22-07-2012, 02:05 AM
The "all due respect" card is hollow.
Because this thread has shown that is exactly what you do not have.
All you do is troll around at questionable sources, the LA Times, Janney's web site etc., and you then come back and say, "Well what about this?" Time after time, I show either where the info is questionable, or nonsense or a non sequitir. That does not stop you. Lamar Waldron like, you ignore that bit of enlightment or correction and just take another repeat swing with something that I already dealt with.
But that is not the worst part. The worst part is this: You do all that without dealing with any of the stuff I (or Lisa) have evidenced which reduces Janney's ideas to mush. (Or maybe you think Mary actually did do in two weeks what it took Salandria four months to do). :loco:
The difference is that what Lisa and I do is based upon evidence--and we back that up. What you do is based upon ignorance of that case--and you don't care if you cannot back it up.
Let's take for instance your almost shocking comparison of what Janney does in this case with what happened at the Ambassador. This makes me wonder if you have even studied what happened with RFK.
What Janney is saying here, and I read it twice, is that they just decided to frame Crump that hour. So they sent out for clothes, used skin pigment dye, and brought in a stand in.
WTF! Where on earth is that paralleled in the RFK case?!?
With all due respect sir, please show me where it is!? OK? It is nowhere. And I have studied that case, including the primary documents. Have you sir?
In that case, there was a girl in a polka dot dress who guided two other guys into the Ambassador (one of them Sirhan), and who's dress, as well as coffee, then served as post hypnotic suggestion since Sirhan had been programmed in advance by Bryan. Who then wen t on the radio that night to say that the shooting had the earmarks of the film The Manchurian Candidate.
Please show me, with all due respect sir, where there is a parallel for that in the Meyer case. I have read all the literature on the Mary Meyer case. And I have never seen a whiff of this anywhere.
And if this is just baseless conjecture on your part, from someone who has no expertise in the case, then its worth a thimble full of spit as evidence.
In the RFK case, one can prove with documents and evidence that a formal cover up was enacted and this extended over to planting spies in Sirhan's defense team and falsifying evidence presented in court. Plus, having the lead lawyer compromised in a quid pro quo deal.
WHERE IS THAT IN THE MEYER CASE? PLEASE SHOW ME WITH ALL DUE RESPECT SIR!
In fact, Crump, in my opinion, a guilty man, was set free simply because he had a very bright and skillful lawyer--which is exactly what Sirhan, an innocent man, was deprived of. And there was no rigging of evidence in the Meyer case.
To contaminate and pollute the excellent work done on RFK by people like Lynn Mangan, the late Larry Teeter, Lisa Pease, Bill Turner, the late Phil Melanson, the late great Greg Stone etc. to equate that great work with what Janney does is, to someone like me, just nauseating nonsense.
And this is why I don't wish to reply to you. Since your "all due respect" is transparently hollow. Not only do you have none of that for me, but you have none of it for any person I just named. And to someone like me, who really values their labor on that case, to put the name of Phil Melanson in the same realm as Janney or Damore, I mean, that is something there is no excuse for. Save utter ignorance. Or empty bombast.
Because this thread has shown that is exactly what you do not have.
All you do is troll around at questionable sources, the LA Times, Janney's web site etc., and you then come back and say, "Well what about this?" Time after time, I show either where the info is questionable, or nonsense or a non sequitir. That does not stop you. Lamar Waldron like, you ignore that bit of enlightment or correction and just take another repeat swing with something that I already dealt with.
But that is not the worst part. The worst part is this: You do all that without dealing with any of the stuff I (or Lisa) have evidenced which reduces Janney's ideas to mush. (Or maybe you think Mary actually did do in two weeks what it took Salandria four months to do). :loco:
The difference is that what Lisa and I do is based upon evidence--and we back that up. What you do is based upon ignorance of that case--and you don't care if you cannot back it up.
Let's take for instance your almost shocking comparison of what Janney does in this case with what happened at the Ambassador. This makes me wonder if you have even studied what happened with RFK.
What Janney is saying here, and I read it twice, is that they just decided to frame Crump that hour. So they sent out for clothes, used skin pigment dye, and brought in a stand in.
WTF! Where on earth is that paralleled in the RFK case?!?
With all due respect sir, please show me where it is!? OK? It is nowhere. And I have studied that case, including the primary documents. Have you sir?
In that case, there was a girl in a polka dot dress who guided two other guys into the Ambassador (one of them Sirhan), and who's dress, as well as coffee, then served as post hypnotic suggestion since Sirhan had been programmed in advance by Bryan. Who then wen t on the radio that night to say that the shooting had the earmarks of the film The Manchurian Candidate.
Please show me, with all due respect sir, where there is a parallel for that in the Meyer case. I have read all the literature on the Mary Meyer case. And I have never seen a whiff of this anywhere.
And if this is just baseless conjecture on your part, from someone who has no expertise in the case, then its worth a thimble full of spit as evidence.
In the RFK case, one can prove with documents and evidence that a formal cover up was enacted and this extended over to planting spies in Sirhan's defense team and falsifying evidence presented in court. Plus, having the lead lawyer compromised in a quid pro quo deal.
WHERE IS THAT IN THE MEYER CASE? PLEASE SHOW ME WITH ALL DUE RESPECT SIR!
In fact, Crump, in my opinion, a guilty man, was set free simply because he had a very bright and skillful lawyer--which is exactly what Sirhan, an innocent man, was deprived of. And there was no rigging of evidence in the Meyer case.
To contaminate and pollute the excellent work done on RFK by people like Lynn Mangan, the late Larry Teeter, Lisa Pease, Bill Turner, the late Phil Melanson, the late great Greg Stone etc. to equate that great work with what Janney does is, to someone like me, just nauseating nonsense.
And this is why I don't wish to reply to you. Since your "all due respect" is transparently hollow. Not only do you have none of that for me, but you have none of it for any person I just named. And to someone like me, who really values their labor on that case, to put the name of Phil Melanson in the same realm as Janney or Damore, I mean, that is something there is no excuse for. Save utter ignorance. Or empty bombast.