POINT 1: JFK Covered up his first marriage:
" The two brothers had lied in their denials to newspapermen and the public about Jack Kennedy's long-rumored first marriage to a Palm Beach socialite named Durie Malcolm. In 1947 Kennedy, then a first term congressman, and Malcolm were married by a justice of the peace in an early-morning ceremony at Palm Beach. In an interview for this book, Charles Spalding, one of Kennedy's oldest friends broke five decades of silence by family and friends and confirmed his personal knowledge of the marriage. 'I remember saying to Jack at the time of the marriage,' Spalding told me, 'You must be nuts. You're running for president and you're running around getting married.' The marriage flew apart. Spalding added that he and a local attorney visited the Palm Beach courthouse a few days later and removed all of the wedding documents. 'It was Jack,' Spalding recalled, 'who asked me if I'd go get the papers.' No evidnece of a divorce could be found during the research for this book."
The Dark Side of Camelot, Seymour M. Hersh, p. 2 - 3.
Commentary: JFK consistently lied to the public, the media, and voters about his first marriage. Is there proof of a divorce ? Was JFK a bigamist ? If JFK'S marriage was legal in the eyes of the law, was it legal under Roman Catholic Cannon Law ?
Also, as a Roman Catholic, JFK would have had to file forms with his priest and bishop, before his marriage to Jackie, stating that JFK had never been married, or divorced, so that JFK could be married to Jackie in the Roman Catholic Church ? Or did the Kennedy's pay off the church also ?
Obviously, JFK was not above having an attorney steal his public records of his first marriage.
How many devotees of JFK honestly knew of JFK's First Marriage, and the cover-up ?
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
JFK'S FIRST MARRIAGE TO MS. DURIE MALCOLM:
-
Bruce Patrick Brychek
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
-
Tim Carroll
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
JFK's Rumored First Marriage
Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:How many devotees of JFK honestly knew of JFK's First Marriage, and the cover-up?
I've known of the Blauvelt Family Genealogy assertion for over three decades. Regarding Hersh's supposed interview with Spalding, there is the following:
"Hersh's other discoveries all involve recovering snatches of lost memories from distant or defective witnesses, a questionable technique of reporting that he pushes to the limit of credibility. Consider, for example, Hersh's finding that JFK was a bigamist. The rumor began circulating in the extreme right-wing press in 1961 that in 1947, JFK, then a congressman, had secretly married Durie Malcolm, a Palm Beach socialite. Both JFK and Malcolm denied the story, and when it persisted, JFK asked Ben Bradlee, then at Newsweek, to investigate it. Bradlee determined it was a false story emanating from an error in a flawed book of genealogy (which even spelled Malcolm's name incorrectly). Some 35 years later, Hersh resurrected the story, not on the basis of any witness or document to the alleged marriage but on the basis of a piece of conversation that he managed to elicit from a 79-year-old Palm Beach resident, Charles Spalding. Spalding, who, though interviewed many times before over 50 years, never before claimed a role, now told Hersh that he knew about the supposed first marriage because he had himself eliminated the record of it at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, saying, according to Hersh, "I went out there and removed the papers." Presumably, in previous interviews after JFK's death, he had not remembered this extraordinary (and criminal) act. But how reliable is Spalding's new 1997 memory of this incident that supposedly happened in 1947? Before Hersh interviewed him, Spalding had problems with his ability to recall routine information, which Hersh generously describes as an "impairment of his short-term memory." Such a deficiency notwithstanding, this piece of recovered memory about JFK stands or falls on a simple test. If the 1947 marriage registry in Palm Beach County, which was then handwritten and bound, was marred or missing a page, Spalding's story could be valid. If on the other hand the registry was intact and the entries consecutive, Spalding's memory of removing the papers could not be any more valid than the forged archive of Monroe letters. As it turned out, Hersh and his investigators were unable to find any such gap in the marriage records nor, for that matter, any record of a marriage application, which had to be made three days before the ceremony. Nevertheless, on this piece of recovered memory from a person who Hersh knew suffered memory lapses and whose recollection was impeached by an investigation of the records, he asserts in "The Dark Side of Camelot," as established fact, that both JFK and his brother Robert "had lied in their denials to newspapermen and the public about Jack Kennedy's long-rumored first marriage to a Palm Beach socialite," that JFK's marriage to Jackie was not a legal union and that his children were born out of wedlock."
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/hersh.htm
Tim
I've known of the Blauvelt Family Genealogy assertion for over three decades. Regarding Hersh's supposed interview with Spalding, there is the following:
"Hersh's other discoveries all involve recovering snatches of lost memories from distant or defective witnesses, a questionable technique of reporting that he pushes to the limit of credibility. Consider, for example, Hersh's finding that JFK was a bigamist. The rumor began circulating in the extreme right-wing press in 1961 that in 1947, JFK, then a congressman, had secretly married Durie Malcolm, a Palm Beach socialite. Both JFK and Malcolm denied the story, and when it persisted, JFK asked Ben Bradlee, then at Newsweek, to investigate it. Bradlee determined it was a false story emanating from an error in a flawed book of genealogy (which even spelled Malcolm's name incorrectly). Some 35 years later, Hersh resurrected the story, not on the basis of any witness or document to the alleged marriage but on the basis of a piece of conversation that he managed to elicit from a 79-year-old Palm Beach resident, Charles Spalding. Spalding, who, though interviewed many times before over 50 years, never before claimed a role, now told Hersh that he knew about the supposed first marriage because he had himself eliminated the record of it at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, saying, according to Hersh, "I went out there and removed the papers." Presumably, in previous interviews after JFK's death, he had not remembered this extraordinary (and criminal) act. But how reliable is Spalding's new 1997 memory of this incident that supposedly happened in 1947? Before Hersh interviewed him, Spalding had problems with his ability to recall routine information, which Hersh generously describes as an "impairment of his short-term memory." Such a deficiency notwithstanding, this piece of recovered memory about JFK stands or falls on a simple test. If the 1947 marriage registry in Palm Beach County, which was then handwritten and bound, was marred or missing a page, Spalding's story could be valid. If on the other hand the registry was intact and the entries consecutive, Spalding's memory of removing the papers could not be any more valid than the forged archive of Monroe letters. As it turned out, Hersh and his investigators were unable to find any such gap in the marriage records nor, for that matter, any record of a marriage application, which had to be made three days before the ceremony. Nevertheless, on this piece of recovered memory from a person who Hersh knew suffered memory lapses and whose recollection was impeached by an investigation of the records, he asserts in "The Dark Side of Camelot," as established fact, that both JFK and his brother Robert "had lied in their denials to newspapermen and the public about Jack Kennedy's long-rumored first marriage to a Palm Beach socialite," that JFK's marriage to Jackie was not a legal union and that his children were born out of wedlock."
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/hersh.htm
Tim
RE:
Tim, I think that you are wasting your time. It seems that this Forum is taking a decidedly conscious effort to slander and mutilate the memory of JFK. I find it a shame that, as a former moderator and staunch supporter of this Forum, I am reading this trash submitted by brychek.
In the meantime, there are some of us that still want certifiable information about and from herr files. Why is he so silent? Why does he have to hide behind Brychek?
Also, why, Wim, who claims he supports democracy and freedom, and who in the past, acted like he was a Kennedy supporter, suddenly allow people like Brychek to post such nonsense. What, Wim and Brychek, are your agendas?
As far as I can see, the only thing keeping this Forum up right now, is those idiots like me that respond to Brychek's hysterics.
Wim said on the phone the other night that maybe he should close the Forum down. I would think that if the type of posting that brychek is doing is allowed to continue, then maybe it is time to pull the plug.
And Wim, please do not forget that you do have friends that have supported you and your efforts. And also feel like they have been slapped in the face with this brychek businesss.
Sorry, but that is what is on my heart. I lived through all of JFK's administration and I remeber him well. In my opinion, brychek is a coward and a liar and traitor.
bobc
In the meantime, there are some of us that still want certifiable information about and from herr files. Why is he so silent? Why does he have to hide behind Brychek?
Also, why, Wim, who claims he supports democracy and freedom, and who in the past, acted like he was a Kennedy supporter, suddenly allow people like Brychek to post such nonsense. What, Wim and Brychek, are your agendas?
As far as I can see, the only thing keeping this Forum up right now, is those idiots like me that respond to Brychek's hysterics.
Wim said on the phone the other night that maybe he should close the Forum down. I would think that if the type of posting that brychek is doing is allowed to continue, then maybe it is time to pull the plug.
And Wim, please do not forget that you do have friends that have supported you and your efforts. And also feel like they have been slapped in the face with this brychek businesss.
Sorry, but that is what is on my heart. I lived through all of JFK's administration and I remeber him well. In my opinion, brychek is a coward and a liar and traitor.
bobc
-
Tim Carroll
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Conscious Effort To Slander?
BOBC wrote:Tim, I think that you are wasting your time. It seems that this Forum is taking a decidedly conscious effort to slander and mutilate the memory of JFK.... In my opinion, brychek is a coward and a liar and traitor.
Bruce's invitation to debate was cloaked in the language of honor and so I responded in kind. Since then, it's become clear that he doesn't feel honor-bound to respond in kind, or respond at all about substantive history. He made the wildly exaggerative Bay of Pigs accusations, yet there's no response to the accurate history cited. It's just the old tactic of throwing feces against the wall to see how much sticks. There are better ways to educate one's self than from tabloid journalism and unchallenged videos.
Tim
Bruce's invitation to debate was cloaked in the language of honor and so I responded in kind. Since then, it's become clear that he doesn't feel honor-bound to respond in kind, or respond at all about substantive history. He made the wildly exaggerative Bay of Pigs accusations, yet there's no response to the accurate history cited. It's just the old tactic of throwing feces against the wall to see how much sticks. There are better ways to educate one's self than from tabloid journalism and unchallenged videos.
Tim
-
Bruce Patrick Brychek
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
TIM CARROLL:
Dear Mr. Tim Carroll,
I have just reviewed your Response.
I will study it more completely tonight.
Tim, some good argumentative points.
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
I have just reviewed your Response.
I will study it more completely tonight.
Tim, some good argumentative points.
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
-
Bruce Patrick Brychek
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
TIM CARROLL:
Dear Mr. Tim Carroll,
I have just read your latest post.
Tim, I don't need to Slander JFK. All I need to do is tell the truth about
things that he has done.
Also, my comment about 2,000 people killed before, during, and after The Bay of Pigs was extremely accurate.
You responded with some body count allegedly from the invasion ONLY.
This was so well documented, including the history channel, that I saw no need to more fully explain this at the time.
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
I have just read your latest post.
Tim, I don't need to Slander JFK. All I need to do is tell the truth about
things that he has done.
Also, my comment about 2,000 people killed before, during, and after The Bay of Pigs was extremely accurate.
You responded with some body count allegedly from the invasion ONLY.
This was so well documented, including the history channel, that I saw no need to more fully explain this at the time.
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
-
john geraghty
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
-
Tim Carroll
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Bay of Pigs
Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Tim, I don't need to Slander JFK. All I need to do is tell the truth about things that he has done. Also, my comment about 2,000 people killed before, during, and after The Bay of Pigs was extremely accurate. You responded with some body count allegedly from the invasion ONLY. This was so well documented, including the history channel, that I saw no need to more fully explain this at the time.This is kind of a leap from the tabloid story of JFK's supposed first marriage, but I have awaited a thoughtful response to the Bay of Pigs statements. Nothing could be further from the truth than that I "responded with some body count allegedly from the invasion ONLY." Here's what I wrote last week:Tim Carroll wrote:In remarkable contrast to Bruce's assertion that over 2,000 men involved in the Bay of Pigs were "all ultimately murdered by Castro's assassination squads," only 114 of the men in the Brigade died. That's about five percent of Bruce's figure. 1,189 men were captured and later freed. 150 were unable to land or were never shipped out or were able to make their way back.
Could I be any more specific? Bruce can do better than respond with a completely false assertion that I responded only with the body count from the invasion (114) and didn't account for the 1,189 released prisoners, as well as the other 150. This is a matter of record. Enrique Williams wasn't even executed when, after his capture, he grabbed his gun and tried to shoot Castro.
Here's a citation of a serious history book: Peter Wyden, "Bay Of Pigs: The Untold Story," New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979, p. 303.
The source of the numbers is the Taylor Commission Report: Maxwell D. Taylor, Chairman, Cuban Study Group, "Narrative of the Anti-Castro Cuban Operation Zapata, " June 13, 1961, sanitized version declassified May 8, 1977.
The most recent book on the subject differs in its count of released prisoners by 16, saying that "Castro released sixty of the most seriously wounded men, and then released "1,113 prisoners on Christmas Eve," 1962 (total = 1,173). The book notes that Bobby Kennedy told Enrique Williams, one of the sixty men released early, to remain on standby in case the negotiations to release the other prisoners didn't succeed, telling him, "If we invade, I would like you ... to join our 82nd Airborne Division to rescue the prisoners." Ultimate Sacrifice, pp. 32-34.
I have also received no response to the segment I posted from the Hawkins article, which resulted from the 1998 document release.
Tim
Could I be any more specific? Bruce can do better than respond with a completely false assertion that I responded only with the body count from the invasion (114) and didn't account for the 1,189 released prisoners, as well as the other 150. This is a matter of record. Enrique Williams wasn't even executed when, after his capture, he grabbed his gun and tried to shoot Castro.
Here's a citation of a serious history book: Peter Wyden, "Bay Of Pigs: The Untold Story," New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979, p. 303.
The source of the numbers is the Taylor Commission Report: Maxwell D. Taylor, Chairman, Cuban Study Group, "Narrative of the Anti-Castro Cuban Operation Zapata, " June 13, 1961, sanitized version declassified May 8, 1977.
The most recent book on the subject differs in its count of released prisoners by 16, saying that "Castro released sixty of the most seriously wounded men, and then released "1,113 prisoners on Christmas Eve," 1962 (total = 1,173). The book notes that Bobby Kennedy told Enrique Williams, one of the sixty men released early, to remain on standby in case the negotiations to release the other prisoners didn't succeed, telling him, "If we invade, I would like you ... to join our 82nd Airborne Division to rescue the prisoners." Ultimate Sacrifice, pp. 32-34.
I have also received no response to the segment I posted from the Hawkins article, which resulted from the 1998 document release.
Tim
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I will admit that I have possibly gone over the top with some of my comments on this forum because of the strong emotional beliefs I have about JFK and related material. However, it is starting to get out of control with some of the comments I have seen. People, we are BETTER than this. We can stay civil, even when our beliefs are polar opposites. Wim, Bruce, Bob C, Tim, and all others on this board, I hold you all in the highest regard, although from time to time we disagree on certain issues. We need to put aside these petty insults and concentrate on the matter at hand. Who was REALLY behind the assassination of JFK...and RFK...and MLK...and others. Forget about your personal feelings about these individuals. That is not the most important detail here. We now live in a semi-fascist state in the United States of America, and it all started on November 22, 1963. Is life better under Bu$h and his Nazi brownshirts? I honestly thought this forum had a chance to explore some issues that were not uncovered before. I still do. But my belief has been diminished by the comments that I have observed over the last few days.
I will admit that I have possibly gone over the top with some of my comments on this forum because of the strong emotional beliefs I have about JFK and related material. However, it is starting to get out of control with some of the comments I have seen. People, we are BETTER than this. We can stay civil, even when our beliefs are polar opposites. Wim, Bruce, Bob C, Tim, and all others on this board, I hold you all in the highest regard, although from time to time we disagree on certain issues. We need to put aside these petty insults and concentrate on the matter at hand. Who was REALLY behind the assassination of JFK...and RFK...and MLK...and others. Forget about your personal feelings about these individuals. That is not the most important detail here. We now live in a semi-fascist state in the United States of America, and it all started on November 22, 1963. Is life better under Bu$h and his Nazi brownshirts? I honestly thought this forum had a chance to explore some issues that were not uncovered before. I still do. But my belief has been diminished by the comments that I have observed over the last few days.
-
Jim Thompson
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Attack Mouse?
Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Bob C, you're a clown, with a very big mouth, and no guts, and even lessknowledge about JFK. Very unstable, and unprofessional.I live in Chicago, Illinois, if you ever want to meet me to tell me in person.We will determine who is the coward.You're just a sissy.Respectfully,Bruce Patrick Brychek.
Whoa! Hold up here, just a minute, please. I have been the most resolute defender of Brychek, excepting Wim. In my opinion Brychek can be a great contributor to the public welfare: he can present powerful evidence of a conspiracy in the death of JFK. So far he has NOT followed through on his promise. But he still can, unless he does NOT have the goods.
I think it is very unfortunate that Brychek continues to shoot himself (& his praise worthy plan to bring the Files Story out to the public view) in the foot.
Obviously, the solution of the difficulty is not to propose a showdown in a Chicago back alley between Brychek's attack mouse versa BOBC.
One thing about Seymour Hersh. He thought in 1997 that Oswald was the lone assassin. Oops, well, what can you say? How about: "Forget about it."
My point is: Forget whether JFK is the Dajjal or the Mahdi. Can Brychek deliver the goods? OK, when? Bruce don't forget Dangerous Dan!
Jim
Whoa! Hold up here, just a minute, please. I have been the most resolute defender of Brychek, excepting Wim. In my opinion Brychek can be a great contributor to the public welfare: he can present powerful evidence of a conspiracy in the death of JFK. So far he has NOT followed through on his promise. But he still can, unless he does NOT have the goods.
I think it is very unfortunate that Brychek continues to shoot himself (& his praise worthy plan to bring the Files Story out to the public view) in the foot.
Obviously, the solution of the difficulty is not to propose a showdown in a Chicago back alley between Brychek's attack mouse versa BOBC.
One thing about Seymour Hersh. He thought in 1997 that Oswald was the lone assassin. Oops, well, what can you say? How about: "Forget about it."
My point is: Forget whether JFK is the Dajjal or the Mahdi. Can Brychek deliver the goods? OK, when? Bruce don't forget Dangerous Dan!
Jim