23-09-2012, 05:45 PM
"It is just as likely that Crump was driven to criminal behavior as a consequence of the emotional impacts of his arrest and trial as it is that such behavior was common prior to MPM's murder."
Wow.
That is right out of Janney's book. And it is a ploy that both he and Roundtree agreed upon after the Burleigh book came out. (Janney is mentioned in the acknowledgements to Roundtree's book.)
And it is something they both needed to explain away the 22 arrests, the firebombings, the gun wielding, the threatening of family members, the rape of a minor etc etc etc.
NO CHARLES. IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT AN INNOCENT MAN WOULD THEN TURN INTO A HARDENED CRIMINAL KNOWING HE WAS INNOCENT ALL ALONG!
If one is unjustly accused and had no criminal intent at all and one knows one is innocent how is it logical that one would then become a terrorist and habitual criminal after being acquitted of a crime one did not commit?
No. Burleigh shows that there were some odd things in Crump's make up before the towpath incident that were never introduced in court. And the fact that there was never any credible alibi for Crump--gone fishing without a rod etc.-- points toward a consciousness of guilt.
As per the use of anonymous sources, this is allowed under certain circumstances--that is if a certain person is alive and this person can be percieved as being hostile to exposure of a fact.
But in Janney's case, both Dulles and Meyer have been dead for many decades. So if she made a derogatory comment about Dulles--which many, many people have done--why would that be non-attributable in this day and age? I mean many people had problems with the way Dulles ran the CIA. And many people made charges against the man while he was alive.
Now, before anyone says, well the death of Meyer may be the reason; my point is this: but this is an unproven assumption which Janney makes nebulously possible with the not for the record attribution. And that is not a kosher technique.
As per me thinking Crump did it for years, again that is wrong Dawn. Go back and read my original piece in The Assassinations. I now lean toward Crump's guilt for 2 reasons: 1.) Burleigh's book, and 2.) Janney's piece of sci fi made up out of wholecloth to try and frame him. As per Roundtree's phone calls, I don't find Roundtree's words about this case all that credible. And you should know that from what Tom posted from another site which appears to impeach her.
Wow.
That is right out of Janney's book. And it is a ploy that both he and Roundtree agreed upon after the Burleigh book came out. (Janney is mentioned in the acknowledgements to Roundtree's book.)
And it is something they both needed to explain away the 22 arrests, the firebombings, the gun wielding, the threatening of family members, the rape of a minor etc etc etc.
NO CHARLES. IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT AN INNOCENT MAN WOULD THEN TURN INTO A HARDENED CRIMINAL KNOWING HE WAS INNOCENT ALL ALONG!
If one is unjustly accused and had no criminal intent at all and one knows one is innocent how is it logical that one would then become a terrorist and habitual criminal after being acquitted of a crime one did not commit?
No. Burleigh shows that there were some odd things in Crump's make up before the towpath incident that were never introduced in court. And the fact that there was never any credible alibi for Crump--gone fishing without a rod etc.-- points toward a consciousness of guilt.
As per the use of anonymous sources, this is allowed under certain circumstances--that is if a certain person is alive and this person can be percieved as being hostile to exposure of a fact.
But in Janney's case, both Dulles and Meyer have been dead for many decades. So if she made a derogatory comment about Dulles--which many, many people have done--why would that be non-attributable in this day and age? I mean many people had problems with the way Dulles ran the CIA. And many people made charges against the man while he was alive.
Now, before anyone says, well the death of Meyer may be the reason; my point is this: but this is an unproven assumption which Janney makes nebulously possible with the not for the record attribution. And that is not a kosher technique.
As per me thinking Crump did it for years, again that is wrong Dawn. Go back and read my original piece in The Assassinations. I now lean toward Crump's guilt for 2 reasons: 1.) Burleigh's book, and 2.) Janney's piece of sci fi made up out of wholecloth to try and frame him. As per Roundtree's phone calls, I don't find Roundtree's words about this case all that credible. And you should know that from what Tom posted from another site which appears to impeach her.