Blog posts

Joan Crawford, Barbara Stanwyck, & Shirley Eder: Hollywood’s Original Two-Faced Women

Joan Crawford, Barbara Stanwyck, & Shirley Eder: Hollywood’s Original Two-Faced Women

Film
Joan Crawford, Barbara Stanwyck
Crawford and Stanwyck, circa late-1930s

By Stargayzing guest blogger Corinna Tomrley*

Shirley Eder may be known to those who are serious about their classic Hollywood trivia, but to many her name will not ring a bell. Although not as renowned or as mythical as gossip godmothers Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons, in her time Eder was known as a “friend of the stars.” Officially presenting her gushing interviews with them “on the record” for mid-century radio and newspaper audiences, she would also draw them into her confidence and get them to dish with her over the phone, all the while secretly recording some of these “private” conversations. Her Hollywood chums included Celeste Holm (whom she met whilst appearing on stage with her in The Women, aged just 16), Frank Sinatra, Ginger Rogers, Lana Turner, Bob Hope, Carol Channing, Ethel Merman, Jacqueline Susann, Peggy Lee, Joan Rivers, Neil Diamond, Robert Wagner, Natalie Wood, Joan Crawford and Barbara Stanwyck. It is a couple of interviews with the last two stars, along with a few secretly taped phone calls,that should be putting Shirley into her own orbit as legendary gossip hack: the conversations I regard collectively as “The Shirley Eder Tapes.”

Shirley Eder
Joan Crawford and the duplicitous Eder (with her weapon of choice, her microphone). Circa 1970.

“The Shirley Eder Tapes” (TSET) begin with an interview with Crawford and Stanwyck together and are followed by a phone call with Joan, then a call with Stanwyck bitching about Joan, an interview for radio with a very drunk Joan in a limousine and lastly, another secretly taped phone call to Stanwyck, after Joan’s death. Together, these recordings paint the picture of a complex, perhaps volatile, friendship between Crawford and Stanwyck, demonstrate how Eder would use her relationships to pit one star against another and be frankly two-faced about it in order to get what she wanted and, at last, an exposé of the stars caught unguarded under the veil of presumed privacy.

The first tape, a 10-minute interview with both Crawford and Stanwyck, presents the two legends at dinner with Eder at the 21 Club in New York, just before New Years Eve, circa 1966. Eder plays around with the billing of these women, speaking of them as “Barbara Stanwyck and Joan Crawford. Joan Crawford and Barbara Stanwyck.” But it is very clear from the conversation that “Missy” Stanwyck very much knows how to play her status with Joan Crawford, Movie Star, revealing that they mainly catch up with each other in New York because “Joan is a career woman and her home is in New York.” Her reverence for Joan is that of one who knows how to deal with a massive ego for a friend. It is said that at this meal, Joan–as was traditional for her–ordered for all calves liver, vegetables and salad, generously allowing the other women to choose their own dessert. Now, I’d have been fine with that cuz I love me some liver, but “Missy” privately confessed to Eder later that she hated liver. She knew better, however, than to offend her famous friend in refusing the menu choice.

Joan Crawford Letter to Barbara Stanwyck
Just friends?

This factoid, along with the ensuing discussion, placed Crawford as the true Queen Bee in the relationship. However, Barbara Stanwyck held a special place for JoanCrawford: as a miniature in her home. It is said that at her death, Crawford had only two portraits in her apartment: one of Jack Kennedy (rumoured to have been a Crawford conquest) and the portrait of Stanwyck that Eder mentions. (Was Missy also a past shag? Let’s say “yes,” because it’s fun). In the tape Stanwyck says her friend has had the miniature portrait “easily 20 somewhat years.”  Joan corrects her, noting that it is 22 years.  Questioning why the women don’t socialise when in Hollywood at the same time, Eder asks if that means that work comes first. Joan, the dedicated Tinseltown workhorse shouts, “well you have to. This is a business. We’re trained and raised in a business.”  Missy, of course, agrees.

Stanwyck and Crawford in matching mannish attire, circa late 1930s.
Stanwyck and Crawford in matching mannish attire, circa late 1930s.

The rest of the interview is a somewhat dull discussion about the women’s dislike for celebrating New Year’s. In fact, what happens is Joan declares her opinion and Missy just states exactly the same thing for her answer. Eder predicts that they have ruined the party hat business of America. The interview establishes that these tough Hollywood film noir broads are BFFs because Stanwyck admires Joan and Joan likes that Stanwyck admires Joan. Eder said of the relationship, “It was a strange friendship. Nevertheless, it was real.”  And yet she would do her utmost to pit Stanwyck against Joan and dig out Missy’s true feelings about her volatile friend, perhaps demonstrating one aspect of the “strange friendship,” or attempting to prove that Joan was a deluded sociopath. I can’t quite decide which.

Joan Crawford, Cathy Douglas
A press clipping from the mid-1960s regarding the bizarre kerfuffle with Cathy Douglas that is referenced in the Shirley Eder recording.

The first secretly taped conversation in TSET needs a little backstory. On the 17th of January 1967, Joan Crawford attended a White House dinner honouring Lyndon Johnson’s VP Hubert Humphrey. Present were Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas and—seated one place away from Crawford—his new, young wife Cathleen. What followed was reported by Judith Axlar in her New York Daily News column “DC Wash’”and a piece in The Washington Post. Joan denied all in a telephone interview (not with Eder) and The New York Daily News printed a follow-up article detailing what had gone down according to reports from journalists who were witness to the events. The New York Daily News reporter at the dinner declared that Joanie “wasn’t acting queenly that night.”  The Washington Post’s reporter observed Joan letting rip a “belittling barrage” about upbringing, manners, and very specific personal insults about Cathleen Douglas, including (bizarrely) references to her love for the outdoors. The whole table tried to save the young woman from Joan’s terrifying tirade, answering back on Cathy’s behalf. So Joan apparently felt compelled to demonstrate her victim’s lack of etiquette and educated the poor woman in Emily Post-dictated place setting protocol.

Joan’s tutorial seems to have involved a finger bowl, a doily, and a chocolate cake. Or chocolate mousse. Hell, it’s hard to know what the truth is anymore. Joan denied that she knew who the girl was and that anything untoward had occurred apart from Queen Joan being helpful and attempting to heroically save a beautiful doily.  “I didn’t know who she was. She looked like Mia Farrow, she looked darling,” says Joan to Eder when she’s being secretly taped. For this call, Shirley doesn’t seem to have sorted out the technology: she’s really loud and Joan’s really quiet, but if you’re determined and don’t mind Shirl’s guffaws at high volume giving you tinnitus, then it’s well worth straining to work out what Joan is lying—I mean saying. Crawford insists that no one introduced her to Cathy and she didn’t talk to her. Regarding Doilygate, Joan explains, “when the finger bowls came she took it off and left a beautiful doily there. And just as she begins to put this chocolate mousse on top of this doily.”

Eder:  Joan you didn’t!

Joan:  I moved the doily, I said to the man next to me, ‘excuse me,’ I just pulled the doily off quick before she dropped the chocolate mousse on the doily.

Eder:  Did you get up, did you lean across, how did you do it?

Joan:  I DIDN’T GET UP FOR CHRIST’S SAKE!

Crawford moans that, “I would be grateful and not critical if someone helped me in that way.”  So here we have the whole, true story of one woman gallantly saving a beautiful doily from an errant dollop of chocolate mousse. Not cake as had been— falsely, obviously—reported in the Daily News. It’s this kind of oversight that makes it hard for one to trust the integrity of the fourth estate. Cathy had been a cocktail waitress prior to meeting Justice Douglas and The News insinuate that this aspect of her origin was one of the topics of Joan’s attack. Joan (presumably in the radio interview mentioned in the article) defended herself by saying “I was a waitress, too, from the age of nine.”  To Eder she says, “I didn’t know she was a cocktail hostess…I didn’t know about her humble beginnings.” If there’s one thing that Joan knew about, it was humble beginnings. But also if there’s one thing that Joan, reportedly, liked to do it was to teach ingénue’s lessons in manners, etiquette, and being grateful and appreciating her lessons on manners, etiquette and being grateful. So, you know… who to believe? Well, Shirley Eder would provide us with more first-person insight into the character of Joan Crawford at parties from the mouth of none other than Barbara Stanwyck. This brings us to our next tape, this one much easier to hear. Sister Shirl had obviously by now gotten her act together on how to work her tape recorder.

Stanwyck and Crawford, circa early-1930s
Stanwyck and Crawford, circa early-1930s.  The spring time of their love.

Missy, referring to her dear friend as “Crawford,” relays her own first-hand accounts of Joan being “so mean, so nasty, so bitter” at parties. At a soiree held by Louis B Meyer’s daughter Edith, Joan was mortally offended when she wasn’t seated at the main table. That Crawford didn’t even care about causing a scene at the home of her tyrannical boss’s daughter says a lot about her temper, lack of control, and crazed sense of entitlement. Stanwyck exclaims “she was a nasty sonofabitch… I was shocked!”  So: great story. And the gems keep coming with Missy stating that Joan can “look you right in the eye and lie.”  The conversation moves from first hand experience of Joan’s behaviour to outright gossip and conjecture about what ‘really’ goes on in Joan’s private life. The women speculate whether Joan’s been selling her jewellery to get by and Eder states that Joan’s bitching drove husband Franchot Tone to the drinking and philandering she accused him of.

Barbara Stanwyck letter Joan Crawford letter

What does this phone call tell us about Eder’s ethics and Missy’s friendship with “Crawford?” Eder declares that when she spoke to Joan about the White House party, she hadn’t said ‘“Please don’t use it” She knew I called her for a story. She gave it to me’.  So, by not stating a phone call is off the record, it instantly becomes on the record. Of course! How silly of Joan! Amazingly, this doesn’t prompt Stanwyck to declare her conversation off the record, which perhaps shows her own misguided trust. I can’t find any evidence that Eder did leek this one —after all, if Joan got wind of it we’d surely have heard about that fallout; a Hollywood bust up to rival the infamous Davis and Crawford feud! Eder’s tapes must have been a record of sorts, for evidence, as something to possibly use for her own gain in the future. Was she intending to publish the remarks? This tape shows the type of manipulative scum that Shirley Eder was and demonstrates that as a Hollywood star, you couldn’t trust anyone, particularly a gossip columnist. On Missy’s part, well it was a case of one person being frank about a friend whose behaviour was often unbalanced and grossly unfair to those around her. There are similar stories of Stanwyck having an irrational temper, but Eder – ever the devoted friend—declares to Missy that Joan “is not a Barbara Stanwyck to me,” insinuating that Barbara has tact and class where Joan has none. The next tape is a little different. Another on-the-record interview, it captures Joan speaking with Eder whilst “in an enormous limousine.”  And Joan is completely pissed [editor’s note: “drunk”].  Slurring her way through the whole thing, Crawford talks about—amongst other things—being Joan Crawford.

Eder:   Do you ever get tired of being JC—“Joan Crawford?”

Crawford:   Never. I love every minute of it.

Hardly able to speak, Joan is slow and deliberate. Eder asks if her movie star life means she has had to sacrifice “a great deal of personal happiness.”  Joan slurs, “Yes, Ma’am’.” “And you wouldn’t change a thing?” asks Eder. ‘No Ma’am,” slurs Joan.  Crawford offers, “you know what Billy Haines says? ‘Leave it the way Jesus flung it.'” Bizarre, nonsensical words to live by. The end of the conversation is a prime example of gushing sycophancy and schmoozing to get the goods as Eder says, “I do love you very much.”  Joan, in a prime example of being lured into the Eder web of I’m-your-pal lies, replies: “thank-you very much my darling friend, lovely kiss.”  Eder signs off: “this is Shirley Eder kissing Joan Crawford saying thank you and that’s show business.”  Show business is also—apparently—still doing an interview with your dear friend when they are totally and blatantly trashed. Of course, for the listener, catching a movie star in this unguarded, real, outrageous moment is a little delicious. It’s gossip and as stinking and underhanded as Eder has been, for those of us who delight in that campy, Babylonian side of Hollyweird, a pissed Crawford is a bit of a guilty treat.

Barbara Stanwyck and Joan Crawford
“Missy” Stanwyck and Joan Crawford circa 1950

The final tape—a secretly captured call between Eder and Stanwyck after Crawford’s death—is a little sobering. Though, perhaps, not so much for Missy, who sounds quite tipsy herself, during this call. The women again discuss whether Joan needed to sell her jewellery in her final years, if she had cancer, and what happened to her dog. It is a sad chat with Eder still pushing Missy to gossip and speculate about her dead friend. When she reveals what she has found out about the dog, Eder says, “Now— am I good reporter, or what?” It was not a friend caring about the fate of a beloved pet that led to her gaining this information, but a means to get more dish on the last days of a dead woman. But these are the same details that allow us to piece together our own ‘knowledge’ about the stars we love, to feed our own fascination. Because—hands up!—I admit that I love to know this stuff too. Do I think Eder was underhand and vile? Yes. Am I glad I can hear these tapes? Yes. Joan Crawford letter 1964 The Internet is a wealth of information and for the movie fiend, a goldmine. YouTube is filled with rare footage and recordings that split the film fan community. There’s a recording of Judy Garland in collaboration with a would-be ghost-writer where she discusses a suicide attempt. Is hearing this exploitative or a rare opportunity to get to the first hand experience of a legend? Should these archives be shared so publicly? In days gone by, we’d only have come by this information as the result of an intrepid biographer having the pleasure and the privilege of gaining access to letters, recordings, reminiscences and translating them for us—the reader —to enjoy second hand. Here, we can hear it all from the Hollywood horse’s mouth. When a recording has been made without the knowledge of the star (and there are others you can hear on YouTube; someone else secretly taped phone calls to Judy Garland), we may ask, should we have access to these conversations? And should they have been made at all? Despite the debates, their existence and the access afforded by YouTube brings to life what might otherwise have only been heard by a few. And—for lowlifes like me—the filthy thrill of hearing such a thing remains. Perhaps I should be ashamed of such pleasure, but for lovers of the Golden Age of Hollywood, any morsel is a treat. Hollywood gossip is usually told second, third, fourth hand and who knows what to believe? To hear gossip and bitching and the un-guarded moments of the stars themselves brings the fan experience to another level, albeit a level where you have to wade through slime. The Shirley Eder Tapes may reveal what a scummy hack she was, but—for shame—it kind of leaves me wanting more. Here in their entirety are all three Shirley Eder Tapes edited together.

Corinna TomrleyAbout the author:  Corinna Tomrley is an aging glamazon who has been obsessed with old Hollywood since she was a wee girl. One third of London queer arts troupe The Ethel Mermaids, she is a bad artist, working on a major project to be seen by public eyes some time next year. A doctor of pop culture, she specialised in celebrity, fat bodies and gossip until she gave it up for paint, glitter and camp-induced showing off.

 

 

 

You may also enjoy:

“The Supermarket is a Remarkable Place!” Joan Crawford in 1969′s Big Rock Candy Mountain, the Actress’ Last Great Role

Barbara Stanwyck: The Greatest Actress Who Never Won an Oscar

“A House of Gingerbread and Bells!” Or, the Night Joan Crawford Hypnotized America with a Fully-Orchestrated, Utterly Unintelligible, Six-Minute Dramatic Reading About “Little Children.” Or—Really, About Being Joan Crawford!

The Truth Comes Out! The Sexual Secrets of the Golden Age of Hollywood’s “Gentleman Hustler” Revealed!

David Munk Interviewed by the U.K.’s Merry Band of Queer Misfits—The Ethel Mermaids!  

13 Comments

  1. Kevin Collard
    February 8, 2014 at 5:54 am
    Reply

    I’m Shirley Eder’s archivist. NONE of these interviews should have ever seen the light of day. it is true that the interviews were supplied (at no cost) to an author for background purposes. but they were never supposed to be heard by the general public. and no amount of threatening lawsuits in this day & age of unaccountability will ever be settled. we have volumes and volumes of this kind of material. furthermore, Shirley Eder didn’t record things without permission. you may not hear her ask someone if it’s ok because she would not have started recording until after permission was granted. she had to record these interviews because back in those days celebrities like Jerry lewis would say something and then claim they never said it and sue the newspaper writer. he tried this on Shirley and she played back his comments and dropped the suit. please keep your wrongheaded perceptions of Miss Eder to yourself. those two actresses were as katty as they come. they played her LONG before she played them. finally, Shirley Eder was a pioneer for women in broadcasting, she started on radio during WWII and proceeded to write columns, do TV and Radio and even act in very bad films, she was a Media giant for a woman in her day. in fact she remembered Barbara Walters first day in broadcasting. give her some credit, she opened doors for women.

    • David Munk
      February 8, 2014 at 2:47 pm

      Hi Kevin, I am the owner and primary writer of Stargayzing David Munk. That piece about Shirley Eder was written by a UK colleague, Dr. Corinna Tomrley with my approval. As this is my blog and I take responsibility for everything that is published I will respond on behalf of Stargayzing.

      I understand that it must be frustrating in this digital age when you lose control of a narrative, or taped recordings or, in this case, both. While I have no illusions about the characters of Miss Crawford and Miss Stanwyck and trust that their relationships with Miss Eder was mutually beneficial and somewhat disingenuous all the way around, that doesn’t change the fact that these tapes expose the columnist’s process in a way that is not quite flattering. While this may indeed have been pro forma and while Miss Eder may, as you suggest, have asked permission to tape in advance, it certainly doesn’t seem that way, nor does it change the fact that she asks leading questions at the expense of the party who is not there. I certainly don’t believe that either star was naive in the ways of press or columnists – quite the opposite – but the whole affair is rather unappealing from any direction. All parties are complicit and playing a role in a business pas de deux of dependency that is fascinating precisely because it throws the curtains back to reveal the sordid mechanics of PR at a time when this rarely happened. That Miss Eder opened doors for women is, I’m certain, unassailable, but suggesting defensively that she wasn’t an equal player in this dance is a separate issue and one that hardly seems worth purusing. None of these gals was one dimensional, no doubt.

      Think of it this way, though you may not agree with everythign that Dr. Tomrley asserts in the piece, thousands more people will now be aware of who Shirley Eder was than if these tapes were not released. In this age of speed and cultural amnesia, I think this is a win for all involved. The fact that parties cannot control the story as they could in Miss Eder’s day is no small source of irony here, woudln’t you say? May I also add, that I derive no income whatsoever from Stargayzing rendering it essentially an attempt to promote discussion on popular culture and entertainment history for the sake of education; toward that end your letter is most welcome and I can only imagine that a few more leaks along these lines and you may in fact rescue Miss Eder from obscurity.

      Thank you so much for your thoughts and I hope you will continue to be a friend to the blog.

      Sincerely,

      David Munk

    • Kelly
      February 14, 2014 at 12:43 am

      I agree with the writer and blog owner. If anyone comes off as a complete, manipulative phony, it’s Ms. Eder, who by the way, I doubt 999 out of 1000 movie buffs have ever heard of, despite Mr. Collard’s ridiculous claims. Hedda and Louela may have opened the door for Barbara Walters — and even that’s a stretch — but Shirley (Who?) Eder? That’s just hilarious, as Walters was the son of Lou Walters, well-known in show business circles.

      Having said that, I say release the rest of the tapes. You (or her estate) could make a fortune.

    • David Munk
      February 14, 2014 at 3:51 am

      Hi Kelly,
      While it’s always nice to be agreed with, I always welcome the spirit of respectful debate and discourse here at Stargayzing and appreciate your comments. It makes all the hard work worth it. I hope you’ll consider signing up for the monthly newsletter on the home page so you can be sure to keep up with all of the fun. Thanks again for your feedback. David

  2. Corinna
    February 9, 2014 at 8:27 pm
    Reply

    As author of this piece, I shall respond. I am sorry that you take offence at my examination of Shirley Eder’s work but I think that away from any immediate evidence of permission or specific context, these recordings still raise interesting questions about on and off record, public and private disclosure, professional presentation and being caught ‘off guard’, that are still relevant in our gossip-ridden times. The recordings also reveal the way in which Eder would use her conversations to gain responses from her interviewees. The techniques and ways in which she addresses her subjects are very different when she is recording for a radio broadcast or when she is having a telephone conversation. It could of course be argued that this is because she is using a particular tone when the thing is to be aired and another when the conversation is not meant to be heard as is, but despite these contexts the telephone calls do appear to be casual conversations between two women chatting candidly about a third party, albeit conversations that do indeed contain leading questions and statements, as David Munk identified. The nuances of this difference in tone alone is intriguing and, I do believe, worthy of enquiry in itself.

    As to whether or not these recordings were on or off record and whether Ms Eder made her subjects aware of the taping, I still find it very hard to believe that Stanwyck would have spoken as she did, had she thought that it might be reported. Would she risk the famous wrath of Joan Crawford, risk upsetting her friend and risk destroying her friendship by talking to a reporter about what an unstable, angry woman she was? Would she risk being viewed as a tattle tale and gossip? As to being asked permission prior to the recording, we of course have no evidence of this here. In such instances, it is actually common practice to record a repeated request of, and giving of, permission so that there is indeed documentation of this permission. This may have been cut off in the editing together of these tapes as they appear on youtube, or it may not have been Shirley Eder’s practice, but I point it out because if the latter is the case it would appear to be a strange omission in the circumstances.

    These tapes appeared on youtube without context. Therefore any youtube user stumbling upon them is left to their own conclusions. That these tapes were never meant to be publicly heard may be a frustration for you, an archivist, and anyone directly connected to Ms Eder. However, I raise particular points about access to such materials in the piece. The publishing of such materials outside of ‘official’ permission and whether or not they were meant to be accessed on youtube by all and sundry is a different discussion. What struck me when first hearing these tapes is that it is unusual. It is more usual to restrict the access to certain materials to authors, journalists and others with direct interest in the subject – a privileged few. We often only know of such material once it has been interpreted, written about, edited and offered through the filtered pages of biography. Even if a wider public were never meant to hear these tapes, why restrict access to a single author? Why archive material at all? I find this question of access and restriction particularly fascinating. Although context wasn’t supplied on youtube, the appearance of such tapes into the public sphere does encourage discussion. And that is healthy. I find your comment that we should keep our ‘wrongheaded perceptions’ of Ms Eder to ourselves quite offensive, actually. Why shouldn’t we comment on the practices and tactics of those who have worked in the media? Why shouldn’t we have opinions of, and raise questions about, public figures? People have every right to disagree with commentary and I welcome discussion about anything I write, but I do take offence at a statement that is asking that the opinion of a writer should be shut down because the subject of the piece is being portrayed unfavourably.

    Finally, in regards to Eder being a pioneer, I have no doubt. The women of the golden age of Hollywood who worked in entertainment journalism faced many obstacles and made important inroads for the women who followed. Louella Parsons was an active feminist, made amazing professional strides and went out of her way to celebrate, encourage and validate women in journalism – that doesn’t mean that some of Parson’s tactics and reportage weren’t occasionally highly underhand and problematic. These were complex and fascinating women. As were their subjects. Crawford and Stanwyck may have been ‘famously catty’, but Eder used that to her own ends and was complicit in it. As are we as consumers of it, which is – after all – the point I am making in this piece.

    Corinna Tomrley

    • Sue
      November 25, 2015 at 2:14 am

      I agree with you on this woman complicating things. She was being deceptive. Being so into Hollywood legends,etc. maybe deep inside she wanted feel powerful too. Anyone who feels comfortable in their own shell doesn’t do these things. If she really cared about the two actresses she would not have done this. I guess if you cared about people AT ALL you wouldn’t. I wonder how she slept at night. HA HA HA Probably well, She sounded like she didn’t have a conscience. Thanks for the great article, Excellent.

  3. MamieCaro
    April 15, 2014 at 5:22 pm
    Reply

    Hi,
    I was looking for pictures of Stanwyck and Crawford, and I found the pictures in this article and this other one :
    http://acertaincinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/stanwyck-tone-crawford_opt.jpg
    As you can see, they are almost the same, but the one in your article is a montage to remove Franchot Tone (you can still see a little bit of his arm between them). I don’t know whether it was intentional, but thought I should let you know.

    • David Munk
      April 18, 2014 at 3:54 pm

      Hi Caroline -very good observation or, as my ex would say, “Well spotted.” I didn’t alter the picture myself but found it that way. Thanks for checking in and I hope you’ll staty in touch.
      David

  4. Tom Lowery
    February 15, 2016 at 12:20 am
    Reply

    I only just came across this article. FYI, the pic of Joan and Shirley is NOT from 1971. A quick look at Joan during that period would reveal this fact very clearly. That pic was taken the night of the 1963 Academy Awards wherein Joan accepted the Best Actress Award for Anne Bancroft.

    As to Eder having obtained permission to record those conversations, I don’t believe it. Joan and Barbara often said many times over the years that they would never go on record about each other. I don’t believe Barbara would have said all of that–even in the form of venting – if she had known Shirley was taping it.

    I too am a journalist and I also tape interviews – and in every instance, I tape the person giving permission to record them.

    Beyond this, Shirley was well known for stirring the pot in an attempt to get good quotes. That conversation with Barbara – at least from what I have heard of it – appears to begin after they had begun speaking. Another reason to disbelieve Kevin Collard’s assertions.

    Tom

Leave a Comment

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

*