Newsgroup: it.hobby.fai-da-te
Titolo: Re: Christina Aguilera naked

flames. (The Bureau p. 56)
The Capell/Winchell/Hoover triangle sowed the seeds of this
slander. But the exposure of this triangle does more. In the
Vanity Fair article in which Judith Exner dumped out the latest
installment of her continuing saga, Liz Smith revealed that she
apprenticed at the feet of Walter Winchell in New York (January
1997 p. 32). This may explain why she took up her mentor's
cudgel.
Capell's work is, as Spoto notes in his Afterword, a frightful
piece of reactionary paranoia. But there are two details in his
pat anti-Kennedy tract that merit mention. First, Capell is
probably the first to propagate the idea that RFK was indirectly
responsible for his brother's murder. He does this by saying (p.
52), that commie sympathizer Bobby called off the investigation
of the shooting of General Edwin Walker in April of 1963, thus
allowing that crazed Communist Oswald to escape and later kill
JFK. This piece of rant has been modified later to fit into the
stilted mosaics of people like Davis and Waldron. What makes it
so fascinating is that, through the FBI's own files, we now have
evidence that Capell was deliberately creating a fiction: he had
information that Oswald was not a communist, but a CIA agent.
The second point worth examining about Capell's screed is the
part where he begins laying out the "conspiracy" to kill Marilyn,
specifically, RFK's motive for murder. Capell writes:
  But what if she were helped along into the next world by
  someone who would either benefit financially or who feared
  she might disclose something he wished to conceal. Supp

showed his true
colors by going on to produce syndicated specials on Satanism and
Al Capone's vaults (which were empty). He is now famous for
bringing tabloidism to television. Arledge won the battle. Rivera
and Liz Smith won the war. Until 1993.
The Truth About Marilyn
In 1993, Donald Spoto wrote his bio of Monroe. After reading the
likes of Haspiel, Slatzer and Summers, picking up Spoto is like
going back into one's home after it has been fumigated. Spoto is
a very experienced biographer who is not shy about controversy.
His biographies of Alfred Hitchcock and Laurence Olivier reveal
sides of their personalities that they, and other writers, tried
to conceal. Spoto is also quite thorough in obtaining and then
pouring over primary sources. Finally, he respects himself and
his subject, which allows him to question sources before arriving
at a judgment on someone's credibility. This last quality allowed
him to arrive at what is the most satisfactory conclusion about
the death of Monroe (Spoto pp. 566-593). The Kennedys had nothing
to do with it. I have no great int

of Richard Goodwin and Robert Kennedy. After a general
discussion of Cuban matters, JFK asked him, "What would you think
if I ordered Castro to be assassinated?" Szulc said he didn't
think it would help foster change in Cuba, and he didn't think
Americans should be associated with such matters. Kennedy
replied, "I agree with you completely." Szulc testified that:
  He went on for a few minutes to make the point how strongly
  he and his brothers felt that the United States should never
  be in a situation of having recourse to assassination.
Szulc's notes of the meeting state:
  JFK then said he was testing me, that he felt the same way -
  he added "I'm glad you feel the same way" - because indeed
  the U. S. morally must not be part (sic) to assassinations.
The Church Committee also heard testimony from Smathers who
stated that once when it was brought up in his presence
(presumably by the CIA friendly Smathers), Kennedy got so mad he
smashed a dinner plate and told him he did want to hear of such
things again (Alleged Assassination

Nautilus 90 North, Silent Victory: the U.S. Submarine War Against
Japan. In his book on Rickover, he got close cooperation from the
Atomic Energy Commission and the book was screened by the Navy
Department. In 1969 he wrote a book on the Martin Luther King
murder called The Strange Case of James Earl Ray. Above the
title, the book's cover asks the question "Conspiracy? Yes or
No!" Below this, this the book's subtitle gives the answer,
describing Ray as "The Man who Murdered Martin Luther King." To
be sure there is no ambiguity, on page 146 Blair has Ray shooting
King just as the FBI says he did, no surprise since Blair
acknowledges help from the Bureau and various other law
enforcement agencies in his acknowledgements.
The Ray book is basically an exercise in guilt through character
assassination. This practice has been perfected in the Kennedy
assassination field through Oswald biographers like Edward
Epstein and Priscilla Johnson McMillan. Consider some of Blair's
chapter headings: "A Heritage of Violence," "Too Many Strikes
Against Him," "The Status Seeker." In fact, Blair actually
compares Ray with Oswald (pp. 88-89). In this passage, the author
reveals that he also believes that Oswald is the lone assassin of
Kennedy. He then tries to imply that Ray had the same motive as
his predecessor: a perverse desire for status 

by its own contracted reporter for an
upcoming show scheduled for broadcast. The contracted reporter
was Seymour Hersh. The documents purported to show a secret deal
involving Marilyn Monroe, Sam Giancana, and President John F.
Kennedy. They were to be the cornerstone of Hersh's upcoming
Little, Brown book, The Dark Side of Camelot. In fact, published
reports indicate that it was these documents that caused the
publisher to increase Hersh's advance and provoke three networks
to compete for a television special to hype the book. It is not
surprising to any informed observer that the documents imploded.
What is a bit surprising is that Hersh and ABC could have been so
naive for so long. And it is ironic that ABC should use 20/20 to
expose a phenomenon that it itself fueled twelve years ago.
What happened on September 25th was the most tangible
manifestation of three distinct yet overlapping journalistic
threads that have been furrowing into our culture since the
Church Committee disbanded in 1976. Hersh's book would have been
the apotheosis of all three threads converged into one book. In
the strictest sense, the convergent movements did not actually
begin after Frank Church's investigation ended. But it was at
that point that what had been a right-wing, eccentric, easily
dismissed undercurrent, picked up a second wind-so much so that
today it is not an eccentric undercurrent at all. It is accepted
by