21-01-2011, 04:07 PM
Bear in mind, Dawn, that newspaper articles can appear after-the-fact, as in the case of the (obviously fabricated) article about Robert Adams (which includes the wrong day of the week and of the month, Thursday, the 23rd, for his alleged photo in Dealey Plaza), but they can also disappear. I know of a reporter in Dallas whose story about the Parkland press conference was changed by an editor to add that the physicians were not sure if the wounds had been caused by one shot or two, which was not in the original story, and a similar sentence appears in Tom Wicker's classic coverage in The New York Times. I did not mean to ignore this question, but I want to do some research before I respond about it. This report has been around a long time and this woman was not vengeful or motivated by money. She was simply telling the story of her love affair with LBJ, which was on the order of common knowledge in Dallas at the time. Lyndon showed up very late and someone--it could be Robert Morrow or Phil Nelson, I'll have to check--has studied the time line and found that it was possible for him to have made the visit to Murchison's home that evening. The meeting would hae been pointless without him, of course, since it was a final ratification of going forward with the assassination. There are spiteful people involved today, but Madeleine was most certainly not among them. I'll get back on this.
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Jim D, we agree to disagree about Nigel Turner. I loved that show. Yes there were some serious errors but overall it was a marvelous series and that it was on tv right after JFK was wonderful. Got lots of people thinking about the assassination as conspiracy.
I totally agree about Jack Anderson, he has lied about JFK and the assassination as long as I can remember. In the 70's trying to link Castro ...I never trusted him.
Remember he also lied about Tom Eagleton, McGovern's first veep choice. Said he had a drunking driving conviction. A total lie.
I loved Anthony Summer's work Conspiracy BUT I don't trust him. He went out of his way to smear Jim Garrsion trying to link him to the Mob. And of course Garrison called him "One of the CIA's more accomodating prostitutes".
Thanks Jim F for reminding me of Steve. I knew that a long time ago but had forgotten the details.
Now the party? I just don't know. It just seems way to pat to be believed. And Ms Brown had a powerful motive to augment her story. I absolutely believe she was LBJ's mistress and that they had a son. If he was indeed murdered because he made a claim then I can see why she would tell all and then some.
I see neither Jim nor Jack has addressed the society column- Van Ims or something like who allegedly wrote of the party. The column was never to be found. Why would Ms. Brown say there was such a story? Revenge perhaps?
Dawn