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

[Lauren Johnson]

Jim, I'm reading the book and keeping an open mind.

Quick question: Janney said MPM attended some policy meetings in the White House and was often seen in the Oval Office with JFK. The point being is that Janney wants to make the case that JFK trusted her perspective and and sought it out. True or false: was MPM frequently seen in the Oval Office?

[Anthony Thorne]

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

Jim, Walt's coverage of Baker's book is through long sections of his DYNASTY ebook - the first fat volume of his chronology. Most people I feel haven't read the sections I'm describing as Walt's ebook is so voluminous, and it takes a while to get started, but when he hits Baker's narrative in the timeframe he probably spends a couple of hundred pages or more (A4 size page, as I have it in Word doc form) on Baker's work and really tears it to bits, quoting her work at length, and going through it, assertion by assertion, and ripping it apart. Late in his volume he actually apologises to the reader for sticking at it, as he says by that point it should be clear that her work is junk, but to be thorough he feels he should keep going to the end. If you get Brown's DYNASTY ebook, and want to see what he says about JVB's book, you can probably skip to the late 50's in the timeline (prior to the U2 shootdown) and go from there. It's a very long ebook though.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Lauren,

Janney says a lot of things in his book that are extensions of dramatic license in order to fit into his overall scheme. This is why, at the end of my review, I used the example of Procrustes from Greek mythology.

In the last five years, I have probably read as much as anyone about Kennedy's policy meetings and his process of decision making. In none of those books, documents, or records is there any such notation.Here is what I said in one part of my review:

Because there is no credible evidence to show that Mary Meyer was the foreign policy maven that Janney wants needs her to be. The closest that anyone can come is to say that she once worked as a reporter for both NANA and UPI. (Janney, p. 159) She also freelanced articles to Mademoiselle on things like sex education and venereal disease. (New Times, July 9, 1976) This was in the early to mid forties. So what does Janney do to fill in the breach of the intervening years? He tries to say that Mary, the housewife and mother, furthered this interest while married to Cord Meyer while he was president of United World Federalists (UFW). So I went to Cord Meyer's book Facing Reality to see if there was any proof of this. There isn't. For example, while on a working holiday, Mary was not helping him write, she was fishing. (Meyer, p. 39) In fact, Cord Meyer actually writes that his position in UWF had created a distance between him and his family and this is one reason he resigned. (Meyer, pgs. 56-57) Cord then went to Harvard on a fellowship in 1949-50. If Mary had any special interest in foreign affairs, this was the place to develop it. Yes, she did take classes, but they were in design. And this is where she first discovered her painting ability. In 1951, Cord Meyer is about to join the CIA. If Mary had really been helping Cord in his UFW work, wouldn't she have said "No, that is not what we believe in." Again, the opposite happened. Mary was all in favor of him joining the CIA. (Ibid, p. 65) But further, Cord Meyer kept a journal. In his book, when he is discussing their decision to divorce, the split in not over the nature of his work. Its simply because he spends too much time on it and therefore is not a good husband since he doesn't take enough interest in her. (ibid, p. 142) This, of course, is a common complaint among housewives.

This is what I said about another aspect of this formulation:

So this whole idea that Janney is peddling, that somehow a single mom and fledgling painter like Mary Meyer was going to teach the sophisticated John Kennedy what the likes of Gullion, John K. Galbraith or Chester Bowles could not, this is simply not tenable. It can only exist in utter ignorance of who Kennedy really was, way before he got to the White House. So when Janney tries to pull off a rather cheap trick, as he attempts to do on pages 259-74, for anyone who knows Kennedy, it's transparent. What he does here is set up Jim Douglass' JFK andthe Unspeakable on one side of the table. On the other he has a calendar of when Mary was at certain presidential functions in 1963. He then tries to argue that, somehow, if she was there when such a thing happened, then she had advised JFK to do it. Once you understand the method, it gets kind of humorous to watch. For instance, when Kennedy goes to the Milford, Pennsylvania Pinchot estate for a family dedication in September of 1963, he is about to announce NSAM 263, the withdrawal order from Vietnam. Also, the back channel with Fidel Castro is heating up with Cuban diplomat Carlos Lechuga, ABC reporter Lisa Howard and American diplomat Bill Attwood. Presto, Mary is again responsible. (By the same logic, Kennedy's limo driver could have been advising him also, since he was there too.) What Janney doesn't tell you is that Kennedy's withdrawal plan began two years earlier, in the fall of 1961. That's when he sent John K. Galbraith to Saigon in order to present a report to Secretary of Defense Bob McNamara recommending a draw down in American forces. (James Blight, Virtual JFK, pgs. 72-73) The back channel actually began in late 1962 and early 1963, when New York lawyer James Donovan was negotiating the release of the Bay of Pigs prisoners. (See Cigar Aficionado, "JFK and Castro", September/October 1999.) An author should not deprive the reader of important information like that. But this is how intent Janney is to abide by his Mary Meyer social calendar so he can make something out of nothing. Its also how intent he is on diminishing Kennedy.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Lauren, here is another example of Janney's use of dramatic license, this time to turn Mary into Sherlock Holmes:

So what did he and Damore dream up as a motive for a precision commando team to do away with the single mom who was trying to be a painter? According to the two sleuths it was this: Mary doubted the Warren Report. (Janney, p. 329) Yep, that's it. We are supposed to believe that the CIA so feared the single mom's Vincent Salandria-like forensic skills that they decided to kill her. The problem with this is that there isn't any credible evidence for it. But that's no problem for Janney and Damore. They find a way around it. According to Janney, Mary must have read Mark Lane's critical essay about the Commission in The Guardian in December of 1963. She must have read the New Republic piece called Seeds of Doubt by Staughton Lynd and Jack Miniss also. And, of course, Mary had to have read the article by Harry Truman in the Washington Post, which really is not about Kennedy's assassination, but about how Truman felt the CIA had strayed from its original mission. I think this is what Janney is saying. Since he spends six otherwise unnecessary pages describing these 3 essays. (pgs. 297-302) The problem is there is no evidence, let alone proof, she did any of this, or was even interested in it. Just as there is no proof that Mary discussed the assassination with William Walton. Even though, if you can believe it, Janney spends five pages on that possibility. (pgs. 302-06) Janney apparently thinks that if he describes something long enough we will be convinced that Mary read it. Not so. For anyone who sees through that tactic, this material is empty filler.

[Jim DiEugenio]

​As I said, I had done some work on the Mary M case years prior to Janney's book being published. So I had read all the literature in the field as of 1997.

But I had not read anything that Damore had done on her, except some predictable quotes about his upcoming work. But someone got me an outline of what Janney was preparing based upon some of Damore's work. Although I should not have been, I was surprised to see that Janney had consulted with David Heymann. I did not know at that time that Damore had been in communication with Heymann and his researcher for a number of years. But I have since read the letters proving such. Based on some of that info, I wrote an early warning article about what was being prepared. In it, I spent a few paragraphs on the follies of Heymann. So, in his book Janney did not mention that aspect. But in Janney's portrait of Kennedy one can see the influence of the Heymann/Damore nexus. This fulfills the Procrustean formula of shrinking Kennedy and aggrandizing Mary.

The problem is that if you know anything about Kennedy's self education in the fifties, one sees that JFK was one of the most sagacious and curious thinkers on American foreign policy that there was in congress at that time. I mean the only person I can think of who is even in his league was Fulbright. Kennedy was so well informed that he was admired by George Kennan, the original author of the containment policy, because Kennan had very much softened his position in the fifties.

This aspect of Kennedy's intellectual make up was very much concealed by the MSM and our "rent a scholar" book publishing industry. But I accidentally stumbled upon it and have worked on it almost exclusively for about the last five years. But even at the time of the release of Janney's book I knew something about the subject and how it had been covered up for political reasons. So I didn't buy his Damoresque portrait of Kennedy.

[Lauren Johnson]

Jim, thanks for your replies. I certainly have problems with Janney from a literary pov. Dramatic license? How about when Janney describes the goddess like vision of her sunbathing and then her response to being seen. Oh puhleeze. There is a subtle Gnostic skeleton around which he writes his narrative. You have the Kennedy family mired in the material world of sex and power. Then there is the goddess who brings the lost soul to a new consciousness. Nice mythology.

Having said that, JFKU also has a much more explicit Christian structure. Kennedy's "turn to peace" is his Damascus road which comes from his strong Catholic upbringing. Douglass is a Catholic as I recall. The Unspeakable is right out of Thomas Merton's writings. His use of the term "witness" recalls the deaths of the two witnesses in the Apocalypse of John. Witnesses are martyred.

I have had a friend who would not read JFKU because we went to a lecture Douglass gave and he quickly picked up on the Christian framework. He is a rabid atheist. RABID.

Moving on, I recall asking you if Janney's claims about MPM's presence in the Oval Office and in policy meetings were true or not? Your implication is No. But this is a factual claim that should be specifically refuted.

[Jim DiEugenio]

As I wrote above Lauren, in all my work on this in records and documents and books I have never seen any evidence of that, not one notation.

[Dawn Meredith]

Jim I have asked you this question several times and you have not ever responded.
So I will try again. If Crump was the killer who was making the calls to his attorney late at night every time
she visited the crime scene?
Since you are already on record saying Dovetree "manufactured a witness" I suspect your answer will be that she made up the story of the calls.
I do not for one minute believe she "manufactured a witness". Or was lying about the calls.

Dawn

[Tom Scully]

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.......

A toast in rememberance of Dovey, and her several contradictory versions of the status of alleged Crump alibi witness, Vivian. While we are at it, add a toast to those who
believe resident Trump is donating his time and effort to "save" our formerly great nation!

http://letsrollforums.com//jfk-murder-st...7p22.html?

Chorus:
....Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door?
Because the truth is hard to swallow

Peter, I am constrained by what I read. There are four different versions of this key component. It is not my fault, it is Dovey Roundtree's fault and it is disqualifying
The contradictions make it impossible for a reasonable person to go where you are firm in positioning yourself, IMO.

..........Peter Janney confirms in his new book "Mary's Mosaic" that indeed Dovey Roundtree was able to locate and even talk to Crump's girlfriend Vivian. Roundtree told about Vivian during her 1992 interview with Leo Damore. (Mary's Mosaic, p. 95.)
Although Peter Janney, Leo Damore, Nina Burleigh and Katie McCabe (author of Roundtree's autobiography) have been frequently in contact with each other related to their Mary Meyer research, none of them seemed to have the need to address this inconsistency regarding Vivian. That's really weird, for the interests are clearly there: Vivian's information is crucial for the analysis of Crump's whereabouts on the towpath that day.
Peter Janney simply ignores the fact that Roundtree told Burleigh that she was never able to locate Vivian.




There is a pattern of this kind of spinning around Crump's activities on the towpath, in which lawyer Dovey Roundtree is definately involved. On page 94 of "Mary's Mosaic" Peter Janney states that Roundtree told Damore in 1990 that Crump knew about the location at the edge of the Potomac where Vivian and he went to. After falling into the river, Crump tried to "find his way out of the dang place." Next comes this quote:
Quote: He wasn't familar with that area at all. And he sort of roamed around. And then he heard something like an explosion.
That's quite a contradiction by Roundtree: was or wasn't Crump familiar with the area? According to most sources he was, for he went sometimes fishing there.
Furthermore, Roundtree entirely avoids the issue of Crump's jacket and cap which were found in the river later on. Much more come on those items, for they are pivotal in Janney's murder scenario; why would Crump have thrown his jacket and cap in the river when he tried to get out of the area?
However, much more suspicious is Roundtree's claim during her 1990 interview with Leo Damore that Crump actually heard "something like an explosion." "Like the backfire of a car," said Crump, according to Roundtree.
This statement has one direct consequence for Crump's whereabouts on the towpath: he was already awake well before the shots were fired! This statement by Roundtree implies that the 2 shots [if any...] didn't wake up Crump:
Crump was already roaming around in the area to find a way out before the shots were fired...
Once again, Peter Janney basically ignores this fact. That's suspicious to say the least, for this "roaming around in the area" by Crump turns out to be crucial within the scenario "Mitchell shot Mary", promoted by Janney himself. See the coming posts.
And now back to Dovey Roundtree, her 2009 autobiography "Justice Older Than The Law," page 192:.......
....

Mark, I hope you are enjoying your summer, stay well!

[Jim DiEugenio]

Thanks Tom.

I do not like dealing with this stuff myself. But Tom has it mastered.