Actually, I was wrong, Higham isn't pictured in the Welles bio. I know I've seen a shot of him on one of his books, though. A guy like Higham is a curious thing; someone who exists merely to "expose" what isn't there, or to destroy people for whatever petty reason, be it jealousy, inferiority, or who knows. His Errol Flynn book has been disproven for the pack of lies it apparently was, but it's hardly stopped him. Looking at reviews of his Howard Hughes bio, it appears many of his claims are spurious there as well. Take this excerpt from a review of the book in Fortune magazine:
"How much of this is true, how much guesswork, how much hooey? That exceeds the purview of this review, though some of the supporting reeds do look thin. Higham says of one source, "he is too circumspect today to say that Hughes was procrastinating." (Translation: He didn't say it.) Elsewhere Higham notes, "Although [Ava Gardner] was careful to dodge the matter in her memoirs, she more than implied in them that she knew he was bisexual." (Translation: She didn't say it."
And from a review of his co-authored bio of Cary Grant:
"The writing is on a par with the psychological insights. Of Grant they write that "the fairy godmothers who had bestowed upon him many gifts exacted the familiar price of depriving him of the very things he wanted most [including] the ability to love and be loved which of course starts with loving yourself." In this lurid book, the authors cruelly defame a man who can't defend himself and show disdain for his admirers' ability to distinguish honest biography from innuendo. Even if what they write is true -- and the evidence they offer is hardly convincing -- the question remains: Why would Grant's admirers want to subject themselves to this kind of disillusionment?"
And of course, Higham wrote a biography attempting to rehabiliate Louis B Mayer, a colossal scumbag if there ever was one. That Higham, what a guy!