Jump to content
The Education Forum

Questions for Peter Janney on his book Mary’s Mosaic


Recommended Posts

Janney was in the position to write an honest book about the Meyer case. He did not do that. Instead he went ahead and wrote a work of radical revisionism--which is the most dangerous type of book to write. (Just witness Lamar Waldron.) And John Simkin served as his publicist. Which leaves him open to criticism.

In Damore, Janney picked up the work of a man who clearly was serving an agenda. (One which may have been aggravated for personal health reasons.) And one of the worst things about his book is that he seems to have accepted all of Damore's work without doing any due diligence. Why he did that, I do not know. Any professional writer worth his salt would have done an extensive review before picking up the baton. By not doing so, Janney hemmed himself into a radical revisionist position.

It is possible to write such a tome. But if one is going to do so, one must proceed very carefully with both solid sourcing, and the greatest care in couching both one's evidence and conclusions. If not, one is left open for criticism.

Well, Janney disobeyed these rules of historical revisionism. And he did so with a non chalance that is a little bit breathtaking. Then, when he is critcized for doing that, how does he respond? Well, we know how he responded: With accusations of the Spanish Inquisition and Nazi book burning, all couched in the harshest terms and illustrated with a painting.

Simkin knew he was doing this. Why he allowed him to proceed as he did is a mystery worthy of Hammett or Marlowe. It was better that no one write a book on the Meyer case instead of the silly and untenable Mary's Mosaic.

Jim, you are always telling us what a great historian you are and that you are always very careful about examining the accuracy and reliability of your sources. I am therefore interested in your sources to support your amazing claim that I “allowed” Peter Janney to write his book on Mary Pinchot Meyer.

If you said that I allow you to make attacks on me on the forum I would have more understanding of what you meant.

That was exactly my response when I read that John. Then when I read Jim's answer to me I was again struck by the question of HOW on earth could you know this. IF such was true which I doubt. I doubt any writer is having someone else dictate the path his or her book will take. This thread is just getting off the wall. All MIke and RCD and I are saying is that we agree with the jury. Then it gets twisted. Like we are not permitted to think for ourselves and have an opinion. And calling Mike Hogan "Mikey" is so juvenile.

Dawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To Robert:

My whole point is simple. We, and Janney, would have been better served if Mary's Mosaic had not been written. And I began my review with saying, its hard to understand why he wrote this book....

These are the first two paragraphs from Jim's article:

Mary’s Mosaic, Part 2: Entering Peter Janney’s World of Fantasy

Part Two by James DiEugenio

The first two people to inform me of Peter Janney’s upcoming book on Mary Meyer were Lisa Pease and John Simkin. Many years ago I wrote a two-part essay for Probe called “The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy” (This was later excerpted in The Assassinations.) The first part of that essay focused on the cases of Judith Exner and Mary Meyer giving me a background and mild interest in the subject. Consequently, when Lisa Pease told me about Peter Janney I wondered what kind of book he was going to write. After Lisa exchanged e-mails with him she told me not to expect much, since Janney had bought into Timothy Leary hook, line and sinker.

JFK forum owner John Simkin’s backing was a real warning bell. For two reasons: first, Simkin is an inveterate Kennedy basher. He once wrote that Senator Kennedy was the choice of the so-called “Georgetown crowd” for the 1960 presidential election. Most accurately described as Georgetown, which seemed to house half the hierarchy of the State Department and the CIA and the journalistic establishment, many of whom gathered for argumentative high-policy dinner parties on Sunday nights (‘The Sunday Night Drunk,’ as one regular called it.” Smithsonian magazine, December 2008) This shows that Simkin is the worst kind of Kennedy basher: the kind that knows next to nothing about Kennedy. If Simkin was backing Janney’s book then I naturally figured the plan would be to aggrandize Meyer and diminish Kennedy. (Which, as we shall see, is what happened.) Second, Simkin said that Janney would be taking up the late Leo Damore’s work on Meyer. The dropping of Damore’s name and work really raised my antennae. Although Simkin praised Damore with Truman Capote type accolades, I discounted all of them. Why? Because I had read Senatorial Privilege, Damore’s book about Ted Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick tragedy. (Senatorial Privilege: the Chappaquiddick Cover-Up, Regnery Gateway 1988) I knew about the controversy surrounding that book. In addition to being sued by his original publisher to get their advance back, Damore was also sued by one of his interview subjects, Lt. Bernard Flynn. Flynn declared that Damore had an agreement with him in which he was promised $50,000 for his cooperation in writing the book. (Sarasota Herald Tribune, 7/10/89) Checkbook journalism was almost to be expected for that book and so was Damore’s excuse for why Random House had declined his manuscript, namely that the Kennedys were behind it. (A premise, as Lisa Pease noted, which the judge did not accept.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was exactly my response when I read that John. Then when I read Jim's answer to me I was again struck by the question of HOW on earth could you know this. IF such was true which I doubt. I doubt any writer is having someone else dictate the path his or her book will take. This thread is just getting off the wall. All MIke and RCD and I are saying is that we agree with the jury. Then it gets twisted. Like we are not permitted to think for ourselves and have an opinion. And calling Mike Hogan "Mikey" is so juvenile.

Dawn.

Dawn, I certainly appreciate your support and your willingness to participate in this thread.

To the best of my remembrance, I have never offered an opinion on Crump's actual guilt or innocence. I have been more concerned with Jim's lack of objectivity when it comes to that subject.

I have (along with you and Robert) posted items that tend to be exonerative -- things that Jim overlooked, ignored, misrepresented, discounted or dismissed.

To me the question originally was not whether Crump actually murdered Mary Meyer or not, but whether Jim DiEugenio had ever shown the least bit of objectivity about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John:

You have always been interested in pushing the Meyer case, arguing for Crump's innocence.....

There is no need to "argue" on behalf of what has already been legally determined. Crump was found not guilty, and if you’d like to overturn that verdict, you’d have to be the one prepared to "argue" on behalf of your "belief," in this case against the known evidence.

As per my saying that I am a "great historian", I don't think I ever said that about myself. But I was trained as an historian by some good ones. And I did a lot of work for them to get my M. A. And I got a lot of work kicked back to me when I broke the rules. Therefore I learned the hard way what the rules were. SInce the JFK case is now almost a half century old, it qualifies as contemporary history. Therefore I try and apply those rules when writing about it, discussing it, and critiquing books and DVD's about it. Should I apologize because I learned those academic standards from some good professors?

Jim, could you tell us which good professors encouraged you to state your opinion as though it is empirical fact?

Could you tell us which of those good professors taught you it is permissible to accuse a man of murder without offering the slightest proof?

Could you identify the good professors who taught you that when you are pressed for that proof, you should change the subject to everything but that proof?

Could you tell us which good professors suggested it is appropriate to demand that inquisitors asking questions you refuse to answer should be consigned to a ghetto where you need never consider their questions again?

Could you list the good professors who taught you it is right and proper to make an assertion and then repeatedly reply to queries about that assertion with "yawn," as though your feigned expression of disinterest somehow negates your obligation to provide proof for your own hypothesis?

Could you tell us which good professors encouraged you to fight tooth and nail to avoid providing that proof, for weeks, only to cave with a statement that indicates you don’t really care about the truth of the matter at all, such as: "I have no problem with leaving the Meyer murder an unsolved case, even though I don't think that today. But its fine to me if someone does."

Could you name the good professors who taught you it is considered fair to criticize a fellow historian for a book he did not write?

Could you tell us which good professors taught you that when addressing a debate adversary, it is good form to use terms of utter condescension such as "partner," or "slick" or "Mikey?"

Could you tell us which good professors would be proud to claim responsibility for teaching a man who indulges in all of the above?

I personally feel that the rules of historical scholarship have been abused in this field.

Not to mention on this very thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with leaving the Meyer murder an unsolved case, even though I don't think that today. But its fine to me if someone does.

No problem? Fine if someone does? Jim's behavior on this thread indicates the exact opposite to be true.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.....

Again no problem.

If the above was close to being true, much of this thread wouldn't exist.

P.S. Did everyone notice what RCD did?

Of course they did. And it's not what Jim imagined.

Pretty slick there Bobby.

Don Jeffries' well-intentioned suggestion fell on deaf ears. Jim's conceit has not served him well on this thread.

Readers are a lot more perceptive than Jim thinks they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did everyone notice what RCD did?

Jim, he made some valid observations.

I also noted what you did:

Let me know when the benefit for Crump is ready Robert. I will then arrange for his latter day and numerous victims to be outside to be interviewed by CNN and Fox.

Which is no different than...

Since you Oswald lovers believe he was innocent of any

wrongdoing, then his actions should be 100% consistent with an

innocent person shouldn't they?

offered up on a news group by someone called "Steve"

or this news group thread title by someone called "American Patriot"

For The Commie Oswald Lovers

----------------------

Speaking of historians...

which one was it that took the initiative to try and verify McBride's claim that Oswald wrote to him from Ft Worth in about Aug 1958 mentioning riots - either communist or racial in nature, and discovered that those riots actually took place in Aug/Sept of '56 - matching the official timeline?

Oh, that's right. None of them.

It was done by a high school drop out from the bush.

Which one took the trouble to identify the two people referred to as "Father" and "Uncle" in the Jack Tippit phone call?

Oh, that's right. None of them.

It was done by a high school drop out from the bush.

Which one identified a CIA agent present at Oswald's attempt to defect?

Oh, that's right. None of them.

It was done by a high school drop out from the bush.

Which one demolished Mary Bledsoe's fantasy bus ride?

Oh, that's right. None of them.

It was done by a Laurel and Hardy fan from Liverpool.

Which one's persistence resulted in information leading to the identity of "Steve Kennan"?

Oh that's right, None of them.

That was done by the son of a detective from NJ.

Which one regularly contributes additional and sometimes very obscure information to assist various leads?

Oh that's right, None of them.

That is done by a a quiet Dallas every-man

Which one traced back through the ownership of Gerard F. Tujague, Inc to arrive at a German-Mexican Fascist named Adolfo Hegewysch - a one time FBI suspect in smuggling goods to Nazi Germany - this just one of a number of promising leads developed?

Oh that's right, None of them.

That was done by a "lurker" who prefers anonymity,but who has freely given and helped whenever asked.

And that's just a very partial list.

And yes... I could keep going... very easily...

But please... carry on about the quality and professionalism of historians in this case. It's cathartic.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

John:

You have always been interested in pushing the Meyer case, arguing for Crump's innocence.....

There is no need to "argue" on behalf of what has already been legally determined. Crump was found not guilty, and if you’d like to overturn that verdict, you’d have to be the one prepared to "argue" on behalf of your "belief," in this case against the known evidence.

As per my saying that I am a "great historian", I don't think I ever said that about myself. But I was trained as an historian by some good ones. And I did a lot of work for them to get my M. A. And I got a lot of work kicked back to me when I broke the rules. Therefore I learned the hard way what the rules were. SInce the JFK case is now almost a half century old, it qualifies as contemporary history. Therefore I try and apply those rules when writing about it, discussing it, and critiquing books and DVD's about it. Should I apologize because I learned those academic standards from some good professors?

Jim, could you tell us which good professors encouraged you to state your opinion as though it is empirical fact?

Could you tell us which of those good professors taught you it is permissible to accuse a man of murder without offering the slightest proof?

Could you identify the good professors who taught you that when you are pressed for that proof, you should change the subject to everything but that proof?

Could you tell us which good professors suggested it is appropriate to demand that inquisitors asking questions you refuse to answer should be consigned to a ghetto where you need never consider their questions again?

Could you list the good professors who taught you it is right and proper to make an assertion and then repeatedly reply to queries about that assertion with "yawn," as though your feigned expression of disinterest somehow negates your obligation to provide proof for your own hypothesis?

Could you tell us which good professors encouraged you to fight tooth and nail to avoid providing that proof, for weeks, only to cave with a statement that indicates you don’t really care about the truth of the matter at all, such as: "I have no problem with leaving the Meyer murder an unsolved case, even though I don't think that today. But its fine to me if someone does."

Could you name the good professors who taught you it is considered fair to criticize a fellow historian for a book he did not write?

Could you tell us which good professors taught you that when addressing a debate adversary, it is good form to use terms of utter condescension such as "partner," or "slick" or "Mikey?"

Could you tell us which good professors would be proud to claim responsibility for teaching a man who indulges in all of the above?

I personally feel that the rules of historical scholarship have been abused in this field.

Not to mention on this very thread.

Really? All debate is shut off? Everyone is a "gentleman" except Jim?

Begging your pardon, :

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3602entry259282

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John:

You say that it is uncalled for to write that you were in a position to do anything about the result of Janney's work.

But yet, it is pretty obvious you were privy to how he was progressing.

Peter did send me a copy of his early manuscript and it did include things that had appeared on my Spartacus website and on the forum. However, most of what I say is taken from other books so he might have got them from the same sources as I did. Yes, I did make comments on his manuscript and I definitely did not tell him not to publish the book. Not that he would have taken any notice of me if he had. Why should he? I was not in a position to “allow” him to publish the book.

You were the one who knew he was picking up exactly where Damore had left off. You, like Janney, called Damore a "prodigious" researcher. You then went ahead and got in contact with Talbot and pushed Janney's work on him. In the material I saw, he and you talked about the work of Heymann in this regard--and in fact, somehow, some way, Talbot actually sourced Heymann in his book.

It is a complete lie that I contacted David Talbot and “pushed Janney's work on him”. Why do you make such statements when you do not have the evidence to back them up. The truth of the matter is, and I am sure David will confirm this, is that David phoned me up in 2005 while he was writing “Brothers”. I did not know who David was at the time. He told me that he was writing a book on Kennedy and that he had found my website useful. He spent an hour asking me questions about the assassination. It is possible we did discuss Mary Pinchot Meyer, but I don’t remember it. David was more interested in what I knew about the Cuban connections to the death of JFK and the reliability of people like Gerry Hemming. In fact, he did not take my advice on Hemming and gave him more credibility than he deserved.

That November I gave a talk on the JFK assassination in Dallas. David invited me to San Francisco while I was in the US. I accepted the invitation and we had a long meeting over dinner. Again, I do not remember if we discussed the Mary Pinchot Meyer case but it is possible. I definitely did not discuss Peter Janney’s book because he was not writing one at the time. In fact, Peter also contacted me for the first time in 2005. Like David he said he had been using my website to gain information for a film script he was writing on Mary Pinchot Meyer. I might have mentioned this but I don’t remember. I definitely did not know any details about the material he had on the case at the time.

In the many years since Janney has labored so hard to bring forth his bizarre book, you have talked about how you knew someone who was working on a new book on that case. You have also often started threads on the Meyer case, and used many of the same sources that Janney used. You also posted that preposterous quote Damore gave the NY Post comparing President Kennedy to Emperor Caligula. And you have a bio of Damore here even though Damore never wrote anything about the JFK assassination. As I said, you bought into Damore to such an extreme that you even implied he was murdered because he was getting too close to the actual facts about the Meyer case. You then made a comment here about how Leary's actions through Meyer altered JFK's foreign policy. Which would indicate to me that even though that has been completely vitiated by now, you still want to push that stuff.

My first post on the Mary Pinchot Meyer was on 23rd March, 2005. It was a criticism of an article on the John McAdams website that claimed that there was no connection between her death and the assassination of JFK. As I pointed out, the article, like most on the McAdams website, left out some very important information about the case. At this stage Peter Janney had not contacted me and so this post had nothing to do with him at all.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3520

You say “you have a bio of Damore here even though Damore never wrote anything about the JFK assassination”. So what? The JFK assassination is only a very small part of my Spartacus Website (In words, I am told, equivalent to 23 copies of War and Peace). I have a very large section on journalists. That is why I have a biography of Damore. You also make the silly mistake (like the Finnish government who tried to get my website banned) of believing that I agree with everything I include in the sources section of my web pages. In British schools we teach “interpretation” in history lessons (it is part of our National Curriculum). This mainly involves studying sources that give different interpretations of past figures or events. It is why many schools use my website to study the JFK assassination (a subject that has many different interpretations as you well know).

I do believe Mary Pinchot Meyer was murdered by someone other than Raymond Crump. I suspect that her death might have something to do with the assassination of JFK. However, this is pure speculation and we will never find the evidence to prove this.

I also think that Peter Janney’s book is worth reading for what it tells us about the cover-up of Meyer’s death. Especially the role played by James Jesus Angleton, Ben Bradlee and Wisner Janney in the cover-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say “you have a bio of Damore here even though Damore never wrote anything about the JFK assassination”. So what? The JFK assassination is only a very small part of my Spartacus Website (In words, I am told, equivalent to 23 copies of War and Peace). I have a very large section on journalists. That is why I have a biography of Damore. You also make the silly mistake (like the Finnish government who tried to get my website banned) of believing that I agree with everything I include in the sources section of my web pages. In British schools we teach “interpretation” in history lessons (it is part of our National Curriculum). This mainly involves studying sources that give different interpretations of past figures or events. It is why many schools use my website to study the JFK assassination (a subject that has many different interpretations as you well know).

John, your bio of Damore indicates his book, Senatorial Privilege was published by Regnery Gateway. The much maligned wiki has this to say about Regnery: Regnery Publishing in Washington, D.C., is a publisher which specializes in conservative books characterized on their website as "contrary to those of 'mainstream' publishers in New York."[1] Since 1993, Regnery Publishing has been a division of Eagle Publishing, which also owns the weekly magazine Human Events. Regnery is currently led by President Marjory Ross, who had previously served as Vice President under President Al Regnery, son of the company's founder, until 1997.

Regnery has published books by authors such as former Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour, Ann Coulter, former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, columnist Michelle Malkin, commentator Robert Spencer, pundit David Horowitz, and Barbara Olson.

It goes on to say Regnery had been a co-founder of Human Events.

So basically Regnery Gateway is a propaganda mill of the Republican Party.

And this goes to the heart of the accusations of you being a "Kennedy basher". It has nothing to do with how well you rate him as a president. It has everything to do with how poorly you rate him as a human being, and the family generally - all the while using the most dubious sources imaginable to do so. - sources whose sole aim appears to be to drive a stake through the heart of the promise that Kennedy and Camelot represented via smearing his character.

I do believe Mary Pinchot Meyer was murdered by someone other than Raymond Crump. I suspect that her death might have something to do with the assassination of JFK. However, this is pure speculation and we will never find the evidence to prove this.

That is because you believe she and Kennedy were doing drugs in the White House. An innocent Crump does not equate to a CIA hit absent any truth to the affair and drugs allegations.

I also think that Peter Janney’s book is worth reading for what it tells us about the cover-up of Meyer’s death. Especially the role played by James Jesus Angleton, Ben Bradlee and Wisner Janney in the cover-up.

You have gone from a "belief" she was murdered because of JFK to a seeming certainty that there was a cover-up regarding her death.

Some information for those of us outside the UK regarding "interpretation" in history lessons in the UK.

I get the sense that few teachers actually know what they are supposed to be doing with it.

http://www.schoolhis...?showtopic=2169

I'd like to learn more about it before passing judgement.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

(quote name='John Simkin' timestamp='1346669356' post='259227']

(quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1346666992' post='259226']

John, is it unreasonable to assume that Peter Janney's most recent post on this thread, and your most recent two, are the best responses either of you could muster? In hindsight, five years ago, diEugenio's criticism could have been received as constructive. It is not DiEugenio who has turned my opinion of you in a different direction, you, Mr. Janney, and my own googling are primarily responsible for that.

(/quote]

Maybe you should tell the rest of the Forum what your "Googling" has found out about me.

(/quote]

If I expected you would react to what I wrote to you as you have, I would not have addressed you. I thought I could reach you. Your reaction is to push me further away. Peter Janney wrote a dismal, unreliable book. I would have no recognition of that if I did not verify Janney's (and Roundtree's and Damore's) claims, myself. Your posted opinions on the controversies raised in this thread are so divorced from what DiEugenio and I have posted for your (and everyone's) consideration, that I was stunned by what you elected to post before I addressed you.

You do not discern who has and still does present constructive criticism to you.

"My own googling," referred to this, an inside issue on this thread, because of the manner in which Michael Hogan attempted to trivialize both the effort required to come by it, as well as its impact on "belief systems" in the CT community.

And if I was about the business you seem to be accusing me of, I have enough respect for you not to make any judgment of you or post anything negative about you based on single source "garbage" as put out by Mimi "Rockefeller" Alford, Heymann or from Thomas C. Reeves.:

(quote]http://hnn.us/taxonomy/term/63

Inactive: Thomas C. Reeves

http://hnn.us/node/48429

On William F. Buckley, Jr.

.....In private meetings with Bill in his New York apartment (his wife Pat joined us), at his favorite restaurant, and at the New York Yacht Club, my wife and I both enjoyed Bill’s encyclopedic knowledge, wit, legendary charm, and great kindness. He expressed special delight in our conversion to Roman Catholicism in 1997, and he provided me with a grant to assist in the research for my biography of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.

… of Pleasure, Privilege Series: A Question of Character:...

‎Newsday - Jun 2, 1991

Veteran White House employee Traphes Bryant, who kept a diary, later revealed how .... From the book "A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy" by....

A question of character: a life of John F. Kennedy

books.google.com

Thomas C. Reeves - 1992 - 510 pages -

a life of John F. Kennedy Thomas C. Reeves. pany of her sister and ... Veteran White House employee Traphes Bryant, who kept a diary, later revealed how the president arranged matters with aides and staff members. He described Jack's .(/quote]

(quote name='Mel Ayton' date='Jul 15 2005, 01:16 PM']If you limit your reading to books which continually take the conspiracy angle you will miss out.Please read Nina Burleigh, inform your readers about her conclusions in order to to give a balanced view, then carry on speculating.

(/quote]

I have of course read Nina Burleigh's book. She has carried out some interesting research although I do not always agree with her conclusions. To be fair, she has an open-mind about Mary's killer. However, I am much more impressed with one of her major sources, Peter Janney. He is a member of the Forum. This is what he had to say on the Mary Pinchot Meyer thread:

http://educationforu...?showtopic=3520

My perspective about the JFK Assassination, the assassination of Mary Pinchot Meyer (who was JFK's last true love), and The Warren Commission, as well as a number events has been informed largely by my growing up in Washington, D.C. My father was career CIA and as a family we were in close proximity with many of the controversial power broker people in Washington at the time (i.e. Ben Bradlee, Kay Graham, James Jesus Angleton, Tracy Barnes, Richard Helms,etc). I knew these people; I was friends with many of their children. I witnessed many, many things in regard to what was going on at the time.

Like many of you, I have spent a number of years being overwhelmed with what Hollywood director called "the crime of the century," which was the assassination of JFK. I have met privately with Stone and talked with him about a number of things.

I also knew Mary Pinchot Meyer and her family. Mary's husband, Cord Meyer, worked together at the CIA. Our families were quite close; her middle child Michael was my "best friend" at age 9 when he was killed by a car crossing the street at dusk. ....

Part III

...................

It is true that I did pass on information to the Mary Pinchot Meyer case to David Talbot. That included information that appeared in David Heymann's book. He also sought advice about a whole range of different topics relating to the assassination. Sometimes he accepted this advice, sometimes he rejected it. For example, he chose to believe the testimony of Angel Murgado whereas I am of the opinion that he was sent to researchers by Gerry Hemming as a disinformation agent. On the other hand, David decided to reject the testimony of people like Gene Wheaton that implicated Carl E. Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero in the assassination.

One of the most important aspects of writing about the JFK assassination is deciding on who is a reliable source of information. This is illustrated by DiEugenio's article where he takes a very hard-line view on reliable sources. According to DiEugenio, if you fall into that category, then nothing you say can be trusted. For example, he does not like the work of David Heymann. The main reason seems to be because his work has tarnished the reputation of the Kennedy brothers. I have not read the books DiEugenio refers to. The only book of his that I have read is The Georgetown Ladies' Social Club. I thought it was a very well researched look at a much neglected subject. The book looks at the lives of Katharine Graham (the wife of Philip Graham), Evangeline Bruce (the wife of David Bruce), Lorraine Cooper (the wife of John S. Cooper), Pamela Harriman (the wife of Averell Harriman), Mary Pinchot Meyer (the wife of Cord Meyer) and Sally Quinn (the wife of Ben Bradlee). Heymann only spends a short time on the death of Meyer and does not argue very strongly that her death was connected to the assassination of JFK. However, the book does include the following passage that I have quoted on this forum and my webpage on Mary Pinchot Meyer:

Cord Meyer gave expression to his support of Angleton in, "Facing Reality," an autobiography subtitled, "From World Federalism to the CIA." In the same volume, he comments briefly on the murder of his wife: "I was satisfied by the conclusions of the police investigation that Mary had been the victim of a sexually motivated assault by a single individual and that she had been killed in her struggle to escape." Carol Delaney, a family friend and longtime personal assistant to Cord Meyer, observed that, "Mr. Meyer didn't for a minute think that Ray Crump had murdered his wife or that it had been an attempted rape. But, being an Agency man, he couldn't very well accuse the CIA of the crime, although the murder had all the markings of an in-house rubout."

Asked to comment on the case, by the current author (C. David Heymann), Cord Meyer held court at the beginning of February 2001 - six weeks before his death - in the barren dining room of a Washington nursing home. Propped up in a chair, his glass eye bulging, he struggled to hold his head aloft. Although he was no longer able to read, the nurses supplied him with a daily copy of The Washington Post, which he carried with him wherever he went. "My father died of a heart attack the same year Mary was killed," he whispered. "It was a bad time." And what could he say about Mary Meyer? Who had committed such a heinous crime? "The same sons of bitches," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."

For some reason DiEugenio objects to this passage from Heymann's book. As he claims that Heymann is unreliable source I assume DiEugenio is suggesting that Carol Delaney never told him this or this interview with Cord Meyer never took place. Is Heymann so unreliable that he would have made up the contents of an interview? Why would he do this? He does not develop points raised in the interview. As I said before, the book is not about the assassination of JFK. Unless you knew a great deal about the case, you would not be aware of the significance of Cord Meyer's comments. Even so, it is only Cord Meyer speculating about the death of his wife. Nor does he name the people who carried out the crime. However, if he is indeed referring to the CIA as being behind the deaths of JFK and Mary Meyer, this comment is very interesting. He is one of the few individuals within the CIA who might have known about the people behind the plot to kill JFK. Meyer knew that the CIA would not hesitate to arrange the death of someone if it suited their overall strategy.

In Nina Burleigh's biography of Mary Pinchot Meyer she claims that the couple suspected that the CIA might have been behind the death of their son. At the time, Cord Meyer was very disillusioned with the work he was doing with the CIA and was trying to get a job in publishing. He discovered that the CIA was stopping him from getting another job. As he was the main figure running Operation Mockingbird at the time, the CIA was extremely worried about this proposed job change. After the death of his son he stopped looking for another job. It also marked the beginning of the end in their marriage. Cord and Mary shared the same political ideals when they met during the Second World War. By continuing to work for the CIA, Cord Meyer revealed to his wife he had sold out. Given this background, I think it is highly likely that Cord Meyer made these comments to Heymann and that it tells us something very important about the deaths of JFK and Mary Pinchot Meyer.

Part IV

And I specifically named Timothy Leary, James Truitt, James Angleton, and David Heymann. And I was quite clear about why they were not credible. (James DiEugenio)

The main thrust of James DiEugenio's article concerns the reliability of sources. It is true that most sources that come forward with information on the JFK assassination have their own agenda. For example, Heymann is keen to sell copies of his books. However, it is a strong claim to suggest that he is a completely unreliable source. Even DiEugenio would have to admit that he tells the truth most of the time. I find it difficult to believe that Heymann would go as far as making up a story about his interview with Cord Meyer. This could of course be checked with the people who ran the nursing home. If it could be proved that Heymann invented this story, his reputation would be in tatters and he would have difficulty finding a publisher in the future. Anyway, why would he lie about this interview? is not a central part of his book and only has real meaning for assassination buffs. It is unclear to me why DiEugenio feels the need to protect the CIA over the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer.

http://www.spartacus...k/JFKmeyerM.htm

DiEugenio includes James Angleton in his list of unreliable sources. Of course, I would agree with him about Angleton. That is why I have not used him as a reliable source on the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer. In fact, my point is that Angleton has consistently lied about the issue of the Meyer diary.

Then there is the case of Timothy Leary. James DiEugenio explains why he does not trust Leary's account of Mary Pinchot Meyer in his article: The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy (2003):

As noted earlier, Jim Truitt gave this curious tale its first public airing in 1976, on the heels of the Church Committee. From there, the Washington Post (under Bradlee) picked it up. There had been an apparent falling out between Truitt and Bradlee, and Truitt said that he wanted to show that Bradlee was not the crusader for truth that Watergate or his book on Kennedy had made him out to be. In the National Enquirer, Truitt stated that Mary had revealed her affair with Kennedy while she was alive to he and his wife. He then went further. In one of their romps in the White House, Mary had offered Kennedy a couple of marijuana joints, but coke-sniffer Kennedy said, "This isn't like cocaine. I'll get you some of that."

The chemical addition to the story was later picked up by drug guru Tim Leary in his book, Flashbacks. Exner-like, the angle grew appendages. Leary went beyond grass and cocaine. According to Leary, Mary Meyer was consulting with him about how to conduct acid sessions and how to get psychedelic drugs in 1962. Leary met her on several occasions and she said that she and a small circle of friends had turned on several times. She also had one other friend who was "a very important man" whom she also wanted to turn on. After Kennedy's assassination, Mary called Leary and met with him. She was cryptic but she did say, "They couldn't control him any more. He was changing too fast. He was learning too much." The implication being that a "turned on" JFK was behind the moves toward peace in 1963. Leary learned about Meyer's murder in 1965, but did not pull it all together until the 1976 Jim Truitt disclosure. With Leary, the end (for now) of the Meyer story paints JFK as the total '60s swinger: pot, coke, acid, women, and unbeknownst to Kennedy, Leary has fulfilled his own fantasy by being Kennedy's guide on his magical mystery tour toward peace.

But there is a big problem with Leary, his story, and those who use it (like biographers David Horowitz and Peter Collier). Leary did not mention Mary in any of his books until Flashbacks in 1983, more than two decades after he met Mary. It's not like he did not have the opportunity to do so. Leary was a prolific author who got almost anything he wanted published. He appears to have published over 40 books. Of those, at least 25 were published between 1962, when he says he met Mary, and 1983, when he first mentions her. Some of these books are month-to-month chronicles, e.g., High Priest. I could not find Mary mentioned, even vaguely, in any of the books. This is improbable considering the vivid, unforgettable portrait that Leary drew in 1983. This striking-looking woman walks in unannounced, mentions her powerful friends in Washington, and later starts dumping out the CIA's secret operations to control American elections to him. Leary, who mentioned many of those he turned on throughout his books, and thanks those who believed in him, deemed this unimportant. That is, until the 20th anniversary of JFK's death. (Which is when Rosenbaum wrote his ugly satire on the Kennedy research community for Texas Monthly, which in turn got him a guest spot on Nightline.) This is also when Leary began hooking up with Gordon Liddy, doing carnival-type debates across college campuses, an act which managed to rehabilitate both of them and put them back in the public eye.

It is clearly true that Leary did not first raise the issue of Mary Pinchot Meyer until 1983. However, that in itself does not mean that the story is untrue. Leary was probably concerned about the power of the CIA. If the CIA were willing to kill JFK and Mary Meyer, they would also be willing to hurt Leary if he was seen as a dangerous witness. Leary was no doubt hoping that the CIA did not know about his relationship with Meyer.

As Gene Wheaton pointed out when he provided information about the involvement of Carl E. Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero in the assassination of JFK, the CIA do not always kill witnesses. First they try to intimidate them into silence. They do this is a variety of ways but as Jenkins warned Wheaton, a common way is to completely discredit the witness. That is of course what happened when Leary published his story about Meyer in 1983.

In his book Flashbacks, Leary explains why he included the story of Meyer's relationship with JFK:

One evening while lying in my cell in the Federal Prison in San Diego reading the paper a headline in the San Francisco Chronicle caught my eye:

NEW JFK STORY - SEX, POT WITH ARTIST

James Truitt, the source for this sensational story, was identified as a former assistant to Philip Graham, publisher of The Washington Post. In interviews with "The National Enquirer, Associated Press and The Washington Post Truitt revealed that a woman named Mary Pinchot Meyer had conducted a two-year love affair with President John Kennedy and had smoked marijuana with him in a White House bedroom. A confident of Mary Meyer, Truitt told a Post correspondent that she and Kennedy met about 30 times between January 1962 and November 1963, when Kennedy was assassinated. Mary Meyer told Truitt that JFK had remarked, "This isn't like cocaine, I'll get you some of that." Truitt claimed that Mary Meyer kept a diary of her affair with the president, which was found after her death by her sister Toni Bradlee and turned over to James Angleton, chief of CIA counter-intelligence who took the diary to CIA headquarters and destroyed it. According to the Post another source confirmed that Mary Meyer's diary was destroyed. This source said the diary contained a few hundred words of vague reference to an un-named friend.

Mary Meyer's sister was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "I knew nothing about it when Mary was alive."

The article also revealed that the former husband of Mary Pinchot Meyer was Cord Meyer Jr. one of the most influential officials in the CIA- the only agent who had been awarded the Distinguished Intelligence Medal three times.

I lit a Camel cigarette and walked across my cell to the window and looked through the bars out to San Diego Bay. My mind was reeling with questions. Why was the fact that Cord Meyer Jr. was a top CIA agent covered up in the first stories about Mary's assassination? How come Ben Bradlee, publisher of the Post, brother-in-law of Mary gave her diary to the CIA? Why did James Truitt, top official of the Post break his silence after all these years? What did Mary mean when she said, after Jack Kennedy's assassination, that he knew too much, that he was changing too fast?

It was of course James Truitt who first broke the story about James Angleton and Ben Bradlee's search and discovery of Mary Pinchot Meyer's diary in October 1964. In March, 1976, James Truitt, a former senior member of staff at the Washington Post, gave an interview to the National Enquirer. Truitt told the newspaper that Meyer was having an affair with JFK when he was assassinated. He also claimed that Meyer had told his wife, Ann Truitt, that she was keeping an account of this relationship in her diary. Meyer asked Truitt to take possession of a private diary "if anything ever happened to me".

Ann Truitt was living in Tokyo at the time that Meyer was murdered on 12th October, 1964. She phoned Bradlee at his home and asked him if he had found the diary. Bradlee, who claimed he was unaware of his sister-in-law's affair with Kennedy, knew nothing about the diary.

Leo Damore claimed in an article that appeared in the New York Post that the reason Angleton and Bradlee were looking for the diary was that: "She (Meyer) had access to the highest levels. She was involved in illegal drug activity. What do you think it would do to the beatification of Kennedy if this woman said, 'It wasn't Camelot, it was Caligula's court'?" Damore also said that a figure close to the CIA had told him that Mary's death had been a professional "hit".

There is another possible reason why both Angleton and Bradlee were searching for documents in Meyer's house. Meyer had been married to Cord Meyer, a leading CIA operative involved in a variety of covert operations in the early 1950s. This included running Mockingbird, an operation that involved controlling the American press. Phil Graham, another former OSS officer, who owned the Washington Post, was brought into this operation by Frank Wisner, Meyer's boss. Graham committed suicide just before the death of JFK. Was the CIA worried that Meyer had kept a record of these activities? We do know that Mary disapproved of her husband's covert activities and this was a major factor in the break-up of the marriage. Was this why Mary Pinochet Meyer had been murdered?

DiEugenio dismisses James Truitt as a unreliable source and cites the fact that he was upset with Ben Bradlee over his sacking in 1969. As part of his settlement he took $35,000 on the written condition that he did not write anything for publication about his experiences at the Washington Post that was "in any way derogatory" of the company. He clearly upset Bradlee by breaking that agreement with his story about how he and Angleton searched and found Meyer's diary.

At first Bradlee and Angleton denied the story. Some of Mary's friends knew that the two men were lying about the diary and some spoke anonymously to other newspapers and magazines. Later that month Time Magazine published an article confirming Truitt's story. Antoinette Bradlee, who was now living apart from Ben Bradlee, admitted that her sister had been having an affair with JFK. Antoinette claimed she found the diary and letters a few days after her sister's death. It was claimed that the diary was in a metal box in Mary's studio. The contents of the box were given to James Angleton who claimed he burnt the diary. Bradlee and Angleton were now forced to admit that Truitt's story was accurate.

Bradlee later recalled what he did after Truitt's phone-call: "We didn't start looking until the next morning, when Tony and I walked around the corner a few blocks to Mary's house. It was locked, as we had expected, but when we got inside, we found Jim Angleton, and to our complete surprise he told us he, too, was looking for Mary's diary."

James Angleton, CIA counterintelligence chief, admitted that he knew of Mary's relationship with JFK and was searching her home looking for her diary and any letters that would reveal details of the affair. According to Ben Bradlee, it was Mary's sister, Antoinette Bradlee, who found the diary and letters a few days later. It was claimed that the diary was in a metal box in Mary's studio. The contents of the box were given to Angleton who claimed he burnt the diary. Angleton later admitted that Mary recorded in her diary that she had taken LSD with Kennedy before "they made love".

These confessions were very embarrassing for both Bradlee and Angleton. They were guilty of hiding importance evidence from police who were investigating a murder case. What is more, Angleton admitted destroying this evidence so we now only have his account of what this diary contained.

I am not sure what it is about Truitts' account that James does not believe. In 1981 James Truitt committed suicide. According to Nina Burleigh (A Very Private Woman) Truitt's wife, Evelyn Patterson Truitt, claimed that her husband's papers, including copies of Mary's diary, had been stolen from the home by an CIA agent called Herbert Burrows.

Leo Damore, who worked on the Mary Pinchot Meyer story after Truitt's story was published, committed suicide in 1995.

Ben Bradlee is still alive but I am sure he has no desire to talk about this story. Nor is he very keen to talk about his work for the CIA in the 1950s when he worked as assistant press attaché in the American embassy in Paris. In 1952 Bradlee joined the staff of the Office of U.S. Information and Educational Exchange (USIE), the embassy's propaganda unit. USIE produced films, magazines, research, speeches, and news items for use by the CIA throughout Europe. USIE (later known as USIA) also controlled the Voice of America, a means of disseminating pro-American "cultural information" worldwide. While at the USIE Bradlee worked with E. Howard Hunt.

According to a Justice Department memo from a assistant U.S. attorney in the Rosenberg Trial Bradlee was helping the CIA to manage European propaganda regarding the spying conviction and the execution of Ethel Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg on 19th June, 1953.

Bradlee was officially employed by USIE until 1953, when he began working for Newsweek. While based in France, Bradlee divorced his first wife and married Antoinette Pinchot. At the time of the marriage, Antoinette's sister, Mary Pinchot Meyer, was married to Cord Meyer. Antoinette Bradlee was also a close friend of Cicely d'Autremont, who was married to James Angleton. Bradlee worked closely with Angleton in Paris. At the time Angleton was liaison for all Allied intelligence in Europe. His deputy was Richard Ober, a fellow student of Bradlee's at Harvard University.

Bradlee was very angry when this information appeared in Deborah Davis' book "Katharine the Great". Bradlee managed to persuade the publisher to withdraw the book. Another claim made by Davies was that Richard Ober, Bradlee's CIA buddy, was "Deep Throat". If that is the case, the Watergate story pushed by the Washington Post was nothing more than a CIA "limited hangout" operation.

DiEugenio chooses to believe Nina Burleigh's account of the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer. In 1998 Burleigh published "A Very Private Woman" about the Meyer murder. In August, 2005, Burleigh agreed to discuss her book on the forum.

http://educationforu...?showtopic=4641

It included the following exchange:

John Simkin: Do you believe Timothy Leary's account of his relationship with Mary Meyer?

Nina Burleigh: Up to a point, yes. I think he knew her and possibly did drugs with her or shared his drugs with her or talked to her about them. LSD was a very trendy drug with the artsy edgy people then. My problem is that he had no corroborating evidence - not a single eyewitness, not a hotel bill, no contemporaneous notes, to back up his claims. Given his lifetime drug use, I felt I needed that to be certain of his memories.

John Simkin: Did you find any evidence that the killing was a CIA operation?

Nina Burleigh: No. I can't say I disproved that theory though. There remains, in my mind, a ten percent chance that someone besides Crump did it.

John Simkin: Did you read Leo Damore's manuscript on Mary Meyer?

Nina Burleigh: An assistant of his shared his papers, and notes with me, I have since learned that he did not share everything however.

John Simkin: What do you make of this passage in C. David Heymann's book, The Georgetown Ladies' Social Club (2003): "Asked to comment on the case, by the current author (C. David Heymann), Cord Meyer held court at the beginning of February 2001 - six weeks before his death - in the barren dining room of a Washington nursing home. Propped up in a chair, his glass eye bulging, he struggled to hold his head aloft. Although he was no longer able to read, the nurses supplied him with a daily copy of The Washington Post, which he carried with him wherever he went. "My father died of a heart attack the same year Mary was killed , " he whispered. "It was a bad time." And what could he say about Mary Meyer? Who had committed such a heinous crime? "The same sons of bitches," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."

Nina Burleigh: Absolute utter hogwash. Cord Meyer was apparently enraged at my well-researched book, and I cannot believe he would sit down with Heymann, no matter how near death. At the end of his life, Cord had a very disfigured visage from mouth and jaw cancer - you would think Heymann would have mentioned that fact if he had seen him in the flesh.

One needs to ask if Nina Burleigh is a completely objective witness. After all, she worked for Ben Bradlee at the Washington Post. Was this another example of a "limited hangout". And why was Burleigh so selective in the use of information that Peter Janney gave here?

(quote name='William Kelly' date='07 November 2011 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1320672354' post='237502']

(quote name='Bernice Moore' date='07 November 2011 - 07:38 AM' timestamp='1320644291' post='237498']

http://www.nationale...s-murder-solved

(/quote]

Peter Janney is a good researcher, the son of a CIA official, who has used his father's contacts to acquire information unavailable to others.

Mary Pinchot Meyer was the wife of CIA officer Cord Meyer, and the daughter of the powerful Pennsylvania Republican Pinchot family, who JFK visited on Sept.24, 1963, the first stop on his Conservation Tour.

JFK had met Mary Pinchot while a student at Choate, introduced by his room mate William Atwood, who JFK would later appoint as an ambassador, and who was responsible for the back-channel UN negotiations with Castro that ended with the assassination.

(/quote]

One of the important aspects of this book is that it will show that Nina Burleigh's book on the subject, "A Very Private Woman: The Life and Unsolved Murder of Presidential Mistress Mary Meyer" (1998) was a CIA limited hangout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

To Robert:

My whole point is simple. We, and Janney, would have been better served if Mary's Mosaic had not been written. And I began my review with saying, its hard to understand why he wrote this book....

These are the first two paragraphs from Jim's article:

Mary’s Mosaic, Part 2: Entering Peter Janney’s World of Fantasy

Part Two by James DiEugenio

The first two people to inform me of Peter Janney’s upcoming book on Mary Meyer were Lisa Pease and John Simkin. Many years ago I wrote a two-part essay for Probe called “The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy” (This was later excerpted in The Assassinations.) The first part of that essay focused on the cases of Judith Exner and Mary Meyer giving me a background and mild interest in the subject. Consequently, when Lisa Pease told me about Peter Janney I wondered what kind of book he was going to write. After Lisa exchanged e-mails with him she told me not to expect much, since Janney had bought into Timothy Leary hook, line and sinker.

JFK forum owner John Simkin’s backing was a real warning bell. For two reasons: first, Simkin is an inveterate Kennedy basher. He once wrote that Senator Kennedy was the choice of the so-called “Georgetown crowd” for the 1960 presidential election. Most accurately described as Georgetown, which seemed to house half the hierarchy of the State Department and the CIA and the journalistic establishment, many of whom gathered for argumentative high-policy dinner parties on Sunday nights (‘The Sunday Night Drunk,’ as one regular called it.” Smithsonian magazine, December 2008) This shows that Simkin is the worst kind of Kennedy basher: the kind that knows next to nothing about Kennedy. If Simkin was backing Janney’s book then I naturally figured the plan would be to aggrandize Meyer and diminish Kennedy. (Which, as we shall see, is what happened.) Second, Simkin said that Janney would be taking up the late Leo Damore’s work on Meyer. The dropping of Damore’s name and work really raised my antennae. Although Simkin praised Damore with Truman Capote type accolades, I discounted all of them. Why? Because I had read Senatorial Privilege, Damore’s book about Ted Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick tragedy. (Senatorial Privilege: the Chappaquiddick Cover-Up, Regnery Gateway 1988) I knew about the controversy surrounding that book. In addition to being sued by his original publisher to get their advance back, Damore was also sued by one of his interview subjects, Lt. Bernard Flynn. Flynn declared that Damore had an agreement with him in which he was promised $50,000 for his cooperation in writing the book. (Sarasota Herald Tribune, 7/10/89) Checkbook journalism was almost to be expected for that book and so was Damore’s excuse for why Random House had declined his manuscript, namely that the Kennedys were behind it. (A premise, as Lisa Pease noted, which the judge did not accept.)

In the lower image of the post below I've posted an excerpt of, is displayed :

"Visiting Research Associate, University of Stockholm, Summer, 1971;"

...and I've just googled up this, today.:

Variance reduction by antithetic variates in GI/G/1 queuing ...

books.google.com Bill Mitchell - 1971 -

Variance Reduction by Antithetic Variates in GI/G/1 Queuing Simulations

Volume 73 of Forskningsrapport / Företagsekonomiska institutionen, Stockholms universitet Author Bill Mitchell Published 1971 Length 38 pages

...................................................

Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary ...


  1. books.google.com Peter Janney - 2012 - Google eBook - Preview
    “I cracked it!” Smith remembered Leo shouting on the phone. “I got the guy—and the [JFK] assassination link, too!” Smith quickly began writing, trying to keep up with Leo's exhilaration. Damore mentioned a name, and Jimmy asked him to ..

  2. Author Says He 'cracked' The Chappaquiddick Case .
    news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat...id...sjid... Author says he 'cracked' the Chappaquiddick case . By CHRIS CALLAHAN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON — Author Leo Damore says he has ...

  3. Author Claims To Have 'Cracked' Chappaquiddick Case
    www.apnewsarchive.com/...Cracked.../id-...
    Mar 6, 1988 – ''I cracked this thing. I know it seems incomprehensible. Who is Leo Damore?'' Damore said he has 30 hours of taped interviews with Joseph ...
    Behind Jeers for Clinton in Egypt, a Conspiracy Theory With US Roots
    New York Times (blog)-Jul 17, 2012
    Ms. McLeod's post was based on a news story posted on Lucianne.com, a site run by Lucianne Goldberg, an American conservative who
    … .As Tripp Pushed .Lewinsky Lucianne Goldberg Pushed...

    Spokesman-Review - Oct 2, 1998
    New York literary agent Lucianne Goldberg, not only overcame Tripp's reluctance to tape Lewinsky's phone calls, hut she also assured Tripp. wrongly, that ...
    The Reliable Source
    ‎Pay-Per-View -
    Washington Post - Jan 26, 1998
    Literary agent Lucianne Goldberg is a real-life Forrest Gump, showing up in the ... She represented both Leo Damore, author of a hugely popular bestseller ...
    STRANGE TWISTS AND TALES OF CHAPPAQUIDDICK BOOK
    ‎Pay-Per-View -
    Boston Globe - Jan 24, 1988
    Damore's agent Lucianne Goldberg points out that the Peter Collier-David Horowitz book, The Kennedys, An American Dynasty, sold well and contained plenty ...
    Why Did Teddy Drop Out Of Race? .

    Deseret News - Feb 10, 1983
    We couldn't reach Damore, but agent Lucianne Goldberg, after first noting we're all going to have to wear a shield of armor on this one," said, won't SIDE The ...

Lucianne Goldberg .Spy Paid 1,000 Each Week .

‎Miami News - Aug 20, 1973

First Identified as a Nixon undercover agent by Wash ington sources, Mrs. Gold berg confirmed her role in an Interview here in which she also said: .

Quotable Women .

‎Nevada Daily Mail - May 10, 1970

LucianneGoldberg, women's news editor for the North American Newspaper Alliance, at a meetIng of the New Jersey Daily Newspaper Women's Associa- tion. ...

How many Washington Post obituary images do I have to present to influence you to understand that 1500 Arlington Blvd., Arlington, VA, was a normal apartment building, with a tenant in 1964 who worked at the Pentagon after earning an M.S. at Harvard in 1963, and who just happened to report to police that he saw a black man in a white coat walking 200 yards behind Mary Meyer on the towpath on October 12, 1964.?

You'll elect to examine this and fully consider what it implies or you won't. The image in my last post is

nearly a full display of what I've highlighted in red in these two search results in a screen capture of a google books search. The dates of military service and the name, William L Mitchell match what we know. In 1962, Mitchell graduated from Cornell University with a B.M.E. degree. In 1963, he graduated with an M.S. from Harvard. He then worked at the Pentagon with a U.S. Army rank of Lieut., probably attaining 1st Lieut. rank at the end of active duty in 1965, before the Crump trial in August. He soon left the country on a Fulbright Fellowship at the University of London. His Ph.D thesis was published at UC Berkeley in 1970.

None of the details about William L Mitchell as presented by Peter Janney are accurate, except for his name and where he resided in 1965. He probably worked briefly at Georgetown Univ. between his separation from the military and his Fulbright Fellowship. Nothing sinister, suspicious, untoward.....

MitchellsCREENsHOT.jpg

From my last post, the same information:

.

Directory of Computer Education and Research: Volume 3

books.google.com T. C. Hsiao - 1973 - 1800 pages

MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. - Assistant Professor of Business Administration

Department of Management Sciences School of Business and Economics CALIFORNIA

STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD

WilliamMitchellBackground1973.jpg

See how this progressed?

Annual report to the president

books.google.com Cornell University. College of Engineering - 1961 - Snippet view

Spring Term only) Mr. William Mitchell (5th yr. B.M.E. Candidate. Fall Term only)

News and Notices - JStor

The Annals of Mathematical Statistics

Vol. 34, No. 3 (Sep., 1963), pp. 1133-1146

www.jstor.org/stable/2238500

Mitchell, William L., B.M.E., (Cornell University); Graduate Student, Operations Re- search, Harvard University; 70 Perkins Hall, Harvard University, Cambridge

New York mathematical society. List of members, constitution, by-laws

books.google.comAmerican Mathematical Society - 1964 - Snippet view

American Mathematical Society. MISARE ... AI Math., Computation Lab., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass. ... MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. I Pentagon, OR Group, Systems Dept., USADSC, Washington, D. C. l500 Arlington Blvd., Apt. l022,

Combined membership list of the American Mathematical Society and ...

books.google.com American Mathematical Society, Mathematical Association of America, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics - 1965 - Snippet view

...... MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. I Pentagon, OR Group, Systems Dept., USADSC, Washington, D. C. 1500 Arlington Blvd., Apt. 1022, Arlington, Va. MITCHELL,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Jim, three of you, Burleigh, Mel Ayton, and yourself, all conveyed enough criticism to influence caution, reconsideration, and further

research, and now I've experienced a similar reception to the ones the three of you got. You are still being attacked, personally.

Janney is probably still an excellent researcher and Burleigh a CIA sponsored disinformation agent.


  1. I'm Not The Most Experienced Pilot In The World. - Google News
    news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1370&dat...id...sjid... I'm no Charles Lindbergh. I'm not the most experienced pilot in the world. — JFK Jr. as quoted by family biographer David Heymann, expressing reservations ...
    All results for "I'm no Charles Lindbergh. I'm not the ... »

  2. No Charles Lindbergh. I'm Not The Most Experienced Pilot...

    Manila Standard - Jul 19, 1999
    I'm No Charles Lindbergh. I'm Not The Most Experienced Pilot In The World. I'm no Charles Lindbergh. I'm not the most experienced pilot in the world. — JFK Jr.

  3. His Final Hours - CBS News

    CBS News - Jul 19, 1999
    "He said, 'I'm no Charles Lindbergh. I'm not the most experienced pilot in the world,'" Heymann said in a telephone interview. ...

BOSTON (AP)-- John F. Kennedy Jr. expressed doubt about his piloting abilities nine days before his plane disappeared, according to a family biographer.

C. David Heymann, who wrote a best-selling book on Jacqueline Kennedy Ona-ssis, spoke with Kennedy by telephone on July 7, to set up a meeting to discuss a possible article for George magazine, Heymann said.

Heymann suggested they meet on July 16, but Kennedy told him the date was out of the question because he had to fly to Hyannis Port for his cousin's wedding. But first, Heymann said Kennedy told him, he had to fly his sister-in-law to Martha's Vineyard.

Heymann said Kennedy appeared concerned about making two landings in quick succession.

"He said, I'm no Charles Lindbergh. I'm not the most experienced pilot in the world,"' Heymann said in a telephone interview Monday.

Kennedy also lightheartedly complained that his wife, Carolyn, was making him drop off her sister, Lauren Bessette, on the Vineyard, according to Heymann.

"It was like saying, My wife insists that I go with her to the women's department at Saks,"' he said. "It was like that kind of a typical male complaint: I've got to fly my wife's sister to Martha's Vineyard first."'

The plane disappeared Friday night, and the three are presumed dead.

Heymann worked for the Israeli secret service, the Mossad, in the mid-1980s, and Kennedy was interested in a magazine piece on his experiences, the writer said.

The two grew acquainted after Heymann's book, "A Woman Named Jackie," was published in 1989, Heymann said.

Also Monday, a flight instructor at the airport where Kennedy kept his Piper Saratoga said the rookie pilot wasn't reckless, and would often leave the airport without flying if he thought the weather was bad.

"He was not a risk-taker," said Ed Gacio, an instructor at the Essex County Airport. He did not teach Kennedy to fly, but said he knew him from the airport and frequently spoke with him.

http://observer.com/1999/08/kennedy-expert-c-david-heymann-do-his-jfk-jr-stories-hold-up/

Kennedy ‘Expert’ C. David Heymann: Do His J.F.K. Jr. Stories Hold Up?

By Andrew Goldman 8/02/99 12:00am

....Thus, before the plane had been found, in those first few days of media spray and spittle, before the facts coalesced, the idea that somehow the tragedy had been the fault of the Bessette sisters entered the media airspace around the story, joining the hazy weather conditions over Fairfield New Jersey and Lauren Bessette’s waterlogged garment bag as key elements of the unfolding tragedy.

Mr. Heymann’s story didn’t seem plausible to some. Was he really the confidante of John Kennedy he claims to have been, or was he just a savvy media operator who-like many other “Kennedy friends” and “Kennedy experts” who surfaced within minutes of the first reports that the Piper Saratoga was missing-knew that the press was ravenous for any first-person account of a supposed recent Kennedy encounter?

Interviews with sources at George magazine indicate that, if Mr. Heymann was acquainted with Mr. Kennedy, they did not know about it. And a source with knowledge of Lauren Bessette’s travel plans told The Observer that she did not ask Mr. Kennedy for a ride to the Vineyard until Monday, July12-five days after Mr. Kennedy purportedly complained to Mr. Heymann about having to bring her along. .....

American Legacy: The Story of John & Caroline Kennedy

books.google.com Clemens David Heymann - 2008 - 608 pages - Preview

....JFK Jr. was still in the CAM Walker on Wednesday morning, July 14,

when he and Carolyn summoned Empire Executive Car and Limousine service

of Manhattan to pick them up at home and deliver them to the Paramount

Plaza Building, 1633 Broadway, where George maintained of- fice space on

the forty-firts, floor; Hachette's corporate offices were lo- cated in the same building....

....Following the Robin Hood breakfast, Carolyn went shopping for a blouse

at Bergdorf Goodman, then picked up her sister Lauren at the midtown

Manhattan offices of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, where she worked as a financial analyst and senior executive in its Asian depart- ment. A Wharton

business school graduate, conversant in Mandarin Chinese, Lauren had joined the investment firm seven years earlier as a trainee in its Hong Kong division....

....The Empire car assigned to Carolyn dropped off the Bessette sisters at the Stanhope Hotel, Fifth Avenue and 83rd Street. .....At 1:30 p.m. John joined his wife and sister-in-law for lunch in the hotel cafe. ...The conversation soon shifted to the coming weekend and Rory Kennedy's wedding. Lauren, currently dating John's cousin Robert (bobby) Shriver III, planned to meet up with him on Martha's Vineyard. Not entirely convinced that she wanted to fly with John, she had reserved round-trip shuttle tickets for herself aboard Continental, one of a handful of commercial airlines that made regurlarly scheduled flight to and from the Vineryard.

To Martin Nordquist, an engineering consultant seated with his wife Nora at an adjacent table, it was evident that Lauren had serious misgiv- ings about making the flight with John and Carolyn, particularly since John had decided to pilot the aircraft himself. "It was widely known and reported in the press, " said Norquist, "that John was unreliable ....." According to Norquist, Carolyn quickly came to her husband's de- fense, pointing out that he'd flown to Martha's Vineyard and the Cape on numerous occasions that summer. When Lauren argued that they'd always had a certified flight instructor aboard, Carolyn grew short- tempered and told her sister that they were doing her a favor to fly her to the Vineyard. After a poing Lauren relented--she understood John's desire to pilot his own plane and agreed to accompany them.

Having hashed out the details of the flight, John and Carolyn began to smooch a bit....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Time, Inc. writer Lance Morrow is not placed at the scene when police first arrived, so why did he write this?

http://www.smithsoni...html?c=y&page=1

This guy from The Netherlands has a strange theory: http://letsrollforum...9&postcount=370

I can appreciate a joke as well as the next guy, can you tell me what is going on with this?

http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=237346&postcount=474

....The same theme returns here: "Please, don't start researching the case of Florence Pritchett..."

When you read this entire post by "Jonathan Wendland" with that typical posting pattern by Lee Israel in mind, then it becomes clear that it's in fact Lee Israel posting under that name. Please note the details she is able to give about Kilgallen/Pritchett and the "corrections" of Israel's earlier posts. it's written in the same style and attitude. ....

When I checked the I.P.'s used by members in the threads at the links below, sure enough, these three members posted from

the same I.P.'s, as follows, and in other instances.:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2358entry22573

Yarnell and Israel - (IP: 81.105.51.16)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3382entry23164

Wendland - (IP: 206.170.106.240)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3832&st=0&p=27917entry27917

Yarnell - (IP: 206.170.106.240)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2961&st=0&p=22238entry22238

Yarnell - (IP: 206.170.104.57)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3382entry23255

Israel - (IP: 206.170.104.57)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3382entry23260

Wendland - (IP: 206.170.104.57)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I find these quotes interesting...

Mary Meyer was not so fortunate. In April 1964, she was shot and killed by homeless man as she walked along the C&O canal in Georgetown, the victim of what seems to have been a random street crime. Jim Angleton immediately went to Meyer’s house and seized (then later destroyed) her diary, which detailed her romance with the late president. The canny spymaster knew full well that the details of JFK’s relationships with other women were politically sensitive and historically important. Mimi Alford’s brave book confirms the point.

In March, 1976, James Truitt, a former senior member of staff at the Washington Post, gave an interview to the National Enquirer. Truitt told the newspaper that Meyer was having an affair with John F. Kennedy when he was assassinated. He also claimed that Meyer had told his wife, Ann Truitt, that she was keeping an account of this relationship in her diary. Meyer asked Truitt to take possession of a private diary "if anything ever happened to me".

Ann Truitt was living in Tokyo at the time that Meyer was murdered on 12th October, 1964. She phoned Bradlee at his home and asked him if he had found the diary. Bradlee, who claimed he was unaware of his sister-in-law's affair with Kennedy, knew nothing about the diary. He later recalled what he did after Truitt's phone-call: "We didn't start looking until the next morning, when Tony and I walked around the corner a few blocks to Mary's house. It was locked, as we had expected, but when we got inside, we found Jim Angleton, and to our complete surprise he told us he, too, was looking for Mary's diary."

James Angleton, CIA counterintelligence chief, admitted that he knew of Mary's relationship with John F. Kennedy and was searching her home looking for her diary and any letters that would reveal details of the affair. According to Ben Bradlee, it was Mary's sister, Antoinette Bradlee, who found the diary and letters a few days later. It was claimed that the diary was in a metal box in Mary's studio. The contents of the box were given to Angleton who claimed he burnt the diary. Angleton later admitted that Mary recorded in her diary that she had taken LSD with Kennedy before "they made love".

http://www.spartacus...k/JFKmeyerM.htm

And particularly this quote...

In 1962 Mary made contact with Timothy Leary, the director of research projects at Harvard University. Leary supplied LSD to Mary who used it with Kennedy. Leary also claimed that Mary helped influence Kennedy's views on nuclear disarmament and rapprochement with Cuba. It was later discovered that the FBI was keeping a file on Mary. Later, James Angleton, head of counterintelligence at the CIA admitted that the agency was bugging Mary's telephone and bedroom during this period.

http://www.spartacus...k/JFKmeyerM.htm

So the CIA was bugging Mary's telephone and bedroom in the years before the murder of John F. Kennedy. Its interesting they bugged the bedroom.

And we are to believe the CIA then killed Mary Meyer to get her diary and shut her up so she would not blab about her affair with the president?

And why James Angleton?

I do believe that someone thought there might be something in that diary to be concerned about. But I do not think it was the affair.

And, it is not hard for me to think that someone thought that Mary knew something about the motive for the murder of JFK that was a threat to them.

But I am not convinced it was the CIA.

Regarding Ray Crump....

Lets assume there were 5 white people on the jury. If Ray Crump was found not guilty then all 12 jurors agreed to that, which means that all 5 white people on the jury agreed he was not guilty. If there was anything at all that would have convicted Ray Crump there would have been a hung jury(imo)

So Mary Pinchot Meyer and John Kennedy were engaging in pillow talk about nuclear non-proliferation. And James Angleton was bugging her bedroom and looking for her diary.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest Tom Scully
http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=238826&postcount=543

Re: The "JFK-MURDER" was a STAGED EVENT / JFK wasn't "KILLED" on 11/22/63!

November 9, 2012...Mark O'Blazney MEETS Culto!

.....Obviously, we are looking forward to the 2012 Lancer Conference where Peter Janney will have to defend his book Mary's Mosaic. Hopefully those discussions and debates will be put online as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...