That is not what I said.
What I said was that this story started after the fact of her death and has not been nailed down.
But if it is true--and we don't know if it is--then to fit into Janney's construct, they had to be looking for the mythological diary. For if they were not, then it does not fit into Janney's construct.
As I proved in my 1997 work, there was no diary in the normal sense of the word. Therefore, logically thinking, it does not fit into what he is trying to convey.
Janney uses it because, relying on the unreliable Damore, he writes that the diary was found not once, not twice, but three times.
Just one problem there Peter: If that is so, where is it? And why has no one ever seen it. Not even a page of it. Not even a copy of a page.
See, this is the kind of stuff we oppose. You can't just say stuff like this. Just like you can't just say stuff like, "See, those joggers were spotters." Alright, what is that based on? What is your evidence for that? What did your investigation consist of? If its based on nothing but your theory, then what is that worth? Especially when your overall theory--and ultimately, that is all Janney has--is unproven and makes no sense anyway. Sort of like Lamar Waldron.
So, if Crump did it, why did they need to invent a liar like Mitchell? I have many other questions but I want people to read this book and decide for themselves.
(I don't want to give away info. )
Crump was so set up. The prosecutor has his witness all lie. Yes he lied about not being fishing, but, as you and Lisa both know, he had a reason.
The "diary", the "acid", that is all irrelevent to me at this point.
Who was calling Ms. Roundtree at midnight, everytime she walked the alleged crime scene? And why?
Dawn
Yeah, exactly. Forget the safehouse. How many major witnesses do you know who simply disappear and can't be identified?
What Jim is doing seems like bridging what he can't cover with legal standard proof rhetoric. The way I see it is to properly dismiss something you have to assume the position of the other side and try to prove their case and make it work. The way to do it is not to chop down the claim with doubt but try to make it work with sound reasoning. Once you do this you don't stop at doubting the intruder story as Jim does, but you worry about what the ramifications are if it is true. You have to understand phone calls in the night, like the intruders, creates a level of latitudinal probability that makes spook involvement much much more likely than the legal arguments you make.
I'm reminded of Bridge Over The River Kwai where because of such exactitude and standards the British officer failed to realize he was doing the work of the enemy with his dedication and discipline.
I remain shakily agnostic on the issue of conspiracy in the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer (hereinafter MPM) -- but I lean perceptibly, and perhaps even perceptively -- toward JFK assassination-related conspiracy.
Unlike many, I won't comment on a literary effort -- in this case, Jim's review -- until I've read it. But having read Janney and otherwise enjoying a slightly more than basic familiarity with the JFK conspiracy and the MPM matter in particular and intelligence operations in general, I do feel confident in offering the following observations:
1. "William Mitchell" carries the stench of James Files and Chauncey Holt about him. Perhaps by design.
2. The basic absurdities within "Mitchell's" story -- especially, as Jim rightly points out, his alleged calls from a safe house -- invite our skepticism. Perhaps by design.
3. If we agree that the quality, and therefore likely success, of a disinformation gambit may be measured in direct proportion to the value and seductiveness of its factually accurate component(s) -- the essential ingredient(s) of all disinformation gambits worth the name -- then we are obliged to reject a True or False, or A/null A, approach to our evaluations of any such operation.
4. If we agree that masterful, multiple uses of the doppelganger gambit permeate the JFK conspiracy, from planning through ongoing cover-up, then the roles, actual and concocted, of Marilyn Monroe and MPM in said conspiracy necessarily must be appreciated as conjoined into a most significant "double game" in the doppelganger sense.
5. The MPM discussion on this thread has devolved into a profoundly counter-productive DiEugenio v. Janney steel cage match. Perhaps by design.
6. In re my previous point: The reputations of Messrs. DiEugenio and Janney as they may be impacted by the MPM matter are -- or at least should be -- of no interest to anyone who reads these words (except, of course, the combatants themselves). To pick a side in such a non-fight is to make a classic false choice.
7. MPM may have been the victim of a garden variety capital crime. Nonetheless, the lingering, dissension- and confusion-provoking arguments relating to the likelihood of conspiracy in her death may be generated as components in the larger JFK assassination cover-up.
Hope this helps.
Jim has researched and found Janney writing fiction.
Al is sifting in the manner of last night's chef, looking for rocks in the split peas before adding to the pot.
Seamus got my attention with this:
In many ways this is almost like a posthumous assassination of Meyer herself.
And Charles saved the best for last:
7. MPM may have been the victim of a garden variety capital crime. Nonetheless, the lingering, dissension- and confusion-provoking arguments relating to the likelihood of conspiracy in her death may be generated as components in the larger JFK assassination cover-up.
Dawn finds it reads well, and in the best legal fiction plotting of Erle Stanley Gardner, finds intriguing hooks upon whose pursuit Della should have Paul apply himself.
Greg advises while the story may be false, avoid the back-and-forth--
--so, Resolved: Janney chums the waters on behalf of Spook Daddy's chums.
Who, are ever with us--see also, NSA, Utah, data center, billion
And I therefore return to placing Janney on Air America in a seat next to Hunt on the Flight to LBJ now leaving Langley
The truth may be behind billboards of safe houses never built for spies who never lived to conduct raids which never went down to retrieve diaries never written by a woman whose true relationship with the murdered president has been distorted beyond recognition
Oh it's a mosaic alright
Janney and Hunt break tiles and arrange them in grotesque pictures grouted with eleven secret sources in a special spooky sauce
Nice one Phil. Erle Stanley Gardner is a godo comparison for Janney's fiction.
Dawn:
Mitchell was a witness at the trial.
He, like Wiggins, identified someone who fit Crump's description.
Now, if you are talking about the whole Georgetown professor matter, and Damore couldn't find him, I mean please.
I would not trust Damore to find anyone. Even if he had a description and directions to his house.
And please don't tell me you believe that whole nutty story about him writing a letter to a safehouse and the guy returning it and then talking on the phone with him for hours and then meeting him?
You don't believe that do you? Please tell me you don't. I mean if you do, maybe I should just drop this forum and go to Spartacus full time.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:And please don't tell me you believe that whole nutty story about him writing a letter to a safehouse and the guy returning it and then talking on the phone with him for hours and then meeting him?
You don't believe that do you? Please tell me you don't. I mean if you do, maybe I should just drop this forum and go to Spartacus full time.
That's a most revealing and disturbing threat, Jim.
I daresay it sinks to late Fetzer-esque levels. It is a "my enlightened way or the highway" ultimatum that is beneath the dignity of this forum. And to add injury to insult, you are making it to a DPF founder.
Please don't tell me you believe that the only two viable explanations of the "Mitchell" safe house communication are utter truth or utter fabrication. I mean, if you do, maybe you you should go to Spartacus full time.
The problem with the intruder story is the original witness was Mary Meyer. That means it is something that occurred at the time, prior to any disinformation attempts. Anyone trying to disprove Janney would need to discredit the intruder story because its potential truth is something that wouldn't bode well for those trying to debunk Mary's Mosaic. I had written that Meyer must have had suspicions about what they were after but I erased it because it's conjecture. However I doubt Meyer's complaints about the break-ins were "hyperbole" because how can you exaggerate several break-ins? Just like with JFK, a string of incredible coincidences. Mitchell identifies Crump. Perdomo identifies Chapman...
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Nice one Phil. Erle Stanley Gardner is a godo comparison for Janney's fiction.
Dawn:
Mitchell was a witness at the trial.
He, like Wiggins, identified someone who fit Crump's description.
Now, if you are talking about the whole Georgetown professor matter, and Damore couldn't find him, I mean please.
I would not trust Damore to find anyone. Even if he had a description and directions to his house.
And please don't tell me you believe that whole nutty story about him writing a letter to a safehouse and the guy returning it and then talking on the phone with him for hours and then meeting him?
You don't believe that do you? Please tell me you don't. I mean if you do, maybe I should just drop this forum and go to Spartacus full time.
Jim
The witnesses did NOT fit the description. Not the height or the weight and most of all their time was all off. Did you read a different book from me? They lied their asses off. (And what happened to the Nash Rambler? Yet another Rambler).
I have not gotten that far in the book , I saw something on a review yesterday about MItchell and I read his testimony and felt he reeked but I see it is later in the book that the efforts to find him occur. So after I have read the rest of the book I will respond. I am taking it to court with me today.
But I note you answer my question WITH questions. Why was the Defense attorney getting midnight but no-one- there calls every time she visited the alleged crime scene? Is she untrustworthy too?
That is funny, so you are saying if I shoud disagree with you on somethig in this book you will just leave? That's a joke right?
One m ore question: Why did the state bring in the big guns for this case if it was just a routine murder case? Opps two, why was the couple at the the scene not identified? We do not even know if they were actually there.
Who called Ben Bradley right after it happened? Ok that's three questions. As I said yesterday, I have more but I did not take notes. I was too engrossed in the story. Yes there are holes but I think there is way more truth in this book than you and Lisa find. And I am not alone. Look at the reviews on Amazon. Some heavy hitters from the ARRB for starters.
I will answer your questions after I have read that part. And I hope you will answer mine. Because if Crump did it then there would be no reason to spook Ms. Rountree. Of course if Crump did it all the rest IS fantasy, the love affair etc and I do not believe that at all. I think there is plenty of good evidence for the closeness between Maty and JFK that does not rely on the acid king.
Dawn
As you can see from Lisa's review, Crump did fit the description right down to the shirt and hat.
I mean was Mitchell African American? Am I missing something?
And Lisa also dealt with the differences in height with the shoes Crump wore that day. Which Hantman missed while Wiggins was on the stand. If you take a look at the photo of Crump that accompanies my review of Janney you will see that he pretty much fits the description.
To my knowledge, Hantman was not a big gun. If you read Burleigh's book, he was not the top prosecutor in the office.
I don't know why the car and couple were not named. Do you? Does Janney? No. All he has are wild assumptions about a "CIA operation". In which the covert operator skin creamed himself with fast acting pigment darkener. But then came up with a "second Crump". Because they feared the single mom had completely digested the Warren Report in two weeks--but without the evidence in hand. And she was then going to walk into the local NBC affiliate, with no credentials as a government official, and had not been a reporter in 18 years, but Sarnoff was going to let her address the fact that the report was a complete fraud from A to Z. ANd that that dolt JFK was a complete Cold Warrior in 1961, but by golly, those joints given to her by Truitt and that LSD handed to her by Leary did the trick. It transferred Kennedy from Eisenhower land to Gandhi land in a jiffy. And then Kennedy was killed because of his desire for a relaxation of tensions with the Soviets and Cuba plus--and how could we miss it--he had communicated with the creatures from outer space and they were going to, well I don't know, maybe have a public meeting at Devil's Tower, like in Close Encounters of the Third Kind? Oh and I forgot about the Rambler--same one from Dealey Plaza right?
Anyway, I will sign off this thread now. I shudder to think what Sylvia Meagher would think of all this. I mean she couldn't handle Garrison.