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

[Dawn Meredith]

I also find Janney's book credible and I believe it pushes the case of the death of MPM where it belongs - as a part of the cover-up of JFK's murder. It brings forth some new names and POI...such as Joe Shimon, to name but one. I think there is MUCH TOO MUCH 'there' in the book to throw it out because of, perhaps, a few flaws. The case against Crump is totally demolished and the case for 'the usual gang' being behind this murder is convincing. IMHO.

OMG finally. I was reading though this old thread- which has been revived by Peter and was hoping for actual discussion of the damn book, alas...aside from Jim D, Doyle and myself it appears no one had read it..til now..(Peter's comment).

I am again caught wondering why Jim is so very dismissive of this entire story. It appears to hinge on the notion that JFK and Mary were romantically linked. Jim is dismissive of any extra marital relations alleged to have been had by JFK. I mostly agree on this, but not so when it comes to Mary.

So that is my question for Jim: Is this indeed your basis for dismantling this entire story?

[Peter Lemkin]

I also find Janney's book credible and I believe it pushes the case of the death of MPM where it belongs - as a part of the cover-up of JFK's murder. It brings forth some new names and POI...such as Joe Shimon, to name but one. I think there is MUCH TOO MUCH 'there' in the book to throw it out because of, perhaps, a few flaws. The case against Crump is totally demolished and the case for 'the usual gang' being behind this murder is convincing. IMHO.

OMG finally. I was reading though this old thread- which has been revived by Peter and was hoping for actual discussion of the damn book, alas...aside from Jim D, Doyle and myself it appears no one had read it..til now..(Peter's comment).

I am again caught wondering why Jim is so very dismissive of this entire story. It appears to hinge on the notion that JFK and Mary were romantically linked. Jim is dismissive of any extra marital relations alleged to have been had by JFK. I mostly agree on this, but not so when it comes to Mary.

So that is my question for Jim: Is this indeed your basis for dismantling this entire story?

This really could be entitled 'entering Jim DiEugenio's world of fantasy'. Jim knows a hell of a lot about the JFK [and other] assassinations (and hats off to him for that and his many great books and articles, etc.) - but for some reasons I don't understand he has a few huge blind-spots too. One is on the death of MPM - who was JFK's friend, political and personal confidant, teacher and guide to things more politically progressive, LSD and marijuana guide, lover - but most importantly political guide to an already progressive and changing/growing/evolving man!

Crump was a patsy set up just as were LHO, Sirhan Sirhan, and all the many other infamous and false CIA patsies - but JDiE can't go there....don't know why...but know this is not a matter up for debate. Read the book [Janney's] and decide for yourself. On many things Jim and I agree - on most, in fact. But on this.....we are at 180 degrees and I'm sure I'm correct...along with Janney. The murder of MPM was part of the huge clean-up operation to silence or kill all that knew too much about who was behind the JFK assassination. Period. Mary's ex-husband had a major role in the assassination - as did some of her old friends. It is a sign of just how sick and inhuman those types were that they could murder not only their duly elected President, but a close friend and for one, his ex-wife. Such is the mind set of those in the National Security/Deep State/Secret State Mindset.

[Lauren Johnson]

I just bought the Kindle version on Amazon for $1.99. Looking forward to reading it and to the continued high level of conversation in this thread.

[Dawn Meredith]

I just bought the Kindle version on Amazon for $1.99. Looking forward to reading it and to the continued high level of conversation in this thread.

It's a real page turner Lauren. Opps I forgot Peter had read the book too, that's what I get for trying to post before court. (I miss stuff). And Peter and I are in total agreement.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

I just bought the Kindle version on Amazon for $1.99. Looking forward to reading it and to the continued high level of conversation in this thread.

It's a real page turner Lauren. Opps I forgot Peter had read the book too, that's what I get for trying to post before court. (I miss stuff). And Peter and I are in total agreement.

Myth makes better reading than, well....... your turn, Jim. I wish Mr. Janney the best for the rest of his life, though. Hope he sells a lot of books by his publisher Skyhorse. He first went to Trine Day, but...... well.......

[Jim DiEugenio]

Geez thanks Mark.

Any author who will use Gregory Douglas as a source is indulging in fantasy. And I thought I explained this in my review. Or maybe there are still people out there who do not know that Douglas (which is just one of his names) is and was a forger of documents. I was very careful in showing how he had done the same in his book on the JFK case. And I interviewed Trento on this issue. But Janney used him anyway.

Now, if you want to excuse Janney for that, go ahead. But I don't see how that advances his reputation as a writer. How anyone else does escapes me.

I also pointed out all the problems with Damore. Now if you really believe that Damore had a confession from the hit man and that he never sent it to his agent and that it disappeared after, and Janney could not find it, then fine. Go ahead and believe it. But Mark will disabuse you of that, if I have not. Again, this is fantasy.

As Tom Scully proved, with some very interesting work, this guy who spilled his guts out to Damore CANNOT be the guy who Janney then door stopped at his home in California. Repeat: CANNOT! And if you want to excuse that, then fine. Go ahead.

If you also think that somehow Fletcher Prouty was interviewed by Damore about the Meyer case, then again, fine. Believe it. But there is not a trace of this in any of Fletcher's records and Prouty never once mentioned that case or Damore to Len Osanic. No one spent more time with Prouty than Len did and no one had more access to his archives than Len did.

If you also want to buy into the idea that somehow Mary was a foreign policy maven to rival George Kennan, and no one knew this, then again, go ahead. The problem is Mary studied art and there is utterly no evidence she had these kinds of longstanding interests or inclinations from anyone who knew her or in any articles she left behind. It is nothing but a naked assumption on Janney's part.

And the fact that it is such is buttressed by the real truth about this matter. One that was covered up for decades by the MSM. Kennedy himself was an authority on the whole issue of communism and the Third World by 1957. That is when he gave his great speech on Algeria in the senate. Schooled by Edmund Gullion, who Janney leave out of his fantasy, he studied the whole dispute there for over a year before delivering that tour de force performance. So the idea that somehow Mary Meyer turned JFK on the issue is simply risible.

As is another source Janney used: Tim Leary. As I noted in my review, and again somehow is ignored, you will not find one single reference to Mary in all of Leary's books, and he wrote many, many of them until he published Flashbacks in the eighties. I know since I spent a long time going through his other books. Did anyone else here? In Flashbacks you will also read that Leary had an affair with Marilyn Monroe. Yeah, sure, and i used to go out with Penelope Cruz. Again, why would Janney use such a source with no back up or corroboration? But of course he once said he talked to David Heymann. ::pullhairout::

And as Scully also found out, it looks like Dovey Roundtree ended up manufacturing a witness to make it appear as if Crump was not lying in wait where Mary was jogging. You know, Crump, the guy who was there to go fishing without a fishing pole.

Finally, over the weekend, I met with an absolutely first rate researcher. One who has been praised in the CJR among other places. She has some very interesting things to say about Damore and his association with the other fraudster David Heymann. (Which may be where Janney got the idea to talk to the lying scumbag.) She will be opening up a web site on this subject in the future. Her materials all are very clear and in B and W. No fantasies; no forgeries. That is the kind of scholarship I enjoy reading and studying, for the simple reason that I can learn something from it and build upon it.

Everyone has the right to disagree with someone else. The point is what you base those disagreements upon. I did a lot of work on the Mary M case years prior to Janney's book appearing. And I also did prior work on Damore. So I knew what i was getting into with Janney's book. Others were not aware of this morass. So they jumped on board and were shocked when the reviews by Lisa and myself came out. And then Scully did that really fine work.

I have never been of the school that anything that posits a conspiracy in a case that is related to JFK is above criticism, or cannot be panned. That is what separates Kennedysandking from many other sites. It is also what separates us from the other side. I exposed Jean Davison's really bad book Oswald's Game in all of its omissions and errors awhile back. Somehow that did not make a dent with the likes of Reitzes and Von Pein or McAdams. They refused to even acknowledge it. Our side cannot and should not do that. Not ever. Not if we wish to maintain the high ground, both morally and intellectually.

[James Lateer]

I don't get why the obsession with Gregory Douglas and Judyth Vary Baker by many who post here. I have read books by both. I don't see why they get the sensationalism they get.

They are what they are. There are many JFK books and books about Nazis that are fictionalized or deliberately censored in translation or they may be outright lies. Personally, in the case of Baker, her information seems solid though apparently embellished with a lot of questionable detail.

As for Douglas, something was up with Gestapochef Heinrich Muller. If Douglas was writing fiction, they how do his "facts" weave so neatly in various narratives? It seems like, if all else fails in a cover-up, then claim forgery. Like the Protocols of The Elders of Zion--fake but with maybe at least a grain of truth behind it and possible a history, too. (I haven't read the latter, nor do I intend to).

It's almost like in the 1950's when everybody was in a tizzy about Communists or gay people. All the obsession reminds me of the quote from Shakespeare:

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

James Lateer

[Anthony Thorne]

though apparently embellished with a lot of questionable detail

That's one way of putting it. Telling stories and lies is another - if they're 'embellishments' and 'questionable' the suggestion is that Baker knows those details aren't true but is putting them into the books anyway.

If she's lying throughout the text, why am I supposed to believe anything she says again? Walt Brown's detailed takedown has made it clear that tremendous amounts of her first book are fiction.

If Baker wasn't peddling lies for profit, no one would be too concerned with the fact that she writes a lot of books on the case. Pushing bullshit is a concern though, whoever does it.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Douglas' book Regicide is a load of pap. It is simply rubbish in its concept and its details.

Anthony, where did Walt do that critique of Baker? I have not seen it.

[Peter Lemkin]

JUNE 26, 2018 | PETER JANNEY

THE BRILLIANT BLACK WOMAN WHO DEFENDED THE ACCUSED KILLER OF JFK'S MISTRESS, PART 2

[COLOR=#223333][FONT=Merriweather]Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Dovey Johnson Roundtree / Good Black News and SalFalko / Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0).
Part 1 of this two-part series presented significant scenes from Dovey Roundtree's childhood in the old south; some were as bad as you might expect. Hiding in the dark under the kitchen table while a screaming mob of Ku Klux Klansmen thundered by on horseback. Or the time she sat behind a trolley car driver to watch him work, and he said to her grandmother, "Get that pickaninny out of here! You know she can't sit there."
Education was the way out, and Roundtree worked three jobs to put herself through college. Eventually she went to law school. Her biographer, Katie McCabe, said of her passion for the law:
There was a simplicity about it, and an intricacy, and a logic. Closely reasoned opinions, precedents, constitutional principles these, woven together, made a kind of sense that imposed itself on the scattered reality of human existence.
Part 2 includes riveting scenes of Roundtree in action, demonstrating all of the above, including a few things she did not learn in school.
Below is a compressed excerpt from Chapter 5, "Trial by Fire," of Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace (Third Edition, Skyhorse Publishing, 2016). To see Chapter 4, which focuses mostly on Dovey Roundtree herself, please go here. (To see excerpts from the book posted earlier, please go here, here, here, here, and here. The last two are about who the real killer may have been.)

---

On Monday, July 19, 1965, a 300-person jury pool convened in Courtroom 8, where the laborious process of jury selection would take all day. Dovey Roundtree and her defense team scored a partial victory with a jury of eight blacks and four whites; seven of the twelve jurors were women. There were also four alternate jurors. Before retiring for the day, the jury selected their foreman: Edward O. Savwoir, a forty-four-year-old African American program specialist at the Job Corps in the Office of Economic Opportunity in Washington.
The following morning, on a sweltering July day, the trial convened in the newly air-conditioned fourth-floor courtroom of Washington's US District Court Building. It was packed to capacity with onlookers. Many would return day after day for the duration of the trial. Also present every day was Martha Crump, Ray Crump's mother, always accompanied by members of her church community.
The court room's racial mix and class disparities reflected the divide between the murdered woman and the accused defendant, all interspersed with a noticeable number of unsmiling white men in impeccably tailored suits, reminding Roundtree of the significance of this case.
"So many men in gray suits showed up," she recalled in 1991. "They were government people. I knew that. But I could never understand why so many at the time."8
The news media was a significant presence in the courtroom. Sam Donaldson, a young broadcast news reporter for the CBS affiliate, WTOP-TV, in Washington, sat directly behind the defense team, as did two nuns. Roundtree had no idea who they were, but she recalled that at different times, both Donaldson and the nuns said something similar to her: "You'll pull it out… " Her response to all of them: "Well, you must know something I don't know."9
Indeed, Hantman's [prosecutor Alfred Hantman] long, thundering opening statement seemed to spell doom for the defendant he said had "deliberately, willfully, and maliciously shot and killed Mary Pinchot Meyer."10 In graphic terms, Hantman portrayed Crump in a violent struggle with the victim, insinuating, with no evidence to support his position, that the murder had been the result of a sexual assault gone awry.
Nothing about the victim, Hantman told the jury, would have attracted the attention of a thief, given that she carried no wallet and wore no jewelry.11 Crump had tried to take her by surprise from behind, Hantman maintained, but she had struggled so powerfully that he had been forced to resort to brutality shooting her in the head to subdue her, then dragging her 25 feet while she continued to struggle, before fatally shooting her again.
An effective storyteller, Hantman captured and held the jury's attention with his vivid portrayal of Mary Meyer on her knees, fighting for her life even with a bullet in her head, tearing the defendant's jacket and his trouser pocket.12
United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Photo credit: AgnosticPreachersKid / Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Hantman continued in morbid detail: "We will show you that the blood stains on the tree were only two, two-and-a-half feet from the ground. We will show you that Mary Pinchot Meyer got away from the defendant. She ran back across the towpath toward the canal itself, away from the embankment; that she fell on that side of the towpath closest to the canal; that this defendant Raymond Crump, seeing the deceased getting away from him and believing that she might be able to identify him later, shot Mary Pinchot Meyer again right over the right shoulder."13 Designed for high-impact courtroom drama upon the jury, the Hantman delivery was intended to be as brutal as it was damaging.
Next, Hantman gave the police reconstruction of Ray Crump's alleged attempt to flee the murder scene after tow truck driver Henry Wiggins had spotted him standing over "the lifeless corpse." The government's prosecutor extolled the professionalism and alacrity of the police response in closing off all of the exits in the towpath area "within four minutes" of the broadcast bulletin about the murder.
Documenting that Crump was apprehended several hundred feet from the murder scene, but only after he "ran over the embankment, ran west 684 feet where he got rid of his light tan zipper jacket," and then, "426 feet beyond that, further west, [he] got rid of his plaid cap with a bill on it," Hantman maintained that Crump had "continued to run in a westerly direction towards Fletcher's Landing for some 1,750 feet beyond this, at which point he saw Officer Roderick Sylvis."
Crump had tried to escape, said Hantman, by swimming across the Potomac but realized he wouldn't be able to do so. Detective John Warner finally apprehended Crump, who then lied about having been fishing that morning, as well as about the clothes he had been wearing. The beige Windbreaker jacket and dark-plaid golf cap would be found not far from the murder scene.14
Concluding his statement, Hantman once again implied that Crump had acted out of a premeditated intent to commit a sexual assault, thus casting the murder of Mary Meyer not a spontaneous act, but a killing in cold blood, the result of an attempted rape that had been derailed by a particularly feisty victim.
Hantman made certain the jury knew that when Crump was apprehended, the fly on his pants was open, that his pant's pocket was torn, that he was soaking wet, that he had blood on his right hand, which was cut, and that he had a small cut or abrasion over one eye. All this could have only happened, Hantman maintained, from his struggle with Mary Meyer.
To bolster his contention that Crump's injuries must have resulted from his struggle with Mary Meyer, Hantman concluded his presentation with Lieutenant William L. Mitchell's statement to police the day after the murder.
Mitchell had jogged past Mary Meyer at approximately 12:20 p.m., he said, about four minutes before the first shot was fired. Two hundred yards after passing Meyer, Hantman read aloud, Mitchell had told police that he had run past a "Negro male dressed in a light tan jacket and dark corduroy trousers and wearing a dark plaid cap with a brim on it," and who was not carrying any fishing equipment.15
Ben Bradlee. Photo credit: Miguel Ariel Contreras Drake-McLaughlin / Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 2.0)

The prosecutor's opening statement left Dovey Roundtree in a kind of legal and emotional quicksand. Not only had Hantman's recitation been convincing and thorough, he had promised the jury that his witnesses would dispel any doubt as to the defendant's innocence, in spite of the fact that no murder weapon had been recovered. Regardless of the fact that the prosecution's case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence, it would take a grueling, formidable effort on Dovey Roundtree's part to rescue her client.
"I was completely overwhelmed by what he promised the jury he was going to present," Roundtree recalled in 1992. "It sounded like a different case entirely. I was scared to death."16
If she had been staggered even a bit undone by Hantman's performance, Dovey Roundtree had not shown it. She decided to reserve her own opening statement, then implored Judge Corcoran to let the record show that Hantman's statement had been so inflammatory, so prejudicial, that it was grounds for a mistrial. The judge declined to do so. Roundtree then insisted on seeing "the bloodstained tree" that Hantman said he would be bringing into the courtroom. The judge agreed, saying he wanted to see it, too; but already the proceedings were spiraling out of control. In an effort to maintain decorum, Judge Corcoran ordered an immediate fifteen-minute recess.

At no time was Hantman aware that Mary Meyer had kept a diary, or that she had been romantically involved with President Kennedy. Ben Bradlee was well aware of both, but he wasn't about to reveal anything further.

The first witness to testify was Benjamin C. Bradlee, who was then the Washington, D.C., bureau chief for Newsweek. "Did there come a time when you saw Mary Pinchot Meyer in death?" Hantman asked. Bradlee recounted that he had gone to the D.C. morgue on the day of the murder "sometime after six o'clock in the evening,"17 accompanied by Sergeant Sam Wallace of the DC Metropolitan Police Department, where he had identified the body of his sister-in-law, Mary Pinchot Meyer. The inference of Bradlee's testimony was that it wasn't until Sergeant Wallace arrived at Bradlee's home that evening, just before 6:00 p.m., that Bradlee had any knowledge of the murder.
Strangely, Hantman never directly asked Bradlee when he had first learned of the event. Instead, he inquired whether Bradlee had, subsequent to Mary Meyer's death, made "any effort to gain entry to this studio that was occupied by Mrs. Meyer."
Contrary to what he would document in his 1995 memoir, Bradlee told the court that he had, in fact, entered Mary's studio that night with no difficulty, presumably alone, never indicating whether anyone else was with him.18
At no time was Hantman aware that Mary Meyer had kept a diary, or that she had been romantically involved with President Kennedy. Ben Bradlee was well aware of both, but he wasn't about to reveal anything further. More than 25 years later, in 1991, Hantman would remark to author Leo Damore that had he known these two facts, "it could have changed everything," because he was "totally unaware of who Mary Meyer was or what her connections were."19
Appearing to tread lightly, Dovey Roundtree began her first cross-examination. "Mr. Bradlee, I have just one question," she said.
Bradlee: Yes, ma'am.
[B]Roundtree: Do you have any personal, independent knowledge regarding the causes of the death of your sister-in-law? Do you know how she met her death? Do you know who caused it?[/B]
[B][B]Bradlee: Well, I saw a bullet hole in her head.[/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: Do you know who caused this to be?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Bradlee: No, I don't.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: You have no other information regarding the occurrences leading up to her death?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Bradlee: No, I do not.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: Thank you, sir.20[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]Unaware of its far-reaching implications, Roundtree had asked the most important question surrounding the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer: "Do you have any personal, independent knowledge regarding the causes of the death of your sister-in-law?"[/B][/B]
[B][B]Ben Bradlee had withheld the fact that a group of Mary Meyer's intimates, including Bradlee himself, had immediately conspired to commandeer Mary Meyer's diary, letters, and personal papers and given the entire collection to CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Ben Bradlee playing with John F. Kennedy Jr. Atoka, Virginia, November 10, 1963. Photo credit: JFK Library
[/B][/B]
[B][B]In addition, he omitted the single most important event surrounding the murder of his sister-in-law: the telephone call from his CIA friend "just after lunch" about four hours before her identity to police had been established. The same caller, the reader will recall, had also informed Cord Meyer in New York of Mary's demise later that afternoon again, before her identity was known to authorities.21[/B][/B]
[B][B]During the first morning of the trial, Deputy Coroner Linwood L. Rayford testified that he had pronounced the then-unknown victim dead at the murder scene at approximately 2:05 p.m. The victim had been shot twice, he said in his testimony:[/B][/B]
[B][B]"…the first [shot] was located an inch and half anterior to the left ear…. The second [shot] was located over the right shoulder blade about six inches from the midline." Rayford went on to delineate the path of each bullet. The first shot to the head, just anterior to the left ear and surrounded by a dark halo, traversed the skull across the floor of the brain, angling slightly from the back to the front. "In other words, going foreword from left to right, [it] struck the right side of the skull, fractured it and ricocheted back where the slug was found in the right side of the brain," he explained.[/B][/B]
[B][B]The second bullet wound, also surrounded by a dark halo, had been fired over the victim's right shoulder blade, traversing it and the chest cavity, perforating the right lung and severing the aorta. Hantman questioned the significance of the "two darkened halos" that surrounded each gunshot wound. "It is suggestive of powder burns," Rayford responded. "This means that the gun was fired from rather close proximity."22[/B][/B]
[B][B]Rayford went on to explain that the victim had "superficial lacerations to the forehead, abrasions to the forehead, to the left knee and the left ankle." Hantman wanted the jury to know that there had been a violent struggle before and after the first shot had been fired, that Mary Meyer had fought hard, and that she had been dragged "clear across the path," after she clung to a tree, leaving traces of her blood. Whoever the assassin was, Rayford's detailed account made clear, he had been able to overpower the 5 foot 6 inch victim, who weighed 127 pounds, from behind.23 In the midst of the struggle, the first shot, Rayford testified, would have produced "a considerable amount of external bleeding." The coroner's description of the precise angles of each shot implied that the assassin was likely ambidextrous and had expertise in the surgical use of a handgun.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Mary Pinchot Meyer (left), Mary's Mosaic by Peter Janney (center), and James Jesus Angleton (right). Photo credit: JFK Library / Wikimedia (CC BY 3.0), Skyhorse Publishing, and National Counterintelligence Center / Wikimedia
[/B][/B]
[B][B]Dr. Rayford's testimony gave Dovey Roundtree an opportunity. In her cross examination, she asked the coroner whether "a person firing a weapon at this range would be likely to have powder marks [actual powder burns and/or the presence of nitrates] on his hands or her hands?" Rayford's reply: "Likely, yes."24[/B][/B]
[B][B]There had been no evidence that Ray Crump had traces of nitrates on his hands. The lack of powder burns didn't prove Ray Crump's innocence, however; it only proved police negligence. In their zeal to pin the murder on Crump, and in their certainty that he was the man they were looking for, the police hadn't bothered to test his hands for traces of nitrates.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Yet no one except Dovey Roundtree seemed to question how a diminutive man such as Ray Crump, whose driver's license at the time of his arrest listed him as "5 feet 3½ inches and 130 pounds,"25 had been able to subdue a strong, athletic woman who was taller than he was and weighed about the same. Moreover, no one in Crump's family or community had ever seen him in possession of any firearm, much less use one with any skill or precision.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Crump, however, had in fact been weighed and measured at police headquarters on the day of the murder after his arrest. Police listed his height as 5 feet 5½ inches, weighing 145 pounds,26 but it wasn't clear whether he was wearing his 2-inch platform heel shoes at the time, or his wet clothes. In any case, Crump's height and weight, as well as his age according to both his driver's license and the police booking record were at a considerable variance from the "stocky 5 feet eight inches to five feet 10 inches, 185 pounds Negro in his 40s, with a weight of 185 pounds," listed on Police Form PD-251 and broadcast shortly after the murder, based on Henry Wiggins Jr.'s eyewitness account. The discrepancy would become the cornerstone for Crump's defense.[/B][/B]
[B][B]After the lunch recess, Alfred Hantman, despite Dovey Roundtree's objections, displayed a 55-foot-wide topographical map of the canal towpath and murder scene on the wall opposite the jury box. It was just one of fifty exhibits that Hantman would present at trial, including the bloodstained tree limb that Mary Meyer had clung to moments before she died. Such flamboyant displays by Hantman would eventually backfire, as the prosecution increasingly failed to fill the void of any real forensic evidence.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Hantman then called the map's creator, Joseph Ronsisvalle of the National Park Service, to the witness stand. "How many exits are there from the towpath between Key Bridge and Chain Bridge?" Hantman asked him. Ronsisvalle identified four: "There are steps to Water Street at Key Bridge. There's an underpass at Foundry Branch. There is an underpass at Fletcher's Boat House; and there are steps at Chain Bridge."27 Hantman asked about the distances between exits, and made a point of telling the court that within four minutes the police were guarding and closing off all four exits.[/B][/B]
[B][B]In her cross-examination of Joseph Ronsisvalle, Dovey Roundtree proved why her colleague had once called her "the world's greatest cross-examiner."[/B][/B]
[B][B]The many hours that Roundtree had spent combing and familiarizing herself with the towpath area were about to pay off. She not only revealed a fifth exit that Ronsisvalle had failed to mention, but also established through his testimony that there were many other places "where a person walking on foot could leave the area of the towpath without using any of the fixed exits."28[/B][/B]
[B][B]C&O Canal Towpath and Raymond Crump Jr. being arrested October 12, 1964. Photo credit: C&O Canal NHP / Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0) and Lets Roll Forums
[/B][/B]
[B][B]Hantman became unsettled. Roundtree had raised doubts about Ronsisvalle's knowledge of the towpath area in fact, openly challenging his expertise.[/B][/B]
[B][B]"It would be possible, would it not, for a person to take a path which you have not indicated and which counsel, through his questions, has not asked about which you do not know; is that not true?"29 Hantman objected to her question, and Roundtree addressed Judge Corcoran: "I think that is a fair and proper question, Your Honor." The judge agreed, overruling Hantman. According to Judge Corcoran, Roundtree was "asking about his [the witness's] knowledge of the area. If he doesn't know, he doesn't know," said Corcoran.30[/B][/B]
[B][B]The judge's ruling helped Roundtree build the momentum she needed. She now revealed not only Ronsisvalle's complete unfamiliarity with many of the area's hidden exits, but also the fact that he had never himself walked along or explored the towpath, or any of the areas in question. It was a stunning revelation that undermined the prosecution's case, in addition to Ronsisvalle's credibility as an expert witness. Reasonable doubt was alive and well.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Before the end of the first day, the prosecution called its star eyewitness: tow truck driver Henry Wiggins Jr., who, Hantman made a point of noting, had been "a specialist in the Military Police Corps" for over three years and had "specialized training in the careful observation of people."31 Roundtree objected to Hantman adding that detail, but Judge Corcoran allowed it.[/B][/B]
[B][B]On the witness stand, Henry Wiggins recounted having been sent by his manager, Joe Cameron, to pick up Bill Branch at the Key Bridge Esso Station, from which he proceeded to the north side of the 4300 block of Canal Road to service a stalled Nash Rambler sedan. Wiggins estimated that it was approximately 12:20 p.m. when he and Branch reached the stalled vehicle and got out of their truck. Branch, said Wiggins, went to the Rambler's passenger side to unlock it, while Wiggins himself started to remove his tools from the truck in preparation for diagnosing and fixing the stalled vehicle.32[/B][/B]
[B][B]As soon as Wiggins was out of the truck, however, he heard "some screams…. It sounded like a woman screaming." He said that the screams lasted "about 20 seconds… coming from the direction of the canal."33[/B][/B]
[B][B]When the screaming stopped, Wiggins testified, he "heard a shot," again coming from the direction of the canal. In response, he "ran diagonally across the road" toward the three-foot wall overlooking both the canal and the towpath on the southern side of the canal. In the midst of crossing Canal Road, Wiggins explained, he heard "another shot just as I was reaching the wall of the canal."[/B][/B]
[B][B]Hantman asked "how much of a time interval" had elapsed between the first and second shot, and Wiggins testified that it was only "a few seconds."34 (His partner, Bill Branch, would later testify he thought it was closer to ten seconds).[/B][/B]
[B][B]Peering over the wall, Wiggins testified that he observed "a man standing over a woman lying on the towpath. The man was standing behind the body, facing my direction. The man's head, was bent down a little; he wasn't crouched. He was standing."[/B][/B]
[B][B]Hantman wanted to know how much time had elapsed between Wiggins hearing the second shot and his seeing the man. "Just a fraction of a second," Wiggins testified. Hantman then asked what time of day it was when he had seen the man. In his testimony, Wiggins couldn't say for certain. "It was around 12:20 p.m., somewhere around there; it may have been later," he said.35[/B][/B]
[B][B]Henry Wiggins was certain about one point in particular: he had had a clear, unobstructed view of the man standing over the dead woman at a distance of 128.6 feet.36 He told the court that the man had "looked up towards the wall of the canal where I was standing."37[/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: Were you looking directly at him at that point?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: I was looking at him.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: Then what happened?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: I ducked down behind the wall at that time, not too long, and I came back up from behind the wall to see him turning around and shoving something in his pocket.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: Where was he holding this something that you speak of?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: He was holding it in his right hand.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: Could you tell what the object was?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: No, sir, I couldn't.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: Could you tell us whether it was light or dark or what particular color it was?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: It was dark, I believe, some kind of hand object.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: And he put this hand object where, sir?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: Into his right jacket pocket.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: After this individual put this dark object into right jacket pocket, what did you see him do?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: [He] Just turned around and walked over straight away from the body, down over the hill.38[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]Next, Hantman asked Wiggins to describe what the man in question had been wearing. Wiggins recalled that the man wore a cap "that buttons onto the brim," with a light-colored jacket, dark trousers, and dark shoes, all of which the prosecution contended that Ray Crump had been wearing that day. Hantman introduced each article of clothing as government exhibits. The clothes did, in fact, belong to Ray Crump, who had been seen wearing them as he left his home the morning of the murder.[/B][/B]
[B][B]But according to Wiggins, he had only seen the man standing over the body for "around a minute," and he "didn't get a very good look at his face." He qualified this last detail by adding, "but I did get a glance at it." Hantman asked Wiggins to state the race of the man he had seen. "He was colored," Wiggins replied. "I think I would estimate his weight around 185 or 180. He was medium build."[/B][/B]
[B][B]"Were you able to determine how tall he was?" Hantman asked. "Well, I couldn't make an exact estimate to that," Wiggins responded.39[/B][/B]
[B][B]Dovey Roundtree would soon seize upon Wiggins's uncertainty. Hadn't the prosecution vaunted Wiggins's training "in the careful observation of people"?[/B][/B]
[B][B]The following morning, the prosecution's star witness would squander his credibility in less than an hour. Hantman needed Wiggins to identify the clothes Ray Crump was wearing on the day of the murder, and confirm the exhibited items. Roundtree knew where he was heading and objected. Judge Corcoran sustained her objection, saying, "I don't see how he [Wiggins] can say it was [Crump's actual clothing] unless he walked up to the defendant and took it off of him." His one concession to the prosecution was to "allow lookalike testimony" only.40[/B][/B]
[B][B]Hantman became irritated. "I don't see how the Court could strike it if that is the witness's testimony." Judge Corcoran's response was sharp and unequivocal: "If that is his testimony, it is subject to challenge."41[/B][/B]
[B][B]The irritation was mutual. That Hantman had been, for the second day, engaged in loud gum-chewing did not endear him to the judge. In fact, Judge Corcoran had taken his young clerk, Robert Bennett, into his chambers during one earlier recess and had admonished him "never to chew gum" when presenting in a courtroom.42[/B][/B]
[B][B]In spite of the fracas with the judge, Hantman pressed on with Wiggins, who appeared not to comprehend the significance of the exchange over the admissibility of his testimony about the clothing.[/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: All right. Now, when did you first see these articles of clothing?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: I first saw these articles when they were being worn by the defendant when he was standing over the victim at the scene.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: According to your best recollection, Mr. Wiggins, are these the same ones or do they look like the articles you saw on the man bending over the body of Mary Pinchot Meyer?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: They are the same articles which I saw.43[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]Again, the exchange was not lost on the defense. Wiggins had unintentionally started to dig his own grave. Dovey Roundtree would merely give him a bigger shovel to dig deeper.[/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: Do you remember, Mr. Witness, that you also said you had only a glimpse of the person you saw at the scene?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: I remember that.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: This morning nevertheless, Mr. Witness, you are prepared to tell this court and this jury that these are the pants?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: That's right.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: Positively?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: Positive.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: You are prepared to say that this is the cap?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: That is the cap.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: And that these are the black shoes?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: That is right.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: And that this is the jacket?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: That is right.44[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]Wiggins had already identified Ray Crump as the man he saw standing over the victim. Roundtree used this opportunity to highlight the discrepancy between what Wiggins had reported to the police and the actual size of the defendant.[/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: Would that, then, be an accurate estimate of what you saw, the man you saw weighed 185 and was five feet eight?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: That wouldn't be an accurate estimate, no, ma'am.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]Roundtree turned to face the jury.[/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: Well, now, are you telling us you gave them [the police] information which was not accurate?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: Well, this information which I gave them at that time which I was looking across the canal down on the subject there, would not be very accurate but as close as I can give. I give it to them as close as I could remember.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: And you gave them, though, what you thought you saw from across the canal?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: I tried to do my best.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: All right. A hundred eighty-five pounds; five feet eight.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Wiggins: That's right.45[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]If Wiggins was beginning to squirm, the increasingly exasperated, gum chewing Hantman had to have been agitated. His star eyewitness, and his case,were crumbling on the second day of the trial. During his redirect, Hantman asked Wiggins again whether his view of the murder scene had been obstructed in any way. Wiggins reiterated that nothing had blocked his view. Yet Wiggins had contradicted his own testimony.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Hantman had opened a problematic door. Dovey Roundtree merely walked Wiggins through it. Seeking to bolster Wiggins's credibility regarding Crump's clothing, Hantman had attempted something similar with Wiggins's description of the suspect's height and weight both of which in no way matched Crump's.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Inadvertently, Hantman had damaged the credibility of his star eyewitness so badly that his case would never recover. The description Wiggins had given police just minutes after the murder took place "five feet eight, medium build, 185 pounds" would be reiterated by nearly every one of the twelve policemen and detectives called to testify at the trial, except for two who remembered the height as "five feet 10 inches."[/B][/B]

[B][B]With nearly each of the prosecution's 27 witnesses, Dovey Roundtree would become a heat-seeking missile: If there was a weakness or discrepancy to be exploited, she would find it and expose it to the jury.[/B][/B]

[B][B]This was the description, they all testified, of the man they were told to look for, and it didn't come close to describing the defendant. Ray Crump shared just one physical feature with the man described on the police radio broadcast on the day of the murder: He was black.[/B][/B]
[B][B]By mid morning of day two, the defense strategy of reasonable doubt had started a crusade. With nearly each of the prosecution's 27 witnesses, Dovey Roundtree would become a heat-seeking missile: If there was a weakness or discrepancy to be exploited, she would find it and expose it to the jury.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Bill Branch, Henry Wiggins's tow truck assistant on the day of the murder, took the stand right after Wiggins. Branch had told police that after Wiggins left the murder scene to call police, he, Branch, was too afraid to keep watch over the wall that overlooked the canal towpath. Instead, he sat in the stalled Nash Rambler and waited. Yet on the witness stand, he testified that he had remained at the wall overlooking the murder scene until Wiggins returned with police. Roundtree confronted Branch with the report he had given to police:[/B][/B]
[B][B]"I [Bill Branch] didn't see anyone around her [the murder victim] at that time, I went back to the car."46 His tail now between his legs, Branch finally took refuge in a convenient loss of memory "I don't remember."47[/B][/B]
[B][B]It now appeared that Hantman, who had painstakingly rehearsed and written out the testimony of each of his 27 witnesses,48 had coached Branch to alter his statement to police. Surely, Hantman was aware of Branch's written police statement that he had stayed in the car, and not remained at the wall overlooking the towpath.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Elvert Barnes / Flickr (CC BY 2.0) and Jeremy Riel / Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0).
[/B][/B]
[B][B]In addition to exposing Branch's charade, Roundtree had also managed to reveal one very important fact: Between the time that Wiggins had left and returned with the police, no one had been monitoring the murder scene.[/B][/B]
[B][B]After the day two lunch recess, the trial proceeded with the testimony of two police officers, patrolman Roderick Sylvis and Detective John Warner. A puzzling question had now been pushed to the foreground: if the man Henry Wiggins had seen standing over the corpse of Mary Meyer wasn't Ray Crump, then who was it? Together, the testimony of Roderick Sylvis and John Warner would reveal one of the most important facts never before understood: Someone else was eluding capture by police.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Hearing the police radio broadcast at 12:26 p.m., police officer Roderick Sylvis and his partner, Frank Bignotti, sped to Fletcher's Boat House to close off the exit.49 They arrived, Sylvis told Hantman, at "12:30 p.m. or 12:29 p.m.," having driven their patrol car through the narrow underpass beneath the canal itself. Now facing north, with the towpath and canal in full view and the shore of the Potomac River behind them, they waited for "about four or five minutes."50[/B][/B]
[B][B]Anyone attempting to leave the entire C & O Canal towpath area would either have to walk through the narrow underpass or cross the canal in an old leaky rowboat that was attached to a rope and pulley on each side of the canal. In fact, that meant there were two exits at Fletcher's Landing two entirely different ways to exit the area that offered immediate access to Canal Road and beyond.51[/B][/B]
[B][B]After waiting "about four or five minutes," no longer content, the two officers hatched a plan: Sylvis would walk along the towpath toward the murder scene, while Bignotti would walk through the woods adjacent to the railroad tracks parallel to the towpath, both heading east toward the murder scene.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Leaving the entire Fletcher's Boat House area unattended, they risked allowing the killer to walk out unnoticed. Yet even that oversight paled to what was about to unfold, positioning themselves for their eastward trek toward the murder scene. As soon as they started out, "maybe 50 feet at the most" from Fletcher's Boat House, Sylvis testified, they spotted a young white couple walking westward on the railroad tracks.[/B][/B]
[B][B]The two officers approached the couple, informing them "that there had been a shooting on the canal." Sylvis inquired as to whether they had seen anyone leaving the area. "They did not observe anyone," Sylvis recalled during his testimony.52[/B][/B]
[B][B]How long had the interrogation of the couple taken? The question had not been asked during his testimony. However, reviewing his testimony in an interview for this book in 2008, Sylvis was adamant that he had asked the young white couple a number of questions, and it had taken "at least five minutes, probably more."53[/B][/B]
[B][B]That meant the time had to be approaching 1:00 p.m. before the two policemen began bushwhacking their way eastward toward the murder scene, a measured distance of 1.6 miles away. "I remember I proceeded very cautiously," Sylvis recalled, adding that he had been "taking a lot of time to be observant."54[/B][/B]
[B][B]Fletcher's Boat House inset over Google map of C&O Canal towpath. Photo credit: Josh / Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0)and Google Maps
[/B][/B]
[B][B]Walking slowly and vigilantly for "approximately a mile east on the towpath," Sylvis told the court, he observed "a head jut out of the woods momentarily, just for a second, and went back. A head of a man, somebody stuck their head out of the woods, and were looking up at me, and pulled back again."[/B][/B]
[B][B]From a distance of "about 150 or 160 feet," Sylvis identified the head to be that of a "Negro male." He didn't remember the man wearing a cap of any kind.55 Sylvis then "proceeded very slowly towards the spot," sure the man had seen him. He yelled to his partner Bignotti for assistance, but Bignotti didn't respond, so Sylvis tried to "wave down someone on Canal Road" to assist him.[/B][/B]
[B][B]That meant that it took him even longer to arrive at the spot where the "Negro male" had peeked out from the woods.56[/B][/B]

[B][B]It wasn't clear whether Dovey Roundtree, or even the jury, had grasped the full implications of Detective John Warner's testimony, which was simply this: Ray Crump was not the only black man in the towpath area on the day of the murder.[/B][/B]

[B][B]How long had it actually taken officer Sylvis to walk "approximately a mile" before he saw the head of a "Negro male" jut out of the woods? Conservatively, it had to have been at least fifteen minutes or more. During his testimony, Sylvis told Hantman that it took him "approximately 10 or 15 minutes" additionally to reconnect with his partner after he had seen the mystery "Negro male."[/B][/B]
[B][B]Reunited, Sylvis and Bignotti spent even more time searching the area together. "We stayed there for a few more minutes and looked around the area where I had seen the head, and then proceeded on back toward Fletcher's [Boat House]," testified Sylvis.57[/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: Approximately what time was it when you saw this unidentified person about a mile down the towpath?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Sylvis: I'd say about ten or fifteen minutes. Let me see it would be about, about 1:45 or 1:50 [p.m.].58[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]Officer Roderick Sylvis's answer to Hantman's inquiry was very likely accurate. The problem, however, was that he had blown the answer he had rehearsed with Hantman, and Hantman knew it.[/B][/B]
[B][B]At this very moment, the government's case against Ray Crump was in peril, and about to be pushed off the edge of a cliff. Why? Because it had already been established during the trial that Ray Crump had been arrested at 1:15 p.m. In fact, Crump had been in the company of Detective John Warner at a location of one-tenth of a mile east of the murder scene for a period of at least ten to fifteen minutes before he was arrested at 1:15 p.m. The significance of this detail was that the "head" of the "Negro male" seen by patrolman Roderick Sylvis could not have been Ray Crump's.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Hantman, apparently aware he was standing in quicksand, tried another tactic: He asked Sylvis another rehearsed question.[/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: All right, sir. How long, all told, do you recollect your scout car was in the vicinity of Fletcher's Boat House that day?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Sylvis: I'd say about forty-five minutes.59[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]Forty-five minutes. This was the answer that appeared to lift Hantman out of the jam. If Sylvis and Bignotti arrived at Fletcher's Boat House at approximately 12:30 p.m. and they returned to their patrol car by 1:15, they came back just in time to conveniently hear the police radio broadcast that a suspect had been arrested.[/B][/B]
[B][B]But there was just one problem with this version of events: There were no police radios at the crime scene or adjacent to the site of Crump's arrest. Someone would have had to walk back to a police vehicle at the Foundry Underpass to make the call, but no such call if one ever took place was ever mentioned in the trial transcript or any police report. Dovey Roundtree seized on the discrepancy in patrolman's Roderick Sylvis's testimony in her cross-examination:[/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: Mr. Witness, do you know what time the defendant, Ray Crump was arrested?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Sylvis: I know it was approximately 1:15 when it came over the air.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: Now, then, 30 minutes after that time you saw a man stick his head out?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Sylvis: Pardon?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Roundtree: Thirty minutes after Ray Crump, Jr. has already been arrested, you saw an unidentified Negro male stick his head out of the woods?60[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]Hantman immediately objected, stating that what Roundtree had alleged had not been Sylvis's testimony, in spite of the fact that it had been. This may have been one of the few moments during the trial where Dovey Roundtree missed a significant opportunity. Why didn't she ask Judge Corcoran to have the stenographer read back Sylvis's testimony, confirming that Sylvis had just testified that it had been "1:45 or 1:50 [p.m.]" when he saw the mystery "Negro male"?[/B][/B]
[B][B]Sylvis, for his part, must have realized that he had been "off message," because in the next instant he corrected his testimony and said that he first saw the head of the man poking out of the woods at "approximately 12:45 [p.m.]."61[/B][/B]
[B][B]That would have been physically impossible. Having already testified that he had arrived at Fletcher's Boathouse at "12:30 p.m. or 12:29 p.m.,"62 then waited "about four or five minutes," before deciding on a plan with his partner, only to then spend "at least five minutes, probably more" interrogating the young white couple before beginning to vigilantly walk "a mile east on the towpath," Sylvis would have had to have been a world-class runner to spot the mystery "Negro male" man at 12:45 p.m.[/B][/B]
[B][B]It was, in fact, accurate that about an hour later, "about 1:45 [p.m.] or 1:50 [p.m.]," Sylvis's initial response to Hantman that he spotted the head of the mystery "Negro male," who could not have possibly been Ray Crump.[/B][/B]
[B][B]When Roundtree confronted Sylvis with the discrepancy, he had to have realized that by first telling the court that it was 1:45 p.m. when he saw the "Negro male," he had risked sabotaging the prosecution's case against Crump. Sylvis now wanted the court to believe that it had occurred at 12:45.[/B][/B]
[B][B]But his initial answer to Hantman's inquiry of "about 1:45 or 1:50 [p.m.]" was the correct answer, and he confirmed that with me in 2008.63 Crump, it will be shown, was already in the custody of Detective John Warner east of the murder scene as early as 1:00, which could only mean there was a second "Negro male" on the towpath that day and that he had eluded capture as well as the attention of the court proceedings.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Indeed, a cornerstone of the prosecution's case was that the man Sylvis had spotted was, in fact, the fleeing Ray Crump. Prosecutor Hantman hammered that point home repeatedly throughout the trial. Should that assertion be successfully challenged, the case against Crump would crumble. That was about to happen, although it would again elude the scrutiny of the defense and remain hidden in the trial transcript until now.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Detective John Warner, scheduled to testify after Sylvis, had not been in the courtroom during Sylvis's testimony. It was customary to keep witnesses from hearing other testimony in order to reduce the possibility of collusion and fabrication. Warner was therefore unaware of the various conflicting timestamps that had jeopardized the prosecution's case.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Warner testified that he had arrived at the Key Bridge entrance of the canal towpath at 12:29 p.m. with his partner, Henry Schultheis. They waited there until 12:40, he said, at which point Warner decided he "was going to cover the area between the railroad tracks and the towpath in the wooded area," while his partner would cover "the area to the left of the railroad tracks to the [Potomac] river bank."64[/B][/B]
[B][B]C&O Canal from Francis Scott Key Bridge, Georgetown, Washington, DC. Photo credit: cp_thornton / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)
[/B][/B]
[B][B]Warner proceeded to walk westward toward the murder scene through the woods adjacent to the railroad tracks for what he estimated had been "forty five minutes" before discovering the wet, somewhat disoriented Ray Crump more than one-tenth of a mile east of the murder scene itself.65[/B][/B]
[B][B]If Warner's recollection was accurate, he would have come across Crump at approximately 1:25, ten minutes later than the official time stamp of Crump's arrest at approximately 1:15.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Under direct examination by Hantman, Warner proceeded to alter his testimony, saying that it had been 1:15 p.m. when he first saw Crump at a location one-tenth of a mile east of the murder scene. Hantman appeared to be irritated with Warner for not following the script, so Warner, under cross-examination by Roundtree, eventually changed his testimony again to 1:14 p.m.[/B][/B]
[B][B](In their testimony during the trial, several detectives and police officers had already established that Detective Bernie Crooke had arrested Ray Crump on the railroad bed directly below the murder scene at approximately 1:15 p.m.)[/B][/B]
[B][B]The government's case was slowly spiraling out of control, yet the Roundtree defense team appeared to be missing another critical moment. Detective John Warner's testimony was undermining the prosecution's case. Warner told Hantman that he stopped Crump on the railroad tracks and identified himself as a police officer, and Crump took out his sodden wallet and handed over his D.C. driver's license. Crump, Warner testified, hadn't been running when he discovered him; "he was walking."66[/B][/B]
[B][B]Warner had looked at the name and photograph on the license to confirm Crump's identity. He hadn't needed to read the physical description five feet three and one-half inches and 130 pounds to realize that Crump wasn't a match for the general broadcast, which had put the height of the suspect, according to Warner, at five feet 10 inches, though he wanted to maintain during the trial that he hadn't noticed Crump's physical description on his license. In the unlikely event that that were true, why wouldn't he have arrested Crump immediately?[/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: Did you at any time say anything to him or did he say anything to you?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Warner: Yes, sir. I identified myself as a police officer. I asked him who he was, and he replied, "Ray Crump." He took his wallet out, and when he took his wallet out, water dripped out of his wallet as he handed me his D.C. driver's license. I asked him then if he had heard any pistol shots. He replied no. I said, "How did you get so wet?" He says, "Well, I was fishing from a rock, and I fell into the river and went to sleep, fell off the rock, fell into the river." I said, "Well, where is your fishing equipment?" He said it went into the river, too. I said, "Your rod and everything?" He said yes. I said, "Well, where are your fish?" He said they went into the river too. I said, "Who were you fishing with?" He said, "No one." I asked him then if he would point out the spot as to where he was fishing from, I would help him, see if I could retrieve his fishing gear for him. And he says, "Yes, sir." And he led us back up in a westerly direction, up the railroad tracks.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: About what time was this when you first saw the defendant standing 32 feet in front of you soaking wet?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Warner: This was 1:15 p.m., sir.[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Hantman: 1:15?[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Warner: p.m., sir.67[/B][/B][/B]
[B][B]Warner was asking an entire courtroom to believe that in the space of literally no time at all, he had spotted Crump, who "was walking," at "1:15 p.m." and at a distance that would be measured to be 532 feet east of the murder scene,68 whereupon he proceeded to ask Crump a series of seven questions, with Crump giving his answer to each question, before the two then began to walk along the railroad tracks in the westerly direction toward where Crump said he had been fishing only to then find themselves one-tenth of a mile later (532 feet) immediately parallel and below the murder scene, where Crump was supposedly interrogated and arrested at 1:15 p.m. by Detective Bernie Crooke.[/B][/B]
[B][B]Warner's testimony was as ludicrous as it was dishonest. Under cross-examination, he changed the time when he first came upon Ray Crump; it was now "1:14 [p.m.],"69 an obvious attempt to reconcile with what previous police testimony had officially established as Crump's time of arrest of 1:15 p.m.[/B][/B]
[B][B]This incensed Dovey Roundtree, who discerned in Warner's conflicting testimony further evidence of prosecutorial shenanigans. Yet in spite of a second demand for a mistrial a demand Judge Corcoran rejected it wasn't clear whether Dovey Roundtree, or even the jury, had grasped the full implications of Detective John Warner's testimony, which was simply this: Ray Crump was not the only black man in the towpath area on the day of the murder.[/B][/B]
[B][B][B]Detective Warner h