as the Married Guest.

    Donna attempted to get in contact with this witness and, eventually, in May of 2019, Donna received a telephone call and a story about Russo’s photograph that completely contradicted the yarn spun by the Hollywood Godfather. Recently, Donna graciously provided me with the Married Guest’s telephone number. On Tuesday, August the 10th, 2021, at 10:00 AM, I engaged Donna’s source in a 90- minute conversation. The story I received confirmed what Donna had already reported to me. The individual to whom Donna and I spoke took the photograph, not Sam Giancana, who, according to the actual photographer, was not even at Cal-Neva that weekend. The Married Guest admitted to knowing the ganglord well and humorously commented: “Sam Giancana never took a photograph of anybody in his entire life!”

    As you have probably already assumed, the man in the photograph was most certainly not Gianni Russo; the man was an employee, a roadie who worked for an entertainer who performed that July weekend. Unfortunately, the Married Guest could not recall the roadie’s name, but commented that he was a nice man, not boy. Furthermore, when I asked if Robert Kennedy was at Cal-Neva that weekend, I received laughter and a firm “absolutely not.” To my question about the presence of mobsters other than Sam Giancana, I received a precise answer: “There were no mobsters there.” To my question regarding the alleged yarns about all the bad things that happened to Marilyn Monroe that weekend, the Married Guest replied: “Nothing bad happened to Marilyn. It was a big party and everybody enjoyed themselves, including Marilyn.” According to the Married Guest, the blonde movie star “was a very funny gal, but she did get drunk one night.” Before we ended our dialogue, my conversational partner expressed dismay and amazement with Gianni Russo’s stories. Truly, everyone who listens to Russo talk should be dismayed and amazed, a statement that will become even clearer as we proceed. I also hasten to denote this: two reliable sources who were also guests at the Cal-Neva Lodge that weekend, Betsy Hammes and the actor Alex D’Arcy, told Donald Spoto virtually 30 years ago that Giancana and his gang were not there. Their testimony has been completely ignored, not only by Mark Shaw, but the entire risible Marilyn-Was-Murdered-World.

    Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive, Sir Walter Scott admonished.

    IV. Marilyn’s Weekend from Hell

    That infamous July weekend has a singular significance in Russo’s wild yarn. Marilyn was there, according to Russo, because the Mob wanted to capture photographs of her in a wanton threesome with the middle Kennedy brothers. Those photographs could then be used as leverage against the Kennedy Administration, primarily the attorney general, and force the politicians to cease antagonizing organized crime and associated mobsters. The preceding scenario is nothing new. The alleged Weekend from Hell has been written about and debated for decades and the written accounts have been filled with inconsistencies and contradictions. What Russo alleged and reported to Mark Shaw simply adhered to that pattern.

    Gianni Russo’s account of that weekend, as reported by Shaw, has a surrealistic flair. After Marilyn learned of plans to film her in a threesome with John and Bobby Kennedy, she became extremely angry. According to Shaw according to Russo, Marilyn “lit into Bobby right in front of me and anyone else within earshot” and Russo also claimed that he “actually heard ‘Marilyn screaming’ from her cabin,” a noteworthy first: not even one of the many conspiracist writers who alleged that Marilyn endured a horrific weekend ever alleged that Marilyn was in her cabin screaming. (p. 163) The commonly accepted scenario describes Marilyn as a woman completely gone, knocked out, so drunk and drugged that she could barely walk. Likewise, not even one of the conspiracist writers alleged that the Attorney General of the Unites States was in Tahoe that weekend or that the President of the United States was scheduled to also be there, but like a coward, failed to show. With that in mind, ponder the following facts:

    President Kennedy’s itinerary for that weekend proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, and to a mathematical certainty, that he was never scheduled to make an appearance at the Cal-Neva Lodge.

    Friday, July 27th, was a busy day for President Kennedy. He engaged in two policy meetings and four meetings with foreign diplomats, not including the luncheon he hosted honoring the Prime Minister of Laos.

    After meeting with James Loeb, the American Ambassador to Peru, he left DC for Hyannisport and a relatively festive weekend. On Saturday the 28th, he celebrated the First Lady’s 33rd birthday while sailing near Hyannisport. Then, on Sunday the 29th, the president and the First Lady attended mass at St. Xavier Church, followed by a cruise to Egg Island accompanied by several friends. On Monday the 30th, the president returned to DC.

    Keep in mind that Russo stated unequivocally: Robert Kennedy was at the Cal-Neva Lodge that July weekend. Russo insinuated that the attorney general arrived on Friday, July the 27th. With that in mind, ponder the following facts:

    On the evening of July 26th in Los Angeles, the attorney general delivered a speech to the National Insurance Association, during which he spoke primarily about civil rights and equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of race. I have a Department of Justice transcript of his speech. A photographer, Charles Williams, took the photograph, displayed below. Standing to Robert Kennedy’s right, shaking his hand, was a judge named Jefferson, while the president of the NIA, Theodore A. Jones, stood to Robert Kennedy’s left.


    During the day following his speech, Friday, July 27th, Robert Kennedy returned to Washington; and then on Saturday, the 28th, he joined the president and Jacqueline for her 33rd birthday celebration. The Boston Globe reported on that festive event in the newspaper’s Sunday edition: “Among those present,” wrote Frank Falacci, “were Attorney General and Mrs. Robert F. Kennedy.”

    To end this recitation of Robert Kennedy’s itinerary, he was in Washington on Monday, July 30th, where he spoke to a large group of educators to open the President’s Council on Youth Fitness. “Energetic Atty. Gen. Robert F. Kennedy gave a pep talk on the importance of physical fitness yesterday,” reported a Port Chester New York newspaper, The Daily Item, in its July 31st edition.

    From this established record, Robert Kennedy was not with Marilyn Monroe at Cal-Neva Lodge at any time during the weekend of July 28th, as absurdly stated by Gianni Russo. For a man of his ilk to assert as much, along with all the other rubbish he has uttered, borders on felonious behavior. But then, he maintains that is exactly what he was—a criminal, and a murdering criminal at that, along with many other illegal enterprises which Shaw ignores.

    Finally, Gianni Russo has tendered an opinion regarding Marilyn’s death. He has stated that he knows how she was murdered and who murdered her; but I will discuss that piece of Russo prattle when I discuss Mark Shaw’s hypothetical scenario regarding Marilyn’s death.

    V. The Discredited Cop

    Sgt. Jack Clemmons was the first police officer to arrive at Fifth Helena Drive on Sunday, August 5th. Remarkably, Sgt. Clemmons was a friend of Marilyn’s first husband, Jimmie Dougherty. As an aside, it is actually a misnomer to label Dougherty Marilyn’s husband: he married Norma Jeane when she was barely sixteen years old; they divorced when she was twenty. Dougherty often testified that he never met and did not know Marilyn Monroe; but on the morning of August 5th, after Clemmons left Fifth Helena Drive, he telephoned Dougherty and broke the news of Marilyn’s death, which he called, at that time, a suicide.

    Mark Shaw evokes Sgt. Clemmons as a source a few times in Collateral Damage. The sergeant initially appears on page 157 as Jimmie Dougherty’s friend. Then, many pages later, Shaw noted Sgt. Clemmons’ concern with the time that elapsed before the police were notified after the discovery of Marilyn’s body, “some four to five hours,” Shaw incorrectly asserts. Then Shaw offers a Clemmons direct quotation, evidently lifted from one of his  many interviews now available on YouTube: “Someone can’t swallow that many barbiturates without throwing up,” Clemmons evidently said, “therefore she could have gotten drugs in her body by another method.” According to Shaw, Sgt. Clemmons suspected that Marilyn had, in fact, vomited, but all traces of it “may been cleaned up before he arrived;” the sergeant also concluded that the murder weapon was possibly a suppository or an enema. (p. 329) Shaw also mentions that Sgt. Clemmons observed “additional empty containers of pills and “scattered capsules and pills of another nature,” meaning obviously that capsules and pills had been dropped either in Marilyn’s bed or on the white carpeted floor, something I had neither read nor heard before. (p. 592)

    Eventually, Shaw recites Sgt. Clemmons’ story that he observed Eunice Murray operating a washing machine and clothes dryer close to dawn; obviously destroying evidence of vomit or another bodily discharge which could have proved Marilyn was murdered. In fact, Marilyn did not own a washing machine or a clothes dryer. She used a laundry service; but as with Gianni Russo, Shaw did not allow that fact to encumber him or his speculations about Marilyn’s bodily discharges, the evidence Eunice Murray hypothetically destroyed.

    Within the text of Murder Orthodoxies, this author devoted many words to Sgt. Jack Clemmons and his tales to many conspiracist authors from Robert Slatzer to Anthony Summers to Donald Wolfe, who became a close friend of Clemmons. I also traced the testimony the sergeant offered during his interviews during the many television documentaries he appeared in until his death in 1998.

    For 36 years, Sgt. Clemmons declared that Marilyn Monroe did not commit suicide: she was murdered by an injection administered directly into her heart by psychiatrist Dr. Ralph Greenson, which is a scientific impossibility, proven by Dr. Noguchi’s autopsy and Dr. Abernathy’s toxicological tests. But evidently—and like many in the MM trade—the once LAPD cop repeated the heart injection fantasy so often that he actually grew to believe it happened, when, in fact, it didn’t.

    Clemmons’ testimony was often inconsistent and contradictory; and his recollections of August 5th, what he was told by those present and what he saw, changed over the passing years. He even began to assert that Marilyn’s house and her bedroom, even her bed and her bedside table, were exceptionally tidy, and appeared to have been cleaned with all things neatly arranged. One look at the police photographs taken that August morning clearly indicated otherwise. Remember, according to Mark Shaw, the sergeant also allegedly saw pills and capsules scattered here and there.

    Sgt. Clemmons’ career as a policeman came to a dishonorable end in 1965, due to his involvement with Frank Capell and the Thomas Kuchel libel incident. Like Frank Capell, Jack Clemmons evidently did not have a problem twisting the facts. If you want to read more about Sgt. Clemmons, here is a direct link to Murder Orthodoxies, August the 5th in 1962. Follow the links at the bottom of that page to subsections featuring the first officer at the scene of Marilyn’s death.

    VI. Another Shaw Witness: Capell

    Frank Capell was, quite literally, a professional anti-communist. He hated anybody who promoted or even sympathized with the Communist philosophy. Capell considered the Kennedy clan to be commies. So he hated the entire clan just on general principles, but he specifically hated Robert Kennedy. Once the former attorney general announced that he would seek a New York senate seat, the anti-communist crusader knew that RFK would use that senate seat, if elected, as a catapult to the presidency.  This had to be prevented. Enlisting the assistance of LAPD sergeant Jack Clemmons, and New York City media personality Walter Winchell, Capell wrote and published The Strange Death of Marilyn Monroe, a scurrilous political hit piece aimed at stopping the most dangerous American Commie of them all. After using the unbridled fabulist, Gianni Russo, as a significant source, and Clemmons as another, Mark Shaw uses Frank Capell as his most significant.

    Within the text of Murder Orthodoxies, I devoted a complete subsection and many words to Frank Capell, his anti-RFK diatribe, and the false imputations therein; so, I am not going to repeat all of those words here. I hope you will follow this direct link and read Some Anti-Kennedy, Anti-Communists. I would be remiss, however, if I did not note a few important considerations.

    Frank Capell and his associates, among them Maurice Reis, the originator of the MM/RFK affair yarn, were the first aggregation to link Marilyn Monroe and Robert Kennedy in an affair. They were also the first to insinuate a motive to RFK: he had recanted on a promise to leave his wife Ethel and marry the actress. That broken promise prompted Marilyn to threaten public exposure of her affair with the young Kennedy as a form of retribution. Robert Kennedy could not allow that to happen. Besides, as Capell noted, Communists simply eliminated persons who had become threats by using murders disguised as suicides, heart attacks, and accidental deaths. Is that what happened to Marilyn Monroe? “Was Marilyn about to do some talking,” he wondered rhetorically, while asserting that Communists have no aversion to murder. (Capell, p. 57) Despite his proclamations, Capell’s political diatribe did not present any tangible or verifiable evidence to support that Bobby Kennedy was even romantically involved with Marilyn, much less enmeshed in her death. He offered only opinion and cleverly worded insinuations.

    Capell denounced the investigation of Marilyn’s death and her autopsy. He considered it to be hopelessly flawed, incompetent, and incomplete. Marilyn’s autopsy findings, according to Capell, did not reveal barbiturates in her organs, only the tested sample of her blood, which is a false statement. He also asserted that the toxicology reports did not mention chloral hydrate, which, according to the newspapers, had been found in Marilyn’s blood. But the Red hunter failed to mention an August 13th amendment, which indicated chloral hydrate in Marilyn’s blood and pentobarbital in her liver.

    Since Marilyn’s stomach was empty at autopsy, Capell asserted that the drugs must have entered her body via an injection. Once again, he failed to note an important detail: the concentration of pentobarbital in Marilyn’s liver was three times higher than the concentration in her blood, completely consistent with a large ingested overdose. With an injection, or a hot shot, that relationship would have been precisely reversed. But then, Capell often engaged in cherry picking, as indicated by his flawed analysis of the toxicology reports.

    Surprisingly—or perhaps not—Mark Shaw presents Frank Capell as a diligent investigator, one who searched for facts leading to truth, when no characterization could be further distant from who Capell really was. For instance, Capell noted that the AG often stayed at the Beverly Hills Hotel when he visited Los Angeles; “and one of his visits is an interesting one,” Capell proclaimed.  This was referring to Robert Kennedy’s visit to Los Angeles on July 26th and 27th in 1962. Capell presented a copy of an itemized accounting of the hotel’s charges to Kennedy’s room. Capell accusingly revealed that the attorney general had the charges billed to the National Insurance Association, obviously a deep and dark secret, and that his “inquiry disclosed that the “National Insurance Association […] was originally known as the National Negro Association, made up of some individuals who have connections with small negro insurance companies in the South.” (Capell, p. 57) As I have already noted herein, the attorney general delivered a speech to that business association on the night of July 26th and then returned to Washington on the 27th. Obviously Capell was not as diligent an investigator as Shaw alleged. For, he did not even investigate the purpose for Robert Kennedy’s visit to Los Angeles during those two days. If he did, he did not disclose that information. Capell’s only purpose was to toss vague imputations at the National Insurance Association and Robert Kennedy.

    You might be wondering how Mark Shaw presented the accounting of hotel charges. Shaw noted that the accounting proved that Robert Kennedy was in Los Angeles on the 26th and 27th and “would have permitted him two days within which to have spent time with Marilyn,” a completely false statement. (p. 483) According to FBI file 77–51387–284, pertaining to Robert Kennedy’s arrival in Los Angeles on the 26th, his airplane arrived late. At 11:15 PM, his airplane had yet to land. The FBI file did not denote the precise moment of Robert Kennedy’s touchdown, but it is clear he did not deliver his speech until quite late Thursday or quite early on Friday.  Then on Friday the 27th, he would have spent at least eight hours, five and one-half of which would have been in the air, returning to Washington, DC, assuming he had booked a non-stop, coast-to-coast flight. Obviously, Shaw’s assertion about the amount of time Robert Kennedy could have spent with Marilyn was a gross exaggeration. As an aside, you might be wondering: why was the FBI concerned about the attorney general’s flight? FBI file 77–51387–287 indicated that his life had been threatened that day via an anonymous telephone call; and earlier on July the 17th, a similar anonymous telephone threat announced that “Kennedy’s going to die.” The FBI had reason to be concerned.

    VII. Shaw’s False Mystery


    Capell published a copy of an invoice from Arthur P. Jacobs Company, Inc., pictured above, dated July 31, 1962, which noted the cost of three telegrams the company had sent on Marilyn’s behalf, one to Steve Allen and another to Phil Silvers, both sent on June 11th. On June 13th, the Jacobs Company dispatched a telegram to Robert Kennedy and his wife, Ethel. “Stories made the rounds,” Capell noted, “that Bobby Kennedy interceded with 20th Century Fox on Marilyn’s behalf when she was dropped, since she sent a personal telegram to him at McLean, Virginia, as soon as her contract had been canceled by 20th Century Fox.” (Capell, p. 57)

    Evidently, Capell did not employ his keen investigative skills to discover why Marilyn sent a personal telegram to the attorney general; and likewise, he did not attempt to discover the text of the telegram. Mark Shaw merely lifted this receipt directly from Frank Capell’s 1964 pamphlet and included a copy of it in Collateral Damage.

    Shaw then noted that Capell had secured the document from Marilyn’s accountant, Arthur P. Jacobs. By his own admission, the entire situation mystified Shaw. But more importantly he noted: “The substance of the telegram is unknown and why Marilyn would have sent it to both of them [Bobby and Ethel Kennedy] is unknown but if Ethel became aware of the telegram, it may have caused her to question Bobby about his relationship with the movie star.” (Shaw, p. 483) The innuendo in the preceding statement is exceptional: Shaw implied that Ethel did not know about the telegram even though it must have been delivered to the Kennedy’s home in McLean, Virginia. But, crucially, his assertion that the text of the telegram, and Marilyn’s motivation for sending it, remains a mystery was, and is, utterly false, which means Shaw’s analysis of the mystifying situation is acutely problematic.

    1. Marilyn had been struggling with Fox since her odd dismissal for appearing at the president’s birthday celebration and the Democratic Party fund raiser at Madison Square Garden earlier, in May of 1962. After Darryl Zanuck re-assumed management control of Fox, he instructed those involved in Marilyn’s odd dismissal to solve their problems with her immediately. As a result of Zanuck’s directive, Marilyn became heavily involved with the negotiations, in order to obtain concessions from the studio. Ultimately, she won those concessions and Fox reinstated her, but at the time of her death, the revised contracts remained unsigned.

    2. Shaw incorrectly identified Arthur P. Jacobs as Marilyn’s accountant. He and his company were Marilyn’s press agency. Patricia Newcomb worked for Jacobs. Jacobs eventually became a movie producer. His production company, APJAC Productions, produced Planet of the Apes and all franchise sequels.

    3. The content of the telegram that Marilyn sent to both Robert and Ethel Kennedy has been known for many years. Even Anthony Summers, back in 1985, published the text of that message and included an actual copy of the telegram. What follows is Marilyn’s witty and humorous expression of regret.

      Dear Attorney General and Mrs. Kennedy:

      I would have been delighted to have accepted your invitation honoring Pat and Peter Lawford. Unfortunately, I am involved in a freedom ride protesting the loss of minority rights belonging to the few remaining earthbound stars. After all, all we demanded was our right to twinkle.

      Marilyn Monroe

    4. While Donald Spoto reported that Peter and Pat Lawford tendered the invitation to attend the party honoring them, Gary Vitacco-Robles reported that the invitation actually originated with Ethel Kennedy. “Ethel Kennedy’s invitation,” Gary asserted, “disputes the allegations of an affair between her husband and Marilyn.” John Seigenthaler reported that Ethel constantly teased her husband, because he had danced the twist with Marilyn during a Lawford dinner party, an event that will resurface later. But regarding the party that Marilyn could not attend, over 300 attendees joined the Kennedys to honor the Lawfords. According to Gary, the celebration ended in a fun-filled pool party, during which many guests either jumped or were pushed into the pool fully clothed, including Ethel Kennedy. Gary noted: “Time magazine described it as a ‘Big Splash in Hickory Hill,’ and U.S. News and World Report announced, ‘Fun in the New Frontier: Who Fell, Who Was Pushed.’” (Kindle V2 Ch. 27)

    5. If Marilyn and Robert Kennedy had been involved in an affair, Marilyn would not have received that invitation, not from anyone. That should have been apparent to Shaw. Certainly, the AG would not have wanted his wife and mistress in the same location at any time; and most certainly, if Ethel knew of or even just suspected an affair, as insinuated by Shaw, she would not have wanted Marilyn anywhere near her or her husband. Also, I must comment: I am sure Robert Kennedy got a chuckle from Marilyn Monroe’s comparison of her struggles with 20th Century Fox to a minority protesting and fighting for his or her rights.

    Capell secured a copy of an Affidavit of Creditor from Agnes Flanagan, one of Marilyn’s many hairstylists, and Shaw references that affidavit. Curiously, Shaw reproduced a portion of Ms. Flanagan’s affidavit in his book on page 482. Although Shaw failed to mention Whitey Snyder, Marilyn’s personal makeup artist, he also submitted an Affidavit of Creditor. With an enlargement of the June 26th hairstyling charges form Agnes Flanagan appended at the bottom, those affidavits are pictured below.


    Shaw noted: “of special importance is that the charges for Marilyn’s ‘Hairstyling’ for ‘Dinner Party Peter Lawfords Home’ is for Ms. Flanagan’s assistance on July 26 […].” That date, Shaw asserted, coincided with the date of Robert Kennedy’s arrival in Los Angeles and his stay at the Beverly Hills Hotel. As I noted earlier, while Robert Kennedy delivered a speech in Los Angeles on July 26th, his airplane arrived late, sometime after 11:15 PM. Also, as I noted earlier, Shaw published only a portion of the Flanagan affidavit, but Shaw obviously was not being attentive or maybe his heated ardor to convict Robert Kennedy of Marilyn’s murder adversely affected his eyesight. The affidavit from Ms. Flanagan did not reference any hair styling charges for July 26th. Her affidavit included charges for a June 26th Lawford dinner party. An affidavit provided by Whitey Snyder, Marilyn’s personal makeup artist, also included charges for that date and dinner party. Clearly noted at the bottom of each affidavit are the words: BILL FOR HAIRSTYLING FOR JUNE 26 DINNER. That Lawford dinner party in late June was the last time Marilyn and Robert Kennedy actually met. I suppose it is possible that Mark Shaw simply made an honest error and misread the affidavit. But considering the many other errors and misstatements in Shaw’s publication, I have doubts that are more than reasonable.

    According to Shaw, Capell was an investigator who constantly searched for the facts and the truth. But Frank Capell and his minions did not have any qualms at all about twisting and creating facts to suit their personal agendas, regardless of who they slandered. And any author who presents Capell as a reliable, primary source about any topic, but particularly Marilyn Monroe and Robert Kennedy, exposes himself to serious doubts and serious questions. (For more information about Capell’s dishonesty, read the Sidebar: Frank Capell’s Dishonesty Mark Shaw Ignored.)

    Sidebar: Frank Capell’s Dishonesty Mark Shaw Ignored

    Like Sgt Jack Clemmons, Frank Capell’s career came to an ignominious end in 1965. Capell, along with the LAPD sergeant, a former LAPD motorcycle COP, Norman Krause, and an industrialist, John Fergus, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to libel Republican Senator Thomas Kuchel. Briefly, Senator Kuchel supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and allied himself with Robert Kennedy to ensure that the legislation, instigated by President John Kennedy, became law. But in Frank Capell’s world, that civil rights act represented Communism on the march, a march that had to be stopped. Capell, Sgt. Clemmons and Fergus convinced former policeman Krause to sign a false affidavit which declared that an intoxicated Senator Kuchel and another man, also intoxicated, had been arrested by Krause in 1949 for driving under the influence of alcohol—and also for committing a homosexual act in said automobile. They hoped the resultant controversy and public’s outrage over Senator Kuchel’s behavior would end in his removal from public office.

    As noted in the FBI files regarding the smear campaign against Thomas Kuchel, an unnamed but currently employed officer of the LAPD—more than likely Sgt. Jack Clemmons, then still an LAPD sergeant—provided to several interested parties, a group which undoubtedly included Fergus and Capell, some damning information about Senator Kuchel. The information was obtained from unidentified sources within the Los Angeles Police Department. This damning information prompted those interested parties to investigate the senator’s reported arrest which led to the discovery of former police officer Norman Krause, who had retired from the LAPD in 1950 and joined the construction industry. It is clear from additional information in the FBI files, along with contemporaneous newspaper articles, that Fergus, Clemmons, and Capell, who the conspirators represented to Norman Krause as a congressional investigator and implied that he was a federal agent, a violation of federal statutes, essentially enticed Krause to sign the affidavit, which said that Senator Thomas Kuchel was the man Krause had arrested in 1949, fifteen years hence. After obtaining the signed affidavit from Krause, Fergus distributed at least one-hundred copies of it to government officials on the East Coast and also delivered a copy to Senator Kuchel’s office. On October 21st in 1964, Senator Kuchel contacted the FBI and requested a thorough investigation by that bureau and the Los Angeles Police Department. Those investigations followed soon thereafter.

    The conspiracy ended unceremoniously for the conspirators. After three weeks of testimony from 43 witnesses, on February 17, 1965, a Grand Jury indicted the four men involved and charged them with a felonious “conspiracy to commit criminal libel” and a felonious attempt to smear Senator Kuchel in order to “affect his moral reputation.” However, the four men agreed to plead either guilty or no contest to reduced misdemeanor charges and also agreed to publicly apologize to the senator. As part of that plea deal, the Los Angeles District Attorney dropped the charges against Sgt. Clemmons, who had been encouraged to resign from the Los Angeles Police Department prior to the grand jury’s indictment. A Superior Court Judge fined Capell $500 and placed him on probation for three years. Although the Thomas Kuchel incident ended Capell’s unethical and dishonorable career, he managed to publish his anti-RFK diatribe as the summer of 1964 neared its end.

    In Collateral Damage, Mark Shaw praised Frank Capell and the latter’s “acumen for pursuing the truth” while also noting that Capell’s “reputation” had been “batted about by those associated with the Kennedy family.” (p. 484) Actually, Capell’s reputation had been batted about for years prior to 1964 and those persons included Thomas Kuchel and the LA Times.

    It is remarkable indeed that Shaw could proclaim Capell’s truthfulness when the latter’s history of lies and distortions, his actual reputation and his involvement in the Thomas Kuchel incident, indicated otherwise. Capell and his reputation deserved to be batted about, to be questioned. Even Anthony Summers admitted that Capell, along with his pamphlet, were rendered suspect and worthless by poisoned politics, poison and politics that Mark Shaw simply ignored; and we are left to shake our heads incredulously.

    Capell offered a surrealistic confirmation of Shaw’s foregone and erroneous conclusion: that Robert Kennedy caused the murder of Marilyn Monroe in order to silence her. That was Shaw’s only interest in Capell. Shaw followed in Capell’s footsteps. And even though the actual facts were readily available to Shaw, and Capell, neither man was interested in finding or revealing them or revealing the truth. So Shaw engaged in the same type of character assassination and calumny by innuendo as Frank Capell. Sad, in a way, that Mark Shaw would, for all intents and purposes, assume the mantle of a man as dishonest as Frank Capell simply to smear a decent man who was assassinated 53 years ago. Under very suspicious circumstances.

    Sources like Brenda DeJourdan, Cara Williams, Jane Russell and Janet Peters only offered opinions and beliefs and speculations. None of those sources offered any evidence whatsoever. Gianni Russo’s stories have been so inconsistent, contradictory, and obviously false, that he cannot be taken seriously as a reliable witness to anything involving Marilyn Monroe and Robert Kennedy. It is clear that Russo’s only purpose has been to garner for himself an additional fifteen minutes of fame, which Shaw obliges the fabulist and braggart. Sgt. Jack Clemmons and Frank Capell were poisoned many decades ago by hatred and malignant politics.  Each man has been proven to be untrustworthy. Citing them as sources in the 21st year of the 21st Century has not altered their lack of character, has not rehabilitated those prevaricators and libelists, and, even though Shaw’s use of those sources is difficult to understand, he revealed his remarkable reason for doing so, which will appear later.

    Read Part 2

  • Murder Orthodoxies: A Non-Conspiracist’s View Of Marilyn Monroe’s Death

    Donald McGovern has updated his fine web site exposing the mythologies about Marilyn Monroe, the Mafia, and the Kennedys. It’s the best out there.