Jump to content
The Education Forum
Guest Tom Scully

Peter Janney interviewed by Dr. Jim Fetzer, new ground, or new low?

Recommended Posts

Guest Tom Scully

Today, a new 5 stars review by:

http://www.amazon.co...e=&nodeID=&tag=

5.0 out of 5 stars A litmus test for JFK research integrity, August 20, 2012

By

James H. Fetzer (Oregon, WI USA)

This review is from: Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace (Hardcover)

Some issues within JFK research represent litmus tests that separate the competent from the frivolous, the courageous from the cowardly, and the honest from the dishonest, where some estimates have gone so far as to suggest that as much as 95% of members of the JFK research community are promoting an agenda to sow confusion and uncertainty, even in those cases where the evidence for a conclusion has made the question beyond reasonable doubt, precisely because, once the evidence has been properly understood, no alternative explanation is reasonable.

That, I submit, is the case in relation to the fabrication of the Zapruder film and the other home movies, as I have documented over and over again. The 60 witnesses to the limo stop, a series of actions taken by Clint Hill, Officer James Chaney's motoring forward (none of which are present in the extant film) and the blacking out of the fist-sized wound at the back of JFK's head in frames after 313 (but where the wound itself can actually be seen in later frames such as 374)-serves as a litmus test that differentiates between researchers who are competent, courageous and honest from those who are not.

Another now appears to be the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer, where the evidence of CIA complicity in her death, as in the assassination of JFK, persuasively presented by Peter Janney in Mary's Mosaic (2012), is simply overwhelming. I submit that anyone who reads this book is going to be astonished at the depth, the passion and the intelligence with which it has been written-and the rigor and detail with which it explains her assassination by the CIA. .....

.....Subsequently, a man who identified himself as "Lt. William L. Mitchell", who claimed to have been jogging on the towpath and to have passed by a person fitting the description that Wiggins had provided (but whose name and identity would turn out to be fabrications), likewise described him as a Negro male, wearing a baseball cap, a light-colored jacked and dark shoes (Mary's Mosaic, pp. 61-62)......

.....Lisa Pease, the closest collaborator of Jim DiEugenio, begins her review as follows: "Peter Janney wrote a book entitled Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and their Vision for World Peace. "From the subtitle, researchers can be forgiven for thinking that Janney's book is a serious contribution to our side, as many of us believe that the CIA killed John Kennedy in part because he was trying to end the Cold War and rein in covert operations.

"But Janney's book is such a frustrating mix of fact, fiction, speculation and unverifiable data that I (Lisa Pease) cannot recommend this book. Indeed, I'd rather it came with a warning label attached" (CTKA review). However, having investigated more than one strange death myself, I (Jim Fetzer) must say that I find these introductory passages both grotesque and irresponsible.

Given the consideration that, by the end of Mary's Mosaic, the actual assassin had actually confessed and explained in detail how it had been done and that Peter Janney has convincingly established the complicity of the CIA-which had to silence Mary Meyer, because she was uncovering its role in the assassination of JFK and was in a position to do something about it-I find her complaints to be virtually incomprehensible.......

.....Indeed, it is inconceivable to me that anyone who has actually read the book completely to its end, where crucial aspects of what Peter Janney reports there about uncovering the actual plot to murder Mary Pinchot Meyer are presented, could continue to regard Ray Crump as anyone other than the "patsy".

Since those include the detailed confession of the actual assassin, who was the very "Lt. William L. Mitchell", who explains how it had been done, including the use of spotters and luring the auto repair man to the scene to witness Mary's screams, I am baffled how anyone could entertain reasonable doubts about it.

There is no reasonable alternative explanation for what happened to Mary and, instead of attempting to debunk his landmark research, she and her associate ought to be touting it as a major contribution to JFK research, which I would liken to an insider's view that confirms the findings of Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997).

What also stuns me is that I find a pattern emerging from the work of Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugeio. I have had several encounters with Jim over the years, one of which occurred some time back on an extended thread devoted to Judyth Vary Baker, who has authored Me & Lee (2010).......

Do not permit the facts to interfere with your mission, Dr. Fetzer. You seem to enjoy accusing people on the slimmest grounds, even at great expense to your own credibility and reputation.

Last July, I had read this "outburst" and reasoned that Peter Janney's "facts" related to Crump trial witness Lt. William L. Mitchell were too weak to support the accusations Janney made against Mitchell in Janney's book asserting that the CIA most likely murdered Mary Meyer.

http://lewrockwell.c...anney3.1.1.html

The Autodafé of Lisa Pease and James DiEugenio

Tomas de Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition return in a new era of suppression of freedom of thought and adherence to a rigid dogma - namely their own prejudices!

by Peter Janney

Recently by Peter Janney:

Mary's Mosaic: Chapter One

...In addition, Ms. Pease can’t even seem to fathom or consider how "Lt. William L. Mitchell," a man who told police he was jogging on the towpath when he passed Mary Meyer – allegedly just before the murder took place – told police that a "Negro male" matching Wiggins’ description was following her in an effort to frame Ray Crump. "Mitchell" would then testify against Crump at the murder trial nine months later in July 1965 as part of the CIA’s assassination operation. It doesn’t seem to matter to Pease that "Mitchell" has never been able to be located since the trial, or that his known address during that time was documented as a "CIA safe house" by three separate former CIA employees. At the time of trial in July 1965, Mitchell told a reporter that he had since retired from the military and was now a mathematics instructor at Georgetown University – yet no record of his employment there could ever be located, nor was there ever any bona-fide military service record located for "Mitchell," either in the Pentagon where he was listed in the directory at the time of the murder, or in the main military data base in St. Louis. This was thoroughly researched by the Peabody Award-winning journalist Roger Charles, as discussed in my book, a fact that Pease fails to mention in one of her many deliberate omissions, which also included Damore’s consultation with L. Fletcher Prouty (as documented by Damore’s attorney James H. Smith) to finally understand who "Mitchell" was, before Damore confronted him. Of course, Lisa Pease is entitled to whatever flawed point of view she wants to embrace, but she’s not entitled to her own set of facts.

The rest of Pease’s long-winded misstatements criticizing author Leo Damore, Timothy Leary, Robert Morrow, Gregory Douglas and other sources who I attempted to unravel – explicitly noting their deficiencies and limitations – completely obfuscates the clarity of the emerging picture: Placed in a larger context, and juxtaposed with firm documentation, the aggregate unfolding scenario clearly indicates that Mary Meyer’s life was ended by a CIA assassination. But in the Pease-DiEugenio fantasy world, people are either all white or all black, complete truth-tellers or liars, completely reliable or unreliable. There are no shades of grey; there is no ambiguity; and there is no room for the analysis of intricacy and complexity. ...

In late November, Peter Janney tells Dr. Jim Fester that Tom Scully attempted to discredit him, Janney posturing as if he is some sort of innocent victim, at a disadvantage because "the Google" had not evolved when Janney's research ended in 2008, to the high functional state it has evolved to now, an environment in which Janney was able to easily verify the background details about William L. Mitchell.

Janney's new theory, with the hearty endorsement of Dr. Jim Fetzer, is that William L. Mitchell went into deep cover and eluded detection, starting about 1973, by altering his name to "just Bill" Mitchell!

In the interview with Dr. Jim Fetzer described below, Janney relates that less than three weeks after I posted accurate information about the background of William L. Mitchell, Janney was knocking on Mitchell's door in California, but demonstrates no curiousity as to how this Mitchell could be a man in his 70's, when Janney published that the Mitchell that Leo Damore said he met was 74 years old and had 5 children. (Damore has been dead since 1995.)

I will let "Culto," a poster on another forum who Len Colby described as someone who impairs the credibility of the CT community, take it from here. (I right clicked on this link, ...and downloaded/saved the podcast file as "all files" and played the Peter Janney interview by Dr. Jim Feter on Realplayer. )

http://letsrollforum...-t23127p55.html

by Culto - 5 Dec 2012 , 11:21 AM

..........The last post was meant as an introduction for all the news expected to come from this year's Lancer JFK Conference.

With participants like Jim DiEugenio and Peter Janney, one might expect lots of posting at the JFK forums and blogs about the results and conclusions of their heated debates about, for instance, the Mary Meyer Murder Mystery.

Well, so far nothing (at all!) was posted or published in any other way. And that's just bizarre, isn't it? With the 50th Aniversary Year only one month away. That just makes you wonder why that would be.

With that in mind, it was absolutely baffling to stumble upon this recent podcast topic at Jim Fetzer's blog:

http://radiofetzer.b....l#comment-form

It's a November 21, 2012 interview with Peter Janney by Jim Fetzer. What could be special about that anyway? Janney and Fetzer became pals; they decided to unite all their 'forces and capabilities' regarding their Mary Pinchot Meyer "research."

One of the results of their combined activities was that terrible Litmus Test article, analyzed in this thread as well.

Now take a seat before reading this. This summer Janney decided to do some more research and guess what:

Peter Janney claims he actually MET William L. Mitchell, the alleged assassin of Mary Pinchot Meyer!

Anybody interested in the MPM Murder Mystery should spend some time on this and listen to the first hour of this podcast.

This entire interview is too bizarre to describe; at first it sounds like some kind of spoof fake interview. Until you realize this is the real deal: Janney and Fetzer regard it as a serious project, albeit that Fetzer was obviously drunk throughout this recording...

But who cares? It's about the content after all. And the content of this interview is shocking. It's absolutely fascinating to hear how Janney and Fetzer attempted to deal with the criticism on Mary's Mosaic, which was published in April this year.

Do yourself a favor and go to the 20.43 marker in Fetzer's podcast:

- Peter Janney recorded his short meeting with William Mitchell at the frontdoor of his house in northern California.

- "Mitchell's" voice can be heard as well; he rejects Janney's request to talk with him, before he closes the door.

- Janney claims this happened on August 27 of this year.

- At the beginning of this podcast Janney explains how he and his professional research assistant Roger Charles found out about "Mitchell's" address in California: through additional research this summer at the Hayward University, among others.

- Janney decided to continue searching for this all-important "Mitchell" identity, based on Tom Scully's findings posted after the release of Mary's Mosaic...

- For Janney bluntly admits in this interview at 4.48 that the last time he did a Google search on "Mitchell" was in 2008...

Yes, almost four years before Mary's Mosaic was published.

- And Janney presented his new research at....this year's Lancer Conference!

No kidding, it's all in this podcast; it's Peter Janney himself who tells it. When listening to this Janney/Fetzer interview, one of the first questions to pop up, is obviously:

Why didn't Janney go all over the internet, screaming out loud: "We've found Mary's CIA killer! I met him personally!"

So far, he hasn't even posted a simple link to this Fetzer podcast at his own Media Events Page...icon_scratch.gif

Janney didn't even run to the Education and Deeppolitcs forums to inform all his 'opponents' about his amazing, mindblowing new research. Jim Fetzer, on his turn, still hasn't posted anything about his new pal's findings besides that podcast topic at his own blog...

Speaking about Janney's 'opponents' present at this year's Lancer Conference, Jim DiEugenio: ....

My questions for Peter Janney are, what did you write about William L. Mitchell in your book, Mary's Mosaic, that was accurate? Do you really assert that Mitchell successfully hid himself from you and your "investigators" by simply changing his name to "Bill L. Mitchell"?

BTW, in your interview with Dr. Fetzer, recorded just two weeks ago, you emphasize that you checked thoroughly and that there is no record of Mitchell at Harvard in 1963, or ever. Dr. Fetzer then speculates that Mitchell's academic record was most likely "purged." Mr. Janney, I did not discredit you. You discredited yourself by making statements about William L. Mitchell for a number of years, then by publishing these absurd statements in a book, and of course, by embracing and hyping Leo Damore's assertion that Damore met Mitchell when Mitchell was 74 years of age, in the early 1990's.

Now you state that you have Mitchell's D.O.B., in the year 1939. You have it because I found it and provided it to you.

Isn't it time yet for you to think before you speak or write? Mr. Janney, have you no shame, or do facts no longer matter in the alternate universe you and Dr. Fetzer make your homes in?

https://post.harvard...___HAA___338207

Registration Step 3.

Name William Mitchell Name As Student Mitchell State/Province CA Country Degree Master of Science School Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Class Year 1963

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Egad! Peter Janney actually tracks him down and confronts him--

and Tom Scully STILL isn't satisfied. Here's the link to listen to us

for yourself. A man who would deliberately misspell my name is

not someone who ought to be taken seriously in a case like this.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2012

Peter Janney / Ralph Cinque

Mary Meyer's Assassin / Oswald in Doorway

http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-janney%20cinque%20JFK%202012.mp3

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Jim it's unfair to misspell his name. My praise was directed at picking apart a book. Insults only do harm, both to the person insulted and to the point being made because they display bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

I do not understand Tom Scully. This is a brilliant book that links together the CIA, the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer, and the assassination of JFK. It is not only thoroughly researched but beautifully written. Certainly, neither Scully nor Schweitzer has any accomplishment to their name that can compare--even remotely! Scully introduced a straw man by suggesting that Peter should be doing EVEN MORE than he already is doing. This is a combination of moving the goal posts and exaggerating a position to make it easier to attack. He has even discovered that "William L. Mitchell" had his name legally changed to "Bill L. Mitchell", which is extremely suspicious all on its own. I initially thought that Scully was trying to be helpful by sharing what he had dug up about "William L. Mitchell". But his motives appear to have been of a different character entirely. Every word of my review of MARY'S MOSAIC is true. Virtually everything Scully says about it is not. Scully's "hatchet job" has no justification.

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed Mary's Mosaic and think Mary Pinchot's story is interesting. I think that Tom made some good points.

Question for Tom: Is it your opinion that the info you dug up is sufficient to discredit Janney's book? Do you have any other findings about mr. Mitchell that disprove the other allegations about him, such as documentation of his Georgetown U. Post, or that he stayed at a CIA-connected hotel? Are you sure that the William Mitchell who graduated Harvard in 1963 is the same one that testified in the Pinchot murder trial? Is Bill Mitchell of California the same man that testified?

I would also ask the same questions of Fetzer and Janney, if he is tuning in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The JFK sex-smear campaign has been carefully orchestrated. The Mary Meyer story, like the Judith Exner story (which continually changes), is a fabrication. I highly recommend a 1997 article by James DiEugenio, a top-tier expert with unquestionable ethics, “The Posthumous Assassination of JFK: 
Judith Exner, Mary Meyer, and Other Daggers.” The link: http://www.copi.com/articles/probe/pr997_jfk.html.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

I enjoyed Mary's Mosaic and think Mary Pinchot's story is interesting. I think that Tom made some good points.

Question for Tom: Is it your opinion that the info you dug up is sufficient to discredit Janney's book? Do you have any other findings about mr. Mitchell that disprove the other allegations about him, such as documentation of his Georgetown U. Post, or that he stayed at a CIA-connected hotel? Are you sure that the William Mitchell who graduated Harvard in 1963 is the same one that testified in the Pinchot murder trial? Is Bill Mitchell of California the same man that testified?

I would also ask the same questions of Fetzer and Janney, if he is tuning in.

Paul,

I am in a position to reply to some of your questions now.

It has just been brought to my attention (cudos to Culto) that Peter Janney has sunk to a new, lower, low I could not have anticipated, despite my low opinion of him and his book.

This presentation by Janney apparently was recorded on 11 April, just two weeks ago.

At the 37:00 mark, he is talking about Crump trial witness, William L. Mitchell.

Janney (at 37:30) "....In his testimony at trial, Mitchell attempts to frame Ray Crump."

Janney (at 38:30) "...That allegedly sparked a telephone conversation between the two at the end

of March, in 1993, where Mitchell told Damore how Mary Meyer had been

murdered in what he termed was a CIA operation. Despite many years of searching it was not until last summer that the trail of William L. Mitchell.... this is in August, 2012 now, had become known. I promptly brought this information to my chief intelligence researcher, Roger Charles, who enlisted the support of another Pulitzer nominated investigative reporter by the name of Don Devereaux. What we uncovered was that William L Mitchell entered Cornell University....

Again...thanks to for the image capture from Janney's 11 April, presentation.:

MitchellJanneyGoogel.jpg

Two parting comments: In his book, Janney does not use the word, "alleged" with regard to one of the pillars of his book, the belief that William L. Mitchell was a CIA assassin using an alais who Leo Damore was able to obtain a confession from on the telephone and then meet in person, soon after.:

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

books.google.com/books?isbn=162087282X

Peter Janney - 2012 - Preview - More editions

However, Jimmy Smith has aided the author in the reconstruction and interpretation of his notes from Damore's The time of Damore's call, according to Smith, was between. account of his conversation with Mitchell. to 1500 Arlington Boulevard .

And on 18 March, just last month, I received an unsolicited email from Peter Janney's "chief intelligence researcher," Roger Charles, describing his long effort to locate background on William L. Mitchell and asking me to explain to him how I had been able to come up with such information about Mitchell. I replied to Mr. Charles with a concise explanation of how I had obtained my Mitchell information and he replied by thanking me and assuring me that Peter Janney was appreciative of learning the identity and background of Mitchell and that a new edition of Mary's Mosaic would be published with an update about Mitchell's background.

Paul, I have no reason to doubt that the Bill L. Mitchell in Berkeley,CA was the same Mitchell who testified at the Crump trial in July, 1965. Replying to your question about discrediting Janney's book, I think Janney himself is much more flawed than his book is. But, I think Doug Horne summed up the situation quite well. I think there is a cult like belief system related to the Mary's Mosaic as a whole.

The five star reviews for the book still pour in at Amazon.com despite what I uncovered, and despite

what Janney has done to his own reputation resulting from his interview statements with Jim Fetzer last November, and now in the 11 April presentation.

5.0 out of 5 stars A Masterpiece of Biography and a Mesmerizing Detective Story, April 1, 2012

By Douglas (Falls Church, VA, United States) - See all my reviews

(REAL NAME)

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

This review is from: Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace (Hardcover)

Written byDouglas P. Horne, author of "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board"

Web Page: insidethearrb

.... Are you a third party surrogate (or a direct employee) working for the USG whose mission here is to attempt to discredit the confession of a hit-man? The readers of your book review here will not have forgotten that William L. Mitchell (or someone identifying himself as this person) confessed to author Leo Damore---William L. Mitchell himself told Damore that he was Mary Meyer's murderer. This event is well-documented in Janney's book.

Your attempt to suggest otherwise, via your citations, conveniently ignores this vital fact. Peter Janney has not identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer "because Mitchell could not be found," as you claim; rather, he has identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer because Mitchell confessed this to Damore. All the citations in the world will not erase this fact.

Your citations seem to me like the kind of detailed biographical information that would be maintained by the same "outfit" that would have maintained Mitchell's operational file at the Agency. Who the hell else would know these things? What ordinary reader would have the ability to look up and find the citations you so conveniently found?

If the William L. Mitchell you cite did not kill Mary Meyer in 1964, then perhaps his identity was highjacked---stolen---circa 1964, by the covert operations ("wet") arm of the Agency---and used by the hitman.

......If this William L. Mitchell didn't kill Mary Meyer, why isn't he raising hell about Janney's book? We certainly haven't heard a peep from him, now, have we?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed Mary's Mosaic and think Mary Pinchot's story is interesting. I think that Tom made some good points.

Question for Tom: Is it your opinion that the info you dug up is sufficient to discredit Janney's book? Do you have any other findings about mr. Mitchell that disprove the other allegations about him, such as documentation of his Georgetown U. Post, or that he stayed at a CIA-connected hotel? Are you sure that the William Mitchell who graduated Harvard in 1963 is the same one that testified in the Pinchot murder trial? Is Bill Mitchell of California the same man that testified?

I would also ask the same questions of Fetzer and Janney, if he is tuning in.

Paul,

I am in a position to reply to some of your questions now.

It has just been brought to my attention (cudos to Culto) that Peter Janney has sunk to a new, lower, low I could not have anticipated, despite my low opinion of him and his book.

This presentation by Janney apparently was recorded on 11 April, just two weeks ago.

At the 37:00 mark, he is talking about Crump trial witness, William L. Mitchell.

Janney (at 37:30) "....In his testimony at trial, Mitchell attempts to frame Ray Crump."

Janney (at 38:30) "...That allegedly sparked a telephone conversation between the two at the end

of March, in 1993, where Mitchell told Damore how Mary Meyer had been

murdered in what he termed was a CIA operation. Despite many years of searching it was not until last summer that the trail of William L. Mitchell.... this is in August, 2012 now, had become known. I promptly brought this information to my chief intelligence researcher, Roger Charles, who enlisted the support of another Pulitzer nominated investigative reporter by the name of Don Devereaux. What we uncovered was that William L Mitchell entered Cornell University....

The video you have posted only goes to the 27th minute. Could you give us the link to the rest of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "search algorithms" in Google?

This guy is so determined to have everyone forget his original claim, namely that Mitchell had disappeared from the face of the earth.

Then Tom finds him thereby throwing cold water over that claim.

Now, Janney tries to find an excuse for Tom doing what he could not, and this is what he comes up with?

Wow.

He and Horne have a mutual support pact on Amazon by the way. Horne came out with that stupid five star blurb for Janney and now Janney protects Horne from Livingstone's book.

Hard to believe Horne needs any help from anyone defending himself from Livingston's Kalaidoscope. Admitedly, I have not read Kalaidoscope, but have waded through hundreds of pages of Livingston's earlier works and on that basis I think Horne can sleep at night. Livingston has been, and probably always will be, his own worst enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

...........

The video you have posted only goes to the 27th minute. Could you give us the link to the rest of it?

I have experienced no problem playing later portions of the video at the link I posted, on my laptop and in the browser on my

Android phone. Possibly the difficulty you are experiencing is IP (geography sensitive controls) or internet provider related.

Here is a link to the list of videos uploaded to youtube by this source.:

http://www.youtube.com/user/nctvcommunity?feature=watch Peter Janney's 11 April video displays third from the top. There

is a crude transcript option that helps somewhat to located various points Peter Janney covered.

He talked of initiating a wrongful death civil suit against William L Mitchell in the State of California later this year. I would expect he

would need to show standing and he would be challenged to prove in court that he is an injured party. One of Mary Meyer's survivors might be able to overcome the standing hurdles, but then there would be the matter of evidence.

In the November podcast with Jim Fetzer, both Peter and Jim stated that it was a problem that they could find no record of Mitchell

earning a Masters of Science degree at Harvard in 1963. In this presentation Peter does not mention Harvard. When an audience member questions Peter near the end of the video, Peter confirms that the Mitchell he confronted in Berkeley late last August is definitely the Crump trial witness, a fit man in his 70's who knows how to take care of himself, "he is a runner," Janney states.

I've posted before about a conflict triggered by Janney's August, 2012, "discovery" of a very different William L. Mitchell.

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

books.google.com/books?isbn=162087282X

Peter Janney - 2012 - Preview - More editions

Mitchell, said Damore, had confessed to him a few hours earlier that morning: The murder of Mary Meyer had been “a CIA operation” in which Mitchell had been the assassin.24 “Mitchellconfirmed that his name, “William L. Mitchell,” was an alias and that he now lived under another alias in Virginia. He said his position at the Pentagon in 1964 had been just “a light bulb job,” a cover for covert intelligence work. He had done stints in the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy, he told Damore, all of which were also part of his cover, and he had also been “an FBI man” when circumstances required it. His listed residence at 1500 Arlington Boulevard in Arlington, Virginia, Mitchell told Damore, was in fact a CIA safe house. He was now seventy-four years old and had five children. It had been “an operation,” Mitchell disclosed....."

51:38 Janney: "well if he (Mitchell) was in a witness protection program, he wouldn't have the SAME NAME, and he's still using, you

know...the name, and he...."

Female from the Audience: "The guy you confronted at the house, was he Bill, or was he William?

51:50 Janney: "Well, both, Bill is William.."

Female from the Audience: "I know he is but I mean, do you know that in his current incarnation at the door....was he Bill or William,

was he still using both names?"

52:02 Janney: "He didn't say, we didn't get that far, he shut the door in my face. But you see, he..he knows he's being cornered, he's not going to talk, his brother (Janney said earlier William's brother's name is James Mitchell) isn't going to talk. Clearly there is a dirty little family secret, and so, one of the things that I will probably end up doing before the end of the year is filing a civil wrongful death..uh..lawsuit against him ...uh...in the State of California.

(Same) Female from the Audience: "But the other thing was, you said he didn't look like a 70 year old plus, man."

52:34 Janney: "....no he....yeah, I mean he's...he's a fit 70 year old, he's lean he's trim, you know, he's a runner, uh ..he knows how to take fairly good care of

(Same) Female from the Audience: "But he is age appropriate...?"

52:34 Janney: "Yeah, yeah, it's the same guy, for sure..."

If you listen to and consider Janney's whole presentation, and I started at about the 25:00 minute mark, the theme that has not change from what is published in the book, "Mary's Mosaic," is that Leo Damore and Dovey Roundtree considered the Crump murder trial witness, William L. Mitchell to be suspicious. This was reinforced by assertions that Mitchell had disappeared without a trace after he testified at the trial for the purpose of trying to "frame" defendant Ray Crump. Now Janney stresses that he and his researchers are unable to locate military records of William L. Mitchell and Janney uses the example of Robert Gates being recruited by CIA in graduate school and then rising to head the CIA much later in his career. Janney stresses over and over that Mitchell is a mystery man who abandoned using the name William and began using "Bill," motivated by Janney's theory that the name change happened just before the U.S. House and the Senate commenced hearings about rogue intelligence agency operations.

Gone is anything that can be compared to Leo Damore's claims about William L. Mitchell, only an alias, and one of many employed in a long career by a man Damore stated was 74 years of age in late March, 1993!

Thus, the portion of Janney's presentation and Q&A related to William L. Mitchell is presently incoherent compared to what Janney

has published in his book, yet the purpose of the presentation was obviously damage control in reaction to the fact that there is a REAL William L. Mitchell with a long academic background and career recited by Janney himself, except for the omission of Mitchell's year at Harvard. Janney stated that the book has sold only 17,000 copies and he is disappointed but is launching a new campaign to influence the U.S. DOJ and the media, with the help of a high profile lawyer who does not yet want to reveal publicly that he is working on this matter.

John, you've never posted a reaction to "all this," a departure from your posted mentions of Janney's prepublication efforts and of related, highly influential details associated with the research of Leo Damore. I may have misinterpreted the one comment you made when you appeared to favor the arguments posted by Michael Hogan and Robert Charles-Dunne last August.

In just two minutes, in the Q&A excerpt I've quoted above, it seems to me that Peter Janney himself completely discredited the details he published and attributed to Leo Damore that I posted quotes of from Janney's book. I hope you will at some point post your take on Janney's change of course and whether you are inclined to remove references to Damore's influence in this matter from any of your Spartacus pages.

Incidentally, Janney's explanation that Mitchell abadoned use of William in 1973 and exclusively used "Bill" to avoid detection brushes up against -

The Berkeley Engineering Alumni Directory - Page 225

books.google.com/books?id=f6V8AAAAIAAJ

1987 - Snippet view

MITCHELL, Dr. William L; 70 PhD IE;.......

....as just one example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this mean he would have to be 94 now?

Does a lot of running right?

As per Mr. Gallup, this is the second time you have commented obliquely on my review.

Livingstone, in many ways. is his own worst enemy. But as he points out in his book, so is Horne. And for Horne to have jumped up to declare Janney's book a masterpiece with the very first review shows one side of the support system.

For Janney to scratch his back by returning the favor shows the other half. Those are just facts.

Your review of Livingston stands or falls on its own merits regardless of the alleged symbiotic relationship between Janney and Horne. I would think a new thread on Boyajian would be most timely and warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your review of Livingston stands or falls on its own merits

Fine, and I agree.

But to say that there is no relationship between the two in a mutual protection racket is just ignorance.

Daniel, let me ask you something:

Do you have any real interest in this case outside of body hijacking or Z film alteration?

If you do, you sure do hide it well.

My review of LIvingstone was quite complete and expansive and fair. Each section was labeled with whatever rubric was applicable. But because I didn't do a hatchet job on him, like Janney did, you are not satisfied. RIght?

DId you read Kaleidoscope?

Did you read my book?

Jim, I am working on a book on differential equations and working full-time as a math instructor at a local community college, as well as a church musician. All that takes time. I had every intention of reading Janney's book but have not had time yet to give it a go. As for your review of Kaleidoscope, I shall have to give it a good read and get back to you. Because Livingston has demonstrated unstable psychological tendencies and is subject to an inveterate hatred of Lifton, and because I have read High Treason II, I feel no particular urge to spend any money aiding his cause. Reading Livingston makes me want to take a mental shower. I would rather read him through your review. Also, my interests in the case are primarily on medical issues, which is why I have not taken time to read your book, which, by all accounts, is a splendid piece or work, for which you are to be congratulated. May I add, Horne's work, though full of speculation, is to me quite an admirable work in trying to wrestle with contradictions, timelines, etc. More later when I have time. Best, daniel

Share this post


Link to post
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...