07-10-2015, 01:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2015, 02:13 AM by Jim DiEugenio.)
Tom is to be congratulated for all the original and primary research he has done on this, which no one else has come close to duplicating. Its really in the best tradition of document research.
I think the problem is the same one CTKA had with John Hankey. There is a certain alternative media that needs guests like Hankey and Janney to survive. Therefore, they are given a loud speaker. And people who have not done any work on the particular cases and who are attracted to the mystery and intrigue spun around them, are susceptible to it.
I understand this, because as I have admitted, I fell for the whole Meyer thing myself at first. I even mentioned it at a talk I did in San Francisco in 1993. My only excuse is that I had not really analyzed the whole thing and looked at the source material enough. I began to see who Tim Leary really was in the book Acid Dreams. I then looked up all of his books I could find (over 25 of them) and stacked them at a library table in front of me to find where he ever mentioned his 1964 encounter with MM between that date and when he first wrote about her 20 years later. When I saw that he had over 20 opportunities to do so, and he had not, I then said: Hmm. I wonder how much of the rest of this story is baloney.
The idea that MM was a muse to JFK is so ludicrous as to be ridiculous. And to try and make that credible, what did Janney do? He used all the anti Kennedy authors he could find, including Horowitz and Collier, to make JFK into a shallow, rightwing Cold Warrior. We know that this is a pile of BS today. Kennedy made his anti Vulture speech in 1954. He made his great Algeria speech in 1957. He was on the record as anti JF Dulles several times in the fifties. I repeat : THE FIFTIES. What on earth would b need someone like MM for in that regard. He had Gullion in the White House. Since he had moved him there already.
And to say that somehow MM was in on this because of Cord Meyer's work with the World Federalists, I mean, please. There is simply no evidence for that in any source anyone can find. Even Janney. Go ahead and look at Meyer's book. He actually makes the opposite argument, that he spent too much time on it. And that put a strain on the marriage. When they divorced, MM studied art, not foreign policy. And she had several boyfriends, none of whom was interested in that field. Again, Janney ignored all of this to fashion his fairy tale.
Now Tom proves that this whole Vivian character is more likely than not a creation of Crump. I mean how many different stories does someone have to tell to prove they are lying? In addition to the lies about fishing without a pole, there are now three stories about how he and Vivian got together. And Roudntree talked to her, but then did not ever find her. At times she is a girlfriend, at times she is s call girl.
Give me a break.
Also, what kind of case is it if your own lawyer moves to dismiss with prejudice? I am sure Dawn can tell you what that means if you don't know. It means that you cannot bring the case back. Why would you do that to yourself if you believed in it? And then how could you depose someone if the case was dismissed already? I mean we do understand the rudiments of the legal system, do we not?
Th lawsuit is beginning to look like a publicity stunt for his book by Janney. But only after Tom found the guy that Janney and his "investigator" could not find. Janney's investigator is about as proficient as the one for the late Harry Livingstone. And please don't get me started on that whole "safe house" address that Albarelli fell for. And Damore's interview with the "killer" who could not have been Mitchell.
Pure moonshine. Only Fetzer could make this a "litmus test" for the JFK research community. Just as he did Hankey and Baker and Nelson.
They all deserve each other.
I think the problem is the same one CTKA had with John Hankey. There is a certain alternative media that needs guests like Hankey and Janney to survive. Therefore, they are given a loud speaker. And people who have not done any work on the particular cases and who are attracted to the mystery and intrigue spun around them, are susceptible to it.
I understand this, because as I have admitted, I fell for the whole Meyer thing myself at first. I even mentioned it at a talk I did in San Francisco in 1993. My only excuse is that I had not really analyzed the whole thing and looked at the source material enough. I began to see who Tim Leary really was in the book Acid Dreams. I then looked up all of his books I could find (over 25 of them) and stacked them at a library table in front of me to find where he ever mentioned his 1964 encounter with MM between that date and when he first wrote about her 20 years later. When I saw that he had over 20 opportunities to do so, and he had not, I then said: Hmm. I wonder how much of the rest of this story is baloney.
The idea that MM was a muse to JFK is so ludicrous as to be ridiculous. And to try and make that credible, what did Janney do? He used all the anti Kennedy authors he could find, including Horowitz and Collier, to make JFK into a shallow, rightwing Cold Warrior. We know that this is a pile of BS today. Kennedy made his anti Vulture speech in 1954. He made his great Algeria speech in 1957. He was on the record as anti JF Dulles several times in the fifties. I repeat : THE FIFTIES. What on earth would b need someone like MM for in that regard. He had Gullion in the White House. Since he had moved him there already.
And to say that somehow MM was in on this because of Cord Meyer's work with the World Federalists, I mean, please. There is simply no evidence for that in any source anyone can find. Even Janney. Go ahead and look at Meyer's book. He actually makes the opposite argument, that he spent too much time on it. And that put a strain on the marriage. When they divorced, MM studied art, not foreign policy. And she had several boyfriends, none of whom was interested in that field. Again, Janney ignored all of this to fashion his fairy tale.
Now Tom proves that this whole Vivian character is more likely than not a creation of Crump. I mean how many different stories does someone have to tell to prove they are lying? In addition to the lies about fishing without a pole, there are now three stories about how he and Vivian got together. And Roudntree talked to her, but then did not ever find her. At times she is a girlfriend, at times she is s call girl.
Give me a break.
Also, what kind of case is it if your own lawyer moves to dismiss with prejudice? I am sure Dawn can tell you what that means if you don't know. It means that you cannot bring the case back. Why would you do that to yourself if you believed in it? And then how could you depose someone if the case was dismissed already? I mean we do understand the rudiments of the legal system, do we not?
Th lawsuit is beginning to look like a publicity stunt for his book by Janney. But only after Tom found the guy that Janney and his "investigator" could not find. Janney's investigator is about as proficient as the one for the late Harry Livingstone. And please don't get me started on that whole "safe house" address that Albarelli fell for. And Damore's interview with the "killer" who could not have been Mitchell.
Pure moonshine. Only Fetzer could make this a "litmus test" for the JFK research community. Just as he did Hankey and Baker and Nelson.
They all deserve each other.