Crowdsourcing JFK: Madeleine Brown debunked

In response to my call for crowdsourcing Madeleine Brown’s story about Vice President Johnson attending a party the night before the assassination of JFK and saying the Kennedys would never embarrass him again, I received no information to corroborate Brown’s story.

My call for crowdsouricng was based on a Hugh Aynesworth book review in which he asserted that LBJ didn’t arrive in Texas until 11 pm that night and was filmed at Fort Worth hotel around midnight, casting doubt on Brown’s story.

I heard from people who don’t like Aynesworth, but I didn’t hear from anyone who disputed his claims about LBJ’s whereabouts on that night

I also heard from Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor Museum who wrote:

“On November 5, 1982, Madeleine Brown held a morning press conference at
the Press Club of Dallas to announce her forthcoming book, Texas In The
Morning.  She promised to detail her romance with LBJ but only hinted that
her son, who was also present, might have been Johnson’s illegitimate son.

“After her opening statement and in response to a question during the Q&A,
Brown said that Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn and Johnson were behind
the Kennedy assassination. Surprisingly, no reporters caught the major
gaffe she made, for Rayburn died in 1961, two years prior to Kennedy’s
death in Dallas.”

So based on the information I have received, I would say that Brown’s story is not credible.

If you have factual information in the form of links, documents, citations, or memories that is relevant to Brown’s story please send me an email.


  1. Photon says:

    And there you have it. Another false witness easily proven to be a fraud, yet accepted by members of the Conspiracy community because she said the magic words- anybody but Oswald. You didn’t mention her other paternity suit looking for cash against somebody else.
    Like Cheryl McKinnon, like Gordon Arnold, like Beverly Oliver this woman has been accepted as genuine not because of evidence, but because of desire to be true. It seems that conspiracy witnesses can repeatedly contradict themselves, make statements easily proven to be false, be convicted of felonies- and STILL be considered believable by supposedly intelligent individuals.
    Why aren’t there any comparable phony Lone Nut witnesses. You know, formal mental patients, convicted criminals?

    • Neil says:

      I don’t disagree that Madeline Brown’s story lacks credibility or that there are people who believe her because they want it to be true.

      However, the same logic can be applied to both sides of the lone-nut versus conspiracy arguments. Many who “want” to believe Oswald acted alone often overlook credibility issues with witnesses that support their forgone conclusion as well as the problems with the evidence

      • mk says:

        “However, the same logic can be applied to both sides of the lone-nut versus conspiracy arguments.”


        “Many who “want” to believe Oswald acted alone often overlook credibility issues with witnesses that support their forgone conclusion as well as the problems with the evidence”


    • Thomas says:

      It’s a shame that you jump in with both feet when Jeff is trying to do the research community a great service by being even-handed. Please settle down.

    • Jonathan says:

      I don’t disagree with you about the desire on the part of Warren critics to find witnesses, any witnesses, that bolster some theory other than Oswald did it.

      Warren critics strain too hard looking for such witnesses. There are plenty good ones at hand. S.E. Holland; Lee Bowers; the Newmans; Orville Nix, and the list goes on.

      There is no point, Photon, beating on the dead horse of Cheryl McKinnon. Cheryl McKinnon is a diversion. I’m not so sure about Gordon Arnold and Beverly Oliver, but who cares? I can write an essay shooting down the Warren Report without having to mention their names.

    • TLR says:

      There are many of us who never accepted Brown, Gordon Arnold, or Beverly Oliver. So stop your hyperventilating and quit painting the entire research community with a broad brush.

    • LOUDMOUTH1 says:

      You CLAIM Ms Brown is not telling the truth, but you have NOT given one iota of PROOF ! You cannot prove a negative . . meaning you cannot prove she is NOT telling the truth ! What reason does she have to lie ? She HAD a son with LBJ and if one watches the interview she gave shortly before her death, she is HONEST–anyone watching can tell an honest reporter from a kook or a hoax. Since we don;t really know all the facts of that night and that meeting-I would still give the benefit of the doubt to Ms. Brown because she has MORE than enough experience close-up with LBJ and his minions to know better than some skeptic or Warren Commission GROUPEE !

      • mk says:

        “! You cannot prove a negative . . meaning you cannot prove she is NOT telling the truth !”

        Which is why the burden is on those who claim that she is telling the truth.

        (Actually, it’s false that you can’t prove a negative. In this case, a proof that Brown or Johnson were somewhere else could serve to prove that Johnson never said what Brown claims he said.)

  2. I certainly believe Gary Mack on this, but it would be dandy if somebody could produce a contemporaneous source showing Brown saying this.

  3. I interviewed Madeliene Brown in 1993, and I’ll make the tape available to Jefferson Morley. On that tape, she spoke of the 8 people at the so-called “Murchison Party.” She also made it clear that LBJ seemed to have discovered at that time that certain events would occur the next day. With the passage of time, she expanded her story exponentially, finally noting over 40 people at the party, and some of them (Helen Thomas, Clint Peoples) were absolutely not there. I challenged her regarding Hoover, and she insisted that he was there, and had time to get back to DC, because the party broke up “early.” How early, I asked. “10:30,” she told me. But, as noted, AF-2 did not land at Carswell until 11:03, and it’s a good hour, even with sirens, to where Clint Murchison Jr. lived. She had also added John Connally to the list, although he had not been previously mentioned. I asked her why she did not mention him. “Oh, it was too ‘big’ to speak of that while he was alive.” I told her that she would ask her to believe that at that gathering, she learned that JFK was going to be killed, but anything about John Connally had to be kept secret? It made no sense. I will always think of Madeleine Brown as a good friend, but people exploited the poverty of her later life to merchandise her story and expand upon it. Damn shame. Walt Brown

    • I interviewed Madeliene Brown in 1993, and I’ll make the tape available to Jefferson Morley.

      Please do. I don’t doubt for a minute that you are correct, but in this field, everybody, instinctively, should always be wanting to see the primary source.

      • Preston Newe says:

        Most, if not all primary sources are at the mercy of the person interviewing & questioning them. An unknowledgeable, incompetent or agenda driven interviewer can easily distort invaluable information a JFK assassination witness possesses. Here’s an example:

        Both Bill & Gayle Newman state they saw men with guns leave the SS follow-up car & run past them on the grassy knoll immediately after JFK was murdered. The interviewer sits there as if he didn’t hear what they said. On the Zapruder film, he avoids asking them if they saw the sidewalk crowd standing motionless like zombies or if they saw anything not in the Zapruder film. This is typical with 6th Floor museum interviews.

        My point is some of the ‘factoids’ & erroneous information attributed to primary sources may be the result of the persons who talked to them in person & the message they conveyed got scrambled in the dissemination process.

        • Thomas Joseph says:

          In the end notes of Josiah Thompson’s 1967 book, ‘Six Seconds In Dallas’ Thompson relays that eyewitness S.M. Holland’s Warren Commission testimony was so full of errors & misquotes that Holland & his attorney corrected the testimony start to finish with red pencil & submitted the corrections to the Warren Commission. None of the corrections made were printed in the final report.
          I recall reading a John McAdams thread at alt.assassination.jfk in the last few months concerning Jeff Morley’s interview of Anne Goodpasture. McAdams accuses Jeff Morley of taking advantage of Goodpasture’s advanced age in that thread.

  4. Madeleine Brown is simply the most important witness ever to come forward on the JFK assassination. That is because Lyndon Johnson told her his Dallas, TX oil executives and the “renegade intelligence bastards” were behind the JFK assassination. LBJ is confirmed by contemporary press reports and his presidential schedule as being at the Driskill the night of 12/31/63 – exactly where Madeleine said he was the last 20 years of her life.

    I think Madeleine embellished the Murchison party. Instead LBJ called her in the morning of 11/22/63 and said after today the Kennedys will be dust.

    Go watch Geraldo’s interview Madeleine in the 1980’s: she said LBJ called her in the morning; she says nothing about a Murchison. But, critically, Madeleine also says LBJ told her it was the “fat cats” in Dallas – his biggest supporters – and the CIA who were behind the JFK assassination.

    Madeleine was not LBJ’s most important mistress. That was Mary Margaret Wiley (Valenti) who is STILL ALIVE TODAY. Mary Margaret was with LBJ when he was at the peak of his power as Senate Majority Leader, when he was castrated as VP, after he became president after murdering John Kennedy.

    I have no doubt Mary Margaret Valenti, whose daughter Courtenay is LBJ’s, is holding deep dark secrets of Lyndon Johnson.

    • Photon says:

      Actually LBJ’s most important mistress was also the most famous- and a prominent Washington socialite .
      Robert, with all of your sources you can surely enlighten us on this affair. After all, she was a part of 11/22/63 much more than any of the characters you mention.

      • John says:

        Why don’t YOU tell us.

        Strange how some people who are so convinced it was only Oswald waste their time trying to enlighten the unwashed….. Why would someone do that?

  5. Madeleine Brown – Evidence of Revision – go to the 45 minute mark.

    Note what Madeleine told Geraldo in the 1980’s: 1) No mention of Murchison party 2) LBJ instead called her on the morning of 11/22/63 and threatened the Kennedys 3) LBJ told her on 12/31/63 that Dallas oil men (LBJ’s biggest supporters)- including H.L. Hunt – and that the CIA murdered JFK.

    Bottom line: Madeleine Brown is the most important witness to truth in the JFK assassination. Her story implicates Lyndon Johnson, Dallas, TX oil executives, and the CIA.

    Forget the embellished Murchison Party – focus on what LBJ told her at the Driskill on 12/31/63. Remember LBJ is CONFIRMED as being at the Driskill on 12/31/63.

    • LMB says:

      I watched the tape, at the 45 min. mark. She said Jack Ruby had come out openly that he (LBJ) was behind it. I have seen the tape of Ruby when he stated that, but my understanding this is much later. When between 11/22/63-and 12/31/63 and to whom is she in that Jack Ruby said openly said this ?

      • LMB says:

        Another thing she said is about 1952 Ruby with the LBJ lawyer, just takes me back to that Nixon story that Ruby was a Johnson man associate back in Chicago.

    • Photon says:

      Forget that she got caught in a lie?
      Believe what ever she said even if some of it obviously isn’t true and is contradicted by easily obtained historical facts?
      So we are supposed to accept anything she says regarding LBJ and JFK as Gospel, while ignoring everything else as ” not important”?
      A more clear illustration of Conspiracy psychology is not possible.

      • JSA says:

        Well, we know from the record that LBJ lied sometimes. It’s in the Caro biographies. So following that logic, we can’t ever believe anything LBJ said because sometimes he lied?
        What a ridiculous argument!

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Lied Hell. What was the name of the SSA that said if he wasn’t President he’d be in a mental institution (paraphrased). He was an asshole to most beneath him.

          • Ronnie, I can’t find his name at this time, but James Tague confirms it was an SSA agent who said that, in his book LBJ And The Kennedy Killing.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          JSA March 5, 2014 at 1:38 pm

          Again, if a person will BS you once they will do it again. Of course LBJ told the truth sometimes, maybe most of the time. But the point is that he was such a known liar you couldn’t believe one word he said. Not without crosschecking and finding corroborating evidence.

          I find the same with Mark Lane. I’m sure some of his work must be good but I’ve seen him be dishonest several times. So now I don’t believe a word he says unless I can check it out. John Newman, same thing.

          And then there are people of such character that you can take their word to the bank. I believe these people are becoming rare.

          • JSA says:

            It’s always a good idea to cross check something someone says, Bill. So I agree with you on that.

            I find it interesting that a Mimi Beardsley or a Mary Meyer can say they had a sexual affair with JFK and they are generally believed, no questions asked. But when someone claims to have had an affair with Lyndon Johnson, they get questioned and cross examined up the wazoo. I’m just sayin’…

            All you have to do is look at Madeleine Brown’s son (photos of him because he is now deceased) to see LBJ’s DNA all over the guy. So I’m pretty sure she was who she said she was: LBJ’s mistress. That part seems to check out. As for her words spoken about Lyndon’s knowledge of what was going on in Dallas in 1963 related to the assassination, which he benefitted from—-I’m willing to listen to this woman, a woman LBJ did have an illicit child by. As they say, people often talk before they die if they have burdensome secrets that they want to release. Not everyone does this, but many do. I think she was unburdening herself of her sordid past, and of her secrets that she kept for so many years about LBJ. Just as many women have come forward later in life to admit they had affairs with Kennedy which they were embarrassed to admit in their earlier years.

          • All you have to do is look at Madeleine Brown’s son (photos of him because he is now deceased) to see LBJ’s DNA all over the guy. So I’m pretty sure she was who she said she was: LBJ’s mistress.

            Then why did Madeleine and her son sue one Jerome Ragsdale in a paternity suit, claiming that he was the father?


          • Bill Clarke says:

            JSA August 12, 2014 at 9:49 pm

            “But when someone claims to have had an affair with Lyndon Johnson, they get questioned and cross examined up the wazoo.”

            This isn’t 100% true. If Alice Glass or Helen Gahagan Douglas claimed they had an affair with Johnson no one of knowledge would question them. These affairs were well documented and well known at the time.

            Now LBJ and Madeline might have done the little dance or maybe not. I don’t think we can prove or disprove it either way (without DNA). So we can’t take that one off the table.

            There is more than enough evidence to prove that the people Madeline claimed were at the party could not have been there. I think we can take that one off the table. It is junk and we are back to if a person will BS you once they will do it again.

            I really doubt the affair but I agree with you; that boy sure could be LBJ’s. I would love to see the DNA evidence on that one!

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Yes, that’s the silly M.O. of an over-zealous WC proponent (or CIA asset) to discredit for any excuse.

        • mk says:

          “Well, we know from the record that LBJ lied sometimes. It’s in the Caro biographies. So following that logic, we can’t ever believe anything LBJ said because sometimes he lied?
          What a ridiculous argument!”

          Basic logic failure. It’s funny that you’re not able to understand Photon’s argument, which is not the one you attributed to him.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        Photon March 5, 2014 at 5:55 am

        Bang on. If one can’t cull the Madeline Brown story as so much junk then they are going to drown in a sea of junk.

        Gary Mack published an account of Madeleine Brown’s story on 14th May,1997.

        Madeleine has claimed over the years that she attended a party at Clint Murchison’s house the night before the assassination and LBJ, Hoover and Nixon were there.

        1. The party story, without LBJ, first came from Penn Jones in Forgive My Grief. In that version, the un-credited source was a black chauffeur whom Jones didn’t identify, and the explanation Jones gave was that it was the last chance to decide whether or not to kill JFK. Of course, Hoover used only top FBI agents for transportation and in the FBI of 1963, none were black.

        Actually, there is no confirmation for a party at Murchison’s.

        2. I asked Peter O’Donnell because Madeleine claimed he was there, too. Peter said there was no party.

        3. Madeleine even said there was a story about it in the Dallas Times Herald some months later (which makes no sense), but she had not been able to find it. Val Imm (Society Editor of the Dallas Times Herald) told Bob Porter (of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza staff) recently she had no memory of such an event and even looked through her notes – in vain.

        4. Could LBJ have been at a Murchison party? No. LBJ was seen and photographed in the Houston Coliseum with JFK at a dinner and speech. They flew out around 10pm and arrived at Carswell (Air Force Base in northwest Fort Worth) at 11:07 Thursday night. Their motorcade to the Hotel Texas arrived about 11:50 and LBJ was again photographed. He stayed in the Will Rogers suite on the 13th floor and Manchester (William Manchester – author of The Death of a President) says he was up late.

        5. Could Nixon have been at Murchison’s party? No. Tony Zoppi (Entertainment Editor of The Dallas Morning News) and Don Safran (Entertainment Editor of the Dallas Times Herald) saw Nixon at the Empire Room at the Statler-Hilton. He walked in with Joan Crawford (Movie actress). Robert Clary (of Hogan’s Heroes fame) stopped his show to point them out, saying “. . . either you like him or you don’t.” Zoppi thought that was in poor taste, but Safran said Nixon laughed. Zoppi’s deadline was 11pm, so he stayed until 10:30 or 10:45 and Nixon was still there.

        And not to mention that Madeline claimed LBJ and Sam Rayburn were behind the JFK assassination. Problem here is that Rayburn died in 1961!

        • Brian Rector says:

          Problem: everyone seems to think that all of these guests HAD to be at this party at the same time. Why? Important people could have come and gone at different times. They could have showed up, made their appearance, done their business and left. Personally I think the decision had already been made and this “bomb” was dropped on those who had important parts to play, “or else”. I think we all know the Sam Rayburn was instrumental in getting LBJ on the ticket. M Brown knew SR and LBJ were close associates and may have been privy to the “little joke” that like Martin Van Buren, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur and Teddy Roosevelt LBJ was just a heartbeat away from the Presidency. This group of assassins ALWAYS has their “man” waiting in the wings. Heck, Rayburn may have pulled the little mistress aside and told her he thought LBJ should have been President!

          • mk says:

            “Problem: everyone seems to think that all of these guests HAD to be at this party at the same time. ”

            Problem: there’s no reason to think there was such a party in the first place.

    • Quite true, Robert, and this is where a little “common sense” comes into play: As Brown recalls, LBJ said to her “after tomorrow, those…….Kennedys will never bother me again…that’s a promise”. It appears to me that if Kennedy were still alive after November 22, 1963, which is what LBJ meant by “tomorrow”, JFK WOULD bother LBJ again, as he would still be the President.

  6. Well, regrettably, I had to dismiss Judith Baker – even though I wanted to believe her, and even though I continue to believe a nexus with Dr Mary Sherman,Ferrie and persons from INCA, I think her graduate work in creative writing was put to a test: take SOME bits of life and MAKE IT LARGE and she did that. I wish it had been like “Primary Colors” and been released anonymously, at least a debate might have occurred, and the establishment of some truths might have been advanced.
    In the case of Madeline Brown, if we had one piece of DNA from her son, and it showed LBJ as the father, then I would feel more comfortable letting down my disbelief of her. Otherwise, I’m agnostic.

  7. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I read somewhere years ago LBJ said the same thing in front of his cook or maid on the morning of the Assassination. I know this would be heresy but it was in a book, documented I don’t know.

  8. John says:

    Well said Mr. Morrow. It’s interesting how the LNers try to mash those two events into one and are pretty adept at it. I used to find Larry Dunkel credible, but not for several years now. I’ve seen no evidence to refute Ms. Brown allegations just a lot of slick spin from wolves in sheeps clothing. As an aside, intellectually honest CTs would LOVE for the government to prove that Oswald did it, but the government won’t because they can’t. Otherwise they would billboard the country with their irrefutable evidence rather continue to seal up 50 year old documents. The CIA seems to be running the show in this country now. Today’s headlines bear that out given what appears to be covert ops against Senate staff. Enough smoke to warrant and IG Investigation. Nothing will really be done about it, because everybody knows the CIA doesn’t conduct domestic ops – right?

  9. Thanks to Robert Morrow who has taken the time and effort to separate fact from fiction for us.

  10. Ronnie Wayne says:

    lbj get’s so deep in a hurry high top boots won’t do, bring your chest waders and a life jacket.
    That he had a role in the killing is indisputable to some. There are some convincing arguments for this.
    He had a lot of supporters in the D/FW area and the rest of the state. From Sarah T. Hughes to Hunt and Murchison (ref lbj’s close Washington neighbor in Washington, j e hoover) in Dulles to Fort Worth Attorney John Connally. The Dulles and New Orleans mafia supported him financially.
    He had more to loose with the Congressional Proceedings that day in Washington than anyone. Throw in being dropped from the ticket in 64 over the Bobby Baker stuff and you have motivation to cooperate if not help plan.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Sorry, I meant Dallas not Dulles, though I see a potential connection.

      • Photon says:

        If they were going to drop LBJ in 1964 what was the purpose of the Nov. 1963 Texas trip in the first place?
        If they were going to drop LBJ they would have abandoned Texas- and JFK would never have been shot in Dallas. Facts are facts.

        • AgentAbstract says:

          With the Bobby Baker investigation Kennedy wouldn’t have to “drop” LBJ. He would be tied up in the investigation facing criminal charges. This could be why the congressional proceedings begin while the Texas trip is underway. JFK gets his trip with LBJ by his side, then his brother Bobby takes LBJ off the ticket through criminal investigation. JFK gets the support he needs, and rids himself of LBJ in the same week.

        • Perhaps the purpose was to make Texas a close call in 64, with the possibility of a JFK win. I think he could have taken Texas anyway, against Goldwater.

        • David Regan says:

          JFK barely carried Texas in 1960 with LBJ on the ticket – 50.52%, so he was not such a strong factor in his home state and testimony implicating LBJ in a Senate investigation being taken on day of assassination: LBJ – JFK Assassination Kept Him Out of Prison:

  11. Brian Johnson says:

    Browns story is credible. In the interview I saw she stated that the assassination was planned in 1960 a year before Rayburn died.

  12. Mark Winchester Sr. says:

    I believe Brown did know LBJ & did see Oswald w/ Ruby at the Carousel Club. Whether LBJ is her son’s father I’m not convinced.

    Ruby killed Oswald on Carlos Marcello’s orders. It was either kill Oswald or Ruby would be killed as he had been skimming off Marcello’s $$ for a long time. There were alot of people from alot of different places involved in JFK’s assassination.

    • Brent Page says:

      Right. It was noted by witnesses that Ruby was a nervous wreck when arrested– sweating, hyperactive and craving a cigarette. It was said that upon learning of Oswald’s death, he became calm as if his hide were no longer on the line.

  13. Brian Rector says:

    There was the cook who corroborated the story of the Murchison party, naming Hoover (Bulldog) as guest. No one here refutes that M Brown ran with these people. The only way this middle-class Catholic girl gets into this circle is by being a mistress of one of them. No one here disputes the M Brown references to LBJ’s attorneys, payments and letters. So, she WAS an LBJ mistress. That being said I think M Brown’s version is probably the closest to the truth of the LBJ involvement. LBJ was OWNED by these Texas men all his life. He was not shrewd enough to pull all the deals without orders from men like Clint Murchison and Ed Clarke. Look at the debacle he made of his presidency. He was a stooge, just like Bush II. He did not know they were going to “kill” Kennedy until the last minute; then he followed orders. Did LBJ admit that the assassination was coming the next day? I doubt it. Did he defend himself with his mistress by blaming the “fatcats & the CIA? You bet! He knew it would shut her up and that she would never ask for further proof. This woman WAS involved and she knows facts about the people, places and times; just like all of us though, she exaggerates.

    • Brian Rector says:

      My correction: May Newman was not a cook, she was a seamstress for Virginia Murchison. Her statement in TMWKK #9 is factual.

  14. Jerry Byrd says:

    I think the fact that Lady Bird Johnson sent regular checks to Madeline Brown for support of her son is pretty compelling evidence that shows she accepted the fact that LBJ had affairs. And if you look at Lady Birds face, who could blame him..

  15. Brent Page says:

    With regard to the paternity claim made by Madeline Brown’s son– Steven Mark Brown, I find it compelling. He filed suit against LBJ’s estate and was promptly arrested and institutionalized by the Navy at such length that he lost the case by default due to his being unable to appear. She said he was transferred from one military clinical facility to another, having been institutionalized in three upon his death.

    His death is remarkably similar to that of Jack Ruby. They both developed very progressive cancers while institutionalized. Jack Ruby actually died a month after the diagnosis. It is known that covert cancer weapon research had been done at least since the early 1960s.

    If there wasn’t a shred of truth to Steven’s claim, I do not believe he would have been picked-up and “jailed” at such length. It seems an unlikely coincidence given the timing of his paternity suit.

  16. Don Armstrong says:

    Why in the world would someone as crafty and politically savvy as LBJ say something so damning to his mistress? I don’t think any physical evidence will ever overcome that enormous fault in the logic.

  17. John Schaefer says:

    So Brown misspeaks and says “Rayburn’ and that’s it, its over, she’s not credible about anything? Have you seen that boy? He looks just like LBJ. In all seriousness, for the Lone Nut Theory and the Warren Commission to have any credibility, you have to believe that SCORES of people are lying, crazy or mistaken. There’s a strong thread of disinformation that runs through the case, but that is part of the brilliance of the plan. To think, though, that every single person who has evidence contrary to the MBT or the WC is simply mistake or crazy, is….well….CRAZY. And Posner is nothing more than a warm security blanket of denial for those who can’t handle the truth. That guy ignores so much evidence its unreal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.