her a "real star."
None of the inconsistencies or absurdities I have noted get into
the article. In fact, Smith adds more of her own. As with
Demaris, one of her aims is to make Exner a victim of the press
so that she can imply that the "liberal media" is "protecting"
the Kennedys. As demonstrated above, this is preposterous. Exner
was a media creation used by that press to pummel the Kennedys
who the Times and Post - and their ally the CIA - never liked. To
camouflage this, Smith claims that after her book came out, the
Exners "fled" to California. Yet, according to Demaris, Exner and
her husband were already in California when he met them to start
work on the book. Smith can actually write the Orwellian
statement that Safire - author of no less than five pro-Exner
columns - "derided" Exner's story. Again, contradicting her book,
Exner now says she never went to bed with Giancana. In fact, in
the Vanity Fair version, the whole scene where he proposes to her
is different from the book. In the revisionist go round the
suggestion is that good Italian Catholics, even though they may
be murdering mobsters, don't believe in premarital sex.
More Hidden History
What are the new revelations about the Kennedys that merited
Exner's meeting with Smith for a catered dinner at the five star
Four Seasons Hotel in Newport Beach? There are two. First, she
forgot to add that Bobby's crimefighting campaign was a mirage.
Not only did he not mind JFK's White House meetings with
Giancana, he encouraged her in arranging them. For Vanity Fair,