Jump to content
The Education Forum

Questions for Peter Janney on his book Mary’s Mosaic


Recommended Posts

Guest Tom Scully

Jim, author Peter Janney, as we've already observed, has persuaded a surprising number of people to say or write things they probably should begin to regret.:

http://www.amazon.co...#wasThisHelpful

(Continued from previous post)

..........

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."

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

I don't see that I've influenced John Simkin to post that Nina Burleigh's book was a "CIA limited hangout" or Doug Horne to "deduce" that a Professor Emeritus at California State, East Bay (formerly Cal. State Hayward) was operating in 1964 as, or was a 25 years long cover for a CIA assassin because Leo Damore left word that he was, and Peter Janney published it as fact.

http://www.amazon.co...Mx3RPYBNKYH5GNK

..... 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. "

Have I done comparable damage here? Really?

......

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.

The rules here seem to be to ignore anything negative Janney, and others, have posted on this forum related to you, but to hone in on anything you've posted critical of Janney, and my "cardinal sin".

...... 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?

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

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. .....

The only thing that trumps that rule is the reminder that it has nothing to do with how correct you have been about the accuracy and quality of Janney's research, authorship, or agenda. It is a rigged game, Jim. You cannot vindicate yourself. After all, he's Peter Janney, don't you know?

Got popcorn? The tide is slowly turning.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.....

Jim's behavior on this thread indicates otherwise.

Dawn tried to tell him.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not completely clear whether Tom Scully is referring to Jim Fetzer or me, or if he is trying to associate me with Fetzer.

Jim, author Peter Janney, as we've already observed, has persuaded a surprising number of people to say or write things they probably should begin to regret.:

http://www.amazon.co...#wasThisHelpful

(Continued from previous post)

..........

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."

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

It seems Tom is referring to me and implying some guilt by association. As the Baker and closed Lovelady threads abundantly indicated, I have had nothing but disagreements with Fetzer's views. Fetzer's late adoption of the Mary's Mosaic cause probably didn't please Janney in the least. On the other hand, Tom can hardly contain his glee.

......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

What is clear is that Tom insists on taking truncated snippets of what I wrote about other issues and apply them where they have no relevance.

From the outset, my posts made it clear that I was talking only about Janney's footnotes, mainly as they pertained to the arrest and trial of Raymond Crump.

Tom and Jim did not want to address that, preferring to badger me on items that had no relevance to what I posted.

Countless times, I have reminded them of why I criticized Lisa Pease's article. To no avail.

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

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

http://educationforu...=60#entry257697

This one was addressed to Tom:

http://educationforu...=75#entry258203

Although this one was addressed to Cliff Varnell, I knew Tom Scully would read it:

http://educationforu...=90#entry258347

Not once have Tom or Jim addressed what I initially wrote about. They have insisted in steering the discussion away from what I wrote at every opportunity and to a small degree they have succeeded.

Both of them have tried to take my comments about Janney's use of footnotes in the Crump chapters and my refusal to engage them in discussions about other parts of Mary's Mosaic to imply that I somehow endorse Janney and his book on its whole. DiEugenio's comments about my "man-crush" and "affection for" Peter Janney were particularly repulsive.

My early comments on this thread made it clear that I did not endorse all of Janney's conclusions. Both Tom and Jim ignored this in their zeal to paint me as a Janney supporter en toto.

As a result, I have expanded my criticisms of the CTKA articles on Mary's Mosaic. And I shall do so in the future, when afforded the time. Right now, responding to all the irrelevancies posted by Jim and Tom and being forced to repeat myself over and over and over have kept me busy.

PS) More than once I've asked Tom Scully if a particular Amazon review was his. If he answered that, I haven't seen it.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of vitriol is being spewed here, between good researchers, over an issue that is ultimately pretty insignificant. Jim D. is right to point out that relying on discredited sources taints Janney's work. However, I don't think it was fair to call John Simkin an "inveterate Kennedy basher," and how does Simkin's favorable view of the book discredit Janney?

I am in complete accord with Jim D. on the whole "posthumous assassination" of the Kennedys. One doesn't have to be impressed with this book's thesis (and I have not read "Mary's Mosaic") to be suspcious of Mary Meyer's murder. She knew JFK. whether they were having an affair or not. Too many people connected to the Kennedys have died unnatural deaths. Cord Meyer was associated with Tim Leary; the LSD guru credited Meyer with "helping me to understand my political cultural role more clearly." Meyer was also instrumental in Gloria Steinem's road to prominence, and some critics have alleged he recruited Bill Clinton into the CIA while the future president was at Oxford.

The unnatural death of someone who was married to the likes of Cord Meyer, not to mention the sister- in-law of mainstream media stalwart Ben Bradlee, is not likely to have been the random act of a career street criminal. Is it possible that Crump killed Meyer? Sure. But I'm skeptical, considering who the victim was. Throw in James Angleton, allegedly destroying Meyer's diary, and I become more skeptical.

I think too many of us approach this subject with a narrow focus. Author Leo Damore, for instance, certainly produced a work of disiformation, but the official story of Chappaquiddick is ridiculous. I don't think Ted Kennedy was driving that car. But that's a subject for another discussion. My point is that you don't have to accept one researcher's theory to agree ultimately on a larger question. The same goes for Mary Meyer's murder. You don't have to accept that she was having an affair with JFK, or Leary's absurd allegations about doing drugs in the White House, to find her death suspicious.

Isn't it plausible that Meyer did find the explanation for JFK's death to be unacceptable? Couldn't she have become obsessed with finding out the truth about what happened to someone who was a personal friend? In a similar vein, I strongly believe Marilyn Monroe was murdered. I just as strongly recognize the bogus efforts to blame the Kennedys, and connect them to her death. I think she was very likely killed because of them, not by them.

I have great respect for the views of Michael Hogan and Jim DiEugenio. It's a shame to see them bicker over something so inconsequential to the big picture. Jim Fetzer's support of Janney doesn't discredit him. Janney's fixation with Mary's bare backside doesn't discredit him. As I noted, I haven't read his book, and from many of the sources he used, I probably would reject his premise on that basis alone. However, I don't believe it necessarily follows that Mary Meyer's murder was committed by a common street criminal, and that there were no political motives behind it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Don, it is exactly this point that I have been attempting to make: " You don't have to accept that she was having an affair with JFK, or Leary's absurd allegations about doing drugs in the White House, to find her death suspicious.."

I just do not for the life of me understand why Jim D fails to see that. I have no axe to grind here. Or why my opinion that this death is not likely some simple murder done by a black guy who happened to be there with a woman not his wife is considered to be a "smear" by Jim. Go figure.

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites

One might wonder why Jim DiEugenio selected the following quotes from Dovey Roundtree's book for his CTKA essay. Jim's explanation, in part, is that

"although Crump was black, even Roundtree was hesitant to take his case at first."

When Dovey Roundtree was first approached about the case of Ray Crump she was an accomplished attorney who was one of the few females to graduate from Howard University Law School. Quite naturally, the whole issue of race formed a big part of her life. Consider this passage from her book Justice Older than the Law where she describes her feelings about going to Spelman College in Atlanta: “I was nearly paralyzed by my pain in those years. Decades would pass before I finally let go of the seething rage I harbored toward every white person who had ever wronged me, toward the whole faceless mass of white humanity who might someday wrong me for the mere fact of my blackness.” (p. 30, Roundtree and Katie McCabe) This is why, after she became a lawyer, she then became an ordained minister at Allen Chapel African Methodist Church in Washington D.C. I note this because, although Crump was black, even Roundtree was hesitant to take his case at first. As she writes, “I was dubious about his innocence, so persuasive were the facts the government had arrayed against him.” (ibid, p. 190) What then pushed her into taking on his cause? Through her own minister, Crump’s mother decided to make a personal plea to Roundtree. Predictably, she said her son was a “good boy.” And, of course, he would never do anything like what he was accused of doing here. With her background, this plea emotionally resounded with Roundtree. As she writes, “I compared her, consciously, to my grandmother, fighting ever so ferociously for Tom and Pete and all us “chillun” against onslaughts of every sort.” (ibid, p. 191) Since her grandmother had just died, this vaulted her to defend Crump “with a force I would not have thought possible.” (ibid, p. 194)

First of all, in her book Dovey Roundtree never expressed any hesitancy about taking on Ray Crump's case. It was two weeks after Crump's arrest when Roundtree was asked by Crump's mother to represent her son. Roundtree's skepticism about Crump's innocence was based on what she had seen in the news reports. Prior to Roundtree becoming his attorney, Crump was represented by George Lamb, from the Public Defender's Office. Both Lamb and his boss believed Crump was innocent.

Any doubts Roundtree may have had about Crump's innocence quickly faded when she met him for the first time. From her book:

But when I met with Raymond Crump in the DC jail for the first time, the word that came to my mind was "incapable." He was, I remember thinking, incapable of

clear communication, incapable of complex thought, incapable of grasping the full weight of his predicament, incapable, most of all, of a murder executed with the

stealth and precision and forethought of Mary Meyers's. (Page 191)

In fact, Roundtree began her chapter on Crump with these words:

So far as I am concerned, there is in the complex and tangled web of certain truth and unconfirmed rumor, of inference and speculation and intrigue that surrounds

the life and death of Mary Pinchot Meyer a single critical fact: Raymond Crump's innocence in her murder. (Page 189)

It is no surprise that Jim didn't include any reference to these quotes in his article. It seems apparent why he chose only the ones he did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

One might wonder why Jim DiEugenio selected the following quotes from Dovey Roundtree's book for his CTKA essay. Jim's explanation, in part, is that

"although Crump was black, even Roundtree was hesitant to take his case at first."

When Dovey Roundtree was first approached about the case of Ray Crump she was an accomplished attorney who was one of the few females to graduate from Howard University Law School. Quite naturally, the whole issue of race formed a big part of her life. Consider this passage from her book Justice Older than the Law where she describes her feelings about going to Spelman College in Atlanta: “I was nearly paralyzed by my pain in those years. Decades would pass before I finally let go of the seething rage I harbored toward every white person who had ever wronged me, toward the whole faceless mass of white humanity who might someday wrong me for the mere fact of my blackness.” (p. 30, Roundtree and Katie McCabe) This is why, after she became a lawyer, she then became an ordained minister at Allen Chapel African Methodist Church in Washington D.C. I note this because, although Crump was black, even Roundtree was hesitant to take his case at first. As she writes, “I was dubious about his innocence, so persuasive were the facts the government had arrayed against him.” (ibid, p. 190) What then pushed her into taking on his cause? Through her own minister, Crump’s mother decided to make a personal plea to Roundtree. Predictably, she said her son was a “good boy.” And, of course, he would never do anything like what he was accused of doing here. With her background, this plea emotionally resounded with Roundtree. As she writes, “I compared her, consciously, to my grandmother, fighting ever so ferociously for Tom and Pete and all us “chillun” against onslaughts of every sort.” (ibid, p. 191) Since her grandmother had just died, this vaulted her to defend Crump “with a force I would not have thought possible.” (ibid, p. 194)

First of all, in her book Dovey Roundtree never expressed any hesitancy about taking on Ray Crump's case. It was two weeks after Crump's arrest when Roundtree was asked by Crump's mother to represent her son. Roundtree's skepticism about Crump's innocence was based on what she had seen in the news reports. Prior to Roundtree becoming his attorney, Crump was represented by George Lamb, from the Public Defender's Office. Both Lamb and his boss believed Crump was innocent.

Any doubts Roundtree may have had about Crump's innocence quickly faded when she met him for the first time. From her book:

But when I met with Raymond Crump in the DC jail for the first time, the word that came to my mind was "incapable." He was, I remember thinking, incapable of

clear communication, incapable of complex thought, incapable of grasping the full weight of his predicament, incapable, most of all, of a murder executed with the

stealth and precision and forethought of Mary Meyers's. (Page 191)

In fact, Roundtree began her chapter on Crump with these words:

So far as I am concerned, there is in the complex and tangled web of certain truth and unconfirmed rumor, of inference and speculation and intrigue that surrounds

the life and death of Mary Pinchot Meyer a single critical fact: Raymond Crump's innocence in her murder. (Page 189)

It is no surprise that Jim didn't include any reference to these quotes in his article. It seems apparent why he chose only the ones he did.

Michael, I am unable to post links because I am on the road.

I'll point you to Zalin Grant's piece, "Mary Meyer, A Highly Suspicious Death" and the analysis of the conflicts in what Roundtreetold Burleigh, Damore, vs. what is in her book and in Janney's book, available in post 371 on the Letsrollforum in the JFK death staged, thread. images from pages of the books examinedare displayed in that post 371.

I hope you have the good sense to stop soon, Michael. Mitchell the assassin is debunked unless facts no longer matter, Damore is reaffirmed as unreliable as a source, and Roundtree is inconsistant and contradicts herself. Janney is worse as a credible author, than Jim and Lisa have written. Pick any area you limit yourself to arguing about, and Janney fails, but you have yet to admit it at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, I am unable to post links because I am on the road.

I'll point you to Zalin Grant's piece, "Mary Meyer, A Highly Suspicious Death" and the analysis of the conflicts in what Roundtreetold Burleigh, Damore, vs. what is in her book and in Janney's book, available in post 371 on the Letsrollforum in the JFK death staged, thread. images from pages of the books examinedare displayed in that post 371.

I hope you have the good sense to stop soon, Michael. Mitchell the assassin is debunked unless facts no longer matter, Damore is reaffirmed as unreliable as a source, and Roundtree is inconsistant and contradicts herself. Janney is worse as a credible author, than Jim and Lisa have written. Pick any area you limit yourself to arguing about, and Janney fails, but you have yet to admit it at all.

Education Forum member Steve Rosen posted a link to Zalin Grant's article back in November, 2011. It appears just a few posts before the one of mine that you linked to the other day.

Journalist and author Zalin Grant re-investigated the murder of Mary Meyer beginning in November of 1993.

You can find his fresh take on the case in his article MARY MEYER: A HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS DEATH - Did Camelot Get Away With Murder? at his always informative site, Zalin Grant's War Tales.

As he did with his investigation of former DCI William E. Colby's suspicious death in 1996, Grant visited the scene, scoured police files, and interviewed witnesses (including acquitted suspect Raymond Crump Jr's attorney, Dovey Roundtree).

Most disturbing is what Grant found when he sought out the original physical evidence in the Mary Meyer homicide file in D.C.

Article link: http://www.pythiapre...ales/Meyer.html

Zalin Grant's website: http://www.pythiapre...tales/colby.htm

-- Steve

I'll remind you that Jim DiEugenio used Roundtree's book as a source, as I showed in the post you responded to.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

One might wonder why Jim DiEugenio selected the following quotes from Dovey Roundtree's book for his CTKA essay. Jim's explanation, in part, is that

"although Crump was black, even Roundtree was hesitant to take his case at first."

When Dovey Roundtree was first approached about the case of Ray Crump she was an accomplished attorney who was one of the few females to graduate from Howard University Law School. Quite naturally, the whole issue of race formed a big part of her life. Consider this passage from her book Justice Older than the Law where she describes her feelings about going to Spelman College in Atlanta: “I was nearly paralyzed by my pain in those years. Decades would pass before I finally let go of the seething rage I harbored toward every white person who had ever wronged me, toward the whole faceless mass of white humanity who might someday wrong me for the mere fact of my blackness.” (p. 30, Roundtree and Katie McCabe) This is why, after she became a lawyer, she then became an ordained minister at Allen Chapel African Methodist Church in Washington D.C. I note this because, although Crump was black, even Roundtree was hesitant to take his case at first. As she writes, “I was dubious about his innocence, so persuasive were the facts the government had arrayed against him.” (ibid, p. 190) What then pushed her into taking on his cause? Through her own minister, Crump’s mother decided to make a personal plea to Roundtree. Predictably, she said her son was a “good boy.” And, of course, he would never do anything like what he was accused of doing here. With her background, this plea emotionally resounded with Roundtree. As she writes, “I compared her, consciously, to my grandmother, fighting ever so ferociously for Tom and Pete and all us “chillun” against onslaughts of every sort.” (ibid, p. 191) Since her grandmother had just died, this vaulted her to defend Crump “with a force I would not have thought possible.” (ibid, p. 194)

First of all, in her book Dovey Roundtree never expressed any hesitancy about taking on Ray Crump's case. It was two weeks after Crump's arrest when Roundtree was asked by Crump's mother to represent her son. Roundtree's skepticism about Crump's innocence was based on what she had seen in the news reports.

Michael, you are bent on nitpicking interpretation and in this instance, your spin contradicts what is attributed to Roundtree.

What is your point? Your rules limit DiEugenio to only what he referenced in his review of Janney's book, and then, only

on your interpretation. Isn't this a contradiction of your sentence above this quote box?

“At this point, though, I was neutral about whether Crump was guilty or not because I hadn’t seen him.”.....

.....She had dealt with hundreds of black criminals who would walk up to you and put a bullet in your head without blinking, but her gut instinct said he was not one of them. He was telling the truth, within the parameters, of course, of a certain amount of lying. .....

Prior to Roundtree becoming his attorney, Crump was represented by George Lamb, from the Public Defender's Office. Both Lamb and his boss believed Crump was innocent.

Any doubts Roundtree may have had about Crump's innocence quickly faded when she met him for the first time. From her book:

But when I met with Raymond Crump in the DC jail for the first time, the word that came to my mind was "incapable." He was, I remember thinking, incapable of

clear communication, incapable of complex thought, incapable of grasping the full weight of his predicament, incapable, most of all, of a murder executed with the

stealth and precision and forethought of Mary Meyers's. (Page 191)

In fact, Roundtree began her chapter on Crump with these words:

So far as I am concerned, there is in the complex and tangled web of certain truth and unconfirmed rumor, of inference and speculation and intrigue that surrounds

the life and death of Mary Pinchot Meyer a single critical fact: Raymond Crump's innocence in her murder. (Page 189)

It is no surprise that Jim didn't include any reference to these quotes in his article. It seems apparent why he chose only the ones he did.

Michael, I am unable to post links because I am on the road.

I'll point you to Zalin Grant's piece, "Mary Meyer, A Highly Suspicious Death" and the analysis of the conflicts in what Roundtreetold Burleigh, Damore, vs. what is in her book and in Janney's book, available in post 371 on the Letsrollforum in the JFK death staged, thread. images from pages of the books examinedare displayed in that post 371.

I hope you have the good sense to stop soon, Michael. Mitchell the assassin is debunked unless facts no longer matter, Damore is reaffirmed as unreliable as a source, and Roundtree is inconsistant and contradicts herself. Janney is worse as a credible author, than Jim and Lisa have written. Pick any area you limit yourself to arguing about, and Janney fails, but you have yet to admit it at all.

Now the fishing pole, and the tale told by Crump of losing his fishing pole and slipping on rocks and falling into the water when he tried to retrieve the pole, disappear, and the "I was with a girl," tale told by Crump and allegedly bought by Roundtree, is dubious at best.:

Posted by "Culto":

http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=223322&postcount=211

If there would be just one word you would not associate her (Roundtree) with, it would be: "naive."

.....With this in mind, let's have a look at her 'handling' of the woman Ray Crump claimed he spent the morning of 10/12/64 with in the woods near the murder scene on the towpath: Vivian. According to Dovey Roundtree, Vivian would have given the perfect alibi for Crump at the trial.

However, Vivian refused to appear in court, thus her account wasn't included in the trial. So far so good, these are the 2 main issues regarding Vivian's story as they were addressed in Roundtree's book, published in 2009: "Justice Older Than The Law:"

1. Vivian picked Crump up at the corner where he was waiting for his ride to his constuction job.

2. Roundtree an her assistent had to make a huge effort, but finally managed to find Vivian and spoke with her on the phone.

(Page 195 )

jfk120.jpg

The half-empty liquor bottle and the bag of potato chips were found later by the police, thus confirming the story of Crump and Vivian in the woods. All within the framework of the 'official' version, of course...

Last year a new article about the Mary Meyer-case by Zalin Grant, a former Vietnam reporter for Time Magazine:

This quite interesting new article was mentioned earlier in this thread:

http://www.pythiapre...ales/Meyer.html

in his article Zalin Grant describes that he got interested in the events surrounding Mary Pinchot Meyer and he decided to do some research on it in 1993. He had a long interview with Roundtree in November '93, but for some reason he decided not to publish it right away.

And this is what Roundtree told Zalin Grant about Vivian in 1993:

Quote: She was tough in questioning Crump about what he had been doing on the towpath. He told police he had been fishing and had fallen in the water. But he didn’t want to tell her what he had really been doing and she had to pull it out of him.

He had missed the truck that would take him to his morning construction job, he told her finally, and he decided to stop by the home of a girlfriend to see if she was interested in doing something.

The girl had a car and they bought a six-pack of beer and a small bottle of gin and drove to the park, where they had sex. That had happened before, same girl, same place. He drank so much that he fell asleep and the girl took her car and went home and left to him to get back by trolley.

Dovey knew this might make a good alibi if she could find the girl. But she also knew it would squeeze the soul of his poor mother if this came out at trial. When Ray told her he didn’t want to involve the girl she decided not to push it further.

But wait a minute!...icon_eek.gif

"Crump decided to stop by her home?" So he knew where she lived! He had met her before; Crump knew Vivian pretty well!

So why did Roundtree write in her book of 2009 that they had a very hard time finding her? In this 1993 interview Roundtree stated that she didn't want to "push it further", while in 2009 she claimed she did a huge effort just to find her...icon_scratch.gif

Crump didn't want to get Vivian in trouble with her family, although she was the only person on the planet who could have saved him from a likely death penalty?! Now, that's really weird...

Okay, so Roundtree's book was published in 2009 and the Zalin Grant-interview took place in 1993. Now things concerning Vivian are really getting strange, for Nina Burleigh interviewed Roundtree as well during the research for "A Very Private Woman:"

Nina Burleigh interviewed Dovey Roundtree in 1996. Screenshot:

http://img28.imagesh...329/jfk121b.jpg

And this is what Roundtree told author/journalist Nina Burleigh:

..."Roundtree was never able to find the woman!"...

Screenshot of Burleigh's book:

http://img862.images...328/jfk121c.jpg

Why did ms. Roundtree state in her 1993 interview that she (through her client Crump) knew about Vivian's identity, she actually talked with her by phone in her 2009 book, while in her 1996 interview with Nina Burleigh she stated that she was never able to find her?!

This must be some kind of spinning, meant to create confusion about this whole story of "Ray Crump on the towpath"... In her book Roundtree explained they had a hard time finding Vivian, for she had picked-up Crump somewhere on the corner of a street, while in the interview of 1993 she stated that Crump had picked her up at her home. This was not for the first time, Crump was obviously aware of her address...

.....This girl "Vivian" should have been handled as a suspect of the "Mary Meyer-assassination."

After all: she was on the right spot on the right time. While Crump was sleeping, she could have gone to the towpath and shoot Mary twice. She could have done that on behalf of the CIA, who wanted to get rid of Mary because Mary was a danger for the future of the CIA etc. etc.

Within the framework of all available data of the official story, Vivian could have been a CIA-agent, set out to assassinate Mary and involve her 'lover' Ray Crump as the patsy; she could have drugged him, so that he would fall asleep. The perfect cover-up for a female assassin would be to make the murder look like a failed rape attempt (see part 3 for the only available clues for the alleged 'rape'-motive: the drag marks.) Just some crappy staged drag marks in the gravel and on Mary's feet and knees would do the trick.

So, the question is imo: was Dovey Roundtree as naive to overlook this scenario at all? No, she wasn't. As will be shown in the next 2 parts of these posts, ms. Roundtree was a pivotal figure in establishing the myth of the "Mary Meyer-assassination."

Continued.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

...continued from my last post.

Posted by "Culto":

http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=231517&postcount=371

Quote: Why did ms. Roundtree state in her 1993 interview that she (through her client Crump) knew about Vivian's identity, she actually talked with her by phone in her 2009 book, while in her 1996 interview with Nina Burleigh she stated that she was never able to find her?!

This must be some kind of spinning, meant to create confusion about this whole story of "Ray Crump on the towpath"... In her book Roundtree explained they had a hard time finding Vivian, for she had picked-up Crump somewhere on the corner of a street, while in the interview of 1993 she stated that Crump had picked her up at her home. This was not for the first time, Crump was obviously aware of her address...

From the notes of Nina Burleigh's 1998 book "A Very Private Woman:"

jfk121c.jpg

Peter Janney confirms in his new book "Mary's Mosaic" that indeed Dovey Roundtree was able to locate and even talk to Crump's girlfriend Vivian. Roundtree told about Vivian during her 1992 interview with Leo Damore. (Mary's Mosaic, p. 95.)

Although Peter Janney, Leo Damore, Nina Burleigh and Katie McCabe (author of Roundtree's autobiography) have been frequently in contact with each other related to their Mary Meyer research, none of them seemed to have the need to address this inconsistency regarding Vivian. That's really weird, for the interests are clearly there: Vivian's information is crucial for the analysis of Crump's whereabouts on the towpath that day.

Peter Janney simply ignores the fact that Roundtree told Burleigh that she was never able to locate Vivian.

There is a pattern of this kind of spinning around Crump's activities on the towpath, in which lawyer Dovey Roundtree is definately involved. On page 94 of "Mary's Mosaic" Peter Janney states that Roundtree told Damore in 1990 that Crump knew about the location at the edge of the Potomac where Vivian and he went to. After falling into the river, Crump tried to "find his way out of the dang place." Next comes this quote:

Quote: He wasn't familar with that area at all. And he sort of roamed around. And then he heard something like an explosion.

That's quite a contradiction by Roundtree: was or wasn't Crump familiar with the area? According to most sources he was, for he went sometimes fishing there.

Furthermore, Roundtree entirely avoids the issue of Crump's jacket and cap which were found in the river later on. Much more come on those items, for they are pivotal in Janney's murder scenario; why would Crump have thrown his jacket and cap in the river when he tried to get out of the area?

However, much more suspicious is Roundtree's claim during her 1990 interview with Leo Damore that Crump actually heard "something like an explosion." "Like the backfire of a car," said Crump, according to Roundtree.

This statement has one direct consequence for Crump's whereabouts on the towpath: he was already awake well before the shots were fired! This statement by Roundtree implies that the 2 shots [if any...] didn't wake up Crump:

Crump was already roaming around in the area to find a way out before the shots were fired...

Once again, Peter Janney basically ignores this fact. That's suspicious to say the least, for this "roaming around in the area" by Crump turns out to be crucial within the scenario "Mitchell shot Mary", promoted by Janney himself. See the coming posts.

And now back to Dovey Roundtree, her 2009 autobiography "Justice Older Than The Law," page 192:

jfk482.jpg

See also this post.

While in her 1990 interview with Leo Damore, Roundtree stated that Crump had heard an "explosion like the backfire of a car," she wrote in her own book of 2009 that Crump hadn't heard any sound at all that "told him that something was wrong"...

There is a word for this kind of obvious and purposely introduced contradictions: spinning..

The point, Michael is that your deliberately confined method of argument designed to straitjacket Jim DiEugenio is the only way you can avoid getting stomped by the elephant in the room. Jim and Lisa have been extremely accurate in their criticism of what Janney is trying to sell, despite their access to less information than is now available in this thread. They were not aware of how contradictory Roundtree's own statements have been over the past 22 years, how unreliable Damore as a source really was, and there was no knowledge that a detailed resume of Crump trial witness, Lt. William L. Mitchell was available.

You've been very critical of Jim DiEugenio and of me, Michael, because of our criticisms of Janney. You actually posted that it is your opinion I have done more damage to the credibility and reputation of this forum, than Janney has. You won't even address the impact on Janney's tale from the discovery of William L. Mitchell's background, except to trivialize, divert attention from, and to present the discovery as a deficiency in my personality. Through it all, on these threads during this month of August, your interest in accuracy seems confined to holding Jim DiEugenio accountable, but not author Peter Janney, Dovey Roundtree, and most certainly not John Simkin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You actually posted that it is your opinion I have done more damage to the credibility and reputation of this forum, than Janney has.

Actually, I did not post what you claim I did. This is what I posted (in part):

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.

......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."

Here was my post in full: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19058&st=105#entry258421

Tom, I've grown extremely weary of responding to stuff like the above and the rest of your latest post.

You continue to ignore the questions I ask(ed) you. You continue to misrepresent what I've written.

The example above is a perfect illustration of your tactics here.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, that is just excellent stuff by you impeaching Roundtree.

I could not have done better myself.

It explodes Crump's alibi, and now it appears that Roundtree was a bit too zealous in her defense and smudged certain facts as defense lawyers tend to do.

That is why I quoted the part from her book that I did. I suspected she had done something like this, but I could not pinpoint it. You did. Congratulations from me. Hold your breath before you get any credit for some excellent sleuthing from Mikey and Dawn. (Better not do that. Because you will be dead before they congratulate you.)

And it is incredible that Janney never brought these key inconsistencies up in his book. Even though he was in close contact with Roundtree, and she acknowledges him in her book.

Just superb work by you on both this and Mitchell. And with that work, Janney's book has collapsed like a souffle.

It's the Fetzer and Cinque show all over again. Much less member interest. Different styles. Different topic, different people.

Same mentality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...