Questions for Peter Janney on his book Mary’s Mosaic

[Guest Tom Scully]

Peter Janney "brought up" Mimi Alford.....

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

If you are going to write a book about an assassinated, popular president and a mistress who you claim fed him illegal drugs, why not be scholarly and responsible enough to dig deep and cover much more of the actual history, and if you aren't prepared to do that, why bother?

Isn't it fair to say there are Rockefellers and CIA spooks a bit too embedded in the ties to Mimi Alford, Plimpton & Debevoise, and John McCloy, as well as to three generations of the Bush family?

A little more on the other ushers in peter Matthiessen's wedding, aside from Cass Canfield's stepson, Blair Fuller. There was George Ohrstrom, the son of a wall street brokerage chief who was barred from the securities business until Prescott Bush interceded on his behalf, with the S.E.C.

There was Carroll L. Wainwright, brother of a right wing WWII OSS officer, Stuyvesant, who later served two terms in the U.S. House. Carroll Wainwriight's son married Letitia Baldridge's only wedding party attendant, her niece Alice E. Baldridge. Carroll Wainwright is described :

(quote)

740 Park: The Story of the World's Richest Apartment Building - Google Books Result

books.google.com/books?isbn=0385512090.. . Michael Gross - 2005 - Architecture - 561 pages

The Story of the World's Richest Apartment Building Michael Gross. Judy Laughlin recalls that her brother-in-law Carroll Wainwright, the Rockefeller family lawyer..... (/quote)

...and Matthiessen usher Charles Lord, Skull and Bones '49, reciprocated when he married :

MISSM. PLUNKETT WED IN SOUTHPORT; Fairfield Girl Becomes of Charles Edwin Lord, a Graduate of Yale in '49 Webster--Miller

New York Times - Apr 23, 1950

.....The ushers were William S. Coffin of New Haven, Daniel P. Davison of Locust Valley, L. L; Thomas H. Guinzberg, David M. Lippincott and Vance Van 1?ine of New York, James N. Heald of Worcester, Mass.; Roger G. Kennedy of St. Paul, Peter Mathiessen of Stamford,

Daniel P. Davison, of course, was the son of F. Trubee Davison :

Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth about the Unknown ... - Google Books Result

books.google.com/books?isbn=1602392536... John Newman - 2008 - Biography & Autobiography - 669 pages

....The Case of the Two Priscillas

.....To understand the significance of this form, we must return to the 1956 Cunningham memo of August 23. There is something terribly wrong about the contents of this CIA document. It said that Security Office files showed Priscilla's middle initial was "L for Livingston and is not R."8 That the Security Office had uncovered this kind of error is perhaps understandable, but the next sentence was extraordinary: "She was apparently born 23 September 1922 in Stockholm, Sweden, rather than 19 July 1928 at Glen Cove, New York." The Cunningham memo made no attempt to explain this transformation. Instead, the memo rather matter-of-factly proceeded to explain the new history of Priscilla this way:

She was utilized by OSO in 1943 and 1944. Clearance was based on Civil Service Commission rating of eligibility which in turn was based on a favorable investigation and record checks. An FBI record check completed 21 August 1956 was returned NIS [Naval Investigative Service].

The 1928 birth date carried in Priscilla Johnson's CIA records for the preceding four years could not be reconciled with this new data unless a fifteen-year-old girl, not yet out of high school, had been working for the Office of Special Operations during World War Two.

The Cunningham memo is all the more incredible because it makes no attempt whatsoever to reconcile the incongruity between these two seemingly different Priscilla Johnsons, one an OSO veteran at the time the other was a child. Moreover, this time there was no mention of adverse information about Priscilla's left wing activities. There appears to be too many egregious errors by the Office of Security, and therefore this story does not sound believable.....

Historians now have the unenviable task of trying to figure out whether the CIA was inventing a false Priscilla Johnson or whether it was incapable of telling the difference between two people born five years and three thousand miles apart-not to mention possessing different middle names. The Central Intelligence Agency owes the American public an explanation for the case of the two Priscillas, if for no other reason than because a Priscilla Johnson-whom we know to be real-did in fact conduct the longest interview on record with the accused assassin of President Kennedy.

The most important question is this: What was the real Priscilla Johnson doing that led the CIA to reopen its interest in her in 1956? The answer might lie in an Agency interest about her 1955 to 1956 sojourn in the Soviet Union. It would not be unusual for the Agency to want to debrief someone who had recently returned from there. But why do two Priscillas then appear in the CIA's files? To proceed logically here, from Priscilla's return from Russia in April 1956 to the emergence in August of the CIA two-Priscillas problem requires more information than we have in the files. One new lead comes from a heretofore unconnected recollection of Priscilla's. It concerns a neighbor, who was a close friend and regular tennis partner of Stuart Johnson's, Priscilla's father. Sometime soon after her return from the Soviet Union, this friend asked Stuart if he might speak with Priscilla about her experiences in Moscow. The meeting took place, and Priscilla told the man what she could remember about her stay in Moscow. That man, who had known her since she was a small child, was F. Trubee Davidson. He worked for the CIA.9

Looking back on her experience now, Priscilla believes it is possi ble that Davidson "was waiting for me to grow up to recruit me." It is an intriguing thought, and one that she has had about one other person too. "The other person who was waiting for me to grow up," she recalls, "was Cord Meyer." While we do not know the extent of Cord Meyer's knowledge or interest in Johnson up to the time that the CIA closed out its interest in her in January 1957, he does show up the next time they become interested.

More than a year after this close-out, the CIA again reopened its interest in Priscilla Johnson. On April 10, 1958, CIA headquarters sent a cable to a place that is still classified but which, from all indications, was one of its stations in Western Europe. It contained this detailed and condescending description of Johnson referred to earlier. It is worth repeating in full:

Subj DOB July 1928. MA Radcliffe 1952. From wealthy Long Island Famil[y]. Excellent scholastic rating. Application [for] KUBARK [CIA] employment 1952 rejected because some associates and memberships would have required more investigation than thought worthwhile. Once [a] member of United World Federalists; thought liberal, international-minded, anti-communist. Translator, current Digest of Soviet Press, New York, 1954. Considered by present KUBARK employee [who] knew her [at] Harvard to have been "screwball" then; considered "goofy, mixed up" when applied KUBARK employment. No recent data. No Headquarters record [of] prior KUBARK use."

The releasing official listed on the bottom left of this cable was then the CIA's chief of Investigations and Operational Support. His name was Cord Meyer, Jr.

Again the question is: Why the renewed CIA interest in Priscilla? The answer: Because she was planning to return to the Soviet Union. Cord Meyer's cable in April occurred after her visa application, during the period she was waiting for it to be approved. "I went to Cairo in February 1958," Priscilla remembers, "to see a boyfriend. Then in March of 1958 I went to Paris, and did a little translating in a building on Haussmann Boulevard."" There she worked for "someone I knew either for Radio Liberty or the Congress for Cultural Freedom." While in Paris she applied to the Soviet consulate to go to the U.S.S.R. It "took a couple of months" for the Soviets to approve it, and Priscilla arrived in Moscow for the third time on July 4, 1958.

On May 6, 1958-again, possibly on behalf of SR/10-Chief, CU OA submitted a request for an operational approval on Johnson. The operation for which she was being considered is still classified, but we may presume that SR/10 wished to take advantage of her as a "legal traveler" to the Soviet Union in some sort of passive collection role. This time the Security Office furnished a "summary of derogatory information."" Whereas in 1956 the Office of Security failed to furnish CUOA the 1953 "derogatory" information on Priscilla, there was no problem finding this information in 1958. The April 10 Cord Meyer cable, for example, made clear reference to her earlier security rejection.

The story after the Cord Meyer "screwball" cable is intriguing. There is evidence to suggest that the CIA, in June 1958, discovered the problem of the two Priscilla Johnsons. A June 6, 1958, internal CIA handwritten note "for the record" on SO 71589, which is definitely one of the real Priscilla's CIA numbers, reads:

SO stated this date that which had been previously written was being revised and should be coming down today. In addition [name redacted] stated that [name or office redacted], who is handling the memo, doubted if subject would be utilized because of the record.14

This may indicate that the Stockholm Priscilla, whose Security Office and FBI records checks had been favorable, was being revised to reflect the real Glen Cove, New York, Priscilla. The author of this June 6 memo and office from which it came are still classified, but it is clear that the author, whoever it was, felt that a request to use Johnson in an operational role in the summer of 1958 had been or was about to be killed.

The ax came three weeks later, on June 27, as the result of a memorandum from an office whose identity is still classified. In fact, the June 27 memo itself is still entirely classified, and we know of its existence only because of a passing reference to it in another CIA memorandum almost six years later." The possibility exists that while SR/10 had again initiated a request to use Johnson, it was a different office that killed the plan. This is at least suggested by the fact that SR/10 did not submit a Form 937 canceling their interest until August 28.16

Fourteen and a half months later, Priscilla Johnson was on her way back to Moscow again, as a reporter for the North American News Alliance (NANA). While she was in an airplane somewhere over the Atlantic, another reporter, Aline Mosby, managed to land the first formal interview with Lee Harvey Oswald.....

It turns out that the other Priscilla Johnson was married to OSS and CIA agent Thomas Frederick McCoy and was born in Stockholm to U.S. diplomat Hallett Johnson.

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?

The rich man and the kingdom: John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the ...

books.google.com Albert F. Schenkel - 1995 - 248 pages - Snippet view

....Rockefeller's favorite Mount Desert Island club was the Pot and Kettle Club of Bar Harbor, which maintained lands for riding and driving around the island; he joined in 1935, and by 1944 its membership included such notables as Walter Lippmann, Harper Sibley, and Yale president James R. Angell." ......

Diplomatic memoirs: serious and frivolous

books.google.com Hallett Johnson - 1963 - 207 pages

....serious and frivolous Hallett Johnson. of giving everything to his job,

skilled ability to deal with foreigners, an extremely attractive personality

and forthright honesty. I am still, at 75, looking for other constructive

work to be done. I will now give in lighter vein an account of our residence

and travels in the United States. We settled in Princeton, which as the

former President of the University, Harold Dodds, remarked, "is the nearest

thing to an American Athens that America has ever had." It was convenient to

be near New York, Philadelphia, and I still could not resist making visits to

Washington. Moreover, my son Hallett lived in Princeton with his lovely wife

Mary Ellen, Jay Cooke's daughter, and their four children: Hallett 3rd, Mary

Glendenning, Livingston and Elizabeth. My son has a fine Revolutionary stone

house and 75 acres.

He runs a three-ring circus as a New York commuter, a farmer and a father.

Each of my daughters has six children. Is immortality given us through our

sixteen grandchildren? The summers we spend in our cottage at Bar Harbor on

Mount Desert Island, which is one of the most beautiful spots in the country

and where the mountains come down to the sea. I served there for some time as

a Governor of the Pot and Kettle and Bar Harbor clubs, which gave me some

room for my restless energy.

The Pot and Kettle is a delightful 60-year-old club limited to 60 men.

Formerly like The Rabbit in Philadelphia members cooked their own meals but

in recent years they have ceased to be culinary experts.

We still, however, wear a chef's cap and gown for the cocktail hour before

our weekly lunches and are not allowed to have a cocktail before we put on

this uniform. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., came but seldom, but it was

remarkable to see him in a and gown. Governor Nelson Rockefeller and another

son, David, are still members. We tried to get the most distinguished

political and other speakers at these luncheons and after the serious part,

stories were told, which were very humorous and not always proper. We found

that the servant question had utterly changed from earlier years. They can

still be had with difficulty but the local people in Maine who are willing to

do this type of work are quaint characters. Fishing in a clear Maine lake,

irrespective of results, is enjoyable, and I sometimes return empty-handed

after a few ....

Bar Harbor to Give Concert Tuesday; British War Relief Will...

New York Times - Jul 20, 1941

Kenarden Lodge, the Summer estate of Mrs. John T. Dorrance, will be the scene of a concert on Tuesday to be given for the benefit of the British War Relief

..........

..... – to say nothing of the women who have come forward (the most recent is Mimi Beardsley Alford in 2012) – supposed to go on believing “The Doctrine of Pease and DiEugenio” that this was all just a “Republican Party” or “CIA” plot to discredit President Kennedy. Following “the two McCarthyites of the JFK assassination research community,” as one researcher recently put it, is like walking into a never-ending fantasy world of ignorance, hopefully having been convinced that the real truth has just been dispensed, when all that has taken place in this case is Pease’s fabricating evidence in order to gin up “facts” to support her delusions.....

No, Mr. Janney, although seen through the prism of our most benevolent view of your motives,we understand you are programmed to make a nice pay day from the hyping of sources with deep and disturbing conflicts, and the single source, sensational account from Timothy Leary, and ignore that Skull and Bones (Whitney surrogate Tex McCrary, F. Trubee Davison, Whitney financial advisor and Paris Review's John PC Train, Thomas Guinzburg who "hired" Jackie "O") and the Rockefellers and CIA have left their greasy fingerprints all over the U.S. publishing "offerings" and BOTH Priscilla Johnsons, we know what we know and it is much more persuasive than your opinion of Pease, Di Eugenio, CTKA, and your "nothing to see here" about a “Republican Party” or “CIA” plot to discredit President Kennedy. The real Priscilla Johnson and the Paris Review just happened to be mentored and paid by the same sources, and the "fake" Priscilla just happens to have a daddy who played with the Rockefellers. Mimi Alford just happened to hold it all in for nearly 30 years and then confess to David Rockefeller's key aide.

My favorite shot of Peter Janney's uncle Frank Pace, married to Janney's father's sister, and best man in Janney's uncle Walter C. Janney, Jr.'s wedding. I'm attempting it, but it is impossible to overstate the hypocrisy of Peter Janney's use of Mimi Alford's "book" as an example of anything, given that Mimi Alford and Frank Pace can be seriously accused of direct, Rockefeller "sponsorship".

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5856&pid=257698&st=60entry257698

[Dawn Meredith]

I like MIke Hogan was talking ONLY about Crump and the evidence for or against his guilt. Period. And how the review of this book dealt with THAT.

But I guess others are not allowed to hold opinions that differ from certain reviews.

I am out of here as well. I see why Dick Russell who wrote an excellent forward to this book does not post on forums.

[Christopher Hall]

I like MIke Hogan was talking ONLY about Crump and the evidence for or against his guilt. Period. And how the review of this book dealt with THAT.

But I guess others are not allowed to hold opinions that differ from certain reviews.

I am out of here as well. I see why Dick Russell who wrote an excellent forward to this book does not post on forums.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the book after you finish reading it.

Like many history books, it includes the spin and points of emphasis to which the author directs us.

I accepted some of those (the David and Goliath nature of the legal battle which took place in the courtroom at Crump's trial) and took a pass on some of the others (the notion that using LSD can promote world peace).

I am somewhat agnostic as to the guilt or innocence of Ray Crump.

He certainly made for a nice patsy if the murder was a CIA hit.

Janney also talks about the high levels of DOJ attorneys that this homicide on the towpath elicited.

It would be interesting to know whether some of the higher-ups at Justice also participated in other murder trials or whether (and why) this one was special.

For those who purely seek satisfaction of their prurient interests (and not their intellects) on this matter, though, I suggest watching "An American Affair" with Gretchen Mol.

[Guest Tom Scully]

David had a slingshot. He used it against Goliath. Crump's lawyer, from the same WaPo article I've quoted from stressed in her closing argument that Crump was a "little man." Wiggins had described a man wearing a coat and hat who weighed 185 and was 5 ft. 8 in. tall. The police measured Crump as 145 lbs. and 5 ft. 5-1/2 in. tall.

The prosecutor showed the jury the shoes Crump was arrested wearing, the shoes had heels 2 inches thick.

I think the prosecutor erred, in a purely circumstantial case, by not revealing to the jury before deliberations, whether the prosecution would seek the death penalty in the penalty phase, subsequent to a guilty verdict.

Washington Post July 29, 1965 "Meyer Murder Jury Gets Case Today"

Crump's lawyer argued that another man--"a phantom"-- killed the Georgetown artist, then fled undetected from the scene.

The jury of seven women and five men will begin deliberating today after being charged by District Court Judge Howard F. Corcoran.

The defense presented its side of Crump's case in less than twenty minutes yesterday, calling three character witnesses who testified that the 26 year-old laborer is known as a peaceful man in his community. ...

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

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

Mary Pinchot Meyer's death remains a mystery. But it's her life that holds more interest now

By Lance Morrow

Smithsonian magazine, December 2008,

....There were no cops with the body yet. But in the distance, between the Potomac and the canal, I saw the lines of the police dragnet closing in along the towpath from west and east.

Because I had played there as a boy, I knew there was a tunnel under the canal a few hundred yards west of where the body lay. I knew the killer was still at large and might also have known about it. But the tunnel would be the quickest way for me to get to the other side of the canal, to where the body was. I pushed aside the vines at the tunnel entrance and hurried through, heart pounding, and burst into sunshine on the other side. I approached the body of Mary Pinchot Meyer and stood over it, weirdly and awkwardly alone as the police advanced from either direction.

She lay on her side, as if sleeping. She was dressed in a light blue fluffy angora sweater, pedal pushers and sneakers. She was an artist and had a studio nearby, and she had gone out for her usual lunchtime walk. I saw a neat and almost bloodless bullet hole in her head. She looked entirely peaceful, vaguely patrician. She had an air of Georgetown. I stood there with her until the police came up. I held a reporter's notebook. The cops from the homicide squad knew me. They told me to move away.

The police found a man in the woods down by the river. His name was Ray Crump Jr., and he was black. His clothes were wet. He had cut his hand. He gave the police a couple of stories. He said he had been fishing and had dropped his fishing pole and gone into the river to retrieve it; he said he had been drinking beer and went to sleep and fell in. The two men who had heard the shots told the police they had seen Crump standing over the body.....

Edited August 6, 2012 by Tom Scully

[Michael Hogan]

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

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

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

[Guest Tom Scully]

I talked to Lisa last night and she said she probably won't reply to Janney's pleas of outrage via the Spanish Inquisition. She said, words to the effect, my approach was cool and analytical, his was almost violently emotional, so what's the point? Obviously, it hit home with him.

Since I was named in the title and am named throughout--even though I wrote not a paragraph of the review--let me reply to a few points of the poor tortured victim of Torquemada/Lisa.

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

7. We now come to Lt. Mitchell, the CIA hit man that Damore and Janney need so much to create the fantasy of a CIA elimination on the towpath. According to Holmes/Damore and Watson/Janney, Damore wrote a letter to a CIA assassin at a CIA safehouse. Now please sit down before you read what happened next. Sitting down? Good.

The hit man wrote back! Yessiree pardner. Now, in my part two, i will go over just how ridiculous this is. I mean it makes you wonder how much experience the two crack investigators have had with CIA safehouses. Either in person or in reading about them. They are called "safehouses" because they are secure and surveilled and enclosed. The idea that the "hit man" , at a safehouse, would reply to a journalist is so foreign to my experience that its kind of absurd. But this strand of Janney's gets even more nonsensical, and I will deal with it at length n Part 2. And the Fletcher Prouty as backing, is part of it. We wlil then see whose facts are more tenable.

8. He then goes on to try and defend his gallery of rogues who he uses as sources for the book: Damore, Leary, Morrow, Douglas, etc. He knows these guys all have serious problems in credibility. So he tries to innoculate them in advance. To the novice this may seem OK. To the experienced researcher its not. Because he never ever comes completely clean about them--that is to tell you how bad they really are. And in the case of Morrow, he cannot get to the original source anyway. But when you add this crew to Klein, Collier and Horowitz, Priscilla Johnson, Sy Hersh etc, well, that is quite a smelly pile of rubbish if you ask me. But that is what this book is like. And then he screams bloody murder for being criticized. Maybe he expected a Nobel Prize?

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

This image is from Appendix 3 in Janney's book. Janney refers to it in his description of Damore calling his attorneyJames H Smith in April, 1993, claiming he had "cracked it" by locating Crump trial witness, William L Mitchell. This image is part of one of the six pages of notes Smith is said to have jotted down on his ever present legal pad as Damore related his findings over the telephone.

William L. Mitchell was FBI and an officer in every branch of the military at one time or another, and a father of 5 children.

Janney writes that what is displayed here informs us that Mitchell was 74 years old in April, 1993.:

In addition to the skeptical comments of Jim DiEugenio, please consider that Janney insists he believes the Damore sourced details that led to the discovery of an assassin using the alias William L Mitchell from mid october, 1964 to July 27, 1965, a mystery man who was able to convince police investigators, prosecutors, defense counsel, the trial judge, all 12 jurors, and journalists covering the investigation, arrest, and the trial, that a 2d Lieutenant at the Pentagon, age 45 in fall, 1964, had come forward to volunteer his

testimony. Why, amidst all the other questions arising in this farfetched scenario, would the CIA also offer up a 45 year old to impersonate a junior officer of a rank someone in their 20's would almost always achieve? Janney avoids any reference to witness Mitchell's age, attributing only defense attorney Roundtree's concern that the testimony of the "lean and fit" witness would be convincing.

The core premise of the book is a fairytale. What is real and fascinating is Janney's family background. In 1937, Janney's aunt, his mother's sister, Doris, married:

http://www.capecodto.../06/28/title-57

June 28, 1937

Miss Doris Bartlett Draper of this place and Brooklyn was married to Charles Edgar Rogers 3d, also of Brooklyn, this afternoon in Hyannis Hospital, in the private room of the bridegroom, who thirteen hours before had been operated on for an attack of appendicitis...

The couple plan a motor tour through Europe this summer after his recovery.

...The bride was graduated from Vassar College and studied at Geneva College for Women in Switzerland....

....Mr. Rogers was graduated from Yale University, ......He will be with the Bank of New York and Trust Company.

The whole tale is on the right.

Marion 'Midge' Meyer Former Ar ...

‎Washington Post - Dec 16, 2002

Charles E. Rogers, 88, a retired Foreign Service officer who worked for the State Department from 1946 until retiring in 1965 as deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in the Somali Republic, died of congestive heart failure Dec. 10 in a hospice in Branford, Conn. He lived in Guilford, Conn.

In addition to serving as deputy chief of mission, his overseas assignments had included tours at the U.S. embassy in Rome from 1955 to 1958, and then two years as consul general in Milan. After retiring from the State Department, he worked in Rome for the United Nations International Commission on European Migration and then owned and operated a ski resort in Italy before retiring again in 1975.

Mr. Rogers, a former District resident, was a native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and served with the Marine Corps in the Pacific during World War II. He was a 1937 graduate of Yale University, where he received master's degrees in international relations and history.

His wife of 58 years, Doris D. Rogers, died in 1996.

Survivors include a son, Stephen C., of Washington; a daughter, Constance Rogers Roosevelt of Brooklyn; a sister; and a grandson.

http://www.nytimes.c...on-babcock.html

Paid Notice: Deaths ROOSEVELT, ANNE MASON BABCOCK

Published: February 02, 2001

ROOSEVELT-Anne Mason Babcock. Of Beaumont at Bryn Mawr, PA, died on Monday January 29, 2001. Beloved wife of Theodore Roosevelt, III, she is also survived by her son Theodore Roosevelt, IV, daughter-in-law Constance Rogers Roosevelt and a grandson, Theodore Roosevelt, V. Service and interment will be private. In lieu of flowers, contributions in her memory may be made to the Wilderness Society, 1615 M Street North West, Washington, DC 20036

Woods Hole Research Center Board of Directors

http://www.whrc.org/.../directors.html

Constance Rogers Roosevelt has been a book editor for 30 years at Time/Life Books,

American Heritage, William Morrow and Company and Viking Press.

http://www.nytimes.c...s/14torrey.html

Serena Torrey, Theodore Roosevelt V

Published: September 13, 2008

.....The bridegroom, also 32, is a vice president for high-yield bond sales at Lehman Brothers in Manhattan. He is on the board of the New York League of Conservation Voters. He graduated from Princeton.

He is the son of Constance Rogers Roosevelt and Mr. Roosevelt IV of Brooklyn. His mother is a freelance writer on the subjects of endangered primate species and eco-tourism. She is on the New York board of trustees of the Nature Conservancy, and from 1977 to 2006 was a trustee of the Brooklyn Museum. His father is a managing director and investment banker at Lehman Brothers in Manhattan; he is also the chairman of the firm’s council on climate change. He is a trustee of the American Museum of Natural History and the chairman of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

The bridegroom is a great-great-grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt

[Michael Hogan]

Peter Janney "brought up" Mimi Alford.....

Tom, you're certainly correct about Alford and I stand corrected on that.

Striking the name Alford from what I wrote does not change its essential meaning.

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.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Can a celebrity witness be downplayed/modified to conceal background from the jury if the defense anticipates actual background will be prejudicial against the defendant and the prosecution and judge (and probably the corporate media) agree to cooperate in the nondisclosure?

Should we rule out any suspicion that witness William L Mitchell was a Washington DC area lumber salesman who was the son of Gen. Billy Mitchell who died in 1936? Mitchell, Jr. married the daughter of Air Force Gen. Thomas White in 1950. Gen. White was Air Force Chief of Staff from 1957 to 1961. Mitchell, Jr.'s mother married the brother of Sen. Harry Byrd in 1938.

[PDF]

THE ARMYLAWYER

www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/01-2012.pdf

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

Richard Byrd), surviving crewmen from the Shenandoah, the chief of the Army's .... not for want of trying. In March 1956, William L. Mitchell Jr., encouraged by the ...

Sen. Byrd Attends Marriage of Brother to Mrs. Mitchell

The Free Lance-Star - Nov 29, 1938

Miss Mitchell, Kenneth Gilpin Exchange Vows .

‎Milwaukee Journal - Sep 11, 1948

A RECEPTION at The Cliff, the Boyce home of Mr. and Mrs.' Thomas Boiling Byrd, followed the wedding Saturday of her daugh ter, Miss Lucy Trumbull Mitchell, ...

MRS. THOMAS B. BYRD

New York Times - Apr 14, 1962

Surviving Mrs. Byrd, besides her husband, are a son, William Mitchell Jr. of Clarke County, and a daughter, Mrs. Kenneth N. Gilpin Jr. of Boyce.

THOMAS WHITE, 64, EX-AIR GttlEF, DIES; e Retired General...

‎New York Times - Dec 23, 1965

Gem Thomas D. White, Air Force Chief of Staff from 1957 t0 1961, died of leukemia tonight .... Mrs. William Mitchell Jr., and a sister, Mrs. Clifford Conry.

Mitchell's Son Will Answer Field Salute .

Milwaukee Sentinel - Jul 17, 1955

air terminal will be there for the formal dedication ceremonies? next Friday in the person of Sgt. Billy Mitchell Jr. Sgt. Mitchell, who lives in Boyce. and is with the ...

WILLIAM MITCHELL JR. i

‎

New York Times - Jul 9, 1969

WILLIAM MITCHELL JR. i WINCHESTER, Vs.. July $ (AP)William Mitchell Jr., only son of the late air-power ad-I ;vocate, Brig. Gem William (Billy) Mitchell, died .

[Guest Tom Scully]

Michael, I thought my reply to you would fit better here, since I am answering your question about my mention of an apology with a quote of a post of yours on this thread, and because of the influence on me of what you posted on this thread with regard to Peter Janney, before you posted about the criticism of Janney by Lisa and Jim, at CTKA.

Now, I've read the same things written by Lisa, Jim, and by Peter Janney that you have read. When I first read what I considered Jim's bashing of Janney, John Simkin, et al, several years ago, I found the tone of it offensive and I wondered why Jim later joined and participated in this forum. I looked at Damore, but not closely. He was dead, and I was not aware of Damore's association with Lucianne Goldberg. I can understand that Goldberg's name and reputation may not strike a visceral chord with John Simkin as he is no of an American progressive background. It does not seem to me that Janney even took the association of the two (Damore, Goldberg) into account.

What set me off enough to wade into this and to take a strong opinion and to dig was the shrill screed posted by Janney at lewrockwell.com, targeting Lisa and Jim. Janney was basking in the limelight, he had received favorable press and reviews at Amazon.com were numerous and overwhelmingly positive. While I was reacting to Janney as not being able to resist leaving well enough alone, ignoring Lisa, Jim, and the very little other negative criticism he has received, to your credit Michael, you posted in objection to Jim Fetzer initiating yet another thread intended to criticize Jim and Lisa, but then you took them to task in this thread.

I can understand not being influenced to the extent I was by Janney's piece at lewrockwell.com, and by the fact he elected to break a long hiatus from posting on this forum to post his lewrockwell.com piece here as well, but I do not understand the motivation behind your posts critical of Lisa and Jim. Consider that their "pulpit" and visibility are a tad less prominent and powerful than Janney's were a month ago. I also have the impression that none of the relationships I brought attention to, related to Janney, had any influence on your take in this clash of opinions.

And Michael, I thought I was being charitable to Janney, since I posted that he was gullible after I did the one thing that eluded Janney and his "experts". I used the google and found the "phantom". If Janney's embrace of material sourced from Leo Damore, for example, searching the deceased Damore's residence for hidden tapes and other research material, and then by attributing so much from Damore in this book, cannot be explained as gullible, (foolish) is any alternative explanation more flattering? The guy sold out the reputation and integrity of his own father as a consequence of too much trust in Damore and too little pursuit of obvious avenues of research.

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.

I think it is fair to take a closer look now at the book about Frank Olson by Hank Albarelli, if Janney's writing in this excerpt from is book is reliable. I suggest everyone thoroughly consider the methods employed by Janney to make a stronger case than there is that Crump trial witness William Mitchell was a "phantom" and whether any detail in Mary's Mosaic attributed to the emotionally troubled politcal extremist, Leo Damore is reliable information.

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

books.google.com Peter Janney - 2012 - Google eBook - Preview

Sometime in 1992, Damore interviewed former CIA contract analyst David MacMichael, who still lived in the Washington area. The two soon became friends.

“Leo wanted to know who this guy [William L. Mitchell] really was,” said MacMichael in 2004 during an interview for this book.

He was sure he [Mitchell] had misrepresented himself as to his real identity.”

On one occasion, MacMichael recalled, he and Damore drove out to Mitchell's former address, the apartment building at 1500 Arlington Boulevard in Arlington, Virginia.

There, MacMichael confirmed to Damore that the address had been a known “CIA safe house.”12 That observation was further corroborated by another former CIA operative, Donald Deneselya, who added that during his employment at the Agency in the early 1960s, the CIA regularly used faculty positions at Georgetown University as covers for many of its covert operations personnel. That fact was further substantiated by former disaffected Agency veteran Victor Marchetti, whose books—The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence and The Rope Dancer—the CIA had tried to suppress

from publication.13 Any trail of Mitchell's identity or subsequent whereabouts, however, appeared to have vaporized.

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

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

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

Still searching for Mitchell in early 2005, I was introduced to military researcher and investigative journalist Roger Charles. A former lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps, Charles was a NavalAcademy graduate who had been a platoon leader in Vietnam before serving under the late colonel David Hackworth as part of the organization Soldiers for the Truth (now called Stand for the Troops).

Early in his journalism career, Roger Charles had fired his first salvo with a Newsweek cover story entitled “Sea of Lies.”

The story exposed the Pentagon's attempted cover-up of the US Vincennes's downing of an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988. In 2004, Charles had been part of a 60 Minutes II team headed by Dan Rather that aired the first photographs to reveal some of the most unconscionable American military behavior since the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War: the prisoner abuse in Iraq at Abu Ghraib.

Charles had been an associate producer for the 60 Minutes II segment, “Abuse at Abu Ghraib.”

He and his colleagues provided the viewing public with a picture of the horrors inflicted by American soldiers on Iraqi prisoners.

That year, the segment would win the prestigious Peabody Award.14 Roger Charles had learned his craft under the tutelage of former marine colonel William R. Corson, author of the controversial book The Betrayal.

Courageously exposing President Lyndon Johnson's corrupt, deliberate deception during the Vietnam War in 1968, Corson created a huge crisis that nearly brought him a court-martial.

However, had Corson not done what he did, the Vietnam War would undoubtedly have been even further prolonged.

Corson went on to write several more books, including The Armies of Ignorance, Widows, and The New KGB: Engine of Soviet Power, which he coauthored with Robert T. Crowley, an elite operative in the CIA's covert action directorate and a close colleague and friend of Jim Angleton's. (All three individuals will be discussed further in the next chapter.)

Not only did Roger Charles become Corson's protégé and chief research assistant, but a trusted confidant, and eventually the executor of the Corson estate.

With regard to William Mitchell, Roger Charles was asked to review Mitchell's office listing in the 1964 DoD telephone directory.

Through his own channels, he sent an inquiry to the U.S. Army military database in St. Louis for any “William Mitchell” who was stationed at the Pentagon in 1964. There was none.

Further examining other Pentagon directories, Charles discovered that Mitchell's name no longer appeared after the fall 1964 edition.

He next investigated the military personnel who were located physically adjacent to Mitchell's alleged office (BE 1035), creating a list of approximately twenty individuals. Fifteen of those individuals could be verified through their military records, but none of the other five servicemen—Mitchell and four others in adjacent offices—had any military record in any service database. The phantom William L. Mitchell had indeed evaporated into thin air.

“This is a typical pattern of people involved in covert intelligence work,” Charles later reported to me.

“I've come across this kind of thing many times. People like this don't want to be found. They're taught how to evade all the conventional bureaucracies and channels. They don't leave any traces. These people work undercover in places like the Pentagon all the time.

Given what I see here—the fact that he's got no matching military record I can locate—it's almost a certainty this guy Mitchell, whoever he was or is, had some kind of covert intelligence connection It's very strong in my opinion.” 15

Sometimes serendipity entwines with providence. In December 2009, I read H. P. Albarelli's recently published book, A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments. Albarelli's magnum opus took me by the hand and held me hostage for several days. Extensively researched, the book not only provided the most convincing account of how the

CIA “terminated” one of its own, but possibly the best history ever written

of the Agency's infamous MKULTRA program. Albarelli and I soon began talking, and he inquired about my progress. I mumbled something about the trail having ended at “1500 Arlington Boulevard” in Arlington, Virginia. After a moment of silence, Albarelli told me he had lived at that same address when he was a student at George Washington University many years ago. I then mentioned my phantom—William L. Mitchell—and some of the dead-end information I had amassed. "William Mitchell ?” Albarelli repeated. He said he would get back to me later; he thought he had come across the name before. Indeed, he had. An important Albarelli source—someone whom the author had known for many years and whose information had been corroborated by other sources—had revealed in September 2001 something more about the identity of William Mitchell. The source, whose name Albarelli did not want to reveal, specifically....

....When Albarelli called back later that day, he reported he did finally reach the source, but he wasn't amenable to talking about Mitchell, or even acknowledging whether Mitchell was still alive. Did Mitchell have kids?

Albarelli asked. “Yeah, he had a few kids but I never met them or his wife,” the source replied. (The reader will come to know why this question was important.)

Bluntly, Albarelli then asked whether he remembered telling him in 2001 that

Mitchell had killed Mary Meyer. “Heard he killed a lot of people,” replied

the now tightlipped source. “What difference does it make now?” 18

Harvard alumni directory

books.google.com Harvard Alumni Directory (Office), Harvard Alumni Association, Harvard University - 1965

.....MltcheU, WUliam Lockwood, 1500 Arlington Blvd. , Apt. 1022, Arlington, Va. 22209. g62-63

By the end of 1992, playing his cards close to his vest," Leo Damore had

learned something else. In the course of his interview with Timothy Leary in

1990, Damore told Leary that Mary's real diary still existed and that he

believed he has disovered its whereabouts. "Angleton offered the diary in

1980 to a person who I know.... I know where it is," Damore told Leary. Then

he added, "The man who I believe has it is maddeningly this week in

Hawaii."19 Leo had sometimes cryptically referred to Mary's diary as "the

Hope Diamond" of the Kennedy assassination, and perhaps for this reason, he

faithfully guarded not only the fact that he had eventually come into

possession of it, but its contents as well. He finally revealed both to his

attorney Jimmy Smith on March 31, 1993, in a conversation that will shortly

be discussed in more detail.

(The "more detail" is explained here :

http://educationforu...135#entry257931 )

Who's who in computer education and research

books.google.com T. C. Hsiao - 1975 - 312 pages - Snippet view

... MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. - Assistant Professor of Business Administration Department of Management Sciences School of Business and Economics CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD Hayward,, California 94542 - July 25, 1939 - BME, 1962, Cornell University; MS, 1963, Harvard University; PhD, 1970, University of California, Los Angeles - Operations Research - ORSA, TIMS, IMS, ACM, ...

RUN3.DAT[bIB,CSR] - www.SailDart.org

www.saildart.org/RUN3.DAT[bIB,CSR]

DAT[bIB,CSR] blob sn#495780 filedate 1980-02-06 generic text, type C, neo UTF8 ... CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY HAYWARD, CA 94524 N CS776 Y 99999 ... Y BILL MITCHELL MANAGEMENT SCIENCE DEPARTMENT CALIFORNIA ...

Directory of Computer Education and Research: Volume 3

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

MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. - Assistant Professor of Business Administration

Department of Management Sciences School of Business and Economics CALIFORNIA

STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD

• Optimal Service Rate Selection in Piecewise Linear Markovian ...
  books.google.com/.../Optimal_Service_Rate_Selection_in_Piecew.ht... books.google.comhttp://books.google.com/books/about/Optimal_Service_Rate_Selection_in_Piecew.html?id=AkhbHAAACAAJ&utm_source=gb-gplus-share ...
  
• Optimal service rate selection in piecewise linear Markovian service
  de.scientificcommons.org/4202188 - Germany Optimal service rate selection in piecewise linear Markovian service systems. (1970). Mitchell, William L. Abstract. Thesis (Ph. D. in Engineering)--University of California, Berkeley, Dec. 1970.. Bibliography: leaves 63-64....
  

[David Andrews]

Not to digress - but does a recording of Mary Meyer's speaking voice exist? In public access, that is.

[Michael Hogan]

Michael, I thought my reply to you would fit better here, since I am answering your question about my mention of an apology with a quote of a post of yours on this thread, and because of the influence on me of what you posted on this thread with regard to Peter Janney, before you posted about the criticism of Janney by Lisa and Jim, at CTKA.

Tom, I have difficulty in seeing where you answered any of my questions (plural). I wish you would be more specific and succinct. It's difficult to respond to what is tantamount to a short term paper filled with irrelevant data.

What started long time ago? I've reproduced my three posts on this thread. I provided information that was timely, on topic and of likely interest to members, Jim DiEugenio included. There are no criticisms of Jim and no personal endorsements by me of Janney's book. I hadn't even had opportunity to read it.

....If you want me to apologize to Jim, why not express so on the thread that contains our exchanges?

....And lastly, it's not clear to me exactly what you think I need to apologize for.

Now, I've read the same things written by Lisa, Jim, and by Peter Janney that you have read. When I first read what I considered Jim's bashing of Janney, John Simkin, et al, several years ago, I found the tone of it offensive and I wondered why Jim later joined and participated in this forum. I looked at Damore, but not closely. He was dead, and I was not aware of Damore's association with Lucianne Goldberg. I can understand that Goldberg's name and reputation may not strike a visceral chord with John Simkin as he is no of an American progressive background. It does not seem to me that Janney even took the association of the two (Damore, Goldberg) into account.

I don't see what this has to do with me or what I have been posting on this thread. My focus has been on Janney's footnotes, particularly as they pertain to the arrest and trial of Raymond Crump. I have no interest or desire to discuss Damore's association with Lucianne Goldberg.

Lisa Pease wrote:

"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. 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."

My criticism of Pease's article had a very narrow focus to it. I listed the sources that Janney used for his chapters on Raymond Crump. Those sources were appropriate and solid.

In all his exchanges with me, Jim DiEugenio has not mentioned that aspect of my post once. Neither have you. Why should I have to apologize for that?

The failings of Mary's Mosaic are beside the point. CTKA should have a responsibility to their readers to be objective when it comes to the facts. When they are not, they deserve to be called on it. Again, for my purposes I am talking about the arrest and trial of Crump.

What set me off enough to wade into this and to take a strong opinion and to dig was the shrill screed posted by Janney at lewrockwell.com, targeting Lisa and Jim. Janney was basking in the limelight, he had received favorable press and reviews at Amazon.com were numerous and overwhelmingly positive. While I was reacting to Janney as not being able to resist leaving well enough alone, ignoring Lisa, Jim, and the very little other negative criticism he has received, to your credit Michael, you posted in objection to Jim Fetzer initiating yet another thread intended to criticize Jim and Lisa, but then you took them to task in this thread.

I can understand not being influenced to the extent I was by Janney's piece at lewrockwell.com, and by the fact he elected to break a long hiatus from posting on this forum to post his lewrockwell.com piece here as well, but I do not understand the motivation behind your posts critical of Lisa and Jim. Consider that their "pulpit" and visibility are a tad less prominent and powerful than Janney's were a month ago. I also have the impression that none of the relationships I brought attention to, related to Janney, had any influence on your take in this clash of opinions.

I criticized Lisa's article before Jim Fetzer started his thread. Fetzer's thread was the fourth in recent circulation. Instead of taking him to task for it like I did, you engaged him. You say you do not understand the motivation behind my posts. The motivation was to demonstrate the lack of objectivity in the CTKA articles as it pertains to the arrest and trial of Raymond Crump.

Robert Charles-Dunne did a good job of exposing this lack of objectivity. I referenced his post in my initial comments on Lisa's article. You and Jim have never commented on RC-D's post. Why do you not expect him to apologize? Robert's reputation on this Forum is well-earned and if he has problems with CTKA's objectivity, it should give you and Jim some pause.

Both Jim and Lisa's articles paint a very unfair and one-sided view of Crump and his trial. That should be clear to anyone with even the most casual interest in this subject matter.

Do you not understand that your long posts about Mitchell are immaterial to anything I have been posting?

You and Jim seem to want to talk about everything except Crump. Either he murdered Meyer or he didn't. That is what I'm interested in discussing.

And Michael, I thought I was being charitable to Janney, since I posted that he was gullible after I did the one thing that eluded Janney and his "experts". I used the google and found the "phantom". If Janney's embrace of material sourced from Leo Damore, for example, searching the deceased Damore's residence for hidden tapes and other research material, and then by attributing so much from Damore in this book, cannot be explained as gullible, (foolish) is any alternative explanation more flattering? The guy sold out the reputation and integrity of his own father as a consequence of too much trust in Damore and too little pursuit of obvious avenues of research.

Tom, you did not merely claim that Janney was gullible. Nor did you claim that he is foolish.

You called him "a gullible fool."

Your rationale for doing so is weak, and based on your opinions. And in any event, as a moderator especially, you should strive to set a better example.

Or are members allowed to break the rules about name-calling when they are referring to an infrequent poster? You tell me.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Michael Hogan

[Michael Hogan]

Shame on you Mike. You got snookered. And then you say you have not even read the book. As you can see, I have.

Shame on you Jim. You need to read more carefully.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

As per Dunne, he once said there was not any evidence to connect Crump to the crime. I disagreed and explained why.

So here, he came back at me when I indicated that Crump would have been demolished on the stand.And that is why Roundtree did not put him on the stand.

I understand that is his right.But let us not forget the horrendous life of crime he led afterwards.Plus the fact he refused to speak to Nina Burleigh for her book. Maybe firebombing, rape, and pulling guns doesn't indicate anything to you, it does to most people. And you don't have to be Dirty Harry to be repelled by it.

You can argue about admissability as RCD did. But at this late stage, on this forum, we go a bit wider than that.

A bit wider than providing reasons to believe in Crump's guilt? Which is to say that you have provided no greater reason to believe Crump guilty than did the prosecution. You won't admit that, but dance around the issue by pointing to subsequent bad acts. To top it off, you insist that Crump must be guilty because there were no "other suspects."

Since when does the tunnel vision of police and prosecution demonstrate guilt of the acused? DPD and Henry Wade insisted there were no suspects other than Oswald. Does that make it true? The double standard being employed by Jim and Lisa in this is shameful.

This is amateur hour material from good writers who should know better. As I stated previously, Peter Janney can be wrong about absolutely everything else contained in the book, and still be correct about Crump's innocence. It is a fact you have studiously avoided addressing directly.

Because you can't.

Stop with the irrelevant distractions and answer Michael Hogan's questions.

[David Andrews]

I just finished reading Janney's book. I may weigh in with more later, or I may keep out of troubled waters, but:

Though I realize that CIA may have had surveillance and assassination team protocols, why was it necessary to have a such a complicated plot involving spotters; witnesses lured to the vicinity; a patsy who often fished in that spot but whose presence would have to be monitored and waited on daily; and a lookalike standing over the body to simulate the patsy to witnesses?

Why would they need a patsy at all? Meyer was killed publicly so that those in the "Washington insider" league would know to keep quiet about JFK. With no disrespect to the dead, surely this could have been done with a silenced pistol or a knife (since more rapists carry the latter), her clothes messed up to suggest sexual assault, and everybody involved leaving quietly, except poor Mary Meyer. Leaving the body in the bushes, instead of dragging it out to the towpath to be spotted, would have made the sexual assault angle more plausible in the absence of a patsy.

Anybody who needed convincing to shut up about JFK would have figured out the latent meaning. Why introduce Ray Crump, a potentially uncontrollable variable, who turned out to be unconvictable as well? What would convicting Ray Crump have done for the message sent by Meyer's death, that a nameless/faceless escapee killer couldn't have done better? Why drag witnesses into it and risk them seeing something they shouldn't?

If it all went down the way Janney figures it, CIA is lucky this sloppy exercise went over even as well as it did.

Poor woman, poor us.

Edited August 21, 2012 by David Andrews

[Michael Hogan]

Shame on you Mike. You got snookered. And then you say you have not even read the book. As you can see, I have.

Shame on you Jim. You need to read more carefully.

It was RCD who didn't read the book.

The fact that you believed I hadn't read Janney's book demonstrates what little attention you've paid to what I've actually been writing during the course this thread.

Jim, I know where you got that notion from. You need to read more carefully.

Nice way to avoid everything I wrote Mike.

My post correcting your claim that I hadn't read Mary's Mosaic came seven minutes after you posted it. I wasn't about to let that stand.

It was late Sunday night. To reply to the rest of the stuff you wrote is going to take some time, but rest assured I will do it.

See, what is also avoided here is this: There was no other suspect.

That's chump change compared to all the things you and Lisa avoided about the arrest and trial of Crump in your articles.

In time, I'll deal with those too.

(Continued next post)