Page 39 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2936373839
Results 381 to 385 of 385

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

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Scully View Post
    Mark might have something to share about Damore interviewing Prouty.

    Doyle and his Ralph Yates alter ego were certainly not bashful about linking me with CIA and neither was Horne.

    Why are children of prominent CIA almost eagerly given the benefit of the doubt? Saint John Hunt comes
    to mind. I would not host Chris Buckley for dinner, even if he had not married Donald Gregg's daughter!

    Simkin made such a big deal about hospitality towards authors participating on his forum but under
    Janney's influence, Simkin posted a reply to a post by Nina Burleigh accusing her book of being a CIA
    !imited hangout and he was no more civil to Mel Ayton and certainly not to you.

    In one of my last posts on the Ed Forum, more than nine months after Janney and Horne reacted to
    my William Mitchell research, I pointed out to Albarelli that his post vouching for the reliability of his
    alleged source claiming he still met occasionally with the Damore described William Mitchell would no
    longer fly because it was a discredited claim. Simkin reacted to RCD's post
    ( http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/to...comment-275587 )
    by saying that was when I had accused Janney and not Albarelli of lying.

    Janney was indeed lying, claiming he and his team discovered Mitchell graduated from Cornell.....

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/to...comment=258105
    Guest Tom Scully Posted August 11, 2012
    ........
    See how this progressed?
    Quote
    Annual report to the president
    books.google.com Cornell University. College of Engineering - 1961 - Snippet view
    Spring Term only) Mr. William Mitchell (5th yr. B.M.E. Candidate. Fall Term only)
    News and Notices - JStor
    The Annals of Mathematical Statistics
    Vol. 34, No. 3 (Sep., 1963), pp. 1133-1146
    www.jstor.org/stable/2238500
    Mitchell, William L., B.M.E., (Cornell University); Graduate Student, Operations Re- search, Harvard University; 70 Perkins Hall, Harvard University, Cambridge
    New York mathematical society. List of members, constitution, by-laws
    books.google.comAmerican Mathematical Society - 1964 - Snippet view
    American Mathematical Society. MISARE ... AI Math., Computation Lab., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass. ... MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. I Pentagon, OR Group, Systems Dept., USADSC, Washington, D. C. l500 Arlington Blvd., Apt. l022,
    Combined membership list of the American Mathematical Society and ...
    books.google.com American Mathematical Society, Mathematical Association of America, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics - 1965 - Snippet view
    ...... MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. I Pentagon, OR Group, Systems Dept., USADSC, Washington, D. C. 1500 Arlington Blvd., Apt. 1022, Arlington, Va. MITCHELL,
    Edited August 11, 2012 by Tom Scully
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/to...comment=274614
    Guest Tom Scully Posted May 27, 2013

    ........
    Last year, when Peter Janney was prone to mistakes, exaggeration, and pomposity , I did not expect Hank Albarelli to speak out to distance himself from Janney and to account for the statements Janney attributed to Albarelli in "Mary's Mosaic".
    Now that Janney is in the business of making claims misleading to the point that they are deliberate lies, Albarelli's continued silence about what Janney has attributed to Albarelli in "Mary's Mosaic" is inexcusable.
    Quote
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...19777&p=272667
    ................
    Janney (at 37:30) "....In his testimony at trial, Mitchell attempts to frame Ray Crump."
    Janney (at 38:30) "...That allegedly sparked a telephone conversation between the two at the end
    of March, in 1993, where Mitchell told Damore how Mary Meyer had been
    murdered in what he termed was a CIA operation. Despite many years of searching it was not until last summer that the trail of William L. Mitchell.... this is in August, 2012 now, had become known. I promptly brought this information to my chief intelligence researcher, Roger Charles, who enlisted the support of another Pulitzer nominated investigative reporter by the name of Don Devereaux. What we uncovered was that William L Mitchell entered Cornell University....
    Edited May 27, 2013 by Tom Scully
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/to...comment=274714

    Guest Tom Scully Posted May 28, 2013
    Or, Hank, you have another option. You can fully explain or distance yourself from the quotes related to Mitchell ("the assassin") attributed as sourced from you, and you
    can agree there is a problem.


    Janney's resorting in his April presentation to claiming that he and his "researchers" discovered background on William L Mitchell, (a Cornell undergrad. etc.) is not a problem of "disappearing" me and my work. It speaks to his broader disingenuousness. Here is some of what he leaves in his wake.:
    Quote

    5.0 out of 5 stars A Masterpiece of Biography and a Mesmerizing Detective Story, April 1, 2012
    By Douglas (Falls Church, VA, United States) - See all my reviews
    (REAL NAME)
    Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
    This review is from: Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace (Hardcover)

    Written by Douglas P. Horne,
    author of "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board"
    Web Page: insidethearrb
    .......... Are you a third party surrogate (or a direct employee) working for the USG whose mission here is to attempt to discredit the confession of a hit-man? The readers of your book review here will not have forgotten that William L. Mitchell (or someone identifying himself as this person) confessed to author Leo Damore---William L. Mitchell himself told Damore that he was Mary Meyer's murderer. This event is well-documented in Janney's book.
    Your attempt to suggest otherwise, via your citations, conveniently ignores this vital fact. Peter Janney has not identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer "because Mitchell could not be found," as you claim; rather, he has identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer because Mitchell confessed this to Damore. All the citations in the world will not erase this fact. ..... Unquote
    And:
    Customer Reviews
    http://www.amazon.com/Marys-Mosaic-C...owViewpoints=1
    Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace
    122 Reviews 5 star: (88)
    Versus:
    http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.co...sentation.html
    audience member - (mocking Peter Janney’s presentation ) Was it Bill or William?
    (Big Laughter ) Ah, both.
    Janney in the November interview with Jim Fetzer was still flustered. Now he seems fully committed to saving face. It is documented that Dovey Roundtree told enough conflicting stories about Ray Crump's alibi witness, Vivian, to seriously call into question the reliability of the case Janney made that Crump was "framed" and the mysterious
    Crump trial witness, the "missing" CIA assassin of Mary Meyer, Janney's phantom and Leo Damore's fantasy, is actually a 73 years old, emeritus academic specializing in the management science of process controls, Dr. William L. "Bill" Mitchell, PhD.

    Hank, you have an opportunity and responsibility to help the public have a better chance to learn what is closer to the truth, or you can stand by what Janney has published alongside your name.





    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/to...comment-275626
    John Simkin Posted June 17, 2013

    In my original posting on this matter I gave a link to:
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19016
    The quote I had in mind was the following
    Tom Scully, on 27 May 2013 - 7:24 PM, said:
    "Last year, when Peter Janney was prone to mistakes, exaggeration, and pomposity , I did not expect Hank Albarelli to speak out to distance himself from Janney and to account for the statements Janney attributed to Albarelli in "Mary's Mosaic".
    Now that Janney is in the business of making claims misleading to the point that they are deliberate lies, Albarelli's continued silence about what Janney has attributed to Albarelli in "Mary's Mosaic" is inexcusable."
    Remember, these are the words of a moderator, whose role is apparently to people from posting abuse of fellow members. I have had numerous complaints from members over the past few months pointing out that Tom continually flouted the rules that he was supposed to be enforcing.

    Tom Scully and Jim DiEugenio were not removed from this Forum for any individual breach of Forum rules. My decision was based on what I considered a long-term campaign into bullying members into not posting on this forum. ......

    Up is down, truth is lies.....

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/to...comment=258636
    Guest Tom Scully Posted August 21, 2012 (edited)
    ........
    I don't see that I've influenced John Simkin to post that Nina Burleigh's book was a "CIA limited hangout" or Doug Horne to "deduce"
    that a Professor Emeritus at California State, East Bay (formerly Cal. State Hayward) was operating in 1964 as, or was a 25 years long cover for a CIA assassin because Leo Damore left word that he was, and Peter Janney published it as fact.
    Quote
    http://www.amazon.co...Mx3RPYBNKYH5GNK..... Your postings have the odor to me of a disinformation/spin operation, designed to cast doubt, and to make readers forget the basic fact that a "William L. Mitchell" confessed to murdering Mary Meyer for the CIA, to author Leo Damore. Attorney Jimmy Smith's notes of his phone call with Leo Damore prove that. "
    Have I done comparable damage here? Really?

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/to...comment-237509
    On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2011 at 9:35 AM, John Simkin said:
    ......
    One of the important aspects of this book is that it will show that Nina Burleigh's book on the subject, "A Very Private Woman: The Life and Unsolved Murder of Presidential Mistress Mary Meyer" (1998) was a CIA limited hangout.
    The rules here seem to be to ignore anything negative Janney, and others, have posted on this forum related to you, but to hone in on anything you've posted critical of Janney, and my "cardinal sin".
    .....
    Is this part of that True Crime Series, too, Tom? The rivets are starting to rust off, it would seem. And Prouty, like Hemming, had a habit of embellishing details, a form of puffery. Leo did a lot of puffing, too. And checkbook journalism.

  2. #382

    Default

    One comment left after this 1/3 parts on WWW:
    In his 1996 autobiography, "A Good Life", WaPo news editor Ben Bradlee tells the story of finding Mary's diary (describing her affair), finding the CIA's James Angleton repeatedly trying to burglarize her property to get a hold of the diary, giving the diary to Angleton to keep/destroy, saying nothing to the investigating police, and basically perjuring himself at the murder trial. Why confess all of that in print in 1996? IMO, the reason is basically to say "Yes, I was a CIA guy and I'm proud that my loyalty was to the CIA, rather than the law or the news, or the police, or other civilians."
    If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass
    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
    "Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn

  3. Default

    The diary part of the story is one of the real problems with the whole tale.

    I spent three pages on it in Probe and The Assassinations. None of the participants can tell the same story on it, that is the Truitts, the Angletons, the Bradlees. And, in fact, the differences are in some ways irreconcilable. That is, people are lying about it. And it was not possible to determine who it was. For the simple reason that no such "diary" ever surfaced anywhere. And secondly, it was pretty clear that certain parties in the story had it out for others e.g. Truitt for Bradlee. In fact, that is how it all started in The National Enquirer. Truitt was going after Bradlee for firing him.

    There is a serious question as to whether or not Kennedy's name was even in the so called diary. Or if such a diary was even really a diary and not simply notes on Mary's art studies. There are two indications of this. First, the fact that the Bradlees, both him and his former wife, told differing stories on this subject. And secondly, that Angleton--who allegedly had possession of the papers--never found any way to publicize them. So personally, I doubt that JFK's name was in there. Because if it was, Angleton would have found a way to get it into the press through one of his many allies.

    Let me add one other point. One of the biggest myths in Washington that ever existed was that Bradlee and JFK were pals and allies. I examined this issue twice while doing Probe. Once in my relation to the Mary Meyer story, and once when I was studying the whole role of the Washington Post in the JFK case. The latter consisted in part of a close reading of Bradlee's book, Conversations with Kennedy.

    I came to the conclusion that, in reality, this was more inside the beltway balderdash. And it was largely perpetuated and memorialized by Bradlee himself. It was simply not the case. If Bradlee had been a true friend of JFK and was fearful about going public with what his true policies were or what the circumstances of his death were, then he could have just sat it out in silence after his "friend" was murdered. But Bradlee did not do that. He did the contrary. He did all he could to distort Kennedy's record, and then to cover up the true circumstances of his assassination. Even to the point of working with David Phillips to discredit the Veciana story!

    So, in other words, what you had were three groups of people--Truitts, Bradlees, Angletons--who had both common agendas, and also internecine rivalries, who were involved in this whole tale. Attached to that, you then had stenographers who, shall we say, were not all that trustworthy, involved in its evolution, e.g. The National Enquirer, Ron Rosenbaum, Leo Damore, Tim Leary, Gregory Douglas. This is why any kind of serious analysis of it is simply not possible. Because its like crossing a minefield.

    To put it mildly, Janney did not proceed with caution across that minefield.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    The diary part of the story is one of the real problems with the whole tale.

    I spent three pages on it in Probe and The Assassinations. None of the participants can tell the same story on it, that is the Truitts, the Angletons, the Bradlees. And, in fact, the differences are in some ways irreconcilable. That is, people are lying about it. And it was not possible to determine who it was. For the simple reason that no such "diary" ever surfaced anywhere. And secondly, it was pretty clear that certain parties in the story had it out for others e.g. Truitt for Bradlee. In fact, that is how it all started in The National Enquirer. Truitt was going after Bradlee for firing him.

    There is a serious question as to whether or not Kennedy's name was even in the so called diary. Or if such a diary was even really a diary and not simply notes on Mary's art studies. There are two indications of this. First, the fact that the Bradlees, both him and his former wife, told differing stories on this subject. And secondly, that Angleton--who allegedly had possession of the papers--never found any way to publicize them. So personally, I doubt that JFK's name was in there. Because if it was, Angleton would have found a way to get it into the press through one of his many allies.

    Let me add one other point. One of the biggest myths in Washington that ever existed was that Bradlee and JFK were pals and allies. I examined this issue twice while doing Probe. Once in my relation to the Mary Meyer story, and once when I was studying the whole role of the Washington Post in the JFK case. The latter consisted in part of a close reading of Bradlee's book, Conversations with Kennedy.

    I came to the conclusion that, in reality, this was more inside the beltway balderdash. And it was largely perpetuated and memorialized by Bradlee himself. It was simply not the case. If Bradlee had been a true friend of JFK and was fearful about going public with what his true policies were or what the circumstances of his death were, then he could have just sat it out in silence after his "friend" was murdered. But Bradlee did not do that. He did the contrary. He did all he could to distort Kennedy's record, and then to cover up the true circumstances of his assassination. Even to the point of working with David Phillips to discredit the Veciana story!

    So, in other words, what you had were three groups of people--Truitts, Bradlees, Angletons--who had both common agendas, and also internecine rivalries, who were involved in this whole tale. Attached to that, you then had stenographers who, shall we say, were not all that trustworthy, involved in its evolution, e.g. The National Enquirer, Ron Rosenbaum, Leo Damore, Tim Leary, Gregory Douglas. This is why any kind of serious analysis of it is simply not possible. Because its like crossing a minefield.

    To put it mildly, Janney did not proceed with caution across that minefield.
    Don't forget Heymann, the worst of all sources, save Seymour.

  5. Default

    Correct. I left out Heymann.

    Probably because I would like to just forget him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •