Questions for Peter Janney on his book Mary’s Mosaic

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Try as I might to impart a critical point, I seem to fail. So, I will try again, for the benefit of both Jim and Tom.

Jim has written extensively about Janney and his book,. including before the book was even written/published. Jim finds great fault with Janney’s book, as is his right. Janney postulates that CIA whacked Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Crump was the convenient fall guy. It is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary proof. Jim is entirely correct to ask for that proof. But it has nothing, however, to do with the overall issue of Crump’s innocence or guilt.

Jim took an interesting tack: by proving Crump killed Meyer, Janney’s hypothesis is destroyed.

But two critical things are revealed in this strategy.

First, it is unnecessary that Crump be guilty of murder to disprove Janney’s CIA hypothesis. The one does not require the other, although Jim apparently thought it a convenient shortcut.

Second, I am perfectly open to persuasion of Crump’s guilt, assuming that some new evidence has been unearthed that militates in that direction. I have been asking Jim, repeatedly, to provide additional reasons to think Crump guilty. Is there a newly-emerged witness who saw the shooting? Did the DCPD finally find the murder weapon with Crump’s prints still on it? Was there a recent round of forensic tests upon Crump’s clothing that did find nitrates or other evidence of gunshot residue? Did Crump confess the crime to somebody?

Any of the foregoing, or other similar new evidence, would help demonstrate what Jim contends to be true.

But none of the foregoing is on offer. What we have is only the same failed prosecution case that resulted in acquittal. And, of course, Crump’s horrific subsequent criminality. But, any fair-minded person knows instinctively that guilt in some things doesn’t automatically equate to guilt in all things. That a man is caught robbing a bank doesn’t automatically make him guilty of all bank robberies, prior or subsequent. It is fraudulent to postulate otherwise.

Also, as I have repeatedly tried to impart, a prior history of minor petty crimes doesn’t comport with murder, and even Crump’s admittedly horrible subsequent criminal record doesn’t include murder, let alone the killing of someone he didn’t even know.

Between the prior minor crimes and the subsequent escalated criminal behavior came the arrest and trial for a crime of which he was found not guilty. I would like to see even a grudging admission from Jim that the trauma of being falsely charged, tried - and acquitted - of murder may have contributed to Crump’s subsequent downward spiral. Better men have cracked under less pressure.

It comes down to something this simple: if Janney postulates a CIA hit on Mary Meyer, it is incumbent upon him, as the one making the claim, to provide proof for his assertion. Upon this, I think we can all agree.

Likewise, if Jim D. postulates - against the known evidence - that Raymond Crump did in fact kill Mary Pinchot Meyer, it is incumbent upon him as the one making the claim to provide the proof for his assertion. Merely regurgitating a prosecution case that was rejected as insufficient by 12 jurors does not constitute that proof. How could it? He was acquitted.

This has nothing to do with Janney, Damore, Douglas, Heymann,.Leary or any other source - dubious or otherwise - cited in Janney’s book, a red herring continually dredged up by Jim and Tom.

I have asked Jim a series of questions, which Jim has thus far side-stepped and avoided. That is the behaviour I think is unworthy of him, as a respected researcher, and the Forum in which he makes his assertions, because we Forum members like to think that actual evidence is required in order to make one’s case, particularly, one would hope, when one is accusing a man of murder when he’s already been tried and acquitted.

If Jim cannot answer the questions, it would suffice for him to simply acknowledge "I don’t know" or "I can’t answer them." To pretend instead that they were never asked, or they are too unimportant to respond, is dodging the issue and depicts evasiveness where one would expect to find the foundation of his certainty re: Crump.

Jim has stipulated that jumping into the water removed all trace of gunshot residue from Crump and his clothing. I have repeatedly asked for a citation from any credible forensic source that this is possible. [the sound of crickets.]

I have asked how it was possible for Crump to have disposed of the murder weapon when he demonstrably never left the area after the murder, yet it remained forever after undiscovered despite elaborate police searches of that area. [more crickets]

In lieu of being able to place a specific weapon in Crump’s hands, I have asked whether there is any evidence that Crump ever owned such a weapon, was ever seen with such a weapon, or ever used such a weapon in any crime. [more crickets]

I have asked if there is any evidence to suggest a motive - any motive - for Crump killing Meyer. [crickets.]

Were our positions reversed, these are the very first questions that Jim would pose to me, because they are the most self-evident and obvious. I fail to see how it is thought unfair of me to ask these questions, or how they can be considered unimportant if Jim is to demonstrate Crump’s guilt where the prosecution failed to do so.

[Mike Rago]

(This is a good thread and I have been following it)

Sorry to interject but I have seen this statement repeated a lot.

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

To say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is to make an extraordinary assertion.

Here is an example of an extraordinary claim. "Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days".

(What would be the extraordinary evidence that would prove this extraordinary claim?)

I am not sure that saying the CIA whacked Mary Meyer is an extraordinary claim. If that is an extraordinary claim then saying that the CIA killed JFK is an even more extraordinary claim.

I do not want "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to be misused and lose what I believe to be its true meaning.

I know that Mr. DiEugenio used it first in his book review and you are just repeating it. But he did not define what he meant by extraordinary claim or extraordinary evidence in that review either. (When I read that review I did a search on the word extraordinary in that review and it only occurred in that one phrase)

Maybe you meant that Mr. DiEugenio's claim that Crump was guilty , even after found not guilty, is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence?

Edited August 16, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Michael Hogan]

Tom, to the best of my recollection I've never engaged you in any discussions on this Forum. With maybe one or two of the briefest exceptions, I've never made

any comments in reference to any of your posts.

Recently you posted something about Dovey Roundtree that was obviously untrue. I asked two reasonable and polite questions:

1)Tom, could you elaborate on what the speculation was that was presented by Dovey Roundtree? 2) And how the small set of details you linked to demolish her speculation?

Your response implied that you thought I was toying with you and you added that I had an axe to grind, while admitting that you were wrong about Roundtree. If you want

to talk to me like that, I'm fine with it. Just don't expect much respect returned to you.

As per your latest post, I have tried to isolate the part of it that was directed to me. If you have issues with what I wrote or said, why not express them to me in a dedicated post?

It would be a lot easier for everybody, including the members who read these threads casually.

The paragraph of yours that I've reproduced below is difficult for me to decipher. I don't see your overall point, so I'm going to tackle it piece by piece.

This has to change.:

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?

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. (Bolded by Tom Scully)

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.

Responses in next post.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Michael Hogan

[Michael Hogan]

(Continued from previous post)

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.

I am not clear as to what you think I accused you of. Sorry Tom, but you are not going to dictate to me the terms of our conversations. Crump was the subject of my criticism of the CTKA articles. Neither you nor Jim has spent even one word on the main point of my post, which was Janney's footnotes on his three chapters on Crump. Instead, you've posted every distraction imaginable. I've explained in great detail why I'm not interested in debating the other stuff with you.

Like Jim, you need to read more carefully. Nowhere did I say, or imply that you "wronged MEMBER Janney." I just noted that other posts have been made invisible for less, which is true.

You can call him anything you want. It's a reflection on you and by extension, because you are a moderator, a reflection on the Education Forum. Whether your description of him is true or not is immaterial.

You've gone outside of this thread to call on me to apologize to Jim DiEugenio. I've asked you several times for a clarification as to exactly why you think I should. What was your answer?

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.

Tom, I know you are proud of your Mitchell googling. So much so that you have taken to posting it onto threads that are unrelated to Janney or Mary's Mosaic.

The arrogance you displayed was palpable.

http://educationforu...120#entry257923

Are you trying to say that I am invested in the Damore-Janney "phantom assassin?" Are you trying to say I am invested in Janney? If so, I challenge you to support your claim.

Other than Jim, there seems not to be a member that is interested in the "impact" of your identification of the "phantom." If other members are not interested in it, why would you expect me to be, particularly in light of what I have been consistently posting?

What you find troubling apparently troubles no one else.

Tom, judging by posts that I have read in the past, there are members that think that you are a bigger problem for this Forum than "Member Janney."

By the way, was this your review? Or just someone who appropriated your Googles without crediting you for it?

http://www.amazon.co...ostRecentReview

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.

I have no idea what your point is. What theories have I expressed on this thread? My main opinion was expressed in my initial post about Lisa's article and was ignored by Jim and you.

This is what I concluded:

As it pertains to Raymond Crump, Lisa Pease's unqualified rejection of Janney's footnotes is unwarranted, unfair and untrue.

I showed why I thought that.

I also concluded that she had an agenda and showed why I thought that.

Since then, I've had to listen to all of Jim's deprecating insults.and totally unrelated data. All the while you or he would not address the footnotes.

I'm tired of repeating myself to those that do not read carefully.

Edited August 16, 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?

Mike, do I have to make Tom's day by bumping the threads to jog your memory?

See... I'm interested in anyone pointing fingers and crying "agenda!" amid accusations of defending ones theories at all costs, when they themselves have taken sides based on an agenda of defending their own favorite theory... a theory btw whose very foundation is now just plain rubble... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18558&st=30 and not a peep from you in a thread that went for 6 pages.

[Michael Hogan]

And by the way, one more thing here, the title of this thread is: questions for Janney about his book Mary's Mosaic.

Got that: ​his book!

His book is a lot more than just the trial of Crump. In fact, that is decisively in the minority of pages. By a margin of about 3-1 if I recall. To discuss his book only in terms of the trial is not to discuss his book, not really. It leaves the largest part of it out.

The idea that Ray Crump did not kill Mary Meyer was "one of the three key points of Janney’s overall thesis," according to Lisa Pease.

If you two want to discuss just the trial, and limit everyone else to that, simply because you are Mikey and RCD and you should get to limit the terms of the debate, even if the thread is titled something else, then fine. Go start another thread. Why not title it, Justice for the The Terrorist and FIrebomber aka Ray Crump. Or open a web site with that title. Solicit contributions. Bring the guy online--if he's still alive. Make a video for him. Have a testimonial dinner with Roundtree and Janney as your co sponsors. Just be sure that none of his later--and many--victims hears about it. Because the news media will have a field day interviewing those people outside while you area feting Crump inside. I can see the cross cutting now.

When you make that other thread, then you can suitably limit the debate. As long as this one is called what it is, then you are in no position to dictate terms by empty fiat.

The above shows just how weak Jim's arguments have become.

In Lisa's CTKA article she wrote that when she first picked up Janney's book in the store, she turned to the footnotes and at that moment knew it wouldn't be worth reading.

I pointed out that Janney's footnotes, as they pertained to Raymond Crump, were indeed sound. This was the major point of my post.

Instead of addressing that point (he never did), Jim wanted to take the discussion off on tangents, to other parts of Janney's book.

I kept trying to get him to talk about the main topic of my post (he never did). Now he calls that limiting the terms of the debate.

http://educationforu...=45#entry257672

Fortunately, Dawn and Robert helped hold his feet to the fire about his avoidance of Crump's arrest and trial. Since he has been forced to talk about it, Jim has shown how little he knew about it all along.

Lisa Pease was eager to talk about Crump:

Let’s start with Mary Meyer’s murder. If Crump was truly framed for a crime he didn’t commit, the CIA theory is at least possible, if not exactly probable. But if Crump actually committed the crime, then Janney’s thesis, and indeed, the thrust of his whole story, goes out the window. So let’s examine that issue first, based on the evidence Janney presents.

Now Jim is calling me Mikey. That's better than Ron, I guess.

[Michael Hogan]

My posts on this thread all contain the actual quotes of what I am responding or referring to. You choose not to do that so you can more easily put your inaccurate and misleading spin on things.

My comments about Lisa's article were very narrow and very well-defined. I have no desire to debate anything with Lisa, or drag her into a discussion. It's you I have the issues with.

I'll remind you that I had posted about Janney's footnotes before Lisa's article ever appeared. So when you posted the link to her CTKA article I took exception to her claim that a quick

glance of Janney's footnotes showed that his book was not worth reading. I showed that Janney's footnotes, as they pertained to Crump's arrest and trial, were sound. And that Lisa had an agenda.

I certainly had the right to do that. You've wanted to discuss everything but the footnotes.

I criticized nothing about Lisa's other two main points. I've never endorsed any of Janney's conclusions, as you continue to mistakenly imply.

The rhetoric in your post below indicates......

Never mind. It's clear to most who read it.

Boy that was really rich MIkey, even for your usual cardsharp techniques on this thread. Somehow, the title of the thread does not matter. Its what was written in Lisa's review--even though Lisa is not even a member here. Talk about tricky. Why not e mail her at her blog and debate the issue with her. Why drag her into a discussion she cannot be part of. But, on this thread, something like that is expected from you.

Since that is nothing but your usual flim flammery, my point stands. This thread is about Janney's book and no one can limit the debate to any part of it. That is just an empty pose on your part. If you want to do that, start your own thread--the trial of Crump or something. Then you can police the comments and throw out anyone who does not stay on topic.

And your other point is more of your continued related nonsense. Maybe you find authors like Tim Leary credible. Edward Klein is great with you. Collier and Horowitz are wonderful biographers in your book. Sy Hersh's hatchet job, The Dark SIde of Camelot, this is stellar work on your part. The fact that Gregory Douglas is a proven forger, in your rhapsody for Janney, that gets stuffed under the rug. FIne, we know your ethics on this subject.

As per your point about the actual crime, Lisa spent a lot of words on that, and she showed the trickery that Janney used to create his "Second Crump" (it pains me to even write that term). She even did a little experiment to test one of his points. It didn' t pass. Again this does not mean a thing to you. Just like nothing else he does bothers you.

Evidently, it did bother Janney. This is when he started hurling accusations about Goebbels and Torquemada at us. He even furnished a picture of the Spanish Inquisition with it. And, predictably, that didn't bug you one iota either.

OK Mike. We all get the picture now. As we have from the beginning--very early when you misrepresented what he did with my work, oh so many moons ago.

Let me know how your benefit for Crump goes. I'd like to be there to tape the thing.

[Michael Hogan]

Because of my great respect for Jim DiEugenio, I'll get off the topic of Ray Crump for a minute.

In his CTKA article, Entering Peter Janney's World of Fantasy, Jim implied that Janney did not address Damore's serious psychological problems:

....Further toward the end of his life Damore was suffering from some serious psychological problems that were manifesting themselves in visible ways. Both areas should have been addressed by Janney.

Later in the same article Jim writes that it was Lisa that noted it. Where did Lisa get that information?

Let me touch on one more method that Janney uses to further his unremitting agenda. As noted by Lisa Pease, like Truitt, Leo Damore was a very troubled man towards the end of his life.

From Lisa's CTKA article:

But Damore was, by then, paranoid. Janney mentions in the beginning of the book that Damore “began a mysterious downward of spiral of paranoia and depression” toward the end of his life. Some of Damore’s closest friends, according to Janney, claimed Damore thought his phone was being tapped. One of them said Damore thought he had been poisoned. But what was the real cause of Damore’s paranoid behavior? You don’t learn until the end of the book that, in the last year of his life, Damore had an undiagnosed brain tumor and ended up committing suicide.

Oh. She got it from Janney.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Two things are quite obvious here. Leo Damore exhibited signs of mental illness for a long time, and that in and of itself, without other "input" should have been enough for those willing (eager ?) to put so much stock in Janney's "house of cards," dependent on Leo Damore's "research," and on single source assertions by Timothy Leary to have separated how much of their boosterism of Janney was driven by cold discernment, and how much was influenced by "wishing just might make it so ?"

1. 
   Author: Kennedy Family Conspiring To Suppress Chappaquiddick ...
   news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat...id...sjid... Hollingsworth, says two of the book's most sensational charges — first, that Kennedy tried to talk his cousin, Joseph Gargan, into filing a false accident report at ...
   All results for "two of the book's most sensational ... »
   
2. 
   Author: Kennedy Family Conspiring To Suppress Chappaquiddick...
   ‎
   Herald-Journal - Jan 29, 1988
   ... sued him for the return Hollingsworth, says two of the book's most sensational charges — first, that Kennedy tried to talk his cousin, Joseph Gargan, into filing a ...
   
3. 
   STRANGE TWISTS AND TALES OF CHAPPAQUIDDICK BOOK
   ‎
   Pay-Per-View -
   Boston Globe - Jan. 24, 1988
   Leo Damore is paranoid. The question is whether he has all the facts at his disposal. After he spent five years researching a
   book about Sen. Edward Kennedy's 1969 auto accident at Chappaquiddick Bridge, which claimed the life of Mary Jo Kopechne, Random House canceled Damore's contract and sued him for the return of his $150,000 advance. Damore, a former reporter for the Cape Cod News who has written four other books, says he "cracked" the Chappaquiddick case with his dogged investigating.
   Now he insists -- and even his supporters doubt him -- that the Kennedy family is conspiring to suppress his book.
   "There's no question in my mind that levers were pulled," says Damore, whose book Senatorial Privilege; The Chappaquiddick Cover-up will
   be published by a small right-wing publishing firm, Regnery-Gateway, in June. "A major political force conspired with a major publisher to suppress this book.
   A spokesman for Kennedy declined to comment about the book, or about the charges of a conspiracy. In the publishing world, author-publisher spats are as common as corn in Iowa. And oddball conspiracy theories, especially involving the Kennedys,
   are routinely pitched to publishers. But few disputes involve such a large amount of money -- Random promised Damore $250000 for the Chappaquiddick manuscript -- such a prestigious publishing house, and an author with a track record of several successful books. The book may also prove to be timely. Damore and his agent have been gleefully following the Rupert Murdoch-Ted Kennedy "cross-ownership" soap opera, hoping that the name-calling will last long enough to give his book a sales boost. The Murdoch-owned Boston Herald phoned Regnery several weeks ago inquiring about serialization rights.
   When Damore first approached Random House in 1982, he had the makings of a good book, according to editorial director Jason Epstein: "There's a story there, and if he would tell it simply in about 300 pages, he'd have a book." Damore chose not to tell his story simply.
   In 1984, after collecting three $50000 installments of his advance, he submitted an 1100 page manuscript, which Epstein says was "unpublishable."
   Damore demanded payment of the rest of his advance; Random refused
   and canceled his contract. Random's general counsel, Gerald Hollingsworth, says two of the book's most sensational charges -- first, that Kennedy tried to talk his cousin, Joseph Gargan, into filing a false accident....
   

http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all&src=pm

UNDER DIKE BRIDGE

Published: October 23, 1988

SENATORIAL PRIVILEGE The Chappaquiddick Cover-Up. By Leo Damore. Illustrated. 496 pp. Washington: Regnery Gateway. $21.95.

.....What undermines Mr. Damore's account is that these accusations, while seeming to come from a first-hand source, are not direct quotes from Mr. Gargan, nor are they attributed directly to the 1983 interviews. (And this is, otherwise, a carefully attributed book, with 45 pages of footnotes.) One cannot tell if they are true, Mr. Gargan's interpretation of the Senator's behavior or, worse, the author's own interpretation, based on what Mr. Gargan told him in 1983.

Mr. Damore was also unable to corroborate the Gargan story, and there is no evidence that the Senator ever tried to act on a scheme to blame Kopechne for the accident - he admitted being the driver from the outset....

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

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

The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace Peter Janney. account ... “I cracked it!” Smith remembered Leo shouting on the phone. “I got the guy—and the [JFK] assassination link, too!

(quote name='John Gillespie' post='111548' date='Jul 26 2007, 10:38 PM']Now, John, if you really are on to something here - and I've seen this Damore rumor before - you must do better than a vague reference here and a tangential link there. That's the stuff of blogs.(/quote]

You obviously missed this earlier posting. I am amazed so few members picked up on it.

(quote name='Myra Bronstein' post='110521' date='Jul 19 2007, 04:10 PM']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?(/quote]

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

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.

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

(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.(/quote]

When I posted that this started some time ago, I was referring to your longish pro-Janney track record. You wear it quite openly.

Michael Hogan - Posted 09 August 2012 - 03:30 PM :

"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."

But in the aftermath of this.:

Peter Janney - Posted06 July 2012 - 03:59 PM :

"The Autodafé of Lisa Pease and James DiEugenio:

Tomas de Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition return in a new era of suppression

of freedom of thought and adherence to a rigid dogma – namely their own prejudices! "

( http://en.wikipedia....s_de_Torquemada

.....As well as being the Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada was also the confessor to Isabella I of Castile. He is notorious for his zealous campaign against the crypto-Jews and crypto-Muslims of Spain. He was one of the chief supporters of the Alhambra Decree, which expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492. About 2,000 people were burned at the stake by the Spanish Inquisition between 1480 and 1530...)

You chastised Jim DiEugenio for defending his own record, and Lisa Pease's in interpreting matters overlapping what is covered by Janney in his book and in his "Torquemada" rant. :

Micahel Hogan - Posted05 August 2012 - 04:08 PM :

"......I didn't ask you to do any favors for Peter Janney. Accuracy and honesty would be doing yourself and your website a favor."

(quote name='Jim DiEugenio' timestamp='1338071449' post='253563']

And before you say he discounts Heymann in the book, that is because of mine and Lisa's work on Heymann which exposed him as a pathological xxxx. Janney did not such disowning act in the outline.

(/quote]

Too late, I already said it in a previous post. Maybe I should go back and edit it out.

Jim, I think Janney owes you some of his royalties.

It's clear you have antipathy for him and his research, but you should not let that spill over to members posting here.

Remember, Nathaniel and I are at a tremendous disadvantage here. We've only read his book; you've had the advantage of reading his outline.

Posted 10 October 2007 - 01:46 PM :

(quote name='Michael Hogan' timestamp='1192020413' post='122065']

Jim DiEugenio writes:

When I criticized the sourcing of Talbot's book on the Meyer episode, Simkin commented that in two cases I was discounting the sources on insubstantial grounds. The two sources were David Heymann and James Angleton. In this day and age, I would have thought that discrediting these two men would be kind of redundant. In my review, I compared the sleazy Heymann to Kitty Kelley -- which on second thought is being unfair to Kelley. To go through his two books on the Kennedys -- A Woman Called Jackie, and RFK: A Candid Biography -- and point out all the errors of fact and attribution, the questionable interview subjects, the haphazard sourcing, the unrelenting appetite for sleaze that emits from almost every page, and the important things he leaves out -- to do all that would literally take a hundred pages. But since Simkin and Janney like him, and since Talbot sourced him, I will point out several things as a sampling of why he cannot be used or trusted.

In the Acknowledgments section of his book Bobby and J Edgar, Burton Hersh writes:

I was particularly grateful to come upon David Heymann's archive at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. While preparing his own controversial biography of Robert Kennedy, Heymann undertook an amazing dredging operation across the entire Kennedy literature and came across many documents and literary detritus of every category perhaps of more use to me than to him. For this and other favors, I thank him.

Hersh also writes:

I am particularly beholden to both the fine books and the solid advice from Dan Moldea and - especially - Gus Russo, both of whom have raised the study of organized crime to the level of serious scholarship.

I'm guessing that if DiEugenio decides to review Hersh's book, it will not be favorable.

I've respected much of DiEugenio's past work, but in this instance I believe he is unfair in his comments about John. I say that not because John is proprietor of this Forum, but because I have had the opportunity to read John's work at length. I agree with John's statement: "James DiEugenio is not putting my comments in any historical context." Rather than comment any further, I will wait for John Simkin's promised replies and I expect they will be fair, documented and logical, like most of John's efforts.

(/quote]

It comes down to what you exhibit excitement about :

Michael, your track record here speaks for itself:

Michael Hogan - Posted 23 March 2012 - 02:15 PM :

"According to Bill Wolfsthal at Skyhorse Publishing, Peter Janney's book will be "available everywhere (in stores and on line) on April 2." "

Michael Hogan - Posted 03 April 2012 - 02:48 PM

"David Mantik has also added a short review. He calls Mary's Mosaic "Magnificent--and courageous, too!" "

Michael Hogan, on 02 April 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

"Doug Horne has posted his detailed review of Mary's Mosaic at the Amazon website.

There is a shorter review by the biographer of Dovey J. Roundtree, Kathleen McCabe."

....and, what you don't :

(quote)

Tom Scully - Posted 09 August 2012 - 08:02 AM

Michael Hogan, on 08 August 2012 - 01:58 PM, said: Tom, could you elaborate on what the speculation was that was presented by Dovey Roundtree?

And how the small set of details you linked to demolish her speculation?

Michael, I get the impression you are toying with me. Of all the choices you had on how to react to the information I shared, why did you choose to confine your questions only with regard to Ms. Roundtree, and not include Peter Janney as well?

Your questions prompted me to give a closer read to the pieces I had gone over earlier. Aside from Janney relating in his book what was said by Roundtree to Damore in a 1990's interview, apparently the only information sourced from Roundtree was William L. Mitchell's address at the time of the trial, 1500 Arlington Blvd.

Roundtree's quoted remarks were confined to the pretrial concerns I would imagine any criminal defense attorney would have, knowing little about William L. Mitchell aside from being a caucasian, retired military officer teaching mathematics at Georgetown University, and how this background would lend to the credibility of Mitchell and influence client Crump's jury.

I expect that you know perfectly well that the information I posted fits what little was known about witness Mitchell, like a glove, and contains details that have eluded those interested, ever since Janney began describing what Damore had allegedly discovered. Michael, it does not escape my notice that you chose to focus on my misinterpretation of Ms. Roundtree's interest in witness Mitchell and her role in influencing Damore to develop such a sensationalist view of Mitchell's identity and his role, and ignore what my discovery indicates about Janney's credibility, agenda, and ability to prioritize information, as well as the abilities of his editors and publisher. I wasn't aware you had an axe to grind, until now. (/quote)

(quote)

Michael Hogan - Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:32 PM

Tom, to the best of my recollection I've never engaged you in any discussions on this Forum. With maybe one or two of the briefest exceptions, I've never made any comments in reference to any of your posts.

Recently you posted something about Dovey Roundtree that was obviously untrue. I asked two reasonable and polite questions:

1)Tom, could you elaborate on what the speculation was that was presented by Dovey Roundtree? 2) And how the small set of details you linked to demolish her speculation?

Your response implied that you thought I was toying with you and you added that I had an axe to grind, while admitting that you were wrong about Roundtree. If you want

to talk to me like that, I'm fine with it. Just don't expect much respect returned to you.

As per your latest post, I have tried to isolate the part of it that was directed to me. If you have issues with what I wrote or said, why not express them to me in a dedicated post?

It would be a lot easier for everybody, including the members who read these threads casually.

The paragraph of yours that I've reproduced below is difficult for me to decipher. I don't see your overall point, so I'm going to tackle it piece by piece. ....

......Responses in next post. (/quote)

(quote)

Michael Hogan - Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:38 PM

(Continued from previous post)

....Like Jim, you need to read more carefully. Nowhere did I say, or imply that you "wronged MEMBER Janney." I just noted that other posts have been made invisible for less, which is true.

You can call him anything you want. It's a reflection on you and by extension, because you are a moderator, a reflection on the Education Forum. Whether your description of him is true or not is immaterial.

You've gone outside of this thread to call on me to apologize to Jim DiEugenio. I've asked you several times for a clarification as to exactly why you think I should. What was your answer? .....

Tom Scully, on 16 August 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

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.

Tom, I know you are proud of your Mitchell googling. So much so that you have taken to posting it onto threads that are unrelated to Janney or Mary's Mosaic.

The arrogance you displayed was palpable.

http://educationforu...120#entry257923

Are you trying to say that I am invested in the Damore-Janney "phantom assassin?" Are you trying to say I am invested in Janney? If so, I challenge you to support your claim.

Other than Jim, there seems not to be a member that is interested in the "impact" of your identification of the "phantom." If other members are not interested in it, why would you expect me to be, particularly in light of what I have been consistently posting?

What you find troubling apparently troubles no one else.

Tom, judging by posts that I have read in the past, there are members that think that you are a bigger problem for this Forum than "Member Janney."

(/quote)

Michael, your reaction to the catalyst for my posting my opinion that you owed Jim DiEugenio an

apology, was to attempt to trivialize what I researched and presented that further discredited Leo Damore

and the judgment of Peter Janney, was first to divert attention to a minor error I made about Dovey Roundtree's role in suspicion manufactured about Crump witness Mitchell, and then to chalk it up as an example of my "goolging" and attention seeking, and shortly before Charles-Dunne's comments, you weigh in, using the same "MEMBERS" BS in relation to me, that Charles-Dunne soon "reminded" DiEugenio about.

Without fully taking into account my response to your diverting question about my including Roundtree with Janney in the "demolish" description I posted, and with the same openmindedness and deference you reserve for anything Janney has written or uttered, you react to my response with.:

Tom Scully - Posted 09 August 2012 - 08:02 AM :

".....Your questions prompted me to give a closer read to the pieces I had gone over earlier. Aside from Janney relating in his book what was said by Roundtree to Damore in a 1990's interview, apparently the only information sourced from Roundtree was William L. Mitchell's address at the time of the trial, 1500 Arlington Blvd....."

Michael Hogan - Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:32 PM :

"....Recently you posted something about Dovey Roundtree that was obviously untrue. I asked two reasonable and polite questions:...."

You twist the knife, Michael. I had already posted that I was mistaken, even in answer to your feigned concern

about my lumping Roundtree in with Janney, related to suspicion manufacured about William Mitchell's background, but you stuck to your ploy; discredit me for a minor error I admitted to posting, undermine my overall accuracy and reputation, downplay any reference at all to my posting actual details of Mitchell's background which tend to make Janney seem ridiculous for relying on anything attributed to Damore.

(quote)

Robert Charles-Dunne, on 16 August 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

(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.

(/quote)

Do I have this right? You have great respect for Jim DiEugenio, you have no opinion one way or the other about Peter Janney, or a record here of strongly supporting Janney (at least no more than Robert Charles-Dunne's), but Jim DiEugenio and I have been unfair to and have defamed Peter Janney? The discovery of a rather complete resume of Damore - Janney "phantom" CIA assassin, is inconsequential googling, an shallow attempt to seek attention, because, as you say, "Members" are not reacting to this new information, but Janney is above reproach, despite shillling this BS about Mitchell, a CIA safe house, and other Damore symptoms of dementia? Peter Janney is not making money and attracting attention using the inaccurate, "Lt. Mitchell, resident of a CIA safe house yarn", but I am because I googled up and distributed counter details to the Damore - Janney distortions that anybody with a keyboard and an internet connections could have found? (Why didn't they? Why didn't Janney, Janney's editors or John Simkin find anything about William Mitchell?) Do I have all that about right, Michael?

What can I do to become a popular but misguided member of this forum, Michael? Should I simply endorse everything in every John Simkin authored post or Spartacus page? Is that approach a basis for any actual discussion on a discussion forum?

Edited August 20, 2012 by Tom Scully

[Guest Tom Scully]

(Continued from previous post)

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

Tom, I know you are proud of your Mitchell googling. So much so that you have taken to posting it onto threads that are unrelated to Janney or Mary's Mosaic.

The arrogance you displayed was palpable.

http://educationforu...120#entry257923

Are you trying to say that I am invested in the Damore-Janney "phantom assassin?" Are you trying to say I am invested in Janney? If so, I challenge you to support your claim.

Other than Jim, there seems not to be a member that is interested in the "impact" of your identification of the "phantom." If other members are not interested in it, why would you expect me to be, particularly in light of what I have been consistently posting?

What you find troubling apparently troubles no one else.

Tom, judging by posts that I have read in the past, there are members that think that you are a bigger problem for this Forum than "Member Janney."

By the way, was this your review? Or just someone who appropriated your Googles without crediting you for it?

http://www.amazon.co...ostRecentReview

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

Michael, isn't this just a slight variation of your reaction? :

http://www.amazon.co...Mx1COL7D3TK6WFD

In reply to your post on Aug 19, 2012 3:48:17 PM PDT

Douglas says:

Doug Horne

Location: Falls Church, VA, United States

Web Page: insidethearrb

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

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

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

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

Unless you provide us with your real name and the exact means by which you came up with your citations, you will only increase everyone's suspicion of your motivations here---and your methods.

Many despicable and cold-blooded people throughout history have been well-educated. So finding a person named William L. Mitchell with three college degrees does not prove he could not have been Mary Meyer's killer. That seems like the kind of flawed "logic" an intelligence agency would use on readers in an attempt to cast doubt about the disturbing conclusions of a controversial book.

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

Why don't you "get real" and tell us who you are, and how you found your citations? What tools did you use? Did someone lead you to them? Did someone provide them to you? Your postings have the odor to me of a disinformation/spin operation, designed to cast doubt, and to make readers forget the basic fact that a "William L. Mitchell" confessed to murdering Mary Meyer for the CIA, to author Leo Damore. Attorney Jimmy Smith's notes of his phone call with Leo Damore prove that.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Tom Scully

[Michael Hogan]

JD :You know Mikey, you have become a real artist in the cheap shot category. This is the size of the man crush you have on Janney.

I know it doesn't mean a damn to you, but that is not what I meant. Which is one definition of a cheap shot.

What I meant was this.......

Because I posted what Jim actually wrote instead of what he says he meant, Jim defines that as a cheap shot. Of course, he also wrote that Dawn and I smeared him.

.....This is the size of the man crush you have on Janney.

.....Because it makes the object of his affection, Janney, look like a damn fool.

4. I didn't know that Mikey's crush on Janney went back that far. Maybe he fell in love with Meyer like Janney did.

No cheap shots there.

All that because I showed the footnotes Janney used for his three chapters on Crump.

[Guest Tom Scully]

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

http://www.amazon.co...Mx1COL7D3TK6WFD

In reply to your post on Aug 19, 2012 3:48:17 PM PDT

Douglas says:

Doug Horne

Location: Falls Church, VA, United States

Web Page: insidethearrb

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

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

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

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

Unless you provide us with your real name and the exact means by which you came up with your citations, you will only increase everyone's suspicion of your motivations here---and your methods.

Many despicable and cold-blooded people throughout history have been well-educated. So finding a person named William L. Mitchell with three college degrees does not prove he could not have been Mary Meyer's killer. That seems like the kind of flawed "logic" an intelligence agency would use on readers in an attempt to cast doubt about the disturbing conclusions of a controversial book.

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

Why don't you "get real" and tell us who you are, and how you found your citations? What tools did you use? Did someone lead you to them? Did someone provide them to you? Your postings have the odor to me of a disinformation/spin operation, designed to cast doubt, and to make readers forget the basic fact that a "William L. Mitchell" confessed to murdering Mary Meyer for the CIA, to author Leo Damore. Attorney Jimmy Smith's notes of his phone call with Leo Damore prove that.

IMO, the "missing" status of William L. Mitchell was the only reason he was of any interest to these sleuths.

Apparently not many appreciate any information about Mitchell's background/identity unless it is attributed to Leo Damore's research and then spun/validated by Peter Janney. I spent time searching for Mitchell because Janney's lewrockwell.com piece, and posting it here, seemed unhinged. He had excellent reviews at Amazon.com, coverage in the Boston Globe and a CNN interview, among others, but he still exhibited such a strong urge to go after his critics. It seemed obvious that finding more information about who Mitchell was would call into question most of the support for the CIA linked assassination of Mary Meyer, portion of Janney's book.

Michael Hogan appeared not to be interested and then deliberate in minimizing the documentation of Mitchell's background. Doug Horne, too, is protesting about how little it matters. Isn't it at least possible that the story obscured is about the relationships of Janney's uncle, Frank Pace, Jr. and his friend, Roswell L. Gilpatric, with the Rockefellers?

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.

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

[Michael Hogan]

As per your idolatry of Janney, are you serious? Tom has exposed that in spades. I was not aware of it until his work on that subject. You were there cheering Janney on from almost the inception. And somehow you never noticed all the stuff in that book that was simply so unsupportable as to be almost sci fi? I mean you did read the book before you started acting like his PR director didn't you?

I made my position on Janney clear near the beginning of this thread, before Lisa's article came out:

....Jim, I have a lot of respect for the considerable time and effort you have put into exposing so much of the sensational, unproven and erroneous claims of authors, researchers

and even EF members. Sometimes that seems like what the study of this case has evolved into -- debunking myths.

By no means am I an advocate for Leary's stories about Mary Meyer. Nor am I necessarily an advocate of all of Janney's conclusions about Meyer's murder. (bold added)

But I give him more credit than you do for the objective disclaimers he gives when presenting his material.

You formed your opinions about Janney a few years ago and I don't see Mary's Mosaic having much effect on them. Because of positions you have staked out

in the past and comments you have made on this thread I don't see anything in his book that you are apt to praise. I'm prepared to be wrong about that.

But Janney, right or wrong (bold added), has written a worthwhile book and his habit of identifying sources in the text is one I wish authors would use more often. In all cases

the footnotes are there for the reader that wants to learn more about where Janney got his information.

I look forward to Lisa Pease's review.

For you to imply that there was idolatry involved in the other thread is not supportable. I posted an announcement from the publisher saying when Mary's Mosaic would be

released. Then I posted links to the Horne and Mantik Amazon reviews. I offered them with no comment. These were things that members, including you,

would likely have an interest in.

The other day I started a thread and added another post about the movie Parkland. That doesn't mean that I idolize Tom Hanks. Get real, Jim.

My post criticizing Lisa's article was about Janney's footnotes as they pertained to Raymond Crump. I've tried repeatedly to get you to address that.

You won't. From the get go, you've ignored that in favor of steering things in other directions. Because I resisted that, you took what Robert referred to as

faux outrage.

You've done your best to turn things ugly in the last few days. And to top it off, you accuse me of a cheap shot for posting exactly what you wrote in your article

instead of asking you what you meant first.

The stuff you're saying about me lately is really out of bounds but in a way I don't mind. Let readers of this thread see what you're made of.

[Dawn Meredith]

JD :You know Mikey, you have become a real artist in the cheap shot category. This is the size of the man crush you have on Janney.

I know it doesn't mean a damn to you, but that is not what I meant. Which is one definition of a cheap shot.

What I meant was this.......

Because I posted what Jim actually wrote instead of what he says he meant, Jim defines that as a cheap shot. Of course, he also wrote that Dawn and I smeared him.

.....This is the size of the man crush you have on Janney.

.....Because it makes the object of his affection, Janney, look like a damn fool.

4. I didn't know that Mikey's crush on Janney went back that far. Maybe he fell in love with Meyer like Janney did.

No cheap shots there.

All that because I showed the footnotes Janney used for his three chapters on Crump.

Wow. This is sad. I have been on vacation since after court on Wed. I come back and see this has devolved into name calling by Jim. Dare to disagree with him and be prepared for playground bullying and name calling. And being told exactly which parts of a book one can or cannot post about. I along with Mike Hogan and RCD have said here several times now that we are ONLY discussing the issue of the murder of MPM and the lack of evidence against Crump. But no not allowed to do this. Not allowed to have an opinion either. I have liked and respected Jim and his work for a very very long time. Jim, calling Mike and RCD names will not change my opinion, or anyone else's about the trumped up charges against Crump. I do not know who killed Mary or why. I have am inkling that it is connected with the late night calls she* received whenever she visited the crime scene. (Unless you believe she is lying about this for which there is no evidence). I am not going to comment further. My view is known. I looked at the evidence and I agreed with the jury. Period.

No one dragged me onto this thread. No-one else's view influenced mine.

It is really beneath you to behave this way when someone disagrees. Staggering really.

*By "she" I was referring to Attorney Roundtree.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Dawn Meredith

[Michael Hogan]

Wow. This is sad. I have been on vacation since after court on Wed. I come back and see this has devolved into name calling by Jim. Dare to disagree with him and be prepared for playground bullying and name calling. And being told exactly which parts of a book one can or cannot post about. I along with Mike Hogan and RCD have said here several times now that we are ONLY discussing the issue of the murder of MPM and the lack of evidence against Crump. But no not allowed to do this. Not allowed to have an opinion either. I have liked and respected Jim and his work for a very very long time. Jim, calling Mike and RCD names will not change my opinion, or anyone else's about the trumped up charges against Crump. I do not know who killed Mary or why. I have am inkling that it is connected with the late night calls she received whenever she visited the crime scene. (Unless you believe she is lying about this for which there is no evidence). I am not going to comment further. My view is known. I looked at the evidence and I agreed with the jury. Period.

No one dragged me onto this thread. No-one else's view influenced mine.

It is really beneath you to behave this way when someone disagrees. Staggering really.

Dawn tried to give Jim a reality check. It didn't take.

Jim has certainly revealed a lot about himself during the course of this thread.