15-09-2017, 05:51 PM
The diary part of the story is one of the real problems with the whole tale.
I spent three pages on it in Probe and The Assassinations. None of the participants can tell the same story on it, that is the Truitts, the Angletons, the Bradlees. And, in fact, the differences are in some ways irreconcilable. That is, people are lying about it. And it was not possible to determine who it was. For the simple reason that no such "diary" ever surfaced anywhere. And secondly, it was pretty clear that certain parties in the story had it out for others e.g. Truitt for Bradlee. In fact, that is how it all started in The National Enquirer. Truitt was going after Bradlee for firing him.
There is a serious question as to whether or not Kennedy's name was even in the so called diary. Or if such a diary was even really a diary and not simply notes on Mary's art studies. There are two indications of this. First, the fact that the Bradlees, both him and his former wife, told differing stories on this subject. And secondly, that Angleton--who allegedly had possession of the papers--never found any way to publicize them. So personally, I doubt that JFK's name was in there. Because if it was, Angleton would have found a way to get it into the press through one of his many allies.
Let me add one other point. One of the biggest myths in Washington that ever existed was that Bradlee and JFK were pals and allies. I examined this issue twice while doing Probe. Once in my relation to the Mary Meyer story, and once when I was studying the whole role of the Washington Post in the JFK case. The latter consisted in part of a close reading of Bradlee's book, Conversations with Kennedy.
I came to the conclusion that, in reality, this was more inside the beltway balderdash. And it was largely perpetuated and memorialized by Bradlee himself. It was simply not the case. If Bradlee had been a true friend of JFK and was fearful about going public with what his true policies were or what the circumstances of his death were, then he could have just sat it out in silence after his "friend" was murdered. But Bradlee did not do that. He did the contrary. He did all he could to distort Kennedy's record, and then to cover up the true circumstances of his assassination. Even to the point of working with David Phillips to discredit the Veciana story!
So, in other words, what you had were three groups of people--Truitts, Bradlees, Angletons--who had both common agendas, and also internecine rivalries, who were involved in this whole tale. Attached to that, you then had stenographers who, shall we say, were not all that trustworthy, involved in its evolution, e.g. The National Enquirer, Ron Rosenbaum, Leo Damore, Tim Leary, Gregory Douglas. This is why any kind of serious analysis of it is simply not possible. Because its like crossing a minefield.
To put it mildly, Janney did not proceed with caution across that minefield.
I spent three pages on it in Probe and The Assassinations. None of the participants can tell the same story on it, that is the Truitts, the Angletons, the Bradlees. And, in fact, the differences are in some ways irreconcilable. That is, people are lying about it. And it was not possible to determine who it was. For the simple reason that no such "diary" ever surfaced anywhere. And secondly, it was pretty clear that certain parties in the story had it out for others e.g. Truitt for Bradlee. In fact, that is how it all started in The National Enquirer. Truitt was going after Bradlee for firing him.
There is a serious question as to whether or not Kennedy's name was even in the so called diary. Or if such a diary was even really a diary and not simply notes on Mary's art studies. There are two indications of this. First, the fact that the Bradlees, both him and his former wife, told differing stories on this subject. And secondly, that Angleton--who allegedly had possession of the papers--never found any way to publicize them. So personally, I doubt that JFK's name was in there. Because if it was, Angleton would have found a way to get it into the press through one of his many allies.
Let me add one other point. One of the biggest myths in Washington that ever existed was that Bradlee and JFK were pals and allies. I examined this issue twice while doing Probe. Once in my relation to the Mary Meyer story, and once when I was studying the whole role of the Washington Post in the JFK case. The latter consisted in part of a close reading of Bradlee's book, Conversations with Kennedy.
I came to the conclusion that, in reality, this was more inside the beltway balderdash. And it was largely perpetuated and memorialized by Bradlee himself. It was simply not the case. If Bradlee had been a true friend of JFK and was fearful about going public with what his true policies were or what the circumstances of his death were, then he could have just sat it out in silence after his "friend" was murdered. But Bradlee did not do that. He did the contrary. He did all he could to distort Kennedy's record, and then to cover up the true circumstances of his assassination. Even to the point of working with David Phillips to discredit the Veciana story!
So, in other words, what you had were three groups of people--Truitts, Bradlees, Angletons--who had both common agendas, and also internecine rivalries, who were involved in this whole tale. Attached to that, you then had stenographers who, shall we say, were not all that trustworthy, involved in its evolution, e.g. The National Enquirer, Ron Rosenbaum, Leo Damore, Tim Leary, Gregory Douglas. This is why any kind of serious analysis of it is simply not possible. Because its like crossing a minefield.
To put it mildly, Janney did not proceed with caution across that minefield.