Robert Charles-Dunne

14-6

I haven’t missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine. There is much evidence open to debate, because it can be construed more than one way. That’s fair game. It’s a difference of opinion that makes a horse race, they say. However, just as a recent example, Paul Trejo asserted that there were 20 witnesses to Oswald’s abuse of his wife Marina. Were he merely ignorant of the actual facts - which is a recurring pattern with him, as I’ve demonstrated - that doesn’t make him a xxxx; it merely means he’s wrong and needs to be corrected. In order to correct his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I meticulously searched through the testimony and demonstrated beyond doubt that most of the people Paul Trejo included in his “20" figure had no such direct first-hand knowledge and did not testify as he said they did. Nevertheless, and despite acknowledging the "20" figure was overstated, Paul Trejo thereafter still contended there were twenty witnesses. At this point, it is no longer a mistake - because he’s been shown and admitted the error of his ways - and is an outright falsehood. Fairly clear instance, wouldn’t you think? I raise the point because I think there is a parallel with the Janney episode. A few observations which I’ll try to keep brief. From the little bit of correspondence we’ve had during the eight years I’ve been a member here, I believe John Simkin to be a liberal egalitarian who felt he could construct the single best and most effective JFK site by inviting the best researchers and authors. A laudable goal, and one he achieved I think. (It is a measure of his liberalism that he has granted membership to persons such as Jim DiEugenio, who had written some unflattering things about John prior to joining here.) Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they’d be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don’t think this is John’s living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books. Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors’ part? This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney’s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I’m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book’s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney’s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.) Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney’s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer’s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don’t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney. I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney’s favour: “The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.” If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn’t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum’s raison d’etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be. Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here. I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear. (Edited for typo)

No need, John. It's already been done, several times. One of the JFK sewing circles even published an online directory in which members self-identified their areas of interest, so that the most problematic ones could be surveilled, to determine the extent of their progress. Purging members of the EF who advocate CIA involvement in the assassination won't do much to dispel such notions of your Agency sponsorship, however. You and I know they're not connected, but it helps keep such canards vibrantly alive in fevered imaginations.

Martin: I thought it was incumbent upon moderators to post an explanation of their actions in the "Moderator actions and guide for mods" section whenever a member has been "free speeched" into the ether. I, for one, would like to know what member Norman George has to say, and if denied that opportunity, I'd like to know why. It was hidden by a moderator for an ad hominen on David von Pein. Gary: Thanks for the explanation. Such transparency on your part is vital if the EF is to retain its reputation. Were it not for Martin's post, I'd have never known Norman posted something, and were it not for yours, I would not have known why it disappeared. There is no informed consent from those who are not properly informed. Thanks again. I do join Martin Hay, however, in requesting details as to precisely what infraction(s) led to the expulsion of two worthy members. Failing that, an explanation of why other members are allowed to remain despite having committed the same infractions or worse.

Martin: I thought it was incumbent upon moderators to post an explanation of their actions in the "Moderator actions and guide for mods" section whenever a member has been "free speeched" into the ether. I, for one, would like to know what member Norman George has to say, and if denied that opportunity, I'd like to know why.

If a lie posted here cannot be called a lie here, irrespective of who posts it, then the Forum has outlived its usefulness anyway. Rather than forbidding the posting of outright lies, what is forbidden is calling a lie a lie. Orwell is spinning. There is much outright crap posted here by dilettantes, agenda-driven shills and the historically-challenged - all considered fair game by moderators who fail to act - yet those who draw attention to the fact that it is outright crap are the ones “moderated.” The imbalance of moderation - letting David Lifton question the mental health of other members, but acing his victims when they respond in kind - is not “moderation;” it is sucking up and fawning of the most egregious sort. Those too faint of heart to man up when their hokum is rightly labeled as hokum should be shown the door. They waste everyone’s time, moderators included. That they are published authors means nothing; we've all read books that contribute nothing to the debate, but distract attention from the exploration of the most fruitful areas, even if they top the New York Times' bestsellers list. Such authors should and must be challenged, irrespective of who they are. I agree with John Simkin - for whom I have great respect - that this Forum has been on a downhill slide for some time. The moderators have done nothing to slow the decline, but actually contributed to it with their one-sided punishments. If it continues, the loss of one’s membership will be a badge of honour, rather than a slight. In closing, despite my occasional confrontations with him over evidence and how it is to be interpreted, I won't stay anywhere Jim DiEugenio is unwelcome.

That there was no cross-examination is simple to check. None of the lawyers cited as cousel to represent Oswald's interests ever rose to ask a single question. The game is given away by the status accorded by the Commission to these lawyers. When any of them was in attendance, which was sporadically at best, they were decribed for the record as "present" or as "observers." Not "defense counsel" or even particpants, mind - which one would be had one asked a single question - but mere observers of what transpired during the hearings. Here's the rigorous level of "cross examinaton" that Paul Trejo compares to a court proceeding, as explained by one of the fill-ins for Craig, et al, who were rarely present. Lewis E. Powell, Jr Vol. II - Page 294 Mr. Powell. Mr. Chairman, I think I might say just this: I am here representing Mr. Walter Craig, as I think the Commission understands. I have been here the last two days. In a conversation with Mr. Rankin yesterday morning we agreed that rather than my asking questions directly of witnesses, I would make suggestions to Mr. Ball or to one of his associates, and I have been following that practice yesterday and today, after consulting with Mr. Murray who is also here for Mr. Craig, and Mr. Ball and his associates have followed up these suggestions that we have made. Representative Ford. The suggestions you have made have been transmitted to Mr. Ball or his associates and have been asked of the various witnesses? Mr. Powell. That is correct. Representative Ford. Any other questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Whaley. So, the fact is that the so-called defense "cross-examination" was conducted by the prosecution, should Oswald's "appointed" "counsel" bother itself to "suggest" a question. Evidence of which is conspicuous by its absence. It is time-consuming to impart information to Paul Trejo given that there is so much he does not know, a process made all the more painful by his evasive alibis and repeated refusal to acknowledge how little he actually knows and understands about these things. Can we just start a thread called "Things That Paul Trejo Should Know, But Doesn't?" And disallow Paul Trejo to post in that thread? That way, we can just dump our explanations there without having to endure all the speculative conjecture - invariably incorrect - that arises in response.

Sorry, but that’s not even close to being true. Dulles was the fifth DCI, not the first, and was installed by Eisenhower, not Truman. The list from the CIA, itself: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/directors-of-central-intelligence-as-leaders-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community/chronology.htm Rear Adm. Sidney W. Souers, USNR Jan. 23, 1946–June 10, 1946 Lt. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, USA June 10, 1946–May 1, 1947 Rear Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, USN May 1, 1947–Oct. 7, 1950 Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, USA Oct. 7, 1950–Feb. 9, 1953 Allen W. Dulles Feb. 26, 1953–Nov. 29, 1961 That such an easily-detected falsehood is offered as fact renders suspect all other contentions, such as a few of the following examples: As for the purported abhorrence Dulles had for the Nazis, this did not prevent his law firm from representing Nazi-era German corporate interests, or US interests doing business with the Nazis, nor did it preclude him from using the salutation "Heil Hitler" in his correspondence with those German corporate interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_%26_Cromwell Anyone wishing to know more about the extent of the Dulles brothers’ collusion with Nazis and the nexus between it and the US corporate sector need only Google the words Dulles and Prescott Bush. Also recommended are two highly underrated books by Charles Higham, "American Swastika" and "Trading With the Enemy." Immediately after the war, Nazis who should have faced the gallows via Nuremberg were covertly exfiltrated to the United States, given military commissions and government jobs, and allowed to escape justice, courtesy of "Operation Paperclip." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip Despite President’s Truman’s explicit stipulation that Nazis were not to be brought Stateside, OSS and CIA nevertheless did an end run around that command. Apologists for this practice often state the necessity of keeping Nazi scientific advances out of Soviet hands required this disobedience of a Presidential order. Perhaps so. But the practice of shielding Nazis from the gallows also included more than mere scientists. To wit, the likes of Reinhard Gehlen, Alois Brunner and Otto Von Bolshwing, among many others, who were used by OSS/CIA until long after the war’s end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Gehlen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Brunner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bolschwing Dulles’ opinion of utilizing Nazis during the post-war period is perhaps found in his pithy patrician characterization of Gehlen: "I don't know if he's a rascal. There are few archbishops in espionage.... Besides, one needn't ask him to one's club." Yes, those pesky Nazis were possibly such "rascals," eh, wot? Hardly the sort with whom an Ivy League gentleman would wish to be seen breaking bread at the gentlemen’s club. More to the point of this Forum, Dulles was fully witting of CIA plots to assassinate foreign leaders, most pertinently Castro. In that Cuban escapade, the murder plots were undertaken not merely without the knowledge of Eisenhower (and then Kennedy), but against the expressed order by Kennedy forbidding it, once he became witting of it. Does that constitute a "great American?" What makes Dulles singular among Warren Commissioners was his knowledge of such CIA executive action attempts, and the implications they may have held for the solution of the Kennedy assassination mystery. Subsequently, the Rockefeller, Church, HSCA and Pike panels - all plumbing to some extent the JFK morass - thought those implications worthy of further probing. An honest broker would have disclosed this, in camera, to his fellow commissioners in 1963. Based on the extant record, Dulles did not. 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　

I have never fully understood why two researchers whom I both like and admire have such antipathy toward each other. They are welcome to it, I suppose, but it seems a damned shame that so much of their time and attention is now being squandered on bickering over personal slights when both could be contributing far more substantive posts that show their best attributes. I assume it is far too late to ask for cooler heads to prevail. But, likely foolishly, I will beg you both to reconsider what a furious food fight like this contributes to the poisoning notion that all of us are a little light in the head. Ironic that this exchange takes place in a thread titled The Danger Of Conspiracy Theories. You are two good men. Please, please, please consider that any man can argue endlessly, but the bigger man walks away. I intrude here solely because of my admiration for you both. End of Howdy Doody sermon.

Good questions, Greg. I assume it was Groden who captioned the photos. Perhaps his new book will expand upon that. As for the provenance of the photos, I assume they were taken on 11/22/63 because the traffic looks quite snarled. I likewise assume they were taken at the same time, because they both show that type of traffic, and because we see a white square-box truck in proximity to the bus in each. Taking John Dolva's sage advice about discerning time of day from shadows, it seems to my uninformed eye they were taken mid-day, showing the same type of shadow pattern as photos taken in Dealey Plaza at the same time of day. As for whether it was McWatters' bus, I would have to re-read extensively to determine whether: * McWatters was the only one to drive that route on that or any other day; * If another bus, covering another route, also travelled westward along Elm as part of its route. If no other Dallas transit buses ever travelled westward on that portion of Elm, then we know with some certainty it was the bus usually driven by McWatters, assuming no other driver ever covered his route on a day shift. I am assuming the Commission determined the bus photos were not "relevant" to the assassination for fear that somebody would raise the same questions I have. What are the odds that somebody unconnected to the case would taken photos of the TSBD after the assasination, plus the getaway bus that nobody knew the purported assassin was riding (twice!), plus the arrest of that purported assassin across town?

Hi Greg: I got that from Robert Groden's The Search For Lee Harvey Oswald, pages 120 and 121. Two previously unpublished photos, credited to Reed, show what the captions say are the McWatters bus. The first caption includes: "He was aboard the bus when this previously unpublished photograph was taken." The second photo's caption includes: "McWatters's bus was stuck in traffic on Elm Street." I would post them again, because they are good vivid colour shots, but my scanner is pooched. Reed photographed the TSBD after the assassination, and Oswald's capture at the Texas Theater. Some will say that the photos of the bus are irrelevant because Oswald wasn't on it. I would contend that, to the contrary, the fact that he photographed at least twice a bus that would only later be identified as Oswald's means of escape still tells us something about Reed's presence and purpose in Dallas. Think: of all the mundane traffic photos he might have taken, of all the buses in Dallas, he for no apparent reason squeezes off several shots of the McWatters bus. What was so fascinating about that particular bus that Reed felt compelled to capture it in photos more than once? I would like to see the totality of Reed's photography that day, in order to see how many photos were not in some way related to Oswald. In the first photo, when Oswald is allegedly already aboard, you can see the Rio Grande Building perhaps a block or so behind the bus. If it seems counterintuitive for an escaping assassin to walk many blocks east in order to catch a westbound bus, the fact that he allegedly caught it almost directly in front of the building housing 112th US Military Intelligence may be illuminating. It is also where purported Umbrella Man Stephen Louis Witt was employed. Small world, Dallas. Quick photographer, Reed.

The new movie "Argo" highlights Canada's contribution to spiriting US diplomatic staff out of Iran. There's plenty of historical precedent for such action. Here, from Canada's equivalent to the New York Times: In a little-known chapter of the Cold War, Canadian diplomats spied for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in Cuba in the aftermath of the 1962 missile crisis – and for years afterward. A major part of that story is told in a forthcoming memoir by retired Canadian envoy John Graham. Mr. Graham was one of a series of Canadian diplomats recruited to spy for the CIA in Havana. The missions went on for at least seven years, during the 1960s. “We didn’t have a military attaché in the Canadian embassy,” explained Mr. Graham, who worked under the cover of Political Officer. “And to send one at the time might have raised questions. So it was decided to make our purpose less visible.” Mr. Graham said he worked as a spy for two years, between 1962 and 1964. His mandate was to visit Soviet bases, identify weapons and electronic equipment and monitor troop movements. The espionage missions began after President John Kennedy asked Prime Minister Lester Pearson – at their May, 1963, summit in Hyannis Port, Mass. – whether Canada would abet American intelligence-gathering efforts in Cuba. For more, see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canadian-diplomats-spied-on-cuba-for-cia-in-aftermath-of-missile-crisis-envoy/article4614595/

Seconded.

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. 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? Not to mention on this very thread.

Jim, I take no issue with any of what you’ve written, but it is a nonsensical reply. Were you to reply to the point made, rather than the point you wish had been made, your batting average on this thread would be far better, Jim. Repeatedly, you have mis-read and/or mis-characterized what others have said, and responded accordingly. So, let me cite the point, again: "Whereas I am positive as to what more is expected of Jim. He has yet to provide any new reasons for his belief in Crump’s guilt. Hence, there are no reasons for us to share that belief with him. That failing is not Janney’s, or Simkin’s, and has nothing to do with dubious sources Leary, Heymann, et al. It is Jim’s and Jim’s alone." You keep attempting to divert attention away from what is your central failure in this thread: no foundation for your assertion that Crump killed Mary Meyer. That has nothing to do with Janney, Simkin, Leary, Heymann, or anyone else but you. You have made an assertion; now you must provide evidence for it. You have not done so. Do you understand now?

Tom has contributed several vital things to this thread. The most important, to my mind, was debunking the notion that witness-cum-assassin Mitchell evaporated without trace. It took Tom whole minutes to shred that one. Had Jim or Lisa Pease thought to do so before him, they need not have bogged themselves down in the quagmire of trying to prove Crump’s guilt without evidence. Tom also drew attention to the discrepancies in various statements made by Crump and Ms. Roundtree, as pointed out elsewhere by "Culto." There may be some perfectly innocuous reason(s) why these conflicts exist, or they may be what they seem at first blush: evidence of chicanery. One does hope that those convinced of Crump’s guilt will contact Ms. Roundtree to see if she has an explanation for this. If, that is, they can bother themselves to provide evidence for their own contentions, which doesn’t seem to be the pattern here. I think any fair reading of this thread will show that I have noted Tom’s above contributions numerous times. What we have not seen, thus far, is any additional evidence on offer from Jim for his assertion that Crump killed Mary Meyer. Absent that, there’s not much to say other than to point to the paucity of evidence where a conclusive argument should be. I’ve made that observation, repeatedly, though I’ve yet to elicit from Jim either reasons to think Crump guilty or an acknowledgment that his initial assertion about Crump was an unfounded overreach. As for the needless popularity contest aspect of all this, I can say only that Tom was selected to be a moderator by John Simkin. If that’s an insufficient vote of confidence, what would be sufficient? Re: what "side" John Simkin is on, from what little I’ve gleaned about him over the years, I’d say his preference is that we all finally encounter the truth behind Kennedy’s assassination. He’s provided some in-depth research of his own, the means for us to communicate on the topic, and liberally allows dissent from his own opinions, even from moderators, without rancor. He invites authors of new books to comment on their work and field questions from Forum members. I’m not sure what more is expected of him. Whereas I am positive as to what more is expected of Jim. He has yet to provide any new reasons for his belief in Crump’s guilt. Hence, there are no reasons for us to share that belief with him. That failing is not Janney’s, or Simkin’s, and has nothing to do with dubious sources Leary, Heymann, et al. It is Jim’s and Jim’s alone. That has nothing to do with "which side" we’re "on." It has to do with an unwillingness to ante up anything that improves upon the DA’s original sadly lacking brief against Crump. All else is a sideshow diversion to distract our attention from what is still, intentionally, left missing. Is it just me, or does Jim yawn a lot?

No, Jim, it’s time for you to provide evidence of Crump’s guilt. Way past time, in fact. You made the accusation; you provide the evidence. You know how this works.

Part 3 of 3 No, she is not. But she made a foolish decision to make the centerpiece of her review - the very first thing on her to-do list - proving Crump’s guilt. Because she didn’t and neither have you, nor Tom. Care to deal with the implications of your failure in this regard, Jim? Or are you just waiting for people to forget this most obvious lack of professionalism on your part? No the Emperor has no evidence for his contentions re: Crump. And is now demanding that those pointing it out be moved a safe distance away from him so he can pretend none of this ever happened, or is unimportant to his reputation in any event.

Part 2 So, as an “historian,” your defensible fallback position is that it’s ok to address others like a petulant prat because the other guy made you do it? Really? How often do other people control your behavior this way? Or is it just that when you’ve been shown to have an empty hand, you resort to vitriolic juvenile name-twisting rather than acknowledge your case against Crump is non-existent? "Yeah, but HE started it" doesn't work for children, let alone adults. What one CAN see through is the transparent lack of evidence you have provided for your contentions re: Crump. You could have done a far better job eviscerating Janney had you only chosen to Google Mitchell, as Tom did. Boom. Case closed. You chose instead to prove Crump guilty, and are spiteful toward those who have pointed out your failure in that key respect. So who here is “posing” as something they are not? For an historian, you have a shocking reading disability, which has appeared in this thread a half dozen times or so. It is part of the reason you skewer Michael Hogan, because you rush to find the point you wish to make, without realizing you’ve mis-inferred. Rather like when you congratulated Tom on finding things that were actually attributable to a guy named Culto, who you found wholly credible, despite his insistence that JFK was never actually killed. Had you bothered to consider what you were reading in the post you cited that from, you would invariably have seen this: "In almost every post from you or Mike, there is an absolute refusal on your parts to address whether Jim has made more accurate criticisms of Janney, than Janney has of Jim.” I was responding to that comment. It was made by Tom. If you think it’s a non-sequitur, you should really take it up with him. Missing obvious points is your default position in this thread, as shown immediately above. And this is how a self-sustaining feedback loop of error feeds itself. You make a mistake, draw an incorrect assumption, and then think the other poster is nuts for saying what they never did, but you have done. That’s about right, isn’t it? That would be a thread in which you haven't accused without evidence an already-acquitted man of having committed murder. That’s why THIS is the thread where our posts belong, because THIS is the thread in which you committed that gross overreach. The fact that you have no credible comeback leads you to now demand our segregation to where you are free to avoid being shown up as empty-handed. I can see why that would suit you. But since we long ago were deprived of the opportunity to ask “Questions For Peter Janney,” I will ask them of you. You demand that others put up or shut up all the time. Now the demand is made of you, and you’d like your inquisitors to be moved safely away. To be continued.....

Jim has raised a good number of points that deserve a reply. Due to limitations on the number of quotes allowed per post, I must reply in portions, with apologies for the delay in responding. Life often intrudes upon one's plans. “One can argue for or against Crump’s guilt?” In order to argue for it, one would need evidence to support the accusation, the very thing you’ve yet to provide. What’s "unfair" is that you accuse Crump of murder without a single additional piece of evidence, over and above that which resulted in him obtaining a verdict of not guilty. But you are the victim, here, right? I don’t know how many ways to say the same thing before it sinks in with you. Janney saying Crump was framed may or may not be accurate, in and of itself, but in either event it doesn’t make Crump guilty. That’s where you come in, to declare him guilty absent any legally persuasive evidence. The fact that Janney may or may not commit a billion sins doesn’t allow you to commit the one you are intent upon. And as a life-long reader of JFK-related material, I am sick of writers who assume they can accuse others of guilt without providing the goods. It is your point against Leo Damore’s “Senatorial Privilege,” and many others. It is not just that they marshal factoids to besmirch the martyred Kennedy brothers; but that they do so on the thinnest strands of evidence. Entirely what you’re doing to Raymond Crump now. But you’re the victim here, right? It is precisely because Michael Hogan and I have made an issue of your treatment of Crump that these “Vivian” contradictions were raised. And not by you. You should be thanking us. And your new fellow traveler, Culto. To be continued....

Tom, this has been from the outset a very central misunderstanding on your part. I don’t care what Jim (or Lisa, or you) critiques in Janney’s book. It is their and your prerogative Find whatever fault you can prove. Have at it. Janney can fend for himself if he chooses to, as he already did with his broadside against Jim and Lisa. Crump cannot. I represent no constituency. I merely advocate for an old fashioned notion that those making claims are responsible for providing the proof for said claims. I seek to hold accountable people who make broadly sweeping claims (“Crump is guilty”) without troubling themselves to provide evidence for the contention. You seem to take umbrage I will not allow someone found NOT guilty at trial to be accused of guilt by you or others without my demands for proof, which proof is not in your possession, or Jim’s, or Lisa’s, or it would have been well-trumpeted by now. How is it that you claim to be the put upon party when common decency dictates that YOU MUST show your convincing hand or be seen to be holding nothing? As I’ve repeatedly said, Lisa and Jim could easily have demonstrated whatever balderdash is contained in Janney’s book without resorting to Crump’s guilt or innocence at all. But they took what they perceived the easiest way from A to B, what they thought was a clever shortcut to eviscerating Janney’s book. Lisa admitted as much, which I’ve already pointed out: "Let’s START with Mary Meyer’s murder. If Crump was truly framed for a crime he didn’t commit, the CIA theory is at least possible, if not exactly probable. But IF CRUMP ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME, then Janney’s thesis, and indeed, the thrust of his whole story, goes out the window. So let’s examine that issue first, based on the evidence Janney presents." (My caps, as html has been unresponsive for me as of late) So where is the proof for “IF CRUMP ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME?” I’ve seen none because there’s been none on offer. (In passing, it would have been far simpler to impeach Janney by simply Googling for Mitchell, as you did with positive results, Tom. Instead of undermining the CIA hitman theory, which was rather easily accomplished with a single try by you, they preferred demonstrating Crump’s guilt, without actually managing to pull that off.) Today, because of my demands for proof, the goal posts have been moved. In the absence of actual proof, which none of you have to present, we are instead instructed to believe that Roundtree's good lawyering, or maybe even unethical actions, ginned the result; that the DA was a fool; that the internal jury deliberations might have gone either way; (again, without much in the way or proof, not that it matters in any case) and any number of other specious dodges; each in place of convincing evidence such as the murder weapon; Crump’s fingerprints on said weapon; additional witness(es) who saw the event itself, and not just its aftermath; or even something as lowly as a motive. The response? Nada. (BTW, the “strong negative feelings” you claim I harbor against Jim and you are a figment of somebody’s imagination. My criticism is of hypocritical behavior, not the person exhibiting it. But yes, Jim will do and is doing damage to his reputation with the shoddiness on display here. Any time a member resorts to diminutive epithets like “Mikey,” or “Slick” or “Partner” in addressing other members, they’ve already lost. Sarcasm is no substitute for the proof of one’s contentions. Calling Michael Hogan “Mikey” does no damage to Hogan, but vastly undermines respect for Jim when he does it. Does he teach petulant teenagers, or behave like one?) It IS "narrow," because Crump is my SOLE concern. If you feel it is "very personal," perhaps that's because I am holding people accountable for their statements, they cannot provide the basis needed to make those statements, and feel resentful for being shown to have nothing. Sorry, not a problem of my making. But, OK, so now we’re getting to the nub of what’s got you riled. Which is more accurate: Jim’s critiques of Janney’s work or Janney’s critique of Jim’s methods? Can I point out that this is entirely inconsequential? Am I entitled to avow that I couldn’t possibly give a rodent’s posterior about the outcome of that particular pissing match? Why? Because it has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Crump. That cluster of festering animosity to which you allude has its genesis a half decade back, when Jim first issued his fatwah on “con men” who pollute the research community, and then named, among others, Janney and John Simkin. Of course, Jim was going to eviscerate the book when it was published; he had set course in that direction five years before the book appeared. This cluster of festering animosity was further inflamed by Lisa’s review, in which she admitted she thought the book unworthy before even reading it, based upon footnote sources alone, and “reviewed” accordingly. And then made the crucial error of trying to undermine Janney’s whole hypothesis by proving Crump’s guilt, without actually proving Crump’s guilt. You suggest that unraveling that cluster of festering animosity “is what this discussion could and should be about,” it being such a “novel and obvious approach to this.” I have no interest in participating in such super-heated, ego-driven flame wars. They invariably generate more heat than light. Exhibit A? This very thread. “Questions For Peter Janney About His Book Mary’s Mosaic” might be the innocuous way this thread began, but Janney’s long gone, you might have noticed. When anybody here railing against Janney - and so casually condemning the already-acquitted Crump as a murderer - can actually trouble themselves to provide proof of Crump’s oft-purported but thus-far un-demonstrated guilt, I hope I will still be alive to read it. Edited for typos.

Tom: One single sentence, yet it engenders so many questions: “It is interesting that people who suspect that elements of the CIA had a hand in the murder of Mary Meyer and are also certain that the Warren Commission engaged in a cover up, white wash, are convinced of Ray Crump's innocence...” If by “people” you include me, please count me out. I’ve stated no opinion as to who killed Mary Meyer because, like everybody else, I don’t know. Unlike many, I don’t pretend otherwise. “... despite nonexistence of a consistent, credible account stated to police investigators or in court by Crump...”, Also “non-existent” is credible evidence of Crump’s guilt. That’s why a jury so concluded. “or since by either Crump or his defense counsel, Dovey Roundtree, explaining Crump's actual activities during the period in question on the day of the murder...: There are discrepancies and conflicts in the tale(s) purportedly told by both Crump and Roundtree at various times. I’ve already suggested that contacting Roundtree might help to illuminate things in this and several other regards. Satisfy your curiosity, if you choose. “...or about his failure to produce an alleged alibi witness.” How weak is a prosecutor’s case that a man of Crump’s mien has no alibi, and still beats the state? Even with all the underlying racial and class dynamics at play? If there was a “failure to produce,” it was the DA’s failure to produce what should have been a slam-dunk case against Crump. If there is today greater reason to suspect Crump’s guilt than when he was acquitted, the onus of providing it is upon those who insist he was guilty. Yet on this singular point, Tom and Jim have raised nary an issue. Baiting me or others into denouncing Janney, which seems your interest, is quite futile in my case as I’ve not read his book, am therefor unsuited to comment on it, and am less inclined to read the book the longer this persists. From the outset, I’ve asked repeatedly, consistently, and entirely in vain, for whatever fresh evidence against Crump emerged that was not known at trial. An infinite number of Janney’s purported shortcomings, as annotated by Tom and Jim, might very well be true, but it remains wholly irrelevant to Crump’s guilt or innocence. This is my only interest and the only thing upon which I have made comment.

All of which is well and good, Tom, yet doesn’t place a weapon in Crump’s hand. You seem to imply that I am attempting to defend Janney’s book, or outlook, just as you have done with Michael Hogan. It is a transparent gross mis-characterization. I have disregarded all of it, which is only natural, since I haven’t read it and likely won’t do so. My singular point, which I believe is Michael’s too (he can speak for himself) is that Crump was found not guilty, by legal process, with cause, and nothing you or Jim or Lisa have added changes that most basic fact. Taking a gun out of Mitchell’s hand doesn’t necessitate that it therefor automatically must have been in Crump’s hand. It is my sole argument with what Jim and Lisa (and now you) have written. It is not a defense of Janney, yet you seem determined to prod us into disavowing Janney’s book because of his multiple errors and omissions. How can you expect that of somebody who hasn’t read his book? Does that not seem a little nonsensical to you? As for you taking exception to Mike Rago’s post, it had nothing to do with a blob, and I suspect you do recall that more clearly than you’re currently letting on. When he posted a photo of a running man near the pergola, you said: “....And you would prove it, how? And you would positively identify this person to the point of incriminating him, how?..... No weapon, no face, no connection to anyone or anything does not seem an advantageous starting point.” And yet it is the very same starting point you are at vis a vis Crump. Proximity to the crime is all there is with Crump, and it’s not enough to convict a man for a capital crime, as we saw with the trial’s conclusion. Disprove Janney’s contentions to your heart’s content. They have nothing to do with Crump, who was deemed not guilty decades before Janney wrote word one of his tome, let alone with me. Or Michael. If you feel the need to re-indict Crump as part of that process, I look forward to whatever evidence you might present, if and when you actually locate any. Defending Crump is not defending Janney, nor equivalent to it. Why this self-evident, easily discernible fact seems to have escape you is a mystery to me.

The level of vexation and vitriol toward Michael Hogan is troubling. Michael Hogan has not, to the best of my knowledge, advocated anything positive about Peter Janney’s book, other than his belief that Ray Crump did not murder Mary Meyer. He has not stated, to the best of my knowledge, that he thinks Janney correct in the "CIA hit" angle of his book. In this, I fully concur with Michael, subject to the emergence of new information suggesting otherwise. I have asked those attacking Michael over this for whatever new information they may have that convicts Crump of the murder for which he was legally found not guilty. Thus far, to no avail. As I have consistently repeated throughout this thread, the fact that Crump didn’t kill Mary Meyer does not mean Mitchell did. Yet the shortcut employed by both Jim and Lisa was to undermine the Mitchell CIA hit scenario by proving Crump guilty, which they’ve yet to do. For example, Lisa wrote: "Let’s start with Mary Meyer’s murder. If Crump was truly framed for a crime he didn’t commit, the CIA theory is at least possible, if not exactly probable. But if Crump actually committed the crime, then Janney’s thesis, and indeed, the thrust of his whole story, goes out the window. So let’s examine that issue first, based on the evidence Janney presents." Rather than do the harder (?) work of proving Janney wrong re: Mitchell, it seemed less problematic to find guilty a man who’d already been tried and acquitted. Tom has likewise concentrated on this, assuming that proving Mitchell was not the killer is somehow synonymous with Crump being the murderer instead. It is flawed logic to assume that the one naturally flows from the other. Moreover, if memory serves, Tom was most exercised with a Forum member who recently suggested that a man depicted fleeing the pergola area might have fired shots at the President. The point was made, if I recall, that it was unfair to accuse a man of murder in the absence of any evidence. However, this is precisely what Tom now seems to argue re: Crump, who was already tried and acquitted. Jim and Lisa Pease are entirely correct to excoriate Janney where he has committed demonstrable offenses against history, to the extent that we can be confident he has done so. I have stated so repeatedly, as I believe Michael Hogan has also done. Yet, the fact that Janney’s story may be a complete fairy tale does not convict Crump. I am unsure why Tom feels insulted that Michael Hogan referred to his discoveries about Mitchell as "Googling." It is precisely the method that Tom employed, and had Janney and others done so - including Jim and Lisa - they might have detected this sooner. But it was felt easier to re-indict Crump than to Google Mitchell. Clearly, they’ve done neither. We now also have evidence that aside from Crump’s fishy "fishing" alibi, which can be seen as an innocuous invention to preclude his wife learning he’d been fornicating with the prostitute, there have been other instances in which Crump and/or Ms. Roundtree told conflicting stories at different times. If she is still alive, which I presume is the case, perhaps overtures can be made to her to determine why those conflicting stories were told, or if there is some way to rationalize them (misquotes, out of context, inventions by police, etc.) That would constitute more than "Googling" and perhaps move the ball further down the field. It is peculiar to me that Michael has also been vilified for something as trivial as posting that the book was being released. Michael also posts on the developments regarding Tom Hanks’ Bug-movie, which demonstrably does not mean he feels the movie will be worthwhile or that he condones its subject matter. Moreover, one wonder how Michael could pre-approve a book not yet published, let alone concur with its hypotheses. Such advance advocacy is seen, however, albeit not by Michael Hogan. Five years ago, well before Janney had even written the book, Jim did an essay on why it should not be trusted, and cast some heavy aspersions toward this Forum’s proprietor in the process. Likewise, Lisa Pease admitted in her review of the book that based upon some of the footnote sources, she immediately determined to her own satisfaction that the book would be rubbish, and then viewed it through that prism. The words ‘Rush To Judgement"take on new meaning in this context. Let me close by saying, yet again, that advocating for Crump’s innocence does not automatically equate with Janney’s Mitchell tale being true. Though that is the flawed position being taken here repeatedly. It is in no way heretical to insist that those who wish to convict Crump in absentia provide more convincing and probative evidence than emerged at trial and result in his acquittal. Those making the charge are responsible for providing proof. Attacking those who ask for the proof is unbecoming. Michael Hogan is owed many apologies.

Try as I might to impart a critical point, I seem to fail. So, I will try again, for the benefit of both Jim and Tom. Jim has written extensively about Janney and his book,. including before the book was even written/published. Jim finds great fault with Janney’s book, as is his right. Janney postulates that CIA whacked Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Crump was the convenient fall guy. It is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary proof. Jim is entirely correct to ask for that proof. But it has nothing, however, to do with the overall issue of Crump’s innocence or guilt. Jim took an interesting tack: by proving Crump killed Meyer, Janney’s hypothesis is destroyed. But two critical things are revealed in this strategy. First, it is unnecessary that Crump be guilty of murder to disprove Janney’s CIA hypothesis. The one does not require the other, although Jim apparently thought it a convenient shortcut. Second, I am perfectly open to persuasion of Crump’s guilt, assuming that some new evidence has been unearthed that militates in that direction. I have been asking Jim, repeatedly, to provide additional reasons to think Crump guilty. Is there a newly-emerged witness who saw the shooting? Did the DCPD finally find the murder weapon with Crump’s prints still on it? Was there a recent round of forensic tests upon Crump’s clothing that did find nitrates or other evidence of gunshot residue? Did Crump confess the crime to somebody? Any of the foregoing, or other similar new evidence, would help demonstrate what Jim contends to be true. But none of the foregoing is on offer. What we have is only the same failed prosecution case that resulted in acquittal. And, of course, Crump’s horrific subsequent criminality. But, any fair-minded person knows instinctively that guilt in some things doesn’t automatically equate to guilt in all things. That a man is caught robbing a bank doesn’t automatically make him guilty of all bank robberies, prior or subsequent. It is fraudulent to postulate otherwise. Also, as I have repeatedly tried to impart, a prior history of minor petty crimes doesn’t comport with murder, and even Crump’s admittedly horrible subsequent criminal record doesn’t include murder, let alone the killing of someone he didn’t even know. Between the prior minor crimes and the subsequent escalated criminal behavior came the arrest and trial for a crime of which he was found not guilty. I would like to see even a grudging admission from Jim that the trauma of being falsely charged, tried - and acquitted - of murder may have contributed to Crump’s subsequent downward spiral. Better men have cracked under less pressure. It comes down to something this simple: if Janney postulates a CIA hit on Mary Meyer, it is incumbent upon him, as the one making the claim, to provide proof for his assertion. Upon this, I think we can all agree. Likewise, if Jim D. postulates - against the known evidence - that Raymond Crump did in fact kill Mary Pinchot Meyer, it is incumbent upon him as the one making the claim to provide the proof for his assertion. Merely regurgitating a prosecution case that was rejected as insufficient by 12 jurors does not constitute that proof. How could it? He was acquitted. This has nothing to do with Janney, Damore, Douglas, Heymann,.Leary or any other source - dubious or otherwise - cited in Janney’s book, a red herring continually dredged up by Jim and Tom. I have asked Jim a series of questions, which Jim has thus far side-stepped and avoided. That is the behaviour I think is unworthy of him, as a respected researcher, and the Forum in which he makes his assertions, because we Forum members like to think that actual evidence is required in order to make one’s case, particularly, one would hope, when one is accusing a man of murder when he’s already been tried and acquitted. If Jim cannot answer the questions, it would suffice for him to simply acknowledge "I don’t know" or "I can’t answer them." To pretend instead that they were never asked, or they are too unimportant to respond, is dodging the issue and depicts evasiveness where one would expect to find the foundation of his certainty re: Crump. Jim has stipulated that jumping into the water removed all trace of gunshot residue from Crump and his clothing. I have repeatedly asked for a citation from any credible forensic source that this is possible. [the sound of crickets.] I have asked how it was possible for Crump to have disposed of the murder weapon when he demonstrably never left the area after the murder, yet it remained forever after undiscovered despite elaborate police searches of that area. [more crickets] In lieu of being able to place a specific weapon in Crump’s hands, I have asked whether there is any evidence that Crump ever owned such a weapon, was ever seen with such a weapon, or ever used such a weapon in any crime. [more crickets] I have asked if there is any evidence to suggest a motive - any motive - for Crump killing Meyer. [crickets.] Were our positions reversed, these are the very first questions that Jim would pose to me, because they are the most self-evident and obvious. I fail to see how it is thought unfair of me to ask these questions, or how they can be considered unimportant if Jim is to demonstrate Crump’s guilt where the prosecution failed to do so.