Questions for Peter Janney on his book Mary’s Mosaic

[Michael Hogan]

Let us examine the source of some of the hostility toward Hogan. The following is a pull quote he used from my review:

....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. (MH, post 120)

The above quote was prefaced by this comment: “Because of my great respect for Jim DiEugenio….” Keep that "great respect" in mind as we progress.

I objected to this by saying that it was a cheap shot. Since the idea that Janney did not address Damore’s psychological problems toward the end of his life was not what I meant.

MIkey came back with the following:

Because I posted what Jim actually wrote instead of what he says he meant, Jim defines that as a cheap shot. (MH, post 126)

Here is the problem with that sentence, and it undermines Hogan’s assumed pose as the put upon “fair” and only “reacting” participant in this discussion: That is not what I wrote. Hogan censored what appeared directly previous in order to make it mean what it did not mean in order to take a cheap shot at me. This is what I actually wrote:

"A major problem with Janney is this: He never questioned anything that Damore did previously, even though Senatorial Privilege tended to show that Damore was an agenda driven kind of an author who did not do his necessary homework. 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."

By eliminating the first sentence, Hogan alters the meaning of what I said and meant. In its restored form, the word "Both" now has contextual and precise meaning: In other words, how did the two traits impact each other? Was his work on Meyer even more agenda driven because of the latter? In my review, I believe I showed that to be the case; even though, in deference to Damore and his plight, I was not explicit about it. Such an exact excision by Hogan could not have been accidental--it was deliberately surgical, done to distort the meaning of the author. If you can believe it, Hogan then has the chutzpah to write that he posted what I wrote! This technique, worthy of John McAdams, is like a boxer putting his hand behind his opponent’s head to bend him down to deliver an uppercut.

This one sample, among many, explodes Hogan’s self serving and very much tailored defense of his behavior above.

Jim DiEugenio, ever the affronted one. Robert Charles-Dunne nailed it when he called it faux outrage.

It's clear that Jim was talking about two distinct situations ("both areas should have been addressed by Janney"). But that's really not the point.

As shown below, I wrote that Jim implied that Janney did not address Damore's serious psychological problems.

And that remains exactly what Jim implied.

No matter how much of Jim's writing he would have wanted me to include, that remains an indisputable fact.

Here was Jim's initial response:

MH: 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:

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: Janney should have understood that because of his state, and his obsession, Damore was likely not the most reliable source and therefore he should have tried to address that problem by using some skepticism and therefore checking out some of the information he derived from Damore--which was a lot.

I then demonstrated why he should have done that, and more than once e.g. with those so called notes that his lawyer took when Damore called him and said he cracked the case. MIkey does not want to talk about that though. Because it makes the object of his affection, Janney, look like a damn fool.

Keep on trucking Mikey, you are about as fair and objective on this subject as DVP is with Oswald.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Michael, the issue you cannot escape from is that you are only able to criticize Jim and I for offenses you identify and describe,

belittle the unique observations we have made that do considerable damage to Peter Janney's credibility and to the value of his book as a reference quality offering, while at the same time, unwaveringly defend your own record of boosterism of both Janney and of his disturbingly flawed book. You, along with Charles and Dawn, also attempt to justify your heightened concern driven scolding and condemnation of Jim and his opinions and analysis of Janney, his agenda, and of the shortcomings in his work.

Aggravating your predicament, is the challenge for you that results from Jim and Lisa being early and very accurate in almost all of

the areas they have criticized Janney about. Late developments are that Janney's assassin, the "missing" William L. Mitchell is not missing. A resume of his academic and professional career that fits Janney's description of him like a glove, has been posted here.

A presentation has been made demonstrating that Janney and Dovey Roundtree have been inconsistent in describing who Crump was and what he said happened on the day of his arrest, and that Roundtree's co-author, as recently as in this month, is still bent on imparting this disproven assertion to the public.:

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

....No newspaper reports identified the true work of her former husband, Cord Meyer. He was described as a government official or an author. A large number of journalists knew that Meyer had been married to a senior CIA officer. They also knew that she had been having an affair with John F. Kennedy. None of this was reported. In fact, the judge, ruled that the private life of Mary Meyer could not be mentioned in court......

Ray Crump's life was literally on the line, as he faced the uncertainty of whether the prosecutor would seek the death penalty in

the event he was convicted of the murder of Mary Meyer, but:

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

books.google.com

Peter Janney - 2012 - Google eBook - Preview

.....For Roundtree, the immediate priority was to find Vivian, his only alibi.

She did so with the assistance of her private investigator, Purcell Moore.

But Vivian made it clear from the outset she didn't appreciate Dovey Roundtree's

out-of-the blue telephone call to her home. Vivian did, however, corroborate

Ray Crump's story—right down to the details about the beer, potato chips,

whiskey, and cigarettes. Her version of events lined up with Crump's.

They had walked out the towpath to a spot adjacent to the Potomac River,

she told Roundtree. They drank a little, had sex on some rocks, and Crump fell asleep.

She left without waking him. The corroborating details offered Roundtree her first glimmer

of hope. But unfortunately, like Crump, Vivian feared the repercussions of exposing her

extramarital affair—she believed her husband might kill her if he learned of it.

Only after Roundtree explained that Crump would likely face the death penalty did Vivian

agree to sign an affidavit verifying she'd been with Crump the entire morning of the day of the murder,

and that he had carried no gun. But without an appearance at trial, the affidavit was all but worthless.

Crump's fabrications to police would then form the only cornerstone of the government's case against him.

The noose around his neck was ...

(WAS THE ABOVE EXCERPT FROM JANNEY'S BOOK AN EXCUSE FOR NOT EVEN OBTAINING A SWORN AFFADAVIT FROM THE ALLEGED, ALIBI WITNESS ?)

Excerpted from a post found on another forum:

http://letsrollforum...2&postcount=211

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

Nina Burleigh interviewed Dovey Roundtree in 1996. Screenshot:

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

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

Screenshot of Burleigh's book:

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...

I know why I am here, posting with firm conviction. I was moved by surprise and curiousity over Peter Janney's attack post in this thread, in the midst of a period in which he was basking in the success of his new book. I thought his attack on Lisa and Jim was shrill, over the top, unfair, ill timed. I looked deeper and I found that Janney had much more interesting things to write a book about, especially since he was invoking his own family background in the book he did write.. He had the potential to be much more accurate as well, if he had written about his CIA father, his uncle Frank Pace, Jr., Roswell Gilpatric, and of their ties to the Rockefellers.

Janney did not even mention Frank Pace in his book. Then I found that the man who Janney identified as the CIA assassin who shot

Mary Meyer was instead, just what he claimed to be when he came forward as a prosecution witness in the Crump trial.

I've got good reason to be participating here. Jim does, too. We can easily demonstrate justification for our criitcisms. It seems much more difficult to take the other side, to praise and defend Peter Janney and his book, and to criticize Janney's critics, and indeed the posts in the thread confirm that defending Janney and attacking his critics is an odd and unrewarding endeavor.

In the Ring: The Trials of a Washington Lawyer - Page 36

books.google.com

Robert S. Bennett - 2008 - 400 pages - Google eBook - Preview

I sat next to the jury box, as if I was the thirteenth juror. Frankly, I would have convicted (Irump because of the overwhelming evidence. ....She communicated well with the largely African-American jury, many of whom, especially the women, identified with her. Hantman, on the other hand, was cold and arrogant at times and overreaching.....

It is interesting that people who suspect that elements of the CIA had a hand in the murder of Mary Meyer and are also certain that the Warren Commission engaged in a cover up, white wash, are convinced of Ray Crump's innocence despite nonexistence of a consistent, credible account stated to police investigators or in court by Crump, or since by either Crump or his defense counsel, Dovey Roundtree, explaining Crump's actual activities during the period in question on the day of the murder, or about his failure to produce an alleged alibi witness.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Tom Scully

[Michael Hogan]

As for Hogan's post 172, this is getting worse and worse.

If I had meant what his distortion says I did, then he would not have had to excise the previous sentence would he?

But he did, didn't he? And I proved that.

Want to go back and maybe rewrite your previous post at 120? Then perhaps you would have some credibility.

You got caught Mikey.

I'll let my post #120 stand as written. I'll go one better. I'll reproduce it below.

I wrote that "Jim implied that Janney did not address Damore's serious psychological problems." Jim calls that a distortion.

Jim is now claiming that he did not imply that at all, even though those were his words. He claims his meaning changes because his statement to that exact effect

was not included with the previous sentence.

If Jim did not want readers to infer that he didn't mean what he wrote he had an opportunity to make it clear later in his article. Instead he credited Lisa Pease for noting that

"like Truitt, Leo Damore was a very troubled man towards the end of his life."

When in reality Lisa got her information from Janney. See my post #120 below.

Jim can cry cheap shot all he wants. His own words belie him.

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.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

It is interesting that people who suspect that elements of the CIA had a hand in the murder of Mary Meyer and are also certain that the Warren Commission engaged in a cover up, white wash, are convinced of Ray Crump's innocence despite nonexistence of a consistent, credible account stated to police investigators or in court by Crump, or since by either Crump or his defense counsel, Dovey Roundtree, explaining Crump's actual activities during the period in question on the day of the murder, or about his failure to produce an alleged alibi witness.

Tom:

One single sentence, yet it engenders so many questions:

“It is interesting that people who suspect that elements of the CIA had a hand in the murder of Mary Meyer and are also certain that the Warren Commission engaged in a cover up, white wash, are convinced of Ray Crump's innocence...”

If by “people” you include me, please count me out. I’ve stated no opinion as to who killed Mary Meyer because, like everybody else, I don’t know. Unlike many, I don’t pretend otherwise.

“... despite nonexistence of a consistent, credible account stated to police investigators or in court by Crump...”,

Also “non-existent” is credible evidence of Crump’s guilt. That’s why a jury so concluded.

“or since by either Crump or his defense counsel, Dovey Roundtree, explaining Crump's actual activities during the period in question on the day of the murder...:

There are discrepancies and conflicts in the tale(s) purportedly told by both Crump and Roundtree at various times. I’ve already suggested that contacting Roundtree might help to illuminate things in this and several other regards. Satisfy your curiosity, if you choose.

“...or about his failure to produce an alleged alibi witness.”

How weak is a prosecutor’s case that a man of Crump’s mien has no alibi, and still beats the state? Even with all the underlying racial and class dynamics at play? If there was a “failure to produce,” it was the DA’s failure to produce what should have been a slam-dunk case against Crump.

If there is today greater reason to suspect Crump’s guilt than when he was acquitted, the onus of providing it is upon those who insist he was guilty. Yet on this singular point, Tom and Jim have raised nary an issue.

Baiting me or others into denouncing Janney, which seems your interest, is quite futile in my case as I’ve not read his book, am therefor unsuited to comment on it, and am less inclined to read the book the longer this persists.

From the outset, I’ve asked repeatedly, consistently, and entirely in vain, for whatever fresh evidence against Crump emerged that was not known at trial.

An infinite number of Janney’s purported shortcomings, as annotated by Tom and Jim, might very well be true, but it remains wholly irrelevant to Crump’s guilt or innocence. This is my only interest and the only thing upon which I have made comment.

[Mike Rago]

I just noticed the full title of his book....

Marys Mosiac: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace

For what it is worth, Janney might have been right about Crump, I really do not know or really care that much, but he is dead wrong about the CIA. The CIA did not murder John F. Kennedy. They might have been involved in the cover-up , but they did not murder JFK.

Now, can you two guys stop this back and forth. It is getting very old.

What is Janneys evidence that the CIA murdered the president? I dare say it cannot be evidence, so it must be his opinion.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Michael Hogan]

Yawner Mike.

You didn't explain why you did the surgery, which reveals your malicious intent.

Jim DiEugenio, ever the affronted one

Jim has accused me (and others) of smearing him. He has accused me of cheap shots. He has accused me of lashing out personally at him.

Now he accuses me of malicious intent, simply because he does not want to own his own words.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Jim, Robert Bennett was the clerk of the Crump trial judge during the trial:

..........

In the Ring: The Trials of a Washington Lawyer - Page 36

books.google.com

Robert S. Bennett - 2008 - 400 pages - Google eBook - Preview

I sat next to the jury box, as if I was the thirteenth juror. Frankly, I would have convicted (Irump because of the overwhelming evidence. ....She communicated well with the largely African-American jury, many of whom, especially the women, identified with her. Hantman, on the other hand, was cold and arrogant at times and overreaching.....

RCD, no, I did not have you specifically in mind. I wrote to whoever strongly believes in Crump's innocence, because

it seems to me he and his defense attorney had an obligation to be truthful, him to investigators and the court, since

he claimed to be innocent of the crime he was accused of, and his attorney, truthful and consistent for historical and ethical

reasons.

Michael obviously only wants to hold Jim DiEugenio and I accountable to our words and absolutely not Peter Janney, althout he has

posted repeatedly that Janney has member status here.

I've posted details that make it plain and obvious that Janney has shortcomings in the accuracy area that are fatal to his

core premises of his book, having to do with anything he sources from Damore, his belief in Dovery Roundtree's recent comments about locating Crump's alibi witness, Vivian, but not obtaining an affidavit from her because she refused to testify, and in his accusations that William L Mitchell provided a false background and that he was a CIA assassin because Damore had dictated some notes to his attorney, to that effect.

It does not take a read of Janney's book to understand those flaws. The deal here is that both you and Michael on not like reading Jim's criticism of Janney, you believe you have a constituency that agrees with your feelings about what Jim has done, and between the two of you, you have made it plain that you and other members harbor strong negative feelings toward Jim, and now towards me, for, among other things, defending him. You are so concerned about Jim's impact on his own reputation, that you've warned him that he is doing himself much more harm than good.

In almost every post from you or Mike, there is an absolute refusal on your parts to address whether Jim has made more accurate criticisms of Janney, than Janney has of Jim. Jim has also criticized John Simkin for buying into Janney and predictably bashing the reputation of JFK. Is Jim inaccurate, unfair? That is what this discussion could and should be about, but neither of you will have anything to do with that novel and obvious approach to this.

So, you effortfully keep it very narrow, and very personal, and not what I would expect to see from two respected members of a prominent, JFK Assassination research forum.

[Mike Rago]

In the Ring: The Trials of a Washington Lawyer - Page 36

books.google.com

Robert S. Bennett - 2008 - 400 pages - Google eBook - Preview

I sat next to the jury box, as if I was the thirteenth juror. Frankly, I would have convicted (Irump because of the overwhelming evidence. ....She communicated well with the largely African-American jury, many of whom, especially the women, identified with her. Hantman, on the other hand, was cold and arrogant at times and overreaching.....

Finally, something important. What was the makeup of the jury? Largely african-american jury with an african-american defense lawyer puts the odd's greatly in Ray Crumps favor at that time in history.

The O.J. Simpson case comes to mind...

Edited August 26, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Daniel Gallup]

I just picked up the book and have begun to read it. Right away, Janney reveals himself to be a "Liftonite" (p. 20-- I use do not use the term perjoratively, but with approval) which may or may not have bearing on one's view of the rest of the book. I strongly believe Horne's being a "Liftonite" strongly colored and damaged DiEugenio's objectivity of Horne's 5 volume work, having read both Horne and the entire DiEugenio review. But that's another matter. I am willing to read Janney against the backdrop of this thread, and appreciate the give and take on both sides. My thanks to the hard work involved by everyone trying to get to the bottom of this case.

[Michael Hogan]

Let us go on to another point.

When Tom posted the material that reveals that Roundtree was, at best too zealous in her defense of Crump, at worst that she made stuff up, I praised him for posting it here. (He got this from the Let's Roll forum, a place that Hogan first introduced here.)

This was an important contribution, because 1.) It is new, and 2.) It makes the Crump excuse even more of a rigamarole story. The posting is taken from previous books and footnotes. In other words it is in pristine state as far as it goes. It is very hard to believe that Janney did not notice this. I congratulated Tom for posting this new and revelatory material.

Hogan not only did not congratulate Tom, he then tried to say that for me to do so was sort of what happened with CInque and Fetzer with Doorway Man.

I submit that no objective person can compare the two instances in any real way. Since there was no speculation with the actual quotes from writers. There was much speculation and assumption with the Doorway Man thesis. This just shows Hogan's bile and bias on this issue.

Make no mistake, I did not compare the two theses. My post made that clear. I compared the mentalities of the posters. Big difference.

Before I address all of Jim's post, I want to remind him of what provoked the comparison. When Jim wrote this, he was under the mistaken impression that it was Tom's work,

rather than a poster from another forum. Note Jim's effusive praise and the declaration that Roundtree was impeached.

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.

Next: Jim learns it was from a poster on another forum.

[Michael Hogan]

After it was brought to Jim's attention that the Roundtree material was not Tom's, but from a poster on another forum, he replied:

You cannot be serious Mike.

But the thing is, I think you are.

Tom fished this out of another forum, fine.

You didn't. (Quite naturally.)

Neither did I.

Neither did RCD.

And you won't give him credit for even that. Guess this is more of your "Googling".

The thing is the content is important, not just because it impeaches Roundtree--and Janney BTW--since he does not acknowledge it; but it also indicates that 1.) It evolved over time, and 2.) It appears that Roundtree and Crump cooperated on it.

And all Mikey can do is say, well it wasn't original.

Keep on deliberately missing the point MIkey. Your credibility will sink even further than it has. Which is underwater.

The guy Jim now claims impeached Roundtree and Janney BTW is a guy who calls himself Culto. Jim wasted no time in deeming the content of Culto's post important

and criticizing me for withholding credit to Tom for fishing it out of another forum.

Remember, Jim has a vested interest in "impeaching Roundtree." She is toxic to his Burleigh-based Crump beliefs.

I posted a link to one of Culto's posts several weeks ago.

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

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

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

Maybe that's how Tom found out about the Let's Roll Forum. Maybe not.

At any rate, Culto wrote:

"The "Mary Meyer assassination" was nothing more than a crappily performed psy-op. The main goal of the involved mainstream media assets, including Lance Morrow, is to create the perception that ìndeed she died on that towpath on 10/12/64.

In order to confirm once again this Big Lie of Mary's "dead body" on the towpath, Morrow felt the need to create this fake 2008 Smithsonian article......"

Culto claims that Meyers' death was faked. This is the kind of crap that Jim DiEugenio chastises Robert and me for not fishing out.

Culto also wrote some very nice things about Jim. It's clear he follows this thread.

http://letsrollforum...5&postcount=268

http://letsrollforum...7&postcount=269

The point of this is that Jim DiEugenio, like Jim Fetzer, will accept and even praise any source, as long as they believe that source somehow supports their views.

[Michael Hogan]

Mike:

With the above goofiness now everyone can see just how far you have descended.

1.) It was not the source of Tom's info that provoked you to say what you did at all. Anyone can see that by looking at your original post. You are using that just as a fig leaf to disguise the ridiculous comparison you made, which was meant as a smear.

It was exactly the source of Tom's info that led me to say what I did:

It's apparent that Jim did not read Tom's post carefully enough. He was so thrilled at the possibilty of "impeaching Roundtree" that he became oblivious to the sources.

Hence my comment about a Fetzer/Cinque mentality:

I was familiar with Culto; I had read his posts before. It's you that needs the fig leaf. The comparison I made has turned out to be accurate.

2.) I endorse that site and his theory? Where do you get this stuff? Please show me where I did such a thing. But to say I think his theory is off the wall, which it is, does not mean that everything there is such. As Tom proved.

Show me where I wrote that you endorse that forum and Culto's theory. As was shown, you were blissfully unaware of of Culto's theory or his comments about you. I carefully posted what you wrote in full because your words speak for themselves. Jim, I don't need to massage your words. You are you own worst enemy and you don't get that. Good people have tried to tell you.

As for Tom, he posted some of Culto's stuff and you both acted like he'd found the holy grail. Why didn't Tom issue any disclaimers about his sources in his posts?

He attributed it to another forum, but it is clear he was also unfamiliar with Culto.

No, he just cut and pasted it and posted it along with everything else, and it fooled you into believing it was Tom's material in the first place.

But to say I think his theory is off the wall, which it is, does not mean that everything there is such. As Tom proved.

By the same thinking, to say that Janney's theory is off the wall does not mean that everything there is such. As countless people have proven.

Since you often make up false claims about what I said, let me repost what I did say:

The point of this is that Jim DiEugenio, like Jim Fetzer, will accept and even praise any source, as long as they believe that source somehow supports their views.

I'm thinking I might owe Jim Fetzer an apology.

[Mike Rago]

I find these quotes interesting...

Mary Meyer was not so fortunate. In April 1964, she was shot and killed by homeless man as she walked along the C&O canal in Georgetown, the victim of what seems to have been a random street crime. Jim Angleton immediately went to Meyer’s house and seized (then later destroyed) her diary, which detailed her romance with the late president. The canny spymaster knew full well that the details of JFK’s relationships with other women were politically sensitive and historically important. Mimi Alford’s brave book confirms the point.

In March, 1976, James Truitt, a former senior member of staff at the Washington Post, gave an interview to the National Enquirer. Truitt told the newspaper that Meyer was having an affair with John F. Kennedy when he was assassinated. He also claimed that Meyer had told his wife, Ann Truitt, that she was keeping an account of this relationship in her diary. Meyer asked Truitt to take possession of a private diary "if anything ever happened to me".

Ann Truitt was living in Tokyo at the time that Meyer was murdered on 12th October, 1964. She phoned Bradlee at his home and asked him if he had found the diary. Bradlee, who claimed he was unaware of his sister-in-law's affair with Kennedy, knew nothing about the diary. He later recalled what he did after Truitt's phone-call: "We didn't start looking until the next morning, when Tony and I walked around the corner a few blocks to Mary's house. It was locked, as we had expected, but when we got inside, we found Jim Angleton, and to our complete surprise he told us he, too, was looking for Mary's diary."

James Angleton, CIA counterintelligence chief, admitted that he knew of Mary's relationship with John F. Kennedy and was searching her home looking for her diary and any letters that would reveal details of the affair. According to Ben Bradlee, it was Mary's sister, Antoinette Bradlee, who found the diary and letters a few days later. It was claimed that the diary was in a metal box in Mary's studio. The contents of the box were given to Angleton who claimed he burnt the diary. Angleton later admitted that Mary recorded in her diary that she had taken LSD with Kennedy before "they made love".

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

And particularly this quote...

In 1962 Mary made contact with Timothy Leary, the director of research projects at Harvard University. Leary supplied LSD to Mary who used it with Kennedy. Leary also claimed that Mary helped influence Kennedy's views on nuclear disarmament and rapprochement with Cuba. It was later discovered that the FBI was keeping a file on Mary. Later, James Angleton, head of counterintelligence at the CIA admitted that the agency was bugging Mary's telephone and bedroom during this period.

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

So the CIA was bugging Mary's telephone and bedroom in the years before the murder of John F. Kennedy. Its interesting they bugged the bedroom.

And we are to believe the CIA then killed Mary Meyer to get her diary and shut her up so she would not blab about her affair with the president?

And why James Angleton?

I do believe that someone thought there might be something in that diary to be concerned about. But I do not think it was the affair.

And, it is not hard for me to think that someone thought that Mary knew something about the motive for the murder of JFK that was a threat to them.

But I am not convinced it was the CIA.

Regarding Ray Crump....

Lets assume there were 5 white people on the jury. If Ray Crump was found not guilty then all 12 jurors agreed to that, which means that all 5 white people on the jury agreed he was not guilty. If there was anything at all that would have convicted Ray Crump there would have been a hung jury(imo)

Edited August 26, 2012 by Mike Rago

[John Dolva]

• HOME
  
• WORK
  
• EXHIBITIONS
  
• COLLECTIONS
  
• BIOGRAPHY
  
• PHOTOS
  
• CONTACT
  

INTRODUCTION

TRUITT'S HOME

EASTON, MD, C 1920S

STUDIO

WASHINGTON, DC, 2004

STUDIO

WASHINGTON, DC, 2005

Anne Truitt was born Anne Dean in 1921 in Baltimore, Maryland. She spent her childhood in Easton on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Truitt graduated cum laude with a B.A. degree in psychology from Bryn Mawr College in 1943. She worked as a Red Cross Nurse's Aide at Massachusetts General Hospital until the end of World War II, serving in the wards at night after working as a research assistant in the hospital's psychiatric laboratory during the day. Truitt wrote poems and short stories during this time; these exercises, as well as other writings and correspondence, form part of her Bryn Mawr College archive.

Truitt married James McConnell Truitt in 1947 and moved from Boston to Washington D.C. where he worked in the State Department. She continued to write and in the 1950s translated from French to English a book written by Germaine Bree, Professor, Bryn Mawr College:

Du Temps Perdu Au Temps Retrouvé, Marcel Proust and Deliverance from Time

, Rutgers University Press, 1956. In 1948 James Truitt left the State Department and began a career in journalism; subsequently the Truitts moved around the United States, and lived in Japan from 1964-1967.

Truitt studied sculpture for one academic year at the Institute of Contemporary Art, 1949, in Washington, D.C., followed by three months at the Dallas Museum of Fine Art. Following this formal training, she worked in clay, cast in cement and plaster, experimenting with various techniques, including steel welding. In 1961 Truitt began to work in the style for which she later became known: she paints multiple delicate layers of color characterized by subtle variations on wooden constructions which she has fabricated in accordance with scale drawings; the structural elements of these sculptures constitute armatures supporting color. Writing in April, 1965, Truitt stated: "What is important to me in not geometrical shape per se, or color per se, but to make a relationship between shape and color which feels to me like my experience. To make what feels to me like reality." (Private papers.)

Truitt's work is in many major museums in the United States, among them The National Gallery of Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Museum of Modern Art, The Museum of American Art, as well as in collections elsewhere, notably the Panza Collection in Italy. Truitt has been the subject of three major museum retrospective exhibitions: at the Whitney Museum of American Art, 1974; at the Corcoran Gallery of Art, 1975; at the Baltimore Museum of Art, 1992.

In addition to her work as an artist, Truitt has written three books: Daybook (Pantheon 1982), Turn (Viking 1986) and Prospect (Scribner 1996). Her contributions to both scholarship and art have been recognized with many honors, including five honorary doctorates. She was awarded the Cather Medal in 2003.

Truitt died in Washington, D.C. in December 2004.

© annetruitt.org

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

It does not take a read of Janney's book to understand those flaws. The deal here is that both you and Michael on not like reading Jim's criticism of Janney, you believe you have a constituency that agrees with your feelings about what Jim has done, and between the two of you, you have made it plain that you and other members harbor strong negative feelings toward Jim, and now towards me, for, among other things, defending him. You are so concerned about Jim's impact on his own reputation, that you've warned him that he is doing himself much more harm than good.

Tom, this has been from the outset a very central misunderstanding on your part. I don’t care what Jim (or Lisa, or you) critiques in Janney’s book. It is their and your prerogative Find whatever fault you can prove. Have at it. Janney can fend for himself if he chooses to, as he already did with his broadside against Jim and Lisa.

Crump cannot.

I represent no constituency. I merely advocate for an old fashioned notion that those making claims are responsible for providing the proof for said claims.

I seek to hold accountable people who make broadly sweeping claims (“Crump is guilty”) without troubling themselves to provide evidence for the contention.

You seem to take umbrage I will not allow someone found NOT guilty at trial to be accused of guilt by you or others without my demands for proof, which proof is not in your possession, or Jim’s, or Lisa’s, or it would have been well-trumpeted by now. How is it that you claim to be the put upon party when common decency dictates that YOU MUST show your convincing hand or be seen to be holding nothing?

As I’ve repeatedly said, Lisa and Jim could easily have demonstrated whatever balderdash is contained in Janney’s book without resorting to Crump’s guilt or innocence at all. But they took what they perceived the easiest way from A to B, what they thought was a clever shortcut to eviscerating Janney’s book. Lisa admitted as much, which I’ve already pointed out:

"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." (My caps, as html has been unresponsive for me as of late)

So where is the proof for “IF CRUMP ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME?” I’ve seen none because there’s been none on offer.

(In passing, it would have been far simpler to impeach Janney by simply Googling for Mitchell, as you did with positive results, Tom. Instead of undermining the CIA hitman theory, which was rather easily accomplished with a single try by you, they preferred demonstrating Crump’s guilt, without actually managing to pull that off.)

Today, because of my demands for proof, the goal posts have been moved. In the absence of actual proof, which none of you have to present, we are instead instructed to believe that Roundtree's good lawyering, or maybe even unethical actions, ginned the result; that the DA was a fool; that the internal jury deliberations might have gone either way; (again, without much in the way or proof, not that it matters in any case) and any number of other specious dodges; each in place of convincing evidence such as the murder weapon; Crump’s fingerprints on said weapon; additional witness(es) who saw the event itself, and not just its aftermath; or even something as lowly as a motive. The response? Nada.

(BTW, the “strong negative feelings” you claim I harbor against Jim and you are a figment of somebody’s imagination. My criticism is of hypocritical behavior, not the person exhibiting it. But yes, Jim will do and is doing damage to his reputation with the shoddiness on display here. Any time a member resorts to diminutive epithets like “Mikey,” or “Slick” or “Partner” in addressing other members, they’ve already lost. Sarcasm is no substitute for the proof of one’s contentions. Calling Michael Hogan “Mikey” does no damage to Hogan, but vastly undermines respect for Jim when he does it. Does he teach petulant teenagers, or behave like one?)

"In almost every post from you or Mike, there is an absolute refusal on your parts to address whether Jim has made more accurate criticisms of Janney, than Janney has of Jim. Jim has also criticized John Simkin for buying into Janney and predictably bashing the reputation of JFK. Is Jim inaccurate, unfair? That is what this discussion could and should be about, but neither of you will have anything to do with that novel and obvious approach to this."

So, you effortfully keep it very narrow, and very personal, and not what I would expect to see from two respected members of a prominent, JFK Assassination research forum.

It IS "narrow," because Crump is my SOLE concern. If you feel it is "very personal," perhaps that's because I am holding people accountable for their statements, they cannot provide the basis needed to make those statements, and feel resentful for being shown to have nothing. Sorry, not a problem of my making.

But, OK, so now we’re getting to the nub of what’s got you riled. Which is more accurate: Jim’s critiques of Janney’s work or Janney’s critique of Jim’s methods?

Can I point out that this is entirely inconsequential? Am I entitled to avow that I couldn’t possibly give a rodent’s posterior about the outcome of that particular pissing match? Why? Because it has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Crump.

That cluster of festering animosity to which you allude has its genesis a half decade back, when Jim first issued his fatwah on “con men” who pollute the research community, and then named, among others, Janney and John Simkin. Of course, Jim was going to eviscerate the book when it was published; he had set course in that direction five years before the book appeared.

This cluster of festering animosity was further inflamed by Lisa’s review, in which she admitted she thought the book unworthy before even reading it, based upon footnote sources alone, and “reviewed” accordingly. And then made the crucial error of trying to undermine Janney’s whole hypothesis by proving Crump’s guilt, without actually proving Crump’s guilt.

You suggest that unraveling that cluster of festering animosity “is what this discussion could and should be about,” it being such a “novel and obvious approach to this.”

I have no interest in participating in such super-heated, ego-driven flame wars. They invariably generate more heat than light.

Exhibit A? This very thread. “Questions For Peter Janney About His Book Mary’s Mosaic” might be the innocuous way this thread began, but Janney’s long gone, you might have noticed.

When anybody here railing against Janney - and so casually condemning the already-acquitted Crump as a murderer - can actually trouble themselves to provide proof of Crump’s oft-purported but thus-far un-demonstrated guilt, I hope I will still be alive to read it.

Edited for typos.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Robert Charles-Dunne