JFK'S FIRST MARRIAGE TO MS. DURIE MALCOLM:

JFK Assassination
BOBC
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

RE:

Post by BOBC »

Thank You. If you are such a supporter of Free Speech, then where is Tim Carroll. I have heard enough. If you supprt and agree with Brycheck then be my guest but plase remove me from the Forum. This is not a good place anymore and in my opinion, what is going on is just hype to make more money off of that phony Files story. And yes. Like pther fool, I wasted my money and bought the book AND the DVD, but I am not convinced. In my opinion, Files had his 15 minutes and blew it.

Thanx and Bye

Bobc
dankbaar
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

Post by dankbaar »

Well Bob, I explained why I booted Carroll, sorry if you cannot agree, sorry that I can't support your JFK bubble all the way, and sorry that you're not convinced anymore. You can't win them all.

Wim
Bob
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

Post by Bob »

I am sorry to see the way things have evolved on this forum. The paramount issue on this forum SHOULD be to help solve the issue of who REALLY killed JFK. Hence the name of this site. I have said many times that JFK was not a saint. Nor were several other high profile leaders in the United States. The founding fathers of the U.S. were slave owners. Compare JFK to the Bu$hes, the Rockefeller$, Nixon, Ford, LBJ, FDR, J. Edgar Hoover etc., and it is common that these men all have dark secrets that were not publically known. Some of those dark secrets are directly related to why the events on 11/22/1963 happened. The JFK/Giancana connection certainly played a major role in this. But still, dragging JFK through the mud is not going to help solve this crime. It might help us better understand the motives behind it, but to repeat these claims over and over again will only give the impression that the authors views are slanted on the subject. To be fair, I repeat my views on the Bu$hes over and over again, and my opinion is slanted, but only because they (the Bu$hes) are the ones that are in power now. That power started in the 1950's when Ike became President. That is when Prescott Bu$h had influence in the highest office in the land, was also a U.S. Senator and had his good friend Allen Dulles running the CIA. Bu$h was also still a major player on Wall Street and alo was using the media to help further his cause, as he was a founding father at CBS. That is a LOT of power. That power was threatened by JFK. That is why JFK was illiminated. The Bu$hes have pretty much run things in the U.S.A. for over 50 years, with a few gaps here and there. That's why I keep pressing the issue of their involvement in the JFK assassination. I would hope that we can stay focused on who really was behind the JFK murder, and what does it mean to us today. The personal details of JFK's life will not help us find the ultimate answer.
dankbaar
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

Post by dankbaar »

Well, I certainly agree to what you said there.

You may have noticed that it was not me raising the negative issues on JFK's character. But do I need to censor them?

I feel they have little bearing on who killed him and why, although one may argue that it helped motivate some of the culprits further, like Giancana and Trafficante. In the book of Frank Ragano, lawyer for Santo Trafficante and Jimmy Hoffa, it is described how Trafficante lost all his respect for JFK ,when in 1958 the senator came to Havana and Trafficante offerred him a play with three of his hookers. A proposal which JFK accepted, to Trafficante's surprise. It further describes that the room where JFK had a good time, had a one way mirror window, so that Trafficante could see everything. Ever since Trafficante and his friends became a target of the Kennedy's OC campaign he complained to Ragano how stupid he had been not to make photographs of JFK's escapade.

Wim
Bruce Patrick Brychek
Posts: 1306
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

JFK'S FIRST MARRIAGE TO MS. DURIE MALCOLM:

Post by Bruce Patrick Brychek »

Dear Mr. Wim Dankbaar, and Fellow JFK Forum Members,

Last week a lone report surfaced about JFK'S First Marriage.

I heard nothing else about JFK, his Presidency, or his assassination.

JFK'S First Marriaage is now extremely well documented.

What are the thoughts of anybody who has read The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour M. Hersh ?

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
Posts: 1306
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

Kennedy Annulment Revoked:

Post by Bruce Patrick Brychek »

Dear Mr. Wim Dankbaar, and Fellow JFK Forum Members,

Bob has previously posted a list of Great Things that JFK accomplished. For me, trying to end Viet Nam, and the Cold War was the greatest thing he tried.

However, many people often ask why there is not more done to uncover the real truth behind the JFK and RFK Assassinations. While hard for some to stomach, especially New JFK Forum Members, or younger people, but there is a 'hatred" if you will, against The Kennedy's to this day. Some are victims of their own self created facts.

I am not passing judgment. But as a Roman Catholic I must question their acts, and the acts of The Roman Catholic Church as I would if JFK was a Baptist, Lutheran, Jew, or Muslim.

That being said.

Chicago Tribune, Thursday, June 21, 2007, page 4:

"Kennedy Annulment Revoked:

12 years of marriage 'validated,' ex-wife says of vatican act:

By Denise Lavoie
Associated Press:

BOSTON - The Vatican reversed the annulment of former Rep. Joseph Kennedy II'S first marriage, a union that had lasted 12 years and produced two sons.

Sheila Rauch on Wednesday confirmed a report on Time magazine's Web site that her appeal of the annulment to Rome had succeeded.

I'm very grateful that the marriage was validated, she said.

Rauch had sharply criticized the Roman Catholic church for annuling her marriage, alleging in a 1997 book that the Kennedy family's influence in the church made it possible.

She and Kennedy, the eldest son of the late Sen. Robert Kennedy, were granted a civil divorce in 1991.

Rauch said she found out about the annulment only after Kennedy married his former congressional aide Beth Kelly in a civil ceremony two years later. The (original) annulment decision totally overlooked the fact that I felt that we had a very strong marriage in the beginning, we had two wonderful children, and it lasted, Rauch said Wednesday. I was certainly happy in the beginning ...Things unraveled, but that didn't mean you didn't have a marriage.

Rauch said she was told of the Vatican's decision to reverse the annulment by officials from the Boston Archdiocese in May, although the decision was reached in 2005.

Terry Donilon, a spokesman for the Boston Archdiocese declined comment. A spokesman for Kennedy had no comment.

Kennedy served in Congress from 1987 to 1999. He had been considered a favorite for Massachusetts governor in the late 1990'S, but after several months of family trouble and adverse publicity, including publication of his ex-wife's book, Shattered Faith, he decided not to run.

Kennedy is president of Citizens Energy Corp., a non-profit company he founded to provide low-cost heating oil to the poor and elderly.

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
Harley Ryder
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm

Re: JFK'S FIRST MARRIAGE TO MS. DURIE MALCOLM:

Post by Harley Ryder »

Mr. Brychek:Although not popular to some, your research and reviews are groundbreaking, and eye opening about all cover-ups among the elite.JFK's girlfriends, venereal disease, drug addiction, first marriage, divorce, annulment, and first marriage, divorce and annulment papers appear as well covered up as Barack Obama's first place of birth, birth certificate, foreign student status in America, drug usage, and high school and college records, along with other habits.The more things seem to change, the more they seem to be the same. I think I understand the points that you were trying to make. The patterns that you were revealing in April, 2006 seem to make a lot more sense in March, 2012. Very interesting. Very deep thinking behind what you wrote.
Locked