ALbert:
This is what I am talking about.
I have written about this matter twice now. The first time was in 1997 in Probe. And I used that letter to the LA Times and analyzed it. And then placed it in the context of the other renditions of this story--there are at least two others. And they don't match up. The second time I will review it is in my review of Janney's book which will go up tonight or tomorrow.
See, the letter you quote is from the Angleton side of the argument. As you can see, it is opposed to the Bradlee version. And once you read my critique, you will see that not only do you have to factor in the Angleton vs. Bradlee feud, you also have to factor in the Truitt vs. Bradlee feud, which stemmed from Bradlee firing Truitt in 1969. Truitt had become an alcoholic and showed signs of mental instability. WHen you read my review you will see what happened to the poor Jim Truitt.
Anyway, this will all be gone over in my essay. But it is necessary to know all this in trying to figure out what are the true facts about any "diary". Which has never showed up in 48 years. And also why Angleton was there.
And this is what I mean. Just because someone knows the JFK case, or thinks they do, the Meyer case is a different field entirely. And you have to be careful before jumping in. It takes homework. This is why I don't understand people like Doug Horne, Jim Marrs, and even Catherine Austin Fitts commenting on Janney's book without studying the record first. Because there is a body of literature to study, before you make any kind of measured opinion that has any value.
Fair enough. But even with personal animosities and grudges a wise eye will see there's still a path there for Angleton to get the diary and conceal its conspiracy-exposing contents.
Over at "the other forum" there is a post from Peter Janney which really puts this review in a totally new light.
I see that Jim D. did not post Lisa's review over there, and I doubt Janney is actually a member there as in the post it is noted that this
post also appeared on Lou Rockwell's site, and Janney has linked the review. I will be curious as to the response from this post. He really takes Lisa to task.
Dawn
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Over at "the other forum" there is a post from Peter Janney which really puts this review in a totally new light.
I see that Jim D. did not post Lisa's review over there, and I doubt Janney is actually a member there as in the post it is noted that this
post also appeared on Lou Rockwell's site, and Janney has linked the review. I will be curious as to the response from this post. He really takes Lisa to task.
Dawn
Apparently he is a member there. He has a bio. No pic. And fifteen posts.
Janney gives a pretty good counter but doesn't quite answer everything. His math is still slightly dodgy as far as the timeline for Crump's arrest vs the officers' stroll.
One thing I would add is would a Crump who had drank half a bottle of liquor be likely to make such precise kill shots?
The serious red flag here is a man who shows all the signs of being a CIA spook, who testifies at a major trial, who then becomes invisible and unlocatable.
.
Janney's reply is just about worthless.
I was very surprised at how personal his tone was. I mean did he think no one was going to take him to task for that sloppiness of method?
The only point he brings up that he is probably right on is that he did mention Crump's prior record. If that is correct, then we will change the essay.
I love what he says about the safe house. Oh it was certified by three sources. Yep, a CIA safehouse that returns letters from journalists. Happens all the time.
And ALbert is right, he never really confronts the matter of timing.
As per the lack of direct evidence, well, Peter, why not mention the guy was soaking wet when he was discovered hiding near the culvert. Maybe that is how he got rid of the nitrates.
One thing I would add is would a Crump who had drank half a bottle of liquor be likely to make such precise kill shots?
From two feet away?
The serious red flag here is a man who shows all the signs of being a CIA spook, who testifies at a major trial, who then becomes invisible and unlocatable.
What is the evidence of that? Because Damore and Janney could not find him? I mean after reading the book, and taking 15 pages of notes, I feel about these two guys as Garrison did abut the Warren Commission. THey couldn't find the right bus with the transfer in their hands.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:The serious red flag here is a man who shows all the signs of being a CIA spook, who testifies at a major trial, who then becomes invisible and unlocatable.
What is the evidence of that? Because Damore and Janney could not find him? I mean after reading the book, and taking 15 pages of notes, I feel about these two guys as Garrison did abut the Warren Commission. THey couldn't find the right bus with the transfer in their hands.
Yeah, but the Commission had a motive in not looking too earnestly. I guess the answer is because no one could find him, even now. I find it unusual that a person could be a witness in a high-profile case and not be traceable. Even now, and by anybody.
Who the heck was looking for him?
Everyone else considered him nothing but a witness. So you use his testimony from newspapers or the trasncript.
It was only Damore and Janney who got this idea about him being the actual hit man.
So they have him at a CIA safehouse which returns letters from journalists.