05-04-2012, 04:03 PM
While I bow before the DiEugenio standard as both the razor and rule in contemporary assassination history, there's an unwritten dialectic when dealing with events where the controlling powers are able to corrupt the evidence so badly. I know you would cringe at this as being a license to enter unproven fantasy as fact, but sometimes all that is left is the hearsay witnessing of those who were within the periphery enough to catch important glimpses. Perhaps Ms Meyer is being Masterminded by Janney.
The reason I give Janney some slack is because the murder fits very comfortably into the known pattern of witness murder in the Assassination. Rather than mastermind Meyer fits a more subtle pattern of living witness to the real core of the plot and expendable. More importantly she is immediately surrounded by the right mix of inner circle wolves. She fits the Douglass Kilgallen harmonic like a satanic wind chime.
I'd like to see a more sophisticated analysis of Crump's use of a handgun. Shooting the victim in this case might not fit the profile of rape/robbery in this setting. A gunshot would bring attention when Ms Meyer, as a woman, could be physically subdued or bludgeoned to the same effect. If Ms Meyer had screamed-out and was shot, shooting her would defeat the purpose because that would be just as alarming in bringing attention. I'd like to see sophisticated analysis if male perpetrators such as Crump to see if shooting the victim to death in these circumstances makes sense on a profile basis. Does a Crump profile perpetrator escalate an assault to a death sentence? Also, with all we know about intel tactics of the day Crump's actually having shot Meyer does not preclude intel involvement either. Was a paraffin test done on Crump?
I don't want to draw the DiEugenio beam down on me. Nor do I want to end up in the Morrow, Hersh, Nelson, Bugliosi hamper of fools. But perhaps there could be a few of Jan's gold flecks in this particular evacuation by Janney that deserve some pause, if only because of the circumstances and members.
The reason I give Janney some slack is because the murder fits very comfortably into the known pattern of witness murder in the Assassination. Rather than mastermind Meyer fits a more subtle pattern of living witness to the real core of the plot and expendable. More importantly she is immediately surrounded by the right mix of inner circle wolves. She fits the Douglass Kilgallen harmonic like a satanic wind chime.
I'd like to see a more sophisticated analysis of Crump's use of a handgun. Shooting the victim in this case might not fit the profile of rape/robbery in this setting. A gunshot would bring attention when Ms Meyer, as a woman, could be physically subdued or bludgeoned to the same effect. If Ms Meyer had screamed-out and was shot, shooting her would defeat the purpose because that would be just as alarming in bringing attention. I'd like to see sophisticated analysis if male perpetrators such as Crump to see if shooting the victim to death in these circumstances makes sense on a profile basis. Does a Crump profile perpetrator escalate an assault to a death sentence? Also, with all we know about intel tactics of the day Crump's actually having shot Meyer does not preclude intel involvement either. Was a paraffin test done on Crump?
I don't want to draw the DiEugenio beam down on me. Nor do I want to end up in the Morrow, Hersh, Nelson, Bugliosi hamper of fools. But perhaps there could be a few of Jan's gold flecks in this particular evacuation by Janney that deserve some pause, if only because of the circumstances and members.