Deep Politics Forum

A (or B) Doyle: There's lots of evidence Crump was innocent.

From my review:

He (the prosecutor) thought Crump would testify on his own behalf. When Crump was apprehended, he was soaking wet. He was wearing a tshirt with torn black pants. He was covered with bits of weed. He had a bloody hand and a cut over his eye. The police later discovered a jacket near the scene. Along with his cap, Crump had ditched it, and his wife confirmed it was his. (Burleigh, p. 234) There was no one else in the area in this condition. Hantman looked forward to cross-examining Crump, not just about his condition at the time, but all the lies he had told to explain his incriminating state away. For example, he said he was in the area to go fishing. Except he didn't bring his pole. He said he cut his hand on a bait hookwhich he also left at home. How did he explain having his fly down? An officer did it. Why was he soaking wet? Crump first tried to explain this by saying that he had slipped into the river from his fishing spot. When that lie was exposed, he said he had fallen into the river while asleep. (ibid, p. 265) Did his hat and jacket fall off his body as he slipped? Once these lies were exposed for what they were, Hantman would then be able to show that Crump's condition had all the earmarks of a man who had been involved in a sexual attack. It had been resisted, and Crump had then tried to wipe away the nitrates in the water, and bury the weapon in the soft dirt. Once he was under cross-examination, Crump would wither and weep and say, as he did to the police, "Looks like you got a stacked deck." (ibid, p. 234)

Innocent people do not act like this.

BTW, there would not at all be a forensic necessity for Crump to have Mary's blood on him if he shot her.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:A (or B) Doyle: There's lots of evidence Crump was innocent.

From my review:

He (the prosecutor) thought Crump would testify on his own behalf. When Crump was apprehended, he was soaking wet. He was wearing a tshirt with torn black pants. He was covered with bits of weed. He had a bloody hand and a cut over his eye. The police later discovered a jacket near the scene. Along with his cap, Crump had ditched it, and his wife confirmed it was his. (Burleigh, p. 234) There was no one else in the area in this condition. Hantman looked forward to cross-examining Crump, not just about his condition at the time, but all the lies he had told to explain his incriminating state away. For example, he said he was in the area to go fishing. Except he didn't bring his pole. He said he cut his hand on a bait hookwhich he also left at home. How did he explain having his fly down? An officer did it. Why was he soaking wet? Crump first tried to explain this by saying that he had slipped into the river from his fishing spot. When that lie was exposed, he said he had fallen into the river while asleep. (ibid, p. 265) Did his hat and jacket fall off his body as he slipped? Once these lies were exposed for what they were, Hantman would then be able to show that Crump's condition had all the earmarks of a man who had been involved in a sexual attack. It had been resisted, and Crump had then tried to wipe away the nitrates in the water, and bury the weapon in the soft dirt. Once he was under cross-examination, Crump would wither and weep and say, as he did to the police, "Looks like you got a stacked deck." (ibid, p. 234)

Innocent people do not act like this.

BTW, there would not at all be a forensic necessity for Crump to have Mary's blood on him if he shot her.

Sorry Jim but this shows a distinct lack of understanding of intel capabilities. You could make an equal case against Sirhan Sirhan using the same prosecutor-like tactics and logic. I'm amazed Deep Politics members don't see the comparison of Sirhan being given coffee before he was set-up and Crump being given a drink before he was set-up. Both by sexually attractive women.

This is Deep Political deep waters and the cutting edge of intel capabilities which are pretty bizarre and don't line up with the normal signs of guilt you dwell on. The problem with you and Scully is you focus on this courtroom legal approach while ignoring the totality of the evidence and how it relates to it. Wiggins said he had a strange sense that the timing was meant for him to arrive and witness it. He was set-up in other words. There was no trace of the broken down car that happened to be placed exactly in the right spot for Wiggins to witness the murder strategically across the moat where he couldn't prevent it. The fact the records for the car were erased is a sure red flag for intel involvement and what you look for. I hate to put it this way, but what part of "CIA operatives candidly admitted Mary Meyer was one of their jobs" are you having trouble understanding? Toni Shimon was quite clear about her father indirectly saying sometimes people have to be eliminated when referring to Mary Meyer.


Mitchell was a classic intel false witness. When the case blew up on them exactly because the evidence wasn't there Mitchell was gotten out of town and lied about the funding source for it. Intel got Mitchell over to a sympathetic ally's territory. Mitchell's probably lucky that he wasn't assassinated by MI-6. Instead they diminished his credibility by making him a beatnik-type. They were caught. THIS is the guilty behavior you should be focusing on if you practice Deep Politics.

You can't wash off gunpowder residue to that degree. Also, if you look at Mary Meyer's wounds there had to be some blow back. But also there had to be some dragging and positioning of the body according to the forensics that would have shed some kind of fibers from Crump on to Mary Meyer. There was nothing.

Mr D, you can't have contact with a murder victim to the point of ripping your trousers and having a bloody hand and cut over your eye without leaving a forensic trace on the victim. As much as you try to malign Roundtree this is why Crump got off. And correctly so. With all due respect Mr D I hope you're not on any jury that ever judges me.

Never underestimate intel's capabilities. And be very careful quoting prosecutors against intel victims.

A completely false analogy if I ever saw one.

There was absolutely no evidence at all that Crump was anything like Sirhan.

If you are saying that then you are even going a step beyond Janney's fruity book. Because he say nothing about hypnoprogramming .

Crump acted like a guilty man, all the way. Why did he act that way if he was not?

Was he guilty? I don't know for sure, but I lean today toward that conclusion.

BTW, if you want to read something funny, you should read Janney's lawsuit. Tom had it.

Mitchell was not hustled out of town at all. Tom Scully found him with ease and filled in his history. That makes Janney a poor investigator, not a layer of mystery to Mitchell.

Nuttiest covert operation in history



Lisa Pease did a neat job rendering absurd the scenario Janney tries to conjure for his version of what happened on the towpath. We are supposed to believe that this was a precision commando team plot:

1. One of the trial witnesses who identified Crump, William Mitchell, was actually a deep cover CIA hit man, the actual assassin. As Lisa points out, in Janney's world, Crump was picked out that morning.
2. Apparently one of the platoon was stationed outside of Sears or Penney's with a walkie-talkie. (Janney actually says they were delivered by CIA technical services.)
3. When Crump was located near the scene, his clothes description was relayed to this person via radio.
4. The person bought clothes that perfectly fit Crump.
5. The clothes were then delivered to Mitchell. And Mitchell actually killed Meyer.

The reader should note: this James Bond scenario has two problems with it. First, it is so precise and intricate it makes the Mossad look like Keystone Cops. Why go through all of in the first place? Why not just kill Mary from any of the concealed areas nearby with a sniper, a silenced rifle and sabot? This would take care of any witness contingencies, or any possible friends joining Mary for her jog. And, in fact, Helen Stern had arranged to meet Mary that day for a run. (Burleigh p. 230. You won't find Stern's name in Janney's book.)

Secondly, would not such a precise commando team realize that there was a big problem somewhere along the way? Namely that Crump was black and Mitchell was white? So I imagine that after all the clothes were ordered, then delivered to the crime scene, some Navy Seal put on his color corrected glasses, looked up and said: "Oh shit! The guy's black!" We are supposed to believe that with its enormous reach, and realizing this was Washington D.C., the CIA could not find one black covert operator in all of its worldwide operations.

As is his bent, Janney shoves that lacuna under the rug. What he does to paper it over is startling. I had to read this section over twice to make sure I did not misread it the first time. Mary was shot twice. There is evidence her body was also dragged about 20 feet. Janney writes that this was done in order to be sure there was a witness! (Janney, p. 335) But why would you do that if Mitchell was white and Crump was black?

Well see, the CIA had ways to alter skin pigmentation. (ibid, p. 332) Apparently the chemical process could be done on the scene and was effective instantaneously. In a matter of minutes, Mitchell went from Caucasian to African-American. It must have been an amazing sight to watch. (And Michael Jackson's doctor was way behind the times.)

But Janney's pen cannot keep up with the constant convolutions of his imagination. Because three pages later he now says that Mitchell escaped after the killing and was replaced by a stand-in for Crump. (ibid, p. 335) Janney never asks himself: "Why would the CIA do that?" Why not just have the African-American stand in kill Mary in the first place? Maybe because someone just wanted to see if Mitchell could transform himself from a white guy to a black guy in front of your eyes?

As the reader can see, in his unremitting effort to fit a square peg into a round hole, Janney has ascended into the heights of dreadfulness. And he spared himself no embarrassment in getting there.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:A completely false analogy if I ever saw one.

There was absolutely no evidence at all that Crump was anything like Sirhan.

Both were led to a set-up where they consumed some kind of drink and were framed for a murder. Sirhan seen pulling a trigger feet in front of Bobby Kennedy and Crump allegedly witnessed killing Mary Meyer in front of Wiggins.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:If you are saying that then you are even going a step beyond Janney's fruity book. Because he say nothing about hypnoprogramming .

From the RFK and Lennon assassinations we know CIA used hypno-programming. In my opinion it is poor Deep Political analysis to not at least consider it in the Crump case. Sorry Jim, but I think you pulled the fruitcake out too quickly with Janney though you are normally accurate with its application in most cases.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Crump acted like a guilty man, all the way. Why did he act that way if he was not?

So did Sirhan and Chapman. And maybe even Hinckley.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Mitchell was not hustled out of town at all. Tom Scully found him with ease and filled in his history. That makes Janney a poor investigator, not a layer of mystery to Mitchell.

Jim, you are talking about things that were almost 50 years apart. Intel got Mitchell out of the country right after their frame-up of Crump blew up on them, and Mitchell was caught lying about the funding source for it. I find Scully to be a myopic critic who thinks he has destroyed something because he finds a few mistakes. It doesn't work that way and Scully notoriously avoids everything else and doesn't feel a need to answer for it. That's not how research works.

I loved this book and I had my go rounds with Jim D regarding the attempted frame up of Crump years ago. So why is this being dredged up again? Why the need to go to Amazon to try to embarrass Doyle. Why has Tom really come here? Lots of people post under different names for many reasons. If Albert is choosing to use his deceased father's name here he surely has his reasons. Maybe Albert is his middle name. Hell when I dropped my former married name in law school I choose my middle name as my last name. I did not like my maiden name or my ex husband's name. I never use ANY other name under which to post, but realize that many people do.

I don't want to get back into this argument again but I will ask Jim AGAIN if Crump murdered Mary then who was the scary caller to Roundtree, ever time she visited the crime scene. And why? Someone was sending her a message of fear and there is no way it was from Crump's camp.

But let's agree to disagree on this book. we all have our personal biases on this case. Janney had a personal story to explore and tell and I am frankly glad he did.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Nuttiest covert operation in history



Lisa Pease did a neat job rendering absurd the scenario Janney tries to conjure for his version of what happened on the towpath. We are supposed to believe that this was a precision commando team plot:

I crunched the times involved in witnessing the man with the black face peering out from the bushes and even when you err on Lisa's side with the times Janney still proves that there wasn't enough time for Crump to be arrested when he was and still be that same man.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:1. One of the trial witnesses who identified Crump, William Mitchell, was actually a deep cover CIA hit man, the actual assassin. As Lisa points out, in Janney's world, Crump was picked out that morning.

Mitchell was an intel spook out of the Pentagon. He had a full spook profile, lived in a CIA safe house, and held a university CIA cover job. When Janney accused this accredited professor emeritus of being the CIA murderer of Mary Meyer in public he made no public statement (who is the one acting guilty here Jim?). When Crump was set-up is unknown but easily within basic CIA abilities. You don't know if this was a planned operation for weeks or not.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:2. Apparently one of the platoon was stationed outside of Sears or Penney's with a walkie-talkie. (Janney actually says they were delivered by CIA technical services.)

That's your strawman. You have no idea if it is accurate or not. Copying Crump's clothes is easy as far as technical services. Do you think the Central Intelligence Agency was not capable of sneaking in to Crump's room and copying all his clothes in advance? I don't know how they did it, but clothes copying is on the easy side of technical services challenges. We don't know exactly how they shot JFK but they did it.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:5. The clothes were then delivered to Mitchell. And Mitchell actually killed Meyer.

When I read the book I cringed at this and thought maybe Janney was wrong. But a smart practicer of Deep Politics would realize you don't need Mitchell to be the killer for this to be a CIA black op.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:The reader should note: this James Bond scenario has two problems with it. First, it is so precise and intricate it makes the Mossad look like Keystone Cops. Why go through all of in the first place? Why not just kill Mary from any of the concealed areas nearby with a sniper, a silenced rifle and sabot? This would take care of any witness contingencies, or any possible friends joining Mary for her jog. And, in fact, Helen Stern had arranged to meet Mary that day for a run. (Burleigh p. 230. You won't find Stern's name in Janney's book.)

Because a sniper shot would raise questions if she was killed covertly for political reasons. Many people knew her insider status with JFK and protests over the Warren Report.

You're looking through the telescope backwards Jim. CIA was quite capable of making Helen Stern not show up that morning. CIA was quite capable of monitoring their target and knowing someone else was planning to jog with her. The people who broke into Meyer's house could have been planting bugs.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Mary was shot twice. There is evidence her body was also dragged about 20 feet. Janney writes that this was done in order to be sure there was a witness! (Janney, p. 335)

You haven't explained how Crump could drag Mary Meyer while ripping his pants and bloodying himself while leaving zero trace of fibers or any incriminating forensic evidence on Meyer as turned out to be the case? This is why Crump got off.

A credible Military Police black witnesses, Wiggins, was set-up to witness it. The broken down car had zero trace afterwards.

Mary Meyer was killed with trained kill shots to the head and heart. Trained assurance of death in a methodical operation.


Jim, you and Scully make the mistake of focusing on specific errors in Janney in order to discredit the whole theory. He's probably wrong about Mitchell pulling an Al Jolson and doing the murder himself. But that doesn't mean that Mitchell's role wasn't a false witness designed to make it look like the government were the good guys defending a murdered woman while fingering an easily-incriminated black man.

Joe Shimon openly mused to his daughter Toni that people like Mary Meyer were eliminated and that was how it went. Janney spoke to CIA operators who openly admitted Mary Meyer was one of their jobs.


Janney's main talent is that of a CIA family insider. While he is pretty good at writing and not bad at putting a case of covert murder together he might not be a world class detective. So therefore he may have gotten carried away with his speculation about Mitchell's role. That isn't unheard of if you look at assassination research. But I think it is unfair to condemn his entire work, which is fairly convincing otherwise, because he thought Mitchell was the killer.


CIA had the motive, means, and capability. Their safe looting man Angleton was right there on time when the object of their concern needed to be secured. I don't see how you could ignore all that.

Jim, you and Scully make the mistake of focusing on specific errors in Janney in order to discredit the whole theory.

You and Janney make the error of trying to fit everything into a Rube Goldberg CIA contraption which makes no sense either in itself or as a motive for killing her.

And that is why Janney has to rely on the sources he does in his caricature of JFK. So he then can make MM into a further caricature: the secret foreign policy maven who will guide the Cold Warrior onward and upward.

Good thing Janney left out what he had in: namely JFK and MJ 12. I don't even think you would have bought that one.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Jim, you and Scully make the mistake of focusing on specific errors in Janney in order to discredit the whole theory.



Good thing Janney left out what he had in: namely JFK and MJ 12. I don't even think you would have bought that one.

Jim I don't understand this sentence: "left out what he had in". Are you saying Janney believes the MJ12 foolishness? (I have not kept up with any interviews he has done, including the ones here).

Dawn

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:You and Janney make the error of trying to fit everything into a Rube Goldberg CIA contraption which makes no sense either in itself or as a motive for killing her.

And that is why Janney has to rely on the sources he does in his caricature of JFK. So he then can make MM into a further caricature: the secret foreign policy maven who will guide the Cold Warrior onward and upward.

Good thing Janney left out what he had in: namely JFK and MJ 12. I don't even think you would have bought that one.

I disagree. I think you are biting off more than you can justify. It makes perfect sense to me. CIA studied the targeted individual's habits and found she walked the canal path. This was a perfect spot for an ambush and false flag patsy job. Since it was in Washington and near the Pentagon it was an in-house job that could use nearby intel assets as casual witnesses and prime CIA players as direct handlers since they were associates of the victim.


Jim, because Janney suggests some minor drug use and possible infidelity does not mean JFK has to be defended to the end. Mary Meyer had the background in peace politics from the United World Federalists. It was the cause of her differences with Cord and the addition of LSD enlightenment to the mix would all back this being true. I see no reason to doubt it from the evidence. Who are you to say that Mary Meyer didn't pick up on JFK's peace pursuits at the time? She might have had the Douglass sensibility in real time and acted on it. It isn't an outrageous suggestion to say that Mary Meyer had pre-existing tendencies for peace politics from her own United World Federalists background that dovetailed with JFK's at the time. Jack might have been the brain with the practical world application for the initiative at the time but MM was the muse. There's nothing terribly outlandish with that or deserving of such categorical denial. She could have been a sympathetic ear for policies JFK was going to do anyway and still have been just as dangerous to CIA.


Mary Meyer was a serious threat to the plotters because she might have had JFK speaking privately of his internal worries with his own military and CIA in her diary. It's very possible she was going to do a Dorothy Kilgallen and come out with what she knew in order to defend her murdered friend. Angleton was worried and took desperate measures to get her diary, exposing himself in the process.


You couldn't have handled Mary Meyer to the degree Crump allegedly did without getting some kind of forensic evidence on the victim.


I avoid Majestic 12 simply because it is too vulnerable to ridicule and isn't necessary to prove the plot.