Jim DiEugenio Wrote:[URL="http://www.ctka.net/reviews/Pease_Janney_Mary's_Mosaic.html"]
http://www.ctka.net/reviews/Pease_Janney...osaic.html[/URL]
I didn't want to put Lisa's wonderful critique in that other thread since that was like "Waiting for Godot" over there. A lot of insinuation and finger pointing and anticipation before the fact. So the link is above.
Well here is the real thing and she does a nice job on this farceur Janney.
But this is only the half of it. This guy is such an illusionist it takes two installments to expose all of his cheap tricks. Suffice it to say I am working on part 2 right now.
I really think this is the worst book since Ultimate Sacrifice. And that is saying something.
Lots of food for thought here. Really good review that has changed my mind about getting this book. I had read in other reviews about some of the speculation but this review delivers the detail that can change minds. I think Janney may have been too close to the subject matter to allow for any objectivity. He may also not be familiar with discredited sources like "Douglas." (I had my own go around with him several years back over the fake Lisa story. He lied to me as well. ). I wonder how much- if at all- Janey has even studied the assassination of JFK.
I might add this review makes me think Crump DID do it.
Great job, Lisa. You just saved me some time and money.
Dawn
Dawn:
This is something I am going to bring up in my part 2.
I really think, after reading the book carefully, that Janney fell in love with Mary Meyer. He became infatuated with her. And you can't really do that if you are writing a book that is part biography.
See, there is a difference between doing a lot of work on someone, and then admiring what they did for their tangible achievements e.g. Jim Garrison, JFK, RFK.
But I think Janney became infatuated with Mary Meyer at an early age. And this book is the result of that early infatuation. Because he attributes stuff to her that there is no credible evidence that she did. Which is why he has to use people like Douglas, Morrow, Leary, that whole sorry crew that make up his footnotes.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Janney is stuck with the white guy Mitchell. So therefore he cannot be logical with his own assumptions. Namely, if this really was a precision commando team, they would have imported someone who was black that morning.
Devil's advocate points - I don't think it is limited to just that scenario. Both Sirhan and Mark David Chapman tell us that Technical Services was capable of actually having the patsy do the shooting. Maybe they did import someone who was black, Crump! The most dangerous doppleganger is one who exists within his own self placed there by other persons. I contend this is a valid suggestion when compared to other Technical Services practices involved with other famous assassinations.
After seeing the Kennedy assassination are you sure of the statement and timing of the witness? Remember CIA probably killed fringe witnesses like Dorothy Kilgallen's friend Florence Smith.
Albert Doyle Wrote:While all true, I have trouble dismissing the actual circumstances of the murder itself. To be honest I think it's a mistake to dismiss the possibility of CIA involvement in the murder knowing what we know about their methods vis a vis hypnotic assassination etc. Yes, a chain of uncredibility can be established by tracing Janney's sources and methods but that doesn't mean that the actual murder itself wasn't a covert event. When analyzing the description of the witnessing it is still well within CIA capability for covert murder. For example OJ Simpson's cut hand could be used to indict him in an identical way, but we now know there was much more to it than that. Mark David Chapman was pretty friggin guilty and right out front, however we know there was much more to it than that.
If Crump's zipper was unzipped does that mean he was going to rape her in the middle of the canal path? Kind of an unprivate place in my opinion. I think it is a mistake to mix unsound research with conclusions of unsound theories. If you analyze CIA covert murder practices it is still possible Crump shot Mary Meyer but was acting for others. To me hasty rejection of covert murder based on critical methodology is almost as bad as unsound conclusions from bad sources and research.
Al I don't think it was hasty mate nothing LP does is hasty. The problem is that Mary Meyer had buggar all to with JFK, at least in the way it has been pushed by Janney and co. Their sources are just not credible in the slightest. I go along with Jim and Lisa's angle based primarily on the lack of cred with the aforementioned sources, as I have done since I first read the old Probe articles on the case.
I agree with Jim here that Lisa, may have actually been to nice. She writes...
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.
The first and most pertinant line concerning what I'll say herein indicates from Lisa, that if Crump didn't do it, then the CIA theory could at least be 'plausible'. Nonetheless, I think Lisa could have carried on a little further here. If just if, per chance she was killed by some hitman as claimed by Janney (it really doesn't look to flash on this, but I'll play devils advocate). Due to the utterly shite evidence linking her to Kennedy in some machiavellian intrigue. The Meyer 'hit' could well have been done for some other 'deep politcal' reason. Which may well have had absloutely nothing to do with Kennedy at all. But has simply been bandied about for conveniant time wasting and obfuscation purposes. JFK was an important figure, but as I effectively said in the other Meyer thread, the world didn't revolve around him. So all in all it looks pretty grim for any type of JFK related 'chaff's' having much to do with her death by some psycho or some hit man, however it was carried out. Hey also I'm stoked Dawn read the review as well. Dawn, I told you it would be pretty good! However you and CD were right one of my more recents posts on the other thread sucked ROFL. Dawn I still can't get over that fake letter from Lisa the guy still has up...what an asshole! I feel ashamed till now I had forgotten about that one! Sheeesh.
But Albert, what is the evidence for that?
If you buy Crump's story he was with a girlfriend at the time getting drunk. If you buy Burleigh's version he was actually with a call girl. Was the call girl in on it also? Did she wear something with polka dots?
I actually don't know which story to buy in this. But I find it interesting that Dovey Roundtree never tried to find who this girl was. Probably because Crump was married at the time and had children.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:But Albert, what is the evidence for that?
If you buy Crump's story he was with a girlfriend at the time getting drunk. If you buy Burleigh's version he was actually with a call girl. Was the call girl in on it also? Did she wear something with polka dots?
I actually don't know which story to buy in this. But I find it interesting that Dovey Roundtree never tried to find who this girl was. Probably because Crump was married at the time and had children.
What method would CIA use? What would appeal to a primitive mentality like Crump?
No matter how many corner-cutting warts Janney has this all comes down to the golden minutes of the murder.
If Crump was with a call girl why would he need to rape Mary Meyer? On the spot upgrade?
ALbert, i can tell you don't know this case very well. Not too many people do which makes them easy prey for Janney's Rube Goldberg contraption.
This is what Crump said he was doing there. So its based upon him.
But what is more interesting to me, is that the police found a half empty liquor bottle where he said he was sitting with this girl--whoever she may be. Crump said the girl left. But the point is Crump had a previous record and he had a problem with liquor and then being violent with women as a result.
So in terms of Crump's deviant psychology, this all makes perfect sense.
What makes absolutely no sense is a CIA plot to do her in. There is simply no reason to do so. ANd to me, this is the worst part of a bad book. ANd its what I will concentrate on in my part of the review.
I have read the reviewer in The Assassinations and elsewhere and find her killer on Angleton and RFK. I have seen her manifesto on sources and it suits me down to the ground. I like that she says at the outset CIA killed JFK for ending the Cold War and stripping the agency of covert opsthere's more to be said here, but enough for the 8,000 words that follow. I stipulate a large treatise on sponsor-facilitator-mechanic model hovers over the page.
In re footnotes, I'd add endnotes: Douglass' hundred pages were a joy that ended too soon; McKnight shows paraffin test (confirmed by AEC ORL, Cunningham to the contrary notwithstanding) explodes Dulles' ten million words in 1964 and all of his sewage plant downstream.
LP says PJ posits 1) Crump innocent; 2) MM/JFK + LSD CIA; 3) MM's threat to CIA caused her death.
I find the thrust of the review leads me to conclude Crump did ithis history of violence one among a series of fatal facts.
When Damore surfaced it was the end. Why didn't Janney save this for the sequel to his Dark Skies: Damore was such a threat, the aliens implanted an organism that erased his brain while mimicking a tumor?
Wistar Janney a CIA analyst. And this has as little to do with Peter's thesis as Ruth Paines' sister had to do with her hands-on manipulation and defamation of Lee.
When LP says "son of a CIA agent was actively involved in creating disinformation" her subjective case is based on litigation calculation. I harbor no such prudence: if Peter isn't a Mockingbird, he's a jackass for giving it away for free.
What can be the purpose of Angleton and Epstein and Janney (oh my) creating an entire Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Towpath Band out of this?
Disinformation is that which eats up bandwidth and that miniscule portion of the cerebral cortex not occupied by Kardashians.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3851[/ATTACH]
"Disinformation is that which eats up bandwidth and that miniscule portion of the cerebral cortex not occupied by Kardashians."
HA HA HA
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:What makes absolutely no sense is a CIA plot to do her in. There is simply no reason to do so. ANd to me, this is the worst part of a bad book. ANd its what I will concentrate on in my part of the review.
Something tells me those diaries were disappeared for a reason.
Was it because they contained 'disinformation'?