John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress (Mary Meyer) is up for auction

[Drew Phipps]

John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress is up for auction

Jun 3rd 2016 2:25PM

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/06/03/jo.../21388585/

Another scrap of former President John F. Kennedy's personal life is up for auction, and this one includes some revealing details about his relationship with an alleged mistress. Among the many Kennedy-related items RR Auction is selling are four sheets of White House stationery on which Kennedy scribbled a 4-page note to Mary Pinchot Meyer, a D.C. painter who's believed to have carried on an affair with Kennedy.


The note reads in part: "Why don't you leave suburbia for once come and see me. ... You say that it is good for me not to get what I want. After all of these years you should give me a more loving answer than that." An auction spokesperson told People, "There's a playfulness to him in the letter that you don't see in JFK's other correspondence."


Meyer married CIA official Cord Meyer in 1945, and the couple became close friends of the Kennedy family. Rumors of an affair between Kennedy and Meyer swirled for years; Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee confirmed the affair in his 1995 autobiography. The letters are undated, but the site places them circa October 1963 one month before Kennedy was assassinated. Meyer herself was also shot and killed one year later; her murder was never solved, a fact that's launched many conspiracy theories.


Bidding for the letters is expected to reach $30,000, so you'll need deep pockets to have a shot at this piece of Kennedy memorabilia.

******
It is said that the letter was never actually mailed, and that Evelyn Lincoln kept the letter in her possession for years.

[Albert Doyle]

The paper, ink deposition age, fingerprints, and hand-writing could be analyzed for authenticity.


Probably real. Counter to what some are alleging.


More confirmation of Janney in my opinion.

[Peter Lemkin]

I hope Janney and the research community at least gets to see the entire letter - although it doesn't sound to contain anything other than proof of their relationship being very close. I'm totally convinced, and see no doubt, the two were having an affair and that Meyers was quite influential upon JFK. This is why she was murdered - as Janney has spelled out - knowing who she knew and what she knew, she was able to piece together who, generally or perhaps specifically, were involved....so she had to be killed as were so many others who knew/saw/did the wrong thing on/before/after 11/22/63.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Pretty funny.

Janney was trying to show that:

1. Mary was not just a dalliance, but also a key foreign policy advisor who actually turned around Cold Warrior Kennedy once he entered the oval office.

2. That she and he cooperated on several of his foreign policy initiatives. (In the expurgated draft, it also concerned UFO's)

3. That the CIA knew about all of this.

4. That, in just a few weeks, Mary then figured out the conspiracy to kill JFK.

5. The CIA then feared that Mary, aka Charlotte Holmes, would singlehandedly blow up their conspiracy to kill JFK.

6. Because of that overwhelming fear of a single mom who was a painter, the CIA then planned and executed one of the most breathtaking plots ever devised--which included fast acting skin changing chemicals.


Yep, I can see how this (dubious) note certifies all this.

PS According to Tom S, Janney withdrew his action after just a few days. With prejudice.

[Albert Doyle]

The letter bespeaks a synchronicity between JFK's bold peace initiatives and private affairs between Jack and Mary, to consecrate his radical moves, that can't be avoided. The binding bond being their common interests in world peace. There's most likely an entire covert history of monitoring both JFK and Mary Meyer and its precipitating influence on the assassination that we aren't aware of but was probably immediately causal to the assassination.


My, my it is indeed pouring lately in the assassination evidence world...

[Albert Doyle]

1. Mary was not just a dalliance, but also a key foreign policy advisor who actually turned around Cold Warrior Kennedy once he entered the oval office.

You can't ignore the common world peace background of the two. Jim, did you ever consider turning this around and allowing the possibility JFK's early peace actions were due to his affinity to Mary Meyer that went way back and perhaps influenced his thinking? Who else did Kennedy have to go to when just about everyone else was a war hawk planning his demise?

2. That she and he cooperated on several of his foreign policy initiatives. (In the expurgated draft, it also concerned UFO's)

Jim, we know Janney isn't as deeply knowledgeable as you are in the specifics. However we are still well within Mary Meyer being a sympathetic friend to whom JFK may have divulged important policy information that then made it even more clear to her why he was killed. I don't see anything that is dismissive of Janney's theory in what you write here. To be honest, you are sort of making strawmen and ignoring the obvious.

3. That the CIA knew about all of this.

Are you saying with all the deep intrigue we know about in the assassination that CIA wasn't monitoring JFK and Mary Meyer?

4. That, in just a few weeks, Mary then figured out the conspiracy to kill JFK.

Mary Meyer may have been given the full low-down by JFK on who was out to get him and why. Remember who Mary Meyer hung around Jim. She probably directly felt the vibrations on the spiderweb just like Peter Janney did with all the fibs and miss-timings he wrote about. LSD makes you super conscious.

5. The CIA then feared that Mary, aka Charlotte Holmes, would singlehandedly blow up their conspiracy to kill JFK.

Jim, honestly. How could you underplay the danger of Mary Meyer, in her CIA-insider position, to the conspiracy? Check out the "Hit List". Many people were killed for much less. She was a high priority danger. She also died in a classic black op.

6. Because of that overwhelming fear of a single mom who was a painter, the CIA then planned and executed one of the most breathtaking plots ever devised--which included fast acting skin changing chemicals.

And disappearing guns. Jim, every time I list all the evidence you and Tom ignore you guys never answer it. Why was the same guy who raided Winston Scott's safe so interested in Mary Meyer's diary? Mitchell stinks to high heaven, as do his alibi's, yet you two defend him.

Yep, I can see how this (dubious) note certifies all this.

Ink age, fingerprints, hand-writing, paper. I believe Mary Mayer was documented as signing-in for White House visits.

PS According to Tom S, Janney withdrew his action after just a few days. With prejudice.

Probably to avoid suit. It doesn't exclude all the rest of his evidence.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Doyle has never been able to let go of this half baked, fruity, completely unjustified fantasy by Janney.

Every one of Janney's constructs I named above has been shown to be unfounded.

Yet, Doyle, simply by dropping a few words, thinks that somehow, by doing that, it changes all the facts that are in evidence.

It does not.

As I showed in my long, detailed review, there was never any evidence that Mary M was any kind of foreign policy guru in any way. Not in her relationship with her former husband, and not after her divorce from him. None of the available evidence bears any of that out. And the idea that this divorced single mom who was an aspiring painter could advise someone as sophisticated as JFK on these matters is risible.

So when Doyle says: You can't ignore the common world peace background of the two.

Yes I can. Because its not there. The only person on this subject who makes as many empty assumptions to fill in the huge lacunae in the record more than Janney, is Doyle. And, like Janney, the whole time he does this, he ignores the man who did wake up Kennedy to these issues, and for whom there is an evidentiary record, namely Edmund Gullion. His influence has been certified by the following: Richard Mahoney, Thurston Clarke, Jim Douglass. And it goes back to 1951.

Now, Janney in his book did something that was simply deplorable. He went to the Kennedy hatchet jobbers, like David Horowitz and Peter Collier, and if you can believe it, Sy Hersh, in order to portray Kennedy as a Nixon type Cold Warrior upon entering the White House.
::vomit::

Let us be frank. More than vomit, this is BS. It is a cultural lie that was embedded in our collective consciousness by the MSM for decades to conceal who JFK really was, in order to cover up the reasons for his murder. It has been completely exploded in recent years as nothing but a canard.. But yet Janney used it.

This false image, in an and of itself, plunged a harpoon into the heart of Janney's book. And made its honesty and intelligence suspect. In other words, WR style, he was molding his data in order to fulfill his theory. It was a fable. And in this regard, there was nothing for the CIA to monitor, since there was nothing there. Just like there was nothing in regards to super sleuth Mary M on solving the JFK case. This part of Janney's book was simply hot air: a series of naked assumptions. Again, it was a perfect example of Janney molding the data in order to fulfill his own solipsistic design.

See, Janney had an agenda. It was based on two things, first his adolescent fantasy romance with Mary M (in his preposterous petition he actually called her a mother figure to him.) The second part was his relationship with Leo Damore. As both Tom S and Mark O have shown, Damore's alleged work on this case was largely flatulent, made up of the likes of ersatz calls to Fletcher Prouty, and dubious interviews with what Damore called the actual killer. (::noblesteed: Tom S proved that this was simply malarkey on its own terms. That this guy, whoever the heck he was--if he existed at all is a good question--could not be the guy who Janney later confronted. And any objective person with any degree of honesty and fairness would have understood that. Somehow Janney did not. Probably because he had relied on so many bad sources up to that time that, like MacBeth, he could not turn back. This included Gregory Douglass, a proven forger; and David Heymann, a proven liar. (Who he wisely cut out later, as he did his whole Mary showing JFK the secret of UFO's as a key to cosmic peace.)

So when Doyle says that, what do you mean, the CIA would not be interested in all this? Interested in what? This silly stupid confection dreamt up by two guys who were the detective equivalent of Laurel and Hardy?

The worst part of Janney's piece of tripe was that, not only did it falsify who JFK was, it also falsified who Mary M was. There is simply no evidence that, after her divorce, she showed any interest in any of these foreign policy matters. She did the opposite: she decided to go into art and painting. And she had various romantic and sexual entanglements with her instructors. Janney tries to aggrandize her into something she simply was not. Just as he reduces Kennedy to something he was not. And again this is for the purpose of fulfilling his own design.

All of this hocus pocus is to camouflage the fact that if Mary had not been the sister of Toni Bradlee, we would not be talking about her.

Since the matter of Janney's (awful) book first surfaced, Doyle has been trying to make something out of it. Hydra like, even when the research community--even Charles Drago--had decided that Gregory Douglass, Collier and Horowitz, and Sy Hersh did not make for a very good book, here he is, still trying to say that somehow Janney was on to something. Baloney.

For those who want more proof that Janney was blowing in the wind, read my intricate review: [URL="http://www.ctka.net/reviews/DiEugenio_Janney_Mary's_Mosaic.html"]http://www.ctka.net/reviews/DiEugenio_Janney_Mary's_Mosaic.html


[/URL]

[Albert Doyle]

Jim,


We all think JFK was a cutting edge, before his time, hero and progressive who intuitively saw what needed to be done and did it, at the expense of his life. However, at least to me, it is obvious you have an over-sensitivity to anything that paints JFK as less than noble and conflate it with other "second assassination of Kennedy" material. I don't think that's the case with Janney. I believe this is evidenced by your response to the letter, which was an automatic doubting of its authenticity. Since the provenance of this letter highly suggests it is genuine, you have to admit the evidence sword you present cuts both ways and you yourself have failed to show any evidence that this letter is bogus or originates from the dubious sources you hail to, but never quite attach to any evidence yourself. Which leaves me at the point I'm getting to that you are committing outright violations of evidence and denying real evidence. Both serious violations that you yourself have spent several decades practicing criticism over. You did this with the Timothy Leary evidence in Janney. In the several times I posted the evidence that Mary Meyer did have a very real relationship with Leary, as shown by Janney, both you and Tom ignored it every time I posted it only to return to your propaganda attack on Janney. Again, no one is a sacred cow and no one has a right to ignore good proof. In my mind it is a serious ethical violation to be a person who specializes in the highly visible calling out of people for doing that and then practice it yourself when it comes to protecting your biases.

There's two ways to approach Janney. One is to try to paint Janney as associated with dubious sources. We've been down this road several times. We've already said several times that Janney is not a person well versed in your internet material or websites that show the flaws in some of the authors he used. Janney isn't a career expert at the motives and failings of some of those Kennedy-smearing authors like you are. In his zeal he reached out and bought some authors that turn out to have less than genuine backgrounds and methods. However, you can't conflate this mistake with Janney's core evidence and personal experiences. I noticed that, like courtroom lawyers, you and Tom specialize in turning up the volume on this aspect of Janney, but I also noticed that you use it in such a way as to seize the narrative and avoid Janney's condemning evidence. In short, you are trying to take Janney down via his flaws while, in my mind, ignoring his genuine proof. To me that is a serious violation of assassination research ethics and costs the public a clear understanding of the truth. Something you have championed yourself over the years. I would also advise caution over referring to Tom S while criticizing sources.


The second way to approach Janney is to look at his evidence and weigh its legitimacy directly. Janney showed that Mitchell got caught lying about his funding source for his England hiatus. This is something you would rightfully normally jump on in one of your articles. Mitchell was gotten out of the country quickly to a foreign country with a strong allied Intelligence Agency. He was also hippied-up to lower his credibility in case he needed to be destroyed - but also to possibly infiltrate what governments thought was a communist-inspired beatnik movement. Shimon practically told his daughter Toni outright that Mary Meyer was a black op hit. Janney listed Shimon's murky interface with the same mob underground associated with Dallas. And Leary did have a relationship with Mary. Anne Chamberlin was scared. Finally, Janney witnessed the lies and pre-knowledge first hand and knew its correct interpretation - probably as Mary Meyer did too. I find it less than sincere and serving of the truth to ignore this and make such an opinion-based case against Janney while looking the other way on what is obviously incriminating evidence. Jim, may I ask you honestly what the moral/research reputation price is for a major researcher denying the CIA assassination of a very real and important witness?


I'm sorry to say this Jim, but from your writing I see someone who I think is desperate to defend Kennedy's reputation to such a degree that he is willing to ignore genuine evidence. At that point, in my opinion, you have crossed a line that you yourself have made a career criticizing people for crossing and it cannot go unsaid. You've gone too far and ignored real evidence in order to support a clear bias. Wiggins said he had a strange feeling like he had been lured out there to witness something. You have to understand that the world of LSD is one where those peace instincts would be unavoidable in the conscience of those who used it. Mary Meyer was a perfect outlet for JFK for his peace initiatives and may have been his only sympathizer in close proximity, and she fit Jack's personal tastes very well as far as women. Who was next to JFK prior to the assassination? Gullion or Mary Meyer? Jim, JFK may be less than perfect but in no way does admitting that mean you are conceding to those who deny his greatness or the true record of what he did. Let the evidence speak for itself. Persons politicizing JFK's flaws should not be answered by an equal politicizing from the opposite direction. Jack's positives are strong enough to survive this onslaught. As anyone who single-handedly saved the Earth from nuclear Armageddon would be...


Sorry Jim, you're going to have to get used to this since the facts all plainly point in this direction, as the letter now confirms.


.

[Jim Hargrove]

Anyone interested in this topic should really read Timothy Leary's autobiographical book Flashbacks. Regardless of what you might think about his LSD usage and his overseeing of Harvard's originally entirely legal Psilocybin Project, Flashbacks is one of the most beautifully written books you'll ever read, and is regarded by at least some (including me) as one of the greatest books of the 20[SUP]th [/SUP]century.


Flashbacks was published way back in 1983 and confirms at least some of the things Janney wrote about three decades later. If you haven't read it, do yourself a favor and find a copy. Even if you refuse accept all his claims, there are few more entertaining books anywhere.

[Jim DiEugenio]

What a load of BS.

This shows how little you know about me, and how little you have read about what I have written on this.

I actually believed this whole Mary M stuff. In fact, I actually talked about it in a lecture I did up in San Francisco back in the nineties. Someone had sent me an article about it concerning Leary. And because that was one of the first times I encountered it, I used it. So much for me being "over sensitive" to Kennedy's legacy.

Later on I read the book Acid Dreams. That volume makes a very good case that the CIA was involved in the spread of LSD in America and throughout the world. When I saw who Leary's early backers were--some wealthy members of the power elite--this is when I began to wonder who he was and what he was up to. So I went back and did some research.

I spent a whole afternoon at a college library. I got every book Leary ever published up to the eighties, when Flashbacks came out.

Guess what, there is no mention in any of them about Mary M. Either by name or description. No narrative of this blonde, vivacious, attractive woman who comes into his office and says, "He was trying to change things too fast." etc etc etc Its not like Leary passed up an opportunity to do this once or twice. Leary published literally dozens of books. And if one takes just the period from 1964 to 1983, there were, if I recall correctly, about 16 books I found at that library.

In not one of them did Leary mention this episode. Not even in his diary book, High Priest. This process is called cross checking. Responsible scholars use this method to check on the honesty and candor of a witness. No one who had reported on this issue had done this before I did. But after I discovered this lacunae, this is what made me suspicious of Leary. Who, in that same volume, said he slept with Marilyn Monroe. And who after the book came out, then went on a national tour with Gordon Liddy debating cultural issues like drugs.

Once I did that, I began to wonder about this whole issue in respect to Meyer, and also in relation to Exner. I then found out through library research that Exner had also changed her story and expanded on it to boundless ends--for a great deal of money. That is when I decided that hey, there is a subterfuge here. And no one is writing about it.

See, that is they way real research works. Its exposing accepted myths and relating them to similar phenomenon.

As per this letter, Doyle's comments are, again, distorted and, shall we say, less than candid.. I pointed out over at Spartacus three points about this that raise my antennae. First, that Kennedy would write this on White House stationary, that 2.) The exhibit has the revealing dog ears chopped off--which would be hard to duplicate, and 3.) I pointed out a previous phony precedent like this with Kennedy that had blown up in front of the ARRB.

Why leave all that out? This is not Duncan's forum, where you can trash me without fear of reply. Here, I can respond to your distortions and excisions. And you talk about ethics in presentations of evidence?

And to say that somehow Janney missed the valuable authors on Kennedy and just happened to fall into league with the likes of David Horowitz, Peter Collier and Sy Hersh?

I mean puhlease. This is like saying the WR just happened to include all the accusatory evidence against Oswald, and just happened to leave out the exculpatory evidence. Janney had an agenda. He needed his portrait of Kennedy in order to make his Rube Goldberg contraption work. And everything in the book is assembled that way in order to fulfill that design. And not only was it the above. But in his preliminary stages, he was talking with the absolutely horrendous David Heymann. Perhaps the biggest fraud of them all. And you chalk this up to an accident? :: Wow.

And there is no getting around this. Because you cannot ignore the gestalt of Janney's book, which I outlined above. If the whole thing about Kennedy being tutored by Mary M, and the CIA being aware of this and her figuring out the conspiracy, if that is all hooey--which it is--then Janney has no book. Because that is what he is saying that the whole elaborate CIA plot to kill Mary is about.

For you to bring up this non existent case against Mitchell is so shameful as to be ludicrous. Tom produced the petition. Did you do that? It was pathetic. So bad that Janney himself withdrew it. WITH PREJUDICE! That means it cannot be reinstated. He did that himself. Something that almost never happens. This means it has all the earmarks of being a publicity stunt. And you leave out the fact that Janney said he could not find Mitchell in the first place. Which was supposed to mean what ????? He had disappeared? Gone underground? After Damore had met the killer and he confessed to him in that safe house, that those other spooks, and Albarelli said was tied in with the CIA?

Except that turned out to be BS also. The "killer" had not escaped underground. He had gone to sunny California. And furthered his education there. Tom found him rather easily. I loved Janney's excuse for this one: Google had changed its algorithms and that is why Tom could find him now. ::cuckoo:: But beyond that, Tom proved that Damore's confessed killer could not be the same guy in California. And somehow Janney missed that also.


Your last paragraph is so full of malarkey I don't really comprehend it. Kennedy needed no personal outlet for his peace initiatives in the fifties. He was acting on them in letters to John Foster Dulles, in letters to his voters, in speeches he gave throughout he country and in his speeches in front of the Senate. Did Mary M consult him on those?

Nope.

In fact, IMO, Kennedy's greatest speech in this regard, in 1957 on Algeria is known to be helped with by Sorenson. Think Ted was calling up Mary M? This is why Janney ignored all this, simply because it undermines his construct.

And no I don't have to get used to any of this. Because these are not facts. They are fantasy.