John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress (Mary Meyer) is up for auction

[Albert Doyle]

When and where is Leary's inquiry documented?

In Janney. There's no doubt it happened because he gives the names of the investigators and moves Leary made in New York. You're in denial of real events Jim because of your bias, which is backwards for a person in your position who fights for assassination research truth. Do you understand that your denial of true events is the offense here and not my pointing them out? There's a point where devil's advocacy becomes truth-damaging denial and I think we've reached that here.

Because its not documented in any book I could find of his.

Already discussed in my last post. The absence of mention in Leary's books could be the sign of its dangerousness and therefore realness.

In other words, Doyle has no evidence at all to back up this piece of empty wind. So he trots out Cord Meyer's membership in the UWF. Without adding that Cord wrote in his book that Mary did not like him spending so much time on these matters.

I thought Mary was a member too? First off, what Cord writes might not be accurate because of his agenda. You are quoting the words of a CIA agent directly in Angleton's den whose wife Kennedy was having an affair with and who was very much involved in knowledge of Mary's assassination by CIA. Who are you going to quote next Jim? Allen Dulles? Geesh.

Next, from what I know Mary and Cord's divorce was due to his moving from the Federation into CIA and getting too dedicated to its peace-conflicting agenda. In other words more affirmation of Mary Meyer's liberal tendencies that were offended by Cord going to the dark side. Do you realize Jim, that you are now quoting one of the persons Hunt said was directly involved in Kennedy's assassination against Mary?

As far as no evidence, we have a full record of Mary belonging to a major peace organization, divorcing her CIA husband at least partly because of his dark side affinity, having been documented as visiting the White House on sign-in sheets, having been visited by Jack in New Jersey, and now, having boyish love letters written to her. All you have is doubt against all this obvious record. Who has less evidence? Jim, you have to understand the power of LSD. It was documented by CIA as making soldiers not want to fight because of higher awareness. I'm afraid saying "You have no evidence" (A quote often used by Von Pein) isn't good enough here.

It makes no difference if Mary was influential way back. I believe I've seen you yourself say that JFK's WWII experience was at least partly responsible for his peace inclinations. The whole emergence of the United Nations etc was under a collective feeling of not wanting to immerse the world in another conflagration. This is a non-issue compared to Mary Meyer being nearby to JFK at the critical time when he was making the moves that got him killed - which she was. Angelton wasn't worried about the diary because of exposure of a sexual tryst.

Do you realize that even if everything you quoted Cord as saying were true, and Mary had no real peace interests and wasn't showing any signs of such, that it doesn't necessarily disprove or conflict with Mary being a real witness to Kennedy's peace doings and their agency in his being assassinated? Or her being a direct threat to CIA when she started to get busy exposing them? Mary had severed ties with that aspect of CIA when she divorced Cord. All she really needed to be doing was defending a friend, confident, and potentially lover (from the looks of the letter). I know you don't like that Jim, but you are just in open conflict with what that letter makes plain.

"Why do I say that? Because there is no credible evidence to show that Mary Meyer was the foreign policy maven that Janney wants needsher to be. The closest that anyone can come is to say that she once worked as a reporter for both NANA and UPI. (Janney, p. 159) She also freelanced articles to Mademoiselle on things like sex education and venereal disease. (New Times, July 9, 1976) This was in the early to mid forties. So what does Janney do to fill in the breach of the intervening years? He tries to say that Mary, the housewife and mother, furthered this interest while married to Cord Meyer while he was president of United World Federalists (UFW). So I went to Cord Meyer's book Facing Reality to see if there was any proof of this. There isn't. For example, while on a working holiday, Mary was not helping him write, she was fishing. (Meyer, p. 39) In fact, Cord Meyer actually writes that his position in UWF had created a distance between him and his family and this is one reason he resigned. (Meyer, pgs. 56-57) Cord then went to Harvard on a fellowship in 1949-50. If Mary had any special interest in foreign affairs, this was the place to develop it. Yes, she did take classes, but they were in design. And this is where she first discovered her painting ability. In 1951, Cord Meyer is about to join the CIA. If Mary had really been helping Cord in his UFW work, wouldn't she have said "No, that is not what we believe in." Again, the opposite happened. Mary was all in favor of him joining the CIA. (Ibid, p. 65) But further, Cord Meyer kept a journal. In his book, when he is discussing their decision to divorce, the split in not over the nature of his work. Its simply because he spends too much time on it and therefore is not a good husband since he doesn't take enough interest in her. (ibid, p. 142) This, of course, is a common complaint among housewives."

None of this really answers the pertinent evidence Jim. You can't use the quotes of a high level CIA officer who had a grudge against Kennedy because he was having an affair with his wife and who was also involved in at least knowledge of and the cover-up of her assassination. This is just ruminating Jim. The real issue is Mary being around Kennedy privately and becoming a direct threat to the CIA plotters to whom she was an insider and a direct witness to their body language and insider doings. You seem to be making an effort to dismiss her instead of investigating any possible evidence - which is opposite what your assassination research should do. You present this spin but then ask the reader to accept your ignoring of Janney's direct witnessing of cohorts of Cord having incriminating knowledge before Mary was even identified. Or pretending not to know, as Janney witnessed his CIA father doing.


There's one thing any credible assassination researcher would not overlook. Janney accused a professor emeritus in public, in a book, of being a black op assassination team member. He did so involving a popular Kennedy era Washington insider personality, Mary Meyer. In other words, this had all the ingredients of a hot story. The US media reaction? ZERO. Like it never even happened. 'Come on Jim. There's only one thing that can create an absorbing black hole void like that and both of us know what it is. The status quo had every opportunity to destroy a nutty conspiracy theorist in public, if his evidence was so flimsy as you say. Why didn't they?


RR Auction in Boston specializes in valuable documents and papers. They possess first class evaluators and would be liable for selling an auction item for 30,000 dollars under false pretenses. Jim, you suggest the document is false in a similar way that you suggest Janney is false. Do you see what I'm getting at here?



.