Blogs and Stories
Kennedy Fantasies
Time & Life Pictures / Getty Images
The new book Bobby and Jackie: A Love Story, which claims the two Kennedys had an affair, relies on a dead witness, improbable happenstance, and a view into the Kennedy compound that was physically impossible.
When C. David Heymann was invited to call in to Howard Stern’s Sirius show on the morning of July 22, it seemed like a match made in heaven—shock-jock Stern takes a prurient interest in celebrity sex, and Heymann is a biographer of four books about the Kennedy family that have gotten massive media attention for depicting the Kennedy men as essentially a band of porn stars who, in their clothed moments, dabble in politics.
A few of Heymann’s more colorful biographical claims: Bobby Kennedy was seen making out with Rudolf Nureyev in a phone booth, JFK prepared for the Kennedy-Nixon debates by nailing a hooker (an event that apparently was so gratifying that afterward he swung the used condom around like a lasso for an aide to see), and John Kennedy Jr. totally getting in on with a bunch of gay dudes.
Stern, however, had invited Heymann on to discuss the tome he released this month, Bobby and Jackie: A Love Story. Stern made a conversational beeline to perhaps the book’s most explosive claim—that Jackie and Bobby had been witnessed en flagrante on the lawn of the Kennedy’s Palm Beach estate in 1964.
Click Below to View Our Gallery of Political Affairs
Stern was impressed with Heymann. “This guy’s got some credibility,” Stern marveled. “Three Pulitzer prizes.” Heymann didn’t bother correcting Stern by telling him that his dust jacket biography actually describes him as “a three-time Pulitzer nominee,” not winner. And actually, nominee means nothing since anyone can send their book in for consideration. Since the early '80s, the Pulitzer Committee has announced “Nominated Finalists” for the award and Heymann’s books have never been recognized as such.
Instead, Stern helped the “Pulitzer-nominated” Heymann publicize a book whose most salacious bit came from an alleged Bobby Kennedy ex who is now dead and, according to a trusted local real-estate agent, could not have witnessed the tryst from any possible vantage point near that Florida compound.
That sure seemed like the old C. David Heymann I’d gotten to know. Back in 1999, I’d written a story about Heymann for the New York Observer. Just after John F. Kennedy Jr.’s plane was lost en route to his cousin’s wedding in Hyannisport, Heymann emerged onto the scene via a Cindy Adams’ cover story in the New York Post headlined, “He Did Not Want To Fly.”
John Kennedy, Heymann told Adams, had confessed to him 10 days before the fateful flight that he didn’t want to drop Lauren Bessette in Martha’s Vineyard before heading to Hyannisport, but his wife was forcing the issue. So the Bessette sisters immediately became cast as the heavies in the tragedy.
There was one very obvious question nobody bothered to ask: Why in God’s name was John Kennedy Jr. talking to C. David Heymann, who had already included in his work some ugly innuendos about Kennedy’s family?
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
The First "Neverland"
Andrew Goldman is a contributing editor at ELLE and New York magazine, where he writes about entertainment, politics, and culture. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife Robin and son Henry.
The Daily Beast's Golden Globes Debate
Kevin Sessums is the author of the New York Times bestseller Mississippi Sissy, a memoir of his childhood. He was executive editor of Andy Warhol's Interview magazine and a contributing editor of Vanity Fair and Allure. He is a contributing editor of Parade. His new memoir, I Left It on Mountain will be published by St. Martins Press.
Andrew Goldman is a contributing editor at ELLE and New York magazine, where he writes about entertainment, politics, and culture. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife Robin and son Henry.
finderj
Some people will do anything for a buck.
And some media buzz.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--charles116larry278
Your question deserves to be answered by Ms Brown & her employees.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--charles116speekup
I'm afraid the truth is:
1) Very few people care if what they read is true--as long as it's titillating
2) At this stage in history, when it comes to the Kennedy's, there's no one still alive who would care enough to sue.
Oddly, now, the more that clan has been tarnished, the more I appreciate them. Nostalgia I guess.
pricklypear
Jackie's helmet hair is a riot.
amapola101
If this is true,and I would imagine,there has to be truth,or there will be lawsuits, we have to all agree,that our beautiful camelot carachters,which I worship and idolized,like all ohters, ,,, were all of them worst than the characters, ofthe fall of the Roman Empire.It was a presidency without,morals,faithfullness,and full of adultery.It is interesting that if you compare it to todays,media,then everything was kept secret and protected.And todays politicians,are puppies,next to sordid immorality that existed in the Kennedy era. If all this,the infidelities,the immorality,the pervertnes,,that has been written thru the years is real.,It was really all of them the lowest of lowest.,And I would not call this a love affair.This is an adultreous affair.lust and sex.What ,the brothers all had to handle the same woman.??They did not have dignity in that?JK,MM,and others, Many people who lived this era,who were around at that time say the immorality stemmed from the grandfather down.and many say it is all true.Our camelot.!!!!
nortonclybourn
Oh come off it.
dcbooknurse
No, there does not have to be truth to this. All Heymann has to say is that he is factually reporting what was told to him, not to the actual truth of the events themselves. And since all the witnesses are dead, who's to say he's lying? Of course there are those who will eagerly read every word while professing to be disgusted with the entire affair.
Am-I-Dreaming
You can't libel a dead person, which is obviously the only bit of journalistic "ethics" this clown Heymann ever learned.
As for the media keeping things quiet, of course they did. There was a symbiotic relationship between the press and the presidency until Richard Nixon changed all that to an adversarial relationship. Frankly, I wish we could turn back the page on some of this gotcha journalism. I don't think it helps the body politic much. Was JFK's or FDR's or Ike's ability to govern compromised by their respective zipper problems? Would Bill Clinton have been better able to govern effectively (and the DOJ budget not have suffered so much ) had we not known about Monica? No to the first and yes to the second. This isn't a blanket statement, however. When it comes to someone like a Mark Sanford, however, (and this is not a partisan slam) or even King Edward of Britain, I'm glad the world was informed of their indiscretions because the women in question *obviously* messed with their minds enough to have truly compromised their ability to govern and lead. But JFK, Bill, Ike, FDR, etc? I don't think so.
Then again, back in the days of Ike, FDR, and JFK, those presidents (and candidates) weren't trying to moralize or tell us how to live or whom to love. Once the politicians start doing that, they might as well open up the closets because the skeletons will be found. If they didn't mouth off and moralize so much no one would care. It's the rise of this public moralizing/private philandering model that has begotten this salacious "gotcha" brand of journalism (if you can call it that). Frankly, I don't care who or what anyone is banging. It's the blatant hypocrisy of these big-mouthed, fatheaded, pseudomoral politicians that gets me. Long may they get roasted to a crisp in the public spotlight. The rest of them, who understand that we all are allowed to live our own lives without their "help", will get my vote.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--YesAddisondlc1550
That was called a Bouffant hairdo. Very big in the 60's.
plwinkler
Heymann is a novelist posing as a biographer.
Carole65
Heymann is the new Kitty Kelly of the reveal all world, regardless who gets hurt. This will appeal to the lowest common denominator, like Howard Stern and his listeners. Most informed Americans know about the Kennedy exploits, as well as Roosevelt, Johnson, Clinton, etc., but the titillating aspects of their exploits simply has no place in the national dialogue.
SteveStephens
That was the most worthless article I've ever read. I'm never going to get that time back.
Betty47
Nothing is sacred. Mrs. Kennedy and Senator Kennedy both dead and not here to speak for themselves. However, if they were, they would not comment.
PaulBlack
Aren't there other topics that interest this writer then recylced ones about Heymann from 1999. Let go of this bone Goldman and chew on someone else. Mr. Heymann happens to be one of this countries leading and best-selling biographers.
BellPriveterre
Heymann is a stereotype come to life: whiny, greasy, nasal & avaricious.
bcaldwell
Who cares? What does it matter?, It makes for light reading on a slow Sunday night though. But i will say this, if the kennedy's are upset about it, then they only have themselves to blame. They have allowed this drivel to be spouted off about them for 40-50 years now and in many cases they were guilty as charged.
Think Teddy at Chappaquiddick or at Palm beach with William Kennedy Smith. John(member of Rat Pack) withmultiple women including Marilyn Monroe and socialte Judith what's her name.
...it's hilarious, really. Even more hilarious that I am devoting this much cyber space to it. I suppose we all have a bit of voyeurism in us.
Rdschenkel
Jackie had a penchant for married men and was a wallet sniffer.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.