if the source of those statements was a newspaper and not a person--and thanks for setting me straight on that--it changes nothing save to discredit that newspaper owing to its appalling lack of journalistic and ethical standards. To publish that is utterly, provocatively irresponsible, the sort of deliberately teasing, titillating stuff that you find in the worst sort of gossip rags.

We complain, and justly so, about the quality of journalism these days, but back then it was typically abysmal, which can only pose a serious challenge for historians who often must to some extent rely upon them when doing their research. No enviable task, I should think, attempting to separate the wheat from the chaff, or perhaps it is what such types enjoy doing.