http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/marilyn
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/10/marilyn200810
There is no question regarding the authenticity of the documents here on this particular blog. Thus we turn our attention to the personal items such as the clothes, jewels, and keepsakes. The personal items do not appear to be the real deal.
This blog is an investigative one examining the evidence presented thus far and making sound inferences from the evidence. Please read the information below, look at the evidence or lack thereof provided by Vanity Fair, and compare pictures and available records regarding Marilyn’s personal property. This blog is for ALL Marilyn fans.
The most photographed woman in the world and yet Vanity Fair has produced NO photos of Marilyn Monroe wearing or holding any of these items.
The Marilyn Files: The Keepsakes
Chanel No. 5:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/personal_mfiles?currentPage=3
The VF article states, “The bottle of Chanel No. 5 that Melson found on Monroe’s nightstand after her death.”
How do we know this particular perfume bottle was on her nightstand? Where is the evidence that this bottle was found on Marilyn’s nightstand after her death?
Pictures taken immediately after Marilyn’s death do not show a bottle of Chanel No. 5 near or on the nightstand.
Where is the evidence that the Chanel No. 5 in the Vanity Fair article belonged to Marilyn Monroe or even was taken from her nightstand as Inez Melson suggests.
An Autobridge set:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/personal_mfiles?currentPage=8
A Blockhead! game set.:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/personal_mfiles?currentPage=9
How does this fit in? The fact is that at previous Marilyn auctions board games weren’t sold. Could it be possible that Marilyn found time to learn to play bridge at her new home that was under renovations and interior design? Between making a movie, preparing to sing for JFK and fittings for the happy birthday dress, battling Fox studios, visits to Mexico for furnishings, legal and personal issues, firing and re-hiring with contractual negotiations, doctors visits and media rounds was there time for her to play games? Of course Marilyn could have found time to play games with friends such as Peter Lawford and co. The question is why on earth would Inez have felt the need to take these games? Did Marilyn’s employee, her former business manager Inez play games with Marilyn therefore feeling the need to hold on to wonderful memories? Could Inez’s teenage daughter Emmy Lou have owned the Blockhead! game?
A silver tea set:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/personal_mfiles?currentPage=15
This appears to be the exact tea set seen on display at the Marilyn Monroe exhibit on the Queen Mary in Long Beach California, held through November 11, 2005 to June 15, 2006. Their own website describes it as being a “One-of-a-kind sterling tea set.” How did Millington Conroy get the exact same tea set seen on the Queen Mary exhibit? http://www.queenmary.com/index.php?page=news_release&news_id=97
As we all know, many questions and doubt still surround the authenticity of the items that were displayed for that exhibit
The floral china set with gold trim:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/personal_mfiles?currentPage=18
Marilyn spent quite a bit of time and money in Mexico preparing to furnish her Brentwood home. This floral china set is not consistent of anything we have seen at previous Monroe sales such as Pacific Design Center ‘97/Christies ’99/Juliens ’05 or any other sale thus far or her personally owned items sold directly from her estate or from the Nunez family. The floral china set is not consistent with the Mexican motif Marilyn was investing in. Even if this china came from her New York home that had a Baroque style of décor, how and why did it arrive in Los Angeles? Where is the evidence this china set belonged to Marilyn Monroe?
The Marilyn Files: The Clothes:
The thirteen or so purses:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/clothes_mfiles?currentPage=7
None of these purses are pictured thus far in any Marilyn Monroe pictures or videos to our knowledge. How can we believe that all of these purses are the so-called property of Marilyn Monroe when there is no direct evidence of her carrying any of them? Not all of Marilyn’s personally owned items were in photos, however here we have over a dozen purses with no photos or video footage as proof. Perhaps someone reading this can find a picture as we have found none in all our research.
A 1954 appraisal slip valuing a black mink coat at $10,000:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/clothes_mfiles?currentPage=19
There is no question on this blog that this document is authentic.
This receipt does not prove that the Vanity Fair furs were ever owned by Marilyn Monroe.
The receipt is refrencing Marilyn's black mink coat, most likely the one given to her by Joe DiMaggio.
This receipt is consistent with a Marilyn Monroe owned fur that was labeled Teitelbaum Furs/Beverly Hills. It was sold at Christie's '99 auction.
With this said, let us please investigate the allegedly owned Marilyn furs in the VF article.
The furs:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/clothes_mfiles?currentPage=13 to page 19
We must question the authenticity of these furs, as there are no pictures of Marilyn Monroe wearing or holding any of them. She was known for her love of furs as she had quite a bit yet none of these furs are pictured. Vanity Fair, Sam Kashner, Mark Anderson and Millington Conroy have not provided even ONE picture of Marilyn wearing any of their so-called Marilyn furs.
A three-quarter-length black mink coat:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/clothes_mfiles?currentPage=16
The black one pictured in the VF article is not made of mink and describing it as mink is very deceiving on the part of Vanity Fair. Where is the evidence this coat belonged to Marilyn Monroe? They have not provided any photos of her wearing it.
FACT: Immediately after Marilyn’s death, her New York City home was sealed off and her furs were taken to the 17th Police Precinct on E. 51 St in Midtown, Manhattan.
These furs were all accounted for, tagged and put in inventory until sold at the Christie’s 1999 auction. Marilyn was pictured wearing many of these furs. The famous Christie’s 1999 sale had her furs on display prior to the sale.
Christie’s ’99 auction, lot 24 consists of a white, ribbed Ermine coat. There are several pictures of Marilyn Monroe wearing her Ermine coat.
Of course there are not pictures of Marilyn Monroe wearing all the furs sold as Chrisite’s however the majority of the furs have been seen on her. Once again, NONE of the Vanity Fair article furs are pictured on Marilyn. Where is the evidence proving the Vanity Fair furs ever belonged to Marilyn Monroe? Vanity Fair, Sam Kashner, Mark Anderson and Millington Conroy have produced no evidence thus far proving these furs every belonged to Marilyn Monroe.
The Marilyn Files: The Jewels
A gold necklace, possibly by Paul Flato, from the early 1960s…:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/jewels_mfiles?currentPage=2
There are no pictures of Marilyn wearing this very modern necklace. Also, there is no proof it was even created in the fifties or sixties. This necklace was most likely not dated by a jewelry or art historians. Where is the evidence it belonged to Marilyn Monroe? There are no pictures of her wearing it.
A diamond necklace with a diamond and ruby pendant:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/jewels_mfiles?currentPage=7
This necklace is not authentic diamond or ruby as the article suggests. The glass in the center is pink not red. The stones in the link are most likely rhinestone. Once again, this necklace was not pictured on Marilyn Monroe. If historians had researched this item, they would see it wasn't made of diamonds. The article is incorrect in suggesting this is diamond. How are we to ever believe that necklace was ever was worn much less owned by Marilyn if they can’t even get the material correct? We would love to see a picture of Marilyn wearing this necklace.
A diamond and ruby bracelet:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/jewels_mfiles?currentPage=26
Just like its matching counterpart, the necklace, this is not made out of diamonds or ruby. Never pictured on Marilyn Monroe. The Vanity Fair article produces no evidence of Marilyn having owned this bracelet or the necklace.
A pearl necklace with a pearl and diamond pendant:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/jewels_mfiles?currentPage=8
Not pictured on Marilyn Monroe. She wore pearls but these do not appear to be authentic. A picture would help to authenticate.
A Blancpain diamond watch:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/jewels_mfiles?currentPage=12
A Marvin diamond and gold watch:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/jewels_mfiles?currentPage=13
Neither one of these watches are pictured on Marilyn Monroe. Marilyn fans and historians know she disliked wearing watches (even though she is pictured wearing simple watches early on in her career). Where is the evidence suggesting she owned these watches? Like many of the other items in this collection, there are no pictures.
How can we believe that the Vanity Fair article jewelry is authentic if none of it is pictured on Marilyn? Just like the furs and purses, not one item is pictured.
We saw Marilyn’s jewelry go up for sale at Christie’s 1999 auction. Much of that jewelry was as least worn and pictured on Marilyn.
This particular black, beaded necklace and a few more similar in style were sold at the Christie’s ’99 auction. This black Jean Louis cocktail dress originally worn in the Misfits (1961) was also sold at the famous auction. It came directly from the Estate of Marilyn Monroe.
A picture of Marilyn Monroe wearing both the Misfit dress and one of the black, beaded necklaces sold at the Christie’s ’99 auction.
Christie’s ’99, lot 188 consisted of a necklace with black ovals in a gold-tone link chain. Marilyn was also seen pictured wearing it.
The Marilyn Files: The Will
An undated receipt from Fidelity Van and Storage Company for storage of Monroe’s belongings, with a note from Melson reading, “Check w/ Cherie about returned items to Joe [DiMaggio].”:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/will_mfiles?currentPage=4
The big question here is why would anyone add penciled in information on the last page of a carbon copy? Why wasn’t this information in the original carbon copy? Once it’s been added to the back page, it doesn’t make it authentic. It actually proves the opposite. Shouldn’t this information have been written in pen and gone through all copies?
Notice also that the penciled section is partially written in cursive, all caps, and a variation. The penciled in part does not match the other handwriting. Especially notable is that Melson’s initials do not match her signature at the bottom of the document because the “I” and “M” are completely different. Perhaps these items were added in because they are not real.
By using Joe DiMaggio’s name at the bottom of this document, someone has given himself or herself an alibi. Joe DiMaggio has passed away therefore disputing this would be difficult. How is it possible that after so many years of storage, the pencil writing is so clearly legible without traces of fading as any forty-year-old document would appear?
The person who forged the storage receipt document and Conroy who claims Joe “gifted” an entire filing cabinet overlooked a major detail in Joe DiMaggio’s character. Joe DiMaggio was forever loyal to Marilyn in her life as he was in death. Marilyn fans and historians know that there was talk of reconciliation towards the end of her life. Joe mourned Marilyn in death, and therefore it would be unlikely he would give Inez Melson, an employee, Marilyn Monroe’s personally owned items. Joe loved Marilyn until the day he died. Whether you are a fan of his or not, the fact is Joe kept everything he owned. We saw how much of his personal property to up for sale, including some of Marilyn’s he massed over his lifetime at Hunt Auctions Joe DiMaggio Collection on May 19-20 2006. http://www.huntauctions.com/diMaggio.html
It’s highly unlikely that Joe DiMaggio gave Inez Melson or anyone else Marilyn Monroe’s personal belongings. Inez Melson was an employee; Marilyn Monroe was the love of his life.
Prescription drugs:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/marilyn/melson_mfiles?currentPage=44
No questions in this blog that the prescription receipts are real.
However the quote, “Monroe’s business manager, Inez Melson, claimed to have removed 15 bottles of prescription medicine from Monroe’s bedside table after her death.” How was it possible that Inez Melson could have done this since the police and Marilyn's doctors had already picked up the evidence? After all, this was a major police investigation. Why would Inez remove sleeping pills and bottles and therefore tamper with police evidence?
Inez Melson’s character during the hours, days and months following Marilyn’s unfortunate death is now in question. Unfortunately, the doubt now extends onto these so-called personally owned items.
· How are we to believe that the Strasbergs or any other of their representatives would allow a filing cabinet full of documents and a hidden safe with keepsakes in it to be sold? Just the weight with the enormous amount of documents inside the safe would have alerted someone to look inside before a sale of her personal belongings.
· If Inez Melson purchased a filing cabinet in a relative’s name without his permission or knowledge as stated in the VF article, how are we to believe anything Inez and Millington Conroy say? Why wasn’t her nephew W.N. Davis interviewed for this article? Perhaps he knew the documents were stolen and that the other items were fake. Why all the lies, secrets and contradictions?
· The question Marilyn Monroe fans and historians must ask ourselves is what in this collection is real versus what was added later to deceive the public. Why are there not ANY pictures of Marilyn wearing ANY of these items in this vast collection of items?
· Who was to gain and make money from this collection either being sold privately or at auction? Who is to gain from the VF article and its pictures?
We’ve had forty-six years, numerous books, movies, websites and primary sources to learn enough about Marilyn to ask the important questions. Let us not allow our sensibility to be robbed or insulted. Let’s ask questions and demand answers. Why should we trust what the Vanity Fair article says they have PROVIDED NO PROOF? Mark Anderson, the photographer, may believe this collection is authentic however he has not provided us with any proof of authenticity. Sam Kashner, the VF journalist writes an article that gets Marilyn on the cover of Vanity Fair. He has provided words but not proof of authenticity. Inez Melson, Ruth Conroy and Millington Conroy have produced no pictures of Marilyn Monroe wearing any of these so-called personally owned items. What is their motivation in writing this article, selling Marilyn’s property, inheriting even more items, and turning on one another? Money, fame, power perhaps?
There are NO PICTURES of MARILYN wearing ANY of these items. Vanity Fair, Sam Kashner, Mark Anderson and Millington Conroy have produced no pictures of Marilyn Monroe wearing any of these items!
The most photographed woman in the world and yet Vanity Fair has produced NO photos of Marilyn Monroe wearing or holding any of these items:FAKE
She’s our Marilyn too and this blog is for free!
