Questions for Peter Janney on his book Mary’s Mosaic

[Michael Hogan]

(Continued from previous post)

To fulfill that lacuna, in my original article, I predicted that Janney and Damore would now use one of the witnesses as the killer.

They did. And they then said he confessed and disappeared. Except he didn't.

Who's next Mike: Wiggins? One of these days maybe you'll find someone.

Or maybe the Dutch guy is right: It was al la magic act.

This is the kind of absurdity one gets into when you take a book like Mary's Mosaic seriosusly.

Janney's chapters on the arrest and trial of Raymond Crump are a lot more factual, balanced and sourced than anything you or Lisa have written about it.

That's why you keep trying to take the discussion off on tangents.

Your implication that I take all of Janney's book seriously or that I endorse all of his conclusions are as misguided as your claim that I didn't read the book.

[Guest Tom Scully]

(quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1344672286' post='258104']

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.

(/quote]

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.

(quote name='Michael Hogan' timestamp='1344522639' post='257980']

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.

(/quote]

(quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1344672286' post='258104']

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.

(/quote]

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.

(quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1344672286' post='258104']

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.

(/quote]

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.

(quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1344672286' post='258104']

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.

(/quote]

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.

I've been criticized strongly by the widely regarded as well respected member of this forum, Michael Hogan. He requested that, "I tell him."

I regard the following as the effort of a promoter of a commercial endeavor to garner free advertising for his endeavor. :

(quote name='John Simkin' post='110677' date='Jul 20 2007, 07:43 AM']

Is there some way for forum members to see Damore's manuscript and/or get the name of the supposed CIA contract agent who he says did the professional hit?

I have asked my informant if I can name Mary Pinchot Meyer's killer on the Forum. I am awaiting his reply.

(/quote]

Hello -

My name is Peter Janney and I am the person John is referring to. I have actually been researching the life and death of Mary Pinchot Meyer for over thirty (30) years now. I am in the midst of producing a full length Hollywood drama called "Lost Light" which deals with Mary's relationship with JFK and her death. I also writing a book on the same subject ("Mary's Mosaic") which I am hard at work at.

I am going to post a much larger reply than I can at the moment in few days or so, but let me say this as an introduction:

Mary Meyer most certainly had a relationship with Tim Leary. I own all of Leo Damore's research on Mary Meyer. Damore was a prodigious researcher, just read his book Senatorial Priveledge and you can see for yourself. Damore even knew what room number Mary stayed in at the Ritz Carlton when she first came to meet Leary in the Spring of 1962. I also have a two hour tape recorded interview with Leary and Damore talking about the Meyer-JFK relationship. There are details on that tape that Leary talks about that he could have never known about if he had not known Mary back in the 1960s. Mary Meyer and JFK did take LSD together at Joe Alsop's house in Georgetown in the early Spring of 1963. I believe this experience was a catalyst for JFK's evolution of his political dispostion toward world peace initiatives. Soon after this experience JFK gave his legendary commencement speech at American University on June 10, 1963. More on that later.

Mary Meyer was not murdered; she was assassinated. I believe I am well on my way to proving this. The assassin's name was William L. Mitchell and he testified at the Crump murder trial as the "jogger" who passed Mary on his way back to Key Bridge. He testified that a black man, allegedly Ray Crump, was following Mary after he passed her. It was a complete frame up, again generated by certain individuals within the CIA.

Leo Damore interviewed "William L.Mitchell" ("Mitchell" told Damore that his name was an alias and that he had several aliases that he used) on March 31, 1993 on the phone for several hours. He allegedley recorrded the call but I could never find the tapes. "Mitchell" confessed to Damore that he had been ordered to take out Mary Meyer. Immediately, after the call, Damore called his attorney. His attorney took five (5) pages of notes on that call and he saved them and has given the notes to me.

Damore told me personally in 1993 that he had interviewed the assassin, but I was too heart broken at the time from a broken engagement to really get into it with him at the time.

I shared my taped interview between Leary and Damore with David Talbot and he credits me for that in his footnote. As much as I respect Jim Eugenio, he is wrong about Leary and Mary Meyer and I believe I have enough evidence to prove that.

Please feel free to post questions and I will try to respond. More later. Thank you.

Let me try to answer some of the question that the members of this panel have raised, based on my research for my book (tentatively entitled Mary's Mosaic).

.

The question has been asked who really was "William L. Mitchell," the alleged assassin of Mary Pinchot Meyer? What we know about Mitchell is that the day after the murder, he went to police in Washington and told them that he believed he passed Mary Meyer on the towpath as he was running east back to Key Bridge and she was walking west toward Fletcher's Boat House. Mitchell told police that a black man (who just happened to fit Ray Crump's description - the man who was charged with the murder) was following her about six hundred feet behind her. Mitchell told police that he ran the towpath regularly, worked at the Pentagon, and was a part time teacher at Georgetown University. Mitchell testified at Crump's murder trial in July, 1965, but his testimony was largely discredtied by Crump's attorney, Dovey Roundtree, Esq. who became a legend after getting Crump acquitted.

Mitchell was listed in the DoD directory in the fall of 1964 as "2nd Lt. William L. Mitchell." But then he disappears from the directory in the winter (1965). He shows up at the trial (July, 1965) and tells reporter Roberta Hornig that he is now a full time teacher in the mathmatics department at Georgetown University (GTU). The only problem with this is that there is no record of any "William L. Mitchell" ever teaching at Georgetown. Leo Damore thoroughly researched this in 1991-2. I again researched it a couple of years ago: there is no record of any "William L. Mitchell" teaching in ANY department at GTU.

Mitchell's place of residence was an apartment at "The Virginian" at 1500 Arlington Blvd. in Arlington, Va. Damore researched this address and found evidence that this was a known CIA safehouse. I followed this up two years ago and two former CIA personnel confirmed that it was indeed an agency safehouse, as were certain teaching appointments at GTU.

In my possession are several hours of tape recorded interviews between Damore and Crump's attorney Dovey Roundtree, Esq. (Award winning author Katie McCabe is now finishing the authorized biography of Dovey Rountree). Both Roundtree and Damore talk about Mitchell and how "convenient" his testimony was, and they both suspected his involvement. Mitchell never returned any of Roundtree's calls before the trial, and Damore could never locate him. So, as a last resort, Damore wrote Mitchell a letter and sent it to his last known address, the address given in the court transcript.

During the very late evening of 3/30/93, "Mitchell" contacted Damore by telephone. The call allegedley lasted more than two hours into the early morning of 3/31/93. At approximately 8:30am on the morning of 3/31/93, Damore called his attorney and good friend Jimmy Smith. Damore started to tell Jimmy about the call and Jimmy started taking notes - 5 pages of them. I have these notes and I have a recorded interview with Attorney Smith going over every detail of his notes.

"Mitchell" told Damore that he had been very impressed with his book Senatorial Priveledge (SP) and what he had uncovered. He wanted to tell Damore what happened but did not want to be the fall guy. "Mitchell" told Damore that he had several aliases, had been a former FBI agent, and then was recruited into the CIA. He had been assigned to surveillance of Mary Meyer right after the Warren Commission had been released. The order then came down to terminate her. There are a number of other details that I do not want share at this point because they are central to my book.

Damore told his attorney that he had taped the call, but I could never find the tapes. I have substaniated however from talking to two of Damore's closest friends that he became quite anxious subsequent to this call in the weeks following because he believed he was being watched.

I have not given up finding the real identity of "William L. Mitchell." But my main military researcher, Roger Charles who won the prestigious Peabody Award for his research with SY Hersch on Abu Ghraib for 60 Minutes II, says the area that Mitchell worked in at the Pentagon was surrounded by other CIA spooks. Charles feels that there is a good case to be make that "Mitchell" was CIA.

Ironically, the last job my father had at the CIA was "Director of Personnel" when he died in 1979.....

Now, let's look at another question: Why was Mary Meyer assassinated (not murdered) ? Mary was killed two weeks after the Warren Commission was released. She bought a paper back condensced version of the WC the day it was released and started reading it. She was furious. She knew it was a complete whitewash, and wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. She told friends that she was thinking seriously of coming out and revealing the truth of what she knew. Allegedley, she confronted Angleton and her former husband Cord about the absurdity of the WC. I think she knew at this point that certain people within the Agency had engineered the assassination. For the future of the CIA, she was definitely a big problem. And she was courageous enough to speak out.

Robert Morrow in his book First Hand Knowledge (Morrow, Robert. First Hand Knowledge. New York: S.P.I. Books, 1992. pp. 274-280) recounts his encounter with another CIA assett who tells him that Mary Meyer has told another CIA wife too many things and that she is trouble. Substaniating this event, I have an account from another CIA official who worked under Richard Helms in the Plans Directorate that they had asked another "helpful" CIA wife to talk to Mary and "settle her down...." in an effort to keep her quiet.

In David Talbott's new book Brothers, the author mentions Bill Walton and how Bobby Kennedy urged him to keep his trip to Russia right after the JFK assassination and take a message to Georgy Bolsholakov. Bobby knew Oswald was just the patsy, and eventually came to believe that the Agency was deeply involved in his brother's demise. Bill Walton was also an artist and a very good friend of Mary Meyer's. He would often escort her to White House social events, knowing full well the affair she was having with JFK. Without going into further details, let's just say that Walton talked to Mary after the assassination and tried to help with her grief.

Mary knew too much. As someone once said, "she knew where all the bodies were buried....." They had to get rid of her because she was too independent and could not be controlled. Think of the trouble she would have caused.

I have not forgot about further comments about Timothy Leary and the CIA and will tackle that one shortly.

(quote name='John Simkin' date='Aug 9 2005, 11:04 AM'](1) Do you believe Timothy Leary's account of his relationship with Mary Meyer?

(/quote)

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

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

I stand by my claims that Peter Janney is "a gullible fool." is My justification for doing so is because alternative descriptions of Mr. Janney, based on what I have discovered and shared here, must be less flattering, and much more troubling, than the one I have assigned to him.

In addition to the details Janney has shared about his father, I found that his mother, around the time Janney posted his advertisement on this forum in 2007, was serving on a small body at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute that also included Thomas J. Devine, and former OSS officer Weston Howland, on of a very small group of blood relatives bequeathed, along with Michael Paine, ownership shares in Naushon Island, MA.:

(quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1344829891' post='258229']

(quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1344135055' post='257654']

......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 (Howland and his sisters) was one of less than two dozen named along with Michael Paine bequeathed shares in Naushon Island. .....

(/quote)

(quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1344046638' post='257602']

....

(quote)

Annual Report

books.google.com Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution - 2006 - Snippet view

.....Thomas J. Devine William Everdell, ... M. Hoch Robert F. Hoerle Lilli S. Hornig Weston Howland, Jr. James B.Hurlock Columbus O. Iselin, Jr. Mary D.Janney George F.Jewett, ....

(/quote)

Continuing from my last post on this thread, it is interesting to me that Janney's mother and other former intelligence officers have been so committed to the Woods Hole Institute, the New England Aquarium, and certainly rubbed shoulders with the son of "Mrs. Weston Howland of Milton. How many coincidental links will have to surface, related to Mr. Bush and his close friend, Mr. Devine, before Bush's eulogy on the occasion of the funeral of Jerry Ford is finally described in corporate media as what it was, a farce!

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

(/quote]

I found that Janney's uncle chose as his best man, Frank Pace, Jr., Army Secretary, Chief of General Dynamics, Time, Inc. Board member, business partner of Laurence and David Rockefeller, and the man who the McClellan hearings on the TFX contract award was revealed to have made a speech to Ft. Worth General Dynamics employees :

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19344entry257335

.....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? ....

I found that Frank Pace, Jr. married and was the lifelong spouse of Peter Janney's aunt.

And, I found this.:

The same information:

.

Directory of Computer Education and Research: Volume 3

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

MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. - Assistant Professor of Business Administration

Department of Management Sciences School of Business and Economics CALIFORNIA

STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD

Annual report to the president

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

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

News and Notices - JStor

The Annals of Mathematical Statistics

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

www.jstor.org/stable/2238500

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harvard alumni directory

books.google.comHarvard Alumni Directory (Office), Harvard Alumni Association, Harvard University

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

Optimal Service Rate Selection in Piecewise Linear Markovian ...books.google.com/.../Optimal_Service_Rate_Selection_in_Piecew.ht...

Title, Optimal Service Rate Selection in Piecewise Linear Markovian Service Systems. Author, William Lockwood Mitchell. Publisher, University of California,

Directory of Emeritus Faculty - California State University, East Bay

www20.csueastbay.edu/oaa/files/docs/DirectoryEmeriti.pdf

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

Emeritus, 2001

MITCHELL, BILL (1969), Associate Professor of Business Administration: B.M.E., 1962, Cornell University; M.S., 1963, Harvard University; Ph.D., 1970, University of California, Berkeley.

(quote name='Peter Janney' timestamp='1341586745' post='256258']

.....We are now, after years of revelation by such authors as Ralph Martin, Seymour Hersh, Nigel Hamilton, and Presidential historians Michael Beschloss and Robert Dallek – 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. .... (/quote)

When I responded to Janney's comments, I did not know yet that Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, or

how close to the Rockefeller family Frank Pace actually was.:

(quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1341600926' post='256271']

Why use Mimi Alford to support your point that tarring JFK as a womanizer could not possibly be driven by republican and CIA propagandists? Mimi writes in her book that the first person she told of her affair with JFK was her dear friend and former roommate, Marion Stuart Pillsbury. Pillsbury is the daughter of Gerry Ford pal, Robert Douglas Stuart, Jr. Around the time Mimi wrote she confided her Kennedy dirt to Pillsbury, Stuart Pillsbury began her 21 years stint as executive director of the David Rockefeller foundation. We apologize for our skepticism about the unceasing character assassination of JFK. Citing sources like Hersch and Alford says much about your ability to discern what is reliable. You're writing about politically contaminated history without being alert to the partisan sabotage.

(/quote)

I stand by my posted opinion of Peter Janney; "a gullible fool," certainlly no better than that, and possibly much worse. Michael Hogan is the well respected member around here. Just say the word, Michael, and I will immediately withdraw from my status as a moderator of this forum.

[Michael Hogan]

And then WIggins comes up and says "That is the guy who shot the girl, I saw him put something in his pants after."

Jim offers this as a direct quote from Henry Wiggins, when in reality it's a product of Jim's imagination.

One would expect better from someone who says he has "read as much on this case as almost anyone."

I'd like to see Jim provide his source for that quote.

[Cliff Varnell]

From New TImes, by Nobile and Rosenbaum, 7/9/76:

"Wiggins saw the man place a dark object in the pocket of his windbreaker, then watched him disappear down the far side of the towpath into the wooded incline sloping down to the edge of the Potomac."

A few paragraphs later:

"...a cry went up from Henry WIggins, who was peering down to the river. Wiggins was pointing at two figures on the roadbed below. One was Officer Warner, the other was Raymond Crump. 'That's him.' shouted WIggins, pointing at Crump."

BTW, the place where WIggins saw him disappear to is the culvert where Crump was found soaking wet.

You should really read something more than Mary's Mosaic Mike. Then you wouldn't have to remove your foot from your mouth so often.

Hmm. I've only followed this thread with passing interest and I'm too lazy to go over all the posts again, but I'm under the impression Mike Hogan admitted he hadn't read Mary's Mosaic and was taking issue with Lisa P.'s blanket disapproval of Janney's footnotes -- but only in regards to Raymond Crump. A very specific point it seems to me.

Mike, if I've mistaken your argument I apologize for butting in.

If I haven't...Jim, lighten up!

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Oh come on Robert, give me a break will you.

I stated above exactly how I replied to you, and it was accurate. I also stated above how you replied to me.

I showed exactly why there was more than ample probable cause to apprehend Crump. Do I have to go through that litany again? The description of his clothes that he was wearing that day which matched up perfectly with what his neighbor saw him wear. His attempt to ditch the clothes piece by piece to prevent an witness ID. His dip in the water to get rid of blood and nitrates. His hiding in a bushy area near the culvert etc. etc.

I mean the cops would have been out to lunch not to pick him up. And then his BS answers to questions.

All of which was presented at trial, and found unpersuasive by a jury of peers. You’ve added nothing to the bill of particulars that wasn’t presented at trial. It is intriguing to me that you live in a country that affords the accused the presumption of innocence, yet you militate for the presumption of guilt in the case of Raymond Crump, who was already tried and acquitted.

If you provided fresh evidence to question the acquittal, you might have something. But if your only additional contribution to the prosecution’s case is pointing out that Crump went on to a life of depraved criminal acts, then you have no proof of his guilt in the Meyer case. It’s not only legally flawed, but ethically and intellectually, as well. Nor have I ever read any even slight concession on your part that Crump’s being arrested and tried for murder might have exacerbated an already precarious mental condition, and contributed to his subsequent criminal behaviour.

One can conjure up any number of scenarios that might explain his circumstance; none of them sinister, but each perhaps necessarily problematic for Crump. If he wasn’t anxious to volunteer that he drank there in public regularly, or had sex with a mistress there in public regularly, one can understand his anxiety over admitting such things, and instead inventing a fishing alibi. Has nothing to do with masking guilt in Meyer’s murder. Had everything to do with keeping his flagrant indiscretions private. Or perhaps you know of married men who are perfectly happy to have their wives learn of extra-marital affairs.

As for his diving into the water to hide or wash off blood and nitrates, I contend it is far more likely that, just for example, an inebriated Crump stood upon a rock to urinate, lost his footing and fell in. Again, a plausible scenario that required nothing more sinister than his admitted presence in the area, which he seems to have frequented regularly, and a bladder full from drinking alcohol, which also explains an open zipper.

In order to prove your assertion, you would have to prove that a mentally deficient Crump knew anything about nitrates, let alone that he thought nitrates could be washed off so easily.

Further, you’d have to cite scientific proof that nitrates simply vanish upon contact with water. I wish you luck on that count, because it doesn’t seem to be true anywhere in the world outside your own agenda.

Were it so, nobody would have subjected Oswald to nitrate testing because he’d had ample time to wash them off prior to being arrested. (Not to mention the list of items that can lead to a false positive, although that doesn’t comport with the Crump case, for he was clean as a whistle, a fact for which you have no credible, science-based rejoinder.)

I have not read Janney’s book, and likely won’t, precisely because I don’t trust the crew of sources on non-Crump details, either. I have had for forty years reasons to believe that Timothy Leary was a government agent, so his contributions are for me highly suspect for that fact alone. But Leary, Heymann, and all other dubious sources can contribute nothing to explaining the plight of Raymond Crump, which is my singular interest in this.

I am also weary of agenda-driven literary work. Nina Burleigh was not without her own agenda, nor is Janney, and now, nor are Lisa and you.

Repeat: These are all acts of a guilty man. In excelsis. Which by the way he admitted to when he started weeping and said, "Guess you got a stacked deck."

And then WIggins comes up and says "That is the guy who shot the girl, I saw him put something in his pants after."

Now Dovey Roundtree was an excellent lawyer. And she prepared a good defense. As I stated in my essay, the mapmaker was a bad witness. Hantman did not make enough of the heels on the shoes until it was too late. And he made a horrendous error in banking on Crump taking the stand. He was totally taken aback when Roundtree called only three character witnesses for the defense and then rested. He even approached the bench and asked for a recess since he was so surprised.

As I also said in my essay, she did what a good lawyer does: she raised the issue of reasonable doubt.

Crump then went on to his life of crime and terror. By the way, RCD, the defense could not have known about that or his history of blackouts prior to this case. NIna Burleigh found out about both.

As per "further research", look I have read as much on this case as almost anyone. And it goes back to 1997 for my first article. I have a very good background on it. Which enabled me to point out the swiss cheese holes in Janney's book.

Evidently, Mike didn't like that. Sorry I wrecked your read Mike. But I wasn't thinking of you. I was thinking of the other poor people who are not as easily gulled.

And BTW, it was not me who brought your name into this Robert. It was Mike. Let us be clear. He wanted Tom's heat taken off him and so he dragged in an innocent bystander as a diversion. I thought you would be smart enough to notice that.

To respond in order to the remaining points:

One is hardly surprised to hear a black man proclaim that the prosecution has a "stacked deck" in the US of the early 60's, or even today, for that matter. It does not denote guilt, unless one is resolutely determined to read that into what is otherwise an observation of sad resignation that once again, an innocent black man is taking the fall.

This is akin to Oswald in custody saying in Roger Craig’s presence: "Now everyone will know who I am." To those looking for proof of his guilt, that statement seems a boast that Oswald would now be famous, albeit - contradictorily - for the very crimes he refused to admit having committed. However, Craig characterized it as not being a boast, rather that Oswald was sadly resigned that some secret of his would now come out. In the latter case, you don’t read guilt into Oswald statement, yet in the former case you insist guilt is revealed in Crump’s comment.

Parsing such an opaque statement and insisting that your own interpretation is the only correct one only reveals your own agenda.

Wiggins may have been a credible witness, or he may have been another Howard Brennan. There would be no doubt had there been more than one lone witness, or if the one who was there had actually seen the act and not merely its aftermath. There is presumably some great criminal intent suggested by Wiggins’ claim to have seen the man standing over Meyer’s body pocket something. It must have been the murder weapon, right?

If so, why did more than 3 dozen police, searching the area with a fine tooth comb, including with scuba gear, fail to locate said weapon, then or at any time thereafter? Was there any evidence that Crump had ever purchased such a weapon, or witnesses to state that they had ever seen Crump with such a weapon, or known him to use such a weapon to commit criminal acts? Even if there was no ready evidence he had a weapon, did the local gunshops recall having sold him ammunition? Why were there no signs of nitrates on Crump's body or clothing? If the motive was robbery, did they retrieve anything from Crump's person that he had stolen from Meyer? If the motive was sexual assault, did they find any evidence for same? If Crump had been hired to kill Meyer by a third party, was any evidence adduced to support that notion? How does one find a person guilty of murder when they may have had the opportunity, but neither the demonstrable means nor motive?

These are the questions you should be answering - for they have been posed to you repeatedly by me and others - yet you tack off into how poor a researcher Janney is instead, as though that alone will suffice. It doesn’t.

Your fallback position that a guilty Crump walked free because defense counsel was brilliant, and the prosecution was not, is a weak distraction. While both observations may have been true, they did not and cannot overshadow the real reason Crump was acquitted: the prosecution had no case. You’ve done nothing to improve that empty bill of particulars.

As for being "dragged into this by Michael Hogan," this is false, Michael is blameless, and you know it. I made the foregoing points some weeks back, and you failed to even respond to them. You ridicule the notion that Crump could be innocent, and use your Janney-bashing to distract attention away from the facts that not only was Crump found innocent of the charge, you cannot provide even a single reason to think the verdict should have read otherwise.

You owe Michael Hogan several apologies, for you have repeatedly mis-characterized his posts in your effort to avoid answering the perfectly natural questions he has posed to you. Just as you have avoided answering mine, such as those posed above in bold. Feel free to do so now. Better late than never.

Kick Janney’s shins all you like for his apparent multiple sins, but proving Janney wrong on all counts doesn’t require Crump’s guilt. And a good thing too, for you are unable to demonstrate a single piece of evidence inculpating Crump that wasn’t already found insufficient at trial.

I feel obliged to again mention my deep respect for most of the work you and Lisa have done in the past. Which is precisely why your treatment of Crump is so singularly anomalous. An innocent Ray Crump doesn’t invalidate anything in your reviews of Janney’s book. That you nevertheless unnecessarily insist Crump was guilty, using a total paucity of evidence, says something unflattering about you.

[Michael Hogan]

From New TImes, by Nobile and Rosenbaum, 7/9/76:

"Wiggins saw the man place a dark object in the pocket of his windbreaker, then watched him disappear down the far side of the towpath into the wooded incline sloping down to the edge of the Potomac."

A few paragraphs later:

"...a cry went up from Henry WIggins, who was peering down to the river. Wiggins was pointing at two figures on the roadbed below. One was Officer Warner, the other was Raymond Crump. 'That's him.' shouted WIggins, pointing at Crump."

BTW, the place where WIggins saw him disappear to is the culvert where Crump was found soaking wet.

You should really read something more than Mary's Mosaic Mike. Then you wouldn't have to remove your foot from your mouth so often.

Hmm. I've only followed this thread with passing interest and I'm too lazy to go over all the posts again, but I'm under the impression Mike Hogan admitted he hadn't read Mary's Mosaic and was taking issue with Lisa P.'s blanket disapproval of Janney's footnotes -- but only in regards to Raymond Crump. A very specific point it seems to me.

Mike, if I've mistaken your argument I apologize for butting in.

If I haven't...Jim, lighten up!

Cliff, you're partially right and partially mistaken. Recently, Tom Scully decided to resuscitate a thread that had been dormant since April to call on me to apologize to Jim DiEugenio for our discussions on this thread. I pointed out to Tom that at the time of my posts on that thread, I hadn't read Mary's Mosaic. This is that post:

http://educationforu...15

Although he should have known better, that was likely the thread that confused Jim when he made the claim that I hadn't read Mary's Mosaic and he had. Jim just failed to read

carefully. But like I said, he should have known better.

This thread is a different matter. As my early posts made clear, I have read Janney's book and studied the footnotes and I posted on that. This was before Lisa and Jim's CTKA articles.

So when Lisa's article came out she claimed: "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."

The first subject she dealt with was Raymond Crump.

Because the arrest and trial of Raymond Crump was the source of my interest in Janney's book and I was familiar with the sources Janney used in his three chapters on Crump, I immediately knew that Lisa's article was not going to be objective. Simply put, she had an agenda.

I decided to refrain from commenting. Then Jim's article came out and Janney issued his rebuttal. Again, I was interested in Crump, nothing else.

Robert Charles-Dunne was the first (besides Janney) to take Jim and Lisa to task in detail for their lack of objectivity. Like always, Robert's post was filled with logic, consistency, and accuracy. He asked questions that were natural to ask. That is why he enjoys the reputation he has earned here. Jim and his main supporter Tom Scully avoided RC-D's post like it was radioactive, although they replied to nearly everyone else.

Still, I refrained from commenting.for a month. But when Jim DiEugenio sarcastically thanked Dawn Meredith for smearing him. (A false and ugly claim over a relatively innocuous statement), I realized that Jim's enormous ego had gotten the better of him. It gave me the motivation to post my thoughts about Lisa Pease's article. This is that post:

http://educationforu...=45#entry257633

I showed what sources Janney used for his chapters on Raymond Crump. Those sources were (and are) sound and solid. This was the main point of my post. Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully have steadfastly avoided this entirely during the course of this thread. Instead they have preferred to assault my posts with parts of Janney's book that I'm not interested in and that are outside the realm of Crump and his trial. They seem to feel that I was not entitled to criticize even a narrowly focused aspect of Lisa's article. I don't care to comment about William Mitchell's alleged later career, Timothy Leary's relationship with Mary Meyer, the shortcomings of Leo Damore, Mary Meyer's diary and her relationship with John Kennedy and whether or not the CIA killed her. To me, all that stuff is speculative and basically unprovable. Based on my posts on this thread, it's irritating and time consuming to have Jim and Tom interject that stuff into our exchanges.

I am interested in the Crump story because it is, as Burleigh called it on the cover of her book, an unsolved murder. There are police reports, exhibits and sworn courtroom testimony, the recollections of Dovey Roundtree and interviews with some of the participants that can be used for primary sources. Which is exactly what Janney did.

There was definitely a rush to judgment with Crump. There was a lack of evidence and the inconsistent statements and testimony of some of the witnesses to the aftermath.

He was denied certain legal rights. He was probably beaten in jail. The murder made national news and there was tremendous pressure on the prosecution to convict him.

They failed. Yet half a century later, DiEugenio is smug in his assurances to us that Crump did it and as RC-D has pointed out, he does so with the flimsiest of evidence and logic.

As has been pointed out to Jim DiEugenio, there is much on the record that is exonerative of Raymond Crump or, at the very least, suggestive of his innocence. Those items are worthy of being discussed. There is no point in doing that with Jim. He has posthumously convicted Crump in his mind for reasons that are not difficult for anyone to see. The one-sided nature of the articles in CTKA and Jim's posts here make that apparent.

It's no secret that I've taken exception to his tactics on this thread. No one likes to be bullied, insulted and constantly patronized. No one likes to have their key points ignored and instead be interrogated meaninglessly. No one likes to have their posts misrepresented by the erroneous use of paraphrase.

Thanks for your comments, Cliff. It can be difficult to follow things when there are multiple threads and long posts that are reproduced over and over. That's why I wanted to make my position clear in all of this. I'm uncomfortable talking about me -- I'd rather talk about the topic.

But I feel like I was figuratively pushed into a corner.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Michael Hogan

[Greg Parker]

I haven't read the book; probably never will. I certainly do not know "who did it".

I have jumped in on one point:

"Everyone will know who I am" is the same as the stacked deck comment? How? How does Oswald saying that refer to the evidence against him? In fact, Oswald always protested the evidence against him. Again, faulty logic on your part.

I happen to agree with Jim that the comments bear no similarity in meaning or intent.

But I also agree with the overall "take" on it by RCD. If someone is under arrest and says they have the deck stacked against them, they are most certainly NOT making an admission of guilt. They are basically saying the case against them is rigged.

I think a more accurate comparison would be Oswald's comment to Robert, "Do not believe the so-called evidence."

Okay. Make that two points:

Based on my posts on this thread, it's irritating and time consuming to have Jim and Tom interject that stuff into our exchanges.

Funny. When I was making the same complaints about having the Harvey & Lee crap interjected into every thread I started, you took the side of the person doing the interjecting. Never mind how irritating and time consuming it was for me to have to continually debunk that horse-xxxx. Why the double-standard, Mike?

[Michael Hogan]

I owe Mike Hogan exactly nothing, got that partner.

I confused one thing, him with you about the reading of the book. Meanwhile he just accused me of making something up. Which I did not do and don't do. As I just proved it. Somehow, that is ok with you. What a neat double standard.

I'm content to let readers judge for themselves who has their foot in their mouth. I knew Jim could not source that quote because he made it up. He just proved that he did.

First of all, the man Wiggins saw put something in his jacket pocket, not his pants. One might think Jim would know the difference.

Secondly, Wiggins did not see the shooting. And he did not say what Jim says he did about the "guy that shot the girl." The New Times article supports this.

Janney's description of this event was based on police reports and trial transcripts. Burleigh and Roundtree reported what Wiggins said in their books.

Jim's quote of Wiggins was based upon his own mistaken fantasy, unless he can provide a real source.that supports his exact quote.

It's bad form and poor scholarship to put your own words in quotation marks and try to pass it off as something someone else said.

Fetzer, Von Pein and Carroll are members with enormous egos who respond with condescension and insults when they are shown to be wrong.

Although his views are markedly different than theirs, it is sad to see Jim DiEugenio act the same way.

And then WIggins comes up and says "That is the guy who shot the girl, I saw him put something in his pants after."

Jim offers this as a direct quote from Henry Wiggins, when in reality it's a product of Jim's imagination.

One would expect better from someone who says he has "read as much on this case as almost anyone."

I'd like to see Jim provide his source for that quote.

From New TImes, by Nobile and Rosenbaum, 7/9/76:

"Wiggins saw the man place a dark object in the pocket of his windbreaker, then watched him disappear down the far side of the towpath into the wooded incline sloping down to the edge of the Potomac."

A few paragraphs later:

"...a cry went up from Henry WIggins, who was peering down to the river. Wiggins was pointing at two figures on the roadbed below. One was Officer Warner, the other was Raymond Crump. 'That's him.' shouted WIggins, pointing at Crump."

BTW, the place where WIggins saw him disappear to is the culvert where Crump was found soaking wet.

You should really read something more than Mary's Mosaic Mike. Then you wouldn't have to remove your foot from your mouth so often.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Michael Hogan

[Dawn Meredith]

Jim: I disagree, it is you who have become too emotionally involved here. Not MIke or RDC., who are simply laying out the facts or lack of evidence. I did not mean to imply that you only wrote about MPM to refute an alleged affair.

:Like Mike Hogan and RCD my posts here are only about the trial and your refusal to believe it was not Crump who did it, and how Lisa presented the evidence. I thought it was unfair and cherry picked. Her essay almost caused me not to get the book. But I totally enjoyed the book. Of course lots in it can not be proven. However you just cannot let go of the Crump-did-it notion and I do not KNOW why. So I will not speculate. But to get so defensive about this is curious. We all have read a lot on this case, we all can look at the same evidence, much the same way a jury does and come away with our own conclusions. Mine is that Crump was set up. LIke MIke and RCD I am not dealing with the rest of the book or Janney's associates or his post against you and LIsa. Just the part in the book abut Crump. MIke and RCD have already plainstakingly made the very points I would make so I am not going to repeat. Gotta get out of here anyway...work...

Dawn

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

So, once we strip away the splenetic apoplexy and high dudgeon, we’re left with no new tale to tell. Just a repetition of what already didn’t work at trial and hasn’t worked here.

Rather than answer questions fairly posed, we go along with Jim on another meaningless joyride.

Jim, I have never said - contrary to your insinuations - that police weren’t entitled to arrest Crump, based upon his proximity to the scene and the strange circumstances. But police and prosecution were both unable to stitch together a case the jury would buy, and should have known the outcome in advance, given a case so weak.

You said, "When you say something was "unpersuasive", we don't know what went on in the jury room. Did you ever contact any of them? I doubt it. We don't know what weighed heavy on them or what did not."

Well, actually we do. They heard a case with no murder weapon, no eyewitness to the actual crime, no forensic evidence that Crump had shot Meyer, no discernible motive for him to have done so, no indication that he had ever owned a gun, and came to the only conclusion they could. They decided not to convict based upon the prosecutorial vacuum where evidence should have been..

But you seem to feel capable and justified in second-guessing that outcome. In order for us to divine why you feel this way, you’ve been asked for reasons that weren’t already presented by the prosecution. Yet, you refuse to answer, or, more likely, have nothing new to add.

Please, just answer the questions that have now been put to you several times (I even put them in bold type so you would more easily see them, yet you didn’t seem to.) So let’s try again:

If so, why did more than 3 dozen police, searching the area with a fine tooth comb, including with scuba gear, fail to locate said weapon, then or at any time thereafter? Was there any evidence that Crump had ever purchased such a weapon, or witnesses to state that they had ever seen Crump with such a weapon, or known him to use such a weapon to commit criminal acts? Even if there was no ready evidence he had a weapon, did the local gunshops recall having sold him ammunition? Why were there no signs of nitrates on Crump's body or clothing? If the motive was robbery, did they retrieve anything from Crump's person that he had stolen from Meyer? If the motive was sexual assault, did they find any evidence for same? If Crump had been hired to kill Meyer by a third party, was any evidence adduced to support that notion? How does one find a person guilty of murder when they may have had the opportunity, but neither the demonstrable means nor motive?

You have repeatedly said that by jumping into the water, Crump washed off his body the nitrates that using a gun would have left on his person. Please cite a single credible forensic evidentiary source that illustrates this is even possible.

Why will you not simply answer these questions? Why instead are we treated to a mini-meltdown of chippy condescension and hubris? ("Got that, partner?" Really? Are we on the schoolyard?)

[Michael Hogan]

And, as Mike hoped for, by mentioning Dawn, and making me reply to his smear, Dawn comes back on.

Nice racket you got going there Mike.

First, Jim claimed Dawn smeared him. Now it's me. If Jim sues me, I'm gonna ask Dawn to represent me.

Should I now mention Tom's work and your comments on it to bring him back on?

You can if you want to. It won't be the first time.

But I think Tom can make that decision for himself.

Mike:

.......Do you also now still think, after Tom's good work, that Mitchell disappeared into thin air?

And BTW, it was not me who brought your name into this Robert. It was Mike. Let us be clear. He wanted Tom's heat taken off him and so he dragged in an innocent bystander as a diversion.

I thought you would be smart enough to notice that.

And by the way, the heat is intense: http://www.amazon.co...ostRecentReview

[Michael Hogan]

Mike:

This is simply a bunch of hogwash by you.

You said one thing about Lisa's article and this was a straight steal from Janney's screed at Rockwell. (Bold added)

I don' t have Janney's book anymore since I dumped it in the garbage where it belongs. But I will assume he is right.

Ipso facto, Lisa made a mistake about what Janney wrote about Crump's previous record.

Then you got;all uppity about us not correcting that mistake.

I said one thing about Lisa's article? You're making that up, just like you made up the Wiggins quote.

Not once have you been willing to discuss the footnote issue, the main point of my post.

I stole from Janney? I referenced him directly. And I noted your failure to even acknowledge Lisa's mistake after it was pointed out to you.

Take a look Jim. The few people that read this thread are smarter than you give them credit for.

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.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

PS: I won't even reply to RCD. On the subject of Meyer and Crump, he is in love with the sound of his own voice. Maybe Crump decided to take an afternoon swim with his clothes on?

Yet another mis-characterization of what I suggested purely as a hypothetical.

Once again, somebody who insists he has all the answers, but cannot reply to fair questions, instead evades them by adopting a stance of faux outrage. Those who cannot rebut the message are known to attack the messenger. Impotence duly noted.

As for me being in love with the sound of my own voice, this is an odd comment coming from somebody who has averaged 5 posts per day, every day, in the past two years of Forum membership. Clearly, you think you have much to impart.

Until, that is, you are asked questions for which you have no ready answer. Then you shift gears to further attack Janney, who is irrelevant to the issue of Crump’s guilt, and when this proves futile in the face of further attempts to procure answers from you, manufactured umbrage is your way of slinking out of your dilemma.

Do not think for a moment that this goes unnoticed by Forum members. Such cowardice is beneath you and does this Forum no favors.

A Forum, by the way, started by John Simkin, whom you previously also simple-mindedly attacked in your zeal to crucify Peter Janney. Clearly, you will allow nothing to stand in the way of your vendetta against Janney, even at a cost to yourself. Collateral damage so far includes people who once thought highly of you, your now-tarnished reputation for taking on hard questions, and any pretense of your impartiality, which is the requisite for being considered credible. That you do this on a Forum provided to you by somebody you have personally attacked compounds mendacity with hypocrisy. You have proved yourself unworthy.

(edited to correct typo)

Edited August 15, 2012 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Karl Kinaski]

How about this. The killing of MPM was an ordinary murder case. (Crump the killer)

But somebody had second thoughts:

"MPM was close to JFK. Let's make another suspicious, Dallas- related dead out of this ordinary killing to spread fear amongst the critics of the WC/FBI Lone Nut tale. Let's aquit Crump the killer of MPM."

If this was the case, it worked. I mean even MPS father, CIA himself, was convinced, that his daughter was killed "by the same bastards who killed Jack..." except he too was part of this little game...

The Janney book could be an attempt to renew that crazy little IC-OP...

just a thought...

KK

BTW IMO MPM's political influence on JFK's politics and state of mind was zero....this whole LSD thing is horsexxxx and Leary was a damned xxxx and IC asset...

Edited August 16, 2012 by Karl Kinaski

[Guest Tom Scully]

(quote name='Robert Charles-Dunne' timestamp='1345073138' post='258382']

(quote name='Jim DiEugenio' timestamp='1345039085' post='258357']

PS: I won't even reply to RCD. On the subject of Meyer and Crump, he is in love with the sound of his own voice. Maybe Crump decided to take an afternoon swim with his clothes on?

(/quote]

.............Do not think for a moment that this goes unnoticed by Forum members. Such cowardice is beneath you and does this Forum no favors.

A Forum, by the way, started by John Simkin, whom you previously also simple-mindedly attacked in your zeal to crucify Peter Janney. Clearly, you will allow nothing to stand in the way of your vendetta against Janney, even at a cost to yourself. Collateral damage so far includes people who once thought highly of you, your now-tarnished reputation for taking on hard questions, and any pretense of your impartiality, which is the requisite for being considered credible. That you do this on a Forum provided to you by somebody you have personally attacked compounds mendacity with hypocrisy. You have proved yourself unworthy.

(edited to correct typo)

(/quote]

That is rich. From high on a pulpit of impartiallity that is the Education Forum when it comes to appraising the conflict free and always reliable, Peter Janney. This forum and Spartacus are top sources of in depth and reliable information related to JFK Assassination Research, and history and politics generally, but you specified a very controversial exception, Peter Janney.

Bullxxxx! Either what goes "unnoticed by Forum members" is that this forum exists to INFORM, or it is a cult of personality. You better drape at least two nooses over the limb on the hanging tree, maybe more...... Damore, Leary, Janney, and Mimi Alford are unimpeachable sources for what we know to be truth, DiEugenio has proved himself "unworthy!"

New Rules: Partly in reaction to this;

(quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1344909302' post='258315']

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

Harvard alumni directory

books.google.comHarvard Alumni Directory (Office), Harvard Alumni Association, Harvard University

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

(/quote]

This has to change.:

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

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

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

(/quote]

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

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

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

(/quote]

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

...and this :

(quote name='John Simkin' timestamp='1153290958' post='69202']

I welcome criticisms, corrections and suggested additions to the paper. This is very much a collaborative project. Could you please post your contributions here:

http://educationforu...?showtopic=5856

(/quote]

I came upon the original thread authored by John Simkin displaying the message I quoted above, while I was researching

Frank Pace, Jr.

I observe that in John's original thread, and in this one, the only mention of the name Rockefeller, is in two posts in this

thread authored by Sterling Seagrave. I suspect John did not include the name Rockefeller because of a lack of good

source material John could comfortably footnote.

I find the inserted hand of the Rockefellers providing explanation for so many events and outcomes related to JFK Assassination research, the most obvious being McCloy "serving" on the WC and the travesty of the unelected president, Ford, appointing Nelson as unelected VPOTUS and chair of the Rockefeller "Commission."

The Morning Record - Nov 29, 1967

and this :

(quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1344517373' post='257977']

This started some time ago. I think you owe Jim DiEugenio an apology Michael. At the least, Janney seems a gullible fool, and Damore and Luciana Goldberg warrant far more scrutiny. What does Janney now have to offer from Damore's "research" to maintain his issues with his father being in league with a CIA assassin of Mary Meyer?

(/quote]

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? Maybe it's you that has an axe to grind.

It does not escape me that you refer to another EF member as a gullible fool. Other members' posts have been made invisible for less.

I intend to reply to your other post about Dovey Roundtree and Mitchell when I get the time. And my reply will be on the appropriate thread.

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

..........

Explain the difference between what you accuse me of, and this. (Michael, you and I are not going back and forth about anything to do with Crump.) I expressed my opinion that you owed Jim an apology and you took exception to my opinion, and I take exception to your opinion that I have "wronged" MEMBER Janney. Member Janney is a big problem for this forum, and it is troubling that you will not comment on the impact of identifying "phantom" William L Mitchell. The silence of those who invested in the Damore-Janney "phantom assassin" is troubling. The silence of those invested in Janney is troubling. There is quite a difference between thin skinned reaction to opinions and theories in conflict with your own and my "seems a gullible fool" reaction to Janney. A review of John's posts about Janney and his anticipated book are certainly not emphasizing fresh insights about the Ray Crump trial.

http://educationforu...26

(quote name='John Simkin' timestamp='1320676541' post='237509']

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

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

(/quote]

(quote name='John Simkin' date='Aug 9 2005, 11:04 AM'](1) Do you believe Timothy Leary's account of his relationship with Mary Meyer?

(post="36373"](/post](/quote]

...........

(quote name='John Simkin' date='Aug 9 2005, 11:04 AM'](3) Did you find any evidence that the killing was a CIA operation?

(post="36373"](/post]

(/quote]

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

...........

(quote name='Mel Ayton' timestamp='1121433375' post='33443']

My book was published by a University Press, not a Vanity Press.(I thought you were the mature member who advised his forum members to avoid insults, sneers etc?)

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

If you limit your reading to books which continually take the conspiracy angle you will miss out.Please read Nina Burleigh, inform your readers about her conclusions in order to to give a balanced view, then carry on speculating.

(quote]

I am an insignificant upstart compared to the learned veterans here and in the CT community, generally, who permit no heresy or disrespect to go unnoticed. I am emboldened to emphasize that what it is about is willingness to form opinions shaped by the strength of the best information, not the oldest or the newest or the best fit to our pet theory.

I know and appreciate that John Simkin is committed to maintaining a space where his critics are admitted through his door to speak their minds to him. Jim DiEugneio's membership here is proof this is so, and it does not make it any easier to compose and post this message.

The longer the silence in response to the elephant in the room;

http://www.spartacus.../JFKjordanE.htm

Jul 29, 2007 – The question has been asked who really was "William L. Mitchell," ... an apartment at "The Virginian" at 1500 Arlington Blvd. in Arlington, Va.

...the more troubled I am, and my concerns are purely a result of the dirt I've been digging. I follow the leads I unearth. I am not a sycophant or a contestant in any popularity contest. I've had differences with Jim DiEugenio over the importance and relevance of Bush family related research results.

I think this is incompatible in this research with evaluating the background and influence of Frank Pace, Jr., and the information assembled by Leo Damore.:

........In an article that appeared in the New York Post Damore claimed that he believed that the Central Intelligence Agency had something to do with the death of Meyer. He pointed out that on the night of the murder James Angleton and Ben Bradlee were in Mary's home looking for her diary. He added: "She (Meyer) had access to the highest levels. She was involved in illegal drug activity. What do you think it would do to the beatification of Kennedy if this woman said, 'It wasn't Camelot, it was Caligula's court'?" Damore also said that a figure close to the CIA had told him that Mary's death had been a professional "hit".

Damore's book on Meyer was never published. However, a good friend of mine has the manuscript. He is using this material to help him write a book on Meyer.

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

Consider this is a brief autobiography and that it could include an impressively deep and varied number of subjects and details. :

John Simkin : Biography

http://www.spartacus...olnet.co.uk/JFKsimkin.htm

by John Simkin - More by John Simkin

Simkin has been interested in the assassination of John F. Kennedy for over 25 ...... Leo Damore claimed in an article that appeared in the New York Post that ...

It is almost as if there is a commitment to exhibit specifically what Jim DeEugenio was most critical of.:

(quote name='John Simkin' timestamp='1328548045' post='245817']

..... It is the same attitude that JFK had. He probably told himself that he was not being unfaithful as long as he did not kiss the women. He might have been an above average president but he was a lousy human being.

(/quote]

Robert Charles-Dunne, "unworthy ????" is that the charge? Clearly you are scolding about a "vendetta" that seems not as troubling or conflicted as the status quo you've posted threatingly in the continuance of.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Tom Scully