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

[Charles Drago]

Seamus has repeatedly spelled the surname of the author of JFK and the Unspeakable as "Douglas."

This error by Seamus is consistent with his all-too-frequent butcherings of what I assume is his native language. The comparison which I inferred too was prompted by my painful familiarity with his prolific bouts of poor reasoning and resorts to non-sequitur.

(For a classic example of the former, please note how Seamus, with typical "insight," concludes that I somewhere placed "Janney and Douglas ... on a par with say Lisa and Jim[.]" This is utter nonsense of the sort to be expected from a self-styled erudite researcher who makes use of the term "peeps" in an ostensibly serious academic inquiry and who writes "colonel" when he means "kernel.")

In literary life, as in every other aspect of existence, one reaps what one sows.

To conclude on a note of agreement, I do share your evaluation of Gregory Douglas.

[Magda Hassan]

Charles Drago

Seamus has repeatedly spelled the surname of the author of JFK and the Unspeakable as "Douglas."

This error by Seamus is consistent with his all-too-frequent butcherings of what I assume is his native language.

It's a common New Zealand dialect.

[Albert Doyle]

Al then writes the following...

"I can't explain this without sounding ridiculous but the bigger picture critical key factors all line-up like in other proven covert wacks."

If you can't explain without looking silly why bother bro? The diary stuff is quite clearly a dead end. Much like the B.S surrounding MMonroes diary about JFK...a crock of shite. Look if you wanna make a case for MM's death being some sinister murder, then you can leave JFK out of it.

The only connection Marilyn Monroe would have with Mary Meyer would be sex pot. Otherwise there's no comparison to the political front seat Meyer had both socially and through her background and marriage. In the end Monroe and Majestic are totally irrelevant to the Mary Meyer case.

In my mind Jim has failed to answer for the intruders. I read his referenced post. He said it already answered it. I don't think it did. Jim makes the logical assumption that since the diary is false therefore the home intrusions are false, since the diary didn't exist. Frankly I don't think CTKA would let someone else get away with a logical violation like that. The intrusions exist by themselves. I believe they were real. I think Jim still hasn't accounted for them. If they were real the intruders were looking for something. What were they looking for and why? I think you and Jim fail to realize that even if the diaries were bogus the intruders could still have been looking for them. And the reason they were looking for them could still be associated with Mary Meyer's death. In my mind the intruders are the crack in the door to discounting conspiracy in Meyer's death. Of course the intruder accounts were second-hand. They had to be since Mary Meyer was dead.

I myself, personally, would be less interested in broad swipes at the suggestion of conspiracy and more interested in the specific details of why Cord Meyer said his wife was killed by "the same sons of bitches that killed Kennedy"...

[Greg Burnham]

Actually, Seamus, I think we agree a lot more on this one than you might think. I too am of the opinion that Janney's tale about Meyer is woefully
lacking in supportive documentation and that which is provided is poorly interpreted. I do not put much faith in any of it--and I am extremely skeptical
about motivation for writing it.

However, I do not think that an over-reaching conclusion based on the impact of his flawed work is appropriate. As for my comments to Jim, they weren't
meant as any type of repromand. They were only meant as a suggestion to help him not get entangled in a tit-for-tat type of exchange.

[Seamus Coogan]

Lol yeah I was kicking myself on that one CD. I have to giggle I've cocked up some very basic things spelling and grammar wise recently. Hell even names like CD's uncle Arthur who I called Al (Doh) If these mistakes are in my finished products somebody give Mr 'erudite' a kick in his pants lol. Mind, I was very tired working on another bloody essay on that Diana piece (remember the one you thought I'd foregone a potential conspiracy on about three pieces in simply because I didn't buy the pregnancy bullshit nor Al Fayed). Its also nice to see CD denying what he wrote and I quoted him on. I don't say that sarcastically either. There's obviously been a break down in communication here. Thus my apologies for coming across a little snarky with it all. Anyhow, I also think it's pretty funny CD you thought I got Jim Douglass and Greg Douglas works confused. As if I have not read their works? Realllly...when was the last time I quoted to anyone how poor Jim Douglass was? In saying that yes I may well have misplaced an S in there. Blame me being from NZ lol. Further, I know this grates but if people really want to make a case out of an assassination on Meyer, then cool. But the reality is her death likely has no baring what so ever on the Kennedy case.

Hence, I also hear what you are saying GB. I think despite what's going on we are all on the same page here, with regards to Janney. In all honesty Meyer's life if taken from Burleigh, is actually pretty bloody interesting and it deserves a good no BS look at it. That's really where I would start with her. Janney and his bollocks has bought no dignity either way to her life, death or memory. In many ways this is almost like a posthumous assassination of Meyer herself. For all of my recent issues with CD (real or imagined by me lol), one thing I do heartily agree on is that when cases like this get perverted, the afterthought is indeed 'stay away from it'. A lot of people for example stayed away from that whole MJ-12-JFK thing because it was a mess. Same with Torbitt and others. With Meyer unlike the MJ-12 stuff, it remains to be seen if there really is anything deeper and hidden lurking under the surface.

[Dawn Meredith]

Have started reading Janney's book. In fact I am having a hard time putting it down. I cannot believe that anyone would think Crump killed Mary. The lack of evidence is why he was found not guilty. I was pulled momentarily in the direction of guilt by his fishing lie, but as I read more it became clear that he was not the killer.

This book really does read like a murder mystery. I have to make myself put it down and get back to work.

Dawn

[Seamus Coogan]

The only connection Marilyn Monroe would have with Mary Meyer would be sex pot. Otherwise there's no comparison to the political front seat Meyer had both socially and through her background and marriage. In the end Monroe and Majestic are totally irrelevant to the Mary Meyer case.

Notice Al I said 'much like' this was concerning a diary. Both supposed diaries are bullshit in all reality. Of course MJ-12 and MM have nothing to do with Meyer. The similarities is the bollocks and hype surrounding the stuff they had both written supposedly detailing their times with JFK. I fail to see how you can make a connection here, its very obvious if you had read my piece on MJ-12 that you would know what I was getting at. Nonetheless, As Jim points out in his essay in the original Janney transcript, he was going to go with the idea of Meyer apparently discussing UFO's with him. I'm reading this piece of work at the moment and what a total and utter crock it is.

So why the hell did you bring this bullshit up? Quit wasting my time!

In my mind Jim has failed to answer for the intruders. I read his referenced post. He said it already answered it. I don't think it did. Jim makes the logical assumption that since the diary is false therefore the home intrusions are false, since the diary didn't exist. Frankly I don't think CTKA would let someone else get away with a logical violation like that.

Where in words has Jim said any intrusion is false? He say's its 'confusing' he says the stories veracity is also dubious because of the individuals involved in the recycling of the story. If you believe that Angleton apprehended this mythical diary to safe guard Kennedy you have to be joking. That's a violation of logic as far as I can tell.

The intrusions exist by themselves. I believe they were real. I think Jim still hasn't accounted for them. If they were real the intruders were looking for something. What were they looking for and why? I think you and Jim fail to realize that even if the diaries were bogus the intruders could still have been looking for them. And the reason they were looking for them could still be associated with Mary Meyer's death. In my mind the intruders are the crack in the door to discounting conspiracy in Meyer's death. Of course the intruder accounts were second-hand. They had to be since Mary Meyer was dead.

This is more than a little confusing Albert. You have to remember that Jim has discussed at length we are dealing with the Truitt's and the Angleton's here. Liars of the worst kind, not to mention Ben Bradlee, something of a shameless self promoter on the other. The 'intruders' were looking for something? A diary that you acknowledge likely wasn't there? Yet, you are now saying they could have believed a diary was there? Hence, the reason for an invasion of her house? Well, first off If we look at Janneys book on the case (I can't quote you page numbers on the copy I have they are non-existant/how crap is that) he never makes out there was an invasion of her place. There probably was some sort of meeting, but when a next of kin dies often friends and family gather around sorting through stuff. If she had agency connections and was a society girl, I can imagine the CIA nosing around before the FBI stuck their nose in. Big freaking deal man! As Jim say's Ben Bradlee's rendition of this whole thing is the best of a very bad bunch. The only real person who said there was anything of worth was Bradlee's Wife and Mary's sister. Secondly, the Diary soon became a sketchbook according to Tony Bradlee, the sketchbook then turned back into a diary that was the kept in a safe (under Rosenbaum's reportage). All of this crap went down under a cloud of dislike between Bradlee and Angleton and the Truitt's. Janney's take on Angleton taking the fictional diary to protect JFK's rep as said is a crock of shite.

I myself, personally, would be less interested in broad swipes at the suggestion of conspiracy and more interested in the specific details of why Cord Meyer said his wife was killed by "the same sons of bitches that killed Kennedy"

Okay for starters is Meyer meaning Communists or anybody else amongst the CIA's bum of the month club? Further, that's if he even said it Al, are you meaning to tell me we should believe anything coming from the mouth of Heymann and his awful book 'The George Town Ladies Social Club'? Heymann claims he contacted Cord Meyers secretary Carol Delaney, who commented along the lines he couldn't very well come out and say the CIA did it. Janney, then inquired after Delaney. He then say's Delaney refused to comment and contacted the Meyers and everybody shut up shop. Why on earth is this twit then surprised about CIA acting like the mob I don't know. He was part of an agency family wasn't he? Heymann himself refused to give Janney any evidence of this claim...which to Janney's small credit he mentions challenging Heymann on. Heymann then became rather nasty concerning his lack of evidence. Oh when worlds collide. Indeed Janney reminds me of you Al, clinging on for the smallest hint of hope.

[Jim DiEugenio]

This is why Albert is so discouraging to talk to about this.

He actually brings up that piece of baloney about Cord Meyer supposedly saying "the same bastards who killed Kennedy."

What can one say about such erudition. Except what I already said about the guy. He trolls around looking for BS, and then posts it as if its true. Then I have to come back to explain its not.

This comment originated with none other than the late David Heymann. Did you know that? If you did then why bring it up?

Yep, Heymann the serial liar who not only made up quotes but ACTUALLY MADE UP NON EXISTENT PEOPLE TO SAY THEM! Who are you going to use next, maybe Gregory Douglas?

But further, Nina Burleigh exposed this a long time ago. First of all Cord would never have said such a thing since, like Bradlee, he thought Crump killed Mary. (Which I agree with.) But also, at the time Heymann made this one up, Meyer was in a hospital room and was allowed no visitors since he was very ill.

Albert, you could not find this out? How hard did you dig?

As per the so called home invasion, as I said, very clearly, to fit into Janney's ersatz construct, they could only have been after the so-called diary. Which, as I have explained in detail, did not exist in any normal sense. Therefore, we are left with two alternatives: it was a simple home invasion, which happens every day in nice areas; or this was simply after the fact hyperbole.

I would really appreciate it if you did some real research on this subject instead of just stumbling around blindly.

Dawn, yes the book reads like a thriller because most people do not know that everything Janney says in the first chapter--usually called the set up--is not just unsubstantiated, but false. Therefore, Janney creates an interest and opposition--Mary against the world, that is non-existent.

[Jim DiEugenio]

AD:I don't think CTKA would let someone else get away with a logical violation like that.

I chose to pull this quote for two reasons.

First, as I explained above, there is no logical violation. In Janney's construct, what else was of any value in her place? If its her paintings, then how does that fit in there?

But secondly, at CTKA, this would not fly at all in the first place. For instance, in my book, I will show how Garrison's files were systematically done away with by Harry Connick. But I can prove that. How?

1. The guy who Connick told to incinerate the files signed an affidavit.

2. Connick later admitted to doing this himself.

3. Another witness in the office, Ralph Whalen, also said Connick did away with a lot of Garrison's files once he took over the office.

That is not just evidence, it qualifies as proof. The issue is nailed down at all ends. Including by the perpetrator, who first tried to cover it up.

What do you have here that is in any way comparable to that?

And this is the standard that we have. You can't just say "Oh, before he died, he told someone that he thought someone was trying to get into his place." That is not evidence. This is why I would have never agreed to publish a book like Janney's in this day and age. Because the whole book is like that, or in some cases, even worse. Since he relies upon proven forgers like Douglas, proven liars like Leary, or unstable personalities like Damore and Truitt to make his arguments. I wouldn't rely on those four guys to tell me the time of day.

Take those four people out of the book, and what is there left?

[Albert Doyle]

This comment originated with none other than the late David Heymann. Did you know that? If you did then why bring it up?

No. And if I had I never would have used it.


I'm left with my senses and instincts. I refuse to believe the invader story was fabricated. If you read closely you also believe it since you assign it to random prowlers. Think about who Mary Meyer was and consider the odds of repeated random prowlers. Again Jim, you're good but you tend to use logical devices to talk your way into conclusions you haven't entirely earned. Again, step back and consider if you would let the repeated random prowler theory slip by so easily if it was put in front of the CTKA "reamer". As you would put it yourself: "A freak occurrence of repeated home invaders by chance in Kennedy acquaintance and CIA wife Mary Meyer's house." Hmm...