Mary's Mosaic: Toward Consensus

[Dawn Meredith]

It's a lovely, autumnal Sunday morning here in New England, and my mood is as light and cool as the breeze.

Permit me, then, to simplify further my original challenge:

The falsification of Peter Janney's MPM assassination hypothesis would not resolve the assassination/common crime conundrum at the core of this unsolved murder.


Let's assume, for the sake of argument (as opposed to quarrel), that we discover an e-mail from Janney to a literary agent in which the former declares that, since a novel and screenplay based on his wholly fictional account of an MPM hit scenario have been rejected by publishers and studios respectively, he now will use said tall tale as the centerpiece of what he will claim to be a non-fiction account of the murder. (*)

In other words, let's assume that Janney's MPM hit scenario indeed has been falsified.

Would you agree that said falsification tells us nothing of value about how and why MPM was killed?
________________________________________

(*) I must note for the record that my hypothetical itself is pure fiction and should not be read as anything else.

Again, yes. I think the problem Jim is having is that he cannot get past the Crump -did- it notion that he seems to have had for years.

When I asked him repeatedly over at EF who was calling Roundtree late at night every single time she visited the crime scene he ignored my question. Because it does not fit with his long held view that the black guy did it.

Enjoy the day CD. It's cooled nicely here too.

Dawn

[Albert Doyle]

Albert:

Please, did you not read my review? Did you not read Janney's book?

DiEugenio reviews are generally so good that they usually spare me having to read the subject work. This is the only time I have had issues with a DiEugenio review.

The divorce was not for those reasons. And I backed that up. What Janney tries to do is build a case out of essentially nothing in order to advance that idea. For instance, he uses anonymous sources to say Mary did not like Allen Dulles. Why would that be necessary today?

I'm having problems seeing how it couldn't be. I believe MPM's main social circles were of such a nature that she couldn't come out and say Cord was too CIA and therefore possessed an irreconcilable difference. Look at MPM's direct relatives and inner Beltway social circles and ask yourself how that would have played had she come out with her true feelings? I don't see how you could praise Douglass yet deny MPM whose background perfectly melds with the peace-making agenda Douglass presents. Meanwhile those persons were not the type who would miss MPM's leanings or fail to act upon them like they had in other documented cases. Not only was her close friend and sister married to serious CIA players but James Angleton was a direct household acquaintance. And with MPM's documented personality and separation from Cord she would have damned good reason to not like Dulles, especially if she had spoken to JFK privately - who also didn't like Dulles. Sorry Jim, but you seem to be going against some fairly seriously established grains here and fishing for the weak point. If MPM told people at her Washington banquets that she divorced Cord because he had become a fascist CIA wolf that probably wouldn't fly that well. If she said he spent too much time at the office it would be a polite euphemism that basically said the same thing in a tolerable way.

Please explain to me how Burleigh veriified Angleton had tapped Mary's phone?

Another good issue to be pursuing.

Because Burleigh also reported that Mary never questioned the WR. So what was the point?

Again, questioning the Warren Report was probably something those banquet people would not be doing too forthrightly. Especially if MPM had inside information gained from private conversations with JFK that led her to believe it wasn't safe to do so. I believe MPM was like Dorothy Kilgallen and out ahead of the general public on the credibility and political purposes of the Commission. You don't know what kind of head-start MPM might have had on the Report from the inside information she had gained. Even more so than Janney she was an adult looking at the reactions of some pretty serious players like Angleton from a very close perspective. I don't see how that could be ignored. Especially if she had JFK as a personal interpreter of those reactions. You have to admit, that's about as close to the action as you could possibly get. How would you act if you realized you were right in amongst the dangerous bastards that did it? Bastards who could, and probably did, kill you just as easily as they did JFK?

[Charles Drago]

Is it mass ADD?

I created this thread not to provide yet another sounding board for subjects that are being addressed ad nauseam on other threads, here at DPF and on at least one other forum..

I am asking for statements of agreement or disagreement on the following proposition:

The falsification of Peter Janney's MPM assassination hypothesis would not resolve the assassination/common crime conundrum at the core of this unsolved murder.

No one is under any obligation whatsoever to address my point.

But please make off-point posts where they belong -- which is to say, elsewhere.

Thank you.

[Jim DiEugenio]

"It is just as likely that Crump was driven to criminal behavior as a consequence of the emotional impacts of his arrest and trial as it is that such behavior was common prior to MPM's murder."

Wow.

That is right out of Janney's book. And it is a ploy that both he and Roundtree agreed upon after the Burleigh book came out. (Janney is mentioned in the acknowledgements to Roundtree's book.)

And it is something they both needed to explain away the 22 arrests, the firebombings, the gun wielding, the threatening of family members, the rape of a minor etc etc etc.

NO CHARLES. IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT AN INNOCENT MAN WOULD THEN TURN INTO A HARDENED CRIMINAL KNOWING HE WAS INNOCENT ALL ALONG!

If one is unjustly accused and had no criminal intent at all and one knows one is innocent how is it logical that one would then become a terrorist and habitual criminal after being acquitted of a crime one did not commit?

No. Burleigh shows that there were some odd things in Crump's make up before the towpath incident that were never introduced in court. And the fact that there was never any credible alibi for Crump--gone fishing without a rod etc.-- points toward a consciousness of guilt.

As per the use of anonymous sources, this is allowed under certain circumstances--that is if a certain person is alive and this person can be percieved as being hostile to exposure of a fact.

But in Janney's case, both Dulles and Meyer have been dead for many decades. So if she made a derogatory comment about Dulles--which many, many people have done--why would that be non-attributable in this day and age? I mean many people had problems with the way Dulles ran the CIA. And many people made charges against the man while he was alive.

Now, before anyone says, well the death of Meyer may be the reason; my point is this: but this is an unproven assumption which Janney makes nebulously possible with the not for the record attribution. And that is not a kosher technique.

As per me thinking Crump did it for years, again that is wrong Dawn. Go back and read my original piece in The Assassinations. I now lean toward Crump's guilt for 2 reasons: 1.) Burleigh's book, and 2.) Janney's piece of sci fi made up out of wholecloth to try and frame him. As per Roundtree's phone calls, I don't find Roundtree's words about this case all that credible. And you should know that from what Tom posted from another site which appears to impeach her.

[Charles Drago]

I created this thread not to provide yet another sounding board for subjects that are being addressed ad nauseam on other threads, here at DPF and on at least one other forum..

I am asking for statements of agreement or disagreement on the following proposition:

The falsification of Peter Janney's MPM assassination hypothesis would not resolve the assassination/common crime conundrum at the core of this unsolved murder.

No one is under any obligation whatsoever to address my point.

But please make off-point posts where they belong -- which is to say, elsewhere.

Thank you.

[Phil Dragoo]

Charles

I think I see what you're saying.

That disproving Janney does not disprove the death of Mary as murder in the form of political assassination.

I would add that Crump's guilt also does not disprove political assassination.

Safra (d. December 3, 1999, Monaco) lived in my head posthumously for two years.

Maher did the seven years through 2007.

Leamer called in 2006 and kind of chicken-danced that they'd had their lone nut commit the fatal arson.

Of course he merely laughed at my RFK second-gun allusion, citing his good-friend Dan Moldea's last word on the subject.

In the Vanity Fair accounts of Dominic Dunne he finished up his lifestyles of the multiply-married billionairesses with this gem:

That in his conversations with Maher he had neglected to ask him if anyone asked him to start the fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m50p-XScreM

[Jim DiEugenio]

I created this thread not to provide yet another sounding board for subjects that are being addressed ad nauseam on other threads, here at DPF and on at least one other forum..

I am asking for statements of agreement or disagreement on the following proposition:

The falsification of Peter Janney's MPM assassination hypothesis would not resolve the assassination/common crime conundrum at the core of this unsolved murder.

No one is under any obligation whatsoever to address my point.

But please make off-point posts where they belong -- which is to say, elsewhere.

Thank you.

Strictly speaking, I would have to agree.

[Charles Drago]

Thank you, Jim.

Not for your agreement, but rather for your direct response -- which I hope will be emulated by many.

[R.K. Locke]

James Tracy has just posted this interview with Peter Janney:

http://memoryholeblog.com/2014/09/05/the...hot-meyer/

[John Knoble]

I'm not sure there are enough facts in the public domain to get to the bottom of Ms. Meyer's disappearance or the possible connection to the JFK assassination. I find the issue intriguing, but I'm a newcomer.

I think it is interesting that the family estate in Northeastern PA was donated to the government a few years before her death, and JFK himself was there for the dedication.

They must have been very generous people.