JFK's Intern

Mimi Beardsley, now Mimi Alford, was a 19 year old intern for JFK. In 2003, JFK's former assistant Dave Powers, wrote a book in which he mentioned a young intern as one of JFK's paramours. She would not discuss it.

Now 69, she has written a book about it. The New York Post has excerpts. The affair lasted 18 months. She was interviewed on the Today Show this morning.

Her reason for coming forward now? She says living with this kind of secret is debilitating. [More...]

Why keep a secret? Why keep silent about something? You do something because you think it’s keeping you safe, but in fact it’s deadly.'

As a 19 year old, she had quite a front row seat for watching history unfold.

On one visit, Kennedy was embroiled in one of the most defining moments of his presidency, the Cuban Missile Crisis. For 13 days in October 1962, the United States and the Soviets were at a nuclear standoff. Although historians have dissected Kennedy’s actions, none was privy to what he confided to Mimi.

“I’d rather my children red than dead,” he told her.

After 18 months, she left for college. She didn't see him much after that and then got engaged. She last saw him 7 days before his trip to Dallas.

In addition to the earlier book, An Unfinished Life by Robert Dallek, the affair was confirmed by former Kennedy press aide, Barbara Gamarekian, in a 1964 oral history.

The book is titled, "Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath."

Will her book affect how people view JFK? I doubt it, but it's sure to be a best-seller.

< Madonna Time | U.S. Embassy Closed in Syria, All Employees Leave >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh puh-leeze! (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 12:27:19 PM EST
    It' so debilitating that she waited 50 years and chose to tell it in a book and a media tour? If it was so hard to live with, why not tell a therapist or priest or minister?

    Sigh.  More discussions to follow about the bad behavior of our politcians.

    I see your point, but maybe it's possible (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 12:39:48 PM EST
    that she waited because it would be less hurtful to his family - Jackie's gone, as are Ted and Bobby and John, Jr.  I don't know the status of her family, so maybe there were some considerations there, too.

    If money was what she was after, I think it might have been more advantageous to do this a lot sooner than 50 years later - I mean, there is a whole generation who know nothing of the Kennedy mystique, who probably don't care a hoot about a 50-year old affair.

    And yes, I know Caroline is still very much in the picture, so, I don't know; I think at some point we can only take people's reasons at face value - and since we don't have to buy the books or watch the interviews, eally, what does it matter to you or to me - or anyone except maybe those directly involved - why she's doing it?


    The only reason to care (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 12:49:42 PM EST
    As you point out, is if she did it out of "respect" , well,
    Caroline and JFK's grandkids are still very much alive, so is she still respecting them?  And why publicly embarass them now?

    This is just a way to cash in on an 18 month affair.



    Her affair is already (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 02:35:47 PM EST
    the subject of another book and has been confirmed.  

    The affair with an unnamed intern was mentioned in a book by Robert Dallek in 2003, and the New York Daily News indentified her by name as the intern, and she issued a written statement confirming the relationship.

    It's already public.  

    Her perpsective and first hand account of the White House could be valuable.


    Caroline's kids did not actually meet (none / 0) (#20)
    by observed on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 02:18:45 PM EST
    JFK, did they???
    I see a clear difference.
    Speak for yourself on this one. Others disagree.

    Everybody cashes in, or so it seems, (none / 0) (#23)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 03:14:10 PM EST
    and the reason they can keep doing that is because people keep buying the books and the newspapers and the tabloids.

    I don't claim to know the "real" reason she waited - as others have pointed out, the affair was outed almost 10 years ago in a Kennedy aide's book.  I don't know about you, but I don't have any memory of there being any kind of media attention or headlines then, so if it was a "ho-hum" revelation then, I can't imagine it's any more exciting now - although it's February sweeps, Rock Center is trying to boost its own ratings, so I suspect a kind of mutual benefit relationship is at work here.  

    Nothing new, in other words.


    from reading the excerpt (none / 0) (#38)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 11:44:36 PM EST
    i wonder what the family/descendants of Dave Powers knew, & what they think now

    then again, Dave Powers himself could have thought about that


    I'm not sure sure what's wrong with (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by observed on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    her action.
    If A), you think that Kennedy's affair was not a problem, then surely her book isn't an issue.
    On ther other hand, if B), you think that JFK was wrong to have the affair, why shouldn't she expose it?

    I am mildly in favor of exposing such affairs, not to shame politicians, but so that Americans stop having ridiculous expectations about their leaders' private lives.


    Very well said (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 08:44:07 AM EST
    We tend to dietize our Presidents, particularly this one.  And when his philandering became common knowledge many still want to make it something prettier than it could possibly be.  Even I do because I respect so many things that he did as a leader.

    I'll agree with the (none / 0) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 06:33:24 PM EST
    "I'm mildly in favor" part..I'm mildly in favor of people keeping their sex lives to themselves.

    Well, at her age, I'd worry, too (none / 0) (#8)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:07:16 PM EST
    about income, with the constant talk on all sides of cuts in Social Security.

    Perhaps we have found a way to forestall those, as pols will be pols, so there must be a lot of women (and not a few men) who could come out with tell-all books -- unless assured that there other sources of income will not be cut by pols.


    Ooooh! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 04:33:31 PM EST
    Good reasoning, Towanda.  I wouldn't have thought of that, but it makes sense.  Doggone it, as my husband and I push very close to 65, I'm almost beginning to regret that I have no "tell-all" tales about famous people to make some money with.  Maybe I could write a Greek cookbook, but very frankly, it would be difficult to get published, and I doubt it would make much money.   ;-)

    Maybe this is how we should think (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 05:59:45 PM EST
    of Mimi Alford's work--as a cook book.   JKF did teach her how to scramble eggs and many will be interested in the recipe.  

    Yeh, I have so little to tell (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    but heck, we could make it up.  Pols do.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#34)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 07:56:20 PM EST
    No kidding!

    Another possibility is that (none / 0) (#35)
    by observed on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 08:06:14 PM EST
    Teddy Kennedy's death was relevant.

    Huh???? (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 11:33:17 PM EST
    She mentioned not wanting (none / 0) (#37)
    by observed on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 11:36:50 PM EST
    to hurt JFK's family, right?

    Hmmm. I guess. IMO (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:43:56 AM EST
    it's about the money and her entitlement to 15 minutes of fame.

    Did you see the vintage photos to which Dadler l (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:50:32 AM EST
    linked in a comment yesterday?  (Of former times in former USSR--
    not JFK.!)

    That was my first thought too (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    Her retirement plans did not quite pan out as she had hoped.

    I don't blame her at all. I sure wish I had something to report that people would buy.


    Personally, (none / 0) (#11)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:28:03 PM EST
    I can identify with the notion that holding in that secret could be physically debilitating. I can also see why telling a therapist or a priest - both sworn to secrecy - would not be particularly cathartic or healing.

    And, with the economy in the condition it is, she could use some money. We all could.

    Her motives are not important as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm not interested in the personal lives of politicians.


    We all know JFK had affairs (none / 0) (#4)
    by Slado on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 12:49:44 PM EST
    This will just be interesting filler.  I will say thought that it's pretty creepy that JFK went after a teenager.

    Clinton's intern was at least an adult.

    A 19 year old?  

    If true... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Addison on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:13:37 AM EST
    ...the details point to something that's not "just an affair", it's sort of sociopathic behavior.

    I wouldn't call it sociopathic (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:02:22 AM EST
    I'd call it a guy that was used to having sex with women when he wanted to.

    He was a rich kid from a wealthy family with a history of womanizing.   Poor on top of that becoming the leader of the free world and you have a recipe for moral disaster.

    In a moral sense we can all agree the guy wasn't someone to be admired.

    As with all historical figures however what complicates it was he was a good president with many admirable qualities and so it make it harder to take that you wouldn't want to leave your daughter alone in a room with him.


    Did you read the details of her story? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Addison on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:17:06 PM EST
    Specifically what JFK wanted her to do to help another man relax?

    Look I think he's as creepy as the next guy (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 02:53:09 PM EST
    but he was more a perverted playboy then a sociopath.

    A sociopath in not cable of love or much emotion.

    I think JFK probably loved his wife and children, family, friends but he simply had one fatal flaw.  An unhealthy sexual appetite that because of his upbringing, class and eventual career never had to be ashamed of.  He could indulge his appetites with little sense of worry.

    No worse then a drug addict or drunk.  Until he was called on the carpet (IE Bill Clinton) he wasn't going to stop because he probably always thought he'd get away with it.

    epy but it's still a level below sociopath.


    And Clinton's wasn't an intern (none / 0) (#7)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:03:57 PM EST
    at the time of the affair.

    Wingnut talking point keeps resurfacing. . . .


    According to wikipedia... (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:29:10 PM EST
    Lewinski claims 9 sexual encounters with Bill, from Nov 1995 - March 1997.

    Wiki says that she worked as an intern in the WH through April 1996, which would cover the first 7 of her sexual encounters with him.


    Interesting; thanks (none / 0) (#15)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 02:01:40 PM EST
    and I'll check that with its sources.

    (That source can say something different every day, especially on politicized topics.)


    Pretty sure 19 is an "adult" ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    ... in almost every state - certainly NJ, where she resided.

    ... not to suggest that Kennedy's behavior was okay.


    In the early '60s, 18 was not (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 05:29:00 PM EST
    considered an adult. The big adulthood birthday was 21 in those days.

    You had to be 21 to sign a contract and 21 to vote, just to name two "adult" acts.

    So, yeah, very creepy that Jack Kennedy seduced a teenager. Even though Lewinsky was an adult at the time of her dalliance with Clinton, I thought that, given her young age, it was a bit creepy of Bill.

    But i'm a bit strict about those sots of things. My rule is no sleeping with someone who is young enough to be my child.  


    <shrug> (none / 0) (#29)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 06:22:53 PM EST
    hormones are hormones, & we never know who "seduced" whom

    anyway, my opinion is that you can't seduce anyone who is not willing, & the woman in question is not saying that she was unwilling

    at 19 she was, again in my opinion, old enough to decide for herself whom to have sex with

    that said, i read an old formula someplace for how you can determine whether someone is too young for you to have sex with: minimum age = half your own age + 7 years

    by that formula, JFK's "legal" minimum in 1962 would have been 29.5, so he missed the mark by more than a decade


    I have heard that that formula (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 06:39:41 PM EST
    was from the French.

    Gee... all those lectures (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 08:53:25 AM EST
    we got regarding to not hit on the young employees because a person in power doing so was taking advantage....Should we have received them?

    And yes, I'll give JFK the "different time" excuse but can't we all just admit that what he did was wrong? And if the other person now wants to make a few bucks, isn't that okay??


    You mean "all those lectures" ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:44:20 PM EST
    ... you got from the Tea Partiers and "Christian" conservatives?

    Their selective/hypocritical outrage only applies if they're talking about Democrats.


    I think what the commenter is referring to (none / 0) (#64)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 07:12:54 AM EST
    are workplace lectures on sexual harassment.  How managers are not to pressure subordinates for personal favors.

    Yep - I know what he was going for (none / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 11:00:42 AM EST
    I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of his fellow conservatives - also not sure lectures on sexual harassment apply, as I don't know if either JFK/Clinton pressured Beardsley/Lewinsky (in fact, Lewinsky admitted she pursued Clinton).

    you asked 3 questions (none / 0) (#51)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 02:04:14 PM EST
    here are my answers:



    Then we agree (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 03:21:09 PM EST
    on all three.

    Too bad JFK and Clinton were not exposed to the "special forces" folks from Human Resources.


    Or your fellow Tea Partier Newt (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 04:19:07 PM EST
    ... or Bob Livingston, John Ensign, David Vitter, Mark Foley, Neil Bush, Strom Thurmond, ect., etc., etc. - and that's just the ones having sex with their subordinates or with prostitutes.

    ... but your selective outrage is duly noted.


    ...as is yours. (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 05:34:51 PM EST
    Despite your transparent, after-the-fact, belated attempt to deflect any such criticism of yourself by answering yes, yes & yes.

    Don't sweat it though. selective outrage is simply human nature, we all do it...


    um (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 05:38:53 PM EST
    yes, yes, yes was from me, not Yman

    don't sweat it though - we all do it . . .


    smart a$$...

    Not sure who you're replying to (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 08:04:16 PM EST
    ... but I don't have any "selective outrage". Personally, I'm not outraged by any legal, consensual behavior between consenting adults, least of all a politician. That being said, when it's a politician who runs on a platform of "Family/Christian values", I do think they should have the standards they want to apply to others applied to themselves.  Plus, I find it pretty funny how the party of "Christian/Family values" suddenly throws them out the window when it's one of their own up for election (i.e. Vitter, Newt, etc.).

    Well, I'm not much of a Tea Partier (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 06:49:19 PM EST
    and even a worse Repub, I mean being an Independent and all that stuff... But I don't think Neil Bush was a politician so I don't know why he's there and heaven knows Foley paid the price, as he should have but good ole Strom... wasn't he a Democrat for like a thousand years????

    And then we have Barney and the use of his pad...


    The keyboard's not the problem (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 07:57:06 PM EST
    But Strom was a southern, bible-belt, conservative Democrat, before they bolted to the Republican party after the Democrats and some moderate, northern Republicans supported civil rights for all Americans ... a little too difficult for them to swallow.  But the Tea Party wingers only preach "Cristian/Family values" when it applies to a Democrat.  As soon as it's a Republican (Newt, Vitter, etc.), they don't care anymore - unless (perhaps) when it's homosexual sex or underage sex.

    BTW - Foley didn't "pay the price", unless you're referring to his voluntary resignation from Congress.  

    The "Independent" thing is funny, though ...


    Gosh I thought I was responding (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 07:04:00 PM EST
    to The Adams....I've gotta wash out my keyboard.

    an Independent and all that.. (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    I love these people who try to hide from their reponsibility for foisting Mr 30% approval rating on the rest of us, by calling themselves "Independents"..

    Don't look at me, I didn't have anything to with it, I'm an Independent..


    is something to be enormously proud of. Did you vote for him?

    "Recent 34% approval rating"?!? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    What polls are you looking at?  Not to defend Obama (I'm not happy with his performance), but some outlier poll from Newsmax ain't gonna cut it.

    While I'm sure there were a few slightly lower, Obama's poll numbers have never averaged lower than the low 40's.  Bush, OTOH, declined steadily throughout his two terms and spent must of his last year in office at 30% or less.


    A right wing, (none / 0) (#72)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:26:23 PM EST
    reactionary, "Independent," Winger.

    I like it.


    I agree with both you ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 07:21:16 PM EST
    ... and Addams Family, although I'm not sure if your information re: age of consent is correct.  If you mean "age of consent" for sex, it's been 18 in most states since the early 1900s (used to be lower).  I don't think it's ever been 21 in any state.

    Generally, however, "adulthood" from a legal perspective is the "age of majority", which has been 18 for a long time in most states.  Either way, Mimi Beardsley was an "adult" at the time of her affair with JFK.


    Yes, she had reached the (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:04:55 AM EST
    "age of consent." The age of majority, at that time, was 21 in most states. Most states lowered the age of majority to 18 in 1972 when the voting age was lowered.

    Clearly, Beardsley was legally old enough to consent to sex with JFK.

    Still, seems like an abuse of his power (charming, handsome older man who also happens to be the president) to have seduced a 19 year old intern. And, yes, I know the whole idea of sexual harassment was pretty non-existent in 1962. Still, not Jack's finest moment.


    Teenagers can be adults (none / 0) (#16)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 02:04:40 PM EST
    at eighteen or nineteen.

    We know what you meant, of course.  The term, though, would be an adult or a minor.

    Of course, at that time, a nineteen-year-old was legally no longer a minor -- but also lacked one legal measure of adulthood and could not vote.


    It's so creepy when children are allowed to (none / 0) (#19)
    by observed on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 02:12:22 PM EST
    type comments on mature sites such as TL.

    My point is a 40 something president (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slado on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 03:21:51 PM EST
    seduced a 19year old college student.

    It's creepy when a professor does it and it's creepy when the leader of the free world does it.

    If you're line is 18 then so be it but to me it's creepy and makes me think a little less of JFK.


    Why is she writing? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 12:52:15 PM EST
    Good time to cash in I guess.

    Why shouldn't she cash in? (none / 0) (#63)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 07:10:18 AM EST
    when she was a starry-eyed 19 yo intern at the WH the most powerful man in the world took advantage of her.  I can;t help but wonder how that impacted that impacted her subsequent life and her family's.

    In my view, it took amazing fortitude on her part to not go public before this.  And if she refused to go public to spare the feelings of the Kennedys then has kindness in her that was not reciprocated.  


    I found (based on the excepts) (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 12:53:10 PM EST
    Mimi Alford's revelations to be new and
    surprising.  I did not know that JFK's eau de cologne of choice was '47ll'.  

    She may have knowledge (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:07:54 PM EST
    of historical events.

    Everyone knows of JFK's affairs.  The toughts of JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis, however, are worth knowing.

    I will be reading it (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 08:38:25 AM EST
    And then again she (none / 0) (#65)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 08:58:10 AM EST
    may not and this missile crisis chat may be one of several embellishments in order to sell a libel-proof book full of unsavory accusations about people who are no longer in a position to challenge it.

    We (none / 0) (#10)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:20:26 PM EST
    had missiles in Turkey.
    They had missiles in Cuba.

    They took theirs out of Cuba.
    We took ours out of Turkey.

    Meanwhile, in the Oval office.....

    in the court of public opinion, (none / 0) (#12)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:29:00 PM EST
    Bill Clinton paid for JFK's "get out of jail free" card with respect to President Kennedy's affair with an intern <insert disclaimer that Monica Lewinsky was no longer an intern>

    & i could be completely wrong on this, but i do find it difficult to believe that Kennedy told Mimi Alford (née Beardsley), "I'd rather my children red than dead," despite his brother's tenure as an aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy

    I don't follow your reasoning. (none / 0) (#17)
    by observed on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    Kennedy's aside is a famous quote from Bertrand Russell. I can easily believe an intelligent person, confronted with a real-life choice whether to accept a rigid ideology (anti-communism) at the possible cost of atomic war, could quote Russell.

    not my reasoning (none / 0) (#22)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    my misreading!

    i read the quote above as "better dead than red"

    now that you have corrected my misreading, i find it wholly credible that JFK said "better red than dead"

    & even more incredible that JFK would have said "better dead than red" (which of course he did not)



    The best account of that time that I have seen (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 03:24:55 PM EST
     is in the documentary about McNammara before he died.

    That quote is very believable because Kennedy was convinced that war with Russia meant annihilation of both countries and most of the western world.


    The real creep excerpts (none / 0) (#31)
    by BTAL on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 07:06:09 PM EST
    relate to JFKs suggestion/request she perform acts on Powell and Teddy while he watched.

    What? Ooof (none / 0) (#48)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:03:53 AM EST
    That is creepy.  

    Very disappointed (none / 0) (#66)
    by brodie on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 09:22:41 AM EST
    there hasn't been more skepticism shown here about some of the spicy details she claims beyond the possibly credible story about a WH affair with the president.  Especially on a Crim Defense oriented board where the standard is supposed to be presumption of innocence.

    On this subject the standard appears to be Guilty as Charged -- On All Counts.

    I have some problems with a number of things, starting with the "WH intern" description of Alford.  Gamarekian said in a 2003 LTTE to the NYT that Dallek had erroneously quoted her as saying Mimi was an intern and that there wasn't any large intern group at the WH.  Author Nora Ephron was a WH intern then but doesn't recall Mimi (2003 LTTE to the NYT).

    Drugs she was offered in the WH:  sounds very out of character for JFK, like previous unproven accusations of LSD use by JFK made by colorful writers like Tim Leary many years and books later.

    Ditto the charge of a sexual "threesome" in the pool involving Powers.  Rings false.  Proven embellishers like Judy Exnner, iirc, also had ménage a trois stories, none of them credible but all too easy to toss in for some added spice and as filler.

    I'm suspicious of tell all books and memoirs generally, doubly so when the other parties are deceased, and especially when the subject is a Kennedy.  

    Which means there could be another reason (none / 0) (#67)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 10:23:12 AM EST
    she waited: fewer people who could contradict her version of any of the events.

    On the one hand, I'm not interested in the salacious details of anyone's private life, but, on the other hand, I also don't believe anyone has the right to concoct, embellish, revise, spin or jazz up and present as "facts," events or conversations, when those alleged to be involved, or those alleged to have witnessed or participated in them, are not around to corroborate or defend themselves.

    Unless one is writing a work of fiction and it's prefaced with the usual disclaimer as to the unintentional "resemblance to persons living or deceased, or to events that actually took place."

    Some people will believe anything.  Some people, as I did earlier in this thread, are willing to initially give someone the benefit of the doubt, or not assume a malicious or selfish intent.

    Thanks for your comment - it really made me look at this from a different perspective.