08-08-2015, 04:29 PM
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.