07-08-2015, 08:32 PM
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:A (or B) Doyle: There's lots of evidence Crump was innocent.
From my review:
He (the prosecutor) thought Crump would testify on his own behalf. When Crump was apprehended, he was soaking wet. He was wearing a tshirt with torn black pants. He was covered with bits of weed. He had a bloody hand and a cut over his eye. The police later discovered a jacket near the scene. Along with his cap, Crump had ditched it, and his wife confirmed it was his. (Burleigh, p. 234) There was no one else in the area in this condition. Hantman looked forward to cross-examining Crump, not just about his condition at the time, but all the lies he had told to explain his incriminating state away. For example, he said he was in the area to go fishing. Except he didn't bring his pole. He said he cut his hand on a bait hookwhich he also left at home. How did he explain having his fly down? An officer did it. Why was he soaking wet? Crump first tried to explain this by saying that he had slipped into the river from his fishing spot. When that lie was exposed, he said he had fallen into the river while asleep. (ibid, p. 265) Did his hat and jacket fall off his body as he slipped? Once these lies were exposed for what they were, Hantman would then be able to show that Crump's condition had all the earmarks of a man who had been involved in a sexual attack. It had been resisted, and Crump had then tried to wipe away the nitrates in the water, and bury the weapon in the soft dirt. Once he was under cross-examination, Crump would wither and weep and say, as he did to the police, "Looks like you got a stacked deck." (ibid, p. 234)
Innocent people do not act like this.
BTW, there would not at all be a forensic necessity for Crump to have Mary's blood on him if he shot her.
Sorry Jim but this shows a distinct lack of understanding of intel capabilities. You could make an equal case against Sirhan Sirhan using the same prosecutor-like tactics and logic. I'm amazed Deep Politics members don't see the comparison of Sirhan being given coffee before he was set-up and Crump being given a drink before he was set-up. Both by sexually attractive women.
This is Deep Political deep waters and the cutting edge of intel capabilities which are pretty bizarre and don't line up with the normal signs of guilt you dwell on. The problem with you and Scully is you focus on this courtroom legal approach while ignoring the totality of the evidence and how it relates to it. Wiggins said he had a strange sense that the timing was meant for him to arrive and witness it. He was set-up in other words. There was no trace of the broken down car that happened to be placed exactly in the right spot for Wiggins to witness the murder strategically across the moat where he couldn't prevent it. The fact the records for the car were erased is a sure red flag for intel involvement and what you look for. I hate to put it this way, but what part of "CIA operatives candidly admitted Mary Meyer was one of their jobs" are you having trouble understanding? Toni Shimon was quite clear about her father indirectly saying sometimes people have to be eliminated when referring to Mary Meyer.
Mitchell was a classic intel false witness. When the case blew up on them exactly because the evidence wasn't there Mitchell was gotten out of town and lied about the funding source for it. Intel got Mitchell over to a sympathetic ally's territory. Mitchell's probably lucky that he wasn't assassinated by MI-6. Instead they diminished his credibility by making him a beatnik-type. They were caught. THIS is the guilty behavior you should be focusing on if you practice Deep Politics.
You can't wash off gunpowder residue to that degree. Also, if you look at Mary Meyer's wounds there had to be some blow back. But also there had to be some dragging and positioning of the body according to the forensics that would have shed some kind of fibers from Crump on to Mary Meyer. There was nothing.
Mr D, you can't have contact with a murder victim to the point of ripping your trousers and having a bloody hand and cut over your eye without leaving a forensic trace on the victim. As much as you try to malign Roundtree this is why Crump got off. And correctly so. With all due respect Mr D I hope you're not on any jury that ever judges me.
Never underestimate intel's capabilities. And be very careful quoting prosecutors against intel victims.