by PL

Dick Grob came up with the “Ginger Hit Job” in 1977 and committed it to paper as early as 1979 as part of the synopsis for his book proposal. Years later, it eventually caught on and spread, reaching fans worldwide via books, interviews, and assorted commentary, until Grob’s first large stack of paper was published in 1995. At that point, Grob unloaded the whole dump truck. So who has participated in this on-going effort, either actively or passively?

  • At least 16 people close to Elvis, or close to Elvis’s immediate circle of friends. We all know who they are.
  • Unknown numbers of tabloids, magazines, interviews, etc., from 1977 to the present that publish the allegations but do not source them, or source them (without evidence) to one of the individuals referenced above.
  • Numerous fans on social media, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.

A few examples:

This, from a book review:

Let’s break this one down:

“Kendall knew this was not a crank call and the woman had to know him personally because she asked to speak with Bobby Joe, and only people who actually knew him called him that. The book [by Robert Kendall] did not reveal who this woman was, but I assume it was Ginger Alden.” What would be the rationale behind this assumption? Did the writer of this book review contact Ginger Alden and ask her about it? Does the writer have knowledge that Ginger Alden knew Bob Kendall well enough to refer to him as “Bobby Joe”? What is the root of this assumption? We’re left to guess. (Note that the person is so familiar with Kendall that she calls him “Bobby Joe,” and yet Kendall cannot identify the caller.)

“Dick Grob’s first book The Elvis Conspiracy gives much evidence to Ginger doing unthinkable things like this.” Really? It does? Much evidence? No, in fact, it doesn’t. I challenge anyone to show “evidence” of this, “much” or otherwise, as offered by Dick Grob.

“Phone records show she made several phone calls (including to the National Enquirer and to her mother) while Elvis lay dead in the next room before she called downstairs for help.” Really? They do? Where are these phantom phone records?

“She also got dressed and did her makeup before calling downstairs.” Really? She did? Says who? What is the evidence?

“But let’s move on to the book at hand.” This is HitJobSpeak for, “I just took an absurdly gratuitous opportunity to slam Ginger Alden and now I’m going to just leave it there and move on.”

And this:

This comes from a 1978-1979 “Elvis World” (pre-Bill Burk) interview with Rick Stanley. Note that the brief discussion topic (for some strange reason) is Christianity, and then with no segue, the interviewer states, “What still puzzles me though is why all those hours went by and Ginger didn’t check on him.” No context, nothing about Ginger or the death, no relevant subject matter…the discussion topic is “being saved”…and yet the interviewer was able to slip in this hit job fragment. And, yes, it’s part of the overall hit job because there’s no reason to mention this, there is no evidence Ginger did anything wrong (cited here), and the timing of this comment (1-2 years after Elvis’s death) illustrates how early on the hit job began. And don’t forget the brilliant defense of Ginger that Classy Ricky Stanley responded with: “Just look at the shape of her head and forgive her.” Geez.

The interviewer pulls a standard trick in the phrasing of this first question, too, where she states something as fact and then the actual question refers back to the alleged fact. That is, anyone reading this would assume that “all those hours” did go by (meaning that hours had passed and Ginger had failed to check on him), and that the question’s premise is thus truthful/valid. The question of why Ginger didn’t check on Elvis is thus predicated on “all those hours,” which is not factual. Simply, the question is phrased to establish a fact that is not, in fact, a fact.

Also note that the interviewer is aware of this nonsensical “checking on Elvis” thing, and uses it to subtly attack Ginger, and she wonders about the dentist (re: drugs), but she leaves out a key question for Rick Stanley: “What about those 12 Dilaudid tablets you picked up for Elvis early that morning?” That inquiry is conveniently absent, isn’t it? (Here is the mission: suggest wrongdoing by Ginger Alden, point the finger regarding drugs at the dentist, then skip over Rick Stanley’s drug deliveries that morning.***)

And then there’s this:

Here we have a Pinterest page featuring photos of the Graceland mansion and grounds, and then over on the right we see something totally irrelevant: the ridiculous “Ginger was banned” story. Sure, tell me there’s no hit job here.

And this:

Here, the article is talking about Elvis’s various family members, and in doing so the writer figured the article about Vester slamming Ginger was a perfect fit (right after mentioning that Vester wrote a Presley family cookbook). Ya know, like writing an article about orchids and including a photo of David Hasselhoff. But don’t worry, no hit job here, folks.

And this:

From the Spring 1981 edition of “Elvis World” (pre-Bill Burk):

Where do we see claims of Dee Presley, Red West, and Sonny West being banned from Graceland? Tabloid article? Which one? And really, I am just glad that this important question was sent in to the “Elvis World” staff, so that they could warn us about these banned people. This is important stuff. (I’d bet my socks no one ever asked this ridiculous question.)

And this, from express.co.uk: Vester says Ginger was banned. Five minutes of research was needed here but apparently that was too much work.

And this: The same article is here at freenews.today, but with a different byline. I guess all these entertainment/celebrity sites are connected.

And this: The same article is also here at headtopics.com, again with a different byline. Not sure what the word “byline” even means anymore.

An interesting question pops up here: These UK-based articles appeared online in March 2021, but what event or anniversary or news item prompted articles on this topic? Can anyone tell me why these websites/writers decided to spread this “Ginger was banned from Graceland” nonsense all over their online papers in March 2021?

But what is most interesting about these “Ginger was banned” pieces is that Vester Presley explained how this misquote happened, and he did so in 1979. Nineteen-seventy-nine. Forty-two years ago. That means that every person who has posted the “Ginger was banned” article (post-1979) could have done a bit of research, especially in the age of the Internet (Google + 10 seconds), to find that this is a non-story and that the story is not true. Did anyone do the due diligence? No. (Or if they did, they ignored what they found.) And regarding the people four decades back, it is interesting that so much information made it into these magazines and interviews, and yet the refutation of this “banned” story was never discovered. How very convenient.

To close:

***Anatomy of an Attack

Please read this again, from above:

Also note that the interviewer is aware of this nonsensical “checking on Elvis” thing, and uses it to subtly attack Ginger, and she wonders about the dentist (re: drugs), but she leaves out a key question for Rick Stanley: “What about those 12 Dilaudid tablets you picked up for Elvis early that morning?” That inquiry is absent, isn’t it? (Here is the mission: suggest wrongdoing by Ginger Alden, point the finger regarding drugs at the dentist, then skip over Rick Stanley’s drug deliveries that morning.)

This is important, because it illustrates how these attacks play out. First, the interviewer takes a stab at Ginger by asking about “all those hours” that passed (allegedly) before Ginger checked on Elvis. This allows the interviewer to introduce an unproved claim as fact, and then just leave it there as if it’s a fact. Second, the interviewer adds to the list of suspects by asking about the dentist, the only reason being that the dentist supposedly gave Elvis some sort of pain medication. So at this point she has painted Ginger and Dr. Hoffman in a negative light, suggesting that both of them are to blame…for something. The “something” here is Elvis’s death, but “Carolyn” steers clear of using that wording. Then, while talking to the person who likely has the most to answer for that morning, “Carolyn” takes the bait (“I used him as my dentist” – RS) and shifts the conversation over to the fact that Rick’s dentist was Dr. Hoffman, and notes that Dr. Hoffman was also George Klein’s dentist. Wow! This is mesmerizing stuff! But notice that the topic of Elvis’s death has just been brushed aside, and the topic of the drugs has been brushed aside, even though…again…seated, right in front of the interviewer, is the person who has the most to explain about that morning, and the person who has repeatedly offered the most convoluted, illogical, and dishonest accounts of that day out of anyone else who was even remotely involved (including his brother, David, and that is quite a feat).

[Note: There are no two people who have been given more of a pass…on everything…than Rick Stanley and David Stanley.]

So here’s the plan:

Attack Ginger? Check.

Point the finger at someone else? Check.

Skip right over Rick Stanley and the death and move on to a different topic? Check.

How did “Carolyn” know that Ginger was accused of not calling for help for X number of hours, and how did “Carolyn” know that Dr. Hoffman had given Elvis some form of pain medication earlier that morning? We don’t know, but going by the questions she asked, we can conclude she knew these things. And yet, are we supposed to believe she did not know about Rick delivering the “attack” packets to Elvis, nor about Rick delivering a 12-tablet Dilaudid prescription to Elvis early that morning? “Carolyn” knew enough to question and cast suspicion on Ginger Alden and Dr. Hoffman, but not enough to question and cast suspicion on Rick Stanley…?

Elvis fans…do you understand how this works?