Mary's Mosaic: Entering Peter Janney's World of Fantasy

[Albert Doyle]

Jim, if Leary didn't write about Mary Meyer for 20 years that isn't conclusive evidence. I consider it weak frankly. I have argued that the You Tube video for Mary's Mosaic and Tim Leary shows that witnesses at the time saw Leary crawl out on the Mellon House roof in contemplation upon hearing of Mary's death. He didn't do that for a person he hardly knew. There were also witnesses to Leary then engaging an investigation in New York City when it happened. Again, this is not the action of somebody with a vague relationship. It is very much the reaction of somebody similar to Janney's description. You guys ignore this each time I mention it.



Because Janney used a literary device to exaggerate JFK's "turning" does not mean that JFK and Mary Meyer did not share opinions on world peace. Jim, it's pretty much a done deal that Mary was dabbling in an LSD group in Washington including Ann Chamberlain. If you are doing original Sandoz pure LSD you were probably automatically on cruise control as far as peace pursuits. You are ignoring that Mary also had a World Federalist background. Therefore I find your depiction of Mary as being into art and not any World Federalist peace politics about as accurate as JFK being a Cold Warrior.



I don't know the timing of Mary's break from Cord. Janney says it was when a rift happened because the inner beltway CIA guys Cord was a peer of pulled him towards Dulles' politics. Jim, the art world is not known to be John Birchers. Again, this is weak in my opinion. Jim, you're not seriously quoting Cord Meyer on the reason for his separation from Mary? This is a man whom Janney shows was knowledgeable at minimum of his wife's assassination. He was CIA for god's sake. Do you think he would admit Mary left him because he went to the dark side?



You're sort of creating strawmen because whether or not Kennedy had early predilections towards his progressive peace/nationalist politics in the 50's doesn't mean that Mary's possible influence during the crucible of his administration and its high pressure crises wasn't a serious issue to CIA. Really all that counts here is whether CIA thought Mary presented enough of a threat to warrant liquidation. We are seeing all the signs of that in the manner of her death and Angleton's intense interest in her diary. Or do you believe Angleton was doing a Ruby-like noble gesture to preserve the honor of a fallen president? Mary didn't need to be a female Rasputin to get herself on the Hit List. Many people were killed for being less of a threat than she. But then again, Mary had serious beltway knowledge and clout. She couldn't be dismissed so easily.



Jim, if Crump was a patsy in a serious CIA operation to kill Mary Meyer any stories he tells afterwards would automatically be questionable. Jim, have you ever studied up on CIA tactics and the freakish mind control techniques they used? I'm sorry but for you to ignore this and how it would reflect on Crump and his stories is not adequate to the full potential of Deep Political analysis and CIA's full capabilities. Sirhan is a good example of how they kill. They did some bizarre things to his mind. I can't see your approach as anything other than taking advantage of the victim in order to prove your point. This is exactly what Intel wants people to do.



If you look at the things I mentioned in my unanswered post to Tom you'll see a clear evidentiary path to good evidence Mary Meyer was assassinated by CIA in a black op. There's no way with the shooting and dragging confirmed by the cops that Mary's body would have zero trace of Crump, or fibers from his clothes. Joe Shimon made it pretty clear to Toni that sometimes people had to be killed when referring to Mary Meyer.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Creating strawmen?


I am reciting facts. Facts which directly impeach Janney's book and the previous work of Damore. Janney used a series of unreliable sources--including Damore-- in order to patch together a tale that he was obsessed with. I mean Albert, are we supposed to swallow Gregory Douglass/Walter Storch also? Douglass is a professional forger. Yet Janney had no problem using him as a source. Another straw man Albert?

Janney needed a motive to put together his whole Mitchell/skin ointment fantasy. And he bought into Leary: MM as a muse to peace. But once he fell for that, it boxed him in. He could not tell the truth about who Kennedy actually was. Because it would make the whole Leary story dubious--which, of course, it is. (Its actually bullshit if you ask me.)

So he then used a series of hack writers--including Seymour Hersh--to draw a portrait of Kennedy that would make John McAdams smile: the empty, shallow, playboy in Washington who was a Democratic Cold Warrior; a Stu Symington, Henry Jackson type. A man who had no real compass of his own and needed MM to somehow alert him to who he really was and keep him to that goal.

Except for this: none of the above is anywhere near what the facts really are.

Kennedy began his transformation back in 1951 when he met Edmund Gullion in Saigon, as is documented in Richard Mahoney's book, JFK:Ordeal in Africa. It was that meeting, where Gullion told him that France would never win in Vietnam, that began to turn Kennedy into a much more creative, imaginative, and visionary foreign policy expert. From then on, JFK was the most extreme Democratic spokesman on American foreign policy in the Third World and on how the USA should meet the challenges of the Cold War. I and others have documented all of this in more than one venue. Janney ignored it all since he needed a reason for MM to be so valuable to JFK. Janney also then doubled down on this by writing that MM was really the first WC critic--forget Salandria. And she was going to blow the whole conspiracy wide open.

Except, there was another big problem: There was no evidence for this either.

So what did Janney do? He made assumption after assumption, saying that MM must have read this and must have read that etc etc etc And oh my aching back. Sooner or later some of us just get tired of this kind of presumption addiction. Especially in this day and age. We have the ARRB and facts and evidence. And some of us use them. Instead of something as whimsical and bereft of evidence as Janney and Damore.

IMO, Janney and his book are a sideshow at best, a diversion at worst. Only Jim Fetzer could set up a conference with Janney and Hankey and Nelson.

If I had been there I would have taped it for pure comedic value.

[Peter Lemkin]

Jim, if Leary didn't write about Mary Meyer for 20 years that isn't conclusive evidence. I consider it weak frankly. I have argued that the You Tube video for Mary's Mosaic and Tim Leary shows that witnesses at the time saw Leary crawl out on the Mellon House roof in contemplation upon hearing of Mary's death. He didn't do that for a person he hardly knew. There were also witnesses to Leary then engaging an investigation in New York City when it happened. Again, this is not the action of somebody with a vague relationship. It is very much the reaction of somebody similar to Janney's description. You guys ignore this each time I mention it.



Because Janney used a literary device to exaggerate JFK's "turning" does not mean that JFK and Mary Meyer did not share opinions on world peace. Jim, it's pretty much a done deal that Mary was dabbling in an LSD group in Washington including Ann Chamberlain. If you are doing original Sandoz pure LSD you were probably automatically on cruise control as far as peace pursuits. You are ignoring that Mary also had a World Federalist background. Therefore I find your depiction of Mary as being into art and not any World Federalist peace politics about as accurate as JFK being a Cold Warrior.



I don't know the timing of Mary's break from Cord. Janney says it was when a rift happened because the inner beltway CIA guys Cord was a peer of pulled him towards Dulles' politics. Jim, the art world is not known to be John Birchers. Again, this is weak in my opinion. Jim, you're not seriously quoting Cord Meyer on the reason for his separation from Mary? This is a man whom Janney shows was knowledgeable at minimum of his wife's assassination. He was CIA for god's sake. Do you think he would admit Mary left him because he went to the dark side?



You're sort of creating strawmen because whether or not Kennedy had early predilections towards his progressive peace/nationalist politics in the 50's doesn't mean that Mary's possible influence during the crucible of his administration and its high pressure crises wasn't a serious issue to CIA. Really all that counts here is whether CIA thought Mary presented enough of a threat to warrant liquidation. We are seeing all the signs of that in the manner of her death and Angleton's intense interest in her diary. Or do you believe Angleton was doing a Ruby-like noble gesture to preserve the honor of a fallen president? Mary didn't need to be a female Rasputin to get herself on the Hit List. Many people were killed for being less of a threat than she. But then again, Mary had serious beltway knowledge and clout. She couldn't be dismissed so easily.



Jim, if Crump was a patsy in a serious CIA operation to kill Mary Meyer any stories he tells afterwards would automatically be questionable. Jim, have you ever studied up on CIA tactics and the freakish mind control techniques they used? I'm sorry but for you to ignore this and how it would reflect on Crump and his stories is not adequate to the full potential of Deep Political analysis and CIA's full capabilities. Sirhan is a good example of how they kill. They did some bizarre things to his mind. I can't see your approach as anything other than taking advantage of the victim in order to prove your point. This is exactly what Intel wants people to do.



If you look at the things I mentioned in my unanswered post to Tom you'll see a clear evidentiary path to good evidence Mary Meyer was assassinated by CIA in a black op. There's no way with the shooting and dragging confirmed by the cops that Mary's body would have zero trace of Crump, or fibers from his clothes. Joe Shimon made it pretty clear to Toni that sometimes people had to be killed when referring to Mary Meyer.

Very good summary arguments here. I've always been surprised at the attacks on Janney's book. I think he makes a cogent presentation of a CIA hit on MPM for knowing too much to live [of who/how/why JFK was murdered]. Crump was just a hapless patsy and Leary, as strange a man as he might have been was a close friend of hers and the story is as above. JFK was getting stoned and tripping with MPM and she was leading him where his heart of hearts was wont to go. She was no Pied Piper on that front. When you piece that together as the final puzzle piece with the picture painted so brilliantly by Douglass, I think one finally comes up with who JFK was deep down inside; and after the BOP [bisque firing] and then CMC [firing to cone 10] JFK was ready to 'break the CIA into a 1000 pieces' - but they got to do that to him first. By my count over 200 people were also killed in the 'JFK assassination' Hit List of hapless witnesses, participants, those who knew-too-much, patsies, etc. MPM was one of the more important people on that list, IMHO - and Janney paints for us the story as best it can now be known.

Cord Meyer went into the CIA as a young idealist hoping to prevent another war like WWII. He changed to become an ends justify the means Cold Warrior and superspook. That is the tension that somehow broke up their marriage. That he participated in some way [at the very least did not prevent and not condemn after] is chilling. Others who knew MPM as a friend also participated in her murder for 'National Security' [read Oligarchic Secrecy] reasons. Get real.

[Albert Doyle]

What gets to me about Jim and Tom is they ignore serious evidence in order to take down Janney by his flaws. But that's more like defense lawyering than credible Deep Political analysis.


The fact the broken down car was never traced and its documentation vaporized is a key clue that it was a set-up device used to bring an African American Military Police witness to the murder scene. Intel used this black witness to bolster their set-up of a black man. All very deviously designed to cement Crump's guilt.


The timing had to be seriously coordinated like the timing in Dealey Plaza. Wiggins had to be at the broken down car just slightly ahead of Mary being shot because Mary was the uncontrollable entity in the timing. The scene was a perfect CIA set-up location because the canal provided an uncrossable moat that protected the murder theater stage on the tow path. This was a well thought-out plan with a Pentagon spook brought in to assure military precision in the timing, events, and witnessing.


Wiggins said he had a strange sense that he was set-up to witness what his attention had been drawn to. The problem with using military patsies like Wiggins is they bring their combat senses with them and know when something isn't right.


So when you consider the broken down car and its import you realize Jim and Tom's attempt to discredit Janney by his weaknesses doesn't overcome critical evidence like this that broadcasts an Intel job. And that's why they omit it in their book-read criticisms. I think mainstream analysis of the events of the 1963 coup requires vigorous academic scrutiny and rigor. Jim does that to a fault, however I think sometimes these people get caught in a constant battle for integrity and don't know when to turn it off or when to not apply it to certain individuals where attacking less than water-tight research might come at the cost of denying real events.

[Don Jeffries]

Janney's book is far from perfect. As I said, I think it does a good job in covering the details of Mary Meyer's death, as well as providing biographical data about her. I think Janney definitely exaggerated Meyer's influence over JFK's political thinking. But I don't believe someone who was Cord Meyer's wife and was apparently having an affair with a recently assassinated president was murdered for nonpolitical reasons.

I am skeptical about Timothy Leary; as I noted in my book, he was just one of the counterculture icons who had ties to the CIA. As is the case with most books that touch on the JFK assassination, I think it's wise to discount the pet theories of individual authors. But that doesn't mean there isn't valuable information in those books.

John Hankey produced a very important video about the assassination of JFK, Jr. If you look beyond his dubious attempts to pin the crime on the Bush family, the actual data he presents is stunning. I used some of his first-hand research in my book. He was one of the very few who researched that case from the beginning. If you throw out everything he's done because of his theories about Bush, then there isn't a whole lot of material on the JFK, Jr. case to work with.

Mary Meyer was in the midst of the most powerful people in the intelligence community. Janney's own background is crucial here, as his father was a CIA official. Thus, it becomes impossible to believe that someone with those ties just happened upon a poor black criminal that day, who murdered her for reasons completely unrelated to politics.

[Dawn Meredith]

Janney's book is far from perfect. As I said, I think it does a good job in covering the details of Mary Meyer's death, as well as providing biographical data about her. I think Janney definitely exaggerated Meyer's influence over JFK's political thinking. But I don't believe someone who was Cord Meyer's wife and was apparently having an affair with a recently assassinated president was murdered for nonpolitical reasons.

I am skeptical about Timothy Leary; as I noted in my book, he was just one of the counterculture icons who had ties to the CIA. As is the case with most books that touch on the JFK assassination, I think it's wise to discount the pet theories of individual authors. But that doesn't mean there isn't valuable information in those books.

John Hankey produced a very important video about the assassination of JFK, Jr. If you look beyond his dubious attempts to pin the crime on the Bush family, the actual data he presents is stunning. I used some of his first-hand research in my book. He was one of the very few who researched that case from the beginning. If you throw out everything he's done because of his theories about Bush, then there isn't a whole lot of material on the JFK, Jr. case to work with.

Mary Meyer was in the midst of the most powerful people in the intelligence community. Janney's own background is crucial here, as his father was a CIA official. Thus, it becomes impossible to believe that someone with those ties just happened upon a poor black criminal that day, who murdered her for reasons completely unrelated to politics.

Don I agree with you. (And Peter, above). On both Janney's book and Hankey's film. The ending is contrived and should be removed, the son killing the son. There is no basis in fact for this. But the rest of the film has incredible research. I have not watched it in several years. Need to watch it again sometime.
Just because Janney and Hankey got some things wrong is not a reason to discount both out of hand. It greatly saddens me that more has not been done on the murder of JFK Jr. and the set up of Ted Kennedy. I have taken a break from reading assassination books, but yours and David Talbot's are my next two. I'll order as a b-day present from me to me.

Dawn

[Jim DiEugenio]

Let us never forget all the multitude of errors Hankey made.

Seamus Coogan took the time to expose them. And we are all in his debt for that.

http://www.ctka.net/2010/hanky.html

Seamus showed us that it does not matter who's side you are on in this, you are held to the same standard. That is the only way the critical community can function, or else we are just as clownish as Shenon, except in a different, tin foil hat way.

BTW, its amazing but although this articles is a few years old, it is still in the top ten viewed essays at CTKA.

[Albert Doyle]

This isn't about Hankey. It's about the good evidence in 'Mary's Mosaic' that shows Mary Pinchot Meyer was murdered by CIA black op.

[Jim DiEugenio]

DM: On both Janney's book and Hankey's film

Albert, you missed this comment, apparently.

As far as I am concerned, each one has about the same amount of credibility.

Maybe you forgot, Janney had his own lawyer withdraw his lawsuit with prejudice.

[Albert Doyle]

Which had nothing to do with the rest of the evidence. If Janney withdrew because he didn't have enough evidence doesn't mean Mitchell wasn't the spook who tried to frame Crump and then disappeared to England and lied about the funding. It was Janney who proved Mitchell lied about the funding source for that hiatus. This is strong evidence Mitchell was a hot operator on assignment. His being removed to England after the Crump set-up failed should not be overlooked.


Wiggins was there and he tends to disagree with your view. He said he felt like he was being set-up to witness the event. The car was the weak link. It had to be perfectly placed and because of that it had to be faked. Once it was faked they didn't have any documentation or excuse on how it got to that exact spot. The smoking gun for an Intel job.



I'm sure Scully is out there brewing up a 3 foot long post that deals with the tow truck driver's 3rd cousin once removed and all his dental records and the relatives of the dentist.


When you really have your ear to the ground you'll realize the dead quiet about Janney accusing Mitchell in the media speaks louder than anything. It doesn't make sense that such a serious accusation would get no coverage.