Guest Tom Scully Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) Janney's mother, Mary Draper Janney, was recently associated with the Woods Hole Institute / Corporation along with former intelligence officers Thomas J Devine, Kenneth S. "Mike" Safe, and http://www.whoi.edu/...=3622&cid=57226Weston "Dusty" Howland Jr., 85, of Weston, Mass., a World War II intelligence officer,philanthropist,and Boston investment guru, died on May 8, 2009. Mr. Howland grew up in Milton, Mass. His family founded Warwick Mills in New Hampshire, which made parachutes during World War II and makes body armor today. He was chairman of Warwick Mills from 1989 until his death. He graduated from Milton Academy in 1943, enlisted in the Army, and rose from private to lieutenant in the OSS during tours of duty in China, Burma, and India. He graduated from Harvard in 1949 and founded Howland Capital Management in 1968. Mr. Howland was a trustee at Tufts University for 25 years and was awarded an honorary doctorate there in 1990. Each year, the university confers the Weston Howland Jr. Award for Distinguished National Leadership. Page 61 in memoriam He helped found the New England Aquarium in 1969, was a member of the Woods Hold Oceanographic Institution executive committee, was active in conservation efforts on Martha's Vineyard, and funded educational fellowships at a number of institutions with which he was involved. The New England Aquarium founding group and personal foundation sponsor are Paul Hellmuth of Hale & Dorr and Robert G Stone, Jr.. Brother David Stone was affiliated with both men and founding the aquarium and with CIA funding of domestic fronts. Hellmuth ran covert CIA agent, Dr. Tom Dooley. Thomas Devine was a director of the Stone brothers' Stonetex. 40 Years of the New England Aquarium www.neaq.org/about_us/financial_information/.../NEAqAR08.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View David B. Stone, made this comment about our mission: “The ... The New England Aquarium would not have been able to accomplish all that it has over the years or ...... G. Stone Fund. (1971), Paul F. Hellmuth Fund (1984), Helen B. Spaulding ...... Is the CIA candidate, Romney, running for president. almost out in the open? Team Member - Thomas J. Tierney www.bridgespan.org/about/teammemberdetails.aspx?id=276 Thomas J. Tierney Chairman and Co-founder, Bridgespan Group. ... During 2000, he stepped down as Bain & Company's chief executive to ... The Hoover Institution, and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. ... He served as a field engineer for Bechtel International in North Africa before entering business school. BW Online | February 7, 1994 | MITT ROMNEY COULD BE TEDDY'S ... www.businessweek.com/archives/1994/b335740.arc.htm Romney ended his role last year, and today Bain is on the upswing. "Mitt saved our company," says Thomas J. Tierney, Bain's worldwide managing director. Peter Janney's brother, Christopher D. Janney is married to Edward Perry Hunt's spokesperson, Terrell Lamb. Edited August 3, 2012 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Regarding the witnesses who testified against Crump and in my opinion lied, I learned some pretty critical numbers the past two days in a legal seminar devoted to the topic of The Innocence Project. Incorrect eyewitness ids account for about 70% of wrongful convictions. Thank goodness Crump had a great attorney. . As to the gun, those who believe he did do it, can provide no explanation for why the gun was not found. He never got out of that area to hide the weapon. During the seminar the last two days my husband (and law partner) also heard from several exonerees and we were aghast at how little evidence they were convicted on. Almost zero in all the cases. After I read the trial part of Janney's book I went back and re-read Lisa's review and found it most troubling. Lisa and JIm appear to WANT Crump to be guilty and the only reason I can think of is to show that JFK and Mary were not close. But Janney thoroughly documents that they were. No-one can ever really prove a sexual relationship except the parties themselves, and that issue is totally irrelevent to this book. I have not had the time to finish this book, so I will reserve my ultimate opinion,, but the part I did read was very gripping and believable. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Dawn, don't you see what Janney has done? He could have written about the mystery of the century, and instead, he wrote a gossipy piece of trash intended to shield his actual background and intimate knowledge. (quote)http://educationforu...67 Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary ... - Google Books Result books.google.com/books?isbn=162087282X... Peter Janney - 2012 - Biography & Autobiography "....The youngest of six children of a wealthy, prominent investment banker, my father was raised in Bryn Mawr on Philadelphia's Main Line. His given name at birth, resembling an almost royal title, was Frederick Wistar Morris Janney. To his close friends, immediate colleagues, and family, he was "Wistar," or "Wis." .... ...He had not had a chance to reconcile with his father, who died unexpectedly just a few days before the largest naval battle in history. the father-son duo had remained estranged, despite the fact that Wistar's father--Walter Coggleshall Janney--knew that his time was near...." (/quote) Two Will Go East And Be Ushers At Society Weddings . Milwaukee Journal - Oct 24, 1940 What on earth were Janney's uncle Frank and his close friend, Roswell Gilpatric thinking, when they "negotiated" this "deal"? Compare the numbers of the two companies. Frank Pace gave Henry Crown 16 percent of General Dynamics in exchange for Crown's Material Service, with net profits of just $7 million in the year Frank Pace became interested in making a deal.: Arkansas Prodigy; Frank Pace Jr. Sports Enthusiast New York Times - May 2, 1957 Firm . The Day - Nov 21, 1958 Henry Crown whose varied ac tivities include ownership of the Empire State Building in New York. Colonel Crown is a vice presi dent of Hilton Hotels Corp. and a director and....Material Service, which has only 200 shareholders, had 1957 sales of $103,405.938 and net income of $7,142.166. Personality: A Colonel Upholds Autonomy; Henry Crown Heads... New York Times - Feb 21, 1960 Henry Crown of Chicago's Material Service Corporation is a man who started ... of building materials, was merged into the General Dynamics Corporation six weeks ago... "with General Dynamics I hope to become interested in their situation purely as a di- rector, not as an officer. I'll continue to operate Material Service. I have no plans for it other than to continue building the company. It now is an au- tonomous operation of General Dynamics. "Nothing has changed as a result of the merger except that we have three directors on the General Dynamics eighteen-man board. For our stock in Ma- terial Service we have received a preference issue of General Dynamics that eventually can be converted into a 16 percent common stock interest." HOTEL MAN IN NEW POST; Hoy Becoming President of Material... New York Times - Mar 31, 1960 His appointment was announced jointly yesterday by Frank Pace Jr., chairman of General Dynamics, and Henry Crown, chairman of Material Service. Mr. Hoy had been scheduled to move to New York as presi-j dent of Zeckendorf Hotels Corporation, which recently acquired the Sherman and Ambassador' Hotels. Crown's Material Service Corp. was a worthless shell. Crown immediately brought in Chicago mob affiliated Patrick Hoy, an executive with no experience related to his new responsibilities, and Frank Pace gave his approval. Uhhh... if I had this much JFK Assassination related coincidence in my background, I'd probably do the same thing Peter Janney has attempted.... author a disinformation, deflection "tell all" book, right from the desk of a privileged insider, a man in the know! Fat chance..... Peter Janney does not mention his Aunt Peggy and Uncle Frank Pace. I think it is a mistake to approach the Time-Life "purchase" of the Zapruder film and the TFX scandal as unrelated events. TFX was at the time the most expensive single government contract in the history of the world. Frank Pace and Maurice T. Moore were two of the most trusted Henry Luce associates. It was and is a fact it is impossible to determine the reach and the influence of LCN in our American society, so maybe it was just easier to ignore LCN taint on the FBI, DOJ, Supreme Court, WC, the U.S. presidency, the business community, and of defense contractors. DID McNAMARA WEEP AT QUIZ? Chicago Tribune - Mar 23, 1963 "My 12-year-old-son came home from school and asked me, 'When are you going to say to the people you are not a crook?'" McNamara's defense of the contract . Maybe "Bob" should have been asked by senators during the McClellan inquiry how Patrick Hoy and Henry Crown of General Dynamics could have possibly been cleared for top security clearances by FBI or DOD investigators? Did Roz Gilpatric knowingly saddle General Dynamics with the assetless shell of a company Atty. Harry Booth, in 1963 exposed LCN financier, Henry Crown's Material Service Corp. to actually be, in exchange for 20 percent of General Dynamics' stock? Chicago Tribune - Nov 19, 1963 Gilpatric insists that his service with Dynamics dealt almost exclusively with its merger with the Material Service corporation of Chicago.... http://educationforu...ndpost&p=180439 ...Crown was to grow up to become the greatest exponent of sand and gravel in the world— virtually transforming sanitary district sand piles and quarries into gold mines. "Henry Crown," said Booth, "views the Sanitary District as a small subsidiary of Material Service Corporation." From the mid 1920s to the early 1940s, Crown purchased nearly 1000 acres of district land through nominees — Benjamin Z. Gould, general counsel of MSC, and one Clarence R. Serb — without competitive bidding, paying an average of $64 an acre. These vast holdings, plus another 420 acres held under long-term leases negotiated mostly in the 1950s, literally formed the foundation of MSC. These properties had mountains of earth and rock deposits on their surface (spoil banks rich in limestone used for crushed rock and cement) which were the residue from channel widening and deepening at the turn of the century. They saved MSC the expense of quarrying for years. In his complaint, Booth pointed out that "none of the leases approved by the Trustees authorized Material Service Corporation to engage in excavation of sand, gravel, or other materials from below the surface of the ground. On information and belief Material Service Corporation has engaged in extensive excavating operations and removed enormous quantities of sand, gravel, limestone and other materials from below the surface of the ground which it has sold. . .[obtaining] large revenues . . . and has unjustly and unlawfully enriched itself thereby. . . . All such acts and operations . . . are illegal and beyond the power granted . . . under the laws of the State of Illinois. ... From time to time Material Service Corporation has also been granted sub-leases and short-term leases also at inadequate rentals as well as buy the right to take other spoil banks at nominal prices. .... ......... Only one, oh really? https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=783 Frank Pace Jr. Joins Time Inc. Directors Hartford Courant - Apr 25, 1960 Frank Pace Jr., chairman ot the board and chief executive officer ot General Dynamics ... A joint announcement from Time Inc. Editor-in-Chief Henry R. Luce and. ... https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=783 Luce Aides: 'No Drastic Changes'; 3 He Picked to Run Empire... New York Times - Mar 6, 1967 Luce last Monday, the day before he died in Phoenix, Ariz. ... Paul G. Hoffman, Samuel Meek, Maurice T. Moore and Frank Pace Jr. ' Mr. Luce, who was also on . https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=781 Evidence Implies Order Expected by Dynamics Hartford Courant - Nov 21, 1963 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate probers produced evidence Wednesday that a top executive of the General Dynamics Corp., claimed "reasonably strong indications" far in advance that the firm would win the huge, disputed TFX warplane... tract. Frank Pace, who has since resigned, was named as the . Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric, testifying before the Senate Investigations subcommittee, swor he had no idea where Pace could have received such information. Former Legal Adviser Gilpatric is a former legal adviser to General Dynamics whose role in the TFX contract negotiations is under senatorial fire. He described Pacej as his close friend. Earlier in the day. Chairman John L. McClellan. D-Ark., told Gilpatric that he should have disqualified himself from having anything to do with the contract award, to avoid any possible allegations of conflict of in-i terest. I The subcommittee is investi-. gation whether favoritism' steered the contract to General Dynamics last December. Gilpatric and others in the Defense Department's civilian command overruled military I evaluations that a rival design and bid by the Boeing Co. of Seattle promised a better, cheaper version. Costly Project The Pentagon estimates the TFX project will cost between $5 billion and $7.5 billion. This would make it the largest in Pentagon history . I The subcommittee produced a! document dated "July 1961" in! which Pace, top official of Gen-; eral Dynamics' Fort Worth, \ Tex., division, told its top management: "There are reasonably strong indications that Fort Worth's proposed -: ration offers the only approach] that can satisfy both Air Force and Navy requirements" for (or the TFX. ! McClellan said this was "a, month and seven days" before the Pentagon had even complet-1 ed a statement of design re-! " Where," he demanded, "was the source of these reasonably strong indications? .......................................... This is only the second time this year that a trashy but celebrated literary "work" intended to be embarrassing to the JFK presidency has emerged, and just as Mimi Alford could be linked to David Rockefeller through her best friend, Marnie Stuart Pillsbury, so too can Peter Janney be linked to David Rockefeller via Janney's uncle, Frank Pace, Jr. (Background info is displayed just a few posts back..... http://educationforu...=15#entry215838 ) (quote) Sisterhood of spies: the women of the OSS - Google Books Result books.google.com/books?isbn=1557505985...Elizabeth P. McIntosh - 1998 - Biography & Autobiography - 282 pages ....Reports of the buzz-bomb attacks caused more concern in the United States than they did in London. The parents of two women working for the Security Branch cabled the American embassy in London to have their daughters returned to the States. One was One was Priscilla Johnson, whose father was in the State Department; the other was Mary Norris, who later married James Symington. Both women refused to be sent home. Symington, then twenty-two, said she wanted to stay and defied her parents' wishes. David Bruce, OSS London chief at that time, wrote that he "considered the request disgraceful — as well as placing the girls in an invidious position....(/quote) ................... (quote name='Jim DiEugenio' timestamp='1341745886' post='256380'] "What are the odds that Mimi Alford's best friend, Marion Stuart Pillsbury, is the first person she claims she told the details of her 1960's affair with JFK, circa 1991 when Stuart Pillsbury just happens to begin a position she has held now for more than two decades, executive director of the David Rockefeller Fund, and that Hallett Johnson happened to belong to the same intimate little club in Bar Harbor, ME., of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and sons Nelson and David Rockefeller, and that the parents of Peter Matthiessen and George Plimpton Paris Review partner, John PC Train, who also happened to employ Thomas Devine, was the son of Arthur C. Train, who also happened to be well acquainted with Hallett Johnson?" I don't think its a coincidence. I think we all got taken again. Great work Tom. (/quote) http://www.legacy.co...d&pid=151084916 L. PHILIP EWALD EWALD--L. Philip, died at the age of 91 in Greenwich, CT, on May 8, 2011. A graduate of Groton School and Yale, he served as an Officer in Naval Intelligence during WWII. After a long career in publishing management, he joined Frank Pace, Jr. and David Rockefeller to build and expand the International Executive Service Corps. to 150 countries. Married for 57 years to Elizabeth Johnston Ewald, who predeceased him, he is survived by their two sons, Duncan and Douglass.... OBITUARIES; J. Symington, Smithsonian Executive, Dies The Washington Post (1974-Current file). Washington, D.C.: Jul 9, 1992. James McKim Symington, 72, chief fund-raiser for the Smithsonian Institution during a period of expansion in the 1970s and 1980s, died of lung cancer July 8 at Georgetown University Hospital. https://lh3.googleus...g_1945WaPo2.jpg Mary Norris, James Symington Married in Afternoon Ceremony The Washington Post (1923-1954). Washington, D.C.: Aug 24, 1945. Article image displays Philip Ewald, David Rockefeller and Frank Pace associate, as an usher in the Mary Norris, James Symington, wedding party.: https://lh5.googleus...ug_1945WaPo.jpg the World War II diaries of Colonel David K.E. Bruce books.google.com David Kirkpatrick Este Bruce, Nelson D. Lankford - 1991 - 257 pages - ....I saw Mary Norris, of the Security office, whose return home, according to Hallett Johnson's cable, is desired by her parents. She is 22 years old, and says she wants and intends to stay here. the World War II diaries of Colonel David K.E. Bruce books.google.com David Kirkpatrick Este Bruce, Nelson D. Lankford - 1991 - 257 pages - ....Saw Priscilla Johnson about her father's (Hallett Johnson of the State Department) cable. She does not want to go home and does not intend to leave. I told her to settle the matter directly with her parents.... Oss Against the Reich: The World War II Diaries of Colonel David ... - Page 230 books.google.com David Kirkpatrick Este Bruce, Nelson D. Lankford - 1991 - 257 pages - Preview 32. Hallett Johnson ( 1 888-1 968) was the State Department's assistant chief, Division of Defense Materials. His daughter, Priscilla Livingston Johnson, was a draftsman in the map division of R&A London. Here Bruce confused Johnson's and Norris's work at the London office. 33. Mary Theresa Norris had arrived in London in March 1944 as a secretary for James J. Gorman, a civilian employee in OSS Security branch. She apparently was successful in defying her parents and stayed with OSS/London until transferring to OSS/Paris in September. Mary Theresa Norris was the daughter of Georgetown Physician Dr. Leo Brison Norris, and his prominent DC socialite wife, so it is obvious diplomat Hallett Johnson cabled David KE Bruce in London with the evacuation requests for both his own daughter, Priscilla Livingston Johnson, and for Mary Theresa Norris.... Edited August 4, 2012 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 5. He then says there was no forensic evidence to link Crump to the crime scene. In his unrepetant defense of a man who went on to become a habitual and violent criminal, one who used guns and firebombs to terrorize many innocent people, he leaves out a rather relevant fact.; Crump was found soaking wet in some underbrush near a culvert. In other words, in those valuable minutes on the river bed and in the underbrush, he easily could have washed off the nitrates from the weapon, and even buried the handgun. He also had his fly down--geez Peter I wonder why? And in his desire to escape recognition, he had ditched his cap and jacket. When the witness Wiggins approached the scene he said Crump was the man he saw standing over the body. If this is not probable cause, i don't know what is. And this is why Roundtree would not put him on the stand. He would have been demolished. I don’t wish to comment on Janney’s book, as I haven’t read it. But I have read several essays and posts by Jim and Lisa and am troubled by their apparent disregard for certain facts in the case in their zeal to eviscerate Janney and/or his book. And their willingness to keep their own readers ignorant of facts that require inclusion in any fair assessment of this event. ......I would note only what I have written here before. It is incredible to me that writers like Jim and Lisa, who correctly make use of every legal manoeuver in order to question Oswald’s guilt, which was never adjudged at trial, now dispense with the not guilty verdict rendered in Crump’s case on nothing more than their own inferences, preferences and suppositions. .....If Peter Janney feels he is the victim of a "personal vendetta," perhaps it is because the reasoning used by his critics to convict Crump is so remarkably, risibly shoddy. And that has nothing to do with sourcing Leary, Hersh, et al. Janney can be entirely wrong about everything else, and yet still be right about Crump’s innocence. Certainly, nothing provided thus far by Jim and Lisa constitutes new evidence suggesting Crump’s guilt. The following excerpt from Lisa Pease's article for CTKA establishes her agenda and methodology: Most people don’t read books the way I do..... When I first picked the book up in the store, I turned to the footnotes. You can tell a lot about an author by the sources he cites. From that moment, I knew the book would not be worth reading (bold added). As I flipped through the pages, I saw Janney attempt to resurrect long-discredited information as fact. Frankly, I wouldn’t have wasted the time reading it at all had I not been asked to review it. I cannot, in a book review, take on the task of refuting every factual error and pointing out every unsubstantiated rumor-presented-as-fact in this book, because there seemed to be at least a few per page, and it’s just too big a task. So I’ll focus on challenging some specifics regarding the three key points of Janney’s overall thesis, which are: 1) that Mary Meyer was not killed by Ray Crump, the man arrested and tried but not convicted of her murder; 2) that Meyer had an ongoing, serious sexual relationship with a President Kennedy that involved drug use; and 3) that Meyer’s investigation into the CIA’s role in the JFK assassination got her killed. Janney believes these three conclusions to be true. After reading his presentation, and doing a little additional research of my own, I’m convinced that none of these are true. 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 (bold added). 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. There are five chapters in Part One of Mary's Mosaic, three of which deal with the arrest and trial of Raymond Crump. Footnotes reveal that nearly all of Janney's narrative was based on just a few sources: 1) Trial transcript, United States of America v. Ray Crump, Jr., Defendant. Criminal Case 93064, US District Court for the District of Columbia. (1965) 2) Dovey Roundtree's book Justice Older Than the Law, written with Katie McCabe. (2009) 3) Dovey Roundtree's interviews as given to Katie McCabe (2002) and Leo Damore (1990-1991) Also Damore's interview with eyewitness Henry Wiggins Jr.) 4) A smattering of newspaper and magazine articles. 5) A few other miscellaneous interviews. As it pertains to Raymond Crump, Lisa Pease's unqualified rejection of Janney's footnotes is unwarranted, unfair and untrue. As Peter Janney noted, Lisa Pease wrote this: But Burleigh pointed out that Crump had a criminal record before the Mary Meyer murder. Did Janney just miss that crucial bit of information?Or did Janney choose not to share that information with his readers because it would not further his argument? From Mary's Mosaic, page 95. "But Crump did have a misdemeanor record: two drunk and disorderly charges and a conviction for petit larceny. Convicted of shoplifting, he'd been sentenced to sixty days in jail, a substantial sentence for a first offense." It's not so much that Lisa made a sloppy and telling error, but that she or Jim DiEugenio failed to retract it (or even acknowledge it) when it was pointed out to them. It is Crump's misdemeanor record that Jim DiEugenio has used as an indicator that Crump was capable of murdering Mary Meyer. Lisa Pease agrees with him, calling Crump's misdemeanor record "crucial." Crucial? Please. Lisa Pease self-described her approach to Mary's Mosaic as "cool and analytical." There are other adjectives that would be more accurate and complete. Jim DiEugenio is quick to criticize others, quick to voice his conclusions on so many things (like Crump's alleged guilt), but has been shown to have a very thin skin when someone does not agree with him. When I was critical of his Haslam review, he totally misrepresented what I wrote and accused me of being unfair. His recent accusation that Dawn Meredith smeared him was churlish and uncalled for. Many times on the Education Forum I have praised Jim for the work he has done on this case. More than once, I've thanked him for his considerable contributions. This is not one of those times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Thank you MIchael. I guess I cannot look at the evidence and disagree with a review without risk of attack. I do not know WHY Jim is trying to make this personal. I COULD respond in kind by saying I sure would not want to be arrested for murder and have either of them on my jury. Likewise Mr. Scully. Just because someone has terrible relatives does not make that person the same as their relatives. I mean look at the progressive Rockerfeller granddaughter, Abbey. Jim, this is a waste of time for both of us. For some reason you and LIsa want your readers to believe Crump is guilty. I do not know why. Re-read RCD's post. Re-read Mike Hogan's.. When I asked you several times at DPF who was calling Attorney Roundtree at midnight everytime she visited the crime scene you choose to ignore that question. Let's just agree to disagree on this ok? The jury found Crump not guilty for a damn good reason: He did not kill Mary. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Dawn, the jury was not apprised before reaching a verdict as to whether or not the prosecution would seek the death penalty if a guilty verdict was reached. At best, the jury was not satisfied that the guilt of the defendant had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, very likely because of the diligence of the accused immediately after shots were fired, in concealing his culpability. My statement is accurate, yours is not supported. The jury simply failed to find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree. The jury never declared the accused to be innocent of the murder of Mary Meyer. Crump Free In Murder On TowpathBy William Chapman Washington Post Staff Writer The Washington Post; Jul 31, 1965; "...The jury, which had deliberated nine hours Thursday and two hours yesterday, filed into the courtroom at 11:35 a.m. and the foreman, Edward O. Savwoir, offered the written verdict. Savwoir would not say later how the jury was initially divided. Asked about the final verdict, he said, "there were many missing links...... we just didn't get the man at the scene." My other point is that Janney's goal does not seem to be to explore the relevant background of the Kennedy Assassination, the important characters and details he certainly knows a great deal about. Janney's father lied for a living and his mother "served" with a group of Woods Hole Institute trustees including Thomas J Devine and a Mr. Howland, former OSS who was linked to the CIA's Paul Hellmuth and David Stone of the NE Aquarium and was one of less than two dozen named along with Michael Paine bequeathed shares in Naushon Island. Abby Rockefeller is not an uncle or two removed from an author of a book intended to impugn the reputation of assassinated president, John F. Kennedy, as Peter Janney's (of all the more important and more relevant topics he could have given informed and unique treatment of....) topic does, by design. How many David Rockefeller connected "insiders" will have to put books like the Alford and the Janney books, as we approach the 50th anniversary of The Assassination, before it seems like a pattern, to you? Alford's was enough to satisfy me, once I read that her closest, lifelong confidante was also one of David Rockefeller's and that the father of Alford's best bud was Gerald Ford's AFC co-founder. Janney's uncle Frank and his uncle Walter C Janney, Jr.: NY Times March 25, 1945 Electronic Specialty Co. Adds Director to Board New York Times - Aug 19, 1964 Frank Pace poses with all five Rockefeller brothers: Hi Rlin .And Kiddie .In Mill .Of, Pages Seven .Greek... Morning Record - Nov 29, 1967 From left, David Rockefeller, president of the Chase Manhattan Bank; Winthrop Rockefeller, governor of Arkansas; Frank Pace, . president of NISS; ... The brothers Rockefeller Christian Science Monitor (Pay-Per-View) Five Rockefellers and Rockefeller... New York Times ($3.95) Frank Pace, Jr., Heads Businessmen's Group Aiding Firms... Wall Street Journal - Nov 25, 1964 NEW YORK Frank Pace, Jr., former chairman and president of General Dynamics ... David Rockefeller, president of New York's Chase Manhattan Bank, was ... Paunch Corps Is Challenging Job . Ocala Star-Banner - Jun 16, 1966 ... seems to have sprung from David Rockefeller, on the business side, ... a private nonprofit organization, with Rockefeller as chairman, and Frank Pace, ... Executive Corps Picks Chairman New York Times - Dec 13, 1968 With him are Frank Pace Jr., president of the organization, and David Rockefeller, former chairman. Mr. Rockefeller holds a glass statuette of an eagle, a gift from ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Mike: Can i ask you 3 very simple questions now that you have shown how Lisa should be condemned to Hades because she did not write something down in her notes? Jim, let me ask you just one question. Why do you not address what I actually wrote? The name Crump appears in my short post nine times. You do not mention it once in your reply. Your use of hyperbole in this instance is unwarranted. Do you believe that CTKA is the equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition? Do you think I am the equivalent of Torquemada? Do you want to compare what CTKA does with what the Goebbels directed Nazis did at the Univ of Berlin Library after coming to power in 1933? None of those questions have anything to do with what I posted. They are insulting. I was talking about Raymond Crump, Jim. Raymond Crump. If you don't then why did you not do with Janney what you just did with Lisa? Or are you going to say that what Lisa did is the moral equivalent of what Janney wrote about CTKA? In other words, we are neo Nazis. I didn't do anything with Lisa. You and Lisa did it to yourselves with those awful footnote remarks. At the outset you said you wanted to ask 3 very simple questions. You're over your limit. I'm not going to dignify your moral equivalent/neo Nazi question with a response. (more to follow) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 (continued from previous post) I would be able to take what you say here, and your presumed outrage, a lot more seriously if you pointed that out about Mr. Janney. If you have done so, please show me where you have. Jim, there was a time when I cared if you took me seriously or not. Not so much anymore. You sound like Jim Fetzer. I wrote Rockwell.com and asked them to take that piece of slimy libel down, or else let me answer it. They did not do either. When they do, or Janney asks them to, we will correct. Until then, I will be damned if I do any favors for a guy who tries to libel us in print because he wrote a bad book that we called him on. I didn't ask you to do any favors for Peter Janney. Accuracy and honesty would be doing yourself and your website a favor. BTW, my review is longer than Lisa's, any errors there? But in that one, I pointed out numerous ones in Janney's book, like Prouty not even being in the Pentagon at the time he needed to be. That, like the libel, is OK with you. Your three simple questions turned into a grilling. I was not talking about Prouty and the Pentagon; I was talking about the guilt or innocence of Raymond Crump. Raymond Crump, Jim. Your insinuation about libel being OK with me is out of bounds. You need a reality check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Michael Hogan has suggested that it was inappropriate for me to start a new thread about MARY'S MOSAIC, given the existence of others. So I am now posting it here as a rebuttal to Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, who have set a new low in JFK research with their review of Peter Janney's book. “Mary’s Mosaic”: A litmus test of JFK research integrity Jim Fetzer “There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.” – Anis Nin 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. Mary was the former wife of Cord Meyer, who began his career dedicated to the promotion of world peace but ended it working for the military-industrial-intelligence complex as the Director of Plans for the CIA. In his “Last Confessions”, E. Howard Hunt confided in his son, St. John, that those who had been responsible for the death of JFK had included Lyndon B. Johnson, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, David Sanchez Morales and Frank Sturgis, among others. Cord Meyer and John F. Kennedy had both enjoyed enormous success early in their careers, where JFK would enter the political arena as a candidate for office, first as Senator from Massachusetts, later as President of the United States, while Cord would by induced by Allan Dulles to join the CIA. Mary Pinchot was a remarkable woman who fascinated them both, where she would marry Cord Meyer but later divorce him and subsequently become involved with JFK in what was far more than an affair, where she appears to have become enormously important to him as he became a statesman for peace. In the aftermath of his assassination, she became determined to expose those who had been responsible for his death, which led to her death, in turn, which, as Peter Janney explains, involved high-level officials of the CIA, including his own father, Wistar Janney, and James Jesus Angleton (who apparently authorized her murder), but where even Ben Bradlee, who was married to Mary’s sister, helped to cover it up. Mary was found on a towpath adjacent to a pond on 12 October 1964, which she used to walk from her Georgetown home to her artist’s studio, where she had been apprehended and, after a brief struggle, during which she cried out for help, was shot in the left temple. Remarkably, the bullet did not kill her outright. She crawled to a nearby tree and tried to regain her footing, but was dragged back to the path and shot again, this time through her back and into her heart, killing her instantly. Her cry for help had brought Henry Wiggins, who had come to fix a faux stalled Nash Rambler on the roadway above the crime scene, to look over the wall and observe a man standing over her, whom he described (and as was broadcast by the police) as a Negro male wearing a dark baseball cap, light-colored jacket and dark shoes, who appeared to be five feet eight or ten inches tall and weighing about 185 pounds (Mary’s Mosaic, p. 42). When he was apprehended in the vicinity, however, Ray Crump was only partially attired as the person Wiggins had described. He was weighed in at five foot, five and a half inches tall and weighed 145 pounds, which may have been exaggerations, because his driver’s license showed him to be only five foot three and a half inches tall and weighing only 130 pounds (Mary’s Mosaic, p. 51). 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). When Ray Crump was apprehended, soaking wet, with his fly still open (from the sexual escapade he had been engaged in with “Vivian”, a married woman, who confirmed their tryst on the rocks not long before the murder in a sworn affidavit, but was unwilling to testify because she feared her husband would kill her if he found out; Mary’s Mosaic, pp. 95-96), he was wearing neither the baseball cap nor the light-colored jacket, which had been temporarily lost when he had fallen into the water upon awakening on the rocks. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that both Wiggins and “Mitchell” are describing someone other than Ray Crump, who was not only substantially shorter and far lighter in weight than the man Wiggins, in particular, had described, but could not have been wearing the dark baseball cap or the light-colored jacket at the time. As “Vivian” had confirmed, they had been having a sexual dalliance on the rocks. He had fallen asleep and she had departed, where he lost them both in the water when he awakened disoriented and fell into the pond. The police and the DA’s Office realized that they had a weak case, where there was no forensic evidence that tied Ray Crump to the crime: there was no weapon; he did not own a gun; his height and weight did not match; even the jacket, when recovered from the water, had no signs of blood, even though they believed the killer would have been coated with it. While there was a trace of lipstick on his jacket (which was no doubt Vivian’s or even Ray’s wife’s), they did not pursue it–and even acknowledged in a memorandum that their case against Ray Crump “was very weak” (Mary’s Mosaic, p. 398). Nevertheless, they assigned their strongest, most aggressive prosecutor, Al Huntman, Assistant Chief of the Criminal Division, US Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, to the case. While Ray Crump was defended by a brilliant attorney, Dovey Roundtree, who emphasized the kinds of discrepancies that I have noted here, it is difficult to believe that anyone today, unless they have either an inadequate understanding of the evidence or a powerful bias against truth and justice, would continue to maintain Ray Crump had actually committed the crime (CTKA review). Even then, in the highly impoverished state of the evidence, Dovey was able to create sufficient reasonable doubt that Ray Crump was unanimously acquitted at trial. And, as readers will discover for themselves, the additional evidence that Peter Janney was able to uncover makes the case for Ray Crump’s innocence simply overwhelming and beyond reasonable doubt. I am aghast at the dimensions of the distortions in this review. 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. While Lisa Pease does her very best to create the impression that Ray Crump (who had no motive) could actually have committed the crime, the kinds of things she says about Peter Janney’s brilliant book (where Peter had known Mary in his childhood and whose research would lead led him to the agonizing realization that his own father had been complicit), which is a completely unwarranted characterization of Mary’s Mosaic, appear to me to be completely justified in relation to her own review, where I (Jim Fetzer) would fashion a parallel complaint about her review as follows: “Researchers can be forgiven for thinking that Lisa Pease’s CTKA review is a serious contribution to JFK research. Mary’s Mosaic provides ample substantiation that the CIA killed John Kennedy in part because he was trying to end the Cold War and rein in covert operations. But her review of Peter Janney’s book is such a frustrating mix of fact, fiction, speculation and unverifiable data I cannot recommend it. I’d rather that it came with a warning label attached”. 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). Jim DiEugenio sought to debunk a fascinating report of a woman who remained sitting in a car during the visit of Lee Oswald to State Representative Reeves Morgan–whom Judyth claims to have been herself–whose presence was witnessed by his daughter, Mary, where Mary’s report surfaced during the trial of Clay Shaw. Jim DiEugenio attempted to debunk Mary’s corroborating testimony on the ground that she had later repudiated it, which, as I observed to him at the time, was a violation of the principle that earlier testimony is preferable to later, especially when witnesses have been subjected to pressure to change it. And, in another case, I faulted the biased research of Jefferson Morley and David Talbot related to the presence of CIA officials at the Ambassador Hotel at the time of Bobby’s shooting–he would die the following day–where I had to reprimand Jim for his irresponsible acceptance of their shameless efforts to whitewash the identifications, which was supported by overwhelmingly more evidence than they produced against it. Why Lisa Pease would attempt to cast doubt on Peter Janney’s thoroughly researched and meticulously documented study, which carefully ties together the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer, the CIA and the assassination of JFK, is difficult to fathom. But there is a troubling pattern here, which suggests to me that, whatever their motives may be, Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugenio, who has been praising Lisa’s review, appear to be undermining research (and not in this case only) concerning major advances in our understanding of the modus operandi of the CIA in events of this kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Ron, that is a very long reply which ultimately says you want to ignore that piece of libel in which Janney did do all those things to CTKA because we gave him a bad review. You also fail to point out any errors in my part 2, and you also fail to acknowledge the howlers i pointed out about the book. Or maybe you really think JFK and Mary Meyer were talking about NSAM 263 at Milford in September of 1963. Or that Mary Meyer did in two weeks what it took Salandria months to do--without the evidence. OK, fine. By the way Torquemada was responsible for the deaths of about 2, 000 people. We know what the Nazis did. And off of that fruitcake comparison you compare me with Fetzer. Wow. Ever heard of Robert Crump, Jim? Mimi Alford and NSAM 263 have nothing do do with him. Can't you get that? The idea that you are not going to take me seriously if I don't agree with you is straight out of Fetzer's playbook. I can show you if you want. And I can show you a mistake or two in your article. Keep prodding me and I will. My name is not Ron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Ron, that is a very long reply which ultimately says you want to ignore that piece of libel in which Janney did do all those things to CTKA because we gave him a bad review. OK, fine. By the way Torquemada was responsible for the deaths of about 2, 000 people. We know what the Nazis did. And off of that fruitcake comparison you compare me with Fetzer. Wow. Jim to disagree with you or Lisa is NOT tantamount to agreeing with the essay Janney wrote. No-one is saying this. Not me, not Mike Hogan, NO one. I have praised many, in fact most, of your reviews. Both in public and more recently in private after going back and re-reading your review of Joan Mellen's Garrison book. And I am good friends with Joan. I do not let my friendship blindly influence my views. Be it on books or reviews of books. I just do not understand why you are being so thin- skinned here. So we see the Crump matter differently. We both have that right. And having been a criminal defense lawyer for now twenty seven years I hardly need a lecture on jury deliberations or the burdon of proof necessary to convict. I am well aware that a NG verdict is not the same as saying they thought the guy was innocent. I happen to believe he was. I think I know a bit more about how the shadow government works than did Crump's jurors. Jim I have long considered you a friend too. So I am ending this here and now. I am back to reading the book today and what I believe or disbelieve will get us to zero in our effort to bringing truth and justice to the murder of JFK. As for the argument that Mary could not have been sufficiently aware of the lies of the WC as early as just prior to her assassination, I take complete issue with that. I saw through the cover story day one and by the time LHO was killed on tv I was positive it was a conspiracy. At fourteen I could see through this sham. Millions of others could as well. So I have no problem with the concept that Ms. Meyer did not believe the Mockingbirds either. As for me I would like to return to my normal stance of trying to be a part of something bigger than our singular disagreements. As we approach now close to fifty years can we the critical community try to rise above petty disagreements and try to forge something constructive so that our children and grandchildren may have true history?. We who have spent our lives studying the lies of Dallas should have as our final legacy that we at least tried. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary Loughran Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Ron, that is a very long reply which ultimately says you want to ignore that piece of libel in which Janney did do all those things to CTKA because we gave him a bad review. OK, fine. By the way Torquemada was responsible for the deaths of about 2, 000 people. We know what the Nazis did. And off of that fruitcake comparison you compare me with Fetzer. Wow. Jim, I'm guessing Ron is Mike - God is in the detail, as you know? Probably makes for a better response. I know this is inappropriate in this thread, but can I ask, why you chose, as a threat, on the DPF - that you might choose to post full time here? To me, as an outsider looking in, it seemed a rather strange thing to say. Given your apparent aversion to hyperbolic equivalence, imagine how Evan Burton felt when an apology for his mild and mostly self depracating prank was described thusly "...tantamount to John Wilkes Booth apologizing for interrupting the play ... or Charlie Manson apologising for dragging blood over Sharon Tate's new white carpets ... or Adolph Hitler apologizing for being too aggressive in his efforts to create weight-loss programs for the morbidly obese of Eastern Europe." by the president of the DPF frat house. I know no forum is perfect and I'm sorry for hijacking yout debate, but I thought I'd take this opportunity to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 That "Ron" is a fine fellow, isn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 And BTW, I am not saying that to disagree with me is to think CTKA is the Inquisition. What I am saying is that if you are going to blast Lisa for making a simple mistake, then why not criticize Janney for that piece of scurrilous libel he put out there. Which neither of you have done. I did not blast Lisa for making a simple mistake. In fact, I minimized it. Jim has a propensity for twisting or coloring what was said. My larger issue was his refusal to acknowledge it: It's not so much that Lisa made a sloppy and telling error, but that she or Jim DiEugenio failed to retract it (or even acknowledge it) when it was pointed out to them. Jim has the notion that because I disagree with something he or Lisa wrote, I am compelled to write something negative about Janney in order to balance things out. It's a ridiculous notion on several different levels. The larger point of my initial post was what Lisa wrote about Janney's footnotes in his three chapters about Raymond Crump. I listed Janney's main sources. Despite prompting, Jim has studiously avoided any references to that in his replies to me. Instead he peppers me with insulting and irrelevant questions. I need to remind him that I commented about Janney's footnotes here, well before Lisa Pease's article was published. Instead of discussing what I posted about, he prefers to bring up Prouty and Alford and NSAM 263 and a whole host of things that have nothing to do with my post. My post made it clear I was concerned with the topic of Robert Crump and only Robert Crump. And by extension, Jim and Lisa's treatment of that topic. It can be irritating when someone doesn't bother to quote you accurately, puts their own spin on everything you write, takes things out of context and by so doing, ignores the larger points. I have encountered that with Von Pein and Fetzer and Carroll to name just a few. I never thought I would encounter that with Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 I brought up Prouty and NSAM 263? And Alford. Forget it, I am out of here. BTW, my review is longer than Lisa's, any errors there? But in that one, I pointed out numerous ones in Janney's book, like Prouty not even being in the Pentagon at the time he needed to be. That, like the libel, is OK with you. Mike, that is a very long reply which ultimately says you want to ignore that piece of libel in which Janney did do all those things to CTKA because we gave him a bad review. You also fail to point out any errors in my part 2, and you also fail to acknowledge the howlers i pointed out about the book. Or maybe you really think JFK and Mary Meyer were talking about NSAM 263 at Milford in September of 1963. Or that Mary Meyer did in two weeks what it took Salandria months to do--without the evidence. OK, fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now