04-02-2017, 01:49 AM
Case in point. This is what you do Tom. You offer a caustic data dump of extraneous information that doesn't really answer any of the points while declaring victory. Do you realize that everything you offered above doesn't do anything to disprove Janney's claim and the things I pointed-out are still, yet again, unanswered by you? It's clear to me that Janney was avoiding a lawsuit and simply vacated his attempt on that particular Mitchell because he lacked a solid case. Tom, you are conflating failed legal proof with failure of evidence for conspiracy. Each and every time we discuss this you restrict the entire issue to your investigation of Mitchell. And each and every time, as you have done here once again, you use that restriction to avoid the greater evidence I have been pointing out that reinforces Janney's claim. The problem with your approach is it ignores that we know there was a Mitchell who was used in an accusatory way against Crump and he did exist. If we read your entries you speak in such a way that makes it seem Janney made this character up out of thin air and you have debunked it. You're forgetting this man existed and was used in an attempt to frame Crump and when it was prevented by Dovey Roundtree Mitchell was gotten out of town. Your information does nothing to address or answer the incriminating implications of that and, like Prudhomme, tries to claim more than your material merits. Really Tom, in my opinion it is you who lacks here not Janney.
All you are doing is confirming my accusation against you Tom. You present a full record of the issue as if just presenting it proved your point, but anyone with any common sense will see you are using that volume to avoid answering specific facts. For instance you quoted me below:
It's nice that you quote me but in my review of your voluminous material I don't see any response to what I've written here. It's clear to me that your single emphasis on Mitchell (which doesn't even disprove his involvement) is being used to avoid giving credible interest to the above. You are giving yourself a victory that your material hasn't earned. If you don't see that Mitchell has spook false witness designed to frame a patsy written all over him then you need to study Deep Politics more. Your ignoring the bizarre capability of CIA black ops is naive to an unsubmittable degree and denies the clear pattern of strong supporting circumstantial evidence Janney exposed without giving due credit to it. You're clearly dodging that evidence by calling it "speculation" (right out of the Bugliosi play book) but you have no right to because Janney exposes a repeating preponderance of that evidence that goes beyond your dishonest attempt to diminish it. Wiggins, who was there (unlike doubting Thomas), said he felt like he had been set-up to witness the killing. Those CIA capabilities include hypnotic programming and other bizarre methods that go well beyond the apparent grasp of your ham-handed demands for evidence. What's next Tom, doubting Sirhan's being programmed and attacking people who suggest it? In any case they never found Crump's alleged gun and Crump's clothes showed no signs of blood even though the murder method required it.
I'm tired of this because you are just repeating yourself and have not shown anything to validly dismiss Janney's convergence of evidence. This subject should be in the Janney thread and should not be in the Dorothy Kilgallen thread. And I stand firmly by my belief that Jim should not reference Janney the way he has.
.
All you are doing is confirming my accusation against you Tom. You present a full record of the issue as if just presenting it proved your point, but anyone with any common sense will see you are using that volume to avoid answering specific facts. For instance you quoted me below:
Quote:There's lots of evidence Crump was innocent. Wiggins felt like he was lured there to witness something. The broken down car mysteriously had no record of its existence or work order. The murder scene almost certainly required blood spatter and gunpowder residue. Both Crump and his clothes came up negative. The scene was meticulously scoured yet no murder weapon was ever discovered. Janney showed that there were witnesses to Leary's investigation of Mary Meyer's death at the time. Why would Timothy Leary take extraordinary measures to travel to New York to investigate Mary Meyer's murder if he didn't have any relationship with her? Ann Chamberlin admitted to being a member of Mary Meyer's Washington LSD group but then spooked when pressed on it. Mitchell was caught lying about his funding source for his hiatus in England. He did live at a CIA safe house and did work at a known CIA cover job facility.
These are off the top of my head. If we go back to Janney we'll find more like Angleton's curiosity over Meyer's diary. Angleton was the safe-cracker like with Win Scott who was known to go after dangerous documents personally. Something was going on there and Janney personally witnessed his father faking lack of knowledge of Meyer's death as well as other incriminating timing.
Joe Shimon was practically open about it with his daughter Toni and CIA operatives Janney talked to admitted Mary Meyer was one of their jobs.
I see a similarity in modus operandi between Sirhan and Crump. CIA doesn't give a damn Crump got off. They got what they wanted.
It's nice that you quote me but in my review of your voluminous material I don't see any response to what I've written here. It's clear to me that your single emphasis on Mitchell (which doesn't even disprove his involvement) is being used to avoid giving credible interest to the above. You are giving yourself a victory that your material hasn't earned. If you don't see that Mitchell has spook false witness designed to frame a patsy written all over him then you need to study Deep Politics more. Your ignoring the bizarre capability of CIA black ops is naive to an unsubmittable degree and denies the clear pattern of strong supporting circumstantial evidence Janney exposed without giving due credit to it. You're clearly dodging that evidence by calling it "speculation" (right out of the Bugliosi play book) but you have no right to because Janney exposes a repeating preponderance of that evidence that goes beyond your dishonest attempt to diminish it. Wiggins, who was there (unlike doubting Thomas), said he felt like he had been set-up to witness the killing. Those CIA capabilities include hypnotic programming and other bizarre methods that go well beyond the apparent grasp of your ham-handed demands for evidence. What's next Tom, doubting Sirhan's being programmed and attacking people who suggest it? In any case they never found Crump's alleged gun and Crump's clothes showed no signs of blood even though the murder method required it.
I'm tired of this because you are just repeating yourself and have not shown anything to validly dismiss Janney's convergence of evidence. This subject should be in the Janney thread and should not be in the Dorothy Kilgallen thread. And I stand firmly by my belief that Jim should not reference Janney the way he has.
.